ark-of-the-covenant

Read in Mobile View at New MOTL Online Library




Bringing Tongues of Fire From the Sparks of Faith....


LESSON 4

PENTATEUCH 4

LEVITICUS, NUMBERS, DEUTERONOMY


By Pastor G. Evan Newmyer



INTRODUCTION TO LESSON 4

This will be the fourth lesson on the Pentateuch covering the Books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The Book of Exodus covered the first year in the wilderness, with the beginning of the Law of Moses. Exodus also gave instructions to the Judges, but what about instructions for the priests? Leviticus is the Jewish priest manual regarding their duties in the Law of Moses. Our priesthood is different, our Order is found in the Book of Hebrews, yet we will also find some very interesting elements in the shadowed priesthood. The priest under the Law of Moses was suppose to "minister unto the Lord", but we know only the high priest could enter the holy of holies, then only once a year, how then could they "minister unto the Lord"? By ministering unto the Lord's people.

The Book of Numbers is more than a bunch of family lists, we will seek out the treasures found therein, seeing correlations to some of the teachings of Paul. We will also take a look at Balaam, who obtained a mention or two in the New Testament.

The Tabernacle is our example of how there is more than one holiness, explaining why the angels say, "Holy, holy, holy". There is the holiness of Judgment, a holiness of the Mercy, there is also the true holiness of God obtained in the New Birth. These people didn't act holy, but God said they were, how can He? Anytime God separates someone to deal with them as children they are holy. It doesn't matter if they know it, or act like it, thus it’s based on God’s dealing, not their awareness.

The name Deuteronomy means Second Law, but why a Second Law, or is it really a Second reading? When Jesus entered His wilderness to face the devil, He used verses from Deuteronomy to defeat the temptations; therefore, there has to be some treasures therein for us as well; let's get started.




LESSON 4

PENTATEUCH 4

LEVITICUS, NUMBERS, DEUTERONOMY


In Exodus we found God cut a Covenant with the children of Israel, as well as gave instructions to the Judges; Leviticus will give instructions to the priests. If this is the Old,  yet we are the New, why even read this? We are called to be priests unto God, but what is our duty? Could we find mysteries in the Old helping us in our Season of the Day? Most certainly, we will find information to enhance our knowledge of God, giving us more foundation for our belief. Exodus ended with the Tabernacle, but it also ended in the second year, on the first day of the month, which gives us about one year for the Book of Exodus (Ex 40:17), but until the Tabernacle was raised there was no need for an active, or daily ministering priesthood Order, thus we move from the Tabernacle to Leviticus.

LEVITICUS

We know they had priests before the Tabernacle was built, but the priests lacked an Order. The Law of Moses was granted to a people God set apart from the rest of the world, it would bless the doer until the death of the doer. Then it would change course by  convicting the doer as a sinner. When someone did the Law they acknowledged their awareness of being a sinner; however, the Cross grants us freedom from conviction and condemnation. The Life of Jesus is greater than the Law of Moses, thus we complete the purpose of the Law of Moses my accepting the death of Jesus in our place, we then live by the Life of Christ in us. Therefore, Paul cautioned us against returning to a Law signifying one was yet to die. The Law and the Ten Commandments are nailed to the Cross, as Jesus made an open show of them (Col 2:14-16). If we run back to the Law of Moses to gain favor from God, we are saying the Cross was insufficient. Nonetheless we find the Law of Moses was Pointing to the Cross, it was the preview of what God was about to do. The Proceeding Word of God is Progressive, the religious order in the days of the earthly ministry failed to see it , they did what God told them to do, but they did it too long causing them to miss what God was doing.

The progression shows how the Plan knew they would be in the wilderness many more days than forty, the sabbath day is connected to the Manna, yet the Manna came about on the second month, fifteenth day (Ex 16:1). The Ten Commandments came in the third month, after the judges were installed (Ex 19:1). Now comes the Priestly Manual of Leviticus point to the tribe of Levi, it's their book pertaining their priestly duties and Order. The title Leviticus is a transliteration of the title from the Septuagint; in the Hebrew the title for Leviticus would translate as "and He called", meaning God has called. This is important for us, since God's Progressive Word has called us to become Priests and Kings unto God (Rev 1:6, Rom 8:30 & Heb 10:38-39).

Leviticus has more types of sacrifices than most of us have shoes, yet the One Sacrifice of Jesus was greater than the total of all Sacrifices. If we put all the sacrifices together, including all Solomon did, they wouldn't come close to what Jesus gave us. The animals were types of the innocent paying the price for the guilty, but none of the sacrifices gave up their lives by choice, Jesus being the ultimate Sacrifice gave Himself for us, because He loves us (Gal 2:10).

The Priestly guidebook for the New Testament priest is Hebrews, but there are parallels to be found here. The Tabernacle is one we know of, it has been said if we don't understand the Tabernacle we will have a very difficult time understanding the Gospel. Whether that’s correct or not is up to the scholars, but knowing about the Tabernacle makes understanding the Cross easier. We will look at various aspects of the Tabernacle as well as the differences between it and the Temple.

If the priests were to be holy and minister, what provision did God give them to keep them holy. The Law of Moses doesn't make one holy, rather it shows how we are not holy by pointing out sin. We know they gained a holiness because God separated them in order to deal with them, but how could He separate the priests from the separated? A covering? Something which worked like the Unction, without being the Unction (I Jn 2:20). The priests garments became the covering regarding the Office they were appointed to. The garment itself was a shadow of something to come; on the Mount of Transfiguration the Face of Jesus did shine as the sun, but His garment was white as Light (Matt 17:2). The face and body coupled with the Greater Light, really the Head and Body is more like it, the Head of the Body is Jesus, but the Body is the Body of Christ. The Body has a Unction, or a covering to protect each and every member regardless of who they are. The priests garment protected the priest, unless the priest defiled the garment, as two of the sons of Aaron will. Therefore, the garment not the person made the priest holy. We also know through history how the high priests would wear bells on the bottom of their robes, the one time each year on the Day of Atonement when they entered the holiest of all, they did so with a rope around their ankle. If the bells stopped sounding, they just pulled him out, and elected another one. Therefore there was a type of unction in the priestly garments, but not a blanket covering to allow them to go outside of the calling.

The Offices in the New Testament have an anointing of their own, the Gift of the office is know by the Greek word Doma (Eph 4:11), meaning the gift is a present, the last Doma gift Jesus gave were the offices, thus we term them the Doma (Eph 4:11). The offices are not appointed by men, rather the Holy Ghost on behalf Jesus appoints the person to the Office (Acts 13:1-3). The five fold ministry is made up of the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers. There is a mantel for the office, specific in nature designed to; 1) perfect the saints, 2) for the work of the ministry, and 3) for the edifying of the Body of Christ (Eph 4:12). The Office anointing is not the same as Grace (Charis), Grace is designed to save our souls, the Doma is designed to assist the Body in the Process. Charis has its Charisma, or the workings of Grace, but we should ever confuse the Office anointing with Charis (Grace). When the Office anointing is active we can make the mistake of thinking it proves the holder's Grace relationship with Jesus, it doesn't, it proves the Office is functioning. The Offices fall under the title of Governments, the other part of the working order for the Church would be Helps (I Cor 12:28).

Helps has two positions, the Bishops who are the overseers, the Deacons who do the services needed. No human appoints the Offices, but leadership does appoint Helps (Acts 6:3-4). Paul sent Titus to appoint Helps and Elders, he did not send him to appoint any of the Offices. Timothy was not told to appoint Pastors or Apostles, man confirms the offices, he doesn't appoint people to them. An Elder can come from either Governments or Helps; they hold the evidence of God's Wisdom allowing them to give Advice or Suggestions, the only "ruling" they do is by example.

We have said this to remove those areas from what we are about to get into. Why? We have the Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor, Teacher, Elder, Bishop and Deacon, but we also have Jesus who "made us kings and priests" (Rev 1:6). Here the priests came only from one tribe, it would be illegal for any priest to be king, or a king to be a priest. Each person in the Body is called to be both king and priest, thus no one in the Body can hold to the Law of Moses, yet claim to be of Christ. Even if they came from the tribe of Levi it would illegal for them to be of the Body, yet claim the Law of Moses. God provided a check and balance, if we say we are of the Body, then we are kings and priests, but being both would be a violation under the Law of Moses. The division is such one cannot mix the Old into the New, or the New into the Old without violating one or the other, or both.

We have the Unction over us protecting us as it teaches us how love (I Jn 2:20 & I Cor 11:1-2), we have the anointing of the Office (Eph 4:11), the anointing of the New Man (Eph 4:24 & I Jn 4:1-4), and the anointing of the Body (Luke 4:18). Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me" (Luke 4:18). This was after the Wilderness, yet still the Beginning of the earthly Ministry for the Son of man. Jesus did not say, "The Spirit of the Lord is in Me", neither did He say, "The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, and I will be anointed". The Process gives us the beginnings found in the Name of Jesus, from whom all anointings come. This is an answer to seeing the Dove descend on Jesus as the "Spirit", yet we also see Jesus filled with the "Holy Ghost". The Spirit was the acceptance of the Sacrifice, the Holy Ghost the beginning of the ministry, thus the Anointing came by the Holy Ghost, then He could say the Spirit of the Lord was on Him, because He was anointed. This in no way means Jesus became the Son of God by the baptism, that would be heresy; rather we find He was patient, waiting for the ministry of the Son of man to open. The Holy Ghost filled Him for a purpose, the Spirit is a sign of the acceptance of the sacrifice coupled with the Peace of God. Jesus was Declared the Son of God through the Resurrection by the Spirit of Holiness, we are declared sons of God by the Holy Spirit in us (Rom 1:3-4). Therefore, Jesus as the Son of God could speak on matters pertaining to the Kingdom of God before the Cross, but until the disciples were Born Again, they could not. We find when it pertained to the Cross and Resurrection the disciples were not allowed to mention Jesus as the Christ of the Cross and Resurrection, but they could preach Jesus as the Christ of Mercy (Son of man). Same Jesus, different positions. We enter as sons of men by the Mercy of God, we are declared sons of God by the having the same Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus was the Son of God before the resurrection, yet the resurrection Declared Him the Son of God (got it?).

Some of us like to read Isaiah 10:27 as, "the yoke is destroyed by the anointing", but it’s not what it says, rather we find, "the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing". It's not By, but Because, a big difference. The Yoke was destroyed to make room for the Anointing, thus Jesus said the Spirit was upon Him, Because He was anointed, not the other way around. The Process happens for us when we enter the Body, the Yoke is destroyed so the Lord can anoint us, granting us the Unction, which is the Spirit over us. The New Birth places the Spirit in us, joining the Authority to the Power from on High. The disciples preached the kingdom at hand, healed the sick, baptized people in water, yet Jesus told them to Tarry for the Power from on high. As the Son of man Jesus said He had Power to forgive sins on earth, there was yet the heavenly connection, which the Cross, Resurrection and Sacrifice completed. The Resurrection is the central point of the ministry, without the Resurrection, Christianity becomes another worldly religion. As great as the Law of Moses was, it was not enough to get the doer into heaven. They could reach Abraham's Bosom if they walked in Faith, but there was no "Bosom of Moses". The conclusion one has to draw is, if we have the Spirit, the yoke is destroyed, we must be anointed.

Jesus baptized us with the Holy Ghost based on our desire to have the Spirit, the Holy Ghost over shadowed us giving us the Gift of Grace, then the process of Seed growing began until we were Born Again. Water Baptism is important, so much so Peter found it extremely necessary to water baptize Cornelius after Cornelius received the Gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:47). These priests had none of that, but they did have offices, an anointing and duties in reference to their office. The Law of Moses had provisions for healings, but no where did it allow anyone to cast out devils. It was limited by design, It could not grant Life beyond death, it did not allow anyone to impute the old nature dead, it could not grant the Spirit, it did not provide for the New Birth, but it did have many types and shadows.

The Law of Moses is a Power and a Principality, thus it is a place in a nation, as the nation revolves around it. It is a type of "god" being appointed by God to watch over a people who were appointed to the Law, but nonetheless belonged to God. There is a Power established in the Ten Commandments as well, they can condemn a person to death for the failure to do them. This is not strange, man places power in the laws of man.

The priests were appointed by men, but the requirement was still based on family order. Therefore, no one could legitimately hold the position of priest and king. Samuel was a priest and a prophet, David was a king and a prophet, but neither were priest and king. We are the only ones God has made both priest and king. David was anointed as a king, Samuel anointed as a priest, each anointing limited to the office.

There had to be something God would give the priest as proof of the office, which would allow God to impute holiness on the position, without having to look upon the person. The priest stood for the people, but if the priest couldn't present the sacrifice, then it was all for nothing, thus the priest had to have the appearance of holiness. Today we hear how we are to be Holy, but how? Works of the flesh? It didn't help the Pharisees. Aaron was a human, a man who was subject to the fall nature, yet his position had to be holy. There had to be some type of covering, one which would satisfy the requirement, yet also project a symbol to the future when the Christ Anointing would be granted to the Body of Christ. The Garment, of course; God saw something in the Garment, thus He gave strict orders on the making of the garments. Aaron's garment became his badge of office, as well as his protection, Ours is two fold, if we are Born Again we have the New Man, but there is also the Unction over the Body, a symbol found in the garment of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Included in the Garment were all the symbols of God's plan of redemption, thus reminding God how the man in the uniform wasn't the issue, the plan of redemption was. Of course it was also to remind the man in the uniform of their duties, thus when the high priest worn the garment of the office there was a protection from certain destruction, even if they challenged Moses, yet it wouldn't protect them if they defiled the office. The Garment would be the "covering", but it didn't change the nature of the person, it didn't save them, it was not internal, it was external, thus whether the person was holy or not didn't matter, whether they remained hidden in the Garment did. The proof is always Bible based, Judas is a perfect example of being covered by his position, yet when he defiled his position, he lost what little he thought he had. This is not the same as the Christ nature in us, Greater is He in you, than the he in the world, but there is also a covering (I Jn 2:20 & 4:1-4). We put on the New Man, yet the New Man is in us. Go figure.

In the last lesson we skipped over many of the items found on the Garment, saving them for here. There is a connection between the Garment of the high priest and the New Man, we have the Greater He in us, but the protection comes when we "put on" the New Man. Paul tells us to put on the Armor of God, most of us view the Armor in the context of a Roman soldier, but didn't Paul equate the things of God to God? Why would Paul tell us to be separated from the world, yet use the world to equate something of God? Could it be the Garment of the high priest is a type of the Armor of God? We saw the "Breastplate of Judgment", Paul tells us about the Breastplate of Righteousness (Eph 6:14). Paul tells us to be girt about with Truth, the Garment for the Priest had a Girdle as well, but the Roman soldier didn't (Ex 28:4). The context of Paul's equation fits better with the Garment of the priest, it's the old man who wants to be some great, fierce warrior, cutting the enemies to pieces, the New Man knows humbleness, mercy, love, faith, grace spoken by the Spirit are points of victory. This is more evident when we find the Sword of the Spirit is not some great sword, but more like a knife used for sacrifices, it's the Rhema, which allows us to speak proceeding words centered in Life which edify, as we minister Grace to the hearer (Eph 4:29 & 6:17). The example? Jesus, "the words I speak they are Life and Spirit" (Jn 6:63).

The armor is not to be used out of order, it's the anointing for our prayer life (Eph 6:18). Any dog can bark at the moon, it takes a real Christ centered person to speak to God as a "son". Prayers by the saint must be in line with the will of the Spirit, it’s not to say we don't ask for things, it means we are willing to accept the answer. Jude tells us to pray by the Holy Ghost, but the reference is in relation to dealing with the masses, as Jude points out (Jude 20-23). Some of us pray as if we our faith is the master over God, if God doesn't meet our expectations we get mad. If we pray for an item, yet God gives one of the same class, but lesser in value we are disappointed. We prayed from a lust, not a need, God did grant us an answer, but it was also a test to expose. Discern the answer, or lack thereof, determine our motivation and intent by the Word in us, thus discovering why we have the Armor.

In viewing Paul's description of the Armor we find the Girdle, Breastplate, Preparation for our Feet , the Shield, Helmet and Sword, then we find something very strange. The high priest didn't wear any sandals, or covering for their feet, rather their feet were bare. Moses was told to take off his shoes, for he was standing on holy ground. A type of nakedness based on being open and honest before God. The Roman soldier had a type of foot covering which contained many spikes on the bottom, the purpose was to gain a firm grip on rocks, as well as inflict pain and suffering on their enemies. It has to be clue, we are not to inflict pain and suffering, we are to be examples of God's love. So, what is the connection? Naked and open before God. Our feet are shod with the preparation of the Gospel of Peace (Eph 6:15 & Heb 4:12-13). The Gospel isn't covering our feet, it's the Preparation, thus we heard the truth, we believed, we are open like a little child coming unto the Lord, knowing wherever the saint steps is holy ground. We deal with people by being pure, no masks, no attempts to dominate or manipulate as we are made void of committing deception.

Why did Paul use the word Helmet, rather than Crown? Don't we have the Crown of Life? If we have a Crown and a Helmet it would seem we have one too many hats, or one too many heads. The priest didn't wear a crown, yet the distinction Paul is making brings us to the priest. Isaiah 59:17 talks about the helmet of Salvation, but we also find Saul attempted to put the helmet of brass on David (I Sam 17:38). We cannot wear another’s Armor, we have to have God in us, to wear the Armor of God. There is more than one type of helmet, brass being a metaphor for judgment shows we can't have a judgment mind, then claim salvation. In Isaiah we find there was no man to wear the Armor, so the Lord put on the Armor, thus it's called God's Armor. When Paul says we can put on the Armor, he also shows we have God in us by the Spirit. The Armor of God only fits God, it’s why it’s called the Armor is of God, thus we put on the New Man, in so doing we are being covered with the Armor. What is the purpose of the Armor? To stand in the evil day against the Wiles of the devil, thus the real enemy is the Wiles of the devil, it's not flesh and blood, or personalities.

In all this we find our position as a "priest unto God" has requirements, they are not hard, but they are restrictive in nature. We cannot mix fables into Doctrine, then expect to remain covered, we cannot slander, then expect to hide in the folds of our covering. The helmet protects our minds from fables and cunningly devised tales. Even Traditions can hamper our walk, the traditions of men still make the Word to no effect in our lives.

Paul tells us strongholds are imaginations, fables, or reasonings based on a natural or carnal thought processes, thus they are in the mind of the holder (II Cor 10:4-6). One such fable is the assumption the Armor of God makes us some warrior who can yell at people, or vent our uncontrolled anger in any direction. Not so, it's based in the Peace of God, since the Gospel is the Gospel of Peace, which is our Preparation. The job of the high priest was to enter the holy of holies, making Peace with God on behalf of the people. The Armor is to stand in the evil day as a  saint, then stand for the people of God.

These people sinned against the Commandments and each other, Leviticus was a guideline for the priest to make the offering so they could atone to the Commandment, but not to God. The Law reconciled them back to the Commandments, thus the Law was connected to the Commandments by the sabbath day, the day was set aside so they could  reflect on their ways. The interesting thing about the sabbath day is how it was weekly, once Saturday was over, a new sabbath faced them, miss one, you have missed them all.

Repentance for these people was in the offering, they did repent when faced with pending danger, but their repentance under the Law was still in the offering. As the Son of man Jesus forgave the sins of the people on earth, in many cases He told them to go and make their offering. Why? Wasn't His Mercy sufficient? Yes, but the people were still under the Law of Moses, Grace would not be granted until the Spirit was given on Pentecost. Jesus as the Son of man was walking in the manifestation of the Mercy of God, thus Jesus could stand in the place of the Law, removing the condemnation, while applying Mercy. No one said, "Son of David, have Grace on me", but they did say, "Have Mercy on me".

The Pharisees rightfully said, "who can forgive sins but God alone"; they knew the Law balanced sin with the blood of the sacrifice, but in truth it didn't remove sin. Jesus was granting Pardon, something even the priests couldn't do. The call of the priest was, "your sacrifice has been presented", Jesus said, "you are forgiven". Completely different, yet the evidence showed He was able to do what He did.

The prophets were termed "sons of men", because they spoke for God, but Jesus not only spoke for the Father, He carried the Father's Mercy within Him. When someone touched Him, He felt the Power of Mercy leave. When someone touched the Torah, they gained knowledge, not power. Jesus as the Son of man held a position higher than the position of the high priest under the Levitical order, only the Lord of glory could.

They priests knew better than to say, "your sins are forgiven", but whenever someone receives the forgiveness of their sins we tell them their sins are forgiven. How can we? The arrogance of these Christians; nay, the authority granted these Christians allows them the right to tell people they are forgiven. The Body of Christ is the only group granted heavenly authority to baptize people in water as the token of God's Mercy applied.

There is a sin toward God, it's summed up in "Whosoever has sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book" (Ex 32:33). Not much chance there, it doesn't say, "but", or "maybe" it's simply blotted out, but is God speaking of these people, or a people to come? Ahh, in the Book of Revelation we find Jesus saying to Sardis, "He who overcomes, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life" (Rev 3:5). Then we read, "After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb clothed with white robes", this group cries, "Salvation to our God" (Rev 7:9-10). They received white robes, but who are these people? John asked the same question, he was told, "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the Blood of the Lamb" (Rev 7:14). These people are in heaven, defined as from every tongue, nation and kindred, which means they were Jew and Gentile, who became neither Jew or Gentile. These people are seen in heaven when the 144,000 are marked on earth, giving us the change from the Day to the Night (Rev 7:1-14).

Exodus shows there was no Pardon for the sin against God, which means it was unpardonable. There is a "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost", but the tenses show this is a continual sin, one a person works at. It's not something one does in the world, since they lack the knowledge and position, rather it's something found in the minds and hearts of the Wicked. The title "antichrist" is not anti-God, or anti-Jesus, or even anti-Spirit, it's against the Anointing in others, the same Anointing the Holy Ghost brings. Jesus said the workers of Iniquity did things, yet failed to do other things they were suppose to (Matt 7:21-23). This unpardonable sin is a spoken sin, one beginning with an iniquity, leading to the trespass. The failure to show Mercy to the brethren, develops into a slanderous attitude, the person begins to seek error to feel superior, or think they are the only ones doing the work of the Lord. They set themselves against members of the Body, making their attacks personal in nature. They never consider what they are doing, or what they failed to do as wrong, thus they never ask forgiveness. They may ask God, "God forgive me of my sins and iniquities", yet they go right back to doing the same slanderous things over again as part of their unchanged nature. They not only hold a natural slanderous nature, they love it, use it, enjoy the feeling they get from it, while they work to keep it. It’s a far cry form someone who is fighting to be free of the old nature, yet makes a mistake. However, for those who are fighting to be free of the old nature, they find Greater is He in us, than he of the world (I Jn 3:9 & 4:1-4). We have the overcoming ability within, the living conscience of God, the Greater He as Christ in us, the hope of Glory. However, this is not to be confused with someone mandated to rebuke us, or correct us. In most cases when someone has to correct us, they really don’t like it, but do they must.

God gave the children His glory, but the Glory of God without God still misses something. Some of us run around the world looking for the Glory of God, but the True Glory of God is within us by the New Birth (Rom 8:18). Sometimes it's better to look in, than around.

None of these people were spiritual, but they understood the anointing, as long as they didn't misuse it, they were protected. Two examples prove this, first we will see Aaron and Miriam confront Moses, yet only Miriam pays the price for the attack at the moment. Aaron was protected, but later when the protection is removed, he dies. Two of Aaron's sons toss strange fire into the Tabernacle, both died on the spot, so where was their protection? They misused the anointing, but Aaron made a bad judgment call, but he still didn't misuse the anointing. Today we wonder how some obvious violators of Mercy can get away with misusing the Name of Jesus, but the Authority of Jesus is a great Unction over all in the Body. When the Unction is taken in the Rapture, then the price will be paid, but until then we are told to judge the Ways of a person, not their Acts; more important we are told to judge ourselves. The same Unction protecting them, protects us, we know we have made some mistakes on this path.

Several things to keep in mind, under the Law one did something to be blessed, under Grace we are blessed to be a blessing. The Garment of the Priest is not the exactness of the Armor of God by pure definition, the Garment of Aaron had the Breastplate of Judgment, which should be a clue showing the Law of Moses is Judgment based. From this we find the Shadow has opposites, thus we discover the mystery by viewing some of the things in the shadow as opposites. The light shines on our face, the shadow is behind us, yet is the shadow our face? Or the back of our head? It's a shadow, although it points to an exactness, it is not the exactness. A Shadow means the light is behind the Image, thus a darkness is cast to give us the outline, but not the details; therefore, the time before Jesus came as the Word made flesh was a time of darkness.

A shadow of a dog tells us it's a dog, but it doesn't tell us the color, attitude, or other things only the dog can tell us by his actions. Here we find the Shadow, not the Image, the Image is Jesus, nonetheless we see the "outline". These people were not the shadow, they were in it. For Aaron it was the breastplate of Judgment, we have the Breastplate of Righteousness, yet Paul also called it the Breastplate of faith (I Thess 5:8). The only two references we have to the Breastplate (sing.) in the New Testament relate to the Righteousness connecting to The Faith. It has to be a blessing, when we define the Righteousness is connected to the Faith of Jesus, we find the Righteousness of Jesus is the Scepter of the Kingdom, yet it’s part of the New Man (Heb 1:8 & Eph 4:24).

The priest had to give a sacrifice for their own short comings; we find we must be able to minister to ourselves, before we can minister to others. Jesus didn't have any shortcomings, so His Sacrifice is pure. We give ourselves a Living Sacrifice, which is our reasonable (logical) service (Rom 12:1). In order to be a Living Sacrifice, one needs Life, thus after we gain our Life from Christ, we are able to honestly present ourselves as a living sacrifice.

Some Parenthetical Phrases define the metaphor, some are the metaphor being defined. Such is the case in II Corinthians 10:4, where we find a Parenthetical Phrase reading, "(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds;)". This phrase either explains the premise, or opens it: if it opens it, the next phrase will define it; therefore, we then read, "casting down imaginations and every thing exalting itself against the knowledge of God, bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ: having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled" (II Cor 10:5-6). This phrase defines the word Stronghold, to take it beyond the premise would be forming a Stronghold regarding Strongholds.

We also find the word Revenge, but what are we going to Revenge? And how? We gain our revenge over any formed Imagination, which is a matter of disobedience, by bringing every thought into the Obedience of Christ. The Helmet of Salvation keeps us from running off with childish traditions, or chasing every wind of doctrine.

If we remove the Parenthetical Phrase we end with, "casting down imaginations and every high thing (prideful) exalts itself against the knowledge of God" (I Cor 10:5-6). It’s the premise of the teaching, things of natural reasoning attack the knowledge of God. When we teach tradition as doctrine, we are forming strongholds in others, while enforcing our own stronghold. Scripture to Scripture must be one of the keys, where is the Scripture? In the case of the Armor of God we can't find which Armor Paul is referring to, but we do have the attributes of the Armor, from there we can make the determinations. The priest doesn't have a shield, or does he? The shield of the priest is the incense he carries as a type of the prayers for the people. Paul said the purpose of the Armor was for us to pray (Eph 6:18-19). The Armor of God is our covering, the New Man, the ability to pray in accordance with the Will of God.

If we put on the Armor of God we must also have a Godly purpose, especially since the Armor is God's; it's not the "armor of the saint", it's on loan. The list Paul gives us in Ephesians is limited to six items, but then he uses other items in other letters. The Armor has a specific purpose, it protects us from rulers of darkness, committing spiritual iniquity, showing us things hidden set to trap us. These children are the prime example of being set free of the dominating realm, yet retaining the nature of the old realm. The garments of the priests have correlating elements to the Armor (see chart below).


Helmet of Salvation

The Miter (Hat)

Sword of the Spirit

Signet on the Miter (Hat)

Renewed Mind

Blue band holding Signet

Shield of Faith

The Girdle

Breastplate of Righteousness

Breastplate of Judgment

Truth

Urim & Thummim

Praise & Worship

Pomegranates & Bells

Prayers

Censer

Gospel of Peace

Standing on Holy Ground

Power

Apron


Along with the six items, Paul included prayer as the purpose for putting on the Armor as well as other attributes of the Armor in other letters, we placed them all together to show the completeness and function of the Armor. It does little good to put on the Armor then bark at the darkness; it does little good to put on the Armor then attempt to use it in a carnal manner. The Armor of God is for one purpose, Prayer, so we may Stand, so we may Stand for others. In first part of the Book of Ephesians Paul tells the Ephesians his prayer for them, then he tells us about the Armor for prayer, do you think they correlate? Yes, the manner in which we use the Armor is given to us in the prayer of Paul for the Ephesians.

Wait, back to the priest, what about the twelve stones? To the priest under the Old Covenant they represented the tribes, but we see them as the foundational elements of the apostle positions, which John confirms in the Book of Revelation. The twelve stones were on the Breastplate of Judgment, but we're not of Judgment, we're of Salvation, thus we put on the Breastplate of the Righteousness of Jesus, our "stones" are seen as the foundation for the wall of New Jerusalem for the Bride of Christ (Rev 21:19-20 & 21:1-2).

We have said all this, to show how the requirements for the priests and high priest in Leviticus are types and shadows of the New, but they are not the exact same. We don't kill innocent animals, but we do destroy the works of the devil. We also impute the old man dead, deny the self, then pick up our cross, things the high priest under the Law of Moses never considered.

We talked about our feet being shod, in Ephesians 6:15 we find the word Shod is the Greek Hupodepo meaning To bind under, as one would Bind sandals, this connects to "binding and loosing" as they connect to Mercy. Wait, aren't we suppose to "walk by faith"? Well, here it says we are Shod with the Preparation of the Gospel of Peace, what is it ? The word Preparation is the Greek Hetoimasia meaning Foundation, so what is the Foundation of the Gospel of Peace? Belief, yet it also includes Mercy, we forgive as God for Christ's sake has forgiven us. Coupled with We must Believe we are forgiven, in order to forgive. Our Belief is a now confidence based on information and knowledge of things which have happened, or things we’ve been told: our Faith is a now confidence based on things hoped for in the future, even if the future is ten seconds away. If we lack knowledge, where then is our faith? In the natural, thus knowledge gives us confidence to know we are forgiven by the Mercy of God, the evidence is when we forgive others, then the Mercy becomes a product of our nature.

If we think the Armor will allow us to pray against our pastor, we are wrong. If we think the Armor is for us to pray for our pastor to speak the Word boldly, then we're right. If we think the Armor is for us to boast in, we're wrong. If we think it's for us to come boldly to the throne of Grace to obtain Mercy and find Grace, we're right. It just stands to reason, if we war against the Wiles of the enemy, then the Armor of God contains the Ways of God.

The injunction of wording Paul uses gives us clues, the designing function, or manner of operation for the Armor points to the priest's garments, but the words used to describe it, seem to point to the Roman solider. The Roman solider never considered his armor anything than what it was, he would never consider using it outside its intended purpose. The high priest had a higher degree of protection than the Roman solider. The Roman solider had protection against all but those equal to him, or greater in number, in either of those cases he would be defeated. The high priest was one person, who stood alone in the holy of holies, thus the high priest had a protection the Roman solider would never consider.

We have access by the Faith of Jesus through the Spirit (Eph 3:12 & 2:18), but we don't come to God as a mass army, or hidden in the folds of a mass army, Grace involves us as individuals. The Armor protects us from the outside, while allowing us to come to God on a one to one basis. Something the Roman solider never had; the Roman solider put his armor on because he knew he was useless without it, the high priest put his garments on because his office called for it, knowing he would die without them. Putting all it together we find it's our duty to put on the armor, but it's still up to us to do it, and use it accordingly.

There are some basic requirements for the Christ centered priest, some are warnings; "Let us labor therefore to enter into the rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief" (Heb 4:12). What example? The children in the wilderness, for while it is yet To-Day if we hear His voice, and harden not our hearts, as did the children in the wilderness (Heb 4:1-7). Again, "Harden not your hearts as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness" (Heb 3:8). Right back to Belief, we hear a lot about faith, but we seem to brush off Belief, yet Mark 16:16 tells us if we are baptized (identified with the death and resurrection of Jesus) we must Believe (continual belief) in order to fit Shall be saved. It's not faith, although faith is important, but the sin which so easily besets us is unbelief. Of course Mark 16 also has the back side of the coin, we can believe all we want, but unless we're in the Body the phrase "shall be saved" does not apply. We can be in the Body, but unless we continue to believe the phrase, "shall be saved" does not apply. Belief remembers what Jesus did for us, as well as what He told us. If we allow our belief to slip, our faith has no foundation.

Hebrews also tells us, "therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto Perfection; not laying again the Foundation of repentance from dead works" (Heb 6:1). The phrase Not laying again, doesn't mean to Forget it, it means the foundation should be firm, so firm we are able to teach it, rather than being taught over and over again. Since it's something of the past, then it stands it couples with Belief. This goes with, "for when for the time you ought to be teachers, you have need for one to teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God" (Heb 5:12). The six basic elements of the Doctrine of Christ are the principles of the Oracles of God, they are foundational to all the other aspects of Doctrine of the Christ.

It begins for us when we Put on the New Man, thus the making of the Priest's Garment had to be specific in nature, God had a plan in the Shadow to give us some insight to the Image. Going back to Exodus we read, "Aaron's garments to consecrate him, so he may minister unto Me in the priest's office" (Ex 28:3). If this is the case, then the Armor allows us war against evil elements, as we minister to God, meaning we are priests unto God. Much of our priestly order is to minister unto the Lord by being Christ like when we deal with events, or people. Perhaps Paul is showing if we Put on the New Man, we are putting on the Armor to become a Christ witness. Therefore, we are ministering unto the Lord, by representing Him in a proper manner. The Armor keeps us from lying in wait to deceive, it  keeps us from being deceptive, it keeps anger from ruling over us, it keeps strife from being our motive, by bringing us into the spiritual nature.

The Garment had to be first, then the oil, then came the Consecration, the word Consecrate is the Hebrew Qadhash meaning To be clean, To make clean, or Pronounce clean, for Aaron it was the latter of the three. Aaron was not clean, the garment was, thus the garment hid the man. What did this Garment give him the right to do? He could enter the holy of holies, thus it gave him the right to Stand. The same is true with the Armor of God, when we have done all to Stand, we Stand therefore for others. What gives us the ability to Stand? The Armor, for some reason we think we give the Armor the ability to stand, not so it's the other way around. What does standing represent? Right standing, thus the Armor as the New Man gives us boldness and access by the Faith of Jesus. The garment of Aaron gave him right standing in the Tabernacle.

Since we Stand, we should know some of the qualities of Standing. Of course, we will find more as we move along in the Lessons, but for here we find Standing includes, but is not limited to Maintaining a set position: To have a good attitude: To be consistent: In agreement: To have direction: To watch: To tolerate things: To be based or rooted in something, as we refuse to consent to something not in accordance with what we Stand for. Tolerate does not mean compromise, don't confuse the two, tolerate means we can put up with it, while retaining the witness we're suppose to. Compromise means we give up something to appease someone else.

The wording, "Take Unto" in the phrase, "take unto you the whole Armor of God" is the compound Greek word Analambano, the Greek word Lambano will become of great importance when we reach the letters in the New Testament, but for here we find Analambano means To take up with the attitude of bearing something, or taking with the attitude of using what we took in the manner it was intended to be used. It stands if we take up "part of the Armor" we have failed to fit the qualifications. We might not like the "Rhema", so we won't use the Sword, but unless we take it all, we have taken nothing.

The wording, "Put on" in the phrase "Put on the New Man" is the Greek Enduo meaning To go in under, or Submit to, or Enter into through the act of Submission as the high priest would Enter into the holy of holies. This gives us the attitude of being humble, the high priest was humble before the mercy seat, if not they would drag him out then elect another.

If the high priest used his Garment in a manner not prescribed by God, he in fact defiled it, thus we are given the Armor of God for a specific purpose, we don't abuse it, or defile it. Jesus said all the works of the enemy are under our feet, yet everything is under His feet, thus there is something between us and the enemy, it’s Holy Ground, the enemy can't stand to look upon holy ground, much less touch it. However, we don't fight the enemy, we fight his wiles; we may be surprised where some of those are found.

Before we can get to the holy of holies we have to pass through the holy place. We looked at the Tabernacle before, but in reference to Standing we can see when we enter we face three items. Straight ahead is the Golden Altar, to our left is the Menorah, to our right is the Table of Shewbread with the Shewbread thereon. We have to partake of the Bread (Body), care for the Light (Mercy), and the Golden Altar (Thanksgiving and Praise). These three items are all products of Mercy, all have to do is maintain the anointing (unction), which keeps us from iniquity.

The curtains were also important, the curtain going into the holy place had a large eye on it, this eye presented the Eye of God searching out the heart of man. The curtain for the entrance into the holy of holies from the holy place had three angels on it, yet we know there were only two over the Mercy Seat. The number "three" points to the Trinity, but we also see how each angel stands for the three items in the holy place. All of which had to be attended to before one could enter the Holiest of All. The reminder was on the curtain, "seeing" nothing was left undone, then the high priest could enter.

The Tabernacle is a shadow of Salvation, the Temple represents Judgment, thus in the Book of Revelation we find the Temple being opened in the last days, but we also find God will tabernacle with the tabernacles in heaven. In Revelation 15:5 we see the "temple" of the "tabernacle", but the Greek word for Temple refers to the holy place with the holy of holies, showing the courtyard is left out.

Another clue is how the Tabernacle was, and was not, yet the Temple was destroyed more than once. The Tabernacle came at the Commandment of God, the Temple at the request of David. The Tabernacle came to Moses while on the Mount, the Temple to the prophet during the night. The Tabernacle was portable, the Temple stationary. One day the Tabernacle was not, one day in 70 AD the Temple was destroyed by a drunken Roman solider of Titus. Two structures, both relating to God, yet with completely different purposes.

Before the priest could function in the office, there had to be several things placed in Order. Order is always a key to success in the ministry, we can have a great idea, but use the wrong means to bring it to pass, making us out of order. We can have an idea, yet attempt to bring it to pass in the wrong time, thus being out of order. In Exodus God gave a list of the items for the Priest's Garment beginning with the 1) Breastplate, 2) the ephod, 3) robe, 4) embroidered coat, 5) the miter, 6) the girdle (Ex 28:4). Ephesians gives us six basic elements to the Armor of God, thus we do have a correlation to the premise. Things in order must be in order. However, as we said, the Breastplate for Aaron was one of Judgment, not Salvation or Righteousness, being out of order for Aaron would be thinking his breastplate was for salvation, being out of order for us would be thinking our armor is for judgment. The Tabernacle may have pointed to salvation, the priests at the time didn't.

The Garment had the Ephod, yet we find another mystery. What is an Ephod? Where did the word come from anyway? The first time we find the word is in Exodus 25:7, we can guess at the mind of Moses going "E what?". The word Ephod means A putting on, or A binding, God gave orders for this Binding, but for us we want to find the Loosing as well. God called this Ephod the "curious girdle" of "cunning work" (Ex 28:6-8). The word Cunning in the English means deception, or craftiness, one could form an imagination here, but the Hebrew word is Chashav meaning among other things To invent, Think about, thus it isn’t deception, but something to Ponder. Some say the Ephod had two stones, one with six names of the tribes, the other with the other six names of the tribes (Ex 28:10). Others say there were twelve stones, but the twelve stones pertained to the breastplate, not the Ephod.

When we get to Deuteronomy we will find Moses will command for the tribes to be spilt, putting six on one mount and six on the other, one group calling out the cursing, the other the blessing, thus the Ephod here is a division between cursing and blessing, with the cursing in first place. Godly Judgment is a division between the Precious and the Vile. For us the Armor is all Precious, neither is the Armor divided, thus by having Christ in us we are made a blessing, void of cursing.

The Faith of Jesus is coupled with the Unity of the Spirit, the Armor of God points to Unity as well (Eph 4:3 & 4:13). The only place we find the word Unity in the New Testament is in Ephesians, the only time we will find Unity among the brethren is when we are United in the Faith by the Spirit. The Scripture says, "it's in Whom (Jesus) you also trust, after you heard the Word of Truth, the Gospel of your salvation" (Eph 1:13). This not only points to the Truth as the basis for the Gospel of Salvation, which is the Gospel of Peace, but how we are not Divided, rather the Armor is designed for Unity, it's the fables coupled with the gates of hell dividing what God has joined. One element we find in both the Old and New is putting our Trust in God, rather than in people. We trust people to do what they should, but we never put our trust in people. If we trust someone to deliver us, secure us, save us, we have put our trust in them, very dangerous.

The Helmet of Salvation is like unto the Miter; the Miter was not made of metal, it was woven, on it was written, "HOLINESS TO THE LORD" (Ex 28:36-37). In our case we find the New Man is created after God's True Holiness, thus our Holiness is within, making our Armor the New Man (Eph 4:24 & 6:10-18). Aaron wore the Breastplate as a sign of the "judgment of the children of Israel", we put on the Armor as a sign of the "Salvation of the Lord", two different aspects, yet the same God brought both.

The Urim and Thummim were to be on "Aaron's heart". How so, did Moses cut the man open? No, in Aaron's case it was a symbol showing the purpose was protection. The Urim and Thummim represent Light and Perfection, in our case they point to the New Man as God's True Holiness (Perfection) and Righteousness (Light). The Urim and Thummim are a mystery, they are not made of materials, nor constructed by the hand of man, thus they are something regarding the purpose of the garments, as well as the attitude of the priest.

The first verse in Leviticus defines location, the Lord called Moses, speaking to him out of the tabernacle of the congregation (Lev 1:1). The "tabernacle of the congregation" is the tent itself, the place where the holy place and holy of holies were located, it was not the entire area containing the courtyard. This is the same context for the word "temple" found in many of the New Testament letters. The use was not to confuse us, it was a common phrase to define the holy place and holy of holies (Greek Naos). This is important since we can be in the Courtyard having an association with God, but no relationship or fellowship with Him. Our relationship comes in the holy place, the fellowship in the holiest of all. The holy place had many priests all working on various aspects of duties, but the holiest of all was one person and God.

We know this Tabernacle relates to Jesus, as the Way, the Truth and the Life; therefore, we find the various entrances are also termed the Way, Truth and Life. The three angels on the curtain going into the holy of holies give us Hope, Faith and Love, it all relates.

Then we find the "offering", this would be one year after they left Egypt, but wait, is this offering a tenth? No, an offering is not limited to percentage, the Tithe under the Law is. By the way, where did they get the cattle? They brought them out of Egypt, but didn't they murmur because they were hungry? So, why not eat the cattle? These people were not red meat eaters, they were among the Egyptians who wouldn't eat red meat; don't forget the shepherd was an abomination to the Egyptian. This shows why the Passover meal was an issue of Faith and Obedience. It would be no different than putting a piece of pork before a Jew today and saying, "God has said eat". Which we know was something  Peter experienced in his vision (Acts 10:9-17). Do we think they will say, "oh yeah, sure, okay"? Hardly, yet we know there is a proceeding word, at times the Word may say, "What God has cleansed let not you call common" (Acts 10:13-14).

When it came to the Law of Moses many things changed, if we know the background of this group we can see when God makes a change it can be a big change, or a little one, yet we must be open for both. They didn't have any problem in giving a sacrifice, but eat it? This was a point of separation for the priests as well, they were given permission to eat some of the sacrifices, but they had to be told to. Moses says, "so saith the Lord", yet the people had to fight their Egypt background in order to move with the Word of God. We do the same when God begins a move, we have to cast off the religious garment of imperfection, to join the "so saith the Lord", or we miss out. When the anointing comes, we must seize the moment. When the people were healed in the Gospel Accounts they seized the moment, they were ready and looking for something to happen. We don't want to be the one who hears, "there goes Jesus", we want to be the one to say, "Here comes Jesus".

The first offering was a voluntary act consisting of a "male of the first year" (Lev 1:3). Why a male of the first year? Perhaps pointing to Jesus? Or perhaps pointing to the Consecration of the Firstborn (Ex 13:1-22)? For these people it was connected to the death of the firstborn in Egypt, which was something God did not like doing, but do it He must. They were to remember they were delivered by the Mercy of God, as the Blood of the Passover spared them. It wasn't for their goodness, their faith, or their praise, it was because of God. The same is true with us, as priests we administer the Communion to our selves and others, yet we must remember as members of the Body we were delivered by the Mercy of God, now we are being cleaned by the Blood of Jesus as well as the washing of the Water by the Word.

Then in Leviticus 1:4 we find the beginning of the Doctrine of the Laying on of Hands. We saw the power of the Anointing Oil, as it was made once, as a type of Christ going to the Cross once, but we are commanded to lay hands on the sick, the elders are commanded to anoint us with oil when we call on them. Do the elders in the Body have some secret formula for anointing oil? No, it’s olive oil as a sign of the Oil of Mercy, connecting to the Mount of Olives with the Least Commandments. They could use a tanker of oil, but if they don't have the Oil (mercy anointing) within all we're going to do slip around in circles, not getting anywhere.

The phrase "it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him" is the key to this Doctrine (Lev 1:4). The concept of the "laying on of hands" is basic to the Doctrine of Christ, but we have to go back to Exodus to place it in order. In Exodus 29:10 we read, "And you shall cause a bullock to be brought before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the bullock". This is the first place in the Bible where the concept of the "laying on of hands" is seen. The concept of the Laying on of hands runs hand in hand with the "Doctrine of Baptisms" (plural), the foundation is seen in the Shadow (Ex 29:4-7 & Heb 6:2). Accordingly, in Exodus and in Leviticus we find the laying on of hands in reference to the sins of the people being placed on some animal, then the animal would carry the sins of the person. The Shadow shows a Presentation for Acceptance, connecting to how we lay hands on someone as an act of Presentation unto the Lord to remove sin. However, if we use the shadow as an exactness then we must say we lay hands on someone to impart our sins on them, not so. Instead of putting sins on some animal we seek the doing away of sin in the presentation of the person to the Lord (James 5:15).

As priests under the New Covenant we have an Order, the Order entails the laying on of hands. It doesn't mean we as people outside the authority of Jesus can forgive sins, but it does mean Jesus has given us the Authority as "sons of men" to forgive sins done unto us. If it wasn't the case, then all of us have made great errors in telling others, "Your sins are forgiven", or any number of sayings suggesting, or telling a person their sins are forgiven, including "welcome to the family of God". When we welcome someone into the family of God we are telling them their prayer of repentance worked. What right do we have to even suggest it ? The authority Jesus granted us in His Name.

Under the Old Testament the sins of the person against the Commandment were not really forgiven, they were transferred to some innocent animal, the animal died on behalf of the person, but in our case we have the Forgiveness of Sin (singular, sin against God), as well as the Forgiveness of Sins (plural, as sins against man), the Cleaning of Unrighteousness (By the Blood of Jesus), with the Remission of Sins through the Blood of Jesus, the forgiveness of Iniquity by the Mercy and Grace of God; all of which are found in our process of Justification unto Salvation.

Like the anointing, there are various areas for the "laying on of hands"; there is laying on of hands regarding the sick, regarding the calling into an office or ministry, or presentation for Baptism with the Holy Ghost. There are counterfeits, such as the laying on of the hands by the wicked to laid hold of the righteous (Matt 26:50), just as there is the laying on of hands to do Good (Mark 6:2 & 16:18). In Mark 6:2 we find Jesus laid hands on people; in Mark 16:18 we are told to lay hands on the sick, thus Mark 16:18 is merely telling us to do what Jesus did. Paul laid hands on Timothy for ordination, then warned Timothy not to lay hands suddenly on any man in reference to ordination (II Tim 1:6 and I Tim 5:22). Of course the Jews laid hands on the apostles by casting them into prison.

Here in the case of Aaron and his sons we find God telling Moses to have them lay hands on the bullock, but didn't two of these sons turn bad? Yes, and God knew it, thus when we lay hands on someone we better have ears to hear, if they decide to be among the wicked God knew it, thus God ordained it. It is just as much an act of rebellion to refuse to lay hands on someone when God tells us to, as it is to lay hands on someone when God hasn't told us to. The same is true when someone says they believe, but they really don't. Do we refuse to water baptize them? No, Simon of Samaria proves the point (Acts 8:9-13). Of course water baptism is acceptance into the Body, when it came time for the Gift of the Holy Ghost, Simon was refused (Acts 8:20-23). Jude tells us on some have compassion making a difference, and others save (Sozo) with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh (Jude 22-23). The Good Fish have compassion on, but know there will be Bad Fish as well, both are in the same net. Jude also used the Greek Sozo when he said, "I will therefore put you in remembrance, although you once knew this, how the Lord having saved (Sozo) the people out of Egypt, afterward destroyed them who believed not" (Jude 5). What people? These people, again it was their unbelief producing their own destruction. Belief is a decision, the evidence is placed before us, as it was for these people, thus we make the choice to believe, or not to.

We have the words of Paul; plus the Book of Acts giving us many examples regarding the concept of the laying on of hands. This always brings us a question, "if the disciples laid hands on people, so the people could receive the Holy Ghost, who laid hands on them at Pentecost?". Did they lay hands on each other? Did some mystery man lay hands on them? It's way we have the verses regarding Cornelius, Peter wasn't going to lay hands on Cornelius, all he had to do was preach Jesus to the man. However, while preaching about the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost came on Cornelius granting the Gift (Acts 10:45). When Peter knew the Lord had accepted Cornelius, he immediately baptized him in water. No one laid hands on Cornelius, but we still have the doctrine to be used when applicable.

In our role as priests unto God, one of the functions is to present Sacrifices unto the Lord. Among the Sacrifices we present are people, who are giving themselves as "living sacrifices", as their reasonable service. Acts 5:12 shows there were many Signs and Wonders done by the Hands of the apostles, thus our Hands are like unto the Hand of Moses, we don’t turn the water into blood, or bring frogs, or the such, rather it's the opposite, instead of bringing frogs, we cast out evil spirits; instead of flies, we sent Beelzebub on his way, instead of water into blood, we present the Water (Mercy) and Blood (Grace).

In Acts 5:18 we find the concept of the hands of the wicked, showing how evil hands lay hold of the righteous to bind them. In Acts 6:6 the apostles laid hands on the Deacons to ordain them into the office of helps. In Acts 8:17-19 it was the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Ghost, we recall how Simon of Samaria wanted to buy the power as he said, "Give me also this power, so on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost" (Acts 8:19). The request sounds good, after all, we are the ones sent to lay hands on others; however, Simon of Samaria wanted the power for personal gain, he was rejected. He also felt the power came from the apostles, rather than the apostles presenting the person as the power came from on High. The point being, did Simon of Samaria get this Power? No, not from the Apostles, not from Jesus. The history of the Body shows Simon was known as the "father of all heretics". If water baptism saves, then the Bible regarding Simon is in error, he believed the signs, was baptized in water, but failed to continue with his belief, it cost him dearly.

In Acts 11:30 we find the Message goes in the hands of the disciples, as well as the Blessing. In Acts 13:2-3 we find several saints laying hands on Barnabas and Saul (Paul) for confirmation into the Office of Apostle, showing how the filling of the Office didn't stop with the eleven. It's also evident the Holy Ghost appointed on behalf of Jesus, the men only confirmed the call (Acts 13:1-3). In Acts 4:30-33 we find the Power of Signs and Wonders was not restricted to the eleven, but continued to those who Believed, of course it stops with those who don't Believe. Acts 4:30-33 is another one of those areas supporting Mark 16:16-18, the disciples were able to Take up, or convert the serpents, Paul being the chief evidence. In Luke Jesus said we will tread on serpents (malicious people), meaning they have no power or authority over us, but in Mark it was "take up" meaning to raise to a higher position, thus Mark relates to "saving them from the fire", the same as Jude told us.

When studying the priesthood under Aaron, we must keep in mind we have a different Order, one under Jesus as our High Priest; rather than Levi, according to the Book of Hebrews we cannot hold the Order of Aaron and the New Testament order, it would be illegal. On the same note none of us are "High Priests", Jesus is the only High Priest in our Order, yet we are forever called priests. Our Order has tithes, but we as priests pay and receive tithes, we don't take Tithes. Every priesthood has a Order, a manner in which a priest is to function in the office. If we don't know our Order, how then are we going to know what to do? We tend to look at the man Melchizedek, but he is not the issue, the issue is the Order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4, Heb 5:6, 5:10, 6:20, 7:11-21). The Order is defined as Blessing, Giving, Ministering, Receiving (Gen 14:18-19), we minister not by soulish or carnal endeavors, but through the Spirit, we bless and curse not, we give God the glory. The Levitical priesthood took tithe by commandment, there is no commandment under the New regarding tithing, but there is the attribute of giving in found in those of Grace (Rom 12:6-8), thus under the Old they took, under the New we receive, much different, as we found out. No one can do both Orders, one is carnal, the other spiritual, one is centered on Judgment, the other on Salvation, one is cursing and blessing, the other blessing only, one is faulty because it's administered by carnal priests, the other without fault since it's High Priest is without fault, as the priests in the Order are spiritual.

From here we go to the Atonement under the Law, which takes us back to Exodus 30:16, where it was termed the, "atonement for his soul", but this is not the same as the Saving of the Soul (Heb 10:38-39, James 1:21 & Pet 1:9). The word Atonement means To transfer something to something else, or To balance, but it doesn’t remove the sin, thus they had to transfer their sin to something else innocent in order to balance the sin. The sin was not "done away with", it was still around, only on some animal. The act of transferring their sin to some animal was based on the absence of them being able to obtain Pardon for their sins. When Jesus said, "your sins are forgiven", He didn't grab some goat and rub the person all over it. Jesus was the first ever to stand for man as He Pardoned sin. A Pardon is a legal term, it means there may be evidence against us, but it is not sufficient enough to warrant punishment. When Jesus Pardoned sin It was such a shock the entire Pharisee community staggered and murmured for days; they retorted with, Only God can Pardon sin, they were right. Atonement takes another object in the person's place. We find three areas, Atonement which we find here, Pardon would be what Jesus did as the Son of man, or as the Father did when He forgave us by the application of God's direct Mercy; however the Blood of Jesus administers Remission. Jesus also said the New Covenant was based in His Blood, thus when we are saved from the world we enter Pardon, based on God's Mercy, then we travel through the grave to find Grace to enter the Process of Remission. We know it's a Process since it's the washing of the water by the Word, as well as the cleaning of the Blood, as our minds and souls are renewed to a different manner of thinking. The Blood of Jesus removes sin, the source of sin, the knowledge of sin, bringing to pass that Born (generated) of the Spirit is Spirit.

Anyone who was a Hebrew among the tribes could gain entry into the Courtyard, if their sacrifice passed the test, thus the "holiness" and "anointing" was open to all who had an acceptable sacrifice. The same is true for us, anyone who believes and receives the Sacrifice of Jesus can make entry into the Body, then they are a type of holiness under the Unction. Does it  mean the person is holy? No, it means God viewed them as if they were, showing more than one type of holiness. Let's face it, God called these people "holy", but we've seen telephone poles which held more holiness than some of them. When God called us to the Cross, we were viewed as holy simply because God separated us, then He began to deal with us as children. The True Holiness of God doesn't come until we were Born Again. A like symbol is true here, these people are "holy" by association, not by acts, our association is with the New Man until the two (soul and New Man) become one.

In talking about Communion Paul told us to Judge or Examine ourselves (I Cor 11:31). The word Judge used in I Corinthians 11:31 means to examine as a doctor would, but it also means to examine as these Inspectors did. By the Spirit we become a sacrifice compared to the Sacrifice as the judge of our own sacrifice. In their case the blemish was cause for rejection, in ours, it's cause for Communion. We bring the blemish to the Lord, we don't reject ourselves because of it. Being "unworthy" of the Table of the Lord is when we refuse to apply the table in its intended purpose. The sin of "defiling the table of the Lord" is when we use the table to exalt ourselves, rather than remember all Jesus did for us. Communion is source of Belief, we Remember, in the remembering we have to judge ourselves in reference to the Body, the purpose of the Body as it relates to the Mercy of God. Then the Blood in our relationship with Jesus, remembering why Jesus gave Himself.

At the entrance to the Tabernacle Courtyard there were Inspectors, who were usually judges, they would Examine the offered sacrifice for any blemishes, but the examination would be subject to the viewpoint of examiner. Later during the earthly ministry the Pharisees used this premise to sell their doves, causing Jesus to clean the temple, saying to the Dove Sellers, "Make not My Father's house a house of merchandise" (Jn 2:16). They twisted the premise used here to fleece the sheep. We are to receive tithes, but we can twist the premise as well, making it appear as if we are the only storehouse. It's so easy to use the merchandising ways of the world, then put the name "Jesus" on them in order to sell the products of the ministry with the same attitude the Pharisees had. We can't say, "it's okay, it helps the ministry", using the ways of the world is still unacceptable at the Table of the Lord, we can't take the cup of devils, then call it holy because it made money for the ministry.

In Leviticus we find many types of Sacrifices, we know about our "sacrifice of praise", which includes our prayers, thus we will find different types of prayers in these sacrifices as well. A Sacrifice is not some "woe is me" endeavor, it's a joy, honor and a pleasure. Cain found it out the sacrifice is based on attitude, do we praise because we think we have to? Or because we want to?

The first sacrifice we make is the Offering of our souls unto the Lord as a Voluntary act of our will (Lev 1:3). What do we think it means when we say, "not my will, but Your will be done"? Do we think it means God will enhance our agendas? Or does it mean we cast aside our desires and personal agendas, to receive the desire and agenda of God? The latter of course. It doesn't mean we'll suffer greatly, rather it means we know God's plan has our best interests at heart. Really the only suffering we will do is in combat with the flesh, yet Greater is He in us, the flesh or the he in the world.

We move from the entrance to the preparation, the priests would cut the sacrifice into many parts, just as we allow the Spirit to divide us into the many parts, the good being saved, the bad being discarded (Lev 1:7-8). In our case we find we have a choice in the matter, whereas these sacrifices didn't. Not one lamb said, "Hold it, what do you think you're doing?". They submitted to the process, something we should be willing to do.

The Law dictated how to prepare the animals, if the person presented turtledoves or young pigeons, the priest had to "wring off" the head of the bird (Lev 1:15). Since the word "head" refers to Authority, we see this is a type of being "headless" for Jesus, which has nothing to do with going around with our head in basket. It has to do with putting away the authority we gained from the world by receiving the authority of Jesus.

The priest had to pluck the head in a precise manner using his thumb to pluck off the head, then Cleave the bird, but he was not to "divide it asunder" (Lev 1:17). Divide Asunder? Sounds like Hebrews 4:12, the Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword dividing asunder. No, wait, in Hebrews it was To divide asunder, here it's not, but do they relate? Again we find the choice of words by the Holy Ghost is important, in Leviticus the Hebrew wording "divide it asunder" means to open it into two parts without separating the parts completely, thus the bird would still be joined at the backbone, but the inner parts would be exposed. In the Book of Hebrews the wording "divide asunder" is the Greek Merismos meaning to divide for clarity, but not to divide into separate pieces. The Greek Diamerismos would be to divide apart, thus Merismos does associate to the act we find here in Leviticus. The Word (Logos) in us brings transparency to various items by separating them for clarity (Heb 4:12).

The purpose for the Order of Levi was to unite the person to the Commandments, in our case it's to save our souls (James 1:21, Heb 10:38-39 & I Pet 1:8-10). However, for some of us our soul desires salvation on one hand, yet fears it on the other. The cleaning of God does entail times of exposure, some of us really don't want to know what God knows about us. Attitude in the process is paramount, we have to believe God is for us, He is not going to beat us up, this is the Day of Salvation: God is in the business of saving us. God is never going to open us up, then yell "Yikes, My God what is that?". He already knows, His exposure is by process unto perfection for us to know.

In Leviticus 1:16 we find the Crop and Feathers of the fowl were to be cast aside. We can see how the Feathers would be the natural covering, the mask or facade, but what about the Crop? The Crop of the fowl is the place of the gullet, or voice box, it does relate to us. The feathers were the old natural covering we used in the world, but the Crop is the place where we formed words. Mark says we will speak with New tongues, which is different from unknown tongues. New Tongues relate to the new nature, a different way of speaking from a different source.

The "heart" was the main concern, without a Heart there was no sacrifice. The same is true with us, without a heart for God as well as from God we’re a useless sacrifice. The priests were given certain portions of the sacrifice to eat as part of their calling. If they failed to partake of the sacrifice, they were hindering the atonement process. This is a shadow of Communion, we as priests partake of the symbols of the Sacrifice. It doesn’t mean the bread makes some mystical change into the actual flesh of Jesus; it means we have a symbol, after all we are the bread (I Cor 10:17).

When one reads the Bible they get the idea God is a God of semantics, He is picky about words used as well as the placement of words. Therefore, we find God never says anything without meaning; such is the case in the phrase "meat offerings", which is really a Meal Offering, but why call it "Meat"? To these people meal was meat, but it goes further. The Body of Christ has Babes who partake of the Milk, but there is the Meat as well.

Twice in Exodus (Ex 23:19 & 34:26) and once in Deuteronomy (Deut 14:21), we find the commandment, "you shall not seethe a kid in his mother's milk", but why? What's the big deal? The first time we find the word Seethe is in Exodus 16:23, but there it was to seethe the Manna on the day before the Sabbath, thus it had nothing to do with a "kid". A Kid is a babe, metaphorically pointing to the attempt to force a Babe to boil in the Milk to become a Meat eater. It's one thing to present Meat to a Babe, another to boil them in the milk.

There is a difference between a Heave Offering and a Wave Offering: a Heave Offering doesn't mean the priest is sick to his stomach, rather the Heave Offering was moved up and down, but a Wave Offering was moved from side to side, both give us a type of the Cross, one as the upright piece, the other as the cross piece.

The Meat or Meal Offering was the "most holy" of the offerings, yet to be "most holy" indicates degrees of holiness. The "most holy place" was the holy of holies, here this Meal Offering was Most Holy, but why would it be? Why not the Lamb as the Most holy? Could it be this offering is a type of the Body of Christ? Yes, we are the bread, the real treasure in this (I Cor 10:17).

As we said, the Law of Moses was presented as a means for one who violates the Commandments to be restored, but we will find a "sin against the Lord" in the Law pertains to people sinning against people. Not just any people, these people are the people of the Lord, thus fighting with one another would bring division, which God views as a sin against Him.

The word Oblation is the Hebrew Qurban meaning What is brought near the altar. However, it's the use of Salt drawing our attention. Jesus said, "Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another" (Mark 9:50). Does it  mean if we eat table salt we can have peace? Hardly, Jesus pointed back to this area, bringing clarity to the Shadow. Salt is a metaphor for Mercy, one can't hold Mercy without desiring Peace, thus we find the word "Peace" leading us to the Peace Offering. Here is the heart of Matthew 7:21-23, the Acts of Power happen, but applying Mercy is an individual choice takes a dedication to comply to the Will of the Father. The ability is granted when we ask God to forgive us, thus Paul as an apostle commanded us to forgive as God for Christ's sake forgave us (Eph 4:32). When we bind unforgiveness in us, we have bound God's Mercy in heaven, but when we Loose unforgiveness through acts of Mercy, we Loose God’s Mercy on us

What does the Peace Offering have to do with this? The two kidneys, the fat is on them, with the caul above the liver, both shall be taken away (Lev 3:4). Why? Without at least one kidney the physical body will die, we know, yet by the time they take the two kidneys from the animal it's already dead. The Hebrew word for kidneys is Kilyah, it's always used in the plural, but metaphorically the Jew knew the Hebrew word Kilyah referred to the desires and affections (Jere 11:20). Those self-desires and affections seeking self-pleasure have two aspects, both have to be removed. When we use anger, hate, intellect, affection, manipulation, control, deception, or any emotion to get our way, we are self-based.

The Fat is also removed around the kidney, this points to the excess of the emotions. In the saving of the soul we will find the saving of the emotions as well. Emotions are not evil, but if they control us, they become evil. Emotions used in the proper sense are tools, used in the wrong sense they become rulers of darkness. The liver wasn't removed, it was the Caul above the liver, the Caul in this instance points to excess, metaphorically it shows Covetousness, or the motivation of the spirit lusting to envy.

One of our base Scriptures is Hebrews 10:38-39, yet the wording "saving of" in the phrase "saving of the soul", is not the Greek Sozo or even Soteria as one would image, but the Greek Peripoiesis meaning to preserve a purchased possession, thus when we accepted the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus, we were purchased with a Price, the Blood of Jesus, thus Salvation is the redemption of something Jesus already paid for. Our faith knows the process is for the purpose, thus the Law of Moses was not of faith, since it really didn't hold a future hope, rather the person had to give their sacrifices continually, whereas we remember the One Sacrifice of Jesus.

These priests operated by formulas, their Manual was specific, even to the point of how to present a sacrifice. Our reasonable (logical) service is to present ourselves a living sacrifice, but how? There is no formula to show if we present ourselves feet first, faith first, hands first, voice first, or belief first. What if we get the order wrong? Would our sacrifice be rejected? No, our order is by faith, not a faith centered on the group, it's based on the individual. What is a performance for one, may not be for another.

The Law of Moses was a blanket formula, each priest followed the last in order. Their instructions were precise, ours are not. We know the goal is the saving of our souls, how we reach the final position is going to vary from person to person. Always faith, always belief, always obedience, always denying the self, and always picking up our cross, but the details vary. Following a "formula of faith" is not faith, rather we know the result before we begin, even if someone obtained by faith, if we attempt to copy them thinking we’re of faith, we're not. We missed the point, the person obtained by faith, we attempt to copy their acts, but forgot the "faith" part. Faith is from an unseen source, thus if we use a source we can see, it's not faith.

Next are the Sin Offerings, if a soul shall sin through ignorance, as did the Corinthians, there was a recourse. For the Corinthians it was the Table of the Lord, but do we find an example here? Perhaps; here we find it was against the Commandments of the Lord (Lev 4:2); however, in order to find if it was of Ignorance, we should define the word. The word Ignorance is the Hebrew Sheghaghah meaning A mistake, or Unwitting fault, but there are two sides to this word. First is the meaning here, which means an act where the intent is not known to the conscious mind, the other side is what the Corinthians were doing, which is disregarding something. Paul said he would not have them be ignorant, then he defined spiritual matters to remove their ignorance. Therefore, ignorance is the often a result of lack of knowledge, but one can purposely avoid knowledge, making it deliberate ignorance, which is not the case here.

Even if the "anointed priest" makes a mistake, there was room for restoration. If the Law of Moses has room, surely we have More (Lev 4:3 & Gal 6:1). The metaphor "horn" as in the "horn of the altar" refers to Power, but there are various types of Power. We are Born Again from Power on high, but the Beast of the Sea also has power. Power is always defined by the authority, in our case it’s Power unto salvation, in the case of the Beast of the Sea it’s unto destruction.

When the priest was atoning they placed the blood of the sacrifice on the horns of the altar, yet it wasn't a clue for the people to say, "look, I knew it, they were in sin", rather it was a sign of atonement being made, the matter settled, the priest was back in proper position.

Leviticus 4:14 is the key to the foundation of the Law of Moses, as we read: "when the sin, which they have sinned against it"; against it? Yes, if they sinned against God, then the context would be "against Me", not "it", thus we find the foundation for the Law of Moses was predicated on the knowledge of God, saying, "the Commandments are holy and right, but you won't keep them, so here is a Law for your many weaknesses, the Law is an It". At the same time the Law separated the people from God in more than one way. There is the Veil of separation, but there was the Veil over the face of Moses, a Veil over the Ark of the Covenant, a the hanging at the Door to the holy place, plus the enclosure around the courtyard, thus, there was more than one separation, there were many. On the other hand we are told, "come boldly to the Throne of Grace", showing we have no Separations. How difficult is it to come boldly if we keep placing Veils between us and God?

The sabbath connection between the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses shows the two are interconnected. The only two documents God has put forth telling anyone to keep the sabbath are the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses. The Law of the Spirit came through Life, the Law of Moses because of unbelief. The Law of the Spirit doesn't replace the Law of Moses, neither is it an extension, it's not even an "upgrade". It's for a different people who are Born Again, placing them in a different realm.

The anointed priest who sinned through ignorance, would bring "a kid of the goats, a male without blemish" (Lev 4:23), but when any of the common people sinned through ignorance they would bring a "kid of the goats, a female without blemish" (Lev 4:28). This type and shadow goes directly to using the metaphors "husbands and wives" in reference to the Leaders and Congregation, as Paul did in First Corinthians, thus Paul isn't female bashing, he is making reference to the Law of Moses, since the Corinthians were carnal, in need of Ordinances for the carnal minded.

Then comes the Trespass Offering, the Trespass would seem strange by reading Leviticus 5:1; it holds something void of ignorance, but points to iniquity. The iniquity is a failure to do something we have the power to do, in reading Leviticus 5:1 it  becomes clear. If a soul sin and hear the voice of swearing as they witness it, whether he has seen or known of it: if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. It's not the sin, but knowing of it, yet doing nothing. The same could hold true if one hears the call of the Lord, yet does nothing, they have failed to do what they should do, which is iniquity. The premise goes back to the golden calf, when Moses told the people, "Consecrate yourselves today to the Lord, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother: so He may bestow upon you a blessing this day" (Ex 32:29). A blessing for making the golden calf? The blessing was to survive, those who failed to enter the public call were killed by the priests (Ex 32:27-28). This shows it wasn't the priests committing murder, but carrying out the premise of a man holding his own iniquity. They made the golden calf, it was a sin, the iniquity was the failure to repent. They also set aside the feast day, thus it wasn't "doing nothing" it was the failure to do what they knew to do.

The next premise is a "soul" touching any unclean beast, but how can your soul touch anything? Oh, the word Soul means a person, but doesn't the word Soul also mean our mind, will and emotions? Yes, we have a mystery pointing to the New Testament. The soul is the person, the flesh is not. The natural mind turns it completely around, someone thinks if they are beautiful in body it’s who they really are? It's not, the real person is found in the soul, the flesh will cease, the soul goes on forever. Even those who sleep in Jesus wake up at the Judgment.

God created the beast and the creeping things, then called them Good, here He calls them "unclean". This also points to touching the uncleanness of man, showing when we are separated from the world, the prince of the power of the air will attempt to call us back. How? The cares of this world, the deceitfulness of riches, or the lusts for other things. The most dangerous element on this earth is the person who mixes their religion into their politics, God separated them for a reason. Religion failing to separate itself from the world uses the things of the world as religious tools (James 1:27).

The question still remains, if God made these animals saying they were Good, now then did they become unclean? Or did they? Were they unclean to these people under the Law, but the premise was to gain obedience. Therefore, God used the animals as tools to get the children to obey, the animal was only unclean to them. In our case if we don't like it, don't eat it.

Leviticus 5:1 was in reference to iniquity, but verses 2 and 3 are not about Iniquity, rather they show "doing" something, or trespassing, thus we find the word "guilty". This gives us the separation helping us define the concept. However, if one is seduced into those unclean areas, they must Confess the sin, then bring a "female" from the flock (Lev 5:5-6). Why a female? In our case it shows we have sinned against the Body of Christ, placing our position in jeopardy. What sin is this for us? He who says he walks in the Light, yet hates (slanders) his brother is in darkness even until now.

The term Unpardonable sin would seem strange since God will forgive any confessed sin, ahh confessed, it’s the key. Confessed is not merely saying, it’s the attitude of rejecting whatever caused the sin. When a person is to deceived they think their pride, ego and self-motivated slanderous ways are not sin, they won’t ask God for forgiveness. Even if they use the blanket term, "forgive me of all my iniquities and sins", if they continue to slander the Body, they show they don't consider their slanderous attitude a sin. The context in Matthew 12 refers to those who attack the other members of the Body, yet think they are doing God a service. The Corinthians felt they were more holy than Paul, they attempted to prove it by taking him to task, but in the process they used the wrong source, proving  they were a thorn in the flesh.

We know this goes further than food, but it also includes food. If God says no, then it's no, whether it's on the list in the Law or not, but it doesn't mean it's No for everyone. God created things to be received with thanksgiving, but only for those who believe and know the truth (I Tim 4:3). A certain food product could kill those under the power of the devil, but not those in the Faith. It's important to know it's not the food, but the fear giving the food the power to harm. Of course if we infuse a hot dog with poison we are tempting God, we may meet our maker early. Simply, if we can receive it with thanksgiving, then we can eat it, if not, don't eat it. God will tell Jeremiah He never told these people to sacrifice, rather God was looking for obedience (Jere 7:21-23). The food was food, it was the obedience God was seeking, the food was merely a tool to get there.

Also we have to consider these people were vegetarians, red meat or the other white meat (pork) was something they were not used to. God set limits on their consumption, we also have to take into consideration when these rules were being written, they were "manna eaters". If someone in the Body wants to refrain from certain foods, fine, keep it between them and God. Which means they don't impose the restriction on others, they don't consider their refraining as some point of special holiness, they don't make a doctrine out of the refraining. This premise is true with the sabbath, if one wants to keep one day above another, fine, the same applies, they keep it between them and the Lord, with the same premise of not assuming it makes them holier than others, nor do they impose it on others, nor do they make it doctrine.

Going back to the time when Moses stood before Pharaoh, when Moses said the people needed to go to make a "sacrifice" unto God, we can see how any Egyptian would fly into a rage over these eating rules, much less the blood. These were really marks of freedom, God saying some animals were clean was a revelation.

The blood in this case is sprinkled on "the side of the altar", rather than on the Horns, or in the holy place, thus this sin prevents one from entering the presence of God. When the blood was sprinkled on the horns, it meant a restoration into a called power, the sprinkling in the holy place means one is restored to the Commandments. When we are sprinkled with the Blood of Jesus it’s restoration unto the God. The blood of the innocent was how the Law would view the person, in our case the Blood of Jesus is how God views us.

In the trespass offering, we find a Trespass against the people of God, is a trespass against the Lord (Lev 5:19). This will be seen again, thus to sin against the Commandment is one thing, to sin against the people of God another. This is made clear when we read, "If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbor in what was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or has deceived his neighbor; or have found what was lost, and lies concerning it, and swears falsely; in any or all these a man does, sinning therein: then it shall be, because he has sinned and is guilty, he shall restore what he took violently away, or the thing which he has deceitfully gotten, or what was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found" (Lev 6:2-4). Clearly this is "against a neighbor", yet it covers several Commandments, but it's also against the Lord, thus the Lord considers a sin against His people a sin against Him.

Another clue to the Law of Moses being a Witness in the End Times as it’s in company with the Prophets, found in the Judgment of the Law and in the Offerings. The Fire of the Offering shall burn "all night unto the morning" (Lev 6:9). We know they did sacrifices during the daylight hours, but why keep the fire going "all night"? This is a clue to the Night Season, thus the Spirit will be taken in the Rapture, leaving the Law of Moses and words of the Prophets. Would the Father accept a sacrifice of an animal in place of Jesus? Hardly, thus we find the Remnant keeping the Commandments of God. They will have a "little strength", but we have the Strength of Christ. What gives? Division between Day and Night, "even if" one can't reach to the concept of One Author of the Bible being the Holy Ghost, they can at least see the same John who wrote First John, wrote the Book of Revelation. We find in First John, "For whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world: and this is the Victory overcoming the world, even our faith" (I Jn 5:4). Yet, we read in the Book of Revelation, "and he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads" (Rev 13:16). Then we read how people are overcome by the thousands, it simply does not compute, if we fail to Rightly Divide the Word. If we Rightly Divide the Word between the Day and Night, it all makes sense as it builds our faith, rather than cause us run around like chicken little yelling, "The mark is coming, the mark is coming". It's also clear the "head" refers to the person's authority, the hand refers to what they put their might to, the mark refers to money (buy and sell), the love of money is still the root of all evil; doing business as the world is the same as carrying our the will of the Beast of the Sea.

Then comes the Offering of the Meat or Grain, here we find it's Unleavened, or free of being puffed up, anyone who touches this Offering is Holy (Lev 6:17-18). The woman with the issue of blood understood this, in a few chapters we will see the dilemma she was in. However, she knew to Touch the Offering of God would bring her into a holy condition, if she was in a holy condition, she would be healed. Some of us attempt all sorts of ways to gain our breakthrough, formulas, group sessions, or whatever, but we need to Touch Jesus. How can it be done? Not by formula, but by our prayer of faith as we make ourselves open before Him.

The dove presented was divided, but not asunder. We discussed this prior as it relates to Hebrews 4:12. This symbol of the dove pointed to Peace, in this case it was peace with the Law, but with Jesus it became time for man to have Peace with God.

When we say these various sacrifices are akin to our prayer life, it’s not saying these people didn't pray, on the contrary, they did; however, they prayed in accordance with the Covenant given them, we pray In the Name of Jesus.

Consuming blood for these people was highly prohibited, but in our case, the taking of the Blood of Jesus is crucial to our Salvation. These people were not strangers to blood, rather the blood of the animals was sprinkled on the book, the people and the Tabernacle, but they were not allowed to drink it; although we don’t drink the actual Blood of Jesus, the symbol was enough to send any Jew into the street yelling, “The curse, the curse”.

The Sin Offerings also hold a type and shadow for us, the priest who presents the offering shall eat of it (Lev 6:26). This is clearly a type and shadow of we as priests partaking of the Sacrifice of Jesus.

It would sound strange if we consider the offering was made to balance sin, but once the offering was given it was not unclean. This was not a faith issue, but one where the priest trusted in the office and Law. If the priest refused to eat of the sacrifice, it would show they really didn't trust in God, or trust in the regulations of their office. When the Trespass Offering was eaten by the priests, it was eaten in the holy place, in the very presence of the Shewbread and Menorah (Lev 7:6). The Body of Christ is found as the type and shadow of the Shewbread. Jesus said He was not the manna, rather the fathers ate the manna and died, but Jesus came to bring us Life (Jn 6:58). The Shewbread was made of flour purchased from the outlining countries around the wilderness, representing Nations as many, not nation as one, pointing to “neither Jew or Gentile in Christ”.

In Leviticus 7:18 we find another opposite, the priest was not to eat of the offering if it was on the Third Day. Then we read, "it shall be an abomination, and the soul who eats of it shall bear his iniquity". How could this be an iniquity? Failure to leave it alone, thus the iniquity would lead to sin. However, for us, we partake of the Body based on Jesus being Resurrected on the Third Day. Ahh, another mystery, an opposite to consider. The Shadow says it's an abomination, but the Image says if we don't partake, we are in iniquity.

We see the phrase, "the soul shall be cut off from his people" in many areas, it's interesting we don't see the phrase, "the spirit shall be cut off". Adam was a living soul, not a living spirit, thus the context points to the soul of man, rather than the flesh. Who are the people? Those subject to the Covenant, the phrase would be a removal of the person from the Covenant. What about us, who partake of the Body and Blood? We are found in Revelation 7:9 before the Throne of God when the Night begins, thus the saving of the soul keeps us from being Cut Off.

The phrase Cut Off becomes one of importance, it's the Hebrew Katath meaning To cut off a part of the body. This points to the Broken Body of Jesus, thus showing the Rapture is seen in the Shadow. Paul didn't sit around one day and say, "Hey, Luke, how does this sound, The catching away? Do you think it would make a good sermon?", then Luke would say, "hey catchy, I like it". The Holy Ghost took Paul on a trip through the Scriptures, opening the many mysteries, the Rapture, or Catching Away is one of them. Paul didn't make these things up, neither did John. John uses the same Greek word Paul did for "catching away" to show Jesus being Caught up, after the First Resurrection. We are partakers of the First Resurrection by the Spirit, so it stands John was correct in using the same word, giving us two witnesses, the fact is affirmed (Rev 12:5). The Rapture is not a separate Resurrection, nor is it the Last, it's completes the First Resurrection, which Resurrection was the Resurrection of Jesus; the same Spirit who raised Him, will raise us.

The Body of Jesus was beaten before the Cross, the Cross was before the Resurrection, thus the Breaking will be before the First Resurrection is complete. There are two Greek words for the word Resurrection, one meaning An energy or power from within, the other meaning an energy or power from without (Ph'l 3:10-11). The energy from within points to the First Resurrection, showing a Life before the fact, this Resurrection has three elements, one part taken, another sleep through the Night, the third go into Night. The last resurrection is produced from an energy from without, or a standing up, it has two elements, one Unto life, showing they didn't have life prior, the other unto damnation, showing they rejected Mercy. Therefore, it's not the resurrection, but Life making the difference. In our case it's having Life before the fact, on the last day it's Unto Life (Jn 5:29)

There are some areas in the Law of Moses which seem strange, for instance, why the "right shoulder"? (Lev 7:32). Why not both? Or why not one, or the other, rather than the right? Why even the shoulder? The metaphor Shoulder (singular) points to Government, as the Government of the Kingdom is at the Shoulder (singular) of Jesus. It's not the Head, not the Neck, not the foot, it's the Shoulder as one (Isa 9:6). Doesn't Jesus have Two Shoulders? Yes, James and John found the error in wanting to be on both sides of Jesus (Mark 10:35-38).The Corinthians placed a Yoke on the neck by introducing a carnal system where spiritually should be, so much so, the congregation had to remain silent in the meeting, while they had to learn at home. Jesus is on the right hand side of Majesty, making the government on His right side.

The priest order for the Law of Moses must remain, "throughout their generations", pointing to more than one generation, but still limited to the specific group, "their", rather than "Mine", or "All" (Lev 7:36). The Law of Moses is for the earth, the Law of the Spirit from heaven for the heavenly Born Again believers. We have One Generation, the Law of Moses has two, one before the Cross, then one for the Night.

It's no secret God is still working with the nation Israel, the evidence is the little country surrounded by more enemies than most of us have shoes, yet they remain. If God wasn't involved with them, they would never be able to remain this long. However, it doesn't mean God has left us, or switched fields. None of us would assume for one minute God has left the Body to fend for itself, thus God is working two areas at the same time.  The Book of Revelation tells us an angel (two wings as a great eagle) is watching of the nation (Rev 12:14). On one hand He is working with us regarding the Day, on the other He is preserving the Lesser Light in the wilderness so it can rule the Night unto Judgment.

Next comes the Ordination of Aaron and his sons, which will include the Garment, the Anointing Oil, Water, with a Sacrifice. Sounds like something we go through? It’s the shadow, but nonetheless a clue. In the case of Aaron and his sons the Garment is what made them holy, but we can wear all sorts of fancy garments, yet not be holy, thus for us it's the New Man created (or formed) with God's True Holiness as our sign of holiness. For the Office it’s the anointing of the Office covering the person appointed to the Office.

The Anointing Oil is the same found in Exodus, it was made Once and only Once, showing we are seeing an extension of the first anointing done in the tabernacle back in Exodus. On the same note, anyone who copies this oil is cut off from their people, thus we use Olive Oil, which is a type of the Mercy Anointing, based on the sermon on the Mount of Olives.

The Water is a type of mercy, the first thing Aaron and his sons did was to wash in the Water (Lev 8:6). This doesn't mean they were baptized, they were washed. There are two water baptisms, one is John's unto repentance, saying the people should believe on Jesus, which ended with John, then ours saying we do believe on Jesus. Ours is of course under the Name (Authority) of Jesus. "Ah gee, I was baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost". Yeah, so, it's still "the Name", all authority was given to Jesus, He sent us, thus The "Name" of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is still the "Name" of Jesus. It's not a matter of semantics, but position. Only those in the Body of Christ have the God given lawful right to baptize others, thus they are in the Name (Authority) of Jesus by being in the Body.

Moses placed the garment on Aaron, then Moses "put in" the breastplate the Urim and Thummim (Lev 8:8). Who made these things? They weren't among the constructed items in Exodus. Why in the Breastplate, why not in the man? We know they refer to Light and Perfection, thus Moses placed them into the Breastplate of Judgment by the laying on of hands, a shadow connecting to the Doctrine of the Laying on of hands found in the Doctrine of Christ.

Didn't Moses do all this before? No, Moses was Commanded to do it in Exodus, when the Lord came to Moses on the first day of the first month in the second year, which begins Leviticus, thus we have an extension of events fitting into the commands given in Exodus. The correlation is seen in our baptisms, Water as our Token of acceptance of God's Mercy, the Holy Ghost to receive the Spirit as the Lord's Token of Grace.

After Moses anointed the tabernacle, he anointed Aaron, but wasn't Aaron standing there with the Garments on? This type points to our Process of Salvation, first we are given all it takes to complete the task, then God anoints us as His Tabernacle, then the New Man becomes the Anointing within us. This all leads to the phrase "to make reconciliation upon it" (Lev 8:15). The Brazen Altar was the place of reconciliation for these people, ours is the Throne of Grace.

Moses then places the blood of the sacrifice on the right ear of Aaron, on Aaron's right thumb, then Aaron's right great (big) toe (Lev 8:23). Sounds more like some lodge meeting, but we also recall the shoulder pertains to government. If the Law of Moses was on the side of the priest, then the right hand side of the priest was toward the people. If Jesus is on the right hand side of Majesty on High, then our right side is to the people as well. The right ear was for Hearing, the right thumb was used to spread the blood, the right great toe was the first thing to enter the holy place. All this was a sign pointing to the people, thus the Ministry unto the Lord was service toward the people of the Lord.

Jesus spent three days in the grave, was among His disciples for forty days, giving us 43 days, but it's fifty days between Passover and Pentecost, leaving seven days.  Mary was not allowed to touch Jesus, but eight days later Jesus told Thomas to touch Him (20:17 & 20:26-27). What changed? The Sacrifice is holy before it's presented, no one can touch it and live. It wasn't because Mary was a female, or Thomas a male, it was the eight days between (Lev 8:33-35). We also read in Matthew, "they came and held Him by the feet" (Matt 28:9). Matthew used a word meaning restraining, or taking power over, but John used a word meaning to touch connecting to the concept we find here. So, is Matthew wrong? Not at all, he shows they were holding Jesus to the earth, not really touching Him, rather it's the same context as Mark, their unbelief was binding Him. Yeah, but they worshipped Him! Yes, but they lacked the Spirit and Truth, thus one can worship the Lord, yet still hold unbelief.

The shadow gives us a big clue to the Season of the Day, in the Book of Hebrews we find the Father telling the Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever" (Heb 1:8). The phrase "forever and ever" might seem redundant, but we find the word "forever" refers to the end of One Season, then the added "ever" means without end, usually referring to another Season, and so on, and so on. There is really no word for "eternity" in the Greek, thus we find phrases like "beginning and end", or "alpha and omega", or "without end", or "never ceases", all pointing to eternity. The word "eternity" is only found in one place in the entire Bible (Isa 57:15), as the Hebrew Ad meaning everlasting. Eternity is a place without the confines of time, it is always Now without end. If one has Joy for the second, in eternity they have it without end.

Then it came to pass "on the eighth day" Moses called Aaron and his sons and the elders of Israel, as they presented a calf and a lamb, both of the first year, along with a bullock and a ram (Lev 9:1-4). These four types are seen as One in Jesus, the calf, lamb, ram and bullock give us types, not the actual. When Jesus gave Himself, the premise, "Now is come Salvation" was in hand (Rev 12:10). With Salvation came Strength, the Kingdom of our God and the Power of His Christ, all four areas are related, yet separated (Rev 12:10). This is not "a little strength", but The Strength coming from the Greater Light for us to Rule the Day, of course the world is still in darkness, thus we don’t rule the world, we rule the Day.

Aaron had to make atonement for himself, Jesus didn't, thus the offering of Jesus is far better than Aaron’s. Jesus being "self-less" didn't have to offer a thing for Himself, but Aaron being self-based did, thus anyone who attempts to gain entry into the Kingdom by their self-efforts is a thief and a robber, even if they use the Law of Moses as a basis. Why? The Law of Moses is not able to grant anyone the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom suffered violence (self-righteousness) until it was presented in Jesus, then the Violent (energy from an outside source) take it by force (energy of the Spirit). Any other attempt makes one a thief.

After Aaron did all he was commanded, he was promised the "Glory of the Lord shall appear" to him, but in our case the Glory of the Lord is in us (Lev 9:6 & Rom 8:18). We find the "flesh and hide" of the sacrifice was taken and burnt without the camp (Lev 9:11). Does it mean Jesus was cremated? Hardly, it means our Baptism with Fire is to burn away the flesh and carnal mind.

Moses then placed "the head" of the Sacrifice on the Brazen Altar, does it mean we are going to be "beheaded"? In a metaphoric sense yes, but it's understanding the term refers to Authority; when John the Baptist was beheaded the Greek word used for Beheaded was Apokephalizo meaning to take one's head from off their body, which would be the actual beheading as we know it. However, in Revelation 20:4 in reference to those "beheaded" for Jesus it’s the Greek word Pelekizo meaning To chop off with something sharp, it would appear it's one and the same, but it's not. In order for one to be "beheaded" for Jesus they must submit to a Head not their own, while denying the use of their own. The "cutting" refers to circumcision, for us it's the cutting away of the old heart, so the New Man can be our New Head (Authority). The cutting instrument used? The Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, dividing asunder (Heb 4:12).

After all this was done the Fire of the Lord came and consumed the burnt offering on the Altar (Lev 9:24). This type is again looking at our Baptism of Fire, none of us can become "self-sacrifices", we present ourselves as living sacrifices, we don't consume ourselves. The various sacrifices never sacrificed themselves, they were the sacrifices, thus we give ourselves by allowing the Anointing (Christ) to crucify us.

Now the work for the priests was set, they had their manual, garments, order, and the anointing. Of course the first thing we're going to read about is how faithful they were, right? Wrong, we will now find out what happens when we move to fast forgetting the most important ingredient.

Aaron had four sons, two of them were Nadab and Abihu, the name Nadab means Liberal, or Freely offered, the name Abihu means Worshiper of Him, but we will find they didn't live up to their name's. Nadab and Abihu will venture into a place they should not go, which is a transgression, but they will also fail to carry out the duties of their office, which makes them unequal or in iniquity. They wanted to do something the high priest was assigned to do, but lacked the authority, as well as the proper equipment and position. This is termed Usurping Authority, or using the authority of another without permission.

Nadab and Abihu took their own censors, put fire therein, then put incense thereon, then offered "strange fire" before the Lord and died (Lev 10:1-2). They presented one type of fire, but with the wrong vessel causing the Lord to "devoured them". Not only did they use the wrong vessel, but they were missing a vital ingredient. God’s Integrity was the issue, the Order of the priests was specific. Didn't all the priests have Censors? Yes, even Korah had a censer, Aaron will be told to take his censer and fill it with coals, just as these two sons of Aaron did (Lev 16:12). Aaron was also told to take incense, just as these two sons did (Lev 16:12). Wait, Aaron is told to put the sweet incense beaten small in his hands, then when he moves past the Veil, he is to place it upon the fire (Lev 16:12-13). The word for Strange in the phrase Strange Fire is the Hebrew Zuwr (zoor) meaning to become estranged, or a stranger, or something foreign to the purpose. The position of the two sons was not as the high priest, the warning is we are priests, Jesus is our High Priest, there are duties in our office, but we do not have the authority to act as High Priest.

In this case the two sons usurped the authority of the high priest, yet one would think the anointing of the office would protect them, as it did Aaron, but Aaron didn't misuse his office, the two sons did. The wicked sit in the temple of God, saying they are God, thus they also think they can enact laws, regulations, appoint to the Offices, yet they are usurping the authority of the Holy Ghost, in essence they are tossing Strange Fire into the Kingdom.

These two sons of Aaron missed something in the process, we can't assume they were drunk based on Leviticus giving the warning regarding drinking before going into the tabernacle (Lev 10:9); they were drunk with power, they misused their position, by using the wrong vessel. This same context is used by Paul when he speaks of the Wicked as the drunken who go into the Night (I Thess 5:7).

Then we move to the dietary law, to a Jew the swine is the ultimate of the Unclean, thus there is no "Kosher Ham". The swine played a role in the New Testament when certain Jews used a mad man to guard their black market pigs. When Jesus came on the scene, He put the black market pig business into bankruptcy, when He freed the mad man. The pigs were used to clean the garbage bins, or keep areas clean, but in the process they had to consume the waste and death. This isn't to say pigs are filthy or unclean to us, rather it shows how mixing into death (the world) makes us unclean.

Generally many of the animals were scavengers, as they fed off of dead, or discarded foods, as a sign to these people. They knew they were separated from the rest of the world, thus to them Clean pointed to their nation, the unclean to the Gentile. So, did God create the pig as a garbage eater? No, there was no death or garbage when the animals were formed or created. The animals had to be forced to leave their natural calling, to enter a calling which gave them life from eating death. The Jew under the Law was to remember how death was the result of sin, not a reward for good service. Today we find pigs being raised for food,  by feeding the meal, thus, Paul says if we can give thanksgiving we can eat it (I Tim 4:3-4). We know God used the animals as tools to gain obedience from the people. Of course if we can't receive it with thanksgiving, don't eat it.

They could eat locusts, thus John the Baptist came eating locusts, but he kept getting the little legs caught in his teeth (humor, not fact). The locusts come to devour, but only once in awhile, thus they are representative of a religious spirit, or religious conceit. The Pharisees were metaphorically Locusts, they came attempting to eat the Wheat before it had a chance to grow. Jesus called the Pharisees of their father the devil, the deeds of their father they would do. Whenever someone was healed, they sought the fault, really all they did was seek fault. Surely they felt they were being "led" of God, yet we find they traveled great distances just to find fault (Mark 7:2 & 7:15). Locusts lay in wait for a time, but when they come, they do so to devour. The Pharisees were in the Temple doing their duties, until John the Baptist came on the scene, then they began to devour.

For years man assumed the Bible was in error since science said the rabbit lacked a cud, yet the Bible says a rabbit has one (Lev 11:6). Poor Moses, but wait, then came the discovery, "you know, we found the rabbit does chew a cud", it only took them about 5,000 years to catch up with the Bible, but nonetheless over the process of time they confirmed the Bible.

Then comes the real clue, "of all which move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you" (Lev 11:10). The phrase "living thing" is the same Hebrew wording found in the phrase "living soul". What? Yes, it's the very same Hebrew words, these "living souls" were Good in the beginning; however, the clue comes from the words Waters and Seas, which are different. The word Seas is the Hebrew Yam, but the word Waters is the Hebrew Mayim. The Hebrew Yam was used for the words Sea and Lake, it was also connected to the idea of the "foaming of the sea", which is the clue here. Jude tells us the Wicked are as raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame (Jude 13). Prophets tend to use many metaphors, Jude being an apostle and prophet gives us a book full of metaphors. If one was to take his comments as written we would end assuming the Wicked are bunch of wells, waves, spots, or trees without fruit, hardly the case, the metaphors speak of a type, just as we find the Shadow speaking of a type. This is made clearer by the use of the Hebrew Mayim which speaks of bad water, such as Urine, or Wasting water, thus this is a reference to "bitter water", which is a metaphor for one who lacks mercy. These things are Unclean to us, since their garments are spotted, from such turn away (II Tim 3:5). Nonetheless the actual "living soul" in the sea would be the whale, thus they were not allowed to eat the whale, since the whale lacks scales.

Okay, okay, but what about the scales? Scales are a metaphor for something, guess what. The Armor? Right, scales represent a form of Armor, thus the scales protect the fish, but they are external; however, the Armor of God begins as internal by the New Man, then we submit by putting on the New Man, as we allow the New Man on the inside, to manifest on the outside then we have the Armor of God.

Of course here under the Law we find some fish have scales, some have a skin  lacking scales. We know a "catfish" has a skin but no scales, thus the "fish with the skin" is unclean. What do you think it  would mean to us? Flesh? Yes the "good fish" lack Flesh, but the "bad fish" still walk in the Skin (Flesh).

The creatures who crawl along on their "belly" are truly unclean, to the Jew and us,  referring to the serpent and his band (Lev 11:42). Jesus made sure we have authority over all the power of the enemy, yet we don't take pride in our power, since it was granted by Jesus, rather we rejoice over our names being written in heaven.

The Purification of Women, helps us understand some of the events around the Birth of Jesus. Mary and Joseph took the baby Jesus to the Temple in Jerusalem to be circumcised when Jesus was eight days old, there Mary gave a sacrifice of a dove. Some seem to think Joseph and Mary were poor, thus all they could afford were doves. It’s not the case at all, the sacrifice called for two doves. After two weeks if the child is a female, or seven weeks if the child is a male another sacrifice would be made, but it would be separated from the eight day sacrifice. Then she shall bring a lamb of the first year for the child (Lev 12:1-8). The sacrifice for Mary was a dove, not a lamb, since it was for her, not the child (Lev 12:6 & Luke 2:24). For the child a dove would not do, it says a Lamb, yet Jesus as the Lamb of God was sacrificed for the children of God. Mary gave her sacrifice for the issue of blood, at the same time they had Jesus circumcised (Luke 2:21-24).

The incorporation of circumcision on the Eighth Day is found in the Abrahamic Covenant, in the Law of Moses it’s found in Leviticus 12:3, but Leviticus isn't the first time these people heard the word Circumcision. Back in Exodus 12:48 part of the requirement for the Passover taken by a stranger was for the stranger be circumcised, all the males who came out of Egypt were circumcised, but the generation who followed were not (Joshua 5:3-5). No wonder Paul said circumcision avails nothing, they were circumcised, yet died in the wilderness. What about Moses? When Moses was looking at the burning bush was he circumcised or not? We know he wasn't at the time, yet  became circumcised after the call, but before going to Pharaoh. What about Abraham? Was he circumcised to obtain the Covenant? No, after, as the uncircumcised Abraham obtained a Covenant for the circumcised. Really we are in a like position, only we find we are circumcised not by hands, as we gain a New Heart by the New Birth.

Will the Law of Moses or the Ten Commandments get one into the Kingdom? No, when Jesus was in the Temple a scribe asked him, "which is the first commandment of all?", of course we know the question was a trap. There are those who lie in wait, they form questions with traps hidden in them, the trap in this question was determining if one is talking about the Law of Moses, or simply the Ten Commandments, or one of the 613 Commandments? Jesus answered it this way, "The first of all Commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord: and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength: this is the First Commandment. And the second is like, namely this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is none other commandment greater than these" (Mark 12:28-31). Where is it? The Commandments don't specifically say those words; Jesus summed up the purpose of the Commandments giving a lesson in a lesson. How does it begin? Hear, have ears to Hear, if we Hear we are ready to obey. When the scribe agreed, Jesus told him, "you are not far from the kingdom of God" (Mark 12:34). The word Far means at a distance, but why? It was not time, the Kingdom was "at hand" not "in hand", but the scribe was close based on his admission. In the Book of Revelation the phrases "first love" and "second love" point to our Love for the Lord, then our Love for the people, there is no "third love". Paul makes the same point, we can have Acts, even moving mountains so fast one can't count them, but without Love it profits us nothing. There are many who say they keep the Ten Commandments, but without Love as their foundation, they keep nothing.

Leviticus 12:8 explains Luke 2:24, confirming Joseph and Mary were not poor people, neither were they rich, they were middle class, or as we know it, "just common folk". There are no verses to show they were either poor or rich, for some reason some of us want to make them poor to ignore God's prosperity, others want to make them so rich they owned half of Israel. Luke 2:24 tells us the sacrifice given was in accordance with the requirement, not according to their income or lack thereof.

The ministry of Jesus proved the prosperity of God when He said, "the Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me" (Luke 4:18). The Spirit of the Lord is the prosperity of God, we prosper as our souls prosper (III Jn 1:2). We can have all the money in the world, but if our soul is not prospering, we're not prospering.

Joseph and Mary traveled a distance, they had no idea the Child would be born. Even the most uncaring of fathers would have made some arrangement if he knew his wife was going to give birth, thus Joseph figured to pay the tax, go home, have the baby, but God had another plan. After Jesus was born they took the child to Jerusalem where Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day as the Law dictated, then Mary gave her sacrifice as the Law requires. They were a distance from home, they never figured on having to take care of these deeds away from home. They were near Jerusalem, what was Joseph to do? Jump in the car and run home to get a lamb? Perhaps he could buy one, come on, he couldn't even find a room, much less a lamb of the first year (Lev 12:6). However, the Law gave them a choice, they took the choice (Lev 12:8). Perhaps they could have used the gifts from the Magi? No, Matthew shows the Magi found Jesus at the "house", not the stable, meaning they appeared later, nearly two years later (Matt 2:9-11).

Here in the Law the next area is the law of leprosy, but why? Why put these laws right after the requirements of the birth? Does it mean children are prone to leprosy? Not at all, this is the area of "cleaning", just as there were provisions in the Law for healing, there were provisions for cleaning. The plague of leprosy metaphorically had outward signs to show an inward condition, but the actual disease is the point here. Often we attempt to cure the bad fruit, without replacing the tree. The same fruit comes back time and again. When Jesus healed the Lepers it was total, from the inside out, for us it's a Tree (Heart) change to bring a different fruit.

This aspect of the Law pertained to those within the Law, thus it pertained to the Called of God. Any of us can have "spots" of leprosy on our soul, making us in need a healing, and a cleaning. Leviticus 13:13 says, "it is all turned white: he is clean", thus we entered the Kingdom we had Spots of unrighteousness (leprosy), but the Blood of Jesus cleans us from all unrighteousness so we can obtain our White Robe of the Resurrection.

There is leprosy, and there is the "fretting leprosy" (Lev 13:51), the word Fretting means Bitterness, with the thought of bitterness bringing the leprosy. We can enter a state of Bitterness, wherein we use anger, hate, slander, deception or other outward products of a leprous heart, but it need not be so. For these people the cure was found in the hands of the priest, in our case it's found in the Blood of the Lamb of God.

The healings of Jesus before the Cross were based in Mercy, Grace was not a factor until Pentecost. Nonetheless we find Mercy is very powerful element in our walk. Jesus said the Traditions of man make the Word to none effect, or better, the traditions of men cause the Word to lose its effectiveness for us. Jesus healed the sick, cleaned the leapers, but if there is provision in the Law of Moses, why didn't the priests heal them? The Word became ineffective for the priests, there isn't one recorded case where we find the priests saying, "we do that!", rather they allowed the Letter of the Law to bind them, thus the traditions of men cause divisions, divisions produce strife, strife causes a massive reduction in power. This is evident in the Gospel account, Jesus healed a leper, then told the man, "show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them" (Matt 8:4). This was not a testimony for the leper, or for Jesus, it was against the priests, for not doing what they should do.

Here in Leviticus we find the "gift", it begins with two clean live birds, then Cedar Wood, Scarlet, and Hyssop. The Cedar, Scarlet and Hyssop are types of the Cross of Jesus. One of the birds has to die, one must be killed in an "earthen vessel over running water" (Lev 14:5). The water relates to Mercy, but the death relates to the Cross, as we impute the old nature (flesh) dead, in order to gain the New. The word Running is the same Hebrew word translated as Living in the phrase "living soul", thus the vessel is over the Water washing away the unclean to bring the Clean. Living Water is different than a living soul, Adam was a living soul, but he was not privy to Living Water. Water being a metaphor for Mercy, the Living in our case points to the Spirit of Life in us, not as a living soul, but as Life by the Spirit, giving us Mercy with Life coming from within (Jn 7:37-38). The Washing of the Water (Mercy) by the Word (Spirit in us) is a cleaning action, thus Mercy has many qualities, especially when we combine it with Grace.

We're not told in the Gospel if the man with leprosy did as he was told, or not, but we find the reason is for the priest to make the sacrifice proclaiming the healing (Lev 14:7). If it’s the case, then the priests knew Jesus healed, their actions confirmed it. We find the high priest really didn't mind Jesus healing, the issue was Jesus healing on the sabbath. The high priest and the Pharisees would say, "the Law doesn't say you can", but Jesus would respond with, "where does it say I can't?". It seems to be the dividing point between someone who wants to, and those who want to stop what’s going on. Until the Law of Moses was nailed to the Cross it was still in full force and effect for the people, thus we find to some Jesus told them to comply to the Law. The Mercy of God endures forever, His Grace is but for a Season.

The fact remains the Law of Moses had provisions for healings, but did we notice something missing in Leviticus 14:1-32? The sacrifices are "unto the Lord", but where is Prayer? How about Praise? How about a simple Thank You Lord? The Law stood before them, the sacrifice was presented to the Lord through the Law. The person was a non-entity, only the deed counted. Each deed was like another, the Law recognized the deed for the moment. Self-righteousness is only good by the deed for the moment, once done, the effort must begin again. It was not keeping one sabbath day to complete the Law, it was to keep them all. In our case we are covered by the One True Sacrifice given Once for all time.

Then comes the "running issue", here the Shadow points to something from a sore on a person's body, but in our case it's the rubbish coming out of our mouths. If one has an issue then "spits upon him who is clean; then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even" (Lev 15:8). My, my, my, ever have someone with a running issue from their mouth spit on you? We all have, Paul called them "darts", but he also told us "Be you angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath" (Eph 4:26). We're going to get angry, but the anger causes us to act, speak, or becomes our motivation, we have sinned. Any emotion ruling over us, is a ruler of darkness making us a slave to the emotion. Saved emotions are tools of service, unsaved are weapons of darkness against Mercy.

Next the Law covers a "woman with an issue of blood", from this we can find the Faith the woman with the issue of blood had when she touched Jesus (Mark 5:25-34). The Law spoke of the condition, but her faith was not in the Law healing her. The healing of the woman with the issue of blood holds many things for us. She never went to the priests, rather she spent her money on doctors (Luke 8:43). We also find Jesus wasn't on His way to heal her, yet she was on her way to be healed. It seems Jesus healed in one of three circumstances: when someone asked for their self, when someone asked for another, and when no one asked. There are times when Jesus said, "your faith has made you whole", other times when He didn't, but two things we know, He never said, "your faith has made you sick", nor did He ever say, "No way, you're unclean, heal you, never. I won't even touch you". We do find one place where Jesus didn't heal someone, but He nonetheless raised the person from the dead (Jn 11:1-57).

Under the Law of Moses a woman with an issue of blood was unclean, whosoever touched her was also unclean (Lev 15:19). Interesting isn't it? One could argue the woman touched Jesus, He didn't touch her, it doesn't matter under the Law, if she touched, or was touched both she and the person touched would be unclean. However, we find the power of Mercy, not only was she made clean, but Jesus was not made unclean. The complete opposite of the Law happened, because of faith, mercy, and virtue (power). This also shows when we walk in Mercy by the Spirit we need not fear of some “uncleanness” being transferred to us when we lay hands on the sick.

Under the Law a woman with an issue of blood had to be healed before she could give her sacrifice (Lev 15:28), but this poor woman couldn't get healed in order to give her sacrifice, she remained unclean for twelve years. Her faith in Jesus knew if she touched the hem of His garment she would be healed, why the Hem? The Hem was representative of the Veil, she was reaching through the veil to touch the Mercy of the Lord. Her faith was important, but why her faith? It was still future tense, perhaps moments away, but still future, thus she Believed Jesus could heal her, coupled to her faith, she gained the result.

Jairus was a "ruler of the synagogue", his was a test of belief. Prior he told Jesus, "come lay hands on my daughter, and she shall live". The "shall live" part was the premise for his belief. Therefore, for the woman it was her faith, for Jairus it was, "only believe". According to the Law, the second the woman touched Jesus, both she and Jesus would be unclean, if Jesus is unclean, how could He heal the daughter of Jairus? We then find those coming from the house of Jairus with the "news of death", thus the belief of Jairus was really on the line, yet Jesus said, "be not afraid, only believe" (Mark 5:36). Jarius was raised in the Law, he put his traditions and training to one side, yet his belief was based in what he said, he asked Jesus to come, lay hands on his daughter so she would live, Jesus was walking to the house, so she would live, only believe.

This now takes us to the "Day of Atonement", and the famed Scapegoat, the one sent into the Wilderness with the sins of the people (Lev 16:20-22). The Scapegoat becomes a factor only after the Reconciling in the holy place has taken place, thus there is no Scapegoat until there is first a Reconciling (Lev 16:20). This has to be a shadow, since these people could not be reconciled unto God as long as the Law stood between them and God, but we can, the goat is representative of the old nature. The saying You shall sow what you reap in our case is taken care of when we send the old man away.

The Lord told Moses to tell Aaron the high priest could not pass the veil and enter the holy of holies where the Mercy Seat and Ark were located (Lev 16:2). There was an entire array of things Aaron had to do before he could enter the holiest of all (Lev 16:3-7), including the scapegoat (Lev 16:8). The atonement is strange at best, the goat picked is picked by lot, not prayer, or by blemish, or lack thereof. Instead of sacrificing it first, it must be presented (Lev 16:10). It was also important for a "cloud" to be raised in the holiest of all to cover the mercy seat, as a "cloud of witness" (metaphorically). The cloud also verified how there was a separation between God and the people. While this goat was still being used we find a bullock was killed, then it’s blood sprinkled on the mercy seat (Lev 16:15). Then Aaron was to go back into the holy place to make the atonement (Lev 16:16). It's much more than saying, "Lord forgive me, I have sinned": our Covenant is better.

The Day of Atonement was once a year, as the only day wherein the high priest was allowed to enter the holy of holies. The other days of the year, even on the other feast days the priest would operate in the Courtyard or holy place, but not in the holy of holies. The Shadow shows the weaknesses of man, even if they were a high priest, yet Jesus didn't give a Sacrifice for Himself to enter the Most Holy in heaven, but gave the ultimate self-less Sacrifice of all time so we could enter. From what Jesus has done we have boldness and access by His Faith through the Spirit to come to the throne of Grace to obtain Mercy and Find Grace in the time of need (Eph 3:18, 4:12 & Heb 4:16).

The Day of Atonement is called "Yom Kippur" by the Jew, although today there is no temple in which the high priest can enter, they nonetheless call it "the most solemn day". Yom Kippur follows Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year), not only is it a day of rest, but the taking of food and drink are also strictly forbidden, making it a day of fasting as well. The day of Yom Kippur begins just prior to sunset with public evening services, commencing with the traditional prayer of Kol Nidre. The all day services of Yom Kippur conclude with the Neilah with a blast of the Shofar (trumpet). Today rather than sacrifices they offer prayers centered in a reconciliation with the Commandments, making peace with their fellow man, the same purpose as we find here; however, the reconciliation was still unto the Ten Commandments by the Law, rather than reconciling to God directly. Paul said the ministry of Grace is, "all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ" (II Cor 5:18-19). The only method of reconciliation between man and God is through Jesus, thus the reconciliation by the Law of Moses was between man and the Commandments.

The Shofar is a Hebrew term applied to the horn of the ram known to us as the "Last Trump", or the second of the two. The Shofar was used in Bible times for many events, signals of alarm, proclaiming important national events, as well as announcing or ushering in the Sabbath or festivals days. The Jewish New Year being connected to Yom Kippur shows why the Holy Ghost prompted Paul to use the term "Last Trump" in reference to the Catching Away, rather than Great or First (I Cor 15:52). According to Jewish tradition they feel one special New Year will come when God will lock up the devil, then open the Promise known as the "Time of Comfort", to us it’s the 1,000 years of the Night. The basis of their belief is the Hebrews have never possessed the entire land promised to Abraham. In Joel we find the phrase "sound the alarm" (Joel 2:1), but here it refers to the Great Trump, which will announce the downfall of Jerusalem as the opening the Day of Judgment (Isa 27:13).

The Last Trump is not the Last Trump blown, rather it's the Last of two Trumps from the Ram. The Ram only has two horns, the First Trump was sounded when God wanted to be among his people described in Exodus, yet the noise of the First Trump didn't stop until Jesus came. We find three Trumps, the First, the Last of the Two, then the Great. The Last Trump marks the Rapture, with the opening of the House of David; the Great Trump sounds the Great Judgment: we will see many areas regarding these trumps along the way (I Cor 15:52, I Thess 4:16, Rev 4:1, 8:13, 9:14 & Isa 27:13) .

The Scapegoat being used here is important as we consider the Field and Broken Body of Jesus. This type begins with Two Rams, one will be given to God, the other will bear the sins. These are rams, not sheep, yet the false prophet comes as a lamb, but with two horns, one larger than the other, as he speaks as a dragon (Rev 13:11). However, here we find something a little different, metaphorically the ram kept represents the wicked in our Season, they have the opportunity to repent, right up to the Rapture; however, in the next Season they will bear their sins being found in the Lake of Fire at the Judgment (Rev 20:10).

The priests cast lots regarding the rams, one of the rams is "for the Lord", the other "for the scapegoat" (Lev 16:8). The scapegoat is presented alive before the Lord, afterward the scapegoat is taken into the wilderness, never to return. The Shadow had to use two, one was banished, the other presented to the Lord. During the Season of the Day we find the Tares, or Wicked are still presented to the Lord, they are still in the Body, thus as long as the Body is not broken there is time. On the other hand there are the Sheep, those who are not rams, goats, or tares, they are the ones who seek the saving of their souls.

The high priest must make atonement for himself first, then he takes the censer full of burning coals from the brazen altar, with his other hand full of sweet incense beaten into small portions into the holy of holies. While in the holy of holies he shall put the incense upon the fire in his censer before the Lord (Lev 16:12-13). Wait, isn't it what the two sons of Aaron did, yet they died? Yes they did die, No, they didn't do the same thing. They mixed the fire and incense in the holy place, not in the holy of holies, God never authorized the priests to conduct the service at anytime whether in the holy place or holy of holies, rather it was to be done by the high priest, then only once a year.

The regulations for the Day of Atonement, like the Law, are "forever", but one must define the word Forever before they assume it means Forever and Ever. Jesus said, "Think, you I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt 5:17-18). First He said He came to Fulfill, then defined the term Forever as "till heaven and earth pass away", thus this Forever has an end (Rev 20:12). He didn't say heaven and earth shall never pass away, rather in Matthew 24:35 He said heaven and earth will pass away, but His words will not. The Law has a time when it will cease when the Judgment is complete. Even if one does pass the "books", they still have to find their name in the Book of Life (Rev 20:13-15). The Law of Moses will be the "books" used to judge those who use deeds from the Law to gain favor. It’s so much better to be in the Blood of Jesus (Dan 7:10 & Rev 20:12).

It's also interesting we find two different Greek words used for the word Fulfill in Matthew 5:17 then Fulfilled in Matthew 5:18. In Matthew 5:17 it's the Greek Pleroo meaning To make full, as one would fill a vessel to the brim, but in Matthew 5:18 it's the Greek Ginomai meaning To have come into existence, or simply To be, thus the Law has a purpose beyond our Season, it becomes a Witness with the Prophets during the Night. The Two Witnesses of the Law and Prophets stood on the mount with Jesus, but the Father said, "hear ye Him", not "hear ye them" (Matt 17:5).

The End Times is divided into two seasons, if we just keep it the two parts of Day and Night we will save ourselves many theological headaches. The first Season is the Day, it runs from the opening of the Day with Jesus as our Morning Star came, becoming effective for us on Pentecost in Acts 2, ending at the Rapture. The second Season is the Night, it runs from the Rapture until the Judgment. We find "it's appointed unto all men once to die, then comes the judgment" (Heb 9:27), but as for us, we are caught up in a twinkling of an eye.

The Jewish nation has two calendars, one is the civil, the other the sacred. The sacred begins with the month Nisan, or as it's known here Abib, but the civil begins with Tishri, the month wherein the Day of Atonement takes place. We find the sacred opens with the month of the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, but the civil calendar opens with the month for the Day of Atonement. We then find the first month of the civil is the seventh month of the sacred, yet the first month of the sacred is the seventh month of the civil, both indicate there will be a completeness in the end.

Leviticus 16:29 shows the Day of Atonement was to be in the Seventh Month on the Tenth Day, the number Ten is the number of testing. Then they shall "afflict" their souls, this explains the purpose of the Sabbath Day again, correlating to the verses found in Matthew (Matt 5:17-18). Jesus told us to take His Yoke, then we will find Rest for our souls, here it's take the yoke of the Law to afflict your soul, two completely different premises. The word Afflict is the Hebrew Anab meaning To afflict, depress or oppress, it holds the thought of Submitting to be oppressed. In Isaiah 58:4-6 God says the reason for fasting is to Afflict the soul, to Loosen the bands of the wickedness, to undo heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke (Isa 58:6). We just found fasting was connected to this High Sabbath. However, wasn't the Yoke destroyed to bring the anointing? The fast for these people began when Adam left the Garden, until Jesus came.

There are two types of sabbaths, the weekly sabbath day of Saturday which is according to the Commandment (Luke 23:56), regardless of the date. Then the High Sabbaths which were attached to the feast days, which fell on Dates regardless of the day. The Passover was not a High Sabbath, since the lamb was slain, but the day after is a High Sabbath called the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Jew does not keep a day from midnight to midnight, rather it's from sunset to sunset. Accordingly when Jesus took the last Passover (or first Communion) it was night, thus the night and day of the Cross were the same day, known as Passover. The next day was a High Sabbath, then came the weekly preparation day, then the women rested on the sabbath according to the Commandment (Luke 23:56). If we mix sabbaths we end with just the weekly sabbath, making the Cross on a Friday, which in turn makes Jesus a false prophet. Jesus said He would be in the grave for three days and three nights (Matt 12:40, 27:63, Mark 8:31 et al). Since He said it before the fact, it becomes prophetic; He didn't say, "God willing I will be", or "maybe I will be", it was a profound prophetic message, declaring something yet to come. If the Cross was on a Friday, that night would be one night, then Saturday the first day, that night the second night, on Sunday He was discovered raised, which is far short of the time prophesied. Also if Jesus said He would be raised on the third day, we find even Saturday night can’t be counted, since He was not in the grave when the women came on Sunday while it was yet dark (Jn 20:1). However, if we keep the sabbaths in order, we find the Cross was on a Wednesday, that night began the High Sabbath for the Feast of Unleavened Bread as a Thursday, making it the first night, with Thursday the first day. Then Friday the preparation day for the weekly sabbath as the second day, that night as the third night. It was also the day the women prepared the spices, yet Mark shows the women were at the Cross at sunset on the Passover (Mark 15:4), thus they could not fix spices on the High Sabbath, since they had to cook them. Saturday as the weekly sabbath according to the Fifth Commandment as the third day, meaning He was raised on the Third Day like He said, making Sunday the Day of discovery, giving us the prophetic message intact.

Leviticus 17:4 gives us a shadow connecting to the phrase "let His blood be on us". Jesus was crucified outside the city by the Romans, at the direction of the Jewish priests. For good reason, the priests didn't what to get involved physically since they had their Passover to keep. However, in order for Jesus to be the Passover the priests had to kill the Lamb, yet the Gentiles had to have some involvement, thus the Romans placed Jesus on the Cross, the plan involved Gentiles. This very complex issue was simple for God, the priests demanded the death of the Lamb of God, but they had the Romans do it.

If we fail to bring the Blood to the "Door of the Tabernacle" (Lev 17:4) we are to be "cut off " from among "his people" (Lev 17:4). The word for Door is the Hebrew Pethach meaning entrance or doorway. What door? Was there a back door for God we don't know about? No, this is again something we find in the Shadow speaking about our time. There were no doors or windows in the Tabernacle, the Temple wasn't even an issue at this time. Jesus told us the End Times were the "Time of the Doors" (plural), thus in the Book of Revelation we find several doors. John was taken through the Door by the Spirit (Rev 4:1), indicating the method of leaving. Then there is the door to David, which no man can open or close, it’s only opened by Jesus when the Door John went through is opened for us (Rev 3:7). There is another Door, the one of interest here, if no one can Open the Door of David, why does Jesus say, "Behold, I stand at the Door, and Knock, if any man hear My Voice, and Open the Door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him and he with Me" (Rev 3:20)? It’s only 14 verses away from the Door of David, 3 verses away from the Door opened for John; do you think they correlate? John didn't open his door, "behold a door was opened in heaven", this isn't the Door of David, since the door of David is on earth. However, the Door Jesus is knocking at does relate, it’s the Door to our heart, by letting Jesus in, we find the Seed is planted in us, giving us a New Heart, providing us a new nature. We have to let Him in, before the Spirit can take us out of the Door. The Door Jesus is knocking on is the Passover Door, also known as the Cross, the place where the Blood and Water are found in three places. The Door then is a change in Heart, Jesus enters which is the Seed Planted, then the Seed grows, as the Word forms our souls into a Spiritual nature, the further into the Spiritual we grow the further from the flesh. The wording "will sup" means to have supper, it was used in reference to the feast days, especially noted on Passover (Luke 17:18).

The blood in Leviticus is not the Blood of Jesus, but the shadow is there. Especially when we see words like "imputed" (Lev 17:4), and "door". Once we open the door, Jesus enters bringing us a New Heart, as we are circumcised of heart, which changes our nature, then we will no more "offer sacrifices unto devils", something Paul made mention of to the Corinthians (Lev 17:7 & I Cor 10:20-21).

Then we go from the Blood to forbidden sexual practices, but why? The order is important, since we find the falling away from the Faith is based on mental adultery. Also we find the Woman in the Book of Revelation is called "the mother of all harlots", she is also known as a "whore", and "Babylon", she is spiritually known as Sodom and Egypt. All these are reflective, thus the Law will be a Witness against the people in the latter days.

The phrases used in these verses show possession, thus the "nakedness" of the father, doesn't mean the father is naked, it refers to his wife being naked. The same is true in the other references as well, thus uncovering the nakedness of Jesus would be someone slandering, molesting (by corrupt theology), or causing fornication (leading astray) any member of the Bride of Christ. This points to the Wicked who go about with Jesus on their lips, but Satan in their hearts.

There are many areas covered in the carnal sense which are still in effect, since the Law continues in its principality until all is fulfilled. This doesn't mean one can claim they are "spiritual" in order to have sex with animals, that's stupid. If one is spiritual the premise is not a consideration, they have a New Nature, but if one is carnal, or flesh minded, they need written instructions regarding the flesh. However, if one has imputed the flesh dead they Mind the things of the Spirit, then the flesh is not at issue. Wow since we imputed the flesh dead, does it mean it won't fight back? Hardly, it means we have authority over it, rather than it having authority over us. We have to enter warfare when the flesh speaks, thus the Life in us considers the flesh dead, dead and dead some more.

The sin of homosexuality is defined, as well as the punishment (Lev 18:22). In the world the practice is accepted, but it’s the world, they still under the authority, power and seat of the dragon. What the world does, it does, whatever it does shouldn't cause us to enter fear, or cause us to run around attempting to make the world the "Kingdom of God", nor should we act like the world to win the world. Being overcome by the cares of this world is the very premise the devil uses to choke the Word out of us.

Paul’s reference in Romans appears to relate, but he is talking about changing the Natural nature God established, which would be changing “man and woman” to something other than God intended, yet we can’t reject his concern is a Born Again believer knows better than to Judge people in order for us to feel superior over them, making it contrary to the Nature God has given us.

We can see why the laws of Holiness and Justice follow the laws of forbidden sex, and why forbidden sex is placed between Respect for the Blood and Holiness. Having Respect for the Blood of Christ is one thing, being in it another. Being in the Body is the first step, but the New Testament is found in the Blood of Jesus.

The Courtyard of the Tabernacle was holy, the holy place was holy, the holy of holies was holy, but none of them were the True Holiness of God, they couldn't be, since they came as a result of the children holding unbelief. The holiness in the Law of Moses was based on God dealing with the people, their righteousness was based in their self abilities to do the deeds of the Law for their self-benefit. Of course it was all man had until the Righteousness of Jesus was granted. Our Holiness and Righteousness are based on being Born Again, as we walk with the New Man (Eph 4:24).

Holiness is also found in how we treat the people of God. How many of us have to be told, "don't curse the deaf", or "don't put a stumbling block in front of the blind"? One tends to "curse the deaf" when they talk about people behind their back. One puts stumbling blocks before the blind, when they implant fear in the Babes in Christ.

The concept of "be angry and sin not" is also found in the Law of Moses: "You shall not hate your brother in your heart: you shall in any wise rebuke your neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him" (Lev 19:17). Correction by rebuke is void of anger, but when anger controls our words, actions and reactions, it rules over us. We yell at someone, then say, "God wanted them to know", or tell someone, "I forgive you because God has commanded me to". No where are we told to tell someone we forgive them, we forgive them whether they know it or not, but on the same note we are told to ask for their forgiveness. Telling someone we forgive them based our assumed holiness is a product of the unsaved soul, it determines they are wrong, we are right, while letting them know we are holier than they. We determined they are judged, found guilty, yet we are holy. When we do these things, we are in sin by using pride as the means. We do not "avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people" (Lev 19:18). This is the premise for "love your neighbor", but for these people the premise was limited in scope to a Jew. Later during the earthly ministry we find the same premise when the Lawyer talks to Jesus, as the lawyer considered other lawyers his neighbor, just as the Pharisees considered other Pharisees their neighbor, but when a certain lawyer was confronted with the Truth he said, "he who shows mercy on him" is a man's neighbor (Luke 10:25-37). Jesus then said to the lawyer, "go, and do you likewise" (Luke 10:37), the premise behind Love is Mercy, the premise behind Mercy is Love. When Jesus said, "go, and do likewise" it indicated two things, first the lawyer wasn't doing it, second Jesus was his neighbor, yet he came to tempt Jesus, hardly "love thy neighbor". How do we reach the point? One prayer? One step? One Holy Ghost meeting? The Law shows a Tree and the fruit thereof, it takes time to reach the desired place of praise. The Fruit of any Tree is accounted as uncircumcised for three years (Lev 19:23). Metaphorically this points to the planting of the Seed, the Root and the Sprout (very first point breaking the ground). Then comes the Forth year, which is akin to the Blade (Born Again), or the time when the fruit is Holy for Praise; it still relates to a Process (Lev 19:24).

The "mixed garment" is also a metaphor (Lev 19:19), to the Jew this refers to their everyday clothes; when is the last time you saw a Jew in Polyester, when is the last time you saw a Polyester suit? Oh well, the context shows a mixture of the soft linen with the roughness of wool, indicating a mixture of Salvation and Judgment. The point being, we know sinners are on a one way road to hell, we all were, it's not the issue, the issue is, there is a way of escape? Telling someone they're sinner isn't going to set them free, bringing the Truth in Love by the Holy Ghost confirms the Truth will set them free.

We read the warning regarding familiar spirits, or wizards, but what is a familiar spirit? (Lev 19:31). The wording familiar spirits is the Hebrew Ov, meaning a spirit or demon familiar to the person as the person is familiar to the evil spirit. This is not the spirit lusting to envy, this is a demon. The word Familiar means well acquainted with, thus the witch of Endor knew Saul through his disguise when the image came up; a situation we will spend time with later. The word Wizard is the Hebrew Yiddeoni meaning Magician, or Diviner, relating to the magicians of Pharaoh, thus showing why the warning is found here. These people were aware of the events between Moses and the magicians of Pharaoh, they knew God was unlimited, but the magicians were. Fortune tellers use tricks, telling us what we did, in order to tell us what we will do is merely a mental suggestion attempting to take over our thoughts. Some use devils to tell them what we've been doing, then in turn tell us what the devil told them as they attempt to gain ones confidence, then they make projections about the future, but is it really the future? No, it's a soul tie gained from talking about the prior experiences the person had, in order to form the future around their sayings. It’s a far cry from the method God uses. Others hear devils, think they are hearing the dead, but the dead speak not to the living. The spirit of man knows the things of man, including the lusts of man, but is completely ignorant of the things of God. The devils relate their findings to a person who has ears to hear them, they make it appear as if they are talking to the dead, but in truth they are hearing a familiar spirit.

Leviticus 20:2 talks about "giving any of his seed unto Molech", this refers to the sacrifice of children to idols. Molech was an idol of the Ammonites, it will gain entry into the Hebrew culture after the children enter the Promised Land (II Kings 23:10); however, the practice was active in some of the surrounding nations while the children were in the wilderness. According to the historians and rabbis, the statue was brass, with the trunk of the body in human form, the head like unto an ox, with out-stretched arms, the stomach, or if a larger image the area near the feet was hollowed out. The hollow place was used to place burning coals heating the brass to a near white-hot, then they would toss their live children into the arms, or at the feet of the idol. This same type of image was described by Diodorus reporting on the idol Saturn of the Carhaginians, both the idol Saturn and Molech represented the planet Saturn, which was regarded by the Phoenicio-Shemitic nations as a destroying god who could only be appeased by human sacrifices.

Now we see the "nature" the Law was designed for, we may think, "oh my it was a long time ago", but man doesn't need idols made of stone, or brass, man's social lusts can also be an idol, as well as the self. Man will make ungodly laws to appease the lustful self, yet since they have a Law, they call it a Right, but it's still ungodly.

We then read, "there shall be no wickedness among you", which relates to evil things hidden. In Hebrews we find all things are naked and open, a connection? (Lev 20:14 & Heb 4:13). Perhaps, here it points to hiding things from God, in Hebrews it's allowing the Word in us to bring us to a complete openness before God (Heb 4:12). This shows the only method to really be open before God is to have the Word in us.

The "holiness" under the Law of Moses was based in obedience, which was based in God dealing with them, more important it would be based in them treating the people of God correctly, which included their own mate; however, one had the ability to define the term. In our case Jesus defined it for us, "Love one another as I have loved you" (Jn 15:12).

Then there is the holiness of the priests (Lev 21:1-2); God gave the priests Garments, but one can jump out of the boat seeking things not afforded to them. The priests were not to cause a baldness upon their head (Lev 21:5), ahh, a mystery opened. Some assume Paul was just sitting around one day and devised these allegories on his own. Perhaps they assumed Paul said, "Hey, Luke, guess what I just came up with?". Not so, Paul had a very good knowledge of the Old, the Holy Ghost brought clarity from the Old to present it in the New as intended. Such is the case in First Corinthians, one can twist the metaphors or allegories into gender, thereby ending doing just the opposite of the teaching, thus they will oppress, rather than set free, or receive the teaching as intended to be free. The metaphor bald doesn't relate to a lack of hair, it relates to a lack of anointing. Just like the metaphor Head relates to Authority, thus Paul tells the Corinthians how the woman's Head should have long flowing Hair, but her Head is the husband (leaders). It's the same premise here, this doesn't mean if a priest is bald they can't serve, although they applied it in like manner, rather it means to "cause" baldness, or to remove the anointing of the office, indicating how the priests in Egypt shaved their heads, showing they had no anointing; thus this isn't the natural loss of hair, this is making oneself shaven (I Cor 11:6).

If we presume Paul was referring to gender in I Corinthians chapter 11, we will miss the importance of the message. Paul was talking to carnal people, who were of the Body, who had many problems, most of which were found in their leadership (I Cor 3:1-3 & 12:1-15:58). First Corinthians 14:34 is a direct correlation to First Corinthians 11:5, if we don't understand these warnings, we will end with mile long hair, yet still not able to obtain the reward of the teaching. There are called of God anointed women who run from the call based on the misinterpretation of Scripture. The metaphors make more sense when we see the "head of the woman" is to have long hair, yet the "head" is her "husband". If the woman is to remain silent, where then is her mouth? On her face, so where is her face? Her head, but her head is her husband. Paul is only referring to married women, thus the widow and single woman would be exempt; or he is using metaphors to explain a deeper problem. The problem is the lack of proper Authority, causing the leadership to place a carnal yoke on neck of Christ restricting the anointing. The metaphor husband relates to leadership, the metaphor wife to the congregation. If the "wife" is to learn at home, what then is she gaining in the gathering? Nothing. The authority of the leader is Christ, the authority of the congregation is the leadership, but if the leadership has placed a carnal hindrance between them and Christ, they have separated themselves from the Authority, thus the congregation cannot pray or prophesy, for they shame their leaders. Hair being a metaphor for the Anointing tells us the Anointing is connected to Authority.

We then find the correlation, the priests were never to allow anything to separate them from the anointing of their office, thus Paul says, "for if the woman (congregation) be not covered, let her also be shorn (made to be bald), but if it be a shame for a woman (congregation) to be shorn or shaven (void of the anointing and authority), let her be covered" with, "if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her" (I Cor 11:6 & 11:15). If someone shaves their head, what do they remove? Hair? Good, it’s metaphoric in context, not gender. If it was gender, surely God is a respecter of persons, so much so He respects the single women over the married, not so, metaphors and allegories.

Back in Leviticus we find the requirements for the priest, the priests shall not take a wife who is a whore, or profane, the word Profane is the Hebrew Chalal meaning Pierced to death, pointing to Bitterness (Lev 21:7). Jumping ahead to Hosea we find it’s exactly what happened, they permitted the practice of idolatry and committed "harlotry" against the Lord (Hosea 1:2, II Kings 15:35, et al). Hosea was told by the Lord to take a harlot as his wife (Hosea 1:2), although Hosea was not a priest, he was a prophet.

The Commandments were the opposite of the nature of man, the acts of man prove it, thus we need a pure Nature, one based in the Spirit of Christ, yet the only way to obtain such a Nature is to be Born Again.

We take a "wife in her virginity" (Lev 21:13), but does this refer to us or the Lord taking us? The Bride makes herself ready, she retains her virginity (nothing to do with the physical), she doesn’t she mix with idols. Not like the City who is not only found in adultery, thus called a Whore and Babylon. The Woman is not the “whore of Babylon”, she is classed as a whore and Babylon, the city of idol worship.

The Holiness of the Offerings runs hand in hand with the Holiness of the Priest, we then find, "they profane not My Holy Name in those things which they hallow unto Me" (Lev 22:2). How can one profane God's Name by an offering? Do they fail to mention the Name of Jehovah over the offering? Not at all, it's presented to God in respect to the meaning of His Name, which for these people was Mercy. The Offering must be applied by Mercy, thus it was not to punish the people, it was to apply God's Mercy so punishment by the Law would not fall on them, thus Jesus asked the Pharisees who were attempting to punish Him, "find what this means, I would have Mercy not sacrifice".

God takes us, blesses us, breaks us, makes us Clean of soul by the Spirit. This is seen in the phrase, "I am the Lord which hallow you" (Lev 22:32), yet it's clear from all we have read thus far, the person had to be holy according to the requirements in order to come to the Lord. The Shadow gives us a promise pointing to the process of the New. The Seed of God is granted us in the New Birth, making the New Man is our holiness and righteousness, thus we come boldly to the throne by the Faith of Jesus through the Spirit.

Time for a Festival, there are really four festivals, but two of them are connected together, for good reason. The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread become one festival, the first day of Unleavened Bread is the high sabbath for the Passover, which is the day after Passover (Mark 14:12 & 15:42). The Passover was on the 14th of Abib, the Feast of Unleavened Bread begins on the 15th, or the day following Passover, thus it's connected to Passover. The first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is a "holy convocation" or High Sabbath (Lev 23:6), this would be the Sabbath day referred to in the Gospel accounts following the day of the Cross.

The next feast is called the Feast of Harvest or the Feast of Firstfruits, the date is made clearer in Deuteronomy 16:9, showing we count 50 days from Passover, or seven sevens from the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. We know the Feast of Firstfruits as Pentecost, which became the Birth of the Church as the Day the Spirit was given by the Holy Ghost, thus no one was Born Again until then, the evidence is of course no one spoke in unknown tongues prior to that date.

Counting the days from Passover to Pentecost is easy, find a calendar with the Jewish Passover noted, count fifty days from the Passover date, then you'll find Pentecost. If one was to take the same calendar and count the three days and nights, then the seven days, subtracting the figure from the fifty, they would have forty days left, which are accounted for in Acts 1:3. The disciples in the upper room didn't wait for days to receive, they received within hours of the Ascension. After Jesus Ascended the disciples made a "sabbath's day journey" from the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem, they prayed in the manner Jesus outlined in John 20:23, then the Holy Ghost brought the Spirit (Jn 7:39 & Acts 2). Some of us have been told we have to wait, or travail to get the Spirit, but all we need do is ask, believing we receive; but how do we believe? By completing the requirements, forgive as God for Christ sake has forgiven you, or at least desire to. Perhaps it's the prayer, let's see what they prayed? John 20:21-23, they were remitting sins done unto them by others; they were completing the commandment, forgive so your Father in heaven can forgive you, Mercy is a door opener.

From this Feast to the next one, if we counted the feasts noted thus far, we would think we have all three in the Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread and Pentecost; however, Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were considered one feast, thus Pentecost would be the second, now we move forward to the third. The "memorial of blowing of trumpets" marks the Day of Atonement (Lev 23:24-27). This Memorial is important since as it relates to the Last Trump Paul talked about (I Cor 15:52).

Connected to the Day of Atonement was Tabernacles or Booths, which to the Jew is known as Sukkot. Accordingly the Jewish religion breaks feast days up into three types. The High Holy Days, the Three Pilgrimage Festivals and the Minor Holidays. The High Holy Days or Yamim Noraim or Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year), and Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). The first ten days of the Jewish New Year are days of solemnity and known as Ten Days Of Penitence or Aseret Yeme Teshuvah.

The second category is termed Shalosh Regalim which includes the three pilgrimage festivals, so called since it becomes the duty of every Jew to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem to bring an offering to be placed in The Storehouse (The Temple). The pilgrimage festivals are the Passover (Pesah), Festival of Firstfruits (Suvuot or Pentecost), and Tabernacles (Sukkot). According to Jewish tradition the Passover is associated with the Exodus from Egypt, which it is; the Festival of Firstfruits to them is associated with the "Revelation at Mount Sinai" where Moses obtained the Law, which it isn't; then Tabernacles relating to the wandering of the children in the wilderness, which it is, and isn't.

The Passover to the Jew is also termed Hag ha-Matzot, connected to The Festival of Unleavened Bread, thereby placing the Passover with the Feast of Unleavened Bread as the same Feast, which shows one cannot partake of the Cross, without partaking of the Body (Bread) as well. To take the Cross, then deny the Body, is rejection of the Cross. Our water baptism is based on our belief in the Cross (death) and Resurrection of Jesus so we can enter the Body. Once we enter the Body, we are of the Rock, then Jesus can build us into the Church by the Spirit.

The lesser feasts include Purim (Feast of Lots from the Book of Ruth), Hanukkah (Dedication of the Temple from the Maccabees period), Israel Labor Day which is also known as Tu Bi-Shevat, tradition calls it Rosh Hashanah Leilnot (New Year of the Trees). Another minor holiday we see today is the Israel Independence Day (Yom Ha-Atzmaut), based on the nation Israel being founded in 1948. Rosh Hodesh celebrates the first day of each month, it's also termed a minor holiday. Many of the days we see celebrated today were not in the Law, but we also find Jesus going to Jerusalem on the Feast of the Dedication (Jn 10:22). One might say "so what?", but it shows the Feast of the Dedication wasn't in the Law either, rather it was less than two hundred years old when Jesus celebrated it, yet some of us get real paranoid over holidays, some to the point of rejecting holidays. It's not the keeping or rejecting, but why one keeps the day, or why one rejects it. If by faith, then they heard from God, if by fear, they heard from the prince of the power of the air, if for religious pride, they are following the spirit lusting to envy.

The entire point being, they began with one day, Passover, then the other days were added, but three call for a Pilgrimage to Jerusalem, yet at this time they were yet to cross the Jordan, much less enter the Land. The placement of these Pilgrimage days should have been a sign to the children, God was looking ahead, all they had to do was join His vision by faith. Of course we know this first wilderness generation didn't, but the second did, thus the Vision was there, but they lacked the faith to enter it. Faith doesn't attempt to complete the prophecy or vision, it fits into it.

The next area is the Tending of the Lamp; Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, was a priest in charge of the Lamp (Luke 1:7-9). It would be in the process of his service of taking care of the Lamp when the angel would appear to him, announcing John would be born (Luke 1:11-12). Of course we know John was not the Light, rather he was sent to bear witness of the Light, the Light being the Life and Light of man, the Word made flesh, Who is Jesus (Jn 1:1-14). Isn't it interesting how Zacharias was tending the menorah when he was told his son would bear witness to the Light of God?

When one entered the Door into the holy place the Menorah (candlestick) would be on their left, the Shewbread Table on their right, but it would be our perspective, not God's. Since God looks from the Mercy Seat the lay out would be somewhat different. From the viewpoint of the Mercy Seat the candlestick would be on the Right, the Shewbread on the Left. This shows the seven churches in the Book of Revelation are on the Right hand side of Jesus.

The Oil is not just any oil, it was "beaten" olive oil, it was not the Anointing Oil. Since it was Olive Oil we find a connection to the New, Jesus gave the sermon on the Mount of Olives relating to Mercy (Lev 24:1-4 & Matt 5:2-7:27). Olive Oil is also a connection to the Mercy of God, the Mercy of God a connection to Grace. Making the Olive Tree connected to the New Testament (Rom 11:17-24 et al), the Fig Tree to the Jewish religious order (Hosea 9:10 et al); however, the oil for the menorah was made from olive oil. When we see Jesus in the Book of Revelation in the midst of the golden candlestick, He is not the candlestick, but He is the Light keeping the lights burning. Each of the seven bowls of the candlestick are seen as one of the seven churches (Rev 1:20); therefore, the menorah was in the Tabernacle, but it pointed to the time of the churches. God was instilling faith markers back then, the purpose is for us to see the Plan being carried out. The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world in the Record, Witnessed on earth nearly 2,000 years ago, but in order to understand it we need the Witness in us (I Jn 5:7-8).

The contrast between the Fig and Olive tree is interesting, the first fruit of the fig tree is not eatable, the second fruit grows over the first, making the second eatable. Jesus saw a Fig Tree in it's first fruit stage, since it was not yet time for the fruit, but what He saw was corrupt fruit, a sign of the activity of the religious rulers in the temple. The Fig Tree will not produce a second fruit, but it will have leaves. The Olive Tree is another story, one can pull the fruit from the Fig Tree and eat it, but they can't with an olive. The olive has to soak in lye in order to make it eatable. In order to gain the oil one has to beat the olives time and time again, it still takes eight days to make an olive oil to burn. One can take a Fig Tree and transplant it, meaning it will grow and bear fruit, but if one transplants an Olive Tree it will cease to produce fruit. Olive Trees cannot be transplanted back into the world, we must remain in the Kingdom.

The beating of the olives to produce the Oil is a type of Gethsemane to bring forth the anointing, not saying God will beat us, rather it's the removal of the outward flesh, to bring forth the inward Life. On the same note, it's one thing to suffer for our own wrongs, another to suffer when we have done nothing. First Peter 2:20 says, "for what glory is it, if, when you be buffeted for your faults, you shall take it patiently? but if, when you do well, and suffer for it, you take it patiently, this is acceptable with God". Not only does this say to "take it", but to do so "patiently", or in Peace with a conviction to reach the end in a lawful manner. The word Buffeted is the Greek Kolaphizo meaning To be struck, or To be mistreated. Patience is not remaining the same, since one can be angry all time, hardly patient. Patience is maintaining the course, not to move from side to side, not to stop and make displays of walking on the water, when the command is to get to the other side.

Next is the Shewbread, which was not made from the Manna, rather it was made  from pure fine flour purchased from other areas around the wilderness. There were two rows of six cakes, making twelve (Lev 24:5-9). The making alone shows the Manna and Shewbread were different, they are not to be confused. To the Jew these twelve loaves of Shewbread stood for the twelve tribes, but we can see the twelve apostolic positions, not the apostles themselves, since it would include Judas, but the positional order, or office.

From the Menorah and Shewbread to the punishment for Blasphemy, what gives? How do these relate? The Shadow shows us we can receive the Beaten Oil, partake of the Table, yet enter a state of Blasphemy, but what is this Blasphemy? There was a son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was Egyptian, ahh, a mystery, one showing a mixture, part called, part holding to Egypt (world - Lev 24:10). This son of the Israelitish woman strove with a "man of Israel", thus the Blasphemy came as a result of envy, strife and division. The son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the name of the Lord and "cursed", but is the cursing part of the Blasphemy? Going back to Leviticus 6:1-3 we find the Trespass against the Lord is coming against the people of the Lord, it doesn't matter if we are among the people of the Lord, if we come against a child of the Lord we have trespassed against the Name of the Lord. The punishment for this son of the Israelitish woman was to be "stoned to death" (Lev 24:14). They laid hands on him, then killed him, not the same for us, we lay hands on the sick,, we don't use the stones of theological abuse.

Next we enter "an eye for an eye", this doesn't give us the right to cut someone's heart out because they bruised our pride. Rather it shows a balance of justice, if our neighbor takes five dollars, we're only entitled five dollars in return, thus it's an eye for an eye, not eyes, ears and nose for an eye. These laws came after the Blasphemy, but relate to it. For some reason we limit the term Blasphemy to words of cussing, but here we find to Blaspheme means to come against a child of God, or speak evil of them, or rob them. This is clear when we know the Greek word Blaspheemeo is translated as Blaspheme in Matthew 9:3 and other places, but it's also seen as the word Evil as in Speaking evil (Rom 3:8, 14:16, I Cor 10:30, Titus 3:2, I Pet 4:4, 4:14, II Pet 2:2, 2:10, 2:12, Jude 8 & 10). To Blaspheme the Name of the Lord is to talk evil about those who are in the Name. What other example do we have of this? When the people murmured against Moses, it was Moses who said, "what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord" (Ex 16:8).

Then comes the Sabbath years, with the Year of Jubilee, the land was the issue in delivering the children, thus they were given rules regarding the Land, just as we, as kings, are given rules regarding the Kingdom. The Jubilee is a matter of the Law, pertaining to ownership in the physical land. It also has more than "getting back what is mine", it has "giving back what isn't yours". Not something to claim unless you are willing to give back everything you purchased from others.

The Field was plowed, planted and used for six years, then in the seventh it would receive its Sabbath. There are times in church history where we see the Field at rest allowing the Seed to grow roots, there is also the Seeding Times we call "Revival".

The failure to give the land its rest will be part of the reasoning for the captivity of the children under the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. When Peter was attempting to find just how many times we have to forgive, Jesus told him "seventy times seven" which relates to the 70 years of captivity for 490 years they violated the seven year sabbath for the land. God warned them time and again for 490 years, thus the children owed the land 70 years of sabbaths, they went into captivity for 70 years.

The Jubilee year came every fifty years, Five is the number of Grace, but Ten the number of Testing, thus the Jubilee related to the testing of Grace. Jubilee was a time of Restoration when people and things were restored. The Jubilee had it's Trumpet as well (Lev 25:9), which was known as "the Great Trump", in the end times the Great Trump announces the Judgment, what gives? Jubilee, Judgment, they don't seem to go together, but they do. The Great Jubilee comes when it's Done, a time when all things are completed, a time when God has received all belonging to Him.

The Jubilee was also known as "Liberty" (Lev 25:10); Jesus came to Proclaim Liberty to the Captives, thus the Jubilee begins and ends with Jesus. We don't  have to wait every fifty years, rather we are Reconciled to God day by day (II Cor 5:17-20) In the Liberty we find "you shall not rule over him with rigor; but shall fear your God" (Lev 25:43). If we are in the "Law of Liberty", we have Liberty, but we are not to use our Liberty as a Cloak of Maliciousness, but as Servants of the Lord (I Pet 2:16). There are the Wicked who promise Liberty, but they themselves are servants of corruption, as they are still in captivity to the flesh (II Pet 2:19). We look into the Perfect Law of Liberty to determine if we have set the captives free, or if we are making more captives (James 2:12). For God shall have Judgment on those who are without Mercy, but Mercy rejoices against Judgment, thus Mercy is the key to holding the Perfect Law of Liberty (James 2:11-13).

The word Rigor in Leviticus 25:43 is the Hebrew Perek meaning Oppression or Tyranny, relating to the word Constraint in I Peter 5:2-3, which reads, "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by Constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock". The wording "filthy lucre" doesn't mean money alone, nor is it restricted to money, it means a benefit gained without regard from where it came, or not caring about the strings attached. This all connects when we read, "For unto Me the children of Israel are servants; they are My servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God" (Lev 25:55). One can work assuming they are doing God a favor, they can work assuming they have to, or they can rest in their labors by holding appreciation for the deliverance.

Having gone through these matters, do we have Jubilee? Of course we know Jesus is our Jubilee, since it’s known as "the acceptable time of the Lord", Paul told us the Day of the acceptable time of the Lord is the Day of Salvation (II Cor 6:1-2).

God goes back to the warnings, but then shows there is a blessing in Obedience. For some the incentive is blessing, for others it's fear of punishment, yet for others their incentive is based in their Love for the Lord, the latter is far better.

The Law of Moses has blessings for the doer, but being blessed of the Law, and being a blessing to God are much different. One can be blessed under the Law of Moses, yet not be a blessing to God. In order to Please God one must Come to God believing He Is, plus our faith toward God being a Rewarder of those who diligently seek Him (Heb 11:6). We should have a handle on the "God Is" mindset.

Each of us must know what an idol is, as well as defining a Stronghold, which is nonetheless an idol, not made of stone, but formed from an imagination (Lev 26:1). Strongholds come against the knowledge of God, producing fables. A stronghold is an imagination assuming something suggested through an opinion, but not clearly evidenced by Scripture, Paul called it winds of doctrine, it’s based on doctrine, but focuses on the fringe aspects, which have little to do with the doctrine itself. Chasing the glory would be a wind of doctrine, simply because the Glory is in us (Rom 8:18).

God tells these people to keep His sabbaths, for us we find our Rest in Jesus, where we find Rest for our souls (Lev 26:2 & Matt 11:28-30). The blessing includes "none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land" (Lev 26:6). What does this mean to us? The promise is simple, if we stand in the New there is nothing to make us afraid, we have not been given the spirit of fear, thus we don't use it either.

God will "set His Tabernacle" Among us, the word Among is the Hebrew Tawech meaning In the midst, pointing to something Planted, yet we know the Tabernacle was portable. The Tabernacle is a type of the Seed of God, it’s placed in us by the Holy Ghost separating us from the darkness, so we can be the Light of Day. Although the Tabernacle in us is stationary, we are portable. To these people it related to having the Tabernacle surrounded by the tribes at all times.

A promise given to these people showed five could Chase a hundred, a hundred could put ten thousand to flight (Lev 26:8). We use the verse, rightly so, since God promised these people, surely our promise is better. However, what is the real issue? Standing in Unity, making division a gate of hell separating members of the Body to keep them from entering the area where 2 million can put all darkness to flight.

The Law of Moses also had Punishments for Disobedience, in the New Testament the word Obedience refers to Belief, the word Disobedience to unbelief, but here in the Shadow it points to the doing, or the refusal to do something written herein. The violation is against the Commandments, we find "if your soul abhors My judgments" (Lev 26:15). Have we been in a situation we didn't like, and started to complain? Not you? Oh, some of us have, it's a violation of Faith. Whatever the event, whether God put us there or not, it's sure He can deliver us out of it. "Well you don't understand, I entered an evil temptation, it was something not common, something too big for me". We do understand, Paul said, "There is no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, Who will not suffer you to be tempted above what you are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape" (I Cor 10:13). With the temptation? Yes, God didn't bring it, but He can use it so we gain the victory over it. Don't complain about the event, find God in it.

We find disobedience will bring a Terror on us, including "sorrow of heart" (Lev 26:16). The word Sorrow is the Hebrew Duwb meaning To pine away, or as we know it "to enter self-pity", which was rebuked by Jesus; when Peter heard how Jesus was going to Jerusalem to suffer, be killed and be raised again, he rebuked Jesus (Matt 16:21-22). Rebuked Jesus? Was the man mad? No, just unsaved at the point in time, Peter said, "Be it far from You, Lord; this shall not be unto You" (Matt 16:22). It sounds okay, but it holds two traditional sayings, the first appears as, "Be it far from you", meaning, "Have pity on yourself". The second appears as, "this shall not be unto You", which is an old Jewish saying meaning, "make God stop it". In response Jesus said, "Get you behind Me, Satan: you are an offense unto Me: for you savor not the things of God, but those of men" (Matt 16:23). Wow, did Peter have a devil? Perhaps Jesus wasn't talking to Peter, not so, the verse says, "But He turned, and said unto Peter" (Matt 16:23). Was Peter Satan? No, but his words pointed to self-pity which made them Satan based, being the point, self-pity either in us, or us telling someone to have pity on their self becomes Satan based words.

Jesus then said in order to follow Him we must deny the self, and pick up our cross, so what did Peter tell Jesus? Deny yourself? No, it was have pity on yourself. What next? Pick up your Cross? No, it was avoid the Cross by having God stop it. Of course at the time Peter was not Born Again, he didn't have a clue about spiritual matters. However, the event does show Peter threw a dart, he didn't know it at the time, what he said felt right to him, it even sounded right in his own mind, but it was a dart. Jesus discerned the source, rebuked it, then taught the Truth, the Truth will set us free.

Some of us use the Chastening of the Lord as some badge of honor, yet it shows He cares enough to correct us, but in Leviticus 26:28 we find the Chastening will increase if we reject the purpose for it. Hebrews tells us the Purpose for the chastening of the Lord is for us to bring forth the "fruit of righteousness" so we can Follow Peace (Heb 12:11-14). If this is the case, the chastening shows we're not bastards, but continual chastening shows we are stubborn. Our problems come form our confusion regarding the chastening, if our earthly daddy spanked us to keep us from making errors, then our Heavenly Father will spank our souls to keep us from error. The chastening proves one thing more than any other, we are in the family of God (Heb 12:9). No chastening, whether from our earthly daddy, or our Heavenly Daddy seems joyous at the time, rather it can be grievous (Heb 12:11). The purpose nonetheless is so we can be in Peace, able to bring the fruit of Righteousness.

There are many wonderful things about God, but if anyone has any knowledge of the Old Testament at all, they are in wonderment over God's Longsuffering and Tolerance. When the children do get to the Promised Land there will be good fish and bad, they will be taken into captivity as part of God's chastening, but perhaps the longest and hardest of all the captivities was under the hand of Babylon. The nation Babylon will be a symbol of the Woman in the end times, showing how the Woman takes many captive, but in God's case we find He warned them by sending prophet after prophet until the seventy times seventy reached an end. Not only did God send prophets like Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and many others, but here in Leviticus He warned them of exactly what He would do if they failed to give the land its sabbath (Lev 26:30-39).

In the Book of Daniel we will see how Daniel entered intercession confessing the iniquities of his fathers. Daniel also knew the captivity was based on many things, with the main issue being the failure of the people to give the land its sabbath for 490 years, but he knew God's desire was to forgive and restore; this promise is also found in Leviticus 26:40-42. It is conditioned on humbleness, accepting the punishment as just, confessing the iniquity to be restored, the three elements or repentance.

The promise for the Remnant is also found here, no matter what the fathers do, God has seen the 144,000 keeping the Commandments of God, thus He will not break the Covenant with them (Lev 26:44).

The Price of Estimation gives us a clue to the thirty pieces of silver Judas took, then gave back to the Temple leaders. The price of the redemption of a female is thirty pieces of silver, although Judas had no idea what he was doing, he nonetheless tossed those silver pieces into the temple paying the price for the Woman in the Book of Revelation, thus her redemption is paid for, what she does is between her and God. In truth we know the Blood of Jesus paid the price for us, but the Woman is a city, not a person, thus she is earth bound under the Law of Moses, not the Law of the Spirit (Lev 27:4). This is just one of those small areas God took care of, nothing is undone, God does nothing without purpose.

The Book of Exodus extended to the first month in the second year, covering the first year in the wilderness. Leviticus only covers the duties of the priests, thus Numbers will cover many years in the wilderness. It's interesting how the Plan was for a short trip into the Wilderness, but God had all these documents made so we won't have to spend years in our wilderness experience. So, let's move on to Numbers.


NUMBERS


Although the Book of Numbers is so named because it records several occasions when the people were counted, it also shows the meaning of "counted and numbered". The term counted means associated by like concerns, thus the famed "number of the beast" simply means one associates with the nature of the beast by having like concerns. We can be numbered among the called of God, or numbered among the called of the world, the choice is ours.

The Hebrew title for this book means "in the wilderness", it fits. When the children were obedient to the Commandments, they were blessed, when they were not, well, they were chastened of the Lord. Slavery mentality demands punishment as an incentive, but Liberty is much different. The Perfect Law of Liberty is for those who truly appreciate the deliverance of the Lord. Ones nature is a big factor, no other concern on the earth offers what the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus does. A complete change in natures, positions and conditions from earth to heaven. These children were not Born Again, but they did have the protection of God's Mercy, and the opportunity to change their attitudes. The one phrase, “that Born of the Spirit is Spirit” is a great powerful promise, it refers to our souls being generated or engrafted into the Spirit making our souls Spirit in nature, the Christian is the only person on earth with the promise or ability.

A large portion of the forty years Israel spent in the wilderness is covered in this book, it holds many mysteries such as men like Korah and Balaam who are referred to in the New Testament as types of the Wicked. Balaam is a type of mystery, he is of the family, but not, a type of "they came from us, but were not of us". Korah on the other hand had a position in the ministry, a very important position, yet his lust for power drove him to challenge the man of God. Both are examples of the "spirit lusting to envy", both are used as warnings in the New Testament. Numbers was also used by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians, displaying how carnal thinking is the same as wilderness thinking, rather than Spirit Minded. Therefore, we find these things are written as examples and warnings for our sakes.

The very first verse gives us the time element in the wording, "first day of the second month, in the second year". This points to Exodus 40:17, where the Tabernacle was set up on the first day, of the first month of the second year, thus Numbers begins one month after the Tabernacle was set up. This shows Leviticus was written between the first day of the first month of the second year and the first day of the second month of the second year. This will be very important when we talk about Numbers, or the Counting of the people. How do we know Leviticus was written then? Leviticus had to be written before the priests could minister in the Tabernacle.

The Counting here is for war, no two ways about it, but wasn't it a sin for David to count for war? Yes, there are differences. Here God is calling for the numbering, but in the case of David he wasn't told by God to number, he was told he could win, thus in his case the counting for War was a sin, based on his lack of faith in God. Just counting isn't a sin, Solomon counted the people to determine if he had enough room for them to worship, and it wasn't a sin. Moses was being obedient, David questioned the command, Solomon wanted enough seating, yet all "counted" people. There are those who won't sign a list, or refuse to be numbered for a choir, based on David's numbering, a lack of knowledge, if they only studied out the concepts they would see being numbering worshippers of God is a privilege. To the Jew numbering is still wrong, when they count it’s, “not one, not two, not three”, assuming they are not counting.

Back to the counting here in Numbers, God told Moses to count, the counting would prove many things to us. Paul uses some numbers in his rebuke to the Corinthians, but his count it almost seems as if he was in error, but through the numbering we find Paul is simply telling the Corinthians it may appear they are getting away with their behavior now, but the Bible shows if there is no change, they will pay a price.

Before the children left Egypt they had armies (Ex 6:26); however, they only consisted of the sons of Reuben, the sons of Simeon and the sons of Levi, not the entire nation (Ex 6:14-26). This is one of the reasons Pharaoh was concerned, the Hebrews didn’t give up their armies after entering Egypt. Here the entire nation, except Levi are being numbered, we will also find which of the tribes the twelve stones belong to. The tribes listed are: 1- Reuben, 2- Simeon, 3- Judah, 4- Issachar, 5- Zebulun, 6- Ephraim, 7- Manasseh, 8- Benjamin, 9- Dan, 10- Asher, 11- Gad, and 12- Naphtali, but where is Levi? This division of the tribe order was really done in the Wilderness, but we know Joseph's two sons replaced Joseph, giving us thirteen tribes going into Egypt. God separated the "government" from the "priesthood"; then God ordained the order of Levi as the religious order, no priest could be a king, no king could be a priest. We know the Hasmonean family, more specifically one Judah Aristobulus who was a priest crowned himself king, but he was out of order, the result was the Roman empire taking over the entire nation. The point being when God separated the Tribe of Levi from the governments, man didn’t.

The numbers were by tribe beginning with Reuben (46,500), then Simeon (59,300), Gad (45,650), Judah (74,600), Issachar (54,400), Zebulun (57,400), Ephraim (40,500), Manasseh (32,200), Benjamin (35,400), Dan (62,700), Asher (41,500) and Naphtali (53,400), adding up to 603,550 for the army of the wilderness (Numb 1:21-46). What does this number relate to? Back in Exodus 12:37 we read where there were 600,000 men on foot, not counting the children who left Egypt. This counting confirms the number is correct, Moses didn't make it up, or lie about it.

The Levites were counted separately, since they were exempted from army service, which is the premise today for exempting conscious objectors from military service. God wanted the Levites to minister in the Tabernacle (Numb 1:50), the army of the Lord camped about the Tabernacle to protect it. The camp positioning was specific, but still set to protect the Tabernacle, thus "the stranger who comes near shall be put to death" (Numb 1:51). Therefore, the Levites were set apart, they were  not to engage in any war activity, it was the job of the other tribes. The Levites didn't have a camp, they remained with the Tabernacle (Numb 3:6-8). The Tribal arrangement for the camp was specific, each set of three tribes had a leader from one of the three tribes to represent all three. However, all the tribes picked leaders to represent their tribe, who they were known as princes. Since a prince is known by the local or principality they represent we find the representative of Dan was called the prince of Dan, thus each tribe was a principality. The camp of Judah had Judah, Issachar and Zebulun, with a total counting for the three tribes of 186,400 men of war. The second grouping was the camp of Reuben, with Reuben, Simeon and Gad, with a total count of 151,450 men of war. The third grouping was the camp of Ephraim, with Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin, with a total count of 108,100 men of war. The fourth grouping was the camp of Dan, with Dan, Asher and Naphtali, with a total count of 157,600 men of war. Taking each of the four figures we come up with 603,550, the same as found prior. Why go over the numbers again? There must be a mystery coming up, but we see how the scribes kept the numbers in perfect order, they all added up correctly, thus if we just so happen to find an area which doesn't seem to add up, it's not error, it's a mystery pointing to something for us to discover. Nonetheless we find three numbers all relating, indicating there were many people. A meeting of 600,000 would take some doing, but having them around everyday?

As the other tribes acted as the protectors of the Tabernacle, the Tribe of Levi would split into groupings, each group having tasks in reference to putting the Tabernacle up, or taking it down, thus each group was responsible for its section only. We have Moses, Aaron with the sons of Aaron separated into another group, thus we find the type and shadow of "helps and governments". Moses was the leader, the man God picked with the mantel of authority for the entire camp, Aaron had the mantel regarding the religious activities. This didn't mean Moses was any better than anyone else, or any less, it means he was the man God picked, because God picked him. The first three sectional groups of Levi were the Gershonites, the Kohathites, and the Merari, then we are given their duties. The Gershonites were in charge of the tent, the covering for the tent, the hanging for the door, the hangings for the court, the curtain for the door of the court, the cords hold the curtains up, they numbered 7,500 (Numb 3:18-26).

Wait, didn't you forget the Redemption of the Firstborn? No, we didn't forget, we will get to it shortly. Continuing, the Kohathites, who were in charge of the Ark, the table, the candlestick, the altars, the vessels of the sanctuary and the hanging, they numbered 8,600 (Numb 3:27-32). Then the Merari who were in charge of the boards of the tabernacle, the bars holding the boards together, the pillars, the sockets, the vessels for the holy place, the pillars for the court, the sockets, pins and cords for the pillars, they numbered 6,200 (Numb 3:33-38). Then Moses, Aaron and Aaron's sons were separated from them all (Numb 3:38).

The camp placement, the manner in which the children traveled are also important, God had a special plan and purpose for the arrangement. The Ark always went before, thus Joshua knew the Ark had to cross the Jordan before the people could. Joshua held to the prior Word, so was he in error? No, there was no Proceeding Word regarding crossing the Jordan, thus he knew the Ark had to go before them, just as it did in the wilderness. Did the Ark go before them when the crossed the Red Sea? No, they didn't have it then, thus Joshua could have reached back to the time they crossed the Sea and said, "Now wait, let's see, when we crossed the Sea the Ark wasn't first, so I guess we don't need it now, let's leave it here". However, he didn't, the Proceeding word came when God giving the marching orders, thus at the Sea the Ark didn't play a role, but then with the Marching Orders it did. Joshua did many things, but his foundation came in the wilderness, not in Egypt. We did many things while we were in the world, that was then, this is now, our foundation comes in our wilderness experiences.

Numbers 3:39 tells us there were "22,000" Levites, but wait, if we add the 7,500, 8,600 and the 6,200 we don't come up with "22,000", rather we come up with "22,300", which is 300 more than we find in verse 39. Oh well, overzealous scribe, forget it, no way; if we buy the "overzealous scribe" excuse for one second, we can reject any verse we don't like, claiming it was some overzealous scribe, not so, there is a reason. There is no error in the Bible, the error is found in the mind of the person who seeks error. We know this counting came after the Tabernacle was set up, thus all this must connect to the Redemption of the Firstborn, or why place the Redemption command here? We have to examine the error of the Golden Calf, the time when "the children of Levi" all gathered with Moses, then the children of Levi went through the camp and killed "3,000" men (Ex 32:28). 300 is ten percent of 3,000, thus the 300 were left out of the count in accordance with the payment for the 3,000 who died. It doesn't mean 300 were killed, rather it shows since the 3,000 couldn't be counted, a tithe had to be paid in the Count. God doesn't forget these matters, but thank God He forgets our sins.

God divided the twelve tribes from Levi, then God had Moses count the firstborn from the twelve tribes only, when the count was done, there were 22,273 from the tribes. The firstborn of Levi wasn't counted, since the Tribe of Levi was accounted to God as the Firstborn, with the 300 were already removed, thus there was a difference of 273 between the two counts of 22,000 and 22,273, thus God had a payment made from the twelve tribes to Levi. Why? The golden calf was Egypt related, although it appeared in the wilderness, yet it was Aaron who made the calf, the children who worshipped it, it was still Egypt related, thus God killed the Firstborn of Egypt, not for His pleasure, but to show all people for all time, God means what He says. Those who wanted to side with the golden calf were killed, they became part of the premise of the Death of the Firstborn. Taking into account how God took the firstborn of Egypt in Egypt, and how the Levites took the 3,000 in the wilderness, we find the Tithe under the Law became at issue after the Ten Commandments, not before.

Don't forget the Order of Priesthood for the Body is not the same as the one for Levi. We are under the Order of Melchizedek, in our Order we receive tithes, give the bread and wine, live as a blessing. These things are foundational to our Priesthood, the Bread representing Mercy as  it represents the Body, of course the Wine representing Grace and the Blood of Jesus, receiving tithes, meaning the giving is in the hand of the giver, not the receiver. These priests had a Commandment to tithe the people, under the Order of Melchizedek we do not have a Commandment to take tithe, we should give by nature. However, we do have sacrifices, to us a Sacrifice is not something we "have to give", it's something we desire to give.

In the Body God has established Operations, a manner in which God desires things to operate to bring about the most efficient manner of spiritual abilities (I Cor 12:28). Within the structure He established Helps and Governments, He intends for them to work as one to accomplish the task, but they do not operate independent of the Holy Ghost. Here the people heard from God through the Law, we hear from God through the New Man.

After the firstborn issue was settled, came the counting of those from thirty to fifty years of the Levites to do the work of the tabernacle (Numb 4:3). Aaron and his sons had certain duties as well, they were to take down the covering veil, then cover the ark of the testimony and other items before they could be moved. Then those who were numbered between thirty and fifty would be the actual persons who would bear the items of the Tabernacle during the moves. From the Kohathites there were 2,750 (Numb 4:36). From the sons of Gershon there were 2,630 (Numb 4:40), then from the sons of Merari there were 3,200, giving us a total of 8,580 for the carrying of the Tabernacle (Numb 4:48). This is another example of the figures coming to the exact total, thus showing the 300 missing in the count of the Levites was not a mistake, but a mystery, explained: like all mysteries in the Bible, they are explained in the Bible.

Every leper and unclean person had to be put out of the camp, yet the very premise of the Body is to receive the unclean, so they can be cleaned. This is extremely interesting, Psalms 105:37 tells us when the children left Egypt there wasn't one feeble (weak or sick) person among them, yet here it shows the leper and unclean were put out of the camp, thus we find metaphorically unbelief in the eyes of God is the same as being a Leper who must be put out of the camp as unclean.

Then comes the premise of "holy water", with the noted "spirit of jealousy". If a man suspects his wife of adultery, he has a "spirit of jealousy" (suspicious feeling), he is to take his wife to the priest. Seems like if the man has the "spirit of jealousy" he needs the devil cast out of him, but here it shows he has a suspicion, or suspects, but he is not to take matters into his own hands. This helps us understand one aspect of the word "spirit" as an attitude or expression about a person associating to the person. In this case the man's suspicion may or may not be justified, thus this "spirit" is based on suspicion only, indicating there is no evidence to show if his wife had committed adultery (Numb 5:13).  This is of course is Jealousy, not Envy, the concern of someone taking something form the man. The husband brings his offering of a tenth part of an ephah of barley meal, but without oil or frankincense, yet it would seem the one thing needed would be the Oil (Numb 5:15). This almost seems like some type of witchcraft, but it's not, rather it's done to keep the spirit of jealousy from running amuck. The husband's suspicions would either be confirmed, or denied, he of course had to accept the result.

The priest would take holy water in an earthen vessel, with some dust off the floor of the tabernacle mixing the dust and water together (Numb 5:17). Showing we can't conduct this test, we lack the "dust". Ahh, Dust, man is made of the dust, the symbols show Water as mercy, the Dust as flesh, it’s what this is all about. The idea of Mercy countering Jealousy is an established weapon of our warfare.

If the suspicion is founded, the "holy water" becomes "bitter water", thus showing its purpose is exposure, either of the adultery of the wife, or the false thinking of the husband. The woman must make an oath saying, no man other than her husband has laid with her, if it’s true, she is free of the "bitter water" (Numb 5:19). This holy water, or bitter water causes the Curse, it doesn't cause the Blessing, thus if the woman lied, she would be subject to the curse, if not, the curse would have no effect on her. This type and shadow shows when we enter the Kingdom evil spirits have no authority over us, in our case the "holy water" is Mercy removing us from "bitterness".

The woman had to drink of the water, but wait didn't the priest put dust from the floor of the tabernacle in it? Yes, most of us would have said, "the surgeon general has said, if we drink water with dust in it, we'll die", or "no way, it sounds like witchcraft", but we find this process was ordered by God, not the devil (Numb 5:11). Intent, coupled with from Whom the command came determines if something is an act of witchcraft or not. There are many things witches do which seem similar in nature to what we do, but their intent, coupled with their lack of authority determines the difference. Authority to do Godly matters must come from God, a lack of authority is the basis for witchcraft. Water baptism done outside of the authority granted to the Body of Christ is witchcraft, since the Body of Christ is the only element granted the God given authority to water baptize anyone.

We have power over the actions of witches, we can't forget witches and devils are not in the Kingdom, they are in the darkness, we are of the Light. Of course the Tares  as the children of the wicked are in the field, they use the "wiles" of the enemy, but as far as a witch or devil doing something to us? Forget it, they are not in the Kingdom. It's our fear of the various evils proving we lack belief in the Power of His Christ, fear will generate the darkness against us, thus if we don't give place to the devil, he has none.

If the woman lied, then the Bitter Water would cause a physical effect, her belly would swell and her thigh would rot, but if she was innocent, then the Bitter Water would have no effect (Numb 5:22-29). The second the spirit of jealousy or the husband had a suspicion both he and his wife were to go to the priest immediately, rather than put her away based on a suspicion alone (Numb 5:29-31).

The numbering of these people proves one thing, out of all those numbered only two of them will make it to the Promised Land. We will see another numbering later of those who go with the two into the Promised Land; however, here in the second year we find from the 600,000 in the first count, only two made it. We are told a "few" shall walk with Jesus, so, is a few only two? Not hardly, the word Few is only relative to the number from which it's taken. If we are talking about ten, then a few would be less than four, but if we are talking about millions times millions, or even billions times billions, then a Few would be a Multitude unable to be numbered. When John sees the "few" they are so many no human can number them (Rev 7:9). Here we find far less than a Few, even less than a minuscule, yet the reason they could not enter was based on their own unbelief.

The Nazarite Vow is next, the town of Nazareth doesn't mean all in the town were under the Nazarite Vow, but we can't discount the name of the town pointing to something regarding Jesus being a Nazarite. The Nazarite Vow in the Shadow did point to something in the New, thus Paul was accused of being "among the sect of Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5). This would make it seem as if Paul was a Nazarite, but the wording is "sect of the Nazarenes", rather than a "Nazarite"; making a division. The difference? Much, we Follow Jesus, yet Jesus took His Nazarite vow of separation at the Resurrection, we are priests under Him. The Nazarite was not to partake of any wine at all, thus Jesus said He would not partake Again until the Kingdom shall come, or be complete (Luke 22:18). However, Paul also said the aged woman should not be given to much wine (Titus 2:3); therefore, if the Nazarite vow was on the Body, then it would be "no wine", not much wine. Paul also made the same statement regarding deacons (I Tim 3:8), but to the bishops it was "not given to wine", (I Tim 3:3). The question then becomes what does "kingdom shall come" mean? It can mean the actual appearance, or the arrival, but the Kingdom is not complete until after Jesus pours the cup of the wrath of God out just before the Judgment.

Communion was not a service until after Pentecost, Jesus gave the first Communion at the last Passover for the apostles, but the apostles did not take again until after Pentecost. The wording "shall come", is the Greek Erchomai meaning from one place to another, or to be established. Jesus also said the Kingdom of God was within us, it does not come with observation (Luke 17:20). Each time we take Communion it's to Remember what Jesus did, we who are Born Again have the Kingdom within. It doesn't mean the bread becomes Jesus in us, but it does mean we have the Kingdom of God within us, as the Greater He (I Jn 4:1-4). The completed Kingdom is after the Judgment, thus the Kingdom will come, in most of us, it’s already here.

This is made clearer when we find the person who entered the Nazarite vow didn't have to enter it for life, they could enter it for any length of time, the person could be either male or female (Numb 6:2). The requirements for both male and female were the same, metaphorically we could say, there is neither male nor female in the Nazarite Vow. The Vow was to be Separated, but Separated from what to what? It's one thing to be separated, but there is a difference between separated unto God, and those who separate themselves from God. This helps us with the statement of Jesus, "It is expedient for you, for Me to go away" (Jn 16:7). The expedient part was after Jesus ascended the Holy Ghost would bring the Gift (Jn 16:7 & 16:13). Jesus was separated from us as He sits at the right hand side of Majesty on High, yet He is in us by the Spirit, with us by the Holy Ghost, He did not leave us orphans.

The title Pharisee means Separated, thus the Pharisees assumed they were separated unto God, but Jesus came exposing their thinking, showing their error, they actually separated themselves from God. For us in a Spiritual sense, we can see the mystery of the Nazarite Vow as, "Wherefore be not unwise, but understanding what the Will of the Lord is. And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit" (Eph 5:17-18).

One could have trouble seeing Jesus as a Nazarite under this Vow, since Jesus Himself said, "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a devil, The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans, and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children" (Matt 11:18-19). Then in Matthew we also read, "He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: so it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt 2:23). Being called a Nazarene from the city of Nazarite, and being in the Vow are different. Unless we understand a True Nazarene has the "long hair" denoting the anointing (I Cor 11:15), surely Jesus fit the qualification as The Christ (The Anointed). Don't forget what we are reading here is the Shadow, not the Image, if we confuse the two, we will partake of the Shadow as we ignore the Image, ending being Separated from God, rather than Separated unto God.

Are we a type of Nazarite? We're suppose to be separated from the World, into the Kingdom, in that case, Yes. "Well I tell you what I don't feel like it", so? Feeling like it, and being it are often different. The growth is bringing forth the Seed of God in us, at times there is more work inside, yet to be seen outside.

We then find the "priestly blessing" which includes the title LORD three times, connecting to the prior teachings on the three areas of Holy. The blessing begins with "The Lord bless you, and keep you" (Numb 6:24). The first premise is the Lord blessing us, many times the Lord is blessing us, but our soulish interpretation of the event doesn't see it. The flesh desires its self-pleasure, when the flesh is in the midst of being crucified with Christ, it will fight back to show its supposed power. "I don't like this", "I don't see God here", "I don't think this is of God", "God wouldn't do this to me". If we are in the Hand of God, yet we assume the devil is beating our brains out, we have to consider, "are we in the hand of God?", or "is this really the devil?, or "Am I being flesh minded?".

In the Blessing the word Keep is the Hebrew Shamar meaning To guard, as one would guard a garden or flock. Shamar was also used for Watch, or Protect, or Hedge around someone. This goes further than keeping us in mind, it means the Lord protects us, guides us, and watches over us. The next phrase in the Blessing is, "The Lord make His face shine upon you, and be gracious unto you" (Numb 6:25). The Light comes with Grace, this is not "let your light shine", this is the Lord's "face" shinning on us, which means He is looking at us, rather than having a Law separating us from Him.

The next phrase is, "The Lord lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace" (Numb 6:26). Wait, isn't the Gospel we preach the "Gospel of Peace"? Yes, now we find this blessing is really prophetic in nature. The word Countenance is the Hebrew Panim meaning The surface of a face or body, it was the word used in "face to face" when Moses spoke to God as a friend, thus Jesus said we are His friends. Then God tells the priests to "put My Name upon the children of Israel", how are they going to do that? (Numb 6:27). Did they run around with little signs saying "Jehovah"? No, this is Authority, yet restricted to the purpose of the Law.

The dedication of the Tabernacle could only come after it was set up and anointed, then we find the "princes of Israel", or those who were over the various tribes. Israel didn't have a king until David, oh wait what about Saul? Saul was called to be a king, when we get to there we will see both he and the people called him a king, but God called him a prince in training to be a king. Although God was sorry for setting Saul to be a king, we find David was called, appointed and anointed a king by God, thus Jesus is seen as the "son of David", not the son of Saul.

All this in the Book of Numbers is still at the foot of the Mount, still around the first day of the second month of the second year, thus it was about 13 months after they left Egypt. In this case the number 13 didn't mean Moses was in rebellion, it means Rebellion was being destroyed because the Law was being applied.

The first prince was Nahshon of the tribe of Judah, if one was to consider birthright, why not Reuben? Judah means Praise, thus Jesus being from Judah, shows how He is our Praise (Numb 7:1 & 7:12).

Each prince had his own day to offer his tribe's offering for the dedication of the altar. If we take this shadow to the New, we find Jesus is the Prince of Peace said, "Peace I give unto you, not as the world gives", thus Jesus as the Prince of Peace offered His priests (us) His Peace.

On the second day came Nethaneel the prince of Issachar (Numb 7:18). Then Eliab the prince of Zebulun on the third day (Numb 7:24), then Elizur the prince of Reuben on the forth day (Numb 7:30), then Shelumiel the prince of Simeon on the fifth day (Numb 7:36), then Eliasaph the prince of Gad on the sixth day (Numb 7:42), then Elishama the prince of Ephraim on the seventh day (Numb 7:48), then Gamaliel the prince of Manasseh on the eighth day (Numb 7:54), then Abidan the prince of Benjamin on the ninth day (Numb 7:60), then Ahiezer the prince of Dan on the tenth day (Numb 7:66), then Pagiel the prince of Asher on the eleventh day (Numb 7;72), then Ahira the prince of Naphtali on the twelfth day (Numb 7:78). The order of the tribes in this case was: 1- Judah, 2- Issachar, 3- Zebulun, 4- Reuben, 5- Simeon, 6- Gad, 7- Ephraim, 8- Manasseh, 9- Benjamin, 10- Dan, 11- Asher, and 12- Naphtali; hardly the birth order, but it was the Marching Order of the tribes. The first three tribes in the marching order were Judah, Issachar and Zebulun, with Judah being the leader of the three. Then the second row contained Reuben, Simeon and Gad, with Reuben being the leader of the three. The third row was Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin, with Ephraim being the leader of the three. The fourth row was Dan, Asher and Naphtali, with Dan being the leader of the three. Therefore the order of the dedication was not out of order, but in the order of the armies as they were formed to protect the Tabernacle.

After the Dedication Moses hears from God regarding the order of the Seven Lamps (Menorah). Then we find a funny phrase, "the lamps shall give light over against the candlestick" (Numb 8:2). Over against, I thought the candlestick had a light of its own, what gives? The Seven Lamps to the Jew referred to the sabbath, but to us we see the seven churches. They viewed the sabbath as holy, but going back to the tribes giving their offering we find Ephraim gave on the "seventh day". Doing as God instructed is not a violation, sabbath or not, thus Jesus wanted to know if it was evil to do good on the sabbath. The wording “against it” refers to the menorah being the only light in the holy place. After the Dedication, and after the Lamp, then comes the Purifying of the Levites, but in our case we find the Purifying comes as a result of the Light in us, interesting. The Levites were to shave all their flesh for this purifying, but the Nazarite was not to shave, a separation? A division? A difference? The Levites were Sprinkled with Water, this would not be akin to our Water Baptism, rather this is a washing. Baptism was not an issue until John came on the scene; John's baptism was not a token to enter the Body, it was unto repentance, saying the people should believe. However, we do find the difference between being Shaven going in, and Long Hair after we're in. We were all without the anointing until we entered, but the Yoke was broken, the anointing came, we were then ready to accept the Spirit.

When Moses hears of the Passover according to the Law it will be the first month of the second year, but didn't we just read how Numbers begins on the second month of the second year? (Numb 1:1 & 9:1). Yes, but this doesn't mean Moses all of a sudden said, "oh man, I forgot, better put it here", rather God had an order He is presenting. God wants us to know all these areas of Vows, Hindrances, Deliverance, Anointing, Dedication to give us insight to the New.

This makes more sense when we find the Passover comes after the Purifying, this type in the Old points to the entrance into the New. When God receives us, we are pure to Him, we may not think so, we may not appear so, but what matters is God's viewpoint. God sees our puny faith in a different light than most of us, of course it's puny, it's by measure. It’s not to say it's inferior for the task, it simply places awareness on our measure of faith, it is not enough to gain the Promise (Heb 11:39).

The Law of Moses is not of faith, each promise is outlined, each curse is outlined, it's a matter of belief, not faith. This also reveals how one can believe, yet be void of faith. Someone can believe the Bible is correct and inspired, but refuse to have faith in anything the Bible promises them. They believe to a degree, but excuse the attributes as passed, or ineffective. The unseen source of faith can be the Hope set to the future, which can't be seen, but really the New Man who can't be seen holds the Promises of God for us. The New Man knows the Faith of Jesus has accomplished the task, thus by faith we submit to the New Man as the New Man leads us on the path of Righteousness. It makes sense, the New Man is created (formed) after God's Righteousness, thus the New Man knows the path of Righteousness of God well enough to follow it.

The Report connecting to the Witness is clearer when we find the Tree of Life has two positions, on either side of the river of life (Rev 22:2). The Report at one end, the New Man at the other, thus the Report is the Father, Word and Holy Ghost, but the Witness is the Water relating to the Mercy of the Father, Grace relating to the Blood of the Word, the Spirit relating to the Holy Ghost. Faith is Now confidence stemming from something unseen, reaching to a hope which is also unseen, yet faith can be seen. Hope one can see, is not hope at all, it's fact (Rom 8:24). However, without knowledge and belief we would not know what faith is, or where to put our faith. Belief based in faulty knowledge makes the platform for weak faith. If we believe the world can save us, we will put our faith in the world right along with our trust. When the world appears to be failing, our faith will fail, our trust will fail, we will be a wreck. If our Belief is sound, then our faith seeks the Hope set before us, we will put our Trust in God, as we put our faith in God.

Numbers 9:2 makes sense to us, since we know Jesus is our Passover, but we can't imagine how a scribe like Moses felt when God said, "also keep the Passover at his appointed season" (Numb 9:2). At His? Why not "its"? Because the Father is speaking into the Shadow about the Image many years ahead. Simple for us to grasp, but what about Moses? "Oh gee, I must not have heard God", or "This isn't God, I come against you", or any number of things, except the man knew the Voice of his Lord, he knew when God was speaking to him. Moses was not Born Again, but he had ears to hear as he wrote what he was told, whether he understood it or not.

There was another sign of God saying something to Moses, yet looking far ahead to what will be. We see how the Passover had to be eaten after the sun went down on the 14th day of the first month, not the 15th day, or even on the morning of the 14th. What about the poor guy who couldn't? They could take it on the 14th day of the second month (Numb 9:11). This could be a "so what", if it weren't for some verses in the New showing how the wicked mind of man will twist something of God to fit man's self-desires. Clearly we are told if a person didn't take the Passover on the evening of the 14th, they had to wait one month. Jesus and His disciples did eat their Passover on the evening of the 14th, but then Jesus was arrested. The provision here in Numbers points to those who "were defiled by the dead body", thus the day of the Cross the religious leaders didn't want to touch Jesus or the Cross, they had yet to take their Passover; however, they were the ones bringing the charges, they were just as responsible for the Cross as the Romans. They violated their own Law, yet claimed Jesus did. They waited to take their Passover until the 15th, which was another violation, since they knew the purpose of their efforts was to produce a dead body, they should have waited one month. They accused Jesus of violating the sabbath, yet they violated several points of the Law, then excused their hypocritical behavior.

Now comes the Cloud over the Tabernacle, as God said He, Himself would not go with the children, but He would send His Glory, Cloud and Angel. The Glory of the Lord is important, don't think for one second it isn't, but the example here shows the Glory can fall, yet God may not be among us. We need the Glory with God to be complete. Some run to hill tops, some run all over the world looking for the Glory, yet Paul said the Glory is within (Rom 8:18). We don't seek the glory of the Sun, or the Moon, or of animals, we need the Glory found in the New Birth.

This Counting was still the first generation who entered the wilderness, less the 3,000 of course. In this we find many numbers, but what's the point? Whether there were 600,000 or 100,000 or 10,000 what's the difference? After all we are well into the Day, what possible significance could the numbers have? Above all it shows, out of all these people of the first generation, only two made it to the Promised Land. Joshua and Caleb would seek the Precious endeavoring to believe, even if the others didn't, they would bring the good report in the face of opposition, gaining the victory over the odds set against them. So what? If two could do it, so could 600.000.

The Alarm in the camp came from Silver Trumpets, Silver is a metaphor for redemption, but does it mean these Trumpets gave the children redemption? Not at all, we find Two Trumpets, the First, and the Last (Numb 10:1-2). When they blow both trumpets the children assemble at the "door of the tabernacle of the congregation" (Numb 10:3). If they blow One Trumpet, then the princes as the heads of the thousands shall gather unto Moses (Numb 10:4). It takes Both Trumpets to bring us to the Door, this is also a type, displaying when the Last Trump sounds, the princes of Israel (144,000) will be marked to begin the Night as the Lesser Light. The type shows the first trump sounded for us when we gathered at the Cross to gain the Resurrection, the Last trump will gather us to the Lord in the air.

The Trumpets shall be "an ordinance" forever, we as a people have yet to hear the Last Trump, much less the Great Trump. Only One Trump has been sounded thus far in man's history, we wait for the Last Trump to avoid the Great Trump. Therefore we find God wanted to be among His people, the First Trump was sounded, becoming complete at the Cross of Jesus. The Cross produced an earthquake, the Last Trump will produce an earthquake as well, the Great Trump will also produce an earthquake. When the Last Trump sounds many things will happen, including the earth becoming as it was in the Days of Noah. How many Christians were around in the Days of Noah? Ten? No, not one. How many of the disciples were Born Again when Jesus Ascended? None, the Holy Ghost brought the Spirit after the Ascension, thus as Jesus left, so will He return. Rightly Divide the Word, strongholds will fall.

As they travel Moses meets the son of Raguel the Midianite, we are told this Raguel is the father-in-law of Moses (Numb 10:29). First it was Reuel, then Jethro, now Raguel, why so many names for one guy? It would also seem Moses married all the daughters of Midian, not so. The name Raguel means Friend of God, as does Reuel, but Jethro means His excellence. When Jethro was honored by Moses, it was in accordance with the man's position, when it’s Reuel it was in his own country, he still had a heart for God, but here we're not talking about Reuel, but about Hobab, the little twist on the spelling of Raguel points to the twisting of what Hobab considers "a friend of God". Jethro was in wonder of all God was doing, Hobab is asked to come along and be blessed, but says, "I will not go" (Numb 10:30). This Hobab can be a confusing person, especially when we find the only other reference to him is in Judges 4:11, but in Judges 4:11 it appears as if Hobab is the same as Jethro, what gives? Here he is seen as "the son of Raguel", but in Judges he is seen as the father- in-law of Moses? Oh my, another overzealous scribe. Not so, we have a great lesson, we find Hobab, Jethro, Reuel and Raguel are all the same person, but it depends on what is being asked of the man, with his response defining which name he possesses. One can be a friend of God, when God is doing what they want, but then become rebellious when God asks them to do something the person doesn't like, or they can be moved by the moment, yet deny the call to follow Jesus. When Jethro came with the suggestion of the Judges, it was good, but he didn't have to stay, neither did he have to be a judge. Here he is asked to "come along", but it takes commitment, something he wasn't ready for. We are not told if he went or not, but history shows he went back to the Midian. Later we will find God commanding Moses and the children to kill all those in Midian, at which time Balaam himself will be killed.

This lesson of one man with many sides shows how we tend to react, rather than respond. When God does as we desire, we're so happy we "testify", but when God does something we don't like, we get mad, bark at the moon, kick the cat, tell everyone the devil is beating us up. Same person, same God, the only difference is whether God does what they want, or they do what God wants. Paul said some will love pleasure, more than God (II Tim 3:4). All they want is Pleasure, no testing, on commitment, no training. They are fine when God gives a Word of Correction to someone else, but when the Word is applied to them, look out. Faith is a desire to please God, whether we're pleased or not.

How does this battle relate? Moses said, "Return, O Lord, unto the many thousands of Israel", but the people complained again (Numb 10:36 & 11:1). The separation of the chapter doesn't change the context, the people complained, the Lord was Displeased. The Lord Heard, thus His anger was Kindled, the Fire of the Lord burnt among them  consuming them who were in the uttermost parts of the camp (Numb 11:1). Our God is a consuming Fire, upon those who refuse to obey.

Back in Numbers 10:35 we find the familiar phrase, "let Your enemies be scattered", but who were the enemies of God in Numbers 11:1? The children, they failed to do war against their unbelief, rather they used it against God. Some might consider God's punishment unfair, they may even think, "Why just those in the uttermost parts, why not those who complained?". Ahh, the wording "Uttermost Parts" is the Hebrew Qutach meaning Extremity, Border, or End, suggesting the aspect near the separation point between two areas, like the bank of a river it’s a separation point between the land and river, thus these were the complainers who were destroyed. God drew a line between the complainers, and those who did not, on the line was the compromisers, those who felt as long as they did neither they were safe, but failing to take God's side still made them enemies.

There are three groups seen in the various moves of God. There are those who are packed, ready to go. When the cloud moves, they move with it. The second group isn't so sure, they wait to see if the cloud really did move. When they see it has, they run to catch up. The third group are still members of the camp, they hate to see any move, they are the "comfortable" ones, when they see the other two groups move, they walk along behind complaining as they look for discards to use as an excuse not to catch up with the cloud. This third group is akin to the Uttermost parts, they are not in the move, not seeking it, but neither are they completely rejecting it, they have compromised.

Of course when the Fire comes, so does self-repentance. The people cried unto Moses, Moses prayed unto the Lord, the fire was quenched, Moses called the place Taberah (Burning). Quenched? Didn't we read something in the New Testament about Quenching? Oh yeah, "taking the shield of faith, wherewith you shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked" (Eph 6:16). No, it can't be right, here in Numbers it's the Fire of God, in Ephesians it's the fiery darts of the Wicked. Nonetheless we find a relationship, the enemy sends his fiery dart to get us to complain and murmur, but our Belief holds to God Is thinking. This fire of God is much different from the baptism of fire, rather our baptism of fire keeps us from the destroying fire.

The next event we find in Numbers is the Great Quail Hunt, but didn't we see it in Exodus? No, in Exodus the quail came one day, just before the manna, yet the event became the premise behind this one. We can't confuse this event with the prior feeding of quail, since this event has them eating it for many days, prior in Exodus it was for one day only (Ex 16:13). Also in Exodus the quail came first, then the manna, here they are complaining about the manna, thus they are demanding flesh or quail again. They remembered the last quail, but instead of thanking God, they tempt Him. They used their "formula", but in their case it was complaining again. In one respect they were right, God would give them the "abundance of quail"; however, it will be exposure unto a lesson regarding greed.

Here in Numbers we find the evidence of these people being Vegetarians; when they complained about the manna they said, "we remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely, the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic: but now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes" (Numb 11:5-6). There isn't one mention of red meat, showing they brought the cattle with them for sacrifices. The Egyptians provided the fish and veggies, God provided the manna, thus we find their complaining was really telling God they liked the provision of Pharaoh (world), more than the provision of God. Couple it with their wrong attitude regarding the prior provision of quail, and you have a wreck in the making. The right attitude would be "thank You O, Lord", the wrong would demanding from God based on a prior blessing. Oh my, not a nice thing to do. When God provides it may not appear to our self-seeking souls as "the best of the crop", but it is the best for us. It's we who make the false determination of what is best for us. In some cases rather than complain to God we say "they were suppose to give me the better one", we end blaming the person, but it's still a sign of our lust and greed. They didn't consider how they had food everyday, not a one of them was going hungry.

Here is a good lesson, Adam was a vegetarian (herb eater), yet he fell. Noah and his family were allowed to eat meat, yet from him came Nimrod and Babylon. The children were vegetarians in Egypt, but in bondage, they are now given Manna from God, yet they  complain and murmur. Later they will be given more food then they can eat, yet they will complain the more, food never makes the person holy, or unholy, the determination is what comes out of a person’s mouth; not what goes in.

Numbers 11:4 says the "mixt multitude" complained, but what is a "mixt multitude"? The same Hebrew word is seen in other versions as "rabble" and "foreigners". Could it be some of the Egyptians came with the children? The Hebrew word of "mixt multitude" is Aspesuph meaning a Mixed Crowd, or those who are Mixed in, it refers to those who were half Hebrew and half Egyptian. The mixed multitude is seen in Exodus 12:38 as the "mixed multitude", again it shows a mixture, denoting there were some among them who were half Egyptian. The metaphoric use of Aspesuph could be a clue to the children's attitude; the children were Hebrew, but Egyptian minded, they were like Ishmael, rather than Isaac.

They could not tempt God unto evil, since there is no lust or evil in God. The same Greek word used for Testing is used for Temptation, the difference between the two are the words "unto evil", something God will not do. Jesus was taken into the wilderness to be tempted, but did the temptation become complete? No, to Jesus it ended as a testing and victory, to the devil it was temptation and defeat. Some of us are tempted by people, then we think, "Oh I am so evil, the most unworthy of all". Yet James says Rejoice when you fall, yet falling is the result of the temptation. One would think he would say, "Rejoice when you are not tempted". James also says when we are tempted we are drawn away by our own lust, so why would anyone Rejoice? Get mad, yes. Fall into self-pity, yes. Rejoice? Temptation has to come from a lust, regardless if it's the devil or a person. In order for the temptation to become complete there must be a lust in the person being tempted. The children tempted God, but God was not tempted unto evil, or better the temptation didn't make God do evil. Since God has no evil in Him, based on the lack of evil God will not tempt us to do evil either. James points out God can send us a good gift, yet the lust in us can take the same good gift then twist it by a lust making it evil, Jude concurs with James (Jude 4). Here the children sent a temptation to God, but it didn't fool God, neither did it cause God to respond with evil. God will respond by sending a blessing, a good gift, but it will also expose their lust and greed. What they do with the exposure is up to them, the same is true with us. We may tempt someone with our unbelief, but if they are a believer it becomes a test for them, giving strength to their belief. They respond by the Spirit and our unbelief is exposed, what we do with the exposure is up to us.

We find God can send us a blessing, yet we can turn and complain because it wasn't good enough, it wasn't exactly what we wanted, it didn't fit our thinking, thus our lust is exposed. God can send us an abundance, but if our greed consumes it in the minute, we twisted a good thing, making it evil. Like these children, God will meet the need, but at times the need will expose the greed. There are times when we must beware of the test, if our "buckets" are so full we seem to choke on the blessing, watch out, it's a quail hunt. The evidence is here in Numbers; God said, "you shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days; but even a whole month, until it comes out of your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because you have despised the Lord which is among you" (Numb 11:19-20). The temptation by the people was really them despising the Lord, not real smart. This separates this quail hunt from the quail feast prior in Exodus. How did they "despise" the Lord? By complaining about His provision, then tempting Him. The real blessing was found in how God blessed Moses during all this. Moses needed help, God gave him "the seventy", then put the "spirit of Moses" on the seventy. This isn't some transference of spirits, or the anointing rubbing off of Moses unto the seventy, rather it refers to an attitude coming from the positional authority (Numb 11:16-17). The seventy had their anointing for the position, just the seventy Jesus sent out had an anointing by the authority Jesus granted them.

The quail was a blessing and an exposure, but an exposure is a blessing isn't it? With all the quail, what could they have done? If they had enough quail for a month, surely they had enough to capture some and raise them. They could have had occasion quail feasts for the rest of the time they were in the wilderness, but they consumed the Blessing on their own lust, twisting the good into evil. God didn't trick them, He exposed their greed. This is exactly what James it talking about, we can ask God for some attribute of God, even Wisdom, but we ask to consume it on a lust, rather than in faith (James 4:1-4).

In Numbers 11:21 we find the purpose of the prior Numbering, as we read, "six hundred thousand footmen", which relates to the 603,550 (Numb 1:46), relating back to the number who left Egypt. Nearly the entire camp was going around with quail meat hanging out of their noses, what a sight. The "mighty people of God" with the "spirit of quail meat". Oh well, a lesson nonetheless, Amen?

We also find the definition of "flesh" denotes quail, which also helps define the term "bird" or "fowl". The metaphors Dove and Fowl are different, a Dove is a type of Fowl, true, but the Dove metaphorically represents Deliverance, Peace, or the Spirit; whereas Jesus defined Fowl as birds picking at our fruit, or attempting to rest in our branches, thus a fowl will use the Branch, but never becomes one. Jesus equated us to the Tree, the fowl as an unrelated element living off our fruit. Paul metaphorically called the anointing "hair", thus each member of the Body is under the general Unction over the Body. There is also the anointing of the New Man unto salvation. Those who take Grace seriously walk in both anointings, but there are those who think they can usurp the anointing over the Body, they enjoy the blessings, yet refuse to be responsible to the call, they are fowls, not doves.

It's also important to know the Seventy didn't come into being until after the Tabernacle was set up, whereas, the first quail feast in Exodus was well before the Tabernacle. Also in Exodus it was Aaron who talked to the people, here it's the elders, thus we have two different events, but linked by the word "quail". We could form an imagination based on the one word, missing the importance of the lesson, something none of us what to do. God granted them the first feeding based on His love, not their complaining. They rejected the blessing of the first feeding as a blessing, now they were demanding quail. This is the an attitude of counterfeit faith, a mindset using faith for self-pleasure whether God is pleased or not. Faith to please God and faith to please the self, are as different as asking and demanding. Nonetheless, if we are aware and open exposure is not only a blessing, it becomes a point where freedom is at hand. Rejoice, it's time to cleaned of the lust.

Here the "quail" ran for the month, non-stop, one quail after another, greed always seeks more than it can handle. If this is the case what about the sabbath? They had to violate the sabbath as well, since it doesn't say the quail stopped on the sabbath as did the Manna. The testing was many fold, would they see it? Not hardly, their greed and unbelief were blinding them the more. This is a great lesson, God gave them the sabbath and the quail, but they violated the sabbath thinking the quail superceded it. After this exposure one would think the children would get the idea by repenting. One would think so, but will they?

Moses allows the darts of complaining to effect him, he goes to the Lord saying, "You lay the burden of all this people upon me?" (Numb 11:11). When Paul was attacked three times by the carnal thinkers of Corinth, he went to the Lord where he found Grace is sufficient. Here God will bless Moses with the seventy elders, but we find Jesus blessed the people by sending His seventy. Moses was feeling the stress of these people, thus he asked God, "Shall the flocks and the herds be slain for them, to suffice them?" (Numb 11:22). This was a sarcastic statement, considering the people just said how they ate fish and vegetables. Moses saw their greed, they didn't. Elders often see what God is doing, but when they tell us, we get mad, or call them crazy, while we have quail meat hanging out of our nose.

The Great Quail hunt didn't come immediately, the seventy had to be set in order first. When the seventy were set in order something begins to happen, they all begin to prophesy (Numb 11:25). Paul said, "I would for them all to speak with tongues, but rather  you prophesy" (I Cor 14:5). Paul didn't say we were not to speak in tongues, as some suppose, rather he desired we all did, but added his desire for us to prophesy more than speaking, not rather than. It's also evident, he who speaks in an unknown tongue speaks unto God, not men, for no man understands him, for he speaks mysteries in the Spirit (I Cor 14:2). Well if it's the case who is the Interpreter? We must have an interpreter in the gathering when someone speaks in unknown tongues, right? Right, but translation is not the issue, interpretation is. Paul also said part of the Manifestation of the Spirit was "interpretation of tongues" (I Cor 12:10). Therefore, if one is to Interpret tongues, it must be from the Spirit, not ones intellect.

There is a vast difference between Translation and Interpretation, if we mix one into the other we will end giving opinions as a translation, missing the interpretation. When one translates from one language to another, they use words with the same meaning, same tense and possession. If the original wording is "the faith of Him", we will keep it intact, we don't change it to "our faith". If the original was "I Am, that I Am", we don't change it to "I have been, what I have been". The latter makes it appear as if God is always late, "Sorry, got hung up in Egypt, did I miss the quail?". The Interpretation gives us what was in the Author's mind at the time the words were spoken. This doesn't change the Text, rather it shows the meaning behind it. The first time anyone spoke in unknown tongues was on Pentecost, there it was termed "unknown tongue" (sing.), for good reason. It's obvious there were three groups, one doing the talking, one gaining the interpretation, one thinking the speakers were drunk (Acts 2:13). After Pentecost we find the same evidence of speaking when a person was baptized with the Holy Ghost to receive the Spirit (Acts 10:46 with Acts 11:16, Acts 19:6 et al). The first uttering is unknown tongue, since it pertain to the Jews only, afterward it became known as unknown tongues, including Jew and Gentile.

Continuing, here in Numbers all but two of the seventy stayed near the Tabernacle, but Eldad and Medad went into the camp and began to prophesy (Numb 11:26). Joshua came to Moses assuming something was wrong, by saying, "My lord Moses, forbid them" (Numb 11:28). Moses then says, "would God, all the Lord's people were prophets" (Numb 11:29), the same context Paul uses. Both Paul and Moses would rather the people say something from God, then what they were saying.

Also Joshua was the minister of Moses, yet not among the seventy (Numb 11:29). Joshua didn't know it, but God had other plans for him. Simply because it may appear we are left out at the time, doesn't mean God forgot us, nor does it mean God is punishing us. God may have something else in store for us.

The Corinthians had the Spirit, they simply refused to be spiritual. Does it mean they were lost? Not at all, since we have another lesson here, one showing any of us can gain a misunderstanding of some event, yet not "be lost". The disciples were casting out devils and healing the sick before the Cross based on God's Mercy, the same Mercy we receive when we ask God to forgive us. John heard how one man outside of the circle of disciples was casting out devils, and he forbade him, but Jesus said, "Forbid him not" (Luke 9:49-50). Oops, a little late, what now? Forbid him not, which is a very important issue and commandment. The same type of Commandment we have with unknown tongues, whether we like it or not, whether we do it or not isn't at issue, the commandment is we never forbid it (I Cor 14:39). The same is true here in Numbers, only the concern is not tongues, but prophecy. So what if they are going through the camp, it would be better if all the people were prophets, much better than tempting God on a daily basis.

This event will cause a problem in the minds of the children, it will also cause Miriam to be rebuked of the Lord as well. However, it’s exposure, not God tempting them. Therefore, the two men going about giving prophecy wasn't the problem, the children's reaction to it was the problem. The unlearned or unbelieving always have problems with spiritual matters.

Then comes the Quail, two cubits deep, which is about thirty-six inches, spreading outward for a day's journey from the camp in any direction, a bunch of feathers to pick. They could have said, "praise the Lord, we're going into the pillow business", but their greed overtook them. The exposure was before them, if they received it.

With the manna, one homer a day was enough, but these people are gathering ten homors of quail each (Ex 16:18 & Numb 11:31-32). When the flesh of the quail was yet between their teeth, the Wrath of the Lord was kindled, there fell a great plague (Numb 11:33). One could assume the quail brought the plague, but it was the greed of the children, plus their rejection of the exposure, God sent a lesson, they ignored it.

Prior the Anger of the Lord was kindled, not His Wrath, thus we find the Wrath of the Lord is an action, His Anger a feeling. We find one can cause the Anger of the Lord in this Season, but not taste of His Wrath until the next, which is the meaning of the fowls in the trees, when the tree is gone, then comes sudden destruction.

Moses just counted the people, now a plague wherein many die, so many Moses calls the place Kibroth-hattaavah (graves of the longing, or grave of the greedy). Moses could have said, "Oh great God, you know the trouble I went through to count these people, I suppose You'll want me to do it again?". He could have, but he didn't, he was a servant. Even If God wanted him to count them again, so what, God is the master, Moses the servant.

The next event has many lessons in it, some of which are revealed here, some when Moses strikes the rock. Some think this "Ethiopian woman" was someone Moses married in the wilderness, but there was no "divorce" between Moses and Zipporah, we know Jethro brought Zipporah to Moses in the wilderness. The slang term points to Zipporah, who failed to support Moses, or the people of Moses in their quest to get to the Promised Land. Miriam and Aaron had a valid complaint, but their approach was all wrong. Instead of discerning, they ended complaining and challenging. Perhaps Moses should "put away" his wife, and obtain another. Since Moses married this Ethiopian, the daughter of this Jethro, what gives him the right to lead anyone, or what gives him the sole right to have God speak through him? What was the evidence? Clearly God speaking through him. If God accepted him, we should as well.

This part of Numbers shows how Miriam and Aaron were among the seventy, we can't forget Miriam was called a "prophetess" in Exodus 15:20, and Aaron was also called the "prophet to Moses". There was the anointing of the office on Aaron, but not on Miriam, yet she was called Prophetess, but not to Moses. This is a very important issue, it will explain an area yet to come. Simply because Aaron held the office, and Miriam gave a prophecy, they presumed they could correct Moses, yet they will find the position never allowed them to "attack the brethren". They had what they presumed to be foundation to "correct Moses", after all there was the concern of the people, who belong to the Lord. If Moses can't be approached, then this thing is a cult. Wow, what to do? However, Moses not making it to the Promised Land shows it wasn't a cult, but nonetheless how we approach a leader is important. Here it was leaders approaching the leader in the wrong manner, yet with a valid issue.

The Gifts and Calling are to edify, not attack. Miriam will be a type of those who fall into envy, yet are among the called and chosen of God. She must suffer for her wrong for a short period of time, for her own good. Moses was picked of God, Aaron was picked of God, has Aaron forgot? Don't we all? This is a tough area, a lesson we need to be put in "our rememberer". "How come he gets all the good sermons?", or "I tell you what, I don't like this and I'm going to do something about it". All statements of envy or disappointment in what God is doing at the moment. If we have a legitimate reason, there is a manner in which to present it. If we are merely complaining we will spend hours searching the Bible for some verse to justify our attack. When we find something, anything, we will then say, "the Lord showed me this", no He didn't. Carnal minded? Yes, it's bitter water producing the root of bitterness. Some what a position in order to validate their existence, yet they allow envy to produce a word, but because of their lust they accept the word as from the Lord, when it is not. Paul never said, "I desired to be an apostle, now I am one", he was called, like the rest of us. At first the calling is a "who me?". Then it begins to settle in, but so does "is it me, or the Lord?". The question is good, we will seek the Lord until the calling is confirmed. We don't need to validate ourselves, we need to serve until the anointing of the calling manifests.

Numbers 12:2 gives us the division between the Office and the Act. Aaron will be protected by the anointing of the office, it's for this reason we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, we never trust in the anointing of the office as our guaranty of Grace. Aaron and Miriam were not only Levites, they had the same mom and dad as Moses, they were older, thinking they were wiser. They had more experience in these matters, don't you know. Something had to be done to correct this error and bless God, Aaron and Miriam were just the two to do it. However, information is only part of it, delivering the correction in manner God intends by the word of the Lord is vital. Just because we can dominate or correct harshly, yet not have God strike us down, doesn't mean we won't pay for it. The precise lesson was made by Paul using an event from Numbers. In First Corinthians 10:8 Paul says, "Neither let us commit fornication as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand". This warning was to a New Testament church, so it does relate; however, if we go to Numbers 25:1-9 we find it wasn't 23,000 who died. Wonder if Paul just forgot, after all it's not far off. Not a chance, the lesson isn't over, we go to the Second Census where we find the there were 23,000 (Numb 26:62). Ahh, it does connect, some paid then, others later, just because we got away with it today, doesn't mean there isn't a lesson waiting around the corner. When Moses removes the Garments from Aaron, Aaron dies, becoming Paul's point to the carnal Corinthians; they will paid for their fornication, some then, the rest later. Of course this is predicated on a lack of repentance, or correction. The same is true for the Corinthians, repent, accept the change to be a change, rather than pay for the wrong later.

Having jumped ahead, we must now regress some, in Numbers 12:3 it would seem the Scribe Moses is being somewhat prideful, as we read, "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth". Oh the ego of the man, the pride, next he will say, he was sent to them because he was the only Hebrew in the world whom God could trust. The ego, the pride, the, oh wait a minute, the Holy Ghost is the Author. Moses will also tell us how he missed it, so this isn't ego, but a man who wrote as he was told, whether it made him look good, bad or indifferent. Moses was meek, he wasn't going to justify himself, of course he could have said, "I come against you in the Name of Jehovah", or "I'm the anointed of God, you will pay for this", or any number of statements stemming from a prideful heart, but he didn't, proving he was meek, by being meek.

The entire point shows Moses didn't pray against Aaron, or cause the leprosy to attack Miriam. The Lord protects His own, here was a meeting where two or three were gathered together in the Name of the Jehovah, thus He was among them; however, Miriam and Aaron will find out approach means much. The Cloud came down, standing at the Door of the Tabernacle calling Aaron and Miriam, they both came forth (Numb 12:5). "Ah yes, the Lord has heard us Miriam, we will among the leaders, we will be honored now, you know we have worked hard for this, now we will get our reward". The Lord said, "If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make Myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream" (Numb 12:6). Huh? Simply, Aaron, or Miriam, or any of the others who prophesied or had visions or dreams from God, yet Moses spoke face to face with God. Since they did prophesy about other matters, they felt they had a right to correct Moses, but their position and ability came from God. They had an opinion, a reasonable worry, but they had not heard from God, they missed the most important step, bringing it before God, before bringing it to the leader.

This also will connect to Deuteronomy 13:3, where God adds to the concept of a "false prophet", by showing if one among us has a prophecy, or a dream and the thing comes to pass, yet the prophet or dreamer of dreams tells us to go after other gods, we must know God has allowed it to see whether we love the Lord or not. Is God tempting us? No, testing us? Yes. Here we find the support, yes it's true if a prophet says something and gives a specific date, yet the date comes and goes but the thing does not come to pass, we are not to believe them. However, the role of a Prophet in the Office of Prophet is two fold, they deliver doctrine (they don't make it, they deliver it - Acts 15:32), they also give direction to the Body (Acts 11:28-29). Here it's the same, doctrine and direction, but telling us to go and serve other gods is misdirecting us, which makes them a false prophet by definition. Balaam will not give one false prophecy, but his teaching will be corrupt, he will give Balak information to cause the children to follow other gods. The same principle, whether they tell us to follow other gods, or have someone else teach us to follow other gods, they are false brethren.

This section isn't telling us a leader is without fault, nor does it mean they can't be corrected, but neither Aaron of Miriam heard from God before they made their decision to correct Moses, rather they trusted in a position. The Authority is not for us to use the position as we please, it grants us the permission to operate in accordance with the Authority of the position. Jesus made it clear, He never said, "Go in My Name and do whatever you want", rather He gave specifics, even the Offices have specifics. Paul will correct Peter but his position allowed it (Gal 2:11-21), we also find it took others to inform Paul of the problem, knowing they lacked authority to correct Peter (Gal 2:12).

Miriam wasn't given a Word from the Lord, Aaron was not ministering to Moses, they were operating outside the confines of their authority. They had no standing from which to challenge Moses, rather it came from their own mind. This is a when we know something is amiss, yet take upon ourselves to correct the problem. We can suggest, leave it there, but Miriam and Aaron are not suggesting, they are giving commands. At times God will send us to a place to observe, but not speak, other times to observe and speak, but we also speak as an oracle of God, not as a "visitor with an opinion".

Miriam became leprous over this folly, but what about Aaron, how come he isn't leprous? God must have taken it out on the woman, yet left the man alone, right? Wrong, now we know the anointing of the office protected him for the time being. His "garment" was like the Unction, God was not going to inflict punishment on the Garment. This alone shows the Lord chastens those in the Body, He doesn't punish the Body. The Unction on the Body is still Christ, thus we are called the "Body of Christ".

Once Miriam is seen with the leprous plague, Moses could have said, "see, you stupid jerk, come against me will ya, ha". He could have, but he didn't, rather he went into warfare on their behalf. On one hand his own family attacked him, but they were paying the price, on the other hand, they were his family, thus he sought the Lord for Mercy, proving he is a humble person. When the people attacked Moses, he sought mercy for them as well, this mercy attitude of Moses is the premise behind him being able to talk to God face to face, they had something in common.

The Lord would not let Miriam remain a leper, but she had to suffer Seven Days. A lesson she would not soon forget, thus it corresponds to a type of chastening, there are lessons we remember. Aaron had his lesson, Miriam hers, the people had the quail as theirs, the seventy were appointed, now it must be time to "take the land". Well almost, there had to be a decision based on words spoken. This is still in the plan, all of us came to the Lord based on our decision when we heard the words from others. The Seed of God is planted on various grounds, it's the same Seed, only the ground is different. We can hear one or two say "Go", yet five or ten say, "No", with God we will find "the majority may not have God's direction". The world trusts in "majority rules", but in many cases we will find the minority has the Truth, the majority holds the Fable.

Twelve spies are picked, yet we find in Numbers 13:1 the Lord is telling Moses to send the men, thus if Moses is hearing God, which he is, if God speaks to him face to face, which He does, then God knew ten of these spies will come back with an evil report, with only two with the good. God provides the basis for the decision, but He won't make our choices for us. God is not tempting them, again this is a test, the test will accomplish one of two things. It will either affirm our position, or expose a lust. This spy mission is a perfect example, two of them will be affirmed, the rest exposed.

Joshua will be the representative from the tribe of Ephraim, Caleb from the tribe of Judah (Numb 13:6 & 8), yet there is no representative from Levi. No, this is another place where the twelve governmental tribes are separated from the religious order. The decision will not be influenced by Levi, yet one could argue Joshua being the minister of Moses was given special place to present the wishes of Moses, but the argument would be based on finding some excuse not to believe, rather than a cause to believe. It would be the armies who would do the fighting, thus the men of the army were picked. The term Spy means someone from one order sent undercover into another order, to operate in the order they are sent to, whereas an ambassador is identified with the kingdom they represent. Here the children are termed spies, but didn't God give them the land? How could they be spying out their own land? The purpose is to provide decision, which is made clear from the many areas noted in Numbers 13:18-20. In verse 22 we find the phrase, "Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt", for years it was felt the statement was error, but we find science catching up to the Bible again, today we know Zoan was in the area of Qantir, which not only supports this verse, showing the Hyksos did rule Egypt, but Zoan became known as the city Rameses noted in Exodus 1:11.

When the spies entered the land it was just as God promised, a land "flowing with milk and honey"; the heathen did a good job in keeping the land for the Hebrews. Going back to the promise in this Covenant we recall how God said He would drive out the Canaanite, Amorite, Hittie, Perizzite, Hivite and Jebusite (Ex 33:2). This will be important since some of the spies will find the "children of Anak" from which would come Goliath and his brothers. Accordingly the choice was there, perhaps God would drive out those other nations, but what about the children of Anak? Will we have to fight them? Great, God leaves the biggest for us to fight. Not so, God said He would drive out the inhabitants of the land, which would include the children of Anak.

While the searching was going on for forty days, the children also had forty days to consider their own ways while they camped by Kadesh. Another forty faced them, not by chance, but by design. The children had another time to consider their ways, so they could turn toward the Promise of God. When we repent we turn from sin, but we must repent toward the Kingdom in order to complete the purpose of our repentance.

The area of Kadesh was also known as Kadesh-Barnea, which was an oasis in the wilderness located just south of Canaan proper. This area would become a place of defeat, failure and despair for the Hebrews for years to come (Numb 14:4-45, 20:11-12, 20:23-29 & Deut 34:1-5). The mixed report was seen by God, yet without something to choose from, there is no choice. God is not tricking them, rather it's a presentation of the evidence. They had the Word spoken, thus they had the foundation of belief, now the physical evidence of the product of the land is before them giving them faith incentive, but they also had the spirit of fear coming from the mouths of ten of the spies, as well as faith from the mouths of two of the spies. The test is whose report will they believe?

All these numbers are interesting, forty the number of the wilderness, ten the number of testing, two the number of agreement. They had the "two" to agree with, or accept the testing (10) ending facing the wilderness again (40). Instead of saying, "hey, in the mouths of two or more, we have the two, God said go, so let us go my brothers", they said, "hum, ten huh, well looks like it would be better if we stayed here, regardless of what God said, after all ten is more than two".

The children enter their unbelief by accepting the fear of the majority, rather than the faith of the few. Caleb stilled the people saying, "Let us go up at once, and possess it: for we are well able to overcome it" (Numb 13:30). Caleb spoke on behalf of God, they were able, since God said they were, whether they received it or not was up to them.

Of course the people said, "You're right brother"? No, they said, "we are but grasshoppers", but they forgot grasshoppers can become locusts (Numb 13:33). Once unbelief took hold, then came the weeping in the night, then morning brings the murmuring (Numb 14:1-2). If they had moved to the agreement of the Two, then Joy, not murmuring would have come in the morning.

The children will make a statement much like the mouth full of quail, which was the other side of "ask and you shall receive" (Numb 14:2). The children murmured before, they challenged Moses before, yet God is longsuffering, but the Longsuffering reaches a point. The statement was, "Would God we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness" (Numb 14:2). Will they die in the wilderness? Yes, Jude reminds us how the Lord having Saved these people, destroyed those who failed to believe (Jude 5). Moses gave prayer after prayer for God not to destroy them, yet they were destroyed. Prior they attacked Moses, then Aaron, now they attack God directly.

God picked the next generation for His move, something the history of the Body shows over and over. Did God know? Yes, it was in the plan, their error is our lesson, not our excuse. This example was also for the Jews during the days of the earthly ministry of Jesus, if they murmur and complain by refusing to accept Jesus, the Next group (Gentiles) would take the Kingdom. Why send the people if God knew they would rebel? It's the presentation, thus these children could never say, "I never had the chance".

When they murmured and complained it was bad enough, but now they have entered Rebellion by calling God a complete liar. "God won't deliver us, He has deceived us, just so He could kill us", foolishness? Yes, but some of us have turned on God when faced with what we presume are giants. Thank God this is the Day, while it is yet Today we can repent to avoid the hard heart of unbelief.

Will these children remember the mistakes of the past? To some degree, but instead of Learning from them, they attempt to do the same mistakes, but with a different twist. The Golden Calf was an idol to take the place of their leader, now they say "let us make a captain, let us return to Egypt" (Numb 14:4). The Golden Calf was not to honor Moses, neither was it to replace God, it was to replace Moses. The premise they took was, "if we don't make it to replace God, then it's not an idol", but they were wrong. Their other excuse was, "it's not a violation of the First Commandment, this isn't to honor Moses, really he hasn't returned and we must have a leader". Wrong again, an idol by any other name is still an idol.

Prior  it  was to make the calf lead them through the wilderness, here it's "go back to Egypt", or as we know it, "Return to the world", which is the same as Returning to the old plow, or falling back to perdition. God picked Moses, they are picking their own, thus they were usurping the authority of God.

Aaron just went through this, thus we find God allowed Aaron and Miriam to taste of the rebellion in order to deal with this situation, thus there are times when we taste of something, so we won't eat it. These children failed to discern their own confession, as they failed to remember the lessons of the past. God delivered them, gave them Wisdom to build the Tabernacle, they were not without, yet they refused to take the experiences to build belief. Their unbelief was based in their misinterpretation of events, ye they had the choice to believe, or not to. As soon as Moses and Aaron hear, "Let us make a captain" they fall on their faces before all the assembly (Numb 14:5). One could twist it around to justify their unbelief as well. "See, the unbeliever has fallen on their face, we know this is of God, let us make a captain". Rebellion seeks self-justification through self-deception to excuse its behavior.

Joshua joins Caleb in his stand for God by saying, "The land, which we passed through to search it, an exceeding good land. If the Lord delight in us, then He will bring us into this land, and give it us: a land which flows with milk and honey. Only rebel not you against the Lord, neither fear you the people of the land" (Numb 14:7-9). Joshua discerned the Rebellion, it was obvious, yet not to those in rebellion.

Egypt was the most powerful nation in the world at the time, yet in forty days God made it nothing. What these people were facing in their own land was nothing compared to Egypt, yet they forgot the Power of God, by focusing on the enemy. God never asked them to raise a finger to deliver them out of Egypt, but here He is asking. The comparison shows a Covenant was made, God delivered us out of the world by His Mercy, but then He asked us to deny the self and pick up our cross, He will bring us life.

How could these people be any more than the armies of Pharaoh? The Hyksos defeated many of the people in the land, yet God defeated the Hyksos. The experience was a foundation for their belief, but in failing to account the past experience they fell into unbelief, once unbelief and fear overcame them, faith was out of the question.

Of course the children turned and said, "you're right brothers, let's go in the Name of the Lord"? Wrong, they entered the realm of stone throwing, today we find the "stones of  theological abuse", but these children picked up real stones (Numb 14:10). Now God enters the picture again, He is upset, they have inflicted harm on His anointed leadership (Numb 14:11-12). Moses moves in, then we find "the power of the Lord" and His Name are interrelated. Moses says, "let the power of my Lord be great, according as You have spoken saying, The Lord is longsuffering, and of great mercy....." (Numb 14:17-18). Wait, didn't we see this back in Exodus? Yes, only there we found this was Proclaiming the Name of the Lord (Ex 34:6-7). The Power of the Lord is found in understanding His Name, Moses is asking for the Power to be displayed in Mercy and Pardon. God then says, "I have pardoned according to your word", but Pardon is out of the question for these people (Numb 14:20). Could this be a mystery as a preview? Yes, as we read "as you have spoken in My ears, so will I do to you" (Numb 14:28). This is a dynamic verse, when we pray for Mercy on others, God grants us Mercy, if we pray Love on others, God grants us Love. Only in this case the children said, "would God we had died in this wilderness" (Numb 14:2); therefore, God is going to grant them their confession, they will die in the wilderness as they asked.

We have to stop for a second just to see the Mercy of God, up to this point God was still willing to give them the land, regardless of the golden calf, the rebellion, the murmuring and complaining. It would be their rejection of the presentation of the Promise causing the forty years of wandering, one year for each day of the spying, but we must see the longsuffering of God. All the wrongs these people did, yet God was still willing to give them the land.

Caleb and Joshua will see the Promised Land, but they must stay with the rebellious group for the next forty years in the wilderness. This is not forty years from this point in time, but forty years in total. Caleb and Joshua stood for God, why do they have to wait? Why not send them now? Could God make it with two men? Yes, but the land was promised to twelve tribes, not two men.

The forty years came one year for each day the spies were in the land, one year for each of the forty days for despising the Promise (Numb 14:31-32). Then the cause, "you shall know My breach of promise" (Numb 14:34). Did God Breach the Promise, or the children? The children, then why does God say, "My Breach of Promise"? The wording "Breach of Promise" is the Hebrew Tenuwah meaning Alienation of God from man, or what causes Alienation, the word points to Enmity, meaning unfriendliness, or being hostile to another. The Promise was presented by God, the children were the recipients, thus they caused a Breach. Paul said The carnal mind is Enmity against God, which is the same context as we find here in Numbers (Rom 8:7). What these children are doing is a good example of a carnal mind, something to consider the next time we complain about the place God has us.

God didn't break the Promise, the second generation will enter the Promised Land, but the nation has yet to take all the Promised Land. Abraham was promised the land to the River Euphrates, which border has yet to be reached. When it is reached, it's at the hands of the false prophet (Isa 11:14). The Breach didn't stop the Move, but it sure cut the promise in half. In the legal profession a "breach of promise" has to do with one party or another failing to do what they promised, thus these people caused God to fail to do what He promised Abraham, not His fault, but nonetheless a breach they caused.

There is also the term "Breach of Covenant", which didn't take place here. A Breach of Covenant is a failure to grant good title, causing the entire Covenant to be made void, but one can have a breach of promise in one aspect to the Covenant, thus the Covenant is good, the breach is not, which is what happened here.

We can't assume the entire thing fell apart based on the rebellion of these children, since the second generation obtained the land. God didn't Pardon this group, He pardoned future groups yet to come through Jesus. When Jesus said, "your sins are forgiven" the promise of Pardon became fact. This promise also shows whatever those in the Body did years ago, they did, we're another generation with a God granted opportunity to turn it around for the glory of God. To this people it was the nation, thus two men suffered for the wrongs of the nation, the same premise is found with Daniel. However, in the Body we find God deals with us as individuals, what another does, or doesn't do, will not effect us, thus Jesus said, "you follow Me".

Clearly they failed to take the land, so did they transgress? Or enter iniquity? They failed to do the will of God, which is the context in Matthew 7:21-23. When the Father forgives us it's based on two things, first and foremost is the request of Jesus, "Father forgive them they know not what they do", second is when we ask God to forgive us. Both of those are promises, the Father promising Jesus He would forgive for Christ's sake, then  the promise we make to forgive as God has forgiven us for Christ's sake. When we fail to give Mercy, we have breached the promise between the Father and Son, thus it becomes iniquity, which will lead to a transgression.

The next error the children will make is the Sin of Presumption; Assumption and Presumption are different. Assumption is after the act, Presumption is before the act, yet both have the same foundation. One can Assume God honored something they've done, or Presume God will honor something they are yet to do, both are based on faulty carnal reasoning. Presumption is the counterfeit of faith, Assumption the counterfeit of belief. Assumption is something taken for granted based on an opinion, an opinion is something felt to be true, but lacks evidence to prove it so, thus it becomes a Hypothesis as an unproved conclusion drawn from supposed facts, but the supposed facts are based in what the person thinks God should do. Presumption is the opinion of the person before the act, like it's sister Assumption, it is based in some form of arrogance, or pride.

This is not to be confused with the religious holiday known as The Assumption, although it too is based on opinion, the basis of which is not found in Scripture. The Assumption is held on August 15th, it is suppose to commemorate the bodily ascent of the Virgin Mary into heaven, but it doesn't take into account there is no mention of this act in Scripture, or a promise, neither does it take into account the grave of Mary in Ephesus. It is felt August 15th was the day Mary died, based on the premise of being captive under the altar of God she ascended to the third heaven, but so did every other Born Again saint who died. Exalting someone higher than God has is still making them an idol, Mary was picked from among women, the one doing the picking is the issue.

Can presumption on our part come from something God told us? Yes, it’s the point here in Numbers. We forget, or ignore the Proceeding Word, then run back to something God said prior. An example is saying we have accepted the Cross, but we’re doing deeds from the Law of Moses to gain the blessing. The Proceeding Word gave us the Law of the Spirit, the Father said, "Hear ye Him", not "hear ye them", thus we Presume doing the Old is as good as doing the New. Not so, if it were the case, there would be no New.

The other lesson of great importance here is found in why the children felt they could get away with this, and how it connects to: God cannot be tempted to do evil. It worked before, they murmured and God gave in, they complained and God excused them, they came against Moses, yet God granted Mercy, so why not this time? A piece of rope has an end, we may get away with "repentance in the face of danger" a few times, but there comes a time when it simply doesn't work anymore, the Time to grow up is at hand. Presumption is a self-deceiving trap based on the misconception of God's Mercy and Grace excusing any and all adverse behavior. Numbers 15:2 shows God telling these people, "When you come into the land of your habitations, which I give unto you", but didn't God just say they weren't going into the land? (Numb 14:29). Yes, but here we find God making plans for the next generation, He is speaking, but His words are being projected into the future. It's a sad note, but this was still the age of darkness before the Day Season of Salvation. The Law of Moses was good, but it either places one in the time of darkness, or the night, it doesn't place them in the Day, it was not designed to grant Everlasting Life, or Salvation, thus it cannot.

The children heard, Go, then they rebelled and heard, "Fine don't go". When they heard the consequence of their actions they said, "okay we will go", presuming the prior word was better than the proceeding. Wrong, the proceeding word came based on their refusal to do the prior. It’s the lesson, we are under the Law of the Spirit, to run back to use the Law of Moses to gain favor from the Law is an act Presumption. The Proceeding Word introduced the Law of the Spirit of those in the Body of Christ.

God is not speaking to this generation, but to the generation yet to come, thus these procedures are slightly different. The same is true with Deuteronomy, it's the Second Law, it will have some changes as well. The Meat Offering is the same as the Meal Offering, here it's a tenth deal of flour, a fourth part of a hin of oil, and wine for a drink offering. Notice something missing? Where is the Frankincense? It was required in Leviticus 2:1, but not here. A change is taking place, these people caused something to be lost, although their children will nonetheless enter the Promised land.

Their rebellion after being delivered kept cutting away at the Promise, until the time came when the Breach took place, yet the Breach caused an effect on future generations. The Lord will not hold the sins of the father against the son, but this is not the father, this is the nation, the captivity in Daniel's time shows there is a difference. Daniel did nothing wrong, yet he and his friends ended in captivity based on what the nation did. Don't confuse God dealing with the masses as the same as God dealing with the individual, they are often different. A nation called of God can rebel, breach the contract and suffer as a nation, yet the individual who holds their belief and faith in God will gain.

The other offerings all find different measurements for oil, but no frankincense. The Frankincense (sweet smelling savor) won't be established again until Jesus comes (Matt 2:11). God does lay out a process wherein the sins of ignorance can be atoned for, but when it pertains to the sin of Presumption He says the person shall be cut off, but why? (Numb 15:30). God is equal in the Season, these people were cut off because of their Presumption, the same goes for any future persons under the Law of Moses. This also shows how the iniquity will lead one to transgression, in this case the iniquity was the failure to do the first Word God gave them, which led to the transgression in the sin of presumption, yet they were still unequal.

Of course these people know they caused their own problems, some of them assumed since they can't get into the land, so why even keep the Law? They were still under the Law, they all said they would follow it, it doesn't make any difference if we breach some aspect of the Law we're under, the rest of the Covenant remains. This warning shows us how we are delivered from the world by the Mercy of God to obtain Life, but there remains the rest of the race, wherein we are saved by Grace through Faith, not of our own.

In Numbers we find a person who assumes the Law has passed away, as they go out to gather sticks on the sabbath (Numb 15:32). This is placed right in the area where we find God telling this generation they won't go, yet lays out the offerings for the next. This is not a sin of presumption, but assumption, thus the excuse could have been, "Hey, we're not going into the land anyway, so why trouble ourselves with this Law?". The Law had nothing to do with taking the land, the Law of Moses was the Covenant, the Promise of the Land was in the Covenant made with Abraham, not Moses.

This man who broke the sabbath was stoned to death, thus the phrase "law of sin and death" points to the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses pointed out and defined sin, it never did away with it. Transfer it to a goat, but it still isn't a doing away with. The Law of the Spirit centers on Salvation, it’s void of death, since it’s centered on Life, so we can have it more abundantly. Which Law would you prefer to follow?

God now has them put Fringes on their garments, this isn't a dress code, it had a specific purpose. The woman with the issue of blood wanted to touch the Border of the Garment of Jesus, do the fringe and border relate? (Luke 8:44). After the woman with the issue of blood was healed, the news went out, then others sought to touch the Border of Jesus' Garment (Mark 6:56). The word Border in Luke 8:44 is the Greek Kraspedon, in the Septuagint it was used in reference to these fringes (Numb 15:38-39 & Deut 22:12).

In the case of Jesus it marked a New Beginning, it only makes sense when we look at the Mount of Transfiguration where the Garment is representative of our covering (Unction). The figure of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration shows the Face of Jesus shining as the sun, His garment as white as the light (Matt 17:2). The Overcomers are promised to walk with Jesus in White (Rev 3:4), we are the "Body of Christ", thus we are covered by the Garment, in the Border is healing.

The purpose of the fringes here was two fold, To remember the Commandments, and To do them, thereby not seeking their own agenda (heart - Numb 15:39). This shows the difference between the purpose of the Law of Moses and Grace. The Law of Moses was a schoolmaster assigned to train the lost fallen nature of man. Grace grants us a New Nature, one not based in sin. The fringe did not represent the Law, it went right to the Commandments, so how was the woman healed? What Commandments did Jesus bring? He presented the least Commandments of Mercy, it’s what the woman touched, the Mercy of God. The term "least commandment" doesn't mean inferior, it means it's the least we can do.

We know all things to this point have brought clarity, they now know to serve the Lord, right? Wrong, next would come the Rebellion of Korah. The man Korah had the prior example of the people rebelling, with the prior example of Aaron and Miriam coming against Moses, so he was without excuse in any form. Korah's experience is example of a God of a second chance. Korah was with the children when the sin of presumption took place, he was there when the golden calf took place, so his action now is not some "out of the blue, one mistake" happening, rather he had a long list of things showing how God felt about rebellion.

Korah presumed his position and family line gave him more rights than he really had. After all, this man was the great-grand son of Levi, the Tribe of Levi was the called and chosen of all the tribes of Israel to be religious leaders. The man's family order was in charge of the Tabernacle, he as a man of great importance in the group, don't you know. Like most, in his self-deceived condition, he obtained followers, two main followers were Dathan and Abiram from the sons of Reuben, who had no say in religious matters (Numb 16:1). Korah's self-deception grew the more, now he has two from the tribe of the first born (Reuben), of course his position and calling must count for something, so he thinks. Korah's faulty foundation for his self-deception assumes he had "the power", and "bless God" he was going to use it. However, he used it against the called of God, a big mistake. One would think his anointing would protect him, as Aaron's did, but things are different here. In the case of Aaron he wasn’t attempting to take the position of Moses, but to rebuke Moses. Aaron being the "prophet to Moses" held the position to speak to Moses, but his approach was his error. Here Korah is a type of Helps attempting to overthrow Governments, there is no protection for the error. When Helps are placed in Government roles, things are out of order. The protection over the Body is greater, yet we still see these overthrows take place, How? Things out of order, giving the carnal minded opportunity to take positions they are not qualified for. The lesson here is one we should take notice of, there are those who think they have a right to march into any ministry and force correction, or take control, which is the Korah spirit (attitude). If God leads one to bring suggestions, it’s one thing, but the Korah spirit doesn't hear from God, they just assume it's their calling to correct everyone, but in most cases we find they hold more errors and heresy than all those they think they have to correct, thus we find Jude using Korah (Core) as an example of the Wicked (Jude 11).

Korah's manipulation would begin when he tells Moses, "You take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift you up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?" (Numb 16:3). Fact or Truth? God did call them all holy, but were they? They were holy only in the sense of God dealing with them as children, not in the sense of their personal holiness. We are holy based on the Seed of God in us, our holiness is effective when we walk in the Spirit. Did Moses "lift" himself up? Not hardly, so Korah is mixing fact with fable which always lacks truth. Korah's rebellion is not only usurping authority, but attempting to use the authority of Moses against Moses.

Prior when it was Aaron and Miriam we read how Moses was meek and refused to justify himself, yet here it almost appears as if he is justifying himself (Nub 12:3 & 16:5). Not so, Moses is leaving this in the hand of God, if God wants Moses to remain, then he will remain, if not, then Moses is willing to step aside. Right about here most of us would have said, "you want it? you got it, these people are crazy". However, Moses loved the people so much he was willing to remain, their attitude caused him problems.

Korah as well as the other priests had Censers, but the censers they used were Brass, not Gold. The first time we find the word Censer is when the two sons of Aaron tossed Strange Fire (Lev 10:1), it’s not saying the Censer is evil, it shows how something designed for Good, can be twisted into evil. Using the censer of Judgment where the censer of Salvation should be used is using "strange fire".

Before there could be any evil, there had to be Good, since evil is the twisting of Good. The same is true with darkness, there is no darkness in God, thus God makes darkness by taking away the Light. This plus other signs show when the earth was void and in darkness it was not created to be so, it became so. However, once God said, "it is Good", then evil would become the counterfeit, God didn’t created evil, rather God created Good, the evil came as a result of the wrong choice. Just as there could be no "spirit of antichrist" until the Spirit of Christ was given. Just as there could be no counterfeit fifty dollar bill, until the first came into existence. Counterfeits are merely a copy of something by someone who doesn't have the authority to produce copies of the original. The government produces money, but they have the authority, a counterfeiter does not. Korah had a censor, but it was not like that of the high priest, he lacked any authority to pretend his censor gave him the authority to challenge the leadership.

Korah and his followers were told to put "fire and incense" in their censers, this alone should have been clue enough of their folly (Numb 16:6). Moses then tells Korah and his followers, "you take too much upon you, you sons of Levi" (Numb 16:7). Korah accused Moses of being self-appointed, now Moses gives Korah the opportunity to see how Korah is attempting self-appointment. Like all those blinded by deception, Korah accused Moses of the very act Korah was doing. What caused all this? Korah's pride, ego and self-deception regarding his position.

Exposure through us can be funny, it can be us exposing something in someone, or  God exposing something us, yet in either case the old nature will blame the other without evidence or foundation. "Oh yeah, well you have pride, it's you", or "well I guess we all do it", or the famed, "others do it more than I". All excuses to avoid the exposure. We need to always check our own Ways and Words to determine if we're of the Faith or not. Perhaps God uses us to expose unbelief in another, but we can't assume we are free of unbelief either, we must examine ourselves as well. One attitude the child of God has is "opportunity", whatever the event or situation, or exposure, we know we have opportunity to gain therein.

Korah had all the past experiences, including the two sons of Aaron and their strange fire, now he has his censer full of the same strange fire, this explains the metaphor "strange fire". The two sons of Aaron moved into a position they were not granted, presuming they could carry on the duties of a position not theirs, yet they had censers of brass, but they attempted to use the fire of Aaron, yet Aaron's censer was gold. Korah is doing the same thing as Aaron's two sons, like the two sons of Aaron, Korah is drunk with his own folly. All this is good, when the Word of the Lord comes to us and says, "Strange Fire" it's a sure sign of someone, perhaps us, are attempting to take a position not granted, or using words of Judgment in a time of Grace.

This is why Jude uses Korah in his examples of the Wicked; Jude also uses Cain and Balaam. The use of Cain shows someone who will use their position to kill a brother, Balaam will be explained shortly. This attempted Takeover is seen in Numbers 16:10 in the phrase, "seek you the priesthood also?". Korah's mind considered the appointment by God a small thing, except for his own position, which he felt gave him the right to challenge others. The carnal mind always has two different scales, or yardsticks. For them the scale always tilts to their favor with great latitude, but when they apply their standard to others it's about one inch long, or very restrictive, the mindset of a hypocrite.

When the followers of Korah mock Moses with the same words, the evidence is in, they are Wicked (Numb 16:9). Moses calls Dathan and Abiram, but they said "we will not come up" (Numb 16:12). The call to safety was being rejected, choice is still choice. Then they use the same phrases as Moses used prior, only against Moses, as they say, "Is it a small thing you have brought us up out of the land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, except you make yourself altogether a prince over us?" (Numb 16:13). They have really moved over the line, they are saying Egypt is the land of milk and honey, which is the same as saying the world is the Kingdom. Then they add to their error by saying Moses failed in his duty to deliver them into the Promised Land, yet it was their own presumption (Numb 16:14). Self-deception is a wicked weapon of the enemy, Moses didn't make the golden calf, or breach the promise, Moses didn't rebel at the command, these people did, now they blame their leader for their own failures. The fall nature filled with deception coupled with the fear of rejection produced the error, here they are saying, "it was the leader you gave us", or "Moses made us do it, it's not our fault".

Moses goes to the Lord and says, "Respect not You their offering: I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one of them" (Numb 16:15). Moses is not pleading his case to the people, he went to the Lord, something Korah and his following failed to do. We will be given many examples of the Wicked, one type is here with the Korah spirit of envy and manipulation. Korah was a member of the religious order, a man with a God granted duty, a man who was born in the line appointed by God to represent Him to the people, but when he made his evil plan, then put it into play his iniquity ruled him. Who else fits this? Judas, he had all the past information, even went out to preach and do acts, but his self-desire and greed became his motivation.

Two hundred and fifty men came with their censers to back up Korah, with Moses was Aaron with his censer. Korah gathered the congregation at the Door of the Tabernacle and the Glory of the Lord appeared (Numb 16:19). Many seek the Glory of the Lord, but we had better be right with God when it comes. Korah was coming against a leader, if we have the "urge" to do the same, we must consider, is the person called of God? If so, bring up the complaint  before God first, at times we may find God is dealing with the person, yet we are about to interfere in something God is doing.

Then came another Separation and Division; Moses and Aaron were told to Separate themselves from the congregation, Moses knew God was going into Battle, yet did Moses say, "right God, go get them"? No, he went into intercession again, asking God, "shall one man sin, and will You be mad with all the congregation?" (Numb 16:22). This is very close to the intercession of Abraham, only then Abraham was looking a small group of righteous people to spare the city. Moses sees the Wrath of God, the righteousness of the congregation was not at issue, their lives were.

Then we find a very important clue and mystery; Korah, Dathan and Abiram were standing at the Door of the Tabernacle, yet God tells Moses, "Get you up from about the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram" (Numb 16:24). Whose Tabernacle was it? Was it God's? Or was it the property of Korah? What is going on here? The Tabernacle was the place of Gathering, like a Synagogue. The word Synagogue is connected to the Jewish religion, but the word means Gathering. When one reads the Book of Revelation they find metaphor after metaphor, the meaning of the metaphor "synagogue of Satan" is found here in Numbers. Korah, Dathan and Abiram were of the "people", Korah was used in the New Testament to define an aspect of the Wicked, it all connects, showing the metaphor "synagogue of Satan" pertains to those who say they are Jews (circumcised at heart), but are not (Rev 2:9). The were suppose to be the "called out ones" (Church), but remain gathered together with Satan in their hearts. The metaphor has nothing to do with the nation Israel, but does have to do with the Tares found in the Field.

The name Korah means To make oneself bald, the phrase "sons of Korah" found in Psalms, doesn't mean the children of Korah, it refers to the priestly order which continued on, although the man himself died. The man in the office was faulty, but it doesn't mean the office was. This is also seen in the position of Judas, it was the man (Judas) who failed, not the position; thus Judas did begin another position called the "son of perdition", joined to those who gather as the "synagogue of Satan".

The name Dathan means Belonging to a fountain, or Of a well, only in his case it shows one can Belong to the Well, but be a "well without water", which is the same as a "cloud without water" as Jude and Peter indicate (Jude 12 & II Pet 2:17). The metaphor Well points to the heart, or a place where water is kept, the metaphor Cloud means A witness, the metaphor Water points to Mercy, thus Dathan is a type of one who has a Well, should be a witness, but lacks Mercy, making him a vessel of dishonor.

The name Abiram means "father of loftiness", but loftiness means Arrogant. The metaphor Bald has nothing to do with a man losing his physical hair, it has to do with one who loses the anointing, in the case of Korah it points to the "self-baldness", or the act of one causing the loss of the anointing of the office. Putting these three together we find the seed of Pride caused a lack of Mercy, as their self nature produced the rebellion to remove the anointing of their office, yet they stood at the Tabernacle with censors.

At this point in time Korah is so self-deceived he sees the Glory presuming, "God is with me in this", which is the false assumption the presumptuous minded seem to make. God just finished saying the sin of presumption would cut one off from the people, yet Korah is convinced he is operating within his position, doing both God and the people a service. What he doesn't have is "so saith the Lord", something most of his type seem to forget. This type of self-deception is laced with pride, ego and arrogance, producing slander, or accusations without cause. These people are our warning, not our excuse.

Another clue to the "synagogue of Satan" is found in Numbers 16:26, where we read, "Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men". The word Tents is not the same word used for Tabernacle, rather it's the Hebrew Ohel, it's also used for the word Covering, thus we find the metaphor usage telling the people to come out from under the false covering of Korah, showing Korah has corrupted his position.

The word Wicked in Numbers 16:26 is the Hebrew Rasha, we will see this word many times before our studies in the Old Testament are done. Rasha is used as a parallel word for evil, or iniquity, as in the phrase "worker of iniquity", the word denotes turbulence, restlessness, a disjointing of something, confusion, oppression, greed, murder, trickery, dishonesty, or being unequal; all elements forming iniquity. Sin is a trespass, but the failure to do what we are suppose to do, often leads us to do things we're not suppose to do. A failure to do Mercy will lead us to slander, thus Iniquity and sin are often interrelated, but they are different. The workers of iniquity work at it, it's why they are called workers, but they are working at not doing the will of the Father, yet they do other things. The Acts they do are not evil, they are good (Matt 7:21-23), but what they did was not the problem, obviously, it was what they didn't do. We can cast out devils, yet go about slandering the brethren; we can do wonderful works, yet go about usurping authority, we can prophesy, yet lead people to other gods. Each was doing something, but the evil was based on not doing the will of the Father.

We can now consider the outcome of this Korah rebellion, with his gathering of slanders. Korah will go down into the pit, because the earth "opened her mouth, and swallowed them up" (Numb 16:32). This is just the reverse of the Rapture, in the Rapture the Door to heaven opens as we are caught away, here they are going in a different direction. Korah and his small band are gone, but the two hundred and fifty are standing round about since they were not swallowed by the earth. However, they found something else, the Fire of God. The Fire of God came and consumed the two hundred and fifty who "offered incense" (Numb 16:35). This shows the "offering of strange fire" as noted prior, and what happens. The incense was in the censers, but the censers were in the hands of the wicked. The censers then became "the censers of these sinners", yet the intended purpose of the censer was to bring sweet smelling incense before the Lord. Incense is a metaphor for Prayer, we find these wicked spoke words against Moses, yet the words were nonetheless prayers, thus "strange incense" would mean prayers against the people of God. A very risky maneuver; it's far better to pray For those who persecute you, than toss strange incense around. The censer wasn't evil, it was what they did with it: things are things, it's what we do with them determining if they are good or evil.

Another loss took place, the workers of the Tabernacle were no longer allowed to have censers, rather only the children of Aaron (Numb 16:40). When we misuse, or abuse the position, the Lord will remove something from us. When we use our anointed prayer life in the wrong manner, there will be a loss of power in our prayers. When we misuse or abuse the anointing of the Office, there will be a loss of power in the office. Perhaps not right away, but a time will come when God will take away the censer, if repentance doesn't take place first.

Of course everyone in the camp who is left now has the premise, Praise the Lord for all things, right? Wrong, they know Korah came against Moses, they know Moses in and of himself had no power to open the earth, yet they come at Moses and say, "You have killed the people of the Lord" (Numb 16:41). Self-deception makes some very stupid statements, yet thinks they are "full of wisdom". After seeing God punish those who came against Moses, they still come against the man. God tells Moses, "Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in a moment" (Numb 16:45). From statements like this, some tend to view God as "the great taskmaster", rather than "the Rewarder", but it would have been better for these people if they did view God as a Taskmaster, at least the Count wouldn't keep going down. These people had no fear, or respect for God unless they are facing personal danger. Which becomes the basis behind the Law, as a written conscience to a people who lack wisdom. God is longsuffering, but He is not a fool, He will deliver to man, what man delivers to Him, is He not Equal?

God sent a plague, as the plague began Aaron took his censer with incense and made atonement for the people (Numb 16:47). This is the proper use of the censer, Korah used his to come against someone, rather than intercede for them. The results are much different, Aaron didn't save them all, but he did stand between the dead and living, the plague took another 14,700 from the count, plus all those who died in the Korah folly. Numbers 16:49 shows the complaining of the people this time was still considered "the matter of Korah"; therefore we find two areas. This division of "the dead and living" will be seen again, the next event will show the difference. God wanted to make it known once and for all, whom He picks, He picks, He had each of the twelve princes of the twelve tribes take their Rod, as Aaron took his rod. They laid up the rods before the Lord in the "tabernacle of witness" (Numb 17:7), did they build another Tabernacle? No, it has changed purpose, it’s now become a Witness for the faithful of God, as well as a Witness against those who are not faithful.

Aaron's rod was the only one of the grouping which budded, thus it becomes a type of the Resurrection, giving us the meaning of the metaphor Almond. Aaron's rod was like the others, cut off branches, without life, yet when God gave favor to the Rod of Aaron it appeared with the evidence of Life. The Rod of Aaron was then added to the items in the Ark to be a "token against the rebels" (Numb 17:10). This shows the Witness was against the rebels, thus the Ark was also changing positions. The Tablets of Stone are against the people, the manna became a witness against them when they demanded quail, based on being dissatisfied with the provision of God, now the Rod buds is a witness against them. In the mouth of two or more witnesses a fact is affirmed. Yet they were all contained in the Mercy Seat, go figure? Wait, only God's Mercy made the difference, not their works, or lack thereof.

The people repented when the danger was all over, but it would have been far better to obey the Lord before the fact. The slavery mentality will repent, but only to avoid the danger, just as the mind of the oppressor will repent to avoid the danger. This same premise is found in the latter days on the Day of Judgment; many will repent, but self-repentance doesn't count. Some of us repent for the moment to avoid the danger, but go right back to the way we were the moment the danger passes. Fruit of any type means a continual growth, the Fruit of repentance means we turn, then continue to walk in the repentance to gain the fruit of the New Nature. True, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus is Lord, but for many it will be too late.

The duties of the Levites now change as well, instead of the "Tabernacle of the Congregation", it now becomes the "Tabernacle of Witness" (Numb 18:2). However, it will also be known as the Tabernacle of the Congregation when it's used to minister unto the Lord (Numb 18:4). When it's the Tabernacle of the Congregation its purpose is to remove "wrath" (Numb 18:5). The Levites as "one" part of the tribes is now given unto the Law (of Moses) as a "gift" for the Lord (Numb 18:6). The Levites became a type of tithe of the tribes, thus their Order gives them Commandment to take tithe.

Since the priests are now the property of the Lord, they will be paid from the offerings gathered. God gives Gifts based on the Anointing (Numb 18:8), thus Jesus gave gifts unto men, some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors, and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edifying of the Body. The priests didn't get the "leftovers", they got the "best" of everything (Numb 18:12).

Since all these people, excluding a few, were unclean there had to be a method to make them appear as clean in order for them to pay tithe as an honor to the altar. The Tabernacle contained the elements to impute them clean by the death of the sacrifice, yet what made the sacrifice clean? The next area introduces us to the "ashes of the red heifer", an important concept to the Jewish religion today, so much so, we find them raising red heifers. Will they be able to produce the perfect heifer? When God wants them to, they will. The rules regarding the Red Heifer have changed slightly over the years, but the concept is the same. The ashes were needed to make the altar acceptable to receive sacrifices. Without the ashes of the red heifer any altar then or now would still be unclean and unable to be used for sacrifices. Israel needs more than a place to build their temple, they need all the elements to make the temple ready for sacrifice again. If they built the temple today, it still couldn't be used until the cleaning took place. Of course the 144.000 keep the Commandments of God, whether they do the law or not doesn’t matter.

Their real problem comes when the ashes of the first red heifer were used to purify the next, and so on, thus not any red heifer will do, they must have the ashes of the last to purify the next. The only way to get around this is to have some of the ashes of the last red heifer which was sacrificed. This can only be resolved by finding the ashes, guess what? The search is on today, they are looking in caves, graves of old priests, or anywhere else the ashes could be. Wait, how in the world will they know if they are the ashes of the red heifer, or simply ashes of some old cow? The ashes of the red heifer were in a special vessel (Numb 19:17); when they find the vessel, they will find the ashes therein. Seems far better to fall on our knees to become purified by the Blood of Jesus, but those assigned to the Night have a different method.

They also needed Running Water to mix the ashes in, then they would have the "water of separation" for the purification for sin (Numb 19:9). Wait, could these people really be purified of sin? The word "purification" here means a Purging, or Washing, it doesn't mean to be Pure. It shows a balance, a much different idea than the forgiveness of sins in the New Covenant. Until this "water of separation" has been sprinkled on a person, they are unclean (Numb 19:20), yet sin begins within, not without.

Through all this we find Moses is really the only one who hasn't sinned against the people, it’s the real issue here, thus this is not "sin" in general, but sins against the people. The times when Aaron assisted with the golden calf, the time he and his sister challenged Moses were elements making Aaron unclean. The people sinned in their presumptions, when they came against the anointed leader, yet, Moses was pure; wait didn’t he pray against those who stood with Korah? No, he asked God not to respect their offering, it wasn’t against the people.

They moved to the "desert of Zin", but wasn't the entire wilderness a desert? The word Zin means To prick, as a needle or spike would prick the skin. This would be the same area where Miriam died, since she was a prophetess her death also relates to this event. The children again gathered together against Moses, as they chided with Moses since they couldn't find water (Numb 20:1-4). This time they not only say "we're going to die", but they added to their sin by saying their cattle will die as well. Didn't they have the cattle to give as sacrifices? Yes, now they say God is going to kill the sacrifice before they have time to give it. They talk about "good old Egypt" again, calling the place where God put them "evil" (Numb 20:5). This goes back to those times when God does something we like causing us to jump for joy, but when God does something for our good we don't like it, we blame God, curse the devil, or murmur in our tents.

This is after the rod of Aaron budded, the Lord tells Moses to "speak you unto the rock", and "it shall give forth his water" (Numb 20:8). We have to notice the "it" and "his" in reference to the Rock, this shows the Body as the It, but Jesus as the His. The first coming of Jesus was for Him to be smitten for us, but Jesus gave us His Body, which Body is the Rock, the Physical Body of Jesus took the blows for us, thus by His stripes we are healed. No one can strike the Rock again, speak to it yes, strike it, no. The Rock changed positions from Jesus Christ to the Body of Christ, a point made here, then again in I Corinthians 10:4. We know the actual rock was not Jesus or the Body, but Paul used it as a metaphor to show we don't strike the Body of Christ, one method would be to strike it’s members.

The metaphor Rod means Correction, but the Correction in this case was suppose to a display of God's Mercy, not His Justice. Aaron's rod after it budded became a type of the Resurrection, or life after death, here the example was to be based on the premise of Life, rather than death. We find the Rock is not to be struck, but talked to, Moses was not told to speak to the people, thus the Rock here is representative of the people. Moses stuck the Rock out of anger toward the people, the same people he was anointed to lead (Numb 20:8 & 20:10), thus it was the same as striking the people, when God wanted to show Mercy. Moses as the leader was the example of God to the people. The word Assembly used here refers to the Family order, the word Congregation refers to the worshipping elders of Israel, thus Moses was told to call "God's family", to show them God is a Merciful God. This is very important, if we miss this we will think God was not merciful toward Moses. The hitting of the Rock misrepresented God's Mercy, Moses being the leader gave the impression of God's Mercy being destructive. It only confirmed what the people had been saying against God, thus the misrepresentation was leading the people to sin further.

There are a series of mistakes by Moses here, it was once said the real mistake Moses made was praying for these people. If Moses would have allowed God to kill them, then He wouldn't have been subject to this event. True, but God knew all this before the foundation of the world, Moses did pray for them, as well as this event happening. Moses speaks to the children, but calls them "rebels", then he took the Rod and smote the rock twice (Numb 20:10-11). Were they the rebels? Or was Moses and Aaron the rebels? The Scriptures will show Moses allowed himself to be moved by his anger toward the people, something he prayed for God not to do. Paul said to be angry and sin not, here we find Moses allowed his anger to cause him to act. Instead of representing God, he represented his own frustration. It doesn't say this is the second time he hit the rock, it says this time he hit it twice. Last time Moses was told to smite the Rock, but it was prior; at the time God was on the Rock, here there is a great difference (Ex 17:1-6).

What is really interesting is water came forth "abundantly", one would think if it’s the case, then the means must have been right and proper, after all it did gain the result. One would think so, if they were natural. Using ungodly means to arrive at what we think is a Godly result is still ungodly. Using Godly means to arrive at an ungodly result is still ungodly. Using Godly means to arrive at a Godly result is Godly.

There is another aspect here, Aaron is standing there, but he didn't hit the Rock, he didn't say a word to the people, yet God says to Moses and Aaron, "because you believed Me not to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them" (Numb 20:12). Wow, Aaron was only standing there, how could this be? Aaron was the prophet unto Moses, prior when Aaron made his error the Lord said, "Hear now My words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make Myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak to him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all My house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches, and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold wherefore then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?" (Numb 12:6-8). Aaron knew the wrong of speaking against Moses, but he also knew the wrong of misrepresenting God, Aaron's death is just a few verses away.

This is the same place where the Rock was struck prior, but at the time it acquired the name of "Massan and Meribah" (Ex 17:7), but here God calls it Meribah (strife), yet this time the strife was done by Moses (Numb 20:24). Prior it was the people tempting God by saying, "Is the Lord among us, or not?" (Ex 17:7), here Moses will allow strife to fog his judgment, as he misrepresents God. In essence Moses is saying, "The Lord is not among you, but He is with me". Be angry and sin not, here is an example of anger motivating us to do something we must not do.

It's important to see Aaron's position in this, God will punish Aaron, yet Aaron never says a word. Prior when Aaron and Miriam challenged Moses it was speaking out of line, but this time Aaron says nothing, which is his iniquity. It's important for the "prophet" to speak when they see a brother about to sin, thus one aspect in the prophet position is giving Direction keeping one from error. When Aaron challenged Moses it was not directional to prevent error, it was an accusation, but here he failed to stop the man of God from sinning; this shows iniquity can, and often does lead to sin.

Some clues to the type of unbelief are found here: God says Moses failed to believe, believe what? He failed to believe God’s Mercy was still with the people even to the point where God could be sanctified in the eyes of the children (Numb 20:12). Moses didn't fail to believe the Water would come forth, he failed to believe there was hope for the children. Don't forget this is after God said this generation was not going into the Promised Land, so Moses simply wrote them off, but God didn't. This was suppose to be a display of God's Mercy still with them, but Moses made it appear as if Justice was being applied.

They travel until they come to Mount Hor where Aaron dies, then his son, Eleazar, will take over as the high priest. The manner of death comes when the Garment is removed, thus the Garment was a sign of Aaron's anointing, when the protection was removed, he died. This shows the type of anointing under the Law of Moses, and how different it is from Grace. Also the anointing on the Body of Christ is much more powerful, as well protective, we often forget about the Unction over the Body. We are called the Body of Christ, which is the same as saying the Body covered by the Anointing. The Anointing is based in God's Mercy, the Anointing in us is the New Man (Spirit) by Grace, the Anointing for the Offices by the Authority of Jesus is through the Holy Ghost. Here the anointing was in the garment, which was a sign of the office.

Miriam is dead, so is Aaron, yet Moses is not alone, he still has his sons and the sons of Aaron. They mourned Aaron for thirty days, he was buried on the top of Mount Hor. The word Hor means Mountain of Promotion, thus Eleazar was promoted to high priest.

Then comes a battle with king Arad the Canaanite, in this battle the man took captives of Israel. A big mistake, "Israel vowed a vow unto the Lord, saying, If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities" (Numb 21:1-2). Wait, Israel vowed? Israel said "into my hand"? The man Israel is a long time dead by this time, who is this? One nation known to God as a unit with members in the unit. When the nation spoke, whether good or bad, it was one unit. God heard them, they had victory, then did as they vowed, thus when they heard God and kept their vows, God fought for them, if not, God fought against them. Everything the first generation is doing at this time is for the next generation, thus God was not done with them. This example shows God is not done with the earthly nation of Israel either, there is a job for the leaves of the Fig Tree yet to be accomplished.

The next area is the Bronze Snake, again we find another symbol of the Cross of Jesus. The brass serpent is a lesson in and of itself, proving the natural mind of man can twist the things of God into something to be worshipped. This Bronze Serpent is no different, many years later king Hezekiah will destroy the Bronze Serpent because the people of his time begin to worship it (II Kings 18:4). We can find ourselves worshipping the Cross, forgetting about Jesus who gave the Cross its importance. The Cross is just a tool used by Jesus to bring the result, the Cross didn't cause the result. It's vital, but not to be worshipped.

Jesus told Nicodemus "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up" (Jn 3:14). Does it mean Jesus equated Himself to a serpent? Not at all, as we will see, when the Bronze Serpent was raised the serpents on the ground lost their power, it becomes the equation Jesus refers to. It all begins with the people speaking against God and Moses, bringing "serpents" into the camp. Of course, the people say Moses brought them into the wilderness to die, same old story, but a different tune. The Lord sent "fiery serpents" among the people, they bit the people, causing many to die. The word Fiery is the Hebrew Saraph meaning Burning, or Poisonous, the snakes were called "flying dragons" by the prophet (Isa 14:29 & 30:6). Since we know the metaphor serpent (sing) is used for the malicious people it shows their malicious tongues drew the serpents. Moses made the Bronze Serpent then put it on a Pole, the word for Pole is the Hebrew Nace, it was also translated as Standard, as the "standard of the Lord". This Pole was one long stick with a small cross piece near the top to hold the bronze serpent. This type and shadow points to the Cross of Jesus, like the blood on the door for the Passover it merely confirms the cross piece on the Cross of Jesus. If the Cross of Jesus was one piece, then Thomas would not have said "marks of the nails in His hands": neither would the blood on the door at the Passover be in the three places, rather it would have been at the top alone. Jesus said He was the Door, the reference draws to the Door in the Passover, showing the blood at the top and both sides, giving us a picture of the Cross, with a cross piece.

Another point, is how God didn't cause the serpents to leave, rather they became ineffective, so ineffective the people could tread upon them and not be hurt. This allegory shows Jesus has made it possible for us not only to tread on the enemy, but all works of the enemy as well. Does it mean we jump up and down yelling, "die, die I tell you ha, ha, ha". No, it means we have authority over the elements, if we use some wile of the devil, it's because we made the choice to. Nonetheless, when we fall into divers temptations Rejoice, for the time of cleaning is in hand.

Here is one place used by Paul in his correction to the Corinthians, as he says the children in the wilderness tempted Christ, so where was Christ? (I Cor 10:9). If we understand the word "Christ" means Anointed, then it makes sense. The people spoke against God and against Moses, whom God anointed (Numb 21:5), but they did so because they were "discouraged" (Numb 21:4). The spirit of discouragement always produces attacks against the Anointing of God, the people knew they had sinned based on what they "said", thus they slandered God by malicious words, producing the serpents. This is important showing Paul in making his point to the Corinthians pointing to their malicious ways, the evidence was found in the false apostles making entry into their midst (II Cor 11:13-14 with 13:5-6 & 10:7-8).

The children move on, and so do we, until we come to Balaam, one who became an example in the New Testament of someone run by the spirit of antichrist, a false one, a tare, one of the wicked, a son of perdition, plus other descriptive metaphors. There has been some ground work laid for us before we are introduced to this prophet. Wait, weren't all the prophets from Israel? No, there were others from Abraham, Balaam was from the area of Midian (Numb 31:8). The nation of Midian came from Midian who was a son of Abraham and Keturah (Gen 25:4). There was another person in the equation as well, Balak the son of Zippor who was the king of Moab; the nation of Moab came from one of Lot's daughters after the destruction of Sodom (Gen 19:37). All this shows there were descendants in the land from Abraham's family order, since Lot was his nephew, thus they knew of the Lord God, but they were nonetheless not of the Promise. This also shows how God blessed the various sons of Abraham, yet God's Covenant Promise was only upon those from Isaac. Therefore Balaam was a prophet, but not among the children, which isn't some strange thing, although Balaam will become a strange thing.

Balak being the king of Moab places him around the next activities of the children. The children camped at Lje-abarim before Moab, then traveled to the coasts of the Amorites, which was also close to Moab (Numb 21:11 & 21:13). Then we read about the "book of wars of the Lord", which we don't seem to have, yet we might find we do. There are always those who either make up their own books, or seek out books mentioned in the Bible, which they think do not appear in order to justify their "secret books". God gave us the Bible as He desired it, yet we know anyone can make their own Translation. However, even with the worse cultist translation can tell us some Truth, since the natural mind can’t understand spiritual matters. The only reason anyone changes the Bible is to force the Bible to fit their thinking, rather than change their thinking to fit the Bible. Nonetheless we have the Spirit of Truth to guide us into all Truth, thus the errors of man are exposed by the Truth of God, just as Balaam's error will be exposed.

The children are moving all around the borders of Moab, and having wars in the process. In the process Balak the son of Zippor becomes concerned, he wants some type of curse placed on the children to stop them. He sends for Balaam, today we know Balaam was a real person, the archaeological evidence from Deir Alla shows Balaam was a highly regarded man among the pagans. We will see the term "divination" associated with this story, but we must recall God told Abraham, "those who bless you, will be blessed, he who curses you will be cursed", thus to curse anyone is a form of divination. Also, Balaam is not the one giving the "reward for divination", it was Balak who gave it to the elders of Moab to entice Balaam (Numb 22:7). The premise was to get Balaam to speak a cursing (divination) against the children, enabling Balak to be protected, wrong motivation coupled with the wrong method. However, we will see Balaam knew who God has blessed no man can curse, which goes back to the promise given Abraham, showing Balaam had knowledge regarding God and God's people.

Balak went to the elders of Midian, Balaam was a citizen of Midian, thus Balak was attempting to gain influence from the local elders to manipulate Balaam into cursing the people of God (Numb 22:4). Balak will send a message to Balaam, in the message he will acknowledge, "whom you bless is blessed, and he who you curse is cursed", then Balak gave the "reward for divination" to the elders of Moab (Numb 22:6). The divination was not what Balaam did, but what Balak wanted him to do. Since Balaam never gave a false prophecy, rather he is a type of one whose words are correct, but whose character is corrupt. He is a prime example of the warning in Deuteronomy 13:1-3, although he didn't lead the people to idols, he taught Balak how to.

Balaam himself will say he only speaks when God gives him the words, thus to assume Balaam is going about putting pins in dolls is in error (Numb 22:8). Many of the things Balaam will say we use today, after all we know "God is not a man that He should lie", or "what God has blessed, no man can curse", thus the error of Balaam was not in his office, but in his character. The man even attempted to curse the children, but his purpose was for self-benefit, yet his office won't allow it. It's important to keep this in context, or we will never understand why Peter and Jude use Balaam as an example of the wicked. Or why it's the doctrine of Balaam referred to in the Book of Revelation, rather than the prophecy of Balaam (Rev 2:14).

At this point in time Balaam was a servant of the Lord, a prophet who talked with God and to whom God talked. Balaam was not some whacko out of the mountains, the man had a position with God based on his bloodlines going back to Abraham. His example is one being close to the Promise, but not in it, but a person nonetheless used of God. Balaam will make a great error, the error will give him a place in the New Testament, not a place any of us seek, but still a place. There are those in this for power, money, the feeling of being superior, or the feeling of being morally correct over the world, they are Balaam types.

We know Balaam was a prophet since "God came unto Balaam and said, What men are these with you?" (Numb 22:9). We can't assume Balaam was talking to the wind, or we miss the importance of this man, or why he is mentioned in II Peter, Jude and in the Book of Revelation as an example of a false Teacher. "Wait, you just said the man was a prophet". Yes, his office was prophetic, but he moved himself into the role of Teacher, causing his downfall. When we move into offices not appointed to us, we will use divination, rather than the anointing.

Balaam is told not to go, or to curse the children, since the children are Blessed (Numb 22:12). We must keep in mind, no one can curse what God has blessed, but the blessed can curse themselves, if not we will never see how the children fall to the will of Balak through the women of Moab. Balak didn't give up, he sent again for Balaam, finally the Lord said, "If the men come to call you, rise up, and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto you, it shall you do" (Numb 22:20). Verse 22:20 is very important, showing why the angel of the Lord was set to cut the head off Balaam. God said "If they come to call", thus Balaam had to wait for the men to come to him again, but he didn't wait, in the morning he rose, saddled his ass (of the horse family Equus Africanus Somalicus), then went with the princes of Moab (Numb 22:21). An act or presumption, presuming, "come to me, go to them, what's the difference". There was a big difference; Balaam will find three areas of danger, but he won't see them. His rebellion and presumption has blinded him, but his ass is not blinded seeing the angel of the Lord "in the way", the animal turns aside or out of the way (Numb 22:23). This is one time when being out of the way was a blessing. The saving mercy of this man was in the feet of the animal, something to think about. Balaam beats the animal, then starts off again, then the animal sees the angel "in a path of the vineyards" (Numb 22:24). Before it was the Way, now the vineyards, thus two warnings are given to the prophet. The animal thrust herself unto a wall, crushing Balaam's foot, now the man is really mad, as he beats the animal again (Numb 22:25). Ahh, the foot, a sign of the man's walk which is lame with greed.

The third time the animal sees the angel of the Lord "in a narrow place", this time the animal had no place to turn, so she simply fell. Balaam's anger was kindled, he smote the animal with a "staff". Moses smote the Rock, here the prophet is beating the one who is protecting him from danger. The Lord then opened the mouth of the animal, thus the Lord made the animal to speak, or Balaam heard the animal, whichever it shows a type of interpretation. These three warnings are hope for us, we are not going to enter the Balaam mindset without God warning us several times, with obvious warnings, but whether we heed the warning or not is up to us.

The animal speaks to the jackass prophet, saying, "What have I done unto you, that you have smitten me these three times?" (Numb 22:28). The animal was attempting to save Balaam, but Balaam beat it, just as the Balaams today beat the Lord's people with rocks of theological abuse. Balaam then talks to the animal, most of us would have made tracks in the sand if some animal talked to us, but Balaam is so full of anger he can't see anything but his rage. Balaam tells the animal, "because you have mocked me: I would there were a sword in my hand, for now would I kill you" (Numb 22:29). Balaam wishes he had a sword, but the angel had a sword. Balaam would kill the animal, but the angel was about to kill Balaam, thus Balaam's words toward the animal, were really prophetic words toward himself. Prophets have to learn to listen, as we well as speak.

Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, he saw the angel of the Lord (Numb 22:31). The angel tells Balaam how the way of Balaam was perverse; therefore, without understanding the context of verses 20 and 21 we would not know why this angel is set to kill Balaam. The word Perverse is the Hebrew Yarat meaning To be rash, or Precipitate, the word Precipitate means To hasten the occurrence, or to move before the time. This shows how Balaam didn't wait for the men to come to him, rather he went to the men. Balaam admits his sin of presumption, but only because the angel was about to take his head off (Numb 22:34). Balaam is willing to go back, but the angel tells him to continue, but speak only the words given, no more, no less. This will be the issue, explaining how God would send him, and how the man could not curse the children, yet he, himself ends up a curse. He presumes the warning only pertained to the words the Lord gives him, as for his own words? He felt they were his to do with as he pleased. Jude saw this by the Spirit saying, "walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaks great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage" (Jude 16), what advantage, "ran greedily after the error of Balaam" (Jude 11). Peter also saw it and said, "following the way of Balaam, who loved the wages of unrighteousness" (II Pet 2:15), what would be a way of Balaam? Thinking we’re to be paid for the performance of our duties of the Office assigned to us by the Lord. When we tell people “I gave you a word, you must tithe to me”, we’re like Balaam, self-willed and presumptuous (II Pet 2:10).

It would seem confusing for God to allow the Balaam to go, then put an angel in the way to kill him for going, unless we understand how God will not debate issues with us. Balaam was set on going, God merely allowed him to go, since there was no stopping him. God was not going to debate the issue, there are times when we assume God has granted us permission, when in fact God simply won't debate the issue with us. God knows our heart is so bent on doing what we want, He is merely saying, "okay, go ahead". When the event turns to upside down, we blame God, assuming God gave us His blessing, yet we find we were going anyway. There is a vast difference between God telling us to Go, and God simply submitting to our will by allowing us to go.

Balaam meets with Balak, telling Balak, "have I now any power at all to say anything? the word God puts in my mouth, that shall I speak" (Numb 22:38). Balaam will give some correct prophecy, but the prophecy isn't his problem, his teaching will be. Balaam and Balak went to Kirjath-huzoth (city of the woods), where Balak offered oxen and sheep, but then they go to "the high places of Baal". Most of us know about Baal the most infamous of pagan idols; Baal as a title was associated with other words to mean Archer, Babbler, Bird, Captain, Chief, or Dreamer. The point being, they are standing on a place dedicated to an idol, looking at the people of God, getting ready to curse them, but God will not allow Balaam to prophesy one evil word against the children of God. One would think God would allow it considering how many times they tempted Him, mocked His leaders, or rejected His desire; however, this shows us God deals with His own, how He handles them is His business.

Balaam then builds seven altars, telling the Lord how he has done so, then Balaam gives a parable. In the Parable it becomes clear no one can curse what God has not cursed (Numb 23:8). This is a vital area, Balaam didn't build twelve altars, or ten, it was seven pointing to Rest, to us it points to the seven churches, thus no man is able to curse the people God has blessed; of course those same people can give the devil place.

Balaam will go to three places, each relates back to the three times his animal saved his neck. Here it would be akin to "the way", when we enter The Way the concept of cursing is moot, we neither curse others, nor do we receive the cursing from others, but it doesn't mean we can't "receive" a curse. If anyone can trick or deceive us into receiving a curse, we are cursed, but if we know no one can curse us, rather we are the Blessed of God, then the curse falls to the ground without effect.

Balak isn't about to give up yet, they go to another place in the field of Zophim (Watchers), to the top of Pisgah (contemplate), again they offer sacrifices, but a sacrifice of cursing is never acceptable to the Lord, yet the Lord will speak to the man. This is very interesting, since Balaam was already in trouble, yet God used him. Just because God uses someone doesn't mean the person is holy, or Born Again, it means God used them. This area would be akin to the Path, the place of knowledge, the place where we find "God is not a man, that he should lie" (Numb 23:19). Prophets are often called "son of man", since they speak to man on behalf of God, but Jesus is the spirit (reason) of all prophecy, thus some grab the phrase "neither the son of man", assuming Jesus can't be The Son of God since He was also "the Son of man", yet God is not the "son of man", the reference here shows God is not a prophet, rather the prophet speaks on behalf of God, not the other way around. Balaam confused the issue, feeling God would honor his words, rather than both he and Balak honoring the words of the Lord. To some this is called "prophesy by faith", but faith comes from hearing, not saying. To speak a prophesy, then hope God brings it to pass is the same error the false prophets make.

We also read how God will not Repent, yet we know God did Repent (Ex 32:14). Different Hebrew words, right? No, it's the same Hebrew word (Nacham). Oh an overzealous scribe, right? No, there is a reason, the context shows the reasoning. In Exodus God turned from harming all the children, here it means to repent of sin as a man repents, thus God has no sin to repent from. The word "Man" used here in Numbers is the Hebrew Ish, but in reference to Jesus we read in Philippians, "being found in fashion as a man" (Ph'l 2:8). The word Fashion is the Greek Schema meaning an External form, it doesn't mean the "image", nor the fullness of man, rather it pertains to the outward appearance only. Jesus as the Word took on the form of man in order to save man, but the self-transformed are counterfeits, they put on the false image of righteousness to fool man, two completely different intents.

Balaam then makes a statement which on the surface seems false, but in truth it's our hope. Balaam says, "He has not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither has He seen perverseness in Israel: the Lord his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them" (Numb 23:21). What did we just read? Didn't God give them the Law of Moses because of their sins? Did they have a king at this time? What gives, is this a false prophecy? Stone the man, but wait, since this is prophecy does it relate to something God has seen, which is it yet to be? The word Shout is the Hebrew Teruwah meaning Acclamation of joy, yet Joy comes in the morning, thus this points to Jesus, the true and living King when He came to the nation Israel; thus pointing to the Day when the Blood of Jesus is upon us as God sees no sin, bringing no wrath on the sons of men. There is no Enchantment against Jacob, nor any Divination against Israel, how then can there be any against us? (Numb 23:23). Under the Law of Moses these rebellious people were protected, how then can any of us who are in the Body say we can be under the power of some witch? No, no and no again, we have been given the power to tread on all the power of the enemy, whether the power is found in enchantment or divination, or any other wicked or evil thing.

Numbers 23:24 is another example, "the people shall raise up as a great lion", this is not "as a roaring lion", but a "great lion". Then the context changes, "and lift up himself as a young lion", hold it, it went from "the people" to "himself"? What is this? Continuing will help us here, "he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink of the blood of the slain". Oh my, wait, Jesus was slain for us, He became a prey sacrificed for us, the people are the Body, the He is Jesus, without knowing it Balaam is speaking of the future. His words are confirming his position, but it isn't the man's problem, is it?

This also shows how the prophecies given by the man were news to him as well, which is often the case with prophets. Later Moses will tell us how it was the "counsel of Balaam" causing the children to trespass against the Lord in the "matter of Peor", not the prophecy of Balaam (Numb 31:16), Peor is about to take place.

Of course Balak hears all this and has a fit, he then takes Balaam to the third place, which would be the "top of Peor" (A gap); Peor was also a name of an idol. Didn't the animal balk three times? Ahh, the connection, this will be Balaam's last chance. This place will look toward Jeshimon (desolation) it's akin to the "narrow place", the time when the sword of the angel of the Lord looks to cut the head off the wicked.

Again they build seven altars, we can see an allegory here. The seven altars at this time could point to the seven lights on the Menorah, as well as representing the sabbath or the seven churches. Wait, there are only seven churches? Hardly, we can't find the church of Jerusalem, yet we know there was one, we can't find the church of Corinth, yet we know there was one; therefore, the Seven churches must hold more for us, than seven locations. All of which we will discover in due time, but for here we find the projection into the future, as the seven altars were reflective of God's people representing the Day and Night, thus the prophet is building things of God to use against the people of God.

Balaam sought "enchantments" showing how he is now moving to the means of the money, this being the third time shows the end of the rope is at hand; we're going to find something interesting (Numb 24:1). Balaam falls into a trance, but his eyes are open, showing his words are not his, but those of the Lord. He is trying to filter out the Lord, to enter an area where he can use his office for self-benefit (enchantment). It's important to know the prophecies of the man were not evil, faulty or false, it was the man who was faulty. Attempting to make Balaam a "false prophet" misses the point, it was his doctrine, not his prophecy causing him to be an example of the Wicked.

Numbers 24:16 is the key to the entire matter; we find "which heard the words of God", with "knew the knowledge of the most high", with "saw the vision of the Almighty", these three elements show us the man knew God, yet he is more interested in his own self pleasure, than in pleasing God. Therefore, Balaam wanted to please Balak, not only to get the money, but to gain favor in the man's eyes. The money was cursed to begin with, since it was "blood money", but Balaam felt what difference did it make, as long as the treasury was full. A very big mistake, his attitude is moving to match the source of the money. In all this we must keep in mind where Balaam came from, recalling it was Midian, we can see  Balaam, Jethro and the wife of Moses are all connected to the same locale.

Balak tells Balaam "the Lord has kept you back from honor", this is the end of the rope, blaming God (Numb 24:11). This promoted Balaam to Teach, yet he was not called to be a Teacher, he was a Prophet. When he entered the area of teaching for the purpose of gaining money, he became a false teacher. Was it false teaching regarding the Law? No, it was false teaching regarding the end times (Numb 24:14). False teaching on the End Times is the Doctrine of Balaam, thus his fables are full of fear causing the children to fall. In the case of Balak it was using the information to cause the children to fall, but it would be the same mistake to use the information to frighten people, rather than invoke belief unto faith.

From the teaching on the End Times Balak devises a plan, then he sends the daughters of Moab to the sons of Israel, these Daughters will introduce the men to idols. The men begin to sacrifice to the idols of Moab committing whoredom by bowing to the gods of Balak (Numb 25:1-2). Then the nation Israel joined himself to "Baal-Peor", Peor was the last place where Balaam taught Balak (Numb 23:28 & 25:3). Recalling how the angel of the Lord was about to take the head of Balaam, shows us why these people who sinned in Israel lost their heads (Numb 25:4).

Then there was Zimri who was the son of Salu, a prince of the House of Simeon, who had a woman from Midian by the name of Cozbi, she was a "daughter of Midian", not a "daughter of Moab". Midian was the place where Balaam resided, the place where Jethro came from, Cozbi was from one of the chief houses of Midian (Numb 25:14-15). This Zimri took this daughter of Midian then paraded her before Moses, mocking the man of God with the daughter of Midian. Eleazar the son of Aaron took a javelin and ran them through. God was mocked, yet the high priest took action, of course this was still under the Law of Moses, not the Law of the Spirit, so don't get any ideas.

24,000 people died as a result of the "plague", what Plague? The plague of idol worship, the price was paid. This is a clear case of Balaam bringing his own sin unto the children by his teaching, thus if he would have stopped at the prophecy, then went his way, this would be the only place we would read about the man, but he didn't, God allowed him to error to give us a lesson and warning, not an excuse. Of course every man is drawn away by their own lust, the unbelief of the children was the foundation for them to fall into idol worship.

Now comes the Second Census, in this we will find they lost people. Of course we can see how, but the Promise was "in multiplying I will multiply you", surely this second census will show they are outside of the Promise. Adding the figures of 43,730, 22,200, 40,500, 76,500, 64,300, 60,500, 52,700, 32,500, 45,600, 64,400, 53,400 and 45,400 we come up with 601,730 (Numb 26:51). The first census ended with 603,550, but all the men of the first are now dead, except Joshua, Caleb and Moses, but Moses wouldn't count since he was from the tribe of Levi, who were not counted in the census of war. Even if we add the 24,000 who died in the "plague" we would only have 625,730, hardly "multiplying", thus God caused the wombs of many of the women to close. It was nearly 600,000 who Breached the Promise, it would be nearly 600,000 who would leave the wilderness, yet it was 600,000 who left Egypt, rather than debate if the wilderness could hold so many, look at the result, they multiplied in captivity, but their unbelief stopped them in the wilderness, it’s the point. God desires to multiply and bless us, but our own unbelief stops the process.

When Paul talked about the Balaam folly he said 23,000 died, but we just found it was 24,000 not 23,000. Poor Paul he gets so confused now days, he's older now, all those ship wrecks, you know. Not so, Paul is making a point we must keep in mind. The Second Census shows there were "23,000" males numbered (Numb 26:62), the point being, although the Corinthians may think God is ordaining their folly, He is not, if repentance doesn't take place, the price will be paid when the Garment of the Anointing on the Body is removed.

This census had to do with the inheritance of the land, the inheritance depended on the number of men from twenty years and up (Numb 26:4). In the census we find the children of Korah didn't die, thus they didn't side with Korah in the rebellion, thus the phrase "sons of Korah", or the phrase "children of Korah" are different. The Sons of Korah refers to the priestly position Korah gave up through his rebellion, much like the position Judas gave up through his. This census would be approximately thirty-seven years after the first, near the end of the forty years. When it came time to divide the land this census would be the vehicle, but it was subject to change.

There were the daughters of Zelophehad who came to Moses, Zelophehad had no sons, at this time he was dead, thus it would appear his family would have no land. However, God said the request of the daughters was correct, they will receive; therefore, they are akin to the phrase "ask and you shall receive", but the asking must be in line with the Will of God before the receiving takes place. This brought about another problem, but not something God couldn't handle. What if the daughters marry someone from another tribe? Would their land go to the other tribe? Or would they lose their land? This produced the Laws of Inheritance, protecting the land of the tribes.

Then comes the Law of Offerings, again we don't find the Frankincense, thus it was stayed until Jesus. In this offering we find two lambs, one for the morning, one for the evening, yet in the metaphoric sense it points to One Lamb slain from the Foundation of the world. The Lamb in the Morning represents Salvation, the Lamb at evening represents Judgment, the Two Seasons of the One Lamb Slain. It's for this reason we find Jesus described as "a Lamb slain" so many times in the Book of Revelation, rather than the King raised.  Jesus went to the Cross as the Son of Man, He returns as the Son of Man, but the Resurrection declared Him the Son of God, thus it's the Spirit of holiness in us declaring us sons of God (Rom 1:3-4), since Jesus is raised no one can crucify the Son of God, meaning it was once, only once.

The various holidays are again given, with the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread in the first month, Pentecost or Firstfruits later, then the Day of Atonement. Then comes The Vows, then we find Balaam was not forgotten, thus the War against Midian had to take place (Numb 31:2). This is interesting, since Jethro was from Midian. Those who died as a result of their idol worship had to be Avenged, God called the alarm sounding the trumpet, the children marched.

There were "kings of Midian", they are also an allegory to the wicked kings left behind at the Rapture. A king without Mercy is an evil king, a king with Mercy is a good king, thus we find two types of kings in the kingdom of heaven. However, we don’t kill the evil ones, rather we become the good kings by keeping the Kingdom principle of Mercy intact.

Balaam was killed in this war (Numb 31:8), as the false will die the second death when they face the "Sword" out of the mouth of Jesus. However, like the best laid plans of mice and men, there were some who took captives of the women of Midian. Even after the event with Zimri and Cozbi (Numb 25:11-15)? Yes, but in this case they felt the women of Midian were not to blame for the acts of the daughters of Moab. Nonetheless, the Seeds were there, if the woman had not been defiled with a man from Midian, she could be spared. Moses knew these people caused the children of Israel to stumble through the counsel of Balaam in the "matter of Poer" (Numb 31:16), thus there had to be caution, or the same thing would happen again (Numb 31:17-19).

The booty taken in the war had to be divided as well, it was based not on who went, but on the total nation of Israel (Numb 31:27-28). Afterward, they begin to move to the Promised Land, but now they have all the goods from Midian, plus more. The children of Reuben, Gad and half of Manasseh decide they want to settle in another place (Numb 32:3-4). Moses sees a danger, knowing there are yet battles to be fought in the Promised Land, but didn't God say He would run those people out? Yes, but it was before the rebellion, now God will send an angel with them, but they will have to make an effort as well. We always lose something in our rebellion, we may not lose it all, but we do lose some of our Power. Thank God, this is the Day, a time of repentance unto restoration. For us we need not lose anything, if we repent and get right before God. However, rebellion un-confessed is a power draining tool of the enemy. Nonetheless, the tribes of Reuben, Gad and half of Manasseh make a Vow to build places for their families, but join in the wars until the land is secure, then they would return to their families, their agreement was accepted.

We then have the Itinerary of the wandering, it tells of the many places they journeyed in the wilderness, as a kind of road map of the wilderness. Then comes the instructions for taking Canaan (Numb 33:51). It was important to take down all the "high places", since they were places of idol worship. In another lesson we will find what happens when we leave the high places, then change the names of the idols to fit our thinking so we can keep them. An idol is an idol, regardless of the name we apply to it.

The cities of refuge were also given, these were not to hide murderers, rather it was to protect those who committed manslaughter. God had a place for those who made errors, He still has a place at the Table for those of us who error. The Book of Numbers ends with Further instructions regarding the Inheritance.


DEUTERONOMY


The title Deuteronomy comes from the transliteration of the Greek word from the Septuagint, meaning Second Law, but it doesn't mean this is the Second Law of Moses, rather it means the Law of Moses is defined and brought into clarity, thus it's the second giving of the Law. To the Jew today it isn't what it means, they presume this is the Second Law spoken of by the prophets, but we know the Second Law referred to by the Prophets is really the Law of the Spirit. The title Deuteronomy is derived from verse 17:18, which is correctly translated in the King James as, "he shall write him a copy of this law in a book", thus we find it's the second writing, not a second law. The Hebrew title for this book comes from the first words meaning "these are the words", telling us "these are the words which Moses spoke". We have The Word in us if we are Born Again, here it's a deliverance of words from Moses, two different premises. Yeah, but didn't Moses get the words from God? Yes, but we find these words of the Law of Moses are purposed to separate, rather than bring Unity. The entire Law of Moses is one separation after another, but the Law of the Spirit is Unity, joining man to God.

Deuteronomy is the fifth and final book of the Pentateuch, or Torah as it's known to the Jew. All five become the very "books" the Jews, or anyone who lives by the Law are judged by on the last day (Rev 20:12). We have a much better Promise, if we judge ourselves, we should not be condemned with the world (I Cor 11:31). Deuteronomy begins in the "fortieth year, eleventh month, on the first day of the month", thus it becomes the final chapter to the wilderness. This has an allegory as well, we enter by the Mercy of God, to be Born Again to enter the Law of the Spirit, thus we have two laws as well. Jesus spoke the commandments of Mercy from the Mount of Olives, after the Resurrection He gave commandments of Grace to the apostles via the Holy Ghost (Acts 1:2).

Deuteronomy 1:4 shows the war with the Amorites, explaining this is the "book of wars"; we do have it! When we're ready to leave our wilderness, we will have the concept of Warfare down, with all forms of witchcraft removed from our "weapon box". Most of us forget, witchcraft works, it's why witches use it, but simply because it works, doesn't mean we use it, we have weapons far better from a much higher source (Acts 16:16-19).

In verse one the phrase "on this side Jordan" would really depend on which side of the Jordan one was on, but later in Deuteronomy 3:20 and 3:25 the same wording shows it's Beyond the Jordan on the wilderness side. Verse 5 defines it further showing it's on the side toward the wilderness in the area of Moab; this area was later named Perea by the Greeks. The Wilderness is a general reference to the region southeast of the Jordan, in a metaphoric sense the wilderness is akin to the Courtyard of the Tabernacle, the place between places, where water is seen on both sides. We crossed the Red Sea by the Mighty Hand of God to leave Egypt (world), then we entered the kingdom of heaven (wilderness), then we pass over the Jordan (prophet's river, so named because it was the place John the Baptist began) with the Word in us to enter the Promise (Kingdom of God), all this points to Mercy as the beginning and continuing factor to reach Grace, as Grace is the vehicle to obtain Salvation, even the salvation of our souls. It also shows the wilderness is the place to defeat unbelief, the sin which so easily besets us (Heb 12:1).

Moses goes back to the time they were at Mount Horeb, thus we find a progression for taking the land, first the land of the Canaanites, then unto Lebanon, then unto the great river Euphrates (Deut 1:7). What does it sound like? "You shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all of Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost of the earth" (Acts 1:8). How come Jesus said "both", then named four areas? When we break it down we find the Both, first to the Jews, then the Gentiles, thus it's Both, meaning the disciples began preaching to the Jews first; again God did not leave them, or forsake them.

In this, did they possess the land in Lebanon? How about to the river Euphrates? Did God promise they would? Joshua will do many things, but there will be some of the land left to take, including "all of Lebanon" (Joshua 13:5). The last time we see Lebanon is in Zechariah 11:1, there it's for Lebanon to open her doors, for the fire to consume her cedars. Interesting, something to be explored later. What about the Great River? The Euphrates was in the land of Babylon, instead of taking it, they found themselves captive next to it. Does it mean they failed? Does it mean God changed? Does it mean God failed? No, not at all, it means there is yet something to take place. In the Book of Revelation, as well as in the prophets we will see a time when God puts His hand a second time to recover the Remnant, at the time the Woman will take the land, as she sits on the mountains (nations) of the world (Isa 11:11, Rev 9:14 & 16:12).

Moses repeats a statement, looking back, but in it we find a mystery, as he says, "The Lord your God has multiplied you, and, behold, you are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude" (Deut 1:10). They were multiplied in Egypt, but here in the wilderness? No, this second generation is less than the first, how can this be? We know the second census showed a Lesser number of people than the first. Wait, we are looking at this as these people being multiplied, a mistake any of us can make. These people are the Sand of the Sea, not the Stars of Heaven, this is a prophecy regarding the real Second Law yet to come with Jesus.

However, Moses does speak to these people telling them he is unable to carry their encumbrance, burden and strife, all of which point to the heart of man (Deut 1:12). Moses then talks about the Judges, they are not to respect the persons, thus treating all as equal (Deut 1:16-17). James shows how the Faith of Jesus is without partiality, as an attribute found in the Wisdom of God (James 2:1 & 3:17). Partiality is a mind like Balaam, do good to those who can do you good. Partiality has nothing to do with classes, or treating one person different, after all Jesus had His three, He treated the disciples different than the people, the people different than the Pharisees. Being Partial means we treat people different based on the good it does us (James 2:2-4).

Moses then talks about many events, but he is using terms as if this was the first generation, when we know by this time they are dead. Is the mind of Moses gone "wilderness crazy"? Again this is prophetic, we can't forget Moses was the "deliverer", "lawgiver" and "prophet". This is an allegory, yet prophetic in nature, but a hope for us. We all go through our wilderness experiences, yet Jesus was taken into the wilderness by the Spirit, so are we. During our time in the wilderness it can seem "great and terrible", if we let it be so, but it can be a great and wonderful time, a time when our belief and love for Jesus grows to the point where we are convinced, nothing really matters but Jesus.

Moses reminds this group of the spies, as the generation prior "murmured in their tents" (Deut 1:27). Ouch, does this hit home, or what? This is so true, we assume if we just push it down, or just keep it inside, then it's okay, but it's still in the "tent". Whatever the Lord exposed, He did so allowing us to see it, so it can be dwelt with by the Spirit. This is still a Covenant, we still have duties. We can submit to the cleaning, or murmur in our tents. Murmuring in our tent is when we go about talking to ourselves about how God did this to us, or we are "going through it", or how God should have stopped it, or when we are just mad at the event as we grumble in our minds. The exposure shows we are not pleased with the manner God uses, thus we need to take on the source of the murmuring, we do so by submitting to the Spirit in faith looking for the precious hope in the event.

There are those times when we tell the Spirit, "stand aside, I can handle this", or "no need God, I can do it", but the Lord shall "fight for you", yet give us the crown of victory (Deut 1:30). Of course the Lord does hear "the voice of our words" (Deut 1:34), if those words are Mercy and Grace based in faith, He is pleased, if not, well, no need to explain (Deut 1:35). Yet, God was not well pleased with the children in the wilderness, because of their unbelief, yet faith pleases Him (I Cor 10:5 & Heb 11:6).

The two men who held the good report, Caleb and Joshua shall go into the land, as Joshua leads them. The congregation is told to Encourage their leader, which was missing in the prior generation (Deut 1:36-38). Unbelief is not the center of encouragement, it's the center of discouragement. Unbelief is the wall of hindrance, a wall building its own strongholds, forming its own fables, but its still unbelief, the mother of failure.

Moses then covers the sin of presumption, going back to when the children rebelled and were smitten. The sin of presumption joins us to the enemy, yet the enemy uses the sin to attack us with. If the enemy is hitting us with two by fours, we're not only too close to Egypt, we may be standing in it (Deut 1:39-44). The sin of presumption closed the ear of the Lord, it still does. It's an important issue, when we allow the Spirit to bring us to a point where presumption and assumption are overcome we will find far fewer stones in our way.

The children are told they would come near unto the children of Esau, yet the children of Esau would fear them, but they were to take good heed not to meddle with them, which doesn't mean not to mix with them, it means not to take advantage of the fear or take their possessions (Deut 2:5). The land was not given to the children of Israel, rather it was given to Esau (Deut 2:5). We will find other areas where God is warning the children in the wilderness how He gave land to others who came from Abraham or Lot. Was Lot part of the Promise? No, possessing the Land is only part of the Promise. These children are types showing the land flowing with milk and honey in the physical sense, we are given a Kingdom in the spiritual realm. Simply, because God gave land to others doesn't mean those others are part of the Promise; however, there are builders of Belief in each of these areas. If the children in the wilderness were to buy meat and water from the children of Esau, it means the children of Esau had meat and water. Seems right, if so, it also means they were prospering in the land, thus if God blessed them based on a kinship with Abraham surely it’s more than enough evidence to Believe God was fully able to give the children of Promise more. The same holds true for us, if God took a man like Paul then turned him into an Apostle of Grace, surely God can form us into sons of God. It’s Paul's point in many of his letters, thus he informs us if God can use him, what's our excuse? None, not even a little one.

Then the children passed by the Moabites, their land was also not for the children, since God gave the land to the children of Lot (Deut 2:9). When God gave the children of Lot the land there were "giants" in the land, just like the Anakims, but the Moabites called those giants "Emims" (idols, or nothing - Deut 2:10-11). Why tell the children in the wilderness this? Ahh, when they saw giants they said, "we are but grasshoppers", but when the children of Lot saw the giants, they said, "they're nothing".

This was another area along the way wherein the children in the wilderness had foundational evidence in which to believe. Faith was out of the question, since they failed to enter belief, but the evidence for them to Believe was all about them, yet they failed to see it. Why did they fail to see it? They didn't want to, we can fall into the same slavery mentality. We can have the evidence to believe falling about us like rain, yet ignore it. Eyes looking  for God are eyes seeking the Precious of God.

Then we read, "as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which the Lord gave unto them" (Deut 2:12). Wait, they haven't taken the land yet, what gives? God is speaking of what could have been when the children saw the nations in the land, yet they failed to hear the witnesses, deciding to join the voices of fear. Here is the encouragement, God has seen the land in the hands of the children of Israel, it's merely a matter of catching up to God's vision. This is an area where God is speaking His vision to remove the possibility of the people perishing for a lack of a vision (Prov 29:18).

When the children rebelled the hand of the Lord turned against them, as they were destroyed, yet the hand of the Lord delivered them from Egypt (Deut 2:15). The difference? There own unbelief, after being delivered they refused to believe, their own unbelief caused their destruction (Jude 5).

Then comes the children of Ammon, God gave the children of Ammon their land as well, but these children were on the Israel side of the Euphrates. Could it be God wanted the children of Israel to protect others? To help others? It would seem so, since God put those others in the land, then told these people to leave them there. This will be the downfall of the Woman in the Book of Revelation; she will listen to the false counsel of the false prophet then take Edom, Moab and the land from the children of Ammon by using manipulation and trickery (Isa 11:14).

God did march before the children, God put fear in the hearts of the people in the land (Deut 2:25). Wait, we haven't been given the "spirit of fear", what is God doing giving it? This is another example of how God uses Truth, but when Truth comes to the unbeliever it  becomes fear in their hearts. It wasn't purposed for fear, but God knows if they are on the other side of Truth, it will bring fear. The evidence is yet to come in the area of Jericho.

The "book of wars" is seen again, the children did have battles as they took the land of Sihon (Deut 2:26-37), defeated Og the king of Bashan (Deut 3:11). Og was one of the giants, we find the term "giant" means someone who is larger than the norm, the man's bed was nine cubits (13.5 feet) by four cubits (6 feet), one "king size" bed for one big fellow (Deut 3:11).

The land on the "other side of the Jordan" became the land for the Reubenites, Gadites and half the tribe of Manasseh. Then Moses goes over the vow given by the tribes of Reuben, Gad and half of Manasseh, as they would settle the land, build houses, then leave their families there to fight with the rest of the children under Joshua (Deut 3:18).

Joshua was also given encouragement, as a foundation for his belief. Joshua was told how his eyes have seen how the Lord can deliver, thus the Lord will deliver. This shows how belief is the foundation of faith, the Lord delivered is a belief issue, the Lord will deliver a faith issue (Deut 3:21).

Moses began to see more and more of God's vision, as he desired to see the Promised Land, but God was "wroth" with Moses, for the sake of the children (Deut 3:24-26). Moses says this several times, it would almost appear he was justifying himself, but he's not. The phrase "for your sakes" is a Jewish idiom, meaning For you, rather than Because of you. Moses misrepresented God, although Moses didn't lose his position, he did lose his right to the Promised Land. This warning goes to any leader, the restraint to not vent anger on the people of God is seen here. We have authority over the rulers of darkness, be angry, but sin not.

Moses then begins to give the Second reading of the Law, this is to clear the issue, "was the Law for the wilderness, or do we continue to keep it?". The Law of Moses is for the children who lack the Cross and Spirit. There is the Season of darkness before Jesus, the Dawning of the Day was when Jesus came, the Day from the Resurrection until the Rapture, then the Night thereafter until the end. Within the darkness there was the time from Adam to Moses, then a time from Moses to Jesus. The darkness didn't cease, rather we were Delivered from the darkness into the Kingdom of Light through the Cross of Jesus by the Mercies of the Father.

Since the physical land noted here is a type of the Kingdom of God we should find the Shadow evidence. The physical land was of the earth, the Kingdom of God of heaven, the physical land had enemies to be taken, the Kingdom of heaven has enemies to be exposed, those who took the physical land had a Law, those who take the Kingdom of God have a Law, in both cases we find two words holding importance regardless of the Law. Obey and Submit, the word Submit means to cease from debate, to refuse to cause, or be part of a division, rather yield to authority, in some cases it means "to back off". It's also interesting how Moses tells them not to add to, or take away from the Law, yet it’s exactly what Traditions do, even the Traditions of the elders (Deut 4:2).

Back in Genesis we found how a husband is to leave his father and mother and "cleave" unto his wife, here we see they are to "cleave" unto the Lord their God (Deut 4:4). How? The statutes and judgments, which are in the Law of Moses (Deut 4:5).

This part of Deuteronomy is called "the historical prologue", Moses is going over things which were, before he speaks of things that are, so the children can enter belief as a foundation for faith regarding the things to be. Moses shows how God gave them the two tables of stone, thus the Ten Commandments are Good, but sent to people with hard hearts. These people didn't have the Spirit, they didn't have the Light, so we are not belittling them, merely placing them in their Season. This same premise is true when Jesus told the disciples "oh you of little (puny) faith". Jesus wasn't belittling them, He was making a statement of fact, faith by measure is often puny compared to the Faith of Jesus which is without measure.

Moses will tell these people how the Covenant based in the Ten Commandments was not given to the fathers, but he also shows how God won't forget the Covenant made with the fathers (Deut 4:31 & 5:3). The promise of the land was something God promised the fathers, but the children failed to enter the realm of Belief in order to enter the Promise, thus God cut another Covenant which didn't call for faith, but did call for obedience. This really produces a problem, since anything not done in faith is sin, thus the mere doing of the Law of Moses was a constant admission of sin, whereas, the doing of the Law of the Spirit is a constant admission of having the Life of Christ freeing us from sin.

Metaphors are important as we have seen thus far, the metaphor Iron will be seen in many prophecies yet to come, but here in Deuteronomy we find the definition. Moses says, "the Lord has taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt" (Deut 4:20). Iron is bondage, since the children were in bondage. Clay is a metaphor for man without the living soul, thus if we find the metaphors "iron and clay"  refers to man in bondage, or man producing bondage.

The Law of Moses is a Witness, as one of the Two Witnesses in the Book of Revelation during the Night. Moses gives us the Witness as he says, "I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day" (Deut 4:26). This is not "for" them, but against them. Paul said the same thing, the handwriting of ordinances were against us (Col 2:14-15).

This is made clearer when Moses doesn't say, "The Lord your God is a Gracious God", rather he says, "For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God" (Deut 4:24). If we have read the New Testament, we would recall how this is quoted in the Book of Hebrews. In Hebrews 12:29 the phrase "even a jealous God" is left out, but we do find "for our God is a consuming fire". It doesn't say, Our God shall bring a consuming fire, rather it says God Is one. What to do? Not to worry, it’s really good news to the child who has the Spirit of Christ. Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Ghost and Fire, thus the Fire is not the fire of hell, but the Fire of God consuming the evil in us so we won't have to face the fire of hell.

There has to be some element or elements to the "fear of God" making it clearer, we find them with the prophetic word. Moses tells these children "even in the latter days" (Deut 4:30), but the latter days didn't begin until Pentecost (Acts 2:16-17). What "latter days"? Will there be a time where the people of God will become Lukewarm? A time when they will assume there is no Wrath of God? A time when a lie will go forth saying God is done with His Wrath, there is no reason to fear God. Yes, in those days, as in these days, if we shall be obedient to His Voice, as we turn toward Him, we will find this same Jealous God is a Merciful God, who will not forsake us, nor destroy us, nor forget the Covenant cut for us in the Blood of His Son, just as He won't forget the Covenant cut with these people (Deut 4:29-30). Part of our fear of God is the knowledge of His Mercy, we know it's there, we know we received it, but we also know we must give the same Mercy (Matt 7:21-23 & Luke 6:37-38).

Moses gives them the evidence of God speaking from heaven as they heard it on earth, but in our case the Son of God spoke on earth, so we could get into heaven (Deut 4:36 & Jn 3:11-18). Then Moses talks about the "cities of refuge", but why put it here? Another mystery? Could be, before Paul was Paul the apostle of Grace, he was Saul the Christian hunter. The only difference between the two was Christ in the man, not some religious experience, but an encounter with Christ Jesus. The "cities of refuge" are for those who took a life, yet did lay in wait, pertaining to manslaughter rather than murder; this promise goes to the Kingdom of God. All of us have spoken from the "spirit of stupid" as we have said things which harmed another, but we did it out of ignorance. We have a "city of refuge" in Jesus, a place to repent to be cleaned of the past wrongs. However, for those who have entered the "city" yet lie in wait with plans to destroy, there is no refuge (Deut 4:42).

Moses reiterates the Law, then goes into the Ten Commandments. The Statues and Judgments in the Law of Moses were purposed for these people to Learn, Keep and Do, or be cursed (Deut 5:1). In the Book of Revelation we find a different premise, Blessed is he who Reads, Hears, and Keeps the words of this Prophecy (Rev 1:3). One is not blessed for reading the Book of Revelation, they must Hear what the Spirit is saying, then Keep the words. The Book of Revelation is not "the book of revelations", nor is it some revelation of knowledge given to Jesus, rather it's Jesus Revealed, which Power was given to Him in the Garden of Gethsemane in the Night when He took the Fourth Cup of the Passover, the Cup of God's wrath and indignation, which Cup will be poured out in the very end of all time (Matt 26:36-46 & Rev 14:10).

The Ten Commandments are still a Shadow, yet they hold some information for us. They are the written conscience for the Free Moral Choice of people, displaying the failings of man run by the spirit lusting to envy; lost man is more prone to do evil, than good. The Law of Moses defines sin showing the responsibilities and consequences of sin. Both the Law of Moses and the Ten Commandments are a Power and a Principality. God doesn’t have to watch over them to make sure they enforce their power, rather the Power to bless or curse is built into them. Therefore, Paul said the Commandment accuses the evil doer (Rom 7:11-13). The Name of Jesus is also an active Authority, the Name itself has the granted Authority built in.

We went over the Ten Commandments prior in Exodus, since Moses is going over them again, there must be more for us. The First Commandment is "You shall have no other gods before me" (Deut 5:7). We know the word "gods" points to both humans and idols made by the hands of man, but there is another message here. Back in Genesis 3:5 the devil said, "For God does know in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods" (Gen 3:5). This can't mean idols, since neither Adam or Eve knew of "idols", nor did they have a multiple god theology, but did they become gods? Not in the manner they presumed, but they nonetheless entered an area where they became princes of the self-nature, which shows the soul of man can presume it's a god, and often does, but is it? We can not place our souls, self-desires, or self-interests above God, if we presume we have, we have far too many masters in the house.

The next Commandment covers idols of stone, or idols from the works of man's hands, yet every idol of man started in the mind of man. God said He created the Smith (black smith), yet the Smith makes an idol, is it God’s fault? No, the Smith had the choice to make a chair, or an idol. When we form any idol, whether paper, wood, stone or even a person we are attempting to be the god of our gods. Man makes an idol then bows to it, yet it came from the mind of man to begin with, thus the idol is nothing, because the maker of the idol can also destroy the idol, making the maker the god of their gods.

The other Commandments, like the first have two are areas of action, except for the Commandment regarding Covetousness, there we find it's the "desire", or a mental premise coming before the action (Deut 5:21). The spirit lusting to envy is the breaker of this Commandment, Paul also said this Commandment continues to fall on anyone who attempts to serve God by the fleshly efforts. When Paul was Saul he felt he did the law without error, nonetheless the same Law had a Commandment regarding Covetousness. What then was his Covetousness? Seeking righteousness before God, while lacking a true foundation to do so.

Jesus told the Pharisees they thought they had eternal life from reading the Law, but the Scriptures testified of Jesus, they didn't grant life (Jn 5:38-42). The premise of the Pharisees came from phrases like, "you shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God has commanded you, so you may live" (Deut 5:33). The Pharisees saw the phrase "may live" presuming by doing the Law they had eternal life, but the Law granted one long life in the flesh on earth, it never granted anyone Life Eternal. Jesus came so we might have Life, so we might have it More Abundantly. If one obtained Life by doing the Law, surely Jesus would have known, then simply said, "You have life, but I come that you might have it more abundantly", but He didn't, thus making it clear, man without Christ doesn't have Life.

The type of Life granted by the Law of Moses is seen in Deuteronomy 6:1-2, is a "physically prolonged" type of life on earth, yet it couldn't bring back the length of days man had prior to the Flood. God gave these people another Covenant, although it was "new" to them, it was not the New Covenant. We have The Gospel of Peace in four accounts telling us how it began. In order to enter the next area, we have to establish our foundation regarding the four accounts of the Gospel.

The four accounts of the Gospel are not four opinions of four men, but one Gospel by the one Author (Holy Ghost) given to four scribes. Matthew is the only one wherein we find the phrase "kingdom of heaven", yet Mark starts by telling us "the beginning of the Gospel" (Mark 1:1). Why would the Holy Ghost put Mark second, when Mark says, "the beginning of the Gospel"? Why would the Holy Ghost use some of the same events, yet in Matthew call it "the kingdom of heaven", but in Mark the "Kingdom of God"? Why is Matthew the only account talking about the good and bad fish? We find Matthew is written to the Seed and Root, Mark to the Blade, Luke to the Full Ear, and John to the Full Corn in the Ear. The same event viewed from the position of the Root appears different to the Full Ear, yet it's the same event. During the earthly ministry of Jesus the Law of Moses was still in full force and effect, but Jesus being the completeness of the Law was not subject to it; therefore, He was Lord over the sabbath. In truth the Sabbath was given to man, but man made an idol of the sabbath, in so doing man made himself subject to it.

We find in Matthew 22:37-38 Jesus said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment". In Mark 12:29-30 He said, "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength: this is the first commandment". In Luke it wasn't Jesus who answered, but the lawyer, who said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind: and your neighbor as yourself". Three different answers to the same question, all regarding the same event, but what does the Law say? "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might" (Deut 6:4-5). To the Jew this passage in Deuteronomy is very important, they refer to it as the Shema, naming it after the first word in the text, which to them is the title of this book, thus to the Jew these two verses are the heart of the entire book of Deuteronomy.

If we compare the areas, we may gain a valuable lesson. Before we do it, let's view the word Love to see if it changed from the Hebrew to the Greek. The word Love in Deuteronomy 6:4-5 is the Hebrew Ahav which is often used to describe the unspeakable love and tender mercies of God, thus it connects to Mercy. The Septuagint always used the Greek Agapao, which we know is based on a Joy (Jn 3:9). Legalist have a type of love, but for the most part they are "Joy-Less". This Commandment is only complete when one Loves from a Joy found in Mercy.

The word Mighty used in Deuteronomy is the Hebrew Meod pertaining to the physical force of the person, pointing to diligence. This then would connect to "seeking diligently", giving us the concept of Joy added to the seeking. It does narrow down the concept considerably: there are those who seek the Lord diligently for their own self-based reasons, some seek the Lord based in escaping some fear, but for the seeking to be Faith based, it must be Joy related.

The children are told to have the words of the Law in their Hearts, they had them in their minds and failed (Deut 6:6). When the event comes, we seek God diligently by holding to our belief, faith and trust in God. Looking for the evil only invites it in; therefore, the children in the wilderness had God, or the things of God all about them, they had deliverance, they had provision, yet all they saw was evil, but the only evil in the wilderness was their unbelief, murmuring and complaining.

God knows the heart of man, but He is not out to save the heart, change it yes, save it, No. The prize is still the soul, the saving of our soul is what this is all about. The Law of Moses points out the weakness and failings of man, yet since the endeavor is self-righteousness, they enter pride based on the effort. Their self-righteousness makes them blind to the Righteousness of God.

One of the dangers we face from our old man, is when things are going along just fine, then he blindfolds us to the things God has done (Deut 6:12). We Remember to enforce our belief, yet an aspect of belief is our Fear of God (Deut 6:13). The example is seen in these unbelieving children in the wilderness, the only time they "Feared God" was when judgment came, but if they would have held a fear before the judgment, the judgment wouldn't come.

Most of us fear missing God, really, all of us should, but we can also take fear to a point where we are afraid to do anything. Trusting in God gives us the confidence of asking Him to bless our actions, or stop them if they are not in line with His Will for us. "Oh yeah, well I asked God to either bless or stop, and I had to fight like crazy to get the job done". Oh, oh, the wild unsaved soul of man, you asked for God to bless it or stop it, when God moved in to stop it, you fought Him to get what you wanted (Deut 6:16).

How important is the principle of the Law of Moses? Jesus used the words of the Law to defeat the devil, yet Jesus destroyed the devil by the Cross (Matt 4:4, 4:7, 4:10 & Heb 2:14). Each verse Jesus used in response to the temptation of the devil came from the Law, in Deuteronomy 6:16 we read, "You shall not tempt the Lord your God", which Jesus used (Matt 4:7 & Luke 4:12). Was this verse used in respect to the devil, or the people? Here it was the people, since it also says, "as you tempted Him in Massah" (Deut 6:16). Since it was at Massah we should go back to see what this Temptation at Massah consisted of. Perhaps we can learn something about temptation in the process, or perhaps we can understand what the devil was attempting to use in his temptation.

Going back to Exodus 17:1-7 we find the people murmured over Water, Jesus answered the devil from these verses, but the context in Matthew shows the devil was misquoting a Psalm as a basis for his temptation (Matt 4:6 & Ps 91:11-12). The devil used the Prophetic Word against the Word of Life, stupid indeed, but what was the Temptation Moses referred to? In Exodus 17:7 we find the temptation was "is the Lord among us, or not?"; therefore, the devil was attempting to make Jesus prove He was Lord, yet it would be self-justification based in unbelief. Why unbelief? Jesus knew the Father would prove the Son, as the Son was proving the Father, any attempt to prove Himself would be saying the Father wasn't able. By using the Law Jesus showed His belief, by refusing to change the future. Jesus also showed His faith, thus the devil had nothing to accuse Him of.

Deuteronomy 6:14 says, "You shall not go after other gods, or the gods of the people which are about you". Later we find the purpose for killing the people in the land is this intermingling of their gods with the people of God. This would seem to pose a problem; if God is able to drive out the people, why isn't He just as able to keep His people from idols? Choice is the answer to this mystery, God gives us choice, yet He knows the flesh is weak. In the case of these people, and for those without the Spirit it's always "close the eye gate and shut the ear gate", much like the three monkeys. However, for those with the Spirit we know we have a Guide and Protection keeping us Separated from the he in the world.

God will not force us to worship Him, thus worship is still a choice of man. However this also shows man can worship whomever, or whatever he desires; however, when man worships gods, man also makes the Lord his enemy (Deut 6:15).

Some tend to think the Lord was hard on these people, but He really wasn't, we find He continually sought after their "own good always" (Deut 6:24). God was bent on delivering them, they were bent on destroying themselves. The natural mind of man will do just the opposite of what God desires, then claim any failure is God's fault. "It was the woman you gave me", "it was the serpent", of course the natural mind says God allowed the serpent, or God gave the woman, so it was all God's fault. Natural reasoning is always seeking to place the blame for it's own failures on others. No man should say when they are tempted, God tempted them (James 1:13).

God is faithful, He keeps covenant and mercy with them who love Him, keeping His Commandments to a thousand generations, yet He repays them who hate Him to their face, to destroy them: He will not be slack to him who hates Him, He will repay him to his face (Deut 7:9-10). Peter says, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance, but the Day of the Lord will come as a thief in the Night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works therein shall be burned up" (II Pet 3:9-10). The first thing we notice is the Lord's return to the earth is equated to the Night, not the Day. We will find there are two Days of the Lord, one wherein He stands ending the Day, the other when He puts His Feet on His Footstool to end the Night.

Moses gives a prophecy, Peter confirms it, which will produce a slight dilemma in the "test of the prophet", it’s as if we take the test to its unsound extreme. Some of us assume "if the thing doesn't come to pass immediately, they are a false prophet", yet here, as well as with the prophets of old we find prophecies yet to come to pass, but certainly will. We will see there are other elements to be added to the test helping us determine if one is a false prophet, or not. What if we said, "The Lord will return"? Will He? Yes, did He? Not yet, so is the statement false? Not at all, thus the statement must be taken in context with other statements, signs and times.

The Lord will love, bless and multiply these people, thus we find another allegory pointing to Jesus (Deut 7:13). When Jesus took the Bread at the Passover meal, He Blessed, Broke and Gave (Mark 14:22). Then we see another area pointing to Jesus, as the Lord will take away from them sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt upon them (Deut 7:15). What type of Diseases is He talking about? The word Disease means one is Not at Ease, the Diseases are the plagues God put on Egypt. This is a very interesting verse since it shows God will not put the diseases on the children If they are obedient, but the Curse of the Law shows the Lord putting the diseases on them when they are disobedient, surely they were subject to both Blessing and Cursing. On the other hand we have a Law based on Blessing, yet void of cursing.

Remember their unbelief? The grasshopper excuse? "If you shall say in your heart, These nations are more than I; how can I dispossess them?" (Deut 7:17). This is a statement of unbelief and doubt: God continues, "You shall not be afraid of them: but shall well remember what the Lord your God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt" (Deut 7:18).  The purpose of the diseases on the children is not to put sickness on them, but to shake their minds to remember what God did to Pharaoh. Our past experiences with God are belief builders, here it's the failure of the children to remember, they were moved by the Now, forgetting all God had done for them. Our belief must be constant, or we will fail at faith.

Deuteronomy 7:19 tells them to "remember" the Might and Power of God, how the Lord brought them out of Egypt. For us, we remember all Jesus did for us, is doing for us, plus the Promises granted to us yet to come to pass. The premise of the Power is simple, Jesus pulled us from darkness, the devil couldn't do a thing to stop it, how then, can we presume the devil can stop us now?

God gives us Experiences as belief builders, yet in the Experiences we find choice, we can search out the Good, or the Evil. The purpose of the experience is to bring us to a place where we can boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me (Heb 13:6 & Deut 7:19). Knowledge leads to Wisdom, Wisdom to Experience, Experience to Understanding, Understanding becomes the key to Confidence.

It seems when we come to the Lord all is great, we have Light, a new awareness, then one day it seems as if the bottom falls out. What is going on? Did we lose our Salvation? Did we miss it? Did God all of a sudden say, You're not worthy? No, none of these, we entered the Purpose and Process of Grace. The premise is found here in Deuteronomy, once we enter the Promise the Lord will put out the nations little by little. The term "nations" is a metaphor for unwanted elements hindering the Promise. God doesn't remove them all at once, rather He is for us, knowing if it's done all at once, the "beasts of the field" will increase (Deut 7:22). The "beasts of the field" are the Wicked, or what motivates the Wicked, which is pride. If it was all at once we would think it was by our hand, or our might, falling headlong into pride.

Again Moses tells them to Remember, in our case when we take Communion it's to Remember. In this section we find the Purpose of the Wilderness: their wilderness is no different from ours. God brought them into the wilderness to test their love for Him, and to humble them (Deut 8:2-3). How did He humble them? They found God provided for them, even when they were not worthy of provision. They had manna, their shoes never wore out, their feet never swelled from the hot sand, or the walking, yet they failed to "live by every word proceeding out of the mouth of the Lord" (Deut 8:3). Sounds familiar, ahh yes. The devil said, "If you be the Son of God", which is a challenge to prove the premise (Matt 4:3). How many times have your heard, "well if you believe, show me"? Or, "If you are a Christian..."; when they use the word "If" it's nearly always a challenge. The devil wanted a show of power, by telling Jesus to turn the "stones into bread" (Matt 4:3), this went further than gaining something to eat. The Tables of the Commandments were on Stone, the hearts of the Pharisees were stone, Jesus came so we might have soft hearts, by gaining a New Covenant to become the Bread of Life. The devil said, "if this is what you came for, show me", a temptation looking for pride to justify itself. Did Jesus come to give the stones the opportunity to be bread? Yes, but not at the suggestion, or help of the devil. Jesus pointed to the Proceeding Word of God, a change, yet Moses is bringing a change as well, but with every change responsibilities grew, to whom much is give, much is required.

The Pharisees should have put two and two together, there was no Law of Moses before Moses, thus the Pharisees should have known God is not bound; when Jesus presented another Proceeding Word unto Life with signs and wonders to prove it, they should have received it, but they rejected it for the prior Word. Where would these people be if Moses said, "Nay, but we have enough Covenants"? Thank God the Covenants ended with the New, but we also find Proceeding Words in the New, if not why have Prophets?

We keep seeing the warning regarding the "heart" of these people, yet we know the "soul" was mentioned prior, why the heart? The heart is the “spirit” of the person, it was to enforce their heart not to forget God, or they filled with pride (Deut 8:14). Ahh, a mystery about the heart of man, if the heart is the place to form unbelief, it must be the home of pride, since unbelief is disobedience, which points to the spirit of disobedience. Jesus said no good thing comes from the heart, but Paul said we must believe in our hearts, go figure? Different hearts, the old heart is the spirit lusting to envy, the New Heart is the Spirit of Christ. "Create in me a New Heart oh God", He did with the circumcision not made with hands.

Deuteronomy 8:15 tells us how the Lord led them through the "terrible wilderness", but didn't He put them there? The word Terrible is the Hebrew Yare meaning Fear or To be afraid, in this context they made the wilderness a place of fear, God didn't. God presented them with events, but it centered in training. In the wilderness we will face events, some God places before us, some we place there, some man places, some the enemy places, but the Escape is always in God (I Cor 10:13).

The spirit lusting to envy is always dissatisfied, yet it will always claim it had a major part in any gain or blessing . "It was my faith", or "Because I paid my tithe", or "my prayer life", all of those things may be facts, but God is our Provider, to Him goes All the glory. This is clearer when we read, "and you say in your heart, My power and the might of my hand has gotten me this wealth" (Deut 8:17). There are some who gain prosperity in the material, yet never prosper in their soul, then there are others who learn of God's Prosperity through various experiences where they are humbled and able to handle it, these are those who prospered in the soul first, then in the material.

The Lord just said He would drive the various inhabitants out of the land little by little, then in Deuteronomy 9:3 He says "do it quickly", go figure. Prior it was prophecy pointing to the Day as the ability in hand for the saving of our souls, here it's talking about the physical land. Then we have another warning, one we should take heed of as well. When God brought us out of the world, anointed us, joined us to His family, gave us His Seed, placed His Authority in our hand, placed the Greater He in us, called us holy, precious, His treasure and joy, He did so based on His love for us, not our goodness, or righteousness. This warning is never to allow our minds to presume the Lord cast the evil out of us based on our righteousness, rather it was based on His love, and the wickedness of the nations in us (Deut 9:4-5). It's so easy for the seed of pride to presume we are so good, God couldn't help but save us, but in truth, God so loved the world. It doesn't take away from the premise of God knowing us before the foundation of the world when He picked us, but it does show before we were, God loved us anyway. Appreciation is a far greater motivation than pride, if we are Born Again the Righteousness we gained is in the New Birth, not our works (Eph 4:24).

These people were stiffnecked and rebellious, but so were we. The Finger of God wrote His Law of the Spirit on our hearts, the New Man is making us a Tabernacle of Praise. All through the efforts of God, but by our permission. Well I guess we could take pride in the fact of God needing our permission, but we were lost, dead and headed for the second death. The measure of faith is a gift, we used it make the decision, always beware of a mind seeking to take credit for the things of God.

When Jesus was accused of casting out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of devils, He said "but if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the Kingdom of God is come upon you" (Luke 11:20). Jesus didn't say, "The Kingdom of God has come to you", rather it was "upon you", but in Matthew we read, "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God is come unto you" (Matt 12:28). Two views of the same event, the clarity shows the Kingdom of God is Jesus, the Spirit is the Finger of God, the Finger of God is able to write His Laws on our heart driving out the enemy.

Deuteronomy 9:15 points to the time of the famed golden calf, but we also find Moses saying, "and the two tables of the covenant were in my two hands". Two hands? Two Tables? Another mystery perhaps? Not really, we know one tablet pertained to man's relationship with God, the other with man's relationship with man, but who was the hinge in the middle? Moses, honor thy mother and father, for we have many teachers, but not many fathers (I Cor 4:15).

The New Nature drives out the desire to make golden calves, it's fully able to keep our minds clear to see any pending danger. Moses shows how the Stones of the Covenant were broken because of the golden calf, and how the making of it Provoked the Lord to Anger (Deut 9:16-18). The golden calf was to replace Moses, thus they made Moses an idol, thus when their idol didn't please them, they made another to replace him. Making people idols is a one way ticket to exposure and correction.

These people had seven elements to their side of the Covenant, 1) To fear the Lord, 2) To walk in all His ways, 3) to love Him, 4) To serve Him with all their heart and soul, 5) To keep His Commandments and 6) to Keep His statues (Deut 10:12-13).

Moses then talks about the "circumcision of the heart", we know a True Jew is one circumcised of heart (Deut 10:16). However, how was this possible with this group? It wasn't, for them it called for an attitude change, for us it's a change from the spirit of man, to the Spirit of Christ. If God was able to harden Pharaoh's heart, surely He is able to bring softness to ours. Pharaoh resisted God, making his heart hard, thus if we submit to God ours will become soft.

Moses then shows how the deliverance was more than enough foundation for anyone to fall in love with the Lord, then he gives the four pillars of success in the Lord for these people, and for us. The four pillars begin with 1) you shall love the Lord, 2) You shall keep his Charge (the act of custody with respect for the one who gave us the custody), 3) You shall keep His judgments, and 4) You shall keep His Commandments (Deut 11:1). Jesus said If we love Him, we will keep His Commandments, yet His Commandments center on Mercy, Grace, Love, Faith and Hope. The Judgments for us are different than those assigned to these people, in our case it's to render Mercy and be Merciful as our Father is Merciful. The Charge in our case is Grace, as a Gift given to benefit the giver and receiver, but it still belongs to the Giver.

Now we gain more evidence of these people being vegetarians in Egypt, as we read how they had gardens of herbs, they had to carry water, but the Promised Land will have water from heaven (Deut 11:10-11). This also helps explain the dietary laws; for these people eating red meat was a big deal, thus they were really moving up, not down. In the process they also needed to learn Obedience, thus it wasn't the food, it was the obedience God was seeking. Once we know the Truth, then we move up as well, all things can be received with thanksgiving (I Tim 4:3-4).

It is a shame these people had to be told they Must love the Lord, rather than them telling the Lord they had the desire to love Him. The New Birth gives us the ability of God's Love, as we desire to love and know the Lord, a far better set of circumstances, than these people had (Deut 11:13-22).

Then comes the Witness of the Law, "I set before you this day a blessing and a curse" (Deut 11:26). When Jesus went to the Mount it was "blessed are you" nine times, void of one word about cursing. In the case of these people it was "blessing and cursing",  in our case it's "blessing" alone, far better.

Not only did these people have to be told to Love the Lord, but they would have special places where they could worship. Deuteronomy 12 gives us the premise behind the question from the woman at the well in John 4:20. The Samaritans were a distance from Jerusalem, they worshipped in the mountains, but Deuteronomy 12 shows God will pick a place of worship for them, but the context of Worship Jesus talks about is different. To these people the concept of worship included a sacrifice, but Jesus says, the Father seeks those who can worship in "Spirit and Truth", yet He didn't name a location, or did He? (Jn 4:24). God is Spirit, the Spirit of Truth is the Spirit, thus it doesn't matter where we are, since the location is within. The place for these people also entailed eating the holy things, for us we are the Bread, becoming a holy thing before the Lord (I Cor 10:16-17).

Since they came from Egypt and ate of the herbs there, the propensity to reject the herbs was also a danger. God tells them they can eat as the "roebuck and hart", both of which are classed as clean animals and herb eaters (Deut 12:22, 14:5 & 15:22). The surface truth shows they can eat herbs as both the clean and unclean animals, but if an unclean animal can eat the same herb as the clean, what makes the clean, clean, and the unclean, unclean? This mystery shows us it's not what goes in, since both the unclean and clean can eat the same herb, rather God was seeking obedience. If we assume the diet laws make us holy, we missed it be miles (I Tim 4:4-5). If we can't eat it with thanksgiving, then don't eat it.

God also tells them they can eat what their souls lust after, yet isn't lust a sin? (Deut 12:20). Don't forget these were herb eaters, now they can eat meat. It was a big step for them, this is the new group, they remember the quail in the nose party. The word Lust depends on the source and intent, we can lust after God, or lust to envy. Here it's Liberty to eat herbs, or meat if they desire, as long as it first passes the Law.

The difference between Obedience unto God, and man's obedience to his idols is seen in Deuteronomy 12:30. If we see someone giving worship to an idol, it doesn't mean we can worship God in the same manner. What? If we see someone put pins in a doll, would we do the same? No, the pagans sacrificed children and all sorts of things, but does it mean the child of God can? God was driving them out of the Promised Land, so His people won't copy them thinking they’re doing good (Deut 12:31). These people engaged in circumcision of the flesh, but so did other people, including those from Ishmael, but the only ones who did it as a Token relating to a Covenant with God were these people. Other people worshiped, but the only ones with a Law from God were these people. On the same note many people "baptize", but the only ones with the God given authority are those in the Body of Christ. Many people claim to be spiritual, but the only ones God says are spiritual are those who walk in the Spirit of Christ. Man says and does many things, but the issue is the God given authority to perform, without it, one is an "outlaw".

Then comes the other aspect to test a prophet, this one tells us If the thing does come to pass, yet the prophet or dreamer tells us to serve other gods, we will not follow them (Deut 13:1-3). This points to Balaam, his prophetic words were correct, his character was faulty. He himself didn't do the leading, but he taught another to.

There is the definition of a false prophet saying if something they said will be, doesn't come to pass they are false, easy enough to detect, but here it's different. Even if it comes to pass, yet they lead us false gods, they are false. What is one purpose of a prophet? To speak the word of the Lord regarding direction for the nation (Body), thus if they lead us in the wrong direction, they are false (Deut 13:3).

The warning then extends to friends, family and anyone who tells us to serve other gods (Deut 13:6-8). This points to, You must love less (hate in KJV) your family (Luke 14:26). Jesus told us to "love those who hate us", then told us to hate our family, go figure? The Principle is here in Deuteronomy, the Procedure isn't telling us to go about full of hate for our family, rather priority is the issue. If we love family more than God, then we will compromise Jesus to appease the family order. When they say, "Well it seems to me this is what we shall do", if it points to another god and we compromise to keep "family peace", meaning we have committed iniquity. Denying the self includes denying the temptation to please someone simply because they are family. It's hard since we must honor our father and mother, but we are not to allow them to lead us unto other gods either.

Deuteronomy 14:1 would make it seem as if we are never to get a hair cut, but it isn't the case. The pagans did certain things for the dead, the context in Deuteronomy 14:1 points to "the dead", yet we know God is the God of the living, not the Dead. Moses then speaks of the clean and unclean animals, which we covered, but we can also see how the allegory relates to the Living and Dead. Anything existing off of death, if the animal eating dead things, or carcasses, or garbage as "death consumers" making them unclean, but those who eat the things of Life were clean. This is coupled with the uncleanness when one touched anything dead, pointing to any of us reaching back and touching the deadness of the old man.

There are times when the tricks of the old man seem handy, let's face it, some of those demonic tricks worked. We used manipulation, self-pity and all sorts of things to get our way, yet all of it was based in the wisdom of the world, earthly, sensual (soulish) and devilish. To use those "tools" or "weapons" now is not a good, we have better Weapons of our Warfare, always Mighty Through God.

Then comes the Tithe; Oh boy the tithe, hallelujah, bless God, the tithe. You're going to like it, it may change you from a Tither to a Cheerful giver, or make you very mad, but if you follow along in the Scripture, it may also take down a Stronghold. Deuteronomy 14:22-29 tells us the Tithe shall come from all the Increase of the seed, then it must be taken to one place only, which we know as Jerusalem (Deut 14:25). Malachi called it "the storehouse", not the "storehouses" (Mal 3:10), Malachi calls "the nation" to tithe (Mal 3:9). We can say, "oh well, God changed", but there is no verse showing a different location for the Tithe under the Law, in fact, Deuteronomy tells us if we can't make it to Jerusalem, we have to make sure the money is carried there. Then we find the Tithe is for one purpose, to supply the Levites, the stranger, the fatherless and widow (Deut 14:27-29). Now we find "tithes" defined, the Tithe is the law governing the act, the Tither is the person under the Law, but the tithes are the thing given. If there is a Commandment governing the exact amount, the person under the Commandment is obligated to give the amount, the priests under the Commandment are obligated to take the person’s tithe. However, if there is no Commandment regulating the amount the "tithes" are then in the hands of the giver, there is no taker of the tithes in the Kingdom, only those who receive. In the New Covenant the concept is a "cheerful giver" who has the Spirit; one attribute of Grace is "giving", thus we need not have a Commandment to give, we do so by nature (Rom 12:6-13). The same principle applies, the giving in the New is still to "distribute to the saints", thus our alms are for the poor in the world. Adding, we find the priests under the new receive tithes, they don't take them.

Then comes the Seven Year Release, if we did loan money to anyone then in the Seventh Year we were to forgive the loan, even it wasn't paid back. This isn't seven years from the time the loan was given, but a specific seven year plan, or a plan set every seven years regardless of when the loan was made. It's great if you are on the borrower side, but if you are on the lender, it could be bad news.

The warning also shows if someone asks for a loan, yet the seven year release time is near at hand, we can't refuse them simply because the time is near where they won't have to pay it back (Deut 15:1-4 & 15:9). The Seven Year Release also pertained to Hebrew slaves, yes the Hebrews had Hebrew slaves sold to them, even though they themselves were once slaves in Egypt (Deut 15:11-14). When they released the Hebrew slave they would also furnish him liberally out of the flock and field, thus we find even if they were a slave, after seven years they were free, then given a liberal amount for their service. Where did this come from? Jacob when he was in the house of Laban, which also shows where the Tithe under the Law came from.

The next order of business is the Consecration of the Firstborn, only here it's the Firstborn animal. The person would make sure the firstborn had not been subject to work, nor did they take anything from the animal, such as the fleece, nor could it have any blemish (Deut 15:19-21). Not only did they give it to the Lord, but they ate it as well; this wasn't restricted to the Levite, but both the clean and unclean person would eat it as the roebuck and hart eat (Deut 15:22). How does a roebuck and hart eat? Without hands? Could get messy. The roebuck and hart eat without rules and regulations for one thing, they eat what they want, but they are herb eaters, again both are clean animals (Deut 14:4-5).

The restriction was the "blood", the children were never allowed to eat blood, which is a type of respect for the Blood of Jesus. There is only one Blood able to bring Life to man, the Blood of Jesus. God set another plan in the system, it still holds true today. The blood of a child is determined by the father, in the case of Jesus, His Blood had to be more than animal, yet more than man. How could it be? He took on the form of man, thus His Blood had to be human, right? Right, but the Blood flowed through a sinless body, becoming The Most Holy Blood of all time, determined by the Mercy of the Father.

Then we find the Three Festivals, which we talked about prior (Deut 16:1-17). Then the Legal System as the Judges would judge, yet never take a gift, for the gift taken would blind their eyes to the truth, perverting their words (Deut 16:18-19). It doesn't mean they had nothing, it means they served without taking gifts from the people for favors.

The type of animals to be sacrificed is noted next, then it seems to take off on "wickedness", do they relate? Yes, to these people the sacrifice had to be perfect, it was a type of how God called them to be perfect, but in our case we as the imperfect came to the Lord to be made perfect. Some of us want the "fish cleaned" first, but the purpose of the Body is to take the fish, bless them, present them, then allow the Spirit to clean them.

The system of "two or three" is discussed next, Jesus also talked about this, but in a much different context than we find here. Here it was the accusing aspect, there had to be two or three witnesses to the offense. A witness is someone with first hand knowledge, not opinion, or guess work, not "someone told me", but first hand knowledge with the evidence to back it up (Deut 17:6). In the New Testament we have three examples of this, one is taught by Jesus, another done unto Him, then one taught by Paul. In Matthew 18:15-20 we read the premise for binding and loosing regarding Two or Three as we read "if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything they shall ask, it shall be done for them of My Father which is in heaven", we seem to presume it means if we can get two or three people who agree with us, then we can ask whatsoever and immediately God will give it (Matt 18:19). We know it doesn't sound right, but it's there, so we deal with it, but we start by viewing the context in accordance with the law of Principle and Procedure. The context isn't finding two or three who agree with us, it goes to those times when there is no agreement, or when aught is brewing between members of the Body. The phrase "of My Father" is used denoting Jesus is talking about Mercy regarding how we either show Mercy, or should. This all begins with "if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone" (Matt 18:15). There is a Procedure, the fault can't be, "I'm right, you're wrong", since the basis would be stubbornness, rather it must be to establish Mercy and Unity. The Two would be the two with aught between them, but if either refuses to make amends, then comes the Third independent party. When the two or three are gathered together in the Name of Jesus, He is there. James uses this same premise by telling us if we have "faults" (disagreements) one to another, we pray for each other so we may be healed (James 5:16).

The second example is found in John 7:24 Jesus warned the people about judging as He said, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment", Righteous Judgment is void of personality or emotional conclusions. Then He taught on the Living Water, which is defined as Mercy generated by the Spirit, thus there is no way anyone is going to be able to apply God's Living Mercy without being Born Again. After Jesus taught on this, He went to the mount to pray, but the Pharisees and religious rulers held a "meeting" (Jn 7:45-53). Jesus was not at this meeting, He went to pray (Jn 8:1); for the sake of identification we call this type of meeting a "John 7 meeting". During the meeting there were many accusations and opinions, then Nicodemus said, "Does our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he does?" (Jn 7:51). It’s a direct reference to this section in Deuteronomy, so where were the witnesses? John 7 meetings are destructive and manipulative, yet two or three are gathered, but not in the Name of God. When we find ourselves in the midst of a John 7 meeting and the Spirit does have us speak, don't be surprised at the response. The religious rulers retorted with, "Are you also from Galilee? Search and look, for out of Galilee arises no prophet" (Jn 7:52). Wait, wasn't Jonah from the area of Galilee? Jonah was from Gath-hepher, which was about two miles northwest of Nazareth in Galilee (II Kings 14:25). Didn't Nicodemus know it? He had to, he was a ruler of the Synagogue. Couldn't he debate the issue? Yes, but he held his tongue, a sign of submission. The word was spoken by Nicodemus, but the religious rulers didn't want to receive it, why get into a camel swallowing contest?

This warning in Deuteronomy 17:6 was a prophecy spoken, the violation came to pass by the religious rulers during the earthly ministry of Jesus. If the witness lied, then the witness would suffer the penalty rather than the accused. In the case of Jesus, it would have been according to the Law to take all the religious rulers with their witnesses and put them on crosses, but Jesus said, "Father Forgive them". The entire premise of binding and loosing is based on Mercy, if we loose someone by forgiving them, the Father will loose His Mercy on us, but if we bind someone to our unforgiveness, we have bound the Father's Mercy in heaven, we have the Keys.

The last area is found in I Timothy 5:19 where Paul tells Timothy, "against an elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses". The Witness must have absolute proof, not an opinion, or what they felt was going on. This of course was in response to Timothy ordaining a bunch who knew the Law, but didn't have a clue regarding Grace, thus Paul gave them the Law to ponder when they accused Timothy for "being a youth".

If the judges under the Law told someone to do something in accordance with their position, yet the person refused, the person was to be killed (Deut 17:12). There is only One Judge in the New Testament, He stands at the "Door". The rule of thumb in the Old Testament was, "where there are no judges, there is no God"; however, it’s not so in the New, in the New we have one Judge (James 5:9). Wait, don't we judge ourselves? Yes, but we do so by the Spirit, not by our own soulish traits or self-pity.

Then we read about a "king", but they had no king, could this be a prophecy as well? (Deut 17:16). The Law clearly says a king shall not multiply horses, yet we know both David and Solomon did (II Sam 8:4, I Kings 4:26 & 10:25). God Winked at many things done in the darkness. The Day is a time to grow up, the time to put away childish things.

There is a misconception regarding the offices of the New being akin to the Levite order, but the Book of Hebrews tells us it’s not so (Heb 7:9-12). The change in priesthood changed from the carnal to the spiritual, the offices of the New are filled by those who hold the Inheritance of the New. The opposite is found, not the similarity (Deut 18:1-8).

Then we read about the forbidden practices, should we be told in writing not to do these things? We hope not, the Spirit in us is fully able to guide us into the Truth, Amen? The pagans did many things, all of which were known by God, not none of which were ordained of God. The pagans would pass their children through the "fire", meaning  they sacrificed their babies to idols. The counterfeit of the Consecration of the Firstborn by the pagan was a complete opposite of God's rule. God wanted the firstborn set apart unto Him to make up for the death of the firstborn in Egypt, but God wasn't going to kill them, rather God was going to make their life special. This allegory shows how we join with Jesus, the Only Begotten of the Father, the First of many Brothers. The pagan on the other hand would sacrifice their children based on the evil presumption of their life becoming better. Two completely different premises, God's is not self-based, the pagan's is totally self-based.

The phrase "observer of times" in Deuteronomy 18:10 is the Hebrew Anan meaning To act covertly, or To practice magic, it covered the soothsayer, diviner, sorcerer, or enchanter, depending on the usage. The act of Divination is to seek information from a source, other than God. Seeking the future from things of the present is foolish, things of the present or past are for the present or past, they don't tell us a thing about the future. Prophecy from God is different, it comes from God Who had the end in hand, before there was a beginning.

The word Necromancer in Deuteronomy 18:11 in the English means divining the future through the dead, or alleged dead, but it's a compound Hebrew word meaning, To study or learn a forward direction from the dead, metaphorically it holds a warning to us. We cannot tell what God is doing with us by studying what the world is doing, or what the Holy Ghost is doing in the world, they are two completely different realms. We really can't tell what God is doing with us by studying what He is doing with Israel, they are two completely different Covenants. Why is this a metaphoric concept? The world is the walking dead, to study them is to study the dead, thus to seek what the future holds by studying the world, is the sin of Necromancy.

Necromancy is a pretended power to foretell the future by signs of the dead, in and of itself it shows how foolish it is. If the dead could tell the future, why are they dead? It’s the same foolishness in holding a "lucky rabbit's foot", wasn't lucky for the rabbit.

We now read how there will be Another Prophet like unto Moses. The warning prior relates, Moses was a man, his flesh died, he went to Paradise, later he was taken captive by Jesus after the Cross, any attempt to bring him back would be akin to Necromancy. What type of Prophet was Moses? Did he bring a Law? Yes, did he stand between these people and God? Yes, did he lead them out of Egypt? Yes, thus we have a Greater Prophet than Moses, Jesus the Great Deliverer of all time, the One who gave us a New Law based on a New Covenant, making sure we had the ability to finish the race (Deut 18:15-19). The Law and Prophets stood with Jesus on the Mount, the Father said, "hear ye Him".

Since the name of this "unknown prophet" was not revealed here, the presumption was He would come and do one act to convince the people who He was. The act would correspond to the plagues in Egypt on the enemies of Israel. Yet Jesus came to heal, raise the dead as signs, but not the sign the religious rulers wanted.

The washings in the Old Testament Law were not "baptisms", they were washings. When John the Baptist came to Baptize, the religious rulers sent to know if he was "the prophet" (Jn 1:21). Of course John said he wasn't, yet he was preparing the Way for the Prophet. This Prophet would baptize as well, thus John said there would be one who would baptize the people with the Holy Ghost and Fire, pointing to Jesus.

The religious rulers had strongholds, when the Prophet did come, they made the error of assuming He was the "false prophet", thus they accused Jesus: they felt the death of Jesus would save the nation. The people are told to "hearken unto" the Words which this Prophet will speak in the Name of the Father, but the other prophet who Presumes to speak in the Father's Name, even the prophet shall die (Deut 18:19-20). Two prophets, one Jesus, the true Prophet, the other to come in the Night is the false prophet.

It was also well understood in the time of the earthly ministry of Jesus, the Messiah would come; the religious rulers assumed the Messiah and "The Prophet" were two different people, thus they asked John, but when he said No, they presumed Jesus couldn't be the Messiah. They failed to see The Prophet and the Messiah were one in the same. Something we know today, but even today we see some who seek the smooth sayings of the false prophets.

We then go through the establishment of the Cities Of Refuge, then we find the Matter of Two or Three Witnesses again (Deut 19:15-19). The method and purpose of war was given to these people, they were told to "utterly destroy them" (Deut 20:17). Our method of warfare is different, the result the same, we utterly destroy the works of the devil.

When Jesus went to the Cross, Pilate washed his hands, yet Pilate was a Roman not a Jew, yet his act was Jewish in nature. Why would he do that? Was he telling the religious leaders something? Yes, the Expiation for Innocent Blood was displayed before the religious leaders by a man who wasn't Hebrew. The man was asking for atonement for Jesus, he wasn't giving it, thus he wanted Jesus to know how he felt. A Roman used a principle and procedure which should have been clear to the religious leaders, they were about to shed the Blood of an innocent person in "the field". If a body is found in the field, and no one knows who killed them, the elders and judges go to the elders of the closest city. There the elders of the city take a heifer, one who has done no labor, or has seen no yoke, then they cut off the heifer's head and "wash their hands" over the heifer, pronouncing how they have not shed the blood of the person (Deut 21:1-7).

Why a heifer? And why one who has not seen or been subject to a Yoke? This allegory connects to the Red Heifer we saw prior, the one to Purify the Altar, only the allegory shows Jesus as the innocent One, as Pilate gave the religious rulers a sign they could understand.

First God says the people in the land must die, because they were all sold out to idols, but then we read how If one finds a woman among the captives and wants her to wife, he must follow certain regulations, what gives? God knows these people, He knows us as well, the major difference? We have the Spirit. What if the man decides his act of taking a wife was an "Ishmael" then wants out of the marriage? He can't sell the captive wife, since Israel was once captive in Egypt. Then we read if the man has two wives, and he loves the one more than the other, they both have sons, who would be the Firstborn? The Firstborn is the firstborn, even if he came from a hated wife.

On the other hand what if the son, firstborn or not, is stubborn and rebellious? The parents take the rebellious and stubborn son to the elders, if he's found guilty, he is to be stoned to death. Today they would be found guilty of child endangerment if they so much as told anyone they were going to have their son stoned to death. However, this also shows to whom the Law was given, a stubborn and rebellious people. If rebellion or stubbornness went unpunished, the entire nation would presume it's God ordained; again it's not from whom the Law came, but to whom it was directed.

In Deuteronomy 21:20 we find the word "glutton" attached to the words Stubborn and Rebellious, do they relate? The word Glutton is the Hebrew Zalal meaning A squanderer, or A prodigal, relating to the Prodigal Son. Wait, in the Parable of the Prodigal Son didn't Jesus say the son came to his senses and returned home? Yes (Luke 15:11-32). Well now, it looks much different than this, doesn't it? In the Parable of the Prodigal Son we find a son who wanted his inheritance early, he obtained it, yet squandered it. He then found himself with the pigs, when he saw one of those little piggies going to market, he went home. Here we have the added concepts of Stubborn and Rebellious: Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, Stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry (I Sam 15:23). The word Glutton to us means someone who eats everything in sight, or who has a strong lust for food; however, it also means someone who as an appetite for anything defining the word Covet. Therefore, covetousness covers many areas, including gluttony, or an avaricious greed for wealth, thus a Glutton is one who has an uncontrolled hunger for material things. Gluttony has nothing to do with eating "goodies", rather it goes to intent and action. We can eat a goody with thanksgiving, but the Glutton will sneak or hide food in an attempt to cover their actions.

We also find a son who is a Drunkard, most of us know what it means, but it also has a metaphoric meaning, pointing to one who seeks after the wrong spirit to gain enjoyment for the flesh. Both the Covetousness and Drunkenness point to stubbornness and rebellion, which leads one into witchcraft and iniquity, which in turn places them in opposition to God. The big difference between this rebellious son and the Prodigal son is the Season, here the rebellious son is under the Law of Moses, in the Parable Jesus was defining Mercy, showing how repentance can change ones position in any event (Luke 15:18). We have to notice the complete absence of repentance in the Law regarding a rebellious son. If the son doesn't change at home, there is no room to change in front of the elders, rather he is taken and stoned based on the witness of his father and mother (Deut 21:19-21). In the Parable there was room for repentance, much different.

In all this we must remember all curses are nailed to the Cross, Jesus made an open show of their ineffectiveness to the Born Again believer (Gal 3:13 & Col 2:14-16). Galatians shows "cursed is every one who continues not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" (Gal 3:10), with Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree, thus Jesus took the Curse to the Tree, there it remains. How did He do it? "Forgive them Father", the words of Mercy negate the cruse.

The next area pertains to doing unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Then the sin of cross-dressing is given (Deut 22:5). Then the "mixed seed" violation is coupled with mixing plow animals (Deut 22:9-10). Putting a goat on one side of the plow and a horse on the other makes the plow go round and round, never straight. This mixed seed theory is also seen in the Parable of the Wheat and Tares. The Wheat and Tares were in the same field, but the Wheat is Good, planted by the Master of the House, whereas, the Tares were wicked, planted by the enemy. Planting tares in others, yet claiming them to be Wheat is a mixed seed, producing failure.

Next is not the Law of Divorce, with marriage by fraud and trickery. If a man takes a wife, yet hates her, he brings the accusation she was not a maid (virgin) when he married her, the father and mother of the maid must produce the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders, then the elders shall take the man and chastise him, then the man shall pay one hundred shekels to the maid's parents for his slander, he may not put her away all his days (Deut 22:13-19). However, if she lied, and was not a virgin, then the damsel would be taken and stoned to death (Deut 22:21). Seems harsh, but then we read "she has wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house" (Deut 22:21). Which relates to the Woman in the Book of Revelation as she sets herself as the Whore when she accepts the false prophet as her guide and instructor.

Then Deuteronomy 22:22 tells us if a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, they both shall die. This points to many areas, first we find a woman married who is caught laying with a man willingly, they both shall die (Deut 22:22). However, during the earthly ministry we find the religious rulers said they caught a woman in the very act of adultery, but they only brought her to Jesus, then added, "it is written in the Law". They did lie in wait to deceive, but they couldn't fool Jesus. Where was the male? No male, no crime. Jesus took care of the situation, rather than stone the woman to death, He forgave her (Jn 8:2-11).

The Jew cannot charge Usury (interest) toward their own people, but it's okay to charge the Stranger interest (Deut 23:19-20). Usury is the unjust change of interest, today it's charging over the accepted legal interest, in the days of Moses it was simple interest. The Usury isn't limited to money, it's interest, or gain on anything. This connects back to an eye for an eye, unjust usury would be making someone work three hours, because we worked for them for one.

Then we enter the realm of Vows, a Vow to God is serious business (Deut 23:21). We tend to make vows as easy as we make coffee, but the Vow unto the Lord is very serious, the Vow we made when we entered this was to deny the self, pick up our cross and follow Jesus. God views our Confession as part of our Vow, what came from our lips, we shall keep and perform: even the freewill offering we made of ourselves, which included our Vow to Believe, Trust and Love the Lord our God (Deut 23:23). All other vows have to center around the main one, or we make "foolish vows", the results of which we will find in the next lesson.

Next is an area the disciples were doing when the religious rulers came looking for fault thinking they found it (Deut 23:25). The disciples were going through the corn (wheat) field plucking the kernels of wheat on the sabbath day, along came the Pharisees and saw it, oh my (Matt 12:1-2). They accused the disciples of doing something "unlawful", or against the Law of Moses, but what was the violation? There was none, the disciples were not cooking, or preparing, they were eating the raw kernels. If they would have disturbed the stalk of the wheat, then this section in Deuteronomy would apply, but they didn't (Deut 23:25). Jesus went further, showing when David took of the Shewbread, which was considered more holy than the wheat in the field (Matt 12:4). The violation was to cook or prepare on the sabbath, not simply eating. The violation here is to take of the wheat and destroy the stalk, but simply taking the kernel doesn't destroy the stalk.

Next comes the Law of Divorce, Jesus said this came about because of the hardness of the people's heart, thus it was allowed, but it was not the perfect will of God (Mark 10:5). Divorce in this case was when the man found no "favor" in his eyes concerning his wife (Deut 24:1). This also has a mystery, the word Favor is the Hebrew Chen meaning Kindness or Grace. The man was given the right to put her away with a "bill of divorcement", but why would God allow this? Later when we get to the Prophets we will see how God asked for a Bill of Divorcement from the nation; however, we also find the Daughter (city) was not part of the divorce.

If the woman leaves and marries another, yet is divorced again, the former husband can't take her back (Deut 24:4). The most obvious concept is she didn't change, ending divorced again, so why take her back? The metaphoric use shows the nation leaves, goes to another, yet God will not take Her back as the Nation, rather Her daughter is seen in the latter days. It doesn't exclude the nation from the work God has for it, but the 144,000 are taken from the tribes then marked on Zion, yet the City is located on Zion. When the City thinks it's Zion, the end is near.

Next comes the taking of a bride and going to war;  we find there is a built-in excuse to stay home, for good reason. Here God looks out for the bride and the nation, seeing the man is not subject to war during the first year of marriage. This has a metaphoric use as well, the Babes in Christ are not subject to War, they are to establish a relationship with their purposed Husband. There is a difference between going to War and going to the Banquet. Jesus talks about the Banquet, but the excuses are centered on going to war, thus natural man seeks the loophole, rather than obedience (Luke 14:15-24). We look at the excuses as they relate here, but Jesus was talking about a Banquet, here it's in reference to war (Deut 24:5). The rebuke by Jesus pointed to the religious leaders, Jesus came to prepare a Great Banquet, but the religious leaders set their minds on war.

Since the Law is a Witness we find many areas relating to the Judgment, as people on the Last Day are compared to "the books" (Law of Moses - Rev 20:12). There are other groups at the Judgment, plus one group free of the judgment by being removed from the earth before the Night begins, which we will study later; however, for here we see the Judges shall justify the Righteous but condemn the wicked (Deut 25:1). The division is clear, the Sheep divided from the Wicked wolves.

The law of the stripes is next, this has been a standard for many nations, other than Israel. Forty strips less one has been an established rule of punishment for years, but why Forty? Why not Fifty? Or Ten? The forty represented the forty years in the wilderness. The rule of "less one" came about from the Law, if the one doing the punishment exceeded the forty, they would then be subject to forty lashes, thus the order was one person to inflict the punishment, another to count, they would stop at thirty nine, just to play is safe. This was a promise as well, God would not keep them over the forty years.

However, we find another mystery concerning the stripes of Jesus. It's obvious the Romans would stop at thirty-nine to protect themselves, but there are thirty-nine categories of sickness and disease, Jesus took a stripe for each.

Within the punishment section we read, "you shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the corn" (Deut 25:4). When the ox is moving over the corn, they were allowed to eat some of it, not all of it, but some of it. If someone didn't want the ox to eat, they would put a Muzzle over its mouth. Paul would use this phrase in a metaphoric sense to show controlling the preacher by the use of money is a violation (I Cor 9:9 & I Tim 5:18). The phrase is only used in three places, here in Deuteronomy, and twice by Paul. In First Corinthians 9:9 it means to hinder the leader in any way; in First Timothy 5:18 it means to use money to hinder the leaders. The Laborer is worth their reward, if someone has taught us to be Free indeed, they are worth double the honor (I Tim 5:17). Money is neither good or evil, but it can be an evil weapon to control others by. The world uses money to control people, but the workers of iniquity use money to control the pulpit, which turns the money into "filthy lucre".

Next is the kinsman responsibility, this rule was to "multiply" the nation. In our case we Multiply the Kingdom, here it was "many people in the nation", two different methods and concepts (Deut 25:5-9). In this section we find another mystery revealed in the New. When John was confronted by the religious rulers he said, "I baptize with water: but there stands One among you, whom you know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose" (Jn 1:26-27). John offended the religious rulers, but why? Simply because he said the One among them was preferred over John? No, it was the statement "whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose". The religious rulers were envious, but not stupid. In the kinsman responsibility if a woman is married yet her husband dies before giving her a son, then the wife goes to the man's brother. It's the responsibility of the brother to take her and bring forth a son, so the dead man's name not be blotted out of Israel (Deut 25:6). In order to be a Jew, one's mother had to be Jewish, not their father. This premise was established by Sarah, from her came the Promised son, yet Abraham had two more families. If being a Hebrew or Jew depended on the male, then all of Abraham's children would be included, but we know they are not. Therefore, we found Luke listed Mary's side to prove Jesus is Jewish, but Matthew pointed to the kingly line through Joseph.

Regarding the kinsman responsibility; let's say the living brother said, "no", what then? The widow would go to the elders saying, "My husband's brother refuses to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform his duty of my husband's brother" (Deut 25:7). The elders would then call the brother, if he says, "I like not to take her", the widow will "loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto the man who will not build up his brother's house" (Deut 25:8-9). Wait, does it mean John was saying he wanted to take the shoes off Jesus, and spit in His face? Not at all, he gave two premises in one statement, first he showed he was not worthy enough to serve Jesus, but in the same context he was showing how the religious rulers were attempting to cut a name off from Israel. The religious rulers by their rejection were telling the Father, "we will not take Your Son as our brother", God would take their shoes (ability to walk by faith) then spit in their face.

The brother who refused to take on the responsibility would be known from the time forward as "The House of him who has his shoe loosed" (Deut 25:10). The word Shoe is the Hebrew Naal, although it does mean Sandal or Slipper, it also means "something valueless", which is the attitude the religious rulers took regarding Jesus. Since Jesus didn't come from their ranks, nor trained under their watchful eye, neither did He come to them to gain their permission, they felt He was "out of order", yet they were the ones out of order.

The word Loosed is the Hebrew Chalats meaning To withdraw, To take off, or To rob, it can mean To prepare for war (Numb 32:27, 32:29 & Joshua 4:13). Here the context means the brother Robbed the widow of her right to have a name in Israel. This goes right back to the person being Jewish if their mother was Jewish, thus the violation caused the brother's name as well as the purpose of the wife to be removed from the books of Israel. Interesting when we consider the end times, when as we see the Woman in Revelation 17 with the Sun as Her Glory, the Stars (Tribes) as Her crown, yet Her footstool is Her own Mother (Moon or Zion - Rev 12:1). God would pick a place where His people under this Covenant could worship Him, one place called a City, a City in the Nation, a City is known as Jerusalem of the earth (Deut 26:2), the same one Paul said was in bondage until now (Gal 4:25). However, we answer to New Jerusalem which is free established, it’s also sits on heavenly Zion (Gal 4:26 & Heb 12:22).

Amalek came from Esau, we recall his deeds against the children in the wilderness, but here we find something interesting. We read, "you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven: you shall not forget it" (Deut 25:19). How can we blot it out, then not forget it? To the Jew this means Never forget those who do you wrong, but God did not say "him", He said "it". They were suppose to forget the person, but not the It (experience). This doesn't mean to hold unforgiveness in the experience, rather it means remember the victory by God's deliverance, rather than holding hate against the man. Going back to Exodus 17:8-16 we find the battle with Amalek was at the place where the name "Jehovah-nissi" was established. Here they are told to blot out the remembrance, but in Exodus we find the Lord will battle with Amalek from generation to generation (Ex 17:16). The Lord will battle, the victory is ours.

Chapter 26 of Deuteronomy goes into the harvest offerings, and the pledge of the tithe, which we discussed prior (Deut 26:13-15). Then we read how they have "avouched the Lord", what does it mean? (Deut 26:17). The word Avouched is the Hebrew Amar simply it means To speak, or Tell, or Declare something, here it was their Vow to do as the Lord commanded them. Once they made the Vow, then the Lord Avouched He would do His part of the Covenant (Deut 26:18). How would their Avouch? It comes next, explaining how the Law of Moses is divided into blessing and cursing.

Moses didn't take the people to Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, but he did command them, when they cross over the Jordan to set up stones as a memorial, then go to Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, there to pronounce the Law again. If we presume they did this here, we're in trouble, since both of these mounts are in Samaria, thus Moses is talking about this is in the wilderness for a time to come. When they cross the Jordan (Deut 27:4), then they shall stand on the Mounts, thus this is a command regarding the crossing. Then six tribes will stand on Mount Ebal to call out the cursing, the other six tribes will stand on Mount Gerizim calling call out the blessing (Deut 27:12-13). Ebal means Void of leaves, or Bald, denoting the absence of the covering. Gerizim means To cut, as one would Cut a Covenant. These two mountains become important when we get to the New Testament where we find Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, saying, "Blessed are you" nine times, there is no cursing in the Mercy of God (Matt 5:3-11). We also find in John how Jesus went the place of Jacob's well to talk to a woman at the well. The woman was a Samaritan, the Samaritans were not only from Ephraim and Manasseh, they believed the true worshipers were those who worshipped on Mount Gerizim, so much so, they built a temple there (Deut 27:15-26).

Each one of the curses and blessings will be expanded on by God, but we find they seem to relate to the Ten Commandments. If one makes a graven image, they are cursed, if they spy on their parents, like Ham spied on his father, they are cursed, if they mistreat their neighbor they are cursed, and so on. We also find the Law of Moses begins with cursing, then leads to blessing, whereas the Law of the Spirit begins and ends in blessing, yet void of cursing. This is interesting showing when we are "cursed minded" we are also being naturally entrapped. If we see a bug do we automatically think, "the curse, the curse, the curse is upon us"? The sun and rain fall on the just and unjust, only the just know why.

Then we read about the six tribes who would speak from Mount Gerizim, if we count the words Blessing and Bless, we find Nine blessings, not ten or twelve (Deut 28:3-13). The Punishment for Disobedience is all cursing, and no blessing (Deut 28:16-68). The first blessing was in the city and in the field, here it's cursed in the city and in the field (Deut 28:16). The Law called for Obedience only, thus in the Song of Moses we will find they are called "children in whom there is no faith" (Deut 32:20). In reference to the "song of Moses" we find there are two songs of Moses, one we noted in the last lesson, now this one. The one prior to the Law glorifies God, it's the song the Remnant sing, until the time when the Woman begins to turn Herself into the Whore, then comes the other Song of Moses, thus the Two Songs become the One Song with two views, as we will see.

Going over these curses we find there is really nothing left out, if there is, it's covered in "Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the Lord bring upon you, until you are destroyed" (Deut 28:61). Wait, the Lord will bring it? What gives? What happened to the "God of Love"? We find the Love of God in Jesus, thus Jesus took the Curse to the Tree (Cross), so if one wants to know what the Cross freed them of, all they have to do is read all these curses. Knowledge, belief  and faith are important, but Paul also told us about carnal leaders who Yoke the authority and anointing, who also keep many of these blessings form us. Is all lost? Nay, all is gain.

It also depends on our Obedience, if it’s the case, one must define the word Disobedience. Deuteronomy 28:47 sums up disobedience by saying, "Because you serve not the Lord your God with Joyfulness and with Gladness of Heart, for the abundance of all things". Here we find Joy and Gladness are attributes of Service, but true service comes when one is Obedient. One cannot be Obedient to the Lord unless they know the Ways of the Lord. Yet Paul said no one can call Jesus Lord but by the Holy Ghost. Ahh, the Holy Ghost brings the Seed, which is the Spirit of Truth, by the Spirit we know the ways of the Lord, by having the Mind of Christ .

A great deal of this was to be accomplished when they entered the Promised Land, which also shows God knew they would make it. With all this we can answer a few questions to determine what all this is relating to. Who was Moses to begin with? A deliverer? Yes, a prophet? Yes, yet he was something else as well, the something else will defining many things for us. Moses was the conscience of these people, he was the one who heard from God, then expounded to the people what was right and wrong. The Ten Commandments are Good, yet we find there was no room for repentance, thus once one was violated, it was violated for all time. The Law of Moses gave these people a means to atone, but even the Law of Moses didn't remove the violation, it only balanced the scale. We can see why God told Moses he would be a god to Pharaoh. Pharaoh was the law maker for Egypt, thus Moses came telling Pharaoh what was right and wrong, but Pharaoh rejected the Truth ending with his own laws coming against him. How does this relate to the Fall? Ahh, the devil told Adam and Eve they could be as "gods", in so doing he was telling them they could determine right and wrong based on their own thinking. The result proves it, Adam felt being naked was wrong, but God said eating of the fruit was wrong. When Adam and Eve made their choice, they accepted the same method of determining right and wrong as the devil, making them self-based and disobedient. It would take a written defined Law to be the conscience of these people, but we have the Mind of Christ, with the New Man guiding us in the ways of the Lord.

The spirit lusting to envy is a product of taking the wrong fruit, it places us under the spirit of disobedience, the same spirit of wrath over the realm of darkness. Disobedience is based in unbelief, yet unbelief is the pillar to pride, thus the old man exists in pride, ego and unbelief. The Law of Moses was Good, the Law of the Spirit Better. When our Obedience is full, then we will have defeated disobedience once and for all. How? Submission to the New Man, allowing Him do what He can do so well, save our souls.

There are other clues to disobedience as well, "because of the wickedness of your doings, whereby you have forsaken Me" (Deut 28:20). I thought God would never leave or forsake them. He didn't, it’s the point, the context here is not God leaving them, but them leaving God. When it happens the same God becomes their enemy, thus we find the Holy Spirit is the Spirit which is of God, sent to save our souls (I Cor 2:12), thus Isaiah says we can vex (grieve) the Holy Spirit, making the Holy Spirit turn to be our enemy (Isa 63:10-11). It almost appears as if these people had the Spirit, but we know the Spirit was not given until Jesus was glorified, thus the prophet shows they vexed God, thus God is Spirit, yet why the “Holy Spirit”? Prophetically the prophet looked to the Great time of Deliverance, not from one land to another, but from the realm of darkness to the Light.

Fear is among the many things noted in these curses, the "fear of heart" is much different from a fear of God. These curses tell the Wicked their punishment may not come in the Day, but surely the warnings do. Their punishment will be in the Night, this alone is enough incentive to cause us to seek the fullness of the Spirit while it is yet Day. The fear of heart is different, it's based in the fear of events, the fear of the world and the spirit of fear, thus this fear seeks to change or ignore events (Deut 28:67).

The Prosperity under the Law of Moses is material in nature (Deut 29:9), the Prosperity in the Law of the Spirit begins with our soul prospering, then the material, it’s Principle and Procedure, soul prosper, person prosper.

Deuteronomy 29:23-29 is prophetic in nature, we have yet to see the earth become as Sodom and Gomorrah, although some of the people of the earth fit the picture, but the wrath of God to cause the earth to turn into the lake of fire has yet to be done. There are other things pointing to the end times as well. For these people, God set before them the choice of "life and good or death and evil" (Deut 30:15). Jesus didn't set before us Life and Death, rather He set before us Life, so we can have it More Abundantly to avoid the second death. The Law of Moses testifies against the doer, the Law of the Spirit bears witness for the doer, two completely different premises. If ever there was the truth of our power in moral choice it's found in God telling mankind "you chose".

Deuteronomy 30:19 shows how God called heaven and earth to Record through the Law "against" the people, but in Romans 8:31 we read, "if God be for us, who can be against us?". It should become clear to this point, the Law of Moses was good, it came from God, it's holy, but it was sent to a people who refused to believe, who had more of a propensity to sin, then not.

Moses was a 120 years old at his death, his life was divided into three parts of forty years each, it should have been a sign. His first forty years were spent in Egypt as a member of Pharaoh's household (Acts 7:21-23). The next forty years was in the land of Midian (Acts 7:29-30), his last forty years in the wilderness. It was time for Moses to pass on and be buried, but before he goes there is still some work to be done. God appoints a successor to Moses, one to take the children into the Promised Land. In the Song of Moses all the people are told "be strong and of good courage", the Successor will also be told by God, "be strong and of good courage". Although these areas build belief unto faith, they are not all faith is, thus we can't assume Joshua taking the land was a "faith issue", it was one of obedience and belief (Deut 31:6-7 & Joshua 1:6).

Joshua and Moses present themselves in the tabernacle of the congregation to ordain Joshua as the successor to Moses (Deut 31:14-16). Moses will die, but before he does, he hears God tell him, "Behold, you shall sleep with your fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, where they go to be among them, and will forsake Me, and break My Covenant which I have made with them. Then My anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us? And I will surely hide My face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, as they turn to other gods. Now therefore write you this song for you, and teach it to the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, this song may be a witness for Me against the children of Israel" (Deut 31:16-19). This is a preview of the very end times, thus "that day" is the Day of the Lord, which begins the Night. This has not come to pass, but this Song of Moses will become a Witness against those who fail to "keep the commandments of God" in the Night.

The Song of Moses does talk about Salvation, but it shows they "lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation" (Deut 32:15). This doesn't say they are the Rock, it says they lightly esteemed it, we are the Rock, thus this part refers to the Day. Then we read how they Provoked God to Jealousy when they took strange gods, referring to the Night. They sacrificed unto devils, not God, then we find the "devils" are idols, not only idols, but idols and gods not known to their fathers (Deut 32:17).

We then read some other verses, in Deuteronomy 32:20 we find these people were not of faith, as their lack of faith was based in their unbelief, as their unbelief was by choice, yet it provoked God to anger. Unbelief is not a good thing to have, part of our warfare is to vacate any unbelief. If we made the choice to hold unbelief, we can also make the choice to believe.

Then in Deuteronomy 32:27 we read where God says, "Were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy"; hold it, feared the Wrath of the enemy, what gives? Not to worry, the secret is found in the word Feared, which is the Hebrew Gur meaning To turn aside, showing the fear they held was not a fear of God, rather they treated God as the enemy, forcing Him to treat them as His enemy.

Before the death of Moses he will bless Israel, then Moses dies in the land of Moab (Deut 34:5). Then we read, "and he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor, but no man knows of his sepulcher unto this day (Deut 34:6). Therefore, we assume God or Michael buried Moses, but who finished Deuteronomy if it’s the case? Going back to Deuteronomy 32:44 we find Moses came and spoke the words of his song in the ears of the people, "he, and Hoshea the son of Nun". Hoshea? Wasn't his name Joshua? This is the only place where we find Joshua's name spelled this way, it's assumed it was his former name, but in this we find the mystery. Hoshea means Welfare, but Joshua means Jehovah saves the Greek transliteration of his name is "Jesus" (Heb 4:8). Joshua buried Moses then finished Deuteronomy, thus God used another spelling to show the memory of the wilderness was taken from Hoshea, so Joshua could finish the task. Of course, if one wants to think God buried Moses that's fine, but then they are stuck with two things, God is the God of the living not the dead, plus Jesus said Let the dead bury the dead. Of course we read when Michael contended over the "body of Moses", but the Body of Moses is the Law of Moses (Jude 1:9 & Zech 4:1-14). This finishes this lesson now it's time to take the land and look at the history.




By Rev. G. E. Newmyer - s.b.i.les4rev10/© 2003