Numbers 7:84-86  This was the dedication of the altar, in the day when it was anointed, by the rulers of Israel: twelve platters of silver, twelve silver basins, twelve golden pans.  (85)  Each silver dish weighed a hundred and thirty shekels, each basin seventy. All the silver vessels weighed two thousand and four hundred shekels, according to the sanctuary shekel;  (86)  twelve golden pans, full of incense, ten shekels each, according to the sanctuary shekel; all the gold of the pans was a hundred and twenty shekels.

Each tribe of Israel made the same offerings regardless of size or wealth. A peace offering was a community bar-b-que, but Judah, with 186,000 soldiers, offered the same number and type of animals as Manasseh with 32,000 soldiers. This is indicative of Israel’s non-communist, republican form of government. Although Levi had a special role (and did not participate in this round of offerings), every other tribe had an equal voice and responsibility in the national government. The same principle is apparent in the annual half-shekel owed by every man of twenty years and older, whether rich or poor. Every man of Israel was a landowner, and, although not every man could be in leadership, every man had a say in how his nation, his tribe, and his village would be governed.

P.S. Here is an interesting thought. I have heard it taught that David was able to eat the bread of the Tabernacle without repercussion because he was also a priest, but of a different order. Being a foreshadowing of the Moshiach ben David, he too was a priest of the order of Melchizedek, which consists of a royal priesthood, men who are both kings and priests simultaneously. If Yeshua has made all those who believe on him to be both kings and priests, then this line of reasoning implies that all believers have the same (or parallel) responsibilities and privileges as the Cohanim. That does not mean that they are above the Law any more than David was. On the contrary, both priests and kings are held to a higher standard. I am not saying that this is a correct interpretation, only that it is a possibility worth considering.

Moses came down from Sinai to find the people worshiping and sacrificing to the golden calf, and God said, “Step aside, Moses. I’m going to destroy these people and start over with you.” Moses refused and appealed to God’s reputation to convince him not to destroy Israel. “What will the Egyptians think of you?” God honored Moses’ plea and spared the nation. (Exodus 32:7-14)

Although God had said that the only place authorized for making sacrifices was at the place where he would “put his name,” Elijah built an altar at the other end of the country. After he put the sacrifice on it and soaked it with water, he asked God to light it for him, and God did, sending fire from heaven to consume it, stones, water, and all. (1 Kings 18:18-40)

Why didn’t God push Moses out of the way and finish what he started? It’s not like Moses actually had any real power. Who is man that God should listen to him? Why didn’t he tell Elijah to go to Jerusalem for his contest with the prophets of Baal? Why did he honor Elijah’s disobedience in such a spectacular manner?

The truth is that neither Moses nor Elijah were actually disobedient. If you have been keeping Torah for long, then you have probably realized that there are times when you must break (or stretch) one law in order to keep another. For example, it’s good to work on the Sabbath in order to free a trapped animal or to heal an injured man or feed the hungry. That’s not disobedience at all, but sometimes it takes a great deal of wisdom to weigh the competing priorities. The same thing is going on in both of these stories.

In the Torah, God never named the specific place that would bear his name. It is possible that he could change the location authorized for sacrifices or even authorize multiple locations. There is some room for interpretation in that law (Deuteronomy 12:11). On the other hand, there can be no compromise with Baal or his prophets. We are not to tolerate them, and especially not in the land of Israel. That is God’s land, and they were interlopers. Elijah took the fight into the place they thought of as their own, rebuilt one of God’s altars and proved who was the real owner. He understood God’s character well enough to know which rule took precedence in that situation.

God gave Moses authority over and responsibility for the people of Israel. He was their judge, teacher, and protector. He was the man whom God used to free them from captivity. When they fought the Amalekites, Moses’ upraised arms enabled their victory. When they complained against God, his intercession saved them from destruction. Moses, by divine appointment and as a type of the Messiah, was a spiritual covering for Israel. When God threatened to destroy them, Moses was duty-bound to intervene even against God himself. His role as Israel’s leader took precedence over any possible role as the progenitor of a new people, and he honored God by putting his own life on the line to save his disobedient, ungrateful people.* “God if you will destroy these people, then destroy me too, because otherwise I will have failed them, you, and myself.” Like Elijah, he had a heart that understood God’s.

I pray that YHWH will bless me with such understanding, with such love, with such a relationship with him, that I will know how to obey him even when obedience seems impossible, how to honor his calling, his people, and his Torah. Barukh YHWH!

*What a great example for all leaders and husbands! Moses put his own life in jeopardy because his love for God and his people demanded it.

A word about the rights of fathers over their daughters…I wrote in A Commentary on Marriage in the Bible that a father always has the right to veto his daughter’s choice of husband. I no longer believe that to be completely true. Matot (Numbers 30-32) says that a father may annul the vows of his unmarried daughter still living in his house. I have had occasion since then to learn something of the life of an unmarried daughter who is not still living in her father’s house, and it seems to me that Matot should be taken literally on that point. If she left her father’s house with his consent and has lived on her own for many years, then she should probably be accorded the status of a widow or divorcee, responsible for her own finances, decisions, and vows.

In case you need a review of why Schmidt’s opinion matters, see my previous blog post about Google. Everybody thinks everybody else is doing something they shouldn’t. Privacy is essential to freedom.

1. What is the Truth? Scott Ledbetter
2. The Messianic Revelation Series V.1. Announcing: Judgment Day Eliyahu ben David
3. Man and Woman in Biblical Law, Part 2: They Shall Be One Flesh Tom Shipley

I’ll try to let you know what I think.

Scripture repeatedly commands (Deut. 4:2 and 12:32, Rev. 22:18-19, etc) that man is not to “add to” nor “subtract from” the Written Word of God. Our Savior was likewise critical (Matthew 23 is just one obvious example) of those “Hypocrites!” who took it upon themselves to insert their own “traditions” into “law” and thus make His commandments “of no effect”. (Matt. 15:6, Mark 7:13, etc.) But there is perhaps no better example of a false doctrine elevated by tradition alone to the status of unquestioned “Law” than the false idol of Monogamy….

Buzzzz. Try again.

God does not allow sin. He never says, “Don’t ever do this, but if you do, here’s how I want you to go about it…” He just says, “Don’t do that.”

So, if, in the course of your Bible reading, you see that God said, “If you are going to [insert activity here], then do it like this,” you can safely conclude that the given activity is not sinful. It might not be the best thing for you, but it’s not a sin to make choices where God has given you liberty.

Marriage in the Bible

Marriage in the Bible