NUMBERS: An Apologist Rebuttal

In Numbers Chapter 31 we read about two verses that are absolutely appalling, where Moses tells his army to kill every male child and every non-virgin woman, but that the soldiers could keep the virgin girls for themselves.

The verses in question are Numbers 31:17-18:

31:17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

I find both of these verses completely beyond any rational justification, so I was curious as to how biblical apologists attempt to defend these two verses. I have chosen to address why I strongly disagree with these arguments below:

Apologetics Press.Org URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/586 The Killings of Numbers 31 by A.P. Staff The first five books of the Bible are full of stories of the conquest of Caanan. But one story that sometimes stands out in the minds of skeptics is the one found in Numbers 31, where God seemingly gives no reason for killing defenseless women and male children. Actually, it is Moses who calls for the killing of defenseless women and male children. This chapter does not state that this is explicitly a commandment or judgment from God, although it could be argued that when God commanded the Israelites to "vex the Midianites" in Numbers Chapter 25, perhaps he meant instead to "commit genocide upon the Midianites". Secondly, the problem I as a skeptic have, is not that God "gives no reason" (most of people realize why Moses commanded the killings) it's that I simply don't find this a moral or ethical justification for rape and murder. In addition, it has been suggested that the young girls mentioned in the account were spared so that the Israelite men could rape them. If this were not the case, there would be no reason to ensure that the girls were virgins ("have not known a man by lying with him"). What other possible reason could there be to make a stipulation that a person's life was dependent on their virginity and that soldiers were to "keep [the girls] alive for [them]selves"? Such accusations are baseless, however, as is evident when they are viewed in light of other related passages. They are not baseless. The argument is based on the facts that 1) Moses laid out a stipulation for the girls' survival - their virginity, and 2) that the soldiers were told that they were to keep the virgin girls for themselves. The most widely questioned section of Numbers 31 is verses 17-18: “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” Agreed. This is the basis of my topic as well. To understand this passage, one must realize that Numbers 25 is the “prequel” to the events recorded in Numbers 31. Numbers 25 tells how the Midianites, specifically the women, led the Israelites astray into worshiping the Baal or Peor. This is incorrect. According to the first three verses of Numbers 25 it was the Moabites not the Midianites who "led the Israelites astray" into "worshiping Baal of Peor". Numbers 25:1-3 reads as follows: 25:1 "And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. 25:2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. 25:3 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel." Strangely, the rest of the chapter shifts its attention to the Midianites without explanation. It's a popular assumption among theologians that there's a possibility that the chapter is actually two separate stories merged together. The Lord’s anger burned against Israel, and He struck them with a plague. The plague ended when Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, killed an Israelite man and the Midianite woman he brought into his family (Numbers 25:6-9). The relations with Midianite women were in direct violation of God’s commands in Deuteronomy 7:3-4: “[N]either shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of Jehovah be kindled against you, and he will destroy thee quickly.” This argument has two problems, the first being that Deuteronomy appears sequentially in the bible after the the book of Numbers. While it's a possibility that the bible could be out of sequence, or that this law was somehow known to the Israelites prior to the events in Numbers 25 there is no basis to support either explanation. Secondly, Moses' own wife Zipporah was a Midianite herself (see Exodus Chapter 2) and therefore Moses would in violation of this law himself. Therefore why did Phinehas not thrust a spear through Moses and Zipporah as well? As a result of these events, God instructed the Israelites to “Vex the Midianites, and smite them; for they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian, their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague in the matter of Peor” (Numbers 25:17-18). I addressed this point in my thoughts on Numbers 25, and God is shifting the blame here. We're villainizing the Midianite women to partially excuse and soften the "sins" committed by the Israelites, because for some reason the Israelites apparently have no minds of their own and will do anything women from other cultures tell them too, even when it violates their own laws. When, in Numbers 31, the army brought back the women, it was in direct violation to God’s order in Numbers 25 to destroy the Midianites, who would lead the Israelites into apostasy. The apologist here is completely forgetting that we're also dealing with not just women but children. Even if we were to accept the apologist's point at face value, the virgin girls that Moses tells the soldiers to "keep for themselves" would also be a "direct violation to God’s order in Numbers 25". But how can we explain the destruction of the young boys? Why were they not spared along with the young girls? God does not seem very concerned about the deaths of male children as evidenced by the story of the Egyptian plagues in Exodus Chapter 11. Skeptics read of events such as the conquest of Canaan, and contend that no God could be so cruel as to call for the destruction of an entire nation. No, you're completely missing the point. If we can assume for the sake of argument that god(s) exist, then there is absolutely no argument why such a god couldn't exhibit cruelty - even if he himself claims to be "merciful". All sorts of tyrannical rulers have had inflated egos and distorted self images, and many of the people being ruled by them go along with the charade in a variant sort of Stockholm Syndrome. One only needs to examine 1930's Germany to see that Hitler had overwhelming public support despite the tyranny of his regime. The problem is that I simply don't agree that the god of the bible is either "loving" or "merciful" when those attributes are in direct contradiction to his depiction in the bible. I have no problem with saying that God is cruel, I have more of a problem defining him as "loving" and "merciful". The mere idea of the God of heaven ordering the death of women and innocent children so outraged infidel Thomas Paine... I had to interrupt here due to the humor I find in this apologist calling one of the Founding Fathers of the United States (who many evangelical christians claim founded this country on christianity) an "infidel". ...that he said such a scenario was sufficient evidence in and of itself to cause him to reject the divine origin of the Bible (1795, p. 90).(p. 95 on Google Books) Upon finding a copy of Thomas Paine's book "Age of Reason" on Google Books, I have failed to see where this apparent "fact" (the above reference corresponds to page 95 on the Google Books document) is derived from. For the sake of argument, I would agree that using the reason that "God is cruel" would not be a valid argument for not believing in the "divine origin" of the bible. There are much more compelling and stronger arguments for reaching the conclusion that the bible is man-made. However, insinuating that "the infidel" Thomas Paine does not believe in the bible's authenticity simply because he doesn't like the way God acts, is using a strawman argument to make Thomas Paine's argument seem ridiculous. It doesn't surprise me to see an apologist stoop to such a ridiculous argument and resort to name calling to further villainize their opposition. In fact, he condemned the Bible for its alleged moral atrocities, I would have to agree with our Founding Father on this point. and even went so far as to blame the Bible for virtually every moral injustice ever committed. He wrote: Whence arose the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from this impious thing called revealed religion, and this monstrous belief that God has spoken to man? (p. 185).(p. 190 on Google Books) Claiming that Paine was blaming "the bible" for "virtually every moral injustice ever committed" is quite a bit of a stretch. In the above quote he is neither singling out the bible, nor is he encompassing "virtually every moral injustice". In the above quote he is speaking of the moral injustices specifically that plagued Europe, which mostly were fueled by religious atrocities. However, to allege that the God of the Bible is some sort of “monster” for ordering Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan exhibits an ignorance of biblical teaching. To justify the killing of children except for the female virgins, which we can keep for ourselves against their will, exhibits a complete lack of an understanding of morality. Those inhabitants were destroyed because of their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-14). They were so evil that their Creator no longer could abide their corruption. Yes, because we know that according to the bible everything is measured in absolutes - this entire nation over here is entirely good, and that nation over there is entirely bad. No bad people live in the good nation, and no good people live in the bad nation. This is an asinine outlook that has no semblance to reality. That they had numerous opportunities to repent is evident from the prophetic books (Nineveh did repent, for example, and for a time stayed the day of destruction). I find this to be a weak argument that God and/or the Israelites had any cares as to whether any of the surrounding tribes "repented" or not. God's commandments as they appear in the bible condoning slavery, mass killings, and beatings never are excepted with a line that says "unless they repent". Complaining about Jehovah’s order to destroy innocent children is a vain gesture when one realizes that the children were spared an even worse fate of being reared as slaves under the domination of sin. And just who says that death is a better fate than slavery? If one were to put up a poll and give an entire nation a choice of either euthanasia or a life in slavery, how many do you truly believe would choose to be killed to spare themselves from a life of slavery? Instead of having to endure the scourge of a life of immorality and wickedness, these innocents were ushered early into the bliss of Paradise. If it was such a blessing to be "ushered early into the bliss of Paradise" why not kill the virgin girls as well, or is it more of a blessing to marry them off to rapists? If the male children had been allowed to mature, they most likely would have followed the pagan ways of their forefathers, and eventually would have taken vengeance on the Israelites. "Most likely"? If they were allowed to live amongst the Israelites, what chance would they even have at being exposed to the "pagan ways" of their fathers? So it's morally ethical to kill people on the assumption of what "possibly" could happen? Killing the males not only prevented them from falling into the same abominable sins as their parents, but also kept Israel from having to battle them later. How can we be certain that their parents were "abominable sinners" and not apostates in their own "pagan ways"? We're simply supposed to believe in biblical absolutes, I suppose, in order to justify our preventative killing of children who *might* grow up to be our enemies. Man hardly can blame God and His Word for the awful consequences of sin; Sure we can, just the same as we can blame any leader, dictator, ruler, or king for the consequences of their unjust and sadistic laws. When we hear about a woman being stoned to death in the Middle East for the "crime" of being a rape victim, we certainly can blame the people who made this law and those that enforce it. rather, he has only himself to blame (Romans 3:23; 5:12). Children are not to blame for where they were born and who they were born to. A parent who warns a child of the consequences of disobedience, threatens an appropriate punishment, The problem with this analogy is using an "appropriate punishment". and then is true to his word at the event of infraction, generally is considered to be a firm-but-loving parent by clear-thinking people. The problem here is that the analogy is flawed and does not fit with the context of the story. A more appropriate analogy would be: A parent who was warned about the consequences of committing a crime, was made aware of the criminal penalty, and then when commits a crime, is greeted with the police breaking down his door and shooting his entire family - except for his virgin pre-teen daughter whom the police chief takes home with him to make her his wife. Yet, critics ask us to view God as some type of ogre for following the same course of action. Again, the apologist analogy is not the same course of action - nor is it even close - to the one God has taken. The discrepancy is not with the Almighty, but with His cowering critics. I would argue that the discrepancy is actually with the apologist who can't make a proper analogy. The allegation that the Israelite men spared the young girls in order to rape them is nothing but baseless supposition predicated upon a lack of biblical knowledge. Because obviously there's absolutely nothing telling in Moses' statement that only the virgin girls would be allowed to live. In the custom of the time, marriages were conducted at a young age. Therefore, the reference to the young girls who had not “known man by lying with him” would indicate that they were very young, likely under the age of twelve. This assumption is reaching. The way it is written is that it simply means "a virgin". If God wanted only twelve year old girls and younger to be spared, he surely could have stated that. These girls were too young to be able to lead the men of Israel away from Jehovah; therefore, these girls were allowed to live. Virginity has nothing to do with a woman's ability to manipulate people, nor to a degree, would her age. As to raping them, it is more logical to assume that they wanted these girls for servants. It is not logical to assume that the Israelites wanted these girls "for servants", when they specifically were spared on the basis of their virginity and not their age, or another more reasonable factor. Secondly, foreign "servants" were not by any means servants, they were slaves. In Leviticus 25:44-46 the following verses make it clear God's laws on enslaving surrounding "heathen" nations: 25:44 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." Trying to soften the image of slavery into "servitude" also contradicts what Exodus 21:20-21 has to say about how you can beat your slaves: 21:20 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." So, it is perfectly okay to beat your slaves to death as long as they don't die right away in a day or two after the beating. You won't receive any punishment because they're "your money" (your property). Third, why weren't these female children "spared an even worse fate of being reared as slaves" and instead of allowing "these innocents" to be "ushered early into the bliss of Paradise"? This would be similar to Joshua 9, where Joshua allowed the Gibeonites to live in compelled servitude to the Israelites. Joshua Chapter 9 makes a very bad case for attempting to downplay slavery as "servitude", as evidenced in Joshua 9:23. 9:23 "Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God." Moreover, it would have been sinful for the Israelite men to rape the Midianite girls because rape was (and still is) abhorrent to God (Deuteronomy 22:23-28, esp. 25). Deuteronomy 22:23-28 treats rape a lot differently then the apologist would like us to believe. Verses 23 through 27 deal solely with a woman who is engaged to be married, which the Midianite girls obviously wouldn't be - at least to any suitor that is alive that is. Verses 23-24 state that both the rapist and the engaged to be married, virgin, rape victim must be punished by mean of being stoned to death if the rape occurs in the city and the victim didn't cry loud enough: 22:23 "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." This has more to do with the "crime" of depriving a husband of his right to consummate his marriage than it does with punishing rapists, which is why the victim is to be stoned to death along with her rapist. Verses 25-27 deal with a woman being raped out in the field where only the rapist is to be killed, simply because there wouldn't be a way to judge whether the woman screamed out or not, thereby proving whether the sex was consensual or not: 22:25 "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her." Verses 28 and 29 deal with rape in the sense in which it would apply more closely to the Midianite girls, assuming they were to be given the rights of an Israeli woman. Not surprisingly the apologist doesn't include verse 29 in his references which clearly states how to handle a rapist and his victim if the victim is not engaged to be married to anyone: 22:28 "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 22:229 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." Yes, this is what the bible says about a woman who is not engaged to anyone who gets raped - she gets the privilege of becoming her attacker's wife, and her attacker simply has to pay 50 shekels to her father. That's quite a different point of view on rape than what the apologist was attempting to portray these verses to mean. The simple answer to the questions surrounding Numbers 31 is that God ordered the Midianites to be killed in Numbers 25:17-18. When the army did not carry out this order at the time of the Midianite defeat, it was carried out in a delayed fashion when the army returned with the captives. This is an attempt to shift the question into why were the prisoners of war killed, and away from what the real question is - how do we justify the killing of innocent children? As to Moses allowing the young girls to remain alive, that was a judgment call from the man with God’s authority over the Israelites. A "judgment call" that hinges on whether a woman has retained her virginity or not. God is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-righteous “I Am” Who is over all things— These are baseless attributes that the bible contradicts in many chapters. I've dealt with many arguments in previous chapters about problems with God's "omniscience" and "omnipresence" and therefore I'd rather not side track from the main point of this rebuttal. so He may do whatever He wishes, This argument from apologists always bugs me. With this baseless argument we can justify God's mass genocides, his demands to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, and all sorts of immoral acts "just because he's God and he can do what he wants". This is not a logical argument at all. [He may do whatever He wishes,] so long as it is not in violation of His character. And what may I ask is a violation of "his character"? If he has limits on his actions, that would also shoot a gaping hole in the claim of God being omnipotent. However, God does everything for a reason. Sometimes that reason may be unclear to us. The better argument would be that the "reason" has probably been lost due to the change of the human culture of the bronze age human authors of the bible. In the case of the destruction of people like the Canaanites, God’s reasoning had to do with His justice. More likely "God's reasoning" probably served as a fictional rationalization story to justify the ancient Hebrew's military conquests of other lands. Deuteronomy 32:3-4 records: “For I will proclaim the name of Jehovah: Ascribe ye greatness unto our God. The Rock, his work is perfect; For all his ways are justice: A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, Just and right is he” (emp. added). Just because the bible gives God certain attributes doesn't mean that contradictions are impossible - in fact, there are quite a number of contradictions about God's attributes throughout the bible. Men may not always understand God’s justice, or His reasons for exercising it as He does. Not understanding someone's reasoning does not justify their actions. I have no idea why Germany embraced the Nazi Party and antisemitism over seventy years ago, that doesn't justify what happened simply because I don't understand why people went along with it - their actions were still immoral. As Job 4:17 asked: “Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?” (emp. added). If the bible is to be the means by which to measure God's morality, then yes, I would argue that many - and in fact most - mortal men are far more moral than the character of God in the bible. The fact is, God does condone killing—in the name of justice (whether it be justice in regard to one person, or a whole nation). Most moral people can agree that condoning killing and raping children is not what defines "justice". Even in modern times, the death penalty is an acceptable means of administering justice (Romans 13:1-7; cf. Genesis 9:6). Speaking from personal opinion, I do not find the death penalty to be "an acceptable means of administering justice". There are flaws in our justice system because humans cannot be perfect in our judgment, and allowing the possibility of even one innocent person to be executed due to our very human flaws of occasionally making mistakes - even if it is a rare occurrence - is a position I cannot support. While God is all loving, I find it impossible to classify God as he is presented in the bible as "all loving" for a plethora of reasons. He also is a God of justice, and He will execute that justice in the most propitious manner—including by means of death. I certainly wouldn't call immolating priests for using the wrong fire when lighting incense, then threatening the surviving family members not to grieve over their deaths, on the threat of killing them as well very "propitious" or "just". REFERENCES Paine, Thomas (1795), Age of Reason (New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1924 reprint).

NUMBERS: Chapter 31

Chapter 31
Summary:	God speaks to Moses telling him to seek vengeance upon the Midianites, and in turn Moses speaks to the people of Israel and tells them to arm themselves for war against the land of Midian. Moses commands that each tribe of Israel conscripts 1,000 soldiers to send to war. Moses sent them to war - a thousand from every tribe - led by Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, carrying "holy instruments" and trumpets. The Israelites battled the Midianites and slew all of the males. They slew the five kings of Midian - Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba - as well as Balaam the prophet who they slew with the sword. The Israelites took all of the Midianite women and children captive; took the spoils of their cattle, flocks, and goods; and burnt their cities and castles to the ground. The Israelite soldiers brought the captives and their war spoils before Moses and Eleazar, and before the congregation of the people of Israel camped on the plains of Moab by the Jordan River near Jericho. Moses however was angry with the officers of the army which emerged from battle. Moses asked them why they had let the Midianite women live, stating that these are the very women that followed Balaam's advice and committed trespass against God in the matter of Peor and caused God to send a plague amongst the Israelites*. Moses tells them: 31:17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him." Moses adds that they are to keep all of the virgin female children ("that have not known a man by lying with him") for themselves. Moses instructs that anyone who had killed a person in battle or had touched a dead body must reside outside of the camp for seven days, purifying themselves and their captives on the third and seventh days. Also to be purified are all garments and anything made from leather, goat's hair, or wood. Eleazar then spoke to the soldiers, speaking an ordinance of the law of which God gave to Moses. He tells the soldiers that every metal that can withstand fire - gold, silver, brass, iron, tin, and lead - shall be passed through fire to purify it, and then further purified with the "water of separation". Anything that cannot withstand the flames must be purified with the water alone. He finishes by telling them to wash their clothes on the seventh day, and they shall then be "clean" and allowed to return to the camp. God then speaks to Moses telling him and Eleazar to take a total of all of the spoils the soldiers had looted - both people and animal - and divide them into two parts. Half is to go to the soldiers, and half is to go to the rest of the people of Israel. He tells Moses further, that the half belonging to the soldiers is to be taxed - where one out of every 500 captive, ox, donkey, and sheep is to "belong to God" and is to be given to Eleazar for a "heave offering". Out of the half belonging to the people of Israel, one portion out of fifty (2 percent) is to be given to the Levites who keep charge of the tabernacle. Moses and Eleazar did as God commanded, and the total booty was: 675,000 sheep 72,000 oxen 61,000 donkeys 32,000 young virgin girls The half given to the army: 337,500 sheep (of which 675 were given to Eleazar) 36,000 oxen (of which 72 were given to Eleazar) 30,500 donkeys (of which 61 were given to Eleazar) 16,000 virgin girls (32 of which were "God's portion"*) The half given to the people of Israel: 337,500 sheep (of which 6750 were given to the Levites) 36,000 oxen (of which 720 were given to the Levites) 30,500 donkeys (of which 610 were given to the Levites) 16,000 virgin girls (of which 320 were given to the Levites) The officers and battalion leaders came to Moses and told him that all of the men that had been sent to war had been accounted for, and that not a single one of them had been killed or is missing. Therefore the officers brought a tribute from their spoils consisting of gold jewelry, chains, bracelets, rings, earrings, and necklaces, in order to "make atonement for their souls". Moses and Eleazar took the jewelry from the military leaders and found its value to be worth 16,750 shekels. Moses and Eleazar took the gold to the tabernacle for a memorial for the people of Israel before God.
Notes:	1.) According to Numbers Chapter 25 it was the Moabite women not the Midianite women who were responisble for the incident at Mount Peor. 2.) It is unclear whether the 32 virgins became human sacrifices, or were given to the Levites to rape.
Thoughts:	Apparently God isn't through with the Midianites after their last encounter with the people of Israel in Chapter 25 and tells Moses that he wants to seek revenge on them. He tells Moses to mobilize an army to attack the Midianites in their home land. Moses gathers 1,000 troops from each tribe and sends them to war, appointing Phinehas (Eleazar's son who brutally killed an Israelite for bringing a Midianite woman into the camp, impaling them both together with a spear) to lead the armies with his "holy instruments" and trumpets. The Israelites triumphed in battle and slew all of the males, including the five kings of Midian, and even the prophet Balaam - although the fate of his talking donkey is uncertain. The Israelites took all of the Midianite women and children captive and looted their cattle, flocks, and goods before burning their cities and castles to the ground. The Israelite soldiers returned to camp and were met by Moses and Eleazar in the plains of Moab. Moses however was furious with the officers of the army when he found that they had let the Midianite women live stating that they had "commit[ted] trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor", causing a plague amongst the Israelites. This is not corroborated by the story in Numbers Chapter 25 as it appears in the bible. The bible clearly implicates the Moabite women in the "matter of Peor", and the "cause" of the plague is not specified at all - only that Phineas' slaying of a Midianite woman caused the plague to stop - after killing 24,000 Israelites. It's also not explained as to how or whether Balaam encouraged the women to "commit trespass" to begin with. Moses follows this up with perhaps one of the most vile and immoral verses contained in the bible: 31:17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him." The verse that follows actually more repulsive and disgusting: 31:18 "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.." What Moses is saying here is for the soldier to kill every woman and male child - except for the virgin girls which the soldiers can keep for themselves. Yes, this is the same Moses whom the bible describes as the "meekest man on earth", stating that it's okay to murder women and children prisoners of war, unless you find some virgin girls amongst the bunch, then you can keep them for yourself as sex partners against their will. These two verse are so appalling and inexcusable that I had to go searching for some apologetic answers to them, to which I will be following up and rebutting in the following post. There is simply no way to excuse these two verses as anything but barbaric, disgusting, and immoral, there is just no context in which that behavior can be justified - period. Moses then makes every soldier who killed in battle or touched a corpse reside outside of the camp for a week to purify themselves, reminding them that they'd have to purify themselves and their captives (i.e. the virgin girls they were allowed to rape keep for themselves) on the third and seventh days. They would also have to purify all garments and anything made from leather, goat's hair, or wood. Eleazar then addresses the soldiers, telling them that any metal that they looted that can withstand fire will have to be passed through flames to purify it, and then further be purified with the bizarre "water of separation" ritual described in Numbers Chapter 19. Anything that can't withstand flame will simply have to be washed in the "water of separation" alone. He finished up by telling the soldiers to wash their clothes on the seventh day of their exile, and that they'll be "clean" and allowed to return to the camp after that. God then tells Moses and Eleazar to count up all of the spoils that the soldiers looted from the Midianites and to divide them up in half. One half is to go to the soldiers who did the looting, and the other is to go to the people of Israel, but before Moses ponies out the riches, God wants his cut. He taxes the soldiers cut a mere .20% - where one out of every 500 ox, donkey, sheep, or virgin is to "belong to God" - or more aptly, is given to Eleazar for a "heave offering". Out of the people's half, a 2% tax is levied upon them with the spoils going to the Levites. The bible gives us the totals of each half's take (675,000 sheep; 72,000 oxen; 61,000 donkeys; and 32,000 virgin girls) and what percentages are "God's portion" - where curiously it isn't explained what happens to the virgins in "God's portion". Priests are forbidden from marrying foreign women, so they couldn't have become Eleazar's concubines, so either they were just passed off for others to rape or they might have been human sacrifices(?) - the bible isn't clear here. The military leaders then decide to present Moses and Eleazar with a donation to the tabernacle of some of the gold jewelry they had looted, pointing out that not a single soldier was lost or killed in battle. Moses and Eleazar happily took the 16,750 shekels worth of gold and stashed it inside the tabernacle for a memorial for the people of Israel before God.

NUMBERS: Chapter 30

Chapter 30
Summary:	Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of Israel giving them more of God's commandments. If a man makes a vow to God, or swears an oath to "bind his soul with a bond", he is not to break his word and he shall do exactly as he had pledged. If a woman makes a vow to God and "bind herself by a bond", happens to still be a youth living with her parents, and her father hears that vow, if he says nothing than the girl's vow will stand. However, if her father objects to the vow on the first day that he hears it, then God will forgive her of her vow because her father has disallowed her. If a woman who has made a vow then marries, and her husband hears about her vow and says nothing, then her vow will stand. But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he had heard of the vow, then God will forgive her. However, every vow of a widow or a divorced woman shall remain valid and must be fulfilled. If a married woman makes a vow in her husband's home, and her husband hears of it and does nothing, her vow will stand. However, if her husband refuses to allow her comply with her vow on the day he hears of it, the vow will no longer be valid and God will forgive her. Her husband holds the authority to confirm or nullify her vows as long as he does so in the day he has heard of the vow. If a husband says or does nothing about his wife's vow then her vow shall stand. If after the first day he has heard about the vow, he then forbids her from keeping her vow, he shall bear her iniquity - meaning than any consequence that she would bear from not fulfilling her vow, he will be responsible instead. These are the commandments God gave Moses concerning a man and his wife, and between father and daughter who in her youth still resides in her father's house.
Thoughts:	This brief chapter concerns itself with a misogynistic view on a woman's right to make vows. God states that if a man makes a vow to God, or swears on an oath then he is bound to his word and must fulfill his vow exactly as he had pledged to do so. However, if a woman makes a vow while still living at home with her father, then her father can overrule her vow, providing he does so immediately after becoming aware of his daughter's vow. If and when she marries, her husband gets this same authority over her as well. If either the father or the husband in the above scenarios don't speak up about her vow within the first day they've become aware of it, then her vow stands. If either the father or the husband forbid her from completing her vow after that point, they will bear whatever consequence the woman faces from failure to fulfill her vow. When either her father or her husband put their foot down, God will "forgive" the woman for not completing her vow. Divorced or widowed women must fulfill any vow they had made. Basically this chapter states that a woman's capability to make a decision is not as important as that of her husband, or if she still lives at home, that of her father. In a nutshell, she's not allowed to make her own decisions without her husband or father's approval - with their lack of an objection being a silent approval as well. While one could possibly argue from a point of parental authority in the case of the father, there is simply no valid justification for the imbalanced sexism behind granting a husband authority over his wife's decisions. Women are simply treated as lesser than their male counterparts in biblical doctrine and there is simply no way to argue against that.

NUMBERS: Chapter 29

Chapter 29
Summary:	God declares that on the first day of the seventh month*, this is to be a day of "holy convocation" in which no servile work is to be done. It is instead a day of blowing trumpets and sacrificing animals - which are a "sweet savor" unto God. God demands that during the "Festival of Trumpets", the people are to sacrifice a young bull, one ram, and seven yearling lambs without blemish. Additionally, each of these animals being sacrificed are to be accompanied by a "grain offering" of flour mixed with olive oil - three tenth deals (approx. nine quarts) for the bull; two tenth deals (approx. six quarts) for the ram, and one tenth of a deal (approx. three quarts) for each of the seven lambs. In addition, a male goat needs to be sacrificed as a "sin offering" to make atonement. This sacrifice is to be made in addition to the "continual burnt offering", and the (monthly) "new moon offering" - as it is a "sweet savor" to God. On the tenth day of the seventh month*, the people are to have a "holy convocation", and they are to "afflict their souls" and are not to do any work therein - except for sacrificing a young bull, a ram, and seven yearling lambs without blemishes, which is a "sweet savor" to God. Each of these animals being sacrificed are to be accompanied by a "grain offering" of flour mixed with olive oil - three tenth deals (approx. nine quarts) for the bull; two tenth deals (approx. six quarts) for the ram, and one tenth of a deal (approx. three quarts) for each of the seven lambs. In addition, a male goat needs to be sacrificed as a "sin offering" to make atonement. Again, this sacrifice is to be made in addition to the "continual burnt offering" and the "new moon offering". On the fifteenth day of the seventh month*, the people are to have a "holy convocation", are to do no servile work, and are to celebrate a feast that is to last seven days. Each day of the feast, the following amounts of animals are to be sacrificed (which are a "sweet savor" to God). Each of these animals being sacrificed are to be accompanied by a "grain offering" of flour mixed with olive oil - three tenth deals (approx. nine quarts) for each bull; two tenth deals (approx. six quarts) for each ram, and one tenth of a deal (approx. three quarts) for each lamb. One male goat for a "sin offering" also accompanies each day's sacrifice as well. First day:thirteen young bulls, two rams, and fourteen yearling lambs without blemish. Second day:twelve young bulls, two rams, and fourteen yearling lambs without blemish. Third day:eleven young bulls, two rams, and fourteen yearling lambs without blemish. Fourth day:ten young bulls, two rams, and fourteen yearling lambs without blemish. Fifth day:nine young bulls, two rams, and fourteen yearling lambs without blemish. Sixth day:eight young bulls, two rams, and fourteen yearling lambs without blemish. Seventh day:seven young bulls, two rams, and fourteen yearling lambs without blemish. During this week, these sacrifices will be made in addition to the "continual burnt offering" sacrifices. On the eighth day the people are to have another "solemn assembly" and do no servile work - except for sacrificing animals. They are to sacrifice a bull, a ram, and seven yearling lambs without blemish. Their "grain offerings" should be in the typical amounts and must be accompanied by a drink offering. In addition, a male goat is to be sacrificed for a "sin offering" as well. God tells Moses that these sacrifices shall be done alongside the people's vows, "freewill offerings", "burnt offerings", "grain offerings, "drink offerings", and "peace offerings". Moses delivered this message to the people of Israel as God commanded.
Notes:	1.) Roughly corresponds with the fifteenth of September in our modern calendar. 2.) Yet another occurrence of the mystical number seven in the bible. 3.) Roughly corresponds with the twenty fifth of September in our modern calendar. 4.) Roughly corresponds with either the thirtieth of September or the first of October in our modern calendar.
Thoughts:	This chapter serves mostly as a continuation of the previous, but differs in the respect that the number seven seems to play a more dominant and recurring theme. God's first declaration is that on the first day of the seventh month (September 15th by our modern calendar) the people are to celebrate the "Festival of Trumpets" by observing a sabbath and sacrificing more animals - which are a "sweet savor" to God. The basic pattern here, which is repeated from Numbers Chapter 28, is that the people are to sacrifice a certain number of young bulls, rams, and yearling lambs as "burnt offerings", along with a proportioned amnount of grains (nine quarts for each bull, six quarts for each ram, and three quarts for each lamb), and to top it off by sacrificing a goat as a "sin offering". The sacrifices laid out here are also to made alongside the "continual burnt offering" and "new moon offering" as laid out in the previous chapter. For the "Festival of Trumpets", God commands that one bull, one ram, and seven lambs be sacrificed, alongside the proper "grain offerings" and the sacrificial goat for a "sin offering". On the tenth day of the seventh month (roughly September 25th by our modern calendar) the people have to celebrate another sabbath and are to sacrifice one bull, one ram, and seven lambs - alongside the proper "grain offerings" and the sacrificial goat for a "sin offering". Five days later on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (roughly September 30th or October 1st) the people are to celebrate another sabbath and are to celebrate a feast that is to last seven days. Each day of the weeklong feast bulls, rams, and lambs are to be sacrificed alongside the proper "grain offering" amounts, as well as a goat to be sacrificed each day for a "sin offering". Starting with thirteen bulls on the first day, the number of bulls being slaughtered decreases by one each day of the feast until it arrives at seven on the seventh day. Two rams, and fourteen lambs are also to be slaughtered each day of the festival. It's interesting to note that the amount of rams and lambs are doubled during this festival. On the eighth day the people have to observe another sabbath, which of course is capped off with another round of animal sacrifice - one bull, one ram, and seven lambs. In addition to the proper "grain offerings" and sacrificial goat for a "sin offering", a "drink offering" must be offered as well. In my thoughts on the previous chapter I had added up the amount of animals that would be needed annually to perform all of these sacrifices and came up with the following figures: 967 yearling lambs, 40 bulls, 20 rams, and 8 goats. Adding in the additional animals required by this chapter brings our totals to 113 bulls, 37 rams, 1072 yearling lambs without blemish(!), and 16 goats. Every year the people of Israel would have needed to raise 1,072 lambs - providing that they don't have any blemishes - just for these mandatory annual animal sacrifices alone. Obviously, this doesn't even factor in the lambs used in other sacrifices which would raise the numbers of lambs needed to be born each year just to fulfill God's quota. We close this chapter out with Moses delivering these commandments to the people of Israel.

NUMBERS: Chapter 28

Chapter 28
Summary:	God speaks to Moses, telling him to command the people of Israel that animal and grain sacrifices made by fire (for a "sweet savor") shall be observed in their due season. God tells Moses to instruct the people to offer a continuous animal sacrifice of two yearling lambs ("without spot"), one to be sacrificed in the morning, and the other to be sacrificed in the evening. Along with each lamb, a tenth part of an ephah (approximately three quarts) of flour mixed with a fourth part of a hin (approx. 3 pints) of beaten olive oil is to be offered, as well as a "drink offering" consisting of a fourth part of a hin (approx. 3 pints) of "strong wine". All of this is to be a continual "burnt offering", which God claims was ordained in Mount Sinai for a "sweet savor" made by fire for him. On the sabbath day, an additional two yearling lambs are to be sacrificed along with two tenth deals (approx. six quarts) of flour mixed with oil and a drink offering. This "burnt offering" of the sabbath is to be offered in addition to the "continual burnt offering" and "drink offering". On the first day of each month, the people will have to sacrifice two young bulls, a ram, and seven* yearling lambs without defect. Along with each animal, a "grain offering" and a "drink offering" is to be offered: three tenth deals (approx. nine quarts) of flour mixed with oil and half a hin (approx. six pints) of wine for each bull two tenth deals (approx. six quarts) of flour mixed with oil and the third part of a hin (approx. four pints) of wine for the ram and "several tenth deal" of flour mixed with oil along with the fourth part of a hin (approx. three pints) of wine for each lamb All of which God states will be a "sweet savor" to him when sacrificed by fire. In addition to all of those animals and the regular daily sacrifices, a male goat is to be slaughtered for a "sin offering" on the first day of each month as well. God then repeats that the celebration of Passover is to celebrated on the fourteenth day of the first month, and that on the fifteenth day of the month is a seven day feast of unleavened bread. On the first day of the feast a sabbath is to be observed, and no manner of servile work is to be done therein - except for sacrificing two young bulls, a ram, and seven yearling lambs (without defects). Along with each animal, a "grain offering" is to be offered: three tenth deals (approx. nine quarts) of flour mixed with oil for each bull two tenth deals (approx. six quarts) of flour mixed with oil for the ram and "several tenth deal" of flour mixed with oil for each lamb. In addition to all of these animals, a male goat is to be slaughtered for a "sin offering" as well to make an "atonement" for the people of Israel. These additional sacrifices are to be made on each of the seven days of the feast, and are to be offered in the morning at the same time of the "continual burnt offering" - it will be a "sweet savor" unto God. Again, no servile work is to be done on the seventh day. On the Day of the Firstfruits* when the people are to bring newly harvested crops to God, the people should also have a "holy convocation" and no servile work is to be done - except for sacrificing two young bulls, a ram, and seven yearling lambs. Along with each animal, a "grain offering" is to be offered: three tenth deals (approx. nine quarts) of flour mixed with oil for each bull two tenth deals (approx. six quarts) of flour mixed with oil for the ram and "several tenth deal" of flour mixed with oil for each lamb. In addition to all of these animals, a male goat is to be slaughtered for a "sin offering" as well to make an "atonement" for the people of Israel. These animal sacrifices are to be made in the morning beside the "continual burnt offering", "grain offering", and "drink offering".
Notes:	1.) Yet another occurrence of the mystical number seven in the bible. 2.) Also called the "Festival of Weeks" or "Pentecost".
Thoughts:	This chapter returns us to God's laws on animal sacrifices (which he states no less than eleven time alone in this chapter as being a "sweet savor") and sets up a new "continual burnt offering" sacrifice. Each day, two yearling lambs are to be sacrificed (one in the morning, and one in the evening) alongside a "grain offering" consisting of three quarts of flour mixed with three pints of beaten olive oil. God tacks on two more yearling lambs that have to be sacrificed each week on the sabbath (in addition to the regular pair) along with six quarts of flour and a "drink offering". Now on the first day of each month, God requires you to sacrifice two young bulls, a ram, and seven (again with that number) yearling lambs along with a "grain offering" and "drink offering" for each animal. 9 quarts of flour and six pints of wine for each bull; six quarts of flour and four pints of wine with the ram; and and unspecified amount of flour and three pints of wine for each lamb. All of this has to be sacrificed in addition to the two other yearling lambs sacrificed for the "continual burnt offering". So, once a month the priests get to dine on nine lambs, two bulls, a ram, 13 and a half quarts of wine, and well over 24 quarts of flour(!) - that's a lot of food and wine! God then repeats his annual "Passover" animal sacrifice demands, that during the "Feast of Unleavened Bread" the people will have to sacrifice two young bulls, a ram, and seven yearling lambs on each of the seven days of the feast. Along with each animal a "grain offering" is to accompany it - the same amounts corresponding to the first day of the month sacrifice. On top of that, a male goat also has to be sacrificed for a "sin offering". These sacrifices again are in addition to, and not replacing, the daily "continuous burnt offerings". On the "Day of the Firstfruits" when the people sacrifice the first of their crops to God, the people will also have to sacrifice two young bulls, a ram, seven yearling lambs, and a goat (for a "sin offering") along with a corresponding amount of flour for each animal. So, pulling out our calculator we come to the count that God demands the sacrifice of 967 yearling lambs - without defects(!), 40 bulls, 20 rams, and 8 male goats each year as a minimum. This is not including the animals that need to be sacrificed for various "sins" throughout God's laws.

NUMBERS: Chapter 27

Chapter 27
Summary:	The daughters of Zelophehad* - Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah (from the tribe of Manasseh) - stood before Moses, Eleazar, the leaders of Israel, and the entire congregation by the door of the tabernacle. The women stated that their father had died out in the wilderness, and not in the company of Korah's rebellion, so therefore since Zelophehad had no sons, they petitioned that they should inherit their father's land along with their father's brothers. Moses brought their case before God, and God in turn agrees that the daughters are right and agrees to give them some land in the "promised land" along with their uncles. God tells Moses to instruct the people of Israel to allow their daughters to receive inheritance if the man in question is without a son; and if the man has no sons or daughters, then the land is to go to his brothers; and if the man has no brothers, then the land goes to his uncles; and in the event that he has no uncles, the land shall go to his nearest relative. God now tells Moses to climb Mount Abarim so that Moses can view the "promised land" from the top of the mountain. God tells Moses that when he has seen the "promised land" he shall die - as his brother Aaron had - for rebelling against God's commandment in the desert of Zin. God claims that Moses' "rebellion" (striking a rock, rather than speaking to a rock) failed to sanctify God in the eyes of the Israelites. Moses then asks God to appoint a new leader to the people of Israel, so that the congregation not be "as sheep which have no shepherd". God tells Moses to take Joshua (the son of Nun), lay his hand upon him, and bring him to Eleazar, and before all of the people of Israel, charge him with leading the Israelites. God continues, telling Moses to publicly give Joshua the same authority that Moses had so that the people of Israel will obey him. Joshua shall have to consult with Eleazar, who will receive instructions from God through the judgment of the Urim, and Eleazar will pass these words to Joshua and the people of Israel. Moses did as God had commanded, bringing forth Joshua to Eleazar, laying his hands upon him and giving him leadership publicly before the people of Israel.
Notes:	1.) Zelophehad was the son of Hepher, who was the son of Gilead, who was the son of Machir, who was the son of Manasseh.
Thoughts:	This chapter begins with five women - Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah - who are descended from Manasseh and are the daughters of a man named Zelophehad, demanding property rights. The women take their case up with Moses and state that since their father had died (emphasizing that he died out in the wilderness and not being part of Korah's rebellion from Numbers Chapter 16) without a son, that they should inherit their father's property in the "promised land" alongside their uncles. Moses takes their case before God, and surprisingly God goes along with Zelophehad's daughters and tells Moses that it shall be a law for the people of Israel. Let's not jump to the conclusion that God actually championed womens rights here, because if we read clearly we understand that this isn't what God's law says at all. This law merely allows a man's daughters (not his wife, sisters, or aunts) into the pecking order, if - and only if - the man had no male heirs, and those daughters would still have to split the land with their uncles. However, the law as written here is extremely vague, as is typical in the bible. No mention is made as to whether a daughter get to retain or would have to forfeit her inheritance should she marry, or whether married daughters would be exempt or not from inheriting land. With this new law in place, God's pecking order now proceeds as such: a man's son(s); failing a son, his daughter(s) - to be shared his brothers; failing a son or daughter, his brothers; failing having a brother, his uncles; failing an uncle, it goes to his nearest next of kin. God now tells a roughly 120 year old Moses to go climb a mountain so that he can get a scenic view of the "promised land" that he will not be allowed to enter - thanks to that whole smiting a rock instead of speaking to it debacle in Numbers Chapter 20 that God is still angry about. God tells Moses that after he sees the "promised land" that he will die, just as his brother Aaron had, because of the rock incident which God explains "failed to sanctify" God in the eyes of the Israelites. Basically, God had his ego bruised and Moses and Aaron are to pay for it with their lives. Moses seems to accept his fate, but asks God to appoint a new leader before God kills him. God tells Moses to bring Joshua out to Eleazar and have a public ceremony before the people of Israel. God furthers that Joshua will have to receive God's judgments through Eleazar, who in turn will get these instructions via using the Urim - in layman's terms, a stone that in principle is sort of a primitive Magic 8-ball. The Urim stone is (as well as its companion stone, called the Thummim that we encountered in Leviticus Chapter 8) used to deduce yes and no answers to determine God's will, again, much like a Magic 8-ball would. Like I had mentioned in my commentary on Leviticus Chapter 8, it's a frightening concept when we factor in that probably the fates of many people's lives rested in the hands of these "magic stones" and their random answers. Also, an interesting note, is that the Urim and Thummim stones factor into the Mormon religion as the "seer stones" that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Mormon from "Ancient Egyptian" into English while peering into a hat(!) The chapter closes off with Joshua being appointed as Moses' successor in a public ceremony before the people of Israel.

NUMBERS: Chapter 26

Chapter 26
Summary:	After the plague, God spoke to Moses and Eleazar, telling them to take another census of all of the men of Israel from twenty years and older that are able to go to war, along with which tribe and clan that they come from. In the plains of Moab by the Jordan River near Jericho, Moses and Eleazar approached the leaders of Israel and told them to take the census of all men twenty years and older The following table shows the tribes of Israel, their clans, and the number of men twenty years and older fit for war counted in the census: Tribe Clans Total Men Reuben Hanochites Palluites Eliabites* Hezronites Carmites 43,730 Simeon Nemu-elites Jaminites Jachinites Zerahites Shaulites 22,200 Gad Zephonites Haggites Shunites Oznites Erites Arodites Arelites 40,500 Judah Shelanites Perezites Hezronites Hamulites Zerahites 76,500 Issachar Tolaites Punites Jashubites Shimronites 64,300 Zebulun Seredites Elonites Jahleelites 60,500 Manasseh (son of Joseph) Machirites Gileadites Jezerites Helekites Asrielites Shechemites Shemidaites Hepherites* 52,700 Ephraim (son of Joseph) Shuthelahites Eranites Becherites Tahanites 32,500 Benjamin Bela-ites Ardites Naamites Ashbelites Ahiramites Shuphamites Huphamites 45,600 Dan Shuhamites 64,400 Asher* Imnites Ishvites Beriites Heberites Malchi-elites 53,400 Naphtali Jahzeelites Gunites Jezerites Shillemites 45,400 Grand Total: 601,730 God then told Moses to divide the land among the tribes in proportion to their population. The larger tribes are to be given more land, and the smaller tribes are to be given less land. The land is to be divided "by lot" (a lottery) according to the names of the tribes. According to the draw, the possession thereof is to be divided between the many and the few. The following clans of the Levites counted in the census:Gershonites, Kohathites, and Merarites. The following familes composed the Levites: Libnites, Hebronites, Mahlites, Mushites, and Korahites. Kohath was the name of Moses' grandfather, and Amram was the name of Moses' father. The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt. Jochebed gave birth to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. Aaron's children were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar (Nadab and Abihu were killed by God when they offered "strange fire" to God). The total number of Levites counted in the census numbered 22,300, counting all males one month and older - as the Levites were not to be counted with the rest of the Israelites as they were not to inherit land. No-one counted in this census had been counted in the previous census taken while in Mount Sinai - as all had since died in the wilderness except Caleb and Joshua.
Notes:	1.) In the clan of Eliab were the familes of Nemu-el, Abiram, and Dathan. Dathan and Abiram were the two leaders who conspired with Korah in Numbers: Chapter 16. It is also mentioned here that Korah's children did not die from God's retribution towards the rebellion. 2.) Hepher's son Zelophedad had no sons. The names of his daughters were: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 3.) Asher also had a daughter named Serah.
Thoughts:	This chapter features yet another census that God has Moses and Eleazar take to count the number of men twenty years and older that are fit to go to war. The census also takes note of all the various clans (and several sub-clans) belonging to each tribe of Israel. Although the grand total of 601,730 has gone down slightly since the last census (which totalled 603,500) which took place almost forty years prior, we are told that no-one counted in the first census has survived to be counted in this new census (with the exception of Caleb and Joshua). God then tells Moses that the "promised land" is to be divided up amongst the tribes in proportion to their population - meaning the larger tribes will receive larger portions of land, and the smaller tribes will receive smaller portions of land. However the land itself is to be given away by a lottery system. The chapter then lists all the Levite tribes and clans and totals them up at 22,300 - which basically asserts that the Levite population has remained unchanged over the past 40 years, which is quite a remarkable feat. Also quite a remarkable feat is Moses' family tree, which is glossed over in the chapter. Moses' mother Jochebed is claimed here to be the daughter of Levi, and the aunt of her husband Amram. The Levites however were not to be counted along with the rest of the Israelites, as they are not to inherit land due to their association and employ in the priesthood.

NUMBERS: Chapter 25

Chapter 25
Summary:	While the people of Israel were camped in the land of Shittim, they began to "commit whoredom" with the daughters of Moab. The Moabites invited the Israelites to their sacrifices to their gods, and the Israelites feasted with them and bowed down to their gods. The Israelites had "joined themselves unto Baalpeor", and the anger of God was kindled against the people of Israel. God tells Moses to execute the leaders of the Israelite tribes and to hang their corpses up "before the Lord against the sun", so that God's anger will be diverted away from the people of Israel. Moses ordered the judges to slay "every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor". One of the Israelite men however snuck in a Midianite woman, "in sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel", who were weeping at the door of the tabernacle. When Phinehas (Eleazar's son, and Aaron's grandson) saw this, he grabbed a javelin and rushed into the man's tent. He barged into the man's tent and thrust the javelin through him, and through the belly of the Midianite woman. God's plague was then stopped, after the deaths of 24,000 Israelites. God tells Moses that Phinehas had turned God's anger away from the people of Israel, explaining that Phinehas' zealous slaying of the Israelite and his Midianite wife showed that he was as angry as God was, and that this deed was the reason why God stopped killing the Israelites. God continues, stating that he shall give unto Phinehas his "covenant of peace", rewarding Phinehas for his zealous slaying which made atonement for the Israelites. Phinehas and his descendants are rewarded with an everlasting priesthood. The name of the Israelite that Phinehas killed was Zimri - son of Salu, a prince of a chief house amongst the tribe of Simeon; the woman who was slain with him was named Cozbi, who was the daughter of a Midianite prince named Zur. God tells Moses to "vex the Midianites" and to destroy them, because they are destroying Israel with their wiles, where they had "beguiled" them in the "matter of Peor" and in the "matter of Cozbi".
Notes:	1.) "Baalpeor" is a portemanteau of the title "baal" (a Semitic title meaning "master" or "lord") and "Peor" (after the location of Mount Peor), loosely meaning "the god of Mount Peor".
Thoughts:	This brief and extremely violent chapter of the book of Numbers is interesting in the context of the chapter it proceeds. In the previous chapter the prophetic Balaam stood atop Mount Peor looking over the Israeli camp, marveling at their organization, and blesses them in the name of God due to their righteousness, and prophesying the destruction of Moab. This chapter however shows the Israelites at the base of Mount Peor feasting with the Moabites, sleeping with Moabite women, and sacrificing and worshiping their gods. Of course, God is violently angered over this behavior, so he tells Moses to go round up the tribe leaders and execute them, and to set an example he commands Moses to hang their corpses up in the daylight for all to see - this, God explains, will divert his anger away from the people of Israel. Moses orders the judges of Israel to kill any and everyone who was sacrificing and worshiping the god of Mount Peor (Baalpeor). One of the Israelites however snuck in a Midianite woman into the Israeli camp site, in plain view of Moses and the entire congregation of Israel. Aaron's grandson (Eleazar's son) Phinehas saw this, grabbed a spear, rushed into the man's tent and impaled both the Israelite and the Midianite woman with his spear. (It is thought that the two were in the act of copulation when Phinehas killed them.) Before we continue, we have to address two problems: first, the beginning of this chapter deals with the Israelites "committing whoredom" with the Moabites, the rest of the chapter then abruptly shifts its attention to the Midianites. Secondly, Phinehas slays an Israelite man (who is later identified as Zimri) and his Midianite wife Cozbi, for the apparent reason that she is simply a Midianite woman. The problem with this reasoning, is that Moses' wife Zipporah is also a Midianite - as is Moses' father-in-law Reuel/Jethro (and his possible brother-in-law Hobab). Simply slaying Zimri and Cozbi for Cozbi's Midianite heritage doesn't make sense and is obviously hypocritical in light of Moses' own Midianite wife and in-laws. Biblical scholars theorize that this chapter originated from two different source materials woven together (which also explains the baffling mention of a plague being stopped after Cozbi and Zimri's slaying, which isn't mentioned prior) in a rather complex theory called the "Documentary hypothesis", in which the Torah (or the first five books of the Old Testament) was assembled from several independent yet parallel sources. Phinehas' slaying of Zimri and Cozbi pleases God and he puts a halt to a plague he had brought upon the Israelites - but not before 24,000 Israelites succumbed and died from it. God tells Moses that he's happy with Phinehas' handiwork because it apparently proved that Phinehas was just as ticked off and angry as God was. He states that Phinehas' murdering rampage of Zimri and Cozbi made atonement for the "sins" of Israel and rewards Phinehas with a promotion in the priesthood. Let's review this again: Zimri sneaks a Midianite girl into the Israeli camp, this angers Phinehas (despite the fact that his uncle Moses is also married to a Midianite woman), Phinehas violently murders them both - impaling them with a spear while they're supposedly having sex, God is pleased enough to stop killing people - after killing a whopping 24,000 Israelites himself, and he then gives Phinehas his seal of approval and a promotion at his job. Zimri's crime apparently being taking a wife from outside his race of people (something Moses has done himself with the same foreign tribe - the Midianites) and murdering them both violently with a spear is the right course of action and punishment to take? After Phinehas kills them both, the bible finally gives us the names of Zimri (the son of Salu, a Simeon prince) and Cozbi (the daughter of a Midianite prince named Zur). God then tells Moses to "vex" the Midianites and utterly destroy them all, since their women are corrupting the Israelite men - totally ignoring the fact that Moses also has a Midianite wife and Midianite offspring. God claims that the Midianite women led to the "matter at Peor" (which was the Moabite women) and the "matter of Cozbi". Once again, the God plays the misogyny card and blames the Midianite women for what ultimately should be "sins" of the Israelite men. The Israelites are bound by God's commandments not to worship other gods or idols, yet God implies that it's actually the fault of the Midianite women - as if the Israelite men simply have no mind of their own and are somehow not able to resist the temptations of Midianite women.

NUMBERS: Who is Agag?

In Numbers: Chapter 24 during one of Balaam's prophecies a curious name is mentioned in verse 7:

24:7 "...and his king shall be higher than Agag...

Who is Agag? The answer is a rather complicated one, considering a king named Agag shows up much later in the book of 1 Samuel, which is five books away from where we currently are here in the book of Numbers when Balaam makes his prophecy.

We're left to deduce one of the following explanations:

1. Balaam predicted Agag long before his birth and reign:	Extremely unlikely
The simplest of explanations is also the most faulty. Regardless of the supernatural, mystical, and miraculous claims in the bible we'd still have a lot to explain to make this explanation fit. The first thing we would have to assume is that either God or Balaaam possessed the power to make a precisely accurate prediction right down to a person's name and their occupation - as well as an assessment of their work - many years before they were born. This would be the equivalent to predicting "Peter Millicent, one of the greatest presidents of all time, will become the president of the U.S. in the year 2412". However, within the context of how Balaam's prophecy is delivered I would have to make my prediction as so: "Your neighbor Fred will become a greater leader than Peter Millicent". Obviously, you would have no clue as to who I was referring to when I mentioned Peter Millicent, unless either you could see into the future yourself (thereby negating me having to tell you this prediction), or if I had told you previously who Peter Millicent would be. The problem with the latter point is that our only reference point is the bible, which doesn't support or refute that the name Agag was well known to be a predicted future leader, so we'd simply be making an assumption. If for the sake of argument, we assume that either Balaam or God did predict a great leader named Agag, we would have to assume one of two things. Either this was a self-fulfilling prophecy, meaning that people would possibly name their children Agag in the hopes that their child would become this great leader, or we're faced with the idea that there is no such thing as free will - God would have to know exactly how everything would turn out before it happens. This would mean that he knew everything that would happen, how it would unfold, beginning from the creation myth, leaving nothing up to free will. Agag's parents wouldn't be able to change their mind and not have children, nor would the parents be able to pick a different name for Agag. Pretty much we've created a logical paradox which simply doesn't fit. The next problem we have with this explanation is that it doesn't make sense within the context of the story. Balaam was speaking to King Balak when he made this prophecy, his main intent being to tell the king how great of a nation the Israelites were and how they would conquer and dominate the land. Unless King Balak was familiar with the name Agag, mentioning this name would be meaningless to him. Again, it would be like walking up to someone on the street and telling them that they'd be a better leader than "Peter Millicent". You would probably get a puzzled look and perhaps a question asking who Peter Millicent is. If you were in the midst of a long statement to someone else, interjecting the name of a person that you would have to explain to your listener would only derail the delivery of your statement.
2. Agag is actually a title and not a proper name	Unsupported
Another common theory, which on face value seems far more plausible, is that "Agag" was actually a title - like "king" or "pharaoh" - rather than a proper name. This certainly would clear up the inconsistency of King Balak being familiar with the name "Agag", as both a contemporary leader as well as the character from 1 Samuel could easily both hold this title. The only problem with this theory is that there's nothing to support coming to this conclusion that "Agag" is a title. This would be analogous of someone unfamiliar with U.S. history noting upon seeing an incomplete list, that we've had several U.S. Presidents and Vice Presidents named "George" (Washington and both Bush presidencies, along with VP's George Clinton and George M. Dallas) and assuming that "George" must be a title. It's simply making an "educated guess" based on an assumption, there isn't any further evidence to suggest that "Agag" is a title anymore than someone assuming that "George" must be a title upon hearing that three of our presidents and two of our vice presidents shared that first name. Which leads me to our next possibility...
3. Agag was a common name in the area	Plausible, but unsupported
The next explanation is the thought that perhaps Agag was a common name in either the area, the time period, or perhaps both. While this is certainly a more plausible explanation than the first two possibilities, there are problems with this argument. First, like the argument that "Agag" could be a title, there's no evidence to support that Agag was a common name. However, a counter argument could be that much like the modern papacy, sometimes rulers will rename themselves to take on the legacy of a former ruler, or in the case of a monarchy ruling from a royal lineage it could be possible that their offspring were named after former great leaders in their ancestry. Again, this is certainly a more sound explanation than the previous arguments, but again there is no evidence to support that this is the case. The main issue against this argument is that "Agag" is mentioned in a manner as though the reader of the bible should be familiar with the name, and considering that Agag is only mentioned once here in the book of Numbers and then later on in 1 Samuel. This, along with the context that Balaam is also giving a prophecy here, leads us to another possibility.
4. The reference to Agag was added to the story in Numbers to strengthen the notion of prophecy.	Plausible, but unconfirmed
In order to understand the motive behind dropping in the name "Agag" into Balaam's prophecy after the fact, we have to revisit our first argument - the belief that Balaam somehow predicted the name of a ruler long before he was born. In the context of the story itself, we'd still be left with the same problem - how would King Balak know who Balaam was referring to? However, the significance of the name "Agag" would actually be more for the benefit of the reader, rather than King Balak. The whole premise behind most of the bible's mythology is prediction and prophecy (Jesus' birth and divinity is supposedly predicted by the Hebrew texts, Jesus' prediction that he will be betrayed by one of his disciples, Joseph predicts the Egyptian famine leading to his gaining favor with the pharaoh of Egypt, and the entire book of Revelations consisting entirely of prophecy). One of the major tenements to the concept of "truth" to believers mainly rests on the belief that the bible has predicted a great many things accurately. Jesus' divinity was primarily accepted on the premise that he fulfilled the various requirements of Jewish prophecy concerning the messiah. Without those prerequisites, it's possible that his alleged miracles may have been condemned as sorcery or witchcraft, rather than an example of his divinity. The point being that accurate prophecy is a strong core of the Judeo-Christian belief system. Therefore, that is certainly a motivating factor to make it appear that Balaam's prediction not only covered what we could assume was already inevitable (the Israelites conquering their enemies) but to also add in a prediction that none but a omniscient God would be privy to claim - predicting a strong leader who has yet to be born. In this context, mentioning Agag is more for the benefit of the reader to confirm that God has accurately predicted the coming of a person yet to exist. Agag plays such a significant role as a character who is viciously torn apart in the book of Samuel as an act of vengeance against the Amalekites, that it is impossible to overlook his casual mention here in Balaam's prophecy. In the context of our story, the mention of Agag doesn't appear to make sense as related to King Balak, but it makes a definite impact upon those reading the bible who are familiar with Agag's infamous role in the book of Samuel. While there is no concrete certainty to this argument, there is certainly motivation, and on this premise alone it's something we cannot overlook as a possibility.

While we simply can't come up with a definitive answer as to who Agag is within the context of Numbers: Chapter 24, the literalist answers simply don't add up and can only be explained away by guess work. Although we also cannot say with certainty that Agag was inserted into Balaam's prophecy after the fact, there certainly is a likely motivation for doing so. The most obvious explanations often are the most likely, especially when combined with a strong motivational factor.