Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Disease in the camp


Recommended Posts

  • Members
5 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, Scripture clearly reveals how this plague upon the children of Israel was ended as follows:

Numbers 25:7-8 -- "And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly.  So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel."  This one act by Eleazar ended the plague, NOT the killing, burning, washing, and quarantine of Numbers 31:17-24.

The plague was stayed in the camp but not eliminated. That's why Moses forbade them from entering the camp (Numbers 31:16) and inisiated the purification of everything that was to be brought in the camp from the cities they destroyed. The plague actually remained and festered in the uncleaned parts of the land as stated in Joshua 22:16-19 Thus saith the whole congregation of the Lord, What trespass is this that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from following the Lord, in that ye have builded you an altar, that ye might rebel this day against the Lord? 17 Is the iniquity of Peor too little for us, from which we are not cleansed until this day, although there was a plague in the congregation of the Lord, 18 but that ye must turn away this day from following the Lord? and it will be, seeing ye rebel to day against the Lord, that to morrow he will be wroth with the whole congregation of Israel. 19 Notwithstanding, if the land of your possession be unclean, then pass ye over unto the land of the possession of the Lord, wherein the Lord’s tabernacle dwelleth, and take possession among us: but rebel not against the Lord, nor rebel against us, in building you an altar beside the altar of the Lord our God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, John Young said:

The plague was stayed in the camp but not eliminated. That's why Moses forbade them from entering the camp (Numbers 31:16) and inisiated the purification of everything that was to be brought in the camp from the cities they destroyed. The plague actually remained and festered in the uncleaned parts of the land as stated in Joshua 22:16-19 Thus saith the whole congregation of the Lord, What trespass is this that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from following the Lord, in that ye have builded you an altar, that ye might rebel this day against the Lord? 17 Is the iniquity of Peor too little for us, from which we are not cleansed until this day, although there was a plague in the congregation of the Lord, 18 but that ye must turn away this day from following the Lord? and it will be, seeing ye rebel to day against the Lord, that to morrow he will be wroth with the whole congregation of Israel. 19 Notwithstanding, if the land of your possession be unclean, then pass ye over unto the land of the possession of the Lord, wherein the Lord’s tabernacle dwelleth, and take possession among us: but rebel not against the Lord, nor rebel against us, in building you an altar beside the altar of the Lord our God.

Hmmmm. Brother Young, I am compelled to disagree with your understanding of Numbers 31:16-24 and with your understanding of Joshua 22:16-19.

Concerning Numbers 31:16-24:

1.  In verse 16 Moses did indicate that the women of Midian, "through the counsel of Balaam," had caused the children of Israel "to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor."

2.  In verse 16 Moses did indicate that this trespass against LORD resulted in "a plague among the congregation of the LORD."  (By the way, neither Numbers 25 nor Numbers 31 say anything about a plague being anywhere other than "among the congregation" of Israel.)

3.  In verses 17-18 Moses did instruct the soldiers to kill all of the male children and all of the non-virgin females of Midian.  (Note: They had ALREADY killed all of the adult males of Midian when they conquered them.)  On the other hand, he instructed them to keep alive all of the virgin females of Midian.  Yet Moses said not a single word about this being in order to deal with some plague/disease that might have existed among the Midianites.  (Indeed, IF this was in order to deal with some plague of STD, why were the MALE children killed, while keeping alive the FEMALE virgins?)

4.   In verse 19 Moses did instruct the soldiers and their spoils (including the female virgins of Midian) to remain "without the camp seven days," but he did not say a single word about this being to protect the congregation of Israel from some plague.

5.  In verse 19 Moses did instruct the soldiers to "purify" all of their captive Midianites and any soldier that had killed someone or that had touched a dead body.  Yet this did NOT require a purifying of those who might only have touched a LIVING Midianite.  (Note: IF a plague of STD was the problem, then touching ANY Midianite, living or dead, should have been a problem for possibly passing that plague along.)

6.  In verse 20 Moses did instruct the soldiers to "purify" all of their raiment, all that was made of animal skins, all that was made with goats' hair, and all that was made with wood; but he did not say a single word about this being to deal with any plague contagion.

7.  In verses 21-24 Eleazar instructed the soldiers concerning the burning of that which would burn and the cleansing by water of all else, including their clothing on the seventh day; but he did not say a single word about this being to deal with any plague contagion.

8.  In fact, there is NOT a single word about plague anywhere throughout verses 17-24.  The ONLY mention of plague in this entire context is in verse 16; and that mention grammatically places that plague in the PAST TENSE ("And there WAS a plague among the congregation of the LORD").  Furthermore, that mention of plague in verse 16 ONLY speaks about a plague that was past tense "AMONG THE CONGREGATION" of Israel (not among the Midianite peoples or nation).

9.  Thus any insertion of plague among the Midianites is CONJECTURE, and any insertion of dealing with plague through the cleansings of verses 17-24 is CONJECTURE.  It is going BEYOND the revelation of Scripture.

Concerning Joshua 22:16-19:

1.  In Joshua 22:1-9 the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh have completed their obligation to help the other tribes of Israel to conquer the land of Canaan, and are thus permitted to return unto their designated land on the east side of Jordan as promised by the Lord through Moses in Numbers 32:16-33.  There is NO indication throughout Joshua 22:1-9 that there is anything wrong, defiled, unclean, or plagued about this land.  In fact, in verse 4 that land is described as the land of their possession, which Moses the servant of the LORD had given them on the other side Jordan; and in verse 9 that land is described as "the land of their possession, whereof they were possessed, according to the word of the LORD by the hand of Moses."  Furthermore, there is NO indication throughout Joshua 22:1-9 that after they returned unto this land of their possession, they would be required to engage in ANY manner of purifying for the land.  (Note: IF this land was defiled, unclean, or plagued, then their women and children had spent the entirety of the time that they had been helping the other tribes of Israel in such a plague infested land, as per Numbers 32:16-27.)

2.  In Joshua 22:10 the problem is raised in that the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh built an alter by Jordan, "a great altar to see to."  In fact, throughout verses 11-16 the ALTAR is the problem -- "And the children of Israel heard say, Behold, the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh have built an altar over against the land of Canaan, in the borders of Jordan, at the passage of the children of Israel.  And when the children of Israel heard of it, the whole congregation of the children of Israel gathered themselves together at Shiloh, to go up to war against them.  And the children of Israel sent unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half tribe of Manasseh, into the land of Gilead, Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, and with him ten princes, of each chief house a prince throughout all the tribes of Israel; and each one was an head of the house of their fathers among the thousands of Israel.  And they came unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half tribe of Manasseh, unto the land of Gilead, and they spake with them, saying, Thus saith the whole congregation of the LORD, What trespass is this that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from following the LORD, in that ye have builded you an altar, that ye might rebel this day against the LORD?"  Indeed, the rest of Israel initially viewed the building of this ALTAR as a trespass committed against the God of Israel, as a turning away from the Lord, and as a rebellion against the LORD.

3.  In Joshua 22:17-18 the rest of the children of Israel challenge the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh with the following question -- "Is the iniquity of Peor too little for us, from which we are not cleansed until this day, although there was a plague in the congregation of the LORD, but that ye must turn away this day from following the LORD?"  With this question they do NOT ask whether they were not cleansed from the plague of Peor.  Rather, they ask whether they were not cleansed from the INIQUITY of Peor.  Furthermore, with this question they reference the plague as being PAST TENSE; and they ONLY reference the plague as being "in the congregation of the LORD," NOT as being in any body of land.  Finally, with this question they indicate their concern, NOT that some plague might continue to infest, but that the INIQUITY of turning away "from following the LORD" might continue.

4.  In the closing portion of Joshua 22:18 and in verse 20, the rest of the children of Israel express their concern that a trespass by the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh might cause the Lord God to "be wroth with the WHOLE congregation of Israel," even as in the case of Achan.

5.  In Joshua 22:19 the rest of the children of Israel offer the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh that IF they had found their land to be unclean, they could always move to the western side of Jordan with the rest of the children of Israel.  

6.  In Joshua 22:20-29 the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh explain their decision to build the alter, NOT AT ALL as a rebellion against the Lord, NOT AT ALL as an altar for sacrifices, and NOT AT ALL as a replacement for the alter of the Lord in tabernacle, but ONLY as a memorial of witness between them and the rest of the children of Israel that ALL were a part of the same people and the same covenant.

7.  In Joshua 22:30-34 the rest of the children of Israel express approval for this altar as a memorial of witness, and thus return unto the land of Canaan with NO FURTHER CONCERNS.  Indeed, the chapter ends positively with NO concern about any unclean, plague infested land, and with NO purifying activity of any kind.  (Note: IF, as you say, the land was still infested with plague, then I would expect something to have been done about that, or at least some concern about it.)  Remember, in Joshua 22:19 the rest of the children of Israel had offered that IF the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh had found their land to be unclean, they could always move to the western side of Jordan with the rest of the children of Israel.  Since this chapter concludes positively with NO move by them from their land, it would appear that they were NOT AT ALL concerned that the land was at all unclean.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 hours ago, John Young said:

Out of curiosity, which definition do you think is meant, if not a physical disease or pestilence?

I believe it was a plague...that's it. I don't mean to sound like a smarty-pants...I simply believe it was a plague.

All of the 10 plagues sent on Egypt don't fall under the disease/pestilence categories (unless I misunderstand the meaning of pestilence), and unless I misunderstand the final plague, it brought death without disease.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...