Moses recorded few events during the years of Israel's wandering in the wilderness, but those he did preserve have instructive value. Most important among them is the rebellion of Korah's group against Moses and Aaron, and God's confirmation of the Aaronic priesthood that followed (chs. 16-18).
The section that follows contains more regulations that look back to Kadesh and forward to Canaan. Their revelation is a confirmation that God had not cast off His people but would bring them into the Promised Land eventually.
"Chapter 15 is another collection of texts designed to prepare the people for their life in the land. Hence this chapter is one of promise. Though a great deal has happened, and the results are overwhelming for the adult population involved; nonetheless there is a sense in which we may say that nothing has happened. God has pardoned his people (14:20), the second generation will enter the land (14:31), and preparations still need to be made for that period after the Conquest and the achieving of normalcy' in Canaan.
"It seems that the connecting thought between chapters 14 and 15 is the phrase in 15:2: when you enter the land of your dwelling places that I am giving to you' (pers[onal] tr[anslation]). This ties to 14:31: I will bring them in to enjoy the land you have rejected.'"130
"Lest there be the mistaken notion that the laws of Sinai, including the laws of offerings, had been abrogated or replaced, the Lord explicitly cited some of them again . . ."131
The Lord supplemented and completed the laws of sacrifice He had given formerly. These laws relate to life in the land (vv. 1-2).
There are really seven laws in this pericope (vv. 3-5, 6-7, 8-16, 17-21, 22-26, 27-29, and 30-31). However the first three are closely related, and we will consider them as one law. We can also combine the fifth and sixth laws and regard them as one, which I will refer to as the third.
15:1-16 "The firstof these laws had reference to the connection between meat-[meal-]offerings and drink-offerings on the one hand, and burnt-offerings and slain-[peace-]offerings on the other."132
The Israelites were to accompany every burnt offering and every peace offering with a meal offering and a drink offering of wine. The amounts of meal and wine varied, and these variations are clear in the text. An ephah was about half a bushel, and a hin was about a gallon. Since grapes were large and abundant in Canaan (cf. 13:23) wine played a significant part in Israel's offerings. This offering expressed gratitude for the grapes of the land. The priests poured drink offerings out; they did not drink them.
The Apostle Paul spoke of his life as a drink offering poured out as a sacrifice to God (Phil. 2:17; 1 Tim. 4:6).
15:17-21 The secondlaw required the presentation of a cake made from the first-fruits of the land to God. The offerer was to lift it up before God and then give it to the priest. This offering expressed gratitude for the grain of the land.
15:22-29 The thirdlaw dealt with the sin offering. Here sins of omission are in view whereas the law in Leviticus 4:13-21 dealt more with sins of commission. In both cases the sin offering covered sins committed unintentionally. This law also covered some deliberate sins if the sinner offered public confession, full restitution, and a sin offering (Lev. 6:1-7).
15:30-31 These offerings did not cover sins committed in defiance of God. In these cases the sinner was to die (vv. 30-31). Moses recorded a case involving such a sin in the next section.
This incident illustrates the fate of the Israelite or foreigner in Israel who deliberately violated the law of Sabbath observance. It clarifies the meaning of defiant sin as well as what it means to be "cut off from among his people"(vv. 30-31). Violation of this law drew the death penalty (Exod. 31:14-15; 35:2).133God revealed on this occasion that such an offender was to die by stoning (cf. Lev. 20:2). Whereas Moses had previously recorded the penalty he had not explained the method of execution (v. 34).134
"The purpose of these narratives is to show that God's will is not expressed in a once-for-all way. In Israel's ongoing relationship with God, he continued to make his will known to them, and they continued to play a part in the process."135
Sabbath observance was the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. To violate the Sabbath law deliberately amounted to repudiating God's sovereignty.
"There are eleven offenses punishable by stoning according to the Old Testament: idolatry (Deut. 17:2-7); encouragement of idolatry (Deut. 13:6-10); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2-5); prophecy in the name of another god (Deut. 13:1-5); divination (Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Lev. 24:15-16); breaking the Sabbath (here); murder by an ox (Exod. 21:28-29); adultery (Deut. 22:22ff.); rebellion by a son (Deut. 21:18ff.); violation of God's ban on plunder devoted to him (Josh. 7:25)."136
Perhaps God initiated this command in response to the incident of Sabbath-breaking just mentioned.
The Israelites were to wear tassels on the four corners of their upper outer garments (Deut. 22:12). The text does not explain the size of the tassels, but old pictures of tassels on garments that ancient Near Easterners wore show that they were about six inches long.
"The tassels were in fact extensions of the hem, as we learn from innumerable illustrations in ancient Near Eastern art.
"To understand the significance of the tassel, we must first understand the significance of the hem. . . . The hem of the outer garment or robe made an important social statement. It was usually the most ornate part of the garment. And the more important the individual, the more elaborate and the more ornate was the embroidery on the hem of his or her outer robe. . . .
"The significance of the hem and of its being cut off is reflected in a famous biblical episode [namely, when David cut off the hem of Saul's robe; 1 Sam. 24]. . . .
"The requirement of a blue cord . . . in the tassels lends further support to the notion that the tassels signified nobility because the blue dye used to color the threads was extraordinarily expensive. . . .
"The Bible apparently assumed that even the poorest Israelite could afford at least four blue threads, one for each tassel. . . . Thus, weaving a blue thread . . . into the tassel enhances its symbolism as a mark of nobility.
"The tassel with a thread of blue signified more than royalty or nobility, however. It also signified the priesthood."137
The Israelite was to fasten the tassel to the garment with a blue thread, or it had to contain a blue thread. The blue color, as we noted in our study of the tabernacle coverings, symbolized heavenly origin and royalty. Thus God apparently wanted the blue thread to remind the Israelites of their holy calling as a kingdom of priests. These tassels reminded the Israelites of their privileged position in the world and their noble and holy calling.
The tassels were clearly a visual aid for the Israelites and probably produced a conditioned response in the minds of pious Jews (cf. Deut. 6:6-9). They did not bring to mind any one commandment but reminded the observer that he should observe all of God's laws. He was distinct by virtue of his calling as was the garment he observed. Perhaps God also chose the outer garment because the Israelites were as His outer garment by which the world recognized Him. His people were to be an adornment to Him (cf. Titus 2:10). Thus God specified something that would warn His people beforethey sinned; He did not just specify punishment afterthey sinned.
"There is an intentional selection behind the collections of laws found throughout the Pentateuch. The purpose of that selection appears clear enough. In reading through these laws we can readily see that God is concerned about every detail of human life. Nothing is too small or unimportant. It all has to be made available and dedicated to him."138
This legislation is the basis for the custom of wearing a tallis or prayer shawl that modern observant Jews still wear. It is also the basis for the flag of the modern state of Israel's blue color.
"As the laws increase and the constraints grow, the people seem less willing or less capable of following them. At this point in the narrative we see that the whole order of the priesthood is thrown open to direct confrontation. God's Word revealed at Sinai, which at first seemed so final and authoritative, is now being challenged on every side."139
"In 16:1-17:28 (Eng. [17:]13), three stories illustrate the need for and legitimacy of the Aaronic priesthood [i.e., 16:1-35; 16:36-50; and ch. 17]. As there had been challenges to Moses' leadership in chs. 11-14, so here there are challenges to Aaron's."140
It is not possible to determine from the text where or when during the 38 years of wandering this incident took place. This story ties in with what precedes in that Korah and his companions failed to appreciate their calling and became discontented. The tassels on their garments should have reminded them of their high calling and privilege. It was not the "rabble"or even the ordinary Israelites who instigated this rebellion but some of the Levites (cf. 8:5-26).
16:1-3 The leaders of this rebellion were Korah--a Levite of the Kohathite branch of the tribe and thus a kinsman of Moses and Aaron--and Dathan, Abiram, and On who were Reubenites. Perhaps these Reubenites felt slighted that their tribe had lost the rights of the firstborn and wanted a larger role in the nation.141These men gained the support of 250 men (perhaps a round number) from the other tribes who were leaders among the Israelites.
These men intended to overthrow the constitution that God had handed down for Israel and to replace it with one that seemed better to them. They based their action on the truth that the whole congregation was holy (Exod. 19:5-6). They inferred from this that all Israelites therefore had the right to serve in the priesthood. They failed to appreciate the fact that God had chosen the Levites for special priestly service because the nation as a whole had apostatized at Sinai (Exod. 32). They also failed to see that divine election to priestly service that had been the privilege of the entire nation did not in itself constitute qualification for priestly service. This depended on obedience to God's covenant (Exod. 19:5).
The rebels attributed Moses and Aaron's prominence in the leadership of Israel to personal ambition rather than to obedience to God's commands.
16:4-7 Moses fell on his face (v. 4) in great distress and took the matter to God in prayer (cf. 14:5).
The test involved offering incense because this was the most holy responsibility of the priests that brought them closest to God. God had already shown how He felt about those who took this privilege on themselves in the case of Nadab and Abihu (10:1-3).
16:8-14 The rebels viewed Israel's experiences since leaving Egypt in a carnal way. They attributed these trials to Moses personally rather than to God. This failure to perceive the will of God as such led them to regard Moses' leadership as inadequate and unacceptable.
"It was not that Moses was in error or that Aaron was at fault. It was simply that these wicked men wanted their positions.
"Anytime one begins so heavily to emphasize my ministry,' then such a one is in danger of standing in Korah's sandals."142
"In v. 10b Moses comes to the nub of the matter--not being satisfied with the position to which God has called one, but wanting more for the sake of power and prestige. It is clear that the Levites' call was to ministry or service of the people, not to power and position over them. This misunderstanding is near the heart of that which makes Korah's rebellion so tragic: a misunderstanding of God's call as to privilege and not to service."143
16:15-35 God's method of judging Korah, Dathan, and Abiram was a graphic lesson to the rest of the nation that God would bury those who rebelled against His will. Sin always leads to death (Rom. 6:23).
"Sheol, the abode of the dead, is pictured as lying immediately under the surface of the ground . . ."144
"The point is that rebellion against those whom Yahweh has chosen is rebellion against him. This does not mean simply that leaders are always right. It says that ifthe leader is appointed by God, rebellion against the leadership is rebellion against God."145
The "men who belonged to Korah"(v. 32) were apparently his followers since some if not all of his sons did not die with their father (cf. 26:58; 1 Chron. 6:18-22; 9:19).
God destroyed the 250 leaders with fire that proceeded from Himself, as He had dealt with Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:2).
16:36-50 The Lord created another visual aid to remind the Israelites that offering incense was a ministry of the priests only. The priests overlaid the altar of burnt offerings with a second layer of bronze that they hammered out of the rebels' censers (cf. Exod. 27:2).146
"As we think about the notion of the holy,' we recognize that things are made holy in Scripture, not because people are holy, but because the things are presented to the Lord, who is holy. Since these wicked men presented their censers to the Lord, the censers are holy, despite the men's own wickedness."147
God's judgment of Korah's company did not cause the congregation as a whole to submit to God's will through Moses and Aaron. The people charged Moses and Aaron with killing their leaders (v. 41). On the contrary, Moses had been responsible for God's sparing the nation through his intercession on several occasions. The fact that the people called Korah's company "the LORD's people"(v. 41) shows how they failed to appreciate what it really meant to be His people (cf. 11:29; Judg. 5:11; 1 Sam. 2:24; 2 Sam. 1:12; 6:21; 2 Kings 9:6; Ezek. 36:20; Zeph. 2:10).
Moses and Aaron fell on their faces when they heard God's intention to judge the whole congregation with death (vv. 43, 45). Since incense symbolizes prayer in Scripture (cf. Exod. 30:8; Ps. 141:2; Luke 1:10; Rev. 5:8; 8:3-4), Aaron apparently moved among the people interceding for them.
The plague (v. 46) was obviously a divine judgment involving sudden death, but more than this Moses did not reveal. A total of 14,700 people died (v. 49).
Why did Moses not intercede again here?
"All the motives which he had hitherto pleaded, in his repeated intercession that this evil congregation might be spared, were now exhausted. He could not stake his life for the nation, as at Horeb (Ex. xxxii. 32), for the nation had rejected him. He could not longer appeal to the honour of Jehovah among the heathen, seeing that the Lord, even when sentencing the rebellious race to fall in the desert, had assured him that the whole earth should be filled with His glory (chap. xiv. 20 sqq.). Still less could he pray to God that He would not be wrathful with all for the sake of one or a few sinners, as in chap. xvi. 22, seeing that the whole congregation had taken part with the rebels. In this condition of things there was but one way left of averting the threatened destruction of the whole nation, namely, to adopt the means which the Lord Himself had given to His congregation, in the high-priestly office, to wipe away their sins, and recover the divine grace which they had forfeited through sin,--viz. the offering of incense which embodied the high-priestly prayer, and the strength and operation of which were not dependent on the sincerity and earnestness of subjective faith, but had a firm and immovable foundation in the objective force of the divine appointment."148
Another explanation is that the writer did not record Moses' prayer of intercession and God's reply in the text in this case.
The fact that God halted the plague in response to Aaron's atoning action with his censer (16:47-48) would have proved that God accepted him as the high priest and not the rebels. God gave the miracle of the budding rod to make an even greater impression on the people to discourage further rebellion (v. 5).
"A man's rod was the sign of his position as ruler in the house and congregation; with a prince the rod became a sceptre, the insignia of rule (Gen. xlix. 10)."149
"Almond blooms early with white blossoms and its fruits were highly prized (Gen. 43:11). White in Scripture symbolizes purity, holiness, and God Himself (e.g., Is. 1:18; Dn. 7:9; Rev. 20:11). Jeremiah associates the almond . . . with watching . . . (Je. 1:11-12). All these qualities were personified by Aaron and the tribe of Levi. They were the holy tribe par excellence, who represented Israel before God and God to Israel, and they were responsible for watching over the people by instructing them in the statutes of the Lord (Lv. 10:11)."150
Aaron's rod fairly burst into flower and fruit because God gave it vital power. This would have helped the Israelites appreciate that God had chosen the Aaronic family because He had sovereignly chosen to impart His divine life to Aaron and his sons by His Spirit. Moses had symbolized this bestowal when he had consecrated Aaron to his office and anointed him with oil.
"The message was clear: just as God could make an apparently dead rod miraculously bear fruit, so he could elect a line of descendants like any other and enable it to render priestly service fruitfully."151
God ordered that the Israelites place Aaron's rod before the ark, which contained the Ten Commandments, with the jar of manna (cf. Exod. 16:33-34). He did so to help them realize that His choice of the Aaronic priesthood would continue in Israel. There is no reason to believe that the buds, blossoms, and fruits remained perpetually fresh. They probably wilted and the rod most likely assumed the condition it had before the miracle. The fact that the rod was there before the ark testified to the Israelites that God had chosen Aaron and his sons as His priests.
The people's terror (vv. 12-13) probably arose as a result of the miracles and judgments that had befallen the Israelites since Korah rebelled. God had vindicated His holiness, the people realized their sinfulness, and they were full of fear.
A complete and comprehensive explanation of the official duties and revenues of the priests and Levites appropriately follows the confirmation of Aaron's priesthood. This was God's reply to the frightened cries of the people in 17:12-13.
". . . the modern reader comes to chapters 18-19 with a sense of foreboding; what, we may wonder, is in these chapters for me? The answer to that question is fivefold:
"1. The reader of Scripture needs to have general knowledge about the major institutions of the biblical period just for Scripture to make sense.
"2. Our understanding of the true worship of God begins with the sense that he controls and directs true worship; who the priests are and how they function are first his concerns. This means that worship is not a game where we may make up the rules as we play.
"3. A general knowledge of the work of the priests in the Hebrew Bible gives many insights to the modern reader as to the interests of God in our own worship. Often we think of worship in terms of what we like and appreciate. This misses the mark; worship is principally for God's pleasure.
"4. A general knowledge of the work of priests in the time of Hebrew worship gives the Christian reader significant insights into the priestly work of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Book of Hebrews has an intense priestly orientation in its presentation of the Lord Jesus Christ, priest of God in the manner of Melchizedek.
"5. In contrast with the highly regulated, highly strictured patterns demanded of the priests of the Hebrew economy, the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ today has a direct access to God through the Savior that is nearly unbelievable. We are all priests; we can come near the presence of the Lord without an intermediary. Yet our privilege as believer-priests can only really be appreciated against the background of priests in the biblical period."152
18:1-7 God evidently gave these instructions to Aaron (v. 1). They deal with the boundary lines between Israelites who were not Levites, Levites, and priests.
The priestly office carried great responsibility as well as great privilege. The priests bore the guilt of what all the Israelites did as well as what they themselves did. The sacrifices, of course, covered this guilt.
God gave the Levites to the priests as their assistants to help them with certain aspects of the work of the sanctuary (v. 6).
Outsiders, non-priests, and Levites could not intrude on the priestly office or they would die (v. 7).
"The study of the cultic use of qrb/ngsdemonstrates that its meaning goes beyond simple, physical approach to the more abstract amplifications: have access to,' be admitted to,' be associated with.' In prohibitions . . . it means encroach.'"153
"A key phrase of this chapter is I give you' (18:7; cf. vv. 12, 19, 26, etc.). God takes care of His own."154
18:8-13 God gave Aaron these instructions too (v. 8).
The priests received all the heave offerings that the Israelites brought to the tabernacle. These were all the gifts that the people presented to God (vv. 8-9; cf. 5:9). They included parts of the meal, sin, and trespass offerings (vv. 9-10). The skin of some burnt offerings became the priests' too, but Moses did not mention this, probably because its value was negligible. These were "most holy"offerings (v. 9). The priest also received what the offerer waved before the Lord in the peace offering (v. 11) and the gifts of first-fruits that the people offered each year (v. 12; cf. 2 Chron. 31:5; Neh. 10:36, 38).
18:14-19 Everything placed under the ban (v. 14) and the first-born of man and beast that the people redeemed or offered (vv. 15-18) were "holy"offerings (vv. 10, 19). The "everlasting covenant of salt"(v. 19) was an indestructible covenant similar to salt (cf. 2 Chron. 13:5). The ancients used salt in the ritual of making some covenants in the Near East.
"At a meal in which a covenant between two parties was sealed, people in ancient times occasionally used salt to signify the incorruptible, firm, and lasting quality of the agreement."155
"The meaning appears to have been that the salt, with its power to strengthen food and keep it from decay, symbolized the unbending truthfulness of that self-surrender to the Lord embodied in the sacrifice, by which all impurity and hypocrisy were repelled."156
God gave the priests five gifts: their office, a spirit of responsibility, helpers, every provision for earthly needs, and Himself.157
18:20 Aaron, the high priest, received a special portion.
18:21-24 The tithes of the Israelites became the Levites' possession (vv. 21-24; cf. Lev. 27:30-33). God gave the instructions for receiving the tithes to Moses (v. 25).
18:25-32 The Levites were to give a tithe of the tithe they received from the people to the priests. This tithe was to include the best of what the other Israelites gave to them (vv. 30, 32).
"Whereas in heathen states, where there was an hereditary priestly caste, that caste was generally a rich one, and held a firm possession in the soil (in Egypt, for example; see at Gen. xlvii. 22), the Levites received no hereditary landed property in the land of Israel, but only towns to dwell in among the other tribes, with pasturage for their cattle (chap. xxxv.), because Jehovah, the God of Israel, would be their inheritance."158
Had the Israelites been faithful in their tithing the Levites would have received about five times as much as ordinary Israelites (cf. Gen. 43:34). Unfortunately the Jews were not completely obedient to these laws.
"What is to be made of the writer's exclusion of Moses in these matters that relate so closely to the duties of the priests? Why is Moses so conspicuously left out of the picture [until 18:25]? The answer perhaps lies in the author's desire to tell us something about the role of Moses as leader of God's people. His role is not limited to the work of a priest. Aaron is shown here assuming most of that responsibility. In the view of the writer, then, it appears that the role of Moses was becoming more distinct from the office of priest. Thus the writer attempts to show that Moses' role as mediator of the covenant, already well established throughout these narratives, was not merely a priestly one. There is a concern to show that he also functioned in the role of prophet as well as king, two themes that will receive further development in the book of Deuteronomy (Dt 18:15; 33:5). Hence as the picture of Moses develops within the Pentateuch, it more closely resembles the future messianic ruler, who is anticipated already in the Pentateuch as a prophet, a priest, and a king."159
God gave this law so the nation might maintain purity as the older generation died off in the wilderness. Its purpose was not to remove sin itself but to remove the uncleanness that death represented because of its connection with sin. It was especially appropriate that God gave this law after the death of the approximately 15,000 who died as a result of Korah's rebellion (ch. 16). Special provisions for cleansing were necessary in view of the large number of corpses.
19:1-10 The Israelites burned the red heifer to obtain ashes that they would add to the water of purification to make it more effective ritually as a cleansing agent. A heifer is a young female cow older than a calf. The priest killed it as a sin offering (vv. 9, 17). Probably God required a female because the female was the bearer of life, and continued life is what this sacrifice provided. The Lord may have intended the red color to emphasize sin or perhaps the vitality of the heifer's life. The animal was in its full strength having never borne a yoke. Of course, it was to be without a blemish (v. 2).
The Israelites were to slay the animal outside the camp because of its connection with sin and death. The high priest was to observe the slaying making sure the person in charge did it properly. This was a very important sacrifice.
The sprinkling of the blood shows that this slaying was a sin offering. The animal died for the sin of the congregation (v. 4).
The offerers burned every sin offering for the whole congregation, including this one, outside the camp (v. 5). This one provided cleansing from the contamination of death that the nation had contracted through the death of its people. The heifer represented the Israelites who had died as a result of sin.
Cedar wood was not as subject to decay as most other woods and represented the continuance of life. It was also aromatic and was the best and most expensive wood known.160Hyssop stood for purification from corruption, and the priests used it to apply blood, as in the Passover ritual. Scarlet wool symbolized the strong vital energy connected with blood (cf. Lev. 14:6). All of these elements combined to signify all that strengthened life. The person in charge added these elements to the heifer ashes as the heifer was burning.
The priest collected and kept the ashes of the heifer for this offering. He combined them with the cleansing water as needed (v. 9) for the purification of unclean individuals in the nation. The sacrifice symbolically strengthened the life of the living Israelites and removed the uncleanness caused by contact with their dead brethren. Ashes, which normally defiled the clean, in this case purified the unclean. God, who is sovereign, has the authority to abrogate what is normal.
19:11-22 Verses 11-13 explain the general rules for the use of this water. Verses 14-22 give a more specific description of the application of the general rules. Verses 17-19 record the ceremony of purification.
"Animals are clean and unclean, not because they necessarily will or will not make a person sick if they are used as food; they are clean and unclean primarily because God desired his people to live in a world of discrimination (see esp. Lev 11:44-47). We may look back from a twentieth-century understanding of infection and disease and remark, How kind it was of God that some of the animals he declared to be unclean to Israel are foods that might be conveyers of disease.' But the principal issue is distinction, discrimination, the marking out of that which is different from something else."161
Nonetheless we should not discount God's care for His people's physical welfare even though that may have been His secondary reason for legislating as He did.
"God recognized that the incubation period for most bacteria is within seven days. This means that after exposure to a disease, a person will know within seven days whether the disease is contracted. . . .
". . . the unclean' provision of seven days was practical for most acute, bacterial diseases fatal in that day.
"Hand washing and clothes washing with proper drying were prescribed in Numbers 19:19 . . . Verse 21 notes that anyone who touches the water of cleansing will be unclean till evening.' These provisions recognize that not only is washing important in mechanically cleansing one from microbes, but drying (until evening') is also essential. Pathogenic microbes can live in moisture that remains on skin, dying when the skin is eventually dried. Furthermore Numbers 19:13, 18-21 refers to the provision of sprinkling' the water, which indicates the need for running water, not stagnant water. Again this is a more effective means of cleansing, though more cumbersome.
"Did the average Israelite understand the significance of this preventive medical standard God imposed? No doubt he did not. However, God knew and in His wisdom cared for His people."162
This sacrifice, then, was a kind of instant sin offering and provided for the cleansing of those who had become ceremonially unclean through contact with a corpse. The unclean person who refused to purify himself would suffer death (vv. 13, 20). To refuse cleansing was to repudiate the divine revelation concerning the relationship of sin and death. This sacrifice kept the Israelites free from the defilement that would hinder their fellowship with God (cf. 1 John 1:7-9; Heb. 9:13-14).163
"This chapter provides an alternative remedy which marked the seriousness of the pollution caused by death, yet dealt with it without the cost and inconvenience of sacrifice. Instead, those who have come in contact with the dead can be treated with a concoction of water that contains all the ingredients of a sin offering."164
"The writer's concern for the ritual of the red heifer at this point in the narrative . . . finds its roots in the earliest narratives of Genesis where death itself is viewed as the ultimate defilement of God's good creation. As such his point appears to be to show that just as in the beginning, so now among God's covenant people, death is the arch enemy."165
