Behaviour Revolution Scriptures

SET-APART PROPERTY

Whatever belongs to Yahusha is Yahusha’s set-apart property.... and Yahusha’s set-apart property has the ban placed on it. Whatever is not Yahusha’s set-apart property may be legitimately owned and used by someone else, because it does not have the ban placed on it.  These religious freaks speaking to Yahusha fully understood that the Divine Instructions (Turah) allowed taxes to be paid to a human government, and the Law of Herem did not cover it. But as it happens when traditions and doctrines of men begin to take on a larger role than the set-apart Scripture-Instructions of Yahusha, rather straight-forward issues can become clouded in a haze of glib sayings and religious rulings.

Things devoted to Yahusha are Yahusha’s and therefore what He does with them are up to Him. Paul speaks of the two extremes in Yahusha’s nature in Romans 11: HIS KINDNESS AND HIS SEVERITY. When a man attempts to disregard the ban by misappropriating Yahusha’s set-apart property, that man will face Yahusha’s severity instead of His kindness. There is another familiar place in the Scripture where the Law of Herem (the ban) is at the core of the matter but because the principle of the ban isn’t known or understood among most Believers it is not recognised in the story:

"Children of Jacob, I'm Yahuah and I never change. That’s why you haven’t been wiped out yet, even though you've ignored, disobeyed and refused to guard My Divine Laws and Instructions, ever since the time of your ancestors. But if you return to Me, I will return to you. And yet you ask, "How can we return?” You people are robbing me, your Alahim. And, here you are, asking, “How are we robbing you?” How? In the tithes and offerings that belong to Me! You've assaulted and cursed Me by taking what's Mine, so that’s why your whole nation is now under a curse. For I'm the all-powerful Yahuah, and I challenge you to put Me to the test. Bring the entire ten percent (tithe) into the storehouse, so there'll be food in My house. Then I'll open the windows of the Shamayim and flood you with blessing after blessing. MALACHI 3 BRS

How can a person rob Yahusha? What does that mean, to “rob” Yahusha? It means that by taking what already belongs to Him you have illegally trespassed on His set-apart property. That which is dedicated to Yahusha is His, AND IT IS UNDER THE BAN. It cannot be taken or used or (just as important) held back. What is the result of violating this ban? “A CURSE IS ON YOU AND YOUR WHOLE NATION….” There are some things owed to Yahusha because He has decided that they are already His (such as the people and possessions of Jericho). Other things He leaves up to us, such as our voluntary contributions, gifts, offerings, behaviours, plans etc that we make by our own decisions (which He is guiding anyway if we have that sort of relationship).

So when we agree with Yahusha on a voluntary contribution or something to do for Him (whatever form that might be) then OWNERSHIP IS IMMEDIATELY TRANSFERRED. Whatever we devoted by an act of agreement with Yahusha HAS become Yahusha’s set-apart property or plan. Should we ever think that after we've told Yahusha we want to give Him something and now we are backing out and change our minds, to us it is typically just a matter of that: we changed our minds and no longer wish to give it to Yahusha; in other words, the deal is off…..no harm no foul. But in Yahusha’s eyes, since it already became His upon your determination and agreement, NOW you are robbing Him.

One would have thought that the lesson learned at Jericho was that by following Yahusha’s Commands, doing things in His way and in His time, His Name would be revered and Yisharal would be victorious. It boggles the mind that all Yisharal did to capture Jericho was to march around it silently, with the Ark in tow and only the noise of their footsteps and the blaring shofars to be heard echoing off the surrounding hills. Yahusha did the rest; the walls didn’t fall because Yisharal made a loud enough racket with those horns; the walls fell because Yahusha destroyed them.

But now we find that after the so-called “battle” was won, someone had disobeyed Yahusha in a very serious way; and this would have a negative effect on what Yisharal would do next: attack the city of Ai. This person was Achan and his crime was that he had stolen some property found in Jericho; property under the ban, property belonging exclusively to Yahusha. No doubt was left to his identity because 4 generations of his family history were given to pin-point him.

It was NOT a KNOWN crime that Yisharal was being blamed for. Achan had done his thievery in secret; it was only AFTER Yisharal had suffered the consequence of Yahusha’s anger that the leaders and then the people of Yisharal were even aware that the cause of a humiliating defeat at Ai was Achan’s theft of Yahusha’s set-apart property.

Flush with success from their easy taking of Jericho, Yisharal’s army was feeling a little arrogant and cocky. They sized up the city and its defenses and determined that it really wasn’t even worth sending very many troops there to take it, only 2 or 3 thousand would be sufficient. Much to their surprise when the army attacked Ai they were quickly routed, chased for a couple of miles, 36 troops were killed, and as a result of this humiliating defeat all the confidence that had been gained from their stunning victory at Jericho went down the drain. As Scripture says, “the hearts of the people melted and turned to water”.

Now Joshua was equally as stunned; he went from being seen as a great general of an unstoppable force, to a weak leader of a disheveled bunch of easily discouraged toy soldiers. In response he went to Yahusha; he fell on his face in despair (before the Ark), he and the leaders of Yisharal certain that Yahusha must have withdrawn His help. They lay there all day until sunset, pouring out their grief before Yahusha and seeking both comfort and answers.

The question asked of Yahusha is this: “Yahusha! Why did you take the trouble to bring this people across the Jordan if you meant to hand us over to the Amorites and have us perish?” The question was really more of a complaint, not unlike ones we read of in Exodus that happened during Yisharal’s wilderness journey. But the Rabbis commentaries severely fault Joshua for his whining (like they can talk) because at least out in the wilderness it was the PEOPLE who complained; but here it was their leader, Joshua.

And isn't Yahusha’s response just gold; He is not in the least bit impressed with all these drama-queens flopping around in the sand before Him, or of the dirt flying into the air, or the sound of garments being torn, or the wailing and moaning; and He also doesn’t appreciate Joshua and the leaders coming to Him basically asking why He didn’t do something different. In other words OBVIOUSLY it was His fault, not theirs. It’s maybe the most asked question of Yahusha by believers today . . . where were you Yahusha when all this was happening to me?

Yahusha says, “Stand up!” In other words, stop praying, stop complaining, and seek the proper source of the problem (and it ain’t Him, the issue is Yisharal). Remember back in Leviticus we learned a principle that is about as foreign to the mind and doctrine of a modern believer as you can get. IT IS THAT BOTH SET-APARTNESS AND IMPURITY CAN BE TRANSMITTED FROM PERSON TO PERSON, PERSON TO OBJECT, AND OBJECT TO OBJECT. SET-APART PROPERTY IS NOT A CLECHE OR A NICE DRAMATIC SOUNDING DESCRIPTION TO LIVEN UP THE NARRATIVE. SET-APART PROPERTY IS LITERALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS BECOME SET-APART AS A RESULT OF BEING DEVOTED TO YAHUSHA. IT IS THEORETICALLY CAPABLE OF TRANSMITTING THE RADIOACTIVE SET-APARTNESS OF YAHUSHA TO OTHER THINGS, LIKE PEOPLE. THE PRIESTS COULD, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (AND DEPENDING ON THEIR ORDER), TOUCH SET-APART OBJECTS. BUT LAY PEOPLE (ORDINARY YISHARALITES) COULD NEVER COME INTO CONTACT WITH THE SET-APART. NOR COULD SET-APART THINGS COME INTO CONTACT WITH THEM. THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESULT FROM SUCH AN EVENT IS THAT THE SET-APART BECOMES DEFILED; OR THAT THE ORDINARY BECOMES DESTROYED BECAUSE YAHUSHA WILL NOT ALLOW UNAUTHORISED TRANSFERENCE OF SET-APARTNESS FROM ONE PERSON OR THING TO ANOTHER.

Therefore it was imperative that the thief responsible for taking those banned items from Jericho is found, and the items retrieved. And the punishment is this: THE PERSON WHO HAS DISOBEYED THE “BAN” HAS BECOME THE “BAN”. In essence the one who confiscated the set-apart property has BECOME himself set-apart property (through exposure), and the banned items right along with the thief who took them have (through his actions AND mostly from his personal contact with those items) become banned and must be destroyed by the only approved method: fire. Why fire? (there's that WHY again, but instead we should ask WHAT? WHAT PATTERN?)

Burning with fire fits the pattern of an Altar sacrifice that involves burning up the item being devoted to Yahusha as the only means to Him possessing it while at the same time preventing any person from using it. Although the word “lot” isn’t used here, both Jewish and Christian scholars agree (shock horror) that the method for finding the evildoer was actually by casting lots. Maybe, maybe not, but interesting.

And eventually Achan was confronted with his crime; so there would be no trial because there was no need. Yahusha had divinely shown Joshua who the guilty party was (through casting lots?!) After Achan confessed all, Joshua sent men running to Achan’s tent and indeed there were the items right where Achan said they were; Yahusha’s set-apart property lying inside a hole under a common tent.

Now something terrible and instructive happens; ACHAN, HIS ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD, HIS LIVESTOCK, ALL HIS POSSESSIONS, AND THE STOLEN BANNED ITEMS WERE TAKEN OUTSIDE THE CAMP TO THE VALLEY OF ACHOR AND THERE ALL LIVING CREATURES ASSOCIATED WITH ACHAN WERE KILLED, EVERYTHING ACHAN OWNED WAS BURNED UP WITH FIRE, AND A MOUND OF STONES WAS PLACED OVER THE REMAINS; PEOPLE, ANIMALS, AND MATERIAL OBJECTS.

VALLEY OF ACHOR . . . 'ACHOR' is a play on words and in Hebrew it means 'TROUBLE'. Since Achan caused such trouble, then Joshua said the penalty would now be “trouble” upon him, and so the place where this trouble upon Achan occurred was appropriately named “trouble” (Achor).

THEN WE SEE THE SAME PATTERN AS WHAT HAPPENED AT JERICHO APPLIED TO ACHAN AND HIS FAMILY AND POSSESSIONS: THEY BECAME YAHUSHA’S ENEMY DUE TO ACHAN’S CRIME OF STEALING THE BAN, AND THUS THEY BECAME BAN; THEY ARE KILLED, THEN BURNED UP, THEN HAVE STONES PILED UPON THEM.

It is precisely what happened to the ban at Jericho. Things devoted to Yahusha take on a real and literal radiating set-apartness, once Yahusha accepts them. (Remember Ananias and Sapphira in the latter texts who dedicated property to Yahusha of their own free will and then changed their minds and held some back and then lied about it . . . ZAP!!)

And the thing we learned about both set-apart objects and people, and impure objects and people, is that they can transmit their set-apartness or impurity to other people and objects by contact and in some cases, simply by mere proximity.

We see this demonstrated in Leviticus primarily as it pertains to defilement. That is (for instance) if a person contracts Tzara’at (a divinely caused skin disease) they can infect an object or another person by touching them. If a dead mouse falls into a cooking pot, that cooking pot contracts ritual impurity not so much because a mouse touched it but because its dead (death is the worst sort of ritual impurity). Then if something is cooked in that now defiled pot, the food contracts the impurity. Then if someone eats that impure food, THEY become impure. This is not a joke, it is not superstition; it is carefully explained in the Turah and it is quite a serious problem.

There are several remedies prescribed in Turah for a person or object that contracts uncleanliness, ranging from washing with water to being destroyed if the object is too porous and thus absorbs so much impurity that it can never be cleaned. But what happens when we’re dealing with the opposite end of the scale; what happens when we’re dealing NOT with impurity, but with set-apartness? The answer is we find that set-apartness CAN also indeed be transmitted in the same way as impurity is transmitted, by touch.

However YAHUSHA HAS EFFECTIVELY RENDERED THE POSSIBILITY OF THE TRANSMISSION OF SET-APARTNESS TO DIVINE THEORY, SO TO SPEAK, BECAUSE HE REFUSES TO ALLOW ACCIDENTAL OR UNAUTHORISED TRANSMISSION OF SET-APARTNESS TO OCCUR (even though by its nature and spiritual laws it CAN happen).

The problem for mankind is that Yahusha’s solution and method for controlling unauthorised transmission of set-apartness is to simply destroy whatever is about to become set-apart as a result. In other words if a Tabernacle Incense burner (used for service to Yahusha in the Wilderness Tabernacle) were to be improperly removed by someone from the Tabernacle and taken to a tent and it came into contact with a common cooking pot, by all spiritual laws that cooking pot would become set-apart. Whatever was cooked in it would then become set-apart and that would be transmitted to whoever ate that food. But the way Yahusha handles such a thing is to immediately destroy the cooking pot and usually the one who facilitated the improper use of Yahusha’s set-apart object thus stopping it before it can happen.

We saw this scenario play out with Aaron’s sons who took set-apart incense burners and put “strange fire” into them; in other words they took coals taken from a common wood fire instead of from the Brazen Altar and laid them upon set-apart objects ordained for service in the Tabernacle. Yahusha burned up the set-apart instruments and Aaron’s sons otherwise divine set-apartness would have been transmitted from the set-apart incense burners to those common coals.

We saw a similar thing later on when Korah and several men from his clan decided they didn’t like Yahusha’s decision of Aaron’s clan being the only ones allowed to present set-apart incense to Yahusha, so they brought their personal fire pans from home, filled them with their own coals and incense and tried to present them to Yahusha inside the sacred Tabernacle grounds. They’re proximity to Yahusha would have caused His great set-apartness to transmit to their fire pans (making them set-apart but without His permission), and so Yahusha supernaturally burned up those fire pans as well as all the men (around 200) who brought them. Thus set-apartness was not transmitted outside of Yahusha’s control.

AND OF COURSE WE SAW HOW YAHUSHA PREVENTED HIS DIVINE RADIATING ESTEEM FROM GETTING INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN. PORTAL CLOSED, GARDEN SHUT, HUMANS KICKED OUT, SET-APARTNESS PRESERVED. YAHUSHA’S PERFECTION WILL NEVER BE COMPROMISED.

Are you starting to see how this applies Achan, who had touched the ban from Jericho. The ban is set-apart property. Achan was, theoretically, contaminated with a level of set-apartness to which he was not entitled because it would have transmitted from Yahusha’s set-apart property to him.

What is ALWAYS Yahusha’s solution to this problem? Destruction of the unauthorised receiver of set-apartness, be it an object or a person.

Why was Achan’s family and all his possessions and his livestock also burned up? Most reasonable people (in a compassionate knee-jerk reaction) see Yahusha’s destructive response as awfully extreme and merciless in this situation. But since Achan touched the set-apart property and thus became contaminated with set-apartness, he then likely touched his family members who in turn became contaminated with set-apartness, and they then touched their animals and other personal property. Therefore all had become contaminated with unauthorised set-apartness and the only solution was their total and complete destruction.

IT REALLY IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE VIEW YAHUSHA'S STATUS OF PERFECTION LIKE A DESTRUCTIVE RADIATION (DESTRUCTIVE, THAT IS, TO ANYTHING OR ANYONE WHO IS NOT PERFECT LIKE HIM).

The burden of Achan’s crime had its worst and most devastating effects on his own household. Is that not always the case? Yet it seems as though as we contemplate taking an action that may well be against Yahusha, we don’t consider that many innocent people that we love may be hurt or destroyed because of it.