Quails were apparently given to the Israelites twice.  Once in this chapter, when they fell
  "round about the camp" Num 11:31, and once before in Exo 16:13, when the birds
  "covered the camp".  On both occasions God was very annoyed with the moaning people.
They should have realised that the manna contained everything they needed. In Psa 78:25 
it says "Man did eat angels' food."  That is not the normal word for angel, or messenger.  The word "angel" there means "strong men".  In other words, can I suggest that the manna had all the vitamins, proteins and all the goodness to make the Israelites perfectly strong and healthy.  There was no need for quails.

11:2     Aaron was the anointed high priest by now. However the people cry to Moses and he prays to God thus we se that the law of Moses could not save Israel from their own sinfulness.

It appears that the initial complaints came from the mixed multitude, and then the Israelites joined in (v.4).  The mixed multitude comprised other Semites and Egyptians who joined the Israelites in their exodus (Exo 12:38). There were people of mixed marriages also (Lev 24:10). At least, a segment of the mixed multitude was not spiritually committed to the ways of the LORD. They were opportunists who hitched their wagons to the Israelites in the hope of better things ahead. But, under trial, they folded because they had no faith. Unfortunately, their conduct affected the whole group (Gal 5:9). In our spiritual community, we should not allow spiritually uncommitted people to affect the rest of the household.

Herds and flocks accompanied the wilderness trekkers (v.22), but no thought was given to eating them.  They had to be reserved for sacrificial purposes. 

This is not the only time that Moses is given people to help him. In Exo 18:13-26 Jethro recognises that Moses needs help in the administration of affairs, and suggests this to Moses, who chooses "capable men" and and makes them leaders, officials & judges. There is no suggestion there that they are given the Spirit, as in this chapter. In this chapter, God tells him to bring 70 of these officials & leaders, and they receive "of the Spirit that was on" Moses.

11:26 Just a little point. The names of the seventy were written down in a record – ‘written; so it was a choice that was recorded, though there is no list of names anywhere in Scripture. Eldad and Medad are the only two names from that list that are recoded in a way that enables us to be sure that they were amongst the 70.

11:1     This complaint is the one referred to by Jude in Jude 1:16

Num 11:16,17,24,25 - 70 elders to help Moses; some feel 7 is the number of spiritual perfection and 10 is the number of ordinal perfection with 70 being the number of perfect spiritual order.

11:4 ‘fell a lusting’ is quoted in 1Cor 10:4 so we see that this is the event that paul refers to when he summarises Israel’s disobedience in the wilderness

The 'woman' of this chapter is clearly 'foolishness' but she portrays herself in ways which make her appear as if she is 'wisdom'

Error can so often seem to be true - this is because the flesh tries to justify what it wants to do.

There’s a picture in Prov 7:6-23 of Solomon looking out of his palace window, and observing the downfall of a simple young man.  It’s a picture which I’m sure Solomon himself should have learnt from.  How important it is for us to not only learn lessons from everyday life, but to apply such lessons to ourselves.  Today’s chapter tells us that if Solomon had had the strength of character to say “No” to some of his lady friends, then his life would have turned out far differently.

7  The father is calling the son to listen to the law of God. In this chapter there are repeated quotations from Deuteronomy 6.

The stubborn son would rather listen to the strange woman rather than the father.

7:18 The woman, in talking of taking of love ‘until the morning’ demonstrates that her work are the works of darkness.

7:15 The sons of God should be ‘diligent’ in their attention to God’s law – Deut 6:7,13 however godlessness is equally diligent in seeking those to ensnare. If we were to give as much attention to manifesting Godliness as we do to satisfying ourselves we would do well.

V.2 In the expression, apple of the eye (see also Psa 17:8), the word apple is translated from the Hebrew word ishon which means little man. As with all small, delicate, and vulnerable things (like a child), protection is paramount. And so, the apple must be protected from any intrusion. It is easy to understand this in a physical application, but it is also meant as a spiritual application. The apple (synonymous with the pupil) lets in light which carries with it the premier source of information. Spiritually useful as well as spiritually damaging instruction both enter through the same portal. The pupil, hence the brain, hence, the heart, hence the spirit, must be protected from harmful influences.

v13-19 remind us of the similar situation Joseph met Gen 39:12-13, he dealt with it in the right way, he fled and we are exhorted to do the same; 1Cor 6:18-20, 1Cor 10:13-14, 1Tim 6:10-11, 2Tim 2:22, James 4:7-8

7:19-25 Paul draws heavily on this language to warn Timothy

7:19 The Goodman who has gone on a journey is echoed in Jesus’ parable in Matt 21:33

V.2 Luke identifies the widow as being poor, but, in fact she was truly rich. She may have been poor from a material point of view, but, she was extremely rich, rich in faith. She gave to God all that was hers, because she realized that everything was Gods.

21:3-4  The example pf the poor widow shouts ‘commitment’ to us. It is now how much we do for the Lord, it is how much of our resources – we give to Him. How much of our resources do we keep back for ourselves?

This is one of two great prophecies of the end times given by Jesus, the other being Revelation. We are perhaps meant to see connections within the two of them.

21:11-12 The question the disciples asked related to the destruction of the temple. Now Jesus tells the disciples that they will have to suffer persecution before that happens.

21:4-5 There is clearly a time gap between these two verses. Jesus saw the woman casting money into the treasury in the temple but the comments about the temple were made from the Mount of Olives see Matt 24:3.

21:3-4 How often are we willing to do things for our fellow believers when it is convenient to ourselves but are not willing to put ourselves out to meet the needs or wants of others? David taught what sacrifice is when, speaking with Ornan the Jebusite, - 2Sam 24:24 - reasoned that something is not a sacrifice unless there is personal cost.

Give only what you can

When starting to read this chapter we should really begin in 20:46. Jesus condemned the scribes devouring widows houses. Then as if it had been planned, he looked up and saw an example of this very thing (21:1-2). His reaction to seeing the widow give all her livelihood to the temple is to predict the destruction of the temple (v6). Why?

We should not take the widow and her two mites as an example of how to give to God. It was the very opposite. We are meant to make the connection between 20:47 and 21:4. The widow had cast away her own livelihood, and for what? To make a golden building more shiny? (v5). If we look in the law of Moses we see that gifts to God were always in relation to the wealth of the giver, and even then, most of what was given was for food for the Levites and Priests. So Jesus was rightly upset by seeing this mis-use of God's temple. We are led to believe that the Scribes, by their teaching, encouraged people to give well above what they were able, and this poor widow was a victim. Did her household go without food as a result?

In chapter 11:38-52 Jesus had reprimanded them for this very thing, yet they hadn't done anything about it. Their luxurious lifestyle was at the expense of others: "woe to you Pharisees.. you tithe of mint and rue and pass by the justice and love of God... Woe to you lawyers for you load men with burdens hard to bear and you yourselves do not lift them with one finger". And what was Jesus' advice on that occasion? "Give alms of such things as you have" (11:41) not what you don't have. If the temple was being used to make widows desolate, then the temple would have to be removed. Do we ever demand of others more than they can give?

COPING WITH LAST DAY TEMPTATIONS

It is so easy to let the pressures of the moment take us away from God. There are so many things that appear to need to be done right now, that we can easily lose sight of the things that are really important. Jesus warned of this happening to us in the last days. He said, "Be careful or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkeness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth." (Luke 21:34-35) All these issues are a real problem to us today.

Dissipation is to be wasteful of both time and or possessions. It is a problem we all have in a throw away, pleasure seeking culture.

Drunkeness is also a big issue in society, and particularly with young people and binge drinkers.

And the cares of this life - the urgent and seemingly important things in life - also take us away from God.

It is just as Jesus described, and none of us are free from it. But Jesus did not leave us without hope because he gave us the solution. "Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man." (v.36) We need to carefully watch the way we live to avoid the temptations that lead us away from the Lord, and on top of that, we need to pray. With his help, and only with his help, we will be able to stand on the day of judgement.

21:20 When Jesus spoke these words the land of Israel was under the occupation of the Romans so one cannot help but wonder who the disciples would have thought would surround Jerusalem with armies. There was no other significant power around at that time and it would seem inconceivable that the Romans who were already in the land would encompass the city.