Today, I am reading and commenting on  Numbers 34-36.

Some see great significance in the borders of Israel as laid out here by Moses, and I will not say that they are mistaken.  However, I have never been able to see it that way.  On the other hand, I find significance in the way in which Moses instructed them to divide up the land.  Moses laid out a procedure to ensure that the division was fair, and was seen by everyone as fair.  The land was to be divided up by lot (I have always assumed that they used the Urim and Thummim) by Eleazar and Joshua with a witness from the leadership of each tribe.  I am sometimes surprised how often we see examples in the Bible which demonstrate that decisions must not only be seen to be made with integrity, but must be made so that everyone can tell that they were made with integrity.  I want to reiterate.  It is just as important that people perceive that leadership makes decisions with integrity as it is that leadership make those decisions with integrity.  If people perceive that leaders made a decision with impropriety it does not matter if the leaders had actually made the decision without any impropriety.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Numbers 32-33.

There are two ways that one can read the request from the Reubenites and the Gadites regarding settling in Gilead, or perhaps three.  Perhaps, Moses interpreted their request correctly, they were asking to not need to take part in the invasion of the Promised Land.  In that case, Moses was right to be angry with them.  Or, perhaps, they only meant to ask for what they got.  They were merely asking for the territory of Gilead to be theirs while they sent their fighters to aid the rest of the Israelites in taking the Promised Land.  The final possibility is that they had not thought about what it would mean relative to fighting with the rest of Israel across the Jordan if their request was granted.

I think the last is most likely what was going on here.  Moses overreacted to their request, because they did not intend to not assist the rest of Israel.  On the other hand, if Moses had granted their request without first getting their agreement to it being conditional on aiding the rest of Israel, there would have been significant sentiment among those tribes which settled east of the Jordan River to not fight with the rest of Israel on the other side.  In any case, this passage shows us the importance of making expectations clear.  The Reubenites and Gadites had not clearly laid out their expectations and, as a result, Moses thought they were trying to back out of entering the Promised Land.  We also see how a willingness to clarify your position can end a dispute.

There is one other thing I want to note.  The land which these tribes chose as their inheritance was pretty much the land which Lot chose when his herders and Abraham’s herders were in conflict and Abraham gave him first choice which way to go.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Numbers 30-31.

The commands about vows given here are often used to make the case that the Bible is sexist, or even misogynistic.  However, let’s look at the situation.  These commands were given in a society where women had limited control over their economic situation.  One can argue that this was the case because of commands given in other places  (I do not believe that to be the case), but that does not change the fact that these commands protect women in such a society.  So, what do we learn here?  If a woman makes a vow, when her father or husband (whichever has control over her economic situation) hears that she has made this vow if he does not immediately reject the vow, the vow is binding.  That means that he is obligated to free up the economic resources needed to fulfill the vow and must allow her to take the actions specified in the vow.

As a result of this command, a woman can enter into a business deal, or other sort of deal.  Let us look at the options.  Option one: woman’s vows are exactly the same as for men.  In that society, her father/husband could say that she had entered into the vow, but he had not, so no economic resources had been committed (he controlled the resources) and he could forbid her to take whatever actions the vow called for…and he could do this after the person with whom the vow was entered had delivered their end of the agreement.  Option two: nothing is said about women making vows.  In this second option, women could not enter into binding agreements.

We live in a completely different society today and, as the Jerusalem Council determined, we no longer need live by these laws (one might make an argument about that regarding Jewish Christians, but that is for another time and place).  However, a wife should still not enter into a vow without her husband’s agreement…and a husband should not enter into a vow without his wife’s agreement (of course, there is also Jesus’ teaching on vows to be considered as well).

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Numbers 27-29.

When God told Moses it was time for him to die, he was concerned about appointing a successor to lead the people.  God told him to commission Joshua for the role.  Now, this would have come as no surprise to anyone: Joshua had been Moses’ assistant since before Mt Sinai (perhaps going all the way back to Egypt. the first time Joshua is mentioned he is already established as Moses’ assistant).  Joshua had not only been Moses’ assistant, he had been commander of the Israelite army under Moses. However, Joshua was commissioned to be leader in one way, one very important way, that was different from Moses’ role.  Joshua was not going to be the intermediary between the people and God.  That role was going to be filled by Aaron’s son, Eleazar, who was now high priest.

So, the leadership setup to succeed Moses gives us some clear lessons on how leadership should be structured for an ongoing organization.  Really, it gives us a twofold model.  First, every leader needs for there to be someone who can hold them accountable.  Second, leadership naturally divides between administrative and spiritual, but the two must work together.  We will see in the Book of Joshua with the treaty with the Gibeonites what can go wrong if the Administrative leadership fails to seek God’s guidance from the spiritual leadership.  I have seen throughout my lifetime numerous examples where organizations fail because the spiritual leadership failed to allow those with administrative gifts to take charge in areas which required such gifts. And history is replete with examples of how power has corrupted those who had no one to hold them accountable.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Numbers 25-26.

Every time I read the account of the Israelites being seduced into worship of Baal of Peor I am not quite sure what to make of it. It seems a bit harsh, but that’s not what I have trouble following.  Basically, there seems to be more going on here than what is written.  So, we are told that the Israelites began worshiping the gods of the Midianites, that God told Moses what to do about it, and that Moses gathered the judges he had appointed to tell them what to do about it.  However, when it describes the man who brought a Midianite woman to his tent it seems to imply that a large group of people had gathered to mourn. Further, after Phinehas killed the Israelite and the woman he had taken to his tent, it tells us that the plague was stopped.

So, it suggests to me that the people had gathered in assembly to ask God what to do about the plague.  Further, the phrasing suggests to me that this assembly went on for several days such that the man who brought the Midianite woman to his tent was fully aware that he was acting in defiance of this assembly. It requires a certain brazenness to openly flout the moral sensibilities of the people in front of them the way that he did.  He was more or less daring them to do anything about his actions, a dare which Phinehas took.  I want to note that the man whom Phinehas killed was a leader of the tribe of Simeon, a role which he thought allowed him to be exempt from the rules applied to others.  I want to make note of one other thing which I have never quite understood, the writer thought we should know the name, and family, of the Israelite man and Midianite woman whom Phinehas killed for their sin.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Numbers 22-24.

I think we need to spend more time thinking about what happened when Balak’s second set of messengers went to Balaam.  The second time, God told Balaam to go with them.  Yet, God was angry with Balaam and sent an angel to kill him for going with them.  What is going on here? Why did God get angry for Balaam doing what He had told him to do? So, when Balak’s first messengers arrived, Balaam consulted with God and told Him that Balak wanted him to curse some people.  God told Balaam that the people Balak wanted cursed had been blessed and could not be cursed.  It would have been one thing for Balaam to inquire of God for the second messengers if God had merely told him not to go with the first messengers.  But that was not what God had told Balaam.  God had told Balaam that the people Balak wanted cursed were blessed.  Balaam knew why God did not want him to respond to Balak’s summons.  We need to learn to recognize the difference between when God says “No” and when He says “Wait.: