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

Here we have an example of the idea that leaders need to avoid the appearance of impropriety when making an important decision.  In this case, Eleazar and Joshua were to divide the land up among the remaining nine and a half tribes by lot.  However, they were to be assisted by someone from each of the tribes receiving land.  This allowed input from each of the tribes.  Perhaps as importantly, each tribe had a representative present to see that the division was done impartially.  There was one other aspect of the way in which the land was divided which I want to comment on.  The Levites were scattered among the other tribes.  They were to be given towns withing the inheritance given to the other tribes.  The number of towns given from each of the other tribes was to be in proportion to how much land was given to that tribe.  This spread those who were to dedicate their lives to learning and teaching God’s Law throughout the land.

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.

This passage says that when  a man takes a vow or an oath he must fulfill that oath.  However, if a woman does the same her husband, or father if she is not yet married, may nullify her oath.  This seems rather sexist, until one realizes that this merely codifies something which was already true.  In that culture and society, a woman’s husband, or her father if she is not yet married, controlled all of her assets, so he could accept the benefits and agreement she entered and then claim he did not agree to give up whatever assets she had sworn to exchange for that benefit and decline to do so.  This passage declares that as soon as he learned of the agreement, of the vow or oath the woman had sworn, her husband had to reject it and if he did not do so immediately, the vow or oath was binding upon him.  So, while a man could not make an oath binding his wife, a woman could make an oath which would bind her husband, unless he repudiated it as soon as he learned of it.  Of course the most important thing about this passage is that, whichever way you look at this passage (as giving a woman’s husband veto power over her decisions, or as allowing a woman to bind her husband to her oath’s) it does not apply to those under the New Covenant introduced by Jesus’ death and resurrection.

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

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

As a leader, Moses had his shortcomings, but he seemed to learn from his mistakes.  However, there was one mistake which is common to leaders similar to Moses that he did not make.  Moses prepared for a successor.  Joshua had been his aid since before the Israelites arrived at Mount Sinai, possibly going back to before the Israelites left Egypt.   Not only did Moses start training a successor as soon as he began to lead the Israelites, when it came time to pass on his leadership he recognized the value in separating religious and secular leadership.  Part of the commissioning of Joshua as Moses’ successor was the command that Joshua would consult with Eleazar when he needed God’s guidance.  Moses had always sought God’s guidance directly, but Joshua was instructed to consult with the high priest when he needed God’s guidance in leading the people.  By dividing the leadership of the Israelites in this manner, Moses ensured that there would be someone who could hold Joshua accountable.  Every organization needs a mechanism to hold its leadership accountable if it is going to survive for the long term.

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

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

I start a new job today and am unsure how that will impact my ability to continue this blog in the short term.  I entries completed about a week in advance at the moment (usually I am about two days in advance).  Hopefully that will give me enough time to figure out how to work out my new schedule to keep this going without interruption.

When Balak’s plan to curse the Israelites failed, the Moabites began seducing the Israelite men into worshiping their god, Baal of Peor.  It is worth noting that it appears that Baal did not refer to an individual deity, but instead to the chief god of a geographical location so that the Baal of Peor was a distinct god from Baal of Eshkalom (although evidence suggests that the worship practices for each were similar if not the same).  This fact may explain why Balak in yesterday’s passage took Balaam to multiple sites in his attempt to have Balaam curse the Israelites, Balak may have thought that the different sites would fall under a different god to whom Balaam could appeal to curse the Israelites.  In any case, the Israelites suffered a plague of some kind which resulted from the sexual immorality which they practiced with Midianite (and perhaps Moabite) women.  The plague ended when Phinehas (Aaron’s grandson) killed a family leader from the tribe of Simeon and the Midianite woman whom he was having sex with practically in front of the assembly mourning the immorality of the Israelites.   I am somewhat confused by the fact that the passage begins by saying that it was Moabite women who led the Israelite men into sexual immorality, but then God tells Moses that the Israelites should treat the Midianites as enemies because they had deceived the Israelites into worshiping Baal of Peor.  I have read several explanations for this transition, but not of them are satisfying.  Another one occurred to me today.  Perhaps, while it was the Moabite women who began using sex to convince Israelite men to take part in the worship of Baal of Peaor, the Midianite women may have been instrumental in convincing the Israelites that Baal of Peor and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were interchangeable.   There are several places in the Bible where we see indications that the Midianites shared more cultural similarities with the Israelites than other peoples in the area, and that they possessed more knowledge of the God of Abraham than the other peoples as well (Moses’ father-in-law was a Midianite priest of God).

I use 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 am starting a new job tomorrow which may make this more difficult to keep up to date.  Fortunately, I am several days ahead, hopefully far enough to give me time to adjust to my new schedule without missing any days for this blog.

The story of Balaam and his donkey has always confused me.  The reason I am confused is that I do not understand why God was angry with Balaam for accompanying Balak’s messengers.  As we read here, when Balak’s first set of messengers arrived Balaam consulted God, and when God told him not to go with them, he sent them on their way.   When the second set of messengers arrived Balaam told them he could do nothing beyond what God commanded him to do, but invited them to spend the night.  This second time God told him to go with Balak’s messengers.  Then, when Balaam set out, God sent an angel with a sword to oppose him.  The standard interpretation is that God intended for the angel to slay Balaam, but the intervention of Balaam’s donkey changed His mind.  Suppose instead that God planned for the donkey to avoid the angel waiting in Balaam’s path.  Perhaps God sent the angel to remind Balaam to only say what God directed him to say.  Interestingly enough, the lesson does not appear to have “stuck”, the way I read the account about the third time Balaam offered sacrifices provided by Balak, he intended to bypass requesting God’s inspiration and was just going to say something which would please Balak, except God intervened and did not give him that option.

I also find Balak’s actions curious.  Despite Balaam telling Balak that he could only speak what God told him to speak, Balak took Balaam to two other locations to curse the Israelites after Balaam blessed them from the first location.  I can think of two possible explanations.  The first being that he thought that perhaps he could trick God into not realizing that it was the Israelites when seen from a different perspective.  The other being that Balak thought that Balaam appealed to local gods in order to curse and that if he took Balaam to another place, Balaam could appeal to a different god in order to curse the Israelites.  Actually, I can think of a third possibility, perhaps Balak thought that if he could take Balaam to the right place, he could curse the Israelites without God knowing what he was doing.  Whatever Balak was thinking, he clearly thought that he could find a way around God’s will.

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

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Numbers 19-21.

I want to touch on a couple things from today’s passage.  I find it interesting that when Miriam died, the passage records where she was buried, but no such record was noted for Aaron.   When Aaron was about to die, Moses, Aaron, and Aaron’s son Eleazar went up Mount Hor and left Aaron’s body there when he died.  While the place where Aaron’s body was left is as closely documented here as where Miriam’s body was buried, all of the Israelites at the time knew where Miriam’s body was, but only Moses and Eleazar knew where Aaron’s body was left.   I am convinced that God had them do it this way so that the Israelites would not make a shrine out of Aaron’s grave.  I am not sure why a similar precaution was not thought necessary for Miriam’s grave.

I also like thinking about the differences between the kings the Israelites encountered in today’s passage.  First, when the Israelites approached Edom, they requested permission to pass through Edom’s lands and the king of Edom (who is unidentified) refused them permission and mustered his army to repel them.  However the king of Edom did not attack the Israelites.  Then the king of Arad (also unidentified) attacked the Israelites and took some of them captive (probably as slaves).  The Israelites destroyed the cities and towns of Arad, but did not occupy the territory, although they would do so after the conquest under Joshua.  Finally, we have the kings, Sihon and Og.  These last two attacked the Israelites to prevent their passage through their lands.  The Israelites defeated them and settled in their lands.  I have always wondered what would have happened if Sihon and Og had reacted the same way that the king of Edom had.  The Israelites sent a request to Sihon similar to the one they sent to the king of Edom.  Rather than reply with a “No”, Sihon chose to attack the Israelites.  When Sihon was defeated and the Israelites started to move towards the land which Og controlled, Og attacked them without waiting for them to send him a message.

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