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

I struggled with what to write about today’s passage until the second or third time I read this verse:

Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.

It struck me that this represents an important principle that applies to how we look at others.  The principle here is that we should not believe something negative about someone unless those telling us saw them do it.  Even then, we should not believe it if there is only one person who saw it, even if we are that one person.  We need to remember that sometimes what we see is not what happened.  Our view may have been obscured, or something relevant to events may have happened before we started looking.  Or, maybe our own bias has caused us to interpret someone’s action incorrectly.   So, we need to give people the benefit of the doubt.

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

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

As part of his final instructions to the Israelites before his death, Moses laid out the borders of the land they would inherit in Canaan.  He, also, assigned Eleazar and Joshua to assign the portions of that land to the various clans and tribes of the Israelites.  Then, Moses assigned one leader from each of the tribes who had not already been given land east of the Jordan River to assist Eleazar and Joshua.  I find it interesting that this reads to me like the division would take place in the near future, yet Joshua did not undertake this process until well into his time of leadership.  Further, we learn in the Book of Judges that the tribe of Dan did not claim their land until well after Joshua’s death.  I am not quite sure why these two accounts of how the land was divided read so differently.  When I read the Joshua account carefully I am not sure it does not describe the same process as described here, just from a different perspective.

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

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 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.

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 34-36.

I have always found the idea of the Cities of Refuge interesting.  There are a couple of interesting points.  The Cities of Refuge were not an option for those who intentionally killed someone else.  In fact, there is no distinction between planning out and killing someone and killing someone in the heat of the moment.  Both were capital crimes.  Only when the death was an accident, and clearly an accident, did the one who killed another have the option of fleeing to a city of refuge to live.  Also of interest, not only was the family of the victim free to kill the person who killed another if they caught them outside of a City of Refuge, they were obligated to do so.  There was a price to be paid for taking a human life, even if it was done by accident.  Of course, there was also the requirement of more than one witness before taking that life.  In light of the passage’s encouragement of the family of the victim taking the life of the perpetrator that is worth some thought.  It was not enough that you had seen them commit the crime, you still needed a second witness.  We need to remember that what we see is not always what happened.  Interpreting events in light of what a witness with a different perspective saw may help us better understand the circumstances we wish to resolve.