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.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Numbers 16-18.

This is my third attempt at starting to write today’s blog.  Yesterday, I wrote about the danger of taking a position just because the majority of the “experts” on the subject take that position.  And then trying to silence those experts who argue against that position without listening to their arguments.  Today’s passage contains a warning about rebelling against God’s chosen leader(s).  Korah attempted to usurp Moses’ authority by claiming that all people were equal (and therefore the people should follow him instead of following Moses).  Dathan and Abiram refused to make their case against Moses before the people, arguing that Moses had no authority to demand that they do so.   In a way, this rebellion was much the same as the one I discussed yesterday.  Those in the wrong appealed to emotions and feelings, refusing to make their case with reason and logic (although in today’s case, they refused to stand before God and the people and ask God to make His will known between them and Moses).

I would like to expand on this by taking note that I often seek to see if there are natural explanations for miraculous happenings in the Bible (not that I do not believe in miracles, merely that God often chooses to use the laws of nature to display His power).  In this case, I often wonder if this rebellion started with Moses telling those involved not to camp on the area which they chose, and their rebellion initially resulting from their belief that he had no right to tell them where to camp.  Moses had spent about 40 years as a shepherd in the Sinai region and I could easily see him knowing that the ground upon which they camped only appeared to be stable, that it would collapse under the weight of their numbers and goods after a short period of time.  When Moses told them to move their camp they got angry because, being a busy man, he did not take to time to explain and show them why it was not safe to camp there.

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

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Numbers 14-15.

In yesterday’s passage Moses sent twelve men, one from each tribe, to explore the land of Canaan.  Ten of those explorers reported that while the land was indeed rich, the people living there were too powerful for the Israelites.  Caleb and Joshua disagreed.  The people were so frightened by what the other ten explorers reported that they began planning to appoint a leader to take them back to Egypt.  When Joshua and Caleb continued to argue that God could deliver the people of the land into their hands, the people started talking about stoning the two of them.  The people of Israel listened to their experts, to the people who knew the land they were about to enter.  Over 80% of those experts agreed invading the land of Canaan would be a bad idea.  When the remaining experts tried to explain what the other experts were overlooking, the people attempted to silence them for spreading “misinformation”.  The majority of the experts told them they should be afraid, so they were afraid.  They did not listen to the arguments Joshua and Caleb made as to why they should not be afraid and evaluate whether those arguments were valid or not.  Most of the time, the advice given by the majority of those who have studied the situation will be correct, but sometimes, as in this situation, they will be disastrously wrong.  You cannot tell which it is unless you listen to the arguments the dissenters make explaining why they disagree with the majority.

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

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Numbers 11-13.

Today’s passage recounts several occasions where trouble broke out among the people of Israel.  Before today I never noticed that the passage indicates that a part of the fault for these problems belonged to Moses.  First, some of the discontent among the people resulted from Moses failing to set up a system for the people to resolve conflicts and report their discontent.  When the people began complaining about the lack of variety in their diet, Moses recognized that he could not carry the burden alone and cried out to God for help.  God answered Moses by pouring His Spirit out on 70 leaders of the people chosen by Moses.  Then we have an incident where Miriam and Aaron complain about Moses getting all of the credit for leading the people (complaints which the passage tells us came about because Moses had married a non-Israelite).  The writer chooses this point to tell us that Moses was a very humble man.  I read this as telling us that Moses was hesitant to shut down arguments for another course of action after a decision had been reached.  Now I want to be clear, I do not think that Moses was to blame for these incidents, merely that there were things he could have done differently which may have ameliorated the discontent.  For example, Miriam and Aaron, who complained about Moses getting all of the credit for speaking with God, could have stepped up and established a team like the 70 leaders whom Moses appointed when things got to be too much for him.   For that matter, the people could have appointed a team like that to report to Moses.  So, while Moses could have done things better as a leader, those who followed him are to blame for not making up for his shortcomings (and when I say “shortcomings” I do not mean that someone else would have been better, every human being has ways in which they fall short of this sort of leadership task).

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

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Numbers 8-10.

I never thought about it before, but today I was struck by the mention that the gold lampstand in the Tabernacle was made of hammered gold.  Why say “hammered gold” and not just “gold”?  Later in today’s passage it describes the trumpets as being made out of hammered silver.   The writer clearly thinks it was important that his audience know that not only were these things made out of gold and silver, but that they were hammered into shape, not cast.  When I started writing this, I was not planning on saying any more about it than that.  However, as I wrote the above I started trying to determine what the significance could possibly be.  So, I did a little Internet research and discovered that hammered precious metals  are generally stronger and more durable (I am oversimplifying a little bit by phrasing it that way) than when the same metals are cast into shape.  So, the writer was telling his readers that these items were made as durable as possible for the tasks for which they were created.  So, what does that mean for us?  So, just as the lampstand and the trumpets were hammered to make them stronger in their service to God, we too will be hammered from time to time to make us stronger in our service to God.

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