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.:

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 16-18.

Yesterday I looked at the problem with relying on experts.  Today, we see the opposite problem, rebelling against God’s chosen leaders.  Korah and his allies started from a valid premise: all of God’s people are equal.  But they took it too far.  They used this premise to argue that Moses should not be the leader.  So, where does it become obvious that they have it wrong?  Korah was not arguing that there should not be a leader.  He was arguing that HE should be the leader in Moses’ place.  Further, he was not arguing this on the basis of how he would be better than Moses.  He was arguing that Moses had failed to deliver on his promises.  So, Korah argued that he should be leader because Moses was no better than anyone else and had failed.  Korah did not offer an alternative plan of action, merely dissatisfaction with Moses’ leadership.  Selecting a leader because he is not the other guy always ends badly.

I want to say that both yesterday and today I started out with a clear idea of what I wanted to write and how it would come out.  Neither came out clearly where I planned for them to.

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 14-15.

Ten of the twelve spies who the Israelites sent into the Promised Land to report on it told them that the people of the land were too strong for them.  In fact, when Joshua and Caleb argued that God could and would give them the land, they considered stoning them for it.  Think about that, ten of the twelve “experts” were wrong.  Well, not exactly wrong, just looking at it wrong.  They were right when they said that the people of the land were stronger than the Israelites, but they were not taking God into account.  The people listened to the majority of the “experts”.  Not only did 10 out of the 12 experts agree, one of those who disagreed was a flunky to Moses.  So, there were ten experts who told the people that they were not as strong as the people of the land.  Those ten experts were correct, but they were not telling the whole story. Caleb and Joshua told the people to trust God and not to worry.  The people of Israel failed to compare what the experts told them to their own experience.  Their own experience showed that God could provide when it seemed impossible.  This was only around two years from when God had sent the Plagues on Egypt.  When we listen to the experts let us be sure to measure what they say against our own experience, that will allow us to recognize the ones who get it right, even when they are in the minority (and they usually are in the minority).

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 11-13.

My first reaction to reading the story of the quail was to think, “How often have I been guilty of what the Children of Israel did here?”  It also seemed to me that it is hard to avoid.  When times are hard and life consists of the same thing over and over again, it is just human nature to desire something different.  However, then I realized that the desire for something different was not their sin.  Their sin was in complaining about what God had provided.  They complained because they did not have the luxuries which they had experienced and desired to go back to the terrible situation which they had begged God to rescue them from.  They did not beg God for some variety.  They complained that He had rescued them from a terrible situation because their new life did not include the luxuries of that previous life.  So, their sin here was not the desire for more variety than God was providing them.  It was not even the fact that they were ungrateful for the way in which God had provided for them (although that is also a sin which we should avoid).  No, their sin was complaining that God had not provided them with variety and wishing to be back in the situation from which He had rescued them.  Asking God, even pleading with Him, to relieve the tedium of your life is not a sin, but complaining about the ways in which He has provided for you is.

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 8-10.

In the dedication of the Levites described here I continue to see foreshadowing of Jesus.  God set Jesus apart as His similar to the way He had the Israelites set the Levites apart as His.  The Levites were presented to God as a wave offering, whereas Jesus was treated as an offering fully dedicated to God.  Yet, with the Resurrection God returned Jesus to us as if He had been a wave offering.

I have written on this in previous years, but I find the actions of those who realized that they could not celebrate the Passover along with the rest of Israel instructive.  They did not just say to themselves, “Oh well, we can’t celebrate Passover because we had to handle a dead body.”  No, they went to Moses and asked what they could do.  They desperately wished to take part in this celebration of God’s power and of unity with their fellows.  God replied through Moses that not celebrating the Passover was not an option.  Instead, those who, for one reason or another, were legitimately unable to celebrate the Passover at the appointed time were to do so one month later.  In addition, God used this opportunity to remind the people of Israel, and us, that the same rules and regulations should apply to everyone.  The only exception we find to this is one that runs counter to what we as humans so often do: the rulers and leaders sometimes have stricter, more exacting, rules to follow than the common man, not special exemptions to the rules which apply to everyone else.