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 5-6.

Every time I read the regulations for the vow of the Nazirite I feel like there is something left out.  That something is why you would take the vow.  Having read the regulations every year for 8 years now, plus seeing how it was applied on occasion throughout the Old Testament, I have realized that someone would take this vow as a sign of dedication to God.  Usually, they would be dedicating some act, or period of time, in their life to God.  For example, the men the Apostle Paul accompanied to the Temple to fulfill their vow when he was arrested had almost certainly taken a vow of the Nazirite.  And the men who vowed to kill kill him had also probably taken the vow of the Nazirite.  I feel that we have lost something as a society that we no longer dedicate ourselves to God, either for certain periods of time or for an entire lifetime.  There are still those who do so, but they are less common, and even those, for the most part, seem to have less of an understanding of the solemnity of it than those of the past.  I am sure that there exist some who take such vows with the appropriate solemnity, but as a society we have lost the fear of God which normally brings it about.

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 3-4.

I will be perfectly honest, when I read today’s passage I had nothing to write.  So, I went back and read what I wrote last year.  Since I did not want to just reword what I wrote last year, that didn’t help much.  Fortunately, it got me started thinking.  As I mentioned last year, God claimed the Levites as His in place of the firstborn sons of the rest of the Israelites.  Now I find it interesting that the Levites served God in place of the “firstborn male offspring of every Israelite woman.”  Not the firstborn son of every Israelite man.  It did not matter who their father was, or how many other sons he had already had.  What mattered was that they were their mother’s first born son.  We can easily make too much of this, but it tells us something about the value mothers’ place on their children.

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 1-2.

The number of people counted here is used as one of the arguments that the Exodus never happened: such a large group of people would have left archeological records.  If the number of Israelite men, as translated, is accurate, the total number of Israelites who left Egypt would have almost certainly have been over 2 million people, counting women and children.  That would have been about a third of the population of Egypt at the time.  More importantly, the number listed here is inconsistent with the number of first born sons counted a few chapters after this.  However, in the Hebrew the numbers are written out with words, words that have more than one meaning depending on context.  In particular, the word translated as “thousand” has multiple meanings and is translated differently elsewhere in the Bible.  In this case, “thousand” is the most logical translation of the Hebrew word in this context.  So, it may be that the numbers as translated are not the numbers meant by the person who originally wrote this.  As I thought about this, I realized that the Hebrew of the Old Testament was written down over a period of around 1,000 years.  Think about how much the English language has change over the last 1,000 years.  I want to finish with this thought: there is no theological significance to the absolute numbers listed here (although I suspect the relative numbers of each tribe has some theological significance, that is, I believe there is significance from how large each tribe was relative to the other tribes).

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.

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 32-33.

The first time the tribes which settled east of the Jordan River were misunderstood was when they requested that land as their inheritance in the Promised Land.  Moses thought the request was because they did not want to have to face the people’s living on the other side of the Jordan.  They quickly made it clear that they were perfectly happy to cross the Jordan to fight with their fellow Israelites, they just did not want to live there.  However, the tribes desiring to settle east of the Jordan did not get defensive and angry.  They understood why Moses would question their motives and quickly acted to reassure him that they were not trying to weasel out of crossing the Jordan.  We should be prepared to follow their example.  When others have acted in bad faith, and others have acted in bad faith, we should not be surprised, or offended, if people question our motives.

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 30-31.

At first glance, the rules concerning vows seem to suggest that women have less right to bond themselves to a vow to God.  While there is some truth to that one should look a little closer at what it says.  The fact was that a woman in that society was generally economically dependent on either her father or her husband.  The result of that being that a woman could suffer significant economic harm if she was forced to keep a vow to which her father or husband objected.  Here is where it gets interesting.  If the father or husband failed to immediately object to the vow the vow would be binding, and if they later decided to object and then prevented her from fulfilling the vow, THEY would be responsible for breaking the vow as if they had made it themselves.  In that day, the father or husband of a woman had the ability to force the woman to break the vow.  Whether that was right or wrong is irrelevant.  This codifies their responsibility to decide immediately whether or not they would do so.  Without this, women would have trouble entering into business agreements.  I have always read this to mean that we today should not enter into binding agreements without the knowledge and consent of our spouse.

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 had Moses appoint Joshua as his successor, He divided He divided secular and religious authority.  Joshua had authority over the people, but when guidance was needed from God, he needed to go to Eliazar, the high priest.  However, while Joshua needed to go to Eliazar to consult God for guidance, the arrangement did not give Eliazar authority over Joshua.  Instead, when Joshua needed guidance from the Lord he would go to Eliazar and Eliazar would use the Urim to cast lots to determine God’s will.  We do not know exactly what the Urim was,, which is probably a good thing since people would substitute a device which resembled it for actually seeking God’s will.  The important thing was not what was used to determine God’s will, but that it was done publicly, or, at least, in front of Joshua.  This meant that Eliazar could not just put forward his own decision and claim that it was God’s will.  So, even in a society where the laws of the land were intended to be those laid down by God, the secular authorities were not given the power to determine God’s will, but the religious authorities were not given the power to dictate to the secular authorities.  Not all decisions require us to inquire after God’s will, but we should be careful not to substitute  someone’s will for that of God.

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 19-21.

Today’s passage describes the way to make the water of purification and how it was to be used.  Reading the recipe for the water of purification reminds me of how soap is made.  It does not seem quite like it would work, but I wonder if that is a result of bad translation from the Hebrew.  In particular, Ancient Hebrew had a very limited vocabulary relative to modern languages.  In addition, the meaning of certain procedures change over time.  As an example, I have some friends who take recipes they have found from pre-1600 and attempt to figure out how to prepare the food described in them.  They have discovered that the word for certain food items refer to a different item today than they did when the recipe was written (sometimes because we know that the food item referred to by that word today was not known in the area where and when the recipe was written).  They have also discovered that the term used for certain cooking methods meant something different when the recipe was written (sometimes because the method referred to today was not technologically possible then).  So, that being said, the ingredients listed for the water of purification are the ingredients for making a soap with antiseptic properties,

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.

Despite the miraculous ways in which God had brought them out of Egypt and provided for them in the wilderness, the Israelites listened to and trusted the 10 spies who told them that the people of the Promised Land were to powerful for them to overcome.  They went so far as to consider stoning Caleb and Joshua for trying to convince them to trust God.  They were only stopped by the manifestation of God’s presence over the Tabernacle.  Then, despite having been told that God would no longer be with them if they went into the Promised Land at this time, they decided to do so anyway.  This passage always reminds me that the actions God directs us to undertake often have an expiration date.  If we delay in following God’s direction, it may be too late for that action to be successful.

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.

Yesterday I wrote about the fiery cloud which led the people of Israel through the wilderness.  Yet despite that daily evidence of God’s presence with them, today we read that the Israelites complained about the food which God provided them.  Even Moses complained to God (although his complaint was mostly about having to deal with the rest of the Israelites).  There are two lessons here.  The Israelites complained because they chose to remember only the good parts about their time in Egypt.  When they thought about the things in Egypt which they missed, they failed to remind themselves why they had given those things up.  As for Moses’ complaint, that arose from him not delegating any of his responsibilities.  He tried to do it all himself, which no one could have done.  Many leaders suffer burnout just as Moses did because they do not recruit others to carry some of the burden with them.

Then Aaron and Miriam complained about Moses’ authority.  When Moses began delegating some of his authority to the 70 elders, Aaron and Miriam felt slighted.  Before Moses chose the 70 elders, for all intents and purposes, Miriam and Aaron, as his siblings and the only people to whom he had delegated any power, had equal power with Moses.  When it was just the three of them, the people had to assume that anything Miriam or Aaron said represented what Moses said.  The 70 elders were a small enough group to go directly to Moses for clarification if they thought something Miriam or Aaron said did not match what Moses had said.  So, despite the continual evidence of God’s presence and care, the Israelites, even the highest among them, complained and whined about what God provided for them.