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.

    The passage begins by laying out the boundaries of the territory to be divided up among the people of Israel. Even scholars skeptical of the authorship claims made in the Bible and by tradition date the Book of Numbers to the 6th Century BC. In addition, the earliest complete copy of the Book of Numbers still in existence dates to the 4th Century AD. Which means that, despite the claims of many Muslims, the claim of the Jewish people to the land of Palestine predates the existence of Islam (that does not necessarily make their claim binding, that is another argument entirely). From time to time, Muslims attempt to deny that Jews have any historical connection to the land of Palestine. Such claims can be dismissed out of hand based on this passage, and numerous other passages which predate the founding of Islam. The other claim made to deny Jewish claims to the land of Palestine is that modern Jews are not related to the Jews of Biblical times. This claim is difficult to prove untrue, but I am satisfied that there is no evidence proving it true (and much evidence which supports the connection of modern Jews to Biblical Jews). I want to finish by making clear that the Biblical texts do not provide Jews with a legal claim to the land of Palestine (that is provided by the British Mandate for Palestine).

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 members of the tribes of Reuben and Gad wished to settle in the land the people of Israel had conquered east of the Jordan River. Moses assumed that their reason was because they were afraid to face the people then living in the land of Canaan in battle. However, they made clear that they were perfectly willing to go to battle in the land of Canaan along with the other Israelites, but that they did not wish to migrate across the river. Moses was guilty of jumping to conclusions. It is worth noting that the Reubenites and the Gadites did not get offended when Moses did this. They merely corrected Moses’ misunderstanding. They did not even get offended by Moses repeating that they would be in the wrong if they did not help their fellow Israelites conquer the land of Canaan.
    There are important lessons here for us for dealing with situations where misunderstandings occur. When our motives are misunderstood, we should calmly explain what our true thinking is. On the other side, when someone comes to us telling us that we have misunderstood them, we should take them at their word. In addition, both sides were willing to restate what is was to which they had agreed. Finally, Moses explained the agreement he had reached with the two tribes to a third party in front of them. This final step ensures that the everyone is on the same page about what has been agreed.

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.

    I really struggled with what to make of this passage on taking an oath. Here it says that if a man takes an oath, he is stuck with it, but if a woman does so, she can get either her father or her husband to nullify it for her (as long as they were not aware of it before she wants out). That is an oversimplification and turns the way we would normally read this passage on its head, but it has some truth to it. The people for whom this passage was originally written would have read this as a woman not having the right to commit herself to an oath against her father’s, or her husband’s, wishes. They would have been correct.
    Nevertheless, the reading of it I started the previous paragraph with teaches us an important lesson. None of us, man or woman, should commit themselves to a binding course of action without first having someone else (father/mother, husband/wife, trusted friend) go over with us our reasons for, and the consequences of, that decision. This passage gave women an out, at the expense of them having the authority to make decisions for themselves. That is another lesson for us. We can only gain protection from the consequences of our actions by yielding up some of our freedom. Usually, the amount of freedom we give up is greater than the protection we receive.

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.

    The first part of this passage lays out what happens to a man’s property if he dies with no sons. It is a little more complicated than that because the inheritance being referred to was land which was to be given to the man, and his descendants, from land which the people of Israel did not yet control. The situation from a case brought before Moses by the daughters of a man who had no sons. The passage illustrates the importance of having a clear system for how our property and interests will be divided up when we are no longer around to manage them.

    When God declared to Moses that he would soon die, Moses asked God to appoint someone to take his place. Now Moses had a candidate in mind for this role because Joshua had been his assistant since they left Egypt. This does not indicate that Moses’ request of God was perfunctory. God did indeed choose Joshua for the leadership role. However, God did not give Joshua the same authority which He had given Moses. When Moses needed guidance from God, he went directly to God and asked. Joshua, on the other hand, was instructed to go to Eleazar the priest when he needed guidance from God. Eleazar would then consult with God using the Urim (an object which is never clearly described).
    This suggests that Joshua was someone who had a firm grasp of tactics and strategy, and a gift for getting people to follow his lead, but perhaps a limited ability to discern what was the right thing to do in circumstances where there was grey areas. However, it also suggests that while Eleazar was apparently gifted at discerning God’s will in cases where the situation required a judgment call he was limited in his ability to lead people and make tactical and strategic decisions. This division of duties between Joshua and Eleazar is a lesson to those who are in leadership. It is important to know your own strengths and weaknesses, and those of the people around you. Share power with those whose gifts compliment your own. Seek out those who have strengths which compensate for your weaknesses.

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.

    Shortly after the incident with Balak and Balaam the Israelites camped near Shittim (or The Acacia Grove). While they were camped there some of the Israelite men began having sexual relations with Moabite women. These men began attending sacrifices and feasts honoring the Moabite gods. I am going to guess from the context that to some degree they invited their friends along. It got to the point where men were not even hiding their behavior. It got to the point where one man brazenly took such a woman into his tent in front of the leadership of the entire people who were gathered to decide what to do about it.
    The man referenced in this story who was killed by Phinehas attitude was, “It’s my life. I will live it the way I want. There is nothing you can do to stop me.” Phinehas proved him wrong. I am not advocating that we imitate Phinehas, but as God’s people we need to take a stand against sexual immorality, especially when such immorality leads to idolatry. As I am writing this, I know the point I am trying to make, but I keep wanting to rewrite what I have written because there is so much which needs to be clarified. We need to take a strong stand against sexual immorality (and other sins) among believers and yet we need to deal lovingly with those struggling to overcome sin. A clear point here is that the man Phinehas killed was not only not struggling to overcome sin, he was flaunting his sin in the face of the elders (I want to repeat that I do not think that we are called to kill sinners, not even those who flaunt their sin).