In this chapter, the LORD reiterates the calendar of burnt offerings.
This chapter reminds us of the various sacrifices that have been commanded in various parts of the bible. In particular, it mentions: the daily offering, the weekly Sabbath offering, the monthly offering (more on this below), the Passover and the Feast of Weeks. The next chapter will conclude with the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) and lastly, the Feast of Booths (Sukkot). These two chapters should be viewed as one long dialogue and between them they list all of the significant festivals of the Hebrew year. I mention this because the first chapter would look incomplete if we saw that it only contained the festivals up through the Feast of Weeks.
Anyway, we can observe right away that this chapter is very similar to Lev 23 (I would recommend reading my commentary on this chapter for background) in how it lays out all of the festivals, even using the same order, which appears to be chronological. This chapter starts by listing the offerings that are made all year round: the daily, weekly and monthly offerings. Then it lists the annual offerings, starting at the beginning of the year with Passover and ending in the next chapter with the Feast of Booths. Virtually everything is the same between these two chapters.
Lev 23 is a list of the "appointed feasts" of Israel, while the current chapter is a list of the various scheduled sacrifices to be made at the tabernacle. For this reason, the list in Lev 23 does not include the ordained sacrifices for each celebration, while this chapter does. What's more interesting is that what sacrifice Lev 23 does mention, for the Feast of Weeks, does not match the sacrifices described in this chapter. Lev 23:12-13 mentions sacrificing a single male lamb with some oil, grain and wine, while this chapter includes a variety of sacrifices for the same feast: two bulls, a ram, seven male lambs and a male goat, plus the customary grain, oil and wine in varying quantities.
It's not clear to me why there is a discrepancy: perhaps this chapter is expanding or revising on the sacrifices mentioned in Lev 23. As I said, Lev 23 is not intended as a reference guide to the sacrifices for these festivals: it's pretty clear this chapter is the reference guide, which makes its subject matter highly Levitical (which is true of other parts of Numbers as well, like Num 18-19. So this chapter and the chapter to follow are both Levitical-style chapters.
As we can see these two lists here and in Lev 23 are substantially the same, which goes to show that every single festival involves animal sacrifice. There are many reasons for this. Animal sacrifice is part of the ritual of atonement through the shedding of blood. As a semi-nomadic society, they have lots of livestock which makes these sacrifices convenient.
Also, many of these festivals are meant to be celebrations, in particular the Feast of Trumpets, the Feast of Weeks (or first fruits) and the Feast of Booths. Most recently in Num 25 we saw that religious celebrations and feasts (i.e. the eating of large meals and particularly meat) are tightly integrated. Therefore we can definitely conclude that these various celebrations involved lots of sacrifices. I should be clear, however, that the sacrifices in these chapters are burnt offerings which would not be eaten by the public at large. A small portion is given to the priest, but that's it. Rather, the burnt offerings would be accompanied by large quantities of peace offerings and freewill offerings which would be consumed by the celebrants. The burnt offering was probably intended as "God's portion" of the feast, in some fashion.
For all of these reasons and possibly more, the rituals of the tabernacle are dominated by animal sacrifice. The list in this chapter has two additions compared to the list in Lev 23: the daily offerings and the monthly offerings. The weekly offerings coincide with the Sabbath, which is considered one of the ordained festivals in Lev 23. More specifically, it is a "day of sacred assembly", when the people are commanded to gather together in celebration. The daily offerings were commanded back in Ex 29:38-42, so while it's not in the Lev 23 list, it is not new to us.
What's more interesting then is the commanded monthly offering, on the first of each month, which coincides with the new moon (since the Hebrews used a lunar calendar), henceforth known as "new moon offerings" for that reason. I think this is interesting for two main reasons.
First, the word for "month" here and elsewhere is "chodesh". This word means "new moon" or "month" interchangeably and is derived from "chadesh" which means "to be new," "to rebuild".
"Chodesh" is used frequently in the bible, starting in Gen 7:11 and continuing nearly everywhere you see the word "month". The reason I find this interesting is that we are never specifically told that Israel runs on a lunar calendar, it is simply baked into the language that their word for month is "new moon". The NASB sometimes translates "chodesh" as "month", as in Gen 7:11, and sometimes as "new moon", as in Num 29:6, 1 Samuel 20:5, simply depending on the context. 1 Sam 20:5 is a good example because in that chapter, David says "Behold, tomorrow is the chodesh". Obviously David isn't saying "the month is tomorrow", he is saying the new moon, signifying the beginning of a new month, is tomorrow. What makes this verse even more apt is that David is specifically discussing the new moon festival, which is the subject of the present chapter.
Second, this is the first time we have heard of the new moon sacrifices, and these sacrifices are never formally instituted anywhere else in the OT. This chapter is just a list of offerings that only mentions it incidentally. What I mean is that this chapter, must like Lev 23, is a summary and listing of various things. It is not commanding the Israelites to hold new moon sacrifices, just as it is not commanding them to obey the Sabbath: the command to obey the Sabbath was written elsewhere, first in Ex 16 and second in Ex 20. This chapter simply reminds the Israelites of what they have already been commanded. Since the new moon festival is listed here with everything else, I believe that it must have been already part of Hebrew society. This again shows the cultural assumptions in the text, that readers are simply expected to know about the new moon festivals at the beginning of every month. It's possible it was commanded by the LORD in some non-biblical text (which has since been lost), or it is a cultural tradition that existed outside of the Jewish faith that was then adopted in. Also note that Num 10:10 refers to the new moon festival, which I didn't notice at the time.
When I wrote my commentary on Lev 23, I said that I would put off writing a comprehensive guide to the sacrificial calendar, and one thing I had in mind was the new moon offerings which are first described in this chapter. I think this is the definitive list for the Pentateuch (basically everything in this chapter and the next), but I will hold off on creating a reference list of scriptures until the very end of Deuteronomy. Also note that there are additional festivals outside of the Pentateuch (Purim, Hanukkah), but the Pentateuch is different in that it makes a fairly complete set as you progress from Passover through Yom Kippur and Sukkot.
Lastly, this chapter institutes what appears to be a new group of sacrifices for the Passover, which previously involved the sacrifice of a male lamb for each family (established in Ex 12, revised in Num 9), but now it also involves a set of communal offerings that are not for any particular family or individual. Rather, these sacrifices would probably be made on behalf of the nation. Other than that, the sacrifices don't seem particularly noteworthy. My readers can probably observe that the sacrifices are very similar from one festival to the next. While the particular amount of lambs, goats, bulls, grain, wine or oil may change, we can clearly see that the sacrifice system (and by inference, Israelite agriculture) is concentrating around these handful of crops and livestock.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Bible Commentary - Numbers 27
In this chapter the daughters of Zelophehad are granted their father's inheritance and Joshua is appointed to succeed Moses.
The first half of this chapter, concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, is a challenge to the culture of male inheritance. It is difficult to nail down exactly what their traditions entail, but we can observe a few things from the text so far.
1) In the life of Jacob, only his sons had an inheritance. To wit, we know that he had a daughter, Dinah, while his entire inheritance was given to his twelve sons. So it appears that a man's daughters inherit his estate only if that man has no sons, which is what v. 8 says.
2) The eldest son is given a double portion of the estate, which is otherwise distributed equally between the sons of all ages. In the case of Jacob, the double portion was taken from Reuben and given to Joseph because of the former's indiscretion and the latter's exemplary behavior.
3) The promised land is given to the sons of Jacob as a permanent inheritance. This is modeled after the inheritance structure normally passed down from father to son, but with a religious undertone because it's part of the covenant between God and Abraham. Possessing the land, and passing it down to one's sons, is therefore both an economic and spiritual act, just as the covenant with God is a spiritual covenant that guarantees material blessing (for instance, Lev 26:1-13 which highlights both the material and spiritual blessings of following the LORD's covenant).
4) Women are not given their father's inheritance because when they marry, they become part of their husband's family. It's not that women don't get an inheritance, it's that they don't get one from the family of their birth; they receive an inheritance from their husband's family through marriage. Furthermore, because women become part of their husband's family, all of their possessions become part of their husband's wealth. We see a vague reference to this in Gen 31 when Rachel and Leah say that "Do we still have any portion or inheritance in our father's house? ... All the wealth which God has taken away from our father belongs to us and our children".
In context, remember that Jacob had taken Laban's wealth by shepherding his flock and receiving all the speckled or striped animals. Also remember Laban had no sons, so we can guess his inheritance would go to his daughters for that reason. However, his daughters say that he "entirely consumed" his wealth and deprived them of their proper inheritance. Therefore Jacob was justified in taking Laban's wealth. The inference is that the inheritance of Rachel and Leah is given to Jacob.
This third point is at the heart of the complaint lodged by Mahlah et al: "Why should the name of our father be withdrawn from among his family because he had no son?" (v. 4). The essence of this complaint is that the promised land is a permanent inheritance for both the tribes of Israel and the individual families and men in the tribe. What the daughters of Zelophehad are saying is that if their father's inheritance were given to e.g. his brothers or the tribe at large, then his "name", i.e. his estate or the family of people descending from him, would be wiped out and therefore he would not have a permanent inheritance anymore.
Maintaining a possession in the promised land is part of the covenant, so giving Zelophehad's inheritance to his daughters is necessary to help maintain the covenant to Zelophehad. Keep in mind that they are primarily asking about the distribution of land and not Zelophehad's inheritance of animals, gold, etc., because those are a temporary inheritance while the land is meant as a permanent inheritance as I've discussed on many prior occasions. Verse 7: "You shall surely give them a hereditary possession among their father's brothers".
In summary, the covenant of Abraham is a covenant to both the nation but also to the individuals within that nation, so the LORD is taking steps to protect their inheritance at large as well as the inheritance to a single man, Zelophehad.
In response, the LORD grants their request and specifies the order of inheritance in case a man has no sons. This order of inheritance is probably very similar to what they were already practicing, except that daughters can now inherit a man's estate before it goes to his brothers, etc.
The second half of this chapter tells us that Moses will die before entering the promised land, as we already knew. The LORD appoints Joshua to follow Moses, which should not surprise us either. He has a long and distinguished history by this point, having commanded the military against the Amalekites (Ex 17), served Moses as his attendant (Ex 24:13, Ex 33:11, Num 11:28), and was one of the two faithful spies (Num 14:6 et al.).
All of these factors combine to make Joshua an excellent candidate for succeeding Moses as the leader of Israel. His military training will enable him to lead Israel into battle. He is also one of the only two surviving Israelites to see the promised land, giving him valuable insight for the coming battles. His service to Moses gives him experience needed to administrate the nation as a judge. His experience dwelling in the tent of the LORD (Ex 33:11) means he can interact with the LORD and govern the nation spiritually as well.
Also, Joshua is "a man in whom is the spirit" (v. 18), so he should prove to be an excellent leader indeed. So Joshua is commissioned and should be ready to lead the nation when they enter the warfare of the promised land itself. That story, however, does not begin until we reach the book of Joshua. For now, Moses will remain the dominant figure in Israel and will remain so for the rest of the Pentateuch until his death in Deuteronomy 34 at the very end of the book.
The first half of this chapter, concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, is a challenge to the culture of male inheritance. It is difficult to nail down exactly what their traditions entail, but we can observe a few things from the text so far.
1) In the life of Jacob, only his sons had an inheritance. To wit, we know that he had a daughter, Dinah, while his entire inheritance was given to his twelve sons. So it appears that a man's daughters inherit his estate only if that man has no sons, which is what v. 8 says.
2) The eldest son is given a double portion of the estate, which is otherwise distributed equally between the sons of all ages. In the case of Jacob, the double portion was taken from Reuben and given to Joseph because of the former's indiscretion and the latter's exemplary behavior.
3) The promised land is given to the sons of Jacob as a permanent inheritance. This is modeled after the inheritance structure normally passed down from father to son, but with a religious undertone because it's part of the covenant between God and Abraham. Possessing the land, and passing it down to one's sons, is therefore both an economic and spiritual act, just as the covenant with God is a spiritual covenant that guarantees material blessing (for instance, Lev 26:1-13 which highlights both the material and spiritual blessings of following the LORD's covenant).
4) Women are not given their father's inheritance because when they marry, they become part of their husband's family. It's not that women don't get an inheritance, it's that they don't get one from the family of their birth; they receive an inheritance from their husband's family through marriage. Furthermore, because women become part of their husband's family, all of their possessions become part of their husband's wealth. We see a vague reference to this in Gen 31 when Rachel and Leah say that "Do we still have any portion or inheritance in our father's house? ... All the wealth which God has taken away from our father belongs to us and our children".
In context, remember that Jacob had taken Laban's wealth by shepherding his flock and receiving all the speckled or striped animals. Also remember Laban had no sons, so we can guess his inheritance would go to his daughters for that reason. However, his daughters say that he "entirely consumed" his wealth and deprived them of their proper inheritance. Therefore Jacob was justified in taking Laban's wealth. The inference is that the inheritance of Rachel and Leah is given to Jacob.
This third point is at the heart of the complaint lodged by Mahlah et al: "Why should the name of our father be withdrawn from among his family because he had no son?" (v. 4). The essence of this complaint is that the promised land is a permanent inheritance for both the tribes of Israel and the individual families and men in the tribe. What the daughters of Zelophehad are saying is that if their father's inheritance were given to e.g. his brothers or the tribe at large, then his "name", i.e. his estate or the family of people descending from him, would be wiped out and therefore he would not have a permanent inheritance anymore.
Maintaining a possession in the promised land is part of the covenant, so giving Zelophehad's inheritance to his daughters is necessary to help maintain the covenant to Zelophehad. Keep in mind that they are primarily asking about the distribution of land and not Zelophehad's inheritance of animals, gold, etc., because those are a temporary inheritance while the land is meant as a permanent inheritance as I've discussed on many prior occasions. Verse 7: "You shall surely give them a hereditary possession among their father's brothers".
In summary, the covenant of Abraham is a covenant to both the nation but also to the individuals within that nation, so the LORD is taking steps to protect their inheritance at large as well as the inheritance to a single man, Zelophehad.
In response, the LORD grants their request and specifies the order of inheritance in case a man has no sons. This order of inheritance is probably very similar to what they were already practicing, except that daughters can now inherit a man's estate before it goes to his brothers, etc.
The second half of this chapter tells us that Moses will die before entering the promised land, as we already knew. The LORD appoints Joshua to follow Moses, which should not surprise us either. He has a long and distinguished history by this point, having commanded the military against the Amalekites (Ex 17), served Moses as his attendant (Ex 24:13, Ex 33:11, Num 11:28), and was one of the two faithful spies (Num 14:6 et al.).
All of these factors combine to make Joshua an excellent candidate for succeeding Moses as the leader of Israel. His military training will enable him to lead Israel into battle. He is also one of the only two surviving Israelites to see the promised land, giving him valuable insight for the coming battles. His service to Moses gives him experience needed to administrate the nation as a judge. His experience dwelling in the tent of the LORD (Ex 33:11) means he can interact with the LORD and govern the nation spiritually as well.
Also, Joshua is "a man in whom is the spirit" (v. 18), so he should prove to be an excellent leader indeed. So Joshua is commissioned and should be ready to lead the nation when they enter the warfare of the promised land itself. That story, however, does not begin until we reach the book of Joshua. For now, Moses will remain the dominant figure in Israel and will remain so for the rest of the Pentateuch until his death in Deuteronomy 34 at the very end of the book.
Bible Commentary - Numbers 26
In this chapter, the LORD commands a second census and all of the men of the prior census are gone.
This second census is how we can be sure that 40 years have passed. Before now, we were not specifically told that the 40 years were over, but in this chapter we can see that "among these there was not a man of those who were numbered by Moses and Aaron the priest" (v. 64), so the entirety of the past generation have died and the new generation has arisen to conquer the promised land. This is confirmed by their recent arrival at the Jordan river, across from the promised land.
From this, we can see that this particular census has all of the purposes of the last one (military planning primarily, see Num 1 for more on that). We are also told that the land shall be divided proportionally to the size of each tribe, as the larger tribe gets a larger share of land. This gives us another purpose of the census, using the size of each tribe to allocate the promised land. We are also told the land is assigned by lot (i.e. randomization). I think this is meant to emphasize the equality of the tribes and to ensure that the stronger tribes cannot muscle into the better land. That wouldn't be fair because the promised land was given to all the sons of Jacob equally.
In addition, this census is intended to show us that the entire past generation has died. Without counting everyone, it would have been impossible to confirm. In conclusion, we now know that the Israelites are ready to invade the promised land since the LORD's curse of the last generation has been fulfilled.
There is a separate census for the Levites, as was done in Num 1, and probably also for the same reason. This time there isn't any comparison of the Levites and the firstborn, probably because the Israelites already paid the random for their firstborn. Or it's possible they pay a ransom again and we just aren't told. See Num 3 for the previous Levitical census.
In this chapter, we are not given a breakdown by clan for the Levites, only the total number of Levites. The number is virtually unchanged at 23,000 exactly (from 22,273). It's important to mention that since the Levites were not included in the census of those over 20 years old, they were possibly not slain in the wilderness. Verses 63-65 seem to imply that a generation of Levites also died in the wilderness, but Num 14:29 specifically says "from twenty years old and upward", which was not true for the Levitical census. Also, there was no representative of the Levites among the twelve spies, while Num 14:34 says "according to the number of days which you spied out the land...", but the Levites did not spy out the land.
The exclusivity of v. 65 seems to indicate that there were also no survivors of the Levites: "And not a man was left of them, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun". On the other hand, we know that Eleazar is still alive, so it's possible that the priests and their servants, the Levites, are excluded from the rest of the nation. The separate census certainly supports this viewpoint.
With all that context, this chapter is relatively straightforward. We can see that the structure of the census is nearly the same, except that we aren't told the twelve leaders who oversee the census. In Num 1:4-15 we are given a set of leaders who oversee the first census. In this census we are not given a set of leaders, but we can guess that Moses probably appointed leaders like last time. Like last time, Reuben is listed as the first tribe and Simeon is the second. In fact, the entire list of tribes is in the same order, except that Manasseh is now listed before Ephraim. I discuss this more below.
Another minor difference between this chapter and the census of Num 1 is that this chapter includes a few reminders. For instance, v. 9-11 reminds us of the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram, sons of Reuben. This rebellion hadn't happened before the first census. Verse 11 tells us that the sons of Korah didn't die, which means that they did not follow their father in the rebellion. This is really surprising in a culture with such a strong emphasis on paternal authority.
Verse 19 reminds us that Er and Onan, sons of Judah, died in Canaan. Verse 33 is an interesting side note that some particular fellow, Zelophehad, has five daughters and no sons. This is not relevant to anything previously, but we will hear about the daughters of Zelophehad in the next chapter. More broadly, this chapter contains small genealogies for each tribe, while Num 1 was simply a list of each tribe and the number of men. So there are lots of small differences, but the overall effect is nearly the same.
What I would like to discuss now is the results of the census, and to compare these numbers to the census of Num 1. The overall population of Israel is virtually the same as before, down about 1,500 out of roughly 600,000. As before, the math is precisely correct so you don't need to double check for mistakes. The individual tribes are also mostly the same: Reuben changed from 46K to 43K, Gad changed from 45K to 40K, Judah changed from 74K to 76K, etc.
The most significant change is Simeon dropped from 59K to 22K, losing two thirds of its total population. We have not seen any event that specifically targeted Simeon, so this drop is difficult to explain. There have been several plagues on Israel (the plague of snakes, the plague of the Num 25, etc), but none of these targeted Simeon in particular. The only interesting reference to Simeon I can find is that in Num 25:14 tells us Zimri was a leader of Simeon. It's possible that Simeon was more substantially involved in the sin of Peor and therefore suffered excessively from the plague that followed. I don't have any other explanation.
There's some other minor variation (Benjamin becomes smaller, etc), but the only other thing I want to discuss is the reversal of Manasseh and Ephraim. Ephraim loses about 8,000 men in this census, dropping from 40K to 32K. Manasseh grows from 32K to 52K, and is the largest gainer of all the tribes at +20K. Their positions in the list of tribes is reversed, which possibly means that Manasseh is now leading the third division. Previously (Num 2:18) Ephraim was leader of the third division, but since the order of the census matched the order of the camps, Manasseh is listed as the leader of the third division in this chapter.
Manasseh is possibly the leader of the third division and gained 20,000 men. Both of these factors indicate a rise in Manasseh's power and a diminishing of Ephraim. I said in my commentary on Num 1 and 2 that Ephraim remains militarily significant, and that is still correct: Ephraim becomes one of the most significant tribes in Israel's future. What is foreshadowed here is the growing significance of Manasseh. The sons of Makir (also written as Machir) and Gilead in particular are notable for their power. It is possible the region of Gilead is named after the man Gilead, son of Makir. In the future, many sons of Makir settle in the region named Gilead. Gilead (as a region) is mentioned going all the way back to Gen 31, which suggests that Makir named his son after the region, and not vice versa.
Either way, the overall pattern of this census is that Israel has largely not changed since the last census. A whole generation has been wiped out, but the nation has not been destroyed and is ready to invade the promised land.
This second census is how we can be sure that 40 years have passed. Before now, we were not specifically told that the 40 years were over, but in this chapter we can see that "among these there was not a man of those who were numbered by Moses and Aaron the priest" (v. 64), so the entirety of the past generation have died and the new generation has arisen to conquer the promised land. This is confirmed by their recent arrival at the Jordan river, across from the promised land.
From this, we can see that this particular census has all of the purposes of the last one (military planning primarily, see Num 1 for more on that). We are also told that the land shall be divided proportionally to the size of each tribe, as the larger tribe gets a larger share of land. This gives us another purpose of the census, using the size of each tribe to allocate the promised land. We are also told the land is assigned by lot (i.e. randomization). I think this is meant to emphasize the equality of the tribes and to ensure that the stronger tribes cannot muscle into the better land. That wouldn't be fair because the promised land was given to all the sons of Jacob equally.
In addition, this census is intended to show us that the entire past generation has died. Without counting everyone, it would have been impossible to confirm. In conclusion, we now know that the Israelites are ready to invade the promised land since the LORD's curse of the last generation has been fulfilled.
There is a separate census for the Levites, as was done in Num 1, and probably also for the same reason. This time there isn't any comparison of the Levites and the firstborn, probably because the Israelites already paid the random for their firstborn. Or it's possible they pay a ransom again and we just aren't told. See Num 3 for the previous Levitical census.
In this chapter, we are not given a breakdown by clan for the Levites, only the total number of Levites. The number is virtually unchanged at 23,000 exactly (from 22,273). It's important to mention that since the Levites were not included in the census of those over 20 years old, they were possibly not slain in the wilderness. Verses 63-65 seem to imply that a generation of Levites also died in the wilderness, but Num 14:29 specifically says "from twenty years old and upward", which was not true for the Levitical census. Also, there was no representative of the Levites among the twelve spies, while Num 14:34 says "according to the number of days which you spied out the land...", but the Levites did not spy out the land.
The exclusivity of v. 65 seems to indicate that there were also no survivors of the Levites: "And not a man was left of them, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun". On the other hand, we know that Eleazar is still alive, so it's possible that the priests and their servants, the Levites, are excluded from the rest of the nation. The separate census certainly supports this viewpoint.
With all that context, this chapter is relatively straightforward. We can see that the structure of the census is nearly the same, except that we aren't told the twelve leaders who oversee the census. In Num 1:4-15 we are given a set of leaders who oversee the first census. In this census we are not given a set of leaders, but we can guess that Moses probably appointed leaders like last time. Like last time, Reuben is listed as the first tribe and Simeon is the second. In fact, the entire list of tribes is in the same order, except that Manasseh is now listed before Ephraim. I discuss this more below.
Another minor difference between this chapter and the census of Num 1 is that this chapter includes a few reminders. For instance, v. 9-11 reminds us of the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram, sons of Reuben. This rebellion hadn't happened before the first census. Verse 11 tells us that the sons of Korah didn't die, which means that they did not follow their father in the rebellion. This is really surprising in a culture with such a strong emphasis on paternal authority.
Verse 19 reminds us that Er and Onan, sons of Judah, died in Canaan. Verse 33 is an interesting side note that some particular fellow, Zelophehad, has five daughters and no sons. This is not relevant to anything previously, but we will hear about the daughters of Zelophehad in the next chapter. More broadly, this chapter contains small genealogies for each tribe, while Num 1 was simply a list of each tribe and the number of men. So there are lots of small differences, but the overall effect is nearly the same.
What I would like to discuss now is the results of the census, and to compare these numbers to the census of Num 1. The overall population of Israel is virtually the same as before, down about 1,500 out of roughly 600,000. As before, the math is precisely correct so you don't need to double check for mistakes. The individual tribes are also mostly the same: Reuben changed from 46K to 43K, Gad changed from 45K to 40K, Judah changed from 74K to 76K, etc.
The most significant change is Simeon dropped from 59K to 22K, losing two thirds of its total population. We have not seen any event that specifically targeted Simeon, so this drop is difficult to explain. There have been several plagues on Israel (the plague of snakes, the plague of the Num 25, etc), but none of these targeted Simeon in particular. The only interesting reference to Simeon I can find is that in Num 25:14 tells us Zimri was a leader of Simeon. It's possible that Simeon was more substantially involved in the sin of Peor and therefore suffered excessively from the plague that followed. I don't have any other explanation.
There's some other minor variation (Benjamin becomes smaller, etc), but the only other thing I want to discuss is the reversal of Manasseh and Ephraim. Ephraim loses about 8,000 men in this census, dropping from 40K to 32K. Manasseh grows from 32K to 52K, and is the largest gainer of all the tribes at +20K. Their positions in the list of tribes is reversed, which possibly means that Manasseh is now leading the third division. Previously (Num 2:18) Ephraim was leader of the third division, but since the order of the census matched the order of the camps, Manasseh is listed as the leader of the third division in this chapter.
Manasseh is possibly the leader of the third division and gained 20,000 men. Both of these factors indicate a rise in Manasseh's power and a diminishing of Ephraim. I said in my commentary on Num 1 and 2 that Ephraim remains militarily significant, and that is still correct: Ephraim becomes one of the most significant tribes in Israel's future. What is foreshadowed here is the growing significance of Manasseh. The sons of Makir (also written as Machir) and Gilead in particular are notable for their power. It is possible the region of Gilead is named after the man Gilead, son of Makir. In the future, many sons of Makir settle in the region named Gilead. Gilead (as a region) is mentioned going all the way back to Gen 31, which suggests that Makir named his son after the region, and not vice versa.
Either way, the overall pattern of this census is that Israel has largely not changed since the last census. A whole generation has been wiped out, but the nation has not been destroyed and is ready to invade the promised land.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Bible Commentary - Numbers 25
In this chapter, the Midianites (i.e. Moabites) lure the Israelites into worshiping Baal and sexual immorality.
First, a quick note: the Midianites and the Moabites are grouped together in this chapter. We also saw this in Num 22:7 when "the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed...", but I didn't mention it then because it's largely immaterial to the story. It still is, but I figure it could get confusing if people think they are two separate nations but the bible considers them equivalent.
Anyway, while it's not obvious, this chapter is a continuation of the story of Balaam because what is happening is Balak is trying to attack Israel again. Before, he sought to curse Israel and thereby defeat them, and that failed because the LORD protected Israel. Now he is trying to attack Israel by "deceiving" them into committing idolatry and sexual immorality, which would strip them of their divine protection. It's a clever strategy, really: if the LORD is protecting them, then the most logical place to attack is to fracture their relationship with the LORD.
What it tells us about the Israelites is that they remain deeply immature and disinclined to follow the LORD. This is 40 years after the rebellion of Ex 32 and after the spies returned an unfavorable report of the promised land in Num 13-14. While the punishment of this chapter is less severe, the offenses are pretty bad. Bowing down to other gods and sacrificing to other gods violates the ten commandments of Ex 20. They additionally commit sexual immorality with Moabite women (verse 1). All of this probably points to their history: before Moses, the Israelites probably worshiped many of the gods of Egypt. Arguably one of the big reasons why the Israelites were taken out of Egypt was to separate them from these many gods whom they worshiped.
I talked about sacrificing to idols a bit in Lev 17. In particular, that chapter prohibited any sacrifice that was not brought before the tent of the LORD, and I speculated that this prohibition is intended to precisely stop this kind of behavior. It is essentially a hedonistic feast that combines three elements: eating sacrificed animals, worshiping the god to whom it was offered and sexual immorality. The LORD intends to replace this with offerings made in the Levitical system, before the tabernacle, to direct the people's worship towards himself.
The point I'm trying to make is not "sexual immorality is bad", we can all figure that out. The point I'm trying to make is the inherent connection that we see here because the "sacrifices of their gods", "the people ate" and "bowed down to their gods" (all from v. 2). I don't think people in our time naturally associate feasts with worshiping a particular god, but that appears to be the way of things in this time.
Anyway, the LORD is enraged and commands that "all the leaders" be executed. We are only given the example of a single man, Zimri, who is slain for his idolatry, because he brought a Midianite woman (probably to have sex) while the rest of the congregation is "weeping at the doorway of the tent of meeting", so this presents a fairly strong contrast to us. Incidentally, there is also a plague that kills 24,000, similar to the plague that broke out in Num 16.
As a whole, this chapter approximately continues the escalation of sin, although it is not the same as the rebellions against Moses we saw before. What's perhaps most striking about this chapter is the jealousy of Phinehas, who strikes down Zimri, a leader of Israel. So far the only people who seemed to have zeal for the LORD were Moses, Joshua and Caleb. So Phinehas is also marked for success because of his actions.
The long term effect of this episode is that it further engenders hostility between Moab and Israel, although we had already seen a prediction of this hostility from Balaam in the prior chapter. The LORD calls it "hostility", "tricks", and they "deceived you". This hostility will continue for generations to greater and lesser extents.
First, a quick note: the Midianites and the Moabites are grouped together in this chapter. We also saw this in Num 22:7 when "the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed...", but I didn't mention it then because it's largely immaterial to the story. It still is, but I figure it could get confusing if people think they are two separate nations but the bible considers them equivalent.
Anyway, while it's not obvious, this chapter is a continuation of the story of Balaam because what is happening is Balak is trying to attack Israel again. Before, he sought to curse Israel and thereby defeat them, and that failed because the LORD protected Israel. Now he is trying to attack Israel by "deceiving" them into committing idolatry and sexual immorality, which would strip them of their divine protection. It's a clever strategy, really: if the LORD is protecting them, then the most logical place to attack is to fracture their relationship with the LORD.
What it tells us about the Israelites is that they remain deeply immature and disinclined to follow the LORD. This is 40 years after the rebellion of Ex 32 and after the spies returned an unfavorable report of the promised land in Num 13-14. While the punishment of this chapter is less severe, the offenses are pretty bad. Bowing down to other gods and sacrificing to other gods violates the ten commandments of Ex 20. They additionally commit sexual immorality with Moabite women (verse 1). All of this probably points to their history: before Moses, the Israelites probably worshiped many of the gods of Egypt. Arguably one of the big reasons why the Israelites were taken out of Egypt was to separate them from these many gods whom they worshiped.
I talked about sacrificing to idols a bit in Lev 17. In particular, that chapter prohibited any sacrifice that was not brought before the tent of the LORD, and I speculated that this prohibition is intended to precisely stop this kind of behavior. It is essentially a hedonistic feast that combines three elements: eating sacrificed animals, worshiping the god to whom it was offered and sexual immorality. The LORD intends to replace this with offerings made in the Levitical system, before the tabernacle, to direct the people's worship towards himself.
The point I'm trying to make is not "sexual immorality is bad", we can all figure that out. The point I'm trying to make is the inherent connection that we see here because the "sacrifices of their gods", "the people ate" and "bowed down to their gods" (all from v. 2). I don't think people in our time naturally associate feasts with worshiping a particular god, but that appears to be the way of things in this time.
Anyway, the LORD is enraged and commands that "all the leaders" be executed. We are only given the example of a single man, Zimri, who is slain for his idolatry, because he brought a Midianite woman (probably to have sex) while the rest of the congregation is "weeping at the doorway of the tent of meeting", so this presents a fairly strong contrast to us. Incidentally, there is also a plague that kills 24,000, similar to the plague that broke out in Num 16.
As a whole, this chapter approximately continues the escalation of sin, although it is not the same as the rebellions against Moses we saw before. What's perhaps most striking about this chapter is the jealousy of Phinehas, who strikes down Zimri, a leader of Israel. So far the only people who seemed to have zeal for the LORD were Moses, Joshua and Caleb. So Phinehas is also marked for success because of his actions.
The long term effect of this episode is that it further engenders hostility between Moab and Israel, although we had already seen a prediction of this hostility from Balaam in the prior chapter. The LORD calls it "hostility", "tricks", and they "deceived you". This hostility will continue for generations to greater and lesser extents.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Bible Commentary - Numbers 24
In this chapter, Balaam concludes with his third and final blessing, and then also issues a prophecy concerning the future.
This chapter continues directly where the last one left off, but it also adds some interesting details. It tells us that Balaam "did not go as at other times to seek omens", which clearly suggests that he was using standard divination techniques to make his previous prophecies. I had already hinted at this when I said the animal sacrifices could have been used for entrail divination, and this chapter seems to confirm it.
Even more interesting, this chapter also says that the spirit of God came upon Balaam, which is a surprisingly strong validation of the Aramite prophet. This suggests to me that previously Balaam was attempting to resist the LORD, but the LORD overpowered his attempts to curse Israel. Now it seems that Balaam "saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel", and he decides to allow this to happen. When he agrees to bless Israel, the LORD comes upon him in an even stronger way, and he issues his third blessing. This blessing seems largely consistent with the last two and it uses similar language, speaking of the LORD as the "horns of the wild ox" on Israel's behalf, and Israel is again compared with a lion. He concludes by repeating part of Abraham's blessing (Gen 12:3), though this is probably just a standard formula and not intended to recall that earlier blessing.
Balak responds by refusing to pay him, which I guess makes sense considering he was hired to pronounce a curse.
Balaam concludes with a different kind of prophecy. The first three prophecies were pretty straightforward "bless Israel" rants with no real predictive element. This prophecy, on the other hand, is "what this people will do... in the days to come." I am treating this fourth prophecy separately because Balak groups the first three prophecies together in v. 10 when he says "you have persisted in blessing them these three times". So while the fourth prophecy can be considering a blessing in some sense, it is different thematically (emphasizing future predictions and less of a formal blessing) and it is separated from the first three blessings by the events of verses 10-13, which serves as sort of a short conclusion to the story.
That said, the fourth prophecy is definitely the most interesting in my opinion because it contains so much more predictive content. The first prediction is that a star, or scepter, would rise out of Israel. This is evidently a reference to some emerging king, whose rule is characterized by the prophecies that follow. The "scepter" reminds me of Gen 49:10 which also talks about a scepter "not depart"ing from Judah. However, the underlying Hebrew word "shebet" is used broadly in the OT to refer to a "rod", "staff", "scepter" (in this case), or "tribe/clan". The last usage is an implied reference, as the rod refers to rulership over a tribe, so the OT will sometimes speak of the twelve "rods" of Israel. For example, see Gen 49:28, Ex 24:4 or Ex 28:21 (among others) for this usage.
The word "star" here is "kokab" and it is used less frequently in the OT to refer to both "star" literally or "prince" figuratively. We saw this second usage in Gen 37:9 when Joseph dreamed that 11 stars bowed down to him, where those stars symbolized his brothers (the princes of Israel, one could say). This same word "kokab" is used to refer to angels in other places, such as Job 38:7. All of these usages tie together in the sense of "rising power", shining and brightness. "Rising star" is an aspirational term that probably has similar meaning to the same phrase in modern English. Both of these expressions refer to a royal power rising out of Israel.
In verse 17 we see that this royal power will "crush" Moab, which is a reversal of Balak's purpose. He had tried to curse Israel, but Israel was blessed instead and now Moab is facing the prospect of defeat by Israel, which had been Balak's fear. I had mentioned back in my commentary on Num 22 that there would be a growing conflict between Moab and Israel, and that's predicted here in Num 24 as well. I feel like this conflict was one of Balak's own creation as he sought a "strike first" policy against Israel; from this prophecy we can see how badly this policy will turn out for Moab.
On a related note, v. 18 tells us that Edom will also be conquered by the rising scepter of Israel. Similar to Moab, Edom has positioned itself with a lot of hostility towards Israel, prohibiting them passage into the promised land back in Num 20.
Amalek, like Moab and Edom, resisted the Israelites and was the first nation to fight against them in Ex 17 when they were still in the Sinai. In that same chapter Israel was commanded to fight against Amalek until destruction and the fall of Amalek is reaffirmed here.
Seir is a nation that hasn't had any hostile relations with Israel yet, but they are included as a "possession" here. Both Seir and the Kenites are small nations that often fall into the orbit of the larger, powerful nations around them. I think the reference to Seir is not so much divine punishment for any wrongs they have committed as much as it's a general statement about future Israel's regional hegemony.
The reference to the Kenites, on the other hand, is a prediction of the rising power of Asshur (i.e. Assyria). Assyria has not been talked about much yet, but it will be a serious power in later times.
The final prediction here is that ships would come from Kittim (Cyprus in some translations) and conquer Asshur and Eber. Eber is not easy to identify, but from Gen 10 and 11 we can see that there was a person named Eber who was one of the descendants of Shem and a distant ancestor of Abraham. Either way, Eber is not a significant figure/nation, as he is only referenced here and in the Genesis genealogy (which is itself duplicated in 1 Chronicles). So this part of the prophecy is not biblically significant, while it's historical significance is more debatable.
So in conclusion, we can see a couple trends in this prophecy. One obvious trend is God retaliating against Israel's enemies with dire futures for Amalek, Edom and Moab. Another trend is the rising power of Israel as they become a regional force, conquering Moab, Edom and Seir, three of their neighbors. The last trend is the future rise of Assyria which will conquer the Kenites at one point but suffer from the Cypriots at another point. All of these trends will be factors in Israelite history and influence the biblical texts that we will later read.
And with that, the story of Balaam is over.
This chapter continues directly where the last one left off, but it also adds some interesting details. It tells us that Balaam "did not go as at other times to seek omens", which clearly suggests that he was using standard divination techniques to make his previous prophecies. I had already hinted at this when I said the animal sacrifices could have been used for entrail divination, and this chapter seems to confirm it.
Even more interesting, this chapter also says that the spirit of God came upon Balaam, which is a surprisingly strong validation of the Aramite prophet. This suggests to me that previously Balaam was attempting to resist the LORD, but the LORD overpowered his attempts to curse Israel. Now it seems that Balaam "saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel", and he decides to allow this to happen. When he agrees to bless Israel, the LORD comes upon him in an even stronger way, and he issues his third blessing. This blessing seems largely consistent with the last two and it uses similar language, speaking of the LORD as the "horns of the wild ox" on Israel's behalf, and Israel is again compared with a lion. He concludes by repeating part of Abraham's blessing (Gen 12:3), though this is probably just a standard formula and not intended to recall that earlier blessing.
Balak responds by refusing to pay him, which I guess makes sense considering he was hired to pronounce a curse.
Balaam concludes with a different kind of prophecy. The first three prophecies were pretty straightforward "bless Israel" rants with no real predictive element. This prophecy, on the other hand, is "what this people will do... in the days to come." I am treating this fourth prophecy separately because Balak groups the first three prophecies together in v. 10 when he says "you have persisted in blessing them these three times". So while the fourth prophecy can be considering a blessing in some sense, it is different thematically (emphasizing future predictions and less of a formal blessing) and it is separated from the first three blessings by the events of verses 10-13, which serves as sort of a short conclusion to the story.
That said, the fourth prophecy is definitely the most interesting in my opinion because it contains so much more predictive content. The first prediction is that a star, or scepter, would rise out of Israel. This is evidently a reference to some emerging king, whose rule is characterized by the prophecies that follow. The "scepter" reminds me of Gen 49:10 which also talks about a scepter "not depart"ing from Judah. However, the underlying Hebrew word "shebet" is used broadly in the OT to refer to a "rod", "staff", "scepter" (in this case), or "tribe/clan". The last usage is an implied reference, as the rod refers to rulership over a tribe, so the OT will sometimes speak of the twelve "rods" of Israel. For example, see Gen 49:28, Ex 24:4 or Ex 28:21 (among others) for this usage.
The word "star" here is "kokab" and it is used less frequently in the OT to refer to both "star" literally or "prince" figuratively. We saw this second usage in Gen 37:9 when Joseph dreamed that 11 stars bowed down to him, where those stars symbolized his brothers (the princes of Israel, one could say). This same word "kokab" is used to refer to angels in other places, such as Job 38:7. All of these usages tie together in the sense of "rising power", shining and brightness. "Rising star" is an aspirational term that probably has similar meaning to the same phrase in modern English. Both of these expressions refer to a royal power rising out of Israel.
In verse 17 we see that this royal power will "crush" Moab, which is a reversal of Balak's purpose. He had tried to curse Israel, but Israel was blessed instead and now Moab is facing the prospect of defeat by Israel, which had been Balak's fear. I had mentioned back in my commentary on Num 22 that there would be a growing conflict between Moab and Israel, and that's predicted here in Num 24 as well. I feel like this conflict was one of Balak's own creation as he sought a "strike first" policy against Israel; from this prophecy we can see how badly this policy will turn out for Moab.
On a related note, v. 18 tells us that Edom will also be conquered by the rising scepter of Israel. Similar to Moab, Edom has positioned itself with a lot of hostility towards Israel, prohibiting them passage into the promised land back in Num 20.
Amalek, like Moab and Edom, resisted the Israelites and was the first nation to fight against them in Ex 17 when they were still in the Sinai. In that same chapter Israel was commanded to fight against Amalek until destruction and the fall of Amalek is reaffirmed here.
Seir is a nation that hasn't had any hostile relations with Israel yet, but they are included as a "possession" here. Both Seir and the Kenites are small nations that often fall into the orbit of the larger, powerful nations around them. I think the reference to Seir is not so much divine punishment for any wrongs they have committed as much as it's a general statement about future Israel's regional hegemony.
The reference to the Kenites, on the other hand, is a prediction of the rising power of Asshur (i.e. Assyria). Assyria has not been talked about much yet, but it will be a serious power in later times.
The final prediction here is that ships would come from Kittim (Cyprus in some translations) and conquer Asshur and Eber. Eber is not easy to identify, but from Gen 10 and 11 we can see that there was a person named Eber who was one of the descendants of Shem and a distant ancestor of Abraham. Either way, Eber is not a significant figure/nation, as he is only referenced here and in the Genesis genealogy (which is itself duplicated in 1 Chronicles). So this part of the prophecy is not biblically significant, while it's historical significance is more debatable.
So in conclusion, we can see a couple trends in this prophecy. One obvious trend is God retaliating against Israel's enemies with dire futures for Amalek, Edom and Moab. Another trend is the rising power of Israel as they become a regional force, conquering Moab, Edom and Seir, three of their neighbors. The last trend is the future rise of Assyria which will conquer the Kenites at one point but suffer from the Cypriots at another point. All of these trends will be factors in Israelite history and influence the biblical texts that we will later read.
And with that, the story of Balaam is over.
Bible Commentary - Numbers 23
In this chapter, Balaam issues his first two prophecies concerning Israel.
After the long, long introduction of the last chapter, this chapter is now relatively straightforward. Having departed for the "high places", i.e. the religious centers of Moab, Balaam is now ready to begin the process of cursing Israel. They construct seven altars (seven being the number of completion or fullness) and make some offerings. It is possible the animal entrails were used for divination in this case, although the text does not directly mention it.
The contents of the prophecies also does not seem noteworthy to me. They are both written in the standard poetic form and it's basically just the LORD lavishing praise on Israel. As I said before, this is probably intended to encourage Israel for the coming battles as they invade the promised land.
What's more interesting to me is the dynamic between Balaam, Balak and the LORD. In particular, Balak and the LORD seem to be positioned opposite of one another, with Balak seeking to curse Israel while the LORD overrides him by putting words into the mouth of Balaam, the prophet. Balaam is stuck in the middle between his desire for money and his insistence that he must speak the words that "the LORD puts in my mouth". In the end, the LORD appears to win out, possibly due to the threatening angel of the last chapter. What's interesting about this is that Balaam is one of the few, maybe the only, true prophet who is not an Israelite. There are lots of false prophets who are not Israelite, but here we can see that the LORD is indeed putting words into Balaam's mouth and I can't think of any other time something like this happens.
In response to these blessings, we see Balak's rising anger at his failed attempts to curse Israel. Balaam appears helpless in response, repeatedly citing that he can only speak what the LORD gives him. We can immediately see that this answer does not assuage Balak, who is himself caught between the hapless prophet and his own immense fear of the Israelites. They try moving to different locations to see if they could possibly curse them somewhere else. The first time they move, in v. 13, it seems the intent was to see only "the extreme end of them and will not see all of them", because perhaps it's easier to curse a few people than to curse many people. Repeating the ritual with the seven altars, this approach clearly doesn't work as Balaam's second blessing is longer and richer than the first.
Balaam gets even more angry, and this time tries to relocate to the "top of Peor". This is probably one of their most sacred high places, because in Num 25 we are told there is a "Baal of Peor". Also, the top of Peor "overlooks the wasteland", so this is a dominating vista. Balak probably expects that relocating here would give him access to more spiritual power as this is probably one of their most sacred shrines. To see the results of this third, final attempt, we will have to read the next chapter, but I'll give you a hint: it doesn't work.
After the long, long introduction of the last chapter, this chapter is now relatively straightforward. Having departed for the "high places", i.e. the religious centers of Moab, Balaam is now ready to begin the process of cursing Israel. They construct seven altars (seven being the number of completion or fullness) and make some offerings. It is possible the animal entrails were used for divination in this case, although the text does not directly mention it.
The contents of the prophecies also does not seem noteworthy to me. They are both written in the standard poetic form and it's basically just the LORD lavishing praise on Israel. As I said before, this is probably intended to encourage Israel for the coming battles as they invade the promised land.
What's more interesting to me is the dynamic between Balaam, Balak and the LORD. In particular, Balak and the LORD seem to be positioned opposite of one another, with Balak seeking to curse Israel while the LORD overrides him by putting words into the mouth of Balaam, the prophet. Balaam is stuck in the middle between his desire for money and his insistence that he must speak the words that "the LORD puts in my mouth". In the end, the LORD appears to win out, possibly due to the threatening angel of the last chapter. What's interesting about this is that Balaam is one of the few, maybe the only, true prophet who is not an Israelite. There are lots of false prophets who are not Israelite, but here we can see that the LORD is indeed putting words into Balaam's mouth and I can't think of any other time something like this happens.
In response to these blessings, we see Balak's rising anger at his failed attempts to curse Israel. Balaam appears helpless in response, repeatedly citing that he can only speak what the LORD gives him. We can immediately see that this answer does not assuage Balak, who is himself caught between the hapless prophet and his own immense fear of the Israelites. They try moving to different locations to see if they could possibly curse them somewhere else. The first time they move, in v. 13, it seems the intent was to see only "the extreme end of them and will not see all of them", because perhaps it's easier to curse a few people than to curse many people. Repeating the ritual with the seven altars, this approach clearly doesn't work as Balaam's second blessing is longer and richer than the first.
Balaam gets even more angry, and this time tries to relocate to the "top of Peor". This is probably one of their most sacred high places, because in Num 25 we are told there is a "Baal of Peor". Also, the top of Peor "overlooks the wasteland", so this is a dominating vista. Balak probably expects that relocating here would give him access to more spiritual power as this is probably one of their most sacred shrines. To see the results of this third, final attempt, we will have to read the next chapter, but I'll give you a hint: it doesn't work.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Bible Commentary - Numbers 22
In this chapter, Balak commissions Balaam to curse Israel, and Balaam encounters an angel when traveling to Moab.
The story of Balaam is a pretty major departure from the story of Numbers that we have seen so far. There are a number of reasons why this story is aberrant from the stories of Numbers (and Genesis and Exodus), but before discussing the deviances, I will first discuss how and why it fits into the story arc.
Just as we have seen in the past couple chapters, the Moabites are deeply afraid of the Israelites, and for basically the same reasons as everyone else. They are afraid that the Israelites will consume the natural resources of the land and they are afraid that the Israelites will settle in their territory rather than make the difficult journey to wherever they might be going; the Moabites probably don't know or care where the Israelites are going, since the Moabites only see them as a present threat. This is laid out in verse 3, which states that the Israelites will "lick up all that is around us", and in an arid, desert-like environment, that is a serious threat. We aren't just talking about lost income, we are potentially talking about famine and death.
The Moabites have even more reason to be afraid, because they just saw the Israelites wipe out two Amorite kingdoms, and have a reasonable suspicion that Israel might wipe them out too. Of course, as I previously stated, Moab is a distant relative to Israel through Abraham, the grandfather of Jacob and the uncle to Lot, father of Moab. So from this we know that Israel won't actually invade Moab, because that would be "the wrong thing to do", because it breaks the implicit alliance of blood relations.
What this chapter tells us then, is that Moab distrusts Israel to maintain that implicit alliance, probably because of the harshness of the conditions in that land. We have seen Israel complain about lacking water and food on many occasions, so it is a definite possibility that Israel will destroy nearly everyone in the region to claim their natural resources. That is, if you consider two nations in an alliance, and one of them has wealth, food and water, while the other is deeply impoverished but has a large military: a conflict is inevitable. Moab, in this case, appears to select a preemptive strike, hiring a local shaman to curse Israel in preparation for a military attack, "to fight against them and drive them out."
From Israel's perspective, this is an unforgivable betrayal of the implied alliance, but from Moab's perspective, they feared that Israel would have done the same to them. Still, since the bible is written from Israel's perspective, Moab will be frequently vilified for this going forward. We will also see the relations between Moab and Israel progressively deteriorate due to a variety of territorial disputes and ongoing warfare. It's worth noting that some of the territory they captured was formerly belonging to Moab (see Num 21:26).
To summarize, the story of Balaam fits into the chronology of Numbers, and it also fits the theme of Numbers by highlighting the territorial and resource concerns of the native kingdoms. In addition, it also reinforces the theme of the LORD's sovereign protection of Israel as his vassal state. We see this in how the LORD warns Balaam against cursing Israel, by the LORD's resistance to Balaam, and later by guiding Balaam to pronounce three blessings over Israel instead of curses. This is a continuation of the LORD's material provision for Israel through the desert, as well as his protection of Israel when they were in Egypt.
With all that discussion out of the way, there is also one substantial way that this story diverges from the Exodus/Numbers redemption narrative: the protagonist of this story is not an Israelite.
This is interesting for a number of reasons, but what I will focus on the most is that it shows us how the LORD relates to people not under the Abrahamic covenant. Of course, we have seen this implicitly through many of the stories, reading about Pharaoh and so on. But this story shows us in much greater detail how the LORD speaks to Balaam directly, while the Exodus is mostly a story about Moses and Pharaoh is only mentioned indirectly, as it relates to Moses and Israel. To be sure, the story of Balaam also relates to Israel, and is probably included for that reason, but it also includes dialogue between Balaam and the LORD that I will examine in detail as we move forward.
In fact, this story is a bit of a detour from the invasion narrative because, while it plugs in with the Moabites' response, it doesn't really advance the main agenda of the story. As we are told in v. 1, Israel is now "camped in the plains of Moab beyond the Jordan". They will actually remain here for the rest of the Pentateuch. The rest of Numbers, and the entirety of Deuteronomy, take place while the Israelites remain encamped opposite of Jericho, which is within the promised land.
Balaam's adventure is primarily treated as a platform for sharing his prophetic utterances about Israel's bright future, with the secondary characteristic being the LORD's divine protection. But both of these are intended as a prelude for the long-delayed invasion of the promised land, which is now on the cusp of becoming a reality. Everything after Balaam's prophecies is also preparation for the invasion, as Moses recounts the laws of the LORD, expands on this, restates that, adds a few more laws into the mix: this all follows reliably in the meandering and didactic style of the Pentateuch.
So on the one hand, the story of Balaam follows in the chronology of the invasion story, but on the other hand, it also begins to transition us into the style of late Numbers and Deuteronomy, which is encouraging the people for the battles ahead. While Deuteronomy encourages us through the words of Moses, the story of Balaam encourages us through the prophecies of a non-Israelite. So the story of Balaam does not match the stylism of Deuteronomy, it does largely mimic it in purpose.
The specific theme of this story is the LORD turning curses into blessings for Israel; that Balak hired Balaam to curse, and instead he blesses Israel three times. Blessings and curses are extremely significant in the OT and we have seen several of them already, so I won't give a full discourse here. Some significant blessings in the past were the LORD pronouncing a blessing over Abraham (Gen 12), Isaac blessing Jacob over Esau (Gen 27), and the LORD blessing Adam and Eve in Gen 1:28. The most significant curse is Gen 3:17, where the LORD cursed the ground, but critically did not curse man himself. Man nevertheless has suffered greatly from the cursed ground, and that curse is what resulted in death (Gen 1:19), because man was taken from the ground, and so that same curse causes man to return to the ground in bodily death.
So curses and blessings have played a significant role in the biblical history, and Balaam's curse should not be treated lightly. In modern life we might not think much of curses or blessings, call them mere words, but to the patriarchs these words carried tremendous power to change peoples' lives, and the LORD uses Balaam to prove his sovereignty over man and to affirm his blessings over Israel.
Alright, so that covers all the background for this chapter. Now I will discuss some of the specific details of the story.
First I want to talk about Balak's invitation to Balaam. After receiving the invitation, Balaam consults with the LORD, refuses the first invitation, but at the LORD's direction, he accepts the second invitation. This scene, as well as Balaam's profession of faith in the LORD, presents us with a theological challenge. This challenge is whether there were true worshipers of the LORD besides the sons of Israel in ancient Mesopotamia. Since Balaam is speaking to Balak's representatives and invoking the name of the LORD, that would seem to suggest yes. On the other hand, this is in a book written by Israelites so there could be a certain amount of glossing the name of the LORD into these stories (for instance, see Gen 2:4 and onwards). Lastly, for various reasons we could suggest that Balaam is feigning devotion to the LORD, but actually worships other gods.
Realistically, I would say that this is a land in a time period of strong polytheism. The whole concept of monotheism is fairly undeveloped at this point, and even the Israelites are not particularly on board with the idea yet. There is a lot of controversy around the divine name, Yahweh/Jehovah, and when it would have been well-known to any particular group of people. That's why one of the factors I mentioned above is the "Yahwah gloss" if you will, inserting the name of the LORD into stories where the original speakers would not have known it. But even if we discount that factor and assume that Balaam was familiar with the LORD, then from that we can deduce that either 1) the Israelites or their forebears had spread around the divine name before or during their time in Egypt, 2) the LORD was one of many known, possibly worshiped, deities in the region and the Israelites were just the strongest group of his followers.
We have similar problems when discussing the origin of Abraham's faith. While we can read the LORD's sovereign promise to him in Gen 12, we are given absolutely no clue what Abraham knew of the LORD at that time, why Abraham trusted the LORD, or how any of that actually happened. No doubt part of that is the lingering ambiguity of early Genesis (which raises more questions than it answers, on the whole), but even here in Numbers we can see this ambiguity coming back to confound us. At the end of the day, I believe these questions are simply unanswerable if one is only looking at the biblical text. We simply aren't told how or why Balaam invokes the name of the LORD.
I mention all this for two reasons. First, Balaam's relationship with the LORD strongly influences the tenor of this story because of how much dialogue occurs between these two figures. While I wouldn't say that's what the story is about (rather, the story "is about" the prophecies and blessings for Israel), I would say that their relationship is the framework of this story. Second, I have heard a number of commentators try to explain away this "problem" by saying that Balaam is feigning devotion to the LORD. Many of these commentators attempt to construct a consistent "history" in the OT by saying that the LORD was not worshiped before Abraham, nor was he worshiped outside of Israel until the days of the NT. While I appreciate the intent of this history, I fear that this overstates the biblical text and goes outside of the proper domain of theological analysis. I believe the biblical text is unclear on these points and any definitive answer is therefore extending beyond what is written.
Moving on, we can see that Balaam does ascribe to worship the LORD to some extent, most likely in a polytheistic mixture of many supposed-deities. Num 21:29 tells us that the Moabites principally worship Chemosh, so I'm surprised that Balaam is highlighting Yahweh as his lord here. Either way, the LORD instructs him to go, but we can already see Balaam will not be permitted to curse Israel. In v. 22 the LORD is angry with Balaam for no stated reason. Having just given Balaam permission to go, his anger is difficult to understand. Most commentaries I've read suggest that Balaam was probably planning on cursing Israel despite the LORD's prohibition, and that's why the LORD was angry.
Balaam is really interesting. In this chapter he sounds very pious, and yet the LORD is angry with him and in Num 31 we are told that Israel killed Balaam because he counseled Moab on how to entrap the Israelites into sin (more on this later): that's another reason why people like to disparage Balaam as a fraud, and I don't think the criticism is unmerited. It's definitely possible that Balaam is only worshiping the LORD pro forma, for the appearance of things. It would certainly fit the culture, which tends towards overly polite formality between strangers (see e.g. Gen 23). Balaam seems to show a loyalty to Yahweh, but it could just be an act. Perhaps.
Regardless, God becomes angry with Balaam and we are given the next strange happening, that Balaam's donkey can see this angel of the LORD while Balaam cannot. The donkey avoids the threatening angel (with sword in hand to slay Balaam), and after seeing the angel three times is given speech to rebuke Balaam. As if the story could get any weirder, Balaam answers the donkey's question rather than (for instance) running away in shock when his donkey starts talking to him. To be fair, this is just a story and it is going to be crafted for impact rather than realism, but I always get a good laugh out of verses 28-30 because of their discourse. Not only is Balaam's donkey talking, but Balaam seems to be taking her seriously.
What makes this story even stranger (to me) is that the angel solemnly warns Balaam and then tells him to just go on what he was doing! For whatever reason, it seems the LORD didn't want to stop Balaam from going, just stop him from speaking something other than "the words which I tell you". Most commentators think that Balaam was planning to go and just curse Israel, or do whatever he needed to do to get paid. That's contrary to what the LORD told him and it explains why the LORD sent an angel to stop him, as well as the angel's subsequent warning. I agree with this explanation: it seems to be the most rational and consistent view on the story, and we are given hints of it in the angel's warning.
Next, Balak's response to Balaam is pretty funny when he goes out to the boundary of his territory to ask why Balaam has delayed. We have seen all the reasons why Balaam was slowed down, but Balak seems pretty frantic. Obviously he is still very concerned about Israel and wishes to curse them as soon as possible.
Lastly, this chapter contains the first reference to the pagan deity Baal in the OT, in v. 41 ("Balak took Balaam and brought him up to the high places of Baal"). Baal is one of the most popular pagan gods in the entire OT, frequently paired with Asherah, and is mentioned dozens of times. However, "baal" is also the Hebrew word for lord or master, so in some cases it can be difficult sometimes to figure out what meaning is intended, or even if it's a single god versus many gods. "Baal" is similar to "adonai", which also means lord. I don't know enough of the nuances to distinguish between them, except that baal is usually used to describe pagan deities while adonai is almost always a descriptor for Yahweh (as both an adjective, lord Yahweh, and a noun, lord). The only time I can find adonai not used to describe the LORD is in Gen 19:18, when Lot is speaking to the two angels (and he knew they were angels). But that is pretty close.
In both of these words, baal and adonai, we get the sense of power these gods hold over the people who worship them. The LORD is adonai for those who follow him, while the baals (pagan gods) are baal (lord) for those who seek the baals. Throughout the Abrahamic covenant we have seen lordship language used to describe Yahweh, primarily in the vassal-lordship sense as the LORD protects and provides for his people, while they homage him. Through the word "baal", we can see that the pagan gods also rule over their people while those people serve their gods. Again, see Num 21:29 for similar language, describing the Moabites as "people of Chemosh" and his "sons" and "daughters". So not only is Israel the people of Yahweh, but the other nations are the "peoples" of their respective gods.
The story of Balaam is a pretty major departure from the story of Numbers that we have seen so far. There are a number of reasons why this story is aberrant from the stories of Numbers (and Genesis and Exodus), but before discussing the deviances, I will first discuss how and why it fits into the story arc.
Just as we have seen in the past couple chapters, the Moabites are deeply afraid of the Israelites, and for basically the same reasons as everyone else. They are afraid that the Israelites will consume the natural resources of the land and they are afraid that the Israelites will settle in their territory rather than make the difficult journey to wherever they might be going; the Moabites probably don't know or care where the Israelites are going, since the Moabites only see them as a present threat. This is laid out in verse 3, which states that the Israelites will "lick up all that is around us", and in an arid, desert-like environment, that is a serious threat. We aren't just talking about lost income, we are potentially talking about famine and death.
The Moabites have even more reason to be afraid, because they just saw the Israelites wipe out two Amorite kingdoms, and have a reasonable suspicion that Israel might wipe them out too. Of course, as I previously stated, Moab is a distant relative to Israel through Abraham, the grandfather of Jacob and the uncle to Lot, father of Moab. So from this we know that Israel won't actually invade Moab, because that would be "the wrong thing to do", because it breaks the implicit alliance of blood relations.
What this chapter tells us then, is that Moab distrusts Israel to maintain that implicit alliance, probably because of the harshness of the conditions in that land. We have seen Israel complain about lacking water and food on many occasions, so it is a definite possibility that Israel will destroy nearly everyone in the region to claim their natural resources. That is, if you consider two nations in an alliance, and one of them has wealth, food and water, while the other is deeply impoverished but has a large military: a conflict is inevitable. Moab, in this case, appears to select a preemptive strike, hiring a local shaman to curse Israel in preparation for a military attack, "to fight against them and drive them out."
From Israel's perspective, this is an unforgivable betrayal of the implied alliance, but from Moab's perspective, they feared that Israel would have done the same to them. Still, since the bible is written from Israel's perspective, Moab will be frequently vilified for this going forward. We will also see the relations between Moab and Israel progressively deteriorate due to a variety of territorial disputes and ongoing warfare. It's worth noting that some of the territory they captured was formerly belonging to Moab (see Num 21:26).
To summarize, the story of Balaam fits into the chronology of Numbers, and it also fits the theme of Numbers by highlighting the territorial and resource concerns of the native kingdoms. In addition, it also reinforces the theme of the LORD's sovereign protection of Israel as his vassal state. We see this in how the LORD warns Balaam against cursing Israel, by the LORD's resistance to Balaam, and later by guiding Balaam to pronounce three blessings over Israel instead of curses. This is a continuation of the LORD's material provision for Israel through the desert, as well as his protection of Israel when they were in Egypt.
With all that discussion out of the way, there is also one substantial way that this story diverges from the Exodus/Numbers redemption narrative: the protagonist of this story is not an Israelite.
This is interesting for a number of reasons, but what I will focus on the most is that it shows us how the LORD relates to people not under the Abrahamic covenant. Of course, we have seen this implicitly through many of the stories, reading about Pharaoh and so on. But this story shows us in much greater detail how the LORD speaks to Balaam directly, while the Exodus is mostly a story about Moses and Pharaoh is only mentioned indirectly, as it relates to Moses and Israel. To be sure, the story of Balaam also relates to Israel, and is probably included for that reason, but it also includes dialogue between Balaam and the LORD that I will examine in detail as we move forward.
In fact, this story is a bit of a detour from the invasion narrative because, while it plugs in with the Moabites' response, it doesn't really advance the main agenda of the story. As we are told in v. 1, Israel is now "camped in the plains of Moab beyond the Jordan". They will actually remain here for the rest of the Pentateuch. The rest of Numbers, and the entirety of Deuteronomy, take place while the Israelites remain encamped opposite of Jericho, which is within the promised land.
Balaam's adventure is primarily treated as a platform for sharing his prophetic utterances about Israel's bright future, with the secondary characteristic being the LORD's divine protection. But both of these are intended as a prelude for the long-delayed invasion of the promised land, which is now on the cusp of becoming a reality. Everything after Balaam's prophecies is also preparation for the invasion, as Moses recounts the laws of the LORD, expands on this, restates that, adds a few more laws into the mix: this all follows reliably in the meandering and didactic style of the Pentateuch.
So on the one hand, the story of Balaam follows in the chronology of the invasion story, but on the other hand, it also begins to transition us into the style of late Numbers and Deuteronomy, which is encouraging the people for the battles ahead. While Deuteronomy encourages us through the words of Moses, the story of Balaam encourages us through the prophecies of a non-Israelite. So the story of Balaam does not match the stylism of Deuteronomy, it does largely mimic it in purpose.
The specific theme of this story is the LORD turning curses into blessings for Israel; that Balak hired Balaam to curse, and instead he blesses Israel three times. Blessings and curses are extremely significant in the OT and we have seen several of them already, so I won't give a full discourse here. Some significant blessings in the past were the LORD pronouncing a blessing over Abraham (Gen 12), Isaac blessing Jacob over Esau (Gen 27), and the LORD blessing Adam and Eve in Gen 1:28. The most significant curse is Gen 3:17, where the LORD cursed the ground, but critically did not curse man himself. Man nevertheless has suffered greatly from the cursed ground, and that curse is what resulted in death (Gen 1:19), because man was taken from the ground, and so that same curse causes man to return to the ground in bodily death.
So curses and blessings have played a significant role in the biblical history, and Balaam's curse should not be treated lightly. In modern life we might not think much of curses or blessings, call them mere words, but to the patriarchs these words carried tremendous power to change peoples' lives, and the LORD uses Balaam to prove his sovereignty over man and to affirm his blessings over Israel.
Alright, so that covers all the background for this chapter. Now I will discuss some of the specific details of the story.
First I want to talk about Balak's invitation to Balaam. After receiving the invitation, Balaam consults with the LORD, refuses the first invitation, but at the LORD's direction, he accepts the second invitation. This scene, as well as Balaam's profession of faith in the LORD, presents us with a theological challenge. This challenge is whether there were true worshipers of the LORD besides the sons of Israel in ancient Mesopotamia. Since Balaam is speaking to Balak's representatives and invoking the name of the LORD, that would seem to suggest yes. On the other hand, this is in a book written by Israelites so there could be a certain amount of glossing the name of the LORD into these stories (for instance, see Gen 2:4 and onwards). Lastly, for various reasons we could suggest that Balaam is feigning devotion to the LORD, but actually worships other gods.
Realistically, I would say that this is a land in a time period of strong polytheism. The whole concept of monotheism is fairly undeveloped at this point, and even the Israelites are not particularly on board with the idea yet. There is a lot of controversy around the divine name, Yahweh/Jehovah, and when it would have been well-known to any particular group of people. That's why one of the factors I mentioned above is the "Yahwah gloss" if you will, inserting the name of the LORD into stories where the original speakers would not have known it. But even if we discount that factor and assume that Balaam was familiar with the LORD, then from that we can deduce that either 1) the Israelites or their forebears had spread around the divine name before or during their time in Egypt, 2) the LORD was one of many known, possibly worshiped, deities in the region and the Israelites were just the strongest group of his followers.
We have similar problems when discussing the origin of Abraham's faith. While we can read the LORD's sovereign promise to him in Gen 12, we are given absolutely no clue what Abraham knew of the LORD at that time, why Abraham trusted the LORD, or how any of that actually happened. No doubt part of that is the lingering ambiguity of early Genesis (which raises more questions than it answers, on the whole), but even here in Numbers we can see this ambiguity coming back to confound us. At the end of the day, I believe these questions are simply unanswerable if one is only looking at the biblical text. We simply aren't told how or why Balaam invokes the name of the LORD.
I mention all this for two reasons. First, Balaam's relationship with the LORD strongly influences the tenor of this story because of how much dialogue occurs between these two figures. While I wouldn't say that's what the story is about (rather, the story "is about" the prophecies and blessings for Israel), I would say that their relationship is the framework of this story. Second, I have heard a number of commentators try to explain away this "problem" by saying that Balaam is feigning devotion to the LORD. Many of these commentators attempt to construct a consistent "history" in the OT by saying that the LORD was not worshiped before Abraham, nor was he worshiped outside of Israel until the days of the NT. While I appreciate the intent of this history, I fear that this overstates the biblical text and goes outside of the proper domain of theological analysis. I believe the biblical text is unclear on these points and any definitive answer is therefore extending beyond what is written.
Moving on, we can see that Balaam does ascribe to worship the LORD to some extent, most likely in a polytheistic mixture of many supposed-deities. Num 21:29 tells us that the Moabites principally worship Chemosh, so I'm surprised that Balaam is highlighting Yahweh as his lord here. Either way, the LORD instructs him to go, but we can already see Balaam will not be permitted to curse Israel. In v. 22 the LORD is angry with Balaam for no stated reason. Having just given Balaam permission to go, his anger is difficult to understand. Most commentaries I've read suggest that Balaam was probably planning on cursing Israel despite the LORD's prohibition, and that's why the LORD was angry.
Balaam is really interesting. In this chapter he sounds very pious, and yet the LORD is angry with him and in Num 31 we are told that Israel killed Balaam because he counseled Moab on how to entrap the Israelites into sin (more on this later): that's another reason why people like to disparage Balaam as a fraud, and I don't think the criticism is unmerited. It's definitely possible that Balaam is only worshiping the LORD pro forma, for the appearance of things. It would certainly fit the culture, which tends towards overly polite formality between strangers (see e.g. Gen 23). Balaam seems to show a loyalty to Yahweh, but it could just be an act. Perhaps.
Regardless, God becomes angry with Balaam and we are given the next strange happening, that Balaam's donkey can see this angel of the LORD while Balaam cannot. The donkey avoids the threatening angel (with sword in hand to slay Balaam), and after seeing the angel three times is given speech to rebuke Balaam. As if the story could get any weirder, Balaam answers the donkey's question rather than (for instance) running away in shock when his donkey starts talking to him. To be fair, this is just a story and it is going to be crafted for impact rather than realism, but I always get a good laugh out of verses 28-30 because of their discourse. Not only is Balaam's donkey talking, but Balaam seems to be taking her seriously.
What makes this story even stranger (to me) is that the angel solemnly warns Balaam and then tells him to just go on what he was doing! For whatever reason, it seems the LORD didn't want to stop Balaam from going, just stop him from speaking something other than "the words which I tell you". Most commentators think that Balaam was planning to go and just curse Israel, or do whatever he needed to do to get paid. That's contrary to what the LORD told him and it explains why the LORD sent an angel to stop him, as well as the angel's subsequent warning. I agree with this explanation: it seems to be the most rational and consistent view on the story, and we are given hints of it in the angel's warning.
Next, Balak's response to Balaam is pretty funny when he goes out to the boundary of his territory to ask why Balaam has delayed. We have seen all the reasons why Balaam was slowed down, but Balak seems pretty frantic. Obviously he is still very concerned about Israel and wishes to curse them as soon as possible.
Lastly, this chapter contains the first reference to the pagan deity Baal in the OT, in v. 41 ("Balak took Balaam and brought him up to the high places of Baal"). Baal is one of the most popular pagan gods in the entire OT, frequently paired with Asherah, and is mentioned dozens of times. However, "baal" is also the Hebrew word for lord or master, so in some cases it can be difficult sometimes to figure out what meaning is intended, or even if it's a single god versus many gods. "Baal" is similar to "adonai", which also means lord. I don't know enough of the nuances to distinguish between them, except that baal is usually used to describe pagan deities while adonai is almost always a descriptor for Yahweh (as both an adjective, lord Yahweh, and a noun, lord). The only time I can find adonai not used to describe the LORD is in Gen 19:18, when Lot is speaking to the two angels (and he knew they were angels). But that is pretty close.
In both of these words, baal and adonai, we get the sense of power these gods hold over the people who worship them. The LORD is adonai for those who follow him, while the baals (pagan gods) are baal (lord) for those who seek the baals. Throughout the Abrahamic covenant we have seen lordship language used to describe Yahweh, primarily in the vassal-lordship sense as the LORD protects and provides for his people, while they homage him. Through the word "baal", we can see that the pagan gods also rule over their people while those people serve their gods. Again, see Num 21:29 for similar language, describing the Moabites as "people of Chemosh" and his "sons" and "daughters". So not only is Israel the people of Yahweh, but the other nations are the "peoples" of their respective gods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)