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.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Bible Commentary - Numbers 21
In this chapter, the Israelites enter battle with several nations on the outskirts of the promised land.
This chapter begins with a new conflict. Having been denied passage by the Edomites, we are told that "the Canaanite" fought against Israel. The Canaanites are a patchwork collection of tribes that primarily run along the Mediterranean coastline. We are told in Gen 10:19 that the Canaanites extend from Sidon (a city on the coastline, north of the promised land) to Gaza, which is also on the coast in southern Israel, towards Sodom and Gomorrah which are in the plains of the Jordan somewhere, giving them control of most of the promised land into which the Israelites are eventually heading.
These are the descendants of Canaan, son of Ham. They are not closely related to the Israelites, and as we can see their conflict begins very quickly. Notably, Israel is not invading up through the (Canaanite-controlled) coastline; as v. 4 points out, Israel is heading out, around Edom and through the desert, to invade the promised land from the east. So the Canaanites are not defending; they are attacking in some form of a preliminary strike, anticipating the Israelite threat. It goes poorly for them, as the LORD supports Israel and they defeat the Canaanites, destroying "their cities". That is, the cities under the king of Arad; this is only one of the many Canaanite mini-kingdoms.
The people move on, and the complaining resumes. In verse 5, the people complain that there is no food nor water, and then remembering that they are given supernatural manna, say that they dislike the manna. It seems like the LORD simply can't do anything right in their eyes. In response, the LORD punishes them by sending "fiery serpents", with "fiery" referring to either: the pain felt upon being bitten, the red color of inflammation from being bitten, or lastly the red/orange color of the snake itself. I think the epithet is more likely to refer to their poisonous character, because the same sentence refers to "many people of Israel" dying from the bites.
The people realize their mistake and repent; in response, rather than take away the snakes, the LORD instructs Moses to craft a bronze snake and put it up on a standard where it could be seen by everyone, and looking at this bronze image would heal them from the snake venom (if not symptom-free, at least they would live).
This is a peculiar account for a few reasons, but the biggest is that it appears as if the LORD instructed Moses to create an idol, contrary to the command in Ex 20:4. The bronze or copper color of the serpent is likely intended to mimic the "fiery" character of the snakes plaguing the Israelites. Also, there doesn't appear to be any worship or offerings to the snake, which suggests that while it appears to be a graven image, it is not treated as symbolic of any particular deity, and thus is not an idol in the strict sense.
Even if we can (tenuously) conclude that it is not any sort of an idol, there is still a lingering perplexity why this is the form of protection that the LORD crafts for his people. Compared to the plagues of Egypt, for instance, and in that case the LORD dealt with the various plagues of insects/frogs by driving them off or slaying them. In this case, the snakes remain to torment the people, but if they look at a graven image of a snake, then they are healed from death.
It is also unusual that the LORD punishes them with serpents, as this is the first time a serpent has been mentioned since Ex 7 when Aaron and Pharaoh's court magicians turned their staves into snakes. Given what we have read so far, it is possible that the serpents of this story are intended to hearken back to the serpent of Gen 3, which led Eve and Adam into sin. As I discussed then, the snake is a biblical symbol for Satan, but since there are many snakes here it is probable they are meant to be something related to the devil: demons, or possibly sins. It would be fitting for the snakes to symbolize sin here, since they are sent as a punishment for the people sinning against the LORD.
But if that is correct, then it still leaves me wondering why the bronze serpent is put upon a standard and held aloft, and how that would heal the people of the snake bites. With the Passover, we can see clear connections between the blood on the doorways, the sacrificial system of Leviticus, and healing the curse from Gen 3. This chapter also takes us back to Gen 3 by re-using the serpent, and that leads us to the conclusion that the bronze serpent is somehow symbolic for the same healing as the Passover, though in a different way.
The bronze serpent certainly shares the unity of the Passover; in the Passover, each family was to sacrifice a single male lamb. So while there were many lambs slain, the emphasis is on "one" because we are not given a total number that must have been, or were, slain. Here, there is literally one bronze serpent that is held aloft. The Passover emphasizes substitutionary atonement, while this passage emphasizes "looking upon" the serpent to be healed, which doesn't necessarily imply that the "sin" (i.e. poison) is transferred to the serpent, but somehow awareness of the bronze serpent is sufficient to bring about healing.
That said, there is a big difference between the Passover, which must be remembered every year and is a core element of the covenant, and this chapter which is a single, non-repeated incident. For that reason, I don't think it's fair to put these two practices on the same level, because they're not. I only think it's worth mentioning them both because this chapter, by its use of serpents and very unusual symbolism, seems to demand a bit more careful analysis than a lot of the other various plagues and incidents we have seen so far, especially in Numbers (which is primarily a narrative book).
Moving on, the people head out and going around to the east of Moab, and then north into the land of the Amorites. Moab, like Edom, is a kingdom that is blood-related to Israel, because Moab is descended from Lot, the cousin of Abraham. They aren't given much mention here, but we can be confident that Israel will not invade Moab for that reason. On a related note, the Ammonites in this passage are the sons of Ben-Ammi, one of the two sons of Lot and the "brother" of Moab. Israel will also avoid hostilities with Ammon for that reason. There are a few brief poems in here which I think are pretty interesting, but not significant enough to be worth any comments here.
Much more significantly is what happens next, as Israel engages in battle with Sihon and Og, two kings of the Amorites, slays them and kills most of their people. Unlike the Moabites, the Amorites are not related to Jacob or Abraham. Rather, we are told in Gen 10:16 that "the Amorite" is a son of Canaan. The bible (and most historians) treat them as separate groups, listing them separately, but we can hypothesize some sort of familial connection between the Amorites and the Canaanites. Certainly both groups share a deep hostility to Israel, and that results in the battles we see here.
Also, note that the land of the Amorites described here is east of the Jordan, and therefore falls outside of the promised land. That's why Moses is willing to negotiate passage with them rather than attacking them outright. Similar to the Moabites, the Amorites refuse this offer, and probably for the same reasons, fearing both betrayal (that Israel would attack once within the land, gaining a superior strategic position) and theft of water. Since the Amorites are not related to Israel, Moses is willing to engage them in battle, unlike the prior chapter.
This leaves Israel in the interesting position of possessing land outside of the promised land, which had been there objective, and they have every appearance of settling this windfall property. This has some interesting implications both politically and theologically, since it is the promised land that is central to the Abrahamic covenant. What does it mean for some Israelites to live outside of that promised inheritance, and how will the other tribes react? The answer to that we will find later in the story.
For now, I want to emphasize two things. First, we can see that taking these lands was a military necessity as the Israelite tribes wished to move into the promised land. Though they were not promised the lands east of the Jordan, they were forced to conquer them by the former inhabitants. But now that they have conquered these lands, there are unforeseen consequences, as the Israelite nation begins to grapple with their future. This will be a lingering issue from what was an intermediate cause.
Second, these are two of the first serious military engagements by the Israelites. Previously they had battled the Amalekites (Ex 17) and the Canaanites (Num 20), but now they have slain two kings, destroyed their kingdoms, and taken the land for themselves, which is a much more significant action. It also foreshadows the broader conflict as they enter the promised land and take on the many nations therein. We will see these initial conquests mentioned quite a few times as a sort of "pep rally" to boost the Israelite morale, which shows us that however briefly the battles are described, they must have involved significant numbers of combatants or been otherwise noteworthy.
This chapter begins with a new conflict. Having been denied passage by the Edomites, we are told that "the Canaanite" fought against Israel. The Canaanites are a patchwork collection of tribes that primarily run along the Mediterranean coastline. We are told in Gen 10:19 that the Canaanites extend from Sidon (a city on the coastline, north of the promised land) to Gaza, which is also on the coast in southern Israel, towards Sodom and Gomorrah which are in the plains of the Jordan somewhere, giving them control of most of the promised land into which the Israelites are eventually heading.
These are the descendants of Canaan, son of Ham. They are not closely related to the Israelites, and as we can see their conflict begins very quickly. Notably, Israel is not invading up through the (Canaanite-controlled) coastline; as v. 4 points out, Israel is heading out, around Edom and through the desert, to invade the promised land from the east. So the Canaanites are not defending; they are attacking in some form of a preliminary strike, anticipating the Israelite threat. It goes poorly for them, as the LORD supports Israel and they defeat the Canaanites, destroying "their cities". That is, the cities under the king of Arad; this is only one of the many Canaanite mini-kingdoms.
The people move on, and the complaining resumes. In verse 5, the people complain that there is no food nor water, and then remembering that they are given supernatural manna, say that they dislike the manna. It seems like the LORD simply can't do anything right in their eyes. In response, the LORD punishes them by sending "fiery serpents", with "fiery" referring to either: the pain felt upon being bitten, the red color of inflammation from being bitten, or lastly the red/orange color of the snake itself. I think the epithet is more likely to refer to their poisonous character, because the same sentence refers to "many people of Israel" dying from the bites.
The people realize their mistake and repent; in response, rather than take away the snakes, the LORD instructs Moses to craft a bronze snake and put it up on a standard where it could be seen by everyone, and looking at this bronze image would heal them from the snake venom (if not symptom-free, at least they would live).
This is a peculiar account for a few reasons, but the biggest is that it appears as if the LORD instructed Moses to create an idol, contrary to the command in Ex 20:4. The bronze or copper color of the serpent is likely intended to mimic the "fiery" character of the snakes plaguing the Israelites. Also, there doesn't appear to be any worship or offerings to the snake, which suggests that while it appears to be a graven image, it is not treated as symbolic of any particular deity, and thus is not an idol in the strict sense.
Even if we can (tenuously) conclude that it is not any sort of an idol, there is still a lingering perplexity why this is the form of protection that the LORD crafts for his people. Compared to the plagues of Egypt, for instance, and in that case the LORD dealt with the various plagues of insects/frogs by driving them off or slaying them. In this case, the snakes remain to torment the people, but if they look at a graven image of a snake, then they are healed from death.
It is also unusual that the LORD punishes them with serpents, as this is the first time a serpent has been mentioned since Ex 7 when Aaron and Pharaoh's court magicians turned their staves into snakes. Given what we have read so far, it is possible that the serpents of this story are intended to hearken back to the serpent of Gen 3, which led Eve and Adam into sin. As I discussed then, the snake is a biblical symbol for Satan, but since there are many snakes here it is probable they are meant to be something related to the devil: demons, or possibly sins. It would be fitting for the snakes to symbolize sin here, since they are sent as a punishment for the people sinning against the LORD.
But if that is correct, then it still leaves me wondering why the bronze serpent is put upon a standard and held aloft, and how that would heal the people of the snake bites. With the Passover, we can see clear connections between the blood on the doorways, the sacrificial system of Leviticus, and healing the curse from Gen 3. This chapter also takes us back to Gen 3 by re-using the serpent, and that leads us to the conclusion that the bronze serpent is somehow symbolic for the same healing as the Passover, though in a different way.
The bronze serpent certainly shares the unity of the Passover; in the Passover, each family was to sacrifice a single male lamb. So while there were many lambs slain, the emphasis is on "one" because we are not given a total number that must have been, or were, slain. Here, there is literally one bronze serpent that is held aloft. The Passover emphasizes substitutionary atonement, while this passage emphasizes "looking upon" the serpent to be healed, which doesn't necessarily imply that the "sin" (i.e. poison) is transferred to the serpent, but somehow awareness of the bronze serpent is sufficient to bring about healing.
That said, there is a big difference between the Passover, which must be remembered every year and is a core element of the covenant, and this chapter which is a single, non-repeated incident. For that reason, I don't think it's fair to put these two practices on the same level, because they're not. I only think it's worth mentioning them both because this chapter, by its use of serpents and very unusual symbolism, seems to demand a bit more careful analysis than a lot of the other various plagues and incidents we have seen so far, especially in Numbers (which is primarily a narrative book).
Moving on, the people head out and going around to the east of Moab, and then north into the land of the Amorites. Moab, like Edom, is a kingdom that is blood-related to Israel, because Moab is descended from Lot, the cousin of Abraham. They aren't given much mention here, but we can be confident that Israel will not invade Moab for that reason. On a related note, the Ammonites in this passage are the sons of Ben-Ammi, one of the two sons of Lot and the "brother" of Moab. Israel will also avoid hostilities with Ammon for that reason. There are a few brief poems in here which I think are pretty interesting, but not significant enough to be worth any comments here.
Much more significantly is what happens next, as Israel engages in battle with Sihon and Og, two kings of the Amorites, slays them and kills most of their people. Unlike the Moabites, the Amorites are not related to Jacob or Abraham. Rather, we are told in Gen 10:16 that "the Amorite" is a son of Canaan. The bible (and most historians) treat them as separate groups, listing them separately, but we can hypothesize some sort of familial connection between the Amorites and the Canaanites. Certainly both groups share a deep hostility to Israel, and that results in the battles we see here.
Also, note that the land of the Amorites described here is east of the Jordan, and therefore falls outside of the promised land. That's why Moses is willing to negotiate passage with them rather than attacking them outright. Similar to the Moabites, the Amorites refuse this offer, and probably for the same reasons, fearing both betrayal (that Israel would attack once within the land, gaining a superior strategic position) and theft of water. Since the Amorites are not related to Israel, Moses is willing to engage them in battle, unlike the prior chapter.
This leaves Israel in the interesting position of possessing land outside of the promised land, which had been there objective, and they have every appearance of settling this windfall property. This has some interesting implications both politically and theologically, since it is the promised land that is central to the Abrahamic covenant. What does it mean for some Israelites to live outside of that promised inheritance, and how will the other tribes react? The answer to that we will find later in the story.
For now, I want to emphasize two things. First, we can see that taking these lands was a military necessity as the Israelite tribes wished to move into the promised land. Though they were not promised the lands east of the Jordan, they were forced to conquer them by the former inhabitants. But now that they have conquered these lands, there are unforeseen consequences, as the Israelite nation begins to grapple with their future. This will be a lingering issue from what was an intermediate cause.
Second, these are two of the first serious military engagements by the Israelites. Previously they had battled the Amalekites (Ex 17) and the Canaanites (Num 20), but now they have slain two kings, destroyed their kingdoms, and taken the land for themselves, which is a much more significant action. It also foreshadows the broader conflict as they enter the promised land and take on the many nations therein. We will see these initial conquests mentioned quite a few times as a sort of "pep rally" to boost the Israelite morale, which shows us that however briefly the battles are described, they must have involved significant numbers of combatants or been otherwise noteworthy.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Bible Commentary - Numbers 20
In this chapter, the people complain and Moses sins in Meribah, Edom resists the passage of Israel, and Aaron dies.
This chapter continues with the story, abruptly ending the Levitical interlude of chapters 18-19. When discussing chapter 17, I said that it ended the "Rebellion Arc", which is true in the sense that they have largely stopped challenging Moses and Aaron, but as we can see they are still complaining and sinning against the LORD. In this chapter, the issue is lack of water, which reminds us that they are, in fact, traveling through a desert.
On a minor note, I find it amusing how the people say "if only we had perished when our brothers perished before the LORD", referring to the deaths of Korah and his followers. This is pretty ironic considering the LORD killed them for their rebellion, so now they are basically saying they wish they had rebelled. This shows us that the survivors still hold Korah, Dathan and Abiram in high regard and honor them in spite of their shameful behavior and subsequent punishment. This is not a good omen for Israel's future.
More significantly, this chapter contains the first and only sin of Moses and Aaron, which is hard to notice at first: Moses strikes the rock with his staff, rather than speaking to the rock. Compare the command in v. 8 with Moses's action in v. 11. Interestingly, the last time Moses was commanded to bring water from a rock, in Ex 17:6, he was told to strike the rock with his staff; in this case, he is told to take his staff and speak to the rock, but in both events he strikes the rock with his staff. Aaron appears to be indicted by complicity with Moses's actions, even though we aren't told of Aaron actually doing anything other than being there and helping to "gather the assembly".
Moses's frustration is palpable, as he verbally reproaches the Israelites. I think this is the first time he has spoken harshly against the people, in spite of how many times they have rebelled against him and the LORD. In many instances, Moses replying to the people and challenging them, but never insulting them. In many other occasions, he asks the LORD for mercy on their behalf, such as Ex 32, Num 12 (praying for Miriam), Num 14, and probably more instances if I searched.
So Moses is getting frustrated, and I can understand why because I'm getting frustrated with the people too. Unfortunately, that frustration leads him to act differently than the LORD commanded him, but it seems like a really minor issue so I wouldn't expect it to be treated severely. And yet it is; because of this misstep, the LORD will no longer bring Aaron and Moses into the promised land: they will die in the wilderness. This is really astonishing for such a small mistake, but I think it is significant because it extends the principle we have seen before in e.g. Lev 21, that those people who dwell in the presence of the LORD are held to higher standards than the people who do not. Priests are restrained from going near dead bodies, but the high priest cannot even rend his garments (as a sign of grief).
The nation is forbidden from entering the promised land because they rebelled against Moses, were going to kill him and return to Egypt. That is a very serious crime. Moses rebelled against the LORD by striking the rock instead of speaking to it, and he is given the same punishment not because his crime is so severe, but because his responsibility and authority is so great.
What makes this story confusing is that the LORD honors Moses by bringing forth water, while at the same time rebuking Moses for disobeying his command. This is surprising, because one would think that the LORD would refuse to perform miracles on Moses's behalf if Moses were disobeying the LORD. And yet, here he does. I'm not sure what to think about this. I know the people needed water; though they are complaining and acting without faith, they are correct in stating their need for water. So I believe the LORD wished to give them water, and he chose Moses to be the conduit for this miracle.
The question is, should Moses's mistake disrupt this plan? More generally, should the sins of people who have been given true assignments by the LORD disrupt or destroy those assignments? Personally, I don't think there is a simple yes or no answer to that. In this case, the answer appears to be no, as the LORD fulfills the miracle despite Moses's sin. On the other hand, Moses and Aaron are henceforth denied entrance to the promised land, which is a far more significant blow to their destinies. So I don't think there's a clear answer. Moses definitely suffers for this sin, but his punishment is not total: he still leads the nation to the border of the promised land and is honored in other ways.
Next, we are told that Moses wishes to lead the people through Edom, on their way towards the promised land. Edom is the nation south of ancient Israel, while to the north and west are the Canaanite tribes. We already knew that the LORD directed the people to take the Red Sea coast, heading south into the Arabian Peninsula. Now we can see they are heading north, out of the Peninsula, and towards the promised land. Strikingly, there has been no mention of 40 years in the wilderness, nor will there be any mention of it until the next census is taken.
This is a really surprising (to me) omission. The 40 years in the wilderness represents the metaphorical and literal death of a generation because they rebelled against the LORD and it is left almost entirely out of this account, which is the primary account of the wilderness travels*. Basically the text goes from the LORD condemning Israel to 40 years of wandering, to a brief Levitical section, to an account of Israel's return to the promised land (beginning in this chapter). My best guess is that the "40 year gap" is between the end of chapter 14/beginning of chapter 15, though it could possibly also be at the end of chapter 17. Both of these are junctures where the text shifts from a narrative section to a legal section, and whenever you see a sudden shift in the subject or context of the passage, that is a hint that some sort of temporal discontinuity just occurred. Chapter 15 begins with laws dealing with the promised land itself (see Num 15:2, "when you enter the land where you are to live..."), which I remarked at the time was very peculiar to be positioned directly after the judgment of chapter 14.
One plausible explanation is that these are not only different subjects, but they are recorded at very different times. Perhaps chapter 15 happens after the 40 years, and is therefore more suitable for the grand entrance to Canaan, rather than the humiliating departure. This would require the account of Korah's rebellion et al. to also be some arbitrary time into, or just after, the 40 years of wandering. In my opinion, that is also plausible, since we aren't given any definitive connection between Korah's rebellion and the stories arcs before or after it. That said, Korah's rebellion is topically related to what happens before the 40 years of wandering, in particular the rebellion of chapter 14 itself, since all of these events show the stubbornness of the Israelite nation.
It's also possible the "40 year gap" is at the end of chapter 17/beginning of chapter 18, when the next major Levitical section occurs. I think this is plausible, but I think the 14/15 disjunction has more explanatory power, because reading chapters 14 and 15 as a continuous narrative is simply disconcerting.
Anyway, Edom denies Israel passage because they fear that Israel will 1) consume all the food and water in the land, 2) Maybe leave a few hundred thousand people behind to colonize the land and drive out its current occupants. Remember that Edom is the nation descended from Esau, who was also called Edom. That's why v. 14 says "your brother Israel", because it's speaking of the brotherhood of Jacob and Esau. Now the nations Israel and Edom are also metaphorically brothers.
In the end, Edom does not trust Israel to hold to their promises, and while Edom is rebuked for this in later parts of the bible, I think their fear is justified. Just look at how many times the Israelites have complained to Moses about lacking food or water. It is unrealistic to expect the people to avoid eating any crops or drinking water as they pass through, and while Moses offers to pay for the water, the Edomites similarly distrusted that promise. The brotherhood of Israel and Edom is why the Israelites refused to fight and moved on when "Edom came out against [Israel] with a heavy force and with a strong hand." It's not out of fear, it is to avoid conflict with what should have been a friendly nation. Maybe the Edomites remember the treachery of Jacob and impute that treachery to his children.
At the very end of the chapter, Aaron dies, as we knew he would. Eleazar is to be anointed the next high priest, which makes sense because he is the oldest living son of Aaron. Also, chapter 19 implied that Eleazar would be the next high priest when the LORD commanded that he officiate over the red heifer sacrifice. All things considered, this is a very orderly transition and it effectively seals the hereditary office in Aaron's bloodline.
*There is an ex post facto description of the 40 years in Deuteronomy, when Moses recounts the history of Israel, but Numbers purports to be a present-tense narrative account.
This chapter continues with the story, abruptly ending the Levitical interlude of chapters 18-19. When discussing chapter 17, I said that it ended the "Rebellion Arc", which is true in the sense that they have largely stopped challenging Moses and Aaron, but as we can see they are still complaining and sinning against the LORD. In this chapter, the issue is lack of water, which reminds us that they are, in fact, traveling through a desert.
On a minor note, I find it amusing how the people say "if only we had perished when our brothers perished before the LORD", referring to the deaths of Korah and his followers. This is pretty ironic considering the LORD killed them for their rebellion, so now they are basically saying they wish they had rebelled. This shows us that the survivors still hold Korah, Dathan and Abiram in high regard and honor them in spite of their shameful behavior and subsequent punishment. This is not a good omen for Israel's future.
More significantly, this chapter contains the first and only sin of Moses and Aaron, which is hard to notice at first: Moses strikes the rock with his staff, rather than speaking to the rock. Compare the command in v. 8 with Moses's action in v. 11. Interestingly, the last time Moses was commanded to bring water from a rock, in Ex 17:6, he was told to strike the rock with his staff; in this case, he is told to take his staff and speak to the rock, but in both events he strikes the rock with his staff. Aaron appears to be indicted by complicity with Moses's actions, even though we aren't told of Aaron actually doing anything other than being there and helping to "gather the assembly".
Moses's frustration is palpable, as he verbally reproaches the Israelites. I think this is the first time he has spoken harshly against the people, in spite of how many times they have rebelled against him and the LORD. In many instances, Moses replying to the people and challenging them, but never insulting them. In many other occasions, he asks the LORD for mercy on their behalf, such as Ex 32, Num 12 (praying for Miriam), Num 14, and probably more instances if I searched.
So Moses is getting frustrated, and I can understand why because I'm getting frustrated with the people too. Unfortunately, that frustration leads him to act differently than the LORD commanded him, but it seems like a really minor issue so I wouldn't expect it to be treated severely. And yet it is; because of this misstep, the LORD will no longer bring Aaron and Moses into the promised land: they will die in the wilderness. This is really astonishing for such a small mistake, but I think it is significant because it extends the principle we have seen before in e.g. Lev 21, that those people who dwell in the presence of the LORD are held to higher standards than the people who do not. Priests are restrained from going near dead bodies, but the high priest cannot even rend his garments (as a sign of grief).
The nation is forbidden from entering the promised land because they rebelled against Moses, were going to kill him and return to Egypt. That is a very serious crime. Moses rebelled against the LORD by striking the rock instead of speaking to it, and he is given the same punishment not because his crime is so severe, but because his responsibility and authority is so great.
What makes this story confusing is that the LORD honors Moses by bringing forth water, while at the same time rebuking Moses for disobeying his command. This is surprising, because one would think that the LORD would refuse to perform miracles on Moses's behalf if Moses were disobeying the LORD. And yet, here he does. I'm not sure what to think about this. I know the people needed water; though they are complaining and acting without faith, they are correct in stating their need for water. So I believe the LORD wished to give them water, and he chose Moses to be the conduit for this miracle.
The question is, should Moses's mistake disrupt this plan? More generally, should the sins of people who have been given true assignments by the LORD disrupt or destroy those assignments? Personally, I don't think there is a simple yes or no answer to that. In this case, the answer appears to be no, as the LORD fulfills the miracle despite Moses's sin. On the other hand, Moses and Aaron are henceforth denied entrance to the promised land, which is a far more significant blow to their destinies. So I don't think there's a clear answer. Moses definitely suffers for this sin, but his punishment is not total: he still leads the nation to the border of the promised land and is honored in other ways.
Next, we are told that Moses wishes to lead the people through Edom, on their way towards the promised land. Edom is the nation south of ancient Israel, while to the north and west are the Canaanite tribes. We already knew that the LORD directed the people to take the Red Sea coast, heading south into the Arabian Peninsula. Now we can see they are heading north, out of the Peninsula, and towards the promised land. Strikingly, there has been no mention of 40 years in the wilderness, nor will there be any mention of it until the next census is taken.
This is a really surprising (to me) omission. The 40 years in the wilderness represents the metaphorical and literal death of a generation because they rebelled against the LORD and it is left almost entirely out of this account, which is the primary account of the wilderness travels*. Basically the text goes from the LORD condemning Israel to 40 years of wandering, to a brief Levitical section, to an account of Israel's return to the promised land (beginning in this chapter). My best guess is that the "40 year gap" is between the end of chapter 14/beginning of chapter 15, though it could possibly also be at the end of chapter 17. Both of these are junctures where the text shifts from a narrative section to a legal section, and whenever you see a sudden shift in the subject or context of the passage, that is a hint that some sort of temporal discontinuity just occurred. Chapter 15 begins with laws dealing with the promised land itself (see Num 15:2, "when you enter the land where you are to live..."), which I remarked at the time was very peculiar to be positioned directly after the judgment of chapter 14.
One plausible explanation is that these are not only different subjects, but they are recorded at very different times. Perhaps chapter 15 happens after the 40 years, and is therefore more suitable for the grand entrance to Canaan, rather than the humiliating departure. This would require the account of Korah's rebellion et al. to also be some arbitrary time into, or just after, the 40 years of wandering. In my opinion, that is also plausible, since we aren't given any definitive connection between Korah's rebellion and the stories arcs before or after it. That said, Korah's rebellion is topically related to what happens before the 40 years of wandering, in particular the rebellion of chapter 14 itself, since all of these events show the stubbornness of the Israelite nation.
It's also possible the "40 year gap" is at the end of chapter 17/beginning of chapter 18, when the next major Levitical section occurs. I think this is plausible, but I think the 14/15 disjunction has more explanatory power, because reading chapters 14 and 15 as a continuous narrative is simply disconcerting.
Anyway, Edom denies Israel passage because they fear that Israel will 1) consume all the food and water in the land, 2) Maybe leave a few hundred thousand people behind to colonize the land and drive out its current occupants. Remember that Edom is the nation descended from Esau, who was also called Edom. That's why v. 14 says "your brother Israel", because it's speaking of the brotherhood of Jacob and Esau. Now the nations Israel and Edom are also metaphorically brothers.
In the end, Edom does not trust Israel to hold to their promises, and while Edom is rebuked for this in later parts of the bible, I think their fear is justified. Just look at how many times the Israelites have complained to Moses about lacking food or water. It is unrealistic to expect the people to avoid eating any crops or drinking water as they pass through, and while Moses offers to pay for the water, the Edomites similarly distrusted that promise. The brotherhood of Israel and Edom is why the Israelites refused to fight and moved on when "Edom came out against [Israel] with a heavy force and with a strong hand." It's not out of fear, it is to avoid conflict with what should have been a friendly nation. Maybe the Edomites remember the treachery of Jacob and impute that treachery to his children.
At the very end of the chapter, Aaron dies, as we knew he would. Eleazar is to be anointed the next high priest, which makes sense because he is the oldest living son of Aaron. Also, chapter 19 implied that Eleazar would be the next high priest when the LORD commanded that he officiate over the red heifer sacrifice. All things considered, this is a very orderly transition and it effectively seals the hereditary office in Aaron's bloodline.
*There is an ex post facto description of the 40 years in Deuteronomy, when Moses recounts the history of Israel, but Numbers purports to be a present-tense narrative account.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Bible Commentary - Numbers 19
In this chapter, the LORD relates to Moses the ordinances for the red heifer related to ceremonial purity.
Like many legal chapters, this chapter contains a variety of new details and extensions of laws that have been already established. In this case, this chapter is expanding upon the Levitical laws of ceremonial purity related to dead bodies (of both animals and people). There isn't any particular connection between this chapter and what happens before and after. Num 18 fits into the story pretty reasonably as a response to the Israelites' fear of judgment and wrath related to their sins and the dwelling presence of the LORD, but this chapter really doesn't have to do with anything in particular that I can tell. I have no idea why this material is presented here in Numbers rather than say, Leviticus.
Starting in verse 11, it tells us about the ceremonial impurity of anyone who touches a dead body or if someone dies in a tent. This was first expressed in Lev 5:3, though admittedly as I read it now it is not clear at all if this verse is speaking of dead human bodies or other types of human uncleanness (such as bleeding, skin diseases, etc). I will actually have to go back and edit some of my earlier posts (Lev 21, Num 6, Num 9) to clarify that the Levitical law doesn't precisely condemn going near a dead body as a source of ceremonial impurity. I had misread Lev 5:2 as referring to "unclean, dead animals", i.e. that any dead thing becomes unclean. Instead I now see that it more likely refers to "dead, unclean animals", i.e. the carcasses of unclean animals (as they are later delineated).
Rather, it does so in a very allusive fashion, first in Lev 5:2-3 (touching bodies of dead, unclean animals), and then later in Lev 21 (priests cannot go near dead bodies). Lev 21 in particular contains a fairly strong implication that going near a body results in ceremonial impurity, but does not state it. Num 6 continues with the same theme, specifically confirming in v. 7 that going near a body results in ceremonial impurity, and this is approximately repeated by Num 9.
To my surprise, the law is only clearly stated here, even though it has been inferred by all these prior references. What surprises me is that this law is very much Levitical in nature and it would have fit in extremely well with the laws governing bodily emissions, mold and skin diseases. The language and structure of these laws is very similar. The emphasis on ceremonial washing is also very similar. The obvious difference is the ritual usage of the red heifer ashes, which is the only place in the NASB bible where the phrase "red heifer" occurs (other translations may vary). So this is an unusual ritual, but the use of hyssop, scarlet string and cedar wood is nearly equivalent to the ritual cleansing of skin diseases from Lev 14. This reaffirms the similarity of this ritual and the Levitical rituals.
Most details of the ritual are pretty conventional (by OT standards); it involves slaughtering an animal and sprinkling some water to purify oneself after ceremonial impurity. One thing that's unconventional is that only a single animal is slaughtered and the ashes are to be used multiple times by various people. Ordinarily each person is required to offer a sacrifice in atonement for whatever they are atoning. So this ritual, purification from the impurity related to touching dead bodies (or bones, or graves, etc) involves just a single sacrifice, though we can hypothesize this sacrifice is repeated later when the ashes are all used.
Analyzing this chapter is somewhat challenging, since the red heifer ritual is never mentioned again. Though we can reasonably infer that it was practiced for some time, there is no textual reference to it apart from this chapter. The symbolism seems to mostly tie this in with the Levitical purification rituals, but I don't know how much meaning we can extract from that. I mean, it's red string, hyssop and cedar wood: I just don't see any meaningful pattern there. We see the color red occur twice, but that color has many possible meanings so it's difficult to pin it down to any one thing. I suppose we could say it's a thinly veiled reference to blood (and hence atonement), but we already knew that an animal sacrifice was happening, which is a direct reference to blood and atonement. Why mysteriously hint at something that is directly referenced at the same time?
I've skimmed through a few commentaries and it seems that people's opinions are all over the place; there really doesn't seem to be any particular consensus, other than that the red heifer typifies the death of Christ. But again, the same can be said for most, if not all, of the Levitical sacrifices, so I'm not sure how much we can confidently read into this chapter. Maybe I'll come back and add more later, if I think of anything substantive.
Like many legal chapters, this chapter contains a variety of new details and extensions of laws that have been already established. In this case, this chapter is expanding upon the Levitical laws of ceremonial purity related to dead bodies (of both animals and people). There isn't any particular connection between this chapter and what happens before and after. Num 18 fits into the story pretty reasonably as a response to the Israelites' fear of judgment and wrath related to their sins and the dwelling presence of the LORD, but this chapter really doesn't have to do with anything in particular that I can tell. I have no idea why this material is presented here in Numbers rather than say, Leviticus.
Starting in verse 11, it tells us about the ceremonial impurity of anyone who touches a dead body or if someone dies in a tent. This was first expressed in Lev 5:3, though admittedly as I read it now it is not clear at all if this verse is speaking of dead human bodies or other types of human uncleanness (such as bleeding, skin diseases, etc). I will actually have to go back and edit some of my earlier posts (Lev 21, Num 6, Num 9) to clarify that the Levitical law doesn't precisely condemn going near a dead body as a source of ceremonial impurity. I had misread Lev 5:2 as referring to "unclean, dead animals", i.e. that any dead thing becomes unclean. Instead I now see that it more likely refers to "dead, unclean animals", i.e. the carcasses of unclean animals (as they are later delineated).
Rather, it does so in a very allusive fashion, first in Lev 5:2-3 (touching bodies of dead, unclean animals), and then later in Lev 21 (priests cannot go near dead bodies). Lev 21 in particular contains a fairly strong implication that going near a body results in ceremonial impurity, but does not state it. Num 6 continues with the same theme, specifically confirming in v. 7 that going near a body results in ceremonial impurity, and this is approximately repeated by Num 9.
To my surprise, the law is only clearly stated here, even though it has been inferred by all these prior references. What surprises me is that this law is very much Levitical in nature and it would have fit in extremely well with the laws governing bodily emissions, mold and skin diseases. The language and structure of these laws is very similar. The emphasis on ceremonial washing is also very similar. The obvious difference is the ritual usage of the red heifer ashes, which is the only place in the NASB bible where the phrase "red heifer" occurs (other translations may vary). So this is an unusual ritual, but the use of hyssop, scarlet string and cedar wood is nearly equivalent to the ritual cleansing of skin diseases from Lev 14. This reaffirms the similarity of this ritual and the Levitical rituals.
Most details of the ritual are pretty conventional (by OT standards); it involves slaughtering an animal and sprinkling some water to purify oneself after ceremonial impurity. One thing that's unconventional is that only a single animal is slaughtered and the ashes are to be used multiple times by various people. Ordinarily each person is required to offer a sacrifice in atonement for whatever they are atoning. So this ritual, purification from the impurity related to touching dead bodies (or bones, or graves, etc) involves just a single sacrifice, though we can hypothesize this sacrifice is repeated later when the ashes are all used.
Analyzing this chapter is somewhat challenging, since the red heifer ritual is never mentioned again. Though we can reasonably infer that it was practiced for some time, there is no textual reference to it apart from this chapter. The symbolism seems to mostly tie this in with the Levitical purification rituals, but I don't know how much meaning we can extract from that. I mean, it's red string, hyssop and cedar wood: I just don't see any meaningful pattern there. We see the color red occur twice, but that color has many possible meanings so it's difficult to pin it down to any one thing. I suppose we could say it's a thinly veiled reference to blood (and hence atonement), but we already knew that an animal sacrifice was happening, which is a direct reference to blood and atonement. Why mysteriously hint at something that is directly referenced at the same time?
I've skimmed through a few commentaries and it seems that people's opinions are all over the place; there really doesn't seem to be any particular consensus, other than that the red heifer typifies the death of Christ. But again, the same can be said for most, if not all, of the Levitical sacrifices, so I'm not sure how much we can confidently read into this chapter. Maybe I'll come back and add more later, if I think of anything substantive.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Bible Commentary - Numbers 18
In this chapter, the LORD describes the compensation of the priests and Levites, which they receive instead of an inheritance in the promised land.
NB: To anyone who is following my blog, I apologize for being gone for the past couple weeks. I was traveling internationally and now that I'm back, I will try to make up for the lost posts.
At first glance, this chapter seems like a non-sequitur to the last, because the prior chapter ends with the people fearful for their lives, and this one is talking about the role of the Levites and so forth. If you think about it though, this chapter actually does (indirectly) answer the fears of the people. Remember that Korah's rebellion was a challenge to the Aaronic priesthood, where Korah and the Levites sought to usurp Aaron's role in the religious system. This results in the judgments and the fear at the end of chapter 17.
The LORD's response here is to reaffirm the Aaronic priesthood, first emphasizing the responsibility and then emphasizing the commensurate payments. Importantly, we are taught that the priests are responsible for the "guilt in connection with the sanctuary" (v. 1), because this is what aroused the LORD's anger previously. If the people respect the Aaronic priesthood and follow the proper protocol, they have no need to fear the "guilt" that resulted in the death of Korah and his followers. In conclusion, "there will no longer be wrath on the sons of Israel". (v. 5)
Next, we are told that basically everything which is given to the LORD is at least partially handed over to the priests, as compensation for their service. This compensation is mainly from three sources: 1) most sacrificial offerings, 2) the firstfruits offerings, 3) the redemption of the firstborn. Leviticus discusses the sacrifices and the share given to the priest in great detail. We were told that the Levites were given in lieu of the firstborn, but now that principle is extended to include the sacrifices and redemption for firstborn animals. For the first fruit offerings, I don't believe we were ever told what those went to, but it seems like a natural conclusion that they should be given to the priests.
Later in this chapter we are told that the priests have a fourth source of income, the tithes from the Levites. This is important because the most consistent source of income for the Levites, the sacrifices, must be treated as holy, which means they cannot be eaten in a state of ceremonial impurity (see Lev 22). Since a woman is ceremonially impure for either 33 or 66 days when she gives birth, going without food for that long would be a serious problem. The tithes are therefore a consistent and dependable food source for the priest and his whole family, which is supplemented by the other sources I mentioned above.
Verse 20 concludes that the LORD is "your portion and your inheritance among the sons of Israel". So the priests are given all of these material considerations for their service, and in exchange they do not have any inheritance within the promised land.
Next, we are told that the Levites are given a roughly similar deal. They do not have any inheritance of land, but in exchange they are given a tithe from the people. Similar to the priests, the Levites help bear the service of the tabernacle and protect the Israelites from the LORD's wrath, which is possibly why the Israelites are expected to pay them a tithe. Lev 27 incidentally mentions the cost of redemption for tithes, but does not formally instituted any particular tithe. Here we are told the tithe is the inheritance of the Levites, but again it doesn't seem to be formally instituted. It just says that there is a tithe which is given to the Levites. It's not clear to me if this is a reference to the tithe of Deut 12, the tithe of Deut 14, or some other tithe altogether. All of the various tithes reference the Levites in some way, which leaves some ambiguity about how many tithes were enforced and for what purpose these tithes were used.
What we can clearly tell from here and Deuteronomy is that the nation was expected to materially support the Levites, freeing the Levites to serve the ministry of the tabernacle on behalf of the nation. We are also given some idea of the relative size of the priesthood compared to the Levites, as the Levites are given a tithe from the whole nation (10%) while the priests are only given a tithe from the Levites (1%).
NB: To anyone who is following my blog, I apologize for being gone for the past couple weeks. I was traveling internationally and now that I'm back, I will try to make up for the lost posts.
At first glance, this chapter seems like a non-sequitur to the last, because the prior chapter ends with the people fearful for their lives, and this one is talking about the role of the Levites and so forth. If you think about it though, this chapter actually does (indirectly) answer the fears of the people. Remember that Korah's rebellion was a challenge to the Aaronic priesthood, where Korah and the Levites sought to usurp Aaron's role in the religious system. This results in the judgments and the fear at the end of chapter 17.
The LORD's response here is to reaffirm the Aaronic priesthood, first emphasizing the responsibility and then emphasizing the commensurate payments. Importantly, we are taught that the priests are responsible for the "guilt in connection with the sanctuary" (v. 1), because this is what aroused the LORD's anger previously. If the people respect the Aaronic priesthood and follow the proper protocol, they have no need to fear the "guilt" that resulted in the death of Korah and his followers. In conclusion, "there will no longer be wrath on the sons of Israel". (v. 5)
Next, we are told that basically everything which is given to the LORD is at least partially handed over to the priests, as compensation for their service. This compensation is mainly from three sources: 1) most sacrificial offerings, 2) the firstfruits offerings, 3) the redemption of the firstborn. Leviticus discusses the sacrifices and the share given to the priest in great detail. We were told that the Levites were given in lieu of the firstborn, but now that principle is extended to include the sacrifices and redemption for firstborn animals. For the first fruit offerings, I don't believe we were ever told what those went to, but it seems like a natural conclusion that they should be given to the priests.
Later in this chapter we are told that the priests have a fourth source of income, the tithes from the Levites. This is important because the most consistent source of income for the Levites, the sacrifices, must be treated as holy, which means they cannot be eaten in a state of ceremonial impurity (see Lev 22). Since a woman is ceremonially impure for either 33 or 66 days when she gives birth, going without food for that long would be a serious problem. The tithes are therefore a consistent and dependable food source for the priest and his whole family, which is supplemented by the other sources I mentioned above.
Verse 20 concludes that the LORD is "your portion and your inheritance among the sons of Israel". So the priests are given all of these material considerations for their service, and in exchange they do not have any inheritance within the promised land.
Next, we are told that the Levites are given a roughly similar deal. They do not have any inheritance of land, but in exchange they are given a tithe from the people. Similar to the priests, the Levites help bear the service of the tabernacle and protect the Israelites from the LORD's wrath, which is possibly why the Israelites are expected to pay them a tithe. Lev 27 incidentally mentions the cost of redemption for tithes, but does not formally instituted any particular tithe. Here we are told the tithe is the inheritance of the Levites, but again it doesn't seem to be formally instituted. It just says that there is a tithe which is given to the Levites. It's not clear to me if this is a reference to the tithe of Deut 12, the tithe of Deut 14, or some other tithe altogether. All of the various tithes reference the Levites in some way, which leaves some ambiguity about how many tithes were enforced and for what purpose these tithes were used.
What we can clearly tell from here and Deuteronomy is that the nation was expected to materially support the Levites, freeing the Levites to serve the ministry of the tabernacle on behalf of the nation. We are also given some idea of the relative size of the priesthood compared to the Levites, as the Levites are given a tithe from the whole nation (10%) while the priests are only given a tithe from the Levites (1%).
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Bible Commentary - Numbers 17
In this chapter, the LORD reaffirms his appointment of Aaron and the house of Levi with a miracle.
This is a relatively short chapter. In it, we can see the LORD wishes to finally put an end to the rebellions against Moses and Aaron, and he chooses to perform a sign before the people to reaffirm and prove Aaron's election as high priest. Honestly, it baffles me why the Israelites have not been convinced by everything they have already seen. Virtually everything that happened in Exodus centered around Moses in some fashion, and he continues to work miracles in their midst, such as bringing water from the rock. Why they continue to rebel is difficult for me to understand. And then in this chapter, simply by sprouting a staff, the people suddenly go from wanting to kill Moses to panicking that the LORD will slay all of them for their indiscretion (vv. 12-13).
Given the many rebellions, I think this reaction is totally understandable, I just don't get why it happens here rather than much earlier. I think there are a couple answers. The most significant we have to keep in mind is the public visibility (or lack thereof) for each miracle. That is, we are being given a full record of events by Numbers, but this information might not have been available to the ancient Israelites of Moses's time. Any miracle that went unwitnessed by the Israelites might as well have not happened for them. However, there have been many "global" miracles that should have been observed by nearly everyone. The plagues of Egypt, crossing the Red Sea, the manna from heaven, the thunder and lightning on Mount Sinai, the cloud by day and fire by night: all of these things are observable for the entire nation, and I believe this is intentional.
The LORD is trying to establish a relationship with the whole nation just like he did with Abraham. From this viewpoint, it is necessary for the LORD to use larger miracles to reveal himself to all the people because only larger miracles would be visible to everyone in a large geographic locale. Even so, a tremendous volume of the past couple books have been recountings of "the LORD told Moses", followed by "and then Moses told the people", which contributes to this problem that most people are disconnected from their god, and these many rebellions are the result of that disconnection. Since nearly everything is being told to the people indirectly through Moses, it's possible they question Moses's truthfulness when he reports his own promotion to leader and president of the entire nation. The miracles might be real miracles, but the only people saying "Moses is the leader" is Moses and his lieutenants. Also, don't forget the continual undercurrent of tribal politics: I'm sure many tribes are not happy to have a Levite, Moses, ruling over them and appointing other Levites into key religious positions.
The next point is that, while the people might have observed many miracles, it is possible they questioned whether those miracles affirmed Moses and Aaron as leaders of the people. I'm skeptical of this considering Moses's triumphal prominence over everything related to the LORD and the tabernacle, which strongly implies that the LORD favors Moses, but we should still keep in mind that this is really the first miracle that specifically and undeniably refers to Aaron and Levi.
The last point I will bring up is the potential weight of accumulated miracles. Maybe crossing through the Red Sea wasn't convincing enough, but now that they have a sprouted staff and some almonds, that is enough evidence for them to finally submit to Aaron's authority as priest.
And the Israelites' response is actually pretty funny. They must really be freaking out, since these two verses contain three different words for death: "gava", meaning to breathe out (your last) or expire, "abad", meaning to wander away, to be lost or perish, and "muth", meaning to die, to kill, to be destroyed. I would have expected something like this to show up during the plague for instance, when many thousands of people actually died. Only now do the people seem to expect that they will die, and this amuses me.
And that's the end of the story. After this we move back to a priestly legal section. While the story continues in chapter 20, this chapter concludes the current story arc, the rebellion arc. After this, the people generally stop challenging Moses's leadership, which suggests that they are truly afraid of the LORD killing them, and hence change their behavior for the better. Not to say that they stop sinning, but at least they stop questioning Moses and Aaron.
This is a relatively short chapter. In it, we can see the LORD wishes to finally put an end to the rebellions against Moses and Aaron, and he chooses to perform a sign before the people to reaffirm and prove Aaron's election as high priest. Honestly, it baffles me why the Israelites have not been convinced by everything they have already seen. Virtually everything that happened in Exodus centered around Moses in some fashion, and he continues to work miracles in their midst, such as bringing water from the rock. Why they continue to rebel is difficult for me to understand. And then in this chapter, simply by sprouting a staff, the people suddenly go from wanting to kill Moses to panicking that the LORD will slay all of them for their indiscretion (vv. 12-13).
Given the many rebellions, I think this reaction is totally understandable, I just don't get why it happens here rather than much earlier. I think there are a couple answers. The most significant we have to keep in mind is the public visibility (or lack thereof) for each miracle. That is, we are being given a full record of events by Numbers, but this information might not have been available to the ancient Israelites of Moses's time. Any miracle that went unwitnessed by the Israelites might as well have not happened for them. However, there have been many "global" miracles that should have been observed by nearly everyone. The plagues of Egypt, crossing the Red Sea, the manna from heaven, the thunder and lightning on Mount Sinai, the cloud by day and fire by night: all of these things are observable for the entire nation, and I believe this is intentional.
The LORD is trying to establish a relationship with the whole nation just like he did with Abraham. From this viewpoint, it is necessary for the LORD to use larger miracles to reveal himself to all the people because only larger miracles would be visible to everyone in a large geographic locale. Even so, a tremendous volume of the past couple books have been recountings of "the LORD told Moses", followed by "and then Moses told the people", which contributes to this problem that most people are disconnected from their god, and these many rebellions are the result of that disconnection. Since nearly everything is being told to the people indirectly through Moses, it's possible they question Moses's truthfulness when he reports his own promotion to leader and president of the entire nation. The miracles might be real miracles, but the only people saying "Moses is the leader" is Moses and his lieutenants. Also, don't forget the continual undercurrent of tribal politics: I'm sure many tribes are not happy to have a Levite, Moses, ruling over them and appointing other Levites into key religious positions.
The next point is that, while the people might have observed many miracles, it is possible they questioned whether those miracles affirmed Moses and Aaron as leaders of the people. I'm skeptical of this considering Moses's triumphal prominence over everything related to the LORD and the tabernacle, which strongly implies that the LORD favors Moses, but we should still keep in mind that this is really the first miracle that specifically and undeniably refers to Aaron and Levi.
The last point I will bring up is the potential weight of accumulated miracles. Maybe crossing through the Red Sea wasn't convincing enough, but now that they have a sprouted staff and some almonds, that is enough evidence for them to finally submit to Aaron's authority as priest.
And the Israelites' response is actually pretty funny. They must really be freaking out, since these two verses contain three different words for death: "gava", meaning to breathe out (your last) or expire, "abad", meaning to wander away, to be lost or perish, and "muth", meaning to die, to kill, to be destroyed. I would have expected something like this to show up during the plague for instance, when many thousands of people actually died. Only now do the people seem to expect that they will die, and this amuses me.
And that's the end of the story. After this we move back to a priestly legal section. While the story continues in chapter 20, this chapter concludes the current story arc, the rebellion arc. After this, the people generally stop challenging Moses's leadership, which suggests that they are truly afraid of the LORD killing them, and hence change their behavior for the better. Not to say that they stop sinning, but at least they stop questioning Moses and Aaron.
Bible Commentary - Numbers 16
In this chapter, several rebellions occur against Moses and Aaron.
It is with some irony that a former rebel, Aaron, is now himself subject to a challenge. Back in Num 12, Aaron (with Miriam) challenged Moses's leadership. At the time, I said that Aaron himself already held a position of substantial authority. Now we see, among other things, the Levites seeking to challenge Aaron's rights as the priest.
The exact nature of the protest is not entirely clear, but what we can see in v. 3 is that the challengers (Korah and other Levites, plus Dathan and Abiram who are sons of Reuben) want to "level the playing field" so that all the people may offer sacrifices and function as priests. The reason why I say it's not clear is because at first, it is a mixed group of Korah, Dathan and Eliab together with some "leaders of the congregation", but when Moses starts to address them, he is primarily referring to "you sons of Levi" who appear to be seeking the priesthood. So from the Levites, they seem to be seeking to overthrow Aaron, who is the priest. However, it says that they also rose up against Moses, who is not a priest but who instituted the priesthood. So there appear to be a couple things going on here, but the main thing is senior leaders of Israel and the Levites challenging Aaron and Moses (who appointed Aaron).
I am not without sympathy for their criticism, that all of the people "are holy" and "the LORD is in their midst". Ex 19:6, in particular, is a verse I have cited over and over as evidence that the LORD wishes to make the entire nation holy priests, which is precisely the criticism of Korah. The problem though is Korah's intent, which is to attain power. If his interest were in seeking the LORD, then that would be one thing, but I think this chapter makes it pretty clear that Korah is simply interested in removing Aaron and Moses from their positions of authority.
I do believe the LORD wishes to establish all the people as a sort of priesthood, but in the short term only a small number are allowed into the tabernacle. It's difficult for me to explain why the LORD would do it like this, but it's pretty clear that the Korahites do not have the authority to challenge the LORD's policy.
Dathan and Abiram, while lumped together with Korah, seem more focused on how they were denied access to the promised land. They primarily blame Moses, who is responsible for them as their leader. This is bitterly ironic since it was the rebellion of the people (including these leaders) that resulted in their condemnation to the wilderness. As with the Korahites, Dathan and Abiram think Moses is abusing his position and "lord it over us" (v. 13), as the NASB says. And as with the Korahites, their biggest issue is jealousy.
In the end, the LORD reaffirms Moses and Aaron by killing their enemies, swallowing them whole into the earth. Continuing with the bitter irony, the people blame Moses and Aaron for killing those leaders. Implicitly this shows us that the leaders must have been popular, and their accusations against Moses and Aaron were also probably popular. The LORD sends another plague to punish the people for gathering against Moses, and then Aaron is given an opportunity to exercise his priestly role. I think this is clearly intended to help establish Aaron's legitimacy, by giving him an opportunity to "atone" for the people in a very public way. The normal priestly obligations usually keep Aaron inside the tabernacle, which is largely concealed from the rest of the people. It's possible this is one reason why the people disrespect Aaron, because they are unaware of how he ministers on their behalf. I think that's one factor, but the bigger factor is clearly jealousy and ambition for the power that Aaron holds as the chief priest.
Briefly, I also an intrigued by this chapter's usage of censers. Censers had been only briefly mentioned before, almost casually stipulated in e.g. Ex 25:38 and 27:3. The first (and basically only) ritual use of censers is described in Lev 16, part of the Day of Atonement rituals. The casual side references of Exodus suggest that the usage of censers is either unimportant or very well-known to the author and his presumptive readers. I would bet more on the latter than the former, because surprisingly this chapter shows that many leaders have censers and not just the ones constructed for the tabernacle. In the end, those people were slain for offering impermissible incense, just like Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10. So it's interesting that all these people have censers, but using them is unregulated, possibly resulting in death if they do so improperly. Why do they all have censers? I can only imagine that there is some sort of customary or ritual use of censers that would have been more widely understood to ancient Israelites, but the rules for this have not been given to us. Instead, we only see them use censers as a sign of their piety, which is not accepted by the LORD and they are killed for it.
It is with some irony that a former rebel, Aaron, is now himself subject to a challenge. Back in Num 12, Aaron (with Miriam) challenged Moses's leadership. At the time, I said that Aaron himself already held a position of substantial authority. Now we see, among other things, the Levites seeking to challenge Aaron's rights as the priest.
The exact nature of the protest is not entirely clear, but what we can see in v. 3 is that the challengers (Korah and other Levites, plus Dathan and Abiram who are sons of Reuben) want to "level the playing field" so that all the people may offer sacrifices and function as priests. The reason why I say it's not clear is because at first, it is a mixed group of Korah, Dathan and Eliab together with some "leaders of the congregation", but when Moses starts to address them, he is primarily referring to "you sons of Levi" who appear to be seeking the priesthood. So from the Levites, they seem to be seeking to overthrow Aaron, who is the priest. However, it says that they also rose up against Moses, who is not a priest but who instituted the priesthood. So there appear to be a couple things going on here, but the main thing is senior leaders of Israel and the Levites challenging Aaron and Moses (who appointed Aaron).
I am not without sympathy for their criticism, that all of the people "are holy" and "the LORD is in their midst". Ex 19:6, in particular, is a verse I have cited over and over as evidence that the LORD wishes to make the entire nation holy priests, which is precisely the criticism of Korah. The problem though is Korah's intent, which is to attain power. If his interest were in seeking the LORD, then that would be one thing, but I think this chapter makes it pretty clear that Korah is simply interested in removing Aaron and Moses from their positions of authority.
I do believe the LORD wishes to establish all the people as a sort of priesthood, but in the short term only a small number are allowed into the tabernacle. It's difficult for me to explain why the LORD would do it like this, but it's pretty clear that the Korahites do not have the authority to challenge the LORD's policy.
Dathan and Abiram, while lumped together with Korah, seem more focused on how they were denied access to the promised land. They primarily blame Moses, who is responsible for them as their leader. This is bitterly ironic since it was the rebellion of the people (including these leaders) that resulted in their condemnation to the wilderness. As with the Korahites, Dathan and Abiram think Moses is abusing his position and "lord it over us" (v. 13), as the NASB says. And as with the Korahites, their biggest issue is jealousy.
In the end, the LORD reaffirms Moses and Aaron by killing their enemies, swallowing them whole into the earth. Continuing with the bitter irony, the people blame Moses and Aaron for killing those leaders. Implicitly this shows us that the leaders must have been popular, and their accusations against Moses and Aaron were also probably popular. The LORD sends another plague to punish the people for gathering against Moses, and then Aaron is given an opportunity to exercise his priestly role. I think this is clearly intended to help establish Aaron's legitimacy, by giving him an opportunity to "atone" for the people in a very public way. The normal priestly obligations usually keep Aaron inside the tabernacle, which is largely concealed from the rest of the people. It's possible this is one reason why the people disrespect Aaron, because they are unaware of how he ministers on their behalf. I think that's one factor, but the bigger factor is clearly jealousy and ambition for the power that Aaron holds as the chief priest.
Briefly, I also an intrigued by this chapter's usage of censers. Censers had been only briefly mentioned before, almost casually stipulated in e.g. Ex 25:38 and 27:3. The first (and basically only) ritual use of censers is described in Lev 16, part of the Day of Atonement rituals. The casual side references of Exodus suggest that the usage of censers is either unimportant or very well-known to the author and his presumptive readers. I would bet more on the latter than the former, because surprisingly this chapter shows that many leaders have censers and not just the ones constructed for the tabernacle. In the end, those people were slain for offering impermissible incense, just like Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10. So it's interesting that all these people have censers, but using them is unregulated, possibly resulting in death if they do so improperly. Why do they all have censers? I can only imagine that there is some sort of customary or ritual use of censers that would have been more widely understood to ancient Israelites, but the rules for this have not been given to us. Instead, we only see them use censers as a sign of their piety, which is not accepted by the LORD and they are killed for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)