Numbers 26:1-65

Here we see the Israelites preparing for their entrance into the Promised Land.  After the plague for disobedience and idolatry in the last chapter, the Lord calls a new census to be taken.  Why?  The entire generation that had rebelled against the Lord about going into the land had died; the last of them must have gone in the plague.  It says that among those listed in the new census, not one had been listed in the census at Sinai (v. 64).  According to this census would the land be divided among the tribes and inheritances handed out; if the tribe was large, they would be given a larger tract of land to accommodate their people; if the tribe was small, their lot would be smaller according to the number of their people.  It was a way to ensure that everyone in Israel had an adequate inheritance, if they were careful to take care of it and protect it and nurture, and their relationship with their God.

What really struck me about this passage, though, is the part about Korah.  You remember the story: Korah leads a rebellion against Aaron and Moses, speaks out against God, and in punishment the earth opens up and swallows Korah, his cohorts, and their families.  But not, apparently, Korah's sons.  Perhaps they chose not to stand with their father in his rebellion (likely, I think, since everyone else went into the earth); it's not explicit, but we know they were granted a stay of execution.  The next time we see the sons of Korah?  In the Book of Psalms are a number subtitled as a maskil by the sons of Korah.  What a maskil is, exactly, is obscure to us: we have no idea.  But it is thought that it is a sort of musical term, perhaps it's a type of song.  We don't know.  However, what is clear to us is that the sons of Korah eventually became a prominent group of musicians among the Levites, kind of like the Old Testament equivalent of Matt Redman or Lincoln Brewster or Christ Tomlin, or a host of others whose names I don't know as I'm not much of a music buff: those that write the worship songs we like to sing in our churches today.

Talk about second chances.  Talk about redemption.  Talk about good coming out of something bad.  How often does the Old Testament talk about sins and the consequences for sin being visited upon  generation and generation after the original?  (Um, just look at Adam, right?)  Why is it that Korah's entire household went down with him?  Yet his sons survived, and his descendants, coming from an angry and rebellious forebear, become examples of worship in the Old Testament.  Talk about awesome!  We today even know some of the words they wrote with the Holy Spirit: anyone ever sing, "As the Deer?"  Yeah, that comes from a psalm the sons of Korah wrote to worship the Lord.  Pretty cool, huh?

Tomorrow's Reading: Numbers 27:1-28:15

Numbers 24:15-25:18

One of my professor's in Bible college wrote his doctoral dissertation on this incident, specifically on the blessing Phineas received from the Lord.  I always wondered what he wrote, or at least what his thesis for the dissertation was, though I've never been overburdened with the idea that dissertations were incredibly interesting to read.  It's such a strange, obscure, bloody little incident in the Old Testament.  The people of Israel are bowing down to another God and in the midst of their discipline from the Lord, a man flaunts his disobedience in God's and Moses' and the people's faces by taking a Midianite woman to wife, right there.  Phineas burns with righteous anger and puts them to death.

Note, though, that the Lord is not blessing him for the bloodiness of his actions, but that he was did what must be done out of a zeal for God, and a jealousy that Israel remain pure unto the Lord.  God says, "he was jealous with my jealousy among them [the people of Israel]."  There was a plague upon the people and their chiefs were sentenced to death; 24,000 people died for their disobedience.  And God makes it clear that He would have punished far more for allowing this man to be so brazenly disobedient before the Lord if Phineas had not acted.

Have you ever wanted an amazing blessing from God?  I know I have.  Is it really as simple as having a heart full of zeal for the Lord?  Psalm 37:4 says, "Delight yourself in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart."  Does this mean that if you desire piles of riches, credit cards with million-dollar limits, four Maseratis and a mansion on your own island, that you can simply delight yourself in the Lord and you'll get everything?  No.  My friends and I have often talked about the fact that when you truly delight in the Lord, the desire of your heart is... the Lord.  Does it mean that if you delight yourself in the Lord, nothing bad will ever happen to you?  Definitely not.  We're promised difficulties, only that our difficulties will come to good for our sakes (Romans 8:28).  However, the example of Phineas does show that those that love the Lord do find blessings, that Psalm 37:4 is not an empty promise: that God does look to the cares of those who love Him.  Really, you continue reading in that Psalm, and you'll see such promises that if you trust in Him, He will act; that He will bring forth your righteousness, that the Lord will see justice done.  Isn't that a deep desire within us?  That justice prevail.  And if we love the Lord, that His will be done.  Promises to live by.

Tomorrow's Reading: Numbers 26:1-65.

Numbers 23:1-24:14

Let me tell you, I'm still a little conflicted about Balaam.  Was he a follower of God or a wicked diviner?  The thing that put me back into this circle of thinking is that he instructed Balak to set up seven altars and to sacrifice seven bulls and seven rams on the altars.  Then he said he would go inquire of the Lord and he would have to speak whatever the Lord told him.  Not of the commentaries I consulted said the exact same thing, but I did get some of the various viewpoints as follows:

• the seven altars with seven bulls and seven rams was a pagan practice based off texts from Babylon describing a similar practice
• that the seven altars was a pagan practice because it was not instituted by God through the Law
• that perhaps Balaam set up altars to the Lord, using the number seven, a pagan number, to throw Balak off his true intentions
• that Balaam was clearly a pagan diviner practicing the arts of divination and sorcery

And further things like that.  I readily admit that the writers of these commentaries have studied and understood far more of Scripture than I have, that many of them know and understand the original language in which the Scripture was written; that because of that, they may know and understand more than I do.  That is all very true.  But it really doesn't fill in some gaps for me.  They are these:

• If Balaam was strictly a pagan diviner, why would he go the Lord to even ask permission to go?  Why not just go?  (Though we know that he did love money more than the Lord and was seeking an excuse to go.  Scripture teaches us that.)
• Why would setting up altars with sacrifices necessarily be pagan just because it was outside the Law?  The Law as a new institution and was only given to the people of Israel.  Does it necessarily follow that Balaam would know it and follow it, being outside the nation of Israel?  Does he have to be an Israelite in order to be a prophet or to have a relationship with the Lord?  Granted, after this time, we have no record of such a thing.  But that is after the Law is established.  Before that, we have Melchizidek, whose priesthood Christ's priesthood finds Scriptural precendence.  (I am NOT remotely saying Balaam is like Melchizedek or that he was even a priest; but only pointing out isn't there a possibility he could still have had a relationship, however murky, with the True God?)
• If Balaam was strictly pagan, why did he forewarn Balak that he could only repeat the words the Lord gave him? Repeatedly?
• Let's say that Balaam was a pagan diviner, why not, by the time he has met with Balak, would he not have resigned himself to the fact that the Lord was in complete control, resign if not fully and freely acknowledge this after his encounter with the Lord?
• Maybe I'm just looking into this too much?

Regardless, we know these things to be true: 1) Balaam did indeed warn Balak that God's will would be done, no more; 2) each time, Balaam said that he was going to inquire of the Lord; 3) each time, Balaam came back with a blessing, despite Balak's continued efforts to produce a curse; 4) at the end, Balaam acknowledges that he could have done no more than God instructed him to, and no amount of money could have changed the outcome.  We also know from two Scripture passages that Balaam loved gain from wrong doing (2 Peter 2:15), but he was restrained from madness by his donkey's speaking; that likely Balaam did seek to curse Israel at some point for his monetary gain, but that the Lord would not listen and ruled sovereignly over the whole thing (Deuteronomy 23:4-5).

Where does that leave us on Balaam?  I don't know.  I'd like to think his wickedness was all before the talking donkey experience, and that when he sought the Lord and acted before Balak it was with a contrite heart and a desire to obey God above all else, no matter the mess he'd gotten himself into.  I don't know that any of us, Bible scholar or not, can really read far enough into the texts of Scripture to really understand that.  Maybe I'll find out in heaven.  We definitely don't know what kind of life Balaam lived afterwards, and we do know that his reputation for sinfulness was certainly deserved before his encounter with the angel.

One thing I do know is that God's Will will not be thwarted.  God determined, even promised Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, that the Israelites would not be cursed but would be blessed.  That those who cursed the Israelites would be cursed, and those who blessed them would be blessed.  Look at what happened to the peoples of Moab: long since wiped out.  However, we have an Israeli nation today; they have indeed survived long past Balak, just as he feared.  Balaam learned the hard way that God is sovereign and He would not be contravened; Balak also learned the hardy way; hopefully, that means that we won't.  Here is an awesome piece of Scripture that teaches us that indeed, GOD cannot be stopped.  And thankfully, as Romans 8:28 promises, He works all things to the good of those who love Him.  So, though horrible things may arise, though our lives are definitely not one long walk among the daisies, God is sovereign and He will work things to the good: He can and will take those bad experiences and make them for our own benefit.  Praise the Lord God Almighty.

Tomorrow's Reading: Numbers 24:15-25:18

Numbers 22:1-41

Balaam and his donkey!  My favorite story in Numbers!  Definitely one of my Top 10, if not Top 5 stories of the Old Testament all together.  This stuff is great!  I admit, I was excited to get to read this again.

On rereading, however, Balaam proved to be a bit of an enigma for me at first.  It's clear he's been granted some power, or at least some insight, as he has a reputation that whatever he curses or blesses proves to be true (v. 6), which is why Balak summoned him to Moab.  Also, he inquires of the Lord before he sets out on his journey, twice.  This doesn't speak to me of the man I thought Balaam was.  After all, this is the guy who stubbornly refuses to recognize there's something going on with his donkey, and so beats her out of his own blindness; who is so determined to curse a people that he has to bless them three times instead to get the message through his head!  Surely, a guy who has blessings that stick and who goes before the Lord, refusing to take a job without the Lord's permission, wouldn't be that dense, right?  Couple that with the fact that the Lord actually gave him permission to go (conditional, granted) and then was angry with him for doing so, and I found myself reading a story I didn't know very well.  None of it was making sense!

I read up in some commentaries, and I had to remember: let Scripture teach Scripture.  See, in 1 Peter 2:15, Peter explains that Balaam wasn't going out of the purest of intents or going because he'd been commanded to go.  Instead, we see that Balaam loved gain from wrongdoing: he was being greedy with the promises of these rich princes come to collect him for Balak.  God, who knows the hearts of men, understood that Balaam was simply looking for permission to go and to gain money.  Clearly, he loved money: the whole story smacks of it.  He already knew the Lord didn't want him to curse these people as they were already blessed by God, but he asked for permission again, just in case.  God knew in his heart that Balaam went for gain.  He was, after all, selling his services as a prophet, or at best a medium between God and man.  He was using his access with the Lord to make money, and this job was "surely no different."  But it was.  Perhaps Balaam had started out with a pure heart, but as he was blessed by the Lord with truth and accuracy, it seems he may have grown his reputation for his own personal gain.

Further case in point: Balaam may not have been as close to the Lord as it seemed at first.  After all, it wasn't Balaam who saw the angel, but his donkey.  And rather than confront the angel, despite beatings, the donkey tried to swerve aside or stop, even stop Balaam from continuing.  Balaam, who had been riding this donkey for years, knew her temperament, should have known at once that something was amiss, was so focused on his goal that he didn't consider the implications.  The Lord had to open her mouth to speak as a human in order to get his attention!  Surely, a true prophet would have been sensitive to divine intervention, right?  (I would like to think Jeremiah or Isaiah or Joel or Haggai would have, but I cannot really judge: I wasn't there.)  However, when Balaam sees the angel, and hears how his donkey's behavior has saved his life, he readily acknowledges he is a sinner, and he understands that now God does indeed intend for him to go to Balak, but with God's own purposes in mind, neither Balak's nor Balaam's.

That, we get to see tomorrow. :)

Tomorrow's Reading: Numbers 23:1-24:14

Numbers 20:22-21:35

Is it just me, or was the death of Aaron sad?  Granted, he was told that he would not see the promised land for his part in disobedience at the waters of Meribah, and it's rather surprising that he made it so far when he had such an unpromising beginning at the Golden Calf incident.  Still, it struck me as rather sad.  Can you put yourself in his shoes?  Marching up to the top of Mount Hor, watching as your little brother devests you of your position and office as he instills them on your son, and then... dying.  Thus ends Aaron.  I know it wasn't quite like that, but it seems like a sad and anticlimatic end for a man who walked with Moses throughout the plagues, the Passover, the Red Sea, Mt. Sinai.  Granted, he never held the position with the Lord that Moses did, and he definitely was fallible.  Perhaps it was a blessing in disguise: Aaron and Moses were well-advanced in years by this time.  Maybe it was a release to be "let go" from serving such a stubborn people and to be gathered to his fathers.  There aren't quite enough details in the passage to know.

Did you notice that we are beginning to see the wanderings of the people?  It is passages like these that I think I need to keep a Bible atlas handy on the desk as I'm reading.  I rather have a notion that they were criss-crossing paths with themselves as they went from place to place, but then again, maybe they wandered in circles.  I don't know the geography of these locations well enough to know.  I think tomorrow I'll pull out the maps.

Tomorrow's Reading: Numbers 22:1-41 (have you noticed we're more than halfway through Numbers now?)

Numbers 19:1-20:21

I didn't get my reading and blogpost done yesterday.  I allowed myself to get caught up in my housework, thinking I'd get to it any minute, or if necessary last night after Bible study.  However, after Bible study I was worn out, my body was overtaxed and in pain, and I desperately needed to go to bed.  Thankfully, though, my daughter went right back to bed after breakfast this morning and it has afforded me a little bit of catch-up time.

I always felt a little sorry for Moses that after working with such a stubborn and difficult group of people, that he was never allowed to enter into the Promised Land.  But after reading straight through Numbers like we have the past few weeks, I begin to see that God could hardly let Moses and Aaron go unpunished before the people for their sin, when the people themselves are held accountable for their own.  Did they not grumble enough that Moses and Aaron were so favored?  Would that really have been just from a just God?

What I find interesting about the incident at Meribah is that it was Moses who was angry, not the Lord.  God Almighty did not complain about the stubbornness or the stiff-necked nature of the Israelites here.  Perhaps that's because it's understandable that anyone would get cranky when water was scarce.  Their lament was the same refrain as always: "Oh, if only we had died at such and such time rather than go through this!"  Part of me did want to remind them that God had promised the younger generation would come into the Promised Land and the older generation would not, but... They're thirsty.  None of us are too pleasant when we're thirsty.  When we're thirsty, all we think about is getting that drink.  It was Moses, instead, who after receiving instructions from God, went out and chastised the congregation, striking the rock twice.

Did you notice the discrepancy that cost Moses his entrance to the Promised Land?  God had told him to command the water to come forth, but in his anger Moses was a little melodramatic and struck the rock instead.  Water gushed out.  God, who knows Moses' heart far better than we could ever read into it, knew that this resulted in some amount of disbelief.  Maybe Moses doubted that water would come at his command.  Maybe he felt God was being to lenient.  I don't know.  But God knew Moses' heart, and the due punishment was that he, too, would die in the wilderness with his own generation.  (Don't worry: the Lord does allow Moses to look into the land before he dies; he just never sets foot in it.)

Also: take note of Edom in this passage.  These are the people descended from Esau, and so distant cousins to the Israelites.  God does not forget that Edom does Israel this disservice by not allowing them to sojourn in their land.  Edom's continuing attitude towards Israel will come back to bite them in the tuckus.  We just won't see it for another... year?  We'll read about it when we hit the Prophets.

Today's Reading: Numbers 20:22-21:35

Numbers 17:1-18:32

I'll just be honest: I'm having a really hard time concentrating on this today.  It's not that the passage is entirely uninteresting: can you imagine the scene when the staffs are brought back to the tribal leaders and upon examination, every sees that Aaron's staff has not only budded, but flowered and produced almonds?  Did anyone else wonder why the people's immediate response was how they were going to live in the vicinity without dying, when the entire point of the Law in Leviticus and Numbers was to show the people what they must do to live in the presence of the holy God?  Or the fact that their immediate response was despair, though God had shown mercy in His righteous anger again and again (after all, they're still breathing, aren't they)?  Chapter 18 is also quite important, though it's full ramifications may not be felt until Joshua.  Joshua chronicles Israel's entrance into the Promised Land and what was to be their conquering mission (which they did not really fulfill), but also the assignment of each tribe's land inheritance.  This was their inheritance in the promise to Abraham and to Isaac and to Jacob that they would be granted that land from the Lord.  However, the Levites didn't receive an inheritance (this, Jacob himself saw in Genesis 49).  Rather, they were to be scattered among the people, both as a result of their forefather's hasty revenge but also because they were willing to fight for the Lord in the Golden Calf incident (Exodus 30ff).  They were consecrated to the Lord for His service and to serve in the Tabernacle, as we've seen throughout Leviticus and Numbers.  Instead, as their inheritance, the Levites were given cities, known as Levitical cities, and the portions of the offerings and sacrifices that the Lord describes in this chapter are their inheritance.  As they did not own land, they could not farm; as they served in the Tabernacle, they did not conduct business; the offerings were their support and livelihood.  If you were a Levite, this was an important matter as this was how you knew you and your family would be provided for.  If you were an Israelite from another tribe, this would have been important to you to help you understand how your sacrifices and offerings were to be properly used.  (Admit it, we all like to know our taxes are going to good use as well, right?  Very different purposes, but we have similar feelings.) 

That may seem more than enough to be saying about a passage, but... There's plenty of info, but not a lot of life application.  I guess I could boil it down to as an example of how God provides for His people, and that I can take it as a promise that He will always provide for me.  It's definitely true enough, though it didn't take much thought of effort on my part.  I guess I just never want to take that kind of thing for granted: or take the "easy road" on application.  After all, I want to my Scripture reading to have an impact, I want to meditate on it and internalize it.  But I'm just not there tonight.  A failing on my part, obviously.  Holy Spirit, I just pray that I don't take this reading lightly, that I don't treat this as a daily check-list.  I want to know Your Word and to know You better through it.  I want to be a better disciple because of it.

Tomorrow's Reading: Numbers 19:1-20:21