Numbers 35:6-36:13

The last day in Numbers!  I admit, there were a few times I asked myself how many chapters Numbers had, but for the most part it has flown by.  And tomorrow: Deuteronomy.

The cities of refuge has always been a facet of the Law that has intrigued me.  Mostly, this is due to imagination.  I try to put myself in the shoes of someone who has found themselves a manslayer.  Added to the guilt that you have accidentally killed another human being, you must uproot yourself from your land and your family and flee to one of six cities throughout Israel.  After your trial, if you are found innocent according to the laws of an accidental slaying, you must rebuild your life in the city of refuge.  Even if your father or mother back home falls ill, dies if someone is married or born, you cannot leave that city.  If you do, your life is subject to the avenger of the person you killed.  I would think it would be very difficult to wait for the death of the high priest, to not secretly pray for his early dismissal from life so that you might go home again.  What if you went home after decades?  What if you never got to go?

The cities of refuge are not unlike the practice of sanctuary in a medieval church.  During the Middle Ages in Europe, anyone could flee within the walls of a church and escape the repercussions of the law, debt, or similar provocation.  The Church became a place of refuge for those being hounded by the law or by enemies.  They were safe, so long as they remained within the walls of the church.  Like just about any other provision, it was something that could be used, or abused. 

It makes me wonder, though, do you think the psalmists who wrote that the Lord was their refuge might have had the cities of refuge on their minds at all?  A city of refuge was a safe place, but rather than fleeing to one, the psalmist flees to the Lord.  How much more enduring God's refuge is!  It may not be as tangible, some days, as the walls of a city, as a little hut or room within the boundaries of a certain place, but how much more complete in the sovereign Lord.  He is able to protect us, to preserve against our enemies.  We may go through trials and difficulties, persecutions and pain, but as 2 Corinthians 4:8-11 says, "We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.  For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh."

Tomorrow's Reading: Deuteronomy 1:1-46

Numbers 34:1-35:5

Before they ever entered the Promised Land, the Lord laid out the boundaries of what they were to possess.  From south to west to north to east, everything was outlined.  I looked up a number of commentaries on this chapter, and every single one focused on the geography of the borders.  Not a bad thing to do, as it gives us an understanding of what land exactly had been promised to the nation of Israel.  This did the same thing for the Israelites; God basically said, "This is what your land is, now go in and get it."

It's entirely possible that is all this passage is: fyi.  I am the kind of person who likes to know my boundaries before I go in and do something: what's expected of me, what's the minimum, if there's a maximum.  Let me know what to expect, and I'm pretty much good.  Yet a small part of me wonders if there was a two-fold purpose to telling them a head of time, rather than giving in instructions before they went in.  Could it be that it was given to Moses, as Joshua, though succeeding in leadership, would not contain a full measure of the Spirit that Moses did and didn't entertain the same relationship Moses had with God?  Giving the instructions to Moses, as their leader and emissary from the Lord for the past 40 years, may have added more weight before the Israelites?  Could it be it was so that the Israelites didn't get greedy and try to take more than the Lord had sanctioned?  Could it be so that the Israelites wouldn't get lazy and just settle for what they saw as good, as Gad and Reuben and half of Manasseh had?  Or maybe, it was just fyi.  I don't know.  And none of the commentaries seemed to even wonder.  Perhaps it's something I'm going to have to ask God myself some day, if we discuss things like that in Heaven.

It's a good thing to think about, though.  Currently, I'm embarking on a project on writing for a ministry.  I'm intimidated by the task before me.  My own expectations for myself are high.  It's one of those times I wish the Lord had stated outright what my boundaries were.  "In this, you are to go this far, and no further.  In this, you must be sure to strive for this point."  Something like that.  There seems to be a little more leeway here.  The possibility still remains, though, that I could easily pursue my own goals rather than the Lord's.  As I don't have a Moses to give the proclamation from the Lord (and don't need one, exactly, as the Holy Spirit Himself resides in me and communicates with me), this means I need to spend more time in prayer, seeking Him out, making sure I still following Him through the process.  His will be done, right?

Tomorrow's Reading: Numbers 35:6-36:16

Numbers 33:1-56

This is a chapter I had to break out the Bible Atlas to follow.  If you've never given it much thought before, an atlas is a serious Bible aid you should have in your home library.  Even if you only own two books.  Make the third a Bible atlas.  Here is the chronicle of Israel's wanderings, but it doesn't make much sense to us modern readers, does it?  Not, unless, you're familiar with Palestine and the area.  This is a travelogue of forty years worth of national movement, but we can't even follow it.  Unless you've got an atlas.  Mine, I bought it in Bible college.  I've never regretted it.  Reading this chapter, I could look from verse to map, map to verse and follow the route the Israelite's took as they in turn followed the Lord's pillar through the wilderness. 

Granted, they don't know for sure where Mt. Sinai is, nor where many of the places between the crossing of the Red Sea and Mt. Sinai are.  It's assumed it's on the Sinai Peninsula (hey, they do actually share a name), but the mount assumed to be Sinai does have a disappointing lack of evidence that ever hundreds of thousands of people camped there.  There have actually been a number of explorations trying to identify the real Mt. Sinai, and they range from the Sinai peninsula even into Saudi Arabia, in what was then the land of Midian and Arabia.  We still don't know.  So for the portions leading up to and leading directly away from Sinai, those places are actually a bit up in the air.  We do know, however, where Kadesh-Barnea, and that for much of that 40 years' wanderings they seem to have been going relatively in circles.  What more could they have done, with years stretching before them and never wandering far from the land they would eventually go in?  Eventually, though, they find themselves camped in the Plain of Moab, poised across the Jordan for Jericho, ready to go in.

Tomorrow's Reading: Numbers 34:1-35:5

Numbers 32:1-42

So, Gad, Reuben, and half of the tribe of Manasseh decide to stay east of the river.  Seeing that the land of Gilead was good, that they had already driven out the rulers, if not all the people, before them, they chose to take their inheritance early rather than settle west of the Jordan with the rest of the group.  Their promise to be faithful in helping to subdue and win the Promised Land bought them the tract outside it.  But I wonder if the land was really "as good" as they hoped?  Perhaps their cattle grazed there with little problem, but being separated from the rest of the tribes, would they be as protected?  Would eventually misunderstanding crop up?  Would the unity of Israel be affected?  What's even more interesting to me is that Gad and Reuben and Manasseh do go with the Northern Kingdom of Israel when the split comes someday--or they disappear.  I know that it was Judah and Benjamin alone that remained loyal to David's descendants.  We'll have to see what happens to them in the future, as we are coming up to the historical books after Deuteronomy.

Tomorrow's Reading: Numbers 33:1-56

Numbers 31:1-54

Moses' death is drawing near.  The Lord tells him to take revenge on Midian, and then he would be gathered to his people.  I sometimes wonder what it might have been like for Moses to know that these were among the final acts he would do before his time to die.  Was freaked out at all?  Was he glad to go?  After all, it hadn't been an easy job leading the Israelites.  There were many times he wanted to quit.  Perhaps it was a relief, and the only pang was not being able to enter the Promised Land after all this time.

You might remember that the Midianites were the ones who led the people astray into idolatry and licentious acts at Peor.  What you may not have known, as I hadn't until reading this passage (how had I missed this before?) that it was on Balaam's advice that Midian enticed Israel.  I think that very well may sum up Balaam's character.  He had been prevented from cursing Israel as he'd been hired to do, he readily admitted that he couldn't have done otherwise, and yet... seems he wasn't too happy about it.  He recommended to the Midianites that they lead the Israelites astray, and it worked.  24,000 Israelites died because of the plague that resulted.  Midian was in part responsible, and Israel's action against them was God's punishment upon them.  Lest we think that God was spiteful by having all the males and all the women who had had relations with men killed, we must remember one thing: later on in the Bible Saul allows a woman to live when he should have slaughtered the entire nation, and eventually, eventually a descendant lives to harass the Jews in Persia in the form of Haman.  He had carried a grudge against them all the way down the generations.  That possibility was more than likely now, especially in a woman who's husband or lover may have been killed by the Israelites.  Those who were yet unattached may be young enough to learn to forgive and assimilate in the Israelite lifestyle.

But back to Balaam for just a minute.  I've corresponded a little bit with a friend on the topic of him, and she gives an interesting insight.  Balaam obviously had some sort of relationship with the Lord, but it doesn't necessarily mean he had a close one.  Instead, my friend suggests, he may have known the Lord by reputation, after all it was known amongst the neighboring nations what happened at the Red Sea.  The Amalekites came out against them before they even reached Sinai (Ex. 17), and since that time the Israelites had defeated not only the Egyptians and the Amalekites through God's blessings, but also the Canaanites at Arad, the kings Sihon, an Amorite, and Og of Bashan (Numbers 21).  Their reputation preceded them well before they entered the Promised Land to face Jericho (Judges 2).  The God of Israel was known by the name LORD and was acknowledged of as god of great power, if not THE GOD, and was greatly feared, though they did not worship Him.  (Ironic, isn't?  Those that did worship Him did not fear Him as they should, and those that didn't worship Him feared Him greatly.)  Balaam, likely, then knew the Lord by reputation and likely didn't want to cross Him, though he could have been induced (and was induced) for the right price.  It would seem, though this is conjecture, that when he didn't gain that price, he stooped to "petty vengeance" by offering advice to the Midianites on how to deal with the Israelites.  Rather than curse them outright, he went under the table to give them trouble.  So, not, unfortunately, a man who learned to love God when confronted with him, but evil and pagan and chose money over all.  It's sad, really.  Another example of a man doing good by showing you what not to do.

Tomorrow's Reading: Numbers 32:1-42

Numbers 29:1-30:16

Random facts about the Feast of Tabernacles: 70 plus 1 bulls would be sacrificed, 14 plus 1 rams, 98 plus 7 male lambs, and 7 goats.  I don't know why, but when I read the passage I wanted to know this.

Women and vows.  I think a lot of modern day readers would have been indignant at the exceptions given to a woman and her vows.  The man vows before the Lord, and he is responsible for his vows, no questions asked.  A woman makes a vow, and her father or husband is able to cancel it out.  Today, we would think that would be male chauvinism.  But on reading the passage, I came away with a very different impression.

First off, a vow before the Lord is very, very serious thing.  Just ask Jephthah (Judges 11).  If a man made a vow, he was subject to keep it, no matter the consequences.  Period.  A woman, however, is to submit to her father while she lives in his house or her husband.  At this time, there was really no other state.  The Bible teaches us throughout that we as women should be willing to submit male authority: this is the way God has set it up.  If you disagree with me, I'm sorry, but check it out: it's there, and it's not a cultural thing, as it spans thousands of years of culture.  We could get into a long discussion on it, but let's worry about it when we come across one of those passages.  For now, we know that especially in Israel under the Law, a woman should submit.  So, what happens if she makes a vow, rash or very sincere and reasoned, and then her father or husband forbid her to carry it out?  What then?  She has made a vow: there is no getting out of vows.  This passage provides for her: the Lord will release her.  In order that she not make the problem worse by going against her father or her husband, the Lord will no longer hold her responsible as long as her husband [or father] speaks his mind the day he hears about it.  (Now, if he hears about it, stews about it, and then speaks about, too bad so sad.  The Law is clear: he must speak when he hears of it.)  She herself will not be held responsible for her not fulfilling her vow.  However, did you notice 30:15?  It speaks to that stewing bit, if he decides to speak after he has heard about it: if he then nullifies her vow, after essentially establishing it, okaying it by not speaking against it, he will bear the responsibility of her breaking the vow.  She is not released, and she is not responsible: he is for his own actions.  It seems to me a good thing: it allows a woman to fulfill her role in propriety and piety while not holding her responsible for a decision she may not have been allowed to help make.  I think here is an example of God providing, not limiting.

Tomorrow's Reading: Numbers 31:1-54

Numbers 27:1-29:11

I've been sick the past two days, completely and utterly exhausted.  The discomfort of pregnancy had affected my ability to sleep to such a degree that my poor brain has been sluggish in protest.  I wish I could say more about these chapters, about the offerings before the Lord and especially the commissioning of Joshua in Moses' stead (and the fact that he was invested with only some of Moses' power), but I actually feel it is an accomplishment I got it read.  My brain kept trying to shut down with every sentence.  In fact, I may need to go back and reread the first part of ch. 29, as I'm not sure how much sunk in.  I guess some days are just like that.  I hope to be more on my game tomorrow.  I'm praying for a very good night's sleep.

Tomorrow's Reading: Numbers 29:1-30:16