Satan has used many things over the course of human history to turn mankind away from God, and this is, as they say, the oldest trick in the book. We will read greater detail in chapter 31 regarding the human catalyst of this sinister plot. That catalyst was Balaam, which definitively revealed his true heart toward God. Under his advice, Moabite women enticed some of the men to engage in pagan idol worship by inviting them to participate in ritual sacrifices that involved sex with temple prostitutes. This had been strictly forbidden by God on many levels, since they were not to worship any other gods and were not to intermix with the pagan nations around them. Because they were about to enter into the land of Canaan which was inhabited entirely by pagans, this preemptive strike was necessary to enforce God's mandate that the Israelite nation remain pure. To put an immediate stop to this brazen disregard for God, another plague broke out, killing 24,000 before Phineas executed the man and woman caught in the act. Having lost so many Israelites in recent plagues (poisonous snakes, food poisoning, etc.) and being on the cusp of battling their way into the Promised Land, it became necessary to reassess their military strength. It would also have been important to ascertain the size of each tribe for the purpose of apportioning the land once they arrived. The overall numbers were not that different despite the hardship of their desert wanderings and the plagues they were subjected to. The census showed a decline in the male population of only 1820, which was 3 tenths of a percent.
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 27-29
Monday, March 7, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Balaam and the Talking Donkey
This story has long been the epitome of things in Scripture that stretch my faith, but as my husband says, "if God can raise a man from the dead, why can't He make a donkey talk?!" And that's certainly true, but why??!!! That will just have to go on my list of questions to be resolved when I get to Heaven...
Who was Balaam? Was he a follower of God or a charlatan? I read opinions ranging from his being a pagan priest and "curser for hire" to a true believer who was caught up in his own greed. God speaks to him, and at one point it says that the Spirit of God came upon him, so if he didn't know Him before, he certainly knew Him by then. The confusing part of this story (talking donkey notwithstanding) is that God tells Balaam he can go with Balak's men and then is angry with him for going...and sends that aforementioned donkey to block his path. You have to read between the lines a bit to reconcile the apparent discrepancy. Remember that the first time the Moabite princes asked Balaam to go with them to curse Israel, Balak sought counsel from the Lord and promptly declined their offer. But when they came back a second time with a blank check essentially, Balaam was not so quick to send them away. He tells them that "even if Balak gave me his palace filled with silver and gold, I could not do anything great or small to go beyond the command of the Lord my God". Balaam had been told already that he was not to go with these men because Israel was not to be cursed. So what further business could he have had with them if he was truly focused on God's will, which had already been made plain? He should have sent them away again, but he does not... "Stay here tonight as the others did and I will find out what else the Lord has to tell me".
Balaam's story seems to be a classic illustration of God's perfect will versus permissive will. God's perfect will was made clear to Balaam the first time he asked. But he asked again, possibly hoping for a different answer. How often do we do that?!!! When we don't like an answer we hear from God, don't we try to rephrase the question in hopes of a more palatable response? So it seems Balaam was tempted by what Balak was offering and was in a moral quandry. His suggestion that the men stay the night seems to be an effort to buy some time to present his case to God. This time, God gives him permission to go, but with the caveat that he could do only what God told him to do. This is God's permissive will. It was not His original intent, or perfect plan, but He often allows us to step outside of that plan. We have free will, but God is still sovereign and responds to our choices in such a way that His overall plans prevail. So He allows Balaam to go, but knowing his divided loyalty, sees fit to present an indisputable reminder (in the form of a talking donkey) that he should only do what he was directed by God...i.e. he was not to curse the Israelites for money. Thus, He protected his overall perfect plan while allowing Balaam the freedom to operate outside of that perfect plan, as he chose.
All of this makes an otherwise ridiculous story makes sense to me. Hope it helps you as well!
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 25-26
Who was Balaam? Was he a follower of God or a charlatan? I read opinions ranging from his being a pagan priest and "curser for hire" to a true believer who was caught up in his own greed. God speaks to him, and at one point it says that the Spirit of God came upon him, so if he didn't know Him before, he certainly knew Him by then. The confusing part of this story (talking donkey notwithstanding) is that God tells Balaam he can go with Balak's men and then is angry with him for going...and sends that aforementioned donkey to block his path. You have to read between the lines a bit to reconcile the apparent discrepancy. Remember that the first time the Moabite princes asked Balaam to go with them to curse Israel, Balak sought counsel from the Lord and promptly declined their offer. But when they came back a second time with a blank check essentially, Balaam was not so quick to send them away. He tells them that "even if Balak gave me his palace filled with silver and gold, I could not do anything great or small to go beyond the command of the Lord my God". Balaam had been told already that he was not to go with these men because Israel was not to be cursed. So what further business could he have had with them if he was truly focused on God's will, which had already been made plain? He should have sent them away again, but he does not... "Stay here tonight as the others did and I will find out what else the Lord has to tell me".
Balaam's story seems to be a classic illustration of God's perfect will versus permissive will. God's perfect will was made clear to Balaam the first time he asked. But he asked again, possibly hoping for a different answer. How often do we do that?!!! When we don't like an answer we hear from God, don't we try to rephrase the question in hopes of a more palatable response? So it seems Balaam was tempted by what Balak was offering and was in a moral quandry. His suggestion that the men stay the night seems to be an effort to buy some time to present his case to God. This time, God gives him permission to go, but with the caveat that he could do only what God told him to do. This is God's permissive will. It was not His original intent, or perfect plan, but He often allows us to step outside of that plan. We have free will, but God is still sovereign and responds to our choices in such a way that His overall plans prevail. So He allows Balaam to go, but knowing his divided loyalty, sees fit to present an indisputable reminder (in the form of a talking donkey) that he should only do what he was directed by God...i.e. he was not to curse the Israelites for money. Thus, He protected his overall perfect plan while allowing Balaam the freedom to operate outside of that perfect plan, as he chose.
All of this makes an otherwise ridiculous story makes sense to me. Hope it helps you as well!
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 25-26
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Moses Strikes the Rock
This was a sad passage. After all Moses had done, he does a seemingly benign thing (striking the rock for water) and is told that he will no longer be allowed to enter the Promised Land. HARSH! At face value, it does seem a bit much, but we're not about face value! Verse 12 of chapter 20 has God giving the precise reason for His disappointment with Moses. And as with all of us, He was not concerned so much with Moses' actions, but his heart. "Because you did not trust me enough to demonstrate my holiness to the people of Israel...". It is clear that the issue was Moses trust, faith, belief in God. He was instructed to simply speak to the rock in order to get it to produce water for the people. Instead, in anger ("Listen you rebels! Must we bring you water from this rock?") Moses struck the rock with his staff. Certainly, Moses lost his temper, but I don't think this was the problem. Righteous indignation is OK, as evidenced by Jesus turning over the tables in the Temple. It was in the striking of the rock that things went wrong. Moses had used his staff in the performing of many miracles and had perhaps become accustomed to being the central figure in them. Perhaps he actually thought that his staff had magical powers and that it was the staff, moreso than the Lord, that was the causative agent in the previous miracles. Note his use of the word "we" in reference to bringing water from the rock, as though he and Aaron were making the provision instead of God. He may have somehow felt that God needed his help in order to pull off this miracle, thus the lack of trust in God's ability to "demonstrate His holiness to the people". Thinking his involvement more important than it actually was, is an arrogant presumption that many Christians fall prey to today. We say we give God all the glory for the success and blessings in our lives, but really, we assume that we ourselves play a large role in our own "good fortunes" or in the work God has called us to do. Very few of us have the type of faith that trusts God entirely with our needs. We all assume He needs a little help from us. Still, was this enough of a transgression to merit exclusion from the Promised Land? Not for us to say. God is sovereign.
Skimming....the Israelites are turned away from passing through Edom, which was the nation descending from Esau. Perhaps out of respect for the family relationship, they did not war with them, despite having an enormous army (over 600,000 of fighting age) that could easily have over-powered them. They were not so merciful with the Canaanites, who were descendants of Cain. Shortly after the victory over Canaan, the people grumble again about their living conditions (lack of water, boring food, arduous journey) and are again disciplined by God in the form of poisonous snakes, an animal which I thought was an inspired choice! What seems odd, is that God tells Moses to make a replica of the snake and post it on a pole for poisoned Israelites to look upon for their healing. It's odd because the second of the Ten Commandments mandates that God's people NOT make for themselves an idol of any kind. The distinction between these two occurrences is that idols are made to be worshipped while God was not suggesting that the people worship the snake. It's purpose was to provide a tangible expression of their faith. All they were asked to do was to look at the snake and be healed. Sometimes God asks us to do crazy things that make no sense. Usually we question such notions..."surely I am not hearing the voice of God...He would never ask me to do that... " but the Israelites were desperate to believe God and did what was asked of them. AND THEY WERE HEALED. The snake was to have no lasting role in their community, but they saved it nonetheless. Hundreds of years later, it resurfaced and was worshipped as an idol before being destroyed by a godly king who knew better. The second major difference between the prohibition of making idols and the command to make the bronze snake, is that the former is man's idea and the latter was God's.
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 22-24
Skimming....the Israelites are turned away from passing through Edom, which was the nation descending from Esau. Perhaps out of respect for the family relationship, they did not war with them, despite having an enormous army (over 600,000 of fighting age) that could easily have over-powered them. They were not so merciful with the Canaanites, who were descendants of Cain. Shortly after the victory over Canaan, the people grumble again about their living conditions (lack of water, boring food, arduous journey) and are again disciplined by God in the form of poisonous snakes, an animal which I thought was an inspired choice! What seems odd, is that God tells Moses to make a replica of the snake and post it on a pole for poisoned Israelites to look upon for their healing. It's odd because the second of the Ten Commandments mandates that God's people NOT make for themselves an idol of any kind. The distinction between these two occurrences is that idols are made to be worshipped while God was not suggesting that the people worship the snake. It's purpose was to provide a tangible expression of their faith. All they were asked to do was to look at the snake and be healed. Sometimes God asks us to do crazy things that make no sense. Usually we question such notions..."surely I am not hearing the voice of God...He would never ask me to do that... " but the Israelites were desperate to believe God and did what was asked of them. AND THEY WERE HEALED. The snake was to have no lasting role in their community, but they saved it nonetheless. Hundreds of years later, it resurfaced and was worshipped as an idol before being destroyed by a godly king who knew better. The second major difference between the prohibition of making idols and the command to make the bronze snake, is that the former is man's idea and the latter was God's.
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 22-24
Friday, March 4, 2011
Korah's Rebellion
Remember I said we would soon be coming upon some major wrath from God? Here is the first installment! Korah's rebellion was rooted in pride. This group of Levites, though set apart for the task of transporting the most Holy objects from the Tabernacle (a position second only to the priesthood), felt cheated out of the the highest position. They reasoned that as Levites, they had as much claim to the role of priests as Moses and Aaron, which of course ignores the fact that God had appointed those two men (and Aaron's lineage) for the job. They esteemed themselves very highly and sought greater prestige and position. There is no evidence that this revolt was rooted in anything but self-love. There is certainly nothing new about this story of envy and slander. It goes on today and is as old as Satan falling from Heaven. Satan was once a beautiful angel of very high ranking in heaven, who sought to advance his own position. He was able to incite a rebellion against God that included one third of the angels (they evidently have free will also). When His actions were discovered, he was cast down onto earth as punishment. And then we have Korah, of high ranking among the Levites but wanting more, inciting a rebellion of 250 leaders from the tribes of Israel. When his actions were discovered, he was cast down into the earth as punishment. In very disturbing imagery, the three leaders of the rebellion were swallowed up by an opening in the earth (earthquake?) and fire consumed the remaining followers. We will learn in Numbers 26, that not all of the children of Korah died, but it seems clear that some did perish. It is certainly disconcerting to think of children suffering for the sins of their parents, which absolutely continues on in our day. I think Matthew 5:45 says it best..."He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous". Innocent people undeservedly get caught up in the sins of others just as "guilty" people undeservedly get caught up in the blessings of others.
Immediately following this very visible display of God's wrath, the people started to grumble about Moses and Aaron once again! First there was the complaining about the lack of meat, blaming Moses for their plight, and resulting in a plague (food poisoning) that killed thousands. Then Miriam and Aaron complained about Moses which brought on leprosy as punishment. Then Korah rebels, ending in destruction for he and 250 others. And yet, complaints are lodged against Moses again, this time culminating in some sort of instantaneous death plague that claimed the lives of 14,700 people! The bitterness was spreading like a cancer, and God saw fit to destroy it before resentment had infiltrated the entire camp.
God was definitely letting his people know of His uncompromising standards of holiness and requirements for obedience. And the result, as would be natural, was a terrifying fear of God. Not necessarily terrifying enough to keep them on the straight and narrow, but terrifying enough to fear communion with Him. In verse 17:12, they say to Moses "Look, we are doomed! We are dead! We are ruined! Everyone who even comes close to the Tabernacle of the Lord dies. Are we all doomed to die?" Knowing the nature of the Old Testament believers' relationship with and access to God, should make us appreciate the significance of Jesus' work on the cross. When He died, the veil was torn (literally and figuratively) that separated the Most Holy Place from the rest of the Tabernacle. No longer was God unapproachable and man unworthy to approach Him! No longer was there a need for priests, who had special access to God. Every one who had been cleansed of their sins by the blood sacrifice of the perfect, unblemished atonement offering (Jesus) was able to have direct communion with God. Truly, everything in the Old Testament lays the groundwork for the new and it is very cool to see how it all fits together!
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 19-21
Immediately following this very visible display of God's wrath, the people started to grumble about Moses and Aaron once again! First there was the complaining about the lack of meat, blaming Moses for their plight, and resulting in a plague (food poisoning) that killed thousands. Then Miriam and Aaron complained about Moses which brought on leprosy as punishment. Then Korah rebels, ending in destruction for he and 250 others. And yet, complaints are lodged against Moses again, this time culminating in some sort of instantaneous death plague that claimed the lives of 14,700 people! The bitterness was spreading like a cancer, and God saw fit to destroy it before resentment had infiltrated the entire camp.
God was definitely letting his people know of His uncompromising standards of holiness and requirements for obedience. And the result, as would be natural, was a terrifying fear of God. Not necessarily terrifying enough to keep them on the straight and narrow, but terrifying enough to fear communion with Him. In verse 17:12, they say to Moses "Look, we are doomed! We are dead! We are ruined! Everyone who even comes close to the Tabernacle of the Lord dies. Are we all doomed to die?" Knowing the nature of the Old Testament believers' relationship with and access to God, should make us appreciate the significance of Jesus' work on the cross. When He died, the veil was torn (literally and figuratively) that separated the Most Holy Place from the rest of the Tabernacle. No longer was God unapproachable and man unworthy to approach Him! No longer was there a need for priests, who had special access to God. Every one who had been cleansed of their sins by the blood sacrifice of the perfect, unblemished atonement offering (Jesus) was able to have direct communion with God. Truly, everything in the Old Testament lays the groundwork for the new and it is very cool to see how it all fits together!
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 19-21
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Scouting Report
Had they only known what would follow as a result of this one terrible decision! Based on a report from 10 of the scouts, laced with paranoia, the Israelites are paralyzed with fear. They do not believe they can prevail over the people of the land, they plot to over-throw God's man (Moses) and set off on a course of their own choosing...straight back to slavery and oppression in Egypt! Despite the miraculous things they had seen God do, like parting the Red Sea, providing daily manna, and appearing in the form of a cloud and pillar of fire, they lack confidence in His ability to protect them. God is so frustrated that He again offers to destroy the nation and start over with Moses and his lineage. As a testament to his character, Moses does not jump on this fantastic offer, but instead begs for a pardon for the people. In response to Moses' intercession, God pronounces punishment that would see each member of the nation over 20 years of age (except Caleb and Joshua) fall dead in the wilderness before entering the Promised Land. I wonder if the purpose of this tantalizing offer to be rid of this quarrelsome bunch of ingrates, was to solidify Moses' commitment to them. God certainly knew that they would be wandering in the desert for 40 years and Moses needed to endear himself to them in order to tolerate the dismal journey ahead. He had to reconcile his frustration and disappointment and what better way to do that than to intercede for them in heartfelt prayer. Fearing for their very lives would have instantly melted away any resentment that had built up.
Remember that the identical exchange between God and Moses took place after the golden calf incident, (Ex. 32:9-10). In both cases, Moses appeals to God's mercy on the basis of "what the Egyptians will think". Moses was concerned for God's reputation among the nations. Whether or not this is an example of God changing His mind, is debatable. This is certainly an example of God stating an intent to do something but later reversing His course. This is complicated theology, but as I understand it, God's will is sovereign, while we still have free will. If He wanted to evoke that protective response from Moses in order to recharge him for the task at hand (leading the nation through 39 more years of wandering in the desert), He could have made that "threat" to prompt the response, knowing full well that He would not have to follow through on it. Even though Moses had free will in His response, God knew what the response would be and could adjust His strategy accordingly. The whole encounter may have been more about Moses and what he needed spiritually, than about changing God's mind. Prayer is a mystery, but we know that the act of bringing our needs before God is of great benefit to our own spiritual growth and certainly impacts the way He responds to us.
Tomorrow's reading; Numbers 16-18
Remember that the identical exchange between God and Moses took place after the golden calf incident, (Ex. 32:9-10). In both cases, Moses appeals to God's mercy on the basis of "what the Egyptians will think". Moses was concerned for God's reputation among the nations. Whether or not this is an example of God changing His mind, is debatable. This is certainly an example of God stating an intent to do something but later reversing His course. This is complicated theology, but as I understand it, God's will is sovereign, while we still have free will. If He wanted to evoke that protective response from Moses in order to recharge him for the task at hand (leading the nation through 39 more years of wandering in the desert), He could have made that "threat" to prompt the response, knowing full well that He would not have to follow through on it. Even though Moses had free will in His response, God knew what the response would be and could adjust His strategy accordingly. The whole encounter may have been more about Moses and what he needed spiritually, than about changing God's mind. Prayer is a mystery, but we know that the act of bringing our needs before God is of great benefit to our own spiritual growth and certainly impacts the way He responds to us.
Tomorrow's reading; Numbers 16-18
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The Israelites Complain
Though they had complained about the food situation before, the discontent must have risen to new heights at this point. Moses is ready to throw in the towel it is so unbearable. He even says "...just go ahead and kill me. Do me a favor and spare me this misery". Doesn't the whining of just a few small children drive us crazy? Can you just imagine an entire nation of whiners, looking to you to fix it? God had patiently endured the initial rumblings of the Israelites just after the exodus, and had provided manna. This time, there is a difference in God's tone as he declares His provision. He tells the Israelites that they will "eat it for a month until they gag so that they are sick of it". So God used a strong wind to bring in a large group of migrating quail. The wind forced them to fly low, making them easy targets for desperate Israelites. Despite being told of God's obvious displeasure with their demands for meat, the people ignored His disdain and followed their own fleshly desires. In their greed, they gathered far more than what was needed, and attempted to prolong it's edibility by drying it out into jerky. This is apparently what was meant by eating it for a whole month. Due to the lack of refrigeration and certain spoilage, as well as their digestive systems being unaccustomed to meat in general, food poisoning ensued. The text reads that "the Lord struck them with a severe plague" but remember that a common Hebrew figure of speech was to assign responsibility for causing something even if one had merely set up the circumstances that caused something to happen. So it is said that God struck them with a plague, when really all He did was give them what they asked for and let "nature take it's course". The phrase, "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind!
The next set of complainers was Aaron and Miriam. Maybe they were upset about the appointment of the 70 leaders to assist Moses or maybe it was just old-fashioned envy and jealousy over the special relationship Moses had with God. Either way, they gripe about Moses' Cushite (or Ethiopian) wife. Who was this woman? There are many opinions. She could have been Zipporah, who was earlier described as being Midianite. Since Midian was adjacent to Ethipoia, and both nations were dark-skinned, it is possible that she could be described as Cushite. Calling her the "Cushite woman" is a peek into what may have been bothering the siblings. She was not a pure-bred Jew, which was very important in that culture. And God had specifically said not to take a wife from outside the tribes of Israel. It is also possible that this was someone Moses married after Zipporah died. The Bible does not record her death, so it could have happened any time. We have no way of knowing. It is also possible that she was a wife taken in Moses' youth. It was customary for royalty to take wives from countries with whom they were attempting to make alliances. Ethiopia bordered Egypt, so this would have been a natural alliance to seek out. Jewish historians favor this view based on the writings of Josephus, but there is no Biblical proof for the position. The only other option is that this woman was a second wife, taken while Zipporah was still alive. If true, this would unfortunately place Moses in the same polygamist camp as Jacob, David, and many other Old Testament heroes.
The punishment for grumbling against Moses was meted out on Miriam (Aaron dodges another bullet). Her skin turns white as snow due to leprosy. Scholars have speculated that this punishment offers a clue as to the heart of their discontent. The Cushite woman was black, Miriam did not like her for some reason, and God turns her skin ultra white. Could it be that Miriam did not approve of the woman's skin color? God came to Moses' defense, not so much because He was upset about what had been thought about the Cushite woman, but that anyone dared to criticize His chosen prophet, and indirectly, to criticize Him as well. Furthermore, Miriam and Aaron seemed to be seeking recognition and glory for themselves..."Has the Lord spoken only through Moses? Hasn't He spoke through us too?" God does not like pride, and it was undergirding every complaint they lodged against Moses.
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 14-15
The next set of complainers was Aaron and Miriam. Maybe they were upset about the appointment of the 70 leaders to assist Moses or maybe it was just old-fashioned envy and jealousy over the special relationship Moses had with God. Either way, they gripe about Moses' Cushite (or Ethiopian) wife. Who was this woman? There are many opinions. She could have been Zipporah, who was earlier described as being Midianite. Since Midian was adjacent to Ethipoia, and both nations were dark-skinned, it is possible that she could be described as Cushite. Calling her the "Cushite woman" is a peek into what may have been bothering the siblings. She was not a pure-bred Jew, which was very important in that culture. And God had specifically said not to take a wife from outside the tribes of Israel. It is also possible that this was someone Moses married after Zipporah died. The Bible does not record her death, so it could have happened any time. We have no way of knowing. It is also possible that she was a wife taken in Moses' youth. It was customary for royalty to take wives from countries with whom they were attempting to make alliances. Ethiopia bordered Egypt, so this would have been a natural alliance to seek out. Jewish historians favor this view based on the writings of Josephus, but there is no Biblical proof for the position. The only other option is that this woman was a second wife, taken while Zipporah was still alive. If true, this would unfortunately place Moses in the same polygamist camp as Jacob, David, and many other Old Testament heroes.
The punishment for grumbling against Moses was meted out on Miriam (Aaron dodges another bullet). Her skin turns white as snow due to leprosy. Scholars have speculated that this punishment offers a clue as to the heart of their discontent. The Cushite woman was black, Miriam did not like her for some reason, and God turns her skin ultra white. Could it be that Miriam did not approve of the woman's skin color? God came to Moses' defense, not so much because He was upset about what had been thought about the Cushite woman, but that anyone dared to criticize His chosen prophet, and indirectly, to criticize Him as well. Furthermore, Miriam and Aaron seemed to be seeking recognition and glory for themselves..."Has the Lord spoken only through Moses? Hasn't He spoke through us too?" God does not like pride, and it was undergirding every complaint they lodged against Moses.
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 14-15
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Nazirite Laws
Mercifully, today's reading was considerably less controversial! Discussing the role of women in the Bible can be quite inflammatory, and though I am not easily ruffled by the feminist cause, I did find that passage bothersome. Having been through the chronological Bible twice before, I know that we will run across many more things in Old Testament history that will be disturbing. There is an awful lot of wrath and killing to come, spoiler alert. It would be much easier to camp out in the New Testament and ponder only the familiar passages of Old Testament history. Reading the Bible in its' entirety forces us to dig deeper into God's word in order to really understand it. So while we may hit some rough patches, we can only be better off for having invested the time and energy. I have to remind myself of the verse I quoted on the first blog post from 1 Corinthians 13:12...
12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
The point being, and I say this to myself more loudly than I say it to you, it will not all make sense to us right now!
Though I am not interested in shying away from the tough issues in Scripture, I was relieved to not be dealing with another one today! The bulk of the reading discussed the protocol for packing up and moving the camp of Israel from Mt. Sinai, which occurred one year after their exodus from Egypt. It was fairly self-explanatory. There was also a passage outlining the details of the Nazirite vow. Apparently, either a man or woman could voluntarily take a vow to set themselves apart for the Lord by becoming a Nazirite. The length of time was determined by the person making the vow but the minimum time frame was 30 days. Some chose to become permanent Nazirites, like Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist, though the rules for them were slightly relaxed. Nazirites were restricted in three areas... they could not drink any alcohol, could not cut their hair, and could not be around corpses. The hair was the outward symbol of the vow, kind-of like a wedding ring or a priests' collar. I imagine that the restrictions regarding alcohol were put in place to help ensure a certain degree of decorum befitting one who was consecrated to God. The rules about the dead bodies mirror the laws that rendered corpses "unclean". One set apart for God could not be unclean. What is interesting is the strict application of these three rules. Not only could a Nazirite not drink wine, he or she could not so much as eat a grape! And a Nazirite was defiled by a dead body, not just by willful association but by accidental contact as well. If someone dropped dead standing next to them, they had to shave their heads, purify themselves and start over with their vow!
To me, these extreme examples point to our need to steer clear of not just crossing the line, but approaching it as well. We tend to want to figure out where the line is and skootch up as close to it as possible without going across. God is making it clear for them. Don't drink wine, and don't even get close to drinking wine. In fact, don't take in any product from the grapevine. Don't get near a dead body, for any reason. No exceptions. Even if someone dies right next to you, completely outside of your control. Someone desiring to set themselves apart as a Nazirite needed to know that God took such a vow very seriously. It was voluntary, but an agreement that, once entered into, was not to be treated casually.
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 11-13
12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
The point being, and I say this to myself more loudly than I say it to you, it will not all make sense to us right now!
Though I am not interested in shying away from the tough issues in Scripture, I was relieved to not be dealing with another one today! The bulk of the reading discussed the protocol for packing up and moving the camp of Israel from Mt. Sinai, which occurred one year after their exodus from Egypt. It was fairly self-explanatory. There was also a passage outlining the details of the Nazirite vow. Apparently, either a man or woman could voluntarily take a vow to set themselves apart for the Lord by becoming a Nazirite. The length of time was determined by the person making the vow but the minimum time frame was 30 days. Some chose to become permanent Nazirites, like Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist, though the rules for them were slightly relaxed. Nazirites were restricted in three areas... they could not drink any alcohol, could not cut their hair, and could not be around corpses. The hair was the outward symbol of the vow, kind-of like a wedding ring or a priests' collar. I imagine that the restrictions regarding alcohol were put in place to help ensure a certain degree of decorum befitting one who was consecrated to God. The rules about the dead bodies mirror the laws that rendered corpses "unclean". One set apart for God could not be unclean. What is interesting is the strict application of these three rules. Not only could a Nazirite not drink wine, he or she could not so much as eat a grape! And a Nazirite was defiled by a dead body, not just by willful association but by accidental contact as well. If someone dropped dead standing next to them, they had to shave their heads, purify themselves and start over with their vow!
To me, these extreme examples point to our need to steer clear of not just crossing the line, but approaching it as well. We tend to want to figure out where the line is and skootch up as close to it as possible without going across. God is making it clear for them. Don't drink wine, and don't even get close to drinking wine. In fact, don't take in any product from the grapevine. Don't get near a dead body, for any reason. No exceptions. Even if someone dies right next to you, completely outside of your control. Someone desiring to set themselves apart as a Nazirite needed to know that God took such a vow very seriously. It was voluntary, but an agreement that, once entered into, was not to be treated casually.
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 11-13
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
