Posts
Numbers 15-19
Chapter 15 shows that God is off his meds again. Talking about how he likes an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD, then he commands a man to be stoned to death for collecting sticks on the sabbath (was the man even an Israelite?) and then tells his people to put fringe on their garments.
WTH?
He continues the mass murder in 16 before pulling a rabbit out of his hat to appease the Levites
We finish up with some cleaning instructions.
And I thought God was harsh when he went off on the Egyptians.
@Bruce
ReplyDelete"then he commands a man to be stoned to death for collecting sticks on the sabbath (was the man even an Israelite?)"
Did you skip the part about one law for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you?(15:16) And if it was done in ignorance they would be forgiven? (15:24,29) Yet the person that does it presumptuously will be cut off (15:30). Exodus 20:10 lays it out and Exodus 31:14 lays down the punishment. I read this as God showing man, "I really mean what I say, you know the sabbath is coming so prepare for it." However there is a sabbath coming that many don't want to prepare for, and the end is going to be allot worse than a stoning.
"He continues the mass murder in 16 before pulling a rabbit out of his hat to appease the Levites"
No that's God squelching a revolt before it gets out of hand. And reminding the people as to who really is in charge. So there's not going to be a change of power, so feel free to leave at any time you want. :-D
I see this as Moses really laying down the punishment for this rebellion. 16:29-31. Now granted God could have told him what to say and it's not recorded here, so i won't argue over that. However from what is recorded it looks like Moses laid down the test for him being in the position he was in.
"And I thought God was harsh when he went off on the Egyptians."
Wait until we get to the prophets and the last few books of the OT. God is not the being you want to break a covenant with.... ever. :-D
I hope work isn't keeping you to tied up Bruce. I enjoy your posts, they have been allot more lively. Stick with it. I feel Numbers is the hardest book to read through.
@Edward, I didn't skip 15:16, I just can't imagine;
ReplyDeletea) the Israelites wanting to follow this god. I would rebel too!!!
b) God taking such a harsh stance on people NOT taking the Sabbath off.
As for squelching the rebellion and laying down the punishment for the rebellion, an all powerful (and supposedly loving) god could have taken a less violent approach. Think of a parent raising a child. Children with violent and abusive parents often turn out to be violent and abusive . My parents never hit their three kids and we turned out to be fairly well adjusted, law abiding adults.
As for Numbers readability, I find it one of the more interesting (but very disturbing) books yet. I'm hoping God starts his conversion to the loving god of the NT soon! ;-)
Off his meds is right! I think I'd be making a run for the border one night and not looking back.
ReplyDeleteReturning to our discussion about how the text doesn't differentiate between temporary and permanent laws, Numbers 19 contains an exception:
ReplyDeleteAmid the laws about ritual impurity (how you're unclean for 7 days if someone dies in your house or if you touch a corpse or even a grave), and what is to be done about it (heifer ash solution sprinkled via hyssop) we get some "perpetual statutes":
19:10 - "And he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: and it shall be unto the children of Israel, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among them, for a statute forever."
19:21 - "And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall wash his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean until even."
So there you have it. We can't be sure about the other laws, but the washing up of those performing the ashes ritual applies to everyone forever.
Ch. 15. oh man more law. Notice lack of mention of the Tabernacle. A late insertion?
ReplyDeleteStoning the guy for collecting sticks on the sabbath = pretty horrible.
Chapter 16 1-35 is a merging of two unrelated (but thematically similar) episodes. It's actually easy to parse out: everything about Korah the Levite is from P, and everything about Dathan and Abiram is from J.
In P, Korah and some 250 Levites accuse Moses of unfairly hogging God. ("Every member of the community holy and the LORD is among them all. Why do you set yourselves up above the assembly of the LORD?") Which is a fair question. Moses replies with "aren't you Levites special enough?" To settle the matter, Moses says present some incense, and God will choose the holy man. The next day, everyone who presents incense is burned alive. Proving Moses right. The End.
The J story involves Dathan and Abiram, who make a similar complaint about Moses' authority: "Must you also set yourself up as prince over us?"
Then the LORD appears to Moses, who, like with Sodom, tries to bargain with God. So the LORD says: "Have everyone stay away from the tents of those bad dudes because shit is going to go down."
Dathan and Abiram wander out of their tents with their families, clueless to what just happened. Moses claims that if he really is their God-ordained leader, the earth will swallow D&A into a chasm. Proving Moses right. The End.
The only verse I can't make sense of is part of v. 19: "Then the glory of the LORD appeared to the whole community." This doesn't seem to apply to either the P or J stories.
For further evidence, check out Deut. 11:6
"You know what he did for you in the wilderness as you journeyed to this place, and what he did to Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, son of Reuben, when the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them in the sight of all Israel, together with their households and the tents and every living thing in their company."
YEP thats a retelling of the J story, absent ANY detail from P's.
Psalm 106 mentions the fire, but not Korah. I know some of the Psalms are late; this could simply date to a time when the Torah editing was complete.
The rest of chapter 17 is P; first it explains the "point" of the Korah episode, then there's the weird plague story. (This is all inexplicitly absent from Friedman's translation! He ends at v. 35.)
People complain God was killing them, so he kills more of them with a plague? And then he had Aaron save some by waving incense around?
17 continues the "Levites rule" theme, with Aaron's staff sprouting.
18,19: Oh yay more law. Thanks.
While John Calvin did not write commentaries, he did preach across so many books of the Bible that we have his writings for quite a few chapters and verses. He had this to say about Numbers 15:38,41:
ReplyDelete38 Speak unto the children of Israel. A little farther on I will explain the object of this precept more fully: although it is plain from the next verse that God had no other object but to exercise the Jews in constant meditation upon the Law. For there was no religion contained in the fringes themselves, nor had that material texture any value in itself; but since men are lazy and forgetful in the cultivation of piety, God would by this aid make a provision for their infirmity. For when He says that they should “look upon it and remember,” He hints that they have need of these coarse rudiments, which may strike even their outward senses; and again, that, unless their memory was kept awake, nothing was more likely than that forgetfulness should steal upon them. But he presently adds, that God has no satisfaction in mere empty knowledge, but that He demands serious affections and practical performance. In the latter part of the verse he points out another requirement, viz., not only that their sluggishness should be stimulated, but also their wantonness restrained; for when he says “that ye seek not after your own heart,” he intimates that, unless God should restrain their wandering senses, they would be too much inclined to all kinds of superstitions and errors. And, first of all, by contrasting “the hearts and eyes” of men with His Law, he shews that He would have His people contented with that one rule which He prescribes, without the admixture of any of their own imaginations; and again, He denounces the vanity of whatever men invent for themselves, and however pleasing any human scheme may appear to them, He still repudiates and condemns it. And this is still more clearly expressed in the last word, when he says that men “go a whoring” whenever they are governed by their own counsels. This declaration is deserving of our especial observation, for whilst they have much self-satisfaction who worship God according to their own will, and whilst they account their zeal to be very good and very right, they do nothing else but pollute themselves by spiritual adultery. For what by the world is considered to be the holiest devotion, God with his own mouth pronounces to be fornication. By the word “eyes” he unquestionably means man’s power of discernment.
41 I am the Lord your God. Having at the end of the last verse commanded them to be holy unto their God, he now confirms this command by a reason, viz., that it was for this end that God redeemed them, that he might be their God, i.e., that He might be solemnly honored. He asserts God’s right, then, as founded upon the blessing of their deliverance, which would have been misplaced unless they devoted themselves to His service. The repetition at the conclusion is intended for confirmation.
I wonder, would stoning someone count as working on the Sabbath? It does seem like it would be more work than gathering sticks. Did they wait until the following day to stone the guy, or did they have to do it immediately?
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was interesting when Korah and his followers got sucked into a hole in the ground. The NIV mentions that this is the "realm of the dead" but doesn't add anything further, and the KJV mentions nothing about that at all. Was this later interpreted to mean that Hell was there, and do biblical literalists believe that Hell is actually right under the ground?
I haven't said much in this book because there is nothing to say. The more I read the more I understand why these books (Duet, Lev and #'s) weren't talked about in my church. I'm sure a lot of these verses were attempts to explain loss of life from disease or natural disaster by the story tellers. The large number of deaths described is horrifying. Life must have been very difficult at the best of times for folks of this era and there is always a need to find a reason for such events.
ReplyDeleteAFAIK Sheoel (שְׁאֹלָה or שְׁאֹול) usually meant "grave" or "pit". The point of the story is than Dathan and Abiram and co fell to their 'graves' in the earth, still alive.
ReplyDeleteThe word appears (1st spelling) here, three times in the J Joseph story, and later (2nd spelling) many times in Job, the Pslams, and Isaiah.
The confusion probably began when it was translated as "hades" in the Greek Septuagint, the text the NT authors used.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's where the Xian concept of Hell originated- a mistranslation of the Hebrew caused them to associate the Greek concept of Hades with the Jewish scripture.
@Bruce
ReplyDelete"I didn't skip 15:16, I just can't imagine;
a) the Israelites wanting to follow this god. I would rebel too!!!
b) God taking such a harsh stance on people NOT taking the Sabbath off."
How is this wrong and a harsh stance? I really want to understand this. The references, i used in my first reply to this, point out the covenant that the people agreed to (i missed Exodus 24:3,7). Also in (Exodus 35:1-2) they are told of the sabbath and the penalty for not observing it. So how is this that God can give out plainly the covenant, with rules, promise, and penalty, yet only be expected to keep the good parts? (Which who decides what good is?) Now man decides he does not like the covenant breaks it, then gets upset that God is going to execute the penalty on him?
If God cannot keep all parts of a covenant, then should we expect that we can with anyone else? If i decide not to pay on a mortgage that i have is it wrong for the bank to come and take away my home and leave my family and i to live on the street? I know this is allot different from death, however its a simple illustration, if you want one that uses death i can write one of those up. If there is no God and we can choose morality then i say no they should not be allowed to take my home away, even though i signed the contract. Them taking my home away is just to harsh. Now would any sane judge agree with me? I hope not, because if he did you know how many other people would want to renege on their loan?
I have asked this before, and i do it with all sincerity, please give a definition of "loving" and apply it to God. I also want to mention that God is also Holy (Leviticus 11:45) and Just (Deuteronomy 32:4). I am not setting some trap, but genuinely want to know why people think God is only loving and never mention Holy and/or Just.
Just believing that God is all loving and not Holy and Just is dangerous. It would be a great correction to the dominant belief that as we read the rest of the Bible it will become very crystal clear that loving is not the only characteristic of the true God.
@Abbie,
ReplyDeleteHades does not show up in the KJV. It's appearance is in books labelled Holy Bible that used corrupt manuscripts. :-D
Well i should have said corrupt manuscripts and inferior translators.
ReplyDeleteHow is this wrong and a harsh stance?
ReplyDeleteI guess I have a hard time with the idea God can treat his creation like playthings. Give them arbitrary, ridiculous rules, and then kill them when they violate them. Slavish obedience to silly rules is not a system of ethics.
Maybe it was cold that night, in the wilderness, and the guy really needed to build a fire.
I have asked this before, and i do it with all sincerity, please give a definition of "loving" and apply it to God.
I'm not going to claim God is loving. He's a fictional character, and the traits given to him vary from source to source. "Loving" is clearly not one of those traits, I'll agree with you on that.
Well i should have said corrupt manuscripts and inferior translators.
So the text the New Testament authors used is inferior to an English translation written in 1600AD?
@Abbie: "17 continues the "Levites rule" theme, with Aaron's staff sprouting."
ReplyDeleteYeah, seriously. Did we mention that the Levites are the only ones meant to perform priestly functions? Should we reiterate it? 20 more times? Numbers is a broken record on this theme.
I counted three times that an injunction about the Levites being responsible for the tabernacle and priestly duties was followed by the line "and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death." (1:51, 3:10, 3:38) Essentially, don't any non-Levites even think about usurping the Levites' priestly status or I'll kill you (not to put too fine a point on it).
I apply Prof. Robert Oden's theory that questions repeatedly answered in the text must be questions repeatedly asked by the intended audience. There must have been other groups at some point challenging the Levitecal priesthood.
In other words, methinks they doth protest too much.
@Abbie,
ReplyDelete"Give them arbitrary, ridiculous rules, and then kill them when they violate them."
If the people thought they were "arbitrary, ridiculous rules" then why did they agree to them? You have read this text, you know they did agree, right?
"Slavish obedience to silly rules is not a system of ethics."
I think you missed that this was a covenant not a set of silly rules. So would you agree that it's perfectly acceptable for people to agree in a covenant with someone, then at a later time decided not to honour that covenant, because they feel the requirements are silly, yet expect the blessings of it?
"He's a fictional character, and the traits given to him vary from source to source."
How do you know that? Are you really saying that you know everything? It's not that His traits vary from source to source, they just vary from what you and many others think they should be.
""Loving" is clearly not one of those traits, I'll agree with you on that."
Now i didn't want to come across as loving is not a trait of God, i wanted to point out it was not the only trait that many people mention.
"So the text the New Testament authors used is inferior to an English translation written in 1600AD?"
I was referring to modern translations. I should have clarified that.
Started in 1605 finished in 1611. :-)
Obviously it's not as interesting as God killing more people, but I found the use of lye as a purifier interesting. Ashes left to soak in water make lye, which is boiled with fat to make soap. Guess God wanted them really clean, cuz that's some caustic stuff...
ReplyDelete