Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Year 1, Day 130: Numbers 15

What’s the Point of a Promise?

First, notice that twice God tells the Hebrew people to remember to follow His ways after they enter the Promised Land.  This may seem a bit strange.  Why say these things to a people who are staring down the barrel of wandering through the wilderness for 40 years?

The answer is surprisingly simple.  It is a promise.  They may have to endure the wilderness for 40 years, but God does not abandon His people.  They will one day go into the land.  It might be a promise with a bit of a sting in it – because the current Hebrew people will all die before going into the land, except Joshua and Caleb.  But it is still a promise nonetheless.  God may punish the current generation, but He does not forsake the people entirely.

Unintentional Sin

Next, we hear about the unintentional sin.  I like these verses.  They remind us that unintentional sin still has a consequence, but it doesn’t seem like God is too overly concerned.  I mean, sure, He is absolutely concerned because it is sin.  It must be atoned.  But it isn’t like God demands exile or death for the one who unintentionally sins.  I find that comforting.  So long as I don’t intentionally go against God, God is more than willing to forgive my repentant heart. 

I struggle as I reread that last paragraph, because the lawyer inside of me says, “You didn’t stand up for the ways of God in that last paragraph like you should have!  Every sin is worrisome, intentional and unintentional alike.  Yes, I acknowledge the truth in that.  Any violation of God’s ways is dangerous and wrong – regardless of how big or small.  But there is also a time when we get too worried about every little sin that it prevents us from moving forward with what God will have us do in our life.  I think that is the balance I am trying to say.  So long as our sin is unintentional and we acknowledge it, God wants us to truly repent and move forward.

Intentional Sin

On the other hand, we next turn to the intentional sinner.  We turn to the person who intentionally violates God’s holiness (separateness).  Here we are given the example of the guy picking up sticks. 

So we ask, is picking up sticks really all that bad?  And the answer is absolutely not.  There is no harm in picking up sticks.  But here’s an important question:  is it the BEST thing he could have been doing?  It may not be inherently wrong on a non-Sabbath, but on a day that God wants us to be holy, is it the best thing he could be doing? 

I think in that quandary we find truth.  This man is executed because the best thing for him to do is to remember that God wants us to be separate (holy) on the Sabbath.  When we intentionally choose to not remember that God is holy and has called us to be holy, then where will our rebellion against God stop?  It might seem like making a mountain out of a mole-hill at first, but I hope you understand what I am trying to bring out as I reflect upon that portion of this chapter.

The point isn’t to make a semantic argument about how big or how small the sin is.  The point is to acknowledge that any intentional sin is defiance from God.  Small intentional sin inherently leads to bigger intentional sin.  Soon intentional sin leads to blatant disobedience.

Blue Cord

Finally, we come upon the tassels with the blue cord.  This is a neat section of scripture.  You might wonder what the deal is with this blue cord.  Well, remember in Exodus 39:22 that Aaron’s ephod was made of blue fabric.  The blue cord is every Hebrew person’s reminder that there was a high priest in charge of maintaining the religious purity of the camp.  But perhaps even more the blue cord was their reminder that they had their own part to play in maintaining their own individual ritual purity. 

I find that in this we have a great foreshadowing to the concept of the priesthood of all believers that Jesus and Paul give us in the New Testament.  Yes, we each have spiritual people who can speak truth into our lives.  But we are all also responsible for our own actions and our own purity.  We may have spiritual giants who go before us and who invite us to metaphorically stand upon their shoulders.  But when our time before God comes, we will each answer about ourselves.  And we all have the ability to take that priestly duty with us and go into the world and invite others to see God through this relational lens as well.

<>< 

7 comments:

  1. First -- congratulations on hearing God's voice! I'm not sure how the Haiti thing will work out for you, but I do know how cool it is when God "sets you up" (in a good way -- sometimes I think He sets us up in a way we really don't want too, not that we don't need it, but we don't WANT it).

    Second -- I think you make an error here (or would love to hear why you aren't). As of this time in Numbers, I think 3 people are going -- Caleb, Joshua, and Moses! It's not until later that Moses is punished (for striking the stone as opposed to speaking to it in Numbers 20) by not being allowed to go into the Promised land. I hope this isn't perceived as "picking", as that's not my point. I just think its important

    A follow up "nit" -- when is Aaron punished and not allowed in? He's (in Numbers 14) part of the 4 people (Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and Caleb) [Num 14:4-9]. He doesn't strike the rock. Of course, there's the whole Num 12 Aaron thing, but it doesn't say there he won't see it. Now we could say Num 14 was for everyone BUT Joshua and Caleb, but then Num 20 doesn't make sense as Moses would already not be going in (per Num 14 punishment), why punish Moses again with the same thing.

    I realize these are nit questions, I hope you don't mind. I am sincerely interested in your view on this area, which has confused me multiple times before on my through the Bible journeys.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Follow up -- it rereading it looks like in Num 20 Aaron is also punished for the rock striking -- not sure why as Moses did the striking -- but at least it is clear both Moses and Aaron are denied the promised land at this time.

    See -- just by asking the questions I'm learning ; )

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great questions, not nitpicking at all. I love these kind of questions because my first thought is always, "Crap, where did I screw it up?" Meant in a good way, because I always assume other people are right and I am wrong. So when I am challenged, it forces me to go back, do some research, and figure out how I arrived at the conclusion to which I arrived. So, let me explain (although you did self-answer the 'when did Aaron get knocked off the list' bit)

    So, why do I only say Joshua and Caleb when writing about this part of Numbers? Flip back to Numbers 14:30, where God has Moses speak to the congregation. He essentially says "nobody except Joshua and Caleb."

    That can be taken two ways. It can be taken literally in that Moses and Aaron are a part of the community and thus God speaks this knowing that Moses and Aaron are ultimately not going to get in. That's how I interpreted the passage.

    Or, it can be interpreted that Moses is excluded from the Lord's message because he is the messenger so by default he is not part of "you." If Moses was including himself, he would say "we." This allows us to see why Moses could potentially not be a part of this group ... but in any case it doesn't speak to Aaron (unless you want to maintain Moses and Aaron's fate are tied together - a fact supported by the striking of the rock part II where Aaron is punished when it is Moses' disobedient act.). I don't personally buy this rationale because it is a message from God; therefore Moses says "you" and not "we" because Moses is speaking on God's behalf. Thus Moses is actually a part of "you" because God is the one speaking and God would be the inclusive speaker who turns the "you" into "we." Clearly, God is going into the Promised Land, so it is correctly said "you" instead of "we."

    So, where does that leave us? Well it means you either take God's words in that verse as literal (and prophetic) where God says Joshua and Caleb because He has omniscient foreknowledge in spite of Moses' disobedience not having happened yet. - OR - You interpret the passage so that Moses and Aaron are not a part of the community being spoken to in Numbers 14:30.

    I can live with either possibility being correct, but I feel more comfortable as interpreting God's words literally in this case as though God knows the future in spite of it not having unfolded to humanity.

    There is a third possibility - one that loathes me to mention. Critical Biblical Redaction Historians would add that this verse is a great case to show how the Bible has been edited over time. "Certainly" this is a case where readers of the Bible centuries after the exodus inserted inserted Numbers 14:30 to make what actually happened match what was said in that chapter. They would use this idea to wipe away the fact that God's word implies that He has foreknowledge of the future. I find this approach deplorable. I have no problems thinking that God can speak about a future that from our perspective is unwritten. {And I know you feel the same way} I just wanted to add the third possibility of interpreting the text just so I could speak as to the dangers of the third approach to the passage. From my perspective, Biblical Redaction theologians neuter the Bible by making God impotent with respect to His ability to know and see the future.

    But that's probably more information than you even wanted to know. At least you know how I got to my conclusion. Whether you agree with me or not, I think we can agree that there is room for interpretive lens to go either of the two ways I present at the top of this comment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for your thoughts. I find these things intersting, and the whole redacted thing didn't enter inot my thinking.

    Im thinking at the time of numbers 14, moses and aaron were on the included list. In 20 they are punished for stiking the rock (and maybe aaron not stopping him?). To me, while God is not" in history", the torah is a history narrative. Normally, when there's prophecy its obvious, not hidden (at least to my recollection)

    I see moses standing there next to aaron addressing the nation (in my head), so the you is" not us". Butm you're hebrew is better than mine!

    In either case, I can but the foreknowledge aspect of it. Just seems weird to punish moses in 20 if he's already in 14 fully knowing he's not making it in.

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
  5. sorry, wrote last most on phone, I meant to say I can buy the foreknowledge...

    ReplyDelete
  6. I hear you with your last paragraph of the first response (to my response). But your statement already assumes a human perspective on time. For God, there is no time. So there is not "declaration of punishment beforehand" or "violation after the declaration." For God there simply "is." From our perspective, God declares Moses' and Aaron's punishment several chapters before the disobedience. But from God's perspective, there is no before because He is not bound by time.

    Now, if you fully understand that argument, please explain it back to me. Because I can say those words, I can even think I grasp most of what I am saying, but I know that to fully understand God's interaction outside of time with us inside of time will make my brain cramp up if I try to do it for either too long or for too often.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I understand what you're saying -- God is outside of time, and exists at ALL points on the timeline at the same time.

    However, I would say in THIS case, this is a history book by God to us, and He of course understands how WE see time. So, since the purpose is history and beginnings, I don't know why he'd be confusing (to us) to mix timelines. Sure, He knew -- when He was dealing with Israel He already knew you and me!

    I guess I'm arguing His purpose in the book, and I can't see why He'd punish Moses with the same thing. Otherwise, what really was the punishment with the Rock Striking? Moses already knew he wasn't going in (by your argument). I'm still pretty convinced that in Num 14 there were 4 going in, and in 20 it dropped down to 2.

    I hope this is making sense. I can agree to disagree. Your position is well thought out and I respect it. I'm just not persuaded by it to the point of abandoning the 4 in Num 14, 2 in Num 20 thinking. ; )

    ReplyDelete