Numbers 24 concludes the story of Balaam, but
there is a sequel that we will discuss when we come to Numbers 31:8.
In Numbers 25, we see the Israelites engaging in
sexual activity with the daughters of Moab. The Moabites then attract the
Israelites to get involved in sacrificing to their gods. YHWH is understandably
jealous of his people’s affections. YHWH then instructs Moses to have the
leaders of the people killed for this offense. However, Moses takes things
further. He says to the judges of Israel, “Each of you shall kill any of your
people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor.” (Numbers 25:5)
Just as this is happening, an Israelite man takes
a Midianite woman and has sexual relations with her in the Tent of Meeting.
Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, sees this and pursues the couple into
the Tent of Meeting, then he pierces them together "through the belly" with his spear. “So the
plague was stopped among the people of Israel. Nevertheless those that died by
the plague were twenty-four thousand.” (Numbers 25:8-9)
Friedman has this helpful comment on this
episode:
Commentators have been troubled by Phinehas’s zeal in
killing these two people. But the point is that it is a ritual crime. The crime is not that an Israelite and a Midianite
have sexual relations. It is that they have violated the Tabernacle. As
non-Levites, they are not even permitted to enter it, let alone to have sexual
relations—whether it is for procreation, pleasure, or a fertility rite. Note
that there is no trial. If it were solely an ethical offense, there would be a
trial and an inquiry into their motives. But, for a ritual violation of the
holy place, there is no trial because there is no possible defense, no
satisfactory motive or explanation. Phinehas, as a priest, can enter, and he
executes them—as the law requires (Num 1:51; 3:10,38; 18:4,7). Thus the Torah
goes on to tell us that (1) this stops a plague and (2) God is pleased with
what Phinehas has done and gives him a reward for it: a covenant of eternal
priesthood. These harsh consequences for ritual offenses—here and in the case
of Nadab and Abihu and elsewhere—are extremely difficult to comprehend in the
present age, in which most people (I think), including me, respond with shock
to their severity.[1]
Numbers 26 records the census that takes place
after the plague. Numbers 26:11 mentions that Korah’s sons did not die as a
result of his rebellion. Friedman comments:
Indeed, their descendants later become the composers or
singers of psalms in the Temple…and they are mentioned in an inscription on a
bowl from a temple excavated at Arad that functioned during the preexilic
biblical period [see below]…. Why do Korah’s children not die with Korah? Korah’s ritual
offense is the improper burning of incense. His 250 followers commit this
offense as well. And so all those who have had contact with the forbidden
incense are killed. There is no suggestion that their sons play any part or
come into contact with the incense.[2]
At the end of Numbers 26, we learn that there was
not a man in this second census who was also recorded in the first census,
except for Caleb and Joshua. This is a confirmation of God’s condemnation of
the Israelites who failed to trust him and take the Promised Land after the
spies gave their report. Caleb and Joshua are faithful to the Lord’s vision for
his people and so they will survive to lead the new generation into the
Promised Land.
Numbers 27 records the incident of Zelophehad’s
daughters asking Moses for the right to inherit their father’s land. Friedman
has this important comment on this story:
This judgment is an important step in the development of
women’s rights, but its message is mixed. On one hand, it says that women can
inherit property, and their right of inheritance precedes the rights of their
father’s male siblings or any other male relatives who are more distantly
related to their father than the women themselves. On the other hand, this
applies only if their father had no sons. If a father has even one son and ten
daughters, the son inherits the family land. The daughters are dependent on
that brother or on their husbands for property…. There is little point in
debating whether this step means that the Torah is supportive of women, on the
grounds that it provides for them to inherit, or whether it means that the
Torah is unfair to women, on the grounds that sons still precede daughters. The
fact is that social transformations take time: generations, centuries, even
millennia. The Torah does not command a revolution in the status of women. It
provides for steps such as this one, which in the short run established that
women do have rights, and which ultimately participated in the development of
women’s rights generally. We can praise the Bible for how far it went, or we
can be critical that it did not go farther. But we would do better to examine
how far it went in its age, and how much this contributed to the transformation
in the balance between men and women in the millennia that followed. The larger
point is the same that I made with regard to slavery: The Torah does not forbid
it and attempt to bring it to an end overnight. It rather gives laws of
treatment of slaves—which involved granting respect, rights, and compassion for
slaves. And this eventually undermined slavery as an institution. The
diminution of slavery and the increase of women’s rights are two of the major
developments of the past century. The Torah’s laws played an early and
determinative part in birthing and nurturing both of these revolutions.[3]
At the end of Numbers 27, we have the last record
in the Torah of Moses speaking to YHWH. Moses’ concern is that the people
should have a leader after he dies. YHWH tells Moses to appoint Joshua. He
tells Moses to lay his hand on Joshua. However, Moses lays both hands on
Joshua. Friedman believes Moses does this to make the choice of Joshua unmistakably
clear. He fulfills the divine command with one hand, and with the other hand
Moses adds his own affirmation of Joshua. Friedman notes, “The successor to a
great leader is always in a vulnerable position, and it is a gracious act by
the great leader to support that successor.”[4]
Comments