Friday, June 30
Numbers 13: Having advanced in the direction of the Promised Land, Israel is now ready to inspect that area and assess its prospects. Such reconnoitering is essentially a military exercise, to determine the strengths, assets, and positions of those forces that an invading army must face (verses 18-19). As in so many examples of martial reconnoitering, however, Israel’s spies returned with a great deal of information beyond that of purely military interest (verse 20). (One recalls that Alexander the Great took with him, on his vast expedition to the east, a large retinue of botanists, zoologists, cartologists, and other scientists, so that none of his acquired information would be lost to posterity.)
This list of the twelve spies, one from each tribe (verses 4-15), calls them nasi’im, but the word as used here does not, as in earlier chapters, mean the ruling heads of the tribes. On the contrary, these are younger, more agile men with skills specific to their purpose.
These skills did not, alas, include godly wisdom in any great measure, and because of the unsound counsel given by this group, the list of their names is not exactly one of honor. The two exceptions are Joshua of Ephraim and Caleb of Judah.
Going out during the summer grape harvest (verse 20), the spies went over the desert of Zin, southwest of the Dead Sea. They traveled all the way north to the Beqa’ Valley in the region of Phoenicia (verse 21). Along that way, they came to Hebron, some twenty miles south of Jerusalem (verse22). The author refers to the construction of this ancient city in the late 18th century BC.
Part of this espionage report consisted of the impressive grapes and other fruits representative of the land’s notable fertility (verses 23-27). This part of their report was very positive.
The spies’ assessment of the military situation, nonetheless, was downright dismal. They referred to the gigantic Anakim whom history had long associated with the place and who had created considerable problems even for Egypt at an earlier period (verse 28). They also listed other peoples who would resist invasion (verse 29), thoroughly discouraging the Israelites from attempting it (verses 31-33; Deuteronomy 2:11,20; 3:11 1 Samuel 17:11).
The obvious exaggerations about the physical size of the Canaanites undoubtedly came from the height of their walled cities, which the spies could only imagine as having been constructed by giants. Modern archeology has shown that some of these city walls were, in fact, up to fifty feet high and fifteen feet thick, posing obstacles that would be formidable to an untrained force inexperienced in siege works. (The presumption that high walls mean tall inhabitants was also made by the Greeks, referring to the walls of the Cyclops.)
The only bright spot was the minority report of Caleb (verse 30).
Saturday, July 1
Acts 11:19-30: Having narrated the conversion of Saul, and Peter’s proclamation to Cornelius, Luke now goes back to the dispersion of the Christians at the murder of Stephen (cf. 8:1,4). His intent is to focus on Antioch, where so many Jews and Gentiles had joined in such close fellowship that a new name had to be devised to identify them: “Christians.” Since most of the present reading takes place in Antioch, it seems appropriate to look more closely at that church, especially with a view to asking: “What are the signs of a healthy church?” We may go to the present reading to answer that question.
First, a healthy church incorporates the catholicity of the Church into its own experience. The wonderful adjective “catholic” means “wholeness.” When this adjective was first used—by Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, and other writers of the 2nd century—to describe the true Church, it signified all the essential features of the Church, those components without which there simply is no church.
Now one of the features of the Church’s catholicity is its mission to the world as a whole, kath’ holon. In the present reading, we perceive this “catholic” quality in the church at Antioch. “Catholic” does not mean “big”; it means “whole.”
A church that thinks of itself as not having a worldwide mission does not have this quality. A church defined by its ethnic or regional character—a church that thinks of itself as specifically “eastern,” for example—does not manifest the catholic character of the Church. A catholic church is not narrow in its sympathies or parochial in its vision. Indeed, even the health of an individual congregation is largely perceived in its “outside interests.”
The church at Antioch is the first local church in which Jews and Gentiles worshipped together; this is the most elementary expression of geographical and cultural catholicity. It was at Antioch that Christians first experienced what Paul wrote of in the Epistle to the Ephesians: “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation” (2:13-14).
A truly catholic congregation is marked by Christian breadth of sympathies for all nations and races, a breadth that will find expression in its missionary outreach, far beyond its own borders and neighborhood. This is exactly what we find at Antioch, from which Barnabas and Saul were first sent out for the evangelization of Europe. Obviously the church at Antioch never thought of itself as a Syrian church, nor even as an “eastern” church. The church at Antioch thought of itself as an expression of the wholeness of the Church, the Church in integrity. It is no wonder that our first Christian use of the word “catholic” comes from the pen of the second bishop of Antioch.
Second, a healthy church is a church devoted to teaching. This, too, we find in the present reading: “So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people.” This pattern at Antioch came from the church at Jerusalem, of which we read, “they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and communion.” The same pattern of church life characterized the many missions founded from the church at Antioch. Thus, we read of Paul at Ephesus that he “withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.” Of Paul’s ministry at Corinth, we are told, “And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.”
One of the accepted signs of health is a good appetite, and this diagnostic principle pertains also to the body of the Church. If the Word truly is the food of the Church, surely that church is sick and anemic which has lost even the taste for food.
That was not the case an Antioch, where John, the local parish priest—a man later known as Chrysostom—taught the Holy Scriptures to the people every single day. This was not Chrysostom’s idea. It was the tradition handed established at Antioch by those men who first evangelized the city: Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and the others.
Third, a healthy church is a generous church. This quality, too, we see at Antioch: “Then the disciples, each according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren dwelling in Judea.” The missionaries from Antioch carried this spirit of generosity out to the other churches they evangelized.
For example, the churches of Macedonia, of whom Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia: that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality. For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing, imploring us with much urgency for the favor and communion of ministering to the saints. And not as we had hoped, but they first gave themselves to the Lord, and to us by the will of God” (2 Corinthians 8:1-5).
This generosity is an expression of catholicity. In other words, the very finances of a local congregation are directed to the wholeness, the fullness, of the Church. This is catholic economics, such as we see in the churches of the New Testament. These Christians were largely poor people, but their hearts were as big as the world.
Sunday, July 2
Mark 4:35-41: In this account of the stilling of the storm, the Lord again speaks of faith. There is a striking contrast between the utter serenity of the Lord (asleep!) and the agitation of the disciples. The Lord imposes his own tranquility on the sea itself. Dominant in this narrative is a Christology of majesty, ending with the major query of the gospel itself: “Who is this?” This is the very question that Peter, in the name of the Church, will answer in 8:29. This profession of faith is the basis of the Church (Acts 8:37; 9:20,22).
Numbers 15: More legislation relative to sacrifice interrupts the narrative flow of Numbers once again. Since the rules in this chapter seem applicable only to those who will actually live in the Holy Land (verse 2), and since the previous chapter made it clear that none of the current generation will do so, this comment places an irony in the context of the material.
Perhaps the following consideration may explain and warrant this irony: After the stern condemnation at the end of the previous chapter, especially its declaration that none of the living adults would enter the Promise Land, there was some danger that the Promised Land would be forgotten altogether. Since no living adult would ever see it, why should they even think about it? At this point, however, the serene vice o fGod announces, “When you come into the land . . . which I will give you . . .” That is to say, the Promised Land still lies infallibly in your future.
Indeed, this sustained promise of the Land, a promise now applicable solely to Israel’s next generation, must have instructed the Israelites to think more seriously about that rising generation. It would discourage them from indulging the “right now” aspect of their behavior and their expectations. The nature of the promise, that is to say, would have a “maturing” effect on their minds.
The laws given here contain material on animal sacrifice, grain sacrifice, and the libation of wine (verses 3-21). These regulations are complementary to the material in Leviticus 1-3.
This chapter clearly distinguishes between sins of ignorance and inadvertence, for which atonement is readily made (verses 22-29), and deliberate sins of malice (verses 30-31). This distinction is followed by an example that illustrates what is meant by a deliberate sin (verses 32-36).
The wearing of special tassels and ribbons on the clothing served to remind the Israelites of God’s Law (verses 38-40; Matthew 9:20). It would seem that God’s People always need tangible, visible reminders of their duty.
Monday, July 3
Numbers 16: Because of the several recent crises, including God’s judgment that no adults then alive would enter the Promised Land, it is perhaps not surprising that there is ongoing ill will and dissent among the Israelites, the sorts of feelings spawned by despair.
The present chapter records two rebellions combined into a single narrative, a combination perhaps caused by their happening close together. (This is often the case in the history of rebellions.) Close attention to the text, however, permits the reader to distinguish between them.
The rebellion of Korah, a Levite (chiefly verses 1-11,16-24,27,35-43; Jude 11), was apparently directed against Aaron (verses 9-11) and involved the demand that the privileges of the priesthood be extended to all the sons of Levi. The rebellion of the Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram (1,12-15,25-34), appears to have been aimed more directly at the leadership of Moses.
Both of these rebellions were spawned of a democratic, leveling impulse, impatient of hierarchical authority derived directly from God. This is clearest in the remarks of Korah, who appealed explicitly to “the priesthood of all believers” (Exodus 19:6) as a political principle to deny the ranking authority of the Aaronic priesthood: “You take too much upon yourselves, for all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?”
To Korah and the rebellious Levites Moses proposes a trial by ordeal, as it were (verses 5-7,16-18), which proved a disaster for the rebels (verse 35). Indeed, the censers used by these rebellious Levites were beaten into a bronze memorial, to warn whoever in the future might be tempted to pursue their example (verses 36-43).
Such a warning was needed, even if it has not always been heeded. The Christian Church has often been afflicted with such democratizing rebellions against priestly authority. A rather early example occurred in the church at Corinth toward the end of the first century, when the local congregation arose and attempted to depose the ministers that the Apostles had set over them. The congregation was addressed by Clement, the third bishop of Rome, in a letter that the early Christians were careful to preserve. It reads, in part: “Surely it is well for a man to confess his sins rather than harden his heart as the hearts of those who were hardened who rebelled against Moses the servant of God. Their condemnation was made plain. For they went down to Hell alive, and death was their shepherd” (Clement of Rome, To the Corinthians 51.3-4).
However, it was related to the rebellion of Korah, the insurrection of the Reubenites seems to have been of a somewhat different complexion. Dathan and Abiram appreciated the gravity of their plight. They fully realized that they were doomed, in fact, to perish in the wilderness. In spite of Moses’ earlier pledge to take them all to the Promised Land, it was now clear that they would, in fact, die in the desert (verses 12-14). Their rebellion, however, far from removing their doom, only rendered it immediate (verses23-34).
This chapter is the only place in Holy Scripture where a sacrifice is said to assuage the “wrath of the Lord.” Indeed, this is the kind of language that the Bible tends strictly to avoid. It often speaks of God’s wrath, and it frequently prescribes the offering of sacrifice, but the Bible uses great restraint to keep the two things separate, lest it ever be thought that the offering of sacrifice has something to do with appeasing the anger of God. This is, most emphatically, NOT a biblical idea. It is very significant, therefore, that in the present text, what “atones” the anger of God is not the shedding of sacrificial blood, but an offering of incense, which is a symbol of prayer (verses 44-50).
Tuesday, July 4
Acts 13.26-41: The synagogue congregation has just been listening to the writings of the prophets (13:15), and now Paul speaks of the fulfillment of their prophecies in the death and Resurrection of Jesus (13:27). This has been a standard theme in Acts, of course (cf. 3:18,21,24; 4:28; 10:43). Luke does not identify which prophets Paul and Barnabas listened to in the synagogue on this day.
Surely it is significant, nonetheless, that Paul introduces Jesus into his “word of exhortation” precisely in connection with the Davidic covenant (verse 22-23). The Resurrection of Jesus, he contends, is God’s fulfillment of the promises made to David, and here (verse 34) he quotes Isaiah 55:3. We are justified in suspecting, therefore, that Isaiah 55, concerned with God’s fidelity to David in the context of the Babylonian Captivity, was one of the texts read in the synagogue on this day.
In testimony to Jesus’ Resurrection Paul refers to the official eye-witnesses of the post-Resurrection appearances (verses 30-31; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:5-7). As he will do a few years later in Romans 1:4, Paul interprets the sonship of Jesus in Psalm 2 to His Resurrection (verse 34; cf. also the same interpretation in Hebrews 1:5; 5:5).
To this psalm he adds Psalm 16 (15):10, which has been a standard Resurrection-text ever since Peter used it on Pentecost morning. Paul then addresses the matter of justification and forgiveness of sins (verses 38-39), following the same line of argument that he will later pursue in his epistles (cf. Romans 6:7; 8:3; 10:4; Galatians 2:16; 3:10-14,24).
Numbers 17: This short chapter covers the aftermath of the recent twofold revolt. The ordeal and miracle of the twelve rods was to determine, in as clear a way as possible, exactly where the authority in Israel was to be recognized. In short there was to be No More Murmuring (verses 5,10)!
The Hebrew word for rod in this chapter is matteh, which in fact means both “staff” and “tribe.” On the rod of Aaron was to be inscribed the name of Aaron himself (verse 3). Aaron’s is, of course, had the advantage of experience, if the expression be allowed. That is to say, we readers already know the sorts of things that Aaron’s rod can do, such as turn into a snake and eat up the other rods (Exodus 7:9-15). We are not surprised by the outcome of the ordeal. The other rods in this story never stood a chance.
The overnight blossoming of an almond tress was not uncommon, and in fact Jeremiah (1:12) would later take it as symbolic of the swiftness of the divine judgment. The miracle in this chapter, of course, is that we are not talking about an almond tree, but a dead piece of wood. Anyway, the miracle produced in the Israelites a sudden change of attitude (verses 12-13).
At least at some periods of Israel’s history, Aaron’s rod was preserved inside of the Ark of the Covenant itself (Hebrews 9:4). As it does in the present chapter, and as the bronze plates do in the previous chapter, the rod would remind future generations of Israelites of the limits of God’s tolerance about challenges to the authority of the altar and those who served thereat.
Now that the primacy of Aaron’s household has been established so clearly, the next chapter will contain more rules for the Aaronic priesthood.
Wednesday, July 5
Acts 13:42-52: In this scene we discern the context of certain impulses that produced agitation in the early Christian mission. Judaism itself already had an extensive mission in the Greco-Roman world (cf. Matthew 23:15). As synagogues were established in the major cities, serious pagans were impressed by what they saw, because the life of the synagogue stood in stark contrast to the cultural and moral decay of the surrounding world, where despair was common. In the pagan world some of the major cultural institutions, particularly marriage and the family, were in serious trouble. Sex had become increasingly separated from marriage and from child-bearing, and there was some sense that this separation was related to various forms of polytheism.
What the pagans beheld in the local synagogues, however, were communities of great strength and hope, solid marriages and the joys of family life, a strict moral code in which all of life was integrated and filled with purpose, a firm emphasis on simple labor as the basis of economic existence, a rich inherited literature that imaginatively interpreted the life of the community, and the regularly scheduled, disciplined worship of a single, no-nonsense God. All of this proved to be very attractive to those serious pagans who felt distress and discomfort at the popular culture.
Some of these pagans accepted circumcision and the observance of the Law, thus becoming full-fledged Jews; these were known as proselytes (Acts 2:10; 6:5). Other pagans were unwilling to go so far, because such a decision obviously tended to cut them off from their own families and friends.
This second group simply attached themselves to the synagogues as best they could, bringing certain structures of Jewish piety into their lives, such as regular prayer and fasting and the study of the Scriptures; these were known as “fearers of God,” of which we have already seen examples in Cornelius and his friends. Thus, there were two groups of Gentiles who in varying degrees joined themselves to the local synagogues in the larger cities of the Roman Empire. Now both these groups felt a spontaneous attraction to the Gospel when they heard it proclaimed in the synagogue by Paul and his companions. In the Gospel they saw a form of religion with all the advantages of Judaism, but with none of the social disadvantages, such as circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law.
In the present reading, we observe that these people invite their other Gentile friends to come with them to the synagogue on the following Sabbath (13:44). Now, of a sudden, the Jews find their own synagogue over-run with all sorts of “undesirables.” They perceive Paul and his companions simply to be “taking over” the synagogue, preaching a doctrine that they themselves cannot control, and, from their perspective, things are getting entirely out of hand. The local Jews react with jealousy and animosity (13:45,50). After all, the Jewish religion had survived pure and intact by preserving those very disciplines that Paul and his friends seem to want to overthrow.
The Gospel, then, they experience as chaos. The very “popularity” of the Gospel becomes a reason for the stricter Jew to feel uncomfortable about it. Trouble breaks out. This sequence of events, repeated over and over again in the synagogues of the larger cities, causes the Christian Church to grow among the Gentiles, who are finally obliged to establish their own local congregations apart from the local synagogues (14:1; 16:13; 17:1,10,17; 18:4,6,19; 19:8; 28:28).
Thursday, July 6
Numbers 19: This chapter is divided between the Rite of the Red Heifer and a set of prescriptions covering ritual purification.
The first is a curious ritual in which someone, not the priest, slays a spotless heifer that has never been yoked (verses 2-3), the priest sprinkling her blood in prescribed places in the Tabernacle. The heifer is then burned, again not by the priest.
All of those associated with this ritual must then be purified (verses 7-10), and because of this impurity the task is not given to Aaron, who must in no wise incur impurity, but his son Eleazar.
The ashes of the heifer are then preserved in a safe place in order to be added later to the lustral water used for purification (verse 9).
It is not clear how this strange ritual was fitted into Israel’s sacrificial system, and it sits here in Numbers without connection to the rest of that system. There is a brief reference to rite in Hebrews 9:13, where it is mentioned solely to contrast it with the redemptive efficacy of the Blood of Christ.
Other Christians, even from earliest times, have explored the symbolic possibilities of the Red Heifer. The earliest extant of these, an anonymous writer who assumed the name of St. Barnabas, compared the Red Heifer to the red cord hung from the window of Rahab at Jericho and the scarlet wool used by the High Priest. He wrote:
And what do you suppose is the type involved here, in that He ordered Israel those men in whom sins are rendered perfect should offer a heifer. And when they had killed it, to burn it, and that then the children should take its ashes and put them in a container, and that scarlet wool should be wrapped around a piece of wood—Observe the type of the Cross again, and the scarlet wool and the hyssop—and thus the children should sprinkle each person to cleanse them of sins? Understand what is said with such simplicity. The calf is Jesus. Those sinful men who offered it are those who presented Him for slaughter. These men are no more. No more the glory of sinners! Those who sprinkle are children, the very ones who preach to us forgiveness of sins and purification of the heart. To them He entrusted the proclamation of the Gospel. They are Twelve in number, representing the tribes (Pseudo-Barnabas 8.1-3).
Friday, July 7
Mark 6:45-52: The story of the Lord’s walking on the water is closely tied to the account of the multiplication on the loaves, not only sequentially (in Matthew, Mark, and John), but also (in Mark, at least) thematically. At the end of this story, the evangelist observes: “And they were greatly amazed in themselves beyond measure, and marveled. For they had not understood about the loaves, because their heart was hardened.”
Mark’s reference to the apostles’ hardness of heart, in this place, has no parallel in the other gospels; it represents a concern peculiar to Mark. This evangelist ascribes the wonderment of the apostles—“greatly amazed in themselves beyond measure”—to their failure to understand “about the loaves.” That is to say, they would not have marveled so much about the theophany on the lake if they had understood what had transpired, before their very eyes, in the multiplication of the loaves.
For Mark, this miraculous feeding of the multitude was supremely theophanic: It was the clear manifestation of the identity of Jesus. This thesis explains why, in Mark 8 and Matthew 15, the multiplication of the loaves is repeated: The apostles are given one more opportunity to understand.
Even then, however, the apostles will fail to grasp its significance. After the second multiplication comes the Lord’s frustrated interrogation of the apostles:
“Why do you reason because you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart hardened? Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments did you take up?”
They said to Him, “Twelve.”
“Also, when I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of fragments did you take up?”
And they said, “Seven.”
So He said to them, “How is it you do not understand?”
For Mark, then, the event of the loaves is entrance point of divine judgment. It manifests the apostles’ hardness of heart and failure to grasp the revelation conveyed in Jesus.
Acts 14.8-18: The very active Jesus continues to work His wonders within the body of believers (verse 3); however concealed from the view of the world, Jesus still walks among the candlesticks (Revelation 1:13; Matthew 28:20; Mark 16:17-20; 2 Corinthians 6:16). As the apostles flee from Iconium (verse 6), the Gospel is spread still farther. Lystra, whither they flee, is about twenty-five miles to the southwest. Here, Paul’s healing of the lame man parallels the miracle of Peter in 3:2-8; the similarities, even down to small details, is striking.
The response of the crowd in their own native tongue indicates what we might not otherwise have known, namely, that the apostles have been preaching through an interpreter. Inasmuch as a great deal “gets lost in translation,” the crowd has evidently missed some of the finer points in the apostolic message. Monotheism, for instance! Witnessing the miraculous healing, these enthusiasts promptly identify the apostles with pagan gods.
Their identification of Paul with Hermes, or the Latin “Mercury,” is explained in verse 12, where we learn that Paul did most of the talking. With respect to Barnabas, it is reasonable to think that his identification as Zeus, or the Latin “Jupiter” (“Zeus Pater,” or “Zeus the father”) probably had something to do with certain physical features (great height, large head, broad shoulders, and a majestic beard over a massive chest) and a more solemn presence. (Contrast this with Paul’s physical appearance in 2 Corinthians 10:10) So Paul is Hermes the messenger; Barnabas is the strong, silent Zeus, who commands by his presence.