Far enough in Numbers 16

"Much to you"

There's an odd little idiom in Numbers 16, רב־לכם, rab lechem, "much to you", which seems to mean something like "you've gone far enough" or "that'll do". It's also in Deuteronomy (4x), 1 Kings (1x) and Ezekiel (3x).

In Numbers 16 it's first from the lips of the rebels: "You've gone far enough, Moses", and then in response Moses turns it back on them, "Yhwh can choose for himself; you've gone far enough, Korah."

"Too little for you?"

What's extra interesting is that where רב־לכם bookends the initial exchange (Num 16:3-7), there's a corresponding המעט מכם in 16:9 and just המעט in 16:13, which asks "is it too little [for you]?", that is, "is it not enough for you?"

In the first instance (Num 16:8-11) it's Moses asking if it's too little to be set aside as priests, while in the second (16:12-14) it's Korah's counterpoint, asking if it's too little for Moses to bring them into the wilderness and not into the land in order to kill them?

Framing

Like many instances of framing or bookending in the Hebrew Bible, these phrases aren't the first word or the last word of any paragraph, but their placement in these exchanges marks them off as structurally important.

That said, it can be at the actual beginning and end, as is the case with the second speech by Dathan and Abiram from the end of 16:12 to 16:14. The phrase לא נעלה, lo na'aleh, "we won't go up," is the first and last words of that speech, marking the beginning and ending of these words with their determination to not be subject to the adjudication.

But back to the two phrases which frame the two exchanges; they set up the hostility between these two groups, and ultimately it will be Yhwh who will adjudicate between them. I can't wait to find out what happens next!

 

Reflection on Psalm 95: a call to listen

Psalm 95 comes a third of the way into the Exodus psalms (90-106), and harkens back to a key moment in Israel’s wilderness wanderings – that point when the spies return from searching out the land but draw back in fear of the land. It is clearly a psalm of two halves, beginning with praise before applying the lesson learned in Exodus 17 and Numbers 14 to whatever the new situation requires.

95:1-7c

The psalm begins with four noisy verbs: praise, shout, “greet with acclaim”, and “shout with songs.” The first half ends with verbs not of noise but of action: worship, bow down, kneel down. To tie the beginning and end together further, it begins with “Yhwh, the rock of our salvation” and ends with “Yhwh our maker.” To be the saviour is not explained further, but maker is, as Yhwh is the great God, the great king, who holds the extremes of the earth and possesses the heights of the mountains; he made the sea and formed the dry ground.

Finally, to close off the first half, the phrase “his hand” occurs thrice, in v4, v5, and finally in v7, as “the sheep of his hand.” This causes us to reflect on his creating and guiding both macro and the micro, the impersonal and the personal.

95:7d-11

The second section of the psalm concludes somewhat abruptly, with a hanging oath phrase, “if they come to my rest…” which we might extrapolate to “they will never come to my rest,” or “so help me if they ever try to come to my rest,” – which is indeed what happened, as those who went up were slaughtered. We can see then that this psalm conflates two incidents: the arguments at Massah/Meribah in Exodus 17, and the rebellion in Numbers 14 after the spies returned. But these stories are tied together together in the similar diseased hearts that are apparent, with testing, trying, stray hearts, not knowing God’s ways.

But the key, holding it all together, in terms of application, is the near-homonyms which bookend this section: shema’ and sheva’, to hear his voice, and to heed his vow. To not hear his voice means he will fulfil his vow – and in this case it means to be destroyed, to be condemned to a generation-long wandering. But to heed his voice means to receive the promises, to enter his rest, to know Yhwh as both maker, but also as saviour.

This is a call to worship, to prayer, but also to listening. Listening means, in context, taking careful notice of the past. God has spoken clearly in the past, through word and deed. In his acts of creation in the beginning, and his acts of rescue in the wilderness. But also through his words of promise and his words of rebuke. We listen to God and take his warnings at face-value, not rejecting his ways, not testing him, but listening to him and to the one he has sent, our creator and our redeemer.

Psalm 95 as Christian Scripture

Reading this psalm as Christian Scripture, we aren’t seeking to tune in to hear God speak in a new and special way, but to listen to the words God has already spoken, which he still speaks today: words of creation, words of warning, words of redemption, words of guiding and guarding. We can see this especially in the use of this psalm in the NT, as the warning and encouragement is repeated to the people of the new covenant, so that they do not turn back or grumble or test God – that they do not harden their hearts. And it is this word—this promise/warning—which is living and active, sharper than a two-edged sword, dividing soul and marrow. It challenges us: do you worship? Do you praise? Do you listen? Do you know him in his mighty works? Do you know him as the great king above all gods? And do you listen to him as he speaks through his Son, the word become flesh, and he promises that all his sheep will hear his voice.

So many questions about Balaam

In Numbers 22-24 we first meet Balaam (or Bil'am, בלעם) son of Beor, a prophet hired by Balak king of Moab, to curse Israel. 

Amazingly, we know Balaam son of Beor also from extra-biblical material; the Deir 'Alla Plaster Inscriptions (Context of Scripture 2.27, Baruch A. Levine) writes about and translates the reconstructed fragments of an inscribed plaster wall from the 9th-8th century BC, slightly north of Moab in Ammonite territory. 

In those inscriptions he is a prophet who receives messages from the gods, providing a remarkable parallel to the biblical story. 

Balaam gets mentioned quite a lot in the Bible, which is surprising for a bit-player. His name comes up 60 times in the OT and a further three times in the NT. However, 51 of those 63 times are in Numbers 22-24, which is some impressive name repetition! He is mentioned again in Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 23, Joshua 13 and 24, Nehemiah 13 and Micah 6. The emphasis in the OT seems to be varied. 

He is also mentioned in the New Testament as an archetypal incitement to greed, in 2 Peter 2:15, Jude 11 and Revelation 2:14. 

In Deuteronomy 23, Joshua 24, Nehemiah 13 and Micah 6, God's determination to bless Israel despite human attempts to curse them. However in Joshua 13 the problem is his sinning through divination and being put to death as a cleansing of the land. 

Later on within Numbers (31) the Balaam/Balak saga is conflated with what becomes known as the Peor incident, in Numbers 25. In Numbers 31:15-18 Moses is upset that women who are not virgins, as well as boys, have been allowed to live in an attack on Midian. The reasoning is that the women who are not virgins are those who followed Balaam's advice to seduce Israelite men, which occurs in Numbers 25 but is not linked to Balaam in that place. 

That said, there are a few issues in Numbers 25 which are not clear, such as a plague which is stopped but is never explicitly said to begin (although 25:3a, "Yhwh's anger burned against Israel", may be an elliptical reference to the plague beginning). All this is to say the lack of a reference to Balaam is perhaps not that unexpected.

I do have some questions about Balaam, which are about 1) his location and 2) his patronym. 

Balaam of Pethor 

Numers 22:5, Balaam is at Pethor, his native land (NIV), that is the land of the children of his people (ASV), which is by "the river", i.e. the Euphrates. This description is filled out in Deuteronomy 23, as Pethor is further explained as in Aram Naharaim, or Aramea by the (two) rivers, which is identified as north-west Mesopotamia. You can see it right up the top of this map in red (made in Accordance Bible), while Beth Peor and Bezer are the names in red down the bottom, which are part of Moab, also in red below those towns. I've overlaid modern borders for some scale.

It doesn't take long to work out why people have problems with Pethor as Balaam's base and hometown. The plains of Moab, opposite Jericho either side of the Jordan River, are almost 600km away from each other as the crow flies, which is a long long way away. One might even suggest prohibitively far away to make sense in the story. If the details are correct, that Balak sent his messengers 600km to ask, and then they returned unsuccessful, and then they were sent back, whereupon he was willing to come with them (the talking donkey notwithstanding), then they have walked upwards of 2,500km in order to gain some support. The distances are staggering. 

Added to this is when Balak meets Balaam, he asks why he didn't come immediately in response to his "urgent summons" (22:37), which is laughable - the amount of time it would have taken to make two return trips of that distance would make haste or delay essentially negligible. 

It is of course possible that The River is a different river. The Nile could justifiably also be called The River, and the Jordan, for those in that area, could similarly be their The River. Further to this, it is always possible that Aram is Adam, a place attested to elsewhere in the Scriptures (such as in Josh 3:16, as well as a suggestion elsewhere in place of Aram), due to the easily confused pair of letters, the Hebrew daleth and resh, ד/ר. 

If Balaam was indeed from Adam, not Aram, and The River was the Jordan and not the Euphrates, then Balaam is slightly less exotic and the story becomes much less confusing, from that aspect at least. That would also fit more with the archaeological evidence discussed above. 

Balaam son of Beor or Bezer

The other issue I want to try to understand is why, in 2 Peter 2:15, Balaam is called the son of Bezer and not of Beor, as he is throughout the OT. Where has Peter got this from?

The patronymic, Beor, is written both plene and defectively within the same passage; that is, both בעור and בער. 

There were two things I immediately noticed upon hearing the name Beor. First off, there is a nice assonance between the three names in the passage: Beor, Balaam, Balak. This is nice, and a lovely coincidence (if it is that). Second, Beor sounds a lot like Peor, and apart from the B/P exchange, Peor is spelled the same as Beor (the plene spelling). 

I don't know what to make of that. Peor is clearly a real place in the Transjordan, known elsewhere as Beth Peor (not to be confused with another Peor within Canaan). 

If I had to guess, I would say Beor is how you spell Peor if you want it to rhyme with Balak and Balaam, so that Beor, rather than being a patronym, is a toponym. 

If this were the case, it could mean that 2 Peter preserves the name of Balaam's father, Bezer, so he is Balaam son of Bezer of Peor. 

However, it's not that easy. Bezer rhymes just as easily as does Beor, and you don't have to change anything. And Bezer is also a place, near to the plains of Moab (Deut 4:43; Josh 20:8; 21:36; 1 Chr 6:78; 8:78). 

So which place is his place? Is it Peor, Pethor, or Bezer? 

I think it's safest to go with what the OT has to say, rather than imagining that Peter has access to something that has escaped everyone else's notice for a millennium. This still doesn't explain how the patronym Bezer turns up in 2 Peter. 

The Greek behind it is Bosor, which is how the LXX consistently translates Bezer. However, it seems some scribes had some issues with that, as Vaticanus has Beor, and the original hand of Sinaiaticus combines Beor and Bosor into the horrific portmanteau Beorsor, which I take it is Beor + Bosor. UBS5 gives Bosor an A rating, suggesting that this is the most likely reading and that Siniaticus represents an attempt to correct the text.

There has been much work on 2 Peter and Jude's sources (very little of which I'm across), but I'm unaware of where the Bezer (Bosor) source may have come from, or why Peter didn't go with Beor (unless Sinaiaticus alone preserves the original text). 

Edit/update - I checked Norman Hillyer's UBC (1,2 Pet; Jude) and he suggests Βοσορ (Bezer) is a play on בשר (flesh); Peter then thinks Balaam is then a son of the flesh rather than being confused about who is father is. Why confuse us with the nearby town Bosor/Bezer I'm not sure. That said, the Greek has του, the genitive article, so it broadly means "belonging to", either as the son, or another type of belonging, as Hillyer suggests. 

Conclusion

All in all, there are a whole bunch of riddles associated with Balaam, son of Beor, of Pether. I don't know if I solved any of them, but I hope I have at least scratched the surface and edged towards some possible resolutions. 

Sanctuary - first secular or sacred?

In Australia at the moment, in response to the dehumanising treatment of refugees under our care, not a few churches have offered sanctuary to any refugees the government may want to deport against their wishes. Which led me to think about the origin of the word sanctuary.

Sanctuary in the Bible renders either the Hebrew word מקדש (miqdash) or the Greek word αγιος (hagios); sanctuary is the Latin version of a word which means holy place. You may be familiar with the word sanctification which means 'to be made holy.'

Some time in the middle ages, any church which had been sanctified and was thus a sanctuary could offer safe haven in the pattern of Numbers 35. There were to be cities in the land nominated as refuges (the word sanctuary is never used to refer to such a town) so that those worried they would be the victims of retributive justice after an accidental murder could flee and be assured of a fair trial.

What I am interested in is the order. The idea of sanctuary is that God is the true judge; his faithful officers are most able to administer justice when the other powers may have lost their way (think Psalm 2!). So the idea of sanctuary flows from our knowledge of God, and it is in his name that safe have is offered these people vulnerable to the whims and excesses of our governments.

Whether they have any legal status in this country or not is another question; despite the evils uncovered in the royal commission against institutional child abuse, the imagery of churches protecting the people is thankfully an even stronger statement, and one which most Christians will be ready to identify with.