These three chapters in Numbers are the story of Balak and Balaam. Balak is king of Moab, the next target in the journey of the Israelites. Balaam is a prophet of the LORD who lives over in what is modern day Iraq, on the Euphrates River. Balak hires Balaam to come over and curse the Israelites.
Balaam seems to have no contact with the Israelites, yet still serves the LORD. He is not the only character who shows up in the text from seeming nowhere to interact with the LORD's people as a fellow worshipper. There is Melchizedek in Genesis 14, "King of Salem", and Moses' father-in-law, Jethro, in Exodus 4 and later in 18, described as "the priest of Midian".
I am sure there is some common thread running here that I just don't see this time through. That is a joy of continuing to read the Bible.
Balaam is a character study. First the LORD forbids Balaam to go, no matter the price Balak is willing to pay. Then the LORD says he can go. Then three times, the LORD sends an angel with sword drawn to stand in Balaam's way, which, at first only the donkey can see. The donkey saves Balaam's life each time, but gets a beating for its trouble.
I would like to see the expression on Balaam's face when the donkey talked back to him. Here is the parable within the parable. Balaam beat the donkey because he thought the donkey was making a fool of him-because Balaam couldn't see the angel of death waiting. The donkey's response was to inquire whether this had ever happened before? Was this a habit of the donkey? Maybe Balaam could have responded differently, recognizing something different was happening.
Next, Balaam becomes the donkey and Balak takes the role of the foolish rider. Four times, Balak will take Balaam to some place to see and curse the Israelites. But to do so would disobey the LORD. Was this the habit of Balaam? Balaam's response was to inquire of Balak whether this-disobeying the LORD's command-had ever happened before?
After four times without a curse, Balaam goes home in peace.
Through Acts 24-26, Paul's time in Caesarea is detailed. It covers a span of years. First is with Felix, the governor. He finds nothing in the Jewish leadership's arguments to turn Paul over. In fact, he is fascinated by Paul and speaks with him a number of times, expecting a bribe for Paul's release.
So Porcius Festus takes over, in 25. He gets the reports of the Jewish leadership and seeks to release Paul to stand trial in Jerusalem. But Paul invokes his rights as a Roman citizen to take his case directly to the Emperor. Festus agrees to send him along.
Before he does, Herod Agrippa, the local monarch, and his wife, come to pay respects to the new governor. They get pulled in to the discussions and examination of Paul, and their conclusion is that Paul could have been released, that there were no sustainable charges against him. But because Paul invoked the right of appeal to the Emperor, he must see it through.
To take Aslan's argument that Paul was in conflict with the Jerusalem church, these chapters seem like they should be most pivotal. Paul has been detained, his accusations and trial are being set up. The Jewish leaders (not the church leaders) want him dead. A couple of conspiracies to kill him have been outlined. One was averted when the tribune got Paul out of the city and the second was to take place when Paul was in transit back to the city of Jerusalem-which never happened.
I don't see it. Now Aslan talks of Luke essentially setting up a whitewash, being a fan of Paul, thus writing the Acts in such a way to bolster Paul's position in the church while at the same time not directly attacking the church in Jerusalem, but reflecting their contrary opinion to Paul's work among the Gentiles that undercut the law of Moses.
What I read in Acts is that Paul has enraged the Jewish leadership by fraternizing with the Gentiles. At this time, the followers of Jesus are still very much integrated into the Jewish community in Jerusalem, so that Paul's work is still seen as Jewish work, not as a separate thing-not as the Christian faith comes to be in separation from the Hebrew faith. But it also seems like the leadership of the Jerusalem 'church' don't do much to stand up for Paul. This whole thing is not about the message of Jesus and how it will change the world. This conflict is over a presumption that Paul is bringing Gentiles into the temple and the hallowedness of the Jewish faith.
And all of it is not a defense of the faith, but rather a pretext to get Paul to Rome where he may share the gospel in the First City of the Empire.
No comments:
Post a Comment