Questions on the Book of Numbers

[irishcolleen45]

I’m reading the Book of Numbers and I can’t help wonder where did the Israelites obtain the animals for sacrifice, the material to make the “meeting tent”, the flour for bread, the gold to make cups, etc? They are still in the desert at this point. Would they stop to plant wheat and wait for harvesting?

 

[Thom18]

I’m reading the Book of Numbers and I can’t help wonder where did the Israelites obtain the animals for sacrifice, the material to make the “meeting tent”, the flour for bread, the gold to make cups, etc? They are still in the desert at this point. Would they stop to plant wheat and wait for harvesting?

I imagine from the supplies given to them by the Egyptians. Exodus mentions that the Egyptian people gave them many gifts (I think mostly jewelry) prior to their departure. They could have melted it all down.

 

[Thom18]

As for the animals, it’s also mentioned (if I remember correctly) that they took many with them- they did tell pharaoh that they needed to offer Him sacrifice in the desert, after all. I’m sure the Israelites’ would have been breeding them and not killing them all all at once. Flour? I’m thinking they just took what they had with them. Maybe they found wild grain in the desert (I’m not too agriculturally inclined) and ground it down for that purpose.

But something one of my teachers told my class about two years ago is that what’s presented in Leviticus, Numbers, etc. as far as sacrifice goes was ideal, but it’s likely that many Jews weren’t particularly observant and didn’t make sacrifices as often as they were expected. This would cut down on the resources they’d need.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

Yes, they were given many gifts from the Egyptians when they left because the Egyptians were so anxious to appease the Hebrew God and get rid of the Hebrews from their land. The Hebrew people then were donating what they had to be used for the creation of the tent, etc.

They also bought vast herds of animals with them and food supplies.

 

[Dan_Defender]

the flour for bread

If you are referring to Numbers 15;20 this is not referring to present ‘dough’ or ‘bread’ for the offering, but to the future, when they get to settle in the promised land.

 

[Hereiam]

Sometimes the literal and historical sense of scripture seems to be at odds with the spiritual senses (tropological, allegorical, or anagogical) of scripture.

This is a good cause to employ Lectio Divina when initial reading of scripture are troubling, or difficult to understand. It usually put things into perspective.

Pax et bonum!

 

[Elf01]

As for the animals, it’s also mentioned (if I remember correctly) that they took many with them- they did tell pharaoh that they needed to offer Him sacrifice in the desert, after all. I’m sure the Israelites’ would have been breeding them and not killing them all all at once. Flour? I’m thinking they just took what they had with them. Maybe they found wild grain in the desert (I’m not too agriculturally inclined) and ground it down for that purpose.

Makes me wonder why they complained about the lack of food and meat.

 

[Gorgias]

irishcolleen45:

the flour for bread

If you are referring to Numbers 15;20 this is not referring to present ‘dough’ or ‘bread’ for the offering, but to the future, when they get to settle in the promised land.

Perhaps he’s referring to Numbers 7, in which each tribe is making offerings, which include grain and animals for sacrifice? In any case, that would have been well before the “wanderings in the desert”, which doesn’t begin until Numbers 14. Might we suggest that there were sufficient foodstuffs in the region of the Sinai, then?

Sometimes the literal and historical sense of scripture seems to be at odds with the spiritual senses (tropological, allegorical, or anagogical) of scripture.

This is a good cause to employ Lectio Divina when initial reading of scripture are troubling, or difficult to understand. It usually put things into perspective.

Ooh… wait a minute! Are you suggesting that you use lectio divina as an aid to exegesis? Lectio divina isn’t meant to be an aid to personal exegesis – it’s meant to allow us to soak in the Word, to draw us more deeply into it, and to examine its (and God’s) presence in our current life situation! IMHO, one of the ways to mis-use lectio divina is as an opportunity for folks to offer personal pseudo-dogmatic interpretations of Scripture passages!

 

[Nita]

This is a good cause to employ Lectio Divina when initial reading of scripture are troubling, or difficult to understand. It usually put things into perspective.

Yes. God is my favorite “go to” source for Scripture passages that remain puzzling even after reading commentaries.

 

[Hereiam]

Ooh… wait a minute! Are you suggesting that you use lectio divina as an aid to exegesis? Lectio divina isn’t meant to be an aid to personal exegesis – it’s meant to allow us to soak in the Word, to draw us more deeply into it, and to examine its (and God’s) presence in our current life situation! IMHO, one of the ways to mis-use lectio divina is as an opportunity for folks to offer personal pseudo-dogmatic interpretations of Scripture passages!

Yes I am…Just seems to be a silly argument you are making. The charity of my post hardly warrants the criticism of yours…but this is social media, so your opinion should not be discounted, I suppose.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes I am…Just seems to be a silly argument you are making.

No… really it isn’t. That’s why I asked whether you were talking about personal exegesis, and didn’t presume it. After all, you might have meant, “I use lectio divina as a means to meditate on what the Church teaches and come to a deeper understanding of it.” That would be how the Church approaches Scriptural exegesis.

On the other hand, the way that the Church doesn’t approach exegesis (but that many Reformation denominations do approach it) is that each individual interprets Scripture personally, with the expectation that the Holy Spirit directs their interpretation. The experience of the past 500 years is that this leads to a multiplicity of conflicting and mutually exclusive interpretations – and all of them are asserted to be “Spirit breathed.”

The charity of my post hardly warrants the criticism of yours

Maybe I’ve just been involved in too many Catholic “Scripture studies” which were really just a thinly-veiled opportunity for folks to offer their own personal interpretations of Scripture (which, generally, were at odds with Church teaching). Lectio divina is a wonderful spiritual practice, but an exercise in exegesis it isn’t.

“Charity” and “criticism” aren’t opposites, no? Rather, we’re called to correct each other, aren’t we?

 

[Hereiam]

Just seems hardly worth all your efforts…“oh vanity” comes to mind. But i do see your point, but while i am willing to acknowledge your point of view, i do not agree with it at all, and feel under no obligation to accept it…but in fairness, neither do you have an obligation to agree with my viewpoints.

But, while you may not personnaly agrer, nothing i ssid violates Church teaching, doctrine or dogmata…it seems it only violated your own personal sensibilities.

So go ahead, if you must, and have the last word…but im done with this conversation.

Peace be with you!

 

[Thom18]

Makes me wonder why they complained about the lack of food and meat.

Well, they were being fed with the manna, so they weren’t short on food. God even provided them quail to eat because of their grumbling.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

Yes, they certainly did not have enough food to last 40 years of wandering in the desert. So God provided for them.

 

[Thom18]

Yes, they certainly did not have enough food to last 40 years of wandering in the desert. So God provided for them.

And He didn’t allow their clothes or sandals to become worn out.

 

[Gorgias]

i am willing to acknowledge your point of view, i do not agree with it at all, and feel under no obligation to accept it…

while you may not personnaly agrer, nothing i ssid violates Church teaching, doctrine or dogmata

Umm…whether or not I personally agree doesn’t matter. It’s whether the Church agrees with you… and she doesn’t:
Does the Catechism encourage private interpretation of the Bible?

Exegetes and believers must not pit their private judgment against the mind of the Church, or treat their methods as the ultimate arbiters of what Scripture can or cannot mean (this is what is meant by “private interpretation”). … We can interpret and explore Scripture, just not in a way that contradicts what has been defined concerning it.

If you meant “I ‘interpret’ the Bible according to the mind of the Church”, then we’re both saying the same thing. If you’re saying “I get to interpret it on my own,” then you are saying something that conflicts with the doctrine of the Church:
Council of Trent:

in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures

The Catechism says it in a more gentle way:

[111.]

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.

[112.]

1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.
   The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.

[113.]

1. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").

[114.]

1. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

It’s point #2 that we’re talking about, here.

Do I take this stuff seriously? You betcha…

 

[Hereiam]

Do I take this stuff seriously? You betcha

LOL…and way out of context, too!

I promised i wouldnt…but couldnt heip myself!

 

[Gorgias]

LOL…and way out of context, too!

Not sure what you mean. Is this a tangent in this thread? Yeah, sure.

Is it along the lines of what I asked (“are you talking about personal interpretation of Scripture?”)? Yeah. It is.

 

[irishcolleen45]

I goofed. I thought in the Book of Numbers the Israelites were already wandering in the desert due to their mistrust in God’s abilities. At this point in time they had been on the move from Egypt about 13 months and still had some supplies from Egypt. God was also sending them manna and quails to eat. It’s in chap 14 that the Lord became angry with the Israelites and told Moses that they would be wandering in the desert for forty years for disobeying Him.
Sorry.