Beacon Bible Commentary, Volume 1

Numbers 20:1—22:1

1. The Tribes Gather In (20:1a)

Then came the children of Israel…and…abode in Kadesh (1). The wilderness wanderings were over. Israel had paid the full price for her sin. The old generation had passed and the new one was ready, after nearly 38 years of interruption, to pick up God's plan. So the tribes and families gathered together again at Kadesh (see map 3), probably in the first month of that forty-first year since the original group had left Egypt. They remained at Kadesh, according to Deut. 1:46, “many days,” which may have been as much as three or four months. This was made necessary for at least three reasons: time was needed for reassembling and orienting the new generation to the plans for the movement of the camp (c. 2), a period of mourning over the death of Miriam, and communication with the leaders of Edom.

2. The Death of Miriam (20: lb)

Miriam died there, and was buried there (1). Miriam has been recognized in history as one of the strong forces under the hand of God in the great event of the Exodus. This is in spite of her one burst of jealousy (c. 12) and the dishonor and humiliation which resulted from it. The principal event in the record which tells specifically of her influence was her leadership in the victory celebration after Israel had crossed the Red Sea (Exod. 15:20-22). We can assume, however, that she gave strong and consistent support to Moses and Aaron and the program which God outlined for Israel. Even so, the record of her death is given in less than a sentence. God's cause is bigger than the most capable and the most celebrated of His workmen. His work moves on even as they are buried.

3. The People Cry for Water (20:2-8)

No mention had previously been made of any shortage of water at Kadesh. This lack now could mean that the springs had dried up, or that the flow had decreased so that there was not enough water to supply the full needs of the people. Or perhaps the water was not accessible to all of the people, since the camp was spread over a large area. In any event they complained because there was no water for the congregation (2). This followed the pattern which had characterized their murmuring in the past. The most recent instance had followed the rebellion of Korah (c. 16).1

The points of issue and the phrasing of their complaint were very much the same as before: Would God that we had died! (3) Why have ye brought us up…into this wilderness? (4) Wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt? (5) The younger generation, of course, had personally experienced neither the pleasures of Egypt nor the full trials of the journey but no doubt had heard the stories. The complaining at this point could well have been led by the older ones, to whom these events of the past were not as remote.2 It is apparent that the congregation was ready to pick up any issue that would give them occasion to complain about their plight. Murmuring is not noted for its logic nor is it confined to any one set of circumstances or to any one generation.

In the face of the continued agitation, Moses and Aaron went…unto the door of the tabernacle and fell prostrate before the Lord. As usual, God was faithful. The glory of the Lord appeared unto them (6). And the Lord spake unto Moses (7), giving instructions. Moses was to take the rod,3 assemble the congregation, and “tell the rock before their eyes to give forth its water” (8, Amp. OT). While Moses did not do exactly as God had instructed, nevertheless God was faithful, and “water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also” (11).

4. The Sin of Moses and Aaron 4 (20:9-13)

God was displeased with the conduct of Moses and Aaron and told them that they would not bring this congregation into the land (12). What the exact nature of the sin was for which these two leaders were punished is not specifically described. However, even when the record is read under the most favorable interpretation, the response of Moses does not coincide with the commands God had given. No doubt it is in this variance that the true nature of the sin comes to light. A comparison is revealing.

a. God commanded Moses to “speak” to “the rock” (8). Instead, Moses with his rod…smote the rock (11). Here he was guilty of not obeying explicitly the command of God. Rather, he followed only the general lines of the command and may have carelessly reverted to a pattern of conduct which he had used on a similar occasion but with God's approval (Exod. 17:1-7). God's indictment was that Moses believed me not (12). This unbelief was probably not that Moses lacked faith in God's power to perform the miracle in the manner that God had designated. Rather, because of his personal desires or his mood of the moment Moses lacked the inclination to obey explicitly the will of God without modification. God condemned Moses and Aaron because of their rebellion (24). At the very moment Moses was calling the people rebels (10) he himself was refusing to follow the simple and well-defined command of God.

b. God commanded Moses to “gather…the assembly together…and speak…unto the rock before their eyes” (8). Instead, Moses cried out, as he struck the rock, “Shall we bring forth water for you?” (10, RSV) Here Moses and Aaron were guilty of projecting themselves and the powers of the human instead of exalting God before the people (12). God judged these leaders because they failed to sanctify Him in the eyes of the children of Israel, as God had commanded (Lev. 10:3) and as His holy nature demanded (Ps. 99: 5, 9). Moses and Aaron were guilty of that very essential and basic of all sins, especially heinous for spiritual leaders—they exalted themselves rather than the Lord. God is most honored when His servants humbly acknowledge that it is not by their hands but by the hand of God that miracles of the Kingdom are accomplished.

c. It is true that God commanded Moses to deal with the water shortage. However, God's spirit and mood was that of patience and love and His instructions were given with calm and poise. There is no reason indicated why Moses should not have followed through with the same pattern. Instead, he lost his grip, both on the situation and on himself. In anger he smote the rock, not once, but twice (11). In this he was guilty of that great sin in leadership: losing patience with the people whom he was trying to lead and, in this case, losing patience also with God.

In addition, he was guilty of violating his own personality. Moses was a man whose life consistently reflected qualities of meekness and patience even in the face of the most trying circumstances. In a sense these qualities were the hallmark of his character (cf. 12:3). This outburst of heat and bitterness was serious because it thus violated what Moses was because of his faith in God. It is at this point that his sin was properly labeled “unbelief.”

d. God's command to Moses, furthermore, reflected love and patience with His children even though they were murmuring and complaining: “So thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink” (8). Moses, however, not only struck the rock with his rod but struck out verbally at the people, shouting, Hear now, ye rebels (10). Here he was guilty of that greatest of all sins in a society of human beings: deprecating human personality (Matt. 5:22) and failing to recognize that those with whom one is dealing are persons, too.

Whatever was the nature of Moses' and Aaron's acts, God called them sin—unbelief and rebellion. They were essentially sins of the spirit, which are indeed the most basic and the most serious kind. Certainly the penalty which God assessed gives an indication of how serious He considered them. Therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land (12). Thus these two mighty leaders suffered a similar judgment to that which had come upon the entire older generation. The tragedy of the failure of Moses and Aaron is compounded when the measure of their stature is taken and when it is remembered that, up until this time, they had done so well. But the record stands as a lesson for all generations that faithfulness must be thorough and complete, reaching to the end of life (Matt. 24:13; Heb. 3:6-19).

5. Appeal to Edom (20:14-21)

Because of the disastrous defeat suffered previously (14:45), the “way of the spies” was presumably cut off as a route to Canaan. Hence, Moses gave consideration to the possibility of searching out a route to the east. The shortest of these would pass through Edom (see map 3). These verses tell of Moses' attempt to get a “safe travel permit” from the leaders of the w to go this route.

The message that Moses sent called attention to the fact that Edom was indeed the descendant of Esau, Israel's brother (14). Then followed a brief account of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt (15) and their flight from the Egyptians (16). Moses finally outlined the current situation that made it advantageous for them to go through the territory held by Edom. He assured the Edomites that Israel would not pass through their fields, or…vineyards, neither…drink of the water of the wells, and they would stay on the king's high way (17).5

Edom refused this request with a threat, lest I come out against thee with the sword (18). Moses tried again, insisting that the Israelites would do nothing but march through the land and would pay for any water which they used (19).6 On receiving this proposition, Edom came out (20) with a show of force, to be sure that Israel did not ignore their refusal and press ahead anyway. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border (21).

B. TOWARD CANAAN AT LAST, 20:22—21:4

1. A New Day (20:22)

It had been a long time. The buildup of expectation was intense, even though this was a new generation. The constant hope through the years of wilderness wanderings must have been to finish out the time of judgment and to get on to Canaan. Even the severity of their frustration, heartache, and suffering could not have obscured this hope. Yet the record is put simply, And the children of Israel…journeyed from Kadesh, and came unto mount Hor (22).

2. Mount Hor (20:22)

The exact location and identification of mount Hor have never been fully established. The evidences of the most recent scholarship 7 tend to support a site, identified as Jebel Madurah, some 30 miles northeast of Kadesh (see map 3) rather than the traditional site near Petros to the southeast. Such a location would still qualify the site as being on the “border of Edom” (23, RSV) but would place it nearer Canaan. This location makes more intelligible the incident recorded immediately following (21:1-3), which has the southern route into Canaan as its setting and hence more nearly supports the sequence of the text.

3. The Death of Aaron (20:23-29)

At Mount Hor, God reminded Moses and Aaron (23) that the latter would not enter into the land because of his part in the sin at the water of Meribah (24). Thus the stage was set for the transfer of the priestly powers from Aaron to his son Eleazar. God instructed Moses to take the two up unto mount Hor (25) and there perform the ceremony of transferring the priestly robes from the older man to the younger. And there on the mount, quietly, humbly, and majestically, Aaron died. When Moses and Eleazar (28) returned from the mount, the people, seeing the signs of the priesthood on Aaron's son, knew that the old priest had died. They mourned for Aaron thirty days (29) before continuing their journey.

4. Defeat and Victory (21:1-3)

The exact significance of this incident is not clear. Moses may have made plans to try the southern route into Canaan as had been originally planned. This would have been natural in view of Edom's refusal to let the Israelites pass to the east. However, king Arad 8 the Canaanite (1) learned of this intention. He was fearful of such a large group of people seemingly moving in his direction, and attacked the Israelites with a measure of success.

Whereupon Israel vowed a vow unto the Lord (2) that if God would deliver the Canaanites into their hands they would utterly destroy their cities. God gave them a notable victory at Hormah (3). This may be a given location (see map 3) or it may signify merely that the Canaanites were reduced to a state of utter destruction (hormah; cf. 14:45). There is some indication, also, that this account, in addition to depicting a single battle or group of battles, may be incorporating a bit of general prophecy as to the ultimate victory of Israel in her conquest of Canaan (Judg. 1:16-17).

5. The Route to Moab (21:4 a)

It would appear that the Israelites, after they were refused passage across Edom, probed the southern route into Canaan. Then in the face of the resistance they met, or because of reasons not recorded, gave up the idea of entering Canaan by this route. It was then that they circled southward by the way of the Red sea (4). To clear the southern border of Edom, they had to travel to the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba, nearly half the distance back toward Mount Sinai. They then turned eastward, passing near what is the present port of Eilat (Ezion-geber), in order to get east of the land of Edom (see map 3).

An alternate route has been suggested by some scholars as being more logical. This would have led the Israelites south from Mount Hor to a point midway between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba. From there they turned abruptly northeast to Puron, which they locate inside Edom. From thence the route would be to Oboth, which they locate toward the north-central portion of the Arabah. It would then run to the south tip of the Dead Sea, where the Brook Zared empties from the east. Turning to the east they would have followed the Brook Zared, moving between the countries of Edom and Moab, circling Moab to the east and thence to the Arnon River (see place names in 11-13).

C. THE BRAZEN SERPENT, 21:4-9

1. The Plague of Serpents (21: 4-6)

As the congregation moved to the south they encountered tedious travel conditions similar (o those that had been such a trial to their fathers in the past. In the face of these desert conditions, the murmuring of the people reached a new height. There is no bread, neither is there any water (5), they complained. They were correct, of course, in that there was no natural supply of either bread or water from the land through which they were going. They were wrong in that God had been and was then miraculously supplying their basic needs. Their complaint brought in question the adequacy of what He was providing for them. It was basically this lack of faith that brought God's displeasure upon them.

For this murmuring, the Lord sent a plague of fiery serpents (6). They were so designated, probably because of the nature of the poisonous venom which they ejected, and because of their color, which was a bright, copper color.9

2. The Serpent of Brass 10 (21: 7-9)

In the face of the deaths from the plague, the people awakened to the wrong of their complaining and came to Moses. They said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee (7). They begged Moses to pray unto the Lord, that he take away the serpents. It is noteworthy that the people's petition to Moses in this instance, more than in others, called for intercession to the Lord.

God's instruction was for Moses to make a serpent of brass which was to be placed on a pole (8).11 It was to be lifted high enough above the camp so that it could be seen by all of the people. Those who had been bitten by a serpent could avoid death simply by looking at the serpent of brass (9).

While this account is discredited by some, conservative scholars feel that it must stand as one of the great pre-Calvary miracles of the OT. The prime authority for this is Christ himself, who said, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:14-15).

The serpent of brass was thus a type of Jesus Christ, who, when lifted upon a Cross, brought salvation and spiritual life to all who but look in faith. There is also implied in this OT account the truth that “like cures like.” God gave a miraculous serpent of metal to heal the deadly infection caused by the venom of the fiery serpents. The Scripture says of Jesus, “With his stripes we are healed.…and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:5-6). Also, “[God] hath made him [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (II Cor. 5:21; cf. Rom. 8:3).

In 4-9 we see the truth of “The Brazen Serpent.” (1) Sin is racial and personal, 4-7; (2) The serpent and the Saviour were lifted up, 8; cf. John 3:14; (3) There is life for a look that is voluntary, contrite, believing, 9; cf. John 3:14-15 (G. B. Williamson).

3. From Whence the Miracle?

In all of this there must be a clear understanding that salvation and life came not from the brass serpent, as such. These blessings came from the power of God which was released by faith and by personal acceptance of the plan which He had outlined. Even in that day it was the power of a Cross which was yet to be lifted up that brought healing.

It must be forever established that it is not the symbol which redeems, but the Christ back of that symbol. The Hebrews later fell into the error of worshipping this very brazen serpent which had been preserved (II Kings 18:4). Because of this faulty use, Hezekiah had the serpent taken from the Temple and broken to pieces. Although the brazen serpent had its place in the plan of God in the desert setting and perhaps had a place among the items of reverence in Israel's archives, it was not to become an object of worship, nor was it to be venerated as something which had a supernatural power inherent within itself.

D. INCIDENTS ON THE MARCH, 21:10—22:1

1. Some Stations en Route (21:10-13, 16, 19-20)

The list of the stations at which the Israelites camped on the entire journey from Egypt to Canaan is given in c. 33. At this point only those principal ones, in this leg of the trip from Mount Hor to Moab, are given. It is as if the historian wanted to move the reader with seven-league boots from the desert of Paran to the fertile bowl of the plains of Moab.12

The places mentioned cannot be located on modern maps. Oboth (10) has been identified merely as “the flinty plateau to the east of Edom”13 but it cannot be pinpointed more exactly. The name Ijeabarim (11) means “the ruins on the other side” but is not identified further.14 The valley of Zared (12) is “on the wady of Zered which flows into the Dead Sea at its southern extremity.”15 From thence they removed, and pitched on the north side of the river Arnon…the border…between Moab and the Amorites (13). To locate Beer (“well town,” 16), Mattanah, Nahaliel, and Bamoth (19) is also all but impossible. Pisgah probably speaks of one or more of the high ridges of the Moabite plateau that jut out into the Dead Sea, which looketh toward Jeshimon (20). From here the hills of Canaan could be clearly seen.16 The highest of these was Mount Nebo, on which Moses died (Deut. 34:1).

2. Bits of Folk Song History (21:14-18a)

These verses present fragmentary snatches of records representative of this period of history. The book of the wars of the Lord (14) is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. But the fact that data is referred to here, even in a sketchy manner, indicates that such accounts were kept. Here were bits of ballads or folk songs, records of the exploits of great persons or events, which were sung around the campfires or before the courts. These are not unlike other records that have been discovered of the exploits of kings and military leaders of this period of history. The inclusion here of such records, even though they are but snatches, confirms rather than discredits the validity of the account.

The first song speaks of the victories of Israel at the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon (14). The second tells of the incidents at Beer, where a well was digged and a song was sung (16). This ancient song has been a source of rich blessing across the centuries to Jews and Christians alike. It speaks of the unique combination of God's miracles and man's work. God promised, I will give them water. But the princes digged the well, the nobles of the people digged it…with their staves (18). Perhaps the special joy which seems to be inherent in the song came because of this very combination. It marked a transition in the manner in which God dealt with His children. Previously, on occasion, God gave them water miraculously. Now the people themselves had a part to perform. This, indeed, was a transition into their new way of life and responsibility in the conquest of Canaan.

3. Fate of the Amontes (21:21-32)

The Amorites (21) were among the principal tribes of the Canaanites (Gen. 10:16). The name is often used in a general way when the broadest reference to the Canaanite nations is intended (cf. Deut. 1: 7, 19, 27). Also it is used to denote all of “the inhabitants of Syria before the time of the Exodus.”17 A tribe of the Amorites under the leadership of Sihon had only recently moved in from the north of Palestine. They had conquered and taken over the cities of the Moabites, stopping at the river Arnon.

The territory that Sihon occupied was not included in the original promise of God to Abraham (34:2-12). However, the fact that it was now in the possession of a Canaanite people did include it (Gen. 15:18-21; Deut. 2:24).18 Hence Moses did not hesitate to make contact with Sihon. He sent messengers requesting permission to pass through his land to reach the fords of the Jordan opposite Jericho. Sihon refused and came out with his armies, so the Israelites fought them. Even though theirs was not an experienced army, they seemed to have courage, strength, and confidence. God gave them victories and they occupied all these cities (25) which they wrested from the Amorites (cf. Deut. 2:30-37).

It was about this total victory over the Amorites that they that speak in proverbs (27) sang. The song is a combination of gloating over victory and taunting the defeated. It begins with the victory of Sihon (28) over the Moabites and calls to attention the failure of Chemosh (29), the Moabite god. It closes with the simple summary of the victory of the Israelites over Sihon (30). The entire song places Heshbon,19 the principal city of the Amorites, in the place of prominence.

4. The Defeat of Og 20 (21:33—22:1)

While only a few words are given to the account, the victory over Og (33) is significant.21 While probably, in some ways, Og would be classified as a Canaanite, he was distinctive in that he was one of the last of a tribe of giants. Besides being formidable warriors, the followers of Og had cities which were all but impregnable. Israel would probably not have conquered them had these armies stayed behind their city walls. Instead, Og the king of Bashan went out against them, and he was defeated.

In addition to the facts of the victory, it is important to see that the territory which Og controlled reached northward to a point opposite the Sea of Galilee. The fact that this territory was conquered by Israel brought about the request of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and one-half the tribe of Manasseh to take this area as their inheritance rather than that which would have been given them under the original promise (c. 32; Deut. 3:15-17).

So Israel set forward, and pitched in the plains of Moab (22:1), presumedly even while the armies were closing out the campaign against Og to the north. These plains of Moab constituted a humid, fertile valley, below sea level across the Jordan from Jericho. This was the first slight taste of the promise that the Israelites would possess a land flowing with milk and honey. Certainly it was a change of atmosphere from the desert setting which had been theirs since they left Egypt.