vi. Instructions for tassels on garments (15:37–41)

37The LORD said to Moses, 38“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. 39You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the LORD, that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by going after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes. 40Then you will remember to obey all my commands and will be consecrated to your God. 41I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to be your God. I am the LORD your God.’”

COMMENTARY

37–40 As in many of the pericopes of this sort, the connection with the preceding is not at once clear. What has the wearing of tassels to do with the stoning of a Sabbath-breaker? Yet there is a connection of sorts. The story of the execution of the high-handed offender is designed to bring fear to all people that they, too, might be led to the breaking of the demands of the Lord in his Torah. Hence, a most practical device is given: the wearing of tassels on one’s garment as a perpetual reminder of the demands of God in his Torah. Again, this reminder is a mark of grace—as is all the Torah.

The reason for wearing the tassels is given in this paragraph. As one walked along, the tassels would swirl about at the edge of one’s garment. These would be excellent prods of memory for the wearer to keep faith with the Torah, to obey the commands of God. Each step of the believer was to be encircled by tassels that symbolized the restraints and freedoms of knowing Yahweh (cf. Dt 6:8–9). The tassels on the fringes of the garment were made of blue or violet color (v.38).

41 This pericope—as with the chapter—ends on a high note of the self-revelation of the Lord and his declaration of purpose for his people. The words “I am the LORD your God” (repeated) have about them the sound of a litany, a recitation of faith. The demands God made on his people came from his right of redemption. By his act of deliverance, Yahweh speaks in accordance with the demands of his character. The literary form of the chapter demonstrates an inclusio by beginning and concluding with the continuing promise of God to bring his people into the land. He was still at work in the process of completing their redemption from Egypt. The command to turn back to the wilderness (14:25) dictated a lengthy detour, not an abandonment of the journey itself.

This verse is nearly poetry. It can be displayed in this manner:

I am Yahweh your God,

the one who is bringing you from the land of Egypt

to be your God;

I am Yahweh your God!

NOTE

41 The words (ʾ^anî yhwh, “I am the LORD”) at the beginning and again at the end of this verse serve as the regular assertion of the self-declaration of Yahweh at points of singular emphasis of his sovereign grace in the lives of his people. Recall that it is possible that this phrase was intended to be in the beginning of the poem of the Oracle of the Lord (12:6–8; see comment and Note there). Here the language is even more expressive; the full phrasing at the beginning and the end of this verse (thus forming an inclusio) is, “I am the LORD your God.” This declaration of Yahweh, coming after the people’s terrible rebellion at Kadesh, should have been especially comforting.

f. The Rebellion of Korah and His Allies (16:1–50)

OVERVIEW

Earlier there had been a rebellion against the leadership of Moses led by Miriam and Aaron (see ch. 12). This chapter presents an attack on the leadership of Moses and Aaron by Korah and his allies. Korah was descended from Levi through Kohath. As a Kohathite he had high duties in the service of the Lord at the tabernacle (see 4:1–20), but he desired something higher. His passion was to assume the role of priest; he used subterfuge to further his claim by advancing the false piety of common holiness before the Lord.

Korah was joined by the Reubenites Dathan, Abiram, and On and some 250 other leaders of Israel (perhaps from several tribes), who had their own complaints and their own pretensions. Politics and strange bedfellows are not exclusively modern phenomena. Their charge was that Moses had “gone too far” in taking the role of spiritual leadership of the people; they asserted that the whole community was equally holy, hence Moses and Aaron had no special privilege with the Lord or special authority over them. To these scurrilous charges Moses retorted, “You Levites have gone too far!” (v.7), and he set up a trial by fire. The chapter is dramatic in nature and is profound in its basic teaching.

The text does not have a temporal indicator. We may presume by its placement, however, that it records an event that took place after the debacle at Kadesh. In this manner the rebellion of Miriam and Aaron (ch. 12), which came before Kadesh, serves to balance this post-Kadesh assault on the character of Moses. The story of Moses’ own failure before the Lord (ch. 20) can only be understood with these stories of rebellion against his leadership by trusted people. Finally, even Moses capitulated to rage.

This narrative is one of a few instances in which the wilderness experience following the mitigated judgment of God against the people is detailed for later generations. I suggest that with few exceptions, such as this story, the reason Moses passes over most of the experiences of the people in the wilderness is that these experiences were not properly part of the Heilsgeschichte of the people. The movement from Egypt to Kadesh was detailed fully. The movement of the people toward Moab is also nicely developed. Intervening years are lost time, the working out of judgment, a waiting for a generation to pass from the scene. Only occasionally, when an event of great import transpires, does Moses break his “code of silence” and inform the later generation of the event.

i. The beginning of revolt (16:1–3)

1Korah son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and certain Reubenites—Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—became insolent 2and rose up against Moses. With them were 250 Israelite men, well-known community leaders who had been appointed members of the council. 3They came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD’s assembly?”

COMMENTARY

1 This is the second account of a presumptuous, unprincipled rebellion against Moses by prominent figures who were not content to continue in subservient positions under his leadership. Given the results of that first rebellion (ch. 12), this account seems to be particularly grievous.

There may always have been some resentment of Moses among leading persons in the community. Petty, insecure people, pushing and pressing to assert their own ends, sometimes rise up against constituted leadership with questions of an unbalanced nature. On the first occasion when Moses intervened on behalf of righteousness among his people while still a young man in Egypt, he found himself rebuffed by a ruffian who challenged his right to intervene. At that time Moses was still living as a privileged scion in the household of Pharaoh, and he intervened in a fight between two Hebrews (see Ex 2:13–14). Now, long the leader of the nation, Moses still found himself under terrible attack by others who ought to have been supporters of his leadership. They may have been jealous of his privileged upbringing in the household of Pharaoh (2:1–11), resentful of his futile attempt to redress wrong in his rash behavior against the slave master, suspicious of his forty-year absence while they continued to suffer under Pharaoh (2:15–25), and doubtful of his audacious claim to have been singled out by God as his mediator for the nation (3:1–15).

It is also possible that Moses was a difficult person to function under. Since we have discovered that the classic text ascribing meekness or humility to Moses is likely a misunderstanding (see comments on 12:3), it may be time to reassess his personal character. Rebellion against persons in authority can spring from a variety of reasons. But when principled people of varied sorts rise against a leader from time to time, it is possible that there is something amiss in that person. Scripture clearly places the blame on others in this case. But Moses may unwittingly have given rise from time to time to opposition to his leadership. This possibility does not dismiss the error of the insurrections, but it may help to explain why they occurred.

The name “Korah” (qōraḥ; v.1) may mean “baldness” (see Note). His paternity is traced through Izhar and Kohath to Levi. As we will see, his name later became famous for the role his descendants played in the making of music in the time of David and following. The phrase “A son of B son of C” in this instance extends over four hundred years. Levi, third son of Jacob, was one of the twelve patriarchs who entered the land of Egypt over four hundred years before the time of the events of this text. Numerous intervening generations are demanded. This may explain, for example, the name “Amminadab” instead of “Izhar” between Kohath and Korah in 1 Chronicles 6:22. We might paraphrase today, “Korah was a Levite whose line may be traced through Kohath and Izhar.”

Korah’s cohorts in this evil plan of insurrection were the Reubenites Dathan (dātān, “decree, law”) and Abiram (ʾ^abîrām, “the exalted One is my Father”), sons of Eliab (ʾ^elî ʾāb, “God is Father”), and On (ʾôn, “vigor”), a man mentioned only here. The father of On is said to be Peleth (pelet), but this may be a substitution for the name Pallu (pallûʾ; see Ge 46:9; Ex 6:14; 1Ch 5:3).

2 The principals were joined by another 250 men. These were not rogues, however. They were dignified leaders and are credited with three descriptive phrases in the MT: (1) they were chiefs of the congregation (nāśîʾ, “one lifted up as a chief”; “community leaders,” NIV; the same term used for the tribal leaders in chs. 1–2; 7; and 34, and for the spies in ch. 13); (2) they were official representatives of the assembly (q^eriʾê mô ʿēd, “the summoned ones of the assembly”; “appointed members of the council,” NIV; an expression found in 1:16); and (3) they were “men of name” (ʾanšê-šēm, that is, men of reputation; untr. in NIV).

The text thus draws considerable attention to the fact that this rebellion was not carried out by rude, impudent ruffians but by credible leaders, esteemed men of rank. Their malcontent with the privilege they had received by God’s grace makes their rebellion even more tragic. They wanted more. Korah was a direct descendant of Levi from an esteemed line. The brothers Dathan and Abiram and their friend On were Reubenites. The men associated with them were constituted officials, men of name. Together this was a formidable company of nobles who brought their seditious attempt to discredit Moses.

3 Aaron was under attack as well. Perhaps Korah’s real desire was not only to demean Moses but also to have himself made priest instead of Aaron. Both Moses and Aaron were (at least) in their eighties at this time. The nation was under sentence of God’s judgment, and these men knew that they were a part of the doomed community. Perhaps the rebels thought that by a forced change of guard they might even reverse the fortunes of the people. The verb translated “they came as a group” suggests an organized, well-thought-out conspiracy. This was not just a momentary, casual play of a motley crew. They had not just come up to Moses and Aaron but “against” (“to oppose,” NIV) them; the preposition is significant.

The conspirators’ words to Moses and Aaron are compressed and impassioned; they are difficult to translate smoothly: “Much to you” (rab-lākem). The idea is that Moses and Aaron arrogated too much, that they had presumed on their power for self-aggrandizement. Perhaps they were charged as well with failure sufficiently to share their power with these antagonists. The charge was much the same in ch. 12, but on the present occasion Aaron was not a coconspirator; here he was also charged with the same offense.

When Korah and his cohorts said that the entire congregation was holy, they emphasized the word “all.” They also insisted that the Lord was in the midst of the whole community, not just residing in the privacy of the Tent of Meeting.

Their claims bore truth, but it was distorted. The entire nation was, indeed, holy, but the claims of Korah and company ignored the gradations of holiness in the divine intent. By their words they appeared to be arguing for a democratization of the divine privilege. In fact, they merely desired a shift of power—to themselves. The pattern of leadership the Lord established in Israel was not an even-handed, ideal democracy. His pattern was theocratic—rule by God—mediated through a divinely sanctioned regent. The Lord was present with all the people. The leaders had more privilege than the common people, and Moses and Aaron were the most privileged and had the greatest responsibilities. A prudent response of a privileged person is gratitude to God and loyal service to his praise. Only a fool would attack the structure of God’s rule based on a mistaken notion of democracy. Fools these worthies became!

NOTE

1 The name (qōraḥ, “Korah”) is presumably derived from the verbal root (qāraḥ, “to be bald”). However, there is another word with the same spelling that is the presumed root for the word “frost” or “ice.” When the meaning of a name is not commented on in Scripture, suggestions may be precarious.

The verb (wayyiqqaḥ, “became insolent”[?]) appears at first to be the word regularly rendered “and he took,” a Qal preterit of the common verb (lāqaḥ, “to take”). The NIV’s translation, “became insolent,” is suggested by comparison with an Arabic word, leading to an as yet unattested Hebrew verb (yāqaḥ, “to become insolent, act with impudence”). I am attracted to this translation for two reasons: (1) the verb “to take” has no accusative given in the verse; rather the sentence is construed as though the verb is not a transitive word; and (2) the verb “to become impudent” is suggestively significant in this context. Other suggestions have been offered to resolve this difficulty, but the NIV’s solution seems convincing.

ii. Moses’ rejoinder (16:4–7)

4When Moses heard this, he fell facedown. 5Then he said to Korah and all his followers: “In the morning the LORD will show who belongs to him and who is holy, and he will have that person come near him. The man he chooses he will cause to come near him. 6You, Korah, and all your followers are to do this: Take censers 7and tomorrow put fire and incense in them before the LORD. The man the LORD chooses will be the one who is holy. You Levites have gone too far!”

COMMENTARY

4 The response of Moses was sudden, dramatic, and decisive. He fell to his face on the ground. The baseless attack of Korah and his company is superbly demonstrated by this action. An arrogant man might have lashed out at them. A threatened man might have become defensive. Moses was neither. He fell to his face in obeisance to the Lord, whose regent he was and to whom his sole allegiance belonged. Although Aaron was also under attack, all the focus was on Moses. If he were to stumble, Aaron would stumble as well. If Aaron stumbled, Moses might still stand.

5 There is no indication of the length of time Moses lay prone to the earth. But when he rose, he spoke decisively. His words were now the Lord’s words. Tomorrow would be “High Noon” in the encampment of Israel. Once and for all the role of Moses in Israel would be defined. One way or another tomorrow would tell. The verb rendered “will show” is likely a jussive; the flow may be translated: “In the morning, let Yahweh make known [‘will show,’ NIV] who belongs to him.” This phrasing may be compared with the words of 2 Timothy 2:19: “The Lord knows those who are his” (see also Na 1:7; Jn 10:14). Moses used language of the prayer of faith, commingled with his sense of the certainty of his own position.

Further, Moses’ term for the choice one of God is “the holy” (w^eʾet-haqqādôš, perhaps “the holiest”; the term “holy” with the article may be an example of the article’s indicating the superlative). The Lord will bring near to himself the one who is the holiest, so determined by his own choice of that person.

The enemies had asked for a showdown. Moses would give them one, and it would be far more than they had bargained for. When Moses rose from his prone position, it was with resolution and grim determination. Finally, it had come to him that it was neither he nor his brother who were under attack; it was the Lord himself. If Moses had indeed arrogantly assumed power that was not properly his, he would have been in error and Korah would be vindicated. But Moses knew. It was his story. It was Moses who had heard the voice of the Lord from the burning bush. It was Moses who had withstood Pharaoh to his face. It was Moses who had stood on the holy mount to receive the word of God. And it was Moses who had faced a similar challenge from his own sister and brother. Now the rebels would get their chance, but it would be their ruin.

6–7 Only the initial provisions for the test are laid out at this point; more would come later. Moses told each of those involved to take a censer and fire and incense. This instruction is remarkable, since the priests alone were to hold the censers. While Korah was of the house of Levi, he was not a member of the priestly family. The others, as Reubenites, were not even remote candidates for priestly service. But Moses dared them to do as he demanded, for then the Lord would make his choice known to all in a dramatic, vivid manner. Here would be an unforgettable demonstration of the supernal power of God and of his gracious choice of his true servant. In an arresting turn of phrase using the same words (rab-lākem, “much to you!”) the detractors had used against Moses and Aaron (v.3), Moses countered by shouting that it was they who “have gone too far” (v.7).

iii. Moses’ warning to the rebels (16:8–11)

8Moses also said to Korah, “Now listen, you Levites! 9Isn’t it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do the work at the LORD’s tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them? 10He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too. 11It is against the LORD that you and all your followers have banded together. Who is Aaron that you should grumble against him?”

COMMENTARY

8 Although the text says “Korah,” Moses was addressing all the assembled insolent men. The verb “listen” is in the plural and is strengthened by the energic ending, giving special force to his charge. Since the principals along with Korah were Reubenites, it is difficult to know whether Moses’ words, “you Levites,” are inclusive of other Levites who were joined with Korah or were meant to include Dathan, Abiram, and On in a sarcastic manner.

9 “Isn’t it enough for you” translates the Hebrew idiom (ham^eʿaṭ mikkem), “Is it a little thing from you?” In other words, Moses was saying: “In your judgment was it nothing that the Lord had marked you out as distinct from the entire community for a special work for his pleasure?” They were already in a special place in God’s economy, but they were not satisfied. They desired more than ever.

There is an emphasis in these verses on God’s grace being trampled shamelessly by these arrogant men. Korah was the ringleader, but all in his company were culpable. The issue was gratitude versus pride. A humble, grateful person thanks God for any task and carries it out faithfully. A prideful person such as Korah, selfishly desiring a bigger place, a larger slice of the action in God’s kingdom, was in fact an enemy of God. Anytime one begins to emphasize (grandly) his or her ministry as “my ministry,” such a one is in danger of standing in Korah’s sandals.

10 That the conspirators were really after the priesthood became clear to Moses. It was not that Moses was in error or that Aaron was at fault. It was simply that these wicked men wanted their positions.

11 The phrase “banded together” shows the determination of Korah and his followers. This was not a rag-tag group but a congealed body who were on the make. Moses adds the trump “and Aaron!” after “against the LORD.” His language is incredulous, as though to say, “What did he ever do to you that you should strike out against him?”

iv. Confrontation with Dathan and Abiram (16:12–14)

12Then Moses summoned Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab. But they said, “We will not come! 13Isn’t it enough that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the desert? And now you also want to lord it over us? 14Moreover, you haven’t brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey or given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Will you gouge out the eyes of these men? No, we will not come!”

COMMENTARY

12–14 It is difficult to believe the level of acrimony we find in Dathan and Abiram. They were not even willing to come to appear before Moses to face charges. Twice they refused absolutely (vv.12, 14). The charge of Dathan and Abiram against Moses was to sing again the old song that he had not led them into the Land of Promise. The ludicrous level of their apostasy shows in their absurd charge that Moses had in fact led the people from “a land flowing with milk and honey” (v.13). By some strange alchemy, in their minds the land of Egypt had changed from prison to paradise, and Moses was presented as some sort of dunce who had been leading them in the wrong direction. Moreover, they charged Moses with play-acting the role of a prince (sārar, in the Hithpael; “to lord it,” NIV). Their contempt is simply audacious.

The behavior of Dathan and Abiram was, if possible, even more intolerable than that of Korah: (1) they refused to appear before Moses; (2) they mocked his words, throwing the language of “a little thing” (“Isn’t it enough?” NIV; v.13) back on him; (3) they abused the language of choice for Canaan to describe contemptuously the land of Egypt; (4) they accused Moses of causing their plight in the wilderness, while quite forgetting all the events of Kadesh; (5) they mocked him as a strutting prince always prancing about; (6) they blamed him that they did not yet possess the fields and vineyards of Canaan; (7) they tauntingly accused him of misusing his power by attempting to blind others to his faults; and (8) they reasserted their obstinate outrage in the disobedient refusal, “We will not come!” (v.14). Was there ever such impudence against Moses as came from these men? Later in Israel’s history a poet would write a psalm chronicling the experience of Israel from her roots. This poet included the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram but failed even to mention Korah (see Ps 106:17–18).

The expression “to gouge out their eyes” (v.14) is a rhetorical exaggeration. The rebels charged Moses with blinding men to his true intentions. It is as though he wanted to gouge out their eyes so that they could not see the wicked things he was alleged to have been doing to them.

v. Judgment on his enemies (16:15–35)

15Then Moses became very angry and said to the LORD, “Do not accept their offering. I have not taken so much as a donkey from them, nor have I wronged any of them.”

16Moses said to Korah, “You and all your followers are to appear before the LORD tomorrow—you and they and Aaron. 17Each man is to take his censer and put incense in it—250 censers in all—and present it before the LORD. You and Aaron are to present your censers also.” 18So each man took his censer, put fire and incense in it, and stood with Moses and Aaron at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 19When Korah had gathered all his followers in opposition to them at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, the glory of the LORD appeared to the entire assembly. 20The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 21“Separate yourselves from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once.”

22But Moses and Aaron fell facedown and cried out, “O God, God of the spirits of all mankind, will you be angry with the entire assembly when only one man sins?”

23Then the LORD said to Moses, 24“Say to the assembly, ‘Move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.’”

25Moses got up and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel followed him. 26He warned the assembly, “Move back from the tents of these wicked men! Do not touch anything belonging to them, or you will be swept away because of all their sins.” 27So they moved away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Dathan and Abiram had come out and were standing with their wives, children and little ones at the entrances to their tents.

28Then Moses said, “This is how you will know that the LORD has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: 29If these men die a natural death and experience only what usually happens to men, then the LORD has not sent me. 30But if the LORD brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the grave, then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with contempt.”

31As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart 32and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, with their households and all Korah’s men and all their possessions. 33They went down alive into the grave, with everything they owned; the earth closed over them, and they perished and were gone from the community. 34At their cries, all the Israelites around them fled, shouting, “The earth is going to swallow us too!”

35And fire came out from the LORD and consumed the 250 men who were offering the incense.

COMMENTARY

15 In Moses’ plea of innocence, we sense his humanity. In his pleading for mercy from the Lord for the people (v.22), we sense again his magnanimity. In his wrath Moses asked God not to turn his face with gracious favor on their offering; he proclaimed himself innocent of misuse of his office for personal gain; he proclaimed himself guiltless of any harm. He had not enriched himself by one donkey or brought harm to one person.

16 The trial was to be by fire. The test was to determine which men Yahweh would accept as his priests in the holy tabernacle. The 250 men allied with Korah came with arrogance to withstand Moses and Aaron at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. The revelation of the glory of Yahweh was sudden, with words of impending doom for the rebellious people. The punishment was sure and with fitting irony. Those 250 men who dared to present themselves as priests before the Lord with fire in their censers were themselves put to death by fire from the Lord (v.35).

This section is similar to the command Moses gave earlier (vv.5–7), though it has more refinements. Some scholars might regard this restatement as an example of a tortured history of the text. But it is also possible to see statement and refinement such as this as a standard pattern of Hebrew style. The reader is drawn into the experience by not being told exactly what will happen.

17–18 The text emphasizes the participation of the individual by its repeated use of the term “man” (ʾîš) in vv.17–18 (“each man,” NIV). There also seems to be a focus on Korah versus Aaron, rather than Korah versus Moses. It seems that with Aaron now quite old, Korah wanted his position. Even though the “job” is the service of the Lord in his holy precincts, it seems that Korah believed he would be able to wrest that service by force. Somehow he must have decided that the Lord would acquiesce to his demands!

19 But God is not one to capitulate to the base charges of wicked people! Suddenly the glory of the Lord burst into their midst. The “glory of the LORD” speaks of the weight of his presence, the semblance of his majesty. This is a way of referring to God in potent, frightful mystery.

20–21 The Lord spoke again that he had had it with the people. He was about to wipe out the nation—not just the company of evil, grasping men, but the entire congregation. Moses and Aaron understood that it was all the people, not just the foolish rebels, whom God was about to destroy.

22 Again we see the richness of the character of Moses and Aaron, who prayed to God to preserve the nation despite yet another outrageous attack. The prayer is unusual in the manner of address: “O God, God [ʾēl ʾ^elōhê] of the spirits of all mankind.” Perhaps in this unusual phrasing Moses and Aaron were urging God to act in mercy since all life is ultimately dependent on him. They asked whether it was right that the whole nation be destroyed just because one man had sinned (or perhaps, “Shall just a single man sin, and the whole be destroyed?”).

23–27 The Lord seems to have acceded to the reasoning of these words, for he demanded that the people move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. In saying, “Yahweh acceded,” the impression is not that God was recalcitrant until presented with a powerful argument. It is my view that situations such as these are opportunities that God provided for Moses to work through in his own mind issues that would ultimately bring great glory to Yahweh. (See also Ex 32:8, where Moses pleaded with Yahweh to spare the people after the debacle of the golden calf in the shadow of Mount Sinai.) The judgment of the Lord was going to be severe, but he did not wish to have it lash out on the bystanders.

It appears as if Korah himself had left the 250 priests and was standing with Dathan and Abiram to continue their opposition to Moses. The use of the term for “tent” (miškān) is unusual here, as this is the word normally used for the tabernacle of the Lord. We may wonder whether the term is not used sarcastically. It is as though the Lord has his miškān and now these false claimants to the priesthood have their miškān. It is possible that we find here a dark witticism against the enemies of God.

28–30 Moses wished to assure the people that the judgment that was coming was certainly the direct work of Yahweh and not a happenstance that might be interpreted differently. The opening of the earth to swallow the rebels was a sure and evident sign of the wrath of God and the vindication of Moses and Aaron. It was a new phenomenon (b^erî ʾâ, “something totally new,” NIV), something unmistakably the work of God. The earth was pictured as a ravenous monster whose jaws suddenly opened and whose gullet descended to the inner chambers of Sheol. This passage is frightful, a thing of horror. The new phenomenon was that these people would not die and then go into Sheol—they would fall into Sheol alive (v.33). This is a grisly spiritual antithesis of Enoch’s being caught alive into heaven; they were to descend alive into “hell.”

31–34 It happened as soon as Moses finished speaking (v.31); the earth split open and swallowed the rebels, with their households (v.32). Numbers 26:11 explains that the sons of Korah did not die. Apparently they did not join their father in his rash plan. The households of the other rebels died with them. The men and all those with them were under “the ban” (ḥerem; cf. the story of Achan in Jos 7). There was no mercy, no pleading, no help. The children, wives, and even toddlers died with their wicked fathers. Whole families were wiped out. This judgment was immediate, catastrophic, horrible, and complete. Yet there is something in it that is also satisfying: something of the honor of the Lord and the servants he had named, of the purity of the camp, and, in a sense, of poetic justice.

35 The 250 men were then devoured by fire (perhaps lightning); the smell of their incense would not be able to cover that of their stinking, burning flesh. After these revolts, the word would be out: those who would seek to take the positions of Moses and Aaron might find that God would have no more use for them. He might take them to the home they had chosen when they decided not to follow him.

The horror of the story is that the punishment included women and children. No easy answer presents itself to deal with this issue in a satisfactory manner. One may speak of corporate solidarity, of the sense of family compliance, of the possibility that the children would grow to be like their fathers. Yet ultimately one has to back away from such problems and simply, humbly admit that we really do not know. But there is one thing that we do know: The God of Israel will do right!

The issue is theodicy. Not just the ego of Moses was at stake here, but also the vindication of God’s work, his name, and his glory. Possibly Korah felt with his leadership the nation might overcome God’s judgment, and he and the others might not die in the wilderness. Perhaps his original intention had been a self-deluded attempt to give the nation one more chance. Such a theory provides Korah with a sense of motivation that otherwise seems lacking.

We would expect that the line of Korah would have been obliterated in this event, along with the families of Dathan and Abiram. Yet it turns out that there are survivors of Korah’s family who extended all the way to the time of David and beyond. Numbers 26:10–11 tells us that Korah was among those whom the earth swallowed but that his sons did not die with him. His descendants would later become the temple singers, responsible for the crafting of numerous psalms (see headings to Pss 42; 44–49; 84–85; 87–88; cf. Ex 6:21, 24; 1Ch 6:22–31).

In the survival of the house of Korah and their ongoing participation in the worship of God, we find both irony and mercy. The irony is self-evident. The mercy ought to be that God would allow this family to resume its former prestige—carrying the name of their infamous father—as a remarkable tribute to his grace. At the same time the memory of their father was not lost; it is cited in the NT (Jude 11) as one of the prime exemplars of rebellion and evil in the biblical record.

NOTE

30 The word (b^erî ʾâ, “a new thing,” i.e., “a new phenomenon, unique creation”; “something totally new,” NIV) is related to the root , bārāʾ (“to create”; GK 1343), which, I argue, has the basic idea of “to fashion anew—a divine act.” See Ronald B. Allen, “The Meaning of the Hebrew Verb Baraʾ,” appendix in The Majesty of Man: The Dignity of Being Human (rev. and exp. ed.; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2000), 181–84.

vi. The aftermath of the contest—more distress (16:36–50[17:1–15])

36The LORD said to Moses, 37“Tell Eleazar son of Aaron, the priest, to take the censers out of the smoldering remains and scatter the coals some distance away, for the censers are holy—38the censers of the men who sinned at the cost of their lives. Hammer the censers into sheets to overlay the altar, for they were presented before the LORD and have become holy. Let them be a sign to the Israelites.”

39So Eleazar the priest collected the bronze censers brought by those who had been burned up, and he had them hammered out to overlay the altar, 40as the LORD directed him through Moses. This was to remind the Israelites that no one except a descendant of Aaron should come to burn incense before the LORD, or he would become like Korah and his followers.

41The next day the whole Israelite community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. “You have killed the LORD’s people,” they said.

42But when the assembly gathered in opposition to Moses and Aaron and turned toward the Tent of Meeting, suddenly the cloud covered it and the glory of the LORD appeared. 43Then Moses and Aaron went to the front of the Tent of Meeting, 44and the LORD said to Moses, 45“Get away from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once.” And they fell facedown.

46Then Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer and put incense in it, along with fire from the altar, and hurry to the assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out from the LORD; the plague has started.” 47So Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly. The plague had already started among the people, but Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them. 48He stood between the living and the dead, and the plague stopped. 49But 14,700 people died from the plague, in addition to those who had died because of Korah. 50Then Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, for the plague had stopped.

COMMENTARY

36–40 [17:1–5] After the terrible conflagration that destroyed the 250 rebels who had joined with Korah and his cohorts, Moses received a new command from the Lord. He was told to have Eleazar, son of Aaron, take the censers from the midst of the smoldering remains (v.37). Perhaps the most chilling incident in the narrative is the description of the true priests taking the censers of the 250 deceased impostors from their charred remains and employing these holy instruments in hammered bronze sheets for the altar (v.38). Can you imagine the scene? True priests were picking among the bodies, charred flesh, stench, smoke, smoldering embers, and twisted parts. They were to make a count. There were 250 censers; not one was to be lost. Each one was recorded, each one cleansed, each one holy. And the fire was to be scattered yonder. It was strange fire, not worship fire. It was a fire of judgment.

Even with the death of the false priests, the holy things had to be treated as holy things. This is amazing! The men were wicked and had to be destroyed; the implements were holy and needed to be preserved! From that time on the sheet of bronze over the altar would be a memorial of the utter folly of the self-proclaimed priest of the most holy God (v.40). Their families would know. Their neighbors would remember. Every time they looked at the altar or thought of it again, they would be forced to remember the folly of their fathers.

Moreover, those who went to pick out the censers became unclean because of their contact with the bodies of their foes. Everything was a lesson in ancient Israel. All was a mix of holy and profane, of clean and unclean, of good and evil.

The censers were hammered together to form the overlay for the altar, to fit the shape and contours of the stones. This metal sheath over the stone, gleaming and resplendent, with a patina, became a thing of beauty, a decoration of loveliness. Yet it was also a reminder of horror, a stab of vengeance. As the pieces were hammered together, the identity of each individual piece was lost. The collective guilt of the troop was identified with the resultant single sheet; no one would be able to approach the altar and say of one section of the bronze sheath, “This part belonged to so-and-so.”

As we think about the notion of the “holy,” we recognize that things are made holy in Scripture not because people are holy, but because things are presented to Yahweh, who is holy. Since these wicked men presented their censers to the Lord, the censers were holy, despite the men’s own wickedness.

A mark of Eleazar’s faith is that he did precisely what Moses commanded him to do (v.39). He was thus a strong contrast to Korah and his allies (v.40). Just as the name of God is a memorial of his grace (see Ex 3:15) and as the stones in the Jordan would later make a memorial for Israel on their entry into the land (Jos 4:7), so these censers and the resultant metal plate were a memorial to God’s wrath and a witness to his holiness.

God has established his personnel; he would allow none to breach their ranks. The sons of Eliab—Dathan and Abiram—were Reubenites, not Levites (v.1); they were not of the proper tribe to serve as priests. Korah was a Levite but not a son of Aaron; hence he was not suited for the priesthood either. Each was a “strange man” (ʾîš zar; v.40 [17:5]) to seek to serve at the altars of God.

We suspect that God’s desire in the memorial was not to perpetuate his wrath but to prevent further reasons to provoke it. This was a preventative symbolism. If another man were to approach the altar with his censer and if he were not of the descendants of Aaron, the sparkling light of the sun dancing on the hammered metal should sparkle in his eyes as a threat of doom.

After the smoke cleared, it was now certain that Eleazar would follow his father, Aaron the priest, not Korah. And as we conclude this section, we feel that surely things will settle down now before we come to the time to enter Canaan.

41 [17:6] With all the results of murmuring against Moses, Aaron, and the Lord, one would think that the people would have had their bellies’ worth of grumbling. Nevertheless, they were at it again. On the next day following the terrible judgment of God against the apostate nobles, the would-be priests of God, we read that the entire Israelite community grumbled against Moses—again! The verb used here and in similar contexts is the Hebrew term lûn (see Note at 14:2). The people who had seen the judgment of God in such a remarkable manner still did not interpret things correctly. Again they blasted against Moses and Aaron by unfairly charging them with the death of “the LORD’s people.”

The attack on Moses and Aaron was audacious in its language. The pronoun “you” is emphatic; they said to them, “You are responsible! You have killed the men of Yahweh!” Oblivious to the vindication of Moses and Aaron by the Lord, the frenzied crowd, mad as rabid wolves, pressed in on them.

42–43 [17:7–8] Verse 42 speaks of the men’s turning toward the Tent of Meeting. This may merely mean that they looked toward the tent. But it may also mean that the crowd was about to take over the territory, to seize the tent as their own holding.

At once, as before, the glory of the Lord was in the midst of the people—in judgment. Fear must have seized them as a bulldog grabs a pant leg. They must have been wrenched with terror, sickened with self-loathing, ashen faced, trembling, weeping. The Lord had come!

Moses and Aaron were not groveling with fear. They were where they belonged—in the presence of the Lord. Calmly, sedately they approached. Only they were permitted to do so; all others who dared draw near would become smoking brands. Moses and Aaron approached the tent and entered into the eerie darkness within the mysterious cloud, with lightning flashing and darkness enveloping—they came to God.

44–45 [17:9–10] Again, but for the intervention of Moses and Aaron (see vv.4, 22), the entire nation might have been destroyed by the Lord because of their continued rebellion (v.45). The Lord told them to depart so that he might destroy the nation; instead they fell to the ground, just as they had done in the incident with Korah and his allies (see v.4). There is a sense that v.45 is a reprise of vv.21–22, with slightly different phrasing (see Notes). Again the Lord was about to destroy the nation. Again Moses and Aaron, under unbelievable personal assault, bowed down to seek his mercy, to turn away his wrath.

In each of the dialogues of Moses and the Lord, there is a sense in which the Lord uses Moses as a foil. As the words of the Lord evoked responses in Moses, praise comes to the Lord; and the true spirit of Moses is displayed. In each instance the falseness of the attacks on Moses was exposed. The very one the people were attacking was the one praying that they might be spared. There is something in the praying of Moses for his enemies that may be viewed as a forward directing thought (Heilsgeschichte) of the praying of the Savior for his enemies.

46 [17:11] Moses told Aaron to take his censer and to begin his work as an atoning priest. This chapter has turned on the account of holy censers being used by unholy men in mock piety. Now the rightful Aaron was to take his censer and do the work of the true priest to stay the plague of the Lord and to bring mercy to the people.

In the former revolt Moses stayed the anger of God by debate; only the guilty died. This time the wrath of God had already burst out in indiscriminate slaughter by means of a virulent, rapidly spreading plague, a supernatural visitation of sickness unchecked by natural protection. People who were railing against Moses and Aaron were now screaming in death throes.

Moses and Aaron might have said, “Let them die.” Instead, Moses called to Aaron to act, to take a censer and do his priestly work. How precious is this text! What poetic justice! The very implement used by the enemies to force God’s hand to wrath now has to be used by his true priest to force his hand to mercy.

This presents a conundrum: Is God fickle? Is man the hero? Or does God use these crises to occasion heroic acts among his servants, who then display in palpable terms his mercy and his grace?

We notice that the priest was told to take fire from the altar. He was not to use “strange fire” but fire of propriety. He used only the fire that would be efficacious. Earlier there were censers with strange fire to attack Moses and Aaron, thus provoking the wrath of God. Now there was a censer with the proper fire to protect the people against God’s wrath.

Moses told his brother to “hurry” (m^ehērâ, used adverbially). This word communicates the rush of grace by two old men to protect the people who moments before had shouted their virulent hatred of them. Surely in the brothers’ actions we find God’s mercy! Their character mirrors his own. Moses knew that the plague had already begun before he had even looked. But Moses also knew that the plague might be stemmed—but they had to hurry to make that happen.

47–50 [17:12–15] So Aaron ran (v.47)! This old priest with sacral items ran to save and to heal. This old man stood in the breach between the dead and the living (v.48). This old man stopped the plague. What drama! And what loss! Thousands died needlessly. The text says that fourteen thousand seven hundred people died (v.49; see Notes), and these were in addition to those who died in the incident of Korah. All these people died needlessly, too soon, before their time—forlorn, forsaken, victims of their own folly.

But at last the plague was stemmed. Moses and Aaron met again at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. Verse 50 is a salutary vindication of the role God had given to these two men. Despite repeated attempts by powerful persons to wrest away from them their special place in the work of God, there they stood, two old men, blessed of the Lord.

We who read this verse, weary with the wickedness of many men and women, finally come to a sense of peace. Surely now, at last, there will be no more offense. Surely now there is a new beginning for the new people, now a new generation, now a new day. Soon, surely, they will come to Canaan.

NOTES

36 [17:1] The English versions have vv.36–50 as a continuation of ch. 16. In the MT these fifteen verses form the first part of ch. 17. This means that verse numbers will present unusual problems for some readers in these two chapters.

45 [17:10] (hērōmmû, “Remove yourselves!”; “Get away,” NIV) is a rare word, the Niphal imperative masculine plural of (rāmam, “to be removed”). In v.21 the verb used is (hibbād^elû), a Niphal imperative masculine plural from (bādal, “to separate oneself from”). The meaning is nearly the same, but this similar story uses a more unusual word.

49 [17:14] The number of people who died (14,700) because of the arrogance of Korah and his allies is staggering. As with all reports of large numbers in this narrative, questions continue to rise as to “common numbers” or numbers used in exaggeration for effect. In thinking through some passages, all one can do is to raise the question yet another time. To “solve” the issue in one passage does not necessary lead to one’s “solving” the issue in another.

g. The Budding of Aaron’s Staff (17:1–13 [16–28])

OVERVIEW

The connection of this chapter with the narrative of ch. 16 is obvious; indeed, chs. 16 and 17 overlap in versification as we move from the MT to the English versions (see Note at 16:37 [17:1]). This text presents the final vindication of the Lord’s confidence in his selection of Aaron as the true high priest. It is especially important as Aaron’s life was reaching its end that there would be no question concerning God’s choice of him and his posterity. Aaron and his wife, Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab and sister of Nahshon, the prince of the tribe of Judah listed in 1:7, had four sons. The first two, Nadab and Abihu, had died because of arrogant acts of impiety (see Lev 10). The other two, Eleazar and Ithamar, were to become the twin lines of the divine priesthood of Israel throughout their generations. The issues of this chapter ensured that this line would continue.

i. The test for the true priest (17:1–7 [16–22])

1The LORD said to Moses, 2“Speak to the Israelites and get twelve staffs from them, one from the leader of each of their ancestral tribes. Write the name of each man on his staff. 3On the staff of Levi write Aaron’s name, for there must be one staff for the head of each ancestral tribe. 4Place them in the Tent of Meeting in front of the Testimony, where I meet with you. 5The staff belonging to the man I choose will sprout, and I will rid myself of this constant grumbling against you by the Israelites.”

6So Moses spoke to the Israelites, and their leaders gave him twelve staffs, one for the leader of each of their ancestral tribes, and Aaron’s staff was among them. 7Moses placed the staffs before the LORD in the Tent of the Testimony.

COMMENTARY

1 [16] As we have often seen, this text is introduced in the standard manner, “The LORD said to Moses.” We have noted before but may assert anew: If these words are just the mechanical device of a late redactor to introduce a new story he pieces into the flow of his gradually developing book, then these words really have no more significance than other stylistic devices used in other narrative sections of the Bible, devices such as, “After these things,” or “Some time later” (e.g., Ge 22:1). But if the words in this introductory clause mean what they seem to mean, we have a constant punctuation throughout the book of Numbers (in over 150 instances!) that Yahweh has spoken and that he has spoken principally to Moses, and through Moses to his people.

2 [17] God’s word to Moses was to collect twelve staffs, one staff from the leader of each of the tribes of Israel. Each staff was to have the name of its owner written on it so that the identification would be sure in the test that followed. This story comes on the heels of the account of the divine judgment of Korah (16:1–35) and the narrative of the symbolic use given to the censers of the rebels and its aftermath (vv.36–50). Numbers 17 is thus the third in a series of accounts vindicating the Aaronic priesthood against all opposition. The selection of the twelve staffs, one from each tribe, provided for a dramatic symbolic act that would manifest the divine choice of Aaron.

3 [18] The incidental line concerning writing the name of each staff’s owner is significant in terms of the history of writing in Israel. Some scholars regard this notice as anachronistic; they believe that the use of writing would not possibly have been known by the Hebrews at this stage of their experience. Conservative scholars find this verse to be a confirmation of the idea of literacy among the Hebrew peoples from their beginnings, and certainly among those who were in leadership positions. It is difficult to believe that it was not too many years ago that radical scholars denied the Mosaic authorship of the Torah in part because they thought that even if he were a historical person, he certainly would not have known how to write!

The test for legitimacy of the Aaronic priesthood needed to be unequivocal. In addition to the staffs from each of the other tribes, the staff of the tribe of Levi had to have Aaron’s name clearly written on it. The staff of Levi had to be chosen over the staffs of the other tribes; this was necessary again because of the broad community support given to the rebellion of Korah. The 250 who joined with Korah presumably represented many of the tribes. The name of Aaron on the staff of Levi would limit the choice to him and his descendants; this was necessary to ward off attacks on his leadership similar to that of Korah by others of the tribe of Levi but not of the family of Aaron.

4–5 [19–20] These several staffs were to be placed “in front of the Testimony,” the “Testimony” referring to the Ten Words (Commandments) placed in the ark of the covenant (v.4). In other words, the staffs were to be brought not only to the Tent of Meeting but were actually to be brought within the Most Holy Place. I suspect the staffs would have been placed as near the ark as was practical. The symbolism is that these staffs were placed, as it were, in the “lap” of God. This must have been chilling!

Moses, who brought these staffs near, must have realized that he was performing a highly unusual act. The most immediate placement of the staffs in the presence of God is assured by these words. The intention was to rid the nation of their grumbling (t^elunnôt, from the verb lûn, “to murmur, grumble”) concerning the validity of the priests (v.5); see the Note at 15:2. The verb lûn is used also in v.10: “their grumbling against me” (t^elûnnōtām meʿālay).

6–7 [21–22] As we have come to anticipate, Moses complied with God’s command without reservation. Hebrew narrative style, which is deliberately repetitive for clarity and emphasis, rehearses Moses’ acts of obedience to the Lord’s command (vv.6–7), thus making certain that the reader is alert to the fact that among the several staffs is the one with Aaron’s name on it.

The ordeal, if one can term it that way, was to identify the “right” staff by having it sprout (v.5). Now it was patent in that ancient day, as in our own, that a sprout may arise from a living branch and even from the trunk of a tree that has been felled (see Isa 6:13). But it is clearly not possible for a wooden staff that is long dead to sprout again as though it were still part of a growing tree.

The story demands nothing short of a miracle—an intervention of the power of God in the normal order of things in such a way as to produce wonder and awe. This demonstration of the power of God and his sovereign work was to be wondrous, something for the people to remember throughout all their generations. It was the call for a major demonstration of the power of God, something truly stunning. It was also to be regarded as absolutely and finally convincing, for the act of God would be impossible for anyone else to duplicate.

NOTES

1 [16] The English versions have the story of Aaron’s staff as a separate chapter (17:1–13). In the MT the first fifteen verses of ch. 17 correspond to 16:36–50, and the English section 17:1–13 appears as 17:16–28 in the MT. Despite the difficulty of finding corresponding verses presented by this arrangement, both the MT and the translations have the same number of verses.

5 [20] In the MT there is a marginal note that this verse forms the center of the book, by verse numbers.

ii. The outcome of the ordeal (17:8–13 [23–28])

8The next day Moses entered the Tent of the Testimony and saw that Aaron’s staff, which represented the house of Levi, had not only sprouted but had budded, blossomed and produced almonds. 9Then Moses brought out all the staffs from the LORD’s presence to all the Israelites. They looked at them, and each man took his own staff.

10The LORD said to Moses, “Put back Aaron’s staff in front of the Testimony, to be kept as a sign to the rebellious. This will put an end to their grumbling against me, so that they will not die.” 11Moses did just as the LORD commanded him.

12The Israelites said to Moses, “We will die! We are lost, we are all lost! 13Anyone who even comes near the tabernacle of the LORD will die. Are we all going to die?”

COMMENTARY

8 [23] On the next morning Moses entered the Most Holy Place. When he looked at Aaron’s rod, he found that not only had it sprouted, it had budded! This development exemplifies God’s exceeding the demands of a test so that there may be no uncertainty as to who accomplished the act or what was intended by it. (Compare Elijah’s experience on Mount Carmel, where the response of God [1Ki 18:38] went considerably beyond the specific request [v.24].) One could surmise that it might be possible for a staff to have a small sprout, given the right conditions. But none would dare to say that what happened to Aaron’s rod did so by chance; for not only did it sprout, “it budded, blossomed and produced almonds”—all on the next day!

Miracles in the Bible are often of this sort—natural events in unnatural conditions, timing, and placement. For almonds to grow from an almond branch is normal. It is not normal, however, for a dead pole to sprout, flower, and produce its fruit—and all in the process of a night. Almond trees are notable for their rapid production of blossoms, but this example is without parallel. This miracle is stunning!

9 [24] It must have been humbling for the men from the other tribes to take back their staffs. But only those who aspired to an office that was not theirs would feel shame. Moses’ actions in having each of the men take back his staff allowed them to give silent assent to the decision of the miracle of God and the choice of Aaron as his priest.

10–11 [25–26] Aaron’s rod, however, was not returned to him. It was to be a perpetual reminder of the wonder of the night and God’s choice of his priest. Hence the rod was to remain in front of the Testimony (the Ten Words/Commandments) in perpetuity (v.10). Aaron’s rod would keep company with the stone tables of the law of Moses (see Ex 25:16) and the jar of manna (Ex 16:33–34), both housed in the ark of the Lord, as a reminder to rebels and malcontents as long as the ark and the Holy Place would stand. (The writer of Hebrews suggests that at some point the staff of Aaron was kept inside the ark [Heb 9:4], but it seems not to have been inside the ark at the time of the dedication of the temple [1Ki 8:9].) The presence of these reminders in the central shrine was designed by God as an act of his mercy; people who were sufficiently warned would escape dying for breach of propriety.

It is remarkable, however, that these memorials were put in a place where no one would ordinarily see them. People in later generations would be told of the reminders, but they would not be on public display. None, save the high priest, would enter the Holy Place, excepting Moses on rare occasions (such as this chapter presents). While the text focuses on the role these symbols would have in the memory of the people, the placement of these symbols in the seclusion of the shrine indicates that the one who will be ever reminded is the Lord! These holy symbols were ever before him as memorials of his special works with his people. Should anyone of a later age dare to question the unique and holy place of the Aaronic priests in the service of the Lord, this memorial of God’s symbolic choice of Aaron would stand poignantly in opposition to such audacity.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the role of Aaron and his sons in the worship system of Israel. It is impossible to overestimate the role of the Priest who replaced Aaron, the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb 4:14–8:13). The extensive treatment of the priesthood of the Savior is necessary, given the divine validation of the priesthood of Aaron in Numbers 16–17.

12–13 [27–28] The larger pericope begins with insolent, bragging language of grasping people (v.1). Now it ends with the disconsolate weeping of the people (vv.12–13), all fearful of dying. At last the enormity of the arrogant sin of the people in challenging the role of Aaron hit them. Their remorse was justified; death was deserved. Any untoward approach of the holy tabernacle would result in disaster. But there are appropriate manners of approaching the Lord, as detailed in the next two chapters. The people really did not need to die as a result of trespassing against holy things.

NOTE

13 [28] In (haʾim tamnû ligôaʿ, “Are we all going to die?”), the common verb (mût, “to die”) is paired with the less common (gāwaʿ, “to expire, perish”; GK 1588); the verb is also used in 17:12, “we will die,” where it is paired with (ʾābad, “to perish, be lost”). See also Numbers 20:3, 29, where the verb is used to describe the deaths of Miriam and Aaron.

h. The Priests and the Levites (18:1–32)

OVERVIEW

The crisis of leadership in the spiritual ministry of the people provoked by the revolt of Korah (ch. 16) leads the writer of the book of Numbers to detail anew the regulations and responsibilities that affect the true priests of God. There is reason, then, to see how the material of chs. 18–19 fits into the larger structure of the book of Numbers. It is possible that the materials in these chapters constitute later additions to the book, as they do not relate directly to the historical flow of the narrative. But they do form an essential part of its deep theology, and these two chapters are certainly part of the book as we receive it in God’s gift of canon.

The preoccupation with priestly themes has led many scholars to believe that the book of Numbers is the product largely of the putative P source. Those who reject this source-critical approach to the composition of the Pentateuch may point out that there is sufficient reason inherent within the story line of Numbers to give such a strong emphasis to priests and Levites in the Hebrew culture. The issue of rightful priests is not just a record of power struggles between competing families, stories that can be paralleled in cultures throughout time. In Israel the issue was more significant because the stakes were higher. In this case it is the worship of Yahweh, the true God, and his choice of who may be serving at his altars that are at issue.

The house of Aaron has already been convincingly validated by the miracle of the budding, blossoming, and fruit-producing staff (Nu 17). Now, as Aaron is growing older and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar are assisting him more and more in his sacred duties—tasks that will be theirs alone after Aaron’s demise—it is necessary to explain more fully the manner of the priesthood. The inclusion of chs. 18–19 in the story line of the wilderness experience is not intrusive but compelling.

Nevertheless, the modern reader comes to chs. 18–19 with a sense of foreboding; what, we may wonder, is in these chapters for us? The answer to that question is fivefold:

1. 1. The reader of Scripture needs to have general knowledge about the major institutions of the biblical period just for Scripture to make sense;
2. 2. Our understanding of the true worship of God begins with the sense that he controls and directs true worship; who the priests are and how they function are first his concerns. This means that worship is not a game where we may make up the rules as we play;
3. 3. A general knowledge of the work of the priests in the Hebrew Bible gives many insights to the modern reader as to the interests of God in our own worship. Often we think of worship in terms of what we like and appreciate. This perspective misses the mark; worship is principally for God’s pleasure;
4. 4. A general knowledge of the work of priests in the time of Hebrew worship gives the Christian reader significant insights into the priestly work of the Lord Jesus Christ. The book of Hebrews has an intense priestly orientation in its presentation of the Lord Jesus Christ, priest of God in the order of Melchizedek;
5. 5. In contrast with the highly regulated, highly structured patterns demanded of the priests of the Hebrew economy, the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ today has almost unbelievably direct access to God through the Savior. We are all priests; we can come near the presence of the Lord without an intermediary. Yet our privilege as believer-priests may only really be appreciated against the background of priests in the biblical period.

Thus it is not just for arcane, antiquarian reasons that we come to this chapter and the one following.

i. Their general duties (18:1–7)

1The LORD said to Aaron, “You, your sons and your father’s family are to bear the responsibility for offenses against the sanctuary, and you and your sons alone are to bear the responsibility for offenses against the priesthood. 2Bring your fellow Levites from your ancestral tribe to join you and assist you when you and your sons minister before the Tent of the Testimony. 3They are to be responsible to you and are to perform all the duties of the Tent, but they must not go near the furnishings of the sanctuary or the altar, or both they and you will die. 4They are to join you and be responsible for the care of the Tent of Meeting—all the work at the Tent—and no one else may come near where you are.

5“You are to be responsible for the care of the sanctuary and the altar, so that wrath will not fall on the Israelites again. 6I myself have selected your fellow Levites from among the Israelites as a gift to you, dedicated to the LORD to do the work at the Tent of Meeting. 7But only you and your sons may serve as priests in connection with everything at the altar and inside the curtain. I am giving you the service of the priesthood as a gift. Anyone else who comes near the sanctuary must be put to death.”

COMMENTARY

1–4 The Lord’s choice of Aaron and his family as the true priests of holy worship presented an onerous task. The lament of the people in 17:12–13 was a genuine expression of distress; grievous sins against the holy meeting place of the Lord and his people would be judged with death. It was only in the mercy of the Lord in providing a legitimate priesthood that there could be any hope for deliverance from judgment. Modern readers are not always aware that the Lord’s provision of the priesthood was an aspect of his grace. Without proper priests doing their work effectively, there would be only death among the sinning community. Psalm 99:6 points to the grace of God in providing priests for his people. The provision of the Great Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb 4:14), is in line with this work of his grace.

In Numbers, a characteristic phrase, troubling to understand, is the line, “you . . . are to bear the responsibility for offenses against the sanctuary.” This rendering by the NIV is somewhat expansive but is a development of the meaning of the Hebrew term ʿ^awōn (“iniquity”; GK 6411). At times it is used to describe the iniquity that one commits or that mars one’s life. But in this context ʿ^awōn relates to the whole sphere of sin, guilt, and responsibility for offense.

The words of the people in 17:13 were based on reality: it was a fearful thing to make an inappropriate approach to the shrine of God’s dwelling. The priests, who had their work in the precincts of his dwelling, had to realize that they were there at the leave of God. But they could not forget where they were or be casual in what they were to do. To act foolishly, brazenly, and carelessly in the holy places was to invite disaster. Their priestly ministry put them in roles of awesome responsibility (see Ex 28:38).

The priests of the line of Aaron were to be assisted in their work by the people of the tribe of Levi (v.2), but the assistants were not to usurp their serving role. Were they to do so, not only would they die, so would the priests who were responsible (v.3). Aaron and his sons were the only true priests of God in the worship of Israel. The Levites were joined (see Notes) to the priests as their assistants. But the Levites were never to be regarded as “priests in training.” They had a serious “career ceiling” in their vocation. The sanctity of the Holy Place was not to be underestimated.

Aside from the Levites, who had their limited functions in the worship of God in the sacred places, no other individual might come near at all (v.4). The term “stranger” (zār; “no one else,” NIV), which often speaks of a foreign national, is used to describe all other people in the Holy Place. The only people who had a right to work in the shrine were the Levites under the supervision of the priests. All others were “foreigners.”

5–7 The frightful obligations of the priests and Levites and their responsibilities were balanced in the sense of the importance and honor of the work they did in the presence of God (v.5). The divine vantage point is that they should regard their service of the priesthood as a gift—a gift that is priceless (v.6). The gift was to the priests; they of all people were able to approach the Holy Place and minister before the Lord (v.7). The Lord’s gift of the priesthood was also to the people; that there was a legitimate priesthood was an act of God’s mercy.

The priests had a dual identity. On their shoulders rested the protection of the nation before God. The weight of that responsibility must have been enormous. But the priests were also the most privileged persons in the community, for they could draw near to God. The stranger (hazzār; “anyone else,” NIV) would approach the holy place only under the threat of death (see also 1:51; 3:10, 38).

NOTES

2 (w^eyillāwû ʿāleykā, “to join you”) forms a wordplay on the word for “Levite,” (lēwî). The text may be read (woodenly): “the tribe of Levi . . . will ‘levi’ with you.” The presumed root of the word “Levi” is the verb (lāwâ, meaning “to be joined” [in the Niphal]).

5 (mišmeret, “service, charge”; “to be responsible,” NIV; GK 5466), related to the Hebrew verbal root (šāmar, “to keep”), has the idea of charge and responsibility. The work of the priests was a sacred trust. The fulfillment of the trust provided for the peace of the nation with God.

ii. Their offerings and support (18:8–13)

8Then the LORD said to Aaron, “I myself have put you in charge of the offerings presented to me; all the holy offerings the Israelites give me I give to you and your sons as your portion and regular share. 9You are to have the part of the most holy offerings that is kept from the fire. From all the gifts they bring me as most holy offerings, whether grain or sin or guilt offerings, that part belongs to you and your sons. 10Eat it as something most holy; every male shall eat it. You must regard it as holy.

11“This also is yours: whatever is set aside from the gifts of all the wave offerings of the Israelites. I give this to you and your sons and daughters as your regular share. Everyone in your household who is ceremonially clean may eat it.

12“I give you all the finest olive oil and all the finest new wine and grain they give the LORD as the firstfruits of their harvest. 13All the land’s firstfruits that they bring to the LORD will be yours. Everyone in your household who is ceremonially clean may eat it.

COMMENTARY

8 The priests were to be supported, to earn their livelihood, in their work of the ministry of God (see Lev 6:14–7:36). Since the Levites as a whole and the priests in particular had no inheritance in the land God was going to give to the nation, it was necessary that the means for their provision be spelled out fully. They were not to have a part in the land; their share was the Lord himself (v.20). The language of this chapter is anticipatory of the settlement in the land of Canaan. Moses continued to speak about God’s revelation for the new land; for in doing so he assured the fathers and mothers that, while they would not enjoy the land because of their sins, their lives had not been valueless: their children would be able to enter the land.

The language of God in v.8 is strongly expressive, with a pronounced emphasis on himself and his work in making Aaron his priest. The priesthood in Israel was not to be regarded as the result of self-aggrandizement; the priests were the choice of God himself. Here is God’s gracious provision for the care and maintenance of his priests. The sacral gifts were their provisions. They could enjoy the things they received without guilt. This provision was from the hand of the Lord.

9–10 Verse 9 helps the priests to know what of the offerings belonged to them for their support. The starting point was to know that the offerings that were not put through fire would be given to the priests. In v.10 we find a helpful use of the concept of the holy. Something was regarded as holy not because of some mysterious inner quality, but because it had been presented to the Lord for his use. He then transferred the use of some of his holy things to the priests.

Among the gifts he gave to the priests was abundant food. But the food was no longer ordinary; it was holy food that had to be regarded as such. The basic meaning of the word “holy” (qōdeš; GK 7731) is clearly seen here: something was qōdeš when it was set apart for special use in the service of God. These holy foods were specifically restricted to the males and had to be eaten only by those who were ritually clean.

11 The wave offerings were for the entire family to eat. Provision was made not only for the priests themselves (v.10) but for their families as well. Only the ceremonially unclean family members were forbidden the eating of the gifts and offerings of the people (cf. v.13). Provisions for cleansing are stated in Leviticus 22:4–8.

12–13 Since the best items of produce were to be given to the Lord, they became the special foods of the priests and their families: the best oil, the finest wine, and the choicest grains were theirs (v.12). On the basis of the provisions God intended for the priests in the OT, the NT writers argued that those who minister the Word of God in the present period should also be paid suitably for their work (see 1Co 9:3–10). The grace of God is manifest in this provision for his servants, but so are the demands of God: the priests and their families were to be in a state of ritual purity when they ate sacred foods (v.13). The foods remained sacred; they were not to be profaned by unclean persons.

NOTES

8 (t^erûmâ, “contribution, offering”) is a noun built on the verb (rûm, “to be high, raised”). This is something set apart for or “presented to” (NIV) the priests (see 5:9; Lev 22:12; 2Ch 31:10, 12, 14; Eze 44:30).

(l^emošḥâ, “portion”) is a hapax legomenon. It is related to the verb (māšaḥ, “to anoint, consecrate”; GK 5417; see at 3:3, 25; 7:1). A similar noun is (mišḥâ, “anointing [oil]”; 4:16). Because of its association with the verbal root meaning “to anoint, consecrate,” perhaps (l^emošḥâ) should be translated “consecrated portion.”

11 (t^enûpâ, “swinging, waving, brandishing”) is from the verb (nûp, “to move to and fro, wave”). The term may be used in contexts of hostility; e.g., of God’s brandishing his hand in a menacing manner (Isa 19:16). But in the context of people coming to him in holy worship, this noun is a technical term for the “wave offering.” By holding up grain or produce and waving it back and forth in the air in a respectful manner, the one making the offering was marking out Yahweh as the source of his plenty; God had given life and growth to his grain. Since this food was not put to fire, it was given over to the priests for their own family use.

12 (ḥēleb yiṣhār, “finest oil”) and (ḥēleb tîrôš, “finest wine”) are constructed by using the noun (ḥēleb, “fat”; GK 2693) as a descriptive term. This use goes back to the offering of Abel in Genesis 4:4, where the Hebrew word (ûmēḥelbēhen, “and of their fat”) may describe “the best of the firstborn” rather than “their fat portions.” The term (ḥēleb) is used in these cases as a superlative adjective; only the best is good enough for God (see also Note at vv.30–32).

REFLECTION

The concept that God gets “the best of the first” is a constant in the worship texts of the Bible. The oil and the wine mentioned in v.12 were not the dregs but the finest of the firstfruits. In giving the first and best to the Lord, believers were affirming with confidence that there will be something left for their own needs. And if not, true believers will still bless the Lord. As today, believers did not worship God just because it was a way to a full stomach. But in their worship of God, they (then, and we now) expect that the giving of the first and best to God will often result in enjoying more than ever for themselves and for their family.

Perhaps a farmer who practices giving to the Lord is more likely to be a better farmer than one who does not give to the Lord. It may be that the very act of giving makes demands on him for greater diligence in his work. But even if such a farmer does not prosper, he will continue to trust in the Lord even if no more food is to come at all. This idea is found in a marvelous text in the prophets. The prayer of Habakkuk (Hab 3) ends in a marvelous declaration of the faith of the farmer, even in times of failed crops and herds: “Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, / I will be joyful in God my Savior” (Hab 3:18).

Here is where we tend to fall down. Often we find ourselves giving out of our surplus. When there is no surplus, we are not giving to the Lord. Others find that when they give to God of the first of their best, they wind up with a surplus they had not even anticipated.

iii. The firstborn offerings and redemptions (18:14–19)

14“Everything in Israel that is devoted to the LORD is yours. 15The first offspring of every womb, both man and animal, that is offered to the LORD is yours. But you must redeem every firstborn son and every firstborn male of unclean animals. 16When they are a month old, you must redeem them at the redemption price set at five shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs.

17“But you must not redeem the firstborn of an ox, a sheep or a goat; they are holy. Sprinkle their blood on the altar and burn their fat as an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 18Their meat is to be yours, just as the breast of the wave offering and the right thigh are yours. 19Whatever is set aside from the holy offerings the Israelites present to the LORD I give to you and your sons and daughters as your regular share. It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the LORD for both you and your offspring.”

COMMENTARY

14–16 Anything under the ban (ḥērem; “devoted,” NIV in v.14; GK 3051) belonged to the priests (unless, of course, such things were destroyed, as in the story of Jericho). The firstborn of every womb was to be consecrated to the Lord (Ex 13:2). Now we learn that the firstborn were a means of supporting the priests. They would receive the firstborn of animals and humans, or their redemption price (v.15).

There was to be no sacrifice of humans (!) and no sacrifice of unclean animals, which instead needed to be redeemed (i.e., their owners would pay a price to the priests). The priests were to take the redemption price in exchange for the firstborn of people. The price set for the redemption of the firstborn of women was five shekels, a considerable sum (v.16). The shekel is specified by weight (twenty gerahs—otherwise unknown; “about 2 ounces,” NIV margin), a reminder of the differing standards of weights and measures in the ancient Near East. (Note: There was no coinage until the Persian period; all silver and gold exchanges were made by weight, the meaning of the Hebrew word “shekel.”)

Seemingly, the reason for paying a redemption price for the firstborn of humans and unclean animals and the sacrifice of the firstborn of clean animals was to provide a perpetual reminder that conception, birth, and life are gifts of God. Thus Exodus 22:29–30 reads, “You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep.” As we think of these rituals throughout the biblical period, we realize that they extended to the life of the Savior. Since Jesus was the firstborn of Mary, he had to be redeemed; then he became the Redeemer of all.

17–19 The firstborn of clean animals were not to be redeemed; they were holy, devoted to the Lord (v.17). They were to be sacrificed in the usual manner (see ch. 15 on offerings by fire), but the meat would belong to the priests (v.18). This was a permanent obligation, symbolized by salt (v.19)—a lasting compound. The precise idea of the covenant of salt (see 2Ch 13:5) remains somewhat obscure. We know that salt was sometimes a medium of trade in the ancient world. Perhaps an exchange of salt was a part of some covenantal ceremonies. We also know that salt was used in some of the sacrifices to the Lord (Lev 2:13; Eze 43:24) and in special incense that was used in the worship of God (Ex 30:35). Moreover, salt was a common table element; its mention here speaks of eating and, hence, of communion (see Ge 31:54; Ex 24:5–11; Ps 50:5).

iv. Aaron’s special portion (18:20)

20The LORD said to Aaron, “You will have no inheritance in their land, nor will you have any share among them; I am your share and your inheritance among the Israelites.

COMMENTARY

20 The basic idea of v.20 has been stated before (see ch. 3), but this verse presents the issue definitively. A mechanical layout of the verse (my translation), representing the word order (emphasis) of the MT, shows how impressive these ideas are:

And Yahweh said to Aaron:

“In their land you will not gain possession,

and a portion will not be for you in their midst;

I am your portion

and [I am] your possession

in the midst of the Israelites.”

This verse, marked by emphatic repetition and chiasm (see Note), gives Yahweh’s special blessing on Aaron. The second-person pronouns in this verse are singular: This is a remarkable word to Aaron, which, by extension, would continue to be the portion of the true priests of Israel. While Aaron did not have a part in the land that the rest of the people would inherit, he had more—a peculiar relationship to the Lord.

Verse 20 in some way anticipates the possession of God’s people in the church age. Today believers have no land promise, but they do enjoy a special relationship with the Lord. There is a sense in which we enjoy what the high priest, along with all priests and Levites in Israel, enjoyed—and more.

NOTE

20 The idea of chiasm is an inverting of the order of parallel elements; the term comes from the Greek letter chi, which looks something like an X. In the somewhat wooden translation I have given, there is an attempt to represent this pattern in the first two lines of the quotation. The verb (tinḥāl, “you [will not] take possession”) in the first colon (accentual unit) is followed by the noun (w^eḥēleq, “and a portion”) in the second; (ḥelq^ekā, “your portion”) then precedes the use of the nominal form (w^enaḥ^alāt^ekā, “and your possession”) in the remaining cola. This literary device helps to make the verse more memorable.

v. The tithes and the Levites (18:21–24)

21“I give to the Levites all the tithes in Israel as their inheritance in return for the work they do while serving at the Tent of Meeting. 22From now on the Israelites must not go near the Tent of Meeting, or they will bear the consequences of their sin and will die. 23It is the Levites who are to do the work at the Tent of Meeting and bear the responsibility for offenses against it. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. They will receive no inheritance among the Israelites. 24Instead, I give to the Levites as their inheritance the tithes that the Israelites present as an offering to the LORD. That is why I said concerning them: ‘They will have no inheritance among the Israelites.’”

COMMENTARY

21–24 Much of the previous section has already been explained in other portions of the Torah. But giving tithes to the Levites is a new development; vv.21–24 form an independent unit. This gift of God was in return for their work of ministry of service in the tabernacle precincts. These verses are marked by considerable emphasis and repetition, all designed to make the deepest impression on the people who read them.

There is a sense in which this text presents the “exchange of the Lord”—full reward for full service. Verse 21 uses forms of the word “to serve” (ʿābad). The term the NIV translates as “in return for” (ḥēlep; here and v.31 [though left untranslated in the NIV]) speaks of God’s justice in rewarding them for their work. But no longer might any but Levites approach the Tent of Meeting. The precincts were now sacred, fitted only for sacral people. The wrong people approaching for even a “right” reason would die.

Verses 21–24 form a complete tôrâ, an authoritative instruction, dealing with the rationale for the tithes going to the Levites. The section is highly repetitive. God is in control; it is he who speaks. And in the section we notice that the Levites were cared for very well. The Levites had a double portion: they were related to the Lord in a special way, and they were provided for by him from special sources.

The Levites had a special work. Only they might perform the service of the Tent of Meeting, and only they might bear the consequences for their own guilt. They could come near and live; others who approached would die. This section does not have the ordinary introduction, “the LORD said to Moses,” but it does represent itself as God’s voice speaking (“I give”; v.21).

Possibly this section is a later addition to the book of Numbers, as seems to be the case with 15:32–34. Chapter 18 is a logical part of the flow of Numbers, as earlier sections were divine addresses to Aaron on priestly duties, responsibilities, and care. But this section both adds to the chapter (tithes as well as meat) and overlaps the chapter (no portion in Israel). Hence perhaps this unit was later inserted here, at what seemed to be a logical point. In any event, the approach I take is that insertions into Numbers are divinely intended, are inspired Scripture, and are authoritative.

vi. The contributions of the Levites (18:25–32)

25The LORD said to Moses, 26“Speak to the Levites and say to them: ‘When you receive from the Israelites the tithe I give you as your inheritance, you must present a tenth of that tithe as the LORD’s offering. 27Your offering will be reckoned to you as grain from the threshing floor or juice from the winepress. 28In this way you also will present an offering to the LORD from all the tithes you receive from the Israelites. From these tithes you must give the LORD’s portion to Aaron the priest. 29You must present as the LORD’s portion the best and holiest part of everything given to you.’

30“Say to the Levites: ‘When you present the best part, it will be reckoned to you as the product of the threshing floor or the winepress. 31You and your households may eat the rest of it anywhere, for it is your wages for your work at the Tent of Meeting. 32By presenting the best part of it you will not be guilty in this matter; then you will not defile the holy offerings of the Israelites, and you will not die.’”

COMMENTARY

25–32 Now we return to a word addressed specifically to Moses; the earlier sections were addressed to Aaron (vv.1, 8, 20), including a specific tôrâ for the Levites (vv.21–24). The instruction of this section, which Moses was to relate to the Levites, is impressive: those who make their living by contributions for the Lord’s work were themselves to be responsible for giving to the Lord as well. There is a tendency, then and now, for persons to believe that if their lives are spent in the Lord’s work, they are exempt from contributing financially to that work. This leads to a concept, lamentably more and more observed in our own day, that payment for ministry is something deserved and is something to be demanded.

The last phrase, “a tithe from the tithe” (lit. Heb.; “a tenth of that tithe,” NIV) is sharp and pointed (v.26). As others give, so must the Levites give; how can they who live from the contributions of others be less giving than the community? That this was regarded as a most serious matter is seen in the promise that by keeping faith in these matters, the Levites would escape judicial death (v.32).

The offerings the Levites would render to the Lord were not themselves fresh. Their grain was not new; neither was their wine. But since they themselves were not doing the harvesting of their own lands to bring their firstfruits to the Lord, the produce of others would be regarded as their own. For those who cannot harvest for themselves, God reckoned (neḥšab, Niphal perfect of ḥāšab, “to be reckoned”; v.27) their gifts as though they were just harvested. As in the case of the people, the Levites were to render to the Lord “the best and holiest part of everything” (v.29). Never is God pleased to receive of shoddy gifts; his demands are for the best that one has.

NOTE

30–32 (ḥelbô, “its fat”) is used to mean “the best part.” This word is used twice here (vv.30, 32); compare the use of (ḥēleb) as a superlative adjective in v.12 and Note. This small tôrâ repeats and amplifies the preceding section (vv.25–29) and makes its obligation of signal importance: “and you will not die.”

The chapter begins with the concept that the holy persons in the worship of God served in an awesomely wondrous ministry, one that addressed a life-and-death issue. Not only might the lay person who presumed on holy things receive a sentence of death (v.22); neither should those who were in the holy service of God presume on holy things, for they too might die if they did. But the thrust of the text was not just to be a threat: “Do this and you may die.” It was to be a gracious provision: “Do this and you will not die.” Thus the sovereign grace of Yahweh displayed itself in ever-varied ways in the Torah.

i. The Red Heifer and the Cleansing Water (19:1–22)

OVERVIEW

Chapter 18 presented basic instruction on the role, responsibilities, duties, and privileges of the priests and Levites. Chapter 19 follows with ritual instruction for the purification of people, the laic (non-Levitical) segment of the population of Israel. Its flavor and intention are priestly in some sense, but the chapter does not concern sacral persons so much as common people. The issue is one of ritual cleansing, answering a basic question in ancient, biblical culture: How may a person be ritually “clean” before the Lord?

This also is a chapter that presents unusual problems in interpretation and understanding for the modern reader. This is a fascinating text that rewards the patient reader. The subject of the chapter reminds us of other bizarre sections in the Torah, such as the rituals of Numbers 5.

i. The statute of the red heifer (19:1–10)

1The LORD said to Moses and Aaron: 2“This is a requirement of the law that the LORD has commanded: Tell the Israelites to bring you a red heifer without defect or blemish and that has never been under a yoke. 3Give it to Eleazar the priest; it is to be taken outside the camp and slaughtered in his presence. 4Then Eleazar the priest is to take some of its blood on his finger and sprinkle it seven times toward the front of the Tent of Meeting. 5While he watches, the heifer is to be burned—its hide, flesh, blood and offal. 6The priest is to take some cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool and throw them onto the burning heifer. 7After that, the priest must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water. He may then come into the camp, but he will be ceremonially unclean till evening. 8The man who burns it must also wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he too will be unclean till evening.

9“A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and put them in a ceremonially clean place outside the camp. They shall be kept by the Israelite community for use in the water of cleansing; it is for purification from sin. 10The man who gathers up the ashes of the heifer must also wash his clothes, and he too will be unclean till evening. This will be a lasting ordinance both for the Israelites and for the aliens living among them.

COMMENTARY

1–4 The material of this chapter is not congenial to modern, Western readers. Many have no understanding of or appreciation for the concept of ritual; the concept of the slaughter of a magnificent animal for the purpose of burning its flesh for ash is repugnant. For such readers the opening words of this verse should have a special importance. The ritual of the cleansing waters is presented here as a direct requirement of God. For all of its strangeness, this chapter too presents the righteous works of the Lord.

The chapter was addressed to Moses and Aaron, but Eleazar was the one who was to perform the ritual the text demands, thus suggesting that Eleazar was operating as an associate with his father and proving that the threat to his ascendancy by the rebellion of Korah and his allies (ch. 16) was now a thing of the past.

Verse 2 begins in the NIV, “This is a requirement of the law that the LORD has commanded.” Likely the term “law” in this verse is a scribal confusion for the word “cow” or “heifer” (see Notes); the words in Hebrew are close in spelling. I suggest that the verse should begin thus: “This is the statute of the [red] heifer that the LORD has commanded.” This, then, would be the proper heading for the section (so Vulgate).

The words used to describe the heifer are familiar in the context of sacrificial worship. The heifer was to be perfect, without defect, and unused, i.e., one that has not been used as a draft animal with a yoke about its neck. As in all the legislation respecting the use of animals in worship, God would accept no culls. The tendency of people presented with commands to kill animals in ritual worship would be to use those occasions to rid themselves of animals that were not worth the demands of their feed and care. But the demands of the Lord are specific: only the finest animals, ones that ordinarily would be used for the improvement of the herd, are acceptable for him. This means a person had to have sufficient faith to believe that though using his finest animals for sacrifice, the other animals would still improve the herd and flock—or that it simply would not matter, because obedience was more important than anything else.

There are several unusual items in sacrificial ritual in this text. First, the color of the heifer was important. It was to be red, presumably because of the color of blood. In the standard sacrifices of Leviticus 1–9, there is no mention of the color of the animal that was to be offered; the only requirements were in configuration and perfection.

The factor that makes this pericope unique is that the animal involved was not a standard sacrificial beast. This was a cow, not a bull (contrast Lev 1:3, “a male without defect”). It was to be slaughtered (šāḥaṭ) outside the camp, not at the holy altar. In contrast to the blood of sacrificial animals sprinkled against the altar on all sides (see Lev 1:5), some of the blood of the heifer was to be sprinkled from the priest’s finger seven times toward the front of the Tent of Meeting (v.4).

5–6 Instead of the animal sacrifice’s having its hide and offal separated from the meat and fat, as was the case of the sin offering (see Lev 4:3–12), the heifer was to remain intact while it was burned (v.5). The fire of the holocaust was to be augmented with cedar, hyssop, and scarlet stuff (perhaps scarlet-colored wool). These elements were associated in the Hebrew mind with cleansing properties (see Lev 14:4). They help us to see the cleansing association the resultant ashes were to have in the Hebrew consciousness.

It is primarily the ashes of the red heifer (v.9) that were the focus of this act, for they would be used in the ritual of the waters of cleansing. It is striking that the animal was to be burned in its entirety—“hide, flesh, blood and offal” (v.5). The burning of the beast with its blood and offal is unprecedented in the OT.

The normal pattern for the sacrifice of the burnt offering is given in Leviticus 1:3–9. There are several differences there from killing the red heifer in Numbers 19. In Leviticus 1:3–9: (1) the burnt offering was to be a male; (2) the animal was to be presented at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting; (3) the priest was to place his hand on it in identification of the act of atonement; (4) the animal was to be sacrificed at the altar; (5) the blood was to be sprinkled on the altar, not burned with the animal; (6) the animal was to be skinned and cut in pieces; (7) special attention was to be given to burning the head and the fat; (8) the various parts were to be cleansed and washed before being burned.

In nearly every respect the killing of the red heifer was distinctive: this was a female animal, taken outside the camp to be killed; the priest had to be present, but there was no identification made with it; a bit of blood was sprinkled from the priest’s finger toward the tabernacle seven times; the rest of the animal was to be burned in its entirety, without draining the blood or cleansing its offal.

7–8 The priest who officiated at the burning of the heifer was ceremonially unclean for the rest of the day, as was the one who did the actual work at his command; both would be considered clean after washing their bodies and their clothes.

9–10 In a fascinating turn of events, the priest and the worker, since they were ritually unclean, were not to handle the ashes after the fire had died down (v.9). A third person, one who was ritually clean, was designated to gather the ashes and then to put them outside the camp in a place that was ceremonially clean. The ashes could not be brought into the camp, but they were holy. Only the clean could touch them, but in touching them a person became unclean (v.10). Hence the one who subsequently gathered the ashes after the burning became ritually unclean because of his contact with the dead remains. He too was unclean for the rest of the day and needed to bathe before returning to the camp.

This text gives rise to innumerable questions. We would like to have a precise signification for each of the elements. In fact, a text such as this makes for something of a field day for allegorists. But the point of the text is probably best seen in broad strokes rather than in purported symbolism we might find in the minutiae. The minutiae are there, but the overall effect lies in our recognition that the passage describes a ritual. The major meaning is in the ritual nature of the matter, not the details that comprise the ritual.

The text is like a dance: each move is specified, each step choreographed. There are elements of color and pageantry. There are also the factors of drama and death. The senses are assaulted throughout. One hears the mooing of the cow as she is led outside the camp. There is the violent stroke of the knife against the bound animal’s neck, likely the severing of the carotid artery as the quickest way to kill an animal with a knife. One hears her muffled bleating as she bleeds from her death wound. There is the priest dipping his finger in the blood and making seven flicks of the dripping finger toward the holy altar. One smells the acrid odor of the fire, with the admixture of cedar and hyssop adding their sweet-awful smells.

The conclusion of the matter is that this is a lasting statute pertaining to both the native-born and the aliens who live among them (v.10). The importance of the passage is assured by language such as this, but the meaning still escapes us. The next paragraphs illuminate the uses of the ashes of the red heifer. All we know for certain in this section is that the ashes would be used in the water of cleansing (see Notes) as a rite of purification from sin.

NOTES

2 The opening phrasing of the verse is awkward and unusual: “This is the statute of the Torah.” It seems likely that the Hebrew word (hattôrâ, “the Torah” or “the law”) is a scribal error for the word (happārâ, “the cow” or “the heifer”), in which case the verse should begin: “This is the statute of the [red] heifer.” Compare the wording of 6:13: “This is the Torah for the Nazirite.” The Vulgate (Latin version of the Bible) reads: “This is the regulation of the victima [animal offered in sacrifice]” here.

9 The term (niddâ, “impurity”; GK 5614) is a feminine noun likely related to the verb (nādad, “to flee, depart”). See now Moshe Greenberg, “The Etymology of ‘(Menstrual) Impurity,’” in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield (ed. Ziony Zevit et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 69–77. Greenberg summarizes that the basic meaning of (nādad) is “distancing”—physical (e.g., flight from) and moral (e.g., abhorrence of). The noun is used to describe ceremonial impurity in such cases as a man having sexual congress with a brother’s wife (a forbidden act; Lev 20:21) and a woman’s uncleanness caused by her menstruation (Lev 12:2). The phrase (l^emê niddâ, “for waters of purification”) thus literally means “waters of defilement” but has the derived meaning, “waters that purify from defilement”; hence “waters of cleansing,” as in the NIV. Compare the phrase in 8:7, (mê ḥaṭṭāʾt, lit., “water of sin”; v.7), a phrase taken to mean “water of cleansing” or “purification from sin.” Compare also the phrase in 5:24, (mē hammārîm hamʾār^arîm, “the bitter, curse-bringing waters”), used in the trial of the woman charged with adultery.

(ʾîš ṭāhôr . . . b^emāqôm ṭāhôr, “a clean man . . . in a clean place”); the doubling of the concept for “clean” is impressive here. Shimon Gibson (The Cave of John the Baptist: The Stunning Archaeological Discovery That Has Redefined Christian History [New York: Doubleday, 2004], 204) suggests that the expression “a clean place” in 19:9 (misstated in his book as Nu 22:9) may refer to such a place as the cave that he identifies as associated with John the Baptist but which was in use in the Iron Age as a sacred place for water rituals in the hills west of Jerusalem.

10 The BHS text has a space following the phrase (ʿad-hāʿāreb, “till evening”). It is as though the scribes felt a new verse should have begun before the words, “This will be for the Israelites.” There are few problems of versification in Numbers; see 26:1.

ii. Application of cleansing waters (19:11–13)

11“Whoever touches the dead body of anyone will be unclean for seven days. 12He must purify himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself on the third and seventh days, he will not be clean. 13Whoever touches the dead body of anyone and fails to purify himself defiles the Lord’s tabernacle. That person must be cut off from Israel. Because the water of cleansing has not been sprinkled on him, he is unclean; his uncleanness remains on him.

COMMENTARY

11–13 This paragraph reveals the nature of the phrase in v.9, “for purification from sin.” It is not that the ashes would take on a magical property or that they would replace the sacrificial rites that were so important in the worship patterns of people of biblical faith. These ashes were to be used in the ritual of cleansing from impurity, particularly in cases of impurity occasioned by contact with dead bodies.

The ashes from the red heifer were kept outside the camp in a ritually pure place. Then a portion of these ashes would be mixed as needed with water to provide means for cleansing from contact with dead bodies. The period of uncleanness was to be seven days; acts of purification were to be done on both the third and the seventh days.

Anyone who refused to follow the rites of purification or who was neglectful in this area was said to defile the tabernacle. This means that willful neglect of the provision for cleansing brought not only judgment on the person but also pollution of the tabernacle itself. Willful neglect to avail oneself of the waters of purification would be a most serious matter. The idea of being in a state of cultic uncleanness is found in many contexts: of men (Lev 5:3), of women (Lev 15:25–27), of food (Jdg 13:7–14), and of things (Eze 24:11); Zechariah 13:2 speaks of a “spirit of impurity.”

Perhaps there are several ideas associated with ritual uncleanness. One has to do with being soiled. The fact that the word “unclean” is used suggests that, at the very least, this is the place to begin. A woman’s menstrual flow, certain mildews and skin diseases, animals that feed on cadavers—these things in some way or other speak of something soiled. But it is difficult to go far with this notion.

Moreover, the association of a woman’s menstrual flow with mildew and mold is an odious one to make; such linking leads easily to demeaning views of biological functions of women viewed as in some manner “dirty.” Allen P. Ross observes, “The English word unclean is so freighted with negative connotations that one should try to find another translation, or else take time to explain that unclean does not necessarily mean sinful or loathsome. (This is seen most clearly when a woman who just gave birth to a child in compliance with divine will and in enjoyment of divine blessing is for a time classified as unclean)” (Holiness to the LORD: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002], 244).

We report with sadness that there are some teachers with wide followings who attempt to press the laws of purity and holiness from Hebrew Scripture into the everyday life of Christians today. William “Bill” Gothard is a prime example. Not only does he commend circumcision of Christian men as a perpetual biblical rite, he also imposes the ancient laws of sexual abstinence for a certain number of days following childbirth. For a thorough, “fair and balanced” discussion of his teaching, see Don Veinot, Joy Veinot, and Ron Henzel, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life (Lombard, Ill.: Midwest Christian Outreach, 2002), especially ch. 4, “IBLP: Institute in Basic Legalistic Practices,” 119–38.

Since the people of ancient Israel lived long before the discovery of microbiology, it would be an error to assume that it was principally concerns for infectious disease that led them to their ideas of clean and unclean. While a certain sense of cause and effect might be granted, nonetheless, we (anachronistically) read back into the text our own ideas if we determine that clean and unclean in ancient times had to do principally with health concerns. Ultimately, the ideas of clean and unclean had to do with appropriateness and inappropriateness for participation in the cultus of Israel. The ideas go all the way back to the time of Noah (see Ge 7:2) but were routinely being developed and refined through the biblical period.

Finally, the idea of clean and unclean had to do with the basic idea of holiness, which is separation and distinction. Animals were regarded as clean and unclean not because they necessarily would or would not make a person sick if they were used as food, but primarily because God desired his people to live in a world of (divine) discrimination (see esp. Lev 11:44–47). We may look back from a twenty-first-century understanding of infection and disease and remark, “How kind it was of God that some of the animals he declared to be unclean to Israel are foods that might be conveyers of disease.” But the principal issue was distinction, discrimination, the marking out of that which is different from something else.

In v.13 the basic idea seems to be accidental contact with a corpse because of the death of a person in the proximity of the one affected. This could be a member of one’s family in the home or a total stranger in the marketplace.

The idea of contact with the dead as causing disease might have been discovered empirically in the ancient world. But the wording of v.13 suggests contact with the body of someone who was recently dead. The risk of bacterial infection would be less in this case. The ancient idea of the uncleanness of a dead body more likely sprang from a sense of the mystery of life. Life is a force; the leaving of life from a body is a terror of the unknown. Yet it is not that the people of Israel were unacquainted with death. The incidents of famine, disease, pestilence, war, and the interminable dying in the wilderness made death something the people saw all about them. More likely the context was in some way related to sin, for death—ultimately—is the result of sin.

NOTE

13 (zōraq, “sprinkled”) is to be parsed as a Qal passive perfect rather than a Pual (as in BDB, 284c). The general rule is this: If a verb is used as the passive of the simple, basic stem and there is no Piel attested, then the supposed Pual is really a passive formation of the simple (Qal) stem. The use of the Qal passive has nearly disappeared, except in the participle; the Masoretes tended to treat them as Puals. See, for example, the exquisite phrasing (kî-yeled yullad-lānû, “a child will be born for us”) in Isaiah 9:6[5]; (yullad) is a simple passive (Qal) rather than a Pual (“a child is born,” NIV).

REFLECTION

The Lord is the Great Teacher. He is the one who uses teaching aids. Inadvertent contact with the body of a dead person was a time for a reminder of the ultimate: life and death, sin and forgiveness, cleanness and uncleanness.

There is an issue of responsibility here. The person who was contaminated had to initiate the action. But there is also a sense of consequences. For the community, the individual’s state of uncleanness would pollute the dwelling place. This means that one person’s sinful state might endanger God’s continuing presence in the midst of his people. A holy God demands a holy people. The second danger was for oneself. Such a one who refused the provision of cleansing was to be a castoff. To protect the whole, such a one was to be consigned outside the camp (cf. 1Co 5:5).

In this passage we have the ideas of corporate solidarity and individual responsibility seen together. Yahweh condescended to dwell with his people, but he was not constrained to continue to do so in the event of unrestrained contempt for the demands of his presence. See, especially, Ezekiel 8–10 for a visionary portrayal of Yahweh’s gradual removal from the temple as he removed his presence from those who had rejected his glory.

iii. Specifics of uncleanness (19:14–16)

14“This is the law that applies when a person dies in a tent: Anyone who enters the tent and anyone who is in it will be unclean for seven days, 15and every open container without a lid fastened on it will be unclean.

16“Anyone out in the open who touches someone who has been killed with a sword or someone who has died a natural death, or anyone who touches a human bone or a grave, will be unclean for seven days.

COMMENTARY

14–16 That these two short paragraphs (vv.14–15 and v.16) and the preceding one overlap some is suggestive of a complex process of assimilation of these various tôrōt (plural of tôrâ, sacral instructions) into the text of Numbers. Yet there is no real conflict between them; they meld together into a coherent whole. The resultant repetition may be used for emphasis. It may be that these two units (vv.14–15 and v.16) came as the result of specific instances of ritual defilement in which petitioners came to Moses asking what they should do in their specific circumstance. When Moses ruled, under the direction of the Spirit, then these became tôrōt for cleanness as well.

The point of v.16 seems to be that the cause of death was not the issue; rather, the fact of death was what rendered a corpse unclean. The person might have died in battle from a sword wound or might have expired of age in a natural death. In either case the result was an unclean corpse that made all who touched it unclean. If such is the case in v.16, then the situation in vv.14–15 seems to be the result of a question concerning a corpse that was out in the open in a tent or that might be in a container. If the container was open, the result was uncleanness for persons who were in the room; it is as though the corpse were in the room with them. If the container was fastened, then, presumably, there was no effect on others nearby.

As we think of this text with its restrictions and limitations, we should also reflect on the opportunities it granted for relief from the bondage of uncleanness. There would be many occasions on which a person would become unclean not because of a deliberate act of contact with a dead body, but just by being in the proximity of one who died. Given the factor of uncleanness, the cleansing water became a great gift of grace. Moreover, family members were freed to minister to the bodies of their deceased loved ones, knowing that their ritual impurity could be removed (see Note).

NOTE

16 Touching a dead body was a matter of serious consequence. One would think twice before extending a casual touch, given these laws. All those who cared for the bodies of the deceased came into ritual impurity. Dealing with the dead was not to be thought of as a casual thing. Even today, Jewish people strive to complete their task for burial preparation within a day’s time and under strict conditions. These factors heighten our appreciation of those who cared for the body of the Savior Jesus, helped with his burial, and planned for the full anointing and preparation of his body after the Passover and Sabbath were completed. These loving disciples were voluntarily placing themselves in a position of ritual uncleanness for seven days. Yet it was something they did without hesitation, such was their love for him.

iv. Application of the cleansing waters for uncleanness (19:17–22)

17“For the unclean person, put some ashes from the burned purification offering into a jar and pour fresh water over them. 18Then a man who is ceremonially clean is to take some hyssop, dip it in the water and sprinkle the tent and all the furnishings and the people who were there. He must also sprinkle anyone who has touched a human bone or a grave or someone who has been killed or someone who has died a natural death. 19The man who is clean is to sprinkle the unclean person on the third and seventh days, and on the seventh day he is to purify him. The person being cleansed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and that evening he will be clean. 20But if a person who is unclean does not purify himself, he must be cut off from the community, because he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD. The water of cleansing has not been sprinkled on him, and he is unclean. 21This is a lasting ordinance for them.

“The man who sprinkles the water of cleansing must also wash his clothes, and anyone who touches the water of cleansing will be unclean till evening. 22Anything that an unclean person touches becomes unclean, and anyone who touches it becomes unclean till evening.”

COMMENTARY

17–22 The ritual application of the cleansing waters for purification rites is detailed in this section. First was the preparation of the water (v.17). Ashes from the heifer were placed in a clay pot. Then fresh water was added and mixed. This is not magic but ritual. The water was still water, the ashes were still ashes. The resultant swill was ordinary in its components but holy in its designation and divine in its application. The Christian may wish to make comparisons with the “ordinariness” of the substances we use in our own rituals. There is no mystery in the baptismal waters, no magic in bread and wine. Ordinary things, however, may be used for extraordinary rites; ordinary items—not magic!—may be used by the Spirit of God to effect any result in which he takes pleasure.

We notice that hyssop, a plant long associated with cleansing in the ancient Near East (e.g., Ex 12:22) and already associated with the ashes of the heifer (v.6), was used to dip into the water and then was a means to sprinkle water on all that was unclean, both persons and things (v.18). Here the methodology of the cleansing ritual is explained. It took a ceremonially clean person to sprinkle the ceremonially unclean person or thing (v.19). Following the sprinkling the person being cleansed would then bathe and wash all of his clothes. A person’s failure to avail himself of these provisions would result in his being cut off from the community, for his failure affected both him and the sanctuary (v.20).

REFLECTION

The cleansing noted in this section was twofold. One was the sprinkling with the waters of cleansing; the other was bathing and washing with ordinary water (and soap). David’s prayer in Psalm 51:7 [9] takes on special significance in this regard: “Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean; / wash me, and I will be whiter than snow” (cf. v.2 [4]). The parallel members speak of the two washings of the ceremony; in David’s case, he requested that the entire cleansing be done by God himself!

The cleansing water of the ashes of the red heifer is specifically related to the cleansing property of the blood of Christ in the NT (Heb 9:13; notice the words, “How much more,” v.14) and is a portrait of the cleansing of the believer available on confession of sin (1Jn 1:7–9). The tôrâ of the cow (see comment on v.2) turns out to be another of the great texts on the grace of God in the Hebrew Scriptures.

j. The Ultimate Rebellion in the Sin of Moses (20:1–13)

OVERVIEW

Numbers 20 is made up of three significant units. The first concerns the rebellion of Moses against God as he struck the rock to gain the waters of God (vv.1–13); the second concerns an arrogant rebuff by Edom to allow Israel right of passage through their territory (vv.14–21); and the third describes the sad story of the death of Aaron, priest of the Lord (vv.22–29). The death of Miriam is nearly unnoticed among these sad events. She was a prophet of Yahweh; sadly, her death merits only one line (v.1). The resultant chapter has a grim structure to it, with four (!), not just three, sad events:

1. 1. The death of Miriam, prophetess of the Lord (v.1)
2. 2. The rebellion of Moses, prophet of the Lord (vv.2–13)
3. 3. The arrogant inhospitality of Edom (vv.14–21)
4. 4. The death of Aaron, priest of the Lord (vv.22–29)

The result of these varied events, with the bookend nature of the deaths of Miriam and Aaron (comprising an inclusio), presents a central picture that is most grim indeed: Moses was now a rebel against Yahweh! Further, a petty power stymied the march of the armies of Israel. This is a chapter of unrelieved gloom. Between the death of Miriam and the death of Aaron are the stories of the waters of Meribah and the borders of Edom.

1In the first month the whole Israelite community arrived at the Desert of Zin, and they stayed at Kadesh. There Miriam died and was buried.

2Now there was no water for the community, and the people gathered in opposition to Moses and Aaron. 3They quarreled with Moses and said, “If only we had died when our brothers fell dead before the LORD! 4Why did you bring the LORD’s community into this desert, that we and our livestock should die here? 5Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to this terrible place? It has no grain or figs, grapevines or pomegranates. And there is no water to drink!”

6Moses and Aaron went from the assembly to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and fell facedown, and the glory of the LORD appeared to them. 7The LORD said to Moses, 8“Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink.”

9So Moses took the staff from the LORD’s presence, just as he commanded him. 10He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, “Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?” 11Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank.

12But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them.”

13These were the waters of Meribah, where the Israelites quarreled with the LORD and where he showed himself holy among them.

COMMENTARY

1 In several ways this is a problematic verse. There are problems with respect to the geographical and chronological issues as well as with the obituary. The order of phrases in the MT follows along these lines: “Then the entire community of the Israelites entered the Desert of Zin, in the first month, and the people dwelled in Kadesh. And it was there that Miriam died, and there she was buried” (my translation).

Several suggestions are available to explain what seems to be a redundancy in the first words, describing the arrival of the people in the Desert of Zin (see Notes) and their dwelling at Kadesh (see 13:21, 26).

(1) This notice may be read as sequentially chronological; it would thus describe the return to Zin and Kadesh from a lengthy period of wandering about elsewhere in the Desert of Sinai.

(2) The notice may betray its origin in a different source than the earlier record from which ch. 13 was drawn; hence the writer of this section was not aware that earlier mention had been made of Zin and Kadesh (see 13:21, 26).

(3) The verb translated “they arrived,” although a preterit (see Notes), may be used in a pluperfect sense: “They had arrived . . . and they had dwelled.” In this sense the action of the verbs is a throwback to ch. 13.

(4) Yet another solution is to understand that this phrase is a narrator’s device designed to take us back into the narrative story line by the use of recall. This is my own preference. There have been numerous sections dealing with a wide variety of topics; now it was time to remind the reader of the geographical setting of the main narrative story line. Hence it is as though the narrator were saying, “Now you will recall that the nation had moved to the Desert of Zin and had dwelled for a lengthy period at Kadesh. It was at Kadesh that Israel had rebelled against the Lord, thus losing the opportunity for the people to enter the land of Canaan for an entire generation.” In this way the words “Desert of Zin” and “Kadesh” serve as an ominous cloud over the entire chapter.

We have already observed that the larger part of the peoples’ sojourn in the wilderness is left without record. This may be deliberate on Moses’ part. It is as though the time of sojourn was time that did not really count in the history of salvation. The Heilsgeschichte of the exodus traditions is one of movement and victory, not stagnation. We are left to ourselves to try to imagine what it was like for the people during this long, dreary time in the wilderness. (Recall the ongoing theme, “the wilderness has sand.”)

It is often thought that the people were constantly on the move in the Desert of Sinai during the thirty-eight years of their exile. Yet the indication of Deuteronomy 1:46 is that Israel may have made Kadesh her principal base for the long sojourn in the wilderness: “And so you stayed in Kadesh many days—all the time you spent there.” Perhaps the best reconstruction of events is to presume that the people may have sent out parties on a cycle of roving travels, following the slight water sources and the sparse vegetation, supported primarily by the manna, the bread from heaven. But their circuits would bring them back to the central camp at Kadesh, the scene of their great rebellion (Nu 13–14). They had now come full circle; the Land of Promise lay before them again.

The chronological notice in v.1 is incomplete. It indicates that this was the “first month,” but it does not give us the year (cf. 9:1, “the first month of the second year after they came out of Egypt”). Textual notes in BHS raise the question about the possible dropping of the year from this verse. A comparison of 20:22–29 and 33:38 leads us to conclude that this chapter begins in the fortieth year from the exodus (see Notes on 1:1; 9:1). The larger number of people over the age of twenty at the time of the rebellion at Kadesh (Nu 13–14) already would have died. This is the winding up of the clock of God’s program of redemption. Heilsgeschichte (the forward movement of the history of salvation), long on hold, is about to resume. Yahweh’s saving work is about to begin again. But not yet! First, there is a sad story of dying and a sadder one of rebellion.

Verse 1 notes the passing of Miriam, sister of Aaron and Moses, herself a prophet of Yahweh. It is at least of interest that her death and burial are mentioned in this record, but it is sad to see that only a clause or two are given to record these events. It seems as though after her challenge of the authority of Moses, along with her brother Aaron (ch. 12), Miriam nearly disappears from the scene. She may never have fully recovered the position of trust and privilege she had enjoyed before this rebellion.

This is not just to be explained by the anti-women stance of the Torah (see comments on ch. 12), as some writers aver. It may be a notice that even when a person has been forgiven of enormous sin, the subsequent realm of influence that person has in the work of God may be limited thereafter. In any event, when we read of her death, we grieve. It really is true: all those over the age of twenty at the time of the rebellion would die; even Miriam was buried in the sands of the wilderness instead of being given the opportunity to enter the Land of Promise. God has time, and the wilderness has sand.

Centuries later another Miriam, her namesake, would be the happy agent for the birth of the Promised One. We pronounce her name as “Mary.”

2–8 In the opening words of v.2, “now there was no water,” we have a sense of déjà vu. We think back forty years to the incident at Rephadim when the people screamed to Moses to give them water to drink (Ex 17:1–3). Moses was instructed by the Lord to take the staff he had used to strike the Nile in the curse of plague (7:20) and to strike the rock at Horeb to initiate a flow of the water of blessing. Now, forty years later, at the place of Israel’s worst act of rebellion, the story is being rerun. The people of the rebellious nation now desire to die with those who have already passed away in earlier judgments of the Lord (vv.3–4; see 14:22; 16:31–35). It takes an especially desperate people to wish themselves dead by God’s judgments. The complaints against the bread of heaven are repeated by the sons even as earlier by their fathers.

The response of Moses and Aaron to this new assault on their persons is similar to that on earlier occasions; they go to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and fall down in obeisance to Yahweh (v.6; see 14:5; 16:4, 22, 45). As in times past, they are prepared for an awesome display of God’s presence and the scourge of his flaming judgment against a people who continually rebel against him, despite repeated acts of mercy and grace.

Then, as they anticipated, Yahweh appears (v.6). There he is in glory. There he is in wonder. In this case, however, there is no fire. There is no judgment. There is no anger. There is just a gentle word, telling Moses to take his staff and to go with Aaron to bring water from the rock for the thirsting community. The instructions of the Lord are clear: “Speak to that rock before their eyes” (v.8). We notice that the staff is not the rod of Aaron that had budded but the same staff that Moses had used to do wonders in Egypt (see Ex 17:5) and in the wilderness all these years. While he is to take his staff, the symbol of his power through the Lord, he is merely to speak to the rock, and it will give its water for the people.

9–12 This paragraph begins with words that we are accustomed to hear respecting Moses, prophet of Yahweh. He begins by doing exactly as the Lord has instructed him (v.9). He takes his staff in hand and gathers the assembly (see Note on v.2) before the rock (v.10a).

Then, at long last, Moses explodes! Is he disappointed that the Lord had not burst out against his people, as happened time after time? Moses bursts out against them—and against the rock—to his lasting regret (vv.10b–11). Suddenly the accumulated anger and frustration of forty years bears down on Moses, servant of Yahweh. The death of his sister marked the end of an era. Yet nothing had changed; the children were as rebellious as ever. He addresses the assembly in harsh words, “Listen, you rebels” (v.10). In a sense all Moses is saying is what God had said numerous times to the same people and for the same reasons. The term “rebels” (hammōrîm, a plural Qal active participle) that Moses uses is similar to the noun the Lord used to describe their contentious behavior in 17:10 [25]: libnê-merî, lit., “to [these] rebellious sons.”

Moses’ words—“must we bring you water out of this rock?”—express the intense level of his exasperation and pain. At this point he reaches out with the rod of wonder and strikes the rock twice (v.11). In his rage Moses disobeys the clear instructions of the Lord to speak to the rock (v.8). While the water is released and the people and their livestock are refreshed with its blessing, the rash action of Moses brings a stern rebuke from the Lord.

The nature of Moses’ offense is not clearly stated in this text. Below are elements we may bring together.

(1) In some way the action of Moses demonstrated a lack of trust in the Lord. This is part of the charge of the Lord against him (see v.12). It is not clear how Moses failed to trust God in this story. One might suppose that he did not believe a word alone would suffice to bring water from the rock, that he felt a blow against the rock was necessary. However, I believe it is more likely that he was disappointed with the failure of God this time to respond in wrath to the rebellious people as he had in the past. It is almost as though he thought it was necessary to do the work of vengeance himself; hence his harsh, condemnatory words, his sarcasm, and his blows against the rock. In this action Moses forgot a basic stipulation of the Torah concerning judgment: “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the LORD” (see Dt 32:35–43; Ro 12:19).

(2) In some way Moses’ rash action assaulted the holiness of the Lord (v.12; see also 27:14), for Moses had not treated with sufficient deference the rock of God’s presence. In some manner the rock speaks of God. This was a mysterious symbol of his person, a gracious provision of his presence. In the NT we learn that the rock actually speaks of the person of the Lord Jesus Christ; it is called “Christ” by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:4. Hence, unwittingly, Moses in his wrath had lashed out against the physical symbol of the embodiment of God’s grace. What an awful moment this is! Had Moses an opportunity to erase one sequence of events in his life, to do the sequence correctly, surely this was it! But Moses, like us, had no erase track. All is forward play; for the rest of his life he would relive the infamy of this moment.

(3) Even the rash words of Moses were an act of rebellion against the Spirit of God. This is the conclusion of the poet in Psalm 106:32–33; he rehearses these events in song:

By the waters of Meribah they angered the LORD,

and trouble came to Moses because of them;

for they rebelled against the Spirit of God,

and rash words came from Moses’ lips.

(4) A factor we easily may miss is that Moses was not alone in his rash action and violent words; he was accompanied in word and deed by his brother, Aaron, the aged priest. We learn so from the divine words of judgment on the two of them (v.12: “the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, ‘Because you [plural] did not trust in me’”). Here is an awful example of the coming full circle for both of these men. In Numbers 12 Moses was the object of the wrath and jealousy of his sister and brother; in Numbers 16 Aaron was the object of the wrath and jealousy of Korah and his allies. Now both Moses and Aaron, who had behaved so marvelously in these past times, were rebellious against God.

The judgment of God had not flashed out against the people, but now it burst against his (usually) faithful servants: “You [plural] will not bring this community into the land” (v.12). The end result of Moses’ action is sure: neither he nor Aaron will enter the Land of Promise; of their contemporaries only Joshua and Caleb will survive to enter the land. The inclusion of Aaron here demonstrates his partnership with his brother in the breach against the holiness of Yahweh.

13 Once again a name of judgment was given to a place of Israel’s journey. This time the name is Meribah, a word that means “a place of strife” or “quarreling.” The same name was used forty years earlier at the first occasion of bringing water from the rock (Ex 17:7; also called Massah, “testing”). Psalm 95:8 laments the rebellion at Meribah and Massah, and Psalm 114:8 celebrates both occasions of God’s grace. For Meribah and Massah serve for both; they are reminders of the rebellion and symbols of the celebration of God’s mercy.

NOTES

1 The spelling of the place name (midbar-ṣin, “Desert of Zin”) is with the Hebrew tsade (ṣ) rather than with the zayin (z), as may be suggested by the English rendering. This northerly outreach of the Sinai wilderness area, just south of Judah and west of the southern shore of the Dead Sea, is mentioned in 13:21; 20:1; 27:14; 33:36; 34:3–4; Deuteronomy 32:51; Joshua 15:1, 3. Often the Desert of Zin is associated with its principal oasis, Kadesh (see 13:26; 20:1, 14, 16, 22; 27:14; 33:36–37; cf. also Dt 1:46; 32:51; Jdg 11:16–17; Ps 29:8; Eze 47:19; 48:28). Kadesh is also known by its longer name, “Kadesh Barnea” (32:8; 34:4; Dt 1:2, 19; 2:14; 9:23; Jos 10:41; 14:6–7; 15:3). For a new approach to the wilderness traditions, see now James K. Hoffmeier. Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (New York: Oxford, 2011).

The tense of the verbs (wayyābō ʾû . . . wayyēšeb, “[they] arrived . . . and they stayed”) is preterit (termed by some authorities as an imperfect with waw consecutive); see Williams (Hebrew Syntax, sec. 176) for the newer terminology. This type of verb is the workhorse of Hebrew narrative prose. It normally speaks of sequential acts: such-and-such happened, then such-and-such, then such-and-such. On occasion the preterit may take on special uses (determined by environment), such as the pluperfect (“had done”), as in Genesis 12:1: “The LORD had said to Abram.”

2, 10 (wayyiqqāh^alû, “[they] gathered”) is a play on words on the term “community” (see v.4). The verb is the Niphal of the root (qāhal, here meaning “to gather together for conflict, rebellion”; see also 16:3, 42). In v.10 the expression (wayyaqhilû . . . ʾet-haqqāhāl, “and they gathered [Hiphil of , qāhal] the assembly”) speaks of the usual construction, an assembly gathered for a religious purpose.

3 The verb , gāwaʿ (“to expire, perish, die”), is found also in 17:12–13 [27–28]. It is a less common synonym of the verb (mût, “to die”).

k. The Resistance of Edom (20:14–21)

14Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, saying:

“This is what your brother Israel says: You know about all the hardships that have come upon us. 15Our forefathers went down into Egypt, and we lived there many years. The Egyptians mistreated us and our fathers, 16but when we cried out to the LORD, he heard our cry and sent an angel and brought us out of Egypt.

“Now we are here at Kadesh, a town on the edge of your territory. 17Please let us pass through your country. We will not go through any field or vineyard, or drink water from any well. We will travel along the king’s highway and not turn to the right or to the left until we have passed through your territory.”

18But Edom answered:

“You may not pass through here; if you try, we will march out and attack you with the sword.”

19The Israelites replied:

“We will go along the main road, and if we or our livestock drink any of your water, we will pay for it. We only want to pass through on foot—nothing else.”

20Again they answered:

“You may not pass through.”

Then Edom came out against them with a large and powerful army. 21Since Edom refused to let them go through their territory, Israel turned away from them.

COMMENTARY

14–17 The grief of this chapter is unrelieved. Moses’ attempt to pass through the territory of the Hebrews’ brother nation, Edom, on the basis of peaceful negotiation and payment for services rendered was met by an arrogant rebuff and a show of force that dissuaded Israel from taking the most direct route toward their rendezvous with destiny.

The nation was now about to begin her last trek in the wilderness; the people were now ready to begin the march that would lead them to the land. When they came to Kadesh thirty-eight years before, it seemed that their plan of attack was to march northward through the land of Canaan, conquering as they went. But the evil reports of the spies and the rebellion of the people against the Lord changed all that. This time the plan appears to be one of circumventing the south of the land, traversing southern Transjordan, then bursting into the land from the east. This means the nation planned to take the “King’s Highway” (v.17), the major north-south highway in Transjordan from Arabia to Damascus. The first nation whose land they would cross to take this route was Edom, a brother nation to Israel, as the people of Edom were descended from Esau, brother of Jacob (see Ge 36:1).

Moses diplomatically sent messengers from his camp at Kadesh to the king of Edom to request passage through his land. The message is summarized in vv.14–17, a highly interesting document from the ancient world. In this message Moses used language and appeals that were designed to bring the most favorable decision. He called Edom a brother; he rehearsed the Hebrews’ experience in Egypt and in the wilderness (a section that sounds almost creedal—a confession of faith); he spoke of the deliverance of the Lord; he stated their present condition; and he asked permission to pass through the land of Edom, with a promise that they would not forage along the way or veer to one side or the other. In all the above Moses evinced humility of person and confidence of purpose. He betrayed no desire for military aggrandizement; his only request was passage through their land.

18 The response of Edom was unusually hostile. It was an unprovoked stroke of anger with rash threats of war.

19 Moses countered with an elaboration of his purpose. Again he assured Edom that he had no intention of conquest; they had no desire even to live off the land as they passed through on the major highway. If in fact there would be any need for local water for the people or their flocks, they would pay for it fully. In truth, Israel was forbidden by the Lord to take even a foothold of the land of Edom (Dt 2:4–6).

20 Once more, even more abruptly, Edom refused. And Edom backed up its haughty behavior with a show of force of their large army in the field.

21 With a sigh, Israel turned away to the east to make a broad circuit of the territory. As we read this story, we may make the following observations.

(1) Israel was likely a more numerous people than Edom, the people from whom they requested passage. If the population of Israel is indeed the 2.5 million or more that the numbers of the census of an army of six hundred thousand would indicate (if these numbers are, as many believe, “common numbers”), then Israel must have been immensely larger in population than the nation of Edom. The territory of Edom is rather arid, being sparsely populated in biblical times as well as today. If the army of Israel numbered sixty thousand instead of six hundred thousand (as we have suggested in the Introduction: The Large Numbers—Toward a Solution), then the story becomes more plausible.

It is difficult to imagine that an army raised by the people of Edom could be much of a threat to an army of over half a million, even one comprised of green troops! Yet if the army of Israel was about sixty thousand in number, the Hebrew people might have felt that even though they were a larger force than the army of Edom, they were not ready to take on the seasoned troops of Edom, particularly in their rugged terrain.

(2) We may posit two reasons that Israel preferred to turn away rather than force the issue and enter a war they might have won. First, they were brother nations, and Israel had no claim at this time on the territorial integrity of Edom. Second, the Hebrews wanted to make their first military campaign for reasons of conquest and righteousness rather than spite and pettiness.

(3) Moses believed that the experiences of his people were well known to the other nations of the region. He said to the king of Edom through his messengers, “You know” (v.14). This issue is significant in the story of the exodus; the saving work of Yahweh was not done in a vacuum or in a hiding place. The nations round about were expected to understand something of what had happened, that it was the Lord who had brought deliverance for his people.

Nevertheless, the Hebrews turned away and began a long circuit around the nation of Edom. The rebuff and its aftermath must have been especially galling to Moses and Aaron; it was another step in their decline.

l. The Death of Aaron and the Succession of Eleazar (20:22–29)

OVERVIEW

Finally we come to the end of this grim chapter. It began with a note of the death of Miriam; it ends with the story of Aaron’s death. In the midst of these sadnesses was the death of the hope of Moses to enter the land and the end of the opportunity to take the King’s Highway to mid-Transjordan.

22The whole Israelite community set out from Kadesh and came to Mount Hor. 23At Mount Hor, near the border of Edom, the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 24“Aaron will be gathered to his people. He will not enter the land I give the Israelites, because both of you rebelled against my command at the waters of Meribah. 25Get Aaron and his son Eleazar and take them up Mount Hor. 26Remove Aaron’s garments and put them on his son Eleazar, for Aaron will be gathered to his people; he will die there.”

27Moses did as the LORD commanded: They went up Mount Hor in the sight of the whole community. 28Moses removed Aaron’s garments and put them on his son Eleazar. And Aaron died there on top of the mountain. Then Moses and Eleazar came down from the mountain, 29and when the whole community learned that Aaron had died, the entire house of Israel mourned for him thirty days.

COMMENTARY

22 At last the people were on the move north and east from their long stay in the wilderness near the oasis of Kadesh. They came to Mount Hor, a place that may possibly be identified with Jebel Madurah, a mountain about fifteen miles northeast of Kadesh on the northwestern border of Edom. This mountain is on the direct route from Kadesh to Moab and fits the particulars of the story in this section quite well (S. Barabas, “Mount Hor,” ZPEB, 3:201).

23–24 As Israel came to the region of Mount Hor on the border of Edom (v.23), the word of the Lord came to Moses and Aaron that Aaron, the aged priest, was now about to die. The reason for his death is stated (v.24), a reminder of the sin of the two brothers at Meribah, as described earlier in this chapter. Yet the grace of God is still apparent here. The language is merciful, not vindictive. The interests of Moses and Aaron in the transfer of power were also the interests of God. Even in the death of his servant, the Lord showed his continuing grace.

25–29 Before Aaron died, he was to see that his son Eleazar became his successor. This must have been the one comfort that came to him as he knew that his days were at an end. In a dramatic symbol of this transfer of power, Moses took from his brother the garments, the insignia of his divine office, and placed them on his dutiful son Eleazar (v.28). At this point Moses did precisely as the Lord commanded (v.27); there was no more rash action on his part, no more flashes of anger.

Three men ascended the mountain; two returned. One—Aaron—died there (v.28). The presumption is that Aaron was buried there by his brother and his son. From the mount there was a sense of looking out to the land to the northwest; this was as close as Aaron would get to the Promised Land. Later, Moses would have a view of the land from another hill; like his brother, he, too, would see the land only from a distance. Both brothers are associated with mountains at their deaths. Their sister was buried near the oasis of Kadesh.

With the death of Aaron, the story of the first generation is quickly winding down. The promise of the next generation is soon to be realized.

NOTES

24 The idiom for the approach of death, “be gathered to one’s people” (see also Dt 32:50), is characteristic of the OT narrators, particularly when the death is of a notable person of saving faith in Yahweh (see Ge 25:8, 17; 35:29; et al.). See also how this phrase is used of the impending death of Moses (Nu 27:13). The expression seems to be a spiritual double entendre. (1) The laying of a body in a grave is a step in returning the body to the dust from which humans have come (Ge 3:19); (2) but the expression also presents hope that the person will be gathered to his people in the realm of life beyond death. Although Aaron was about to die and would not enjoy the blessings of the Land of Promise, he would still have his part in the life to come.

Further in this passage we have another notice of the culpability of the two brothers in the rebellion at Meribah. Aaron had joined Moses in rebelling against God (v.12); the impending death of Aaron was a precursor of the death of Moses as well (see Dt 34).

25 A principal issue of this section is that the death of Aaron was not to leave in doubt the question of his successor, any more than the death of Moses was to leave in doubt the one who would succeed him (see Dt 34). While Aaron was still alive, his garments were to be placed on his son; only then did Aaron die. The mourning of the people (v.29) was not only for the death of the old priest; it was also mourning that marked the end of an era. The old generation was now nearly gone; in forty years there had been almost a complete turnover of the population over the age of twenty.

29 See Note on v.3; the verb , gāwaʿ (“to expire, perish, die”) also occurs here.

REFLECTION

It is often alleged that the Hebrew people in OT times had no real view of the afterlife, the resurrection of the body, or heaven. This common assumption is found to be incorrect when one looks at the tombs of Hebrews from the biblical periods. As in the case of Egyptian tombs (and the tombs of neighboring peoples throughout Canaan), the tombs of Hebrews were filled with material things: bowls, jars, lamps, and implements. In fact, it is primarily the pottery from these tombs that has found its way to antiquities dealers—and ultimately to private and museum collections in centers around the globe. If Hebrew people who lived in the OT periods did not believe in the afterlife, in resurrection, in life to come, they would have been the only people group in their neighborhood not to share these beliefs—and they were the only ones who had come to faith in the living God! Such a situation, prima facie, seems preposterous.

Certainly we believe in and champion the idea of progressive revelation. There is far more information concerning life to come in the books of the NT writers than may clearly be found in OT texts. But in an attempt to magnify the glory of this new revelation in the NT, there has been (perhaps inadvertently) a denigration of the hope of the future in the Hebrew Scriptures. See the words of Jesus in Matthew 22:29–33, and see my book Grace, Always Grace (Grand Rapids: Kregel, forthcoming) for a chapter on this issue.

2. A Climax of Rebellion and Hope and the End of Their Dying (21:1–25:18)

OVERVIEW

If Numbers 20 is a tableau of unrelieved gloom, ch. 21 begins to show some glimmers of light in the dark sea of Israel’s wilderness experience. This is not to say that there would be no more trouble and no more rebellion; such is hardly the case. Indeed, this chapter and ch. 25 present notorious instances of Israel’s continued acts of rebellion against Yahweh. But this chapter presents some victories—victories against hostile enemies as well as victories against the dark side of themselves. Chapter 21 also presents the setting for the enormously important set of texts on the dramatic story of Balaam the pagan mantic, who confronted the power of Yahweh, Israel’s God, in one of the most amusing, wondrous, and engaging of biblical narratives (chs. 22–24).

Numbers 21 has five discrete sections. Our commentary will proceed along those lines. Then follows Numbers 22–24, the account of Balaam and Balak, with two major movements. On the heels of this story is the dramatic, unexpected, and frightful aftermath, the seduction of Israel at Baal Peor. Altogether, then, Numbers 21–25 has eight sectional divisions.

a. The Destruction of Arad (21:1–3)

1When the Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming along the road to Atharim, he attacked the Israelites and captured some of them. 2Then Israel made this vow to the LORD: “If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy their cities.” 3The LORD listened to Israel’s plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns; so the place was named Hormah.

COMMENTARY

1 The first battle of the new community against the Canaanites was provoked by the king of Arad, perhaps as he was on an incursionary raid. The result was a complete victory for the Israelites. Indeed this was a new day for Israel since their defeat by the Amalekites a generation earlier (14:41–45).

Unlike the situation with Edom in ch. 20, Arad was a Canaanite region that was a part of the people and territory under the interdict of Yahweh. Here was the first occasion for a military operation by the new generation. The text emphasizes several matters: (1) the king of Arad was a Canaanite (vv.1, 3); (2) he deliberately provoked an attack on Israel, including the taking of hostages (v.1); and (3) unlike their rebellious fathers (14:41–45), the people of Israel fought this time under the blessing and empowerment of Yahweh (v.3).

The site of biblical Arad is identified with Tell ʿArad, about twenty miles south of Hebron in the eastern Negev. While the 1962–67 Israeli excavations at Arad demonstrated a large, fortified city of the Early Bronze II period (ca. 2900–2700 BC) and complex ruins from the Iron Age, there was no evidence found of a Late or Middle Bronze city on the tell (mound of ruins). It is possible that in the time of Moses the term Arad was used for a region of the Negev rather than a city proper, or that at that time the name “Arad” had “floated” to another site nearby. (Compare the “floating” of the city of Jericho through its long history.) Y. Aharoni (“Arad,” ISBE², 1:229) suggests this possibility and cites as a candidate Tell el-Milḥ (eight miles south of Tell ʿArad), where strong Hyksos fortifications have been found and which may be mentioned along with Tell ʿArad in the Shishak list (see Note).

2 The vow of the people of Yahweh speaks of their full dependence on him for their victory, as well as their determination to fulfill their vow by making a complete destruction of their cities. The verb translated “totally destroy” (ḥāram in the Hiphil; GK 3049) is the verbal form related to the word ḥērem, meaning “to devote to the ban.” This ruthless action was determined not just by the rugged spirit of the age, but also from a sense that the people were engaging in holy war, where the extermination, not just the subjugation, of their enemies was the spiritual goal for the people in their conquest of Canaan. The cup of iniquity of the people of the land was now full (see Ge 15:16); Israel was to be the instrument of the Lord’s judgment to cleanse the land of the people who had polluted it.

3 The success of the military action against the Canaanite army of the king of Arad was thorough. They named the place “Hormah” (ḥormâ), a noun related to the verb ḥāram (used in the Hiphil theme, meaning “to devote to destruction”). Since the name Hormah was used in the first (and unsuccessful) battle against the Canaanites and Amalekites of the region (14:45), it is possible that the naming of the region came as a result of this present battle and that the earlier passage uses the name (of what became a well-known place) proleptically (see the example of the city of Rameses at 33:3). In any event, the association of the victorious battle with Israel’s earlier defeat is made certain by the use of this place name. The new generation faced a new day; victory ahead seemed to be assured.

NOTE

1 Shishak (or Sheshonq I) was a Libyan war chief who became the pharaoh of Egypt (ca. 945–924 BC). Following the death of Solomon, Shishak invaded Judah and captured many of its cities (see 1Ki 14:25). The record of his campaign was inscribed on a wall of the temple of Amon at Karnak (Thebes). In the lists of cities conquered are two called (ʿ^arād, “Arad”): “Arad of the House of Yrhm” and “the Great Arad.” See also Note at 33:2.

REFLECTION

All contemporary feelings of revulsion against the seeming “barbarism” of holy war need to be evaluated in terms of the later history of Israel. As is well attested in biblical history, except on rare occasions the people did not carry out the policy of ḥērem on the peoples of the land. The Canaanite peoples who survived became instruments of Israel’s defection from the pure worship of Yahweh. Their practice of the seductive patterns of the worship of Baal became the allure for Israel as she turned from the Lord—and this subsequently became the reason for Yahweh’s judgment on them. A recent work presents the views and interactions of four evangelical scholars on the issue of “holy war” and total destruction in ancient Israel. See C. S. Cowles, Eugene H. Merrill, Daniel L. Gard, and Tremper Longman III, Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide (ed. Stanley N. Gundry; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).

b. The Bronze Snake (21:4–9)

OVERVIEW

It is not unusual in Scripture—or in our own lives—to experience defeat following quickly on an event of victory. The narrator of Numbers places two such contrasting stories side-by-side in this chapter, perhaps to show the reader that while progress was being made toward dependence on the Lord, there was still a long way to go for these wilderness people! On the heels of the story of Israel’s great victory over the Canaanites of the Negev, they fell on their own swords, again over the issue of food in the rebellion that led to the story of the bronze serpent.

4They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; 5they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the desert? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!”

6Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.

8The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.

COMMENTARY

4 This passage has a geographical and logical connection to the account of the death of Aaron on Mount Hor (20:27–29) and to the rebuff of Edom in not permitting Israel to pass through its territory for any price (20:14–21). There is no real connection indicated with the little pericope of the victory over the Canaanites of Arad (vv.1–3). These accounts are separate but juxtaposed for effect.

The people had to journey on a detour because of the intransigent attitude of Edom. Each step they made south and east, rather than north and west, must have seemed unbearably tedious—such backtracking. They rejoined the road to the Red Sea (or “Sea of Reeds,” but here connoting the eastern arm of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Arabah; see Note at 33:8, 10) to make a broad circuit around Edom. Finally, it got to them again. They had been so near the land of Canaan and had even tasted the sweet wine of victory. But now they were wandering again, and in their wanderings they seemed to be as far away from “real” food as ever.

With Moses’ determination not to engage Edom in battle (see comment on 20:19), the people became impatient with him and with the direction Yahweh was taking them. Flushed with victory, their confidence was now in themselves. They forgot that their victory over the army of Arad was a victory granted to them by Yahweh in response to their solemn pledge to him (vv.2–3). Now they were ready to rebel again.

5 The people began to complain and spoke against both God and Moses. They, like their fathers, asked why they had not been left in Egypt and why they should be brought to this awful place to die. They did not deny the miracle God had done for them, but they disparaged their deliverance from Egypt. Again they complained about the lack of food and water. Then they went beyond their fathers and mothers—they not only spoke of the monotony of manna, but they described it as “miserable bread” (see Notes). In their styling the “bread of heaven” (see Ps 78:23–24) as something vile and despicable, the people were actually contemning the Lord, its giver.

The venom of the people’s anger led them to blaspheme Yahweh (v.4), to reject his servant Moses, and to contemn the bread of heaven. This is the most vitriolic of their several attacks on the manna (see Note on 11:6). Just as the attack of Moses on the rock was more than it appeared to be (see comment on 20:11), so the contempt of the people for the heavenly bread was more serious than one might think. The Lord Jesus speaks of the manna as a type of himself, that he is the true Bread from heaven (Jn 6:32–35, 48–51, 58). A rejection of the heavenly manna, it turned out, was tantamount to spurning the grace of God in the Savior.

6 Once more God’s people had rejected him; again he brought judgment on their heads. The pattern of rebellion by the people followed by God’s judgment is well established in the book of Numbers. It is possible that the basic trigger that provoked the outrageous actions and words of Moses in his rebellion against Yahweh (20:9–11) was precisely because he felt this pattern had been broken at that time. God had not burst out against the people as Moses might have expected in response to their attack on him as described in 20:2–5. So Moses raged against them, and in the process he forgot who was (and is) God and who was servant. He confused the holy with the profane. For that moment he seemed not to have believed that God would vindicate his own name (see 20:12).

But this time God acted as Moses expected. He brought a new instrument of his judgment on the people. This time it was snakes. The KJV’s “fiery serpents” has led some readers to think of burning snakes—indeed, some have thought of fiery dragons! (Compare the Hebrew phrase hann^eḥāšîm haśś^erāpîm, “the burning snakes” or, better, “the snakes that produce burning.”) The “fire” was in their venom, of course; hence the NIV’s “venomous snakes.” The poison in these snakebites must have been particularly virulent, thus leading to horrible, agonizing deaths.

We notice something in these snakes that points to what is common in the miracles of the Bible; naturally occurring phenomena may come in unnatural ways, in exaggerated numbers, or in unusual timings. Manna, as we have argued above (see 11:5), seems to have been an exception. Manna was not naturally occurring—it was wholly divine. And the people spurned it.

The people received something from the wilderness rather than from heaven. They received a sting instead of a blessing. They found themselves dying instead of being preserved alive by “that miserable bread.” There is something very human about the people in their complaints about their diet. The timing of their renewed complaint is understandable, given the fact that they were backtracking into the wide waste of the wilderness in order not to provoke Edom. But acting understandably human or not, they were again engaging in outrageous rebellion, coupled to an almost visceral hatred of God’s gift to them in the “bread of angels” (Ps 78:25).

There is a pattern to complaining; it is habit forming. The tendency among people is to go beyond where one left off the last time, to become ever more egregious, ever more outspoken. Rarely does a complaining person become milder in his or her complaints. Finally, complaining becomes self-destructive.

7 Nonetheless, there was change of sorts in the people as they are described in this chapter. They continued to rebel (and they would rebel again in ch. 25), but now they asked for forgiveness. They were sinners, but they were confessing their wrong. They screamed out to Moses, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you.” In this act of repentance, we witness the seeds for renewal. In their desire for forgiveness, there was hope for their future.

So Moses prayed for the people as he had prayed before (e.g., 11:2). And God answered, but in a most unusual way. In the case of the fire that flashed from heaven at the beginning of their troubles (11:1–3), the prayer of Moses eventuated in the fire’s dying out. In this case the snakes did not slither away, nor did they lose their fangs; the fiery serpents continued to plague the people with their horrible bites, and the people continued to grow ill and die.

8 Instead of losing the snakes, the people had to get their fill of them, as they had been forced to stomach quail at another time (11:31–34). Meanwhile, Moses was told to make an image of a snake (see Notes)! As we think about this, we realize several levels of incongruity.

1. 1. The description of the plague seems to be of something that was spreading quickly; yet Moses had to take the time to fashion, or direct the fashioning of, a metal image of one of the poisonous snakes. Sometimes even in a crisis one needs to move purposefully, surely.
2. 2. Moses had transmitted to Israel God’s prohibition against making images of any animal or other life form (see Ex 20:4–6) because of the dangers of idolatry that were so inherent in graphic art in the biblical period; yet now he was asked to make a graven image. This command must have been inordinately surprising, even to Moses.
3. 3. There are few things so intensely disliked and feared the world over as snakes. Herpetologists cannot understand the revulsion in the lay opinion of snakes, and they seem to suffer umbrage at what they regard to be silly misinformation about snakes in popular culture. No matter. Most people simply do not care for snakes; we may presume (from the tenor of this text) that this is a value we share with people who lived thirty-five hundred years ago.
4. 4. More specifically, in biblical culture it was a snake that became associated with the Evil One himself (Ge 3). Satan’s first manifestation in the biblical story is as a serpent; he is later to be called the primordial serpent, the Dragon (see Rev 20:2). There is a sense in biblical thought that snakes are not only detestable in themselves—they may even be symbolic of the prince of darkness himself.

With all these factors in view, now we think again of the enormity of what Moses was asked to do, of the taboos he was asked to break. This is not unlike Peter’s being told to kill and eat food he regarded as unclean (Ac 10). The people had called the bread of heaven detestable. Moses was commanded of God to make an image of something truly detestable in their culture and to hold that high on a pole as their only means of deliverance from disease. Only those who looked at the image of the snake would survive the venom that coursed through their bodies. This is an extraordinary act of cultural shock, an exceptionally daring use of potent symbols. As the people had transformed (in their own thinking) the gracious bread of heaven into detestable food, so the Lord now transformed a symbol of death into a source of life and deliverance. The rejection of God’s grace brought a symbol of death. The intervention of God’s grace brought a source of life.

9 Some interpreters err in their evaluation of the “salvation” that came from looking at this snake. Some contemporary theologians and Bible teachers debate on how intense one’s gaze at the bronze serpent had to be for one to be “saved.” Discussions rage on the meaning of the verb “to look” (nābaṭ, in the Hiphil; GK 5564). One party says merely a glance was needed; the other says the text demands a constant, groping stare. The one party says the glance is akin to making a commitment of faith in Christ; the other party says that the gaze is akin to making Christ the Lord of one’s life.

In this arcane debate these teachers appear to have missed the point of this text. It does not speak of eternal salvation or of what a Hebrew person had to do to be saved forever before God. It certainly should not be used as a touch-point for the debate over “lordship salvation.” The passage speaks plainly of physical healing from a critical disease. Health, not heaven, is the issue here. The people were redeemed already by blood and covenant and by Passover deliverance. They had come to saving faith (see Ex 14:30–31; the language is the same as in Ge 15:6). The issue remained for each of them: How long may they continue to live this life? Those over twenty were already on a death course; those under twenty had an opportunity for a long life in the land. Many would die in the wilderness of the fiery venom of these snakes, but not all had to die. God would keep many alive if they would only do as he demanded.

NOTES

4 (yam-sûp, “the Red Sea” or “the Sea of Reeds”) is the phrase used to describe the crossing point for Israel in Yahweh’s great act of delivering them, presumably at some point along the western arm of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Suez (see Ex 14–15). However, in Numbers (see also 14:25; 33:8, 10) this phrase does not refer to the western arm of the Red Sea (the “Gulf of Suez”), but to the eastern arm (the “Gulf of Aqaba”). It is possible that the phrase “Sea of Reeds” may be emended to (yam-sôp, “Sea’s End”). In this case the name would refer in all cases to the eastern arm of the Red Sea. See the Note at 33:8, 10 for discussion of this alternative viewpoint.

5 (balleḥem haqq^elōqēl, “contemptible, worthless bread”) is rendered “miserable food” in the NIV. The adjective (q^elōqēl; GK 7848) is a hapax legomenon. It is derived from the verb (qālal, “to be slight, trifling,” which verb, incidentally, gives us our stem name “Qal”). The verb can refer to something that is light, inconsequential; it may also speak of cursing someone or something in the sense of treating as of no value. This is the verb used by God in the promise to Abram at the beginning (ûm^eqallelkā, “whoever curses you”; Ge 12:3); now the people were cursing the food God had given.

8 In this verse only the word (śārāp, “fiery [i.e., venomous] [serpent]”; GK 8597) is used; compare (hann^eḥāšîm haśś^erāpîm, “the venomous snakes”) in v.6, and (n^eḥaš n^eḥōšet, “bronze snake,” a wordplay) in v.9. This word (śārāp, “fiery”) is the term used to describe the “burning” angelic beings described by Isaiah (“seraphim”; Isa 6:2). The singular term (nāḥāš śārāp) is used in Deuteronomy 8:15 of the “venomous snakes” (collective) of the wilderness. Wenham, 156–57, associates the making of a metal snake with a Midianite shrine near Timna in which a copper snake was found.