In this chapter, the LORD reaffirms his appointment of Aaron and the house of Levi with a miracle.
This is a relatively short chapter. In it, we can see the LORD wishes to finally put an end to the rebellions against Moses and Aaron, and he chooses to perform a sign before the people to reaffirm and prove Aaron's election as high priest. Honestly, it baffles me why the Israelites have not been convinced by everything they have already seen. Virtually everything that happened in Exodus centered around Moses in some fashion, and he continues to work miracles in their midst, such as bringing water from the rock. Why they continue to rebel is difficult for me to understand. And then in this chapter, simply by sprouting a staff, the people suddenly go from wanting to kill Moses to panicking that the LORD will slay all of them for their indiscretion (vv. 12-13).
Given the many rebellions, I think this reaction is totally understandable, I just don't get why it happens here rather than much earlier. I think there are a couple answers. The most significant we have to keep in mind is the public visibility (or lack thereof) for each miracle. That is, we are being given a full record of events by Numbers, but this information might not have been available to the ancient Israelites of Moses's time. Any miracle that went unwitnessed by the Israelites might as well have not happened for them. However, there have been many "global" miracles that should have been observed by nearly everyone. The plagues of Egypt, crossing the Red Sea, the manna from heaven, the thunder and lightning on Mount Sinai, the cloud by day and fire by night: all of these things are observable for the entire nation, and I believe this is intentional.
The LORD is trying to establish a relationship with the whole nation just like he did with Abraham. From this viewpoint, it is necessary for the LORD to use larger miracles to reveal himself to all the people because only larger miracles would be visible to everyone in a large geographic locale. Even so, a tremendous volume of the past couple books have been recountings of "the LORD told Moses", followed by "and then Moses told the people", which contributes to this problem that most people are disconnected from their god, and these many rebellions are the result of that disconnection. Since nearly everything is being told to the people indirectly through Moses, it's possible they question Moses's truthfulness when he reports his own promotion to leader and president of the entire nation. The miracles might be real miracles, but the only people saying "Moses is the leader" is Moses and his lieutenants. Also, don't forget the continual undercurrent of tribal politics: I'm sure many tribes are not happy to have a Levite, Moses, ruling over them and appointing other Levites into key religious positions.
The next point is that, while the people might have observed many miracles, it is possible they questioned whether those miracles affirmed Moses and Aaron as leaders of the people. I'm skeptical of this considering Moses's triumphal prominence over everything related to the LORD and the tabernacle, which strongly implies that the LORD favors Moses, but we should still keep in mind that this is really the first miracle that specifically and undeniably refers to Aaron and Levi.
The last point I will bring up is the potential weight of accumulated miracles. Maybe crossing through the Red Sea wasn't convincing enough, but now that they have a sprouted staff and some almonds, that is enough evidence for them to finally submit to Aaron's authority as priest.
And the Israelites' response is actually pretty funny. They must really be freaking out, since these two verses contain three different words for death: "gava", meaning to breathe out (your last) or expire, "abad", meaning to wander away, to be lost or perish, and "muth", meaning to die, to kill, to be destroyed. I would have expected something like this to show up during the plague for instance, when many thousands of people actually died. Only now do the people seem to expect that they will die, and this amuses me.
And that's the end of the story. After this we move back to a priestly legal section. While the story continues in chapter 20, this chapter concludes the current story arc, the rebellion arc. After this, the people generally stop challenging Moses's leadership, which suggests that they are truly afraid of the LORD killing them, and hence change their behavior for the better. Not to say that they stop sinning, but at least they stop questioning Moses and Aaron.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Bible Commentary - Numbers 16
In this chapter, several rebellions occur against Moses and Aaron.
It is with some irony that a former rebel, Aaron, is now himself subject to a challenge. Back in Num 12, Aaron (with Miriam) challenged Moses's leadership. At the time, I said that Aaron himself already held a position of substantial authority. Now we see, among other things, the Levites seeking to challenge Aaron's rights as the priest.
The exact nature of the protest is not entirely clear, but what we can see in v. 3 is that the challengers (Korah and other Levites, plus Dathan and Abiram who are sons of Reuben) want to "level the playing field" so that all the people may offer sacrifices and function as priests. The reason why I say it's not clear is because at first, it is a mixed group of Korah, Dathan and Eliab together with some "leaders of the congregation", but when Moses starts to address them, he is primarily referring to "you sons of Levi" who appear to be seeking the priesthood. So from the Levites, they seem to be seeking to overthrow Aaron, who is the priest. However, it says that they also rose up against Moses, who is not a priest but who instituted the priesthood. So there appear to be a couple things going on here, but the main thing is senior leaders of Israel and the Levites challenging Aaron and Moses (who appointed Aaron).
I am not without sympathy for their criticism, that all of the people "are holy" and "the LORD is in their midst". Ex 19:6, in particular, is a verse I have cited over and over as evidence that the LORD wishes to make the entire nation holy priests, which is precisely the criticism of Korah. The problem though is Korah's intent, which is to attain power. If his interest were in seeking the LORD, then that would be one thing, but I think this chapter makes it pretty clear that Korah is simply interested in removing Aaron and Moses from their positions of authority.
I do believe the LORD wishes to establish all the people as a sort of priesthood, but in the short term only a small number are allowed into the tabernacle. It's difficult for me to explain why the LORD would do it like this, but it's pretty clear that the Korahites do not have the authority to challenge the LORD's policy.
Dathan and Abiram, while lumped together with Korah, seem more focused on how they were denied access to the promised land. They primarily blame Moses, who is responsible for them as their leader. This is bitterly ironic since it was the rebellion of the people (including these leaders) that resulted in their condemnation to the wilderness. As with the Korahites, Dathan and Abiram think Moses is abusing his position and "lord it over us" (v. 13), as the NASB says. And as with the Korahites, their biggest issue is jealousy.
In the end, the LORD reaffirms Moses and Aaron by killing their enemies, swallowing them whole into the earth. Continuing with the bitter irony, the people blame Moses and Aaron for killing those leaders. Implicitly this shows us that the leaders must have been popular, and their accusations against Moses and Aaron were also probably popular. The LORD sends another plague to punish the people for gathering against Moses, and then Aaron is given an opportunity to exercise his priestly role. I think this is clearly intended to help establish Aaron's legitimacy, by giving him an opportunity to "atone" for the people in a very public way. The normal priestly obligations usually keep Aaron inside the tabernacle, which is largely concealed from the rest of the people. It's possible this is one reason why the people disrespect Aaron, because they are unaware of how he ministers on their behalf. I think that's one factor, but the bigger factor is clearly jealousy and ambition for the power that Aaron holds as the chief priest.
Briefly, I also an intrigued by this chapter's usage of censers. Censers had been only briefly mentioned before, almost casually stipulated in e.g. Ex 25:38 and 27:3. The first (and basically only) ritual use of censers is described in Lev 16, part of the Day of Atonement rituals. The casual side references of Exodus suggest that the usage of censers is either unimportant or very well-known to the author and his presumptive readers. I would bet more on the latter than the former, because surprisingly this chapter shows that many leaders have censers and not just the ones constructed for the tabernacle. In the end, those people were slain for offering impermissible incense, just like Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10. So it's interesting that all these people have censers, but using them is unregulated, possibly resulting in death if they do so improperly. Why do they all have censers? I can only imagine that there is some sort of customary or ritual use of censers that would have been more widely understood to ancient Israelites, but the rules for this have not been given to us. Instead, we only see them use censers as a sign of their piety, which is not accepted by the LORD and they are killed for it.
It is with some irony that a former rebel, Aaron, is now himself subject to a challenge. Back in Num 12, Aaron (with Miriam) challenged Moses's leadership. At the time, I said that Aaron himself already held a position of substantial authority. Now we see, among other things, the Levites seeking to challenge Aaron's rights as the priest.
The exact nature of the protest is not entirely clear, but what we can see in v. 3 is that the challengers (Korah and other Levites, plus Dathan and Abiram who are sons of Reuben) want to "level the playing field" so that all the people may offer sacrifices and function as priests. The reason why I say it's not clear is because at first, it is a mixed group of Korah, Dathan and Eliab together with some "leaders of the congregation", but when Moses starts to address them, he is primarily referring to "you sons of Levi" who appear to be seeking the priesthood. So from the Levites, they seem to be seeking to overthrow Aaron, who is the priest. However, it says that they also rose up against Moses, who is not a priest but who instituted the priesthood. So there appear to be a couple things going on here, but the main thing is senior leaders of Israel and the Levites challenging Aaron and Moses (who appointed Aaron).
I am not without sympathy for their criticism, that all of the people "are holy" and "the LORD is in their midst". Ex 19:6, in particular, is a verse I have cited over and over as evidence that the LORD wishes to make the entire nation holy priests, which is precisely the criticism of Korah. The problem though is Korah's intent, which is to attain power. If his interest were in seeking the LORD, then that would be one thing, but I think this chapter makes it pretty clear that Korah is simply interested in removing Aaron and Moses from their positions of authority.
I do believe the LORD wishes to establish all the people as a sort of priesthood, but in the short term only a small number are allowed into the tabernacle. It's difficult for me to explain why the LORD would do it like this, but it's pretty clear that the Korahites do not have the authority to challenge the LORD's policy.
Dathan and Abiram, while lumped together with Korah, seem more focused on how they were denied access to the promised land. They primarily blame Moses, who is responsible for them as their leader. This is bitterly ironic since it was the rebellion of the people (including these leaders) that resulted in their condemnation to the wilderness. As with the Korahites, Dathan and Abiram think Moses is abusing his position and "lord it over us" (v. 13), as the NASB says. And as with the Korahites, their biggest issue is jealousy.
In the end, the LORD reaffirms Moses and Aaron by killing their enemies, swallowing them whole into the earth. Continuing with the bitter irony, the people blame Moses and Aaron for killing those leaders. Implicitly this shows us that the leaders must have been popular, and their accusations against Moses and Aaron were also probably popular. The LORD sends another plague to punish the people for gathering against Moses, and then Aaron is given an opportunity to exercise his priestly role. I think this is clearly intended to help establish Aaron's legitimacy, by giving him an opportunity to "atone" for the people in a very public way. The normal priestly obligations usually keep Aaron inside the tabernacle, which is largely concealed from the rest of the people. It's possible this is one reason why the people disrespect Aaron, because they are unaware of how he ministers on their behalf. I think that's one factor, but the bigger factor is clearly jealousy and ambition for the power that Aaron holds as the chief priest.
Briefly, I also an intrigued by this chapter's usage of censers. Censers had been only briefly mentioned before, almost casually stipulated in e.g. Ex 25:38 and 27:3. The first (and basically only) ritual use of censers is described in Lev 16, part of the Day of Atonement rituals. The casual side references of Exodus suggest that the usage of censers is either unimportant or very well-known to the author and his presumptive readers. I would bet more on the latter than the former, because surprisingly this chapter shows that many leaders have censers and not just the ones constructed for the tabernacle. In the end, those people were slain for offering impermissible incense, just like Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10. So it's interesting that all these people have censers, but using them is unregulated, possibly resulting in death if they do so improperly. Why do they all have censers? I can only imagine that there is some sort of customary or ritual use of censers that would have been more widely understood to ancient Israelites, but the rules for this have not been given to us. Instead, we only see them use censers as a sign of their piety, which is not accepted by the LORD and they are killed for it.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Bible Commentary - Numbers 15
In this chapter, the LORD briefly interjects with some addenda and clarifications of the covenantal law.
This chapter does not particularly fit in with the last one, once again showing the author's disregard for contiguous storytelling. Most of this chapter seems concerned with Levitical law, first by stating the requirement that every burnt offering must be accompanied by a small offering of grain, oil and wine. This was commanded in a very similar fashion in Ex 29:40 and Lev 23:13, except that both of those offerings were very special cases (the first case, the daily offerings, the second, one of the harvest festivals). In this case, the command is very broad, extending to all burnt, freewill and peace offerings. We can possibly interpolate it intends to cover all offerings of these animals.
Symbolically, I'm not sure what to say about this part. We have already seen regulations concerning grain offerings and (implicitly) oil, back in Lev 2, and that section probably also covers the grain offerings described here. Wine was discussed many times in Genesis (starting in Gen 9 with Noah), but it has not been part of the sacrificial system except in Ex 29 and Lev 23 as above. In fact, we haven't even been told what a "drink offering" is. We can infer it is similar to the grain offering, possibly with some poured out and possibly some given to the priest (in whatever proportion). As before, these components of the offering match the three traditional elements of Israeli agriculture: olive groves, vineyards and (various kinds of) grain. They are all offered so that a person might offer some of everything they grow.
As we are told many times before, the law for foreigners is the same as the law for Israelites.
Verses 17-21 discuss some sort of firstfruits offering of grain. It's not clear to me if this is supposed to be the same as the festival of firstfruits (i.e. feast of weeks). The text isn't clear, but it certainly appears as if it were so.
Next, beginning in v. 22 we are given a rough restatement of the sin offering from Lev 4. The biggest difference is that if the congregation sins, it must offering a male goat in addition to the bull prescribed in Lev 4. There have been several times we have seen a solitary male goat offered as a sin offering, so this appears to be a new principle of sorts that is being added on top of the already-established Levitical law.* I couldn't possibly tell you why these regulations are stated twice. Another addition is that anyone who commits a crime willfully has no sin offering: that person must be "cut off". I previously argued that this was implied in Lev 4, which states that the offerings are only for unintentional sin. I believe this chapter reinforces that argument and is consistent with Lev 4.
We have our second (noted) episode of Sabbath-breaking. Remember that back when the Sabbath was instituted in Ex 16, it was directly related to gathering manna (something that the people would still have to do in Num 15). On the seventh day, the people were to not gather any manna, because the Sabbath is a day of rest. The Sabbath principle is extended in Ex 20:10 to specifically state that the people should do no work. Now in Ex 16, some of the people went out to gather manna anyway, and the LORD rebukes them for "[refusing] to keep my commandments and my instructions". However, the people were not punished at that time, possibly because Ex 16 predates the covenant (formed in Ex 19-24).
Here, however, we have a solitary offender who ends up as an example to the rest of the people. I see this as another exemplary vignette along the lines of Lev 10, when Nadab and Abihu were slain for abusing their privilege as priests. Here, the purpose of the story is to reinforce the sanctity of the Sabbath, which must be obeyed by all the people at the pain of death.
Lastly, we are told that the people must wear these peculiar tassels and blue cord to signify the commandments. I don't see any particular significance in this, except that it reinforces the importance of the LORD's commands. Not like we needed a reminder.
*References: Ex 12:5, the Passover lamb must be a male goat. Each family offers one, and the Passover is a type of sin offering. Lev 9:3, a male goat sin offering for the priest. Lev 16:5, two male goats for the day of atonement. However, they are sacrificed in different ways so you could pretend that it's a "two single goat offerings". Lev 23:19, a single male goat is offered during the feast of weeks. Num 7 offers twelve male goats for sin offerings, one for each tribe.
This chapter does not particularly fit in with the last one, once again showing the author's disregard for contiguous storytelling. Most of this chapter seems concerned with Levitical law, first by stating the requirement that every burnt offering must be accompanied by a small offering of grain, oil and wine. This was commanded in a very similar fashion in Ex 29:40 and Lev 23:13, except that both of those offerings were very special cases (the first case, the daily offerings, the second, one of the harvest festivals). In this case, the command is very broad, extending to all burnt, freewill and peace offerings. We can possibly interpolate it intends to cover all offerings of these animals.
Symbolically, I'm not sure what to say about this part. We have already seen regulations concerning grain offerings and (implicitly) oil, back in Lev 2, and that section probably also covers the grain offerings described here. Wine was discussed many times in Genesis (starting in Gen 9 with Noah), but it has not been part of the sacrificial system except in Ex 29 and Lev 23 as above. In fact, we haven't even been told what a "drink offering" is. We can infer it is similar to the grain offering, possibly with some poured out and possibly some given to the priest (in whatever proportion). As before, these components of the offering match the three traditional elements of Israeli agriculture: olive groves, vineyards and (various kinds of) grain. They are all offered so that a person might offer some of everything they grow.
As we are told many times before, the law for foreigners is the same as the law for Israelites.
Verses 17-21 discuss some sort of firstfruits offering of grain. It's not clear to me if this is supposed to be the same as the festival of firstfruits (i.e. feast of weeks). The text isn't clear, but it certainly appears as if it were so.
Next, beginning in v. 22 we are given a rough restatement of the sin offering from Lev 4. The biggest difference is that if the congregation sins, it must offering a male goat in addition to the bull prescribed in Lev 4. There have been several times we have seen a solitary male goat offered as a sin offering, so this appears to be a new principle of sorts that is being added on top of the already-established Levitical law.* I couldn't possibly tell you why these regulations are stated twice. Another addition is that anyone who commits a crime willfully has no sin offering: that person must be "cut off". I previously argued that this was implied in Lev 4, which states that the offerings are only for unintentional sin. I believe this chapter reinforces that argument and is consistent with Lev 4.
We have our second (noted) episode of Sabbath-breaking. Remember that back when the Sabbath was instituted in Ex 16, it was directly related to gathering manna (something that the people would still have to do in Num 15). On the seventh day, the people were to not gather any manna, because the Sabbath is a day of rest. The Sabbath principle is extended in Ex 20:10 to specifically state that the people should do no work. Now in Ex 16, some of the people went out to gather manna anyway, and the LORD rebukes them for "[refusing] to keep my commandments and my instructions". However, the people were not punished at that time, possibly because Ex 16 predates the covenant (formed in Ex 19-24).
Here, however, we have a solitary offender who ends up as an example to the rest of the people. I see this as another exemplary vignette along the lines of Lev 10, when Nadab and Abihu were slain for abusing their privilege as priests. Here, the purpose of the story is to reinforce the sanctity of the Sabbath, which must be obeyed by all the people at the pain of death.
Lastly, we are told that the people must wear these peculiar tassels and blue cord to signify the commandments. I don't see any particular significance in this, except that it reinforces the importance of the LORD's commands. Not like we needed a reminder.
*References: Ex 12:5, the Passover lamb must be a male goat. Each family offers one, and the Passover is a type of sin offering. Lev 9:3, a male goat sin offering for the priest. Lev 16:5, two male goats for the day of atonement. However, they are sacrificed in different ways so you could pretend that it's a "two single goat offerings". Lev 23:19, a single male goat is offered during the feast of weeks. Num 7 offers twelve male goats for sin offerings, one for each tribe.
Bible Commentary - Numbers 14
In this chapter, the people choose to return to Egypt and are sentenced to die in the wilderness, wandering for forty years.
I already covered the background for this chapter pretty extensively in my commentary on Num 13, so read that if you want to see what I think about the promised land and the Abrahamic covenant.
This chapter directly continues with the prior chapter, with the people essentially freaking out again, this time over a prospective war against the intimidating Anakites. As before, their reaction is to complain, but this time they decide to actually return to Egypt. When verse 4 sasys "appoint a leader", they obviously mean that Moses's days are over. Later, they decide to kill Moses and Aaron, the central figures in their new religion, and at that point the LORD intervenes.
As I established before, the promised land is a significant part of the Abrahamic covenant, so in rejecting the one, they are also rejecting the other. Since the promised land (and the Abrahamic covenant at large) represent a reversal of the curse of Adam, turning away from the promised land is a symbolic acceptance of death. Egypt is symbolic of "the world", i.e. life under sin, in a couple of ways. First, the Hebrews are born under slavery just like all people are born under sin. Second, Pharaoh is a symbol of the devil who tricked Adam and Eve into sinning against the LORD. And perhaps most significantly, Egypt is positioned as the opposite of the promised land, because of the way that the Israelites are playing between one and the other. I.e. the LORD takes the Israelites from Egypt to bring them to the promised land, but now the people are turning away from the promised land to return to Egypt.
As a result of all this, it should not surprise my readers when the LORD declares that all the men who turned away from the promised land shall die. The promised land represents the garden of Eden, which contained the tree of life. Turning away from the LORD and eternal life (symbolically) must result in death.
That's the core of this chapter, and the rest is mostly just details. We see Caleb and Joshua express their faith in the LORD, because it is the LORD who brought them through all of their trials and will establish them in the promised land. The LORD says he will destroy the people, and Moses talks him out of it. This is basically a repeat of Ex 32 when the LORD threatened the same thing and Moses's response was basically the same. Unlike the prior instance, the LORD nevertheless declares he will kill all of the men over 20, which is what I talked about above. The spies, who spread the "bad report" are killed instantly for their unfaithfulness.
We see the symbolic number 40 again (like the 40 days of the great flood, Moses's 40 days on Mount Sinai, etc).
When the LORD commands the people to go to the wilderness by the Red Sea, that would take them south and away from Canaan.
Lastly, we are told that the people, in their grief, attempt to storm the promised land without the ark of the covenant (symbolizing the LORD's leadership) and Moses, the LORD's representative. It should come to us as no surprise when they are defeated, but it's still interesting that they would refuse to go up when commanded to go up, and they refused to depart when commanded to depart. It seems like the people just do the opposite of whatever the LORD says at any given time, like rebellious children.
And with that, this generation is condemned to die in the wilderness because of their unbelief. They refused to follow the LORD and would have killed Moses and turned back if they were not stopped.
I already covered the background for this chapter pretty extensively in my commentary on Num 13, so read that if you want to see what I think about the promised land and the Abrahamic covenant.
This chapter directly continues with the prior chapter, with the people essentially freaking out again, this time over a prospective war against the intimidating Anakites. As before, their reaction is to complain, but this time they decide to actually return to Egypt. When verse 4 sasys "appoint a leader", they obviously mean that Moses's days are over. Later, they decide to kill Moses and Aaron, the central figures in their new religion, and at that point the LORD intervenes.
As I established before, the promised land is a significant part of the Abrahamic covenant, so in rejecting the one, they are also rejecting the other. Since the promised land (and the Abrahamic covenant at large) represent a reversal of the curse of Adam, turning away from the promised land is a symbolic acceptance of death. Egypt is symbolic of "the world", i.e. life under sin, in a couple of ways. First, the Hebrews are born under slavery just like all people are born under sin. Second, Pharaoh is a symbol of the devil who tricked Adam and Eve into sinning against the LORD. And perhaps most significantly, Egypt is positioned as the opposite of the promised land, because of the way that the Israelites are playing between one and the other. I.e. the LORD takes the Israelites from Egypt to bring them to the promised land, but now the people are turning away from the promised land to return to Egypt.
As a result of all this, it should not surprise my readers when the LORD declares that all the men who turned away from the promised land shall die. The promised land represents the garden of Eden, which contained the tree of life. Turning away from the LORD and eternal life (symbolically) must result in death.
That's the core of this chapter, and the rest is mostly just details. We see Caleb and Joshua express their faith in the LORD, because it is the LORD who brought them through all of their trials and will establish them in the promised land. The LORD says he will destroy the people, and Moses talks him out of it. This is basically a repeat of Ex 32 when the LORD threatened the same thing and Moses's response was basically the same. Unlike the prior instance, the LORD nevertheless declares he will kill all of the men over 20, which is what I talked about above. The spies, who spread the "bad report" are killed instantly for their unfaithfulness.
We see the symbolic number 40 again (like the 40 days of the great flood, Moses's 40 days on Mount Sinai, etc).
When the LORD commands the people to go to the wilderness by the Red Sea, that would take them south and away from Canaan.
Lastly, we are told that the people, in their grief, attempt to storm the promised land without the ark of the covenant (symbolizing the LORD's leadership) and Moses, the LORD's representative. It should come to us as no surprise when they are defeated, but it's still interesting that they would refuse to go up when commanded to go up, and they refused to depart when commanded to depart. It seems like the people just do the opposite of whatever the LORD says at any given time, like rebellious children.
And with that, this generation is condemned to die in the wilderness because of their unbelief. They refused to follow the LORD and would have killed Moses and turned back if they were not stopped.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Bible Commentary - Numbers 13
In this chapter, the Israelites send a team of spies to the promised land, and those spies return with a deeply discouraging report.
I don't think this is one of the best known stories of the bible, but I do think it is extremely significant. In some respects, I see this as a parallel to the fall from grace by Adam and Eve in Gen 3. In that case, Adam and Eve sinned and so they were forced out of the perfection of the garden and into a sinful world. The ultimate curse of Adam was death, the destruction of his very life. In this case, God's plan to bring Israel into the promised land was in many respects a redemption from the sinful state. We see many aspects of the curse of Adam reversed by the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.
Consider this: the promised land, Canaan, is called the "land flowing with milk and honey" (Ex 3:8). The garden of Eden, the original dwelling of humanity, was a land flowing with four rivers and rich with gold and other minerals, all signs of abundant wealth and prosperity. So by bringing the Israelites to the promised land, the LORD is metaphorically bringing humanity back to the pre-fall garden. Granted, only a small fraction of humanity, and only to a small "garden", but I see this as what would have been a first step in a longer process.
Next, consider the many promises of abundant prosperity, beginning at least in Gen 12:2, "I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you...", continuing on through Gen 17:5, "For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations". The promises become even more significant and glamorous in e.g. Lev 26:3-13, which categorically promises them military victory, peace, farming success and abundance, wealth, multiplied children, and ultimately the abiding and presence of God, that he would "walk among you and be your God". In terms of the economic side of things, it is effectively re-establishing the original command to mankind in Gen 1:28 to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it. God is promising them that he will empower and enable them to fulfill that command through the moral structure of the covenant.
Next, consider the divine protection from judgment and the negative effects of the curse. This is a subject I have discussed before, in e.g. Ex 11 (and probably earlier). The general principle is that the plagues of Egypt (and possibly earlier events like the floods of Gen 7 and the destruction of Sodom in Gen 19) were a manifestation that represented the curse of Adam by destroying parts of the natural world. Adam was cursed in Gen 3:17-19 that the ground would be cursed and bring up thorns and thistles (a common biblical trope for barrenness or famine/poverty). This part of the curse is the antithesis of the luxury and prosperity of the garden of Eden, from which Adam and Eve were cast, and that is reversed by the many guarantees of prosperity in the promised land.
The next part of the curse is death, manifested by the death of the firstborn of Egypt, the destruction of the great flood, the destruction of Sodom, etc. The sins of those later generations (the sins of Sodom, Gen 18:20, the sins of mankind, Gen 6:5) is a parallel to the sin of Adam. So just as Adam was cursed with death for his actions, the later generations were punished with death for their sins. The Israelites, however, were spared from death in Egypt because they were protected by atoning blood of lambs and more strongly, by their covenant with the LORD through Abraham, renewed with Isaac and Jacob (e.g. Ex 2:24). Death is antithetical to the tree of life, and so protecting them from death is like metaphorically returning the Hebrews to the tree of life.
The last parallel I want to address is the divine presence of the LORD. We are told (very ironically, given the context) in Gen 3:8 that the LORD was in the habit of walking through the garden, the residence of humanity. This gives us a picture of the LORD abiding with his people, being their God, and dwelling with them. With the sin of Adam, the LORD cast them from his presence and forced the people to live in a place where he did not dwell (as far as we are told). At some point it became "normal" to not dwell with God, and though we are not precisely told when, it is probably when mankind was forced out of the garden. And so by the time of Moses, one of the most significant promises of the covenant is that the LORD would dwell with his people and be their God, dramatically exemplified by the construction of the tabernacle (i.e. residence), ark of the covenant, and statements like Lev 26:11-13: "...I will also walk among you and be your God".
This is a long introduction, but I think it's important for my readers to understand that the significance of the promised land goes way beyond an arbitrary promise to Abraham that just happens to pass down to his children. It is part of the broader redemption of Israel and their redemption from the curse that is destroying all of mankind. It literally represents their material prosperity and national inheritance and symbolically represents the abiding presence of the LORD and the covenant itself (since the covenant is the Promise that gives the Promised Land its name). All of these factors tie together into a consistent story, and now my readers should understand the tremendous significance to the Israelites' coming invasion of this promised land: claiming their inheritance, but also bringing themselves (and by extension, all of humanity) closer to redemption from the curse of Gen 3.
This chapter should therefore be rather alarming to my readers. It begins with a purely military action, sending spies into the land of Canaan so as to scout out good avenues of attack, where to focus their resources and to inform any planning. Like many of their military actions, this one was commanded by the LORD.
They send one man from each tribe, similar to how there was one man from each tribe over the census. The twelve men, while still leaders, are a completely new set of people. This probably reflects the more dangerous mission they are sent on, so these are probably younger figures. One of them, Joshua (who we are told is also known as Hoshea), was leading Israel's military when they fought against the Amalekites in Ex 17. This suggests that the twelve spies are more likely military commanders, while the twelve men over the census were the supreme heads of the family, elders. Not that there's a big distinction (there isn't), but as we can see, there is at least some difference.
Of the twelve names here, only two are worth noting: Joshua, who we have met before, and Caleb son of Jephunneh, who we have not. As we see towards the end of this chapter, these are the only two spies who suggest that the nation can successfully invade Canaan.
The use of twelve men, one leader from each tribe, is very similar to the organization of the census. However, it's hard for me to believe that there is any fear of bias or misreporting by the spies. I would guess that in this case, they use one man from each tribe as a statement of unity. Since each tribe is expected (indeed, required) to invade the promised land, it makes sense that each one would equally spy out the land. Remember that every time you see a statement of unity, it's probably because the various groups don't actually think of themselves as unified.
When Moses commands the spies, we can see two distinct focuses: the first is the military strength of the local peoples (how many are they, how strong are they, and do they live in fortified cities) and the second is the natural richness of the land (is the land good or bad, how about trees, how about food). Of course, the natural richness also plays into military strategy because if you can successfully forage in the land, it makes besieging walled towns much more viable. To those unfamiliar with siege warfare, it can often turn into a race between attackers, who pillage the countryside to gather food, and defenders who have stockpiled as much as they can to survive. When the curses of disobedience in Lev 26 threatened starvation in v. 26 and 29, those are probably related to the siege of v. 25, when the people are "[gathered] together into your cities", which is itself a result of the "sword" of v. 25, i.e. invading armies.
Moses inquires about trees because wood would be used for manufacturing siegecraft, the various weapons of war they would use to attack walled towns.
The economic questions have a military purpose, but they also have a dual purpose of validating the promises of the LORD. As the spies note in their report, the land "certainly does flow with milk and honey", confirming the LORD's promise of the richness of the land.
Some other notable things: it takes two men to carry back a single cluster of grapes? I can see why they think the land is blessed if a cluster of grapes is so large that a single person can't handle it alone.
Also notable is the first mention of the sons of Anak (beginning in v. 22). As we are told in v. 33, the Anakites are "part of the Nephilim" who in turn were first mentioned back in Gen 6 as the men of great renown, children of mortal women and the "sons of God", possibly angels. This is very surprising because we would have presumed that the great flood wiped out all of the Nephilim. There are many wild theories out there, but at the end of the day the bible never addresses this apparent inconsistency, probably because it is not important to the overall story of Israel. Or possibly because the author thought all his readers would know about the Nephilim already.
Whatever the reason, the sons of Anak become a recurring motif in much of the OT, where they come to symbolize the strength of resistance against the Israelites. As with here, the Anakites are a race of giants, both tall and extremely threatening in combat, who populate the promised land in small numbers but fiercely resist the invading Hebrews. For whatever reason, there are very few Anakites and we are usually only told about them when they are being progressively exterminated. I call them symbolic because the Anakites are always in resistance to the Israelites and by their exaggerated size and strength, they represent the great strength that stands against Israel in general. The most famous Anakite of all is Goliath the giant, who faces off against the young King David in the book of Samuel, but even in this chapter we can already see that the Israelites are terrified of the Anakim, and it is primarily their fear of the Anakim that guides their thoughts.
The spies begin by noting the richness of the land and end by noting the extensive opposition they will definitely face when trying to take the land. This provokes two responses: Caleb claims that the people can take possession of the land, while the rest of the spies emphasize the greatness of their foes and their own personal weakness. These two approaches signify two ways of viewing their challenges: Caleb is primarily thinking about the LORD leading them to take the land, while the rest of the people are primarily thinking about their own weakness and the strength of those who stand against them.
Starting all the way back in Egypt, we have seen the impossibility of human action to produce any good result and the LORD stepping in to do the impossible, first by breaking the power of Pharaoh and second by sustaining Israel through the desert. Now the impossibility they face is to defeat a people who are physically stronger than them, more numerous and lead by giants.
But we have to remember that this is the battle over the promised land. Whether they take or fail to take this land is emblematic of the larger story of human redemption through the covenant of Abraham. The reason why the Israelites have faced all of these impossibilities is because human redemption itself is impossible for humans to enact: it must be done by an act of God. In some respects taking the promised land is the final stage in Israel's history, because it completes the process of bringing them back into the metaphorical "garden of Eden", which I discussed above. That they would falter now is both alarming and grievous.
I will continue on this subject into the next chapter, which is closely associated with this one.
I don't think this is one of the best known stories of the bible, but I do think it is extremely significant. In some respects, I see this as a parallel to the fall from grace by Adam and Eve in Gen 3. In that case, Adam and Eve sinned and so they were forced out of the perfection of the garden and into a sinful world. The ultimate curse of Adam was death, the destruction of his very life. In this case, God's plan to bring Israel into the promised land was in many respects a redemption from the sinful state. We see many aspects of the curse of Adam reversed by the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.
Consider this: the promised land, Canaan, is called the "land flowing with milk and honey" (Ex 3:8). The garden of Eden, the original dwelling of humanity, was a land flowing with four rivers and rich with gold and other minerals, all signs of abundant wealth and prosperity. So by bringing the Israelites to the promised land, the LORD is metaphorically bringing humanity back to the pre-fall garden. Granted, only a small fraction of humanity, and only to a small "garden", but I see this as what would have been a first step in a longer process.
Next, consider the many promises of abundant prosperity, beginning at least in Gen 12:2, "I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you...", continuing on through Gen 17:5, "For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations". The promises become even more significant and glamorous in e.g. Lev 26:3-13, which categorically promises them military victory, peace, farming success and abundance, wealth, multiplied children, and ultimately the abiding and presence of God, that he would "walk among you and be your God". In terms of the economic side of things, it is effectively re-establishing the original command to mankind in Gen 1:28 to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it. God is promising them that he will empower and enable them to fulfill that command through the moral structure of the covenant.
Next, consider the divine protection from judgment and the negative effects of the curse. This is a subject I have discussed before, in e.g. Ex 11 (and probably earlier). The general principle is that the plagues of Egypt (and possibly earlier events like the floods of Gen 7 and the destruction of Sodom in Gen 19) were a manifestation that represented the curse of Adam by destroying parts of the natural world. Adam was cursed in Gen 3:17-19 that the ground would be cursed and bring up thorns and thistles (a common biblical trope for barrenness or famine/poverty). This part of the curse is the antithesis of the luxury and prosperity of the garden of Eden, from which Adam and Eve were cast, and that is reversed by the many guarantees of prosperity in the promised land.
The next part of the curse is death, manifested by the death of the firstborn of Egypt, the destruction of the great flood, the destruction of Sodom, etc. The sins of those later generations (the sins of Sodom, Gen 18:20, the sins of mankind, Gen 6:5) is a parallel to the sin of Adam. So just as Adam was cursed with death for his actions, the later generations were punished with death for their sins. The Israelites, however, were spared from death in Egypt because they were protected by atoning blood of lambs and more strongly, by their covenant with the LORD through Abraham, renewed with Isaac and Jacob (e.g. Ex 2:24). Death is antithetical to the tree of life, and so protecting them from death is like metaphorically returning the Hebrews to the tree of life.
The last parallel I want to address is the divine presence of the LORD. We are told (very ironically, given the context) in Gen 3:8 that the LORD was in the habit of walking through the garden, the residence of humanity. This gives us a picture of the LORD abiding with his people, being their God, and dwelling with them. With the sin of Adam, the LORD cast them from his presence and forced the people to live in a place where he did not dwell (as far as we are told). At some point it became "normal" to not dwell with God, and though we are not precisely told when, it is probably when mankind was forced out of the garden. And so by the time of Moses, one of the most significant promises of the covenant is that the LORD would dwell with his people and be their God, dramatically exemplified by the construction of the tabernacle (i.e. residence), ark of the covenant, and statements like Lev 26:11-13: "...I will also walk among you and be your God".
This is a long introduction, but I think it's important for my readers to understand that the significance of the promised land goes way beyond an arbitrary promise to Abraham that just happens to pass down to his children. It is part of the broader redemption of Israel and their redemption from the curse that is destroying all of mankind. It literally represents their material prosperity and national inheritance and symbolically represents the abiding presence of the LORD and the covenant itself (since the covenant is the Promise that gives the Promised Land its name). All of these factors tie together into a consistent story, and now my readers should understand the tremendous significance to the Israelites' coming invasion of this promised land: claiming their inheritance, but also bringing themselves (and by extension, all of humanity) closer to redemption from the curse of Gen 3.
This chapter should therefore be rather alarming to my readers. It begins with a purely military action, sending spies into the land of Canaan so as to scout out good avenues of attack, where to focus their resources and to inform any planning. Like many of their military actions, this one was commanded by the LORD.
They send one man from each tribe, similar to how there was one man from each tribe over the census. The twelve men, while still leaders, are a completely new set of people. This probably reflects the more dangerous mission they are sent on, so these are probably younger figures. One of them, Joshua (who we are told is also known as Hoshea), was leading Israel's military when they fought against the Amalekites in Ex 17. This suggests that the twelve spies are more likely military commanders, while the twelve men over the census were the supreme heads of the family, elders. Not that there's a big distinction (there isn't), but as we can see, there is at least some difference.
Of the twelve names here, only two are worth noting: Joshua, who we have met before, and Caleb son of Jephunneh, who we have not. As we see towards the end of this chapter, these are the only two spies who suggest that the nation can successfully invade Canaan.
The use of twelve men, one leader from each tribe, is very similar to the organization of the census. However, it's hard for me to believe that there is any fear of bias or misreporting by the spies. I would guess that in this case, they use one man from each tribe as a statement of unity. Since each tribe is expected (indeed, required) to invade the promised land, it makes sense that each one would equally spy out the land. Remember that every time you see a statement of unity, it's probably because the various groups don't actually think of themselves as unified.
When Moses commands the spies, we can see two distinct focuses: the first is the military strength of the local peoples (how many are they, how strong are they, and do they live in fortified cities) and the second is the natural richness of the land (is the land good or bad, how about trees, how about food). Of course, the natural richness also plays into military strategy because if you can successfully forage in the land, it makes besieging walled towns much more viable. To those unfamiliar with siege warfare, it can often turn into a race between attackers, who pillage the countryside to gather food, and defenders who have stockpiled as much as they can to survive. When the curses of disobedience in Lev 26 threatened starvation in v. 26 and 29, those are probably related to the siege of v. 25, when the people are "[gathered] together into your cities", which is itself a result of the "sword" of v. 25, i.e. invading armies.
Moses inquires about trees because wood would be used for manufacturing siegecraft, the various weapons of war they would use to attack walled towns.
The economic questions have a military purpose, but they also have a dual purpose of validating the promises of the LORD. As the spies note in their report, the land "certainly does flow with milk and honey", confirming the LORD's promise of the richness of the land.
Some other notable things: it takes two men to carry back a single cluster of grapes? I can see why they think the land is blessed if a cluster of grapes is so large that a single person can't handle it alone.
Also notable is the first mention of the sons of Anak (beginning in v. 22). As we are told in v. 33, the Anakites are "part of the Nephilim" who in turn were first mentioned back in Gen 6 as the men of great renown, children of mortal women and the "sons of God", possibly angels. This is very surprising because we would have presumed that the great flood wiped out all of the Nephilim. There are many wild theories out there, but at the end of the day the bible never addresses this apparent inconsistency, probably because it is not important to the overall story of Israel. Or possibly because the author thought all his readers would know about the Nephilim already.
Whatever the reason, the sons of Anak become a recurring motif in much of the OT, where they come to symbolize the strength of resistance against the Israelites. As with here, the Anakites are a race of giants, both tall and extremely threatening in combat, who populate the promised land in small numbers but fiercely resist the invading Hebrews. For whatever reason, there are very few Anakites and we are usually only told about them when they are being progressively exterminated. I call them symbolic because the Anakites are always in resistance to the Israelites and by their exaggerated size and strength, they represent the great strength that stands against Israel in general. The most famous Anakite of all is Goliath the giant, who faces off against the young King David in the book of Samuel, but even in this chapter we can already see that the Israelites are terrified of the Anakim, and it is primarily their fear of the Anakim that guides their thoughts.
The spies begin by noting the richness of the land and end by noting the extensive opposition they will definitely face when trying to take the land. This provokes two responses: Caleb claims that the people can take possession of the land, while the rest of the spies emphasize the greatness of their foes and their own personal weakness. These two approaches signify two ways of viewing their challenges: Caleb is primarily thinking about the LORD leading them to take the land, while the rest of the people are primarily thinking about their own weakness and the strength of those who stand against them.
Starting all the way back in Egypt, we have seen the impossibility of human action to produce any good result and the LORD stepping in to do the impossible, first by breaking the power of Pharaoh and second by sustaining Israel through the desert. Now the impossibility they face is to defeat a people who are physically stronger than them, more numerous and lead by giants.
But we have to remember that this is the battle over the promised land. Whether they take or fail to take this land is emblematic of the larger story of human redemption through the covenant of Abraham. The reason why the Israelites have faced all of these impossibilities is because human redemption itself is impossible for humans to enact: it must be done by an act of God. In some respects taking the promised land is the final stage in Israel's history, because it completes the process of bringing them back into the metaphorical "garden of Eden", which I discussed above. That they would falter now is both alarming and grievous.
I will continue on this subject into the next chapter, which is closely associated with this one.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Bible Commentary - Numbers 12
In this chapter, Miriam and Aaron continue the assault upon Moses, challenging his role as the leader of Israel.
As I implied when discussing the last chapter, whenever Moses solves one complaint it only opens the door to a new complaint. In this case, having given the people an excessively large supply of meat, we are now told that Miriam and Aaron are both "speaking against" Moses, ostensibly because of his Cushite (i.e. upper Egyptian) wife, but what they were challenging in v. 2 is whether Moses deserves a position of leadership over the nation given that the LORD has "spoken through us as well".
This is ironic for two reasons. First, Aaron and Miriam both already hold positions of substantial leadership. Aaron is the high priest and has considerable authority. Miriam is much less discussed, but we were told in Ex 15:20 that Miriam is a "n'biyah", derived from "naba", a prophetess. This is probably the basis for why she says that the LORD has spoken through her. Second, in just the last chapter Moses (with the LORD) put the spirit upon seventy of Israel's elders, so it very much seems that Moses is not intentionally holding onto power. Aaron and Miriam choose now, after Moses shares power with others, to seek their own power grab.
I think there are two sides to this issue. The first side views this as an affront. Aaron and Miriam are already two of the most powerful people in the nation, so why are they seeking even more power? You can view this as a case of raw arrogance. The second side is viewing this from the perspective of Aaron and Miriam, who probably see Moses hording all of the power for himself. The first question we have to address is whether that's true, and the second question is whether that is a reasonable perception given what we can guess they know.
The reality, as we are told it by the bible, is that the LORD was supporting Moses 100%. There are many things we don't know about Moses, but if we can trust the biblical text, then we do know that the LORD was the real power behind Moses. Why he chose Moses is something up for debate (which I have debated, back in Ex 4), but we can have no doubt that the LORD called Moses and gave him all of the authority that he now, in fact, holds.
Note that verse 3 is likely a later addition, since it doesn't really fit in the narrative. Of course, there are many things in the Pentateuch that don't exactly fit in the narrative, but this one is more striking than usual. I frequently hear pastors/teachers say with some irony that Moses is calling himself the most humble man on the earth, but with all due respect this verse probably is a later editorial.
To address the second question, in much of what we have read, the LORD is talking to Moses who then recounts these laws or commands to the rest of the people. What does anyone know of the LORD except what Moses says? This does leave something of an information gap between Moses (who speaks to the LORD "mouth to mouth", i.e. directly and intimately) and the rest of the people, who generally only have Moses's words. How much could the people know about the LORD apart from Moses's instructions? What have the people seen that validates Moses's position? I don't want to go back and review everything we have read, but I think the answer is, "a lot". Apart from many other incidents, Moses told the people the Passover ritual which protected them from the very real plague of the firstborn that struck the Egyptians. Every time the LORD performs something in accordance with Moses's words, that is a validation that Moses does speak on behalf of the LORD.
I've already said the Israelites have a memory problem, but I don't think this is the case here. Miriam and Aaron are challenging Moses precisely because they remember the many occasions where Moses has done something great, bringing back laws of the LORD or performing a miracle or entering the tabernacle to speak with the LORD (and where they are forbidden).
Regardless of their reasons or what they thought, this episode shows that the LORD supports Moses fully, as we might have suspected.
For some reason, only Miriam is punished. Whether that's because she was the more energetic challenger or for some other reason is unclear. Notably, verse 1 lists Miriam before Aaron, which is a standard formula to show that she was the leader of the two in this endeavor.
Anyway, Miriam is temporarily cursed with leprosy, which as we saw in Lev 13, makes her unclean and she must depart from the camp. Similarly, in verse 14 when the LORD says "if her father had but spit in her face, would she not bear her shame for seven days?" I'm fairly sure that spit is one type of bodily fluid that results in ceremonial impurity, which creates a two-fold message. The more obvious message is that having your father spit in your face is a mark of rebuke and disgrace, and that is the LORD's intent with giving her leprosy. The less obvious (to us) message is that leprosy, as with saliva, makes her ceremonially unclean so that she must (by law) depart the camp for seven days.
This is a fairly short story, but it shows us that the people are rebelling against Moses even at the very top, while the prior chapter showed us that they were revolting en masse. I think we should be able to see why Moses is having such a hard time with this people.
As I implied when discussing the last chapter, whenever Moses solves one complaint it only opens the door to a new complaint. In this case, having given the people an excessively large supply of meat, we are now told that Miriam and Aaron are both "speaking against" Moses, ostensibly because of his Cushite (i.e. upper Egyptian) wife, but what they were challenging in v. 2 is whether Moses deserves a position of leadership over the nation given that the LORD has "spoken through us as well".
This is ironic for two reasons. First, Aaron and Miriam both already hold positions of substantial leadership. Aaron is the high priest and has considerable authority. Miriam is much less discussed, but we were told in Ex 15:20 that Miriam is a "n'biyah", derived from "naba", a prophetess. This is probably the basis for why she says that the LORD has spoken through her. Second, in just the last chapter Moses (with the LORD) put the spirit upon seventy of Israel's elders, so it very much seems that Moses is not intentionally holding onto power. Aaron and Miriam choose now, after Moses shares power with others, to seek their own power grab.
I think there are two sides to this issue. The first side views this as an affront. Aaron and Miriam are already two of the most powerful people in the nation, so why are they seeking even more power? You can view this as a case of raw arrogance. The second side is viewing this from the perspective of Aaron and Miriam, who probably see Moses hording all of the power for himself. The first question we have to address is whether that's true, and the second question is whether that is a reasonable perception given what we can guess they know.
The reality, as we are told it by the bible, is that the LORD was supporting Moses 100%. There are many things we don't know about Moses, but if we can trust the biblical text, then we do know that the LORD was the real power behind Moses. Why he chose Moses is something up for debate (which I have debated, back in Ex 4), but we can have no doubt that the LORD called Moses and gave him all of the authority that he now, in fact, holds.
Note that verse 3 is likely a later addition, since it doesn't really fit in the narrative. Of course, there are many things in the Pentateuch that don't exactly fit in the narrative, but this one is more striking than usual. I frequently hear pastors/teachers say with some irony that Moses is calling himself the most humble man on the earth, but with all due respect this verse probably is a later editorial.
To address the second question, in much of what we have read, the LORD is talking to Moses who then recounts these laws or commands to the rest of the people. What does anyone know of the LORD except what Moses says? This does leave something of an information gap between Moses (who speaks to the LORD "mouth to mouth", i.e. directly and intimately) and the rest of the people, who generally only have Moses's words. How much could the people know about the LORD apart from Moses's instructions? What have the people seen that validates Moses's position? I don't want to go back and review everything we have read, but I think the answer is, "a lot". Apart from many other incidents, Moses told the people the Passover ritual which protected them from the very real plague of the firstborn that struck the Egyptians. Every time the LORD performs something in accordance with Moses's words, that is a validation that Moses does speak on behalf of the LORD.
I've already said the Israelites have a memory problem, but I don't think this is the case here. Miriam and Aaron are challenging Moses precisely because they remember the many occasions where Moses has done something great, bringing back laws of the LORD or performing a miracle or entering the tabernacle to speak with the LORD (and where they are forbidden).
Regardless of their reasons or what they thought, this episode shows that the LORD supports Moses fully, as we might have suspected.
For some reason, only Miriam is punished. Whether that's because she was the more energetic challenger or for some other reason is unclear. Notably, verse 1 lists Miriam before Aaron, which is a standard formula to show that she was the leader of the two in this endeavor.
Anyway, Miriam is temporarily cursed with leprosy, which as we saw in Lev 13, makes her unclean and she must depart from the camp. Similarly, in verse 14 when the LORD says "if her father had but spit in her face, would she not bear her shame for seven days?" I'm fairly sure that spit is one type of bodily fluid that results in ceremonial impurity, which creates a two-fold message. The more obvious message is that having your father spit in your face is a mark of rebuke and disgrace, and that is the LORD's intent with giving her leprosy. The less obvious (to us) message is that leprosy, as with saliva, makes her ceremonially unclean so that she must (by law) depart the camp for seven days.
This is a fairly short story, but it shows us that the people are rebelling against Moses even at the very top, while the prior chapter showed us that they were revolting en masse. I think we should be able to see why Moses is having such a hard time with this people.
Bible Commentary - Numbers 11
In this chapter, several related events happen: the people continue complaining fiercely, the LORD starts punishing the people, Moses demands help, and the LORD agrees to gives Moses 70 elders who will share in his spirit.
Having departed from Sinai, the people resume their complaints. It's not clear to me if the complaining in v. 1-3 is the same issue as v. 4+. It's possible. In the first instance, we are told they were complaining "of adversity", while later the focus is clearly around the quality of the food.
In the first instance, we are told that the anger of the LORD "was kindled" and it burned on the outskirts of the camp. Fire is frequently used as a metaphor for anger, but in this case (almost humorously) the metaphor fire became a literal fire that burns some of the people to death as punishment for their complaining.
Their more serious grievance, beginning in verse 4, is a renewed desire to return to Egypt. This is nothing new, and even the topic of food is nothing new. For instance, see Ex 16:3. Note that the bible terms these people an "asp'suph", a mixed assemblage. This is the only use of this word in the entire OT. They have lustful desires, weeping out of their longing for the meat of Egypt. This is a stern rejection of the LORD's provision, that they would be weeping that they "only" have manna, which is provided for them supernaturally. It also shows an escalation of their complaining, that at first they complained there was no food, so the LORD gave them food. Then they complained they had no water, so the LORD gave them water. Now they are complaining that, while they have food, they do not have meat.
At this point, it leaves me wondering if they will ever stop complaining. One thing I have learned in my short life is that if a person is intent on complaining, he or she will always be able to find something to complain about, and I think that's the story here. To be sure, wandering through the Egyptian desert is a pretty harsh place, but they're not complaining about the desert, really. They are complaining about the manna, and by extension, God's treatment of them.
One other thing to keep in mind is the selective memory exhibited here; notice how swiftly the Israelites forget their oppression and how diligently they remember the few benefits of slavery. Literally one year ago the Israelites departed from 400 years of oppression and "bitter... hard labor" (Ex 1:14). The Israelites "sighed... cried out... because of their bondage...groaning" (Ex 2:23-24). And now, literally one year later, they are longing, lusting after their desire for the food that they ate in Egypt. It is stunning to think that they would willingly return to harsh slavery (and the mandatory murder of their sons, no less) in exchange for bread and meat, because they do not want to eat manna anymore.
There are a couple principles we can draw from this. The first is above, that an intent complainer will always complain. The second is that as people, we generally focus more on the bad things about the present. To wit, the Israelites are acutely aware of all of the negative things happening to them (no meat!), but they are completely ignoring or even actively complaining about the good things happening to them, like the supernatural food and water, the cloud of the LORD's presence, the tabernacle that goes amongst them, etc. They have an extremely unbalanced perspective on what is happening in their lives.
Lastly, this unbalanced perspective also applies to the past. About Egypt, they are acutely aware of the good things then (we ate bread and meat!), but they completely ignore the negatives like how the Egyptians would kill their sons, they were whipped or beaten, forced into slavery, etc. In particular they are focusing on the issue from which they are suffering now (namely, not having any meat) while ignoring the many other issues that have been alleviated by their redemption. They aren't getting beaten or whipped anymore, so they promptly forget that they ever were, and instead focus on their newest problem, disliking manna.
As an aside, this isn't the first time they have desired meat. Back in Ex 16, when they first complained about food and the LORD gave them both manna (for the rest of their journey) and meat (just on that occasion). They are now complaining about meat again, and this time the LORD is much less forgiving.
Moses, for his part, is definitely feeling the pressure because these complaints are largely directed at him (for instance, note how frequently Moses redirects the peoples' criticisms at the LORD, the Hebrews' divine sovereign: Ex 14:11-13, Ex 15:24, Ex 16:7-8, Ex 17:2-4). That's why Moses is complaining about not being able to "carry" the people, because all the people are basically expected Moses to take care of them and provide for them. In response, the LORD says he will take "the spirit" that Moses has and put it on 70 elders of the people, who we can presume would then be expected to help lead the nation.
This implies that there is some particular "spirit" upon Moses. Most bible translations will capitalize it, Spirit, to imply that it is the Holy Spirit. The NASB goes even further and personifies it, "the Spirit who is upon you". However, the Hebrew does not say that, it only says, "ruach", the typical word for spirit/breath/wind that we have seen many times before. Biblical Hebrew does not have capitalization at all, so all capitalized terms in an English bible are inserted by the translator of that bible, not in the underlying text. In this case, it's essentially a theological gloss where the translator is presuming the text refers to the Holy Spirit, and capitalizes accordingly.
So what is the spirit of Moses? Is it just some esprit de corps, some elan, that guides him in his zeal for the LORD, or is it a proper noun Spirit, like the spirit of God that rested upon Joseph while he was in Egypt? I think this question is answered later in this chapter, when the spirit is placed upon the 70 elders "and when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied." This is the first use of the word prophesied (Hebrew, "naba"). This opens a whole new can of worms: what is biblical prophecy, how is it formulated in the OT, and how does that relate to the spirit of Moses? Each of these questions deserves its own answer.
I have already partially addressed the subject of biblical prophecy back in Gen 49, when discussing the prophecy of Jacob. Now Jacob did not "naba", which is our first clue that what we are seeing here is a different kind of prophecy than Jacob's. Jacob's prophecy is poetic and it's future-predictive, very similar to what many people think "prophecy" is. "naba" is something very different. To be brief, "naba" is "to speak or sing while under divine inspiration". It is used specifically referring to a form of ecstatic worship or speech, although the precise nature of what is said is never revealed to us. That's how we generally know that it's not meant to be predictive, because we are not told what the elders said. It is more important for us to know that they "naba"ed than that they were prophesying anything in particular. So the subject of "naba" is debatable, whatever they might be speaking or singing. The critical element is that it is done under divine guidance, although not always the LORD. Sometimes in the OT there are false prophets who "naba". So the term is used of the form of speaking and prophesying, and not necessarily a validation that it is from the LORD. In this case, however, it is very clear that the LORD is inspiring his elders to "naba", to prophesy, as proof that they have the spirit that was on Moses.
This is further evidence that the spirit upon Moses was the spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, because genuine naba implies divine inspiration. I see this episode as being another extension of the "royal priesthood, holy nation" statement from Ex 19:6 which I have talked about a lot before. Most recently, I said that the semi-priesthood of the Levites was a move towards establishing the whole nation as a priesthood. Now we can see there is a parallel (but separate) extension of the prophetic ministry from Moses to a group of the nation's leaders. Most strikingly, when Joshua complains to Moses about Eldad and Medad prophesying in the camp, Moses wishes "that all the LORD's people were prophets, that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!"
Therefore the priesthood is only one of several tracks that Moses (and the LORD) wish to expand over the entire nation of Israel. Unlike the priesthood, the prophetic ministry remains much less tightly defined through the OT, as it never has a clear mandate and job description like the closely regulated sacrifice and festival system. Still, if there's one thing made clear by this chapter it is that true prophecy comes from the spirit of the LORD, which is interesting because the spirit of the LORD was first imparted to man when the LORD breathed life into Adam. So it's as if all of mankind, by the very act of creation, has some measure of the inspirational power and insight of the LORD. What does it mean for the LORD to "put his spirit" upon people if the LORD's spirit is what empowers us to live in the first place?
I don't think we have a clear answer to that question, nor does this chapter seem intent on giving us one. What we can deduce from this text would suggest there are different measures or different spirits which come from the LORD and are given to specific people at specific times. Everyone on the earth has the measure of the spirit of God that gives life and vitality to us all, but there was some special spirit upon Joseph (which empowered him to interpret dreams) and another spirit upon Moses, which is here imparted to the elders of Israel and enables them to "naba", but only once. We should understand that the spirit remained on the elders after prophesying, because the purpose of the spirit is to qualify them for leadership, taking on part of Moses's burden as the spiritual head of the nation. It's the same spirit, but it seems to have multiple roles in this case, which should not be surprising if it is indeed the spirit of God.
In parallel to all this stuff happening with the elders, the LORD has a separate message for the revolting assemblage, each weeping at his tent: he will send them an excess of meat until they are sick of meat, which almost sounds sarcastic, but at the end of the chapter he actually does it. With a certain degree of irony, the people immediately go out and gather all the quail they can and begin eating it now that it has been provided to them by the LORD whom they scorn, thanklessly. This seems very presumptive to me, and the LORD responds by sending a plague amongst the people when they begin eating. For more irony, note that after this the people stop complaining about meat, but begin complaining about other issues (which we will see in the next chapter). So once again, the nation is a recipient of the LORD's provision, at which point they immediately forget what the LORD has done for them and move on to complain about whatever is next on their agenda. Note that ten homers is a tremendous amount of meat, hence why it must be spread all around the camp (probably to be dried for storage?).
Something that fascinates me about this chapter while writing my commentary is how the sections describing the rebellion of the people are interleaved with the sections describing the spirit of God resting upon the elders of the nation. First the LORD tells Moses he will put the spirit on the elders, then he tells Moses about sending quail to the nation for a whole month. Then Moses goes out and tells the people the word of the LORD, and then he gathers the elders. Then the elders come in and are filled with the spirit, and then the LORD sends the quail. Reading the chapter in this way gives us a sense of the progressive development of the spirit resting on these elders, which in itself should be a joyful occasion and a blessing to the nation, but at the same time there is a brewing rebellion against Moses and the LORD.
Having departed from Sinai, the people resume their complaints. It's not clear to me if the complaining in v. 1-3 is the same issue as v. 4+. It's possible. In the first instance, we are told they were complaining "of adversity", while later the focus is clearly around the quality of the food.
In the first instance, we are told that the anger of the LORD "was kindled" and it burned on the outskirts of the camp. Fire is frequently used as a metaphor for anger, but in this case (almost humorously) the metaphor fire became a literal fire that burns some of the people to death as punishment for their complaining.
Their more serious grievance, beginning in verse 4, is a renewed desire to return to Egypt. This is nothing new, and even the topic of food is nothing new. For instance, see Ex 16:3. Note that the bible terms these people an "asp'suph", a mixed assemblage. This is the only use of this word in the entire OT. They have lustful desires, weeping out of their longing for the meat of Egypt. This is a stern rejection of the LORD's provision, that they would be weeping that they "only" have manna, which is provided for them supernaturally. It also shows an escalation of their complaining, that at first they complained there was no food, so the LORD gave them food. Then they complained they had no water, so the LORD gave them water. Now they are complaining that, while they have food, they do not have meat.
At this point, it leaves me wondering if they will ever stop complaining. One thing I have learned in my short life is that if a person is intent on complaining, he or she will always be able to find something to complain about, and I think that's the story here. To be sure, wandering through the Egyptian desert is a pretty harsh place, but they're not complaining about the desert, really. They are complaining about the manna, and by extension, God's treatment of them.
One other thing to keep in mind is the selective memory exhibited here; notice how swiftly the Israelites forget their oppression and how diligently they remember the few benefits of slavery. Literally one year ago the Israelites departed from 400 years of oppression and "bitter... hard labor" (Ex 1:14). The Israelites "sighed... cried out... because of their bondage...groaning" (Ex 2:23-24). And now, literally one year later, they are longing, lusting after their desire for the food that they ate in Egypt. It is stunning to think that they would willingly return to harsh slavery (and the mandatory murder of their sons, no less) in exchange for bread and meat, because they do not want to eat manna anymore.
There are a couple principles we can draw from this. The first is above, that an intent complainer will always complain. The second is that as people, we generally focus more on the bad things about the present. To wit, the Israelites are acutely aware of all of the negative things happening to them (no meat!), but they are completely ignoring or even actively complaining about the good things happening to them, like the supernatural food and water, the cloud of the LORD's presence, the tabernacle that goes amongst them, etc. They have an extremely unbalanced perspective on what is happening in their lives.
Lastly, this unbalanced perspective also applies to the past. About Egypt, they are acutely aware of the good things then (we ate bread and meat!), but they completely ignore the negatives like how the Egyptians would kill their sons, they were whipped or beaten, forced into slavery, etc. In particular they are focusing on the issue from which they are suffering now (namely, not having any meat) while ignoring the many other issues that have been alleviated by their redemption. They aren't getting beaten or whipped anymore, so they promptly forget that they ever were, and instead focus on their newest problem, disliking manna.
As an aside, this isn't the first time they have desired meat. Back in Ex 16, when they first complained about food and the LORD gave them both manna (for the rest of their journey) and meat (just on that occasion). They are now complaining about meat again, and this time the LORD is much less forgiving.
Moses, for his part, is definitely feeling the pressure because these complaints are largely directed at him (for instance, note how frequently Moses redirects the peoples' criticisms at the LORD, the Hebrews' divine sovereign: Ex 14:11-13, Ex 15:24, Ex 16:7-8, Ex 17:2-4). That's why Moses is complaining about not being able to "carry" the people, because all the people are basically expected Moses to take care of them and provide for them. In response, the LORD says he will take "the spirit" that Moses has and put it on 70 elders of the people, who we can presume would then be expected to help lead the nation.
This implies that there is some particular "spirit" upon Moses. Most bible translations will capitalize it, Spirit, to imply that it is the Holy Spirit. The NASB goes even further and personifies it, "the Spirit who is upon you". However, the Hebrew does not say that, it only says, "ruach", the typical word for spirit/breath/wind that we have seen many times before. Biblical Hebrew does not have capitalization at all, so all capitalized terms in an English bible are inserted by the translator of that bible, not in the underlying text. In this case, it's essentially a theological gloss where the translator is presuming the text refers to the Holy Spirit, and capitalizes accordingly.
So what is the spirit of Moses? Is it just some esprit de corps, some elan, that guides him in his zeal for the LORD, or is it a proper noun Spirit, like the spirit of God that rested upon Joseph while he was in Egypt? I think this question is answered later in this chapter, when the spirit is placed upon the 70 elders "and when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied." This is the first use of the word prophesied (Hebrew, "naba"). This opens a whole new can of worms: what is biblical prophecy, how is it formulated in the OT, and how does that relate to the spirit of Moses? Each of these questions deserves its own answer.
I have already partially addressed the subject of biblical prophecy back in Gen 49, when discussing the prophecy of Jacob. Now Jacob did not "naba", which is our first clue that what we are seeing here is a different kind of prophecy than Jacob's. Jacob's prophecy is poetic and it's future-predictive, very similar to what many people think "prophecy" is. "naba" is something very different. To be brief, "naba" is "to speak or sing while under divine inspiration". It is used specifically referring to a form of ecstatic worship or speech, although the precise nature of what is said is never revealed to us. That's how we generally know that it's not meant to be predictive, because we are not told what the elders said. It is more important for us to know that they "naba"ed than that they were prophesying anything in particular. So the subject of "naba" is debatable, whatever they might be speaking or singing. The critical element is that it is done under divine guidance, although not always the LORD. Sometimes in the OT there are false prophets who "naba". So the term is used of the form of speaking and prophesying, and not necessarily a validation that it is from the LORD. In this case, however, it is very clear that the LORD is inspiring his elders to "naba", to prophesy, as proof that they have the spirit that was on Moses.
This is further evidence that the spirit upon Moses was the spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, because genuine naba implies divine inspiration. I see this episode as being another extension of the "royal priesthood, holy nation" statement from Ex 19:6 which I have talked about a lot before. Most recently, I said that the semi-priesthood of the Levites was a move towards establishing the whole nation as a priesthood. Now we can see there is a parallel (but separate) extension of the prophetic ministry from Moses to a group of the nation's leaders. Most strikingly, when Joshua complains to Moses about Eldad and Medad prophesying in the camp, Moses wishes "that all the LORD's people were prophets, that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!"
Therefore the priesthood is only one of several tracks that Moses (and the LORD) wish to expand over the entire nation of Israel. Unlike the priesthood, the prophetic ministry remains much less tightly defined through the OT, as it never has a clear mandate and job description like the closely regulated sacrifice and festival system. Still, if there's one thing made clear by this chapter it is that true prophecy comes from the spirit of the LORD, which is interesting because the spirit of the LORD was first imparted to man when the LORD breathed life into Adam. So it's as if all of mankind, by the very act of creation, has some measure of the inspirational power and insight of the LORD. What does it mean for the LORD to "put his spirit" upon people if the LORD's spirit is what empowers us to live in the first place?
I don't think we have a clear answer to that question, nor does this chapter seem intent on giving us one. What we can deduce from this text would suggest there are different measures or different spirits which come from the LORD and are given to specific people at specific times. Everyone on the earth has the measure of the spirit of God that gives life and vitality to us all, but there was some special spirit upon Joseph (which empowered him to interpret dreams) and another spirit upon Moses, which is here imparted to the elders of Israel and enables them to "naba", but only once. We should understand that the spirit remained on the elders after prophesying, because the purpose of the spirit is to qualify them for leadership, taking on part of Moses's burden as the spiritual head of the nation. It's the same spirit, but it seems to have multiple roles in this case, which should not be surprising if it is indeed the spirit of God.
In parallel to all this stuff happening with the elders, the LORD has a separate message for the revolting assemblage, each weeping at his tent: he will send them an excess of meat until they are sick of meat, which almost sounds sarcastic, but at the end of the chapter he actually does it. With a certain degree of irony, the people immediately go out and gather all the quail they can and begin eating it now that it has been provided to them by the LORD whom they scorn, thanklessly. This seems very presumptive to me, and the LORD responds by sending a plague amongst the people when they begin eating. For more irony, note that after this the people stop complaining about meat, but begin complaining about other issues (which we will see in the next chapter). So once again, the nation is a recipient of the LORD's provision, at which point they immediately forget what the LORD has done for them and move on to complain about whatever is next on their agenda. Note that ten homers is a tremendous amount of meat, hence why it must be spread all around the camp (probably to be dried for storage?).
Something that fascinates me about this chapter while writing my commentary is how the sections describing the rebellion of the people are interleaved with the sections describing the spirit of God resting upon the elders of the nation. First the LORD tells Moses he will put the spirit on the elders, then he tells Moses about sending quail to the nation for a whole month. Then Moses goes out and tells the people the word of the LORD, and then he gathers the elders. Then the elders come in and are filled with the spirit, and then the LORD sends the quail. Reading the chapter in this way gives us a sense of the progressive development of the spirit resting on these elders, which in itself should be a joyful occasion and a blessing to the nation, but at the same time there is a brewing rebellion against Moses and the LORD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)