Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 20:14
And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us:
14. thy brother Israel ] Edom was a Semitic tribe, closely connected with Israel by blood. In Gen 25:21-26 Esau (= Edom) and Jacob (= Israel) are represented as twin brothers.
the travail ] lit. ‘the weariness’; the hardships of the long weary journey.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
14 21. Permission to pass through Edom refused.
The Edomites occupied territory to the south of the Dead Sea, westward as far as Kadesh ( Num 20:16) and southward as far as the eastern arm of the Red Sea (Num 21:4). The Israelites having failed long before to enter Canaan from the south, did not attempt it again (see, however, n. on Num 21:1-3), but proposed to enter it from the east. And if they could pass straight through Edom, their route would be greatly shortened. Edom’s refusal forced them to work round the south of the hostile country, and then northwards along its eastern border.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Compare the marginal reference. It appears from comparing Num 20:1 with Num 33:38, that the host must have remained in Kadesh some three or four months. No doubt time was required for re-organization. In order to gain the banks of Jordan by the shortest route they had to march nearly due east from Kadesh, and pass through the heart of the Edomite mountains. These are lofty and precipitous, traversed by two or three narrow defiles. Hence, the necessity of the request in Num 20:17.
Thy brother – An appeal to the Edomites to remember and renew the old kindnesses of Jacob and Esau Gen. 33:1-17.
It appears from Jdg 11:17 that a similar request was addressed to the Moabites.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Num 20:14-21
Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border.
A reasonable request, and an ungenerous refusal:—
I. A reasonable request.
1. Reasonable in itself.
2. Urged by forcible reasons.
(1) The relationship existing between them, Thy brother Israel.
(2) The sufferings which the Israelites had endured.
(3) The mercies which God had shown to Israel. The blessings which God had bestowed upon them should have been viewed–
(a) As an indication that it was His will that others should aid them.
(b) As an example to encourage others to aid them.
(c) As an indication of His favour towards them, which suggested that it was to the interest of others to aid them. It is perilous to resist those whom God defends; it is prudent to further their designs, &c.
(4) Because Israel would guarantee Edom against any loss.
II. An ungenerous refusal. This refusal of the Edomites probably arose from–
1. Fear that if they complied with the request of the Israelites the result might be injurious to them.
2. Envy at the growing power of Israel.
3. Remembrance of the ancient injury inflicted by Jacob upon Esau.
(1) Learn that no alienation is so wide and bitter as that between brethren or other near relations.
(2) Where such alienation exists, let us seek to bring about reconciliation–a complete healing of the breach.
(3) Cultivate brotherly kindness.
(4) Respect the rights of others even when the assertion of those rights is carried to an extreme. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border; wherefore Israel turned away from him. (W. Jones.)
Retribution consummated
Who pleads? Israel. To whom is the plea addressed? To a brother. How did the word brother come into the narrative? It came historically. We have here Jacob and Esau. Edom is the name by which Esau was known. Wherever we find the term Edom, our minds may instantly associate with it the history of Esau, and an action of Divine sovereignty in relation to that history. Jacob supplanted Esau, ran away in the night-time, met his brother at some distance of time afterwards, the brothers fell upon one anothers necks, kissed each other, and seemed to sink the infinite outrage in grateful and perpetual oblivion. Nothing of the kind. Life cannot be managed thus; things do not lie between man and man only. Herein is the difference between crime and sin. So Jacob and Esau come face to face throughout the ages. The supplanter cannot sponge out his miserable cunning and selfish deceit and unpardonable fraud. Jacob the individual dies, Esau the individual dies: but Jacob and Esau, as representing a great controversy, can never die: to the end of the chapter Edom will encounter Israel with deep and lasting animosity. So Esau had his turn. We pitied the hairy man as he was driven away portionless, without a blessing, his great heart full of sin no doubt, quivering with agony, for which there was no adequate expression in words; but in so far as he has been wronged he will see satisfaction and himself be satisfied. The supplanted family had a land when the supplanters descendants had only a wilderness. This is the law of Providence. Events are not measured within the compasses of the little day. The cunning man or the strong man, the oppressor or the wrong-doer, may have his victory to-day, and may smile upon it, and regard it with complacency, and receive the incense of adulation from persons who only see between sunrise and sundown. But the heavens are against him; he has to encounter the eternities, long time after his victory shall wither, and in his descendants his humiliation shall be consummated. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 14. Sent messengers – unto the king of Edom] Archbishop Usher supposes that the king now reigning in Edom was Hadar, mentioned Ge 36:39.
Thus saith thy brother Israel] The Edomites were the descendants of Edom or Esau, the brother of Jacob or Israel, from whom the Israelites were descended.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Moses sent messengers, by Gods direction, Deu 2:1-3
Thy brother; for was not Esau (who is Edom, Gen 36:1) Jacobs brother? Mal 1:2. All the travel; all the wanderings and afflictions of our parents, and of us their children, which doubtless have come to thine ears.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
14-16. Moses sent messengers . . .to the king of EdomThe encampment at Kadesh was on theconfines of the Edomite territory, through which the Israelites wouldhave had an easy passage across the Arabah by Wady-el-Ghuweir, sothat they could have continued their course around Moab, andapproached Palestine from the east [ROBERTS].The Edomites, being the descendants of Esau and tracing their line ofdescent from Abraham as their common stock, were recognized by theIsraelites as brethren, and a very brotherly message was sent tothem.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom,…. This country was sometimes governed by kings, and sometimes by “dukes”, see Ge 36:14. At the time of the passage of the Israelites through the Red sea, we read of the dukes of Edom, Ex 15:15, and here, thirty nine years after, of a king of Edom, but who he was is not certain. Bishop Usher takes him to be the same with Hadar, the last of the race of kings mentioned in Ge 36:39, to him Moses sent messengers with a request, which follows after a preamble to it; who were the messengers is not said; the place from whence they were sent is Kadesh, a city on the borders of the land of Edom; but not Kadeshbarnea, Aben Ezra says, though some are of opinion it is the same, see Nu 20:1:
thus saith thy brother Israel; the Israelites and Edomites springing from two men, Jacob and Esau, who were twin brothers, and is observed to ingratiate themselves to the Edomites, and gain their request, pleading relation to them:
thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us; what an uncomfortable condition they had been in for many years, which was well known to Edom, a neighbouring country, as is reasonable to suppose; since the fame of the children of Israel coming out of Egypt, passing through the Red sea, and being so long in the wilderness, was spread everywhere; this was said to move their pity.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Message of the Israelites to the King of Edom. – As Israel was about to start from Kadesh upon its march to Canaan, but wished to enter it from the east across the Jordan, and not from the south, where the steep and lofty mountain ranges presented obstacles which would have been difficult to overcome, if not quite insuperable, Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, to solicit from the kindred nation a friendly and unimpeded passage through their land. He reminded the king of the relationship of Israel, of their being brought down to Egypt, of the oppression they had endured there, and their deliverance out of the land, and promised him that they would not pass through fields and vineyards, nor drink the water of their wells, but keep to the king’s way, without turning to the right hand or the left, and thus would do no injury whatever to the land (Num 20:14-16).
(Note: We learn from Jdg 11:17, that Israel sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Moab also, and with a similar commission, and that he also refused to grant the request for an unimpeded passage through his land. This message is passed over in silence here, because the refusal of the Moabites had no influence upon the further progress of the Israelites. “For if they could not pass through Edom, the permission of the Moabites would not help them at all. It was only eventualiter that they sought this permission.” – Hengstenberg, Diss.)
By the “angel” who led Israel out of Egypt we are naturally to understand not the pillar of cloud and fire ( Knobel), but the angel of the Lord, the visible revealer of the invisible God, whom the messengers describe indefinitely as “an angel,” when addressing the Edomites. Kadesh is represented in Num 20:16 as a city on the border of the Edomitish territory. The reference is to Kadesh-Barnea (Num 32:8; Num 34:4; Deu 1:2, Deu 1:19; Deu 2:14; Deu 9:23; Jos 10:41; Jos 14:6-7; Jos 15:3). This city was no doubt situated quite in the neighbourhood of Ain Kudes, the well of Kadesh, discovered by Rowland. This well was called En-mishpat, the fountain of judgment, in Abraham’s time (Gen 14:7); and the name Kadesh occurs first of all on the first arrival of the Israelites in that region, in the account of the events which took place there, as being the central point of the place of encampment, the “ desert of Paran,” or “desert of Zin” (cf. Num 13:26 with Num 13:21, and Num 12:16). And even on the second arrival of the congregation in that locality, it is not mentioned till after the desert of Zin (Num 20:1); whilst the full name Kadesh-Barnea is used by Moses for the first time in Num 32:8, when reminding the people of those mournful occurrences in Kadesh in Num 13 and 14. The conjecture is therefore a very natural one, that the place in question received the name of Kadesh first of all from that tragical occurrence (Num 14), or possibly from the murmuring of the congregation on account of the want of water, which led Moses and Aaron to sin, so that the Lord sanctified ( ) Himself upon them by a judgment, because they had not sanctified Him before the children of Israel (Num 20:12 and Num 20:13); that Barnea was the older or original name of the town, which was situated in the neighbourhood of the “water of strife,” and that this name was afterwards united with Kadesh, and formed into a composite noun. If this conjecture is a correct one, the name Kadesh is used proleptically, not only in Gen 14:7, as a more precise definition of En-Mishpat, but also in Gen 16:14; Gen 20:1; and Num 13:26, and Num 20:1; and there is no lack of analogies for this. It is in this too that we are probably to seek for an explanation of the fact, that in the list of stations in Num 33 the name Kadesh does not occur in connection with the first arrival of the congregation in the desert of Zin, but only in connection with their second arrival (v. 36), and that the place of encampment on their first arrival is called Rithmah, and not Barnea, because the headquarters of the camp were in the Wady Retemath, not at the town of Barnea, which was farther on in the desert of Zin. The expression “ town of the end of thy territory ” is not to be understood as signifying that the town belonged to the Edomites, but simply affirms that it was situated on the border of the Edomitish territory. The supposition that Barnea was an Edomitish town is opposed by the circumstance that, in Num 34:4, and Jos 15:3, it is reckoned as part of the land of Canaan; that in Jos 10:41 it is mentioned as the southernmost town, where Joshua smote the Canaanites and conquered their land; and lastly, that in Jos 15:23 it is probably classed among the towns allotted to the tribe of Judah, from which it seems to follow that it must have belonged to the Amorites. “The end of the territory” of the king of Edom is to be distinguished from “the territory of the land of Edom” in Num 20:23. The land of Edom extended westwards only as far as the Arabah, the low-lying plain, which runs from the southern point of the Dead Sea to the head of the Elanitic Gulf. At that time, however, the Edomites had spread out beyond the Arabah, and taken possession of a portion of the desert of Paran belonging to the peninsula of Sinai, which was bounded on the north by the desert of Zin (see at Num 34:3). By their not drinking of the water of the wells (Num 20:17), we are to understand, according to Num 20:19, their not making use of the wells of the Edomites either by violence or without compensation. The “king’s way” is the public high road, which was probably made at the cost of the state, and kept up for the king and his armies to travel upon, and is synonymous with the “sultan-road” ( Derb es Sultan) or “emperor road,” as the open, broad, old military roads are still called in the East (cf. Robinson, Pal. ii. 340; Seetzen, i. pp. 61, 132, ii. pp. 336, etc.).
This military road led, no doubt, as Leake has conjectured ( Burckhardt, Syr. pp. 21, 22), through the broad Wady el Ghuweir, which not only forms a direct and easy passage to the level country through the very steep mountains that fall down into the Arabah, but also a convenient road through the land of Edom (Robinson, ii. pp. 552, 583, 610), and is celebrated for its splendid meadows, which are traceable to its many springs ( Burckhardt, pp. 688, 689); for the broad Wady Murreh runs from the northern border of the mountain-land of Azazimeh, not only as far as the mountain of Moddera (Madurah), where it is divided, but in its southern half as far as the Arabah. This is very likely the “ great route through broad wadys,” which the Bedouins who accompanied Rowland assured him “was very good, and led direct to Mount Hor, but with which no European traveller was acquainted” ( Ritter’s Erdk. xiv. p. 1088). It probably opens into the Arabah at the Wady el Weibeh, opposite to the Wady Ghuweir.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Ambassadors Sent to Edom. | B. C. 1452. |
14 And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us: 15 How our fathers went down into Egypt, and we have dwelt in Egypt a long time; and the Egyptians vexed us, and our fathers: 16 And when we cried unto the LORD, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and hath brought us forth out of Egypt: and, behold, we are in Kadesh, a city in the uttermost of thy border: 17 Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country: we will not pass through the fields, or through the vineyards, neither will we drink of the water of the wells: we will go by the king’s high way, we will not turn to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed thy borders. 18 And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass by me, lest I come out against thee with the sword. 19 And the children of Israel said unto him, We will go by the high way: and if I and my cattle drink of thy water, then I will pay for it: I will only, without doing any thing else, go through on my feet. 20 And he said, Thou shalt not go through. And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand. 21 Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him.
We have here the application made by Israel to the Edomites. The nearest way to Canaan from the place where Israel now lay encamped was through the country of Edom. Now,
I. Moses sends ambassadors to treat with the king of Edom for leave to pass through his country, and gives them instructions what to say, v. 14-17. 1. They are to claim kindred with the Edomites: Thus saith thy brother Israel. Both nations descended from Abraham and Isaac, their common ancestors; Esau and Jacob, the two fathers of their respective nations, were twin-brothers; and therefore, for relation-sake, they might reasonably expect this kindness from them; nor needed the Edomites to fear that their brother Israel had any ill design upon them, or would take any advantages against them. 2. They are to give a short account of the history and present state of Israel, which, they take it for granted, the Edomites were no strangers to. And in this there was a double plea:– (1.) Israel had been abused by the Egyptians, and therefore ought to be pitied and succoured by their relations: “The Egyptians vexed us and our fathers, but we may hope our brethren the Edomites will not be so vexatious.” (2.) Israel had been wonderfully saved by the Lord, and therefore ought to be countenanced and favoured (v. 16): “We cried unto the Lord, and he sent an angel, the angel of his presence, the angel of the covenant, the eternal Word, who had brought us forth out of Egypt, and led us hither.” It was therefore the interest of the Edomites to ingratiate themselves with a people that had so great an interest in heaven and were so much its favourites, and it was at their peril if they offered them any injury. It is our wisdom and duty to be kind to those whom God is pleased to own, and to take his people for our people. Come in, thou blessed of the Lord. 3. They are humbly to beg a passport through their country. Though God himself, in the pillar of cloud and fire, was Israel’s guide, in following which they might have justified their passing through any man’s ground against all the world, yet God would have this respect paid to the Edomites, to show that no man’s property ought to be invaded under colour of religion. Dominion is founded in providence, not in grace. Thus when Christ was to pass through a village of the Samaritans, to whom his coming was likely to be offensive, he sent messengers before his face to ask leave, Luke ix. 52. Those that would receive kindness must not disdain to request it. 4. They are to give security for the good behaviour of the Israelites in this march, that they would keep in the king’s high road, that they would commit no trespass upon any man’s property, either in ground or water, that they would not so much as make use of a well without paying for it, and that they would make all convenient speed, as fast as they could well go on their feet, Num 20:17; Num 20:19. Nothing could be offered more fair and neighbourly.
II. The ambassadors returned with a denial, v. 18. Edom, that is, the king of Edom, as protector of his country, said, Thou shalt not pass by me; and, when the ambassadors urged it further, he repeated the denial (v. 20) and threatened, if they offered to enter his country, it should be at their peril; he raised his trained bands to oppose them. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage. This was owing, 1. To their jealousy of the Israelites; they feared they should receive promises. And truly, had this numerous army been under any other discipline and command than that of the righteous God himself, who would no more suffer them to do wrong than to take wrong, there might have been cause for this jealousy; but what could they fear from a nation that had statutes and judgments so righteous? 2. It was owing to the old enmity which Esau bore to Israel. If they had no reason to fear damage by them, yet they were not willing to show so much kindness to them. Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing, and now the hatred revived, when the blessing was ready to be inherited. God would hereby discover the ill-nature of the Edomites to their shame, and try the good-nature of the Israelites to their honour: they turned away from him, and did not take this occasion to quarrel with him. Note, We must not think it strange if the most reasonable requests be denied by unreasonable men, and if those be affronted by men whom God favours. I as a deaf man heard not. After this indignity which the Edomites offered to Israel God gave them a particular caution not to abhor an Edomite (Deut. xxiii. 7), though the Edomites had shown such an abhorrence of them, to teach us in such cases not to meditate revenge.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 14-17:
Moses abandoned plans to invade Palestine from the south. This was likely because of Israel’s refusal earlier to enter the Land from that route. He chose instead a circuitous route, far more difficult and dangerous than the original one. This is a reminder that when one refuses to follow God’s directives, the alternative is often marked by far greater difficulties.
Moses requested permission from the king of Edom for Israel to pass through his territory. He promised that they would not deviate from the main route, that Israel would not take any food nor water from the country along their way.
Moses’ appeal was based upon two considerations:
1. The mutual kinship of Edom and Israel, both being descendants of Abraham and Isaac.
2. The natural kindness which should be shown to those who suffer unjustly and greatly, as had Israel in Egypt and in their journeys.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
14. And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh. His first narrative does not explain the cause of the embassy, but from the account in Deuteronomy it is plain float peace (113) was sought for from the Edomites as brethren by the command of God. God, therefore, prescribes the conditions of peace and war; lest the Israelites should rashly attack ally, who were not to be reckoned enemies, although they might act towards them with little humanity. Undoubtedly this would seem hard to His people that they were to leave a country, which was close to them, untouched, and to seek a more distant place of abode. But God restrains their impatience for a twofold reason; first, because it was unjust and by no means humane to assail their kindred; and both these nations were descended from Isaac, and their original ancestors were twin brothers. Circumcision, too, was common to them both, a mark of their being’ of the same origin, and a bond of fraternal connection. But the other reason ought to have had more weight in restraining them, because it was unlawful to cast the children of Esau out of the possession, which they had obtained by a similar right as that whereby the land of Canaan had been promised to the posterity of Jacob. If, therefore, they desired to enjoy their own inheritance, the decree was not to be violated which God had pronounced by the mouth of Isaac, (Gen 27:39😉 especially since Esau the founder of the race (of the Edomites) had fixed his home in Mount Seir by the secret inspiration of God, and to that place had his posterity beck confined. God, therefore, now admonishes them that it would have been an act of sacrilegious audacity, if the Israelites should attempt to overthrow the prophecy of Isaac, by which Esau had been declared the possessor of a rich and fertile soil.
(113) “Sauf conduit, et amitie;” safe conduct and friendship. — Fr.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
Num 20:14
. Thou knowest all the travel that hath befallen us. This preface was well calculated to conciliate favor, when the sons of Jacob, descended from the same blood, familiarly approached the Edomites: for their connection ought to have rendered them hospitable. But there are two principal points whereby Moses endeavored to influence the mind of the king of Edom, so that he should grant them a passage through his dominions. The first is derived from the ordinary feelings of humanity; for nature dictates that aid should be extended to the wretched, who are unjustly oppressed. In this view, he says, that the afflictions which they had endured were notorious; viz., that as sojourners in Egypt they had been tyrannically harassed and oppressed. In saying that “the Egyptians vexed us and our fathers,” although they were not, at that time, endowed with capacity for estimating the injuries inflicted upon them (114) yet it is not without reason that they complain that these injuries had been inflicted on themselves, which affected their whole body and name, especially since the final act of cruelty directly concerned them, when Pharaoh commanded all the male infants to be destroyed. The second argument is more effective: since nothing can be less in accordance with propriety than to deny our assistance to those whoso welfare God recommends to us by His own example. In order, then, that they may obtain help from their brethren, they make mention of the grace of God, which at that time might have been everywhere celebrated. When, therefore, this message is given to their ambassadors, We cried unto the Lord, who hath heard us, their design was to exhort the Edomites to be imitators of God, who had been merciful in delivering His people. If any should object that the cry of the people had not been praiseworthy, as not having arisen from a true and sincere faith, nor from a serious feeling of the heart, the reply is easy. that the Israelites were not here boasting of any merit of their own, as if they had prayed duly and perfectly, but that they were simply professing their innocence, since they could not have had recourse to God, unless they had been unjustly oppressed. The fact, then, that God had heard them, had the effect of commending their cause. They prove, however, from the result, that God was their deliverer: because their exodus had been incredible; although this point is but lightly touched upon.
Their notion is a poor one, who understand Moses by “the angel:” since by this name they unquestionably magnify the miracles which God had wrought. (115) Now, although the angels encamp around the servants of God — and it is certain that many angels had been the ministers of the people’s safety — still they especially designate, as the angel, Him who had been often before called Jehovah, and in whom the, majesty of God perfectly shone forth. Paul, however, teaches that he was Christ. (1Co 10:4.)
(114) “Ils prennent sur eux les injures qui avoyent este faites devant qu’ils les peussents sentir, n’estans point encore nez, ou estans petits enfans;” they take upon themselves the injuries which had been done before they could feel them, not being yet born, or being but little children. — Fr.
(115) C. found in S’.M. that Rabbi Salomon interpreted the ambiguous word מלאך, messenger, here, instead of angel; and said that the messenger was Moses. — W.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
C. PASSAGE REFUSED THROUGH EDOM vv. 1421
TEXT
Num. 20:14. And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us: 15. How our fathers went down into Egypt, and we have dwelt in Egypt a long time; and the Egyptians vexed us, and our fathers: 16. And when we cried unto the Lord, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and hath brought us forth out of Egypt: and, behold, we are in Kadesh, a city in the uttermost of thy border. 17. Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country: we will not pass through the fields, or through the vineyards, neither will we drink of the water of the wells: we will go by the kings high way, we will not turn to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed thy borders. 18. And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass by me, lest I come out against thee with the sword. 19. And the children of Israel said unto him, We will go by the high way: and if I and my cattle drink of thy water, then I will pay for it: I will only, without doing any thing else, go through on my feet. 20. And he said, Thou shalt not go through. And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand. 21. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him.
PARAPHRASE
Num. 20:14. Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, Thus says your brother Israel, You know all the difficulty which has come upon us: 15. how our fathers went down into Egypt, and we lived in Egypt a long time. Egypt treated us badly, as well as our fathers. 16. When we cried to the Lord, He heard our voice, sent an angel, and brought us out of Egypt; and, lo, we are in Kadesh, a city on the edge of your territory. 17. Let us pass through your country, I pray you. We will not pass through the fields nor through the vineyards, nor will we drink of the water of your wells. We will go by the Kings Highway; we will not turn to the right or to the left until we have passed through your country. 18. But Edom replied to him, You shall not pass through me lest I come out with the sword against you. 19. And the children of Israel said to him, We will go by the highway. And if I or my cattle drink any of your water, I will pay for it. I will do no damage; just let me pass through on foot only. 20. But he said, You shall not pass through. And Edom came out against him with many people and a strong force. 21. In this way Edom refused to allow Israel passage through his border; so Israel turned him away.
COMMENTARY
When the Israelites refused to enter the land of Canaan the first time they came to the region of Kadesh, they were turned away from Kadesh by the warring Amalekites and Canaanites (Num. 14:45). This may be the reason they now choose not to enter Canaan from the souththe direct routechoosing instead the long march around the south of the Dead Sea and an approach from east of the Jordan. Because Moses does not consult the Lord in the decision, it is safe to assume that he had already been informed that the march would follow such a route.
Even without the detour required around the borders of Edom, going from Kadesh to Jericho via the southern route involved prolonging the trip extensively, through much more formidable territory. But it was a wiser choice than a confrontation with their previous enemies. Such a route required the permission of the king of Edom, through whose territory the large troupe must pass. The Edomites knew of the general circumstances (Num. 20:14), since news of their origin and travels must certainly have spread throughout all adjacent lands. When Moses recites the history briefly, it is a polite prelude to a fair proposal. He asks permission for his people to pass through Edom without imposing hardship of any kind upon the residents. The population of Edom was never large, and the country had little tillable land. The Israelites might have consumed their resources in a relatively short time. Reassurance that the people would take nothing from field, vineyard, or even the wells should have allayed any fears. It was a strong promise, and perhaps the Edomite king thought enforcement of the pledge, however sincerely given, was impossible.
Not wishing to incur the wrath of the king, nor to engage his forces in battle, Moses is compelled to agree to a detour. Even the pledge to stay on the trade route, and to reimburse the Edomites for any items consumed, even for any water, is fruitless. The adamant stand of the king might well account in part for later feelings of antipathy between the two peoples. The march turns again, and an additional 200 miles is imposed upon them.
QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH ITEMS
357.
What reasons possibly explain why the Israelites did not move directly north from Kadesh into the land of Canaan?
358.
Consult a good map, and estimate the additional distance the tribes were required to travel when they were refused permission to pass through Edom.
359.
How might the Edomites have heard the story of the history of Israels servitude and delivery from Egypt?
360.
Why was the proposed trip through Edom a potentially disastrous event for the Edomites? What safeguards did Moses offer?
361.
Of what was the king of Edom actually afraid?
362.
Trace the genealogical lines of the Israelites and the Edomites to find their relationship.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(14) And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh . . . The date of the occurrence related in this and the following verses is not stated. It might be inferred frem Jdg. 11:16-17 that the message to the Kings of Edom and Moab was sent soon after the exodus, and that it was in consequence of their refusal that the sojourn in Kadesh was prolonged: And (or, So) Israel abode in Kadesh (Jdg. 11:17). The account, however, is too summary to admit of any certain inference in regard to time. No difficulty is involved in the fact that Edom is represented in Genesis 36 as being governed by dukes, or chiefs (alluphim), whilst in this place we read of a king. It is possible that the form of government may have been changed, or, as in the case of the rulers of Midian, the same persons who in one place are described as kings may, in another place, be described as dukes, duces, or leaders. Comp. Num. 31:8, where the five rulers of Midian are described as kings, with Jos. 13:21, where the same persons are described as princes or chiefs.
Thus saith thy brother Israel.The Edomites, as the descendants of Esau, who received the name of Edom (Gen. 25:30), were closely connected with the descendants of Jacob.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
A PASSAGE THROUGH EDOM REQUESTED AND REFUSED, Num 20:14-21.
Here we have the first intimation that the original purpose of entering Canaan by the direct route had been abandoned for the circuitous way east of the Dead Sea. Jehovah commanded this flank movement against the enemy to be made, as we learn from Deu 2:1-6. The advantages of this movement were: (1) the encouragement of the people by their victories over their trans-Jordanic foes, who failing to unite were easily conquered in detail, and (2) the gaining of a foothold in the valley of the Jordan as a base of operations against western Palestine.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
14. Moses sent messengers There is no proof that this message was commanded by the Lord, though it may be inferred from Deu 2:1-6.
Edom The territory formerly called Mount Seir. In later times it was known as Idumea. It extended southward as far as Elath, its only seaport, on the eastern arm of the Red Sea. On the east it was bounded by the great Arabian Desert, and on the north by the Dead Sea. Its western boundary is involved in the dispute relative to the location of Kadesh. See Num 20:16, note. A right of way was also requested of Moab, probably at the same time. See Jdg 11:17-18, note.
Thy brother Israel Edom was a kindred nation. “The Lord would have the brotherly relation cheerfully acknowledged on the part of his people, as they both looked to a common ancestor in Isaac, and both inherited the rite of circumcision, which would naturally be a bond of fraternal connexion. By this fraternal appeal to Moab, Moses sought to obtain the king of Moab’s permission to pass through his territory. He acted herein in the spirit of the precept, “Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother.” Deuteronomy xxiii, 7. Bush.
Travail Distress. See Exo 18:8, note. The message assumes a perfect acquaintance thus far with the history of Israel on the part of Edom. This is not strange considering the nearness of Edom to Egypt, their commercial intercourse, and the marvels which had attended the outgoing of Israel from this house of bondage.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2). The Appeal to Edom ( Num 20:14-21 ).
The incident at Meribah was followed by an appeal to Edom to be allowed to use the King’s Highway through their territory. Compare here Deu 2:4-8. The march on Yahweh’s land had begun in earnest. But in the event they were required to skirt the territory and were not allowed through. God’s presence with His people was not a guarantee that they would face no problems, only that He would help them to overcome them in one way or the other. The reference to Kadesh being on the borders of Edom would support the idea that this was a different Kadesh (‘holy place’) from Kadesh-barnea as the latter was in the heart of the Negeb.
This incident was firstly a reminder to Israel of the obstacles that lay ahead. They had to recognise that they were not going to be welcomed in their project. Even a brother tribe refused them assistance. It would be tougher later. But secondly it stressed to Israel that they were not there as aggressors and seekers of spoil. The Canaanites (including the Amorites) were there for the taking for Yahweh’s judgment was coming on them. But with neighbouring tribes they were to seek peace not aggression. This was stressed in Deuteronomy 2 in respect of Edom, Moab and Ammon.
All Christians have to face constant attack. Sometimes, as here, the way to fight it is to avoid the place of testing, and go around it. ‘Abstain from every form of evil’ (1Th 5:22). ‘Flee youthful desires’ (1 Timothy 2:22). In the battle of the flesh avoidance is often a primary weapon. At other times when the battle is in the mind flight is of little use, then we have to stand and fight, ‘take to you the whole armour of God that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand’ (Eph 6:13), just as Israel would be required to stand against the enemies of God, against Arad and the Canaanites (Num 21:1-3). In the battle of the mind we cannot flee, but must stand firm on the promises of God, as Jesus did during His temptations.
Analysis.
a Moses’ request to be allowed through peaceably (Num 20:14-17).
b Edom’s refusal and threat (Num 20:18).
c Israel try again and lay out terms of passage (Num 20:19).
b Edom still refuses and make clear their threat (Num 20:20).
a The request being refused, Israel turn away peaceably (Num 20:21).
The Request To Be Allowed Through Peaceably ( Num 20:14-17 ).
Num 20:14-15
‘And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, Thus says your brother Israel, You know all the trouble that has befallen us, how our fathers went down into Egypt, and we dwelt in Egypt a long time, and the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and our fathers.’
It was to Moses’ credit that having learned that he himself would not be allowed to enter the land there was no hint of his refusing to go forward so as to bring God’s people there. We are probably to see from this that he recognised how grievously he had been at fault. He had learned the lesson of obedience. It would mean that his usefulness could continue. Indeed that lesson came in useful in this next incident. Without it he might well have smitten Edom with the rod of God. But he had learned obedience.
Here (at God’s command – Deu 2:2-7) he sent messengers to Edom with just that advance in mind. Note the contrast of the description here with Num 20:5. This description was the truer picture of what life in Egypt had been like.
The words in which Moses expressed his request were typical of a diplomatic letter of the time as witnessed at El Amarna, Alalakh and Mari. It was addressed to the king of Edom, contained the formula ‘thus says’ (compare Num 22:16), provided the identity of the sender, claimed kinship, outlined their problem, and made a plea for response.
He pointed out that Israel were brothers to Edom (Jacob was Esau’s brother, and Esau had established himself in Edom), and reminded them that Canaan was their real home. They were not coming to make trouble. They were going home. They had a right to be on the way there. He also sought to draw on Edom’s sympathy by reminding them how Israel had, as they well knew, suffered in Egypt, and how they had been treated. This knowledge of what Edom was aware of may well suggest that he knew that the two tribal groups had maintained contact with each other through the years.
His words are also an almost incidental confirmation of what we know of Israel’s history, and are in conformity with the Exodus account. They ring true.
Num 20:16
‘And when we cried to Yahweh, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and brought us forth out of Egypt. And, behold, we are in Kadesh, a city in the furthest extent of your border.’
Moses’ aim was to indicate why they, with such a large force, were almost on Edom’s borders, and explained precisely where they were camped. He knew that Edomite scouts would already have reported back their presence. He wanted it known that they had no ill intent. They were there because Yahweh had heard their pleas, and had sent His angel (ml‘k – a messenger) to bring them out of Egypt. They were thus there on Yahweh’s instructions. His message also contained the gentle hint that not to assist them would be to go against Yahweh. And all knew what that entailed for news of His activities would have gone before them (Exo 15:14-16; Num 14:14; Jos 2:9).
Num 20:17
‘Let us pass, I pray you, through your land. We will not pass through field or through vineyard, neither will we drink of the water of the wells. We will go along the king’s highway. We will not turn aside to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed your border.’
So he made the reasonable plea that they be allowed to pass along the King’s Highway. That was a recognised trade route that led through Edom towards the land on the east of the Jordan and up towards Damascus. Its length was marked by early bronze age settlements and fortresses, some of which are know to have been occupied at this time. It was called the King’s Highway, partly because it was the way used by travelling kings and was suitable for the travel of larger bodies of people.
He promised that while passing along it Israel would be totally circumspect. They would use their own provisions and would not trespass on Edomite property or springs. They would pass right through Edom without straying right or left.
Edom’s Refusal and Threat ( Num 20:18 ).
Num 20:18
‘And Edom said to him, You shall not pass through me, lest I come out with the sword against you.’
Edom’s reply was a firm ‘no’. If they did seek to pass through they would be met with the sword. Edom’s armies would positively resist them. Edom were taking no chances with such a large body of people.
Patiently Israel Tried Again and Laid Out The Terms of Peaceable Passage ( Num 20:19 ).
Num 20:19
‘And the children of Israel said to him, We will go up by the highway; and if we drink of your water, I and my cattle, then will I give its price. Let me only, without doing anything else, pass through on my feet.’
The messengers were again sent to the king of Edom, on behalf of the whole of Israel. But the change to the first person indicates the hand of Moses. The promise was repeated that they would go through peaceably, and it was added that they would pay for anything that they required. All they wanted was passage through.
Edom Still Refuse and Make Clear Their Threat ( Num 20:20 )
Num 20:20
‘And he said, You shall not pass through. And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand.’
The king of Edom again refused permission, but recognising that his refusal might result in warlike action from the advancing host, moved to his borders with a display of strength, at the points where he knew they might make the attempt. If they wanted to come through, they would have to fight every step of the way. With its mountain passes Edom was fairly easy to defend in that area.
The Request Being Refused, Israel Turned Away Peaceably ( Num 20:21 )
Num 20:21
‘Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border, for which reason Israel turned away from him.’
Moses was clearly determined not to antagonise a related tribe. He possibly recognised how sensible it would be to maintain good relations with those who lived on the borders of Canaan. They would not want them interfering during the invasion. Furthermore he was under Yahweh’s strict instructions (Deu 2:4-6). And he had learned at Meribah that he must not misuse the rod of Yahweh. War would be a waste of time as Israel were forbidden to occupy the land of a brother tribe, a tribe who themselves had received the land from Yahweh. By this the point was got over to the people that the land that Yahweh did wish them to occupy was specific and fixed. They were there on Yahweh’s business. They should therefore receive a certain amount of assurance from the fact that Yahweh had previously given land in the area, whose inhabitants were still in safe occupation of it, and were protected by Him.
Thus Moses was recognising (and being made to recognise) that they were not there as aggressors to take into possession any land they liked, but were there under the command of God to take only the land that He had given them.
However, the blunt statement in Num 20:21 contains a double entendre. Had Edom been more helpful it might have made a great difference to relations in the future. As it was Israel ‘turned away from Edom’. The opportunity of a lasting friendship had been lost so that later Israel would have no hesitation in invading Edom (Num 24:18). But in the context the main point was that they did not seek to force their way through. They took another route. Note how the historicity of this whole incident is confirmed in Jdg 11:16-18.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Refusal of the Edomites to Grant Israel Passage.
v. 14. And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, v. 15. how our fathers went down into Egypt, and we have dwelt in Egypt a long time; and the Egyptians vexed us and our fathers; v. 16. and when we cried unto the Lord, He heard our voice and sent an Angel, v. 17. let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country; we will not pass through the fields or through the vineyards, v. 18. And Edom, v. 19. And the children of Israel, v. 20. And he said, Thou shalt not go through. v. 21. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border; wherefore Israel turned away from him.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Num 20:14. And Moses sent messengers The kingdom of Edom, founded by the posterity of Esau, was originally governed by dukes; Gen 36:15 but at this time it was governed by kings. The learned Usher is of opinion, that the king, to whom Moses now sent, was Hadar, the same with him mentioned Gen 36:39. He adds, that God punished the inhumanity of the nation towards the Israelites by shortly destroying this monarch, and causing the kingdom of the Edomites to revert to a ducal government; because Moses, who after this wrote, or retouched, the Book of Genesis, mentions several dukes who reigned together, immediately after the death of Hadar. See Usher’s Chronol. Sacr. cap. 11: However this might be, it was by the divine direction that Moses sent messengers to Edom. See Shuckford’s Connection, b. 12: vol. 3: p. 247. The expression, thy brother Israel, refers to the two brothers, founders of the two nations, Jacob and Esau.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
FOURTH DIVISION
FROM KADESH ONWARD FROM THE DEPARTURE TO THE SETTLEMENT IN THE PLAINS OF MOAB
Num 20:14 to Num 22:1
FIRST SECTION:
From Kadesh to Mount Hor (Num 20:14 to Num 21:3). The King of Edom. The refusal of the request for a passage. The death of Aaron at Mount Hor. The expedition against the king of Arad.
A.THE KING OF EDOM. THE REFUSAL OF A PASSAGE
Num 20:14Num 21:3
14And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy 15 brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath 12befallen us: How our fathers went down into Egypt, and we have dwelt in Egypt a long time; and the Egyptians vexed us, and our fathers: 16And when we cried unto the Lord, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and hath brought us forth out of Egypt: and, behold, we are in Kadesh, a city in the uttermost of thy border. 17Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country: we will not pass through the fields, or through the vineyards, neither will we drink of the water of the wells: we will go by the kings high way, we will not turn to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed thy borders. 18And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass by me, lest I come out against thee with the sword. 19And the children of Israel said unto him, We will go by the high way: and if I and my cattle drink of thy water, then I will pay for it: I will only, without doing any thing else, go through on my feet. 20And he said, Thou shalt not go through. And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand. 21Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him.
B.THE DEATH OF AARON AT MOUNT HOR. Num 20:22-29
22And the children of Israel, even the whole congregation, journeyed from Kadesh, 23and came unto mount Hor. And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in mount Hor, by the coast of the land of Edom, saying, 24Aaron shall be gathered unto his people: for he shall not enter into the land which I have given unto the children 25of Israel, because ye rebelled against my word at the water of Meribah. Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up unto mount Hor: 26And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there. 27And Moses did as the Lord commanded: and they went up into mount Hor in the sight of all the congregation. 28And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there in the top of the mount: and Moses and Eleazar came down from the mount. 29And when all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, they mourned for Aaron thirty days, even all the house of Israel.
C.THE EXPEDITION AGAINST THE KING OF ARAD. Num 21:1-3.
1And when king Arad the Canaanite, which dwelt in the south, heard tell that Israel came by the way of the spies; then he fought against Israel, and took some of them prisoners. 2And Israel vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities. 3And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Num 20:14. [The travail. De Wette: hardship. Bunsen: calamity, sorrow].
Num 20:15. [Heb., treat ill, afflict.A. G.].
Num 20:19. a raised road. Causeway used by the king for military purposes.
Num 20:19. [Surely it is nothing. See Exeget. Note, and comp. Gen 20:11.A G.].
Num 20:20. Lange; mighty. E. V.: better.
Num 20:24. Lit. mouth.
Num 20:29. [Omit when; insert and before they.A. G.].
Num 21:1. [Lange: The Canaanite, king of Arad.A. G.].
Num 21:1. [Lange: Way of Atharim. But there are no traces of any place bearing this name. The etymology is in favor of the rendering in our version; and the allusion to the tracks in places of the spies would be natural to one writing to Hebrew readers.A. G.]
Num 21:2. Put or bring them under a ban. Hence the name of the place Hormah: ban.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
A. The King of Edom, Num 20:14-21
Israel had made the fruitless effort to penetrate the south of Canaan from the northern part of the Arabian desert, and indeed directly from Kadesh-Barnea (Num 14:40 et seq.). They had, after their despondent outbreak and rebellion, and before the failure in their attempt, received direction to proceed by another wayby the way of the Red Sea, Num 14:25. The idea that avoiding the difficult southern border of Palestine, they should turn to the east, lay enclosed in this direction. But the idea was not fruitful, and the undertaking was delayed until near the close of the forty years. The literal interpretation of this passage, as also of the words Num 14:1, has led to those long lines upon the maps which were supposed to indicate the march of the Israelites from Kadesh-Barnea to the Red Sea, and then from the Red Sea back again to Kadesh, with the purpose of immediately returning again to the Red Sea. It is another thing entirely, if we suppose that from their settlement at Kadesh-Barnea, they migrated in all directions seeking pasturage for their herds.13 But now the lapse of time itself warns them to depart. Two routes lie open to them; the one direct through the land of the Edomites, the other long and circuitous, stretching around and eastward of Edom. Even the first route would have led them, at least in their departure, in the direction of the Red Sea, especially if they wished to pass at a distance from the capital, Petra. The land of the Edomites was the mountain region east of the Arabah (in its restricted meaning) or of the deep depression between the Dead Sea, and the Ailanitic gulf of the Red Sea, including also the Arabah itself. When Knobel says that it extends also some distance to the west of the Arabah, this could only have been true east of Kadesh-Barnea, for otherwise the Israelites would have had to pass through Edomitish territory, as they moved toward the Red Sea.14 Kadesh certainly (Num 20:16) lay upon the border of Edom. Mount Hor, too, (Num 20:23) to which they came first after their departure, was by the coasts or borders of Edom. But in the way to the Red Sea, they might pass almost entirely around the land of Edom, if a peaceable passage through it was refused them. Even then, however, they must have crossed the boundaries of Edom according to Deu 2:1. Israel was commanded to respect the tribal relationship with Edom, as also with Moab and Ammon (Deu 2:9 et seq.; comp. Jdg 11:17). Moses therefore sought by a warm and friendly message to secure from the king of Edom a free passage through his land. But in the face of every guarantee which he offered, he received only a harsh and surly reply. Further pacific proposals were followed by harsher threats, and a warlike armament against Israel trod, as it were, upon the heels of the returning messenger. This is the starting point in the history of the treacherous brother who appears a foe by the side of Israel down to the final destruction of Jerusalem. The passage in Judges already referred to, indicates that the message to Edom and Moab must have preceded by some time the departure for the Red Sea. [It is clear from Num 20:1 compared with Num 33:38, that the Israelites must have remained in Kadesh several months. The message was probably sent soon after the congregation had gathered; and the delay was occasioned by the refusal, and the necessary preparations for the long and circuitous march before them. It could not have arisen, as the Bible Com. suggests, from a purpose to invade Canaan again from this quarter when existing obstacles should be removed. The lesson of the thirty-eight years had not been lost, and they were not prepared to brave so difficult a position (see [Keil below) after the earlier and signal failure.A. G.].
Num 20:14-16. We can scarcely agree with Keil that the steep lofty mountain range presented an obstacle, difficult to be overcome if not actually insurmountable, to an entrance into Canaan from the south. The Scriptures give a very different reason. [But the Scripture, while attributing the defeat of the Israelites to the fact that the Lord was not among them, nowhere says or implies that the natural obstacle did not exist.A. G.]. The invasion from the east had this additional advantage, that it would divide the power of Canaan into two parts. As to the Angel, Knobel himself understands, but not the writer as he infers, by it the pillar of cloud and fire; the harmony of both ideas never occurred to him, in his eager hunt for contradictions.
Num 20:17. We will not pass through the fields or through the vineyards, i.e., not wander about in bye-paths [or rather will guard against any careless or straggling march]. The kings road was the public highway, built and kept in repair probably at public expense, for the march of the king and his army, like the imperial or Sultans road, as the old broad, public army-roads are called in the east. The references are frequent in the books of travel. Seetzen I., pp. 61, 132. See also Knobel in loc. Comp. Robinson II., p. 556. According to an early conjecture, which Keil has adopted, the kings road here led through the Wady El Ghuweir. [Robinson, Coleman, Bible Com. and others, hold the same view.A. G.]. This road may seem too far to the north, although running directly eastwards from Kadesh. For the Edomitish kings see Gen 36:31-39.
Num 20:18-19. After the refusal and menace of the king, the Israelites explain more fully their purposes. The previous declaration we will not drink of the water of the wells, is now explained by the clause I will pay for it. surely, altogetherit is of no consequence. They will pass along the high-road only on their feet. [The extreme scarcity of water seems to justify the practice of selling what is most free with us. The treasures gathered were guarded so jealously that sometimes they could not be obtained for money. Hence the natural promise here that they would pay for the water.A. G.].
Num 20:20-21. The king follows up his threat by mustering an armed force and dispatching it to the border, so that the Israelites were compelled to change their course. Thus they come to mount Hor. [The description seems to imply that the Israelites had little doubt of the success of their message. The proposition was so reasonable, the guarantees were so full, the grounds upon which the request was urged were so strong, that they did not deem it necessary to wait for the return of the messenger. They seem to have Started without anticipating the churlish refusal, and only turned southward when they found the passage barred.A. G.].
B. The death of Aaron upon mount Hor, Num 20:22-29. Breaking up from Kadesh the Israelites passed through the Wady Murreh, which runs along the west of the Arabah, to mount Hor. This mountain standing on the boundary (Num 33:37) of the land of Edom was located by Joseph. (Ant. IV. 4, 7), and also by Eusebius and Jerome in the vicinity of Petra. Jerome, Or mons, in quo mortuus est Aaron, juxta civitatem Petram. According to modern travellers it is mount Harun, on the northwest side of Wady Musa (Petra). Robinson describes it, II., p. 508, as a cone irregularly truncated, having three ragged points or peaks of which that on the northeast is highest, and has upon it the wely or tomb of Aaron, from which the name of the mountain Harun, i.e., Aaron, is derived. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this tradition. See Burckhardts Syria, p. 715; Ritter, Erdkunde XIV., p. 1127, Keil. [Also Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, pp. 86, 87, and note.A. G.]. Why Knobel doubts its correctness is not clearly seen from his arguments, especially as he holds that the second Jehovistic document requires that the Hebrews should have marched northeastward through the Wady Murreh and northern Edom (!). But more important considerations meet us. Had the Israelites marched to this mount Harun, they would have gone almost directly towards the army of Edom, directly towards the capital city Petra, and under these circumstances a battle could hardly have been avoided. They would then also, as if in defiance of Edom, have encamped for thirty days over against Petra. The text is plainly opposed to this: they evaded the challenge of Edom; they did not march in an easterly, but southeasterly direction. Besides, the mountain top to which the aged and wearied one was led, need not have been a very lofty one. According to Deu 10:6, Aaron died at Moserah, and was there buried. It might be inferred, from the immediate connection, that Aaron died here upon the way to Kadesh. But it is merely in passing, and as a reminiscence, that Aarons death is there referred to. The main thing is the statement that upon the upward journey [i.e., to Kadesh] the rights and positions of the Levites were precisely established, thus this mountain on the upward way became a Levitical mountain, and upon the mountain on the march back, Aaron the head of the Levites died and was buried. In the list of encampments this place is called Moserah, and we must not overlook the fact that it is only two days removed from Hor-Hagidgad. At all events Moserah lay in the direction of the Red Sea, and scarcely in the Edomitic Arabah, but upon its western side and in the desert. [There is clearly no contradiction in the statement that Aaron died at Moserah, and on mount Hor. The camp lay at Moserah probably at the base of mount Hor or upon its lower slopes, while Moses took Aaron and Eleazar his son and ascended the mountain where Aaron died. For the manner in which Aarons death is referred to in Deu 10:6, see note on that passage, and Curtiss Levitical Priests, pp. 9, 10.A. G.].
Num 20:22-24. Hor is not spoken of as a particular mountain, but as a mountain peak in a ridge. [ Hor the mountain, i.e., the summit of the mountain; which corresponds precisely to the description given by Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 86. See also Num 34:7.A. G.]. Aarons death is announced at Hor, and the ordinances in relation to it follow. Aaron shall be gathered to his people. He is reminded of his transgression at the waters of Meribah. His priestly garments shall be taken from him and put upon Eleazar his son. Thus Aaron dies upon mount Hor, and disappears from the history, vanishes into concealment, as Moses did afterward. Aaron died on the first day of the fifth month, in the fortieth year of the Exodus, 123 years old.
C. The Expedition against the King of Arad. Num 21:1-3. Israel cannot take its departure from the south of Canaan without recalling the disgraceful defeat it had suffered thirty-eight years before, when attempting to enter Canaan from that side. Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah.Num 14:45. The thoughts of the people now turn back to this early history which the writer here speaks of as that which had already occurred. Once the Canaanite king of Arad heard that Israel came by the way of the spies. If we regard Atharim not as the name of a place, but as an appellative name, synonymous with hattarim, the spies (Keil), the notion of an army which had once followed the spies is obviously suggested. We find moreover the king of Arad in the very same region in which the Israelites had formerly been defeated by the Amalekites and Canaanites. Then Hormah was the limit of the overthrow, now it is the goal of the retaliation. Israel at that time made the vow: If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.At last the time of retribution has come. That they did not undertake the avenging expedition from Kadesh, but first from Moserah or Mount Hor, has its ground in the necessity of first removing their wives and children and herds from the scene of danger. Jehovah crowned their retaliatory expedition into the country of Arad with success. The particular and careful designation of the place of battle: he called the name of the place Hormah (destruction) shows that they did not destroy the cities of the entire kingdom, but spread terror along its southern boundary, while the complete conquest of the country was left for the subsequent campaigns of Joshua (Jos 11:12.). This successful expedition was the first victory for the new generation, foretokening their great conflict in Canaan, as the later retaliatory march against the Midianites (chap. 31.), was the second. The narrative moreover seems to be only of a preliminary and comparatively unimportant event.
The usual assumption that the attack by the king of Arad had not occurred until now is met by strong improbabilities. It is not in the first place a probable assumption that the new generation should figure in a defeat at their first appearance upon the stage; nor that this defeat should have occurred at Mount Hor; and still more is it unlikely that the stricken host should have remained long enough at Mount Hor to gather courage for an avenging expedition. Keil indeed obviates in part these objections by assuming that the attack had occurred before the Israelites had reached Hor. But it lies directly in the face of the narrative to suppose that the Israelites in their departure had turned back northwards, or to the north-east, and not southwards to the Red Sea. [The narrative seems to imply that the king of Arad, recalling the defeat of the Israelites thirty-eight years before, and thinking that a fatal blow might be inflicted upon them, now fell suddenly upon them as they were breaking up from Kadesh, and when, in the confusion attending the march, they were unprepared, and took some of them prisoners. There was no serious defeat of the Israelites. It was a mere successful raid upon them, which was punished and avenged as soon as they were encamped at Moserah, or perhaps before they reached that place.A. G.] Besides the allusion to Arad here and Num 33:40, it appears again Jos 12:14 as the seat of a Canaanitish king, Hormah. Comp. Jdg 1:16. According to Eusebius and Jerome, it lay about twenty Roman miles south from Hebron, and still exists in the ruins of Tell-Arad. Robinson, II., p. 473, saw it at a distance [see also Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, pp. 160,161.A. G.]. Keil.
Hormah was earlier called Zephath, Jdg 1:17. In reply to the assumption that this expedition against Arad is only an account of the conquest of that city by Joshua. See Keil, p. 138. [Bible Commentary, p. 725. The order of events is clear. The Israelites here having avenged the unprovoked attack upon them and destroyed their cities, and named the place Hormah, departed on their march southwards to compass Edom. When they left, the Canaanites re-occupied the sites of their ruined cities and restored the earlier names. Joshua finds them in possession, completes their overthrow, and at the same time the ban under which Israel had placed them. We have therefore in the passage before us the history of the actual origin of the name Hormah.A. G.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
The new generation, new offences, new atonements. Defeats and victories
1. The departure of the new generation commences with an act of pious magnanimity, the message to Edom. It is surely a Christian principle that Christian nations should have a sacred regard for the ties of consanguinity in their relations and intercourse with other nations.
2. At the beginning of the circuitous march around the land of Edom, Aaron dies and is buried on Mount Hor. The solemn formal priestly burial has a close connection with the blessings of the world then, and for succeeding generations. On the contrary it was fitting that the death and the grave of the great prophet Moses should be kept from the public gaze, mantled in mystery and darkness.
3. The investiture of Eleazar has also a grand ceremonial character and significance. It is an impressive symbolical transactionas the whole typical priesthood has this character. [Stanley, History of the Jewish Church. The succession of the Priesthood, that link of continuity between the past and present, now first introduced into the Jewish Church, was made through that singular usage preserved even to the latest days of the Jewish hierarchy by the transference of the vestments of the dead High Priest to the living successor.A. G.]
4. Israel as the people of the law, having their Judaical and punitive character, cannot leave the south region without righting the injury they had suffered from the king of Arad. When the correcting and thus the removing of a moral wrong is at stake, even Christian politics has its strict, stern law.
HOMILETICAL HINTS
Pacific disposition towards Edom, his brother. Mount Hor, Aarons goal, Eleazars starting place. The deferred retribution which impended over the king of Arad.
Num 20:14-22. Peaceableness and contentiousness. Particular regard for kindred races. Going out of the way for the sake of peace, when enjoined and when not. [The requestits reasonableness, its guarantees; the grounds upon which it is urged. 1. The ties of kindred. 2. Their sufferings in Egypt. 3. The deliverance the Lord had given them.A. G.]
Num 20:22-29. Mount Hor. Aarons virtues, the connection with Moses, and their common devotion to the people. The subordination of the elder brother to the younger; of the High Priest to the prophet; of the priestly offender, to the stern preacher of reproof. Aaron between the dead and the living. His gentleness and his boldness. Eleazars ordination following the disrobing of his father. The sorrow of the house of Israel over the death of its High Priest. A comparison of the celebrated mountains of the dead, Hor, Nebo, Golgotha. [Henry: Aaron submits to the divine decree cheerfully. He is neither afraid nor ashamed to die. He has comfort in his death: he sees his son preferred, his office preserved. Stanley. Mount Hor offered a retrospect rather than a prospect. He surveyed the dreary mountains, barren platform and cheerless valley of the desert through which they had passed; the opposite of that wide and varied vista which opened before the first of the prophets.A. G.]
Num 21:1-3. The victory over Arad, or the trial of the young generation. [Their apparent discomfiture; their consequent consciousness of weakness; their acknowledgment of dependence on God, and cry to Him; and their complete triumph. All this finds its analogy in the spiritual life.A. G.]
Footnotes:
[12]Marg. found us.
[13][The repetition of the words the whole congregation, Num 20:1; Num 20:25, seems to imply that the congregation had been partially broken up during the long years of the wandering. The tabernacle formed the centre around which all clustered, and to which smaller or larger portions of the congregation may have returned from time to time. But now the whole congregation was gathered. A call from their great leader, or a common impression that some great event was at hand, led the scattered hosts to seek the place where the Tabernacle, the Tent of Meeting was pitched. Modern travellers find the same thing true, with the great Bedouin tribes in our day; a central camp at which the chief resides and sections of the tribe scattered in all directions seeking sustenance for their large flocks and herds.A. G.].
[14]For the Arabah see commentary on Joshua, Num 15:1-3. [Also Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, Appendix, p. 481. Konbel refers to Num 20:23, chap, Num 33:37; Jos 15:1-3, as sustaining his view. It might easily occur, too, that the Edomites could defend successfully the steep mountain passes, and yet not prevent the Israelites from crossing their territory which lay in the Arabah or on its western skirts.A. G.].
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
The Reader will recollect the relationship by nature between Israel and Edom. Israel sprung from Jacob, and Edom from Esau. One might have thought (speaking after the manner of men), that such affinities would have induced grace. But no! there is and must be an everlasting war between nature and grace. Esau hated Jacob because of the birth-right, and so it is still. Distinguishing grace will always induce this. Mal 1:2-4 . Reader! to which class do you belong? Are you the descendant of Esau or Jacob? Are you among the children of the bond-woman or of the free? See Gal 4:22-31 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Num 20:14 And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us:
Ver. 14. Thus saith thy brother. ] “A brother is born for adversity”; Pro 17:17 and good blood will not belie itself. But “a brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city; and their contentions are like the bars of a castle.” Pro 18:19
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
befallen us = “found us”. Figure of speech Prosopopoeia. App-6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Edom Refuses Passage; Aaron Dies
Num 20:14-28
It was an ungracious act on the part of the Edomites-descendants of Esau, Jacobs brother-to forbid the passage of the chosen people through their territory; and it was never forgotten. It is referred to again and again in the strongest terms by prophet and psalmist. See Deu 2:4; Deu 2:8; Deu 23:7; Amo 1:11; Oba 1:10; Oba 1:12; Psa 137:7.
Aarons death was arranged so as to give him a distant glimpse of the Land which had so long beckoned him onward. But he was not suffered to continue. His death is quoted in evidence of the imperfection of the Aaronic priesthood, in contrast to the indissoluble priesthood of our Lord, Heb 7:16.
This is a sad chapter! Moses failure, Aarons and Miriams death, Edoms refusal! But Gods purpose moved steadily on. He wrought for His own sake, because of the Covenant.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Moses: Jdg 11:16, Jdg 11:17
thy brother: Gen 32:3, Gen 32:4, Deu 2:4-25, Deu 23:7, Oba 1:10-12, Mal 1:2
befallen us: Heb. found us, Exo 18:8
Reciprocal: Gen 25:23 – two manner Gen 25:30 – Edom Gen 36:1 – General Gen 36:31 – the kings Gen 36:43 – the dukes Exo 15:15 – dukes Num 20:22 – Kadesh Num 21:21 – General Deu 32:51 – General Jdg 11:12 – sent messengers 2Ki 9:21 – met Jer 49:7 – Edom Amo 1:11 – because
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE JOURNEY RENEWED
PREPARATION FOR THE JOURNEY (Num 20:14-29)
With Israel prepared to renew the journey, what now does Moses do (Num 20:14-18)? In what spirit does Edom meet this request (18:20)? For the reason why Israel was not permitted to force a passage through Edom, refer to Deu 2:1-8.
What event in Israels history takes place at this juncture (Num 20:23-28)? In what sense was this a chastisement on Aaron (Num 20:24)? Who succeeded him (Num 26:28)? (Note the manner in which this incident is used in Isa 22:20-25.) Compare Heb 7:23-25. A tomb has been erected near the spot where Aaron was buried.
FIGHTINGS AND FEARS (Numbers 21)
What event is narrated in the opening of chapter 21? We wonder why this discomfiture of Israel at the first was permitted, but perhaps to teach them
the lesson of their weakness and of dependence solely upon God (Psa 44:1-8). The phrase utterly destroy (Num 21:2) might be rendered by devote. In what earlier lesson was this subject of devotement considered?
What prolongation of their journey was necessitated by Edoms refusal (Num 21:4)? What effect had this on the people? What previous cause of murmuring was renewed (Num 21:5)? What chastisement followed (Num 21:6)? What effect had it (Num 21:7)? How did God provide for their deliverance (Num 8:9)? In what way did this show that the deliverance was not the effect of nature or art, but of Gods power and grace? How is it used in the New Testament as a type of our salvation from sin through Christ? (See Joh 3:14-15.) How did this brazen serpent subsequently become a snare to Israel? (See 2Ki 18:1-4.) That part of the desert where the Israelites now were near the head of the gulf of Akaba is infested with reptiles of various kinds, particularly lizards, which raise themselves in the air, and swing from branches; and scorpions which lying among long grass, are particularly dangerous to the bare-legged, sandaled people of the East. The species that caused so great mortality amongst the Israelites cannot be ascertained. They are described as fiery, either from their bright color, or the inflammation their bite caused. In studying the verses that follow it will be desirable to have a good map. Note what is said (Num 21:14) about the book of The Wars of the Lord as indicating a writing of some sort of which we have little record. The words following to the end of Num 21:16 are apparently a quotation from this book, and presumably inserted to decide the position of Arnon.
What discovery was made near this point, and how was it celebrated (Num 21:17-18)? What country did the Israelites now obtain by right of conquest (Num 21:21-32)?
QUESTIONS
1. How does this lesson teach that trials sometimes come for our good?
2. Quote Joh 3:15-16.
3. Why is fiery used of the serpents?
4. What ancient historical writing is quoted in this lesson?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Num 20:14. All the travail All the wanderings and afflictions of our parents, and of us their children, which doubtless have come to thine ears.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Num 20:14-21. Israels Abortive Appeal to Edom (JE).Israels desire to cross Edom was due to the wish to attack Canaan on the E. instead of on the S., where they had met with defeat (Num 14:45). As Kadesh was W. of Edom, the encompassing of the country (Num 21:4) involved a march from Kadesh to the SE.
Num 20:16. border: The term here means territory (cf. Num 22:36).
Num 20:19. without . . . else: better, it is no great matter (of annoyance).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
20:14 And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of {i} Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us:
(i) Because Jacob or Israel was Esau’s brother, who was called Edom.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The Edomites’ resistance 20:14-21
The cloudy pillar led the Israelites, but apparently Moses had reason to believe that God was directing them eastward into the territory of Edom and from there north to Transjordan. Consequently he sent messengers to the King of Edom requesting permission to pass through his land (Num 20:14).
The Edomites were Israel’s "brother" (Num 20:14) in that they were the descendants of Esau. The "king’s highway" (Num 20:17; Num 20:19) was a major thoroughfare through Edom that caravans and armies as well as private citizens traveled. It was a trade route connecting the Gulf of Aqabah and Syria. [Note: The New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed., "King’s Highway," by D. J. Wiseman.] The Israelites did not take this route.
Moses took an irenic approach in dealing with the Edomites because they were the Israelites’ relatives. They were not Canaanites that God had commanded His people to attack and destroy. However the Edomites refused to let Israel pass. This antagonistic attitude characterized Edom’s approach to Israel throughout the history of these two nations and finally drew God’s judgment upon Edom (cf. Oba 1:10-14).
The Israelites remained in the area west of Edom temporarily and then proceeded to circle around Edom taking a generally southeasterly course toward the Gulf of Aqabah (cf. Num 21:4).
"A close reading of these narratives shows that the pattern in the account of Israel’s failure to believe (Numbers 14) is repeated in this account of Moses’ unbelief. The complaints of the people (Num 14:1-4; Num 20:2-5) lead the Lord to conclude that Israel (Num 14:11) and Moses (Num 20:12) are lacking in faith. Moreover, both narratives are followed by an account of Israel’s aborted attempt to gain immediate entrance into the Promised Land. In chapter 14, it was Israel’s defeat by the Amalekites (Num 14:40-45), and in the present passage it is Edom’s refusal to let Israel pass through their land (Num 20:14-21). In these various ways, the author seems intent on showing the similarities between Israel’s failure of faith and that of Moses. Both failed to believe God and hence could not go into the land." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 399.]