Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 12:1

And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

1. the Cushite woman ] Cush is usually the Heb. equivalent for Ethiopia. But it has recently been maintained, owing to the occurrence of the name Kusi in some Assyrian inscriptions, that there was also a place of that name in N. Arabia. Of an Ethiopian wife of Moses we hear nothing elsewhere, and the verse would seem to suggest that his marriage was recent. If, then, the wife was a native of N. Arabia, it would be possible to identify her with ipprah whom Moses had married in Midian (ch. Num 10:29, Exo 2:15-21; Exo 3:1); according to Jdg 1:16; Jdg 4:11 she was a Kenite.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Miriam, as a prophetess (compare Exo 15:20-21) no less than as the sister of Moses and Aaron, took the first rank among the women of Israel; and Aaron may be regarded as the ecclesiastical head of the whole nation. But instead of being grateful for these high dignities they challenged the special vocation of Moses and the exclusive authority which God had assigned to him. Miriam was the instigator, from the fact that her name stands conspicuously first Num 12:1, and that the punishment Num 12:10 fell on her alone. She probably considered herself as supplanted, and that too by a foreigner. Aaron was misled this time by the urgency of his sister, as once before Exo. 32 by that of the people.

Num 12:1

The Ethiopian woman whom he had married – (Hebrew, Cushite, compare Gen 2:13; Gen 10:6) It is likely that Zipporah Exo 2:21 was dead, and that Miriam in consequence expected to have greater influence than ever with Moses. Her disappointment at his second marriage would consequently be very great.

The marriage of Moses with a woman descended from Ham was not prohibited, so long as she was not of the stock of Canaan (compare Exo 34:11-16); but it would at any time have been offensive to that intense nationality which characterized the Jews. The Christian fathers note in the successive marriage of Moses with a Midianite and an Ethiopian a foreshadowing of the future extension to the Gentiles of Gods covenant and its promises (compare Psa 45:9 ff; Son 1:4 ff); and in the complaining of Miriam and Aaron a type of the discontent of the Jews because of such extension: compare Luk 15:29-30.

Num 12:2

Hath the Lord … – i. e. Is it merely, after all, by Moses that the Lord hath spoken?

Num 12:3

The man Moses was very meek – In this and in other passages in which Moses no less unequivocally records his own faults (compare Num 20:12 ff; Exo 4:24 ff; Deu 1:37), there is the simplicity of one who bare witness of himself, but not to himself (compare Mat 11:28-29). The words are inserted to explain how it was that Moses took no steps to vindicate himself, and why consequently the Lord so promptly intervened.

Num 12:8

Mouth to mouth – i. e. without the intervention of any third person or thing: compare the marginal references.

Even apparently – Moses received the word of God direct from Him and plainly, not through the medium of dream, vision, parable, dark saying, or such like; compare the marginal references.

The similitude of the Lord shall he behold – But, No man hath seen God at any time, says John (Joh 1:18 : compare 1Ti 6:16, and especially Exo 33:20 ff). It was not therefore the Beatific Vision, the unveiled essence of the Deity, which Moses saw on the one hand. Nor was it, on the other hand, a mere emblematic representation (as in Eze 1:26 ff, Dan 7:9), or an Angel sent as a messenger. It was the Deity Himself manifesting Himself so as to be cognizable to mortal eye. The special footing on which Moses stood as regards God is here laid down in detail, because it at once demonstrates that the supremacy of Moses rested on the distinct appointment of God, and also that Miriam in contravening that supremacy had incurred the penalty proper to sins against the theocracy.

Num 12:12

As one dead – leprosy was nothing short of a living death, a poisoning of the springs, a corrupting of all the humors, of life; a dissolution little by little of the whole body, so that one limb after another actually decayed and fell away. Compare the notes at Lev. 13.

Num 12:13

Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee – Others render these words: Oh not so; heal her now, I beseech Thee.

Num 12:14

If her father … – i. e. If her earthly parent had treated her with contumely (compare Deu 25:9) she would feel for a time humiliated, how much more when God has visited her thus?

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Num 12:1-2

Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses.

Miriam and Aarons sedition

1. The noblest disinterestedness will not preserve us from the shafts of envy. The poet has said, in regard to another virtue, Be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny; and no matter how unselfish we are, we may lay our account with some envenomed attacks which shall plausibly accuse us of seeking our own things and not the things that are Jesus Christs. Nay, the more conspicuous we are for devotion to the public good, we may be only thereby more distinctly marked as a target for the worlds scorn. I am weary of hearing always of Aristides as the Just, was the expression of one who plotted for that patriots banishment; and if a mans character be in itself a protest against abounding corruption, he will soon be assailed by some one in the very things in which he is most eminent.

2. This envy of disinterested greatness may show itself in the most unexpected quarters. If Aaron and Miriam were capable of such envy, we may not think that we are immaculate. It asks the minister to examine himself and see whether he has not been guilty of depreciating a brothers gifts, because he looked upon him as a rival rather than as a fellow-labourer; it bids the merchant search through the recesses of his heart, if haply the terms in which he refers to a neighbour, or the tales he tells of him, be not due to the fact that, either in business or in society, he has been somehow preferred before him; it beseeches the lady, who is engaged in whispering the most ill-natured gossip against another in her circle, to inquire and see whether the animus of her deed be not the avenging of some fancied slight, or the desire to protest against an honour which has been done to the object of what Thackeray has called her due Christian animosity. Ah! are we not all in danger here? How well it would be if we repelled all temptations to envy as John silenced those who tried to set him against Jesus; for, as Bishop Hall has said, That man hath true light who can be content to be a candle before the sun of others.

3. The utter meanness of the weapons which envy is content to employ. A mans house is his castle. No personal malice should enter into it with its attack; and no mean report should be received from the eavesdroppers who have first misunderstood and then misrepresented. If a mans public life has been blamable, then let him be arraigned; but let no Paul Pry interviewer cross his threshold to get hold of family secrets, or descend into the area to hear some hirelings moralisings. Even the bees, when put into a glass hive, go to work at the very first to make the glass opaque, for they will not have their secrets made common property; and surely we busy human beings may sometimes be allowed to be by ourselves.

4. The assaults of envy are always best met by a silent appeal to Heaven. Let the victims of unjust assault take comfort, for God will be their defence. But let the envious ones take heed, for God hears their words, and He will one day confront them with His judgment. He may do that long before the day of final assize. He may meet them in His providence, and give them to understand that they who touch His faithful servants are touching the apple of His eye; nay, He may bring such trouble upon them that they will be glad to accept of the intercession of those whom they have maligned. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)

The sin of Miriam and Aaron: evil speaking, Divine hearing, and saintly silence

I. The sin of Miriam and Aaron.

1. Its root: jealousy and vaulting ambition.

2. Its occasion.

3. Its expression.

II. The divine cognisance of their sin. And the Lord heard. No one utterance of all the myriads of voices in His universe ever escapes His ear. There is a Divine hearer of every human speech. This is clear from–

1. His omnipresence (Psa 139:7-12).

2. His infinite intelligence.

3. His interest in His servants.

III. The commendable conduct of Moses under the provocation of their sin.

1. He was sorely tried (cf. Psa 55:12-15)

.

2. He bore his sore trial most nobly.

Conclusion:

1. In the conduct of Miriam and Aaron we have a beacon. Let us shun their sin, &c.

2. In the conduct of Moses we have a pattern. Let us imitate his meekness. (W. Jones.)

The modern application of an ancient incident

I. The possession of the greatest gifts does not exempt men from the liability to meanness and sin.

II. The most excellent and eminent servants of god are not exempt from the reproaches of men.

III. Our greatest trials sometimes arise from the most unlikely quarters.

IV. The lord takes cognisance of the reproaches which are cast upon his servants.

V. The servants of the Lord do well in bearing patiently the reproaches which are cast upon them. (W. Jones.)

Miriams sin

;–

I. Miriams sin.

1. Jealousy.

2. Envy.

3. Evil-speaking. Privately sought to undermine the power of Moses among the people.

4. Folly. Could she have succeeded in destroying the power of Moses, she would have failed in getting them to recognise her as their leader. She did not see that she shone in the borrowed light of her great brother.

5. Rebellion against God. Moses was the servant of God: to resist him was to resist the Master.

6. Vain excuses. Because, and because . . . Sinners are often prolific in excuses; called by them reasons.

II. Miriams detection. And the Lord heard it. Moses may have heard of it. This seems to be implied By the allusion to his meekness (Num 12:3). If the Lord hear, then no sin passes undetected. Moses gave himself no concern about it. Could Miriam meet her brother without shame? The Lord spake suddenly. God pronounced Moses faithful. What must Miriam have thought of her faithfulness?

III. Miriams punishment. She was smitten with leprosy, and under circumstances that much heightened the effect of the punishment.

1. It was in the presence of the person she had injured.

2. In the presence of her fellow-conspirators.

3. By the great God, against whose authority she had rebelled.

4. Was excluded from the camp publicly.

5. Humbled, by being cleansed in answer to the prayer of him she had wronged.

Learn–

1. The great sin of evil-speaking. Especially against ministers of religion, whose influence for good ought to be preserved not only by themselves but by all about them. The character of public men is their strength. Destroy their character, their power is gone. By this loss the public itself is impoverished and injured. Hence such slander is suicidal.

2. God the defender of His servants. The severe punishment–and upon no other than Miriam–shows the Divine abhorrence of the sin.

3. Moses, leaving the exposure and punishment with God, and interceding for Miriam, teaches us how to regard attacks upon our character, and act under them, and towards such unhappy offenders. (J. C. Gray.)

Envy and pride meekly met

I. what sinful principles will prompt a man to do. Here we see the ties of nature disregarded; the bonds of professed fellowship burst asunder; Gods interest disregarded. Pride and envy had entered the heart, and all consequences were unheeded, even though Moses should be brought into contempt before the whole congregation. Let us fear lest such principles should ever get possession of our minds; the first feeling must be mourned over and prayed against.

II. What divine grace will enable us to bear. If we imbibe the spirit of our Lord and Master we shall offer prayer for those who use us ill. If the approbation of God be ours, though all the world be against us it will do us no harm. It was said of one of the martyrs that he was so like Christ that he could not be roused by injuries to say one word that was revengeful. Oh, if this spirit were universal, what a happy world would this be! See how the grace of God can enable us to return good for evil, and thus feel an indescribable peace and happiness in our own spirit, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost. The power of man can never impart this meek and quiet spirit; it can alone come from the blessed influence of the Holy Spirit. (George Breay, B. A.)

The great evil of ambition

The true cause of this their murmuring was pride and ambition, self-love, ostentation, and vainglory. Hereby we learn that there cometh no greater plague to the Church of God than by ambition and desire of pre-eminence. The ambition and pride of Amaziah, the priest of Beth-el, would not suffer the prophet Amos in the land of Israel, but he commanded him to fly away into the land of Judah and prophesy there (Amo 7:10; Amo 7:12). We see this apparently afterward (Num 16:1-50.) in Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Neither is this evil dead with these; for this is a great plague of the Church to this day, and very pernicious. Nothing hath more ruined the Church of God, overthrown piety, corrupted religion, hindered the gospel, discouraged the pastors and professors of it, nothing hath more erected the kingdom of anti-Christ than these petty popes, the true successors of Diotrephes, such as desire to be universal bishops and to reign alone. The mischief hereof appeareth by sundry reasons.

1. It causeth a great rent and division in the Church, and disturbeth the peace of it (Num 16:1).

2. It setteth up men and putteth down the Lord and His ordinances, urging, compelling, and commanding against the truth (Act 4:18-19).

3. It proceedeth from very evil roots, and bringeth forth very evil effects, as an evil tree bringeth forth evil fruits. The causes from whence it floweth are Satan, pride, disdain of others, self-love, no love of the truth, no zeal of Gods glory, no desire of the good of the Church.

The effects thereof are trouble, disquietness, fear, flattery, envy, and subtilty. Let us come to the uses.

1. It reproveth those who bear themselves as lords over the flock of Christ.

2. Acknowledge this ambition to be a general corruption, the remainders whereof are in all the servants of God, yea, in all the children of Adam; we have drawn it from him, and thereby it hath leavened and corrupted all mankind. If any man ask what it is, I answer, It is an immoderate desire after dignity, and of dignity upon dignity; it is a thirst that never can be quenched; for as the covetous person hath never enough money, so the ambitious hath never enough honour. It is a secret poison, a hidden plague, the mother of hypocrisy, the father of envy, the fountain of vices, the moth of piety, a blind guide and leader of the hearts of men. The farther we think ourselves from it the nearer commonly it cometh unto us; and therefore let nothing be done through strife and vainglory, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves (Php 2:3).

3. Lastly, let all learn to beware of this evil. (W. Attersoll.)

Claiming equality

If the Lord did speak by Miriam and Aaron, what then? The Lord Himself acknowledges that He speaks in different ways to different men. To some–perhaps to most–He comes in vision and in dream; things are heard as if they were spoken beyond the great mountain; they are echoes, wanting in shape and directness, yet capable of interpretations that touch the very centres and springs of life, that make men wonder, that draw men up from flippancy, and write upon vacant faces tokens of reverence and proofs that the inner vision is at the moment entranced by some immeasurable revelation. To other men God speaks apparently–that is, in broad and visible figure. He is quite near; it is as if friend were accosting friend, as if two interlocutors were mutually visible and speaking within hand-range of one another. There is nothing superstitious about this; it is the fact of to-day. Take a book of science–what do you find in that rational and philosophical bible? You find certain names put uppermost. Why should not every boy that has caught his first fly, or cut in two his first worm, say, Hath not the Lord spoken unto me as well as unto Darwin, or Cuvier, or Buffon?–who are they? But it does so happen that outside the Bible we have the Moses of science–the chief man of letters, the prince of song. Take the history of music, and we find names set by themselves like insulated stars-great planetary names. What would be thought of a person who has just learned the notes of music, saying, Hath not the Lord spoken unto me as well as unto Beethoven? He has; but He has not told you so much. There is a difference in kind; there is a difference in quality. We find this same law operating in all directions. There are books that say, Are not we inspired as well as the Bible? The answer is, Certainly you are. The Lord had spoken to Miriam and to Aaron as certainly as He had spoken to Moses, but with a difference; and it is never for Moses to argue with Miriam. Moses takes no part in this petty controversy. He would have disproved his superior inspiration if he had stooped to this fray of words. So some books seem to say, Are not we also inspired? The frank and true answer is, Yes. Is not many a sentence in the greatest of dramatists an inspired sentence? The frank, Christian, just answer is, Yes. Is not many a discovery in the natural world quite an instance of inspiration? Why hesitate to say, Yes; but always with a difference? The Bible takes no part in the controversy about its own inspiration. The Bible lives–comes into the house when it is wanted, goes upstairs to the sick-chamber, follows the lonely sufferer into solitude, and communes with him about the mystery of disappointment, discipline, pain of heart; goes to the grave-side, and speaks about the old soldier just laid to rest, the little child just exhaled like a dewdrop by the morning sun. It lives because no hand can slay it; it stands back, or comes forward, according to the necessity of the case, because of a dignity that can wait, because of an energy that is ready to advance. Some books claim to be as inspired as the Bible. Then they become leprous, and all history has shown that they are put out of the camp. Many books have arisen to put down the Bible; they have had their day: they have ceased to be. We must judge by facts and realities. When a man who has no claim to the dignity asserts that he is upon an equality with the great musician, the great musician takes no part in the fray; when the competitor has played his little trick, one touch of the fingers regulated by the hand Divine will settle the controversy. By this token we stand or fall with our Christianity, with our great gospel. (J. Parker, D. D.)

Hatred between brothers and sisters

What were Aaron and Miriam to Moses? Even his own brother and sister. And cannot such agree? Will there be jars and grudgings in such? Would God it were not too true. Nay, such is our corruption, if the Lord lead us not with His loving Spirit, that not only we disagree being brothers and sisters, but with a far more bitter and implacable wrath than others that are farther off. What a venom was in Cain to his brother Abel when nothing but blood would appease it? What was in Esaus heart towards his brother Jacob? Oh, what venom is this that lurketh in our nature if God leaves us to ourselves! May we not justly marvel at some men, otherwise of great wisdom and judgment, that dare break out unto the praise of these perturbations as virtues and badges of noble minds? For what is this but as if a man would praise the diseases of the body and the nettles and weeds and hurtful plants of the earth. Should not he be accounted mad that would set his own house on fire? And I pray you what be that will cast fire into his own heart to set it on a flame? Saint Augustine was wont to say, Look how vinegar put into a vessel thereby is made sour and corrupted; so is the malicious person by his own anger made filthy and most distasteful to all good men. And if thus among strangers, oh, what among brothers and sisters! Wherefore what council is given to refrain all anger, venom, and hatred, let it in particular be applied to bridle all rage or dislike among such near ones as now we speak of. (Bp. Babington.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER XII

Miriam and Aaron raise a sedition against Moses, because of the

Ethiopian woman he had married, 1,

and through jealousy of his increasing power and authority, 2.

The character of Moses, 3.

Moses, Aaron, and Miriam are suddenly called to the tabernacle, 4.

The Lord appears in the pillar of the cloud, and converses with

them, 5.

Declares his purpose to communicate his will to Moses only, 6-8.

His anger is kindled against Miriam, and she is smitten with

the leprosy, 9, 10.

Aaron deplores his transgression, and entreats for Miriam, 11,12.

Moses intercedes for her, 13.

The Lord requires that she be shut out of the camp for seven

days, 14.

The people rest till she is restored, 15,

and afterwards leave Hazeroth, and pitch in the wilderness of

Paran, 16.

NOTES ON CHAP. XII

Verse 1. Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses] It appears that jealousy of the power and influence of Moses was the real cause of their complaint though his having married an Ethiopian woman – haishshah haccushith – THAT WOMAN, the Cushite, probably meaning Zipporah, who was an Arab born in the land of Midian – was the ostensible cause.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

God permitted

Miriam and

Aaron to murmur against their brother, partly to exercise and discover his admirable meekness and patience for the instruction of after-ages; and partly, that by this shaking Moses authority might take the deeper root, and the people might be deterred from all sedition and rebellion against him by this example. Miriam seems to be first named, because she was the chief instigator or first mover of the sedition; wherefore she also is more eminently punished.

The Ethiopian woman was either 1. Zipporah, who is here called an Ethiopian, in the Hebrew a Cushite, because she was a Midianite; the word Cush being generally used in Scripture, not for Ethiopia properly so called below Egypt, but for Arabia, as some late learned men have evidently proved from 2Ki 19:9; 2Ch 21:16; Eze 29:10; 30:8,9; Hab 3:7, and other places. If she be meant, as it is commonly conceived, I suppose they did not quarrel with him for marrying her, because that was done long since, but for indulging her too much, and being swayed by her and her relations, by whom they might think he was persuaded to make this innovation, and to choose seventy rulers, as he had been formerly, Exo 18; by which copartnership in government they thought their authority and reputation much diminished, especially when no notice was taken nor use made of them in the choice, but all was done by the direction of Moses, and for his assistance in the government. And because they durst not accuse God, who was the chief Agent in it, they charge Moses, his instrument, as the manner of men is. Or,

2. Some other woman, though not named in Scripture, whom he married either whilst Zipporah lived, or rather because she was now dead, though that, as really other things, be not recorded. For as the quarrel seems to be about his marrying a stranger, so it is probable it was a late and fresh occasion about which they contended, and not a thing done forty years ago. And it was lawful for him as well as any other to marry an Ethiopian or Arabian woman, provided she were, as doubtless this woman was, a sincere proselyte, which were by the law of God admitted to the same privileges with the Israelites, Exo 12:48; so there might be many reasons why Moses might choose to marry such a person rather than an Israelite, or why God so ordered it by his providence, either because she was a person of eminent worth and virtue, or because God intended that the government should not be continued in the hands of Mosess children, and therefore would have some political blemish to be upon the family, as being strangers by one parent. And this they here urge as a blemish to Moses also.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1. an Ethiopian womanHebrew,“a Cushite woman”Arabia was usually called in Scripturethe land of Cush, its inhabitants being descendants of that son ofHam (see on Ex 2:15) and beingaccounted generally a vile and contemptible race (see on Am9:7). The occasion of this seditious outbreak on the part ofMiriam and Aaron against Moses was the great change made in thegovernment by the adoption of the seventy rulers [Nu11:16]. Their irritating disparagement of his wife (who, in allprobability, was Zipporah [Ex 2:21],and not a second wife he had recently married) arose from jealousy ofthe relatives, through whose influence the innovation had been firstmade (Ex 18:13-26),while they were overlooked or neglected. Miriam is mentioned beforeAaron as being the chief instigator and leader of the sedition.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses,…. Miriam is first mentioned, because she was first in the transgression, and so was only punished; Aaron was drawn into the sin by her, and he acknowledged his fault, and was forgiven: it must be a great trial to Moses, not only to be spoken against by the people, as he often was, but by his near relations, and these gracious persons, and concerned with him in leading and guiding the people through the wilderness, Mic 6:4;

because of the Ethiopian woman, whom he had married, for he had married an Ethiopian woman; not a queen of Ethiopia, as the Targum of Jonathan; nor Tharbis, a daughter of a king of Ethiopia, whom Josephus h says he married, when he was sent upon an expedition against the Ethiopians, while he was in Pharaoh’s court; nor the widow of an Ethiopian king whom he married after his death, when he fled from Pharaoh into Ethiopia, and was made a king there, as say some Jewish writers i: for there is no reason to believe he was married before he went to Midian; nor was this some Ethiopian woman he had married since, and but lately, Zipporah being dead or divorced, as some have fancied; but it was Zipporah herself, as Aben Ezra, Ben Melech, and so the Jerusalem Targum, which represents her not as truly an Ethiopian, but so called, because she was like to one; indeed she was really one; not a native of Ethiopia, the country of the Abyssines, but she was a Cushite, a native of Arabia Chusea, in which country Midian was, from whence she came; hence the tents, of Cushan, and the curtains of Midian, are spoken of together, Hab 3:7. Now it was not on account of Moses’s marriage with her that they spoke against him, for that was an affair transacted in Midian some years ago, which at first sight may seem to be the case; nor because he now had divorced her, as Jarchi, which perhaps would have given them no uneasiness; and for the same reason, not because he abstained from conversation with her, that he might give up himself to the service of God in his house, and perform it in a more holy and faithful manner, which is the common sentiment of the Jewish writers: but rather, as it is thought by others, because of a suspicion they had entertained, that she had interested herself in the affair of the choice of the seventy elders, and had prevailed upon Moses to put in such and such persons into the list she had a mind to serve; at least this seems to be the case, for the displeasure was against Moses himself; they were angry with him, because he transacted that affair without them, and chose whom he pleased, without consulting them; and therefore, though they cared not to ascribe it entirely to him, and his neglect of them, they imputed it to his wife, as if she had over persuaded him, or her brother through her means, to take such a step as he did.

h Antiqu. l. 2. c. 10. sect. 2. i Dibre Hayamim, fol. 7. 2. Shalshalet Hakabala, fol. 5. 2. so some in Aben Ezra in loc.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

All the rebellions of the people hitherto had arisen from dissatisfaction with the privations of the desert march, and had been directed against Jehovah rather than against Moses. And if, in the case of the last one, at Kibroth-hattaavah, even Moses was about to lose heart under the heavy burden of his office; the faithful covenant God had given the whole nation a practical proof, in the manner in which He provided him support in the seventy elders, that He had not only laid the burden of the whole nation upon His servant Moses, but had also communicated to him the power of His Spirit, which was requisite to enable him to carry this burden. Thus not only was his heart filled with new courage when about to despair, but his official position in relation to all the Israelites was greatly exalted. This elevation of Moses excited envy on the part of his brother and sister, whom God had also richly endowed and placed so high, that Miriam was distinguished as a prophetess above all the women of Israel, whilst Aaron had been raised by his investiture with the high-priesthood into the spiritual head of the whole nation. But the pride of the natural heart was not satisfied with this. They would dispute with their brother Moses the pre-eminence of his special calling and his exclusive position, which they might possibly regard themselves as entitled to contest with him not only as his brother and sister, but also as the nearest supporters of his vocation. Miriam was the instigator of the open rebellion, as we may see both from the fact that her name stands before that of Aaron, and also from the use of the feminine in Num 12:1. Aaron followed her, being no more able to resist the suggestions of his sister, than he had formerly been to resist the desire of the people for a golden idol (Ex 32). Miriam found an occasion for the manifestation of her discontent in the Cushite wife whom Moses had taken. This wife cannot have been Zipporah the Midianite: for even though Miriam might possibly have called her a Cushite, whether because the Cushite tribes dwelt in Arabia, or in a contemptuous sense as a Moor or Hamite, the author would certainly not have confirmed this at all events inaccurate, if not contemptuous epithet, by adding, “ for he had taken a Cushite wife; ” to say nothing of the improbability of Miriam having made the marriage which her brother had contracted when he was a fugitive in a foreign land, long before he was called by God, the occasion of reproach so many years afterwards. It would be quite different if, a short time before, probably after the death of Zipporah, he had contracted a second marriage with a Cushite woman, who either sprang from the Cushites dwelling in Arabia, or from the foreigners who had come out of Egypt along with the Israelites. This marriage would not have been wrong in itself, as God had merely forbidden the Israelites to marry the daughters of Canaan (Exo 34:16), even if Moses had not contracted it “with the deliberate intention of setting forth through this marriage with a Hamite woman the fellowship between Israel and the heathen, so far as it could exist under the law; and thus practically exemplifying in his own person that equality between the foreigners and Israel which the law demanded in various ways” ( Baumgarten), or of “ prefiguring by this example the future union of Israel with the most remote of the heathen,” as O. v. Gerlach and many of the fathers suppose. In the taunt of the brother and sister, however, we meet with that carnal exaggeration of the Israelitish nationality which forms so all-pervading a characteristic of this nation, and is the more reprehensible the more it rests upon the ground of nature rather than upon the spiritual calling of Israel ( Kurtz).

Num 12:2-3

Miriam and Aaron said, “ Hath Jehovah then spoken only by Moses, and not also by us? ” Are not we – the high priest Aaron, who brings the rights of the congregation before Jehovah in the Urim and Thummim (Exo 28:30), and the prophetess Miriam (Exo 15:20) – also organs and mediators of divine revelation? “They are proud of the prophetic gift, which ought rather to have fostered modesty in them. But such is the depravity of human nature, that they not only abuse the gifts of God towards the brother whom they despise, but by an ungodly and sacrilegious glorification extol the gifts themselves in such a manner as to hide the Author of the gifts” ( Calvin). – “ And Jehovah heard.” This is stated for the purpose of preparing the way for the judicial interposition of God. When God hears what is wrong, He must proceed to stop it by punishment. Moses might also have heard what they said, but “ the man Moses was very meek ( , lxx, mitis , Vulg.; not ‘plagued,’ geplagt, as Luther renders it), more than all men upon the earth.” No one approached Moses in meekness, because no one was raised so high by God as he was. The higher the position which a man occupies among his fellow-men, the harder is it for the natural man to bear attacks upon himself with meekness, especially if they are directed against his official rank and honour. This remark as to the character of Moses serves to bring out to view the position of the person attacked, and points out the reason why Moses not only abstained from all self-defence, but did not even cry to God for vengeance on account of the injury that had been done to him. Because he was the meekest of all men, he could calmly leave this attack upon himself to the all-wise and righteous Judge, who had both called and qualified him for his office. “For this is the idea of the eulogium of his meekness. It is as if Moses had said that he had swallowed the injury in silence, inasmuch as he had imposed a law of patience upon himself because of his meekness” ( Calvin).

The self-praise on the part of Moses, which many have discovered in this description of his character, and on account of which some even of the earlier expositors regarded this verse as a later gloss, whilst more recent critics have used it as an argument against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, is not an expression of vain self-display, or a glorification of his own gifts and excellences, which he prided himself upon possessing above all others. It is simply a statement, which was indispensable to a full and correct interpretation of all the circumstances, and which was made quite objectively, with reference to the character which Moses had not given to himself but had acquired through the grace of God, and which he never falsified from the very time of his calling until the day of his death, either at the rebellion of the people at Kibroth-hattaavah (ch. 11), or at the water of strife (at Kadesh (ch. 20). His despondency under the heavy burden of his office in the former case (ch. 11) speaks rather for than against the meekness of his character; and the sin at Kadesh (ch. 20) consisted simply in the fact, that he suffered himself to be brought to doubt either the omnipotence of God, or the possibility of divine help, in account of the unbelief of the people.

(Note: There is not a word in Num 20:10 or Psa 106:32 to the effect, that “his dissatisfaction broke out into evident passion” ( Kurtz). And it is quite a mistake to observe, that in the case before us there was nothing at all to provoke Moses to appeal to his meekness, since it was not his meekness that Miriam had disputed, but only his prophetic call. If such grounds as these are interpolated into the words of Moses, and it is to be held that an attack upon the prophetic calling does not involve such an attack upon the person as might have excited anger, it is certainly impossible to maintain the Mosaic authorship of this statement as to the character of Moses; for the vanity of wishing to procure the recognition of his meekness by praising it, cannot certainly be imputed to Moses the man of God.)

No doubt it was only such a man as Moses who could speak of himself in such a way, – a man who had so entirely sacrificed his own personality to the office assigned him by the Lord, that he was ready at any moment to stake his life for the cause and glory of the Lord (cf. Num 11:15, and Exo 32:32), and of whom Calmet observes with as much truth as force, “As he praises himself here without pride, so he will blame himself elsewhere with humility,”-a man or God whose character is not to be measured by the standard of ordinary men (cf. Hengstenberg, Dissertations, vol. ii. pp. 141ff.).

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Murmuring of Miriam and Aaron.

B. C. 1490.

      1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.   2 And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it.   3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)

      Here is, I. The unbecoming passion of Aaron and Miriam: they spoke against Moses, v. 1. If Moses, that received so much honour from God, yet received so many slights and affronts from men, shall any of us think such trials either strange or hard, and be either provoked or discouraged by them? But who would have thought that disturbance should be created to Moses, 1. From those that were themselves serious and good; nay, that were eminent in religion, Miriam a prophetess, Aaron the high priest, both of them joint-commissioners with Moses for the deliverance of Israel? Mic. vi. 4, I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. 2. From those that were his nearest relations, his own brother and sister, who shone so much by rays borrowed from him? Thus the spouse complains (Cant. i. 6), My mother’s children were angry with me; and quarrels among relations are in a special manner grievous. A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city. Yet this helps to confirm the call of Moses, and shows that his advancement was purely by the divine favour, and not by any compact or collusion with his kindred, who themselves grudged his advancement. Neither did many of our Saviour’s kindred believe on him, John vii. 5. It should seem that Miriam began the quarrel, and Aaron, not having been employed or consulted in the choice of the seventy elders, was for the present somewhat disgusted, and so was the sooner drawn in to take his sister’s part. It would grieve one to see the hand of Aaron in so many trespasses, but it shows that the law made men priests who had infirmity. Satan prevailed first with Eve, and by her with Adam; see what need we have to take heed of being drawn into quarrels by our relations, for we know not how great a matter a little fire may kindle. Aaron ought to have remembered how Moses stood his friend when God was angry with him for making the golden calf (Deut. ix. 20), and not to have rendered him evil for good. Two things they quarrelled with Moses about:– (1.) About his marriage: some think a late marriage with a Cushite or Arabian; others because of Zipporah, whom on this occasion they called, in scorn, an Ethiopian woman, and who, they insinuated, had too great an influence upon Moses in the choice of these seventy elders. Perhaps there was some private falling out between Zipporah and Miriam, which occasioned some hot words, and one peevish reflection introduced another, till Moses and Aaron came to be interested. (2.) About his government; not the mismanagement of it, but the monopolizing of it (v. 2): “Hath the Lord spoken only by Moses? Must he alone have the choice of the persons on whom the spirit of prophecy shall come? Hath he not spoken also by us? Might not we have had a hand in that affair, and preferred our friends, as well as Moses his?” They could not deny that God had spoken by Moses, but it was plain he had sometimes spoken also by them; and that which they intended was to make themselves equal with him, though God had so many ways distinguished him. Note, Striving to be greatest is a sin which easily besets disciples themselves, and it is exceedingly sinful. Even those that are well preferred are seldom pleased if others be better preferred. Those that excel are commonly envied.

      II. The wonderful patience of Moses under this provocation. The Lord heard it (v. 2), but Moses himself took no notice of it, for (v. 3) he was very meek. He had a great deal of reason to resent the affront; it was ill-natured and ill-timed, when the people were disposed to mutiny, and had lately given him a great deal of vexation with their murmurings, which would be in danger of breaking out again when thus headed and countenanced by Aaron and Miriam; but he, as a deaf man, heard not. When God’s honour was concerned, as in the case of the golden calf, no man more zealous than Moses; but, when his own honour was touched, no man more meek: as bold as a lion in the cause of God, but as mild as a lamb in his own cause. God’s people are the meek of the earth (Zeph. ii. 3), but some are more remarkable than others for this grace, as Moses, who was thus fitted for the work he was called to, which required all the meekness he had and sometimes more. And sometimes the unkindness of our friends is a greater trial of our meekness than the malice of our enemies. Christ himself records his own meekness (Matt. xi. 29, I am meek and lowly in heart), and the copy of meekness which Christ has set was without a blot, but that of Moses was not.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

NUMBERS – TWELVE

Verses l-4:

“Ethiopian,” Cushite, a descendant of Ham.

This cannot refer to Zipporah. She was a Midianite, a descendant of Abraham by Keturah, Ge 25:1-6. No mention is made of Zipporah after Ex 18. The inference is that Zipporah had died, and that Moses had remarried. There is nothing in Scripture which tells where she came from, what was her name, nor when and where Moses married this woman.

There is no Scripture record that God condemned Moses for his marriage to the Cushite woman. The only condemnation came from his sister and brother.

Moses’ marriage displeased Miriam. Scripture does not record how long this displeasure festered before it erupted into open rebellion against Moses. The text implies that Miriam influenced Aaron to join her sedition.

Miriam was a prophetess, Ex 15:20. Her opposition to Moses’ marriage may have stemmed from a spirit of nationalism. She may have regarded Moses’ choice of a wife as demeaning to his role as Israel’s leader. Her protest implies that she considered herself as well-qualified as Moses to be the leader of God’s people.

There is a sense in which Jehovah hears all. And there is another sense in which He chooses not to hear, and thus not to act, as in the case of Moses’ complaint, Nu 11:10-15. In the present text, He did hear the contention against Moses, and He moved swiftly to act before the rebellion could spread to others in the camp.

Verse 3 describes the character of Moses, as being meek above all other men. “Meek,” anav, “humble,” meaning “to have a proper opinion of one’s self.” Another definition: “to see one’s self as God sees.” It does not mean servile, or self-denigrating.

This definition of Moses’ character shows there was no basis for the opposition of Moses and Aaron.

Jehovah summoned Moses, Aaron, and Miriam to “come out” from their place before the Tabernacle, to appear before the Lord.

“Suddenly,” pithom, quickly or unexpectedly. The voice likely came before they thought there would be Divine intervention.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

1. And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses. This relation is especially worthy of observation for many reasons. If Aaron and Miriam had always quietly and cordially supported the honor of their brother, and had not been carried away by perverse and ungodly jealousy, their harmony, however holy it was, would have been perverted by the injustice of many, and alleged against them as a deceitful and insidious conspiracy. It came to pass, then, in the wonderful providence of God, that his own brother and sister set on foot a contention with respect to the supremacy, and endeavored to degrade Moses from the position in which God had placed him: for thus all suspicion of family favor was removed, and it was clearly shown that Moses, being opposed by his own belongings, was sustained by the power of God alone. At the same time it may be perceived how natural is ambition to the minds of almost all men, and also how blind and furious is the lust of dominion. Aaron and Miriam contend with their own brother for the supremacy; and yet they had received the most abundant proofs, that lie, whom they desire to overthrow, had been elevated by the hand of God, and was thus maintained in his position. For Moses had arrogated nothing to himself; and, therefore, it was not allowable that man should attempt to undermine the dignity of that high office, which God had conferred upon him. Besides, God had ennobled their own house and name in the person of Moses, and out of favor to him they had also been endued with peculiar gifts of their own. For by what right had Miriam obtained the gift of prophecy, except for the fuller ratification of her brother’s power? But the arrogance and ingratitude of Aaron was still more disgraceful. He had been by his brother associated with himself: Moses had allowed the high-priesthood to be transferred to him and his descendants, and rims had placed his own in subjection to them. What, then, was there for Aaron to begrudge his brother; when so exalted a dignity was vested in his own sons, whilst all the race of Moses was degraded? Still he was so blinded as to deem the honor of his brother a reproach to himself; at any rate, he could not endure to be second to him in dignity, although he was his superior in right of the priesthood. By this example, then, we are taught how anxiously we should beware of so baneful a plague (as ambition). The wicked brother (38) in the tragic Poet says: —

“

For, if injustice must at all be done, ‘Tis best to do it for dominion;”

that, under this pretext, he might through treachery and murder proceed against his own blood with impunity. Now, although we all hold this sentiment in detestation, still it plainly shows that, when the lust for rule takes possession of men’s hearts, not only do they abandon the love of justice, but that humanity becomes altogether extinct in them, since brothers thus contend with each other, and rage, as it were, against their own bowels. Indeed it is astonishing that, when this vice has been so often and so severely condemned in the opinion of all ages, the human race has not been ever freed from it; nay, that the Church of God has always been infested by this disease, than which none is worse: for ambition has been, and still is, the mother of all errors, of all disturbances and sects. Since Aaron and his sister were infected by it, how easily may it overspread the multitude! But I now proceed to examine the words.

Miriam is here put before Aaron, not by way of honorable distinction, but because she stirred up the strife, and persuaded her brother to take her side; for the ambition of the female sex is wonderful; and often have women, more high-spirited than men, been the instigators not merely of squabbles, but of mighty wars, so that great cities and countries have been shaken by their violent conduct. Still. however, this does not diminish the guilt of Aaron, who, at the instance of his foolish sister, engaged in an unjust and wicked contest with his brother, and even declared himself an enemy to God’s grace. Further, because they were unable to allege any grounds, upon which Moses in himself was not far their superior, they seek to bring disgrace upon him on account of his wife; as if in half of himself he was inferior to them, because he had married a woman who was not of their own race, but a foreigner. They, therefore, cast ignominious aspersions upon him in the person of his wife, as if it were not at all becoming that he should be accounted the prince and head of the people, since his wife, and the companion of his bed, was a Gentile woman. I do not by any means agree with those who think that she was any other than Zipporah, (39) since we hear nothing of the death of Zipporah, nay, she had been brought back by Jethro, her father, only a little while before the delivery of the Law; whilst it is too absurd to charge the holy Prophet with the reproach of polygamy. Besides, as an octogenarian, he would have been but little suited for a second marriage. Again, how would such a marriage have been practicable in the desert? It is, therefore, sufficiently clear that they refer to Zipporah, who is called an Ethiopian woman, because the Scripture comprehends the Midianites under this name: although I have no doubt but that they maliciously selected this name, for the purpose of awakening greater odium against Moses. I designedly forbear from adducing the frivolous glosses in which some indulge. (40) Moses, however, acknowledges that it (41) was not accorded to him to have a wife of the holy race of Abraham.

(38) They are the words of Eteocles in the Phoenissae of Euripides: —

Εἴπερ γὰρ ἀδικεῖν χρὴ, τυραννίδος πέρι Κάλλιστον ἀδικεῖν· τἄλλα δ ᾿ εὐσεβεῖν. — 538.9

Cicero refers to them, De Off. 3:21.

Nam, si violandum est jus, regnandi gratia, Violandum est: aliis rebus pietatem colas.

(39) Josephus (Antiq. 2:10) has led some to suppose that she was Tharbis, daughter of the king of Ethiopia. Augustin, however, (Quaest. in Num 20:0. ,) and the great majority of commentators, agree with C. in believing that she was Zipporah, and not a second wife, as contended by Rosenmuller, Michaelis, and others, The main difficulty arises from her being called a Cushite, which our translators have followed 70. and V. in rendering “the Ethiopian.” Bochart endeavors to prove that the Cushites and Midianites were the same people; and Shuckford (vol. 1, p. 166, edit. 1743) states his opinion that “by the land of Cush is always meant some part of Arabia.” Hab 3:7, in which “the tents of Cushan,” and “the land of Midian,” are mentioned together, seems to corroborate this view.

(40) “The Hebrew doctors make his not companying with his wife to be the occasion,” etc. — Ainsworth. So also De Lyra.

(41) “Qu’il n’a pas eu ce bien et honneur;” that he had not the advantage and honor. — Fr.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

MARCHING AND MURMURING

Numbers, Chapters 1-19.

THE Book of Leviticus is hard to outline and to interpret. It is lengthy, and introduces so much of detail of law and ceremony that its analysis is accomplished with difficulty. And yet Leviticus took but thirty days to declare and put its every precept into actual practice. In that respect the Book of Numbers quite contrasts its predecessor. It covers a period of not less than thirty-eight years, and the plan of the volume is simple. Four keywords compass the nineteen chapters proposed for this mornings study. They are words necessitated by the wilderness experience. Leviticus sets up a sanctuary and a form of service; but in Numbers, we read of men of war, of armies, of standards, of camps, and trumpets sounding aloud. Through all of this, these key-words keep their way, and the mere mention of them will aid us in an orderly study of the first half of the volume; while we will not be able to dispense with them when we come to the analysis and study of the latter half. I refer to the terms mustering, marching, murmuring, and mercy.

MUSTERING

The first nine chapters of Numbers have to do almost entirely with the mustering. Chapters one and two are given to arranging the regiment, as we saw in our former study:

And the Lord spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,

Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the Children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;

From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.

And with you there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of the house of his fathers. * *

As the Lord commanded Moses, so he numbered them in the wilderness of Sinai. * *

Every male from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war. * *

And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, Every man of the Children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard (Num 1:1-4; Num 1:19-20; Num 2:1-2).

After all the centuries and even the millenniums that have come in between the day of Numbers and our day, wherein have men improved upon Gods plan of mustering armies and arranging regiments? True, we permit our boys to enter the service younger than twenty, but we make a mistake, as many a war-wrecked youth has illustrated. True, we make up our regiments of men who are strangers to each other, and in whose veins no kindred blood is flowing. But such an aggregation will never represent the strength, nor exhibit the courage that the tribal regiment evinces in fight. The almost successful rebellion of our Southern States demonstrated this. Our standard speaks of the nation, and appeals to the patriotic in men. Their standard represented the family and addressed itself to domestic pride and passion. It is well to remember, however, that the primary purpose of these Old Testament symbols is the impression of spiritual truths. And the lesson in this arranging of regiments is the one of being able to declare our spiritual genealogy, and our religious standard.

Every Israelite, when he was polled, was put in position to declare his paternity and point unmistakably to his standard; and no Christians should be satisfied until they can say with John, Now are we the sons of God, because we have discovered that the Spirit Himself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the sons of God. And no standard should ever be accepted as sufficient other than that which has been set up for us in the Word. Long ago God said, Behold I will lift up Mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up My standard to the people, and in Christ Jesus He has accomplished that; and every one of us ought to be able to say with C. H. M., Our theology is the Bible; our church organization is the one Body, formed by the presence of the Holy Ghost, and united to the living and exalted Head in the Heavens. To contend for anything less than this is entirely below the mark of a true spiritual warrior.

Chapters three and four contain the appointment of the Priests. When Moses numbered the people, the Levites after the tribe of their fathers were not numbered (Num 1:47). God had for them a particular place in the army, and a peculiar part to take in this onward march. Their place was roundabout the tabernacle, at the center of the host, and their office was the charge of all the vessels thereof, and over all the things that belonged to it. They were to bear the tabernacle, to minister in the tabernacle, to encamp roundabout it; to take it down when they were ready to set forth; and when the army halted in a new place, they were to set it up (chap. 2). In one sense they were not soldiers; in another they were the very captains and leaders of Jehovahs army. Their men from twenty to fifty were not armed and made ready for the shedding of blood, but they were set in charge of that symbol of Jehovahs presence without which Israels overthrow would have been instantaneous, and Israels defeat effectual. The worlds most holy men have always been, will always remain, its best warriors. The Sunday School teachers of the land fight the battles that make for peace more effectually than the nations constabulary; while the ministers of the Gospel, together with all their confederatesconscientious laymenput more things to rights and keep the peace better than the police force of all towns and cities. Every believer is a priest unto God. We should be profoundly impressed with the position we occupy in the great army which is fighting for a better civilization, and with the responsibility that rests upon us in the bringing in of a reign of righteousness.

Chapters five to nine, we have said, relate themselves to the establishment of army regulations. They impose purity of life upon every member who remains in the camp; they require restitution of any property falsely appropriated; they insist upon the strictest integrity of the home-life, and they declare the vows, offerings, and ceremonies suited to impress the necessity of the keeping of all these commands. In this there are two suggestions for the present time, namely, the place that discipline has in a well-organized army and the prominence it ought to be given in the true Church of God. That modern custom of making a hero of every man who smells the smoke of battle, and the complimentary one of excoriating every moral teacher who insists that even men of war are amenable to the civilities of life and ought to be compelled to regard them, has filled the ranks of too many standing armies with immoral men and swung public opinion too far into line with that servile press which indulges the habit of condoning, yea, even of commending, an army code that makes for criminal culture.

Sometime ago I went, in company with a veteran of 61 to 66, to hold a little service at the grave of two of his comrades. On our way we met another veteran of that bloody war, and as we looked into his bloated face, and listened to his drunken words, this clean, sober, Christian ex-soldier uttered some things about the necessity of better discipline in the army that were worthy of repetition, and ought to be heard by those officials who have it in their power to aid the young men of our present army to keep the commandments of God; but who too often lead them by example and precept to an utter repudiation of the same.

But the Church of God is Jehovahs army, and if we expect civilities from the unregenerate, we have a right to demand righteousness of the professedly redeemed. Much as discipline did for the purity and power of Israel, if rightly employed, it would accomplish even more for the purity and power of the present organized body of believers. Baron Stowe, a long time Bostons model pastor, in his Memoirs says, touching the importance of strict discipline, A church cannot prosper that connives at sin in its members; and that charity which shrinks from plain, faithful dealing with offenders, is false charity, and deeply injurious. A straightforward course in discipline, in accordance with the rules laid down by the Saviour, is the only one that will insure His approbation. Any serious student of the Scriptures must be often and profoundly impressed with the parallelisms, and even perfect agreements, of the Old Testament teachings with those of the New. Touching discipline, the Lord said unto Joshua,

Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant, which I commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff.

Therefore the Children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they were accursed: neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed thing from among you (Jos 7:11-12).

When Paul found in the Corinthian Church a similar condition of transgression, he wrote,

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. * * Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person (1Co 5:11 f).

MARCH

The tenth chapter and thirty-third verse sets our organized army into motion. And they departed from the mount of the Lord, three days journey. Touching this march there are three things suggested by the Scripture, each of which is of the utmost importance.

First of all it was begun at Gods signal.

And it came to pass on the twentieth day of the second month, in the second year, that the cloud was taken up from off the tabernacle of the testimony.

And the Children of Israel took their journeys out of the wilderness of Sinai; and the cloud rested in the wilderness of Paran.

And they first took their journey according to the commandment of the Lord, by the hand of Moses (Num 10:11-13).

Going back to the beginning of this tenth chapter you will find that the priests were to assemble the armies with the silver trumpets. A single blast called together the princesheads of the thousands of Israel. When they blew an alarm, the camps that lay on the East went forward. A second alarm summoned the camps from the South, and an additional blast brought the congregation together. The same God at whose signal Israel was to march, speaks in trumpet tones by His Spirit, and through the Word, to the present Church militant. When whole congregations go sadly wrong, much of the trouble will be found with the men whose business it is to. use the silver trumpet, and thereby voice the mind of God. Too many preachers have been snubbed into silence or cowed to uncertain sounds. The silver trumpets through which they ought to call the people to battle have been plugged up with gold pieces, and in all too many instances they are afraid to blow an alarm, calling to the camps that lie on the East, lest when they sound the second, those that lie on the South should refuse to respond.

Joseph Parker suggests that when ministers become the trumpeters of society again, there will be a mighty awakening in the whole nation. In Italy they have a saying to this effect, There has never been a revolution in Europe without a Monk at the bottom of it. And when the ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ faithfully fill up their offices, there will never be a division of Gods army, marching Canaan-ward, without a preacher at the head of it; and he will not be a man who has accommodated himself to the cry of the times in which we live Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits, but rather one who will sound the alarm of Divine command, and whose word will be to the people, Gods signal. Every element of success enters into that assurance which comes from a conviction that one is marching according to the Divine command. The reason why public opinion, almost insuperable obstacles, and even royal counsellors, could not turn Joan of Arc from her purpose, existed in the fact that she kept hearing a voice saying, Daughter of God, go on, go on! And if we will listen, there is a voice behind us saying, This is the way, walk ye in it.

In this march Gods leadership was sought.

And it came to pass, when the ark set forward, that Moses said, Rise up, Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee.

And when it rested he said, Return, O Lord, unto the many thousands of Israel (Num 10:33).

There is a simplicity and a sincerity in that prayer which is truly refreshing. There are plenty of men who consult their circumstances; who take into account all the factors that can affect the march of life, and who try to keep as their constant guide a well-balanced intellect; but Moses preferred God. He esteemed His presence above all favorable conditions, and above the highest human judgment. And the man who rises up in the morning, offering his prayer to God to be guided for that day, and who, when he lies down at night, prays again, Return, O Lord, unto me, and watch over my slumber, is the man who has no occasion to fear because even the fiercest foe will fall before him.

Lewis Albert Banks says that about the year 1600 a man by the name of Heddinger was chaplain to the Duke of Wartenberg. The Duke was a wayward, wicked man. Heddinger was one of these genuine, faithful souls like John the Baptist who would stand for the right and God. He rebuked the Duke for his great sins. This terribly enraged his Honor, and he sent for the brave chaplain thinking to punish him. Heddinger came from his closet of prayer with his face beaming. The Duke, seeing the shine in every feature, realized that he was enjoying the actual presence of the Lord, and after putting to him the question, Why did you not come alone? sent him away unharmed. Ah, beloved, whether we be on the march or at rest; whether we be fighting the battles of life or enjoying its victories; whether we be proclaiming the truth or are on trial for having taught it, we have no business being alone, for we seek the Divine presence. The Lord will lead us in the march and lift over us His banner when we lie down to rest.

Nor can one follow this march without being impressed with the fact that God was guiding His people Canaan-ward. By consulting a good map you will see that the line from Sinai to Kadesh-Barnea was as direct as the lay of the land made possible. God never takes men by circuitous routes. These come in consequence of leaving the straight and narrow way for the more attractive but uncertain one of by-path meadow. Had they remained faithful to Divine leadership, forty days would have brought the whole company into Canaan. But when, through the discouragement of false reporters, they turned southward, putting their backs to God, they plunged into the wilderness fox a wandering of forty years, and even worse, to perish there without ever seeing the Land of Promise. What a lesson here for us! There is a sense in which every man determines his own destiny. It is within our power to trust to Divine leadership and enjoy it, and it is equally within our power to mistrust it, and lose it. One commenting upon this says, Israel declared that God had brought them into the wilderness to die there; and He took them at their word. Joshua and Caleb declared that He was able to bring them into the land, and He took them at their word. According to your faith be it unto you.

MURMURING

The eleventh chapter sounds for us a sad note. There the people fall to petty complaints and criticisms. And when the people complained. There are those who can complain without occasion. Criticism is the cheapest of intellectual commodities. And yet the critic always has a reason for his complaint, and however he may seek to hide the real cause, God is an expert in uncovering it. Here He lays it to the mixed multitude that was among themthey fell a lusting. That mixed multitude (or great mixture is the word in the original) consisted of Egyptians and others who had come out of Egypt with Israel, and whose Egyptian tastes were not being satisfied by enforced marches, holy services and manna from on High. It is a good thing to get Israel out of Egypt, to get the Church of God out of the world; but it is an essential thing also to get Egypt out of Israel, the unregenerate out of the Church of God, for if you do not they will fall a lusting, and the first complaint they will make is touching the food divinely provided for them. The Gospel of Jesus ChristGods provided mannanever did satisfy an unregenerate man, and it never will. What he wants is the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick. Yes, even the garlick of the world; and when you set before him manna, he insists that his soul is dried away.

I went to talk with a mother about her little daughters uniting with the church. She told me that she was opposed to it; and when I asked her why, she boldly replied that she united with the church herself when she was young, and thereby denied herself all the pleasures of the world. She had never ceased to regret it, and she proposed to save her girl from a similar experience. A lusting for the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick! If such is ones feeling, just as well go back to the world! It does not make an Egyptian an Israelite to go over into that camp, and it does not make an unregenerate man a Christian because you write his name on the church book.

This spirit of criticism spread to the officials and leaders. And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married. Their complaint was slightly different from that of the mixed multitude, but directed against the same man.

From the complaint of these leading officials the trouble spread, and when the ten spies rendered their report of the land which God had promised, the whole congregation broke into revolt. That was the opportunity that Korah and Dathan and Abiram and On took advantage of.

And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the Children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown.

And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord? (Num 16:2-3).

Here is the new complaint of the critics! Moses is domineering; his administration is that of a one-man power. He has not given sufficient attention to the princes of the assembly, and to the chief members of the congregation.

This is no ancient story. From that hour until this, the Church of God, whether in the form of Israel or that of the body of baptized believers, has experienced the same rebellion with the same reasons assigned. In Pauls day the Church at Corinth had to be counselled by the great Apostle and the members thereof reminded that they were of one body. The feet are enjoined not to complain of the hands, and the ear not to criticise the eye, and the eye not to envy the hand, nor yet the head the feet, that there should be no schism in the body, since when one member suffers, all the members suffer with it, and when one member is honored all the members should rejoice with it. In our own day the chief men have sometimes set aside the servant of God. Dr. Jonathan Edwards, once a man of the highest education and personal culture, honored by the members of his profession for his spirituality, and for the success that had attended his ministry, was set aside because he interfered with the Egyptian desires of the children of certain chief men of his congregation. Years ago, in New York, Americas most famous pastor and preacher, after passing through a series of sicknesses and bereavements in his family, came to the thirtieth anniversary of his pastorate to find himself retired from office by a few of the officials of the church who were influential. His reinstatement by the body at large came too late to save him from the collapse that attended this severe experience. A New York correspondent, writing of this, said, Such action makes every pastor in New York City feel sick at heart.

Attend to the way Moses met this! If the ministers of the present time learned his way, their course would be a more courageous one and their burdens better borne. Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the Children of Israel (Num 14:5). That is the way he met the first rebellion. When the rebellion of Korah came, it is written, And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face. And he spake unto Korah and unto all his company, saying, Even to morrow the Lord will show who are His (Num 16:4-5). We may suggest here, prayer to God, the best possible reply to complaints and criticisms. If one has been guilty of that charged against him, such prayer will bring him to a knowledge of his guilt and give him an opportunity to correct it; and if he has not been guilty, such prayer will cause God to lift him up and establish his going, and put into his mouth a song.

Constantine the Great was one day looking at some statues of famed persons, and noting that they were all in standing position, he said, When mine is made Id like it in kneeling posture, for it is by going down before God I have risen to any eminence. Moses has taught us how to conquer all complaint, and all criticism, and come off victorious by falling on our faces and waiting until God shows who are His.

MERCY

The conclusion of this study presents a precious thought; in the midst of judgment, mercy appears.

At Moses intercession, God removes His hand. Every time there is a rebellion, and judgment is visited upon the people, Moses appears as intercessor, and when the people fell to lusting for the leeks, and the onions of Egypt, Moses cried unto God, Wherefore hast Thou afflicted Thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in Thy sight, that Thou layest the burden of all this people upon me? Their cries were the anguish of his soul! When Miriam and Aaron were in sedition against their brother, it was Moses who interceded, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech Thee. And when the whole congregation lifted up their voices of murmuring at the report of the spies, Moses was on his face again in such an intercessory prayer as you could scarce find on another page of sacred Scripture. He was ready to die himself, if they could not be delivered and when Korah and his company attempted his overthrow, he plead with God until the plague was stayed. Therein is an example for every true Christian man.

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath, for it is written, Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, saith the Lord;

Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink. * *

Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

This is what Christ said,

Love your enemies, bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite fully use you and persecute you, that you may be the children of your Father which is in Heaven (Mat 5:44-45).

The richest symbol of Gods mercy is seen in this nineteenth chapterthe red heifer! She was preeminently the type of Gods provision against the defilement of the wilderness experience. She prefigured the death of Christ as the purification for sin and contained the promise of Gods mercy toward all men, however dreadful their rebellion or deep their stains. Who can read this nineteenth chapter and remember how this offering of the red heifer covers the most grievous sin of man without seeing how great is Gods mercy, and how Divine is His example. Henry Van Dyke says, When we see God forgiving all men who have sinned against Him, sparing them in his mercy, * * let us take the gracious lesson of forgiveness to our hearts. Why should we hate like Satan when we may forgive like God? Why should we cherish malice, envy, and all uncharitableness in our breasts? I know that some people use us despitefully and show themselves our enemies, but why should we fill our hearts with their bitterness and inflame our wounds with their poison? This world is too sweet and fair to darken it with the clouds of anger. This life is too short and precious to waste it in bearing that heaviest of all burdens, a grudge.

And you will see in this nineteenth chapter, also, a new emphasis laid upon the necessity of personal purity. The red heifer was provided for cleansing, and God imposed it upon the cleansed to keep themselves unspotted from the world. That is the major part of true religion to this day, to keep onesself unspotted from the world. This whole chapter is Gods attempt to so provide us with the blood of the slain, and surround us with the cleansing ceremonies, that we may be able to resist the floods of defilement that flow on every side. Realizing, as we must realize, the beauty and blessedness of a holy life, we can enter into a keen appreciation of that most beautiful beatitude, and sing with John Keble:

Blest are the pure in heart,

For they shall see their God:

The secret of the Lord is theirs;

Their soul is Christs abode.

The Lord, who left the heavens,

Our life and peace to bring,

To dwell in lowliness with men,

Their pattern and their King.

Still to the lowly soul

He doth Himself impart,

And for His dwelling and His throne

Chooseth the pure in heart.

Lord, we Thy presence seek;

May ours this blessing be;

Oh, give the pure and lowly heart,

A temple meet for Thee.

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

Num. 12:1. The Ethiopian woman, &c. Heb.: The woman, the Cushite. This could not have been Zipporah, who was a Midianite, not a Cushite. And even if it be supposed that Miriam called her a Cushite from feelings of contempt and bitterness, yet the historian would not have confirmed the epithet by adding, for he had taken a Cushite woman. Moreover it is exceedingly improbable that Miriam should have reproached Moses with a marriage made many years previously, and long before he received the call to his great mission. The probability is that Zipporah had died, and Moses had entered into marriage with a Cushite woman, who either sprang from the Cushites, dwelling in Arabia, or from the foreigners who had come out of Egypt along with the Israelites. Such a marriage was perfectly allowable, so long as the woman was not a daughter of Canaan. Exo. 34:11-16.

Num. 12:2. Hath He not spoken also by us? Aaron, as the high-priest, was the spiritual head of the whole nation, and as a prophetess Miriam was distinguished above all the women of Israel. Having received a measure of the prophetic spirit (Exo. 4:15; Exo. 15:20), they aspired to a share in the authority of Moses.

Num. 12:3. Now the man Moses was very meek, &c. It has been objected that Moses, being a humble and modest man, would not have written this verse. Hence Dr. A. Clarke translates, Now this man Moses was depressed or afflicted more than any man of that land. Fuerst renders , in this place, a humble one. Sept.: . Vulg.: mitis. Keil and Del.: meek. This seems to us the best rendering. The objections which have been raised against it are not valid. The statement is not an expression of vain self-display, or a glorification of his own gifts and excellencies, which he prided himself upon possessing above all others. It is simply a statement which was indispensible to a full and correct interpretation of all the circumstances. When we regard these words as uttered by Moses, not proprio motu, but under the direction of the Holy Spirit which was upon him (cf. Num. 11:17), they exhibit a certain objectivity, which is a witness at once to their genuineness and also to their inspiration. There is about these words, as also about the passages in which Moses no less unequivocally records his own faults (cf. Num. 20:12 sqq.; Exo. 4:24 sqq.; Deu. 1:37), the simplicity of one who bare witness of himself, but not to himself (cf. St. Mat. 11:28-29). The words are inserted to explain how it was that Moses took no steps to vindicate himself, and why consequently the Lord so promptly intervened.Speakers Comm.

Num. 12:6-8. If there be a prophet among you, &c. Keil and Del.: If there is a prophet of Jehovah to you (i.e. if you have one), I make myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream (, lit. in him, inasmuch as a revelation in a dream fell within the inner sphere of the soul-life). Not so my servant Moses: he is approved in My whole house; mouth to mouth I speak to him, and as an appearance, and that not in enigmas; and he sees the form of Jehovah. Why are ye not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?

Through this utterance on the part of Jehovah, Moses is placed above all the prophets, in relation to God and also to the whole nation. The Divine revelation to the prophets is thereby restricted to the two forms of inward intuition (vision and dream) The prophets were consequently simply organs, through whom Jehovah made known His counsel and will at certain times, and in relation to special circumstances and features in the development of His kingdom. It was not so with Moses. Jehovah had placed him over all His house, had called him to be the founder and organizer of the kingdom established in Israel through his mediatorial service, and had found him faithful in His service. With this servant (, LXX.) of His, He spake mouth to mouth, without a figure or figurative cloak, with the distinctness of a human interchange of thought; so that at any time he could inquire of God and wait for the Divine reply. Hence Moses was not a prophet of Jehovah, like many others, not even merely the first and highest prophet, primus inter pares, but stood above all the prophets, as the founder of the theocracy, and mediator of the Old Covenant The prophets subsequent to Moses simply continued to build upon the foundation which Moses laid. And if Moses stood in this unparalleled relation to the Lord, Miriam and Aaron sinned grievously against him, when speaking as they did.

Num. 12:7. My servant Moses, &c. Comp. Heb. 3:1-6.

Num. 12:10. Leprous. See pp. 7577.

Num. 12:12. Let her not be as one dead, &c., i.e., like a still-born child, which comes into the world half decomposed. His reason for making this comparison was, that leprosy produces decomposition in the living body.Keil and Del.

Num. 12:14. If her father had but spit, &c. To spit in the face was a mark of extreme contempt. See Deu. 25:9; Job. 30:10; Isa. 1:6; Mar. 14:65. When a parent did this to his child, it is said the child was banished from his presence for seven days. How much more, then, should Miriam, who had sinned so grievously and whom God had smitten with leprosy, be exiled from the people and presence of God for seven days!

Num. 12:16. The wilderness of Paran was the great tract south of Palestine, commencing soon after Sinai, as the people advanced northwards,that perhaps now known as the desert Et-Tih, or the desert of the Wandering. Between the wilderness of Paran and that of Zin no strict demarcation exists in the narrative, nor do the natural features of the region, so far as yet ascertained, yield a well-defined boundary. (See The Speakers Comm., and Keil and Del. on Num. 10:12; Smiths Dict. of Bible, Arts. Kadesh, Paran, and Wilderness of the Wandering; and the maps of Egypt and the Peninsula of Sinai, in Stanleys Sinai and Pal.).

THE SIN OF MIRIAM AND AARON: EVIL SPEAKING, DIVINE HEARING, AND SAINTLY SILENCE

(Num. 12:1-3)

Consider:

I. The Sin of Miriam and Aaron.

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses, &c. In considering this sin, let us notice

1. Its root. The source of this evil speaking was (so we infer from Num. 12:2) jealousy on the part of Miriam and Aaron at the authority exercised, and the powers assumed by Moses. They were envious of his position and power, and ambitious for the exercise of equal authority. As Dr. Kitto has pointed out, the position assigned to Aaron in the common wealth was in some respects superior to that of Moses. The function of Moses was temporary, and would pass away with his life; whereas Aarons was permanent in himself and his heirs, and would leave him and them the foremost and most important persons in the state. He might not therefore always regard with patience the degree in which his own high office was superseded by the existing authority of Moses. The fact that he was the elder brother, probably contributed further to his discontent and jealousy. Miriam also was jealous and ambitious. It seemed to her, that being a prophetess, she ought to have a more eminent position and greater power. Here in their mean jealousy and vaulting ambition we have the root of their sin. (a).

2. Its occasion. It is probable that the fact that Aaron and Miriam had not been consulted in the choice of the seventy elders awakened their discontent. But that which they put forth as the occasion of their reproaches was the marriage which Moses had contracted with the Cushite woman. This seems to have annoyed Miriam, and led her to engage Aaron in envious and evil speeches. That Miriam was the instigator of the open rebellion appears from three things:

(1) That she is named before Aaron.
(2) From the use of the feminine verb in Num. 12:1; and

(3) from the fact that the punishment fell upon her only, and not upon Aaron. It appears that Aaron was deficient in firmness, and was too easily persuaded by others. Weakly and wickedly he yielded to the desire of the people for a golden idol (Exodus 32); and now at the instigation of his sister he unites in rebellion against the leader whom God had appointed. It is natural that the wife of Moses would be regarded with feelings of respect and honour in the camp. Miriam was jealous of these honours; she wished to occupy the rank of chief lady in the camp; hence she instigated this mean and sinful rebellion.

3. Its expression. They spake against Moses, &c. Evil speaking is a grievous offence in the sight of God. But when, as in this case, the evil speeches are directed against His chosen servants, the sin is greatly aggravated. Jealousy, the green-eyed monster, discovers flaws in and heaps reproaches upon its object, even though his character and conduct be most faultless and beautiful. The bitter feeling goes forth in unjust and bitter speech. (b)

II. The Divine Cognizance of their Sin.

And the Lord heard. No one utterance of all the myriads of voices in His universe ever escapes His ear. There is a Divine Hearer of every human speech. This is clear from

1. His omnipresence. See Psa. 139:7-12. He who is everywhere present sees all things, hears all things.

2. His infinite intelligence. He to whom all things are known cannot be ignorant of the evil speeches of men.

3. His interest in His servants. God is deeply concerned in the honour and welfare of His servants. Their reputation is a sacred thing in His sight. Therefore He notes all the evil which is spoken against them.

Let all evil speakers and slanderers ponder the solemn truth that every whisper is distinctly audible to the Divine ear.

III. The commendable conduct of Moses under the provocation of their sin.

1. He was sorely tried. Under any circumstances it is a severe trial to be reproached without cause, or to be falsely accused; but the trial of Moses was embittered by the source from whence it sprung. Comp. Psa. 55:12-15.

2. He bore his sore trial most nobly. Under extreme provocation he maintained a saintly silence. He did not resent the attack made upon him, or attempt in any way to vindicate himself, for he was meek and lowly in heart. Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth. We have here a hint as to

(1) The nature of meekness. Meekness, says Attersoll, is a gift of the Spirit, which moderateth anger and desire of revenge, forgiving offences and pardoning injuries for peace and quietness sake: so that albeit a man be provoked by injuries received, yet he doth not intend nor enterprize to requite it, but bridleth all hatred and impatience. (c)

(2) The occasions of its manifestation. When we are injured personally, like Moses, we must be meek. But when the honour of God is impeached, like Moses in the matter of the golden calf (Exo. 32:19-29), we must be zealous and determined. He was as bold as a lion in the cause of God, but as mild as a lamb in his own cause.

Conclusion:

1. In the conduct of Miriam and Aaron we have a beacon. Let us shun their sin, &c.

2. In the conduct of Moses we have a pattern. Let us imitate his meekness.

ILLUSTRATIONS

(a) Ambition threw Adam out of the garden of God: it quickly crept into the family of Christ, and infected his disciples, and, therefore, being a subtle and secret evil, it is to be looked unto that it steal not suddenly upon us. If any man ask what it is, I answer, It is an immoderate desire after dignity, it is a thirst that never can be quenched; for as the covetous person hath never enough money, so the ambitious hath never enough honour; it is a secret poison, a hidden plague, the mistress of craft, the mother of hypocrisy, the father of envy, the fountain of vices, the moth of piety, a blind guide and leader of the hearts of men; finally, we may say of the love of it as Paul doth of the love of money, It is the root of all evil (1Ti. 6:10). The farther we think ourselves from it, the nearer commonly it cometh unto us; and, therefore, let nothing be done through strife and vainglory, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves (Php. 2:3W. Attersoll.

(b) Sweetness is lost if you pour in bitterness to it. And certainly, if otherwise you have many sweet qualities and virtues, if you have an ill tongue to speak against Moses, the bitterness of it will mar them all. The little bee hath but a little sting, and, therefore, the wound is not mortal that she can make; yet little as it is, it procureth usually her death if she be caught. So will your stinging tongue, assure yourself, kill you, although it little hurt him or her whom you have stung. The foul frog lieth all day in the mud and mire, at night putting up the head and croaking with a foul noise; and such foul creatures are they said to be that have croaking tongues against Moses. Put a swine into the sweetest garden you can make, and what will he do? Smell to the pleasant rose or any other delightful flower there? No; but straight he will fall to rooting, and with his foul mouth turn up both moor and mould of every good thing. Such foul swize are they said to be, that have foul tongues, ever passing by that which is good, and rooting up the good names of them, whose virtues, how sweet soever to God and men, yet to them are ever hateful. I will go no further, but pray you to mark him that toppeth a candle, and taketh not good heed, doth he not usually black his fingers and sometimes also burn them, although he make the candle more bright? So do such persons as will be meddling with their neighbours lives. Well may their prattling make them burn and shine more bright, whom they meddle withal; but their own fingers carry a marknay, their souls receive such a blot as all the water in the sea will not wash off, but only the saving blood of Christ Jesus, upon repentance and amendment. Follow we not, then, Miriam and Aaron speaking against Moses, but pray for His grace to guide our tongues in a holy course, and so, clean tongues being the outward tokens of our clean souls, our life shall be godly and our end happy.Bishop Babington.

(c) All genuine meekness among menall, I mean, which is more than mere easiness of dispositionmay be defined to be that bearing of a man towards the things of time and of this world, which springs from having the heart broken by religious penitence and the will put humbly into the hand of God. Do we call him meek who gives way in silence before noisy pretension, will rather give up his due than wrangle for it, and is so far from pushing himself into foremost places, that he yields before the force or importunity of earthly-minded men, nor murmurs at the usurpation of the unjust? Is it not because his natural self-importance has been humbled into poverty of spirit, that he is prepared thus to accept the lowest place? Or is it meekness, as some older expositors defined it, to be undesirous of revenge (non cupidus vindicat)not easily provoked, slow to take offence, and, though stung deep, betraying no personal bitterness, but hiding oneself beneath the wing of God, who is the promised avenger of all such? Surely he forbears and forgives best who knows by the depth of his contrition for personal guilt how deeply he has been forgiven. Or shall we say he is the meek man, who, resting in the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of so much as God has been pleased to give, can meet each turn of fortunes wheel with an equal mind, quarrelling neither with injurious providence, nor with more successful rivals; in prosperity unassuming, undesponding in adversity? Show me a will made pliable to the Heavenly Father under the experience of grace and forgiven sin, and I will show you equanimity above the philosophersthe equanimity of the Christian child! Yes, we must be converted to become meek.J. O. Dykes, M.A., D.D.

THE MODERN APPLICATION OF AN ANCIENT INCIDENT

(Num. 12:1-3)

The incident recorded in these verses warrants the following practical observations:

I. The possession of the greatest gifts does not exempt men from the liability to meanness and sin.

Miriam, a prophetess and poet, and Aaron an eloquent man (Exo. 4:14), in a measure inspired by God (Exo. 4:15), and appointed by God the religious head of the nation (Exodus 28), are here guilty of extreme meanness and great sin. The possession of great gifts does not necessarily involve the possession of great grace also. Balaam was a highly gifted man; but he was covetous, unprincipled, &c. A man may hold high office in the Church, and yet sin grievously. Let persons of great abilities and influence remember their great responsibilities. Let those who occupy prominent positions in religion look well to their own spiritual life and health. (a)

II. The most excellent and eminent servants of God are not exempt from the reproaches of men.

Even Moses, so distinguished for piety as he was, was spoken against.

No might nor greatness in mortality
Can censure scape; back-wounding calumny
The whitest virtue strikes: What king so strong,
Can tie the gall up in the slanderous tongue? Shakespeare.

Be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow
Thou shalt not escape calumny.Ibid

The worthiest people are the most injured by slander, said Swift, as we usually find that to be the best fruit which the birds have been pecking at. It was said of our Holy Lord, He hath a devil and is mad. If they called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of His household? (b)

III. Our greatest trials sometimes arise from the most unlikely quarters.

It was remarkably so in the present trial of Moses. It arose from

1. Persons in eminent positions. One would have thought that they would have sympathised with and endeavoured to sustain Moses in the duties and burdens of his office; but, &c.

2. Persons of excellent character. Aaron and Miriam were undoubtedly, in the main, good and worthy persons. Many of the trials of ministers and other religious leaders in our own day come from religious and well-meaning men; from their unreasonable complaints, their ignorant criticism, their conceited censures, &c.

3. Persons in near relationship. The present trial of Moses arose from his own brother and sister. David suffered sorely in this way from Absalom, Ahithophel, et al. Comp. Psa. 41:9; Psa. 55:12-14. When trials arise in this way they cause great disappointment. We expect such different things from kinsfolk and friends. They also cause sore distress. They wound the tenderest feelings, &c.

IV. The Lord takes cognizance of the reproaches which are cast upon His servants.

When Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses, the Lord heard.

1. He is perfectly acquainted with all things. The Lord is a God of knowledge. His understanding is infinite. God knoweth all things.

2. He is deeply interested in all that concerns His servants. This interest is set forth in most expressive forms in the Scriptures (Deu. 32:9-10; Isa. 49:15-16 : Zec. 2:8). The reputation of His servants is sacred and precious in His sight.

V. The servants of the Lord do well in bearing patiently the reproaches which are cast upon them.

Moses did not attempt to vindicate himself against the reproaches of Miriam and Aaron. The good man in similar circumstances may well follow his example in this. If we are thoroughly devoted to Gods service, we may safely leave it to Him to vindicate us against the reproaches of man. Comp. Job. 16:19; Psa. 37:5-6. (c)

ILLUSTRATIONS

(a) Years ago Hamburg was nearly half of it burned down, and among the incidents that happened there was this one. A large house had connected with it a yard, in which there was a great black dog, and this black dog in the middle of the night barked and howled most furiously. It was only by his barking that the family were awakened just in time to escape from the flames, and their lives were spared; but the poor dog was chained to his kennel, and though he barked and thus saved the lives of others, he was burned himself. Oh! do not you, who work for God in this church, perish in that fashion. Do not permit your sins to enchain you, so that while you warn others you become lost yourselves. Do see that you have the godliness which has the promise of the life to come.C. H. Spurgeon.

(b) I think there is no Christian, but sooner or later, first or last, shall have cause to say with David, False witnesses did rise up, they laid to my charge things that I knew not (Psa. 25:11). They charged me with such things whereof I was both innocent and ignorant. It was the saying of one, that there was nothing so intolerable as accusation, because there was no punishment ordained by law for accusers, as there was for thieves, although they stole friendship from men, which is the goodliest riches men have. Well, Christians, seeing it has been the lot of the dearest saints to be falsely accused, and to have their names and reputes in the world reproached, do you hold your peace, seeing it is no worse with you than it was with them, of whom this world was not worthy.Brooks. (c) The celebrated Boerhaave, who had many enemies, used to say that he never thought it necessary to repeat their calumnies. They are sparks, said he, which, if you do not blow them, will go out of themselves. The surest method against scandal is to live it down by perseverance in well-doing, and by prayer to God, that He would cure the distempered mind of those who traduce and injure us. It was a good remark of another that the malice of ill tongues cast upon a good man is only like a mouthful of smoke blown upon a diamond, which, though it clouds its beauty for the present, yet it is easily rubbed off, and the gem restored, with little trouble to its own lustre.Dict. of Illust.

Rowland Hill, when once scurrilously attacked in one of the public journals, was urged by a zealous friend to bring a legal action in defence; to this he replied with calm, unruffled dignity,I shall neither answer the libel, nor prosecute the writer, and that for two reasons: first, because, in attempting the former, I should probably be betrayed into unbecoming violence of temper and expression, to my own grief, and the wounding of my friends; and in the next place, I have learned by experience, that no mans character can be eventually injured but by his own acts.Gleanings.

THE INQUEST OF THE LORD INTO THE SIN OF MIRIAM AND AARON

(Num. 12:4-9)

We now come to the second scene in this painful chapter of Israelitish history. Consider

I. The solemn convocation.

And the Lord spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out, &c. (Num. 12:4-5). We have here the solemn summons of the Divine Voice to Moses and to the two offenders, the majestic descent of the cloud of the Divine Presence, &c. Two great truths appear to be set forth in all this:

1. The timeliness of the Divine interposition. The Lord spake suddenly. His interposition was not delayed. In due season, at the earliest fitting opportunity, He appears for the vindication of His reproached servants.

2. The righteousness of the Divine judgment. This seems to be taught by the summoning of the offenders and of the person wronged before Him, and by the descent of the cloud of His presence. He knows all things, yet, He makes inquiry, &c. There is no haste in the Divine judgments; but patient and thorough examination precedes them. Comp. Gen. 3:8-13; Gen. 6:12; Gen. 11:5; Gen. 18:21; Zep. 1:12. (a)

The unimpeachable righteousness of the judgments of God should prove

1. A comfort to the upright when unjustly reproached.

2. A warning to the wicked.

II. The splendid vindication. And he said, Hear now my words:

If there is a prophet of Jehovah to you, &c. (Num. 12:6-8). Miriam and Aaron had aspired to equality with Moses, and disputed his claim to superior authority, and now Jehovah splendidly vindicates his pre-eminent character, and privileges, and consequent authority. He asserts that Moses was

1. Pre-eminent in the intimacy of his communion with God. In the revelations which God made to men there were different degrees of clearness. To prophets He spake in visions and dreams; He revealed His will to them in the inner sphere of the soul-life. But He spake to Moses mouth to mouth, i.e., without any mediation or reserve, but with the same closeness and freedom with which friends converse together (Exo. 33:11). He spake to Moses as an appearance, and that not in enigmas, i.e., His communications were made to him directly and in the plainnest and most intelligible manner. And of Moses He says further, the similitude of the Lord shall he behold. By the similitude we are not to understand the unveiled essence of the Deity (Joh. 1:18; 1Ti. 6:16) nor any representation of God in the form of man or in the form of the angel of Jehovah (Eze. 1:26-28; Dan. 7:9; Dan. 7:13; Gen. 16:7). It was the Deity Himself manifesting Himself so as to be cognizable to mortal eye. Thus Moses was exalted far above all the other prophets. (See explanatory notes on Num. 12:6-8.)

2. Pre-eminent in his faithfulness in the charge which he received of the Lord. My servant Moses is approved in My whole house. The house of Jehovah in this place does not signify the Tabernacle, but the covenant people, who were to be instructed and regulated by Moses. In all his duties to the people of God, Moses is declared faithful; in all he was approved by God. He said and did everything in the management of that great affair, as became an honest good man, that aimed at nothing else but the honour of God and welfare of Israel. How completely does the Lord vindicate His servant, and how highly does He honour him! Well does Trapp say, God had never so much magnified Moses to them, but for their envy. We cannot devise to pleasure Gods servants so much as by despiting them. Quisquis volens detrahit fam me, nolens addit mercedi me, saith Augustine; He that willingly detracteth from mine honour, doth, though against his will, add to my reward.

III. The unanswerable interrogation.

Wherefore, then, were ye not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses? This inquiry implies that their speech against Moses was

1. Unreasonable. Wherefore, then, &c. Their reproaches were groundless. The Divine Wherefore? reveals the utter absence of any true cause for them.

2. Profane. Were ye not afraid to speak against My servant? In reproaching the servant, they had dishonoured the MASTER. The rule is, Injuria illata legato redundat in legantem, Wrong done to a messenger reflects on him that sent him.

3. Daring. Why were ye not afraid? If they had considered, they would have discovered strong reasons to dread the result of their conduct. We have reason, says Matthew Henry, to be afraid of saying or doing anything against the servants of God; it is at our peril if we do so, for God will plead their cause, and reckon that what touches them touches the apple of His eye. It is a dangerous thing to offend one of Christs little ones (Mat. 18:6). Those are presumptuous, indeed, that are not afraid to speak evil of dignities (2Pe. 2:10). Interrogated thus by the Lord, Aaron and Miriam were speechless, like the man at the marriage feast who had not on a wedding garment (Mat. 22:12). Their conduct was utterly indefensible.

IV. The Divine anger.
And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, and He departed. There are here two considerations concerning the anger of the Lord:

1. Its righteousness. It was kindled by sinthe sin of Aaron and Miriam. The anger of God is a perfectly holy principle which hates and antagonises sin. (b)

2. Its manifestation. And He departed. The removal of Gods presence from us, says Matthew Henry, is the surest and saddest token of Gods displeasure against us. Woe unto us if He depart; and He never departs till we by our sin and folly drive Him from us. The final absence of God is hell itself. (c)

Conclusion:

The time approaches when God will summon all men to give account of themselves and their lives to Him. Prepare to meet thy God.

ILLUSTRATIONS

(a) There are many ways of representing perfect justice. The Thebans represented her as having neither hands nor eyes, for the judge should neither receive bribes nor respect persons. We, for similar reasons, picture her with a sword in one hand, scales in the other, and bandaged eyes. Whatever doubt there may be as to the justice of the earthly judge, as to that of the Heavenly there can be none. Now, His ways may sometimes appear to be unequal. We see the wicked in prosperity and the righteous in adversity. Like David, we are troubled at it. But when with David we enter into the tabernacle of God, then understand we their end; for God hath appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained.J. G Pilkington.

(b) There is a deep wrath-principle in God, as in all moral natures, that puts Him down upon wrong, and girds Him in avenging majesty for the infliction of suffering upon wrong. Just as we speak of our felt indignations, and tell how we are made to burn against the person, or even the life of the wrong-doer, so God has His heavier indignations, and burns with His more consuming fire. This combustion of right anger is that girding power of justice that puts Him on the work of redress, and that armature of strength upon His feeling, that enables Him to inflict pain without shrinking.H. Bushnell, D.D.

Say you that God is love? Oh! but look round this world. The aspect of things is sternvery stern. If they be ruled by love, it is a love which does not shrink from human agony. There is a law of infinite mercy here, but there is a law of boundless rigour, too. Sin, and you will sufferthat law is not reversed. The young, and the gentle, and the tender, are inexorably subjected to it. We would shield them if we could; but there is that which says they shall not be shielded.
They shall weep, and fade, and taste of mortal anguish, even as others. Carry that out into the next world, and you have wrath to come.F. W. Robertson, M.A.

(c) Think of God sending a famine upon the soulof minds pining and dying because Divine messages have been withdrawn! We know what the effect would be if God were to withhold the dew, or to trouble the air with a plague, or to avert the beams of the sun; the garden would be a desert, the fruitful field a sandy plain, the wind a bearer of death, summer a stormy night, and life itself a cruel variation of death, so penetrating, so boundless is the influence of God in nature. Is it conceivable that the withdrawment of Gods influence would be less disastrous upon the spirit of man?Joseph Parker, D.D.

HONOUR TO MOSES; GREATER HONOUR TO CHRIST

(Num. 12:7)

We have an inspired comment in the New Testament on these words (Heb. 3:1-6). Paul, reasoning with the Jews, tries to divert their minds from giving to Moses a glory that was in excess; and to show that all the honour they gave to Moses, the early servant, belonged in a far richer degree to Jesus, their rejected Lord. It is said that Moses, in all his offices, as priest, as prophet, as ruler, as teacher, as guide, was faithful in all his house.

What was his house? Whose house, says the Apostle, are we.

What does faithfulness mean? Whatever be the function assigned to you, that you honestly, impartially, earnestly, and fully discharge. Moses was in the midst of the people of God faithful. He finished the tabernacle; and you remember how specific are the injunctions laid down, and how minutely Moses fulfilled them all. So Jesus, the antitype, dimly foreshadowed by Moses, has been faithful in all the arrangements of His house. He has furnished it with precious sacraments; He has appointed it a teaching and a preaching ministry; He has redeemed it by His precious blood; He has bequeathed to it the ceaseless presence of His Holy Spirit, &c.

The Apostle justly says, that this Moses, who was faithful in all his house is counted worthy of glory; though One is counted worthy of greater glory. The very comparison indicates that Moses was counted worthy of honour. We need not disparage the servant in order to exalt the Master. Moses was a servant in the house; as a servant to be honoured; Jesus, the Builder of the house, as the Builder of the house to have the great and the lasting glory. Comp. Joh. 5:23.

We see what is the true definition of the Church. The definition of Scripture of the Church is not the size of an edifice, or the splendour of its architecture; but the regenerated men that meet together in the name of Christ, &c. The orator may collect a crowd, but that is not a Church. The architect may build a cathedral, but that is not a Church. It is living stones, knit together by living love, not dead stones fastened together by dead mortar, that constitute a Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

We see also the true oneness of the Church of Christ in all ages. There was, says the Apostle, but one house. Moses was faithful in all his house; whose house, says the Apostle, are we. Then the Church that was in the days of Moses is the Church that exists now. There never has been but one Church; there never has been but one religionI mean true religion; there never has been but one Saviour. The formula has differed, the circumstances have varied, the degree of spirituality or conformity to Christ has differed; but the substance has been everywhere and always essentially the same.

Now the argument of the Apostle (Heb. 3:1-6) is most logical; a building infers and suggests a builder; an effect throws you back upon a cause; a creation leads you back or upwards to a Creator; and if Christ be the builder of all, and peculiarly the builder of that edifice of living stones which is called the Church; to build which requires more of God than to build the universe; then, says the Apostle, of how great honour ought He to be the inheritor who is thus God, the Builder and the Maker of all? If it required God to make a world; it requires God to regenerate sinners; nay, if possible more so. Omnipotence has but to mould the obedient dust into all its forms of beauty, of symmetry and order; and no resisting element, from first to last, will intrude to disturb the perfection, or to mar the beauty of the product. But in dealing with sinners here is not simply dead material to be moulded into its varied forms of loveliness and symmetry, but resistant passions, rebellious feelings, reluctant appetites, diverging tendencies; a thousand things to obstruct, to resist and to mar. And hence, if it required God to build the outer world, it requires no less a God to build that inner house, &c. Now then, argues the Apostle, if the servant Moses is counted by every Jew worthy of honour, what language shall express the honour due to Him who built all things? Comp. Hebrews 1. And thus he shows that Christ is superior to Moses; that He is superior to angels; he proves by comparison that he is God; and therefore, that the glory, and the honour, and the thanksgiving, and the praise are exclusively due to Him, who redeemed us by His blood, and has made us what we are.

We infer from the whole

1. The greater glory of the New Testament economy. The figures are removed because their reality has come.

2. The greater responsibility of all who live under so clear, so simple, so spiritual an economy. Comp. Heb. 10:28-29.

3. Paul shows us also the secret of our safety (Heb. 3:6).

4. If Christ was faithful in His house, and Moses faithful in his, let us be faithful in ours (Mat. 24:45-50).

Are we living stones, laid upon Christ the rock?Arranged from Sabbath Morning Readings, by John Cumming, D.D.

THE PUNISHMENT OF MIRIAM AND AARON

(Num. 12:10-16)

Consider:

I. The Divine judgment because of the sin of Miriam and Aaron.

And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, &c. (Num. 12:10).

1. The punishment was inflicted by the Lord. Leprosy, says Archbishop Trench, was often the punishment of sins committed against the Divine government. Miriam, Gehazi, Uzziah, are all cases in point; and when Moses says to the people, Take heed of the plague of leprosy (Deu. 24:8), this is no admonition diligently to observe the laws about leprosy, but a warning lest any disobedience of theirs should provoke God to visit them with this plague. The Jews themselves called it the finger of God, and emphatically, the stroke. It attacked, they said, first a mans house; and then, if he refused to turn, his clothing; and lastly, should he persist in sin, himselfa fine parable, let the fact have been as it might, of the manner in which Gods judgments, if a man refuse to listen to them, reach ever nearer to the centre of his life. So, too, they said that a mans true repentance was the one condition of his leprosy leaving him. The leprosy of Miriam was certainly the stroke of Divine punishment because of her sin.

2. The punishment was appropriate to the sin. Her foul tongue, says Bishop Hall, is justly punished with a foul face, and her folly in pretending to be a rival with Moses is made manifest to all men, for every one sees his face to be glorious, and hers to be leprous. While Moses needs a veil to hide his glory, Miriam needs one to hide her shame. Not content with her exalted position, she aspired to the highest place of all, and for seven days she was not allowed even the lowest place in the camp, but was completely exiled from it.

3. The punishment fell most severely upon Miriam. Aaron was not struck with leprosy.

(1) She was the instigator of the sin. The Lord visits her greater guilt with a severer punishment.
(2) Aarons office of High Priest also probably helped to shield him. Had he been smitten with leprosy he would have been deeply disgraced in the eyes of the people, and his holy office would probably have been brought into disesteem amongst them.

(3) Yet Aaron was not altogether exempted from punishment. As priest he had to examine Miriam and pronounce her leprous. Again he had to examine her and pronounce her clean before she was readmitted to the camp. That he deeply realized his painful position is evident from the narrative (Num. 12:10-12). Let us remember that there is judgment with God, He punishes men for their sins. If His chosen and distinguished servants sin against Him, He will visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. (a)

II. The Divine judgment leading to personal humiliation.

And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas! my lord, I beseech thee, &c. (Num. 12:11-12). We see here

1. Humble acknowledgment to Moses. A short time since Aaron had spoken against Moses; but mark the humility with which he now approaches him, and the respect with which he now addresses himAlas! my lord, I beseech thee, &c. When the Lord takes up the cause of His servants He speedily humbles their detractors.

2. Confession of sin. Lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned. Though he was not himself smitten with leprosy, yet Aaron deeply feels and penitently acknowledges his sin.

3. Entreaty for the removal of the severe judgment from Miriam. Let her not be as one dead, &c. Leprosy, says Archbishop Trench, was nothing short of a living death, a corrupting of all the humours, a poisoning of the very springs, of life; a dissolution little by little of the whole body, so that one limb after another actually decayed and fell away. Aaron exactly describes the appearance which the leper presented to the eyes of the beholders, when, pleading for Miriam, he says, Let her not be as one dead, of whom, &c. Thus he invokes the aid of Moses in intercession for the removal of the dreadful punishment. How speedily God by His judgments can humble men! Even the greatest and the mightiest are utterly unable to sustain His strokes.

III. The remarkable acknowledgment of the eminence of Moses, the servant of the Lord.

In Aarons confession and appeal to Moses we have a splendid tribute to the character and power with God of the latter.

1. In the manner in which he was addressed by Aaron. And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas! my lord, I beseech thee, &c.

2. In the appeal which was made to him by Aaron. Let her not be as one dead, &c. This appeal implies on the part of Aaron

(1) Faith in the magnanimity of Mosesthat he would not retaliate upon them for their attack upon him; that he was forgiving and generous.
(2) Faith in the influence which Moses had with God. Aaron does not dare to present his prayer directly to God, but he seeks the mediation and intercession of Moses. Thus out of the evil speaking of Aaron and Miriam against Moses, God brings a splendid tribute to the magnanimity, the holiness, and the spiritual power of His servant. Men in prosperity may reproach the servants of the Lord, but in adversity they will eagerly seek their sympathies and services.

IV. The distinguished magnanimity and grace of Moses.

And Moses cried unto the Lord, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech Thee. There was no resentment in his heart towards the brother and sister who had injured him; but fullest forgiveness for both, and sincerest pity for his smitten sister. His prayer for Miriam is an anticipation of the precept of our Lord, Pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you (Mat. 5:44). We have another beautiful example of this forgiving and gracious spirit in the man of God out of Judah, who prayed that the withered hand of Jeroboam, which had been stretched out against him, might be healed (1Ki. 13:1-6). This spirit found its supreme and perfect expression in the Lord Jesus Christ. For those who crucified Him, when He was enduring the anguish of the cross, He prayed, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do (Luk. 23:34). Let us imitate Him.

V. The great power of the intercession of good.

In answer to the prayer of Moses Miriam was healed of her leprosy, and, after an exclusion lasting seven days, was restored to her place in the camp and congregation of the Lord. Pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (b)

VI. The justice and mercy of God as manifested in His treatment of Miriam.

1. He manifests His justice. To mark His abhorrence of her sin He commands that Miriam shall be shut out of the camp seven days. To deal lightly with sin is actually to commit sin. God punishes sin in whomsoever He finds it There is no respect of persons with God in punishing, for none shall escape His hand. He doth not strike the poor and spare the rich; wink at the noble and honourable, and strike down the unnoble and baser sort; but He respecteth every one as He findeth him, and punisheth sin wheresoever sin reigneth, that all should fear.

2. He manifests His mercy. He does not deal with Miriam and Aaron as they deserve, but mingles His judgment with mercy. We see His mercy in healing Miriam, and in sentencing her to only seven days banishment from the camp. He does not execute the fierceness of His anger. In wrath He remembers mercy. He delighteth in mercy. (c)

VII. The sin of one person checking the progress of an entire nation.

The people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in. For seven days the advance of the entire people was arrested by reason of the sin of Miriam. In consequence of the sin of Achan the Israelites were smitten at the battle of Ai, and ignominiously defeated. How often have we seen since those days the current of the progress of a nation, or of nations, arrested and turned back by some unprincipled and ambitious monarch, or by some unrighteous and powerful statesman! None of us liveth to himself. The sin of one person of high position and great influence may result in deepest injury to thousands.

Conclusion:

The history supplies materials for a strong argument against sinning. By the heinousness of sin, by the Divine judgment upon sin, and by the injury which sin inflicts upon others, we are urged to abstain from every form of evil.

ILLUSTRATIONS

(a) Let us all learn this factthat the consequences of sin are inevitable; in fact, that punishment is the extreme consequence of sin going on unchecked. There is in human nature an element of the gambler. There is a willingness to take the chances of thingsa willingness to run a risk, however uncertain. There is no such element here. The punishment of sin is certain. All Scripture tells us so. The soul that sinneth it shall die. Be sure your sin will find you out. Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not go unpunished. The way of transgressors is hard. All the worlds proverbs tell us so. A reckless youth: rueful age. As he has made his bed, so he must lie in it. He who will not be ruled by the rudder, must be ruled by the rock. Even Satan himself tells us so. In the old legend of Dr. Faustus, when he bids the devil lay aside his propensity for lying, and tell the truth, the devil answers, The world does me injustice to tax me with lies. Let me ask their own conscience if I have ever deceived a single man into believing that a bad deed was a good one. Even wicked men admit it. God is no respecter of persons.

Fire burns and water drowns, whether the sufferer be a worthless villain or whether it be a fair and gentle child. And so the moral law works, whether the sinner be a David or a Judas, whether he be a publican or a priest. In the physical world there is no forgiveness of sins. Sin and punishment, as Plato said, walk this world with their hands tied together, and the rivet by which they are linked is as a link of adamant. A writer has said that a man who cannot swim might as well walk into a river and hope that it is not a river, and will not drown, as a man, seeing judgment and not mercy, denounced upon willing sin, hope that it will turn out to be mercy, and not judgment, and so defy Gods law. Will he escape? No. He who chooses sin must meet with retribution; must experience in his own individual person the lex talionis of offended natureeye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, burning for burning wound for wound, stripe for stripe.F. W. Farrar, D D.

(b) I wish we did believe in prayer: I am afraid most of us do not. People will say, What a wonderful thing it is that God hears George Mllers prayers! But is it not a sad thing that we should think it wonderful for God to hear prayer? We are come to a pretty pass certainly when we think it wonderful that God is true! Much better faith was that of a little boy in one of the schools at Edinburgh, who had attended the prayer-meetings, and at last said to his teacher who conducted the prayer-meeting, Teacher, I wish my sister could be got to read the Bible; she never reads it. Why, Johnny, should your sister read the Bible? Because if she once could read it, I am sure it would do her good, and she would be converted and be saved. Do you think so, Johnny? Yes, I do, sir, and I wish the next time theres a prayer-meeting you would ask the people to pray for my sister, that she may begin to read the Bible. Well, well, it shall be done, John. So the teacher gave out that a little boy was very anxious that prayers should be offered that his sister might begin to read the Bible. John was observed to get up and go out. The teacher thought it very unkind of the boy to disturb the people in a crowded room and go out like that, and so the next day when the lad came, he said, John, I thought that was very rude of you to get up in the prayer-meeting and go out. You ought not to have done it. Oh! sir, said the boy, I did not mean to be rude, but I thought I should just like to go home and see my sister read her Bible for the first time. That is how we ought to believe, and wait with expectation to see the answer to prayer. The girl was reading the Bible when the boy went home. God had been pleased to hear the prayer; and if we could but trust God after that fashion we should often see similar things accomplishedC. H. Spurgeon.

Frail art thou, O man, as a bubble on the breaker,
Weak, and governed by externals, like a poor bird caught in the storm;
Yet thy momentary breath can still the raging waters,
Thy hand can touch a lever that may move the world.
O Merciful! we strike eternal covenant with Thee,
For man may take for his ally the King who ruleth kings;
How strong, yet how most weak, in utter poverty how rich,
What possible omnipotence to good is dormant in a man;
Prayer is a creatures strength, his very breath and being;
Prayer is the golden key which can open the wicket of mercy;
Prayer is the magical sound that saith to Fate, So be it;
Prayer is the slender nerve that moveth the muscles of Omnipotence.M. F. Tupper.

(c) Mercy is Gods Benjamin, and He delighteth most of all in it. It is the son of His right hand, though, alas! in bringing it forth, it might well have been called the son of sorrow, too, for mercy came into this world through the sorrows of the only-begotten Son of God. He delights in mercy, just as some men delight in trade, some in the arts, some in professions; and each man, according to his delight, becomes proficient in pursuing a work for the very love thereof. So God is proficient in mercy. He addicts Himself to it. He is most God-like, most happy, if such a thing may be said of Him, when He is stretching out His right hand with his golden sceptre in it, and saying to the guilty, Come to Me, touch this sceptre, and you shall live.C. H. Spurgeon.

MIRIAM SMITTEN WITH LEPROSY: TRANSFIGURATION THROUGH TRANSGRESSION

(Num. 12:10)

I. This transfiguration was brought to pass on account of the jealousy of Miriam of Moses, and the jealousy of God for Moses.

Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? (Num. 12:2). Were ye not afraid to speak against My servant Moses? (Num. 12:8).

Thoughts that contain the venom of jealousy, when expressed, form the character and pass judgment upon it. (Comp. Mat. 12:37.) Miriams jealousy of her brother came out in her speech, and her speech brought miraculous judgment upon her. God was jealous of the honour of His servant, and His jealousy manifested itself in words of reproof. So a righteous and sinful jealousy led to this transforming judgment. Gods words justified Him; Miriams condemned her.

II. The transformation was in keeping with the expressed jealousy of God and of Miriam.

The narrative leads us to think that Miriams feelings broke forth like sudden fire. While she was musing, the fire burned, and she spake bitter and angry words. And we are told that the Lord likewise spake suddenly (Num. 12:4) in words of authority and reproof. And the punishment came suddenly. The cloud departed, and behold Miriam became leprous. So, we are told, shall the coming of the Son of Man be (Mat. 24:27). The indignation of the Lord was great, the bitter feeling of Miriam was intense, and the disease which was the consequence of both was of the most malignant kind.

LESSONS

I. That inequalities of position in the Church of God have their origin in the will of God. Vessels belonging to the same owner vary in the amount of cargo they carry because they vary in their capacity. One is 1,000 tons burthen, another 500, and so on. But why do they differ in tonnage? This must be referred to the will of the owner who built each one. The forest trees are all free to grow, but the willow cannot attain to the dimensions of the oak, or the ash to the strength of the cedar of Lebanon It has not been given to them to do so. So there are intellectual inequalities among Gods servants (Comp. Mat. 25:15). Why not give to each one the same number of talents? Why does not the shipbuilder build each vessel of the same size? or the Creator make each tree exactly like its fellow? Because they are destined for different service, and this destiny must be referred to the will of their owners. Neither Miriam nor Aaron could grow into a Moses.

II. That God is, from a blessed necessity, a respecter of persons in relation to character.

Some of Gods children command more affection and respect than others, because they deserve more. We find ourselves under the necessity of esteeming some more highly than others, and God is, so to speak, under the same blessed necessity. He did esteem Moses more highly than He esteemed Aaron or Miriam, and the reason is found, not in his mental superiority, but because he was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth (Num. 12:3).

III. That the abstract devil of jealousy within the Church of God hinders its progress more than a legion of personal devils without. The people journeyed not, &c., (Num. 12:15). When leaders of an army become jealous of each others reputation, they let loose an enemy which will soon take the wheels off the artillery, and ham string the horses; and the same devil in the Church of God has often made the chariot wheels go heavily.

IV. The practice and precept of the New Testament were anticipated by some Old Testament saints. The river at its well-head may be narrow, but the water is the same in quality as it is when it flows into the ocean. The channel was not so broad, but the spirit was the same. Heal her now, O God, I beseech Thee (Num. 12:13), anticipates Act. 7:60; Luk. 23:34; Mat. 5:44.From Outlines of Sermons on the Miracles and Parables of the Old Testament.

THE PRAYER OF MOSES FOR MIRIAM

(Num. 12:13-15)

A mans foes too often are those of his own house. The sister and brother of Moses spake against him; his marriage displeased them; their resentment led them beyond the mere expression of discontent; they question his authority, envy his power, are jealous of his position. They have much influencethe one a prophetess, the other a high priest. But for Divine interposition the whole of Israel might have been led to revolt against Moses authority. The Lord heard it. They are summoned to His presence. He applauds Moses; Miriam becomes a leper; Aaron also was punished. For the lips that sinned with Miriam must pronounce her leprous. And now Moses turns to God, and prays for Miriams recovery.

I. The prayer.

How conclusively does it attest the excellency of the character of Moses! How worthy of power is one so large-hearted and forgiving! How much of resemblance is there between the behaviour of Moses and the law of Christ! Pray for them which despitefully use you.

1. The prayer was explicit. Nothing vague. He prays not for wrong doers in the mass, but for one in particular, and that one who had wronged him. Many will pray general prayers heartily enough. Lips willing to say, Have mercy on us miserable sinners, refuse to say, Lord, be merciful to me a sinner.

2. The prayer was earnest. I beseech Thee. Did he see the Shekinah receding (Num. 12:10), and would have God return at once? Gods withdrawals excite prayer.

3. The prayer was generous. Heal her now. Not make her penitent, or cause her to beg forgiveness, and then heal her, or remove the disease after a certain time, but, Heal her now. This is how true brothers always pray. Sympathy produces generosity and earnestness.

4. The prayer was well-timed. He waited not till the memory of her sin and his wrong were fainter; at once his cry goes up, as Miriams departing foot-fall is heard. Love one another. We are not to give place unto wrath, He gives PLACE who gives TIME.

II. The answer. Num. 12:14.

1. It was most gracious. He condescended to return and speak to Moses. Intimates she shall be healed at the expiration of seven days.

2. It was most wise. Seven days she must suffer for her own good, for Aarons good, for all Israels good, to show that an exalted position in His service does not exempt from the punishment of sin.

3. It was most speedy. He answered at once. Why so speedy? Because He desired the innocent should not be afflicted with the guilty. Read Num. 12:14, how God sets forth the case to Moses, so that he, seeing the wisdom of the punishment, and Gods grace in curtailing it, may be at rest.

Think, brethren, of the Miriams without the camp, think of the time when, timbrel in hand, they joined with you; now kneel with Moses to pray, Heal them now, O God.R. A. Griffin.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

F. FOOLISH CONDUCT OF MIRIAM AND AARON AND RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM (Numbers 12)

TEXT

Num. 12:1. And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. 2. And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it. 3. (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.) 4. And the Lord spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come ye out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out. 5. And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. 6. And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. 7. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 8. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? 9. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed. 10. And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous. 11. And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my Lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned. 12. Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mothers womb. 13. And Moses cried unto the Lord, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee.

14. And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again. 15. And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days: and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought out again. 16. And afterward the people removed from Hazeroth, and pitched in the wilderness of Paran.

PARAPHRASE

Num. 12:1. Then Miriam and Aaron criticized Moses because of the Ethiopian woman he had married (for he had married an Ethiopian woman). 2. And they said, Has the Lord indeed spoken only with Moses? Has he not spoken with us as well? And the Lord heard it. 3. Now the man Moses was very humble, more so than all the men upon the face of the earth. 4. And the Lord spoke suddenly to Moses, and to Aaron and to Miriam, You three come out to the Tent of Meeting! And the three came out. 5. Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud, in the door of the Tent, and He called Aaron and Miriam. When they came out, He said, Now hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known to him in a vision, and speak to him in a dream. But not so with my servant Moses: 7. he is the reliable one in all my household. 8. I speak with him mouth to mouth, openly, and not in veiled messages; and he sees the very likeness of the Lord. Why, then, were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? 9. So the anger of the Lord burned against them, and He left. 10. Now the cloud was removed from the Tent, and lo, Miriam was show white, stricken with leprosy. Aaron looked at Miriam, and behold, she was diseased. 11. And Aaron said to Moses, Oh, my Lord, I beg you, do not lay this sin upon us; we have behaved foolishly: we have sinned. 12. Do not let her become as a dead person whose flesh is half consumed when he emerges from his mothers womb! 13. And Moses pleaded with the Lord, saying, Heal her now, O God, I pray you. 14. But the Lord said to Moses, If her father had only spit on her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? Let her be shut out of the camp seven days; after that she may be received back again. 15 And Miriam was excluded from the camp for seven days, and the people did not travel until Miriam was returned to them 16. Afterward the people left Hazeroth, and camped in the, wilderness of Paran.

COMMENTARY

Life is plagued by many types of problems. We now face one of the more common and troublesome: Miriam turns upon her brother in a vicious, verbal assault with two thrusts. She is critical of his wife, and she is envious of his special and unique relationship with God. PC gives five reasons for laying the sin specifically at Miriams feet: she is named first in the account; the verb is in the feminine, and properly says, she spoke out against; the attack is a peculiarly feminine one; she alone was punished; and, Aaron never led out in anything. The third and fifth arguments seem very thin and inconclusive; it is the fourth which would especially establish her great guilt. No penalty of any kind visits Aaron.

Commentators are much divided over the identification of Moses wife in the passage. Some contend that the reference could not conceivably be to Zipporah, who was a Midianite, not a Cushite or Ethiopian. They suggest, therefore, that Zipporah was dead and Moses had but recently remarried. The argument is altogether from silence, unless one reads such an inference into this passage. Others suggest Moses had taken a second wife, a most improbable proposal, and one the Lord certainly could not have approved without comment of any kind anywhere in the record. Yet others believe Moses wifes beauty is being compared to that of a Cushite womans. This is the position of RCP, which uses a process of numerology to establish the claim. The word for Cushite has a numerical value of 736, the same numerical value as yefat mareh (a woman of beautiful appearance). Numerologists may give some credence to such speculation, but they must stand alone.

As for the criticisms themselves, they were of a most unkind sort. The criticism of Moses for having married a woman other than an Israelite should have come from the Lord, not Miriam; if there were grounds for any criticism. It is generally assumed that Miriams motivation was jealousy, which may well be correct. With all the other burdens Moses was carrying, the last thing he needed was for members of his own family to turn upon him with such a vindictive spirit. After all, Miriam herself had been distinguished above all the other women when she was made a prophetessthe only one of whom we have record among the people; and Aaron was established as the high priest, than which there was no higher office of permanent nature among the Israelites. Only pride and envy could account for the manner in which the two unite in their criticisms. God had, after all, also spoken through them as well as through Moses, as they confess, Num. 12:2.

The next verse, (Num. 12:3), has bothered countless commentators, as in IB: This verse gave much difficulty to those who were concerned to assert the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The point is, simply, that Moses would not have written so of his own meekness; this would be the most certain indication that he lacked humility. But such a position ignores other possibilities. If God deemed it appropriate that the account should make such a note at this point, where it surely fits, and instructed Moses to state the fact, in no sense could we understand this to have been a boastful assertion of the great man. It has been asserted that the verse was added to the original, and was not the work of Moses himself. We cannot deny the possibility; and, in fact, the KJV puts the verse in parentheses as an apparent indication of this. Whatever the actual explanation, one fact is supremely clear, and that is the truth of the statement itself. Moving from year to year and incident to incident throughout the life of Moses, we cannot but marvel at the unbounded humility of so significant a man. This would make the onslaught against him even more difficult to bear, and virtually impossible for the man himself to counter successfully.

Gods manner of calling specially to the three is unusual and unexpected. It is thought that the call came simultaneously, and to them at their individual residences. They meet at the Tent, and from that point Aaron and Miriam are separated from Moses.

The divine message is prefaced by a well-understood fact: when God spoke to the ordinary prophet, He used the technique of dreams or visions. Neither of these methods should be limited to day-time occurrences, however, since nocturnal revelations are a distinct rarity in the Scriptures. They were, nevertheless, less distinctive than the method God used in speaking to Moses: mouth to mouth. The thought is identical to that of Exo. 33:11, face to face. Messages to others came darkly, as in riddles or mysterious utterances. To Moses, He spoke clearly, unambiguously.

Even Moses did not look directly upon the face of God. He beheld His similitude, or the aftereffects, as in Exo. 33:22-23. After having lived forty days in intimacy with God, some of the glory of God Himself was infused upon Moses own face, and the Israelites could not look upon him until he was veiled (Exo. 34:29-35). This transmitted glory must yet have been grossly less than that of God Himself. Aaron and Miriam ought to have been totally ashamed of having expressed themselves derogatorily.

When the cloud of the Divine Presence was lifted, Aaron noticed the leprous condition of Miriam. It is an indication that she had led the verbal assault upon Moses. The fact that her skin was white would indicate she had been visited by a milder form of leprosy. Even so, leprosy in any form is to be greatly dreaded, and this would be sufficient to cut her off from her people for life, or for the duration of the plague itself. Aaron is quick to confess his part, and their mutual guilt; he pleads for pardon of their rash foolishness, and for Miriams healing. They are compelled to seek the mediation of the very one they have offended!

Moses intercessory prayer is but partially recorded, only the most briefly relevant summary being contained in the text: but it is all we need. The Lords answer impresses all of them both with His mercy and His justice. In His mercy, the leprosy is removed. In his justice, it is necessary for Miriam to endure one week of the circumstances of a leper. She would never forget this. It was a sure way of seeing that she remembered the humiliation brought upon herself by haughtiness. Seven days outside the camp and in the company with others whose bodies were ravaged by such a dreadful disease would be quite long enough for her to learn this lesson. This was the same period of time required of any disrespectful one whose father was required to rebuke her publicly, see Deu. 25:9.

During Miriams isolation, the people did not move. RCP understands this delay to have been a demonstration of Gods reward for the time she had spent watching Moses when he was placed in the river (Exo. 2:4). The incident reminds us that she was, after all, only human, and that when she and Aaron were confronted forcefully with their sins, they were brought to repentance and a form of restitution before they could be reinstated in Gods good graces.

Leaving Hazeroth, they come into the region of Kadesh, in the desert of Paran. It is on the southernmost border of the land of Canaan. They reached the spot just one and one-half years after leaving Egypt, and might as easily as not have crossed immediately into the Promised Land. The fact that they did not is a reflection upon their small faith.

QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH ITEMS

218.

Why is it usually assumed that Miriam was the ring-leader in complaining about Moses wife?

219.

Is there a contradiction in the accounts which identify the wife of Moses as an Egyptian (our present passage), a Midianite (Exo. 2:21), and a Cushite ( RSV)?

220.

What were Miriam and Aaron attempting to accomplish or to prove by their words?

221.

If Moses was truly meek, as Num. 12:3 affirms, how could he possibly have written this of himself?

222.

How might Moses himself have successfully answered his sister and brother?

223.

Compare and contrast the manner in which God spoke with Moses with the more ordinary methods of communicating with the prophets.

224.

Review the provisions which applied to an individual who was thought to have leprosy, and show how it was appropriate that Aaron should have made the discovery.

225.

Why does Aaron ask Moses to intercede for himself and for Miriam, rather than directing his own prayer to the Lord.

226.

Might a lesser man than Moses have refused this request?

227.

For what probable reasons did God insist that Miriams leprosy should remain upon her for a week?

228.

What is the significance of the Lords words about the time of isolation if one were spit upon by his father?

229.

How important was the factor of repentance in Gods dealings with the offenders?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

XII.

(1) And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses.Miriam appears to have been the leader in this insurrection against the authority of Moses. Her name occurs before that of Aaron, either as the nearer or as the more prominent subject; and the verb which is rendered spake is in the feminine gender. Moreover, the judgment which was inflicted (Num. 12:10) fell upon Miriam, not upon Aaron. who seems to have yielded to the suggestions of Miriam, as he had previously done to the request of the Israelites in regard to the golden calf.

Because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married.Some suppose that the reference is to Zipporah, who may have been included amongst the Asiatic division of the Ethiopians, or Cushites (comp. Hab. 3:7, where the tents of Cushan, or Cush, are coupled with the curtains of Midian), and that the occasion of the opposition to Moses was the undue influence which he is supposed to have allowed Hobab and other members of Zipporahs family to exercise over him. This supposition, however, seems improbable on many accounts. The words, for he had married an Ethiopian (or Cushite) woman, naturally point to some recent occurrence, not to one which had taken place more than forty years previously, and which is, therefore, very unlikely to have given occasion to the murmuring of Miriam and Aaron at this time. Moreover, the murmuring is expressly connected with the Cushite herself, not with any of the subsequent or incidental results of the marriage. It seems, therefore, much more probable that Zipporah was dead, and that Moses had married one of the African Cushites who had accompanied the Israelites in their march out of Egypt, or one of the Cushites who dwelt in Arabia, and who were found at this time in the neighbourhood of Sinai. A similar marriage had been contracted by Joseph, and such marriages were not forbidden by the Law, which prohibited marriage with the Canaanites (Exo. 34:16).

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

THE SEDITION OF MIRIAM, Num 12:1-8.

Up to this time the various insurrections against Moses had arisen in consequence of the peculiar hardships of the journey through the wilderness. In these outbreaks against his authority he had been sustained by the loyalty and sympathy of his own kindred. But now he is to find disloyalty and bitter envy in his own father’s family. In this respect Moses resembled his great antitype, the Prophet like unto himself, who went forth to proclaim the “kingdom of God” as at hand, notwithstanding the unbelief of his brethren. Mar 3:21; Joh 7:5, note. A high spiritual vocation is always an enigma to worldly minds; and, if accompanied by authority, awakens envy and resistance on the part of equals in worldly circumstances.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1. Miriam The only sister of Moses named in history, (Num 26:59,) was older by several years. Exo 2:4. From the fact that she is mentioned first, and from the feminine form of the Hebrew verb, we infer that she was the prime mover in this revolt, and that Aaron, with characteristic pliancy and instability, as in the affair of the golden calf, (Exodus 32,) yielded to his misjudging sister, and was led into an act which tarnishes his fair name. Though Jehovah was angry with both of them, punishment fell only on Miriam.

Because of the Ethiopian woman The subsequent account shows that the marriage with the “Cushite woman” (R.V.) was rather the occasion, and the envy rankling in Miriam’s heart was the real cause, of her collision with her brother. Some have supposed that Zipporah, the Midianite wife of Moses, was the occasion of offence. Against this are: (1.) The fact that this marriage had occurred forty years before, while Moses was a fugitive from Pharaoh’s wrath. There had been ample time for chagrin to be allayed. (2.) The Midianites are called Cushites, or Ethiopians, only once, and that at least seven centuries after the exode. Hab 3:7. A more reasonable theory is that Zipporah had died and Moses had married a Cushite wife from Arabia, or from the foreigners who had come out of Egypt with Israel. This was lawful, since only intermarriage with the Canaanites was forbidden. Exo 34:16. Yet Ezra (Ezr 9:1) includes the Amorites, Moabites, and Egyptians among the nations with whom it was unlawful for Israelites to intermarry.

Edersheim says: “For the first time we here encounter that pride of Israel after the flesh, and contempt for other nations, which often appeared throughout their after history, and in proportion as they have misunderstood the spiritual meaning of their calling.” The suggestion of Ewald, that the Cushite was a concubine taken while the first wife was still living, is an irreverent reflection upon the purity of the great lawgiver. The lofty character of Moses is a sufficient answer to such an assertion.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Chapter 12 The Jealousy of Aaron and Miriam.

In this chapter the position of Moses is firmly established. It can be compared with Numbers 16-17 where the position of Aaron was firmly established. In both cases they had been directly appointed by God, not by man.

Possibly Aaron and Miriam had become jealous because of the Spirit coming on the seventy elders as they stood with Moses. Aaron was ‘the Priest’ and Miriam a prophetess (Exo 15:20). Perhaps they felt, unreasonably, that Moses was supplanting them and raising up others with spiritual insight. Whatever the cause they began to mutter against Moses.

Because they dared not attack him openly they attacked his wife. She was a Cushite woman and not a true-born Israelite. This then enabled them to get at Moses himself. ‘Why should he think he was different from them?’ they asked. Did Yahweh only speak with Moses? Did He not also speak with Aaron and Miriam? How dangerous it is when we become proud of what God has given us, or the position in which He has placed us. But Yahweh immediately stepped in to make clear Moses’ unique position and in the end the two had to plead with Moses to intercede for them.

The construction of the passage is clear.

a They journey from Kibroth-hattaavah to Hazeroth (Num 11:35).

b Miriam, with Aaron, turns against Moses (Miriam named first) (Num 12:1-2).

c Moses is the meekest man on earth (Num 12:3).

d Yahweh speaks to Moses, Aaron and Miriam and calls them into His presence (Num 12:4).

e The cloud comes down to the door of the Dwellingplace (Num 12:5).

f Yahweh’s definition of a prophet (Num 12:6).

f Yahweh’s declaration about Moses (Num 12:7-8).

e The cloud departs from the Dwellingplace leaving Miriam leprous (Num 12:9-10).

d Aaron pleads with Moses to go into Yahweh’s presence on their behalf (Num 12:11-13).

c Miriam is as one whose father spits in their face (Num 12:14).

b Miriam is cast out of the camp for seven days (Num 12:15).

a They journey from Hazeroth to the wilderness of Paran (Num 12:16).

It is clear from the chiastic pattern (of Num 11:31-34) that Num 11:35 belongs to the Chapter 12 and we have interpreted accordingly.

Num 11:35

‘From Kibroth-hattaavah the people journeyed to Hazeroth; and they abode at Hazeroth.’

The people moved from ‘the graves of craving’ to Hazeroth, the stage prior to Kadesh. Now they were not far from the land. If only they had left their cravings behind. But they had not. And sadly there were two others who had cravings which they should not have had, cravings for position and glory. Those two were Aaron and Miriam. They had forgotten the commandment, “You shall not covet”.

Num 12:1

‘And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman.’

Miriam and Aaron, Moses’ sister and brother, had probably become jealous at the power that had been given to the seventy elders. Both probably felt that their influence had been lessened, Aaron because up to this point it had always been him who was next to Moses. He had been ‘the man’. There had been no rivals. And now suddenly there were seventy rivals. And Miriam because she was a prophetess and did not like the idea of seventy men who had prophesied possibly diminishing her position and respect. They were more concerned for their own position than for the expansion of God’s work. Thus, while not liking to attack Moses’ authority directly, they were looking for other grounds of criticism. They felt supplanted. They felt that Moses was not giving them the consideration that they deserved. Jealousy in spiritual spheres is a dreadful thing. And it can only result in a diminishing of the Spirit.

We note that Miriam is mentioned first and that the feminine verb is used in verse 1 (‘they spoke against’). She was clearly the most prominent in the attack on Moses. It may also be that she saw Moses’ new wife as a threat to her own position. Perhaps his new wife was more forceful than Zipporah had been. So the mention of Miriam first and the use of the feminine verb was in order to indicate that it was she who was the main culprit. But that is not to excuse Aaron. It would, however, help to explain why it was she who was punished most severely.

Ostensibly the main ground that they found was that he had married a Cushite woman. The argument would be that she was not a pure bred Israelite. In view of the restrictions on himself Aaron probably felt that that was not right. The priest had to take a virgin of his own people to wife (Lev 21:14). Why should Moses not have to do so as well? Why should he be any different? The woman was probably Sudanese (ancient ‘Ethiopia’). Their complaint was not because she was black but because they presumably felt that he was being inconsistent. After all Moses was a Levite and related to a priestly family. He ought to have remembered his position and to have married within the family! (It must be considered quite possible that Moses marriage had been diplomatic, a means of uniting together the true-born Israelites and the mixed multitude, but we are not told so. However it certainly confirmed that in Yahweh’s eyes both were on the same level once they were in the covenant).

Num 12:2

‘And they said, “Has Yahweh indeed spoken only with Moses? Has he not spoken also with us?” And Yahweh heard it.’

But then the criticism advanced. It became a direct attack on Moses himself. Was Moses not getting above himself? Did not Yahweh speak to them as well? Did they not therefore have a right to be consulted on such things as the elders, and Moses’ marriage? Should he not defer a little more to them? He was not giving them the respect due to them as spiritual equals with him. The pride of life was consuming them.

“And Yahweh heard it.” We need to beware of what we say, for God always hears us. And Yahweh was not pleased at what He heard. He had shown His graciousness to them both, and now they were taking it out on Moses because of their own pride And what Moses had done had not been on his own initiative. He had simply been obeying Yahweh. So in effect they were grumbling because God had not sufficiently considered their importance.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Num 12:3  (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)

Num 12:3 Comments – Moses’ meekness was a great virtue that allowed God to use him mightily. However, Moses did have several occasions of not controlling his temper. It was this temper problem that caused him to not enter the Promised Land. Moses is an example of a man who can be used by God, but still have a weakness that caused him to miss God’s perfect plan for his life. God will use us also in the areas of our life that we yield to Him. Those areas of our life that we walk in the flesh will cause us to miss God’s perfect plan for our lives.

Examples of humble men in Bible:

Moses:

Num 12:3, “(Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)”

David:

1Sa 18:23, “And Saul’s servants spake those words in the ears of David. And David said, Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king’s son in law, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed?”

Jesus:

Mat 11:29-30, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Paul:

Act 20:19, “Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews:”

Num 12:14  And the LORD said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again.

Num 12:14 Comments – Earthly parents chasten their children; how much more our heavenly Father! Note: God always has and still today chastens His children with sickness.

Heb 12:9, “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Sin of Miriam and Aaron

v. 1. And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses, they also became infected with the virus of discontent, because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian woman, a Cushite, his first wife, Zipporah, apparently having died in the wilderness. Marriage with an Egyptian woman was not forbidden, but Miriam, and under her leadership Aaron also, took this opportunity of registering their jealousy of their brother’s position among the people of the Lord, since the prestige of Moses had been established more firmly than ever by reason of the recent happenings.

v. 2. And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? Hath He not spoken also by us? Miriam, as the prophetess, Exo 15:20, thought herself and her brother Aaron, as the high priest and the bearer of the mysterious light and truth, Exo 28:30, entitled to a share in the teaching of the people; they wanted to have equal rights with their younger brother. And the Lord heard it; He took note of the complaint, for it was His intention to adjust matters with all possible speed.

v. 3. (Now the man Moses -was very meek, willing to subordinate himself to others, fully satisfied with a position of less importance, above all the men “which “were upon the face of the earth. ) He was ever ready to endure in silence and to commit his justification to the Lord. This note is not a specimen of self-glorification, but a simple statement of fact, and thereby a defense of himself, for he swallowed the insult in silence. Not so, however, the Lord, whose honor and authority was at stake.

v. 4. And the Lord spake suddenly unto Moses and unto Aaron and unto Miriam, Come out, ye three, unto the Tabernacle of the Congregation. He wanted to set an example at once. And they three came out.

v. 5. And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, which here again sank down from its position above the Tabernacle, and stood in the door of the Tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forth, the cloud separating them from Moses. Moses was thus on the inside, at the very door of the Holy Place, while Miriam and Aaron stood out in the court, probably on the east side of the altar of burnt offering.

v. 6. And He said, Hear now My words: If there be a prophet among you, any ordinary person endued with prophetic gifts in some form, as was the case with Miriam, I, the Lord, will make Myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. Those were the forms of communication which the Lord used with ordinary prophets.

v. 7. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all Mine house, having approved himself in his entire service, in all the worship connected with the Tabernacle as the Sanctuary of Jehovah in the midst of His people. To him God had entrusted His house, His people, to him He had given the leadership of the children of Israel.

v. 8. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, and not merely in obscure visions, even apparently, so that Moses could see God in some clear manifestation, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude, the form, of the Lord shall he behold; wherefore, then, were ye not afraid to speak against My servant Moses? Reverential awe of God, whose minister and representative Moses was, should have kept Miriam and Aaron from uttering a single word against his authority.

v. 9. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and He departed. Having called them to account, having rebuked them for their presumption, the Lord removed His presence from them, preparatory to inflicting some form of punishment upon them. The entire worship was thus interrupted, the entire machinery of the cultus came to a standstill. God Himself is the Judge between His servants and those that dare to oppose their own notions to the precepts of the Lord. It is a dangerous thing to challenge the authority of such as have the Word of the Lord on their side.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

THE SEDITION AND PUNISHMENT OF MIRIAM (Num 12:1-16.).

Num 12:1

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses. While the people were encamped at Hazeroth (see Num 12:16), and therefore probably very soon after the events of the last chapter. That Miriam’s was the moving spirit in the matter is sufficiently evident,

(1) because her name stands first;

(2) because the verb “spake” is in the feminine (, “and she said”);

(3) because the ground of annoyance was a peculiarly feminine one, a msalliance;

(4) because Miriam alone was punished;

(5) because Aaron never seems to have taken the lead in anything.

He appears uniformly as a man of weak and pliable character, who was singularly open to influence from others, for good or for evil. Superior to his brother in certain gifts, he was as inferior to him in force of character as could well be. On the present occasion there can be little question that Aaron simply allowed himself to be drawn by his sister into an opposition with which he had little personal sympathy; a general discontent at the manifest inferiority of his position inclined him to take up her quarrel, and to echo her complaints. Because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. Hebrew, a Cushite woman. The descendants of Cush were distributed both in Africa (the Ethiopians proper) and in Asia (the southern Arabians, Babylonians, Ninevites, &c.). See Gen 10:1-32. Some have thought that this Ethiopian woman was none other than the Midianite Zipporah, who might have been called a Cushite in some loose sense by Miriam. The historian, however, would not have repeated in his own name a statement so inaccurate; nor is it at all likely that that marriage would have become a matter of contention after so many years. The natural supposition undoubtedly is that Moses (whether after the death of Zipporah, or during her lifetime, we cannot tell) had taken to himself a second wife of Hamite origin. Where he found her it is useless to conjecture; she may possibly have been one of the “mixed multitude” that went up out of Egypt. It is equally useless to attribute any moral or religious character to this marriage, of which Holy Scripture takes no direct notice, and which was evidently regarded by Moses as a matter of purely private concern to himself. In general we may say that the rulers of Israel attached neither political, social, nor religious significance to their marriages; and that neither law nor custom imposed any restraint upon their choice, so long as they did not ally themselves with the daughters of Canaan (see Exo 34:16). It would be altogether beside the mark to suppose that Moses deliberately married a Cushite woman in order to set forth the essential fellowship between Jew and Gentile. It is true that such marriages as those of Joseph, of Salmon, of Solomon, and others undeniably became invested with spiritual importance and evangelical significance, in view of the growing narrowness of Jewish feeling, and of the coming in of a wider dispensation; but such significance was wholly latent at the time. If, however, the choice of Moses is inexplicable, the opposition of Miriam is intelligible enough. She was a prophetess (Exo 15:20), and strongly imbued with those national and patriotic feelings which are never far removed from exclusiveness and pride of race. She hadto use modern wordsled the Te Deum of the nation after the stupendous overthrow of the Egyptians. And now her brother, who stood at the head of the nation, had brought into his tent a Cushite woman, one of the dark-skinned race which seemed oven lower in the religious scale than the Egyptians themselves. Such an alliance might easily seem to Miriam nothing better than an act of apostasy which would justify any possible opposition.

Num 12:2

And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? This is evidently not the “speaking against Moses” mentioned in the previous verse, for that is distinctly said to have been on the score of Moses’ marriage. This is their justification of themselves for daring to dispute his judgment and arraign his proceedings; a thing which clearly required justification. Moses himself, or more likely others for him, had remonstrated with them on the language they were using. They retorted that Moses had no monopoly of Divine communications; Aaron also received the revelation of God by Urim and Thummim, and Miriam was a prophetess. They were acknowledged in a general sense as sharing with him the leadership of Israel (see Mic 6:4); upon this they meant to found a claim to coordinate authority. They would have had perhaps all matters settled in a family council in which they should have had an equal voice. It was hard for them both to forget that Moses was only their younger brother: for Miriam that she had saved his life as an infant; for Aaron that he had been as prominent as Moses in the original commission from God to the people. And the Lord heard it. In one sense he hears everything; in another sense there are many things which he does not choose to hear, because he does not wish to take judicial notice of them. Thus he had not “heard” the passionate complaints of Moses himself a short time before, because his will was then to pardon, not to punish (cf. Isa 42:19; Mal 3:16).

Num 12:3

Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth. For the Hebrew the Septuagint has here; the Vulgate, mitis. The Targum Palestine has “bowed down in his mind,” i.e; overwhelmed (“plagued,” Luther). The ordinary version is undoubtedly’ right; the object of the parenthesis was either to explain that there was no real ground for the hostility of Miriam and Aaron, or to show that the direct interference of the Lord himself was necessary for the protection of his servant. The verse bears a difficulty on its very face, because it speaks of Moses in terms which could hardly have been used by Moses of himself. Nor is this difficulty in the least degree diminished by the explanations which are offered by those who are determined to maintain at any cost the Mosaic authorship of every word in the Pentateuch. It is no doubt true to some extent that when a great and good man is writing of himself (and especially when he writes under the influence of the Holy Spirit), he can speak of himself with the same calm and simple truthfulness with which he would speak of any other. It is sufficient, however, to refer to the example of St. Paul to show that neither any height of spiritual privilege and authority, nor any intensity of Divine inspiration, obliterates the natural virtue of modesty, or allows a really humble man to praise himself without pain and shrinking. It is also to be observed that while St. Paul forces himself to speak of his privileges, distinctions, and sufferings, all of which were outward to himself, Moses would here be claiming for himself the possession of an inward virtue in greater measure than any other living soul. Surely it is not too much to say that if he did possess it in such measure, he could not possibly have been conscious that he did; only One was thus conscious of his own ineffable superiority, and this very consciousness is one of the strongest arguments for believing that he was infinitely more than a mere man, howsoever good and exalted. There is but one theory that will make it morally possible for Moses to have written this verse, viz; that in writing he was a mere instrument, and not morally responsible for what he did write. Such a theory will find few upholders. But, further, it is necessary to prove not only that Moses might have made this statement, but also that he might have made it in this form. Granted that it was necessary to the narrative to point out that he was very meek; it was not necessary to assert that he was absolutely the meekest man living. And if it was unnecessary, it was also unnatural. No good man would go out of his way to compare himself to his own advantage with all men upon the face of the earth. The whole form of the sentence, indeed, as well as its position, proclaim it so clearly to be an addition by some later hand, that the question may be left to the common sense and knowledge of human nature of every reader; for the broad outlines of human character, morality, and virtue are the same in every age, and are not displaced by any accident of position, or even of inspiration. A slight examination of passages from other sacred writers, which are sometimes adduced as analogous, will serve to show how profound is the difference between what holy men could say of themselves and what they could not (cf. Dan 1:19, Dan 1:20; Dan 5:11, Dan 5:12; Dan 9:23; Dan 10:11). On the question of the inspiration of this verse, supposing it to be an interpolation, and as to the probable author of it, see the Preface. As to the fact of Moses’ meekness, we have no reason to doubt it, but we may legitimately look upon the form in which it is stated as one of those conventional hyperboles which are not uncommon even in the sacred writings (cf. Gen 7:19; Joh 21:25). And we cannot avoid perceiving that Moses’ meekness was far from being perfect, and was marred by sinful impatience and passion on more than one recorded occasion.

Num 12:4

The Lord spake suddenly. How he spoke we cannot tell, but the word “suddenly” points to something unexpected and unusual. The voice seems to have come to the three in their tents before there was any thought in their minds of such an intervention. Come out ye three, i.e; out of the campprobably the camp of Moses and Aaron, on the east of the tabernacle court (see Num 3:38).

Num 12:5

The Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud. The cloud which had been soaring above the tabernacle descended upon it (see Num 11:25 and Num 12:10). And stood in the door of the tabernacle. It would seem most natural to understand by these words the entrance to the holy place itself, and this would manifestly accord best with the movements of the cloud, as here described; for the cloud seems to have sunk down upon the sacred tent in token that the Lord was in some special sense present within it. On the other hand, the phrase must certainly be understood to mean the entrance of the court, or sacred enclosure, in Le Num 8:3, 31, 33, and probably in other places. As it is hardly possible that the phrase can have had both meanings, the latter must be preferred. And they both came forth. Not out of the sanctuary, into which Miriam could not have entered, but out of the enclosure. The wrath which lay upon them both, and the punishment which was about to be inflicted upon one, were sufficient reasons for calling them out of the holy ground.

Num 12:6

If there boa prophet among you I the Lord will make myself known. More probably “the Lord” belongs to the first clause: “If there be to you a prophet of the Lord, I will make myself known.” So the Septuagint, . . In a vision. . An internal vision, in which the eyes (even if open) saw nothing, but the effects of vision’ were produced upon the sensorium by other and supernatural means (see, e.g; Amo 7:7, Amo 7:8; Act 10:11). Speak unto him in a dream. Rather, speak “in him”. The voice that spake to the prophet was an internal voice, causing no vibration of the outer air, but affecting only the inner and hidden seat of consciousness. It is not necessary to restrict the prophetic dream to the time of sleep; a waking state, resembling what we call day-dream, in which the external senses arc quiescent, and the imagination is freed from its usual restraints, was perhaps the more usual mental condition at the time. Indeed the Divine communications made to Joseph (Mat 1:20; Mat 2:13) and to the Magi (ibid. Num 2:12) are almost the only ones we read of as made during actual sleep, unless we include the ease of Pilate’s wife (ibid. Num 27:19); and none of these were prophets in the ordinary sense. Compare, however, Act 2:17 b.

Num 12:7

My servant Moses is not so. No words could more clearly and sharply draw the distinction between Moses and the whole laudabilis numerus of the prophets. It is strange that, in the face of a statement so general and so emphatic, it should have been doubted whether it applied to such prophets as Isaiah or Daniel. It was exactly in “visions” and in “dreams,” i.e; under the peculiar psychological conditions so-called, that these greatest of prophets received their revelations from heaven. The exceeding richness and wonder of some of these revelations did not alter the mode in which they were received, nor raise them out of the ordinary conditions of the gradus propheticus. As prophets of future things they were much greater than Moses, and their writings may be to us far more precious; but that does not concern the present question, which turns exclusively upon the relation between the Divine Giver and the human receiver of the revelation. If words mean anything, the assertion here is that Moses stood on an altogether different footing from the “prophet of the Lord” in respect of the communications which he received from the Lord. It is this essential superiority of position on the part of Moses which alone gives force and meaning to the important declarations of Deu 18:15; Joh 1:21 b.; Joh 6:14; Joh 7:40, &c. Moses had no successor in his relations with God until that Son of man came, who was “in heaven” all the time he walked and spake on earth. Who is faithful in all mine house, with means to be proved, or attested, and so established (cf. 1Sa 3:20; 1Sa 22:14). The Septuagint gives the true sense, , and so it is quoted in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Joh 3:2). The “house” of God, as the adjective “whole” shows, is not the tabernacle, but the house of Israel; the’ word “house” standing for household, family, nation, as so often in the sacred writings (see Gen 46:27; Le Gen 10:6; Heb 3:6).

Num 12:8

Mouth to mouth. Equivalent to face to face in Exo 33:11. What the exact facts of the case were it is not possible to know, scarcely to imagine; but the words seem to imply a familiar speaking with an audible voice on the part of God, as distinguished from the internal voice, inaudible to the ear, with which he spake “in” the prophets. To assert that the revelations accorded to Moses were only subjective modifications of his own consciousness is to evacuate these strong words of any meaning whatever. Apparently. is an accusative in apposition to what goes before by way (apparently) of further definition. It is the same word translated “vision” in Exo 33:6; but its meaning here must be determined by the expression “in riddles,” which stands in antithesis to it. It was confessed]y the case with most prophetic utterances that the language in which they were couched was quite as much intended to conceal as to express their full meaning; but to Moses God spake without any such concealments. The similitude of the Lord shall he behold. . Not the essential nature of God, which no man can see, but a form (wholly unknown and unimaginable to us) in which it pleased him to veil his glory. The Septuagint has , referring, apparently, to the vision promised in Exo 33:22; and the Targum Palestine speaks here of the vision of the burning bush. The motive for this alteration is no doubt to be sought in a profound jealousy for the great truth declared in such texts as Deu 4:15; Isa 40:18, and afterwards in Joh 1:18; 1Ti 6:16. But the statement in the text is a general one, and can only mean that Moses habitually in his intercourse with God had before his eyes some visible manifestation of the invisible God, which helped to make that intercourse at once more awfully real and more intensely blessed. Such manifestation to the sense of sight must be distinguished both from the visionary (or subjective) sight of God in human figure accorded to Ezekiel (Eze 1:26), to Isaiah (Isa 6:1), to St. John (Rev 4:2, Rev 4:8), and perhaps to others, and also from such theophanies in angel guise as are recorded in Gen 32:30; Jdg 13:9,Jdg 13:2, and elsewhere. On the other hand, the seventy elders seem to have seen the “Temunah” of the Lord upon that one occasion when they were called up into Mount Sinai (Exo 24:10, Exo 24:11). Wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses! No doubt it was the double fact of their relationship to Moses after the flesh, and of their sharing with him in certain spiritual gifts and prerogatives, which made them oblivious of the great distinction which lifted him above their rivalry, and should have lifted him above their contradiction. That contradiction, however, served to bring out in the clearest way the singular and unapproached position of the mediator of Israel; and it serves still to enable us to estimate aright the peculiar dignity of his legislation and his writings. The substance of prophetic teaching may be of deeper interest and of wider import titan “the law,” but this latter will still rank higher in the scale of inspiration, as having been more directly communicated front on high. Thus “the law” (as the Jews rightly taught) remained the body of Divine revelation until “that Prophet” came who was “like unto” Moses in the fact that he enjoyed constant, open, and direct communication with the Godhead.

Num 12:9

And he departed. As a judge departs from his judgment-seat after trying and convicting evil-doers.

Num 12:10

The cloud departed from off the tabernacle. During this awful interview the cloud of the Presence had rested on the tabernacle, as if it were the Divine chariot waiting for the King of Israel while he tarried within (of. Psa 104:3; Isa 19:1; Rev 11:12). Now that his work is done he ascends his chariot again, and soars aloft above the host. Miriam became leprous. The Hebrews had become familiar with this terrible disease in Egypt. The Levitical legislation had made it more terrible by affixing to it the penalty of religious and social excommunication, and the stigma, as it were, of the Divine displeasure. Before this legislation Moses himself had been made partially and temporarily leprous, and that solely for a sign, and without any sense of punishment (Exo 4:6). In Miriam’s ease, however, as in all subsequent cases, the plague of leprosy was endued with moral as well as physical horror (cf. 2Ki 5:27). As snow. This expression points to the perfect development of the disease, as contrasted with its earlier and less conspicuous stages. Aaron looked upon Miriam. If we ask why Aaron himself was not punished, the answer appears to be the same here as in the case of the golden calf.

1. He was not the leader in mischief, but only led into it through weakness.

2. He was, like many weak men, of an affectionate disposition (cf. Le Num 10:19), and suffered his own punishment in witnessing that of others.

3. He was God’s high priest, and the office would have shared in the disgrace of the man.

Num 12:11

Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee. Septuagint, , . In thus addressing his brother Aaron acknowledged his superior position, and tacitly abandoned all pretension to equality. Lay not the sin upon us. Aaron speaks to Moses almost as if he were praying to God, so completely does. he recognize in his brother the representative of God (in a far higher sense than himself), who had power to bind and loose in the name and power of God. What Aaron really prays for is that the sin, which he frankly confesses, may not be imputed to them. The Levitical law had taught them to look upon sin as a burden, which in the nature of things the sinner must carry, but which by the goodness of God might be got rid of, or transferred to some one else (cf. Le Num 4:4; Num 16:21; Joh 1:29).

Num 12:12

As one dead. Rather, “as the dead thing,” i.e. the still-born child, in which death and decay have anticipated life. Such was the frightful effect of leprosy in its last stages.

Num 12:13

Moses cried unto the Lord. A much harder and prouder man than Moses was must needs have been melted into pity at the sight of his sister, and the terrible suggestion of Aaron. Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee. The “now” has no place here, unless it be merely to add force to the exclamation. Moses, although directly appealed to himself, can only appeal to God.

Num 12:14

The Lord said unto Moses. Presumably in the tabernacle, whither Moses would have returned to supplicate God. If her father had but spit in her face. The “but” is superfluous, and obscures the sense; the act mentioned is referred to not as something trifling, but as something in its way very serious. The Septuagint renders it correctly . The Targums have, “if her father had corrected her.” Probably they used this euphemism from a sense of a certain want of dignity and propriety in the original expression, considered as coming from the mouth of God. The act in question was, however, not uncommon in itself, and in significance clearly marked (see Deu 25:9). It was the distinctive note of public disgrace inflicted by one who had a right to inflict it. In the case of a father, it meant that he was thoroughly ashamed of his child, and judged it best (which would be only in extreme cases) to put his child to shame before all the world. So public a disgrace would certainly be felt in patriarchal times as a most severe calamity, and entailed by ordinary custom (as we learn here) retirement and mourning for seven days at least. How much more, when her heavenly Father had been driven to inflict a public disgrace upon her for perverse behavior, should the shame and the sorrow not be lightly put away,, but patiently endured for a decent period! (cf. Heb 12:9).

Num 12:15

Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days. It does not say that Miriam was healed forthwith of her leprosy, but the presumption is to that effect. Not the punishment itself, but the shame of it, was to last according to the answer of God. Her ease, therefore, would not fall under the law of Num 5:2, or of Le 13:46, but would be analogous to that treated of in Lev 14:1-57. No doubt size had to submit to all the rites there prescribed, humiliating as they must have been to the prophetess and the sister of the law-giver; and these rites involved exclusion from her tent for a period of seven days (Le Lev 14:8). By God’s command exclusion from her tent was made exclusion from the camp.

Num 12:16

In the wilderness of Paran. It is somewhat strange that this note of place should be used a second time without explanation (see Num 10:12, Num 10:33). Probably it is intended to mark the fact that they were still within the limits of Paran, although on the very verge of their promised laud. In the list of stations given in Num 33:1-56, it is said (Num 33:18), “They departed from Hazeroth, and pitched in Rithmah.” This is with some probability identified with the Wady Redemat, which opens front the mountain mass of the Azazimat into the singular plain of Kudes, or Kadesh, the scene of the decisive events which followed.

HOMILETICS

Num 12:1-16

THE CONTRADICTION OF SINNERS

We have in this chapter, spiritually, the contradiction of the Jews against their brother after the flesh; morally, the sin and punishment of jealousy and envy in high places. Consider, therefore

I. THAT AS MOSES IS THE TYPE OF HIM WHO WAS THE MEDIATOR OF A BETTER COVENANT, WHO WAS MEEK AND LOWLY IN HEART; SO AARON AND MIRIAM, WHEN ARRAYED AGAINST MOSES, REPRESENT THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD AT THE TIME OF OUR LORD, AND THE JEWISH SYNAGOGUE, IN THEIR CARNAL PRIDE AND EXCLUSIVENESS. Nor is this typical character arbitrary or unreal, for we may clearly see in them the same tendencies which afterwards ripened into utter blasphemy and Deicide.

II. THAT THE OFFENCE OF MOSES IN THE EYES OF MIRIAM WAS HIS HAVING ALLIED HIMSELF WITH A GENTILE WIFE OF A DESPISED RACE. Even so the crime of our Lord, in the sight of a narrow and bigoted Judaism, was that he went about to present unto himself a Gentile Church, of the dregs of the nations, to be his spouse (cf. So Num 1:4-6; Luk 15:28; Act 22:21, Act 22:22; Eph 5:25-32).

III. THAT MIRIAM AND AARON JUSTIFIED THEIR OPPOSITION TO MOSES BY DWELLING UPON THEIR OWN SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY. Even so the synagogue and priesthood of the Jews magnified themselves against the Lord’s Christ and their own Messiah, on the ground that they themselves were commissioned of God (cf. Joh 7:48; Joh 8:33; Joh 9:28, Joh 9:29).

IV. THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO BE OBLIVIOUS OF HIS TRUE GREATNESS, BECAUSE HE WAS THEIR BROTHER, AND THEIR YOUNGER BROTHER. Even so Christ was despised by the Jews because he was (as it were) one of themselves, and because they seemed to be familiar with his antecedents and training (cf. Mat 13:55-57; Luk 4:22, Luk 4:28; Joh 6:42).

V. THAT MOSES DISPLAYED A MEEKNESS WHICH SEEMED MORE THAN HUMAN. Even so our Lord endured the contradiction of sinners with a meekness which was more than human (cf. Isa 42:19; Isa 53:7; Mat 11:29; Heb 12:3; Jas 5:6; 1Pe 2:23).

VI. THAT GOD INTERVENED TO ADVANCE HIS FAITHFUL SERVANT TO BE ABOVE ALL PROPHETS, AND TO BE MUCH NEARER TO HIMSELF THAN MIRIAM AND AARON. Even so did God vindicate his holy servant Jesus against all the blasphemy of the Jews, and give him a name which is above every name (cf. Act 2:22-24, Act 2:32; Act 4:10, Act 4:27, Act 4:30; Rom 1:4; Php 2:9; Heb 3:1-3).

VII. THAT GOD INTERFERED TO PUNISH MIRIAM WITH LEPROSY FOR HER PRIDE AND RANCOUR. Even so the synagogue of the Jews became the synagogue of Satan, and they themselves are in exile, political and religious, until they shall cry for mercy to their Brother, the one Mediator (Rom 11:25; 1Th 2:15, 1Th 2:16; Rev 2:9; Rev 3:9).

Consider again

I. THAT THE SECRET CAUSE OF ALL THIS DISTURBANCE WAS PROBABLY MIRIAM‘S JEALOUSY OF HER BROTHER‘S WIFE. It is likely she hoped to have exercised a growing influence over him herself. Even so history and experience testify that personal jealousies and envies are at the root of very many of the disorders in churches and congregations (cf. 2Co 12:20; 1Pe 2:1 b).

II. THAT A COINCIDENT CAUSE WAS A SECRET DISSATISFACTION ON THE PART OF AARON AT THE INFERIORITY OF HIS OWN POSITION AND INFLUENCE AS COMPARED WITH HIS BROTHER‘S. Even so ambition and lust of power have betrayed many a highly-gifted and perhaps really religious soul into making claims, and taking up a position derogatory to Christ, and inconsistent with his sole pre-eminence (cf. Col 2:19).

III. THAT THEY EXCUSED THEIR SEDITION UNDER THE PLEA (WHICH WAS TRUE IN ITSELF) THAT THEY TOO ENJOYED DIVINE FAVOURS AND PRIVILEGES. How often do men speak and act as if the fact of being spiritual (Gal 6:1), or of being called to some ministry, authorized them to ignore all distinctions, refuse all control, and give the rein to their own enmities and evil feelings.

IV. THAT MOSES TURNED A DEAF EAR TO THEIR INVECTIVES, BUT ALL THE MORE GOD TURNED A LISTENING EAR. MOSES WOULD NOT TAKE UP HIS OWN QUARREL, THEREFORE GOD TOOK IT UP FOR HIM, AND GREATLY MAGNIFIED HIM. Even so they that will avenge themselves must be content with the results of their own efforts, and they that will fight their own battles must take their chance of victory; but they that will not avenge themselves, God will vindicate, and that gloriously. The meek shall inherit the earth, because at the present they are dispossessed of the earth (cf. Psa 76:9; Isa 11:4; Mat 5:5; Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30).

V. THAT THE PUNISHMENT OF MIRIAM WAS THE MOST TERRIBLE OF DISEASESA LIVING DEATH. A jealous spirit, stirring up dissensions, reckless of the souls for which Christ died, incurs awful guilt, and is in danger of hell-fire (cf. Mat 18:7-9; 1Ti 6:4; Jas 4:5).

VI. THAT AARON CRIED HUMBLY TO THE BROTHER WHOM HE HAD SPOKEN AGAINST; AND THAT BROTHER INTERCEDED FOR THEM, AND THUS AARON‘S FAITH SAVED HIMSELF AND HIS SISTER. Even so the Lord Jesus is ever ready to intercede for his enemies; much more for those whom he loves as brethren, when they cry to him, even if they have treated him ill (cf. Luk 23:34; Rom 5:8, Rom 5:9; Heb 2:11, Heb 2:12, and of the synagogue itself (Rom 11:26, Rom 11:28; 2Co 3:16).

VII. THAT MIRIAM‘S FAULT, ALTHOUGH FORGIVEN, WAS NOT TO BE LIGHTLY FORGOTTEN BY HERSELF OR THE PEOPLE; SHE WAS TO BE ASHAMED FOR SEVEN DAYS. Even so it is not according to the will of God, nor for the edification of the Church, nor for the good of the sinner, that a sin which is also a scandal should be straightway smoothed over and forgotten, because it is acknowledged and forgiven. There is a natural impatience to be rid of tile disagreeable consequences of sin in this life, which is purely selfish on the part of every one concerned, and is dishonouring to God. Shame is a holy discipline for those who have done wrong, and they should not be hastily removed from its sanctifying influences (cf. Eze 39:26; 2Co 2:6; 2Co 7:9-11).

VIII. THAT MIRIAM, PROPHETESS AS SHE WAS, AND SISTER OF THE LAWGIVER, HAD TO PASS THROUGH THE ORDINARY CEREMONIAL FOR THE CLEANSING OF LEPERSA CEREMONIAL DESIGNED TO SET FORTH THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. Even SO there is one only way to restoration for all sinners, however highly placed or gifted, and that through the sprinkling of the precious blood (cf. Le 14:2; Act 4:12; Rom 3:22, Rom 3:23).

IX. THAT GOD WOULD NOT GIVE THE SIGNAL FOR DEPARTURE UNTIL MIRIAM WAS RESTORED. Even so God, who will have all men to be saved, waiteth long and delayeth the entry of the Church into her rest, lest any who will come in should be shut out (cf. Luk 18:7 b.; 2Pe 3:9, 2Pe 3:15; Rev 7:3).

Consider alsoTHAT THE OPPOSITION OF HIS OWN ONLY LED TO THE SUPREME AND SOLITARY GREATNESS OF MOSES BEING MADE FAR MORE CLEAR THAN EVER, AND BEING PLACED BEYOND CAVIL OR MISTAKE. Even so the persecution of our Lord by the Jews only led to his being declared the Son of God with power; and still more, the efforts of heretics to deny or to explain away his Divine glory, have only led to that glory being much more clearly defined, and much more devoutly believed than ever.

HOMILIES BY W. BINNIE

Num 12:1-6

THE SEDITION OF MIRIAM AND AARON

Here is another sedition in Israel. What is worse, the sedition does not, at this time, originate among the mixed multitude, the pariahs of the camp. The authors of it are the two leading personages in the congregation, after Moses himself. Nor are they strangers to him, such as might be deemed his natural rivals; they are his own kindred, his sister and brother.

I. THE STORY OF THE SEDITION was, in brief, this:Moses was not the only member of the family of Amram whom the Lord had endowed with eminent gifts. Aaron, his elder brother, was a leading man among the Israelites before Moses received his call at Horeb. Miriam also was a woman of high and various gifts, both natural and gracious. She was a prophetessthe earliest recorded example of a woman endowed with the gift of prophecyand she excelled also in song (Exo 15:20; Mic 6:4). The eminent gifts of these two were not passed over. They found such recognition and scope, that next to Moses, Aaron and Miriam were the two most honoured and influential individuals in the camp. But they were not content with this. Moses was set in yet higher place, and this roused their jealousy. They could not bear to see another, one brought up in the same family, a younger brother too, elevated above them. Miriam could not brook the thought of being subject to the younger brother whose infancy she had tended, and whose ark of bulrushes she had been set to watch when their mother committed him to the unfeeling bosom of the Nile. “Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?” Envy is a root tenacious of life in the human heart. When some one whom you have known familiarly as your junior or inferior is raised above you in office or wealth, in gifts or grace, watch and pray, else you will be very apt to fall into Miriam’s sin. I say Miriam’s sin, for it is plain that the sedition originated with her. Not only is her name put first, but in the Hebrew the beginning of the narrative runs thus: “Then she spake, even Miriam and Aaron, against Moses.” When there is envy in the heart, it will soon find occasion to break out. Very characteristically, the occasion in this instance was some misunderstanding about Moses’ wife. She was not of the daughters of Israel. Miriam affected to despise her as an unclean person, and persuaded Aaron to do the same. It was an instance of a thing not rare in history, a family quarrel, a fit of ill-feeling between two sisters-in-law, stirring up envy and strife between persons in high office, and troubling the community. There was something very petty in the conduct of Miriam and Aaron, but it was not, therefore, a trifling offence. When they were giving vent to their envy “the Lord heard.”

II. THE PUNISHMENT OF THE SEDITION. It does not appear that Moses made any complaint; he was the meekest of men, humble and patient. All the rather does the Highest take the defense of his servant in hand. “Suddenly,” i.e; in sharp displeasure, Miriam and the two brothers were commanded to present themselves before the Lord, at the entrance of the tabernacle. Whereupon,

1. The Lord pronounced a warm eulogy upon, Moses. Observe the terms in which he is described, for there is much more in them than is perceived at first. “My servant Moses,””servant in all mine house,””faithful in all mine house.”

(1) Moses was “the servant of the Lord,” “the man of God,” in a sense more ample than any other individual who ever lived excepting only Christ himself; and one can perceive a tone of singular love in the way in which the title is here used: “my servant Moses.”

(2) The commission of Moses extended to every part of the Lord’s house, and in every department of his service he showed fidelity. As a prophet, he was more extensively employed and more faithful than Miriam; as a priest, he was more honourable and faithful than Aaron; and he was, moreover, king in Jeshurun, the valiant and faithful leader and commander of the people. These were facts, and Moses might well have appealed to them in vindication of himself against the complainers. But he did better to leave the matter in the Lord’s own hand (Psa 37:5, Psa 37:6).

2. Besides vindicating Moses and rebuking his detract ors, the Lord put a mark of his displeasure on Miriam. The ringleader in the sedition, she bears the brunt of the punishment. She has affected to abhor her sister-in-law as unclean; she is herself smitten with leprosy, a disease loathsome in itself, and which entailed ceremonial defilement in the highest degree. This done, the cloud of the Divine presence rose as suddenly as it had come down. Miriam and Aaron stood before the tabernacle utterly confounded, till Aaron was fain to humble himself before his brother, saying:We have done foolishly, we have sinned; forgive us, and do not let the sad affair go further; have pity on poor Miriam especially; see how pitiable a sight she is. “Like the dead thing of which the flesh is half consumed when it cometh out of its mother’s womb.” Moses was not the man to resist so touching an appeal. Miriam was healed; but she was shut out from the camp as an unclean person for the space of a week, as the law prescribed. The lesson lies on the surface. Do not give harbour to envy because of the welfare or honour of your neighbour, rather “rejoice with them that do rejoice.” It is not always easy to rejoice when some one younger, or of humbler birth than ourselves, is exalted above us. Nor is the difficulty lessened when the person exalted is of our own kindred. Nevertheless envy must be cast forth. The author of all gifts and honours is God. To envy the receivers is to rebel against him and provoke his displeasure. And God’s ordinary method in punishing envious pride is to inflict some peculiarly ignominious stroke. When Miriam swells with pride she is smitten with leprosy.B.

Num 12:6-8

THE SINGULAR HONOUR OF MOSES

The best commentary on these verses is supplied by the comparison instituted between Moses and our blessed Lord in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb 3:1-6). The Hebrews are reminded that of all the servants whom the Lord raised up to minister in the ancient Church, there was not one who approached Moses, in respect either to the greatness and variety of the services performed by him, or the greatness of the honours bestowed upon him. Moses was set over all God’s house, and in this eminent station he was conspicuously faithful. In these respects Moses was the most perfect figure of Christ. Christ’s priesthood was foreshadowed by Melchisedec, his royalty by David and Solomon, his prophetical office by Samuel and the goodly company of prophets who followed him. But in Moses all the three offices were foreshadowed at once. Of these two men, Moses and Christ, and of no other since the world began, could it be affirmed that they were “faithful in all the Lord’s house.” No doubt there was disparity as well as a resemblance. Both were servants. But Moses was a servant in a house which belonged to another, in a household of which he was only a member, whereas Christ is such a servant as is also a son, and serves in a household of which he is the Maker and Heir. This is true. Nevertheless it is profitable to forget occasionally the disparity of the two great mediators, and to fix attention on the resemblance between them, the points in which the honour of Christ the Great Prophet was prefigured by the singular honour of Moses. Hence the interest and value of this text in Numbers.

I. AS A FOIL TO BRING OUT THE SINGULAR HONOUR OF MOSES, THE LORD PUTS ALONGSIDE OF IT THE HONOUR BESTOWED ON OTHER PROPHETS. a Consider the prophets that have been or yet are among you. How has my will been made known to them?” Two ways are specified.

1. “In a vision.” There was a memorable example of this in the case of Abraham (Gen 15:1-21). Visions continued to be the vehicles of revelation during the whole course of the Old Testament history. Isaiah (6, 13, &c.), Jeremiah (50, &e.), Ezekiel and Daniel (everywhere). Peter’s vision at Joppa is a familiar example of the same kind under the New Testament.

2. “In a dream.” This was a lower way of revelation. The stories of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar remind us that the dreams (I do not say the interpretations of them) were not seldom vouchsafed to men who were strangers to God. We shall see immediately that these ways of making himself known to men through the prophets, were inferior to the ways in which the Lord was wont to reveal himself through Moses. But let us not so fix our attention on the points of difference as to lose sight of or forget the bright and glorious feature which they have in common. “I, the Lord, do make myself known in a vision, and do speak in a dream.” For reasons we can only guess at, the Lord was pleased to suffer the nations to walk in their own ways. But in Israel he revealed himself. At sundry times and in divers manners he was pleased to speak to the fathers by the prophets. The Scriptures of the Old Testament are oracular. In them we inherit the most precious part of the patrimony of the ancient Church. For this was the chief advantage which the Jews had above the Gentiles, that “unto them were committed the oracles of God.” It is our own fault if, in reading the Old Testament, we fail to hear everywhere the voice of God.

II. OVER AGAINST THE HONOUR VOUCHSAFED TO ALL THE PROPHETS, THE LORD SETS FORTH THE SINGULAR HONOUR OF MOSES. It is denoted by the loving title by which the Lord here and elsewhere names him: “My servant Moses.” “Were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? “(verses 7, 8; cf. Jos 1:2; also Deu 34:5). The word here translated “servant” is a word of honourable import; and in the singular and emphatic way in which it is applied by the Lord to Moses, it is applied by him to no other till we come to Christ himself (see Isa 52:13; Isa 53:11, &c.). The singular honour of Moses is indicated, moreover, by this, that he was called and enabled to do faithful service “in all God’s house.” Aaron served as a priest, Miriam as a prophetess, Joshua as a commander, each being intrusted with one department of service; Moses was employed in all. More particularly, Moses was singularly honoured in regard to the manner of the Divine communications granted to him. With him the Lord spoke “mouth to mouth,” even apparently, i.e; visibly, and not in dark speeches, and he beheld the similitude of the Lord.

1. When prophets received communications in dreams and visions they were very much in a passive state, simply beholding and hearing, often unable to make out the meaning of what they saw and heard. Moses, on the contrary, was admitted as it were into the audience chamber, and the Lord spoke to him as a man speaks with his friend (cf. Num 7:89).

2. A few of the prophets, specially honoured, had visions of the Divine glory (Isa 6:1-13, &c. ). But in this respect Moses was honoured above all the rest (Exo 33:1-23, Exo 34:1-35). In these respects he prefigured the great Prophet, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, knows the Father even as the Father knows him, and has fully declared him. It has seemed to some learned men a thing unlikely, a thing incredible, that the vast body of doctrine and law and divinely-inspired history contained in the last four books of the Pentateuch should have been delivered to the Church within one age, and chiefly by one man. But the thing will not seem strange to one who believes and duly considers the singular honour of Moses as described in this text, especially if it is read in connection with the similar testimony borne elsewhere to Christ. Moses, and the Prophet like unto Moses, stand by themselves in the history of Divine revelation in this respect, that each served “in all God’s house;” each was commissioned to introduce the Church into a new dispensation, to deliver to the Church a system of doctrine and institutions. In harmony with this is the patent fact that, as at the bringing in of the gospel dispensation the stream of Holy Scripture expands into the four gospels, even so at the bringing in of the ancient dispensation the stream of Holy Scripture originated in the Books of the Law.B.

HOMILIES BY E.S. PROUT

Num 12:1-16

GOD THE VINDICATOR OF HIS CALUMNIATED SERVANTS

The serpent’s trail was found in Eden, and “a devil” among the apostles. No wonder then at this narrative of strife in a godly family. We notice

I. AN UNJUST INSINUATION. Neither Moses’ marriage nor his conduct to his relatives (Num 12:3) had given fair cause of provocation. If his wife had done so, the charge Aaron and Miriam brought against the man who chose her was utterly irrelevant (Num 12:2). “The wife of Moses is mentioned, his superiority is shot at” (Bp. Hall). No wonder if the most conscientious and cautious are calumniated since false charges were brought against Moses, Job, Jeremiah, and Jesus Christ. The assault was aggravated because

1. It came from his nearest kindred (Ps 65:12-14; Jer 12:6). Miriam apparently began it, perhaps through a misunderstanding between the sisters-in-law, and drew Aaron into the plot (1Ti 2:14).

2. Because it was in the form of an unjust insinuation that Moses claimed exclusive prophetic gifts (verse 2; cf. Exo 15:20; Mic 6:4).

II. A TRIUMPHANT VINDICATION. Moses apparently had taken no notice of the charge; perhaps acting on Agricola’s rule, “omnia scire, non omnia exsequi” (cf. Psa 38:12-15; Joh 8:50). But the Lord heard it and interposed.

1. The three are summoned before an impartial judge, but with what different feelings.

2. The calumniated servant of God is distinguished by special honours (verses 6-8).

3. The murmurers are rebuked, and a humiliating punishment is inflicted on the chief offender. The punishment of Aaron, the accomplice, only less severe (through sympathy with his sister) than that of Miriam (Job 12:16).

4. They are indebted for deliverance to the intercession of the man they have wronged. Illustration) Jeroboam (1Ki 13:6; Job’s friends, Job 42:7-10). Thus God will vindicate all his calumniated servants (Psa 37:5, Psa 37:6). Protection (Psa 31:20); peace (Pro 16:7); honour (Isa 60:14; Rev 3:9); and final reward (Psa 91:14-16; and Rom 8:31). Such are the privileges of the faithful but maligned servants of God.P.

Num 12:2

THE LORD LISTENING

“And the Lord heard it.” Compare with this the words,” And the Lord hearkened and heard” (Mal 3:16). We are thus reminded that God listens not only to take note of our sinful words, but to record every loving, faithful word, spoken of him or for him. What a proof of the omnipotence of God! Wonderful that he should attend to every prayer addressed to him. Still more so that he should listen to every word spoken not to him but to others. But at the same moment he can hear the brooks murmuring over their rocky beds, the trees clapping their hands, the floods lifting up their voice, the birds singing in the branches, the young lions roaring for their prey, and every sound of joy or cry of pain, every hymn of praise or word of falsehood issuing from human lips (Psa 139:3, Psa 139:4, Psa 139:6). Without speaking of direct prayers we may seek illustrations of the truth that God listens to everything we say to one another, records it, passes his judgment on it, and lays it up in store as one of the materials of his future verdict on our lives. We may regard this truth

I. AS AN ENCOURAGEMENT. As illustrations

1. Turn to the scene described in Mal 3:16. A few godly persons are trying to keep alive the flame of piety in a godless age (Mal 3:13-15). Apply to social means of grace for mutual edification.

2. See that Christian man on a lonely walk, courteously conversing with a stranger, and seeking to recommend Christ to him. The stranger may go away to pray or to scoff, but that is not all. God hears and records the words as one of the good deeds done in the body (2Co 5:10).

3. A godly mother in the midst of daily duties, not only praying but soliloquizing, as in Psa 62:1, Psa 62:2, Psa 62:5-7. Whether or not she may say Psa 5:1, God does “give ear,” and the words are “acceptable” (Psa 19:14).

4. Sufferers lamenting; e. g. Hagar (Gen 16:11); Ishmael (Gen 21:17); Israel in Egypt (Exo 2:24); mourners in Zion (Isa 30:19).

II. AS A WARNING. The truth has its shady as well as its sunny side. We may apply to

1. The swearer’s prayer, not intended for the ear of God, but reaching it.

2. Calumnies and backbitings, e.g; against Moses (Psa 5:1, Psa 5:2), or other servants of God (cf. Zep 2:8); perhaps disliked because their lives are a rebuke to others (cf. Psa 94:4, Psa 94:7, Psa 94:8, Psa 94:9; Joh 15:18).

3. Impure words. The youth would be ashamed all day if his mother accidentally heard. But God heard.

4. Solitary words of repining or rebellion. Spoken in haste, they are soon regretted, and you say, “Well, at any rate nobody heard them.” Stop and think again (Num 11:1; Psa 139:7). The ear of God, like his eye, is in every place.” Therefore Mat 12:37. This truth leads us by a single step to the heart of the gospel (Act 20:21). And if we say Psa 17:3, God will hear that too, and give us strength to serve him with “righteous lips” and “joyful lips” (Psa 19:14).P.

HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG

Num 12:1, Num 12:2

A HIDEOUS MANIFESTATION OF PRIDE

Amid much obscurity we discern that family jealousies were the occasion of this outbreak. Some occasion certainly would have arisen, so we need not trouble ourselves whether this Cushite wife was Zipporah or a wife lately taken. There is room for much conjecture, and real need for none. Out of the heart cometh pride. Pride was in Miriam’s heart; it must come out sooner or later. We specify Miriam, as she was evidently the principal transgressor. Aaron simply and easily followed where she led. Let us fix our attention on the hideous revelation of her pride.

I. It was A PRIDE THAT OVERWHELMED NATURAL AFFECTION. To whom in all Israel might Moses have more confidently looked for sympathy than his own sister? Especially if it were she who stood afar off, and watched the ark of bulrushes (Exo 2:4). It was an unworthy thing of a sister to hinder one on whom God had laid such great and anxious duties. But when self-esteem is once hurt, the wound soon inflames beyond all control; and even those on whom we are most dependent, and to whom we owe the most, are made to feel the grievous irritation of our spirits.

II. It was A PRIDE THAT MADE MIRIAM FORGET THE OBLIGATIONS OF HER OWN HONOURABLE OFFICE. She was a prophetess, even as Moses was a prophet. She does, indeed, in one sense recollect her office. “Hath the Lord not spoken also by us?” True; and this was the very reason why she should have been specially careful of what she said, even when the Lord was not speaking by her. A prophet’s tongue should be doubly guarded at all times. Those who speak for God ought never to say anything out of their own thoughts incongruous with the Divine message. If Miriam and Aaron had ever been obliged to deal with Moses as once Paul had to deal with Peter, and withstand him to the face because he was to be blamed, then the prophet element in them would have been more glorious than ever. But here Miriam stoops from her high rank to give effect to a mean personal grudge.

III. It was PRIDE THAT PUT ON A PRETENCE OF BEING BADLY TREATED. It is very easy for the proud to persuade themselves that they have been badly treated. They are so much in their own thoughts that it becomes easy for them to believe that they are much in the thoughts of other people; and from this they can soon advance to the suspicion that there may be elaborate designs against them. Men will go step by step to great villainies, justifying themselves all the way. The scribes who sat in Moses’ seat no doubt made their conspiracy against Jesus look very laudable to their own eyes. Miriam does not speak here with the arrogance of a straightforward, brutal, “I wish it, and it must be so.” The iniquity of her heart sought to veil itself in a plausible plea for justice.

IV. It was the WORST OF ALL PRIDE, SPIRITUAL PRIDE. Pride of birth, of beauty, of wealth, of learning, all these are bad, often ridiculous; but spiritual pride is such a contradiction, such an amazing example of blindness, that we may well give it a pre-eminence among the evil fruits of the corrupt heart. It is the chief of all pride, most dangerous to the subject of it, and most insulting to God. Contrast Miriam with Mary, the mother of Jesus: the one all chafed and swelling within, who thinks the people should attend her as much as her brother; the other having the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, humbly submissive to Gabriel’s word, nothing doubting, yet prostrate in amazement that she should have been chosen as the mother of Messiah, sending forth her Magnificat like a lark soaring from its humble bed, singing its song, and straightway returning to the earth again. Or contrast her with Paul, saying, because he truly felt, that he was less than the least of all saints an earthen vessel, the chief of sinners. Amid our greatest privileges we are still in the greatest danger if without a sense, habitually cherished, of our natural unworthiness. The more God sees fit to make of us, the more we should wonder that he is able to make so much out of so little.Y.

Num 12:3

A DISTINGUISHED EXAMPLE OF MEEKNESS

This quality of meekness, for which Moses is here so much praised, is not without its signs earlier in the narrative of his connection with the Israelites; and as we look back in the light of this express declaration, the quality is very easily seen. Such a declaration was evidently needed here, and we may trace its insertion by some hand soon after as much to the control of inspiration as we trace the original narrative. The meekness of Moses is not only a foil to the pride of Miriam, but evidently had something to do with exciting her pride. She would not have gone so far with a different sort of man. She knew intuitively how far she could go with him, and that it was a very long way indeed. Therefore, to bring out all the significance of the occasion, it was needful to make special mention of the meekness of Moses. Notice the emphatic way in which it is set forth. “Meek above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.” We talk of Moses as the meekest of men and Solomon as the wisest of men to indicate that the one was very meek indeed and the other very wise. Let us look then in the life and character of Moses to see how that eminent virtue was shown which ought also to be in all of us.

I. The meekness included A CONSCIOUSNESS OF NATURAL UNFITNESS FOR THE WORK TO WHICH GOD HAD CALLED HIM. A consciousness we may well believe to have been profound, abiding, and oftentimes oppressive. God meant it to be so. We know not what Moses was physically. He was a goodly child (Exo 2:2), but a mother’s partiality may have had something to do with this judgment. In after years that may have been true of Moses which Paul pathetically observes was the opinion of some concerning himselfthat in bodily presence he was weak and in speech contemptible. It may have been a wonder to many, as well as to himself, that God had chosen him. In that memorable interview with God at Horeb (Exo 3:1-22), the first word of Moses is, “Here am I;” but the second, “Who am I, that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?” There was no jumping at eminence, no vainglorious grasping at the chance of fame. He had to be constrained along the path of God’s appointment, not because of a disobedient spirit, but because of a low estimate of himself. He abounded in patriotism and sympathy for his oppressed brethren, but the work of deliverance seemed one for stronger hands than his. Perhaps there is nothing in the natural man more precious in the sight of God for the possibilities that come out of it than this consciousness of weakness. The work to be done is so great, and the man who is called to do it, even when he has stretched himself to his fullest extent, looks so small.

II. THIS SENSE OF WEAKNESS WOULD APPEAR IN ALL HIS INTERCOURSE WITH MEN. He was exposed continually to the risk of insult and reproach. The people vented their spleen arid carnal irritation upon him, yet he did not make their words a matter of personal insult, as some leaders would undoubtedly have done. He felt only too keenly his own insufficiency, and how far short he fell of the high requirements of God. Although the particular hard things which men said about him might not be just, yet he felt that many hard things might justly be said, and so there was no inclination to fume and fret and stand upon his dignity when fault-finders began to speak. Even when Miriam joins the traducing herd he seems to bear it in silence. The dying Caesar said, “Et tu, Brute;” but Moses, in this hour of his loneliness, when even his kindred forsake him, does not say, “And thou, Miriam.” Each succeeding revelation of God made him humbler in his own spirit, and seemed to increase the distance between his created and corrupted life and the glory of the great I AM. If God were so gracious, forgiving, and bountiful to him (Num 11:1-35), why should not he be long-suffering and meekly tolerant with Miriam? (Mat 18:23-35). We shall not blow ourselves out and strut before men if we only constantly recollect how defiled we are in the sight of God.

III. This meekness is especially to be noticed because of ITS CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN OTHER QUALITIES WHICH GOD LOVES. The more conscious Moses became of his natural weakness, the more God esteemed him. If meekness springs from the sense of weakness, yet it grows and becomes useful in association with the strength of God. Though Moses was meek, he was not a pliable man. Though meek, he none the less went right onward in the way of God’s appointment. This meekness of his went along with obedience to God. He quietly listened to all his enemies said in the way of invective and slander, and still went on his way, with eye and ear and heart open to the will of God. He was like a tree, which, though it may bend and yield a little to the howling blast, yet keeps its hold firm on the soil. There was also a never-failing sense of right. Moses was one of those menwould that there were more of them in the world!who had a deep feeling of sympathy with the weak and the oppressed. Meek as he was by nature, he slew the Egyptian who smote his Hebrew brother. There was also courage along with the meeknesscourage of the highest sort, moral courage, daring to be laughed at, and to stand alone. These are the brave men who can do this, planting alone, if need be, the standard of some great cause; meek and humble, but dauntless in their meekness, confiding in him whose righteousness is like the great mountains. Look at the bravery of meek women for Christ. Then there was persistency. Is not this great part of the secret of the fulfilling of that beatitude, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth?” The violent, the unjust, the greedy, may grasp the earth for a time, but it is the meek, the gentle, never irritating, yet never withdrawing, persistent, generation after generation, in the practice and application of spiritual truth, it is they who in the fullness of time will truly inherit the earth.Y.

Num 12:4-15

THE HUMBLING OF THE PROUD AND THE EXALTATION OF THE MEEK. THE HUMBLING WAS EVIDENTLY BY THE ACTION OF GOD HIMSELF

The Lord heard Miriam and Aaron in the words of their pride, and even though Moses might bear these words in the silent composure of his magnanimity and meekness, it nevertheless became God to justify his servant, as God alone could effectually and signally justify. God notes all unjust and slanderous doings with respect to his people. He hears, even though the reviled ones themselves be ignorant. God then proceeds by one course of action to produce a double resultto humble Miriam and Aaron, Miriam in particular, and to exalt Moses. In what he did, notice that with all his anger and severity he yet mingled much consideration for the transgressors. We need not suppose that their words had been spoken to any considerable audience. More likely they were confined to the limits of the domestic circle. And so the Lord spake suddenly to the three persons concerned. Probably none but themselves knew why they were summoned. There was no reason for exposing a family quarrel to the gossip of the whole camp. The sin of Miriam need not be published abroad, though it was necessary, in order to teach her a lesson, that it should be condignly punished. So they were called to the door of the tabernacle, and there God addressed them from the pillar of cloud, with all its solemn associations. This word suddenly also suggests that when God does not visit immediately the iniquity of the transgressor upon him, it is from considerations of what we may call Divine expediency. He can come at once or later, but, at whatever time, he certainly will come. Consider now

I. THE HUMBLING OF THE PROUD. This was done in two ways.

1. By the plain distinction which God made between them and Moses. It was perfectly true that, as they claimed, God had spoken by them, but he calls attention to the fact that it was his custom to speak to prophets by vision and by dream. There was no mouth to mouth conversation, no beholding of the similitude of the Lord. God can use all sorts of agencies for his communications to men. It needs not even a Miriam; i.e; can speak warning from the mouth of an ass. But Moses was more than a prophet; prophet was only the part of which steward and general, visible representative of God, was the whole. What a humbling hour for this proud woman to find that Jehovah himself had taken up the cause of her despised brother! It is probable that Moses himself had mentioned little of the details of his experiences of God; they were not things to talk much about; perhaps he could not have found the fit audience, even though few. Upon Miriam it would come like a thunderbolt to know how God esteemed the man whom she had allowed herself to scorn. So God will ever abase the proud by glorifying his own pious children whom they despise. Satan despises Job, says he is a mere lip worshipper, a man whose professions will not bear trial; he gets him down into the dust of bereavement, poverty, and disease; but in the end he has to see him a holier man, a more trustful and prosperous one than before. Miriam meant the downfall of Moses; she only helped to establish him more firmly on the rock.

2. By the personal visitation, on Miriam. She became a leper. As her pride was hideous in the manifestation of it, so her punishment was hideousa leprosy, loathsome and frightful beyond the common. We might expect this. A malignant outbreak in her bodily life corresponded with the malignity of the defilement in her spirit. As to Aaron, we may presume that his sacred office, and to some extent the fact that he was a tool, secured him from leprosy, but the visitation on his sister was punishment in itself. He felt the wind of the blow which struck her down. Proud souls, take warning by Miriam; you will at last become abhorrent to yourselves. Remember Herod (Act 12:21-23).

II. THE EXALTATION OF THE MEEK. This is a more inward and spiritual thing, and therefore not conspicuous in the same way as the humbling. It is something to be appreciated by spiritual discernment rather than natural. Besides, the full exaltation of the meek is not yet come. The resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus himself were arranged very quietly. But we cannot help noticing that from this sharp and trying scene Moses emerges with his character shining more beautifully than ever. He does nothing to forfeit the reputation with which he was credited, and everything to increase it. He acted like a man who had beheld the similitude of the Lord. Notice particularly the way in which he joins in with Aaron, interceding for his afflicted sister. This is the true exaltation: to be better and better in oneself, shining more because there is more light within to cast its mild radiance, as God would have it cast, alike upon the evil and the good, the just and the unjust (Psa 25:9; Psa 59:12; Pro 13:10; Pro 16:18; Pro 29:23; Dan 4:37; Mat 23:12; Gal 6:1-5; 2Ti 2:24-26; 1Pe 3:4; 1Pe 5:6).Y.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Num 12:1. And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses Miriam is mentioned before Aaron, probably because she was the beginner of this sedition, and drew Aaron into it. It is uncertain what occasioned them to quarrel with him about his wife Zipporah: they might possibly be jealous of his being ruled too much by her and her relations; for it was by her father’s advice that he constituted the judges and officers, mentioned in Exo 18:21-22 and, perhaps, they imagined that she and Hobab had a hand in choosing the seventy elders, mentioned in the foregoing chapter: the history being immediately connected with that, would lead one at least to think that they have some relation to each other. Thus the real motive of the quarrel was jealousy: the pretended one, that his wife was a foreigner, not belonging to the commonwealth of Israel. An Ethiopian, we render it after the LXX; the Hebrew is cushit, a Cushite, or Arabian woman; for she was of the land of Midian, a part of Arabia Petraea. See Exo 2:16; Exo 2:25.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

C.MIRIAM AND AARON AGAINST MOSES. MIRIAMS LEPROSY

Num 12:1-16

1And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the 1Ethiopian woman whom he had 2married: for he had 2married an 1Ethiopian woman. 2And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it. 3(Now the man Moses was very meek, above all 4the men which were upon the face of the earth.) And the Lord spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the 3tabernacle 5of the congregation. And they three came out. And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the 4tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. 6And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a 5prophet among you I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. 7My servant Moses is not so, who Isaiah 8 faithful in all mine house. With him 6will I speak mouth to mouth, 7even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord 8shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant 9Moses? 9And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them: and he departed. 10And the cloud 10departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron 11looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous. 11And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned. 12Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mothers womb. 13And Moses cried unto the Lord, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee.

14And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be 12shut out from the camp seven days, and after that le her be received in again. 15And Miriam was kshut out from the camp seven days: and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again. 16And afterward the people removed from Hazeroth, and pitched in the wilderness of Paran.13

[Num 12:6. = , the nominal suffix standing for the dative of the personal pronoun; as Gen 39:21 he gave his grace, for he gave him grace; comp. Lev 15:3. Naegelsbach, 78, 1 c, rem. Thus also stands in the constr. state with , a prophet of Jehovah to you. So also Keil. The LXX. construes with , ; also the Vulg.Tr.].

Num 12:13. Ought one, instead of the strange form , to read with Michaelis and others ? It might even be more expressive of the emotion that Moses felt. [The connection of the particle with is certainly unusual; but yet it is analogous to the construction with such exclamations as (Jer 4:31; Jer 45:3), and (Gen 12:11; Gen 16:2, etc.); since in the vocative is to be regarded as equivalent to an exclamation; whereas the alteration into does not even give a fitting sense, apart altogether from the fact that the repetition of after the verb, with before it; would be altogether unexampled. Keil.Tr.].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. From the Graves of Lust the children of Israel marched to Hazeroth, where they abode for a season. Here Moses had to sustain another insurrection. It was in so far the worst of all as it proceeded from his own brother and sister, Miriam and Aaron, who were his assistants, and it assumed the garb of a higher holiness by virtue of which they would supersede him, or at least would assume equal rank. Female, fanatical enthusiasm and ruffled clericalism had combined against his freedom of spirit, the word of God and his vocation. The occasion was a marriage, which in Israelitish pride they regarded as an objectionable, mongrel marriage; but the consequence was this, that they were at least prophets of equal authority, who, if they did even let him be of account in their college, could conveniently outvote him. Thus, indeed, female fanaticism and priestly presumption in combination have often outvoted the representatives of Gods word.
Our section is brief, but its contents are rich in relation to the outbreaks of fanaticism, to mixed marriages, the forms of revelation, the true divine interdicts that may authenticate theocratic sanctuaries, and the higher power of spiritual intercession when opposed to the condemnatory spirit of a carnal fanaticism.
2. And Miriam, Num 12:1. She was the real instigator, as indeed, time out of mind, sisters have inclined to meddle with the marriage affairs of their brothers; hence the form . Aaron suffered himself to be carried away, as he had before done in the affair of the golden calf. A fancy for images, dependence on female fanaticism, meddling with the marriage rights of men has ever been an infirmity of priests.

3. Because of his wife the Cushite, whom he had married, Num 12:1. According to the propensity of fanaticism in all ages to exaggerate, to caricature, and to abuse, one might suppose that Zipporah were meant. Such was the view of Calvin and many others, Knobel among them, for whom of course this supposition offers the opportunity of detecting a contradiction. But, apart from the fact that the matter is treated as something quite new, it is against this view that it is added: for he had married a Cushite. This latter, therefore, makes necessary the assumption of Michaelis, Ewald, Keil and others, that Zipporah had died some time previously. The history of Joseph proved that marriage with an Egyptian woman was not antitheocratic. The prohibition to marry with the daughters of Canaan had special reasons of religious self-preservation. The union of Moses with an Ethiopian woman has been ascribed to theological motives. Baumgarten conceives the motive to have been, to represent the fellowship between Israel and the heathen. According to Gerlach it signified the future calling of the Gentiles. There may be more reason in the Jewish fabling, according to which the Cushite woman was in the train of the army of God even from Egypt, even if the statement that Moses married the Ethiopian princess Tharbis in Meroe, before the Exodus (Josephus, Antiq. 2, 10, 2) may be fabulous. That a feminine spirit out of heathendom might be carried away by the theocratic hope as a disciple of Moses, is proved by the history of Tamar, of Rahab and of Ruth. It is true that the High-Priest was allowed to marry only a Hebrew virgin; but that was a limitation belonging to his symbolic position, and the remark that Moses for this reason gave up all claim to the priesthood has no value. The prophetic class, on the other hand, had the task of illustrating the greatest possible letting down of legal restraint, and it offers a remarkable parallel that the next greatest man of the law, Elijah, lived for a considerable time as the table companion of a heathen widow of Zarephath.

4. Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses, Num 12:2. They appear to be willing to allow him still co-ordination, whereas their mind is to bring about the subordination of the younger brother. Thus, also, the older brothers of Jesus asserted themselves presumptuously against Him. Aaron wore the breast-plate, Urim and Thummim; Miriam, as a prophetess, had already led the chorus of the women of Israel. There appears to crop out a prelude of the spiritualism of the rebellion of Korah.

5. Now the man Moses was very meek, Num 12:3. An intimation that he endured in silence and committed his justification to God. If we assume a later redaction of the memorabilia of Moses, then this statement is easily explained as a gloss. Anyway the defence of the view that Moses wrote this himself is no affair affecting faith. See Keil for the discussions relating to this. [The defence of the integrity of this text may be of great importance even if it be not an affair affecting faith. There is really no more ground for impugning it than any other simple statement about Moses made by himself; as for instance: O my Lord, I am not eloquent; but I am slow of speech. Exo 4:10; Exo 11:3; Num 12:7, may also be compared. The common objection to it, that it is self-praise, is urged from the view-point of Christian ethics. Certainly before the day of David, who sang the praises of the meek () and of their meekness, no one would have been charged with praising himself who called himself meek. Calvins sensible comment touches the core of the matter: The eulogium of his meekness amounts to this: as if Moses would say, he swallowed that injury in silence, inasmuch as he imposed a law of patience on himself because of his meekness. Only it need not be admitted that the text was an eulogium, though it is such now. It would not even now-a-days be thought a proof of self-conceit, or more than a modest man might say, if one were to state that he swallowed more affronts than any man of his time. Apart from this unreasonable objection to the words, it is manifest that the observation referred to occupies a necessary place in the history, being called forth by the occasion, and that the object of its insertion was by no means to magnify Moses. Macdonald on The Pentateuch, I., p. 346.Tr.]

6. Num 12:4-5. Moses, Aaron and Miriam, whose discourse Jehovah had heard, are suddenly cited to the fore-court of the Tent. This notice affords Knobel another opportunity for detecting a contradiction. Women in the Sanctuary! Yes, indeed, in the fore-court; in fact there was at a later period an entire fore-court for women. The three presented themselves there and are summoned. The cloud sinking down parts Aaron and Miriam from Moses, after they had approached before the door of the Tent. What they now hear seems to have the form of an inspiration from Jehovah, who manifested Himself in the dividing cloud.

7. If there be a prophet among you, etc., Num 12:6-8 b. The usual form of revelation is: Jehovah makes himself known in an appearance, or in a dream. The dream-vision as a third form is to be understood as included. The form of revelation in which Jehovah makes Himself known to Moses is superior, because Moses is faithful in all His [Jehovahs] house. may be taken to mean entrusted with; but the seems to favor the other rendering. But, of course, the house of Jehovah is not merely the Sanctuary, but all Israel as the house of Jehovah (Keil).

[My house, when said by Jehovah, must mean the same as the house of Jehovah, when said by Moses. The latter in the Pentateuch never means anything but the Tabernacle. Comp. Exo 23:19; Deu 23:18 (19); also Jos 6:24; Jos 9:23. Keil says: It is not primarily His dwelling, the holy Tent (Baumgarten),for in that case the word whole () would be quite superfluous. But cannot so extend the meaning of house of God, any more than all the apple can be made to comprehend the apple and the tree on which it grows. It is better to understand by my house the Tabernacle, including the economy that it represents. The Apostles reference to this phrase, Heb 3:2-6, quite consists with this, and most of all his words: whose house we are, which Keil quotes in favor of the other view. For these words in their context present an antithesis to His (Gods) house. Moses ministered in a house of types; Christ in the real house, of which believers are the ingredients.Tr.]

To him Jehovah speaks mouth to mouth, i.e. the sound of the words objectively as inspiration and subjectively as law, is thoroughly correct. And it may subserve this that Moses is denied the dangerous gift of eloquence, and that he must speak in lapidary style. Hence, too, his sort of vision is peculiar; free from obscure or enigmatical forms of fantasy or poesy (), ideal realism. He beholds the form of Jehovah, His essential form (Exo 33:11; Deu 34:10). Still one could not take these words absolutely, without being in conflict with Joh 1:18, and even Exodus 33 [No more conflict than Joh 5:37, .Tr.] If the prophets saw what was divine only piece-meal and in various forms (Heb 1:1), so then Moses, too, did not see it synthetically, but analytically. It is therefore saying too much when one affirms: God spake with Moses without figure and in the complete transparency of spiritual communication.What distinguishes him in the Old Testament is the totality and the objective precision of his perception of the law, but still on that account conditioned by visions, as e.g. the vision of the Burning Bush; and if all the prophets only continued to build on the foundation that Moses laid, still, on the other hand, each prophet saw a special aspect of the kingdom of God in such a light as Moses had not yet seen it. Keil says: On this unique position of Moses to God and to the Theocracy, clearly affirmed in our verses, the Rabbins have justly founded the view of the superior degree of the inspiration of the Thorah. But we may add: on this misunderstanding of this conditioned uniqueness, the Sadducees, too, founded their doctrine. The New Testament, also, is, according to historical relations, founded on the Old Testament; but, according to inward, essential relations that well up out of the divine depths into the light of day, the Old Testament is rather founded on the New, and in a certain sense John the Baptist is called the greatest prophet of the Old Testament.

8. Wherefore were ye not afraid? Num 12:8 c. They lived with him so long, and yet knew so little his exalted position. He stood too near to them, and they themselves, with their self-consciousness, stood too much in their own light. Again an old history that becomes ever new.

9. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and He departed, Num 12:9; the cloud removed from off the Tent, Num 12:10. It removes; it mounts aloft. This lifting up and moving off of the cloud might be portrayed without its significance being regarded. It was the first punishment and a chief one. Aaron was inwardly crushed, the fire on his altar went out, the pillar of smoke no longer mounted up as a token of grace, the cultus was for the moment at a stand-still, and it was as if an interdict of Jehovah lay on the cultus of the Sanctuary. Hence Miriam is not the only one punished when suddenly she stood there snow-white from leprosy. She would stand above Moses snow-white in righteousness, while she looked down on him as unclean. She would be a lady over the Church, for she dominated over Aaron, and now, even as a leper, she must be excluded from the Church. Now Aaron implores Moses, as his lord, to intercede. Here only the spiritual high-priesthood of a divine compassion can deliver the helpless high-priest himself. Lay not the sin upon us, Num 12:11; let us not atone for it. We have played the fool (, Niph.). So, too, Luther once said, when looking back to the deliverance concerning the double marriage of Philip of Hesse. His sister seems to him as it were already consumed by the leprosy, as a still-born child may already appear almost corrupted at birth. Mournful image under which Miriam now appears here! He almost speaks as if Moses should heal her. Moses understands it as an indirect request to intercede for her. The reply of Jehovah is the granting of the request in the form of a sharp reproof (Num 12:14). The figurative expression compares her, who desired to be the prophetic regent of the nation, to a dependent maiden in whose face her father had spit on account of unseemly behaviour. Such an one must conceal herself seven days on account of her shame. The same is dictated to Miriam. A usage among the Arabs is that, when a son and competitor in a race is beaten, the father spits in his face as a sign of his reproof (von Shubert, Reise II., p. 403). Knobel. She is shut up seven days as a leper. Confounded by the sense of guilt, Aaron could not see the sign of hope in the snow-white leprosy. At bottom the confession of Miriam appeared already in that, because the blow proceeded from conscience. In ordering her to a seclusion of seven days, there was implied, however, even already the divine sentence of pronouncing her clean, because the leper pronounced clean could only after seven days be received again (Lev 14:8). The reception back again required the prescribed sacrifice. Therefore so long the people must remain encamped in Hazeroth. After the seven days the departure from Hazeroth took place. Knobel cannot see how the stern features and the mild features in Moses are to be harmonized (p. 30). Of course this is [for him] another contradiction!

HOMILETICAL HINTS

Miriam and Aaron in their would-be pious zeal against the alleged mixed marriage of Moses. Two-fold character of the so-called mixed marriages (see on Gen 6:1-8, Doct. and Eth., 3; 1 Corinthians 7). The intercession of Moses must mediate again and again.

Footnotes:

[1]Or, Cushite

[2]Heb., taken.

[3]Tent of Meeting.

[4]Tent.

[5]prophet of Jehovah, among you, I make myself, etc.

[6]omit will.

[7]and as an appearance.

[8]he beholds.

[9]against Moses.

[10]removed.

[11]turned.

[12]shut up Without the, etc.

[13]received.

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

This Chapter contains the relation of the further exercises of Moses. Miriam and Aaron join in speaking against Moses. GOD himself takes up the business, and Miriam is smitten with a leprosy. Moses intercedes for her. She is restored to her former health, but punished by being shut out seven days from the camp.

Num 12:1

If this Ethiopian woman was Zipporah, it is somewhat remarkable that the displeasure of Aaron and Miriam should begin only now. But it should seem that this was but the pretence, and not the real cause of their displeasure! Alas! what seeds of sin are in the heart even of GOD’S people! Certain it is, that both Aaron and Miriam were among the distinguished servants of the LORD. See in proof, Mic 6:4 ; Exo 15:20 . My soul! do not overlook, in such a striking example, the evidence it carries with it of universal corruption. Dearest JESUS! there is none but thou who art holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners! Heb 7:26 . Aaron, though a priest, and an High Priest, corresponds to that character the apostle hath given of him, when he said, The law maketh men high priests which have infirmity. Heb 7:28 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Claiming Equality

Num 12

The question which Miriam and Aaron put to one another is quite a proper one. They said, “Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?” The inquiry, standing within its own four corners, is one which might be legitimately and reverently propounded. But what question stands thus? Perhaps hardly any that can be put by human curiosity. The interrogation must be determined by the atmosphere surrounding it. The question would take its whole quality at the particular time from the tone of voice in which it was put. Everything depends upon tone. Herein is the weakness of all writing and of all representation of thought by visible symbols. We cannot put into letters our own spirit and purpose; the tone determines the quality, and the tone can never be reported. We are, therefore, driven, if we would form sound judgments upon events, to look at issues and results; and having looked at these, we are by so much qualified to return to the question and judge it as to its real intent. Many persons inquire, with a simplicity too simple to be genuine, whether there was any harm in the question which was put. In the written inquiry, certainly not; but in the spoken interrogation the tone was full of virulence and evil suggestion and unholy design. It will not do to write the question with pen and ink and to submit it to a stranger for judgment. The stranger knows nothing about it, and when it is submitted to him for judgment it is submitted with so finely-simulated an innocence that the man is already prepared to accord a generous judgment to the terms. God is judge. We read that “the Lord heard it.” To hear it was everything. It was not reported to the Lord. We cannot report anything to him in the sense of extending his information. The terribleness of his being judge and the graciousness of his being judge, is to be found in the fact that he heard it balanced the tones, adjusted the emphasis, marked the vocal colouring, and interpreted the words by the speaker’s tone and temper and attitude. The final judgment is with him who “heard” the cause during its process and during its consummation.

If the Lord did speak by Miriam and Aaron, what then? The Lord himself acknowledges that he speaks in different ways to different men. To some perhaps to most he comes in vision and in dream; things are heard as if they were spoken beyond the great mountain; they are echoes, hollow soundings, wanting in shape and directness, yet capable of interpretations that touch the very centres and springs of life, that make men wonder, that draw men up from flippancy and frivolity and littleness, and write upon vacant faces tokens of reverence and proofs that the inner vision is at the moment entranced by some unnameable and immeasurable revelation. To other men God speaks “apparently” that is, in broad and visible figure. He is quite near; it is as if friend were accosting friend, and if mouth were speaking to mouth, as if two interlocutors were mutually visible and speaking within hand-range of one another. There is nothing superstitious about this; it is the fact of to-day. This is written in the book that was published last week, and will be written in the book that is to be issued to-morrow. This is not a ghost story; this is not some little cloud brought from Oriental skies, never seen otherwhere, and never beheld since it was first looked upon thousands of years ago; this is solemn history, contemporaneous history history of which we ourselves form vital constituents. Take a book of science what do you find in that rational and philosophical bible? You find certain names put uppermost. The writer says it is given to but few men to be a Darwin or a Helmholtz they seem to sweep the whole horizon of knowledge. The Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone has said that it seemed to him as if Aristotle comprehended the entire register of the human mind. Why should not every boy that has caught his first fly, or cut in two his first worm, say, Hath not the Lord spoken unto me as well as unto Darwin, or Cuvier, or Buffon? who are they? But it does so happen that outside the Bible we have the Moses of science the chief man of letters, the prince of song. Take the history of music, and we find names set by themselves like insulated stars great planetary names. What would be thought of a person who has just learned the notes of music, saying, Hath not the Lord spoken unto me as well as unto Beethoven? He has; but he has not told you so much. There is a difference in kind; there is a difference in quality. We are all the Lord’s children, but he hath spoken unto us in different ways and tones and measures; and to found upon this difference some charge or reproach, or to hurl against the chiefs of the world some envious questioning, is to go far to throw suspicion upon the assumption that the Lord has spoken to us at all. We must learn that all these differences are as certainly parts of the divine order as are the settings and movements of the stars. “One star differeth from another star in glory,” yet no asteroid has ever been known to blame the planets because of their infinite largeness and their infinite lustre. Men must accept divine appointment. Every man must stand in the call wherewith he is called, and encourage a religious pride and sacred satisfaction with the position which he has been called to occupy. Light is thrown upon these ancient stories by reading them in the atmosphere of modern events. We have this twelfth chapter of Numbers, as to its broadest significance, enacted amongst us every day we live. There are great men in all lines and vocations, and there are men who might be great in modesty, if they would accept their position, and might turn their very modesty into genius, if they would acknowledge that their allotment is a determination of the hand of God.

“And… Miriam became leprous, white as snow.” That is the fate of the sneerer in all times and in all lands. The sneerer is not a healthy man; though he be sleek in flesh and quite bright with a foxy brightness of eye, there is no real health in the man: for health is a question of the soul; it is the soul that lives. The sneerer is always shut out For a moment his sneer provokes a little titter, but the sneer has marked the man, and he will not be invited again. Society cannot do with so much bitterness. There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understanding; and the result is that the bitter cynic, who always tries to tear the clothes of the great man, knowing he cannot tear his character, is shut out of the camp, for no man wants him. What is wanted? Gentleness, tenderness, sympathy, appreciation, encouragement, these will always be welcome; these shall have the chief seat at the table; these shall return to the feast whenever they show any inclination to come; the father and the mother and the children down to the least, and the servants of the household yea, all, bid them loving welcome. But the critic is not wanted the sneerer is in the way; he closes the lips of eloquence, he turns away from him the purest cheek of child life; he is a blight like an east wind; and he never is permitted to repeat his visits in any family that respects its order, or cares for its most religious and heavenly progress. A heavy penalty was leprosy for sneering. It is impossible for any penalty to be too great for sneering. Sneering is of the devil; sneering is a trick of the Evil One. No man can sneer and pray; no man can sneer and bless: the benediction will not sit on lips that have been ploughed up by the iron of sneering. Blessed be God for such judgments. God thus keeps society tolerably pure. There are men standing outside to-day whom nobody wants to see, whom no child would run to meet, for whom no flower of the spring is plucked, simply because they are always challenging the supremacy of Moses, and thus obtruding their own insignificance, and bringing into derision faculties that might otherwise have attracted to themselves some trifling measure of respect.

We find this same law operating in all directions. There are books that say, Are not we inspired as well as the Bible? The answer is, Certainly you are. The Lord had spoken to Miriam and to Aaron as certainly as he had spoken to Moses, but with a difference; and it is never for Moses to argue with Miriam. Moses takes no part in this petty controversy. He would have disproved his superior inspiration if he had stooped to this fray of words. So some books seem to say, Are not we also inspired? The frank and true answer is Yes. Is not many a sentence in the greatest of dramatists an inspired sentence? The frank Christian, just answer is Yes. Is not many a discovery in the natural world quite an instance of inspiration? Why hesitate to say Yes; but always with a difference? The Bible takes no part in the controversy about its own inspiration. The Bible nowhere claims to be inspired. The Bible lives comes into the house when it is wanted, goes upstairs to the sick-chamber, follows the lonely sufferer into solitude, and communes with him about the mystery of disappointment, discipline, pain of heart; goes to the graveside, and speaks about the old soldier just laid to rest, the little child just exhaled like a dewdrop by the morning sun. The Bible works thus not argumentatively, not seeking an opportunity of speaking in some controversy that rages around the question of its inspiration. It lives because no hand can slay it; it stands back, or comes forward, according to the necessity of the case, because of a dignity that can wait, because of an energy that is ready to advance.

Some books claim to be as inspired as the Bible. Then they become leprous, and all history has shown that they are put out of the camp. Many books have arisen to put down the Bible; they have had their day: they have ceased to be. We must judge by facts and realities. The glory of the great Book is that it will bear to be translated into every language, and that all the changes of grammar are but changes of a mould, which do not affect the elasticity of water: the water of life flows into every mould and fills up all the channels, varying the courses and figure of the channels as you may. The Book is not an iron book, whose obstinacy cannot be accommodated to human requirements or progress: this is the water of life a figure that indicates all qualities that lay hold of progress, development, change. The Bible is a thousand books yea, a thousand thousand books, to a number no man can number, making every heart a confidential friend, whispering to every eager and attentive life some tender message meant for its own ear alone. When a man who has no claim to the dignity asserts that he is upon an equality with the great musician, the great musician takes no part in the fray; when the competitor has played his little trick, one touch of the fingers regulated by the hand divine will settle the controversy. By this token we stand or fall with our Christianity, with our great Gospel. If any man has a larger truth to speak, let him speak it; if any man ran touch the wounded human heart with a finer delicacy, a more healing sympathy, let him perform his miracle. To be spoken against is no sign of demerit. We are too fearful about this matter. Put your finger upon any name in human history that indicates energy of a supreme kind, influence of the most beneficent quality, that has not been spoken against. The mischief is, as ever, that timid people imagine the charge to bring with it its own proof. The Church is wrecked by timidity. The fearful man is doing more injury to-day than can be done by any number of assailants. The man who treats his Christianity as a private possession, and who is afraid lest any man should challenge him to combat, is a man who is a dead weight upon the Church, and if we could get rid of that man it would be the happiest event in our Church history.

How did Moses prove his superiority? By prayer. In effect, he said, Lord, let her alone; be gentle to her, poor fool; she is moved by unworthy impulses a little feminine jealousy because of a marriage she cannot understand; pity her; wipe off the white blotch, and allow her to come out again; perhaps she will never do it any more: “Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee.” There he proves that his inspiration was of a quality most noble. We are strongest when we are weakest; we are sublimest when we whisper our prayer under the load that would have oppressed and destroyed us. Judge your inspiration by your devoutness. Never be content with any inspiration that can merely ask questions, create suspicions, perform the unworthy performance of sheering; but know that you are a great soul and a valiant and most royal man and crowned prince, when you take the large, bright view, which you are bound to do by noble charity.

All this would be of social consequence, and by no means to be undervalued in the education of the world; but it acquires its most appalling solemnity in view of the fact that questioning and sneering of this kind about prophets, preachers, books, churches, means to go forward and to challenge the supremacy of Christ Sneering cannot stop short at Moses. We cannot draw a line, saying, Having overthrown the servant, we shall be content. There is an impulse in these things, hurrying and driving men on to issues which perhaps at first they never contemplated Beware of beginnings and resist them. To curtail our best reading is to begin a process that will end in mental darkness. To give up the Church once a day means, being interpreted, that the time will come when the heart will relinquish the Church altogether. A sad and terrible thing it is when men suppose that they can do with less Bible, less Church, less public testimony. They plead weariness, distance, difficulties of a family kind; they are fertile in excuses when the heart is reluctant to go. Let us face broad meanings, final issues. The meaning is that men who challenge Moses will endeavour to dispossess Christ, saying, “We will not have this man to reign over us.” Was not Socrates as pure a man? Have we not found some morality in old Indian books quite as pure as the morality of the New Testament? Did not Marcus Aurelius approach very nearly to the sublimity of Christian ethics? Have there not been many men in all history who have been entitled to sit with Christ in the temple of purity and wisdom? These are not the questions. Christianity does not bring into disrepute any beautiful sentence found anywhere in heaven or in earth. Christ never said, This is a beautiful thing spoken by a fervid fancy, but you must take no heed of it. He said, “I am the light of the world,” wherever there is a sparkle of brilliance, it is a jet of my own glory; wherever there is a wise word, it is God’s word; wherever a beautiful song is sung, it is a snatch of heaven’s music. Whoever speaks a holy, pure, comforting word must be permitted to go on with his ministry. If you call down fire from heaven against such an one, ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

IV

FROM SINAI TO KADESH-BARNEA

Num 11:1-12:16

In this chapter we cover only two chapters of Numbers (Numbers 11-12) the section of the outline from Sinai to Kadesh-barnea. When they had finished their preparation, the objective point from Sinai was Kadesh, a distance of 150 or 200 miles, but for such a big crowd, eleven days’ journey (Deu 1:2 ). But that eleven days does not cover all the time, since they stopped a long time at two places at least. We take up, then, the question of time. After three days they reached Kibroth, where they stopped thirty days. After they left Kibroth, their next point was Hazeroth, where they stopped seven days. So you have forty days covered by this section. In order to get that time you have to compare a great many dates, which I have carefully done. This lesson tells about the first three marching days to Kibroth but does not give the time from Kibroth to Hazeroth, but Deu 1:2 , gives us the eleven days, and so the time must have been eight days. I shall give you the great events that occurred in these forty-eight days. At the beginning of the next chapter, I shall give you some special explanations about Kadesh-barnea. In getting to Kadesh-barnea, three great sins were committed, culminating in a greater sin at Kadesh-barnea, and the one at Kadesh, which we shall not discuss in this chapter, was the second breach of the covenant.

The first sin occurs on that three days’ march from Sinai through that great and terrible wilderness. The people murmured, speaking evil in the ears of Jehovah. It was a complaint against God himself on account of their suffering. A man by himself would suffer, but moving three millions of people with their cattle was much more difficult. So they murmured against God and the fire of Jehovah burned among them and devoured them in the uttermost part of the camp. Some have supposed that the fire was lightning. But they have very little lightning in that country. I think it was a fire that went out from the presence of the Lord. So there is the first sin and the first punishment. “And the people cried unto Moses and Moses prayed unto Jehovah and the fire abated.” So this punishment was stayed at the intervention of Moses, their great mediator. What memorial was there of that sin and punishment? “And the name of that place was called Taberah, because the fire of Jehovah burned among them.” That occurred on some one of these three days.

The second sin we find recorded in Num 11:3-34 . It did not commence with the pure Israelites but with the mixed multitude that followed them from Egypt, not circumcised and not embodied in the covenant. The sin consisted of lusting exceedingly, that is, for a change of food. But that sin went over the Israelites and they wept and said, “Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish we had in Egypt,” and thus they turned a long look back to the country from which they had come: “Our soul is dried away and there is nothing at all save this manna to look up.” That was utter distaste for the food God provided and a rebellious longing for the food of their bondage. In other words, they would rather have fish out of the Nile and vegetables from its banks and remain in bondage than to live on manna and go to the Promised Land. They put their appetites above the relationship with God. You have here a description of manna which you can read. It looked like coriander seed; they gathered it and ground it in mills or beat it in mortars and it had the taste of fresh olive oil. Moses heard the people weeping, every man at the door of his tent, because of short rations in God’s service.

I have been on forced marches with only meal made up with a little salt and burned at the top and bottom and raw inside and in the beat of the summer it would sour in two hours, and I have marched and lived on that for three days. What strange things there are in this world to cry about! Moses said to Jehovah, “Wherefore hast thou dealt ill with thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in thy sight, that thou layest the burden of all this people upon me?” No doubt he was tired of his job. I have known little children to cry for something to eat. “I am not able to bear all this people alone. Kill me, I pray thee, and let me not see my wretchedness.” Moses was a very meek and patient man but two or three times he felt like throwing up his job. The Lord loved Moses and gave a remedy for the trouble, viz: the distribution of labor.

We had a case like this before when Jethro came to Moses and Moses was acting as justice of the peace, county judge, district judge and judge of all the supreme court for all the people. At Jethro’s advice there was a division of the judicial Work, but this is a different thing. This is said to be the foundation of the Sanhedrin. Seventy men were appointed for administrative work and notified when to come to be qualified and all of them came but two. When God sent the qualifying power of the Spirit on those that stayed in the camp, as well as on those that went up, that stirred up Joshua a little. He was very jealous for Moses and loved Moses very much. He says, “My lord Moses, here are these two men that did not come up and they are prophesying in the camp. They ought to be made to go back and go through the regular order.” Moses replied that he had so many big things that troubled him that little things like that did not bother him a bit. He wished all God’s people could prophesy, whether formally or informally.

That settled the matter from the standpoint of Moses, but it did not give the people what they wanted to eat. God tells them to sanctify themselves against the next day and they shall have flesh. Now comes a doubt in the mind of Moses and this is a very important scripture (Num 11:21 ) : “And Moses said, The people among whom I am, are six hundred thousand footmen; and thou hast said, I will give them flesh, that they may eat a whole month.” Does that mean that flocks and herds shall be slain for them or that fish shall be gathered? But the Lord said, “Is Jehovah’s hand waxed short?”

If you preach on that subject of trusting God, there are four or five other scriptures you should use in connection. These people said, “We take this long journey, what if our children get sick and our old people feeble?” God said, “There will not be a sick or feeble one. Shoes wear out, but these shoes will wear forty years and the clothes, and I will give you a brilliant illumination by night and a cloud to shelter you in the day time.” The whole thing is a standing miracle. It was just as easy for God to feed those three million people as it was for Jesus to take five loaves and two fishes and feed five thousand. Another case in history is the case of Elisha, the prophet, who said that at a certain hour the best flour should be sold cheap in a city where the people were besieged and starving. Then Abraham staggered not in unbelief when he considered that the thing promised was physically impossible. I never shall forget bow the old moderator of the Waco association said to his wife when he was dying, “When I am gone you may have a hard time, but don’t you be one of these complaining women.” Many a time have I talked to Mrs. Riddle about that and each time she says she is trying to live as her husband told her, and she has not joined the whining column yet.

Now, God gave these people flesh in anger as a punishment for their lack of faith. He just covered them with quails and told them they should eat that food for thirty days. “While it is in your mouth, it will make you sick and the plague shall strike you.” The punishment of the second sin was loathsome satiety and was visited with a plague. On this passage is built the statement that no man can eat quail a day for thirty days (Num 11:33 ). “While the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the anger of Jehovah was kindled against the people, and Jehovah smote the people with a very great plague. And the name of the place was called Kibrothhattaavah, because there they buried the people that lusted.” The third sin came in a higher quarter. The sinners were Miriam and Aaron, brother and sister of Moses. You should read Dr. Wilkinson’s poem describing this rebellion as coming on for a long time through jealousy. The question in their minds was this: “Hath Jehovah indeed spoken only with Moses? Hath he not also spoken to us?” Miriam says, “I remember I watched over this fellow when he was in the ark of the bulrushes. The spirit of prophecy rests on me. Has not the Lord spoken to us?”

What was the occasion of this sin? The first verse says that Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married. Was this Cushite woman Zipporah, his first wife, or did he here in the wilderness marry again? It had been a long time since he and Zipporah married. He was a little over forty years old and forty years more had passed before he had taken charge of this people. Many commentators suppose that, as Zipporah was a Midianite and a descendant of Abraham, she must in this time have died and Moses married a descendant of Ham. Gush in the Bible means Ethiopia. But Moses had never been to Ethiopia except when he waged a campaign there, and if he married there that would make her the first wife and Zipporah the second. But there was a part of Arabia called Cush and that land of the Cushites included a part of the territory occupied by the Midianites. So that the Cushite woman was undoubtedly his wife, Zipporah. There is not a scintilla of evidence that Moses ever married again. And so Aaron and Miriam had never been satisfied with his marriage with Zipporah.

Then the question comes up, Was it lawful for a Hebrew to marry a Midianite? It was, because the Midianites were descendants of Abraham, and Moses married among his own people, not in the chosen line, but four or five scriptures can be shown to prove that certain marriages were lawful and Moses was violating no law. This shows how long some people can carry a grudge before they blow things up about it. They had been carrying this grudge forty years. But the real grudge was the supremacy of Moses in the camp and they were trying to put it upon some pretext.

“And Jehovah heard it.” What a text! “Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men that were upon the face of the earth.” God commanded all the parties to appear before him and he gave his decision squarely in the favor of Moses, and Miriam, who was the instigator, was punished with leprosy, and Aaron begged Moses to intervene, and he prayed to God and she was healed, but God demanded that she stay outside the camp for seven days and that is why they had to stop at that place seven days.

Those are the three sins and the three punishments.

QUESTIONS

1. How far from Sinai to Kadesh-barnea?

2. How long were the children of Israel on the way? Give reason for your answer.

3. What was the character of the way?

4. How many stops on the way? Name them.

5. What three great sins were committed on the way, and where?

6. What was the first sin, its punishment, how stayed and its memorial?

7. The second sin with whom commenced, consisted of what, and what was their real sin?

8. Give a description of the manna, and how prepared for food.

9. Describe the displeasure of Moses and his appeal to Jehovah.

10. What remedy or provision did Jehovah make for the relief of Moses?

11. Give the case of Eldad and Medad, and what was the lesson?

12. How did this affect Joshua, and Moses’ reply?

13. What question did Moses raise concerning their supply of food, and God’s reply?

14 How did God punish this sin, and what is the origin of the saying, ‘”No man can eat a quail a day for thirty days consecutively “?

15. What was the memorial of this sin?

16 The third sin who were the sinners, the cause, the occasion, who this Cushite woman, the real sin and how long developing?

17. Did Moses violate God’s law of marriage in taking this Cushite woman? Give reason for your answer.

18. How was Moses vindicated and the sinners punished?

19.How long did they stay here, what was the next objective point in their journey and the time required to reach it? Note Study your chronological analysis closely, looking up all references.

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

Num 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

Ver. 1. And Miriam and Aaron spake. ] She is set first, because chief in the transgression. Her discontent might arise from this, that, being a prophetess, she was not one of those seventy that were chosen to be helps in government. Num 11:24 According to her name, Miriam would be exalted: ambition rides without reins.

Because of the Ethiopian woman. ] Zipporah the Midianitess, see Hab 3:7 to whom he had been married many years before; but they were resolved to pick a hole in Moses’ coat. An ungodly man diggeth up evil, Pro 16:27 but for Moses to be thus used by his brother and sister, was some trial to his patience. To be derided by Egyptians, is threatened as a misery, Hos 7:16 but to be reproached by professors, is very grievous. Zedekiah feared more to be mocked by the Jews, than by the Chaldees. Jer 38:19

For he had married an Ethiopian. ] That was an old fault, if any; and should have been buried in oblivion. Luther married a wife unseasonably, when all Germany was now embroiled, and embrewed in the blood of the Bores; and when all Saxony was in heaviness for the death of their good Prince Elector Frederick. This, his best friends disliked and bewailed. As for Melancthon, Quoniam vero, inquit, ipsum Lutherum quodammodo tristiorem esse cerno, et perturbatum ob vitae mutationem, omni studio et benevolentia consolari eum conor. a Because I see him somewhat cast down, saith he, at the late change of his condition, I strive all I can to comfort him.

a Mel, Epist. ad Camerar.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Miriam. Named first to show she was first in the rebellion. See Num 12:10. Compare Gen 3:3.

Ethiopian = Zipporah. Hebrew. Cushite. Arabia was in the land of Cush: or Zipporah (Exo 2:21) may have been of Cushite nationality, though territorially a Midianite.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 12

Now in chapter twelve, Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron began to murmur against Moses. He had taken an Ethiopian wife, which means that she was probably black-skinned. And they began to find fault and criticize Moses for this, his own sister and brother.

And they said, Has the LORD only spoken unto Moses? hath he not spoken also unto us? ( Num 12:2 )

Don’t we have just as much right to speak the word of the Lord to these people as Moses has and all?

And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and Aaron, and unto Miriam: and he said, Come the three of you unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And the three came out. And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. And he said, Hear now my word: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream ( Num 12:4-6 ).

“God, who had sundry times and in diverse manner spake to the father’s by the prophets” ( Heb 1:1 ). And God spoke to the prophets, as a rule, by visions or by dreams. But God said concerning Moses,

My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and not in the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? ( Num 12:7-8 )

Now here they were speaking against the man that God had anointed and the man that God had called: God’s servant. Now God said, “Look with prophets, if a man is a prophet I usually speak by visions or dreams, in similitudes, in dark sayings, in forms that oftentimes need interpreting, but with Moses, plainly face to face, apparent, direct speaking with Moses. “And inasmuch I have spoken to Moses this way, how is it that you are not fearful to speak against him?” In other words, they should have respected his position as God’s servant and the anointing of God that was upon his life.

One thing about David is that he had a high respect for the anointing of God that had been upon Saul. Even after the anointing, and thus, saw that fact that he had once been anointed, David wouldn’t touch him. He had a high regard and respect for the anointing of God. And I think that God appreciates our having a high respect for his anointing.

And so because of the sin of Miriam and Aaron, they were smitten with leprosy.

Miriam became leprous, white as snow: Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous. And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned. Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he comes out of his mother’s womb. And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee ( Num 12:10-13 ).

So his sister became leprous. Aaron, of course, the high priest recognized it immediately, pleaded with Moses and Moses in turn pleaded with God: “Oh God heal her, I beseech thee.”

And the LORD said unto Moses, under the law if her father had spit in her face, she’d be unclean for seven days, so should she not, because of what she has done, be unclean for at least seven days? let her go out of the camp and in seven days, [go through the purifying,] and she can come back in ( Num 12:14 ).

And so Miriam was ostracized from the camp for seven days. And while the period of this ostracizing was taking place they did not move. They stayed in that same area there at Hazeroth.

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

A third manifestation of discontent and rebellion arose among individuals and leaders. The marriage of Moses to a Cushite woman was the occasion of the revelation of an element of jealousy in the hearts of Miriam and Aaron. They resented the exercise of Moses’ authority, evidently desiring to share it with him in greater degree.

Once more the story illustrates a principle. If there be hidden evil, circumstances will sooner or later occur in which it will be outwardly manifest.

The divine method of dealing with this outbreak was stern and majestic. The offenders were summoned to appear before Jehovah and in plainest terms He vindicated His servant. Evidently the chief blame attached to Miriam, Aaron being here, as constantly, weak and easily influenced. The stroke fell upon her. After seven days she was restored. God is ever ready to pardon. Nevertheless, the warning was solemn and severe, showing that rebellion of the leaders of the nation could not be tolerated.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

God Protects Moses against Criticism

Num 12:1-15

This Ethiopian wife may have been Zipporah, or some other woman whom Moses married after his first wifes death. That Moses, the great lawgiver and leader, who could rule a turbulent multitude and face the great king of Egypt, should take the taunts of his brother and sister so quietly, indicates how deep and far-reaching had been the transformation of his character. Compare Exo 2:12, etc. Fret not thyself because of evildoers. Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him, Psa 37:1-40.

When we hand our cause over to God He comes down, Num 12:5. He rebukes the enemy and avenger. Be faithful to Him and you may reckon on His faithfulness to you! That commendation of faithfulness, which Moses received, may be won by all! See Mar 13:34.

Our intercession may bring pardon and healing; but sin leaves its mark, Num 12:15. You are shut out of the enjoyment of the camp, and the march is delayed. Ponder Jam 3:5-6.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

3. The Rebellion of Miriam and Aaron

CHAPTER 12

1. Miriam and Aaron speak against Moses (Num 12:1-3)

2. The interference of the Lord (Num 12:4-9)

3. Miriam leprous (Num 12:10)

4. Aarons confession and intercession (Num 12:11-12)

5. Moses prayer and Miriams restoration (Num 12:13-16)

Open rebellion against Moses by his own brother and sister is the next step in the story of failure. Envy was at the bottom of it. The words Miriam and Aaron spoke reveal that they aimed at Moses position. Miriam was a prophetess (Exo 15:20). Aaron had the dignity of the priesthood. Pride, the crime of the devil (1Ti 3:6), lead them to speak against their own brother. Miriam was the leader in this rebellion, for her name stands first and the judgment falls upon her. She may have been moved to jealousy by the elders having received the Spirit and exercising the gift of prophecy among the people. And Aaron reveals the weakness of the flesh. It is the second time he failed in this manner. He could not resist the clamoring of the people when they demanded the golden calf and here he cannot resist his sister, who became the willing instrument of Satan, like the first woman (1Ti 2:14). Moses had a Cushite woman for wife. This typifies the great truth of the union of Christ and the church, that Gentiles were to be joint-heirs and joint-members of the same body. But it seems that the Cushite wife of Moses was only a subterfuge and an attempt to reflect upon the moral character of the man of God, whose position they envied.

(If this thought is followed out in its dispensational meaning, it becomes very interesting. The natural relations objected to this union, as the Jews were moved with jealousy when the gospel was preached to the Gentiles and the Gentiles believed. The book of Acts bears abundant testimony to this fact.)

And the Lord heard it. Magnificent words these! and the Lord also said, Wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? It is a serious thing to speak against any servant of God. The Lord will always guard those who serve Him and vindicate their character. Moses did not take the case in his own hands. He did not answer back. His gracious character stands out in majestic greatness. How hard it is for a man who holds a high and honored position to bear any attack in silence and not to open his mouth! Moses kept silent, for he was very meek above all the men which were upon the face of the earth. In this he is a blessed type of Him who was meek and lowly; who reviled not when He was reviled, who opened not His mouth.

But did Moses really write the third verse? And if he did, does this not prove that he spoke well of himself? Some claim that this is an addition to the text. The self-praise on the part of Moses which many have discovered in this description of his character, and on account of which some even of the earlier expositors regarded this verse as a later gloss, whilst more recent critics have used it as an argument against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, is not an expression of vain self display, or a glorification of his own gifts and excellences which he prided himself upon possessing above all others. It is simply a statement which was indispensable to a full and correct interpretation of all the circumstances and which was made quite objectively with reference to the character which Moses had not given to himself, but had acquired through the grace of God. (Keil and Delitzsch, The Pentateuch.) This fully meets the difficulty.

And Jehovah speaks well of His servant Moses. He is declared faithful. With him He speaks and the similitude of Jehovah he is to behold. Compare with Heb 3:5-6. A greater than Moses is here! Christ is faithful as Son over Gods house. Aaron confesses his sin and Miriams sin. She is leprous and excluded from the congregation of Israel, where she tried to be the leader, but graciously restored at the appointed time as the result of the prayer of Moses. And may we not read here Israels story, leprous now, but some day healed and restored?

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

Kibroth-hattaavah

i.e. graves of lust. Num 33:17

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

Miriam: Mat 10:36, Mat 12:48, Joh 7:5, Joh 15:20, Gal 4:16

Ethiopian: or, Cushite, Exo 2:16, Exo 2:21

married: Heb. taken, Gen 24:3, Gen 24:37, Gen 26:34, Gen 26:35, Gen 27:46, Gen 28:6-9, Gen 34:14, Gen 34:15, Gen 41:45, Exo 34:16, Lev 21:14

Reciprocal: Exo 2:4 – General Exo 2:7 – General Exo 15:20 – sister Num 16:3 – gathered Num 20:1 – Miriam Isa 37:9 – Ethiopia Mic 6:4 – Moses Heb 5:2 – is compassed

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE LISTENING GOD

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses And the Lord heard it.

Num 12:1-2

We have the ostensible cause of this speaking against Moses in the first verse, the real cause in the second. The ostensible cause was the Ethiopian woman whom he had marriedthe real cause was jealousy. Hath the Lord, indeed, spoken only by Moses? hath He not also spoken by us? Here, you see, the jealousy comes out too palpably. I dont know a more humbling verse in the Biblefor not one of us can come out unscathedbut if humbling, it is calculated to be deeply instructive.

It is possible that Miriam and Aaron may have been angry at the appointment of the Seventy who were chosen to work with Moses, whilst they themselves were not brought into such prominence as they might have expected. Then, when their anger was roused, they looked for something that might excuse it. Moses, as far the history tells us, had done nothing to provoke them. Let us gather from the narrative some lessons.

I. God regards what is done to His people as done to Himself.We see it not only here, but throughout the teaching of Scripture. We often forget this. When we are giving out our slashing judgments upon some of the Lords children who have displeased us, we do not realise that God loves them as He loves His Son, that He is dealing with them as members of Christ, and that He says of them, He that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of Mine eye.

II. How much apparent zeal for God may be traced to personal feeling!We may seem to be very jealous for the honour of Christ; to stand nobly forward as champions for the truth; to be very keen in detecting evil, when all the while, because of a selfish motive at the bottom, we are only champions of our own interests or prejudices. While we professedly contend for one thing, we may be really aggrieved by another.

III. The cause that meekness leaves in His hands God takes up.How much better, if we are the assaulted ones, to let God plead for us, than to try to justify ourselves! There are, of course, times when, in cases of misapprehension, facts may have to be explained; but when, as in this instancefor Moses had nothing to explainwe are merely spoken against, let us show out of a good conversation our works with meekness of wisdom, and wait for our God to speak. He is so jealous for His own honour, that we may well trust it in His hands.

IV. How much is implied in the words, The Lord heard it!By looking at other passages of Scripture, we see that a very important truth underlies, when it is said, the Lord heard. We are sure it does not simply affirm His hearing in the sense of His knowledge of every word spoken on earth by human lips; it has a meaning beyond this; it tells us of the Lord hearing with indignation, and putting it by, as it were, for judgment.

Illustration

(1)O let thy words be calm and kind;

In life so much of evil lies

With power to darken oer the mind,

And check its gentler sympathies;

That never human lip or heart,

In carelessness should fling the dart,

Which for a moments space may rest,

Or rankle in anothers breast.

(2) I do not suppose any sin is so common in the Church of Christ, or so constantly grieving the Spirit of God, as this thoughtless breaking of the family relationship by an unguarded tongue. If in our earthly homes a brother or sister whom we love dearly fall into sin, we are touched in a very tender part; we do not deny the fault, but we do not proclaim it upon the housetops; we keep it very solemnly, and sacredly, and painfully to ourselves. It is useless to say we love people if we allow ourselves to wound both their honour and their feelings, and when the speaking concerns those who belong to the Lord, it implicates His honour, and touches His heart.

If the world alone were chargeable with this sin, we should have little to fear; but the sad thing is that Christians are so addicted to speaking disparagingly of one another.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

Num 12:1. And Miriam Miriam seems to be first named, because she was the first mover of the sedition; wherefore she is more eminently punished. The Ethiopian Either, 1st, Zipporah, who is here called an Ethiopian, in the Hebrew, a Cushite, because she was a Midianite: the word Cush being generally used in Scripture, not for Ethiopia, properly so called, above Egypt, but for Arabia. If she be meant, probably they did not quarrel with him for marrying her, because that was done long since, but for being swayed by her and her relations, by whom they might think he was persuaded to choose seventy rulers; by which copartnership in government they thought their authority and reputation diminished. And because they durst not accuse God, they charge Moses, his instrument, as the manner of men is. Or, 2d, Some other woman whom he married, either while Zipporah lived, or rather because she was now dead, though that, as many other things, be not recorded. For, as the quarrel seems to have been about marrying a stranger, it is probable it was a flesh occasion about which they contended. And it was lawful for him as well as any other to marry an Ethiopian or Arabian woman, provided she were a sincere proselyte.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Num 12:1. The Ethiopian woman; that is, the Cushite, the daughter of Jethro. Miriam and Aaron seem to have been offended because Moses had honourably received her as his wife. But Josephus affirms, that while Moses enjoyed the confidence of Pharaoh, he had carried his victorious arms into Ethiopia, and married a princess of that nation. There is however little probability that this was the woman. Some rabbins have contended, that this woman was called Tharba. If so, she must have lived in Egypt till the emancipation, and could not now be less than seventy years of age.

Num 12:3. Now the man. Moses, obliged here to speak in his own praise, does it in the third person, as St. John, who says, that disciple whom Jesus loved.

Num 12:8. With him will I speak mouth to mouth. See on Exo 33:11; Exo 33:23.

REFLECTIONS.

Life is a chequered scene, and deeply shaded with troubles and afflictions. Moses had just seen the murmurers burnt in Tuberah; and had scarcely buried those, who preferring Egypt to Canaan, lusted for flesh in Kibroth- hataavah, before Miriam bitterly disturbed his private and public repose. Previous to the arrival of Zipporah she had reigned as princess of her brothers pavilion. Now she was relieved of her charge. What a pity that religious people, and especially public characters should not have grace to bear privations with resignation, and in particular, when no real injury is done to the party.

Mark the means which this woman adopted to obtain revenge. She endeavoured to degrade her brother as a man, in marrying with a Cushite; she endeavoured to degrade him as a prophet, by equalling other inspired persons to him; and what is worse, she engaged Aaron in her faction, and would have made no scruple to engage all Israel in the design to ruin her brother, and illustrious benefactor. A strange temper of mind for a woman in the hundredth year of her age: and a woman too, who had maintained a high religious character! Let this be instructive to families who may happen to have disputes. Let brothers and sisters, if they choose, contend for their rights; explain with independence of character; but let them never, in a moment of anger, injure and degrade one another before the public, nor expose one anothers secrets. Let them pray for grace so to conduct themselves with decency and temper, that when the subject of dispute is removed, they may be brothers and sisters still, and united by all their former good affections.

Moses was a meek man; he took no malignant notice of his sisters conduct, nor did her the slightest harm; but wholly left his cause with God. Some warm men, when slandered, make their opponents pay dear for it on the ground of retaliation. But others, like Moses, suffer their opponents to wear off their tinsel till the base alloy appears, and till their own tarnished worth recovers its lustre by the polish. The latter do honour to religion, and carry christian virtues to the highest perfection.

Good and quiet men, labouring under calumny and reproach, need not be solicitous about the issue, for God will undertake their defence. He here summoned the parties to the door of the tabernacle, the usual place of judgment in higher cases. Miriam had degraded her brother as an offender; and God acquits him of blame, or rather applauds his conduct; for he returned to Jethros family nothing but kindness for kindness. She had levelled him with the lowest of prophets, and God exalted him above them all, not only in regard to the frequency of his revelations, but in regard to the superior manner in which they were conveyed. And before he dismissed her from his bar, he smote her with leprosy, and expelled her from the camp, to convince her of the leprosy of envy she had suffered to corrode her heart. Surely the slandering tongue will tremble at the sentence which awaits it from the God of truth. Happy if the sinner shall find in the offended, a Moses to pray that God would forgive and heal the sinner.

The whole camp of Israel stopped and waited while Miriam was shut out. Yes, and so it is still. Envy, jealous feuds and quarrels, obstruct our progress to the better Canaan: and what is worse, they sometimes turn the weak entirely out of the way. Let us in honour prefer one another. Let us live in peace and love; and the God of peace and love will be with us.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Numbers 12

The brief section of our book to which we now approach may be viewed in two distinct aspects; in the first place, it is typical or dispensational; and, in the second, moral or practical.

In the union of Moses with “the Ethiopian woman,” we have a type of that great and marvellous mystery, the union of the Church with Christ her Head. This subject has come before us in our study of the Book of Exodus; but we see it here, in a peculiar light, as that which evokes the enmity of Aaron and Miriam. the sovereign actings of grace draw forth the opposition of those who stand upon the ground of natural relationship and fleshly privilege. We know, from the teaching of the New Testament, that the extension of grace to the Gentiles was that which ever elicited the fiercest and most terrible hatred of the Jews. They would not have it; they would not believe in it; nay, they would not even hear of it. There is a very remarkable allusion to this in the eleventh chapter of Romans, where the apostle, referring to the gentiles, says,” For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: even so have these [Jews] also now not believed in your mercy [or in mercy to you] that they also may obtain mercy.” Verses 30, 31; see Greek.

This is precisely what we have typically presented in the history of Moses. He, first of all, presented himself to Israel, his brethren according to the flesh; but they, in unbelief, rejected him. They thrust him from them, and would not have him. This became, in the sovereignty of God, the occasion of mercy to the stranger, for it was during the period of Moses’ rejection by Israel that he formed the mystic and typical union with a Gentile bride. Against this union Miriam and Aaron speak, in the chapter before us; and their opposition brings down the judgement of God. Miriam becomes leprous – a poor defiled thing – a proper subject of mercy, which flows out to her through the intercession of the very one against whom she had spoken.

The type is complete and most striking. The Jews have not believed in the glorious truth of mercy to the Gentiles, and therefore wrath has come upon them to the uttermost. But they will be brought in, by and by, on the ground of simple mercy, just as the Gentiles have come in. This is very humiliating to those who sought to stand on the ground of promise and national privilege; but thus it is in the dispensational wisdom of God, the very thought of which draws forth from the inspired apostle that magnificent doxology, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor? or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”

Thus much as to the typical bearing of our chapter; Let as now look at it in its moral and practical bearing. “And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. and they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it. (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.) And the Lord spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out. And the Lord: came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord. will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to month, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed. And the cloud departed-from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous. Verses 1-10.

It is a most serious thing for any one to speak against the Lord’s servant. We may rest assured that God will deal with it, sooner or later. In the case of Miriam, the divine judgement came down suddenly and solemnly. It was a grievous wrong, yea, it was positive rebellion, to speak against the one whom God had so markedly raised up and clothed with a divine commission; and who, moreover, in the very matter of which they complained, had acted in full consonance with the counsels of God, and furnished a type of that glorious mystery which was hidden in His eternal mind, even the union of Christ and the Church.

But, in any case, it is a fatal mistake to speak against the very feeblest and humblest of God’s servants. If the servant does wrong – if he is in error, if he has failed in anything – the Lord Himself will deal with him; but let the fellow servants beware how they attempt to take the matter into their hands, lest they be found like Miriam, meddling to their own hurt.

It is very awful to hear, at times, the way in which people allow themselves to speak and write about Christ’s servants. True, these latter may give occasion; they may have made mistakes, and manifested a wrong spirit and temper; but we must confess we feel it to be a very dreadful sin against Christ to speak evil of His dear servants. Surely we ought to feel the weight and solemnity of these words, “Wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak. against my servant?”

May God give as grace to watch against this sore evil Let us see to it that we be not found doing that which is so offensive to Him, even speaking against those who are dear to His heart. There is not a single one of God’s people in whom we cannot find some good thing, provided only we look for it in the right way. Let us be occupied only with the good; let us dwell upon that, and seek to strengthen and develop it, in every possible way. And, on the other hand, if we have not been able to discover the good thing in our brother and fellow-servant; if our eye has only detected the crooked thing; if we have not succeeded in finding the vital spark amid the ashes – the precious gem among the surrounding rubbish; if we have only seen what was of mere nature, why then let us, with a loving and delicate hand, draw the curtain of silence around our brother, or speak of him only at the throne of grace.

So also when we happen to be in company with those who indulge in the wicked practice of speaking against the Lord’s people, if we cannot succeed in changing the current of the conversation, let us rise and leave the place, thus bearing testimony against that which is so hateful to Christ. Let us never sit by and listen to a backbiter. We may rest assured he is doing the work of the devil, and inflicting positive injury upon three distinct parties, namely, Himself, his hearer, and the subject of his censorious remarks.

There is something perfectly beautiful in the way. in which Moses carries himself, in the scene before us. Truly he proved himself a meek man, not only in the matter of Eldad and Medad, But also in the more trying matter of Miriam and Aaron. As to the former, instead of being jealous of those who were called to share his dignity and responsibility, he rejoiced in their work, and prayed that all the Lord’s people might taste the same holy privilege. and, as to the latter, instead of cherishing any feeling of resentment against his brother and sister, he was ready, al once, to take the place of intercession. “And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned. Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother’s womb. And Moses cried unto The Lord, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee.” Verses 11-13.

Here Moses breathes the spirit of His Master, and prays for those who had spoken so bitterly against him. ‘This was victory – the victory of a meek man – the victory of grace. a man who knows his right place in the presence of God is able to rise above all evil speaking. He is not troubled by it, save for those who practice it. He can afford to forgive it. He is not touchy, tenacious, or self-occupied. He knows that no one can put him lower than He deserves to be; and, hence, if any speak against him, he can meekly bow his head and pass on, leaving himself and his cause in the hands of Him who judgeth righteously, and who will assuredly reward every man according to his works.

This is true dignity. May we understand it somewhat better, and then we shall not be so ready to take fire if any one thinks proper to speak disparagingly of us or of our work; nay, more, we shall be able to lift up our hearts in earnest prayer for them, and thus draw down blessing on them and on our own souls.

The few closing lines of our chapter confirm the typical or dispensational view which we have ventured to suggest. “And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? Let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again. And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days: and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again. And afterward the people removed from Hazeroth and pitched in the wilderness of Paran.” (Ver. 14-16.) We may regard Miriam, thus shut out of the camp, as a figure of the present condition of the nation of Israel, who, in consequence of their implacable opposition to the divine thought of mercy to the gentile, are set aside. But when the “seven days” have run their course, Israel shall be restored, on the ground of sovereign grace exercised toward them through the intercession of Christ.

Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch

Num 12:1-16 (JE). Miriams and Aarons Jealousy of Moses, and Yahwehs Vindication of Him.The challenge of Moses prerogative to be Yahwehs sole spokesman is strangely combined with a complaint respecting his marriage with a Cushite woman (perhaps another story in which Miriam, without Aaron, figured). Elsewhere Moses wife, Zipporah, is represented as a Midianite (Exo 2:16-21) or a Kenite (Jdg 1:16; Jdg 4:11): so that if Zipporah is here alluded to, this description of her as a Cushite may refer not to the African Cush (= Ethiopia) but to an Arabian Cush (perhaps the Cushan of Hab 3:7). Otherwise it must be assumed that the woman here in question was a second wife. The uniqueness of Moses position consisted in his intimacy with Yahweh, who spoke with him not as with other men through visions (Gen 15:1) and dreams (Gen 20:3, 1Sa 28:6), but plainly, face to face (cf. Exo 33:11, Deu 34:10), and revealed to him His form. The latter statement conflicts with the tenor of some other passages, which represent the sight of God as fraught with death to men (Exo 33:20, Jdg 13:22), though see Exo 24:11.

Num 12:3. meek: better humble, the proper attitude of man to God.

Num 12:6. Render (LXX and Vulg.), If there be a prophet of Yahweh among you, I will make, etc.

Num 12:8. even manifestly . . . speeches: it has been proposed to read, not in a vision and not in a dream; cf. Num 12:6.

Num 12:14. Heal . . . thee: read, Now heal her, I beseech thee.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

MIRIAM AND AARON BECOME CRITICS

(vs.1-16)

Soon after God’s dealing so seriously with Israel’s complaints, both Miriam and Aaron are infected with a similar spirit of murmuring. It was plainly Miriam who led in this, but she influenced Aaron in the same way. they spoke against Moses because he had married an Ethiopian woman, but also used this occasion to question the fact that God had spoken through Moses, urging that He had also spoken through them. Scripture does not forbid marriages between whites and blacks, though 2Co 6:14-18 forbids a believer to marry an unbeliever. But to use an occasion like this to put the Lord’s servant down in order that they may virtually take his place is wickedness in the sight of the Lord.

Moses did not fight for his own rights, however. We are told that he was more humble than any other on earth. Miriam was fighting for women’s rights, but Moses did not fight back (v.3). He could fully leave this matter in the hands of the Lord, so that he left the scene clear for the Lord to act. The Lord suddenly spoke, calling all three to come to the tabernacle (v.4).

Then the Lord came down in the pillar of cloud and stood in the door of the tabernacle. what manifestation they saw may be a question, but they knew the Lord was there. Then He called Aaron and Miriam. (Notice the order of their names is reversed from verse 1). They went forward to stand (as it were) in the prisoners’ dock.

The Lord then spoke directly and solemnly to Aaron and Miriam, telling them that if there was a prophet among the children of Israel, He Himself would make Himself known to the prophet by a vision or a dream (v.6). Was this the case with either Aaron or Miriam? No, not even this. How then could they claim to be mouthpieces for the Lord?

But Moses, God’s servant, had more than visions or dreams, and God commended him as being faithful in all God’s house. God spoke to him plainly, not in dark or enigmatic words, but face to face, just as plainly as He was now speaking to Aaron and Miriam (v.8), and Moses even saw the form of the Lord. This form, or appearance, is not described, nor does it need to be. But the Lord adds the searching, solemn question, “Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?”

How could Aaron and Miriam ever forget such words spoken directly by the Lord? But this was enough for God to speak to indicate His anger. As He left, the cloud departed from above the tabernacle and Miriam was suddenly inflicted with the dread disease of leprosy, visible for all to see. Today, is God any less angry at the refusal of His authority by many (even believers) who are like “all those in Asia” who had turned away from Paul (2Ti 1:15)? No indeed! Let us not dare to think lightly of the authority of God declared by His chosen apostles and recorded clearly in the scriptures.

Miriam was older than both Aaron and Moses, and certainly ought to have known better than to question the authority God had given to Moses. Still, Aaron was both shocked and subdued at God’s judgment against her and he appealed to Moses, confessing that he and Miriam had foolishly sinned, and desiring that Moses would intercede to God for her (vs.11-12). Actually, the leprosy was only a physical picture of the breaking out of evil. The actual breaking out of sinful rebellion in speaking against Moses was worse than the physical infliction which God gave in order to make Miriam (and Aaron) feel the seriousness of their sin.

The meekness of Moses is again evident when he prays that God might heal Miriam. He did not even tell Aaron that Miriam had brought this upon herself, so should face the consequences. However, while God showed great mercy in healing her, He told Moses that even if her father had only spit in her face she would be ashamed for seven days. Therefore, let her be put out of the camp for seven days. In other words, her restoration must be complete (as number 7 implies) before being received again into the camp.

Thus we are reminded that God, in showing mercy, does not ignore proper government. If He did so, we should not learn to rightly judge our sinful actions and would have little exercise to be kept from repeating the same evils. After this Israel moved from Hazeroth and camped in the wilderness of Paran.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married {a} an Ethiopian woman.

(a) Zipporah, Moses’ wife, was a Midianite, and because Midian bordered on Ethiopia, it is sometimes referred to in the scriptures by this name.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The rebellion of Miriam and Aaron ch. 12

Perhaps it was God’s exaltation of Moses by bestowing the gift of prophecy on the elders that provoked the envy of Miriam and Aaron. God reminded the people of Moses’ special endowment with the Spirit when He blessed the elders with the Spirit.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Miriam was the outspoken leader in this incident. The priority of her name over Aaron’s and the feminine gender of the verb in the Hebrew text translated "spoke" indicate this (Num 12:1).

The Cushite woman Moses had married was probably not Zipporah (Exo 2:21). Zipporah was from Midian that was in Arabia. At this time Cush was a name for Upper Egypt (Ethiopia).

". . . the Septuagint and the Vulgate translate ’Cushite’ in Num 12:1 as ’Ethiopian,’ the word used by the Greeks and Romans to refer to the region south of Egypt inhabited by people with black skin." [Note: J. Daniel Hays, "The Cushites: A Black Nation in the Bible," Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):398.]

Merrill, however, believed that "Cushite" described people who lived in Arabia as well as in Cush proper in which case Moses’ wife may not have been black and may have been Zipporah. [Note: See Merrill, "Numbers," in The Bible . . ., p. 288, and idem, in The Old . . ., p. 113-14.] It seems unlikely that Miriam would have objected at this time that Moses had married Zipporah. He had married her years before this incident. The repetition of the phrase "for he had married a Cushite woman" (Num 12:1) seems to imply a recent marriage. This would explain Miriam’s objection at this time better. We may assume, therefore, that Zipporah had died and that Moses had remarried. Moses wrote in Psa 90:10 that a normal lifespan was about 70 years. He would have been in his early eighties at this time, so perhaps Zipporah had died of old age, assuming she was about the same age as he. There is no reason to believe that Moses was married to two women at the same time, though that is possible. Marriage to a Cushite was within the will of God. God had only forbidden the Israelites from marrying Canaanites (Exo 34:16).

Evidently Miriam and Aaron felt their leading roles in Israel as prophetess (Exo 15:20) and high priest were losing distinctiveness as God gave 70 elders the privilege of mediating His word. Perhaps Miriam saw in Moses’ new wife a threat to her role as the leading female in Israel. Moses’ marriage to the Cushite woman may have been nothing more than an excuse. [Note: Noordtzij, p. 107.]

The statement of Moses’ humility (Num 12:3) was not a boastful claim by the writer but an inspired statement of fact. We need not conclude that another writer added it later since it is essential to the argument of this passage. That another writer added it later is a distinct possibility, however. One writer suggested that on the basis of etymology, usage, and context the qere reading of the Hebrew word used here is preferable. He believed the Hebrew word should be translated "miserable" rather than "meek." [Note: Cleon Rogers, "Moses: Meek or Miserable?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:3 (September 1986):257-63.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

THE JEALOUSY OF MIRIAM AND AARON

Num 12:1-16

IT may be confidently said that no representative writer of the post-exilic age would have invented or even cared to revive the episode of this chapter. From the point of view of Ezra and his fellow-reformers, it would certainly appear a blot on the character of Moses that he passed by the women of his own people and took a Cushite or Ethiopian wife. The idea of the “holy seed,” on which the zealous leaders of new Judaism insisted after the return from Babylon, was exclusive. It appeared an abomination for Israelites to intermarry either with the original inhabitants of Canaan, or even with Moabites, Ammonites, and Egyptians. At an earlier date any disposition to seek alliance with Egypt or hold intercourse with it was denounced as profane. Isaiah and Jeremiah alike declare that Israel, whom Jehovah led forth from Egypt, should never think of returning to drink of its waters or trust in its shadow. As the necessity of separateness from other peoples became strongly felt, revulsion from Ethiopia would be greater than from Egypt itself. Jeremiahs inquiry, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin?” made the dark colour of that race a symbol of moral taint.

To be sure, the prophets did not all adopt this view. Amos, especially, in one of his striking passages, claims for the Ethiopians the same relation to God as Israel had: “Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto Me, O children of Israel, saith the Lord?” No reproach to the Israelites is intended; they are only reminded that all nations have the same origin and are under the same Divine providence. And the Psalms in their evangelical anticipations look once and again to that dark land in the remote south: “Princes shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God”; “I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to them that know Me: behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia; this man was born there.” The zeal of the period immediately after the captivity carried separateness far beyond that of any earlier time, surpassing the letter of the statute in Exo 34:11 and Deu 7:2. And we may safely assert that if the Pentateuch did not come into existence till after the new ideas of exclusion were established, and if it was written then for the purpose of exalting Moses and his law, the reference to his Cushite wife would certainly have been suppressed.

All the more may this be maintained when we take into account the likelihood that it was not entirely without reason Aaron and Miriam felt some jealousy of the woman. The story is usually taken to mean that there was no cause whatever for the feeling entertained; and if Miram alone had been involved, we might have regarded the matter as without significance. But Aaron had hitherto acted cordially with the brother to whom he owed his high position. Not a single disloyal word or deed had as yet separated him in the least, personally, from Moses. They wrought together in the promulgation of law, they were together in transgression and judgment. Aaron had every reason for remaining faithful; and if he was now moved to a feeling that the character and reputation of the lawgiver were imperilled, it must have been because he saw reason. He could approach Moses quietly on this subject without any thought of challenging his authority as leader. We see that while he accompanied Miriam he kept in the background, unwilling, himself, to appear as an accuser, though persuaded that the unpleasant duty must be done.

So far as Moses is concerned these thoughts, which naturally arise, go to support the genuineness of the history. And in like manner the condemnation of Aaron bears out the view that the episode is not of legendary growth. If priestly influence had determined to any extent the form of the narrative, the fault of Aaron would have been suppressed. He agrees with Miriam in making a claim the rejection of which involves him and the priesthood in shame. And yet, again, the theory that here we have prophetic narrative, critical of the priesthood, will not stand; for Miriam is a prophetess, and language is used which seems to deny to all but Moses a clear and intimate knowledge of the Divine will.

Miriam was the spokeswoman. She it was, as the Hebrew implies, who “spake against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married.” It would seem that hitherto in right of her prophetical gift she was to some extent an adviser of her brother, or had otherwise a measure of influence. It appeared to her not only a bad thing for Moses himself but absolutely wrong that a woman of alien race, who probably came out of Egypt with the tribes, one among the mixed multitude, should have anything to say to him in private, or should be in his confidence. Miriam maintained, apparently, that her brother had committed a serious mistake in marrying this wife, and still more in denying to Aaron and to herself that right of advising which they had hitherto used. Was not Moses forgetting that Miriam had her share in the zeal and inspiration which had made the guidance of the tribes so far successful? If Moses stands aloof, consults only with his alien wife, will he not forfeit position and authority and be deprived of help with which he has no right to dispense?

Miriams is an instance, the first instance we may say, of the womans claim to take her place side by side with the man in the direction of affairs. It would be absurd to say that the modern desire has its origin in a spirit of jealousy like that which Miriam showed; yet, parallel to her demand, “Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? Hath he not also spoken by us?” is the recent cry, “Has man a monopoly either of wisdom or of the moral qualities? Are not women at least equally endowed with ethical insight and sagacity in counsel?” Long excluded from affairs by custom and law, women have become weary of using their influence in an unrecognised, indirect way, and many would now claim an absolute parity with men, convinced that if in any respect they are weak as yet they will soon become capable. The claim is to a certain extent based on the Christian doctrine of equality between male and female, but also on the acknowledged success of women who, engaging in public duties side by side with men, have proved their aptitude and won high distinction.

At the same time, those who have had experience of the world and the many phases of human life must always have a position which the inexperienced may not claim; and women, as compared with men, must continue to be at a certain disadvantage for this reason. It may be supposed that intuition can be placed against experience, that the womans quick insight may serve her better than the mans slowly acquired knowledge. And most will allow this, but only to a certain point. The womans intuition is a fact of her nature-to be trusted often and along many ways. It is, indeed, her experience, gained half unconsciously. But the modern claim is assuming far more than this. We are told that the moral sense of the race comes down through women. They conserve the moral sense. This is no Christian claim, or Christian only in outdoing Romanism and setting Mary far above her Son. Seriously put forward by women, this will throw back their whole claim into the middle ages again. That a finer moral sense often forms part of their intuition is admitted: that as a sex they lead the race must be proved where, as yet, they do not prove it. Nevertheless, the world is advancing by the advance of women. There is no need any longer for that jealous intriguing which has often wrecked governments and homes. Christianity, ruling the questions of sex, means a very stable form of society, a continuous and calm development, the principle of charity and mutual service.

Miriam claimed the position of a prophet or nabi for herself, and endeavoured to make her gift and Aarons as revealers of truth appear equal to that of Moses. At the Red Sea she led the chorus “Sing ye to the Lord, for He hath triumphed gloriously. The horse and his rider hath He thrown into the sea.” That, so far as we know, was her title to count herself a prophetess. As for Aaron, we often find his name associated with his brothers in the formula, “The Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron.” He had also been the nabi of Moses when the two went to Pharaoh with their demand on behalf of Israel. But the claim of equality with Moses was vain. Poor Miriam had her one flash of high enthusiasm, and may have now and again risen to some courage and zeal in professing her faith. But she does not seem to have had the ability to distinguish between her fitful glimpses of truth and Moses Divine intelligence. Aaron, again, must have been half ashamed when he was placed beside his brother. He had no genius, none of the elevation of soul that betokens an inspired man. He obeyed well, served the sanctuary well; he was a good priest, but no prophet.

The little knowledge, the small gifts, appear great to those who have them, so great as often to eclipse those of nobler men. We magnify what we have, -our power of vision, though we cannot see far; our spiritual intelligence, though we have learned the first principles only of Divine faith. In the religious controversies of to-day, as in those of the past, men whose claims are of the slightest have pushed to the front with the demand, Hath not the Lord spoken by us? But there is no Moses to be challenged. The age of the revealers is gone. He who seems to be a great prophet may be taken for one because he stands on the past and invokes voluminous authority for all he says and does. In truth, our disputations are between the modern Eliphaz, Bildad, and Job-all of them today men of limited view and meagre inspiration, who repeat old hearsays with wearisome pertinacity, or inveigh against the old interpretations with infinite assurance. Jehovah speaks from the storm; but there is no heed paid to His voice. By some the Word is declared unintelligible; others deny it to be His.

While Moses kept silence, ruling his spirit in the meekness of a man of God, suddenly the command was given, “Come out, ye three, unto the tent of meeting.” Possibly the interview had been at Moses own tent in the near portion of the camp. Now judgment was to be solemnly given; and the circumstances were made the more impressive by the removal of the cloud-pillar from above the tabernacle to the door of the tent, where it seems to have intervened between Moses on the one side and Miriam and Aaron on the other; then the Voice spoke, requiring these two to approach, and the oracle was heard. The subject of it was the position of Moses as the interpreter of Jehovahs will. He was distinguished from any other prophet of the time.

We are here at a point where more knowledge is needful to a full understanding of the revelation: we can only conjecture. Not long is it since the seventy elders belonging to different tribes were endowed with the spirit of prophecy. Already there may have been some abuse of their new power; for though God bestows His gifts on men, they have practical liberty, and may not always be wise or humble in exercising the gifts. So the need of a distinction between Moses and, the others would be clear. As to Miriam and Aaron, their jealousy may have been not only of Moses, but also of the seventy. Miriam and Aaron were prophets of older standing, and would be disposed to claim that the Lord spoke by them rather in the way He spoke by Moses than after the manner of His communications through the seventy. Were members of the sacred family to be on a level henceforth with any persons who spoke ecstatically in praise of Jehovah? Thus claim asserted itself over claim. The seventy had to be informed as to the limits of their office, prevented from taking a place higher than they had been assigned: Miriam and Aaron also had to be instructed that their position differed entirely from their brothers, that they must be content so far as prophecy was concerned to stand with the rest whose respiration they may have despised. With this view the general terms of the deliverance appear to correspond.

The Voice from the tent of meeting was heard through the cloud; and on the one hand the function of the prophet or nabi was defined, on the other the high honour and prerogative of Moses were announced. The. prophet, said the Voice, shall have Jehovah made known to him “in vision, or in dream,”-in his waking hours, when the mind is on the alert, receiving impressions from nature and the events of life; when memory is occupied with the past and hope with the future, the vision shall be given. Or again, in sleep, when the mind is withdrawn from external objects and appears entirely passive, a dream shall open glimpses of the great work of Providence, the purposes of judgment or of grace. In these ways the prophet shall receive his knowledge; and of necessity the revelation will be to some extent shadowed, difficult to interpret. Now the name prophet, nabi, is continually applied throughout the Old Testament, not only to the seventy and others who like them spoke in ecstatic language, and those who afterwards used musical instruments to help the rapture with which the Divine utterance came, but also to men like Amos and Isaiah. And it has been made a question whether the inspiration of these prophets is to come under the general law of the oracle we are considering. The answer in one sense is clear. So far as the word nabi designates all, they are all of one order. But it is equally certain, as Kuenen has pointed out, that the later prophets were not always in a state of ecstasy when they gave their oracles, nor simply reproducing, thoughts of which they first became conscious in that state. They had an exalting consciousness of the presence and enlightening Spirit of Jehovah bestowed on them, or the burden of Jehovah laid on them. The visions were often flashes of thought; at other times the prophet seemed to look on a new earth and heaven filled with moving symbols and powers. But the whole development of national faith and knowledge affected their flashes of thought and visions, lifting prophetic energy into a higher range.

Now, returning to the oracle, we find that Moses is not a prophet or nabi in this sense. The words that relate to him carefully distinguish between his illumination and that of the nabi. “My servant Moses is not so; he is faithful in all Mine house: with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the form of Jehovah shall he behold.” Every word here is chosen to exclude the idea of ecstasy, the idea of vision or dream, which leaves some shadow of uncertainty upon the mind, and the idea of any intermediate influence between the human intelligence and the disclosure of Gods will. And when we try to interpret this in terms of our own mental operations, and our consciousness of the way in which truth reaches our minds, we recognise for one thing an impression made distinctly word by word of the message to be conveyed. There is given to Moses not only a general idea of the truth or principle to be embodied in his words, but he receives the very terms. They come to him in concrete form. He has but to repeat or write what Jehovah communicates. Along with this there is given to Moses a power of apprehending the form or similitude of God. His mind is made capable of singular precision in receiving and transmitting the oracle or statute. There is complete calmness and what we may call self-possession when he is in the tent of meeting face to face with the Eternal. And yet he has this spiritual, transcendent symbol of the Divine Majesty before him. He is no poet, but he enjoys some revelation higher and more exalting to mind and soul than poet ever had.

The paradox is not inconceivable. There is a way to this converse with God “mouth to mouth” along which the patient, earnest soul can partly travel. Without rhapsody, with full effort of the mind that has gathered from every source and is ready for the Divine synthesis of ideas, the Divine illumination, the Divine dictation, if we may so speak, the humble intelligence may arrive where, for the guidance of the personal life at least, the very words of God are to be heard. Beyond, along the same way, lies the chamber of audience which Moses knew. We think it an amazing thing to be sure of God and of His will to the very words. Our state is so often that of doubt, or of self-absorption, or of entanglement with the affairs of others, that we are generally incapable of receiving the direct message. Yet of whom should we be sure if not of God? Of what words should we be more certain than those pure, clear words that come from His mouth? Moses heard on great themes, national and moral-he heard for the ages, for the world: there lay his unique dignity. We may hear only for our own guidance in the next duty that is to be done. But the Spirit of God directs those who trust Him. It is ours to seek and to receive the very truth.

With regard to the similitude of Jehovah which Moses saw, we notice that there is no suggestion of human form; rather would this seem to be carefully avoided. The statement does not take us back to the appearance of the angel Jehovah to Abraham, nor does it point to any manifestation like that of which we read in the history of Joshua or of Gideon. Nothing is here said of an angel. We are led to think of an exaltation of the spiritual perception of Moses, so that he knew the reality of the Divine life, and was made sure of an originative wisdom, a transcendent source of ideas and moral energy. He with whom Moses holds communion is One whose might and holiness and glory are seen with the spiritual eye, whose will is made known by a voice entering into the soul. And the distinction intended between Moses and all other prophets corresponds to a fact which the history of Israels religion brings to light. The account of the way in which Jehovah communicated with Moses remains subject to the condition that the expressions used, such as “mouth to mouth,” are still only symbols of the truth. They mean that in the very highest sense possible to man Moses entered into the purposes of God regarding His people. Now Isaiah certainly approached this intimate knowledge of the Divine counsel when long afterwards he said in Jehovahs name: “Behold My Servant, whom I uphold; Mine Elect, in whom My soul delighteth; I have put My Spirit upon Him: He shall bring forth judgment unto the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause His voice to be heard in the street.” Yet between Moses and Isaiah there is a difference. For Moses is the means of giving to Israel pure morality and true religion. By the inspiration of God he brings into existence that which is not. Isaiah foresees; Moses, in a sense, creates. And the one parallel with Moses, according to Scripture, is to be found in Christ, who is the creator of the new humanity.

When the oracle had spoken, there was a movement of the cloud from the door of the tent of meeting, and apparently from the tabernacle-a sign of the displeasure of God. Following the idea that the cloud was connected with the altar, this withdrawal has been interpreted by Lange as a rebuke to Aaron. “He was inwardly crushed; the fire on his altar went out; the pillar of smoke no longer mounted up as a token of grace; the cultus was for a moment at a standstill, and it was as if an interdict of Jehovah lay on the cultus of the sanctuary.” But the cloud-pillar is not, as this interpretation would imply, associated with Aaron personally; it is always the symbol of the Divine will “by the hand of Moses.” We must suppose therefore that the movement of the cloud conveyed in some new and unexpected way a sense of the Divine support which Moses enjoyed. He was justified in all he had done: condemnation was brought home to his accusers.

And Miriam, who had offended most, was punished with more than a rebuke. Suddenly she was found to be covered with leprosy. Aaron, looking upon her, saw that morbid pallor which was regarded as the invariable sign of the disease. It was seen as a proof of her sin and of the anger of Jehovah. Himself trembling as one who had barely escaped, Aaron could not but confess his share in the transgression. Addressing Moses with the deepest reverence, he said, “Oh my lord, lay not, I pray thee, sin upon us, for that we have done foolishly, and for that we have sinned.” The leprosy is the mark of sin. Let it not be stamped on her indelibly, nor on me. Let not the disease run its course to the horrible end. With no small presumption the two had ventured to challenge their brothers conduct and position. They knew indeed, yet from their intimacy with him did not rightly apprehend, the “divinity that hedged” him. Now for the first time its terror is disclosed to themselves; and they shrink before the man of God, pleading with him as if he were omnipotent.

Moses needs no second appeal to his compassion. He is a truly inspired man, and can forgive. He has seen the great God merciful and gracious, longsuffering, slow to anger, and he has caught something of the Divine magnanimity. This temper was not always shown throughout Israels history by those who had the position of prophets. And we find that men who claim to be religious, even to be interpreters of the Divine will, are not invariably above retaliation. They are seen to hate those who criticise them, who throw doubt upon their arguments. A mans claim to fellowship with God, his professed knowledge of the Divine truth and religion, may be tested by his conduct when he is under challenge. If he cannot plead with God on behalf of those who have assailed him, he has not the Spirit; he is as “sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal.”

Even in response to the prayer of Moses, Miriam could not be cured at once. She must go aside bearing her reproach. Shame for her offence, apart from the taint of leprosy, would make it fitting that she should withdraw seven days from camp and sanctuary. A personal indignity, not affecting her character in the least, would have been felt to that extent. Her transgression is to be realised and brooded over for her spiritual good. The law is one that needs to be kept in mind. To escape detection and leave adverse judgment behind is all that some offenders against moral law seem to desire. They dread the shame and nothing besides. Let that be avoided, or, after continuing for a time, let the sense of it pass, and they feel themselves free. But true shame is towards God; and from the mind sincerely penitent that does not quickly pass away. Those only who are ignorant of the nature of sin can soon overcome the consciousness of Gods displeasure. As for men, no doubt they should forgive; but their forgiveness is often too lightly granted, too complacently assumed, and we see the easy self-recovery of one who should be sitting in sackcloth and ashes. God forgives with infinite depth of tenderness and grace of pardon. But His very generosity will affect the truly contrite with poignant sorrow when His name has by their act been brought into dishonour.

The offence of Miriam was only jealousy and presumption. She may scarcely seem so great a sinner that an attack of leprosy should have been her punishment, though it lasted for no more than seven days. We make so much of bodily maladies, so little of diseases of the soul, that we would think it strange if any one for his pride should be struck with paralysis, or for envy should be laid down with fever. Yet beside the spiritual disorder that of the body is of small moment. Why do we think so little of the moral taint, the falsehood, malice, impurity, and so much of the ills our flesh is heir to? The bad heart is the great disease.

Miriams exclusion from the camp becomes a lesson to all the people. They do not journey while she is separated as unclean. There may have been other lepers in the outlying tents; but her sin has been of such a kind that the public conscience is especially directed to it. And the lesson had particular point with reference to those who had the prophetic gift.

Modern society, making much of sanitation and all kinds of improvements and precautions intended to prevent the spread of epidemics and mitigate their effects, has also some thought of moral disease. Persons guilty of certain crimes are confined in prisons or “cut off from the people.” But of the greater number of moral maladies no account is taken. And there is no widespread gloom over the nation, no arrest of affairs, when some hideous case of social immorality or business depravity has come to light. It is but a few who pray for those who have the evil heart, and wait sympathetically for their cleansing. Ought not the reorganisation of society to be on a moral rather than an economic basis? We should be nearer the general well-being if it were reckoned a disaster when any employer oppressed those under him, or workmen were found indifferent to their brothers, or a grave crime disclosed a low state of morality in some class or circle. It is the defeat of armies and navies, the overthrow of measures and governments, that occupy our attention as a people, and seem often to obscure every moral and religious thought. Or if injustice is the topic, we find the point of it in this: that one class is rich while another is poor; that money, not character, is lost in shameful contention.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles