{"id":4037,"date":"2022-09-24T00:28:39","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T05:28:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-numbers-114-2\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T00:28:39","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T05:28:39","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-numbers-114-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-numbers-114-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 11:4"},"content":{"rendered":"

And the mixed multitude that [was] among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

4<\/strong>. The place where the incident occurred is not stated. But in Num 11:34<\/em><\/span> a name is given to the spot in consequence of the event.<\/p>\n

the mixed multitude<\/em> ] The Heb. word ’asaphsph<\/em> is a reduplicated form from ’saph<\/em> ‘to collect.’ The alliteration may be represented by riff-raff<\/em>. It is a contemptuous term for non-Israelites who had attached themselves to the camp. They would include Egyptians with whom Israelites may to a small extent have intermarried (Lev 24:10<\/span>), and people of various nationalities who, having been united with the Israelites in the forced building labour in Egypt, would be glad to escape with them. They are mentioned (by a different term) in Exo 12:38<\/span>.<\/p>\n

fell a lusting<\/em> ] The words can denote any bodily appetite or desire, legitimate or otherwise. In 1Co 10:6<\/span> Christians are warned by the example of the Israelites.<\/p>\n

wept again<\/em> ] No murmuring by the mixed multitude has been previously recorded, and in previous murmurings of the people in general weeping<\/em> has not been mentioned. But the word need not be pressed. J relates a murmuring in Exo 15:23-25<\/span>. It is not certain, however, that the words are an their original form. The Heb. idiom is ‘and they returned and they wept’; this makes it possible to suppose that ‘and they returned’ was inserted by a compiler in reference to the murmuring in Num 11:1-3<\/em><\/span>. LXX. and Vulg. escape the difficulty by reading ‘they sat down and wept’ ( for ).<\/p>\n

Oh that we could have<\/strong> flesh to eat!<\/em> ] The necessity for miraculous provision of flesh is evidence that, according to one form of the tradition of the journeys, the Israelites had no flocks and herds. This has been preserved in J together with the contrary tradition that they were richly supplied with them, both at the beginning of the wanderings (Exo 12:32<\/span>; Exo 12:38<\/span>), throughout the course of them (Num 14:33<\/span> see note, Exo 17:3<\/span>; Exo 19:13<\/span>; Exo 34:3<\/span>), and at the end (Num 32:1<\/span>). The traditions in P assume an immense wealth in cattle, which made possible the elaborate sacrificial system in force from Sinai and onwards.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

4 34<\/strong>. (I) The Manna and Quails. J . (II) The burden of the people too heavy for Moses. J . (III) The Spirit of ecstasy upon the elders. E .<\/p>\n

These verses should be studied in the following order:<\/p>\n

(I) Num 11:4-10<\/em><\/span> ; Num 11:13<\/em><\/span><\/em> ; Num 11:18-24<\/em><\/span><\/em> a (to ‘the words of the Lord’), 31 34.<\/p>\n

(II) Num 11:11-12<\/em><\/span> ; Num 11:14-15<\/em><\/span><\/em>.<\/p>\n

(III) Num 11:16-17<\/em><\/span> a, 24b 30<\/span>.<\/p>\n

It will be seen that the narratives (II) and (III) have no real connexion with (I). In the process of compilation two sentences were lost. The words ‘And Moses said unto Jehovah’ in Num 11:11<\/em><\/span> a are required for both narratives, and must be added for (I) at the beginning of Num 11:13<\/em><\/span>. Similarly Num 11:18<\/em><\/span> (as Num 11:16<\/em><\/span>) must begin ‘And Jehovah said unto Moses, say thou &c.’ If this is done, two distinct narratives emerge, and a fragment of a third:<\/p>\n

(I) The people being weary of manna murmured for flesh. Jehovah was angry and warned them that they would loathe the flesh when it came. Moses was incredulous that such a miracle could be performed. But a wind brought a mass of quails, and a plague was the result.<\/p>\n

(II) Moses found the care and guidance of the people a burden too heavy to bear, and prayed that he might die.<\/p>\n

(III) Jehovah took some of Moses’ spirit and put it upon seventy elders, so that they were filled with prophetic frenzy, including two who were not with the others in front of the Tent. Joshua wished Moses to forbid them, but he refused.<\/p>\n

(I) Num 11:4-10<\/em><\/span> ; Num 11:13<\/em><\/span><\/em> ; Num 11:18-24<\/em><\/span><\/em> a, 31 34<\/span>. Manna and Quails<\/em>. In Exodus 16<\/span> there is a more complete narrative of the manna, from P , where Num 11:35<\/em><\/span> (‘they did eat the manna until they came into the borders of the land of Canaan’) shews that manna was not sent on two distinct occasions, but that the two narratives are parallel accounts. In the present chapter the sending<\/em> of the manna is not related (see on Num 11:6<\/em><\/span>). But it must not be concluded from this that our narrative is the sequel<\/em> to that in Exodus 16<\/span>; for (I) a description of the manna is given, as though it were a new phenomenon, in Num 11:7-9<\/em><\/span> as well as in Exo 16:14<\/span>; Exo 16:31<\/span>, and there are considerable differences in the two accounts; and (2) the laying of the pot of manna ‘before the Testimony’ (Exo 16:34<\/span>) shews that that narrative belongs to a time after the Testimony (i.e. the Decalogue) was given at Sinai. Thus both in P and J it is related that manna was sent after the departure from the mountain. Moreover, while P has this very full parallel account of the manna, it also has fragmentary references to the quails embedded in it. See Exo 16:8<\/span> a (‘in the evening flesh to eat’), 12 (‘at even ye shall eat flesh’), 13a (‘at even the quails came up and covered the camp’).<\/p>\n

(II) Num 11:11-12<\/em><\/span> ; Num 11:14-15<\/em><\/span><\/em>. It is not at first sight so clear that (II) is unconnected with (III). The gift of Moses’ spirit to the elders might seem to be the answer to Moses’ prayer for more help in managing the people. And the compiler has given this impression by the insertion of Num 11:17<\/em><\/span> b. But (1) the spirit is not represented as being a spirit of wisdom and understanding, but merely of ecstasy or frenzy which enabled them to ‘prophesy’ as in the case of Saul and his messengers at a later time (1Sa 19:20<\/span> f., 23<\/span> f.). Moses’ answer to Joshua ( Num 11:29<\/em><\/span>) as well as the express statement that the inspiration was purely temporary ( Num 11:25<\/em><\/span>), quite preclude the idea that the elders were to help him in bearing the burden of the people. And (2) Moses’ complaint of the burden is closely similar in thought and language to Exo 33:12<\/span> to Exo 34:9<\/span>. The discussion of the whole problem belongs rather to a commentary on Exodus. But it is far from improbable that (II) has been displaced from Exodus 33<\/span>. Because the people had sinned, Jehovah said that He would not go to Canaan with them; Moses, therefore, would have to bear the burden alone; and he was overwhelmed with the thought. In consequence of Moses’ repeated intercession Jehovah relented and condescended to go with them.<\/p>\n

(III) Num 11:16-17<\/em><\/span> a, 24b 30<\/span>. There are indications that the narrative of the elders is from E . Now the last passage from E previously to this is Exo 33:7-11<\/span>, a fragment relating Moses’ usual practice with regard to the ‘Tent of Meeting,’ in which the young man Joshua acted as his minister, and where Jehovah used to ‘come down’ in the cloud and converse with Moses. If that passage and (III) are read side by side, it will be seen that they are connected in the closest possible manner, both in style and subject-matter.<\/p>\n

(I) 4 10<\/strong>. The Manna.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Occurrences at Kibroth-hattavah.<\/P>

Num 11:4<\/B><\/span><\/P>

The mixt multitude – <\/B>The word in the original resembles our riff-raff, and denotes a mob of people scraped together. It refers here to the multitude of strangers (see Exo 12:38<\/span>) who had followed the Israelites from Egypt.<\/P>

Num 11:5<\/B><\/span><\/P>

The natural dainties of Egypt are set forth in this passage with the fullness and relish which bespeak personal experience.<\/P>

Num 11:6-7<\/B><\/span><\/P>

There is nothing at all … – <\/B>literally, Nought at all have we except that our eyes are unto this manna; i. e. Nought else have we to expect beside this manna. On the manna see Exo 16:15<\/span> note; on bdellium see Gen 2:12<\/span> note.<\/P>

Num 11:10<\/B><\/span><\/P>

The weeping was general; every family wept (compare Zec 12:12<\/span>), and in a manner public and unconcealed.<\/P>

Num 11:11-15<\/B><\/span><\/P>

The complaint and remonstrance of Moses may be compared with that in 1Ki 19:4<\/span> ff; Jon 4:1-3<\/span>, and contrasted with the language of Abraham (Gen 18:23<\/span> ff) The meekness of Moses (compare Num 12:3<\/span>) sank under vexation into despair. His language shows us how imperfect and prone to degeneracy are the best saints on earth.<\/P>

Num 11:16<\/B><\/span><\/P>

Seventy men of the elders of Israel – <\/B>Seventy elders had also gone up with Moses to the Lord in the mount Exo 24:1<\/span>, Exo 24:9<\/span>. Seventy is accordingly the number of colleagues assigned to Moses to share his burden with him. To it, the Jews trace the origin of the Sanhedrim. Subsequent notices Num 16:25<\/span>; Jos 7:6<\/span>; Jos 8:10<\/span>, Jos 8:33<\/span>; Jos 9:11<\/span>; Jos 23:2<\/span>; Jos 24:1<\/span>, Jos 24:31<\/span> so connect the elders with the government of Israel as to point to the fact that the appointment now made was not a merely temporary one, though it would seem to have soon fallen into desuetude. We find no traces of it in the days of the Judges and the Kings.<\/P>

Elders of the people, and officers over them – <\/B>In English idiom, elders and officers of the people. Both elders and officers appear in Egypt (Exo 3:16<\/span>; Exo 5:6<\/span> ff): the former had headed the nation in its efforts after freedom; the latter were the subordinate, though unwilling, agents of Egyptian tyranny. The two classes no doubt were working together; and from those who belonged to either, perhaps from those who were both eiders and officers, the council of Seventy was to be selected.<\/P>

Num 11:17<\/B><\/span><\/P>

I will take of the spirit which is upon thee – <\/B>Render rather separate from the spirit, etc.; i. e. they shall have their portion in the same divine gift which thou hast.<\/P>

Num 11:25<\/B><\/span><\/P>

They prophesied – <\/B>i. e. under the extraordinary impulse of the Holy Spirit they uttered forth the praises of God, or declared His will. Compare the marginal references.<\/P>

And did not cease – <\/B>Rather, and added not, i. e. they prophesied at this time only and not afterward. The sign was granted on the occasion of their appointment to accredit them in their office; it was not continued, because their proper function was to be that of governing not prophesying.<\/P>

Num 11:26<\/B><\/span><\/P>

Of them that were written – <\/B>i. e. enrolled among the Seventy. The expression points to a regular appointment duly recorded and permanent.<\/P>

Num 11:29<\/B><\/span><\/P>

Enviest thou for my sake? – <\/B>(Compare Mar 9:38<\/span> ff) The other members of the Seventy had been with Moses (compare Num 6:16<\/span>, Num 6:24-25<\/span>) when the gift of prophecy was bestowed on them. They received of the spirit that was upon him, and exercised their office visibly through and for him. Eldad and Medad prophesying in the camp seemed to Joshua to be acting independently, and so establishing a separate center of authority.<\/P>

Num 11:31<\/B><\/span><\/P>

The southeast wind, which blew from the neighboring Elanitic gulf of the Red Sea, brought the quails Exo 16:13<\/span>.<\/P>

Two cubits high – <\/B>Better, two cubits above the face of the ground: i. e. the quails, wearied with their long flight, flew about breast high, and were easily secured by the people, who spread them all abroad for themselves Num 11:32<\/span>, in order to salt and dry them. The quail habitually flies with the wind, and low.<\/P>

Num 11:32<\/B><\/span><\/P>

Ten homers – <\/B>About 55 bushels. Compare Lev 27:16<\/span>.<\/P>

Num 11:33<\/B><\/span><\/P>

Ere it was chewed – <\/B>Better, ere it was consumed. See Num 11:19-20<\/span>. The surfeit in which the people indulged, as described in Num 11:32<\/span>, disposed them to sickness. Gods wrath, visiting the gluttonous through their gluttony, aggravated natural consequences into a supernatural visitation.<\/P>

Num 11:34<\/B><\/span>, <\/B>Num 11:35<\/B><\/span><\/P>

(Kibroth-hattaavah has been identified by Palmer with the extensive remains, graves, etc., at Erweis El Ebeirig, and Hazeroth enclosures with Ain Hadherah.)<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Num 11:4<\/span><\/p>\n

The mixt multitude.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The mixed multitude<\/strong><\/p>\n

If Israel, according to its <\/strong>calling, be regarded as a type of the new man, then this mixed multitude, a remnant of Egypt, and influenced still by its spirit, will be a type of the old man in the believer But we may take another view of Israel, and say that it is typical of those who walk, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit–the true members of Christs body, the living branches of the true vine; and then, corresponding with this, the mixed multitude will be a type of those who accompany the true Israel now, without being partakers of the Divine nature, and walking in the Spirit–the dead branches in the vine. History shows that the Church on earth has ever been made up of these two elements; and prophetic parables show that such will be its constitution until Jesus comes. The Word of God everywhere encourages the living members of Christs body, by patience, and gentleness, and unwearied zeal, to win those who have only a name to live. But it forbids them to take into their own hands the awful work of separation between the wheat and the tares, a work which the Searcher of hearts reserves to Himself alone. So that it need cause us no surprise, as it did the Donatists of old, and still does to some, that there is, and always will be, a mixed multitude associated with the true Israel. But though we are absolutely forbidden to cast out the element from the Church, this passage of Scripture may well impress us with the danger arising from it, and show how watchful we ought to be. Even if the Church were made up of true Christians only, there would be much evil in it, for the simple reason that there is so much sin in every heart. Many temptations may come to you even from those who are really Christs, and who are engaged, through grace, in crucifying the affections and lusts of the flesh; but others will come to you, as they did to Israel of old, from the mixed multitude; and what dangers in particular? Party spirit, we cannot fail to see, is one; but, oh, there is a greater and more subtle danger still–worldliness, conformity to the course of this world; and with it, forgetfulness of the high and holy calling wherewith we are called, and the adoption of a low standard of holiness. Our only safety is to set the perfect example of our Lord Jesus Christ before us; to <\/strong>ask ourselves again and again throughout the day, How would Christ act if He were in my place? to crucify through the Spirit the root of worldliness within, and to watch all the avenues by which it can enter the heart from without. Only in this way can our own standard be elevated; only in this way avoid Israels sin, that of being carried away by the worldly spirit which originated in the mixed multitude which sojourned with them. (G. Wagner.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Who shall give us flesh to eat?<\/strong>—<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Wanton longings<\/strong><\/p>\n

See the wantonness and delicacy of sinful flesh, it must have this, it must have that to pamper and feed it in pleasure. What may be had is loathed, and what cannot be had, that is longed for, and nothing more than that. But very wisely doth the heathen Aristotle advise all men to look upon pleasures when they go, not when they come; for when they come with their faces towards us, they deceive us with a fair flattering show, but when they go and turn their backs, then cometh repentance, woe, and grief, not a little, many times. Just as the Spirit of God saith by the mouth of Solomon, Even in laughing the heart is sorrowful, and the end of that mirth is heaviness; that is, the allurement unto sin seemeth sweet, but the end thereof is destruction. Wanton pleasure is like the fire or flame of the candle, which shining bright delighteth a child, but when he hath put his finger into it, then it burneth, and the child crieth. By little and little groweth grief, but in the end it killeth, so stealingly pleasure creepeth upon us, but in the end overthroweth all love of virtue. Wilt thou live in a right fashion? Who would not? Then if virtue only can grant this to thee, stout and strong, tend this and omit pleasures. For they that will well defend a city, do not only watch what foes be without, but as warily they observe that there be no traitors within. So men and women that love virtue, they look to the gates, which are the outward senses, and they look within, to the inward affections, lest by the one, as by wickets, evil enter, lest by the other, as by torches lighted, fires and flames do follow. The epicure said to himself, Eat, drink, play, for there is no pleasure after death. But well doth the poet before mentioned in an epistle tax him, saying, Thou hast played enough, thou hast eaten enough and drank, it is time for thee now to go hence. As if he had <\/strong>said, Part thou must in time with all thy pleasures and be gone, therefore think of it ere it be too late. Sardanapalus is said to have caused to be written on his grave to this effect: What I did eat that I had, and what I left, that I lost. Which Cicero justly reprehendeth, saying, What else should a man hath written upon an ex his grave? Pleasure infecteth and poisoneth all our senses, being a trim but a deceiving harlot; deceiving us by her voice, by her look, and by her attire, that is, every way. How many hath gluttony and the belly, how many hath filthy lust destroyed! <\/em>(Bp. Babington.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 4<\/span>. The mixed multitude<\/B><\/I>] hasaphsuph<\/I>, the collected<\/I> or gathered people<\/I>. Such as came out of Egypt with the Israelites; and are mentioned Ex 12:38<\/span>. This mongrel<\/I> people, who had comparatively little of the knowledge of God, feeling the difficulties and fatigues of the journey, were the first to complain; and then we find the children of Israel joined them in their complainings, and made a common cause with these demi-infidels.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The mixt multitude, <\/B>consisting of Egyptians or other people, which being affected with Gods miraculous works in Egypt, and thereupon believing the promise of God to carry them to a land of milk and honey, for their own advantage joined themselves to the Israelites, Exo 12:38<\/span>, an now, finding themselves sadly disappointed, they discover their evil minds. <\/P>

The children of Israel, <\/B>whose special relation and obligation to God should have restrained them from such carriages. <\/P>

Wept again:<\/B> this word relates either to their former murmuring upon this occasion a twelvemonth before, Exo 16:2<\/span>, or rather to their complaining mentioned Num 11:1<\/span>, to note the aggravation of their sin, that having just now sinned in the same kind, and sorely smarted for their sin, and being but newly delivered from their fears and dangers caused thereby, they forthwith return to their vomit and murmur again, and that more passionately than before, expressing themselves in tears and bitter words. <\/P>

Flesh:<\/B> this word is here taken generally, so as to include fish, as the next words show, and as it is used 1Co 15:39<\/span>. They had indeed flesh and cattle which they brought with them out of Egypt, but these were reserved for breed to be carried into Canaan, and were so few that they would scarce have served them for a month, as may be gathered from Num 11:20-22<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

4. the mixed multitude that wasamong them fell a lusting<\/B>These consisted of Egyptians. [See onEx 12:38<\/span>.] To dream of banquets andplenty of animal food in the desert becomes a disease of theimagination; and to this excitement of the appetite no people aremore liable than the natives of Egypt. But the Israelitesparticipated in the same feelings and expressed dissatisfaction withthe manna on which they had hitherto been supported, in comparisonwith the vegetable luxuries with which they had been regaled inEgypt.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

And the mixed multitude that [was] among them fell a lusting<\/strong>,…. These came out of Egypt with them, Ex 12:38<\/span>; having either contracted affinity with them, or such intimacy of conversation, that they could not part, or being proselyted to the Jewish religion, at least in pretence; these were not only Egyptians, but a mixture of divers people, who having heard or seen the wonderful things done for Israel, joined them in hopes of sharing the blessings of divine goodness with them; so the Targum of Jonathan calls them proselytes, that were gathered among them: these “lusted a lusting” t, as the words may be rendered; not after women, as some Jewish writers u think, even after such that were near akin to them, with whom they were forbidden to marry, and therefore desired to have those laws dissolved; but they lusted after eating flesh taken in a proper sense, as the latter part of the verse and the whole context show:<\/p>\n

and the children of Israel also wept again<\/strong>; they lusted after flesh likewise, following the example of the mixed multitude; thus evil communication corrupts good manners, 1Co 15:33<\/span>; and a little leaven leavens the whole lamp, 1Co 5:6<\/span>; wicked men prove great snares to, and do much mischief among good men, when they get into their societies, Jer 5:26<\/span>: and because the Israelites could not have what they would to gratify their lusts, they wept as children do, when they cannot have what they are desirous of; and they wept “again”, for it seems they had wept before, either when they complained, Nu 11:1<\/span>; or at Rephidim, where they wanted water, Ex 17:1<\/span>, as here flesh, or before that when they wanted bread, Ex 16:3<\/span>;<\/p>\n

and said, who shall give us flesh to eat<\/strong>? shall Moses, or even the Lord himself? from lusting they fell to unbelief and distrust of the power and providence of God; for so the Psalmist interprets this saying of theirs, Ps 78:19<\/span>.<\/p>\n

t “concupiverunt concupiscentiam”, Pagninus: Montanus, Drusius. u Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 15. fol. 219. 1.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The first impulse to this came from the mob that had come out of Egypt along with the Israelites. “ The mixed multitude:<\/em> ” see at Exo 12:38<\/span>. They felt and expressed a longing for the better food which they had enjoyed in Egypt, and which was not to be had in the desert, and urged on the Israelites to cry out for flesh again, especially for the flesh and the savoury vegetables in which Egypt abounded. The words “ they wept again<\/em> ” ( used adverbially, as in Gen 26:18<\/span>, etc.) point back to the former complaints of the people respecting the absence of flesh in the desert of Sin (Exo 16:2<\/span>.), although there is nothing said about their weeping there. By the flesh which they missed, we are not to understand either the fish which they expressly mention in the following verse (as in Lev 11:11<\/span>), or merely oxen, sheep, and goats; but the word signifies flesh generally, as being a better kind of food than the bread-like manna. It is true they possessed herds of cattle, but these would not have been sufficient to supply their wants, as cattle could not be bought for slaughtering, and it was necessary to spare what they had. The greedy people also longed for other flesh, and said, “ We remember the fish which we ate in Egypt for nothing<\/em>.” Even if fish could not be had for nothing in Egypt, according to the extravagant assertions of the murmurers, it is certain that it could be procured for such nominal prices that even the poorest of the people could eat it. The abundance of the fish in the Nile and the neighbouring waters is attested unanimously by both classical writers (e.g., Diod. Sic<\/em>. i. 36, 52; Herod<\/em>. ii. 93; Strabo<\/em>, xvii. p. 829) and modern travellers (cf. Hengstenberg, Egypt, etc., p. 211 Eng. tr.). This also applies to the vegetables for which the Israelites longed in the desert. The , or cucumbers, which are still called katteh<\/em> or chate<\/em> in the present day, are a species differing from the ordinary cucumbers in size and colour, and distinguished for softness and sweet flavour, and are described by Forskal<\/em> ( Flor. Aeg. <\/em> p. 168), as fructus in Aegypto omnium vulgatissimus, totis plantatus agris <\/em>. : water-melons, which are still called battieh in modern Egypt, and are both cultivated in immense quantities and sold so cheaply in the market, that the poor as well as the rich can enjoy their refreshing flesh and cooling juice (see Sonnini<\/em> in Hengstenberg , ut sup<\/em>. p. 212). does not signify grass here, but, according to the ancient versions, chives, from their grass-like appearance; laudatissimus porrus in Aegypto <\/em> (Plin. h. n.<\/em> 19, 33). : onions, which flourish better in Egypt than elsewhere, and have a mild and pleasant taste. According to Herod<\/em>. ii. 125, they were the ordinary food of the workmen at the pyramids; and, according to Hasselquist, Sonnini, <\/em> and others, they still form almost the only food of the poor, and are also a favourite dish with all classes, either roasted, or boiled as a vegetable, and eaten with animal food. : garlic, which is still called tum, tom in the East ( Seetzen<\/em>, iii. p. 234), and is mentioned by Herodotus<\/em> in connection with onions, as forming a leading article of food with the Egyptian workmen. Of all these things, which had been cheap as well as refreshing, not one was to be had in the desert. Hence the people complained still further, “ and now our soul is dried away,<\/em> ” i.e., faint for want of strong and refreshing food, and wanting in fresh vital power (cf. Psa 22:16<\/span>; Psa 102:5<\/span>): “ we have nothing<\/em> ( , there is nothing in existence, equivalent to nothing to be had) except that our eye<\/em> (falls) upon this manna,<\/em> ” i.e., we see nothing else before us but the manna, sc., which has no juice, and supplies no vital force. Greediness longs for juicy and savoury food, and in fact, as a rule, for change of food and stimulating flavour. “This is the perverted nature of man, which cannot continue in the quiet enjoyment of what is clean and unmixed, but, from its own inward discord, desires a stimulating admixture of what is sharp and sour” ( Baumgarten<\/em>). To point out this inward perversion on the part of the murmuring people, Moses once more described the nature, form, and taste of the manna, and its mode of preparation, as a pleasant food which God sent down to His people with the dew of heaven (see at Exo 16:14-15<\/span>, and Exo 16:31<\/span>). But this sweet bread of heaven wanted “the sharp and sour, which are required to give a stimulating flavour to the food of man, on account of his sinful, restless desires, and the incessant changes of his earthly life.” In this respect the manna resembled the spiritual food supplied by the word of God, of which the sinful heart of man may also speedily become weary, and turn to the more piquant productions of the spirit of the world.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

      4 And the mixt multitude that was<\/I> among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?   5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:   6 But now our soul is<\/I> dried away: there is<\/I> nothing at all, beside this manna, before<\/I> our eyes.   7 And the manna was<\/I> as coriander seed, and the colour thereof as the colour of bdellium.   8 And<\/I> the people went about, and gathered it,<\/I> and ground it<\/I> in mills, or beat it<\/I> in a mortar, and baked it<\/I> in pans, and made cakes of it: and the taste of it was as the taste of fresh oil.   9 And when the dew fell upon the camp in the night, the manna fell upon it.   10 Then Moses heard the people weep throughout their families, every man in the door of his tent: and the anger of the LORD<\/B> was kindled greatly; Moses also was displeased.   11 And Moses said unto the LORD<\/B>, 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?   12 Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swarest unto their fathers?   13 Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? for they weep unto me, saying, Give us flesh, that we may eat.   14 I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is<\/I> too heavy for me.   15 And if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in thy sight; and let me not see my wretchedness.<\/P>

      These verses represent things sadly unhinged and out of order in Israel, both the people and the prince uneasy.<\/P>

      I. Here is the people fretting, and speaking against God himself (as it is interpreted, Ps. lxxviii. 19<\/span>), notwithstanding his glorious appearances both to them and for them. Observe,<\/P>

      1. Who were the criminals. (1.) The mixed multitude<\/I> began, they fell a lusting,<\/I> v.<\/span> 4<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. The rabble that came with them out of Egypt, expecting only the land of promise, but not a state of probation in the way to it. They were hangers on, who took hold of the skirts of the Jews, and would go with them only because they knew not how to live at home, and were disposed to seek their fortunes (as we say) abroad. These were the scabbed sheep that infected the flock, the leaven that leavened the whole lump. Note, A few factious, discontented, ill-natured people, may do a great deal of mischief in the best societies, if great care be not taken to discountenance them. Such as these are an untoward generation,<\/I> from which it is our wisdom to save ourselves,<\/I> Acts ii. 40<\/I><\/span>. (2.) Even the children of Israel<\/I> took the infection, as we are informed, v.<\/I><\/span> 4<\/span>. The holy seed joined themselves to the people of these abominations. The mixed multitude here spoken of were not numbered with the children of Israel, but were set aside as a people God made no account of; and yet the children of Israel, forgetting their own character and distinction, herded themselves with them and learned their way, as if the scum and outcasts of the camp were to be the privy-counsellors of it. The children of Israel, a people near to God and highly privileged, yet drawn into rebellion against him! O how little honour has God in the world, when even the people which he formed for himself, to show forth his praise, were so much a dishonour to him! Therefore let none think that their external professions and privileges will be their security either against Satan’s temptations to sin or God’s judgments for sin. See 1Co 10:1<\/span>; 1Co 10:2<\/span>; 1Co 10:12<\/span>.<\/P>

      2. What was the crime: they lusted and murmured. Though they had been lately corrected for this sin, and many of them overthrown for it, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and the smell of the fire was still in their nostrils, yet they returned to it. See Prov. xxvii. 22<\/span>. (1.) They magnified the plenty and dainties they had had in Egypt (v.<\/I><\/span> 5<\/span>), as if God had done them a great deal of wrong in taking them thence. While they were in Egypt they sighed by reason of their burdens, for their lives were made bitter to them with hard bondage; and yet now they talk of Egypt as if they had all lived like princes there, when this serves as a colour for their present discontent. But with what face can they talk of eating fish in Egypt freely, or for nought, as if it cost them nothing, when they paid so dearly for it with their hard service? They remember the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick<\/I> (precious stuff indeed to be fond of!), but they do not remember the brick-kilns and the task-masters, the voice of the oppressor and the smart of the whip. No, these are forgotten by these ungrateful people. (2.) They were sick of the good provision God had made for them, v.<\/I><\/span> 6<\/span>. It was bread from heaven, angels’ food. To show how unreasonable their complaint was, it is here described, v.<\/I><\/span> 7-9<\/span>. It was good for food, and pleasant to the eye, every grain like an orient pearl; it was wholesome food and nourishing; it was not to be called dry bread,<\/I> for it tasted like fresh oil; it was agreeable (the Jews say, Wisd. xvi. 20<\/U>) to every man’s palate, and tasted as he would have it; and, though it was still the same, yet, by the different ways of dressing it, it yielded them a grateful variety; it cost them no money, nor care, for it fell in the night, while they slept; and the labour of gathering it was not worth speaking of; they lived upon free quarter, and yet could talk of Egypt’s cheapness and the fish they ate there freely. Nay, which was much more valuable than all this, the manna came from the immediate power and bounty of God, not from common providence, but from special favour. It was, as God’s compassion, new every morning, always fresh, not as their food who live on shipboard. While they lived on manna, they seemed to be exempted from the curse which sin has brought on man, that in the sweat of his face should he eat bread.<\/I> And yet they speak of manna with such scorn, as if it were not good enough to be meat for swine: Our soul is dried away.<\/I> They speak as if God dealt hardly with them in allowing them no better food. At first they admired it (Exod. xvi. 15<\/span>): What is this?<\/I> “What a curious precious thing is this!” But now they despised it. Note, Peevish discontented minds will find fault with that which has no fault in it but that it is too good for them. It is very provoking to God to undervalue his favours, and to put a but<\/I> upon our common mercies. Nothing but manna! Those that might be very happy often make themselves very miserable by their discontents. (3.) They could not be satisfied unless they had flesh to eat. They brought flocks and herds with them in great abundance out of Egypt; but either they were covetous, and could not find in their hearts to kill them, lest they should lessen their flocks (they must have flesh as cheap as they had bread, or they would not be pleased), or else they were curious, beef and mutton would not please them; they must have something more nice and delicate, like the fish they did eat in Egypt. Food would not serve; they must be feasted. They had feasted with God upon the peace-offerings which they had their share of; but it seems God did not keep a table good enough for them, they must have daintier bits than any that came to his altar. Note, It is an evidence of the dominion of the carnal mind when we are solicitous to have all the delights and satisfactions of sense wound up to the height of pleasurableness. Be not desirous of dainties,<\/I> Prov. xxiii. 1-3<\/I><\/span>. If God gives us food convenient, we ought to be thankful, though we do not eat the fat and drink the sweet. (4.) They distrusted the power and goodness of God as insufficient for their supply: Who will give us flesh to eat?<\/I> taking it for granted that God could not. Thus this question is commented up on, Psa 78:19<\/span>; Psa 78:20<\/span>, Can he provide flesh also?<\/I> though he had given them flesh with their bread once, when he saw fit (Exod. xvi. 13<\/span>), and they might have expected that he would do it again, and in mercy, if, instead of murmuring, they had prayed. Note, It is an offence to God to let our desires go beyond our faith. (5.) They were eager and importunate in their desires; they lusted a lust,<\/I> so the word is, lusted greatly and greedily, till they wept again for vexation. So childish were the children of Israel, and so humoursome, that they cried because they had not what they would have and when they would have it. They did not offer up this desire to God, but would rather be beholden to any one else than to him. We should not indulge ourselves in any desire which we cannot in faith turn into prayer, as we cannot when we ask meat for our lust,<\/I> Ps. lxxviii. 18<\/I><\/span>. For this sin the anger of the Lord was kindled greatly against them,<\/I> which is written for our admonition, that we should not lust after evil things as they lusted,<\/I> 1 Cor. x. 6<\/I><\/span>. (6.) Flesh is good food, and may lawfully be eaten; yet they are said to lust after evil things. What is lawful of itself becomes evil to us when it is what God does not allot to us and yet we eagerly desire it.<\/P>

      II. Moses himself, though so meek and good a man, is uneasy upon this occasion: Moses also was displeased.<\/I> Now, 1. It must be confessed that the provocation was very great. These murmurings of theirs reflected great dishonour upon God, and Moses laid to heart the reproaches cast on himself; they knew that he did his utmost for their good, and that he neither did nor could do any thing without a divine appointment; and yet to be thus continually teased and clamoured against by an unreasonable ungrateful people would break in upon the temper even of Moses himself. God considered this, and therefore we do not find that he chided him for his uneasiness. 2. Yet Moses expressed himself otherwise than became him upon this provocation, and came short of his duty both to God and Israel in these expostulations. (1.) He undervalues the honour God had put upon him, in making him the illustrious minister of his power and grace, in the deliverance and guidance of that peculiar people, which might have been sufficient to balance the burden. (2.) He complains too much of a sensible grievance, and lays too near his heart a little noise and fatigue. If he could not bear the toil of government, which was but running with the footman, how would he bear the terrors of war, which was contending with horses? He might easily have furnished himself with considerations enough to enable him to slight their clamours, and make nothing of them. (3.) He magnifies his own performances, that all the burden of the people lay upon him;<\/I> whereas God himself did in effect ease him of all the burden. Moses needed not to be in care to provide quarters for them, or victuals; God did all. And, if any difficult case happened, he needed not to be in any perplexity, while he had the oracle to consult, and in it the divine wisdom to direct him, the divine authority to back him and bear him out, and almighty power itself to dispense rewards and punishments. (4.) He is not so sensible as he ought to be of the obligation he lay under, by virtue of the divine commission and command, to do the utmost he could for his people, when he suggests that because they were not the children of his body therefore he was not concerned to take a fatherly care of them, though God himself, who might employ him as he pleased, had appointed him to be a father to them. (5.) He takes too much to himself when he asks, Whence should I have flesh to give them<\/I> (v.<\/I><\/span> 13<\/span>), as if he were the housekeeper, and not God. Moses gave them not the bread,<\/I> John vi. 32<\/I><\/span>. Nor was it expected that he should give them the flesh, but as an instrument in God’s hand; and if he meant, “Whence should God have it for them?” he too much limited the power of the Holy One of Israel. (6.) He speaks distrustfully of the divine grace when he despairs of being able to bear all this people,<\/I> v.<\/span> 14<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. Had the work been much less, he could not have gone through it in his own strength; but had it been much greater, through God strengthening him, he might have done it. (7.) It was worst of all passionately to wish for death, and desire to be killed out of hand, because just at this time his life was made a little uneasy to him, v.<\/I><\/span> 15<\/span>. Is this Moses? Is this the meekest of all the men on the earth? The best have their infirmities, and fail sometimes in the exercise of that grace for which they are most eminent. But God graciously overlooked Moses’s passion at this time, and therefore we must not be severe in our animadversions upon it, but pray, Lord, lead us not into temptation.<\/I><\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verses 4-9:<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Mixed multitude,” ha saphsuph, <\/strong>“the gathered,” mentioned only here and in Ex 12:38. The identity of this group is uncertain. It is likely they were like the man of Le 24:10, the son of an Israeli woman and an Egyptian man. They were riffraff, the rabble and, hangers-on who accompanied Israel out of Egypt, <\/strong>but who had no real commitment to Jehovah and His Covenant. The absence of any reference to this “mixed multitude” in later years suggests they may have returned to Egypt, or that they may have died out, or that they may have joined with the tribes who lived in the Sinai Peninsula.<\/p>\n

The carnality of this mixed multitude <\/strong>had a devastating effect upon Israel, causing them to “weep again.” This refers to the complaining for which the judgment of burning had so recently fallen, at Taberah.<\/p>\n

The rigors of Egyptian slavery had faded from Israel’s mind. They remembered only the plentiful and tasty food they had enjoyed in Egypt. The Nile teemed with fish, so plentiful that they were virtually free. The fertile soil produced the vegetables and fruits which they enjoyed. The memory of these delicacies were enhanced by distance, and by the sharp contrast with the supply of manna which was their daily diet, Ex 16:14-36, q.v.<\/p>\n

“Cucumbers,” qishshuim. <\/strong>The succulent cucumbers of Egypt were famous to all who traveled that land.<\/p>\n

“Melons,” abattichim, <\/strong>water-melons, enjoyed alike by the rich and the poor.<\/p>\n

“Leeks,” chatsir, <\/strong>translated by the Septuagint as to prasa, <\/strong>chives.<\/p>\n

“Onions,” betsel, <\/strong>a staple of Oriental diet.<\/p>\n

`Garlic,” shum, <\/strong>according to Herodotus, a staple in the diet of the pyramid workers. Garlic is still an important part of the diet of Mediterranean peoples.<\/p>\n

Israel’s complaint is typical of today’s attitude among many, who long for the ways of the world when they have at their disposal the best God has to offer, 1Jo 2:17-19.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

4. And the mixed multitude that was among them. A new murmuring of the people is here recorded: for we gather from many circumstances that this relation is different from that which precedes: although, as evil begets evil, it is probable that after they had begun to be affected by the disease of impatience, they spitefully invented grounds for increased tedium and annoyance. Yet there was something monstrous in this madness, that, when they had just been so severely chastised, and part of’ the camp was even yet almost smoking, and when God was hardly appeased, they should have given way to the indulgence of lust, whereby they brought upon themselves a still more severe punishment. Unquestionably, when they again provoked God by their iniquity, the remains of the fire were still before their eyes; whence it appears how greatly they were blinded by their obstinate wickedness. He states, indeed, that the murmuring first began among the strangers, or mixed multitude, who had mingled themselves with the Israelites, as we have seen elsewhere; but he adds that the whole people also were led into imitation of their ungodly complainings. Hence we are taught, that the wicked and sinful should be avoided, lest they should corrupt us by their bad example; since the contagion of vice easily spreads. At the same time also, we are warned, that it does not at all avail to excuse us, that others are the instigators of our sin; since it by no means profited the Israelites, that they fell through the influence of others, inasmuch as it was their own lust; which carried them away. In the first place, therefore, we must beware that our corrupt desires do not tempt us, and we must put a restraint upon ourselves; and then that the profane despisers of God do not add fuel to the fire. <\/p>\n

A question here occurs, whether it is sinful to long for flesh; for if so, all our appetites must. likewise be condemned. I answer, that God was not wroth because the desire of flesh affected the Israelites; but, first, their disobedience displeased Him, because they longed to eat; flesh, as it were, against His will, when He would have them content with the manna alone; and then their intemperance and violent passion. For this reason Moses says that they “lusted a lust,” (14) indicating that they abandoned all self-control, so as to go beyond all bounds. In the third place, their ingratitude displeased Him, which is here adverted to, but openly condemned in the Psalm, where the Prophet reproves them, for that God “had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven,” so as to supply them with the “corn of heaven,” and the bread “of angels,” (Psa 78:23<\/span>\ud83d\ude09 and yet, even so they were not restrained from despising so excellent a benefit, and abandoning themselves to lawless intemperance. The rule of moderation, and of a sober and frugal life, which Paul prescribes, is well known; that we should <\/p>\n

“<\/p>\n

know both how to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.” (Phi 4:12<\/span>.) <\/p>\n

Well known, too, is his admonition, that we should <\/p>\n

“<\/p>\n

make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.” (Rom 13:14<\/span>.) <\/p>\n

All improper longing is, therefore, to be repressed, so that we should desire nothing which is not lawful; and, secondly, that our appetites should not be excessive. Hence, when he refers elsewhere to this occurrence, (1Co 10:6<\/span>,)he warns us to fear the judgment of God; “to the intent we should not lust after evil things,” thus distinguishing wild and uncontrolled appetites from such as are moderate and well regulated. <\/p>\n

When they ask, “Who shall give us flesh to eat?” they seek to have it elsewhere than from God, who abundantly supplied them with food, though it was of a different kind. We see, then, that they rebelled with a brutal and blind impetuosity; for necessity was laid upon them by God, that they should eat nothing but manna; against this they struggled like fierce and stubborn beasts, as if they would make God the servant of their lust. <\/p>\n

(14) See Margin A.V. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

E. BITTER EXPERIENCE AT THE GRAVES OF LUST (KIBROTH-HATTAAVAH), vv. 435
TEXT<\/strong><\/p>\n

Num. 11:4<\/span>. And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? 5. We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic; 6. But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, besides this manna, before our eyes. 7. And the manna was as coriander seed, and the color thereof as the color of bdellium. 8. And the people went about, and gathered it, and ground it in pans, and made cakes of it: and the taste of it was as the taste of fresh oil. 9. And when the dew fell upon the camp in the night, the manna fell upon it.<\/p>\n

10. Then Moses heard the people weep throughout their families, every man in the door of his tent: and the anger of the Lord was kindled greatly; Moses also was displeased. 11. And Moses said unto the Lord, Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favor in thy sight, that thou layest the burden of all this people upon me? 12. Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swarest unto their fathers? 13. Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? for they weep unto me, saying, Give us flesh, that we may eat. 14. I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me. 15. And if thou deal thus with them, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I have found favor in thy sight; and let me not see my wretchedness.
16. And the Lord said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. 17. And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone. 18. And say thou unto the people, Sanctify yourselves against to-morrow, and ye shall eat flesh: for ye have wept in the ears of the Lord, saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat? for it was well with us in Egypt: therefore the Lord will give you flesh, and ye shall eat. 19. Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days; 20. But even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised the Lord which is among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt? 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. 22. Shall the flocks and the herds be slain for them, to suffice them? or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, to suffice them? 23. And the Lord said unto Moses, Is the Lords hand waxed short? thou shalt see now whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not.
24. And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the Lord, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle. 25. And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease. 26. But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp. 27. And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. 28. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. 29. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lords people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them. 30. And Moses gat him into the camp, he and the elders of Israel.
31. And there went forth a wind from the Lord, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, as it were a days journey on this side, and as it were a days journey on the other side, round about the camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth. 32. And the people stood up all that day, and all that night, and all the next day, and they gathered the quails: he that gathered least gathered ten homers: and they spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp. 33. And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord smote the people with a very great plague. 34. And he called the name of that place Kibroth-hattaavah: because they buried the people that lusted. 35. And the people journeyed from Kibroth-hattaavah unto Hazeroth; and abode at Hazeroth.<\/p>\n

PARAPHRASE<\/strong><\/p>\n

Num. 11:4<\/span>. And the mixed multitude among them lusted greatly. And the children of Israel also wept again, saying, Who will give us meat to eat? 5. We remember the fish which we ate in Egypt for nothing; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic; 6. but now our soul is withered away: there is nothing at all excepting this manna for us to see. 7. And the manna was like coriander seed, and its color was like the color of bdellium. 8. The people went about and gathered it, and ground it in mills or boiled it in a pot and made cakes of it: and its taste was like that of a cake baked with oil. 9. When the dew fell upon the camp during the night, the manna fell with it.<\/p>\n

10. And Moses heard the entire families of the people weeping, each man in the door of his tent: and the anger of the Lord burned greatly, and Moses was displeased. 11. And Moses said to the Lord, Why have you afflicted your servant? and why have I not found favor in your sight, that you lay the burden of all these people upon me? 12. Have I not conceived all these people? have I not begotten them, that you should say to me, Carry them in your bosom as a nursing father carries the sucking child, to the land you have pledged unto their fathers? 13. From what source should I have meat to give to all these people? because they weep to me, saying, Give us meat for us to eat. 14. I am not able to bear all these people alone; it is too heavy for me. 15. And if you deal this way with us, kill me, I pray, here and now if I have found favor in your sight. Do not let me see my own misery.
16. Then the Lord said unto Moses, Gather to me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be elders of the people and officers over them, and bring them to the Tent of Meeting, and let them stand there with you. 17. I will come down and talk with you there: and I will take of the Spirit which is upon you, and I will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you so that you shall not bear it all alone. 18. And say to the people, Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow, and you shall eat meat; for you have wept in the ears of the Lord, saying, Who will give us meat to eat? For it was well with us in Egypt. Therefore the Lord will give you meat and you shall eat. 19. You shall eat, not one day, nor two days, nor ten days, nor twenty days, 20. but an entire month, until it comes out your nostrils, and is loathsome to you; because you have despised the Lord who is among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why did we leave Egypt? 21. And Moses said, The people, among whom I am, are 600,000 foot soldiers; yet you have said, I will give you meat to let them eat for an entire month. 22. Shall flocks and herds be killed for them, to satisfy them? or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, to satisfy them? 23, And the Lord said to Moses, Is the Lords hand too short? You shall see now whether my word will come to pass to you or not.
24. So Moses went out and told the people the words of the Lord, and gathered seventy men of the elders of the people, and stationed them around the Tent. 25. Then the Lord came down in a cloud, and spoke to him, and took of the Spirit who was upon him, and gave it to the seventy elders; and it happened that when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied; but they did not do it again. 26. But two men had remained in camp. The name of one was Eldad, and the name of the second, Medad: and the Spirit rested upon themthey were among those who had been registered, but had not gone out to the Tentand they prophesied in the camp. So a young man ran and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp. 28. Then Joshua, the son of Nun, the servant of Moses from his youth, answered and said, Moses my lord, restrain them. 29. But Moses said to him, Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lords people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them! 30. Then Moses retired into the camp, he and the elders of Israel.
31. Now a wind went forth from the Lord and brought quail from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, about a days journey on this side, and about a days journey on the other side, all around the camp, and about three feet deep on the surface of the ground. 32. And the people stood up all that day, and all that night, and all the next day, and gathered the quail: he who gathered least gathered ten homers. And they spread them out for themselves all around the camp. 33. And while the meat was still between their teeth, before it was chewed, the anger of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord struck the people with a grave plague. 34. Therefore he called the name of that place Qivroth-hattawah (Graves of Lust), because there they buried the people who lusted. From Qivroth-hattawah they traveled to Hatseroth, and they stayed at Hatseroth.<\/p>\n

COMMENTARY<\/strong><\/p>\n

The term mixed multitude is generally understood to mean those riff-raffs who had attached themselves to Israel when leaving Egypt. Some have thought them to be renegade Israelites; others believe they were combination marriages of Israelites and Egyptians. They are mentioned twice elsewhereas a group in Exo. 12:38<\/span>, and in an individual instance in Lev. 24:10<\/span>; both times the occasions are altogether unfavorable. How many of them there were is an unsettled question, but any appreciable number could cause a deterioration of morale quickly. Their wish here is for some of the rich, strongly flavored foods they had enjoyed in Egypt. The wish is shared by Israel, which also wept again. The flesh for which they cry is a general term for all meat. The animals which Israel brought forth with them during the exodus would hardly have kept their tables supplied with meat, and no real help might have been gained from the locale. Wild animals are sparse enough to be rare.<\/p>\n

However unusual it might seem to our tastes that the complaint was for such items as leeks, onions and garlic, we must remember that all of these were delicacies to the Egyptians, as well as other residents of the Middle East. We should not assume, as Num. 11:5<\/span> suggests, that the Israelites were given their food for nothing, literally, for as RCP shows, the Egyptians were unwilling even to give them the straw necessary for bricks, p. 134. The same source further affirms that the people were murmuring on a trumped-up pretext, since the text would later say that the Children of Reuben had much cattle, (Num. 32:1<\/span>). Their statement that their souls had withered away may have been correct (Num. 11:6<\/span>); but they were entirely incorrect in attributing the fact to the matter of their food. The obvious fact is that they had lost their faith in a providential Godassuming that this rabble had had some faith in Him earlier.<\/p>\n

The description of manna given in Num. 11:7-9<\/span> is only a brief summary of that in Exo. 16:14-30<\/span>. In the fuller passage, we learn of the versatility of manna: it was capable of being baked or boiled, suggesting a food like our potato whose use is limited only to the genius of the cook herself. Evidently God provided the manna with a careful balance of nutrients to safeguard the health of the people who would eat little else for forty years.<\/p>\n

Is the factor of food the only cause for the unhappiness among the Israelites? It is not likely, and the Talmud suggests that the root cause was actually the firm line Jehovah had taken against the marriage of near of kin to one another. Their protests annoy both the Lord and Moses. The former is displeased because of the ingratitude and ungoverned passions of His people; Moses is disturbed because of the consequences of their complaints. They have placed an unbearable burden upon him. His situation is similar to that described in Exodus 18<\/span>, when Jethro suggested a relief from the intensity of judging all difficulties through the appointment of judges for lesser problems. Moses is entirely correct when he says, I am not able to bear all these people alone; and God did not intend for it to be his sole responsibility.<\/p>\n

The dialogue of 1020 is one of several intimate glimpses we have of the relationship Moses enjoyed with Jehovah. The conversation is much too frank and realistic to have been imagined. We gain a very human picture of Moses, lending strong credence to the genuineness of the text. We are also shown once more the intensity with which this great man identifies himself with his people; even when they are under strong threat. If they are to perish, he will go with them.<\/p>\n

In giving of His Spirit to the seventy elders of the people, nothing of the Divine Presence in Moses was diminished, (Num. 11:17<\/span>). The Holy Spirit may indwell every living person alive at any given time to the full capacity of each. Such is certainly a part of our concept of the omnipresence of God. The seventy will be specially heightened in their powers of weighing right and wrong in settling disputes; they will thus shoulder a portion of the load which has, to this point been Moses exclusively.<\/p>\n

It is fascinating to realize now that God insisted upon having all the people prepare themselves for His revelation by undergoing the process of sanctification: and the purpose of this revelation is to demonstrate His righteous wrath. Severe punishment will follow. Their false words, that all had been well in Egypt, are typical of a spirit of ungratefulness, and show what short memories they had. The arduous burdens of servitude are forgotten, and the few occasional pleasures such as the foods, have been remembered disproportionately. We can only think of them as rather typicaltoo very much like ourselves.<\/p>\n

For many of the murmurers, the food they are about to eat will constitute their last meal. God promises meat in such abundance that they shall eat for an entire month, adding the graphic picture that the food will come out of their nostrils and be loathsome to them. The points to be established are clear: the people must be sternly rebuked for their complaints and ingratitude; they must be brought to see the mighty power of God again as He provides such a vast quantity of food for them, demonstrating that His hand is by no means shortened; they must come to trust Him to provide their every need, but not to cater to their trivial whims and wants; they must be brought to realize that their present state is infinitely better than their former, and the promised covenant land will shortly be available to them, unless their faith falters. The real key to the Lords words is the statement that they have despised the Lord, (Num. 11:20<\/span>). In this state, we should not be surprised at any actions or any foolish words. The emerging pattern is clear: their love has cooled, they take up unfounded complaints, and the next step would be rebellion.<\/p>\n

We can hardly blame Moses for wondering where the Lord will find an adequate quantity of meat for the soldiers, not to mention their families and all the Israelites. He had been frustrated before, as Israel stood at the beach of the Red Sea, having not the least idea of Gods plan to divide the waters. He had been uncertain as the Israelites murmured for water. How can he conceivably anticipate the actions of God, when the promise is made to feed the people for an entire month on meat which is not their own? His suggestion that the answer may come from fish out of the sea is typical of his confusion. They are a great distance from any sizeable body of waterat least 20 miles from the Gulf of Aqabaand whether or not any quantity of fish might be available from this source is highly doubtful. Gods rebuke once more is spoken with the typical intimacy between Himself and Moses. Even the great leader needed prodding occasionally, which brings us to see that he was, after all, only a man, however noble. The figure of Gods shortened hand suggests His inability to accomplish His purposes. Isaiah used the figure with the same meaning (Isa. 1:2<\/span>; Isa. 59:1<\/span>). It is both simple and expressive, occurring here rhetorically. The answer Moses must give is a resounding No.<\/p>\n

The Lords descent into the Tabernacle is indicated by the cloud once more, and this time under abnormal circumstances. The seventy specially appointed elders are at hand as the Spirit of the Lord is shared. The scene is allegorized by RCP: What was Moses like at that moment? He was like a light placed in a candlestick from which everyone kindles additional lights, and yet the illumination of the original light is by no means diminished, (p. 136). Their prophesying is limited to this day alone; but it served to demonstrate to the people that God had in fact set them apart unto a holy work. It was a faith-building demonstration.<\/p>\n

We cannot know why Eldad and Medad did not join with the others at the Tabernacle. They were, nevertheless, equally endowed with the Spirit and empowered to prophesy. No doubt their reason for abstention was acceptable to the Lord. We cannot fault them, nor can we criticize the young man who reported their works. He might have thought their actions were deliberate disobedience which he was obligated to report. Even Joshua considers their actions in error, and asks for their correction and restraint. He is mildly rebuked by Moses, who sees the deeper issue: God has evidently approved their conduct, since they have shared in the gift of His Spirit. If God approves of their situation, they should be encouraged rather than condemned. It is more to be desired that all of the people might share in this charisma. With this preliminary sign, God has prepared the way for the great miracle which is to follow.<\/p>\n

A specially prepared wind from the Lord, said to have come from the south and east (Psa. 78:26<\/span>) rained quail upon the camp in vast quantities. Great migrations of quail have been seen in this area, flying from Africa to Europe in the spring. Using the great wind, He sent the quail off their normal course and directly to the camp. There they were literally said to have been thrown down among the Israelites to the depth of about three feet, where they were gathered in vast quantities by the people. It is difficult to say exactly how large these quantities were, since the homer was a variable measure. The size of the homer is often given as ten ephahs, or about two bushels. Whatever the precise amount might have been, it was quite sufficient to show that this was no normal phenomenon. God was keeping His word literally that there would be enough to suffice for one month. All this would both shame their unbelief and punish their greediness, (KD, p. 73). No doubt the quail would have been widely spread over the earth to dry, since their consumption would require many days.<\/p>\n

The account now takes an unexpected turn. PC proposes to explain the visitation of divine wrath, attributing it to the greediness of the people in gathering such great measures of the quail in anticipation of later feasts, while postponing their enjoyment of the divinely given food, p. 112. It may rather be that, despite this great manifestation of Gods providence, the hearts of the murmurers were unmoved, ungrateful and still disrespectful toward the Lord. Their motive is indicated by the name attached to the place: Graves of greediness; a greedy spirit cannot allow for gratitude. The location of the spot is not known, nor do we know how long the camp remained. It is certain they were not now permitted to eat of the meat for the thirty days; the patience of the Lord had been exhausted.<\/p>\n

Hazeroth, to which Israel is now led, has been identified with a fountain named Ain el Hadhera; but the identification is based solely upon similarity of the words. Like most of the other desert stations, it would be more remarkable if they could be identified than if they could not, since they represent only temporary campsites.<\/p>\n

QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH ITEMS<\/strong><\/p>\n

199.<\/p>\n

Discuss the mixed multitude among the Israeliteswho they were, why they were a source of difficulty, and the purported reasons for their complaints.<\/p>\n

200.<\/p>\n

Why were the murmurings of these people of such concern to the Lord?<\/p>\n

201.<\/p>\n

Why did the Israelites not supplement the manna with meat gained from hunting?<\/p>\n

202.<\/p>\n

In what ways were these complainers misrepresenting their situation in Egypt? Show how their position was typical of human nature.<\/p>\n

203.<\/p>\n

Suggest some of the ways in which manna might have been prepared.<\/p>\n

204.<\/p>\n

What was the possible underlying cause for all the unhappiness of the crowd?<\/p>\n

205.<\/p>\n

How is Moses situation here similar to his previous experience in judging the people?<\/p>\n

206.<\/p>\n

Analyze the warmly human characteristics of Moses as they emerge in his dialogue with the Lord (Num. 11:10-20<\/span>).<\/p>\n

207.<\/p>\n

Why did Moses continually identify himself with his people, rather than recognize the foolishness of their complaining natures?<\/p>\n

208.<\/p>\n

For what immediate purposes did the Lord grant His Spirit to the seventy elders? Why did they prophesy? Why did this special gift not continue?<\/p>\n

209.<\/p>\n

What purposes would be served if the Lord provided enough meat for all the children of Israel to eat for one month?<\/p>\n

210.<\/p>\n

Why did Moses not simply accept the fact that God would be able to accomplish this feat?<\/p>\n

211.<\/p>\n

Explain the phrase, Is the Lords hand waxed short?<\/p>\n

212.<\/p>\n

Were there legitimate reasons that Eldad and Medad did not go with the other elders to the Tent of Meetings? How can you justify their absence?<\/p>\n

213.<\/p>\n

How could such a vast quantity of quail be at precisely this place at the exact time the Lord had foretold their coming?<\/p>\n

214.<\/p>\n

Why is the action of the wind important in this event?<\/p>\n

215.<\/p>\n

How long did the Israelites spend in gathering the birds? In what quantities were they taken?<\/p>\n

216.<\/p>\n

God had said the people would eat of the meat for one month; what actually happened, and why?<\/p>\n

217.<\/p>\n

Why is it difficult to identify many of the stations at which the Israelites camped in the wilderness?<\/p>\n

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(4) And the mixt multitude.<\/strong>The Authorised Version follows the LXX. and the Vulgate in rendering the word asaph-suph, <\/em>which occurs only in this place, and which is derived from a verb which means to collect, in the same way as the ereb <\/em>of Exo. 12:38<\/span>, a mixed multitude, vulgus promiscuum<\/em>in many cases, probably, the children of Hebrew women by Egyptian fathers. This mixed multitude appears to have been very considerable, and they may have become, as the Gibeonites at a later period, servants to the Israelites, as hewers of wood and drawers of water (Deu. 29:11<\/span>). It is probable that this mixed multitude may have partaken even more largely than the Israelites of the fish and vegetables of Egypt, and they appear to have instigated the Israelites to repine at the deprivations to which they were exposed in the wilderness. There is no mention in Exo. 16:3<\/span> of weeping, but the same craving after the flesh-pots of Egypt was probably manifested in the same manner in both cases.<\/p>\n

Who shall give us flesh to eat?<\/strong>The word basar, <\/em>which is rendered flesh, <\/em>seems here to includeit may be to have primary reference tofish. <\/em>It is used of fish in Lev. 11:11<\/span>, and it is obvious from Num. 11:22<\/span> that it was understood by Moses in this general signification. Cp. the use of flesh <\/em>(1Co. 15:39<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

4<\/strong>. <\/strong> Mixed multitude <\/strong> The Hebrew is very expressive, it being a syllable intensively repeated, saph-sooph, the gathering of the gathered, <\/em> much like our word riffraff, <\/em> or ruffscuff. <\/em> “With these two millions of Israelites also went up a mixed multitude of varied descent, drawn in the wake of God’s people by the signs and wonders so lately witnessed just as a mixed crowd still follows after every spiritual movement, a source of hinderance rather than of help to it, ever continuing strangers, and at most only fit to act as hewers of wood and drawers of water.” Edersheim. <\/em> Tacitus, though egregiously caricaturing Jewish history in many particulars, employs a phrase peculiarly appropriate to this mongrel horde of hangers-on and camp-followers when he describes Israel as “populi colluvies undecumque collecta,” the dregs of people collected from everywhere. <\/em> See Exo 12:38<\/span>, note. Many of this mixed multitude were related to Israel by intermarriage. Lev 24:10<\/span>, note. There is nothing more damaging to the cause of Christ, and to the purity of his Church, than intimacy with men of mixed <\/em> principles. This association is much more dangerous than it is with men of unmixed evil characters, whose open hostility puts the Christian on his guard. <\/p>\n

Fell a lusting <\/strong> Hebrew, lusted a lust. <\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

Wept again <\/strong> Literally, returned and wept. <\/em> Similar complaining, respecting the absence of flesh, but without mention of tears, took place in the desert of Sin, Exo 16:2-12<\/span>. The Israelites, instead of feeling disgust at the animalism of the mob, began to imitate them. “A few factious, discontented, ill-natured people may do a great deal of mischief in the best societies, if great care be not taken to discountenance it. This Egyptian rabble were the disordered sheep that infected the flock, the leaven that leavened the whole lump.” Henry<\/em>. <\/p>\n

Flesh to eat <\/strong> This is not the language of the starving, but of epicures. Their gross appetites were not satisfied with the wholesome food from heaven plentifully bestowed. The best Hebraists consider the flesh <\/strong> in this verse as the flesh of fish only, a much more savory food than any flesh diet which was likely to be within reach of the oppressed Israelites. Fish was, and is to this day, a staple article of food among the poor in Egypt.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Grumbling Again Flares Up: Murmuring For Meat Instead Of Manna ( Num 11:4-15<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ).<\/strong> <\/p>\n

What follows brings home to us something of the condition of many of the people. They were not on the whole a people of quiet faith, but a people full of doubts and worries, and in no mental condition to face the rigours of the desert. They had been delivered from slavery and did not have the backbone for what they had to face. That was why Yahweh had sought to counter this at Sinai, both by His firm covenant and His giving of the Dwellingplace as a visible sign among them. But they had on the whole not responded in true faith and were thus vulnerable. <\/p>\n

The passage is constructed as follows: <\/p>\n

a <\/strong> The rabble sinfully desire delicacies (Num 11:4<\/span> a). <\/p>\n

b <\/strong> The people cry, ‘who will give us flesh to eat?’ (Num 11:4<\/span> b). <\/p>\n

c <\/strong> The description of their complaint (Num 11:5-6<\/span>). <\/p>\n

d <\/strong> Description of the manna (Num 11:7-8<\/span>). <\/p>\n

d <\/strong> The manna falls (Num 11:9<\/span>). <\/p>\n

c <\/strong> The description of Moses complaint (Num 11:10-12<\/span>). <\/p>\n

b <\/strong> The people weep saying, ‘Give us flesh that we may eat’ (Num 11:13<\/span>). <\/p>\n

a <\/strong> Moses sinfully desires to die (Num 11:14-15<\/span>). <\/p>\n

Num 11:4-6<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘And the rabble who were among them were filled with strong cravings (lusted exceedingly), and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, “Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt which cost us nothing; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic, but now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all save this manna to look on.’ <\/p>\n

What was more there were ‘rabble’ among them who were seeking to stir things up. The rabble are often considered to be ‘the mixed multitude’ of Exo 12:38<\/span> but there are no real grounds for blaming the mixed multitude here. That was the result of the racism of the LXX translators who looked for somewhere to put the blame. Indeed most of the mixed multitude had probably been absorbed into Israel as a result of Sinai. The term used here is totally different from Exo 12:38<\/span>. Here it is the ‘rabble’, the low life among the people (asaphsuph – the ‘gathering of reeds’, useless things, promising much but offering little), who were involved, those possessed by pure greed and godlessness, and full of their own importance and jealous of Moses. <\/p>\n

There are always a troublesome minority among all peoples. In this case these were the ones who started the complaints and stirred up the people, so that dissatisfaction soon spread and clearly deeply upset a people already traumatised by the conditions they were travelling under. It had caught them unprepared, even though Yahweh had tried to prepare them. The stronger were undermining the weaker. We must all be careful when we begin to murmur that we do not undermine the faith of others. Those who are strong need to bear the burdens of those who are weak (Rom 15:1<\/span>), not undermine them. <\/p>\n

But the malcontents could not have succeeded if Israel had been looking to Yahweh and the things of the Spirit. Note that while the Israelites mentioned ‘flesh’ they were thinking rather of a change of diet, as their list of the pleasures of Egypt brings out. In their list they did not actually mention meat specifically, but fish and vegetables. What they wanted was something different from the manna. It is true that they could have eaten their cattle and sheep (although see Num 11:22<\/span>), but they would be reluctant to do that when they were not actually starving. Those were necessary for the future ahead. Such eating was not essential. They had the manna to keep them alive. But what they wanted were delicacies, and a change of diet. Note their contemptuous dismissal of ‘this manna’. When they had been starving they had delighted in it. Now their stomachs were full they were not satisfied with it. They were lacking in appreciation and gratitude because enjoyment of food had become more important to them than appreciating God. <\/p>\n

The point was not that they were hungry, as they had been in the Wilderness of Sin (Exo 16:3<\/span>), but that they were living on a permanent diet of manna. It was the struggle of the flesh against the spirit. Had their hearts been set on Yahweh they would have rejoiced to receive the manna from His hands. They would have been full of joy continually. But greed for delicious food was so strong that they wept. Their thoughts were purely selfish. They did not want to have to wait for ‘milk and honey’ in the future, they wanted it now. The manna had once been welcomed enthusiastically. Now it was taken for granted. It had become monotonous and prosaic. They just felt that they had had enough. They wanted the good things of life. They had reached a low level. <\/p>\n

So their minds went back to the freely available fish in Egypt that they could catch in the Nile and its tributaries, the abundance of watermelons with their rich, cool satisfying taste, so plentiful in their season that even the poorest could afford them, and all the other delicious foods that they had once enjoyed. Forgotten was the penury and servitude. Their eyes were gluttonous and fixed on food. The foods described are all of a type that the poor in Egypt would eat. Onions flourished better in Egypt than elsewhere, and had a mild and pleasant taste. According to Herodotus ii. 125, they were the ordinary food of the workmen at the pyramids. They still form a basic food for the poor there, and are also a favourite dish with all classes, either roasted, or boiled as a vegetable, and eaten with meat. Garlic is mentioned by Herodotus in connection with onions, as forming a leading article of food with the Egyptian workmen <\/p>\n

We may look askance at Israel but we are not so different. Even today the Bread of Life (Joh 6:35<\/span>) can become monotonous and prosaic to us because of our sinful hearts, so that it results in extremes in religion which are not helpful. Men become bored with true goodness, and meditation on the word of God. They want excitement that panders to the flesh, dressed up as spirituality. Or they seek to the flesh pots of Egypt. <\/p>\n

Num 11:7<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘And the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance as the appearance of bdellium.’ <\/p>\n

The manna is described. It was in deliberate contrast to the luxuries of Egypt. All they had was this one small ‘seed’. It was in shape and size somewhat like coriander seeds. Coriander seeds are from the fruit of the Coriandrum sativum (of the natural order Umbelliferae), which was a plant indigenous around the Mediterranean and extensively cultivated. It was used for medicinal and culinary purposes from at least 1500 BC. The fruits are aromatic and were thought to assist flatulence. They are of a greyish-yellow colour, ribbed, globular and oval, and in size about twice that of a hemp-seed being about four millimetres in diameter. Bdellium is a pale yellow transluscent resin. Exo 16:14<\/span>; Exo 16:31<\/span> says that the manna was flaky like hoar frost, white and tasting like honey. Thus manna was like small flaky seeds, and probably whitish-yellow and smooth. <\/p>\n

More modern examples have been cited of an unidentified white substance which one morning covered a fairly large area of ground in Natal and was eaten by the natives, and also of falls of whitish, odourless, tasteless matter in Southern Algeria which, at a time of unusual weather conditions, covered tents and vegetation each morning. While not being the same as the Manna, or lasting over so long a period, these do indicate the kind of natural phenomena which God may have used to bring about His miracle. <\/p>\n

Num 11:8<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘The people went about, and gathered it, and ground it in mills, or beat it in mortars, and boiled it in pots, and made cakes of it, and the taste of it was as the taste of fresh oil.’ <\/p>\n

It was collected in pots and ground in their hand-mills or beaten in mortars, it was then boiled or turned into cakes and tasted like the taste of fresh olive oil, reminding the people of honey. So they clearly tried different ways of making it enjoyable. But nothing could fully relieve its monotony. However, as long as they were not greedy it never made them ill (Exo 16:20<\/span>). Had their faith been strong they would have accepted it gladly from the hand of God because their satisfaction was elsewhere and was spiritual. But they were carnal and their food meant a lot to them, while God did not. So they broke down at the thought of what they were missing, they ‘wept’. They felt sorry for themselves. <\/p>\n

“The taste of it was as the taste of fresh oil.”<\/strong> It was good and wholesome. But the people did not want what was good and wholesome, they wanted what tickled the palate. They wanted the lusts of the flesh and not the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:16<\/span> onwards). <\/p>\n

Num 11:9<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘And when the dew fell on the camp in the night, the manna fell on it.’ <\/p>\n

It fell during the early morning after the dew. It was probably the result of the unusual weather conditions at the time, coming from we know not where. But in the end it was ‘from heaven’. The reason for giving this information about the manna was in order to remind the readers of how good God was being to His people. <\/p>\n

Num 11:10<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘And Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families, every man at the door of his tent, and the anger of Yahweh was kindled greatly, and Moses was displeased.’ <\/p>\n

The influence of the rabble, no doubt deliberately spread among the remainder so as to undermine Moses, had reached deep into the hearts of the ordinary people. This comes out in that Moses heard them weeping ‘throughout their families’ in their tents. That is quite a disturbing statement and illustrates the state that some of them were in. We must not underestimate it. Their faith had collapsed, and they were totally disillusioned. <\/p>\n

We must not see these as people in a fairly good state of mind just muttering because they were dissatisfied. Rather, because their thoughts were not on God, they were very vulnerable and were being deeply affected by the rabble. They had begun to feel very sorry for themselves and did not have sufficient faith to sustain them. They were collapsing inwardly. They were not used to standing up for themselves. <\/p>\n

The picture is quite vivid. The whole of Israel were weeping. This was hardly natural, but after all their sufferings this round of discontent had proved one step too much. The traumatic effect of making their way through the desert and the wilderness, together with the boring nature of the manna, had clearly been brought home to them in a forceful way through the complaining of the rabble so that they were genuinely on the point of despair, and in a desperate state of mind. All their fears and worries were coming out as a result. They were on the verge of break down. They had passed the point of being able to cope. But had their hearts been fixed on Yahweh it would not have happened. The problem was that all their thoughts were fixed on themselves. <\/p>\n

Yahweh saw it and was ‘angry’. That is, in His righteousness He felt an aversion to their behaviour, for He knew what lay at the root of it, unbelief. He had delivered them from Egypt, He had provided them with the manna, and they were so ungrateful and so worldly minded that they were actually despising both and wishing He had never bothered. They were forgetting, as He had not, how desperate they had been then (Exo 2:23<\/span>). All that He had planned for them now mattered to them not a jot. All they wanted was to enjoy filling their bellies with delicious food. How strange man is that he can allow temporary longings to so replace his confidence in eternal realities for such an unimportant reason. <\/p>\n

Moses too was ‘displeased’. That is, he was upset within himself. The whole situation was getting on top of him, as what follows demonstrates. <\/p>\n

Num 11:11<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘And Moses said to Yahweh, “Why have you dealt ill with your servant? And why have I not found favour in your sight, that you lay on me the burden of all this people?’ <\/p>\n

Moses was aware of how the people were feeling, and how deeply it had gone. As he walked around the camp and heard their distress he found it hard to bear. He felt the pressures piling up on him too as he witnessed their condition. And he went to Yahweh with his problems. He did have sufficient faith, but it needed bolstering. <\/p>\n

He asked Yahweh why He had brought on him the burden of this people, a burden he was finding too difficult. Why had Yahweh dealt so ill with him? Why had Yahweh’s graciousness to him been so lacking? He was finding it hard to cope with their misery. Why had he been given the responsibility of a father for children not his own? <\/p>\n

This prayer of Moses itself follows a chiastic pattern: <\/p>\n

a <\/strong> ‘Why have you evil entreated your servant?’ (Num 11:11<\/span> a) <\/p>\n

b <\/strong> Why have I not found favour in your sight? (Num 11:11<\/span> b) <\/p>\n

c <\/strong> That you lay the burden of all this people on me. (Num 11:11<\/span> c) <\/p>\n

d <\/strong> Have I conceived all this people? Have I brought them forth (Num 11:12<\/span> a) <\/p>\n

e <\/strong> That you should say to me carry them in your bosom — (Num 11:12<\/span> b) <\/p>\n

d <\/strong> From where should I have flesh to give to all this people? (Num 11:13<\/span>) <\/p>\n

c <\/strong> I am not able to bear all this people alone — (Num 11:14<\/span>) <\/p>\n

b <\/strong> Kill me out of hand if I have found favour in your sight (Num 11:15<\/span> a) <\/p>\n

a <\/strong> Let me not see my wretchedness (Num 11:15<\/span> b) <\/p>\n

Num 11:12<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘Have I conceived all this people? Have I brought them forth, that you should say to me, “Carry them in your bosom, as a nursing-father carries the sucking child, to the land which you swear to their fathers?” <\/p>\n

He used the illustration of a father and mother who recognised their responsibility for their own children. But, he pointed out, he was not their father, he had not conceived them. Nor was he their mother who had brought them forth into the world. They were not relations of his. Why then should he have to act towards them as a nursing-father, carrying them in his bosom like a father carries his babes in a sling? Why had he to be the one to bring them to the land of their fathers which Yahweh had sworn to their fathers to give them? Why should he have to carry their burdens? <\/p>\n

Moses probably intended here an indirect reminder to God of Who it was Who was their father, Who it was Who had begotten them and brought them forth (Exo 4:25<\/span>; Deu 1:31<\/span>; Deu 14:1<\/span>; Deu 32:18<\/span>; Isa 1:2<\/span>; Isa 63:16<\/span>). They were really God’s problem not his. He was pointing out that while God could cope with them, he could not. <\/p>\n

We note here an interesting commencement to the building up of the picture of the undeserving of Israel. Here Moses was exasperated with them. In Num 14:11-12<\/span> it would be Yahweh Who became exasperated with them, and in Num 14:26-35<\/span> it would be Yahweh Who was so exasperated that it would be fatal for that generation of Israel. <\/p>\n

It is clear that the people’s distress had really bitten deeply into Moses. Up to this point he had been mainly sustained by seeing their gratitude to be free of Egypt, and their willingness in spite of some failures to respond, and by his desire to bring glory to Yahweh. But now it appeared to him that all that had gone and he was being made responsible for it all. The people were not behaving as he had expected. And he felt unable to cope. He felt at a total loss. He felt it was no longer worth while. <\/p>\n

How often we begin something enthusiastically when all seems to be going well. But then the problems set in and people become lethargic and even grumble and murmur. It is at that point that we often feel like giving up. But if it is of God we have no right to consider giving up. What we must do is what Moses did. Cast ourselves on God, grit out teeth, and go on. <\/p>\n

Num 11:13<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

“From where should I have flesh to give to all this people? For they weep to me, saying, Give us flesh, that we may eat.” <\/p>\n

The heart of Moses comes out here. He had a real concern for the people, and his inability to meet their needs was really hurting. He too had begun to cease looking to Yahweh. Instead his eyes were on the people and their need, and he could not cope with it. It was breaking his heart. That is why he wanted to be done with it. <\/p>\n

It is a reminder that when we face the great need of others we must beware of being so taken up with the need that we forget God, otherwise it will be too much for us. It will get us down too. Sometimes we can only survive by fixing our minds on doing God’s will rather than letting people’s conditions affect us. Otherwise it will destroy us like it was destroying Moses. Sometimes, when conditions are really bad, love has to be harsh, and keep itself held in, in order to survive. There are limits to what a man can take. God alone can keep us under such conditions. <\/p>\n

So in his love for the people Moses felt totally inadequate. He felt that he was just unable to help them. The situation was impossible. They were deeply upset, and clearly on the edge of breaking down. But where on earth was he going to get meat for all these people in the wilderness? The whole situation was getting on top of him, and he felt very much alone. <\/p>\n

Num 11:14<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

“I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me.” <\/p>\n

He frankly told God that he could no longer carry all this burden on his own. It was too much for him. The burden was too heavy. When we find ourselves in what seems an impossible position it pays to be frank with God. It will not make Him any different, but it will help us considerably. <\/p>\n

Num 11:15<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

“And if you deal with me in this way, kill me, I pray you, out of hand, if I have found favour in your sight; and let me not see my wretchedness.” <\/p>\n

Indeed he was so upset that he asked God that he might die. He was staring failure in the face. If God had any pity on him let Him kill him as He had once sought to do (Exo 4:24<\/span>). He could not bear any longer seeing his own inadequacy in the face of the crying needs of these people. He could not bear the wretchedness and helplessness that he felt. He could not bear the thought of letting God down. He wanted out. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

EXPOSITION<\/strong><\/p>\n

KIBROTH<\/strong> HATTAAVAH<\/strong> (Num 11:4-35<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Num 11:4<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The mixed multitude.<\/strong> Hebrew, ha<\/em>–saphsuph, <\/em>the gathered; the rift-raft, or rabble, which had followed the fortunes of Israel out of Egypt, where they had probably been strangers and slaves themselves. What the nature and the number and the fate of this rabble were is a matter of mere conjecture and of some perplexity. There does not seem any room for them in the regulations laid down for Israel, nor are they mentioned in any other place except at Exo 12:38<\/span>. In Le Exo 24:10<\/span> we read of the son of an Israelitish woman by an Egyptian father, and this might lead us to conjecture that a great part of the “mixed <\/em>multitude” was the offspring of such left-handed alliances. These half-breeds, according to the general rule in such cases, would follow their mothers; they would be regarded with contempt by the Jews of pure blood, and would accompany the march as hangers-on of the various tribes with which they were connected. As to their fate, it may be probably concluded, from the reason of things and from the absence of any further notice of them, that they found their way back to the slavery and the indulgences of Egypt; they were bound by no such strong restraints and animated by no such national feelings as the true people of the Lord. And the children of Israel also wept again. <\/strong>This expression, again (Hebrew, , used adverbially), would seem to point to some former weeping, and this is generally found in the “murmuring” <\/em>of which they had been guilty in the desert of Sin (Exo 16:2<\/span>, Exo 16:3<\/span>). This, however, is unsatisfactory for several reasons: first, because that occurrence was too remote, having been more than a year ago; second, because there is no mention of any “weeping” at that time; third, because the matter of complaint on the two occasions was really quite different: then<\/em> they murmured faithlessly at the blank starvation which apparently stared them in the face; now<\/em> they weep greedily at the absence of remembered luxuries. It is therefore much more likely that the expression has regard to the “complaining” which had just taken place at Tabeerah. It was indeed wonderful that the punishment then inflicted did not check the sin; wonderful that it burst out again in an aggravated form almost immediately. But such was the obstinacy of this people, that Divine vengeance, which only perhaps affected a few, and only lasted for a brief space, was not sufficient to silence their wicked clamour. Who shall give us flesh to eat?<\/strong> Septuagint, means flesh-meat generally. They had flocks and herds it is true, but they were no doubt carefully preserved, and the increase of them would little more than suffice for sacrifice; no one would dream of slaughtering them for ordinary eating.<\/p>\n

Num 11:5<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely, <\/strong>i.e; <\/em>gratis. No doubt this was an exaggeration on the part of the murmurers, but it is attested by classical writers that fish swarmed in the Nile waters, and cost next to nothing. Cucumbers. <\/strong>. Cucumbers of peculiar softness and flavour are spoken of by Egyptian travelers as fructus in Egypto omnium vulgatissimus. <\/em>Melons. <\/strong>hsilgnE:egaugnaL}. Water-melons, still called battieh, <\/em>grow in Egypt, as in all hot, moist lands, like weeds, and are as much the luxury of the poorest as of the richest. Leeks.<\/strong> . This word usually means grass (as in Psa 104:14<\/span>), and may do so hare, for the modem Egyptians eat a kind of field-clover freely. The Septuagint, however, translates it by , <\/em>leeks or chives, which agrees better with the context. Pliny (Nat. Hist. 19:33) speaks of it as “laudatissimus porrus in Egypto.<\/em>” Onions. <\/strong>. Garlic.<\/strong> . These are mentioned in the well-known passage of Herodotus (2.125) as forming the staple food of the workmen at the pyramids; these still form a large part of the diet of the labouring classes in Egypt, as in other Mediterranean countries. If we look at these different articles of food together, so naturally and inartificially mentioned in this verse, we find a strong argument for the genuineness of the narrative. They are exactly the luxuries which an Egyptian labourer of that day would have cried out for, if deprived of them; they are not <\/em>the luxuries which a Jew of Palestine would covet, or would even think of. The very words here used for the cucumber, the melon, and the garlic were probably Egyptian, for they may still be recognized in the common names of those vegetables in Egypt.<\/p>\n

Num 11:6<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Our soul is<\/strong> dried away. <\/strong>This exaggerated statement expressed their craving for the juicy and savoury food of which they had been thinking, and which was obviously unattainable in the wilderness. There is a physical craving in man for variety of diet, and especially for such condiments and flavours as he has been used to all his life, which makes the lack of them a real hardship. It is not necessary to condemn the Israelites for feeling very keenly the loss of their accustomed food, which is notoriously the one thing which the poorest classes are <\/strong>least able to bear; it is only necessary to condemn them for making this one loss of more account than all their gain. There is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes. <\/strong>Rather, “we have nothing ( ) except that our eye (falls) upon this manna.” These graphic words speak of the longing looks which turned in every direction after the accustomed dainties, only to fall with disgust upon the inevitable manna. It was very ungrateful of them to speak disparagingly of the manna, which was good and wholesome food, and sufficient to keep them in health and strength; but it is useless to deny that manna only for people who had been accustomed to a rich and varied diet must have been exceedingly trying both to the palate and the stomach (cf. Num 21:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Num 11:7<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The manna was as coriander seed. <\/strong>On the name and the nature of the manna see Exo 16:31<\/span>. It is commonly supposed that the brief description here inserted was intended to show the unreasonableness of the popular complaints. There is no trace whatever of any such purpose. So far as the description conveys fresh information, it was simply suggested by the occurrence of the word “manna,” <\/em>according to the artless style of the narrative. If any moral purpose must be assigned to this digression, it would rather be to suggest that the people had some real temptation to complain. It is often forgotten that, although the manna was supernatural, at least as to the amount and regularity of its supply, yet as an article of food it contained no supernatural elements. If we had to live upon nothing but cakes flavored with honey or with olive oil, it is certain that we should soon find them pall upon our appetite. To the eye of the Psalmist the manna appeared as angels’ food (Psa 78:25<\/span>); but then the Psalmist had not lived on manna every day for a year. We have to remember, in this as in many other cases, that the Israelites would not be “our <\/em>ensamples” ( , <\/em>1Co 10:6<\/span>) if they had not succumbed to real temptations. As the colour of bdellium.<\/strong> See on Gen 2:12<\/span>. As no one knows anything at all about bdellium, this adds nothing to our knowledge of the manna. The Septuagint has here , <\/em>“the appearance of ice,” <\/em>or perhaps “of <\/em>hoar-frost.” As it translates bdellium in Gen 2:12<\/span> by (carbuncle), it is probable that the comparison to ice here is due to some tradition about the manna. Taking this passage in connection with Exo 16:1-36 :81, we may reasonably conjecture that it was of an opalescent white, the same colour probably which is mentioned in connection with manna in Rev 2:17<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Num 11:8<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And the people ground it in mills.<\/strong> This information as to the preparation of the manna is new. It may be supposed that at first the people ate it in its natural state, but that afterwards they found out <\/strong>how to prepare it in different ways for the sake of variety. Small handmills and mortars for the preparation of grain they would have brought with them from their Egyptian homes. As the taste of fresh oil.<\/strong> In Exo 16:31<\/span> it is said to have tasted like wafers made with honey. Nothing is more impossible adequately to describe than a fresh taste. It is sufficient to note that the two things suggested by the taste of the manna, honey and oil, present the greatest possible contrast to the heavy or savoury food which they remembered in Egypt.<\/p>\n

Num 11:9<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And when the dew fell, the manna fell upon it.<\/strong> We know from Exo 16:14<\/span> that when the dew evaporated in the morning it left a deposit of manna upon the ground; we learn here that the manna fell upon the dew during the night. Now the dew is deposited in the cool of the night beneath a clear sky, when radiation of heat goes on uninterruptedly from the earth’s surface; it is clear, therefore, that the manna was let fall in some way beyond human experience from the upper air. What possible physical connection there could be between the dew and the manna we cannot tell. To the untaught mind, however, the dew seemed to come more directly than any other gift of nature from the clear sky which underlay the throne of God; and thus the Jew was led to look upon the manna too as coming to him day by day direct front the storehouse of heaven (cf. Psa 78:23<\/span>, Psa 78:24<\/span>; Psa 105:40<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Num 11:10<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Throughout their families.<\/strong> Every family weeping by itself. Such was the contagion of evil, that every family was infected. Compare Zec 12:12<\/span> for a description of a weeping similar in character, although very different in its cause. Every man in<\/strong> the door of his tent. <\/strong>So that his wailing might be heard by all. So public and obtrusive a demonstration of grief must of course have been pre-arranged. They doubtless acted thus under the impression that if they made themselves sufficiently troublesome and disagreeable they would get all they wanted; in this, as in much else, they behaved exactly like ill-trained children. Moses also was displeased. <\/strong>The word “also” clearly compares and unites his displeasure with that of God. The murmuring indeed of the people was directed against God, and against Moses as his minister. The invisible King and his visible viceroy could not be separated in the regard of the people, and their concerted exhibition of misery was intended primarily for the eye of the latter. It was, therefore, no wonder that such conduct roused the wrath of Moses, who had no right to be angry, as well as the wrath of God, who had every right to be. angry. Moses sinned because he failed to restrain his temper within the exact limits of what befits the creature, and to distinguish carefully between a righteous indignation for Cod and an angry impatience with men. But he sinned under very sore provocation.<\/p>\n

Num 11:11<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant?<\/strong> These passionate complaints were clearly wrong, because exaggerated. God had not <\/em>thrown upon Moses the responsibility of getting the people safely into Canaan, or of providing flesh for them; and apart from these exaggerations, it was a selfish and cowardly thing thus to dwell upon his own grievance, <\/em>and to leave out of sight the grave dishonour done to God, and the awful danger incurred by the people. It was the more blameworthy in Moses because upon a former occasion he had taken upon him, with almost perilous boldness, to remonstrate with God, and to protest against the vengeance he threatened to inflict (Exo 32:11-13<\/span>). In a word, Moses forgot himself and his duty as mediator, and in his indignation at the sin of the people committed the same sin himself. It is a strong note of genuineness that so grave (and yet so natural) a fault should be recorded with such obvious simplicity. Compare the eases of Elijah (1Ki 19:1-21<\/span>) and of Jonah (Jon 4:1-11<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Num 11:12<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father.<\/strong> Probably he meant to say that this was the part and the duty of God himself as the Creator and Father of Israel. Compare the reading, which is perhaps the correct one, in Act 13:18<\/span> : <\/em> .<\/em><\/p>\n

Num 11:14<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1 am not able to bear all this people alone. <\/strong>This complaint, while reasonable in itself, shows how unreasonable the rest of his words were. However many he might have had to share his responsibilities, be could not have provided flesh for the people, nor enabled them to live one day in the wilderness; this had never been laid upon him.<\/p>\n

Num 11:15<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, <\/strong>or “quite.” <\/em>Hebrew, , inf. abs. And let me not see my wretchedness. <\/strong>Let me not live to see the total failure of my hopes and efforts.<\/p>\n

Num 11:16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And the Lord said unto Moses. <\/strong>The Divine dignity and goodness of this answer, if not an absolutely conclusive testimony, are at least a very strong one, to the genuineness of this record. Of what god, except the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was it ever witnessed, or could it have been ever imagined, that he should answer the passionate injustice of his servant with such forbearance and kindness? The one thing in Moses’ prayer which was reasonable he allowed at once; the rest he passed over without answer or reproof, as though it had never been uttered. Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel.<\/strong> That the number seventy has a symbolic significance in Scripture will hardly be denied (cf. Exo 1:5<\/span>; Dan 9:2<\/span>, Dan 9:24<\/span>; Luk 10:1<\/span>), although it is probably futile to affix any precise meaning to it. Perhaps the leading idea of seventy is fullness, as that of twelve is symmetry (see on Exo 15:27<\/span>). The later Jews believed that there were seventy nations in the world. There is no reason, except a reckless desire to confound the sacred narrative, to identify this appointment with that narrated in Exo 18:21<\/span>, sq.<\/em> and Deu 1:9<\/span>, sq. <\/em>The circumstances and the purposes appear quite distinct: those were appointed to assist Moses in purely secular matters, to share his burden as a judge; these to assist him in religious matters, to support him as a mediator; those used the ordinary gifts of wisdom, discretion, and personal authority; these the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. It is more reasonable to suppose that these seventy were the same men that went up into Mount Sinai with Moses, and saw the God of Israel, and ate of the consecrated meal of the covenant, about a year before. Unless there was some decisive reason against it, an elder who had been chosen for that high religious privilege could hardly fail to be chosen on this occasion also; an interview with God himself, so mysteriously and awfully significant, must surely have left an ineffaceable stamp of sanctity on any soul at all worthy of it. It would be natural to suppose that while the present selection was made de novo<\/em>, the individuals selected were personally the same. Compare note on Deu 1:5<\/span>, and for “the elders of Israel” see on Exo 3:16<\/span>. Whom thou knowest to be elders of the people, and officers over them. <\/strong>On the officers (Hebrew, shoterim<\/em>), <\/em>an ancient order in the national organization of Israel, continued from the days of bondage, see Exo 5:6<\/span>. The Targ. Pal. paraphrases the word shoterim <\/em>by “who were set over them in Mizraim.” The Septuagint has hero , <\/em>words so familiar to the reader of the Greek Gospels. The later Jews traced back their Sanhedrim, or grand council of seventy, to this appointment, and found their eiders and scribes in this verse. There was, however, no further historical connection between the two bodies than thisthat when the monarchy failed and prophecy died out, the ecclesiastical leaders of the Jews modeled their institutions upon, and adapted their titles to, <\/em>this Divinely-ordered original.<\/p>\n

Num 11:17<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

I will<\/strong> take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them. <\/strong>The Holy Spirit is one and indivisible. But in the language of Scripture “the Spirit” often stands for the charismata, <\/em>or gifts of the Spirit, and in this sense is freely spoken of as belonging to this or that man. So the “spirit of Elijah” (2Ki 2:9<\/span>, 2Ki 2:15<\/span>), which was transferred to Elisha, as it were, by bequest. It was not, <\/em>therefore, the personal indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost in Moses which God caused him to share with the seventy elders, for that can in no ease be a matter of transfer or of arrangement, but simply those charismata <\/em>or extraordinary gifts of the Spirit which Moses had hitherto enjoyed alone as the prophet of Israel. It is strange that in the face of the clear teaching of St. Paul in 1Co 12:1-31<\/span>, 1Co 13:1-13<\/span>, and in view of such cases as those of Saul (1Sa 10:10<\/span>; 1Sa 19:1-24 :93) and David (1Sa 16:13<\/span>), any difficulty should have been felt about this passage. They shall bear the burden of the people with thee. <\/strong>It does not appear how they were to do this, nor is there any record of their work. Their gifts, however, were spiritual, and we may probably assume that their usefulness lay in producing and maintaining a proper religious tone among the people. The real difficulty which stood in the way of Moses was not one of outward organization or of government, for that had been amply provided for; it lay in the bad tone which prevailed among the people, and threatened to destroy at any moment the very foundations of their national hope and safety. We may see in these seventy not indeed a Sanhedrim to exercise authority and discipline, but the first commencement of that prophetic order which afterwards played so large a part in the religious history of Israel and of the early Christian Churchan order designed kern the first to supplement by the freedom and originality of their ministry the more formal and unvarying offices of the priesthood. If this was the nature of their usefulness, it is not surprising that they are never mentioned again; and it is observable that a similar obscurity hangs over the activity of the prophets of the New Testament, who yet formed a most important part of the gospel regime (cf. 1Co 14:29-32<\/span>; Eph 2:20<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Num 11:18<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Sanctify<\/strong> yourselves against tomorrow. <\/strong>By certain ablutions, and by avoidance of legal pollution (see Exo 19:10<\/span>, Exo 19:14<\/span>, Exo 19:15<\/span>). The people were to prepare themselves as for some revelation of God’s holiness and majesty. In truth it was for a revelation of his wrath, and of the bitter consequences of sin. There is about the words, as interpreted by the result, a depth of very terrible meaning; it was as though a traitor, unknowing of his doom, were bidden to <\/strong>a grand ceremonial on the morrow, which ceremonial should be his own execution. For it was well with us in Egypt. <\/strong>These false and wicked words, in which the base ingratitude of the people reached its highest pitch, are repeated to them in the message of God with a quiet sternness which gave no sign to their callous ears of the wrath they had aroused.<\/p>\n

Num 11:20<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

But even a whole month. <\/strong>There is some little difficulty about these words, because the Israelites do not seem to have made a long stay at Kibroth-Hattaavah, and the miraculous supply does not seem to have followed them. The words are words of stern irony and displeasure, and need not be literally pressed: it was enough that animal food was given them in quantity sufficient to have gorged the whole nation for a month, if they had eared to go on eating it (see below on Num 11:33<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Num 11:21<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And<\/strong> Moses said. <\/strong>Moses had not recovered from the impatient and despairing temper into which the ill-behaviour of the people had betrayed him. He could not really have doubted the Divine power to do this, after what he had seen in the desert of Sin (Exo 16:13<\/span>), but he spoke petulantly, and indeed insolently, out of the misery which was yet in his heart.<\/p>\n

Num 11:22<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Shall the flocks and herds be slain?<\/strong> Which they had brought out of Egypt with them (see on Exo 12:32<\/span>), and which no doubt were carefully husbanded, partly in order to supply them with milk and other produce, partly in order to maintain the sacrifices of the law. All the fish of the sea. <\/strong>A wild expression from which nothing can be fairly argued as to the present position of the camp.<\/p>\n

Num 11:23<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Is<\/strong> the Lord’s hand waxed short? <\/strong>So that it cannot reach far enough to fulfill his purposes. This simple and expressive figure of speech is adopted by Isaiah (Isa 1:2<\/span>; Isa 59:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Num 11:24<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Moses went out, <\/strong>i.e; <\/em>out of the tabernacle. It is not stated that he went into the tabernacle to bring his complaint before the Lord, but the narrative obviously implies that he did (see on Num 7:89<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Num 11:25<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Lord came down in a cloud, <\/strong>i.e; <\/em>in the cloud which was the symbol of his perpetual presence with. them. At other times this cloud dwelt () above the tabernacle, soaring steadily above it in the clear air; but on certain occasions, for greater impressiveness, the cloud came down and filled the tabernacle, or at any rate the entrance of it, while Moses stood without (cf. Num 12:5<\/span> and Exo 33:9<\/span>; Exo 40:35<\/span>). Took of the spirit which was upon him.<\/strong> Not certainly in anger, or by way of diminishing the fullness of the spirit which was in Moses, but in order that the seventy might participate, and be known to participate, in a gift originally and specially given to Moses. The whole intention of the ceremonial was to declare in the most unmistakable way that the gifts of the seventy were to be exercised only in union with and in subordination to the mediator of Israel. The Targums are substantially correct in their paraphrase: “The Lord made enlargement <\/em>of the spirit that was upon him, and imparted to the seventy men, the eiders.” Theodoret very happily observes on this passage, “Just as a man who kindles a thousand flames from one does not lessen the first in communicating light to the others, so God did not diminish the grace imparted to Moses by the fact that he communicated of it to the seventy.” They<\/strong> prophesied. <\/strong>The phenomenon here mentioned for the first time was no doubt an ecstatic utterance, not exactly beyond the control, but certainly beyond the origination, of those who prophesied. It must not be confounded with that state of calm, spiritual exaltation in which such men as Isaac and Jacob spake concerning things to come (Heb 11:20<\/span>; cf. Gen 27:29<\/span>; Gen 49:28<\/span>). The Hebrew means literally “were caused to pour forth,” and the fundamental idea is that those affected became for the time being vents for the audible utterance of thoughts and expressions which were not theirs, but the Holy Ghost’s. Compare the thought in Job 32:18-20<\/span>, and the case of Saul and his messengers, as above. As to the matter of these prophesyings, we may probably conclude that they were of the same nature as the ecstatic utterances of the tongues on the day of Pentecost and afterwards; not “prophecy” in the ordinary sense, but inspired glorification of God, and declaration of his wonderful works (Act 2:4<\/span>, Act 2:11<\/span>). And<\/strong> did not cease. <\/strong>Rather, “did not add,” or “repeat.” . Septuagint, . <\/em>The ecstatic utterance did not continue or reappear. The New Testament history no doubt supplies us with the explanation of this. The supernatural sign thus accorded was of little use in itself, and was of much danger, because it attracted to its exhibition an attention which was rather due to more inward and spiritual things. As a sign it was sufficient that it should be once unmistakably manifested before all the people. (cf. 1Co 14:22<\/span>; 1Co 13:8<\/span>). The permanent charisma <\/em>of the Holy Spirit which the seventy received and retained from this time forth was no doubt the or of 1Co 12:28<\/span>; the gift of “help” or “governance,” not in temporal matters, but in the religious education and direction of the people.<\/p>\n

Num 11:26<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

There remained two of the men <\/strong>in the camp. <\/strong>No reason is here given why they did not accompany the rest to the tabernacle; but as they did not thereby forfeit the gift designed for them, it is certain that some necessity or duty detained them. They were of<\/strong> them that were written.<\/strong> This incidental notice shows how usual the practice of writing was, at any rate with Moses, who was “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Act 7:22<\/span>). And<\/strong> they prophesied in the camp. <\/strong>As a sign that they too had received the charisma <\/em>from the Lord. Seeing that it was the work of the Holy Spirit, there was of course nothing really more wonderful in their case than in the <\/strong>ease of the others, but no doubt it seemed so. That men in the camp, and away from the visible center and scene of Divine manifestations, should be accessible to the heavenly afflatus was a vast astonishment to an ignorant people. We may compare the surprise felt by the Jewish Christians when the sign of tongues was shown among the Gentiles (Act 10:45<\/span>, Act 10:46<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Num 11:27<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And<\/strong> there ran a young man. <\/strong>Literally, “the young man,”; , <\/em>Septuagint,by which some understand the young men of the camp collectively, but this is doubtful in grammar and unsatisfactory in sense. If this book was compiled from previous records, of which there are many apparent traces, we may suppose that the name of this young man was there given, but here for some reason omitted.<\/p>\n

Num 11:28<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Joshua the son of Nun.<\/strong> See on Exo 17:9<\/span>. As before, he is called Joshua by anticipation. One of his young men.<\/strong> This implies that there were others who to some extent shared his duties towards Moses; but that Joshua stood in a peculiar relation to his master is evident from Exo 24:13<\/span> and Exo 32:17<\/span>, as well as from this passage itself. My lord Moses, forbid them. Probably he did not know that they had been enrolled, and he was naturally jealous for the honour of Mosesa jealousy which was not at all unnecessary, as the events of the next chapter proved. The prophesying of Eldad and Medad in the camp might well seem like the setting up of an independent authority, not in harmony with that of Moses.<\/p>\n

Num 11:29<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Enviest thou for my sake?<\/strong> In this answer speaks for once “the meekest of men.” It was his sad fate that his position as representative of God obliged him to see repressed with terrible visitations any rebellion against his sole and absolute authority. But he was devoid of personal ambition at all times, and at this time weary and disgusted with the responsibility of ruling such a people. How much more for the glory of God, and for his own peace, would it be if not only these, but all the people, shared the gifts of the Spirit! Mar 9:38<\/span>, Mar 9:39<\/span> presents a partial, but still a striking, parallel.<\/p>\n

Num 11:30<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Moses gat him into the camp. <\/strong>Although the tabernacle stood in the midst of the camp, yet it was practically separated from the tents of the other tribes by an open space and by the encampments of the Levites. There is, therefore, no ground for inferring from this and similar expressions that the record really belongs to a time when the tabernacle was pitched outside the camp.<\/p>\n

Num 11:31<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

A wind from the Lord.<\/strong> A wind Divinely sent for this purpose. In Psa 78:26<\/span> it is said to have been a wind from the east and south, i.e; <\/em>a wind blowing up the Red Sea and across the Gulf of Akabah. And brought quails from the sea. <\/strong>On the “quails” <\/em>(Hebrew, salvim<\/em>probably <\/em>the common quail) see Exo 16:13<\/span>. The Septuagint has in both places , <\/em>“the quail-mother,” the sense of which is uncertain. These birds, which migrate in spring in vast numbers, came from the sea, but it does not follow that the camp was near the sea. They may have been following up the Gulf of Akabah, and been swept far <\/strong>inland by the violence of the gale. Let them fall<\/strong> by the camp. <\/strong>Rather, “threw <\/em>them down on the camp.” . Septuagint, . <\/em>Either the sudden cessation of the gale, or a violent eddying of the wind, threw the exhausted birds in myriads upon the camp (cf. Psa 78:21<\/span>, Psa 78:28<\/span>). Two cubits high upon the face of the <\/strong>earth. The word “high” is not in the original, but it probably gives the true meaning. The Septuagint, , <\/em>is somewhat uncertain. The Targums assert that the quails “flew upon the face of the ground, at a height of two cubits;” and this is followed by the Vulgate (“volabant in acre duobus cubitis altiludine super terram”<\/em>) <\/em>and by many commentators. This idea, however, although suggested by the actual habits of the bird, and adopted in order to avoid the obvious difficulty of the statement, is inconsistent with the expressions used here and in Psa 78:1-72<\/span>. If the birds were “thrown” upon the camp, or “rained” upon it like sand, they could not have been flying steadily forward a few feet above the ground. It is certainly impossible to take the statement literally, for such a mass of birds would have been perfectly unmanageable; but if we suppose that they were drifted by the wind into heaps, which in places reached the height of two cubits, that will satisfy the exigencies of the text: anything like a uniform depth would be the last thing to be expected under the circumstances.<\/p>\n

Num 11:32<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And the people stood up next day. <\/strong>A statement which shows us how greedy the people were, and how inordinately eager to supply themselves with an abundance of animal food. They were so afraid of losing any of the birds that they stayed up all night in order to collect them; probably they only ceased gathering and began to cat when the available supply was spent. Ten homers. <\/strong>It is difficult to calculate the capacity of the homer, especially as it may have varied from age to age. If it contained ten ephahs, as seems to be implied in Eze 45:11<\/span>, and if the estimate of the Rabbinists (which is less than that of Josephus) be correct that the ephah held nearly four and a half gallons of liquid measure, then half a million of men must have collected more quails apiece than would have filled a 450 gallon tub. No doubt the total number was something enormous, and far above anything that could have been supplied by <\/strong>natural agencies. The gift of quails, like that of manna, was one of the gifts of nature <\/strong>proper to that region Divinely multiplied and extended, so as to show forth in the most striking way the boundless power and beneficence of God. They spread them all abroad.<\/strong> In order to dry them in the sun, as the Egyptians used to do with fish (Herod; 2:77), <\/em>and as the South Americans do with beef. Flesh thus cured does not need salt, which the Israelites would not have in sufficient quantities.<\/p>\n

Num 11:33<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed. If <\/strong>this were taken in the most literal sense, it would mean that no one of the people had time to swallow a single morsel of the coveted food ere he was stricken down by the Divine visitation. We can scarcely imagine, however, <\/em>that such was the ease in every single instance. It would indeed appear as if they had with one consent postponed the enjoyment of eating the quails until they had gathered as huge a quantity for future use as possible; as if in defiance and contempt of the Divine warning that their greed would turn to satiety and loathing (see Num 11:19<\/span> and Num 11:32<\/span>). If this were so, then the feast to which they so eagerly looked forward would begin throughout the camps on the second night, and the visitation of God might well have had the sudden and simultaneous character attributed to it here and in Psa 78:30<\/span>, Psa 78:31<\/span>. At any rate the statement of the text positively excludes the idea that they went on eating quails for a whole month, according to the promise (or threat) of Psa 78:20<\/span>. There was flesh enough to have secured the literal fulfillment of that promise by gorging them for a whole month; but it is evident that the Divine wrath anticipated any such tardy revenges, and smote its victims in the very moment of their keenest gratification. The Lord smote the people with a very great plague. <\/strong>Both ancients and moderns state that the flesh of quails is unwholesome (cf. Pliny, 10:23), but this appears to have no very valid foundation. Unquestionably quails eaten for a month by people unused to a flesh diet would produce many and fatal sicknesses; but there is no room for any such natural results here. Whatever form the plague may have taken, it was as clearly supernatural in its suddenness and intensity as the supply of quails itself. We do not know anything as to who were smitten, or how many; the Psalmist tells us that they were “the fattest” and “the chosen in Israel, and we may naturally suppose that those who had been foremost in the lusting and the murmuring were foremost in the ruin which followed.<\/p>\n

Num 11:34<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Kibroth-Hattaavah.<\/strong> The graves of greediness. Septuagint, <\/em>. <\/em>This name, like Tabeerah, was given to the place by the Israelites themselves in connection with their own history; the name, therefore, like the sad memory it enshrined, lived only in the sacred record. It is utterly uncertain where it lay, except that it was apparently the terminus of a three days’ journey from Sinai, and in the desert of Paran. How long they stayed at Kibroth-Hattaavah is also quite uncertain. If the plague followed hard upon the coming of the quails, a few days would suffice for all the events recorded in this chapter, and we may well believe that the people would be only too glad to receive the signal of departure as soon as they had buried their unhappy brethren.<\/p>\n

Num 11:35<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And abode at Hazeroth.<\/strong> Or, “were in Hazeroth.” Septuagint, . <\/em>Hazeroth, from , to shut in, means “enclosures;” so named perhaps from some ancient stone enclosures erected by wandering tribes for their herds and flocks. It has been identified with Ain el Hadhera, a fountain eighteen hours northeast of Sinai, but on no satisfactory grounds beyond a partial resemblance of name. Assuming that the march lay in a northerly direction through the desert of Paran, the Israelites would naturally follow the road which leads across the southern mountain barrier of et-Tih, and on by the Wady es-Zulakeh into the desert plateau. On this road there is a large fountain, with pasturage, at a place called el Ain, and another somewhat further at Bit ed-Themmed. One or other of these was probably the site of Hazeroth (cf. Stanley, Sinai,’ page 84). It is, however, entirely a matter of conjecture, and of little real interest. The progress of Israel which is of unfading importance to us is a moral and religious, and not a geographical, progress.<\/p>\n

HOMILETICS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Num 11:4-35<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

THE SIN OF CONCUPISCENCE, AND ITS PUNISHMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

We have in this section a Divine commentary, in dark and terrible characters, on the commandment, “Thou shalt not covet.” And we know that the record was given to us “to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted” (1Co 10:6<\/span>). We have also, intermingled with the dark record of sin and wrath, a beautiful picture of the long-suffering of God with the errors and impatience of his servant, and of the unfettered energy of his free Spirit. In all these things they were , <\/em>our examples. Consider, therefore<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> ALL<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> SIN<\/strong> AND<\/strong> MISERY<\/strong> BEGAN<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> “LUST<\/strong>,” i.e; <\/em>UNHALLOWED<\/strong> AND<\/strong> UNRESTRAINED<\/strong> DESIRE<\/strong>, which is indeed the inner source of all iniquity, because it is the will of the creature setting itself upon that which the Creator has forbidden or denied; hence it is the simplest and readiest way in which the creature can rebel against the Creator, for it is always possible, and indeed easy, to lust, and there is no one who is not tempted to it. Thus Eve lusted for the forbidden fruit, and brought death into the world. Even so St. James says, “Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and is enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin.” And our Saviour, that all evil proceeds out of the heart, which is the seat of the emotions and desires. If, therefore, our desires were held in subjection to the will and word of God, there would be no sin in us; but as long as concupiscence is in us, it will assuredly draw us into evil (cf. Rom 7:7<\/span>, Rom 7:8<\/span>, Rom 7:11<\/span>; Eph 2:3<\/span>; 1Jn 2:16<\/span>).<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> FIRST<\/strong> EXPRESSION<\/strong> (AT<\/strong> ANY<\/strong> RATE<\/strong>) OF<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> UNHALLOWED<\/strong> DESIRE<\/strong> CAME<\/strong> FROM<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MIXED<\/strong> MULTITUDE<\/strong>the aliens, or half-breeds, who had come with them, not from faith in God, but from inferior motives. Even so the low moral tone and the frequent enormities chargeable upon Christians are due in the first instance to those who are only nominally Christian, who have been attracted into the fellowship either by accident of birth or by worldly and unspiritual motives. It is the fate of every great and successful movement to carry away with it many <\/em>who have (inwardly) no sympathy with it and no part in it. So it was with Israel, so with the Church of Christ, so with any religious revival. Here is the great danger of an established and fashionable Christianity; it numbers a multitude of nominal adherents, whose motives and desires are wholly unchastened, and who are always ready to set the worst example, and to encourage the most pernicious practices. Compare the “false brethren,” 2Co 11:26<\/span>. <\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong> OF<\/strong> ISRAEL<\/strong> WERE<\/strong> CARRIED<\/strong> AWAY<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> IT<\/strong>, IN<\/strong> SPITE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> WARNING<\/strong> THEY<\/strong> HAD<\/strong> SO<\/strong> RECENTLY<\/strong> RECEIVED<\/strong> AT<\/strong> TABEERAH<\/strong>. No doubt it spread the more rapidly because,<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> it fell in with their own secret feelings, <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> it was recommended by considerations of friendship and relationship, <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> the voice of prudence is scarcely ever a match for the promptings of desire.<\/p>\n

Even so it is the most striking feature of sin in feeling or in act that it becomes an epidemic which only a very sound and vigorous spiritual state can resist. Compare the case of Judas and the other apostles (Mat 26:8<\/span>, Mat 26:9<\/span>; Joh 12:4<\/span>, Joh 12:5<\/span>); compare St. Peter and the Judaisers (Galatians if. 12, 13); compare the Corinthians (1Co 5:1<\/span>, 1Co 5:2<\/span>, 1Co 5:6<\/span>, 1Co 5:11<\/span>); and the sins which each generation of Christians has committed or does commit in commonsuch as lying, dueling, swindling. There is no sin against which more fearful warnings and examples lie than that of covetousness; yet there is none of which Christians are more generally guilty under stress of bad example and the low moral tone and degraded traditions of society, of trade, of business, &c. The warnings of the New Testament, though always fresh in the hearing and clear in the remembrance of Christian people, are absolutely ineffective as against the common promptings of evil desire.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> THEY<\/strong> EVILLY<\/strong> DESIRED<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> EVIL<\/strong> IN<\/strong> ITSELF<\/strong>. There was no harm in eating flesh, nor were any of the cheap luxuries they coveted objectionable in themselves. Even so we ever excuse ourselves for wanting, because what we want is not forbidden, <\/em>but only denied. <\/em>There is no harm (absolutely) in being rich, therefore we take no shame at covetousness. There is no harm (absolutely) in the pleasures of the flesh, therefore we are ready to excuse any indulgence in them. Christian morality is a law of liberty, unbound by formal rules, therefore we boldly strain that liberty to our immediate advantage, and fancy that the absence of prohibition is tantamount to actual allowance on the part of God.<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> THEY<\/strong> DESIRED<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> WRONG<\/strong>, BECAUSE<\/strong>,<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> IT<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> SUPERFLUOUS<\/strong>, <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> BELONGED<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> DAYS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> BONDAGE<\/strong>, <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> HAD<\/strong> BEEN<\/strong> WITHHELD<\/strong> BY<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>, WHO<\/strong> ALONE<\/strong> COULD<\/strong> GIVE<\/strong> IT<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> Inasmuch as the food they had given them was nutritious, wholesome, and abundant for the short journey which lay before them.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Inasmuch as the savoury and luscious things they wept for were peculiarly Egyptian, and went hand in hand (as they do still) with cruel oppression and degradation: it was the food of slavery.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> Inasmuch as such things were clearly not to be expected in a wilderness such as God was leading them through.<\/p>\n

Even so sinful greed among Christians is known by the same three tokens.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> It is a craving for superfluities. What God has given us (however little compared with our desires) is enough; for it will suffice, if welt used, to bring us to our home in health and strength (Php 4:11<\/span>; 1Ti 6:6-8<\/span>.; Heb 13:5<\/span>). More than we have must be more than enough, for God is pledged to give us that (Mat 6:33<\/span>, Mat 6:34<\/span>; Luk 12:32<\/span>; Rom 8:32<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(2) <\/strong>It is a craving for things essentially connected with the bondage of sin and worldliness, from which we are escaped. Such luxuries as wealth, rank, or fashion can afford are (without being in themselves evil) so closely connected with evil that every earnest Christian must dread rather than covet them (Mat 6:19<\/span>, Mat 6:21<\/span>, Mat 6:31<\/span>, Mat 6:32<\/span> a; Luk 6:24<\/span>; Luk 16:19<\/span>, Luk 16:25<\/span>; Jas 5:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> It is an open contempt of God’s appointment, who hath not<\/em> given us any inheritance here, and hath <\/em>told us to expect tribulation, and to love poverty and reproach, because it is good for us (Luk 6:20<\/span>, Luk 6:22<\/span>; Joh 16:33<\/span>; Act 14:22<\/span>; Rom 8:24<\/span>; 2Co 4:18; 1Ti 6:9<\/span>; Heb 13:14<\/span>; Jas 2:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

VI.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> UNRESTRAINED<\/strong> WEEPING<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PEOPLE<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> THE<\/strong> DAINTIES<\/strong> THEY<\/strong> COULD<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> HAVE<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> EXCEEDING<\/strong> HATEFUL<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SIGHT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>. It did indeed make no account of all his mercies, but rather reproached him for bringing them out of Egypt and setting them free. It was as good as saying they wished he had never troubled himself about them. Even so the greed of Christians is an open reproach against him that loved them and gave himself for them, as though he had done nothing to earn their trust and gratitude, and had rather treated them unkindly. He who passionately desires earthly gains, or bitterly laments earthly losses, flings contempt upon the gifts of Heaven and reproach upon his God and Saviour. Wherefore it speaks of “the covetous, whom the Lord abhorreth” (Psa 10:3<\/span>; cf. Luk 12:15<\/span>; Eph 5:3<\/span>; Col 3:5<\/span>; Jas 4:3<\/span>, Jas 4:4<\/span>).<\/p>\n

VII.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LORD<\/strong>, IN<\/strong> ORDER<\/strong> TO<\/strong> PUNISH<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PEOPLE<\/strong>, GAVE<\/strong> THEM<\/strong> AN<\/strong> ABUNDANCE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> THEY<\/strong> ASKED<\/strong> FOR<\/strong>. Even so God punishes our greed by letting us have as much as we want of the coveted thing. The covetous person is punished by ample wealth, the slothful by abundance of ease, the proud by success and flattery, the vain by large admiration, the sensual by unstinted gratification. Thus the man punishes himself, the Lord providing h{m with the means of destruction. Whether we like it or not, this is <\/em>the law of Providence; and to us it is the justice of God. Compare the case of Pharaoh (Rom 9:17<\/span>, Rom 9:18<\/span>); of the rich fool (Luk 12:16<\/span>); of Herod (Act 12:22<\/span>).<\/p>\n

VIII.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PEOPLE<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THEIR<\/strong> GREED<\/strong> LABOURED<\/strong> DAY<\/strong> AND<\/strong> NIGHT<\/strong> TO<\/strong> ACCUMULATE<\/strong> PRODIGIOUS<\/strong> QUANTITIES<\/strong> OF<\/strong> FOOD<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> THEY<\/strong> NEVER<\/strong> ATE<\/strong>. Even so do vain men labour and toil to lay up treasures upon earth, never resting as long as anything remains to be gottreasures which after all they shall never enjoy, and shall perhaps eternally regret (Mat 19:24<\/span>; Luk 12:21<\/span>; Luk 16:25<\/span>; Jas 5:2<\/span>; Rev 3:17<\/span>).<\/p>\n

IX.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PEOPLE<\/strong>, APART<\/strong> FROM<\/strong> ANY<\/strong> SUPERNATURAL<\/strong> INTERVENTION<\/strong>, WOULD<\/strong> HAVE<\/strong> SICKENED<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> QUANTITY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> ANIMAL<\/strong> FOOD<\/strong> THEY<\/strong> THOUGHT<\/strong> TO<\/strong> EAT<\/strong>, AND<\/strong> FOUND<\/strong> IT<\/strong> “LOATHSOME<\/strong>.” Even so self-indulgence soon reaches its natural limits, even when left to itself, and provokes a natural reaction of disgust. If this world were all, moderation, self-restraint, and contentment with a little would still make a happier life than luxury and dissipation. The “roses and raptures of vice” which are sung by many poets, ancient and modern, do not only fade very quickly, but leave a very evil smell behind them.<\/p>\n

X.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> JUSTICE<\/strong> Or GOD<\/strong> LEFT<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> ISRAELITES<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SLOW<\/strong> REVENGE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> NATURAL<\/strong> SATIETY<\/strong>; hardly had they tasted the flesh ere the plague began among them. Even so greed has its natural reaction of misery, even in the life of this world, but it has its Divine punishment in the soul. “He gave them their request, but sent leanness into their soul,” says the Psalmist (Psa 106:15<\/span>), revealing the spiritual truth which lay hid in this history. There is a balance Divinely held between the bodily life and that of the soul, so that if the first is full and fat and well-liking, the second is empty and lean and ill-favoured. No man can cater greedily for his body without impoverishing his soul; no man Can gratify eagerly his carnal appetites without incurring spiritual disease (Luk 6:24-26<\/span>).<\/p>\n

XI.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> ONE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> EARLIEST<\/strong> STATIONS<\/strong> ON<\/strong> THE<\/strong> WAY<\/strong> TO<\/strong> CANAAN<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> “THE<\/strong> GRAVES<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GREED<\/strong>,” AND<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> NEXT<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> “ENCLOSURES<\/strong>.” Even so in the heavenward journey of the Church we soon come (alas, how soon I) to the graves of greed, to the dishonourable sepulchers of such as perished through love of money or of pleasure. Behold the graves of Ananias, of Sapphira, of those who “slept” at Corinth (1Co 11:30<\/span>), of “that <\/em>woman Jezebel” (Rev 2:20<\/span>), of Demas. And after this we come to “enclosures “long series of outward restrictions and regulations, some apostolic and some later, which mark a stage in the Church’s journey, and testify to her efforts to maintain her moral purity (cf. 1Co 5:9<\/span>, 1Co 5:11<\/span>; 1Co 11:34<\/span> b; 1Ti 5:9<\/span>). And what is true of the Church is true of many an individual member. As memory retraces the onward path, how soon come the “graves of greed,” the sad memorials of passions sinfully indulged and sharply revenged! and after that the “enclosures “the restraints and restrictions by which liberty was perforce abridged in order that sin and folly might be fenced out.<\/p>\n

Consider, again, with respect to the manna<\/em><\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PEOPLE<\/strong> WERE<\/strong> REALLY<\/strong> TEMPTED<\/strong> TO<\/strong> WEARY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SAMENESS<\/strong> AND<\/strong> INSIPIDITY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MANNA<\/strong>, their staple food. To a palate accustomed to the pungent condiments and varied delicacies of Egypt, it was a great trial to have nothing but manna for a year; no doubt it failed to satisfy the appetite, and cloyed upon the taste, in spite of its wholesome and nutritious qualities. Even so it is a real trial to one who has known the excitements of sin and the dissipations of the world to satisfy himself with the spiritual joys and interests of religion, and we ought to recognize the fact that it is a real trial. In many Who have been recovered from a life of indulgence the craving for excitement is at times almost intolerable. Nature itself, even when not depraved by long habit, longs for excitement and change, and wearies of the calm monotony of faith, hope, and charity. Even the “sweetness” of the bread of life, which is at first as “honey” and as “fresh oil” to the starved and sickly soul, palls upon it after a while, and the old longings reassert themselves. How many tire of “angels’ food” who took to it eagerly enough at first I (cf. 1Ti 5:11-13, 1Ti 5:15<\/span>; Rev 2:4<\/span>).<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MANNA<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> IN<\/strong> FORM<\/strong> AS<\/strong> “CORIANDER<\/strong> SEED<\/strong>,” WHICH<\/strong> WE<\/strong> KNOW<\/strong>; IN<\/strong> COLOUR<\/strong> AS<\/strong> “BDELLIUM<\/strong>,” WHICH<\/strong> WE<\/strong> DO<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> KNOW<\/strong>. Even so there is about the true bread of heaven a mixture of the known and the unknown, of that which can be expressed, and of that which passes human understanding. The coriander seed is of common use, but the bdellium is of paradise (Gen 2:12<\/span>). And so may we all know the beauty of Christ in part, but in part we shall never know until we see him as he is (cf. Rev 2:17<\/span>, “hidden manna;” Rev 3:12<\/span>, “my new name;” Rev 19:12<\/span>).<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PEOPLE<\/strong> HABITUALLY<\/strong> PREPARED<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MANNA<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> EATING<\/strong> IN<\/strong> VARIOUS<\/strong> WAYS<\/strong>, as experience and their own preference guided them. Even so the manna of souls, although it does not need, yet it does not reject, the use of human means and art in order to present it acceptably to the spiritual needs of men. God has nowhere said that all men, of whatsoever habit of mind, must receive the word and sacrament of Christ in the simplest and barest form, or not at all; it is only needful that Christ, however received, be the sole and substantial sustenance of the soul (Joh 6:50<\/span>, Joh 6:58<\/span>; 1Co 3:11<\/span>; Gal 1:9<\/span>; Php 1:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Consider, again, with respect to Moses and the seventy<\/em><\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SIN<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PEOPLE<\/strong> LED<\/strong> TO<\/strong> A DIFFERENT<\/strong> SIN<\/strong> IN<\/strong> MOSES<\/strong>. He would never have murmured at hardships, or have lusted; but he lost his temper, and spake unadvisedly with his lips. Even so sin constantly leads to sin, even where it has no direct influence, and other people’s faults are often not less dangerous temptations to us because we abhor them. Thus a frivolous wife may make a soured husband; an unprincipled father a hard and stern child; a worldly clergyman a sarcastic and incredulous congregation (cf. Mat 24:12<\/span>; Luk 18:11<\/span>; Rom 2:22<\/span> b).<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> TEMPTATION<\/strong> UNDER<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> MOSES<\/strong> FELL<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> A PECULIARLY<\/strong> INSIDIOUS<\/strong> ONE<\/strong>. His passionate anger with the people and disgust with his position as their leader might seem only a noble indignation against wrong. Even so many are tempted to feel nothing but scorn at “baptized heathenism,” and impatience with the moral failures of the age, without due consideration either of the wise and loving purposes of God or of their own duties (Psa 37:8<\/span>; Jon 4:9<\/span>; Eph 4:26<\/span>, Eph 4:27<\/span>; Jas 1:19<\/span>, Jas 1:20<\/span>).<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> IN<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> SORROW<\/strong> AND<\/strong> RESENTMENT<\/strong> BY<\/strong> REASON<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> WICKED<\/strong> HE<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> GUILTY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GRAVE<\/strong> INJUSTICE<\/strong> AND<\/strong> INSOLENCE<\/strong> AGAINST<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>. Even so we, if we are carried away by indignation against un-Christlike Christians, are in danger of sinning against God, who has borne with them, and bears with them still, and who has made us responsible not <\/em>for their perfection, but only for our own, and has not given to any a greater burden than he is able to bear (Luk 9:55<\/span>, Luk 9:56; 2Co 2:11<\/span>; 2Ti 2:21<\/span>, 2Ti 2:25, 2Ti 2:26<\/span>; 2Pe 3:15<\/span>).<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> MOSES<\/strong> ALSO<\/strong> ERRED<\/strong> BY<\/strong> FORMING<\/strong> FAR<\/strong> TOO<\/strong> HIGH<\/strong> AN<\/strong> ESTIMATE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> OWN<\/strong> OFFICIAL<\/strong> IMPORTANCE<\/strong> AND<\/strong> RESPONSIBILITY<\/strong>, as though he had been the real father of his people, whereas “one was their Father, which was in heaven.” Even so it is very easy and natural for us, if we are in earnest, to exaggerate the importance of our work, and to mistake the nature of our responsibility in the Church. It is only God who by his one Spirit does all good work in the Church, and he will take care that it is done to his own mind; we are but instruments, who have no responsibility, save that of being “meet for the Master’s use” (1Co 3:5<\/span>; 1Co 4:2<\/span>; 1Co 12:4-6<\/span>).<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> EXCEEDING<\/strong> MERCIFUL<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SIN<\/strong> OF<\/strong> MOSES<\/strong>, because it was of human infirmity, and because it was the petulant outbreak of a mind and heart overcharged with grief and failure. Even so did our Lord bear with his apostles, and will bear with all the errors and outbreaks of an honest heart (Psa 103:13<\/span>, Psa 103:14<\/span>; Luk 22:31-34<\/span>, Luk 22:61<\/span>; Joh 20:27<\/span>).<\/p>\n

VI.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> ALLOWED<\/strong> THE<\/strong> ONE<\/strong> COMPLAINT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> MOSES<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> REASONABLE<\/strong>, AND<\/strong> FOUNDED<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PROPHETIC<\/strong> ORDER<\/strong> TO<\/strong> ASSIST<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> RELIGIOUS<\/strong> DIRECTION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PEOPLE<\/strong>. Even so out of complaints and difficulties have arisen many permanent gifts of the Spirit to the Church, for in this as in other ways man’s extremity is God’s opportunity. Thus out of tile murmuring of the Grecians arose the diaconate (Act 6:1<\/span>, Act 6:6<\/span>); out of the troubles at Corinth the better regulation of the Agape and the Eucharist (1Co 11:17-34<\/span>).<\/p>\n

VII.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> IT<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SPIRIT<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> RESTED<\/strong> UPON<\/strong> MOSES<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> COMMUNICATED<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SEVENTY<\/strong>, inasmuch as their prophetic office was to be held and exercised in unity with, and subordination to, the mediator of Israel. Even so it is the Spirit of Jesus which-is the spirit of prophecythe Spirit of Christ and from Christ which must rest upon every Christian teacher. The anointing which qualifies to speak Divine mysteries must be from him who was anointed the one Mediator and the only Prophet (Joh 1:16<\/span>, Joh 1:33<\/span>; Joh 16:13<\/span>, Joh 16:14<\/span>, &c.).<\/p>\n

VIII.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> ANOINTING<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SPIRIT<\/strong> SHOWED<\/strong> ITSELF<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SEVENTY<\/strong> BY<\/strong> ECSTATIC<\/strong> UTTERANCE<\/strong>A THING<\/strong> NEVER<\/strong> RECORDED<\/strong> OF<\/strong> MOSES<\/strong> HIMSELF<\/strong>. Even so the first evidence of the outpouring of the Spirit of Christ upon the disciples was that they spake with tongues, which our Lord had never done; for all such manifestations are for a sign, and are no evidence of any superior greatness or holiness in the person so endowed. How often are mere “gifts” mistaken for intrinsic worth, and “the disciple” really esteemed “above his master,” because he is not” <\/em>as his master”! (Joh 14:12<\/span> b; 1Co 13:1-13<\/span>).<\/p>\n

IX.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MANIFESTATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SPIRIT<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> INDEPENDENT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> OUTWARD<\/strong> ACCIDENTS<\/strong>, THOUGH<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> OUTWARD<\/strong> ORDER<\/strong>. The designation of the seventy was left to Moses, and Eldad and Medad were among the number selected; they were prevented from attending at the tabernacle, but they received the same gift as the others. Even so the gifts of the Spirit are not independent of ecclesiastical order, nor are they bestowed at random; but they are not restrained by anything unavoidable or accidental. It is the purpose of God which is operative, not the ceremonial, however authoritative. The Spirit of God is a free Spirit, even where he elects to act through certain channels (cf. Act 1:26<\/span>; Act 13:2<\/span>; 1Co 12:11<\/span>; 2Co 3:17<\/span>).<\/p>\n

X.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> JEALOUSY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> JOSHUA<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> MASTER<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> RIGHT<\/strong> IN<\/strong> PRINCIPLE<\/strong>, ALTHOUGH<\/strong> WRONG<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PARTICULAR<\/strong> APPLICATION<\/strong>. It was impossible for him always to distinguish between a right and a wrong jealousy for the authority and supremacy of Moses. Even so jealousy for the sole pre-eminence of Christ is deeply rooted in all true Christian hearts, but it constantly shows itself in the most mistaken forms. The most opposite bigotries derive their strength from this principle in ignorant or prejudiced minds, and indeed the very best and wisest may often err in this matter. Good people do, as a fact, constantly denounce this or that as an interference with the prerogatives of Christ: when it is in truth only a carrying out of his work in his name. Since, however, the principle <\/em>is right, we must bear with the wrong application of it; we must not be angry even with intolerance if it spring from genuine loyalty to the one Lord and only Mediator, Christ.<\/p>\n

XI.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> MOSES<\/strong> DESIRED<\/strong> NOTHING<\/strong> SO<\/strong> LITTLE<\/strong> AS<\/strong> A MONOPOLY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> SPIRITUAL<\/strong> GIFTS<\/strong>. If he ever had been personally ambitious, a larger knowledge of his people and experience of his work had quite delivered him from it. Even so every true Christian teacher and leader, howsoever he may feel bound to magnify his office, will greatly long for the time when “all will he taught of God,” and when all distinctions will be for ever abolished, save such as depend on persona] nearness to God. How hateful is the idea that the flock should be kept in darkness in order that the shepherds may have a monopoly of influence I How happy were the pastor’s charge if all were “spiritual” 1 (Jer 31:34<\/span>; Joh 6:45<\/span>; 1Co 14:5; 1Co 4:8<\/span> b; 1Pe 5:3<\/span>; 1Jn 2:20<\/span>, 1Jn 2:27<\/span>).<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY W. BINNIE<\/strong><\/p>\n

Num 11:16<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Num 11:17<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Num 11:24<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Num 11:25<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

THE SEVENTY ELDERS, AND HOW THEY WERE FITTED FOR THEIR HIGH OFFICE<\/strong><\/p>\n

The murmuring of the people so soon after setting out on the march from Horeb reminded Moses again, very painfully, what a heavy burden had been laid upon him in the leadership of so great a multitude of people newly escaped from slavery. He complained to the Lord. His complaint was graciously heard. He was directed to gather around him a company of seventy elders, who might aid him with their counsel, and share his burden. <\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> Regarding THE<\/strong> STATUS<\/strong> AND<\/strong> FUNCTIONS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> COMPANY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> SEVENTY<\/strong> there have been many debates. Some have identified them with the Sanhedrim or Council of Seventy whom we meet with so often in the Gospels and the Acts. Passing by these questions, let us note the facts recorded in the text itself. What was wanted was not the appointment of ordinary rulers or judges. Every tribe had already a prince, a body of elders and officers, and rulers of tens and fifties and hundreds and thousands, who judged between man and man. What was wanted was a council to aid Moses with their advice and assistance in the administration of the national affairs. (Compare the Governors and Council in a British dependency.)<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MANNER<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> APPOINTMENT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SEVENTY<\/strong> IS<\/strong> CAREFULLY<\/strong> DESCRIBED<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. No one was appointed who was not in public office already. <\/em>“Gather unto me seventy men, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them;” i.e; <\/em>they were not to be raw, inexperienced, untried men. Only those were eligible who had given proof of ability and faithfulness in the public service, either as elders or as officers (i.e; <\/em>writers or scrivenersthis is the literal meaning of the Hebrew shoterim. <\/em>The reference is to professional scribes, the assessors of non-professional magistrates, such as the Hebrew elders were). This rule was a good one. No man should be raised at one bound to high office, either in Church or State.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. They were nominated by Moses. <\/em>In this respect the procedure was exceptional. There was far less of centralization in the government of Israel than a modern and Western reader of the Bible is apt to think. To be sure, there were no representative bodies such as we are familiar with. Nevertheless, the government was truly popular. Even in Egypt the people were ruled, in the first instance, by their own eldersthe beads of families and tribes; and this primitive system was continued in a more perfect form in Palestine. But although local government could be best administered by local magistrates, it was otherwise with the supreme and central government with which Moses was charged. A council such as he required could only be had by freely calling forth men of outstanding ability and approved wisdom.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. They were invested with office in the face of the congregation, and before the Lord. <\/em>In the face of the congregation, to remind them that they were to act for the public good, and not in pursuance of any private interest. Before the Lord, to remind them that “there is no power but of God;” their authority is from God, and is to be used as they shall answer to him.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. They were endowed from above with new gifts <\/em>to qualify them for their new office. When Moses gathered them before the tabernacle, “the Lord came down in a cloud, and spoke unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders.” This has been interpreted to mean that there was abstracted from Moses some part of the spirit by which he had hitherto been sustained. But that is certainly a perverse misinterpretation. Twenty lamps may be lighted from one lamp without diminishing its brightness (cf. 2Ki 2:9<\/span>). God sendeth no man to warfare at his own charges. When he calls any man to public service, whether in Church or State, the man so called may, without doubting, ask and expect the wisdom, strength, courage which the service requires (Jas 1:5-8<\/span>).<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> The most picturesque feature in the narrative is that which remains yet to be noticedTHE<\/strong> STRIKING<\/strong> SIGN<\/strong> BY<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> NOTIFICATION<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> GIVEN<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SEVENTY<\/strong> ELDERS<\/strong> HAD<\/strong> TRULY<\/strong> BEEN<\/strong> CALLED<\/strong> BY<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> AND<\/strong> WOULD<\/strong> BE<\/strong> COUNTENANCED<\/strong> BY<\/strong> HIM<\/strong>. “When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied, and added no more” (such is the rendering now preferred by all the best translators). “They prophesied,” that is, they spoke as men who were for the time lifted above themselvesas men under the influence of an irresistible power external to themselves. We may presume that what they did say would be of such a kind as to make it plain that the power acting upon them was Divine and heavenly. This prophesying was intended to signalize the inward gifts with which the newly-appointed elders were now being endowed. This is plain from the parallel case related in 1Sa 10:1-27<\/span>. The Lord in appointing Saul be king over Israel promised “to be with him; to give him another heart,” so that he should “be turned into another man.” With the kingly office he was to get from the Lord the kingly mind. In token of this, the Spirit came upon him, and he prophesied (cf. Act 2:3<\/span>, Act 2:4<\/span>; Act 10:44-47<\/span>). The impulse was only a transient one. “They prophesied, and added no more.” The miracle, having served its purpose, ceased; but the spiritual endowment of which it was the token remained. This prophesying, if you consider it well, will be seen to be more than a token. Besides notifying the Lord s approval of the elders, and assuring them of help, it suggested much instruction regarding the principles which should regulate their administration. The tongues of fire and the rapturous speaking with tongues on the day of Pentecost, we know what that miracle meant. It admonished the disciples that the warfare of Christ’s kingdom is to be accomplished not with the sword, but with the tongue; not with violence and bloodshed, but by the earnest and living manifestation of the truth. It was a lesson of the same kind which the Lord suggested by the miracle wrought on the seventy elders in front of the tabernacle. They were admonished that in their administration of affairs they ought to make use rather of wise and persuasive speech than of brute force. And is not this a lesson for us also? The time is not come yetperhaps will never come in the present statefor rulers to lay aside the sword altogether. Violent men, if they will not listen to reason, must be restrained with violence. Nevertheless, even for civil rulers, the employment of force is the less honourable function of their office. Better to restrain and guide and govern men with wise, firm, persuasive words than with the sword.B.<\/p>\n

Num 11:26-30<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

ELDAD AND MEDAD; OR, IRREGULAR PROPHESYING<\/strong><\/p>\n

This narrative brings up a subject which is at once of great practical importance and of great delicacy, on which men have been apt to run to extremes on the one side or the other. It will be our wisdom, therefore, to begin by weighing carefully the facts as they are set forth in the sacred narrative.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> FACTS<\/strong> are, shortly, these:Moses having complained that the leadership of the nation was a burden greater than he could bear, the Lord gave direction that a Council of Seventy should be associated with him in it. This was done. From among the acting elders and officers of the congregation Moses called out seventy and they were solemnly set apart to the new office, before the Lord and the congregation. This consecration-service did not pass without a palpable token of the Divine approval, a palpable token that appropriate gifts would be forthcoming to the new rulers as they had been to Moses. When the Seventy were being set apart, the Spirit fell upon them, and they prophesied. While this was going on at the tent of meeting, a young man came running with the tidings that two men were prophesying in the camp. On inquiry it turned out that these were two of the seventy whom Moses had nominated for the council. For some reason or other they had not come forward with the rest to the tent of meeting. Notwithstanding of this, the Spirit had come on them in the camp exactly as he had come on their brethren, and they were prophesying. Clearly there was in this a breach of due order. Eldad and Medad ought to have presented themselves along with the rest. They were chargeable with an irregularity. Accordingly, Joshua, who is already the trusted “minister of Moses,” suggests that they should be silenced. “My lord Moses, forbid them.” But Moses is of another mind. Is it certain that Eldad and Medad are prophesying? If so, the hand of the Lord, we may presume, is in the matter. Spiritual gifts are not such cheap and common things that we can afford to throw them away. Possibly enough these prophets in the camp have failed to make due acknowledgment of me as the Divinely-appointed leader of the congregation. But let no man look with an evil eye on them for my sake. Would that the Spirit were put on all the people! I should rejoice to see my light outshone in such a general brightness!<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> HAVE<\/strong> THESE<\/strong> FACTS<\/strong> TO<\/strong> SAY<\/strong> TO<\/strong> US<\/strong>? What lesson do they teach?<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. At first sight it might seem as if they taught us to make light of office, solemn ordination to office, official service, and to attach importance only to the possession and exercise of gifts. But that certainly is not intended. The new council was not to consist of men simply obeying an internal call. No one was admissible without prior experience in office, and without election by Moses. And it was by Divine command that the sixty-eight were solemnly set apart before the Lord and the congregation. I need not prove that in the State it is the will of God that there should be magistrates, laws, and strict enforcement of the laws. In the Church there is: no doubt, a difference; for the Church has no coercive power. Its weapons are the truth and the tongue of fire, not the sword. Nevertheless, order is quite as necessary in the Church as in the State. “In <\/em>all churches of the saints God is the author of peace, not of confusion,” and all things are to be “done decently and in order” (1Co 14:33-40<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. The narrative admonishes us that office and order and official service, necessary as they may be, are not everything. They are not everything, even in the State, much less are they everything in the Church. The salvation and edification of souls will not go <\/strong>forward unless there is a continual ministration of the Spirit in gifts and in grace. That is a general lesson the facts teach. More particularly they admonish us that we need not be surprised if it should occasionally happen that men who are walking irregularly give evidence of having been richly endowed with spiritual gifts. <\/em>I will not discuss the question, How such a thing can be; how the God of order can, without contradicting himself, bestow his valuable gifts on men who do not quite conform to the good order of his house. For the fact is plain. Whether we can account for it or no, the fact is indubitable. Has not Christ raised up men like Pascal within the Romish communion? Yet every Protestant believes that the Church of Rome has grievously erred both in respect to Church order, and in the weightiest points of faith and holiness. Do not suppose that these and similar facts are to be accounted for by alleging that Christendom has for a long while fallen away into anarchy. For facts of the same kind found place in connection with the personal ministry of Christ himself. The Twelve were Christ’s apostles, and it was the duty of all disciples to follow with them. Did, therefore, Christ withhold his gifts from all save those in the apostles’ company? On the contrary, there was found an individual now and then who, though he followed not with the apostles, nevertheless both spoke in Christ’s name, and spoke to such good purpose that devils were cast forth.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. What, then, is the conclusion to which we are led? “Quench not the Spirit: despise not prophesying.” I do not say that it was the duty of Moses, or is our duty in similar circumstances, to go forth to Eldad and Medad, and identify ourselves with them in their work. That will depend on circumstances. Sometimes one cannot take part with the irregular prophets without concurring in what would for us be sin. Christ’s command was not, Go and join yourselves to the man who is casting out devils in my name, irregularly. But it was, Forbid him not. Is a man really prophesying? Is he casting out devils? Is he setting forth the truth and doing-good? Then do not forbid him. Bring him, if you can, to a fuller knowledge of the truth, and to more regular courses, but do not look on him with jealous eyes, or try to put him down. If Christ is preached, whether it be in pretence or in truth, I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice (Php 1:14-28<\/span>).B.<\/p>\n

Num 11:4-15<\/span><\/strong>; 31-35<\/strong><\/p>\n

THE COMPLAINERS, AND HOW GOD MADE ANSWER TO THEIR COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

This eleventh of Numbers is a chapter of complainings. First, at Taberah, vague murmurings are heard throughout the camp. Then at Kibroth-hattaavah, a stage further on, the vague murmurings take shape in bitter complaint because of the fare to which the congregation was now confined. Manna I nothing but manna! While the people were harping on this grievance Moses also lifted up his voice in complaint. “Why has the Lord dealt so hardly with him as to lay on him the burden of so great a company? Better kill him out of hand, and not let him see his wretchedness!” Consider this scene at Kibroth-hattaavah. It is not pleasant to look at, especially when one becomes aware that it is a glass in which are to be seen passages in one’s own history which one would gladly forget. Scenes not pleasant may nevertheless be profitable.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> COMPLAININGS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PEOPLE<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Where the sin began. It was among “the mixed multitude.” A great crowd of foreigners who had been neighbours to the Israelites in Egypt, came forth with them at the Exodus, moved some by one motive and some by another (Exo 12:38<\/span>). It is instructive to observe that these were the first to break out into rebellious murmurs; equally instructive to observe that the evil generated amongst them spread from them into the body of the people. Every community has its mixed multitude, its pariahs, its residuum. To the existence of this class men have been too willing to shut their eyes. I know no better sign of the present age than its wide-spread desire to take note of these masses, and if possible bring them to God. Were there no higher motive, self-preservation might well plead with men to labour in this work. When destitution and filth are suffered to generate typhus among the poor, the deadly infection will make its way into the palaces of the rich. So when sin is suffered to become rampant in one class the other classes will not long escape the contagion.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. The matter of complaint was little to the credit of the complainers. So long as the congregation lay en-camped in Horeb, the fare would be occasionally diversified with herbs and the like. In the wilderness of Paran there is only the manna. Certainly no just ground of complaint. The daily miracle ought rather to have moved to daily thanksgiving. But even of manna the people wearied. They craved greater variety.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. How the complaint is answered (verses 18-21, 31-33). The people demand flesh, and flesh is given them beyond their utmost thought. They get their desire, but not God’s blessing with it. So it becomes to them a curse in the end. Such a plague followed the “shower of flesh” that the place has ever since borne the ghastly name of Kibroth-hattaavah, the graves of lust. It is an admonition to us not to give way to impatience on account of real or imagined hardships in our lot; above all, not to let our impatience hurry us into rebellious demands for a change. Many a time such demands are granted to the confusion of those who made them. Before leaving this story of the people’s sin at Kibroth-hattaavah, let me caution you against supposing that it is a mere parable, a late fiction, not the history of a real transaction. It is at present the fashion in some quarters to get rid of the miracles of the Exodus and of the forty years in the wilderness, by denying the historical truth of the Pentateuch, and interpreting it as at best an allegory or parable. But the Spirit of God has been careful to leave on the narrative indubitable marks of historical verity to confound such interpretations. For example, in this narrative<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> observe the terms in which the people utter their complaint. “We remember the fish cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, garlic.” Egypt all over I These are precisely the articles of food which were distinctively Egyptian. No one writing in Judah or Ephraim would ever have thought of putting such a bill of fare into the mouths of the complainers.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Observe the nature of the miracle by which the people were fed. A shower of quails. This is as characteristic of the Sinaitic peninsula as the bill of fare was of Egypt. It was spring when the congregation arrived at Kibroth-hattaavah; at this season the quails “are annually in the habit of crossing the desert in countless myriads, flying very low, and often in the morning so utterly exhausted by their night’s flight that they are slaughtered by the thousand” (Tristram). This chapter is history, not fable.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> Moses, TOO<\/strong>, WAS<\/strong> A COMPLAINER<\/strong> AT<\/strong> KIBROTH<\/strong>–HATTAAVAH<\/strong> (read verses 11-15). His words are sufficiently bitter and impatient There is in them no little sin; yet they are not resented as the people’s were. Moses is not <\/em>taken at his word and smitten with a plague. On the contrary, the Lord comforts him with cheering words, and grants him a council of elders to alleviate the burden. This is the more worthy of notice, because it is by no means singular (see 1Ki 19:4<\/span>). Do you ask, What can be the reason of this? Why deal so gently with the complaints of Moses and Elijah, when the complaints of the congregation are so sharply punished? The difference can be explained. Observe where and to whom Moses expressed the grief and weariness of his heart. It was not to the Egyptians from whom they had come out; nor was it to the congregation of Israel. It was in the ear of God himself; he complains not of <\/em>the Lord, but to <\/em>the Lordtwo very different sorts of complaint. A dutiful son may remonstrate with his father when the two are alone, but he will not cry out against his father to strangers. When the child of God has a complaint to make, it is to God he carries it. And complaints carried to God, even although there should be much impatience and unbelief at the root of them, will be listened to very graciously. The Lord, so great is his condescending love, would rather that we should pour out the griefseven the unreasonable griefsof our hearts, than that we should let them rankle in our bosoms.B.<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY E.S. PROUT<\/strong><\/p>\n

Num 11:10<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

THE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES OF THE SIN OF DISCONTENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

Discontent springs from distrust. Dis<\/em>trust is a root-sin from which different kindred evils spring, such as dis<\/em>content, dis<\/em>satisfaction, disgust, disobedience, <\/em>and other dis<\/em>agreeable states of mind. But “those that know thy name,” &c. (Psa 9:10<\/span>; Lam 3:24<\/span>). From these strange cairns in the wilderness, “the graves of lust,” we hear a voice (1Co 10:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n

I. THE<\/strong> DISCONTENT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> ISRAELITES<\/strong>. <\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> ITS<\/strong> DISASTROUS<\/strong> CONSEQUENCES<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> 1<\/strong>. Its disgraceful origin: “the mixed multitude,” “hangers-on,” “rift-raft.” The chosen people of God listened and sympathized with them rather than with Moses and God. Apply to worldlings grumbling about weather, homes, situations, incomes, &c. (Pro 1:10<\/span>; Rom 12:2<\/span>; 2Co 6:14<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. The gross ingratitude of it. They were dissatisfied with the manna, which was wholesome, abundant, and adapted to various uses (Num 11:7-9<\/span>), as though Hindoos should quarrel with their rice or the English with their wheat (1Ti 6:8<\/span>). They recollect certain casual sensual advantages of past bondage, but forget its cruelties and degradation (Num 11:4-6<\/span>). Why not remember the whips and fetters and infanticide? They think of suppers more than sufferings, of full stomachs rather than of famished souls. Let Christians beware of hankering after the indulgences of their old life (Pro 23:3<\/span>; 1Jn 2:15<\/span>). And they complain of temporary deprivations, though hastening to a home of permanent and abundant good. They were passing through “that great and terrible wilderness” (Paran) because it was the direct route to the promised land (Deu 1:19<\/span>; cf. 1Pe 1:13<\/span>; 1Pe 2:11<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. The aggravations of it. For they had seen God’s power already (Exo 16:13<\/span>; Psa 78:19<\/span>, Psa 78:20<\/span>). And have not we? (cf. Psa 22:4<\/span>, Psa 22:5<\/span>, Psa 22:9<\/span>, Psa 22:10<\/span>). And they overlooked recent chastisement (Num 11:1<\/span>). God forbid that Isa 26:11<\/span> should be true of us, lest Pro 29:1-27<\/span>, I should be also.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> The disastrous results of their sin.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. They angered Jehovah. Discontent in the guests of his bounty dishonours their generous host, as though Reuben bad complained because Joseph gave more to Benjamin (Gen 43:34<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. They grieved Moses, and even infected him with their own desponding spirit (Pro 29:11-15<\/span>; see sketch below). Note how sin may become epidemic, spreading from the mixed multitude to the Israelites, and thence to Moses, like a disease introduced by foreign sailors spreading to our homes and palaces. Beware of carrying infection (Illustration, Asaph, Psa 73:11-15<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. They got what they desired, but are ruined thereby. Moses’ prayer for help is answered in mercy (Pro 29:16<\/span>, Pro 29:17<\/span>); theirs for flesh, in judgment (Pro 29:18-20<\/span>). They probably added gluttony to lust, and perished in the sight of plenty and at the moment of gratification (cf. Job 20:22<\/span>, Job 20:23<\/span>; Psa 78:30<\/span>, Psa 78:31<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Learn<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Prayers of discontent may bring answers of destruction. E.g; <\/em>Rachel demanding children, and the Israelites a king. Greater wealth but worse health (Ecc 6:1<\/span>, Ecc 6:2<\/span>); worldly prosperity, but leanness of soul (Psa 106:15; 1Ti 6:9<\/span>; Jas 4:4<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. The blessedness of a contented trust (Php 4:11-13<\/span>; Heb 13:5<\/span>).P.<\/p>\n

Num 11:11-15<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

THE SIN OF DESPONDENCY, IN A SERVANT OF GOD<\/strong><\/p>\n

Moses is infected by the people s sin of discontent, though in the milder form of despondency. The signs and effects of it are as follows:<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> MOSES<\/strong> FORGETS<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> BURDENS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> RESPONSIBILITY<\/strong> AND<\/strong> THE<\/strong> AFFLICTIONS<\/strong> THEY<\/strong> BRING<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> THEM<\/strong>, INSTEAD<\/strong> OF<\/strong> BEING<\/strong> A SIGN<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> HE<\/strong> HAS<\/strong> “NOT<\/strong> FOUND<\/strong> FAVOUR<\/strong>” IN<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S SIGHT<\/strong>, ARE<\/strong> A PROOF<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> HONOUR<\/strong> PUT<\/strong> UPON<\/strong> HIM<\/strong>. Illustration: a diplomatist or a general (e.g; <\/em>Sir Garnet Wolseley) selected out of all the Queen’s servants for some arduous enterprise. Christian wife honoured by God with the responsibilities and burdens of motherhood.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> HE<\/strong> FORGETS<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> DUTIES<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> LIMITED<\/strong> BY<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> NATURAL<\/strong> RELATIONSHIPS<\/strong> (Num 11:12<\/span>). We are all “members of one another” (Rom 14:7<\/span>; Php 2:4<\/span>). All are in danger of a selfish disregard of those afar oft (savage Caffres, idolatrous Hindoos), or even of those at our doors, not our own kindred, respecting whose spiritual welfare we may be selfishly indifferent or despondent.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> HE<\/strong> SPEAKS<\/strong> AS<\/strong> THOUGH<\/strong> THE<\/strong> BURDEN<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> THROWN<\/strong> ENTIRELY<\/strong> ON<\/strong> HIMSELF<\/strong>. The questions in Num 11:12<\/span>, Num 11:13<\/span> are very unworthy of him. The cold fog of despondency chills him and obscures the light of God’s presence which was promised to him (Exo 33:14<\/span>).<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> DESPONDENCY<\/strong> LEADS<\/strong> TO<\/strong> UNWORTHY<\/strong> REFLECTIONS<\/strong> ON<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> AND<\/strong> EXAGGERATED<\/strong> STATEMENTS<\/strong> ABOUT<\/strong> HIMSELF<\/strong> (Num 11:13<\/span>, Num 11:14<\/span>). A smaller burden would have been too great for him “alone;” a heavier not too great with God (cf. Joh 15:5<\/span>; Philip. Joh 4:13<\/span>).<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> IT<\/strong> PROMPTS<\/strong> HIM<\/strong> TO<\/strong> A SINFUL<\/strong> PRAYER<\/strong> (Num 11:15<\/span>). Imagine that the prayer had been answered, and Moses had died on the spot; what a humiliating end! (cf. 1Ki 19:4<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Let us learn the lesson Psa 56:3<\/span>, and thus climb to the level of a still higher experience: “I will trust, and not be afraid” (Isa 12:2<\/span>; Isa 26:3<\/span>).P.<\/p>\n

Num 11:17<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

THE COMMUNICATION OF A SPIRITUAL ENDOWMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

The endowment of the elders for official duties was<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. A Divine gift imparted by God himself (1Co 12:4-6<\/span>; Jas 1:17<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Yet mediate, through Moses, who was the first to enjoy it, but was thankful to share it with men in sympathy with himself (cf. 1Co 3:21<\/span>, 1Co 3:22; 1Co 4:6<\/span>, 1Co 4:7<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. A means of relief to Moses and of blessing to the people. The communication did not impoverish Moses, but enriched him. He was like a lamp from which seventy other lamps were lit. The communication of the gift. like mercy, was twice blessedto him that gives and him that takes. It relieved Moses and enriched the elders, yet not for their own advantage, but as a means of discharging their new and solemn trust. All “gifts,” however received, are to be looked on as talents and trusts. The law of the stewardship is found in Rom 12:3-8<\/span>; 1Pe 4:10, 1Pe 4:11<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Learn<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. The value of every spiritual gift. Men should not envy the possessor of it, but thank God for him, since the gift is communicable. If there had been no inspired Moses, there would have been no inspired elders. An Elisha is the heir of an Elijah (2Ki 2:9<\/span>, 2Ki 2:10<\/span>); a Timothy is the son of a Paul (2Ti 1:2<\/span>, 2Ti 1:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. The privilege of being the medium of communicating a spiritual gift (Rom 1:11<\/span>; Php 1:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. The importance of “coveting the best gifts” which God can bestow, without human intervention, through his beloved Son.P.<\/p>\n

Num 11:26-29<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

LARGENESS OF HEART<\/strong><\/p>\n

The brevity of the narrative prevents us forming an adverse judgment of the conduct of Eldad and Medad, for we do net know their motive for remaining in the camp. It may have been ignorance of the call, or shrinking through timidity from a duty which, nevertheless, God would not allow them to escape. But the narrative is not too brief to enable us to see in Moses’ words a fine illustration of largeness of heart. Note<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> JOSHUA<\/strong>‘S APPEAL<\/strong>. His love of order may have been offended. He feared lest the unity of the camp under the leadership of Moses should be disturbed. He was anxious for the honour of his master, and desired that political and ecclesiastical discipline should be not only really, but ostensibly, in his hands. The call of the seventy elders with prophetic powers was a new departure in the history of the theocracy, and now the prophesying of Eldad and Medad, apart, threatened still further apparently to derogate from the honours of Moses. Thus now narrow minds or small hearts may be fearful of that which is novel, and envious of those who take a course independent of established authorities and Church traditions, even though they “seem <\/em>to have the Spirit of God.” They may forbid, or at least “despise, prophesyings” which are not according to rule.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> MOSES<\/strong>‘ REPLY<\/strong>. The only question with Moses is one not of place or method, but of reality. Are the prophesyings and the spirit “of God”? Largeness of heart cannot exempt us from this duty (1Th 5:21<\/span>; 1Jn 4:1-3<\/span>). Moses could not recognize the falsehoods uttered in the tabernacle of Korah, though he rejoiced in the prophesyings of Eldad. Spurious charity is traitorous to truth; true charity can only rejoice “in the truth” (1Co 13:6<\/span>). The lesson taught us is illustrated by various incidents in the New Testament. A large-hearted Christian will not be offended<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. If those who are clearly working in the name of Christ, and with the seal of his approval, do not follow with him (Mar 9:38-40<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. If their success seems to imperil the prosperity of his party or denomination (Joh 3:26<\/span>, &c.).<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. He will rejoice in the work, though unofficial and obscure men have originated it (Act 11:19-24<\/span>).<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. He will not “envy,” but delight, in the proclamation of the gospel, even if the motives of the preachers are marred by “envy and strife” (Php 1:15-18<\/span>). Large-heartedness will “covet earnestly the best gifts” for others, whatever the consequences may be to ourselves.P. <\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG<\/strong><\/p>\n

Num 11:4<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

THE MIXED MULTITUDE<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. <\/strong>How CAME<\/strong> IT<\/strong> THERE<\/strong>? It left Egypt with them (Exo 12:38<\/span>). It had been accumulating, one knows not how long, and in how many ways. Egypt had not been a very comfortable place even for the Egyptians just before the exodus. Ten plagues in swift succession and increasing severity would make many outside Israel to desire another abode. The tyranny of Pharaoh may have been grievous to many of his own people. Many would join departing Israel uninvited; many also may have been asked by well-wishers and acquaintances, “Come with us, and we will do you good” (Num 10:29<\/span>). So now there is a mixed multitude in the Church of Christ. <\/em>It cannot be kept out. The supreme relation among men is no doubt that of union in Christ, spiritual brotherhood, fellowship ever becoming more intimate and precious; but the relations that arise out of nature, all domestic and social bonds in short, must also exert their influence during the earthly course of the Church. Who can tell what effect natural feelings have had in modifying, sometimes even in obscuring, the full force of Divine truth? How hard it was to keep the first generation of Hebrew Christians from mixing the bondage of Judaism with the liberty which is in Christ! Nor must we forget that in every individual Christian <\/em>there is something of the spirit of the mixed multitude, the old man not yet dead, and struggling to keep his hold, even while the new man is growing in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Whatever precaution and strictness the Church may observe, it cannot keep the spirit of the world out.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> DANGER<\/strong> FROM<\/strong> ITS<\/strong> PRESENCE<\/strong>. The mixed multitude began to lust, therein acting according to its nature. There was no covenant with it, no promise to it, no assurance of Canaan. It had no lot in the tabernacle, and what share it got of the manna was to be regarded as one in later days regarded the Saviour’s boon to her: “The dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Hence it was free to think without let or hindrance on the much-loved delicacies of Egypt. Just so there is a mixed multitude in and about the Church of Christ, which, with the spirit of the world dominant in its heart, soon makes the ways of the world to appear in its life. From many temptations you can escape by running away from the scene of them; but what must you do if temptations beset you in the very paths of religion themselves? This is the peculiar danger from the mixed multitude. When Jesus foils the third temptation in the wilderness, Satan departs from him for a season; but what shall he do when Peter, the chosen, daily companion, in the impulse of his carnal heart, would turn him from the cross? We know what Jesus did, but none the less was he exposed to the spirit of the ,nixed multitude then. Or what shall Paul do, intrepid enough against avowed enemies, when his friends at Caesarea assail him in a way to break his heart (Act 21:12<\/span>, Act 21:13<\/span>). There is a subtle, unconscious, unintended way in which the prophecy may be carried out that a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. The mixed multitude may have been dangerous most of all in this, that it did not mean to be dangerous at all.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> How TO<\/strong> GUARD<\/strong> AGAINST<\/strong> THE<\/strong> DANGER<\/strong>. There is but one way, and that to live more and more in pursuit of heavenly objects. The mixed multitude will not alter in the objects of its love; <\/em>when any of its number cease to do so, it is because they have passed over to join the true Israel. The change then must be in usmore of ardour and aspiration. Note Paul’s counsel to Timothy: “Flee also youthful lusts: but follow () righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart” (2Ti 2:22<\/span>). The fleeing is not a mere fleeing; <\/em>it is a pursuing; <\/em>a fleeing because it is a pursuing. Many temptations will pant in vain after the ardour and simplicity in Christ Jesus of such a man as Paul (2Co 4:18; 2Co 5:14-17<\/span>; Eph 4:17-24<\/span>; Php 1:21-23<\/span>; Php 3:7-14<\/span>). And even the subtlest temptations of the mixed multitude are turned gently aside, as by Jesus himself, when his mother and brethren desired to speak with him (Mat 12:46-50<\/span>). We must not only say, but feel it, that the Father’s business is the main thing. From the very depths of our hearts must rise the cry, almost a groaning that cannot be uttered, “Thy will <\/em>be done on earth, as it is in heaven.” Thy will, <\/em>not the wishes of corrupted human affections, however strong and entangling the affections may be (1Co 5:9<\/span>, 1Co 5:10<\/span>; 1Co 7:10-16<\/span>).Y. <\/p>\n

Num 11:10-15<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

THE EXPOSTULATION OF MOSES<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jehovah and his servant Moses are very differently affected by this universal complaint of the Israelites. “The anger of the Lord was kindled greatly ;” how it was expressed, we see later on. At present we have to consider the displeasure of Moses. God was made angry by the unbelief and ingratitude of the people, but Moses is chiefly concerned because of the great straits into which he himself is being brought. Hence his expostulation.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> IT<\/strong> CONTAINS<\/strong> A CLEAR<\/strong> RECOGNITION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> DUTY<\/strong>. Duty may be perfectly clear, even when there is much perplexity as to how it is to be performed. Moses had no manner of doubt that God had put him in his present position. Intolerable was the burden and keen the pain, but they had not come through any ambition of his own, and this in itself made a great deal of difference. If Moses had led the Israelites into the wilderness for his own purposes, he could not have spoken in the way he did. From the intolerable burden there were two ways of escape, flight and deathdeath did suggest itself, but flight never. Moses even in his very complaining is nobler than Jonah running away. As we see him thus suffering this great pressure for the sins of the people, we cannot help thinking of Jesus in the garden, praying that, it possible, the cup might pass from him. So Paul tells us that, in addition to things from without, the care () of all the Churches <\/em>came upon him (2Co 11:28<\/span>). It may be our duty, in the name of God, and at his clear command, to attempt what the world, following out its own order of thinking, calls impossible.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> IT<\/strong> INDICATES<\/strong> A TOO<\/strong> FAVOURABLE<\/strong> ESTIMATE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> HUMAN<\/strong> NATURE<\/strong>, AS<\/strong> HAVING<\/strong> BEEN<\/strong> ENTERTAINED<\/strong> BY<\/strong> MOSES<\/strong>. He must have thought better of his followers and fellow-countrymen than they deserved. Not that he who had seen so much of them could possibly be blind to their faults; but we may well suppose that he expected too great a change from the influences of the sojourn near Sinai. He gave them credit, probably, for something of his own feeling, full of expectation and of joy in the abiding favour and protection of God. And now, when the reality appears in all its hideousness, there is a corresponding reaction. Unregenerate human nature must always be regarded with very moderate expectations. At its best it is a reed easily broken. How much higher than Moses is Jesus! He knew what was in man. And what light he gave to his apostles on this subject, e.g; <\/em>to Paul, who saw and declared so distinctly the weakness of law to do anything save expose and condemn. It is not possible for us to make too much allowance for the corruption and degradation of human nature through sin. Only thus shall we appreciate the change to be effected before men are what God would have them to be.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> REACTION<\/strong> FROM<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> TOO<\/strong> FAVOURABLE<\/strong> ESTIMATE<\/strong> SHOWS<\/strong> ITSELF<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> DESPAIRING<\/strong> LANGUAGE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> MOSES<\/strong>. He goes from one extreme to the other. Having thought too well of Israel he now speaks of them below the truth. They are but sucking children. The many thousands of Israel have been thrown like helpless infants on his bands. We see presently that seventy men out of this very multitude are found fit to assist him, but in his confusion and despair he cannot stop to think of anything but death. He saw only the cloud and not the silver lining. Life henceforth meant nothing but wretchedness, and God’s greatest boon would be to take it away. He wanted to be in that refuge which Job sought after his calamities, where the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest (Job 3:1-26<\/span>, the whole chapter). It is worth while again contrasting Moses under the law with the apostles ,ruder the gospel. When Moses feels the heavily-pressing burden, he loses his presence of mind and begins to talk of death. When the apostles have the murmurers coming to them, they at once in a calm and orderly way prepare to get assistance (Act 6:1-6<\/span>).Y.<\/p>\n

Num 11:16<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Num 11:17<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

THE ANSWER OF GOD<\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. He does not openly and directly reprove the reckless language of his servant. <\/em>Both Moses and the people had sinned, but with such a difference that while God visits the people with immediate and condign punishment he stretches forth his hand to Moses, even as Jesus did to Peter sinking in the sea. God treated Moses here very much as he treated the complaining Elijah (1Ki 19:1-21<\/span>). Moses was just the sort of man who might be trusted to rebuke himself, and bitterly repent all the unjust and unbelieving thoughts, which, upon this sudden temptation, had come into his mind.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. The first word of God tends to bring Moses to a calmer mind. <\/em>It sets before him something practical and not very difficult. Left to himself, he knows not how to begin dealing with this anarchy, especially with his own mind in such a distressed state. But it was a task quite within his reach, to pick out from a limited and probably well-known circle, seventy elders, official and experienced <\/em>men. As he went through this work, he would be brought to feel, and not without a sense of shame, that he had been overtaken by panic. He has talked about sucking children; he now hears that there are at least seventy elders upon whose experience and influence he can lean. We soon find out, if we only listen to God, that temporal troubles are never so bad as they seem.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. The way in which this help was made as effectual as possible. <\/em>As God had given a certain spirit to Moses, so he would give it also to these seventy assistant elders. This was a reminder that he had not afflicted his servant and frowned upon him, as he so recklessly said (Num 11:11<\/span>). We often murmur and complain against Providence for neglecting us, when the real neglect is with ourselves in making a bad use of gifts bestowed. God never tells his people to do things beyond natural strength, without first assuring a sufficiency of power for the thing commanded. “I can do all things, through Christ who inwardly strengthens me,” said Paul There is further encouragement in God’s promise here, as being an illustration of how the spirit is given without measure. There was not a certain limited manifestation to Moses, so that if others shared the spirit with him, he must have less. Neither his power nor his honour were one whir diminished. The question always is, What is the need of men in the sight of God? Then, according to that need, and never coming short of it, are the communications of his Holy Spirit. Moses, instead of being poorer, was really richer, for the spirit was working in a mind to which a precious experience had been added.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. In the sight of these directions we are reminded how Moses spoke out of a comparative inexperience of the burden. <\/em>Moses said there was nothing left for him but to die. The history tells us that so far from dying, he had yet in him nearly forty years of honourable mediatorship between God and men. His proper word was, “I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord” (Psa 118:17<\/span>). It is marvelous to think what some men have gone through in the way of difficulties, losses, and trials. Even the natural man has greater strength in the hour of trouble than at first he is conscious ofa great deal of trouble, when it is once fairly over, comes in the course of time to look a very small thingand if we have God’s strength, then we shall not merely endure tribulation, but glory in it. Front these words of Moses and the practical <\/em>gentle reply of God, learn one great lessonhow easy it is to exaggerate our difficulties and underrate our resources.Y.<\/p>\n

Num 11:18-20<\/span><\/strong>; 31-35<\/strong><\/p>\n

SELF-WILL SURFEITED AND PUNISHED<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. GOD<\/strong>‘S TREATMENT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> SELF<\/strong>–WILL<\/strong>. This is always to be well considered where instances of it are found in the Scriptures, because one of the great ends of God’s dealings with us is to establish his holy, wise, and righteous will in place of our low, jealous, ignorant self-will. The way of parents dealing with children is to curb and restrain them at once; but children grow to be men, and what then? We cannot deal effectually with one another, for self-will is in all of us, and so far as temporal circumstances are concerned, it not unfrequently gets much of its own way. When we come to the discipline of the whole man, God only can effectually deal with self-will. He might curb him in at once, but such would not be discipline fit for a man. It might break the spirit, but it would do nothing to enlighten and change; we see here that God’s treatment is to let people walk awhile in their own way. Self-will breaks out in complaints against the manna: self-will then shall have its desire, and what satisfaction it can get from the flesh for which it craves. Its mouth waters at the thought of the fish of Egypt; it shall have quails, which we may presume were an even greater delicacy. So when, in later years, Israel, in envy of surrounding nations, clamoured for a king, forgetting that the King of kings was theirs, God gave them their wish. The bulk of men will only learn by experience. The prodigal son must know the end of riotous living for himself. It is better to take God’s word at the beginning and not sow to the flesh; but men shall have the opportunity if they choose. So God causes his wind to blow and the quails come, an exceeding great multitude (Psa 68:23-29<\/span>). <\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S TEST<\/strong> OF<\/strong> SELF<\/strong>–CONTROL<\/strong>. He gives the quails, not for one day’s luxury, but to be the food of a month. As nothing is said to the contrary, we must presume the manna was still continued. Indeed we can easily see the reason for its continuance. God in giving the quails, adds an express and solemn warning. They are to be taken with all their consequences. Sweet at first, they shall turn to objects of bitter loathing. They were given, not in complacency, but in anger, hence they had in them the efficacy of a test. Surely the whole of Israel was not rebellious and murmuring. There must have been men of the Nazarite spirit even then, and the question for them is: “Shall we go out after our wont and gather the manna (Exo 16:1-36<\/span>), or shall we, like the rest, gratify our appetites with these delicious quails?” Who can doubt that God was watching his own faithful ones, the Israelites indeed in whom there was no guile? There are doubtless many things in the world, the chief use of which is to test the disposition of man to obey God (Gen 2:16<\/span>, Gen 2:17<\/span>). These quails were given, but there was no obligation to eat them. Every Israelite was free to refuse. A timely repentance, and another wind would have blown away the quails as rapidly as they came. There was a lesson if the people would learn it, from the submissive birds to the rebellious human beings.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S PENALTY<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> SELF<\/strong>–INDULGENCE<\/strong>. There is a seeming contradiction between Num 35:19<\/span>, Num 35:20<\/span>, and Num 35:33<\/span>, but it is only seeming. God hastened his judgment and thereby really showed his mercy. As David chose the brief pestilence, and to fall into the hand of the Lord (2Sa 24:1-25<\/span>.), so here God comes with an immediate and sweeping visitation. Besides, it is possible the people neglected the command to sanctify themselves, and thus further provoked the anger already stirred up; when people get lust into their hearts all sense of law is apt to vanish. It was well the people should see clearly the close connection between disobedience and retribution. Thus did God show, even in these quails, the spirit of a good and perfect gift, Nothing in creation is a blessing in itself; God must make it so, and he can easily in his anger turn it to a curse. God, in making the effect of eating the quails so conspicuous and sudden, still further illustrated by contrast the glory of the manna, for this manna was a beautiful type of the true bread that cometh from heaven. The people had never gathered the manna with such greed and application as they had gathered the quails. When a man breaks the law he is at once guilty, and the punishment, if it be deferred, is so as a matter of expediency, not of right. The lapse of time only makes the connection between sin and punishment less obvious, not at all less certain (Psa 106:15<\/span>; Gal 6:7-9<\/span>).Y.<\/p>\n

Num 11:21-23<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

DEEPER IN UNBELIEF<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. MOSES<\/strong> IN<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> REPLY<\/strong> SNOWS<\/strong> AN<\/strong> IMPERFECT<\/strong> APPRECIATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> HAD<\/strong> SAID<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. As to God’s purpose. <\/em>He had spoken in holy anger, promising flesh, but threatening retribution along with it. The threat is quite as emphatic ,s the promise, but somehow Moses does not heed. At Sinai, when the people made the golden calf, he was so oppressed with the sense of their great sin, and so solicitous for their pardon, as to beg if the pardon were not granted that he might himself be blotted out of God’s book. Where was this anxiety now? His great concern is, not how God may be propitiated and the people spared, but how the people may be propitiated and he himself spared. Contrast Moses here with Christ at all times. Think of the Son’s never-failing remembrance of the Father’s glory. The Son saw and appreciated all things the Father showed him; hence the confidence with which we look to Christ for a revelation of all God’s purposes concerning us, so far as it is right for us to know them. Jesus could ever go out and declare in fitting words and with proper emphasis all the will of God, for he had a perfect appreciation of that will himself. But how was Moses to go out and speak properly to the people when he himself had only half-heard, as it were, what God had said to him? Doubtless he repeated the message of God in the very same words; but one fears that while he made it quite clear to the people they should have flesh, he made it not quite so clear that God was sending it in anger. Let us ever get to the spirit of God’s messages to us; never content till their fullness of meaning has passed into our heart, so that something like the fullness of service may pass out of it again.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. As to God’s power. <\/em>History repeats itself. Unbelief, natural ignorance of God, slowness of heart to take in what he has spoken,these repeat themselves in their manner of receiving God’s promises. Moses talks here as the disciples did at the feeding of the five thousand (Mat 14:15<\/span>). And yet, <\/em>after all his wonderful experiences, there should not have been the slightest difficulty in receiving what God had said. Of all possible convictions, this should have rested on solid groundthat what God had promised he assuredly had power to perform. Is not this one of the great differences between God and men? Men promise and forget, or fall short; God is always better than his promises, for they have to be spoken in defective human words, while they are fulfilled in complete Divine actions.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CAUSE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> IMPERFECT<\/strong> APPRECIATION<\/strong>. Can we not detect, and especially in the light of his subsequent language, something like doubt, something like leaning upon creature supports instead of God, in the invitation which he gave to Hobab? If this be so, we wonder little at his language of bitter complaint and despair (Num 11:11-15<\/span>); and we wonder less that he so soon showed himself out of sympathy with the Divine purposes. The eye of faith had become dim; self-preservation, escape from an intolerable burden, occupied his thoughts. Was it astonishing that, unbelief having found a temporary lodgment in the heart of the leader, the followers should have failed to take in all <\/em>the purport of God’s message? Learn from this how carefully spirituality of mind needs to be guarded. We must not be seduced into leaning upon men instead of trusting in God. <\/em>Men may solace and encourage us as companions; they are never to take the place of Providence. So neither are we to be terrified and paralyzed by sudden and stupendous revelations of human wickedness. In the midst of them all we hear the one voice speaking, “Be still, and know that I am God.”Y.<\/p>\n

Num 11:26-29<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

FOOLISH ADVICE WISELY REJECTED<\/strong><\/p>\n

God fulfils his promise, and gives to these seventy men a spirit which doubtless brings them into more active sympathy with Moses, and takes away the carnal and selfish views which had prevailed in their minds. The difference between their present and former state was probably much like that between the state of the apostles after and before the day of Pentecost. They had a perspicacity, a power, a courage, a zeal, which did not belong to them before. As they prophesied, may we not suppose that Moses beard from them expressions quite new to his ears as coming from Israelite lips? And to make the occasion more memorable and significant, two of the seventy, who for some unexplained reason remained in the camp, nevertheless prophesied, as did those in the tabernacle. The intelligence was very quickly brought to Moses. Some of the Israelites would be greatly shocked by such an irregular proceeding, though perhaps they had seen nothing very censurable in the general cry of the people for flesh. Punctiliousness in ceremony and etiquette is often joined with laxity in things of moment (Mat 23:23<\/span>). The reception of the news is followed by<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> FOOLISH<\/strong> ADVICE<\/strong> Or JOSHUA<\/strong>. Foolish, although given by a devoted friend. <\/em>Joshua would probably have died for Moses, but he could not, therefore, give him good counsel. Attachment itself has not unfrequently a blinding effect on the judgment. A stranger might advise more wisely. It is the right <\/em>of friendship to offer advice, but it is often the height <\/em>of friendship, the very bloom and delicacy of it, to refrain. We find similar instances (Mat 16:21-23<\/span>; Act 21:12<\/span>, Act 21:13<\/span>). Foolish, because evidently given without consideration. <\/em>The circumstances were quite novel to Joshua. The grounds on which he dashed out his advice were mere matters of hearsay. There was enough to have made him cautious. <\/em>Eldad and Medad were among the chosen ones; those present had been gifted with the spirit; what more likely then upon consideration, what more worthy of reverent acceptance, than that the absentees should have been similarly visited? Advice, when it is given with full knowledge of circumstances and full consideration of thefts, may be indeed precious, the very salvation and security of a perplexed mind. Otherwise, the greater the ignorance the greater the mischief. Advice should mostly come in response to a request for it. Foolish, because it concerned the status of Moses rather than the glory of God. <\/em>Much of the advice of friendship is vitiated, through shutting out all save personal considerations. One friend advises another as a counsel does his client, not that justice may be done, but that his client may gain his end. Joshua was considering how the reputation and influence of “his lord Moses” would be affected. Foolish because it was given to a man who was in no doubt. <\/em>Moses was rejoicing in escape from a heavy burden, and the visitation upon Eldad and Medad was the very thing still further to comfort him. The folly of the advice is crowned, as we observe that it recommended an impossibility. <\/em>“Forbid them.” Forbid what? That they should prophesy! As well forbid the branches not to sway with a strong wind as forbid men to prophesy when the Spirit comes upon them. Even Balaam could not help uttering the Lord’s prophecies and blessing Israel from the very mouth that would fain, in its greed of filthy lucre, have uttered a curse.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> FOOLISH<\/strong> ADVICE<\/strong> WISELY<\/strong> REJECTED<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. As to the substance <\/em>of the rejection. Possibly if Moses had been a different kind of man, he might have said to himself, “There is something in what Joshua says.” But he was not one of the aut Caesar ant nullus <\/em>order. Joshua, in his impetuous word, was concerned for his master’s honour; the master himself was concerned about his grievous burden. Not even Joshua understood the bitter experiences through which Moses had lately passed. “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets!” Our measure before God does not depend on our standing among men. Moses would not have been one whit less esteemed in heaven if every other Israelite had been as spiritually-minded as himself. Joshua had been speaking to a man who, like Christian, had been toiling on with a weary weight on his back. He has just got rid of it, and “Forbid them” really meant, “Take the burden up again.”<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. As to the spirit <\/em>of the rejection. Moses shows here the meekness and gentleness with which he is so emphatically credited in the next chapter. Advice, when it cannot be taken, even when it is most foolish and meddlesome, should be pushed gently away; and if the spirit in which it has been given is evidently kind and generous, let the refusal be mingled with gratefulness. Joshua loved Moses, and Moses loved Joshua. “Enviest thou for my sake?” Thus Moses recognizes the devotion and bona fides <\/em>of his friend.Y.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Num 11:4<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>The mixt multitude<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> See Exo 12:38<\/span>. Infected by the example of this mixed multitude, <\/em>the children of Israel returned again <\/em>to their former murmurings, and bemoaned themselves for the want of the provisions they had fed upon in Egypt. “Their sin,” says Bishop Kidder, “was much aggravated upon the following accounts: 1st, They declared their distrust of God’s power and providence, whereof they had had so great experience; see Exo 16:2<\/span>. <\/span>Psa 78:22<\/span>; Psa 100:2<\/span> nd, They un-thankfully despised God and his former mercies. 3rdly, They covetously desired flesh, when they had much cattle of their own.” Exo 32:35<\/span> with Num 32:4<\/span>. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Observe, the murmuring begins with the mixed multitude, but it doth not end there. Israel also is soon infected. How necessary that precept, Eph 5:11<\/span> . My soul! are not all the lusts of a corrupt nature of the same kind? Rom 3:9<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

Num 11:4 And the mixt multitude that [was] among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

Ver. 4. And the mixed multitude.<\/strong> ] See Trapp on “<\/em> Exo 12:38 “<\/em> Observe the danger of ill company. Fish retain their sweetness in the salt sea. The river Dee in Merionethshire, running through Pimblemere, remains entire, and mingles not her streams with the waters of the lake. The rivers of Peru, after they have run some miles into the sea, retain their sweetness, as writers report. But to converse with the ungodly, and not to learn their manners, is marvellously rare and difficult. A man may pass through Ethiopia unchanged; but he cannot dwell there and not be discoloured. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The children of Israel wept again.<\/strong> ] And were punished again. Herein they were like froward children, that, while crying for an apple that is in the father’s hand, will fling away the cake that is in their own; and so get a whipping rather than a pippin, as we say; a lashing rather than their longing.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

multitude = camp followers. See Exo 12:38. <\/p>\n

fell a lusting. Hebrew Figure of speech Polyptoton, App-6. = “lusted a lusting”, emphatic for lusted exceedingly. Psa 106:14; Psa 78:18-20. <\/p>\n

children = sons. <\/p>\n

Who shall give? Figure of speech Erotesis (App-6). <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

mixt mixed <\/p>\n

CF. Exo 12:38. (See Scofield “Exo 12:38”). Unconverted church members, unable to desire or understand Christ as the Bread of God Exo 16:35. See Scofield “Exo 16:35” will clamour for things pleasing to the flesh in the work and way of the church: sumptuous buildings, ornate ritual, an easy doctrine. Alas! they lead away the unspiritual believers also. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

the mixed: Exo 12:38, Lev 24:10, Lev 24:11, Neh 13:3 <\/p>\n

fell a lusting: Heb. lusted a lust <\/p>\n

the children: 1Co 15:33 <\/p>\n

wept again: Heb. returned and wept <\/p>\n

Who shall: Psa 78:18-20, Psa 106:14, Rom 13:14, 1Co 10:6 <\/p>\n

Reciprocal: Exo 16:3 – flesh Exo 17:2 – the people Lev 25:20 – General Num 11:18 – ye have wept Num 33:16 – Kibrothhattaavah Deu 9:7 – from the day Deu 9:22 – Kibrothhattaavah Deu 12:20 – I will Deu 29:11 – stranger 2Sa 23:15 – longed 1Ch 11:17 – longed Psa 78:19 – Can God Psa 105:40 – asked Pro 27:7 – full Mal 1:12 – The table Mat 4:3 – command 1Jo 2:16 – the lust of the flesh Rev 18:14 – thy soul<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Num 11:4. The children of Israel also wept again That is, they again complained and murmured, that God had so lately visited them with such awful marks of his displeasure; though their special relation and obligation to God should have restrained them from any such carriage. Bishop Kidder justly observes, that their sin was much aggravated on the following accounts: 1st, They declared their distrust of Gods power and providence, of which they had had so great experience. 2d, They despised God and his former mercies. 3d, They covetously desired flesh, when they had much cattle of their own, Exo 12:32; Exo 12:38, and Num 32:4.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Num 11:4-35 (JE). The Peoples Lust for Flesh and Moses Complaint of his Excessive Burden.This section is a combination of two narratives (from J and E), relating (1) a demand of the people for flesh (instead of manna), which was satisfied by a flight of quails; (2) a complaint of Moses that the responsibility of leadership was too great for him, which was met by the appointment of 70 elders to assist him. But the separation of the two stories cannot be effected with perfect confidence, and some verses may originally have stood in a different context.<\/p>\n

Num 11:4-10. The Discontent with the Manna, and the Desire for Flesh.The complaint about the lack of flesh is inconsistent with the possession by Israel of the flocks and herds implied in Num 32:1, Exo 12:32; Exo 12:38; Exo 17:3. The use of fish, onions, and leeks as food in Egypt is mentioned by Herodotus (ii. 92, 125). The description of the manna (Num 11:7-9) is probably based on that of a natural product, the yellowish, sweet-tasting gum that exudes from a variety of tamarisk. This natural manna, however, flows only in small quantities, quite inadequate to serve as food for a multitude of people, so that tradition has magnified both its amount and its sustaining qualities. The account given in Exo 16:14-36* presents even more marvellous details than the present passage; cf. also Neh 9:15, Psa 78:24; Psa 105:40.<\/p>\n

Num 11:4. the mixed multitude.Of the various foreigners (Egyptians and Arabs) with whom the Israelites had become associated in Egypt, some had accompanied them on their departure thence: cf. Exo 12:38.<\/p>\n

Num 11:6. our soul: i.e. our appetite.<\/p>\n

Num 11:7. bdellium: a resinous substance of a yellow colour (Gen 2:11).<\/p>\n

Num 11:8. beat it in mortars: This was one of the earliest modes of preparing corn, before the more satisfactory method of grinding it between two stones was devised. Both the mortar and the pestle were of wood (cf. Hesiod, Works and Days, 423). Robinson Crusoe on his island had to have recourse to this shift.fresh oil: the word is of uncertain meaning; Vulg. panis oleatus.<\/p>\n

Num 11:11 f. Moses Remonstrance to Yahweh that his Burden Exeeeds his Capacity.This complaint has no obvious connexion with the subject of the peoples murmurs, but relates to the responsibility of leading Israel into Canaan (cf. Exo 33:12 f.); and clearly requires for its proper sequel not the satisfaction of the demand for flesh, but the relief afforded to Moses himself by the appointment of a body of colleagues. There is thus introduced here quite a distinct story from the foregoing.<\/p>\n

Num 11:13. This verse is a continuation of Num 11:4-10, though some words (like Moses said unto Yahweh) have been lost between them.<\/p>\n

Num 11:14-17. A resumption of Moses expostulation in Num 11:11 f., and a promise from Yahweh to relieve his burden by giving him 70 colleagues to share it. The spirit resting upon Moses is regarded as a quasi-physical fluid, capable of being divided and imparted to others.<\/p>\n

Num 11:14. kill me: cf. Elijahs despondency (1Ki 19:4).<\/p>\n

Num 11:18-24 a. A return is made to the peoples demand for flesh (Num 11:4-10, Num 11:13), which Yahweh promises to gratify, even to satiety.<\/p>\n

Num 11:18. sanctify yourselves: i.e. practise the abstinence and perform the lustrations necessary before witnessing a manifestation of Divine power (cf. Exo 19:10 f., Jos 3:5).<\/p>\n

Num 11:20. come out, etc.: presumably by vomiting.<\/p>\n

Num 11:24 b Num 11:30. This section continues Num 11:14-17. Yahweh performs the promise which is there expressed, and the influence of the spirit, hitherto confined to Moses, affects with prophetic frenzy (cf. 1Sa 10:10; 1Sa 19:20 f.) not only the 70 elders gathered at the Tabernacle, but two others not included amongst them, an incident which renders Moses servant Joshua jealous for his masters sake, but elicits a noble reply from Moses himself (cf. Act 10:34-48).<\/p>\n

Num 11:25. the cloud: the conception is probably derived from the early association of Yahweh with the sky, where the storm-cloud formed His chariot (Psa 18:9-12).<\/p>\n

Num 11:25. they did so no more: i.e. the prophetic frenzy was only of temporary duration.<\/p>\n

Num 11:26. written: i.e. registered as elders (Neh 12:22).<\/p>\n

Num 11:28. one men: better (mg.), from his youth.<\/p>\n

Num 11:31-35. Here there is again a return to the peoples demand for flesh (Num 11:18-24 a), which is satisfied by immense flights of quails. Quails migrate in great numbers from Africa to Europe in the spring, and return in the autumn, and are captured for the market. As they occur in the Sinaitic peninsula, it is thus probable enough that at certain times they afforded food for the Israelites in the wilderness; and the incident is regarded even by the writer (who explains that the wind was the immediate agency employed) as an example of special providence rather than as a miracle. Another mention of the relief of the peoples needs by flights of quails is found in Exo 16:13; and references to such incidents occur in Psa 78:26-31; Psa 106:13-15.<\/p>\n

Num 11:31. the sea: the gulf of Akabah.two cubits, etc. The quails flew at the height of a yard above the ground, and were probably netted.<\/p>\n

Num 11:32. ten homers: about 110 bushels.spread them: i.e. for drying in the sun, with a view to curing them for keeping.<\/p>\n

Num 11:33. while . . . teeth: i.e. while the supply lasted.ere it was chewed: better, ere it (the supply) was cut off (or failed).<\/p>\n

Num 11:34. Kibroth-hattaavah: this site is unknown.<\/p>\n

Num 11:35. Hazeroth: identified by some with Ain el Hadra, a place two days journey N.E. of Sinai.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11:4 And the mixt {a} multitude that [was] among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?<\/p>\n

(a) Which were of those strangers that came out of Egypt with them, Exo 12:38.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

God’s provision of manna and His Spirit 11:4-35<\/span><\/p>\n

The "rabble" or "worthless foreigners" (CEV, Num 11:4) were the non-Israelites who had come out of Egypt with God’s people (Exo 12:38). It did not take them long to become discontented with conditions in the desert and to complain about their bland diet of manna. Their grumbling quickly infected the Israelites (Num 11:4). These malcontents despised God’s provision of manna for them and longed for the stronger flavors they had enjoyed in Egypt. They failed to take heed to the warning God had given at Taberah.<\/p>\n

"To spurn a regularly occurring, abundant and nutritious food only because it is boring is understandably human-a pitiable mark of our tendency toward ingratitude." [Note: Allen, p. 790.] <\/span><\/p>\n

As believers we must be careful of the strong flavors of the interesting and stimulating fare that the world has to offer and not imbibe these things too much. Too much participation in these things can make us feel bored with and lose interest in what God has provided for our spiritual nourishment, which may seem bland and unappealing by comparison. God’s provision for our nourishment and growth, our manna, are His written word and His incarnate Word, the Bread of Life (cf. 1Pe 2:2; Joh 6:48-58).<\/p>\n

Moses must have felt caught in the middle (Num 11:10-15). On the one hand the people seemed to be mutinous, and on the other God was angry because of their attitude (Num 11:10). The discomfort of desert travel seems to have affected him too. He failed to look to God for His wisdom and provision. Instead he became frustrated. This frustration seems traceable to Moses’ taking on more responsibility for the people than was really his.<\/p>\n

Moses’ use of the mother figure to describe God (Num 11:12) is unusual but not unique in Scripture (e.g., Exo 4:22; Isa 49:15; Isa 66:13; Hos 11:1; cf. 1Th 2:7). Normally the Bible presents God as a male because He relates to people in traditionally male roles primarily. However, He also deals with us in ways that are more typically female, and in these instances He compares Himself to females.<\/p>\n

God again accommodated to Moses’ weakness (Num 11:16-23; cf. Exo 4:14) and provided 70 men to share Moses’ responsibility of explaining God’s will to the people. He did this so their complaining would not grow into mob violence. God’s Spirit rested on Moses in a special measure (Num 11:17). God now gave these elders His Spirit in similar fashion and with Him the ability to prophesy.<\/p>\n

"Prophesying here does not refer to prediction or even to proclamation but to giving (in song or speech) praise and similar expressions without prior training (see the comparable experience of Saul in 1Sa 10:9-11)." [Note: Merrill "Numbers,", in The Bible . . ., p. 227. See also 1 Chronicles 25:1.] <\/span><\/p>\n

The people’s discontent with God and His will for them (Num 11:20) had given them an unrealistic picture of their situation. They claimed to have been happy in Egypt (Num 11:18; Num 11:20). They forgot that they had been slaves.<\/p>\n

". . . in ancient times meat was eaten in Israel only on special occasions. In the wilderness it would have been very much a luxury. In any event, the offense of the demand for meat was just part of the larger offense of romanticizing the time in Egypt, where there had always been an abundance of fish and fresh vegetables. They were saying in effect that the entire so-called ’deliverance’ from slavery had turned out to be one huge disappointment." [Note: Maarsingh, p. 39.] <\/span><\/p>\n

God’s gracious provision of meat was a mixed blessing. He gave them what they requested but kept them where they were for a month (Num 11:20) and allowed them to get sick from the meat (Num 11:33; Psa 106:15). This punishment was not vindictive but disciplinary and designed to teach the people to accept what God sent them as best for them. God permitted their trials in the wilderness to prepare them for the hardships they would face when they entered the land.<\/p>\n

"The people were to be broken by the experience because they had despised the gift of God, glorified their stay in Egypt, and characterized their redemption from slavery as a meaningless event." [Note: Ibid., p. 41.] <\/span><\/p>\n

God’s promise to provide meat stretched Moses’ faith to its limit (Num 11:21-22). God reminded him that His power was limitless. Even Moses had temporarily forgotten the miracles in Egypt.<\/p>\n

Evidently the elders’ prophesying was a singular occurrence; it happened only on this one occasion (Num 11:25). This incident indicates that God’s bestowal of the Holy Spirit at this time was temporary. The Spirit had not previously been on these elders. Furthermore it was selective. The Spirit was not on all the Israelites as He was on these elders. Contrast our day when the Spirit indwells all believers permanently (Joh 14:16-17; Joh 16:7; Joh 16:13; Acts 2).<\/p>\n

"Though the Old Testament does not contain a fully developed theology of the Holy Spirit, it does reveal enough to show that the Spirit was a manifestation of God Himself and not merely a way of referring to some divine attribute (see, for example, Gen 1:2; Gen 6:3; Exo 31:3; Num 24:2; Jdg 3:10; 1Sa 10:6; 1Sa 10:10; Isa 11:2; Isa 42:1; Isa 61:1)." [Note: Merrill, "Numbers," in The Old . . ., p. 112.] <\/span><\/p>\n

It is not surprising that Jewish interpreters see this Spirit as Moses’ human spirit rather than the Holy Spirit. [Note: See, for example, Ze’ev Weisman, "The Personal Spirit as Imparting Authority," Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 93:2 (1981):225-34.] <\/span> We have no reason to believe that God withdrew the Spirit from the elders, though the text does not say one way or the other. Perhaps only their ability to prophesy ceased (Num 11:25). [Note: See Allen, p. 794.] <\/span> This ability was a divine sign to the people that dampened their rebellious spirits. Leon Wood refuted the view that prophesying involved ecstatic utterances. [Note: Leon J. Wood, The Prophets of Israel, pp. 39-56.] <\/span> And this passage does not support such a view. The prophesying in view probably involved praising God (cf. 1Ch 25:1). [Note: Ibid., pp. 90-91.] <\/span> It was not Moses who was indispensable for Israel, but the Lord’s Spirit.<\/p>\n

Joshua’s jealousy for Moses’ honor in the nation (Num 11:28-29) is understandable (cf. Mar 9:38-39), but he had greater concern for Moses’ honor than for the good of the people. Moses realized that Israel would be better off if God had given all the people His Spirit and the gift of prophecy. He has given all Christians His Spirit and the ability to praise Him. God may have included this incident involving Joshua in the narrative because of his later role as Israel’s leader. He also may have done so to emphasize the value of the gift of the Holy Spirit that God graciously gave the people even in their rebellious condition.<\/p>\n

"Behind these words [in Num 11:29] lay a world of faith. We see that Moses understood that the issue was not for him to decide but for God. If necessary God would act on his servant’s behalf." [Note: Maarsingh, p. 42.] <\/span><\/p>\n

The Spirit (Heb. ruah<\/span>) of Yahweh settled the leadership problem (Num 11:29), and now the wind (Heb. ruah<\/span>) from Yahweh would solve the food problem (Num 11:31). The wind blew from the southeast (Psa 78:26) and apparently brought quails from the Gulf of Aqabah (Num 11:31-34). Normally quails migrated to the northeast, from central Africa, so the direction from which these quails came was an abnormal provision of the Lord. [Note: Merrill, "Numbers," in The Bible . . ., p. 227; Keil and Delitzsch, 3:72.] <\/span> The NASB interpreted Num 11:31 as meaning the quails lay three feet deep on the ground, but the NIV translators understood that they flew about three feet above the ground. The latter interpretation seems more probable to me. The sickness of the people was a judgment for their greed. They wanted something for themselves that God had not chosen for them. [Note: See Theodore Ouzounellis, "Some Notes on Quail Poisoning," Journal of the American Medical Association 211:7 (Feb. 16, 1970):1186-87.] <\/span><\/p>\n

"The central purpose of the narrative appears to be to show the failure of Moses’ office as mediator for the people [Num 11:14]. . . . The ideal leadership of God’s people is shown in the example of the seventy elders. . . . In other words, this narrative shows that Moses longed for a much different type of community than the one formed under the Law at Sinai. He longed for a community led not by a person like himself but a community guided by God’s Spirit [Num 11:29; cf. Deu 30:6].<\/p>\n

"The view expressed by Moses in this narrative is precisely that of the later Israelite prophets in their description of the new covenant [cf. Jer 31:31-34; Eze 11:20; Eze 36:22-27; Joe 2:28]." [Note: Sailhamer, pp. 385-86.] <\/span><\/p>\n

After their month at Kibroth-hattaavah the people journeyed on to Hazeroth (lit. "enclosures") where the events recorded in the next chapter took place (cf. Num 12:16).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

And the mixed multitude that [was] among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? 4. The place where the incident occurred is not stated. But in Num 11:34 a name is given to the spot in consequence of the event. the … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 11:4”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4037","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4037","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4037"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4037\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4037"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4037"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4037"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}