12<\/strong>. Had Moses and Aaron shewn a true faith they would have been the means of exhibiting God’s holiness before the eyes of the people. By their unbelief they detracted from it.<\/p>\n Verse 12<\/span>. Because ye believed me not<\/B><\/I>] What was the offence for which Moses was excluded from the promised land? It appears to have consisted in some or all of the following particulars:<\/P> 1. God had commanded him (Nu 20:8<\/span>) to take the rod in his hand, and go and<\/I> SPEAK TO THE ROCK, and it<\/I> should give forth water<\/I>. It seems Moses did not think speaking<\/I> would be sufficient, therefore he smote<\/I> the rock without any command so to do.<\/P> 2. He did this twice<\/I>, which certainly in this case indicated a great perturbation of spirit, and want of attention to the presence of God.<\/P> 3. He permitted his spirit<\/I> to be carried away by a sense of the people’s disobedience, and thus, being provoked<\/I>, he was led to speak unadvisedly with his lips<\/I>: Hear now, ye<\/I> REBELS, Nu 20:10<\/span>.<\/P> 4. He did not acknowledge GOD in the miracle which was about to be wrought, but took the honour to himself and Aaron: “Must<\/I> WE fetch you water out of this rock<\/I>?”<\/P> Thus it plainly appears that they did not properly believe<\/I> in God, and did not honour<\/I> him in the sight of the people; for in their presence they seem to express a doubt whether the thing could be possibly done. As Aaron appears to have been consenting in the above particulars, therefore he is also excluded from the promised land.<\/P> <\/p>\n Ye believed me not, <\/B>but showed your infidelity; which they did either by their looks and gestures, or rather by the matter and manner of their expressions and actions; either, <\/P> 1. By smiting the rock, and that twice, which is emphatically noted, as if he doubted whether once smiting would have done it, whereas he was not commanded to smite so much as once, but only to speak to it; or, <\/P> 2. By the doubtfulness of these words, Num 20:10<\/span>, <\/P> Must we fetch water out of the rock?<\/B> which implies a suspicion of it, as the like words do, Gen 18:13<\/span>, whereas they should have spoken positively and confidently to the rock to give forth waters. And yet they did not doubt of the power of God, but of his will, whether he would gratify these rebels with this further miracle, after so many of the like kind. And besides the words themselves, it is considerable, both with what mind they were spoken, which God saw to be distrustful, and in what manner they were delivered, which the people might discern to come from misbelief or doubt. And there might be divers other unbelieving words used by them at this time and place, though they be not here recorded, it being usual in Scripture to give only the sum or principal heads of discourses or events, leaving the rest to be gathered out of them. See Psa 106:32<\/span>,33<\/span>. <\/P> To sanctify me, <\/B>i.e. to give me glory of my power in doing this miracle, and of my truth in punctually fulfilling my promise so to do, and of my goodness in doing it notwithstanding the peoples perverseness. <\/P> In the eyes of the children of Israel:<\/B> this made their sin scandalous to the Israelites, who of themselves were too prone to infidelity, and little needed such an ill example; to prevent the contagion whereof God leaves a monument of his great displeasure upon them, and inflicts a punishment as public and manifest as their sin was. <\/P> <\/p>\n 12. The Lord spake unto Moses andAaron, Because ye believed me not,<\/B> &c.The act of Moses insmiting twice betrayed a doubt, not of the power, but of the will ofGod to gratify such a rebellious people, and his exclamation seems tohave emanated from a spirit of incredulity akin to Sarai’s (Ge18:13<\/span>). These circumstances indicate the influence of unbelief,and there might have been others unrecorded which led to so severe achastisement.<\/P><\/p>\n And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron<\/strong>,…. Out of the cloud, where his glory appeared, and still continued:<\/p>\n because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel<\/strong>; that Moses and Aaron committed an evil which was displeasing to the Lord is certain, but what that was is variously represented. Some say their sin was, that the order was to speak to the rock, whereas it was smitten, and not spoken to; but why then was Moses bid to take the rod with him, if it was not to smite with it, as he had done before at Horeb? and besides, this would only have been the sin of Moses, and not of Aaron; others think, that what provoked the Lord was, that the Israelites were called “rebels”; but this is a name the Lord himself gave them, Nu 17:10<\/span>, and was what they justly deserved; and what after this Moses says of them, which, had this been the case, he would have been careful to have abstained from, De 9:24<\/span>. Others are of opinion, that what was displeasing to the Lord was, that the bringing the water out of the rock was ascribed to themselves, and not to him; “must we fetch you water”, c. Others suppose the sin was in smiting the rock twice, and in anger but this could only be the fault of Moses at most. Dr. Lightfoot b thinks the particular fault was this, that Moses expressed his displeasure and resentment to the Israelites, that on their murmuring a new rock was opening, which portended a new and long stay in the wilderness, as the opening of the first rock at Horeb did when he and Aaron were in expectation of being soon out of the wilderness, and now they feared they were beginning anew their abode in it; but it is certain from the text that unbelief was their sin; they were diffident about the will of God to bring water out of the rock for such a rebellious people, and they did not put them in mind of the miracles God had wrought in former time, to encourage their faith; and so the Lord was not sanctified by them before the people, as he ought to have been:<\/p>\n therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them<\/strong>; the land of Canaan, a grant of which was made to their fathers, and particularly to this generation, and into which they would certainly be brought; but not by Moses and Aaron, who were excluded because of their unbelief, and accordingly both died before the entrance of the people into the land. This, according to the Targum of Jonathan, and Jarchi, was said with an oath; see Heb 3:18<\/span>.<\/p>\n b See his Works, vol. 1. p. 36.<\/p>\n The Lord then said to both of them, both Moses and Aaron, “ Because ye have not trusted firmly in Me, to sanctify Me before the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them<\/em>.” The want of belief or firm confidence in the Lord, through which both of them had sinned, was not actual unbelief or distrust in the omnipotence and grace of God, as if God could not relieve the want of water or extend His help to the murmuring people; for the Lord had promised His help to Moses, and Moses did what the Lord had commanded him. It was simply the want of full believing confidence, a momentary wavering of that immovable assurance, which the two heads of the nation ought to have shown to the congregation, but did not show. Moses did even more than God had commanded him. Instead of speaking to the rock with the rod of God in his hand, as God directed him, he spoke to the congregation, and in these inconsiderate words, “Shall we fetch you water out of the rock?” words which, if they did not express any doubt in the help of the Lord, were certainly fitted to strengthen the people in their unbelief, and are therefore described in Psa 106:33<\/span> as prating (speaking unadvisedly) with the lips (cf. Lev 5:4<\/span>). He then struck the rock twice with the rod, “as if it depended upon human exertion, and not upon the power of God alone,” or as if the promise of God “would not have been fulfilled without all the smiting on his part” ( Knobel<\/em>). In the ill-will expressed in these words the weakness of faith was manifested, by which the faithful servant of God, worn out with the numerous temptations, allowed himself to be overcome, so that he stumbled, and did not sanctify the Lord before the eyes of the people, as he ought to have done. Aaron also wavered along with Moses, inasmuch as he did nothing to prevent Moses’ fall. But their sin became a grievous one, from the fact that they acted unworthily of their office. God punished them, therefore, by withdrawing their office from them before they had finished the work entrusted to them. They were not to conduct the congregation into the promised land, and therefore were not to enter in themselves (cf. Num 27:12-13<\/span>; Deu 32:48<\/span>.). The rock, from which water issued, is distinguished by the article , not as being already known, or mentioned before, but simply as a particular rock in that neighbourhood; though the situation is not described, so as to render it possible to search for it now.<\/p>\n (Note: Moses Nachmanides<\/em> has given a correct interpretation of the words, “Speak to the rock before their eyes” (Num 20:8<\/span>): viz., “to the first rock in front of them, and standing in their sight.” The fable attributed to the Rabbins, viz., that the rock of Rephidim<\/em> followed the Israelites all about in the desert, and supplied them with water, cannot be proved from the talmudical and rabbinical passages given by Buxtorf<\/em> ( historia Petrae in deserto<\/em>) in his exercitatt. c. v.,<\/em> but is simply founded upon a literal interpretation of certain rabbinical statements concerning the identity of the well at Rephidim with that at Kadesh, which were evidently intended to be figurative, as Abarbanel<\/em> expressly affirms ( Buxtorf, l. c.<\/em> pp. 422ff.). “Their true meaning,” he says, “was, that those waters which flowed out in Horeb were the gift of God granted to the Israelites, and continued all through the desert, just like the manna. For wherever they went, fountains of living waters were opened to them as the occasion required. And for this reason, the rock in Kadesh was the same rock as that in Horeb. Still less ground is there for supposing that the Apostle Paul alluded to any such rabbinical fable when he said, “They drank of that spiritual rock that followed them” (1Co 10:4<\/span>), and gave it a spiritual interpretation in the words, “and that rock was Christ.”)<\/p>\n Verses 12, 13:<\/strong><\/p>\n God instructed Moses to speak to the rock, and promised that water would flow from it. He was to serve in his role as mediator between God and Israel, as he had faithfully done on prior occasions. But this time, Moses failed. He lost his temper, and lashed out at the people in anger. His speech indicated that he was exasperated with them, and that he himself was the one to give them water. In this he slandered the reputation and work of Jehovah God. He put himself in the place of God, thus bringing the holy One of Israel down to the level of mortal man. Ps 106:32, 33 refers to this incident, that Moses “spake unadvisedly with his lips,” literally, he “babbled,” from beta, <\/strong>“to talk foolishly or rashly, to boast.”<\/p>\n Moses’ sin appears to have been more a sin of attitude than of action. <\/strong>It is true that he struck the rock – twice – when God told him to speak to it. This spoiled the type of Christ our Rock who was “smitten” for sin once, Isa 53:4; Heb 10:12-14. But, the fact that God instructed Moses to take with him the rod with which he struck the rock at Rephidim could imply that this was not Moses’ primary sin.<\/p>\n Aaron was included in the sentence God pronounced upon Moses, that the two brothers would not be allowed to lead Israel into the Land of Promise. Aaron died not many days later and was buried at Mount Hor. Moses died at the end of the fortieth year, just prior to Israel’s passage into the Land, Nu 27:12-14; De 34:1-7.<\/p>\n The site of this event was called “Meribah,” meaning “strife.” A similar occurrence of the term is in Ex 17:7, implying that there may have been at least two places which bore this name.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 12. And the Lord spoke unto Moses and Aaron. God here both sets forth their crime, and pronounces its punishment. Now, whilst unbelief is in itself a gross and detestable evil, God aggravates its guilt by declaring its consequence, viz., that He was defrauded of His glory, when Moses and Aaron, who ought to have been the proclaimers of the miracle, lay as it were confounded with shame. For, whereas their confidence, by exciting attention, would have sanctified God’s name, so by their mistrust it came to pass that all were led to think that there was nothing to be hoped from His assistance. <\/p>\n When Moses not only ingenuously confesses his guilt, but also relates how he was condemned by God, and, in order that his disgrace may be more complete, introduces Him speaking as from His judgment-seat, this does not a little tend to establish the truth of his doctrine. For what human being, unless he had renounced all carnal affections, would voluntarily endure to declare himself guilty before all the world? His angelic virtues were sufficient to exempt him from all suspicion. Having erred in one particular only, he proclaims the disgrace which he might have concealed, and does not hesitate to disparage himself, in order to magnify the goodness of God. And surely it is obvious from the passage that, whenever God had before pardoned the people at the request of Moses, the pardon was no less gratuitous than as if he had not interceded for them. For the intercession of Moses ceases on this occasion, yet God does nod; fail to deal kindly with them in their unworthiness, according to His wont. <\/p>\n (12) And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron.<\/strong>We read in Psa. 106:33<\/span> that the Israelites provoked (literally, made to rebel<\/em>) <\/em>his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips. Whatever was the nature of the sin thus committed, it is clear that Aaron was a participator in it with Moses. Some have thought that the sin of Moses consisted in addressing the people as rebels (or as rebellious ones); but this is the charge repeatedly brought against them in the book of Deuteronomy (see Num. 1:26<\/span>; Num. 1:43<\/span>; Num. 9:23<\/span>; Num. 31:27<\/span>), under circumstances in which it is impossible to suppose that Moses committed the same sin. It has also been thought that the sin of Moses and Aaron consisted in arrogating to themselves the honour which was due only to God. Must we <\/em>fetch you water? but the personal pronoun does not occur in the Hebrew, as it might, and probably would, have occurred, if intended to be emphatic. The more probable explanation appears to be that, notwithstanding the miraculous supply of water which had begun at Rephidim, and which had been subsequently continued, Moses and Aaron distrusted the word and power (Num. 20:12<\/span>) of God, and that they yielded to the impulse of impatience and anger, as betrayed both by the language which they used and by the double smiting of the rock, to which Moses had been commanded only to speak. To what degree Aaron was concerned in these sins can be inferred only from the facts that he, as well as Moses, was charged with the sin of unbelief, and that the punishment of exclusion from the land of Canaan was inflicted upon both.<\/p>\n (12) Therefore ye shall not bring this congregation . . . <\/strong>In Num. 14:30<\/span> Caleb and Joshua are mentioned as the only exceptions to the general sentence of exclusion pronounced against the generation which had come out of Egypt, and which consisted of those who were above twenty years of age. It does not appear, however, from that passage whether the sentence pronounced against Moses and Aaron had, or had not, been delivered at that time, inasmuch as they were the speakers on that occasion, and they belonged to the tribe of Levi, which was not included in the numbering to which reference is made in Num. 20:29<\/span>.<\/p>\n 12<\/strong>. <\/strong> Because ye believed me not <\/strong> Or, rather, trusted not in me. Belief <\/em> relates to the intellectual assent to the truth, while trust <\/em> signifies reliance on a person. Self-confidence was in excess, and humble reliance on Jehovah was deficient. These, usually, are present in an inverse ratio, so that God is greatest when self is least in our esteem. As trust in God is the root of all the virtues, its absence is the source of all evil qualities in human character; hence the following complaint against Moses: <\/p>\n To sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel <\/strong> Jehovah had not been magnified as the source of all power. Self-trust had robbed him of his glory before Israel. The absence of trust in God caused the removal of that imperturbable repose, that tranquillity, which neither wind nor wave can disturb; hence the impatience of Moses, his angry spirit and hasty words. As a leader he represented Jehovah to the Hebrews. Their conceptions of God’s moral character would be derived from the conduct of the man who was so intimate with him. Thus a wrong temper, an unadvised word, reflects on God’s honour in the eyes of men. This is true not only of Moses and Aaron, but of all who profess to be godly, (godlike,) especially ministers of the Gospel of Christ. <\/p>\n Ye shall not bring this congregation into the land <\/strong> They had not forfeited heaven, but Canaan. Jehovah still loved them, while he set the mark of his displeasure upon this fault, so great in his eyes, and yet so trifling in men’s esteem that they are not agreed respecting the nature of the offence. The punishment was grievous. For many years had they looked with longing eyes toward the Land of Promise. Thirty-eight years they had uncomplainingly endured the hardships of the wilderness, cheered by the hope of eventually enjoying its rest. But now the finger of hope no longer beckons them on. They must die in the wilderness. We can give no explanation of this sin of distrust. All sin is inexplicable and causeless. To give a good reason for sin is to justify it. There is no reasonable ground for unbelief. The Saviour’s question, Wherefore do ye doubt? is still unanswered. It is possible that there was a more grave defect than a momentary wavering of faith. There may have been a slow decay of Moses’s confidence during the term of the penal wanderings, and of great apostasy from Jehovah. It is very difficult to maintain a degree of faith far above the average of those around us. Lesson: No Christian, however eminent in usefulness and piety, can ever in this life become impeccable. He may talk face to face with God on the mountain top, and come down with a shining countenance, and then forget his might and doubt his truth.<\/p>\n “What I say unto you, I say unto all, Watch.” Thus Moses and Aaron knew Jehovah’s “breach of promise.” Num 14:34<\/span>. In all God’s promises of good to individuals there is a tacit condition of continued fidelity. This decree was irrevocable. Moses prayed that it might be recalled, and that he might “go over and see the good land.” “Speak no more unto me of this matter, for thou shalt not go over this Jordan,” is the reply. Deu 3:25-27<\/span>.<\/p>\n Yahweh Complains at Moses and Aaron Because They Have Not Sanctified Him in the Eyes of Israel and Punishes Them by Exclusion from The Land ( Num 20:12<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ).<\/strong> <\/p>\n Num 20:12<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘And Yahweh said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.” ’ <\/p>\n God then made clear to them how desperately wrong their behaviour had been. It was not so much the people who were in the wrong, and who were rebels, it was Moses and Aaron. They, His trusted leaders, had flouted His will and disobeyed Him. They had demonstrated that they no longer willingly did His will. They had shown total lack of control and a totally wrong attitude towards the people. They had dared to misuse the sacred rod which had come from ‘before Yahweh’, the instrument of His authority and of His Name, which to take in the hand indicated that they were the especial chosen of Yahweh. And they had shown that they themselves were no longer fitted to lead the people of God into the land, that they could misuse the holy. It was a wonder that they were not struck down on the spot as others had been before them (Num 16:35<\/span>; Lev 10:1-2<\/span>). <\/p>\n Sadly what had been apparent about the fathers of these people at the beginning of the thirty eight years was now equally apparent of Moses and Aaron at the end. It had become apparent that they would not be able to cope with the entry into the land. They had excluded themselves. They were no longer fitted for it, and it would have to be made the responsibility of someone else. <\/p>\n For instead of performing the wonder with a word as they were commanded they had done it by twice smiting the rock. They had forgotten themselves. They had overlooked who and what they were, servants of God from whom obedience was required. They had misused the rod of God and the authority that had been given to them. Instead of demonstrating His gracious power, they had revealed reluctance of spirit. Instead of showing His lovingkindness they had revealed anger. The people had gained the impression that Yahweh resented giving them water, and that the gift was in the end due to the rod in Moses’ hand, which he could use as he pleased, and not to Yahweh Himself. Why the claim had even been made that it was ‘they’ who had produced the water. It was almost unbelievable. <\/p>\n Perhaps also He knew that Moses was in such a state that he had not fully believed that the water would come out with only a word. That he had struck the rock in a kind of unbelief, remembering the previous incident at another Meribah (Exo 17:1-12<\/span>). It demonstrated that Moses’ faith was no longer up to the task ahead. He was no longer obedient. He was not listening carefully. He was doing his own thing. Whatever it was these two men had marred the image that God was seeking to represent. And it had been because of their lack of faith. So God would now need to seek a new leader for the entry into the land, one who would be obedient to His will, and would trust Him and obey Him fully. <\/p>\n It is the great danger for all Christian leaders that they can begin to think that God’s work is in their own hands. They can begin almost to think that they can choose to do whatever they want, that God is subject to their whim. And even the greatest can wane in their behaviour and faith, and begin to magnify themselves. It is one of the greatest dangers facing Christian leaders. It is then that they have to be set aside to be replaced by those more trusting and obedient. God will not give His glory to another. While Moses was meek, God glorified him. Now he had become overbearing, God would replace him. <\/p>\n Note the accusation. ‘Because you did not believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel.’ It was their attitude towards Yahweh that was at fault, an attitude that was far worse than the people’s. They may have been justified in their view of the people, but they were not justified in their attitude towards God’s orders. And that attitude had resulted in their totally misrepresenting God, and reducing the presentation of His glory, and violating the rod of Yahweh. Moses and Aaron had an attitude problem, and they had suggested that Yahweh had one as well. <\/p>\n “Therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.”<\/strong> The land was only available for those who would trust and obey God. That had been the theme right from the beginning. Thus the lesson had to come over strongly that those who would not trust and obey could not enter the land, whoever they were. That this gave Moses a huge jolt is unquestionable (Deu 1:37<\/span>; Deu 4:21-22<\/span>). But his exclusion from the land was certain from that moment on. And yet he undoubtedly became a humbler and a better man for it, and learned the humility that would enable him to better prepare the people for that entry, as Deuteronomy reveals. In his diminished dedication God had had mercy on him. Without this lesson he may well have had to be replaced earlier. And as a result, while he could not enter the land, he was able to possess it with his eyes. But in the end even Moses was only a man. <\/p>\n Another at another time would endure a ‘contradiction of sinners against Himself’ (Heb 12:3<\/span>). He too would be faced with the question of obedience to the will of God in the light of an ungrateful people. He too would be tested to the very edge of man’s ability to cope. But in His case He would reply, ‘not my will but yours’ (Mar 14:36<\/span>). And through full obedience to God’s will in the face of all provocation He would be proved fit to be a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, thus demonstrating that He was not only a man but God’s Instrument in the fulfilling of His will (see especially Heb 10:5-10<\/span>). <\/p>\n Num 20:12<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Because ye believed me not<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> Various have been the inquiries as to what the fault of Moses and Aaron was for which they were excluded the promised land. Some imagine that their manner of speaking to the people, Hear, ye rebels, <\/em>&c. was culpable; and that it is to this the Psalmist refers, when he says of Moses, that he spoke <\/em>unadvisedly with his lips, Psa 106:33<\/span>. Others suppose that he expressed his diffidence and want of faith in God, not only by smiting the rock twice, but by smiting it at all, as God bade him only speak unto the rock, <\/em>Num 20:8<\/span> and, indeed, we find the rod sometimes made use of only as a sign, stretched out in view of the people. See Exo 9:23<\/span>. His fault, however, seems rather to have consisted in smiting the rock twice, which argued a mind impatient of delay, provoked, and seemingly doubtful of God’s answering his first sign: God had commanded Moses (say the authors of the Universal History) to call for the water by only speaking to the rock; but he, whether out of impatience at their loud murmurs, or out of diffidence of the promised supply, smote it twice with his rod, and used some indecent expressions, either to the rock or the people; for which he was excluded from setting his foot in the promised land: Aaron was likewise excluded in the same sentence, doubtless, as having shared in the fault. See Saurin’s 62nd Dissert. <\/p>\n DISCOURSE: 166 Num 20:12<\/span>. And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.<\/em><\/p>\n SCARCELY shall we find any portion of sacred history that is more calculated to affect a pious mind, than this. When we see judgments inflicted on the rebellious Israelites, we acknowledge without hesitation the justice and equity of God: we regret indeed that their impieties called for such severity; but we approve of the severity itself, or rather, regard it as lenient, in comparison of their deserts. But here our proud hearts are almost ready to revolt, and to exclaim, Hath God forgotten to be gracious? Is it thus that God deals with his chosen servants, who for forty years have been indefatigable in his service? Does he thus for one offence exclude them from the promised land, to the possession of which they had looked forward with such ardent desire and assured expectation? But we are soon silenced with that unanswerable question, Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? We are very incompetent to determine, what it becomes the Divine Majesty to do. But though we are not to sit in judgment on his dispensations, we may with propriety inquire into the reasons of them, if only we do so with a view to vindicate his ways, and to gain that instruction which they are intended to convey. Let us then, whilst contemplating the exclusion of Moses and Aaron from the land of Canaan, consider,<\/p>\n I.<\/p>\n The offence they committed<\/p>\n Slight as it may appear to us, it was a complicated offence 1.<\/p>\n Irreverence<\/p>\n [God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of his saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are round about him [Note: Psa 89:7<\/span>.]. But on this occasion Moses and Aaron seem to have forgotten that they were in the presence of God, or that there was any necessity to lead the murmurers to a becoming affiance in him. They should have reminded the people of his past mercies, and shewn them how to secure the continuance of his favours by penitence and prayer. But, notwithstanding the glory of the Lord appeared unto them, they omitted, as he complains, to sanctify him in the eyes of the children of Israel. This was a great offence. They should have remembered, that Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, had been devoured by fire before the Lord for irreverently offering common fire in their censers, instead of the fire that was burning on the altar: and that God on that occasion had said, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh unto me, and before all the people I will be glorified [Note: Lev 10:3<\/span>.]. There would therefore have been no ground to arraign the justice of God, even if he had smitten them<\/em> in like manner on this occasion. Their exclusion from Canaan, though grievous, was less than their iniquity deserved.]<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n Anger<\/p>\n [A certain kind of anger is allowable: nor is it wrong to testify that displeasure in words: but it must not be such an anger as transports us into unbecoming actions or vehement invectives. The expressions used by Moses on this occasion, shew, that his anger was by no means duly moderated. It did not terminate on the offence, but struck at the person of the offenders; towards whom nothing but pity, joined with faithful remonstrances, should have been exercised. Doubtless, his indignation was very hot, when he addressed the people, Ye rebels: and in this it is evident that Aaron also was a partaker with him. How sinful this was, we may judge from that declaration of our Lord, that Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire [Note: Compare ver. 10, 11 with Mat 5:22<\/span>.]. Here then again we see that their exclusion from Canaan was justly merited.]<\/p>\n 3.<\/p>\n Disobedience<\/p>\n [God had commanded Moses to speak<\/em> to the rock: but Moses, in the paroxysm of his anger, smote<\/em> it, yea smote it twice. Had Moses forgotten how strict Gods injunctions had been respecting the furniture of the tabernacle, that every the smallest vessel or pin should be made according to the pattern shewn to him in the mount? Had he forgotten that, when bounds were set round Mount Sinai, even a beast, if he should pass them, was to be pierced through with a dart? Had he and Aaron forgotten how strictly every the minutest service of the sanctuary was enjoined on the pain of death? How then could they dare thus to violate the divine commands? God himself complains of this as an act of direct rebellion<\/em> against him [Note: ver. 21 with Num 27:14<\/span>.]. Who then can wonder that God saw fit to mark it with a testimony of his displeasure? It is not improbable that God, in ordering Moses to speak<\/em> to the rock, intended to reprove the Israelites, when they saw the rocks themselves more obedient to the divine command than they. But the disobedience of Moses altogether defeated this intention: yea, it was calculated to convey a most erroneous idea to those who understood the mystical import of this dispensation. The rock that had been smitten nine and thirty years before was a type of Christ, from whom, as smitten for our offences, the waters of life and salvation flow [Note: Exo 17:6<\/span><\/u> with 1Co 10:4<\/span>.]. But Christ was not to be smitten twice:<\/em> he was once<\/em> offered to bear the sins of many: and it is henceforth by speaking<\/em> to him, and addressing him in prayer and faith, that we are to receive renewed communications of his grace and mercy. But Moses and Aaron overlooked all this, (for what will not people forget, when under the influence of passion?) and justly brought upon themselves this severe rebuke.]<\/p>\n 4.<\/p>\n Unbelief<\/p>\n [Of this in particular God accuses them; Ye believed me not, to sanctify me. Whether they doubted the efficacy of a word<\/em>, and therefore smote<\/em> the rock; or whether they acted in their own strength, expecting the effect to be produced by their own act of striking the rock, instead of regarding God alone as the author of the mercy, we cannot say: we rather incline to the latter opinion, because of the emphatic manner in which they addressed the Israelites; Ye rebels, must we fetch you water out of this rock? In either case they were under the influence of unbelief: for, distrust of God, or creature-confidence, are equally the effects of unbelief: the one characterized the conduct of those Israelites who were afraid to go up to take possession of the promised land; and the other, those who went up in their own strength, when God had refused to go before them. This was the offence which excluded the whole nation from the promised land: they could not enter in because of unbelief [Note: Heb 3:19<\/span>.]: no wonder therefore, that, when Moses and Aaron were guilty of it, they were involved in the common lot.]<\/p>\n What has been said may suffice to shew that their offence was not so light as it may at first sight appear to be: but its enormity will be best seen in,<\/p>\n II.<\/p>\n The punishment inflicted for it<\/p>\n The sentence denounced against them was, that they should die in the wilderness, and be denied the privilege of leading the people into the promised land. This was.<\/p>\n 1.<\/p>\n An awful sentence<\/p>\n [How distressing it was to them, we may judge from the prayer of Moses, who sought to have the sentence reversed: O Lord God, I pray thee let me go over and see the good land! But, as Moses himself tells us, God was wroth with him, and would not hear him [Note: Deu 3:23-26<\/span>.]. How loudly does this speak to us!<\/em> If we reflect on the length of time that they had served the Lord; the exemplary manner in which they had conducted themselves; (oftentimes at the peril of their lives expostulating with the people, and seeking to avert the wrath of God from them;) and that this, as it respected Moses at least, was almost the only fault that he had committed: if we at the same time consider, how grievous the disappointment must have been to them to have all their hopes and expectations frustrated, now that they had nearly completed the destined period of their wanderings; truly we cannot but see in this dispensation the evil and bitterness of sin; and feel the importance of that admonition, Let us fear, lest a promise being left us of entering into Gods rest, any of us should seem to come short of it [Note: Heb 4:1<\/span>.].<\/p>\n We know indeed that this sentence of exclusion did not extend to the Canaan that is above: and it is probable that many others who died in the wilderness, were therefore judged and chastened of the Lord, that they might not<\/em> be condemned with the world [Note: 1Co 11:32<\/span>.]: nevertheless the record of their failure is written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come [Note: 1Co 10:11<\/span>.]: and as the great body of the nation were examples unto us, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted, so may the example of Moses in particular teach us, that if the righteous turn away from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned; in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die [Note: Eze 18:24<\/span>.]. Indeed this is the very lesson which St. Paul himself inculcates from the exclusion of the Israelites at large, and which is doubly forcible when arising from the failure of Moses; Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall [Note: 1Co 10:12<\/span>.]. Were a man as eminent as Paul himself, it would behove him to use the same vigilance as he; keeping under his body, and bringing it into subjection, lest by any means, after having preached to others, he himself should be a castaway [Note: 1Co 9:27<\/span>.]. Not he that runneth well for a season, but he that endureth to the end, shall be saved.]<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n An instructive sentence<\/p>\n [Besides the general idea above suggested, there are several very important things prefigured in this dispensation. Let this be remembered by us: the law condemns us as truly for one offence as for a thousand [Note: Jam 2:10<\/span>.]: it is of excellent use to lead us through the wilderness; but it never can bring us into Canaan: and, if ever we would be saved at all, we must trust, not in our own obedience to the law, but in Him who fulfilled it, and redeemed us from its curse [Note: Rom 8:3<\/span><\/u> and Gal 3:13<\/span>.].<\/p>\n Next, it instructs us in the transitory nature of the ceremonial law<\/em>. Before the sentence was to be executed on Aaron, he was to go up to the top of Mount Hor, and there to be stripped of his priestly garments, which Moses was to put upon Eleazar his son [Note: ver. 2528.]. By this transfer of the priesthood it was shewn, that this typical priesthood was not to endure for ever, but to be transferred from one generation to another, till at last it should be superseded by Him, who was to be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec. This is no fanciful construction: it is the very idea suggested by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; who tells us, that the law was disannulled for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof: the priests, its ministers, being unable to continue by reason of death, yielded up their office to Him who liveth for evermore: and thus the whole legal economy, not being able to make any one perfect, gave way to that better hope which does [Note: Heb 7:18-19<\/span>; Heb 7:23-24<\/span>.]. Thus, I say, Aarons death illustrated the weakness of the ceremonial law, as the death of Moses did that of the moral law. Neither could introduce any one to the land of Canaan; but the one waxed old and vanished away [Note: Heb 8:13<\/span>.]; and the other remained only to curse and to condemn all who were under its power [Note: Rom 7:10<\/span><\/u>; 2Co 3:9<\/span>.].<\/p>\n The last truth which this dispensation preaches to us is, that Christ it the appointed Saviour of the world<\/em>. Moses and Aaron, being doomed to die in the wilderness, and Miriam having already died at the commencement of this fortieth year, the people were by Gods command committed to the care and government of Joshua [Note: Num 27:18-23<\/span>.]. He<\/em> was to subdue all their enemies before them, and to put the Israelites into a complete possession of the promised land. Who does not recognise in him<\/em> the Lord Jesus Christ. Their very names are precisely the same in the Greek language: and their offices are the same. Jesus is the Captain of our salvation: God has given all his people into his<\/em> hands, that he may give eternal life unto as many as the Father hath given him [Note: Joh 17:2<\/span>.]. Know then, all ye who are going towards the promised land, to whom you must look for direction, support, and victory. Jesus is given to be a Leader and Commander to his people: and they who fight under his banners, shall be more than conquerors. In a word, the moral law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ; and the ceremonial law was a visible representation to shadow him forth: and in reference to both of them it may be said, He was the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth [Note: Rom 10:4<\/span>.].]<\/p>\n To conclude<\/p>\n [Let us receive from this history the instruction it was intended to convey. Let us learn from it the excellency of the Gospel, which reveals the Saviour to us; and let us see the importance of adorning it by a suitable conduct and conversation; ever remembering, that to them, and them only, who, by a patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory and honour and immortality, will eternal life be assigned [Note: Rom 2:6-7<\/span>.].]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Reader! do not fail to remark how the LORD deals in faithfulness. GOD will not allow iniquity in his people to go unrebuked. The tenor of the covenant indeed is, if the children (of the Redeemer) forsake his law, and walk not in his judgments, he will visit their transgression with the rod, etc. though the everlasting virtue of the covenant is the same: there is a blessed nevertheless which will not suffer the smallest alteration here. JESUS hath purchased the salvation of his people, and both their persons and their mercies are the price of his blood. So that when GOD corrects his people it is not for the satisfaction of his justice; for that is and hath been fully satisfied by him, who hath borne their sins and made satisfaction for them; but it is for the display of his purity, and that we might be made partakers of his holiness. See Psa 89:33<\/span> with Heb 12:6-10<\/span> . Reader! I cannot, I dare not dismiss the observations which arise out of this event, without calling upon you to remark, that if the LORD will not overlook the provocations of his own people without giving those evidences of his displeasure, what must the sins of his enemies call for? If a father thus corrects his child, surely for the same offence he will turn the servant out of door. Pray read that scripture: Psa 2:11-12<\/span> .<\/p>\n Num 20:12 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.<\/p>\n Ver. 12. Because ye believed me not.<\/strong> ] Ye could not conceive, and were not very willing, that I should show such favour to so undeserving a people: so measuring my thoughts by your thoughts, and my ways by your ways; Isa 55:8 casting me into a dishonourable mould, as it were; and this publicly, before all the people. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Therefore ye shall not bring.<\/strong> ] So God was unto them “a God that forgiveth, and taketh vengeance of their practices,” as the psalmist saith. Psa 99:8 Repentance may come too late in regard of temporal chastisement, as here it did. Deu 3:24-26 <\/p>\n believed Me not. So Moses entered not in, because of unbelief. <\/p>\n Me. Hence called “rebellion” in Num 20:24 with Num 27:14. Compare Deu 32:51. Compare “we” in Num 20:10. <\/p>\n in the eyes, &c. His complaint in Num 11:21-23 was not public. <\/p>\n Because ye believed: Num 11:21, Num 11:22, 2Ch 20:20, Isa 7:9, Mat 17:17, Mat 17:20, Luk 1:20, Luk 1:45, Rom 4:20 <\/p>\n sanctify: Num 27:14, Lev 10:3, Deu 1:37, Deu 32:51, Isa 8:13, Eze 20:41, Eze 36:23, Eze 38:10, 1Pe 3:15 <\/p>\n ye shall: Num 20:24, Num 11:15, Deu 3:23-26, Deu 32:49, Deu 32:50, Deu 34:4, Jos 1:2, Joh 1:17 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Exo 16:28 – General Deu 4:21 – General Deu 31:2 – Thou shalt not 1Ki 13:21 – thou hast disobeyed 2Ki 7:20 – General 1Ch 21:10 – that I may Job 35:15 – because Psa 99:8 – though Psa 106:32 – so that Jon 4:4 – Doest thou well to be angry 1Co 11:30 – many Gal 2:11 – because Heb 2:2 – every Heb 3:18 – but Heb 11:6 – without Jam 1:20 – General<\/p>\n THE SIN OF MOSES<\/p>\n And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.<\/p>\n Num 20:12<\/p>\n I. The Lord here acts with great severity towards two of His servants, and it may be well to recount the circumstances. Water failed the congregation, they murmured as their fathers had done; Moses brought their case before the Lord, Who commanded him to take his rod, but not to use it, but simply to speak to the rock, and it should give forth water. Was this rock the same which was smitten nearly forty years before? That depends upon our interpretation of 1 Corinthians 10, And they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ. From the whole account we should gather that it was the same rock, and the miracle, of course, was not greater than the daily shower of bread round about their tents, which ceased not till they entered Canaan. Anyhow, they disobeyed God, Who had bidden them speak to the rock; and for this, and because, perhaps, they had spoken as if they themselves could bring out the water, Hear now, ye rebels, must we bring you water out of the rock? And for this act of faithlessness or of disobedience God would not permit Moses, though he entreated that the punishment might be removed, to bring the people of Israel over Jordan.<\/p>\n II. The sin of Moses appears rather as a sin of disobedience or of passion than of unbelief; but if we knew all the circumstances we should see that there was some want of faith, of reliance upon God, which brought down Gods dipleasure.<\/p>\n III. Anyhow, we learn this lesson, that nearness to God and friendship with God, such as was enjoyed by Moses, are not to be presumed upon; Gods commands are to be obeyed to the letter even by one so near to Him as Moses. It has been suggested as another reason for this severity: the smitten rock was a type of Christ, Who was to be smitten once for all, and then to give out His virtue in answer to prayer, and Moses and Aaron, by smiting the rock a second time, destroyed the principal typical feature.<\/p>\n Rev. M. F. Sadler.<\/p>\n Illustration<\/p>\n (1) Press home upon the imagination by the terrible doom of Moses the man of God, the heinousness in Gods sight of this spirit which puts judgment in place of mercy. It shut Moses out of the Promised Land; our Lord says it may shut us out of His kingdom. Compare the interesting parallel of Jonahs failure to understand the heart of the Almighty (Jon 3:10; Jon 4:1), and quote, in illustration, the beautiful lines of Faber<\/p>\n For the love of God is broader<\/p>\n Than the measures of mans mind,<\/p>\n And the heart of the Eternal<\/p>\n Is most wonderfully kind.<\/p>\n But we make His love too narrow<\/p>\n By false limits of our own;<\/p>\n And we magnify His strictness<\/p>\n With a zeal He will not own.<\/p>\n (2) Gods charge against him, be it noted, is that he failed to sanctify Him, i.e. to make Him holy in the eyes of the people. When a professing Christian misrepresents Christ, by his conduct or spirit, so as to give a wrong view of the Gospel to his companions, it is a terrible sin in Gods sight. Compare the doom on the man who offends one of the little ones, i.e. puts a stumbling block in the way of their coming to Christ (Mat 18:6).<\/p>\n Num 20:12. Ye believed me not But showed your infidelity; which they did, either by smiting the rock, and that twice, which is emphatically noted, as if they doubted whether once smiting would have done it; whereas, they were not commanded to smite so much as once, but only to speak to it: or, by the doubtfulness of these words, (Num 20:10,) Must we fetch water out of the rock? which implied a suspicion of it; whereas they should have spoken positively and confidently to the rock to give forth water. And yet they did not doubt of the power of God, but of his will, whether he would gratify these rebels with this further miracle, after so many of the like kind. To sanctify me To give me the glory of my power in doing this miracle, and of my truth in punctually fulfilling my promise, and of my goodness in doing it, notwithstanding the peoples perverseness. In the eyes of Israel This made their sin a cause of stumbling to the Israelites, who of themselves were too prone to infidelity; and, to prevent the contagion, God leaves a monument of his displeasure upon them, and inflicts a punishment as public as their sin.<\/p>\n 20:12 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to {f} sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.<\/p>\n (f) That the children of Israel should believe and acknowledge my power and so honour me.<\/p>\n And the LORD spoke unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them. 12. Had Moses and Aaron shewn a true faith they would have been the means of … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 20:12”<\/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-4332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4332","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=4332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
MOSES AND AARON SENTENCED TO DIE IN THE WILDERNESS<\/strong><\/p>\n
There was in it a mixture of,<\/p>\n
First, it intimated the insufficiency of the moral law to justify us<\/em>. Moses, the meekest of all the human race, had once spoken unadvisedly with his lips [Note: Psa 106:33<\/span>.]; and for that one trespass was excluded from the promised land [Note: Deu 32:48-51<\/span>.]. Now, if we consider the typical nature of the whole Mosaic economy, we shall not wonder, that he, whose whole office and ministry were typical, was ordained to instruct us even by his death. In fact, he was himself a comment on his own law: that<\/em> denounced every one cursed, who continued not in all things that were written in the book of the law to do them; and he, for one offence, was doomed to die among the unbelieving Israelites, and thereby to shew, that by the deeds of the law should no flesh be justified [Note: Rom 3:20<\/span>; Gal 3:10<\/span>; Gal 3:16<\/span>.].<\/p>\n
<\/strong><\/p>\nFuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"