Reflections: Numbers 12-17

Numbers 12

Chapter 12 continues the deepening problems between the Lord and the Israelite people. Chapter 11 dealt with the people rejecting God’s blessings and provisions in the form of the manna he provided for them everyday for their survival. (a concept echoed in the New Testament by Jesus in the Lord’s prayer, when he instructs us how to pray, and to ask for the Lord to “give us this day our daily bread”). Here we have a more pernicious rift between God and his people. In Chapter 11 the people rejected what God gave them. Here, they are rejecting his sovereignty over them.

Chapter 12 opens with the siblings of Moses, the first-born sister Miriam, and the second-born brother Aaron beginning to “talk against” their third-born little brother. In verse 2, it says that the two of them framed their objections to Moses as a complaint regarding the exclusive nature of his relationship with God. “‘Has the Lord spoken ONLY through Moses?’ they asked. ‘Hasn’t he also spoken through us?’” (emphasis added). As I noted in the introductory materials to the Book of Numbers a few weeks ago, the Lord had made it clear to the people that he had a special, consecrated relationship with Moses, and that Moses was the official conduit for God speaking to his people. This was a grab for attention and power on the part of Miriam and Aaron, a manifestation of vanity and rebellion, perhaps amplified by the vestiges of sibling rivalry.

But verse 1 suggests there is more — a deeper, more insidious motivation. “Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite.”

In chapter 11, the inspiration/blame for the complaining about the food originates with the “rabble” (Numbers 11:4). This was apparently a group of non-Israelite people who had “tagged along” with God’s people as they exited Egypt. Their ethnicity is undefined, but the original Hebrew term translated by the NIV as “rabble” literally means “bunch of vagabonds.” Wherever they were from or what their national origin might have been, they were foreigners as towards the Israelites.

It would be easy to blame the negative consequences of Chapter 11 on the concept of the “influence” of foreigners. If they hadn’t been part of the exodus, well, those complaints wouldn’t have started. It was those foreigners who misled the people!

However, the original language doesn’t expressly tie the negative aspects of these foreigners’ character to their nationality. A “vagabond” is not a foreigner by definition, but a person who “wanders from place to place” (according to both Webster’s dictionary and the Hebrew Lexicon). The context here is they were not Israelites — but people who are “wanderers” by nature do not necessarily have bad character. These vagabonds happened to have bad character, but that doesn’t mean all vagabonds have bad character.

Miriam and Aaron are springboarding off that concept to undermine Moses because his wife is a foreigner — perhaps implying she is like those other people who had caused the problem with the manna – the “rabble” or those “vagabonds.”

But there is more to this than meets the eye. What did it mean for Moses’s wife to be a “Cushite”?

This term has been generally understood to mean a person from the region of Cush, which was located in Africa, corresponding to the area the makes up modern-day Sudan or Ethiopia. Moses’s wife Zipporah (identified in Exodus 2:21) is also identified as a Midianite, the daughter of Jethro, who was the “high priest” of Midian. The nation of Midian is generally identified with the area around modern day Israel and the Arabian peninsula (in the book of Judges, Midian had oppressed Israel until Gideon helped deliver them). But there is archeological evidence connecting the Midianite culture to the governmental and religious practices of ancient Egypt and other areas in northeast Africa at the time of the Exodus. Traditionally, because Cush is identified with Africa, and because there is a connection between Midian in the Arab regions and this evidence of influence in Egypt and Africa, bible scholars have traditionally concluded that the people of the nation of Midian, and therefore Moses’s wife, were of African descent (or at least had intermarried with Africans) and had dark skin.

Does this sound familiar?

Some modern biblical scholars insist that because the evidence is not clear what the reference here to being a “Cushite” is referring to exactly, the traditional conclusion that this incident is about Miriam and Aaron judging Moses for having married a black woman, or at least having married a foreign woman, is a pretext. The real reason for the objection of Moses’ siblings was the exclusivity of his prophetic gift, and the special relationship he had with the Lord.

There is truth in coming to that conclusion. God’s judgment concerning the people turning away from the Lord because of their objection to the manna in Numbers chapter 11 was not based on the concept that the people who had started the complaining were foreigners. It was simply rebellion.

Yet, because the rebels in chapter 11 were also foreigners, it’s easy to paint with a broad brush. When a group of people can connect the source of their troubles to an insular minority in their midst, that group of people tends to conclude that it’s because of who these people are, rather than anything that they are saying or doing, or whether it’s just a few of these people causing the trouble. That is the nature of prejudice. The word “prejudice” is rooted in the concept of jumping to these kinds of conclusions – “pre-judgment.”

Therefore, even if Miriam and Aaron’s underlying motivation here was jealousy, or the sinful pride of life that seeks to assert power over others, or wealth, or success or aggrandizement, they have presented the issue to everyone else as a matter of race and ethnicity. Perhaps they had convinced themselves that this was the reason why they could challenge the authority of Moses. How dare he marry a woman like that!

God deals with the issue in the same way he dealt with the “manna objectors” in Chapter 11. In Chapter 11, God gave them what the objectors wanted – he provided the quail. But he also brought judgment on them for their rebellion – he struck them with plague while they were still  chewing the meat. With the older siblings of Moses, he deals with the problem in a similar way. In Chapter 12, v.4, the Lord calls all three of them to appear before the tent of meeting, impliedly in front of the congregation of the people. The cloud of the presence of the Lord descends, and God summons Miriam and Aaron to step forward. I can only imagine that the two of them expected the Lord to vindicate their complaint.

Instead, God upbraids them. Starting in verse 6, the Lord identifies that when he speaks to a “prophet among you,” he does so with dreams and visions. But because Moses has been so faithful and because of their special relationship, God speaks to Moses “face to face” – as a conversation. Verse 8 concluded with God saying, “Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” Verse 9 then makes it clear – God’s anger “burned” against them, and “he left them.” When the cloud lifted, Miriam has been struck with leprosy.

Fortunately for Miriam, Moses appealed to God on her behalf. As before, the playing out of history in the book of Numbers shows the practical application of the purity laws laid out in the book of Leviticus – Miriam has to face the disgrace of being a leper and was confined alone outside the camp for 7 days. While not explicitly spoken in the text, God must have healed her, for in verse 15, she “was brought back” after serving her time.

The concept of purity and cleanliness before God has now come full circle. Recall in Numbers chapters 5-10, we were shown the parallels between the laws/regulations of cleanliness presented to Moses at Mt. Sinai and their practical application as the Israelites started the migration to the promised land. These regulations began with the physical – skin diseases and bodily disorders that were readily observable. Then came social issues involving criminal or legal immorality – not as easy to detect, but where an investigation could produce objective evidence that could reveal the extent of the problem. Next came the relationship between a husband and wife – more intimate and personal. Finally, chapters 7-10 laid out the responsibilities of the people towards the Levites, and the requirements of the priests and Levites for worship in the tent of meeting. We see God’s requirement for holiness – the concept of being “set apart,” and how the relationship between an individual to society, to his family, and ultimately to God Himself needed to be protected and refined. It is clear at each stage, and for each level of relationship, that the relationship (as ordained by God) is sacred.

It seems ironic that the objection by Miriam and Aaron to Moses’s authority, expressed in the form of racial prejudice, results in Miriam being afflicted with a skin disease. Skin disorders were the most obvious form of uncleanness under the Mosaic law. And the remedy was also clear, precise, and obvious – exclusion from the camp. I believe this means that the Lord intended that we view racial prejudice as the same kind of sin – to judge people according to their skin color, ethnicity, or national origin is like being infected with leprosy, a skin disease that will perniciously destroy the person infected, and also easily spreads to infect others.

This is in keeping with what I have discovered about the basic nature of God’s intention for his people.

The Jewish people were God’s hope for the world. God said to Abraham in Genesis 22:18: “through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed.” In Isaiah 49:3, God says “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”

The history of the Israelites as it is developed in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers begins to tell the story of who God is and God’s plan for the world. God made the Israelites an integral part of that plan, and, through their relationship with God through Moses and the law as given at Sinai, they clearly identified themselves as part of that plan. But as we have seen so far and will continue to see here in the book of Numbers, they were short sighted. We will see that they chose to isolate themselves. Their selfishness and rebellion produced a spirit of fear that came to be focused on outsiders. Rather than reveal God to the world to fulfill the essence of Genesis 22:18, they retreated within themselves, and shunned outsiders. It would come to manifest as a mistrust and hatred for foreigners, as seen here.

This is the opposite of God’s ultimate intentions for his people. Jesus himself ministered to foreigners. Jesus drove the merchants and moneychangers out of the temple because they were taking up all the space in the Court of the Gentiles, the only place in the temple where a foreigner could worship. In Ephesians chapters 2 and 3, Paul explains that it was always God’s ultimate purpose that Jews and Gentiles would be brought together through the sacrifice of Jesus, and that the “manifold wisdom of God” is ultimately revealed to both the people of the earth and the “principalities and powers” because of the unity and diversity of God’s kingdom (see Ephesians 3:10). This concept is ultimately fulfilled in Revelation 7:9:

“After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.”

This all ultimately shows that diversity in the Kingdom of God and in the church is about as important a concept to God as anything else.

It’s so important, so basic, that here in Number 12, at the advent of the nation of Israel, he identifies the sin of racism as being like leprosy. Considering the current political atmosphere we are living in today, where (at least to me) it appears our society is painting this issue with much too broad a brush, this is a timely principle to ponder once again.

And for the context of the continuing narrative here in the book of Numbers, we will see that these episodes of dissatisfaction, selfishness, and fear rooted in all this rebellion are NOT going to lead to anything good.

Numbers 13

The final verse of Chapter 12 states the Israelites were “encamped in the Desert of Paran.” This is located just northwest of the modern-day Israeli city of Eilat, a seaside resort and port on the Gulf of Aqaba, an inlet that eventually empties into the Red Sea. This jumping-off point is actually in an area that is part of the modern nation of Israel, but about as far to the south as possible, where Israel has a short five-mile stretch of beach between Egypt and Jordan on the gulf. The people are poised to move out into the “Promised Land.”

The Lord speaks again to Moses, instructing him to send a representative from each tribe to explore the “land of Canaan.” Tradition has dubbed these men the “spies.” Once again, the book of Numbers lives up to its name, and verses 4 through 16 identifies each man by name, family, and tribe. Moses charges these men with discovering the nature of the territory — the relative strength of the people to be conquered, and the nature of the land. He encouraged them to bring back “some of the fruit of the land,” with the author making a note in verse 20 that “It was the season for the first ripe grapes.”

The spies spent 40 days exploring. While the particular points mentioned are mostly in the southern regions of modern Israel (Hebron is about 25 miles south of Jerusalem parallel to the Dead Sea), but mentions they went as far as “Rehob,” which is as far enough north as to be beyond the border of modern Israel into Lebanon. This was a distance of more than 250 miles.

The image of the returning spies is part of the heritage of Spirit of God Fellowship. Numbers 13:23 describes the spies cutting off a single cluster of grapes, large enough so that “Two of them carried it on a pole between them.” Church tradition identifies these two men as Joshua and Caleb. Our church adopted this image as a logo — a line drawing featuring two men carrying the supernaturally-sized grapes on a pole between them — as a picture of the blessings of God and the fulfillment of his promises.

In verse 26, the spies present their report to the “whole Israelite community.” The collected fruit was put on display (it must have seemed very impressive). Collectively, the spies reported that the land was indeed lush and fruitful — “it does flow with milk and honey.” But there was a catch — v. 28 states that 10 of the spies offered the caveat “But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and large.” The spies went on to list the various formidable ethnic groups that would need to be dislodged, as if it this was going to be an objectively impossible task.

Apparently sensing the negative nature of things, verse 30 has one of the spies, Caleb (of the tribe of Judah), interrupting and declaring that the possession of the promised land needed to still go forward, “for we can certainly do it.” But the other spies (except for Joshua — in Chapter 14 he joins Caleb in this protest) declared that the people residing in the land could not be overcome. The text notes that this attitude “spread among the Israelites.” They viewed the Canaanites as “people of great size,” who made the Israelites seem “like grasshoppers in [their] own eyes.”

This story is often used to promote the concept of positive thinking in matters of faith, and rightly so. (As a veteran of decades of involvement in children’s ministry, I vividly remember the song written and performed by Rob Evans — the “Donut Man” — entitled “Two said, “Go!” It told the story of Numbers 13. The chorus went:

Ten said, "No, there are giants in the land"
Two said, "Go, God will lead us by the hand"
Ten said, "No, we're afraid as we can be"
Two said, "Go, God will give us victory").

But while we can use Caleb’s faith to encourage trusting God’s word and moving forward in spiritual warfare, the context of this episode within the entirety of the Book of Numbers is not positive. The complaining spirit introduced by the “rabble” in chapter 11, which led to the Israelites turning up their noses at God’s provision through manna, and which connects to the complaints of Miriam and Aaron in Chapter 12, now circles back to undercut the entire mission of the Exodus. On the verge of realizing the fulfillment of everything the people of God had hoped for when they had been under the bondage of slavery, the Israelites are willing to give it all up because they’re afraid of people groups they hardly know.

Can this be attributed to their mistrust of foreigners, their tendency to default to stereotypes and prejudice, as in the case of the wife of Moses? Is this all about their unwillingness to face the unknown — a common theme throughout these narratives is to look at the new hardships they encounter and conclude that their past bondage wasn’t so bad after all. Or is this simply the fruit of rebellion, the product of a heart attitude that ultimately refuses to submit to the sovereignty of God?

Stay tuned for Chapter 14!

Numbers 14

This is the climax. The end result of the Israelites’ descent into fear and rebellion. And it’s catastrophic.

This is a difficult episode to understand. To be honest, I find both sides of this story difficult. The attitude of God’s people here — the total rejection and betrayal, the incomprehensible selfishness and (can I use a word like this?) stupidity. From my own limited, human perspective, God doesn’t come off looking all that great either. He seems rather petulant to my modern sensibilities. You don’t hear many sermons using this text. This isn’t the kind of bible story that gets us fired up. In my denominational upbringing,  at the end of the reading of God’s Word, the minister or lector would say, “This is the word of the Lord” and the congregation responded together  with, “Thanks be to God.” After this passage, however, it’s difficult to say that with any conviction.  

But the reality is, the reason why I find this story so difficult to understand and painful to read is because I see too much of myself in it. The weight of human frailty, our sinful nature, and the tendency I have to default to the wrong concept in my life is at the center of it all. There is too much humanness in the Israelites that I relate to when they behave as the do in Chapter 14.  When I read about their follies, I am reminded of my own shortcomings, how I seem to always be letting God and others down— I know full well from my own experiences what it’s like to hurt those I love without realizing it until it’s too late. I know what it’s like to try to fix something that is unable to be “glued back together.” I know what it’s like to be forgiven but unable to return to the state of the relationship before the trust was broken.

In addition, if the reaction to the somber heaviness of this story as it relates to the Israelites is not enough, what about the portrayal of the Lord’s reaction to it all? To be blunt, it seems crazy! It would appear the God of the Universe is behaving like a spurned lover. Well, in reality, in this instance, that is what He is! To be further blunt, God is ANGRY!  We’re talking the kind of anger that led Yahweh to destroy-the-world-with-a-flood-angry, though this time focused on the destruction of his chosen people and not the entire world. Here, at the cusp of fulfilling His promises and bringing His people into the promised land, God is willing to return His plans back to “square-one,”  to when the nation that was well on its way to becoming a people “as numerous as the stars in the sky” was a nation of one — in the person of Abraham. He tells Moses that he’s ready to give the Israelites exactly what they think awaits them (death) and start all over with just him — push the reset button, and have Moses be the new Abraham or Adam.

What gets God this angry? It’s obvious — the people he delivered from slavery and a life of suffering and meaninglessness in Egypt, who cried out for redemption and were led to safety by Yahweh’s mighty arm, have shown with their words and actions where their heart is and it’s NOT with him.

Last time, in Chapter 13, we read about the report of the spies who went into the Promised Land to bring back fruit for Moses. The amazing evidence of the produce of the promised land (grapes that had to be as large as beach balls, for heaven’s sake!) was used as tangible proof of the goodness of God and the fulfillment of His promises that awaited them. Instead of a positive report, the fear of ten of the twelve spies is passed on to the whole people.

How did this happen? Considering the story of Chapter 13 in light of what happens here in Chapter 14, we can conclude that there was a key element missing from the report of the 10 spies: there is no mention of God and his promises about the land. In contrast, in chapter 14, after the people rebel,  Aaron and Moses fall on their face before God, knowing all too well the dangerous territory the mob is headed in as a result of their fears, — and pray, begging mercy before the Almighty. Meanwhile, Caleb and Joshua, the two faithful spies, try to persuade the crowd with the goodness of the land and objective power of the God who promised to provide it. But their encouragement to “not rebel against the Lord” is met with shouts to stone them!

No matter how I look at this story, it ends up sounding all too familiar as I relate this to my own life, my own reactions, and my own proclivities. The people do not want God’s plan— they want to choose their own leader, one who will do what they want to do— which is to go back to Egypt. By doing so, they reject the God who has protected them by a pillar of fire by night and cloud by day. In this audacity, they don’t just  reject God’s plan, forgetting altogether what he promised, but they blame God and assign Him the responsibility for disasters that haven’t even happened yet! Even before they have actually suffered through the horrors they imagine will happen, they play the blame game and God is the loser. Jewish tradition teaches that the wilderness experiences of the Israelites is like the adolescent/teenage phase of the nation of Israel: stubborn, moody, flighty, melodramatic, selfish, and disobedient in order to assert their independence. We see the plain reality of that here.

The uncomfortable exchange between Moses and the Lord, where my first reaction is to almost feel like God is going too far in his anger, actually serves a purpose in revealing something foundational and important about the character of God. In his response to God’s declaration that he might as well kill all the Israelites and start over, Moses wisely knows better than to use anything about Israel’s worthiness in his appeal to God for grace. The way Moses addresses God here is reminiscent of the way the King of Babylon is addressed in the book of Daniel, or perhaps in the manner one might reason with a dictator or self-centered politician in the modern world —  Moses appeals to God’s reputation among the enemies of His people. It’s as if Moses is trying to make his argument for leniency look like it’s really God’s idea, and not his.  It’s an example of a scriptural concept that make systematic theologians, as well as regular Christians like us, a bit uncomfortable: does God need Moses to point out these things to him, or are they there for us to learn from? If Moses didn’t speak up, would God have relented in time? So much of our hopes for God’s action towards us are based on who we believe God is, notably that God is unchanging or immutable. Yet the more I study the stories of the Old Testament, the more I feel the need to reconsider my own understanding of the attribute of God called “immutability.”

In fact, many biblical scholars and commentators interpret this passage as affirming the concept of God’s steadfastness as opposed to (or perhaps in addition to) the concept of God’s immutability or unchanging nature. Moses uses that very word in his speech to God here (and the essence of this speech is repeated in many other Old Testament narratives) starting in verse 17: “Now let the Lord’s strength be displayed,” Moses says, “just as you have declared:” (and then he repeats the promise God made back in Exodus 34:6) ‘The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in [steadfast] love, forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished. . .’”  Moses doesn’t actually say anything new to God, but voices and declares, as an intercessory prayer for these people (despite these people having frustrated God to no end as well), what God has already made known in this world about who He is and how He works.

As real as God’s presence was, as witnessed by the nations among the people of Israel (the presence of the cloud, the pillar of fire, and the many fantastic miracles) is the reality of God’s words of promise and protection. Moses knows that God has it in Him to do so because God has already done so numerous times since he led the people out of Egypt. Moses sees this as another opportunity for God to show Himself to the world. Because God is steadfast as a forgiver, one of the chief characteristics/attributes the people of God have come to depend upon, Yahweh does forgive the people who have not asked for it, even though the people don’t even recognize that they have done him wrong.

It’s this lack of understanding among the people that forces Yahweh to not “not leave the guilty unpunished.” Sometimes, God makes it clear that stubborn people must learn by experience. So, the Lord gives the Israelites the totality of what their words and the disposition of their hearts have expressed: death in the wilderness. And ironically, he fulfills one of their specific and predictive outbursts in a way that fits in with God’s judgment but still expresses His character. One of the specific reasons the Israelites express for wanting to go back to Egypt is the fear that their children will become ‘plunder,’ that is, captured and enslaved by the Canaanite people. As a subtle but very large act of God’s steadfast lovingkindness, he promises that these children will be the one who enter the promised land, even though it was their parents who did not believe and trust him.

But of course, when Moses relays the revelation of God to the Israelites, the people filter what should have been considered good news (or at least “better” news under the circumstances) through the lens of their fear and rebellion, and they are devastated — they go into a time of unbridled mourning. Coming face to face with the severity of what they have brought upon themselves, the Israelites awake the next morning and try to fix it themselves.

Once again, I see my own human experiences mirrored in the pages of Scripture.  Instead of following Moses and Aaron’s example by falling on their face in humility and prayer to God, they try to obey God’s former plans for them on their own terms, choosing to deny God’s current instructions to retrace their steps back into the wilderness (Ironically, this would be sending them into the wilderness in the direction of Egypt; again, the very things they “asked for.”). Moses tries to warn them, but the group still suffers from the same stubbornness that got them into this mess, and it ends in awful destruction, serving as a warning to any who would choose to disobey and leave the presence of God and its accompanying safety.

As uncomfortable as this story is for me, and as much as I may not like it, perhaps it’s important to let this particular part of God’s story end here. In Galatians 6:7-9, Paul explains the inevitability of consequences — we always reap what we sow. It is both a law of nature, and a spiritual principle. Its fulfillment is also a promise. Consequences, but for the moments of God’s direct intervention, are part of living in a fallen world as fallen, sinful, human beings. As much as we may wish that God would fix our mess-ups with a wave of His hand or just wash it all away in the same manner of the forgiveness of our sins, He always chooses instead to use the process of healing and reconciliation as part of the Holy Spirit’s work of transformation, drawing us closer to him and to one another. If we are in an auto accident and lose an arm, that arm does not grow back. If we “sow to the flesh” as explained in Galatians 6, we will inevitably reap a negative consequence, even if our sins are forgiven and we are reconciled with God and the person or persons we may have wronged. In human terms, things are often never the same. If we allow God’s corrective love regarding our negative thought patterns, habits, and actions to serve as a springboard to growth and healing, the outcome is certainly not the same — the result can actually be better. But the Israelites of Chapter 14 show us how if we continue to plow into the sin, to continue to “sow to the flesh” even when confronted with the reality of the sin and rebellion (along with God’s mercy and forgiveness), the result will continue to be death and destruction.  I pray that this passage can be a part of my healing from my own failures to fully love the Lord and my family and help to put me back in a position of a right relationship with God, along with with my family and friends.

Numbers 15

Chapter 15 is divided into three distinct parts, each introduced by the phrase “the Lord said to Moses.”

Chapter 15 appears to be an abrupt sideline from the previous three chapters. We seem to be back to the theme I discussed in my introduction to the book of Numbers. We are back to the details of how worship and the offering of sacrifices in the tabernacle is to be conducted.

But what appears to be a diversion is actually a continuation of the theme at the end of chapter 14. Verse 2 opens with the Lord instructing Moses to tell the Israelites that “After you enter the land I am giving you as a home . . .”  I believe the author is juxtapositioning this clause with the very sad ending of chapter 14 for dramatic effect. The sins of the Israelites were many; they faced judgment. The grace and the mercy of the Lord are magnified as he points to the ultimate realization of his ancient promise to Abraham as found in Genesis 12:7, as well as his continuing promise to the nation of Israel that they would indeed one day enter the land. God will not deny his faithfulness.

I wish I had the time to dive into all the details and little “rabbit holes” the information presented here might lead me down. There are many spiritual applications in life lessons to glean from those details. But there is one concept that stands out to me in the context of the entirety of the book of Numbers, particularly the contexts of the last three chapters before this one.

The first part of Chapter 15 has detailed instruction for the manner to present “food offerings” on the altar of the tabernacle in the form of an animal. But in verse 13, the details are specifically directed to “everyone who is native-born.” Verse 14 then explains that “whenever a foreigner or anyone else living among you” presents such an offering, “they must do exactly as you do.” Then verse 15 dictates that “The community is to have the same rules for you and for the foreigner resigning among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the foreigner shall be the same before the Lord.” Verse 16 closes the first section with “the same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigners residing among you.”

Later, in verse 29, this same concept is expressed with regards to offerings made for unintentional violations of the law, and in verse 30 regarding the penalty for those who intentionally and defiantly sin. The same principle applies whether “native-born or foreigner.”

If we go back to Numbers 9:14, this same concept is expressed with regards to the celebration of the Passover. Back in Exodus 12:48, the rule regarding foreigners “residing among you who want to celebrate the Passover” must have all males in the foreigner’s household to be circumcised.

This, of course, is where the interpretation of all this will get wonky, with the last bit being the major controversy of the first century of the church’s existence, as the introduction of the Messiah to the world beyond the Jewish people brought “foreigners” into the church in droves.

Commentators on Numbers 15 pause here to note that the nation of Israel was always open to converts and proselytes. In Genesis 12:3, God’s promise to Abraham embraces “all the people on earth.”

Yet many interpret this concept to mean that the people of God need to make sure that the rest of the world behaves itself in a manner compliant with the laws of God. This is a key component of a lot of what some define as “Christian Nationalism” today. Of course, this principle certainly must be followed by those who would choose to “reside among” the people of God – to actively seek to remain in and stay within the community of the church or become part of the church.

But the inclusion of this matter here, in the context of both what has just happened in Numbers 11-14, and what we will eventually find in the fulfillment of Christ and his church, makes me think deeper about this.

The fact that it appears tucked away amongst the otherwise mundane details of preparing a lamb, calf, goat, or oxen for slaughter on the altar causes me to think that this principle of how to treat foreigners and outsiders has more to do with how the INSIDERS view the situation as anything else. The foreigners “residing among” the Israelites don’t appear to be required to bring any of these sacrifices. Only in verse 30, where the punishment for blatant, intentional and very much outward behavior in violation of the laws regarding blasphemy and the sabbath will the foreigners be punished by the same standard applied to the Israelites, are the foreigners required to toe the line.

And therein lies a big part of the problem. In the world of the first century church, a faction of Jewish believers demanded that the Gentile (or “foreigners” as it relates to Jewish people) be circumcised before they could be accepted into the church community, no doubt relying on the precedent of the just-cited command in Exodus 12:48. These “Judaizers” of the early church taught that one could not be saved unless they were circumcised and followed the Jewish law.

But Paul explains throughout his writings that this was heresy. He proved that even the promise made to Abraham was about faith rather than following the law of Moses that came later. He also discredited many Jewish Christian leaders for their hypocrisy, where they insisted that Gentiles had to follow the law regarding circumcision (which they had been complying with since birth thanks to their parents) but they themselves were cherry picking the other laws they would or would not follow regarding diet, tithing, cleanliness etc.

On the other hand, Paul also made it clear that this kind of hypocrisy was not confined to Jewish believers. Both Jewish and Gentile believers were not to use their newfound freedom in Christ to sin and act however they pleased. The Gentiles would not be required to observe the Jewish laws that did not affect inward behavior, but this was not an excuse to keep living in sin. The same standard Jesus applied to the Pharisees regarding justice and mercy applied to everyone. The change that brings us into the kingdom and makes us acceptable to God involves the inward transformation of the Holy Spirit, not in the observance of ritual.

This concept ultimately goes beyond following rules to a heart attitude of humility and faith.

It’s even present here in Numbers 15, long before the sacrifice of Christ that fulfilled the law.

The foundational concept conveyed is one of humbly allowing outsiders to start to become a part of the community. Despite the great physical, ethnic, and cultural differences that may exist, we are to consider them as equals and treat them as we would want to be treated.

The discussion of foreigners participating in the tabernacle rituals is presented as part of this short respite in the story that indicates that despite all the failures of the Israelite people, the promise will eventually be fulfilled in the next generation. Part of that promise is the participation of outsiders in the exclusivity of God’s kingdom. If the Israelites affected by what they intentionally allowed to unfold in Numbers 13 and 14 were to learn from their mistakes and sins here, they are told that once they come into the promised land and establish themselves, they will being to learn how the promise to Abraham that his descendants would bless all the nations of the earth is to be fulfilled. It will start with them, and lead to the perfection of the Messiah.

Numbers 16

Chapter 16 opens with the statement that four  men — Korah, Dathan,  Abiram, and On — became “insolent and rose up against Moses.” They brought “250 Israelite men, well-known community leaders who had been appointed members of the council. They came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron . . .” “Insolent” in the original Hebrew means to grab or take, and many other translations render this word as “took” and connect it to the broader crowd of 250 unnamed leaders. But the NIV translates this as “insolent,” and that implication is clear — “insolent” means to show a rude and arrogant lack of respect. I have most often seen it used as an adjective to describe rebellious teenagers.

But what is up here? Why do these particular people come to Moses and Aaron now with this “insolent” attitude? Well, as the vendor at the ballpark used to shout, “you can’t know the players without a scorecard,” let’s look a little closer and figure out who these “insolent” men are.

Korah, like Moses and Aaron, is a Levite. But as a descendant of Kohath, he does not share the priestly duties of Aaron’s line. Korah and the rest of his clan have been specifically given responsibilities involving carrying the “holy things” when the Israelites move camp (This was originally explained in Numbers 4:1-20.). Whenever the Israelites pack up to travel to a new place, Aaron and his clan go first into the Tent of Meeting and carefully remove the shielding curtain and wrap and cover up the holy things with blue and purple cloth. Only after they drape all the holy articles (so that no human hand other than those of Aaron’s family of priests will directly touch them) are Korah and his clan allowed to draw near and do the carrying. Apart from this, they must not touch or even look at the holy things. Otherwise, they will die. There is a definite distinction between Aaron’s responsibilities and Korah’s. Aaron’s clan draws near first, Korah’s second. Aaron oversees the Kohathite clan carefully, down to assigning each person his work, and what he is to carry. Every time the Israelites get ready to move, Korah is reminded of his place: Aaron first, Korah second. Aaron drawing near, Korah a few steps behind. Aaron touching the holy things directly, Korah’s hands can only feel the holy things through the barrier of the cloths, which Aaron and his sons have draped. The tension implied here is real — every time Israel moves camp, Korah is reminded he’ll never be more than the equivalent of an Amazon delivery guy. His resentment grows.

Behind Korah are the brothers Dathan and Abiram (Verse 1 also mentions “On,” but he is not specifically referred to afterwards.). They have reason for resentment, too. They are descendants of Reuben, the firstborn son of Israel. But because of Reuben’s sin in generations past, the responsibilities and privileges of the firstborn are no longer theirs. The Lord has reassigned that to the Levites (See Numbers 3:11-13.).  

The implication of verses 1 and 2 are that Korah and the Ruebenite brothers have organized a deep and elaborate political campaign, and have put together a formidable, high-powered group of 250 men who have been “appointed members of the council” (v. 2). This is not a rag-tag group of rebels. They are leaders who are well-known and respected among the people. This would be the equivalent of a congressional committee coming into the President’s office.

What stands out to me about this episode more than anything else is this is the “other side” of rebellion. This doesn’t fit the pattern of what has happened in previous chapters.

In Chapter 11, the people rebelled because they weren’t satisfied with the manna God provided. It was rebellion born out of selfishness, greed, and dissatisfaction. “What, manna again?” But the Israelites wouldn’t accept responsibility for this attitude — they blamed it on that “band of vagabonds” who planted the idea and let it spread. It was those shifty foreigners! A form of scapegoating and prejudice. An attitude common to humanity throughout history.

Chapter 12 showed us this prejudice ran deep — even into Moses’ family. Moses’ siblings Miriam and Aaron lead an effort to usurp God’s appointed leadership in Moses. But the underlying reason was Moses wasn’t fit to lead because he had married a Cushite — an African. This was racism, plain and simple.

These deep-seated concepts of scapegoating and racism find their parallels in modern society.

Chapter 13 has the 24 spies sent in to survey the Promised Land. They return with a glowing report about the condition of the Land, but they believe the plan to conquer the territory will never work. I see this as being like the modern trend for people to give in to misinformation. This was the biblical equivalent of conspiracy theories and fake news. Even when presented with evidence they could see and touch, as well as the foundation of all the amazing, miraculous things that God had already done for them, the Israelites gave in to the rumors and speculation. There was no factchecking. Everybody seemed to be doing their “own research.” The consequences were catastrophic.

If anyone who is reading this knows me well, they might already know where this is going. When the base line reason for an ideological or political movement turns out to be wrong, or even silly or foolish, it’s easy to judge it and condemn it. This was true then, and it’s true now. The controversies of today are the same.

When confronted by political ideology or reasoning that I can objectively say, “Hey, that’s wrong,” I can take the moral high ground. Had I been an Israelite at the time of the Exodus, for the concepts in chapters 11 through 14, that determination would have been straightforward. “You’re blaming people because the were born in a different country? You think that person doesn’t deserve my respect because he married a black woman? You’re basing your opinions on things that have no basis in objective fact?” All of that is easy to identify, easy to condemn, easy to judge. And I can feel objectively righteous for coming to my conclusions, and for standing against such ideology or opposing it for its inherent wickedness.

But Korah and his crowd are a bit different. They have expressed their grievances in terms of seeing a lack of results.  They analyze the record and conclude that when they look at Moses and Aaron, they do not see strong leaders; they see doddering old men. When they look at the effects of their leadership, they do not see a land flowing with milk and honey; they see the reality of wandering through the wilderness, with no end in sight. For them, this is simple, objective reality. Surely one from among their own group — perhaps Korah himself — could do a better job!

These men appear to be taking an upfront, progressive approach to presenting their grievances. Of course, beneath the surface, there are more self-centered motivations, as discussed above. Korah wanting to get in on the action inside the holy-of-holies and not just relegated to carrying “the stuff,” as if he were a love-smitten schoolboy carrying his girl’s books.  Dathan and Abiram are still miffed that their ancestor Rueben got dethroned from his first-born seat. Remember, the word “insolent” is used to describe them. We can see this in the heavy-handed questions they accuse Moses with: Who are you to assume sole leadership? Do you think you alone can draw near to the Lord? They also come armed with theology to support their arguments (hey, it’s what I would do!). They remember what God had said at Sinai: “You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (See Exodus 19:6.). They use the very Word of God to prove that Moses is wrong! They argue, “The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD’s assembly?” (v. 3).

In response, Moses falls down in prayer, hears from God, and then he answers the group: (to paraphrase) Do you want to draw near to God? Do you want to see who’s chosen and who is holy? Okay. Tomorrow go ahead and do the priests’ job. Pick up the holy things. You – along with Aaron – will take up censers and present the daily offering of fire and incense to the LORD. The LORD will show us who he’s chosen!

After addressing the group Moses approaches the frontmen, though only Korah allows him a face-to-face conversation. Moses identifies what the real issue is:

“Now listen, you Levites! Isn’t it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do the work at the Lord’s tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them?  He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too. It is against the Lord that you and all your followers have banded together. Who is Aaron that you should grumble against him?” (vv. 8-11).

The next day Korah and his followers gather outside the Tent of Meeting, and the Lord reveals his glory to the whole assembly. God instructs Moses and Aaron to separate themselves from the group so he can strike the rebels down. But Moses and Aaron intercede for the crowd: “O God, the God who gives breath to all living things, will you be angry with the entire assembly when only one [person] sins?” (v. 22). The LORD listens to their prayer and tells Moses to have the people move away from Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.

Then, despite the gentlemanly and progressive decorum of the rebels, God brings a clear and  terrifying display of his power, and emphatically vindicates the leadership of Moses and Aaron,  The earth splits open, swallows up the frontmen and their families, and they sink down to the grave— while they are still conscious and alive! As for the 250 leaders who were fearlessly offering fire and incense to the LORD – that very fire “came out from the LORD and consumed the 250 men who were offering incense” (v. 35). Certainly, the message was very clear!

And yet, in case there is still any question about who the LORD has chosen for the priesthood, he gives instructions. Someone must go out and retrieve the censers from among “the charred (meaning still smoking) remains”. They can’t just be left out, because they were offered to the Lord, and are therefore holy. The person God chose was “Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest” (v. 36). He, not Korah, is the one chosen to be Aaron’s successor.

Then, in what seems like the most misguided move by yet by the Israelites, which says a lot, considering that in chapters 11-14 the entire Israelite community winds up missing the point. Instead of recognizing that God has set apart Moses and Aaron for special leadership and service, they turn against them. Instead of recognizing that the previous day’s events were a display of God’s judgment against Korah and his crew, they grumble against Moses and Aaron! “You have killed the Lord’s people!” they accuse.  Their hearts are so hard that the truth will not penetrate.

So, God once again unleashes his wrath, and a plague breaks out among the people. The Lord warns Moses and Aaron, “Get away from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once” (v. 45) But instead of separating themselves from the people, they intercede once again. Moses tells Aaron, Quick! Get up, take your censer with incense, and make atonement for the people! (v. 46) And in a beautiful display of compassion and courage, old man Aaron (who must be 80 or 90 years old by this point) runs toward the people! Taking his stand right between the dead (already nearly 15,000) and the living, he offers incense and makes atonement for the very people who opposed him. And the plague stops.

Aaron’s selfless action as a priest of God foreshadows the priesthood of Jesus Christ. While selfless, Aaron was still a sinner. Jesus, however, is “a high priest who meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself” (Hebrews 7:26-27).

Like Chapter 14, the events that play out here in Chapter 16 make me feel very uncomfortable, and even more so. This is because the people’s motivations for rebelling against Moses’s authority (and therefore God’s sovereignty) in Chapters 11-14 were concepts I find repulsive. Because of my faith in Christ and the changes the Holy Spirit have made in me over the years, combined with the solemn oath I took to support and defend the Constitution when I became an attorney, I am committed to justice. I am committed to the truth. I am committed to the rule of law and the integrity of every person. It became a cliché at the beginning of every episode of the Superman television show, but it is truly about “truth, justice, and the American way.” Not that being committed to Christianity equates with my patriotism, but that the principle at the heart of the American governmental system — that all persons are created equal — is foundational to Christian theology and ethics. The Israelites of the Exodus blamed a foreign bunch of vagabonds, the fact that their Semite leader married a woman of African ancestry, and their irrational and unsubstantiated fear of giants, walled cities, and the unknown for all their shortcomings and failures. I firmly believe my own ethical makeup would never allow me to take the same stand.

But Korah’s reasons for rebellion? The Reubenite brothers’ bitterness over their ancestors’ sins? I could see myself falling for that in a New York minute! When the “bad guys” wear black cloaks and carry red light sabers or are dressed in German uniforms with swastikas on their arms, or have knee-jerk, redneck sensibilities, it’s easy to recognize who’s right and who’s wrong. But if the bad guys are wearing sharp suits, speak eloquently, can cite chapter and verse in a logical way, or, even worse, look and act exactly like you and even work/minister side by side with you, then how do I know I’m not also one of the bad guys?

Is Korah’s rebellion worse than Miriam’s?

That little adjective in 16:1 — “insolent” — stands out to me. In his heart, Korah hated Moses and was jealous of him. But Moses had never done anything to offend or hurt Korah.

If my daughter married a black man, and I rejected the two of them for that reason, I would be despicable. If my daughter married an attorney who turns out to be more successful than I am, and I reject the two of them for that reason, is that any different?

If my friend deeply holds to a political ideology that I find offensive, and I judge/reject him for it, is that any different?

How I weep for my country, my society, my community, my family, and for myself in all of this.

Numbers Chapter 16 shows us how there is truly nothing new under the sun.

Numbers 17

In Chapter 17, we have God creatively and definitively closing the door on the issues raised by Korah’s rebellion.

God tells Moses to “get twelve staffs from them, one from the leader of each of their ancestral tribes. Write the name of each man on his staff. On the staff of Levi write Aaron’s name, for there must be one staff for the head of each ancestral tribe. Place them in the tent of meeting in front of the ark of the covenant law, where I meet with you. The staff belonging to the man I choose will sprout, and I will rid myself of this constant grumbling against you by the Israelites” (vv. 2-5).

Some versions of the Bible translate “staff” as “rod.” The “staff” here is representative of a shepherd’s staff. A shepherd’s staff is used throughout the bible as a symbol of authority because shepherds would use a rod to guide and correct the sheep (See Psalm 23:4: “your rod and your staff they comfort me.”). Moses, as a shepherd, had a staff in his hand when tending sheep in the wilderness (Exodus 4:2), which later was known as “the staff of God” (Exodus 4:20), a symbol of the authority God gave to Moses. Throughout the story of the Exodus, Moses used this staff to demonstrate God’s authority in action: In Exodus, chapter 7, this staff became a serpent and turned the waters of the Nile into blood; in Exodus 8 through 10, it was used to invoke the plagues of frogs, lice, hail, and locusts; in Exodus 14, it was the instrument that parted the Red Sea; in Exodus 17:9 it was raised in prayer over Israel in victorious battle; and in Numbers 20:11, we will see it bring forth water from the rock. Throughout the Old Testament, the staff is a picture of God’s authority over humankind: in Psalm 2:9, God rules the earth with an “iron staff;” Psalm 23:4 shows the good shepherd guiding the sheep with his “rod and staff;” in Psalm 89:32, God punishes sin with a rod; in Isaiah 11:4, God’s word is personified as a “rod,” and in Ezekiel 20:36-37, the Lord states, “As I judged your fathers in the desert of the land of Egypt, so I will judge you, declares the Sovereign LORD. I will take note of you as you pass under my rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant.” The prophecies of the Old Testament assign this as a title to Jesus as the Messiah: in Isaiah 11:1 the Messiah is the “shoot” or “staff” of David; and in Micah 6:9, the Messiah is identified as a “rod” appointed by God who must be obeyed.

Each of the staffs, bearing the name of and tribe of its owner, is placed in the presence of the Lord, before the ark of the covenant in the tent of meeting. A shepherd’s staff is basically just a piece of wood. But the one that would “sprout” would indicate which man and which tribe would definitively operate in priestly authority.

Matthew 7:16 states, “By their fruit you will recognize them.” While Jesus statement isn’t about literal fruit, the indication is the fruit produced in our lives by the transformative power of the Spirit of God will be obvious for others to see. Here, we have the same sort of spiritual power being manifested. A shepherd’s staff isn’t a fresh cut branch off of a living tree – the staffs here would have been cured cuts of wood. Staffs like these were often carved to fit the purpose intended. To use a modern metaphor, all of the staffs that were left overnight in the tabernacle were “dead wood.” It would have been scientifically impossible to produce any kind of growth on any of these staffs.

Therefore, even a relatively small miracle in connection with the budding of Aaron’s staff would have been convincing. After all, God could have merely made a little green sprout come from Aaron’s rod alone, and that would have, or should have, been enough. In Acts 1:3, it says that “After his suffering, [Jesus] presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive.” Rising from the dead is no small feat, and Luke, as the author of Acts, makes sure we understand that there was ample evidence presented that the man who obviously been dead had risen from the grave.

Here, it is not much different. In demonstrating God’s approval of Aaron’s leadership,  the Israelites were shown MORE than enough evidence to make sure that the only thing that would have caused them not to accept what God had made clear was a lack of willingness to see. There is nothing remarkable about a fresh cut limb of a tree that might still produce buds. But a piece of dead wood that produced not just buds, but blossoms (that is, fully formed, open flowers) along with fully developed ripe fruit, with all this appearing in one night after sitting in a dark tent in the middle of a desert is absolutely remarkable. This is what makes this truly miraculous – a natural event, coming forth in unnatural conditions, timing, and placement.

The fact that God chose Aaron and his family line to hold the priesthood also did not mean that Aaron was the most spiritual man in the nation. God appointed Aaron to the OFFICE of priesthood. In modern parlance, it’s like the President or the Governor appointing an official to an important post, or the College of Cardinals electing the Pope. It shows the confidence of whoever has authority to determine who should have that position. God’s chosen leaders are supposed to demonstrate godly character according to the principles of 1Timothy 3:13 and Titus 1:5-9. But even if Aaron convincingly demonstrated all those positive character attributes, this was not meant as a contest to determine the most spiritual man among them. God’s choice of Aaron also did not mean that Aaron had not and would not sin or fail significantly. But the expectation is if God’s chosen leaders fail or sin, they must set things right when they do.

The clear choice of Aaron meant that he was God’s chosen priest and the nation was required to recognize this. It doesn’t mean that everyone agreed or liked the choice. But the people are honor-bound to respect it.

Aaron’s staff was chosen, and when God chose it, he did so not just to sprout, not just to bud, but to bear fruit. We expect those chosen by God to lead and minister to exhibit the evidence of fruit in their lives as the mark of their election. Aaron’s staff did more than sprout, it bore fruit, with the promise that it would bear even more fruit.

The most striking concept of Chapter 17 for me is the final 2 verses. “The Israelites said to Moses, “We will die! We are lost; we are all lost! Anyone who even comes near the tabernacle of the Lord will die. Are we all going to die?” On the one hand, this demonstrates that the people haven’t grown out of their immaturity. In the verse 10, God had revealed to Moses that the reason he had gone through this exercise, and the reason why Aaron’s flower/fruit-encrusted staff was set up inside the tabernacle in front of the ark, was to show the people conclusively for generations to come that Aaron and his descendants were God’s definitive choice. The staff was set up before the ark as a reminder, to put an end to the grumbling, and so the people would not die. While God would always take seriously the penalties for violating the rituals involving worship in the holy of holies, that wasn’t the reason for the judgment on Korah – it was because of the rejection of God’s choice for the priesthood. The people had brought these consequences upon themselves because of their insolence, not because they were inappropriately stepping across the threshold of the tabernacle. But at least they seem to finally recognize the seriousness the offense of rebellion had caused. Their fear and respect for God were finally back in place. But they still seem so easily drawn into panic, fear, and despair. The reality is, if I’m honest with myself, I know that I’m the same way.

And did this stop the complaining? Not really. We’ll see more instances of the Israelites grumbling over their conditions. But they have learned at least one lesson. From this point forward, no Israelite participating in the Exodus will raise a complaint about Aaron as the high priest ever again.