Last time, we tried to connect the dots in some of the later years of the Patriarch, Jacob.  In that, we saw that things needn’t end as badly as they’ve begun and we maintained that: Even The Grumpiest Of Grumps Can Reform.  Sometimes, however, history shows us that things do not end well. 

Enigmatically, this chapter – really a couple of episodes – follows hard upon the heels of the custom concerning the ashes of the red heifer and the waters of impurity.  It might not grab us as much because we are programmed to read these as separate paragraphs, sections, episodes and chapters.  However, there is no break at verse one in the Hebrew text and hence no real break between chapters.  Besides a conjunction, what holds these sections together?  Among other things, one of the more glaring things is “water.”  In chapter 19 we are told of the “waters of impurity.”  That is, there is something of a restoration to fellowship available for someone who has been defiled by a close encounter of the dead body kind.  Chapter 20 is also about things that are not holy and it ends up with the etiology – the place name – “Waters of Contention.”  Hmmmmm.   It looks to me, again, as though someone were thinking rather deeply.  Again, it looks to me as though the hatchet job by liberal criticism on these texts is weighed, measured and short.  These texts do hold together – coherently, cohesively and formally.  The issue in chapter 19 is that of defiling the “sanctuary.”  The word is a derivative of the word holy (miqdash/<qadash).  The issue in chapter 20 (one of two sides of the same theological coin, really) is that Moses (and accomplice) did not treat God in a holy manner (Numbers 20:12, lehaqdisheni/<qadash). 

Meanwhile, back at the water; there is something of a pun for us in the two sections.  “Waters of impurity” is me-hanniddah, and “waters of contention” is me meribah.  Of course, this is more interesting to the fluent reader of biblical Hebrew than to someone locked into English; but the point remains to be emphasized either way: the issue of both chapters is holiness.  And both the leadership and the constituency failed in it miserably.  Here we see the unfortunate place where Moses slips and falls in Israel’s perpetual malady of grumpiness.  My point in all this is going to be:

Even Reformed Grumps May Suffer The Consequences Of Their Grumpery. 

Textual Observations

Clinical Detachment And The Death Of Miriam

The last mention we had of Miriam was that she had been restored to the community.  Recall that she had been stricken with leprosy for her attempt at supererogation, usurpation, insubordination.  Along with her willing accomplice, Miriam had attempted to vie for parity with Moses.  Such was not to be; and her last episode was far inferior to her first several (watching baby Moses, getting mom for nurse, dancing, singing and chanting at the deliverance from the chariotry of the Egyptians, her title as a prophetess by our omniscient narrator and so on).  As with clinical detachment when leaving behind the “graves of the greedy” (Numbers 11:34-35), and as with clinical detachment when Israel moved on after Miriam’s breech of protocol, so our omniscient narrator becomes rather Spartan with the narrative and briefly notes for us the death and burial of Miriam.  Without any apparent break from chapter 19 and woodenly, the text reads:

And the sons of Israel entered, all the congregation, the wilderness of Tsin in the first month; and the people lived in Qadesh, and Miriam died there and she was buried there. 

This, again, is sandwiched between the custom of the waters of impurity and the debacle of impure motives at the waters of contention (Meribah).  And we should be reminded of Miriam’s defilement when struck leprous for insubordination.  The only hint we have of slowing down from the horserace pace of the narrator’s craft is in the passive voice (“she was buried”) of the last clause.  A new episode begins in earnest with our verse two, “Now there was no water for the congregation. . . .” 

Why is this event – the passing of, certainly, the most important woman in Israel! – given such short shrift?  Several reasons immediately present themselves: First, we can go with the rising tide in scholarship and assume, usually with other arguments from silence, that it was merely due to an underlying misogynist – anti-woman – bent of the biblical authors.  The history of history writing is usually a study in cyclical social movements and that rising tide will ebb one day when scholarship wakes up and realizes that they didn’t think in Post-Enlightenment categories during the Late Bronze Age.  In view of what the author is going to do to Moses in this chapter, as well as in Deuteronomy, we could make as much of a case of mis-Mosynist bent of the biblical authors. 

A bit more textually and secondly, Miriam never speaks again after her two rhetorical questions in Numbers 12:2.  We cannot know if she ever repented of her presumption.  But, let us take the high road and assume that she did: it still would make no difference because Israel was pardoned and yet would die in the wilderness as chapter 14 indicates several times.  Moses would sin and be pardoned – we are left to presume! – and yet be denied entry to the promised land.  Here is the point: Spiritual and eternal forgiveness and physical and temporal repercussions share no necessarily dependent relationship. 

Thirdly, four important people either meet their fate or greet their destiny – only one positively.  Miriam will die; Aaron will be defrocked and then die; Moses will be denied access to the promised land and Eleazar will be frocked with his dad’s frock as High Priest of all Israel.  The death of Miriam serves as a bridge between the waters of impurity and the waters of contention.  The death of Aaron serves as a bridge between the embassy to Edom and the decimation of the Canaanites.  However, most of the central section of the book of Numbers is a multiple-layered complaint sandwich: people griping about water; people griping about Moses; Moses griping about people; God reprimanding Moses; Edomites griping about Israelites and denying them safe passage; Canaanites griping about Israelites and declaring war on them; people griping about the long trip; people griping about manna; God sending snakes to kill people griping about manna; people griping about the paucity of water in the desert and so on. . . .  The narrative mayonnaise is all that holds the sandwich together.  The complaints of this central section are the central focus and historical notices of these four key players, Miriam, Moses, Aaron and Eleazar, are the glue that holds this portion together.  Perhaps there is a point here, as well: When one is surrounded by those who complain, one needs to be fiercely vigilant, lest he or she merely follow suit. 

Fourthly, there is an evident contrast between how the narrator treats the death of Moses’ two siblings.  Miriam gets very little press: “Miriam died there and she was buried there.”  Aaron receives fair warning (Numbers 20:24); gets to climb a mountain (perhaps imagery of being closer to God), a divestiture service, a public investiture service for his son and a thirty-day national period of mourning.  There is no notice of his burial; but we cannot infer much from that.  Perhaps Moses piled rocks on him; or perhaps he was carried back down the hill and given a more formal burial (Deuteronomy 10:6?). 

We should also notice that this is not the first time there is a contrast between how the narrator and God treat Aaron as over against how they treat Miriam.  Miriam, not Aaron, was stricken with leprosy for insubordination.  Aaron importuned Moses to intercede with God on her behalf.  She remains ever silenced in the narrative after that event.  In our text, she receives two verbs: “she died . . . she was buried” – one of those in the passive voice distancing the narrator from her.  In our text Aaron receives part interest in several verbs “they [Moses and Aaron] went up . . . Moses divested Aaron,” and he receives three verbs of his own: “Aaron died there . . . Aaron had died . . . They mourned Aaron. . . .” 

Clearly, the author is attempting to contrast the honor with which Aaron was treated as over against the more mundane notice given Miriam.  In all this we note again the omniscient narrator’s clinical detachment to the death of those fallen in the wilderness.  So, what is the moral of the story?  Sometimes the obituary is voluminous for its brevity!  Sometimes a superfluity of words but lauds the individual’s insignificance. 

Waters Of Contention And An Exposed Character Flaw In Moses

Between verses two and 13, many things will go wrong.  The whole section is a study in dysfunctional communication and marginal compliance.  As stated above and below (Introduction and Textual Problems), the first indication of disjunction in the narrative is at the beginning of verse two.  Here with the deployment of waw + negative particle + “to be” verb, we begin the new episode, the episode that will seal Moses’ earthly destiny and will seal him out of the promised land until the sequel.  Subsequently, verse three will begin with contention: “And the people contended (wayyarebh) with Moses. . . .”  The episode will end with an immortalization of the place in “The Waters Of Contention.”  We are told, “They were Waters of Contention (me-meribhah) where the sons of Israel contended (rabhu) with YHWH” (20:13). 

Meanwhile, let us construct a partial listing of things that go wrong in this catfight of contention:

1.         They enter a desert at God’s command – humanly speaking, a

            disaster that found a place to happen. 

2.         They have no water.  

3.         They assemble against Moses and Aaron, the established, proven

            and vindicated leadership. 

4.         They contend in an accusatory fashion against Moses, the

            leadership principal. 

5.         They wish for a death they will most certainly soon receive. 

6.         They accuse Moses of leading them to this waterless place when it

            was God who did so. 

7.         They complain of leaving Egypt – but not of wanting to return

            there.  This is new: usually, they want to go back to Egypt. 

8.         They complain of no fruit.

9.         Only finally do they get back to the real issue – water. 

10.       Moses and Aaron assume the position most probably to duck the

            fire of God’s wrath as it precedes forth from His presence . . . and

            they also importune His mercy. 

11.       God’s gives clear instructions which are not clearly followed. 

12.       Moses takes the rod as commanded . . . things disintegrate from

            there.

13.       Moses speaks to Israel instead of the rock. 

14.       Moses calls them “rebels” which may or may not be true; but still

            demonstrates poor etiquette and leadership skills. 

15.       Moses rhetorically claims responsibility for bringing water out of

            the rock. 

16.       Moses struck the rock with the rod – which God did not command

            this time but had in the past (Exodus 17:6).  Maybe he thought it

            was inherent in the command. 

17.       Moses struck the rock twice – did nothing happen the first time? 

            Was this a cheap imitation of the grandstanding of a sorcerer? 

18.       They got their water; but Moses is about to get a lot more – or less,

            as the case may be. 

19.       Moses operated in faithlessness.  We must assume Aaron did too. 

20.       Moses therefore operated unfaithfully to God’s command, Aaron

            as well. 

21.       Moses did not honor God by his attitudes or possibly his actions,

            Aaron either. 

22.       Moses did not treat God as holy – separate, special, a category of

            one.  Apparently, neither did Aaron. 

23.       Moses reaps part of the harvest of his indiscretion.  Aaron is either

            completely guilty or partially complicit in this indiscretion. 

24.       Moses receives a death-in-the-wilderness penalty . . . and drags

            Aaron with him.  

25.       Moses receives a refusal-of-admittance penalty – he cannot enter

            the promised land in the land of the living . . . neither will Aaron.  

26.       The people drank the water; but they were immortalized as Waters

            of Contention. 

27.       The LORD had to prove Himself holy because His most trusted

            and esteemed earthly servants were unable to treat Him with

            suitable respect. 

There are several traditions alive that indicate that Moses did not get to go into the Promised Land because he struck the rock instead of speaking to it.  Some say it is because he struck it twice in contrast to the pre-Sinai event in Exodus 17.  But when the text quotes God as offering the two exact reasons for Moses’ exclusion from the congregation of those who would enter the Promised Land, why do we go so far out of our way to recreate the events to explain the reasons?  My theory is that we still are under the naive notion that sin is only what you do.  Faithlessness and desacralization, that is trivializing the special-ness of God, are attitudinal and thus intangible, unquantifiable and without obvious or necessary effect.  Whacking rocks is physical and quantifiable – you can hear it, see, and count it.  We can say, though we should not, that the narrator has shown us what Moses did to cause his denial to the promised land.  I prefer to take God at his words, “Because you have not believed Me, to treat Me as holy in the sight of the sons of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them” (v. 12).   That should be simple enough: faithlessness/unfaithfulness and desecration of the reputation of God are the two reasons why Moses does not get to enter the promised land.  The way it may or may not have been demonstrated tangibly is purely ancillary. 

If God had not wanted Moses to whack the rock, the old man would not have been able to lift the stick – that had happened nearly twenty years earlier during the battle with the Amalekites (Exodus 17:8-13).  Moses demonstrates his faithlessness and irreverence in the way he addresses Israel say some – but that is tone we place upon the words of this, the most humble/haggard man in history (Numbers 12:3).  Moses demonstrates his faithlessness and irreverence in the way he addresses the rock – “whack, whack” – say some.  But that is merely an effect from a root cause.  According to God it is Moses’ faithlessness and irreverence that denies him access to the promised land – grumpy Israelites, coarse oratory and whacked rocks become superfluous to a faithless, irreverent and grumpy Moses.  Remember the point:

Even Reformed Grumps May Suffer The Consequences Of Their Grumpery. 

Selfish, Surly Cousins: Edom Refuses Passage

It may seem that this section has no relationship to the event that precede or follow.  However, a faithless ethical lapse can taint effectiveness in other areas of life and work.  So, let us proceed with the text as we have it: After a couple of exchanges Edom will deny Israel the right of safe passage through its territory.  Looking at it from the top side, it is easy to say that God had designed that a lot more folks drop along beside the road as they circumnavigated Edom.  However and humanly speaking, this had to represent another heartbreak for the leadership and the people and an opportunity for more collective grumpiness.  It might also be part of that historical enmity begun between the siblings Jacob and Esau that festered nationally and exploded periodically until the time of the death of the Herods. 

Be that as it may, let us examine Moses’ approach – it will not be the last time such an approach meets with abject failure.  Jephthah will try the same method with the Ammonites and end up having to prove the legitimacy of his claims on the battlefield (Judges 11).  Moses first gave something of an historical prologue to his request by telling the leadership of Edom about what they had been up to for oh, say, the last four hundred years or so.  Moses talks about the harsh treatment and servitude they experienced in their self-appointed exile; but he also admirably testifies to God’s providential liberation of the people from Egypt.  When he finally cuts to the kernel of his message, he tells the Edomites where he is and what his request is – to no avail.  Edom refuses the right of safe passage and offers the rejoinder of a threat. 

Undaunted, the Israelites this time – note, Moses-the-ineffectual is not mentioned here! – continue with the third leg of this epistolary journey.  They promise not to deviate from the highway and to pay full price for any provisioning along the way.  Again this is to no avail.  This time, however, Edom refuses the right of safe passage and puts military teeth in the threat. 

Daunted, this time, Israel set out from Qadesh.  They turned away and came to Mount Hor where the last scene of Aaron’s life will be enacted.  Because they are the “cousins,” an interesting sidelight is that they are not given permanent sanction as were the Amalekites (Exodus 17:14).  There do not seem to be any lasting historical or theological effects to this show of hostile force.  A little later on, it would appear that they are more obviously to adopt their predicted subordinate status (cf. Genesis 25:23; Numbers 24:18).  Be that as it may, by Malachi’s time the Edomites have assumed the role of “hated neighbor” (Mal. 1:2-4).  The moral of this story is that frustration is rarely final.  The final chapter of the story may not be the one you are reading.  The final episode in the adventure may not be the one you are currently living.  So, why grouse about it?!  Again, I reiterate the point:

Even Reformed Grumps May Suffer The Consequences Of Their Grumpery. 

A Little Less Clinical Detachment: Divestiture Of Aaron And His Death

Because I have treated this in some detail above in the comparison with the clinical detachment of the narrator in regard to Miriam’s death, I will here be brief.  After the events surrounding the embassy to Edom, Moses is told by God to prepare for Aaron’s death.  We are told the reason for Aaron’s death at this time: “concerning which you (plu.) rebelled against My mouth at the waters of Meribah” (v. 24).  God then instructs the aged Moses to take the aged Aaron up the mountain and – since this is about sin! – defrock him publicly.  Because the investiture service to follow is based on hereditary right of the Aaronic family, I suppose some of the sting is taken out of the defrocking when it is your son who is invested with your office, also publicly.  Perhaps there was even a bit of pride in the old man.  However, after nearly forty years in the saddle, I should think that there was a certain remorse in relinquishing the office if not outright terror at the prospect of his own imminent demise.  He seems to make no comment on his own behalf – that could, of course, merely be the narrator’s selection of material. 

We see the three players and their audience, again with the cold detachment of the narrator, go through the motions obediently as predicted (v. 24) and as directed (vs. 25-26).  Three go up the mountain and apparently only two return.  The detachment with which the narrator plies his craft quavers just a bit as with the shaky voice of a tearful eulogy only in the semantics chosen in verse 29: “And all the congregation saw that Aaron had died; and all the house of Israel wept for Aaron thirty days.”  Because they went up the mountain in the sight of all the congregation (v. 27), and the congregation saw that Aaron had died (v. 29), we cannot automatically infer that they witnessed the entirety of the events of divestiture and investiture.  We can only deduce from the text that the people inferred the worst when they saw Eleazar come down in his father’s uniform of office.  Be that as it may, they recognized the worst when it had happened and they observed a thirty-day period of national mourning for Aaron.  Only in the switch in the grammar to the focus on national Israel and in the semantics of death and national mourning can we feel the pathos of the events.  In any case, it is, again, a stark contrast with the emotionless portrayal of Miriam’s death and burial (v. 1).  The point in all this is that there are people who are chosen by God and make serious mistakes, yet they are accorded much honor in their passing.  This was the death of the first High Priest of Israel and whether merely perfunctory action or out of genuine loss of a loved and respected member of the community, the people of Israel mourned this man at his passing.  They would remember how many times this man stood between them and certain, irrevocable and horrible death (e.g., Numbers 16:48). 

Textual Problems

As noted above, the only real problem with this text is its beginning.  Grammatically, verse one would be a better conclusion to the events of chapter 19 were it not for the semantics concerning Miriam with respect to her death and the subject matter of chapter 20.  The ancients apparently used the subject of death and destiny to rule their judgement rather than verbal structure.  However and again syntactically, it is clear that the text is not broken until the conjunction and particle of verse two.  At that point (“Now there was no water for the congregation and they assembled . . .”), a new episode begins – an episode that has serious and final repercussion for Moses and Aaron.  And so because of the syntax I prefer to conclude chapter 19 with Miriam’s death and begin chapter 20 with the Meribah incident. 

Textual Applications And Anecdotes

Numbers 20

vs.

1.         We cannot know for certain what “first month” this is; my

            suspicion is that we are getting on toward the end of the march. 

            We will go through the highlands of Arabia and Jordan and then

            perch on the verge of the land. 

            Notice the hermetically sealed account of the death of Miriam. 

            “They came . . . they lived . . . she died . . . she was buried . . . .” 

            This ends all previous narratives. 

            No epilogue, no memorial, no eulogy: Miriam is dead. 

2.         We begin a new section with backgrounded material, “Now there

            was no water. . . .” 

            The verb here is “assembled” followed by the preposition “upon”

            or “against.”

            The verb is not the same as “lodging a complaint” against Moses

            and Aaron . . . it will become clear that “assembling” becomes

            “contentious.” 

3.         When people become “contentious” with the established, approved

            leadership, trouble follows. 

            Notice that they begin with historical hypotheticals about death

            rather than the issue. 

            This represents the pattern of complaints in Numbers:

            general/specific. 

            These people seem to think that those who perished “before the

            Lord” had a good deal. 

            My guess is that those who died in rebellion in those days did not

            meet a happy God on the other side. . . . 

4.         Thankfully the narrator has told us that there was no water . . . the

            Israelites are still going to beat about the cactus for a couple more

            verses. . . . 

            They do acknowledge that it is the Lord’s assembly. 

            However, they seem to think that Moses is somehow responsible

            for where they are now. 

            It was, after all, they who rejected the promised land several

            chapters back. 

            Any responsibility Moses has at this point is certainly consequent

            at best. 

5.         They continue their tirade by blaming Moses for bringing them up

            from Egypt.

            Notice: the idea of going back to Egypt seems to have been beaten

            out of them. 

            Even though they rejected the promised land due to faithlessness

            and then were refused entry due to their presumption, they still see

            Moses as responsible for the wilderness not having fruit trees. 

            Finally they get to the real issue: there was not any water at the

            moment. 

            This is often how complaints about established, approved

            leadership go: there is a lot of beating about the cactus until we get

            to a problem that should be immediately addressed. 

6.         This has been a frequent scene: Israel complains, Moses and Aaron

            assume the position –    we assume in petition for the people – and

            the glory of the Lord appears prior to a withering judgment. 

7.         This quote introduction formula is in the narrative thread. 

            New case law is not following as much as specific instructions for

            Moses. 

8.         The commands were pretty case specific: “take (imv.) the rod . . .

            assemble (imv.) the congregation . . . then you will speak (w + pf.)

            to the rock . . . and you will bring forth (w + pf.) water for them

            from the rock . . . and you will provide (w + pf.) water for the congregation and their

            livestock.” 

            Notice that the first two are imperative whereas the following three

            are reduced to the status of sequential or consequent necessity.  (It

            is called “procedural discourse.”)

            The first two imperatives prove that the next three could have

            been. 

            They were reducing the level of the discussion. 

9.         Notice that we are told that, at the outset Moses, obeyed God

            explicitly. 

            It goes downhill from there. 

            Moses obeyed the first imperative: he took the rod. 

10.       Moses obeyed the second imperative: he assembled the people. 

            Moses did not follow the procedure: he spoke to the congregation

            instead of the rock. 

            Moses called them rebels.  True enough!  But there is nothing

            gained for the effort. 

            God told Moses that he would bring forth water from the rock; but

            Moses seems to arrogate to himself the power of producing it. 

            Is “we” royal?  Is he partnering with Aaron?  God?  Both? 

            Is Moses being rhetorical as though it were a magic show? 

            “No water up my sleeve . . . none anywhere.  Shazzam!  Right out

            of the rock!” 

11.       Moses struck the rock as he did in Exodus 17:6. 

            This was not new, neither proscribed; God just told him to speak to

            the rock. 

            It is as though Moses is trying to elevate the rod to a magic wand. 

            Moses struck the rock twice.  Although he did not do that         previously, it is still

            irrelevant

            as to a reason why Moses was not allowed to go into the promised

            land. 

            God did keep his part of the bargain: water came and the people

            and their livestock had a

            superabundance of water to drink. 

            But because God keeps His promise does not mean that there will

            not be an accountability for leadership that colors outside the lines. 

12.       Miriam has already died and this judgment rendered is addressed

            to Moses and Aaron. 

            Moses is, as yet, indispensable; Aaron is not.  This might even be

            literary foreshadowing. 

            They are not judged for striking the rock or striking it twice. 

            They are not judged for not speaking to the rock. 

            The judgment has nothing to do with the rock. 

            The judgement has to do with God. 

            They are judged for not treating God as holy before the

            congregation. 

            They are judged for having a bad attitude toward God publicly. 

            Neither of them will be anything more than rungs of the ladder

            upon which Israel will climb to the promised land. 

13.       Contention is followed by confrontation and then, often, etiology. 

            They memorialized the good and the bad. 

            Moses and Aaron did not treat God as Holy in public; but God

            proved Himself to be holy.

14.       There is still no real break in the narrative: the scene of the waters

            of contention and the

            circumnavigation of Edom are viewed as a single event.  There is

            no indication in the text

            that there is any break between these two sections and the

            decommissioning and death of Aaron either. 

            Moses’ attempts at diplomacy usually failed. 

            This letter begins negatively. 

15.       This letter immortalizes the negativity of the Egyptian experience. 

16.       This letter immortalizes the power of God’s deliverance from

            Egypt. 

            It is as though he is saying, “We are on the border; may we pass

            through.”  Perhaps a little forethought would have paid off. 

            The big picture: God wanted them to walk off a few more of the

            old generation. . . . 

17.       The plan was to avoid touching anything belonging to Edom other

            than the highway. 

18.       The response: No!  The threat had teeth in it . . . well, swords,

            actually. 

19.       Israel tried a second letter – this time with the offer of commerce! 

20.       The response: No!  This time the threat became a promise – armed

            men on the border. 

21.       This show of force had several repercussions: Israel was forced to

            circumnavigate Edom. 

            Israel also showed some centuries-long enmity toward Edom.

            Edom also returned the favor.

22.       There is no break here either – we are viewing everything from the

            death of Miriam to the death of Aaron as a single event. 

            The grandees of the older generation are dying off. 

            They departed from Kadesh.  They came to Mt. Hor. 

23.       The quote introduction formula is weaker here: “And the Lord said

            to Moses and Aaron.” 

            We consider “speak” a more powerful word than “say.” 

            We are not introducing either new case law or a new direction in

            the narrative. 

            We are introducing the sequence of events that will culminate in

            the divestiture and death of Aaron. 

24.       Imagine God telling you (v. 23) that your time to die was at hand. 

            Aaron will not be allowed to go because he was complicit in

            rebellion. 

            This is another indication not only of Aaron’s complicity, but of

            the heart attitude of Moses and Aaron when they did not treat God

            as holy publicly. 

            In the words, “because you rebelled against My mouth at the

            waters of Meribah,” “you” is plural in Hebrew.  “You guys

            rebelled. . . .” 

25.       Now to Moses: Take Aaron and Eleazar up to Mt. Hor.  Aaron

            only knows that he is about to die, remember. 

26.       On Mt. Hor there will be the divestiture of Aaron and the

            investiture of Eleazar. 

            Following this changing of the guard, Aaron will die. 

27.       Moses is said to obey explicitly.

            Moses is said to obey publicly. 

            Moses may never have held the grudge against God that he did

            against the people. 

28.       The narrator informs us that the divestiture/investiture and death

            went according to decree. 

            The narrator informs us that the return of Moses and the new High

            Priest descended to the people. 

29.       The people saw that Aaron had not returned. 

            The people saw that Aaron had expired. 

            Did the people see him “expire”? 

            Did the people infer that he had “expired”? 

            The mourning was suitable for Aaron. 

            Did they continue on?  No, the Canaanites will attack – again, no

            break in the text. 

Conclusion

As a final note on the pathos of the situation, we ought to recall the matter from chapter 14.  God told Moses that He would forgive Israel for Moses’ sake; but that they would all spend the next 40 years dying off in the wilderness.  The principle in that was that there is no necessary relationship between the forgiveness of sins and the repercussions of that sin in this life.  It will be that way with Moses as well.  There is a sense in which he gains forgiveness of his part in the “Waters of Contention” debacle; however, he will not be allowed, this side of the grave, to enter the promised land. 

There is, unfortunately, also a sense in which Moses never really gets it – he never really realizes that his sin is his own and that Israel is more of an occasion than a causal factor for Moses’ final fault.  Feel the pathos of his words to God in addressing Israel on the eve of his departure:

            “Allow me, please, to cross over and let me see the good land

            which is across the Jordan – the good highlands and the Lebanon.” 

            And YHWH was angry with me for your sakes;

            Now He would not list to me.  And YHWH said to me, “Enough! 

            Do not ever again speak to me about this matter!” (Deuteronomy

            3:25-26)

Ouch!  We know that Moses was forgiven – all accounts had to be righted by the events of the transfiguration, did they not?  But, Moses is all but told “Shut Up, Mo!”  Moses couches his request in the most deferential of language; God’s response is most abrupt.  Moses uses the language of the supplication of a subordinate while God piles up adverbs finalizing the negation of Moses’ request.  Probably, Moses had been given more second chances than we realize from the text; but more probably, this reflects what God thinks about not only the complaints of His people, but the faithless failure to treat Him as holy.  As such, it is an illustration of Jerry’s Law of The First Offense.  As with others from Adam to Nadab and Abihu to Saul to Ananias and Saphira, God’s retributive judgement is often swift on first offenders in order to demonstrate what he really thinks of the sin as a warning to those foolish enough to follow.  Moses was the great legislator of the Older Testament and yet he never saw the promised land.  In Christ, I think we can do better.  God help us as we pursue faith.  God help us as we pursue faithfulness.  God help us as we avoid being grumps in the wilderness.  And God help us to treat Him as holy. 

Even Reformed Grumps May Suffer The Consequences Of Their Grumpery.