Deeper Commentary
Num 20:1 The children of Israel, even the whole congregation, came
into the wilderness of Zin in the first month; and the people stayed in
Kadesh. Miriam died there, and was buried there-
Despite all the visible wrath of God against those who rebelled in
Num. 16 with 15000 dying, the condemnation of the priesthood to death and
then their being saved by the unique, saving provision of the red heifer
(see on Num. 19:4,7,11)... the people still rebelled. This is all a
classic case of where visible, empirical evidence doesn't of itself elicit
true faith in God. And those who base their faith upon 'scientific
evidence' on one hand or Pentecostal claims of miracles... need to be
warned by this. We wonder whether the death of Miriam was related to her
abiding sense of rebellion against her brothers Moses and Aaron. Perhaps
the root of her name, Mara [bitter] became sadly true for her in her older
age.
Num 20:2 There was no water for the congregation. They assembled
themselves together against Moses and against Aaron-
Stephen in Acts 7 stresses the way in which Moses was rejected by
Israel as a type of Christ. At age 40, Moses was "thrust away" by one of
the Hebrews; and on the wilderness journey the Jews “thrust him from them,
and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt" (Acts 7:27,35,39). This
suggests that there was far more antagonism between Moses and Israel than
we gather from the Old Testament record- after the pattern of Israel's
treatment of Jesus. It would seem from Acts 7:39 that after the golden
calf incident, the majority of Israel cold shouldered Moses. Once the
point sank in that they were not going to enter the land, this feelings
must have turned into bitter resentment. They were probably unaware of how
Moses had been willing to offer his eternal destiny for their salvation;
they would not have entered into the intensity of Moses' prayers for their
salvation. The record seems to place Moses and "the people" in
juxtaposition around 100 times (e.g. Ex. 15:24; 17:2,3; 32:1 NIV; Num.
16:41 NIV; 20:2,3; 21:5). They accused Moses of being a cruel cult leader,
bent on leading them out into the desert to kill them and steal their
wealth from them (Num. 16:13,14)- when in fact Moses was delivering them
from the house of bondage, and was willing to lay down his own salvation
for theirs. The way Moses submerged his own pain is superb; both of their
rejection of him and of God's rejection of him from entering the Kingdom.
The style of Moses' writing in Num. 20:12-14 reveals this submerging of
his own pain. He speaks of himself in the third person, omitting any
personal reflection on his own feelings: "The Lord spake unto
Moses... Because you believed me not... you shall not bring the
congregation into the land... and Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto
the King of Edom...". Likewise all the references to “the Lord spake unto
Moses” (Lev. 1:1). Moses submerged his own personality in writing his
books.
Num 20:3 The people strove with Moses and spoke, saying, We wish that we
had died when our brothers died before Yahweh!-
Israel “chode with Moses... they strove with the Lord” (Num. 20:3,13)
uses the same Hebrew word for both “chode” and “strove”. To strive with
Moses was to strive with the Lord- i.e. with the guardian Angel that was
so closely associated with Moses? Num. 20:4 continues rather strangely
with the Israelites addressing Moses in the plural: “The people chode with
Moses, saying... Why have ye [you plural] brought up...”. Could it be that
even they recognized his partnership with God? Likewise Num. 21:5: “And
the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye
[plural] brought us up out of Egypt to die?”. "Our brothers" shows that
the people were at one with the rebels who had died in the events of Num.
16, and hence Moses addresses them all as "rebels" (:10). He was on one
hand full of spiritual perception, but lack of faith and unwise words on
the other. This kind of terrible mixture of flesh and Spirit is sadly to
be found in all God's children, even the very best of them like Moses.
Num 20:4 Why have you brought the assembly of Yahweh into this wilderness
that we should die there, we and our animals?-
The obvious answer was that not Moses but God had brought them into
the wilderness, they had went the way they were led by the Angel going
before them in the pillar of cloud and fire. But they didn't want to
accept that as any evidence. Again, as discussed on :1, visible, empirical
evidence didn't persuade anyone of anything much. In their hearts they had
returned to Egypt (Acts 7:39), and so they would see everything through
the lens of their desire to return there. And so it is with those who love
the world and simply do not want the things of the Kingdom. The manna was
being given, but they disregarded it, and assumed they would die without
the luxury foods of :5. We have a powerful insight into the mentality of
so many. They are not satisfied with food and clothing, and for them, life
is "death" without all the "extras".
Num 20:5 Why have you made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us in to
this evil place? It is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of
pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink-
Their idea was that the desert was no place to plant seed. The idea
may have been that they had camped for some time where they had planted
seeds. But now they were in a desolate area. God's later comment upon this
is "Have I been a wilderness to Israel?" (Jer. 2:31). They totally ignored
God's hand and leadership in all this, taking out their anger with God
upon His representatives- as happens to this day.
Num 20:6 Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly to the
door of the Tent of Meeting, and fell on their faces, and the glory of
Yahweh appeared to them-
When faced with unreasonable criticism and aggression, even from
those amongst the people of God, our response should be not to argue back
immediately, but take the situation to God.
Num 20:7 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-
The invitation to take the rod naturally suggested that Moses was to
use it as previously commanded. But this was a test as to whether Moses
would serve God on the basis of careful obedience to His word; or upon the
assumption that he would just repeat his previous obedience in a
relatively mindless way. And he failed it. This incident therefore has
powerful relevance to those who regularly attend church meetings and tend
to go through the same spiritual patterns in their lives, repeating what
they did previously. The command for Moses to take the rod which budded
meant that he entered into the most holy, when this was only for Aaron to
do once / year at the day of Atonement. So Moses was being encouraged to
pay careful attention to God's specific words and act only upon them. The
rod was the symbol that Moses and Aaron were indeed chosen by God.
Num 20:8 Take the rod and assemble the congregation. you and Aaron your
brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its
water; and you shall bring forth to them water out of the rock; so you
shall give the congregation and their livestock drink-
Note carefully the process of failure here. Moses and Aaron were told
to both speak to the rock, and this would result in Moses personally bringing forth water: “Gather thou [singular] the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye [plural- both of them] unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou [Moses personally] shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink” (Num. 20:8). But Moses seems to have dismissed Aaron’s intended involvement and assumed that he alone could bring the water out with his rod. Yet Aaron was also condemned for this incident- presumably because he didn’t speak to the rock but just let Moses smite the rock with his silence meaning consent.
Moses was asked to throw down wood into the waters (Ex. 15:25). His staff, also made of wood, had to be lifted up in order to open the Red Sea. He was being taught careful obedience to commandment about wood, and yet he failed to learn- for the sin which excluded him from entering Canaan was that of not obeying commandment about his rod / the wood. He was told to take the rod in his hand but not use it. This may explain the apparent harshness of God's condemnation of him over this incident.
Num 20:9 Moses took the rod from before Yahweh as He commanded him-
The rod being "before Yahweh" refers back to how Aaron's rod
that budded was placed before Yahweh (Num 17:22). So it was that rod which
was used, and abused. The symbol of God's choice of Aaron was abused by
Moses as if it had power of itself. We note that "his [Moses'] rod" in
Num. 20:11 is lacking in the LXX and Vulgate, rendering simply "the rod".
They used this symbolic piece of wood as if it had power in itself, just
as some consider the physical wood of the Lord's cross to have some magic
power. And they were condemned for doing so. They were asked to hold the
rod because it was the symbol of warning to a rebellious people.
The first time Moses struck the rock, he was standing in the presence of the Angel- "Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock" (Ex. 17:6), but it would seem that the second time Moses took the rod "from before the LORD (the Angel)" (Num. 20:9) and went alone to the rock; this lack of Angelic presence perhaps accounts for his rashness at this time.
Paul in 1 Cor. 10:4 alludes to a Jewish tradition that the rock followed Israel through the wilderness, always giving water. Some traditions suggest Miriam carried it; the supposed “Rock of Moses” is a piece of rock which could have been carried. Paul emphasizes that the point of his allusion is that the water which they drank of represented “Christ”, the strength which comes from Him as the smitten rock; he alludes to the tradition just as he quotes pagan poets and makes a point out of their words (Acts 17:28). The Bible often features this kind of thing; and God isn’t so paranoiac and apologetic that He as it were has to footnote such things with a comment that “of course, this isn’t true”.
But the rock following them likely means that the water from the smitten rock followed them. Israel's complaint that they had no water was therefore really complaining that they didn't have any more water than that. Moses' failure to believe that from another rock could flow water (which is one possible reading of :10) was therefore indeed a terrible lack of faith (:12). For there was every evidence, provided 24/7, that God could provide water from a rock.
Num 20:10 Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock
and he said to them, Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring water out of
this rock for you?-
We are left to imagine in what tone of voice Moses said that, and
compare it with the tone of voice he used when at the end of his life
reminding them of how they had been rebellious. Israel had rebelled
against the commandment of Yahweh through disbelief, and therefore
couldn't enter Canaan (Dt. 1:26; 9:7,23,24; 31:27; Num. 27:4); they were
as the rebellious son who rebelled against his father's commandment (s.w.
Dt. 21:18,20). For Moses himself had rebelled against the commandment of
Yahweh and because of this was also barred from entering Canaan (Num.
20:24; 27:14). One reason for this was that he had called the Israelites
"rebels" (Num. 20:10), and no sooner had he done so, than he himself
rebelled against Yahweh's commandment just like them, but in a different
way. He saw the whole congregation as no better than the rebels who had
perished previously, 15000 of them, in the rebellion of Num. 16 which
Israel were now in essence repeating.
The essence of the sin was lack of faith (:12), not simply striking the rock; for only Moses struck it, but Aaron was equally punished. The emphasis is perhaps upon "this rock" rather than "we". As if they didn't believe that from that rock could possibly flow water, although God had worked in that way before. Perhaps this is why he struck it once, and no water came, as if in demonstration of his point. And he struck it again- and God answered a fool according to his folly, and God made water come out of it.
Or we can read this as Moses not sanctifying God (:12) by speaking as
if he could bring the water out of the rock alone, in his own strength.
The people had just fired a series of questions at him, asking why he
had brought them out of Egypt and led them through the desert. The obvious
answer to their questions was that it was not Moses who had done these
things, but God working through Moses. They failed to see God manifest in
Moses, and looked at him merely as acting in his own strength. And it
could be that in this moment, he came to see himself as they saw him. He
sinned terribly because he allowed others' perceptions of him to become
his own self perception. And we can take that lesson to ourselves in every
generation.
Num 20:11 Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his rod twice:
and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their
livestock-
Moses lifted his hand and then struck the rock. The action of
lifting the hand could be in defiance. He was 'high handed'. This was the
sin of high handed presumption (s.w.), but still he was saved from it
ultimately.
Moses had previously struck the rock and water came out (Ex. 17:6),
but this time he was asked to speak to it- yet instead, he struck it. See
on :10. Smiting the rock, which represented Christ (1 Cor. 10:4), could be
understood as effectively crucifying Him, twice over (Heb. 6:6). Perhaps he
became over familiar with God, assuming he could do as he wished without
careful respect for God’s word. He failed to believe in the power of the
spoken word (:12), effectively he rebelled against the commandment
(Num. 27:14); he assumed that detailed obedience wasn’t necessary to God’s
commandment; and he gave the impression that he rather than God was giving
the water (“shall we bring you
water...?”, :10). One angry sentence can reveal so much about our
attitudes. Moses had earlier asked that he be excluded from entering the
land so that Israel might enter (Ex. 32:32- see note there). In a strange
way, that prayer was heard. Although Moses sinned, repeatedly we read that
he didn’t himself enter the land for Israel’s sake (Dt. 1:37; 3:26; 4:21).
They are blamed for provoking him to speak poorly (Ps. 106:33). God works
through our sins in a strange way; and what we ask for in prayer, we have
a way of receiving, in essence.
Num 20:12 Yahweh said to Moses and Aaron, Because you didn’t believe in
Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you
shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them-
Disbelief in God was the reason Israel too were barred from entering
Canaan (s.w. Dt. 1:32). When Moses reminded them of this in Dt. 1:32, he
was alluding to how he was in essence no better than them, having also
been rejected from entering Canaan for disbelief (Num. 20:12). So we
wonder in what tine of voice he reminded them of this. For he appealed to
them as a fellow sinner, in this sense no better than them. And this was
the potential power of his appeal.
Although Moses didn’t believe in God as he should have done, God
still did the miracle. He is prepared to accept even imperfect faith.
Moses doubtless had faith of a sort to hit the rock, having gathered all Israel there, and expect water to come out. Indeed, the water did come out, the miracle happened… but God’s ultimate comment was that in that event, Moses actually did not have faith.
The style of Moses' writing in Num. 20:12-14 reveals a submerging of his own pain. He speaks of himself in the third person, omitting any personal reflection on his own feelings: "The Lord spake unto Moses... Because ye believed me not... ye shall not bring the congregation into the land... and Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the King of Edom...". Likewise all the references to “the Lord spake unto Moses” (Lev. 1:1). Moses submerged his own personality in writing his books. See on Acts 7:39.
God led the condemned generation "to see what was in their hearts"- why do that, if they were merely being led to their deaths? Is there not a hint that God was looking at any possible heart change that might enable Him to forgive and eternally save them, even if they had to die in the wilderness? For Moses too couldn't see nor enter the promised land, and yet will be saved. He sinned at Kadesh (Num. 20:1), exactly where Israel did (Num. 13:25). Both Moses and Israel are charged with the sins of "disbelief" (Num. 14:11; 20:12) and "rebellion" (Num. 14:9; 20:24) and are banned from entering the land. But Moses had hope of resurrection to eternal inheritance. They were to see in Moses a possible pattern for themselves. The ten unfathful spies were smitted with death; but the condemned generation were kept alive. Whilst there is life there's hope, and surely man is always capable of repentance whilst still alive. And I suggest God was nudging even that condemned generation towards that. He had sworn they would die in the wilderness, but still they could be resurrected to eternal inheritance of the land if they repented.
Num 20:13 These are the waters of Meribah; because the children of Israel
strove with Yahweh, and He was sanctified in them-
Somehow God is never beaten; man can do nothing against the Truth,
only for it (2 Cor. 13:8). He wasn’t beaten when Moses failed to sanctify
Him (:12); He sanctified Himself through His judgment of that failure: “Ye
believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children
of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land
which I have given them. This is the water of Meribah; because the
children of Israel strove with the LORD, and he was sanctified in
them” (Num. 20:12,13). And 'sanctified' is from the same root as
'Kadesh' where they were encamped. Perhaps it was later named that to
memorialize how God all the same was sanctified. Somehow God’s word never returns unto Him
void, somehow the lost sheep is always found. These are not just
expressions of the essential hopefulness of the Father and Son (although
this in itself is something to be truly inspired by); these are statements
which reflect the way in which within God’s scheme of working, everything
works out to His glory.
Num 20:14 Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, saying:
Thus says your brother Israel: ‘You know all the travail that has happened
to us-
"Esau is Edom". God always had a strange and strong respect for Esau
as also in some kind of potential covenant relationship with Him (Dt.
2:2-4; 23:7; Am. 1:9,11; Obadiah 10,12; Mal. 1:2). Israel had initially
approached Canaan from the south, but now they were being sent far to the
east and north to enter across the Jordan opposite Jericho. It could
possibly be that God's intention was that Esau would not only allow Israel
easier passage there, but even join them and also inherit the land which
was promised to them- if they wished to accept the covenant. But they
refused, satisfied with what they already had in the desert.
Num 20:15 how our fathers went down into Egypt, and we lived in Egypt a
long time; and the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and our fathers-
These incidents are now at the end of the wanderings. "With us" would
have referred to those under 20 on leaving Egypt, and to Moses and Aaron
personally.
Num 20:16 and when we cried to Yahweh, He heard our voice, and sent an
angel, and brought us forth out of Egypt; and behold, we are in Kadesh, a
city in the uttermost extremity of your border-
This message was on behalf of all Israel (:14). But they had just
been bitterly complaining that it was Moses personally who had brought
them out of Egypt (:5), and not God. So their words here are somewhat
insincere, as in their hearts they had returned to Egypt. We see how forms
of words can be used as statements of faith, when our hearts are far from
believing them.
Num 20:17 Please let us pass through your land. We will not pass through
field or through vineyard, neither will we drink of the water of the
wells. We will go along the king’s highway. We will not turn aside to the
right hand nor to the left, until we have passed your border-
Their confidence that they didn't need any water was because the
water from the rock was following them (1 Cor. 10:4). This points up
Moses' lack of faith in :10,11 that the rock in question could give water.
We see how even in the best of us like Moses, faith can go up and down
very quickly.
Their promises to Edom and the Amorites to march only along a highway and not spill over it (Num. 20:17; 21:22) is unrealistic if they had such huge numbers as implied if we read the 600 thousands of Ex. 12:37 literally. A figure of 600 family units leaving Egypt is more realistic; otherwise we start to wonder how ever all the Israelites, millions of them, came to be in one place at one time on Passover night. The Hebrew word translated as "thousand" can mean a family, or some other administrative division. Many of the 'number problems' in the Hebrew Bible are only really resoluble using this approach. And that may be in view in the census of Israel taken in Num. 1, and in the statement that six hundred 'thousands' of footmen left Egypt (Ex. 12:37). The census of Num. 1 gives figures such as those in Num. 1:21 for Reuben, which could be rendered: "forty six families ['thousands'] and five hundred (men)". Although a "hundred" might also refer to an administrative division. The total in Num. 1 would then be 598 families with a total of 5550 men. The sum given in the second census in Num. 26 comes out as roughly the same, with 596 families amounting to 5730 men. On this basis, the total population (including women and children) would be anything between 20,000 to 40,000. This would enable us to make better sense of the statements that Israel were the smallest numerically of all the surrounding peoples (Dt. 7:1,7; 11:23; 20:1). If we insist upon taking "thousand" literally in Ex. 12:37, then 600,000 male foot soldiers would imply a total population of between two and six million. The population density would have been intense, and far greater than that of many modern nations. Estimates of global population at the time suggest it was only about 40 million, and the population of Egypt was a maximum of three million (probably far less). If the Israelites were smaller than the other nations, and they numbered say 5 million, then the total population of the seven peoples of Canaan would have been at least 40 million. The territory of Canaan could not have supported such numbers. Only 70 Israelites came into Egypt with Jacob. Expansion over 430 years to several million is not realistic. This approach helps us better understand how all the men of war marched around Jericho (Josh. 6:3). If there were literally 600,000 men then the city would have had to be many kilometers in circumference for them all to march around it seven times in one day. Archaeological evidence from Jericho simply doesn't support the idea of such a vast city. If Israel numbered say 5 million people, and recall there was also a "mixed multitude" with them, then if they marched 10 abreast this would require a column stretching around 1000 kilometers.
Num 20:18 Edom said to him, You shall not pass through me, lest I come out
with the sword against you-
These words were said with hearts melting with fear of Israel (Ex.
15:16).
Num 20:19 The children of Israel said to him, We will go up by the
highway; and if we drink of your water, I and my livestock, then will I
give its price. Let me only, without doing anything else, pass through on
my feet-
Num 20:20 He said, You shall not pass through. Edom came out against him
with many people, and with a strong hand-
We must put this together with
Ex. 15:15 "Then the chiefs of Edom were dismayed the way". So
when Edom "refused to give Israel passage through his border" (Num.
20:21), their refusal was because they were "dismayed" and terrified, not
because they had some nonchalant confidence against Israel. This is an
example of where we must place scripture together to get an accurate
picture.
Num 20:21 Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border, so
Israel turned away from him-
Soon after this incident, Israel were commanded not to despise an
Edomite (Dt. 23:7)- although this is just what Edom had done to them. We
aren’t to treat others as they treat us, but leave their judgment with
God. These incidents took place in the 40th year of their
wanderings (Num. 33:38), and the commands of Deuteronomy were given at the
same time.
Num 20:22 They travelled from Kadesh: and the children of Israel, even the
whole congregation, came to Mount Hor-
"Even the whole congregation" may suggest that by this point, all the
rebels and those over the age of 20 on leaving Egypt had now died (Dt.
4:4). Or perhaps the idea is that there was not a single person lost as a
result of the confrontation with Edom.
Num 20:23 Yahweh spoke to Moses and Aaron in Mount Hor, by the border of
the land of Edom, saying-
"Hor" and "mount" are the same word in Hebrew. Dt. 10:6 defines the
point as "Moserah". "Moserah" means 'place of chastisement / correction'.
Aaron and Moses will be in the Kingdom despite their sin, but it needed
Aaron's death for them to be corrected. And perhaps it was only in his
time of dying that Aaron was fully corrected. The form of our death can be
used by God to bring us to the spiritual point He wishes us to reach. The
punishment was therefore their correction, and was not the angry lashing
out of an offended Deity. Moses only mentions this place name at the end
of his life, indicating how he looked back and perceived that indeed he
had been corrected and learned his lesson, even if it cost him his life.
Num 20:24 Aaron shall be gathered to his people; for he shall not enter
into the land which I have given to the children of Israel, because you
rebelled against my word at the waters of Meribah-
Disbelief in God's word (Num. 20:12) was rebellion against it. The
point is made that they were wrong to address Israel as "rebels" (:10) for
they were no better. Perhaps it is only in our time of dying that we fully
realize our sinfulness, and that we are no better than other sinners; see
on :23.
Num 20:25 Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up to Mount Hor-
The death of Aaron was typical of the end of the Mosaic system and
priesthood, able to only bring Israel to see the Kingdom, but unable to
enable them to enter it. That was the work of Joshua / Jesus. Eleazar
could be seen then as the priest who replaced Aaron, and also a type of
the Lord Jesus. Aaron, an apparently Egyptian name with no clear meaning
and not used about any other Biblical character, was replaced by Eleazar,
'helped by God' or 'helper of God', seeing that God was ultimately
Israel's saviour. The numerical value [gematria] of "Eleazar the priest"
is the same as "Joshua", the Greek form of which is "Jesus".
Num 20:26 and strip Aaron of his garments, and put them on Eleazar his
son; and Aaron shall be taken, and shall die there-
It was a sad moment, but surely these men had faith in the
implication of the promises to Abraham, that they would be resurrected to
eternal inheritance of the land which Moses and Aaron couldn't enter. The
Hebrew phrase for stripping off garments is that earlier used of Aaron in
Lev. 16:23. He was to do this during the ritual of the Day of Atonement,
as if in some sense he was the priest who was dying in order to make
atonement.
Num 20:27 Moses did as Yahweh commanded; and they went up into Mount Hor
in the sight of all the congregation-
Just as Aaron had sinned in the sight of all the congregation, so he
was to die in their sight. The harsh condemnation of Moses and Aaron was
evidence for all time that sins of stress, however momentary, are felt by
God and judged by Him.
Num 20:28 Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them on Eleazar
his son; and Aaron died there on the top of the mountain; and Moses and
Eleazar came down from the mountain-
The strict obedience of Moses is stressed; cp. :26 and :28. Moses'
great level of obedience looked forward to that of the Lord Jesus (Heb.
3:2,5).
Num 20:29 When all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, they wept for
Aaron thirty days, even all the house of Israel-
"All the house of Israel" is noted because we have been reading over
the last few chapters of consistent and deep opposition to Aaron's
priesthood. But the man's basic integrity made even his critics and
pretenders bow their heads in respect when he died.
Previous Chapter
