CHAPTER XII
TRIALS OF MOSES AND ISRAEL IN THE WILDERNESS
Leviticus 10.1-7. Numbers 9.15-23, also 11.1 to 12.16
Interpretation. We have grouped in this chapter a number of episodes in the wandering of the children of Israel, because any one of them is too small to occupy a single lesson and because all deal with the same general theme, though with significant variations—rebellion and its punishment.
With regard to the episode of the death of Nadab and Abihu, recorded in Leviticus 10. 1 to 3, the Bible describes their offense as the bringing of "strange fire" into the sanctuary. This offense in itself seems disproportionate to the punishment, consequently, the rabbis in commenting on the passage try, on the one hand, to ascribe the punishment of the sons of Aaron to sins not expressly recorded in the text, as for instance the sin of being intoxicated during the service, which they derived from the fact that the prohibition of drinking before the performance of a sacrifice immediately follows the narrative of this incident, or, on the other, to regard Nadab and Abihu as martyrs, who died by the divine decree to exhibit the sanctity of the tabernacle and its ritual without really having incurred the divine displeasure. This interpretation is based on Leviticus 10. 3, "Then Moses said unto Aaron, 'This is it that the Lord spoke, saying: 'Through them that are nigh unto Me I will be sanctified and before all the people I will be glorified,'' And Aaron held his peace." To be sure this verse may be construed to mean that Nadab and Abihu had been punished for their failure to sanctify God, but in view of the fact that the Hebrew term for martyrdom is "ḳiddush ha-shem" "the sanctification of God's name" and in view of the fact, furthermore, that it would be expected of Moses under the circumstances to say something consoling to Aaron, who was himself innocent, rather than to emphasize the wickedness of his sons this view of the incident must not be lightly dismissed. In fact, the simple reading of the text suggests a combination of these two interpretations. In taking "strange fire", i.e., fire that had not been taken from the divinely kindled flame on the altar (Leviticus 9. 24.), Nadab and Abihu had abused their priestly prerogative, making themselves the masters of the ritual of the sanctuary instead of its servants. But such a ritual transgression might have been forgiven were it not for the importance of the occasion, the consecration of the tabernacle, and for the dignity of their office which demanded that they be exceptionally circumspect in their conduct. Their punishment was, therefore, more severe than the offense would warrant in the case of any other than a consecrated person. Its severity was in proportion to the holiness of the sanctuary that had been violated and of the priestly office that had been profaned rather than to the heinousness of the offense in itself, and it expressed God's desire to impress upon the people the sanctity of the tabernacle and its ritual. In dealing with Nadab and Abihu God was acting in accordance with the rabbinic statement to the effect that "with the righteous God is exacting even to a hair's breadth," and the rabbis could, therefore, view the death of the Sons of Aaron somewhat in the light of martyrdom.
The remaining incidents, with the exception of the prophesying of Eldad and Medad are, as we have already said, examples of rebellion and its punishment. They are interesting instances of the trials of Moses in his leadership of the people. Their moral is the duty of loyalty to legitimate authority. The punishment of the people at Kibroth-hattaavah is an excellent example of how inordinate desire brings its own punishment, and suggests, as one of the grounds for loyalty, submission and discipline, the fact that what we most desire is not always what is most beneficial for us, a very important moral for children.
The sin of Miriam is described by the Rabbis as lashon ha-ra' "slander," Its lesson is that it is wrong not merely to rebel against righteous leadership, but even to detract from the honor that is due to noble characters. The charge that Aaron and Miriam brought against Moses was not the charge of any moral offense or offense against the Law, for the Torah expressly prohibits intermarriage only with the people of Canaan, the construction of the law to make it applicable to all intermarriage only dating from about the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. According to a Jewish tradition the Cushite woman whom Moses had married is identical with Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro. This would, of course, be untenable if Cush necessarily meant Ethiopia, as it is usually rendered, but it is generally thought that there was an Arabian Cush as well, in which case the identification is possible. Miriam's resentment was, therefore, not on religious grounds. The incident is probably recorded in the Bible because of the opportunity it gives of revealing the patient and forgiving character of Moses.
The same is illustrated even more strikingly by Moses' reply to his overzealous disciple Joshua, when he was told that Eldad and Medad had been prophesying in the camp. His only reply is "Would that all the Lord's people were prophets". Inasmuch as prophecy was a gift bestowed upon the council of seventy elders (Numbers 11. 25), whom Moses had been commanded to appoint, the fact that Eldad and Medad, who were not among the seventy, nevertheless "prophesied" might very well have been construed as indicating a presumptuous and rebellious attitude. According to a tradition which has considerable support from Numbers 11. 26, the number of men originally chosen were seventy-two, six from each tribe, but of these two were to be eliminated by lot and Eldad and Medad, rather than put anyone else to possible embarrassment, refused to go to the tabernacle when the lot was taken. This much of the haggadah is at least implied in the verse, that Eldad and Medad had originally been designated for this assembly of elders for they were ba-ketubim among those "recorded" but did not join the rest, for they had not gone out "unto the Tent and they prophesied in the camp." If we assume that their not going to the tabernacle was a voluntary refusal to hold office their conduct stands in striking contrast to the conduct of Korah and his followers.
Aim. The aim of this lesson is to teach children the duty of obedience, discipline and self-control. The contrast between the attitude of Nadab and Abihu and that of Moses points out the desirability of a humble and modest attitude, especially on the part of those in authority, whereas the punishment of the rebellion of the people at Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah and of Miriam for her unjust criticism of Moses teach the need of submission to righteous authority and loyalty to disinterested leadership.
Suggestions to the teacher. A brief review, by question and answer, of the previous lesson, will serve as a point of contact for the story of the sin of the sons of Aaron. Tell how, after the tabernacle had been completed, there was a great celebration continuing for eight days, during which time Moses taught Aaron and his sons, who, as priests, were to perform the sacrifices for the people and in general to lead in the service, exactly what they were to do, when, where and how to kill the animals that were sacrificed, how to make the incense that had to be burnt, how to arrange the shew-bread and prepare the cakes of the meal-offering, etc. On the eighth day God himself, with fire from heaven, lit the wood that had been piled on the altar and thus started the fire there, which the priests were commanded never to let die out, but always to keep burning. Be careful to impress the children with the sinfulness of Nadab and Abihu's conduct, which the bare narrative of the facts as recorded in the Bible will not accomplish. This can be done by suggesting something of the solemnity of the occasion and of the frivolity of their attitude in this wise:
"Now Aaron and two of his sons, Eliezer and Ithamar, listened very attentively to all the instructions they had received from Moses and were determined to carry them out exactly. They felt that as priests, chosen from among all the people to lead in the worship of God, it was for them to set an example of faithful obedience to all He said, the small things as well as the great. But the two other sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, felt differently. They, too, were proud of their new office as priests, but instead of feeling that they must lead the people in obedience to God's laws as taught by Moses, they felt that they as priests could do as they pleased with the service and did not have to follow the directions of Moses. So when they were told to burn the incense with fire lit at the flame of the altar that God had kindled, they said to themselves, 'What difference whether we burn the incense with this holy fire or with any other', so they took 'strange fire', that is fire that they themselves had kindled, and brought it into the sanctuary to show that they as priests could perform the service in whatever way they pleased. At this God was very angry. Had an ordinary Israelite disobeyed in some small particular it would not have been as great an offense, but Nadab and Abihu were priests whom God expected to lead the people in obedience and who now had set an example of disobedience on the very day of the dedication of the tabernacle to God's service. It was just as if a teacher had left her class for a time in charge of a monitor whom she trusted, and then found out later that this monitor had himself disobeyed her and had set an example of disobedience to the class in her absence. Do you not think the teacher would be more angry at her monitor than if he had never been appointed to that office? That is why God was now so angry at Nadab and Abihu and resolved that as they had set an example of rebellion and disobedience He would make their punishment an example so that others should be duly warned not to do as they had done." Then follows the story of the death of Nadab and Abihu. Do not fail to dwell on Aaron's resignation in recognition of God's justice.
In discussing the incident that gave its name to Kibroth-hattaavah it is well to give other examples to show that what we most desire is not always best for us and to have the children give examples, as this is a moral of particular importance to childhood, suggesting as it does a reason for that deference to elders upon which the training of children is dependent. The case of the glutton who craves foods that are not good for him, of the drunkard who craves drink that proves his ruin, of the child who prefers truancy or the pursuits of pleasure to diligence in study, etc., may all serve as examples of sins, the very indulgence in which effects their own punishment. But dwell particularly on the fact of the child's not knowing what is for his own good as well as his parents know, and the consequent duty of the child to defer to their judgment.
The narrative of Moses' relations to Eldad and Medad presents no difficulty. In telling Miriam's sin and punishment the emphasis should be rather on the forgiving and magnanimous spirit of Moses than on the pettiness of Miriam's attitude. Point out how hurt Moses must have felt at Miriam's unjust accusation, which implied that Moses was trying to arrogate authority to himself but how, nevertheless, he felt no satisfaction when God punished Miriam but prayed that she be healed and forgiven. God's vindication of Moses (Numbers 12. 6-8) should be quoted in Biblical language.