"When Moses had told the people that they would be punished by having to wander forty years in the wilderness until all of them had died and a new generation had grown up to take their places, they were more terrified than ever. Frightened as they had been at the thought of making war against the giant Canaanites in their walled cities, they were even more frightened at the thought of having to wander forty long years more in the wilderness, all the rest of their lives in fact, and never even seeing the land which God had promised to their fathers where, all this time, they had thought that they would at least find rest from their hardships and toils. They thought of all they had endured until then on the journey. The scorching heat of the desert sun by day, the biting cold of the desert winds by night, the hunger and the thirst, the long marches over treeless rocky hills and valleys. But all that time they had been cheered by the thought that some day the end would come and they would be able to find rest in their new land, the Land of Promise. But even this hope was now taken away from them and they felt that anything would be better than to wander in the wilderness until they died. Even to be killed in fighting the Canaanites seemed better now. So they said, 'Lo, we are here and will go up unto the place which the Lord hath promised; for we have sinned'."

It may also prove difficult to help the child understand why this change of front was not acceptable to God. The child does not naturally analyze motive and would not see, unless it is called to his attention, why, since as a matter of fact the Israelites did go up to attack the enemy, they were punished by being driven back. This can best be done by suggesting analogies with situations within the range of a child's experience. One may in discussing this topic, after having completed one's narrative, raise this very question. "Why did God say he would not be with them if they went up to attack the enemy after they had changed their mind?" and, not receiving a satisfactory answer, one may explain in some such manner:

"If the Israelites had decided to attack the enemy immediately when they had heard Joshua's and Caleb's words, God would have been with them and helped them to win the victory. But, at that time, when God wanted them to go they were unwilling. They did not believe that He would help them. Later when they wanted to go, because they were afraid to wander forty years in the wilderness, it was too late. God was not then willing. The time to obey a command is when it is given and not after one is threatened with punishment for disobedience. If a teacher were to give a boy some school work to do and he refused, until she told him to stay in after school to do it and only then he agreed to do the work rather than stay in, do you think the teacher would be satisfied with that? No, she would say justly, 'You had your chance to obey when the other children had, now if you are sorry show it by taking the punishment you deserve'."

CHAPTER XIV

MORE TRIALS OF MOSES
Numbers 16.1 to 17.26, also 20.1 to 13 and 21.5 to 9

Interpretation. The central idea that runs through all the important episodes of these chapters is the immensity of the problem of leadership that confronted Moses, and the contrast between the selfish and fickle passions of the people, passions that were constantly menacing the very existence of Israel, and the sublime patience and constancy of Moses, although on one occasion his sorely tried patience can stand the strain no longer and he commits the sin by which he forfeits his right to enter the Promised Land.

The difficulties against which Moses had to contend before the event narrated in the preceding lesson, were multiplied after that event. If the people before that time had been restive and discontented whenever confronted with a difficulty, though they could always console themselves by looking forward to their journey's end in the Land of Promise, it was but natural that thereafter their dissatisfaction would be greatly intensified. They had threatened to appoint another head to lead them back to Egypt, and though at the time this may have been nothing but an idle threat, the opposition to Moses soon found a leader in the person of Korah, the son of Izhar. Though he was himself a Levite, he coveted the higher office of the priesthood to which Aaron and his family had been appointed, but, with the instinct of the true demagogue, posed as the champion of the people against the arbitrary authority of the Levitical priesthood, and of Moses in appointing Aaron and his sons as priests. He said to Moses and Aaron, "Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them and the Lord is among them; wherefore then do ye lift up yourselves above the assembly of the Lord "? (Numbers 16. 3.) Moses' reply to Korah shows that he saw through this pretentious championship of the people to the envy and ambition of Korah, which were his real motives. "Hear now, ye sons of Levi; is it but a small thing unto you that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to Himself, to do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them; and that He hath brought thee near, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee? and will ye seek the priesthood also? Therefore thou and all thy company that are gathered together against the Lord—and as to Aaron, what is he that ye murmur against him?" (Numbers 16. 8 to 11.) But Korah's championship of the claims of all Israel to the priesthood won him a large following among the other tribes, particularly among their ambitious leaders. Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, all of the tribe of Reuben, are his particular henchmen, and he had also succeeded in winning over to his cause two hundred and fifty of "the princes of the congregation, the elect men of the assembly, men of renown." The sedition had spread so far that nothing could have prevented the reversion to a complete state of anarchy, save the destruction of all those that took part, in a way so striking that it would reveal clearly the divine purpose. This was provided for by the ordeal that is narrated in the text. But the disaffection had spread so far that many of the people resented the death of Korah and his followers and were inclined to hold Moses responsible for it, until the miracle of the blossoming of Aaron's staff convinced them. It is necessary for the student of the Bible to understand the extent and purport of Korah's rebellion lest he conceive of the punishment of Korah and his followers as visited upon them merely because of an offense of "lèse majesté", and, consequently, as utterly disproportionate to the offense.

The narrative of the sin of Moses and Aaron for which they were prohibited from entering the Promised Land does not make very clear to the modern reader precisely what the Bible views as constituting their sin. One possible interpretation, however, is that Moses by his words, "Hear now, ye rebels, are we to bring you forth water out of this rock?" (Numbers 20. 10) which were followed by his striking the rock and his failure to speak to it as God had commanded prevented the providential character of the water's flowing from being apparent. The incident might have been interpreted by the popular mind as if Moses, by the magic of his staff, had himself caused the water to flow, as is suggested by his use of the first person, "Are we to bring you forth water," and by his failure to comply literally with God's command. He, thus permitted an opportunity of sanctifying God's name to pass by yielding to passion and thinking at the time of his personal grievance more than of his service to God. Inasmuch as this partook of the nature of the sins of that generation of Israel, he and Aaron were to take their share also in the punishment of Israel and were not to enter the Promised Land.