Day 21, Tues., 6 Mar.: Numbers 21.4-9
This, and the story of the second time Moses struck a rock and released water, found in the previous chapter, contain salutary warnings.
In Numbers 20 the migrating Israelites reach Kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin. They run out of water, and despite having been provided with water previously, (in Exodus 17) they quarrelled with Moses. Like some church people I have known ( :-{)) these Israelites really did know how to get under the fingernails of those they wished to irritate. Early in the Exodus they had complained that they'd rather have stayed in Egypt, from where God and Moses had delivered them. Now they complained at having been spared the fate of "Nadab and Abihu [who] died before the Lord when they offered unholy fire before the Lord in the wilderness of Sinai. This was too much for Moses. We know he had a temper hot enough to kill an Egyptian overseer. This time no one dies - immediately, anyway. Instead Moses doesn't follow orders.
"The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 'Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and your brother Aaron, and command the rock before their eyes to yield its water. Thus you shall bring water out of the rock for them; thus you shall provide drink for the congregation and their livestock.'
So Moses took the staff from before the Lord, as he had commanded him. Then Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, but instead of addressing the rock Moses weighed into the congregation: ‘Listen, you rebels, shall we bring water for you out of this rock?’ Then Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock twice with his staff; water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their livestock drank."
What can the problem be with that? Moses did what had worked before and it produced the same result. That he engaged in a spray can't have been out of line. God had already killed "Nadab and Abihu. And Number 25 records an occasion when at least 23,000 Israelites died for their disobedience. So a spray in support of God can't have been such a bad thing, surely.
God evidently saw things from a different perspective. For what it's worth I think God had intended to move Moses, and so the people of Israel, on from magic, as represented by the staff which had defeated Pharaoh's magicians, then provided water, to the powerful Word of God, which God had thought to entrust to Moses. But because Moses did not obeyed God this became impossible: ‘Because you did not trust in me, to show my holiness before the eyes of the Israelites, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them.’"
That was "Complaining about lack of water and food: A Reprise". Now to Chapter 21, in which the people once again complained about lack of water and food and, besides and illogically, that the food was miserable. An Arminian Christian (one who focuses on human free will) might have questions to ask of a God who forbids His servant to criticise the people, then himself sends poisonous snakes among them. A Calvinist, or neo-reformed Christian, believing in God's absolute sovereignty, would presumably not. And yet this God relents in the face of the people's repentance and the newly-punished Moses' prayers. In response God tells Moses to make an idol, the very thing that Aaron had been forbidden to do. If the bitten people look at the statue of the snake they will survive.
From these two deeply puzzling stories come two of our culture's most profound images. The snake on the pole signifies healing, and so the medical profession. And it also signifies Jesus, raised on the pole. (John 3.14-15) When those bitten by sin look to Jesus we are healed from sin's deadly disease; we receive everlasting life. Ironically, He who became sin for us did not complain:
"[He]was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth."
And for that our appropriate response is not complaint, but gratitude.
In Numbers 20 the migrating Israelites reach Kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin. They run out of water, and despite having been provided with water previously, (in Exodus 17) they quarrelled with Moses. Like some church people I have known ( :-{)) these Israelites really did know how to get under the fingernails of those they wished to irritate. Early in the Exodus they had complained that they'd rather have stayed in Egypt, from where God and Moses had delivered them. Now they complained at having been spared the fate of "Nadab and Abihu [who] died before the Lord when they offered unholy fire before the Lord in the wilderness of Sinai. This was too much for Moses. We know he had a temper hot enough to kill an Egyptian overseer. This time no one dies - immediately, anyway. Instead Moses doesn't follow orders.
"The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 'Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and your brother Aaron, and command the rock before their eyes to yield its water. Thus you shall bring water out of the rock for them; thus you shall provide drink for the congregation and their livestock.'
So Moses took the staff from before the Lord, as he had commanded him. Then Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, but instead of addressing the rock Moses weighed into the congregation: ‘Listen, you rebels, shall we bring water for you out of this rock?’ Then Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock twice with his staff; water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their livestock drank."
What can the problem be with that? Moses did what had worked before and it produced the same result. That he engaged in a spray can't have been out of line. God had already killed "Nadab and Abihu. And Number 25 records an occasion when at least 23,000 Israelites died for their disobedience. So a spray in support of God can't have been such a bad thing, surely.
God evidently saw things from a different perspective. For what it's worth I think God had intended to move Moses, and so the people of Israel, on from magic, as represented by the staff which had defeated Pharaoh's magicians, then provided water, to the powerful Word of God, which God had thought to entrust to Moses. But because Moses did not obeyed God this became impossible: ‘Because you did not trust in me, to show my holiness before the eyes of the Israelites, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them.’"
That was "Complaining about lack of water and food: A Reprise". Now to Chapter 21, in which the people once again complained about lack of water and food and, besides and illogically, that the food was miserable. An Arminian Christian (one who focuses on human free will) might have questions to ask of a God who forbids His servant to criticise the people, then himself sends poisonous snakes among them. A Calvinist, or neo-reformed Christian, believing in God's absolute sovereignty, would presumably not. And yet this God relents in the face of the people's repentance and the newly-punished Moses' prayers. In response God tells Moses to make an idol, the very thing that Aaron had been forbidden to do. If the bitten people look at the statue of the snake they will survive.
From these two deeply puzzling stories come two of our culture's most profound images. The snake on the pole signifies healing, and so the medical profession. And it also signifies Jesus, raised on the pole. (John 3.14-15) When those bitten by sin look to Jesus we are healed from sin's deadly disease; we receive everlasting life. Ironically, He who became sin for us did not complain:
"[He]was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth."
And for that our appropriate response is not complaint, but gratitude.
Comments
Post a Comment