EXPOSITION, perfect equality with the rest, it is evident CHAPTER XVII. th.e.t the twelve rods were exclusive of that .A..uo:N's ROD Tl!AT BUDDED (vera. 1-18). of Aaron. The joining together of Ephraim Ver. 1.-And th.e Lord spake. Presuma.bly and Manasseh in Deut. iuvii. 12 we.a a very upon the same day, since the design was to different thing, because it eould not raise prevent any recurrence o! the sin and pun- a.ny question as between the two. 1.Shment described above. Ver. 8.-Thou she.It write Aaron's name Ver. 2.-Take of every one of th.em a rod. upon the rod of Levi. There we.a no tribe Literally, "take of them a. rod, a. rod," i. e. a princeo(Levi, and it is not probable that either rod apiece, in the way immediately particu.la.r- of the three chiefs of the sub-tribes (eh. iii. 24, ised. n~Q (Septuagint, pai38ov) is UBed for 30, 35) was called upon to bring a rod. This the staff ~f Judah (Gen. xx.xviii. 18) a.nd !or rod was, therefore, provided by Moses him- the rod of Moses (Exod. iv. 2). It is also used self, and inscribed by him with the name of in the sense of" tribe" (eh. i. 4, 16). Each .Aaron, who stood by Divine appointment tribe wa.e but a branch, or rod, out of the stock (so recently and fearfully attested} above all .of Israel. 11.nd, therefore, wa.e most naturally his brethren. For the significance or the represented by the rod cut from the tree. The act cf. Ezek. xxxvii. 16-28. Jl'or one rod wordB used for sceptre in Gen. xliL l 0, and in .. for the head of the houe of their f&thera. Ps. :rlv. 7, wd for rod in Isa. :ri. 1, and else- For Levi, themore, there must be, not three -where a.re different, but the same imagery rods inseribed with the names of the chiefs, underlies the UBe of all of them. Of all their but one only bearin$ the name or Aaron, as .Prmcet . . • twelve rods. These princes their common supenor. must be tbOlle named in eh. ii and vii. Sillce Ver. !l.-The tabernacle of the oongrega- among these are to be found the tribe prince& tion. "The tent of meeting." See . on <if Ephraim and Man!t.Seeh, standing upon a Exod. xxx. 26. Before the testimony, i. e. <Jli, XVII. 1-18.) THE BOOK OF NUMBERS. 223
ln front of the ark containing the two h.blea e.ted a.nd matured its fruit by the power of of the la.w (E:i:od, xxv. 21). God, supernaturally starting and accelerating Ver. 6.-Who111. I 1h11.11 ohoose. For the the natural forces of vegeta.ble life, even ao apecie.l duty and service of the priesth?od in Aaron the grace of God was quick and (cf. eh, xvi. 5). hrill make to cea.ae. • ~ fruitful to put forth, not the signs only and 'l'.'l:!l!iiJ. I will ce.UBe to sink so that they promise of spiritual gifts 8olld energies, but the ripened fruits as well. shall not rise again. Ver. 9.-A:nd. took every man hi, rod. So Ver. 6.-A.ud the rod of Aaron wa.1 among that they saw for themselves that their rods the rod,. As there wa.s no prince from whom remained dry and barren as they were by this rod could he.ve come, and a.s there were ne.ture, while Aaron's he.d been me.de to live. twelve rods without it, this must mean the.t Ver. 10. - Before the testimony. Ry Moses did not keep Aaron's rod separate comparison with ver. 7 this should mean (which might bve caused suspicion), but let before the ark in which the" testimony" lay. it be seen a.mongst the others, In Heb. ix. 4, however, the rod is said to Ver. 7.-Before the Lord, i. e. in front of have been in the ark, although before Solo- the ark. In the tabernacle of witneSB. " In mon's time it had disappeared (1 Kings viii. the tent of the testimony." n,110 'vilt:!l. 9}. We may suppose that after it had been Ver. 8. - Wu budded : or •"11prou~d" • inspected by the princes it WM deposited for ,n~. And yielded. almond.a. Rather, ' ma.• safer preservation and easier conveyance in• side the sacred chest. To be kept for a. token. tured almonds." This particular rod had a.ga.inat the rebels. Ra.ther, " against the been cut from an a.lmond tree, e.nd it would rebellious," literally," children of rebellion" seem proba.ble that it he.d on it shoots e.nd (cf. Eph. ii. 2, 3). It could only serve as a flowers e.nd fruit at once, so that the vari- token as long as it retained the evidences of ous stages of its na.tur:.l growth were ~ll bvi:ng sprouted and fruited, either miracU• -exempli.6.ed together. The e.lmond has its lously in a fresh state, or natnrally in a Hebrew name ij?,~, "awake," from the well- withered state. As a fact, however, it does known fa.et of its being the first of a.ll trees not appear that the lesson ever needed to be to a.wake from the winter sleep of natl.ll'll, lee.rot again, e.ud therefore we me.y suppose a.nd to herald the vernal resurrection with that the rod was left first to shrivel with age, its conspicuous show of snow-white blossoms, &nd then to be lost through some a.ccident. which even anticipate the leaves (cf. Eccles. Ver.12.-A.ud the children of Israel apake :xii 5). Thus the "rod of an almond-tree" unto lllosea. It is a. mistake to unite thestt (,~.~ C,~) was shown to the prophet Jere- verses specially with the following chapter, miah (Jer. i. 11) as the evident symbol of for they clearly belong to the story of Ko- the vigilant haste with which the purposes rah's rebellion, although not po.rticula.rly of God were to be developed and ma.tured. connected with the miracle of the rod. These are the last wailings of the gree.t storm which It isJossible the.t all the tribe princes had had raged against :Moses o.nd Aaron, which offici " rods" of the e.lmond-tree to denote he.d roe.red so loudly and o.n£triiy at its height, their watchful n.lacrity in duty, e.nd the.t which was now sobbing itself out in the petu. these were the rods which they brought to lant <lespair of defeated a.nd disheartened Moses. In any case the flowering and fruit• men, cowed indeed, but not convinced, fear- ing of Aaron's rod, while it was a.n nnques- ful to otrend, yet not loving to obey. tionable miracle (for if not a miracle, it could only have been a disgraceful imposture), was Ver. 13. - llhe.11 we be consumed with a <1f//,Uiov in the true sense, i. e. e. miracle dying! It was a na.tural question, consider- which wa.s also e. parable. Aaron··s rod could ing all the.t h11d happened ; and indeed it no more blossom and fruit by ne.ture than could only be answered in the affirme.tive, • any of the others, since it e.lso had been for their sentence wa.s, "In this wilderness they shall be consumed" (eh. xiv. 35). But severed from the living tree ; and so in Aaron it was not in human nature that they should; himself was no more power or goodness the.n calmly accept their fate. in the rest of Israel But e.e the rod germin•