The Pulpit Commentary — Numbers — Section 270

howover, is extremely precarious, and is in- Testament). What then was the disobedi- deed to accuse the Evangelist of a blunder, ence of Moses 1 Here, again, the more for there is no real correspondence between obvious answer is insufficient. It is true the words. llluat we fetch you water. that Moses struck the rock twice instead of Septuagint, l'-q .• l(a(ol'rv ,,,.;., Mwp. And (or perhaps in addition to) speaking to it; thl9 is no doubt the sense. It has been ren- but God had bid him take the rod, and he dered by some " Can we fetch you water," might naturally think he was meant to use on the supposition that Moses really doubted it as before; moreover, the people could not the possibility of 811Ch a miracle, but this have known anything of the exact terms of seems to be an entire mistake (see next note), the command, and would have thought no Ver. 12.-Becauee ye believed me not, to more of his striking the rock at Kadesh than sanctify me in the eyes of the children of at Rephidim ; but it was the fact of the Israel. It is very important, and at the same bad impression made upon the people which time very difficult, to understand what the pre- was the ground of the Divine rebuke. We cise sin of Moses and Aaron was upon this occa- come back, therefore, to the simple conclusion sion. Th11t it was very serious is manifest from expressed by the Psalmist (Ps. cvi. 32, 33), thelunishment which is entailed. Aaron, in- that Moses lost his temper, and in the irri- dee , does not appear in the narrative, save tation of the moment spoke and acted in in his usual subordinate position as associ- such a way and in such I\ spirit as to dis- ated with his brother by the Divine mandate. honour his Master and to impair the good It has been said that he might have checked effect of the Divine beneficence. It is quite the una.dvised words of Moses, but that is likely that the repeated striking of the rock wholly beside the mark. Aaron had obviously was one sign of the anger to which llloses no control whatever over his far more able and gave way, but we could hardly have ll.thchcd energetic brother, and therefore could have any serious character to the act if it ha,l no responsibility in that respect. We can stood alone. It is in the words of Moses, only suppose that he inwardly assented to words in which he associated Aaron with the lan~age and conduct with which he was himself, that we must find the explanation of outwa.rClly associated, and therefore shared the displeasure he incurred. That he called the guilt. A less degree of sin was (so to the people "rebels" was unseemly, not speak) necessary in his cause, because he had because it was untrue, or because it was au on former occasions so greatly dishonoured uncalled-for term of reproach, but because he his office ; and the anger of God against tho himself was at that very moment a rebel, and sin of his ministers, although laid to sleep, disloyal in heart to his Master (cf. ver. 2!). L'i ever ready to aw11ke upon the recurrence That he should say, " Must we fetch you of a similar provocation. We may therefore water out of this rock!" showed how com- dismiss him, and consi,ler only the case of pletely he was carried aw11y. It is true that Moses. It is impossible to suppose that God hnd said to him, "Thou shalt bring Moses actually doubted the power of God to forth to thorn water," and, "Thou shalt give supply the present need, for he held in his the congregation .. drink" (compare this hand the v-·,·y rod with which he had struck with Exod. xvii. 6), and it is probable that the rock u Rephidim, nor is there 11ny- his own words were more or less consciously thing in !·,; ,, words or acts upon this occa- dictated by this remembrance; but he knew sion to i•1.1,1ly any such disbelief. The lan- very well that the Divine mandate affordod guage of oh. xi. 21, 22 may be cited on the him no real justification ; th11t he 11nd Aaron other si,k out that was spoken in passion, were the merest instruments in the h11nd of and spok·••· to God, and cannot be held as God ; th1Lt it was peculiarly necessary to expressii,i,; n1 actual failure of faith. Nor do keep this fact beforo the winds of tho subsequent references point to unbelief as people; nevortheless, his vexation ll.nd nnger ha. ving been tho sin of Moses (cf. eh. xxvii. betr11yed him into putting himself-a. mere U; Deut. xxxii. 61; Ps. cvi. 33). Rather, man, 11nd a ma.n too in I\ vory b11u temper- they point to disobedience and indiscretion ; into the place of God before tho eyes of the to such disloyal conduct and language as pro- whole congregation. llfoscs had f11llen at duced a bad impression upon the people, and lenst once befo~e (see on eh. xi. 11-15) into did not place the Divine character before them a similar error, one so natural to nn 11ugry in its true light. We must understand, there- mind; but this was tho first time that he fore, that the want of belief with which Moses h11d made his error public, and thereby dis- stood charged was not a want of faith in the honoured the Master whom it was his spccinl power of God, but a want of obodience to the duty to uphold and ~lorify. This was thn will of God, bearing in mind thl\t the two sin, and if the pumshment seem dispro- faults of disbelief and disobedience are but portion1Lte, it must be romembered th11t the ::wo sides of ono in ward fact, and are per• heinousness of a sin depemls quite as much petuallyconfounded in the l11ngua!le of Scrip- on the position of the sinner as upon its ture (compare the use of a,ruleiv in the Ne,v intrinsic enormity, Ye ■h'lll not bring this  THE BOOK OF NUMBERS. [CH, U. 1-29.