THE JEALOUSY OF MIRIAM
AND AARON
Numbers 12
IT may be confidently said that no representative writer of the
post-exilic age would have invented or even cared to revive the
episode of this chapter. From the point of view of Ezra and his
fellow-reformers, it would certainly appear a blot on the character
of Moses that he passed by the women of his own people and took a
Cushite or Ethiopian wife. The idea of the "holy seed," on which the
zealous leaders of new Judaism insisted after the return from
Babylon, was exclusive. It appeared an abomination for Israelites to
intermarry either with the original inhabitants of Canaan, or even
with Moabites, Ammonites, and Egyptians. At an earlier date any
disposition to seek alliance with Egypt or hold intercourse with it
was denounced as profane. Isaiah and Jeremiah alike declare that
Israel, whom Jehovah led forth from Egypt, should never think of
returning to drink of its waters or trust in its shadow. As the
necessity of separateness from other peoples became strongly felt,
revulsion from Ethiopia would be greater than from Egypt itself.
Jeremiah’s inquiry, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin?" made the
dark colour of that race a symbol of moral taint.
To be sure, the prophets did not all adopt this view. Amos,
especially, in one of his striking passages, claims for the
Ethiopians the same relation to God as Israel had: "Are ye not as
the children of the Ethiopians unto Me, O children of Israel, saith
the Lord?" No reproach to the Israelites is intended; they are only
reminded that all nations have the same origin and are under the
same Divine providence. And the Psalms in their evangelical
anticipations look once and again to that dark land in the remote
south: "Princes shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch
out her hands unto God"; "I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon
to them that know Me: behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia;
this man was born there." The zeal of the period immediately after
the captivity carried separateness far beyond that of any earlier
time, surpassing the letter of the statute in Exo 34:11 and Deu 7:2.
And we may safely assert that if the Pentateuch did not come into
existence till after the new ideas of exclusion were established,
and if it was written then for the purpose of exalting Moses and his
law, the reference to his Cushite wife would certainly have been
suppressed.
All the more may this be maintained when we take into account the
likelihood that it was not entirely without reason Aaron and Miriam
felt some jealousy of the woman. The story is usually taken to mean
that there was no cause whatever for the feeling entertained; and if
Miram alone had been involved, we might have regarded the matter as
without significance. But Aaron had hitherto acted cordially with
the brother to whom he owed his high position. Not a single disloyal
word or deed had as yet separated him in the least, personally, from
Moses. They wrought together in the promulgation of law, they were
together in transgression and judgment. Aaron had every reason for
remaining faithful; and if he was now moved to a feeling that the
character and reputation of the lawgiver were imperilled, it must
have been because he saw reason. He could approach Moses quietly on
this subject without any thought of challenging his authority as
leader. We see that while he accompanied Miriam he kept in the
background, unwilling, himself, to appear as an accuser, though
persuaded that the unpleasant duty must be done.
So far as Moses is concerned these thoughts, which naturally arise,
go to support the genuineness of the history. And in like manner the
condemnation of Aaron bears out the view that the episode is not of
legendary growth. If priestly influence had determined to any extent
the form of the narrative, the fault of Aaron would have been
suppressed. He agrees with Miriam in making a claim the rejection of
which involves him and the priesthood in shame. And yet, again, the
theory that here we have prophetic narrative, critical of the
priesthood, will not stand; for Miriam is a prophetess, and language
is used which seems to deny to all but Moses a clear and intimate
knowledge of the Divine will.
Miriam was the spokeswoman. She it was, as the Hebrew implies, who "spake
against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married." It
would seem that hitherto in right of her prophetical gift she was to
some extent an adviser of her brother, or had otherwise a measure of
influence. It appeared to her not only a bad thing for Moses himself
but absolutely wrong that a woman of alien race, who probably came
out of Egypt with the tribes, one among the mixed multitude, should
have anything to say to him in private, or should be in his
confidence. Miriam maintained, apparently, that her brother had
committed a serious mistake in marrying this wife, and still more in
denying to Aaron and to herself that right of advising which they
had hitherto used. Was not Moses forgetting that Miriam had her
share in the zeal and inspiration which had made the guidance of the
tribes so far successful? If Moses stands aloof, consults only with
his alien wife, will he not forfeit position and authority and be
deprived of help with which he has no right to dispense?
Miriam’s is an instance, the first instance we may say, of the
woman’s claim to take her place side by side with the man in the
direction of affairs. It would be absurd to say that the modern
desire has its origin in a spirit of jealousy like that which Miriam
showed; yet, parallel to her demand, "Hath the Lord indeed spoken
only by Moses? Hath he not also spoken by us?" is the recent cry,
"Has man a monopoly either of wisdom or of the moral qualities? Are
not women at least equally endowed with ethical insight and sagacity
in counsel?" Long excluded from affairs by custom and law, women
have become weary of using their influence in an unrecognised,
indirect way, and many would now claim an absolute parity with men,
convinced that if in any respect they are weak as yet they will soon
become capable. The claim is to a certain extent based on the
Christian doctrine of equality between male and female, but also on
the acknowledged success of women who, engaging in public duties
side by side with men, have proved their aptitude and won high
distinction.
At the same time, those who have had experience of the world and the
many phases of human life must always have a position which the
inexperienced may not claim; and women, as compared with men, must
continue to be at a certain disadvantage for this reason. It may be
supposed that intuition can be placed against experience, that the
woman’s quick insight may serve her better than the man’s slowly
acquired knowledge. And most will allow this, but only to a certain
point. The woman’s intuition is a fact of her nature-to be trusted
often and along many ways. It is, indeed, her experience, gained
half unconsciously. But the modern claim is assuming far more than
this. We are told that the moral sense of the race comes down
through women. They conserve the moral sense. This is no Christian
claim, or Christian only in outdoing Romanism and setting Mary far
above her Son. Seriously put forward by women, this will throw back
their whole claim into the middle ages again. That a finer moral
sense often forms part of their intuition is admitted: that as a sex
they lead the race must be proved where, as yet, they do not prove
it. Nevertheless, the world is advancing by the advance of women.
There is no need any longer for that jealous intriguing which has
often wrecked governments and homes. Christianity, ruling the
questions of sex, means a very stable form of society, a continuous
and calm development, the principle of charity and mutual service.
Miriam claimed the position of a prophet or nabi for herself, and
endeavoured to make her gift and Aaron’s as revealers of truth
appear equal to that of Moses. At the Red Sea she led the chorus
"Sing ye to the Lord, for He hath triumphed gloriously. The horse
and his rider hath He thrown into the sea." That, so far as we know,
was her title to count herself a prophetess. As for Aaron, we often
find his name associated with his brother’s in the formula, "The
Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron." He had also been the nabi of Moses
when the two went to Pharaoh with their demand on behalf of Israel.
But the claim of equality with Moses was vain. Poor Miriam had her
one flash of high enthusiasm, and may have now and again risen to
some courage and zeal in professing her faith. But she does not seem
to have had the ability to distinguish between her fitful glimpses
of truth and Moses’ Divine intelligence. Aaron, again, must have
been half ashamed when he was placed beside his brother. He had no
genius, none of the elevation of soul that betokens an inspired man.
He obeyed well, served the sanctuary well; he was a good priest, but
no prophet.
The little knowledge, the small gifts, appear great to those who
have them, so great as often to eclipse those of nobler men. We
magnify what we have, -our power of vision, though we cannot see
far; our spiritual intelligence, though we have learned the first
principles only of Divine faith. In the religious controversies of
to-day, as in those of the past, men whose claims are of the
slightest have pushed to the front with the demand, Hath not the
Lord spoken by us? But there is no Moses to be challenged. The age
of the revealers is gone. He who seems to be a great prophet may be
taken for one because he stands on the past and invokes voluminous
authority for all he says and does. In truth, our disputations are
between the modern Eliphaz, Bildad, and Job-all of them today men of
limited view and meagre inspiration, who repeat old hearsays with
wearisome pertinacity, or inveigh against the old interpretations
with infinite assurance. Jehovah speaks from the storm; but there is
no heed paid to His voice. By some the Word is declared
unintelligible; others deny it to be His.
While Moses kept silence, ruling his spirit in the meekness of a man
of God, suddenly the command was given, "Come out, ye three, unto
the tent of meeting." Possibly the interview had been at Moses’ own
tent in the near portion of the camp. Now judgment was to be
solemnly given; and the circumstances were made the more impressive
by the removal of the cloud-pillar from above the tabernacle to the
door of the tent, where it seems to have intervened between Moses on
the one side and Miriam and Aaron on the other; then the Voice
spoke, requiring these two to approach, and the oracle was heard.
The subject of it was the position of Moses as the interpreter of
Jehovah’s will. He was distinguished from any other prophet of the
time.
We are here at a point where more knowledge is needful to a full
understanding of the revelation: we can only conjecture. Not long is
it since the seventy elders belonging to different tribes were
endowed with the spirit of prophecy. Already there may have been
some abuse of their new power; for though God bestows His gifts on
men, they have practical liberty, and may not always be wise or
humble in exercising the gifts. So the need of a distinction between
Moses and, the others would be clear. As to Miriam and Aaron, their
jealousy may have been not only of Moses, but also of the seventy.
Miriam and Aaron were prophets of older standing, and would be
disposed to claim that the Lord spoke by them rather in the way He
spoke by Moses than after the manner of His communications through
the seventy. Were members of the sacred family to be on a level
henceforth with any persons who spoke ecstatically in praise of
Jehovah? Thus claim asserted itself over claim. The seventy had to
be informed as to the limits of their office, prevented from taking
a place higher than they had been assigned: Miriam and Aaron also
had to be instructed that their position differed entirely from
their brother’s, that they must be content so far as prophecy was
concerned to stand with the rest whose respiration they may have
despised. With this view the general terms of the deliverance appear
to correspond.
The Voice from the tent of meeting was heard through the cloud; and
on the one hand the function of the prophet or nabi was defined, on
the other the high honour and prerogative of Moses were announced.
The. prophet, said the Voice, shall have Jehovah made known to him
"in vision, or in dream,"-in his waking hours, when the mind is on
the alert, receiving impressions from nature and the events of life;
when memory is occupied with the past and hope with the future, the
vision shall be given. Or again, in sleep, when the mind is
withdrawn from external objects and appears entirely passive, a
dream shall open glimpses of the great work of Providence, the
purposes of judgment or of grace. In these ways the prophet shall
receive his knowledge; and of necessity the revelation will be to
some extent shadowed, difficult to interpret. Now the name prophet,
nabi, is continually applied throughout the Old Testament, not only
to the seventy and others who like them spoke in ecstatic language,
and those who afterwards used musical instruments to help the
rapture with which the Divine utterance came, but also to men like
Amos and Isaiah. And it has been made a question whether the
inspiration of these prophets is to come under the general law of
the oracle we are considering. The answer in one sense is clear. So
far as the word nabi designates all, they are all of one order. But
it is equally certain, as Kuenen has pointed out, that the later
prophets were not always in a state of ecstasy when they gave their
oracles, nor simply reproducing, thoughts of which they first became
conscious in that state. They had an exalting consciousness of the
presence and enlightening Spirit of Jehovah bestowed on them, or the
burden of Jehovah laid on them. The visions were often flashes of
thought; at other times the prophet seemed to look on a new earth
and heaven filled with moving symbols and powers. But the whole
development of national faith and knowledge affected their flashes
of thought and visions, lifting prophetic energy into a higher
range.
Now, returning to the oracle, we find that Moses is not a prophet or
nabi in this sense. The words that relate to him carefully
distinguish between his illumination and that of the nabi. "My
servant Moses is not so; he is faithful in all Mine house: with him
will I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark
speeches; and the form of Jehovah shall he behold." Every word here
is chosen to exclude the idea of ecstasy, the idea of vision or
dream, which leaves some shadow of uncertainty upon the mind, and
the idea of any intermediate influence between the human
intelligence and the disclosure of God’s will. And when we try to
interpret this in terms of our own mental operations, and our
consciousness of the way in which truth reaches our minds, we
recognise for one thing an impression made distinctly word by word
of the message to be conveyed. There is given to Moses not only a
general idea of the truth or principle to be embodied in his words,
but he receives the very terms. They come to him in concrete form.
He has but to repeat or write what Jehovah communicates. Along with
this there is given to Moses a power of apprehending the form or
similitude of God. His mind is made capable of singular precision in
receiving and transmitting the oracle or statute. There is complete
calmness and what we may call self-possession when he is in the tent
of meeting face to face with the Eternal. And yet he has this
spiritual, transcendent symbol of the Divine Majesty before him. He
is no poet, but he enjoys some revelation higher and more exalting
to mind and soul than poet ever had.
The paradox is not inconceivable. There is a way to this converse
with God "mouth to mouth" along which the patient, earnest soul can
partly travel. Without rhapsody, with full effort of the mind that
has gathered from every source and is ready for the Divine synthesis
of ideas, the Divine illumination, the Divine dictation, if we may
so speak, the humble intelligence may arrive where, for the guidance
of the personal life at least, the very words of God are to be
heard. Beyond, along the same way, lies the chamber of audience
which Moses knew. We think it an amazing thing to be sure of God and
of His will to the very words. Our state is so often that of doubt,
or of self-absorption, or of entanglement with the affairs of
others, that we are generally incapable of receiving the direct
message. Yet of whom should we be sure if not of God? Of what words
should we be more certain than those pure, clear words that come
from His mouth? Moses heard on great themes, national and moral-he
heard for the ages, for the world: there lay his unique dignity. We
may hear only for our own guidance in the next duty that is to be
done. But the Spirit of God directs those who trust Him. It is ours
to seek and to receive the very truth.
With regard to the similitude of Jehovah which Moses saw, we notice
that there is no suggestion of human form; rather would this seem to
be carefully avoided. The statement does not take us back to the
appearance of the angel Jehovah to Abraham, nor does it point to any
manifestation like that of which we read in the history of Joshua or
of Gideon. Nothing is here said of an angel. We are led to think of
an exaltation of the spiritual perception of Moses, so that he knew
the reality of the Divine life, and was made sure of an originative
wisdom, a transcendent source of ideas and moral energy. He with
whom Moses holds communion is One whose might and holiness and glory
are seen with the spiritual eye, whose will is made known by a voice
entering into the soul. And the distinction intended between Moses
and all other prophets corresponds to a fact which the history of
Israel’s religion brings to light. The account of the way in which
Jehovah communicated with Moses remains subject to the condition
that the expressions used, such as "mouth to mouth," are still only
symbols of the truth. They mean that in the very highest sense
possible to man Moses entered into the purposes of God regarding His
people. Now Isaiah certainly approached this intimate knowledge of
the Divine counsel when long afterwards he said in Jehovah’s name:
"Behold My Servant, whom I uphold; Mine Elect, in whom My soul
delighteth; I have put My Spirit upon Him: He shall bring forth
judgment unto the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause
His voice to be heard in the street." Yet between Moses and Isaiah
there is a difference. For Moses is the means of giving to Israel
pure morality and true religion. By the inspiration of God he brings
into existence that which is not. Isaiah foresees; Moses, in a
sense, creates. And the one parallel with Moses, according to
Scripture, is to be found in Christ, who is the creator of the new
humanity.
When the oracle had spoken, there was a movement of the cloud from
the door of the tent of meeting, and apparently from the
tabernacle-a sign of the displeasure of God. Following the idea that
the cloud was connected with the altar, this withdrawal has been
interpreted by Lange as a rebuke to Aaron. "He was inwardly crushed;
the fire on his altar went out; the pillar of smoke no longer
mounted up as a token of grace; the cultus was for a moment at a
standstill, and it was as if an interdict of Jehovah lay on the
cultus of the sanctuary." But the cloud-pillar is not, as this
interpretation would imply, associated with Aaron personally; it is
always the symbol of the Divine will "by the hand of Moses." We must
suppose therefore that the movement of the cloud conveyed in some
new and unexpected way a sense of the Divine support which Moses
enjoyed. He was justified in all he had done: condemnation was
brought home to his accusers.
And Miriam, who had offended most, was punished with more than a
rebuke. Suddenly she was found to be covered with leprosy. Aaron,
looking upon her, saw that morbid pallor which was regarded as the
invariable sign of the disease. It was seen as a proof of her sin
and of the anger of Jehovah. Himself trembling as one who had barely
escaped, Aaron could not but confess his share in the transgression.
Addressing Moses with the deepest reverence, he said, "Oh my lord,
lay not, I pray thee, sin upon us, for that we have done foolishly,
and for that we have sinned." The leprosy is the mark of sin. Let it
not be stamped on her indelibly, nor on me. Let not the disease run
its course to the horrible end. With no small presumption the two
had ventured to challenge their brother’s conduct and position. They
knew indeed, yet from their intimacy with him did not rightly
apprehend, the "divinity that hedged" him. Now for the first time
its terror is disclosed to themselves; and they shrink before the
man of God, pleading with him as if he were omnipotent.
Moses needs no second appeal to his compassion. He is a truly
inspired man, and can forgive. He has seen the great God merciful
and gracious, longsuffering, slow to anger, and he has caught
something of the Divine magnanimity. This temper was not always
shown throughout Israel’s history by those who had the position of
prophets. And we find that men who claim to be religious, even to be
interpreters of the Divine will, are not invariably above
retaliation. They are seen to hate those who criticise them, who
throw doubt upon their arguments. A man’s claim to fellowship with
God, his professed knowledge of the Divine truth and religion, may
be tested by his conduct when he is under challenge. If he cannot
plead with God on behalf of those who have assailed him, he has not
the Spirit; he is as "sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal."
Even in response to the prayer of Moses, Miriam could not be cured
at once. She must go aside bearing her reproach. Shame for her
offence, apart from the taint of leprosy, would make it fitting that
she should withdraw seven days from camp and sanctuary. A personal
indignity, not affecting her character in the least, would have been
felt to that extent. Her transgression is to be realised and brooded
over for her spiritual good. The law is one that needs to be kept in
mind. To escape detection and leave adverse judgment behind is all
that some offenders against moral law seem to desire. They dread the
shame and nothing besides. Let that be avoided, or, after continuing
for a time, let the sense of it pass, and they feel themselves free.
But true shame is towards God; and from the mind sincerely penitent
that does not quickly pass away. Those only who are ignorant of the
nature of sin can soon overcome the consciousness of God’s
displeasure. As for men, no doubt they should forgive; but their
forgiveness is often too lightly granted, too complacently assumed,
and we see the easy self-recovery of one who should be sitting in
sackcloth and ashes. God forgives with infinite depth of tenderness
and grace of pardon. But His very generosity will affect the truly
contrite with poignant sorrow when His name has by their act been
brought into dishonour.
The offence of Miriam was only jealousy and presumption. She may
scarcely seem so great a sinner that an attack of leprosy should
have been her punishment, though it lasted for no more than seven
days. We make so much of bodily maladies, so little of diseases of
the soul, that we would think it strange if any one for his pride
should be struck with paralysis, or for envy should be laid down
with fever. Yet beside the spiritual disorder that of the body is of
small moment. Why do we think so little of the moral taint, the
falsehood, malice, impurity, and so much of the ills our flesh is
heir to? The bad heart is the great disease.
Miriam’s exclusion from the camp becomes a lesson to all the people.
They do not journey while she is separated as unclean. There may
have been other lepers in the outlying tents; but her sin has been
of such a kind that the public conscience is especially directed to
it. And the lesson had particular point with reference to those who
had the prophetic gift.
Modern society, making much of sanitation and all kinds of
improvements and precautions intended to prevent the spread of
epidemics and mitigate their effects, has also some thought of moral
disease. Persons guilty of certain crimes are confined in prisons or
"cut off from the people." But of the greater number of moral
maladies no account is taken. And there is no widespread gloom over
the nation, no arrest of affairs, when some hideous case of social
immorality or business depravity has come to light. It is but a few
who pray for those who have the evil heart, and wait sympathetically
for their cleansing. Ought not the reorganisation of society to be
on a moral rather than an economic basis? We should be nearer the
general well-being if it were reckoned a disaster when any employer
oppressed those under him, or workmen were found indifferent to
their brothers, or a grave crime disclosed a low state of morality
in some class or circle. It is the defeat of armies and navies, the
overthrow of measures and governments, that occupy our attention as
a people, and seem often to obscure every moral and religious
thought. Or if injustice is the topic, we find the point of it in
this: that one class is rich while another is poor; that money, not
character, is lost in shameful contention.
|