Numbers 12 commentary

NUMBERS 12 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Miriam and Aaron Oppose Moses
1 Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses
because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a
Cushite.
BARNES, "Miriam, as a prophetess (compare Exo_15:20-21) no less than as
the sister of Moses and Aaron, took the first rank among the women of
Israel; and Aaron may be regarded as the ecclesiastical head of the whole
nation. But instead of being grateful for these high dignities they challenged
the special vocation of Moses and the exclusive authority which God had
assigned to him. Miriam was the instigator, from the fact that her name
stands conspicuously first Num_12:1, and that the punishment Num_12:10
fell on her alone. She probably considered herself as supplanted, and that
too by a foreigner. Aaron was misled this time by the urgency of his sister,
as once before Exo. 32 by that of the people.
Num_12:1
The Ethiopian woman whom he had married - (Hebrew, “Cushite,”
compare Gen_2:13; Gen_10:6) It is likely that Zipporah Exo_2:21 was dead,
and that Miriam in consequence expected to have greater influence than
ever with Moses. Her disappointment at his second marriage would
consequently be very great.
The marriage of Moses with a woman descended from Ham was not
prohibited, so long as she was not of the stock of Canaan (compare Exo_
34:11-16); but it would at any time have been offensive to that intense
nationality which characterized the Jews. The Christian fathers note in the
successive marriage of Moses with a Midianite and an Ethiopian a
foreshadowing of the future extension to the Gentiles of God’s covenant and
its promises (compare Psa_45:9 ff; Son_1:4 ff); and in the complaining of
Miriam and Aaron a type of the discontent of the Jews because of such
extension: compare Luk_15:29-30.
CLARKE, "Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses - It appears that
1

jealousy of the power and influence of Moses was the real cause of their
complaint though his having married an Ethiopian woman-‫הכשית‬ ‫האשה‬
haishshah haccushith - That Woman, the Cushite, probably meaning Zipporah,
who was an Arab born in the land of Midian - was the ostensible cause.
GILL, "And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses,.... Miriam is first
mentioned, because she was first in the transgression, and so was only
punished; Aaron was drawn into the sin by her, and he acknowledged his
fault, and was forgiven: it must be a great trial to Moses, not only to be
spoken against by the people, as he often was, but by his near relations, and
these gracious persons, and concerned with him in leading and guiding the
people through the wilderness, Mic_6:4,
because of the Ethiopian woman, whom he had married, for he had married
an Ethiopian woman; not a queen of Ethiopia, as the Targum of Jonathan;
nor Tharbis, a daughter of a king of Ethiopia, whom Josephus (h) says he
married, when he was sent upon an expedition against the Ethiopians, while
he was in Pharaoh's court; nor the widow of an Ethiopian king whom he
married after his death, when he fled from Pharaoh into Ethiopia, and was
made a king there, as say some Jewish writers (i): for there is no reason to
believe he was married before he went to Midian; nor was this some
Ethiopian woman he had married since, and but lately, Zipporah being dead
or divorced, as some have fancied; but it was Zipporah herself, as Aben
Ezra, Ben Melech, and so the Jerusalem Targum, which represents her not
as truly an Ethiopian, but so called, because she was like to one; indeed she
was really one; not a native of Ethiopia, the country of the Abyssines, but
she was a Cushite, a native of Arabia Chusea, in which country Midian was,
from whence she came; hence the tents, of Cushan, and the curtains of
Midian, are spoken of together, Hab_3:7. Now it was not on account of
Moses's marriage with her that they spoke against him, for that was an
affair transacted in Midian some years ago, which at first sight may seem to
be the case; nor because he now had divorced her, as Jarchi, which perhaps
would have given them no uneasiness; and for the same reason, not because
he abstained from conversation with her, that he might give up himself to
the service of God in his house, and perform it in a more holy and faithful
manner, which is the common sentiment of the Jewish writers: but rather,
as it is thought by others, because of a suspicion they had entertained, that
she had interested herself in the affair of the choice of the seventy elders,
and had prevailed upon Moses to put in such and such persons into the list
she had a mind to serve; at least this seems to be the case, for the
displeasure was against Moses himself; they were angry with him, because
he transacted that affair without them, and chose whom he pleased, without
consulting them; and therefore, though they cared not to ascribe it entirely
to him, and his neglect of them, they imputed it to his wife, as if she had
over persuaded him, or her brother through her means, to take such a step
as he did.
HENRY 1-3, "Here is, I. The unbecoming passion of Aaron and Miriam:
2

they spoke against Moses, Num_12:1. If Moses, that received so much
honour from God, yet received so many slights and affronts from men, shall
any of us think such trials either strange or hard, and be either provoked or
discouraged by them? But who would have thought that disturbance should
be created to Moses, 1. From those that were themselves serious and good;
nay, that were eminent in religion, Miriam a prophetess, Aaron the high
priest, both of them joint-commissioners with Moses for the deliverance of
Israel? Mic_6:4, I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. 2. From
those that were his nearest relations, his own brother and sister, who shone
so much by rays borrowed from him? Thus the spouse complains (Son_1:6),
My mother's children were angry with me; and quarrels among relations
are in a special manner grievous. A brother offended is harder to be won
than a strong city. Yet this helps to confirm the call of Moses, and shows
that his advancement was purely by the divine favour, and not by any
compact or collusion with his kindred, who themselves grudged his
advancement. Neither did many of our Saviour's kindred believe on him,
Joh_7:5. It should seem that Miriam began the quarrel, and Aaron, not
having been employed or consulted in the choice of the seventy elders, was
for the present somewhat disgusted, and so was the sooner drawn in to take
his sister's part. It would grieve one to see the hand of Aaron in so many
trespasses, but it shows that the law made men priests who had infirmity.
Satan prevailed first with Eve, and by her with Adam; see what need we
have to take heed of being drawn into quarrels by our relations, for we know
not how great a matter a little fire may kindle. Aaron ought to have
remembered how Moses stood his friend when God was angry with him for
making the golden calf (Deu_9:20), and not to have rendered him evil for
good. Two things they quarrelled with Moses about: - (1.) About his
marriage: some think a late marriage with a Cushite or Arabian; others
because of Zipporah, whom on this occasion they called, in scorn, an
Ethiopian woman, and who, they insinuated, had too great an influence
upon Moses in the choice of these seventy elders. Perhaps there was some
private falling out between Zipporah and Miriam, which occasioned some
hot words, and one peevish reflection introduced another, till Moses and
Aaron came to be interested. (2.) About his government; not the
mismanagement of it, but the monopolizing of it (Num_12:2): “Hath the
Lord spoken only by Moses? Must he alone have the choice of the persons
on whom the spirit of prophecy shall come? Hath he not spoken also by us?
Might not we have had a hand in that affair, and preferred our friends, as
well as Moses his?” They could not deny that God had spoken by Moses, but
it was plain he had sometimes spoken also by them; and that which they
intended was to make themselves equal with him, though God had so many
ways distinguished him. Note, Striving to be greatest is a sin which easily
besets disciples themselves, and it is exceedingly sinful. Even those that are
well preferred are seldom pleased if others be better preferred. Those that
excel are commonly envied.
II. The wonderful patience of Moses under this provocation. The Lord
heard it (Num_12:2), but Moses himself took no notice of it, for (Num_12:3)
he was very meek. He had a great deal of reason to resent the affront; it was
ill-natured and ill-timed, when the people were disposed to mutiny, and had
3

lately given him a great deal of vexation with their murmurings, which
would be in danger of breaking out again when thus headed and
countenanced by Aaron and Miriam; but he, as a deaf man, heard not.
When God's honour was concerned, as in the case of the golden calf, no man
more zealous than Moses; but, when his own honour was touched, no man
more meek: as bold as a lion in the cause of God, but as mild as a lamb in his
own cause. God's people are the meek of the earth (Zep_2:3), but some are
more remarkable than others for this grace, as Moses, who was thus fitted
for the work he was called to, which required all the meekness he had and
sometimes more. And sometimes the unkindness of our friends is a greater
trial of our meekness than the malice of our enemies. Christ himself records
his own meekness (Mat_11:29, I am meek and lowly in heart), and the copy
of meekness which Christ has set was without a blot, but that of Moses was
not.
JAMISON, "Num_12:1-9. Miriam’s and Aaron’s sedition.
an Ethiopian woman — Hebrew, “a Cushite woman” - Arabia was usually
called in Scripture the land of Cush, its inhabitants being descendants of
that son of Ham (see on Exo_2:15) and being accounted generally a vile and
contemptible race (see on Amo_9:7). The occasion of this seditious
outbreak on the part of Miriam and Aaron against Moses was the great
change made in the government by the adoption of the seventy rulers
[Num_11:16]. Their irritating disparagement of his wife (who, in all
probability, was Zipporah [Exo_2:21], and not a second wife he had recently
married) arose from jealousy of the relatives, through whose influence the
innovation had been first made (Exo_18:13-26), while they were overlooked
or neglected. Miriam is mentioned before Aaron as being the chief
instigator and leader of the sedition.
K&D 1-3, "All the rebellions of the people hitherto had arisen from
dissatisfaction with the privations of the desert march, and had been
directed against Jehovah rather than against Moses. And if, in the case of
the last one, at Kibroth-hattaavah, even Moses was about to lose heart
under the heavy burden of his office; the faithful covenant God had given
the whole nation a practical proof, in the manner in which He provided him
support in the seventy elders, that He had not only laid the burden of the
whole nation upon His servant Moses, but had also communicated to him
the power of His Spirit, which was requisite to enable him to carry this
burden. Thus not only was his heart filled with new courage when about to
despair, but his official position in relation to all the Israelites was greatly
exalted. This elevation of Moses excited envy on the part of his brother and
sister, whom God had also richly endowed and placed so high, that Miriam
was distinguished as a prophetess above all the women of Israel, whilst
Aaron had been raised by his investiture with the high-priesthood into the
spiritual head of the whole nation. But the pride of the natural heart was
not satisfied with this. They would dispute with their brother Moses the pre-
4

eminence of his special calling and his exclusive position, which they might
possibly regard themselves as entitled to contest with him not only as his
brother and sister, but also as the nearest supporters of his vocation.
Miriam was the instigator of the open rebellion, as we may see both from
the fact that her name stands before that of Aaron, and also from the use of
the feminine ‫ר‬ ֵ‫בּ‬ ַ‫ד‬ ְ‫תּ‬ in Num_12:1. Aaron followed her, being no more able to
resist the suggestions of his sister, than he had formerly been to resist the
desire of the people for a golden idol (Ex 32). Miriam found an occasion for
the manifestation of her discontent in the Cushite wife whom Moses had
taken. This wife cannot have been Zipporah the Midianite: for even though
Miriam might possibly have called her a Cushite, whether because the
Cushite tribes dwelt in Arabia, or in a contemptuous sense as a Moor or
Hamite, the author would certainly not have confirmed this at all events
inaccurate, if not contemptuous epithet, by adding, “for he had taken a
Cushite wife;” to say nothing of the improbability of Miriam having made
the marriage which her brother had contracted when he was a fugitive in a
foreign land, long before he was called by God, the occasion of reproach so
many years afterwards. It would be quite different if, a short time before,
probably after the death of Zipporah, he had contracted a second marriage
with a Cushite woman, who either sprang from the Cushites dwelling in
Arabia, or from the foreigners who had come out of Egypt along with the
Israelites. This marriage would not have been wrong in itself, as God had
merely forbidden the Israelites to marry the daughters of Canaan (Exo_
34:16), even if Moses had not contracted it “with the deliberate intention of
setting forth through this marriage with a Hamite woman the fellowship
between Israel and the heathen, so far as it could exist under the law; and
thus practically exemplifying in his own person that equality between the
foreigners and Israel which the law demanded in various ways”
(Baumgarten), or of “prefiguring by this example the future union of Israel
with the most remote of the heathen,” as O. v. Gerlach and many of the
fathers suppose. In the taunt of the brother and sister, however, we meet
with that carnal exaggeration of the Israelitish nationality which forms so
all-pervading a characteristic of this nation, and is the more reprehensible
the more it rests upon the ground of nature rather than upon the spiritual
calling of Israel (Kurtz).
Num_12:2-3
Miriam and Aaron said, “Hath Jehovah then spoken only by Moses, and
not also by us?” Are not we - the high priest Aaron, who brings the rights of
the congregation before Jehovah in the Urim and Thummim (Exo_28:30),
and the prophetess Miriam (Exo_15:20) - also organs and mediators of
divine revelation? “They are proud of the prophetic gift, which ought rather
to have fostered modesty in them. But such is the depravity of human
nature, that they not only abuse the gifts of God towards the brother whom
they despise, but by an ungodly and sacrilegious glorification extol the gifts
themselves in such a manner as to hide the Author of the gifts” (Calvin). -
“And Jehovah heard.” This is stated for the purpose of preparing the way
for the judicial interposition of God. When God hears what is wrong, He
must proceed to stop it by punishment. Moses might also have heard what
5

they said, but “the man Moses was very meek (πραΰ́ς, lxx, mitis, Vulg.; not
'plagued,' geplagt, as Luther renders it), more than all men upon the
earth.” No one approached Moses in meekness, because no one was raised
so high by God as he was. The higher the position which a man occupies
among his fellow-men, the harder is it for the natural man to bear attacks
upon himself with meekness, especially if they are directed against his
official rank and honour. This remark as to the character of Moses serves to
bring out to view the position of the person attacked, and points out the
reason why Moses not only abstained from all self-defence, but did not even
cry to God for vengeance on account of the injury that had been done to him.
Because he was the meekest of all men, he could calmly leave this attack
upon himself to the all-wise and righteous Judge, who had both called and
qualified him for his office. “For this is the idea of the eulogium of his
meekness. It is as if Moses had said that he had swallowed the injury in
silence, inasmuch as he had imposed a law of patience upon himself
because of his meekness” (Calvin).
The self-praise on the part of Moses, which many have discovered in this
description of his character, and on account of which some even of the
earlier expositors regarded this verse as a later gloss, whilst more recent
critics have used it as an argument against the Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch, is not an expression of vain self-display, or a glorification of his
own gifts and excellences, which he prided himself upon possessing above
all others. It is simply a statement, which was indispensable to a full and
correct interpretation of all the circumstances, and which was made quite
objectively, with reference to the character which Moses had not given to
himself but had acquired through the grace of God, and which he never
falsified from the very time of his calling until the day of his death, either at
the rebellion of the people at Kibroth-hattaavah (ch. 11), or at the water of
strife (at Kadesh (ch. 20). His despondency under the heavy burden of his
office in the former case (ch. 11) speaks rather for than against the
meekness of his character; and the sin at Kadesh (ch. 20) consisted simply
in the fact, that he suffered himself to be brought to doubt either the
omnipotence of God, or the possibility of divine help, in account of the
unbelief of the people.
(Note: There is not a word in Num_20:10 or Psa_106:32 to the effect,
that “his dissatisfaction broke out into evident passion” (Kurtz). And it is
quite a mistake to observe, that in the case before us there was nothing
at all to provoke Moses to appeal to his meekness, since it was not his
meekness that Miriam had disputed, but only his prophetic call. If such
grounds as these are interpolated into the words of Moses, and it is to be
held that an attack upon the prophetic calling does not involve such an
attack upon the person as might have excited anger, it is certainly
impossible to maintain the Mosaic authorship of this statement as to the
character of Moses; for the vanity of wishing to procure the recognition
of his meekness by praising it, cannot certainly be imputed to Moses the
man of God.)
No doubt it was only such a man as Moses who could speak of himself in
such a way, - a man who had so entirely sacrificed his own personality to the
office assigned him by the Lord, that he was ready at any moment to stake
6

his life for the cause and glory of the Lord (cf. Num_11:15, and Exo_32:32),
and of whom Calmet observes with as much truth as force, “As he praises
himself here without pride, so he will blame himself elsewhere with
humility,”-a man or God whose character is not to be measured by the
standard of ordinary men (cf. Hengstenberg, Dissertations, vol. ii. pp.
141ff.).
CALVIN, "1.And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses. This relation is
especially worthy of observation for many reasons. If Aaron and Miriam had always
quietly and cordially supported the honor of their brother, and had not been carried
away by perverse and ungodly jealousy, their harmony, however holy it was, would
have been perverted by the injustice of many, and alleged against them as a
deceitful and insidious conspiracy. It came to pass, then, in the wonderful
providence of God, that his own brother and sister set on foot a contention with
respect to the supremacy, and endeavored to degrade Moses from the position in
which God had placed him: for thus all suspicion of family favor was removed, and
it was clearly shown that Moses, being opposed by his own belongings, was
sustained by the power of God alone. At the same time it may be perceived how
natural is ambition to the minds of almost all men, and also how blind and furious is
the lust of dominion. Aaron and Miriam contend with their own brother for the
supremacy; and yet they had received the most abundant proofs, that lie, whom they
desire to overthrow, had been elevated by the hand of God, and was thus
maintained in his position. For Moses had arrogated nothing to himself; and,
therefore, it was not allowable that man should attempt to undermine the dignity of
that high office, which God had conferred upon him. Besides, God had ennobled
their own house and name in the person of Moses, and out of favor to him they had
also been endued with peculiar gifts of their own. For by what right had Miriam
obtained the gift of prophecy, except for the fuller ratification of her brother’s
power? But the arrogance and ingratitude of Aaron was still more disgraceful. He
had been by his brother associated with himself: Moses had allowed the high-
priesthood to be transferred to him and his descendants, and rims had placed his
own in subjection to them. What, then, was there for Aaron to begrudge his
brother; when so exalted a dignity was vested in his own sons, whilst all the race of
Moses was degraded? Still he was so blinded as to deem the honor of his brother a
reproach to himself; at any rate, he could not endure to be second to him in dignity,
although he was his superior in right of the priesthood. By this example, then, we
are taught how anxiously we should beware of so baneful a plague (as ambition).
The wicked brother (38) in the tragic Poet says: —
“For, if injustice must at all be done,
‘Tis best to do it for dominion;”
that, under this pretext, he might through treachery and murder proceed against his
own blood with impunity. Now, although we all hold this sentiment in detestation,
still it plainly shows that, when the lust for rule takes possession of men’s hearts, not
7

only do they abandon the love of justice, but that humanity becomes altogether
extinct in them, since brothers thus contend with each other, and rage, as it were,
against their own bowels. Indeed it is astonishing that, when this vice has been so
often and so severely condemned in the opinion of all ages, the human race has not
been ever freed from it; nay, that the Church of God has always been infested by
this disease, than which none is worse: for ambition has been, and still is, the mother
of all errors, of all disturbances and sects. Since Aaron and his sister were infected
by it, how easily may it overspread the multitude! But I now proceed to examine the
words.
Miriam is here put before Aaron, not by way of honorable distinction, but because
she stirred up the strife, and persuaded her brother to take her side; for the
ambition of the female sex is wonderful; and often have women, more high-spirited
than men, been the instigators not merely of squabbles, but of mighty wars, so that
great cities and countries have been shaken by their violent conduct. Still. however,
this does not diminish the guilt of Aaron, who, at the instance of his foolish sister,
engaged in an unjust and wicked contest with his brother, and even declared himself
an enemy to God’s grace. Further, because they were unable to allege any grounds,
upon which Moses in himself was not far their superior, they seek to bring disgrace
upon him on account of his wife; as if in half of himself he was inferior to them,
because he had married a woman who was not of their own race, but a foreigner.
They, therefore, cast ignominious aspersions upon him in the person of his wife, as if
it were not at all becoming that he should be accounted the prince and head of the
people, since his wife, and the companion of his bed, was a Gentile woman. I do not
by any means agree with those who think that she was any other than Zipporah,
(39) since we hear nothing of the death of Zipporah, nay, she had been brought back
by Jethro, her father, only a little while before the delivery of the Law; whilst it is
too absurd to charge the holy Prophet with the reproach of polygamy. Besides, as an
octogenarian, he would have been but little suited for a second marriage. Again,
how would such a marriage have been practicable in the desert? It is, therefore,
sufficiently clear that they refer to Zipporah, who is called an Ethiopian woman,
because the Scripture comprehends the Midianites under this name: although I
have no doubt but that they maliciously selected this name, for the purpose of
awakening greater odium against Moses. I designedly forbear from adducing the
frivolous glosses in which some indulge. (40) Moses, however, acknowledges that it
(41) was not accorded to him to have a wife of the holy race of Abraham.
Εἴπερ γὰρ ἀδικεῖν χρὴ, τυραννίδος πέρι
Κάλλιστον ἀδικεῖν· τἄλλα δ ᾿ εὐσεβεῖν. — 538.9
Cicero refers to them, De Off. 3:21.
Nam, si violandum est jus, regnandi gratia,
Violandum est: aliis rebus pietatem colas.
8

COFFMAN, "This remarkable chapter gives the account of Miriam's and Aaron's
challenge of the unique position of Moses as God's principal spokesman during the
period of the wilderness journeys.
The first paragraph (Numbers 12:1-3) is of the greatest interest to critics who boldly
affirm that it appears to have been written ABOUT Moses, rather than BY Moses.
Of course, it does have that appearance, and, as a matter of fact, it is possible that
this little paragraph came into the Pentateuch by the hand of Joshua, Ezra, or some
other inspired writer. Sir Isaac Newton, and many other believing scholars for
generations have found no problem whatever with the thesis that such occasional
passages as the account of Moses' death, and a few others such as this one, indeed
could have been written by some inspired author other than Moses and added to the
Pentateuch. There is no challenge whatever to the Mosaic authorship of the whole in
any such possibility.
Nevertheless, we find the view that Moses did not write these verses totally
unacceptable. Note the lines in Numbers 12:3, where it is declared that, "Moses was
very meek, above all men that were upon the face of the earth." Only God could
have known such a thing as this, proving absolutely that God Himself is the origin of
such a statement. And, since God is most certainly the Revelator here, He might as
easily have spoken the words through Moses as through any other person.
Furthermore, the third verse was a very necessary explanation of why God spoke
"suddenly" to Moses (Numbers 12:4). That is why the revelation was made, and it is
not a mere vain-glorious statement by Moses. To us, it seems abundantly clear that
Moses, writing in the third person, as so characteristic of the Sacred Scriptures, and
as the great of all times and nations have done, used the third person for the sake of
greater objectivity. Julius Caesar, Frederick the Great, Xenophon, Thucydides, and
Flavius Josephus all wrote in the third person,
See the conclusion of the chapter for discussion of its typical nature.
"And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom
he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman. And they said, Hath Jehovah
indeed spoken only with Moses? hath he not also spoken with us? And Jehovah
heard it. Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men that were upon the
face of the earth."
"Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses ..." Miriam was the principal offender
here, since her name is mentioned first, and also because she alone was severely
punished.
"Because of the Cushite woman whom he had married ..." Some allege that Moses
divorced Zipporah who was named in Exodus as his wife, and who is there called a
Midianite. Others suppose that Zipporah had, in the meanwhile, died; the identity
of this "second wife" includes the thesis that, "She was a Sudanese or
9

Ethiopian";[2] "She was the queen of Ethiopia";[3] "She was an Asiatic, rather
than an African Cushite."[4] Midianite and Cushite are related terms,[5] but the
Cushites included the descendants of Ham and Canaan, and from this some have
found no second wife at all, but merely a derogatory word for Zipporah as "a
Cushite." It is by no means certain that "Cushite means black," although the KJV
renders it "Ethiopian woman." One meaning of the word is "fair of appearance."[6]
"The rabbinical interpretation of Cushite is beautiful."[7] Miriam's jealousy of
Moses could have been due to the beauty of Zipporah, a much more likely cause of
jealousy than nationality.
Most of the comments one encounters deal with this problem, and yet it seems to
have no importance at all. This marriage was not the real reason at all for Miriam
and Aaron's opposition; it was Moses' AUTHORITY which they sought to share.
The marriage is here mentioned merely as a pretext which God did not even deign
to discuss. The Bible records no marriage of Moses except that with Zipporah.
There is no mention either of her death or of her being divorced. And therefore, we
conclude that Zipporah and the "Cushite woman" were one and the same person.
There is the most extensive support of this view by scholars: John Joseph Owens,[8]
Isaac Asimov,[9] T. Carson,[10] J. A. Thompson,[11] etc. Even the scholars who
suppose that a second wife is mentioned here usually take it for granted that
Zipporah was deceased. However, "In view of the silence of the Scripture, it is
unwise to jump to conclusions."[12]
Moses' marriage with a non-Jew stands in the sacred text in such a manner as to
focus attention upon it, and the design of God Himself is visible in this. Moses, the
Great Type of Christ in the O.T. outraged the leading Jews of his day, including his
family, by his marriage to a Gentile. This stands as a prophecy of the ultimate action
of Christ himself in uniting in a spiritual marriage with the Gentiles in his bride the
Church. The hatred of Miriam and Aaron aroused by Moses' marriage to a Gentile
is a type of the hatred and unwillingness of the Jews of Christ's day to allow that
Gentiles were also included in the love and salvation of God. This profound truth,
prophesied no more effectively anywhere else in the O.T., identifies the passage as
God's Word." No accidental or fraudulent "interpolation" could possibly have done
a thing like this. (See the end of the chapter.)
"Hath God indeed spoken only through Moses ..." (Numbers 12:2). Miriam was
indeed a prophetess, and Aaron was God's anointed high priest, but the position of
Moses was an exalted one, unique indeed in the history of Israel. God would act
promptly to safeguard his faithful servant's position.
"The man Moses was very meek ..." (Numbers 12:3). This was included to explain
why God acted so quickly (Numbers 12:4). It appears that Moses, because of his
meek disposition, simply did not recognize the grave threat to his authority and was
in the posture of being likely to pass over the incident without drastic action, but
that was not to be.
10

COKE, "Numbers 12:1. And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses— Miriam is
mentioned before Aaron, probably because she was the beginner of this sedition,
and drew Aaron into it. It is uncertain what occasioned them to quarrel with him
about his wife Zipporah: they might possibly be jealous of his being ruled too much
by her and her relations; for it was by her father's advice that he constituted the
judges and officers, mentioned in Exodus 18:21-22 and, perhaps, they imagined that
she and Hobab had a hand in choosing the seventy elders, mentioned in the
foregoing chapter: the history being immediately connected with that, would lead
one at least to think that they have some relation to each other. Thus the real motive
of the quarrel was jealousy: the pretended one, that his wife was a foreigner, not
belonging to the commonwealth of Israel. An Ethiopian, we render it after the LXX
the Hebrew is ‫כשׁית‬ cushit, a Cushite, or Arabian woman; for she was of the land of
Midian, a part of Arabia Petraea. See Exodus 2:16; Exodus 2:25.
ELLICOTT, "(1) And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses.—Miriam appears
to have been the leader in this insurrection against the authority of Moses. Her
name occurs before that of Aaron, either as the nearer or as the more prominent
subject; and the verb which is rendered “spake” is in the feminine gender.
Moreover, the judgment which was inflicted (Numbers 12:10) fell upon Miriam, not
upon Aaron. who seems to have yielded to the suggestions of Miriam, as he had
previously done to the request of the Israelites in regard to the golden calf.
Because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married.—Some suppose that the
reference is to Zipporah, who may have been included amongst the Asiatic division
of the Ethiopians, or Cushites (comp. Habakkuk 3:7, where the tents of Cushan, or
Cush, are coupled with the curtains of Midian), and that the occasion of the
opposition to Moses was the undue influence which he is supposed to have allowed
Hobab and other members of Zipporah’s family to exercise over him. This
supposition, however, seems improbable on many accounts. The words, “for he had
married an Ethiopian (or Cushite) woman,” naturally point to some recent
occurrence, not to one which had taken place more than forty years previously, and
which is, therefore, very unlikely to have given occasion to the murmuring of
Miriam and Aaron at this time. Moreover, the murmuring is expressly connected
with the Cushite herself, not with any of the subsequent or incidental results of the
marriage. It seems, therefore, much more probable that Zipporah was dead, and
that Moses had married one of the African Cushites who had accompanied the
Israelites in their march out of Egypt, or one of the Cushites who dwelt in Arabia,
and who were found at this time in the neighbourhood of Sinai. A similar marriage
had been contracted by Joseph, and such marriages were not forbidden by the Law,
which prohibited marriage with the Canaanites (Exodus 34:16).
TRAPP, "Numbers 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the
Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.
11

Ver. 1. And Miriam and Aaron spake.] She is set first, because chief in the
transgression. Her discontent might arise from this, that, being a prophetess, she
was not one of those seventy that were chosen to be helps in government. [Numbers
11:24] According to her name, Miriam would be exalted: ambition rides without
reins.
Because of the Ethiopian woman.] Zipporah the Midianitess, {see Habakkuk 3:7} to
whom he had been married many years before; but they were resolved to pick a hole
in Moses’ coat. An ungodly man diggeth up evil, [Proverbs 16:27] but for Moses to
be thus used by his brother and sister, was some trial to his patience. To be derided
by Egyptians, is threatened as a misery, [Hosea 7:16] but to be reproached by
professors, is very grievous. Zedekiah feared more to be mocked by the Jews, than
by the Chaldees. [Jeremiah 38:19]
For he had married an Ethiopian.] That was an old fault, if any; and should have
been buried in oblivion. Luther married a wife unseasonably, when all Germany
was now embroiled, and embrewed in the blood of the Bores; and when all Saxony
was in heaviness for the death of their good Prince Elector Frederick. This, his best
friends disliked and bewailed. As for Melancthon, Quoniam vero, inquit, ipsum
Lutherum quodammodo tristiorem esse cerno, et perturbatum ob vitae mutationem,
omni studio et benevolentia consolari eum conor. (a) Because I see him somewhat
cast down, saith he, at the late change of his condition, I strive all I can to comfort
him.
POOLE, "Miriam and Aaron murmur against Moses, Numbers 12:1-3. God
commandeth him, Aaron, and Miriam to come to the tabernacle, which they did,
Numbers 12:4,5. God rebuketh Aaron and Miriam, Numbers 12:6-9. Miriam
becometh leprous, Numbers 12:10. Aaron humbling himself before Moses, Numbers
12:11,12; he intercedeth for him, Numbers 12:13. Miriam remains without the camp
seven days, Numbers 12:14,15.
God permitted
Miriam and
Aaron to murmur against their brother, partly to exercise and discover his
admirable meekness and patience for the instruction of after-ages; and partly, that
by this shaking Mose’s authority might take the deeper root, and the people might
be deterred from all sedition and rebellion against him by this example. Miriam
seems to be first named, because she was the chief instigator or first mover of the
sedition; wherefore she also is more eminently punished.
The Ethiopian woman was either 1. Zipporah, who is here called an Ethiopian, in
the Hebrew a Cushite, because she was a Midianite; the word Cush being generally
used in Scripture, not for Ethiopia properly so called below Egypt, but for Arabia,
12

as some late learned men have evidently proved from 2 Kings 19:9 2 Chronicles
21:16 Ezekiel 29:10 30:8,9 Hab 3:7, and other places. If she be meant, as it is
commonly conceived, I suppose they did not quarrel with him for marrying her,
because that was done long since, but for indulging her too much, and being swayed
by her and her relations, by whom they might think he was persuaded to make this
innovation, and to choose seventy rulers, as he had been formerly, Exo 18; by which
copartnership in government they thought their authority and reputation much
diminished, especially when no notice was taken nor use made of them in the choice,
but all was done by the direction of Moses, and for his assistance in the government.
And because they durst not accuse God, who was the chief Agent in it, they charge
Moses, his instrument, as the manner of men is. Or,
2. Some other woman, though not named in Scripture, whom he married either
whilst Zipporah lived, or rather because she was now dead, though that, as really
other things, be not recorded. For as the quarrel seems to be about his marrying a
stranger, so it is probable it was a late and fresh occasion about which they
contended, and not a thing done forty years ago. And it was lawful for him as well
as any other to marry an Ethiopian or Arabian woman, provided she were, as
doubtless this woman was, a sincere proselyte, which were by the law of God
admitted to the same privileges with the Israelites, Exodus 12:48; so there might be
many reasons why Moses might choose to marry such a person rather than an
Israelite, or why God so ordered it by his providence, either because she was a
person of eminent worth and virtue, or because God intended that the government
should not be continued in the hands of Moses’s children, and therefore would have
some political blemish to be upon the family, as being strangers by one parent. And
this they here urge as a blemish to Moses also.
EBC, "THE JEALOUSY OF MIRIAM AND AARON
Numbers 12:1-16
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
13

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 Exodus 34:11 and
Deuteronomy 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
14

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
15

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
16

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
17

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
18

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
19

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-
20

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.
PARKER, "The question which Miriam and Aaron put to one another is quite a
proper one. They said,—"Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not
spoken also by us?" The inquiry, standing within its own four corners, is one which
might be legitimately and reverently propounded. But what question stands thus?
Perhaps hardly any that can be put by human curiosity. The interrogation must be
determined by the atmosphere surrounding it. The question would take its whole
quality at the particular time from the tone of voice in which it was put. Everything
depends upon tone. Herein is the weakness of all writing and of all representation of
thought by visible symbols. We cannot put into letters our own spirit and purpose;
the tone determines the quality, and the tone can never be reported. We are,
therefore, driven, if we would form sound judgments upon events, to look at issues
and results; and having looked at these, we are by so much qualified to return to the
question and judge it as to its real intent. Many persons inquire, with a simplicity
too simple to be genuine, whether there was any harm in the question which was
put. In the written inquiry, certainly not; but in the spoken interrogation the tone
was full of virulence and evil suggestion and unholy design. It will not do to write
the question with pen and ink and to submit it to a stranger for judgment. The
stranger knows nothing about it, and when it is submitted to him for judgment it is
submitted with so finely-simulated an innocence that the man is already prepared to
accord a generous judgment to the terms. God is judge. We read that "the Lord
heard it." To hear it was everything. It was not reported to the Lord. We cannot
report anything to him in the sense of extending his information. The terribleness of
his being judge and the graciousness of his being Judges , is to be found in the fact
that he heard it—balanced the tones, adjusted the emphasis, marked the vocal
colouring, and interpreted the words by the speaker"s tone and temper and
attitude. The final judgment is with him who "heard" the cause during its process
and during its consummation.
If the Lord did speak by Miriam and Aaron, what then? The Lord himself
acknowledges that he speaks in different ways to different men. To some—perhaps
to most—he comes in vision and in dream; things are heard as if they were spoken
beyond the great mountain; they are echoes, hollow soundings, wanting in shape
and directness, yet capable of interpretations that touch the very centres and
springs of life, that make men wonder, that draw men up from flippancy and
frivolity and littleness, and write upon vacant faces tokens of reverence and proofs
that the inner vision is at the moment entranced by some unnameable and
immeasurable revelation. To other men God speaks "apparently"—that Isaiah , in
21

broad and visible figure. He is quite near; it is as if friend were accosting friend, and
if mouth were speaking to mouth, as if two interlocutors were mutually visible and
speaking within hand-range of one another. There is nothing superstitious about
this; it is the fact of to-day. This is written in the book that was published last week,
and will be written in the book that is to be issued to-morrow. This is not a ghost
story; this is not some little cloud brought from Oriental skies, never seen
otherwhere, and never beheld since it was first looked upon thousands of years ago;
this is solemn history, contemporaneous history—history of which we ourselves
form vital constituents. Take a book of science—what do you find in that rational
and philosophical bible? You find certain names put uppermost. The writer says it
is given to but few men to be a Darwin or a Helmholtz—they seem to sweep the
whole horizon of knowledge. The Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone has said that it
seemed to him as if Aristotle comprehended the entire register of the human mind.
Why should not every boy that has caught his first fly, or cut in two his first worm,
say,—Hath not the Lord spoken unto me as well as unto Darwin, or Cuvier, or
Buffon?—who are they? But it does so happen that outside the Bible we have the
Moses of science—the chief man of letters, the prince of song. Take the history of
music, and we find names set by themselves like insulated stars—great planetary
names. What would be thought of a person who has just learned the notes of music,
saying,—Hath not the Lord spoken unto me as well as unto Beethoven? He has; but
he has not told you so much. There is a difference in kind; there is a difference in
quality. We are all the Lord"s children, but he hath spoken unto us in different
ways and tones and measures; and to found upon this difference some charge or
reproach, or to hurl against the chiefs of the world some envious questioning, is to
go far to throw suspicion upon the assumption that the Lord has spoken to us at all.
We must learn that all these differences are as certainly parts of the divine order as
are the settings and movements of the stars. "One star differeth from another star in
glory," yet no asteroid has ever been known to blame the planets because of their
infinite largeness and their infinite lustre. Men must accept divine appointment.
Every man must stand in the call wherewith he is called, and encourage a religious
pride and sacred satisfaction with the position which he has been called to occupy.
Light is thrown upon these ancient stories by reading them in the atmosphere of
modern events. We have this twelfth chapter of Numbers , as to its broadest
significance, enacted amongst us every day we live. There are great men in all lines
and vocations, and there are men who might be great in modesty, if they would
accept their position, and might turn their very modesty into genius, if they would
acknowledge that their allotment is a determination of the hand of God.
"And... Miriam became leprous, white as snow." That is the fate of the sneerer in all
times and in all lands. The sneerer is not a healthy man; though he be sleek in flesh
and quite bright with a foxy brightness of eye, there is no real health in the man: for
health is a question of the soul; it is the soul that lives. The sneerer is always shut
out For a moment his sneer provokes a little titter, but the sneer has marked the
Prayer of Manasseh , and he will not be invited again. Society cannot do with so
much bitterness. There is a spirit in Prayer of Manasseh , and the inspiration of the
Almighty giveth him understanding; and the result is that the bitter cynic, who
22

always tries to tear the clothes of the great Prayer of Manasseh , knowing he cannot
tear his character, is shut out of the camp, for no man wants him. What is wanted?
Gentleness, tenderness, sympathy, appreciation, encouragement,—these will always
be welcome; these shall have the chief seat at the table; these shall return to the feast
whenever they show any inclination to come; the father and the mother and the
children down to the least, and the servants of the household—yea, all, bid them
loving welcome. But the critic is not wanted—the sneerer is in the way; he closes the
lips of eloquence, he turns away from him the purest cheek of child life; he is a
blight like an east wind; and he never is permitted to repeat his visits in any family
that respects its order, or cares for its most religious and heavenly progress. A heavy
penalty was leprosy for sneering. It is impossible for any penalty to be too great for
sneering. Sneering is of the devil; sneering is a trick of the Evil One. No man can
sneer and pray; no man can sneer and bless: the benediction will not sit on lips that
have been ploughed up by the iron of sneering. Blessed be God for such judgments.
God thus keeps society tolerably pure. There are men standing outside to-day whom
nobody wants to see, whom no child would run to meet, for whom no flower of the
spring is plucked,—simply because they are always challenging the supremacy of
Moses, and thus obtruding their own insignificance, and bringing into derision
faculties that might otherwise have attracted to themselves some trifling measure of
respect.
We find this same law operating in all directions. There are books that say,—Are
not we inspired as well as the Bible? The answer Isaiah ,—Certainly you are. The
Lord had spoken to Miriam and to Aaron as certainly as he had spoken to Moses,—
but with a difference; and it is never for Moses to argue with Miriam. Moses takes
no part in this petty controversy. He would have disproved his superior inspiration
if he had stooped to this fray of words. So some books seem to say,—Are not we also
inspired? The frank and true answer is—Yes. Is not many a sentence in the greatest
of dramatists an inspired sentence? The frank Christian, just answer is—Yes. Is not
many a discovery in the natural world quite an instance of inspiration? Why
hesitate to say—Yes; but always with a difference? The Bible takes no part in the
controversy about its own inspiration. The Bible nowhere claims to be inspired. The
Bible lives—comes into the house when it is wanted, goes upstairs to the sick-
chamber, follows the lonely sufferer into solitude, and communes with him about
the mystery of disappointment, discipline, pain of heart; goes to the graveside, and
speaks about the old soldier just laid to rest, the little child just exhaled like a
dewdrop by the morning sun. The Bible works thus—not argumentatively, not
seeking an opportunity of speaking in some controversy that rages around the
question of its inspiration. It lives because no hand can slay it; it stands back, or
comes forward, according to the necessity of the case, because of a dignity that can
wait, because of an energy that is ready to advance.
Some books claim to be as inspired as the Bible. Then they become leprous, and all
history has shown that they are put out of the camp. Many books have arisen to put
down the Bible; they have had their day: they have ceased to be. We must judge by
facts and realities. The glory of the great Book is that it will bear to be translated
23

into every language, and that all the changes of grammar are but changes of a
mould, which do not affect the elasticity of water: the water of life flows into every
mould and fills up all the channels, varying the courses and figure of the channels as
you may. The Book is not an iron book, whose obstinacy cannot be accommodated
to human requirements or progress: this is the water of life—a figure that indicates
all qualities that lay hold of progress, development, change. The Bible is a thousand
books—yea, a thousand thousand books, to a number no man can number, making
every heart a confidential friend, whispering to every eager and attentive life some
tender message meant for its own ear alone. When a man who has no claim to the
dignity asserts that he is upon an equality with the great musician, the great
musician takes no part in the fray; when the competitor has played his little trick,
one touch of the fingers regulated by the hand divine will settle the controversy. By
this token we stand or fall with our Christianity, with our great Gospel. If any man
has a larger truth to speak, let him speak it; if any man ran touch the wounded
human heart with a finer delicacy, a more healing sympathy, let him perform his
miracle. To be spoken against is no sign of demerit. We are too fearful about this
matter. Put your finger upon any name in human history that indicates energy of a
supreme kind, influence of the most beneficent quality, that has not been spoken
against. The mischief Isaiah , as ever, that timid people imagine the charge to bring
with it its own proof. The Church is wrecked by timidity. The fearful man is doing
more injury to-day than can be done by any number of assailants. The man who
treats his Christianity as a private possession, and who is afraid lest any man should
challenge him to combat, is a man who is a dead weight upon the Church, and if we
could get rid of that man it would be the happiest event in our Church history.
How did Moses prove his superiority? By prayer. In effect, he said,—Lord, let her
alone; be gentle to her, poor fool; she is moved by unworthy impulses—a little
feminine jealousy because of a marriage she cannot understand; pity her; wipe off
the white blotch, and allow her to come out again; perhaps she will never do it any
more:—"Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee." There he proves that his inspiration
was of a quality most noble. We are strongest when we are weakest; we are
sublimest when we whisper our prayer under the load that would have oppressed
and destroyed us. Judge your inspiration by your devoutness. Never be content with
any inspiration that can merely ask questions, create suspicions, perform the
unworthy performance of sheering; but know that you are a great soul and a valiant
and most royal man and crowned prince, when you take the large, bright view,
which you are bound to do by noble charity.
All this would be of social consequence, and by no means to be undervalued in the
education of the world; but it acquires its most appalling solemnity in view of the
fact that questioning and sneering of this kind about prophets, preachers, books,
churches, means to go forward and to challenge the supremacy of Christ Sneering
cannot stop short at Moses. We cannot draw a line, saying,—Having overthrown the
servant, we shall be content. There is an impulse in these things, hurrying and
driving men on to issues which perhaps at first they never contemplated Beware of
beginnings and resist them. To curtail our best reading is to begin a process that will
24

end in mental darkness. To give up the Church once a day means, being interpreted,
that the time will come when the heart will relinquish the Church altogether. A sad
and terrible thing it is when men suppose that they can do with less Bible, less
Church, less public testimony. They plead weariness, distance, difficulties of a
family kind; they are fertile in excuses when the heart is reluctant to go. Let us face
broad meanings, final issues. The meaning is that men who challenge Moses will
endeavour to dispossess Christ, saying,—"We will not have this man to reign over
us." Was not Socrates as pure a man? Have we not found some morality in old
Indian books quite as pure as the morality of the New Testament? Did not Marcus
Aurelius approach very nearly to the sublimity of Christian ethics? Have there not
been many men in all history who have been entitled to sit with Christ in the temple
of purity and wisdom? These are not the questions. Christianity does not bring into
disrepute any beautiful sentence found anywhere in heaven or in earth. Christ never
said,—This is a beautiful thing spoken by a fervid fancy, but you must take no heed
of it. He said,—"I am the light of the world," wherever there is a sparkle of
brilliance, it is a jet of my own glory; wherever there is a wise word, it is God"s
word; wherever a beautiful song is sung, it is a snatch of heaven"s music. Whoever
speaks a holy, pure, comforting word must be permitted to go on with his ministry.
If you call down fire from heaven against such an one, ye know not what manner of
spirit ye are of.
WHEDON, " 1. Miriam — The only sister of Moses named in history, (Numbers
26:59,) was older by several years. Exodus 2:4. From the fact that she is mentioned
first, and from the feminine form of the Hebrew verb, we infer that she was the
prime mover in this revolt, and that Aaron, with characteristic pliancy and
instability, as in the affair of the golden calf, (Exodus 32,) yielded to his misjudging
sister, and was led into an act which tarnishes his fair name. Though Jehovah was
angry with both of them, punishment fell only on Miriam.
Because of the Ethiopian woman — The subsequent account shows that the
marriage with the “Cushite woman” (R.V.) was rather the occasion, and the envy
rankling in Miriam’s heart was the real cause, of her collision with her brother.
Some have supposed that Zipporah, the Midianite wife of Moses, was the occasion of
offence. Against this are: (1.) The fact that this marriage had occurred forty years
before, while Moses was a fugitive from Pharaoh’s wrath. There had been ample
time for chagrin to be allayed. (2.) The Midianites are called Cushites, or
Ethiopians, only once, and that at least seven centuries after the exode. Habakkuk
3:7. A more reasonable theory is that Zipporah had died and Moses had married a
Cushite wife from Arabia, or from the foreigners who had come out of Egypt with
Israel. This was lawful, since only intermarriage with the Canaanites was forbidden.
Exodus 34:16. Yet Ezra (Ezra 9:1) includes the Amorites, Moabites, and Egyptians
among the nations with whom it was unlawful for Israelites to intermarry.
Edersheim says: “For the first time we here encounter that pride of Israel after the
flesh, and contempt for other nations, which often appeared throughout their after
history, and in proportion as they have misunderstood the spiritual meaning of their
25

calling.” The suggestion of Ewald, that the Cushite was a concubine taken while the
first wife was still living, is an irreverent reflection upon the purity of the great
lawgiver. The lofty character of Moses is a sufficient answer to such an assertion.
Verses 1-8
THE SEDITION OF MIRIAM, Numbers 12:1-8.
Up to this time the various insurrections against Moses had arisen in consequence of
the peculiar hardships of the journey through the wilderness. In these outbreaks
against his authority he had been sustained by the loyalty and sympathy of his own
kindred. But now he is to find disloyalty and bitter envy in his own father’s family.
In this respect Moses resembled his great antitype, the Prophet like unto himself,
who went forth to proclaim the “kingdom of God” as at hand, notwithstanding the
unbelief of his brethren. Mark 3:21; John 7:5, note. A high spiritual vocation is
always an enigma to worldly minds; and, if accompanied by authority, awakens
envy and resistance on the part of equals in worldly circumstances.
PULPIT, "Numbers 12:1
And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses. While the people were encamped at
Hazeroth (see Numbers 12:16), and therefore probably very soon after the events of
the last chapter. That Miriam's was the moving spirit in the matter is sufficiently
evident,
He appears uniformly as a man of weak and pliable character, who was singularly
open to influence from others, for good or for evil. Superior to his brother in certain
gifts, he was as inferior to him in force of character as could well be. On the present
occasion there can be little question that Aaron simply allowed himself to be drawn
by his sister into an opposition with which he had little personal sympathy; a
general discontent at the manifest inferiority of his position inclined him to take up
her quarrel, and to echo her complaints. Because of the Ethiopian woman whom he
had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. Hebrew, a Cushite woman.
The descendants of Cush were distributed both in Africa (the Ethiopians proper)
and in Asia (the southern Arabians, Babylonians, Ninevites, &c.). See Genesis
10:1-32. Some have thought that this Ethiopian woman was none other than the
Midianite Zipporah, who might have been called a Cushite in some loose sense by
Miriam. The historian, however, would not have repeated in his own name a
statement so inaccurate; nor is it at all likely that that marriage would have become
a matter of contention after so many years. The natural supposition undoubtedly is
that Moses (whether after the death of Zipporah, or during her lifetime, we cannot
tell) had taken to himself a second wife of Hamite origin. Where he found her it is
useless to conjecture; she may possibly have been one of the "mixed multitude" that
went up out of Egypt. It is equally useless to attribute any moral or religious
character to this marriage, of which Holy Scripture takes no direct notice, and
which was evidently regarded by Moses as a matter of purely private concern to
26

himself. In general we may say that the rulers of Israel attached neither political,
social, nor religious significance to their marriages; and that neither law nor custom
imposed any restraint upon their choice, so long as they did not ally themselves with
the daughters of Canaan (see Exodus 34:16). It would be altogether beside the mark
to suppose that Moses deliberately married a Cushite woman in order to set forth
the essential fellowship between Jew and Gentile. It is true that such marriages as
those of Joseph, of Salmon, of Solomon, and others undeniably became invested
with spiritual importance and evangelical significance, in view of the growing
narrowness of Jewish feeling, and of the coming in of a wider dispensation; but such
significance was wholly latent at the time. If, however, the choice of Moses is
inexplicable, the opposition of Miriam is intelligible enough. She was a prophetess
(Exodus 15:20), and strongly imbued with those national and patriotic feelings
which are never far removed from exclusiveness and pride of race. She had—to use
modern words—led the Te Deum of the nation after the stupendous overthrow of
the Egyptians. And now her brother, who stood at the head of the nation, had
brought into his tent a Cushite woman, one of the dark-skinned race which seemed
oven lower in the religious scale than the Egyptians themselves. Such an alliance
might easily seem to Miriam nothing better than an act of apostasy which would
justify any possible opposition.
BI 1-2, "Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses.
Miriam and Aaron’s sedition
1. The noblest disinterestedness will not preserve us from the shafts of
envy. The poet has said, in regard to another virtue, “Be thou as chaste
as ice, as pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny”; and no matter
how unselfish we are, we may lay our account with some envenomed
attacks which shall plausibly accuse us of seeking our own things and not
the things that are Jesus Christ’s. Nay, the more conspicuous we are for
devotion to the public good, we may be only thereby more distinctly
marked as a target for the world’s scorn. “I am weary of hearing always
of Aristides as the Just,” was the expression of one who plotted for that
patriot’s banishment; and if a man’s character be in itself a protest
against abounding corruption, he will soon be assailed by some one in
the very things in which he is most eminent.
2. This envy of disinterested greatness may show itself in the most
unexpected quarters. If Aaron and Miriam were capable of such envy, we
may not think that we are immaculate. It asks the minister to examine
himself and see whether he has not been guilty of depreciating a
brother’s gifts, because he looked upon him as a rival rather than as a
fellow-labourer; it bids the merchant search through the recesses of his
heart, if haply the terms in which he refers to a neighbour, or the tales he
tells of him, be not due to the fact that, either in business or in society, he
has been somehow preferred before him; it beseeches the lady, who is
engaged in whispering the most ill-natured gossip against another in her
circle, to inquire and see whether the animus of her deed be not the
avenging of some fancied slight, or the desire to protest against an
27

honour which has been done to the object of what Thackeray has called
“her due Christian animosity.” Ah! are we not all in danger here? How
well it would be if we repelled all temptations to envy as John silenced
those who tried to set him against Jesus; for, as Bishop Hall has said,
“That man hath true light who can be content to be a candle before the
sun of others.”
3. The utter meanness of the weapons which envy is content to employ. A
man’s house is his castle. No personal malice should enter into it with its
attack; and no mean report should be received from the eavesdroppers
who have first misunderstood and then misrepresented. If a man’s
public life has been blamable, then let him be arraigned; but let no Paul
Pry interviewer cross his threshold to get hold of family secrets, or
descend into the area to hear some hirelings’ moralisings. Even the bees,
when put into a glass hive, go to work at the very first to make the glass
opaque, for they will not have their secrets made common property; and
surely we busy human beings may sometimes be allowed to be by
ourselves.
4. The assaults of envy are always best met by a silent appeal to Heaven.
Let the victims of unjust assault take comfort, for God will be their
defence. But let the envious ones take heed, for God hears their words,
and He will one day confront them with His judgment. He may do that
long before the day of final assize. He may meet them in His providence,
and give them to understand that they who touch His faithful servants
are touching the apple of His eye; nay, He may bring such trouble upon
them that they will be glad to accept of the intercession of those whom
they have maligned. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
The sin of Miriam and Aaron: evil speaking, Divine hearing, and saintly
silence
I. The sin of Miriam and Aaron.
1. Its root: jealousy and vaulting ambition.
2. Its occasion.
3. Its expression.
II. The divine cognisance of their sin. “And the Lord heard.” No one
utterance of all the myriads of voices in His universe ever escapes His ear.
There is a Divine hearer of every human speech. This is clear from—
1. His omnipresence (Psa_139:7-12).
2. His infinite intelligence.
3. His interest in His servants.
III. The commendable conduct of Moses under the provocation of their sin.
1. He was sorely tried (cf. Psa_55:12-15).
28

2. He bore his sore trial most nobly.
Conclusion:
1. In the conduct of Miriam and Aaron we have a beacon. Let us shun
their sin, &c.
2. In the conduct of Moses we have a pattern. Let us imitate his
meekness. (W. Jones.)
The modern application of an ancient incident
I. The possession of the greatest gifts does not exempt men from the liability
to meanness and sin.
II. The most excellent and eminent servants of god are not exempt from the
reproaches of men.
III. Our greatest trials sometimes arise from the most unlikely quarters.
IV. The lord takes cognisance of the reproaches which are cast upon his
servants.
V. The servants of the Lord do well in bearing patiently the reproaches
which are cast upon them. (W. Jones.)
Miriam’s sin
;—
I. Miriam’s sin.
1. Jealousy.
2. Envy.
3. Evil-speaking. Privately sought to undermine the power of Moses
among the people.
4. Folly. Could she have succeeded in destroying the power of Moses, she
would have failed in getting them to recognise her as their leader. She
did not see that she shone in the borrowed light of her great brother.
5. Rebellion against God. Moses was the servant of God: to resist him was
to resist the Master.
6. Vain excuses. “Because,” and because . . . Sinners are often prolific in
excuses; called by them reasons.
II. Miriam’s detection. “And the Lord heard it.” Moses may have heard of it.
This seems to be implied By the allusion to his meekness (Num_12:3). If the
Lord hear, then no sin passes undetected. Moses gave himself no concern
about it. Could Miriam meet her brother without shame? The Lord spake
suddenly. God pronounced Moses “faithful.” What must Miriam have
thought of her faithfulness?
29

III. Miriam’s punishment. She was smitten with leprosy, and under
circumstances that much heightened the effect of the punishment.
1. It was in the presence of the person she had injured.
2. In the presence of her fellow-conspirators.
3. By the great God, against whose authority she had rebelled.
4. Was excluded from the camp publicly.
5. Humbled, by being cleansed in answer to the prayer of him she had
wronged.
Learn—
1. The great sin of evil-speaking. Especially against ministers of religion,
whose influence for good ought to be preserved not only by themselves
but by all about them. The character of public men is their strength.
Destroy their character, their power is gone. By this loss the public itself
is impoverished and injured. Hence such slander is suicidal.
2. God the defender of His servants. The severe punishment—and upon
no other than Miriam—shows the Divine abhorrence of the sin.
3. Moses, leaving the exposure and punishment with God, and
interceding for Miriam, teaches us how to regard attacks upon our
character, and act under them, and towards such unhappy offenders. (J.
C. Gray.)
Envy and pride meekly met
I. “what sinful principles will prompt a man to do. Here we see the ties of
nature disregarded; the bonds of professed fellowship burst asunder; God’s
interest disregarded. Pride and envy had entered the heart, and all
consequences were unheeded, even though Moses should be brought into
contempt before the whole congregation. Let us fear lest such principles
should ever get possession of our minds; the first feeling must be mourned
over and prayed against.
II. What divine grace will enable us to bear. If we imbibe the spirit of our
Lord and Master we shall offer prayer for those who use us ill. If the
approbation of God be ours, though all the world be against us it will do us
no harm. It was said of one of the martyrs that he was so like Christ that he
could not be roused by injuries to say one word that was revengeful. Oh, if
this spirit were universal, what a happy world would this be! See how the
grace of God can enable us to return good for evil, and thus feel an
indescribable peace and happiness in our own spirit, walking in the fear of
the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost. The power of man can never
impart this meek and quiet spirit; it can alone come from the blessed
influence of the Holy Spirit. (George Breay, B. A.)
30

The great evil of ambition
The true cause of this their murmuring was pride and ambition, self-love,
ostentation, and vainglory. Hereby we learn that there cometh no greater
plague to the Church of God than by ambition and desire of pre-eminence.
The ambition and pride of Amaziah, the priest of Beth-el, would not suffer
the prophet Amos in the land of Israel, but he commanded him to fly away
into the land of Judah and prophesy there (Amo_7:10; Amo_7:12). We see
this apparently afterward (Num_16:1-50.) in Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.
Neither is this evil dead with these; for this is a great plague of the Church
to this day, and very pernicious. Nothing hath more ruined the Church of
God, overthrown piety, corrupted religion, hindered the gospel,
discouraged the pastors and professors of it, nothing hath more erected the
kingdom of anti-Christ than these petty popes, the true successors of
Diotrephes, such as desire to be universal bishops and to reign alone. The
mischief hereof appeareth by sundry reasons.
1. It causeth a great rent and division in the Church, and disturbeth the
peace of it (Num_16:1).
2. It setteth up men and putteth down the Lord and His ordinances,
urging, compelling, and commanding against the truth (Act_4:18-19).
3. It proceedeth from very evil roots, and bringeth forth very evil effects,
as an evil tree bringeth forth evil fruits. The causes from whence it
floweth are Satan, pride, disdain of others, self-love, no love of the truth,
no zeal of God’s glory, no desire of the good of the Church.
The effects thereof are trouble, disquietness, fear, flattery, envy, and
subtilty. Let us come to the uses.
1. It reproveth those who bear themselves as lords over the flock of
Christ.
2. Acknowledge this ambition to be a general corruption, the remainders
whereof are in all the servants of God, yea, in all the children of Adam;
we have drawn it from him, and thereby it hath leavened and corrupted
all mankind. If any man ask what it is, I answer, It is an immoderate
desire after dignity, and of dignity upon dignity; it is a thirst that never
can be quenched; for as the covetous person hath never enough money,
so the ambitious hath never enough honour. It is a secret poison, a
hidden plague, the mother of hypocrisy, the father of envy, the fountain
of vices, the moth of piety, a blind guide and leader of the hearts of men.
The farther we think ourselves from it the nearer commonly it cometh
unto us; and therefore let nothing be done through strife and vainglory,
but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves
(Php_2:3).
3. Lastly, let all learn to beware of this evil. (W. Attersoll.)
Claiming equality
If the Lord did speak by Miriam and Aaron, what then? The Lord Himself
31

Numbers 12 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Numbers 12 commentary

Similar to Numbers 12 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Numbers 12 commentary