case against Moses reopened, The

(Proquest Information and Learning: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitts ed.)

Numbers 20:1-13 has been rated as "perhaps the most enigmatic incident of the Pentateuch."1 Throughout the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures Moses has been portrayed as the model theocrat, most humble (Num 12:3) and superior as a prophetic leader (Deut 34:10), only in order to receive a startling death sentence and be denied entrance into the promised land on account of-yes, on account of what? Whatever the reader may think of the above assessment, the fact remains that the sheer number of different conjectures as to what constituted Moses' (and Aaron's) sin is in itself indicative of the level of ambiguity characteristic of this account.2 The present study attempts to shed new light on this puzzling text by not only (briefly) discussing the nature of Moses' transgression, but also by accentuating the typological significance of both the sin and the miracle involved in the story. It is my contention that only a synopsis of these concerns accounts for the at times bewildering language of Numbers 20.

I. MOSES' SIN

Source analysis traditionally assigns Num 20:1-13 to P, whereas the "parallel" in Exod 17:1-7 is believed to have originated from strands of the much earlier J(E).3 P, so it has been assumed, utilized the earlier tradition and rewrote it in an effort to explain why Moses and Aaron could not lead Israel into Canaan.4 It is not at all my intention to engage these speculations at this point. May it suffice to mention that the differences between the said accounts clearly indicate that the author of Numbers wanted his readership to consider 20:1-13 as a separate incident and not as a "derivative" of the story in Exodus.5 When thus viewed in its own right, what does our text reveal about Moses' fatal sin?6 Yahweh's response in 20:12 (". . . you did not believe me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel . . .") gives us an initial clue. The idea of "sanctifying" Yahweh refers to the miracle that was to be performed,7 a miracle that was compromised by Moses' striking the rock instead of speaking to it (cf. 20:8).8 In OT literature, and particularly in the Pentateuch, miraculous divine interventions are always aimed at glorifying God's name, and neither Moses nor Aaron are ever said to have manipulated such displays of God's power in substituting God's directives by their own actions.9 We must also take into consideration that the modus operandi of this sign was intended to distinguish itself, in that none of the miracles of the exodus (including, of course, those of the wilderness trek and so far as they have been recorded in the Pentateuch) involved the medium of speaking.10 The miracles of the exodus were well known among the ancient Israelites, and so were their pertinent circumstances. Moses in effect destroyed the unique character of this intervention by using the "familiar" rod instrumental in so many of the miracles of his day. While the implications of this will be discussed below, we may safely conclude that Moses' action compromised God's glory that was to be displayed in the precise form of the miracle. Even if he acted in the heat of the moment, Moses forced his will upon the sign (or rather: Yahweh) and thus failed to honor God.11

Psalm 106:32 as a canonical commentary affords another perspective on the incident: "(Moses) spoke rashly with his lips." The words recorded in Num 20:10 ("Hear, you rebels! Must we bring water for you out of this rock?") have elicited a plethora of scholarly interaction, the most inclusive of which is found in Dennis T. Olson's commentary listing as many as five possible meanings for Moses' rhetorical question.12 By far the two most popular renderings posit "stealing God's thunder" on Moses' part13 and acting reluctantly (i.e. Moses deemed the "rebels" unworthy of God's provision of water), respectively.14 Both options succeed in accounting for the language, but the former seems to cohere more naturally with Moses' failure to bring glory to Yahweh by importing a foreign (i.e. his own) element into the miracle. Thus, fueled by Moses' anger and frustration, the sin consists in modifying Yahweh's miracle and taking at least some of the credit for it ("must we bring water . . ."). One may still argue that the punishment does not fit the crime. Then all I can add to the above sketch is to point out that Moses (and Aaron) was (were) not judged by common standards, but by the words of Lev 10:3: "By those who come near me I must be regarded as holy (...)); and before all the people I must be glorified." Numbers 20:12 blames the leaders precisely for failing to sanctify (...) Yahweh "before all the children of Israel."

II. RECAPITULATIVE NUANCES

The depiction of Moses' sin in Numbers 20 and elsewhere in the Pentateuch also has typological significance. His downfall is described in terms that make associations with the sinful patterns of the "old generation"15 that died outside of Canaan audible. Before these paradigmatic concepts can be appreciated, a few remarks about our text in its present shape and position in the book are in order.