How Moses Failed God Author(s): Eugene Arden Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Mar.

, 1957), pp. 50-52 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3262132 Accessed: 02/12/2010 12:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sbl. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

HOW MOSES FAILED GOD

EUGENE ARDEN
HOFSTRA COLLEGE

T HE Pentateuch describes in vivid detail the Israelites' forty-year

journey from Egypt to Canaan. The leader of the people during most of this period was Moses, a model theocrat. He alone staved off disaster while a new generation was being born and matured in the wilderness, a generation which we may assume was worthier of the Homeland than the ex-slaves who had fled in terror from Egypt. Finally, after endless bewilderment and frustration, this ragged but toughened band of travelers arrived at the threshold of the Promised Land. At that moment, in perhaps the most enigmatic incident of the Pentateuch, the deliverer Moses and his "prophet" Aaron incurred the sudden and extreme displeasure of God, and were categorically denied the privilege of entering Canaan, "because ye believed me not." What had been their sin? The Book of Numbers 20 1-13 tells us that when the people cried out desperately for water, God told Moses to assemble the people and in their presence to speak to a rock, which would then gush forth abundantly. But instead of following these commands precisely, Moses first chided the people with "Hear now, ye rebels..." and then twice smote the rock with his rod, to bring forth the needed water. For this, he and his brother were barred from the Promised Land. OT scholarship has found this an embarrassing circumstance to deal with. First of all, it is inconsistent with the heroic proportions achieved by the Moses figure. Then, too, it contradicts the many other instances when Moses was able with complete impunity to assert the force of his individual will and personality, hurling imprecations at his people or even arguing with God, perhaps face to face. But here, because of an unfortunate technicality, we are expected to see Moses as a sinner who did not follow the letter of God's command - and was therefore found unfit to lead the Chosen People into Canaan. Now, such a reading of the incident is patently nonsense. It has therefore been argued that some material must be lost to us. The Dartmouth Bible, for example, suggests that there may once have been some passages describing Moses and Aaron as wavering in their loyalty, for which God chose to punish them in this way. It is theorized that out of a sense of discretion these incriminating passages were later dropped, or that by sheer accident they were simply lost. Of course if we accept such a hypothesis of lost materials, then we are in effect granting that
50

ARDEN: HOW MOSES FAILED GOD

51

our comprehension of the whole affair, including the punishment, must necessarily be imperfect, and there is little else to say about it. But that leaves us with something far too inconclusive to accept as a "solution" to the problem. Still another theory is considered in The Abingdon Bible Commentary. The circumstances in Num 20 1-13 are so reminiscent of Exod 17 2-7 that we may be dealing with two versions of the same story, or for that matter with two similar episodes originally distinct but later assimilated to one another. This, however, tends to complicate rather than solve the problem. In the Exodus version (17 6), God actually commands Moses to smite the rock with his rod; the action of Moses in Numbers would therefore seem quite reasonable. Indeed, this will support my view, to be stated presently, that the striking of the rock in Numbers was in itself irrelevant to the main issue. I hope to show that we are concerned here with blasphemy, not with a procedural error. What, then, are the alternatives? We may continue to theorize that key passages are either lost to us or have somehow been shifted about in the OT - though it seems all too clear that in spite of the "convenience" this is no answer at all. In certain quarters we may also be offered the Numbers version of the punishment on a literal level - an uncomfortable offering in the light of textual contradictions. I suppose we may also shrug off the problem by saying that Moses and Aaron shared with nearly all the refugees from Egypt a disabling lack of moral fiber, and they were therefore unworthy of the Promised Land. But then what happens to our historical view of Moses as the crucial hero of the OT? And why would God seize on this rock-smiting incident as a mere pretext for excluding Moses and Aaron? There is still another way of looking at this Moses incident, one which will get us closer to a reasonable conclusion. One of the things we notice in the OT - especially in the books of "antiquity," say from Genesis to Judges - is God's willingness to go to any lengths to impress his chosen ones with the magic of his powers. One remembers, for example, God's pique at Abraham and Sarah for doubting his promise that even in their advanced years they were yet to have a son. One thinks too of the elaborate stage machinery of rods turning into snakes and the Nile waters turning into blood, and similar divine signs during Moses' early ministry. Or one anticipates the Gideon story in which God is put to the test of performing miracles in order to win Gideon to his plans; we remember that God then puts Gideon in command of a ridiculously outnumbered "army," so that the later victory can be explained only as a divine miracle! I would suggest that God's purpose in the Moses-and-the-water incident is twofold: to relieve the Israelites of their intense thirst, and

52

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

to glorify and hallow his name in the eyes of his people. This is not another instance of God's anger against the people, as, for example, when they had previously called for meat: "And when the people complained, it displeased the Lord." God gave the people meat on that occasion until it came out of their nostrils! But this time, at the desperate cry for water, only Moses is angry, not God. Num 20 13 reports that the children of Israel "strove with the Lord," but even here, where we might expect it, we find absolutely no evidence of God's displeasure; there is no punishment of the people this time. Only Moses shows his exasperation, his famous temper, and his astonishing egotism: "Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?" (Num 20 lo). Moses, in his anger, takes it on himself to assume that God is exasperated too, that the two of them, Moses and God, are one in their response. The tone in which he addresses the people is that of annoyance and condescension; the "we" is blasphemous. Now, with this shift in emphasis, the circumstances appear in a surprisingly different light. It isn't a question of God splitting hairs with Moses and meting out punishment capriciously. It is, instead, this: God sees his people suffering with thirst; he decides to relieve that thirst by the miracle of water flowing from a rock at his mere word; he instructs his intermediary, Moses, to gather the congregation and to speak "unto the rock before their eyes." The clear implication is that the people will rejoice at the sight of abundant water, and they will doubly and trebly rejoice at the knowledge that their God is with them and is showing himself by one of his happiest miracles. It is this circumstance which Moses, in a fit of indignation, turns into a bitter denunciation; he curses the people, and in smiting the magic rod against the rock, destroys the hallowed moment that God had so clearly intended. Thus twice in the same book (Num 20 12and 20 24) the text tells us precisely why Moses and Aaron were not permitted to enter the Promised Land: Moses because he did not "sanctify" God in the eyes of Israel, and Aaron because he was a "rebel" against God's word. The punishment, seen in this light, is hardly excessive, and the story makes perfect sense without hypothesizing a body of "lost" material, or without recourse to theories which raise larger questions than those which they attempt to answer.