Bibelkommentare

This is added as the reason why Moses took no notice of their reproach, but was one that heard it not, and why God did so speedily and severely plead Moses’s cause, because he did not avenge himself.

Quest. 1. Did it become Moses thus to commend himself?

Answ. 1. The holy penmen of Scripture are not to be measured or censured by other profane writers, because they are guided by special instinct in every thing they write; and as they ofttimes publish their own and their near relations’ greatest faults, where it may be useful to the honour of God, and the edification of the church in after-ages; so it is not strange if for the same reasons sometimes they commend themselves, especially when they are forced to it by the insolence and contempt of their adversaries, which was Moses’s case here, in which case St. Paul also commends himself, 2 Corinthians 11:5, &c. 2 Corinthians 12:11,12; which they might the better do, because all their writings and carriage made it evident to all men that they did not this out of vain-glory, and that they were exalted above the affectation of men’s praises, and the dread of men’s reproaches.

2. This might be added, as some other clauses were, by some succeeding prophet, which was no disparagement to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, seeing it is all written by one hand, though divers pens be used by it.

Quest. 2: How was Moses so meek, when we oft times read of his anger, as Exodus 11:8 16:20 32:19 Leviticus 10:16 Numbers 16:15 20:10,11, compared with Psalm 106:32,33?

Answ. 1. The meekest men upon earth are provoked sometimes, yea, oftener than Moses was.

2. True meekness doth not exclude all anger, but only such as is unjust, or immoderate, or implacable. Moses was and ought to be angry where God was offended and dishonoured, as he was in almost all the places alleged.

Verse 3. - Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth. For the Hebrew עָנָו the Septuagint has πραὺς here; the Vulgate, mitis. The Targum Palestine has "bowed down in his mind," i.e., overwhelmed ("plagued," Luther). The ordinary version is undoubtedly' right; the object of the parenthesis was either to explain that there was no real ground for the hostility of Miriam and Aaron, or to show that the direct interference of the Lord himself was necessary for the protection of his servant. The verse bears a difficulty on its very face, because it speaks of Moses in terms which could hardly have been used by Moses of himself. Nor is this difficulty in the least degree diminished by the explanations which are offered by those who are determined to maintain at any cost the Mosaic authorship of every word in the Pentateuch. It is no doubt true to some extent that when a great and good man is writing of himself (and especially when he writes under the influence of the Holy Spirit), he can speak of himself with the same calm and simple truthfulness with which he would speak of any other. It is sufficient, however, to refer to the example of St. Paul to show that neither any height of spiritual privilege and authority, nor any intensity of Divine inspiration, obliterates the natural virtue of modesty, or allows a really humble man to praise himself without pain and shrinking. It is also to be observed that while St. Paul forces himself to speak of his privileges, distinctions, and sufferings, all of which were outward to himself, Moses would here be claiming for himself the possession of an inward virtue in greater measure than any other living soul. Surely it is not too much to say that if he did possess it in such measure, he could not possibly have been conscious that he did; only One was thus conscious of his own ineffable superiority, and this very consciousness is one of the strongest arguments for believing that he was infinitely more than a mere man, howsoever good and exalted. There is but one theory that will make it morally possible for Moses to have written this verse, viz., that in writing he was a mere instrument, and not morally responsible for what he did write. Such a theory will find few upholders. But, further, it is necessary to prove not only that Moses might have made this statement, but also that he might have made it in this form. Granted that it was necessary to the narrative to point out that he was very meek; it was not necessary to assert that he was absolutely the meekest man living. And if it was unnecessary, it was also unnatural. No good man would go out of his way to compare himself to his own advantage with all men upon the face of the earth. The whole form of the sentence, indeed, as well as its position, proclaim it so clearly to be an addition by some later hand, that the question may be left to the common sense and knowledge of human nature of every reader; for the broad outlines of human character, morality, and virtue are the same in every age, and are not displaced by any accident of position, or even of inspiration. A slight examination of passages from other sacred writers, which are sometimes adduced as analogous, will serve to show how profound is the difference between what holy men could say of themselves and what they could not (cf. Daniel 1:19, 20; Daniel 5:11, 12; Daniel 9:23; Daniel 10:11). On the question of the inspiration of this verse, supposing it to be an interpolation, and as to the probable author of it, see the Preface. As to the fact of Moses' meekness, we have no reason to doubt it, but we may legitimately look upon the form in which it is stated as one of those conventional hyperboles which are not uncommon even in the sacred writings (cf. Genesis 7:19; John 21:25). And we cannot avoid perceiving that Moses' meekness was far from being perfect, and was marred by sinful impatience and passion on more than one recorded occasion.

(3) Now the man Moses was very meek . . . —These words have been urged by some as an argument against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch generally, or of the Book of Numbers in particular, but whether they may or may not have been inserted by a later writer, this inference is altogether unfounded. It is possible that the writer of Deuteronomy 34:10 may have inserted these words in this place. On the other hand, there is no necessity for such a supposition. An objective statement, such as that contained in these words, is perfectly consistent with true humility and with a deep sense of sinfulness and frailty. When such expressions are required in order to a full understanding of all the circumstances of the history, they afford no just ground of objection either against the writer, or against the genuineness of the writing; and least of all can they be justly objected to in the case of those who, like Moses and St. Paul, were ever ready to sacrifice their own personality in the cause to which they had devoted their lives (comp. 2Corinthians 11:5). It may be observed, further, that the word anav, meek, is frequently interchanged with the cognate word ani, and that the meaning may be bowed down, or oppressed.

3. very meek] very humble; it might almost be rendered ‘very pious.’ The word does not connote meekness towards men, in the sense of patience under wrongs or insults, but always pious humility towards God. It is found frequently in the Psalms; and see Zephaniah 2:3. Because of Moses’ humble piety, Jehovah grants him an overwhelming vindication in answer to the jealous challenge. To those who have held that the Pentateuch was from Moses’ own pen, this verse, with its appearance of self-righteousness, has always been a serious difficulty.

Numbers 12:3. The man Moses was very meek — This is added as the reason why Moses took no notice of their reproach, and why God did so severely plead his cause. Thus was he fitted for the work he was called to, which required all the meekness he had. And this is often more tried by the unkindness of our friends, than by the malice of our enemies. This meekness of Moses was a great aggravation of the sin or his brother and sister, namely, that they should behave so insolently toward a man of his mild and sweet disposition, who was farthest of all men living from abusing his power, slighting any person beneath him, or harbouring the least malice for personal affronts. Probably this commendation was added, as some other clauses were, by some succeeding prophet. But how was Moses so meek, when we often read of his anger? Not to mention that the law made nothing perfect, (Hebrews 7:19,) it must be observed, true meekness does not exclude every kind of anger, but only such as is sinful. We may and ought to be angry when God is dishonoured, in the sense in which Christ was when he looked round about upon the people with anger, grieved for the hardness of their hearts, Mark 3:5. Displeasure or grief on account of the sin or folly of another, if it be not immoderate, and imply no resentment, is not sinful, but commendable, Ephesians 4:26.

Numbers 12:3. Now the man Moses was very meek, &c.— It has been supposed by many, that this passage was not written by Moses, but inserted by some other hand in after-times. The reason, however, urged for this supposition, namely, its containing a high encomium of himself, is by no means sufficient; for the encomium, as it here stands, evidently appears extorted from Moses as a necessary vindication of himself from calumny; in which situation, self-praise is not unbecoming even the most modest, nor at all unusual to the simplicity of ancient writers: nay, indeed, St. Paul, and even our Saviour himself, are put upon magnifying themselves, by the malignity of their enemies. John 10:36. 2Co 10:18; 2 Corinthians 10:18. This meekness of Moses is mentioned as an aggravation of Aaron and Miriam's fault, and as that which provoked the divine displeasure; and, certainly, it is a proof of the impartiality of Moses to recite, with such an honest simplicity, those defects of his own relations, which he might so easily have concealed. The Scripture affords many instances of the meekness of Moses: in particular, see Exodus 14:13; Exodus 32:10, &c. Exodus 32:31-32.Numbers 11:2; Numbers 11:2; Numbers 12:13; Numbers 14:13; Numbers 14:45; Num 21:7 and Deuteronomy 18:22; Deuteronomy 18:22.

REFLECTIONS.—Of all in the camp, Miriam and Aaron were surely the last from whom Moses had need to apprehend complaint; they were near relations, and distinguished professors. Let no man think it strange that his nearest relatives are set against him; nor reckon his case hard, or be discouraged, if some eminent for religion reflect most unkindly and unjustly on his conduct. Moses was thus treated before him.

The complaint against him was, that, in the choice of the seventy elders, he had been influenced by his wife Zipporah; and Miriam, jealous of her authority, seems to have instigated Aaron to this ungrateful behaviour towards his brother, insinuating that they had equal authority from God, and therefore ought to have been consulted. Note; (1.) Contentions for superiority among Christians are too common, and very sinful. (2.) Nothing breeds bitterer disputes than jealousy about power. (3.) Through evil suggestions, like Miriam's; the dearest friends are often separated. (4.) When persons quarrel, they cannot be at rest unless they draw others into the dispute.

Moses maintained the same composure for which he is so famed; and in silence referred his cause to God, though from them this must have been peculiarly afflictive. The unkindness of professed friends is ever harder to be borne than the insults of professed enemies. He must be well disciplined in the school of Christ, who can, under such provocations, in patience and meekness possess his soul.

return to '

(Now the man Moses [was] very meek, above all the men which [were] upon the face of the earth.)

Now the man Moses was very meek. — So free from passions, if Josephus may be believed, that he knew no such thing in his own soul; he only knew the names of such things, and saw them in others, rather than in himselfi Of Beza it is said, Quod sine felle vixerit, that he was without gall or guile, and he lived to a great age as Moses did, and as Mr Dod did. Their meekness preserved them.

Above all the men. — And yet Moses could be angry enough when there was cause. Exodus 11:8 ; Exodus 16:20 Leviticus 10:16 Numbers 16:15 , … Yea, how blessedly blown up was he with a zeal for God, Exodus 32:19 and what a stomach shows he in that case! Nazianzen saith of Athanasius, that he was magnes et adamas, a loadstone in his sweet gentle drawing nature, and yet an adamant in his resolute stout carriage against those that were evil. Some Weems. are of opinion that this verse was added by Joshua or Esdras, as also those three verses. Numbers 21:14-15 ; Numbers 21:27

return to '

4. the Lord spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam--The divine interposition was made thus openly and immediately, in order to suppress the sedition and prevent its spreading among the people.