Though the offense
eludes me, the Lord is displeased with Moses and Aaron, in how they do what He
has asked them to do.
The Lord punishes Moses and Aaron by telling them they will not be permitted to
enter into the Promised Land.
Now I have
trouble understanding this story. Nothing Moses does or says seems
to justify the anger of the Lord towards him or Aaron. Moses, in this scene, says something and does
something. What he says is
mysterious. He sounds annoyed as well he
might be. He puts his order cryptically
in the form of a question. Is there an
element of doubt that the promise will be kept?
Should he have attributed the giving of the water to the great mercy of
God rather than seeming to take credit for himself and Aaron for this display
of saving power? He says nothing of God nor does he do what he usually does, namely
remind the people of God’s constant care and their obligation to be faithful.
What he does has been made much of.
He strikes the rock, not once but twice.
Presumably he could have simply ordered the rock to issue the water in
God’s name. He might have struck the
rock only once. The second blow is not
emphasized at all in the account, so the idea that God was angry because he
struck twice does not seem convincing to me.
Using standard character analysis to the story, I am left thinking the most offensive of the things Moses did or said
in the context of the entire narrative is to omit attribution of the gift to
God. By all that he says and does in
this scene, one would not guess that he is acting on the voice of God. He
seems to be acting on his own authority, forcing nature to give forth water
and not in a spirit of rejoicing at the great care of God, but out of pique
that one is force to put up with the never-ending complaints of these people.
Schocken’s
contribution to the above mentioned issue is that it is the public nature of
their failure that makes their failing serious. “The Bible
consistently takes a stringent view of leadership: that leaders must be above
reproach, and that they must not lose sight of the fact that it is God whom
they represent” (754).
The
chapter goes on with Moses’ efforts to secure permission from the Edomites to
pass along what is called “the royal road” through their country (20:17). But
Edom refuses to give permission. Israel
is forced to make a lengthy detour.
The chapter ends with
the death of Aaron - the deaths of Moses’ sister and brother thus bracket this
entire chapter. Aaron dies at Mt. Hor (Hormah), after being
stripped of his priestly garments so they can be place on his son Eleazar. He is mourned for thirty days. In any case the chapter also tells of the
deaths of both Miriam and Aaron, so now Moses
is left all alone in his great responsibility. I suppose the lesson in the
story is for those in authority over the people of God. There is a great responsibility inherent in
that role. In everything they do to advance the work of the Lord they must
remember to point continually to God.
They must never pretend that salvation comes from their own efforts
unsupported by the love and mercy of God.
There is no glory in serving the Lord, and the spirit of aggravation
only keeps you from getting to the final goal.
Origen (185-254 AD)
De Principiis (First
Principles)
Preface
2 – Origen acknowledges
that many who profess to believe in Christ “differ from each other, not only in
small and trifling matters but also on subjects of the highest importance. . .
“ –things not only related to God, or Jesus or the Holy Spirit, but also things
like “powers and holy virtues.” If people are thinking differently from their
predecessors, it is important to resolve the teachings of the Church that have
been “transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles” for they are the
teachings which should be accepted as truth.
3 – “Now it taught to be
known that the holy apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, delivered
themselves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed to
be necessary to every one, even to those who seemed somewhat dull in the
investigation of divine knowledge. It’s a little
difficult to interpret the rest of this section, but I think he is saying that
some apostles and some after them were keen in articulating how we are to
understand things, others not so gifted. But he thinks the “more zealous of
their successor, who should be lovers of wisdom, might have: subjects they could
help elucidate in a way “to display the fruit of their talents. . .”
No comments:
Post a Comment