Holy Bible

Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses. Numbers 12:1, 2 Miriam and Aaron's sedition W. M. Taylor, D. D. 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 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 W. Jones. 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 ( Psalm 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. Psalm 55:12-15 ). 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 W. Jones. 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 J. C. Gray. 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 (ver. 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? 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 George Breay, B. A. 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. ) The great evil of ambition W. Attersoll. 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 ( Amos 7:10, 12 ). We see this apparently afterward ( Numbers 16 .) 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 ( Numbers 16:1 ). 2. It setteth up men and putteth down the Lord and His ordinances, urging, compelling, and commanding against the truth ( Acts 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 ( Philippians 2:3 ). 3. Lastly, let all learn to beware of this evil. ( W. Attersoll. ) Claiming equality J. Parker, D. D. 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, 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 write upon vacant faces tokens of reverence and proofs that the inner vision is at the moment entranced by some immeasurable revelation. To other men God speaks "apparently" — that is, in broad and visible figure. He is quite near; it is as if friend were accosting friend, 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. Take a book of science — what do you find in that rational and philosophical bible? You find certain names put uppermost. 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 find this same law operating in all directions. There are books that say, "Are not we inspired as well as the Bible?" The answer is, "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 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 grave-side, and speaks about the old soldier just laid to rest, the little child just exhaled like a dewdrop by the morning sun. 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. 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. ( J. Parker, D. D. ) Hatred between brothers and sisters Bp. Babington. What were Aaron and Miriam to Moses? Even his own brother and sister. And cannot such agree? Will there be jars and grudgings in such? Would God it were not too true. Nay, such is our corruption, if the Lord lead us not with His loving Spirit, that not only we disagree being brothers and sisters, but with a far more bitter and implacable wrath than others that are farther off. What a venom was in Cain to his brother Abel when nothing but blood would appease it? What was in Esau's heart towards his brother Jacob? Oh, what venom is this that lurketh in our nature if God leaves us to ourselves! May we not justly marvel at some men, otherwise of great wisdom and judgment, that dare break out unto the praise of these perturbations as virtues and badges of noble minds? For what is this but as if a man would praise the diseases of the body and the nettles and weeds and hurtful plants of the earth. Should not he be accounted mad that would set his own house on fire? And I pray you what be that will cast fire into his own heart to set it on a flame? Saint was wont to say, "Look how vinegar put into a vessel thereby is made sour and corrupted"; so is the malicious person by his own anger made filthy and most distasteful to all good men. And if thus among strangers, oh, what among brothers and sisters! Wherefore what council is given to refrain all anger, venom, and hatred, let it in particular be applied to bridle all rage or dislike among such near ones as now we speak of. ( Bp. Babington. ) The man Moses was very meek. Numbers 12:3 The grace of meekness G. Wagner. How beautiful a grace is meekness! It may be somewhat difficult to define; but whenever we see we cannot fail to know and to feel its gentle and winning power. It is a grace that implies so very much in the heart. It is the beautiful result of many other graces; whilst its place in the beatitudes shows that it is the root on which others grow. Meekness is quite consistent with power and authority; for Moses had great power and authority in Israel, and yet, altogether unspoilt by it, he was the meekest of men. But we may look to another example, far greater than Moses, who said, "All power is given to Me in heaven arid on earth"; and yet added, "I am meek and lowly in heart." It is in such lofty places that meekness is the most beautiful, because it then can, and does, stoop very low. But though this grace is evidently consistent with any power and authority, however exalted, it is altogether inconsistent with the love of power and with the love of authority. Meekness can only grow upon the ruins of selfishness in all its forms, whether it be selfishness towards God — that is, unbelief — or whether it be selfishness towards man, either in its form of pride, love of our own way, love of ease, love of money. But we may trace another feature in meekness from the example of Moses, and learn that this grace is not the attribute of a weak character, but the ornament of a firm and comprehensive spirit. Indeed, we seldom find real meekness in vacillating characters; for such yield when they ought not to yield, and then, rebuked by conscience for yielding, they become angry. Meekness will more often be found in the resolute character when it is sanctified by the Spirit of God, and obstinacy is purged out. Moses was a beautiful example of extraordinary strength of character. His one will was stronger than the united wills of all Israel. And yet amongst them all there was not one to be found so meek as he; and the reason was, because his will rested on the will of God. It was an unselfish will, and therefore it was that its uncommon power did not exclude meekness. We all need this grace in every relationship of life. As parents, for meekness should be the border and fringe of every act of authority; as mistresses, for in the carlessness and want of conscientiousness of servants your spirit may be tried nearly every day; as Christians, for St. Peter exhorts us ( 1 Peter 3:15 ) to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear"; as teachers, for St. Paul says ( 2 Timothy 2:24, 25 ). In these days of collision between system and system, and of sad confusion of views of Divine truth, we specially seem to need the spirit of meekness. For it is not rude attacks upon error, but truth spoken in meekness and love that avails and has most power. Meekness should be the handmaid of zeal. All of us must feel, if we have only made the experiment, how difficult of attainment is this grace; and yet there is great encouragement to seek it. It appears in the cluster of graces described as the "fruit of the Spirit." It is the last but one, perhaps to show us the height at which it grows. There is a beautiful promise of guidance to the meek "The meek will He guide in judgment: and the meek will He teach His way" ( Psalm 25:9 ); and in Psalm 149:4 is a larger promise still — "He will beautify the meek with salvation." And then we cannot forget the beatitude uttered by the lips of Him whose meekness never failed — "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth!" ( G. Wagner. ) Moses the meek T. R. Stevenson. Who records this? The popular answer is, Moses. He is the reputed author of the Pentateuch. Moses tells us, therefore, that Moses was the meekest of men. But if so, what becomes of his humility? Some meet the difficulty by reminding us that the verse is a parenthesis. It is enclosed in brackets. Perhaps it was added afterwards by another hand. This, of course, is possible. At the same time it is a desperate mode of dealing with the case. Supposing that Moses did indite it, what then? It is not necessarily a display of vanity. There are two kinds of egotism — the false and the true. If a man refers to himself simply as a historian, and merely because the circumstances of the case call for it, that is quite a lawful, righteous egotism. If, on the contrary, he does it out of conceit, he thereby manifests "vain glory," and merits our scorn. A consciousness of integrity will sometimes impel its possessor to assert it, especially when it is misunderstood and persecuted. The uprightness of Job led him to exclaim, "When I am tried I shall come forth as gold." "The man Moses was very meek." But was he always such? Are we to regard his meekness as constitutional? There appear to be solid reasons for thinking that Israel's distinguished lawgiver was originally impulsive and even passionate! At first, he was anything but slow to anger. And, as we read the narrative of his life, we mark the old disposition ever and anon asserting itself. Just as you sometimes see, in the midst of green pastures and yellow corn, patches of rock, fern, and heather, reminding you of the pristine state of the ground, so now and then the hasty spirit of Moses got the better of him. These were lingering and occasional outbreaks on the part of what the apostle would call "the old man." They were exceptional. So faithfully had he watched against his besetting sin, so prayerfully had he exercised vigorous self-control, that the naturally irritable man became "very meek above all the men who were on the face of the earth." As a certain author admirably writes: "A traveller, giving an account of an ancient volcano, tells of a verdurous cup-like hollow on the mountain summit, and, where the fierce heat once had burned, a clear, still pool of water, looking up like an eye to heaven above. It is an apt parable of Moses. Naturally and originally volcanic, capable of profound passion and daring, he is new-made by grace till he stands out in calm grandeur of character with all the gentleness of Christ adorning him. The case of Moses is representative. It does not stand alone in grand isolation. That our weakest point may become our strongest is one of the most obvious and inspiring teachings of the Bible. Peter Thomas, a physiognomist, closely scanning the face of Socrates, pronounced him to be a bad man. He even went so far as to specify his vices and faults. "Proud, crabbed, lustful," were the charges brought against him. The Athenians laughed this to scorn. Everybody knew its falsity. The distinguished sage was the exact opposite of the description. To their amazement, however, Socrates hushed them, and declared that no calumny had been uttered. "What he has said," be remarked, "accurately describes my nature, but by philosophy I have controlled anti conquered it." Let us be of good cheer. Philosophy is good, but we have something better — "the grace of God which bringeth salvation." Let us but make it our own, and we shall joyfully experience its victories. ( T. R. Stevenson. ) Meekness H. M. Scudder, D. D. What is meekness? It is not the repudiation of self-defence. Everything that is made has a right to exist, or God would not have matte it; and, if any other creature trespasses on this its birth-charter, it is justified in defending itself. Neither is meekness a mental incapacity to discern insults and injuries. A man who cannot do that is not meek but stupid. Nor is meekness a natural mildness which is incapable of being provoked. There are people of such a temper — or, rather, non-temper. It is no credit to them. We may call such people soft; but it would be a misnomer to call them meek. In fact, unless they can be stirred up, they are incapable of meekness; for the more natural fierceness a man has the more capable he is of meekness, and he upon whom anybody that comes along may make his scratch is anything but a meek person. Neither are they meek who are restrained from exhibiting resentment by fear or self-interest. They are cowards. All these are negative qualities. And it is impossible that meekness should belong to this tribe; for it must be immensely positive and tremendously energetic since it is to subjugate the earth and inherit it. The first element in meekness is docility — a willingness to learn, a readiness to go through the drudgery and labour connected with learning, a disposition to suppress the impatience which prevents us from learning. The second element is self-restraint, both toward God and toward man. The tendency of trouble is to irritate, to render the soul peevish, angry, morose, rebellious. But the meek soul has learned in the school of Christ. It accepts the truth that "all things work together for good to them that love God"; and, therefore, disciplines itself to patience under trial. Meekness educates man up to a Godlike standard. It stores up strength in the soul — a strength that shall prove available in the emergencies of life. The meek men are the men of might. They have broad shoulders and strong backs, or they could not carry this load of other men's ignorance, infirmity, and sin; and it is meekness that squares their shoulders, toughens their tendons, and develops their muscles. The meek men are, if the exigency arises, the most terrible of the earth. There are bounds to the exercise of meekness. Paul indicates this when he says: "What will ye? Shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love?" When the meek man does take the rod, he lays it on until the work is thoroughly done. ( H. M. Scudder, D. D. ) The Lord came down. Numbers 12:5-10 God's vindication of Moses Bp. Babington. There are several circumstances of the Lord's proceedings laid down in the text. 1. As, first, His speed. By and by the Lord called them; so showing us how fitting a thing, yea, how pleasing to Him, convenient expedition is in justice, and how displeasing, needless, and sinister delays. It showeth also what a tender feeling God hath of the wrongs of His children, not only of some, but by name of magistrates' and governors' wrongs, when they are spoken against without cause. Surely He so feeleth it, that even by and by He will undertake the righting of them, and cannot hold from punishing such offenders as so lightly regard His holy ordinance. We think that unless we keep ado in our own causes it is not well (and I condemn not all care this way), but certainly none have been sooner and better righted than such as patiently have endured a time and committed things to the justice of God. 2. He calleth the two offenders by themselves, leaving Moses to hear and see for his comfort the Lord's care for him. And this also is a great point of justice, to call persons that have done amiss, not carrying matters in secret and condemning without hearing. 3. He speaketh to them and biddeth them hear His words as He had heard theirs. Which likewise showeth that true justice chargeth men, and doth not hoard up in heart what cutteth off love and liking; giving good words outwardly, and yet inwardly thinking most evil things. Oh, let us hear your words if you have conceived any offence, and then will either confession or true purgation give satisfaction? The contrary course may have policy in it, but who shall justify it for piety, charity, or any virtue? 4. In His words He setteth down the difference of prophets, showing that all have not alike measure vouchsafed of Him, and therefore may not argue, I am a prophet as well as he; ergo , as good as he. Such kind of reasonings have in all times disquieted the Church and peace of the godly. The differences which God layeth down you see in the text. To some by vision; to some by dream; to some in darker words, to some in plainer; but to Moses mouth to mouth; that is in a more excellent measure of grace, and familiar favour than ever to any. Therefore, although the Lord had also spoken by them; yet forasmuch as it was not in that degree as to Moses, they should not have compared themselves with him, but yielded him a reverence above themselves. Yea, how were ye not afraid, saith the Lord, to speak against My servant Moses, even against Moses? So showing that imparity of grace and gifts from the Lord should work ever an imparity of honour and regard by all that will walk rightly, though in some other respect there may be a parity. ( Bp. Babington. ) Miriam became leprous. Numbers 12:10-16 The punishment of Miriam and Aaron W. Jones. I. THE DIVINE JUDGMENT BECAUSE OF THE SIN OF MIRIAM AND AARON. 1. The punishment was inflicted by the Lord. 2. The punishment was appropriate to the sin. 3. The punishment fell most severely upon Miriam. (1) She was the instigator of the sin. (2) Aaron's office of high priest also probably helped to shield him.Had he been smitten with leprosy he would have been disgraced in the eyes of the people, and his holy office would probably have been brought into disesteem amongst them.(3) Yet Aaron was not altogether exempted from punishment.As priest he had to examine Miriam and pronounce her leprous. Again he had to examine her and pronounce her clean before she was readmitted to the camp. That he deeply realised his painful position is evident from the narrative (vers. 10-12). Let us remember that there is judgment with God. II. THE DIVINE JUDGMENT LEADING TO PERSONAL HUMILIATION. 1. Humble acknowledgment to Moses. 2. Confession of sin. 3. Entreaty for the removal of the judgment from Miriam. III. THE REMARKABLE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE EMINENCE OF MOSES THE SERVANT OF THE LORD. 1. In the manner in which he was addressed by Aaron. 2. In the appeal which was made to him by Aaron. This appeal implies on the part of Aaron —(1) Faith in the magnanimity of Moses — that he would not retaliate upon them for their attack upon him; that he was forgiving and generous.(2) Faith in the influence which Moses had with God. IV. THE DISTINGUISHED MAGNANIMITY AND GRACE OF MOSES. "And Moses cried unto the Lord, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech Thee." There was no resentment in his heart, but fullest forgiveness and sincerest pity. His prayer for Miriam is an anticipation of the precept of our Lord, "Pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" ( Matthew 5:44 ). V. THE GREAT POWER OF THE INTERCESSION OF GOOD MEN. VI. THE JUSTICE AND MERCY OF GOD AS MANIFESTED IN HIS TREATMENT OF MIRIAM. VII. THE SIN OF ONE PERSON CHECKING THE PROGRESS OF AN ENTIRE NATION. ( W. Jones. ) Miriam smitten with leprosy W. Jones. I. THIS TRANSFIGURATION WAS BROUGHT TO PASS ON ACCOUNT OF THE JEALOUSY OF MIRIAM OF MOSES, AND THE JEALOUSY OF GOD FOR MOSES. II. THE TRANSFORMATION WAS IN KEEPING WITH THE EXPRESSED JEALOUSY OF GOD AND OF MIRIAM ( W. Jones. ) The punishment of wrong doers Homilist. I. THAT BOTH GOD AND MAN EXPRESS THEIR DISPLEASURE TOWARDS WRONG DOERS ON THIS EARTH. 1. God, in many ways.(1) Providential afflictions.(2) Moral remorses. 2. Man, also, in many ways.(1) Sometimes in his personal, capacity, by denunciatory language and physical chastisement.(2) Sometimes in his corporate capacity, as a member of the State, by pains and penalties. II. THAT THE WRONG-DOERS ARE GENERALLY FAR MORE AFFECTED BY THE EXPRESSION OF MAN'S DISPLEASURE THAN WITH THAT OF GOD'S. 1. Most irrational. 2. Most impious. 3. Most perilous. ( Homilist. ) The leprosy of Miriam Homiletic Monthly. 1. We should humbly submit to the will of Heaven. 2. We should remember that in the distribution of gifts, what is best for one may be destruction for another. 3. To covet the gift of a neighbour is a wrong to him and an offence to God. 4. Each man's duty is to develop the gift that is in him. ( Homiletic Monthly. ) Miriam and Moses F. B. Meyer, B. A. Was this weakness, as some would say? Nay, verily, it was the exhibition of colossal spiritual strength. It is the weak man who gives blow for blow, who blurts out his wrath, who cannot control the passion of his spirit. It may be well to give some closing rules as to the attainment of this meek and quiet spirit, which in sight of God is of great price. 1. Let us claim the meekness of Christ. This, of course, was not possible for Moses in the direct way in which it is for us. And yet there was no doubt in his case also a constant appeal for heavenly grace. And in moments of provocation there is nothing better than to turn to Him and claim His calm, His sweet silence,

Benson Commentary 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. Numbers 12:1 . And Miriam — Miriam seems to be first named, because she was the first mover of the sedition; wherefore she is more eminently punished. The Ethiopian — Either, 1st, 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, above Egypt, but for Arabia. If she be meant, probably they did not quarrel with him for marrying her, because that was done long since, but for being swayed by her and her relations, by whom they might think he was persuaded to choose seventy rulers; by which copartnership in government they thought their authority and reputation diminished. And because they durst not accuse God, they charge Moses, his instrument, as the manner of men is. Or, 2d, Some other woman whom he married, either while Zipporah lived, or rather because she was now dead, though that, as many other things, be not recorded. For, as the quarrel seems to have been about marrying a stranger, it is probable it was a flesh occasion about which they contended. And it was lawful for him as well as any other to marry an Ethiopian or Arabian woman, provided she were a sincere proselyte. Numbers 12:2 And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it . Numbers 12:2 . By us — Are not we prophets as well as he? So Aaron was made, ( Exodus 4:15-16 ,) and so Miriam is called, Exodus 15:20 . And Moses hath debased and mixed the holy seed, which we have not done. Why then should he take all power to himself, and make rulers as he pleaseth, without consulting us? The Lord heard — Observed their words and carriage to Moses. Numbers 12:3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.) 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 12:4 And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out. Numbers 12:4-5 . The Lord spake suddenly — To stifle the beginnings of the sedition, that this example might not spread among the people, the divine voice from the Shechinah interrupts them in the midst of their dispute, commanding Aaron and his sister to come forth from their tents to meet Moses immediately at the door of the tabernacle, which they did accordingly. The Lord stood in the door — While they stood without, Aaron not being admitted into the tabernacle as he used to be, a sign of God’s displeasure. Numbers 12:5 And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. Numbers 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. Numbers 12:6 . If there be a prophet among you — If you be prophets, yet know there is a difference among prophets, nor do I put equal honour upon all of them. In a vision — To some the divine will was communicated by strong impressions upon their imaginations when they were awake, but in an ecstasy, as in the case of Abraham, Genesis 15:1 ; Jacob, Genesis 46:2 ; and Daniel 8:1-15 . Now we never read that Moses was thus entranced in a prophetic vision. He was always awake and quite master of himself when conversing with God, or receiving communications from him. In a dream — To others God revealed his mind by figurative, enigmatical representations, exhibited to them in their sleep; as the ladder which was represented to Jacob in a dream, Genesis 28:12 . Numbers 12:7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. Numbers 12:7 . My servant Moses is not so — He is a prophet of a higher rank. To him I impart my mind in a far more noble and clear way. Who is faithful in all my house — God had set him over all Israel, who were his house, his family, or chosen people, and Moses was faithful in the performance of the trust reposed in him, executing all the divine commands, and doing nothing partially or of himself, as he was now falsely accused. In this he was an eminent type of Christ, as the apostle represents him, Hebrews 3:1-6 . Numbers 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? Numbers 12:8 . Mouth to mouth — In a most familiar manner, distinctly, and by an articulate voice, as one friend discourses with another, or as two friends in conversation hear and answer each other by turns. Moses enjoyed this singular privilege, which was vouchsafed to no other of the prophets, that God spoke to him immediately, and not by an interpreter, nor by shadows, and representations in his fancy, as in visions and dreams, but by a distinct audible voice, and that upon all occasions. Even apparently — Plainly and certainly, so that there was no difficulty to apprehend his meaning. Not in dark speeches — Not in parables, similitudes, dark resemblances; as by showing a boiling pot and an almond-tree to Jeremiah; a basket of summer fruits to Amos; a chariot with wheels, &c., to Ezekiel. The similitude — Not the face or essence of God, which no man can see and live, ( Exodus 33:20 ,) but some singular manifestation of his glorious presence, as that spoken of Exodus 33:11-23 . Yea, the Son of God, it seems, appeared to him in a human shape, which he assumed for a time, that he might give Moses a fore-token of his future incarnation. Against my servant Moses — Who is such in so eminent and extraordinary a manner and degree. Numbers 12:9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed. Numbers 12:9 . He departed — From the door of the tabernacle, in token of his great displeasure; not waiting for their answer. The removal of God’s presence from us is the saddest token of his displeasure. And he never departs till we, by our sin and folly, drive him from us. Numbers 12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous. Numbers 12:10 . From off the tabernacle — Probably not the whole tabernacle, but from that part to which it had come, to that part which was directly over the mercy-seat, where it constantly abode. Or, perhaps, it quite disappeared, or stood at a great distance till Miriam was removed from the tabernacle, and carried out of the camp. Miriam became leprous — The original expresses the fact here recorded with much more spirit and force. The cloud departed — and behold, Miriam became leprous — She, and not Aaron, either because she was chief in the transgression, or because God would not have his worship interrupted or dishonoured, which it must have been if Aaron had been leprous. White — This kind of leprosy was the most virulent and incurable of all. It is true, when the leprosy began in a particular part, and thence spread itself over all the flesh by degrees, and at last made it all white, that was an evidence of the cure of the leprosy, ( Leviticus 13:12-13 ,) but it was otherwise when one was suddenly smitten with this universal whiteness. Numbers 12:11 And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned. Numbers 12:11-12 . Lay not the sin — Let not the guilt and punishment of this sin rest upon us, upon her in this kind, upon me in any other kind, but pray to God for the pardon and removal of it. As one dead — Because part of her flesh was putrefied and dead, and not to be restored but by the mighty power of God. Like a still-born child, that hath been for some time dead in the womb, which, when it comes forth, is putrefied, and part of it consumed. Numbers 12:12 Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb. Numbers 12:13 And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee. Numbers 12:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again . Numbers 12:14 . If her father had but spit in her face — That is, had expressed some eminent token of indignation and contempt, in consequence of her having provoked him to anger by some undutiful behaviour. See Job 30:10 ; Isaiah 50:6 . Should she not be ashamed seven days — And withdraw herself from her father’s presence, as Jonathan did on a like occlusion? 1 Samuel 20:34 . And how much more ought she to be ashamed when she lies under this severe mark of the divine displeasure! So, though God had healed her according to Moses’s request yet he would have her publicly bear the shame of her sin, and be a warning to others to keep them from the same transgression. Numbers 12:15 And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days: and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again . Numbers 12:15 . Journeyed not — Which was a testimony of respect to her both from God and from the people; God so ordering it, partly lest she should be overwhelmed by such a public rebuke from God, and partly lest, she being a prophetess, the gift of prophecy should come into contempt. Numbers 12:16 And afterward the people removed from Hazeroth, and pitched in the wilderness of Paran. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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-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. The Expositor's Bible Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.