- 127-
withthe disappointment of seeing the good land almost within their grasp, and then
being turned back todie in the wilderness! And so the people broke forth in rebellion
against Moses and against Aaron.
Feelings similar to theirs seem to have taken hold even on Moses and Aaron - only in
a differentdirection. The people despaired of success, and rebelled against Moses and
Aaron. With them asleaders they would never get possession of the Land of Promise.
On the other hand, Moses andAaron also despaired of success, and rebelled, as it
were, against the people. Such an unbelievingpeople, rebelling at the very outset,
would never be allowed to enter the land. The people felt as ifthe prospect before them
were hopeless, and so did Moses and Aaron, although on oppositegrounds. As we
have said, the people rebelled against Moses and Aaron, and Moses and Aaronagainst
the people. But at bottom, the ground of despair and of rebellion, both on the part of
thepeople and of Moses, was precisely the same. In both cases it was really unbelief of
God. Thepeople had looked upon Moses and not upon God as their leader into the
land, and they haddespaired. Moses looked at the people as they were in themselves,
instead of thinking of God whonow sent them forward, secure in His promise, which
He would assuredly fulfill. This soon appearedin the conduct and language of Moses.
By Divine direction he was to stand in sight of the people at"the rock before their
eyes" with "the rod from before Jehovah" - no doubt the same with which themiracles
had been wrought in Egypt, and under whose stroke water had once before sprung
fromthe rock at Rephidim. (Exodus 17:6)
It is generally thought that the sin of Moses, in which Aaron shared, consisted in his
striking the rock- and doing so twice - instead of merely speaking to it, "and it shall
give forth its water;" and also, inthe hasty and improper language which he used on
the occasion, "Hear now, ye rebels, must wefetch you water out of this rock?" But it
seems difficult to accept this view. On the one hand, wecan scarcely imagine that
unbelief should have led Moses to strike, rather than to speak to the rock,as if the
former would have been more efficacious than the latter. On the other hand, it seems
strangethat Moses should have been directed to "take the rod," if he were not to have
used it, the more soas this had been the Divinely sanctioned mode of proceeding at
Rephidim. (Exodus 17:6)
Lastly, how, in that case, could Aaron have been implicated in the sin of Moses? Of
course, thestriking the rock twice was, as we read in Psalm 106:32, 33, evidence that
they had "angered"Moses, and that "his spirit was provoked." This also showed itself
in his language, which Scripturethus characterizes, "he spake unadvisedly with his
lips" - or, as the word literally means, "hebabbled." Be it observed, that Moses is not
anywhere in Scripture blamed for striking instead ofspeaking to the rock, while it is
expressly stated that the people "angered him also at the waters ofstrife, so that it went
ill with Moses for their sakes."
(^)