Two Spoke Against Moses, and even Against the Ethiopian Woman, but only One was Punished by a Just God, Why?

"And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it." (Numbers 12:1-2

So then, given what takes place between both Miriam and Aaron, why was only Miriam stricken with leprosy when it was both Aaron and Miriam who spoke against Moses? Is God not just?

I know the tradition of its teaching, but I believe there is something we completely miss about this word. Yes, Miriam is listed first in Numbers 12:1 but it was an Aaron who held the greater office, having even the greater level of responsibility/authority (or at least recognized as so). This, though I doubt contested, is even confirmed in the order they were called before the LORD after the time of the offense:

"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)

But was Miriam stricken and not Aaron because the people were still following her over Moses, yet this was not in alignment with what was the will of God in the deliverence of his people? It was an assignment as we know for Moses. Yes she was a bridge between the people she had always known and a Moses who had not, but it was not a permanent assignment for her, it was transitional. Yet she did nevertheless serve as a defacto leader of the people in addition to herself (as a watchful big sister in service to the Lord) having earlier even looked over a baby Moses. The entire camp, as word records, even refused to move until she was able to rejoin it.

"And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days; and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again. (Numbers 12:15)

A weak Aaron of course is out of the question, but did God do this in order that the people might better begin to transition (in her physical absence and outward state of shame) from looking to a Miriam for leadership and not a Moses? And was the stigma of her punishment (leprosy) so severe because perception and preference of her as a leader among the people, both the male and the female, was just that strong and needed to be broken even by movement of God? (And yet despite this they, both men and women, still waited for her).

Again, putting aside how it is traditionally taught, if this is not true, given that she alone and not also Aaron was punished, how can we otherwise call it a just action by God?

Note too that God did not even instruct Moses to leave Miriam behind. That He purposed this to bring a change in the leadership but it was not, despite as it appeared on the surface, retribution taken against Miram by God.

Views: 143

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

oooooh yall have been busy, Sis. Davidson, lol , Miriam was a symbol of unity as she shared in the triumphs and hopes of Isarel. Unfortunately, she is transformed at this point as a leader of discord, division and discontent.

Again God's ways are not our ways, think about Aaron, his horror at how his beloved and forceful sister had been stricken with leprosy.

This didn't just affect Aaron, but MOSES as well, they both prayed with brotherly love for her that the punshment might pass.

It affected the whole nation, and Miriam held up the progress of the people for seven days, the people did'nt travel anywhere untl Miriam was brought in again. , When Moses came to write out the law in respect to leprosy, he mentioned his sister as an example, Deut. 24:9

Again, can you imagine the pain that Aaron felt? at his sister's dilemma, " why didn't I as priest tell her to hush"
Sister Fugett,

I think you hit the nail on the head about Miriam and what must (or should have been) the feelings of Aaron! I have been concluding the same but include too what happened with his role in creating the golden calf and the subsequent lost lives of people and regarding the lives of his two sons consumed by God's fire (that he should have recognized his own negligence in failing to rightly teach not just one oldest son, but two, in how and that they should have great fear of the LORD. It seems to me that God was using even the failures of Aaron as a lesson to future generations in the critical importance of leadership. That you must stand up for God before the people or even just a person (like a Miriam) regardless of potential harm, intimidation, or fear. That integrity, holiness, and truth matters. People will follow and it can cost them their lives.

If you haven't already, take a look too at what was posted to and from Brother Gill as we were discussing the same and let me know what you think. I will say, what he and I both found interesting is that in Numbers 12:11 Aaron addresses Moses as if he was God. I think Aaron is an interesting guy. I am finding a whole new demension of this word that I have never even heard of before.
Evg. Fugett, I bet if that were to happen here on BPN, you wouldn't get that sympathetic prayer from some. But instead you would get a self-righteous, pious, judgmental finger pointing as they sling scriptures at a "Miriam". LOL

I bet if the Miriam where here today she would be called a feminist just because she spoke to a Moses that way. God punished her so obviously she was wrong... after all He knew her heart, He knew the motive behind her mouth. Just as He knew Sarah's unbelief and laugh within herself as she overheard that she would have a child in her old age.

What you said about Moses and Aaron's love for her sister... do you see that as the norm in this day and age between the brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ? Or are their buzzards circling waiting to pick at the carcass of a fallen brother/sister. Are their those who race to various forum discussions to cast their self-righteous stones? *sigh*

I've been a buzzard that circled.. I've been self-righteous... and when God shows you YOU... man your righteousness is as filthy rags compared to Christ.

Miriam's story is a wonderful example of watch what you say and how you say it. It is also a story of not to compare punishment that God dishes out. He is sovereign! God is on God's side. God works out HIS plan and won't go against HIS plan. That was an excellent point about the priesthood of Aaron that was mentioned here in this discussion.
Hello Bro. Germain,

You said:
Sister, in your message above you assert that Miriam was a LEADER endowed with an heavier RESPONSIBILITY simply because she has been PUNISHED.

You cannot be more incorrect, that is not the basis of this conversation at all, it is not even an assertion posted by anyone. My question is, if two spoke against Moses, why then was only one punished, particularly given that the one not punished was as high priest who even failed to rebuke a Miriam.

As for what you quote from another even earlier discussion of mine regarding the garden (which this again is not) I stand by it. As I said to Bro. Watson, I am still growing and like anyone else there are at times things I have said that I would wish to revise, but this is not one of them and I have never spoken (or it has never been my intent) without regard to the holiness of God first and the fully applied Hebrew of the garden word. Now, I do at times struggle with my tone, that would be a fair outward criticism of me to make, but it is a very difficult thing not to speak as even God is giving it.

And, on the advice of Higher Counsel, I will restrain from addressing you in like manner as you have chosen to speak to me but I am more than happy to discuss the issues at hand.
Brother Watson,

My goal is to accomplish unbiased knowledge about what the full revealed word of God says. In the process of doing so, what I have found is that word does not support many things which have been taught, particularly regarding the garden word. I have gotten used to labels, so feel free, but at the end of the day, we still must deal with the truth of word.

Now, am I still growing? But of course I am! Then again, neither of us has everything. Billy Graham said we should always remain teachable. I have never asked anyone to believe something simply because I do, which by the way is essentially the predominant reply of a male pulpit who are themselves unable to fully explain the garden word to the glory of God and even in truth regarding an Adam, but who nevertheless feel justified to subjugate females.

The question I have for you is, might it be that the actual truth of word is intimidating in its truth?.Anything I have ever said I can back up in the Hebrew and I do not present what I think I know as definitive truth in light of what is clearly greater truths. All I ask of anyone is to prove their position in word and not the tradition of word. We are supposed to examine word and if one is called as a teacher and puts God first, then they are supposed to teach, even doing so humbly, and not merely exercising control in circumstances of having the revealed, but not the applied knowledge of the Hebrew.

This however is not a garden discussion and nor should it be made personal.
But Brother Watson this is exactly what I mean. I would love to learn from you, which is why I want you to remain in the conversation.

My only point regarding the Hebrew (and again this is not supposed to be a garden conversation) is that we must employ the full application of it, like what does "Adam" really mean? Why does Hebrew call him a "hypocrite," how did he prove himself to be so and did this give him cause to confess and if so, did he? What does "Eve" mean, what does "woman" always mean and then in contrast why are there two distinctly different Hebrew definitions for the term of "man?" Might the rebellious work of Adam in Genesis 2:23, a man named "Adam" by God but now calling himself "Man" instead, a use of the term "man" (though while not even suitable as a name) not applicable to any person first called an "Adam" by God, have anything to do with it? What does it mean that Eve earned title as “mother of all living” in a fallen world and yet Adam respectively also did not? What does that mean? Am I operating then with the Jezebel spirit by making use of the full Hebrew? Even the full import of the word? Is the word then now also Jezebel, because it’s all in here.

And yes, I came to have my views based upon my experiences, experiences which did not prove God to be holy, not a respecter of persons, and not a liar. So God then used my broken state to remove the tradition and take me to the actual word. It is not actually me you are coming against, it is the Hebrew of the word. If you want to call me a feminist, a womanist, a Jezebel, that is your choice as those terms no longer affect me, but I refuse to bow down to anything less than truth.

I also was not speaking to, or about all male pulpits but only those of the male tradition and within the context of our conversation, only to you. You referred to me as a feminist and a womanist in an attempt to label and dismiss me. In my response to you, I simply identified the source of that spirit and it is a spirit which refuses to recognize the full Hebrew of the garden word.

Would you like to discuss full application of the garden word according to the Hebrew? If so, we can begin a separate discussion on these matters, as I said in starting this post, I would love to learn from your answers. As a Church, even a called people of God, we can put an end to all of this by simply and even honestly employing full application of the Hebrew in the garden word. For people who love God, this is not an issue of women seeking to control men, it is about what does the word of God truly say. Yes, let’s do the Hebrew.

In truth none of us are unbiased and you are right to call me on that. I said it in an attempt to lead you away from thinking that I posed this question based upon a personal agenda other that what the word says in Numbers Chapter Twelve which is what I was hoping to continue discussing here.

As a female, if I am rebelling in word according to the Hebrew (as we are discussing garden issues), then show it to me according to the Hebrew, don’t just talk about me. I have posed more than a few questions above. Let’s get further along in having real conversation.

God bless.
Brother Watson,

Although I don't remember it being posed as a question, I must have misinterpreted the compliment from you to me as a "feminist/womanist," so thank you and as I said before I am beyond the labels, so whether outright Jezebel or spirit of Jezebel, it's ok, my only interest is in the truth of the word. As an aside, I am not at all bothered by biblical references of God as "He," or even speaking of the humans as "he" or "man." In my opinion, it is only indicative of the time the word was actually recorded, as given by God, but as physically preserved by man. My interest lies in what man is saying about my God to me, is God being exalted or is the man? I am looking for the meat, not the bone.

Regarding the Hebrew, as I see it there is no difficulty in discussing the Hebrew of the word as is given in what is common to most in reference/study books. Most of the individuals in fact I have conversed with on the BPN are quick to throw a word from either the Hebrew or the Greek into the fire. There may have been times throughout the ages when extreme difficulty, if not complete impossibility, was certain regarding making detailed study of word, but today resources abound and I give God the glory for it as he purposed his word to increase the life of his people.

I am sure not to be a match for you given all of your accomplishments, but the source that I use is "The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" and I have always found it to be consistent, if not even more explanatory of truth in detail and nature.

But again, this would be a garden discussion and not appropriate in such detail in this particular discussion. So if you would like to meet elsewhere in a post let me know, I will look forward to it.

Peace and love.
God bless you Sister! I have to say, it has become much more than I thought. I will never look at it the same. Aaron, I think is a teaching all by himself and how valuable! I simply love examing word and within the constraints of who we know God is and the relevent original languages of revealed knowledge, I have learned to remain teachable. There unfortunately is a great deal of tradition out there. I received a major setback in life due to tradition and not truth which is why I am learning to take my knicks and bruises with grace (counting it all as a joy)as I continue to push forward exalting fidelity to word and not the mind of man. That is the call of God on my life.
Dear sister Dawn Davidson,

You've said many things, but you failed to answer my question:

If I'm not mistaken, you think that the unpunished Aron was WEAK and the punished Miriam was a LEADER.

So, If the PUNISHMENT is the clue of the responsibility and leadership bestowed upon someone, then why do you refuse to admit that ADAM WAS THE LEADER in the Eden Garden?

The Bible declares:

« For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables ».

2 Timothy 4:3-4

Dear sister, with all due respect, I would like to tell you that you have turned away your ears from the truth, and you have been turned unto fables!

Blessings,

Bro. Germain
Brother Germain,

Aaron proved himself to be weak in his position as high priest in leading (out of fear) the people to create a golden cafe, in not properly teaching his son's as priests so that they might know better than to incur the consuming fire of God, and even in not immediately rebuking Miriam for speaking against Moses, a brother who after all (even in addition to his position) pleaded with God on Aaron's behalf that God would not destroy Aaron after the event of the golden calf. I do not accept that because one is punished that determines leadership. In this instance I have stated that an Aaron who was high priest did have the greater level of responsibility to correct a Miriam, that was his position. That is as in order I believe, as it is reasonable, logical, and expected.

I do not believe that the garden word proves God created the male to be greater than the female but only as equal. Yet again, this is not the basis of the discussion that we are having here, so again I would ask you to adhere to the conversation at hand. But I will say, the first paragraph in Sister's Doretta Lee's reply above in fact, by way of her method, perfectly describes my mind even about the garden word.

That God is not a respecter of persons but he is a just God of foreknowledge and the garden was a test for the humans to individually first, but even better together as one in marrriage, prove to function righteously in God and to his glory only. That the garden was not purposed by God to instead exalt (or even be used to exalt) the unchecked flesh of mankind, be it male or female. What excites me about her approach is if we remove gender from the garden word and adhere to the Hebrew, we will see a clear, plain path of sin, confession, forgiveness, and honor belonging to (unfortunatly just) one only in the garden. Now Sister Doretta Lee was not speaking of the garden word (I want to be clear about that), only I am, but it is the possibility of her appraoch in application to the garden word which I like.

But again, (even checking myself!) we are speaking here specifically about the word in Numbers 12.
I am going to explain where I now am in this and then postulate a question based upon it.

I believe (in speaking for myself and no one else) that Miriam was indeed first motivated by a spirit of nationalism for the nation of the Israelites given the marriage of Moses to the Ethiopian woman. As they were all people of color, and she was a sister to Moses and not a wife, and that Aaron also was in complete agreement with her, I also respectfully dismiss that she was in anyway motivated by jealousy of the Ethiopian wife of Moses. That being also only if Moses had no other wives who were not also of the people of the Israelites, but to my understanding with the exception of the Ethiopian wife they all were.

I also believe that God did not mitigate the circumstances of punishment for a Miriam based upon a feeling of tenderness or even favor alone, but only because what she felt for the nation of Israel, in that they keep to themselves as a way of remaining faithful before and unto God, was in agreement with both the will and even desire of God for a young nation still even learning their God and his will for them to exalt his ways only. But that even still Moses, although unbeknownst to Miriam, was acting within the will of God by taking this Ethiopian woman as a wife because for a more mature nation of believers it was the will of God for others not of the nation of Israel to renounce their lesser gods, join themselves to the Israelites, and then also believe. Keeping in line with the postings of Sister Fugett, perhaps between the two, Miriam represented the will of God for one stage and area of progression for the Israelites, and Moses, of even a much greater anointing, call, and position was representing, even in marrying the Ethiopian woman, a representation of the will of God for an Israelite nation of the future, a group of people growing as believers to include others, of and from other nations but all believing, or submitting to believe, in the same and even the One and Only True God of the Israelites.

I believe that, though it was otherwise an act of rebellion for both (with Miriam as instigator and an Aaron as high priest who thought not enough of it to rebuke her but to participate), Miriam was stricken with leprosy and not also Aaron due to, as I gleaned from postings by Brother Gill (not that he believes the same as I do), that we must also consider, that no matter how severe were these failing on behalf of Aaron as high priest (and that even including his leadership before the people in making the golden calf and in the death of his two eldest sons due to their lack of regard and knowledge of how and that they should greatly fear the Lord) God was already determined to use an Aaron in the position as high priest.

As such God could not also strike this man with leprosy as it would disqualify him from even occupying the office of high priest. But that, in his end, God did exercise judgment in bringing about Aaron’s death in direct connection to, but not also the cause of, rebellion by a brother Moses, who even God says in Exodus 4:16 (and Aaron proved in Numbers 12:11) that Aaron received as his own god. So that as the time of his own god’s departure, that is death, grew near (and that god being a Moses) so would the time of Aaron’s own, and as even logic would suggest, the death of an Aaron would precede it.

I believe that God elected to continue use of Aaron as high priest despite so many grave failings, due to Aaron’s supportive role in the life of his brother Moses and as a model in the office for future generations (given the state of an Aaron, a man driven by personal fear and intimidation in leadership), that given the call he received and despite any personal shortcomings, it was within both the will and ability of God to strengthen and to teach him to overcome and to, particular to Aaron, courageously demonstrate greatest regard for the holiness and sanctity of God regardless of potential harm or insult to his person.

I am still undetermined about whether Aaron could also have been referred to as a prophet and that is due to more required study of my own, although I can now say, that from what I have found, God only refers to Aaron as a prophet in direct reference to a brother Moses (Exodus 7:1) who Aaron received as his god. Perhaps the argument can be made that God purposed this before the people of Egypt for his glory, which he did get, but I must still first hearken back to Exodus 4:14-15 where the anger of God makes it clear that the use of an Aaron as mouthpiece is only due to a lack of faith on behalf of Moses.

Given that I still doubt Aaron can be called a prophet in addition to his position as high priest, I still am persuaded that God is speaking of Miriam even on the level of a prophet in Numbers 12:6, and that as she was additionally the instigator of the trouble at hand, God was directly making a difference before her between how he received and communed with her as prophet (through that of visions and dreams), versus how he, even mouth to mouth, communed with Moses. As if God was saying to her, Miriam do not be either confused or deceived, yes you see visions and dreams given to you from me, but even that is still no comparison to how my servant Moses receives me, even mouth to mouth and in form of person to person. Having said all of this, I further still believe that God purposed to use this occasion in order to demote a Miriam in the eyes of the people and to promote the standing of a Moses. Yet another reason why God is still proven just in his actions in striking a Miriam with leprosy, and not also, in some other feasible yet suitable way, on the spot punishing an Aaron who given the office of high priest bore the greater responsibility to do well before God and especially in the presence of another.

I might also add, that though brother and sister, I still highly doubt, unless Miriam was also of leadership (and even if only defacto), that God would have reprimanded Aaron in any way before her. That He would reprimand her in front of an Aaron yes, but not an Aaron as high priest in front of her, especially if the entire point was solely an issue of her rebellion to the authority of Moses for whatever the reason. Aaron was after all also already struggling with enough issues regarding his leadership (and even in identifying who rightly was his God).

Regarding non-movement of the camp in the absence of a leprous Miriam, I am still left to wonder if not outright think, that it was not the will of God to symbolically say or suggest that a Miriam would not return to her place among the people, but that only given the episode and circumstance of her punishment, she would return giving preference and deferment now, and even before the people despite how they still chose to regard her, to the leadership of Moses. That even by model of her public submission to Moses, so would the people better follow as well.

In Numbers 12:14 God states concerning and after the seven day length of Miriam’s punishment, “let her be received in again” and Numbers 12:15 states “and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again.” Either way, whether due to the people and God’s understanding of them regarding the issue of Miriam, or by the sheer will of God, he did not cause the people to move until Miriam was returned to the camp. A non-movement by the camp which in turned assured that a now changed and humbled Miriam, before God and her brother Moses as leader, and even a Miriam of past obedient service to God as defacto leader, was in no way, be it symbolic or otherwise, left behind. That there was a change in leadership as it actually existed before the people, and as it even occurred up and until this point as aid in getting them out of Egypt (and even working as allowed by God toward the good given the familiar relationship of Miriam among the Hebrews versus that of a newly returned and then even murderous, palace raised Moses who the people proved to doubt).

Finally, having stated all of this I ask, given that we have discussed how an Aaron must have felt knowing that Miriam was stricken with leprosy and he as high priest, having done the same and even as high priest was not, how did a Miriam as a nationalist, who in her mind was standing up for the way of God, feel knowing that she alone was? Experiencing this also while knowing that it was an Aaron, her brother as high priest who led others into deadly sin (for them) by creating the golden calf, and that it was he, who failed to rightly train two eldest sons in the priesthood on a level as basic as showing respect and fear of God so that they might not be consumed by the fire of God as they were (and again not he). Consider too that this was a Miriam rebuked, turned leprous and though healed, who died before knowing that Aaron was finally punished. Did she even understand how God was using Aaron in the life and ministry of Moses?

I say this to say, if God did not purpose, and even make evident to her that he purposed her punishment as a means to transfer full leadership, and even defacto, in the eyes of the people to Moses, then how is what God did in punishing her, and not also an Aaron as high priest having an even greater responsibility (even to her) to lead and not participate, ever made just in her life given that she died before and without understanding of Aaron’s own end? What was she left to think about God and do you believe it matters? And if it matters, (as I obviously believe it does) how is it rightly applied within the context of this word and the demands of a just God?

The hour is late, I hope this all makes sense.
Doretta,

You are absolutely right and I will follow your advice next time. My earlier discussions have specifically been about the garden word and it seems I have just gotten used to that particular contingency of individuals and it is unfortunate because relevant and even revelatory examination of what otherwise will remain obscure in word is shut down. But then again, as you correctly say they know that!

RSS

© 2024   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service