Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Numbers 12:4 - 12:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jehovah summoned the opponents of His servant to come at once before His judgment-seat. He commanded Moses, Aaron, and Miriam suddenly to come out of the camp (see at Num 11:30) to the tabernacle. Then He Himself came down in a pillar of cloud to the door of the tabernacle, i.e., to the entrance to the court, not to the dwelling itself, and called Aaron and Miriam out, i.e., commanded them to come out of the court,
(Note: The discrepancy discovered by Knobel, in the fact that, according to the so-called Elohist, no one but Moses, Aaron, and the sons of Aaron were allowed to enter the sanctuary, whereas, according to the Jehovist, others did so, - e.g., Miriam here, and Joshua in Exo 33:11, - rests entirely upon a groundless fancy, arising from a misinterpretation, as there is not a word about entering the sanctuary, i.e., the dwelling itself, either in the verse before us or in Exo 33:11.)
and said to them (Num 12:6.): “If there is a prophet of Jehovah to you (i.e., if you have one), I make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream (בֹּו, lit., “in him,” inasmuch as a revelation in a dream fell within the inner sphere of the soul-life). Not so My servant Moses: he is approved in My whole house; mouth to mouth I speak to him, and as an appearance, and that not in enigmas; and he sees the form of Jehovah. Why are ye not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?” נְבִיאֲכֶם = לָכֶם נָבִיא, the suffix used with the noun instead of the separate pronoun in the dative, as in Gen 39:21; Lev 15:3, etc. The noun Jehovah is in all probability to be taken as a genitive, in connection with the word נְבִיאֲכֶם (“a prophet to you”), as it is in the lxx and Vulg., and not to be construed with the words which follow (“I Jehovah will make Myself known”). The position of Jehovah at the head of the clause without a preceding אָנֹכִי (I) would be much more remarkable than the separation of the dependent noun from the governing noun by the suffix, which occurs in other cases also (e.g., Lev 6:3; Lev 26:42, etc.); moreover, it would be by no means suited to the sense, as no such emphasis is laid upon the fact that it was Jehovah who made Himself known, as to require or even justify such a construction. The “whole house of Jehovah” (Num 12:7) is not “primarily His dwelling, the holy tent” (Baumgarten), - for, in that case, the word “whole” would be quite superfluous, - but the whole house of Israel, or the covenant nation regarded as a kingdom, to the administration and government of which Moses had been called: as a matter of fact, therefore, the whole economy of the Old Testament, having its central point in the holy tent, which Jehovah had caused to be built as the dwelling-place of His name. It did not terminate, however, in the service of the sanctuary, as we may see from the fact that god did not make the priests who were entrusted with the duties of the sanctuary the organs of His saving revelation, but raised up and called prophets after Moses for that purpose. Compare the expression in Heb 3:6, “Whose house we are.” נֶאֱמַן with בְּ does not mean to be, or become, entrusted with anything (Baumgarten, Knobel), but simply to be lasting, firm, constant, in a local or temporal sense (Deu 28:59; 1Sa 2:35; 2Sa 7:16, etc.); in a historical sense, to prove or attest one's self (Gen 42:20); and in an ethical sense, to be found proof, trustworthy, true (Psa 78:8; 1Sa 3:20; 1Sa 22:14 : see Delitzsch on Heb 3:2). In the participle, therefore, it signifies proved, faithful, πιστός (lxx). “Mouth to mouth” answers to the “face to face” in Exo 33:11 (cf. Deu 34:10), i.e., without any mediation or reserve, but with the same closeness and freedom with which friends converse together (Exo 33:11). This is still further strengthened and elucidated by the words in apposition, “in the form of seeing (appearance), and not in riddles,” i.e., visibly, and not in a dark, hidden, enigmatical way. מַרְאֶה is an accusative defining the mode, and signifies here not vision, as in Num 12:6, but adspectus, view, sight; for it forms an antithesis to בַּמַּרְאָה in Num 12:6. “The form (Eng. similitude) of Jehovah” was not the essential nature of God, His unveiled glory, - for this no mortal man can see (vid., Exo 33:18.), - but a form which manifested the invisible God to the eye of man in a clearly discernible mode, and which was essentially different, not only from the visionary sight of God in the form of a man (Eze 1:26; Dan 7:9 and Dan 7:13), but also from the appearances of God in the outward world of the senses, in the person and form of the angel of Jehovah, and stood in the same relation to these two forms of revelation, so far as directness and clearness were concerned, as the sight of a person in a dream to that of the actual figure of the person himself. God talked with Moses without figure, in the clear distinctness of a spiritual communication, whereas to the prophets He only revealed Himself through the medium of ecstasy or dream.
Through this utterance on the part of Jehovah, Moses is placed above all the prophets, in relation to God and also to the whole nation. The divine revelation to the prophets is thereby restricted to the two forms of inward intuition (vision and dream). It follows from this, that it had always a visionary character, though it might vary in intensity; and therefore that it had always more or less obscurity about it, because the clearness of self-consciousness and the distinct perception of an external world, both receded before the inward intuition, in a dream as well as in a vision. The prophets were consequently simply organs, through whom Jehovah made known His counsel and will at certain times, and in relation to special circumstances and features in the development of His kingdom. It was not so with Moses. Jehovah had placed him over all His house, had called him to be the founder and organizer of the kingdom established in Israel through his mediatorial service, and had found him faithful in His service. With this servant (θεράπων, lxx) of His, He spake mouth to mouth, without a figure or figurative cloak, with the distinctness of a human interchange of thought; so that at any time he could inquire of God and wait for the divine reply. Hence Moses was not a prophet of Jehovah, like many others, not even merely the first and highest prophet, primus inter pares, but stood above all the prophets, as the founder of the theocracy, and mediator of the Old Covenant. Upon this unparalleled relation of Moses to God and the theocracy, so clearly expressed in the verses before us, the Rabbins have justly founded their view as to the higher grade of inspiration in the Thorah. This view is fully confirmed through the history of the Old Testament kingdom of God, and the relation in which the writings of the prophets stand to those of Moses. The prophets subsequent to Moses simply continued to build upon the foundation which Moses laid. And if Moses stood in this unparalleled relation to the Lord, Miriam and Aaron sinned grievously against him, when speaking as they did. Num 12:9. After this address, “the wrath of Jehovah burned against them, and He went.” As a judge, withdrawing from the judgment-seat when he has pronounced his sentence, so Jehovah went, by the cloud in which He had come down withdrawing from the tabernacle, and ascending up on high. And at the same moment, Miriam, the instigator of the rebellion against her brother Moses, was covered with leprosy, and became white as snow.