Chukat: the sin of hitting the rock

[cellio]

On Shabbat I read the third aliya of Chukat. I spoke from a sparse outline, so this isn't exactly what I said, but this post is composed from the same outline. That'll have to do. :-)

In this portion the people demand water, and God tells Moshe and Aharon to speak to a rock and water will issue forth. Instead, though, Moshe yells at the people and hits the rock, and while the people do get water from it, God tells Moshe and Aharon "no Eretz Yisrael for you". But what was the big deal? This doesn't seem like the most severe sin either of them has committed; what was the sin in this act that warrants such a punishment?

Some commentaries argue that it's that Moshe lost his temper, lashing out at the people and calling them rebels. Not only that, but he did it very publicly, in front of the whole congregation. Some in this group have argued that surely breaking the first tablets was a greater sin, but there's a key diference. In that case, Moshe came down from the mountain, saw the people dancing around the golden calf, and in an instant of grief flung down the tablets. In this case, though, he had time to hear the complaints, go to God to ask what to do, receive an answer, and assemble the people before he lashed out at them. This was not an immediate emotional reaction like the earlier incident. That said, though, I don't think that's all of it.

Some have suggested that the sin was taking the miracle away from God. If they had spoken to the rock and gotten water that would have been an unambiguous miracle; while most rocks do not contain reserves of water that can quench the thirst of two million people and their animals, there is still room for people to say "Moshe did that" instead of "God did that". This is a problem, but I don't think that's the whole problem either.

Some have suggested that it was just plain necessary for Moshe and Aharon to step down, and if it hadn't been this it would have been something else. In other words, the consequences aren't so much a punishment for this sin; rather, this sin is an excuse for the consequences that would have been necessary anyway. If Moshe, who led the people out of Egypt and has had a face-to-face relationship with God for the last 40 years, were to lead the people into the land as well, would it ever be possible for another leader to take over? Would we end up with the cult of Moshe instead of the followers of God? It's a real possibility.

In addition, it seems likely that Moshe and Aharon were by now having trouble relating to this generation. They are close to 120 years old; the oldest in the congregation are less than half their age and most are less than a third their age. Moshe and Aharon personally experienced the exodus; the congregation did not. They have a different perspective, and the people might need leaders who share their experiences. I'm not saying that old leaders are bad, but relationship-building is key and there may have been a failure here to do that.

It also seems plausible that this transition was mandated years ago. Back in Sh'lach L'cha, after the report of the spies, God condemned all of this generation except Caleb and Joshua. Note that he didn't actually say "and Moshe and Aharon". I think this change in leadership was determined all the way back then.

And if that's correct, I have a beef with God.

It is certainly true that Moshe and Aharon made serious mistakes. We hold our leaders to higher standards, and rightly so. Attacking the people you're supposed to be leading, when you've had time to cool down and should know better, is a serious mistake; so is taking undue credit for good outcomes. But where was God's compassion in all of this? He could have taken Moshe and Aharon aside and said "it's time for new leaders", privately. He didn't have to set them up to fail. As a member of our congregation pointed out to me after the service, their sister has just died; they're probably already a little off-kilter from that.

It is entirely appropriate that we set high standards for our leaders, but we must also remember that they are human beings who are every bit as deserving of compassionate treatment as anyone else is. Of course there are times when we must make a problem public, but we should always try to resolve it privately first -- not just because it's expedient but because it's what caring people do.

Edit 7/13/2005: On further reflection I believe that my understanding of this incident is wrong and osewalrus has it right.

Comments

Re: This is your first problem with God?

[cellio]

Actually, Bob's commented here before and I don't think he's a troll. He obviously comes from a different background, and I think he may have confused two similar-sounding names.

Re: This is your first problem with God?

[(Anonymous)]

The name my Bible translates as "Joshua" is the same Hebrew name as the one that's translated "Jesus" in the New Testament.

Translators do funky things with names. The Book of James, in the New Testament, was written by Judas (not Iscariot). To cut down on the confusion, they translate the name as James.

The worst example of mistranslation is a female leader's name in the early Christian church that is deliberately mistranslated as a man's name to avoid the problem of a female leader in the early Church.

Rob

names

[cellio]

Joshua is "Yehoshua" in the Hebrew, and it's clearly a different word. Did the word undergo some mutation when it passed through the Greek?

Thanks for the information on the mistranslations. I hadn't heard of the woman-becoming-a-man one before. (Who was it?)

Re: names

[(Anonymous)]

First, I apologize. I didn't mean to disrupt your blog. My heart is rather unsettled, having finished off Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and almost all of Deuteronomy in my reading. The picture those books present of God is, at best, disturbing.

I went with the Pittsburghese version of Yehoshua! After saying "Gianiggle" all these years, it's no wonder. Seriously, the Hebrew "Yehoshua" and the Greek "Iesous" are the same name. It causes some translation problems for English-speaking readers when the translators goof up which English name to use in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. If they used the same name for both, it would eliminate one set of confusions and create another. They both mean "God is Salvation," with the actual word for "God" being His name.

At the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, when I took a survey course for laity, the prof was real big on names. In what I'd call the OT, so many of the names are puns. Being a "punmonster" myself, this was something I get a kick out of.

Junia is listed as an apostle in Romans 16:7 (http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B45C016.htm)

Notice how many of the translations translate her name as Junias, instead of Junia, even though it's consistently feminine in the Greek. A lot of Christians have problems with women leaders. I'm from a more liberal tradition that recognizes that God chose women leaders in the Old Testament. So we have female ministers, deacons, and elders, although we do prefer that they leave their tent pegs and hammers at home when attending meetings.

Actually, at your typical session meeting, everyone needs to leave the tent pegs and hammers at home. The temptation would be too great. No one needs to go to Jael. (Sorry, had to do it).

Re: names

[cellio]

First, I apologize. I didn't mean to disrupt your blog.

Don't sweat it. If everyone agreed with me all the time, life would be boring -- and if I can't handle feedback, I shouldn't enable it.

The picture those books present of God is, at best, disturbing.

There is a large body of interpretation out there, for what that's worth to you. The plain meaning of the text is important, but sometimes the additional layers of interpretation help one to see it in new ways.

Thanks for the info about Junia.

Actually, at your typical session meeting, everyone needs to leave the tent pegs and hammers at home.

Yeah, I can see that being a good idea. :-)

Re: names

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

IIRC, there's also some gender confusion of names along about the place where Jesus tells Peter that he's the rock upon which he'll build the church, with a single source word being translated "petros" in one place and as "petra" in another, ostensibly because the author wanted to avoid Peter having a feminine name. I consequently have little faith in any language-gender argument that went through Greek at some point. :)