Numbers 11:1-35 Chavurah Shalom Saturday 11/18/17 Vv. 1-3 Complaint at Taberah Our Parashah for This Week Begins with the Patter
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Numbers 11:1-35 Chavurah Shalom Saturday 11/18/17 Vv. 1-3 Complaint at Taberah Our Parashah for this week begins with the pattern of life that will plague Israel throughout their wilderness journeys: Complaint, Divine Judgment, Naming the Place based upon the incident of the complaint. The nature of the complaint seems to be the lack of sumptuous food they were used to back in Egypt. It is as if they were complaining about the journey, the Goodness of God, and His provisions for them in the journey. Rather than look to God, or looking forward to a land flowing with milk and honey, they looked back to the bondage they had just left. Luke 9:62 But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” Specifically our text lists fish, leeks, onions, and garlic. These are items that we use to give our food more flavor. Our text simply begins with a complaint, and nothing is spelled out in the first three verses as to the nature of the complaint. Many scholars separate this issue from the following one concerning the manna verses the fish and vegetables of Egypt. Whatever the complaint, ADONAI answers with fire, here a deadly fire. The fiery presence of God always evokes fear, but does not always result in death. At this time, Israel is confronted with the Fiery Presence of God as both a repre- sentation of His Holiness, and also of His Judgment. The JPS Torah Commentary suggested it was lightning. Some claim it took the form of a plague or that it was actual fire, an interpretation that would be sup- ported by the verb “died down” and by the description of God’s wrath: “You send forth Your fury, it consumes them like straw” (Exod. 15:7). For instances of fire as divine punishment, see Numbers 16:35, Leviticus 10:2, and 2 Kings 1:10, 12. In any case, the outbreak of the fire is the result of a miracle, an indication that miracles can serve as divine punishment as well as salvation. The miracles of the quail in the next episode must be viewed in the same way.--pp. 82-83. The name of the place is called Taberah, literally "a burning." It is so named be- cause of the burning up of the people who murmured and complained against God. That this burning occured at the "edge" of the camp is taken by the Chumash to refer to the mixed multitude which left Egypt with the Israelites, and continued to be a thorn in the nation's side.--p. 76. There is however, nothing in our text to indicate that the "mixed multitude" was divided into those that were non Hebraic, - 1 - who camped on the outskirts of the main camp. That ADONAI has manifested His Presence as fire and now judges with fire is meant as a lesson for Israel, but here they have not learned from it but instead the murmuring and complaining continues. The Hebrew language is very pictureque. Our text begins with the Wrath of God to ,חָרַה ,from charah ,וַיִּ ֣חַ ר אַפּ֔ וֹ ,and it is pictured as His Nose flared up or burned burn or be angry. We might picture the flaring of the nostrils as a picture of some- one who is extremely agitated. Then we are told that "the fire of ADONAI" burned them and consumed the edge of the camp. Concerning the reference to the "edge of the camp:" This shows that the destructive fire did not come from the Taber- nacle as in cases cited in other (priestly) texts (e. g., Num. 16:35; cf. Lev. 10:2). Hebrew bi-ketseh can also be interpreted to refer to people, either the alien ele- ment who live at the edges of society or the important people of Israel.--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 82. There is no indication of a direction of the fire from God, only the location of the burning. There indeed are times when the fire comes down from the heavens, as in the plagues upon Egypt. However, there is no reason to doubt that this fire came from the Mishkan just as it did concerning Nadav and Avihu. We are not given a reference as to the magnitude of this burning. The Chumash noted it was of "the masses of the people," but was concentrated at the edge of the camp.--p. 76. We are simply left to wonder at its magnitude. It was a tremen- dous event, regardless of the number involved. God consumed them by His Fire. Then it was Moshe to the rescue. The people cried out, and Moshe prayed. The result was that the "fire died out." Moshe stands out throughout the journeys of Is- rael as the quintessential intercessor for Israel. In this role Moshe foreshadows our Great High Priest, Yeshua our Messiah, who ever lives to make intercession for the believer, Hebrews 7:25. That Fire represented both His Holy Presence and His Holy Displeasure was to serve to impress His Holy Majesty upon His Chosen People. There is to be both a sense of Honor, Respect, and Rejoicing at His Holy Presence along with a sense of Dread or Fear. Somehow we have lost this sense of dread. We see this theme as a common thread throughout the Scripture. Hebrews 10:31. Now, as this spot is distinctly described as the end or outermost edge of the camp, this “place of burning” must not be regarded, as it is by Knobel and others, as a - 2 - different station from the “graves of lust.” “Tabeerah was simply the local name give to a distant part of the whole camp, which received soon after the name of Kibroth-Hattaavah, on account of the greater judgment which the people brought upon themselves through their rebellion. This explains not only the omission of the name Tabeerah from the list of encampments in Num. 33:16, but also the circumstance, that nothing is said about any removal from Tabeerah to Kibroth- Hattaavah, and that the account of the murmuring of the people, be- cause of the want of those supplies of food to which they had been accustomed in Egypt, is attached, without anything further, to the preceding narrative. There is nothing very surprising either, in the fact that the people should have given ut- terance to their wish for the luxuries of Egypt, which they had been deprived of so long, immediately after this judgment of God, if we only understand the whole affair as taking place in exact accordance with the words of the texts, viz., that the unbelieving and discontented mass did not discern the chastising hand of God at all in the conflagration which broke out at the end of the camp, because it was not declared to be a punishment from God, and was not preceded by a previ- ous announcement; and therefore that they gave utterance in loud murmurings to the discontent of their hearts respecting the want of flesh, without any regard to what had just befallen them.--Keil & Delitzsch. This is an interesting proposition, that there are two instances of complaint and two judgments occuring at the same place on the same people in a short time from one another. It would suggest that the people did not learn well. We have in fact a se- ries of incidents before us where the people just don't seem to get it, and continue to invoke the Wrath of God. We are supposed to learn from our mistakes, and not continue to make the same mistake again and again. Yet, we find Israel guilty of that very thing! Vv. 4-9 Dissatisfaction with the Manna This is considered, as above, as a second incident hard on the heels of the first one where the Fire of God broke forth upon the people. This incident is far more de- tailed and complex. It originates from the camp's non-Israelite contingent which joined the Israelites in the Exodus, Exodus 12:38. The people crave a more varied diet than just manna, like the one they claim was available in Egypt. As commonly happens, the complaints of a few are echoed by the entire group.-- The Jewish Study Bible, p. 306. - 3 - riffraff" or "rabble." Perhaps" , א סַ פְ סֻ ף֙ ,Our text refers to these problem people as because our text refers to this "riffraff" who were among them, and then says "also the children of Israel wept again," this has been interpreted to mean the non-Is- raelite contingent. This term is associated with the term for "mixed multitude," -in Exodus 12:38. As you can clearly see, there is no direct connection be עֵ֥רֶ ב רַ֖ב tween these terms. However, they are both hapax legomenon, terms that appear only one time in the Scripture. Nevertheless, it is the common assumption of the Jewish commentators as well as others, that these two terms are used interchage- ably. I however, don't find good reason to make them a separate camp within Is- rael, or on its outskirts, for there is no text indicating this. In this case we find a double emphasis in their complaints. Our text literally says, "they desired a desire." There is nothing negative in the word for desire itself, but it is typically understood as a greediness. The new complaint was especially galling, for not only did they complain that their diet was insufficient - which the Torah testifies to be untrure (vs.