New to The Shuvah Project? what it is and why it’s necessary.
…be killed, and be raised on the third day… if anyone wants to come after Me… he must take up his cross.
-Luke 9:22-23
Section One (Parsha Debrief):
This week’s Parsha (Numbers 19:1-22:1) contained: a purification ritual, Miriam’s death, the community assembling against Moses and Aaron, Moses hitting the rock, Moses and Aaron being barred from the promised land, Israel being denied passage through Edom, Aaron’s death, Israel mourning Aaron, a vow, poisonous snakes, intercession, more journeying, and more battles for land.
One of the major events is God telling Moses and Aaron they will not be allowed to set foot in the promised land.
Let’s quickly run through how we got here.
The people, once again, grumble about how they’re thirsty and how it would’ve been better in Egypt. God tells Moses to speak to the rock and provide water for the people. Moses instead, seemingly angry, strikes the rock with his staff; twice.
Two things about this particular Text stand out to me:
1) this is only Moses’ third blunder in 80-some years (and he’s had ample opportunity to lash out). You think his first one—when he killed an Egyptian—would be a larger offense and grounds for being barred, but that didn’t bar him from the promised land.
2) the author flips God’s and Moses’ roles. By that I mean, for most of the desert when the people grumbled, God responded with aggression and Moses with intercession. Yet, here, God seems relaxed about the grumbling and Moses is pissed. What gives?
In the same vein, Rabbi Haim Sabato in Rest for the Dove asks why God forgives Israel for their strife over the water, but not Moses.
Some teachers explain God’s reaction (e.g., God’s patience) as connected to this being a new generation (see footnote #1). Recall after the spies’ debacle, that generation was doomed to wander and die in the desert. Well, in this parsha we are on the cusp of entering the promised land with the young children of the previous generation, so they are new to navigating a relationship with God.
Sure. Maybe that explains God’s role reversal, but what about Moses’, and what about the punishment? Two posts ago we asked ourselves the same question—does the punishment fit the crime?
The Text states the ‘crime’ as the desecration of God’s name:
“And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe in me, to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them.”
– Numbers 20:12
It’s important to note the word holy here is the Hebrew word qāḏaš which means to consecrate, sanctify, prepare, dedicate, be hallowed, or be separate—in God’s eyes, they failed to set Him apart, or in some translations let Him set Himself apart.
To Rabbi Sabato, the desecration of God’s name is unforgivable.
It seems like we are getting closer to understanding being barred. Sanctifying God’s name is uber-important throughout this narrative, throughout this tale of two kingdoms. Just think back to the plot of the exodus (see footnote #2). It makes sense that failing to do so leads to a harsh punishment for the leader, the person who is supposed to portray God to the people.
But, how did Moses fail to sanctify God’s name? Is this really a story about obedience—if you don’t do exactly what God asks you’ve profaned His name and find yourself unable to experience the thing you’ve spent years journeying toward? Remember, Moses didn’t want this gig. God practically begged Moses to confront Pharaoh and lead the people to the promised land. Now that they are there, God is going to take that all away simply because Moses hit the rock instead of talking to it—that’s nuts.
Something else must be involved in this Numbers 20 mishap.
To discover that something else we again turn to the Rabbis at Aleph Beta and the deeper story behind Moses striking the rock.
They point us to Rashi’s commentary at the beginning of Numbers 20. Rashi hones in on the “and” between verses 1 and 2. Specifically, he comments,
“Since this statement follows immediately after the mention of Miriam’s death, we may learn from it that during the entire forty years, they had the “well” through Miriam’s merit.”
Miriam dies. There is no water. Coincidence? I think not.
If we aren’t convinced, Paul seems to understand that a rock was carried through Israel’s time in the desert and that that rock provided the people with water (1 Corinthians 10:4). Paul moves to connect the rock to Jesus—but make no mistake, he was aware that tradition named this Miriam’s well.
Did you catch that there were two deaths in this Parsha? Did you spot the difference in what surrounds them?
That’s the something else!
Miriam dies. No one mourns. Moses strikes the—Miriam’s—rock.
Okay. That’s a little misleading. The Text says no one mourns, but there’s at least one person mourning—Moses. And, unveiling Moses’ emotions lets us understand the context. Moses almost looks like Korach here. At the very least, they are both grieving and express that grief through anger.
I’m choosing to believe Moses’ rationale for why he was banned from the promised land (built from years of hindsight), which leaves us to wrestle with why this Numbers 20 Text exists. To me, the role reversals jump out. I think we are to understand something about how powerful grief can be—especially given the proximity to the Korach story.
Moses interceded time and time again. Moses was uber-patient. Here—in grief—he lashes out.
Lashing out does not hallow, sanctify, or separate God’s name. Lashing out is like other gods.
Section Two (Connection to NT + haftarah):
If the real issue in Numbers 20 was the desecration of God’s name, as both modern and ancient Rabbis suggest, then maybe the author of Luke is trying to tell us something about hallowing God’s name in the first-century context.
Our Luke Text deals with Jesus acknowledging His inevitable death after a confrontation with the violent political system and the corrupt religious system.
But, unlike the Mark and Matthew accounts, the author of Luke leaves out Peter’s rebuke of Jesus.
Remember, while the author discusses things before Jesus’ death and resurrection, it’s being penned and heard some 50 years after that event. The audience would be familiar with Peter’s rebuke of Jesus, notice it missing, and wonder why.
So, what does the author want the listener to learn from it?
Rebuking Jesus isn’t trusting Jesus to make holy his name. Sound familiar? It should. This was God’s issue with Moses in our Numbers Text. So, just like in Moses’ case, the why matters in Peter’s case.
Let’s be clear, Peter is calling Jesus a liar. Peter is telling Jesus that His death and resurrection won’t happen.
When else do people deny the reality of impending death? In grief.
In fact, denial is the first stage of the Kubler-Ross grief cycle as discussed in Staying the Plague.
Moses mourned Miriam. Moses experienced grief. But, no one gave him a heads-up to process that grief, to prepare him. So, Moses expressed his grief through anger in reaction to something he normally shows compassion to.
Maybe the author is trying to highlight that Peter is one step/stage away from going too far. It’s like Peter and the disciples are given time to process their grief before the death. Like Jesus is trying to preempt something.
Just to be clear… Jesus is trying to prevent the disciples from participating in, maybe even initiating, a violent rebellion (see footnote #3).
And, maybe, the author of Luke likewise. Writing after the first Jewish-Roman War, but at a time of similar sentiment during Domitian’s reign—the author of Luke likely senses the community’s fears and desires for aggressive measures in the face of ethno-religious conflict.
Section Three (missing the mark):
Militarizing Jesus, and Christianity—misses the mark.
It missed the mark during the first century. It missed the mark during the 11th, 12th, and 13th century crusades. And, it still misses the mark today.
Unfortunately, as Dr. Kristin Kobes du Mez describes in her book, Jesus and John Wayne, the rhetoric, and mainstream ideology of militant Christian masculinity has persisted in American Christianity since the 1950s. Not coincidentally, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) was founded in 1954, as they aimed to use sports for evangelical purposes, ultimately to bring more men to Christ, and instill Christian values (see footnote #4).
But, what Christ? Their Christ. A masculinized Christ to ensure society didn’t end up with soft males (du Mez, p.159).
As one ‘Christian’ author of the time put it,
“[T]he church was part of the problem. Failing to present the true Jesus, [the church] instead depicted him “as a meek and gentle milk-toast character”—a man who never could have inspired “brawny fishermen like Peter to follow him.” It was time to replace this “Sunday school Jesus” with a warrior Jesus.”
-Gordon Dalbey, as quoted in Jesus and John Wayne, p.161
Note: du Mez knows the correct spelling and usage of milquetoast, it was Gordon who didn’t know the actual word.
Language matters. The language cannot and should not be about instilling anything. You don’t instill compassion. You don’t drill in love. Warrior language isn’t Jesus language. Period.
Yet, FCA teachings, and mainstream Christianity as whole, try to build an army for God. Greg Kerkvliet, depicted above, is an amazing wrestler—truly a wonder to watch. I don’t know him, and I’m sure he does love God. But, his tattoo and Mark bible verse are evidence of the skewed teachings he’s likely been handed. He’s been bombarded with language and stories of heroic masculinity, an underpinning of militant Christianity.
Do you see that spartan helmet? A warriors helmet—that Jesus never wore, nor would ever wear. Recall, Jesus told Peter at Gethsemane to sheathe his sicar—even in the face of temple police (Luke 22:52) and imperial soldiers (John 18:3).
What’s more, the Mark verse!
Jesus is reengaging a rabbinic debate about the greatest commandment. But, while Kerkvliet stops at one, Jesus’ real teaching suggests there are two… and it’s striking the one Kerkvliet leaves out—love thy neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:31). Striking, but not surprising. There’s no need for winners and losers, or valiant knights slaying wicked beasts if everyone goes around loving their neighbors.
The mission was and is to bring about shalom, ushered in through great acts of loving kindness (i.e., checed).
God doesn’t need an army.
Jesus had all authority. Jesus had untold power. He makes very clear that He could easily win with the military might of 12 legions of angels (Matthew 26:53). But, Jesus didn’t fight, He didn’t choose violence. That’s real courage. That’s real strength.
Jesus gave His life for the third way of non-violent resistance. He tried to prepare His disciples likewise, especially given His pending absence might stir their grief to anger and falsely justify a violent rebellion.
Section Four (real-world applications):
To borrow Rabbi Fohrman’s words,
“You can’t artificially replicate a world with [Jesus] after [Jesus] is gone, but you can do what [He] taught.”
-Rabbi Fohrman, in The Deeper Story Behind Moses Striking the Rock (see footnote #5)
Study Jesus. Do what He taught. Be prepared for the work of non-violent resistance.
Next Week’s Readings: Numbers 22:2–25:9; Luke 9:28-36
Footnotes:
- Rabbi David Block discusses this in the Aleph Beta video A Turning Point in Israel’s Relationship with God.
- In the Epiphany post, we unpacked God’s Exodus game plan. Although God says it multiple times, here’s the gist—I have let you live for this purpose: to show you (Pharaoh) My power and to make My name known in all the earth (Exodus 9:16).
- The great thing about the Text is that multiple things can be gleaned from a story. Yes, I think the grief comparison stands, but also, we know that Peter, as well as other disciples leaned more toward a militant uprising to overthrow Roman occupation. Thus, Peter rebukes Jesus, not because he doesn’t trust Jesus, but likely because he didn’t yet believe in Jesus’ third way of non-violent resistance. Peter, carrying a sicar, was likely connected to the Sicarii.
- We’ve talked about FCA before, and the experience wasn’t great—their teachings cast women as the problem to purity. In Section 3 of Reunion & Reconciliation, we unpack FCA student-athletes talking about what they’ve gathered from their purity culture teachings.
- Rabbi Fohrman was speaking of Miriam in His quote. I subbed Jesus in for Miriam. Rabbi Fohrman was not speaking of or hinting at Jesus in any way.
The Shuvah Project 