After that (for what form
will not rebellion assume?) Miriam and Aaron speak
against Moses. It is the prophetess and the priest (one
who has the word from God and access to God, the twofold
character of the people of God), who rise up against him
who is king in Jeshurun, with whom God speaks as unto His
friend. In this Moses is in all respects a type of
Christ, who stands personally outside the rights which
grace has conferred upon the people. Faithful in all the
house of God, he enjoys close intercourse with Him.
Miriam and Aaron ought to have been afraid. The excuse of
the two rebels was, that Moses had taken an Ethiopian
woman—a blessed sign for us of the sovereignty of
grace which has introduced into the blessing of Christ
those who had no right or title to it. The people of God,
whatever their privileges, ought to have recognised this
sovereignty. Israel would not, and was smitten with
leprosy. It is, however, in their character of witness or
prophet that they suffer this chastening.
Aaron as
intercessor, and the position of Moses
Aaron resumes his place of
intercessor, and speaks humbly to Moses (a figure, I
think, of the humiliation of Israel, grounded on the
value of the intercession of Christ, identifying Himself
with the position of the people). God's answer is, that
Miriam should be humbled and chastened, shut out, for a
time, from intercourse with Him, then restored to favour
again. The people wait for her restoration. Let us
remember that the Lord here recalls this fact, that the
most glorious position for Moses was that when he was
separated from the people—when he pitched his tent
without the camp, and called it the tabernacle of the
congregation or meeting. The people had but too much
forgotten this. When the members of the church also, in
the thought of making themselves spiritual, take
advantage of their glory and position as prophets and
priests (characters which do indeed belong to them), to
disown the rights of Christ, as king in Jeshurun, having
authority over the house of God, there is room for
considering whether they are not guilty of the rebellion
here spoken of. For my part, I believe they are.
Numbers 12 Bible Commentary
John Darby’s Synopsis
After that (for what form will not rebellion assume?) Miriam and Aaron speak against Moses. It is the prophetess and the priest (one who has the word from God and access to God, the twofold character of the people of God), who rise up against him who is king in Jeshurun, with whom God speaks as unto His friend. In this Moses is in all respects a type of Christ, who stands personally outside the rights which grace has conferred upon the people. Faithful in all the house of God, he enjoys close intercourse with Him. Miriam and Aaron ought to have been afraid. The excuse of the two rebels was, that Moses had taken an Ethiopian woman—a blessed sign for us of the sovereignty of grace which has introduced into the blessing of Christ those who had no right or title to it. The people of God, whatever their privileges, ought to have recognised this sovereignty. Israel would not, and was smitten with leprosy. It is, however, in their character of witness or prophet that they suffer this chastening.
Aaron as intercessor, and the position of Moses
Aaron resumes his place of intercessor, and speaks humbly to Moses (a figure, I think, of the humiliation of Israel, grounded on the value of the intercession of Christ, identifying Himself with the position of the people). God's answer is, that Miriam should be humbled and chastened, shut out, for a time, from intercourse with Him, then restored to favour again. The people wait for her restoration. Let us remember that the Lord here recalls this fact, that the most glorious position for Moses was that when he was separated from the people—when he pitched his tent without the camp, and called it the tabernacle of the congregation or meeting. The people had but too much forgotten this. When the members of the church also, in the thought of making themselves spiritual, take advantage of their glory and position as prophets and priests (characters which do indeed belong to them), to disown the rights of Christ, as king in Jeshurun, having authority over the house of God, there is room for considering whether they are not guilty of the rebellion here spoken of. For my part, I believe they are.