John Calvin Commentary Numbers 12:1

"And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman." — Numbers 12:1 (ASV)

And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses. This account is especially worthy of observation for many reasons. If Aaron and Miriam had always quietly and cordially supported the honor of their brother, and had not been carried away by perverse and ungodly jealousy, their harmony, however holy it was, would have been perverted by the injustice of many and alleged against them as a deceitful and insidious conspiracy.

So it was, then, in the wonderful providence of God, that His own brother and sister initiated a conflict regarding supremacy and endeavored to degrade Moses from the position in which God had placed him. For in this way all suspicion of family favoritism was removed, and it was clearly shown that Moses, being opposed by his own family, was sustained by the power of God alone.

At the same time, it can be seen how natural ambition is to the minds of almost all, and also how blind and furious is the lust for dominion. Aaron and Miriam contended with their own brother for supremacy; and yet they had received the most abundant proofs that he, whom they desired to overthrow, had been elevated by the hand of God and was thus maintained in his position.

For Moses had claimed nothing for himself; and, therefore, it was not permissible that anyone should attempt to undermine the dignity of that high office, which God had conferred upon him. Besides, God had ennobled their own house and name in the person of Moses, and out of favor to him they had also been endowed with special gifts of their own. For by what right had Miriam obtained the gift of prophecy, except for the fuller ratification of her brother’s power?

But the arrogance and ingratitude of Aaron were still more disgraceful. He had been made his brother's associate: Moses had allowed the high-priesthood to be transferred to him and his descendants, and thus had placed his own descendants in subjection to them. What, then, was there for Aaron to begrudge his brother, when so exalted a dignity was vested in his own sons, while all the descendants of Moses were degraded? Still, he was so blinded as to consider the honor of his brother a reproach to himself; at any rate, he could not endure to be second to him in dignity, although he was his superior by right of the priesthood.

By this example, then, we are taught how anxiously we should beware of so destructive a plague as ambition. The wicked brother ³⁸ in the tragic Poet says:

“For, if injustice must at all be done,
It is best to do it for dominion;”

that, under this pretext, he might through treachery and murder act against his own kin with impunity. Now, although we all detest this sentiment, it still plainly shows that when the lust for rule takes possession of men’s hearts, not only do they abandon the love of justice, but humanity becomes altogether extinct in them, as brothers thus contend with each other and rage, as it were, against their own flesh and blood.

Indeed, it is astonishing that, when this vice has been so often and so severely condemned in the opinion of all ages, the human race has never been freed from it; indeed, the Church of God has always been infested by this disease, than which nothing is worse: for ambition has been, and still is, the mother of all errors, of all disturbances and sects.

Since Aaron and his sister were infected by it, how easily may it spread among the multitude! But I now proceed to examine the words.

Miriam is mentioned here before Aaron, not by way of honorable distinction, but because she stirred up the conflict and persuaded her brother to take her side. For the ambition of women is remarkable; and often have women, more high-spirited than men, been the instigators not merely of squabbles but of mighty wars, so that great cities and countries have been shaken by their violent conduct.

Still, however, this does not diminish the guilt of Aaron, who, at the urging of his foolish sister, engaged in an unjust and wicked conflict with his brother and even declared himself an enemy to God’s grace.

Furthermore, because they were unable to provide any reasons why Moses in himself was not far their superior, they sought to bring disgrace upon him because of his wife, as if in half of himself he was inferior to them because he had married a woman who was not of their own race but a foreigner. They, therefore, made shameful accusations against him in the person of his wife, as if it were not at all fitting that he should be considered the prince and head of the people, since his wife, and the companion of his bed, was a Gentile woman.

I do not by any means agree with those who think that she was any other than Zipporah, ³⁹ since we hear nothing of Zipporah's death. Indeed, she had been brought back by Jethro, her father, only a little while before the giving of the Law, while it is too absurd to charge the holy Prophet with the accusation of polygamy. Besides, as an octogenarian, he would have been hardly suited for a second marriage. Again, how would such a marriage have been feasible in the desert?

It is, therefore, sufficiently clear that they refer to Zipporah, who is called an Ethiopian woman because Scripture includes the Midianites under this name. Although I have no doubt that they maliciously selected this name for the purpose of arousing greater hatred against Moses. I deliberately refrain from citing the trivial interpretations in which some indulge. ⁴⁰ Moses, however, acknowledges that it ⁴¹ was not granted to him to have a wife of the holy race of Abraham.

³⁸ They are the words of Eteocles in the Phoenissae of Euripides: —

³⁹ Josephus (Antiq. 2:10) has led some to suppose that she was Tharbis, daughter of the king of Ethiopia. Augustin, however, (Quaest. in Numbers 20.,) and the great majority of commentators, agree with .,) and the great majority of commentators, agree with C. in believing that she was Zipporah, and not a second wife, as contended by Rosenmuller, Michaelis, and others, The main difficulty arises from her being called a in believing that she was Zipporah, and not a second wife, as contended by Rosenmuller, Michaelis, and others, The main difficulty arises from her being called a Cushite, which our translators have followed 70. and which our translators have followed 70. and V. in rendering “the Ethiopian.” Bochart endeavors to prove that the Cushites and Midianites were the same people; and Shuckford (vol. 1, p. 166, edit. 1743) states his opinion that “by the land of Cush is always meant some part of Arabia.” in rendering “the Ethiopian.” Bochart endeavors to prove that the Cushites and Midianites were the same people; and Shuckford (vol. 1, p. 166, edit. 1743) states his opinion that “by the land of Cush is always meant some part of Arabia.”Habakkuk 3:7, in which “the tents of Cushan,” and “the land of Midian,” are mentioned together, seems to corroborate this view., in which “the tents of Cushan,” and “the land of Midian,” are mentioned together, seems to corroborate this view.

⁴⁰ “The Hebrew doctors make his not companying with his wife to be the occasion,” etc. — Ainsworth. So also De Lyra.

⁴¹ “Qu’il n’a pas eu ce bien et honneur;” that he had not the advantage and honor. — Fr.