John Calvin Commentary Numbers 21
John Calvin Commentary
Numbers 21
John Calvin Commentary
Numbers 21
"And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the South, heard tell that Israel came by the way of Atharim; and he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive." — Numbers 21:1 (ASV)
And when king Arad the Canaanite. It is not entirely agreed among commentators who this King Arad was. Some think that he was an Amalekite, but this error is refuted by the fact that the Amalekites had already attempted in vain to interrupt the journey of the people. Nor is it credible that after so great a slaughter, they would have attempted to do so again, especially since their territories remained untouched.
Besides, it would have been absurd to call the Amalekites Canaanites, since they derived their origin not from Canaan but from Esau, and thus were connected with the Israelites by a common descent from Shem. We will, however, rightly understand this as referring to the Amorites, who were certainly reckoned among the Canaanites as being of the same race, as Moses tells us in his first book, (Genesis 10:16, and Genesis 15:21); indeed, he elsewhere designates all the people of Canaan by the name of Amorites.
Moreover, in the thirty-fourth chapter of this book, we will see that their boundaries reached to Mount Hor and Kadesh-barnea. Since, then, the Amorites were in this neighborhood towards the south, the name will suit them very well.
That King Arad, however, alone made war on them arose from the paternal providence of God, who wished to accustom His people to the conquest of their enemies by degrees. If all these nations had united their forces and made a combined attack on an unwarlike people, it would have succumbed in astonishment and fear. But it was easier for them to defend themselves against a single nation.
And yet, in the first combat, God permitted the Israelites to be defeated, so that the victorious Canaanite took some plunder or led away some captives. This also was useful to the Israelites, so that, mistrusting their own strength, they might humbly turn to God’s help. For they needed to learn that, unless they were aided from above, they would be entirely insufficient when they had to resist many powerful nations, since they had not been able to withstand even a single people.
Regarding “the way of the spies,” some understand that, as the people had been taught by Joshua and Caleb, they followed the footsteps of those who had been sent to explore the land. However, since it appears that the course was a different one, I do not know if this opinion is very tenable. Others take the word דרך, derek, to mean “after the manner of,”116 which seems harsh and constrained. Therefore, I explain it this way: Since they had to advance through unknown regions, spies were sent ahead, according to custom, to direct the whole march, and so King Arad knew that his territory was to be invaded before the army had advanced that far.
116 It is again S.M. who has mentioned this opinion. — who has mentioned this opinion. — W.
"And Israel vowed a vow unto Jehovah, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities." — Numbers 21:2 (ASV)
And Israel vowed a vow unto the Lord. This was a manifestation of piety: when they had sustained a loss, not to cast away hope, nor to murmur against God; but rather to encourage themselves by entreating His aid. To this state of submissiveness they had been subdued by God's chastisements, although the continuation of their obedience, as we shall soon see, did not last long.
Anyone at first sight would say that there was something absurd in this vow. However, we gather from the result that it was lawful and approved by God, for the sign of His approval was that He listened to the vows and cry of the people. I admit, indeed, that God sometimes answers defective prayers, but there is no doubt whatever that Moses here commends their piety in the vow.
We must consider, then, how it was lawful for them to offer the destruction of cities and the wasting of lands to God as a sacrifice of a sweet savor. The reply to this question will be easy if we bear in mind that the vow did not originate in thoughtless zeal, but rather in the command of God.
It seems cruel to destroy an entire nation, but God had not only decreed its destruction but had also appointed the Israelites to execute His sentence. Therefore, the vow we are now discussing was not idly spoken, as it was founded on God’s word, which is the primary rule for vowing rightly.
It was, indeed, allowable for them to spare the cities to possess them themselves. However, it was also allowable to devote them as an offering (in anathema) of first-fruits to God, as we are elsewhere told of the city of Jericho.
At any rate, we must conclude that even though God had not openly and expressly commanded the cities to be utterly destroyed, this vow was still dictated by the Holy Spirit. This was so that the people would not yield to laziness and settle down in a single corner; but rather, that after desolating and wasting this region, they might be more encouraged to make further progress.
The Hebrew term חרם charam, which Moses employs, indeed signifies to destroy, and from it is derived the word חרמה chormah, or Hormah, which implies a type of anathema, as if they devoted the land to God’s curse.
Moses, however, adds that the people performed the vow they had undertaken. Praiseworthy indeed was their magnanimity in refusing to take advantage of a comfortable home by destroying the cities they had acquired by the right of war.
We do not know whether the cities were destroyed immediately after the victory over their enemies. Indeed, I rather conjecture that there was some interval, because the people did not immediately enter the boundaries of the promised land. This appears more clearly from Numbers 33, where, after this battle was fought, certain encampments are listed that are in another direction. It is probable, therefore, that they fought outside the Canaanite boundaries and that, when the people came to this area soon afterwards, the land was finally put to the sword.
"And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way to the Red Sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way." — Numbers 21:4 (ASV)
And they journeyed from mount Hor. This is also narrated to their credit, that they endured the weariness of a long and circuitous march, when they were already worn out by their forty years of wandering. Therefore, Moses tells us that because God had forbidden them to cross the borders of Edom, they took another route. However, he immediately adds that they despicably rebelled, without being provoked by any new cause.
They had previously been rebellious under the pressure of hunger, thirst, or some other hardship; but now, with no grounds for it, they malignantly provoked God. Some understand that they were distressed in spirit because of the journey,117 so that the ב, beth, indicates the cause of their grief and trouble. Indeed, it might have been that their passage through the mountains was steep and difficult; yet a pleasant region was almost in sight, gently drawing them forward.
Again, they falsely complained of a lack of water, a problem for which God had already provided a remedy. Nothing, then, could be more unfair than to recall so hatefully a past trouble, for which they had experienced God's special help. But their depravity is more thoroughly exposed in their loathing of the manna, as a food providing little nourishment, or as something contemptible.
The verb118 קצר, katzar, is used first, which signifies to constrain; thus some explain it, that they were made anxious by distress. But since the same word is used for to shorten, others translate it that their minds were broken down with weariness, causing them to faint along the way. In any case, a voluntary bitterness is indicated, which possessed them, so that their eagerness to move forward completely failed them. The verb119 קצה, katzah, which Jerome renders sickens, is not used simply for disgust, but signifies that weariness which excruciates or agonizes the mind.
They call the manna “light” food, as if to say that it inflates rather than satisfies or nourishes; or, as I consider more probable, the word קלקל, kelokel, is used metaphorically for vile, or contemptible, and valueless.
117 Heb. בדרך Lat, in via., in via. A.V. “because of the way.” . “because of the way.” “In often noteth the cause of a thing; as, ‘the Lord’s soul was grieved in often noteth the cause of a thing; as, ‘the Lord’s soul was grieved in (that is, for, for, or because of) the misery of Israel,’ because of) the misery of Israel,’Judges 10:16; or, according to the like phrase in ; or, according to the like phrase in Zechariah 11:8, their soul ‘loatheth the way,’ both for the longsomeness of it, and for the many wants and troubles they found therein.” — Ainsworth , their soul ‘loatheth the way,’ both for the longsomeness of it, and for the many wants and troubles they found therein.” — Ainsworth in loco.
118 A. V., “discouraged;” “discouraged;” margin, “or, grieved; grieved; Heb. shortened.” shortened.” קצר, To shorten, to cut short, to cut off, and hence to reap. , To shorten, to cut short, to cut off, and hence to reap. S.M. says, “Their spirit was shortened, says, “Their spirit was shortened, i.e., became impatient; being a species of antithesis to longanimity, or long forbearing.” — became impatient; being a species of antithesis to longanimity, or long forbearing.” — W.
119 A. V., “loatheth.” קצה is likewise is likewise to cut off, but is said by the lexicographers to borrow a meaning in this instance from but is said by the lexicographers to borrow a meaning in this instance from קוף to to loathe, and and be weary of. It would be simpler to say that It would be simpler to say that קצה is the praet. 3d. pers. of is the praet. 3d. pers. of קוף, and that a feminine verb is required by the subs. , and that a feminine verb is required by the subs. נפשנו — — W
"And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, and there is no water; and our soul loatheth this light bread." — Numbers 21:5 (ASV)
And the people spoke against God and against Moses. Either because they murmured against God in the person of Moses, or because their impiety erupted to such a furious extent that they openly blasphemed against God. This latter opinion is most consistent with the words, because by their use of the plural number they accuse two parties together.120
But since Moses had nothing separate from God, no one could contend with him without also warring against God Himself. Here, however, as I have said, their insolence went even further, so that they not only railed against the minister but also vomited forth their wicked blasphemy against God Himself, as if He had gravely injured them by their deliverance.
120 Addition in Fr., “sinon qu’ils s’addressent aussi a Aaron;” unless they also address Aaron. “sinon qu’ils s’addressent aussi a Aaron;” unless they also address Aaron.
"And Jehovah sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died." — Numbers 21:6 (ASV)
And the Lord sent fiery serpents. Their ingratitude was justly and profitably chastised by this punishment; for they were practically taught that it was only through God’s paternal care that they had previously been free from innumerable evils, and that He possessed numerous forms of punishment by which to take vengeance on the wicked.
Although deserts are full of many poisonous animals, it is still probable that these serpents suddenly arose and were created for this special purpose; as if God, in His determination to correct the people’s pride, were to call new enemies into being to trouble them. For they were made to feel how great their folly was to rebel against God when they were not able to cope with the serpents. This, then, was an admirable plan for humbling them: to contemptuously bring these serpents into the field against them and thus convince them of their weakness.
Consequently, they both confessed their guilt and acknowledged that there was no other remedy for them except to obtain pardon from God. These two things, as we are aware, are necessary to appease God: first, that the sinner should be dissatisfied with himself and self-condemned; and, secondly, that he should seek to be reconciled to God. The people seem to faithfully fulfill both these conditions when they, of their own accord, acknowledge their guilt and humbly turn to God’s mercy.
It is through the influence of terror that they implore the prayers of Moses, since they consider themselves unworthy of favor unless an advocate (patronus) intercedes for them. Indeed, it would be erroneous for those who are conscience-stricken to invite an intercessor to stand between them and God unless they also unite their own prayers with his; for nothing is more contrary to faith than such a state of alarm that prevents us from calling upon God.
Still, the kindness of Moses and his accustomed gentleness are perceived in this: that he is so readily disposed to listen to these wicked people. God also, on His part, shows that the prayer of a righteous man is not unavailing when He heals the wound He had inflicted.121
121 Addition in Fr., “si tost;” so speedily. “si tost;” so speedily.
Jump to: