Original Meaning

SIBLING RIVALRY. NOBODY can hurt you like your own family members. At Kibroth Hattaavah Moses was upset when the people grumbled about food (Num. 11), but at Hazeroth it is Miriam and Aaron who speak against Moses (ch. 12). They hit him in a sensitive spot by criticizing him “because of the Cushite woman he had married: ‘He married a Cushite woman!’” (NJPS).1

Elsewhere the only wife of Moses is Zipporah, daughter of a Midianite (Ex. 2:16–22; 4:25; 18:1–6) and therefore related to the Israelites as a descendant of Abraham (Gen. 25:1–2). Unless Moses married a second woman from the Sudan (Nubia) or Ethiopia,2 for which there is no clear evidence, why would Zipporah be labelled a “Cushite” here? We don’t know for sure, but some possibilities include: (1) Miriam and Aaron make an ethnic slur by likening Zipporah’s darker skin to that of an African (cf. Jer. 13:23). (2) Zipporah is of mixed Midianite-African ancestry. (3) “Cush” in this context is a place in Midianite territory (cf. “Cushan” in Hab. 3:7).

If the wife in question is Zipporah, why would the objection of Miriam and Aaron against her arise so long after she became Moses’ wife? After remaining with her father during the tumultuous upheaval that brought the Israelites out of Egypt, Zipporah reentered Moses’ life fairly recently when Jethro brought her to Moses, along with their two sons, as the Israelites were in the desert approaching Mount Sinai (Ex. 18:1–6).

In any case, Miriam and Aaron are irritated at Moses’ non-Israelite wife, but this is only the outer symptom of a deeper grievance: They feel that Moses is unduly dominating their prophetic triumvirate (Num. 12:2). By lowering him a notch or three through criticism, they attempt to bring him down to their status. Why now? Moses has just appointed seventy elders to receive the prophetic gift and share responsibility with him (11:24–26), thereby decentralizing power away from Miriam and Aaron. Although the arrangement is the Lord’s idea (11:16–17, 24), Miriam and Aaron can easily associate it with an earlier initiative to relieve Moses by decentralizing judicial responsibility, which was sponsored by Jethro, Zipporah’s father (Ex. 18:13–26). Who would have a greater interest in reducing Moses’ burden now more than the “first lady” of Israel (whether Zipporah or another wife)?

“First lady”? That may explain why Miriam is mentioned before Aaron as the instigator of criticism (12:1). With her brothers, she was a leader of the Exodus (Mic. 6:4). It was “Miriam the prophetess, Aaron’s sister,” who took a tambourine and led all the Israelite women in a song of triumph at the Red Sea (Ex. 15:20–21). Now she likely feels displaced, perhaps by one who has never experienced the horrors of slavery and the trauma of leaving Egypt.

While Moses does not defend himself, the Lord takes decisive action, summoning a family conference at the “Tent of Meeting” (12:4). He does not deny the claim of Aaron and Miriam to prophetic inspiration (12:6; cf. v. 2), which is supported by the fact that he is speaking to them. But Moses is more than a prophet. As the Lord’s “house-servant,” he has experienced more intimate access to God than any other human being (12:7–8; cf. Ex. 33:18–23; 34:4–8)3 and is an active participant in dialogue with him.4 Miriam and Aaron should be afraid to speak against Moses (Num. 12:8), which is tantamount to speaking against God.

When the divine warning is punctuated by Miriam’s case of white scaly skin disease (cf. Lev. 13), Aaron undoubtedly remembers the way Moses produced and reversed such disease on himself as a sign of divine power (Ex. 4:6–7). Assuming that Moses is angry, Aaron implores him for forgiveness and for healing for Miriam (Num. 12:11–12). However, all Moses can do is to cry out for the Lord to heal her (12:13). It is ironic that Aaron and Miriam, who are supposed to be prophets, are utterly dependent on the intercession of Moses, just as King Abimelech and his household needed the prayer of Abraham, a prophet, on their behalf (Gen. 20:7, 17).

Because the Lord has disgraced Miriam, who apparently was more at fault than Aaron,5 it takes some time to restore her. A quick fix would trivialize the gravity of the situation. During the week of delay, all Israelites have plenty of opportunity to reflect on the deadly “leprosy” of rebellion against God’s leadership through Moses (12:15). Many years before, big sister Miriam had waited for baby Moses (Ex. 2:4); now he waits for her.

The humblest? Numbers 12:3 parenthetically informs us that Moses was the most ʿanaw man on earth. English versions generally render this word as “humble.” Moses’ humility, which he showed from the time of his call (Ex. 3:11; 4:1, 10, 13), is remarkable considering the towering authority of his leadership. Granted that he is capable of vesuvian righteous indignation, such as when he smashed the tablets of the Decalogue at Sinai in response to the golden calf party (Ex. 32:19), this does not detract from his humility because he submits his personal ego to God’s will.6 Moses is the epitome of a “servant leader.” He can safely be entrusted with powerful leadership because he is humble before God and therefore willing to follow divine leading (cf. Ps. 22:26; 25:9).

For those who believe the traditional view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, Numbers 12:3 raises a question: If Moses wrote that he was the humblest man on the face of the earth, wouldn’t this constitute a boast that would invalidate his humility? We understand the boxing champ Muhammad Ali, who resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan, a few miles from my home, when he claims the epithet “The Greatest.” But “The Humblest” is a different matter. So it can be argued that the explanation in Numbers 12:3 was written by an editor of the Pentateuch, not by Moses himself (cf. Gen. 12:6; Deut. 34).

Elsewhere ʿanaw refers to those who are poor, needy, socially weak, afflicted, and/or humiliated (e.g., Isa. 61:1; Amos 2:7). While Moses was a powerful leader and in this sense was not socially weak, he was afflicted by his people and, at Hazeroth, was ill-treated and humiliated by his own sister and brother (Num. 12:1–2).7 Thus, in addition to the idea that Moses lacks arrogance, despite sibling surmisings to the contrary, it appears that at least part of the point in 12:3 may be that he is so bowed down and burdened that he is unable to stick up for himself, which explains why the Lord has to step in to defend him.

Bridging Contexts

THE ROLE OF MOSES. The relationship between prophecy and Moses’ unique role binds Numbers 11 and 12 together. Unlike any prophet before or after him, Moses converses face to face with the Lord, “as a man speaks with his friend” (Ex. 33:11; cf. Deut. 34:10). It is not surprising that his special access to God is matched by extraordinary humility and integrity (cf. Isa. 57:15; Matt. 5:8).

As God’s messenger, Moses plays a crucial role in making theocracy work by conveying the divine will to the Israelites. The Lord is the religious and civil leader of Israel through Moses. Other prominent roles of Moses that are based on his intimate connection with God include miracle-working deliverer (e.g. Ex. 3:10; 4:1–9; 7:8–21), highest judge (Ex. 18:13–26; Deut. 1:17), founder of the Israelite ritual system (Ex. 40; Lev. 8), and intercessor (Ex. 32:11–14, 31–33; 33:12–17; Num. 14:13–19). Other biblical individuals perform some of the same functions as Moses, but none comes close to matching his foundational and comprehensive leadership as the “father of his country.”

Like snow. Miriam’s is the first biblical case of scaly skin disease (ṣaraʿat) as a devastating, socially stigmatizing divine punishment by which outer decay reflects inner moral “leprosy.” Later Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, was struck with this disease when he deviously took presents from Naaman (2 Kings 5:27), and King Uzziah was similarly afflicted when he refused to give up his attempt to encroach on priestly function by burning incense (2 Chron. 26:19–21).

Ancient Mesopotamians also viewed a kind of skin disease as divine punishment. Part of an Old Babylonian omen text reads: “If the skin of a man exhibits ‘white pūṣu-areas,’ or is ‘dotted with nuqdu-dots,’ such a man has been rejected by his god and is (to be) rejected by mankind.”8 Here the reason for the social stigma is crystal clear: Out of respect/fear for the deity, other human beings are duty bound to acknowledge the divine rejection by shunning the diseased one. You cannot be Someone’s friend if you continue to be on good terms with his or her enemy!

In Israel, scaly skin disease was viewed in terms of death, with flesh decomposing on a person before he or she was even dead. Thus Aaron begs Moses on behalf of Miriam: “Do not let her be like a stillborn infant coming from its mother’s womb with its flesh half eaten away” (12:12). This powerful connection with mortality explains the severity of the ritual impurity generated by the affliction (Lev. 13–14; Num. 5:1–4).

Miriam’s deathly disease turns her skin flaky and/or white “like snow” (Num. 12:10; cf. Ex. 4:6; 2 Kings 5:27).9 It is intriguing that David’s penitential psalm refers to snow along with hyssop in a context of moral cleansing: “Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow” (Ps. 51:7; cf. Isa. 1:18). Hyssop, a small plant (cf. 1 Kings 4:33), was not used in any Israelite ritual for cleansing persons from expiable sin, let alone from the capital offense of adultery that David committed (cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). Hyssop does appear in two cleansing rituals to remedy physical ritual impurity: purification from scaly skin disease (Lev. 14:4, 6)10 and from corpse contamination (Num. 19:6, 18). Placement of Miriam’s obituary in Numbers 20:1 immediately following the prescription for purification from corpse contamination in chapter 19 underscores the connection between the two kinds of defilement. Following her restoration from skin disease, the next time we hear of her is when she dies.11

In light of the intimate linkage between the two evils treated with hyssop, David portrays his moral state in physical terms that are strikingly appropriate: He is morally “leprous” and deserves to die (become a corpse) for adultery and for having arranged for the death of Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband (2 Sam. 11–12). The ideas of scaly skin disease and corpse contamination evoked by “hyssop,” combined with David’s acknowledgment that he was “sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5), forge a strong link with Aaron’s plea for Miriam: “Do not let her be like a stillborn infant coming from its mother’s womb with its flesh half eaten away” (Num. 12:12). However, whereas Moses prays that God will heal Miriam from impure disease that made her skin “like snow” (vv. 10, 13), David ironically prays that his cleansing with hyssop from moral “leprosy” will make him “whiter than snow” (Ps. 51:7)!

Contemporary Significance

SKIN AND RACISM. The fact that Moses’ wife is described as “Cushite” only in the context of derogatory talk regarding her by Miriam and Aaron (Num. 12:1) suggests that they look down on her for having darker skin (cf. Song 1:6). While a racial slur is only on the “skin” of an underlying issue of status and control, the Lord’s punishment of Miriam indicates that he takes her xenophobia seriously by making her skin flaky and/or ghastly white (Num. 12:10). It is as though he were saying to her: “Miriam, if you can’t get used to the idea that dark is beautiful, see if you like your own skin, which pales by comparison!” After wishing to socially exclude Moses’ wife, Miriam herself is physically excluded from the Israelite camp.12

Although we should not hasten to import all of our modern conceptions of racism into the context of ancient Israel, which incorporated many kinds of foreigners throughout its history, it seems clear that a kind of racism does have a negative impact within the complex social dynamics reflected in Numbers 12. God’s devastating reaction implies that he regards such an attitude as intolerable moral “leprosy.”

What is so bad about racism? As in the story of Miriam and Aaron, it is always about status and control, and it is always an insult to God. Granted that not every victim of racism is married to a prophet or leader of a community like Moses, still, putting someone down for his or her intrinsic genetic nature has the goal of boosting oneself and implies that God makes inferior products in his image (cf. Gen. 1:26). Racism is also a grossly unfair low blow for exactly the same reason that it is attractive to those who are attempting to get the upper hand at any cost: People are born with their race and cannot change it (Jer. 13:23).

One test of an attitude is its “fruit,” that is, results (cf. Matt. 7:16–18; Gal. 5:22–23). Unfortunately, following racism to its logical results is not a theoretical exercise. Adolf Hitler expressed his worldview: “All who are not of good race in this world are chaff.”13 Acting in full consistency with this attitude, he devised a monstrous machine to systematically marginalize, exploit, and finally annihilate those (in his estimation) miserably valueless excuses for human beings who did not measure up to his twisted and self-serving notion of “good race,” which was arbitrarily defined in terms of likeness to himself.

Just because we do not engage in genocide like Hitler, “ethnic cleansing” like Slobodan Milosevic, or fanning the flames of white supremacism like former Ku Klux Klan wizard David Duke does not necessarily mean that we have no racism to overcome. Racism is natural in a sinful world and respects no boundaries. It preys on any racial group in the world and can quietly flourish and spread like “leprosy” under the beautiful surface of a Christian business, school, or church (cf. Lev. 14:43–44). Combatting it requires continual vigilance. Anyone who claims to be exempt from the potential of a problem in this regard should read Numbers 12:1, where even Miriam and Aaron fail.

No doubt Moses’ wife would have endorsed the words of Martin Luther King: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”14

Powerful humility. Mention the word “genius,” and the name Albert Einstein invariably pops up. His colossal intellect conceived entire branches of science and laid the theoretical foundation for many new technologies. If anyone had the right to intellectual pride, he did. However, like Moses (Num. 12:3), he was a remarkably humble man. Einstein wrote:

Let every man be respected as an individual and no man idolized. It is an irony of fate that I myself have been the recipient of excessive admiration and reverence from my fellow-beings, through no fault, and no merit, of my own. The cause of this may well be the desire, unattainable for many, to understand the few ideas to which I have with my feeble powers attained through ceaseless struggle.15

Einstein’s humility makes him all the more admirable. Living in an age that spawned some of the most Olympian egos in modern history, he steadfastly refused to put on airs. When playing his violin to the accompaniment of pianist Artur Schnabel, he was not annoyed when Schnabel admonished him, the world’s greatest mathematician, “Count, Albert, count!” Nor did he project an important image through his appearance, preferring to walk around Princeton without socks and let his hair look like the result of an experiment with static electricity.

Humility provides integrity with credibility. We can admit that Einstein was obsessive, which was hard on his first marriage. But because he was so unconcerned with promoting himself, we accept his wise and frank pronouncements on a wide range of issues as expressing genuine concern for the welfare of Planet Earth and its human inhabitants. We don’t ask, as we would regarding a proud and selfish person, “What does he stand to gain at the expense of others?” So, like Moses, Einstein has become much more of a leader than he would have if he had been bent on asserting his personal power and status.

Moses and Einstein didn’t waste energy or time trying to get everyone to think they mattered relatively more than the people around them. They were too busy changing the world for the benefit and empowerment of others. We will be light years ahead if we follow their example and the counsel penned by Thomas à Kempis: “Let nothing that you have achieved seem of great importance . . . save that which is everlasting.”16