This post provides more examples from the career of Moses on how the "Big Man" or "Mighty Man" concept leads to violence, specifically from the Book of Numbers. The Book of Numbers details how Moses strengthened and consolidated his power over that of the Tribal leaders. It is also an excellent example of how "myth" is generated in the community to obscure the violence exercised by the victors in the suppression of others. In every case, the plague is attributed to a divine act of the Lord. This is to done to deflect the blame away from Moses and the Levites and lay the bulk of the blame at the feet of the "people" as an act of defiance against God.
A very close reading of the any part of Moses' story after his return from exile shows the main antagonists, after Pharoah, to be the Tribal leaders or Elders of Israel. They struggle to maintain their position as the primary decision makers in the larger community and challenge Moses as he enlarges and consolidates his authority. Exodus seems to downplay the challenges against Moses, casting them as mere grumblings against Moses by the people in general, but things change in the book of Numbers. This may partly be due to Moses having elevated the Levites, the tribe he is from, to a special status. In chapter 2 they are not numbered with the other "armies" of Israel. In chapters 3-4 the Levites are given a special dispensation, specific duties relating to the service and upkeep of the Temple. They are to serve at the behest of the High Priest, belonging specifically and particularly to YAHWEH. In later chapters we see them rallying around Moses and Aaron every time there is a threat, acting like a special honor guard dedicated to protecting the High Priest and Moses. In Numbers 25:5 the Levites are specifically designated as "Judges" with the power to take life of their fellow Israelite. And we learn that when the Israelites eventually enter the land, the High Priest essentially serves as the acting "King", with a Tent serving as a temple that can be taken up and moved to a new location at a moment's notice. The Levites are to be given land in every tribe, dispersed throughout country, acting as the eyes and ears and Judges of the High Priest. This is a classic form of diffused/centralized power.
The number one accusation against Moses was that of overstepping the bounds of his authority. In each accusation the authority of Moses is challenged over and over again in a variety of different ways, each time ending in a "plague". Also, as the challenges intensify, we see the violence escalate. Violence is first directed against one person, then ten, then 250, finally culminating with the death of 24,000.
The first accusation of comes, of all places, directly from his own brother and sister (“Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?” Numbers 12:2). The occasion for this particular accusation is Moses marrying outside the Tribes of Israel. The result is odd. Miriam, but not Aaron, was smote with a plague. This resulted in Miriam being sequestered outside the tribes, sight unseen, for a period of seven days.
The next challenge to Moses' authority happens right on the heels of the first, the whole story being covered in two chapters (13 and 14). Moses sends twelve spies to canvas the land of Canaan and bring back a report. On tier return, they report of a land full of abundant resources, but populated by "giants". Caleb and Joshua want to immediately go and conquer it, but the other ten men counsel against it, claiming winning is impossible. When Joshua and Caleb press the matter, "all the congregation said to stone them with stones", (Numbers 14:10). Notice what is occurring. "The People" most likely refers to the tribal leaders. They are used to meeting, discussing and then voting on how to proceed. What we are seeing is the case being made for majority rule. The tribal elders are not used to minority rule. At this point, "the glory of the Lord appeared in the tabernacle of meeting" stopping the people, the LORD threatening to wipe out the whole congregation and start over, but Moses intercedes, resulting in only the ten spies, the majority, being struck by a "plague".
The third challenge is that of Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and On with 250 others, claiming that everyone is holy and Moses and Aaron take on too much authority for just two men. This would be a typical complaint from a people used to governing by council and not by autocratic rule. This is similar to the complaint of Miriam and Aaron as well as the complaint of "the people" in the case of the spies. What Moses does is delays the challenge to the next day. One thing he does is requires the 250 elders to bring their censers with them filled with incense. When they gather the next day, Moses has the bulk of the congregation step away, leaving him, Aaron and the opposition in a thick cloud of incense smoke. According to the passage, "the ground split apart under them, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up". Then "a fire came out from the LORD and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering incense", (Numbers 16:35). Of course, all this took place under the thick cloud of incense.
The last challenge against the authority of Moses is in Numbers 25, by the "princes of Israel", and it is here that the source of the "plague" is the most obvious. "So Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Every one of you kill his men who were joined to Baal of Peor.” And indeed, one of the children of Israel came and presented to his brethren a Midianite woman in the sight of Moses and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. Now when Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose from among the congregation and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her body. So the plague was stopped among the children of Israel. And those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand." (Numbers 25:5-9).
The source of the plague in each instance, although attributed to God, if one looks "behind the veil" so to speak, one can detect the hand of man . The last plague provides us with the interpretive key. The passage is explicit - Moses is said to specifically command the judges of Israel (i.e. the Levites) to take up arms and kill their Israeli brethren. This is the plague. There is no other way around it. The source of the plague was Moses' order to kill the Israelites that were taking Moabite women. The plague stopped when Phinehas killed the last offender. The source of the plague is contributed to God, although it was Moses and the Tribe of Levi (as the Lord's army) that carried out the act. It was this last act of defiance by the leaders of the various clans that resulted in their power being broken and Moses's power being absolute. But it is also this episode that we see the Bible pulling back the veil of myth exposing the source of violence. Between Numbers 12 and 25, God's plagues in each incidence can be traced back to the hand of man. It is only as we move forward, paying close attention in each separate incident, do the writers of the Bible slowly expose the hand of man in bringing on the plague. This is how the Bible demythologizes itself and the world, exposing how violence works.
Let's probe a little deeper to see what can be observed in the previous passage? First, why does Moses ask for a break in the action? If God is God, why does Moses have to wait until the next day? And why ask for the 250 elders to bring their censers full of lit incense? Attempting to pierce the veil, the way I read this passage, Moses needs time to set the stage. He has to have time for the Levites to dig a pit. He required the 250 men to bring their censors provided a "smoke screen" to hide the pit from them and the masses. This pit provides a mass grave into which the leaders of the clan were thrust and most likely stoned. The "fire " consuming the 250 elders most likely comes from the swords of the Levites, culminating in the burning of the bodies, a typical warning in archaic societies (cp the end of Achan and his family in Joshua).
The plague consuming the ten spies is relatively simple. Moses and Aaron were successful in turning the majority of the congregation against the ten spies, and the stones that were originally intended for Caleb and Joshua were turned against them. Miriam's plague is the easiest to explain of them all. Who would have been in a position to see Miriam once she had been physically isolated for seven days to know whether or not she was actually afflicted with leprosy? Moses and Aaron could tell the rest of the nation anything they wanted and they could not have been challenged.
The major point in all these stores is they involve a "plague" of some sort. What is a plague? In ancient literature, "plague", "fire" and "flood" is the holy trinity of apocalyptic language. Anytime one sees the word "plague", "fire" and "flood" in the Bible, one need to ask if one is looking at the beginning of sacred violence, an attempt to hide or obscure violence perpetrated by the group writing the document. This is the same concept as "skandalon" in the New Testament. "Skandalon" is interpreted as "stumbling block", "offence" and "scandal" by various translations.
A scandal moves through a community much like a plague, fire or flood. They begin quietly, almost invisibly, but slowly or quickly spreads to a point where it is entirely out of control. In a scandal, a rumor, a revelation, or an accusation surfaces at the margins. At first, it is uncertain, even deniable. But soon it spreads. Just as bodies carry disease from house to house, words and reactions pass from person to person. Conversation becomes charged. Attention narrows. What was once distant suddenly feels close and threatening. As the contagion grows, normal life is disrupted. In a plague, routines collapse—markets empty, rituals stop, authority falters. In a scandal, trust erodes. Institutions wobble, reputations fracture, and the legitimacy of leaders is questioned. People begin to sense that something foundational has been violated, that the social body itself is sick. Fear follows quickly, and with fear comes the demand for explanation.
A plague is rarely endured as a meaningless event; people insist on knowing why it has happened and who or what caused it. So too with scandal. The community searches for a face to attach to its anxiety, a person or group who can bear responsibility for the disorder now felt everywhere. Complexity becomes intolerable. The cause must be singular, visible, and punishable. At this point, moral judgment intensifies. Plagues have historically been interpreted as signs of divine anger or moral corruption. Scandals function the same way. They are not treated merely as failures or mistakes but as revelations of hidden rot. The language becomes absolute: purity and contamination, innocence and guilt, inside and outside. The crisis presses toward resolution, and resolution requires removal.
In a plague, the infected are isolated, expelled, or buried. In a scandal, the accused are shamed, dismissed, exiled from public life, or symbolically destroyed. Once the supposed source is eliminated, calm returns. The community exhales. Order appears restored, and the violence of the process is quickly forgotten or justified as necessary. Yet what both plague and scandal ultimately reveal is not only a culprit but the deep vulnerabilities of the society itself. A plague exposes fears of bodily fragility and death. A scandal exposes fears of illegitimacy, rivalry, and the collapse of shared meaning. Each shows how quickly a community can turn inward, how easily anxiety becomes accusation, and how readily peace is purchased through exclusion and violence.
In this way, a scandal is a social disease. It does not merely infect individuals; it infects relationships. Like a plague, flood or fire, it spreads by contact, thrives on fear, demands a sacrifice, and leaves behind the unsettling knowledge that the sickness did not come only from outside, but arose from the very structure of communal life itself.
That is what we have in Numbers, and that is how Numbers can serve as a commentary on the spread of violence in Genesis 6.
No comments:
Post a Comment