Attempt to make the child realize the heinousness of the offense involved in the making of the golden calf, as idolatry is so remote from the child's experience, that he is not likely to be much impressed by the significance of it. Emphasize not merely the disobedience involved in violation of the Second Commandment, but the blasphemy involved in conceiving of God in animal form. The emotional attitude which the teacher should endeavor to create should be that which led our forefathers always to speak of the gods of other nations as the "abominations" of the heathen. This can be done by describing, as it were, God's feelings at witnessing the behavior of Israel, as, for instance:
"When God saw what the people were doing, how they danced and sang about the golden calf, and shouted, 'This is thy god, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt', He was very angry. Only forty days before they had heard His voice telling them, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image',and they had promised, 'All that the Lord hath spoken we will do', and there they were worshipping a molten god that they had made with their own hands, an image of a calf; as if a calf or anything like it could have sent the ten plagues against Egypt, could have divided the waters of the Red Sea, could have spoken to them the words of the Ten Commandments from the midst of the flaming mountain. So God wanted at first to destroy them altogether, and He said to Moses, who was still with Him on the mountain to learn His law, 'Go; get thee down, for thy people that thou broughtest up out of the land of Egypt have dealt corruptly; they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten calf and have worshipped it and have sacrificed unto it and have said, "This is thy god, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." Behold they are a stiff-necked people and my anger is kindled against them, and I will destroy them, and I will make of thee a great nation.'"
Give the children to understand the cause of Moses' breaking the tablets of the law by making them feel with the despair of Moses, when, descending from the mount with the tablets in his hand, he saw the people in the very act of violating the laws written upon them. Of what use were the tablets of the law if the law itself was not held sacred?
Moses' motive for ordering the death of the offenders must be explained as not being due to hatred, but to his realizing that if such a measure were not taken, the rest of the people would be led into further sin, which would necessitate the destruction of the whole people as punishment for their wickedness, just as a surgeonmay amputate a limb to save a life. Call attention to the fact that Moses first gives the people a chance to rally about him if they repented of their participation in the worship of the golden calf, a chance of which Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi availed themselves. The purity of Moses' motives is seen from his willingness to accept the same punishment as his people, if God is indisposed to forgive them, rather than enjoy a reward and honor in which they do not share.
While endeavoring to impress the child with the sublimity of Moses' character, be careful not to attempt abstract characterization, but tell the story in such a way that the child appreciates the significance of Moses' acts and words. Do not say, for example, "Now Moses, though he was zealous, in punishing those Israelites who had proved disloyal, was utterly unselfish in his love for Israel." Say rather, "Now, when Moses had put to death those who had persisted in worshipping the golden calf, he prayed to God to forgive the sins of the rest and not to destroy the whole people. For, though God had offered to spare Moses, who had not sinned, and even to make of his descendants a great nation instead of the Israelites, who deserved to be destroyed, do you think that this made Moses happy? No, for Moses, although he had not hesitated to punish his people according to God's command, loved them as a father loves his children, even when they do wrong, and it hurt him to think that God was angry with them, even though he himself enjoyed God's favor. So he said, 'O Lord, if thou canst forgive this people, forgive them, but if not, do not make of me and my descendants a great nation, but blot me out of thy book', that is to say, 'Let me die and be forgottenlike the rest of these people whom I have led, and whom I love so dearly.' So God, moved by his loyalty to his people, promised to forgive them and to continue to lead them to their land."
Do not fail to mention the fact that when Moses came down from the mountain his face shone, as such a circumstance adds to the child's reverence for his hero.
The following are some suggestive questions which may help to bring out the point of the lesson for the children:
Why did the children of Israel want Aaron to make them a golden calf?
In doing so, what commandment did they disobey?
Why did Moses break the tablets of stone?
How were the Israelites punished for their sin?
What did God threaten to do to Israel for this sin? and what did he want to do to Moses because he had not sinned?
Did this please Moses? Why not? What did Moses pray God to do?
Did God grant this prayer? How did God show that he had forgiven Israel?
How did He show that He was pleased with Moses?
Interpretation.The Biblical passages dealing with the construction of the Tabernacle and the nature of its appointments and the services conducted therein are scattered through a number of chapters of our Bible, but for pedagogic purposes it is best to consider them together. Before discussing any details we must realize the significance of the Tabernacle in general. We are to see in it the parent of the temple and the synagogue and understand its significance in the light of the importance of these institutions to later Judaism. "Let them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them". (Exodus 25. 8.) Our rabbis paraphrase this by the words, "that I may cause MyShekinahto dwell among them." Inasmuch as theShekinahmeant the Divine Presence made manifest, we may render their meaning in more modern terms by declaring that the function of tabernacle, temple and synagogue is to make us realize the presence of God, for though we may theoretically admit His existence without such institutions, we should not feel the reality of His presence were it not brought home to us by the organized worship that they cultivated. But even if it is possible to realize the presence of God merely by the direct communion of the individual without any organized communal worship in a community sanctuary, the God we should then worship would not be the God of Israel andour religion would not consecrate life to the service of His Torah. And just as the Tabernacle, to which every animal that was to be eaten had to be brought for sacrifice, weaned the people from the habit of sacrificing "to the satyrs," (Leviticus 17. 7) so in later times the Temple was the center of the national worship as against the rival cult of Baal and Astarte associated with the "high places", and so today the synagogue is the institution upon which we must depend to guard the purity of Jewish religious thought from the influences of our non-Jewish environment. In view of the significance of the Tabernacle and its daughter institutions, we cannot begrudge the space that our Bible gives to its construction and its ritual.
It is impossible for us to understand the precise symbolic significance of all the ceremonial objects and decorations of the Tabernacle, but the very attention that is given to these details is expressive of an appreciation of the aid to devotion which is to be found in an appeal to the aesthetic sense of the worshipper. Some of the symbolism is, however, quite obvious. Thus it is evident that the placing of the Two Tables of the Law in the Ark which was kept in the Holy of Holies, and was made of choice wood covered within and without with gold and guarded by the figures of cherubim wishes to testify to the sanctity of the Law as the very center and soul of Judaism. The prohibition to any but the high priest to enter the Holy of Holies, and the insistence on ritual purity and provisions for the washing of hands and feet in the brass laver served to remove the worship from the plane of the commonplace and profane and aided in creating that atmosphere of reverence and awe which is indispensible to trueworship. The clouds of smoke from the incense suggested something of the mystery of God as is seen from its association in rabbinic tradition with the "cloud of glory". כִּי בֶּעָנָן אֵרָאֶה עַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת "For I appear in the cloud upon the ark-cover" is construed by the Rabbis to mean the cloud of incense.
With regard to the garments of the priests, the appearance on the breast plate of the names of the tribes of Israel emphasizes the representative capacity of the high priest as צִבּוּר שְׁלִיחַ or agent of the congregation, whereas the diadem with the inscription לַיהֲוָה קֹדֶשׁ "Holy unto God" was the symbol of his consecration to God.
Aim.The aim of this lesson should be to interest the child in the synagogue and public worship and more especially to develop in him the sentiment for beauty, dignity and decorum in the service of God.
Suggestions to the teacher.The obvious point of contact between the lesson and the child is the child's experience of synagogue worship, an experience which it is the duty of every Jewish school to provide. Begin the lesson by calling attention to the fact that Jews everywhere gather together on Sabbaths and holidays and even on week days to pray to God in houses called synagogues set aside for that purpose. Then question the children as to the appearance of the synagogue that they attend, particularly as to how it differs from other buildings designed to hold large numbers of people, so as to interest them in the distinctive features of synagogue architecture and adornment, such as the Ark, the Reading Desk and the Perpetual Lamp. The children's answers may call attention to certain featurespeculiar to their own synagogue which they imagine to be characteristic of synagogues in general. Their errors can be corrected in an interesting way by showing them pictures of a variety of synagogues in different lands and different architectural styles.
This done, call attention to the fact that our fathers in the wilderness needed a house of worship just as much as we do and therefore when Moses was on the mountain speaking to God, God said to him, "Let the children of Israel make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them." Explain the word "sanctuary" as meaning a holy place, "like our synagogues." "But how" you continue, "were the children of Israel to build a house of worship in the wilderness when they were wandering from place to place and the pillar of cloud might any day move on and they would have to follow? They could not take with them on the march a building of wood and stone and they could not build a new one at every place where they stopped for a few days. But God gave Moses the idea of a sanctuary that suited their purpose admirably, because they could take it with them. Have you any idea what sort of a building that was that they could carry with them wherever they went?" If there is no response, continue. "When an army is on the march, the soldiers cannot build houses over night for themselves to sleep in; what have they for shelter?" (The children will probably know that soldiers encamped live in tents.) "Well, the children of Israel when they were wandering in the wilderness had to live in tents and in huts that they could take apart and put together again and carry with them from place to place, and so their sanctuary had also to be a sort of tent that they could takeapart and put together again. But it was not an ordinary tent. Its curtains were made of the finest cloths, with beautiful colored designs woven on them by the most famous artists of the day. The wood that was used for the poles on which the curtains rested was the very finest wood that could be obtained, and everything that was in the tabernacle was to be as beautiful as the hand of man could make it."
Dwell on the enthusiasm with which the Israelites responded to the call for the material and labor needed in the construction of the tabernacle, and on the praise that the Bible bestows on its artists, Bezalel and Aholiab, whom God filled "with the spirit of God in wisdom, in understanding and in knowledge and in all manner of workmanship". (Exodus 35. 31.)
After this general introduction, it is well for the teacher to show a picture of the tabernacle to help the class visualize it.[14]But this will show only the exterior. Draw on the blackboard the plan of the tabernacle showing not only the division into fore-court, sanctuary and holy of holies, but also the location of the brass altar, the laver, the altar of incense, the table of show-bread, the menorah, and the ark of the covenant.
Then proceed: "I have shown you a picture of the outside of the tabernacle, now let us walk in here where the curtains are drawn aside to admit us. We find ourselves in a large open court. It is not at all like the synagogues we are used to. It has walls to be sure, but they are of curtains, and as for a ceiling it has none at all, except the blue sky above. Nor are there anyseats, but everybody stands during the service, which consists for the most part of the sacrifice of an animal on the altar, accompanied by the playing of musical instruments, and the singing of hymns by the Levites,[15](men of the tribe of Levi) to whom the care of the sanctuary was entrusted. After the sacrifice, which is performed by Aaron or one of his sons, thecohanimor priests bless the congregation with outstretched hands in words which are still part of the service and which your parents say when they bless you on Sabbath and holidays, 'The Lord bless thee and keep thee, the Lord make His face to shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee, the Lord lift up His countenance upon thee and give thee peace,' (Numbers 6. 22-27.) But this part of the tabernacle is not the holy part called the sanctuary or holy place. Into this holy place which is separated from the outer court by curtained walls, and which had a sort of roof, not of wood, but of ram's skins dyed red and of badger skins, only the priests, who are themselves holy, because their whole life is given up to the service of God, may come. But we know from what the Bible tells us exactly what it contained." Then describe the furnishings of the sanctuary and continue. "The most holy part of all, however, only Aaron, or, after his death, the chief priest of his time, called high priest, was permitted to enter, and that only once a year on the great Day of Atonement, or else when God would call him. And the Holy of Holies, as it was called, contained nothingbut a beautiful ark or box, of which I shall show you a picture, and in this beautiful gold covered, and artistically decorated ark there were placed the two tables of stone that God had given Moses, with the ten commandments engraved on them."
Do not depend too much on description which easily grows tiresome, but show pictures of all the important objects in the sanctuary and of the priestly garments.
In the discussion which follows the presentation of the lesson, again associate the tabernacle with the synagogue, this time emphasizing points of similarity rather than of difference. Thus the position of thesefer torahin thearonwhich occupies the most conspicuous place in the synagogue is analogous to the position of the Tables of the Law in the ark in the tabernacle. Similarly thener tamidis the analogue of themenorah, etc.
But just as the presentation of the lesson was not merely by the spoken word, so the reproduction of it should not be in words only, but the class should be encouraged to draw pictures of the sanctuary and its objects, and the best drawings should be hung about the room. In this way the impulse to bring art into the service of religion may at once be utilized by enabling the children to employ art in embellishing the religious school which should also be made to appeal to them as amiḳdash me'aṭ"a minor sanctuary."
Interpretation.We have grouped in this chapter a number of episodes in the wandering of the children of Israel, because any one of them is too small to occupy a single lesson and because all deal with the same general theme, though with significant variations—rebellion and its punishment.
With regard to the episode of the death of Nadab and Abihu, recorded in Leviticus 10. 1 to 3, the Bible describes their offense as the bringing of "strange fire" into the sanctuary. This offense in itself seems disproportionate to the punishment, consequently, the rabbis in commenting on the passage try, on the one hand, to ascribe the punishment of the sons of Aaron to sins not expressly recorded in the text, as for instance the sin of being intoxicated during the service, which they derived from the fact that the prohibition of drinking before the performance of a sacrifice immediately follows the narrative of this incident, or, on the other, to regard Nadab and Abihu as martyrs, who died by the divine decree to exhibit the sanctity of the tabernacle and its ritual without really having incurred the divine displeasure. This interpretation is based on Leviticus 10. 3, "Then Moses said unto Aaron, 'This is it that the Lord spoke, saying: 'Through them that are nigh unto Me I will be sanctified and before allthe people I will be glorified,'' And Aaron held his peace." To be sure this verse may be construed to mean that Nadab and Abihu had been punished for their failure to sanctify God, but in view of the fact that the Hebrew term for martyrdom is "ḳiddush ha-shem" "the sanctification of God's name" and in view of the fact, furthermore, that it would be expected of Moses under the circumstances to say something consoling to Aaron, who was himself innocent, rather than to emphasize the wickedness of his sons this view of the incident must not be lightly dismissed. In fact, the simple reading of the text suggests a combination of these two interpretations. In taking "strange fire", i.e., fire that had not been taken from the divinely kindled flame on the altar (Leviticus 9. 24.), Nadab and Abihu had abused their priestly prerogative, making themselves the masters of the ritual of the sanctuary instead of its servants. But such a ritual transgression might have been forgiven were it not for the importance of the occasion, the consecration of the tabernacle, and for the dignity of their office which demanded that they be exceptionally circumspect in their conduct. Their punishment was, therefore, more severe than the offense would warrant in the case of any other than a consecrated person. Its severity was in proportion to the holiness of the sanctuary that had been violated and of the priestly office that had been profaned rather than to the heinousness of the offense in itself, and it expressed God's desire to impress upon the people the sanctity of the tabernacle and its ritual. In dealing with Nadab and Abihu God was acting in accordance with the rabbinic statement to the effect that "with the righteous God is exacting even to a hair'sbreadth," and the rabbis could, therefore, view the death of the Sons of Aaron somewhat in the light of martyrdom.
The remaining incidents, with the exception of the prophesying of Eldad and Medad are, as we have already said, examples of rebellion and its punishment. They are interesting instances of the trials of Moses in his leadership of the people. Their moral is the duty of loyalty to legitimate authority. The punishment of the people at Kibroth-hattaavah is an excellent example of how inordinate desire brings its own punishment, and suggests, as one of the grounds for loyalty, submission and discipline, the fact that what we most desire is not always what is most beneficial for us, a very important moral for children.
The sin of Miriam is described by the Rabbis aslashon ha-ra' "slander," Its lesson is that it is wrong not merely to rebel against righteous leadership, but even to detract from the honor that is due to noble characters. The charge that Aaron and Miriam brought against Moses was not the charge of any moral offense or offense against the Law, for the Torah expressly prohibits intermarriage only with the people of Canaan, the construction of the law to make it applicable to all intermarriage only dating from about the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. According to a Jewish tradition the Cushite woman whom Moses had married is identical with Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro. This would, of course, be untenable if Cush necessarily meant Ethiopia, as it is usually rendered, but it is generally thought that there was an Arabian Cush as well, in which case the identification is possible. Miriam's resentment was, therefore, not on religiousgrounds. The incident is probably recorded in the Bible because of the opportunity it gives of revealing the patient and forgiving character of Moses.
The same is illustrated even more strikingly by Moses' reply to his overzealous disciple Joshua, when he was told that Eldad and Medad had been prophesying in the camp. His only reply is "Would that all the Lord's people were prophets". Inasmuch as prophecy was a gift bestowed upon the council of seventy elders (Numbers 11. 25), whom Moses had been commanded to appoint, the fact that Eldad and Medad, who were not among the seventy, nevertheless "prophesied" might very well have been construed as indicating a presumptuous and rebellious attitude. According to a tradition which has considerable support from Numbers 11. 26, the number of men originally chosen were seventy-two, six from each tribe, but of these two were to be eliminated by lot and Eldad and Medad, rather than put anyone else to possible embarrassment, refused to go to the tabernacle when the lot was taken. This much of thehaggadahis at least implied in the verse, that Eldad and Medad had originally been designated for this assembly of elders for they wereba-ketubimamong those "recorded" but did not join the rest, for they had not gone out "unto the Tent and they prophesied in the camp." If we assume that their not going to the tabernacle was a voluntary refusal to hold office their conduct stands in striking contrast to the conduct of Korah and his followers.
Aim.The aim of this lesson is to teach children the duty of obedience, discipline and self-control. The contrast between the attitude of Nadab and Abihu and that of Moses points out the desirability of a humbleand modest attitude, especially on the part of those in authority, whereas the punishment of the rebellion of the people at Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah and of Miriam for her unjust criticism of Moses teach the need of submission to righteous authority and loyalty to disinterested leadership.
Suggestions to the teacher.A brief review, by question and answer, of the previous lesson, will serve as a point of contact for the story of the sin of the sons of Aaron. Tell how, after the tabernacle had been completed, there was a great celebration continuing for eight days, during which time Moses taught Aaron and his sons, who, as priests, were to perform the sacrifices for the people and in general to lead in the service, exactly what they were to do, when, where and how to kill the animals that were sacrificed, how to make the incense that had to be burnt, how to arrange the shew-bread and prepare the cakes of the meal-offering, etc. On the eighth day God himself, with fire from heaven, lit the wood that had been piled on the altar and thus started the fire there, which the priests were commanded never to let die out, but always to keep burning. Be careful to impress the children with the sinfulness of Nadab and Abihu's conduct, which the bare narrative of the facts as recorded in the Bible will not accomplish. This can be done by suggesting something of the solemnity of the occasion and of the frivolity of their attitude in this wise:
"Now Aaron and two of his sons, Eliezer and Ithamar, listened very attentively to all the instructions they had received from Moses and were determined to carry them out exactly. They felt that as priests, chosen from among all the people to lead in the worshipof God, it was for them to set an example of faithful obedience to all He said, the small things as well as the great. But the two other sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, felt differently. They, too, were proud of their new office as priests, but instead of feeling that they must lead the people in obedience to God's laws as taught by Moses, they felt that they as priests could do as they pleased with the service and did not have to follow the directions of Moses. So when they were told to burn the incense with fire lit at the flame of the altar that God had kindled, they said to themselves, 'What difference whether we burn the incense with this holy fire or with any other', so they took 'strange fire', that is fire that they themselves had kindled, and brought it into the sanctuary to show that they as priests could perform the service in whatever way they pleased. At this God was very angry. Had an ordinary Israelite disobeyed in some small particular it would not have been as great an offense, but Nadab and Abihu were priests whom God expected to lead the people in obedience and who now had set an example of disobedience on the very day of the dedication of the tabernacle to God's service. It was just as if a teacher had left her class for a time in charge of a monitor whom she trusted, and then found out later that this monitor had himself disobeyed her and had set an example of disobedience to the class in her absence. Do you not think the teacher would be more angry at her monitor than if he had never been appointed to that office? That is why God was now so angry at Nadab and Abihu and resolved that as they had set an example of rebellion and disobedience He would make their punishment an example so that othersshould be duly warned not to do as they had done." Then follows the story of the death of Nadab and Abihu. Do not fail to dwell on Aaron's resignation in recognition of God's justice.
In discussing the incident that gave its name to Kibroth-hattaavah it is well to give other examples to show that what we most desire is not always best for us and to have the children give examples, as this is a moral of particular importance to childhood, suggesting as it does a reason for that deference to elders upon which the training of children is dependent. The case of the glutton who craves foods that are not good for him, of the drunkard who craves drink that proves his ruin, of the child who prefers truancy or the pursuits of pleasure to diligence in study, etc., may all serve as examples of sins, the very indulgence in which effects their own punishment. But dwell particularly on the fact of the child's not knowing what is for his own good as well as his parents know, and the consequent duty of the child to defer to their judgment.
The narrative of Moses' relations to Eldad and Medad presents no difficulty. In telling Miriam's sin and punishment the emphasis should be rather on the forgiving and magnanimous spirit of Moses than on the pettiness of Miriam's attitude. Point out how hurt Moses must have felt at Miriam's unjust accusation, which implied that Moses was trying to arrogate authority to himself but how, nevertheless, he felt no satisfaction when God punished Miriam but prayed that she be healed and forgiven. God's vindication of Moses (Numbers 12. 6-8) should be quoted in Biblical language.
Interpretation.Little need be said by way of interpretation of this episode, as the Biblical narrative makes its point very clear. It shows us the consequences of a lack of faith and of a lack of that courage which faith inspires. As a substitute for this courage born of faith, not even the fury of despair can avail. This is illustrated by the disastrous defeat of the Israelites when, spurred on by their fear of facing the punishment for their previous cowardice, they finally do rush to the attack contrary to the advice of Moses, leaving the ark of the covenant behind them. The story is, moreover, significant as showing the providential purpose of the forty years of wandering through the wilderness—namely, the rearing of a new generation inured to hardship and imbued with the hope of future triumph. The faults of this slave people that needed correction are graphically illustrated in the picture the Bible draws of the reception with which the words of the ten spies and of Joshua and Caleb respectively met: the panic and rebellion, the ineffectual wailing, the clamor for a new leader to lead them back to Egypt and the threats to stone their present leaders. The sublime devotion of Moses is again pictured to us in his pleas for the people and his refusal of a glorious future for himself and his seed in which Israel should have no share.
Aim.The aim in teaching this lesson is to thrill the child's heart with admiration for the virtues of faith and courage. It should help to establish in his mind the association of his religion with all the heroic virtues that are dear to the heart of boyhood.
Suggestions to the teacher.Before telling this story, read over the Biblical account in Numbers and Deuteronomy carefully in order to get the spirit of the Biblical narrative. The Bible does not stop to moralize, but tells its tale graphically and dramatically, and so should the teacher. The words of the ten spies on the one hand, and of Joshuah and Caleb on the other, should be given in direct discourse and in Biblical language. Attempt to help the child picture in his mind the scene in the camp when the spies returned and rendered their report. Aid him to realize the psychology of the people by bringing to his attention what it meant for them, a people untrained in warfare, to fight against the Canaanites, secure in their fortified cities. It will be more difficult to enable the pupils to grasp the motive for the rash assault which the people did finally undertake. This one must do by bringing before their eyes pictures of the hardships of the prospective wanderings of the Israelites in the wilderness, which made them unable to face further wandering as an alternative to a possible defeat by the Canaanites. Try to make the class view the situation through the eyes of the Israelites at that time. This can be done by speaking to them somewhat as follows:
"When Moses had told the people that they would be punished by having to wander forty years in the wilderness until all of them had died and a new generation had grown up to take their places, they were moreterrified than ever. Frightened as they had been at the thought of making war against the giant Canaanites in their walled cities, they were even more frightened at the thought of having to wander forty long years more in the wilderness, all the rest of their lives in fact, and never even seeing the land which God had promised to their fathers where, all this time, they had thought that they would at least find rest from their hardships and toils. They thought of all they had endured until then on the journey. The scorching heat of the desert sun by day, the biting cold of the desert winds by night, the hunger and the thirst, the long marches over treeless rocky hills and valleys. But all that time they had been cheered by the thought that some day the end would come and they would be able to find rest in their new land, the Land of Promise. But even this hope was now taken away from them and they felt that anything would be better than to wander in the wilderness until they died. Even to be killed in fighting the Canaanites seemed better now. So they said, 'Lo, we are here and will go up unto the place which the Lord hath promised; for we have sinned'."
It may also prove difficult to help the child understand why this change of front was not acceptable to God. The child does not naturally analyze motive and would not see, unless it is called to his attention, why, since as a matter of fact the Israelites did go up to attack the enemy, they were punished by being driven back. This can best be done by suggesting analogies with situations within the range of a child's experience. One may in discussing this topic, after having completed one's narrative, raise this very question. "Why did God say he would not be with them ifthey went up to attack the enemy after they had changed their mind?" and, not receiving a satisfactory answer, one may explain in some such manner:
"If the Israelites had decided to attack the enemy immediately when they had heard Joshua's and Caleb's words, God would have been with them and helped them to win the victory. But, at that time, when God wanted them to go they were unwilling. They did not believe that He would help them. Later when they wanted to go, because they were afraid to wander forty years in the wilderness, it was too late. God was not then willing. The time to obey a command is when it is given and not after one is threatened with punishment for disobedience. If a teacher were to give a boy some school work to do and he refused, until she told him to stay in after school to do it and only then he agreed to do the work rather than stay in, do you think the teacher would be satisfied with that? No, she would say justly, 'You had your chance to obey when the other children had, now if you are sorry show it by taking the punishment you deserve'."
Interpretation.The central idea that runs through all the important episodes of these chapters is the immensity of the problem of leadership that confronted Moses, and the contrast between the selfish and fickle passions of the people, passions that were constantly menacing the very existence of Israel, and the sublime patience and constancy of Moses, although on one occasion his sorely tried patience can stand the strain no longer and he commits the sin by which he forfeits his right to enter the Promised Land.
The difficulties against which Moses had to contend before the event narrated in the preceding lesson, were multiplied after that event. If the people before that time had been restive and discontented whenever confronted with a difficulty, though they could always console themselves by looking forward to their journey's end in the Land of Promise, it was but natural that thereafter their dissatisfaction would be greatly intensified. They had threatened to appoint another head to lead them back to Egypt, and though at the time this may have been nothing but an idle threat, the opposition to Moses soon found a leader in the person of Korah, the son of Izhar. Though he was himself a Levite, he coveted the higher office of the priesthood to which Aaron and his family had been appointed,but, with the instinct of the true demagogue, posed as the champion of the people against the arbitrary authority of the Levitical priesthood, and of Moses in appointing Aaron and his sons as priests. He said to Moses and Aaron, "Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them and the Lord is among them; wherefore then do ye lift up yourselves above the assembly of the Lord "? (Numbers 16. 3.) Moses' reply to Korah shows that he saw through this pretentious championship of the people to the envy and ambition of Korah, which were his real motives. "Hear now, ye sons of Levi; is it but a small thing unto you that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to Himself, to do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them; and that He hath brought thee near, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee? and will ye seek the priesthood also? Therefore thou and all thy company that are gathered together against the Lord—and as to Aaron, what is he that ye murmur against him?" (Numbers 16. 8 to 11.) But Korah's championship of the claims of all Israel to the priesthood won him a large following among the other tribes, particularly among their ambitious leaders. Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, all of the tribe of Reuben, are his particular henchmen, and he had also succeeded in winning over to his cause two hundred and fifty of "the princes of the congregation, the elect men of the assembly, men of renown." The sedition had spread so far that nothing could have prevented the reversion to a complete state of anarchy, save the destruction of all those that took part, in a way so strikingthat it would reveal clearly the divine purpose. This was provided for by the ordeal that is narrated in the text. But the disaffection had spread so far that many of the people resented the death of Korah and his followers and were inclined to hold Moses responsible for it, until the miracle of the blossoming of Aaron's staff convinced them. It is necessary for the student of the Bible to understand the extent and purport of Korah's rebellion lest he conceive of the punishment of Korah and his followers as visited upon them merely because of an offense of "lèse majesté", and, consequently, as utterly disproportionate to the offense.
The narrative of the sin of Moses and Aaron for which they were prohibited from entering the Promised Land does not make very clear to the modern reader precisely what the Bible views as constituting their sin. One possible interpretation, however, is that Moses by his words, "Hear now, ye rebels, are we to bring you forth water out of this rock?" (Numbers 20. 10) which were followed by his striking the rock and his failure to speak to it as God had commanded prevented the providential character of the water's flowing from being apparent. The incident might have been interpreted by the popular mind as if Moses, by the magic of his staff, had himself caused the water to flow, as is suggested by his use of the first person, "Are we to bring you forth water," and by his failure to comply literally with God's command. He, thus permitted an opportunity of sanctifying God's name to pass by yielding to passion and thinking at the time of his personal grievance more than of his service to God. Inasmuch as this partook of the nature of the sins of that generation of Israel, he and Aaron were to taketheir share also in the punishment of Israel and were not to enter the Promised Land.
The thought suggested by the punishment of Nadab and Abihu recurs again in this connection, viz: that the greater the man and his responsibilities, the more circumspect must he be in his conduct.
The incident of the brass serpent must be interpreted in the light of the rabbinic comment on that subject to which we have called attention in connection with the holding up of Moses' hands during the battle with the Amalekites.
"Is it then in the power of a serpent to slay or to bring to life? But so long as the Israelites gazed heavenward and subjected their hearts to their Father in heaven they were healed, and, if not, they were destroyed." (Rosh ha-Shanah III, 8.) By looking up to the brass serpent that Moses had been instructed to make, the people testified, as it were, to their faith in God's power to heal them from the serpent's bites. It is interesting to note that when, at a later time in the history of the people the serpent itself became the object of reverence and of idolatrous worship, it was destroyed by order of King Hezekiah, in accordance with the teaching of the prophets (2 Kings 18. 4).
Aim.The aim of this lesson is to develop an appreciation of disinterested loyalty, steadfast faith and even temper, and a contempt for selfish ambition, uncontrolled passion and faithlessness.
Suggestions to the teacher.The method to be used in accomplishing this aim is not that of drawing an abstract moral from the events of the narrative, but one must tell one's story with feeling for its hero, Moses, in such a way that the pupil identifies himself with hishero and feels toward the enemies of Moses an almost personal hostility. Before the child reaches adolescence, analysis of character is not natural to him, and the discussion of men's virtues and vices fruitless, but imitation of character is natural, and hero-worship is the lever by which he may be moved to acquire a love for virtue and a disgust with vice.
In order to put the character of Moses in a heroic light make the class appreciate the depth of the ingratitude and treachery against which Moses had constantly to contend, and how difficult this made his task of leadership. Begin by calling on a child to tell the story of the preceding lesson. Then call attention to how sad Moses must have felt when after all he had done for the people they were ready in the face of every difficulty to disobey and rebel, and how much Moses must have loved and pitied them to have prayed to God for their forgiveness rather than simply accept from God the promise of a happy future for himself and his descendants. Call attention to the fact that this was not the first time that the people had disobeyed Moses and rebelled or murmured against him, and ask the children to tell other instances. Draw from them as many instances as possible since this not only helps in an interesting way to refresh the children's memory of what they had already learnt, but also to understand what is to follow. Then continue:
"Just as the murmuring of the people against Moses, when they heard the report of the ten spies was not the first instance of their rebellion against their patient leader, so it was not the last. In fact, it became harder for Moses to lead the people now than ever."
The reason for this can best be explained by an analogy drawn from the experience of children, as for example:
"You know that when a baseball team wins one game after the other everybody praises the captain and all the members of the team are ready to obey him, but if he loses one game after the other, they all begin to criticise and find fault and everybody feels that he himself would have made a better captain than the one who had been chosen, although it may not at all have been the captain's fault that the team was unsuccessful. So it was with the Israelites. So long as they still hoped that Moses was going to lead them to a land flowing with milk and honey, they were ready in the main to obey him, except when they were afraid on account of some special hardship and feared that he would never get them there after all; but when Moses himself told them that they would have to wander about for forty years in the wilderness until all the grown men of that day should have died, they were very bitter against him. Instead of blaming themselves, and their own cowardice and lack of faith in God, they blamed Moses, like the losing team that blames its captain instead of its own poor playing. And so they thought of appointing a new captain, another man than Moses, to act as their leader."
At this point introduce the character of Korah to the class and tell them of his envy of Moses, of his coveting the position of Aaron, and of his subtle attempts to secure the leadership by telling the people that they were all everyone as good as Moses and Aaron, for they were all members of a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation."
After describing success of Korah's propaganda, and pointing out the helplessness of Moses and the extreme danger of his position, tell of Moses' decision to entrust his vindication to God. If Korah and his followers wished to claim the priesthood, let them act as priests, each burning incense in the censer that he held in his hand, and God would show whether he wanted to accept them as priests or not.
The judgment that was pronounced upon Korah and his followers will then mean for the child the just punishment of disloyalty and will reinforce his detestation of the qualities displayed by Korah and his like, but if the teacher fails to prepare the way by enlisting the child's interest in the situation as it developed between Moses and the people, by some such method as we have suggested, the story will mean little more to him than the account of an earthquake. From the point of view of religious education, a knowledge of the manner of Korah's punishment is not of so much consequence as an understanding of the sin for which he was punished.
In telling the story of the sin of Moses and Aaron, guard against appearing to detract from the character of Moses. If the previous lessons have been properly taught the child should by this time have developed an intense admiration for Moses and would be inclined to resent any disparagement of his hero, even to the point of secretly feeling that the sin of Moses was no real sin and that his teacher's treatment of him was quite unfair and was merely an attempt to apologize for God's not letting him enter Canaan. The rabbis say that the reason for God's mentioning the sin of Nadab and Abihu was to keep us from inferring that their death was a punishment for other and moregrievous sins. One cannot help feeling that the narrative of the sin of Moses had a similar purpose, the very fact that Moses was so severely punished for so apparently slight an offense, being meant to show the esteem in which he was held and how much God expected of him, in consequence. At any rate, this is the spirit in which it were best to approach this subject. The emphasis should be on the provocation to sin and on Moses' pious acceptance of his punishment and his readiness to continue leading the people to the Promised Land even after he could not expect to share in their final triumph. The liturgy for Simhath Torah contains the words, "Moses died. Who shall not die?" The sentiment that the teacher should seek to arouse by this lesson is somewhat similar. "Moses sinned, who can be sinless?" If Moses, who is described as the meekest of men, could sin in a moment of passion, how much more should we guard ourselves against sin and especially when under the influence of passion.
In telling of how the people who had been bitten by the serpents were healed when they looked up to the brass serpent that Moses had made, guard against letting the child attribute any magic to the image of the serpent itself. This can best be done by telling them the explanation of this episode suggested above in our interpretation. One might also associate the incident with what they had learnt of the influence of the hands of Moses in the battle with the Amalekites. Moreover, it might be well to tell them of how the people's false conception of its significance in later times led to its destruction by a pious king of Judah.
Interpretation.The wandering through the wilderness, which in this chapter draws to a close, has had its desired effect in producing a race capable of giving battle. Its powers are put to the test by the necessity of pushing its conquests through the territory of Sihon, King of the Amorites, and of Og, King of Bashan.
The command to conquer these nations and the Promised Land itself may present religious difficulties to some. Indeed, such wars of conquest are responsible for the charge frequently brought against religion in general, that it brought bloodshed and persecution into the world. This would, however, be an entirely wrong conception of the significance of thismilḥemet miẓwah. We must bear in mind that warfare was the normal state of the ancient world. If we ask why God so ordained, we can give no answer any more than we can to the general question of why God suffers evil to exist and then desires man to contend against it. But no religious person really believes that God desires the evil. Similarly we must not construe these chapters to assume that God desires or ever desired war but merely that, warfare between the nations being inevitable in an age when there were no peaceful methods of settling national and tribal disputes, Goddesired Israel to be victorious because her civilization was superior to that of Canaan. Even the command to exterminate the inhabitants must be construed in the light of the fact that otherwise the only alternative was perpetual warfare between the races on the land or an assimilation of Israel to the native races with the loss of the hope that Israel's victory held out to the world. Again and again are we told in the Torah that the sole justification for Israel's conquest is the sinfulness of the nations of Canaan, and that Israel's sinfulness would subject it to the same treatment as was meted out to the Canaanites. In the very chapters that we are considering now it is to be noted that the command to conquer the land applied originally only to Canaan, to which the people laid claim by virtue of inheritance from the patriarchs who had dwelt there, and that, therefore, all that was originally demanded of the trans-Jordanic lands is the right to pass through without doing any injury in transit. It is only when this is definitely refused that the Israelites are permitted to resort to arms.
The story of Balaam and Balak is significant as a poetic expression of the invincibility of Israel. Balaam is sent for by Balak to curse Israel because of the reputation that this heathen prophet and sorcerer enjoyed. Though tempted by the bribes offered by Balak he knows that God will not suffer him to pronounce an effective curse upon Israel and at first refuses to go. He is, however, finally permitted to go, after due warning, both before he sets out and again when the angel opposes him on the way, not to speak anything save what God puts into his mouth. The final result is that he blesses Israel and curses Moab.
The reader should not be troubled by the apparent admission that a magic power attaches to a formula of curse or blessing, as the point of the story is not to teach that curses are or are not effective, but that, whether they are or not בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל קֶסֶם וְלֹא בְּיַעֲקֹב נַחַשׁ לֹא which, though usually translated otherwise, may fittingly be rendered, "There is no enchantment against Jacob and no divination against Israel." (Numbers 23.23.) In rabbinic tradition the story of Balaam's dialogue with his ass is the classical text for the preaching of humane treatment to animals. It is still capable of yielding that moral.
The incident of the oath taken by the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh has a very obvious moral in its insistance on Jewish unity and cooperation. "We will not return unto our houses until the children of Israel have inherited every man his inheritance". (Numbers 32. 18.) The fear of Moses that the premature settlement of the trans-Jordanic tribes might lead to division in Israel was certainly well-founded in view of subsequent events when the development of local tribal jurisdictions almost threatened the existence of the nation in the days of the Judges.
Aim.To strengthen the child's faith in God's choice of Israel.
Suggestions to the teacher.In telling of the wars of Israel all harrowing details would naturally be omitted and the emphasis put not on the fight, but on the victory which Israel won by the help of God. A good point of contact for beginning the story could be obtained by recalling the narrative of the report of the ten spies and of the punishment to which Israel was sentenced by reason of its acceptance of this report.
Then show how God's punishment was adapted to the offense in that it gave Israel the opportunity to rear a generation of brave men in the free atmosphere of the wilderness. Be sure that the child understands the advantage of the training in the wilderness for the new generation, over the experience of their fathers in Egypt. It will not suffice to state the thing abstractly, but make your point clear by repeated illustration as follows:
"Many years had now passed since the children of Israel had sent the ten spies and had been told that they could not enter the Promised Land until all the full grown men of that day should have died. During these years almost all of that generation who had been afraid to go up into the land had died and their sons and daughters, who, at that time, had been children, or had not yet even been born, had now grown up to manhood. And they were a very different generation from what their fathers had been. In the first place they were different in appearance. Their fathers, who in youth had been slaves to Pharaoh, had grown up with backs bent by the burdens they had to carry. Many of them had been permanently weakened and even deformed by the hard treatment they had received in Egypt. But their children, who had grown up in the wilderness and had lived all their lives out of doors, with plenty of fresh air and healthful exercise, and with no one to make them work at labor that was too hard for them, grew up straight and sturdy, broad-shouldered and muscular, like well-trained athletes. They were as different in appearance as a poor peddler whom you may see carrying his pack on his shoulders is from the strong and vigorous farm hand.
"Nor did they differ in appearance only, but also in character. Slavery had made cowards of their fathers. The slightest act of disobedience to the task-masters bringing instant punishment, they had learned to fear every enemy. No doubt their fathers had been warned in childhood never to attack an Egyptian no matter what he did, because they would in the end have to suffer for it. And so their fathers had become accustomed to thinking of themselves as too weak to fight and when they saw the Canaanite warriors they said, 'We are like grasshoppers compared to them.' But their sons who had grown up in the wilderness did not know the meaning of fear. They were used to hardship and dangers, for the wilderness was beset by all manner of wild beasts and wild men also, and this had trained them to be brave. Moreover they saw from childhood up how God at every step helped His people, how He helped them at the Red Sea, how He fed them on Manna, etc., and they said to themselves, 'Since God is with us, we need not fear, what can man do unto us.'"
You are now in a position to tell of the campaigns against Sihon and Og, stressing the overtures of peace, the rejection of which justified the invasion, and enlarging on the Israelites' sense of triumph which resulted from their victories, in which they saw the beginning of the realization of God's promise to give them the land of Canaan.
This is a good point in the narrative at which to trace the route of Israel's marches through the wilderness and to locate the important places on the map.
In telling the story of Balak and Balaam be careful not to leave the child with a superstitious belief in theefficacy of a curse, not only because superstition is in itself evil, but because the association of religion with superstition becomes very dangerous to the former when the child reaches an age at which he will in all probability see the unreasonableness of the superstition. Make it plain that Balak's sending for Balaam to curse Israel does not mean that Balaam actually possessed this power, but merely that Balak believed him to possess it in accordance with the superstition of his day. The point of the narrative should lie in the discomfiture of Balak, which teaches that when God is bent on blessing, no human being can effectively curse, and that God had destined Israel for blessing. Do not make this explanation as a digression from the story, but weave it into the narrative itself by suggestion as follows:
"Now Balak, the king of Moab, had heard that there lived in Mesopotamia, a famous sorcerer named Balaam, and that whomever this Balaam blessed would be sure to have good luck, and whomever he cursed, bad luck, and, being very superstitious, as were most of the people in his day, he believed that Balaam really had this power, and so he sent presents to him to persuade him to come to Moab and curse Israel for him so that the Israelites should be defeated in battle."
Do not attempt to rationalize the miracle of the ass's speaking to Balaam. If the child wants to know how it was possible for the ass to speak, answer that it is no harder for God to give an animal power to speak than a man. No baby is born with the ability to speak and we only learn to speak when God gives us the power and intelligence. By answering the question in this manner one attaches to the commonplace the mysteryassociated with the supernatural. By attempting to rationalize, one would reduce everything to the level of the commonplace. At a later age, when the pupil has developed a concept of natural law, this answer may not prove satisfactory, but it would be absurd to attempt a philosophic reconciliation of the natural and supernatural for children at an age when they lack the concept of either.
Interpretation.The Biblical account of the death of Moses in its impressive simplicity scarcely needs comment. It brings to a fitting end the story of the life-struggle of the greatest of the prophets. There is an infinite pathos in the thought of his never having set foot on the soil toward which he had been leading his people for forty years in the face of ingratitude, calumny and rebellion. But there is also a peculiar fitness in this fate for it lifts all his efforts in behalf of his people beyond the reach of any detraction based on a charge of self-interest. After he knows his destiny never to be permitted to enter the Promised Land, he continues with the same steadfastness to devote himself to his people. He rehearses their history and in words of passionate appeal admonishes them in song and prophecy to be faithful to the covenant, as the very life of the nation depended thereon. And he provides during his lifetime for a successor to his labors and secures for him the popular allegiance. Then, with his life-work completed but with all earthly reward for it withheld, he ascends the mountain to behold the Land of Promise and dies content with seeing in prophetic vision the consummation which a less divinely meek man would have demanded to see in realization. "No man knoweth of his sepulcher". As in life he was contentto live for God and to give God the glory, so in his death he left no token which might attract to him the reverence due to the God whom he served, thereby saving Judaism from that man-worship to which other religions have fallen a prey by reason of their identification of their religion with the personality of its founder. "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men that were upon the face of the earth", (Numbers 12. 3) and, therefore, "There hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face; in all the signs and the wonders, which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land; and in all the mighty hand, and all the great terror, which Moses wrought in the sight of all Israel." (Deuteronomy 34. 10 to 12.)
Aim.The aim of this lesson should be to cultivate in the child a reverent appreciation of the personality of Moses which would result not merely in the attempt to emulate his virtues, but in the desire to be faithful to his law in accordance with the sentiment expressed in the verse, "Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob." (Deuteronomy 33. 4.)
Suggestions to the teacher.There is comparatively little narrative in this lesson and what there is will present no difficulty. When telling of how Moses addressed the people before his death, read well selected extracts from the Book of Deuteronomy. If the class has learned in its Hebrew work the translation of the שְׁמַע (Deuteronomy 6. 4 to 9) and שָׁמוֹעַ אִם וְהָיָה (Deuteronomy 11. 13 to 21) or if the pupils have been taughtto say them at home, include these portions among those selected and call the attention of the children to the fact that these words which they say daily are among the last words of Moses, which he wanted the people to remember after his death and to teach to their children, and that if we say them and live according to them we are carrying out the will of the great law-giver of our nation. This should serve to give an added meaning and value to the child's prayers and connect the history lesson with his daily life. Other passages adapted for reading to children are, Deuteronomy 3. 23 to 4. 10, also 4. 32-40 and 28. 1-4, 30. 15-20 and 32. 7-18.
In the discussion of the lesson with the class after its first presentation take occasion to review the life of Moses as a means of bringing out the salient traits of his character. Call for instances illustrating Moses' stern sense of justice, his courage, his modesty, his readiness to forgive, etc., and seek to get as many examples as possible so that the result will be in effect a review of the life of Moses. Be very careful not to make your questions too vague. Thus it would not do merely to say, "Who can tell me an incident in the life of Moses that shows his modesty?" inasmuch as the abstract noun "modesty" has little meaning to the child of the age at which this story is usually taught. It would be much better to say, "One reason that Moses was so great was because he was modest, that is to say, he never thought about the honor that others owed to him as leader, or felt boastful in his heart because of all the great things he had done, and was always ready to see the good in others and to admit whenever he was wrong. Can any of you give me any instance in the life of Moses to show that he did notthink himself a great man? Can you give me an example to show that he was not anxious for honors? to show that he was ready to take the advice of others, or to admit that he was wrong when such was the case?" After having a sufficient number of answers illustrative of the modesty of Moses put them down on the blackboard thus:
Moses was modest,
1. He hesitated about leading the people from Egypt.
2. He would not rebuke Eldad and Medad for prophesying.
3. He veiled his face when it shone.
4. He accepted the punishment for his sin without complaint.
Then do the same with other traits of Moses' character, until every incident in the career of Moses is classified thus on the basis of its moral significance. The value of this drill is that it serves at the same time as a review not merely of the events of the life of Moses, but of their significance, and, moreover, provides exercise for the moral judgment of the pupils. The success of this exercise will depend very largely on the skill of the teacher in making his questions simple and brief and in putting them to the class in an animated manner, such as would make them fell that to find the correct answers was a sort of game that they were playing.
After the main incidents in the life of Moses are thus classified on the blackboard in accordance with the traits of character they exhibit, another helpful exercise would be to let the class rearrange them in their chronological order and assign them to the three periods of Moses' life,
1. His life before receiving the call to save his people,
2. His opposition to Pharaoh,
3. His leadership of the people in the wilderness.
This second classification might serve as the outline of an essay on the life of Moses which the children might be requested to submit at the end of the term as summarizing their year's work.