Speaking Instead of Striking: The Paradigm Shift
Numbers 20:7–12 presents a story about Moses angrily striking a rock in the desert to get water for the grumbling Israelites to drink, though God instructed Moses that he was only supposed to speak to the rock, not strike it.
The previous time water had come from the rock, Moses had been commanded to strike it, but this time, he was told to only speak to the rock. At this point in the Exodus journey, Moses had just buried his sister, and the ungrateful Israelites were complaining . . . again. Frustrated, Moses took credit for the miracle and angrily struck the rock. One can imagine the cracking sound as his rod struck the rock not once but twice. Annoyed, Moses wielded his rod angrily, as if he were striking the backs of the ungrateful rebels. His patience faltered, and for that, God told Moses he would be unable to enter the promised land. It seems like a harsh penalty. What did Moses do that bothered God so much?
Theories abound as to why Moses fell from God’s good graces. Some claim it was because he ruined a symbol or took credit for the miracle, but the theory I like best focuses on his misrepresentation of God. God said to Moses, “You did not trust in me enough to demonstrate my holiness to the people” (Numbers 20:12). God’s character is one aspect of His holiness, and Moses failed to represent it correctly. God was providing the grumbling people with something beautiful—life-giving water flowing in a dry and waterless place—and by representing God as angry when He was not, Moses changed the nature of the miracle. It should have been a beautiful demonstration of God’s love and care, but Moses failed to represent God correctly to the Israelites.
I find it interesting that God commanded Moses to take his rod with him when he was only to speak to the rock. The rod is an important element in the story, but in this case, it was not intended to be used as it had been many times before to display God’s power. The people understood how it worked: God would have Moses cast down his rod, strike with it, or lift it up. In this case, however, Moses was not to use the rod. When Moses angrily struck instead of speaking, he reinforced an image of God that God did not intend to convey. Moses was supposed to lead the people to a higher understanding of God, for he was the only one who knew God face to face. Not using the rod in this case would have indicated that God’s power would be used more gently. While one might strike a slave, one speaks to a free person.
In his book God of Sense, Sigve Tonstad quotes Martin Emmrich, who described the paradigm shift in this story:
Yahweh’s instruction . . . could be rendered in the following way: “Take the rod (. . . the one you have used countless times before . . .)—but do not use it!” The sign featured a decisive break with respect to the involvement of the “rod of God.” It was no longer to be employed in miraculous performances, since its symbolic significance was temporarily limited to the period of the exodus and the wilderness journeys. Now this era was nearing its end, and God was about to open a new chapter in the history of Israel’s redemption.
2016, pp. 176–177
Moses’s rash actions went against God’s goal to raise a new generation to enter the land with utter faith in His character. God aimed to train the Israelites to exit the wilderness and pave the way for the future. Whether one gains trust, confidence, and belief in God depends on one’s understanding of God’s character. Speaking to the rock instead of striking it would have revealed that God was more approachable and could be trusted. Speaking would have better reflected the kind of person God is, allowing the Israelites to see His character more clearly and perhaps connect with Him more easily. Instead of openly shining this truth about God to prompt the people to trust Him, however, Moses struck the rock, concealing God’s glory from their view and making it difficult for them to connect to Him.
As God’s friend, Moses supposedly had a higher understanding of God’s ways, but to God’s utter disappointment, Moses failed Him. God’s decree against Moses is a lesson for all of us because correctly representing God’s character is our mission too. It’s interesting to me that when we read these Old Testament stories, we often wonder how the people could have complained or missed God’s blessings, yet we often engage in similar ways of thinking. It’s as if we too are desensitized to God ways.
When we consider the second coming and entering the eternal land of promise, we also assume that God will have an angry and threatening posture toward rebels. We may picture Jesus as He is often portrayed in the Book of Revelation—confronting His enemies and the nations who oppose Him with angry words and actions. Will Jesus come striking with the rod of His anger, or will He rule by speaking words of justice and peace (Revelation 19:15)?
The character of the self-sacrificing lamb that was slain reorients our view of the coming conquest, when we will be poised to enter the heavenly Canaan. Unfortunately, when we consider the second coming, we often take the striking Jesus—not the speaking Jesus—as our model. We prefer that Jesus strike with anger rather than speak words of justice and peace.
Moses failed to understand God completely, missing this goal at the end of his life. Due to this failure, God demoted Moses and appointed Joshua to lead the people into the promised land. God decided that a new leader was to show the way, but ultimately Joshua too was faulty and did not complete the job. We are told that Jesus ultimately surpassed Moses, succeeding in revealing what God is like. Jesus is the one who came like Moses, faithfully speaking everything that God commanded (Deuteronomy 18:18; John 1:45). We must move past Moses’s striking of the rock to focus on Jesus’s words of justice and peace. The story teaches us to let holiness flow from our every word and action so that God can use us as witnesses of Christ’s love.
Craig Ashton Jr.
Theological InTents 
Leave a comment