Leviticus has much to say concerning the subject of leprosy as the general term for any type of skin condition that renders a person ritually clean. There are two stories in the Bible concerning prominent leaders of Israel who are specifically given that disease by God as punishment for some sinful action of theirs. It is instructive to look at these side by side.
Miriam
She is one of three siblings (with Aaron and Moses) who are chosen to lead the people of Israel during the Exodus period. She is noted for the song she led the women in singing after the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea and for the fact that she is designated as a prophetess (Exodus 15:20-21), although we have no recorded examples of her prophecies.
But then in Numbers 12:1-15 she, along with Aaron, rebels against Moses' leadership and is, in turn, struck down with leprosy until Moses intercedes with God on her behalf and she is only afflicted for one week. Two basic questions to ask are, “What was the exact nature of her sin that brought about that godly punishment and why wasn't Aaron similarly punished?” Two answers have been given to explain the first question:
1. First is the stated reason for their discontent with Moses found in v. 1a, i.e. the fact that Moses had taken a Cushite (Ethiopian) woman as a wife. At this time in the history of Israel, there was no hard and fast rule against a Jew marrying someone from the outside or against a man taking more than one wife. So it is presumed that the only reason for their distress had to do with the color of her skin. Thus, Boice says, “We have every reason for believing that the rebellion was based purely on racial prejudice...Now if there are still doubts about this interpretation of the story these should be dispelled by the sequel. For God gave a punishment to Miriam, the instigator, that was frighteningly appropriate to her prejudice...God said to Miriam, 'You're brown, this girl is black; and you think white is better. All right, have more of it.'”
Propp similarly notes that “Miriam's snow-white condition is fitter punishment if the new wife is dark.” However, he doesn't feel that prejudice was the real issue here, and most commentators agree. Brauch states that “the issues among the three run deeper,” and Milgrom says that “it becomes clear that this complaint about Moses' marriage was only a pretext.” So what was the real issue?
2. It has been expressed a number of different ways, all in basic agreement with one another:
“Miriam was inflicted with skin disease (the only record of individual illness in the Pentateuch) as divine judgment for her jealousy of Moses.” (P.S. Johnston)
“Their real motive in challenging Moses appears to have been jealousy...when the two did not answer the Lord, his anger burned against them.” (Brauch)
Propp deduces that leprosy “appears to be the specific penalty for doubting Moses' authority.”
Andersen and Freedman feel that “their conspiracy was a bid for power or a protest against threatened loss of status.”
Milgrom says, “What they were really after was a share in Moses' leadership.” But he notes that some rabbis insist that it was slander against Moses that brought it about.
To decide between these two options, we need to keep in mind the second reason Miriam and Aaron give in v. 1b as well as God's response in vv. 2-9. They are wholly concerned with the uniqueness of Moses' status before God and have nothing to do with any racial prejudging.
As Fleming explains, “Moses is no mere king who governs by inherited authority or military powers. He does not even govern because God assigned him the office but rather because God have him a task: to lead Israel out of Egypt. In this role, he requires constant guidance, and with Moses God enters a relationship of unprecedented intimacy, based on regular communication that goes far beyond the occasional contact allowed the patriarchs.” Thompson then follows up on this fact by saying, “The recognition of this unique status should have kept Miriam and Aaron from every jealous complaint.”
The second question regarding Miriam alone being punished has also been explained by commentators adequately:
“The verb [in vv. 1-2]...is third person feminine singular, suggesting that originally it was Miriam alone who spoke.” (Thompson)
Andersen and Freedman agree with this assessment: “It is her story. Aaron acts in collusion with her, but in a supportive way. The remarkable placement of the name of the female before the male (Num 12:1) suggests that Miriam was the instigator.”
Merrill points out another possible reason, namely that we have a record of Aaron confessing his sin (v. 11), but nothing out of Miriam's mouth.
Interestingly, Propp notes that in Exodus 4:1-9, it is Moses himself who is stricken with leprosy temporarily after Moses questions God's words. But Durham explains, “While Moses' experience here appears to be only a sign, though perhaps with overtones of judgment for disbelief and continued resistance, Miriam's infection in Num 12...is clearly a judgment of Yahweh.”
Uzziah
The second Jewish leader to be afflicted with leprosy is King Uzziah. The story of his long reign over Judah is recounted briefly in II Kings 15:1-7 where we learn of Uzziah's godly character and many outstanding accomplishments, followed by the short notice that he came down with leprosy. Cogan and Tadmor feel that the author of Kings abbreviated his account since he “was unable to offer any explanation for the king's leprosy.”
In stark contrast, the Chronicler (II Chronicles 26) goes into great detail to describe what precipitated Uzziah's illness. According to that account, at some point later in his reign he went into an area reserved for the priesthood with the intent to offer incense to God. It took 81 brave and dedicated priests to withstand him. And when he became angry at their show of opposition, God struck him with leprosy.
Because this fuller account is not present in Kings, a number of critical scholars express their doubt that it really happened at all. Thus,
“...it is likely a clever composition of the Chronicler...” (Knoppers)
“...the tendentiousness of the story is transparent; it is part of the Chronicler's polemic against the royal prerogative to officiate as priests.” (Milgrom)
Most evangelical scholars, however, accept the story as being a true historical account of the events and describe the reasons for Uzziah's actions and God's displeasure as follows:
Ellison: “Uzziah's wish to perform priestly functions was, in fact, his giving way to the constant temptation of the kings to look on themselves as 'divine kings': see 1 Ki. 12:27. He was smitten with leprosy rather than another disease, because leprosy was considered a token of special divine judgment.”
Howard takes issue with the NIV translation which says that Uzziah was “unfaithful to the LORD his God” and prefers that of NEB: “he offended against the LORD his God.” Specifically Howard feels that “the essential point of the story is clear in emphasizing God's response to man's arrogance and pride.”
Knoppers, even though he feels the account is non-historical, says that intent is to portray Uzziah as one who “overreaches by turning against God and encroaching on the sacrificial duties of the priest's...leprosy caused serious impurity (Lev 13-14), and thus Uzziah could never enter the Temple again.”
Smith and Hamilton: “Military strength can lead to the proud attitude that one can do anything one desires.”
Wakely: “When material strength, security, and self-reliance increase, so does the temptation to assert one's own powers and to neglect one's debt to God's empowerment.”
Williamson: “...there are nearly always prophetic warnings issued before judgment falls...When heeded, these warnings can avert judgment, even at the eleventh hour, but when they are rejected, punishment is forthcoming.” “Exactly as with Rheoboam (cf. 12.1), this blessing leads to pride, which this time is not alleviated by self-humbling, but rather results in his destruction.” Thus, others have suggested that Uzziah's real sin was becoming angry when he was chastised by the priests.
Van Leeuven: “...kingly power is not absolute, it is limited to serving God's purposes for kingship and to the tasks proper to kingship; when Saul or Uzziah transgress the limits and purposes of their office, they are judged.”
Schliffler: “Pride, probably in his constructions, led to his being unfaithful to the LORD his God in that he intended to burn incense on the altar in the temple.”
Myers: “Too much prosperity was Uzziah's undoing, according to the Chronicler, because it made him proud and led him to overstep his bounds as a layman.”
Conclusion
It is tempting to draw parallels between these two stories other than the obvious nature of the two leaders' punishments.
One small but telling point is mentioned by Williamson, who notes that the wording in II Chronicles 26:20a “is clearly based on the description of the onset of Miriam's leprosy in Num. 12:10.”
But the more substantial parallel is found in the basic sin of each offending party. Both Miriam and Uzziah were selected by God to serve in particular functions, the former as a prophet and the latter as leader of the people. Their obedience to their respective callings led to blessings from God. However, that turned to pride in both their minds and they decided to take on the unique prerogatives of other leaders as well. So Aaron as priest and Miriam as prophet wished to usurp Moses' role as the leader of the people. Similarly, Uzziah as king decided that he could take on all the duties of the priesthood in addition to his governmental position.
It is only in the case of David that all three roles appear to be present in one person to a certain extent and with God's blessing. And this was to prepare us for the coming of the Son of David who was prophet, priest, and king, as well as much more.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments