The Sin of Moses and the Staff of God: A Narrative Approach, Studia Semitica Neerlandica 35

Written by Johnson Lim Teng Kok Reviewed By Philip Jenson

This study has its origin in an Edinburgh MPhil dissertation completed in 1996. The sin of Moses has long been an interpretive crux, and Kok has an enjoyable chapter reviewing briefly the various explanations that have been offered. One commentator even criticised Moses for striking Aaron’s rod twice on the rock, thus endangering its blossoms! But that is chapter 6, and the book moves rather slowly in the preceding chapters as various preliminary issues are discussed. These include methods of criticism, recent study of the Pentateuch, and the synchronic/diachronic debate. All this is familiar ground, though well done. There follows commentaries on the two key passages, Exodus 17:1–7 and Numbers 20:1–13.

The thesis reaches its goal in the final two chapters. Kok argues that Moses and Aaron disobey the third of God’s instructions. Moses obediently takes the staff and summons the congregation, but then Moses and Aaron fail to speak to the rock as commanded. Instead Moses alone strikes the rock twice and speaks to the people, thus displaying his anger and impatience. Although the water flows, Moses’ behaviour has transformed the significance of the event. Moses turns what ought to have been a miracle glorifying God into something that emphasised human exertion. The severity of the punishment and the language used (rebellion, unfaithfulness) might seem extreme, but can be understood in the light of the public nature of the event, the way in which Moses puts himself first and not God, and the inappropriate use of ‘the staff of God’ (which Kok argues was the staff of Moses). Aaron also sins in remaining silent when he should have spoken. Ironically, Moses and Aaron turn out to be the rebels, not the people who are genuinely thirsty.

The book’s close attention to the details of the text is welcome and the overall argument largely persuasive. I thought Kok let the people off too lightly. The language of Numbers 20:2–3 hardly implies that they are blameless, even though the sin of Moses and Aaron becomes the centre of attention. The subtitle ‘a narrative approach’ could mislead, since by this Kok seems to indicate an approach that takes seriously the details and coherence of the text. The categories of narratological analysis (plot, character, style etc.) are largely absent, though many of the observations made here would lend themselves to such a study. Kok is primarily concerned to refute those who fragment or misread the text. Positively he is interested in the nature of ‘spiritual leadership’. I enjoyed the occasional use of such anachronistic language, which enlivens the text, suggests expository moves, and acknowledges that all interpretation is contextual. I wasn’t sure that Kok realised how much he was doing this, and I suspect that a greater awareness would have made Kok’s largely negative review of other views of the sin of Moses a more interesting and sympathetic chapter. In terms of presentation, various minor matters annoyed me: a bibliography with several sections, subsections that go down five numbered levels, and the lack of any indexes. But this is a worthwhile study and a useful addition to any biblical library.


Philip Jenson

Trinity College, Bristol