Abstract
The rhetorical relationship between law and narrative has received increasing attention in recent Pentateuchal scholarship. An especially interesting case study is the legal material of Num. 15, which is placed directly after the narrative of the Israelites’ refusal to enter the land of Canaan (Num. 13-14) and itself contains a short narrative (Num. 15.32-36). Scholars have offered explanations for some of the material in Num. 15, but the rationale for this chapter’s diverse content—especially the pericope regarding unintentional and ‘high-handed’ sins (Num. 15.22-31)—remains largely unexplained. This article addresses this lacuna by examining the relationship between law and narrative in Num. 15. Specifically, this article argues that (1) the rhetorical function of Num. 15.22-31 is to show that the Israelites committed a high-handed sin when they failed to take the land, and (2) that the Israelites’ sin is contextually linked with God’s rest.
1. Introduction
Scholars have long struggled with Num. 15. It contains a seemingly haphazard combination of laws and narrative and appears to interrupt the overall flow of the Book of Numbers. Eryl W Davies (1995: 149-150) summarizes the problem: It is not at all clear why these laws should have been included at this particular point in Numbers, for there is no obvious connection either with the story of the spies in chs. 13f. or with the narrative concerning Korah’s rebellion in 16f . . . The difficulty occasioned by the lack of connection between the present chapter and its overall context is compounded by the fact that the individual parts of this collection have no obvious connection with each other.
Particularly difficult to account for within Num. 15 are the laws regarding unintentional and defiant sins (Num. 15.22-31) and the narrative about executing the Sabbath-breaker that immediately follows it (Num. 15.32-36), both of which seem to have little relationship to the preceding laws prescribing sacrifice in the land (cf. Davies, 1995: 149-150).
These difficulties are evident in recent works that attempt to explain the content and placement of Num. 15. 1 These studies make important contributions to the conversation, but they have yet to achieve a consensus. So, building on these publications and recent Pentateuchal scholarship (e.g. Watts, 1999), I propose that examination of the rhetorical relationship between law and narrative offers the most profitable way forward for explaining Num. 15.22-36. When read together in the Hebrew Bible, law can inform our understanding of narrative, and narrative can illustrate and reinforce law. Such an approach to reading the Pentateuch has already served to explain the content and placement of other pericopes in Numbers (see, for example, Smoak, 2015).
In what follows, I argue that Num. 15.22-36 is best understood as commentary on the Israelites’ high-handed refusal to enter the land (Num. 13-14). I first sketch the contents of Num. 15, focusing especially on the difficulty of explaining Num. 15.22-36. Then, I demonstrate from evidence both internal and external to Num. 13-14 that the Israelites’ failure to possess Canaan was a high-handed sin, accounting for the emphasis on high-handed sin in Num. 15.22-36. I also argue that the Hebrew Bible’s use of Sabbath as an image for possessing the land explains Num. 15.22-36’s use of Sabbath-breaking as an illustration of high-handed sin. Finally, I offer some observations on how Num. 15.22-36 relates to the main storyline that resumes in Num. 16.
2. The structure and contents of Numbers 15
I begin my exploration of Num. 15 by outlining its contents and highlighting the difficulty of accounting for Num. 15.22-36. Numbers 15 consists of five different sections: (1) laws regarding vow and freewill offerings (vv. 1-16), (2) a law commanding a first-fruit bread offering (vv. 17-21), (3) laws regarding sacrifices for unintentional sin and defiant sin (vv. 22-31), (4) a narrative recounting the execution of a man who broke the Sabbath (vv. 32-36), and (5) a law commanding the Israelites to put tassels on their garments (vv. 37-41).
Explaining the placement of the first two pericopes (vv. 1-16 and vv. 17-21) is relatively simple in that both deal with the same general theme and directly address what precedes them in Num. 13-14. 2 Both pericopes prescribe offerings to be presented in the land of Canaan, 3 as explicitly stated by their introductory temporal clauses: כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל־אֶרֶץ מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם ‘when you enter the land you are to inhabit that I am giving you’ (Num. 15.2) and בְּבֹאֲכֶם אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה ‘when you enter the land into which I am bringing you’ (Num. 15.17). 4 This emphasis on entering Canaan confirms God’s promise of land to the Israelites in the aftermath of Num. 13-14, 5 especially because the clause אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם ‘that I am giving you’ echoes God’s promise of land in Num. 13.2, just prior to the spies’ mission (אֲשֶׁר־אֲנִי נֹתֵן לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל) (Cole, 2000: 244-245).
The command to wear tassels (vv. 37-41) directly addresses the problem posed by Num. 15.30-31—the problem of defiant, high-handed sin—by offering the Israelites a mnemonic means of avoiding such sin. 6 This interpretation is supported by at least two observations. First, according to Num. 15.39-40, the purpose of wearing the tassels is to help Israel remember all of God’s commandments (וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֹת יְהוָה) and carry out his commandments (וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֹתָי), a purpose that recalls the mention of God’s commands at both the beginning and end of Num. 15.22-31. 7 Second, the Israelites are also instructed to make the tassels לְדֹרֹתָם ‘throughout their generations’ (Num. 15.38), which recalls the earlier injunction to carry out God’s commandments throughout all generations (וָהָלְאָה לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם) (Num. 15.23).
Although the placement and contents of these pericopes can easily be explained, it is not so easy to account for the third (vv. 22-31) and fourth (vv. 32-36) pericopes. Numbers 15.22-31 prescribes offerings similar to Num. 15.1-16 and Num. 15.7-21, but it expands the scope of the discussion with its reference to כָּל־הַמִּצְוֹת הָאֵלֶּה ‘all these commandments’ (Num. 15.22). The very next verse (אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֲלֵיכֶם בְּיַד־מֹשֶׁה מִן־הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה וָהָלְאָה לְדֹרֹתֵיִכֶם ‘all that Yhwh commanded to you, through Moses from the day Yhwh commanded them and throughout your coming generations’ [Num. 15.23]) makes it clear that these commandments must be all of God’s commandments given to Moses, not only the ones preceding in Num. 15.1-21 (Ashley, 1993: 286; Milgrom, 1990: 122-123, 402-403). Furthermore, despite this change in topic, Num. 15.22-31 does not begin with an introductory formula as might be expected (Gray, 1903: 180; Noth, 1968: 116).
Most scholars do not attempt to explain Num. 15.22-31 in relation to what precedes it. Those that do see Num. 15.22-31 as a foil to the preceding content of the chapter, which allegedly demonstrates how demanding God’s commandments are (Knierim and Coats, 2005: 198; Wenham, 1981: 145). However, there is nothing particularly demanding about prescriptions for vow and freewill offerings, much less a command to bring the first fruits of one’s bread. 8 This raises an important question: why put Num. 15.22-31 after laws regarding offerings in the land, rather than any other laws? 9 In short, the rationale behind the placement of Num. 15.22-31 within Num. 15 remains unexplained.
The following narrative that recounts the execution of the Sabbath-breaker (Num. 15.32-36) likewise presents difficulties. Many plausibly see the narrative of the Sabbath-breaker as a concrete illustration of defiant sin, meaning that Num. 15.32-36 directly relates to the preceding material of Num. 15.22-31. 10 Nevertheless, linking Num. 15.32-36 with Num. 15.22-31 does not explain why Sabbath-breaking is used to illustrate high-handed sin, especially because violating the Sabbath is not discussed anywhere else in the chapter. 11 So, although the placement of Num. 15.32-36 can easily be explained vis-à-vis Num. 15.22-31, the reason for including it within Num. 15 remains unexplained as well.
This brief outline of Num. 15 demonstrates that the content and placement of Num. 15 remains unresolved. Particularly elusive are the laws regarding sacrifice for sin (Num. 15.22-31) and the narrative of the Sabbath-breaker (vv. 32-36). In what follows, I examine each of these pericopes and offer an explanation for their inclusion.
3. Making sense of Numbers 15.22-31
Numbers 15.22-31 prescribes offerings for unintentional sin and high-handed sin. I argue below that this pericope appears where it does in the Book of Numbers because it addresses the Israelites’ high-handed rebellion against God that Num. 13-14 recounts. To demonstrate this, I consider evidence both internal and external to Num. 13-14.
3.1. Internal evidence for the Israelites’ high-handed sin: Israel’s rebellion at Kadesh (Numbers 13-14)
Numbers 13-14 does not explicitly characterize the Israelites’ refusal to enter Canaan as high-handed, defiant sin. Yet, it describes the Israelites’ failure to enter the land in a way that can certainly be labeled high-handed. 12 In Num. 13.9, the people are said to rebel (מרד) against God, a word that has connotations of rejecting the rule of one’s vassal (Gen. 14.4; 2 Kgs. 18.7, 20; 24.1, 20; Jer. 52.3; Ezek. 17.15; Neh. 2.19; 6.6; 2 Chron. 13.6; 36.13), including God himself (Josh. 22.16, 18-19, 29; Isa. 36.5; Ezek. 2.3; 20.38; Dan. 9.5, 9; Neh. 9.26). 13 Moreover, in Num. 14.11, 23, the people are said to despise (נאץ) God, a word that denotes breaking covenant faith (Deut. 31.20; 1 Sam. 2.17; Isa. 1.4; Jer. 23.17). 14 Such descriptions are analogous to the description in Num. 15.30-31 of high-handed sin as blasphemy against God (אֵת־יְהוָה הוּא מְגַדֵּף) and despising of his word (דְּבַר־יְהוָה בָּזָה) (Budd, 1984: 174).
Intertextual connections between Num. 15.37-41 and Num. 13-14 provide further support for understanding the Israelites’ sin as high-handed. As already noted, Num. 15.37-41 plausibly serves to guard against committing any high-handed sin. However, the command to wear tassels also alludes to the events of Num. 13-14. 15 By wearing tassels, the Israelites are kept from following their own desires (וְלֹא־תָתֻרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם) and from chasing after things that they lust after (אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּם זֹנִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם) (Num. 15.39). Use of the verb תור here looks back to the activity of the 12 spies in Num. 13-14, especially because this word almost exclusively denotes spying out the land for the conquest, 16 and use of זנה echoes the Israelites’ spiritual unfaithfulness (זְנוּת) that led to their failure to enter Canaan. 17 If the command to wear tassels prevents high-handed sins but also alludes to the sin of Num. 13-14, then the Israelites’ failure to possess the land is characterized as a high-handed sin.
3.2. External evidence for the Israelites’ high-handed sin: Moses’ sin at Meribah (Numbers 20.1-13)
The account of Moses’ sin at Meribah (Num. 20.1-13) provides additional, external evidence for characterizing the Israelites’ sin as high-handed. Numbers 20.1-13 contains many of the same elements as the other accounts of the Israelites’ failures in the wilderness 18 but most closely parallels Num. 13-14. Both of these narratives are linked with a place called Kadesh (Num. 13.25; 20.1). 19 Furthermore, only in these two accounts do the Israelites wish they had died earlier (Num. 14.2; 20.3) and accuse God and Moses of bringing them into the wilderness to die, claiming it would be better to have remained in Egypt (Num. 14.3-4; 20.4-5). 20 Moses and Aaron respond by falling on their faces (Num. 14.5; 20.6). God’s glory appears (Num. 14.10; 20.6), an element found only in these two accounts (cf. Ashley, 1993: 382; Levine, 2000: 1489). God then speaks, not just once but twice: first to Moses alone (Num. 14.11; 20.6) and then eventually to both Moses and Aaron to pronounce final judgment (Num. 14.26; 20.12).
Even more distinctive of these two accounts is the sin committed and the punishment that results. In both instances, God accuses the guilty party of disbelief using a very specific collocation, namely לֹא + the Hiphil of אמן + the object בִּי (Num. 14.11; 20.12; cf. Ps. 106.24) (cf. Ashley, 1993: 385-386). Both times, the biblical text connects this disbelief with rebellion against God (Num. 14.9; 20.24; cf. Num. 27.14) and a failure to treat God properly: the Israelites treat God with contempt (Num. 14.11, 23), and Moses and Aaron together fail to treat God as most holy (Num. 20.12). 21 Finally, in both accounts, God’s punishment is nothing less than disqualification from entering the land of Canaan (Num. 14.30; 20.12).
These common elements, particularly the location at Kadesh and the sin of disbelief, indicate that the Book of Numbers intentionally parallels the Israelites’ failure to possess the land (Num. 13-14) with Moses’ sin at Meribah (Num. 20.1-13). This casts Moses as a microcosm of the nation of Israel. The first generation of Israelites rebelled against God in the wilderness, an act that resulted in their disqualification from seeing Canaan and ultimately their death. A generation later, Israel’s leaders—Moses along with Aaron—made the same error and were sentenced to the same fate (cf. Ashley, 1993: 386). Given these parallels between the first generation of Israelites and Moses, understanding Moses’ sin in Num. 20.1-13 should illuminate the Israelites’ sin in Num. 13-14. 22
Numbers 20.11, which recounts Moses’ actions that led to his disinheritance from the Promised Land, states, וַיָּרֶם מֹשֶׁה אֶת־יָדוֹ וַיַּךְ אֶת־הַסֶּלַע בְּמַטֵּהוּ פַּעֲמָיִם ‘Then Moses raised his hand and struck the rock twice with his staff’. The first clause, וַיָּרֶם מֹשֶׁה אֶת־יָדוֹ ‘then Moses raised his hand’, is noteworthy because there is no need to say that Moses raised his hand before striking the rock—nowhere else does the Hebrew Bible talk about anyone raising their hand prior to striking with a staff (cf. Wong, 2008: 397-398). Notably, such a detail is omitted in the similar account of Moses striking the rock at Rephidim, where only the verb נכה ‘to strike’ appears in God’s command (וְהִכִּיתָ בַצוּר), and the narrator simply recounts that ‘Moses did this’ (וַיַּעַשׂ כֵּן מֹשֶׁה) (Exod. 17.6). 23
Inclusion of this detail is important because it recalls the language of high-handed sin in Num. 15.30-31. The collocation רום יָד ‘to raise a hand’/יָד רָם ‘high hand’ occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible with reference to power and military might (Gen. 41.44; Exod. 17.11; Deut. 32.27; Isa. 26.11; Mic. 5.8 [5.9]; Ps. 89.14 [89.13]) as well as open boldness and defiance (Exod. 14.8; Num. 33.3; 1 Kgs. 11.26-27). In each instance, it metaphorically expresses an attitude of determination to triumph over another individual. 24 This usage indicates that Num. 20.11 portrays Moses’ disobedience, including the raising of his hand, as a high-handed, defiant sin (Wong, 2008: 397-400; cf. Gane, 2004: 671). Such a conclusion is supported by God’s statement that Moses and Aaron rebelled (מְרִיתֶם) against him at Meribah (Num. 20.14; 27.14), an act that certainly constitutes defiance (Budd, 1984: 218-219; Cole, 2000: 327).
God’s statement that Moses rebelled at Meribah confirms Moses’ identification as a microcosm of the Israelites in that Moses’ disqualification from entering Canaan is elsewhere instead attributed to Israel’s rebellion (Num. 20.10; Deut. 1.37; 3.26; 4.21-22; cf. Num. 14.9). The effect of these passages, read alongside one another, is to identify Moses with Israel. 25 This identification has a significant implication for our understanding of the Israelites’ failure in Num. 13-14: if Moses’ sin at Meribah is characterized as high-handed, and if his sin parallels the Israelites’ failure to possess Canaan, it follows that the Israelites’ sin should also be characterized as high-handed. Thus, the account of Moses’ sin at Meribah confirms what evidence internal to Num. 13-14 already suggests: that the Israelites committed a high-handed sin when they refused to enter Canaan.
3.3. Explaining Numbers 15.22-31
Only when the Israelites’ sin in Num. 13-14 is seen as a high-handed sin can the contribution of Num. 15.22-31 to Num. 15 as a whole be fully grasped. Specifically, its function is to comment on the events recounted in Num. 13-14. As already discussed, the purpose of the content before Num. 15.22-31 (i.e. Num. 15.1-21) is to offer hope in the future fulfillment of God’s promises, specifically the promise of land. Numbers 15.22-26 provides additional encouragement in that the Israelite community can make atonement for non-defiant sins, whether unintentional or intentional. 26 Similarly, Num. 15.27-29 offers hope in that the non-defiant sins of an individual—whether a native-born Israelite or a foreigner—can likewise receive atonement.
But, lest the Israelites forget that sin has serious consequences, Num. 15.30-31 explicitly states that there is no atonement for defiant sin. This point is particularly stressed within Num. 15.22-31 and serves as this pericope’s climax, as indicated by Num. 15.30-31’s three-fold description of defiant sin—blasphemy, despising of God’s word, and breaking of God’s commandment—and the repetition of the כרת penalty as punishment for defiant sin (Milgrom, 1990: 125; Sklar, 2012: 483-484; cf. Ashley, 1993: 288). The rhetorical effect is to interject a warning into an otherwise positive pericope, mirroring the same tension that Num. 15 exhibits as a whole: there is hope for the Israelites, but judgment remains a very real possibility for defiant sins. 27 These two opposite notions are juxtaposed to warn Israel against open rebellion. 28
In sum, Num. 15.22-31 has been placed in its present position because it offers important commentary on the Israelites’ failure to possess Canaan. It offers hope like Num. 15.1-21 but even more importantly reminds the Israelites that there can be no atonement for high-handed, unrepentant sins, which therefore need to be avoided. As summarized by Roy E Gane (2010: 259-260): Israel would enjoy the land under divine lordship, but loyalty to God, the need for expiation for nondefiant sins, and elimination of defiant sinners from the community would be major issues for Israelites and resident aliens alike . . . Placed at a transitional point in the record of Israelite history following exclusion of the adult generation from the land, [Num. 15] respond[s] to disloyalty and rebellion by the larger Israelite community, including aliens, in chapters 11-14.
4. Making sense of Numbers 15.32-36
Having shown that Num. 15.22-31 offers commentary on the Israelites’ high-handed refusal to enter the land of Canaan, I turn to the narrative of the Sabbath-breaker’s execution (Num. 15.32-36). This narrative arguably serves as an illustration of the defiant sin of Num. 15.30-31, but the question of why Sabbath-breaking is singled out remains unresolved. I now address this issue, demonstrating that Sabbath-breaking has been chosen to illustrate high-handed sin because it serves as an image of disinheriting the land.
4.1. Sabbath-breaking as an image of disinheriting the land
Because Num. 15.22-31 comments on the Israelites’ high-handed sin of Num. 13-14, and because Num. 15.32-36 uses Sabbath-breaking as an illustration of high-handed sin, it follows that the man gathering sticks serves as a microcosm of the generation that failed to enter Canaan. Both reject God’s gifts, specifically the freedom to rest from work—the Sabbath-breaker from gathering sticks and the Israelites from the labor forced upon them by Pharaoh—and both are condemned to death (cf. Num. 14.29-35; 15.35-36) (Gane, 2010: 250; cf. Novick, 2008: 5-7). But, as already noted, an important question remains: Why single out Sabbath-breaking as an example of high-handed sin?
A plausible reason why Num. 15.32-36 uses Sabbath-breaking to depict defiant sin is Sabbath’s important role within the Sinaitic Covenant. The command to observe Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20.8-11; Deut. 5.12-15), which arguably provide the foundation for all biblical law. More importantly, though, keeping the Sabbath serves as the sign of the Sinaitic Covenant (Exod. 31.12-17; 35.1-3). Thus, to break the Sabbath is to deny the covenant itself—nothing less than an act of rank apostasy (Sklar, 2012: 477-478; cf. Chavel, 2009: 50-51; Cole, 2000: 254-255). Using Sabbath-breaking as an illustration of high-handed sin therefore reinforces the Israelites’ defiant rebellion recounted in Num. 13-14.
However, another credible explanation for using Sabbath-breaking to illustrate high-handed sin emerges when the Sabbath is seen as an image of inheriting the land. The Hebrew Bible directly connects Sabbath with entering the land of Canaan in that Sabbath celebrates God’s redemption of Israel from Egypt, the purpose of which is to bring the Israelites into the land (Deut. 5.12-15; cf. Exod. 3.7-8, 16-17; 6.6-8). Similarly, observance of the Sabbatical year served as a confession of God’s ownership of the land (cf. Exod. 23.10-11; Lev. 25.1-7, 18-22; Deut. 15.1-6, 12-18) (Andreasen, 1972: 213-221). Thus, ‘The sabbath rest of the people is identical with the sabbath rest of the land. The person who faithfully observes the sabbath gets a portion in the land of Yahweh’ (Robinson, 1975: 299).
If observing the Sabbath is analogous to inheriting the land, it follows that breaking the Sabbath is analogous to disinheriting the land. This parallel plausibly explains Num. 15’s use of Sabbath-breaking as an example of high-handed sin in that the Israelites’ failure to enter the land can be considered ‘Sabbath-breaking’. Then, because Num. 15.22-31 offers commentary on the disbelieving generation’s disinheritance from Canaan— portraying their sin as high-handed—the use of Sabbath-breaking as an illustration of that generation’s high-handed sin is especially appropriate.
Parallels between Num. 15.32-36 and Exod. 16, which describes the first giving and first breaking of the Sabbath command, support the Sabbath’s use as an image for inheriting the land. In both Num. 15.32-36 and Exod. 16, violation of law is illustrated through narrative, and the violation in each case is the same, namely gathering something on the Sabbath rather than ceasing from labor (cf. Exod. 16.21; Num. 15.32). 29 However, in Exod. 16, God gives the Sabbath command in conjunction with provision of manna (Exod. 16.22-30). Not only is the manna connected with the Sabbath, it is also linked with the Israelites’ later entrance into Canaan in that the manna ceases when they enter the land (Exod. 16.35; cf. Josh. 5.11-12). 30 The cessation of manna on the Sabbath parallels the cessation of manna when Israel enters Canaan, linking the Sabbath with inheriting the land. 31
4.2. Sabbath and the Hebrew Bible’s ‘rest’ tradition
Further confirmation that Sabbath serves as an image of inheriting the land emerges from considering Sabbath alongside the Hebrew Bible’s ‘rest’ tradition. This tradition, associated with the Hiphil of the root נוח ‘to give rest’ (e.g. Exod. 33.14; Deut. 12.10; Josh. 1.13, 15; 2 Sam. 7.1, 11; 1 Kgs. 5.4 [5.18]) and its cognate noun מְנוּחָה ‘rest’ (e.g. Deut. 12.9; 1 Kgs. 8.56; Ps. 95.11; 132.8, 14), describes God giving the Israelites ‘rest’ in the Promised Land (Roth, 1976: 5-14). Specifically, it expresses God’s faithfulness to provide gifts of peace, the Davidic dynasty, and the temple in the land of Palestine when his people obey the covenant (Laansma, 1997: 18-61).
The rest tradition is terminologically distinct from that of the Sabbath, which is instead connected with the verb שׁבת ‘to cease’ and the noun שַׁבָּת ‘Sabbath’. Nevertheless, the Sabbath word group’s associations closely overlap with those of the rest tradition (Laansma, 1997: 67-75). The Sabbath is associated with kingship and the temple (e.g. 2 Kgs. 11.4-12; 16.17-18) as well as resting from labor (e.g. Exod. 23.12; 34.31), key aspects of the rest tradition; God’s resting on the seventh day of the creation week (Gen. 2.2-3) also reflects significant overlap between Sabbath and the rest tradition. 32 But, most importantly for our purposes, both Sabbath and the rest tradition are inextricably linked with inheriting the land of Canaan (cf. Laansma, 1997: 67-68). It is not surprising, then, that both the immediate context of Num. 15 and other portions of the canon connect the rest tradition with the events of Num. 13-14.
Numbers 10.11-36 recounts the Israelites’ departure from Mt. Sinai for Canaan and therefore introduces the Israelites’ wanderings in the wilderness, including their failure to enter the land (Num. 13-14) and the laws of Num. 15. Interestingly, this pericope describes how the Ark of the Covenant went before the people to find a מְנוּחָה ‘resting place’ (Num. 10.33). Numbers 10.36, which describes the ark’s stopping with the verb נוח (וּבְנֻחֹה), suggests that מְנוּחָה in Num. 10.33 denotes a place to encamp and rest (Levine, 2000: 1317). Nevertheless, because the Israelites’ ultimate destination is not a temporary encampment but the land of Canaan, here מְנוּחָה may also carry connotations of the rest tradition. That the land of Canaan is ultimately the referent of מְנוּחָה is further suggested by the fact that the ark is said to לָתוּר ‘to scout ahead’ for that מְנוּחָה (Num. 10.33): as noted earlier, the verb תור ‘to scout’ is otherwise used in Numbers—and predominantly throughout the Hebrew Bible—with reference to scouting out the land of Canaan.
The Hebrew Bible elsewhere links the Israelites’ disinheritance from the land with a failure to enter rest in Ps. 95.8-11. These verses focus especially on the events of Num. 13-14: the oath language of Ps. 95.11 (נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי בְאַפִּי ‘I swore an oath in my wrath’) echoes God’s oath in Num. 14.26-35, both Ps. 95 and Num. 13-14 mention 40 years (Ps. 95.10; Num. 14.33-34), and in both Ps. 95 and Num. 13-14, unbelief keeps Israel from seeing the fulfillment of God’s promises (Ps. 95.8, 10; Num. 14.11). 33 Within this context, the psalmist directly connects the Israelites’ disinheritance from Canaan with a failure to enter God’s rest, expressed by the term מְנוּחָה (Ps. 95.11). Psalm 95.8-11 therefore demonstrates that at least some streams of ancient Jewish thought linked the rest tradition with the Israelites’ failure to enter Canaan. Furthermore, given the connections between Sabbath and the rest tradition, Ps. 95.8-11 also supports the argument that Num. 15.32-36 uses Sabbath-breaking as an image of disinheriting the land. 34
5. Resuming the main storyline in light of Numbers 15.21-36
Finally, having demonstrated that Num. 15.21-36 serves as commentary on the events of Num. 13-14 and cautions against high-handed sin, I briefly explore how it relates to Numbers’ resumption of the main storyline. The narrative begins anew in Num. 16 with Korah’s failed rebellion against Aaron and Moses, which naturally leads to God’s demonstration that he has selected Aaron by making his staff bud (Num. 17) and additional delineation of the distinct duties of the priests and Levites (Num. 18). Since these chapters deal with subjects seemingly very different than that of Num. 15, an important question remains to be addressed: how does Num. 15.21-36 relate to the main storyline’s resumption? 35
Building on the work of Nanette Stahl, Roy E Gane (2010: 260) rightly observes that the function of Num. 15.21-36 within the broader literary context is to create a transition point and anticipate what follows. Stahl (1995: 12-15) argues that throughout the Pentateuch, law appears at key transitional points, particularly when an auspicious beginning fades into a disappointing ending and there is a new beginning, and this is precisely the situation that Num. 15 presents. The Israelites’ departure from Mt. Sinai initially looks very hopeful, serving as a new beginning for God’s people after the incident with the golden calf: the tabernacle is constructed, the Israelites have the laws God gave them at Mt. Sinai, and the people prepare for military conquest of the land. But any positive expectations are quickly shattered by the rebellions of Num. 11-14, which ultimately led to that generation’s disinheritance from the land.
In the wake of such disappointment, Num. 15 offers hope by affirming God’s promise of land. But, more importantly, it also offers a possible solution to the problem of Israel’s ongoing rebellion. If the Israelites heed the warning of Num. 15.21-36 and avoid high-handed sin, they will put an end to the rebellions that climaxed in their refusal to enter Canaan. But if they continue in their defiant rebellion against God, they will receive punishment for high-handed sin as prescribed in Num. 15.21-36. Thus, Num. 15.21-36 not only looks back by commenting on the Israelites’ high-handed sin of Num. 13-14, but also looks forward to what follows in Num. 16-18 by warning against high-handed sin (Olson, 1996: 101). Far from being an interruption to the overall narrative, Num. 15.21-36 is integral to the overall logic and progression of the Book of Numbers.
6. Conclusion
Numbers 15 presents several problems for the interpreter. Its predominantly legal material seemingly interrupts the flow of the narrative of the Book of Numbers, and a convincing explanation for its content and placement eludes explanation. Particularly difficult to account for are this chapter’s laws regarding sacrifice for unintentional and high-handed sins (Num. 15.22-31) and its narrative of the man caught gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Num. 15.32-36). Fortunately, recent Pentateuchal scholarship offers a way forward: examination of the rhetorical relationship between law and narrative in Num. 15.
When understood from this perspective, it becomes evident that Num. 15.22-36 comments on the Israelites’ failure to possess Canaan as recounted in Num. 13-14. Evidence both internal and external to Num. 13-14 demonstrates that the Israelites’ refusal to enter the land constituted a high-handed act of rebellion against God. Furthermore, because Sabbath serves as an image of possessing the land, Sabbath-breaking provides an appropriate illustration of the Israelites’ high-handed sin. Thus, the emphasis of Num. 15.22-36 on high-handed sin speaks to Israel’s disobedience in Num. 13-14. But Num. 15.22-36 also looks forward in that it presents Israel with a possible solution to disobedience: avoidance of high-handed sin.
Footnotes
1.
E.g., Achenbach 2013; Baden 2013; Chavel 2009; Gane 2010; 
.
2.
On the connections between Num. 15 and Num. 13-14, see Olson 1996: 97-99; : 142.
3.
The offerings of Num. 15.1-16 are selected because they reflect the fruitfulness of the land. Similarly, first-fruits of bread are singled out in Num. 15.17-21 because the cessation of manna, a key part of Israel’s experience in the wilderness, would require the Israelites to bake their own bread upon entering the land.
4.
Both Num. 15.1-16 and Num. 15.17-21 begin with the formula וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם ‘Then Yhwh spoke to Moses: ‘Speak to the Israelites and say to them. . . .’, which could imply a clear separation between the two pericopes (cf. Baden 2013: 356). However, the similar content—laws regarding offerings to God—as well as Num. 15.17’s use of the phrase בְּבֹאֲכֶם אֶל־הָאָרֶץ ‘when you enter the land’ rather than the more common כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל־אֶרֶץ ‘when you should enter the land’ as in Num. 15.2 (cf. Exod. 12.25; Lev. 14.34; 19.23; 23.10; 25.2; Deut. 17.14; 26.1) argue against separating them entirely (: 121). The repeated use of וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם thus serves to link Num. 15.1-16 and Num. 15.17-21 as parallel units rather than to separate them.
5.
Ashley 1993: 277; Budd 1984: 167-68; Cole 2000: 244-45; Leveen 2007: 105-6; Milgrom 1990: 117; Olson 1985: 171-73; Wenham 1981: 142-43. : 363-65) calls this interpretation ‘overly midrashic’, instead proposing that the placement of Num. 15 after Num. 13-14 is primarily to show that Torah applies to post-exodus generations. The enduring nature of the prescriptions is certainly indicated by Num. 15’s references to God’s commandments (e.g., Num. 15.16, 22-23, 31) and future generations (Num. 15.14-15, 21, 23, 38). However, Baden’s suggestion does not adequately explain Num. 15’s emphasis on being in the land.
6.
Achenbach 2013: 228; Baden 2013: 361; Gane 2010: 250-251; : 107.
7.
The references to God’s commandments in Num. 15.22-23, 31 are as follows: אֵת כָּל־הַמִּצְוֹת הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה ‘all these commandments that Yhwh spoke to Moses’ (Num. 15.22), אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֲלֵיכֶם בְּיַד־מֹשֶׁה ‘all that Yhwh commanded you by the hand of Moses’ (Num. 15.23), and אֶת־מִצְוָתוֹ ‘his commandments’ (Num. 15.31).
8.
9.
: 357-59) contends that the narrative of God’s provision of manna (Exod. 16) was originally located before Num. 15.17-21, and Num. 15.22-31 describes what happens when the commandment not to let manna remain (cf. Exod. 16.19-20) is broken. If correct, this could potentially connect Num. 15.21-32 more directly to the laws that precede it. However, Baden’s reconstruction of the text’s history is speculative and cannot explain the content and placement of all the pericopes in Num. 15 as well as the thesis below does.
10.
Ashley 1993: 291; Baden 2013: 360; Budd 1984: 175-76; Cole 2000: 254; Davies 1995: 158; Gray 1903: 182; Wenham 1981: 147; cf. Achenbach 2013: 225-27; : 45-56.
11.
12.
Sklar 2012: 477. : 358) rejects the notion that the Israelites committed any sin when they believed the spies’ bad report, contending that the Israelites ‘do not formally disobey, nor do they in any respect disobey a miṣwâ . . . . At no point in that narrative does God issue a command to the Israelites to enter the land, so in no way can their behavior, though worthy of condemnation, be considered a violation of a miṣwâ’. However, such argumentation is overly rigid in that it requires explicit use of the term מִצְוָה ‘command’ for sin to take place. In any case, God’s commands regarding the census and arrangement of the camp (Num. 1-2; cf. Num. 26.52-56; 34-35) are clearly aimed at military conquest of the land and therefore implicitly entail entering Canaan.
13.
14.
: 477. Notably, in 1 Sam. 2.17 נאץ is associated with failing to treat God properly (cf. 2 Sam. 2.30), similar to the Israelites’ failure to treat God properly in Num. 14.11 (cf. Sklar 2012: 474).
15.
Gane 2010: 251; Seebass 1993-2007: 2,158-59; Leveen 2007: 107-8; : 127.
16.
Num. 13.2, 16, 21, 25, 32; 14.6, 34, 36, 38; cf. Num. 10.33; Deut. 1.33; Judg. 1.23. Outside these contexts of spying out the land, the verb תור only occurs several times in wisdom texts (Job 39.8; Prov. 12.26; Eccl. 1.13; 2.3; 7.25), once with reference to spiritual idolatry in Ezek. 20.6, and twice with reference to merchants in synoptic Kings-Chronicles (1 Kgs. 10.5 // 2 Chron. 9.14).
17.
The word זְנוּת is rare, occurring elsewhere only in Jer. 3.2, 9; 13.27; Ezek. 23.27; 43.7, 9; Hos. 4.11; 6.10.
19.
It is not entirely clear whether the Kadesh of Num. 20.1-13 is the same as the Kadesh of Num. 13-14 (i.e., Kadesh Barnea located in the Desert of Zin) or is a different Kadesh (cf. Milgrom 1990: 124; : 167-68). Regardless of how one chooses to resolve this issue, the fact remains that both Moses’ sin at Meribah and the Israelites’ failure to enter the land are linked with a site called Kadesh.
20.
21.
Although the basic concept is the same in both, these accounts express treating God improperly with different terminology: Num. 14 uses the Piel of נאץ, and Num. 20 uses the Hiphil of קדשׁ.
22.
This is not the place to discuss what sin Moses committed at Meribah or whose staff (Moses’ or Aaron’s) was used to strike the rock there because my argumentation does not depend on any particular identification of Moses’ sin or the staff used to strike the rock. What is important for our purposes, however, is the way the biblical author characterizes Moses’ sin in Num. 20.1-13.
23.
: 1,490) compares Exod. 14.16, where God commands Moses to part the Red Sea. However, the language in Exod. 14.16 is different from that of Num. 20.11. In Exod. 14.16 Moses is commanded to raise the staff (וְאַתָּה הָרֵם אֶת־מַטְּךָ) and stretch out his hand over the water (וּנְטֵה אֶת־יָדְךָ עַל־הַיָּם), but he is not told to raise his hand.
24.
Davies 2018: 103-4; Wong 2008: 398-99; : 143-48. In Exod. 17.11 רום יָד is non-metaphorical, describing Moses’ physical raising of his hands to achieve victory over the Amalekites, but even in this instance it serves as a symbol of victory and triumph. Only twice does רום יָד appear as a synonym for the more common נשׂא יָד ‘to lift (one’s) hand’ (Gen. 14.22; Hab. 3.10).
25.
Cf. Emmrich 2000: 57-59. Those trying to explain the relationship between Num. 20.14; 27.14 and Deut. 1.37; 3.26; 4.21 diachronically see these passages as representing two separate traditions, the former attributed to P and the latter attributed to D (e.g., Driver 1902: 26-27; : 425). However, it is unlikely that Deuteronomy refers to a different event than that of Num. 20.1-13, especially because Deut. 3.26 maintains a chronological connection with the second—rather than the first—wilderness generation and because Moses’ sin is otherwise accentuated as part and parcel of Israel’s rebellion (Emmrich 2000: 58).
26.
On the evidence for three, rather than two, types of sin (unintentional sins, intentional but not high-handed sins, and intentional high-handed sins), see Gane 2004: 149-56; : 468-90.
27.
It is true that Num. 15.21-32 only prescribes punishment for high-handed sin committed by the individual. However, what applies to the part naturally also applies to the whole. Furthermore, omission of intentional communal sin in Num. 15.21-32 is logical because there can be no law for a situation of intentional communal sin (: 6).
28.
This parallels the purpose behind Num. 15.22-31’s juxtaposition of only unintentional and defiant sins, even though a third, middle category (intentional but non-defiant sins) exists: the severity of defiant sin is highlighted, and the Israelites are encouraged to commit unintentional rather than defiant sin if they must commit sin (cf. Gane 2010: 253; : 484-85).
29.
Connections between Exod. 16 and Num. 15.32-36 are observed in Baden 2013: 361; : 48-49.
30.
The verb שׁבת does not appear in Exod. 16 with reference to the manna’s ceasing, but it does occur in Josh. 5.12 (וַיִּשְׁבֹּת הַמָּן).
31.
32.
Andreasen 1972: 174-203; Laansma 1997: 70-73; : 72-73, 78-89, 251-53, 269, 284-85.
33.
Enns 1993: 266. In pointing to this psalm’s focus on the events of Num. 13-14, I do not deny its connections with other events from the wilderness wanderings, indicated by mention of Meribah and Massah in Ps. 95.8 (cf. Exod. 17.1-7; Num. 20.1-13) and the use of Deuteronomic language (cf. Tucker 2000: 538-40; : 461).
34.
Later Jewish literature develops Ps. 95’s connection of the land and rest further and makes the link to Sabbath even more explicit. For example, in addition to associating the Israelites’ failure to enter the land in Num. 13-14 with the Hebrew Bible’s rest tradition, the New Testament book of Hebrews explicitly connects rest with the Sabbath by linking the κατάπαυσις ‘rest’ of Ps. 95.11 [LXX Ps. 94.11] with Christian salvation as a σαββατισμός ‘Sabbath-rest’, expressed typologically by entering the land (Heb. 3.7-4.11). On the use of Ps. 95 and the notion of ‘rest’ in the book of Hebrews and other Jewish literature, see : 952-60.