The End Game
“Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites; afterward you will be gathered to your people.” Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian.” Numbers 31:2-3 NASB
The sons of Israel – Moses is about to die. God gives him one last task. “nāqom niqmat.” Revenge the sons of Israel! But Moses changes the command. In his mouth, it becomes “Take vengeance for the Lord,” not “revenge Israel.” Why did he alter the instruction?
It’s speculation, of course, but it seems to me there are a couple of possibilities. I discount the option that “the Lord’s vengeance” is the dynamic equivalent of “for the sons of Israel,” although the result is essentially the same. The problem, as I see it, is one of strategic motivation on two fronts.
First, by changing the charge, Moses puts the responsibility (and the outcome) in the hands of YHVH. Moses’ instruction basically says that the reason for this action is not only approved by God, it is in honor of God. What the Midianites did to deserve such reprisals is of no consequence now. God’s honor is at stake. Behind this shift is the added assumption that because God’s honor is the reason for vengeance, the outcome is guaranteed. Don’t fear going into battle. God will make sure we are victorious.
Second, this is Moses’ last hurrah. He will die after this victory. He won’t be allowed to enter the Promised Land, his lifelong quest. As we know from the opening speech in Deuteronomy, Moses holds the people responsible for this punishment (Deuteronomy 1:32, “The Lord was angry with me also on your account, saying, ‘Not even you shall enter there’”). Perhaps his disappointment seeks to find blame somewhere other than in his own actions. If the people are the culprits here, why not send them into battle believing that God will protect them, when Moses knows no such promise has been made. Is it possible that the Hebrew text contains a sub-plot of revenge, not against Midian but against Israel?
Third, Zornberg has demonstrated that Moses is a complex figure. He battles with disgust for a people he doesn’t consider worthy of redemption and a desire to lead them. The act that perpetrates God’s verdict against Moses comes about because Moses cannot make the shift from frustrated general to compassionate shepherd. Striking the rock is the signal that Moses is no longer worthy. He has outlived his purpose. At some deeper level, God’s instruction to take vengeance on Midian reaches back into Moses’ past character—the victorious general. At the end of his reign, Moses is allowed once more to do what he does best—win. But it is pyrrhic victory. Israel’s vengeance is really Moses’ defeat. He dies with the taste of battle on his lips, knowing that battle is no longer the method of God’s leadership. Perhaps, then, our verse operates at three levels: the plain instruction of God against the Midianites, the twist Moses adds with personal animosity toward the people, and the reversal of the outward victory in Moses’ inward defeat.
Topical Index: Moses, vengeance, victory, death, blame, Numbers 31:2-3
