English Assignment Samples

Assignment Sample On Moses Barred From The Promised Land: The Verdict Analysis

Introduction

During 40^th years of the Israelite’s desert journey, they were about to triumph over the Promised Land, Lord outlaws Moses and the entire community from leading and supervising. God prevented Moses from showing disobedience and warranted a terrible verdict as barring them from entering into the Promised Land[1]. Obviously, this harsh verdict was a tremendous blow for Moses and Aaron.

However, all the explanations and contemporary observers viewed the barring of Moses as utter chastisement for committing such sin, featuring set of sins altogether. The researchers have claimed that the exegetes had piled up several sins and supported the exclusion with inventing the propaganda with pointing a specific offense. The primary aim of this article is to prepare the clarification on sins and faults of Moses[2]. The agenda is as he was barred from entering the Promised Land not only for his ordinary sins; however, he was a failure to offset community issues and fall into blasphemy.

Disagreed with Lord and Sin of Moses

This particular exclusion incident happened and the verdict rose at the time, the Israelites stayed in Kadesh due to conspiracy of Zin. The Israelites impounded Moses and Aaron out of agonizing thirst of water and cursed them. Moses presented the critical situation and God told Moses, "Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water[3]. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink" (Number 20:8). In response to God’s idea, Moses responded as with "So Moses took the staff from the LORD's presence, just as He commanded him. He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, ‘Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?’ Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank" (Number 20:9-11). Eventually, God unsatisfied with Moses’ actions and became unhappy that Moses did not obey the idea and violated it[4]. Moses acted in a disgraceful manner and Lord took an unkind and harsh verdict of barring Moses, Aaron, and the entire community from entering into the Promised Land. God told Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them” (Number 20:12)[5]. This was the Meribah incident background and situation.

Reasons for Barring and Disallowing Moses

Now the question arises, as ‘what did Moses commit for such severe verdict from God and was barred from entering in the Promised Land?’ The justifications are identified as following.

Firstly, Moses did disobey direct command and order from God. He did not show proper custom in which the order must be obeyed or followed. In this scenario, God has ordered Moses to communicate with the particular rock and take out the water from it[6]. In spite of speaking with the rock, Moses aggressively struck the rock with the rod the action is extremely out of bewilderment.

Secondly, Moses did not apologize for bringing forth the water as in miracle without mentioning the God’s contribution. Moses took the credit of bringing the water with all means of talking and declaring. He told the community as “Must we [referring to Moses and Aaron] bring you water out of this rock?”[7] the way of speech is more like authority and approach is more like almighty himself. He took the credit all by himself without attributing to God.

Thirdly, Moses consigned the sin facing and approaching the common persons in the community. Being a leader and more of a public figure, Moses should not directly disobey almighty and in public, this disobedience should not be left unpunished.

Fourthly, God intended to present Moses as a disciple of Christ; therefore, Lord presented a water-producing rock to Moses. The water-producing rock is generally marked as a symbol of Christ. Again, in Exodus, the rock was struck once and as well, Christ was crucified once[8]. Moreover, talking to rock will be identified as prayer approach. Instead of praying to the rock for pouring out water, Moses aggressively struck the rock with rod, in other words, crucifying Christ one more time.

After previewing all the reasons, the overall verdict can be easily justified that out of disobedience, pride, and misinterpretation of sacrifice and compromise. Moses, Aaron, and their Israelite community were barred from entering into the Promised Land (Number 20:12)[9]. The contradiction arises with Lord’s decision of excluding leader and the entire community from conquering the Promised Land and so forth with the commitment of sins.

The Isolation of Moses from the Community

Why have Moses not supported the exclusive divinity of almighty while he assures the God’s credit for yielding water out of it? Why Moses did not talk in that way in this circumstance? The answer that is acceptable as Moses is so isolated from the community and he was not conscious about their mindset, he has expressed this in he'elitunu verbally[10]. The relationship between people and Moses was conditional as in at the start of desert journey, Moses appears to be frustrated with the people demand. However, in the first water demand complaint, he showed little bit of sympathy with people’s agony. He told Lord Almighty loudly as, “What shall I do with this people? Before long they will be stoning me!” Again, in of repeated complaints, where people were expressing voracious hunger for meat, he was completely disheartened, saying to God, “I cannot carry all this people by myself, for it is too much for me. If You would deal thus with me, kill me rather, I beg You, and let me see no more of my wretchedness!” Indeed, in case of continues forty days without food, Moses has all rights of showing sympathy for people who were missing meat appetite[11]. However, in complaints of water shortage in this article, Moses and Aaron had made up their mind for facing God, whereas, Saadia Gaon and Ibn Ezra fled from the people out of tremendous fear and remorse. Moses was enraged with soaring demand for water from the community side, so that he referred the people as “rebels”[12]. Being a superhuman personality, Moses was not capable to discover and understand common people’s demand, their urgency for water, and even their compassion to the scenario. After verdict was warranted, Moses was nudged with making him most aware person of his communal limitations. When God told to reduce the elevation of Abarim for viewing the Promised Land to the entire Israelites community and let them expire on the land. Moses asks God to appoint a successor, saying: “Elohei haruhot is an unusual appellation for God, it appears only once more” (Number 16:22). Moses implied God was, “You are elohei haruhot, You know that people differ psychologically from one another, appoint a leader who will be sensitive to the individuality of each person.” God responds: “Joshua is a person who knows how to deal with people. Joshua was indeed the right person for the intensely interactional job of conquering the land and dividing it.” The comparison conveyed by God was quite unusual with his interaction between the people and their leader Moses[13]. After the downfall of Jericho a man named Achan took a few things from the crown jewels, which was forbidden. The manner in which, Joshua speaks with Achan, is like, “My son [bni], pay honor to the Lord … and make confession to Him…” (Josh. 7:19). Joshua speaks to single person as referred to bni for violating Almighty. On the contrary, Moses deals with an entire community of people; the community has committed the fault as they have sought for food and water being referred as “rebels” [hamorim].

Lord Almighty’s Holiness declared for the People

The verdict of barring Moses and his community to conquer Promised Land depicts the message of Moses’ relationship with Lord; he was not more than a mortal personality as subjected Almighty custom and manner. The community was completely devastated with exhaustive journey through the desert while facing lack of water, food. They complained about the scenario to their formal leader, Moses that the difficulties they are suffering (Number 21:5). Now Lord punished the community for their urging demand of resources with sending seraph servants[14]. They bit the Israelites community and soon most of the people passed away (Number 21:6). In this situation, people faced Moses and requested him to pray to Lord for removing the servants. Moses had intervened their request to Lord; however, this was the only time when people seek for a prayer.

The article shows that as Lord barred Moses and Aaron to re-establish the community faith within their mind, intended to show that Lord’s ethical domination is consistent. Psalmist expressed what Moses should do in this context[15]. He told, “Because of you [biglalkhem] the Lord was incensed with me too”, and He added, “You shall not enter it [the Promised Land] either” (Deut. 1:37). “But the Lord was wrathful with me on your account [lema'ankhem]” (Deut. 3:26). The exclusion is intended to eliminate people’s adoration of Moses from their mind and Moses was barred to restore community’s belief and trust in God.

Conclusion

The article is about the concern of barring Moses, Aaron and their subordinate community with including the verdict and its justification whether the verdict is presented as well. Exclusion from the Promised Land was quite irrational with Moses and his community signifying the punishment from God. Even being an intimate person to God, Moses was not relieved of God’s outrage. He was warranted with the verdict and the God’s exclusivity was required to be re-embedding in this scenario. Moses supported the community and Aaron and hence, they were responsible for Exodus and Crucifixion of Christ. This scenario was evident with the verb usage of he'elitunu. God’s unkind verdict was supported with Moses failure of Blasphemy inclination as well speaking for the community reversing the decision. Moreover, Moses asked for ambiguous metaphorical question supporting the blasphemous tendency of the community. Finally, Moses fails to speak for God and expected for isolation from the community. Prior research about the agenda was supported with legacy and modern picture into the psychological and dynamic relationship between the Moses and people. The analysis was expected to be offered with restraining Moses from collaborating with community and increasing community belief in Almighty’s exclusivity. 

Bibliography

Arnold, Bill T., and Bryan E. Beyer. Encountering the Old Testament (Encountering Biblical Studies): A Christian Survey. Baker Academic, 2015.

Assmann, Jan. From Akhenaten to Moses: Ancient Egypt and Religious Change. IB Tauris, 2014.

Beal, Jane. Illuminating Moses: A History of Reception from Exodus to the Renaissance. Brill, 2013.

Block, Daniel I. The Gospel according to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2012.

Elam, Andrew M., and Robert C. Van Kooten. Merit and Moses: A Critique of the Klinean Doctrine of Republication. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2014.

Evans, C. J. "Moses, Jesus, And The Trickster In The Evangelical South". Journal Of American History 99, no. 4 (2013): 1208-1209.

Hardung, Christine. "‪God, the Warlord and the Way of the Ancestors‪."Civilisations 63, no. 1 (2015): 81-98.

Hindson, Ed, and Gary Yates, eds. The Essence of the Old Testament. B&H Publishing Group, 2012.

Lebeuf, Arnold. "What does the Bible tell us about Megaliths?." Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego. Studia Religiologica 45, no. 1 (2012): 37.

Lockhart, Aaron T., and Thomas King. "FULFILLING THE COMMAND OF GOD." (2013).

Polliack, Meira, and Marzena Zawanowska. “God Would Not Give the Land, but to the Obedient” Medieval Karaite Responses to the Curse of Canaan (Genesis 9: 25)." The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought (2014): 112.

Stenschke, Christoph. "The Apostles' Creed, the God of Israel and the Jew Jesus of Nazareth." European Journal of Theology 22, no. 2 (2013).

van Rensburg, Mari Jansen, and Angelo Nicolaides. "An analysis of theological and strategic management perspectives of Moses as a leader."

Wineman, Aryeh. "Hasidic myth on the death of Moses and its metamorphosis." Hebrew Studies 54, no. 1 (2013): 121-132.

Arnold, T. and E. Beyer, Encountering The Old Testament (Encountering Biblical Studies): A Christian Survey..

Assmann, From Akhenaten To Moses: Ancient Egypt And Religious Change..

Elam, M. and C. Van Kooten, Merit And Moses: A Critique Of The Klinean Doctrine Of Republication..

Evans, "Moses, Jesus, And The Trickster In The Evangelical South".

Hardung, "God, The Warlord And The Way Of The Ancestors‪.".

Hindson, Ed and Yates, The Essence Of The Old Testament..

I. and I., "The Gospel According To Moses: Theological And Ethical Reflections On The Book Of Deuteronomy.".

Kramer, "Illuminating Moses: A History Of Reception From Exodus To The Renaissance".

Lebeuf, "Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego.".

Polliack, Meira and Zawanowska, "God Would Not Give The Land, But To The Obedient” Medieval Karaite Responses To The Curse Of Canaan (Genesis 9: 25).".

Rensburg, Jansen and Nicolaides, "An Analysis Of Theological And Strategic Management Perspectives Of Moses As A Leader".

Stenschke, "The Apostles' Creed, The God Of Israel And The Jew Jesus Of Nazareth.".

T. and King, "FULFILLING THE COMMAND OF GOD.".

Wineman, "Hasidic Myth On The Death Of Moses And Its Metamorphosis".

Rensburg, Jansen and Nicolaides, "An Analysis Of Theological And Strategic Management Perspectives Of Moses As A Leader".