The great task of the teacher in this lesson is to create that

atmosphere of awe and reverence, with which the Biblical narrative

invests the episode of the Revelation. The mere explanation of

the meaning of the Ten Commandments is not enough to effect this,

because the significance of their content is in large part beyond

the child's comprehension, and their form is too abstract to appeal

to him emotionally. The point of contact that we have suggested will

aid somewhat by associating with the Revelation the reverence that

the child sees paid to the Sefer Torah in the synagogue.[11] A close

following of the Biblical narrative suggests other devices. The

people of Israel were to prepare themselves for three days, and the

necessity for this preparation kept them in an attitude of conscious

suspense and attention. The narrative of these preparations will

have a similar effect. Attempt to arouse the children's curiosity as

to what God was going to tell Israel before you begin to tell them

the Ten Commandments. Exodus 19. 3-6 should be quoted and explained.

The fact that Moses and Aaron were required to set bounds about the

mountain beyond which none but he whom God called could pass, also

adds to the impressiveness of the occasion, which will not be lost

upon the children. Finally, the concomitant disturbances of nature,

the thunders, lightnings, quakings, and flame, and thick darkness,

and the voice of the Shofar waxing louder and louder, together

with the picture of the trembling people at the foot of the mount

and Moses going up alone into the "thick darkness where God was"

must be told in such graphic terms as to impress them deeply on

the imagination of the child. Instead of telling the children the

Ten Commandments in the usual conversational tone that you would

naturally employ when addressing children, it would be well in this

instance to read them the Biblical account from Exodus 19.16 to

20.21, and require that when you come to the actual reading of the

Decalogue, the class rise as the congregation does when it is read

in the synagogue and remain standing until the reading of the Ten

Commandments is completed.

[11] Of course, such a method of approach is only possible where

the child attends services, but it is exceedingly important that

provision for attendance at a regular service be made by every

religious school.

The children will, of course, understand very little of the meaning

of the Ten Commandments from the reading, but they will understand

and absorb the reverential attitude of the teacher towards them.

After the reading, however, it devolves upon the teacher to explain

their significance as far as this can be done to children. Avoid,

however, too lengthy and discursive treatment, as the child will

be impatient to go on with the story. A more detailed treatment

of them should be taken up later in the course, either when the

children are taught to translate the Decalogue in their Hebrew work,

or in connection with the instruction about the significance of

Shabuot, or as part of the work of a Bar Mitzvah, or Confirmation

Class, or on several or all of these occasions, but not as a lengthy

interruption to the "story" of the Bible in which children in their

early years of school are most interested.

The First Commandment can be explained, however, very easily as

implying the grateful worship of God by Israel and obedience to all

His laws as the first duty of the Jew in view of what God had done

for his people in Egypt.

The Second Commandment need not present any difficulty as the sin

and folly of idolatry, the worship of the creature instead of the

creator, is easily grasped by children. As the child will not be

tempted to idolatry this need not be given much time.

The Third Commandment, however, should receive more attention

than it usually does. Nothing is more conducive to that spirit of

reverence, which it is the aim of this lesson to cultivate than

the conscious avoidance of God's name, except in association with

a truly religious thought. Profanity is a common vice of children,

as well as of adults. Children, especially during the habit-forming

age, should be made to feel that it is a sin and should be

avoided.[12]

[12] For other suggestions in this connection see Part II, Chapter

IV, of this book.

The Fourth Commandment is also of the utmost importance to

childhood. As this is not the first time that reference to the

Sabbath has been made, the teacher may take a knowledge of the

general significance of the Sabbath for granted, and should mainly

dwell on the significance of the phrase "to keep it holy" by asking

the children what we do to keep the Sabbath holy, i. e., different

from other days and devoted to Jewish thoughts. Take occasion to

admonish the children not to attend theatres, moving picture shows,

etc., on the Sabbath, and urge their attendance at services.

The Fifth Commandment is, of course, the first law of childhood. In

discussing it with the children, try to get from them suggestions as

to how to honor parents. Encourage such rules of family etiquette

as never to contradict father or mother, never to sit in father's

or mother's seat at table, always to rise and give either of them a

seat if the other chairs in the room are occupied when they come in,

and the like.

The Sixth Commandment needs no prolonged discussion.

The Seventh Commandment must be explained to mean that husband and

wife must always be faithful and kind to each other.

The Eighth Commandment needs some discussion, because children are

often prone to petty thieving. In the moral code of many children

stealing means taking money or objects of great value, but the

appropriation of small objects, such as pens, pencils, chalk,

etc., does not come under the same category. Moreover, stealing

only means taking something from somebody's hand or pocket, and

does not include the appropriation of an object which the owner

has carelessly left where another might claim it under the law of

"Finding's keeping", which, according to the code of childhood,

is often held to apply even when the finder knows to whom the

object found belongs. The teacher's duty is, therefore, to take

this opportunity of enlarging the child's concept of theft and

developing his property sense, a sense which is naturally defective

in children, since they neither earn nor hold property in their own

right. Avoid, however, abstract and purely theoretic discussion and

make your point by presenting concrete hypothetical examples for

the exercise of their moral judgment, as, for instance:

"I am sure that none of you would take from anybody money or

anything else that you thought of great value, but suppose you saw

a little stump of a pencil that a boy had left on his desk, and you

just wanted it, or a piece of chalk from the blackboard, or some

fruit or candy that you saw in your neighbor's desk, would it be

right for you to take it? If you saw some money on the street and

you did not know how it came there, would you take it? If you saw

some money fall from a man's pocket on the street, would you take

it? If you found a pocketbook and when you opened it, saw that it

had a card with the owner's name and address on it, what would you

do? If you found a pocketbook or some money, or some pencils or

books in this school, what would you do, etc.?"

The meaning of the Ninth Commandment must be extended to enjoin

truthfulness in general. By methods similar to those used in

explaining the Eighth, the teacher must extend the child's concept

of lying to include any kind of conscious deception, the silent lie

equally with the spoken one.

The Tenth Commandment is a little too subtle and refined for the

child's grasp and need not be dwelt on at length. The teacher need

only explain that to want to steal, even if we are kept back from

stealing because we are afraid of the police, or afraid of our

teachers, or of any punishment, is just as wrong as to steal.

CHAPTER X

THE GOLDEN CALF

Exodus 32.1 to 34.35

=Interpretation.= The people of Israel could not at once rise to

the height of that conception of God, which had been revealed to

them at Sinai. So long as Moses was with them to tell them the word

of the Lord, they found it possible to believe in God, though they

did not see Him, for He spoke to them daily through the mouth of

His appointed servant, Moses. But Moses had vanished into the thick

darkness, and days and weeks had passed without his return. This

made it increasingly difficult for them to experience the reality of

the invisible God, who had led them from Egypt. They, consequently,

demanded some image to which they might look and which might keep

them in mind of the object of their adoration. Their intention was

not so much to exchange the God who had led them from Egypt for

another as to image Him forth as an aid to their devotion. They, no

doubt, spoke in good faith when they declared, "This is thy god, O

Israel". That they should worship Him in the form of a bull (for the

calf must be understood to be the small image of a bull, small by

reason of the precious metal employed) is not surprising in view of

the common conception of the divinity in that form, both in Egypt

and in Canaan. Aaron reluctantly yields to their importunities, and

the people rejoice in having a God who can go before them.

But Moses could not yield. To have done so would have meant to

have surrendered all that had been gained in a spiritual way by

the Exodus and the Revelation. The apostasy of the whole people,

which this act threatened, would have rendered his entire mission

fruitless. His sense of despair is well conveyed by the Biblical

narrative in the incident of the breaking of the tables of stone on

which the words of the Decalogue were inscribed. A radical remedy

was needed and Moses did not hesitate to apply it. The support which

he received from the tribe of Levi was a justification for its claim

to be the priestly tribe.

It is in connection with this event that the character of Moses is

shown in its most sublime aspect as the perfect intercessor. His

zeal did not hesitate to apply the utmost rigor in punishing the

offenders who would not rally to his call, but once the necessary

punishment had been administered, his one thought is of his people,

how they might still be enabled to fulfill the mission to which they

had committed themselves on the day of the Revelation. God suggests

destroying the people who had forfeited their claims to redemption

and making of the descendants of Moses a chosen people, but Moses,

the ideal leader, to whom his charge is dearer than himself, is not

satisfied. Rather would he share in the punishment of his guilty

people than enjoy a selfish salvation and glory from which they are

to be excluded. (Exodus 32.32.) Then God yields to his plea and

agrees to let the people return to the land of their fathers and

to drive out their enemies from before them in accordance with the

terms of the covenant He had made with Israel after the Revelation.

There it is said (Exodus 23.20 to 22) "Behold, I send an angel

before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the

place which I have prepared. Take heed of him and hearken unto his

voice, be not rebellious against him; for he will not pardon your

transgression, for My name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed

hearken unto his voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an

enemy unto thine enemies and an adversary unto thine adversaries."

God's reply to Moses, therefore, is (Exodus 32. 33) "Whosoever hath

sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book. And now go, lead

the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee; behold,

Mine angel shall go before thee; nevertheless in the day when I

visit I will visit their sin upon them."... And the Lord spoke unto

Moses: "Depart, go up hence, thou and the people that thou hast

brought up out of the land of Egypt unto the land of which I swore

unto Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, saying: 'Unto thy seed will

I give it', and I will send an angel before thee and I will drive

out the Canaanite, the Amorite, the Hittite, and the Perizzite,

the Hivite, and the Jebusite, unto a land flowing with milk and

honey; for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a

stiff-necked people; lest I consume thee in the way." (Exodus 33.

1-3.)

The general significance of angels has been discussed in a previous

chapter.[13] It is to be noted, however, that the notion prevailed

that various nations were presided over by special angels delegated

for that purpose. Thus Israel was conceived as having been led

out of Egypt through the agency of an angel, who was furthermore

entrusted with the task of leading the people to the land of

Canaan. But angels, as we have previously shown, were conceived

of as not having any discretionary power, and this angel of the

covenant was only entrusted with leading Israel to the Land of

Promise if the people would be faithful to the covenant. In the

case of any infidelity they had been specifically warned "He will

not pardon your transgression." With the sin of the golden calf,

therefore, Moses at first fears that Israel is totally doomed, but

he is reassured by God's statement that the punishment which must

come will be meted out to each individual sinner on the "day when I

visit" and will not involve the immediate destruction of the whole

people; that on the contrary, the angel would continue to lead them

to their land. But this no longer satisfies Moses. The sin of the

golden calf had convinced him that the people were too weak to live

up to the covenant that they had accepted at Sinai, and that if

their destiny was to be presided over, as that of other peoples, by

an angel, who could not forgive any breach of the covenant, they

were sure to be destroyed. He, therefore, pleads for a more intimate

relation with God, which would exempt Israel from the operations

of the natural law of retribution, by providing for the people's

forgiveness in view of the higher tasks that it undertook to perform

without apparently possessing higher qualifications. If Israel is

merely to be led to the realization of its secular destiny through

the conquest of Canaan, but is not to be more closely identified

with God's cause, by God's going in their midst, Moses prefers to

stay in the wilderness. (Exodus 33. 15.) God's declaring, "I will

not go up in the midst of thee", (Exodus 33. 3) although it comes

immediately after God's renewal of the promise to send His angel to

lead Israel to the land of Canaan, is made the occasion of mourning

and repentance. Moses removes his tent, in which he was wont to

commune with God, and which was consequently known as the Ohel Moed,

"The Tent of Meeting," (see Rashi and Ibn Ezra ad loc.), from the

camp, upon the principle, according to Rashi, that מְנֻדֶּה לָרַב

מְנֻדֶּה לַתַּלְמִיד "The disciple must have no dealings with one

who is under the ban of the master." God's refusal to enter the camp

of Israel, Moses construes as obligating also his own withdrawal

from the camp. Here he pleads with God for a clearer knowledge of

His ways that he may be able to lead the people as God had charged

him to do. He wants God to make known to him the angel whom He

had determined to send with him. It is then that he receives the

assurance that he had sought, "My presence shall go with thee and

I will give thee rest." (Exodus 33. 14.) He is further vouchsafed

a revelation of God's attributes, which assures him of God's

readiness to forgive sin, though not to condone it, (Exodus 34. 6,

7), and is instructed to hew out new tablets for the Decalogue in

place of those he had broken. Exodus 33. 22, 23 presents difficulty

because of the anthropomorphic terms used with reference to God.

The general thought it wishes to express, however, seems to be that

nobody can grasp the true personality of God, but can only realize

by reflection and, as it were, retrospectively, that he had been in

God's presence, can, as the Bible expresses it, only catch a glimpse

of His retreating form.

[13] See Part I, Chapter IX.

=Aim.= The aim in teaching this chapter should be to arouse in the

child an appreciation of the meaning of loyalty and faithfulness,

a lesson which is taught negatively by Israel's disloyalty in

worshipping the golden calf, and positively by Moses' loyalty in

interceding for his people rather than in remaining satisfied with

his individual enjoyment of God's favor.

=Suggestions to the teacher.= There are many lessons with regard to

sin and repentance and the attributes of God and other theological

topics, which are taught in these chapters, but they are all beyond

the comprehension of children. They have, therefore, been excluded

from our formulation of the aim in teaching this lesson, and the

teacher should omit details of the narrative that do hot emphasize

the aim of the lesson, however interesting they may be from the

adult point of view. Thus the narrative of Exodus 33. 12 to 23

should be omitted, and much of the dialogue between God and Moses as

well. Moreover, the whole discussion of the part played by the angel

of the covenant and Moses' plea that not an angel but God himself

lead the people, though we have dwelt on it at considerable length

in our foregoing remarks for the benefit of the teacher, need not be

taught to the child.

To connect the lesson with the previous one, begin by asking one of

the children to repeat the Second Commandment. Then explain how,

in the absence of Moses, the people began to find it difficult to

believe in a God whom they could not see, and, recalling the images

of the gods they had known, demanded an image of their own God in

violation of their pledge to obey the Decalogue. The conduct of

Aaron in yielding to their pleas need not be condoned or explained

away, as the only extenuation the Bible suggests is the importunity

of the popular demand. This, however, the teacher should endeavor to

make his pupils realize by telling them how every day the people

would come to Aaron and would say to him, "Where is Moses and where

is the God who spoke to us, and who, Moses said, would lead us to

the land of our forefathers? We want to see Him. Make an image of

Him for us." And though Aaron would refuse them, they would come

again the next day and the day after, and insist that he make them

an image of their God like the idols, to which they were used, until

one day Aaron became weary of their demands and told them that if

they wanted an image of God, they should bring all their gold and

jewels, their ear-rings, bracelets and rings, out of which he would

make them an image.

Attempt to make the child realize the heinousness of the offense

involved in the making of the golden calf, as idolatry is so

remote from the child's experience, that he is not likely to be

much impressed by the significance of it. Emphasize not merely the

disobedience involved in violation of the Second Commandment, but

the blasphemy involved in conceiving of God in animal form. The

emotional attitude which the teacher should endeavor to create

should be that which led our forefathers always to speak of the gods

of other nations as the "abominations" of the heathen. This can be

done by describing, as it were, God's feelings at witnessing the

behavior of Israel, as, for instance:

"When God saw what the people were doing, how they danced and sang

about the golden calf, and shouted, 'This is thy god, O Israel,

which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt', He was very angry.

Only forty days before they had heard His voice telling them, 'Thou

shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thyself

any graven image', and they had promised, 'All that the Lord hath

spoken we will do', and there they were worshipping a molten god

that they had made with their own hands, an image of a calf; as if

a calf or anything like it could have sent the ten plagues against

Egypt, could have divided the waters of the Red Sea, could have

spoken to them the words of the Ten Commandments from the midst

of the flaming mountain. So God wanted at first to destroy them

altogether, and He said to Moses, who was still with Him on the

mountain to learn His law, 'Go; get thee down, for thy people that

thou broughtest up out of the land of Egypt have dealt corruptly;

they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded

them; they have made them a molten calf and have worshipped it and

have sacrificed unto it and have said, "This is thy god, O Israel,

which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." Behold they are a

stiff-necked people and my anger is kindled against them, and I will

destroy them, and I will make of thee a great nation.'"

Give the children to understand the cause of Moses' breaking the

tablets of the law by making them feel with the despair of Moses,

when, descending from the mount with the tablets in his hand, he saw

the people in the very act of violating the laws written upon them.

Of what use were the tablets of the law if the law itself was not

held sacred?

Moses' motive for ordering the death of the offenders must be

explained as not being due to hatred, but to his realizing that

if such a measure were not taken, the rest of the people would

be led into further sin, which would necessitate the destruction

of the whole people as punishment for their wickedness, just as

a surgeon may amputate a limb to save a life. Call attention to

the fact that Moses first gives the people a chance to rally about

him if they repented of their participation in the worship of the

golden calf, a chance of which Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi

availed themselves. The purity of Moses' motives is seen from his

willingness to accept the same punishment as his people, if God is

indisposed to forgive them, rather than enjoy a reward and honor in

which they do not share.

While endeavoring to impress the child with the sublimity of Moses'

character, be careful not to attempt abstract characterization,

but tell the story in such a way that the child appreciates the

significance of Moses' acts and words. Do not say, for example, "Now

Moses, though he was zealous, in punishing those Israelites who had

proved disloyal, was utterly unselfish in his love for Israel." Say

rather, "Now, when Moses had put to death those who had persisted in

worshipping the golden calf, he prayed to God to forgive the sins of

the rest and not to destroy the whole people. For, though God had

offered to spare Moses, who had not sinned, and even to make of his

descendants a great nation instead of the Israelites, who deserved

to be destroyed, do you think that this made Moses happy? No, for

Moses, although he had not hesitated to punish his people according

to God's command, loved them as a father loves his children, even

when they do wrong, and it hurt him to think that God was angry with

them, even though he himself enjoyed God's favor. So he said, 'O

Lord, if thou canst forgive this people, forgive them, but if not,

do not make of me and my descendants a great nation, but blot me out

of thy book', that is to say, 'Let me die and be forgotten like the

rest of these people whom I have led, and whom I love so dearly.' So

God, moved by his loyalty to his people, promised to forgive them

and to continue to lead them to their land."

Do not fail to mention the fact that when Moses came down from the

mountain his face shone, as such a circumstance adds to the child's

reverence for his hero.

The following are some suggestive questions which may help to bring

out the point of the lesson for the children:

Why did the children of Israel want Aaron to make them a golden calf?

In doing so, what commandment did they disobey?

Why did Moses break the tablets of stone?

How were the Israelites punished for their sin?

What did God threaten to do to Israel for this sin? and what did he

want to do to Moses because he had not sinned?

Did this please Moses? Why not? What did Moses pray God to do?

Did God grant this prayer? How did God show that he had forgiven

Israel?

How did He show that He was pleased with Moses?

CHAPTER XI

THE TABERNACLE AND ITS SERVICE

Exodus 25.1 to 31.11 and 35.4 to 40.33

=Interpretation.= The Biblical passages dealing with the

construction of the Tabernacle and the nature of its appointments

and the services conducted therein are scattered through a number

of chapters of our Bible, but for pedagogic purposes it is best

to consider them together. Before discussing any details we must

realize the significance of the Tabernacle in general. We are to see

in it the parent of the temple and the synagogue and understand its

significance in the light of the importance of these institutions to

later Judaism. "Let them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among

them". (Exodus 25. 8.) Our rabbis paraphrase this by the words,

"that I may cause My _Shekinah_ to dwell among them." Inasmuch as

the _Shekinah_ meant the Divine Presence made manifest, we may

render their meaning in more modern terms by declaring that the

function of tabernacle, temple and synagogue is to make us realize

the presence of God, for though we may theoretically admit His

existence without such institutions, we should not feel the reality

of His presence were it not brought home to us by the organized

worship that they cultivated. But even if it is possible to realize

the presence of God merely by the direct communion of the individual

without any organized communal worship in a community sanctuary, the

God we should then worship would not be the God of Israel and our

religion would not consecrate life to the service of His Torah. And

just as the Tabernacle, to which every animal that was to be eaten

had to be brought for sacrifice, weaned the people from the habit of

sacrificing "to the satyrs," (Leviticus 17. 7) so in later times the

Temple was the center of the national worship as against the rival

cult of Baal and Astarte associated with the "high places", and so

today the synagogue is the institution upon which we must depend to

guard the purity of Jewish religious thought from the influences

of our non-Jewish environment. In view of the significance of the

Tabernacle and its daughter institutions, we cannot begrudge the

space that our Bible gives to its construction and its ritual.

It is impossible for us to understand the precise symbolic

significance of all the ceremonial objects and decorations of the

Tabernacle, but the very attention that is given to these details is

expressive of an appreciation of the aid to devotion which is to be

found in an appeal to the aesthetic sense of the worshipper. Some of

the symbolism is, however, quite obvious. Thus it is evident that

the placing of the Two Tables of the Law in the Ark which was kept

in the Holy of Holies, and was made of choice wood covered within

and without with gold and guarded by the figures of cherubim wishes

to testify to the sanctity of the Law as the very center and soul

of Judaism. The prohibition to any but the high priest to enter the

Holy of Holies, and the insistence on ritual purity and provisions

for the washing of hands and feet in the brass laver served to

remove the worship from the plane of the commonplace and profane

and aided in creating that atmosphere of reverence and awe which

is indispensible to true worship. The clouds of smoke from the

incense suggested something of the mystery of God as is seen from

its association in rabbinic tradition with the "cloud of glory".

הַכַּפֹּרֶת עַל אֵרָאֶה בֶּעָנָן כִּי "For I appear in the cloud upon

the ark-cover" is construed by the Rabbis to mean the cloud of

incense.

With regard to the garments of the priests, the appearance on the

breast plate of the names of the tribes of Israel emphasizes the

representative capacity of the high priest as צִבּוּר שְׁלִיחַ or

agent of the congregation, whereas the diadem with the inscription

לַיהֲוָה קֹדֶשׁ "Holy unto God" was the symbol of his consecration to

God.

=Aim.= The aim of this lesson should be to interest the child in the

synagogue and public worship and more especially to develop in him

the sentiment for beauty, dignity and decorum in the service of God.

=Suggestions to the teacher.= The obvious point of contact between

the lesson and the child is the child's experience of synagogue

worship, an experience which it is the duty of every Jewish school

to provide. Begin the lesson by calling attention to the fact that

Jews everywhere gather together on Sabbaths and holidays and even

on week days to pray to God in houses called synagogues set aside

for that purpose. Then question the children as to the appearance of

the synagogue that they attend, particularly as to how it differs

from other buildings designed to hold large numbers of people,

so as to interest them in the distinctive features of synagogue

architecture and adornment, such as the Ark, the Reading Desk and

the Perpetual Lamp. The children's answers may call attention to

certain features peculiar to their own synagogue which they imagine

to be characteristic of synagogues in general. Their errors can

be corrected in an interesting way by showing them pictures of a

variety of synagogues in different lands and different architectural

styles.

This done, call attention to the fact that our fathers in the

wilderness needed a house of worship just as much as we do and

therefore when Moses was on the mountain speaking to God, God said

to him, "Let the children of Israel make me a sanctuary that I may

dwell among them." Explain the word "sanctuary" as meaning a holy

place, "like our synagogues." "But how" you continue, "were the

children of Israel to build a house of worship in the wilderness

when they were wandering from place to place and the pillar of cloud

might any day move on and they would have to follow? They could not

take with them on the march a building of wood and stone and they

could not build a new one at every place where they stopped for a

few days. But God gave Moses the idea of a sanctuary that suited

their purpose admirably, because they could take it with them. Have

you any idea what sort of a building that was that they could carry

with them wherever they went?" If there is no response, continue.

"When an army is on the march, the soldiers cannot build houses

over night for themselves to sleep in; what have they for shelter?"

(The children will probably know that soldiers encamped live in

tents.) "Well, the children of Israel when they were wandering in

the wilderness had to live in tents and in huts that they could

take apart and put together again and carry with them from place to

place, and so their sanctuary had also to be a sort of tent that

they could take apart and put together again. But it was not an

ordinary tent. Its curtains were made of the finest cloths, with

beautiful colored designs woven on them by the most famous artists

of the day. The wood that was used for the poles on which the

curtains rested was the very finest wood that could be obtained, and

everything that was in the tabernacle was to be as beautiful as the

hand of man could make it."

Dwell on the enthusiasm with which the Israelites responded to the

call for the material and labor needed in the construction of the

tabernacle, and on the praise that the Bible bestows on its artists,

Bezalel and Aholiab, whom God filled "with the spirit of God in

wisdom, in understanding and in knowledge and in all manner of

workmanship". (Exodus 35. 31.)

After this general introduction, it is well for the teacher to show

a picture of the tabernacle to help the class visualize it.[14] But

this will show only the exterior. Draw on the blackboard the plan

of the tabernacle showing not only the division into fore-court,

sanctuary and holy of holies, but also the location of the brass

altar, the laver, the altar of incense, the table of show-bread, the

menorah, and the ark of the covenant.

[14] Good illustrations of the tabernacle and its appointments, as

also of the priestly garments, are to be found among Tissot's Bible

Illustrations.

Then proceed: "I have shown you a picture of the outside of the

tabernacle, now let us walk in here where the curtains are drawn

aside to admit us. We find ourselves in a large open court. It is

not at all like the synagogues we are used to. It has walls to be

sure, but they are of curtains, and as for a ceiling it has none

at all, except the blue sky above. Nor are there any seats, but

everybody stands during the service, which consists for the most

part of the sacrifice of an animal on the altar, accompanied by the

playing of musical instruments, and the singing of hymns by the

Levites,[15] (men of the tribe of Levi) to whom the care of the

sanctuary was entrusted. After the sacrifice, which is performed

by Aaron or one of his sons, the _cohanim_ or priests bless the

congregation with outstretched hands in words which are still part

of the service and which your parents say when they bless you on

Sabbath and holidays, 'The Lord bless thee and keep thee, the Lord

make His face to shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee, the Lord

lift up His countenance upon thee and give thee peace,' (Numbers 6.

22-27.) But this part of the tabernacle is not the holy part called

the sanctuary or holy place. Into this holy place which is separated

from the outer court by curtained walls, and which had a sort of

roof, not of wood, but of ram's skins dyed red and of badger skins,

only the priests, who are themselves holy, because their whole life

is given up to the service of God, may come. But we know from what

the Bible tells us exactly what it contained." Then describe the

furnishings of the sanctuary and continue. "The most holy part of

all, however, only Aaron, or, after his death, the chief priest

of his time, called high priest, was permitted to enter, and that

only once a year on the great Day of Atonement, or else when God

would call him. And the Holy of Holies, as it was called, contained

nothing but a beautiful ark or box, of which I shall show you

a picture, and in this beautiful gold covered, and artistically

decorated ark there were placed the two tables of stone that God had

given Moses, with the ten commandments engraved on them."

[15] There is no direct evidence of this being part of the worship

of the tabernacle, but we know it to have been part of the Temple

worship and as hymns are common in ancient rituals our statement is

probably correct.

Do not depend too much on description which easily grows tiresome,

but show pictures of all the important objects in the sanctuary and

of the priestly garments.

In the discussion which follows the presentation of the lesson,

again associate the tabernacle with the synagogue, this time

emphasizing points of similarity rather than of difference. Thus the

position of the _sefer torah_ in the _aron_ which occupies the most

conspicuous place in the synagogue is analogous to the position of

the Tables of the Law in the ark in the tabernacle. Similarly the

_ner tamid_ is the analogue of the _menorah_, etc.

But just as the presentation of the lesson was not merely by the

spoken word, so the reproduction of it should not be in words only,

but the class should be encouraged to draw pictures of the sanctuary

and its objects, and the best drawings should be hung about the

room. In this way the impulse to bring art into the service of

religion may at once be utilized by enabling the children to employ

art in embellishing the religious school which should also be made

to appeal to them as a _miḳdash me'aṭ_ "a minor sanctuary."

CHAPTER XII

TRIALS OF MOSES AND ISRAEL IN THE WILDERNESS

Leviticus 10.1-7. Numbers 9.15-23, also 11.1 to 12.16

=Interpretation.= We have grouped in this chapter a number of

episodes in the wandering of the children of Israel, because any

one of them is too small to occupy a single lesson and because

all deal with the same general theme, though with significant

variations--rebellion and its punishment.

With regard to the episode of the death of Nadab and Abihu, recorded

in Leviticus 10. 1 to 3, the Bible describes their offense as the

bringing of "strange fire" into the sanctuary. This offense in

itself seems disproportionate to the punishment, consequently, the

rabbis in commenting on the passage try, on the one hand, to ascribe

the punishment of the sons of Aaron to sins not expressly recorded

in the text, as for instance the sin of being intoxicated during the

service, which they derived from the fact that the prohibition of

drinking before the performance of a sacrifice immediately follows

the narrative of this incident, or, on the other, to regard Nadab

and Abihu as martyrs, who died by the divine decree to exhibit the

sanctity of the tabernacle and its ritual without really having

incurred the divine displeasure. This interpretation is based on

Leviticus 10. 3, "Then Moses said unto Aaron, 'This is it that the

Lord spoke, saying: 'Through them that are nigh unto Me I will be

sanctified and before all the people I will be glorified,'' And

Aaron held his peace." To be sure this verse may be construed to

mean that Nadab and Abihu had been punished for their failure to

sanctify God, but in view of the fact that the Hebrew term for

martyrdom is "_ḳiddush ha-shem_" "the sanctification of God's name"

and in view of the fact, furthermore, that it would be expected of

Moses under the circumstances to say something consoling to Aaron,

who was himself innocent, rather than to emphasize the wickedness of

his sons this view of the incident must not be lightly dismissed.

In fact, the simple reading of the text suggests a combination of

these two interpretations. In taking "strange fire", i.e., fire

that had not been taken from the divinely kindled flame on the

altar (Leviticus 9. 24.), Nadab and Abihu had abused their priestly

prerogative, making themselves the masters of the ritual of the

sanctuary instead of its servants. But such a ritual transgression

might have been forgiven were it not for the importance of the

occasion, the consecration of the tabernacle, and for the dignity of

their office which demanded that they be exceptionally circumspect

in their conduct. Their punishment was, therefore, more severe

than the offense would warrant in the case of any other than a

consecrated person. Its severity was in proportion to the holiness

of the sanctuary that had been violated and of the priestly office

that had been profaned rather than to the heinousness of the offense

in itself, and it expressed God's desire to impress upon the people

the sanctity of the tabernacle and its ritual. In dealing with Nadab

and Abihu God was acting in accordance with the rabbinic statement

to the effect that "with the righteous God is exacting even to a

hair's breadth," and the rabbis could, therefore, view the death of

the Sons of Aaron somewhat in the light of martyrdom.

The remaining incidents, with the exception of the prophesying of

Eldad and Medad are, as we have already said, examples of rebellion

and its punishment. They are interesting instances of the trials of

Moses in his leadership of the people. Their moral is the duty of

loyalty to legitimate authority. The punishment of the people at

Kibroth-hattaavah is an excellent example of how inordinate desire

brings its own punishment, and suggests, as one of the grounds

for loyalty, submission and discipline, the fact that what we

most desire is not always what is most beneficial for us, a very

important moral for children.

The sin of Miriam is described by the Rabbis as _lashon ha-ra_'

"slander," Its lesson is that it is wrong not merely to rebel

against righteous leadership, but even to detract from the honor

that is due to noble characters. The charge that Aaron and Miriam

brought against Moses was not the charge of any moral offense

or offense against the Law, for the Torah expressly prohibits

intermarriage only with the people of Canaan, the construction of

the law to make it applicable to all intermarriage only dating from

about the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. According to a Jewish tradition

the Cushite woman whom Moses had married is identical with Zipporah,

the daughter of Jethro. This would, of course, be untenable if

Cush necessarily meant Ethiopia, as it is usually rendered, but

it is generally thought that there was an Arabian Cush as well,

in which case the identification is possible. Miriam's resentment

was, therefore, not on religious grounds. The incident is probably

recorded in the Bible because of the opportunity it gives of

revealing the patient and forgiving character of Moses.

The same is illustrated even more strikingly by Moses' reply to his

overzealous disciple Joshua, when he was told that Eldad and Medad

had been prophesying in the camp. His only reply is "Would that

all the Lord's people were prophets". Inasmuch as prophecy was a

gift bestowed upon the council of seventy elders (Numbers 11. 25),

whom Moses had been commanded to appoint, the fact that Eldad and

Medad, who were not among the seventy, nevertheless "prophesied"

might very well have been construed as indicating a presumptuous and

rebellious attitude. According to a tradition which has considerable

support from Numbers 11. 26, the number of men originally chosen

were seventy-two, six from each tribe, but of these two were to be

eliminated by lot and Eldad and Medad, rather than put anyone else

to possible embarrassment, refused to go to the tabernacle when

the lot was taken. This much of the _haggadah_ is at least implied

in the verse, that Eldad and Medad had originally been designated

for this assembly of elders for they were _ba-ketubim_ among those

"recorded" but did not join the rest, for they had not gone out

"unto the Tent and they prophesied in the camp." If we assume that

their not going to the tabernacle was a voluntary refusal to hold

office their conduct stands in striking contrast to the conduct of

Korah and his followers.

=Aim.= The aim of this lesson is to teach children the duty of

obedience, discipline and self-control. The contrast between the

attitude of Nadab and Abihu and that of Moses points out the

desirability of a humble and modest attitude, especially on the

part of those in authority, whereas the punishment of the rebellion

of the people at Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah and of Miriam for her

unjust criticism of Moses teach the need of submission to righteous

authority and loyalty to disinterested leadership.

=Suggestions to the teacher.= A brief review, by question and

answer, of the previous lesson, will serve as a point of contact

for the story of the sin of the sons of Aaron. Tell how, after

the tabernacle had been completed, there was a great celebration

continuing for eight days, during which time Moses taught Aaron and

his sons, who, as priests, were to perform the sacrifices for the

people and in general to lead in the service, exactly what they were

to do, when, where and how to kill the animals that were sacrificed,

how to make the incense that had to be burnt, how to arrange the

shew-bread and prepare the cakes of the meal-offering, etc. On the

eighth day God himself, with fire from heaven, lit the wood that

had been piled on the altar and thus started the fire there, which

the priests were commanded never to let die out, but always to keep

burning. Be careful to impress the children with the sinfulness of

Nadab and Abihu's conduct, which the bare narrative of the facts

as recorded in the Bible will not accomplish. This can be done by

suggesting something of the solemnity of the occasion and of the

frivolity of their attitude in this wise:

"Now Aaron and two of his sons, Eliezer and Ithamar, listened very

attentively to all the instructions they had received from Moses

and were determined to carry them out exactly. They felt that as

priests, chosen from among all the people to lead in the worship

of God, it was for them to set an example of faithful obedience to

all He said, the small things as well as the great. But the two

other sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, felt differently. They, too,

were proud of their new office as priests, but instead of feeling

that they must lead the people in obedience to God's laws as taught

by Moses, they felt that they as priests could do as they pleased

with the service and did not have to follow the directions of Moses.

So when they were told to burn the incense with fire lit at the

flame of the altar that God had kindled, they said to themselves,

'What difference whether we burn the incense with this holy fire

or with any other', so they took 'strange fire', that is fire that

they themselves had kindled, and brought it into the sanctuary to

show that they as priests could perform the service in whatever way

they pleased. At this God was very angry. Had an ordinary Israelite

disobeyed in some small particular it would not have been as great

an offense, but Nadab and Abihu were priests whom God expected to

lead the people in obedience and who now had set an example of

disobedience on the very day of the dedication of the tabernacle

to God's service. It was just as if a teacher had left her class

for a time in charge of a monitor whom she trusted, and then found

out later that this monitor had himself disobeyed her and had set

an example of disobedience to the class in her absence. Do you not

think the teacher would be more angry at her monitor than if he

had never been appointed to that office? That is why God was now

so angry at Nadab and Abihu and resolved that as they had set an

example of rebellion and disobedience He would make their punishment

an example so that others should be duly warned not to do as they

had done." Then follows the story of the death of Nadab and Abihu.

Do not fail to dwell on Aaron's resignation in recognition of God's

justice.

In discussing the incident that gave its name to Kibroth-hattaavah

it is well to give other examples to show that what we most desire

is not always best for us and to have the children give examples, as

this is a moral of particular importance to childhood, suggesting

as it does a reason for that deference to elders upon which the

training of children is dependent. The case of the glutton who

craves foods that are not good for him, of the drunkard who craves

drink that proves his ruin, of the child who prefers truancy or the

pursuits of pleasure to diligence in study, etc., may all serve as

examples of sins, the very indulgence in which effects their own

punishment. But dwell particularly on the fact of the child's not

knowing what is for his own good as well as his parents know, and

the consequent duty of the child to defer to their judgment.

The narrative of Moses' relations to Eldad and Medad presents no

difficulty. In telling Miriam's sin and punishment the emphasis

should be rather on the forgiving and magnanimous spirit of Moses

than on the pettiness of Miriam's attitude. Point out how hurt

Moses must have felt at Miriam's unjust accusation, which implied

that Moses was trying to arrogate authority to himself but how,

nevertheless, he felt no satisfaction when God punished Miriam but

prayed that she be healed and forgiven. God's vindication of Moses

(Numbers 12. 6-8) should be quoted in Biblical language.

CHAPTER XIII

THE SPIES

Numbers 13.1 to 14.45. Deuteronomy 1.20-46

=Interpretation.= Little need be said by way of interpretation

of this episode, as the Biblical narrative makes its point very

clear. It shows us the consequences of a lack of faith and of a

lack of that courage which faith inspires. As a substitute for this

courage born of faith, not even the fury of despair can avail. This

is illustrated by the disastrous defeat of the Israelites when,

spurred on by their fear of facing the punishment for their previous

cowardice, they finally do rush to the attack contrary to the advice

of Moses, leaving the ark of the covenant behind them. The story

is, moreover, significant as showing the providential purpose of

the forty years of wandering through the wilderness--namely, the

rearing of a new generation inured to hardship and imbued with the

hope of future triumph. The faults of this slave people that needed

correction are graphically illustrated in the picture the Bible

draws of the reception with which the words of the ten spies and

of Joshua and Caleb respectively met: the panic and rebellion, the

ineffectual wailing, the clamor for a new leader to lead them back

to Egypt and the threats to stone their present leaders. The sublime

devotion of Moses is again pictured to us in his pleas for the

people and his refusal of a glorious future for himself and his seed

in which Israel should have no share.

=Aim.= The aim in teaching this lesson is to thrill the child's

heart with admiration for the virtues of faith and courage. It

should help to establish in his mind the association of his religion

with all the heroic virtues that are dear to the heart of boyhood.

=Suggestions to the teacher.= Before telling this story, read over

the Biblical account in Numbers and Deuteronomy carefully in order

to get the spirit of the Biblical narrative. The Bible does not

stop to moralize, but tells its tale graphically and dramatically,

and so should the teacher. The words of the ten spies on the one

hand, and of Joshuah and Caleb on the other, should be given in

direct discourse and in Biblical language. Attempt to help the child

picture in his mind the scene in the camp when the spies returned

and rendered their report. Aid him to realize the psychology of

the people by bringing to his attention what it meant for them, a

people untrained in warfare, to fight against the Canaanites, secure

in their fortified cities. It will be more difficult to enable the

pupils to grasp the motive for the rash assault which the people

did finally undertake. This one must do by bringing before their

eyes pictures of the hardships of the prospective wanderings of the

Israelites in the wilderness, which made them unable to face further

wandering as an alternative to a possible defeat by the Canaanites.

Try to make the class view the situation through the eyes of the

Israelites at that time. This can be done by speaking to them

somewhat as follows:

"When Moses had told the people that they would be punished by

having to wander forty years in the wilderness until all of them had

died and a new generation had grown up to take their places, they

were more terrified than ever. Frightened as they had been at the

thought of making war against the giant Canaanites in their walled

cities, they were even more frightened at the thought of having to

wander forty long years more in the wilderness, all the rest of

their lives in fact, and never even seeing the land which God had

promised to their fathers where, all this time, they had thought

that they would at least find rest from their hardships and toils.

They thought of all they had endured until then on the journey. The

scorching heat of the desert sun by day, the biting cold of the

desert winds by night, the hunger and the thirst, the long marches

over treeless rocky hills and valleys. But all that time they had

been cheered by the thought that some day the end would come and

they would be able to find rest in their new land, the Land of

Promise. But even this hope was now taken away from them and they

felt that anything would be better than to wander in the wilderness

until they died. Even to be killed in fighting the Canaanites seemed

better now. So they said, 'Lo, we are here and will go up unto the

place which the Lord hath promised; for we have sinned'."

It may also prove difficult to help the child understand why this

change of front was not acceptable to God. The child does not

naturally analyze motive and would not see, unless it is called

to his attention, why, since as a matter of fact the Israelites

did go up to attack the enemy, they were punished by being driven

back. This can best be done by suggesting analogies with situations

within the range of a child's experience. One may in discussing

this topic, after having completed one's narrative, raise this very

question. "Why did God say he would not be with them if they went

up to attack the enemy after they had changed their mind?" and, not

receiving a satisfactory answer, one may explain in some such manner:

"If the Israelites had decided to attack the enemy immediately when

they had heard Joshua's and Caleb's words, God would have been with

them and helped them to win the victory. But, at that time, when God

wanted them to go they were unwilling. They did not believe that He

would help them. Later when they wanted to go, because they were

afraid to wander forty years in the wilderness, it was too late. God

was not then willing. The time to obey a command is when it is given

and not after one is threatened with punishment for disobedience. If

a teacher were to give a boy some school work to do and he refused,

until she told him to stay in after school to do it and only then he

agreed to do the work rather than stay in, do you think the teacher

would be satisfied with that? No, she would say justly, 'You had

your chance to obey when the other children had, now if you are

sorry show it by taking the punishment you deserve'."

CHAPTER XIV

MORE TRIALS OF MOSES

Numbers 16.1 to 17.26, also 20.1 to 13 and 21.5 to 9

=Interpretation.= The central idea that runs through all the

important episodes of these chapters is the immensity of the problem

of leadership that confronted Moses, and the contrast between the

selfish and fickle passions of the people, passions that were

constantly menacing the very existence of Israel, and the sublime

patience and constancy of Moses, although on one occasion his sorely

tried patience can stand the strain no longer and he commits the sin

by which he forfeits his right to enter the Promised Land.

The difficulties against which Moses had to contend before the event

narrated in the preceding lesson, were multiplied after that event.

If the people before that time had been restive and discontented

whenever confronted with a difficulty, though they could always

console themselves by looking forward to their journey's end in

the Land of Promise, it was but natural that thereafter their

dissatisfaction would be greatly intensified. They had threatened

to appoint another head to lead them back to Egypt, and though

at the time this may have been nothing but an idle threat, the

opposition to Moses soon found a leader in the person of Korah,

the son of Izhar. Though he was himself a Levite, he coveted the

higher office of the priesthood to which Aaron and his family had

been appointed, but, with the instinct of the true demagogue,

posed as the champion of the people against the arbitrary authority

of the Levitical priesthood, and of Moses in appointing Aaron and

his sons as priests. He said to Moses and Aaron, "Ye take too much

upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them

and the Lord is among them; wherefore then do ye lift up yourselves

above the assembly of the Lord "? (Numbers 16. 3.) Moses' reply to

Korah shows that he saw through this pretentious championship of

the people to the envy and ambition of Korah, which were his real

motives. "Hear now, ye sons of Levi; is it but a small thing unto

you that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation

of Israel, to bring you near to Himself, to do the service of the

tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to

minister unto them; and that He hath brought thee near, and all thy

brethren the sons of Levi with thee? and will ye seek the priesthood

also? Therefore thou and all thy company that are gathered together

against the Lord--and as to Aaron, what is he that ye murmur against

him?" (Numbers 16. 8 to 11.) But Korah's championship of the claims

of all Israel to the priesthood won him a large following among the

other tribes, particularly among their ambitious leaders. Dathan and

Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, all of the tribe

of Reuben, are his particular henchmen, and he had also succeeded

in winning over to his cause two hundred and fifty of "the princes

of the congregation, the elect men of the assembly, men of renown."

The sedition had spread so far that nothing could have prevented the

reversion to a complete state of anarchy, save the destruction of

all those that took part, in a way so striking that it would reveal

clearly the divine purpose. This was provided for by the ordeal that

is narrated in the text. But the disaffection had spread so far that

many of the people resented the death of Korah and his followers and

were inclined to hold Moses responsible for it, until the miracle

of the blossoming of Aaron's staff convinced them. It is necessary

for the student of the Bible to understand the extent and purport of

Korah's rebellion lest he conceive of the punishment of Korah and

his followers as visited upon them merely because of an offense of

"lèse majesté", and, consequently, as utterly disproportionate to

the offense.

The narrative of the sin of Moses and Aaron for which they were

prohibited from entering the Promised Land does not make very clear

to the modern reader precisely what the Bible views as constituting

their sin. One possible interpretation, however, is that Moses by

his words, "Hear now, ye rebels, are we to bring you forth water out

of this rock?" (Numbers 20. 10) which were followed by his striking

the rock and his failure to speak to it as God had commanded

prevented the providential character of the water's flowing from

being apparent. The incident might have been interpreted by the

popular mind as if Moses, by the magic of his staff, had himself

caused the water to flow, as is suggested by his use of the first

person, "Are we to bring you forth water," and by his failure

to comply literally with God's command. He, thus permitted an

opportunity of sanctifying God's name to pass by yielding to passion

and thinking at the time of his personal grievance more than of his

service to God. Inasmuch as this partook of the nature of the sins

of that generation of Israel, he and Aaron were to take their share

also in the punishment of Israel and were not to enter the Promised

Land.

The thought suggested by the punishment of Nadab and Abihu recurs

again in this connection, viz: that the greater the man and his

responsibilities, the more circumspect must he be in his conduct.

The incident of the brass serpent must be interpreted in the light

of the rabbinic comment on that subject to which we have called

attention in connection with the holding up of Moses' hands during

the battle with the Amalekites.

"Is it then in the power of a serpent to slay or to bring to life?

But so long as the Israelites gazed heavenward and subjected their

hearts to their Father in heaven they were healed, and, if not,

they were destroyed." (Rosh ha-Shanah III, 8.) By looking up to the

brass serpent that Moses had been instructed to make, the people

testified, as it were, to their faith in God's power to heal them

from the serpent's bites. It is interesting to note that when, at a

later time in the history of the people the serpent itself became

the object of reverence and of idolatrous worship, it was destroyed

by order of King Hezekiah, in accordance with the teaching of the

prophets (2 Kings 18. 4).

=Aim.= The aim of this lesson is to develop an appreciation

of disinterested loyalty, steadfast faith and even temper,

and a contempt for selfish ambition, uncontrolled passion and

faithlessness.

=Suggestions to the teacher.= The method to be used in accomplishing

this aim is not that of drawing an abstract moral from the events

of the narrative, but one must tell one's story with feeling for

its hero, Moses, in such a way that the pupil identifies himself

with his hero and feels toward the enemies of Moses an almost

personal hostility. Before the child reaches adolescence, analysis

of character is not natural to him, and the discussion of men's

virtues and vices fruitless, but imitation of character is natural,

and hero-worship is the lever by which he may be moved to acquire a

love for virtue and a disgust with vice.

In order to put the character of Moses in a heroic light make the

class appreciate the depth of the ingratitude and treachery against

which Moses had constantly to contend, and how difficult this made

his task of leadership. Begin by calling on a child to tell the

story of the preceding lesson. Then call attention to how sad Moses

must have felt when after all he had done for the people they were

ready in the face of every difficulty to disobey and rebel, and how

much Moses must have loved and pitied them to have prayed to God for

their forgiveness rather than simply accept from God the promise

of a happy future for himself and his descendants. Call attention

to the fact that this was not the first time that the people had

disobeyed Moses and rebelled or murmured against him, and ask the

children to tell other instances. Draw from them as many instances

as possible since this not only helps in an interesting way to

refresh the children's memory of what they had already learnt, but

also to understand what is to follow. Then continue:

"Just as the murmuring of the people against Moses, when they heard

the report of the ten spies was not the first instance of their

rebellion against their patient leader, so it was not the last. In

fact, it became harder for Moses to lead the people now than ever."

The reason for this can best be explained by an analogy drawn from

the experience of children, as for example:

"You know that when a baseball team wins one game after the other

everybody praises the captain and all the members of the team are

ready to obey him, but if he loses one game after the other, they

all begin to criticise and find fault and everybody feels that he

himself would have made a better captain than the one who had been

chosen, although it may not at all have been the captain's fault

that the team was unsuccessful. So it was with the Israelites. So

long as they still hoped that Moses was going to lead them to a

land flowing with milk and honey, they were ready in the main to

obey him, except when they were afraid on account of some special

hardship and feared that he would never get them there after all;

but when Moses himself told them that they would have to wander

about for forty years in the wilderness until all the grown men

of that day should have died, they were very bitter against him.

Instead of blaming themselves, and their own cowardice and lack of

faith in God, they blamed Moses, like the losing team that blames

its captain instead of its own poor playing. And so they thought of

appointing a new captain, another man than Moses, to act as their

leader."

At this point introduce the character of Korah to the class and tell

them of his envy of Moses, of his coveting the position of Aaron,

and of his subtle attempts to secure the leadership by telling the

people that they were all everyone as good as Moses and Aaron, for

they were all members of a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation."

After describing success of Korah's propaganda, and pointing out

the helplessness of Moses and the extreme danger of his position,

tell of Moses' decision to entrust his vindication to God. If Korah

and his followers wished to claim the priesthood, let them act as

priests, each burning incense in the censer that he held in his

hand, and God would show whether he wanted to accept them as priests

or not.

The judgment that was pronounced upon Korah and his followers will

then mean for the child the just punishment of disloyalty and will

reinforce his detestation of the qualities displayed by Korah and

his like, but if the teacher fails to prepare the way by enlisting

the child's interest in the situation as it developed between Moses

and the people, by some such method as we have suggested, the story

will mean little more to him than the account of an earthquake.

From the point of view of religious education, a knowledge of the

manner of Korah's punishment is not of so much consequence as an

understanding of the sin for which he was punished.

In telling the story of the sin of Moses and Aaron, guard against

appearing to detract from the character of Moses. If the previous

lessons have been properly taught the child should by this time have

developed an intense admiration for Moses and would be inclined to

resent any disparagement of his hero, even to the point of secretly

feeling that the sin of Moses was no real sin and that his teacher's

treatment of him was quite unfair and was merely an attempt to

apologize for God's not letting him enter Canaan. The rabbis say

that the reason for God's mentioning the sin of Nadab and Abihu

was to keep us from inferring that their death was a punishment

for other and more grievous sins. One cannot help feeling that

the narrative of the sin of Moses had a similar purpose, the very

fact that Moses was so severely punished for so apparently slight

an offense, being meant to show the esteem in which he was held and

how much God expected of him, in consequence. At any rate, this

is the spirit in which it were best to approach this subject. The

emphasis should be on the provocation to sin and on Moses' pious

acceptance of his punishment and his readiness to continue leading

the people to the Promised Land even after he could not expect to

share in their final triumph. The liturgy for Simhath Torah contains

the words, "Moses died. Who shall not die?" The sentiment that the

teacher should seek to arouse by this lesson is somewhat similar.

"Moses sinned, who can be sinless?" If Moses, who is described as

the meekest of men, could sin in a moment of passion, how much more

should we guard ourselves against sin and especially when under the

influence of passion.

In telling of how the people who had been bitten by the serpents

were healed when they looked up to the brass serpent that Moses

had made, guard against letting the child attribute any magic to

the image of the serpent itself. This can best be done by telling

them the explanation of this episode suggested above in our

interpretation. One might also associate the incident with what they

had learnt of the influence of the hands of Moses in the battle with

the Amalekites. Moreover, it might be well to tell them of how the

people's false conception of its significance in later times led to

its destruction by a pious king of Judah.

CHAPTER XV

ISRAEL ARRIVES AT THE BORDER OF THE PROMISED LAND

Numbers 21.1 to 3 and 21 to 35, also 22.1 to 24.25, also 31.1 to 54

and 32.1 to 42

=Interpretation.= The wandering through the wilderness, which

in this chapter draws to a close, has had its desired effect in

producing a race capable of giving battle. Its powers are put to the

test by the necessity of pushing its conquests through the territory

of Sihon, King of the Amorites, and of Og, King of Bashan.

The command to conquer these nations and the Promised Land itself

may present religious difficulties to some. Indeed, such wars of

conquest are responsible for the charge frequently brought against

religion in general, that it brought bloodshed and persecution into

the world. This would, however, be an entirely wrong conception

of the significance of this _milḥemet miẓwah_. We must bear in mind

that warfare was the normal state of the ancient world. If we ask

why God so ordained, we can give no answer any more than we can

to the general question of why God suffers evil to exist and then

desires man to contend against it. But no religious person really

believes that God desires the evil. Similarly we must not construe

these chapters to assume that God desires or ever desired war but

merely that, warfare between the nations being inevitable in an

age when there were no peaceful methods of settling national and

tribal disputes, God desired Israel to be victorious because her

civilization was superior to that of Canaan. Even the command to

exterminate the inhabitants must be construed in the light of the

fact that otherwise the only alternative was perpetual warfare

between the races on the land or an assimilation of Israel to the

native races with the loss of the hope that Israel's victory held

out to the world. Again and again are we told in the Torah that the

sole justification for Israel's conquest is the sinfulness of the

nations of Canaan, and that Israel's sinfulness would subject it

to the same treatment as was meted out to the Canaanites. In the

very chapters that we are considering now it is to be noted that

the command to conquer the land applied originally only to Canaan,

to which the people laid claim by virtue of inheritance from the

patriarchs who had dwelt there, and that, therefore, all that was

originally demanded of the trans-Jordanic lands is the right to pass

through without doing any injury in transit. It is only when this is

definitely refused that the Israelites are permitted to resort to

arms.

The story of Balaam and Balak is significant as a poetic expression

of the invincibility of Israel. Balaam is sent for by Balak to curse

Israel because of the reputation that this heathen prophet and

sorcerer enjoyed. Though tempted by the bribes offered by Balak he

knows that God will not suffer him to pronounce an effective curse

upon Israel and at first refuses to go. He is, however, finally

permitted to go, after due warning, both before he sets out and

again when the angel opposes him on the way, not to speak anything

save what God puts into his mouth. The final result is that he

blesses Israel and curses Moab.

The reader should not be troubled by the apparent admission that a magic

power attaches to a formula of curse or blessing, as the point of the

story is not to teach that curses are or are not effective, but that,

whether they are or not בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל קֶסֶם וְלֹא בְּיַעֲקֹב נַחַשׁ לֹא which, though

usually translated otherwise, may fittingly be rendered, "There is no

enchantment against Jacob and no divination against Israel." (Numbers

23.23.) In rabbinic tradition the story of Balaam's dialogue with his

ass is the classical text for the preaching of humane treatment to

animals. It is still capable of yielding that moral.

The incident of the oath taken by the tribes of Reuben, Gad and

Manasseh has a very obvious moral in its insistance on Jewish

unity and cooperation. "We will not return unto our houses until

the children of Israel have inherited every man his inheritance".

(Numbers 32. 18.) The fear of Moses that the premature settlement

of the trans-Jordanic tribes might lead to division in Israel

was certainly well-founded in view of subsequent events when the

development of local tribal jurisdictions almost threatened the

existence of the nation in the days of the Judges.

=Aim.= To strengthen the child's faith in God's choice of Israel.

=Suggestions to the teacher.= In telling of the wars of Israel all

harrowing details would naturally be omitted and the emphasis put

not on the fight, but on the victory which Israel won by the help

of God. A good point of contact for beginning the story could be

obtained by recalling the narrative of the report of the ten spies

and of the punishment to which Israel was sentenced by reason of its

acceptance of this report.

Then show how God's punishment was adapted to the offense in that

it gave Israel the opportunity to rear a generation of brave men

in the free atmosphere of the wilderness. Be sure that the child

understands the advantage of the training in the wilderness for the

new generation, over the experience of their fathers in Egypt. It

will not suffice to state the thing abstractly, but make your point

clear by repeated illustration as follows:

"Many years had now passed since the children of Israel had sent

the ten spies and had been told that they could not enter the

Promised Land until all the full grown men of that day should have

died. During these years almost all of that generation who had been

afraid to go up into the land had died and their sons and daughters,

who, at that time, had been children, or had not yet even been

born, had now grown up to manhood. And they were a very different

generation from what their fathers had been. In the first place they

were different in appearance. Their fathers, who in youth had been

slaves to Pharaoh, had grown up with backs bent by the burdens they

had to carry. Many of them had been permanently weakened and even

deformed by the hard treatment they had received in Egypt. But their

children, who had grown up in the wilderness and had lived all their

lives out of doors, with plenty of fresh air and healthful exercise,

and with no one to make them work at labor that was too hard for

them, grew up straight and sturdy, broad-shouldered and muscular,

like well-trained athletes. They were as different in appearance as

a poor peddler whom you may see carrying his pack on his shoulders

is from the strong and vigorous farm hand.

"Nor did they differ in appearance only, but also in character.

Slavery had made cowards of their fathers. The slightest act of

disobedience to the task-masters bringing instant punishment, they

had learned to fear every enemy. No doubt their fathers had been

warned in childhood never to attack an Egyptian no matter what he

did, because they would in the end have to suffer for it. And so

their fathers had become accustomed to thinking of themselves as too

weak to fight and when they saw the Canaanite warriors they said,

'We are like grasshoppers compared to them.' But their sons who had

grown up in the wilderness did not know the meaning of fear. They

were used to hardship and dangers, for the wilderness was beset by

all manner of wild beasts and wild men also, and this had trained

them to be brave. Moreover they saw from childhood up how God at

every step helped His people, how He helped them at the Red Sea, how

He fed them on Manna, etc., and they said to themselves, 'Since God

is with us, we need not fear, what can man do unto us.'"

You are now in a position to tell of the campaigns against Sihon

and Og, stressing the overtures of peace, the rejection of which

justified the invasion, and enlarging on the Israelites' sense of

triumph which resulted from their victories, in which they saw the

beginning of the realization of God's promise to give them the land

of Canaan.

This is a good point in the narrative at which to trace the route of

Israel's marches through the wilderness and to locate the important

places on the map.

In telling the story of Balak and Balaam be careful not to leave

the child with a superstitious belief in the efficacy of a curse,

not only because superstition is in itself evil, but because the

association of religion with superstition becomes very dangerous to

the former when the child reaches an age at which he will in all

probability see the unreasonableness of the superstition. Make it

plain that Balak's sending for Balaam to curse Israel does not mean

that Balaam actually possessed this power, but merely that Balak

believed him to possess it in accordance with the superstition of

his day. The point of the narrative should lie in the discomfiture

of Balak, which teaches that when God is bent on blessing, no human

being can effectively curse, and that God had destined Israel for

blessing. Do not make this explanation as a digression from the

story, but weave it into the narrative itself by suggestion as

follows:

"Now Balak, the king of Moab, had heard that there lived in

Mesopotamia, a famous sorcerer named Balaam, and that whomever this

Balaam blessed would be sure to have good luck, and whomever he

cursed, bad luck, and, being very superstitious, as were most of the

people in his day, he believed that Balaam really had this power,

and so he sent presents to him to persuade him to come to Moab and

curse Israel for him so that the Israelites should be defeated in

battle."

Do not attempt to rationalize the miracle of the ass's speaking to

Balaam. If the child wants to know how it was possible for the ass

to speak, answer that it is no harder for God to give an animal

power to speak than a man. No baby is born with the ability to

speak and we only learn to speak when God gives us the power and

intelligence. By answering the question in this manner one attaches

to the commonplace the mystery associated with the supernatural. By

attempting to rationalize, one would reduce everything to the level

of the commonplace. At a later age, when the pupil has developed a

concept of natural law, this answer may not prove satisfactory, but

it would be absurd to attempt a philosophic reconciliation of the

natural and supernatural for children at an age when they lack the

concept of either.

CHAPTER XVI

THE DEATH OF MOSES

Numbers 27.12 to 23. Deuteronomy 31.14 to 34.12

=Interpretation.= The Biblical account of the death of Moses in its

impressive simplicity scarcely needs comment. It brings to a fitting

end the story of the life-struggle of the greatest of the prophets.

There is an infinite pathos in the thought of his never having set

foot on the soil toward which he had been leading his people for

forty years in the face of ingratitude, calumny and rebellion. But

there is also a peculiar fitness in this fate for it lifts all his

efforts in behalf of his people beyond the reach of any detraction

based on a charge of self-interest. After he knows his destiny never

to be permitted to enter the Promised Land, he continues with the

same steadfastness to devote himself to his people. He rehearses

their history and in words of passionate appeal admonishes them in

song and prophecy to be faithful to the covenant, as the very life

of the nation depended thereon. And he provides during his lifetime

for a successor to his labors and secures for him the popular

allegiance. Then, with his life-work completed but with all earthly

reward for it withheld, he ascends the mountain to behold the Land

of Promise and dies content with seeing in prophetic vision the

consummation which a less divinely meek man would have demanded to

see in realization. "No man knoweth of his sepulcher". As in life

he was content to live for God and to give God the glory, so in

his death he left no token which might attract to him the reverence

due to the God whom he served, thereby saving Judaism from that

man-worship to which other religions have fallen a prey by reason of

their identification of their religion with the personality of its

founder. "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men that

were upon the face of the earth", (Numbers 12. 3) and, therefore,

"There hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses,

whom the Lord knew face to face; in all the signs and the wonders,

which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, and

to all his servants, and to all his land; and in all the mighty

hand, and all the great terror, which Moses wrought in the sight of

all Israel." (Deuteronomy 34. 10 to 12.)

=Aim.= The aim of this lesson should be to cultivate in the child a

reverent appreciation of the personality of Moses which would result

not merely in the attempt to emulate his virtues, but in the desire

to be faithful to his law in accordance with the sentiment expressed

in the verse, "Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance of the

congregation of Jacob." (Deuteronomy 33. 4.)

=Suggestions to the teacher.= There is comparatively little

narrative in this lesson and what there is will present no

difficulty. When telling of how Moses addressed the people before

his death, read well selected extracts from the Book of Deuteronomy.

If the class has learned in its Hebrew work the translation of the

שְׁמַע (Deuteronomy 6. 4 to 9) and וְהָיָה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ (Deuteronomy

11. 13 to 21) or if the pupils have been taught to say them at home,

include these portions among those selected and call the attention

of the children to the fact that these words which they say daily

are among the last words of Moses, which he wanted the people to

remember after his death and to teach to their children, and that

if we say them and live according to them we are carrying out the

will of the great law-giver of our nation. This should serve to

give an added meaning and value to the child's prayers and connect

the history lesson with his daily life. Other passages adapted for

reading to children are, Deuteronomy 3. 23 to 4. 10, also 4. 32-40

and 28. 1-4, 30. 15-20 and 32. 7-18.

In the discussion of the lesson with the class after its first

presentation take occasion to review the life of Moses as a means

of bringing out the salient traits of his character. Call for

instances illustrating Moses' stern sense of justice, his courage,

his modesty, his readiness to forgive, etc., and seek to get as many

examples as possible so that the result will be in effect a review

of the life of Moses. Be very careful not to make your questions

too vague. Thus it would not do merely to say, "Who can tell me an

incident in the life of Moses that shows his modesty?" inasmuch as

the abstract noun "modesty" has little meaning to the child of the

age at which this story is usually taught. It would be much better

to say, "One reason that Moses was so great was because he was

modest, that is to say, he never thought about the honor that others

owed to him as leader, or felt boastful in his heart because of all

the great things he had done, and was always ready to see the good

in others and to admit whenever he was wrong. Can any of you give

me any instance in the life of Moses to show that he did not think

himself a great man? Can you give me an example to show that he was

not anxious for honors? to show that he was ready to take the advice

of others, or to admit that he was wrong when such was the case?"

After having a sufficient number of answers illustrative of the

modesty of Moses put them down on the blackboard thus:

Moses was modest,

1. He hesitated about leading the people from Egypt.

2. He would not rebuke Eldad and Medad for prophesying.

3. He veiled his face when it shone.

4. He accepted the punishment for his sin without complaint.

Then do the same with other traits of Moses' character, until every

incident in the career of Moses is classified thus on the basis of

its moral significance. The value of this drill is that it serves at

the same time as a review not merely of the events of the life of

Moses, but of their significance, and, moreover, provides exercise

for the moral judgment of the pupils. The success of this exercise

will depend very largely on the skill of the teacher in making his

questions simple and brief and in putting them to the class in an

animated manner, such as would make them fell that to find the

correct answers was a sort of game that they were playing.

After the main incidents in the life of Moses are thus classified

on the blackboard in accordance with the traits of character

they exhibit, another helpful exercise would be to let the class

rearrange them in their chronological order and assign them to the

three periods of Moses' life,

1. His life before receiving the call to save his people,

2. His opposition to Pharaoh,

3. His leadership of the people in the wilderness.

This second classification might serve as the outline of an essay on

the life of Moses which the children might be requested to submit at

the end of the term as summarizing their year's work.

* * * * *

Transcriber's note:

Minor typographical errors have been corrected without note.

Irregularities and inconsistencies in the text have been retained as

printed.

The cover for the eBook version of this book was created by the

transcriber and is placed in the public domain.