as it were a day's journey on the other side, round about the

as would suffice all the thousands of Israel. Why then did he not mention the locusts, and present his supplication for a favorable breeze? This circumstance cannot be accounted for, but on the supposition that locusts were not the object of their desire, nor in the contemplation of Jehovah. We rest, therefore, in the conclusion, that quails and not locusts are intended by the sacred writer.¶Let (them) fall by the camp. Heb. yittash, be spread abroad, diffused. The word occurs 1 Sam. 30:16, "And when he had brought him down, behold they (the company) were spread abroad (Heb. netushim) upon all the earth, eating, and drinking, and dancing," etc.—¶ A day's journey. Heb. "The way of day." And so in the next clause. The phrase is somewhat ambiguous, as we are not informed whether the day's journey means the space over which an individual could travel in one day, in which case it would be much greater-or the whole army could traverse, which would be much less. If the journey of an individual is intended, it might be about thirty miles; but if the sacred historian refers to the whole army, a third part of this space is as much as they could march in one day in the sandy desert, under a vertical sun. In the opinion of Bochart, this immense cloud of quails covered a space of at least forty miles' diameter; for a day's journey is at least twenty miles. Ludolph thinks, it ought to be reduced to sixteen miles; and others, to half that number, because, Moses refers to the march of Israel through the desert, encumbered with their women and children, their flocks and herds, and the baggage of the whole nation; which must have greatly retarded their movements, and rendered the short distance

camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth.

of eight miles more than sufficient for a journey of one day. It is equally doubtful, whether the distance mentioned by Moses, must be measured from the centre or from the extremities of the encampment; it is certain, however, that he intends to state the countless numbers of these birds which fell around the tents of Israel.- -T And as it were two cubits (high) upon the face of the earth. The first impression produced by these words would undoubtedly be, that the quails fell in such abundance that they were actually heaped up on the surface of the earth to the height of two cubits. But the Hebrew admits of another rendering, which we, with Mr. Kitto, are inclined to adopt, especially as it has the sanction of Jarchi, a Jewish commentator:

But

"As

"They flew so high as against a man's heart, that he was not fatigued in getting them, either by reaching high or stooping low." So also the Vulg. "And they flew in the air two cubits high above the ground." more to the purpose is the following note from the "Pictorial Bible." we understand, it would seem that the birds were so exhausted, or rather they were so strictly kept by the Divine power within the limit of a day's journey from the camp, that even when roused or attempting flight, they could not rise more than three feet from the ground, and were thus easily caught by nets. or by the hand. In support of the view we have been led to take, we may add, that if the birds had lain two cubits deep upon the ground, the far greater part of them must have been dead before they could have been collected, and would therefore have been unfit for food, since the Israelites could eat nothing that had died of suffoca

...

32 And the people stood up all that day, and all that night, and all the next day, and they gath

tion, or the blood of which had not been poured out."

V. 32. And the people stood up all that day, etc. Rather, "rose up" (Heb. yakom); that is, they engaged earnestly in the work, and were intent upon gathering the fowls for thirty-six hours. This is not unfrequently the import of the original term.¶ He that gathered least gathered ten homers. Or, "ten heaps," as the original word homer is properly distinguished from omer, a much smaller measure, and from hamor, an ass, or the load that was commonly laid upon that animal. But some writers make it equal to the cor, which is more than double the weight, and is the common load of a camel. But it was not necessary that every one should gather ten camel loads of quails; for God had promised his people flesh for a month, and would have fulfilled his promise had he bestowed on every individual the third part of a cor, or camel's burden. The truth of this assertion will appear, when it is considered, that every Israelite received for his daily subsistence, an omer of manna, which is the tenth part of an ephah. But an ephah is the tenth part of a cor; and by consequence, a cor contains an hundred omers. If then, an omer is sufficient for one day, a cor must be sufficient for an hundred days, that is, for more than three months. Hence, if every Israelite gathered ten cors of quails, they collected thirty times more than God had promised. Bochart endeavors to remove this difficulty, by observing, that Moses, in this verse, speaks only of the heads of families, leaving out of his enumeration, the women, children, and slaves. But it is evident, that Moses did not use the

ered the quails: he that gathered least gathered ten homers: and

k Ex. 16. 36.

word people, in this restricted sense; for he states, that the wrath of the Lord was kindled against the people that gathered the quails. Dissatisfied, therefore, with this solution, Bochart proposes another with which he is better pleased: The ten homers are not ten cors, but ten heaps; for in this sense, the word is sometimes used. Thus, in the prophecy of Habakkuk, ch. 3:15, homer signifies a heup of many waters; and in the book of Exodus, ch. 8: 14, a heap of frogs. Onkelos and other interpreters accordingly render it in this passage, ten heaps. If this be admitted, Moses has not determined the quantity of these birds which every one gathered; but only says, that every one at least gathered ten heaps, that is, by a familiar phrase among the Hebrews, a very great number; for ten is often used in Scripture for many. This version ought, perhaps, to be preferred, both on account of what has been already stated, and because the cor is a measure of corn, not of flesh. The view now given is of some value; for if every Israelite gathered ten cors of quails, the number of these birds must have been so great as to exceed all belief. But it has been shown, that instead of ten cors, an Israelite did not collect and use the third part of one. It is not meant to limit the power of God; but surely no violence should be offered to human belief, by requiring more from it, than God has revealed in his word. The quantities collected must have been at any rate immense, and give new force to the language of the Psalmist, Ps. 78:27, "He rained flesh upon them as dust, and feathered fowls like as the sand of the sea." In indulging themselves in feasting upon

they spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp. 33 And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.

7 Ps. 78. 30, 31.

this new luxury it is evident that their appetites scarce knew bounds. The consequence was what might be anticipated; they ate to surfeiting, and the surfeiting was fatal.- -¶ And they spread (them) all abroad round about the camp. Heb. "Spread for themselves a spreading." Evidently implying that they were thus spread in order to be dried in the sun for preservation. "This is the first indication in Scripture of animal food being prepared so as to be preserved for future occasions. Our earliest information concerning the Egyptians describes them as salting and drying, for future use, great quantities of fish and fowl. A nomade people, as the Hebrews were when they went down to Egypt, never think of any such process, even at the present day. It is therefore natural to conclude that they learnt this simple and useful art from the Egyptians. We are disposed to conclude with Calmet (in his note on the place), that the Hebrews salted their quails before they dried them. We have here, then, the earliest indication of processes, the benefits resulting from which have become so diffused and familiar, that it costs an effort of recollection to recognize them as benefits."-Pict. Bible.

V. 33. Ere it was chewed. Heb. terem yikkârëth, ere it was cut off; which Pool and others understand of the supply of quails-before it ceased at the end of the month. Thus Joel 1:5, "Howl,

all ye drinkers of wine, because of the new wine; for it is cut off (Heb. nikrath) from your mouth," that is, taken away, made to cease. So also the Vulg. "As yet the flesh was between their teeth, neither had that kind of meat failed." Yet the present rendering is admissible, though not we think quite so probable, as the term nowhere else occurs in the sense of chewing. The Psalmist thus alludes to this portion of the sacred history :-"So they did eat, and were well filled: for he gave them their own desire; they were not estranged from their lusts. But while the meat was yet in their mouths, the wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel;" where it is observable, that the original word for "chosen" (bahurim) is the same with that rendered "young men," v. 19.- -T The Lord smote the people with a very great plague. Heb. "Smote with a very great smiting." "With a very great slaughter."-Cov., Mat. The term "plague" in our translation is of very indefinite import, equivalent to stroke or judgment. It was doubtless some kind of bodily disease or pestilence, the legitimate effect of their surfeit. As Attersoll remarks, "their sweet meat had sour sauce.'

V. 34. And he called the name of that place Kibroth-hattaavah. That is, graves of lust." Vulg. "Sepulchres of concupiscence." There is a distinct

CHAPTER XII.

the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had mar

a

CHAPTER XII.

The Sedition of Miriam and Aaron against Moses, and its Consequences.

V. 1. And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses. Heb. "And Miriam spake and Aaron." The form of the expression implies that Miriam took the lead in the disaffection, which is confirmed by the fact, that she and not Aaron was smitten with the plague of leprosy, v. 10. Here also, as in the case of our first parents, the woman was the first in the transgression. The sin recorded in the previous chapter was a sin of the bodily appetites breaking out among the lower orders of the people; the sin here mentioned was a sin of ambition and vainglory originating with the chief personages of the host, for these three held the pre-eminence among the people. Mic. 6:4, "For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam." It is of course impossible to determine precisely the grounds of this disaffection, for although his marriage with an Ethi

a Ex. 2. 21.

opian woman was the ostensible occasion, yet from the next verse, it would seem that they mainly found fault with Moses' undue assumptions as the Lord's messenger. The suggestion is not very improbable that some resentment was felt on account of Aaron's not having been consulted in the choice of the seventy elders, and also from the fact that Moses was wont to advise with his wife's relations, Jethro and Hobab, on important emergencies; for which reason Miriam had now stirred up a quarrel, wherein not daring to assail him in person, they make his marriage with one of a foreign race the pretence for their rebellious conduct. "The unkindness of our friends is sometimes a greater trial of our meekness than the malice of our enemies."-Henry.¶ Because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married. Heb. "Because of the woman the Cushite." And thus it is rendered by most of the oriental versions, while the Sept., Vulg. and Gr. Vers. adopt the term Ethiopian. "Cushite" comes from Cush, the son of Ham. The name is applied in Scripture not only to a portion of Africa, but to a part of Arabia also, which is explained by the descendants of Cush having left their name in certain regions where they sojourned some time prior to their final passage into Africa. It is a difficult point to determine whether by this Cushite woman is to be understood Zipporah, or another whom he had married subsequent to Zipporah's death. If it were Zipporah,. how can we suppose that after Moses had been married to her for forty years, the union should have been brought up as the ostensible ground of the present quarrel? We are

2 And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken

on the whole inclined to the opinion that it was another woman of Cushite origin who is here alluded to, and that the whole transaction was ordered or overruled with reference to a typical bearing, which is distinctly recognized in the commentaries of several of the early Christian fathers, viz. that Moses should stand as a type of Christ, Aaron of the Jewish priesthood, Miriam of the Jewish synagogue or body of the people, and the Ethiopian or Cushite woman of the Gentile church espoused by faith to the Lord. This view is entirely consistent with the general typi-| cal tenor of the Old Testament, wherein so many gospel mysteries are shadowed forth. The Jews, as is well known, resented the adoption of the church of the Gentiles, the mystical Ethiopian or black bride of the Lord, of whom, however, it is said in the Song of Solomon, ch. 1:5, "I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem," so that we are not required to understand by black an unsightly or repulsive hue, as if Moses had married a negress, but simply one of that complexion which was common among the natives of the Arabian peninsula, and which is probably to be witnessed in the swarthy countenances of the tribes that rove over that region at the present day. It is remarkable that the Chald. translates the passage, "Because of the beautiful woman whom he had married; for he had married a beautiful woman." The commentators are all at a loss to account for this version, and we share ourselves in their perplexity, unless it may be in some way based upon mystical grounds. We may remark, in this connection, that Josephus, Philo, and others, take the woman here spoken of

to be, not Zipporah, but another whom he subsequently married. Indeed, it is not easy to satisfy one's self on what ground Zipporah should have been termed an Ethiopian or Cushite unless it were certain that the specific territory of Midian, where she was born, was also called after Cush, of which we doubt if there is sufficient evidence to establish the fact.- - For he had married an Ethiopian woman. Heb. “Had taken," i. e. to wife, or had married. This is often the distinctive sense of the original, as 1 Chron. 2: 19, 21. 2 Chron. 11: 20. Neh. 6:18. 10:30. Perhaps the case of Moses in this instance may be, in some respects, paralleled by that of Hosea, ch. 1: 2, 3.

V. 2. Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? The original is still more emphatic. "Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses alone?" It is observable, also, that the Heb. phrase for "by Moses" (be-Mosheh) may be rendered "in Moses," implying an inward revelation by the Spirit. It is, however, variously rendered by the versions, "through Moses," "to Moses," and "with Moses." Rosenmuller supposes the sense to be, that inasmuch as they also enjoyed the privilege of divine revelations they could perceive that he had entered into this marriage against the will of the Lord, and solely by the impulse of his own mind, and consequently that they did right to condemn it.¶ Hath he not spoken also by us? Or, Heb. "in us," as David says, "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me ("♫, bi, in me), and his word was in my tongue." The drift is, are we not prophets as well as he? For this character is predicated both of Aaron and Miriam, Ex. 4: 15, 16. 15 20. Mic. 6:4. They would intimate