Aaron-Glenn Conjurske

Aaron

by Glenn Conjurske

An old proverb says, “If two men ride on a horse, one must ride behind.” If two men work together in a cause, one of them must stand in second place. Some men are made to lead, and some to follow. Nay, more: some men are chosen of God, and fitted by God, and called of God to lead, and others ordained to follow them. Now the fact is, there are always but few who are fitted to lead, and many whose place is to follow. But another fact is, it takes a special kind of grace to stand in second place, and all men, alas, do not have that grace. The spirit of pride and of independence is so strong in the human race, that there are many who cannot be content to follow the man whom God has placed at the head. Many there are who could fill the second place with great advantage if they would—-many even who do fill the second place with advantage for a time, but eventually the pride of their hearts overcomes them, engendering offence and ill will, and they begin to speak against the authority and the character of their leader, and so forfeit the place which God had given to them, in association with the man whom he had chosen to lead.

Aaron was a man whom God had put in the second place. Moses was the man whom the Lord had chosen and prepared and called to stand in the first place, and Aaron had no call of God at all, except the call to aid and assist Moses. God called Moses at the burning bush, commissioned him to deliver Israel from Egypt, and put into his hands the power to accomplish the work. Aaron was as yet nothing, and had no call from God at all. He may have been a good brick-layer in Egypt, may even have been an elder in Israel—-but to lead the hosts of Israel and deliver them from their bondage he had no ability, and certainly no call from God. But Moses objected that he was not eloquent—-objected even to the point that the anger of the Lord was kindled against him. Yet the Lord in his anger did not therefore set aside Moses’ call, and call Aaron in his stead. Nothing of the sort. Aaron was no way fit for such a call. What then? “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee, and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth, and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people, and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.” (Ex. 4:14-16).

This is all plain enough. The work of God was committed to Moses, even in spite of the Lord’s anger against him. Aaron had no such place. Aaron had no call from God at all, except to be Moses’ spokesman. The estimation in which God held these two men was very plain also. Aaron was to stand in the place of “a mouth.” Moses was to stand in the place of “God.” The Lord repeats the same again in Exodus 7:1. “And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” Moses was called to be God’s prophet. Aaron was called to be Moses’ prophet. Moses, by the word of God himself, was put in the place of God to both Aaron and Pharaoh. Aaron was given no such place, but only to be a prophet and a mouth to Moses. What folly and sin would have been avoided if Aaron had been content to keep the place which God had given him—-and to let Moses alone in the place which God had given to him.

But to proceed. For a while we see Aaron standing in his right place, beside Moses the man of God, acting as Moses’ prophet. “And the Lord spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch forth thine hand with thy rod over the streams, over the rivers, and over the ponds, and cause frogs to come up upon the land of Egypt. And Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt, and the frogs came up, and covered the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 8:5-6). Again, “And the Lord said unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch out thy rod, and smite the dust of the land, that it may become lice throughout all the land of Egypt. And they did so, for Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in man and in beast; all the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Eygpt.” (Ex. 8:16-17). Two things are evident in these Scriptures. The first is Aaron’s subordinate place. When God speaks, he speaks to Moses. When God wishes to communicate his will to Aaron, he speaks to Moses, bidding Moses “Say unto Aaron.” Why did not God speak to Aaron himself, instead of saying to Moses, “Say unto Aaron”? Verily Moses was the man whom God had chosen and called, to whom he would communicate his will, and if Aaron was to have it at all, he must have it from Moses. When God said that he had put Moses in the place of God to Aaron, this was no idle word. All of this should have taught Aaron his true place of subordination to Moses.

The second thing which we see in these scriptures is that while Aaron stood in the place which God had given him, as Moses’ prophet, a great sphere of usefulness and power was opened before him—-a sphere which was his solely by his association with Moses, and of which he could have had nothing otherwise. Standing beside Moses, in subordination to Moses, Aaron could stretch forth his hand and bring forth frogs, or turn the dust of the land into lice. Standing beside Moses, he could cast down his rod, and turn it into a serpent. He possessed that power solely by virtue of his association with Moses, and would not have had a shadow of it otherwise. The power of God is with the man of God, as all history testifies. That power was given to Moses at the burning bush. It was never given to Aaron at all, except by his association with Moses. And thus it often happens that a man whom God allows to stand in second place, under a man of God, has his own power and usefulness greatly enlarged thereby. He thus becomes, in his association with the man of God, a power which he never could be on his own. This, too, ought to have taught Aaron to thankfully cling to the place which God had given to him under Moses.

But there is something more. Not only was Aaron’s own power and usefulness completely dependent upon his association with Moses, but he was also able to contribute something to increase Moses’ strength. Though Moses was chosen and called of God to do a great work for him, yet Moses was only flesh, heir to the weaknesses which are common to man. Though the work of the Lord depended upon him, yet he was sometimes unable to accomplish it. Hence his need for a man like Aaron, to hold up his weak hands.

All of this we see most beautifully in Exodus 17:9-13: “And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand. So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed, and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side, and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.”

The first thing which is evident here is that the whole operation depended upon Moses. Though Joshua was in the field with an army of chosen men, yet the battle did not depend upon Joshua, nor upon his army, but entirely upon Moses on the hill above, with the rod of God in his hand. When Moses held up his hands, Israel prevailed. When Moses let his hands down, Amalek prevailed. These are simple facts. If we ask the reason of them, the answer is simple enough. Moses was God’s chosen instrument for the work, and therefore the work depended upon him. Moses was the man of God, and the power of God was with the man of God. God had given that power into the hands of Moses. “The rod of God” belonged to him—-and the same rod, in the hands of another man would not have been “the rod of God” at all, but would have been as powerless as the rod of Elisha in the hands of Gehazi.

But the second thing which is evident here is that Moses was beset with the same weakness which belongs to the rest of the human race. The rod of God was in his hands, but his hands were weak. When he saw that all the battle depended upon himself, and saw the weakness of his own flesh, he might have cried out with Paul, “Who is sufficient for these things?” Moses’ weakness, in the type before us, was merely physical, but Paul’s was certainly deeper than that. It is the weakness of humanity, in a thousand forms—-weakness of soul and spirit, as well as weakness of body. We are all subject to it. And because of that weakness, though the battle depended upon Moses alone, yet Moses alone was not sufficient for it. He needed Aaron and Hur to hold up his hands. And this is a divinely drawn picture, of surpassing beauty, of the proper place of men like Aaron, who are called of God to stand in second place, to be the stay and support of the man of God. Here we see Aaron at his best. Would God that he had always remained so!

But there is a third thing evident in this picture. Moses was the man upon whom the battle depended. He could not be replaced by another, but nothing actually depended upon Aaron. Hur was as good as Aaron was, to hold up Moses’ hands—-and so were ten thousand other men. The place, then, which Aaron had at Moses’ side, was a place of great privilege for him. Ten thousand others could have held up Moses’ hands as well as he, but the place was given to him—-and given to him by God. These considerations ought to have kept him humble and grateful in the place which he had, but alas, they failed to do so, as we shall see.

Thus far we have seen that Aaron had no independent call from God. He was called only to be Moses’ prophet—-only to stand at Moses’ side, and second him and support him. We have seen also what a great sphere of power and usefulness this call opened up to him, and what strength he could contribute even to Moses so long as he stood at his side. And beside all this, he had the great privilege of standing with Moses and bearing with him all the reproaches which a stiff-necked people cast upon him—-for it was against Moses and Aaron that the people always murmured. This, I say, was a great privilege, and beyond that, an unspeakable benefit to Moses. Anyone who has been called upon to bear the kind of burdens which Moses bore, and to bear the deep reproach which Moses had to endure from this people, will readily understand what a precious thing it was to him to have another human being to stand with him and bear that reproach with him. But for this, his spirit might well have failed. But alas for poor, weak Aaron, ere long we shall see him adding to the reproach which Moses had to bear, instead of helping to bear it.

We have seen what a power for good Aaron could be while he stood under the eye and the shadow of Moses, but we must turn to see what a power for evil he became as soon as he acted without Moses. In Exodus 32:1-7 we read,

“And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us, for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf, and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it, and Aaron made proclamation, and said, Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord. And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.”

What a strange, what an awful thing we see here. The man who had stood beside Moses to speak the word of the Lord to Pharaoh, the man who had done the work of the Lord with great power and signs in the sight of all the people, the man who had given his strength to Moses, and held up his hands in the crucial time—-here we see him making an idol for the people, and leading them in the pagan worship of it, even to the place that we are told, “Moses saw that the people were naked, for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies.” (Verse 25). How could such things be?

The first thing which we must observe is that for Aaron to have done anything at all on the present occasion was a complete abandonment of his divine call. Aaron was not called to lead the people, but only to be Moses’ mouth. Aaron was not called to act without Moses, but only to be Moses’ prophet. He had no call of God to act at all without Moses, and he had therefore no business whatsoever to do so—-and here, indeed, he proves how utterly unfit he was for it. He belonged by his call from God under the eye and the shadow and the authority of Moses, and his whole course on the present occasion proves how desperately he needed to be in the place in which God had put him.

But observe further, though Aaron had no call of God to be or do anything apart from Moses, yet he had the capacity to do so. His association with Moses had given him that capacity. Apart from his association with Moses, he would have been nothing above the rest of the Israelites, but his place as Moses’ prophet had exalted him in the eyes of all the people. He was thus given a position in which he could act without Moses, in Moses’ absence, though it was an abuse and misuse of his place, and an abandonment of his divine call, to do so. And to what a depth does he immediately fall, as soon as he takes the place which God had given to him under Moses, and uses that place to act without Moses. In so acting he does nothing but sin, and causes the people to sin, and causes the destruction of many of them. It is true, Aaron did not initiate the sin. The people came to him, and asked it of him. But what excuse is that? What right has a man to abandon the call of God, to follow the call of the people? Aaron would no doubt have been as strenuous as anyone in insisting upon the fact that God had given the place of leadership to Moses, and that no man could take it from him—-and yet as soon as the people look to him for it, he has pride and presumption enough immediately to take it into his own hands, and so to go on adding sin to sin—-and all the while apparently so infatuated with himself, and so sure of his own ability and his own right to stand in Moses’ place, that he failed altogether to consider the fact that he must soon reckon again with Moses, and with the God who had called Moses.

Now all of this ought to have very deeply humbled Aaron, and taught him never again to step out of the place to which God had called him—-not as the leader of the people, but as the mouth of Moses. But Aaron must fall yet deeper, and not only act without Moses, but act against him. “And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married, for he had married an Ethiopian woman. And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? Hath he not spoken also by us?” (Num. 12:1-2). The more deeply we consider the character of this opposition, the better it makes Moses look, and the worse it makes Miriam and Aaron look. “Married an Ethiopian woman”! Is this all they could find against Moses? Then he was a good man indeed! He was indeed, as God says of him in the seventh verse, “faithful in all mine house.” We may be sure of it, that if Aaron and Miriam had been able to find anything more serious than this against the man of God, they surely would have found it. As it was, they ought to have hid their heads for shame to bring such a frivolous charge against the man of God, to whom they owed so much. But when the spirit of opposition takes possession of people, any foolish and frivolous charge will serve their purpose. An old proverb says, “If you want a pretence to whip a dog, it is enough to say he eat up the frying pan.” Surely in their heart of hearts they must have felt how frivolous their charge was. Even if their passions against Moses were grown so great that they regarded his marrying of an Ethiopian woman as some grave sin, surely others who had no such prejudice could not have so regarded it—-nay, not though Aaron had used all of his eloquence to prove the evil of it, and rehearsed a long list of the names of the good people who were offended at it. Therefore it is a virtual certainty that if God had not soon cut short the course of their opposition to Moses, they would soon have found more serious charges than this one. If God had not immediately called forth Aaron and Miriam to their deserved chastisement, we may suppose they would have gone on speaking against Moses, adding charge to charge and accusation to accusation, each one more grave than the last, until at length they would have condemned his whole character, and repudiated his divine call. To justify themselves—-whether consciously or unconsciously, whether to themselves or to others—-to justify themselves in their opposition to the man of God, they must more and more deeply condemn him. All of this I have seen with my own eyes—-and in people who had been capable of much better things, if pride and presumption and passion had not taken possession of their souls.

Understand, the Ethiopian woman was not the real issue. Nay, it had nothing to do with the real issue. The real difficulty was heart opposition to Moses, and the root of it was the pride of Aaron and Miriam. This is almost always the case when people set themselves against a man of God, and whatever frivolous charges they may profess as the basis of their opposition, the real basis of it has a way of coming to the surface. In the first verse of Numbers 12 they speak against Moses because he had married an Ethiopian woman, but in the second verse they say, “Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? Hath he not spoken also by us?” What had this to do with the Ethiopian woman? One thing, indeed, it did have to do with her: it did plainly prove that God was pleased to speak by Moses, in spite of the Ethiopian woman—-and thus it left Aaron and Miriam without any excuse for bringing such a charge against him. But further than that, there was no connection. The Ethiopian woman would never have been mentioned—-would never have been a source of irritation to them—-if there had not been a deeper difficulty in their own hearts. The root of that difficulty was plainly pride. They did not like to stand always in second place to Moses—-did not like to have always to submit to him—-did not like always to receive the mind of God from him—-did not like always to have to acknowledge his superiority. This is all transparent in their speaking: “Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? Hath he not spoken also by us?”

But “the Lord heard it,” and called Aaron and Miriam forth publicly, “and he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold. Wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, and he departed.” (Num. 12:6-9). What God here affirms is that though he may speak by Aaron and Miriam, he would not do so in the same way that he spoke by Moses. But Aaron had too much pride, and he had apparently forgotten that he was called only to be Moses’ mouth. He had apparently forgotten all of those times when the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Say unto Aaron.” Moses had a place of superiority given to him by God himself, and the basis for that place was found in his character—-the very thing which Miriam and Aaron had assailed. Moses, God says, “is faithful in all mine house”—-the Ethiopian woman notwithstanding. Whatever the merits of that charge may have been, God did not regard it.

Now the fact is, there are but few men who can have such a place of superiority as God gave to Moses, and many therefore who must stand in a lower place. But alas, in age after age many of those who are called to the subordinate position fall into the sin of Aaron and Miriam. Men who would be little and have little apart from the man of God from whom they have received it, yet must set themselves in opposition to the superior man to whom they owe their own place, and it may be their own salvation. They must set themselves to stand against the man to whom God has made known his will, and from whom they have received it. This is a common failing of those who are called to stand in a subordinate place. Some, indeed, err on the other side, practically putting the man of God into the place of God himself, so that they cease to exercise their own conscience and their own judgement. The error on this side is a smaller one, and much more excusable than the other, for two reasons. In the first place, it is God himself who says of the man of God, “thou shalt be to him instead of God,” and “See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh,” or “I have made thee God to Pharaoh.” (Ex. 4:16 & 7:1). This, of course has nothing to do with receiving divine honors or worship. It refers solely to the authoritative communication of the will of God—-but though it means no more than that, it certainly does mean that.

But in the second place, the exalting of a man of God too high is likely the fruit of holy passions, of love and humility and gratitude, not properly regulated, or corrupted by the admixture of laziness or lukewarmness,—-but the despising and opposing of a man of God is the fruit of the evil passions of pride, self-will, and ill-will.

As for Aaron, I do not suppose that he initiated this opposition to Moses, any more than he did the making of the golden calf. He was no doubt led away by his sister’s spirit, and her tongue. This, I suppose, is indicated in the fact that so much greater chastisement fell upon Miriam than upon Aaron. Upon him, only a public rebuke—-upon her, leprosy. But though Aaron probably did not originate this opposition to Moses, he was apparently ready enough to fall in with it—-and this no doubt because there were wrong passions allowed in his own soul, which opened the door to that temptation. If those passions—-pride, ingratitude, and resentment—-had been judged and resisted, and the contrary virtues pursued, Aaron would never have fallen as he did.

Love, humility, and gratitude are the things which must be cultivated by those who would fill the subordinate places with honor to themselves and blessing to others. These are three sister virtues, which aid and uphold each other. The weakness of any one of them works to weaken the others. Unfortunately, we cannot point to Aaron as an example of a man who filled the second place with honor. I may, however, give to the reader a beautiful example of this in the person of Charles Wesley. He stood his whole life in second place to his brother John, with no prospect of advancement or equality, and no desire for it. He recognized the superiority of his brother John, and rejoiced in it. When John was thought to be dying, in 1753, Charles wrote in his journal (Dec. 4, 1753), “I told the Society on Sunday night, that I neither could nor would stand in my brother’s place; (if God took him to himself;) for I had neither a body, nor a mind, nor talents, nor grace for it.” This was sober thinking, of the sort that would have kept Aaron from his sin—-but Aaron’s pride thought otherwise. Charles Wesley’s daughter gives the following further testimony concerning her father: “He always said his brother was formed to lead, and he to follow. No one ever more rejoiced in another’s superiority, or was more willing to confess it.” It was love, gratitude, and humility which kept Charles Wesley in such a frame of mind. If those had failed, there is little doubt but that pride, jealousy, resentment, and presumption would have taken their place, and he would have sinned as Aaron did.

But to conclude, we must observe one further matter concerning Aaron. His failures of which we have spoken were the strongest proof of his need to keep his place under the eye and the shadow and the authority of Moses. He was not made of the right stuff to stand in the place of leadership. He was made to follow, not to lead. He had pride and presumption enough to assume Moses’ place in Moses’ absence, but he quickly and thoroughly proved how unfit he was to fill the place. When he made the golden calf, he may likely have thought he was leading the people, but he was doing no such thing. They were leading him. He was carried away by the prevailing discontent and restlessness of the people, as a ship is carried by the wind and the waves. If he had actually been fit to lead the people, he would have rebuked their presumption, but he was completely controlled by it. Moses would not have been so swayed, nor would Aaron if he had kept his place in Moses’ shadow. It was God who had put him in that place, and it had been his wisdom to keep it.

Glenn Conjursk