Deuteronomy 10:6

And the children of Israel took their journey from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to Mosera: there Aaron died, and there he was buried; and Eleazar his son ministered in the priest's office in his stead.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(6, 7) On these verses, which are among the most difficult in Deuteronomy, see a separate Excursus. The difficulty is two-fold. First, the account of Israel’s marches about the time of Aaron’s death is given in a different form here to that which we have in Numbers 20, 21, 33. Secondly, there is the further question why Aaron’s death should be recorded here. It appears to have taken place before Moses began the delivery of the discourses in Deuteronomy. It is separated by thirty-nine years from the incidents which Moses is recapitulating in this passage. The Jewish commentator Rashi gives a very curious tale to account for the allusion to Aaron’s death in this place. But though his theory is mythical, he seems to hit the main point, which is that Israel re-visited in their journey round the land of Edom four places where they had previously encamped, and among them Mosera, or Moseroth, the district in which Mount Hor, where Aaron died, was situated. There is no impossibility in this; in fact, it is highly probable, and would partly account for the statement in Numbers 21:4, that “the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way.” It was just about this time that the fiery serpents came.

If the connection of these verses with the train of thought in Moses’ mind is spiritual, the difficulty may be solved. The death of the priest of Israel, whose first representative Aaron was, is spiritually identical with the destruction of the first pair of tables, the death of the first Adam and of all mankind in the person of our representative, the Lord Jesus Christ. After that death He “ariseth” as “another priest, made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.” Thus the incident is connected with what goes before. The separation of the tribe of Levi “to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord,” i.e., “to bear the burden of the Law,” is the same thing in another form. It deprives them of an earthly inheritance, just as He whose representatives they were gave Himself an offering and sacrifice to God; and “His life is taken from the earth.”

Further, the names of the places themselves have in this aspect a spiritual significance. From certain “wells of water”—the wells of the children of Jaakan (crookedness)—the people of God take their journey to the scene of the high priest’s death. From thence to Hor-hagidgad, or Gudgodah, the mount of the “troop,” or “band” (Sinai is the mount of the “congregation” in the Old Testament, Zion in the New), and thence to a land of rivers of water. It is only another way of relating how from the wells of the Law we pass to the rivers of living water opened by the Gospel. But we must pass by way of the cross of Christ.

EXCURSUS ON NOTES TO DEUTERONOMY.

EXCURSUS ON Deuteronomy 10:6-7.

THESE verses have always seemed to me to present the greatest difficulty in the whole of Deuteronomy. If it were not for their beautiful spiritual connection with the context, I should not know how to account for their presence in this place at all. And even so, the difference between this allusion to Aaron’s death and the account given in Numbers, and the superficial resemblance between the four stages of the journey of Israel here mentioned, and four stages which belong to a different period (in Numbers 33:31-34)—together create a somewhat formidable perplexity. The Samaritan Pentateuch increases the confusion by introducing here the stages mentioned in Numbers 33:34-37—an obvious attempt to harmonise the accounts of two distinct things. The LXX. version of Deuteronomy 10:6-7 supports the Hebrew text. The fact that the burial of Aaron is alluded to in this place only, shows that the verses in Deuteronomy cannot have been taken from those in Numbers. The following comparison will show the difference.

In THE FOURTH PERIOD OF THE EXODUS.

IN THE FIFTH PERIOD OF THE EXODUS.

(Numbers 33:30-33.)

(Deuteronomy 10:6-7.)

“The children of Israel journeyed from Hash-monah to Moseroth; from Moseroth to Bene-jaakan; from Bene-jaakan to Hor-hagidgad; from Hor-hagidgad to Jotbathah.”

Three other encampments—at Ebronah,Ezion-gaber, and Kadesh—intervened before their arrival at Mount Hor, where Aaron died, in the fifth period of the Exodus, on the first day of the month.

N.B.-The fourth period of the Exodus has no dates mentioned.

The fifth period begins with the death of Miriam at Kadesh in the first month of the fortieth year. Numbers 20:1.

“The children of Israel journeyed from Beeroth-bene-jaakan to Mosera, (where Aaron died and was buried), from Mosera to Gudgodah; from Gud-godah to Jotbath, a land of rivers of waters.”

Mosera is singular, Moseroth plural in form. Bene-jaakan means “the children of Jaakan”—Beeroth-bene-jaakan the wells of the children of Jaakan. Hor-hagidgad means the mount of Gid-gad, which differs from Gudgod only in the vowel pointing. Gudgodah may mean the neighbourhood of Gudgod or Gidgad, and Jotbathah may mean simply to Jotbath.

Gadgad and Etebatha are found both in Numbers and Deuteronomy in the LXX. The other names are given with some variation.

The places are not mentioned in the same order in the two passages, and the difference in the form of the words shows that neither passage is copied from the other. All four sites are at present unknown. The additional particulars given in Deuteronomy suggest a reason why Israel should re-visit two of the four places; namely, because of the water which was to be had from the wells of the children of Jaakan and in Jotbath, the “land of rivers of waters.”

The return of Israel in the last period of the Exodus to four places previously visited is in no way remarkable. We are told that they were compelled, about the time of Aaron’s death, to “journey from Mount Hor to compass the land of Edom,” which the Edomites would not permit them to cross (Numbers 21:4; Numbers 20:21). The return to these former encampments may have enhanced the weariness and annoyance of the people, so that “their soul was much discouraged because of the way,” and if they were travelling in a different direction, they may well have revisited these four places in a different order. They need not have encamped at all of them the second time. The narrative in Deuteronomy merely says “they journeyed from,” not “they encamped in.” There is no reason why the district of Mount Hor may not have been called Mosera or Moseroth. And the name “chastisement” may have been given to it by Moses, like many other significant names in the Exodus (Meribah, Kibroth-hattaavah &c), in consequence of what took place there.

Further there is some reason to believe that the number of the “goings out” of Israel in the Exodus, given in Numbers 33 is made to be 42 for a special reason, like the forty-two generations of Matthew 1, in which there are at least three evidently intentional omissions. And therefore we need not be surprised at the insertion of places elsewhere, which are not included in that list. No place is mentioned twice in Numbers 33. Yet the children of Israel were certainly twice at Kadesh (for Numbers 13:26; Numbers 20:1, cannot refer to the same time), and probably twice at many other places.

The real difficulty is not in the facts related in Deuteronomy 10:6-7, but in the question why they should be narrated there. Further, they are narrated in the third person, “the children of Israel journeyed,” but all the other portions of their journey are narrated in the first person (Deuteronomy 1:19, we went; and so Deuteronomy 2:1; Deuteronomy 2:8; Deuteronomy 2:13; Deuteronomy 3:1; Deuteronomy 3:26). A reader of Deuteronomy who was not already familiar with the earlier books, would naturally suppose that at this period of the discourse the children of Israel did journey, as the narrative says. It is only by close attention that the verses are seen to refer to a time previous to the beginning of the book, but much later than the events recapitulated in Deuteronomy 10:5; Deuteronomy 10:8.

In form, these verses correspond to what may be called the historical or editorial, as distinct from the hortatory portions of Deuteronomy; as the title, Deuteronomy 1:1-5; the parenthetical notes, Deuteronomy 2:10-12; Deuteronomy 2:20-23; Deuteronomy 3:14, and Deuteronomy 4:41-43, Deuteronomy 4:44-49; with the historical portions of the last six chapters of the book.

Upon the whole, I am disposed to think that the only reason for the insertion of these verses is the spiritual reason which I have given in the notes.

From the wells of the children of Jaakan, or perversity, the people of God removed to Mosera the place of chastisement, where their great High Priest[12] died and was buried; and another priest arose in his stead. From thence they journeyed unto the mount of the congregation (Gudgod or Gidgad; compare Gad), and from thence to Jotbath (of which the root is good or goodness), a land of rivers of waters—the usual symbol in Scripture for the Holy Spirit given on Mount Zion, the “mount of the congregation” of Jehovah. (See John 7:37-39.)

[12] The following passage from the Talmudical treatise, Pirkê Aboth of Rabbi Nathan (section 34), may serve to show that the comparison between Christ and Aaron is not peculiar to the New Testament:—“These are the two sons of fresh oil who stand by the Lord of the whole earth” (Zechariah 4:14). “These are Aaron and Messiah. And I cannot say which of them is the best beloved. But when he saith (Ps. Exodus 4), Jehovah hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art priest for ever, then I know that the King Messiah is beloved above the Priest of Righteousness.”

The explanations given by the Jewish commentators are of a spiritual character, and in principle I am disposed to think them correct, though the details are far too fanciful for reproduction, or for our present acceptance.

Benson Commentary

Deuteronomy 10:6. This following history comes in manifestly by way of parenthesis, as appears from Deuteronomy 10:10, where he returns to his former discourse; and it seems to be here inserted as an evidence of God’s gracious answer to Moses’s prayers, and of his reconciliation to the people, notwithstanding their late and great provocation. For, saith he, after this they proceeded by God’s guidance in their journeys, and though Aaron died in one of them, yet God made up that breach, and Eleazar came in his place, and ministered as a priest, one branch of which office was to intercede for the people.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

10:1-11 Moses reminded the Israelites of God's great mercy to them, notwithstanding their provocations. There were four things in and by which the Lord showed himself reconciled to Israel. God gave them his law. Thus God has intrusted us with Bibles, sabbaths, and sacraments, as tokens of his presence and favour. God led them forward toward Canaan. He appointed a standing ministry among them for holy things. And now, under the gospel, when the pouring forth of the Spirit is more plentiful and powerful, the succession is kept up by the Spirit's work on men's hearts, qualifying and making some willing for that work in every age. God accepted Moses as an advocate or intercessor for them, and therefore appointed him to be their prince and leader. Moses was a type of Christ, who ever lives, pleading for us, and has all power in heaven and in earth.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

There Aaron died - i. e., while the people were encamped in Mosera or Moseroth. In Deuteronomy 32:50; as well as in Numbers 20:25 ff Mount Hor is assigned as the place of Aaron's death. It is plain then that Moserah was in the neighborhood of Mount Hor. The appointment of Eleazar to minister in place of Aaron, is referred to as a proof of the completeness and fulness of the reconciliation effected between God and the people by Moses. Though Aaron was sentenced to die in the wilderness for his sin at Meribah, yet God provided for the perpetuation of the high priesthood, so that the people would not suffer. Compare Deuteronomy 9:20 and note.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

6-9. the children of Israel took their journey from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to Mosera—So sudden a change from a spoken discourse to a historical narrative has greatly puzzled the most eminent biblical scholars, some of whom reject the parenthesis as a manifest interpolation. But it is found in the most ancient Hebrew manuscripts, and, believing that all contained in this book was given by inspiration and is entitled to profound respect, we must receive it as it stands, although acknowledging our inability to explain the insertion of these encampment details in this place. There is another difficulty in the narrative itself. The stations which the Israelites are said successively to have occupied are enumerated here in a different order from Nu 33:31. That the names of the stations in both passages are the same there can be no doubt; but, in Numbers, they are probably mentioned in reference to the first visit of the Hebrews during the long wandering southwards, before their return to Kadesh the second time; while here they have a reference to the second passage of the Israelites, when they again marched south, in order to compass the land of Edom. It is easy to conceive that Mosera (Hor) and the wells of Jaakan might lie in such a direction that a nomadic horde might, in different years, at one time take the former first in their way, and at another time the latter [Robinson].

Matthew Poole's Commentary

This following history comes in manifestly by way of parenthesis, as may appear from Deu 10:10, where he returns to his former discourse; and it seems to be here inserted, either,

1. Because the priests and Levites here mentioned were the guardians and keepers of the ark and tables here mentioned. Or rather,

2. As an evidence of God’s gracious answer to Moses’s prayers, and of his reconciliation to the people, notwithstanding their late and great provocation. For, saith he, after this they proceeded by God’s guidance in their journeys, some eminent stages whereof he names for all; and though Aaron died in one of them, yet God made up that breach, and Eleazar came in his place, and ministered as priest, one branch of which office was to intercede for the people. Then, saith he, God brought them from the barren parts of the wilderness to

a land of rivers of waters, Deu 10:7, a pleasant and fruitful soil. Then he adds, God separated the Levites, &c., Deu 10:8.

Mosera.

Object. This place seems directly contrary to that, Numbers 33:31, where their journey is quite contrary to this, even

from Moseroth to Bene-jaakan. This indeed is a great difficulty, and profane wits take occasion to cavil. And if a satisfactory answer be not yet given to it by interpreters, it ought not therefore to be concluded unanswerable, because many things formerly thought unanswerable have been since fully cleared, and therefore the like may be presumed concerning other doubts yet remaining. And it were much more reasonable to acknowledge here a transposition of the words through the scribe’s mistake, than upon such a pretence to reject the Divine authority of those sacred books, which hath been confirmed by such irresistible arguments. But there is no need of these general pleas, seeing particular answers are and may be given to this difficulty sufficient to satisfy modest and impartial inquirers.

Answ.

1. The places here mentioned are differing from those, Num 33, it being very frequent in Scripture for diverse persons and places to be called by the same names, and yet the names are not wholly the same; for there it is

Bene-jaakan, and here Beeroth bene-jaakan, or

Beeroth of the children of Jaakan; there Moseroth, here Mosera; there Horhagidgad, here Gudgodah; there Jotbathah, here Jotbath. If the places were the same, it may justly seem strange why Moses should so industriously make a change in every one of the names. And therefore these may be other stations, which being omitted in Num 33, are supplied here, it being usual in sacred Scripture to supply the defects of one place out of another.

Answ. 2. Admitting these two places to be the same with those Numbers 33:31, yet the journeys are diverse. They went from

Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to Mosera, which is omitted in Numbers, and therefore here supplied; and then back again from Mosera or Moseroth to Bene-jaakan, as is there said; for which return there might then be some sufficient reason, though now unknown to us, as the reasons of many such like things are: or God might order it so for his own pleasure, and it is not impossible he might do it for this reason, that by this seeming contradiction, as well as some others, he might in just judgment do what he threatened to the Jews, Jeremiah 6:21, even lay stumbling-blocks before profane and proud wits, and give them that occasion of deceiving and ruining themselves, which they so greedily seek and gladly embrace; which is the reason given by some of the ancients why God hath left so many difficulties in Scripture.

Answ. 3. The words may be otherwise rendered,

from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan, and from Mosera; where the order of the places is not observed, as was noted before of the order of time, Deu 10:1, because it was nothing to the purpose here, and because that might be easily fetched from Num 33, where those journeys are more particularly and exactly described. For the conjunction and, that may be here wanting, and to be supplied, as it is Exodus 6:23 1 Samuel 4:7 Psalm 133:3 Isaiah 63:11 Habakkuk 3:11. And the preposition from is easily supplied from the foregoing words, as is most usual. Nor seems there to be any more reason to render it to Mosera, than from Mosera, seeing the Hebrew letter he in the end is made a part of the proper name, and therefore is not local. There Aaron died. Quest. How is this true? when Aaron died not in Mosera, but in Mount Hor, Numbers 33:38.

Answ. 1. Mosera may be a different place from Moseroth, and that may be the name of a town or region in which Mount Hor was, or to which it belonged. Or, the same mountain, in respect of diverse parts and opposite sides of it, might be called by diverse names, here Mosera, and there Hor. And it is possible they might go several journeys, and pass to divers stations, and by fetching a compass (which they oft did in their wilderness travels) come to the other side of the same mountain.

Answ. 2. The Hebrew particle scham may here note the time, and not the place of Aaron’s death, and may be rendered then, as it is taken, Genesis 49:24 Psalm 14:5 Ecclesiastes 3:17 Zephaniah 1:14. And then is not to be taken precisely, but with some latitude, as it is oft used in Scripture; that is, about that time, after a few removes more; as the words, at that time, Deu 10:8, must necessarily be understood.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And the children of Israel took their journey from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan,.... Not when or soon after they removed from Sinai; for if this place is the same with Benejaakan, as is generally supposed, they had a great many journeys, mansions, and stations before they came to it; see Numbers 33:31 and besides, since Aaron, according to this account, died at their next station from hence, that was thirty eight years after their departure from Mount Sinai; and it is hard to say what should be the reason of making mention of these two or three journeys here; and whereas they are here said to journey front the place here mentioned

to Mosera; on the contrary in Numbers 33:31 they are said to depart from Mosera, and pitch in Benejaakan; which is accounted for by their going backwards and forwards, and so both may be true. Aben Ezra is of opinion, that Beeroth Benejaakan, or the wells of the children of Jaakan, is not the same with Bene Jaakan, nor Mosera the same with Moseroth; but Beeroth is Kadesh, and Mosera is the name of the desert of Mount Hor; and it is certain that Moseroth was the twenty seventh station, and Mosera, or the desert of Mount Hor, where Aaron died, was the thirty fourth, and therefore must be distant; see Numbers 33:30, which seems to agree with what follows:

there Aaron died, and there he was buried; it is certain that Aaron died on Mount Hor, Numbers 20:23, or there died and was buried when in the desert of Mosera:

and Eleazar his son ministered in the priest's office in his stead; so that though the high priest died, the office continued, and the law of it remained in force, and the tribe of Levi was separated for the service of the sanctuary, as afterwards expressed.

Geneva Study Bible

And the children of Israel took their journey from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to {c} Mosera: there Aaron died, and there he was buried; and Eleazar his son ministered in the priest's office in his stead.

(c) This mountain was also called Hor, Nu 20:28.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

6. children of Israel] Non-deuteronomic; see on Deuteronomy 4:44.

Beeroth Bene-jaakan] Wells of the tribe so-called; in P, Numbers 33:31, the place name is simply that of the tribe, without wells. ‘Aḳan, Genesis 36:27 = Ya‘aḳan, 1 Chronicles 1:42, was a Ḥorite tribe. The place would probably be in the ‘Arabah.

Moserah] Numbers 33:31, Moserôth; the place is unknown.

there Aaron died, and there he was buried] This happened at Mt Hor acc. to P, Numbers 20:28; Numbers 33:38.

and Eleazar his son, etc.] P, Numbers 20:25-28; Numbers 32:2; Numbers 32:28; but see above, general note.

6, 7. Interruption of the address by a piece of narrative, recording certain stations of Israel with Aaron’s death and Eleazar’s succession, in which Israel are spoken of in the 3rd pers., and the phraseology is not deuteronomic. Obviously the fragment of an old itinerary. Although the names it contains are also found in an itinerary given by P, Numbers 33, they occur here in a different order; another name is given to the death-place of Aaron than P gives, nor do we find P’s usual formula for Israel on the march they journeyed from … and pitched at.… The fragment is therefore from another source than P. That this was E (D’s main source) is almost certain. The fragment uses E’s formula, they journeyed from thence to …, and may originally have formed part of the same itinerary of E, from which there are fragments in Numbers 21; E, too, assumes the succession of Eleazar to Aaron, Joshua 24:33, and therefore probably had already mentioned this. (So already Vatke, Einl. i. d. A. T. 377 f., 383; but more fully Bacon, Triple Tradition of Exodus, 207 f., 257 f., 343 f. So, too, Driver, Steuern., Bertholet, and Marti on this passage, and Cornill, Einleitung). Why the fragment should be inserted here is not clear, unless the historical retrospect originally concluded with Deuteronomy 10:5. It seems more in place after Deuteronomy 10:11, but may owe its position here to the design of some editor to ascribe the consecration of the tribe of Levi to a later date than Ḥoreb, in the attempt to harmonise the conflicting data of D and P concerning the tribe of Levi and the priesthood. For other explanations see Driver’s Deut. 120.

Pulpit Commentary

Verses 6, 7. - Not only did God, of his grace and in response to the intercession of Moses, give to the people, notwithstanding their apostasy, the ark of the covenant with the new tables of the Law, but he followed this up by instituting the high priesthood; and, when Aaron died, caused it to be continued to his son Eleazar. This Moses reminds the people of by referring to a fact in their past history, viz. their arrival at Mosera, where Aaron died, and Eleazar succeeded him in his office. Beeroth of the children of Jaakan (wells of the sons of Jaakan); the same place as Bene-jaakan (Numbers 33:31), probably the Horite tribe, called 'Akan (Genesis 36:27), for which, apparently, should be read Jakan, as in 1 Chronicles 1:42. Mosera; Moseroth, plu. of Mosera (Numbers 33:30). As Aaron died there, Mosera must have been in the vicinity of Mount Her. Gudgodah, Hor-hagidgad (Numbers 33:32); cave of Gidgad, a place of caves. Jotbath, Jotbathah (Numbers 33:33), a district abounding in streams, whence probably its name, Jot-bathah, pleasantness, from יָטַב, to be good, to please. None of these places have been identified. Robinson mentions a Wady cf. Ghadaghidh, a broad sandy valley diverging from the Wady es Jerafeh, in the desert of Et-Tih, and this has been supposed to indicate the site of Gudgodah; but the difference of the consonants in the two words is such as to render this identification more than doubtful. In the Arabic of the London Polyglott, גדגדה is represented by (Judjuda), which is totally different from Ghadaghidh. All the places, however, must have been in the 'Arabah, and in the region of Mount Her, or not far distant. That the places mentioned here are the same as those in Numbers cannot be doubted. The two passages, however, relate to different journeys; that in Numbers to the journeying of the Israelites from the wilderness of Sinai to Kadesh, that in Deuteronomy to the march in the fortieth year, when they went from Kadesh to Mount Her. Deuteronomy 10:6

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

And the Israelites owed to the grace of their God, which was turned towards them once more, through the intercession of Moses, not only the restoration of the tables of the covenant as a pledge that the covenant itself was restored, but also the institution and maintenance of the high-priesthood and priesthood generally for the purpose of mediation between them and the Lord.

(Note: Even Clericus pointed out this connection, and paraphrased Deuteronomy 10:6 and Deuteronomy 10:7 as follows: "But when, as I have said, God forgave the Hebrew people, He pardoned my brother Aaron also, who did not die till the fortieth year after we had come out of Egypt, and when we were coming round the borders of the Edomites to come hither. God also showed that He was reconciled towards him by conferring the priesthood upon him, which is now borne by his son Eleazar according to the will of God." Clericus has also correctly brought out the fact that Moses referred to what he had stated in Deuteronomy 9:20 as to the wrath of God against Aaron and his intercession on his behalf, or rather that he mentioned his intercession on behalf of Aaron in that passage, because he intended to call more particular attention to the successful result of it in this. Hengstenberg (Dissertations, vol. ii. pp. 351-2) has since pointed out briefly, but very conclusively, the connection of thought between Deuteronomy 10:6, Deuteronomy 10:7, and what goes before and follows. "Moses," he says, "points out to the people how the Lord had continued unchangeable in His mercy notwithstanding all their sins. Although they had rendered themselves unworthy of such goodness by their worship of the calf, He gave them the ark of the covenant with the new tables of the law in it (Deuteronomy 10:1-5). He followed up this gift of His grace by instituting the high-priesthood, and when Aaron died He caused it to be transferred to his son Eleazar (Deuteronomy 10:6, Deuteronomy 10:7). He set apart the tribe of Levi to serve Him and bless the people in His name, and thus to be the mediators of His mercy (Deuteronomy 10:8, Deuteronomy 10:9). In short, He omitted nothing that was requisite to place Israel in full possession of the dignity of a people of God." There is no ground for regarding Deuteronomy 10:6, Deuteronomy 10:7, as a gloss, as Capellus, Dathe, and Rosenmller do, or Deuteronomy 10:6-9 as "an interpolation of a historical statement concerning the bearers of the ark of the covenant and the holy persons generally, which has no connection with Moses' address," as Knobel maintains. The want of any formal connection is quite in keeping with the spirit of simplicity which characterizes the early Hebrew diction and historical writings. "The style of the Hebrews is not to be tried by the rules of rhetoricians" (Clericus).)

Moses reminds the people of this gracious gift on the part of their God, by recalling to their memory the time when Aaron died and his son Eleazar was invested with the high-priesthood in his stead. That he may transport his hearers the more distinctly to the period in question, he lets the history itself speak, and quotes from the account of their journeys the passage which supplied the practical proof of what he desires to say. Instead of saying: And the high-priesthood also, with which Aaron was invested by the grace of God notwithstanding his sin at Sinai, the Lord has still preserved to you; for when Aaron died, He invested his son with the same honour,

(Note: "In the death of Aaron they might discern the punishment of their rebellion. But the fact that Eleazar was appointed in his place, was a sign of the paternal grace of God, who did not suffer them to be forsaken on that account" (Calvin).)

and also directed you to continue your journey-he proceeds in the following historical style: "And the children of Israel took their journey from the wells of the sons of Jaakan to Mosera: there Aaron died, and there he was buried; and Eleazar his son became priest in his stead. And from thence they journeyed unto Gudgodah, and from Gudgodah to Jotbath, a land of water-brooks." The allusion to these marches, together with the events which had taken place at Mosera, taught in very few words "not only that Aaron was forgiven at the intercession of Moses, and even honoured with the high-priesthood, the medium of grace and blessing to the people of God (e.g., at the wells of Bene-jaakan) until the time of his death; but also that through this same intercession the high-priesthood was maintained in perpetuity, so that when Aaron had to die in the wilderness in consequence of a fresh sin (Numbers 20:12), it continued notwithstanding, and by no means diminished in strength, as might have been feared, since it led the way from the wells to water-brooks, helped on the journey to Canaan, which was now the object of their immediate aim, and still sustained their courage and their faith" (Schultz). The earlier commentators observed the inward connection between the continuation of the high-priesthood and the water-brooks. J. Gerhard, for example, observes: "God generally associates material blessings with spiritual; as long as the ministry of the word and the observance of divine worship flourish among us, God will also provide for our temporal necessities."_