Why this story matters

(commentary on Numbers 15:32-36)

(Page 1 of 2)

Introduction

This short but powerful story is told in the space of only one paragraph in the Bible. Nevertheless, it's an important story and ought to be better known. It demonstrates two things. First, it demonstrates how petty and ruthless the Hebrew god is made out to be in the Bible. And second, it demonstrates the lengths apologists will go to defend Yahweh. At first glance, the decision seems cruel and indefensible and, for anyone who takes a critical view of ancient Bible stories, it is. Having someone stoned to death for gathering wood on the wrong day is surely excessive punishment. However, for the steadfast believer, this assessment is unacceptable. If Yahweh is perfectly merciful and just, he cannot hand out excessive punishment. Therefore, his actions need to be justified. The problem is that, in justifying Yahweh's actions, Christian apologists unwittingly put themselves in a very awkward position.

What happened?

Just so there’s no doubt about what happened, here's the text from the bible:

While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses.

These verses appear abruptly in the fifteenth chapter of Numbers, nestled between a list of laws and their consequences. Because of this, some commentators suggest the purpose of the story was merely to demonstrate the importance of obeying all the laws. However, according to literalists, events such as this are real. Therefore, Yahweh's decision has to be justified.

Justifying Yahweh's decision 

When confronted with the violent acts of Yahweh in the Bible, apologists usually try to excoriate the victims. There's no exception here. Picking up sticks on the wrong day seems like a fairly petty crime, so apologists have to make it seem more heinous. They use carefully crafted language to dramatize his wood gathering. In an article from the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM), the author asserts that the man was “flagrantly gathering sticks.” I’m not sure how someone “flagrantly” gathers sticks, but it does make it sound bad. And CARM isn't the only Christian resource that uses this word.  The Commentary Critical and Explanatory agrees the stick gathering was "flagrant", as does David Guzik in David Guzik’s Commentary on the Bible (both available on line at StudyLight.org). Other apologists attempt to magnify the sin so that it seems like one of the worst things in the world. In the book, Numbers: God’s Presence in the Wilderness, author Ian Duguid calls this a “cosmic rebellion” (Crossway Books, 2006, p. 193). But surely this is using hyperbole in an attempt to justify the cruelty of the punishment. 

To be fair, though, there is an issue concerning the deliberateness of the man's transgression that needs to be considered. There are verses just preceding this story that make a distinction between unintentional and intentional sin. If someone sins unintentionally, all they have to do is sacrifice a goat to make amends (Num. 15:27). But if someone sins intentionally, it is more serious. The idea is that the perpetrator knows the law but flaunts it anyway. If the punishment is severe, then, he only has himself to blame.


Analysts refer to this type of sin as “presumptuous sin.” The Hebrew word translated “presumptuous” means boils or bubbles. The insinuation is that this involves a kind of aggressive contempt for Yahweh. But while this kind of rhetorical spin helps convince people that the sin was serious, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the death penalty is justified. Did the contemptuous stick-picker-upper really need to be stoned to death? Well, the answer is yes, according to an organization called Apologetics Press.

In a lengthy article on the subject, entitled Does Picking Up Sticks Deserve the Death Penalty?, staff writer Kyle Butt explains his position with a helpful analogy. Let's say the US military command decides that the army must wear black boots. One soldier defies this order and shows up in red boots. When this goes unpunished, others start wearing red boots. Now, if the enemy dresses exactly like the US military except that it wears red boots, this could lead to confusion and "thousands" of US troops could be killed by friendly fire. While Butt's analogy may seem far fetched and contrived, the point he's making is that what may seem like a small crime, can have large consequences for a given society. This is actually a very common approach that apologists take in regards to this story. The idea is that, in certain circumstances, there is great need for societal cohesion, particularly moral cohesion. If any rule is broken, it must be dealt with swiftly and severely or it could lead to the complete breakdown of society. As Kyle Butt puts it, "Suppose this man’s disobedience, if not punished with death, would have resulted in the moral collapse of the entire Israelite nation?" The problem that Butt doesn't seem to realize is that, if you take this approach to justifying cruel punishment, you cannot criticize other societies that use the same approach. And, unfortunately, there are societies today that still use the same justification. And they use if for punishments like stoning people to death. Let's take a look at one example.

© IllustratedBibleStories.ca