No sooner had the rebellion of the people been addressed (with God punishing the rebels) that a new wave of resistance emerged, this time from within Moses’ own family. Miriam and Aaron began to question Moses’ qualifications to lead Israel. They seized upon his marriage to a foreign woman as grounds to challenge his leadership, suggesting that this disqualified him from guiding God’s chosen people.
In many nations today, leadership is also bound by strict eligibility criteria. For instance, in the United States, only natural-born citizens can become president. No amount of naturalisation or residency can override that requirement. In a similar spirit, Miriam and Aaron attempted to disqualify Moses by pointing to what they saw as a violation of their covenant identity—his union with someone outside their community.
Challenging Moses’s Leadership
Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite. “Has the LORD spoken only through Moses?” they asked. “Hasn’t he also spoken through us?” And the LORD heard this. – Numbers 12:1-2 (NIV)
There have been various interpretations regarding the identity of the woman referred to as the Cushite wife of Moses. Traditionally, “Cushite” is associated with the region of Cush, often understood to be in the area of Ethiopia or southern Egypt, and the Cushites are considered descendants of Ham (Genesis 10:6). This has led some to suggest that Moses may have taken a second wife, a Cushite woman distinct from Zipporah, his Midianite wife.
However, there is another interpretation worth considering. In Habakkuk 3:7, the prophet poetically refers to Midianites as Cushites. This verse appears to equate Cushan—a variation of Cush—with Midian, indicating that the terms may have been used interchangeably in certain contexts. If so, the woman Miriam and Aaron referred to could very well be Zipporah, the daughter of the priest of Midian (Exodus 2:16–21), rather than a second wife whom Moses married while leading the Israelites.
“I saw the tents of Cushan in distress, the dwellings of Midian in anguish.” – Habakkuk 3:7 (NIV)
Therefore, it’s possible that Miriam and Aaron’s criticism was aimed at Zipporah, and the term “Cushite” may have been used in a broader or poetic sense, consistent with the usage in Habakkuk. This would mean that the issue was not about Moses marrying a second foreign wife, but rather about longstanding resentment or prejudice related to Zipporah’s origin.
The Motive
The conflict appears to stem from far more than a simple disapproval of Moses’ Cushite wife. Miriam and Aaron used Moses’ choice of a wife as a pretext to challenge his unique authority. There was no legitimate crisis, but they seized upon a minor issue to elevate themselves and question Moses’ exclusive position as God’s chosen leader. They were not just criticising a marital decision; they were positioning themselves to be seen as spiritual equals, perhaps even seeking to gain greater influence over the people of Israel. The gift of prophecy, which had become more broadly experienced among the people, may have stirred pride in their hearts. Instead of remaining humble, Miriam and Aaron became emboldened by their roles and desired the same authority God had granted Moses.
Their envy may have been compounded by personal grievances. Aaron had previously experienced a devastating loss when his two sons were struck down by God for offering unauthorised fire (Leviticus 10). This painful memory could have contributed to resentment, especially when compared with Moses’ continued success and favour. Additionally, Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, had played a significant role in shaping Israel’s early governance. Jethro advised Moses to establish a system of delegated leadership, a move that had lasting political and spiritual implications (Exodus 18). Miriam and Aaron may have viewed this foreign influence with suspicion or disapproval.
Furthermore, Moses extended this association with Jethro’s family by inviting Hobab, Jethro’s son, to join Israel’s journey through the wilderness (Numbers 10). He valued Hobab’s knowledge of the terrain and offered him a share in the blessings that the Lord would provide to Israel. This act, though practical, may have appeared politically unwise or even threatening to Miriam and Aaron. Hobab was not an Israelite by birth, yet Moses extended to him both influence and promise of reward—something that may have stirred concern or resentment among those already uneasy about foreign involvement in Israel’s leadership and inheritance.
All these elements—personal loss, growing prophetic identity, foreign influence, and fear of losing status—converged into a moment of rebellion. If the woman they criticised was not Zipporah, but a second wife from outside Israel, that may have further deepened their disapproval. Ultimately, their challenge was not about a marriage. It was about Moses’ calling, his authority, and the temptation to grasp power.
The Lord immediately summoned all three siblings to the tent of meeting. There, He descended in a pillar of cloud and called Aaron and Miriam forward. The Lord declared that while He communicated with prophets through visions and dreams, His relationship with Moses was entirely unique. Moses was faithful in all God’s house, and unlike others, he spoke with God directly and clearly, without obscurity. The Lord questioned why they were not afraid to speak against someone He had entrusted so intimately. His anger burned against them, and He departed from them in a physical sense, but also perhaps took away the gift of prophecy from them.
With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the LORD. – Numbers 12:8 (NIV)
God often chooses to speak in ways that are not immediately clear—through parables, visions, and riddles—not to confuse, but to reveal truth to those who are truly seeking. This pattern is seen throughout Scripture. In the Old Testament, God revealed Himself to prophets in dreams and visions, using symbolic language that required spiritual discernment. Not everyone who heard these messages understood them, because spiritual understanding requires a heart inclined toward God.
Jesus continued this approach in His earthly ministry. He spoke in parables, especially when addressing the crowds or the Pharisees. Even His own disciples sometimes struggled to grasp the meaning of His words. However, those who were truly hungry for the truth, those willing to follow and learn, were given understanding. Those who genuinely desired to know God would press in, listen closely, and grow in their knowledge of Him. As Jesus often said, “Whoever has ears, let them hear.”
At times, God allows people to hear without understanding, as seen in the prophetic words of Isaiah: “Be ever hearing, but never understanding.” This serves as a form of judgment, so that those whose hearts are hardened may not repent. It is not that God hides truth unjustly, but that He respects the posture of the heart. Those unwilling to submit or listen will remain blind, even when the truth is spoken plainly.
There are even moments when God uses individuals as vessels for His purpose without them fully comprehending what they are doing. Caiaphas, the high priest, is an example—he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, yet did not understand the depth or divine intent behind his own words. In such cases, God’s sovereignty is displayed through human instruments, whether or not they are spiritually aware.
The Punishment
When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam’s skin was leprous—it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease – Numbers 12:10 (NIV)
It is possible that Miriam was the instigator of the rebellion against Moses. Though both she and Aaron questioned Moses’ authority, the narrative places her name first, and the Hebrew verb used earlier in the passage is in the feminine singular, suggesting she may have led the opposition. If so, her punishment reflects the seriousness of her actions.
When Aaron saw that Miriam had been struck with a defiling skin disease, he immediately pleaded with Moses not to hold their sin against them, acknowledging the foolishness of what they had done. Moses interceded with God, asking for Miriam’s healing. The Lord responded by stating that, that she was to be confined outside the camp for seven days as a sign of disgrace and purification. During this period, the entire community remained in place and did not continue their journey until Miriam was restored and brought back. Only then did the people move on from Hazeroth and encamp in the Desert of Paran.
Miriam had attempted to elevate herself by discrediting Moses, possibly targeting his wife in an effort to diminish his position. Ironically, the one who sought to exclude and shame another ended up being excluded herself. Leprosy in the Israelite society rendered a person ceremonially unclean and socially isolated. The very status she wished upon Moses’ wife was now her own reality. The visible mark of leprosy served as a stark reminder for her and everyone of the consequences of pride, rebellion, and attempting to cast out another (Moses’ wife) from God’s plan. Yet even today, we are quick to exclude others from the grace of God, subjecting them instead to our own standards of judgment.
Discussion Questions
- Who was the Cushite woman that Moses married
- Why did Miriam and Aaron raise this issue now to challenge their brother’s leadership?
- Why does God speak to some people directly and to some people in riddles?
- Why did God punish Miriam by giving her leprosy?
Map
The Jordan Valley 
Reply