AARON’s ROD (מַטֶּה, H4751; staff, rod; LXX ῥάβδος, G4811, rod). This expression is used specifically of the rod that budded to vindicate the divine authority of Aaron as high priest (Num 17:8). When Korah and his confederates challenged the supreme authority of Moses and Aaron (chs. 16, 17), which was the most important event during the thirty-seven years of wandering described in chs. 15-19, Moses demanded that the rods of each of the princes of the tribes be given him; and their rods with Aaron’s he laid up “before the Lord in the tabernacle of the witness” (17:7 KJV). On the morrow Aaron’s rod was found to have budded; and it was then placed before the Ark in the Holy of Holies to be preserved as a witness against all who might rebel against his authority (cf. Heb 9:4).

The rod referred to is very likely the same shepherd’s rod which Moses was carrying at the time of his call (Exod 4:2 RSV), and when turned into a serpent, became a sign to Moses and Aaron, to Israel and to Pharaoh, of the divine mission and authority of Moses (v. 17). It is twice called “the rod of God” (4:20; 17:9), but usually either Moses’ rod (e.g. 4:17) or Aaron’s rod (e.g. 7:14-20). Sometimes the command was to stretch forth the hand with the rod (8:5). Sometimes it was simply to stretch forth the hand (9:22), with the implication that the rod would be in the hand (v. 23). In the battle with Amalek the rod was in Moses’ hand; and Aaron and Hur supported his arms when he was weary. Moses was commanded to take the rod “from before the Lord” and he and Aaron were told to “speak to the rock” (Num 20:8). Instead of following these instructions implicitly, Aaron spoke arrogantly to the people, and Moses lifted up his hand with his rod and smote the rock twice (v. 11), acts of presumption for which he and Aaron were severely punished.

All of these expressions are natural in view of the significance of the rod. It was called the “rod of God,” for it was the symbol of His authority; it was Moses’ rod, because it belonged to him and was carried by him; it was also Aaron’s rod, because Aaron at times spoke and acted for Moses. It is to be noted, however, that these “rod passages” because of the variety of expression found in them, have been used to support the widely held Documentary Hypothesis. Exodus 4:24; 7:15, 17; 9:23; 10:13; 14:16; 21:20 are split in two and divided in the main between documents J and E. This is a striking example of the extremes to which the advocates of this theory are obliged to go in order to work out their analysis. Yet the variety of expression is in entire harmony with the situation as it is represented in the Biblical narrative.

Bibliography S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (1910), 20-30; E. S. Brightman, The Sources of the Hexateuch (1918), 82, et passim.