The book of Numbers records an episode in which the Israelites, exhausted and hungry during their wilderness wandering, complained about their conditions. God's response, according to the text, was to send venomous snakes among them to bite and kill an unspecified number of people.1 The narrative raises direct questions about proportionality, divine justice, and what kind of authority kills its followers for voicing their suffering. This incident is not isolated; Numbers contains multiple accounts of God punishing the Israelites with fire, plague, and death for complaints ranging from dissatisfaction with food to fear of enemies.2
The biblical account
The episode is recorded in Numbers 21:4-9. The context is the Israelites traveling from Mount Hor, having just defeated the Canaanite king of Arad. The text describes their emotional state and their complaint.
"They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, 'Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!'" Numbers 21:4-5 (NIV)1
The Hebrew word translated "impatient" is qatsar (קָצַר), which literally means "to be short," conveying the sense of being at the end of one's patience or having a shortened spirit.3 The people express three complaints: there is no bread, there is no water, and they detest the manna they have been eating. The ESV translates the final phrase as "we loathe this worthless food," using the Hebrew word qeloqel (קְלֹקֵל), which suggests something light, trivial, or contemptible.4
God's response is immediate and lethal.
"Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died." Numbers 21:6 (NIV)1
The Hebrew phrase nachashim haseraphim (נְחָשִׁים הַשְּׂרָפִים) is translated variously as "venomous snakes" (NIV), "fiery serpents" (ESV, KJV), or "poisonous snakes" (NLT).4, 5 The word saraph derives from a root meaning "to burn," likely referring to the burning sensation of the venom.3 The text states explicitly that "many Israelites died," though no specific number is given.
The nature of the complaint
To understand the moral weight of this passage, it is essential to examine what the people actually said. Their complaint had three components: there is no bread, there is no water, and the food they have is miserable. Each of these concerns basic physical survival.
The Israelites had been wandering in the wilderness for approximately forty years at this point in the narrative.6 The Sinai Peninsula and the surrounding wilderness regions are characterized by extreme heat, scarce water sources, and limited vegetation.7 Archaeological and geographical studies of the region confirm that it was and remains inhospitable terrain, with summer temperatures regularly exceeding 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) and annual rainfall averaging less than 50 millimeters in many areas.7
The complaint about food monotony also has a physiological basis. According to Numbers 11:6, the Israelites said, "We never see anything but this manna!"8 While the text presents manna as divinely provided sustenance, the psychological and physiological effects of food monotony are well documented. Studies of dietary restriction show that extended consumption of a single food source leads to decreased appetite, psychological distress, and nutritional deficiencies.9 The Israelites' complaint about detesting their food is consistent with the documented phenomenon of sensory-specific satiety, in which repeated exposure to a single taste leads to decreased pleasure and eventual aversion.10
The complaint was not rebellion in the sense of attempting to overthrow Moses or abandon the covenant. It was not idolatry. It was not violence. It was people in physical distress expressing that distress verbally. They were hungry, thirsty, exhausted, and voiced their suffering. God's response was to send snakes to bite them until many died.
Death by snake venom
To understand what God inflicted upon the complainers, it is necessary to examine what death by snake envenomation actually involves. The Sinai Peninsula and Negev region are home to several venomous snake species, including the saw-scaled viper (Echis coloratus), the Palestinian viper (Daboia palaestinae), and the black desert cobra (Walterinnesia aegyptia).11
Viper envenomation, the most common type in the region, produces a cascade of symptoms. The venom contains hemotoxins and cytotoxins that destroy tissue at the bite site, cause extensive swelling, and interfere with blood clotting.12 Victims experience immediate intense pain at the bite site, followed by progressive swelling that can extend up an entire limb within hours. The venom causes local tissue necrosis, meaning the flesh literally dies and rots around the wound.12
Systemic effects include coagulopathy (inability to clot blood), leading to internal bleeding, bleeding from gums and other mucous membranes, and hemorrhaging into muscles and organs.13 Victims may experience nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and cardiovascular collapse. Without modern medical intervention, death can occur from hemorrhagic shock, acute kidney injury, or multi-organ failure.13 The process is neither quick nor painless; it can take hours to days, during which the victim remains conscious and in agony.
The World Health Organization estimates that snakebite envenoming causes 81,000 to 138,000 deaths globally each year, with hundreds of thousands more experiencing permanent disabilities including amputation and chronic pain.14 Modern antivenom treatment, unavailable to the ancient Israelites, reduces mortality significantly but cannot prevent all tissue damage once envenomation has occurred.14
This is what the text describes God sending upon people who complained about being hungry and thirsty: a slow, agonizing death involving burning pain, rotting flesh, internal bleeding, and organ failure.
The question of proportionality
Any system of justice relies on proportionality between offense and punishment. The principle appears across legal traditions worldwide and is enshrined in international human rights law, which prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.15 Even the Mosaic law itself contains proportionality principles, most famously the lex talionis: "eye for eye, tooth for tooth."16
The offense in Numbers 21 was verbal complaint about physical deprivation. The punishment was death by venomous snake bite. These bear no proportional relationship to one another. The people did not harm anyone. They did not steal. They did not commit violence. They expressed frustration about hunger, thirst, and food monotony. God's response was to inflict one of the most painful deaths available in the natural world.
To appreciate the disproportion, consider analogous scenarios. If a parent sent poisonous snakes to bite their children for complaining about dinner, that parent would be prosecuted for murder and child abuse. If a government executed citizens for complaining about food shortages, that government would be condemned as a murderous tyranny. If a prison warden released venomous snakes into cells to punish inmates who complained about conditions, that warden would face criminal charges for cruel and unusual punishment. The action is recognizable as monstrous in any human context. The text presents it as divine justice.
The bronze serpent remedy
After people began dying, the Israelites acknowledged their sin and asked Moses to pray for deliverance. God provided a remedy.
"The LORD said to Moses, 'Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.' So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived." Numbers 21:8-9 (NIV)1
This remedy is often presented in theological interpretation as evidence of God's mercy and grace. The bronze serpent later became an important symbol in Christian theology, with Jesus referencing it in John 3:14-15 as a prefigurement of his own crucifixion.17
However, examining the narrative structure reveals a troubling pattern. God sent the snakes. God caused the crisis. People were dying from wounds God inflicted. Then God offered a conditional remedy: perform this ritual act, and you may live. Those who could not reach the bronze serpent, could not see it, or died before the remedy was announced received no relief. God had the power to stop the snakes at any moment. Instead, he created a system where dying people had to perform a specific act to receive healing for injuries God himself had caused.
This pattern, causing harm and then offering conditional relief, is recognized in psychology as a characteristic of abusive relationships. The cycle of abuse typically involves an incident of harm followed by a reconciliation phase where the abuser shows remorse or offers amends, creating a trauma bond with the victim.18 The abuser maintains power precisely because they control both the harm and the relief from harm. The victim becomes dependent on the abuser for the cessation of suffering that the abuser initiated.
An omnipotent deity who sends snakes to bite people and then offers healing for those snake bites is not demonstrating mercy. Mercy would be not sending the snakes. What the text describes is power: the power to harm and the power to conditionally withhold harm, with continued suffering for those who fail to meet the condition.
The pattern in Numbers
The snake incident is not an isolated event. The book of Numbers contains a consistent pattern of God punishing Israelite complaints with death. Examining these episodes reveals a deity who repeatedly responds to expressions of suffering with lethal violence.
In Numbers 11:1-3, the people complained about their hardships. "Now the people complained about their hardships in the hearing of the LORD, and when he heard them his anger was aroused. Then fire from the LORD burned among them and consumed some of the outskirts of the camp."8 The text provides no specifics about what hardships they complained about or how many died. The offense was complaining; the punishment was death by fire.
Later in Numbers 11, the people complained about the monotonous manna diet and craved meat. "The rabble with them began to crave other food, and again the Israelites started wailing and said, 'If only we had meat to eat!'"8 God provided quail in enormous quantities. But as people began eating, "while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed, the anger of the LORD burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague."19 The place was named Kibroth Hattaavah, meaning "graves of craving," because there they buried the people who had craved other food.19 The number of dead is not specified, but the naming of a location after a mass burial suggests significant casualties.
In Numbers 14, after the spies returned with a report about the Canaanites, the people expressed fear about entering the promised land. God's response was comprehensive: "In this wilderness your bodies will fall, every one of you twenty years old or more who was counted in the census and who has grumbled against me."20 An entire generation, potentially hundreds of thousands of people, was condemned to die in the wilderness over forty years because they expressed fear of a military conflict.20
In Numbers 16:41-50, after Korah's rebellion and the execution of Korah and his followers, the congregation complained to Moses and Aaron: "You have killed the LORD's people."21 God's response was immediate: a plague broke out that killed 14,700 people before Aaron could make atonement to stop it.21 The people's complaint, that their leaders had killed innocent Israelites, was met with God killing 14,700 more.
God's punishments for complaints in Numbers8, 19, 20, 21, 1
| Passage | Complaint | God's response | Deaths |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numbers 11:1-3 | Hardships (unspecified) | Fire from the LORD | Unspecified ("some") |
| Numbers 11:4-34 | Monotonous diet, craving meat | Plague while eating quail | Unspecified (mass burial) |
| Numbers 14:26-38 | Fear of Canaanites | 40-year death sentence | Entire generation (600,000+ per census) |
| Numbers 16:41-50 | "You killed the LORD's people" | Plague | 14,700 |
| Numbers 21:4-9 | No food, no water, bad food | Venomous snakes | Unspecified ("many") |
The cumulative picture is stark. Complain about hardships: death by fire. Complain about food: death by plague. Express fear: death sentence for an entire generation. Say that leaders killed people: death by plague for 14,700. Complain about hunger and thirst: death by venomous snakes. The pattern is consistent: expressing suffering or dissent is met with lethal force.
Common theological defenses
Theologians and apologists have offered various defenses of these passages. Each defense merits examination.
The ingratitude defense
A common response holds that the Israelites were ungrateful. God had rescued them from Egypt, parted the Red Sea, provided manna daily, and guided them with pillars of cloud and fire. Their complaint was a failure to appreciate divine provision.
Several problems emerge with this defense. First, expressing suffering is not the same as ingratitude. A person can be genuinely grateful for past help while still being genuinely hungry in the present. The physiological reality of hunger and thirst is not canceled by historical gratitude. Second, even if the Israelites were ungrateful, killing people with venomous snakes is not a proportionate response to ingratitude. Ingratitude may be a character flaw, but it is not a capital offense in any recognizable moral system. Third, the text itself acknowledges the legitimacy of at least some complaints. In Numbers 20:2-11, when the people complained about lack of water, God did not punish them but instead provided water from a rock.22 The line between acceptable and punishable complaint appears arbitrary.
The testing God defense
Some interpreters argue that the people were "testing God," which is portrayed elsewhere in Scripture as a serious sin. Deuteronomy 6:16 commands, "Do not put the LORD your God to the test."23
However, the text of Numbers 21:5 does not describe testing. It describes complaint. The people said there was no bread, no water, and the food was bad. This is a statement of perceived conditions, not a test of divine power or faithfulness. Moreover, even if voicing frustration about starvation constitutes "testing God," death by snake venom remains a grossly disproportionate response. The defense shifts the framing but does not address the fundamental proportionality problem.
The mercy defense
Defenders often point to the bronze serpent as evidence of God's mercy. God provided a way of escape from the snakes he sent. Those who looked at the bronze serpent lived.
As discussed above, this defense mistakes the cessation of harm for mercy. God caused the harm. People were dying from wounds God inflicted. Offering a conditional remedy for a problem you created is not mercy; it is the maintenance of power through cycles of harm and relief. True mercy would be not sending the snakes. True mercy would be responding to complaints about hunger with food, not with venomous bites.
The authority defense
Some argue that God needed to maintain order and authority. The wilderness journey required discipline. If complaints were tolerated, chaos would ensue. Harsh measures were necessary to maintain the social structure.
This defense describes a tyranny, not a loving relationship. A leader who maintains order by killing followers for voicing complaints is a dictator. Healthy authority does not require lethal enforcement of silence. Modern organizations, militaries, and governments function while allowing complaints, grievances, and dissent. The claim that complaints must be met with death reflects an understanding of power that most ethical systems would condemn as authoritarian.
Furthermore, the defense contradicts core Christian claims about God's character. The New Testament describes God as a loving father who cares for his children.24 Fathers who kill their children for complaining about dinner are not loving; they are abusive. The authority defense asks readers to accept a divine-human relationship that would be recognized as pathological in any human context.
The moral question
The narrative of Numbers 21 presents a straightforward scenario. People suffering in a desert, after years of wandering, expressed frustration about hunger, thirst, and monotonous food. The response to this expression of suffering was death by venomous snake bite for an unspecified number of them. The survivors were offered a conditional remedy that required performing a specific ritual while in the process of dying from snake venom.
This is not an allegory or a metaphor; it is presented as historical narrative, as something that actually happened. The question is whether this action is morally good. Most ethical frameworks would conclude that it is not. Consequentialist ethics would note that the suffering caused, both the snake bites and the deaths, vastly exceeded any benefit. Deontological ethics would note that killing people for speech violates basic principles of human dignity and proportionality. Virtue ethics would struggle to identify which virtue is expressed by sending snakes to kill hungry people.
The common theological response is that God operates outside human moral categories, that divine justice transcends human understanding. But this response evacuates moral language of meaning. If "good" when applied to God can include sending venomous snakes to kill people for complaining about hunger, then "good" does not mean what humans ordinarily mean by the term. The word becomes a mere label applied to whatever God does, regardless of its character. On this view, there is nothing God could do that would count as bad, which means the claim that God is "good" conveys no information about how God will actually behave.
If a human authority, any human authority, killed starving people for complaining about their conditions, that authority would be recognized as monstrous. The text presents this as acceptable because God did it. The question each reader must answer is whether the identity of the agent changes the moral character of the act.