Numbers 13

Updated
2001-05-26; 14:32:16utc

II. The Climactic Failure of Israel at Kadesh 13:1-14:45A. Investigation of the Promised Land 13:1-33

As our outline suggests, we now enter into the part of the record that deals with the climactic failure of the people to reach the goal God had for them and that they, initially, had set out to reach. This failure was not a sudden change in attitude but the result of a gradual breakdown of the people's faith in God and in their morale. There had been complaints ever since the crossing of the Red Sea, but the major shift from confidence into doubt was when they began complaining, not about what was not there, but about what was available. We can understand and sympathize with the people's concern when they came to a place where there was no drinking water. We read in Exodus: "They camped at Rephidim, but there was no water for the people to drink."[ 1 ] The faith of the people was put to the test there, but we can understand their worry. But this is different from the mentality that was evinced at Taberah, where the people started saying: "If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost-- also the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic. But now we have lost our appetite; we never see anything but this manna!"[ 2 ]

In order to put what is recorded here in the right perspective, we have to compare this section with Moses' words in the first chapter of Deuteronomy. Actually, we can put this chapter and the following one next to the last part of the first chapter of Deuteronomy, beginning with vs. 20. It appears that, originally, the suggestion to send out spies into the land came from the people themselves. We read that Moses says: "Then all of you came to me and said, 'Let us send men ahead to spy out the land for us and bring back a report about the route we are to take and the towns we will come to.' "[ 3 ] This suggestion sounded like good strategy, and Moses must have consulted the Lord about this, who gave His approval.

There is nothing unusual in the fact that man's initiative and God's plan coincide. As a matter of fact, in a healthy spiritual relationship between God and man, this is common. Just as God's purpose is fulfilled through the prayers of man, so are man's plans put into practice by divine fiat. If the Holy Spirit fills our lives, there will be a sanctified intuition within that nudges us on.

This, however, is not the case here. Again, it seems we are not told the whole story. The context confirms that what looked like sound strategy was, in fact, a demonstration of doubt. The people must have had their doubts about God's good intentions. The people did not trust the Lord. Before any facts were gathered they had come to the conclusion: "The LORD hates us; so he brought us out of Egypt to deliver us into the hands of the Amorites to destroy us."[ 4 ]

Matthew Henry's Commentary agrees with this approach of the text. We read: " Orders given to send spies to search out the land of Canaan. It is here said, God directed Moses to send them (v. 1-2), but it appears by the repetition of the story afterwards <Deut. 1:22> that the motion came originally from the people; they came to Moses, and said, We will send men before us; and it was the fruit of their unbelief. They would not take God's word that it was a good land, and that he would, without fail, put them in possession of it. They could not trust the pillar of cloud and fire to show them the way to it, but had a better opinion of their own politics than of God's wisdom. How absurd was it for them to send to spy out a land which God himself had spied out for them, to enquire the way into it when God himself had undertaken to show them the way! But thus we ruin ourselves by giving more credit to the reports and representations of sense than to divine revelation; we walk by sight, not by faith; whereas, if we will receive the witness of men, without doubt the witness of God is greater. The people making this motion to Moses, he (perhaps not aware of the unbelief at the bottom of it) consulted God in the case, who bade him gratify the people in this matter, and send spies before them: "Let them walk in their own counsels." Yet God was no way accessory to the sin that followed, for the sending of these spies was so far from being the cause of the sin that if the spies had done their duty, and the people theirs, it might have been the confirmation of their faith, and of good service to them."

We seldom realize that a lack of faith leads to the opposite of faith. If we do not trust the Lord we mistrust Him. If we do not believe that God is love, we believe that He hates us. Few people would admit that the Lord hates them, but they do not accept the fact that He loves them either. The devil encourages men to live in a gray area, which does not exist. Israel had moved out of this gray area into the blackness of hatred. They believed that God had brought them into the desert so He could kill them without the presence of witnesses. The intent behind the sending out of the spies must have been to gather proof that the land the Lord had promised them was not a land "flowing with milk and honey." When Moses says: "See what the land is like and whether the people who live there are strong or weak, few or many. What kind of land do they live in? Is it good or bad? What kind of towns do they live in? Are they unwalled or fortified? How is the soil? Is it fertile or poor? Are there trees on it or not?" he probably quoted some of the words of the people, who had expressed their doubt about the condition of the land, the soil and the cities. As the report of the returning spies brings out, they are wrong on every count, except for the size of the people. But then, this part too is twisted into the statement in vs. 32 that the land devours those living in it.

So, there is much more behind the opening statement of this chapter: "The LORD said to Moses, 'Send some men to explore the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites,' " than meets the eye. I don't know if we can say that God sets the people up, but more is involved than sound military strategy.

When the suggestion came from the people to send out spies, we do not read that they wanted the twelve tribes to be represented. This wide representation seems to be what God commands here. We are given twelve names, and we are told that "all of them were leaders of the Israelites." The Pulpit Commentary, however, says: "This does not mean that they were to be the tribe princes (as the names show), for they would not be suitable in respect of age, nor could they be spared for this service. They were 'heads of the children of Israel' (vers. 3), i.e. men of position and repute, but also no doubt comparatively young and active, as befitted a toilsome and hazardous excursion."

Most of the names mentioned in vs. 4-16 occur only here in Scripture. Only Caleb and Joshua are mentioned elsewhere. All the tribes are represented, with the exception of Levi, who could not be excused from priestly duties, and also, they would not be able to claim any particular part of the promised land like the other tribes would. The tribe of Joseph is split up in two, Ephraim and Manasse, which brings the total to twelve.

About Caleb, son of Jephunneh, The Pulpit Commentary says: "In ch. xxxii. 12 he is called 'the Kenezite,' which appears in Gen. xv. 19 as the name of one of the ancient races inhabiting the promised land. It is possible that Jephunneh may have been connected by descent or otherwise with this race; it is more likely that the similarity of name was accidental."

The most interesting name in this chapter is the one in vs. 16, which is placed in parenthesis: "(Moses gave Hoshea son of Nun the name Joshua.)" Hoshea means "help" or "salvation." Joshua in Hebrew is Jehoshua, which is the same name with the prefix "Je" which is the first syllable of the name YHWH. This changes the meaning to Jahweh saves, or Jahweh is salvation. The Septuagint renders the name in Greek with Jesus. As such it is used in the New Testament.

About the name change mentioned here The Pulpit Commentary writes: "It is an obvious difficulty that Joshua has already been called by his new name at Exod. xvii. 9, and in every other place where he has been mentioned. In fact he is only once elsewhere called Hoshea, and that in a place (Deut. xxxii. 44) where we should certainly not have expected it. There are two ways of explaining the difficulty, such as it is. We may suppose that the change of name was really made at this time, as the narrative seems (on the face of it) to assert; and then the previous mentions of Joshua by his subsequent and more familiar name will be cases of that anticipation which is so common in Scripture (cf. e. g., Matt. ix. 9 with Mark ii. 14). Or we may suppose, what is perhaps more in harmony with the course of Joshua's life, that the change had been already made at the time of the victory over Amalek. .... As to the significance of the change, it is not easy to estimate it aright. One the one hand, the sacred syllable entered into so many of the Jewish names that it could not have seemed a very marked change; on the other hand, the fact that our Saviour received the same name because he was our Saviour throws a halo of glory about it which we cannot ignore. In the Divine providence Hoshea became Joshua because he was destined to be the temporal saviour of his people, and to lead them into their promised rest."

The spies entered the land from the South, from the desert of Zin, and went all the way to Rehob, toward, what the NIV calls Lebo Hamath. Other translations, such as the RSV and ASV translate the words "Lebo Hamath" with entrance to Hamath. It is not clear why the NIV leaves the words un-translated. Adam Clarke remarks about the desert of Zin: "The place called Tsin, here, is different from that called Sin, Exod. xvi. 1; the latter was nigh to Egypt, but the former was near Kadesh-barnea, not far from the borders of the Promised Land."

It is difficult to make out the importance of the statement that the spies came to Hebron, where they saw the descendants of Anak, and that Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt. The Pulpit Commentary says the following about this statement: "Hebron was in existence at the time of Abraham. Zoan was Tanis, near the mouth of the eastern branch of the Nile. .... If it be true that the Pharaoh of the exodus had his royal residence at Zoan, Moses may have had access to the archives of the city, or he may have learnt the date of its foundation from the priests who gave him his Egyptian education. That there was any real connection between the two places is extremely problematical, nor is it possible to give any reason for the abrupt insertion here of a fragment of history so minute and in itself so unimportant. There is, however, no one but Moses to whom the statement can with any sort of likelihood be traced; a later writer could have had no authority for making the statement, and no possible reason for inventing it."

It is, of course, easy to dismiss this insertion when we do not understand the purpose of it. It is also true that we are only left to speculation in our search for a meaning, but this does not mean that there would be no reason for the statement. It seems that the mention of the date of the building of Hebron and the comparison between Hebron and Zoan serves the purpose of establishing the fact that Hebron existed at the time of Abraham, which is approximately four centuries before the spies entered the land. From their residence in Egypt they remembered Zoan as an ancient city, and now they see a place that even predated Zoan. But the most important part may be the mention of the presence of the descendants of Anak, of whom nothing is mentioned at the time of Abraham. The presence of these giants may be connected to the prediction God made to Abraham about the fact that the sin of the Amorites would have reached its full measure when Israel would return to the land. God had said: "In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."[ 5 ] These giants were evil giants and they impressed the spies as such.

We are told: "It was the season for the first ripe grapes." The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary makes an interesting observation about the time of the year, and the duration of the spies' expedition: "This was in August, when the first clusters are gathered, the second in September, and the third in October. The spies' absence for a period of 40 days determine the grapes they brought from Eshcol to have been of the second period. Thus 'the Israelites were in the Arabah, or great Arabian desert, at the most trying period of the year. Their journey to this point from Sinai might have been accomplished by easy marches in eighteen days. But probably they rested for some time at Akabah, and hence, five months were consumed with it. They sent forward the spies for the purpose of examining the character and state of the country, particularly of ascertaining the most practicable line of access into the promised land; and for 40 days they looked wistfully for the return of these messengers, because they were anxious to move out of the oppressive, stifling heat of the Arabah, on to the healthier as well as more abundant region, which was there above them, and which they already regarded as their own possession' (Drew's 'Scripture Lands,' p. 77)." The prolonged absence of the spies may well have contributed to the mood of irritation and frustration of the people, which set the stage for their rebellion.

When the spies return they report that the condition of the land in itself is good. "It does flow with milk and honey! But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. We even saw descendants of Anak there." At the end of their report these "descendants of Anak" are called "the Nephilim." We find the Nephilim mentioned in the account of the pre-flood condition of the world. We read in Genesis: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-- and also afterward-- when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."[ 6 ] Who these Nephilim were nobody knows exactly. It seems obvious, however, that they were exterminated by the flood. All people dwelling on earth now, and at the time of Israel's exodus, are descendants of Noah. So the name Nephilim may be a mythical reference to a pre-flood condition. By using this name the spies achieved the goal of conveying that Canaan was held in the power of some evil authority to which the people of Israel were no match.

In a sense they were more right than they knew! There is a parallel between the pre-flood condition of the earth and the condition of Canaan when the sin of the Amorites had reached its full measure; in both worlds there was strong demonic activity. But it is very doubtful that the same mysterious phenomenon had occurred in which "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose,"[ 7 ] which resulted in the appearance of the Nephilim. By using the term the spies appealed to the primitive fear of the unknown in the hearts of the people. Ignorance breeds the most extravagant rumors. The tribes people in Irian Jaya, Indonesia, adamantly proclaimed that a race of people, "only a few days' marches away," were humans with tails. The tail bearers always lived a little farther away than the explored areas. The Nephilim may have had the same connotation. They were the evil giants in some far away country, nobody had ever seen. Now they appeared to inhabit Canaan. The Nephilim perished in the flood, but their renown survived.

It is interesting to observe how God takes care of the giants in the land by the hand of a young man named David. We read that David says to king Saul: "The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine." And to Goliath he says: "You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the LORD will hand you over to me, and I'll strike you down and cut off your head. Today I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give all of you into our hands." Then the action begins: "Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground. So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him."[ 8 ] This teenager knew better than the spies, and than the whole nation of Israel. Ultimately, Israel failed because they feared the enemy more than they feared the Lord.

Caleb's effort to swing the mood of the nation was in vain. We do not read that Joshua spoke up at this point, but it is apparent that he was not among those who advised against the invasion. We read about the other ten spies that "they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored." This may mean that they reversed themselves on the topic of the milk and honey. It also seems rather contradictory that, at same time "the land we explored devours those living in it," and "all the people …. are of great size." The size of the inhabitants would rather testify to the fact that the land was not that bad. As far as the land devouring its inhabitants is concerned, actually the opposite was true. The Lord had told Israel earlier that Canaan would vomit out its inhabitants because of their sin. In Leviticus we read that the Lord says to the people: "Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants."[ 9 ] The people were in such a mood of rebellion, however, that the inconsistency of the report made no difference to them.

[ 1 ] Ex. 17:1

[ 2 ] Ch. 11:4-6

[ 3 ] Deut. 1:22

[ 4 ] Deut. 1:27

[ 5 ] Gen. 15:16

[ 6 ] Gen. 6:4

[ 7 ] Gen. 6:2

[ 8 ] I Sam 17:37,45-47,49-50

[ 9 ] Lev. 18:24-25