Deuteronomy 1:19–2:1

Original Meaning

The People’s Faithless Act of Rebellion (1:22–33)

THE ISRAELITES RESPONDED TO Moses’ charge by proposing to send a party of men to scout out the territory. This account differs dramatically from Numbers 13:1–2, but neither report claims to tell the whole story. In this rendition Moses agreed to the people’s request, selected a man from each tribe, and sent them out (v. 23; cf. Num. 13:4–16.). The detail with which he now recounts the people’s infidelity in verses 26–45 suggests Moses may have acted on his own, and after thirty-eight years of reflection he seems to have recognized this was a wrong move. Under normal circumstances such a reconnaissance mission might have made good sense (Josh. 2:1; 7:2; Judg. 18:2), but coming immediately after God’s command, the proposal itself seemed to betray a lack of faith (cf. 9:23). The outcome of the mission reinforced this conclusion.

Verses 24–25 describe the scouts’ mission and report. Moses notes that they went up into the hill country and scouted out the land as far as the Valley of Eshcol, near the city of Hebron (cf. Num. 13:21–24). His recollection illuminates the ironies of the situation. (1) They went out to gain information to be used to determine military strategy, but their report focused on fruit, concrete evidence of the fertility of the land. (2) They reported that the land was good, but promptly demonstrated they did not think it worth the risk of an invasion. (3) They referred to the land as “a good land that the LORD our God is giving us,” but they refused to accept it from his hand. God’s promises concerning the land were true, but the obstacles loomed too large in their minds.

In verses 26–33 Moses recalls the people’s reaction to the scouting report. Omitting many details found in Numbers 13–14, he concentrates on their shameful attitude (vv. 26–27a) and reprehensible actions (vv. 27b–28). He describes the former with three expressions: they were unwilling to go up; they rebelled against the command of Yahweh; and they muttered/grumbled in their tents. The people expressed their rebellion and sullenness with a troubling speech, accusing Yahweh of deliberately trying to destroy them (v. 27b) and fixating on the enemy (v. 28).2 They complained that Yahweh’s actions were directed against them and motivated by hostility, rather than being performed on their behalf and driven by his covenant commitment, that is, his love (cf. 7:8, 13; 10:15–19; 23:5[6]). They also despaired of finding any strategy that would work against the occupants of the land.3

Moses cites three reasons for the Israelites’ demoralization: the inhabitants of the land were larger and taller than they; their cities were huge and impregnable, with sky-high walls (cf. Num 13:28); and the inhabitants included descendants of the Anakites (cf. 9:2).4 On the surface, everything about the scouts’ report was true. The land was indeed fertile and productive, and the inhabitants seemed invincible. But they forgot that their divine Commander-in-Chief had already disposed of a much more powerful enemy in the Egyptians, and they blamed their demoralization on the scouts (cf. Num. 13:30–33; 14:36–38).

Trying to correct the people’s flawed perspective, Moses’ response focused entirely on Yahweh. After an opening call for calm and confidence (v. 29), he tried to encourage them with three arguments (vv. 30–31): (1) Yahweh was present with them and going before them; (2) Yahweh, the divine Warrior and Captain of his hosts (cf. Josh. 5:13–15), would fight for them; (3) Yahweh had taken care of them in the past by defeating the Egyptians before their very eyes5 and sustaining them through the great and terrifying desert (v. 19). With sensitive pastoral touch, Moses compared Yahweh’s care to that of a father who carries his son through danger to safety.

It is obvious from verses 32–33 that Moses’ exhortation had no effect. Reiterating how foolish and faithless the people had been, he reminded the present generation that their security and success rested neither with human generals nor in human wisdom; Yahweh always marched ahead of them. However, instead of speaking of his fighting for them (cf. v. 30), Moses says that Yahweh went before, scouting out6 places for them to set up their (military) camps and directing their actions, that is, to attack the enemy. The sight of the pillar of fire by night and cloud by day rendered the original rebellion even more tragic (cf. Ex. 13:21; Num. 14:14). But the people ignored both the evidence of their own experience and the visible proof of Yahweh’s commitment to them. The real challenge was neither physical nor military, but spiritual. Would they trust God? Verse 32 declares that they would not!.

Bridging Contexts

SOME OF THE PERMANENT theological lessons deriving from Moses’ recollections at Kadesh Barnea are obvious; others are subtle. It may be helpful to categorize these by asking two questions: What does this text teach us about God? About God’s people?

Teachings about God. The first question is answered with three powerful metaphors: God is a divine Warrior, a divine Guide, and a divine Father. (1) God as divine Warrior. If judgment in Israel’s internal affairs belongs to God (v. 17), the same is true of the battles this nation would fight against foreign foes (2 Chron. 20:15). Whether Egyptian or Amorite, anyone who stands in the way of Israel stands in the way of God.

(2) God as divine Guide. Throughout Israel’s travels, Yahweh had gone before them in the cloud and the fire, seeking places for Israel to camp and showing them which way to go (v. 33). The God who had brought Israel to himself at Horeb had faithfully brought Israel to the boundary of the Promised Land. We hear allusions to this notion in Zechariah’s celebration of God’s mercy in guiding “our feet into the path of peace” (Luke 1:78–79), and Revelation 7:15–17, which speaks of the Lamb leading his sheep to springs of living water.

(3) God as divine Father. Verse 31 presents a tender image of God as a loving father who firmly carries his child through the vast and dreadful desert (8:15). However, the Israelites learned that the fatherhood of God has two sides. He who lavishes grace on his son also gets angry when his son defies him and refuses to trust him (v. 34). Yahweh disciplines his son (cf. 8:5; Prov. 3:12), but when discipline fails, the heavenly Father turns a deaf ear to the wailing of a rebellious son (v. 45). In the New Testament Jesus invites his followers to address God as Father when they pray and to call on him to lead them (though not into the wilderness of temptation), to fight their battles (“deliver us from the evil one”), and to give them the daily bread they need (Matt. 6:9–13). But Hebrews 12:6 reminds us that the fatherhood of God still has another side: “The Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.”

Teachings about God’s people. Few passages in Scripture provide a fuller study in human faithlessness. (1) Faithlessness results from and is expressed in faulty vision. Here Moses highlights the motif of “seeing” (vv. 19, 22–23, 25, 28, 30, 31, 33), but faithless “eyes” are selective in what they allow to register in the heart. These people were blind to God’s gracious providences, and they saw only the obstacles in their road. Because of their blindness to the greater One among them (1 John 4:4), they would not “see” the prize (vv. 35–36).

(2) This passage teaches us the many faces of faithlessness. According to verses 19–33 faithlessness suppresses the truth (v. 32) and is expressed in stubbornness and rebellion against the command of God (v. 26), grumbling behind the leader’s and God’s back, bitterness, misreading the heart of God, accusations against other members of the community (v. 28), fear and loss of nerve (v. 29), and perhaps most tragic of all, a loss of memory (vv. 30–33). Within this book, Moses will return repeatedly to this “theology of remembrance,” emphasizing that many of Israel’s cultic and constitutional institutions were purposefully designed to keep alive the memory of God’s many interventions on their behalf (6:20–25; 26:5–11).

(3) Faithlessness assumes that the mere mouthing of penitential words will win the favor of God (v. 41), and it forgets that the proof of fidelity is obedience to God’s will. Faithlessness assumes a fickle God (vv. 26–40) and presumes upon his presence. Faithlessness yields alienation so acute that God refuses to respond to the prayers of faithless supplicants, regardless of the passion with which they plead with him.

Nevertheless, despite the pervasive unbelief of Israel, every age knows a faithful remnant. We may contrast Caleb and the rest of the Israelites by juxtaposing his response as described in Numbers 13–14 with the characteristics of Israel as illustrated in Moses’ recollections:

Characteristics of the Israelites as a Whole	Characteristics of Caleb
- unwilling to go up (v. 26)	- eager to go up (cf. Num. 13:30)
- rebellious against Yahweh’s command (v. 26)	- encouraging people not to rebel against Yahweh (cf. Num. 13:30)
- sulking in their tents (v. 27; Ps. 106:25)	- calming the people (cf. Num. 13:30)
- accusing Yahweh of hatred and betrayal (v. 27)	- assuring the people of Yahweh’s favor and presence (Num. 14:9)
- melting hearts (v. 28)
- terrified and fearful (v. 29)	- challenging the people not to fear (cf. Num. 14:9)
- refusing to trust Yahweh their God (v. 32)	- fully confident in Yahweh (cf. Num. 13:30; 14:8–9)

The case of Caleb demonstrates that from the beginning of the nation’s history there have been two Israels: (a) ethnic Israelites who participated in the exodus from Egypt, claimed descent from the patriarchs, and viewed themselves as the automatic heirs of the promises; (b) true Israelites who may or may not have been physical descendants of the ancestors, but who possessed the Spirit of God like the ancestors and were therefore their true spiritual heirs. In Numbers 14:24 Yahweh recognizes a different spirit with Caleb, demonstrated in following Yahweh fully. While this could mean simply that Caleb’s disposition differed from that of the rest the population, it is more likely that “to be accompanied by a different Spirit” is equivalent to being circumcised of heart (Deut. 30:6), to having experienced a divine heart transplant, or to having had Yahweh put his “spirit” within a person (Ezek. 36:26–27). The indwelling Spirit yielded a life of total obedience to Yahweh. Caleb, the Gentile proselyte, illustrates the Pauline adage:

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God. (Rom. 2:28–29)

Few have received more enthusiastic approval by God himself than Caleb.

Contemporary Significance

AFTER THE ISRAELITES LEFT Egypt, they faced a series of tests of their fidelity and faith in Yahweh. He had proved himself faithful to them at every turn; at Kadesh Barnea they were challenged to rely on him to complete his mission and to deliver the vastly superior Canaanites into their hand. Christians in every age have encountered representatives of the kingdom of darkness who stand in the way, obstacles to the fulfillment of the mission to which God has called us. Admittedly our enemies are not specific ethnic or racial groups, and the prize of our struggle is not physical territory, but the challenge is no less real. Paul paints the picture of our struggle in graphic strokes in Ephesians 6:10–13:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.

Sadly, like Israel, the church as a collective and Christians as individuals have often proved faithless, being more impressed by the power of the enemy than the power of God and the resources he makes available to his people. But the example of Caleb inspires us in our pursuit of God and provides the key to passing the tests we face: possession of a different Spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit of God, and unqualified commitment to God and his mission. To those who persevere the Lord promises not a plot of land but the eternal reward of an inheritance with him (Eph. 1:3–14).

Original Meaning

Yahweh’s Reaction to the People’s Faithlessness (1:34–40)

MOSES’ RECOLLECTION OF YAHWEH’S response abbreviates Numbers 14 drastically. He simply announces Yahweh’s anger at the sound of the people’s words and moves immediately to his final decision, expressed with an oath. The terms of the oath may be summarized in three statements. (1) Because of their faithlessness not one man among “this evil generation,” would experience the good land he had sworn to their ancestors (v. 35). (2) There would be two notable exceptions: Caleb and Joshua (vv. 36, 38).7 In view of their efforts to encourage the people to trust in Yahweh (Num. 13:30; 14:5–10), Moses declares Yahweh’s favor toward these two men in unequivocal terms.8 (3) Yahweh swore that he would give the land to the little children of that faithless generation. Innocent children who could not distinguish good from bad (i.e., were not yet morally responsible)9 would replace “this evil generation” (v. 35) of adults who had signed on to the covenant at Horeb and had been charged to go in and take the land. The children would not be judged for the sins of their parents.

Within the context of Yahweh’s oath, Moses’ personal gripe in verse 37 is intrusive. He blames the Israelites that he is unable to enter the Promised Land with Caleb and Joshua. The statement is remarkable on several counts. (1) Far from associating Moses with the rebellion of the people, in the narratives of Numbers 13–14 Yahweh offered to start over with Moses and to have his descendants replace Israel as his covenant people (Num. 14:12). (2) The reasons given for God’s refusing Moses entrance into the Promised Land in the earlier narratives relate to an entirely different incident—his failure to treat Yahweh as holy by striking the rock rather than speaking to it at Meribah (Num. 20:2–13; cf. Deut. 32:48–52). With this act of faithlessness, Moses personally disqualified himself from achieving the prize. How then could he blame the Israelites for his failure to enter the land? The answer is actually simple. If the Israelites had trusted Yahweh at Kadesh Barnea and entered the land at his command, the event recorded in Numbers 20 would never have occurred. However, since the people’s faithlessness precipitated a series of unfortunate events, including Meribah, in a sense Moses was right. However, as we will learn from Deuteronomy 3:23–26, Yahweh will not listen to such arguments.

In verse 40 Yahweh called for a literal and figurative turning point in Israel’s history. He commanded the people to retrace their steps back to the desert and set their sights on the Red Sea. In one stroke the exodus was annulled and the nation’s history reversed. Those whom Yahweh had brought out of Egypt were rejected as heirs of the promise to the fathers.