Section II From Mountain to Wilderness
Numbers 10:11—14:45
A. THE CAMP MOVES OUT, 10:11-36
1. The Journey Begins (10:11-13)
Without doubt, in view of all the foregoing preparations, the camp was in a fever of excitement to get moving. The people had been at this one location for the better part of a year (Exod. 19:1). The elapsed time, plus the intensive concentration on departure procedures, must have intensified their anticipation to a white heat. Then the great day dawned! The cloud was taken up (11), the trumpets sounded (5), and the children of Israel took their journeys out of the wilderness of Sinai (12; see map 3) in the order of march which had been established.
2. Order of the Tribes and Their Leaders (10:14-28)
The tribes are listed here, with the names of their leaders given in parentheses. This listing established the order of the march: Judah (14; Nahshon), Issachar (15; Nethaneel), Zebulun (16; Eliab), the Gershonites and Merarites (17) bearing the Tent of Meeting, Reuben (18; Elizur), Simeon (19; Shelumiel), Gad (20; Eliasaph), the Kohathites (21) bearing the holy implements of the Tent of Meeting,1 Ephraim (22; Elishama), Manasseh (23; Gamaliel), Benjamin (24; Abidon), Dan2 (25; Ahiezer), Asher (26; Pagiel), Naphtali (27; Ahira).
Set forward (28) would be “set out” (RSV). The rearward (25) means the rear guard. Armies (28) is better “hosts” (RSV).
3. Moses' Plea to His Brother-in-law 3 (10:29-32)
Moses' father-in-law, Jethro (Reuel), had joined the Israelite camp soon after it had arrived at Sinai (Exod. 18:1-27), bringing Moses' wife, Zipporah, and her two sons with him. He soon returned to his own land of Midian, but it is evident that one of his sons, Hobab (29; not mentioned in the Exodus account), remained with the camp. When plans got under way to move on toward Canaan, Hobab gave indication that he would return to his own land (30). Moses pled with him to remain with the Israelites, insisting that they would need his skilled services as a guide. They were moving into the wilderness (31), a land with which Hobab was well-acquainted (31). For this service he would be a recipient of all of the blessings God had promised to Israel (32). The record does not so state, but it seems evident that Moses prevailed, for later history shows that Hobab's descendants lived in Canaan (Judg. 1:16; I Sam. 15:6, Amp. OT).
“Not Receiving but Serving” is the theme of 29-32. (1) An invitation to benefit refused, 29-30; (2) An appeal to serve accepted, 31 (G. B. Williamson).
4. Ceremonial Prayers (10:33-36)
It would seem from the language used here that the ark of the covenant (33) was in advance of the procession, even as it was when the Israelites later crossed the Jordan River (Josh. 3:6). In this position it symbolized the presence of God, and when it stopped, it would determine the next campsite of the company. It is just as probable, however, that the position of the ark referred to here was religious as well as geographical; i.e., it was “foremost” in the camp because it was the most prominent.
The whole procedure of the movement of the camp reflected the fact that God was in the midst. This is indicated by Moses' morning and evening prayers. When the ark set out he prayed:
Arise, O Lord,
and let thy enemies be scattered;
and let them that hate thee flee before thee (35, RSV)
When the ark rested, he prayed:
Return, O Lord,
to the ten thousand thousands
of Israel (36, RSV).
The theme of 10: 35-36 is “The Hallowing of Work and Rest.” (1) Realization of and aspiration after the Divine Presence—Rise up, Lord…Return, O Lord, 35-36; (2) The Divine Presence as the Source of all energy—Rise up, Lord, 35; (3) The Divine Presence in hours of repose—Return, O Lord, 36 (A. Maclaren).
B. THE PEOPLE COMPLAIN, 11:1-9
1. The Fire Burns (11:1-3)
The murmuring and complaining of the people (1) was no new sound to the ears of Moses (cf. Exod. 14:11-12; 15:24-25). Nor would this be the last time he would hear it. In every instance, God dealt severely with such complaints. Here, the fire of the Lord burnt among them, consuming some on the outer edges of the camp. It was quenched (2) only on Moses' supplication.
2. The Cry for Meat (11: 4-5)
Appetites quickly revolt against plain and simple food. In the extreme situation that faced the Israelites it was inevitable that complaints would soar. They started in this instance with Egypt” (Amp. OT). However, the complaints quickly spread to the main body of the Israelites with the cry, Who shall give us flesh to eat? Their taste buds were stimulated by the thoughts of the fish…cucumbers…melons…leeks…onions, and the garlick (5) which they had in abundance in Egypt.
3. Manna Was Not Enough (11:6-9)
The real issue, however, was not the plainness of their desert diet. The complaint focused on the unpalatability of this manna (6). But their criticism was a thrust at God, saying, in essence, “What You do for us is not good enough.” They complained in spite of the fact that the manna was a miracle food which had actually kept them alive up to this point and would sustain them through the balance of their trek to Canaan (Exod. 16:14-36; Josh. 5:12).
The manna is described here (cf. Exod. 16:14-31) as being like the beedy eye of the coriander seed, the colour of bdellium (7; “resembling pearls,” Moffatt). The people…gathered it, and ground it…baked it…and made cakes of it. The taste was that of fresh oil (8).4 The manna was sweet, and it provided a dietary need for the nomadic people, to whom fruits were unobtainable, but its taste no doubt had become tiresome.5
C. MOSES FEELS HIS BURDEN, 11:10-17
1. Weeping People and a Praying Man (11:10-15)
Even in the light of the punishment by fire (11:1) which had so recently come to them, the people did not cease their complaining. At this point, it took on the proportions of an organized “demonstration” with a unified pattern of weeping throughout the camp. Every man wept in the door of his tent (10), so he could be heard and so that all could see that he was in favor of the protest.
The sound of weeping among the people, and no doubt the motive which initiated it, caused the anger of the Lord to blaze hotly; also “in the eyes of Moses it was evil” (9, Amp. OT). As a result Moses expressed his despair to God. He suggested that perhaps God had afflicted him, because he had not found favour (11) in God's sight. He felt God had laid the whole burden of these people upon him. The climax to his prayer expressed the complete dependence and helplessness which ultimately characterizes all effective prayer—I am not able to bear…this…alone (14). The prayer continues, “If this is the way it is to be, kill me now, that I may not witness the utter failure of my efforts” (15).6 Kill me…out of hand (15) would be, “Kill me now” (Berk.).
2. The Provision for the Elders (11:16-17)
To ease Moses' load, God instructed him to gather…seventy men of the elders of Israel (16). Some such council had existed, at least informally, for a year or more, but the purpose of having this group was more spiritual than that of the previous one (Exod. 18:17-26). This group may have been the 70 who went to the mountain with Moses (Exod. 24:9-10). Later Jews traced the pattern of the Sanhedrin to this occasion, but there is no historical tie to support the position.7
D. GOD PROMISES THE PEOPLE MEAT, 11:18-23
1. The Promise and the Warning (11:18-20)
The miraculous appearance of quail is usually held both in the Scriptures (Exod. 16:13; Ps. 105:40) and in tradition to have been for the same purpose as the giving of the manna—the survival of the people. However in this instance, at least, the quail came as a plague and were used by God as a punishment for the complaining multitude. The people may have had an earlier experience in mind when they began to clamor for meat, but the answer to their cry on this occasion was one not to be desired. There was tragedy rather than benefit in it (33).
God commanded the people to prepare themselves as if for a religious service: Sanctify yourselves against tomorrow (18). Actually, however, this preparation was for chastisement and judgment. It is not difficult to detect a bit of satire in God's instructions to them: You'll have your meat, all right, not just enough for one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days (19), but enough for a whole month (20) at one time.
2. Moses Continues the Dialogue (11:21-23)
It was difficult even for Moses to comprehend all that God had in mind. He raised questions regarding the extravagant proposition that God had just unfolded—meat for this great a group of people, enough for a whole month (21). Here again Moses felt the burden of the Israelites, thinking, no doubt, that God expected him somehow to produce all of this meat. True, they had the flocks and the herds (22), but these were for sacrifices and were needed to provide milk and other milk products. Certainly these animals would not last long if they were to be slain and used for food. Moses' comment about all the fish of the sea must be taken as a statement issuing out of his despair; fish were not available to them at that immediate location.
Verse 23 set a challenge for Moses. It should be remembered every time our faith is weak: “Is the Lord's hand shortened? Now you shall see whether my word will come true for you or not” (RSV).
E. THE GIVING OF THE SPIRIT, 11:24-30
1. At the Tent of Meeting, 11:24-25
Moses gathered the seventy men as previously instructed (16-17) and set them round about the tabernacle (24). There the Lord visited them with an enduement of His Holy Spirit, the same spirit that rested on Moses; and they prophesied, and did not cease (25). This prophesying meant “sounding forth the praises of God and declaring His will” (Amp. OT). It is the equivalent of the witnessing done by a not dissimilar group on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:4-8; 2:4, 6-18). The prophesying of the 70 must have included proclaiming the faithfulness of God thus far on their journey and giving reminders of His deliverance from Pharaoh. The seventy elders were thus to build morale for God in the camp.
2. Eldad and Medad (11:26-28)
For some reason two of those who had been summoned were not present at the Tent of Meeting. However the Lord poured out His Spirit upon them also and they witnessed in the camp (26) in the same manner as the others did. A young man (27) hurried to report this to Moses. Whereupon Joshua (28) recommended that Eldad and Medad be forbidden such prophesying. In response, Moses pointed out a lesson for all times: Not all who effectively serve God receive their commissions in just the same manner, and not all go under the same banner (Luke 9:49-50).
3. The Promise of the Father Is for All Men (11:29-30)
Following this interchange between Moses and Joshua, Moses gave a classic proclamation, underlining, even in this ancient day, the universality of the gospel of the Spirit: Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets (witnesses), and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them! (29) In this proclamation he goes beyond the immediate group who were to be used in a special mission in the work of God; he projects this outpouring as a possibility for all of the children of God (Joel 2:28-29).8
There went forth a wind from the Lord, and brought quails from the sea (31; the Gulf of Aqaba). Exhausted by their long flight or a possible shift in the wind, they flew only two cubits (three to four feet) above the ground. They came in such abundance that they spread a day's journey in each direction from the camp. The people could easily catch them with their hands, knock them down with sticks, or net them with pieces of cloth. Each person had all the quail he could use; even he that gathered least gathered ten homers (roughly 65 bushels).9 The people then made an effort to preserve the quail which they had caught by spreading them all abroad to dry. Some have suggested that the people buried the quail for a short time in the hot sand to prepare them for eating.
There was no benefit from the meat, however. Ere the flesh was chewed, 10 the wrath of the Lord was kindled, and He smote the people with a very great plague (33). It is not certain what was the nature of this plague, other than the suggestion which God gave in the initial warning to the people (20). In any event, many died and the name Kibrothhattaava (“graves of sensuous desire,” Amp. OT) was given to the place (34). The record does not state how many died in the plague; perhaps all in the camp who ate of the quail were affected or maybe only those who overate (see fn. 10).
It is important to see that the sin for which the people were punished was deeper than the sin of complaining or the sin of uncontrolled physical appetites. Here, even as it was to be at Kadesh-barnea, the real sin was the sin of unbelief. The people “despised the Lord” (20). They did not believe His promises or heed His warnings. They did not believe that He could take them through to Canaan. They loved the creature comforts of Egypt more than the will of God. They valued their own judgment and their own perspective of the situation more than the pattern which God had outlined for them.
1. The Accusation (12:1-3)
It seems that the murmuring and complaining could not be checked no matter how severely God dealt with it. Now it showed up in the highest echelons of the camp, in Miriam (the prophetess, Exod. 15:20) and Aaron (the priest). It is quite evident that Miriam was the initiator of the criticism and that Aaron, as usual, was merely a mouthpiece. Their criticism of Moses was twofold: it involved displeasure over his choice of a wife (1), and it raised the question as to why Miriam and Aaron should not be recognized along with Moses as capable of receiving God's messages (2).
The first of these complaints had no foundation in either moral or legal wrong, as would have been the case had Moses married a Canaanite (Deut. 7:1-6). It seems, rather, to have arisen from the heart of a jealous sister over what appears to be a second marriage for Moses; although some hold the Ethiopian (Heb., Cushite) refers to Zipporah, to whom Moses had been married for many years (Exod. 2:21), perhaps a long-standing sore point with his sister. There is no indication that God paid any attention to this complaint.
The second complaint had even less foundation, existing only in the minds of Miriam and Aaron. Miriam had been given an unusual place of honor and respect, arising particularly out of her leadership in the victory song following the crossing of the Red Sea (Exod. 15:20-21). Aaron had been designated as Moses' mouthpiece (Exod. 4:10-16) and had more recently become the chief priest of the Israelites (3:1-3). Both Miriam and Aaron, no doubt, still saw Moses as their little brother and resented his place of leadership with the people and his favor with God.
The parenthetical statement, Now…Moses was very meek (3), more so than any person living, has been interpreted variously by scholars. Some feel it must, of necessity, be an interpolation by later writers, for such a self-commendation was out of character for Moses. However, others11 point out that the word for meek appears frequently in the psalms and, as here, is applied by the writers to themselves (cf. Ps. 10:17, “humbly”; 22: 26). “There is about these words, as also about the passages in which Moses no less equivocally records his own faults (20:12; Exod. 4:24-26: Deut. 1:37) that simplicity which is witness at once to their genuineness and inspiration.”12
2. The Vindication (12:4-8)
The sin of undermining the influence of God's leader13 and of questioning his authority could not go unnoticed or unchallenged. God called the three of them suddenly to appear before the outer court14 of the Tent of Meeting. God's presence was evidenced by the pillar of the cloud, which moved to this position.
The Lord's vindication of Moses was complete. The focal point of His defense spoke to the manner in which God communicates with His servants. To an ordinary prophet or lesser ones, He speaks through a vision or a dream (6). But with Moses, God spoke mouth to mouth (“directly,” Amp. OT; “face to face,” Deut. 34:10), clearly and not in riddles (8). The reason for this was that Moses had a unique relationship to God (7). In the divine economy he was compared to Christ himself (Heb. 3:2, 5-6) as a special envoy in all mine house. Therefore God rightfully raised the question with Miriam and Aaron, Why then are you not afraid to speak against him? (8)
3. The Punishment (12:9-10)
As in other cases, God's displeasure at such questioning of His anointed was immediate. As He finished speaking, the cloud departed (10). This action signified a divine withdrawal, as a judge might leave the bench after a sentence. It was different from the lifting of the cloud, signifying the time to move camp.15
The greatest punishment for sin, whatever its particular manifestation, is this separation from God.
As Aaron turned to his sister, he saw that she had been stricken with leprosy. It was a fully developed case, white as snow (10), as in the later stages of the disease. Leprosy was a loathsome disease with which the Israelites were familiar in Egypt and for the control of which detailed laws had already been laid down (Leviticus 13—14). Such a penalty is not out of keeping, for leprosy, in the Word of God, is consistently used to typify sin. Miriam, who at one moment had exalted herself in self-pride to the point of thinking she should be coequal in prominence with the leader of all Israel, was the next moment banished from the camp in the most humiliating circumstances. Such is the result of the sin of pride (Prov. 16:18; Isa. 10:33).
4. The Provision for Restoration (12:11-15)
Immediately upon seeing Miriam's plight, Aaron began his plea, addressing Moses as my lord (11). This was, indeed, a quick reversal of the attitude reflected earlier in v. 2. Aaron confessed that he and Miriam had done foolishly and had sinned. This condition of Miriam, he pleaded, was worse than if she had been stillborn (12). Once again Moses petitioned God, who had long since proved that He was a God of forgiveness, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee (13). God's answer was that Miriam should be punished at least as much as one whose father had but spit in her face (14). The penalty was isolation from the camp for seven days. So the entire camp waited until this time was accomplished and Miriam was brought in again (15) properly chastened, probably chagrined, and, we must assume, fully cleansed.
H. SCOUTING PARTY SURVEYS CANAAN, 12:16—13:33
1. The Initiation of the Plan (12:16—13:16)
Soon after the arrival in the wilderness of Paran (16; Kadesh-barnea, Deut. 1:19; see map 3), plans were made to send a scouting party (Amp. OT) into Canaan, that they may search the land (2). The party was made up of one man from each tribe, with Ephraim (8) and Manasseh representing the tribe of Joseph (11). Since the tribe of Levi was not to participate, the division of the tribe of Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh resulted in the 12-tribe numbering.
It is not certain just how the plan for the spies originated. The account in Deut. 1:22 seems to indicate that the people insisted on such a scouting trip and implies that their request came out of a reluctance to take God's way.
And when we departed from Horeb, we went through all that great and terrible wilderness…and we came to Kadesh-barnea. And I said unto you, You have come to the hill country of the Amorites, which the Lord our God gives you. Behold, the Lord your God has set the land before you; go up and possess it, as the Lord God of your fathers has said to you; fear not, neither be dismayed. Then you came near to me and said, Let us send men before us, that they may search us out the land, and bring us word again by what way we should go up, and the cities into which we shall go up, and the cities into which we shall come. The thing pleased me well, and I took twelve men of you, one for each tribe (Deut. 1:19-23, Amp. OT).
It is clear that a “scouting party,” in the military sense, was not needed in this situation. The assurance of success lay, not with accurate intelligence reports, but in the power of God. All the people needed, really, was to trust God and move on in.16 If it is true that the people were responsible for the plan, the whole project was unnecessary. At best it was permitted by God to appease the people's complaining and to encourage them to follow through on the basic plan to possess Canaan. If this position is correct, the record in vv. 1-2 bypasses the people's involvement and merely records God's instructions to carry out the plan.
2. The Implementation of the Plan (13:17-25)
The scouts were to go in by the southern route and follow the “hill country,” the ridge which separates the Mediterranean plateau from the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley. They were to see what the people were, whether strong or weak, few or many (18); what the land was, whether it be good or bad (19), fat or lean (20); whether or not the people were nomadic—dwell in…tents (19)—or lived in cities (strong holds); and whether or not the hills were timbered. In addition they were to bring back samples of the fruit of the land (20).
These instructions continue to savor of the human. There was no real reason why Moses needed this information. To some of it he could well have had access already, and the rest he did not need. It was God who had promised them this land, and their possession of it did not depend upon a scouting report but only on obeying God.
The scouts went forth, following the instructions, going the length of the land to Rehob, “at the entrance to Hamath,”17 the northernmost part of the land. As they returned, at Eshcol, near Hebron 18 (see map 3), they cut a large cluster of grapes, gathered pomegranates and figs (22-23). To protect the grapes, they carried them on a pole. In all, the scouting trip took forty days (25), a period of time which in the Scriptures commonly speaks of a work being completely done.
3. Pro and Con of the Report (13:26-33)
On arrival of the scouts back at Kadesh (see map 3), representatives of the people gathered together to hear their report. Canaan was a land flowing with milk and honey (27), confirming that God was faithful in His promise (Exod. 3:8). But it was also a land occupied by strong people living in walled cities (28).
The report brought a “buzzing” among the congregation, which was stilled temporarily by Caleb. He sought to challenge them, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it (30). But his fellow scouts (all but Joshua) took exception. We be not able (31). We saw the giants…we were…as grasshoppers…in their sight (33).
In essence, all of the scouts gave the same factual report: there were good things and bad things. The argument between Caleb and Joshua and the other 10 scouts had to do with whether or not Israel could and should go in and possess the land.
From 13:17-33, Alexander Maclaren preached on “Afraid of Giants.” (1) The dispatch and instructions of the explorers, 17-20; (2) The exploration, 21-25; (3) The two reports, 26-33.
I. RESPONSE OF THE PEOPLE, 14: 1-10
1. An Excuse to Murmur (14:1-4)
The congregation's response has many of the earmarks of a people who were looking for an excuse to complain. The reference of the majority of the scouts to giants, as well as to the land eating up the inhabitants 19 (32), was based on their observation of isolated cases.20 In this instance the report was false in effect. Certainly not all of the inhabitants were of such a size, nor all of the land barren and desolate. It was purely a case of picking the evidence they wanted to emphasize.
The people were quick to catch the spirit of pessimism which the 10 scouts projected; they began, again, to murmur as ones “peevish and discontented” (Deut. 1:27, Amp. OT). This time the murmuring was not only against Moses and Aaron but against God himself: Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or…in this wilderness! (2) They were afraid that their wives and children would die by the swords of these giants (3). In fear they proposed to each other, Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt (4).
2. The Loyal Four (14:5-10)
Moses,21 Aaron, Joshua, and Caleb pleaded with the congregation to look at the positive factors which supported their contention that a victorious occupation of Canaan was possible. To lend weight to their judgment, and as an expression of their deep concern, Caleb and Joshua rent their clothes (6), declaring, The land…is an exceeding good land (7). They contended that there was no reason why Israel could not enter. If the Lord delight in us, then he will bring us into this land (8). Only rebellion and fear could defeat God's people (9), while obedience, courage, and faith were the secrets of victory.
But the people cried out that Caleb and Joshua should be stoned. Such is the world's reward of many who have sought to be true messengers of God across the centuries (Acts 6:8—7:60). The stoning was averted on this occasion, however, by God's intervention. He appeared in His glory before the Tent of Meeting, visible to all the congregation (10).
The theme of 14:1-10 is “Weighed, and Found Wanting.” (1) Faithless cowards, 1-4; (2) The faithful four, 5-9; (3) The all-seeing Lord, 10 (A. Maclaren).
1. God Makes Moses a Proposition (14:11-19)
The first words that God spoke in unfolding the judgment upon the nation for its sin of unbelief were directed to Moses, How long will this people provoke me? (11) “How long will it be before they believe Me, for all the signs which I have performed among them?” (Amp. OT) Then followed God's proposition to Moses. He would destroy this people and replace Abraham with Moses as the head of the nation. This was not unlike the situation which faced Moses on Mount Sinai (Exod. 32:1-14) after the incident of the golden calf.
Moses turned the proposition aside, calling attention to God's integrity. The inhabitants (14) of Canaan were well aware of God's reputation in His care for the Israelites. To destroy Israel now would be to destroy these nations' respect for God. They would say that “God was not able to bring His people into the land He swore to give them” (16, Amp. OT).
Moses' appeal was to God's character, which would not allow such a total destruction as had been suggested. “Moses pleads with God to spare His people out of regard for His own self-revealed Thirteen Attributes of Divine Mercy and Forgiveness, enumerated earlier (Exod. 34:6-7) and reproduced here.”22 Amidst the definitions of God, these attributes stand out as describing Him in ethical terms.23 Such principles must finally prevail, not at the expense of God's law and justice—and by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children (18)—but prevail because of the Cross and God's provision for redemption. Verses 17-18 are translated by Moffatt, “Ah, let the power of my Lord be displayed in carrying out thy promise that the Eternal is slow to be angry, rich in love, forgiving iniquity and transgression.”
2. Condemned to the Wilderness (14:20-38)
God pardoned this sin of unbelief, according to Moses' word (20), but there was to be a punishment.24 “As truly as I live,” the Lord said, “and as all the earth shall be filled with the Glory of the Lord (cf. Isa. 6:3; 11:9), because…these men have not heeded my voice, surely they shall not see the land” (21-23, Amp. OT). Ten times (22) suggests the number of completeness or fullness (Berk.).
This meant that all who were twenty years of age and older would die in the wilderness (29) and not come into the land (30). In 28, God said, As ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you. In v. 2 the people had prayed, “Would God we had died in this wilderness!” Now their rebellious prayer would be answered. Caleb and Joshua were exceptions to this, of course, as two of the scouts who gave a “good report.”25 The time involved in this punishment was 40 years,26 after the number of the days in which ye searched the land (34), one year for each day. This, too, was the minimum time comprising a generation, the time it would take, under normal situations, for the old generation to pass. While the children did not partake in full measure of the judgment, the wandering aimlessly for 40 years was, in a very real sense, a punishment for them also. Breach of promise (34) is better “my displeasure” (RSV). The 10 scouts who made all the congregation to murmur (36) died by the plague (37) immediately, as a seal upon the judgment which God had outlined.
“Kadesh vs. Consecration'” is the theme of cc. 13—14. (1) Doubt suggested sending the spies, 13:1-2; cf. Deut. 1:21-22;
(2) The majority report encouraged unbelief, 13:25-29, 33; (3) Full-grown rebellion instead of total consecration and obedience—the consequences, 14:1-4, 30 (G. B. Williamson).
The great lesson of this passage is missed if it is viewed only as an event in history. The Scriptures plainly teach (Heb. 3: 1-19) that this account has its parallel in personal relationship with God. There is a personal “Canaan,” a spiritual “rest” which is the destination, the land of promise, for the Christian. In this personal journey there are often struggle and tears, faith and unbelief at Kadesh-barnea. The tragedy of Christian life is the great number who, starting on the way to Canaan, fail to enter in.
In 14:17-23 we see “Moses the Intercessor.” (1) The ground of divine forgiveness, thy mercy, 19; (2) The persistency of divine pardon, thou hast forgiven…even until now, 19; (3) The manner of divine forgiveness—pardon but inevitable consequences, 20-23; (4) The vehicle of divine forgiveness—Moses, the intercessor, a dim shadow of Christ, 19 (A. Maclaren).
3. Trying Without God (14:39-45)
When the full force of God's judgment registered with the people, they mourned greatly (39). How different from the “weeping” which took place when they first heard the report of the scouts (1)! The first was the weeping of frustration and despair, born of self-centeredness and self-pity. The second was the mourning born out of judgment that had overtaken them, the sorrow of being caught and punished.
When the people felt the pinch of punishment, they sought to push ahead regardless.27 They would try to redeem their lost opportunities and still enter in. So, early in the morning, 28 they went up to the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we be here, and we will go up unto the place which the Lord hath promised: for we have sinned (40). But it was too late. Keeping a former command, now that God had issued a new one, would not atone for their sin. Moses told them, Go not up, for the Lord is not among you (42) …because ye are turned away from the Lord, therefore the Lord will not be with you (43). The location of the mountain of v. 40 is unknown.
But they persisted in their plan and went to battle. The Amalekites and the Canaanites who lived in the hill country “smote the Israelites and beat them back” (45, Amp. OT). Hormah has not been pinpointed as a specific location, but see map 3 for a possible site. The expression could well be an idiom, referring to their total destruction, a state of hormah, as it were, much as Anglo-Saxons would speak of one “meeting his Waterloo.”
Israel's experience has served as a lesson for the succeeding centuries that to attempt anything without God is never successful. The conflict with the inhabitants of the southern hills also settled the course of Israel's later journey. They must bypass southern Palestine and enter Canaan by another route.