The Israelites now entered the wilderness of Paran and arrived at Kadesh. From this place the first attempt to enter the Promised Land was to be made. Apparently also Kadesh was the centre of the Israelite occupation during the period of wandering, and it was the starting-point for the final march into Canaan.
Kadesh, or Kadesh-barnea, lay on the south boundary of the Amorite highlands (Deu_1:19), “in the uttermost border” of Edom (Num_20:6). The conquest of Joshua reached thus far; it was therefore on the line, running from the Ascent of Akrabbim to the Brook of Egypt, which marked the southern frontier of Canaan (Num_34:4; Jos_15:3). In Gen_20:1 it is placed east of Gerar; and in Eze_47:19; Eze_48:28 between Tamar and the Brook of Egypt. All this points definitely to the place discovered by the Rev. J. Rowlands in 1842. The ancient name persists in the modern ‘Ain Qadis, “holy spring.” An abundant stream rises at the foot of a limestone cliff. Caught by the wells and pools made for its reception, it creates in its brief course, ere it is absorbed by the desert, a stretch of greenery and beauty amid the waste. From the high grazing grounds far and near, the flocks and herds come hither for the watering. The place was visited again by Dr. H. Clay Trumbull, whose book, Kadesh-Barnea (1884), contains a full account of the spring and its surroundings. It lies in the territory of the ‘Azazine Arabs, about fifty miles south of Beersheba.
1. Before taking action, Moses chose a representative of each of the twelve tribes, and sent them to spy out the land. As the native inhabitants were certainly well aware of the Israelites' intention to attack them, the spies were ordered to go up into the mountain, where they would be less likely to be observed, and to bring back a full report. “See the land, what it is; and the people that dwelleth therein, whether they be strong or weak, whether they be few or many; and what the land is that they dwell in, whether it be good or bad; and what cities they be that they dwell in, whether in camps, or in strong holds; and what the land is, whether it be fat or lean, whether there be wood therein, or not” (Num_13:18-20).
A comparison with Deu_1:1-46 shows that the project of sending the spies originated in the people's terror at the near prospect of the fighting which they had known to be impending ever since they left Egypt. Faith finds that nearness diminishes dangers, but sense sees them grow as they approach. The people answered Moses' brave words summoning them to the struggle with this feeble petition for an investigation. They did not honestly say that they were alarmed, but defined the scope of the exploring party's mission as simply to “bring us word again of the way by which we must go up, and the cities unto which we shall come.” Had they not the pillar blazing there above them to tell them that? The request was not fathomed in its true faithlessness by Moses, who thought it reasonable and yielded. So far Deuteronomy goes; but this narrative puts another colour on the mission, representing it as the consequence of God's command. The most eager discoverer of discrepancies in the component parts of the Pentateuch need not press this one into his service, for both sides may be true: the one representing the human feebleness which originated the wish; the other, the Divine compliance with the desire, in order to disclose the unbelief which unfitted the people for the impending struggle, and to educate them by letting them have their foolish way, and taste its bitter results. Putting the two accounts together, we get, not a contradiction, but a complete view, which teaches a large truth as to God's dealings; namely, that He often lovingly lets us have our own way to show us by the issues that His is better, and that daring, which is obedience, is the true prudence.1 [Note: A. Maclaren.]
2. The spies went and returned; they brought great news of the richness of the land, and in sign of this an immense bunch of grapes borne between two on a staff. But there was another side to their tale. It was a land which any one might well be afraid to attack. They had seen cities great and walled up to heaven, their walls towering, as we say, to the sky; the men they had seen were all of a bigger sort than themselves, men of stature; and in particular there were among them some beside whose height and strength the spies looked and felt like pigmies. “There we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” The land was one hard to conquer. But, besides this, it is “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” It has been, says a modern writer, a land of ruins from the dawn of history, the theatre of successive conquests and destructions. Because good, it had been fought for. It was for many ages the thoroughfare and the prize of the world. It would take fighting to keep.
This temper asserts itself in every department of activity. The prophet of evil insinuates himself into the sphere of commerce, politics, literature, and religion, moaning that things are not well with us, that hope, on our present lines, is untimely and misplaced, and that our best policy is to go back to Egypt, or at least to sit still in the wilderness. Wherever this temper appears, it is an offence to the great God of Hope who has not yet cast off His people, for it is a note of the poltroon and not of the true penitent. Scope for a chastisement which shall humble us there may be, but not for cowardice and despair. This noxious and unbelieving mood of mind did not die out with the ten spies in the wilderness, but is still endemic in our midst.1 [Note: T. G. Selby, The God of the Patriarchs, 238.]
3. Only two out of the twelve-Caleb of the tribe of Judah, and Joshua of Ephraim-showed themselves men of faith, and advised an immediate attack on the land. They had apparently taken a truer measure of the state of the Canaanites, who were (as subsequent events proved) not nearly as strong as they looked, being not only divided but much weakened by the continual incursions of the Egyptians. The exhortations of these two were overborne, however, by the voices of the majority.
It is bracing to turn from the creeping prudence which leaves God out of the account to the cheery ring of Caleb's sturdy confidence. His was “a minority report,” signed by only two of the “Commission.” These two had seen all that the others had, but everything depends on the eyes which look. The others had measured themselves against the trained soldiers and giants, and were in despair. These two measured Amalekites and Anaks against God, and were jubilant. They do not dispute the facts, but they reverse the implied conclusion, because they add the governing fact of God's help. How differently the same facts strike a man who lives by faith and one who lives by calculation!2 [Note: A. Maclaren.]
The fact that the ten should set themselves against the two did not arise from intellectual disparity. There is a striking unanimity in the report they brought back, and dissensions begin to appear only when they try to settle upon the policy they will recommend. They were agreed in the survey they had made of the land and in the judgment they passed upon the productiveness of the soil. There was no dispute whatever about the elementary facts which they had noted and brought together. What eye had seen and what ear had heard they related with admirable straightforwardness and accuracy. But the difference was in their interpretation of the facts and the programme it might be wise to follow in the near future. An optimist may lie, especially when he is entering upon the perilous task of special pleading, and a pessimist may also lie, although perhaps not quite so often; but this was not the sin of either the two or the ten. As a body they were quite honest. Caleb and Joshua were not dreamers, nor was their report vitiated by hallucinations. It was a question of religion that separated them from their colleagues and brought them into violent collision. They looked at the problem from the view-point of God's Covenant, and thought of themselves as links in a firmly welded chain of providential decrees.1 [Note: T. G. Selby, The God of the Patriarchs, 240.]
4. It is not much wonder that the news daunted the people. They were thoroughly frightened. They were a young people, only a year or two out of bondage. They had had the great deliverance of the Red Sea to encourage them; but their fears might tell them that that had been a stroke of good fortune on which they could not reckon again. And now, in their deep depression, there rose again that thought-Egypt; as before their hunger had said, Egypt with its flesh-pots rather than this light bread, so now their fears said, Egypt, where at least we were safe, where we could live, though it was in bondage, rather than this hopeless fight against the castles and the giants, with certain death. Better, indeed, to have died before they began this hopeless journey. “Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness! And wherefore hath the Lord brought us unto this land, to fall by the sword? And they said one to another, Let us make us a captain, and let us return into Egypt.”
(1) Note the faithless cowards.-The gravity of the revolt here is partly in its universality, which is emphasized in the narrative at every turn: “all the congregation” (Exo_16:1), “all the children of Israel,” “the whole congregation” (Exo_16:2), “all the assembly of the congregation” (which implies a solemn formal convocation), “all the company” (Exo_16:7), “all the congregation,” “all the children of Israel” (Exo_16:10). It was no sectional discontent, but full-blown and universal rebellion. The narrative draws a distinction between the language addressed to Moses and the whisperings to one another. Publicly, the unanimous voice suggested the return to Egypt as an alternative for discussion, and put it before Moses; to one another they muttered the proposal, which no man had yet courage to speak out, of choosing a new leader, and going back, whatever became of Moses. That could only mean murder as well as mutiny. The whispers would soon be loud enough.
(2) Note the short memory and churlish unthankfulness of unbelief.-It has been often objected to the story of the Exodus that such extremity of folly as is ascribed to the Israelites is inconceivable in such circumstances. How could men, with all these miracles in mind, and manna falling daily, and the pillar blazing every night, and the roll of Sinai's thunders scarcely out of their ears, behave thus? But any one who has honestly studied his own heart, and known its capacity for neglecting the plainest indications of God's presence, and forgetting the gifts of His love, will believe the story, and see brethren in these Israelites.
(3) Note the credulity of unbelief.-The word of Jehovah had told them that the land “flowed with milk and honey,” and that they were sure to conquer it. They would not believe Him unless they had verification of His promises. And when they got their own fears reflected in the multiplying mirror of the spies' report, they took men's words for gospel, and gave to them, without examination or qualification, a credence which they had never given to God.
(4) Note the bad bargain which unbelief is ready to make.-They contemplated a risky alternative to the brave dash against Canaan. There would be quite as much peril in going back as forward. The march from Egypt had not been so easy; but what would it be when there were no Moses, no Jethro, no manna, no pillar? And what sort of reception would await them in Egypt and what fate befall them there? In front, there were perils; but God would be with them. They would have to fight their way, but with the joyous feeling that victory was sure, and that every blow struck, and every step marched, brought them nearer triumphant peace. If they turned, every step would carry them farther from their hopes, and nearer the dreary putting on of the old yoke, which “neither they nor their fathers were able to bear.” They would buy slavery at as dear a price as they would have to pay for freedom and wealth.
5. This climax of faithlessness and rebellion was followed immediately by a Divine judgment. “The glory of the Lord appeared”; again, as at Sinai, the total destruction of Israel was threatened, and again also Moses stood forth in the power of intercession, rejecting the offer to make a great nation of his family alone, and pleading the former revelations of God's mercy and forgiveness from Egypt onwards. The prayer was effectual-“I have pardoned according to thy word”; but this time the punishment must be endured. None of the existing generation of warriors, from twenty years old and upwards, except Caleb and Joshua, should see the Land of Promise. Their carcases should fall in the wilderness, and only their children, after forty years' wandering, should enter in, and know the land which their fathers had despised.
The temper of the spies deserves the punishment afterwards meted out to it, because it despises the Divine power and forgets the signs and wonders of the past. The God of the called and chosen people was looked upon as though He counted for no more in the government of the world than the dumb idols of effete and condemned races. These ten reactionaries lost heart as they stood upon the threshold of a new history, and treated the Redeemer of the high hand and the outstretched arm as though He were a mere cypher in the world He had made.1 [Note: T. G. Selby, The God of the Patriarchs, 243.]
Oh thou of dark forebodings drear,
Oh thou of such a faithless heart,
Hast thou forgotten what thou art,
That thou hast ventured so to fear?
No weed on ocean's bosom cast,
Borne by its never-resting foam
This way and that, without a home,
Till flung on some bleak shore at last:
But thou the lotus, which above
Swayed here and there by wind and tide,
Yet still below doth fixed abide,
Fast rooted in the eternal Love.2 [Note: R. C. Trench, Poems, 222.]
