forefathers had done formerly at Rephidim. Moses, irritated by their chidings, “with his rod smote the rock twice,” instead of “speaking to the rock before their eyes,” as the Lord had commanded him (comp. Num. 27:14; Deut. 9:23; Ps. 106:32, 33). Because of this act of his, in which Aaron too was involved, neither of them were to be permitted to set foot within the Promised Land (Num. 20:12, 24). The King of Edom would not permit them to pass on through his territory, and therefore they commenced an eastward march, and “came unto Mount Hor” (20:22).[iv]
Having arrived at Kadesh Barnea, Moses urged his people to move on into the Amorite hill country, the southern reaches of which lay only a few miles to the north. At last they had come to the land that the Lord was about to give them. In fact, Moses asserted the possession of the land was such an absolute certainty that he could speak of it as the land “the LORD your God has given you” (v. 21). The difference is that theologically and by divine grant from ancient times (cf. Gen 13:14–17) the occupation of the land was a fait accompli (a done deal) but historically and practically it was yet to be taken (hence the participle of v. 20). In any event, whether in potential or in fact, the land lay open to the people for their taking. The urgency of Moses’ insistence that they do so may be seen in the double imperatives “go up, take possession” (v. 21; cf. v. 8), which in the Hebrew text (unlike the NIV) lacks any conjunction (Dt 1:20–21).
Even though God had commanded them to go and take the land Moses and the elders decided to send spies into the land. Though the plan to send spies may have bespoken a lack of total trust in God and, in fact, resulted in an undermining of Israel’s resolve to enter Canaan at all (vv. 26–28). However one can hardly criticize sending the spies as imprudent or impractical in such circumstances. In fact, the command (or at least permission) of the Lord in the first place (Num 13:1–2) is sufficient to show that the procedure was not totally lacking of divine support.[v]
So from there Moses relates that 12 spies were sent into the land to determine whether it was indeed the good land God had promised. But the Israelite spies were fearful and dismayed and reported that even though the land was as God said it was that the people of the land were strong and could not be defeated (see details in Numbers).
Moses said: “Yet you were not willing to go up, but rebelled against the command of the LORD your God; and you grumbled in your tents and said, ‘Because the LORD hates us, He has brought us out of the land of Egypt to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites to destroy us. ‘Where can we go up? Our brethren have made our hearts melt, saying, “The people are bigger and taller than we; the cities are large and fortified to heaven. And besides, we saw the sons of the Anakim [nephilim] there.”’ “Then I said to you, ‘Do not be shocked, nor fear them. ‘The LORD your God who goes before you will Himself fight on your behalf, just as He did for you in Egypt before your eyes, and in the wilderness where you saw how the LORD your God carried you, just as a man carries his son, in all the way which you have walked, until you came to this place.’ “But for all this, you did not trust the LORD your God” (Dt 1:26–32).
Moses relates that God was very angry with the people and swore none of them would see the Promised Land but that God would give it to their sons (except for Caleb and Joshua). Curiously Moses said: “The Lord was angry with me also on your account, saying, ‘Not even you shall enter there” (Dt 1:37). Moses is referring to events related in Numbers 20:24 in which God said to Moses and Aaron: “Because you have not believed Me, to treat Me as holy in the sight of the sons of Israel, therefore YOU SHALL NOT BRING THIS ASSEMBLY into the land which I have given them.” That verse in Numbers could be read two ways (i.e. that Moses and Aaron would not lead Israel into the Land or that “this assembly, the assembly that grumbled” he would not lead into the land). If the former were the way God meant it than He never intended Moses and Aaron to be alive at the time of conquering of the Land. Thus, in that case, Moses striking the rock (Nu 20) was not the reason he was not allowed into the Land but God had decided much earlier. Apparently that was the way Moses understood it. If God had meant that Moses would not lead only the rebellious people into the Land, but their sons, then the sin at Meribah was determinative when he struck the rock in anger. If Moses’ interpretation was correct he knew 40 years earlier he would not lead the people into the Land.
However the Israelites were convicted about having brought a bad report (they felt as though they had sinned) and decided they would attempt an attack on the Canaanites on their own without the ark of the Covenant or, as it turns out, the blessing of God. Moses said: “And the LORD said to me, ‘Say to them, “Do not go up, nor fight, for I am not among you; lest you be defeated before your enemies.”’ “So I spoke to you, but you would not listen. Instead you rebelled against the command of the LORD, and acted presumptuously and went up into the hill country. “And the Amorites who lived in that hill country came out against you, and chased you as bees do, and crushed you from Seir to Hormah. “Then you returned and wept before the LORD; but the LORD did not listen to your voice, nor give ear to you” (Dt 1:42–45). The Israelites were beaten badly and humiliated.
The Amorites, for the Canaanites generally, defeated Israel. In Numbers, the Amalekites are specially mentioned as joining with the Amorites in chastising the Israelites. These tribes came down from the higher mountain range to the lower height which the Israelites had gained, and drove them with great slaughter as far as Hormah, in Seir, chasing them as bees do, a pursuit with keen ferocity those who disturb them. Hormah (Ban-place), the earlier name of which was Zephath (Judg. 1:17), was a royal city of the Canaanites, taken by the Israelites towards the close of their wanderings, and placed by them under a ban (Nu. 21:1, etc.), which ban was fully executed only in the time of the Judges.[vi] There could not be any hesitation in order that Israel might capitalize on the element of surprise but, more importantly, because the Lord, “the God of your fathers,” had thus commanded.
We will learn more about a ‘ban’ in Joshua but a definition here is appropriate. After battle it often happened that the Israelites observed a ‘ban’ (ḥērem), which meant that a whole city or country, people and possessions, would be set apart for God. No Israelite was permitted to appropriate for personal needs anything or anyone belonging to a place which had been put under a ban; failure in this matter met with the direst consequences (Jos. 7; 1 Sa. 15). The Israelites were not allowed the spoils of the battle. Sometimes the ban might not be so comprehensive as in the case of Jericho (Jos. 6:18-24) (where everything was destroyed) but always the right of God to the fruit of victory was being asserted. The ban was God’s way of dealing with ‘the iniquity of the Amorites’ (Gn. 15:16) and is central to the OT concept of ‘the holy war’. Moreover, if pagan tendencies were discovered among the Israelites themselves, the offending community was likewise to be put under a ban (Dt. 13:12-18). And if the whole nation incurred God’s displeasure, as they often did, then the agents of retribution could be the very pagans whom God had previously repudiated (Is. 10:5-6; Hab. 1:5-11). The ultimate is reached at the end of the monarchical period, when God announces his intention of himself fighting against Judah and on the side of the Babylonians (Je. 21:5-7). For a considerable time, however, the prophetic community had enjoyed the assurance of a better hope—nothing less than the eradication of war from the earth and the inauguration of a new era of peace by a Davidic ‘Prince of Peace’ (Is. 9:6 cf Is. 2:4; Mi. 4:3).[vii]
Oh the grievous consequences of unbelief. Moses rehearses in the hearing of Israel the strange story of “their manners in the wilderness,” and reminds them how their unbelief had provoked the Lord to anger, and had deprived vast numbers of them of the rest they had hoped to enjoy. We ought to be at no loss how to apply this to present day uses. The Holy Spirit by the mouth of David renews the warning voice. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, both by argument and exhortation, repeatedly says: “Therefore,
