Off the Pedestal
Then all of you approached me and said, “Let us send men before us, that they may search out the land for us, and bring back to us word of the way by which we should go up and the cities which we shall enter.” Deuteronomy 1:22 NASB
All of you – Who initiates sending the spies? According to Deuteronomy, the people request that Moses send the spies. But the same event in Numbers recounts a different view:
Then the Lord spoke to Moses saying, “Send out for yourself men so that they may spy out the land of Canaan, which I am going to give to the sons of Israel; you shall send a man from each of their fathers’ tribes, every one a leader among them” (Numbers 13:1-2).
So which is it? Are the people the ones who initiate the action or is God? We can resolve this matter without resorting to linguistic gymnastics if we pay attention to the emotional difference between the Numbers account and the Deuteronomy account. Numbers is more or less an account of the situation when it happens. But Deuteronomy is a recollection of the event years later, just before the new generation enters the land. A lot has happened to Moses in the intervening years. Moses attempted to guide the people according to God’s original plan. That plan failed. The result was forty years of obstinacy by the people and forty years of frustration for Moses. We have already examined verses that indicate just how fed up Moses becomes. He asks to be killed rather than continue as leader. He complains that God has saddled him with a responsibility he didn’t ask for and cannot handle. After years of dealing with disobedience, rebellion, and demands, he strikes the rock in anger rather than speaking to it. Zornberg notes that this act is not a hasty mistake. It is the result of years of exasperation suddenly released in harsh action. Moses has shown God that he is no longer fit to lead the people into the Land. God needs a leader who is now characterized by hope and compassion, ready to go forward. But Moses has become bitter and angry. It’s time for a change.
So when we come to the Deuteronomy passage we discover Moses’ assessment of the people. And what happens? Moses couches the event as if it is the fault of the people. It isn’t God who is responsible. It’s them. They are the culprits. They are the ones who are preventing him from realizing the dream of entry. Of course, we recognize that this generation, the ones he is addressing, is not the generation of the rebels, but Moses doesn’t see it that way. In fact, if we go forward to the end of Deuteronomy, we find Moses blasting the people for their future failures. The reason Deuteronomy’s account is different than Numbers is simple: Deuteronomy is an account given by a bitter old man.
The book of Numbers is a story of the lack of confidence that God’s chosen people really have. For forty years Moses has had to deal with them, to put up with their constant distrust of God and of him. In the end, Moses comes down from the pedestal of “saint” and shows that he is just like you and me. When he decides to send the spies rather than refuse to succumb to the faithless people, he hopes that they will finally accept his leadership and acknowledge his authority. But he’s mistaken. He doesn’t stand up for God, and as a result, he has to live with this failure for forty years. In the end, forty years is just too much.
Topical Index: Deuteronomy 1:22, Numbers 13:1-2, Moses, emotion
The two accounts are from different perspectives, but I would like to suggest that they can still be collated if you go look at the record of how Moses typically went about business in other passages, (such as the one where they complained about the manna). People want something: Moses goes to YHVH and asks what to do about it: YHVH says to accede to the request, and tells him how. We are looking in from the outside at a two-way dance, after all. I want to ask; let’s not try to read incompatibility into the record that has no confirming basis. We see the same when we gets to Kings vs. Chronicles: one is the political record written about the kings for them from their point of view: the other is written by the priests for the people from YHVH’s point of view. Same events, but not the same viewers (paradigm).
P.S. That “bitter old man” got some very special treatment before as well as after his death. They say it’s only paranoia if it isn’t true. Perhaps the bitterness (which he repented earnestly for, don’t forget) is understandable from a human standpoint, but also from God’s standpoint, too (YHVH gave Moses the prophecies about that future, after all – Moses didn’t just make it up). Maybe we could say that Moses striking the rock and YHVH stepping aside and allowing other nations to vex and even captivate the people were both actions of long-pent up frustration: a wits-end type reaction. Just how do you get the kids’ attention, after all? Moses’ action was impotent and self-serving and didn’t get the job done, of course (which are why he shouldn’t have done it). Let Daddy do it right.
Methinks you are too eager to make all the discrepancies go away. Did you every ask yourself why you need it all to be “reconciled”? What if it is just what it appears to be: two accounts of the same event from two different perspectives, with, by the way, very different conclusions. Do you ever wonder if you aren’t really employing a Greek view of Hebraic material, that is, expecting that there is one right answer and when the right answer is discovered, all the other “answers” will either be found to be false or will be incorporated into the larger, “right” answer. This epistemological assumption is thoroughly Platonic, by the way, and underlies the Western view of truth, but it isn’t the way the Semitic worldview works.
What is truth? I didn’t write the Book: I can only read it, and it says BOTH things. You are the one insisting that only one is ‘correct’. Who’s view is more Greek? It was an actual event, after all. Why can’t YHVH have given that response? If the Book says it, why can’t it be so?
I am very eager to reconcile and make all discrepancies go away, for the more “discrepancies” that can be found, the more and more critics and teachers will discredit the Bible and the less and less young people will bother with, what will be considered, a mythologized relic that can mean anything you want it mean.
The Hebrew says the sun rises in the east while the Greek says the sun is stationary (in context) and the Earth rotates toward the east. Is one right and one wrong? No, just two different points of view, literally, one from on Earth and one from outer space.
Is there something wrong with striving to find harmony to everyone’s satisfaction?
If I will just go with what Scriptures says, and not read into it what the science textbook says, it does say the earth (erets = land) is IMMOVABLE.
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…”
Also, just by the simple and careful reading of Scripture passages, it would seem that the sun and the moon are the ones moving, from east to west. Hence, they were the ones that had to be stopped during one of Joshua’s battles.
Joshua 10:13
“So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.”
It could be a matter of “perspective”…but then could it be the truth? It sounded outrageous to me at first, but, as with everything else, I always assume that I’m the one in need of a paradigm shift, not Yah or His word. I’m the one who needs to adjust my belief system. “…let God be found true, though every man be found a liar,..”
Unfortunately, the simple reading of the face value of the text ignores the critical CULTURAL perspective of the author. Exegesis requires that we do our best to get the same view as the author and the audience. That does NOT mean that what is written in the text means the same thing we think the words say today. It means that if the author thought the world was flat, then he wrote that way, even if we know now that this was not true. There are certainly other cases where the biblical text makes claims about physical reality that are not true scientifically but were part of the worldview of the author at the time the text was written. If we remember that the Bible wasn’t written for us, we won’t make the mistake of thinking that every word in Scripture has the same meaning as the word as we use it today.
So what would have been the authors’ critical cultural perspective of the “cosmos”, based on their writings? Was it a spinning globe revolving around the sun? I’m asking questions just as a child would. I converse a lot with my children. I find it also helpful to approach Scriptures with a child-like faith. Sometimes, a simple and careful reading, with great attention to details, is all it needs. But many times deeper diggings are necessary. All the time, a Hebraic (crossed-over) mindset that is teachable and humble is required. ?
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat…”
…Listen to what they say, but recognize that seat is not a pedestal.
God wasn’t kidding when He said:
“There is only One who is good.”
Paul echoed that when he wrote: “there
is no one who does good, not even one.”
So, the One who is good, gives faith to all
who will receive it. But as we see, faith is not
a panacea for the soul who is more led by his
own deceptive thoughts than by the elevated
chamber faith provides.
It seems it all comes to the individual and his/her
character. “No one can serve two masters.”
Take Abraham. “Against all hope, Abraham in hope
believed and so became the father of many nations . . .”
Ah, the faith of Abraham.
By faith, it goes one way.
I have heard a good explanation for this “discrepancy” from Tom Bradford (Torah Class). And what you said here, Skip, gives support to it.
“The book of Numbers is a story of the lack of confidence that God’s chosen people really have.”
Tom said that the idea of the first “spying out” (tur = better translated as “seeking out” or “exploring”) came from the people, not Yah (as supported by Deut 1:22). They wanted to check out the goods before buying (into) it. So, Abba, in His great compassion and understanding, allowed their request, and told Moshe to “Send out for yourself men so that they may spy out the land of Canaan…” This was not a spying out, in the sense of reconnoitering (military strategy for spying on the enemy). Note the difference in the Hebrew words used for “spying” in Numbers 13:1-2 (tur) and Joshua 2:1 (ragal).
Another proof presented by Tom Bradford was the number of “spies” sent. If being incognito (military strategy) was essential, why send a big group of 12 people, a representative from each tribe, instead of just two? Joshua’s sending of the two spies was for a very different reason, not from a lack of trust in YHWH.
“SPY OUT the land of Canaan” (Num 13:2) vs “secretly sent out two men from Shittim TO SPY,…” (Joshua 2:1)
PS: I also compared, via biblehub, the usages throughout Scriptures of “tur” and “ragal”. Very helpful.
Disclaimer: I’m no Hebrew scholar. Just someone digging through and seeking Scriptures to find treasures.
This is a re-post. I might not have posted it properly the first time.
I have heard a good explanation for this “discrepancy” from Tom Bradford (Torah Class). And what you said here, Skip, gives support to it.
“The book of Numbers is a story of the lack of confidence that God’s chosen people really have.”
Tom said that the idea of the first “spying out” (tur = better translated as “seeking out” or “exploring”) came from the people, not Yah (as supported by Deut 1:22). They wanted to check out the goods before buying (into) it. So, Abba, in His great compassion and understanding, allowed their request, and told Moshe to “Send out for yourself men so that they may spy out the land of Canaan…” This was not a spying out, in the sense of reconnoitering (military strategy for spying on the enemy). Note the difference in the Hebrew words used for “spying” in Numbers 13:1-2 (tur) and Joshua 2:1 (ragal).
Another proof presented by Tom Bradford was the number of “spies” sent. If being incognito (military strategy) was essential, why send a big group of 12 people, a representative from each tribe, instead of just two? Joshua’s sending of the two spies was for a very different reason, not from a lack of trust in YHWH.
“SPY OUT the land of Canaan” (Num 13:2) vs “secretly sent out two men from Shittim TO SPY,…” (Joshua 2:1)
PS: I also compared, via biblehub, the usages throughout Scriptures of “tur” and “ragal”. Very helpful.
Skip (@August 4, 2019 10:28 am)
Original context is certainly what we must strive for, yes. But, then again, this is true of every work, making this methodology a bit insufficient to my way of thinking. That is, I’m sure we agree that the Tanakh was Divinely (meaning Deity, YHWH) inspired, don’t we? Given that, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume there is a deeper meaning to what is written in this corpus? And, if so, couldn’t it be both/and such that the original meaning is valid while the Divine reading is even more valid? By this I mean that all the Scripture Kay cites can be read that the earth is fixed on its axis and within our solar system—or under the understanding of the original human writer. This dual meaning, does no violence to the original writer’s words, I think. Would you agree?