Bible Commentaries
Numbers 13

Verse 2

2.Of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man. If all had been taken from one tribe, or from any single portion of the people, their fidelity might have been suspected by the others. God, therefore, would have each tribe assured by its own witness, in order that their report might be more unquestionable. All cause for jealousy was also to be taken away; lest, if any tribe had been passed over, it might have excepted against the messengers, whom it supposed to have been elected in contempt of it. This, then, was the advantage of the equal distribution, lest any sinister suspicion or offence might disturb the unanimity of the whole people. Secondly, it is required that they should be possessed of personal dignity, since God commands that chief men should be chosen, whose testimony would be of greater authority; for it would have been easy to throw discredit upon obscure individuals. Since, however, both precautions were unsuccessful, it appears from hence that there is no counsel so wise and salutary as not to be capable of perversion by the wickedness of mankind. Thus this excellent providence of God rendered the people the more inexcusable. At the same time, God has reminded us once for all by this example that, however those, who seemed to be like pillars, may totter and stumble, or even fall altogether, still our minds must be supported by faith, so as not to give way.

Their names are enumerated, in perpetual remembrance of their ignominy, except in the case of two, Joshua and Caleb; for it was just that their crime should be handed down to all ages, and that the infamy of their perfidiousness should never be blotted out, since they endeavored, as far as in them lay, to bring to naught the promise and the grace of God.

Moses gave the name of Jehoshua to the son of Nun in the spirit of prophecy, as a presage of the exalted function to which he was destined. Ambition is so rash, that men are often disappointed in the result, when they invent titles of honor of their own accord; but Moses was not induced by the blindness of affection to change the name Oshea into Jehoshua; but God directed his tongue and mind thus to commend, beforehand, him who ⁽⁴⁹⁾ was to be the future minister of their preservation. Still it cannot be inferred with certainty from this passage at what time the new name was given him; for it is not specified that he was called Jehoshua at the time he was sent out; nay, it is probable that he had been previously thus distinguished, viz., from the period in which he had been associated with Moses as his companion and minister in all important matters.

(49) “Afin que ce nom d’honneur servist a l’authoriser;” in order that this name of honor might serve to give him authority. — Fr.

Calvin here alludes to the apparent contradiction arising from the fact that Joshua had already been called by his new name in Exodus 17:9; and Numbers 11:28, which, as Hengstenberg remarks, was a topic of discussion as early as the times of Justin Martyr. Hengstenberg reviews the three modes of meeting the difficulty proposed, viz., 1. That he was so called in the earlier passages by prolepsis. 2. That Moses now only renewed the name. 3. That a statement is here made of what had taken place a considerable time before. To this view he himself inclines, and says, “That the author here first mentioned that he, whom he had originally called simply Joshua, originally bore the name of Hoshea, was not without good reason. What had been hitherto related of Joshua, belonged to him as a servant of God; the sacred name was, therefore, properly employed. But here Hoshea must stand; for he went to spy out the land, not as a servant of Moses, but as one of the heads of the children of’ Israel,’ — one of the plenipotentiaries of the congregation.” — Genuineness of Pentateuch, vol. 2, p. 323.

Verse 18

18.And see the land what it is. The counsel of Moses had this object, that the people might be made aware how rich and fertile the land was; for a barren country does not support a large population; and the healthfulness of a locality is inferred from the rigor of its inhabitants, tie, therefore, chiefly insists on the goodness of the land and its abundant production of fruits. Still, perhaps, God would intentionally have the Israelites forewarned, that they would have to do with strong and powerful enemies; lest they might be alarmed and discouraged at suddenly beholding them. But the main point was, that the pleasantness and fertility of the land might allure them to take possession of it.

Verse 22

22.And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron. Their direct course was not, indeed, towards the south, but they proceeded along the southern border, until they came to Rehob and Hamath, after having passed the mountains. Hebron, however, in which Abraham had sojourned, is specified from amongst the other cities; and it is probable that the three sons of the giant, who are here named, were in possession of that city. But some think that Anak is not a proper name, and is used, by enallage of the number, for giants. In fact, giants are elsewhere called Anakim. Nor is there any doubt but that these three, who are mentioned, were formidable from their great stature and strength, as we gather from the book of Joshua. It is, then, equivalent to saying that this city was then possessed by warlike men, famous for their prowess. It will, however, appear from the end of the chapter, that Anak was the proper name of a man, whose sons were of excessive height. The antiquity of the city is afterwards signalized by comparison, viz., that it was founded seven years before Zoan, one of the chief cities of Egypt, and of which mention is often made in Scripture. Heathen writers call it Tanis; ⁽⁵⁰⁾ and it is situated on one of the seven famous mouths of the Nile, which is called from the city, Ostium Taniticum. Now, since the Egyptians gloried in their antiquity above all other nations, it is evident that the land of Canaan was well peopled immediately after the deluge; and this is a sign of its great fertility, for if the neighboring countries had been more so, they would. not have settled themselves there by preference, when they were at liberty to make their choice. A prolepsis is to be noted in the name of the valley of Eshcol: for it was afterwards that it began to be so called by the Israelites in memory of the remarkable cluster of grapes which Moses states to have been brought from hence; and this is immediately after specified,

(50) Thus the word is translated by the LXX. See note on Psalms 78:0. —C. Soc. Edit. Vol. 3 p. 239.

Verse 25

25.And they returned from searching of the land. The activity and diligence of the twelve men is commended, who in so short a time examined the whole of the land from the desert of Sin to the sea, and along the whole course of the Jordan; and this, too, in the hottest part of the year, when the grapes were beginning to ripen. Thus far, then, they faithfully executed the task intrusted to them. In their report, also, there seems to be nothing unworthy of honest men. They had been commanded by Moses to consider the inhabitants of the land, whether they were strong or weak, and also whether the cities were fortified; and they relate nothing which was not true and fully ascertained by them. In a word, at first sight their relation contains nothing worthy of reprehension. Nevertheless, we may gather from the context that the ten of them, whose desire was to turn away the people, spoke in such discouraging terms of their difficulties, that they produced exactly the contrary effect to what Moses had hoped. No other accusation, however, is as yet alleged against them, than that, by maliciously and deceptively inspiring despondency, they held back the people from entering the land. Although, therefore, they had not openly lied, they were wanting in sincerity. Perhaps, too, the whole of their address is not recorded; because Moses deemed it sufficient to state their perversity of feeling, in that they added to their praises of the land an exception, which overwhelmed the people’s minds with fear. From whence also we gather a useful admonition, that crafty sophists avail nothing with God, when they endeavor to cover their deceit by tortuous prevarication’s. Wherefore, if we desire to approve our discourse to God, we must take care to lay aside all such unfair evasions, and, rejecting all disguise, to speak simply and from the heart. The ten spies, then, lay a foundation of good faith, in order that they may afterwards be more competent to deceive. The land, they say, is a good one, except that the people are strong; and what is this but that there was little hope that the Israelites would obtain the blessing promised them by God, and that the attempt must by no means be made? With the same view they thunder out ⁽⁵¹⁾ the names of several nations, in order to increase the alarm; for, after having reported that they had seen the sons of Anak, they state that their contests would be too arduous with the various peoples, who would advance from all sides to resist them.

(51) “Ils parlent a plene bouche;” they speak with open mouth. — Fr.

Verse 30

30.And Caleb stilled the people before Moses. That is, he restrained the murmurs of the people before Moses, against whom they had begun to rise tumultuously. Hence it appears that much was said on both sides which is passed over in silence, for there would have been no need of restraining the violence of the people, unless the contention had waxed warm. His words, however, show what was the state of the whole case and question, viz., that the ten treacherous spies had dissuaded the people from foolishly advancing to the land, which it was impossible to win; and urged them not to attack rashly very powerful enemies, to whom they would be far from equally matched. But Caleb opposes them with the confidence of victory. We (he says) shall conquer the land, and upon this he grounds his exhortation. Moreover, there is no doubt but that, relying on God’s promise, he believed that they would, be successful, and thus boldly foretold it, whilst the others took not at all into consideration that, with the banner of the Lord before them, the people would come into the promised inheritance.

This does not appear to accord with what Moses relates in Deuteronomy 1:0, where he absolves the spies, and casts the whole blame on the people; but the contradiction is easily reconciled, for there he had no other object than to assert the criminality of the Israelites, who, by their contumacy, had for a long time impeded the fulfillment of God’s promise. Omitting, therefore, that part of the history which did not affect the matter in hand, he only adverts to that which convicted them of wicked ingratitude, i.e., that the fertility of the land was commended by the spies; and consequently, since the people were abundantly assured of God’s liberality, that they sinned grossly by rejecting it. He, therefore, states their crime to have been, that they were rebellious against the mouth or word of Jehovah, viz., because they had refused to follow Him when He invited them.

What Moses here ascribes to Caleb alone, he elsewhere attributes to Joshua also. It is plain, then, that Caleb spoke for both of them, and that Joshua was prudently and modestly silent, lest a tumultuous altercation should arise. It may, however, be probably conjectured that the bravery and firmness of him, who is praised, was the more conspicuous, whilst the honesty of Moses is perceivable, inasmuch as, by his preference of Caleb, he obscures and diminishes the praise due to his own minister.

Verse 32

32.But the men that went up with him said. We here see, as in a mirror, how impiety gradually gathers audaciousness in evil. At the outset, the authors of the rebellion were ambiguous in their expressions, and contented themselves with obscure insinuations; they now throw aside all shame, and openly and acrimoniously oppose the address of Caleb, which was certainly nothing less than casting discredit on God’s words, and setting at naught His power. God had promised to give the land to the Israelites; they deny that He will do so. He had afforded them many proofs that nothing is difficult to Him: they deny that His aid will suffice against the forces of their enemies. Moreover, they at length break out into such impudence, that in their falsehood they contradict themselves. They had confessed that the land was rich; they now declare that it consumes or devours its inhabitants, which is entirely the reverse. For this is equivalent to saying, that the wretched men, who cultivated it, wore themselves out with their assiduous labors; or, at ally rate, that it was pestilential from the inclemency of its climate; either of which statements was utterly false. The mode in which some understand it, viz., that the giants ⁽⁵²⁾ in their violence committed indiscriminate slaughter, is without foundation; for this evil was by no means to be feared by the people, after the extermination of the inhabitants. I do not doubt, then, but that it means that the cultivation of the land was difficult, and full of much inconvenience.

At the end of the last verse, where it is said, “as grasshoppers,” etc., I think the words are inverted, and ought to be thus connected; “As grasshoppers are despised in our eyes, so we were looked down upon by these giants on account of our lowness of stature.”

(52) Corn. a Lapide has the following note on verse 33; “נפלים, nephilim, i.e., giants, who are called nephilim, that is, falling, because they were so tall, that those who saw them fell from terror, or rather falling, i.e., making to fall, (the Kal being put for the Hiphil,) laying prostrate and slaying other men in all directions, for these giants were savage men and truculent tyrants.”