Numbers 13:1

This chapter has a record of the sending out of the spies to survey the land of Canaan, an event that proved to be pivotal in the history of Israel. In this chapter, there is:

(1) the cause of sending out spies (Numbers 13:1,2)

(2) the choice of the spies (Numbers 13:2-16)

(3) the commission of the spies (Numbers 13:17-20)

(4) the conduct of the spies (Numbers 13:21-24)

(5) the confirmation of what God had said about Canaan by the spies (Numbers 13:25-27)

(6) the contradiction of God's Word by the majority report of the spies (Numbers 13:28,29), and

(7) the counter-report of the minority (Numbers 13:30), and

(8) the crooked rebuttal by the majority (Numbers 13:31-33)[1]

The unity, consistency, and harmony of this amazing narrative are unassailable. Never was the criticism any more bankrupt than in the assaults directed against this chapter. A summary of critical views is that of Wade:

"This narrative is marked by numerous discrepancies, being a fusion of two accounts drawn from JE and P. In JE the spies start from Kadesh, and the survey is limited to southern Palestine; the report of land is favorable, but the inhabitants are alarming, and only Caleb opposes the majority report. In P the spies start from Paran, the survey extends to the far north boundary of Canaan, and the report of the country is unfavorable, with both Caleb and Joshua dissenting."[2]

"Kadesh vs. Paran as the starting place ..." There is not a scholar on earth who knows with certainty the exact location and boundaries of either Paran or Kadesh, and the conceited assumption that these terms are in any sense contradictory is absolutely untenable. Kadesh was a station within the much larger district called Paran. It was natural that both names would appear in a truthful narrative.

"The journey covered only southern Canaan ... it extended all the way to Hamath ..." Nowhere in the Bible is there any suggestion whatever that the journey of the spies was limited to southern Canaan. Such a view is mere scholarly imagination imported into the text. The narrative does not have a summary of all that the spies did during that forty days, and the mention of the valley of Eschol (in southern Canaan) was purely incidental to identifying the source of the cluster, and cannot mean that the spies went nowhere else.

"Caleb alone mentioned as opposing the majority ... both Caleb and Joshua are said to oppose the majority ..." The first mention of Caleb (Numbers 13:30) came from his being the leader of the minority and simply cannot mean that he was alone in his opposition. In Numbers 14:6, it is revealed that both Joshua and Caleb opposed the majority report. A discrepancy or contradiction could be alleged here only in the event that one of the passages said Caleb alone stood against the evil report. Where is any such statement?

We may summarize all critical fulminations against this chapter in the words of Keil:

"These `discrepancies' do not exist in the Biblical narrative, but have been introduced by the critic himself by arbitrary interpolations .... We cannot possibly suppose that two accounts have been linked or interwoven here ... This style of narrative is common, not only in the Bible, but also in the historical works of the Arabs."[3]

"And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, Send thou men, that they may spy out the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel: of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man, every one a prince among them. And Moses sent them from the wilderness of Paran according to the commandment of Jehovah: all of them men who were heads of the children of Israel."

Here at the outset the question arises as to "Whose idea was it?" that the children of Israel should spy out the land. Here, there is no mention of the people as being behind such a plan; but in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 1:20-22) it is revealed that the people themselves were behind this proposal. Is this a "contradiction?" Certainly not. Did not God command Balaam to "go with the men," whereas the desire and purpose of his doing so originated not with God at all, but in the evil heart of Balaam (Numbers 22:35)? Another instance in which the same phenomenon occurs is in the life of Paul. It was the church that sent Paul up to the so-called "Jerusalem Conference" (Acts 15:2); and yet Paul himself stated that he "went up by revelation" (Galatians 2:2), indicating that he went by God's commandment and approval. There are numerous examples of this style of narrative in the Bible, in which "the whole picture" appears only in the light of "all that the scriptures have spoken." It can be nothing but a corrupted exegesis that sees supplementary passages as discrepancies.

As a matter of truth, there is no way that the Israelites should have desired to send out spies. Was not God their leader? Was not His visible appearance among them day and night in the phenomenal glory of the fiery cloudy pillar? Did God need any information that their spies could have discovered? In this episode, the Israelites were the prototype of all faithless and timid brethren, who, in the face of clear duty, prefer not to act, but to disguise their unwillingness as prudence in "seeking more facts."

Their request for spies indicated a lack of faith. They were not trusting God. God had already spied out the land. He knew all about it. He would not have sent them to possess the land unless He had known that they were able to take it. When they finally did enter it, the giants were still there, and all the difficulties and problems were still there; but, of course, they took it anyway. Yes, God permitted them to send out the spies; but "He gave them their request; but sent leanness into their souls."[4]

There are two things in this passage: (1) the lack of faith on the part of the people; and (2) the compliance of God with their request, for the purpose of educating them and letting them "have their foolish way and taste its bitter results."[5]