Study

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 ⁴⁹⁴⁹     “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; 24:13; 33:11; 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. 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.

Numbers 12:16. And afterward the people departed from Hazeroth. At first sight Moses appears to be at variance with himself: for he here states that he sent the spies at God’s command, whereas in Deuteronomy 1:22, he relates that he made this concession at the request of the people; ⁴⁸⁴⁸     Hengstenberg (Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch, vol. 2, p. 344,) discusses this point, in opposition to Vater and De Wette, though he reminds us that “the discrepancy is no new discovery, but has been thoroughly canvassed; compare Gerhard on Deut., p. 53.” “That the contradiction is only apparent (he says) is clear from Numbers 13:26; for, since those, to whom the answer was brought back, must be identical. with the persons who sent out the spies, it appears from this passage that. not merely Moses and Aaron, but also the congregation, had a share in giving the commission. The author, therefore, cannot intend to deny this, when, in verse 1 and 2, he refers the matter to God.” “The sending out of the spies (he further argues) was a part of God’s plan, and hence was expressly commanded by Him, as soon as its indispensable condition, the proposal on the part of the people, had taken place. For one thing, it would insure to the well-disposed a strengthening of their weak faith; on the other hand, it formed a part of God’s design, that the evil-disposed should take occasion by this undertaking to manifest their unbelief, and be ripened by it for judgment, This design we learn from the result, which can never be contrary to the design. If the divine purpose was the essential point, and the proposal of the people the mere conditio sine qua non of its being carried into effect, it will be easily understood how the latter might be passed over in the Book of Numbers, although, as we have already seen, it is pre-supposed. After what has been remarked, Calvin’s view of the mutual relation of the two passages will clearly appear to be the correct one.” but the two statements are easily reconciled. It is, indeed, unquestionable that God had regard to the infirmity and distrust of the people; for the spies are not sent to see in what direction the land was to be attacked, with which design two were afterwards sent by Joshua, but God had here no other object than to encourage them, when they else were cowardly and inert, to throw off their inactivity, and eagerly to advance. The necessity of such a remedy was evidently shown, when they all demanded this of Moses. The second narrative, therefore, is fuller, and in it Moses goes back further than he had done in the first, viz., that it arose from the timidity and pusillanimity of the people that he did not at onto hasten whither God invited him; for, if they had straightway obeyed, they would have won the land of their enemies without any delay; but they requested that a respite might be given them. It is, then, by no means inconsistent that Moses did, at the request of the people, what God at the same time enjoined, because tie saw that they were otherwise hesitating, and but little disposed to advance, and needed this stimulus. For, if the spies had honestly per.-formed their duty, the people would have been led forward as if they had seen the land themselves, which would have been the readiest means for putting an end to all delays.

First, however, the place is described, from whence the spies were sent, viz., at no great distance from mount Sinai, although they had encamped twice, so that it was their third station. It has already been stated in chapter 10, that the cloud rested in the wilderness of Paran, which some understand to have been said by anticipation, (πρόληψιν,) as if Moses had said that, from the time when the people left Mount Sinai, they had not made any permanent halt, until they came to that wilderness, and there pitched their tents. But this opinion is by no means consistent; for it is clear that they stayed some time in Taberah; and many days were spent at the graves of lust, (Kibroth-hattaavah;) for there they were gorged for a month with the flesh of the birds, and then the pestilence attacked them, which cut off many of them, for whose burial it was necessary to provide. Now, their next halt was for more then seven days. It, therefore, appears probable to me that by the word Paran, a different place is not expressed; but that it is merely meant that, though they advanced, they still remained in some part of that wilderness. For, since the wilderness of Paran was in one direction contiguous to Mount Sinai, that name is sometimes given to it; for Moses certainly confounds them elsewhere, as also does the Prophet Habakkuk. (Deuteronomy 33:3; Habakkuk 3:3.)