Lesson 3—Preparing for Entry Into the Land: The Vision and the Reality

Introduction

In the first two lessons of this course we discussed the call and the promise to Abraham who, according to most historians, lived around 1750 BCE (assuming of course that there was such a person). We pointed to the fact that although God blessed Abraham and promised him a land, the blessing and the promise were not going to be fulfilled in his lifetime. In this lesson we wish to move forward roughly 500 years (in our next lesson we will explain why the fulfillment had to wait so long) to the time in which the promise of the Land is about to be fulfilled.

In order to appreciate the significance of this moment, it is important that we provide a brief overview of the central events that occurred from the time of Abraham until now, as they are recorded in the Bible. After Abraham, came Isaac and after Isaac, came Jacob, later named Yisrael –Israel. Jacob/Israel had twelve sons who later became the Twelve Tribes of Israel. One of his sons, Joseph, was despised by his brothers who arranged to have him sold to the Egyptians. Later, when there was a famine in the Land, Jacob sent the other brothers down to Egypt to obtain some food. In Egypt they met with the vizier of the land who was also in charge of dispensing rations. They later discovered that this man was none other than their long lost brother Joseph. He provided for them, invited their father Jacob/Israel and arranged for the family to settle in the region of Goshen in Northeast Egypt, where they acquired holdings and where they increased greatly in number. 

Later, however, conditions in Egypt took a radical turn for the worse. A new king arose in Egypt who was disturbed by the rapid growth and proliferation of the People of Israel. He oppressed them with forced labor and decreed that all male children be put to death. After suffering for many years under these harsh conditions, the people cried out in anguish. God heard their cry and decided that the time had come to bring them to the Land that He had promised to their forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God then sends Moses to Pharaoh to demand that he let the People of Israel go free. When Pharaoh refuses to comply, God punishes him with a series of plagues. After ten plagues Pharaoh finally relents and instructs the people to depart from Egypt. The Exodus occurred (if there was indeed an Exodus) around the year 1250 BCE. After the people depart from Egypt, however, Pharaoh changes his mind and pursues them in the wilderness. When the people reach the Sea of Reeds and as the Egyptians are advancing with their vast armed forces the people cry out to God. Moses tells the people not to be afraid because God will battle for them. God then splits the sea enabling the people of Israel to cross through while the waters come crashing down on the Egyptians who were following behind them in pursuit.

The People of Israel praise God for their deliverance and for the fall of their enemies and then they proceed through the desert in their journey toward the Promised Land. In the desert, the people complain on several occasions regarding the shortage of water and food supply. Each time God answers their needs with provisions that included manna – a delicacy – which rained down from heaven daily (except for the Sabbath). Later they were attacked by the Amalekites, a nation of nomads in the Negev and in the Sinai desert but, with the help of a few fighting men and the staff of God which Moses lifted in his hand, they overcame the enemy.  

In the third month after their Exodus from Egypt, the people entered the wilderness of Sinai. There, God revealed Himself to the entire nation and gave them the Ten Commandments and the Law. He then gave them instructions for the erection of the Tabernacle the implementation of which was delayed because of the Sin of the Golden Calf which occurred while Moses was on Mount Sinai. Moses interceded in behalf of the people which allowed them to resume their journey toward the Promised Land. Prior to their departure from Sinai, however, they built the Tabernacle which was going to accompany them on their journey and were given a detailed list of the priestly laws governing the service within it.

By now a little more than a year had elapsed since the Exodus and preparations were now underway for the long awaited entry into the Promised Land. After a mere three days of journeying, however, they complained again about the conditions in the desert, the lack of water and meat and their increasing distaste for the manna. These complaints were met with divine wrath and God punished the instigators. The people then traveled to a place named Kadesh on the Southern border of Canaan. The time to enter the Land had finally arrived.

Against this background, what are some of the issues that might have concerned the people on the eve of their entry into the Land of Israel?

1. They know that the Land is occupied by other nations and yet they are aware that other than a few men who fought against the Amalekites they never had to lift a finger in warfare. Furthermore, the people first emerged as a nation under Egyptian slavery. How can a nation of slaves without any military training be expected to compete against the mighty armies of the nations of the land of Canaan? On the other hand, perhaps they won’t have to fight at all. After all, the Egyptians were defeated by the direct and miraculous intervention of God. He inflicted ten plagues and He split the sea. All they had to do was to follow Moses. And when they faced hardships in the desert Moses and God were there to provide for them. The question then is, will God continue to intervene in this way and inflict a heavy blow upon the inhabitants of the land without requiring any effort on their part? Perhaps God has grown weary of this kind of help and protection? Perhaps God wants them to grow out of this childlike dependency and to take responsibility for themselves once they enter the land? But if this is the case, how can they possibly succeed against the overwhelming forces of Canaan?  
2. True, God told us that the Promised Land is “flowing with milk and honey”. But these are a people that got fed up with the manna, even though it was supposed to be this great delicacy. Indeed, these people found something to complain about even when nothing appeared to be wrong. They are the forefathers of the Jews today and we know how skeptical and spoiled Jews can be. Thus, although God considers the land bountiful and great, who says the Jews themselves will like it?

How should these issues be addressed?

Text study 1

Read Numbers 13:1-20 and answer the following questions:

1. What did God instruct Moses to do in preparation for entry into the Land?
2. Why did Moses recruit the leaders from each tribe for the mission?
3. What aspects of the Land were to be the focus of the scouts’ mission?
4. What was the general purpose of this mission?

Suggested Answers

1. God instructed Moses to send men who would scout out the Land, one man per tribe – twelve in all.
2. While the text does not provide an explicit answer to this question, we may reasonably suggest that the decision reflects Moses’ concern for the credibility of the report. If these scouts were just “no names” or people who lacked the respect of the people, their report could have been easily dismissed. Moses wanted to make sure that the scouts were legitimate representatives of their own kin, and that their (hopefully favorable) report would serve as a source of encouragement and motivate the people to move forward.
3. It appears that the report was to focus on three elements: the people – are they strong or weak, few or many; the land – is it good or bad, wooded or not; the towns – are they open or fortified?
4. While the purpose of this mission has been the subject of debate among the commentaries it may very well be that the scouts were sent in order to answer the questions that we outlined above. The information regarding the cities and the people would seem to be of a military nature. In other words, Moses (God instructed Moses to send the scouts but, according to the text, the details of the mission were defined by Moses.) wanted the people to hear about the strengths and weaknesses of the people so that they can formulate a realistic strategy for conquest and not be overwhelmed by the very idea of fighting.

Indeed, it is likely that more than the challenge of overcoming the enemy was the challenge of overcoming the psychological barrier to engaging in combat. This reminds me of my own experience, and I imagine the experience of many others, with new technology. I am not a “techie” by nature in the sense that I have never been eager to check out the new technology when it first appears on the market. I have always found new innovations to be a bit overwhelming and I guess I am a bit conservative in my personality. I don’t actively look to introduce changes in the way I conduct my life. My tendency is to wait until certain innovations become so widespread that I feel somewhat like a social misfit before I try begrudgingly to acquaint myself with them. Whether it is the computer, the video camera, the Palm Pilot, and most recently the digital camera, I don’t feel a need for such things until they become the talk of the town. The problem is that by the time I finally get around to learning about these innovations I am intimidated by my own ignorance in comparison with everybody else and, although I am a reasonably intelligent person, the whole idea of reading the manuals evokes a sense of discomfort and fear. Of course, when I finally do find the time and the courage to sit down and read the manuals and to experiment with the machines, I find that it is not quite as overwhelming and frightening as I had originally thought. I gradually become acquainted with the machines, one button at a time. And with each successful press of the button I feel a sense of satisfaction and I build up confidence in myself, like the little engine that could.

Similarly, it is unreasonable to expect a nation of slaves to be prepared to bear arms in the face of a well trained army, especially when in all the previous encounters with the enemy someone else (i.e. God) was doing all the work. However, a realistic assessment of the strengths and the weaknesses of the people of the Land by members of their own community (or, more accurately, tribe) would help break the psychological barrier in the way of fighting. Once they become aware that the other nations are made of people of flesh and blood, like themselves, they are less likely to be intimidated and overwhelmed by anxiety and fear.

In the same way that the people may have needed some help in overcoming the psychological barrier in the way of combat, they may have needed help in overcoming the fear regarding the living conditions in the Land. As we mentioned before, although God had told them that the Land was good, perhaps it is good in some lofty spiritual sense but not in a way that would satisfy their particular earthly needs. Just as we today are very particular about the clothes we wear, the food that we eat and our vision of the good life, it would be a lot easier to move forward if the people who check out the land are people who understand our particular needs and our way of life.

Now, there are those who would argue that the need then for such affirmations and reassurances reflect a lack of faith in God (see for example the commentary of Rashi) and that may be the case. But the people who were supposed to enter the Land were real people like ourselves (maybe even worse) and it is their needs and concerns, even if they were far from ideal, which needed to be addressed. Thus, I suggest that the scouting mission was an attempt by God and Moses to provide real answers to real people so that there will a realistic chance that they will agree to go to the Land where they were destined to become a great and blessed nation. 

The question is what happened? Did the scouts dutifully fulfill their mission?

Text Study 2 – to be studied in chevruta

Read Numbers 13:21-29 – The Mission and the Report

1. Look at the map (map 51). What was the route that the scouts took?
2. Try to evaluate their report. Did their report address the various aspects of the Land which were assigned to them as part of their mission? Was their report factual? Where might we, nevertheless, find evidence in their report of a personal bias?
3. Read Numbers 13: 30-33. How can we explain Calev’s intervening remarks?
4. What was the other scouts’ reaction upon hearing Calev’s words of encouragement?
5. What is the fundamental difference between the scout’s comments here and their initial report? How can we explain the change?
6. How are the people likely to react to the report of the scouts?

Suggested Answers

1. A look at the map will reveal that they traversed the land of Canaan from South to North. In covering the length of the Land they were in a good position to provide a thorough and complete report about the various features of the Land for which they were sent on the mission.
2. At first glance it would appear that their report was objective and balanced. They were asked to report about the Land, the cities and the people. They were asked to find out whether the Land was good or not and they were asked to bring back some of its fruit (verses 19-20) and so they brought back a cluster of grapes, as well as some pomegranates and figs, and they reported that the Land “does indeed flow with milk and honey”. What greater confirmation can they provide than a reference to the Land in the same terms as God! They then continue by reporting about the cities and the people, as they were told. They report that the people of the Land are powerful and the cities are fortified, and then they point out which nations inhabit each region. In short, they seem to give a factual account of what they see, much as a good newspaper or television reporter is supposed to do. So it would appear.

Nevertheless, a careful examination of their report reveals that it was not as objective and factual as it appears at first. True, they addressed the three aspects of the land which they were told to do. But, as the Jewish community has learned the hard way, the difference between objective and subjective, balanced and biased, reporting is often a very fine line that sometimes can be traced to a single word or nuance. The scouts began with what seemed like a very favorable report – a description of the extraordinary physical qualities of the Land, including a display of some of its beautiful fruit. Indeed, the fact that they began with this description must have built up the excitement and enthusiasm of the people. The problem, however, is with the way in which they proceeded with the report. The Land is good “however the people who inhabit the land…”This “however”, which seems so innocent, changed the tone and the essence of the report. In saying “however” they implied that, although it is true that the Land is good, it really doesn’t matter how good it is since the nations inhabiting the land are too powerful to overcome.

Now, of course they didn’t say this outright because then it would be far too obvious that the scouts had overstepped their bounds and abused their position as reporters. Rather, they cleverly introduced a subtlety in the way they formulated their report that would play upon the people’s fears, and that would have the same the effect as if they had said what they meant outright. Thus, like so much of the reporting today, the distinction between reporting and editorializing was blurred and the boundaries were crossed without almost anyone noticing.

Go to the discussion board.

What are some examples of biased reporting about Israel today, both in relation to the political/ military situation and in relation to life there in general? What are some of the nuances and the terminology that subtly reflect this bias?

3. There was at least one person perceptive enough to notice; not just anyone but one of the scouts themselves. Calev understood the subtlety in the report and the hidden agenda of the others and he was aware of the effect that this was beginning to have on the people. Thus, he intervened in an effort to nip the problem in the bud. He gave them a pep talk and tried to calm their fears: “Let us by all means go up and we shall gain possession of it, for we shall surely overcome it.”

4-5. Given the fact that Calev was not just an outspoken member of the community but one of the twelve chieftains sent to scout the land, the other scouts realized that his words posed a serious challenge. Since their own report confirmed what they had heard about the qualities of the Land and since it only alluded to the overwhelming strength of the inhabitants of the Land which was balanced by the reassurance of Calev, the people might have followed his advice and proceeded forward. Thus, the other scouts had to change their approach if they were going to succeed in dissuading the people. They could no longer afford to be subtle and hope for the best. They, therefore, decided it would be best to be completely open about their feelings, leaving no room for doubt. Thus they inform the people that, although the Land is fruitful, it “devours its inhabitants”, i.e., it is impossible to live there, because the people are constantly at war and it is a war that they have no chance of winning because the people in the land are not just “powerful”; they are giants against whom we cannot even begin to compete. Indeed, they are so large and intimidating that we feel like midgets (the modern day equivalent of the term “grasshoppers”) next to them and that is how they see us. Thus, any attempt to enter the Land under these conditions is nothing short of collective suicide.

6.  Given the fact that these scouts were their own leaders it is hard to imagine that the people could be expected to dismiss their report, especially given the fact that they had no other information which they could have used to challenge it. On the other hand, the report of the scouts should be balanced by the fact that barely a year had passed since God freed them from Egyptian slavery with a mighty hand and then drowned the Egyptians and their powerful horsemen in the sea. Thus, it is reasonable to expect the people to be legitimately concerned and confused and in need of some divine assurances that all will be well. But is this the way that they in fact reacted?

Go to the discussion board.

How have the various biases in reporting about Israel affected the Jewish community in North America? How has the focus of the media on the military conflict affected perceptions of life in Israel and the desire of Jews to travel there?

Text Study 3 – The Reactions to the Report

1. Read Numbers 14:1-4. Describe the people’s response to the report of the scouts.
2. What is the key word (a word that is repeated several times) in their response? What does it reveal about the people’s state of mind?
3. Why is their response likely to enrage God?
4. Read verses 5-10. Explain the reactions of Moses, Aaron, Calev and Joshua?
5. What is the key word in the reactions of Calev and Joshua? What is the psychological effect that they hope to achieve by making reference to this key word?
6. Did their reaction achieve the desired result?

Suggested Answers

1-3. If they had reacted by being confused and in need of divine guidance and reassurance that would have been acceptable. The way that they in fact reacted was not. The text tells us that they became so demoralized by the scouts’ report that they cried uncontrollably. But it wasn’t merely that they became so completely overwhelmed by self-pity and despair; they railed against Moses and Aaron and God Himself for having taken them out of Egypt only to die in the Land. In other words, they portrayed God as malicious who, by His miracles and wonders, led them to believe that He loves them, when in fact His intention was just to kill them without even sparing the women and the children. Thus, after just one year, the most memorable and momentous event in the annals of history – the Exodus – was just a distant memory. God who had just finished displaying to them and to the world His undying love for them in redeeming them from Egyptian slavery, in punishing their oppressors and in answering all their needs in their journey through the desert, is now viewed as a wicked God with nothing in store for them but than their own miserable deaths.

But they didn’t stop merely with words that could only be described as an outrageous insult to God; they wanted to do something to turn back the clock and completely reverse the course of history: they wanted to “head back to Egypt”. God brought them out and now, despite God, they want to go back! If you want to know the origins of Jewish chutzpah, look no further. And given this incredible chutzpah, it is hard to imagine how even God would have any more patience to put up with them.

Now, a careful reading of their reaction will enable us to gain a deeper understanding of its psychological roots. In verses 2-4 they repeat the word “Egypt” three times. In other words, although they had been free from Egyptian slavery for some time, the idea of Egypt was still deeply embedded in their psyche. At heart, they were still an immature nation of slaves afraid to assume responsibility for themselves. They couldn’t seem to get beyond an existence of complete dependency in which decisions were made for them, even when those decisions stripped them of their dignity and self-esteem. Thus, God could take the people out of Egypt but He apparently could not take Egypt out of the people.

4. The leaders of the entire community, Moses and Aaron, react by fall on their faces before the people. What does this mean? Perhaps this is an expression of helplessness and despair. After all they had done for the people, their leadership and complete dedication, what more can they possibly do? Or perhaps this is a way of imploring the people to desist from this absurd and ungrateful behavior. Or perhaps it is a combination of both.
5. Apparently unsatisfied with the reaction of Moses and Aaron, Calev and Joshua decide to give it one more shot (Joshua’s absence earlier is the subject of much scholarly discussion). They again mention the goodness of the Land and point out that it is not just good but it is “exceedingly good” and then they proceed to address the problem of the nations of the land about which the other scouts made a big fuss. They argue that although the nations of the Land may seem like giants against whom the people have no chance, with God on their side there is no contest; “they are our prey”. If God wishes to bring us to the Land no one can stand in His way.

It is interesting that Calev and Joshua also employ a clever psychological device to counter the people’s psychological barrier that we described above. If the refrain of the people was “Egypt” because Egypt and all that it symbolized was deeply embedded in their consciousness, the refrain of Calev and Joshua was the “land” which they repeat 4 times in verses 7-8 (there is a fifth reference to the land in the Hebrew “am ha’aretz” which JPS translates “people of the country”and not of the “land”).  By emphasizing the “land” they hoped to change the people’s state of mind and shift their focus away from their past as slaves and onto the future in which they can shape their lives as a mature and independent people in their own land.

6. Unfortunately, even the best efforts of Calev and Joshua did not have any affect on the people. To the contrary. The very attempt to influence public opinion and to dissuade them from heading back to Egypt was met with fierce resistance: “The whole community threatened to pelt them with stones.”

Go to the discussion board.

Compare the efforts of Moses, Aaron, Calev and Joshua in responding to the distortions and falsehoods of the other scouts to the efforts in the Jewish community in responding to biases and blatant falsehoods about Israel in the media.

7. Read verses 26-35. How does God plan to punish the people?
8. How was the punishment conceived as “measure for measure”?

Suggested Answers

6-7. From God’s point of view this was the last straw. They had complained many times before but never had they gone this far. God wanted to do away with them altogether. It was only due to the intervention of Moses that the people were spared complete destruction. God decided to restrict the punishment to the adult population of the Exodus rather than to punish everyone. The people who were old enough to know better will be forced to wander for 40 years in the desert, corresponding to the 40 days of the scouts in the Land, where they will eventually die, just as they asked “or if we might die in the wilderness” (verse 2). Only their children will be allowed to enter the Promised Land: “Thus you shall know what it means to thwart Me.”

Thus, the journey to the Promised Land, which had already been delayed around 500 years, was destined to be delayed another 40. But if the previous delay had to do with the rights of the inhabitants of the Land (see our next lesson) and was beyond the control of the People of Israel, this delay was their own doing. They had no one to blame but themselves.

Live event: What does this story mean to you as a contemporary North American Jew?

Bibliography

Besdin, A. (1979). “The Singularity of the Land of Israel”, in Reflections of the Rav, Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, pp. 117-126.

Leibowitz, N. (1980). Studies in Bamidbar, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization, pp. 135-170

Milgrom, J. (1990). The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Philadelphia: JPS, pp. 99-117