The following is mainly a commentary on a couple particular verses in Numbers 14. They had long plagued the author because he could not reconcile their ideas to the rest of Scripture, but the kind Lord has finally lead him to make sense of what the issues are and what the answers are to understand how the verses in the original language do not contradict the rest of Scripture. This commentary is an effort to reconcile our understanding to the truth and to further lend credit to the infallibility of God’s Word. Note: f1, f2, and f3 in the text tell you to consult the foot-notes.
** is an explanation about the author’s Bible (ESV, ASV, or KJV?) at the end.
Context
Before delving into the difficult parts of the passage, let us explore the context in short: Verses 1-10:
Israel, having escaped Egypt, is now on the border of the Promised Land. The spies return from exploring Canaan, and most report that giants live in the land and would easily crush Israel (though God said He would give them the land). A couple report good things about the land and are ready to run in and seize it because they know God is with them. But the people, who had seen so many glorious miracles wrought by God before their very eyes, instead favor the bad reports and want to stone those who would hold to God’s word and promise. Angry, God’s presence appears before Moses in the meeting tent (tabernacle) of the whole assembly.
God asks, “How long will these people treat Me with contempt?” (NIV).
Contempt means “beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn”.
In the ESV and old ASV**, it reads, “How long will this people despise Me?” He also asks, “How long will they refuse to believe in Me, in spite of all the signs I have performed among them?”
The Tanakh writes it as “How long shall these people treat Me with scorn?”
Note that He is saying, “shall” or “will”– though, in the very next verse, He threatens annihilation. The word “will” here is key, because it means that Israel’s’ contempt will probably go on tomorrow, the day after, and anon. Therefore, the people will also be there tomorrow and anon. That this verse immediately precedes a dire threat of total destruction would suggest that God does not intend to do as He threatens. Though the ensuing dialogue between Moses and God makes it appear that Moses persuaded God to change His mind, this verse throws out that possibility.
Verse 12, the Problem Translation
“I will strike them down and destroy them, but I will make you into a nation greater and stronger than they” (NIV).
“Let Me smite them with pestilence and disinherit them” (ISR).
The Reader’s Interpretation
There is a big difference between how the reader perceives this verse in the two versions presented above. The NIV would suggest that God is going to destroy the young Israel, but the ISR (a literal translation of the Tanakh) would suggest that He is testing Moses.
In the NIV or ASV, this verse seems to suggest a near-end to the promise God made to Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:15 f1) and Abraham (Genesis 17:2-8), but because He promised to Abraham that He would make his descendants throughout the ages too innumerable for mankind to count, He could not very well destroy the Israelites (Hebrews 6:13 and Malachi 3:6), even if He left only Moses and his family alive f2.
Apparent Contradiction?
Reading in the NIV, or the more accurate ASV, the verse cannot easily be reconciled to the rest of Scripture. The NIV and ASV would suggest that God is either going back on His promise (1) or is testing Moses by deception (2), neither of which is possible with One Who is pure righteousness (Psalm 11:7). At worst, God would kill off those unfaithful sowers of doubt ruining the potential harvest of faith in Israel, but to say that He “will smite them with pestilence and disinherit them” (ASV) does not fit a Covenant-keeping God.
(1) God cannot be going back on His promise (Malachi 3:6 says He does not change, thus the children of Jacob are safe; in Genesis 15 He made the lasting Covenant till the Redeemer of Genesis 3:15 should appear; Leviticus 26:40-42 states He will keep His part if Israel keeps its part). It does not fit with Scripture, and verse 11 makes it clear that He does not intend to destroy the new nation.
(2) Using the NIV translation, the verse cannot be reconciled to the rest of Scripture because God cannot very well be testing Moses by deception. To say “I will” should mean He indeed will (because God can do all things in the Creation He made) unless, in the original language, the “I will” is of a lesser form (a sort of “I should” rather than an “I vow to”). A literal translation of the Tanakh, though, clears up the issue by stating it as “Let Me”. There is no deception in “Let Me” because it leaves the door open for the other party to say “No”.
Clearing Up the “Contradiction”
The ISR literal translation clears up the discrepancy by making it appear that God is testing Moses– without any deception. He is not saying that He will destroy the people. He is merely stating that He should, maybe even asking Moses whether He should (as a test), but has left it open-ended for Moses to intercede like Abraham did for Sodom and Gomorrah (where God showed His fairness. See Genesis 18:32). This closes the door to the possibility that Moses persuaded God to change His mind in verses 13-19 (verse 20 shows God is either very quick to forgive, or had already forgiven them beforehand– the latter would be quite fitting since Love– God (1 John 4:8)– “keeps no record of wrongs” (1 Corinthians 13:5).
The Impact
The importance of this is, an omniscient (all-knowing) God (Jeremiah 1:5) cannot change His mind because He already knows the future. This reconciles the verse to Isaiah 40:13, which states that no one can instruct, or influence, God. God already knew that He would not destroy Israel. God already knew that Moses would intercede on their behalf. But Moses and Israel did not know what would happen. Would Moses go to the Lord in boldness on behalf of a sinful people (with him the leader of the sinners, no less), or would Moses jump on the chance to himself be made a great nation– and let the flocks be devoured by disease as was their due? Would Moses be selfless or selfish? Would he be a bold leader?
It was not God who needed the proof. It was Moses who needed to be proven to himself and to all future generations. The whole story, though historical, is also a “type”. It is a warning to Israel about what would happen if they left God and did not trust Him. God, like a parent, had to threaten punishment in order to redirect His children to righteous living that honours the Father– and, as is seen in other difficult passages, God does inflict punishment for the correction (long-term well-being) of the people. God would not kill His children, go back on His promise, or dishonour Himself. The misunderstanding that afflicted the author was only a translation issue. Scripture is only infallible in its original format. Translations open up the door for mistakes and losses, as occurred here.
Loop-hole
Genesis 18:19 and Leviticus 26:40-42 do, though, make room of a loop-hole in the Covenant. God will only abide by the promise if the people abide by it. He is quick to forgive, as Moses quotes in verse 18, and He is “long-suffering” or “slow to anger” as the verse also states. Thus, God often keeps His Covenant promise throughout generations of continuous sinful rebellion. Had He destroyed Israel and preserved Moses, though, He would not technically have broken His promise to Adam and Abraham since Moses was of Adam’s and Abraham’s line. God is not a man, that He would lie (Numbers 23:19). He keeps His promises though we break ours.
Had the NIV or ASV version of Numbers 14:12 been the correct understanding, the Leviticus verses would reconcile a part of this passage because Israel had rejected Him. But the above arguments using a true-to-the-original-word translation reconcile the passage to the entirety of Scripture, thus further proving that all “apparent contradictions” can be made sense of.
Verses 13-19
Moses, sincerely believing that God was going to destroy Israel, appeals to God’s honourability. He tells of how what God has done is known throughout the land; and that if God destroys the people, then the world will doubt His abilities and power– and He will be shamed.
He continues on, not focusing on himself at all (or trying to justify the sinful people), but only on the Lord’s honour (an example for us). This shows that Moses is dedicated to serving the Lord and that God had picked an excellent priest for Himself (though Moses was not the best orator and was originally not willing. See Exodus 4: 10-14).
Moses beseeches the Lord to display the power of His promises and follow through on what He said. The Lord holds His people accountable, so it logically follows that He wants His people to hold Him accountable (though only that they would know Him. To know Him today is to read His word. Without reading His word, we cannot know Him or know His promises). Finally, Moses asks that God forgive the people.
Verse 20
“I have pardoned, according to thy word” (ESV).
God says that He forgives them, just as Moses requested, because Moses has held God accountable by God’s own word (Hebrews 6:13). God (Who probably had it in His ‘heart’ f3 to forgive them) let His wrath fall away.
Verse 21-25: Concluding Context
The Lord’s glory, as God continues, is and will be made manifest through all the Earth. His great love for the people of Israel, who throughout the Old Testament rejected and provoked Him, is indeed worthy of glory and praise. But, as punishment for their rejecting Him though His unearthly power was made manifest before their very eyes, He turns them back toward the Red Sea: back to where they had escaped from through only His miraculous power (a reminder?) All but two adults (the two honourable spies) would die before entering the Promised Land because they had broken their promise to Him– the one that out of His great love, mercy, and compassion He still intended to keep. Praise be to the God Who keeps His promise even when we don’t. Truly, He is beyond our understanding (Job 36:26).
Conclusion
The above commentary reconciles the unchanging mind and character of God to the rest of the Scriptures. His promises and character stand, and the reader should be even more confident in the God Who does not change, does not go back on his word, and makes the whole Bible stand firm: clearing up what look like contradictions when the earnest, prayerful student seeks understanding. All glory, honour, and praise to our amazing God.
Foot-notes
f1. Genesis 3:15 is actually a reference to Jesus and the crucifixion/resurrection. It promises a Redeemer for mankind.
f2. When Jesus fed the 5,000 (Matthew 14:13-21), the 5,000 was only the number of adult men present. Women and children would also have been present, but they were never counted. Eastern culture does not put women, children, and men on the same level. Thus, God may have smote the men in the Numbers passage, but there is a good chance He would not have touched a large number of women, and surely not the children under the age of accountability.
f3 God is not human. He’s a spirit (John 4:24). As humans, the only way we can understand that which isn’t human is by applying to it human characteristics (or turning it into a human characteristic: for example, Rasheed is as lazy as a rock (Nothing personal to anyone named Rasheed). In our example, we equated a rock with laziness. We understand that the rock does nothing– just like someone being lazy. We have understood the rock only by how we understand things in our human mind. God is not a man (Numbers 23:19), yet all descriptions of God have humanistic attributes for our human understanding. We use anthropomorphic language to describe a Spirit Who is well above our complete understanding (Job 36:26). The impact of this is, how we perceive God will never be perfectly in tune with the truth– especially in our cultures so far removed from when He Himself abode with us (mind you, His Holy Spirit is still within the believers) and when prophets’ messages reached all the people (mind you, anyone who speaks God’s truth is a prophet– but I mean a prophet with a new message that does not contradict God’s word, but compliments it with new understanding. They are rare these days).
** Sometimes I’m not sure what version my (1931) “New Analytical Bible” is, as some verses are ASV and some are ESV as compared to KJV in brackets. So, when I say “ASV” or “ESV”, and you look them up and find that they are flipped, you will understand that the error is not intended but is from an older version of…. Some sort… of ASV or ESV Bible.
Seeking God 