The Chalcedon Foundation site posted The Spies (Numbers, 13:1-33) which is a reprint from Numbers (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2006, pp. 133-139) by Rev. R.J. Rushdoony (1916–2001), “a leading theologian, church/state expert, and author of numerous works on the application of Biblical law to society” who, “started the Chalcedon Foundation in 1965.
Rushdoony rightly identified a bifurcation of the, “Twelve men were chosen” to of the, “spies were sent in to spy out the land” of Cannan before the Israelites entered it in whole.
He notes, “Of the twelve spies, two were godly and faithful men, Caleb, of the tribe of Judah (v. 6), and Joshua (or, Oshea), of the tribe of Ephraim (v. 8). The other ten men proved to be cowardly and faithless.”
He points out, “The names of some of the peoples who lived in Canaan are given in vv. 28-29” who were (as per the ESV, “the descendants of Anak…Amalekites…Hittites…Jebusites…Amorites…And the Canaanites” (note no mention of Nephilim).
Rushdoony notes, “The Anakim are referred to in various texts as a very tall people” but very is something he added and tall is a vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage term. It’s found in Deut 2 to described Anakim and subjectively merely means taller than the parochial average with the average Israelite male having been 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
In any case, he points out that, “In v. 33, the reference to ‘men of great stature,’ the Nephilim, means peoples of a giant race.” Yet, since giant is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as very and tall we must ask: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Rushdoony usage? Do those two usages agree?
In those English Bibles which employ it, it merely renders (doesn’t even translate), “Nephilim” in 2 verses or, “Repha/im” in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
His usage was something about un-specifically generically vague about subjectively unusual height.
Do those two usages agree?
No.
He further notes, “The reputation of Canaan in antiquity was one of exceptional fertility. It is described as a land flowing ‘with milk and honey’ (v. 27)” and note that this is contradicted by the second, the evil report which has it that, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants.”
And that was, “The report of the ten faithless spies” and yet, when he elucidates that it, “had four aspects” he mashed the two reports in that chapter together: the first, original, report which his accepted as is and is reliable and the second, evil report, which is utterly unreliable and consists of five mere assertions.
He has it that, “First, they reported on the amazing fertility of the land. They brought back with them…” but that was the first report.
“Second, these faithless spies had another motive in bringing back so huge a bunch of grapes, and so superior a kind of pomegranate and fig. They were in effect saying, If you think these are big, wait until you see the size of the people!” but that was also the first report and there’ no need to read that into they’re show of bountiful grapes, pomegranates, and figs especially since that was to illustrate that, “It flows with milk and honey, and this is its fruit.”
He then notes, “Not all the people of Canaan were ‘men of great stature’ (v. 32)” which is form the second, evil, report and indeed such is the case—see my article Were “all the people” in Canaan “of great height”?
Yet still, he’s quite correct in that, “this is what they stressed in order to intimidate the people even as they themselves had been.”
Then, “They reported, ‘And there we saw the giants [Nephilim], the sons of Anak, which came of the giants [Nephilim]: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight’ (v. 33)” about which he notes, “This is vivid imagery, and very deceptive.”
Rushdoony’s next point is what I noted above about the contradiction, “Third, there is a strange statement in v. 32” which, “does not jibe with the description of Canaan as a land flowing with milk and honey…This was a false report” by, “these ten cowardly spies.”
Next is, “Fourth, in v. 28, we read that the spies reported that the walled cities were impregnable” well, the first report just reports that and Moses’ statement of it seems to imply that such was a styled out of doing what God commanded them but via the discouragement of the 10.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply