The Pulpit Commentary — Numbers — Section 168

~ep11.ration RS le1tder, not of Ephraim, but of "mountain of the Amorite" on the south. lsmel, TI'!I.S Rlready anticipated in the singu- If so, we must conclude that not only tha lnrity, 11.t least, of his position. Caleb, on roving Amalekites, but also the Canaanitos, the other hand, was merely a chieftain of the or Amoritos, had established themselves in tribe of ,Tudnh, with nothing to distinguish some parts of the Wady. 2. It is scarcely him from the mass of the people but his own credible that o.n observation of this sort, good conduct. There is, therefore, nothing which would seem unusual o.nd abrupt in perplexing in the fact that Caleb alone is any speech, should have formed a part of mentioned in this place, and nothing to war- God's message to Moses. It has no apparent rant the assumption of a double narrative. connection with the context. It does not Another spirit. The spirit which possessed (as often alleged) e.fford a reason for the com- aud prompted C11.leb WII.S no doubt the Holy mand which follows; it was not o.t o.ll be- Spirit, jnst 11.S the spirit which moved the cause enemies were already in possession rebellion WII.S an evil spirit (Eph. ii. 2) ; but before them that the Israelites had to turn how far any such personality is here attri- their backs upon the promised land, but buted to the "spirit" is hard to determine. because God hll.d mthdrawn for the time his Rath followed me fully. Literally, "ful- promised o.id. If the "valley" be the filled to walk behind me." Caleb treasured Rakhmah plateau, they had always known up this testimony with natural pride (cf. that hostile tribes held it, and that they Josh. xiv. 8). And his seed shall possess would hnve to conquer them. Thnt the it, i. e. a portion of it and in it. No men- words o.re an interpolation, as the A. V. t.ion is made here of any special heritage, nor represents them, seems as certain as interno.l is it clear from Josh. xiv. 6-lS that Caleb evidence can make it ; but by whom made, received any definite promise of Hebron. He and with what intent, is a question which .si;poke indeed of a promise made him, pro- will probably never be answered. It may be bably at this time, by Moses ; but that pro- worth while to hazard a conjecture that the ' mise was a very general one. He asked for interpolated words are really <".onnected with "this mountain, whereof the Lord spake in what goes bofore, viz., the promise of in- that dRy;" but he may only have referred heritance to Caleb. Now that promise was to the Divine command first to erv,Iore and fulfilled in the gift of Hebron to Caleb and then to occupy "the mountain, ' as the his seed (Josh. xiv. 14). But we havo nearest portion of the promised land. express mention in Gen. xx:rrvii. 14 of U.e Ver. 25.-Now the Am.alekitee and the "vale of Hebron," and the aame word, P~V.. "Can&a.Ditea dwelt in the valley. This pa• is used in the Hebrew. Is it not possible nnthesis bears on the face of it several di.ffi. that this parenthesis was originally the gloss culties, both as to the meaning of the state- of one who had a special interest in the herit- ment and as to its position in the toxt. age of Caleb, and wished to note tho.t at the 1. It has been stated just before (eh. xiii 29) time it was given to him " the vale" was that the "Cana.suites" dwelt by the sea, and occupied by two hostile peoples t Into tha in the Ghor, and it has been proposed by some wildernesa, i. e. the Sinaitic peninsula, as to understand under this name the Phami- distinguished from Palestine on the one hand, cians, because "Bidon" was the first-born of and from Egypt on the other. :By the way Canaan, and because they are known to have of the Red Sea, i. e. towards the Red Sea ; occupied the coast. But if "Canaanite" here apparently the Ele.nitic Gulf (cf. eh. means " Phamician" in eh. :r:iii. 29, it is xi. 31). difficult to maintain that it is here equiva- - Ver. 26.-A.nd the Lord spake unto Moses .lent to "Amorite." Again, if " Canaanite" and unto Aaron. This communication is 1>e taken in this vaguer sense, yet it is clear clearly by way of continuation and amplifica- ·that the Amo rites dwelt in "the mountain " tion of the sentence briefly pronounced above. ·(cf. e. g. ver. 45 with Dent. i. 44), and not It is markedly distinguished from the in the lowlands. This has been got over by latter, as being (1) spoken to Aaron as supposing that i'~P. may mean an upland well as to Moses ; (2) addressed through vale, or plateau, Sllch as that to which the them to the people at lnrge. The one ~as Israelites presently ascended. It is, how- the Di vine answer to the effectual ;pleadrag i,ver, a straining of the word to aasign such a. of the mediator; the other the Divme reply meaning to it. It is rightly translated b,: to the rebellious cries of the people. 'l'ha the Septuagint ,,, rj r:o,>..<il,. And even if two are blended together in the narrative of one looking down from above might call an Dent. i. upland plain by this name, yet certainly Ver. 27.-Howlong ahall 1 bear with this one looking n_p from below would not. If evil oongregation, whioh mul'D!'ur f".fainet the word stands rightly in this place, PP»;! me T Literally, "How long th1S. evt co0;: must mean "in the Wa.dy Murreh," the gregation, that they murmur ago.mst me. broad aandy str:i.it which b0andlld. the Ser,tnagiut, lw, rfro, r,jv auvarwr~v ,;., CIIB. xm., XIV.] THE BOOK OF NUMBERS. 14!)