WHY WASN'T MOSES ALLOWED INTO THE PROMISED LAND? (NUMBERS 20:8-11; I CORINTHIANS 10:4)

In Exodus 17:5-6, Moses in the presence of some of the leaders strikes the rock as commanded by God and water comes out, with no negative consequences to Moses. However, in Numbers 20:8-11, Moses is told to command the rock in the company of Aaron to give forth water. Moses strikes the rock twice. Although water again issues from the rock, this time there are apparently dire consequences for both Moses and Aaron. Their punishment is reiterated in Numbers 27:12-17 and Deuteronomy 4:21;34:4.

Some scholars, such as D. P. Wright and Baruch Levine, treat the two similar accounts above as simply different versions of the same event. In both cases, it is the grumbling of the people that brings about the necessity of the miracles. However, there are too many differences between the two accounts for them to be describing only one event. For example, one could cite the slight differences in the commands by God, the people accompanying Moses, his different actions and words, the different vocabulary employed for “rock” (sela, cliff, in Numbers 20 and sur, rock, in Exodus 17), and the fact that one event occurred at the beginning of the wilderness journey and the other toward its conclusion.

As an aside, Harrison notes, “The phenomenon of water issuing from rock testifies to the water-retaining properties of Sinai limestone.” For more on this, see my post entitled “Miracles of Knowledge.” Harrison additionally points out that the word sur in Exodus 17 is used elsewhere in Deuteronomy “metaphorically of God as the believer's source of strength.”

So, assuming that these are entirely different events, what was it about the miracle in Numbers 20 that made God so upset with Moses that he barred him from entering Canaan? J. A. Thompson states, “Moses and Aaron were refused entry to the promised land but the exact nature of their offense is not clear.” He offers the following possibilities, one of which has nothing to do with the Numbers 20 event at all. And we will see that there are even several variations on these reasons.

1. Moses striking the rock twice betrayed his anger.

2. Moses claimed credit for the miracle.

3. The people made Moses speak rashly.

4. Moses and Aaron failed to lead the people into Canaan right after the spies' report.

Possibility 1

First variation: “To strike the rock was human effort, androcentric; merely to speak would have shown dependence on divine power and be theocentric.” (Merrill)

Second variation: “When Moses used this staff in a manner that God had not commanded,...he treated the rod as a power in itself.” (Van Dam)

Possibility 2

Many commentators feel that Moses' primary sin was not attributing the miracle to God. See Numbers 20:10 where Moses says, “Shall we bring water from this rock for you?” (D. P. Wright)  In addition, Levine notes that the Exodus account has elders accompanying Moses, thus adding legitimacy to Moses and his actions. Kitchen: “Moses and Aaron blasphemously cast themselves in God's role.”

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery cites both above reasons for Moses and Aaron being punished by God.

Possibility 3

Thompson appeals to Psalm 106:32-33 in relation to this theory. In fact, this psalm does say that the people provoked Moses so that he spoke rashly and angered God. And it does specifically state that as a result of Moses' reaction, “it went ill with Moses on their account (NRSV).” We can assume that this refers to Moses being excluded from Canaan. Kidner says regarding this psalm, “The balance of blame is restored here, for it was Moses who bore the brunt of it at the time, paying the price of leadership...” Anderson, on the other hand, says that “there is no clear information about the details of the happenings during which Moses incurred Yahweh's displeasure.” Jacobson basically agrees with Kidner: “The psalm does not wonder why the Lord would hold Moses guilty for being provoked by the people's sin...”

Possibility 4

Although there is no specific biblical proof that Moses' failure to lead the people the first time they were on the border of Canaan led to his punishment, this does bring up a final possibility that has been suggested by some. In Deuteronomy 1:37, “no reference is made to Moses' sin described in Num. 20:10-12, but he is involved in the sin of the covenant people...Although it was his own sin that led to his exclusion from Canaan, the responsibility of the people is emphasized here and Moses' deprivation is seen as due to involvement in their sin.” (Cousins) Thus, the idea of the corporate responsibility of the community of God comes into play.

Levinson provides even another wrinkle into story. He believes that both Deuteronomy 1:36-37 and 3:26 imply that Moses vicariously bore the sins of Israel and suffered on their behalf. Thus, he is the type of Christ to come.

Additional Old Testament Texts

Since the above discussion brings up the question as to where the credit for obtaining water from the rock belongs, a number of other passages make this point very clear.

Deuteronomy 8:15 Even Moses tells the people that God “made water flow for you from flinty rock.”

Deuteronomy 34:11-12 speaks of the signs and wonders that God sent Moses to perform in Egypt and the powerful acts that Moses performed in the wilderness. This could be construed as giving Moses alone credit for the desert miracles, but the parallel nature of the two statement shows that God was behind those as well.

Psalm 78:15-16,20 “He [God] struck the rock so that water gushed out.”

Psalm 105:41 “He [God] opened the rock and water flowed out.”

New Testament Implications

There is one reference in the NT to the incidents where Moses was employed to obtain water from the rock in the wilderness. That is the strange statement in I Corinthians 10:4 where Paul says that the rock followed the Israelites in the desert and the rock was Christ. This pronouncement seems to come out of the clear blue, but it actually reflects earlier thoughts on the OT passages involved.

Of course, Paul is using a figure of speech here. Gordon Fee says, “Upon reflection, one can see that Paul is drawing an analogy. He is saying, in effect, 'That rock was to them as Christ is to us – a source of sustenance in the same way that spiritual things are a sustenance to us.” Paul's language in verses 2-4 is highly metaphorical.” Grosheide agrees with Fee: “Thus the apostle describes the significance of the work of Christ for Israel under the old dispensation in [figurative] terms of water flowing from the rock. Christ is the source of all blessings.”

Mundle explains it as follows: “By comparing Exod. 17 and Num. 20 the rabbis had already come to the conclusion that the rock which provided the water had followed the Israelites on their journey...Paul is the first to interpret the Old Testament miracle in light of the Lord's Supper, which is spiritual food and spiritual drink having its origin in Christ.” See also the incident in John 4:10-14, which Lowery cross-references, in which Christ is said to be the water of life.

Orr and Walther add, “A midrash [early commentary] on Exod 17:6 indicates a rabbinic belief that God was the rock from which the water came...” Thus, when Paul states that Christ is the rock, he is really asserting that Christ is God. And finally, Marsh says, “The whole history [of the wilderness experience] is spiritualized. 'That rock was Christ' can also be interpreted 'is a type of Christ.'” Marsh draws the logical conclusion that Paul's words are “a clear statement of the pre-existence of Christ.”

Conclusion

Getting back to the question of Moses' sin, we can clearly see the logic and biblical justification behind the various explanations discussed above. But the NT data actually provide us with another, somewhat figurative possibility. When he struck the rock at Kadesh, he was actually hitting God/Christ.