The Land of “Milk and Honey” (Numbers 13:27)

How did the Israelite spies sent by Moses describe the land of Canaan? A land flowing with milk and honey (Numbers 13:27)

Before entering the Promised Land, God instructs Moses to send spies into the region to survey it (Numbers 13:1-2). A representative from each tribe is selected for the mission (Numbers 13:3-16). The operatives return with tangible evidence of the land’s sustenance in the form of an impressive cluster of grapes (Numbers 13:23) and concede that the land is as advertised - it does indeed “flow with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8; Numbers 13:27).

Thus they told him, and said, “We went in to the land where you sent us; and it certainly does flow with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. (Numbers 13:27 NASB)

Like a modern day church building project in which the architect is brought in to bring specs of what is being built to capture the people’s imagination, spies are conscripted to give the people an idea of the land that can be theirs and their descendants (Numbers 13:1-2). Though the contingency agrees that the land is excellent, they return with mixed emotions (Numbers 13:26-29).

Dennis T. Olson (b. 1954) informs:

Moses instructs the twelve tribes to survey the land not only to deduce the military might of its inhabitants but also to observe the fertility of the land (Numbers 13:17-21). The spies reconnoiter the land for forty days and then return to report what they have seen [Numbers 13:25]. The initial spy report has some good news and some bad news. The land is indeed fruitful and “flows with milk and honey” (Numbers 13:27). But the bad news is that the residents of the land and strong and live in fortified cities (Numbers 13:28-29, 31-33). (Olson, Numbers (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 78)

The Promised Land is described as a land that “does flow with milk and honey” (Numbers 13:27 NASB). Salim J. Munayer (b. 1955) introduces:

References to the Promised Land in the Bible are many...While some quantitatively describe the borders, others are more concerned with describing the land qualitatively. For this reason we often see the land promised by God described as a land flowing with milk and honey (Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5; Leviticus 20:24-26, 22:4; Numbers 13:27, 14:8; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:8-12, 26:8-9, 27:2-3, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5, 32:22; Ezekiel 20:5-6, 15). Typically this phrase is taken to be a description of the land of Canaan, the phrase “milk and honey” as a “metaphor meaning all good things—God’s blessings.” While some try and draw a literal connection between the land of Canaan and flowing milk and honey, most understand it “to be hyperbolically descriptive of the land’s richness.” (Munayer and Lisa Loden, “Theology of the Land: From a Land of Strife to a Land of Reconciliation”, The Land Cries Out: Theology of the Land in the Israeli-Palestinian Context, 252)

“Milk and honey” is a common epithet of the land that serves almost as a refrain throughout the biblical text (Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6; Sirach 46:8; Baruch 1:20; II Esdras 2:19; Jubilees 1:7; cf. II Kings 18:32; Job 20:17; Sibylline Oracles 3.6222).

The expression accentuates the goodness of the land with most interpreters focusing on its fertility. W.H. Bellinger, Jr. (b. 1949) comments:

“Flowing with milk and honey” is a common description of the fertility of the land [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6] . The land was not terribly fertile but would have seemed so in comparison to the wilderness. Eryl W. Davies [b. 1953] cites evidence that the phrase is a stock one in the ancient Near East (Numbers, p. 138). (Bellinger, Leviticus, Numbers (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series))

The phrase is first heard from the Burning Bush where God uses the expression to promote the land that the Israelites will be taking while speaking to Moses (Exodus 3:8). The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery traces:

“A land flowing with milk and honey,” a phrase that encapsulates the abundant goodness of the Promised Land, first appears in God’s conversation with Moses from the burning bush in Exodus 3:8. It subsequently occurs fourteen times in the Pentateuch [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20] , once in Joshua [Joshua 5:6] and several times in Jeremiah and Ezekiel within contexts alluding to Israel’s history [Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6] . (Leland Ryken [b. 1942], James C. Wilhoit [b. 1951] and Tremper Longman III [b. 1952], Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 488)

Though “milk and honey” is used previously, the spies’ report marks the first time the phrase is heard on the lips of the people and not God (Numbers 13:27). The Promised Land is as good as God (and by association Moses) had advertised.

Some scholars have attempted to isolate the expression to a particular source as posited by the Documentary Hypothesis. George Buchanan Gray (1865-1922) delineates:

A land flowing with milk and honey... [occurs at] Numbers 14:8, 16:13 (exceptionally of Egypt), Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:8 (all...passages from J), 7 times in D, once in H (Leviticus 20:24), and also in Jeremiah 11:5, 32:22, Ezekiel 20:6, 15. Thomas Kelly Cheyne [1841-1915] (in Encyclopaedia Biblica 2104) suggests that the phrase, already conventional in the time of JE, was derived from ancient poetry, and had a mythological origin. (Gray, Deuteronomy (International Critical Commentary), 145)

Horst Dietrich Preuss (1927-1993) analyzes:

The promised land is readily characterized as the “land flowing with milk and honey,” not in the references to the promises of the land in the ancestral narratives but rather in the narratives of the Moses group and then in ensuing texts (Exodus 3:8, 17 J; Exodus 13:5, 33:2ff. [early Deuteronomic]; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:27 P; Numbers 14:8 P; Numbers 16:13ff J; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 27:3, 31:20, 34:4; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5, 32:22; and Ezekiel 20:6, 15). The lack of this expression in the ancestral stories points to the probable original separation of the tradition of the promise of the land to the ancestors from the tradition of the land to the Moses group. With the distinguishing feature of “land flowing with milk and honey,” the land is not portrayed as a land of the gods or painted with the colors of paradise; rather, it is described as an inhabitable land, and perhaps from the view of wandering nomads as an ideal land, so that in Numbers 16:13ff even Egypt can have this description. In Isaiah 7:15, by contrast, “milk and honey” appear as (poor?) nourishment from the viewpoint of the farmers who use the land. In addition to the promise of the land of the fathers, there is then the promise of the land to the Moses group that builds a bridge reaching unto the conquest. However, those who were rebellious, doubting, and not fully obedient to YHWH were denied entrance into the land (Numbers 13:22-33, 14:30-34, 20:12,24, 26:64ff, 32:11). Since these emphases occur especially in the Priestly and also in the Deuteronomic texts (Deuteronomy 1:35, 39ff, 2:14), the question arises as to whether this “wilderness” treats a situation analogous to the sojourn in the exile when many could not or would not trust anymore in YHWH’s guidance. (Preuss, Old Testament Theology, Volume 1 (Old Testament Library), 120)

There are parallels to the expression “milk and honey” in other cultures. Eugene A. Carpenter (1943-2012) reveals:

This phrase...is closely paralleled in Ugaritc poetry. “The heavens fat did rain, The wadis flow with honey!” Milk and fat are mentioned as a blessed feature of the world ordered by Enki, who determined Sumer’s destiny. This hyperbolic metaphorical phrase stresses both the richness of Canaan and the special favor God has bestowed on it as the dwelling place for his people. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 456)

Walter Riggans (b. 1953) supports:

This phrase was used by the Greeks for the food of the gods, and, in a text from about 2,000 B.C., the Egyptian Tale of Sinuhe uses it to describe Northern Galilee. But it is overwhelmingly used by the Israelites of the general area of Canaan. (Riggans, Numbers (Daily Study Bible, 108)

Milk has a decidedly positive connotation in the Old Testament; its most common usage actually occurs in connection with the idiom “milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6) .

Clyde M. Woods (b. 1936) and Justin M. Rogers (b 1982) comment:

Milk is a figure of profusion in the Old Testament (cf. Genesis 39:12; Isaiah 7:21-22). Due to the lack of refrigeration, milk quickly became curds, which could be sopped up with bread, or churned into butter (Proverbs 30:33). (Woods, and Rogers, Leviticus–Numbers (College Press NIV Commentary), 260)

Étan Levine (b. 1934) researches:

Biblical literature abounds with references to milk (or milk products) and honey). These are described as luxury items, gifts, articles of trade, contributions to priests and Levites, and high-energy foods used by those who camp in the wilderness. (Levine, Heaven and Earth, Law and Love: Studies in Biblical Thought, 47)

Ronald L. Eisenberg (b. 1945) inventories:

When poetically depicting God’s gracious generosity toward the Israelites in his farewell address, Moses included “curd of kine” [butter, cream, and yogurt] and “milk of flocks” (Deuteronomy 32:14). In Song of Songs (Song of Solomon 4:11), the lover describes the sweetness of his beloved as having “milk and honey...under your tongue.” In his vision of the Messianic Age, the prophet Joel (Joel 4:18) stated that “the mountains shall drip with wine, the [Judean] hills shall flow with milk.”...Most dairy products during the biblical period were produced from the milk of sheep and goats, since there were relatively few cattle. As an important source of dietary liquid in a region where water was scarce and often contaminated, milk and dairy products were popular offerings by pagan peoples to their gods or king. The prohibition against “boiling a kind in its mother’s milk”—which is repeated three times in the Torah (Exodus 23:19, 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21) and is the basis for the separation of meat and milk—...may thus be the divine rejection of an ancient Canaanite religious practice. (Eisenberg, Jewish Traditions (JPS Guide), 688)

Honey is also presented favorably in the Hebrew Scriptures. Étan Levine (b. 1934) surveys:

Honey itself is described as being both healthful and pleasurable, a metaphor for diverse delights and benefits such as wisdom, divine guidance, and, along with milk, sexuality. The divinely bestowed manna in the wilderness had the taste of honey (Exodus 16:31), for as a foodstuff, “What is sweeter than honey (Judges 14:18)?” (Levine, Heaven and Earth, Law and Love: Studies in Biblical Thought, 46)

The honey in question may be different than most contemporary readers envision. John Goldingay (b. 1942) clarifies:

The usual English phrase is “flowing with milk and honey” [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6], but the “honey” is not bees’ honey but syrup made from fruit such as figs, the main source of sweetness in the Middle East. (Goldingay, Numbers and Deuteronomy for Everyone, 36)

Robert Alter (b. 1935) concurs:

The honey in question is probably not bee’s honey, for apiculture was not practiced in this early period, but rather a sweet syrup extracted from dates. The milk would most likely have been goat’s milk and not cow’s milk. In any case, these two synecdoches for agriculture and animal husbandry respectively become a fixed bounty of the promised land. (Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, 320)

Clyde M. Woods (b. 1936) and Justin M. Rogers (b 1982) investigate:

“Honey” usually includes, in addition to bee-honey, “grape-honey,” a thick grape substance...Baruch A. Levine [b. 1930] states that the term simply means “sweetness,” and can apply broadly (his translation, “sap;” Numbers, p. 356)...R.K. Harrison [1920-2003] notes that honey could perhaps be used as a euphemism for a potent alcoholic mixture (Numbers, p. 211). However, it is unlikely that the euphemism applies here: for the combination of milk and honey is a common figure indicating abundance. (Woods, and Rogers, Leviticus–Numbers (College Press NIV Commentary), 257, 260)

Walter Riggans (b. 1953) deduces:

It could be wild-bee or date honey, but either way the two substances were moist and sweet and in plentiful supply---symbols of peace and plenty. Not what might be expected from an area called “parched” [“Negev”; Numbers 13:17, 22,29]! (Riggans, Numbers (Daily Study Bible), 108)

Counter-intuitively and contrary to popular belief, milk and honey may not have been staples of the Israelite diet. Nathan MacDonald (b. 1975) resolves:

Milk and honey features prominently in the descriptions of the Promised Land [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. Yet, outside of the stereotypical phrase, milk and honey do not appear often in the Old Testament and may not have been important in the diets of most Israelites. (MacDonald, What Did the Ancient Israelites Eat?: Diet in Biblical Times, 11)

There is debate over the exact meaning of the pairing “milk and honey” (Numbers 13:27). Many have seen the foodstuffs as representative terms encompassing a spectrum, one phrase assessing the goodness of the land.

Sarah Malena (b. 1974) and David Miano (b. 1966) research:

The pairing of “milk and honey” evokes an image of fertility, but it is more than the fertility of flocks and groves. Ben Sira lists milk and honey among the basic necessities of life [Sirach 39:26], while the Song of Songs employs the two words in images of luxury and indulgence [Song of Solomon 4:11, 6:1]. William H.C. Propp [b. 1957]’s musings on the subject reveal the nuances of parental nourishment and comfort. And in the frequent reiteration of the divine promise one perceives the connotation of security and longevity. (Malena and Miano, Milk and Honey: Essays on Ancient Israel and the Bible in Appreciation of the Judaic Studies Program at the University of California, San Diego, ix)

Others have seen milk and honey as representatives of larger, overarching categories. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery examines:

Why did milk and honey become the favored pair of items for the evocative epithet, when other options existed? Since the Bible does not itself explicate the epithet, we are left to surmise. Next to bread, milk was the most important staple in the diet of the Hebrews. A land that produced an abundance of milk had to be rich in pasturage, so by extension a picture of successful farming enters one’s imagination. Honey, valued for its sweetness rather than as a necessity of life, was rare enough to rank as a luxury. As images of desirability and abundance, therefore, these two images combine to form a picture of total satisfaction. The image of “flowing” suggests a rich fullness that surpasses all need and sets up a contrast with the arid wilderness. Perhaps they are even an example of Hebrew merism (naming opposites to cover everything between as well), suggesting the whole spectrum of food, from the necessary to the luxurious. (Leland Ryken [b. 1942], James C. Wilhoit [b. 1951] and Tremper Longman III [b. 1952], Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 488)

Bruce Wells (b. 1968) inquires:

Exactly what kind of prosperity does the biblical expression refer to? It probably does not refer to the most common forms of agriculture, such as the cultivation of grains. Rather, the “milk” likely refers to animal husbandry and the use of animal byproducts for food and clothing. Sheep were important for their wool and meat, but goats may have been more important. They provide twice as much milk as sheep, and their hair and hides could be used for tents, clothing carpets, and even satchels for holding liquids. The “honey” refers to horticulture—the cultivation of fruits and vegetables. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 174)

Étan Levine (b. 1934) counters:

Contrary to popular interpretation, biblical diction paired “milk and honey” not because of their gastronomical affinity but because both are products of identical topographical and economic conditions. In biblical Palestine as elsewhere, both milk and honey are not products of fertile, cultivated farmlands, but of uncultivated grazing areas. The flocks and herds feed on wild growth, on land unsuitable for agriculture. And it is there, amidst the thickets, bushes and wild flowers, that honey is also found. (Levine, Heaven and Earth, Law and Love: Studies in Biblical Thought, 46)

Some have seen the two elements as indicative of the distinct geography of the northern and southern portions of Israel. The Zondervan Dictionary of Biblical Imagery speculates:

Milk...appears in the frequently mentioned formula used to describe the Promised Land, “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8, 3:17, 13:5, 33:3, et al.). As the Israelite spies spent years in a trackless wilderness, the description certainly provided an inviting picture of the Promised Land. But it may also be a descriptor that honors the distinct differences between the northern and southern sections of Canaan. Because the north receives more rain, there is considerably more vegetation that provides flowers for the bees to use in making honey. In contrast the south receives considerably less rain, so we find agriculture giving way to the pastoral life and the goat’s milk that was a staple in the Israelite diet. Thus the diverse nature of the Promised Land is captured in this expression by naming two important commodities associated with it subregions. (John A. Beck [b. 1956], Zondervan Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

This proposition seems unlikely as the later division between the southern and northern kingdoms was unwanted. At this point, an image of solidarity was preferable if not necessary; an advancing army must be unified.

Others have seen the land as evoking paradise. Salim J. Munayer (b. 1955) argues:

More than simply indicating fertile soil, in the context of the biblical world, milk and honey were also used to describe the otherworldly richness of paradise. Indeed, in many ancient Near Eastern traditions, “the image of an ideal place flowing with milk and honey has long been associated with paradise.” Even in Islam we find traces of this association; for example the paradise described by Allah in the Qur’an is depicted as “the eternal garden of joy...[and it] possesses not only rivers of pure water and wine, but ‘rivers of fresh milk’ and ‘rivers of pure honey.’”...Given the context from which it arose and what we have learned about merism phrases, there is reason to doubt the mention of a land flowing with milk and honey is making a reference to an earthly place at all. The land of Canaan already had certain very specific and known elements associated with it—the famous Seven Species of Deuteronomy 8:8, where Canaan is described as “a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig tress [sic], pomegranates, olive oil and honey.”...It makes more sense to think of this phrase as a literary, poetic description of an idyllic paradise, rather than a specific location on earth. There are radical implications to this interpretation when applied to all the many places in the Scriptures where we find this phrase [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. However, when we remember the universal nature of God’s promise, it is clear: The land flowing with milk and honey is not Canaan or Egypt or any other terrestrial place; it is a future return to the garden as the fulfillment of God’s promises. (Munayer and Lisa Loden, “Theology of the Land: From a Land of Strife to a Land of Reconciliation”, The Land Cries Out: Theology of the Land in the Israeli-Palestinian Context, 252-53)

There has also been discussion as to whether Canaan’s land is as arable as the spies’ depiction (Numbers 13:25-27). Later pilgrims could not help but notice discrepancy.

Lester I. Vogel (b. 1948) documents:

Confronted with the reality of Ottoman Palestine, it was easy to turn from the present to the past, as Clara E. Waters [1834-1916] had done. Likewise, it was easier to explain the reality in sweeping, universal terms. Nathaniel Clark Burt [1825-1874] saw Palestine’s condition as epitomizing the geography of the world in its diversity, thereby affording the former peoples of the country a chance to be representative of humanity and to produce “a revelation with wide, varied, universal adaptations.” To Burt, the Holy Land was dreary and desolate, especially in the context of the biblical passage that advertised the land as luxuriantly flowing with milk and honey [Exodus 3:8; Numbers 13:27]. But Burt imagined that the land had been good in ages past, that “it requires little observation and reflection, on the part of the traveler in Palestine, to perceive that the country possesses great natural capabilities and must, at a former period, have sustained an immense population.” When Burt recalled that the land’s present condition fulfilled scriptural prediction exactly, he showed more interest in the spectacle of the land’s desolation than he did in evidences of prosperity. (Vogel, To See A Promised Land: Americans and the Holy Land in the Nineteenth Century, 74)

There is ancient support for a fertile Canaan. Bruce Wells (b. 1968) presents:

The expression evokes the image of a prosperous land [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. The Egyptian Story of Sinuhe (from the Twelfth Dynasty, early second millennium B.C.) also describes the land of Canaan as prosperous: “It was a wonderful land called Yaa. There were cultivated figs in it and grapes, and more wine than water. Its honey was abundant, and its olive trees numerous. On its trees were all varieties of fruit. There was barley and emmer, and there was no end to all the varieties of cattle.” But the land seems not to have been consistently prosperous; several biblical texts refer to famine in Canaan (Genesis 12:10, 26:1, 43:1). Biblical texts describe the blessing of Yahweh as the determining factor. When he wished for there to be prosperity, there was. Ugaritic texts present a similar perspective: When there was divine blessing—in their case, from Baal—then “the heavens rain oil/the wadis run with honey.” (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 174)

The rabbinic writing also corroborates the biblical witness. Fred Rosner (b. 1935) apprises:

The Bible repeatedly asserts that Israel is “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8, 3:17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:27, 14:8, 16:13, 16:14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 26:15, 27:3, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5, 32:22; Ezekiel 20:6, 20:15). This divine blessing is depicted in the Talmud (Ketubot 11b) where it states that Rabbi ben Ezekiel [220-299] once paid a visit to Bnei Berak where he saw goats grazing under fig trees and honey was flowing from the figs and milk ran from the goats and the honey and milk mingled with each other. Rabbah bar Bar Hannah said: “I saw the flow of the milk and honey in all the land of Israel and the total area was equal to the land extending from the Be Mikse to the Fort of Tulbanke, an area of twenty-two parasangs in length and six parasangs in breadth.” Here and elsewhere (Megillah 6a), Resh Lakish [third century CE] said that he saw the flow of milk and honey at Sepphoris and it extended over an area of sixteen by sixteen miles. (Rosner, Medicine in the Bible and the Talmud: Selections from Classical Jewish Sources, 115)

Jacob Neusner (b. 1932) bolsters:

R. Ammi bar Ezekiel visited Bene Beraq. He saw goats grazing under fig trees, with honey flowing from the figs, and milk running from the goats, and the honey and the milk mingled. He said, “That is in line with ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’ (Exodus 3:8; Numbers 13:27).” Said R. Jacob b. Dosetai, “From Lud to Ono is three Roman miles. Once I got up early at down [sic] and I walked up to my ankles in fig honey.” Said R Simeon b. Laqish [third century CE], “I personally saw the flood of milk and honey of Sepphoris, and it extended over sixteen square miles.” Said Rabbah bar bar Hannah, “I personally saw the flood of milk and honey of the entirety of the Land of Israel, and it extended from Be Mikse to the Fort of Tulbanqi, twenty-two parasangs long, six parasangs wide.” (Neusner, Theological Dictionary of Rabbinic Judaism, Part One: Principal Theological Categories, 113)

While the Bible lauds the Promised Land it also acknowledges its shortcomings. Eugene Korn (b. 1947) recalls:

While the Bible describes the Land of Israel as “a land of milk and honey” (Deuteronomy 31:20) and “a good land, a land with streams and springs and fountains issuing from plain and hill; a land of wheat and barley, of vines, figs, and pomegranates; a land of olive trees and honey (Deuteronomy 8:7-8), Scripture also points out on numerous occasions that this land forces its inhabitants to recognize God by increasing the Jewish people’s dependency on God and on fulfilling the covenant. (Korn, The Jewish Connection to Israel, the Promised Land: A Brief Introduction for Christians, 8)

Comparatively speaking, Canaan fits the bill as the land is undoubtedly an upgrade over the wilderness in which the Israelites are presently residing. Stephen Buchmann (b. 1952) appraises:

To people living in a harsh desert climate, a lush green landscape must have fit their idea of paradise. The pastures of this rich, well-watered paradise would be dotted with contented cows grazing on succulent grass and producing fresh, wholesome milk; the meadows would be filled with wildflowers buzzing with bees as they collected nectar and pollen to transform into golden honey. It’s no mystery why milk and honey became symbols for the Jews of a blessed land [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. (Buchmann, Letters from the Hive: An Intimate History of Bees, Honey, and Humankind, 124)

Étan Levine (b. 1934) recognizes:

To the homeless Israelites who were poised to take it, the Holy Land was perceived as being a “very, very good land” [Numbers 14:7], a “blessed land” [Deuteronomy 33:13], for realistically speaking, one could hardly expect a different reaction from a horde of landless wanderers! It is also true that no less than fifteen times in the Pentateuch and five times thereafter, the Promised Land is described as “a land flowing with milk and honey” [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that biblical exegetes, from the ancient commentators to modern scholars, have understood this phrase as an obvious metaphor extolling the lush fecundity of the land assigned to the People of Israel. (Levine, Heaven and Earth, Law and Love: Studies in Biblical Thought, 46)

David J. Lorenzo (b. 1961) compares:

The characteristics of the Promised Land would be the obverse of those of Egypt and the wilderness, representing a transcendence of both. Unlike Egypt, the Promised Land would be the Hebrews’ own. Rather than working as slaves, they would live as a free people. And unlike the wilderness, it would be a rich land, one “flowing with milk and honey” [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. There the Hebrews would have no need of Yahweh’s provision of material food in the form of manna, nor spiritual food in the form of Moses’ leadership. They would be free and self-determining within the boundaries of the Covenant. (Lorenzo, Tradition and the Rhetoric of Right: Popular Political Argument in the Aurobindo Movement, 157)

Margaret Feinberg (b. 1976) praises:

Nearly two dozen references throughout the Old Testament describe the Promised Land as a place “flowing with milk and honey” [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]...The promise that the land would overflow with “milk” suggests abundant pastureland for goats and cows while the mention of “honey” implies that the land was abounding in flowers and grass. Such a detailed portrait of a promise reveals something about the outrageously generous heart of God. He didn’t just want to end slavery for his people. He wanted to bring them out of the land entirely and into a new place that overflowed with provision. (Feinberg, Scouting the Divine: My Search for God in Wine, Wool, and Wild Honey)

Whatever the specific connotation “milk and honey” indicates, generally speaking, the land is good. Timothy R. Ashley (b. 1947) assesses:

These verses [Numbers 13:27-29] are probably a summary of the spies’ report. The general report was that the land was very good: it flows with milk and honey (zābat-hālāb ûdebaš hî). Although Numbers 13:27ff concentrate on the report to Moses (they recounted it to him, Numbers 13:27), the text makes clear that the report was in the hearing of the whole congregation (Numbers 13:26). (Ashley, The Book of Numbers (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 239)

The idiom “milk and honey” serves as a powerful, concise slogan to motivate the people (Numbers 13:27). Stephen K. Sherwood (b. 1943) acknowledges:

The familiar image of a land flowing not with water but with milk and honey has a strong rhetorical effect. (Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), 78)

Jonathan Kirsch (b. 1949) remarks:

Moses...had not been elected by anyone except an unheard and unseen God, and so far God has not deigned to speak to anyone other than Moses and his brother. Yet Moses had urged them out of the relative safety and comfort of Egypt into an empty and threatening wilderness, all on a vague promise that someday they would reach a distant land of “milk and honey” [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20]. Such rhetoric had surely been heard before among the poor and oppressed, and history assures us that it would be heard again and again through the centuries. (Kirsch, Moses: A Life, 219)

The phrasing provides concrete imagery of a better place. Robert Alter (b. 1935) envisions:

Beyond well-watered Egypt and the burning desert where uncanny fires flare, the new Israelite nation is repeatedly told of a third space, a land flowing not with water but, hyperbolically, with milk and honey [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. This utopian space will be beyond reach for forty years, and in a sense it can never be fully attained. When the twelve spies enter it on a reconnaissance mission in Numbers, they confirm its fabulous fecundity [Numbers 13:25-27], but ten of twelve also deem it unconquerable [Numbers 13:31-33], calling it “a land that consumes its inhabitants” [Numbers 13:32]. As the biblical story continues through Numbers and Deuteronomy and ultimately on to the history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel the land flowing with milk and honey will begin to seem something like the Land of Cockaigne of medieval European folklore, a dream of delighted, unimpeded fulfillment beyond the grating actualities of real historical time. (Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, 303)

Despite its prominence in the Old Testament (Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6), the phrase “milk and honey” does not recur in the New Testament.

Dominic Janes notes:

J. Duncan M. Derrett [1922-2012] (1984) points out that the ‘land of milk and honey’ (Exodus 3:8-17 and Exodus 13:5) vanishes from the Christian tradition even as allegory. (Janes, God and Gold in Late Antiquity, 153).

The Promised Land gives the enslaved and later wandering Israelites a concept of a better future residence that provides a beacon of hope. It serves much the same function that heaven does to contemporary believers.

Reggie McNeal (b. 1955) relates:

The central act of God in the Old Testament is the Exodus, a divine intervention into human history to liberate his people from oppression and slavery. The decisive act of the New Testament is the divine intervention of God into human history to liberate his people from oppression and slavery...In both cases the deliverance is not just from something but to something. The Hebrew slaves were destined for the Promised Land, a land flowing with milk and honey [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. Jesus promised his followers abundant life [John 10:10]. Included in that deal is heaven. (McNeal, The Present Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church, 12-13)

John M. Shackleford (b. 1929) correlates:

We can certainly identify with the Israelites wandering in the desert. It symbolizes our own travels through life, searching for the “Promised Land.” The Promised Land, the land of Canaan, is also an important symbol of all our hopes for the future. To me, the Land of Promise is symbolic of the spiritual dimension I look toward as a final goal. If this life on earth is a time of preparation, which I believe to be the case, then the Promised Land is the final goal of that preparation. It is a symbol for heaven, a spiritual dimension of happiness with our creator. (Shackleford, God as Symbol: What Our Beliefs Tell Us, 36)

The Promised Land is the future home of the Israelite nation. As few of them have any frame of reference to it, Moses enlists members from each tribe to survey its contents (Numbers 13:3-16). When they come back, the tag line “flowing with milk and honey” captures the imagination and instills resolve that a better home awaits (Numbers 13:27). Contemporary Christians hold a similar belief: There is always hope for a better tomorrow.

Why does God evoke the peculiar combination of “milk and honey” to encapsulate the Promised Land (Exodus 3:8)? Would the epithet have been different for a another group of people? What would the combination of milk and honey look like? What is the modern equivalent of a land “flowing with milk and honey”? What two resources would epitomize your ideal land; what items would use to categorize a land as very good? Where is your land of milk and honey?

The good news is that the land is indeed good (Numbers 13:25-27). But there is a problem. It is not the quality of the region but rather the inhabitants of the land (Numbers 13:28-29). The spies return with both a majority and minority report: Though they agree on the goodness of the land, they disagree on the proper course of action (Numbers 13:25-29).

Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (b. 1940) reports:

The spies return with their report to the leaders and the people. According to Numbers 13:25-29 they are agreed about the marvelous productivity of the land, which they describe as “flowing with milk and honey” (Numbers 13:27); and all are agreed about the strength of the inhabitants and the strong fortification of their towns [Numbers 13:28-29]. They are divided, however, as to the appropriate course of action. Caleb proposes to take the land at once [Numbers 13:30]. The others consider the task impossible and reinforce their conclusion by describing the Israelites as like grasshoppers compared to the huge people who live in that land “that devours its inhabitants” (Numbers 13:33). The image of a devouring land may be intended to dramatize the power of human forces living in Canaan, or it may be a reversal of the earlier claim about the fruitfulness of the area. In any case, the recommendation against proceeding to the land is evident. (Sakenfeld, Numbers: Journeying with God (International Theological Commentary), 85-86)

Rolf P. Knierim (b. 1928) and George W. Coats (1936-2006) dissect:

The weight of a spy report falls on the report produced by the mission. The spies return from their mission and make their reports to Moses and the people (Numbers 13:26). The report has two forms: (a) The land flows with milk and honey (Numbers 13:27). It thus corresponds to the promised land from the tradition (→Exodus 3:8). The expression, a way to emphasize the fertility of the land, is a typical epithet for the land and thus points to the position of the tradition about the fertile land in popular lore [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. (b) The people are strong and large. The descendants of Anak are there [Numbers 13:28, 33]. The cities are fortified. And the result is a self-description that constitutes a firm example of a frightened resignation. The spies name themselves grasshoppers (Numbers 13:33). The report is thus both good and bad. (Knierim and Coats, Numbers (Forms of the Old Testament Literature), 186)

The discrepancy is embodied in two references in the spies’ report (Numbers 13:27, 32). Diane M. Sharon (b. 1948) connects:

The association of “a land flowing with milk and honey” in Numbers 13:27 with its antithesis, a land devouring its settlers in Numbers 13:32, also recalls the Lord’s desire to withdraw from personally leading the people to the ‘land flowing with milk and honey’ ודבש חלב זבת ארץ בדרך אכלך after the debacle of the golden calf, ‘lest I devour you on the way’ פן־ בדרך אכלך (Exodus 33:3). The metaphoric allusion in Exodus 33 to a connection between the land of milk and honey and the death of the people on the way is concretized and made explicit in the narrative of Numbers 13:1-14:45. But just as Moses intercedes successfully on behalf of the people in Exodus 33:12-17, so, too, his intercession in Numbers 14:11-38 mitigates the Lord’s wrath. (Sharon, Patterns of Destiny: Narrative Structures of Foundation and Doom in the Hebrew Bible, 204)

Unfortunately the bad news overshadows the good (Numbers 13:25-33). R. Dennis Cole (b. 1950) tracks:

The essential question regarding the land was whether it was good (hătôbâ) or bad (’im-rā‘a). When the scouts returned, they described the land as good, describing it as flowing with milk and honey [Numbers 13:27], a key phrase used throughout the Old Testament to characterize the quality and productivity of the Promised Land [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. The tenor of the report, however, suddenly shifted from one of prospective prosperity to one of foreboding fear as the majority of the scouts announced the seeming insurmountability of the people and their heavily fortified cities (Numbers 13:28-29). This fear turned to rebellion when they described the land in terms of death, hence evil or bad, and described a potential return to Egypt as “good” (Numbers 13:31-14:4). (Cole, Numbers (New American Commentary), 210)

David L. Stubbs (b. 1964) laments:

The scouts return and give their report. They show the people the fruit of the land [Numbers 13:23], and their first words are that the land indeed “flows with milk adn honey” (Numbers 13:27)—that is, excellent for grazing milk-giving animals and filled with bees: a perfect land for people like the Israelites. But their concern and anxiety quickly overshadow their initial positive vision, as is apparent in their lengthy rehearsal of the inhabitants of the land—a traditional list of the peoples who lived in Canaan [Numbers 13:28-29]. (Stubbs, Numbers (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 128-29)

Modern psychological assessments of Moses have often concurred with the negative majority report, depicting the Promised Land as the leader’s unattainable conquest. Robert A. Paul analyzes:

If, as the midrashic tradition holds, the longing for Egypt was a longing for “incestuous unions”...then these scenes could be analyzed as representing a longing for the mother in whom the nurturant and erotic functions are as yet undifferentiated. Cast out from incestuous Egypt by virtue of the guilt incurred through rebellious patricide, Moses pursues the unattainable chimera of the “promised land flowing with milk and honey,” which will always remain out of reach [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20] . (Paul, Moses and Civilization: The Meaning Behind Sigmund Freud [1856-1939]’s Myth, 105)

A subtle, yet critical, clue to the spies’ bias is concealed in their opening statement. Richard N. Boyce (b. 1955) notices:

Their report starts out well enough, though they show some confusion as to who has sent them (“you” the congregation, versus “You,” God; Numbers 13:27). (Boyce, Leviticus and Numbers (Westminster Biblical Companion), 159)

It is God, not the congregation, who has sent the spies to investigate the land (Numbers 13:1-2). Concurrently, it will be God, not the congregation, who will secure the land. Omitting or forgetting God’s involvement in their mission is telling.

Further, God’s promise is the land, not a life of ease in the Promised Land. The promise is opportunity.

David M. Gunn (b. 1942) considers:

Yahweh is the “God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” [Exodus 3:6]; he has heard their cry, seen their suffering, and will deliver them out of Egypt into land flowing with milk and honey (Exodus 3:6-8, 15-17). Yahweh has seen suffering, affliction and oppression. But if he acts out of simple compassion, we are not told so. Nor is the emphasis of the speech upon the alleviation of the suffering (though the alleviation of course is implied). Rather the keynote is the covenantal promise of land, a land of milk and honey, and so perhaps a land in which to flourish. (David J.A. Clines [b. 1938], Gunn and Alan J. Hauser [b. 1945], Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, “The ‘Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart”: Plot, Character and Theology in Exodus 1-14”, 82)

Acquiring the land will take effort. Calvin Miller (1936-2012) empathizes:

For generations God told Israel he would give them Canaan, a land flowing with milk and honey [Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:17, 14:8, 16:13-14; Deuteronomy 6:3, 11:9, 26:9, 15, 31:20; Joshua 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 20:6]. It sounded good until they went to pick up the gift and discovered people were already living in Canaan. So the gift required a great deal of effort from Israel. It is in this same sense that God gives us eternal life, only to have us discover that we must work out our own salvation (Philippians 2:12) and faithfully discipline ourselves to make our lives really count for God. (Miller, Fruit of the Spirit: Faithfulness: Cultivating Spirit-Given Character)

The Israelites’ greatest obstacle will not be the land’s inhabitants, regardless of their size. Richard N. Boyce (b. 1955) concludes:

God knows the greatest threat to this mission is not the people and the walled cities of this land of milk and honey, no matter how well “fortified” (Numbers 13:19). No, the greatest threat to the forward motion of this story is the fear ever welling up in the hearts of these travelers. God’s people were and still are more proficient at sitting and wailing, than at marching and praising. (Boyce, Leviticus and Numbers (Westminster Biblical Companion), 156)

Despite the consensus that the land is suitable, the negative report represents the majority opinion (Numbers 13:25-33). Consequently, the spies’ report ultimately reveals more about themselves than the land. The Israelites choose to focus on the heavily fortified armies rather than the heavenly promised land. As is often the case, the bad news proves easier to believe. The spies’ report serves as a reminder that nothing must overshadow the good news of God.

How would you have received the spies’ report (Numbers 13:25-33); what stands out to you? What more could the Israelites have asked for? Have you ever forgotten to factor God into your life’s equation? When have you struggled to characterize something as either inherently good or evil? When has bad news overshadowed the good?

“Time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted.” - Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington (1769-1852), Victor of Waterloo

Quoth the Raven? (Genesis 8:7)

What was the first bird that Noah sent out after the rain had ceased? Raven (Genesis 8:7)

Noah’s surviving an apocalyptic flood in an ark is one of the Bible’s most well known stories (Genesis 6:13-9:17). God famously saves the patriarch and seven of his relatives from the perilous waters. After the rains subside and the water recedes, Noah releases a raven from the ark (Genesis 8:7).

Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7 NASB)

Though the raven does not return, a dove that is dicharged a week later famously retrieves an olive branch which has survived as an everlasting image of peace (Genesis 8:8-12).

Though not as well remembered the first bird that Noah dispatches is a raven (Genesis 8:7). The Hebrew literally reads “the raven”. Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951) specifies:

The definite article indicates here only what is termed a general definition: he sent forth the raven that he sent; similarly in Genesis 8:8: one of the doves that were with him in the ark, the dove that he put forth. (Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part Two, From Noah to Abraham, 109)

Claus Westermann (1909-2000) agrees:

The definite article with the raven is an indication of the species, like “the” fox or “the” hare in the tale; other examples in the Old Testament are I Samuel 17:35; I Kings 20:36; Amos 5:19. For the construction cf. Johann Baptist Göttsberger [1868-1958]. (Westermann, Genesis 1-11 (A Continental Commentary), 447)

There is little debate as to the bird in question as the Hebrew ôrêb is almost universally translated “raven” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NKJV, NIV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) describes:

The raven is a wild bird that is not discriminating in its diet. It feeds on carrion as well as vegetation and could thus obtain its food from among the floating carcasses. That is why it made repeated forays from the ark. Noah could observe its movements over several days. (Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary), 57)

Gordon J. Wenham (b. 1943) opines:

The raven is not only black but unclean (Leviticus 11:15; Deuteronomy 14:14), so it is little surprise that it brought Noah no consolation...Since they were unclean, there were only two ravens on the ark, so both had to live if the species was to survive. Note that the raven kept on flying till the earth “dried out.” Only then did Noah disembark (Genesis 8:14). (Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary), 186)

J. Vernon McGee (1904-1988) envisions:

Noah is engaged here in “birdwatching.” He sends out the raven, and the raven does not come back. Why didn’t that raven come back? You must recognize what that raven eats—it feeds on carrion. There was a whole lot of flesh of dead animals floating around after the Flood, and that was the kind of thing this old crow ate. He did not return to the Ark because he was really going to a feast, and he was having a very wonderful time. (McGee, Genesis, Chapters 1-15, 138)

The appearance of the raven has striking similarities to the Babylonian flood narrative, the Gilgamesh epic. Tremper Longman III (b.1952) declares:

Perhaps the most striking similarity between the two accounts is the use of birds to determine whether or not the floodwaters have receded. (Longman, How to Read Genesis, 85)

Ronald Hendel (b. 1958) contrasts:

Noah sends a single raven and then a dove three times [Genesis 8:6-12]—which differs from Utnapishtim’s sequence of dove, swallow, and raven—but the motif of sending birds to see if the waters have abated is the same. It derives from a trick of ancient mariners to see if a ship is close to land. But in this case, from the top of a mountain, Utnapishtim and Noah could have simply looked out the window: the birds are not strictly necessary. The sending of the birds is a colorful motif that slows down the action—thereby creating suspense—and vividly depicts the passage of time. The returning dove in Genesis, a “plucked olive leaf” in its beak [Genesis 8:11], offers a miniature vision of life reborn, just as Utnapishtim’s raven, who “saw the waters receding...eating, bobbing up and down,” shows that life will go on. (Hendel, The Book of Genesis: A Biography, 28)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) critiques:

The scriptural account has Noah send out first a raven and then a dove. The Gilgamesh Epic reverses that order—first the dove and then the raven. The biblical sequence has more of the ring of truth about it. The raven is a carrion eater and did not return because it found food on the mountain peaks. (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 304)

There are also correlations to other flood myths. Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) chronicles:

Noah releases a raven and a dove, and the latter twice more, at seven-day intervals [Genesis 8:6-12]...Utnapishtim waits seven days after grounding before releasing a dove, then a swallow, and then a raven. Berossus [third century BCE], too, tells of three separate dispatches of birds, but there are no details about them. It is not known whether the practice was part of the Atrahasis story. (Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary), 57)

Noah “sent out (or forth)” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NKJV, NIV, NRSV, RSV) or “released” (NLT) the raven (Genesis 8:7). Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) analyzes:

Every time Noah sends forth one of these birds the Hebrew uses the Piel of šālah (e.g, Genesis 8:7, wayyešallah). This use contrasts with the Qal šālah used in Genesis 8:9 to refer to Noah’s “stretching out” his hand to retrieve the dove. Now, at many places in the Old Testament the Qal and Piel of this verb seem to be interchangeable. But sometimes the Qal means to send forth on a mission, with the expectation that those sent will return. Thus Moses (Numbers 13:3) and Joshua (Joshua 2:1) “sent” (šālah, Qal) the spies who will return with the needed information. The Piel of šālah may mean to send away, to banish with no possibility of returning, as in Genesis 3:23: “Yahweh sent him forth [wayyešallehēhû from the garden of Eden.” Applied to Genesis 8:7-12 the meaning would be that Noah does not send these birds forth on a trial run. He does not expect them to return to their nest in the ark. (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 303)

No reason is stated as to why Noah releases the bird. This omission has generated much conjecture. John L. Thompson (b. 1952) introduces:

The...account of how Noah released first a raven and then a dove in order to test whether the earth had sufficiently dried was mined by traditional commentators for all sorts of reasons. Some assumed that Noah must have chosen these two particular birds on the basis of his special wisdom, revelation or insight. The Bible thus functioned for some interpreters much like a medieval bestiary here, definitively disclosing the special characteristics of these animals for all time. For others, the story was a rich source for allegorical readings. In both cases, speculative impulses were sometimes fueled by inside information or other lore gleaned from the writings of the rabbis. (Thompson, Genesis 1-11 (Reformation Commentary on Scripture), 272)

Many interpreters have viewed the raven as performing a reconnaissance mission due to the insufficiency of the ark’s window. This is the reason supplied by the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament.

Gordon J. Wenham (b. 1943) deduces:

Apparently the window must have been in the roof of the ark; at least it did not allow Noah to see the waters receding, which is why he resorts to sending out the birds. Willem Hendrik Gispen [1900-1986] notes that before the electronic era sailors used to use birds in this way to discover if land was close. (Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary), 186)

J.G. Vos (1903-1983) expounds:

After the peaks of the mountains became visible, Noah waited forty days and then released the raven. Evidently, the window Noah opened did not afford a sufficiently wide view. H.C. Leupold [1892-1972] suggests that the window may have been rather high up under projecting eaves, which would limit the view. The raven, once released, did not return to the ark. Of course, the meaning is not that the raven flew hither and yon without any rest until the earth was dry. We must remember that the mountain peaks were already exposed, and these would afford rest for the raven when not in flight. (Vos, Genesis, 153)

Bill T. Arnold (b. 1955) determines:

The episode of the birds (Genesis 8:6-12) – the raven and the dove – is one of the best known elements of the flood story. The assumption is that the birds can reveal something to humans locked up in the ark that the humans cannot discern for themselves. The use of birds by ancient sailors to find land was a common practice. Here, of course, Noah is not locating land, since his ark has been grounded by the mountains of Ararat. Rather the text emphasizes Noah’s care for his family and the animals in his charge by determining the readiness of the land for habitation. (Arnold, Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 105)

Enlisting birds was a standard procedure for sailors of the era. John H. Walton (b. 1952) explains:

Ancient navigators used birds to find land, but Noah is not navigating, and he is on land. His use of the birds is not in order to find direction, but to determine the readiness of the land for habitation. In the ancient Near East the flight patterns of birds sometimes served as omens, but neither Noah nor Utnapishtim make observations from the flight of the birds sent out. A raven, by habit, lives on carrion and would therefore have sufficient food available. The dove and the pigeon have a limited ability for sustained flight, live at lower elevations, and require plants for food. The olive leaf retrieved by the dove suggests the amount of time it takes for an olive tree to leaf out after being submerged—a clue to the current depth of the floodwaters [Genesis 8:11]. It is also symbolic of new life and fertility to come after the Flood. It is a difficult tree to kill, even if cut down. This freshly plucked shoot shows Noah that recovery from the Flood had begun. (Walton, Genesis (NIV Application Commentary), 314-15)

The view that the raven is sent for this purpose is problematic. Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951) rejects:

The purpose for which Noah sent the raven is not expressly stated as in the case of the dove in Genesis 8:8, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground. One may suppose, as most commentators do, that the object was the same; but this is difficult, for if the two birds had been put forth for the identical reason, it should have been indicated in connection with the first bird rather than the second. More probably Noah sent forth the raven without any specific intention; he let it go to see how it would act so that he might learn something from its behaviour—whatever there was to actually learn from it. Actually, however, it taught him nothing. The Septuagint adds also here the words, to see if the waters had subsided (with slight variations in the manuscripts) in order to harmonize, in accordance with its usual practice, this verse with Genesis 8:8. The Biblical text should not, therefore, be emended on the basis of the Septuagint as many contemporary expositors have suggested. (Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part Two, From Noah to Abraham, 109-10)

If the raven is sent to unearth information, it remains to be seen what it uncovers. Bill T. Arnold (b. 1955) denounces:

The view from this skylight apparently did not allow an accurate assessment of the condition of earth (implied also by Genesis 8:13), and thus Noah relies on birds to help. But in the first case, he receives no help at all! The raven is a scavenger, feeding on carrion, and was therefore independent of both the food in the ark or fresh meat on the ground. In the flood’s aftermath, the raven has plenty of floating corpses to feed upon, and needs no “place to set its foot” upon, as the dove will need (Genesis 8:9). NRSV’s “went to and fro” until the waters were dried up may instead indicate “took off, flying thither and back,” indicating in fact that the raven kept combing back to the ark and leaving it until the earth was dry. Thus the raven was of no value in determining whether the earth was now hospitable to human life! On the other hand, the three trips of the dove illustrate the degrees of readiness of earth. (Arnold, Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 105)

Gordon J. Wenham (b. 1943) concurs:

The whole scene is dominated by Noah’s concern to discover whether the waters have retreated. The raven episode is then essentially an unsuccessful experiment: it brings back no evidence of any change in the situation. The dove brings back some evidence, the fresh olive leaves, so that Noah concludes that the waters had lessened. But only when he removes the cover of the ark does he himself see that the surface of the soil is dry (Genesis 8:13). (Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary), 185)

Others have seen the raven and dove as working in tandem. The dove’s data collection is enhanced by the raven’s. Stuart Briscoe (b. 1930) reasons:

Noah dispatched the raven “which kept going to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth” (Genesis 8:8). With all the death around the raven found plenty to occupy itself so “He also sent out from himself a dove...but the dove found no resting place...and she returned...So he put out his hand and took her, and drew her into the ark to himself” (Genesis 8:8-9). He now knew that a raven could survive outside the ark and a dove could not so he drew his conclusions from that data. (Briscoe, Genesis (Mastering the Old Testament)

Claus Westermann (1909-2000) concludes:

Franz Delitzsch [1813-1890] comments on the result of sending out of the raven: “It was a good sign that it did not come back.” This holds also for Gilgamesh XI 153-54 where the raven is the third bird that is sent out, and the disembarkation from the ship follows at once. It can only be meant as an attempt which did not succeed in the present state of the text of Genesis 8:6-12. “It told him (Noah) nothing,” Umberto Cassuto [1883-1951]. (Westermann, Genesis 1-11 (A Continental Commentary), 447)

Outside of the ark the raven flies “to and fro” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), “back and forth” (HCSB, MSG, NIV, NLT), “here and there” (NASB) or is simply “flying around” (CEV). As such, Genesis leaves the raven perpetually suspended flying to and fro evermore.

Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951) comments:

True to its nature, the raven is concerned only with itself and pays no heed to the man’s needs. It goes forth and comes back, goes and returns, and Noah can draw no inference from its going and coming. Instead of to and fro [literally, ‘going and returning’] the Septuagint reads: and did not return. Actually this clause does not fit in well with the rest of the verse. But it is interesting to note that it corresponds to what is related in the Epic of Gilgameš. (Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part Two, From Noah to Abraham, 110)

As Cassuto alludes, the neglect of the raven’s fate is amended in the Septuagint. Susan Brayford (b. 1950) informs:

Unlike its Masoretic Text counterpart that went back and forth, the Septuagint raven does not return until it can positively report that the earth had dried out. Presumably tired of waiting for the raven’s return and report, Noah sends a dove out after it, whose mission is to see if the water had abated. Unlike the raven, the dove returns to Noah because it, like its Mesopotamian counterpart, could not find a dry resting place. (Brayford, Genesis (Septuagint Commentary), 269)

Laurence A. Turner questions:

Baffling is the fate of the raven (Genesis 8:7). It would appear that it never returned but simply ‘went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth.’ If it survived (by eating carrion), then why did it need to be taken into the ark? If it died, then being ‘saved’ on the ark has a bitter irony...Perhaps Noah’s actions are simply confused, serving no useful purpose other than to satisfy his curiosity, for even when he knows that the earth is dry (Genesis 8:11), he stays put. (Turner, Genesis (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), 43)

Because the raven seemingly provides little information, many interpreters have seen it as a later addition to the text. Gerhard Von Rad (1909-1971) posits:

After the mountain peak became visible, Noah sent out a raven. The passage, received from tradition by the Priestly document, is without charm and is inserted into the narrative without proper vividness. Is the meaning of the statement really that the raven did not return to the ark? How different is the Yahwist at this point! (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 129)

W. Sibley Towner (b. 1933) dissects:

When they combined their version of the deluge with that of the older epic source...the Priestly writers allowed discrepancies to remain. In P, for example, the bird sent out by Noah was a raven. This raven apparently went in and out of the ark over many days, perhaps feeding, as ravens do, on vegetation and carrion alike (Genesis 8:6-7). In contrast, the older tradition had a dove go forth, return once with an empty beak, return a second time with an olive branch, and then not return at all from its third outing (Genesis 8:8-12). These differences in detail are insignificant, really; they probably simply reflect different streams of tradition...In a case like this, one can always be literal and say that Noah sent out both a raven and a dove, and that the raven was the less faithful of the two birds. (Towner, Genesis (Westminster Bible Companion), 89)

If the text represents a compilation, the contrast enriches both stories as the two strands work well together. Even so, the belief that the raven has been inserted into a preexisting tradition is not universal.

Gordon J. Wenham (b. 1943) notes:

Commentators from August Dillmann [1823-1894] to Claus Westermann [1909-2000] have suggested that since the raven episode spoils the neat arrangement of three journeys by the dove alone, it is a later insertion from a variant tradition. It is impossible to be sure, but in that the Gilgamesh Epic also mentions a raven among the reconnoitering birds, the episode is unlikely to have been added to the story later. (Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary), 186)

John Van Seters (b. 1935) resolves:

The episode with the birds in Genesis 8:6b-12 is entirely the work of the Yahwist, with no additions by P. It presents few problems except that one should probably assume an additional wait of seven days between the sending of the raven and the dove. This is indicated by the statement in Genesis 8:10: “Again he waited seven more days.” (Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist As Historian in Genesis, 164)

Assuming that enlisting the raven is an attempt at discernment, this marks a new means of revelation for Noah. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) compares:

It is interesting to note that Noah sends forth birds in order to determine the conditions on the earth [Genesis 8:6-12]. Up until this point Noah has received all his information from God. God informed him about the corruption in the earth [Genesis 6:13]. God told him to build an ark and what to take into that ark [Genesis 6:14-16]. God briefed him about the impending storm [Genesis 6:17]...But God does not tell Noah when the ground is habitable again. Indeed, all revelation from God to Noah is halted once Noah is locked inside the ark—until the atonement in Genesis 8:15. He who had received direct revelation from God must now resort to ornithology (or augury) for further data. The Creator speaks to Noah, but so does the creature. Moses receives direct revelations from God, but it is his father-in-law who gives him the information about the best and most efficient way to administer juridical matters (Exodus 18:18-23). Joshua receives a direct promise from God that he will be given all the land (Joshua 1:2-4), yet he still sends spies to reconnoiter Jericho and then to report back to him (Joshua 2:1-24). (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 303)

Noah’s use of birds indicates that both creator and creature are avenues through which the divine can communicate.

Of all of the animals at his disposal, why does Noah select a raven to release first (Genesis 8:7)? Is this a poor choice? Are there any conditions whereby the raven does not survive the mission? If not, why is it in the ark? Should the raven return to the ark? When have you interpreted a natural phenomena as an omen? What can one learn from watching birds? What is meant by the raven flying to and fro; does it indicate uncertainty? What, if anything, does the raven tell Noah?

The tendency to juxtapose the raven and the dove is almost as enduring as the olive branch is as a sign of peace (Genesis 8:6-12). It is a natural comparison and one in which the raven does not fare well.

R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) typifies:

Noah...learned as he went. He released the raven first because as an unclean bird it was expendable since it was good for neither food nor sacrifice (cf. Leviticus 11:15; Deuteronomy 14:14). But the dove was an altogether different bird. It was white and clean and often used for sacrifice (cf. Leviticus 1:14, 12:6). Because it was from among the clean animals, a dove would be sacrificed in Noah’s post-flood burnt offerings (cf. Genesis 8:20). (Hughes, Genesis: Beginning & Blessing (Preaching the Word), 143)

Martin Kessler (b. 1927) and Karel Deurloo (b. 1936) measure:

Raven and dove, colored dark and light, unclean and clean, reported according to their nature. The raven, a predator of the field, kept flying back and forth until the Earth fell dry (Genesis 8:14). At that point it was safe. After all, God had named the Earth in creation (Genesis 1:10). The dove, which lives in the vicinity of man, was sent out to ascertain whether the field was visible. Noah was most interested in that since he would function as a man of the field, a tiller of the soil (Genesis 9:2), for that was the basis of human existence. (Kessler and Deurloo, A Commentary on Genesis: The Book of Beginnings, 83)

The raven has been historically maligned. Pat Munday (b. 1955) indicates:

In modern Western civilization, ravens acquired a decidedly bad rap as an untrustworthy and evil bird. This can be traced to early Christian and Jewish interpretations of the raven’s role in helping Noah find land after the flood. Despite the way that later scholars demonized ravens, Genesis 8:7 is ambiguous on this point, stating only that Noah “sent out the raven; it went to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth”...Nonetheless, theologians from the fourth century on generally wrote that the raven had failed Noah in its mission and characterized it as “an unclean bird”; “a symbol of evil”; and “the enemy,” representing those destroyed by the flood (David Marcus [b. 1941] 71-80; Sylvia Huntley Horowitz 504-05). (Emily Plec [b. 1974], “Thinking through Ravens: Human Hunters, Wolf-Birds and Embodied Communication” Perspectives on Human-Animal Communication: Internatural Communication, 208)

In many rabbinic sources, the raven’s failure is depicted prior to its release. Gershon Winkler (b. 1949) apprises:

The ancient rabbis explain that the raven had declined the mission, circled the ark, and returned (Genesis 8:7) because he didn’t trust Noah alone with his mate (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108b). Consequently, Noah had to send a less paranoid and more faithful kind of bird, a dove, who ultimately returned with a twig in her beak (Genesis 8:11). (Winkler, Travels with the Evil Inclination: A Rabble-rousing Renegade Rebel Rabbi’s Story, 98)

The raven is also presented as an unruly passenger. Emmanouela Grypeou and Helen Spurling relay:

Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 108b describes Noah’s rebuke to the raven, who stated that Noah desired to dispense with the species of ravens by sending away one of only two aboard the ark. Noah points out that he also is forbidden relations with his wife, and on a qal wa-homer argument this should apply even more to the raven. (Grypeou and Spurling, The Book of Genesis in Late Antiquity: Encounters between Jewish and Christian Exegesis, 164)

Norman Cohn (1915-2007) remarks:

Inside the ark life was difficult. There was general agreement amongst the rabbis that sexual intercourse was forbidden; the raven, dog and Noah’s son Ham were all punished for failing to observe this prohibition...The raven caused Noah much embarrassment. When the ark came to rest on Ararat, and Noah got ready to send the raven out, the cantankerous bird argued back. Noah, he said, must hate him; for if he suffered a mishap, there would be no more ravens. Also, he suspected that Noah had designs on his mate, the female raven. Noah tried to reassure hm by pointing out that he had been able to stay chaste throughout the time in the ark – but according to one famous rabbi the raven was unconvinced: it remained so anxious on its mate’s behalf that it refused to fly off and continued to circle the ark. (Cohn, Noah’s Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought, 35-36)

Jack P. Lewis (b. 1919) annotates:

When Noah was ready to send the raven forth, according to R. Judan (PA. 4) in the name of R. Judah b. R. Simon (PA. 4), the raven argued back (deduced from a supposed relation of ושוב with הש׳ב), that God hated him since only a few unclean animals were taken into the ark. Noah also hated him, for if he sent him out and an accident should occur, there would be one less species. He also suggested that perhaps Noah was lewdly interested in the female raven. Noah replied with kal we-homer that he had been continent in the ark...Elsewhere he had insisted that the raven was good for nothing, but God has commanded him to take the raven back because it was needed to feed Elijah [I Kings 17:2-6]...In Pirke de R. Eliezer the raven never returns to the ark, but feeds on dead bodies. (Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature, 146)

The generally negative characterization of the raven is captured by the playwright André Obey (1892-1975):

Ham: Why the raven?
Noah: Because’s he’s a great traveller and because when he goes we’ll be rid of his black wings and his nasty voice. (Obey, Noah: A Play, Act III, 53)

The dove and raven have often been compared typologically and allegorically. Norman Cohn (1915-2007) submits:

No feature of the biblical story escaped typological interpretation. For Jerome [347-420], the raven which Noah sent forth from the ark, and which did not return, was ‘the foul bird of wickedness’ which is expelled by baptism. Augustine [354-430] detected in the unfortunate bird a ‘type’ of impure men who crave for things outside the Church. (Cohn, Noah’s Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought, 31)

Andrew Louth (b. 1944) reviews:

The raven, which is sent forth by Noah, is held captive by gluttony and does not return to the ark (Prudentius [d. 413], John Chrysostom [347-407]). The raven symbolizes those Christians who have gone astray (Augustine [354-430], Bede [673-735]). The dove, which Noah sends after the raven, brings an olive branch back to the ark. This branch not only reveals that the deluge has abated but also is a symbol of the promised everlasting peace (Augustine). The dove is a symbol of the Holy Spirit (Augustine, Bede), of the anointing by oil in chrismation (Bede) and of Christ (Maximus of Turin [380–465]). The end of the deluge can be can be compared with the end of the persecutions that those who live in Christ have to suffer in the world (Augustine). (Louth, Genesis 1-11 (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, 144)

Jack P. Lewis (b. 1919) divides:

The typology of the sending forth of the raven presents two currents in the church, one of which expanded soteriological secrets, and the other ecclesiastical. The former of these followed the symbolism of Philo [20 BCE-50 CE] in which Noah was expelling whatever residue of folly there might be in his mind...The action illustrates the expelling of sin from life “which goes forth and does not return”...Jerome [347-420] explained that “the unclean bird, the devil,” or “the foul bird of wickedness” was expelled by baptism. Those who sought ecclesiastical typology saw the raven as a type of impure men and of apostates who are sent forth from the church and cannot return. A presbyter of the third century, in order to make this point, linked the raven with the command: “Everything leprous and impure, cast abroad outside the camp.”...The tradition is further developed by Gregory of Elvira [d. 392]...and by Augustine [354-430] who found in the raven a type of men who are defiled with impure desire and are eager for things outside the church...The raven may also be a type of the procrastinator. (Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature, 173-74)

If the dove is a symbol of resurrection, the raven is a reminder of death. The raven represents the old nature, the dove the new and improved product.

Perhaps worst of all, the raven is seen as disrupting the new paradiscal life inside the ark. David J. Atkinson (b. 1943) presents:

Here is a picture that is pointing beyond this age. Here shut up in this ark is a foretaste of what could be. A haven of security when this broken world order ceases. Here there are doves and ravens, expressive of a harmony between man and the animal world. Here the wolf dwells with the lamb, the leopard lies down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together. Here all animal life is preserved to sing the praises of the Creator. For surely, a new creation is pictured here. (Atkinson, The Message of Genesis 1–11 (Bible Speaks Today), 148)

The raven’s regression to its original nature is seen as an end to this brief era. Leon R. Kass (b. 1939) discusses:

As far as we know, while on the ark the lion and the lamb broke straw together, and no species practiced war anymore. Rehabilitation of the entire living world seemed possible—or almost possible. Only one small clue gives the reader pause: Noah’s first scout for dry land was the raven. Remembering the raven’s carnivorousness, Noah must have hoped the bird would return with rotting flesh, but the ravenous scout “went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth” (Genesis 8:7). The herbivorous dove, sent second, returned, because she “found no rest for the sole of her foot”; sent seven days later, she brought back an olive leaf freshly plucked (Genesis 8:8-11). Yet while redemption was celebrated aboard the ship, the spirit of the hungry raven, no doubt fed up with seeds and looking for meat, still hovered over the face of the deep. As the sequel shows, Noah himself, for all his virtue, turns out to harbor some of the wildness of antediluvian man [Genesis 9:20-27].” (Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis 170)

Still, there is hope. Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) considers:

During the original creation (Genesis 1:1-31) the emphasis was on goodness. Only on two days—days 2 and 5—was there a suggestion that perhaps something was less than good (day 2 omitted the usual “it was good,” and day 5 did not maintain the usual increase in narrative quantity). During the remaking (Genesis 8:6-9:7), however, there is a greater awareness of evil. In the first part (Genesis 8:6-14), for instance, when Noah, seeking the dry land, sends out the birds, the first bird out is the raven (Genesis 8:7)—an ominous creature...Yet the remaking account does not lack hope and goodness. On the contrary, the sense of goodness, if anything, is greater. The raven comes from within the ark—as though evil, somehow, is encompassed in God’s providence. And the image of the raven is more than balanced by the drama, gentle and extensive, surrounding the dove (Genesis 8:8-12). (Brodie, Genesis As Dialogue : A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary, 180)

In spite of all of the negativity towards the raven, there are many practical advantages to its selection. Its natural ability to thrive in adverse circumstances make its mission a low risk proposition. The raven, perhaps more so than the ark’s other residents, no longer needs the nest the ark provides. Its discharge frees up space and food.

R. Mark Gaffney (b. 1969) approves:

In selecting the raven first, Noah made a wise choice, for he knew the instinctual behavior of the raven. The raven’s wingspan is only four feet across, but ravens are designed with great strength and endurance, being able to fly long distances without rest. Fierce storms and winds do not frighten them; they are able to fly into opposing gales with great ease. Ravens are highly developed and are thought to be one of the most intelligent birds known to man. They not only survive, but thrive in areas where smaller and weaker birds perish. As Noah’s raven circled high above the ocean floor, her keen eyesight enabled her to see for miles. (Gaffney, Where The Birds Make Their Nests)

Perhaps the raven represents the first fruits of new life on earth. The planet is habitable for the raven and will soon be for humanity. Its reversion to its nature is a sign that all creation can return to its true nature as well. In spite of the ark’s success, creation was not intended to be cooped up in a floating box. The raven’s leaving the nest could be interpreted as a sign of great hope.

Why doesn’t the raven return to the ark? Why would the raven return to the ark? Given the raven’s nature, is its behavior a self-fulfilling prophecy; does the raven meet Noah’s expectations? Is the raven’s return to its natural state a bad thing? Is the criticism directed at the raven justified? Is the raven expendable? Is any creature expendable? When have you reverted back to a default setting? Is the dove better appreciated in contrast to the raven? Is the dove’s “success” an example of Plan B trumping Plan A? Does the raven need be bad for the dove to be good? Who do you know of who is unjustly maligned? Is the raven’s flight pattern an omen of hope or doom?

“The raven spread out its glossy wings and departed like hope.” - Cecilia Dart-Thornton, The Battle of Evernight

What a Cluster! (Numbers 13:23)

What did the Israelite spies bring back from Canaan, from the brook of Eshcol? A cluster of grapes [pomegranates and figs] (Numbers 13)

Before the Israelites invade Canaan, God instructs Moses to enlist a representative from each of Israel’s twelve tribes to explore the land (Numbers 13:1-2). After securing these delegates (Numbers 13:3-16), Moses gives his scouts instructions (Numbers 13:17-20). After surveying the typical tactical objectives (topography, military, fortification, etc.), the last of Moses’ instructions is to obtain a sample of the region’s fruit (Numbers 13:20).

Do your best to bring back some of the fruit of the land.” (It was the season for the first ripe grapes.) (Numbers 13:20b NASB)

The seasonal time stamp included indicates that the reconnaissance most likely occurs in July, but potentially as late as early September.

The advance team does as they are told and secures an excellent specimen.

Then they came to the valley of Eshcol and from there cut down a branch with a single cluster of grapes; and they carried it on a pole between two men, with some of the pomegranates and the figs. (Numbers 13:23 NASB)

The spies retrieve grapes, pomegranates and figs; all fruits indigenous to Canaan but not Egypt where the Israelites are leaving and certainly not the Sinai wilderness where they are living. No one could deny the fertility of the Promised Land. As promised, Canaan is a land characterized as flowing with “milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24).

The most noteworthy souvenir is a cluster of grapes so substantial that two men and a pole are needed to secure it. Specimens as large as twelve pounds (five kilograms) have been found in the area.

Martin Noth (1902-1968) explains:

In order to carry it undamaged, they had to lay it on a pole carried by two bearers (most likely a kind of wooden bier such as is envisaged in Numbers 4:10, 12 for the carrying of the sacred lamp and other sacred vessels) and which they brought back along with a vine-branch and a few pomegranates and figs taken as samples from their reconnoitring. (Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 106)

David L. Stubbs (b. 1964) adds:

The image of the scouts bringing back a cluster of grapes so large that it hung on a pole supported by two men is a wonderful symbol of the fruitfulness of the promised land. Grapes, pomegranates, and figs may have been mentioned simply as part of the historical difference between the crops of Canaan and Egypt (see Numbers 11:5 for the fruit that people missed). Or these luscious and celebratory fruits of Canaan might be a subtle indication that God’s purposes are even better than what the people imagined in their unfaithfulness. The cluster of grapes and other fruit become a symbol of the faithfulness of God to his covenant promises. The land is indeed a good land; and the faithful God has brought them to a good place of not simply manna and water, but of grapes, wine, celebration, and feasting. (Stubbs, Numbers (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 128)

This massive vine leaves an indelible picture of the abundance of Canaan. In fact, even today, centuries later the image supplies the logo for the Israel Ministry of Tourism (pictured).

The valley of Eshcol, though geographically unidentifiable, is actually named for this produce. Timothy R. Ashley (b. 1947) dissects:

The word nahal (here valley) refers to the wadi or seasonal torrent-valley in the dry land. This valley was named for the cluster (’eškōl) of grapes found there. Since Numbers 13:24 makes clear that the spies themselves call the valley Eschcol, it is not surprising that the actual site is unknown. Some scholars have assumed that Eshcol was in the Hebron area, perhaps around Ramet el-Amleh. The biblical text probably means that the spies left Hebron and went on their way, coming to Eschcol at some point north of the town, but how far north is unknown. (Ashley, The Book of Numbers (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 238)

R. Dennis Cole (b. 1950) speculates:

The name of the valley, Eshkol, means “cluster (of grapes)” and was also the name of the brother of Mamre the Amorite, an associate of Abraham and the one for whom the town on the northwestern outskirts of Hebron was named (Genesis 14:13). Hence the valley may have been named originally according to the family name of Eshkol, and then developed as a prime region for viticulture. On the other hand, the Valley of Eshkol may have been so named by the scouts who explored the region somewhere north of Hebron according to the magnificent cluster of grapes growing there. (Cole, Numbers (New American Commentary), 221)

The word used to describe the pole on which the cluster is carried is also used sacramentally. Gordon J. Wenham (b. 1943) notes:

They brought back a selection of the fruits of the land, grapes, pomegranates and figs, which they carried back on a pole: though pole is the traditional rendering of Hebrew môt, it may mean something more elaborate like the frames for carrying the tabernacle in Numbers 4:10, 12. (Wenham, Numbers (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 118)

Roy Gane (b. 1955) adds:

When the chieftains return to the community, they stage a much anticipated “show and tell.” “...Most impressive is a gargantuan “cluster” (’eškol) of grapes that two scouts carry between them on a pole (Numbers 13:23), the way Kohathite Levites carry sacred objects belonging to the sanctuary (Numbers 4:6, 8, 11, 14, 7:9). (Gane, Leviticus, Numbers (The NIV Application Commentary), 599)

The procession of the grapes is intended to have a dramatic, religious ambience.

This fruit sampler platter also functions as a foretaste of the meals awaiting the Israelites in the Promised Land. These grapes serve as tangible irrefutable evidence of the land’s goodness (Numbers 13:27) and the implication is that there is more where that came from.

Billy Graham (b. 1918) illustrates:

One of New York’s leading grocery stores exhibited a basket of choice and beautiful grapes in the window. A notice appeared above the basket announcing: ‘A whole carload like this sample basket is expected in a few days.’ The grapes were a ‘pledge’ of what was to come. The firstfruits are but a handful compared with the whole harvest.” (Graham, The Holy Spirit: Activating God’s Power in Your Life, 86)

Seeing is believing and God graciously allows the Israelites a glimpse of their inheritance. Richard N. Boyce (b. 1955) relates:

Knowing us better than we know ourselves, God is aware that words alone are difficult to trust. While some few can believe without seeing, most would prefer to see and even taste (cf. John 20:24-29). No one who has read the New Testament, where Christ is the Vine who offers up the fruit of the kingdom through his death on the cross can help but see sacramental language bubbling over as the spies return from the Wadi “Eschol”...with a single cluster borne on a pole between two people (Number 13:23). God provides not only forewords and foresights, but foretastes as well. (Boyce, Leviticus and Numbers (Westminster Bible Companion), 157)

Like the ancient Israelites roaming the wilderness, modern Christians do not dwell in their eternal Promised Land. But like our spiritual ancestors, we are blessed with the occasional “foretaste of glory divine” in hopes that it will produce “blessed assurance”.

Since the text has already established that God is with the Israelites in their mission and that the land flows with milk and honey, why is it necessary to scout the Promised Land? What produce/food is your region known for? What is the most oversized produce you have ever witnessed? What might be the equivalent symbol of national wealth today? When have you experienced a foretaste of things to come? Why do the spies retrieve a single massive cluster as opposed to many small samples? Was this expedition an effort to build morale?

Like the grapes, the Promised Land is ripe for the picking. Unfortunately, the mammoth cluster is not enough to convince the nascent nation. The cluster creates a cluster. Amazingly, the colossal specimen does not even prove a conversation piece. After acknowledging the land’s goodness (Numbers 13:27), the conversation quickly shifts with a giant “but...”.

Grapes are not the only thing giant in the area. Like Texas, everything is bigger in Canaan. The majority opinion is negative as ten of the twelve spies focus not on the size of the grapes but on the size of the farmers who grew them. Only Caleb (Numbers 13:30) and Joshua (Numbers 14:6-9) maintain faith that God will deliver the land.

Instead of focusing on the promise, the Israelites see only the obstacles, the risk not the reward. The people become so downtrodden that there is no record of the grapes ever being eaten. They disregard the fact that they have safely scouted the land for forty days without incident. There is good news and bad news and the nation dwells on the bad.

In suggesting that they abandon their mission in Canaan, the Israelites are actually considering giving up on God. Not coincidentally, when the Promised Land is finally secured, Joshua and Caleb are the only ones from the period alive to see it (Numbers 14:30, 38, 26:65, 32:12).

Which two spies do you think carried the produce? Would these have been more likely to focus on it than the enemy? What would you have been consumed by, the obstacles or the objectives? Do you focus more on God’s blessings or your problems?

“The majority see the obstacles; the few see the objectives; history records the successes of the latter, while oblivion is the reward of the former.” - Alfred Armand Montapert (1906-1997), Distilled Wisdom, p. 173