the Amalekites and Canaanites
The Amalekites and Canaanites were formidable enemies of Israel. The Amalekites, descendants of Esau, were known for their hostility towards Israel, first attacking them at Rephidim (Exodus 17:8-16). The Canaanites, inhabitants of the Promised Land, represented the pagan cultures that Israel was to displace. Their mention here underscores the real and present danger that Israel faced due to their disobedience. Historically, these groups were well-established in the region, and their presence in the valleys highlights the strategic and military challenges Israel would encounter.

are living in the valleys
Valleys in biblical times were often fertile and strategically significant, providing resources and protection. The fact that the Amalekites and Canaanites were "living in the valleys" suggests they were entrenched and well-positioned, making them formidable adversaries. This detail emphasizes the Israelites' precarious situation and the consequences of their lack of faith. Spiritually, it serves as a metaphor for the low points or challenges in life where opposition seems strongest.

turn back tomorrow
This command from God is both a directive and a consequence. "Turn back" signifies a retreat, a reversal of the journey towards the Promised Land due to the Israelites' rebellion. The immediacy of "tomorrow" indicates that God's patience had limits, and the time for decision and action was at hand. It serves as a sobering reminder of the cost of disobedience and the importance of timely repentance and faith.

and set out toward the wilderness
The wilderness represents a place of testing, purification, and preparation. For the Israelites, it was a return to the place where they had wandered for years, symbolizing a delay in reaching their destiny due to their lack of faith. Theologically, the wilderness is often seen as a place where God refines His people, teaching them dependence and trust in Him. This phrase invites reflection on the spiritual wilderness experiences in our own lives and the lessons God seeks to impart through them.

along the route to the Red Sea
The Red Sea is a significant landmark in Israel's history, marking their miraculous deliverance from Egypt (Exodus 14). Mentioning the "route to the Red Sea" serves as a poignant reminder of God's past faithfulness and power. It highlights the irony of the Israelites' situation: they were being sent back towards the place of their deliverance because of their current unbelief. This phrase encourages believers to remember God's past deliverances and to trust Him in present challenges, knowing that He is faithful to His promises.

1. It has been stated just before (Numbers 13:29) that the "Canaanites" dwelt by the sea, and in the Ghor, and it has been proposed by some to understand under this name the Phoenicians, because "Sidon" was the first-born of Canaan, and because they are known to have occupied the coast. But if "Canaanite" means "Phoenician" in chapter Numbers 13:29, it is difficult to maintain that it is here equivalent to "Amorite." Again, if "Canaanite" be taken in this vaguer sense, yet it is clear that the Amorites dwelt in "the mountain" (cf. e.g., verse 45 with Deuteronomy 1:44), and not in the lowlands. This has been got over by supposing that עֵמֶק may mean an upland vale, or plateau, such as that to which the Israelites presently ascended. It is, however, a straining of the word to assign such a meaning to it. It is rightly translated by the Septuagint ἐν τῇ κοιλάδι. And even if one looking down from above might call an upland plain by this name, yet certainly one looking up from below would not. If the word stands rightly in this place, בָּעֵמֶק must mean "in the Wady Murreh," the broad sandy strait which bounded the "mountain of the Amorite" on the south. If so, we must conclude that not only the roving Amalekites, but also the Canaanites, or Amorites, had established themselves in some parts of the Wady.

2. It is scarcely credible that an observation of this sort, which would seem unusual and abrupt in any speech, should have formed a part of God's message to Moses. It has no apparent connection with the context. It does not (as often alleged) afford a reason for the command which follows; it was not at all because enemies were already in possession before them that the Israelites had to turn their backs upon the promised land, but because God had withdrawn for the time his promised aid. If the "valley" be the Rakhmah plateau, they had always known that hostile tribes held it, and that they would have to conquer them. That the words are an interpolation, as the A.V. represents them, seems as certain as internal evidence can make it; lint by whom made, and with what intent, is a question which will probably never be answered. It may be worth while to hazard a conjecture that the interpolated words are really connected with what goes before, viz., the promise of inheritance to Caleb. Now that promise was fulfilled in the gift of Hebron to Caleb and his seed (Joshua 14:14). But we have express mention in Genesis 37:14 of the "vale of Hebron," and the same word, עֵמֶק, is used in the Hebrew. Is it not possible that this parenthesis was originally the gloss of one who had a special interest in the heritage of Caleb, and wished to note that at the time it was given to him "the vale" was occupied by two hostile peoples? Into the wilderness, i.e., the Sinaitic peninsula, as distinguished from Palestine on the one hand, and from Egypt on the other. By the way of the Red Sea, i.e., towards the Red Sea; here apparently the Elanitic Gulf (cf. Numbers 11:31).

Parallel Commentaries ...