Why Couldn’t Moses Enter the Promised Land? | Michael Morales on Numbers 20

Why was Moses’s striking the rock such a serious failure that God forbade him from entering the promised land? In this episode of What in the Word?, Michael Morales joins Kirk E. Miller to tackle one of the more perplexing passages in the Old Testament: Numbers 20. Together they unpack the text’s rich theological layers, explaining how Moses failed to “sanctify” God by publicly misrepresenting his character before the people.

Follow the show on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more.

Connect with us

Ready to increase biblical literacy? Like and share. To go the extra mile, leave us a review on your preferred platform. 

See all of our episodes.

Episode guest: Michael Morales

Michael Morales is Professor of Biblical Studies at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He is author of Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of the Book of Leviticus, Exodus Old and New: A Biblical Theology of Redemption, and a two-volume commentary on Numbers in the Apollos series.

Episode synopsis

Why this passage is difficult

At first glance, Moses striking the rock might seem like a relatively minor failure, especially since in a comparable incident where the people were without water, God instructed Moses to strike a rock with a rod to bring forth water (Exod 17:1–7).

Exodus 17	Numbers 20
All the congregation of the people of Israel move from the wilderness of Sin (Exod 17:1)	All the congregation of the people of Israel move to the wilderness of Zin (Num 20:1)
The people quarrel with Moses due to lack of water (Exod 17:1–2)	The people quarrel with Moses due to lack of water (Num 20:2–3)
The people complain, Why did you bring us out of Egypt to die of dehydration? (Exod 17:3)	The people complain, Why did you bring us out of Egypt to die of dehydration? (Num 20:4–5)
Moses seeks God (Exod 17:4)	Moses seeks God (Num 20:6)
God instructs Moses to take a staff (Exod 17:5)	God instructs Moses to take a staff (Num 20:7–8)
God instructs Moses to strike the rock (Exod 17:6)	God instructs Moses to tell the rock to yield water (Num 20:8)
Water is to come from the rock (Exod 17:6)	Water is to come from the rock (Num 20:8)
“Moses did so” (Exod 17:6)	“Moses took the staff” (Num 20:9); “lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice” (Num 20:11)
The place is called Meribah, which means quarreling (Exod 17:7)	The place is called Meribah, which means quarreling (Num 20:13)

Admittedly, God specifically says, “Tell the rock,” not “strike the rock” (Num 20:8). Yet, given the parallels to this previous event (Exod 17:1–7), might this have been a simple misunderstanding or mistake on Moses’s part? In Exodus 17, God told Moses to use the staff he had previously used to strike the Nile to turn it to blood (Exod 17:5; cf. 7:20). So we see a pattern of Moses using a staff to strike objects in relation to water. Now in Numbers 20, God likewise instructs Moses to take a staff (Num 20:8–9) in connection with bringing water from a rock. Wouldn’t Moses’s striking the rock be a reasonable inference (or reflex) at this point?

Yet God’s response is incredibly severe: Moses and Aaron will not lead Israel into the promised land. Why was striking the rock sinful? And why the (seeming) disproportion between Moses’s action and God’s penalty? These questions have led to a wide variety of attempts to explain what exactly Moses did wrong.

Which generation we’re dealing with and why it matters

A major part of Dr. Michael Morales’s interpretation depends on recognizing where Numbers 20 falls in the story.

First, the opening verse tells us that these events happen in the first month (Num 20:1). Then Numbers 33, which rehearses Israel’s journey, clarifies that this refers to the first month of the fortieth year. This, contrary to many interpretations, means that we have reached the second generation.

After the first wilderness generation rebelled after the spies’ report, God consigned them to wander for forty years and eventually die in the wilderness. They were not to enter the promised land (Num 13–14). Now that generation has effectively died off. Numbers 20 provides an account of the death or judgment of the leaders of that first generation: Miriam dies, Aaron is sentenced and then dies, and Moses is judged.

Numbers 20 then is not another example of the first generation’s unbelief and rebellion. Rather, it concerns the subsequent generation, which is preparing to enter the promised land. The second generation seems to need new leadership, as we see Moses has become quite tainted from his experience with the previous generation.

How Numbers’s structure follows the camp of Israel

Second, the structure of the camp provides a pattern for the covenant community.

1. At the center is YHWH’s own dwelling.
2. Around that is the inner camp of the Levites, the tribe that served God’s dwelling and mediated it to the other tribes.
3. Then forming the outer camp, we have the remaining twelve tribes.

Michael observes how the narratives in Numbers correspond to this arrangement of Israel’s camp:

1. First we encounter the failure of the outer camp of twelve tribes (Num 11–15).
2. Next we review the failure of the inner camp of Levites (Num 16–18).
3. Here in Numbers 20 we reach the failure of Moses (and Aaron), which, following the pattern of the camp, comes to represent its very center, YHWH’s dwelling.

This pattern—moving from the outer camp to the inner camp—illuminates the nature of Moses’s sin. As Michael explains in his commentary,

It appears that each group’s failure was in relation to usurping the next level of authority: the princes, representing their respective tribes (the outer camp), attempted to usurp Moses’ prophetic authority (chs. 13–14); the Levites (the inner camp) attempted to usurp Aaron’s priestly authority (chs. 16–17); and, finally, Moses (the camp of the Shekhinah) attempted to usurp YHWH’s authority directly.¹

In other words, by the time we reach Numbers 20, the narrative’s focus concerns the center of the camp, that is, God himself. This is why holiness language features throughout the chapter. (Num 20:12, 13; even the location of these events, Kadesh, shares the same root as “holy” [Num 20:1, 14, 16, 22], and so seems to contribute to this theme.) Thus, by their actions, Moses and Aaron fail to rightly represent God’s holiness before the people.

Yet at each phase, we also see vindication:

1. God vindicates Moses’s prophetic role before those who failed to heed it.
2. God vindicates Aaron’s priesthood before those who challenged it.
3. Finally, in Numbers 20 God vindicates himself before those who misrepresented him (i.e., because Moses and Aaron did not “uphold [God] as holy in the eyes of the people of Israel, … he showed himself holy” [Num 20:12–13]).

Varied attempts to explain Moses’s sin

Michael notes that commentators have proposed many interpretations of what exactly constitutes Moses’s sin. Some of the more popular include:

1. Moses sinned by lashing out at the people. This view finds additional support from Psalm 106:33, which says, “he spoke rashly with his lips.”
2. Moses tried to take credit for the miracle when he said, “Shall we bring water for you out of this rock?” (Num 20:10; emphasis added). However, against this interpretation, Moses’s words in Numbers 20:10 match what God instructed of him in Numbers 20:8: “So you shall bring water out of the rock” (emphasis added).
3. Moses should have struck the rock only once. Instead of striking the rock once, in anger Moses struck it a second time.
4. Moses doubted God’s power. This view cites Numbers 20:12 where God says Moses did not believe God. Yet this explanation is quite out of character for Moses who has witnessed God do many great things, including already bringing water from a rock (Exod 17). So why would Moses doubt God’s ability to do this?
5. Moses’s sin is simply unknown to us. Maybe Moses’s sin has been intentionally obscured to preserve Moses’s honor.

Michael admits there is truth in the first explanation: Moses did speak harshly to the people. But he does not believe it adequately explains the severity of God’s judgment and God’s description of Moses’s sin. A deeper issue is at play.

The passage’s descriptions of Moses’s sin

Namely, God describes Moses’s actions as a failure to demonstrate faith (or faithfulness) toward God so as to uphold God as holy (to sanctify him) before the people (Num 20:12). As the first generation failed to enter the land due to their unbelief (Num 14:11), now Moses will be denied entrance to the land for the same reason.

Whereas in Exodus 17, the text essentially reads, “And Moses did so [i.e., as God instructed]” (Exod 17:6), Numbers 20 provides a far more detailed account of Moses’s actions (Num 20:10–13). The need for this description indicates that Moses’s actions are far from obedient to what God instructed in Numbers 20:8.

In fact, Numbers 20:11 reads that Moses “lifted up his hand.” In Hebrew, this expression often conveys the idea of “high-handed sin,” that is, deliberate, defiant rebellion. So Morales argues that, by using this language, the text intends to evoke this category.

According to God, then, Moses’s sin was not a mere mistake or misunderstanding, but outright rebellion. Whereas Moses lambasted the people as rebels (Num 20:10), God identifies Moses as the actual rebel (Num 20:24). The one who accuses the people of rebellion is himself exposed to be a rebel.

The interpreter’s responsibility then is to understand how the details of the narrative justify God’s verdict of Moses, to learn to see the event as God sees it until the divine evaluation makes sense.

(For other references and descriptions of Moses’s sin in Scripture, see also Num 27:14; Deut 1:37; 3:23–27; 32:48–52; 34:1–5; and Ps 106:32–33.)

God’s kingly provision of water

In both Exodus 17 and Numbers 20, the people have a legitimate need: They lack water.

Michael points out that in the complaint narratives in the wilderness, whenever the people’s need is real, God responds compassionately even if the people complain sinfully. He does not rebuke or punish them but provides for them. This pattern matters since it shows God’s intention in Numbers 20, as well.

In Exodus 17, the water flows from the rock at Horeb (Exod 17:6), that is, Mount Sinai. The water will flow down from Mount Sinai as a way to prepare them for the Sinaitic covenant. The scene anticipates Sinai’s revelation as the source of life-giving instruction (like how the law of God is depicted as nourishing streams of water in Ps 1:3). So in Numbers 20, as God provides water, he provides another Sinai experience for this second generation.

In the ancient Near East, a major evidence of a good king was their ability to provide water for their people. So here, God instructs Moses to demonstrate his benevolent kingship before the people. This is to be a renewed presentation of God’s kingship before the second generation. The issue is not merely whether water will be supplied, but how Moses will represent God as the one who supplies it.

This connection of water with kingship fits a theme across Scripture where water, symbolizing God’s provision of life, flows from his holy habitation and throne (Ezek 47:1–12; Rev 22:1–2; etc.), which reflects the archetypal holy of holies, the garden of Eden (Gen 2:10–14).

When Moses asks, “Shall we bring water for you out of this rock?” (Num 20:10), Michael believes this rhetorical question expresses Moses’s refusal to bring forth water. Moses is angry with the people and spurns God’s mercy toward them. So Moses refrains from telling the rock to yield water, attempting to impede God’s generosity. Yet when he strikes the rock in anger, God overturns Moses’s refusal and provides water anyways (Num 20:11). Moses and Aaron failed to hallow God before the people, but God hallowed himself by meeting the people’s needs anyway (Num 20:12–13).

Which rod was Moses told to take?

Whereas in Exodus 17, God tells Moses to take the rod with which he struck the Nile (Exod 17:5; cf. 7:20), Michael contends that in Numbers 20, Moses grabs the rod of Aaron “from before the LORD” (Num 20:9; 17:2). “Before the LORD” is cultic language, referring to the sanctuary. Accordingly, this is not Moses’s ordinary staff, but Aaron’s rod which had budded and had been deposited in the sanctuary.

Recall the context:

1. God vindicated Moses’s prophetic office (his speech) in Numbers 11–15.
2. God vindicated Aaron’s high priesthood in Numbers 16–18 through Aaron’s blooming rod.

In this case, God’s specific instructions to Moses intend to bring together two important lessons for this second generation:

1. Moses is to speak to the rock, demonstrating his prophetic office and that he speaks on behalf of God.
2. Aaron is to hold his budded rod, representing his priestly office and that he is the chosen mediator where the people can find life with God.

Thus, Moses’s and Aaron’s sins involve using the emblems of their divinely vindicated offices to misrepresent God to the people.

Moses’s and Aaron’s sins involve using the emblems of their divinely vindicated offices to misrepresent God to the people.

Interestingly, when Moses takes Aaron’s staff, the text says this was “as [God] commanded him” (Num 20:9). Michael contends that this statement of approval early on in the narrative, instead of after all the events, indicates that what Moses does hereafter was disobedient, not “as [God] commanded him.”

Thus, Moses obediently takes Aaron’s rod, but when the decisive moment comes, instead of speaking to the rock, he takes up his own staff—the one associated with judgment, such as in the plagues on Egypt (Exod 17:5; cf. 7:20)—and strikes the rock. This is not an innocent confusion. It is a symbolic misrepresentation that would have conveyed God’s judgment and displeasure, when in fact God meant to communicate his graciousness.

Why Moses’s punishment is so severe

The gravity of Moses’s office explains the severity of his punishment. As God’s prophet, Moses functioned as the authoritative mediator of divine revelation. What Moses spoke, Israel was to receive as the word of God. Earlier in Numbers 16, God vindicated Moses by causing the earth to swallow up those who challenged that Moses truly had been sent by the Lord.

That background helps us see what is at stake in Numbers 20. If Moses can misrepresent God, then it would call into question the integrity of God’s revelation through Moses elsewhere. So by severely judging Moses, God publicly marks that occasion where Moses fails to represent God accurately. This judgment then preserves the reliability of Moses’s prophetic ministry elsewhere. Precisely because God responds so strongly, Israel can trust that Moses’s wider ministry remains true and authoritative.

In other words, Numbers 20 is about more than a jaded Moses losing his temper. It concerns the holiness of God, specifically the trustworthiness of God’s revelation.

The Edom episode as an interpolation

Sandwiched between Moses’s sin (Num 20:10–13) and Aaron’s death (Num 20:22–29) is a scene involving Israel’s interaction with Edom.

A. Moses’s sin in response to Israel’s quarreling (Num 20:1–13)
B. Edom’s refusal to allow Israel to pass through its territory (Num 20:14–21)
A’. The death of Aaron, the high priest (Num 20:22–29)

At first, this central episode may seem unrelated to the outer episodes. Yet Michael suggests this middle section functions to hold up a mirror to Moses. In his appeal to the king of Edom, Moses is able to recount Israel’s plight sympathetically, asking for compassion. Yet moments earlier, he himself had responded harshly, with impatience, to Israel’s thirst. So too Edom, their family member (ancestral cousins), harshly refuses Moses’s request.

Yet this episode also shows the second generation’s eagerness to enter the land. This is not the old generation that shrank back in unbelief.

Finally, Aaron’s death fulfills the judgment pronounced in Numbers 20:12 that he and Moses would not enter the promised land. So the chapter is bookended by Miriam’s (Num 20:1) and Aaron’s deaths (Num 20:22–29), signaling the completed judgment upon the first generation (Moses excepted) and with it:

Israel’s release from the wilderness and from God’s judgement. The period of wandering is over and may now give way to Israel’s purposeful journey to inherit the land. In this sense, hope may be found in Aaron’s death.²

The practical significance of this passage

First, Michael reflects on Numbers 20’s striking display of God’s mercy. Despite the people’s complaints and despite Moses’s rebellion, God provides abundant water. God is not stingy. He is compassionate, patient, and generous even in the face of human failure. We can be assured, God remains faithful to the needs of his people, notwithstanding the failures of their leaders.

The chapter’s severe warning should not obscure this comfort. The same God who judges Moses also sustains the congregation.

Second, this passage teaches with seriousness that all God’s people—but especially spiritual leaders—must represent God faithfully. Moses misrepresented God, bearing God’s name in vain (Exod 20:7). By speaking harshly to the people and striking the rock twice, Moses endangered causing the people to perceive God as irritated and harsh instead of generous and merciful—and God judged him severely for it.

In this way, Numbers 20 strongly rebukes spiritual abuse. Those in positions of spiritual authority wield an authority that affects how people view God. Thus, when spiritual leaders mistreat those under their care, they offer a distorted view of God. Numbers 20 shows that when they do so, they commit a serious offense—one that God does not take lightly.

Advice for teaching and preaching Numbers 20

Michael calls preachers and teachers to maintain God as just. Do not minimize Moses’s sin in a way that makes God seem overreactive or unfair. When sin is treated lightly, God’s judgment appears arbitrary.

Instead, help listeners see the weight of Moses’s offense so God’s mercy shines bright.

---

Logos values thoughtful and engaging discussions on important biblical topics. However, the views and interpretations presented in this episode are those of the individuals speaking and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Logos. We recognize that Christians may hold different perspectives on this passage, and we welcome diverse engagement and respectful dialogue.

Let us know what you think

What do you think was Moses’s sin? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Michael Morales’s recommended resources

Additional commentaries on Numbers

Related articles

• What Does It Mean to Take God’s Name in Vain? | Carmen Joy Imes on Exodus 20:7
• Did God Command Genocide? | Tremper Longman on the Canaanite Conquest
• Ever Traced the Links between Jesus & Moses? 5 Surprising Commonalities
• Heaven Invades Earth: Understanding the Symbolism & Purpose of the Tabernacle
• On Spiritual Abuse | Michael Kruger

1. L. Michael Morales, Numbers 20–36, Apollos Old Testament Commentary (InterVarsity, 2024), 44.
2. Morales, Numbers 20–36, 49.