"It is eleven days' journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir to Kadesh-barnea" (Deuteronomy 1:2).

Eleven days! That is all it took to go from Mount Sinai to Kadesh-barnea, the southern gateway to the Promised Land. Forty days! That is how long it took to spy out the vast and fruitful land God was giving to Israel. Forty years! That is how long it took for Israel to receive the Promised Land, because they refused to trust God and take it at Kadesh-barnea. Eleven days became forty years.

As I think about Israel's forty years of wandering, I am reminded of another Scripture: "Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain." (Psalm 127:1).

Friends, when will we understand that the Lord is in charge of our lives, both the good and the bad? If we understand this, we will also understand that all our anxieties are in vain. If we truly grasp it, we will be neither desperate nor hasty, neither listless nor lazy. Instead we will live day by day simply trusting and obeying Him — the founder and perfecter of our faith, who sees the end from the beginning, who has numbered our days, and who has recorded our names in the Lamb's book of life. When we understand this, we can always have joy. We can always experience His peace. We can always love unconditionally. These things are not automatic for everyone, but they belong to the child of God, whose inheritance is secure, whose house the Lord has built, and whose salvation He guards.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Deuteronomy 1:2 is a small geographical note with enormous weight. The next verse dates Moses' speeches to "the fortieth year" (1:3), so the reader is confronted at once with the contrast: an eleven-day journey took forty years. Moses then retells the story of Kadesh-barnea (1:19–46), including a painful detail — after refusing to go up, the people changed their minds and attacked anyway, without God, and were chased "as bees do" (1:44). Obedience delayed became disobedience of another kind.

Psalm 127, which the comment cites, continues the thought in its second verse: "It is in vain that you rise up early and go late to rest," eating the bread of anxious toil, "for he gives to his beloved sleep." The psalm does not forbid building or watching — it assumes both — but places them under God's hand. The comment's conclusion reflects that balance: neither anxious striving nor passive laziness, but faithful work carried out in trust.

So I spoke to you, but you would not listen. Instead you rebelled against the command of the Lord, and acted presumptuously and went up into the hill country (Deuteronomy 1:43).

The people of Israel first disobeyed God by not going up into the Promised Land to take it. They were afraid of the giants and the fortified cities in the land. But then, when God expressed His great displeasure and decreed a punishment of wandering and death in the desert, they changed their minds and chose to fight. Though God told them not to go, they went anyway. And they were "crushed" by the Amorites.

The way Israel determined what they should do or not do was not on the basis of God's Word but based on their own imagination. So, the Bible says that they "acted presumptuously."

Today, when churches partner with ministries, which have teachings and practices that are outside the boundaries of God's Word, they are acting presumptuously. When individuals participate in these very same ministries, because they think "it makes them feel nearer to God," they are acting presumptuously. God has not commanded it in His Word. But He has warned against false teaching and participating in practices that have their origins in pagan rituals.

This is why I warn my fellow believers not to have anything to do with IHOP (International House of Prayer) and the ministry of Mike Bickle and the neo-charismatic movement. Without knowing anything about their aberrant teachings and practices, many people, even church leaders, are making regular pilgrimages to this place. I recently learned that the evangelical churches in Korea have even declared IHOP to be 이단 (i.e., a cult). A good place to start in finding out about this group is reading a recently published book by a pastor out of Kansas City, Keith Gibson, called Wandering Stars (see amazon.com book). Some of the practices in this movement and their association with pagan rituals (esp. Hindu Kundalini) are only recently getting documented.

Friends, I have a number of people upset with me because they think I am "quenching the Spirit," (yes, I hope I quench this false spirit), that I have no right to comment on something without "experiencing" it myself. It is like a drug addict telling a sober man, "Don't knock it till you try it." Do I have to become an addict to recognize something is wrong? This is just like the pastor that told me that I have no right to comment on "speaking in tongues" without experiencing it myself. No wonder Christians are sometimes labeled "anti-intellectual." Yet, none of them has to date responded to any of the documentary evidences and analysis of Bickle's aberrant theology and approach to Scripture that I sent to them. But I beseech you, brothers, don't be like this. Take the time to read and examine the teachings and practices with the Scriptures, and then come to a discerning opinion of the group and movement.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Deuteronomy 1 recounts two apparently opposite actions governed by the same failure. Israel first refuses to go forward and then insists on going forward. The decisive issue is not boldness or caution considered in isolation, but whether either response submits to God's actual command. Presumption can therefore resemble courage. A confident undertaking may be religiously described and emotionally compelling while remaining an attempt to determine the terms of obedience for oneself.

The original applies this warning to ministries and practices the author believes depart from Scripture. The principle that experience cannot exempt a teaching from examination is sound. A person need not reproduce an experience before asking what is claimed about it, how it is interpreted, and whether its claimed authority is warranted. First John 4:1–3 directs believers to test spiritual claims through their confession concerning Christ. First Thessalonians 5:19–22 joins openness to the Spirit with examination and rejection of evil. Neither passage makes intense feeling a sufficient credential.

Careful examination, however, also binds the critic. Similar outward behavior does not by itself establish a shared historical origin or spiritual cause. Claims that a practice derives from Hindu ritual require specific evidence of transmission or teaching, rather than visual resemblance alone. Broad statements about what all evangelical churches in a country have declared likewise require identifiable bodies, decisions, and dates. Those historical allegations are preserved as the author's report; this expansion does not treat them as independently established facts.

The references to IHOP and Mike Bickle also belong to the time of the original comment. They should not be read as a current description of the ministry's leadership or as a substitute for examining later public information. IHOPKC's own published statements describe major subsequent events and changes. Those developments do not automatically prove every earlier doctrinal allegation, just as a doctrinal defense would not dispose of evidence of misconduct. Different claims require their own evidence. The ministry's dated public statements provide primary documentation for its later communications.

A constructive evaluation can distinguish several questions: What does a teacher actually say? What biblical argument supports or contradicts it? Is a prediction being presented as God's authoritative word? What happens when it fails? Can participants raise concerns without retaliation? Are truthfulness, self-control, and care for vulnerable people evident in the community? These questions move discussion beyond both “it felt close to God” and “it looked strange to me.” They also allow people within a movement to be treated as individuals rather than reduced to its most disputed public examples.

The aim of discernment is faithful allegiance to Christ and the good of his people. Strong conviction need not require contemptuous speech, and charity need not require ignoring error. We can read critically, document concerns accurately, hear replies fairly, and decline participation where conscience and Scripture warrant it. That combination is more consistent with obedience than either unexamined enthusiasm or criticism that claims an exemption from the standards it asks others to follow.

Deuteronomy opens with the words Moses spoke to the Israelites beyond the Jordan. The first few times reading this phrase I had to keep reminding myself that "beyond" is not looking at the river from the outside but from the inside. Moses never crossed the river, so when he writes, it reads as though written for the people who have crossed — as if he were preparing everything knowing God's people would one day be over there reading their own history. Whether that is intentional I don't know, but it struck me.

A second thought. We should not judge, and yet we should judge. When we do it rightly we are not determining anything ourselves but stating what has already been determined. Deuteronomy 1:17 instructs that judgment not be partial — hear small and great alike, and do not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God's.

We should be like God in this. We should not be partial; if something is wrong it is wrong. But the purpose of reproach is not to destroy — that is God's role — the purpose is to redeem the matter. The Mosaic law called for the redemption of a wrong, plus a penalty, and then the matter ended. Love seeks the good of others, and there is no other good than being in God. Redeem all things to Him — not for the sake of destroying the evil or the transgressor, but to redeem them.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The observation about the vantage point is a nice catch, and the geography supports it. The Hebrew phrase can be read from either bank, and translators differ; the perspective of the narrator has been part of the scholarly discussion of Deuteronomy's composition for a long time. Whether or not Moses is writing with a future reader in view, the book is explicitly framed as instruction for people who will be in the land — the whole of it is delivered to a generation about to cross.

The second point is well made and lands on the right distinction. Deuteronomy 1:17 grounds impartiality in the fact that the judgment belongs to God rather than to the judge — which makes partiality a form of theft, substituting one's own preferences for a verdict one is only meant to deliver. The comment's conclusion that reproach aims at redemption rather than destruction matches what the New Testament says about correction: restore such a person gently (Galatians 6:1), and whoever turns a sinner from wandering saves a soul from death (James 5:19–20).

We get so accustomed to our circumstances that we become deeply resistant to change. Today I attended a conference in Fort Worth without internet access all day, and it was genuinely frustrating, since I'm so used to checking email and staying online constantly.

Reading this section of Deuteronomy, I see God doesn't want us to get too comfortable where we currently are. His first recorded words here tell Israel they've stayed at this mountain long enough — it's time to go take possession of the land promised to their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 1:6–8). The LORD is now directing the next stage of Israel's journey.

Likewise, we ourselves aren't yet at our final resting place, and should be expectantly waiting for God to bring new direction into our own lives. But we all hate change — even something small, like losing internet access for a day, was genuinely frustrating for me. How many of us stay exactly where we are simply because we're satisfied with what we have, or afraid of what change might bring? We settle for mediocrity out of fear, rather than trust in the Lord. Isn't this exactly why Israel initially refused to enter Canaan in the first place? Whether it's a physical journey to a new land or a spiritual journey of growth, we shouldn't remain stagnant.

Let's ask the Lord what our next step of faith should be. I believe as we keep reading His Word, the path each of us should individually take will become clearer. As the psalmist writes, His word is a lamp for our feet, a light on our path (Psalm 119:105).

AI-Expanded Reflection

The comfort-with-the-familiar this comment names shows up in an almost identical form generations later, when Israel, freshly settled and prosperous in Canaan, has to be repeatedly warned not to forget the very God who brought them there (a theme covered elsewhere in this project). What's notable is that resistance to change here shows up in two opposite directions across Israel's history — first, resisting the change of leaving the safety of the mountain for the uncertainty of conquest, and later, resisting the change of leaving comfortable prosperity for renewed obedience once that conquest succeeded. The specific circumstances differ, but the underlying instinct this comment identifies — preferring the familiar over trusting God's next step — turns out to be remarkably durable regardless of which direction "comfortable" happens to point.

I hope this doesn't upset you guys, but when I first read the stories of Moses and the Israelites, I got upset with God. But as I got older, I began to understand that God isn't a fair God, but a just God.

I couldn't understand how God could put such a burden on a mere human when He, as God, couldn't control His own anger against them. When they upset Him, He destroyed them or turned a deaf ear to them. Yet when they upset Moses — a mere human — Moses struck a rock and lost the right to enter the Promised Land. In myself I thought, "God ain't fair." Deuteronomy helped me understand why He couldn't be a fair God, but a just God.

I also understand now that Christ had to fulfill the Law and die for our sins, and blot out the handwriting of ordinances against us. For what the Law could not do, Christ's death did. So even now, we may think it's not fair for some to get redemption, but we are now justified by faith through Christ, and so we have peace with God. A just God requires order and obedience, which allows me to know that He cares about righteousness — and when we stand for righteousness, sometimes things just aren't fair.

You follow me?

Yujin responds... Excellent observations, brother Anthony! You are in good company. Remember David? He got upset with God when He struck down Uzzah for trying to stabilize the ark on the oxcart (2 Samuel 6:6–8). It was David, or at the least the priests, who "should" have been struck down, because they did not prescribe the proper way to carry the ark. Yet part of God's holiness is His sovereignty — He could have judged David, but He chose to judge Uzzah instead. Again, when David sinned with Bathsheba, He chose to take the life of David's firstborn with Bathsheba, rather than taking David's or Bathsheba's life (2 Samuel 12:14). You are absolutely right that God's ways are completely just.

What we have to understand is that God's justice is not on the same playing field as the justice we show toward one another (Isaiah 55:8–9). The reason is that He is the Creator, the Judge, the all-sovereign One. God can bring judgment on a whole nation — men, women, children, and animals — and do it justly, but it would be murderous and immoral for us to do the same, unless God commands it, as He did regarding the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3) and the Canaanites (cf. Deuteronomy 20:16–18).

You are right that God is not fair, as people normally think of fairness. This reminds me of the parable of the workers hired at different times (Matthew 20:1–16). Remember, the boss chose to pay everyone the same, whether they worked all day or just one hour. Those who worked all day thought they would receive more, but they received the same, and they thought this was unfair. But was it? Jesus shows a different way to look at it. Those who worked all day had already agreed to work for a certain wage — this was fair and just. If they didn't know what those who worked one hour received, they would have been glad to receive their own wage. But Jesus shows their selfishness, envy, and greed, because they looked at what the one-hour workers received instead. If they saw things properly, they'd have been impressed by the boss's fairness toward them and generosity toward the others. Here's what Jesus taught: the boss reminds the complaining worker that he received exactly the wage he had agreed to, and asks whether he has the right to be generous with what is his own, or whether the worker's real issue is simply envy at someone else's good fortune (a paraphrase of Matthew 20:13–15).

And for us too, the Bible clearly says we have been saved by grace (Ephesians 2:5). The Israelites were told that it was not because of their righteousness that God was giving them the Promised Land and victory over their enemies — it was because of God's sovereign choice to love them, His nature to keep His promises, and the wickedness of the Canaanites (cf. Deuteronomy 7:7–9; 9:4–6). Strangely, all of these reasons are outside of Israel. If God dealt with Israel as they deserved, He would certainly have wiped them out, because they were a stubborn and disobedient people (cf. Deuteronomy 9:13–14). And if God were to deal with us as we deserve, we too would be dead, as we already were before the Spirit gave us new birth (cf. Ephesians 2:1–3; John 3:18). And when we are born anew by the Spirit (cf. John 3:5–8), it is not by nature, not by collective decision, nor by personal choice, but by God's sovereign choice to love us in spite of ourselves (cf. John 1:12–13) — those who receive Him are given the right to become children of God, born not of blood or human decision, but of God Himself (a paraphrase of John 1:12–13, drawing on the Young's Literal Translation's especially clear phrasing).

The priority of tense is important here. Just as John 3:5 precedes John 3:16, regeneration ("new birth") precedes faith. Therefore, the new birth enables and ensures faith. Apart from God's grace through the Holy Spirit, we would all perish. In fact, Jesus even says that our being alive right now is because of God's grace. That others die (e.g., the many lost in the Haiti earthquake) is not what should surprise us — we should be surprised that we too are not dead (cf. Luke 13:1–5). Praise God for His grace toward us!

AI-Expanded Reflection

Anthony's honest wrestling here actually has a biblical namesake in Job, who asked God very similar questions and got, notably, not an explanation but a display of God's own greatness in response (Job 38–41) — the point wasn't that Job's pain was illegitimate, but that justice from an infinite Creator was never going to be fully explainable to a finite creature on the creature's own terms. What makes Yujin's reply land, though, is that it doesn't stop at "God is sovereign, deal with it" — it moves the whole conversation toward grace being the actual outcome for people who, by the passage's own logic, deserved judgment just as much as Uzzah or the Canaanites did. The uncomfortable half of the argument (God's severity) and the comforting half (God's grace) turn out to rest on exactly the same foundation: God owing nothing to anyone, and therefore free to be as devastating in judgment and as lavish in mercy as He chooses. That's a harder answer than "it's not fair," but it's the one Scripture actually gives.

Dear brothers and sisters! Moses reiterates Israel's history here in Deuteronomy 1–2. We see some details missing from the earlier accounts, and one comment Moses makes stood out to me — he says the LORD became angry with him too, because of the people, telling him he also wouldn't enter the land (a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 1:37). Moses plainly blames the Israelites for his own exclusion from the Promised Land. Someone might say that's fair, since it was their grumbling that provoked his anger and led to his disobedience in the first place. This whole story reminds me of the Fall in Eden, where Adam and Eve blamed their disobedience on someone else. Many people, past and present, find fault with God for placing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden at all. Some Christians have even developed an odd theology arguing God placed Adam, Eve, and the tree there specifically as bait to lure Satan, so He could eventually defeat him at the cross, as though Satan were somehow God's equal in power. That kind of wrong theology once left me feeling genuinely distant from the God who loved me enough to die on the cross. As weak human beings, we always think too highly of ourselves, believing we're too good to actually do anything wrong. Moses was right that the Israelites provoked his disobedience — but the choice to obey or disobey still rested entirely in his own hands, just as Adam and Eve had a real choice not to eat from the tree regardless of whether it should have been there at all. It doesn't really matter whether the tree existed or not — what matters is the choice we make before the Lord. Can we really claim to love God, or even another person, without genuine choice being involved at all? Brothers and sisters, we've professed Jesus as Lord and Savior — let's examine ourselves again today, whether that profession is actually accompanied by our decision to follow Him in every detail of our lives.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The parallel this comment draws between Moses's blame-shifting and Adam and Eve's is worth extending with a detail that actually complicates the comparison in an interesting way — unlike Adam and Eve, Moses never denies his own responsibility; he states plainly elsewhere that he himself sinned at the waters of Meribah (Deuteronomy 32:51). His comment here about the people provoking God's anger against him isn't really an excuse offered in place of accepting blame — it's an additional, honest observation made alongside his own acknowledged guilt. That's a meaningfully different posture than Adam's outright deflection, and it may be part of why Moses, despite his real failure, is remembered so differently in Scripture than the first couple's fall — honest acknowledgment of contributing circumstances isn't automatically the same thing as refusing to own one's own choice.

Sherry shared... Israel is ready to enter the Promised Land. They spent 40 years on a journey that should have taken about 11 days. I spent some time meditating on how much time I waste when I do not listen and obey.

Yujin responded... Amen, Sherry! I am reminded of Jonah, who thought he could defy God's purposes by going in the opposite direction of where God wanted him to go. There is no substitute for obedience. And usually we seek a substitute because there is often suffering that comes with obedience, but let us remember that even our Lord learned obedience by what He suffered (cf. Hebrews 5:8), and we are called to follow in His steps (cf. 1 Peter 2:21). Suffering is part of the package of glory (cf. Romans 8:17). No one appreciates it, but the wise understand there is no alternative if that is the lot God has given us. It is best to understand that if we practice the discipline of obedience through the suffering, we will come forth as gold, more righteous than we were before (cf. 1 Peter 1:6–7; Hebrews 12:11).

AI-Expanded Reflection

The eleven-day detail Sherry names is worth sitting with, because Deuteronomy 1:2 states it almost as an aside — the direct route from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea really was that short. Forty years of wandering wasn't the necessary length of the journey; it was the length of the detour caused by one act of distrust at the border (Numbers 14). That's a sobering way to measure disobedience — not by the size of the initial refusal, but by how much time it can cost afterward. Jonah's detour, by comparison, took only three days inside a fish before he turned around (Jonah 1:17); Israel's took a generation. Both stories suggest the same principle: the delay obedience saves us from is usually far larger than the discomfort obedience costs us up front.