INTRODUCTION
1. Historical Background and Purpose
The book’s name comes from its title Arithmoi in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), through the Latin (Numeri); this name is based on the census lists found in chs. 1–4 and 26. One Jewish designation for the book is taken from the fourth word in v.1, lit., “In the Desert”—a particularly apt description of its contents, for it describes what happened during the thirty-eight years of wandering in the desert after the Exodus.
The original recipients of the book were the people of Israel in the second generation from the Exodus, awaiting the command of God to cross the Jordan to conquer the land of Canaan. The book describes the affairs of the people of the first generation, but its teaching is for those who were about to enter Canaan.
The purpose of the book is to compel obedience to the Lord by the new community by reminding them of the wrath of God on their parents because of their breach of covenant; to encourage them to trust in the ongoing promises of the Lord as they follow him into their heritage in Canaan; and to provoke them to worship God and to enjoy their salvation. In other words, it is designed to encourage spiritual confidence on the part of the people who were about to leave the desert to cross over into Canaan.
2. Authorship and Date
The book of Numbers traditionally has been ascribed to Moses, the great prophet of God. This conclusion is based on (1) the statements concerning the writing activity of Moses (Nu 33:1–2; Ex 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; et al.); (2) the assumption that the Pentateuch is a unity and comes from one writer; (3) the excellent training of Moses in Egypt that would have prepared him for this great literary task (see Ac 7:22); (4) the involvement of Moses as the principal human protagonist in the record of the deliverance and desert experiences of Israel; and (5) the NT citations that speak of Moses as the one responsible for the books of the Torah (Mt 19:8; Jn 5:46–47; Ro 10:5; et al.).
We may style the book of Numbers “The Memoirs of Moses in the Desert.” The varied styles and seeming inconsistencies of the book may have been produced in part by its occasional nature in the lifetime of Moses. Further, this book may have received some editorial additions following the lifetime of Moses, though this material may have reached back to the time of Moses. Additions to the book under the direction of the Holy Spirit may have occurred at a later time, or the book may have been compiled by another hand using Mosaic material. This would also explain the origin of the Balaam story in chs. 22–24, much of which was outside Moses’ observation (see comments). All in all, however, we take the position that the essential content of this book did come from Moses, the servant of the Lord, prior to the conquest of Canaan.
3. Theological Themes
a. The old and the new
The book of Numbers presents the concept of the chastening wrath of God on his own disobedient people. The entire generation that had been delivered from formidable foes by the direct intervention of the Lord, that had formed a holy community, and that had been allowed to participate in his holy worship lost their enjoyment of the Promised Land because of their rebellion against God’s grace and their disbelief in his power to deliver them. Thus Numbers presents a sobering, chilling reality. The God of Israel was also a consuming fire—a wrath that extended equally to his errant children and to the enemy nations of Egypt and Canaan. Not even Moses was exempt from God’s wrath because of his disobedience.
Yet in his wrath the Lord remembers mercy; a new generation arises to inherit the land. The association of the Lord’s wrath and mercy, his anger and his love, is a marked feature of this book as part of the Law and the Prophets.
b. Balaam
No doubt thoughts came to a people who had experienced the miraculous hand of God but now sensed his wrath: Is God indeed finished with us? Is he done with the nation as a whole? Have we no hope? In one of the most remarkable sections of the Bible, the Lord worked providentially and directly to proclaim his continued faithfulness to his people, despite their continuing unfaithfulness. This section is the story of Balaam.
In Balaam we have the pagan counterpart to Moses the man of God. Balaam was an internationally known prophet, who thought that the Lord God was like any other deity whom he thought he could manipulate by mantic acts. But Balaam learned that an encounter with the God of Israel was fundamentally different from anything he had ever known. When he finally began to utter his words of cursing on the nation of Israel at the instigation of Balak, king of Moab, he found his mouth unable to express anything but blessings for God’s people and the most ferocious cursings on their enemies. It is the blessing of God on Israel that is the heart of the book of Numbers.
c. Worship
The book of Numbers has a great deal to contribute to the theology of worship. The NT concept that in worship all things should be done in an orderly and fitting manner (1Co 14:40) finds its basis in Numbers. We also learn of pageantry and procession, festival and fasting, mandatory sacrifices and freewill offerings, restrictions and blessings. In it the ongoing purposes of God for his covenant people are reaffirmed. It contains important materials for the specific worship patterns of Israel, such as the Aaronic Benediction (ch. 6) and instructions on Passover (ch. 9). If God’s people respond in faithfulness and obedience, he will fulfill his promises and his blessings.
But the book of Numbers also is the worship of God by Moses and those who align themselves with him. By God’s grace it may become a book of worship for us as well.
d. Numbers
What seems to some to be the most embarrassing element of the book—the numbers that seem impossibly inflated for a small nation at the beginning of its existence—is its crown and glory. These numbers are a mark of God’s blessing. They are a fulfillment of his covenant. They anticipate numbers of peoples who will be like the stars of the heavens, the sand of the seashore. The numbers extol the glory of God in his people.
4. The Large Numbers
a. The problem
The numbers of the tribes of Israel stated and implied in this book just seem to be far too large to be historically credible. If the numbers of the men who are mustered for war from the age of twenty and up actually add up to over 600,000, then the total populace would have had to be at least two million persons—perhaps considerably more! This does not seem to be an excessively large number for our own crowded days, but it seems to be nearly an impossibly large sum for Israel in the very beginning of its existence.
The mid-1988 estimate for the population of Israel was 4,400,000, roughly twice the size of the nation at the Exodus. Currently, the population of Israel is mixed between scattered rural settlements, small towns, and three large cities. As we look at the modern cities with their sprawling size and multistory buildings, we wonder how the ancient farmlands, towns, and cities might have accommodated such numbers. Since the testimony of the wicked Hebrew spies was an exaggerated report of the size of the cities, their towering walls, and hulking men—all the stuff of fear—the implication at the least is that the Canaanite population was significantly larger and more powerful than the approaching Hebrew populace (see Dt 4:38; 7:1). The more we think of them, the more these numbers boggle our minds.
Then we may wonder what the population of Canaan was in the biblical period. Since presumably the population of Canaan was as least as dense in the eighth century under Hebrew settlement as in the fifteenth century during Canaanite times, it is just not possible to imagine an invading force of Hebrews that might number several millios having any reason to trust in the Lord for the conquest of the land. By sheer numbers they would overwhelm the native population.
A well-worn problem in the large numbers of the families of Israel in the book of Numbers has to do with the growth from seventy persons to more than two million in just four centuries. Scripture assures us that the growth of the population of the Hebrew people was a dramatic outworking of God’s grace, a fulfillment of his promise. The narrative of growth in Ex 1:7 is emphatic: “but the Israelites were fruitful and multiplied greatly and became exceedingly numerous, so that the land was filled with them.” This unprecedented growth was in fulfillment of numerous promises of God to the fathers (see Ge 17:2, 6; 22:17; 26:4; 28:14; 35:11; 48:4). Moses is able to use the patriarchal phrase of abundance as he recounts his experience as their leader: “The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky” (Dt 1:10; cf. Ex 32:13).
Yet there are counterindications to this immense size. One points to just two midwives in Ex 1:15—certainly some very overworked women in a nation so large! Another points to the rhetorical underplaying of the size of the nation in Dt 7:7: “for you were the fewest of all peoples.” Another has to do with the sheer logistics of two million people or more crossing the Red Sea in one night and their organization and provision in the desert for a generation.
Now all this is possible within the wonder of the work of the Lord. We have no doubt of his ability to provide for two million or two billion persons. But we still wonder at these large numbers in terms of the lands and cities of the ancient world. Were the Canaanite cities of the Late Bronze Age sufficiently large to be a formidable threat to the millions of Hebrews about to descend on them from the desert? Would the ten spies have been so fearful of the residents of the land if they themselves represented a people so very large in numbers? And could the land of Canaan have absorbed such a huge company in biblical times, right at the beginning of Israel’s experience? We do not doubt that the population of Israel under her great kings David and Solomon might have numbered one million. But we pause at the thought of more than twice that many persons right at the beginning of her history.
So there we have it: The numbers of the book of Numbers are just too large!
b. A suggestion
I suggest that the large numbers in the census lists are deliberately and purposefully exaggerated as a rhetorical device to bring glory to God, derision to enemies, and point forward to the fulfillment of God’s promise to the fathers that their descendants will be innumerable, like the stars.
It appears that the figure given in the two census lists for the army of Israel may possibly be a magnification by a factor of ten. An army of about 60,000 men would fit the criteria of the region and the times. A rhetorical exaggeration by a factor of ten has much to commend it. It takes into account the “round” number nature of each integer. It fits in nicely with the approximation of 600,000 as a multiple of 50,000 times 12, the number of the tribes. It results in an army in excess of 60,000 men, with a total population of about 250,000 to 300,000. This sum seems to fit the requirements of the social, geographical, and political realities without diminishing at all the sense of the miraculous and providential care of God.
An army of 60,000 is not an insignificant force, but it was likely considerably smaller than the combined armies of the city-states of Canaan at the time. In this way the peoples of Israel must have seemed to be a “swarm” as they lived in Egypt, but they were still “the smallest of nations” when ranked with combined great world powers. This smaller number accords with the large (but not supernatural!) force that the Egyptian Pharaoh sent in pursuit of them to the Sea of Reeds. Six hundred chariots (Ex 14:7) is a considerable force and would surely be a death threat against the unorganized people of Israel. This approach also allows for the drama of the conquest of the book of Judges, where battles were won by the armies of Israel in league with the Lord, their Great Warrior. This smaller number fits as well for the failures to occupy the full land as that book also details. It also accords well with the well-known Mernepthah stele that records Israel as among the peoples of Canaan during his raid, which we may place during the period of the judges. A population of several million would have more of an impression on this pharaoh!
Again, this smaller number does not diminish the miraculous. It enhances it; for we confront now a cluster of miracles that we may embrace readily rather than shun from some sense of embarrassment, as some do! The supernatural increase of the people in Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea in one night, the gathering of the people at Mount Sinai, their daily provision of food and water in the desert, their entry into the Promised Land—all miracles! Only the Lord could so provide for this vast number of people in this manner; and a population of over one-quarter million is indeed vast. But now we can envision a series of miracles that fits the geography, the topography, and the times. The “myth” of the Exodus becomes the history of redemption.
The principal objection that may come to the position I advance is the observation that the number 603, 550 is in general agreement with the similarly large number in the second census in 26:51 (601, 730); and it is in accord with other statements in the Torah of a population of about 600,000 men (see again, Ex 12:37; 38:26). We may observe that the same deliberate rhetorical function occurs in the second census. In fact, it is even more important that the new generation be regarded in the same significance as the first. The words of Balaam (Nu 23:10) emphasize the “mystique” of the immense numbers of Israel. But what to him was but “mystique” was to Moses nothing less than the power of God. As to the numbers in Exodus, they must be based on the numbers in the census lists of Nu 1:46; that is, the interpretation of the numbers in the book of Numbers has priority over the interpretation of these same numbers in Exodus. This means that the interpretation we derive in Numbers will work as well for the round figure of 600,000 in Ex 12:37. Exodus 38:26 is more difficult because of the very specific numbers used for weights (vv.25–31). Yet if the pattern of 600,000 (strictly 603, 550) is established as the power number for Israel, then the payment of the redemption price would be rhetorically inflated to fit the established number. The “truth” of the passage is that there was the exact payment of one-half shekel for each of the numbered men in the census, whatever that exact number might have been.
The one problem remaining is the payment of the half-shekel in Ex 38:25–26. This 100 talents plus 1,775 shekels is the one number that does not easily arise from a purposeful tenfold increase. I suggest, with some temerity, that the numbers in this passage may have been inserted into the text of Exodus on the basis of the census of Nu 1–4. The number 603, 550 in Ex 38:25 is certainly based on the census total in Nu 1:44. That is, once the factor of a tenfold magnification was established in Numbers, then the payment of the redemption price, to be consistent, would be presented in such a way as to agree with this larger number.
It appears to me that the numbers of the census are real figures. They are treated like real integers; there is no confusion of hundreds and thousands. Here are numbers that are internally consistent and coherent. Yet I propose that they may have been deliberately magnified by a factor of ten for rhetorical reasons. The promise was that the people of God would be in number like the stars. Six-hundred thousand must have seemed like an “astronomical” number in these early biblical times. Certainly the “real” number of 60,000 men was very large, particularly for the desert sojourn. But the 60,000 would still not be an overwhelming force for the task ahead of conquering the peoples of the land, who are seven in number and far more numerous than Israel. To have any success in their task, this army would need to have the help of the Lord along every step of their path. From the abortive battle in the first generation with the Amalekites (14:44–45) to their decisive victories a generation later with Arad (21:1–3) and the small kingdoms of Sihon and Og (21:21–31), these numbers fit the situation. Here is a seasoned army of approximately 60,000 men, ready to march across the (dry bed of the) Jordan and to take the ancient city of Jericho as the firstfruits of conquest in the land—an offering to the Lord.
The obvious objection one may bring—that people do not use numbers this way today—is not overwhelming. In ancient times numbers were used with deliberate exaggeration for rhetorical effect. The ancient Sumerian king list affords an example that long predates the time of Moses. In this list the reigns of kings from remote antiquity were vastly exaggerated, no doubt to indicate their tremendous importance. An even more common use of rhetorical language is in battle braggadocio and mottoes of heroes: “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands” (1Sa 18:7).
I am aware that some may regard the concept of “rhetorical use of numbers” as a departure from “literal interpretation.” In fact, it is not. Literal interpretation of numbers includes understandings that extend from mathematical exactitude, through general approximation, to literary license. The only demand of literal interpretation (better, “normal” interpretation) is that the reader seek to find the use he or she believes the text itself presents and demands. It is an abuse of literal interpretation to insist that the way we use numbers in our digital and pocket-calculator age is the way that biblical persons ought to have used numbers in their day.
In summary, the book of Numbers is just that! It is a book that uses numbers to celebrate the work of the Lord! And in these numbers is his praise.
EXPOSITION
I. The Experience of the First Generation in the Desert (1:1–25:18)
The book of Numbers appears to be a bifid of unequal parts. The two censuses (chs. 1–4, 26) are key to understanding the structure of the book. The first census (chs. 1–4) concerns the first generation of the Exodus community; the second census (ch. 26) focuses on the experiences of the second generation, the people to whom this book is primarily directed. The former were prepared for triumph but ended in disaster. The latter had an opportunity for greatness—if only they would learn from the failures of their fathers and mothers the absolute necessity for faithfulness to the Lord despite all obstacles.
A. The Preparation for the Triumphal March to the Promised Land (1:1–10:36)
1. Setting apart the people (1:1–10:10)
As the book as a whole presents itself as a bifid of unequal parts, so chs. 1–10 also form a bifid of unequal sections: 1:1–10:10 records the meticulous preparation of the people for their triumphal march into Canaan; 10:11–36 describes their first steps under the leadership of Moses.
a. The census of the first generation (1:1–4:49)
(1) The muster (1:1–54)
(a) The command of the Lord (1:1–4)
1 The opening words set the stage for the chapter and, indeed, for the entire book. The phraseology “the LORD [Yahweh] spoke to Moses” presents a point of view that will be repeated throughout this book, a phrase that is important to the self-attestation of the divine origin of the book of Numbers. The expression “the Tent of Meeting” speaks of the revelatory and communion aspect of the tent. Other terms and phrases used for this tent in Numbers are “the tabernacle” (v.51) and “the tabernacle of the Testimony” (vv.50, 53). The term “tabernacle” points to its temporary and transitory nature; it is a movable, portable shrine, specially designed for the worship of God by a people on the move.
The first verse also gives a specific time notice for God’s command to take a census of the nation. The book begins thirteen months after the Exodus. Israel had spent the previous year in the region of Mount Sinai receiving the law, erecting the tabernacle, and becoming a people. Now they were to be mustered as a military force and formed into a cohesive nation to provide the basis for an orderly march. The events of Numbers cover a period of thirty-eight years and nine or ten months, i.e., the period of Israel’s desert wanderings. The second month in the Hebrew calendar corresponds roughly to our April. This pattern of dating events from the Exodus signifies its centrality in the experience of the people of God. Time will hence be measured from their leaving Egypt (cf. B.C. and A.D.). Time for Israel had its beginning with the Exodus, God’s great act of deliverance of his people from bondage.
2 The Hebrew verbs “take” and “number” (v.3) are in the plural, indicating that Moses and Aaron were to complete this task together (see v.3), but the primary responsibility for the task lay with Moses. The purpose of this census was to form a military roster. Other reasons are (1) to demonstrate to the people the extent of God’s faithfulness to the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant (Ge 12:2; 15:5; 17:4–6; 22:17); (2) to provide a clear sense of family and clan identity for the individual; and (3) to provide the means for an orderly march of the people to their new home in Canaan.
3 The point of the census was to prepare the armies of Israel for their triumphal war of conquest against the peoples of Canaan. Tragically, all the peoples who are numbered for military duty in this chapter—save only Joshua and Caleb—died without facing the war in which God demanded they become engaged.
Those mustered for war at the end of the desert period (ch. 26) are entirely different persons from those listed here. Except for Joshua and Caleb, the total died in the desert between slavery and liberty, between cursing and blessing, between there and here, with hopes dashed and desires never fulfilled. But in the new roster of Nu 26 there is a new generation, a new beginning, a new hope.
4 By having a representative from each tribe assist Moses and Aaron, not only would the task be more manageable, but the resultant count would be regarded as legitimate by all. No tribe would have a reason to suggest it was under-or over-represented in the census.
(b) The names of the men (1:5–16)
5–15 The names of these luminaries occur again in chs. 2, 7, and 10. Most are built by compounding one of the designations for God into a name that is a significant banner of faith in the person and work of God. The antiquity of the list of names is revealed by the fact that many are built on the names El, Shaddai, Ammi, Zur, and Ab. At a later time many names were based on the covenant name Yahweh because of the revelation of a new significance of that name in the Lord’s encounter with Moses (Ex 3; 6) and his subsequent teaching of these truths to Israel.
16 The Hebrew word underlying the phrase “the men appointed” (GK 7924) is a technical term for representatives. Verse 16 is legal, formal, and precise in tone. Three phrases are used to give sanction to each of these leaders. Levi is not represented in this listing (see 1:47).
(c) The summary of the census (1:17–19)
17 The leadership of Moses and Aaron in the task is indicated here, as is their obedience to the Lord. This chapter is marked by a studied triumphalism. Numbering the tribes and mustering the army are sacred functions that prepare the people for their war of conquest, under the right hand of God, who is their warrior (see Ex 15:3).
18 The expression “twenty years or more” indicates that one who was under the age of twenty would still be regarded as a member of his father’s house; one over the age of twenty was morally and civilly responsible.
19 Hebrew prose often gives a summary statement and then the details that explicate that summary. So here v.19 is the summary statement, and vv.20–43 give the details.
(d) The listings of the census by each tribe (1:20–43)
20–43 For each tribe there are two verses in repetitive, formulaic structure giving (1) the name of the tribe, (2) the specifics of those numbered, (3) the name of the tribe restated, and (4) the total enumerated for that tribe.
Certainly one of the most difficult issues in the book of Numbers concerns the large numbers of these lists (see the introduction for comments on this). The numbers for each of the tribes are round numbers; each unit is rounded off to the hundred (but Gad to the 50 [1:25]). The same numbers are given for each tribe in ch. 2, where there are four triads of tribes with consistent use of numbers, sums, and grand totals. Further, the total might have been rounded off to 600,000 but was not (see 1:46; 2:32).
Because the descendants of Levi were excluded from the census (see on v.47), the descendants of Joseph are listed according to the families of his two sons, Ephraim (vv.32–33) and Manasseh (vv.34–35). In this way (1) the traditional tribal number of twelve is maintained, and (2) Joseph is given the “double portion” of the ranking heir of Jacob (cf. Ge 49:22–26; Dt 33:13–17).
(e) The summary of the census (1:44–46)
44–46 There appears to be no textual difficulty in the Hebrew tradition in the soundness of this large number for the census of the fighting men of Israel. The mathematics of these numbers is accurate and complex—complex in that the totals are reached in two ways: (1) a linear listing of twelve units (1:20–43), with the total given (1:46); (2) four sets of triads, each with a subtotal, and then the grand total (2:3–32), which equals the total in 1:46. These numbers are also consistent with the figures in Ex 12:37–38 and 38:26. Further, they relate well to the figures of the second census in Nu 26 (601, 730 men) at the beginning of the new generation. This large number of men conscripted for the army suggests a population for the entire community in excess (perhaps considerably in excess) of two million people.
Most importantly, the numbers of the people may also be regarded as a fulfillment of the particular blessing of God in the unusual growth of the people of the family of Jacob in Egypt. Exodus 1:7 describes in five Hebrew phrases the stunning growth of the Hebrew people in Egypt during the four centuries of their sojourn. The growth of the nation was God’s benediction on them. But we are still drawn back to the problem of logistics in these large numbers. So I return to the position suggested above (see Introduction: The Large Numbers).
(f) The reason for the exclusion of the Levites (1:47–54)
47–49 The Levites, because of their sacral tasks, were excluded from this military listing; they were to be engaged in the ceremonies and maintenance of the tabernacle. Chapter 3 is given over entirely to their families, numbers, and functions.
50 As in Ex 38:21, the sanctuary is here called “the tabernacle of the Testimony.” The “Testimony” (GK 6343) refers to the Ten Words written on stone tablets (Ex 31:18; 32:15; 34:29). These tablets were placed in the ark (Ex 25:16, 21; 40:20), leading to the phrase “the ark of the Testimony” (Ex 25:22; 26:33–34; et al.).
51–52 The Hebrew word rendered “anyone else” (GK 2424) is often translated “stranger,” “alien,” or “foreigner” (Isa 1:7; Hos 7:9). Thus a non-Levite Israelite was considered an alien to the religious duties of the tabernacle (see Ex 29:33; 30:33; Lev 22:12). The punishment of death is reiterated in Nu 3:10, 38; 18:7, and was enacted by divine fiat in 16:31–33 (see 1Sa 6:19). The sense of the Divine Presence was both blessing and cursing in the camp: blessing for those who had a proper sense of awe and wonder at the nearness of deity; cursing for those who had no sense of place, no respect for the Divine Presence.
53 The tents of the Levites are detailed in 3:21–38. The encampment of the Levites around the tabernacle was a protective hedge against trespass by the non-Levites to keep them from the wrath of God; it was a measure of God’s grace and a reminder of his presence.
54 In view of Israel’s great disobedience in the later chapters, these words of initial compliance to God’s word have a special poignancy. Israel began so well, then failed so terribly that her experience remains a potent lesson to all people of faith who follow them. Ending well is the desire.
(2) The placement of the tribes (2:1–34)
(a) Summary command (2:1–2)
1 This chapter begins with the announcement of the word of the Lord to Moses and Aaron. The more usual phrasing in the Torah is “And the LORD spoke to Moses, . . . saying,” as in 1:1. The reference to Aaron along with his illustrious brother indicates the strong focus on the shrine of God’s presence in the center of the camp. Aaron, as will be detailed in ch. 3, has the principal task of maintaining the purity, order, and organization of the work respecting the central shrine.
2 The Hebrew word order stresses the role of the individual in the context of the community; each one was to know his exact position within the camp. The repetition of the verb “will encamp” is for stately stress. Here is the meaning of the individual in Israel, and here is the significance of his family.
The people of Israel were a community that had their essential meaning in relationship to God and to one another. But ever in the community was the continuing stress on the individual to know where he belonged in the larger grouping. Corporate solidarity in ancient Israel was a reality of daily life; but the individual was also very important.
The dwelling of the tribes was in a circuit about the shrine but at some distance from it. The protective grace of God demands a sufficient distance to serve as a protective barrier from untoward approach to the Divine Presence and the judgment of God that such an approach might provoke. Too casual an approach betrays too minimal a reverence.
Each tribe had its banner and each triad (group of three) of tribes had its standard. Jewish tradition suggests that the tribal banners corresponded in color to the twelve stones in the breastplate of the high priest (Ex 28:15–21) and that the standard of the triad led by Judah had the figure of a lion, that of Reuben the figure of a man, that of Ephraim the figure of an ox, and that of Dan the figure of an eagle (see Eze 1:10; cf. Rev 4:7).
(b) Details of execution (2:3–33)
In ch. 1 the nation is mustered, and the genealogical relationships are clarified. In ch. 2 the nation is set in structural order, and the line of march and the place of encampment are established.
3–9 The eastern encampment. Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun were the fourth, fifth, and sixth of the six sons born to Jacob by Leah. It is somewhat surprising to have these three tribes first in the order of march since Reuben is regularly noted as Jacob’s firstborn son (1:20). However, because of the perfidy of the older brothers (see Ge 49:3–7), Judah is granted pride of place among his brothers (Ge 49:8). Judah becomes the royal line of the Messiah (Ge 49:10; Ru 4:18–21; Mt 1:1–16).
Further, the placement on the east is significant. East is the place of the rising of the sun, the source of hope and sustenance. Westward was the sea. Israel’s traditional stance was with its back to the sea and the descent of the sun. The ancient Hebrews were not a sea-faring people. For Israel the place of pride was on the east. Hence there we find the triad of tribes headed by Judah, Jacob’s fourth son and father of the royal house that leads to King Messiah.
10–16 The southern encampment. Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn son, leads the second triad, on the south. As one’s stance in facing east has the south on the right hand, one senses a secondary honor given to the tribes associated with Reuben. He is joined by Simeon, the second son of Jacob by Leah. Levi, Leah’s third son, is not included with the divisions of the congregation but is reserved the special function of the service of the tabernacle and the guarding of the precinct from the untoward actions of the rest of the community (see v.17 and ch. 3). This triad is completed by Gad, the first son of Leah’s maidservant Zilpah.
17 The tent in the middle, representing God’s presence within the heart of the camp, is a change from Ex 33:7–11. Here the tent is inside the camp, and all Israel is positioned around the tent. Here he is continually in their midst. There is a sense here of the progressive manifestation of the presence of God in the midst of the people. First he is on the mountain of Sinai; then he comes to the tent outside the camp; then he indwells the tent in the midst of the camp. One day he would reveal himself through the Incarnation in the midst of his people (Jn 1:1–18); and, on a day still to come, there will be the full realization of the presence of the person of God dwelling in the midst of his people (Rev 21:1–4).
This verse relates not only to the manner of encampment but especially to the manner of march. On the line of march the Judah and Reuben triads would lead the community; then would come the tabernacle with the attendant protective hedge of Levites (see 1:53); last would come the Ephraim and Dan triads. In this way there was not only the sense of the indwelling presence of God in the midst of the people, there was as well the sense that the peoples in their families and tribes were protecting before and behind the shrine of his presence.
18–24 The western encampment. The Rachel tribes were on the west. Joseph’s two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, received a special blessing from their grandfather Jacob; but in the process the younger son, Ephraim, was given precedence over Manasseh (Ge 48:5–20). Here, true to Jacob’s words, Ephraim is ahead of Manasseh. Last comes Benjamin, the last-born son of Jacob, Joseph’s younger brother, on whom the aged father doted after the presumed death of Joseph.
25–31 The northern encampment. Dan was the first son of Bilhah, the maidservant of Rachel. Asher was the second son of Zilpah, the maidservant of Leah. Naphtali was the second son of Bilhah. These, then, are secondary tribes and are positioned on the north side of the shrine of the presence, as it were, on the left hand. Here again we need to read these texts with the values of the people who first experienced them. Our orientation tends to be to the north, but Israel’s orientation was to the east. In the final settlement of the land, these three tribes situated to the north of the shrine actually settled in the northern sections of the land of Canaan.
32–33 These verses conform to and summarize 1:44–53. The total number is the same as in 1:46, and the distinction of the Levites is maintained (see 1:47–53). The arrangement of the numbers of the tribes in triads, each with subtotals, and the grand total for the whole suggest the concept of the stability of these large numbers in the text.
(c) Summary conclusion (2:34)
34 These words of absolute compliance contrast with Israel’s later folly. This verse also speaks of significant order—a major accomplishment for a people so numerous, so recently enslaved, and more recently a mob in disarray. The text speaks well of the administrative leadership of Moses, God’s reluctant prophet, and of the work done by the twelve worthies who were the leaders of each tribe. It may have been the beauty of the order of this plan of encampment that led the unlikely prophet Balaam to say, “How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob,/ your dwelling places, O Israel!” (Nu 24:5).
(3) The placement and the numbers of the Levites and firstborn of Israel (3:1–51)
The notion of order continues to lace itself unabatedly through this chapter. These early chapters have about them a stately grace and a sense of presence. When the modern reader attempts to envision the magnitude of the task the Lord gave to Moses to bring order to an immense number of people who were so recently slaves and now so newly free, the resulting sensation is one of overwhelming burden. But these chapters do not speak of burden at all but have about them a sense of calm control—the control of God himself.
(a) The family of Aaron and Moses (3:1–4)
1–2 At first blush the wording “the family of Aaron and Moses” seems out of order because normally Moses is placed before Aaron. But the emphasis is correct: it is the family of Aaron that is about to be described. Aaron’s wife was Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab and sister of Nahshon, prince of the tribe of Judah (see Nu 1:7; 2:3), and the mother of the four sons noted in this chapter (see Ex 6:23).
The accentuation indicates that Aaron may still have been in grief for his firstborn son, Nadab. The accents lead to the following punctuation (lit.): “Now these are the names of the sons of Aaron: the firstborn, Nadab; also Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.” Nadab is given double “honor,” being identified as the firstborn, and the accents set his name off from those of his brothers.
3 Exodus 28:41 records God’s command to Moses to anoint his brother, Aaron, and his sons as priests of the Lord (see Ex 30:30; Lev 8:30). This solemn act gave recognition of a special consecration to the Lord and a particular knowledge on their part that they were no longer ordinary—they were now special to God. This anointing led naturally to being ordained. The Hebrew idiom “who were ordained” literally means “to fill the hand” (Heb. of Ex 32:29). The hands of the anointed were filled with a sense of the presence of the divine mystery. These were men of moment, servants of God.
The diagram of the camp (with an eastern orientation) would look like this:
4 Nadab and Abihu used fire that the LORD had not commanded (Lev 10:1). The pain of this account is strengthened by its brevity and mystery. We are left at a loss to explain their motivation, just as we do not know the precise form of their error. Because of the prohibition of wine and beer among the priests in their priestly service in Lev 10:8–11, these sons of Aaron may have committed their offense against God while in a drunken state.
Verse 4 states the matter of the death of these errant priests of the Lord succinctly: “[They] fell dead before the LORD.” More fully: “Fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD” (Lev 10:2). This suggests a bolt of lightning (cf. 1Ki 18:38). There is a certain sense of poetic justice in the fact that these wicked priests who used unauthorized fire in the worship of the Lord were themselves destroyed by fire from his presence. Nadab and Abihu’s fate is made even sadder in that they did not leave sons after them to continue their names among the priestly rolls in Israel. When they died, their story was over. Each time they are mentioned in the Bible, it is with sadness (cf. Nu 26:61; 1Ch 24:2). It is also the mercy of God that Aaron had two other sons who were not involved in the perfidy of their brothers. Hence the Aaronic priestly line extended through the two younger sons, Eleazar and Ithamar (see 1Ch 24:1–4), who continued to minister throughout the lifetime of Aaron.
(b) The duties for the Levites (3:5–10)
5–8 Clear distinctions are made here between the priestly house (the sons of Aaron) and the Levites. The latter were to assist and serve the priests—and the whole nation in the process. The Levites come out from among the nation; they were a part of the nation but are now distinct.
Interestingly, Moses is addressed in v.5. He is responsible for the nation as a whole and, hence, for the faithful obedience of the Levites in their service of the priestly house of Aaron. Moreover, the tribe of the Levites was to be “brought near,” terminology for the approach of the Divine Presence. Only Moses had an open invitation to draw near to God in a direct manner. Now he is presented with the task of drawing these other ministers near to their work before the Lord. This work consisted of service to Aaron and the guarding of the ministry relating to him and the whole congregation. Moreover, they were responsible for the tasks of moving the furnishings of the tabernacle at times when the camp was on the move.
The key to the work of the Levites may be in the words “perform [GK 9068] duties for him.” The basic meaning of the Hebrew is “to keep watch,” “to guard.” Hence the Levites were to guard the holy things from foolish people and to care for the holy things when the people were to be on the move.
9 That the Levites are subsidiary to the priests is made quite clear (“wholly given”). It appears that the issue here is service to Aaron (and through him to the Lord); in 8:16 the service is to the Lord.
10 The warning of the death penalty of 1:51 is repeated. The Hebrew term is literally “stranger,” i.e., anyone lacking authorization. Service at the tabernacle may be done only at the express command of God. If the sons of Aaron were put to death at the commencement of their duties, how dare an unauthorized person even think to trespass (see 3:38; 18:7)!
(c) The separation of the Levites (3:11–13)
11–13 The words “in place of” are a clear example of substitution in the OT (cf. Ge 22:13; also Mt 20:28). The Hebrew text emphasizes the word “mine” by using it four times in vv.12–13, by the emphatic “I” at the beginning of v.12, by the concluding “I am the LORD,” and by three verbs constructed with the first person pronoun (“I have taken,” “I struck down,” and “I set apart”). Again we are told that the Levites were from the midst of Israel but are now the exclusive property of the Lord (see 13:2). The last phrase of this section, “I am the LORD,” adds authority, significance, and weight to the text. It is a reminder of both what has been revealed about his blessed person and work and what he has shown himself to be in relation to his people.
(d) The census of the Levites (3:14–39)
14–20 The enumerating of the Levites corresponds to that of the other tribes but is to be done of males from the age of one month rather than from twenty years. In summary, the Levites, who were not being mustered for war but for special service of the Lord, were distinct from the rest of the tribes in several aspects: (1) they had their service in and about the holy things and the holy place of God; (2) they were not numbered among the tribes but were to be distributed among them; (3) they are numbered differently than the other tribes; (4) they are not the fighting men of Israel but her ministers, subject to the leadership of the priests; and (5) they had certain restrictions of behavior and manner that marked off their office as distinct from the rest of the people.
21–26 The words of 1:53—“their tents around the tabernacle of the Testimony”—are detailed by four paragraphs in vv.21–38.
The description of the Levitical clans leads up to the most favored: Gershon to the west (vv.21–26), Kohath to the south (vv.27–32), Merari to the north (vv.33–37), and Moses and Aaron and sons to the east (v.38). The secular tribes, by contrast, began with the most favored: Judah on the east (2:3), Reuben on the south (2:10), Ephraim on the west (2:18), and Dan on the north (2:25)
The leaders of the Levitical houses correspond to the leaders of the secular tribes (see 1:5–15). As in the case of the names of the other tribal leaders, these names are theophoric (built on compounds of terms for God): Eliasaph (“[My] God Has Added”) son of Lael (“Belonging to God”; 3:24); Elizaphan (“[My] God Has Protected”) son of Uzziel (“My Strength Is God”; v.30); Zuriel (“My Rock Is God”) son of Abihail (“My Father [God] Is Might”; v.35).
Under the leadership of Eliasaph, the clan of Gershon was to camp on the west side of the tabernacle (i.e., away from its entrance). Their particular charge was the structure itself: the tent, its coverings, and the varied curtains and ropes. This was a significant charge for the people of the house of Gershon, whose male members over the age of one month were 7,500.
There were three curtains or covering screens of the tabernacle: (1) one at the gate of the court (v.26; 4:26); (2) a second at the entrance of the tent (vv.25, 31; 4:25); and (3) a third dividing off the Most Holy Place within the tent (4:5).
27–32 The Kohathites under the leadership of Elizaphan were to encamp on the south side. This clan, the largest of the Levitical families, had particular concerns for the care of the principal furnishings of the tabernacle along with many implements of their service. Aaron’s son Eleazar, “the chief leader,” was placed over this group of Levites, probably because of the inordinately sensitive nature of their work.
The term “Amramites” reminds us of the family of Aaron and Moses. Aaron is an Amramite (see Ex 6:20). The presence of the family of the Amramites suggests that Amram was not the direct father of Aaron, Miriam, and Moses but an ancestor. Hence, Aaron and Moses were from the family of Kohath, of the tribe of Levi. The Kohathites were responsible for the care of the most holy things (4:4–18).
33–37 The house of Merari, camped on the north of the tabernacle, was led by Zuriel and numbered 6,200 males from the age of one month. Their particular charge was the care of the frames, posts, bases, and crossbars of the tent, as well as all auxiliary materials. It is fitting that this clan of Levites was stationed on the north, as their work is not nearly as glamorous as that of the other two companies of Levites. There is a consistency in that this house of the Levites is on the same side of the tent as the triad led by Dan.
38 Moses and Aaron had the most honored location. They guarded the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, and they did so facing the sun, and it was the direction of the encampment of the people. Later on, the entrance to Solomon’s temple also would face east.
Moses and Aaron were not placed on the east side of the tabernacle because of arrogance; rather, they were placed there for a representational ministry. Theirs was an exclusive work but beneficent to the entire community. The sovereignty of God was evident in his limitations on the means to approach him. The “stranger” (NIV, “anyone else”; GK 2424) could be a better man or woman, more pious and devout than a given son of Aaron; but he or she would still face death based on presumption (cf. 1:51; 3:10, 38; 18:7).
39 The total of Levites given in v.39 is 22,000, which is 300 less than the total of 7,500 Gershonites (v.22), 8,600 Kohathites (v.28), and 6,200 Merarites (v.34) (= 22, 300). Many scholars believe that there has been a textual corruption in the number in v.28, that the correct number of the Kohathites is 8,300 (as in the LXX).
Concerning the grand sum of 22,000 Levites, we observe that this is a bit small compared with the numbers given for the other tribes in ch. 1. There is a consistency, however, when this number is compared to the 23,000 Levites in the second census (26:62). It is particularly small when we realize that the 22,000 included all males in the tribe of Levi who were over the age of one month rather than over the age of twenty years as in the other tribes.
(e) The census and redemption of the firstborn (3:40–51)
40–43 The basic teaching of this text is that the male Levites over the age of one month were regarded by the Lord as a redemption for the “firstborn” (GK 1147) of the nation. The firstborn of animals were to be sacrificed to the Lord; but God never countenanced the sacrifice of humans on his altars. Hence a substitution was done; a male Levite was regarded as a substitution for the firstborn member of a secular tribe. The firstborn of the livestock were also included in the substitutionary arrangement; Levites for firstborn of Israel and Levites livestock for firstborn livestock of Israel.
The command of God seems to be distinct in this text. Not only was there to be a count of a discrete group of people, but the names were to be written down (cf. 1:2). The number of the firstborn of the Israelites came to 22, 273. This number stands out from all the other numbers we have seen thus far. All other numbers are rounded off, including the number of the Levites, 22,000. Yet this specific number of the firstborn of Israel is related to the rounded number of the Levites, to provide a surplus of 273 firstborn, for whom a redemption price had to be made.
The number of the firstborn sons of Israel (22, 273) seems to be much too small for a population in excess of 2 million. In fact, this number accords very nicely for a population of about 250,000. My suggestion is that the unexpectedly small number of the firstborn in the first generation is an impressive clue to the size of the population as a whole and that there may be two different uses of numbers in this passage. Moses here presents a comparison of numbers of different sorts. The one number is specific—exactly 22, 273; the other is rounded, inflated, rhetorical (22,000 Levites of a certain age). The first number is the surest figure for calculating the numbers of the whole community; the extrapolation of 250,000 is considered fitting for this number of firstborn persons. Against this specific figure (22, 273) is pitted a rhetorical figure (22,000, the number of Levites of a certain age) in order to provide an analogy of redemption. The “surplus” of these two discordant types of figures affords the opportunity to deal with the problem of a surplus. The payment of a redemption price of five sanctuary shekels per “surplus” individual teaches us that every individual needs to be accounted for, no matter how these numbers are used. Possibly the point of the passage is not the numbers per se but the importance of paying the redemption price for each individual firstborn person in the young nation.
44–51 To make up for the number of the firstborn Israelites beyond the number of the Levites, a special tax of five shekels (see Lev 27:6) was to be paid for each of the 273 supernumeraries. This is the payment of a redemption price, according to the heavier sanctuary shekel. That silver was then paid to Aaron and his sons, as commanded by the Lord, so that the full complement of the firstborn sons of the community might all be redeemed together.
The redemption of the firstborn is a marvelous expression of the grace of God. Never since the story of the binding of Isaac (Ge 22) has God demanded the firstborn son of any of his people as a sacrifice to his majesty. Nor does God demand that his people enslave themselves to him (cf. Ro 12:1–2). Nevertheless, the firstborn sons are the special possession of the Lord. God does not demand the life of these sons; such would be abhorrent to the Hebrew faith. God does not demand their enslavement; such would be a slight on his mercy. But he does demand their redemption—and provides the means for bringing that to pass. The resultant weight of the shekels so collected is given (1,365 shekels) as a statement of the impressive nature of the transaction and as a witness to its accuracy (5 x 273).
(4) The numbers of the Levites in tabernacle service (4:1–49)
(a) The command for the census and a description of duties (4:1–33)
1–2 When the sons of Levi are mentioned in 3:17, their order is Gershon, Kohath, and Merari; this order also informs the structure of the balance of ch. 3: Gershonites (vv.2 l–26), Kohathites (vv.27–32), and Merarites (vv.33–37; cf. Ge 46:11; Ex 6:16; 1Ch 6:1, 16).
The order of the listing of sons in the Bible is not necessarily that of birth order; but the consistent pattern Gershon, Kohath, Merari suggests that birth order is intended here. This makes the order of the Levitical families in Nu 4 somewhat unexpected, as the families of Kohath (the presumed second son) are mentioned first (vv.2–20), then the families of Gershon (vv.21–28), and finally the families of Merari (vv.29–33). The same pattern is recapitulated in the numbering listed at the end of the chapter (vv.34–45).
The reason for this elevation of the second son over his older brother seems to be based on the sovereign selection of the Lord and the favored work he gives this family in proximity to the holiest things. Further, we find here a recurring pattern in the Hebrew text: the surprising elevation of a lesser son over his older brother. These are examples of the grace of God that reaches out in sovereign selection, bringing blessing to whom he wishes to bring blessing, elevating whom he desires to elevate, for reasons of his own will (cf. Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over Reuben, Moses over Aaron, Saul and David over their respective brothers).
3 The census here is of all males “from thirty to fifty years,” in contrast to ch. 3, where all males over the age of one month are listed (v.15). This chapter lists those Levites who were of the age to serve in the tabernacle. Of the 22,000 Levite males mentioned in 3:39, there were 8,580 of service age (v.48). From 8:24 we learn that the beginning age for service was twenty-five; perhaps the first five years were something of an apprenticeship.
4–5 The paragraphs detailing the work of the Kohathites in their care of the most holy things come to the modern reader as truly from another time. The attention to care and detail for holy things is, lamentably, a lost art. Even though the primary care of these holy things was given to the Kohathites, they were forbidden to touch them (v.15)—or even to look on them (v.20)—lest they die. All the work of the Kohathites was to be strictly supervised by Aaron and his sons, and only the priests themselves were to touch and look on the unveiled holy things. We presume that even they had to be extremely careful in this regard (see 3:2–4).
6–15 Translators have difficulty in identifying the precise nature of the “hides of sea cows” (i.e., the outer covering of the ark) and the other items of holy furniture. The Hebrew word rendered “sea cow” is similar to the Arabic term for the dolphin; hence, porpoise-hide or hide of sea cows seems correct.
The manner of the transport of the holy things was by foot, with the six packages of holy things suspended between carriers by poles (see vv.6, 8, 11, 14) or kept on a carrier frame (vv.10, 12). The sad story of Uzzah is an unwitting self-test of the profound significance of these words (2Sa 6:6–7).
16 The special functions of the high priest are specified in this section both as a delimitation and as a mercy to the other sacral persons. The priest had certain duties peculiar to his office that none other might ever do. But the mercy of God was that there was a person who could draw near to the most holy things on behalf of the people. Were the high priest unable to attend to the holy things, there could be no worship from any of the community. Hence, his welfare ought to have been the concern of the people, for theirs was certainly tied to him.
17–20 The final section relating to the Kohathites in this portion concerns their ongoing service before the Lord in the context of the ongoing people of God; but it also presents a significant warning: any improper approach toward, touch of, or glance at the sacred things would mean death. The underlying reason on God’s part may well have been mercy. It was a mercy of God that he had made himself known to anyone; it was the continuing mercy of God that he did not destroy more persons more quickly because of their wickedness; and it was a condescending mercy of God that he presented himself in their midst. The revelation of God’s word brings with it demands, some of which seem harsh and difficult. But God is near. Some seem to be so judgmental; yet God has not destroyed all. Some seem to be so threatening; yet God by his mercy allows some sense of his presence to remain known in the camp. His manifestation is based on his mercy; his strictures allow his mercy to continue to be realized.
21–28 The Gershonites cared for the outer curtains and hides of the tabernacle. They and the Merarites were permitted to touch the things they were responsible for (cf. vv.15–20); the men of Kohath were not even to look at or touch the things of the Most Holy Place. But the Gershonites and the Merarites were not to do their work alone. Even with them Aaron was to be the chief responsible agent, but he was able to delegate some of that responsibility to his son Ithamar.
29–33 Similar phrasing to the two other family units graces this section, with the instructions that the Merari family was to have their principal duties with the frames, crossbars, posts, bases, pegs, ropes, and other equipment. Their work was as important as that of any other family group; for without it the more desirable, prestigious work of the tabernacle could not be done. Hence the Merarites could take an interest even in the placing of a post, a peg, or a rope, not because each of these items is a distinct, suitable “type of Christ,” but because the worship of God could not proceed—nor could the camp move out—unless these people were doing their holy work.
(b) A description of the census of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari (4:34–45)
34–45 The most notable thing in the census of the Levitical families in this section is the use of numbers. They still appear to be rounded off; but since the numbers are smaller than those in ch. 1, the rounding off is done to the tens level: 2,750 from Kohath, 2,630 from Gershon, and 3,200 from Merari.
(c) A summary of the census and the work of Moses in the census (4:46–49)
46–49 Here we find the seemingly routine use of a summary text in which notice is given of compliance on the part of the leaders. Further, the total number of the men from the three Levitical families from the age of thirty to fifty who worked in and about the Tent of Meeting was 8,580. These summary texts give a sense of completion to the unit. Hebrew style seems to allow the reader to enjoy a sense of “going full-circle.”
b. Diverse commands and rituals in preparation for the triumphal march (5:1–10:10)
(1) The test for purity and the law of jealousy (5:1–31)
(a) The expulsion of the impure from the camp (5:1–4)
1–2 In biblical times skin diseases, especially open sores, were among the three prominent factors (along with oozing discharges and contact with dead bodies) that rendered one unclean and hence unfit to be with the community; such a person was also a possible contaminate to the tabernacle and the pure worship of the Lord. It is not clearly indicated (despite the NIV rendering) that the offending skin diseases are infectious, for some of the diseases that might cause the disorders described in Lev 13 are not infectious. A preferable, nonspecific translation is “[to suffer] a serious skin disorder.” The OT concept of “uncleanness” is hard for many modern readers to understand. For more on “skin disease,” see Lev 13–14 and comments.
The second problem rendering a person ritually unclean is a discharge of any kind (see comments on Lev 15). These discharges were primarily from the sexual organs and were chronic in nature.
The third factor rendering a person unclean in ancient Israel was contact with a dead body. The ultimate tangible sign of uncleanness in ancient Israel was the corpse. Processes of decay and disease in dead flesh were evident to all. Physical contact with a corpse was a sure mark of uncleanness and quite possibly a source of infection.
3 The modern reader should be impressed that these various disorders that render one unclean, and hence to be expelled from the camp, include male and female alike. The concept of clean versus unclean cuts across sexual lines. Women are excluded along with men, and women may be released of exclusion along with men. The essential issue in all laws of purity in Israel was not magic or health or superstition; the great reality was the presence of the Lord in the camp; there can be no uncleanness where he dwells.
4 Israel fully complied with this law when it was initiated (cf. 1:54; 2:34; 3:16, 42, 51; 4:49). In view of the dramatic phrase “I dwell among them” (v.3), the essential reason for the importance of “uncleanness” in the camp is the indwelling presence of the Lord. His commands that the unclean be expelled from the camp are essentially expressions of his mercy.
(b) Restitution for personal wrongs (5:5–10)
5–7 Here Moses discusses a person within the camp who wrongs another. The connection of vv.5–10 (personal wrongs) to the first paragraph (ritual uncleanness) may be one of moving from the outward and visible to the inward and more secret faults that mar the community. Those with evident marks of uncleanness are to be expelled for the duration of their malady. But more insidious are those people who have overtly sinned against others and think that they may continue to function as though there were no real wrong.
The particulars of the text demand a procedure for restitution in the case of unspecified personal wrongs. Of first importance is the recognition that such wrongs are not slight offenses between people only but are in fact acts of treachery against God. The steps for restitution include (1) a condition of guilt—that person is guilty, which excludes that person from active participation in the community as surely as a serious skin disease or contact with a dead body; (2) a public confession of that sin—presumably in the precincts of the sacred shrine, before witnesses and priests; (3) full restitution plus one-fifth to the one wronged (see Lev 22:14; 27:11–13, 31); (4) a sacrifice to the Lord of a ram offering for atonement.
8 Each above step is enumerated in Lev 6:1–7 in the initial presentation of the law of defrauding. However, Nu 5 has an additional provision: What if a person has defrauded another but that person is no longer living and has no living relative to whom restitution might be paid? Verse 8 adds the next proviso: (5) the payment of restitution is to be made to the priest when there is no suitable relative to whom such payment might otherwise be made. In this way the debt is paid fully, no matter who of the injured family has survived. The term for “close relative” (GK 1457) means “the protector of the family rights” and sometimes is translated “kinsman-redeemer” (e.g., Ru 4:3).
9–10 Finally, a note is added that the offerings presented to the priests truly belong to the priests. The offering is not a sham that is withdrawn secretly after a public presentation. The intent of this law on defrauding is clear in the context of this chapter: purity among the people is essential for their successful journey through the desert and their eventual triumph over the inhabitants of the land. Just as the physically impure needed to be expelled from the camp, so those attitudes and jealousies one might have against another of a petty or serious nature also had to be dealt with equitably for the camp to remain pure.
(c) The law of jealousy (5:11–31)
Yet another element that will lead to impurity within the camp is undetected marital infidelity. The law concerning jealousy is best read in the context and flow of the two earlier laws in this chapter. Moses moves from issues of purity established with the physical marks (vv.1–4), to those of interpersonal relationships (vv.5–10), and then to the most intimate of relationships, that of purity of a man and woman in their marriage bed (vv.11–31). As with the first two, so the unexposed but treacherous act of marital infidelity also brings harm to the camp as a whole.
11–15 A test for marital fidelity is far harder to prove than a test for a skin disorder; hence the larger part of the chapter is given over to this most sensitive issue. The husband’s “feelings of jealousy” may have been provoked on the basis of good cause, and the issue must be faced; the concern is ultimately based on the reality of God’s dwelling among his people (v.3). The gravity of the ritual shows that the Law regards marital infidelity most seriously. Such was not just a concern of a jealous husband; the entire community was affected.
Two sides need to be discussed. On one hand, the husband may shame his wife publicly and force her to a rigorous, demeaning religious trial merely on the (unfounded) suspicion of marital faithlessness. She may have presented no evidence whatsoever. Further, there is no mention of the guilt, trial, and judgment of the man that this woman is supposedly involved with—all guilt, shame, trial, and judgment rest on her shoulders.
On the other hand, there is a limitation on the husband—a protection of the wife from his abusive hand. Were there not such a provision in a male-dominant culture, an angry, suspicious husband might strike out against his wife without any sure reason, harm her physically and mentally, and even take her life. But God reaches out through Moses and has a means of escape for a woman under suspicion of unfaithfulness. The trial she is taken to is not a kangaroo court; it is in the precincts of the tabernacle, under the jurisdiction of the priests, in concert with a solemn sacrifice—she places herself under the hand of the Lord.
The woman brought to such a place will not take this issue lightly. Public humiliation, shame, anger with her spouse, and exposure before priests and people were all terrifying prospects. But then neither would her husband take these issues lightly. For he was not just spreading rumors nor digging at his wife in the privacy of their home. He too was coming before the Lord, and he too might be judged. Hence we have another expression of the mercy of God to women who are so often abused by prideful men. Here is a means of escape from suspicion and evasion of punishment. If the woman was indeed guilty, then the husband was vindicated. This was important, not just for the pique he might be feeling, but for the sense of the ongoing stability of the family. If a woman was unfaithful to her husband, she might be carrying the child of another man; and the rights of inheritance might become hopelessly enmeshed in the complexities of family relationships.
But if the woman was innocent, then her husband would have his reasons for jealousy alleviated. Again, this is a limitation on his jealous nature. Most men would be very careful before pressing the issue. The results could be disastrous for themselves.
16–18 The central phrasing of this text is that the priest shall bring the woman to stand before the Lord. The repetition in v.18 is for emphasis. The biblical phrasing demands a theological understanding of the woman’s judgment. Further, that she is brought before the Lord helps again to demonstrate the concept of purity and the proper connection of this law with the two earlier laws of the chapter.
Taking holy water, adding dust, and then mixing a doubtful drink seems to be a world away from things we understand. It seems most unlikely that the addition of dust from the floor to the holy water is what makes that water “bitter” (GK 5253). It was added to holy water, not to change the taste, but to emphasize the holiness of the matter.
Next the woman is made to loosen her hair, perhaps a sign of openness on her part. She is to be presented before the Lord. This loosening of the hair would be for the guilty woman an expectation of judgment and mourning (see Lev 13:45; 21:10). For the innocent wife, who had nothing to fear but the glory of the Lord to demonstrate, the loosening of her hair is a strengthening action of feminine personhood in the Holy Place.
The terminology that bitter water brings a curse is problematic. It is not just that the water was bitter tasting but that it had the potential of bearing with it a bitter curse. That this potion was neither simply a tool of magic nor merely a psychological device to determine stress is to be seen in the repeated emphasis on the role of the Lord (vv.16, 18, 21, 25). The verdict of the woman was precipitated by her physiological and psychological responses to the bitter water, but the judgment was from the Lord. The phrase may be rendered in a somewhat expansive manner: “the water that may result in bitterness and provoke a profound curse.”
19 The priest presents two possibilities. First, the woman is truly innocent. In this case his specific prayer to the Lord is that the water with the potential of bitterness will not harm her. The priest’s words to the innocent woman assure her of no harm from the bitter water. If she is truly guilty of the deed that her husband suspects, then the full onus of the curse-bearing waters will come to her, enter her body, descend through her intestines, and be the physical means the Lord will use to produce a physical change in her body.
20–22 The other possibility is that the woman has been unfaithful to her husband, in which case the priest pronounces a curse on her from the Lord. The NIV note has “causes you to have a miscarrying womb and barrenness.” The figurative language here (and in v.27) speaks of the loss of the capacity for childbearing (and, if pregnant at the time of her judgment, the miscarriage of the child). For a woman in the ancient Near East to be denied the ability to bear children was a personal loss of inestimable proportion.
The woman who was guilty may return to her home to await the outcome of the oath. If she was innocent of infidelity, she should count on progeny. If she was guilty but not caught in the act, then she would suffer debilitating physical symptoms that would prohibit successful pregnancies. She would then bear her guilt in her body and the inner chambers of her heart. In either case the woman was to hear the words of the curse in the midst of the solemn precincts, and then to bring that potential curse on herself by saying to the Lord and his priest, “Amen. So be it.” The double “Amen” (lit. Heb.; GK 589) is her signal that she understands the issues and is in agreement with the judgment—or escape from judgment—that will come into her body.
23–28 After the words of the cursing had been announced, the priest would write them on a scroll and then blot the letters off into the water. The woman was not only going to hear the words but in a dramatic, figurative sense drink them; thus the awful sense of taking the curse into one’s own body was realized. The NIV suggests the very drinking of the water would cause suffering. The bitterness was not in taste, convulsions, or physical shock but in the latent sense of the potential judgment of childlessness. “Bitterness” is a most appropriate term for just this potential judgment. The innocent woman, however, would not suffer the bitterness of the water and its curses.
29–31 The summary statement of this law concerns the woman who has been rightly accused by her husband. The chapter has a cohesion to it of instances relating to the maintaining of purity within the camp. The importance of marital fidelity is further supported by numerous NT texts (especially 1Co 5), which point to God’s continuing affirmation of the seventh commandment: You are not to commit adultery.
(2) The vow of the Nazirite and the Aaronic Benediction (6:1–27)
(a) The vow of the Nazirite (6:1–21)
1–2 It is not generally recognized that these vows of special devotion to God could be made by a woman as well as a man; that is, women were not precluded from this vow (cf. 30:1–16). The vow described here is not a routine matter; rather, it is an act of unusual devotion to God, based perhaps on an intense desire to demonstrate one’s utter separation to the Lord.
“Nazirite” (GK 5687) describes the person who has marked out a special time of separation or consecration to God. The Nazirite had to face three demanding limitations: (1) absolute abstinence from all produce of the vine (whether intoxicating or not; see vv.3–4), (2) total forswearing of trimming of the hair (v.5), and (3) utter separation from contact with a dead body (vv.6–8). For the Nazirite one major clean food (any form of grape products) was prohibited during the course of one’s vow. After the period of the consecration was over, wine and all grape products were permitted again (v.20).
3–4 The term “fermented drink” (shekar; GK 8911) is often used in association with “wine” (yayin; GK 3516) and is found in texts condemning drunkenness (see 1Sa 1:15; Pr 20:1; Isa 5:11, 22; et al.). But shekar is also used in other texts describing the normal, moderate drinking (along with wine) that was part of the expected common food of the people of Israel. Further, shekar could be used in the drink offering (Nu 28:7) in the worship of the Lord. Since yayin is the fermented product of the vine, presumably shekar is the fermented product of the field, i.e., beer. The Nazirite was to abstain from both wine and beer and from everything associated with the wine grape, not just the fermented beverages, but even the vinegar that results when such products sour. Moreover, the prohibition included fresh grape juice, grapes either fresh or dried, and even the seed and skin of the grape. It is unclear why grape products are specifically forbidden to the Nazirite.
5 A second voluntary prohibition for the Nazirite was the normal and expected trimming of the hair (cf. Jdg 13:5). The unexpectedly long hair of a Nazirite man was a physical mark of his vow of special “separation” (GK 5694) to the Lord. Since women in most cultures wear their hair longer than men do, presumably the Nazirite woman might not only have let her hair grow long but may have allowed it to remain relatively unkempt (cf. “untended vines,” Lev 25:5, 11), or perhaps she let it hang loose as opposed to putting it up. Otherwise, it is difficult to see how the (unusually) long hair of a woman would be a distinctive sign of her period of vow. In this way, the Nazirite was to be “holy.”
6–8 The third prohibition for the Nazirite concerned any physical contact with a dead body—even within his own family. Here a person faced heart-rending decisions not to do normal things in times of great grief because of intense consecration to the Lord. Even a priest was expected to care for the dead body of a close relative (Lev 21:1–3). But the Nazirite could not care for such a body, no matter how beloved the person, or he would bring contamination on himself.
9–12 The accidental death of a person in the proximity of the Nazirite makes him unclean, guilty of sin before the Lord. This section deals with the unexpected and the unplanned events of daily living. The special focus of the person’s contamination is his dedicated hair, which was to be shaved on the seventh day of the Nazirite’s rite of purification. Then, following obligatory offerings of birds (the less expensive offerings) for sin (v.8) and burnt offerings and a lamb (the more expensive) for guilt offerings, the person would rededicate himself to the Lord for the period of time that had originally been planned; the time spent up to that point would no longer count because of the contamination. No wonder this vow is termed a “hard vow” (v.2; cf. Pr 20:25).
13–20 The public presentation of the Nazirite by the priest at the Tent of Meeting before the Lord shows that this type of vow was not just an intensely personal and private act of relationship with the Lord. Any such public rite suggests that the vow was also a matter of public knowledge. Presumably, the community could be supportive of the person during the time of his vow. But more important is the personal presentation before the Lord at the Tent of Meeting (see vv.13–14, 16–17, 20). Through this vow, one had a profound sense of one’s coming into the presence of the Holy One.
Burning the hair signified the completion of the vow and demonstrated that the act of the Nazirite was in devotion to the Lord. Since the Nazirite was prohibited any contact whatsoever with wine and vine products during his vow, one might conclude that such things are essentially evil in themselves. However, a wine offering (“drink offering”; GK 5821) was presented on the altar to the Lord along with the clean animals and the associated grain offerings. The conclusion respecting the prohibition of wine and beer to the Nazirite during his vow must take into account the use of wine in the rite of vow-completion as well as the notice that he was then free to drink wine again (v.20).
21 The costs of the Nazirite vow were considerable and varied. It was not a demand of God on his people but a provision for men or women to voluntarily show their devotion to him.
(b) The Aaronic Benediction (6:22–27)
22–23 The words of the prayer of vv.24–26 are termed the Aaronic Benediction. Perhaps the most impressive aspect of this prayer is that it is a provision for God’s desire to bless his people. Blessing is his idea. It is not something his people must beg for, but the out-reaching of his grace.
The pattern of the prayer is exquisite; the language is poetic and emotive. There are three lines each with the divine name “LORD”; the repetition of the divine name gives force to the expression of v.27 and is certainly fitting with the (later) Christian revelation of the Trinity. Each line conveys two elements of benediction, and the lines are progressively longer. Not counting the threefold use of the divine name, there are twelve words to the prayer, which suggest the twelve tribes of Israel.
This prayer speaks of the light of the presence of the Lord; but there is a sense that the prayer itself is light-giving. Prayed in faith, it expects God to respond by drawing near and enfolding one in his grace. In fact, the concluding words promise that he will bless his people.
24 While these words are directed to the entire community, the pronouns are singular. The Lord blesses the whole by blessing individuals; he blesses individuals by blessing the whole. “The LORD bless you and keep you” are words of reminder, of attestation of promise. The buttressing words “and keep you” further explain his blessing. God’s intention for his people is their good; he will preserve them to enjoy that good.
25 The words “make his face shine upon you” recall the experience of Moses on Mount Sinai (see Ex 34:29–35). As his glory had caused Moses’ face to shine, so the Lord desires to make his presence known to all his people. When Moses was on the mountain, it was in the context of terror. But God had come down in grace; his revelation was of mercy. Hence we have the splendidly suitable tie of the light of his face and the grace of his presence.
26 The Hebrew word shalom (“peace”; GK 8934) is here seen in its most expressive fullness, not just as an absence of war, but as the positive state of rightness and the fullness of well-being. This kind of peace comes only from the Lord. The expression “turn his face” suggests pleasure and affection and is functionally equivalent to “smile.”
27 The Lord says that this prayer is the means of placing his name on his people. Since “the LORD” itself is a term of blessing whereby the eternal God states his relatedness to his people, these words of blessing could not be more appropriate. The prayer is designed to help the people experience the reality of the blessing of the Lord.
(3) The offerings at the dedication of the tabernacle (7:1–89)
(a) The presentation of carts and oxen (7:1–3)
1 With much repetition of language, ch. 7 records the magnificent (and identical) gifts given to the Lord for tabernacle service by the leaders of each of the Twelve Tribes. It is wonderfully fitting that the record of these gifts follows the Aaronic Benediction (6:24–26): in response to God’s solemn promise to bless his people, they bring their blessing to him—magnificent gifts in twelve sequential days of celebrative pageantry.
The focus in the chapter is on the tabernacle, the “dwelling place of God,” and the altar, the point of approach to God’s dwelling. After Moses had completed supervising the construction and erection of the sacred tent and its altar, he “anointed” and “consecrated” them for the Lord’s special services. “Anoint” (GK 5417) is the same term used for the anointing of special persons. “Consecrate” (GK 7727) means that those present recognize that the tabernacle and its furnishings and the altar and its implements are no longer common items but are now marked out as special, distinct, and other—set apart to the worship of God.
2–3 Then the leaders of the tribes (cf. chs. 1–2) come forward with their first gifts. There are six carts, each drawn by a pair of oxen, for the special use of the priests in transporting the elements of the sacred tent and its furnishings when the people set out on their march toward Canaan. The Hebrew used here has traditionally been understood to describe a covered wagon, which would certainly be appropriate for transporting the sacred items.
(b) The distribution of the carts and oxen (7:4–9)
4–9 Following the command of God, Moses takes these six covered carts and their pairs of oxen and distributes them to the three Levitical families based on their need and their particular responsibilities. Two of the carts and their four oxen he gives to the families of Gershon for their work in transporting the varied curtains of the tabernacle and the courtyard (see 4:24–28); the other four carts and their pairs of oxen go to the families of Merari for their work in transporting the frames, crossbars, etc., of the tabernacle and the courtyard (see 4:29–33). The Kohathites are not given any carts; they must carry the holy things on their shoulders, with staves placed through the carrying loops (see 4:4–20; esp. vv.6, 8, 11–12, 14). This prohibition of the use of carts for the holiest objects was not followed by David (see 2Sa 6:3–13).
(c) The plan of the tribal offerings (7:10–11)
10–11 The literal Hebrew reads “one leader for one day, one leader for one day.” The repetition shows the pacing that God required. Each leader’s gift was worth a day’s celebration. None of the gifts were to be grouped, none of the leaders bunched. Each leader, and the people he represented, was to have his day of approach with significant gifts to the presence of the Lord.
(d) The offerings of the Twelve Tribes (7:12–83)
12–83 The leaders of the Twelve Tribes have already been named in 1:5–15 and 2:3–32. The order of the presentation is the same as the order of march: first the tribes camped to the east of the tabernacle; then those to the south; then those on the west; finally those on the north.
The gifts of each of the twelve worthies were the same:
one silver platter weighing about 1.5 kilograms
one silver sprinkling bowl weighing about 0.8 kilogram
one gold ladle weighing about 110 grams
the plate and bowl containing flour mixed with oil for a grain offering
the ladle filled with incense
one young bull, one ram, and one male lamb for a burnt offering
one buck goat for a sin offering
two oxen, five rams, five buck goats, and five male lambs for a fellowship offering
These gifts were to be used in the worship patterns of the temple service. The “silver plate” may have been used in association with the bread of the Presence. The sprinkling bowls were for the blood that would be sprinkled on the altar. The gold “dish” might have been used for incense, as this is the way it was presented to the Lord. The shekel used to weigh the silver and gold gifts is termed the “sanctuary shekel,” as against the half-value shekel sometimes used. The weight of the sanctuary shekel was established in Ex 30:13 as “twenty gerahs” (= .403 ounce or 11.4 grams; see EBC, 1:379). Certainly these gifts were regarded as substantial, particularly coming from a people so recently slaves. They had despoiled the Egyptians (Ex 12:35–36) to enrich the worship of their God. The incense that filled the dishes was the prescribed, fragrant incense of Ex 30:34.
Obviously the writer might more easily have said that each of the twelve leaders brought the same magnificent offerings to the Lord on his appointed day during the twelve-day celebrative period. How are we to regard his seeming excess of repetitive detail throughout the long chapter? Is it not possible that in this listing we catch a glimpse of the magnificent pomp and ceremony attending these gifts? Do we not see the genuine spirit of worship of each of the successive tribes as their turn came to bring gifts to the Lord? And finally, do we not see the joy of the Lord in his reception of these gifts? This chapter has a stately charm, a leisurely pace, and a studied sense of magnificence as each tribe in its turn was able to make gifts to God that he received with pleasure.
(e) The totals of the offerings (7:84–88)
84–88 At long last the twelve-day procession of givers and gifts came to its conclusion. Each tribal leader had his moment, each tribe its opportunity, and on each day there was experienced the smile of the Lord. In characteristic Hebrew style, this paragraph gives the sums of the twelve sets of gifts, a further witness to the opulence of the offerings, the festive nature of the ritual of presentation, and the sense of celebration each tribe had in its part.
(f) Moses’ conversation with God (7:89)
89 The climax is Moses’ hearing the voice of the Lord speaking to him from the central shrine, amid the cherubim and over the atonement cover. Communion is established between the Lord and his prophet; the people have an advocate with the Lord.
(4) Setting up the lamps and the separation and age of service of the Levites (8:1–26) (a) Setting up the lamps (8:1–4)
1–2 The words “The LORD said to Moses” serve a double purpose: they present a new topic and remind the reader of the divine origin of the words and of the role Moses had as the intermediary between God and man. The seven lamps and the lampstand are described more fully in Ex 25:31–40. The lamps were to be positioned so that they would light the area in front of the lampstand, that is, the area where the bread of the Presence was displayed. Thus there would always be “light” on the bread.
On entering the Holy Place, the golden lampstand would be on the left side and the table of the bread of the Presence on the right side, with the altar of incense straight ahead. Beyond that altar was the veil leading into the Most Holy Place with the ark, the mercy seat, and the cherubim.
3–4 Aaron is reported to have obeyed the command of God in the proper focusing of the lamps; then a reminder of the beauty of the design of the lampstand is given. The most remarkable aspect of this section is the note that the lampstand was made in exact accordance with the pattern the Lord had given to Moses (see Ex 25:40; also cf. Heb 8:5; Rev 1:12–20).
(b) The separation of the Levites (8:5–22)
5–10 The Levites were distinct from the other tribes (see vv.6, 14, 16, 19): they were to have no tribal allotment; their places of living would be spread throughout the other tribes, but they were drawn from the tribes to have a special service before the Lord in assisting the priests.
The cleansing process of the Levites began with a sprinkling of water on them rather than with a sprinkling of blood (cf. Ex 29:20–21). In the Hebrew this water is termed “water of sin,” a phrase taken to mean “water of cleansing” or “purification from sin” (cf. “bitter water” in 5:18). Next the Levites shaved their entire bodies, which speaks of the fullness of their cleansing (cf. Lev 14:8; see Nu 5:2). Shaving the body is in some ways a return to innocence and an initiative symbol of purity. Bodily hair needs to be cleansed regularly, for the follicles tend to collect and hold dirt. The cleansing of the Levites seems to be an initial rite of purification. Since Semitic men in the ancient world generally wore beards and had ample bodily hair, shaving must have been regarded as a remarkable act of devotion to God. The third factor in cleansing the Levites was washing their garments. The verb used for washing means “to tread,” “to walk” (i.e., “to wash garments by treading”). This pictures the ancient form of washing clothing.
Following the sprinkling, shaving, and washing, the Levites were ready for the next step in their purification, the presentation of offerings and sacrifices to God: two bulls along with the fine flour mixed with oil that constitutes the grain offering. This would then be presented by Moses before the Tent of Meeting, with the nation gathered to witness the event. The people (their representatives) would then place their hands on the Levites as a means of identifying with them. The Levites had come from among the people; now they were standing in their place before the Divine Presence. This was a solemn act, worthy of reflection. The Levites were the substitutes for the nation; by placing hands on them, the people of the nation were dramatically acknowledging this substitutionary act (see 8:16–18).
11–14 Our text makes a subtle move from the placing of the hands of the people on the Levites to the placing of the hands of the Levites on the two bulls. This is a double substitution. The Levites substitute for the people, the bulls substitute for the Levites. The bulls, with this double signification, are then sacrifices of sin offering and burnt offering to provide atonement for the Levites.
Aaron comes more directly into the picture, as he is to present the Levites as a “wave offering” (GK 9485) before the Lord. The notion of “wave offering” is somewhat obscure to us. The idea was to hold an object, usually the part of the offering that would be the food for the priests, before the Lord, to wave it back and forth, and then to keep it for one’s own use. In the case of the Levites, perhaps Aaron and his sons would place hands on their shoulders and then cause them to move from side to side in a symbolic way to represent that they were a living sacrifice presented before the Lord and that they now belonged to the priests to assist them. In this way the Levites were separated from the rest of the community; they belonged to the Lord, and in turn they would belong to the priests.
15–19 The Levites were next acknowledged by the Lord as his particular possession. They substituted for the firstborn of every mother in Israel. The story line of salvation comes strongly here: Passover! Israel was in Egypt. The tenth plague was imminent. Faithful people had slaughtered a lamb, roasted it, and were eating it along with bitter herbs and matzo bread. When the angel of death was passing over the camp, the angel looked for blood on the posts and lintel of each home. Where that blood was found, the angel moved on to the next home. No one died. All lived. But in those homes that lacked the prescribed blood, there came blood. Instead of the blood of an animal on the door bracing, there was blood in the bed of the oldest child; for the angel of death had extracted the most vicious toll, the death of the firstborn. But for the firstborn of the faithful Israelites, who were not killed, a price was to be paid; and that price was the Levites. They were given to the Lord for his exclusive use (cf. v.14). In turn the Lord gave his Levites to the priests as aids for the work of the ministry.
20–22 This section serves two functions: it reports the completion of the act of separation as a literary device; it also reports the obedience of the people as a mark of their initial compliance to the will and work of God (see 1:54; 2:34; 3:16, 51; 4:49; 5:4; 8:4, 20, 22; 9:5, 23). The implicit obedience of Moses and the people of Israel to the commands of God leaves us quite unprepared for their complaints against his loving character and their outrageous breaches of faith in the rebellions that begin in ch. 11.
(c) The age of service of the Levites (8:23–26)
23–26 At 4:3 the age for the service of the Levite is said to be from thirty to fifty. The present paragraph has the same upper limit but a new lower limit: twenty-five. We do know that the age for entering service for the Levites was reduced to twenty by David (1Ch 23:24, 27), as the circumstances of their work had greatly changed by the time of the monarchy (v.26). Apparently no contradiction was seen in these numbers at the time these words were written. The rabbis harmonized these two texts by surmising that a five-year period of apprenticeship was included in one number.
After a Levite had reached the mandatory retirement age of fifty, he was still free to assist his younger coworkers as long as he was able to do so (perhaps at the great festivals), but he no longer was to do the hard and difficult work he had done in his prime. Again, in these regulations we sense the holiness and the mercy of God. His holiness demands that his ministers be fully able to do the work that is required for them. His mercy precludes a man doing the work when he was no longer physically able.
(5) The celebration of the Passover (9:1–14)
(a) The command to keep the Passover (9:1–5)
1–2 The arrangement of materials in the book of Numbers is not strictly chronological. The events of this chapter actually preceded the beginning of the census of 1:2 (cf. 1:1). There are two discreet emphases here. The first concerns the appropriate time and the proper regulations for the Passover; the second is found in the verb “to celebrate” (GK 6913). One term focuses on the demands, obligations, and rites of worship in Hebrew Scripture and the other on the ability to reach out for the celebrative, enjoyable, and festive nature of that worship. To lose sight of the regulation is to trespass in presumption. To forget the celebrative is to lose the joy and heart of worship; only to follow the obligation is to slip into the dreary work of “religion.”
3–4 In traditional Hebrew practice, “twilight” is regarded as the end of one day and the beginning of the next. The official determination of the precise moment was when one could no longer distinguish between a white or a black thread when standing outside in the growing darkness.
In addition to the emphasis on the appropriate timing of the Passover is the necessity for complete obedience to all the statutes and judgments of the celebration. The latter can lead in two directions: (1) to the obedience of faith that regards the minute details as important and compliance to them as that which will bring the pleasure of the Lord; (2) to legalism that finds itself so preoccupied with the details and the regulations as to lose the primary sense of the meaning God had in the legislation in the first place.
5 This report of compliance is yet another example of the obedience of Israel to the demands of the Lord in these early chapters of Numbers. Yet these reports ill-prepare us for the dreadful rebellion of Israel at Kadesh, described in the following chapters.
(b) The ceremonially unclean (9:6–8)
6–8 A crisis developed within the community because of ritual impurity on the part of some, who had come in contact with a dead body. Such contact rendered a person ritually unclean and no longer able to participate in the community until rites of purification had been completed (see 5:2). Hence such a person would not be permitted to participate in the celebrative Feast of the Passover. The section points to two issues: (1) the desire of these people to obey God fully in worship and festivals and (2) the formidable obstacle of participation based on ritual uncleanness.
Being “ceremonially unclean” (GK 3238) was not simply being physically soiled but was also a teaching device to remind the people of the holiness of God. The idea that any person at all might have the effrontery to approach the Lord is audacious in itself. Only by his grace may anyone come before him to worship. By developing a concept of ritual purity, an external symbol, the notion of internal purity might be presented.
Moses promised the people that he would seek an answer from the Lord regarding this situation of ceremonial uncleanness.
(c) Divine permission for a legitimate delay (9:9–13)
9–11 The grace of God is seen, not only in the words of his response to Moses, but in that he responded at all. God’s gracious provision for those who were ritually unclean was an alternative opportunity to celebrate the Passover one month later, so that they would not be excluded totally from its observance. The text thus presents the reality of the distancing that uncleanness brings between a believer and his participation in the worship acts of the community; it also provides a merciful alternative from the Lord. Further, the answer of the Lord made provision also for those who might be away on a trip. Even when the Passover was celebrated a month later, it was still to be done fully in order. The text emphasizes the essentials of the meal and the ritual. There was to be the lamb (noted by the word “Passover”), the unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs.
12 The strictures for the Passover include two additional items: none of the feast is to be left over until morning, and the bones of the sacrificial lamb are not to be broken. Eating the Passover lamb and its attendant foods is to be done entirely in one evening (cf. Ex 12:10, 46; 16:19; 23:18). When the Lord Jesus (“our Passover lamb,” 1Co 5:7; cf. Jn 1:29) was crucified, none of his bones were broken, in fulfillment of the Scripture (Jn 19:36; see 9:12; also Ex 12:46; Ps 34:20).
13 Grace is generally accompanied by presumption. Those who had no reason not to celebrate the Passover and simply failed to do so were to be cut off from the community. God’s gracious provision for the distressed to have an alternative time of celebration was not to be license for the careless to ignore the Passover altogether. Such ones by their own neglect show that they are not part of the community and are not deserving of further union with it. The obdurate is to be “cut off” (GK 4162), which signifies either death by divine agency or perhaps banishment, a severe judgment indeed (cf. 1Co 11:28–30).
(d) The rights of the alien at Passover (9:14)
14 The alien first had to be circumcised before he was able to participate in the Passover celebration (cf. Ex 12:48). But there was an opening for the non-Israelite who had come to faith in the God of Israel to participate fully with the Israelites in holy worship. This is the point of the Abrahamic covenant (Ge 12:3).
(6) The covering cloud (9:15–23)
15 The cloud was the dramatic symbol of the presence of the Lord hovering above the tabernacle (cf. Ex 13:21; 40:34). That this was no ordinary cloud is attested not only by its spontaneous appearance at the completion of the setting up of the tabernacle but also by its appearance as fire by night. It was by means of the cloud that the Lord directed the movements of his people.
16 The mystic cloud, the fiery heaviness, and the enveloping presence must have been an extraordinary sight. The words “this is how it continued to be” suggest the permanent abiding of the cloud over the camp. The cloud and fire were both reversals of the expected phenomena of the time. To relieve the heat of the desert sun, there was a cloud by day. To reverse the cold darkness of the desert night, there was the comforting fire overhead.
17 Two significant verbs describe the presence of the cloud as the symbol of God’s nearness. One means “to cover” (v.15; GK 4059); the other means “to settle” (8905). The expression “wherever the cloud settled” contains the significant verb shakan, which is the basis for the idea of the “Shekinah glory.” The English rendering “shekinah” is built on the verb meaning “to dwell” and the shortened form of the divine name Yahweh (i.e., shakan-yah). This symbolizes God’s nearness and remoteness. He is present as a cloud but hovers above; he is near as a fire, but one cannot draw very close.
18 The words “at the LORD’s command” are literally “by the mouth of the LORD.” The cloud was one way that the Lord spoke to his people; it was the means he used to direct the movements and the resting times of his people Israel.
19–22 The movement of the cloud and its presence were unpredictable, without discernible pattern. This was to impress on the people the sense that it was God who was leading them. The cloud might linger only a day or so, or it might linger in one spot nearly indefinitely. The wording of these verses indicates a very lengthy stay, a briefer stay, or a very short stay. Whatever it might be, the people were to move or to encamp based on the movement or settling of the cloud.
23 This verse gives a report of compliance. The repetitious nature of this section (vv.15–23) enhances the expectation of continued complete obedience to the sure direction of the Lord in Israel’s movements through the desert. The role of Moses is mentioned for balance: He was the agent of the Lord who interpreted the movement of the cloud as signaling the movement of the people. The level of the tragedy of their subsequent disobedience is heightened by this paragraph of great obedience.
(7) The two silver trumpets (10:1–10)
(a) The command to fashion two silver trumpets (10:1–7)
1–2 The Bible speaks of two types of trumpets: the silver trumpet, as here (cf. 31:6; 1Ch 13:8; 2Ch 13:12; 29:26; Ps 98:6) and the ram’s horn trumpet (the shofar; GK 8795), as in Jos 6:4. Both instruments are far removed from the modern trumpet, as they produced notes of only certain intervals such as fourths or fifths. The silver trumpet was a long, straight, slender metal tube with a flared end. Trumpets were blown for order and discipline, as required by the immense number of people.
3–7 Two trumpets were blown for assembly of the people and one for assembly of the leaders. Trumpets were also blown for a signal to the people to set out on the line of march, at times of battle (v.9), and during festivals of worship (v.10). Obviously different signals would be used; hence, we may presume the development of a guild of priestly musicians was demanded (v.8). These were professionals whose making of music was as serious as the work of a soldier on the battlefield and as sacred as any task done by a sacrificing priest.
(b) The ordinance for the silver trumpets (10:8–10)
8 The role of the sons of Aaron as the sole players of these silver trumpets further signals the sacral function of this music. These instruments were like the lampstand and the censers, implements in the worship of God.
9 In times of battle the distinctive Israelite trumpet signal for war would be blown so that (1) Israel would be remembered before the Lord and (2) the people might be rescued from their enemies. The trumpet blast was analogous to prayer, a means of participation in activating the will of God. By blowing the trumpets before the battle, Israel expected God’s active presence in the battle scene.
10 As in the case of battle, it appears that the blowing of the trumpets was a means of knowing that the people were remembered by the Lord. The trumpets were blown as an introit to prepare the people for an active confrontation with God. Trumpets were used in times of festive worship, including feasts, New Moon festivals, burnt offerings, and fellowship offerings. They served as a memorial of the people to God and of him to them. The text ends with the solemn assertion that marks the importance of a text and the completion of a major unit of the book.
2. Setting forth of the people on the triumphal march (10:11–36)
a. The march begins (10:11–13)
11–13 After eleven months near Mount Sinai, the people moved out for the first time led by the Lord in his wondrous cloud. Israel, on the move from the Desert of Sinai, was on a journey that in a few weeks could lead them into the conquest of the land of Canaan. This was a day not to be forgotten: the second year, the second month, the twentieth day. At last the Israelites were on their way to Canaan!
The journey this text describes is not detailed fully here. It is not until 12:16 that the destination of the Desert of Paran is achieved. More specifically, the people settled at Kadesh in the Desert of Zin (20:1). There are at least three stops on this initial journey: Taberah (11:3), Kibroth Hattaavah (11:35), and Hazeroth (11:35).
The Desert of Paran is a large plateau in the northeastern Sinai, south of what later would be called the Negev of Judah, and west of the Arabah. This forms the southernmost portion of the Promised Land, the presumed staging area for the assault on the land itself. Israel’s staging for attack in the Desert of Paran was a brilliant strategy. They would avoid the fortified routes to the west, presumably under the control of Egypt. This unusual line of attack from the south would stun the inhabitants of the land. They would come like a sirocco blast from the desert, and the land would be theirs, under the hand of God.
b. The grand procession of tribes and Levites (10:14–28)
14–28 The names of the leaders of the Twelve Tribes are given for the fourth time in the book (see 1:5–15; 2:3–31; 7:12–83); the order for the tribes in the line of march is the same as was presented in ch. 2. The new detail is that the Gershonites and the Merarites bearing the tabernacle followed the triad of the Judah tribes in the line of march. The Kohathites carrying the holy things followed the triad of the Reuben tribes. Each of the four triads of tribes had a banner for rallying and organization (cf. 2:3, 10, 18, 25).
c. The request for Hobab to join the march (10:29–32)
29–32 Hobab was Moses’ brother-in-law, the son of Reuel (Jethro; see Ex 2:18; 3:1). Reuel had been most helpful to Moses earlier (see Ex 18); now his son, with expertise in the desert lands of the Sinai, would be a great help in locating water and pasturage. Several reasons made this appeal to Hobab appropriate: one was likely Moses’ relatedness to him through marriage; another is based on the goodness of God that is promised to Israel and in which Hobab may participate; and another is the above-mentioned expertise of Hobab. In this latter instance Moses says that Hobab might become the “eyes” of the people. Moses then reinforces the benefits that will come to Hobab; he will share in the benefits the Lord is about to bring on the nation.
Hobab refused at first, citing the need to care for his own family, following the traditional ancient Eastern pattern of adherence to family and place. No doubt there was also a tie to his family gods. Moses continued to urge Hobab to join Israel. Hobab did not come easily, but he did eventually come (see Jdg 1:16). Coming with Moses was not just a change of address; it was a radical reorientation of life itself, a new family, a new land, and a new God.
Although Hobab’s descendants received a share in the land (Jdg 1:16), Hobab himself apparently only experienced the goodness of God in the same way that the rest of the people did: in God’s providential care of his erring people in the desert of their banishment. The few weeks’ journey was to last a lifetime.
d. The three-day procession behind the ark of the Lord (10:33–36)
33–34 The journey began with a three-day march. Eleven months earlier the people were a rag-tag group of former slaves, gathered in the desert in the first rush of deliverance. Now they were prepared for the march, the battle, and the victory.
35–36 The sense of a victory march is enhanced by what we may call the “Battle Cry of Moses” (cf. 11:11–15). This little poem rests ultimately on the notion of cursing and blessing that goes all the way back to the Abrahamic covenant (Ge 12:2–3). The words of v.35 are a cursing of the enemies of the Lord and his people; the words of v.36 are a blessing on the people of his promise.
B. The Rebellion and Judgment of a Fearful People (11:1–25:18)
1. A cycle of rebellion and atonement and the record of death (11:1–20:29)
These ten chapters balance and contrast with the ten chapters that present the record of Israel’s preparation. Barely had the march begun before the rebellion was underway—a rebellion of the spirit of the people that manifested itself in a variety of ways. But always it came down to this: God’s demand of complete obedience and robust faith, a devotion of the whole person, was infrequently found in his people. Many of the people of God in all ages seem to display similar traits of irreligion and apostasy. This is one reason the book of Numbers is so important for readers today.
a. The beginning of sorrows (11:1–35)
(1) A judgment of fire (11:1–3)
1 Only three days into their march, the people reverted to the disloyal complaining they had expressed a year earlier, three days after their deliverance from the waters of the Red Sea (Ex 15:22–27). The people again expressed the ingratitude that marked their early experience. The response of the Lord to this outbreak of murmuring was one of wrath. The purging fire was limited to the outskirts of the camp, an evidence of the Lord’s mercy.
2 In the midst of his wrath, the Lord remembers mercy. The people truly deserved God’s considerable wrath. But the survivors of his anger cried out to Moses for help in their behalf. Moses prayed, and the fire subsided.
3 The place name “Taberah” comes from a Hebrew noun meaning “burning” (cf. Dt 9:22). Because of the raging fire of God in their midst, the people named that place of awful memory “Taberah,” Burning.
(2) A surfeit of quail (11:4–34)
4 This account appropriately begins with the “rabble” (GK 671), the non-Israelite people who followed Israel from Egypt. Those who did not know the Lord and his mercies too easily incited those who did know him to rebel against him. The murmuring soon spread throughout the camp, and the people began to complain about their diet, forgetting what God had done for them (Ps 106:14). By romanticizing the past, the people tended to minimize earlier discomforts when in a new type of distress. The verb “to crave” leads to the name of the location of the subsequent judgment, Kibroth Hattaavah, “Graves of Craving” (v.34).
5–6 The vegetables and fruit mentioned in this verse are suggestive of Egypt. Further, the poor in Egypt were able to supplement their diet with fish. The contrast was sure: there are no fish or vegetables in the desert. That there should have been any food at all to eat was solely by God’s mercy.
7–9 The description of the manna would be meaningful only to people who lived later (cf. also Ex 16). As with the cloud and fire (9:15–23), the nature and appearance of manna would have been familiar to the persons of this story. In fact, that is the point: they were sick of it!
Several factors suggest that the manna was a unique provision from the Lord, not just a natural substance in greater abundance: (l) The very Hebrew word manna (“What [is it]?”) suggests something unknown by the people at the time (see Ex 16:15); (2) the description of it suggests that it was not experienced by other peoples; (3) the daily abundance and periodic increase and decrease (Ex 16:22, 27) hardly suggest a natural phenomenon; (4) its ample supply for the entire desert experience, no matter where the people were (Ex 16:35), goes against the idea of a natural substance; (5) the keeping of a sample in the ark for future generations (Ex 16:33–34) suggests a unique food, a holy provision.
10–15 The rejection of his heavenly food was extremely evil to the Lord. God had said that the reception of the manna by the people would be a significant test of their obedience (Ex 16:4). In their spurning the manna, the people had contemned him. Their action was greatly troubling to Moses as well. Instead of turning to the Lord to ask that he understand the substance of their complaint, Moses turned to the Lord to ask why he was given such an ungrateful people to lead.
This leads to what we may call “Moses’ Lament,” a studied contrast with the “Battle Cry of Moses” (10:35–36). There are elements in this section similar to the lament psalms in the Bible. The lament begins with Moses asking God why he has brought calamity on him and ends with him begging the Lord not to let him see the full extent of his calamity. Moses would rather die than continue to be so very troubled by this obdurate people. One should note, however, that the people were ultimately ranting against the Lord.
16–17 The response of the Lord was twofold—mercy and curse. There was mercy to Moses in that his work load was now to be shared. There was a curse on the people that was in kind with their complaint: they asked for meat and would now become sick with meat (vv.18–34). The reference to the Spirit is noteworthy. God tells Moses that he will take of the Spirit that is on Moses and put that Spirit on the seventy. They will share the same Holy Spirit who empowers Moses.
18–20 The people’s distress at the lack of variety in the daily manna led them to challenge the goodness of the Lord. They had screamed for meat. They claimed that manna was a boring diet, that they could not live without variety, without some meat to eat. Now they were going to receive a diet of constant meat, for a full month, until it spewed from their nostrils. The principal issue was not meat at all. The people “have rejected the LORD.”
21–23 Moses reminds God (!) of the numbers involved: six hundred thousand men on foot. Moses’ distress at providing meat for this immense number of people is nearly comical—the task is staggering; it is an impossibility. The response of God is, “Is the LORD’s arm too short?” The human impossibility is an occasion to demonstrate the wonder of the Lord.
24–25 Sovereignly, mysteriously, graciously, the Lord apportioned the same Spirit that was on Moses on the seventy elders. The taking of “some” of the Spirit from Moses suggests the release of some of the burden that he bore. They will share in that work with him. These elders prophesied, but they did not continue to do so. The temporary gift was primarily to establish their credentials as Spirit-empowered leaders rather than to make of them ongoing agents of the prophecy of the Spirit. Their principal task will be to help in the administration of the population, especially in the context of the increasing impiety of the people.
26–30 Two of the designated elders did not meet with the others when the Spirit of God came on the group; but they also received the Spirit and began to prophesy. A young man who was devoted to Moses informed him of this and begged his master to have them cease. The prophesying of Eldad and Medad was perceived as an opportunity for further personal attacks on Moses. But Moses desired that all the people might have the full gifts of the Spirit. The “young man,” so protective of the reputation of Moses, is likely Joshua son of Nun. Perhaps it was this close association with Moses that emboldened Joshua, along with Caleb, to take his stand with the promise of God rather than with the fears of the people (chs. 13–14).
31–34 The sickening feast of the plague of quail ends this chapter. The people had begged for meat; the Lord supplied more quail than the people possibly could eat. The NIV suggests that the quail were borne along by the wind at the height of about three feet and hence were low enough to be seized by people quite readily. The supply of birds was stupendous. The least successful gatherer still captured “ten homers” worth (nearly sixty bushels). The drama is exquisite: “while the meat was still between their teeth,” the plague of the Lord struck them down. Before they could swallow, God made them choke. So this place took on an odious name: “Graves of Craving.” These graves marked the death camp of those who had turned against the food of the Lord’s mercy.
(3) A journey note (11:35)
35 Surely there was a sense that the people could not leave Kibroth Hattaavah quickly enough. “Hazeroth” means “enclosures.” This was a location that allowed them a temporary residence on their journey northward. But it also became the locus of yet another place of trouble, the attack on Moses by Miriam and Aaron (12:1–15).
b. The opposition of Miriam and Aaron (12:1–16)
1 Grammatical clues indicate that Miriam was the principal in the attack against Moses. Miriam was not judged because she was a woman but because she sinned. The story of her attack is included because of how important she really was. She preserved the life of the helpless infant who later became the great Moses (see Ex 1). She made it possible for Moses’ true mother to become his nurse. She led the singing of the first psalm we find recorded in the Scriptures (Ex 15). It is precisely because she is such a magnificent person that her act of rebellion is recorded.
The initial attack on Moses concerns his wife, though Moses’ marriage to a Cushite woman was not the real issue. The real issue concerned Moses’ prophetic gift and special relationship with God. Cush was the first son of Ham, the father of the peoples living in the southern Nile valley (Ethiopia). If Moses’ wife, Zipporah, is intended (see Ex 2:15–22), then her foreign ancestry is attacked by exaggeration. Maybe her skin was more swarthy than the average Israelite. More likely, however, Moses had taken a new wife, perhaps after the death of Zipporah; the language of 12:1 indicates a recent marriage of a Cushite woman. So at issue here is not “woman versus woman” or “woman against man”; rather, it is basic resentment of race against race. In any case, the attack on the woman was a pretext for the real issue at stake.
2 Miriam and her brother Aaron ask, rhetorically, “Has the LORD spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken as well through us?” Of course, he had (cf. Mic 6:4). God spoke through Aaron and Miriam; but his principal spokesman was ever Moses. The prophetic gifting of the seventy elders (11:24–30) seems to have been the immediate provocation for the attack of Miriam and Aaron on their brother.
3 It is not likely that a truly “humble” (GK 6705) person would write in such a manner about himself. It is possible, though not likely, that Moses authored such a line under inspiration, just as it is possible that he might have recorded the account of his death and burial by prophetic insight (Dt 34). Secondly, Moses was not really an exceptionally meek man. He was given to rage, self-pity, questioning, and debate. Evidence from etymology and usage suggests that “miserable” is a possible reading, and the context indicates that it is the preferred meaning here. The basic meaning of the Hebrew root is “to be bowed down.” One could be bowed down by force (i.e., subdued) or with submissiveness (i.e., humble) or with care and trouble (i.e., miserable or afflicted).
Ever since 11:1, one thing after another has brought pressure on Moses so that in 11:14 he whimpers to God that he is not able to bear the load any longer. He even asks that he might die to be relieved of the pressures. Now with this assault of his sister and brother, it was simply too much. He was now the most “miserable” man on earth. He had found his lot so difficult, his task so unmanageable, his pressure so intense that he called out to God saying, “It is too much!” (cf. 11:14). At this point he is utterly speechless; he is a broken man. “Now the man Moses was exceedingly miserable, more than any man on the face of the earth!” (pers. tr.).
4 The association of the Lord to his servant Moses is so strong that here suddenly he comes to redress the wrong done to his friend. That God speaks to Moses along with Aaron and Miriam suggests that he was present when they were berating Moses so unfairly.
5–9 When the trio came to the Tent of Meeting, according to the command of the Lord, he descended to them in the cloud (cf. 11:25). When the Lord appeared from the midst of the cloud, he spoke to Aaron and Miriam. The Oracle of the Lord in vv.6–8 is in poetic format. Some salient features of this poem may be noted. The poem stresses in an unusual manner the sovereignty of the Lord in the way he deals with prophets and other persons. He decides how he shall speak, to whom, and in what manner. The poem also powerfully presents the distinctiveness of Moses as against all other agents of divine disclosure. To other prophets God may speak in a variety of ways (cf. Heb 1:1; 1Pe 1:10–11). But to Moses there is a one-on-one relationship. Only Moses could approach the holy mountain and gaze on the Divine Person. Only his face radiated following these encounters. The one sure thing in this text is to insist that while God has spoken through Aaron, Miriam, and a host of others, there was none who was on such a familiar ground with God as was Moses (cf. Dt 34:10). In feigned incredulity God asks, “Why are you not very afraid?” Clearly, the ax of his wrath is about to fall!
10 The immediate effect of the wrath of God was seen on the body of Miriam. That Miriam was “leprous” (GK 7665) and Aaron was not is a signal that she was the principal offender. She broke out with the type of infectious skin disease that excluded persons from the community (see 5:1–4). The result of this judgment was that Miriam became an outcast.
11–13 The repentance of Aaron for the sin of presumption is touching both in its intensity and in his concern for their sister. His description of the appearance of Miriam’s skin is ghastly but effective. Moses then calls out to God to heal her. His prayer is remarkable in its urgency and simplicity.
14–15 The response of God is graciousness mingled with sobriety. He grants Miriam healing but demands a period of time of public shame. Seven days apparently was the briefest period of such shame before any restoration might be accomplished (see 19:11, 14, 16).
16 At last, the destination of the grand march was achieved. The Desert of Paran was the staging area for the attack on the land of Canaan. Despite numerous terrible events that marred the dream of the triumphal march, at last the people were at their destination. Glory awaits. Or at least that is what should have been the case.
c. The twelve spies and the mixed report (13:1–33)
(1) The command of the Lord (13:1–2)
1–2 Comparing the account in Dt 1:21–23 with Nu 13:1–2, we see that the command to send spies came from the Lord. Likely Deuteronomy presents the story from the level of the people and Nu 13:1–2 presents the divine perspective. When the people requested that spies be sent, Moses decided, on the basis of the will of God, to accede to their request. By putting the two accounts together, we see that the very idea of sending spies to the land was a further example of the grace of God. The specification of the type of men to be selected reminds us that God does use select persons for his leadership tasks. Yet ten of the twelve men turn out to be dismal failures. That they were each leaders of their tribes did not guarantee that they were adequate for the leadership role God desired they would have.
(2) The roster of names (13:3–16)
3 As in the records of chs. 1–10, the story begins with the compliance of Moses to the will of God. The names listed in vv.4–15 are different from the tribal leaders given in chs. 1, 2, 7, and 10. Presumably the tribal leaders were older men. The task called for younger and more robust men, but no less respected by their peers. The travel of the spies began in the Desert of Paran and came full circle geographically (v.26). But the men who returned were not the same as those who left. Presumably they left in confidence, with a spirit of divine adventure; but they returned in fear, groveling before men, no longer fearful of God.
4–15 The significance of listing the names is multiple: (1) they add a certain historical verisimilitude, (2) they provide a level of accuracy, (3) they should give the occasion for pride, (4) they become markers of sadness (cf. Taberah and Kibroth Hattaavah), and (5) they remind us of the significance of names to God (Rev 20:12).
16 Joshua’s name was first known as Hoshea, but Moses changed it as a mark of a special relationship between the two men. This change is a fatherly action, as though Moses has adopted his young aide and marked him for greatness (cf. Ge 17). In Hebrew, “Hoshea” means “salvation”; the new form of the name Joshua means “The LORD saves”; the latter form is the Hebrew spelling for Jesus.
(3) The instructions of Moses (13:17–20)
17–20 The instructions of Moses to the twelve spies were comprehensive, for he had some sense of the lay of the land of Canaan. The scouts were to give special attention to the people and the produce of the land, to the cities and towns, to the soil and the presence or absence of forests. Since the journey was at the time of the harvest of grapes, there is a personal note that they were to show themselves courageous in taking some of the fruit, words that would later come to haunt the nation.
(4) A summary of the reconnaissance (13:21–25)
21–25 The journey of the spies began in the southernmost extremity of the land (the Desert of Zin) and took them to the northernmost point (Rehob near Lebo Hamath; see 34:8). The first city the spies came to was Hebron. The parenthetical comment may have been prompted by their amazement at the size and fortification of the city. According to their ancestors, Hebron had not been a great city but a dwelling and trading place for shepherds and herdsmen. The size of the grape cluster that the spies found led them to name the location “the valley of the cluster” (i.e., Eshcol). The very size was a mark of the goodness of the land that God was giving them. To think of clusters of grapes so large that two men would transport the cluster on a pole—the people should have thought they had discovered Eden! The grapes, which were wine grapes, were a symbol of the joy the land would provide.
(5) The mixed report (13:26–33)
26–29 The first portion of the report was truthful, if timorous. The spies did give assent to the bounty of the land; it was a land flowing with milk and honey (cf. Ex 3:8). But immediately the spies lamented its people and cities. The cities were described as being inaccessible, impregnable. The listing of the nations that inhabited the land became a new reason for terror. Yet this listing could as well be taken as an indication of the victories that God was going to give his people in fulfillment of his promise in Ge 15.
30 The report of the majority must have caused the people to become frightened. Only Caleb and Joshua returned a report prompted by faith in God. Caleb’s words, “We can certainly do it,” were not merely bravado; they were the words of one who really believed that the Lord was giving the land to the people. Boldly, confidently, Caleb assured the people that they could take the land.
31–33 But the evil report prevailed. At last the ten state explicitly what they had implied. They were in a state of denial that included the power and presence of God, the promises and assurances of God, their own resources—indeed, even their own names. Those wonderful names—most of which speak of the blessing of being the people of God—were being denied as they spoke their words of calumny (see Ge 37:2; Jer 20:10).
The Land of Promise was a good land, a gracious gift of the Lord. By speaking evil of it, the faithless spies were speaking evil of him. At this point their words became exaggerations and distortions. The Anakites (who were of large size) were now said to be “Nephilim” (GK 5872), the race of giants described briefly in Ge 6:4. This word seems to be deliberately provocative of fear. The exaggeration of the faithless led them to their final folly, comparing themselves to “grasshoppers.”
d. The rebellion of the people and defeat by the Amalekites (14:1–45)
(1) The final rebellion of the faithless people (14:1–4)
1–2 The threefold emphasis on the extent of the rebellion—“all the people of the community,” “all the Israelites,” and “the whole assembly”—is important; for the judgment of God will extend to the entire community. Moses and Aaron became the central targets of the anger of the people, who “grumbled” against them even as they grumbled against the Lord and began to wish that they had already died. It would have been preferable to have died in Egypt or even in the desert than to come this close to their goal, only to discover that it was unattainable.
3–4 The more the people wailed, the more excessive their words. Then they began to aim their anger more directly at the Lord himself. Moses and Aaron were the fall guys, but the Lord was the one really to blame; he had delivered them from Egypt. The people worked themselves into such a frenzy of fear that they wished that God had not brought them there at all. The most reprehensible charge against the grace of God concerned their children (see vv.31–33). But in the end, only they survived. All the rest died in the desert they had chosen over the Land of Promise.
(2) The words of the faithful warning against rebellion (14:5–9)
5 In the midst of this rebellion, a few voices still spoke of God’s grace and remembered his power. Moses, Aaron, Caleb, and Joshua’s passion for truth in the midst of error caused Moses and Aaron to prostrate themselves before the enraged leaders of the people. They were aware that the anger of the Lord was likely to burst on the people in a moment.
6–7 Joshua and Caleb tore at their clothing, mourning out of faith because of the death of hope. Yet even as they mourned, Joshua and Caleb extolled the land and its virtues with extravagant language. They had been there and reminded the people that the land still flowed with milk and honey.
8 Then these righteous men presented the posture of faith. It was still possible to gain the land and to enjoy its fruit. The only thing necessary was that “the LORD is pleased with us.”
9 Two things were needful: the people had to stop their rebellion against the Lord and to cease being afraid of the people of the land. The word translated “protection” (GK 7498) is often rendered “shadow” or “shade.” God had served as a protecting shadow for the peoples of the land of Canaan; now that protection was gone. The Lord was with his people, and they could swallow their foes alive!
(3) The appearance of the Lord to withstand the rebels (14:10–12)
10 Despite the impassioned language of Joshua and Caleb and the prostrate forms of Moses and Aaron, the people were deaf to mercy, blind to truth. In the midst of the peoples’ rage, God in an awesome display of his wonder burst into their midst at the entrance of the tabernacle. Moses and Aaron had a foreboding this would happen; likely this is why they were prostrate (v.5).
11–12 When God appeared, he did not thunder against the people; but he spoke to his servant Moses about the people’s outrageous behavior. By refusing to believe in the power of the Lord, they were holding him in contempt. The anger of God was at fever pitch. In a moment he would destroy them all. And God could begin again, with Moses as the head of a new family of God (see Ex 32:10).
(4) The pleading of Moses (14:13–19)
13–16 Not for a second did Moses mull the possibility of a new people of God. Zealous for the honor of God, Moses burst with protest. There was no God like the Lord; never had a deity done for his people what the Lord had (see Dt 4:32–40). And the nations were watching! Moses was aghast at the thought that word would go back to Egypt that God was not able to deliver his people.
17–19 Moses then affirmed the splendors of the character of God, particularly his grace. He moved from the reputation of the Lord to his character, presenting a composite quotation of his own words of loyal love for and faithful discipline of his people (see Ex 20:6; 34:6–7). Moses knew God intimately. He knew him as a consuming fire; he also knew his warm embrace. While the wrath is real, it is long delayed.
(5) The judgment of the Lord against the rebels (14:20–35)
20–21 In response to Moses’ request, God declared that he had forgiven the people. But the forgiveness was not complete. The people who had behaved so intolerably would not be put to death, but neither could things go back to the way they were. A sentence had to be paid.
22–23 The judgment was mitigated. The people were not put to death, but neither would they be allowed to see the land. Since all the people were in rebellion, not one would escape the mitigated judgment.
The Lord speaks of ten times when the people tested him. A possible list of these is as follows: (1) at the Red Sea, where it seemed that Pharaoh’s army would destroy them (Ex 14:10–12); (2) at Marah, where they found bitter water (Ex 15:22–24); (3) in the Desert of Sin, as they hungered (Ex 16:1–3); (4) in the Desert of Sin, as they paid no attention to Moses concerning the storing of the manna until the morning (Ex 16:19–20); (5) in the Desert of Sin, as they disregarded Moses concerning the gathering of the manna on the seventh day (Ex 16:27–30); (6) at Rephidim, as they complained for water (Ex 17:1–4); (7) at Mount Sinai, as Aaron led the people in making the golden calf (Ex 32:1–35); (8) at Taberah, where the people raged against the Lord (Nu 11:1–3); (9) at Kibroth Hattaavah, in the grumbling provoked by the rabble for quail (Nu 11:4–34); (10) at Kadesh in the Desert of Paran, when the people refused to receive the good report of Joshua and Caleb but rather wished themselves dead (Nu 14:1–3). It was a dismal record indeed.
24–25 The Lord calls Caleb “my servant” and remarks with affection on his “different spirit.” Caleb’s ultimate vindication came forty-five years later (see Jos 14:10). The Lord then reminded Moses that there were Amalekites and Canaanites in the land; hence the people needed to turn back to the desert. They had lost their opportunity.
26–35 The rash words of the people asking to die in the desert become in a sense the judgment of the Lord. All those who were above the age of twenty, who were counted in the census, were to die in the desert—except Joshua and Caleb. God’s sharpest rebuke of his errant people came in response to their charge that he wanted to kill their children (v.3). God simply would not tolerate the accusation that he had brought the people into the desert to destroy their children. So a further element in God’s justice here was the notice that the children would be the only ones actually to enjoy the land. The rest of the people’s bodies would “fall in this desert.”
The forty days of the travels of the spies became the numerical paradigm for the suffering of the people: one year for one day, so that for forty years the people over twenty would be dying. Thus, when the time was fulfilled, only the young generation would enter the land.
(6) The death of the evil spies (14:36–38)
36–38 The people as a whole received a commuted sentence, but not those responsible for the attitudes that led to this debacle of doubt! They had to be put to death. The judgment on the ten evil spies was immediate; the generation they influenced would live out their lives in the desert. Only Joshua and Caleb were exempt from this judgment.
(7) Defeat by the Amalekites (14:39–45)
39–45 Too late the people determined to go up and take the land. They confessed that they had sinned, but their confession was partial at best, as their actions were rash and foolish. Not only was the Lord not with them now; he was against them. In fact, he had warned them not to go this way but to turn back to the desert (v.25). Their subsequent defeat was another judgment the rebellious people brought on their heads. In fact, any soldiers who died in this abortive warfare only hastened their own punishment for the rebellion at Kadesh.
e. Laws on offerings, the Sabbath, and tassels on garments (15:1–41)
(1) Teaching on special offerings (15:1–16)
1–2 The conjunction of these verses with the sad ending of the narrative of Nu 14 is dramatic. The sins of the people were manifold; they would be judged. The grace and mercy of the Lord are magnified as he points to the ultimate realization of his ancient promise to Abraham (Ge 12:7) and his continuing promise to the nation that they would indeed enter the land.
3–12 The offerings in Nu 15 relate more to the desire of the believer for a spontaneous, grateful response to the wonder of knowing God. Grain and wine offerings were to accompany the offerings by fire; the grain was to be mixed with oil. The grain and wine offerings increased in amounts with the increase of size of the sacrificial animal. These passages are the first to indicate that wine offerings must accompany all burnt or fellowship offerings. The provision of “fine flour” speaks of luxurious food (cf. Ge 18:6; 1Ki 4:22; Eze 16:13). Only the best was good enough for the Lord.
The system of sacrificial worship in ancient Israel was very complex. Some of the sacrifices God demanded were presented in the context of a mournful admission of sin, a guilt-laden expression of repentance. But many sacrifices were presented in contexts of joyful celebrations and heartfelt expressions of one’s delight in knowing the Lord.
Another element in worship is the pleasing “aroma” (GK 8194) to the Lord (cf. Lev 1:9). The odor of sacrifice would be heavy, acrid, and pungent. Flour, oil, and fine wine would add an exotic element to the smells. It was not the mere smell, however, that made God happy but the offerer (see Ps 40:6–8; Mic 6:8–10). The smells and the smoke, the flesh and the flour made the offering “real” by adding substance and action to the feeling of worship.
13–16 The “alien” (GK 1731) had the same regulations as the native-born Israelite. Because the one who sojourns with Israel was under the same Torah, he also was able to bring pleasure to the Lord. If the alien continued to please God, he could become a part of the community as a whole. While still an alien, the proselyte had to learn to worship in the same manner as the native populace; and together they needed to learn their worship from the Lord.
(2) Instructions on the cake offering (15:17–21)
17–21 This law also looks forward to when the Israelites would be in the land. Since the book of Numbers presents two generations, we need always to remember who is addressed. The plural “you,” though spoken to the community as a whole, is addressed to the children who will actually enter the land.
The concept of the firstfruits symbolizes that all blessing is from the Lord and all increase belongs to him. This offering was made of coarse grain. Right at the time of the threshing of the grain, a cake was to be made in worship of God and held high from the threshing floor. The idea seems to be one of immediacy. This was a perpetual ordinance; for the further removed the people became from the events of their salvation, the more likely they would forget the nature of their salvation. The first generation was not able to remember much longer than three days (11:1–3)!
(3) Instructions on offerings for unintentional sins (15:22–29)
22–29 God’s attitude toward his law is complex: he is serious about his commands. But he is also gracious. God made high demands and expected compliance, but he also provided avenues for redress when one did not comply fully. Hence sins may be unintentional, but they still needed to be covered (cf. Lev 4:2). As with other sacrifices, the alien and the citizen had the same demands of compliance.
(4) Instructions for defiant sins (15:30–31)
30–31 For one who set his hand defiantly to despise the word of God and to blaspheme his name, the punishment was one of death, not just banishment or exile (cf. Heb 10:26–39). This injunction dealt with the outrageous behavior of blasphemy, not mild infractions. However, what the law regarded as outrageous behavior may be surprising to us.
(5) A man who violated the Sabbath (15:32–36)
32–36 This account illustrates vv.30–31. The point is that Sabbath breaking is defiance of the Lord; the offense strikes at the very center of Israel’s responsibility before him. The ones who discovered the man in Sabbath violation did not quite know what to do. The answer came from the Lord: The penalty for breaking the Sabbath was death (Ex 31:15; 35:2).
(6) Instructions for tassels on garments (15:37–41)
37–40 To bring fear to all people lest they too be led to the breaking of the demands of the Lord in his law, a most practical device was given: the wearing of tassels on one’s garment as a perpetual reminder of God’s demands. The swirling tassels would be excellent memory prods to keep faith with the law, to obey the commands of God.
41 The chapter begins and concludes with the continuing promise of God to bring his people into the land. He was still at work in the process of completing their redemption from Egypt.
f. The rebellion of Korah and his allies (16:1–50)
(1) The beginning of revolt (16:1–3)
1 This is the second presumptuous, unprincipled rebellion against Moses by leading figures under his leadership. Korah’s paternity is traced through Izhar and Kohath to Levi. His name is later famous for the role his descendants had in music in the time of David and following. Korah’s cohorts in this evil plan of insurrection were the Reubenites Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On (a man mentioned only here).
2 The principals were joined by another 250 men, who were constituted officials, men of name. These dignified leaders were not content with the privilege they had received by God’s grace; they wanted more.
3 Aaron also was under attack. Perhaps Korah’s real desire was not only to demean Moses but to make himself priest instead of Aaron. Both Moses and Aaron were in their eighties. The nation was under a sentence of God’s judgment, and these men knew that they were a part of the doomed community. “They came as a group” suggests an organized, well-planned conspiracy.
The conspirators’ words are literally, “Much to you” (i.e., Moses and Aaron arrogated to themselves too much; they have presumed on their power for self-aggrandizement). When Korah and his cohorts said that the entire congregation was holy, they emphasized the word “all.” They also insisted that the Lord was in the midst of the whole community, not just residing in the Tent of Meeting. They appeared to be arguing for a democratization of the divine privilege. But in fact they merely desired a shift of power—to themselves. The pattern of leadership the Lord established in Israel was theocratic—a rule of God—mediated through a divinely sanctioned regent. The Lord was present with all the people. The leaders had more privilege than the common people, and Moses and Aaron were’the most privileged and had the greatest responsibilities.
(2) Moses’ rejoinder (16:4–7)
4 Moses fell to his face on the ground, in obeisance to the Lord, whose regent he was and to whom his sole allegiance belonged. The baselessness of the attack of Korah and his company is superbly demonstrated by Moses’ action. Although Aaron was also under attack, all focus is on Moses. If he stumbles, Aaron stumbles as well.
5 When Moses rose, he spoke decisively. His words were now the Lord’s words. Tomorrow would be the day of reckoning. Once and for all the role of Moses would be defined. Moses’ term for the choice one of God is “the holy” (GK 7705), perhaps “the holiest.” The Lord will bring near to himself the one who is the holiest, based on his own choice in that one. The enemies were asking for a showdown. Now they would get their chance, but it would be to their ruin.
6–7 Only the initial provisions for the test are laid out here. Moses tells those involved to take a censer, fire, and incense. This is remarkable since the priests alone were to hold the censers. While Korah was of the house of Levi, he was not a member of the priestly family. The others as Reubenites were not even remote possibilities. But Moses dared them to do as he demanded. Then the Lord would make his choice known to all. In an arresting turn of phrase, Moses shouts to these detractors that it is they who “have gone too far” (cf. v.3).
(3) Moses’ warning to the rebels (16:8–11)
8 Although the text says “Korah,” Moses is addressing all the assembled insolent men. Since the principals along with Korah are Reubenites, it is difficult to know whether Moses’ words “you Levites” are inclusive of other Levites who are joined with Korah or are meant to include Dathan, Abiram, and On in a sarcastic manner.
9 Moses asks the rebels whether in their judgment it is nothing that the Lord has marked them out as distinct from the entire community for a special work. They were in a special place in God’s economy, but they were not satisfied. Korah was the ringleader, but all in his company were culpable. The issue was gratitude versus pride.
10 It became clear to Moses that the conspirators were really after the priesthood. It was not that he was in error or that Aaron was at fault. It was simply that these wicked men wanted their positions.
11 The phrase “banded together” shows the determination of Korah and his followers as a congealed body. Moses added literally, “And Aaron!” after “against the LORD.” His language is incredulous, as though to say, “What did he ever do to you that you should strike out against him?”
(4) Confrontation with Dathan and Abiram (16:12–14)
12–14 The behavior of Dathan and Abiram is even more intolerable than that of Korah: (1) they refuse to appear before Moses; (2) they mock his words; (3) they abuse the language of choice for Canaan to describe contemptuously the land of Egypt; (4) they accuse Moses of their plight in the desert; (5) they mock him as a strutting prince; (6) they blame him that they do not possess the fields and vineyards of Canaan; (7) they taunt him with such a misuse of power that he attempts to blind others to his faults; and (8) they repeat their outrage of disobedience, “We will not come!”
(5) Judgment on his enemies (16:15–35)
15 In his wrath Moses asks God not to turn his face with gracious favor on their offering; he proclaims himself innocent of misuse of his office for personal gain; he proclaims himself guiltless of any harm. He has not enriched himself by one donkey nor brought harm to one person.
16–18 The trial was to be by fire: Which men would the Lord accept as his priests in the holy tabernacle? The 250 men allied with Korah came with arrogance to withstand Moses and Aaron at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Seemingly with Aaron now quite old, Korah wants his position. Even though the “job” is the service of the Lord in his holy precincts, Korah apparently believes he will be able to wrest that service by force, with the Lord acquiescing to his demands!
19–22 Suddenly the glory of the Lord bursts into their midst. The Lord speaks again that he has had it with the people. He is about to wipe out the nation again. Moses and Aaron understand that it is all the people, not just the foolish rebels, whom God is about to destroy. Again we see the character of Moses and Aaron who pray to God to preserve the nation despite yet another outrageous attack. Moses and Aaron ask whether it is right that the whole nation be destroyed just because one man has sinned.
23–30 The Lord seems to accede to the reasoning of these words, for he demands that the people move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. The judgment of the Lord was going to be severe, but he did not wish to have it lash out on the bystanders. Moses wished to assure the people that the judgment that was coming was certainly the direct work of the Lord. The opening of the earth to swallow the rebels was a sure and evident sign of the wrath of God and the vindication of Moses and Aaron. The earth is pictured as a ravenous monster.
31–35 As soon as Moses finished speaking, the earth split open and swallowed the rebels, with their households. Apparently the sons of Korah did not join their father in his rash plan and hence did not die (cf. 26:11; see Pss 42; 44–49; 84–85; 87–88; cf. Ex 6:21, 24; 1Ch 6:22–31). The men and all with them were under the ban (cf. Achan in Jos 7). The children, wives, and even toddlers died with their wicked fathers. The 250 men were then devoured by fire (perhaps lightning). The horror of the story is that the punishment included women and children. No easy answer presents itself to deal with this issue. But we do know that the God of Israel will do right (Jdg 18:25)!
(6) The aftermath of the contest—more distress (16:36–50)
36–40 After the terrible conflagration of Korah and his cohorts, Moses is told to have Eleazar son of Aaron take the censers from the midst of the smoldering remains. A chilling scene is that of the true priests taking the censers of the 250 deceased impostors from their charred remains and employing these holy instruments in hammered bronze sheets for the altar. Even with the death of the false priests, the holy things had to be treated as holy things! From that time on the sheet of bronze over the altar would be a memorial of the utter folly of the self-proclaimed priests of the most holy God. God has established his personnel; he will allow none to breach their ranks.
41–45 On the next day following the terrible judgment of God, the whole Israelite community grumbled against Moses again. They who had seen the judgment of God in such a remarkable manner still did not interpret things correctly. Again they blasted Moses, unfairly charging him with the death of “the Lord ’s people.” Verse 42 speaks of the men turning toward the Tent of Meeting, which may mean that the crowd was about to take over the territory, to seize the tent as their own holding. At once, as before, the glory of the Lord was in the midst of the people—in judgment. Fear must have seized them. The Lord had come! Again, but for the intervention of Moses and Aaron (see vv.4, 22), the entire nation might have been destroyed by the Lord because of the people’s continued rebellion. The Lord spoke to them to depart so that he might destroy the nation; instead they fell to the ground (cf. v.4), bowing down to seek the Lord’s mercy, to turn away his wrath.
46–50 This chapter has turned on the account of holy censers being used by unholy men in mock piety. Now Aaron, whose right it was, was to take his censer and do the work of the true priest to stay the plague of the Lord and to bring mercy to the people. The wrath of God had already burst out in indiscriminate slaughter by means of a virulent, rapidly spreading plague. Moses calls to Aaron to do his priestly work. What poetic justice! The very implement used by the enemies to force God’s hand to wrath now has to be used by his true priest to force his hand to mercy. Moses knows that the plague may be stemmed; only they must hurry. So Aaron ran! He stands in the breach between the dead and the living. He stops the plague. Thousands died needlessly (14, 700), in addition to those who died in the incident of Korah. At last the plague is stemmed. Moses and Aaron meet again at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, vindicated in the role that God had given to them.
g. The budding of Aaron’s staff (17:1–13)
(1) The test for the true priest (17:1–7)
1–7 Moses is commanded to collect twelve staffs, one from each of the tribes of Israel, and write the name of each leader thereon. This is the third vindication of the Aaronic priesthood against all opposition (16:1–50). The test needed to be unequivocal. The staff of the tribe of Levi had to have Aaron’s name written clearly on it. This staff had to be chosen over the other staffs because of the trans-community support given to the rebellion of Korah. The staffs were to be placed “in front of the Testimony,” which means that they were brought within the Most Holy Place. Moses must have realized that he was doing a most unusual act. The intention was to rid the nation from the grumbling concerning the validity of the priests. The trial was to identify the “right” staff by having it sprout. It is clearly not possible for a wooden staff that is long dead to sprout again. This demanded a miracle.
(2) The outcome of the ordeal (17:8–13)
8–11 On the next morning, Moses found that Aaron’s rod had not only sprouted, it had “budded, blossomed and produced almonds”! God exceeded the demands of a test so that there might be no uncertainty (cf. 1Ki 18:24, 38). Miracles of this sort (natural events that occur in unnatural conditions, timing, and/or placement) often occur in the Bible.
It must have been humbling for the men from the other tribes to take back their dead staffs. But only those who aspired to an office that was not theirs would feel shame. Aaron’s rod was to be a perpetual reminder of the choice of God in his priest. Hence, it was to remain in front of the Testimony in perpetuity. Aaron’s rod joined the stone tablets of the law of Moses (see Ex 25:16) and the jar of manna (Ex 16:33–34) within the ark of the Lord.
12–13 At last the enormity of the arrogant sin of the people in challenging the role of Aaron hit them. Their remorse was justified; death was deserved. Any untoward approach to the holy tabernacle would result in disaster.
h. The priests and the Levites (18:1–32)
(1) Their general duties (18:1–7)
1–7 The Lord’s choice of Aaron and his family as the true priests presented an onerous task. Without proper priests, there would be only death among the sinning community. The priests were to be assisted by the tribe of Levi; but the assistants were not to usurp their serving role. Were they to do so, not only would they die, so would the priests who were responsible. Aside from the Levites, no one else could come near. The only people who had a right to work in the shrine were the Levites under the supervision of the priests. The frightful obligations were balanced in the sense of the importance and honor of the work. They of all men were able to approach the Holy Place and minister before the Lord. The Lord’s gift of the priesthood was also to the people, an act of his mercy. On their shoulders rests the protection of the nation.
(2) Their offerings and support (18:8–13)
8–11 The priests were to be supported (see Lev 6:14–7:36). Since the Levites as a whole and the priests in particular had no part in the land, it was necessary that the means for their provision be spelled out fully. The offerings not put through fire would be given to the priests. Something is regarded as holy, not because of some mysterious inner quality, but because it had been presented to the Lord for his use. Among the gifts he gave to the priests was holy food. The basic meaning of the word “holy” (GK 7731) is “set apart for special use in the service of God.” These holy foods were specifically restricted to the males and could be eaten only by those who were ritually clean. The wave offerings were for the entire family to eat. Provision was made not only for the priests themselves but also for their families. Only the ceremonially unclean family members were forbidden to eat the gifts and offerings (cf. v.13).
12–13 Since the very best items of produce were to be given to the Lord, they became the special foods of the priests and their families. The grace of God is manifest in this provision for his servants, but so are the demands of God: the priests and their families were to be in a state of ritual purity when they ate sacred foods. The idea that God gets “the best of the first” occurs throughout the Bible.
(3) The firstborn offerings and redemptions (18:14–19)
14–16 Things under the ban belong to the priests (unless such things are destroyed). The firstborn were to be consecrated to the Lord (Ex 13:2); they were a means of supporting the priests. They would receive the firstborn of animals and man or their redemption price. There was to be no sacrifice of a human being and no sacrifice of unclean animals. These needed to be redeemed. The price set for the redemption of the firstborn of women (five shekels) was a considerable sum. Seemingly the reason for paying a redemption price for a firstborn son and unclean animals and the sacrifice of the firstborn of clean animals was to provide a perpetual reminder that conception, birth, and life are gifts of God.
17–19 The firstborn of clean animals were not to be redeemed; they were devoted to the Lord by being sacrificed (see ch. 15 on offerings by fire), though the meat would belong to the priests. This was a permanent obligation, symbolized by salt—a lasting compound. Salt was used in some of the sacrifices to the Lord (Lev 2:13; Eze 43:24) and in special incense that was used in the worship of God (Ex 30:35). Its mention here speaks of eating and, hence, of communion (see Ge 31:54; Ex 24:5–11; Ps 50:5).
(4) Aaron’s special portion (18:20)
20 Special blessings were given to Aaron. While he did not have a part in the land that the rest of the people would inherit, he had more—a peculiar relationship to the Lord.
(5) The tithes and the Levites (18:21–24)
21–24 Giving tithes to the Levites was a gift of God in return for their work of ministry. Only Levites could approach the Tent of Meeting. The precincts were now sacred, fitted only for sacral people. The wrong people who approached for even a “right” reason would die. The Levites were cared for with a double portion: they were related to the Lord in a special way, and they were provided for by him from special sources.
(6) The contributions of the Levites (18:25–32)
25–32 The instruction of this section, which Moses was to relate to the Levites, is impressive: those who make their living by contributions for the Lord’s work shall themselves be responsible for giving to the Lord. As others give, so must the Levites give. The offerings that they render to the Lord are not themselves fresh. Their grain is not new; neither is their wine. But since they themselves are not doing the harvesting of their own lands, the produce of others will be regarded as their own. As in the case of the people, the Levites are to render to the Lord “the best and holiest part of everything.” By keeping faith in these matters, the Levites will escape judicial death.
i. The red heifer and the cleansing water (19:1–22)
(1) The statute of the red heifer (19:1–10)
1–4 Western readers have little understanding of or appreciation for ritual, and the slaughter of a magnificent animal is repugnant. The ritual of the cleansing waters is a direct requirement of God. The heifer was to be perfect, without defect, and unused as a draft animal. Only the very finest animals, ordinarily used for the improvement of the herd, were acceptable. The color of the heifer was to be red, presumably because of the color of blood. The animal involved was not a sacrificial beast. It was a cow, not a bull (cf. Lev 1:3). It was to be slaughtered, not sacrificed, outside the camp, not at the holy altar. In contrast to the sacrificial animals (see Lev 1:5), some of the blood of the heifer was to be sprinkled from the priest’s finger seven times toward the front of the Tent of Meeting.
5–8 Instead of separating hide and offal from the meat and fat (cf. Lev 4:3–12), the heifer was to remain intact while it was burned. The fire of the offering was to be augmented with cedar, hyssop, and scarlet stuff (perhaps scarlet-colored wool). These elements were associated with cleansing properties (see Lev 14:4) and help us see the cleansing association that the resultant ashes were to have in the Hebrew consciousness. It is striking and unprecedented in the OT (cf. Lev 1:3–9) that the animal was to be burned in its entirety. The priest who officiated at the burning was ceremonially unclean for the rest of the day, as was the one who did the actual work at his command; both were considered clean after washing their bodies and clothes.
9–10 The priest and the worker, because they were unclean, were not to handle the ashes. A third person, who was ritually clean, was to gather the ashes and put them in a ceremonially clean place outside the camp. The ashes could not be brought into the camp, but they were holy. Only the clean could touch them; but whoever did so became unclean because of his contact with the dead remains. He was unclean for the rest of the day and had to bathe before returning to the camp. This was a lasting statute, pertaining to both the native-born and the aliens.
(2) Application of cleansing waters (19:11–13)
11–13 The ashes from the red heifer were kept outside the camp in a ritually pure place. Then a portion of these ashes would be mixed with water for cleansing from contact with dead bodies. The period of uncleanness was to be seven days; acts of purification were to be done on the third and seventh days. Willful neglect of the provision for cleansing brought not only judgment on the person but a pollution of the tabernacle itself. There was an issue of responsibility here. The person who was contaminated had to initiate the action. For the community the individual’s state of uncleanness would pollute the dwelling place. One person’s sinful state could endanger God’s continuing presence in the midst of his people. The second danger was for himself. One who refused the provision of cleansing was to be a castoff (cf. 1Co 5:5).
(3) Specifics of uncleanness (19:14–16)
14–16 Touching a corpse rendered a person unclean. The individual might have died in battle or expired of a natural death. In either case the corpse was unclean and made all who touch it unclean. Thus the situation concerned a corpse out in the open in a tent, or in a container. If the container was open, then the result was uncleanness for persons in the room; it was as though the corpse was in the room with them. If the container was fastened, then there was no effect on others nearby. There would be many occasions for a person to become unclean, not because of a deliberate act of contact with a dead body, but just by being in the proximity of one who died. The cleansing water was a gift of grace, allowing family members to minister to the bodies of their deceased loved ones, knowing that their ritual impurity could be removed.
(4) Application of the cleansing waters for uncleanness (19:17–22)
17–22 The ritual application of the cleansing waters for purification rites is detailed in this section. First was the preparation of the water. Ashes from the heifer were placed in a clay pot. Then fresh water was added and mixed. This was not magic but ritual. The water was still water, the ashes were still ashes. Hyssop, a plant long associated with cleansing (e.g., Ex 12:22) and already associated with the ashes of the heifer (v.6), was used to sprinkle the water on all that was unclean—persons and things. It took a ceremonially clean person to sprinkle the ceremonially unclean person or thing. Following the sprinkling, the person being cleansed would then bathe and wash all his clothes. Failure to avail oneself of these provisions would result in his being cut off from the community, for his failure affected both himself and the sanctuary. The cleansing water of the ashes of the red heifer is specifically related to the cleansing property of the blood of Christ in the NT (Heb 9:13) and is a portrait of the cleansing of the believer (1jn 1:7–9).
j. The ultimate rebellion in the sin of Moses (20:1–13)
1 The chronological notice indicates that this was the “first month” but does not give us the year (cf. 9:1). A comparison of 20:22–29 and 33:38, however, indicates that this chapter begins in the fortieth year from the Exodus. After challenging the authority of Moses, Miriam, along with her brother Aaron (ch. 12), nearly disappears from the scene. She may never have fully recovered the position of trust and privilege that she had enjoyed before this rebellion. It really was true: all those over the age of twenty at the time of the rebellion would die; even Miriam was buried in the sands of the desert instead of being given the opportunity to enter the Land of Promise.
2–8 Forty years earlier at Rephidim the people screamed to Moses to give them water to drink (Ex 17:1–3). Moses was instructed by the Lord to take the staff he had used to strike the Nile in the curse of plague (Ex 7:20) and to strike the rock at Horeb to initiate a flow of the water of blessing. Now, at the place of Israel’s worst act of rebellion, the story was being rerun. The people now desired to die with those who had already passed away in earlier judgments of the Lord (see 14:22; 16:31–35). Moses and Aaron went to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and fell down in obeisance to the Lord (see 14:5; 16:4, 22, 45). Then, as anticipated, there was the appearance of the Lord, in glory and in wonder. However, there was no fire, no judgment, no anger—just a gentle word to Moses to take his staff and to go with Aaron to bring water from the rock for the thirsting community. The instructions were quite clear: “Speak to that rock.” While he was to take his staff, the symbol of his power through the Lord, he was merely to speak to the rock; and it would give its water for the people.
9–12 Moses began by doing exactly as the Lord had instructed him. Suddenly, Moses exploded against them—and against the rock. The accumulated anger and frustration of forty years bore down on Moses. The death of his sister was the end of an era. Yet nothing had changed; the children were as rebellious as ever. Moses’ words—“Must we bring you water out of this rock?”—express the intense level of his exasperation and pain. At this point he reached out with the rod and struck the rock twice. In his rage Moses disobeyed the clear instructions of the Lord (v.8). While the water was released and the people and their livestock were refreshed, the rash action of Moses brought a stern rebuke from the Lord. The judgment of God had not flashed out against the people, but now it burst against his (usually) faithful servants. The end result was sure: neither Moses nor Aaron would enter the Land of Promise. The inclusion of Aaron in this verse demonstrates his partnership with his brother in the breach against the holiness of the Lord.
13 Once again a name of judgment was given to a place of Israel’s journey: Meribah, “a place of strife” or “quarreling” (see NIV note). The same name had been used forty years earlier (Ex 17:7; also called Massah, “testing”). Psalm 95:8 laments the rebellion at Meribah and Massah, and Ps 114:8 celebrates both occasions of God’s grace. For Meribah/Massah is both: a reminder of the rebellion and a symbol of celebration of God’s mercy.
k. The resistance of Edom (20:14–21)
14–17 The nation was about to begin their last trek in the desert that would lead them to the land. The first nation whose land they would cross was Edom, a brother nation to Israel (see Ge 36:1). Moses diplomatically sent messengers to the king of Edom, requesting passage through his land. Moses used language designed to bring the most favorable decision: he called Edom a brother; he rehearsed their experience in Egypt and in the desert; he spoke of the deliverance of the Lord; he stated their present condition; and he asked permission to pass through the land of Edom. In all this Moses betrayed no desire for military aggrandizement; his only request was passage through their land.
18–21 The response of Edom was unusually hostile. Moses countered with an elaboration of his purpose. Again he assured Edom that he had no intention of conquest. Again Edom refused, backing up its haughty behavior with a show of force. With a sigh, Israel turned away to the east to make a broad circuit of the territory. The rebuff and its aftermath must have been especially galling to Moses and Aaron; it was another step in their decline.
l. The death of Aaron and the succession of Eleazar (20:22–29)
22–24 At last the people were on the move, north and east from their long stay in the desert near the oasis of Kadesh. As Israel came to the region of Mount Hor on the border of Edom, the word of the Lord came to Moses and Aaron that Aaron, the aged priest, was about to die. The reason for his death is stated, a reminder of the sin at Meribah. The interests of Moses and Aaron in the transfer of power were also the interests of God. Even in the death of his servant, the Lord showed his continuing grace.
25–29 Before Aaron died, he was to see that his son Eleazar was his sure successor. In a dramatic symbol of this transfer of power, Moses took the garments from his brother, the insignia of his divine office, and placed them on his dutiful son Eleazar. At this point Moses did precisely as the Lord commanded.
Three men ascended the mountain; two returned. Aaron died there, apparently buried by his brother and his son. From the mount there was a sense of looking out to the land to the northwest; this was as close as Aaron would get. Later Moses would have a view of the land from another hill; he too would see the land only from a distance. Both brothers are associated with mountains on their dying; their sister Miriam with the oasis of Kadesh.
2. A climax of rebellion and hope and the end of their dying (21:1–25:18)
a. The destruction of Arad (21:1–3)
1–3 The first battle against the Canaanites was provoked by the king of Arad. The vow of the people speaks of their dependence on God for their victory. The verb translated “totally destroy” (GK 3049) means “to devote to the ban” and is related to the place name “Hormah” (“to devote to destruction”; see the NIV note on v.2). This ruthless action was determined from a sense that the people were engaging in holy war, where the extermination, not just the subjugation, of their enemies was their spiritual goal in the conquest of Canaan. The cup of iniquity was now full (see Ge 15:16); Israel was to be the instrument of the Lords judgment. The success of the military action against the king of Arad was thorough. The new generation faced a new day; victory ahead seemed assured.
b. The bronze snake (21:4–9)
4–5 The people had to detour because of the intransigent attitude of Edom. They rejoined the road to the Sea of Reeds to make a broad circuit around Edom. They had been so very near the land and had even tasted the sweet wine of victory. But now they were wandering again, and they seemed to be as far away from “real” food as ever. With Moses’ determination not to engage Edom in battle, the people began to speak against God and Moses. As their fathers, they asked why they had not been left back in Egypt and why they should be brought to this awful place to die. Again they complained about the lack of food and water. But then they went beyond their fathers and not only spoke of the monotony of manna, but they described it as “miserable food.”
6–7 Once more God was rejected by his people; again he brought judgment on their heads. This time it was snakes, with “fire” in their venom. The virulent poison led to horrible, agonizing deaths. There was a change of sorts in the people as they asked for forgiveness. They were sinners, but they confessed their wrong. So Moses prayed for them as he had prayed before (11:2). And God answered in a most unusual way.
8–9 Instead of losing the snakes, the people had to get their fill of them (cf. 11:31–34). Moses, who had transmitted to Israel God’s prohibition against making images, was told to make a graven image of a snake! In biblical thought snakes are not only detestable in themselves but are symbolic of the prince of darkness himself (Rev 12:9; 20:2). Think of the enormity of what Moses was asked to do! Verse 9 does not speak of eternal salvation but of physical healing. Many would die in the desert of the fiery snake venom, but not all had to die. God would keep alive those who would do as he demanded (cf. In 3:14–15).
c. The journey toward Moab and the Song of the Well (21:10–20)
10–15 At last the people were on the march; they skirted Edom and made their way to the Arnon, the wadi border between the region of Moab and that of the Amorites. This portion of the itinerary led to a quotation from a fragment of an ancient book termed “the book of the Wars of the LORD” (cf. Jos 10:13; 2Sa 1:18), mentioned only here in the OT. This book was presumably an ancient collection of songs of war in praise of God; the poem fragment attests to the variety of sources used by the author of the book. In biblical times one might well use song to set in the memory various places of encampment in the desert.
16-18a The quest for water had been a constant problem during the desert experience (see Ex 17; Nu 20). At this new promise of water from the Lord, the people burst forth into the triumphant words of the “Song of the Well”—a dramatic departure from their earlier behavior! When the people came to a likely spot, the Lord instructed Moses to have a well dug. The place received the happy name “Beer,” meaning “well” in Hebrew. Here came also happy words from the Lord: “Gather the people together and I will give them water.” How fitting it is that this was a place of song! Quite possibly this song came from the same collection as the Song of Places, the “Book of the Wars of the LORD” (see v.14). In this song there is a sense of the joy of knowing God, even though the name of God is not mentioned.
18b-20 From Beer the people journey ever onward, finally coming to the valley of Moab, where Pisgah was a fine spot to spy out the land of Canaan. Only later (Dt 34:1) do we associate this peak with Moses’ final moments.
d. The defeat of Sihon of Heshbon (21:21–31)
21–26 The victories over Sihon and Og are the true beginning of victories. The Amorites, unlike the Edomites, were not related to the Israelites. As in the case of Edom (20:14–19), Israel first requested a right of passage. When Sihon tried to meet Israel with a show of force, he suffered an overwhelming defeat. The land of the Amorites was in Transjordan, extending from the Arnon River at the midpoint of the Dead Sea to the Jabbok River, which flows into the Jordan River some twenty-four miles north of the Dead Sea. Among Israel’s conquests were the cities of Heshbon and its dependent settlements. It was this victory that cast such a pale of fear into the Moabites (see 22:2–3).
27–30 A third song is now included, possibly also from the “Book of the Wars of the LORD” (see v.14). This one was originally an Amorite taunt song celebrating their earlier victory over Moab. Heshbon, the capital city of Sihon, had been wrested by the Amorites from a former Moabite king, perhaps Zippor, the father of Balak (see 22:2). Its reuse by Israel must have been particularly galling to Moab and the principal reason for Moab’s call for Balaam. It was not just the people of Moab who had been defeated; it was their god Chemosh as well. But now a new God had come on the scene, and his power was not limited by geography.
31 After forty years of sojourn in the Desert of Sinai, the people had entered the land of the Amorites—the land that would become theirs.
e. Israel’s defeat of Og of Bashan (21:32–22:1)
32–35 The region of this king and his people was east of the Sea of Galilee. By defeating Og, Israel was victor of Transjordan from the region of Moab to the heights of Bashan. The victories over Sihon and Og were matters for singing (Pss 135:11; 136:19–20) and regular parts of the commemoration of the works of the Lord in the Passover celebration.
Significantly, this section begins with a notice that Moses sent spies to scout out the land before he began his attack on the region of Bashan. These spies must have done as they were instructed, in contrast to the rebellious spies of chs. 13–14. It is also notable that the battle was joined with the army of Og only after the word of the Lord had come to Moses assuring him of a divine victory. This is to be the pattern of holy war, an obedient people following the sure word of their great God. The victory was complete because God’s ways were followed.
22:1 This section ends with the statement of the journey of Israel to the plains of Moab and the subsequent encampment near the Jordan River across from the city of Jericho. This verse also sets the stage for one of the most remarkable stories in the Bible: the dramatic encounter of Balaam, the pagan mantic, with the God of Israel (22:2–24:25).
f. Balak and Balaam (22:2–41)
(1) The “call” of Balaam (22:2–20)
2–3 The story of Balaam begins with the gut-wrenching fear of Balak son of Zippor, the king of Moab. With the vast army of Israel encamped on the edge of his territory, he feared the very worst. Balak’s fear was intensified because of Israel’s victories over his northern enemy neighbors (see 21:10–31). A new, stronger enemy was present, before whom Balak and his people seemed to be powerless. Balak was not aware that Israel had no designs on the land of Moab. As the Lord was about to give Canaan to Israel, so the Moabite land was a gift of the Lord to Moab. In fact, the Lord had prohibited Israel from attacking the territorial integrity of Moab in their wars of conquest (Dt 2:9). Yet there was a reason for the fear of Moab: the events of the Exodus salvation of Israel were designed to provoke fear in all nations (see Dt 2:25).
4 The image of Israel as an ox is an emphatic symbol of her strength and power. The association of Moab with the Midianites in this verse is more significant than we might first think (cf. ch. 25).
5–7 Since Balak believed that there was no military means available to withstand the forces of Israel, he sought to battle Israel on the level of pagan divination. He sent for a diviner of renown. Balaam was an internationally known prophet, an expert in examining the entrails of animals and observing natural phenomena to determine the will of the gods. He thought that the Lord God of Israel was like any other deity whom he imagined he might manipulate by mantic acts. The letter of Balak to Balaam indicates his intent: to bring a curse on a people who were under a blessing of a god. This story thus takes us into the mysterious world of blessing and cursing in the ancient Near East. If God’s blessing of the Israelites could be destroyed, then they would no longer be a threat.
8–11 Balaam is altogether outside Israel’s prophetic tradition. He was a pagan, foreign national whose mantic acts centered on animal divination, including the dissection of animal livers, the movement of animals, and the flight of birds. He believed that he had a way with the gods, a hold on them. To him Israel’s Lord was not the Lord of heaven but just another deity whom he might manipulate. He was in for the surprise of his life. That God did speak to Balaam is not to be denied; it is just that Balaam did not yet realize that the God of Israel was not like the supposed deities of his usual machinations.
12–20 Israel was under the blessing of the Lord as the heritage of the Abrahamic covenant (Ge 12:1–3). Balaam was being sought by Balak to bring Israel under a divine curse; this God would not allow, for Israel was “blessed” (GK 1385). The first words of God to Balaam are a prohibition for him to accompany the emissaries of Balak. But when these emissaries returned to Balak, he refused to listen to their report of Balaam’s refusal to return with them. He sent grander and nobler representatives, with greater and finer promises of gifts for this mantic to come with them. Balaam first said that nothing could change his mind. Then in a dream he was given permission to go with them.
There seems to be a contradiction in the permission God granted Balaam in v.20 with the prohibition he had given earlier (v.12) and the anger of the Lord that was displayed against Balaam on his journey (v.22). The difficulty is best seen as lying in the contrary character of Balaam rather than in God. God first had forbidden him to go to Moab to curse Israel; then God allowed Balaam to go to Moab, but only as he would speak at the direction of the Lord. Balaam’s real intentions, however, were known to the Lord, and hence by his severe displeasure he confronted the pagan mantic on the road.
(2) The donkey story (22:21–41)
21–28 The pagan mantic, the donkey, and the angel of the Lord are brought together in this truly tragicomic scene. The donkey has been depicted from the earliest times as stupid and contrary. Yet here the “stupid” ass saw the angel of the Lord and attempted to protect her rider from God’s drawn sword. Three times the hapless Balaam beat his donkey. Then the donkey spoke. The donkey did not give a prophetic oracle; she merely said what a mistreated animal might say to an abusive master if given the chance. What keeps this story from the genre of legend or fairy tale is that the animal did not speak of its own accord but as it was given the power to do so by the Lord. Before he revealed himself to Balaam, the Lord first “got his attention.” Balaam had to learn from a donkey before he could learn from God.
29–33 The point of the story is furthered by Balaam’s words, “If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.” The ridiculous picture of the hapless Balaam looking for a sword is precious; there was a sword very near, but the object was not about to be the donkey (vv.23, 31–33)! All the donkey said was that she had been a good donkey. In some ways the opening of the eyes of the pagan prophet to see the reality of the living God was the greater miracle. The animal was but a brute beast; the prophet was a man bent on trafficking with idolatrous gods.
34–35 The words of Balaam to God lead us to think that he was truly repentant. Only the later outcome of the story shows this to be false (see chs. 25; 31). The Lord told Balaam to continue on his journey but to “speak only what I tell you.” This is the point of the whole chapter: Balaam would not be able to speak cursing as he had planned. Instead, he would be the most remarkable instrument of God in blessing his people, Israel.
36–38 We are led by the narrative into the enemy camp. Balak was so anxious to have Balaam begin his curse-work that he went to some distance to meet him at the border of his land, and then he upbraided his visitor for the delay in his journey. Doubtless Balak puzzled over the words that Balaam greeted him with: “I must speak only what God puts in my mouth.” Ordinarily Balaam probably believed he could say pretty much what he pleased to say, if the price was right, with the belief that the will of the gods would in some manner correspond with his words. But not this time! We learn of the consternation of the enemy over the power of God in the camp of Israel.
39–41 Balak and Balaam engaged in animal sacrifices as they prepared for the mantic acts. The pieces given to Balaam presumably would have included the livers, for he was a specialist in liver divination. Numbers 24:1 reports that Balaam subsequently gave up on his acts of sorcery as the power of the word of the Lord came on him. But at the beginning he started his procedures as he always had. Yet never did he speak as he was about to speak.
g. Balaam’s seven oracles (23:1–24:25)
(1) Balaam’s first oracle (23:1–12)
1–6 The elaborate sacrificial actions of Balaam and Balak are pagan. The number seven was held in high regard among Semitic peoples in general. The many animals would provide abundant liver and organ materials for the diviner. Balaam was in charge; Balak was now his subordinate. Despite the pagan and unsavory actions, the Lord deigned to meet with Balaam and to speak through him. We often say that God will never use an unclean vessel. However, God may use whatever vessel he wishes. Those who had sent for Balaam were standing by the altar, hoping for a word from heaven that would destroy their presumed foe. They received a word from heaven all right, but not what they expected.
7–8 The Hebrew word translated “oracle” (GK 5442; normally translated “proverb”) establishes the distinctive nature of the prophecies of Balaam; none of the prophecies of the true prophets of Israel is described by this term. The two verbs “to curse” and “to speak against with indignation” work together to give the sense of anger and indignation. “Jacob” and “Israel” are interchangeable words marking out the people of God’s covenant. The words of v.7 represent Balak’s desire for the Lord to break his promise to the fathers. Yet Balaam was unable to do what he had been hired to do. The blessing of Israel was inviolable; Balaam had no power to attack their blessing.
9–10 Balaam explained that Israel was unique among the nations. Her distinction was in her relationship with her God. As he is holy, so his people were holy. Balaam’s wistful desire was to share in Israel’s blessing! He who had come to curse wished himself to be blessed. But just as Balaam could not “get their number,” so he realized that he was not a part of Israel’s destiny, for he never participated in the death of the righteous (31:8, 16).
11–12 Balaam was unable to curse Israel; Israel was unique because of her blessing from the Lord. Balak was furious—and the Lord is sovereign. The words of consternation of Balak and the response of Balaam are marvelous.
(2) Balaam’s second oracle (23:13–26)
13–17 Trying to cover all the angles, Balak attempted to reduce the power of the people by selecting a point where their immense numbers would be obscured. Alas for Balak, the oracle that followed exceeded the first in its blessing on Israel. If one is confronted only with a small percentage of the whole, Balak reasoned, then the enormity of the nation would not cause the gods to bless when they were requested to curse Israel. The result of all this frenetic activity was the same as the first time. Again the Lord met Balaam and gave him a new word, to the consternation of Balak who was piously pretending at his pagan altar.
18–20 The naming of Balak in the second line as “son of Zippor” is a fine use of parallelism. The words “God is not a man, that he should lie” describe the immutability of the Lord and the integrity of his word. Balaam is himself a foil for God. Balaam is constantly shifting, prevaricating, equivocating, changing—he is himself the prime example of the distinction between God and humans. Balaam’s view of gods was based on his own human failings. Now he confronts God who is not like a man in his failures at all. All others may change; God—even with all his power—cannot change, for he cannot deny himself (cf. 1Sa 15:29; Ps 89:35–37). God must fulfill his promise, for he has bound his character to his word. The blessing of God is thus irrevocable.
21 It is because God is the King that he was able to use Balaam for his own ends—to bless his people in a new and wonderful manner. The whole course of Israel’s experience in the desert was one evil after another, one misery on another. Yet it is evidently the standing of Israel that is in view here, not her state. It is also possible that the words “evil” and “misery” are not used to refer to moral issues but to mantic concerns. That is, God does not look on his people with “an evil eye” or a hostile glance. When Israel is presented in the context of a hostile environment, then it is the blessing of Israel that is maintained. Only in the family is the sinfulness of the people addressed. Since the Lord is in their midst, they are invincible from outside attack.
22 The wild ox is a traditional image of power (also 24:8). The Hebrew expression speaks of two horns (which the NIV paraphrases as “strength”). God is in the process still of bringing his people from Egypt; he will complete his work soon by bringing them into his land. And along the way he is their strength.
23 The reason for Israel’s eventual triumph is because there can be “no sorcery against Jacob.” Balaam had no tricks to withstand the blessing of Israel. Since there is no possibility of the use of magic either for or against Israel, whatever comes of Israel will truly be regarded as the work of God. Balaam had come to use magic, but he could not “get their number” (v.10). God was in control, and Balaam was his puppet.
24 Israel was about to arise and devour its foes, as a lioness on the hunt (see 24:9). At this point the would-be victim of the curse of Balaam and Balak became the instrument of the destruction of its own enemies. As a lioness (the huntress), Israel was about to rouse herself and bring her foes down to destruction. She would not rest until the enemy was devoured, its blood lapped clean at the end of the chase.
25–26 The tragicomic nature of the story is again seen in the aftermath. Balak appears incredulous. He gasps, “What have you done to me!” in v.11. Now he says, in essence, “Stop it all together.” But Balaam is indefatigable in his mission from the Lord.
(3) Balaam’s third oracle (23:27–24:14)
23:27–24:2 Balak then tried another tack. Perhaps a change of place would lead to a change of words. The mention of Peor takes on a horrible association in Nu 25; apparently this was the center for the worship of Baal. Again seven altars and sacrifices were prepared, but this time with a significant change. Balaam did not go about his normal routine of sorcery. This time “the Spirit of God came upon him.” This unexpected language prepares us for the heightened revelation about to come from the unwitting messenger. The oracles build in intensity and in depth of meaning.
3–4 The introduction to this oracle is extensive and descriptive of Balaam’s experience in the presence of the Lord. Now Balaam’s eyes were opened (cf. 22:31). The repeated use of the term “oracle” adds significant solemnity to his words. Balaam’s experience included a revelation. He had now heard God and seen the vision of him. Balaam lay prone before him, but his eyes were now opened to wonders he had not dreamed of. But the seer still was not a man of faith; he was not a member of the family (see again 23:10: “Let me”).
5–6 Balaam, speaking prophetically, looked down on the tents of Israel, but he thought of their future. He saw the orderliness of the encampments, but he was given a vision of their coming grandeur. He spoke in general but luxuriant terms of the blessings that would fall on Israel as they settled in their new land. The people would have a sense of Eden in the lushness of their blessing from the Lord.
7 This verse speaks of luxuriance of productivity as well as of the majesty of the coming king of Israel. It is prophetic in tone. The most problematic issue is the reference to “Agag.” Agag was the opponent of King Saul in the tenth century, hundreds of years later. Possibly “Agag” was a common name among the Amalekite kings (cf. Abimelech in Philistia and Ben-Hadad in Aram). In this case the use of this name may grow out of the attack on Israel by Amalek (see Ex 17:8–13) and again when Israel first came against Canaan (see Nu 14:45). But it is also possible that here we confront a specific, predictive prophecy of a victory of a king of Israel over a great enemy. The words “their king will be greater than Agag” may be a historical continuity that begins with the attacks of Amalek in Israel’s recent past, leads to the future victory of Saul over his nemesis, Agag (1Sa 15:32–33), and culminates in the victory of Israel’s greatest King (Jesus) over all her enemies. This is certainly in keeping with the prophecies that follow in the fourth oracle (see v.17).
8 The broad interpretation suggested for v.7 fits with the direction of v.8. It is stunning to hear the central words of Israel’s salvation (“God is bringing him out of Egypt”) recited by one who was an outsider and a hostile foe. The imagery of victory is in the manner of a lion (as in v.9).
9 The theology of blessing and cursing (Ge 12:2–3) is now made an explicit part of the oracle of blessing. The idea of the lion is taken from the second oracle (see 23:24). The stunning climax is in the blessing of God on all who bless Israel. The irony cannot be missed by Balaam or by any who hear his words. In his actions he brings a curse on his own head, even as he speaks blessing!
10–14 The oracles could well have ended with the great third word from Balaam. But they do not; there is one grander yet to come. Balak is beside himself. He rages in anger, strikes his hands, and rants. He observes that at this point Balaam has given three distinct blessings of Israel. At least Balak has got this right. In his disgust with the failure of Balaam to curse Israel, Balak dismisses him without pay—the ultimate insult to his greed (2Pe 2:15). Balaam is ready to leave; the whole thing must have been uncomfortable for him as well! But before he goes, he is constrained by the Lord to speak again, his greatest oracle. In the phrase “in days to come” we recognize the signal for the distant future.
(4) Balaam’s fourth oracle (24:15–19)
15–16 As in the third oracle, the introduction to the fourth oracle is lengthy, preparing the reader for the startling words of the prophecy to come. Comparing this section with vv.3–4, we find one new phrase: “Who has knowledge of the Most High.” This expansion intensifies the anticipation of the blessing that follows; the repetition helps tie these oracles together, giving a sense of crescendo and climax.
17 Without question this is the most debated and the most important verse in the oracle corpus. The theme is that Israel has a coming deliverer. In agreement with many in the early church and in early Judaism, we believe this text speaks unmistakably of the coming of the Messiah. That this prophecy should come from one who was unworthy makes it all the more dramatic and startling. The terms “star” (GK 3919; cf. 2Pe 1:19; Rev 22:16) and “scepter” (GK 8657; cf. Ge 49:10) certainly may speak of the promise of a king like David, Israel’s greatest king in the historical period. But ultimately these words reach beyond him. The setting for the text is “in days to come” (see again v.14), an eschatological notice. The inclusion of these words in the text is for the final victory over the enemies of Israel. The section reaches to the end because it reaches all the way to the Savior.
18–19 In the time of Moses, Edom was a nation that Israel was forbidden to attack (cf. 20:14–21). The future projection of the text assumes a time of enmity of Edom against Israel (cf. Obadiah), for which they finally received their penalty for the shabby treatment of Israel. David became a victor over Edom (2Sa 8:14). But after the division of the kingdom, Edom became independent (2Ki 8:20–22) and remained an implacable foe of Israel, awaiting the final wrath of God (Isa 63:1–6). In the eschaton, words such as Edom and Seir stand for any enemies of the people of God and of their Messiah. The contrasting words to the ultimate downfall of Edom at the end of v.18 must be stressed: Israel will grow strong while her enemies languish.
This is also the point of v.19. There is no subject for the verb “will come out”; the likely referent is the Star-Scepter of v.17. The Star-Scepter makes Israel triumphant as he gains dominion over the enemies of God’s people. The theme of this oracle is sustained: Israel’s ultimate blessing centers in her Deliverer from all enemies.
(5) Balaam’s fifth oracle (24:20)
20 The first defeat of Israel in the desert was at the hand of the Amalekites, when Israel went against them foolishly without the blessing of God (see 14:44–45). A day of reckoning would come on Amalek that would be dreadful. The Amalekites were defeated by Saul (1Sa 14:48; but see 15:1–35) and David (1Sa 30:18; 2Sa 8:12). But there is also the possibility that this verse has an extension into the days of the Messiah’s final victory over all enemies.
(6) Balaam’ sixth oracle (24:21–22)
21–22 The spotlight of judgment turns from Amalek to the Kenites. Why they come under attack here is not certain; perhaps it is because they became associated with the Midianites who came under the scourge of Israel (Nu 31). The mention of Assyria is also a surprise, as its ascendancy to power was centuries away from Balaam’s day; yet Assyria was known as a powerful city-state even in Abraham’s day. This text may be a powerful insight into the way of the prophets—the taking of familiar things and juxtaposing them in startling ways.
(7) Balaam’s seventh oracle (24:23–25)
23–25 Balaam’s last oracle is more difficult than any of the others to interpret. The relative obscurity of the words compels attention; clarity may come as the time of the oracle is realized. Its meaning falls in line with the lesson taught throughout the oracles: the sense of the utter dependence on the Lord; no one is able to live, except God establishes it. The mention of Asshur connects v.24 with the preceding oracle. The identification of Kittim in the early period of Israel’s history seems to be Cyprus. But ultimately the word was applied to Rome (cf. Da 11:30). The resulting meaning may refer to the final battle between forces of the west (the Kittim) and forces of the east (Asshur and Eber)—a battle in which both will be destroyed, presumably before a greater power than either (the Lord of glory). One nation will rise and supplant another, only to face its own doom. With the promises of a future deliverer ringing in their ears, the defeated collaborators Balaam and Balak depart.
h. Israel’s final rebellion with the Baal of Peor and the death of the first generation (25:1–18)
This chapter presents a formative encounter with Baal worship, a miniature of the disaster that would one day engulf and destroy the nation. The time is the end of the forty-year period of Israel’s desert experience. The place is the staging area for the conquest of the land of Canaan. The issue is that of apostasy from the Lord by participation in the debased, sexually centered Canaanite religious rites of Baal worship. This chapter is an end and a beginning. It marks the end of the first generation; it also points to the beginning of a whole new series of wicked acts that will finally lead to Israel’s punishment (see on 33:50–56). All the rebellions up to this point have centered in murmurings against the Lord and his servants Moses and Aaron. But this chapter describes Israel’s involvement in the worship of another deity.
(1) The involvement of Israel in the worship of Baal Peor (25:1–3)
1–2 “Shittim” is another name for the region of Israel’s staging for the conquest of the land; it was in Transjordan, across from Jericho (see Jos 2:1). From 31:8, 16 we learn that the principal instigator of the apostasy of the Israelites was Balaam son of Beor. Failing to destroy Israel by the means of the mantic curse, Balaam then seduced Israel by the Canaanite practices of the sexually centered worship of the god Baal. The phrase “Moabite women” ties this chapter to the preceding ones (chs. 22–24). What the fathers of Moab could not do, their daughters were able to accomplish. Always in the ancient Near Eastern context, references to sexual imagery such as this suggest interconnecting circles of sexual immorality tied to sacral rites of prostitution, essential parts of pagan religious systems of the day. The phrase “to the sacrifices of their gods” reminds us that the true worship of the Lord, which was sacrificial in nature, was easily compromised in the minds of the people because of the sacrificial systems of their neighbors (see Ex 34:15; Dt 32:38; Jdg 16:23; et al.).
3 The verb “to be joined in worshiping” (GK 7537) is literally “to be yoked,” as oxen are yoked in a common task. In this case, Israel was “yoked” to pagan peoples in the worship of their god. The verb speaks of adapting to the worship patterns of a foreign people, an abhorrent concept from which Israel was prohibited (see Dt 22:10; cf. 2Co 6:14). “Peor” describes a mountain in Moab (see 23:28) where the manifestation of Baal was worshiped. In v.18 Peor is used alone of the god (see 31:16; Jos 22:17). The wrath of the Lord is a “reddening of his nose” (lit. Heb.), a flashing of his rage. God has his flash point; his rage has a trigger. It should have been expended against Moab and Balaam because of their effrontery; but here it is directed against Israel. They have deflected his rage from others to themselves by their folly.
(2) The judgment of the Lord on his errant people (25:4–5)
4–5 God’s rage against his people provoked a terrible judgment. The gravity of the sin called not only for death but for a special display of the corpses so that the survivors would be strongly warned of the consequences. “In broad daylight” speaks of something done openly, publicly (so 2Sa 12:12). The execution of the leaders was designed to divert God’s anger from the populace as a whole. So Moses commanded the judges of Israel to kill those persons who had attached themselves to Baal Peor. This may be one of the most indelicate texts of Scripture, where Israel’s judges are commanded to kill their own people who are engaged in the worship of Baal. If they are not excised, they will soon ruin the entire nation.
(3) The zeal of Phinehas (25:6–9)
6 The wording of v.6 is somewhat problematic. Perhaps it is best read: “Then a certain Israelite man brought the Midianite woman to the Tent [of God] right before the eyes of Moses and the eyes of all the congregation of Israel; and they were sporting at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” The last phrase in the NIV indicates that it was Moses and the congregation of Israel who were “weeping” (GK 1134; see below) at the entrance to the holy precincts. No doubt the outrage of the events might have driven Moses and pious persons to weep and to beg God for forgiveness. It seems to me, however, that the subject of the verb “weeping” is not Moses and the congregation but the sinning Israelite and his Midianite partner. The focus is on them, not Moses. What they did was to engage in a sexual embrace in the manner of Baal worship, before Moses, at the entrance of the holy Tent of God!
What I am suggesting is that the author made a deliberate substitution of an opposite word, “weeping,” to connote “caressing,” an unusual form of euphemism to stress the heightened enormity of this act. They are not weeping; they are engaged in delirious love-making (cf. Ge 26:8; Ex 32:6). The contempt for the holy things and the word of the Lord shown by Zimri and his Midianite lover, Cozbi (v.15), is unimaginable. In joining the sexual frenzies of the sacrificial feasts of Baal, the man and his partner act to transform the worship of the Lord into the type of sexual rites that were the mode of Canaan. Had this outrage not been stopped, there could never have been true worship in the Holy Place again.
The person is identified in the Hebrew as “the Midianite woman” which suggests that she was a person of prominence. Perhaps she was the high priestess of the religion at Baal Peor. While priests were always male in Israel, priests could be women in the pagan religions that surrounded Israel. In fact, the sexually centered religions would have catered to women in their priesthood. Perhaps this is the principal reason that Israel had no women priests. The brazenness of these two made them not just sinners but an abomination to the Lord.
7–8 When Phinehas the son of Eleazar grandson of Aaron (Ex 6:25) saw what was happening at the entrance of the tent, he reached for a “spear” (GK 8242) and drove it through the licentious couple. Possibly the implement he used was a spear that he took from a soldier nearby. It is also possible that the Hebrew word used here might mean “knife,” a more expected tool for a priest. Phinehas was a man of valor and a true servant of the Lord. Ultimately, he is typical of Christ the Victor (see Pss 2; 110; Rev 19). He is an early embodiment of “star” and “scepter” of 24:17, the smiter of Moab.
Verse 8 says that Phinehas pursued the couple into the “vaulted canopy” (NIV, “tent”). It is possible that the term refers to some canopy at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and that the couple were not actually in the Most Holy Place. That Phinehas pierced through both of them indicates that the knife or spear could not have been little and that tremendous force would have been needed to plunge the knife or spear through both bodies. The staying of the plague indicates that this was not just an outrageous instance of debauchery, but likely the couple were the instigators of the pagan rites!
9 The number who died because of the flagrant actions of the people in their worship of the Baal of Peor (24,000; see 1Co 10:8) exceeded even those who died in the rebellion of Korah and his allies (14, 700; see 16:49).
(4) The Lord’s covenant with Phinehas (25:10–13)
10–13 The zeal of Phinehas for the honor of the Lord became the occasion for the Lord’s covenanting with him and his descendants as God’s true priests. Since the hero of our story is a priest, our estimation of priests and priesthood should be enhanced. Then we remember that Christ is priest. The best in priests points to Christ. The Lord now institutes his covenant with the priests through Phinehas. He was priest by divine right, being descended from the right family in an immediate line. He showed himself to be the rightful priest by his interest in divine righteousness. He is now confirmed priest by the rite of the divine covenant. This covenant is God’s doing; it involves his “seed,” and it is lasting. In the case of Abraham, God first chose him; then by Abraham’s action of faith, the Lord confirmed his covenant with him (see Ge 12; 15; 22). In the case of Phinehas, he was already chosen by God; but in his action, God’s covenant with him is confirmed. Surprisingly, by the action of Phinehas, “atonement” was made for the people: the plague was stopped (v.9).
(5) The aftermath of the rebellion (25:14–18)
14–18 Only after the role of Phinehas has been suitably celebrated are the names of the antagonists given. The Israelite was a prince of the house of Simeon, Zimri son of Salu. He was not an insignificant individual. As the great pride of Eleazar must have swelled over the actions of his son that day, so there must have been extraordinary shame among the members of Zimri’s family. Zimri (“My Remembrance”) had been named in praise of God. However, he has come to be forever remembered as the one who nearly destroyed his people in his flagrant, wanton attack on the pure worship of God. The name of his Midianite partner is given as Cozbi daughter of Zur. “Cozbi” means “My Lie” or “Deception.” She stands forever memorialized as a prime example of the deception of the allure of pagan worship. From a noble house of her own people, she was likely a priestess of her religion, a prototype of Jezebel who would later be instrumental in bringing Baal and Asherah worship into the center of the life of Israel.
Because of their active participation in the seduction of the sons of Israel, the Midianites were put under the curse of God and were henceforth to be treated as enemies. The Midianites had been in league with Balak from the beginning of the confrontation (see on 22:4); they now became the objects of a holy war of Israel to declare the glory of the name the Lord (see ch. 31).
II. The Prospects for the Second Generation to Enter the Promised Land (26:1–36:13)
The book of Numbers is rightly named and its organization is simple. There are two grand sections: (1) the census and preparation for march of the first generation and their subsequent failure and judgment (chs. 1–25); (2) the census and preparation for march of the second generation and the hope that they will not repeat the sins of their fathers and mothers (chs. 26–36).
A. The Preparation for the Triumphal March to the Promised Land, the Second Generation (26:1–32:42)
1. The second census of the new generation that will enter the land (26:1–65)
a. The command of the Lord to take the census (26:1–4)
1–4 The plague of ch. 25 was the final judgment of God on the first generation. The first census, taken over thirty-eight years earlier, was for conscription to the army for the conquest of the Land of Promise. That first generation of people over the age of twenty had died. It was now time for the new generation to be numbered and mustered. It was the same task: number the able-bodied men over the age of twenty to conscript them for the army of Israel, though the place had changed from Sinai to Moab. More importantly, the people had changed. The aged Moses was joined in this task by his nephew Eleazar. Aaron was dead (20:28). Miriam was dead (20:1). And Moses was soon to die.
The words of v.4b serve as the section heading for the listing of tribe by tribe that follows. The reference to the departure from Egypt indicates that this generation is regarded as the Exodus people. It is as though their parents had not lived. The story begins anew, as though the people had just left bondage in Egypt.
b. The enumeration of the people by their ancestral tribes and clans (26:5–50)
(1) The tribe of Reuben (26:5–11)
5–7 Pride of place is given to Reuben, firstborn of Jacob. Four clans are descended from his four sons (cf. Ge 46:9). From the seventy persons of Ge 46:27 to the quarter million (or two and one-half million!) of Nu 26:51 is an enormous increase, despite the conditions in Egypt for four hundred years, coupled with the experience in the desert for another forty years.
8–11 The listing of the families of Reuben becomes an occasion to remind us of the part that certain of their number (esp. Dathan and Abiram) had in the rebellion of Korah (16:1). The overwhelming judgment was to remain “a warning sign” to succeeding generations. The tribe of Reuben numbered a decrease of 2,770 from the 46,500 of the first census (a loss of about 6 percent). Their further history is in 1Ch 5:1–10.
(2) The tribe of Simeon (26:12–14)
12–14 The greatest loss was among the tribe of Simeon. The exceedingly wicked Zimri (ch. 25) was of the house of Simeon. Perhaps the larger number of the 24,000 who died in the fairly recent plague were of the house of Simeon. Ohad of Ge 46:10 and Ex 6:15 is not mentioned in Numbers; perhaps he died childless. This tribe experienced a decrease of 37,100 from the 59,300 of the first census (a decrease of about 63 percent). The later history of the family is in 1Ch 4:24–43.
(3) The tribe of Gad (26:15–18)
15–18 There are several problems in parallel passages with the names of these sons of Gad. When we compare the names in Ge 46:16, we find some variations of names. There are several explanations: (1) different spellings for the same name, (2) different names for the same person, and (3) confusion of scribes and hence mistakes in the copying of the names. The tribe of Gad numbered a decrease of 5,150 from the 45,650 of the first census (a decrease of about 11 percent). Their further history is in 1Ch 5:11–17.
(4) The tribe of Judah (26:19–22)
19–22 The family of Judah was unique in that two sons died childless in Canaan before their father left for Egypt. Now, hundreds of years later, the sordid story of Er and Onan is alluded to, to cause the people to remember. The twin sons of Judah by his son’s wife, Tamar, each fathered a clan. The firstborn, Perez, has two subclans. Likely the listing of these subclans makes up for the loss of the two deceased older sons. Perez has the double honor; his line includes king David (Ru 4:18–22) and David’s Greater Son, Jesus (Mt 1:3; Lk 3:33). The tribe of Judah numbered an increase of 1,900 from the 74,600 of the first census (a gain of less than 3 percent). Their further history is in 1Ch 2:3–4:23.
(5) The tribe of Issachar (26:23–25)
23–25 There is a difficulty with the spelling of Puah (cf. Ge 46:13; 1Ch 7:1), and the name Job is mistakenly written in the Heb. of Ge 46:13 for Jashub. The tribe of Issachar numbered an increase of 9,900 from the 54,400 of the first census (a gain of about 18 percent). Their further history is in 1Ch 7:1–5.
(6) The tribe of Zebulun (26:26–27)
26–27 Sered, Elon, and Jahleel, sons of Zebulun, founded the three clans of this tribe. The tribe of Zebulun numbered an increase of 3,100 from the 57,400 of the first census (a gain of over 5 percent). Their further history is not recorded in 1Ch 2–8; only the name of the tribe is given in 2:1. This is a strange omission (see also the comment on Dan, vv.42–43).
(7) The tribe of Manasseh (26:28–34)
28–34 Joseph received the double honor of his father, Jacob, by having two sons receive equal status with his brothers among the tribes of Israel. With the removal of the tribe of Levi from the lay tribes, this “bonus” to Joseph maintained the sacred number twelve for the fathers’ houses. The tribe of Ephraim was superior in numbers to Manasseh in Nu 1; the reverse is true in Nu 26. Later in Israel’s history, Ephraim becomes the counterpart in the north to the importance of Judah in the south. Yet at this point the tribe of Ephraim is among the smallest (only Simeon with 22,200 is smaller).
There are a couple of unusual things in the roster of the clans of Manasseh. First, only one son of Manasseh is listed: Makir (see Ge 50:23; Nu 27:1; 32:39–40; Dt 3:15; Jos 13:31; 17:1, 3). The tribe of Manasseh did not divide into subclans until the fourth generation. The last named presents the second unusual factor; Zelophehad, actually the grandson of Gilead, “had no sons, only daughters.’’ While the descendants of Jacob have a remarkable propensity to father sons, surely there were daughters along the way! Yet Zelophehad’s daughters are nearly the only ones mentioned in this chapter (v.46). Since the chapter is a roster of men being mustered for war, the lack of the mention of daughters elsewhere is understandable. The reason for mentioning Zelophehad’s daughters is to set the stage for the narrative of ch. 27 (cf. ch. 36).
The tribe of Manasseh numbered an increase of 20, 500 from the 32,200 of the first census (a stunning gain of 64 percent). Their further history is in 1Ch 7:14–19.
(8) The tribe of Ephraim (26:35–37)
35–37 The clans of Ephraim are listed in three sons and one subclan (Eran is not mentioned elsewhere). The tribe of Ephraim numbered a drop of 8,000 from the 40, 500 of the first census (a decrease of about 20 percent). Their further history is in 1Ch 7:20–29.
(9) The tribe of Benjamin (26:38–41)
38–41 The lists of the names of sons and clans in the earlier rosters have presented some problems of spelling and identification when those in Nu 26 are compared with similar ones in Genesis and 1 Chronicles. But in the case of the tribe of Benjamin, we come to nearly insurmountable problems of correlation. Apparently the listings of the clans of Benjamin is quite fluid, perhaps depending on differing purposes of our sources, as well as considerable confusion in the transmission of these names. The most hopeful thing one can observe is that scribes did not attempt to go through these lists to harmonize them.
The tribe of Benjamin numbered an increase of 10,200 from the 35,400 of the first census (a gain of 29 percent). Their further history is in 1Ch 7:6–12; 8:1–39.
(10) The tribe of Dan (26:42–43)
42–43 The briefest of all the tribal notations is given for Dan; only one clan (Shuham) is listed. Yet the total population is large, with only Judah being larger. In Ge 46:23, the only son listed for Dan is Hushim. The relationship of the words Shuham and Hushim is unknown. The tribe of Dan numbered an increase of 1,700 from the 62,700 of the first census (a gain of about 3 percent). Dan is not mentioned at all in the tribal genealogies of 1Ch 1–8 (see also comment on vv.26–27, with respect to Zebulun).
(11) The tribe of Asher (26:44–47)
44–47 One name has dropped in Nu 26 from the listing of the names of the sons of Asher in Ge 46:17 and 1Ch 7:30, the name Ishvah. Perhaps he did not found a clan and so is not listed in Numbers. The mention of Serah, daughter of Asher, is remarkable (cf. Ge 46:17; 1Ch 7:30). Is it possible she was the only daughter born to the twelve sons of Jacob, even as Jacob himself had only one daughter, Dinah? The tribe of Asher numbered an increase of 11, 900 from the 41, 500 of the first census (a gain of 29 percent). Their further history is in 1Ch 7:30–40.
(12) The tribe of Naphtali (26:48–50)
48–50 Naphtali numbered a decrease of 8,000 from the 53, 400 of the first census (a drop of 15 percent). There are four clans. The tribe of Naphtali is in the twelfth rank in both census lists. The names of the sons of Naphtali, but no further history of the tribe, are in 1Ch 7:13.
c. The grand celebrative number, to the praise of the Lord (26:51)
51 Despite all those who died during the desert experience, the total–601, 730—was nearly the same as those who were first numbered (on the large numbers, see the introduction). The loss of 1,820 persons from the first census is a drop of only 0.3 percent—a negligible sum! It is utterly remarkable that the total number has remained nearly unchanged even though the people have lived under the most trying conditions for a period of thirty-eight years. God’s faithfulness to his people is grandly celebrated with this triumphant chapter of census; the number glorifies God and anticipates the time when the Israelites will be as countless as the sand on the seashore.
A final note: The listing of the clans in the second census would later be very important for the nation for purposes of tribal inheritance. Not all those who were part of Israel were genetically descended from Jacob through his twelve sons. From the beginning there was a joining of destiny with the people of Israel of persons of varied backgrounds. However, to have their part in the land, they had to have a tie with a tribe and a family.
d. The allotment of the land on the basis of the names of the families of Israel (26:52–56)
52–56 In the first census the emphasis was fully on preparation for warfare (see 1:3, 45). The second census relates not only to military service in the conquest of the land but to inheritance rights once the land was secured. It is a section of promise designed to impel the people to faithfulness as well as to ensure the equitable distribution of land. Larger tribes would receive larger shares, but the decisions of place would be made by lot. The land is God’s gift to his people; hence their shares in it are their inheritance from him.
e. The families and numbers of the Levites (26:57–62)
57-58a This pericope corresponds to the separate counting of the Levites in the first census (see 1:47–53; 3:1–39; cf. Ex 6:16–25). A comparison of the line of Levi in Ex 6 shows that not all the sons of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari founded families that were reckoned among the Levites.
58b-61 The parenthetical section on Kohath, Amram, and Jochebed is likely inserted here to assert anew the lineage of Aaron and to remind the priests of the debacle of Nadab and Abihu. The record of Amram and Jochebed is compressed. Kohath must have lived at least 350 years before Moses, as he was born before Jacob went down to Egypt (see Ge 46:11). Further, there is a family of Amramites that numbered several hundred at the time of Moses (see comment on 3:27). Most probably Amram and Jochebed are celebrated ancestors of Aaron, Miriam, and Moses rather than their immediate parents. On Amram see also 1Ch 6:1–3; contrast Ex 2:1.
62 The number of male Levites over the age of one month increased from 22,000 in the first census (3:39) to 23,000 in the second (26:62), an increase of about 5 percent. This section ends with the restated reason for the separate numbering of the Levites: they were neither part of the army nor would they be inheritors of the land; they were a tribe holy to the Lord. But they are a part of the nation, and their families need to be listed along with the names of the other family names in Israel.
f. A recapitulation of the point of the census: this is the new generation (26:63–65)
63–65 These verses form a fitting conclusion to the section begun in vv.1–4a, with numerous ties: (1) the mention of Moses and Eleazar the priest, (2) the location on the plains of Moab, (3) the words “after the plague” in v.1, tying to the notice in v.64 that not one of the original group of rebels was still alive, save only Caleb and Joshua. Their survival reminds us of the grace of the Lord, who keeps his promise to save, even as he remembers his oath to punish.
2. The inheritance of women on entering the land (27:1–11)
1–4 The question brought to Moses by the five daughters of Zelophehad, whose genealogy is traced back to Manasseh (cf. 26:33), concerned the securing of the inheritance and the preservation of their father’s name in the land. Their action in approaching the leaders of the nation was unprecedented, a great act of courage, conviction, and faith. When the women made their claim to Moses, they specified that their father had not died because of participation in the rebellion of Korah (see Nu 16) but only because he was part of the entire doomed first generation. It appears from this verse that the rebels associated with Korah not only lost their lives in the judgment of God but that their survivors may have lost their inheritance as well. So the women came asking for a decision from the Lord, that their father’s name not disappear from among the clans of his family. These verses clearly demonstrate the tie of name to land in the expectation of Israel. One’s meaning in the community is dependent on the survival of his name in the distribution of land in the time of conquest.
5 The leadership of Moses is seen in how he hears the women’s complaint and then takes their case before the Lord. In the Heb. “their case” is highlighted to bring special attention to the fact that this was an appeal from women.
6–11 This section gives an indication of how case law might have operated in Israel. The general laws would be promulgated. Then legitimate exceptions or special considerations would come to the elders and perhaps be brought to Moses himself. He then would await a decision from the Lord. In this case the Lord gave a favorable decision to these women. In fact, he went beyond their request. They had requested a landed property (v.4). The response of the Lord was for a hereditary possession of landed property. Not only would they receive the property, they could transfer it to their heirs as well. It is as though their father had had sons!
The following pattern is then laid out. The first in line for inheritance is the son. If the father has no son, then his daughter will inherit in his stead. If there is no daughter, then the inheritance will pass to nearest relatives: brothers, uncles, or other kin. The intent is to keep the inheritance as close as possible to the deceased man’s family line. The section closes by saying that the decision was mediated through Moses but originated from the Lord.
Numbers 36 provides an appendix to this account. This deals with the complicating factor of women who are now inheritors of the land and who might marry outside their families and thus muddle the subsequent inheritance claims of Israel.
3. The successor to Moses (27:12–23)
12–14 Provisions are made for the exceptions and the irregularities of the inheritance laws, but there is no provision for Moses, the (usually) faithful servant of the Lord. His sin at Meribah at Kadesh (20:1–13) was always before him. Aaron had already died; Moses was soon to die. He would be allowed a glimpse of the land from a distant mountain, but not even he would be allowed a footfall in the land itself (cf. Dt 3:23–25). The mountain from which Moses would see the land is not specified in Nu 27; Dt 3:27 and 34:1 describe it as Mount Nebo and the top of Pisgah.
The sin of Moses is tied to Aaron (cf. Nu 20); hence, both had to die before the people could enter the land. The ominous name “Meribah” reminds us of the rebellion of the leader of the people against the Lord (see comment on 20:13). The assault on the holiness of God by Moses and Aaron was disastrous. The fact of Aaron’s death adds a level of certainty to Moses’ own soon demise.
15–17 In the light of his impending death, Moses requested the Lord to appoint someone to succeed him (see 20:22–29). The successor was not chosen because of a blood relationship to Moses; he was not a king. Nor was he chosen by a popular election, for Moses had not been elected by the people (cf. 14:4). The successor was to be appointed directly by God. The Lord is King; Moses was only an agent. The successor is pictured as a shepherd, one needed by the flock.
18–23 As with Aaron (20:22–29), the true successor of Moses had to be established. Joshua and Caleb were the two heroes in the darkest day of Israel’s apostasy (Nu 13–14). It was fitting that the Lord selected one of them. Furthermore, from his early youth Joshua had been an aide of Moses (11:28), which made him especially well suited to follow his master’s steps. Moses was to be the one to single out Joshua. “Spirit” can refer to Joshua’s own leadership capacity or to the Holy Spirit, which seems more likely (see Dt 34:9).
The succession procedure included the laying on of hands, a visual representation of the transfer of power while Moses was still alive (cf. Ac 6:6). This action would forestall any doubts as to the legitimacy of the transfer of power among the people. This investiture was to be done before Eleazar and the whole congregation. Moreover, the transfer was to be put into operation on a gradual but immediate basis. Some of Moses’ authority was to be given to Joshua so that the people might begin to obey him. Joshua was to stand before Eleazar while Moses was alive so that there would be no priestly objections either. Joshua would go before the priest for consultation and for the decision of the Urim (see comment on Ex 28:30) before the Lord. Joshua was to begin leading the congregation as well. Moses followed the command of God to the letter.
4. Commands for the second generation on regular offerings, festival offerings, and vows (28:1–30:16)
As the first generation was given numerous laws in preparation for its entry into the Land of Promise (chs. 5–10), so now the second generation receives its own new “laws” (chs. 28–30). The change of leadership does not indicate a change in the worship patterns of Israel. These extended chapters attest to the all-pervasiveness of sacrifice in the life of the people and the enormity of the work of the priests on their behalf.
a. Regular offerings (28:1–15) (1) The daily offerings (28:1–8)
1–8 This paragraph reiterates the laws of sacrificial worship in the daily offerings in their order (see Ex 29:38–41; Lev 1–7). The most significant issue is the wording of these commandments. The personal involvement of the Lord, the emphasis on his speaking, and the direction of worship are the paramount issues. The wording makes it abundantly clear that this is the law of God. The overwhelming emphasis on sacrificial worship points to the enormity of sin, the need for grace, and—in some mysterious way—the coming cross of Savior Jesus.
In the daily offerings the following factors are emphasized:
1. The “appointed time.” Sacrifices are a part of the rhythm of worship. All of time is marked by sacrifice.
2. The “acceptable gift.” A specified offering is to be presented (cf. Lev 22:17–33). Not just any animal or thing may be used; all is according to pattern.
3. The “pleasing aroma to the LORD.” The acrid odor of the burning sacrifices is the physical symbol of the spiritual reality; obedient people bring pleasure to the Lord.
4. The enormity of it all. The yearly sacrifices at a minimum would include 113 bulls, 32 rams, 1,086 lambs, more than a ton of flour, and a thousand bottles of oil and wine. God would bless his people to allow them to do all that he demanded.
(2) The Sabbath offerings (28:9–10)
9–10 The Sabbath offerings, which were in addition to the daily offerings, mark that day out as “holy.” This does not mean that the Sabbath was to be the “day of worship.” It was to be a day of rest—except for the priests, who had additional service to perform. Each day was a day of worship; this is the reason for the daily offerings.
(3) The monthly offerings (28:11–15)
11–15 The sacrifices at the beginning of the month were of great proportion. Whereas two lambs were specified for the daily offerings (and two more on each Sabbath), the animals for the New Moon sacrifices included two bulls, one ram, and seven lambs. Each animal sacrifice was accompanied with flour, oil, and wine; in addition, a goat also was to be offered as a sin offering. Each month was a marker of his blessing, a time for special rejoicing.
b. Festival offerings (28:16–29:40)
(1) The Passover (28:16–25)
16–25 The focus of these passages is on the work of the priests. Passover is the spring feast at which the nation celebrates the marvel of redemption from Egypt. It is also associated with the Feast of Unleavened Bread (see Ex 12:15; Lev 23:4–8). This paragraph is studded with the number seven (and its multiple of fourteen). On the Passover the people were not to do any work, which gives rise to the idea of “holy days.”
(2) The Feast of Weeks (28:26–31)
26–31 The Festival of Firstfruits (also called the Feast of Weeks; see Ex 23:16; 34:22) came fifty days after the Feast of Unleavened Bread (see Lev 23:9–22); the Greek term Pentecost comes from this number (Ac 2:1). This came shortly after the beginning of the grain harvest. Each feast is associated in some way with the agricultural year. The Lord used the cyclic agricultural events as a basis for his people to worship him. Two things should be noted: (1) the special offerings of these feasts are in addition to the regular daily sacrifices; and (2) the animals had to be without defect (cf. Heb 9:14).
(3) The Feast of Trumpets (29:1–6)
1–6 This feast came at the beginning of the seventh month, a busy month for holy festivals (see Lev 23:23–25). Later this feast became the time of the new year (Rosh Hashanah). The sacrifices were one bull, one ram, and seven male lambs, each along with the requisite grain and libation offerings. The goat for the sin offering and the daily offerings were to accompany these celebrative whole burnt offerings. Again both the soothing aroma of the sacrifices and the fact that the male animals must be without defect are noted.
(4) The Day of Atonement (29:7–11)
7–11 The Festival of Trumpets leads into the Day of Atonement, or Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur (“the day of atoning”) was a time of confession, contrition, and celebration (see Lev 16; 23:26–32). This is the most solemn of Israel’s holy days. It is a time of fasting rather than of feasting, of solemnity rather than rejoicing. “You must deny yourselves” (GK 6700) means to deny oneself by fasting (see Lev 16:29, 31; 23:27, 32; Ps 35:13; Isa 58:3, 5). In the NT, Yom Kippur is fulfilled in the death of the Savior who made atonement for us (see Ro 3:24–26; Heb 9:7; 10:3, 19–22).
(5) The Feast of Tabernacles (29:12–38)
12–38 The Feast of Tabernacles (or Booths) began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month and lasted for seven more days (see Lev 23:33–44). This feast demanded the most animals to be sacrificed. On each of the first seven days, two rams and fourteen male lambs were to be sacrificed, along with their requisite grain and libation offerings. In addition, thirteen bulls were sacrificed on the first day, twelve on the second, and one less on each of the days leading to seven bulls on the seventh day—a total of seventy bulls for the seven days. On the eighth day one bull, one ram, and seven male lambs were sacrificed along with requisite grain and libation offerings. In each day of this festival, a male goat was also offered as a sin offering, along with the normal daily offerings (see also Ex 23:16; 34:22; Dt 16:13–15; Zec 14:16–19).
(6) Summary (29:39–40)
39–40 The sacrifices that have been elaborated on in Nu 28–29 are in addition to any voluntary offerings that one might bring (see ch. 15), as well as any vow that one might make to the Lord (see ch. 30). Thus we understand that there was to be a regular pattern of sacrifice without regard to the special offerings one might bring because of a heart overflowing with joy to God or because of a desire to make a special need known to him.
c. Vows (30:1–16)
(1) The issue of vows to the Lord (30:1–2)
1–2 This chapter is a significant OT text on the subject of the “vow” (GK 5624; see Dt 23:21–23). The principal issue is that a vow is not to be made rashly (see Ecc 5:1–7), but once made, a vow to the Lord must be kept.
(2) The vows of a woman who lives with her father (30:3–5)
3–5 The vow of an unmarried woman who was still under her father’s protection might be nullified by him. Presumably this and the next law were to protecti the woman, who in ancient Near Eastern society was subject to strong societal pressures. This text protects her father as well, who might have to come up with whatever the vow entails if his daughter is remiss in fulfilling her vow.
(3) The vows of a (newly) married woman (30:6–8)
6–8 The vow of a married woman might be nullified by her husband. The comparison of this section with vv.10–15 suggests that these verses relate to young couples who have recently married, as these are cases where the woman brings a vow into her marriage that may be heavily restrictive on her husband. Again, there is something protective in this for the woman (she has an escape clause) as well as for the husband (who would have to pay if the vow was not fulfilled). The woman in this case is treated like a minor child, not having independent authority to enter into a vow or an obligation on her own right. She was either under her father’s home or under her husband’s home. In both cases, her vows may be released by a man, but only if he acts immediately on the information he has.
(4) The vows of a widow or a divorced woman (30:9)
9 A widowed or divorced woman is her own agent in the taking of vows. She is no longer under the household of her father, and she is no longer under the household of her husband. This verse clearly indicates that a divorced woman (Lev 21:7, 14; 22:13; Eze 44:22) has the legal status of one who is a widow. She has become an independent agent. Like the widow, her former husband is in a sense “dead” to her. She is not under the protection of her father (unless she were to seek that out again). So this woman, along with the widow, is able to negotiate contracts, take vows, make promises—to function like any man in society. However, some restrictions are placed on her just by virtue of her gender and her status as one who is divorced (see Lev 21:7 again).
(5) The vows of a married woman (30:10–15)
10–15 These verses deal with those who have been married for a while. Possibly these several complications arose much as the case of the daughters of Zelophehad (27:1–11). That is, one case after another presented itself; the resulting chapter is the final codification. Presumably in the centuries leading up to the NT, the legal decisions on the subject of vows became even more complex. Jesus’ words in Mt 5:33–37 are quite liberating. He forswore oaths and vows altogether for his disciples and urged them to let their words speak for themselves.
(6) A summary statement (30:16)
16 Clearly this chapter has to do specifically with the making of vows by women. Much like ch. 27, it deals with the feminine exceptions to the general rule of men.
5. The reprisal against Midian, Moses’ last campaign (31:1–54)
Chapter 31 picks up on the story line of ch. 25, the account of the debauchery of Israel at Baal Peor. Midian was placed under interdict by the Lord because of their part in the failure of Israel (25:17). This chapter tells the story of the holy war of Israel against these enemies. In the midst of terrible wrath, God remembers mercy, which is also the story of this chapter.
a. The report of the battle (31:1–24)
(1) The instructions for the battle (31:1–6)
1–2 This, the last war of Moses before God brings his life to an end, was to be a war of vengeance against Midian. It is announced by the Lord, not Moses. It was “the LORD’s vengeance” because of the wickedness of the Midianites, who caused the seduction of the Israelites (25:16–18).
3–4 On hearing the command of the Lord, Moses turned to the people and called for a strike force. This was a limited, contained, special task calling for a limited army of special forces. One thousand men were to come from each of the tribes of Israel, a representative army for the whole nation.
5–6 In biblical thought a blood relative may take vengeance on the killer of the slain (see ch. 35). There is a sense that the Lord is the kinsman of his people who issues a command for his own holy vendetta. The war is one of divine reprisal for the near destruction of his people by the Midianites. The mention of Phinehas is especially noteworthy. His zeal for the honor of the Lord led him to spear Zimri and Cozbi (25:8). Now his leadership in the sacral aspects of the battle demonstrates that this was truly holy war. He took to battle the holy implements and the priestly trumpets (see 10:9). The implements from the sanctuary do not seem to include the holy ark. Whatever implements he took, the belief was sure: as the Lord was with his people in the sacred place, so he was with them in war. The trumpet was a long, straight metal tube with a flowing bell; it was not the shofar, the ram’s horn of ancient Israel. The blowing was an act of celebrative worship.
(2) The report of the victory (31:7–12)
7 The Lord commanded the conquest and extermination of all the peoples in Canaan (see Dt 20:1–16) because of their gross wickedness and the threat they represented to the integrity of Israel and to their very survival in the land. The cup of the Amorites was full (see Ge 15:16). Israel fought as they were taught, with faithfulness, courage, and obedient trust. The report that they “killed every man” means that there was a complete defeat; that is, they killed the men only (cf. v.9).
8 The five chieftains that the Israelites killed are memorialized forever as enemies of the Lord who were impotent before his armies. There is here a vindictiveness of the sacred, a display of triumph—a celebration of God who has given glorious victory. Among the names are two surprises. One is Zur, the father of Cozbi (see 25:15), the Midianite woman who was stabbed to death with Zimri by Phinehas. That she was a significant person is now confirmed. Cozbi is like Jezebel, a priestess-princess of paganism. The other surprise is Balaam. The story of ch. 25 lacks the name of the principal instigator of the seduction of the men of Israel. But here he is found among those killed; what Balaam failed to accomplish by the mantic arts of chs. 22–24, he was able to achieve by his advice to the Midianites (v.16).
9–12 While the men of Midian were killed by the victorious Hebrew soldiers, the women and children were spared as plunder. Moses commanded that only the virgin women (who were thus innocent of the indecencies at Peor) could be spared; the guilty women and the boys (who might endanger the inheritance rights of Israelite men) were to be put to death (vv.15–17).
Jericho, the first city west of the Jordan that Israel would win by warfare, had all its inhabitants and their possessions placed under the ban. The strike on Midian, however, was punitive. Therefore, many items of plunder (including surviving people) were to be distributed among the men of the army and the people who had remained in camp. The burning of the cities precluded their being inhabited by the Hebrews and would greatly impede their being reinhabited by enemies.
In a sense of poetic justice, the Midianites who had conspired to destroy Israel through the licentious behavior of their priestess cult functionaries were now to have their wives and daughters added to the families of Israel.
There is an episodic nature to the book of Numbers, for this story ties up three loose ends: Cozbi’s father, Balaam, and the meaning of the story of Baal Peor. The tone so far in this story is one of victory march.
(3) The destruction of the women and boys (31:13–18)
13–18 Surprisingly, the people face anger from Moses instead of approval. The meeting outside the camp is an omen; something is unclean. Moses does not come to bless the officers of the armies in their victory but to vent his rage at the victories. Moses asks almost incredulously about the status of the very women whom Balaam had used to bring about the seduction of Israel.
The brutality demanded by vv.17–18 is nearly unimaginable. It is one thing to kill a woman in battle, even to kill children in a frenzy of hatred. But this verse demands the purposeful killing of women and children after the battle was over. Those girls who were to be kept alive (demonstrable virgins) would have to be rather young, and their mothers would have had to be killed. The only way to understand such a ghastly command is to realize what was at stake in the story of Baal Peor. Numbers 25 records an altogether new type of sin and rebellion–one that bears within itself the threat of the doom of the nation as a whole. It was this very type of evil that finally destroyed the Hebrew kingdoms in the land. Objectively, the destruction of the women and the boys was an act of God’s mercy–for Israel. Divine judgment is sure for the nations who are a threat to the existence of God’s people or who have rejected his grace.
(4) The purification of the soldiers (31:19–20)
19–20 Since this was holy war (see 19:11–13), both people and things (vv.21–24) had to be cleansed. The rites of purification from contact with a dead body would demand the waters of cleansing from the ashes of the red heifer (see 19:12). All were addressed here who had been involved in killing the enemies of God. The death of any person made one who came in contact with that corpse unclean, even when the killing was commanded by God. Thus even in a text of judgment, there are still the lessons of ritual cleansing for the people of God.
(5) The purifying of the goods (31:21–24)
21–24 Things that are ritually impure will contaminate people who are otherwise clean. Metal objects had to be purified by having them pass through fire, then be cleansed with the waters of cleansing. Some of these metal objects then became gifts to the Lord (see v.50). Those items that could not withstand fire had to be cleansed in the water alone (cf. 1Co 3:10–15). In the cleansing of soldiers, they had to wait until the seventh day, then wash their clothes, and then they could enter the camp. This pattern of seven days of exclusion from the camp because of uncleanness is well established in Israel (see Miriam in ch. 12).
b. The division of the spoils (31:25–54)
(1) The share for the soldiers (31:25–41)
25–41 The book of Numbers delights in lists. Here the Lord commands Moses to have the sum taken of the spoils of the battle, both people and animals. The term “people” relates only to the little girls who were spared the ban; the animals include sheep, cattle, donkeys, and goats. Eleazar and heads of the father’s houses were to aid Moses in taking this toll. The task must have been enormous, giyen the numbers involved.
The division of the spoil was in two sections, one for those who had fought in the war and the other for the rest of the congregation. The two halves were equal, but their distribution was deliberately unequal—there were far fewer soldiers than those who remained in the camp. Since the soldiers had risked their lives, theirs was the larger personal share. Before the men of war could enjoy their spoil, a tribute to the Lord was required. The ratio in this case was 1 unit of 500. The tax share of the soldiers who had risked their lives was smaller than the share demanded of the people. The “tax” or “tribute” for the Lord was given to Eleazar the priest as a sacred offering. From the half of the booty to be distributed to the congregation, 1 unit of each 50 was to be given as a tribute to the Lord, to be used by the Levites in return for their service at the tabernacle. Thus the people’s tax was ten times that of the soldiers.
The numbers listing the plunder were enormous; the victory was staggering. This was just the beginning; on the other side of the Jordan lay the rest of the land of God’s promise. Again, the section concludes with a statement of the obedience of Moses.
(2) The share for the people (31:42–47)
42–47 The statistics of the half share for the people follow in much the same procedure as that for the soldiers. The numbers of this half are the same but are listed in a celebrative manner. Again, Moses followed faithfully in the distribution of the Lord’s share.
(3) The extra share for the Lord (31:48–54)
48–54 The spontaneous extra gift of the officer corps to the Lord went beyond the tax that they were required to give of the booty of the war. The captains of thousands and of hundreds approached Moses and made a magnanimous offering of numerous beautiful objects of gold that the soldiers had taken for their own use as they looted the camps. This gift was in gratitude for the most remarkable fact that not one soldier of the elite Hebrew corps had died in the war! The only explanation for this is the presence of the Lord among his people. Moses and Eleazar weighed the gold items and found the cumulative weight to be about 420 pounds! This enormous gift came from grateful men to an all-protective God. The gold became a “memorial” of the victory that the Lord had won.
The motivation of the chiefs was “to make atonement . . . before the LORD.” This was prompted by overwhelming gratitude for battle losses that were nil—not one Hebrew soldier died! The making of atonement was an offering of expiation for the lives of those who ordinarily would have died.
6. The settlement of the Transjordan tribes (32:1–42)
a. The request of Reuben and Gad to settle in Transjordan (32:1–19)
(1) The original request (32:1–5)
1–5 The chapter begins with the approach of petitioners to Moses. The abundance of fertile grazing land in Transjordan prompted the leaders of Reuben and Gad to request of Moses and Eleazar the right to settle there and not cross the Jordan. These tribal leaders found that the lands they had won from the people of Sihon and Og were ideal for the running of large flocks and herds. Only later (v.33) do we find that some clans of Manasseh were involved as well. The nobles of Gad and Reuben do more than to add place names; they place the issue of the land in the realm of divine gift.
The repetition of the word “livestock” indicates that their herds must have been exceptionally large, perhaps out of proportion to the other tribes. They needed the room that Transjordan seemed to provide. But it was not just the matter of livestock that animated them; God in his power provided the land as a gift for his people. So the two tribes requested of Moses that the land of Transjordan be given to them as their singular possession. Possibly, however, their polite words were covering a rebellious spirit. That is, these two tribes may have been abandoning their place in the league as a whole, saying something such as, “We have ours, good luck with yours.” This was the way Moses read their words.
(2) The angry response of Moses (32:6–15)
6–8 Moses rages against the two tribes that they have become no better than their fathers, for they also were not willing to go to the land to fight the battle of conquest. Moses’ words may have been provoked by his anger, but they became the opportunity to review the basic theology of the desert period. He was able to contrast the first and second generation, to warn the second on the basis of the experience of the first. Moses charged these tribal leaders with posing an intolerable situation. By granting them the right to settle outside Canaan proper, not only would these tribes be lost from the battle plans, but their absence would be a means of hindering the other tribes from crossing the Jordan as well. The entire nation might have become discouraged. This would lead perhaps to an ominous replay of the failure of their parents. Moses’ fear was that the failure of these two tribes to stay with the whole community in the war of conquest of Canaan would be the beginnings of a general revolt among the people against entering the land. It would be the failure of Kadesh (chs. 13–14) all over again.
9–13 Moses presents an example of a biblical use of history (especially chs. 13–14, the rebellion of the first generation at Kadesh Barnea) for the instruction of the people of God. The new generation had a new opportunity to be other than their parents. They could be the people who succeeded. They did not have to repeat the failure of their parents.
Numbers is a book of worship. Worship is not just responding to grace; it is also remembering past disaster—and learning to avoid it in the present. Verse 11 recalls the covenant that was promised and rebuffed. But the promise is still there. God’s oath was not just a past oath. Since he lives, so does the promise. The only question in the generation that stands before him now is: Will they be the ones, or must he wait for another? The reference to twenty years and upward speaks of the generational change that these emissaries from Reuben and Gad represented.
14–15 Moses’ words were unusually harsh. There was a moral culpability in the action of disunity that might bring the ruin of God on the entire community. His words were expressive of his deep, personal feelings (cf. Paul in 2 Co 1–3). This was an intensely personal moment for the great prophet of God. Rightly or wrongly, he had been provoked to vent his deepest feelings. But the deep feelings were based on his experience—and the deep feelings of God that he had experienced as none other in his day.
(3) The assurances of Reuben and Gad (32:16–19)
16–19 The men who were addressed so angrily attempted to assure Moses that they did not wish to shirk from their part in the conquest of the land. They would join their brothers in battle but wished to leave their families and livestock behind in the portion of their choosing. Their promises were sound; they had met the demands implicit within the charge of Moses.
b. The decision of Moses for their settlement (32:20–30)
20–30 Moses was not easily calmed. He spoke to the people as a father to an errant but repentant child. He gave them words of comfort and also words of strong warning. Moses’ adjuration also reminded Gad and Reuben that it is not just their participation that he desired but their commitment to the affirmation of faith. They needed to prepare for battle, but they also had to know that the Lord was going to win the battle. The actions were the Lord’s; the people were partners with him in his holy war.
The bargain was struck, but not without strong warnings of the seriousness of the matter if the people failed to live up to their word. In the permission that Moses granted, we sense the negotiation that was possible in Israel, even from the hand of the Lord (cf. Ge 18:16–33). In a sense the bargain with Moses was a bargain with God. When they agreed with Moses, they were also saying that they would do as the Lord commanded. The specifying elements—children, wives, livestock, and cattle—were a part of the bargain. The language is like that of a contract; agreement is full and complete.
c. The public declaration of the agreement (32:31–32)
31–32 These two verses serve as a public declaration of the decision to which the men of Gad and Reuben had come before the presence of Moses. Now it is made formal and binding before the congregation.
d. The territories of Reuben and Gad (32:33–42)
33 Apparently after the principle of Transjordan settlement was established with Reuben and Gad, a portion of the tribe of Manasseh joined with them in their agreement to settle in Transjordan and then to participate in the battle for Canaan.
34–42 The happy record of the rebuilding and settling of the people of the Lord in that portion of the land that he had given to them includes notices about continuing conquests,
a mark of the Lord’s continuing pleasure. This land was now really theirs. The cities that had been destroyed were now being rebuilt, and in some cases they were being renamed to show new relationships and to evince the new reality. The old gods were not in control any longer; this was now the land of the people of the Lord. The exploits of the family of Makir and their conquest of Gilead, along with the heroic exploits of Jair and Nobah, are a further expansion of the people in Transjordan. This aggression was a part of the plan of God in further dispossessing the Amorites from the region.
B. A Review of the First Generation’s Journey and Words of Warning and Encouragement to the Second Generation (33:1–56)
Numbers 33 is a somewhat curious piece in the book. Principally, it is a listing of places, much like some chapters have been listings of numbers and names. It is the one chapter in which we read that Moses was commanded by the Lord to write an account of his experience in the desert (v.2).
1. The stages of the journey in the desert (33:1–49)
a. Introduction (33:1–2)
1–2 The listing of the numerous places (significantly forty in number between Rameses in Egypt and the plains of Moab) in Israel’s desert experience is a rather straightforward listing that might easily be charted on a map. Most of the sites were desert encampments, not cities with lasting archaeological evidences. Many of the places are not recorded elsewhere in Exodus and Numbers. The book of Numbers as a whole is a travel narrative; this chapter is just a routing list.
b. The point of departure (33:3–4)
3–4 Only at the beginning of the journey and at one point along the way does the listing of places give way to narrative. Both the specific notation as to the time of the Israelites’ departure and a description of the manner of their leaving Egypt (see Ex 12:37) are included. They left with disdain (see Ps 114:1–2), not watching the burial details of the many grieving Egyptian families whose firstborn had been slain by the hand of the Lord, but relishing the victory that the Lord had won over the gods of the land. This section is a triumphant taunt; yet even the mention of the dead adds a gentle note of sadness.
c. The stages of the journey from Rameses to Mount Hor (33:5–37)
5–37 Succoth, Etham, and Pi Hahiroth were in Egypt, to the west of the Sea of Reeds. The other sites are all in the Desert of Sinai.
d. The events at Mount Hor (33:38–40)
38–40 Unexpectedly, the staging area of Mount Hor is singled out for special mention. It becomes the setting for a memorial notice to Aaron the high priest, brother of Moses, who died here at the age of 123. Not only is his age given, but so is the date: the first day of the fifth month of the fortieth year. This is the second date in the list (the first being the date of their leaving Rameses on the fifteenth day of the first month of the first year, v.3). This means that the journeying from Tanis/Rameses to Mount Hor completes the forty years of desert wanderings.
The death of Aaron marks a pivotal date in the history of Israel. His death is regarded as having an atoning effect (see ch. 35). Aaron was three years older than Moses (see Ex 7:7; cf. Dt 1:3; 34:5–7). His great age was a mark of God’s blessing in his life. By the mercy of the Lord, his time was extended to the very last year of Israel’s desert experience, though his own sin (Nu 20) kept him from living into the time of the conquest of the land.
The second notice given with respect to Israel’s time at the staging area of Mount Hor is word concerning the king of Arad. Even the king who dwelled in the Negev of the land of Canaan knew of the coming of the people of Israel; the reference is to the story of 21:1–3, the first of Israel’s victories on the military field—promise for a new generation being different from their fathers.
e. The stages of the journey from Mount Hor to the mountains of Abarim (33:41–47)
41–47 The listing of place names continues in these verses.
f. The encampment in Moab as the staging area for the assault on the land of Canaan (33:48–49)
48–49 After forty years, the people were situated on the plains of Moab across from the city of Jericho—the firstfruits of the land; only the Jordan River separated them from their goal, the Promised Land. The encampments of the thousands of Israel stretched from Beth Jeshimoth (“Place of Desolation”; see Jos 12:3; 13:20) to Abel Shittim (“Field of Acacias”; see Nu 25:1; Mic 6:5), in the lowlands of Moab. The distance from these two sites, north to south, was over five miles—a suitable spread for the thousands of the tribes of Israel.
2. Words of warning and encouragement to the second generation (33:50–56)
50–54 The instructions of the Lord to the new generation came at the climax of the record of their triumphal march. They were now at their last staging area. Before them was the land, behind them an exceedingly long and tortuous journey. The commands of the Lord are expressed in several significant verbs: (1) they were to dispossess the present inhabitants, (2) destroy their idolatrous symbols, (3) destroy all their molten images, and (4) shatter their high places. Verse 53 repeats the verb “take possession” (GK 3769) and then speaks of living in the land as God’s divine grant to the people. The land was his to give; he chose to give the gift to his people. The manner of the distribution of the land was to be by lot, with the assurance that the lot would not be by chance but by the disposition of the Lord. In this way the people would be able to take possession of the land as a lasting inheritance. As in 35:8, consideration would be given to the size of the clans of Israel.
55–56 These verses form the true climax of the book of Numbers. If the people failed in their divine commission to dispossess the pagan inhabitants, they would find two things to be true: the natives who remained would be perpetual trouble, and the Lord would bring on Israel the dispossession he demanded them to accomplish. The description of trouble is sadly prophetic. The remaining Canaanites did become barbs in the eye and pricks in the side (see Jos 23:13). These expressions describe constant annoyance (at the least) to terrible pain (at the most). The most chilling words, however, came from the Lord: “I will give you trouble.” These words were threatening indeed. But the prospects were good. The second generation had fully replaced their erring fathers and mothers. And with them is the eternal Lord!
C. An Anticipation of the Promised Land (34:1–36:13)
These last three chapters have the sense of appendages. Chapter 33, with its itinerary, final blessing, and warning, really serves as the climax of the book. The prospects for conquest and the warning of failure were just what the new generation need to be the people of God.
1. A preview of the land (34:1–29)
a. The boundaries (34:1–12)
(1) Introduction (34:1–2)
1–2 The listing of the four boundaries is given, not only for information purposes, but also to display again the dimensions of God’s great gift to his people in the Land of Promise. The initial covenant specified the land in terms of the peoples who lived there (see Ge 15:18–21). This chapter presents the land in terms of an outline of its borders.
The presentation of the boundaries follows an orderly format. Even geography is a matter of worship in Numbers. This chapter is a celebration of God’s gifting. It presents a trust deed, a legal document from God to his people. Prophetically, it points to realization in Jos 15. These chapters were designed to build confidence in the people and also to provoke their continuing worship of the Lord.
(2) The southern boundary (34:3–5)
3–5 The southern boundary does not run on a straight line on an east-west basis; it forms a rough, broad angle with the southernmost point south of Kadesh. Similarly, the northern boundary forms a rough, broad angle. The resultant picture of the land is somewhat ideal, jewellike, giving a dynamic shape to the outline of the land. However, the land was a real entity, not just an ideal in the mind. Hence the exotic place names are of signal importance.
The line of the border begins with the south, which was more familiar to the people from their desert environment. In a sense movement is from the known to the unknown. The southern border would include part of the Desert of Zin near Edom, with the Dead Sea as the easternmost extension. The line moves southwest through Scorpion Pass, traverses Zin, and extends to the south of Kadesh Barnea. Then the border moves westward and northward passing through Azmon to the Wadi of Egypt on the Mediterranean.
(3) The western boundary (34:6)
6 The Great Sea is the Mediterranean and its coastlands. Certainly there was no misunderstanding of the western boundary.
(4) The northern boundary (34:7–9)
7–9 The northern boundary is something of a bloated, mirror image of the southern. It does not form a straight line west to east but moves northeast to Lebo Hamath, where it turns, either dropping sharply to the eastern area north of the Sea of Galilee or, more likely, moving even more northerly as it reaches to the sites of Zedad, Ziphron, and Hazar Enan. Mount Hor here is not to be confused with the Mount Hor in the south where Aaron died (see 33:37); this is a mountain in the region of Lebanon.
(5) The eastern boundary (34:10–12a)
10–12a The line from the northernmost point that traverses to the south finally to join the southern tip of the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee is the most precarious to attempt to draw. Perhaps a grand curve is intended that includes the sweep of much of southeastern Syria (Aram). The sites Shepham and Riblah are unknown today. The Sea of Kinnereth (another name for the Sea of Galilee) and the Jordan form the traditional eastern border for the southern part of the line.
(6) Summary (34:12b)
12b These are words of grand gifting; the role of God as the Giver of the land cannot be stressed too highly. At no time in Israel’s history did she ever realize the full extent of the land these verses present (but cf. Jos 23:14). But the ideal was ever there.
b. The inheritance in Transjordan (34:13–15)
13–15 The new realities that the settlement of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh in Transjordan brought about (see ch. 32) demand that this section be added. Since the Jordan River is the traditional eastern boundary of the land of Canaan, these tribes are outside the boundaries in a strict sense. Yet it is possible to see them as deliberately extending the borders of the Land of Promise. Again in these verses we find the obedience of Moses to the word of God.
c. The personnel of the inheritance (34:16–29)
16–29 The listing of the new tribal leaders recalls that of the first generation (1:5–16). This time the promise would be realized; these new leaders would assist Eleazar and Joshua in actually allotting that land. The chapter ends in the report of accomplishment: “These are the men.” These are the names of the second generation; the leaders of the earlier listings were dead. But with the outlines of the land in mind, and with new leaders of the tribes now in place, soon the new generation would begin its long-anticipated conquest of Canaan under the hand of God.
2. Levitical cities and cities of refuge (35:1–34)
a. The Levitical cities (35:1–5)
1–3 The notation of the Israelite location across from Jericho adds pungency to the account. In their final staging area for their assault on the land, the people needed to have a perspective of how the land was to be apportioned. Since the Levites would not receive an allotment with the other tribes (1:47–53), they would need towns to live in and places to care for their livestock. The Levites were to be spread throughout the land, receiving certain cities and territories. The term “pasturelands” (GK 4494) includes open land for agriculture as well as for herds and flocks (see Jos 14:4; 21:2).
4–5 The description of the allotment of land in each of these cities is not very clear. Verse 4 speaks of a distance of one thousand cubits (fifteen hundred feet) from the town wall round about for the open land; v.5 speaks of a measurement of two thousand cubits (three thousand feet) on each side of the city for the open land. The simplest suggestion is that the city is regarded as a point encompassed by a square that is two thousand cubits to a side. From the point of the city, each direction would be one thousand cubits. That this suggests a very small city is not really a difficulty, for most of the towns and settlements of the land of Canaan were small—often just a matter of acres. Were this provision of open lands not made, a grudging tribe might allow some Levitical families to live within a small settlement but not give them any room (except at great cost) for their flocks, herds, and farming needs. A city apart from arable land and sufficient pasturelands was no great gift.
b. The cities of refuge (35:6–34)
(1) The basic concept of the cities of refuge (35:6–8)
6–8 Six Levitical cities were to be stationed strategically in the land—three in Transjordan and three in Canaan proper—as cities of refuge, or asylum cities, where a person guilty of unintentional manslaughter might escape blood revenge (cf. Jos 20). These six cities were to be in addition to forty-two cities for the Levites, giving a total of forty-eight cities. Further, the ideal was that the selection of the cities would be based on the relative size of the holdings of the various tribes and their relative populations.
(2) Further details on the cities of refuge (35:9–15)
9–15 The Lord through Moses commanded the people who were about to enter the land to personally select special cities of asylum for a killer from the avenger of blood. The provision of these cities was to be for one who had killed another person accidentally (cf. 15:30). The “avenger [GK 1457] of blood” was a relative of the slain who would take it on himself to protect the family rights and to avenge his relatives of the loss suffered by the family. In fact, the term often translated “redeemer” has this basic idea (see Lev 25:48; Ru 3:13). A redeemer is one who redeems the loss sustained by the family. This could be by payment of a price or by taking of life. In the latter case, one was an “avenger of blood” (vv.19, 21).
In his rage against the loss of a family member, the redeemer might rashly kill the offender before he found out the circumstances of the death. If the death was not premeditated, or was quite accidental, then the killing of the offending party would add wrong to wrong. Basically, then, the provision of the cities of asylum was another instance of Lord’s mercy in his provisions for the needs of his people in the world setting in which they lived.
The idea of providing cities of refuge (Jos 20:1–9) for capital offenses is rooted in the tension between customary tribal law (retaliation or revenge, in which the blood relative is obligated to execute vengeance) and civil law (carried out less personally by an assembly according to a standard code of justice).
Blood feuds are usually associated with nomadic groups; legal procedures, with villages and towns. Israel, a society in the process of sedentarization, found it necessary to adopt an intermediate step regulating manslaughter, so that an innocent person would not be killed before standing trial. Absolution was possible only by being cleared by his hometown assembly, and by the eventual death of the high priest, which freed the offender from ritual pollution.
© 1985 The Zondervan Corporation
There seems to be no significance to the number of the cities (six), but there is certainly a significance to the placement of them. Three would be on each side of the Jordan River, providing accessibility from any point in the land. Also, the inclusion of three cities of asylum in Transjordan further legitimized the holdings of the two and one-half tribes in the expansion territories. Verse 15 explains that there would be equal access to these cities by all persons who were in the land, free citizen as well as sojourner or even temporary alien. This provision is another aspect of the grace of God.
(3) Basic stipulations concerning the taking of life and the cities of refuge (35:16–21)
16–21 Various descriptions of the taking of life are presented that would indicate willful murder. The provisions of this section are based on the notions of evident intent. The manner of a person’s death could be suggestive of willful intent. If the person was killed by a lethal instrument, then there was a presumption of guilt on the part of the one who killed him. In these cases the party was presumed guilty, as the means of death would seem purposeful. Further, if the person died by a physical blow that was made by hatred or in the context of an ambush, then the party is guilty and had to die. For such a one was a killer.
(4) Cases to be decided concerning the taking of life and the cities of refuge (35:22–32)
22–32 The cities of refuge were to be established for persons who had committed an act of involuntary manslaughter. But such cases were not always simple to determine. Killing an individual by a lethal weapon brought a presumption of guilt on the slayer. Yet it is possible that this death was inadvertent. In cases of doubt, judgments would have to be made by the town elders. If the council decided the death was premeditated and deserving of death, then the guilty party would be delivered over to the blood avenger. But if there was no premeditated malice, then the slayer would have to go to the asylum city to be protected from the avenger. He would be protected from the avenger only so long as he remained within the asylum city; if he were to leave the city for any reason, the avenger was allowed to slay him without any consequence to his own person.
The one who sought asylum had to stay for protection in that asylum city until the death of the high priest (vv.25, 28). There was an atoning significance for the entire populace when the high priest died (cf. Heb 5–10). If the high priest died during the period of the slayer’s exile in the asylum city, then he was not only free to leave the city, but he could resume his normal life again, including his stake in his ancestral land.
A further provision of mercy was the necessity for witnesses, so that the possibility of an innocent party being accused and sentenced to death on insufficient evidence might be avoided. Two witnesses (at least) were required to preclude malevolent falsehood from one isolated voice.
The stipulations concerning ransom payments were also designed as acts of mercy. Conceivably, a wealthy person might take the route of paying ransom as a means of getting out of a sticky situation, while the poor person, who could not afford a ransom payment, would be at the mercy of the avenger or be forced to live years in an asylum city. Hence, no ransom was to be paid by either the deliberate killer or the accidental killer.
(5) The divine perspective on murder and the land (35:33–34)
33–34 The shedding of human blood pollutes the land. The crime of murder is not only an offense against the sanctity of life; it is a pollutant to the Lord’s sacred land (Ge 4:10). The point is not just that there were to be cities for the Levites to inhabit or cities of asylum for the inadvertent killer to find refuge. All the theology of the chapter culminates in the last words of v.34: “For I am the LORD, who dwells in the midst of the people of Israel” (pers. tr.). If God is to liveamong his people, then the land may not be polluted.
3. A review of the inheritance of women (36:1–13)
a. Concerns of the Gileadites for the daughters of Zelophehad (36:1–4)
1–4 The family of the daughters of Zelophehad brought their petition to Moses. They did not dispute the former decision of the Lord that the daughters might inherit, in the absence of brothers, to carry on their father’s line. Their distress resulted the problems that would eventuate if these daughters married outside their clan and tribe. At issue was a concern for the continuity of the lines of inheritance within the tribes. At the year of Jubilee, when all problems of lines of inheritances were to be resolved, this one would not be resolvable because of the twin lines of right to the land, through wives and husbands from different tribes.
b. The law for the marriages of the women who inherit familial land (36:5–9)
5–9 Again, in great grace, the word of the Lord came through Moses to present a decision. The women were permitted to marry whomever they choose, but they must choose their husbands from within their own clans. The issue was not just their personal happiness but the solidarity of the larger family unit. The destiny of the family in Israel was tied to the land. The instance of these women became a law that was applicable in other similar cases. The basic issue was to keep the inheritance of a family in the clan and the tribe of the fathers.
c. The compliance of the daughters of Zelophehad (36:10–12)
10–12 The women were married within their families, paternal “cousins.” In this manner the inheritance of their father stayed within the clan. The book of Numbers, which so often presents the rebellion of God’s people against his grace and in defiance of his will, ends on a happy note. These noble women, who were concerned for their father’s name and their own place in the land, obeyed the Lord. Significantly, there is a final statement of obedience; and it is in the lives of these noble daughters of Zelophehad. We likely would never have heard of him had he had sons instead of daughters!
d. A summary statement of the law of the Lord (36:13)
13 The book of Numbers is far more than a record of commands and regulations. The climax of the book is in 33:50–56. Yet there is a salutary feeling in this chapter of theoretical issues being put to practical work. There is hope in the actions of the daughters of Zelophehad that they will be representative of the nation: this generation will do well.
The Old Testament in the New
| OT Text | NT Text | Subject |
| Nu 12:7 | Heb 3:2, 5 | Faithful Moses |
| Nu 16:5 | 2Ti 2:19 | God knows his own |