Text and Exposition

OVERVIEW

Two types of response are possible for the modern reader who first glances at ch. 1 of the book of Numbers. One is ennui, a sense of boredom. First the reader is told about the command of the Lord for Moses and Aaron to take a military census of Israel. This sounds rather unpromising. Then the reader is assaulted by a list of unfamiliar, compound Hebrew names (1:5–15), names that are a threat to any but the most self-assured Scripture reader. As though this were not enough, the reader then finds twelve two-verse paragraphs that are identical in wording except for the name of the tribe and the sum of its people (1:20–43).

Worse, the paragraphs all center on numbers. The first chapter of the book teams with numbers; everywhere we turn we read number after number. No wonder the book has come down to us in English with a singularly uninspiring title! Who but a mathematician could rise with joy to a book called “Numbers”?

But these same features may bring another response, especially for the reader who approaches tasks with curiosity. This is the response of intrigue, interest, and even wonderment. Surely the Torah was not written to bore the reader—ancient or modern! The listing of names was never meant simply to test the skills of a reader, nor could the repetitions merely have been designed to test a person’s resolve to continue reading—no matter what! There must be significance in these names, numbers, and repetition.

Further, we soon discover that the tedious repetition in ch. 1 is not unique to the book. The repetition of ch. 7 similarly seeks to undermine whatever appreciation we might try to muster up for the values underlying such repetitious language.

Thus the expectations of the modern reader in approaching this text are irrelevant to a valid evaluation of the purpose and nature of the book. As with any book of Scripture—indeed, any book of intrinsic merit—the book of Numbers must be read on its own grounds. The Bible sets its own agenda; the materials of Scripture take their own shape. That its interests and methods may be different from our own is beside the point. If this book is to be received by the modern reader with the integrity and demands of Scripture as a significant part of the divine outbreathing (2Ti 3:16)—the fourth portion of the Torah, the book of Moses—then we must set bias aside, avoid negative prejudgments, escape first impressions, and come to the book as it is.

The best approach toward any obtuse or “difficult” portion of Scripture is to pepper it with questions. In the case at hand we might ask: Why would the ancient sages feel it important to include the names of each tribal representative? Why was it believed impressive to list the number of men from each tribe in such a formal manner, requiring the measure of repetition as 1:20–43 presents? What are the values suggested by these repeated paragraphs? Is it possible that in this alien aesthetic form these verses of repeated phraseology are not to be regarded as tiresome at all but something of dignity, solemnity, and even beauty? Is there perhaps an impressive nature to these paragraphs that speaks of the pride of each tribe?

Indeed, the repetitions are likely instructive as to the power of God and his faithfulness to his promises. That reader who first turned his face away from these pages with disdain may have turned away from something that is intended to bring praise to God and confidence among his people. It becomes our point of view that these numbers, in their highly stylized environments, are a matter of celebration of the faithfulness of Yahweh to his covenantal people. So as we come to these numbers and words, let us come to them on their own terms to see what in them is impressive—and what in them is instructive for us.

I. THE EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRST GENERATION IN THE WILDERNESS (1:1–25:18)

OVERVIEW

An explanation is given in the Introduction (Unity and Organization) for the unusual outline this commentary presents. Following the lead of Dennis T. Olson, I see the macrostructure of the book of Numbers as a bifid of unequal parts. The two censuses (chs. 1–4, 26) are the keys to our 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 first generation of the redeemed was prepared for triumph but ended in disaster. The second generation now has an opportunity for greatness—if only the people will learn from the failures of their fathers and mothers the absolute necessity of robust faithfulness to Yahweh despite all obstacles.

A. The Preparation for the Triumphal March to the Promised Land (1:1–10:36)

OVERVIEW

The record of the experiences of the first generation is presented in two broad parts. Chapters 1–10 record the story of their preparation for triumph; chs. 11–25 follow with the sorry record of repeated acts of rebellion and unbelief, punctuated by bursts of God’s wrath and instances of his grace.

1. Setting Apart the People (1:1–10:10)

OVERVIEW

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)

i. The muster (1:1–54)

(a) The command of the Lord (1:1–4)

1The LORD spoke to Moses in the Tent of Meeting in the Desert of Sinai on the first day of the second month of the second year after the Israelites came out of Egypt. He said: 2“Take a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families, listing every man by name, one by one. 3You and Aaron are to number by their divisions all the men in Israel twenty years old or more who are able to serve in the army. 4One man from each tribe, each the head of his family, is to help you.

COMMENTARY

1 Each phrase of verse 1 is significant for our study; we need to move slowly here. One of the most pervasive emphases in the book of Numbers is that Yahweh spoke to Moses, and through Moses, to Israel. From the opening words of the book (1:1) to its closing words (36:13), this concept is stated over 150 times and in more than twenty ways. One Hebrew name for the book of Numbers is way^e dabbēr (“and [Yahweh] spoke”), the first word in the Hebrew text. This name is highly appropriate, given the strong emphasis on God’s revelation to Moses in Numbers.

The opening words set the stage for the chapter and, indeed, for the entire book. The phrase, “the LORD [Yahweh] spoke to Moses,” presents a point of view that will be repeated (and restated) almost to the point of tedium throughout this book. Yet it is just such a phrase that is so important to the self-attestation of the divine origin of Numbers. The phrasing announces the record of a divine disclosure of the eternal God to his servant Moses, and from Moses a faithful transmission to the people of God. This type of phrase does not satisfy our curiosity as to how Moses heard the word of God, whether as the articulated words of a human voice; a mystical inner sensation, perhaps a clearly articulated cluster of words in his mind; or some vague mental image. This phrase merely presents the source and reception of communication. Numbers 12:6–8 is the major text describing the Lord’s use of Moses as his prophet. This section will indicate something of the special manner of the divine disclosure to Moses, but the phrasing that is most characteristic merely states the most important point: Yahweh spoke to Moses.

That the subject of the verb “spoke” is Yahweh points to his initiation and, by that measure, to his grace. The fact that God speaks at all to anyone is evidence of his mercy, that he continued to speak to Moses throughout his leadership of the people of God is a mystery, and that he spoke to Moses with the intent that others would read these words throughout the centuries is a marvel. The repetition of phrases such as this throughout the Torah serves for emphasis. We are to be duly impressed with the fact that the Lord is the Great Communicator, that of his own volition he reached out to Moses to convey to him the divine word and to relate through him to the nation the divine will. Other gods are mute. Other gods are silent. Other gods are no God at all. But the God of Scripture, the Lord of covenant—Yahweh, God of Israel—speaks! What he desires more than anything else is a people who will hear him, who will take joy in obeying him, and who will bring him pleasure by their response.

The second phrase of v.1 (NIV) centers on the place of God’s speaking to Moses: “in the Tent of Meeting” (b^eʾōhel mô ʿēd); this phrase follows “in the Desert of Sinai” in the Hebrew construction). There are other terms and phrases used for this tent in Numbers. It is called “the tabernacle” (hammiškān; vv.50, 51) and “the tabernacle of the Testimony” (miškan hāʿēdut; vv.50, 53). The expression “the Tent of Meeting” speaks of the revelatory and communion aspect of the tent. The term “tabernacle” by itself points to the temporary and transitory nature of the tent; it was a moveable and portable shrine, specially designed for the worship of God by a people on the move. The expression “the tabernacle of the Testimony” suggests the covenantal signification of the tent; within were the symbols of the presence of the Lord among his people, his guarantees of continuing relationship.

Critical scholarship has confounded the issue by suggesting that these several terms refer to different tents, or that they are telltale pointers to different strata in the tortured path (in their view) of the composition of the Torah. But this approach is unnecessary; it seems preferable to read these several terms as correlative, stylistic variants used for effect to describe various realities of the central focus of God’s relationship with his people in the wilderness—the tent of his presence.

The more common Hebrew name for the book of Numbers is b^emidbar (“In the Wilderness”), the fifth word in the Hebrew text. God spoke to Moses in the Tent of Meeting during the lengthy period that Israel spent in the Desert of Sinai. The wilderness setting is pervasive in Numbers. Recall from the introduction, “God has time, and the wilderness has sand.”

The book begins with the leadership of Israel’s following faithfully the commands of the Lord and the people’s being mustered together for war against the cities of Canaan in anticipation of a great conquest of the Land of Promise. But because of the perfidy of the people, that great event of conquest—the realization of the promise of God to the fathers and mothers of Israel—was denied for a generation. Instead, in judgment for doubt and for casting the worst possible accusations against God about their deliverance—that their “wives and children will be taken as plunder” (14:3)—the entire populace over the age of twenty would spend the rest of their natural days in the wilderness. Only Joshua and Caleb, because of their exceptional, unswerving faith in the face of their timid compatriots, would enter the land.

As it turned out, Miriam and Aaron—and even Moses—died in the wilderness. The expression “in the wilderness” is rich in its meaning and associations. It is not just descriptive of a physical feature of topography; it is also a metaphor for the experience of the people of Israel described in this book. One day their descendants would enter the land, but this book is the record of the experience of the people “in the Desert of Sinai.”

This first verse also gives a specific temporal notice for the command of God to take a census of the nation—a date that is precise and detailed: “on the first day of the second month of the second year after the Israelites came out of Egypt.” The book of Numbers begins thirteen months after the great exodus. The people 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 wilderness wanderings. The second month in the Hebrew calendar corresponds roughly to our April. Later, when Israel was established in Canaan, this second month would be the month of general harvest between the Feast of Firstfruits and Pentecost or Weeks, seven weeks following Passover. That Israel was being numbered during a time that later would be associated with the harvesting of crops would probably not have been lost on the later readers of this book.

This pattern of dating events from the exodus signified the centrality of the exodus in the experience of God’s people. Time would now be measured from their leaving Egypt. The wording is not unlike the Christian reckoning of time as “BC” (“Before Christ”) and “AD” (“Anno Domini,” meaning “in the Year of our Lord”). Time, for Israel, had its beginning with the exodus, just as time for the Christian has its beginning and meaning with the salvation provided in the Savior, Jesus. The exodus was God’s great act of deliverance of his people from bondage; the story of the exodus is the gospel in the OT.

Another example of dating from the exodus is found in 1 Kings 6:1, where the beginning of the building of the temple of Solomon is dated in the four-hundred-eightieth year of Israel’s exodus from Egypt. Whether this date is an exact figure (i.e., one year more than four hundred seventy-nine years) or, as is sometimes suggested, a round number suggesting twelve generations (i.e., 12 x 40—the approximation of a generation), the point is still sure: the dating of Israel’s experience with God begins with the exodus from Egypt (see Notes).

Gordon J. Wenham, 56, observes that the materials of the book of Numbers are not arranged strictly in chronological order (also, see Introduction: Unity and Organization). The descriptions of 7:1–9:15 belong to the first two weeks of the first month of the second year of the exodus (cf. Ex 40:2; Nu 9:1), whereas the census and related affairs of Numbers 1–6 begin on the first day of the second month (see, again, 1:1). The concern of the writer was thematic rather than strictly chronological; it was literary rather than pedantic. The issues of the numbering of the people and the ordering of the camp were believed to be foundational to the understanding readers would need for the stories of offerings, worship, and Passover in chs. 7–9. Moreover, as noted in the introduction, Olson has shown the book of Numbers to be a biped, each section beginning with a census (chs. 1–4; 26; see Notes). The deliberate changing of chronology of the materials of the book is a signal to the reader that chronology is not nearly as important as the fact of the census.

The dating of the exodus itself remains a deeply debated issue among biblical scholars, both moderate and conservative. (More liberal scholars—sometimes called “minimalists”—do not regard the exodus as a historical event; for them the issue is moot.) Archaeological evidence has been adduced for both an early thirteenth-century date (the “late date view”) as well as a mid-fifteenth-century date (the “early date view”). Kenneth A. Kitchen has argued ably for the thirteenth-century date (Ancient Orient and Old Testament [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1966], 57–75; see now his Reliability, 241–74). Gleason L. Archer Jr., however, has argued vigorously for the fifteenth-century date for the exodus (see his introductory article on “The Chronology of the Old Testament” in EBC¹, 1:366–67). Such a pattern would suggest that the events of the book of Numbers extended thirty-eight years into the second half of the fifteenth century BC (see Notes).

2 The Hebrew verbs ś^eʾû (“take”; v.2) and tipq^edû (“number”; v.3; see Notes) are in the plural, indicating that Moses and Aaron were to complete this task together (see v.3, “you and Aaron”), but the primary responsibility for the task lay with Moses. The purpose of this census was to form a military roster, not a social, political, or taxation document, as some modern interpreters have suggested. There are other reasons for the census however: (1) to demonstrate to the people the extent of God’s faithfulness in fulfilling the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant in multiplying the physical descendants of Abraham (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.

There is a remarkable specificity in the numbering process, moving from the broadest groupings to the individual. These Hebrew phrasings are “clans,” “families,” “names,” and “every male by their heads.” This stylistic device, common in Hebrew prose, moves from the most general to the specific, thus giving a sense of the totality of a task and the enormity of carrying it out. We find the same type of approach in the words that came to Abram describing the associations he must leave as he was to set out on his journey of faith with the Lord: “your country,” “your people,” “your father’s household” (Ge 12:1; order as in the MT). Similarly, in the story of the binding of Isaac Abraham was told to take his “son,” his “only son,” whom “he loves,” “even Isaac” (Ge 22:2; order as in the MT).

3 The words of verse 3 also point clearly to the principal military purpose of the census: those males who were over the age of twenty and who were able to serve in the army. This type of phrase occurs fourteen times in ch. 1 and again in 26:2.

Readers who are bothered by the military nature of the census prefer to view it as an early experiment in sociology. The wording of the MT is so patently military in nature, however, that this escape simply does not seem to be possible. The point of the census was to prepare the armies of Israel for their triumphal war of conquest against the peoples of Canaan. In fulfillment of the promise Yahweh made to father Abraham (Ge 15:16–21), the descendants of those who went to Egypt were to return with great possessions and would then be given the land inhabited by numerous nations and ethnic groups. Evil pervaded those nations and groups; the sins of the Amorites had now reached full measure (cf. Ge 15:16). The campaign of conquest was soon to begin.

Our knowledge of the end of the story makes this a sad record to read: all the peoples who were numbered for military duty in this chapter—every one of them save only Joshua and Caleb—died without ever experiencing God’s war of conquest. It is true that some participated in the abortive engagement with the Amalekites following their rebellion against the Lord (14:44–45), but this was not a glorious war of victory. It was an ignoble rout! Victory would come only to their children, a generation removed. Hence this listing, intended by God to be a roster of soldiers, a table of heroes, a memorial of victors, became instead a memorial of those who were to die in the wilderness without ever experiencing God’s greater purpose in their lives.

There was another mustering of soldiers for war at the end of the wilderness period (ch. 26). The men in that account were entirely different persons from those listed in ch. 1. Except for Joshua and Caleb, all those in ch. 1 died in the wilderness between slavery and liberty, between cursing and blessing, between there and here, with hopes dashed and desires never fulfilled. All died in the dry, barren wilderness, though God had intended for them the enjoyment of the good life in the good land and his gracious hand. But in the new roster of Numbers 26 there was a new generation, a new beginning, a new hope. It was “the death of the old and the birth of the new” (cf. Olson’s title; see Introduction).

4 By having a representative from each tribe assist Moses and Aaron, not only would the task be made somewhat more manageable, but also all would regard the resultant count as legitimate. No tribe would have reason to suggest that it was under- or overrepresented in the census, since a worthy man from each tribe was a partner with Moses and Aaron in accomplishing the task. Election observers in our own day fill a similar role.

NOTES

1 The wording of the first verse of Numbers, when compared with the wording of the last verse (36:13), fits well with the concept that Numbers is an independent “book” within the larger collection of the fivefold book, the Pentateuch. This is a point argued well by Olson, 46–49. He also ties the book of Numbers to the (tôl^edôt, “generations, family histories”) formula of Genesis (cf. Ge 2:4a; 5:1; et al.; see Nu 3:1 and Notes). This wording provides the overarching structure for the entirety of the Pentateuch (Olson, 83–114; also in Dennis Olson, Numbers [Interpretation; Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 1996], 3–7); cf. comments on 3:1).

(l^eṣēʾtām mē ʾereṣ miṣrayim, “their leaving the land of Egypt”) is not simply a slogan; the miraculous departure of the people of Israel from Egypt, the exodus, is the fundamental act in their history. A recent presentation for the “early date” ca. 1446 BC (or even a bit earlier) is made by William H. Shea, “The Date of the Exodus,” in Howard and Grisanti, eds., Giving the Sense, 236–55. Conservative scholars who support the “late date” (ca. 1290 BC) include LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, in OTS–1996, 59–60, and Kitchen, Reliability, 307–10. Conservative scholars continue to debate the dating of the exodus. The position taken in this commentary is based on the “early date” chronology. However, the greater issue these days is not when the exodus took place, but whether it ever happened. William G. Dever (What Did the Biblical Writers Know? 2001; Who Were the Early Israelites? 2003), not known as an evangelical writer, nevertheless has been in the forefront in the engagement of those scholars (sometimes called “minimalists”) who deny most of the historicity of the OT story. Recent evangelical works that challenge minimalists include those by Kitchen (Reliability) and Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman III (AIOT).

3 (tipq^edû, “number”) is a use of the significant Hebrew verb (pāqad, “to attend to, visit, muster”; GK 7212) that at times describes Yahweh’s “visiting” his people, either in great grace (e.g., Ge 21:1) or in horrific judgment (e.g., Hos 1:4). In Numbers it is used with the idea of “passing in review, mustering, numbering.”

4 The Hebrew expression (ʾîš ʾîš lammaṭṭeh, lit., “man, man for the tribe”) is distributive: “one man from each tribe”; see Williams, Hebrew Syntax, sec. 15; cf. Nu 9:10; 14:34).

(b) The names of the men (1:5–16)

5These are the names of the men who are to assist you:

from Reuben, Elizur son of Shedeur;

6from Simeon, Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai;

7from Judah, Nahshon son of Amminadab;

8from Issachar, Nethanel son of Zuar;

9from Zebulun, Eliab son of Helon;

10from the sons of Joseph:

from Ephraim, Elishama son of Ammihud;

from Manasseh, Gamaliel son of Pedahzur;

11from Benjamin, Abidan son of Gideoni;

12from Dan, Ahiezer son of Ammishaddai;

13from Asher, Pagiel son of Ocran;

14from Gad, Eliasaph son of Deuel;

15from Naphtali, Ahira son of Enan.”

16These were the men appointed from the community, the leaders of their ancestral tribes. They were the heads of the clans of Israel.

COMMENTARY

5–15 The names of these luminaries occur again in chs. 2, 7, and 10; as noted above, more is the sadness as the list of those who would die in the wilderness is given three times! Most of these names are theophoric; that is, they 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 this list of names is revealed by the fact that many are built on the names El (ʾēl, “God”), Shaddai (šadday, traditionally translated “Almighty”), Ammi (ʿammî, “My Kinsman”), Zur (ṣûr, “Rock”) and Ab (ʾab, “Father”). (See also the list naming the leaders of Levitical families in 3:24, 30, 35, where the same patterns are in play.) At a later time in Israel’s history, we would expect many names to be based on the covenantal name Yahweh because of the revelation of this name and its significance (see Ex 2:23–3:15; 34:1–8).

The paucity of names based on Yahweh (e.g., names beginning with “Jeho-” or ending in “-jah” or “-iah”) in this list may be a significant argument for the antiquity of this text (see Notes). Whereas the name Yahweh was available for name-building in the period before the exodus, it did not come into greater use until after the revelation of a new significance of that name in Yahweh’s revelational encounter with Moses and the subsequent teaching of these truths to the populace of Israel. Here are the names and suggested probable meanings (in order of their listing):

• Elizur (ʾ^elîṣûr, “[My] God Is a Rock”) son of Shedeur (š^edê ʾûr, “Shaddai Is a Flame”), chief of Reuben (v.5);
• Shelumiel (š^elumî ʾēl, “[My] Peace Is God”) son of Zurishaddai (ṣûrîšaddāy, “[My] Rock Is Shaddai”), chief of Simeon (v.6);
• Nahshon (naḥšôn, “Serpentine”) son of Amminadab (ʿammînādāb, “[My] Kinsman [God] Is Noble”), chief of Judah (v.7);
• Nethanel (n^etanʾēl, “God Has Given”) son of Zuar (ṣû ʿār, “Little One”), chief of Issachar (v.8);
• Eliab (ʾ^elî ʾāb, “[My] God Is Father”) son of Helon (ḥēlōn, “Rampart-like” [?]), chief of Zebulun (v.9);
• Elishama (ʾ^elîšāmāʿ, “[My] God Has Heard”) son of Ammihud (ʿammîhûd, “[My] Kinsman [God] Is Majesty”), chief of Ephraim (v.10);
• Gamaliel (gamlî ʾēl, “Reward of God”) son of Pedahzur (p^edâṣûr, “The Rock [God] Has Ransomed”), chief of Manasseh (v.10);
• Abidan (ʾ^abîdān, “[My] Father [God] Is Judge”) son of Gideoni (gid ʿōnî, “My Hewer”), chief of Benjamin (v.11);
• Ahiezer (ʾ^aḥî ʿezer, “[My] Brother [God] Is Help”) son of Ammishaddai (ʿammîšadāy, “[My] Kinsman [God] Is Shaddai”), chief of Dan (v.12);
• Pagiel (pagʿî ʾēl, “Encountered by God”) son of Ocran (ʿokrān, “Troubled”) chief of Asher (v.13);
• Eliasaph (ʾ^elyāsāp, “God has Added”) son of Deuel (d^eʿû ʾēl, “Know God!”), chief of Gad (v.14; see Note at 2:14);
• Ahira (ʾ^aḥîraʿ, “My Brother Is Evil”) son of Enan (ʿênān, “Seeing”), chief of Naphtali (v.15).

Noth, 13–19, argues that the source for this material is the putative P (late in the fifth century BC) because of the schematic nature and orderliness of presentation, but that the name lists that P used in his record must have come from a very early period in Israel’s experience (at least from a pre-Davidic period). His admission of the antiquity of the names is in fact something that may slightly undermine his approach to the writing of this text.

16 The Hebrew adjective underlying the phrase “the men appointed” (qārîʾ, singular) is a technical term for representatives used only here and in 26:9. 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 list (see 1:47).

NOTES

5 On the problems and precarious nature of attempting to discover the precise meaning of Hebrew names, see comments on 13:4–15. The meaning we may adduce for a biblical name is a bit tenuous, as the meaning cannot be determined by context in the same manner as with other nouns and verbs. Most of the suggested translations given here are from BDB. The argument for the antiquity of the list, based on the phenomenon of the patterns of formation, is significant because it is “substructural.” That is, if these lists were fraudulent concoctions from a later period (as critical scholars allege), the tendency would have been for the forger to use nominal patterns of the period of the writing—unless, of course, the creative forger knew that by using antique patterns of names he (she?) would fool later (modern?) readers!

16 The Hebrew word (nāśîʾ, “leader”; GK 5954) speaks of one who is “lifted up” or “selected.” The noun is derived from the verb (nāśāʾ, “to lift up”; GK 5951). The vowel pattern of this noun is the same as that for the word “prophet,” (nābîʾ). It presents a passive infix.

(c) The summary of the census (1:17–19)

17Moses and Aaron took these men whose names had been given, 18and they called the whole community together on the first day of the second month. The people indicated their ancestry by their clans and families, and the men twenty years old or more were listed by name, one by one, 19as the LORD commanded Moses. And so he counted them in the Desert of Sinai:

COMMENTARY

17 This verse indicates the leadership of Moses and Aaron in the task, as it does their obedience to the command of Yahweh. This chapter is marked by a studied triumphalism. Numbering the tribes and mustering the army were sacred functions that prepared the people for their war of conquest under the right hand of God, who was their Warrior (see Ex 15:3, “The LORD is a warrior”).

18 The expression “twenty years or more” is taken by Gershon Brin (“The Formulae ‘From . . . and Onward/Upward,’” JBL 99 [1980]: 161–71) to indicate generational identity; i.e., one who was under the age of twenty was still regarded as a member of his father’s house, while one over the age of twenty was an individual who was morally and civilly responsible.

19 Hebrew prose often gives a summary statement and follows with details that explicate the summary. This verse is that summary, and verses 20–43 present the details. Genesis 1:1 may be viewed as a similar summary statement, the details being given in the rest of the chapter.

(d) The listings of the census by each tribe (1:20–43)

20From the descendants of Reuben the firstborn son of Israel:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, one by one, according to the records of their clans and families. 21The number from the tribe of Reuben was 46,500.

22From the descendants of Simeon:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were counted and listed by name, one by one, according to the records of their clans and families. 23The number from the tribe of Simeon was 59,300.

24From the descendants of Gad:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 25The number from the tribe of Gad was 45,650.

26From the descendants of Judah:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 27The number from the tribe of Judah was 74,600.

28From the descendants of Issachar:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 29The number from the tribe of Issachar was 54,400.

30From the descendants of Zebulun:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 31The number from the tribe of Zebulun was 57,400.

32From the sons of Joseph:

From the descendants of Ephraim:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 33The number from the tribe of Ephraim was 40,500.

34From the descendants of Manasseh:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 35The number from the tribe of Manasseh was 32,200.

36From the descendants of Benjamin:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 37The number from the tribe of Benjamin was 35,400.

38From the descendants of Dan:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 39The number from the tribe of Dan was 62,700.

40From the descendants of Asher:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 41The number from the tribe of Asher was 41,500.

42From the descendants of Naphtali:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 43The number from the tribe of Naphtali was 53,400.

COMMENTARY

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. Noth, 21, places the issue darkly: “The main problem of the section 1.20–46 consists in the figures that are given. Their size, as is generally recognized, lies outside the sphere of what is historically acceptable. In no sense do they bear even a tolerable relationship to what we otherwise know of the strength of military conscription in the ancient East.”

More recently Budd, 6, concurs, “The central difficulty here is the impossibly large numbers of fighting men recorded. The historical difficulties in accepting the figure as it stands are insuperable.” More conservative writers concur. Here is an assessment by LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush (OTS–1996, 105):

Most cities that have been excavated [in Israel] cover sites of a few acres that could have housed a few thousand people at the most. At no time would Palestine [Israel] have had more than a few dozen towns of any significant size. Every bit of available evidence, biblical, extrabiblical, and archaeological, seems to discourage interpreting the numbers literally.

That the numbers for each of the tribes are rounded may be seen in that each unit is rounded to the hundreds (but Gad to the fifties [1:25]). A peculiarity in the numbers that leads some to believe they may be symbolic is that the hundreds are grouped between two hundred and seven hundred; there are no hundreds in zeros, one hundreds, eight hundreds, or nine hundreds. Yet whatever we may make of these factors, we may observe that 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 to six hundred thousand but was not (see 1:46; 2:32).

In this chapter the Hebrew word translated “thousand” (ʾelep) is clearly taken to mean one thousand for the total to be achieved in verse 46. Varied suggestions have been made (such as that by Noth) that demand the totals arose only in a later period in which there was confusion about the unusual meaning of the term ʾelep in this section. But that appears to be an attempt to play the game from two sides. The passage cannot have come from a later time (as is believed by documentarians; this is a “P text”!), and yet contain a misuse of the word ʾelep—at the time of the writing. (See the extensive treatment of this term in the Introduction: The Problem of the Large Numbers).

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, the traditional tribal number of twelve is maintained, and Joseph is given the “double portion” of the ranking heir of Jacob (cf. Ge 49:22–26; Dt 33:13–17). Second Kings 2:9 is also to be understood in this manner; Elisha was not asking Elijah that he might have double the power of his master or that he might do double the number of miracles of his mentor. Rather, of all the sons of the prophets who might wish to be regarded as the proper heir of Elijah, Elisha desired that honor for himself. The phrase “a double portion of your spirit” suggests the honor of the privileged son who would receive a double share of the inheritance of the father.

(e) The summary of the census (1:44–46)

44These were the men counted by Moses and Aaron and the twelve leaders of Israel, each one representing his family. 45All the Israelites twenty years old or more who were able to serve in Israel’s army were counted according to their families. 46The total number was 603,550.

COMMENTARY

44–46 As noted in the introduction, there appears to be no textual difficulty in the Hebrew tradition in the soundness of this large number (or the integers used to achieve it) for the census of the fighting men of Israel. The number 603,550 is the proper sum of the twelve components listed in verses 21–43. And there is no convincing unusual meaning suggested for the word “one thousand” (ʾelep).

The mathematics of these numbers is accurate and complex. It is 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 Exodus 12:37–38 (“about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children”) and in Exodus 38:26 (603,550 men of twenty years old or more). Furthermore, they relate well to the figures of the second census in Numbers 26:51 (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) of two million people.

There are at least three implications we may draw from this immense number: (1) Moses was responsible for this immense number of people in the most difficult of circumstances, the management task God gave to Moses being exceedingly demanding; (2) the demands on God’s providence (and overt miracle) were immense during the generation of wilderness sojourn; and (3) in the end, all those people who were numbered, along with the women and the other males not counted—all of them, excepting only Joshua and Caleb, would die in the wilderness because of their collective act of unbelief in the power of God and their lack of trust in his faithfulness to his promise.

Another concept related to these large numbers concerns the wonders in the 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. So numerous had the Hebrew people become that they were regarded as a threat to the security of Egypt (Ex 1:9–10, 20). Israel’s numerical growth from the seventy who entered Egypt (Ex 1:5) was an evidence of God’s great blessing and his faithfulness to his covenant with Abraham (Ge 12:2; 15:5; 17:4–6; 22:17). The growth of the nation was God’s benediction on them. As we are troubled with the immensity of the numbers, we should not neglect to reflect on this benediction the numbers present and respond to the Lord in gratitude.

It is not necessary to magnify difficulty in order to praise God. As we return to the difficulty of these numbers, we find ourselves concluding with most critical scholars and many conservative scholars that these numbers cannot be what they first appear to be. Yet because of the manner in which they are added together, we may find ourselves uncomfortable with those suggestions that speak of earlier understandings that the later scribes forgot. To speak of their adding hundreds and “thousands” as an “understandable error” is a troubling expression. Understandable error is still error.

So we return to the position suggested in the Introduction: The Problem of the Large Numbers. We may treat these numbers as “real” numbers (better, “common numbers”), even as the text appears to present them. The hundreds were added to the thousands as in all such sums. But these numbers (in terms of their addition) are numbers that were used for effect. I suggest there is a deliberate exaggeration, a rhetorical device used to give praise to God and hope to his people, of the sums for each tribe and hence for the total. By deliberately magnifying these numbers by a common factor (ten, the number of the digits), the writer was able to use them as “power words.” That is, the ancients who were the recipients of these words knew what we may have forgotten, that numbers may be used for purposes other than merely reporting data.

By deliberately exaggerating the numbers of the fighting men of the tribes of Israel, the point achieved was a type of “believers’ braggadocio!” The nation that had been crafted by God within the context of slavery and servitude was now a power to be reckoned with among the great powers of the ancient world. More, God had promised that the descendants of Abraham would outnumber the stars, would be more numerous than grains of sand on the shore of the sea. The unprecedented growth of the nation fulfilled numerous promises of God to the fathers (see Ge 17:2, 6; 22:17; 26:4; 28:14; 35:11; 48:4). Moses was able to use the patriarchal phrase of abundance as he recounted 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).

Moreover, the greatly inflated numbers promise greater things to come. One day, families of all nations will find their blessing in the same God who brought blessing to Abraham. One day the Seed of Abraham will be the Savior of the world. Big numbers at the beginning are a promise of even bigger numbers at the end! If numbers have ever been used for propaganda (!), here, it appears, is a biblical precedent for the exaggeration of numbers in praise of God.

We may ask: What is the role of deception in all this? The answer is simple, even if it may not be convincing to some. None of those who first read these words would have been deceived. All would have known that these “power numbers” far outstripped the acutal facts of the day. The appearance of deception arises only when the conventions of using numbers in these manners are forgotten.

Here is an example of the “proper role” of archaeology as it relates to the Bible. When surveys of excavated sites in the little land of Israel present city mounds (tells) that are measured in acres instead of in tens of miles squared, when actual house plans are surveyed within these city mounds and extrapolations are made of the numerical possibilities these ancient plots present—well, then, these and other considerations gel together to help one come to a reappraisal of the actual facts of the case. In the process we are in a discovery of the “original meaning” of the biblical text. For the “original meaning” does not just come in a parsing of verbs or a word study of nouns or a syntactical study of a clause—original meaning also includes the manner in which the ancient writers used these verbs, nouns, and clauses—and numbers.

Here is the clincher: how they used numbers was their concern! It is not up to modern readers to sit in judgment; our task is merely to understand, to appreciate, and then to begin to share with the ancients their joy in these exquisite numbers! Hence, in the alchemy of the mind in one’s new appreciation of numbers, we join them in their celebration.

(f) The reason for the exclusion of the Levites (1:47–54)

47The families of the tribe of Levi, however, were not counted along with the others. 48The LORD had said to Moses: 49“You must not count the tribe of Levi or include them in the census of the other Israelites. 50Instead, appoint the Levites to be in charge of the tabernacle of the Testimony—over all its furnishings and everything belonging to it. They are to carry the tabernacle and all its furnishings; they are to take care of it and encamp around it. 51Whenever the tabernacle is to move, the Levites are to take it down, and whenever the tabernacle is to be set up, the Levites shall do it. Anyone else who goes near it shall be put to death. 52The Israelites are to set up their tents by divisions, each man in his own camp under his own standard. 53The Levites, however, are to set up their tents around the tabernacle of the Testimony so that wrath will not fall on the Israelite community. The Levites are to be responsible for the care of the tabernacle of the Testimony.”

54The Israelites did all this just as the LORD commanded Moses.

COMMENTARY

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 discusses their families, numbers, and functions.

50 As in Exodus 38:21, the sanctuary is here called “the tabernacle of the Testimony.” The “Testimony” refers to the Ten Words (Ten Commandments) 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.). In Psalm 19:7[8] the Hebrew term ʿēdût (“testimony”; “statutes,” NIV) is used for the word of God in a more general sense but still with the background of the Ten Words of Exodus.

51–52 The Hebrew word hazzār, rendered “anyone else” (v.51), is often translated “stranger, alien, foreigner” (as in Isa 1:7; Hos 7:9). Thus a non-Levitical 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 Numbers 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 of the nearness of deity, and 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 trespassing by the laity (non-Levites) to keep them from incurring the wrath of God. The dwelling of the Levites around the central shrine 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 of Numbers, these words of initial compliance to God’s word have a special poignancy. Israel began so well, then failed so terribly; her experience remains a potent lesson to all people of faith who follow them. Ending well is the desire. Most racers get off the blocks reasonably well, but the winner is only certified as such at the end of the course.

ii. The placement of the tribes (2:1–34)

OVERVIEW

Chapter 2 has a symmetrically arranged structure (see Introduction: Outline). The details of this chapter are presented in studied orderliness as a literary exhibit of the physical symmetry expected of the peoples who would be encamped around the central shrine. As in the case of ch. 1, the details of this chapter seem to reflect the joy of the writer in knowing the relation each tribe has to the whole, each individual to the tribe, and the nation to the central shrine—and how all relate to the Lord Yahweh. Thus in some manner this chapter is another means of bringing glory to God. The book of Numbers should be read as a book of the worship of Yahweh! There is an element of pride, joy, and expectation in the seemingly routine matters of this chapter. Here was the place of encampment for each tribe in proximity to the Divine Presence, and from these camps the people would set out under the hand of God to enter the Land of Promise and take possession in his power. The chapter should be read with expectation that the conquest will be as orderly and purposeful as the place of camping in the wilderness.

There is a sense in which the orderliness of these early chapters of Numbers is akin to the orderliness of Genesis 1. As God has created the heavens and the earth and all that fills them with order, beauty, purpose, and wonder, so he constituted his people with order, beauty, purpose, and wonder. And as the heavens and earth may “praise” God in their responses to his commands (Ps 147:13–18), so the peoples of God may praise him in their responses to his commands (Ps 147:19–20). Indeed, his people must praise him.

Critical scholars respond to the orderliness and symmetry of this text in quite another manner. N. H. Snaith (Leviticus and Numbers [NCB; Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1967], 186), for example, regards the whole chapter “as an idealistic reconstruction to fit in with later religious ideas.” For such writers, the very beauty of the text becomes its downfall. For ourselves, let the beauty of the text be its strength and lead us to be reflective of the beauty of the Lord in the midst of his people.

(a) Summary command (2:1–2)

1The LORD said to Moses and Aaron: 2“The Israelites are to camp around the Tent of Meeting some distance from it, each man under his standard with the banners of his family.”

COMMENTARY

1 The standard pattern of formal Hebrew prose is followed in this chapter. First there is an announcement of the topic, and then come the details of that topic in an orderly presentation, followed finally by a summary of the whole. This type of organization must have been satisfying to the ancient writers by its giving a sense of wholeness, direction, and orderliness to an account. As in the case of ch. 1, material of this sort may fail to excite the modern reader. Yet if one pauses to think of the order and structure of the text, the underlying significance of the passage may be realized more easily. God is about to bring to pass a great marvel with his people, but it only will occur as they are rightly related to him and to one another.

The relatedness of the people round about the central shrine was the essence of their meaning as a people. Apart from this order, the Hebrews would have remained a disorganized group, nearly a mob—large, disorganized, unruly, and bound for disaster. With this pattern and the discipline and devotion it implied, there was the opportunity for grand victory. The order of the chapter is a promise of the fulfillment of the working of God in their midst. That Israel in fact did fail God is the sadder story, for he had given to them the means for full success.

This chapter begins with the announcement of the revelation of the Lord to Moses and Aaron (using the Hebrew verb dābar in the Hiphil, “to speak”). The more usual phrasing in the Torah is “And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,” as in 1:1. Here the words “and Aaron” are added, as in 4:1, 17; 14:26; 16:20; 19:1. A similar phrase (with a different Heb. verb, ʿāmar, “to say”: “And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron”) is found in 20:12, 23. The reference to Aaron along with his illustrious brother in this chapter 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, had the principal task of maintaining the purity, order, and organization of the work respecting the central shrine.

2 The Hebrew word order of verse 2 stresses the role of the individual in the context of the community; each one was to know his or her exact position within the camp. A more literal translation, following the studied order of the Hebrew original, follows:

Each by his standard,

by the banners of their fathers’ house,

the Israelites will encamp;

in a circuit some way off from the Tent of Meeting

they will encamp.

The repetition of the verb “will encamp” is for stately stress. Here was the meaning of the individual in Israel, and here was 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 one belonged in the larger group. Corporate solidarity in ancient Israel was a reality of daily life, but the individual was also very important. The words interplay in these texts: each individual/the people // the people/each individual.

The text stresses not just the relationship each person and each tribe was to have to the central shrine but also that no one was to approach the shrine too casually. The dwelling of the tribes was in a circuit about the shrine but at some distance from it. The Hebrew word minneged means “some way off” or “from a distance.” These words build on 1:52–53 and the protective grace of God, demanding a sufficient distance to serve as a protective barrier from any untoward approach to the shrine of the Divine Presence. The warning was to prevent the judgment of God that such an approach might provoke. Gerhard von Rad, 2:374–78, writes that all true knowledge of God begins with the assertion of his hiddenness. Too casual an approach betrayed too minimal a reverence.

Here we sense anew a recurring theme in the Torah: God’s holiness may not be forgotten by his people, but his grace is protective for them. His desire was not to destroy the unwary but to protect such from their own folly—and to demonstrate the wonder of his person in the midst of their camp.

God could have maintained “distance” between himself and the people, thus rendering the warning unnecessary. Then no one would be in danger of harm. The true believer, however, so caught up with the wonder of knowing that the God of the whole universe was present in some mysterious way in the midst of the encampment of the people of the new Israel, would seek to learn to live with the mystery of God’s awesome presence. The fright of danger could be lost in the sense of the proximity of his glory and the nearness of his grace.

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 breastpiece of the high priest (Ex 28:15–21). Further, this tradition holds 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 the four living creatures described in Eze 1:10; cf. Rev 4:7). These traditions are late, however, and difficult to substantiate; Torah does not describe the nature or designs of the banners of Numbers 2 (see KD 3:17).

(b) Details of execution (2:3–33)

(i) Eastern encampment (2:3–9)

OVERVIEW

In ch. 1 the nation was mustered and the genealogical relationships clarified. In ch. 2 the nation was set in structural order; further, the line of march and the place of encampment were established. The numbers of ch. 1 are given in new patterns of arrangement—four sets of triads—but they are the same numbers. The repetition of these grand sums of each tribe is a further reflection of the grace of God in their increase during their sojourn in Egypt. The numbers in chs. 1 and 2 are in agreement; if one offers ways to change the seemingly clear sense of the numbers in ch. 1, then that person also has to deal with the repetitions in this chapter. The same leaders of ch. 1 figure again here and also in 10:14–28. The listing of their names is a matter of significant honor; it is also a matter of sadness. These names were not forgotten in Israel, but their lives were lost in the wilderness, far from the land of God’s gracious promise.

3On the east, toward the sunrise, the divisions of the camp of Judah are to encamp under their standard. The leader of the people of Judah is Nahshon son of Amminadab. 4His division numbers 74,600.

5The tribe of Issachar will camp next to them. The leader of the people of Issachar is Nethanel son of Zuar. 6His division numbers 54,400.

7The tribe of Zebulun will be next. The leader of the people of Zebulun is Eliab son of Helon. 8His division numbers 57,400.

9All the men assigned to the camp of Judah, according to their divisions, number 186,400. They will set out first.

COMMENTARY

3–9 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 remembered as Jacob’s firstborn son (1:20). However, because of the perfidy of the three older brothers (Reuben, Simeon, and Levi; see Ge 49:3–7), Judah was ascendant and was granted pride of place among his brothers (49:8). Judah became scion of the royal line in which the Messiah would be born (49:10; Ru 4:18–21; Mt 1:1–16).

Further, the placement on the east was significant in Israel’s thought. 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 ocean and the descent of the sun. The ancient Hebrew people were not a seafaring folk like the Phoenicians and the Egyptians. 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, the father of the royal house that leads to King Messiah.

(ii) Southern encampment (2:10–16)

10On the south will be the divisions of the camp of Reuben under their standard. The leader of the people of Reuben is Elizur son of Shedeur. 11His division numbers 46,500.

12The tribe of Simeon will camp next to them. The leader of the people of Simeon is Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai. 13His division numbers 59,300.

14The tribe of Gad will be next. The leader of the people of Gad is Eliasaph son of Deuel. 15His division numbers 45,650.

16All the men assigned to the camp of Reuben, according to their divisions, number 151,450. They will set out second.

COMMENTARY

10–16 Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn son, led the second triad, on the south. As one’s stance in facing eastward has the south on the right hand, there was a secondary honor given to the tribes associated with Reuben. He was joined by Simeon, the second son of Jacob by Leah. Levi, Leah’s third son, was not included with the divisions of the congregation but was 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.

NOTE

14 There is a well-known textual difficulty in 1:14 and 2:14 respecting the name (d^eʿû ʾēl, “Deuel”). The MT actually reads (r^eʿû ʾēl, “Reuel”) here in 2:14 but has “Deuel” in 1:14 and in 7:42. The Hebrew letters dalet (d) and resh (r) were confused at times by scribes because of their similarity in form. See the NIV’s margin on Genesis 10:4, where a similar problem is presented by the name Rodanim versus Dodanim. Other MSS of the MT, along with the versions, read “Deuel” here in 2:14, which reading I suspect is the superior one.

(iii) Tent and the Levites (2:17)

17Then the Tent of Meeting and the camp of the Levites will set out in the middle of the camps. They will set out in the same order as they encamp, each in his own place under his standard.

COMMENTARY

17 The tent here is the tabernacle—the great Tent of Meeting in the center of the encampment. This was representative of Yahweh’s presence within the heart of the camp. It is a change from Exodus 33:7–11. Then Moses’ personal tent (see Note) was without the camp, and Moses would go outside the camp to seek the word of God. Here the tent is within the camp, and all Israel was positioned around it. Earlier, the Lord would “come down” from time to time; here he was 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 was on the mountain of Sinai; then he came to the tent outside the camp; then he indwelt 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 an even greater realization of the presence of the person of God dwelling in the midst of his people in the new Jerusalem (Rev 21:1–4). The story of the Bible is largely the story of the progressive revelation of God among his people (Heilsgeschichte—“the history of salvation,” in the “good sense”) and the progressive preparation of a people to be fit to live in his presence.

This verse relates not only to the manner of encampment but especially to the manner of their march. On the line of march the triads of Judah and Reuben would lead the community; next would come the tabernacle with the attendant protective hedge of Levites (see 1:53); then would come the triads of Ephraim and Dan. In this way there was not only the sense of the indwelling presence of God in the midst of the people, there was also the sense that the people in their families and tribes were protecting before and behind the shrine of his presence.

NOTE

17 Some critical scholars have made much of the position of the tent within or without the camp as a means of distinguishing putative sources (JE, the tent without the camp as a source of revelation; P, the tent within the camp as a place of worship). Yet James Orr (The Problem of the Old Testament Considered with reference to Recent Criticism [New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1906], 165–70) showed long ago that the texts agree that it was God’s intention that the regular placement of the tent was to be within the camp, both for revelation and for worship.

(iv) Western encampment (2:18–24)

18On the west will be the divisions of the camp of Ephraim under their standard. The leader of the people of Ephraim is Elishama son of Ammihud. 19His division numbers 40,500.

20The tribe of Manasseh will be next to them. The leader of the people of Manasseh is Gamaliel son of Pedahzur. 21His division numbers 32,200.

22The tribe of Benjamin will be next. The leader of the people of Benjamin is Abidan son of Gideoni. 23His division numbers 35,400.

24All the men assigned to the camp of Ephraim, according to their divisions, number 108,100. They will set out third.

COMMENTARY

18–24 The tribes descended from Rachel 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 was ahead of Manasseh. Benjamin came last—the lastborn son of Jacob, Joseph’s younger brother, on whom the aged father doted after the presumed death of Joseph.

(v) Northern encampment (2:25–31)

25On the north will be the divisions of the camp of Dan, under their standard. The leader of the people of Dan is Ahiezer son of Ammishaddai. 26His division numbers 62,700.

27The tribe of Asher will camp next to them. The leader of the people of Asher is Pagiel son of Ocran. 28His division numbers 41,500.

29The tribe of Naphtali will be next. The leader of the people of Naphtali is Ahira son of Enan. 30His division numbers 53,400.

31All the men assigned to the camp of Dan number 157,600. They will set out last, under their standards.

COMMENTARY

25–31 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 northern 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.

(vi) Summary totals (2:32–33)

32These are the Israelites, counted according to their families. All those in the camps, by their divisions, number 603,550. 33The Levites, however, were not counted along with the other Israelites, as the LORD commanded Moses.

COMMENTARY

32–33 These verses conform to and summarize 1:44–53. The total number is the same as in 1:46 (see Introduction), and the distinction of the Levites is maintained (see comments on 1:47–53). The arrangement of the numbers of the tribes in triads (each with subtotals, as well as the grand total for the whole) signifies the concept of stability in these large numbers in the text. Suggestions to reduce the numbers to obtain a “more manageable” portrait should be presented with due care for all the citations, not just a few. Kitchen’s suggestions, for example, may be seen as an effective way to lower the gross numbers drastically; but his approach does not appear to manage subsidiary numbers (see Introduction: The Problem of the Large Numbers).

(c) Summary conclusion (2:34)

34So the Israelites did everything the LORD commanded Moses; that is the way they encamped under their standards, and that is the way they set out, each with his clan and family.

COMMENTARY

34 As in 1:54, 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. Certainly the text points to the mercy of God and his blessing on the people. 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).

Fittingly, Balaam’s words—the gasp of an outsider—became among the most treasured in the community. Cyrus Gordon wrote of them, “They have remained the most cherished passages in Scripture throughout Synagogue history” (Before the Bible: The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations [London: Collins, 1962], 41). In receiving praise from the outsider Balaam, the order and beauty of the camp must continue to stir the heart of the faithful to exhibit even more robust praise. Again the book of Numbers, despite our initial misgivings, is a book of worship.

NOTE

34 The diagram of the camp (with an eastern orientation!) would look like this:

iii. The placement and the numbers of the Levites and firstborn of Israel (3:1–51)

OVERVIEW

The notion of order continues to lace itself unabatedly through this chapter. When the reader slows down to the pace of the text, he or she begins to discover something of the beauty and dignity of these chapters. True, no one would confuse these texts with great literature (but there are texts of sublime artistry in the book; see the Balaam cycle, 22:2–24:25). Dillard and Longman (AIOT, 87) write, “The book of Numbers is not among the literary high points of the Old Testament.” There is nothing in these texts about story, characterization, emotive depth, or literary finesse. These chapters are neither psalm nor proverb, neither oracle nor epic.

This is not to say, however, that these early chapters of Numbers are not written well—for indeed they are. They have about them a stately grace, a dignity, 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 the reader may feel is one of overwhelming burden. But these chapters do not speak of burden at all. There is about them a sense of calm control—the control of God himself. In these chapters is an implied call to order in our own lives and affairs—a call that may cut some of us deeply who have grown accustomed to the disaster of disorder.

Not only is each chapter marked by order, but so also is the placement of these several chapters in the book. The first chapter of Numbers records the organization of the nation of Israel along the lines of family, clan, and tribe, with leaders for each tribe and the totals of the fighting men for each of the tribes. Chapter 2 shows how the various tribes are arranged around the central shrine in their encampments. In the midst of the tribes was the shrine, and about the shrine were the priestly and Levitical families who served as a protective hedge for the laity (non-Levites) and as the authorized personnel admitted to handle sacred things on behalf of the people. In ch. 3 we draw closer to the center and observe the families and their numbers who made up these cultic personnel.

(a) The family of Aaron and Moses (3:1–4)

1This is the account of the family of Aaron and Moses at the time the LORD talked with Moses on Mount Sinai.

2The names of the sons of Aaron were Nadab the firstborn and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. 3Those were the names of Aaron’s sons, the anointed priests, who were ordained to serve as priests. 4Nadab and Abihu, however, fell dead before the LORD when they made an offering with unauthorized fire before him in the Desert of Sinai. They had no sons; so only Eleazar and Ithamar served as priests during the lifetime of their father Aaron.

COMMENTARY

1–2 At first blush the wording “the family of Aaron and Moses” (v.1) seems out of order because of the normal placing of Moses before Aaron. But the emphasis is correct: it is the family of Aaron that is about to be described (see v.2). The genealogy of Exodus 6:16–20 (cf. 1Ch 6:1–3) suggests that Aaron and Moses were the (immediate) sons of Amram and Jochebed. However, it is likely that portrayal of this picture is incomplete (a common practice among the writers of these lists in the Bible, and one that must be kept in mind in reading all biblical genealogies, including those of Genesis and Matthew). Amram and his wife-aunt Jochebed were likely more remote ancestors of Aaron and Moses.

At the time of the exodus, there were numerous descendants of Amram, as we learn in this chapter (v.27). Moses’ and Aaron’s sister, Miriam, was the oldest of the three siblings. It was she who kept watch over the infant Moses when he was placed in his boat in the reeds of the Nile (Ex 2:4). Aaron was three years older than Moses (Ex 7:7). 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).

Olson, 98–114, has remarked on the singular importance of the Hebrew term tôl^edōt(“generations”; “account of the family,” NIV; GK 9352) in verse 1. He regards the phrase “these are the generations of Aaron and Moses” to be the principal link that ties the books of the Pentateuch together. This use of the word tôl^edōt harks back to the eleven times it is used in the book of Genesis (see Notes). He states (108):

For the first time after the formative events of the exodus deliverance and the revelation on Mount Sinai, the people of Israel are organized into a holy people on the march under the leadership of Aaron and Moses with the priests and Levites at the center of the camp. A whole new chapter has opened in the life of the people of Israel, and this new beginning is marked by the tôl^edōt formula.

Then Olson, 114, presents the structure of the books of Genesis through Numbers based on the term tôl^edōt (presented below with slight alteration).

1. I. Genesis: The first generations of God’s people to whom the promises were made, and the tôl^edōt of each succeeding generation up to the tôl^edōt of Jacob
2. II. Exodus: The first generation of God’s people who experienced the exodus out of Egypt and God’s revelation at Mount Sinai; the tôl^edōt of Jacob
3. III. Leviticus: Further instructions to the generations of the exodus and Sinai; the tôl^edōt of Jacob continued
4. IV. Numbers: The death of the old generation and the birth of the new
   1. A. The continuation of the tôl^edot of Jacob and the introduction of the tôl^edōt of Aaron and Moses (Nu 1–25)
   2. B. The continuation of the tôl^edōt of Jacob and the tôl^edōt of Aaron and Moses into a new generation (Nu 26–36)

3 Exodus 28:41 records God’s command to Moses to anoint his brother, Aaron, and his sons as priests of Yahweh (see Ex 30:30; Lev 8:30). This solemn act gave recognition to 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. Olive oil was used commonly to anoint prophets (1Ki 19:16) and kings (1Sa 16:13) for special service to God; but apparently so was the oil of the ancient persimmon (called “balsam” by Greek writers). There is a report of a discovery of a Herodian jug still containing once-fragrant oil of the type used to anoint the kings of Judah. It was found buried in one of the Qumran caves in 1988. In this case the fragrance of the ancient oil came from the (now extinct) ancient persimmon (cf. Joel Brinkley, “Ancient Balm for Anointing Kings Found,” New York Times Service [Feb. 16, 1989]).

Inanimate objects could be anointed as well, for example, the stone at Bethel (Ge 28:18) and the altar of the tabernacle (Ex 29:36). The general Hebrew term meaning “anointed one” (māšîaḥ; GK 5417) became in time the specific term for the Messiah (Christ). While many individuals may be anointed (and be a “messiah”), it is Jesus alone who is the Messiah, the Anointed One, who fulfills all God’s covenantal promises.

This anointing led naturally to being ordained. The Hebrew idiom “who were ordained” literally reads, “to fill the hand” (ʾ^ašer-millēʾ yādām l^ekahēn, “those whom—he filled their hands—as priest”; see also Ex 29:9; 32:29). The act was an investing of authority, a consecration, and a setting apart. The hands of the anointed ones were filled with an awesome sense of the presence of the divine mystery. These were men of moment, servants of God.

4 For the primary story of Nadab and Abihu, see Leviticus 10:1–2. The accentuation of Numbers 3:2 indicates that Aaron may still have been grieving for his firstborn son, Nadab. The accents lead to the following punctuation: “Now these are the names of the sons of Aaron: the firstborn, Nadab; also Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.” Hirsch, 23, observes, “It is as if the report pauses painfully over Nadab, then lingers on Abihu and then quickly adds Eleazar and Ithamar.” Nadab is given double “honor” in this wording; he is identified as the firstborn, and the accents set his name off from those of his brothers. It is for these reasons that the mysterious report of the sin of Nadab and Abihu is so trenchant to us—and remained so to Aaron!

“Unauthorized fire” translates a Hebrew expression (ʾēš zārâ, “strange fire, alien fire”)—a term that seems deliberately obscure. It is as though the narrator found the concept to be distasteful. This is not unlike the reserve of the Torah in detailing the nuances of the notorious scandal of the behavior of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1–4. The essential issue here is that Nadab and Abihu were using fire that the Lord had not commanded (Lev 10:1). The pain of the 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. Were they rebellious or presumptuous? Were they careless or ignorant? Or was their sin some combination of these and other things? The prohibition of wine and beer to the priests in their priestly service, directed in the subsequent text (Lev 10:8–11), may lead us to infer that these sons of Aaron had 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.” Leviticus 10:2 specifies more fully: “So fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.” This wording suggests that Yahweh may have used a bolt of lightning; the same seems to be the case of the fire from Yahweh that consumed the offering and the altar of Elijah on Mount Carmel (1Ki 18:38). There is tragic poetic justice that these wicked priests who used unauthorized fire in the worship of the Lord were themselves destroyed by fire from his presence.

Nadab’s and Abihu’s fate was made even sadder, from a cultural point of view, in that they did not leave sons 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 was 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 was extended through the two younger sons, Eleazar and Ithamar (see 1Ch 24:1–4), who continued to minister throughout the lifetime of Aaron.

NOTES

1 (tôl^edôt, “the account of” or “family histories”) is used as the organizing principle of the book of Genesis, where it occurs ten times—at the beginning of each main section (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1 [with a repetition for emphasis at 36:9]; 37:2).

3 (hamm^ešuḥîm, “the anointed ones,” a plural old Qal passive participle) is related to the verb (māšaḥ, “to anoint, consecrate”); see Notes at 7:1; 18:8.

4 On the idea of regarding things too casually, Western Christians may learn lessons from emerging Christian communities in non-Western lands. In a preaching and teaching ministry in Thailand, I found that there were printed cards given to American ministers requesting that they not place their Bibles on the floor. “It is a holy book,” the gentle reminder said.

REFLECTION

All the commands for obedience on the part of the priests beginning in Leviticus 8:1 leave us unprepared for the rash disobedience of the older sons of Aaron. The story is shocking. It is marked by the pathos of a father forbidden to grieve over the death of his sons (Lev 10:3–7). The lesson was starkly evident: proximity to the holiness of God placed tremendous demands of righteousness, exactitude, and obedience on his priests. For all time the deaths of Aaron’s newly consecrated sons should warn God’s ministers of the awesome seriousness of their tasks (see also 1Sa 2:12–17, 22–25, 27–36; 3:11–14; 4:1–11). The most common reports of failure we hear of God’s ministers in our own day are of their malfeasance, indolence, greed, lust, and abuse of power. Tragically the lessons of the past are forgotten with frightful ease. The spiritual descendants of Nadab and Abihu continue to occupy the ranks of the “ministers” of God.

The reference to Nadab and Abihu serves another purpose: it sets the tone for the seriousness of the priestly and Levitical duties this chapter presents. If a person who had no right to be in the proximity of the central shrine, or near its holy things, happened to come near, that person might die. This warning is given repeatedly (Nu 1:51, 53; 2:2, “some distance from it”). A person who came near without authorization was like a stranger, an alien; such a person had no right to approach and might lose his or her life by doing so. But those whose proper place was in the proximity of holy things and near the holy shrine were themselves under warning. They were also to take care, for opportunity for sin was enhanced by their familiarity with holy things.

It is ever this way. Some preachers tend to tell jokes about the Bible, to use the Lord’s name casually, to speak light-heartedly of the institutions of the Lord. Often devout laypeople have a higher sense of reverence for the things of God than those whose job it is to handle those things reverently but who deal with them routinely (see Notes).

(b) The duties for the Levites (3:5–10)

5The LORD said to Moses, 6“Bring the tribe of Levi and present them to Aaron the priest to assist him. 7They are to perform duties for him and for the whole community at the Tent of Meeting by doing the work of the tabernacle. 8They are to take care of all the furnishings of the Tent of Meeting, fulfilling the obligations of the Israelites by doing the work of the tabernacle. 9Give the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they are the Israelites who are to be given wholly to him. 10Appoint Aaron and his sons to serve as priests; anyone else who approaches the sanctuary must be put to death.”

COMMENTARY

5–8 These commands are not followed by a report of obedience, as were those in chs. 1 and 2, but further details are given in ch. 8. Clear distinctions are made here between the priestly house (the sons of Aaron) and the Levites. The latter were to be aids to the priests. The Levites served not only Aaron but also the entire nation in the process (vv.7–8). The Levites come out from among the nation; they were a part of the nation but were now distinct.

Interestingly, Moses is addressed in verse 5. He was 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” (v.6)—terminology for approaching 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 (v.7). Moreover, they were responsible for the tasks of moving the furnishings of the tabernacle at times when the camp would be on the move (v.8).

The key to the work of the Levites during times when the camp was not on the move may be in the words “perform duties for him” (v.7). The Hebrew phrase combines both verb and noun from the same root (w^ešomrû ʾet-mišmartô), a common form of emphasis in Hebrew rhetorical style. The basic meaning of the Hebrew verb šāmar is “to keep watch, guard.” Hence, as Wenham, 70, suggests, the Levites apparently had two tasks: to guard the holy things from affront by foolish people, and to care for the holy things when the people were on the move.

9 The Levites were subsidiary to the priests, as is made clear by the wording of this verse. The verse begins with a directive form of the verb “to give” (nātan), then uses an expression made emphatic by repetition (n^etûnim n^etûnim, “given given” (“wholly given,” NIV), an idiom for totality (Williams, Hebrew Syntax, sec. 16). Despite the textual difficulty in this passage (see Note), the issue here is service to Aaron (and through him to the Lord); in 8:16 it is to the Lord.

10 The warning of the death penalty of 1:51 is repeated. The Hebrew term hazzār is, literally, “the strange one” (“anyone else,” NIV), anyone lacking authorization. Service at the tabernacle could be performed only at the express command of God.

There is a special poignancy in this verse as it follows the paragraph reminding us of the deaths of Aaron’s sons. They were authorized persons and used unauthorized means. 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)? Wenham, 70, suggests that the Levites were those who were authorized to carry out the death penalty, to keep the wrath of God against untoward offenders of his majesty and holiness from breaking out against the entire camp. Numbers 25:7–8 presents a powerful example of this stricture. But there the protagonist was not a Levite but a priest, Phinehas, son of Eleazar. Perhaps the Levites in that occasion were so lax that Phinehas decided he had to work quickly himself or there would not be time to quell the evil that was right before the tent (see ch. 25).

NOTE

9 (lô, “to him”) is the reading in our text, but some MSS of the MT, Samaritan recension, and LXX read (lî, “to me”), as in 8:16. It appears that here the issue is service to Aaron; in 8:16 service is respecting the Lord.

(c) The separation of the Levites (3:11–13)

11The LORD also said to Moses, 12“I have taken the Levites from among the Israelites in place of the first male offspring of every Israelite woman. The Levites are mine, 13for all the firstborn are mine. When I struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, I set apart for myself every firstborn in Israel, whether man or animal. They are to be mine. I am the LORD.”

COMMENTARY

11–13 The Hebrew word taḥat (“in place of”; v.12) serves as a clear example of substitution in the Hebrew Scriptures (cf. Ge 22:13: “a ram . . . instead of his son”; cf. also Mt 20:28).

The MT has a grand emphasis on Yahweh as he speaks of himself and his work in these verses. The text uses the word “mine” (lî, “for myself”) four times in vv.12–13; in addition, note the emphatic “I” at the beginning of v.12, the concluding “I am the LORD,” and 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 among the people of Israel but were now designated to be the exclusive property of Yahweh (see Ex 13:2).

The last phrase of this section, “I am the LORD,” is a characteristic punctuation in the legislative portions of the Torah. These words add authority, significance, and weight to the text. This phrase 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. The phrase points to him and to his people in relationship to him, but it does so as a divine punctuation of the text.

(d) The census of the Levites (3:14–39)

(i) The principals (3:14–20)

14The LORD said to Moses in the Desert of Sinai, 15“Count the Levites by their families and clans. Count every male a month old or more.” 16So Moses counted them, as he was commanded by the word of the LORD.

17These were the names of the sons of Levi:

Gershon, Kohath and Merari.

18These were the names of the Gershonite clans:

Libni and Shimei.

19The Kohathite clans:

Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel.

20The Merarite clans:

Mahli and Mushi.

These were the Levite clans, according to their families.

COMMENTARY

14–20 The enumerating of the Levites corresponds to that of the other tribes in chs. 1–2, but this roster was to be done of males from the age of one month rather than twenty years. The Levites were not being mustered for war but for special service in the sacral precincts of the Lord. They 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 were numbered differently from the other tribes; (4) they were 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 their office as distinct from the rest of the people.

The obedience of Moses to the commands of God in these early texts of Numbers is explicit and total. These records of his obedience will serve to display the incongruity of his terrible lapse as described in 20:1–13. Also in 3:14–16 we have one of many texts in Numbers that speaks of the revelation of the word of God to his servant Moses. Those who minimize the role of Moses do so in the face of abundant, direct textual assertions to the contrary.

(ii) Gershon (3:21–26)

21To Gershon belonged the clans of the Libnites and Shimeites; these were the Gershonite clans. 22The number of all the males a month old or more who were counted was 7,500. 23The Gershonite clans were to camp on the west, behind the tabernacle. 24The leader of the families of the Gershonites was Eliasaph son of Lael. 25At the Tent of Meeting the Gershonites were responsible for the care of the tabernacle and tent, its coverings, the curtain at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, 26the curtains of the courtyard, the curtain at the entrance to the courtyard surrounding the tabernacle and altar, and the ropes—and everything related to their use.

COMMENTARY

21–26 The words of 1:53—“their tents around the tabernacle of the Testimony”—are detailed by the four paragraphs in verses 21–38 (all describing Levitical families):

• Gershon to the west (vv.21–26);
• Kohath to the south (vv.27–32);
• Merari to the north (vv.33–37);
• Moses and Aaron and sons to the east (v.38).

In the laic (non-Levitical) tribes, the list begins with the most favored:

• Judah on the east (2:3);
• Reuben on the south (2:10);
• Ephraim on the west (2:18);
• Dan on the north (2:25).

In the Levitical clans, the listing moves up to the most favored, as noted above. The leaders of the Levitical houses correspond to the leaders of the laic 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). Also, as in the names listed in 1:5–15, these names show formations with the same building blocks, but not with the divine name Yahweh.

• Eliasaph (ʾelyāsāp, “[My] God Has Added”) son of Lael (lāʾēl, “Belonging to God”) (3:24)
• Elizaphan (ʾelîṣāpān, “[My] God Has Protected”) son of Uzziel (ʿuzzî ʾēl, “My Strength Is God”) (3:30)
• Zuriel (ṣûrî ʾēl, “My Rock Is God”) son of Abihail (ʾ^abîḥāyil, “My Father [God] Is Might”) (3:35)

Under the leadership of Eliasaph, the clan of Gershon was to camp on the west side of the tabernacle (v.23), that is, 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 numbered seventy-five hundred.

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); (3) and a third dividing off the Most Holy Place within the tent (4:5).

(iii) Kohath (3:27–32)

27To Kohath belonged the clans of the Amramites, Izharites, Hebronites and Uzzielites; these were the Kohathite clans. 28The number of all the males a month old or more was 8,600. The Kohathites were responsible for the care of the sanctuary. 29The Kohathite clans were to camp on the south side of the tabernacle. 30The leader of the families of the Kohathite clans was Elizaphan son of Uzziel. 31They were responsible for the care of the ark, the table, the lampstand, the altars, the articles of the sanctuary used in ministering, the curtain, and everything related to their use. 32The chief leader of the Levites was Eleazar son of Aaron, the priest. He was appointed over those who were responsible for the care of the sanctuary.

COMMENTARY

27–32 The Kohathites under the leadership of Elizaphan were to encamp on the southern side of the sanctuary. This clan, the largest of the Levitical families, had particular concerns for the care of the principal furnishings of the tabernacle, including the ark, the table, the lamps, and the altars, along with many implements of their service. Aaron’s son Eleazar, “the chief leader” (ûn^eśîʾ n^eśî ʾê hallēwî, lit., “the leader of the leaders of the Levite[s]”; v.32), was placed over this group of Levites, probably because of the inordinately sensitive nature of their work.

The term “Amramites” (v.27) reminds us of the family of Aaron and Moses. Aaron was an Amramite (see Ex 6:20). The presence of the family of the Amramites suggests that Amram was not the immediate father of Aaron, Miriam, and Moses but a notable 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).

The total number of Levites given in v.39 is 22,000, which is 300 fewer than the total of 7,500 Gershonites (v.22), 8,600 Kohathites (v.28), and 6,200 Merarites (v.34), together totaling 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). Because the totals of all other numbers in these chapters of Numbers are consistent, it is reasonable to assume a dysfunction in textual transmission in this instance. But the fact that there is a textual difficulty with a number here cannot be projected back to the numbers of ch. 1 as a way to evade the problems of the large numbers. For textual corruption to have been a factor, it would have to have happened on a scale unprecedented in the Bible. In this instance we have the proverbial exception that proves the rule.

(iv) Merari (3:33–37)

33To Merari belonged the clans of the Mahlites and the Mushites; these were the Merarite clans. 34The number of all the males a month old or more who were counted was 6,200. 35The leader of the families of the Merarite clans was Zuriel son of Abihail; they were to camp on the north side of the tabernacle. 36The Merarites were appointed to take care of the frames of the tabernacle, its crossbars, posts, bases, all its equipment, and everything related to their use, 37as well as the posts of the surrounding courtyard with their bases, tent pegs and ropes.

COMMENTARY

33–37 The house of Merari, encamped on the northern side 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 was not nearly as glamorous as that of the other two companies of Levites. There was a consistency in that this house of the Levites was on the same side of the tent as the triad of tribes led by Dan.

(v) Moses and Aaron (3:38)

38Moses and Aaron and his sons were to camp to the east of the tabernacle, toward the sunrise, in front of the Tent of Meeting. They were responsible for the care of the sanctuary on behalf of the Israelites. Anyone else who approached the sanctuary was to be put to death.

COMMENTARY

38 Moses and Aaron had the most honored location, as we would expect. They guarded the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, and they did so facing the sun. There is a sense in which the opening of the tent best faces the east, for this was the direction of the encampment of the people. Later, when Solomon built the holy temple in Jerusalem, its entrance also faced eastward. The morning sun would shine first on the entrance of the Holy Place, as a symbol of the life-giving light of God, thus illumining the location of his presence.

Moses and Aaron were not placed in the posture of arrogance on the eastern side of the tabernacle; they were placed there for a representational ministry (“on behalf of the Israelites”). Theirs was an exclusive work but beneficent to the community. Service in the tabernacle was an act of mercy, a means for the people to come before God. Yet it was marked by severity—all had to be done in God’s way! God receives the worship of his people only because of his mercy. The sovereignty of God was evident in his limitations on the means to approach him. The “stranger” (hazzār; “anyone else,” NIV) could be a better man or woman, more pious and devout than a given descendant of Aaron; yet he or she would still face death in the case of actions based on presumption. The warning of death to the “stranger” is found four times in the book (see 1:51; 3:10, 38; 18:7).

(vi) The sum (3:39)

39The total number of Levites counted at the LORD’s command by Moses and Aaron according to their clans, including every male a month old or more, was 22,000.

COMMENTARY

39 Concerning the grand sum of 22,000 Levites, we observe first of all that this is a bit small compared with the numbers given for the other tribes in ch. 1. (There is consistency, however, when this number is compared to the 23,000 Levites in the second census; see 26:62.) The sum 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.

The single, most difficult issue in the numbers of the tribes is the relative fewness of Levites compared to the other tribes. This case remains true however we interpret the meaning of these numbers. If we suggest that the numbers of the other tribes were deliberately inflated by a factor of ten (see Introduction), then the totals for Reuben would be 4,650 and for Simeon 5,930 from the age of twenty and upward. The smallest of the laic tribes would be Benjamin at 3,400; the largest Judah, with 7,400. If we assume that the numbers for the tribe of Levi are similarly inflated, they would number 2,200—again a small number with respect to the other tribes. If we were to regard the number for the tribe of Levi as the only noninflated figure of the tribes of Israel, then the 22,000 males over the age of one month would suggest a tribe that was large—indeed, they would become the largest tribe of all.

Even with the priest-centeredness of the book of Numbers, we would be surprised to find a number this large in proportion to the whole for the tribe of Levi. The smaller figure, then, of 2,200 seems the more reasonable. John Wenham suggests the number (22,000) of the tribe of Levi is likely inflated by a factor of ten (see Introduction). This number, too, would have been rhetorically exaggerated as a power number (see Introduction for a description of this concept).

NOTE

39 The word (w^eʾah^arōn, “and Aaron”) has a dot or point (puncta extraordinarius) over each letter of the word, thus indicating doubt on the part of ancient scribes as to the inclusion of Aaron’s name in this verse. This word is one of fifteen words in MT marked with these superior dots; three of the other examples are in Numbers (9:10; 21:30; 29:15). The presence of these dots over a questionable word (or a letter of a word) the scribes were loath to drop completely shows the level of care and concern for the minutiae of the text by the Jewish scholars through the ages. The word “Aaron” is lacking in numerous Hebrew MSS of 3:39 as well as in the Samaritan recension and the Syriac, but it is included in the LXX. It may have been included here because of the presence of the name “Aaron” at the beginning of the chapter and in 4:1. The great authority on minutiae of MT was the nineteenth-century Hebrew Christian scholar Christian D. Ginsburg, whose book Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible was first published in 1897. He explains the issue here as a scribal dispute as to whether Moses alone was to number the Levites (as 3:14–16 might suggest), or whether Moses was to be joined by Aaron in doing so (as in 4:41, 45–46; cf. 1:3–4; ibid., 328–29).

(e) The census and redemption of the firstborn (3:40–51)

(i) The census (3:40–43)

40The LORD said to Moses, “Count all the firstborn Israelite males who are a month old or more and make a list of their names. 41Take the Levites for me in place of all the firstborn of the Israelites, and the livestock of the Levites in place of all the firstborn of the livestock of the Israelites. I am the LORD.”

42So Moses counted all the firstborn of the Israelites, as the LORD commanded him. 43The total number of firstborn males a month old or more, listed by name, was 22,273.

COMMENTARY

40–43 This pivotal passage centers on the concept of redemption of the firstborn in Israel. This first paragraph may be judged to be the most significant passage in Numbers with respect to our understanding of the issue of how numbers are used in the census lists.

The basic teaching is that the male Levites over the age of one month were to be regarded by Yahweh as “belonging to him” as the payment of redemption for the firstborn of the nation. The firstborn of animals were to be sacrificed to the Lord, but God never countenanced the sacrifice of persons on his altars. Hence a substitution was made. A male Levite was regarded as a substitution for the firstborn member of a family in a non-Levitical tribe. Notice that the firstborn of the livestock were also included in the substitutionary arrangement: Levite for firstborn of Israel, and Levite’s livestock for firstborn livestock of Israel.

God’s command is specific in this text (v.40). There was to be a count of a discrete populace grouping, and the name of each individual was to be written down (“make a list”; cf. 1:2). The number of kol-b^ekôr zākār (“all the firstborn males”) of the Hebrew families came to 22,273 (v.43). This number stands out from all the other numbers in these three chapters. All the other numbers are rounded, including the total number of the Levites, 22,000. The number here is specific to the final digit. 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 males, for whom a redemption price had to be made (v.46).

As the number of firstborn Israelite males exceeded the number of the Levites by 273 (v.43), the remainder had to be redeemed by the payment of five shekels each (v.47; see 27:6). A question presents itself as to why the rounded number of the Levites (22,000) is posed against a specific number of the firstborn of Israel (22,273). Perhaps the rounded number was in accordance with the rounded numbers of the other tribes. This disparity in types of numbers allows the text to bear a significant lesson on redemption.

The number of the firstborn sons of Israel (22,273) is patently much too small for a population that is usually regarded to have been 2.5 million. Each mother would have had to give live births in excess of fifty children even to approach this grand sum! The disparity of this number of firstborn sons (22,273) to the “high” sums (2.5 million) is, frankly, impossible to sustain. This number appears to be the key for the problem of the large numbers in the book.

This number of firstborn sons would accord very well for a population of about 250,000 (one-tenth of the sum of the common view). Again, it is the only number in the series that is not rounded off—it stands out as a specific sum. This number presents the best opportunity for finding a means to reduce the huge sum of ch. 1.

Conservative writers who strive to defend the sense of the integrity of the Bible have had to find a way to deal with this surprisingly small number. The great nineteenth-century expositor C. F. Keil (3:9–11) proposed a solution for the seeming disparity. He argued that the 22,273 firstborn of Israel were those born since the time of the exodus, all the firstborn of Israel at the time of the exodus having already been sanctified to the Lord at the Passover (Ex 12:22–23). But this solution presents its own problem, “since nowhere is that allegedly distinct group assigned any special service of the Lord” (NIV Study Bible, note on 3:43). It also suggests some special pleading. There is no indication in the text that these firstborn were born after the exodus. Nor would it have been likely that anyone would have thought that this number of the firstborn of Israel was restricted to those born since the exodus—except in an attempt to deal with the (implausibly) large numbers of the population indicated in ch. 1 (see Notes).

With some temerity I suggest the following possibility, a proposal of an alternative way of thinking of these numbers. In this passage, we confront two difficulties: one concerns the disparity of a mere 22,273 firstborn sons in a population of several million; the other concerns the subtraction of a rounded number (22,000) from a specific number (22,273) and then making much of the difference between the two. Keil’s proposal was based on the postulate that the numbers of the conscripted troops of Israel were “ordinary numbers,” as were these two disputed numbers of 22,273 firstborn and 22,000 Levites of a certain age. Hence he had to deal with the unusually small number of firstborn sons of Israel for a population so very large. My suggestion is that the unexpectedly small number of the firstborn 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, specific and rhetorical. Although we normally do not use numbers in this way today, that fact is beside the point. Neither would we subtract a rounded number (22,000) from a specific number (22,273)—and then make a major point of the remainder (273). Yet this is precisely what this passage does!

My proposal, then, is that Moses here presents a comparison of numbers of different sorts. The one number is specific and exact (22,273); the other is rounded, inflated, rhetorical (22,000). The number of the firstborn of Israel (22,273) is a specific, concrete number of the firstborn of all the families of Israel in the first generation. This 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 (one specific, concrete; one inflated, rounded off) affords the opportunity to deal with the problem of a surplus.

The payment of a redemption price of five sanctuary shekels per individual teaches us that every individual needs to be accounted for, no matter how these numbers are used. That is, there is the possibility that the point of the passage is not the numbers per se but that which the numbers represent—the importance of paying the redemption price for each individual firstborn person in the young nation as a symbol of the redemption of each individual in the nation. The theology of the exodus demands that the nation as a whole be under the blood of the Passover, that the nation as a whole was rescued from Egypt, and that the nation as a whole was a part of the new community in relation to Yahweh. In the attention given to the 273 supernumeraries, there is a focus on the individuals who make up the nation. Certainly we are not interested in making any numerical symbolism of the number 273. The number is not as important as the issue the number represents: corporate solidarity and the importance of the individual are twin realities in the new community of Israel.

NOTES

41 The words (ʾ^anî yhwh, “I am the LORD”) add solemnity and emphasis. The phrase is intrusive in the original—startling and surprising, having the force: “Listen to ME!” What is being commanded conforms to God’s character, as expressed in his covenantal name, Yahweh.

43 The number 22,273, representing the firstborn sons among all the families of Israel is, as noted above, far too small for the 2.5 million people that conservative writers have sought to uphold, based on (good) convictions of inspiration and accuracy of the Word of God. One of the problems posed by the large numbers of people in this traditional standpoint is the idea of this massive populace—along with herds and flocks—living in the wilderness for a generation. We know about God’s provision of manna, but what were the provisions for the animals? I so admire Keil because of his clear desire to honor God’s Word. But he did engage in special pleading by suggesting that the conditions of the Sinai Peninsula “yielded much more subsistence in ancient times than is to be found there at present.” Such “paleo-agricultural” concepts—even if true—could not have been known in the late nineteenth century, when he wrote these words. At best, his assertion appears to be well-intentioned wishful thinking.

(ii) The redemption (3:44–51)

44The LORD also said to Moses, 45“Take the Levites in place of all the firstborn of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites in place of their livestock. The Levites are to be mine. I am the LORD. 46To redeem the 273 firstborn Israelites who exceed the number of the Levites, 47collect five shekels for each one, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. 48Give the money for the redemption of the additional Israelites to Aaron and his sons.”

49So Moses collected the redemption money from those who exceeded the number redeemed by the Levites. 50From the firstborn of the Israelites he collected silver weighing 1,365 shekels, according to the sanctuary shekel. 51Moses gave the redemption money to Aaron and his sons, as he was commanded by the word of the LORD.

COMMENTARY

44–51 To make up for the number of the firstborn Israelites beyond the number of the Levites, a special tax of five shekels (the price of a slave for a boy under the age of five; see 27:6) was to be paid for each of the 273 supernumeraries (see Note). This payment is 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 was a marvelous expression of God’s grace. Never since the story of the binding of Isaac (Ge 22) had God demanded the firstborn son of any of his people be slain as a sacrifice to his majesty. Nor did God demand that his people enslave themselves to him (cf. Ro 12:1–2). Nevertheless, the firstborn sons were the special possession of the Lord. God did not demand the life of these sons; such would be abhorrent to the Hebrew faith. God did not demand their enslavement; such would be a slight on his mercy. But he did demand their redemption—and provided the means for bringing it to pass.

We suspect the community paid the redemption price; it is possible that the families of those judged to be the supernumeraries may have had to pay this tax themselves. The resultant weight of the silver payment collected (1,365 shekels, v.50) is given as a statement of the impressive nature of the transaction and a witness to its accuracy (5 x 273). The pattern was one Levite for each firstborn, five shekels for each child beyond the number of the Levites. In this way each firstborn was accounted for in God’s plan of redemption.

Christians cannot help but turn their thoughts to the NT and the Savior who has redeemed his people—not by the payment of silver and gold, but with his own precious blood. And so we have been redeemed.

NOTE

47 In (ḥ^amēšet ḥ^amēšet, “five, five”), the duplication of the word is for distribution: “five from each,” as in Williams, Hebrew Syntax, sec. 15. Compare 29:15, “one tenth, one tenth.”

(š^eqālîm, “shekels”; GK 9203) is a problematic word, as the modern reader likely assumes that coins are in view here, as would be the case when monetary units are mentioned in the NT. In fact, coins did not come into use until the Persian period (the sixth century BC). All references to “shekels” in early OT narratives are actually describing “weighed” amounts of (precious) metals. The basic meaning of (šeqel) is “weight.” See David Hendin’s definitive work, Guide to Biblical Coins (4th ed.; New York: Amphora, 2001), 57–70 (“A Time before Coins”), with values by Herbert Kreindler; see also the photographic examples of ancient shekel weights on Plate 1 in the appendix.

iv. The numbers of the Levites in tabernacle service (4:1–49)

OVERVIEW

The sense of order and organization already observed in Numbers comes to its finest point in this chapter. Again we observe that the standard pattern in Hebrew prose is a movement from the general to the specific, from the broad to the particular. Chapters 1–4 follow this concept nicely. Chapter 1 presents the leaders and the numbers of the soldiers conscripted from each tribe; ch. 2 shows how each of the tribes is related to groupings surrounding the Tent of Meeting; ch. 3 gives the census of the Levitical males from one month and older and a listing of the Levites by their families; and ch. 4 presents the census of the Levites from twenty-five to fifty years of age and the work each family was to do. The chapters have moved from the nation as a whole to the particular families of the one tribe that has responsibility to maintain the symbols of Israel’s worship of the Lord. Each chapter gets more specific, narrower in focus, with the central emphasis on the worship of the Lord at the Tent of Meeting.

Another standard feature of Hebrew prose is to give a topic sentence, detail the particulars relating to that topic, and then conclude with a summary of the completion of the intended action. Genesis 1:1–2:3 is written in this way: 1:1 gives the topical sentence on creation, 1:2–31 details the creative actions of God, and 2:1–3 (or, better, 2:1–4a) summarizes God’s creative work. We find a variation on this same pattern nicely displayed in Numbers 4. In this case there is not a topical sentence but an extended command (vv.1–33) followed by a report of its execution (vv.34–45) and a summary (vv.46–49).

(a) The command for the census and a description of duties (4:1–33)

(i) The family of Kohath (4:1–20)

1The LORD said to Moses and Aaron: 2“Take a census of the Kohathite branch of the Levites by their clans and families. 3Count all the men from thirty to fifty years of age who come to serve in the work in the Tent of Meeting.

4“This is the work of the Kohathites in the Tent of Meeting: the care of the most holy things. 5When the camp is to move, Aaron and his sons are to go in and take down the shielding curtain and cover the ark of the Testimony with it. 6Then they are to cover this with hides of sea cows, spread a cloth of solid blue over that and put the poles in place.

7“Over the table of the Presence they are to spread a blue cloth and put on it the plates, dishes and bowls, and the jars for drink offerings; the bread that is continually there is to remain on it. 8Over these they are to spread a scarlet cloth, cover that with hides of sea cows and put its poles in place.

9“They are to take a blue cloth and cover the lampstand that is for light, together with its lamps, its wick trimmers and trays, and all its jars for the oil used to supply it. 10Then they are to wrap it and all its accessories in a covering of hides of sea cows and put it on a carrying frame.

11“Over the gold altar they are to spread a blue cloth and cover that with hides of sea cows and put its poles in place.

12“They are to take all the articles used for ministering in the sanctuary, wrap them in a blue cloth, cover that with hides of sea cows and put them on a carrying frame.

13“They are to remove the ashes from the bronze altar and spread a purple cloth over it. 14Then they are to place on it all the utensils used for ministering at the altar, including the firepans, meat forks, shovels and sprinkling bowls. Over it they are to spread a covering of hides of sea cows and put its poles in place.

15“After Aaron and his sons have finished covering the holy furnishings and all the holy articles, and when the camp is ready to move, the Kohathites are to come to do the carrying. But they must not touch the holy things or they will die. The Kohathites are to carry those things that are in the Tent of Meeting.

16“Eleazar son of Aaron, the priest, is to have charge of the oil for the light, the fragrant incense, the regular grain offering and the anointing oil. He is to be in charge of the entire tabernacle and everything in it, including its holy furnishings and articles.”

17The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 18“See that the Kohathite tribal clans are not cut off from the Levites. 19So that they may live and not die when they come near the most holy things, do this for them: Aaron and his sons are to go into the sanctuary and assign to each man his work and what he is to carry. 20But the Kohathites must not go in to look at the holy things, even for a moment, or they will die.”

COMMENTARY

1 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.21–26), Kohathites (vv.27–32), and Merarites (vv.33–37). The same order is given in the familial records of Jacob (Ge 46:11), Moses and Aaron (Ex 6:16), and the Levitites (1Ch 6:1, 16).

2 The order of the list of sons in the Bible is not necessarily that of birth order; but the consistent pattern Gershon, Kohath, and Merari suggests that birth order is intended. This makes the order of the Levitical families in Numbers 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 numberings 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 gave this family in proximity to the holiest things. Furthermore, this reflects a recurring pattern in the OT: 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. The pattern is found repeatedly in the Pentateuch and the subsequent historical narrative (Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over Reuben, Moses over Aaron, Saul and David over their respective brothers). It almost would seem that the standard place of ascendancy in God’s program was to be the second, or the younger, son!

3 The census in this chapter is distinct from that of ch. 3. Here the census is of all males from “thirty to fifty years of age.” In ch. 3 the census listed all males over the age of one month (v.15). The present chapter lists those Levites who are of the age to serve in the tabernacle. Of the 22,000 Levite males mentioned in 3:39, there are 8,580 of service age (v.48). If these numbers are to be reduced by a factor of ten (see comment on 3:39), then the corresponding numbers would be 2,200 and 858. From 8:24 we learn that the beginning age for service is twenty-five; perhaps the first five years are something of an apprenticeship.

Critical scholars seize on “contradictions” such as these as markers of confusion in the development of the putative P source. J. Alberto Soggin, for example (Introduction to the Old Testament [trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], 140), cites the contrasting ages for the Levites and differing offerings in similar texts and then concludes: “Even at the heart of P we have contradictions, duplicates and interpolations of compositions which clearly show signs of being of autonomous origin.” Yet there are other ways of dealing with the difficulties of these texts.

Along with the negative conclusions these approaches bring to the text in terms of its veracity are the damaging attitudes these approaches yield with respect to the artistry and beauty of the text. When a writer begins with P and then decides that P is made of numerous conflicting elements, which now become new centers of research, the sense of the whole of the text is lost. Variety of expression is not seen as stylistic creativity but as an indication of fracture; disagreements of parallel passages are not amenable to harmonization in the whole but are necessary components of a theory of the discovery of supposed parts. The result is the loss of Scripture—the loss as the authoritative Word of God as the living sword, sharp and active, as a beautiful expression of the person of God.

4–5 The paragraphs detailing the work of the Kohathites in their care of the most holy things (v.4) 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. These strictures are stunning. As the holy angels who surround the throne of the Divine Presence shield their faces and feet from his presence (cf. Isa 6:1–3), so the Kohathites were to shield themselves from too familiar an approach to the holiest of things (v.5), for the most holy things symbolize the presence of the most holy God.

All the work of the Kohathites was to be supervised strictly by Aaron and his sons; only the priests themselves were able to touch and look on the unveiled holy things. We presume that even they had to be extremely careful in this regard; the memory of the story of Nadab and Abihu still rings in our ears (see 3:2–4).

Several impressions emerge from the reading of this section:

(1) The sense of planning, order, and execution. Nothing in the holy things of God was to be left to chance or to improvisation. None of the sacred persons who ministered in his presence was to be unprepared or untaught. All the preparation suggests a rigorous training schedule before actual work would be done by a given priest. As noted above, this call for preparation may account for the distinction of twenty-five years of age in 8:24 and thirty years in 4:3. That intervening five-year period was presumably a time of intense internship.

(2) The sheer quantity and variety of the holy things. At times we have an impression of a crude, primitive nature of the worship patterns of ancient Israel, especially in the earliest periods. Yet if these texts adequately reflect the times of Moses, as a natural reading suggests, then the worship implements from the time of Moses were many and varied—and, we suspect, quite precious.

(3) The use of color, texture, and layers. Each of the covering curtains must have been impressive in color, texture, and design; but the variety of the coverings and their several uses speak of a legitimate enjoyment of luxury in worship and a celebration of the presence of God. The solid blue cloth, the scarlet cloth, the blue cloth, the gold altar, the bronze altar, the purple cloth, plus numerous hides, skins, and other cloths all present a wondrous delight in serving in the presence of God.

(4) The mobility and transportability of the tabernacle. A further impression is the sense we have that everything was movable. The tent was designed to be set up and taken down; it was a temporary abode.

(5) The sense of hierarchy among the workers, along with an affirmation of the sense of dignity of purpose and the importance of work in one’s life. Each individual was given a task to do (see v.33). Some tasks were more elegant than others, but every task had to be done.

6–15 Translators have had difficulty in identifying the precise nature of the “hides of sea cows” (i.e., the outer covering of the ark) and some of the other items of holy furniture. The Hebrew word rendered “sea cow” (taḥaš) is similar to the Arabic term for the dolphin; hence, porpoise-hide or hide of sea cows seems correct.

The use of dramatic colors in the elements of holy worship in Israel has led to speculation as to the symbolic interpretation each color represents; however, the fact that colors were emphasized at all may be more significant for some modern readers, who may tend to have a dour view of worship in ancient Israel and perhaps an unimaginative appreciation of color in their own worship tradition.

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, who attempted to keep the ark of the covenant from tumbling to the earth when David was having it brought to the city of Jerusalem (2Sa 6:6–7), was an unwitting test of the profound significance of these words.

16 The special functions of the high priest are specified in this section both as delimitation and as mercy to the other sacral persons. The priest had certain duties peculiar to his office that no one else might ever do. But in God’s mercy he did provide 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 God’s people. But it also presents a significant warning: any improper approach toward, touch of, or glance at the sacred things would mean death.

As in other instances of this sort, the underlying reason on God’s part may well have been mercy. It is through his mercy that God made himself known to anyone; through his continuing mercy he did not take the lives of more persons because of their wickedness; and through his condescending mercy he presented himself in their midst. The revelation of God’s word brought with it demands, some of which seem harsh and difficult. But God was near. Some demands seem so judgmental; yet God has not destroyed all. Some seem to be so threatening; yet God by his mercy allowed some sense of his presence to remain known in the camp. His manifestation was based on his mercy; his strictures allowed his mercy to continue to be realized.

NOTE

16 (hāmmišḥâ, “the anointing oil”) is a word related to the verb (māšaḥ, “to smear, anoint”); see the similar word (mošḥâ, “consecrated portion”) in 18:8 (see Note).

(ii) The family of Gershon (4:21–28)

21The LORD said to Moses, 22“Take a census also of the Gershonites by their families and clans. 23Count all the men from thirty to fifty years of age who come to serve in the work at the Tent of Meeting.

24“This is the service of the Gershonite clans as they work and carry burdens: 25They are to carry the curtains of the tabernacle, the Tent of Meeting, its covering and the outer covering of hides of sea cows, the curtains for the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, 26the curtains of the courtyard surrounding the tabernacle and altar, the curtain for the entrance, the ropes and all the equipment used in its service. The Gershonites are to do all that needs to be done with these things. 27All their service, whether carrying or doing other work, is to be done under the direction of Aaron and his sons. You shall assign to them as their responsibility all they are to carry. 28This is the service of the Gershonite clans at the Tent of Meeting. Their duties are to be under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron, the priest.

COMMENTARY

21–28 What we term “typical Hebrew stylistics” are displayed in this chapter, with its repetition and restatement—the very literary devices that classical criticism has taken in a wrong-headed direction. Repetition and restatement in the prose sections of the Bible may have a similar effect on the reader as the use of parallelism in the poetic portions. We are in an alien aesthetic when we come to passages such as this. Before arrogantly dismissing them, we should learn to understand their underlying values. Then we will be better able to appreciate these values.

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; the men of Kohath were not to touch or even look at 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 (v.28).

(iii) The family of Merari (4:29–33)

29“Count the Merarites by their clans and families. 30Count all the men from thirty to fifty years of age who come to serve in the work at the Tent of Meeting. 31This is their duty as they perform service at the Tent of Meeting: to carry the frames of the tabernacle, its crossbars, posts and bases, 32as well as the posts of the surrounding courtyard with their bases, tent pegs, ropes, all their equipment and everything related to their use. Assign to each man the specific things he is to carry. 33This is the service of the Merarite clans as they work at the Tent of Meeting under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron, the priest.”

COMMENTARY

29–33 Similar phrasing to the two other family units graces this section, with instructions that the family of Merari was to have their principal work 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 have been 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 (4:34–45)

34Moses, Aaron and the leaders of the community counted the Kohathites by their clans and families. 35All the men from thirty to fifty years of age who came to serve in the work in the Tent of Meeting, 36counted by clans, were 2,750. 37This was the total of all those in the Kohathite clans who served in the Tent of Meeting. Moses and Aaron counted them according to the LORD’s command through Moses.

38The Gershonites were counted by their clans and families. 39All the men from thirty to fifty years of age who came to serve in the work at the Tent of Meeting, 40counted by their clans and families, were 2,630. 41This was the total of those in the Gershonite clans who served at the Tent of Meeting. Moses and Aaron counted them according to the LORD’s command.

42The Merarites were counted by their clans and families. 43All the men from thirty to fifty years of age who came to serve in the work at the Tent of Meeting, 44counted by their clans, were 3,200. 45This was the total of those in the Merarite clans. Moses and Aaron counted them according to the LORD’s command through Moses.

COMMENTARY

34–45 The most notable thing in the census of the Levitical families in this section is the use of numbers. The numbers still appear to be rounded; but since the numbers are smaller than the numbers in ch. 1, the rounding is done to the tens: 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)

46So Moses, Aaron and the leaders of Israel counted all the Levites by their clans and families. 47All the men from thirty to fifty years of age who came to do the work of serving and carrying the Tent of Meeting 48numbered 8,580. 49At the LORD’s command through Moses, each was assigned his work and told what to carry.

Thus they were counted, as the LORD commanded Moses.

COMMENTARY

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. The addition of the three addends could be displayed as follows: 2,750 + 2,630 + 3,200 = 8,580—the total number of Levites who were mustered for the service of God in the Tent of Meeting. Again, if the theory of a tenfold inflation of these figures is presumed, then the numbers may be reduced to 275 + 263 + 320 = 858. In either case, the addition is the same.

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.” When the summary of actions of obedience is given as here, there is a sense in which the reader may derive satisfaction. When there is no summary, no record of final action, then questions arise: What is the point? Where is the obedience? What is the basic meaning?

b. Diverse Commands and Rituals in Preparation for the Triumphal March (5:1–10:10)

i. The test for purity and the law of jealousy (5:1–31)

OVERVIEW

The ordering, numbering, and structuring of the camp was completed at the end of ch. 4. Men of military age have been mustered for service (ch. 1); the secular tribes have been arranged around the central shrine (ch. 2); the Levites have been numbered, arranged around the inner core of the shrine (ch. 3) and given their appropriate duties in the management of the holy things (ch. 4). The next six and one half chapters present various commands for ritual purity within the camp—all necessary to the final preparations for the movement of the people through the wilderness and their journey on to their new home in the land of Canaan. This new stage—the setting forth of the holy people on their triumphal march—begins in 10:11.

The information in ch. 5 is especially interesting and is marked by symmetry of the chapter and its elements. There are three issues in this chapter: (1) a command of the Lord for expelling from the camp those who are ritually defiled (vv.1–4); (2) a command of the Lord for restitution for offenses against another person within the camp (vv.5–10); and (3) a command of the Lord for a ritual procedure in cases of marital jealousy (vv.11–31). Each section begins in precisely the same way and develops in a similar manner (though of uneven length): (1) an introductory monocolon with the command of the Lord to Moses (see vv.1, 5, 11); (2) a subordinate command for Moses to speak the command to the people (see vv.2a, 6a, 12a); (3) the substance of the command and its application in the life of the people (see vv.2b–3, 6b–8, 12b–28); (4) a concluding section on the command (see vv.4, 10, 29–31).

The introductory commands of the Lord to Moses (vv.1, 5, 11) are not to be read merely as stylistic devices to introduce a new subject, though this is one function of this phrasing. Reverent readers find in the wording, “And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying . . . ,” a recurring emphasis on the divine origin of these texts and a repeated emphasis that Yahweh has taken the initiative in communicating his word to his people through his servant Moses. There are some passages and narratives that were provoked by the inquiry of the people, and the response of the Lord is forthcoming (see, e.g., the story of the daughters of Zelophehad, ch. 27). But the customary pattern in Torah is the initiation of God in his gracious self-disclosure and in the presentation of his will for the good of his people.

Further, the subordinate commands for Moses to relate the word of the Lord to the people (vv.2a, 6a, 12a) present three aspects of the divine communication: (1) Moses is the prophet of Yahweh, the great nābîʾ—one who was called by God and who spoke for him; (2) the commands of God were to be disseminated throughout the community, not reserved for Moses or some elite few in an inner circle; and (3) the words of God were to be presented to the people as authoritative commands, not just as divine suggestions (“command the Israelites,” v.2a; “speak to the Israelites,” v.6a; “speak to the Israelites and say to them,” v.12a).

(a) The expulsion of the impure from the camp (5:1–4)

1The LORD said to Moses, 2“Command the Israelites to send away from the camp anyone who has an infectious skin disease or a discharge of any kind, or who is ceremonially unclean because of a dead body. 3Send away male and female alike; send them outside the camp so they will not defile their camp, where I dwell among them.” 4The Israelites did this; they sent them outside the camp. They did just as the LORD had instructed Moses.

COMMENTARY

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 a person unclean. Such persons were regarded as unfit to be in the community and were potential contaminants of the tabernacle and the pure worship of the Lord. They were to be excluded from the community during the period of their malady. This brief paragraph uses the verb šālaḥ (“to send away, expel”) no fewer than four times in vv.1–4. The emphasis on this strong verb points to the seriousness of the situation: such people must be expelled.

The OT concept of “uncleanness” is hard for the modern, Western reader to understand. We may think of the idea of “unclean” as meaning “dirty” or “soiled.” In Scripture, the idea of “unclean” has more to do with being “unfit, unsuitable”—unfit in the realm of the purity of the rule of God. Aspects of uncleanness were not left in the arena of the abstract or theoretical; the focus was on tangible issues such as clearly evident skin diseases. It is implied that the priests were the agents for dismissing the unclean from the congregation—and agents for readmitting the cleansed.

The Hebrew word for “skin disease” (ṣārûaʿ, Qal passive participle from ṣāraʿ; GK 7665; v.2) has traditionally been translated “leper, one struck with leprosy.” A view commonly held today is that this word was not used in the Bible to describe what we know as leprosy, usually termed “Hansen’s disease” (but see Note). John Wilkinson has described the biblical data in clinical terms (“Leprosy and Leviticus: The Problem of Description and Identification,” SJT 30 [1984]: 153–69). The verb ṣāraʿ and the corresponding noun ṣāraʿat (used esp. in Lev 13) do not seem to describe one specific disease but a number of complex disorders of the skin, including swellings, eruptions, spots, and itches (see Lev 13:2). These disorders are further described in terms of five secondary features: change of skin color, change of hair color, infiltration of the skin, extension or spread in the skin, and ulceration of the skin.

Some modern interpreters have attempted to give precise identifications of these various diseases. E. V. Hulse (“The Nature of Biblical ‘Leprosy’ and the Use of Alternative Medical Terms in Modern Translations of the Bible,” PEQ 107 [1975]: 87–105) suggests that some of the diseases indicated in Leviticus 13 and Numbers 5 include psoriasis, favus, leucoderma, and various types of eczema. While Hulse is likely correct in his general lines of identification, the issue of these texts does not appear to be the precise diagnosis of disease so much as the observation of certain symptoms of disease.

Wilkinson suggests that the priests of the period were not required to identify a specific disease, only a manifestation of a serious disorder. Leviticus 13 gives a diagnostic flow chart in which certain physical manifestations, not the underlying disease, were signs for the priests to rule as to whether or not a person was ritually unclean and hence not permitted to remain in the camp of Israel during the period of skin inflammation. The issue in skin disease was similar to that of the identification of animals that were clean or unclean according to the dietary laws of Israel (see Lev 11). Again, the principal issue in that chapter is not the precise identification of genus and phylum but, with reference to the animals, an observation of digestive habits and an examination of the hoof.

Even the NIV’s translation in these passages—“an infectious skin disease”—may be too specific. It is not clearly indicated that the offending skin disease was infectious, for some of the diseases that might cause the disorders described in Leviticus 13 (e.g., psoriasis) are not infectious. A preferable, nonspecific translation of the noun ṣāraʿat and the passive forms of the verb ṣāraʿ is “[to suffer] a serious skin disorder.” Incidentally, the broad range of meaning for the Hebrew term translated “a serious skin disorder” may carry over into the NT (Greek) words as well. “Leprosy” appears to be too specific a translation in either testament and has been misleading for many readers and unfortunate for many who suffer from Hansen’s disease today (but see Notes). We may also observe that this text presents the basis in the book of Numbers for an application in the life of Miriam (see ch. 12).

The second issue rendering a person ritually unclean in v.2 is a discharge of any kind (see Lev 15:2). The Hebrew term zāb (GK 2307) is used in four ways in Scripture: (1) of the flowing of water from the rock (Ps 78:20); (2) of the land flowing with milk and honey (Ex 3:8); (3) of one pining away from hunger (La 4:9); and (4) of an uncontrolled discharge of fluid from a man (Lev 15:2) or a woman (v.25). These discharges were primarily from the sexual organs and were chronic in nature. Again, these matters were tangible. The people who suffered from these maladies became living object lessons to the whole camp of the necessity for all people to be “clean” in their approach to God.

In ancient Israel, the third factor rendering a person unclean, and hence to be excluded from the camp, was contact with a dead body. The ultimate, tangible sign of uncleanness 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 possibly a source of [infection, though such would not have been known by the people of the time)]; normal contacts with others in the community of those who had become unclean would have to be curtailed until proper cleansing had been made (see comment on 6:6).

3 The modern reader should be impressed with the fact that the various disorders that rendered one unclean—and hence to be expelled from the camp—affected male and female alike. The concepts of clean and unclean cut across gender lines. Women were excluded along with men, and women might be released from 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 Yahweh in the camp—there can be no uncleanness where he dwells. The last words of v.3 are dramatic in their presentation: “I am dwelling in their midst” (see Notes).

4 Verse 4 presents the full compliance of Israel to this law when it was initiated. As in 1:54; 2:34; 3:16, 42, 51; 4:49, this section ends with a report of the obedience of the people and of Moses to the commands of God. It is with sadness we will recall these reports at later times in Israel’s experience, when she learned the pattern of failure to obey the Lord’s commands.

NOTES

2 (ṣārûaʿ, a Qal passive participle of the denominative verb [ṣāraʿ], “to be struck with leprosy, be leprous”; used as a substantive, “one struck with leprosy, a leper”; GK 7665) and (ṣāraʿat, “leprosy”) are generally regarded today as generic terms for skin disease, not terms specifically to be identified with leprosy (Hansen’s disease). However, R. K. Harrison focused specially on medical issues in his studies of OT issues. He believed that leprosy is indicated by these terms. He writes (101):

According to epidemiological and other studies, there is little doubt that Hansen’s disease, caused by the tiny organism Mycobacterium leprae, was known and feared in Palestine by at least the time of Amos (ca. 760 BC). The dread disease may be the one referred to in a cuneiform tablet from the Old Babylonian period (ca. 2250–1175 BC), but this cannot be demonstrated with certainty. If the ukhedu disease of the Ebers medical papyrus from ancient Egypt (ca. 2300 BC) was a form of clinical leprosy, which is certainly possible, then the disease would be well known in Egypt by 1500 BC.

Despite claims by some modern doctors and theological writers that the ṣāraʿat of Leviticus 13 in its malignant form could not possibly have been Hansen’s disease, there are in fact striking correspondences between it and the malignant form of ṣāraʿat described in Leviticus. Those who deny such an identification have failed to suggest a plausible clinical alternative.

See also Harrison’s work on this term in the following sources: “Leprosy,” ISBE², 3:103–6; “Leprosy,” IDB, 3:111–13; “Leprosy,” NIDNTT, 2:463–66.

Allen P. Ross argues that there are more serious biblical issues than the exact taxonomy of the disease(s) indicated by the Hebrew word: “Any exposition must begin with the intended meaning of the passage in its context. In this case the expositor must look at these diseases as part of the contamination of a fallen world” (Holiness to the LORD: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002], 278).

3 (ʾ^anî šōkēn b^etôkām, “I am dwelling in their midst”) marks the loveliest of ideas—the fact that the living God condescended to make his presence known in the midst of his people. The verb (šākan, “to settle down, abide”; GK 8905) is here a participle describing an ongoing, gracious action of Yahweh. This verb is particularly associated with its nominal complement, (miškān, “dwelling place, tabernacle”), as God’s presence was “centered” in the great tent, particularly in and over the Most Holy Place. See especially Exodus 40:34–35, which exults: the “glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle [, hammiškān)] . . . the cloud had settled [, šākan)] upon it.” These words would give rise to the term “Shekinah,” the idea of God’s abiding presence among his people. See also Numbers 9:15–23.

It is a fascinating congruence that the NT (Greek) term in John 1:14 that describes the dwelling of Christ amid his people (σκηνόω, skēnoō, “to dwell”; GK 5012) has the same consonants (s-k-n) as the Hebrew verb (šākan). This Greek verb is also used of the future dwelling of God with people (see Rev 21:3)—a gracious action that harks back to the tabernacle and then goes so far beyond that historic experience of Israel in the wilderness. See Ronald B. Allen, “Affirming Right-of-Way on Ancient Paths,” BSac 153 (January–March 1996): 3–11.

4 In his healing ministries, Jesus reached out to meet the physical needs of all manner of people, “healing every disease and sickness among the people” (Mt 4:23), including the types of maladies described in this passage. He healed lepers (Mk 1:40–43) and a woman with a discharge (Mk 5:25–34), and he reached out to, touched, and raised (!) the dead (Mk 5:35–43; Lk 7:11–17). He healed women as well as men, the poor and the broken, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Messiah promised by Isaiah 61:1–2a (see Lk 4:16–20).

REFLECTION

When we think through the issues of vv.1–4, we discover mercy. We may observe, in view of the dramatic phrase, “I am dwelling in their midst,” that the essential reason for the importance of “uncleanness” in the camp was the indwelling presence of the Lord. His commands that the unclean be expelled from the camp were, essentially, expressions of his mercy: (1) the polluting presence of the unclean may make others unclean, thus spreading the problem; (2) the continuing presence of the unclean within the camp may demand God’s judgment; and (3) the pervasive spread of uncleanness in the camp may demand that the Lord withdraw his own presence. It was Yahweh’s lavish mercy that allowed him to abide with his people at all; it was his continuing desire to express that mercy that prompted the expulsion of the unclean from the camp.

For these reasons Christians are impressed with the fact that the Lord Jesus extended the mercy of God dramatically, in that he reached out to meet the needs of persons who had become unclean from each of the three stipulations of this text (see Note on v.4). Furthermore, following the wording of v.3, “male and female alike,” we see that Jesus in his ministry reached out both to women and to men who were ritually unclean. In these deeds of mercy, the Lord acted as healer and as priest; he cleansed their diseases and then declared them pure.

(b) Restitution for personal wrongs (5:5–10)

OVERVIEW

Another issue that led to impurity in the camp was an unresolved personal injury. This type of evil would have been harder to diagnose than the mysterious skin disorders or fluid discharges of the earlier section. While the skin disorders and contact with dead bodies might lead to exclusion from the ritual of the worship of God in the community, social disorders would equally disrupt the cohesion of the people. These are examples of the OT concept sometimes described as “corporate solidarity” (see, e.g., the story of the sin of Achan in Jos 7). The health and effectiveness of the whole community depended on the health and effectiveness of the individuals within the community. There was an inner flow of continuity between the concepts of the community and the individual in these texts.

5The LORD said to Moses, 6“Say to the Israelites: ‘When a man or woman wrongs another in any way and so is unfaithful to the LORD, that person is guilty 7and must confess the sin he has committed. He must make full restitution for his wrong, add one fifth to it and give it all to the person he has wronged. 8But if that person has no close relative to whom restitution can be made for the wrong, the restitution belongs to the LORD and must be given to the priest, along with the ram with which atonement is made for him. 9All the sacred contributions the Israelites bring to a priest will belong to him. 10Each man’s sacred gifts are his own, but what he gives to the priest will belong to the priest.’”

COMMENTARY

5–7 In this situation one person within the camp has wronged 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 would mar the purity of the community. Those with evident marks of uncleanness were to be expelled for the duration of their malady. But more insidious were those people who had overtly sinned against others in the community and who thought they might continue to function as though there were no real wrong.

A casual reader of the English versions may notice the consistent use of masculine pronouns and assume that this is yet another text dealing with the religious and moral obligations of the male believer under the provisions of Torah. Yet the section clearly begins with the words, “when a man or a woman” (ʾîš ʾô-ʾiššâ, emphasis added; v.6; see also at 6:2). The point is that the worship of God was for women and for men. The obligations of repentance were for men and for women. Women are also sinners. Women are also significant. It is important that the woman reader see herself in these words just as the male reader does.

The particulars of the text demanded a procedure for restitution in the case of unspecified personal wrongs. Of first importance was the recognition that such wrongs were not slight offenses between people only; in fact, they were acts of treachery against Yahweh, the Great Suzerain. The expression “and so is unfaithful to the LORD” may be more strongly rendered, “to commit a serious act of treachery against Yahweh.” As David was later to confess, his principal sin was not against Uriah or Bathsheba or his family or his nation—though he had sinned against them all. He said, “I have sinned against the LORD” (2Sa 12:13; Ps 51:4 [6 Heb]).

The steps in the ritual for restitution included (1) a condition of guilt—the person was guilty (v.6), and this guilt excluded that person from active participation in the community as surely as a serious skin disease or contact with a dead body did; (2) a public confession of that sin (v.7a)—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 as an offering for atonement.

8 Each of these steps is enumerated in Leviticus 6:1–7 in the initial presentation of the law of defrauding. However, Numbers 5 has an additional provision. What if a person had defrauded someone but that person was no longer living and had no living relative to whom restitution might be paid? Verse 8 adds the next proviso: (5) the payment of restitution was to be made to the priest when there was no suitable relative to whom such payment might otherwise be made. In this way the debt was paid fully, no matter who of the injured family had survived. The term for “close relative” is gō ʾēl, often translated “kinsman-redeemer” (e.g., Ru 4:3; see Note).

9–10 Finally, a note is added that the offerings presented to the priests truly belonged to the priests. It was not a sham that was then withdrawn secretly after a public presentation.

Again, the intent of this law on defrauding is clear in the context of this chapter: purity among the people was essential for their successful journey through the wilderness 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 needed to be dealt with equitably for the camp to remain pure.

NOTE

8 (gō ʾēl, “close relative”; GK 1457) is a word especially significant in the book of Ruth. It was the duty of the male relative of a deceased person who left a childless widow to redeem her from childlessness through marriage; such a one was called “redeemer” (from , gāʾal, “to redeem”; HALOT, 1:169). In an unpublished paper, Donald A. Glenn of Dallas Theological Seminary argued that the fundamental meaning of the term (gō ʾēl) is “protector of family rights.” This meaning is especially fitting in Numbers 5:8, a situation describing the one “who receives restitution for a wrong” (HALOT, 1:169).

(c) The law of jealousy (5:11–31)

OVERVIEW

Yet another element that would lead to impurity within the camp was undetected marital infidelity. The law concerning jealousy is best read in the context and flow of the two earlier laws in this chapter. As a diseased person who was ritually unclean would compromise the entire camp and so had to be expelled during the time of his or her disease (5:1–4), and as an unrequited wrong would bring trouble between people who were within the camp as surely as would be brought by one with disease of the skin (5:5–10), so the unexposed but treacherous act of marital infidelity also would bring harm to the camp as a whole. Acts of marital infidelity were not regarded as peccadilloes in Israel; to be unfaithful to one’s spouse was to be unfaithful to one’s God. The following text has its harsh side; there is also mercy in it, as we will discover.

(i) The seed of jealousy (5:11–15)

11Then the LORD said to Moses, 12“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure—15then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt.

COMMENTARY

11–13 Again, the connection with the preceding two paragraphs seems to be a progression from the more open and obvious to the more personal and hidden sins. Issues of purity were established with the physical marks (vv.1–4), expanded to interpersonal relationships (vv.5–10), and then extended into the most intimate of relationships, that of the marriage bed of a man and woman (vv.11–31). A test for marital fidelity was 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 of issues.

The provisions of this law have connections (and discontinuities) with other laws in the ancient Near East. The Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1727 BC) has a pair of laws that we may compare with our text (ANET, 171):

CH 131: If a seignior’s wife was accused by her husband, but she was not caught while lying with another man, she shall make affirmation by god and return to her house.

CH 132: If the finger was pointed at the wife of a seignior because of another man, but she has not been caught while lying with the other man, she shall throw herself into the river for the sake of her husband.

These laws from ancient Babylon deal with two types of accusation. The second law suggests community knowledge of infidelity, but the woman had not been caught “in the act.” The presumed unfaithful woman was to undergo the ordeal of trial by death by flinging herself into the “sacred” Euphrates River. If she were guilty, it was presumed she would drown; if innocent, she would survive the ordeal and would be able to return to her husband with no attachment of guilt (see G. R. Driver and John C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws [Oxford: Clarendon, 1952], 2:283–84). The first law is closer to the biblical example in Numbers 5:11–31. In this case the husband had only a private suspicion of his wife’s infidelity. She was to present herself in a temple for a solemn oath and might then return to her home.

This text has an implied possibility of failure to affirm (or survive the false affirmation of) this oath. The Akkadian text does not say how that failure might be recognized, but the parallel Hebrew text suggests one possibility. We may find in this type of law both an affirmation of the importance of marital fidelity in the ancient world—even in Babylon!—as well as a measure of protection for a woman under false accusation. Without limiting legislation such as this, presumably the husband might have done her physical harm—or even killed her—on the sole basis of private feelings of jealousy, real or imagined. A function of law in the ancient Near East was to limit private acts of vengeance and retribution while maintaining propriety and civil order. The fascinating aspect of comparing this text from the Code of Hammurabi with Numbers 5 lies in the paucity of information concerning the oath ceremony in the Babylonian temple compared to the unusual richness of the text in Scripture.

14–15 The husband’s “feelings of jealousy” (v.14) may have been provoked on the basis of good cause and the issue needed to be faced; the concern was not just for the bruised feelings of the husband but was ultimately based on the reality of God’s dwelling among his people (v.3). Yet the chapter has a strong and serious thrust to it that is designed to prevent a childish, self-centered charge of unfaithfulness. As in Babylonian law, this text was not to be used as a pretext by a capricious, petty, or malevolent husband to badger a good woman. Everything about the text speaks of seriousness, intention, and the presence of the Lord in the process.

The use of the word “impure” (niṭmāʾâ, a third feminine singular Niphal perfect from ṭāmēʾ, “to be, become unclean”; v.14) shows the subject matter of this chapter is of a piece—the purity of the camp of the people whom God indwells is the burden of the text. Further, the religious nature of the text is seen in the presentation of the woman under accusation to the priest (v.15). The actions presented in this chapter seem to be severe and harsh. Perhaps we should imagine the consequences on a woman justly or falsely charged with adultery by an angry husband in a context in which there was no provision for her guilt or innocence to be demonstrated. That she was taken to the priest is finally to be seen as an act of mercy.

This chapter provides abundant insight into the role of ritual in ancient Near Eastern thinking, practices remote to the Western reader but more common among certain Eastern and (especially) African peoples. The text is of special interest to those who search for what they believe to be remnants of primitive rites within the books of Moses. Each element of the ritual is charged with meaning, though we may not understand all the meaning today. Yet we need to take our lead from the text, not from supposed African or even ancient Near Eastern parallels. This passage is not an ordeal of death; the Hebrew woman did not cast herself into the sacred river or drink a magic potion. She presented herself before the Lord and his priest for vindication or condemnation; the results would be seen in the future in her own body (see below).

The gravity of the ritual for a suspected unfaithful wife shows that Torah regards marital infidelity most seriously. Such was not just a concern of a jealous husband; the entire community was affected by this breach of faith. Hence the judgment was in the context of the community. Our contemporary attitudes that suggest sexual infidelity is a minor, personal matter are far removed from the teaching of Scripture.

This celebrated text is subject to much discussion during these days in which the issues of women and men continue to be debated within the circle of faith. With respect to women, this text may be viewed constructively and sympathetically or negatively and angrily. The negative, angry approach tends to focus on the obvious inequities inherent in the situation. The husband of a woman might shame her publicly and force her to a rigorous, demeaning religious trial merely on the (unfounded) suspicion of a misdeed on her part, that of marital faithlessness. She may have presented no evidence whatsoever; merely the thought on the part of the husband was sufficient to bring her to trial. Further, there is no mention whatsoever of the guilt, trial, and judgment of the man with whom this woman is supposed to have been involved—all the weight of guilt, shame, trial, and judgment rested on the shoulders of the woman under accusation. Again, the accusation was by her husband, a presentation suggestive of intense marital discord.

There is, however, another manner of approach to this and similar passages. The alternative approach, as noted even with reference to the Babylonian law, is to suggest the passage actually presents a timely limitation on an angry, suspicious husband—a protection of the wife from his abusive hand. Were there not such a provision as in this text in a male-dominated culture, we may suppose that an angry, suspicious husband might have lashed out against his wife without any sure reason for his angry suspicions, harmed her physically and mentally, and even taken her life. Certainly there have been men throughout history who have behaved in just this manner. But God reaches out through Moses and the gift of the Torah—and with the precedent of ancient Near Eastern law!—and provided a means of escape for a woman under suspicion of unfaithfulness by a jealous husband. The trial she was taken to was not a kangaroo court; it was in the precincts of the tabernacle, under the jurisdiction of the priests, in concert with a solemn sacrifice—she placed herself under the hand of Yahweh. (This entire picture assumes that the principals in the tabernacle [and later the temple] were godly people who gladly followed Torah. In much of Israel’s history, these ideals were rarely realized.)

The woman who had been brought to such a place would not take this issue lightly. Public humiliation, shame, anger at 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 or digging at his wife in the privacy of their home; he, too, was coming before Yahweh, and he, too, might be judged. Hence the better approach to this text is not to think along the lines of primitive magic or of rampant male dominance. It is rather another expression of God’s mercy toward women, so often abused by prideful men, particularly in antiquity. Here was a means of escape from suspicion and evasion of punishment.

If the woman was indeed guilty of unfaithfulness, the husband was vindicated. His vindication was important—not just to relieve 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 in a tribe/clan/family setting might become hopelessly enmeshed in the complexities of family relationships that are common in modern society (and soap operas) but unusual in earlier days.

But if the woman was indeed innocent, her husband would have his reasons for jealousy alleviated. Again, this is a limitation on his jealous nature. Most men, we suspect, would be very careful before pressing the issue. The results could be disastrous for themselves.

NOTE

14–15 The idea that these laws in Torah are ameliorative in the larger social and cultural setting of the ancient Near East is also presented by William J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2001). He writes (79), “Neither in Israel nor in other ancient Near Eastern countries was there a reciprocal ordeal for the wife to impose upon the husband suspected of adultery. Thus a clear gender inequality existed in Israel and its broader environment. However, the fact that Israel had the more civil and less-easily-abused approach to the matter yields a sense of quiet reduction in patriarchal powers compared to its foreign context. The suspected adulteress is simply turned over to Yahweh in an oath and temple ritual.”