(ii) The curse of the oath (5:16–22)

16“‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband”—21here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath—“may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. 22May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away.’”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

COMMENTARY

16 The central phrasing of this text is that the priest would have the woman stand before the Lord. The repetition in v.18 is for emphasis. These phrases demand that we distance ourselves from the approach of some interpreters who suggest that this passage is merely an adventure in magic and potions or psychology and manipulation. The biblical phrasing demands a theological understanding of the woman’s judgment. Further, that she is brought before the Lord helps again to demonstrate the concept of purity and the proper connection of this law with the two earlier laws of the chapter.

17–18 Admittedly, the wording of v.17 (cf. v.23) seems like what we might imagine a magical rite to be. Taking holy water, adding dust, and mixing a doubtful drink seems to be worlds away from things we understand. Many interpreters assume that adding the dust from the floor to the holy water is what made that water “bitter” (v.18). Yet that assumption is unlikely. A small amount of soil from the floor of the tabernacle was not likely to make the water taste “bitter.” Rather, we should concentrate on the holiness of the place; hence we think of the extension of holiness to the very ground on which the tabernacle was placed. Holy dust was added to holy water not to change the taste but to emphasize the holiness of the matter.

In v.18 the woman was made to loosen her hair. This act may be a sign of openness on her part. In the solemn place in which she found herself, with holy priests and holy drinks, the tendency for this woman might be to shrink away, to cover herself with her garments. She was not to do so, however. She was to be presented in a manner of openness before Yahweh. This loosening of the hair would be for the guilty woman an expectation of judgment and mourning (see Lev 13:45; 21:10). For the innocent wife, who had nothing to fear but the demonstration of the glory of the Lord, the loosening of her hair might be a strengthening act of feminine personhood in the Holy Place.

The terminology of bitter water’s bringing a curse is problematic. The Hebrew phrase (see Note) could also be translated, “the curse-bringing water of bitterness.” It is not that the water was bitter tasting but that this water had the potential of bearing with it a bitter curse. That this potion was neither simply a tool of magic nor merely a psychological device to determine stress is to be seen in the repeated emphasis on the role of the Lord in the proceedings (vv.16, 18, 21, 25). That is, the verdict of the woman was precipitated by her physiological and psychological responses to the bitter water, but the judgment was from the Lord. The bitterness of the water was potential, not actual; the cursing associated with the water was also potential, not essential. The water was holy, set apart for specific function in the worship of God. But it was not necessarily of a bad taste. Again, the phrase may be rendered in a somewhat expansive manner: “the water that may result in bitterness and provoke a profound curse.”

19–20 The priest presents two possibilities. First, the woman might be truly innocent (v.19). In this case his specific prayer to the Lord was that the water with the potential of bitterness not bring harm to her. The priest’s words to the innocent woman assured her of no harm from the bitter water. Second, if she were truly guilty of the deed that her husband suspected (v.20), then the full onus of the curse-bearing waters would come to her, enter her body, descend through her intestines, and be the physical means the Lord would use to produce a physical change in her body.

21–22 Verse 21 describes the physical change: “your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell.” The NIV’s margin has “causes you to have a miscarrying womb and barrenness.” The figurative language here (and in vv.22, 27) speaks of the woman’s loss of capacity for childbearing (and, if pregnant at the time of her judgment, her miscarriage of the child). This meaning becomes clear in the opposite case (v.28), in the determination of the fate of a woman wrongly charged: “she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.” For a woman in the ancient Near East to be denied the ability to bear children was a personal loss of inestimable proportion. In that culture, it was in bearing children that a woman’s significance was realized. Barrenness was a grievous punishment indeed!

We reject, then, those interpretations that suggest the woman who was guilty would drop dead following her drinking of the potion. Rather, like the woman in the Babylonian text, she might return to her home to await the outcome of the oath. If she were innocent of infidelity, she should count on bearing children. This means, of course, that she would return to her husband’s embrace. If she were guilty of infidelity but not caught in the act, she would suffer debilitating physical symptoms that would prohibit successful pregnancies. Again, this development also presumes that she returned to the embrace of her husband. She would then bear her guilt in her body and the inner chambers of her heart. In either case the woman was to hear the words of the curse, in the midst of the solemn precincts, and then bring that potential curse on herself by saying to the Lord and his priest, “Amen. So be it” (v.22). The double “Amen” (lit. Heb.) would be her signal that she understood the issues and was in agreement with the judgment—or would escape from judgment—that would come into her body.

NOTE

18 (mê hammārîm hamʾārarîm, “the bitter, curse-bringing waters”) forms a strong, ominous phrase. The verbal form is (ʾārar, “to curse,” here a Piel masculine plural participle; GK 826), used as descriptive of the “bitter waters.” The Piel of this verb means “to produce a curse on.” Compare the expressions in 8:7, (mê haṭṭāʾt, lit., “water of sin,” meaning, “water that purifies from sin”), and in 19:9, (mê niddâ, “water of cleansing,” for purification from sin).

(iii) The bitter waters (5:23–28)

23“‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering. 25The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, and she will become accursed among her people. 28If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

COMMENTARY

23–28 The language of this section is somewhat repetitive of the earlier paragraphs. These repetitive and similar wordings have prompted critical scholars to posit varied textual strata inelegantly pieced together. The tendency today, however, is to view the text as a whole. In this approach the repetitions and similar phrasings are marks of literary purpose and structure (see, e.g., Michael Fishbane, “Accusations of Adultery: A Study of Law and Scribal Practice in Numbers 5:11–31,” HUCA 45 [1974]: 25–45; Herbert Chanan Brichto, “The Case of the Sota and a Reconsideration of Biblical ‘Law,’” HUCA 46 [1975]: 55–70; and esp. Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “The Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah [Numbers V 11–31],” VT 34 [1984]: 11–26).

Verses 23–28 give the final step in the procedure. After the words of cursing had been announced, the priest would write them on a scroll (or perhaps a wooden tablet) and then blot the letters off into the water. The woman was not only to hear the words, but in a dramatic, figurative sense she was to drink them. In this way the awful sense of taking the curse into one’s own body was realized. The bitterness of the waters, again, was not in their taste but in the potential they bore in their association with the curse attendant to them.

The NIV suggests the very drinking of the water would cause suffering: “this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering” (v.24). This phrase may also be read in a more benign manner: “and the waters that cause curses shall enter her for bitterness.” The bitterness was not in taste, convulsions, or physical shock but in the latent sense of the potential judgment on her body of childlessness. “Bitterness” is a most appropriate term for just this potential judgment. The innocent woman would not suffer the bitterness of the water, for she was innocent of the curses associated with it.

(iv) The summary of the law of jealousy (5:29–31)

29“‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, 30or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her. 31The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”

COMMENTARY

29–31 The summary statement of this law is put in terms of the woman who has been justly accused by her husband. Again, in this summary statement there is repetition and recapitulation of dominant themes from the involved legislation—typical devices of the writers of biblical prose. The section ends ominously, as the chapter began. The chapter’s cohesion comes from its addressing of instances relating to the maintaining of purity within the camp. The importance of marital fidelity in this passage should not be lost on modern readers in a time in which such ideas are thought by so many to be quaint but irrelevant. Numerous NT texts may be cited (esp. 1Co 5) supporting God’s reaffirmation of the prohibition given in the seventh commandment: You are not to commit adultery.

ii. The vow of the Nazirite and the Aaronic benediction (6:1–27)

OVERVIEW

Numbers 6 continues the theme of the purification of the people of the new nation in two disparate manners. First is the presentation for the opportunity for an individual to make an extraordinary vow of religious devotion as a distinctive way of showing one’s separation to the Lord for a limited period of time. The chapter then provides the regular manner in which the priests were to invoke the blessing of the Lord on the entire community. The text thus moves from the particular to the general, from the unusual to the regular. In this way the issue of special relationship with God is presented in a comprehensive manner.

(a) The vow of the Nazirite (6:1–21)

The special, unusual vow of the Nazirite is the first focus of the chapter.

(i) The basic prohibition against wine (6:1–4)

1The LORD said to Moses, 2“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite, 3he must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or from other fermented drink. He must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins. 4As long as he is a Nazirite, he must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins.

COMMENTARY

1–2 When one thinks of the term “Nazirite,” the name Samson may come to mind (Jdg 13–16). But it turns out that his situation did not reflect the normal meaning of the Nazirite vow (and, as is well known, he did not keep the vows well at all!). Neither is it generally known that these vows of special devotion to God could be made by a woman as well as a man. Many simply assume that the religious vows of the Nazirite were intended for males only. However, this text expressly begins, “If a man or woman” (Heb. ʾîš ʾô-ʾiššâ; see also 5:6). Thus, women were not precluded from this vow (contra the pronominal renderings in most English versions; but see 30:1–16, which speaks of the differences between other vows of men and women).

The Hebrew text uses an unusually strong verb in describing the vow of the Nazirite in the phrasing “wants to make a special vow.” The verb pālāʾ (GK 7098) in the Hiphil means “to make a hard, difficult vow” (cf. 15:3, 8, where this verb in the Piel means “to complete a special, difficult vow”). This verb in the Niphal is used extensively throughout the Bible with God as subject and is often rendered by words of wonder or amazement (cf. Ex 3:20, “the wonders that I will perform”; Ps 118:23, “it is marvelous in our eyes”). In our passage, as in Leviticus 27:2, the Hiphil is used of an extraordinary vow of a devotee of Yahweh. This vow, then, does not describe a routine matter or even an expected act of devotion one might make from time to time. This vow was an act of unusual devotion to God, based perhaps on an intense desire to demonstrate to the Lord one’s utter separation to him.

The term “Nazirite,” a transliteration of the Hebrew nāzîr (GK 5687), describes the person who has marked out a specific period for personal separation or consecration, a special time for unusual devotion to God. This text speaks of a restricted period of time for the Nazirite vow, though some persons took the vow for a lifetime. The word Nazirite is sometimes confused with Nazarene, the word used to describe Jesus as coming from his hometown, Nazareth (see Mt 2:23; Mk 14:67; 16:6; Ac 24:5; see Note).

In discussions of the Nazirite, attention is usually given to the prohibitions demanded on the person who took this vow. Yet more important is the positive “separation to Yahweh” afforded by the vow (vv.2, 8). It is on this aspect that the text lays its primary stress; the prohibitions were means of achieving the sense of separation. The Nazirite vow was not just an act of superior self-discipline, an achieving of spiritual prowess; it was to be regarded as a supreme act of total devotion to the person and work of the Lord that would override certain normal and expected patterns of behavior.

The person who made pledges for a particular time of special devotion to the Lord as a nāzîr had to face three demanding limitations: (1) absolute abstinence from all produce of the vine, (2) total forswearing of trimming of (and likely all caring for) the hair, and (3) utter separation from contamination by any contact with a dead body. Thus three areas of life were regulated for the Nazirite during the period of his vow: diet (ordinary pleasure), appearance (ordinary care), and associations (ordinary obligation). Every Israelite was under regulations in these general areas, but for the Nazirite each of these regulations was heightened.

Leviticus 11 details the dietary restrictions for the nation as an act of daily holiness (the practice of being distinct, separate). For the Nazirite one major clean food was prohibited during the course of one’s vow. This chapter is not a tract against the drinking of wine by spiritual people; rather, it concerns a specific aspect of the expected (good!) diet that was voluntarily foresworn for a period of time as a physical reminder of the duty of devotion to God. After the period of the consecration was over, wine (along with all other grape products) was permitted again (v.20). An analogy may be found in the practice of some Christians of foregoing certain good foods during the period of Lent to prod spiritual devotion to Christ in the special period of remembrance of his sufferings.

3–4 The first paragraph contains prohibitions concerning the produce of the vine. All intoxicating drinks (as indicated by the hendiadys formed by the Hebrew words sometimes translated “wine and strong drink,” meaning “all intoxicants”) and everything associated with them were prohibited to the Nazirite during the period of the vow. The term “fermented drink” (v.3) is šēkār (“beer”; GK 8911), a word often used in association with “wine” (yayin), as here, and often found in texts condemning drunkenness (see 1Sa 1:15; Pr 20:1; Isa 5:11, 22; 28:7; 56:12; Mic 2:11). But this word is also used in other texts describing the normal, moderate drinking (along with wine) that was to become a part of the expected, common food of the people of Israel when they would enter the land, but which they had not had the opportunity to enjoy during the wilderness experience (see Dt 29:6), as well as for sacral meals enhanced with wine and fermented drinks in the true worship of God (see Nu 28:7; Dt 14:26).

Further, šēkār could be used in the drink offering (Nu 28:7) in the worship of the Lord. Since we know that yayin is the fermented product of the vine, we now conclude that šēkār is the fermented product of the field, i.e., beer (see KB, 972). Again, the usual association with this word is drunkenness, but this association is not a necessary one. The Nazirite was to abstain from both wine and beer and from everything associated with the wine grape (v.3).

Verse 3 prohibits the Nazirite from partaking of anything that comes from the grapevine—not just the fermented beverages but also even the vinegar (ḥōmeṣ) that results when such products sour. Moreover, the prohibition included fresh grape juice, grapes either fresh or dried, and even the seed and skin of the grape. It appears to be the case that the forbidding of all products of the grapevine was a way of saying that the person undertaking the vow was not to have even a remote association with wine. The Hebrew words translated by the NIV as “seeds and skins” are uncertain in meaning, but they refer to the most insignificant products of the vine. The prohibition could not have been more inclusive. The Nazirite was not even “to smell the cork,” as it were.

I conclude, therefore, that here the basic issue for the person under the solemn, difficult vow of the nāzîr was abstaining from all use of the grape and vine as a disavowal of “ordinary pleasure.” That is, for the period of time of her or his vow, wine—and everything associated with it—was now off limits, as wine symbolized pleasure (see Ps 104:15, “[Yahweh makes] wine that gladdens the heart of man”).

NOTE

2 The Hebrew term (nāzîr, “consecrated one, devotee, Nazirite”) has two other uses in the OT besides the person who takes the special vow intended in this chapter; these other uses help us to understand its special meaning here. Joseph is called a nāzîr in the blessings of Jacob on his sons (recorded in Ge 49). Joseph was given the chief blessing of his father. He was regarded as a nāzîr, in the sense of “a prince, a consecrated person”: “Let all these [blessings] rest on the head of Joseph, / on the brow of the prince among his brothers” (, nezîr ʾeḥāyw; Ge 49:26).

The word is also used of “untended” vines (weʾet-ʿinnebê nezîrekā, “and the grape [vines] of your non-tending”) during the time of the sabbatical year (Lev 25:5, 11). Presumably these vines are termed nāzîr because they were not tended or trimmed, just as the Nazirite was not to trim his or her hair during the period of special vow. Thus a nāzîr was a person who was specially consecrated to Yahweh and who was marked out as distinct by his or her lack of ordinary personal care.

The word “Nazirite” is often confused with the term “Nazarene,” used in the NT to describe Jesus in terms of his Galilean hometown, Nazareth (see Mt 2:23). However, the spelling of this town name in Hebrew is distinct from the verbal root of the nāzîr. Nazareth is not spelled with a “z” (Heb. zayin) but with an explosive “ts” (Heb. tsade [ṣādê]). “Nazirite” and “Nazarene” are not related. Following the lead of Bargil Pixner (With Jesus through Galilee: According to the Fifth Gospel [trans. Christo Botha and Dom David Fisher; Rosh Pina, Israel: Corozin, 1992], 14–19), I believe the term “Nazarene” is best understood as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 11:1, “from his roots a Branch [, neṣer] will bear fruit.” See Ronald B. Allen, “Does Anything Good Come from Nazareth?” Kindred Spirit 23/9 (Winter 1999): 2–3, 11.

(ii) Basic prohibitions concerning hair and dead bodies (6:5–8)

5“‘During the entire period of his vow of separation no razor may be used on his head. He must be holy until the period of his separation to the LORD is over; he must let the hair of his head grow long. 6Throughout the period of his separation to the LORD he must not go near a dead body. 7Even if his own father or mother or brother or sister dies, he must not make himself ceremonially unclean on account of them, because the symbol of his separation to God is on his head. 8Throughout the period of his separation he is consecrated to the LORD.

COMMENTARY

5 A second voluntary prohibition for the Nazirite was the normal and expected trimming of the hair. During the period of one’s Nazirite vow, the hair was not to be trimmed at all (see Jdg 13:5 for the beginning of the account of Samson, a lifelong nāzîr). The unexpectedly long hair of a (long-term) Nazirite man would be a physical mark of his vow of special “separation” (nezer, from the same root as the term “Nazirite”; GK 5694) to the Lord; as distinctive, say, as the habit of a monk or a nun. It would be misleading to call these persons the “monks and nuns” of Israel, however, as they were not required to be celibate.

Since most persons would not take long-term vows as Nazirites, it is difficult to appreciate the prohibition of going without a hair trim for a significant period of time. I suspect that getting one’s hair trimmed in biblical times would not come more often than once per month in any event. Further, since women in most cultures wear their hair longer than men do, one wonders what the issue would be for a female nāzîr not getting her hair trimmed in a month’s time. So I propose that we should take our lead from the extensive comments concerning wine in vv.1–4. In that case, not only was the drinking of wine and beer prohibited—one could not even touch a grape leaf. So it seems likely that the prohibition concerning the hair would go beyond just the trimming of it. I propose that the expected understanding (contextually) would include forgoing the ordinary care of one’s hair. And that would be particularly impressive for a woman—and not a small thing even for a man.

We may presume that the Nazirite woman might not only have let her hair grow long but may also have allowed it to remain relatively unkempt (cf., again, the use of nāzîr regarding untended vines in Lev 25:5, 11), or perhaps she would let it hang loose as opposed to putting it up. Otherwise, it is difficult to see how the (unusually) long hair of a woman would be a distinctive sign of her period of vow. The Nazirite was to be “holy” (v.5); the untrimmed (and perhaps unkempt) hair would be a special mark of one who was so set apart. (Leviticus 21:5 prohibited the priests of Israel from certain types of shaving of the head or the beard, presumably in imitation of pagan mantic practices.) The Nazirite was not to trim his or her hair. Compare as well the shaving of the entire body of the Levite at the time of his initial consecration in the service of the Lord in the holy tabernacle (8:7). The paragraph ends with the primary issue of the Nazirite relationship: he or she was consecrated to the Lord (6:8). Such a person was to abstain from ordinary personal care.

6–8 The third prohibition for the Nazirite concerned physical contact with dead bodies (see comment on 5:2 for general contamination by contact with dead bodies). For the Nazirite the prohibition extended even to the deceased within his own family (v.7). The listing of family members who might die during the time of one’s vow makes this text particularly piquant; the prohibition stings the soul. In this way the general commands become intense; here a person faced heart-rending decisions not to behave normally in times of great grief because of a prior decision based on a desire for a time of intense consecration to the Lord.

No one making a Nazirite vow would be able to know for certain what the personal demands might be in this regard during the time period of the vow. Even a priest was expected to care for the dead body of a close relative (Lev 21:1–3). But the Nazirite could not care for such a body, no matter how beloved the person might have been, or he or she would bring personal contamination. This was a prohibition of ordinary obligation.

The vow of the Nazirite was most serious indeed! The prohibition of ingesting wine and grapes meant that one would forswear ordinary pleasure. That of caring for one’s hair was a prohibition of ordinary care. That of contact with dead bodies was a prohibition of ordinary obligation. And during this period one was to have an extraordinary focus on the person of God. Notice, however, that the Nazirite vow does not proscribe sexual activity, as is commonly assumed.

(iii) The specific prohibition concerning accidental death (6:9–12)

9“‘If someone dies suddenly in his presence, thus defiling the hair he has dedicated, he must shave his head on the day of his cleansing—the seventh day. 10Then on the eighth day he must bring two doves or two young pigeons to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 11The priest is to offer one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering to make atonement for him because he sinned by being in the presence of the dead body. That same day he is to consecrate his head. 12He must dedicate himself to the LORD for the period of his separation and must bring a year-old male lamb as a guilt offering. The previous days do not count, because he became defiled during his separation.

COMMENTARY

9–12 This paragraph makes the demands of the male or female Nazirite (see again v.2) even more severe, as it speaks of the accidental death of a person in the proximity of the one under vow (v.9). In this case the accidental death made the Nazirite unclean, guilty of sin before the Lord. The basic provisions of the Nazirite vow concerned areas where he or she was able to make conscious decisions. This section deals with the unexpected, unplanned events of daily living. The particularity of the hair, the nezer (“dedicated”; v.9), is the special focus of the person’s contamination. This dedicated hair was to be shaved on the seventh day of the Nazirite’s rite of purification. (The shaving of one’s head would be particularly difficult if the nāzîr were a woman!)

Then, following obligatory offerings of birds (the less expensive offerings) for sin (v.8) and burnt offerings and a lamb (the more expensive) for guilt, the person would rededicate him- or herself to the Lord for the period of time that had originally been planned (v.11); the time spent up to that point would no longer count (v.12) because of the contamination, no matter how inadvertent. No wonder this vow is termed a “hard vow” (pālāʾ, “wants to make a special vow”; v.2); no wonder that all vows to the Lord were to be made with great caution (Pr 20:25). The terrible tragedy of the life of Samson was that he never took his vows to God seriously until the end of his sorry life.

(iv) The ritual for the completion of the vow (6:13–20)

13“‘Now this is the law for the Nazirite when the period of his separation is over. He is to be brought to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 14There he is to present his offerings to the LORD: a year-old male lamb without defect for a burnt offering, a year-old ewe lamb without defect for a sin offering, a ram without defect for a fellowship offering, 15together with their grain offerings and drink offerings, and a basket of bread made without yeast—cakes made of fine flour mixed with oil, and wafers spread with oil.

16“‘The priest is to present them before the LORD and make the sin offering and the burnt offering. 17He is to present the basket of unleavened bread and is to sacrifice the ram as a fellowship offering to the LORD, together with its grain offering and drink offering.

18“‘Then at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, the Nazirite must shave off the hair that he dedicated. He is to take the hair and put it in the fire that is under the sacrifice of the fellowship offering.

19“‘After the Nazirite has shaved off the hair of his dedication, the priest is to place in his hands a boiled shoulder of the ram, and a cake and a wafer from the basket, both made without yeast. 20The priest shall then wave them before the LORD as a wave offering; they are holy and belong to the priest, together with the breast that was waved and the thigh that was presented. After that, the Nazirite may drink wine.

COMMENTARY

13–20 The offerings of the Nazirite at the completion of the period of the vow (v.13) were extensive, expensive, and expressive of the spirit of total commitment to Yahweh during this period of special devotion. In addition to these several offerings (vv.14–17), there was also the presentation of the Nazirite’s (shaven) hair (nezer)—the sign of the vow—for burning. Burning the hair signified the completion of the vow. That it was burned and not kept as a trophy or memorial demonstrated that the act of the Nazirite was in devotion to the Lord.

The rites described in these verses are solemn and the prescriptions precise. The three sacrifices were a male lamb for the burnt offering, a ewe lamb for the sin offering, and a ram for the fellowship offering, each with the accompanying grain offerings and libations. These sacrifices were very dear; it was not a trifling thing to take on oneself the vow of a Nazirite.

The libation, or “drink offering” (nesek; GK 5821; v.15), is particularly interesting in the context of the Nazirite vow. Since the Nazirite was prohibited any contact whatsoever with wine and products of the vine during the time of his vow, one might conclude that such things are essentially evil in themselves. However, the wine offering was presented on the altar to the Lord along with the clean animals and the associated grain offerings mixed with olive oil; so such a conclusion would be misguided. The nesek offering of wine poured out on the altar of the Lord was practiced from patriarchal times (see Ge 35:14) and became part of the religious system commanded by the Lord to Moses (see Ex 29:40; Lev 23:13, 18, 37; Nu 4:7; 15:5, 7; 28:7; 29:6; et al.). The conclusion respecting the significance of the prohibition of wine and beer to the Nazirite during the time of his vow must take into account the use of wine in the Nazirite’s rite of vow completion as well as the notice that at the end of the rites of purification the Nazirite was free to drink wine again (v.20).

The priest’s public presentation of the Nazirite before the Lord at the Tent of Meeting shows that this type of vow was not just a personal, private, and secret matter. Any public rite such as these verses describe suggests that the vow was also a matter of public knowledge. Presumably, the community could be supportive of the person during the time of his or her vow. But more important in this text than the public aspect was the personal presentation before the Lord at the Tent of Meeting (see vv.13–14, 16–17, 20). This vow, though in a public context, was an intensely personal act of relating to the Lord, properly entered only with a profound sense of one’s coming into the presence of the Holy One.

(v) The summary of the Nazirite vow (6:21)

21“‘This is the law of the Nazirite who vows his offering to the LORD in accordance with his separation, in addition to whatever else he can afford. He must fulfill the vow he has made, according to the law of the Nazirite.’”

COMMENTARY

21 Summary statements such as this serve not only to end a section but also to solemnize the contents of the section. This verse also indicates that the previous sacrifices and offerings are the minimal demands and that additional offerings might also be expected. The costs of the Nazirite vow were considerable and varied. In addition to numerous personal and private feelings and discomforts, a significant outlay of property was demanded as well. Again, the Nazirite vow was not a demand of God on his people; it was a provision for men and women who voluntarily desired an unusually demanding means of showing their devotion to him. This was an act of rugged discipleship!

(b) The Aaronic Benediction (6:22–27)

OVERVIEW

In the well-known words of the Aaronic Benediction, we find a broad, national complement to the restrictive words of the Nazirite vow that were so personal and demanding. These words are expansive and gracious, inclusive of the whole community. They are also a part of the purification of the camp that the book of Numbers features in these several chapters. The reader is also arrested by the form of these words. Their poetic cast not only makes them more memorable but also contributes significantly to the aesthetics of the prayer and draws one in more deeply to its meaning. The function of poetry is to intensify feeling and deepen response.

22The LORD said to Moses, 23“Tell Aaron and his sons, ‘This is how you are to bless the Israelites. Say to them:

24“‘“The LORD bless you

and keep you;

25the LORD make his face shine upon you

and be gracious to you;

26the LORD turn his face toward you

and give you peace.”’

27“So they will put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them.”

COMMENTARY

22–23 The words of the prayer of vv.24–26 are termed the Aaronic Benediction, but the words were given to Aaron, not developed by Aaron. In some ways these lovely words may be thought of as “The Lord’s Prayer of the Old Testament” (cf. Mt 6:9). The priests are told here how to pray for God’s blessing on the people in the same way that the disciples were instructed how to pray for God’s blessing in their lives by the Savior. Perhaps the most impressive aspect of this prayer is that it is a provision for God’s desire to bless his people. Blessing is his idea, his purpose. It is not something his people must beg for; it is the voluntary outreaching of his grace.

The supreme beauty of the words of this prayer (evident in translation) and the formulaic words of introduction (vv.22–23) and conclusion (v.27) give ample warrant for the concept of fixed, repeated prayers in spiritual worship. Some people suggest that only spontaneous prayer is “real” prayer; verses such as these show that such sentiment is not correct. Fixed prayers ought to interplay with spontaneous prayers in our patterns.

The pattern of the words of this prayer is exquisite; the language is poetic and emotive. There are three lines each with the divine name Yahweh (“LORD,” English versions); the repetition of the divine name gives force to the expression of v.27—“So they will put my name on the Israelites”—and is certainly fitting with the (later) Christian revelation of the three persons of the Trinity.

Each line conveys two elements of benediction, and the lines are progressively longer. In the Hebrew text the first line has three words (in the pattern 2 // 1), the second has five words (in the pattern 4 // 1), and the third has seven words (in the pattern 4 // 3). If one does not count the threefold use of the divine name, there are twelve words to the prayer, which suggest the twelve tribes of Israel. (For comments on rhythm in Hebrew poetry, refer to Note at 11:11–15.)

This prayer has a luminous sense about it. It speaks of the light of the presence of the Lord in a vivid, anthropomorphic manner; but there is a sense that the prayer itself is light-giving. This prayer prayed in faith expects God to respond by drawing near and enfolding one in his grace. In fact, the concluding words promise that he will bless his people. The Hebrew wording is emphatic: “and I will bless them” (v.27).

24 The first line may be rendered, “May Yahweh bless you and may he keep you.” While these words are directed to the entire community, the pronouns are singular. This is characteristic of covenantal language: Yahweh blesses the whole by blessing the individuals; he blesses the individuals by blessing the whole. The invocation of God’s blessing reveals that the covenantal community knew who they were: the people who were particularly blessed of the Lord because of his own choice of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and because of the solemn relationship he has entered into with the fathers, mothers, and their children.

“The LORD bless you and keep you” are words of reminder, words of attestation of promise. These are words whereby the community says, “Yes, Amen!” to God’s promise, whereby they request from his presence the continuity of the blessing he has already begun. The buttressing words, “and keep you,” further explain his blessing. God’s intention for his people is for their good; he will preserve them to enjoy that good.

25 The words “make his face shine upon you” take us back to the experience of Moses on Mount Sinai. There the epiphany of the Lord appeared to Moses (see Ex 34:29–35), and he experienced God’s presence in a dramatic and direct manner. (As elsewhere, I follow Claus Westermann in using the term “theophany” to describe an appearance of God, but “epiphany” to describe an experience of his grand descent.) As his glory caused Moses’ face to shine, so the Lord desired to make his presence known to all his people. When Moses was on the mountain, it was in the context of terror; all the physical signs of the epiphany of God in Exodus 19–20 provoked trepidation on the part of the people. But God had come down in grace; his revelation was of mercy. Hence we have the splendidly suitable tie of the light of his face and the grace of his presence in the words: “[May] the LORD make his face shine upon you / and be gracious to you.”

Again, and throughout the prayer, the pronoun “you” is in the singular in the Hebrew text; this was a prayer for the community, but its force was to be realized in the life of the individual. Only in the introductory and concluding formulas are the plurals used.

26 The climax of the prayer is: “[May] the LORD turn [‘lift up’] his face toward you / and give you peace.” The Hebrew word šālôm (“peace,” NIV; GK 8934) is here seen in its most expressive fullness—not just as an absence of war, but also as the positive state of rightness and the fullness of well-being. This kind of peace comes only from the Lord. The expression “turn his face” suggests pleasure and affection. This terminology has the functional equivalent of the word “smile.” Here the people are led to pray that the Lord will turn his face toward them in a gracious smile! (see Mayer I. Gruber, “The Many Faces of Hebrew ‘Lift up the Face,’” ZAW 95, 2 [1983]: 253). We may thus translate this text: “May Yahweh smile on you, and may he grant you well-being!”

The words of this prayer are first introduced by the monocolon, “[And] the LORD said to Moses” (v.22), showing both that this is a new section in the book (see 6:1) and that it is a divine communication. The idea of invoking God’s blessing, presence, and smile on his people is not a creation of the people or a development of the priests but a gracious provision by God himself. The words of the prayer are framed by an introductory formula (v.23) and a concluding formula (v.27); these framing sections highlight the words of the prayer and provide its proper setting.

Uttering the prayer was a priestly function, for the priests were God’s gift to the nation to stand between himself and his people. The people might come to God through the agency of the priests, and God would speak to his people through these priests. Further, without these instructions the priests might have sought the mantic acts of their neighbors as a means of seeking the pleasure of the Lord. God’s intention was to bring his pleasure to his people; thus he presented the means whereby that might be sought and received.

27 The words of the concluding formula may be the most surprising of all, for here the Lord says that this prayer is the means of placing his name on his people. Since the name Yahweh is itself a term of blessing whereby the eternal God states his relatedness to his people, these words could not be more appropriate. The prayer was designed to help the people experience the reality of the Lord’s blessing, whose delight is to bring that blessing near; his promise is that he will do that very thing.

NOTE

24 Baruch A. Levine (Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 216) reports on the discovery of two thin silver amulets in 1986 in a burial cave in the Valley of Hinnom (Keteph Hinnom) that record almost verbatim versions of the “priestly benediction” of Numbers 6:24–26. These amulets are dated between the late seventh and early sixth centuries BC. Predating the Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran literature) by more than four hundred years, they are the earliest written texts from the Bible ever to have been discovered! See David Noel Freedman, “The Aaronic Benediction,” in No Famine in the Land (ed. J. W. Flanagan and A. Weisbrod Robinson; Claremont, Calif.: Claremont Graduate School, 1975), 35–47; A. Yardeni, “Remarks on the Priestly Blessing on Two Ancient Amulets from Jerusalem,” VT 41 (1991): 176–85. William Dever (Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 131) discusses one of the amulets and describes it as an aspect of “popular religion,” possibly as something worn by a woman as a magical charm to ward off evil. But then he relents and describes the amulet as “really only an analogue for a form of the ‘phylactery.’”

Walter C. Kaiser Jr. (Mission in the Old Testament: Israel as a Light to the Nations (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000], 30–33) observes that the words of the Aaronic benediction are echoed in several psalms (4:6[7]; 31:16[17]; 80:3, 7, 19); he develops in particular the use of the benediction in Psalm 67.

REFLECTION

Surely this Aaronic benediction is a prayer that needs to be recovered by the believing community today. Christians may read these words and find in them not only the Lord’s special covenantal relationship with Israel at Mount Sinai but also a reflection of the loving relationship God has with his people, the church, through the work of the Savior, Jesus, in whom we have experienced preeminently the smile of God. The threefold invocation of the name of the Lord is not likely to be lost on Christian readers:

May the Lord Yahweh as Father, Son, and Spirit

bless his people and keep them,

cause them to know his presence and his grace,

and allow them to sense his smile and his peace.

Amen!

iii. The offerings at the dedication of the tabernacle (7:1–89)

OVERVIEW

In the stylized organization of the book of Numbers, the presentation of the concept of the purity of the camp moves from the prayer for the blessing of the Lord on his people to the blessings of the people that are brought to him. Chapter 7 is a text of gifts—monumental gifts—presented with great pageantry and significant pomp. Here is a festival of offerings to the Lord stretching over twelve days. The chapter stands as a monument to the pleasure of Yahweh, Israel’s God, who took enjoyment in the repetition—for these were grand gifts in the good days of his early relationship with his people. These were the honeymoon days of the marital relationship of the Lord and Israel (see Jer 2:2–3). Each of the gifts was relished, each regarded as a lovely presentation by a lover in the early days of the bliss of marriage.

(a) The presentation of carts and oxen (7:1–3)

1When Moses finished setting up the tabernacle, he anointed it and consecrated it and all its furnishings. He also anointed and consecrated the altar and all its utensils. 2Then the leaders of Israel, the heads of families who were the tribal leaders in charge of those who were counted, made offerings. 3They brought as their gifts before the LORD six covered carts and twelve oxen—an ox from each leader and a cart from every two. These they presented before the tabernacle.

COMMENTARY

1 Exodus 40:1–33 presents the prose description of the setting up of the tabernacle. That chapter ends with the report of the cloud covering and the presence of Yahweh filling the tabernacle (vv.34–35; see Note at Nu 5:3). With much repetition of language, Numbers 7 records the magnificent (and identical) gifts given to the Lord for tabernacle service by the leaders of each of the twelve tribes. It is wonderfully fitting that the record of these gifts in Numbers follows the text of the Aaronic benediction (6:24–26): in response to God’s solemn promise to bless his people, they bring their blessing to him—magnificent gifts in twelve sequential days of celebrative pageantry.

The terminology of v.1 is significant. First, we observe that this is the first major section of Numbers to begin as a narrative text. Each of the other sections has begun either with the introductory monocolon of divine revelation (e.g., “And the LORD spoke to Moses”; see 1:1; 2:1; 3:11, 14, 44; 4:1; 5:1, 5, 11; 6:1, 22) or with a statement of background fact (see 3:1, “This is the account of the family of Aaron and Moses”). Chapter 7 begins with a narrative action-sequence pattern: “When Moses finished . . . he anointed. . . . Then the leaders . . . made offerings.” Wenham, 91, has nicely summarized the relationship of the dated events of Numbers 7–9 with the events of Exodus and Leviticus. The following chart of the events of the first two months of the second year of Israel’s exodus is adapted from his book:

Date (in second year) Event Text

Day 1, first month

Completion of tabernacle

Exodus 40:2; Numbers 7:1

Laws for offerings begin

Leviticus 1:1

Offerings for altar begin

Numbers 7:3

Ordination of priests begins

Leviticus 8:1

Day 8, first month

Ordination of priests completed

Leviticus 9:1

Day 12, first month

Offerings for altar completed

Numbers 7:78

Appointment of Levites

Numbers 8:5

Day 14, first month

Second Passover

Numbers 9:2

Day 1, second month

Census begins

Numbers 1:1

Day 14, second month

Passover for those unclean

Numbers 9:11

Day 20, second month

The cloud moves, the camp begins its trek

Numbers 10:11

The focus in the chapter is on the tabernacle (hammiškān), the “dwelling place of God” (v.1), and the altar (hammizbēaḥ), the point of approach to God’s dwelling. After Moses had completed supervising the construction and erection of the sacred tent and its altar, he anointed and consecrated them for the Lord’s special services. The verb “anoint” is the same term used for the anointing of special persons (see Note). The second verb used of the dedication rites is “consecrated.” It was a declarative action (see Note), to be noted by those present that the tabernacle and its furnishings and the altar and its implements were no longer common items but were now marked out as special, distinct, and other. The common was now sacred; the ordinary was now set apart to the worship of God.

2–3 Then the leaders of the tribes, whom we have met already in chs. 1 and 2, came forward with their first gifts. The Hebrew word for their gifts is qorbān (GK 7933), a noun related to the verb meaning “to bring near” (qārab in the Hiphil). This type of language is particularly apt, for the leaders were “bringing near” to the symbols of God’s presence their own gifts. These gifts were necessary and utilitarian.

There were six carts, each drawn by a pair of oxen, for the special use of the priests in transporting the elements of the sacred tent and its furnishings when the people would set out on their march toward Canaan. The Hebrew word for “cart” (ʿagālâ) is modified by the noun ṣâb (“litter”), used only here and in Isaiah 66:20. This phrase has traditionally been understood to describe a covered wagon, though the precise meaning of the wording is debated. Covered wagons would certainly be appropriate for transporting the sacred items. I suspect the pairs of oxen were matched and stately, suitably chosen for their significant work.

NOTE

1 (māšaḥ; GK 5417) has the basic meaning of “to smear, anoint” (see also discussion of this word at 3:3; 18:8). It can be used of covering a surface with paint (as in Jer 22:14) but is used especially for the anointing of a person or an object with olive oil in a ritual of consecration. When anointing was done of persons such as priests, kings, and prophets, the oil was poured on the head of the sacral person (e.g., Ex 28:41; 1Ki 1:45; 19:16). When anointing was done of objects, the oil could be poured or smeared over the surface of sacred things. Jacob anointed a sacred pillar before the Lord at Bethel (Ge 31:13), and Moses was commanded to anoint the altar of the tabernacle (Ex 29:36). The oil that was to be used in these consecrating ceremonies is described in Exodus 30:23–25. It was an extraordinary oil blended with exotic spices in exacting proportions and termed “a sacred anointing oil,” the recipe for which was sacrosanct; unauthorized use or duplication of it was an affront to the holiness of God and was grounds for being cut off from the people of God (v.33).

(wayqaddēš, “and [he] consecrated”) is a form of the verb (qādaš, “to be holy”; GK 7727). This verb in the Piel stem used here means “to make holy, set apart.”

(b) The distribution of the carts and oxen (7:4–9)

4The LORD said to Moses, 5“Accept these from them, that they may be used in the work at the Tent of Meeting. Give them to the Levites as each man’s work requires.”

6So Moses took the carts and oxen and gave them to the Levites. 7He gave two carts and four oxen to the Gershonites, as their work required, 8and he gave four carts and eight oxen to the Merarites, as their work required. They were all under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron, the priest. 9But Moses did not give any to the Kohathites, because they were to carry on their shoulders the holy things, for which they were responsible.

COMMENTARY

4–9 Following the command of God, Moses took these six covered carts and their respective pairs of oxen and distributed them to the three Levitical families based on their need and their particular responsibilities. Two of the carts and their four oxen he gave to the families of Gershon for their work in transporting the varied curtains of the tabernacle and the courtyard (see 4:24–28); the other four carts and their pairs of oxen went to the families of Merari for their work in transporting the frames, crossbars, posts, bases, ropes, and pegs of the tabernacle and the courtyard (see 4:29–33). Moses made these divisions of carts and oxen based on the needs that each family had for transporting the material of the tabernacle.

The Kohathites, by contrast, were not given any carts; they were to carry the holy things on their shoulders, with staves placed through the carrying loops (see 4:4–20; esp. vv.6, 8, 11–12, 14). This prohibition of the use of carts for the holiest objects was not followed by David in his first attempt to transport the ark to the city of Jerusalem, following the establishment of his kingdom (see 2Sa 6:3). This untoward act led to the death of Uzzah, who attempted to stabilize the ark as it seemed about to tumble from the cart (v.7). The lesson was drastic, but David learned from it. He had the priests carry it the second time (v.13).

(c) The plan of the tribal offerings (7:10–11)

10When the altar was anointed, the leaders brought their offerings for its dedication and presented them before the altar. 11For the LORD had said to Moses, “Each day one leader is to bring his offering for the dedication of the altar.”

COMMENTARY

10–11 The Hebrew text is emphatic in v.11: “And Yahweh said to Moses, one leader for one day, one leader for one day, let them bring their offering near for the dedication of the altar” (my translation). The repetition of “one leader for one day” shows the pacing that God required. Each leader’s gift was worth a day’s celebration. None of the collections of gifts was to be grouped with others, none of the leaders was to be bunched with others. Each leader, with the people he represented, was to have his day in the sun—better, his day of approach with significant gifts to the supernal presence of Yahweh.

(d) The offerings of the twelve tribes (7:12–83)

12The one who brought his offering on the first day was Nahshon son of Amminadab of the tribe of Judah.

13His offering was one silver plate weighing a hundred and thirty shekels, and one silver sprinkling bowl weighing seventy shekels, both according to the sanctuary shekel, each filled with fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering; 14one gold dish weighing ten shekels, filled with incense; 15one young bull, one ram and one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 16one male goat for a sin offering; 17and two oxen, five rams, five male goats and five male lambs a year old, to be sacrificed as a fellowship offering. This was the offering of Nahshon son of Amminadab.

18On the second day Nethanel son of Zuar, the leader of Issachar, brought his offering.

19The offering he brought was one silver plate weighing a hundred and thirty shekels, and one silver sprinkling bowl weighing seventy shekels, both according to the sanctuary shekel, each filled with fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering; 20one gold dish weighing ten shekels, filled with incense; 21one young bull, one ram and one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 22one male goat for a sin offering; 23and two oxen, five rams, five male goats and five male lambs a year old, to be sacrificed as a fellowship offering. This was the offering of Nethanel son of Zuar.

24On the third day, Eliab son of Helon, the leader of the people of Zebulun, brought his offering.

25His offering was one silver plate weighing a hundred and thirty shekels, and one silver sprinkling bowl weighing seventy shekels, both according to the sanctuary shekel, each filled with fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering; 26one gold dish weighing ten shekels, filled with incense; 27one young bull, one ram and one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 28one male goat for a sin offering; 29and two oxen, five rams, five male goats and five male lambs a year old, to be sacrificed as a fellowship offering. This was the offering of Eliab son of Helon.

30On the fourth day Elizur son of Shedeur, the leader of the people of Reuben, brought his offering.

31His offering was one silver plate weighing a hundred and thirty shekels, and one silver sprinkling bowl weighing seventy shekels, both according to the sanctuary shekel, each filled with fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering; 32one gold dish weighing ten shekels, filled with incense; 33one young bull, one ram and one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 34one male goat for a sin offering; 35and two oxen, five rams, five male goats and five male lambs a year old, to be sacrificed as a fellowship offering. This was the offering of Elizur son of Shedeur.

36On the fifth day Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai, the leader of the people of Simeon, brought his offering.

37His offering was one silver plate weighing a hundred and thirty shekels, and one silver sprinkling bowl weighing seventy shekels, both according to the sanctuary shekel, each filled with fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering; 38one gold dish weighing ten shekels, filled with incense; 39one young bull, one ram and one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 40one male goat for a sin offering; 41and two oxen, five rams, five male goats and five male lambs a year old, to be sacrificed as a fellowship offering. This was the offering of Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai.

42On the sixth day Eliasaph son of Deuel, the leader of the people of Gad, brought his offering.

43His offering was one silver plate weighing a hundred and thirty shekels, and one silver sprinkling bowl weighing seventy shekels, both according to the sanctuary shekel, each filled with fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering; 44one gold dish weighing ten shekels, filled with incense; 45one young bull, one ram and one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 46one male goat for a sin offering; 47and two oxen, five rams, five male goats and five male lambs a year old, to be sacrificed as a fellowship offering. This was the offering of Eliasaph son of Deuel.

48On the seventh day Elishama son of Ammihud, the leader of the people of Ephraim, brought his offering.

49His offering was one silver plate weighing a hundred and thirty shekels, and one silver sprinkling bowl weighing seventy shekels, both according to the sanctuary shekel, each filled with fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering; 50one gold dish weighing ten shekels, filled with incense; 51one young bull, one ram and one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 52one male goat for a sin offering; 53and two oxen, five rams, five male goats and five male lambs a year old, to be sacrificed as a fellowship offering. This was the offering of Elishama son of Ammihud.

54On the eighth day Gamaliel son of Pedahzur, the leader of the people of Manasseh, brought his offering.

55His offering was one silver plate weighing a hundred and thirty shekels, and one silver sprinkling bowl weighing seventy shekels, both according to the sanctuary shekel, each filled with fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering; 56one gold dish weighing ten shekels, filled with incense; 57one young bull, one ram and one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 58one male goat for a sin offering; 59and two oxen, five rams, five male goats and five male lambs a year old, to be sacrificed as a fellowship offering. This was the offering of Gamaliel son of Pedahzur.

60On the ninth day Abidan son of Gideoni, the leader of the people of Benjamin, brought his offering.

61His offering was one silver plate weighing a hundred and thirty shekels, and one silver sprinkling bowl weighing seventy shekels, both according to the sanctuary shekel, each filled with fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering; 62one gold dish weighing ten shekels, filled with incense; 63one young bull, one ram and one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 64one male goat for a sin offering; 65and two oxen, five rams, five male goats and five male lambs a year old, to be sacrificed as a fellowship offering. This was the offering of Abidan son of Gideoni.

66On the tenth day Ahiezer son of Ammishaddai, the leader of the people of Dan, brought his offering.

67His offering was one silver plate weighing a hundred and thirty shekels, and one silver sprinkling bowl weighing seventy shekels, both according to the sanctuary shekel, each filled with fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering; 68one gold dish weighing ten shekels, filled with incense; 69one young bull, one ram and one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 70one male goat for a sin offering; 71and two oxen, five rams, five male goats and five male lambs a year old, to be sacrificed as a fellowship offering. This was the offering of Ahiezer son of Ammishaddai.

72On the eleventh day Pagiel son of Ocran, the leader of the people of Asher, brought his offering.

73His offering was one silver plate weighing a hundred and thirty shekels, and one silver sprinkling bowl weighing seventy shekels, both according to the sanctuary shekel, each filled with fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering; 74one gold dish weighing ten shekels, filled with incense; 75one young bull, one ram and one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 76one male goat for a sin offering; 77and two oxen, five rams, five male goats and five male lambs a year old, to be sacrificed as a fellowship offering. This was the offering of Pagiel son of Ocran.

78On the twelfth day Ahira son of Enan, the leader of the people of Naphtali, brought his offering.

79His offering was one silver plate weighing a hundred and thirty shekels, and one silver sprinkling bowl weighing seventy shekels, both according to the sanctuary shekel, each filled with fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering; 80one gold dish weighing ten shekels, filled with incense; 81one young bull, one ram and one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 82one male goat for a sin offering; 83and two oxen, five rams, five male goats and five male lambs a year old, to be sacrificed as a fellowship offering. This was the offering of Ahira son of Enan.

COMMENTARY

12–83 The leaders of the twelve tribes have already been named in 1:5–15 and 2:3–32. The order of the presentation of their great offerings to the Lord is the same as the order of march: first the triad of tribes encamped to the east of the tabernacle (Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun; 2:3–9; 7:12, 18, 24); then the triad of tribes encamped to the south (Reuben, Simeon, and Gad; 2:10–16; 7:30, 36, 42); then the triad on the west (Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin; 2:18–24; 7:48, 54, 60); finally those on the north (Dan, Asher, and Naphtali; 2:25–31; 7:66, 72, 78).

The gifts of each of the twelve worthies were the same:

These gifts were all to be used in the worship patterns of the temple service. The “silver plate” (v.13) may have been used in association with the bread of the Presence. The sprinkling bowls were for the blood that would be sprinkled on the altar. The golden “dish” (kap, lit., “palm of the hand”; v.14) may have been used for incense, as this was the way it was presented to the Lord. The shekel used to weigh the silver and gold gifts is termed the “sanctuary shekel” (v.13), as against the half-value shekel sometimes used. The MT uses this phrase with the “sprinkling bowl,” which the NIV (probably correctly) implies to extend to the weight of the “dish” as well (v.13). The weight of the sanctuary shekel was established in Exodus 30:13 as “twenty gerahs” (= .403 ounce or 11.4 grams; see Gleason L. Archer Jr., “The Metrology of the Old Testament,” EBC1, 1:379).

Attempts to determine what something was worth in terms of our present economy are futile for at least three reasons: (1) the economy of ancient Israel was not a money-based system, as in our day; (2) the relative values of gold and silver were likely closer to each other than they are in our day; and (3) the abundance or scarcity of silver and gold at any given period is difficult to ascertain. Certainly these gifts were regarded as substantial, particularly so coming from a people so recently enslaved. They had despoiled the Egyptians (Ex 12:35–36) to enrich the worship of their God. The incense that filled the dishes was the prescribed, fragrant incense of Exodus 30:34.

Obviously the writer might more easily have said that each of the twelve leaders brought the same magnificent offerings to the Lord on his appointed day during the twelve-day celebrative period. How are we to regard his seeming excess of repetitive detail throughout the long chapter? Is it not possible that in this daily listing we catch a glimpse of the magnificent pomp and ceremony attending these gifts? Do we not see the genuine spirit of worship of each of the successive tribes as their turn came to bring gifts to the Lord? And finally, do we not see the joy of the Lord in his reception of these gifts? This chapter has a stately charm, a leisurely pace, and a studied sense of magnificence as each tribe in its turn was able to make gifts to God that he received with pleasure.

This text gives warrant to the ideas of rite and ritual, of ceremony and tradition. For many Christians in free churches, ritual and ceremony are regarded with suspicion, if not with disdain. Yet ritual and ceremony are deeply imbedded in the Scriptures. This text describes events in which the people took joy and in which they believed there was the corresponding joy of the Lord. As we have noted already, the daily pacing of the gifts was the directive of the Lord; their obedience was the prompt for his joy (v.11).

Analogies of the repetition found in this chapter may be made with graduation ceremonies. Sometimes when schools are very large, degrees are granted en masse; sometimes this is done on an athletic field. No names are read, and no graduates cross the platform for a handshake and the receipt of a diploma. The class is asked to stand, all are pronounced in receipt of their degrees, and word is made that their diplomas will be in the mail. In smaller schools the situation is markedly different. Here each name is read, and each student crosses the platform; each receives a diploma and a handshake and may even hear a few personal words. This latter type of highly personalized situation is reflected in Numbers 7.

NOTE

13 Many readers of the Bible think that the term (šeqel, “shekel, weight”; GK 9203) refers to coinage of silver or gold. But coinage did not develop in ancient times until the Persian period. The use of the term shekel in this passage to describe the actual weight of consecrated objects shows the true situation. A major work on biblical coinage is David Hendin’s Guide to Biblical Coins (4th ed.; New York: Amphora, 2001), with values by Herbert Kreindler. Hendin’s chapter 2 (“A Time before Coins,” 57–69) explains varied uses of the term shekel and the development of the official Judean shekel-weight system in the First Temple Period. The shekel then weighed approximately 11.4 grams and was divided into 20 gerah units, with other fractions called pim, nezê, and beka (see Hendin, 61). Dever (What Did the Biblical Writers Know? 221–28) also has a helpful description (along with a graph) of the shekel-weight system.

(e) The totals of the offerings (7:84–88)

84These were the offerings of the Israelite leaders for the dedication of the altar when it was anointed: twelve silver plates, twelve silver sprinkling bowls and twelve gold dishes. 85Each silver plate weighed a hundred and thirty shekels, and each sprinkling bowl seventy shekels. Altogether, the silver dishes weighed two thousand four hundred shekels, according to the sanctuary shekel. 86The twelve gold dishes filled with incense weighed ten shekels each, according to the sanctuary shekel. Altogether, the gold dishes weighed a hundred and twenty shekels. 87The total number of animals for the burnt offering came to twelve young bulls, twelve rams and twelve male lambs a year old, together with their grain offering. Twelve male goats were used for the sin offering. 88The total number of animals for the sacrifice of the fellowship offering came to twenty-four oxen, sixty rams, sixty male goats and sixty male lambs a year old. These were the offerings for the dedication of the altar after it was anointed.

COMMENTARY

84–88 At long last the twelve-day procession of givers and gifts came to its conclusion. Each tribal leader had his moment, each tribe its opportunity, and on each day there was experienced the smile of the Lord. In characteristic Hebrew style, this paragraph gives the sums of the twelve sets of gifts, a further witness to the opulence of the offerings, the festive nature of the ritual of presentation, and the sense of celebration each tribe had in its part. The totals are given in fine mathematical detail. The addition of elements in this type of paragraph shows that numerical precision was possible in ancient Israel and that numbers may be transmitted with care. The ordinary use of numbers in this section is important, as we think of their possible rhetorical use in ch. 1, with its seemingly immense numbers of fighters for each tribe.

(f) Moses’ conversation with God (7:89)

89When Moses entered the Tent of Meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from between the two cherubim above the atonement cover on the ark of the Testimony. And he spoke with him.

COMMENTARY

89 The climax came when Moses heard the voice of the Lord speaking to him from the central shrine, amid the cherubim, and over the atonement cover. Communion was established between the Lord and his prophet; the people now had an advocate with the Lord. All the sumptuous gifts of the people through their tribal leaders had had their effect. The eternal Yahweh now spoke to Moses and through Moses to the people. Moses might also speak to God for the people. There was access to heaven within this shrine. Here was forgiveness of sin. Here was grace and here was mercy. Here was the voice of God, as promised in Exodus 25:22.

Many scholars have assumed that God is to be pictured as enthroned on the cherubim that were on the mercy seat of the ark. It seems far more likely, however, that the cherubim and the mercy seat of the ark are symbols of the Divine Presence and that the voice of God came to Moses from amid that cluster of symbols. The description of the construction of the ark, the cover of atonement, and the cherubim is given in Exodus 37:1–9. The workmanship must have been exquisite; it was the special work of the Spirit-endowed craftsman Bezalel. But more exquisite than the cherubim of hammered gold or the atonement cover of pure gold was the invaluable voice of God. It was that voice that Moses heard (see ch. 12).

There is something of a play on words in this verse. It begins with the activities of Moses: “When Moses entered the Tent of Meeting to speak with the LORD. . . .” The verse ends, “And he [Yahweh] spoke with him [Moses].”

iv. Setting up the lamps and the separation and age of service of the Levites (8:1–26)

OVERVIEW

Chapter 8 deals with two issues: lamps and Levites. Both the proper setting of the lamps and the distinction of the Levites from the community are further elements in the purification of the nation in preparation for the holy task God had prepared for his people. One may wonder: Is there a possible connection intended in the materials of this chapter between the proper positioning of the lamps within the tabernacle and the Levites outside in the camp? Perhaps as the lamps were to be properly focused on the bread of the Presence, so the Levites were to have their proper stance within the community. Lamps not properly focused would give poorly diffused light; God’s intent was illumination. Levites not properly positioned within the community would give a diffused picture; God’s intention was that the nation should understand who the Levites were and what they presented of the nature of God.

(a) Setting up the lamps (8:1–4)

1The LORD said to Moses, 2“Speak to Aaron and say to him, ‘When you set up the seven lamps, they are to light the area in front of the lampstand.’”

3Aaron did so; he set up the lamps so that they faced forward on the lampstand, just as the LORD commanded Moses. 4This is how the lampstand was made: It was made of hammered gold—from its base to its blossoms. The lampstand was made exactly like the pattern the LORD had shown Moses.

COMMENTARY

1 Chapter 8 begins in the characteristic manner of the book of Numbers, with the formulaic words: “The LORD said to Moses.” As noted on other occasions, these words serve a double purpose: they present a new topic and thus may be regarded as a narrator’s device. But they are more than just the sign of a new topic; they are the reminder of the divine origin of the words and of the role Moses had as the intermediary between God and humans.

2 The seven lamps and the lampstand (cf. the wording of “seven golden lampstands” in Rev 1:12–13, and following) are described more fully in Exodus 25:31–40. There we find the notations of the exquisite beauty of the lampstand (see Note). It was made of hammered pure gold and consisted of a base, a shaft, and seven branches (three on each side of the central shaft), with cups shaped like almond blossoms, along with other decorative buds and blossoms. The lampstand must have been truly elegant, a stunning symbol of the God who created light as the first of his works, of the Lord who illuminates—a symbol of God, who is light.

In this chapter the new information concerns the direction of the light: it was to be cast forward from the lampstand. This chapter does not explain what might be significant in this positioning. Only when we think through the relative positioning of the other furnishings of the tabernacle are we able to see the point of the paragraph: the lamps were to be positioned so that they would light the area in front of the lampstand, that is, the area where the bread of the Presence was displayed. In this way there would always be light on the bread; the twin symbols of life would work together to speak of the life-giving mercies of the Lord, whose attention was ever on his people.

As one entered the Holy Place, the golden lampstand would be on the left side and the table of the bread of the Presence on the right side, with the altar of incense straight ahead. Beyond that altar was the veil leading into the Most Holy Place, housing the ark, with the “mercy seat” (NASB; “atonement cover,” NIV) and the cherubim.

3–4 Aaron obeyed the command of God in the proper focusing of the lamps (v.3); then the text reminds us of the beauty of the design of the lampstand (v.4). The most remarkable aspect is the note that the lampstand was made in exact accordance with the pattern the Lord had given to Moses. The pattern of the lampstand was not a brilliant human artifice; its plan and design were of God (see Ex 25:40; also cf. Heb 8:5; Rev 1:12–20).

NOTES

2 (menôrâ, “lampstand”) is commonly Anglicized as “menorah” (see also Ex 25:31). The term for the lampstand is associated with the word (nēr, “lamp”), a word that is in the plural here (, nērôt, “lamps”; see also Ex 25:37). Household lamps in the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550–1200 BC) were terra-cotta (baked clay) bowls of about six or more inches in diameter with a depression of an inch or so to hold the olive oil, which was the fuel. A pinched area along the rim of the bowl held the wick (often made of flax). Thousands of examples of baked-clay lamps from all periods of Israel’s history are available today from archaeological excavations. The typing of pottery lamps and bowls is one of the principal means used to give a relative date to a stratum of an archaeological excavation (a “dig”). The standard reference work on pottery from biblical times is Ruth Amiran’s Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land: From Its Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age (Jerusalem: Massada, 1969); plate 59 (189) describes lamps from the Late Bronze Age.

No examples of the grand lamps or lampstands have surfaced from the tabernacle—or from the First Temple (the temple built by Solomon). At the time of this writing, the only ancient item that has been discovered that is believed actually to have been used in the First Temple is a beautiful, pomegranate-shaped ivory censor head. It is all the more remarkable in that it has an inscription in Hebrew: lby [yhw]h qdš khnm, “Belonging to [Yahwe]h, holy to the priests.” See André Lamaire, “Probable Head of Priestly Scepter from Solomon’s Temple Surfaces,” BAR 10/1 (January–February 1984): 24–29. The authenticity of this inscription, however, has recently been challenged.

4 (marʾeh, “appearance”; “pattern,” NIV) is a nominal form from the verb (rāʾâ, “to see”), used here in the Hiphil with the meaning “to show.” This is a familiar Hebrew device in which the object is from the same root as the verb (a cognate accusative), a device that plays to the eye and the ear and brings emphasis on the object.

(b) The separation of the Levites (8:5–22)

OVERVIEW

A pattern used in Numbers is to move from the priests to the Levites (cf. 4:5–15a, priests, with 4:15b, Levites); here the brief paragraph on priestly duties is followed by a more extensive section on the Levites. Another pattern in Numbers is to interweave texts dealing with lay persons and texts dealing with sacral persons (a point noted by Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982], 328). Chapters 1–2 deal with laypersons, chs. 3–4 with sacral persons, the sections 5:1–6:21 with laypersons, 6:22–27 with sacral persons, 7:1–89 with laypersons; and ch. 8 with sacral persons.

Numbers 8 is a significant text on the role and nature of the Levites in ancient Israel; it is also an important reminder of the theology of redemption. The Levites belonged to the Lord in exchange for his deliverance of the firstborn sons of Israel during the tenth plague in Egypt.

(i) Their ceremonial cleansing (8:5–14)

5The LORD said to Moses: 6“Take the Levites from among the other Israelites and make them ceremonially clean. 7To purify them, do this: Sprinkle the water of cleansing on them; then have them shave their whole bodies and wash their clothes, and so purify themselves. 8Have them take a young bull with its grain offering of fine flour mixed with oil; then you are to take a second young bull for a sin offering. 9Bring the Levites to the front of the Tent of Meeting and assemble the whole Israelite community. 10You are to bring the Levites before the LORD, and the Israelites are to lay their hands on them. 11Aaron is to present the Levites before the LORD as a wave offering from the Israelites, so that they may be ready to do the work of the LORD.

12“After the Levites lay their hands on the heads of the bulls, use the one for a sin offering to the LORD and the other for a burnt offering, to make atonement for the Levites. 13Have the Levites stand in front of Aaron and his sons and then present them as a wave offering to the LORD. 14In this way you are to set the Levites apart from the other Israelites, and the Levites will be mine.

COMMENTARY

5–10 This section (vv.5–14) describes the cleansing of the Levites and may be compared with the account detailing the ordination of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood (Lev 8). The Levites were helpers to the priests, and the language describing their consecration is somewhat distinct from that of the priests. The priests were made holy, the Levites clean; the priests were anointed and washed, the Levites were sprinkled; the priests were given new garments, the Levites washed theirs; blood was applied to the priests, water was sprinkled over the Levites.

One of the refrains in this section is the idea that the Levites were taken from among (mittōk, “from the midst of”) the people (see vv.6, 14, 16, 19), thus reminding us that the Levites were distinct from the other tribes. They were to have no tribal allotment; their homes would be spread throughout the other tribes, but they were drawn from the tribes to have a special service before the Lord in assisting the priests.

The verb ṭāhar (GK 3197) in v.6 describes ceremonial cleansing. In the Piel stem it speaks of cleansing, making pure—of cleansing ceremonially. The verb is used, for example, in the cleansing process for the altar of incense by applying blood from a sin offering. The cleansing process of the Levites was to begin with a sprinkling of water on them rather than with a sprinkling of blood. This water is termed mê haṭṭāʾt (lit., “water of sin”; v.7), a phrase taken to mean “water of cleansing” or “purification from sin.” A similar phrase is found in 19:9, mê niddâ (“water of cleansing”) for purification from sin. The phrase “water of sin” may also be compared with the phrase mê hammārîm hamʾārarîm (“bitter water producing cursing”) in 5:18, used in the rite of the woman suspected of adultery.

The second factor in the cleansing of the Levites was the shaving of their entire bodies (v.7). This symbolic act speaks of the fullness of their cleansing, as in the case of the ritual cleansing of one cured of a serious skin disorder (Lev 14:8; see comments on Nu 5:2). Shaving the entire body, not just the head, was in some ways a return to innocence and an initiative symbol of purity. It is well known that hair tends to be dirty; bodily hair needs to be cleansed regularly, for the follicles tend to collect and hold dirt. The ancient Egyptians were fastidious about cleanliness; they shaved their bodies regularly and wore wigs. They were also concerned with head lice, so the shaving of the head was a protection in that regard. According to Herodotus (2.37), Egyptian priests shaved their whole bodies every other day.

The cleansing of the Levites in Israel seems not to have been a repeated action but an initial rite of purification. Since Semitic men were characterized generally in the ancient world by wearing beards and by ample body hair, the shaving of these men’s bodies must have been regarded as a remarkable act of devotion to God.

The third factor in cleansing the Levites was washing their garments. The verb used for washing is kābas (a verb meaning “to tread, walk” [GK 3891], related to the Akkadian kabāsu, “to tread down, wash garments by treading”). The verb pictorially represents the ancient form of washing clothing. The same verb was used to describe the cleansing that had to be done by the whole nation when Moses was about to go to the mountain to meet with the Lord (Ex 19:10, 14). On occasion kābas is used in parallel with rāḥaṣ (“to wash the person”; e.g., Lev 14:8; 15:5).

Following the sprinkling with water of purification, the shaving of their bodies, and the washing of their clothes, the Levites were ready for the next step in their purification: the presentation of their offerings and sacrifices to God. They were each to bring two bulls along with the fine flour mixed with oil that constituted the grain offering. These items would then be presented by Moses before the Tent of Meeting, with the nation gathered to witness the event (vv.8–9). The people (their representatives) would then place their hands on the Levites (v.10) as a means of identifying with them. The Levites had come from among the people; now they would stand in their place before the Divine Presence. This was a solemn act, worthy of reflection. The Levites were the substitutes for the nation; by placing hands on them, the people of the nation dramatically acknowledged this substitutionary act (see 8:16–18).

11–14 Our text makes a subtle move from the placing of the hands of the people on the Levites to the placing of the hands of the Levites on the two bulls. This is delicious—a double substitution! The Levites substituted for the people, the bulls substituted for the Levites. The bulls, with this double signification, were then made sacrifices of sin offering and burnt offering to provide atonement for the Levites. This double ritual was engaging; persons present for these actions must have had their attention riveted to the ritual, wondering at its meaning.

In v.11 Aaron is brought more directly into the picture, as he was to present the Levites as a “wave offering” before the Lord. The notion of a “wave offering” is somewhat mysterious to us. We have some concept of burning sacrifices, of pouring out libations, and of presenting grain offerings. But the “wave” offering is the most obscure. Its idea was to hold an object, usually the part of the offering that ordinarily would be the food for the priests, before the Lord, wave it back and forth, and then keep it for one’s own use. Presenting an offering in this manner was unusually symbolic—as indeed was all sacrifice!

In the case of the Levites, presumably Aaron and his sons placed their hands on the Levites’ shoulders and caused them to move from side to side in a symbolic way to represent the fact that they were a living sacrifice (see Ro 12:1–2) presented before the Lord; now they belonged to the priests to assist them in their work of service in the tabernacle. In this way the Levites were separated from the rest of the community; they belonged to the Lord, and in turn they belonged to the priests.

(ii) Their position before the Lord (8:15–19)

15“After you have purified the Levites and presented them as a wave offering, they are to come to do their work at the Tent of Meeting. 16They are the Israelites who are to be given wholly to me. I have taken them as my own in place of the firstborn, the first male offspring from every Israelite woman. 17Every firstborn male in Israel, whether man or animal, is mine. When I struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, I set them apart for myself. 18And I have taken the Levites in place of all the firstborn sons in Israel. 19Of all the Israelites, I have given the Levites as gifts to Aaron and his sons to do the work at the Tent of Meeting on behalf of the Israelites and to make atonement for them so that no plague will strike the Israelites when they go near the sanctuary.”

COMMENTARY

15–16 Here the Lord acknowledged the Levites as his particular possession. The Hebrew uses the Qal passive participle netunîm (meaning “a given one,” from nātan, “to give”) and doubles the word: netunîm netunîm, “given, given,” meaning “given wholly” (v.16). The Levites were the substitutes for the firstborn of every mother in Israel.

The story line of salvation comes through strongly here—it centers on Passover! Israel had been in Egypt. The tenth plague was imminent. Faithful people had slaughtered a lamb, roasted it, and were eating it along with bitter herbs and matzo bread. When Yahweh (see Note on v.17) was passing over the camp of the people of Israel, he looked for blood on the posts and lintel of each home. Where that blood was found, the Lord “passed over.” No one inside died. All lived. But in those homes that lacked the prescribed blood, there came blood; instead of the blood of an animal on the bracing of the door, there was blood in the bed of the oldest child; for the Lord had extracted the most vicious toll, the death of the firstborn. The firstborn children of the faithful Israelites were not killed. They lived. But for them a price needed to be paid, and that price was the Levites. The Levites were to be taken in the service of God (v.15) as a redemptive substitute for the firstborn whose lives were spared in homes displaying the sacrifical blood on post and lintel.

17 The statement “every . . . man or animal” is inclusive. No similar ritual was necessary for the animals; the focus was on people.

18–19 The Levites were the people given to the Lord for his exclusive use (v.18; cf. v.14). In v.19 the Lord gave his Levites to the priests as their aids for the work of the ministry in the tabernacle worship. The Levites had three functions: (1) they served the priests in their work at the tabernacle, generally responsible for the heavy work that priestly duties demanded (laʿabōd ʿet-ʿabōdâ, lit., “to do the work of the work”); 2) they brought redemption for the firstborn of the nation (taḥat, “in place of”; vv.16, 18); and (3) they served as a protective hedge, an atonement (ûlekappēr, “and to make atonement”; v.19), against unwarranted approaches of the holy things, “so that no plague will strike the Israelites.” The Levites were a protective hedge for the community against trespass in sacred precincts of the tabernacle (see 1:53).

In this language we have portraits of both the wrath and the mercy of the Lord. His wrath would be extended against evil assaults on his holiness, but in his mercy he had a protective hedge to prevent such confrontations. Throughout these chapters there is an insistence on God’s wrath and mercy and on his holiness and grace. To hold one of these excellencies out of balance with the other distorts in some manner the biblical portrait of our Father.

NOTE

17 (hakkōtî kol–bekôr beʾereṣ miṣrayim, “I struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt”) sets the record straight. It is not unusual for people to speak of “the angel of death” as the instrument of God on this horrific night; in fact, I did this myself in the 1990 edition of this commentary! But it was not “the angel of death” who engaged in this awful work; it was Yahweh himself. The awesome fact is that the Lord, the Creator of all and the Redeemer of Israel, was the one who destroyed the firstborn sons in all the homes of the Egyptians. In fact, in the words of the Haggadah, the liturgy for the Passover Seder, this fact is emphasized strongly. The words of this libretto of salvation insist that it was not an angel, not a seraph, but the Lord himself in his own glory who came near to deliver his people by this awesome act of judgment on their enemies.

(iii) A summary of their separation (8:20–22)

20Moses, Aaron and the whole Israelite community did with the Levites just as the LORD commanded Moses. 21The Levites purified themselves and washed their clothes. Then Aaron presented them as a wave offering before the LORD and made atonement for them to purify them. 22After that, the Levites came to do their work at the Tent of Meeting under the supervision of Aaron and his sons. They did with the Levites just as the LORD commanded Moses.

COMMENTARY

20–22 This section serves two functions: it reports the completion of the act of separation as a literary device; it also reports the obedience of the people as a mark of their initial compliance to the will and work of God. Verses of complete obedience to Yahweh’s commands occur regularly in the first chapters of Numbers (see 1:54; 2:34; 3:16, 51; 4:49; 5:4; 8:4, 20, 22; 9:5, 23). The implicit obedience of Moses and the people of Israel to God’s commands in the areas of ritual and regimen leave us unprepared for their complaints against his loving character and their outrageous breaches of faith in the rebellions that begin in ch. 11.

(c) The age of service of the Levites (8:23–26)

23The LORD said to Moses, 24“This applies to the Levites: Men twenty-five years old or more shall come to take part in the work at the Tent of Meeting, 25but at the age of fifty, they must retire from their regular service and work no longer. 26They may assist their brothers in performing their duties at the Tent of Meeting, but they themselves must not do the work. This, then, is how you are to assign the responsibilities of the Levites.”

COMMENTARY

23–26 At 4:3 the age for the service of the Levite is said to be from thirty to fifty. The present paragraph has the same upper limit but a new lower limit, twenty-five years. This is a controverted passage; the problem is not easily solved (see Note).

After a Levite had reached the mandatory retirement age of fifty, he was still free to assist his younger coworkers as long as he was able to do so (perhaps at the great festivals), but he was no longer to do the hard and difficult work he had done in his prime. Again, in these regulations we sense the holiness and mercy of God. His holiness demanded that his ministers had to be fully able to do the work that was required of them; to slip or err in holy things was a most grievous offense. His mercy precluded a man from doing the work that was demanded when he might be past his physical prime. There were to be no elderly, doddering Levites stumbling about in the precincts of the Holy Place, carrying poles too heavy for them or doing things they were no longer fit to do.

The last words of the chapter, “This, then, is how you are to assign the responsibilities of the Levites,” serve as a fine finish for the section that begins, “Take the Levites from among the other Israelites” (v.6). This is another example of the beauty of order in the book of Numbers. Not only was the camp to be ordered and the work of the cultic personnel to be done in order, so was the written record of these descriptions to be one in superb order. Finally, the order and organization presented by this chapter further elevated the significance of the Levites. They were treated with dignity and honor, for they held a special function in the worship of God for the good of the community.

NOTE

24 We know King David reduced to twenty the age for entering Levitical service (1Ch 23:24, 27), as the circumstances of the Levites’ work had greatly changed by the time of the monarchy (v.26). Yet it is difficult to imagine a change in circumstances between Numbers 4:3 and 8:24 (as Noordtzij, 81, suggests), if these texts are regarded as both from Moses and ultimately from God. Critical scholars, of course, seize on such contradictions as indicators of varied sources used in the making of the Pentateuch (Noth, 67, calls this “a later correction,” and Budd, 90–92, posits a highly complex picture of late editing). Yet one would think that such an obvious “blunder” could have been smoothed over by even a rather lazy redactor.

The blatant distinction between the ages given in these two chapters (which naturally call for comparison) suggests the possibility that at the time these words were written no one saw any contradiction in these numbers. For these reasons the rabbinical harmonization of these two texts appears to be appropriate with their suggestion of a five-year period of apprenticeship. The contrary data in the texts themselves call for harmonization on the part of the reader—a demand for the careful reading of Scripture by those who are sympathetic to the integrity of the text. And this is the critical issue—prior sympathy with the text.

Here is a negative example of the concept of prior sympathy, presented by means of analogy. As I am revising the words on this page, angry reports flood the American airwaves concerning charges by some African Americans whose lives were devastated by the ravages of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in August 2005. These hurt, angry people testified before a committee of the American Congress, making damning, incendiary claims, that the levees of their city were deliberately destroyed by white officials as planned acts to annihilate the city’s black communities. People can believe such unfounded claims of “American genocide” only if they already have the mindset that white people (powerful and evil) could (and would) perpetrate such atrocities. A person who does not have that prior mindset finds the testimony of these unfortunate individuals to be misguided rantings of pain, not reliable reports of truth.

So we revert now to a positive example of prior sympathy. The late Dr. John F. Walvoord, long-time president of the Dallas Theological Seminary, used to say in his classes something of the following, with regard to the issue of what to do when facing difficulties in the biblical text. “Imagine the Bible as a long-time friend,” he would say, “a friend whom you have learned to trust, to appreciate, to rely on—even with your very life. Then imagine that someone reports in your hearing something truly evil about your friend. What would your first inclination be?” Walvoord would say that if one’s knowledge, trust, and confidence in his or her friend were truly deep and stemmed from long-practiced experience, such a person would not immediately believe the accusation. “You would have a ‘wait and see’ attitude. You would want to investigate; you would not jump to a negative conclusion. You would look for a solution.” So it is with a prior sympathy toward the biblical text.

v. The celebration of the Passover (9:1–14)

OVERVIEW

Numbers 9 begins with instruction and interaction—a dynamic exchange between the Lord and Moses that provides a rare glimpse into how the Lord’s instruction for his people could be modified on the basis of new conditions and circumstances (cf. also Nu 27). The theological implications of this dynamic are enormous, as we will see. The particular issue addressed in Numbers 9 concerns the command of the Lord for the celebration of the Passover in the second year of Israel’s redemption and the request for special treatment prompted by those who were ceremonially unclean at the time and hence excluded from participating in this sacred festival. The first Passover was celebrated in Egypt on the eve of the redemption of the nation from bondage (see Ex 12 for details). Now, a year later, the celebration was to be commemorated by the redeemed populace in the shadow of Mount Sinai.

(a) The command to keep the Passover (9:1–5)

1The LORD spoke to Moses in the Desert of Sinai in the first month of the second year after they came out of Egypt. He said, 2“Have the Israelites celebrate the Passover at the appointed time. 3Celebrate it at the appointed time, at twilight on the fourteenth day of this month, in accordance with all its rules and regulations.”

4So Moses told the Israelites to celebrate the Passover, 5and they did so in the Desert of Sinai at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. The Israelites did everything just as the LORD commanded Moses.

COMMENTARY

1–2 The arrangement of materials in Numbers is not strictly chronological, as we have observed from time to time. The events of this chapter actually precede the beginning of the census of 1:2 (“the first day of the second month of the second year”; 1:1). The first two months of the second year of redemption were an exceedingly busy period of activity. (See the Notes for a chronological listing of the events of chs. 1–10.) The long stay at the base of Mount Sinai was not a time of inactivity or indolence. It was a time of much activity in celebration of the goodness and mercy of the Lord and in preparation for what was expected to have been the soon triumphal march into the land of Canaan. The chronological discontinuity of this book suggests that the principle of arrangement is not time related (see Introduction: Unity and Organization).

The first Passover was held in Egypt in the midst of the saving works of the Lord (Ex 12); this next one is to be celebrated in the Desert of Sinai in commemoration of his works, as commanded by him (Ex 12:14: “for the generations to come”). The celebration of Passover was to become a regular commemorative act by the redeemed Hebrew community, just as celebrating the Lord’s Supper is the regular commemorative act by the redeemed community in Christ.

Verses 1–2 have two discreet emphases. The first concerns the appropriate time and the proper regulations for the Passover; the second is found in the verb “to celebrate.” Repeatedly in these few verses we find an interchange between the words “appropriate time” and “celebrate.” In these two words are compelling complementary ideas. The first is a proper focus on the demands, obligations, and rites of worship in Hebrew Scripture. The second is the opportunity for the people to reach out for the celebrative, enjoyable, and festive nature of that worship.

Error may come in omitting either aspect. To lose sight of the regulation is to trespass in presumption. To forget the celebrative is to lose the joy and heart of worship; merely to follow the obligation is to slip into the dreary work of “religion.” Any approach to God by his people ought to meld these two ideas. Only in that which is appropriate is there really room for true celebration; celebration apart from a sense of the appropriate is the bittersweet failure of pseudo-happiness.

3–4 The Hebrew term bên haʿarbayim, translated “at twilight” (v.3), speaks poignantly: “between the evenings,” denoting that period just between sunset and true darkness. In traditional Hebrew practice, this period is regarded as the end of one day and the beginning of the next. The official determination of the precise moment of twilight in Jewish tradition became that point where one could no longer distinguish between white and black threads when standing outside in the growing darkness.

In addition to the emphasis on the appropriate timing of the Passover, we find ourselves impressed with the necessity for complete obedience to the legislation of the celebration. It was to be celebrated according to all of its statutes and judgments. These correlative words speak in hendiadys of complete compliance to detail, a full respect for and obedience to the regulations that God had established. This emphasis on complete obedience in the minute details can lead in two directions: (1) to the obedience of faith that regarded the minute details as important and that understood that compliance to them was that which would bring the pleasure of the Lord; (2) to legalism that found itself so preoccupied with the details and regulations as to lose the primary sense of the meaning God had in the legislation in the first place. We observe with sadness that the latter direction has characterized postbiblical Judaism, even as was the case in the lives of so many Hebrew people in the NT era.

5 Verse 5 is a report of compliance—yet another example of the obedience of Israel to the demands of the Lord in these early chapters of Numbers. Reports such as this assure us that things were as they should have been. Yet these same reports ill-prepare us for the dreadful rebellion of Israel at Kadesh, described in the following chapters.

NOTES

1 The chronology of the first two months of the second year after the exodus is as follows.

  1. 1. The setting up of the tabernacle (7:1) was declared to be completed on the first day of the first month of the second year (Ex 40:2). On this day the cloud covered the tabernacle, as we will see later in this chapter (Nu 9:15–23). Then, in response to the symbol of God’s presence over the completed tabernacle, also on that day the first of the offerings from the twelve leaders of the tribes was given to the Lord (7:3–17). The presentation of the gifts from each tribe extended until the twelfth day of this month.
  2. 2. The setting apart of the Levites (8:26) presumably followed immediately after the twelve days of gifts, perhaps on the thirteenth day of the month. It seems unlikely that the setting apart of the Levites would have been on the same day as the last of the tribal gifts; to have another significant action on that day would have minimized the importance of the gifts of Ahira of Naphtali (7:78–83).
  3. 3. The second Passover was celebrated on the fourteenth day of the first month (9:5).
  4. 4. The census began on the first day of the second month (1:1–2).
  5. 5. Those who were ceremonially unclean at the time of the second Passover were permitted to celebrate it on the fourteenth day of the second month (9:11).
  6. 6. Then the cloud lifted and the march from Sinai began on the twentieth day of the second month (10:11).

2 The verb used throughout this section is the common term (ʿāśâ, “to do”). It has an extraordinary range of meaning in biblical usage. The translation “celebrate” for (weyaʿaśû) is appropriate here because of the environment of the festival that Passover suggests.

(happesaḥ, “the Passover”) has three basic usages in the MT: (1) the sacrifice of the Passover, the associated communion meal (as in Ex 12:11, 27); (2) the animal that is sacrificed, the particular lamb or goat of Passover (as in Ex 12:21); and (3) the Feast of the Passover, which is the broader use (as in 9:2).

(bemôʿadô, “at the appointed time”) is from the verb (yāʿad, “to appoint”). This word is the same as that used to describe the “Tent of Meeting” (12:4), which could also be called “the tent of the appointed meeting.”

(b) The ceremonially unclean (9:6–8)

6But some of them could not celebrate the Passover on that day because they were ceremonially unclean on account of a dead body. So they came to Moses and Aaron that same day 7and said to Moses, “We have become unclean because of a dead body, but why should we be kept from presenting the LORD’s offering with the other Israelites at the appointed time?”

8Moses answered them, “Wait until I find out what the LORD commands concerning you.”

COMMENTARY

6–7 Crisis developed within the community because of ritual impurity on the part of some; they had come in contact with a dead body. As seen in 5:1, such contact rendered a person ritually unclean and no longer able to participate in the community until rites of purification had been completed (see v.2). Hence a person in a state of ritual impurity would not have been permitted to participate in the celebrative Feast of the Passover. The section points to two issues: (1) the desire of these people to obey God fully in his calls for worship and festivals, and (2) the formidable obstacle of participation based on ritual uncleanness.

The concept of ritual impurity is so foreign to modern thinking as to be nearly unintelligible to most readers. The idea of being “unclean” is not simply that of being physically soiled, of course, though that which was dirty might have been a physical presentment of what was “unclean.” The best way for us to think of the notion of “uncleanness” is as a teaching device to remind the people of Israel of the holiness of God. The idea that any person at all might have the effrontery to dare to approach the presence of the Lord is audacious in itself. Only by God’s grace might anyone come before him to worship. By developing a concept of ritual purity, an external symbol, the notion of internal purity might be presented.

In the Bible the notions of external symbols are representative of internal realities. Only the obdurate miss the point here. In Jesus’ numerous confrontations with the Pharisees, the principal battle was not over the essential demands of God but centered on the tendencies the Pharisees had in focusing on external compliance without due attention to internal meaning (see, e.g., Mt 23:27–28). In the present passage, the recognition of ceremonial uncleanness on the part of some people and their consequent inability to participate in the activities of celebrative worship in the Passover speaks of their high level of compliance to the dictates of Torah and their keen desire to worship the Lord in spirit and truth (see Jn 4:24).

8 Moses responded that he would seek an answer from the Lord to redress the people’s need; this answer presents an amazing dynamic in Scripture (see Notes). In this instance there were two conflicting ideals: the demand of the Lord for the community-wide celebration of Passover was confronted by ceremonial uncleanness of a part of the community. In a case of such conflict, Moses sought the intervention of the Lord—a new word from glory (see comments on 27:5, 21). That word would bring a means of maintaining the best of both ideals without compromising either.

We may also observe that Moses’ response to the genuine needs of believing people is a mark of his spiritual leadership, his humility before God, and his desire to be the spokesman not only for the Lord to the people but also for the people back to the Lord. In this scenario we have not only a historical instance but also a template for how such decisions should be made. Another dramatic example of this process is found in ch. 27 regarding the problem of the estate of a father who has daughters but no sons.

NOTES

6 (lenepeš, “to a person, to a soul”; “on account of a dead body,” NIV) employs the preposition “to” or “for” plus the noun often translated as “soul” or “person.”

8 (mah-yeṣāwweh yhwh lākem, “what Yahweh may command for you”) suggests that Moses would consult the Lord through the priest by means of the Urim and Thummim; see Note at 27:21 for a development of this concept.

(c) Divine permission for a legitimate delay (9:9–13)

9Then the LORD said to Moses, 10“Tell the Israelites: ‘When any of you or your descendants are unclean because of a dead body or are away on a journey, they may still celebrate the LORD’s Passover. 11They are to celebrate it on the fourteenth day of the second month at twilight. They are to eat the lamb, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. 12They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regulations. 13But if a man who is ceremonially clean and not on a journey fails to celebrate the Passover, that person must be cut off from his people because he did not present the LORD’s offering at the appointed time. That man will bear the consequences of his sin.

COMMENTARY

9–11 The grace of God can be seen not only in the words of his response to Moses but also in that he responded at all. We need to grasp anew the concept of the audacity of faith: by what right, excepting only God’s great grace, did Moses dare to go before Yahweh, the Creator of the universe, and request a provision for exception from his demands? All God’s actions and words to his people were gracious, undeserved, and unmerited. That he spoke at all, even in demands, was a mark of his condescension; that he spoke favorably in response to the request of Moses is a marvel. Throughout we have a sense of the ongoing wonder of grace.

God’s gracious provision for those ritually unclean was an alternative opportunity to celebrate the Passover on a day one month later so that they would not be excluded totally from its observance. The text thus presents the reality of the distancing that uncleanness brought between a believer and his or her participation in the worship acts of the community; it also provided a merciful alternative from the Lord. Further, the answer of the Lord went even beyond the request by adding the alternative of a later celebration for those who might be away on a trip in addition to those who were ritually impure.

This gracious and provident provision of the Lord is not dissimilar to some modern civil legislation. For example, the United States’ tax code emphasizes strongly the notion of an “appointed time” for filing one’s tax returns; yet it also includes provisions for late filing because of personal exigency or foreign travel. As in the case of the law of the Lord, these provisions do not nullify the obligation; they only delay it. There is no mercy for one who merely decides not to obey. The text gives no room for indifference (KD 3:52); God’s mercy must never be trampled by the uncaring.

Even when the Passover was celebrated a month later, it was still to be done fully in order. The text emphasizes the essentials of the meal and the essentials of the ritual. In terms of the meal, there was to be the lamb (noted by the word “Passover”), the unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs. In our own day, in the traditional Passover Haggadah (“recitation”), Rabbi Gamaliel, the teacher of Saul (renamed Paul, the apostle; see Ac 22:3 [5:34–39]; also Ac 21:39; 26:4–5; Gal 1:13–14), is quoted as saying that if anyone does not eat the lamb, the unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs, he has not kept the Passover. He built his direction on this passage.

12 The strictures for the Passover include two additional items in this verse: (1) none of the feast was to be left over until morning, and (2) the bones of the sacrificial lamb were not to be broken. Eating the Passover lamb and its attendant foods was to be done entirely in one evening. This provision follows the original command for Passover in Exodus 12:10 (and 12:46, which even insists that the meal be consumed in one house, family by family, and not carried from one house to another), where Moses was commanded to have the people burn any of the meat not eaten the night before.

The concept of not leaving sacred foods over until morning also extended to the legislation respecting manna (see Ex 16:19) and the fat of the three annual sacrifices (Ex 23:18). No reasons are given for this part of the legislation, but we surmise these possibilities: (1) the meal of Passover was not to be regarded as an ordinary meal but as a great feast that was a sacred occasion between the Lord and his people; (2) hence the food of the Passover was not like ordinary food that could with impunity be used as leftovers at one’s next meal; and (3) secondary to these religious reasons was (perhaps) an implied health aspect that underlies some of the legislation in Torah concerning food: there was, of course, no refrigeration in ancient times, and cooked meats that were exposed to heat and humidity would soon go bad. The Hebrew people would eat meat infrequently, in part because of the difficulties of safe food preservation.

The second emphasis in v.12 is in the words “or break any of its bones.” This was also a provision of the first legislation of Passover in Exodus 12:46. When the Lord Jesus (“our Passover lamb,” 1Co 5:7; see also Jn 1:29) was crucified, John writes that none of his bones was broken, in fulfillment of Scripture (Jn 19:36). The passages John points to include Numbers 9:12 (plus Ex 12:46; Ps 34:20). This concept is one of many in the Hebrew Scriptures that we may presume the first readers would not have understood to be predictive of the Messiah. It may be that there are similar surprises awaiting us with respect to the fulfillment of prophecy in his second coming.

13 Wherever there is grace, there are those who will make presumption. Those who had no reason not to celebrate the Passover and simply failed to do so were to be cut off from the community. God’s gracious provision for the distressed to have an alternative time of celebration was not to be license for the careless person to ignore the Passover altogether. Such people, by their own neglect, showed that they were not part of the community and were not deserving of further union with it. The obdurate were to be “cut off,” a phrase signifying either death by divine agency or perhaps banishment. In either case the judgment was severe indeed. The NT also gravely warns against the abuse or misuse of the celebration of the Lord’s Table (1Co 11:28–30).

NOTES

10 (ʾîš ʾîš, “man man”) is repetition for distribution, “if any man” or “any of you” (NIV; noted in Williams, Hebrew Syntax, sec. 15; see also 1:4; 14:34).

(reḥōqâ, “away, distant”) is marked on the final (h, = āh or â) with a superior dot or point (see Note at 3:39), an early scribal mark, explained by the Sipre on Numbers 9: “to denote that even he who is on a short journey and is defiled must not offer with them the Passover” (Ginsburg, 319). Ginsburg’s own conclusion is that this letter (indicating a feminine adjective) should be dropped, as (derek, “way, journey”) is more frequently found with a masculine adjective (ibid., 323).

(d) The rights of the alien at Passover (9:14)

14“‘An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the LORD’s Passover must do so in accordance with its rules and regulations. You must have the same regulations for the alien and the native-born.’”

COMMENTARY

14 An alien male had to be circumcised before he could participate in the Passover celebration (cf. Ex 12:48). But there was an opening for the non-Israelite who had come to faith in the God of Israel to participate fully with the Israelites in holy worship. This is the point of Yahweh’s gracious promise to Abram: “and all peoples on earth / will be blessed through you” (Ge 12:3). The inclusion of the alien in covenantal legislation such as this reminds us of God’s great grace and also of his determined purpose to reach out through his people to all peoples.

vi. The covering cloud (9:15–23)

15On the day the tabernacle, the Tent of the Testimony, was set up, the cloud covered it. From evening till morning the cloud above the tabernacle looked like fire. 16That is how it continued to be; the cloud covered it, and at night it looked like fire. 17Whenever the cloud lifted from above the Tent, the Israelites set out; wherever the cloud settled, the Israelites encamped. 18At the LORD’s command the Israelites set out, and at his command they encamped. As long as the cloud stayed over the tabernacle, they remained in camp. 19When the cloud remained over the tabernacle a long time, the Israelites obeyed the LORD’s order and did not set out. 20Sometimes the cloud was over the tabernacle only a few days; at the LORD’s command they would encamp, and then at his command they would set out. 21Sometimes the cloud stayed only from evening till morning, and when it lifted in the morning, they set out. Whether by day or by night, whenever the cloud lifted, they set out. 22Whether the cloud stayed over the tabernacle for two days or a month or a year, the Israelites would remain in camp and not set out; but when it lifted, they would set out. 23At the LORD’s command they encamped, and at the LORD’s command they set out. They obeyed the LORD’s order, in accordance with his command through Moses.

COMMENTARY

15 The cloud (heʿānān; GK 6727) was the dramatic symbol of the presence of the Lord hovering above the tabernacle (cf. Ex 13:21; 40:34; see Notes). That this was no ordinary cloud is attested not only by its spontaneous appearance at the completion of the setting up of the tabernacle but also by the fact that at night it had the appearance of fire. It was by means of the cloud that the Lord directed the movements of his people (see R. B. Allen, ʿānān, TWOT, 2:684, #1655a).

16 It must have been an extraordinary sight—this mystic cloud, this fiery heaviness, this enveloping presence. In the words “that is how it continued to be,” the text suggests the permanent abiding of the cloud over the camp. The Hebrew word tāmîd has the sense of “continually, incessantly.” The idea of the presence was so impressive that there was an implied threat if ever this presence was found missing. The cloud and fire were both reversals of the expected phenomena of the time. Both the cloud and the fire were striking, unusual, and unexpected symbols of Yahweh’s protective care for his people. These were symbols one would not, could not ignore. They were awesome and eerie, unnatural and unexpected, comforting and protective. To relieve the heat of the wilderness sun, there was the symbol of a cloud by day. To reverse the cold darkness of the wilderness night, there was the symbol of a comforting fire overhead. Everything about this paragraph is wrapped in mystery, a mystic sense of the Divine Presence. The passage shimmers with awe and delight.

But this text also manifests something of regret, of loss. The vantage point of the language of the passage is to describe something that used to be true but is no longer visible. The description is not unlike that of manna in 11:7. The tense of the verbs does not suggest a present reality but a historical experience. In this paragraph in which something from the past is evoked, we sense the possibility of a later hand’s adding this description to the text of Numbers. That is, Moses and his original audience were the participants in these events, the ones who observed directly the manifestation of the cloud of the presence. There would be no need for Moses to say to his contemporaries that the cloud reminded them of fire at night or that it gave the signals for encampment or for setting out on the march. All this was a vital part of their personal experience. However, if we view the second generation as the original readers of Numbers and their children as the readers to come, we may maintain the idea that Moses did write this section.

17 Two significant verbs are used to describe the presence of the cloud as the symbol of God’s nearness. One is the verb meaning “to cover” (v.15; see Notes); the other is the verb meaning “to settle” (v.17; see Notes). The expression “wherever the cloud settled” uses the significant verb šākan (GK 8905), which gives us the basis for the idea of the “Shekinah glory” (see Note on 5:3). “Shekinah,” surprisingly, is not a biblical word. It is built on the verb meaning “to dwell” [(see Note at 5:3)]. The Hebrew text rings with the sound of šākan as this verb is also the basis for the term for “tabernacle,” miškān. This phrasing symbolizes both God’s nearness and his remoteness. He is present as a cloud, but he hovers above; he is near as a fire, but one cannot draw very close. He is God!

18 The words “at the LORD’s command” are more literally, “by the mouth of Yahweh.” The cloud was one of the ways in which the Lord spoke to his people. The identification of the lifting and settling of the cloud and the command of the Lord was made sure in this and the following verses. The cloud was the means God used to direct the movements and the resting times of his people Israel.

19–22 The movement of the cloud and its presence were unpredictable, without discernable pattern. This was to impress on the people the sense that it was God who was leading them, not some pattern of creation or some whim from above. The cloud might linger only a day or so, or it might linger in one spot nearly indefinitely. The wording of these verses allowed for a lengthy stay (v.19), a briefer stay (v.20), or a very short stay (v.21). Whatever the duration, the people were to move or to encamp based on the movement or settling of the cloud.

23 This verse gives a report of compliance: “They obeyed the LORD’s order.” The repetitious nature of this section (vv.15–23) enhances the expectation of continued obedience to the sure direction of the Lord in Israel’s movements through the wilderness. The role of Moses is mentioned for balance: Moses was the Lord’s agent who interpreted the movement of the cloud as signaling the movement of the people. The level of the tragedy of their subsequent disobedience is heightened by this paragraph of great obedience.

The whole section (vv.15–23) is harmonious. There are several repeated phrasings (“by the mouth of,” “the cloud,” “settling/lifting,” and “journeying/encamping”). The perspective seems to be distant from the event. The narrator uses broad strokes of summary, suggesting the ideals of God’s direction and the promptness of the people’s response. There is no hint of disobedience here.

NOTES

15 (ûbeyôm, “on the day,” NIV) can be translated as “when.” The Hebrew expression for “on the day” is more properly (ûbayyôm, i.e., with the definite article indicated).

(kissâ, “covered,” the Piel perfect of the verb , kāsâ) is a lovely pictorial image of the presence of Yahweh in the form of a “covering cloud” over the tabernacle (found also in Ex 40:34, paired with the verb “to settle”; see Note on v.17).

16 The versions read the word “by day” in the phrase “the cloud covered it by day.” The Hebrew word (yômām, “by day”) is lacking in the MT, but its insertion is likely a proper emendation.

17 On (yiškān-šām heʿānān, “the cloud would settle there”) using the Qal imperfect form of the verb (šākan, “to settle down, abide”), see Note at 5:3.

18 (ʿal-pî yhwh, “according to the mouth of Yahweh,” i.e., according to the command of the Lord; “the LORD’s order,” NIV) is a characteristic phrase of compliance to the word of God in Numbers. The expression is found seven times in vv.18–23 (twice in v.18; twice in v.20; three times in v.23). The repetition of this phrase seven times in this pericope is inescapably emphatic. The phrase is also found in 3:16, 39; 4:37, 41, 45, 49; and 10:13.

REFLECTION

The emphasis in this section is on God’s grace and the people’s recognition of his grace, marked by their prompt response. God’s grace is apparent in his giving them direction at all, his giving it by clear signs, and his provision of Moses as the interpreter of his meaning (v.23). A passage that speaks in this manner is didactic of how his people should respond to God. The second generation should obey God this well, and future generations (down to our own day!) should take a lesson. God will be directing them also, and they (and we) must attend to his voice.

Note too an emphasis on the sovereignty of God in this text. The variation from a night’s rest, to a camp of a couple of days, to a month-long rest, to a lengthy period of many years was all dependent on the work and will of God. In no case was there an explanation given by or needed from God. “Just watch the cloud,” one might say, “and we will know what to do.” George Bush (Notes on Numbers [1856; repr., Minneapolis: James & Klock, 1976], 132) writes, “In this there is evidently nothing capricious or unstable to be charged upon the people, as their movements were constantly regulated by the divine direction, and this again was undoubtedly governed by reasons of infinite wisdom, though not expressly made known.”

vii. The two silver trumpets (10:1–10)

OVERVIEW

All seemed to be in readiness for the triumphal march of the people of God. They have been mustered for battle and stationed for encampment. They have been put through numerous paces of purification ritual, celebrated their deliverance from Egypt in the Feast of Passover, worshiped the Lord with sumptuous gifts, responded faithfully to his every word through his prophet Moses, and sensed the awe of his presence through cloud and fire. Two tasks remained: the fashioning of trumpets and the establishment of the appropriate tattoos they will signal. Then, let the march begin!

(a) The command to fashion two silver trumpets (10:1–7)

1The LORD said to Moses: 2“Make two trumpets of hammered silver, and use them for calling the community together and for having the camps set out. 3When both are sounded, the whole community is to assemble before you at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 4If only one is sounded, the leaders—the heads of the clans of Israel—are to assemble before you. 5When a trumpet blast is sounded, the tribes camping on the east are to set out. 6At the sounding of a second blast, the camps on the south are to set out. The blast will be the signal for setting out. 7To gather the assembly, blow the trumpets, but not with the same signal.

COMMENTARY

1 Ordinarily, an expectation in the wording in such a verse as this is a sequential act, one that follows one event and precedes another. However, it is possible that this introductory sentence may be intended to be read as something that God had said on an earlier occasion; its placement here between the narrative reporting the enveloping cloud (9:15–23) and that describing the beginnings of the march (10:11–35) may not be sequentially significant but it may indeed be topically appropriate. Throughout these early chapters of Numbers there is a topical presentation rather than a chronological arrangement of the material. God may have instructed Moses to have these trumpets fashioned months before the people actually set out on their triumphant march. I suspect that considerable time would have been needed for Moses (and/or his artisans; see Note) to make these trumpets of hammered silver.

2 While it is possible that the Lord’s command to Moses allowed an artisan to work under his direction, the MT has the type of construction that often means the command is to be done by the person addressed. Perhaps Moses himself hammered out these trumpets. It is evident that the idea of the hammered trumpet was well known to Moses; the Lord did not need to give him directions on what one would look like or how it would function (see Note).

The Bible speaks of two types of trumpets. One is the silver trumpet, such as this chapter presents (see also 31:6; 1Ch 13:8; 2Ch 13:12; 29:26; Ps 98:6). The other is the ram’s horn trumpet, called the shofar (šôpār; see Jos 6:4) or the horn (qeren; see Jos 6:5). Both the ram’s horn and the silver metal instruments are far removed from the modern trumpet, as, lacking valves, they only are capable of producing notes of certain intervals, such as fourths or fifths. But like all trumpets these instruments would amplify and channel the sound made by the rapid buzzing of pursed lips.

These two trumpets may be compared to the post horn. They were a long, straight, slender metal tube with a flared end. As in the case of the fashioned cherubim and the lampstand, the trumpet or clarion was made of hammered metal. Trumpets would be blown for order and discipline; the immense numbers of the people presented an evident need for demonstrating order and discipline among the ranks.

3–7 Two trumpets were blown for assembly of the people (v.3) and one for assembly of the leaders (v.4). Trumpets were also blown as a signal to the people to set out on a march (vv.5–6), at times of battle (v.9), and during festivals of worship (v.10). Obviously, different tattoos would be used (“but not with the same signal”; v.7); hence we may presume the development of a guild of priestly musicians was demanded (v.8). These were not casual players who would “jam” from time to time; they were professional players whose music making was as serious as the work of a soldier on the battlefield and as sacred as the tasks done by a sacrificing priest in the tabernacle courts. See comments on 21:14–15 respecting songs and warfare in ancient Israel.

NOTE

2 Language similar to (ʿaśēh lekā, “make to you,” i.e., “you make!”) is used by God in his initial command to Abram (Ge 12:1), “you go!” (see also Nu 13:2; 35:11). This type of command (sometimes termed the dative of personal reference) means that it must be obeyed by the one addressed; it may not be delegated. Williams (Hebrew Syntax, sec. 272) terms this function of the letter lamed (l) as “reflexive, restricted to the same person as the subject of the verb.” Hirsch, 151, presents a Jewish tradition that the prepositional phrase lekā in this text was used to exclude others from using these trumpets after the death of Moses. My suggestion is that the hammering of silver to make a trumpet would have taken a particular skill. Moses may have been commanded by God to supervise this work, to see that it was done in the best manner possible. In this way he could obey the command in the particular way communicated by the verbal form here.

Yahweh’s command to Moses that he make (šettê ḥaṣôṣerōt, “two trumpets”) did not come with instructions. That is, the concept of the hammered silver trumpet was sufficiently well known for the work to be accomplished as ordered by God. This factoid is a piece of a larger whole: None of the musical instruments used by God’s people under his direction was of original Hebrew design or manufacture! That is, all of the instruments used in Yahweh’s holy worship and under his blessing were borrowed from neighboring peoples.

In other words, these instruments had first been used in pagan temples by pagan peoples in the worship of pagan gods. But the Lord directed his people to take these instruments and to dedicate them to his use (see Allen and Allen, 160, 275). Joachim Braun (Music in Ancient Israel/Palestine: Archaeological, Written, and Comparative Sources [trans. Douglas W. Stott; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 207–9) describes ancient biblical trumpets (including the relevance of the disputed graphic display of trumpets from the Second Temple on the Arch of Titus).

(b) The ordinance for the silver trumpets (10:8–10)

8“The sons of Aaron, the priests, are to blow the trumpets. This is to be a lasting ordinance for you and the generations to come. 9When you go into battle in your own land against an enemy who is oppressing you, sound a blast on the trumpets. Then you will be remembered by the LORD your God and rescued from your enemies. 10Also at your times of rejoicing—your appointed feasts and New Moon festivals—you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial for you before your God. I am the LORD your God.”

COMMENTARY

8 The role of the sons of Aaron as the sole players of these silver trumpets in ancient Israel further signals the sacral function of this music. These instruments were not just noisemakers; they were like the lampstand and the censures, sacred implements in the worship of God.

9 In times of battle the distinctive Israelite trumpet tattoo for war would be blown so that (1) Israel would be remembered before the Lord, and (2) the people might be rescued from their enemies. In this way the blowing of the trumpet is seen to be analogous to prayer, a means of participation in activating the will of God. God’s will will be done whether we pray or not. But by praying we become expectant of his response, and we praise him when he does respond in the manner of our prayer. The blowing of trumpets was another means for participating in the “activating” of God’s will. By blowing the trumpets before the battle, Israel could confidently expect God’s active presence in the battle scene. The blowing of these trumpets prepared the people for the presence of God.

10 As in the case of battle, it appears that the blowing of the trumpets was a means of knowing that the people were remembered by the Lord: “They will be a memorial for you before your God.” The trumpets were blown not as an invocation of deity, as in pagan societies, but as an introit to prepare the people for an active confrontation with God. Here, then, is one of the OT’s bases for the use of instrumentation in divine worship.

Trumpets in the worship of God in the tabernacle and later the temple were used similarly. The blowing of the trumpets was not a charm to summon a deity but an active response to his presence, an appeal to his will, a participation in his work. Trumpets were to be played in times of festive worship, including feasts, New Moon festivals, and ceremonies surrounding burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. They serve as a memorial of the people to God and of him to them.

This text ends with the solemn assertion, “I am the LORD [Yahweh] your God.” This is a slogan that marks the importance of a text; here it also indicates the completion of a major unit of our book.

Certain biblical words evoke strong associations. Many readers of the Bible think of a trumpet blast as initiating the resurrection of the righteous dead to life imperishable (1Co 15:52). Here, at the beginning of organized religious practice in the OT, the trumpet blast has more modest but still significant associations.

2. Setting Forth the People on the Triumphal March (10:11–36)

OVERVIEW

Many commentators divide the book of Numbers into three parts, with the second major section beginning at 10:11. The approach in this commentary is to treat the book of Numbers as a biped of two unequal parts (chs. 1–25; 26–36), structured on the basis of the two census lists (chs. 1–4; 26). In this approach, suggested by Dennis T. Olson (see Introduction: Unity and Organization), 10:11 does not begin the second major unit of the book; it leads instead to the conclusion of the first part of the first major section. Thus 10:11–36 is a key to our understanding the book of Numbers.

But the function of this section is not to introduce Israel’s gradual failure, as is commonly supposed. It presents Israel at last on the move, under the hand of God, faithful to his word, and on the way to victory in Canaan. This section celebrates the triumphalism of the first generation. Nothing prepares us for the shock of their rebellion as described beginning in ch. 11. The fact that their triumphant march lasts only briefly, with Israel still in the wilderness, is a great sadness.

a. The March Begins (10:11–13)

11On the twentieth day of the second month of the second year, the cloud lifted from above the tabernacle of the Testimony. 12Then the Israelites set out from the Desert of Sinai and traveled from place to place until the cloud came to rest in the Desert of Paran. 13They set out, this first time, at the LORD’s command through Moses.

COMMENTARY

11–13 After eleven months in the region of Mount Sinai (see Note on 9:1) the people moved out, for the first time led by the Lord in his wondrous cloud (v.11). Israel, on the move from the Desert of Sinai (v.12), was on a journey that in a few weeks could lead them to conquer the land of Canaan. This was a day not to be forgotten: the second year, the second month, the twentieth day. Generations later, one suspects, this day might have been memorialized. At last the Israelites were on their way to Canaan!

Once again we sense the spirit of Yahweh’s initiation, of the peoples’ compliance, of the role of the cloud of his presence, and of the work of Moses in guiding the people. Possibly the command of Moses in v.13 included blowing the trumpets (as described in vv.1–10). The journey this text describes is not detailed fully here. It is not until 12:16 that the people achieved the destination of the Desert of Paran. More specifically, they settled at Kadesh in the Desert of Zin (20:1). There are at least three stops on this initial journey: Taberah (11:3), Kibroth Hattaavah (11:35), and Hazeroth (11:35).

The Desert of Paran is a large plateau in northeastern Sinai, south of what later would be called the Negev of Judah and west of the Arabah. This area forms the southernmost portion of the Promised Land, the presumed staging area for the assault on the land itself. The principal lines of assault on the land of Canaan are from the southwest, following the Way of the Sea from Egypt, and from the northwest, following the Way of the Sea from Phoenicia. Israel’s staging for attack in the Desert of Paran was a brilliant strategy. In this way they would avoid the fortified routes to the west, presumably under the control of Egypt. This unusual line of attack from the south would stun the inhabitants of the land. They would come like a sirocco blast from the wilderness, and the land would be theirs, under the hand of God.

NOTE

13 One of the ways in which significant events are highlighted in biblical narrative is by a finely crafted structure. Number 10:11–28 shows such a structure:

b. The Grand Procession of Tribes and Levites (10:14–28)

14The divisions of the camp of Judah went first, under their standard. Nahshon son of Amminadab was in command. 15Nethanel son of Zuar was over the division of the tribe of Issachar, 16and Eliab son of Helon was over the division of the tribe of Zebulun. 17Then the tabernacle was taken down, and the Gershonites and Merarites, who carried it, set out.

18The divisions of the camp of Reuben went next, under their standard. Elizur son of Shedeur was in command. 19Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai was over the division of the tribe of Simeon, 20and Eliasaph son of Deuel was over the division of the tribe of Gad. 21Then the Kohathites set out, carrying the holy things. The tabernacle was to be set up before they arrived.

22The divisions of the camp of Ephraim went next, under their standard. Elishama son of Ammihud was in command. 23Gamaliel son of Pedahzur was over the division of the tribe of Manasseh, 24and Abidan son of Gideoni was over the division of the tribe of Benjamin.

25Finally, as the rear guard for all the units, the divisions of the camp of Dan set out, under their standard. Ahiezer son of Ammishaddai was in command. 26Pagiel son of Ocran was over the division of the tribe of Asher, 27and Ahira son of Enan was over the division of the tribe of Naphtali. 28This was the order of march for the Israelite divisions as they set out.

COMMENTARY

14–28 The names of the leaders of the twelve tribes are given for the fourth time in the book (see 1:5–15; 2:3–31; 7:12–83); the order for the tribes in the line of march is the same as that presented in ch. 2. The new detail is that the Gershonites and the Merarites, bearing the tabernacle, followed the triad of Judah–encampment tribes in the line of march (v.17). The Kohathites, carrying the holy things, followed the triad of Reuben–encampment tribes (v.21). Each of the four triads of tribes had a standard or banner for rallying and organization (cf. 2:3, 10, 18, 25).

It is difficult to read these words without wincing. We know what is coming, for we have already read the story. But there is nothing in these chapters to suggest that the worthies mentioned here for the fourth time would not be the leaders who would make their mark with their tribes, their armies, and their banners in the Promised Land. The stately pageantry of this section is—it turns out—the setup for a terrible fall.

c. The Request for Hobab to Join the March (10:29–32)

29Now Moses said to Hobab son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law, “We are setting out for the place about which the LORD said, ‘I will give it to you.’ Come with us and we will treat you well, for the LORD has promised good things to Israel.”

30He answered, “No, I will not go; I am going back to my own land and my own people.”

31But Moses said, “Please do not leave us. You know where we should camp in the desert, and you can be our eyes. 32If you come with us, we will share with you whatever good things the LORD gives us.”

COMMENTARY

29–32 Hobab was Moses’ brother-in-law; he was the son of Reuel (also known as Jethro; see Ex 2:18; 3:1). Earlier, Reuel had been most helpful to Moses (see Ex 18). Now Reuel’s son, with expert knowledge of the wilderness lands of the Sinai, would be a significant aid in locating water and pasturage in regions unknown to Moses.

It is significant that Moses appealed to Hobab on several lines. One was likely in terms of their relatedness through marriage, a not insignificant bond among peoples of the wilderness; another was based on the goodness of God that was promised to Israel and in which Hobab might participate; and another is the expertise of Hobab, that is, an appeal to his sense of a special ability. In this latter aspect Moses said that Hobab might become the “eyes” of the people (v.31). Moses then reinforced the benefits that would come to Hobab: he would share in the benefits the Lord was about to bestow on the nation (v.32).

At first Hobab refused, citing the need to care for his own family in his own land (Midian), following the traditional ancient Near Eastern pattern of adherence to family and place. Possibly his refusal also involved ties to his family gods, though he did not clearly say so. Moses continued to urge Hobab to join Israel. In a sense this urging was an act of evangelism. Hobab did not come easily. But subsequent biblical texts indicate that at last he did come. In his compliance he is like Ruth, who, leaving all behind, joined Naomi en route to the Promised Land with the promise of something ahead that was of more value than anything left at home. To come with Moses was not just to change Hobab’s address; this act was a radical reorientation of life itself. To come with Moses was to have a new family. To come with Moses was to gain a new land. To come with Moses was to come to believe in a new God—Yahweh of Israel.

Judges 1:16 indicates that Hobab acceded to Moses’ request to be “eyes” for the people in the wilderness (v.31), as his descendants received a share in the land. But he himself did not share in the land. Presumably, the sadness of Israel’s impending rebellion against the Lord included Hobab in the judgment. He experienced God’s goodness in the same way that the rest of the people did, in the providential care that God gave his erring people in the inhospitable wilderness of their banishment. Hobab must have been an invaluable aid to Moses. The anticipated journey of a few weeks turned out to last a lifetime.

NOTE

29 Words of familial relationships such as (ḥotēn, “father-in-law”) are troublesome in Hebrew. The basic idea of the root (ḥātan; GK 3162) relates to the idea of ritual circumcision done by the prospective bride’s father on the prospective groom shortly before the marriage. See Ronald B. Allen, “The ‘Bloody Bridegroom’ in Exodus 4:24–26,” BSac 153 (July–September 1996): 259–69. The noun (ḥotēn) came to be used of an in-law relationship, usually of the father-in-law; the precise relationship in some uses is sometimes debated. In the case of Hobab, v.29 suggests he was the brother of Zipporah, wife of Moses. He was thus the brother-in-law of Moses. Judges 4:11 complicates the issue; in some translations this verse reads that Hobab was the father-in-law of Moses. Judges 4:11 should be read in the light of Numbers 10:29, however. Upon the death of his father, Reuel (Jethro), Hobab would become the head of his household. Since he was the one who joined in the fortunes of Israel, he was regarded by later generations as the head of his household. His tie to Moses through marriage made him particularly memorable.

d. The Three-Day Procession behind the Ark of the Lord (10:33–36)

33So they set out from the mountain of the LORD and traveled for three days. The ark of the covenant of the LORD went before them during those three days to find them a place to rest. 34The cloud of the LORD was over them by day when they set out from the camp.

35Whenever the ark set out, Moses said,

“Rise up, O LORD!

May your enemies be scattered;

may your foes flee before you.”

36Whenever it came to rest, he said,

“Return, O LORD,

to the countless thousands of Israel.”

COMMENTARY

33–34 The journey began with a three-day march. Eleven months earlier the people of Israel had emerged as a rag-tag group of former slaves, gathered in the wilderness in the first rush of deliverance, but unorganized and unruly. Now they were prepared for the march, the battle, and the victory. Because of the significant numbers of people in the tribes of Israel, and since this was their first organized march, it is not likely that the first journey of three days covered much territory. But it was marked by sufficient success to be regarded as a victory march in these verses.

35–36 The sense of a victory march is enhanced by the recording of what we may call the “Battle Cry of Moses” (contrast the “Lament of Moses” in 11:11–15). This little poem is potent in its living theology (see Note); it rests ultimately on the notion of cursing and blessing that goes all the way back to Yahweh’s promises to Abraham (Ge 12:2–3). As the cloud of the Lord arose and as it settled for the people to rest, Moses would call out, “Rise up, O LORD!” and “Return, O LORD!” The words of v.35 are a cursing of the enemies of Yahweh and his people; the words of v.36 are a blessing on the people of his promise.

Finally, the wording of the blessing section is significant for the presentation of the idea of the rhetorical use of numbers in the census lists. The Hebrew phrase for “countless thousands” is “myriads of thousands” (v.36, see Note). The idea is akin to our conventions in the phrases “untold numbers” or “teeming millions.” This deliberate hyperbole (no matter how many peoples the census lists indicate) is perhaps an example of Moses’ using “power numbers” in his battle cry (see Note; see also Introduction: The Problem of Large Numbers; The Large Numbers—Toward a Solution).

Thus in these words of Moses we have a shout of victory based solidly on the faithfulness of the Lord to his covenantal promise to the patriarchs. The people were on their way to Canaan; soon Canaan would be the land of Israel, or so we might think, based on these words of exuberant confidence in God. Significantly, David used these words of Moses in the beginning of his triumphal song in Psalm 68.

NOTE

35–36 The structure of the little poem is as follows:

The descriptions of poetic structure in this commentary include counts of accents. This structure is not based on a concept of Western meter; Semitic and Egyptian poetry do not demonstrate the metrical concepts we find in much (but not in all) Western poetry (ancient and modern). But the poetry of Israel and her neighbors was infused with rhythm, and the accentuation (with basically one “beat” per word) most likely signifies that pattern. Describing Egyptian poetry, Kitchen (Poetry of Ancient Egypt, 480) writes, “It would seem clear that principal words (nouns, verbs, adjectives) and certain compound clusters bore the rhythmic stresses in a line.”

The second and third members of the tricolon, “may your enemies be scattered / may those who hate you flee before you,” form a synonymous pair; the two units are strongly contrasting: Rise/Return, Curse/Bless.

In the MT these verses are braced with an unusual phenomenon, long debated in meaning—the use of two letters (nûn), which are inverted (called by Hebrew writers, nûn menûzeret). These are found only here in the MT and in seven verses in Psalm 107 (vv.21–26, 40). There is an inverted nûn before v.35 and another at the end of v.36.

Medieval Jewish tradition suggested that these two verses were not from Moses but from an otherwise suppressed book by Eldad and Medad (see 11:26–27). This view is explained and then critiqued by Sid Z. Leiman, “The Inverted Nuns at Numbers 10:35–36 and the Book of Eldad and Medad,” JBL 93 (September 1974): 348–55. His view is that these two verses did not come from an independent book but that the two cases of the inverted letters nûn suggest that they form an independent “book.” Milgrom, 375–76, presents a study on the topic: “Excursus 23: The Inverted ‘Nuns.’” Compare also Ginsburg, 342, for a discussion: “These inverted letters or their equivalents are among the earliest signs by which the Sopherim designed to indicate the result of their textual criticism.” Ginsburg, 343, believed the use of inverted nûns here indicates that these two verses are misplaced, that they belong between vv.33 and 34.

(ribebôt ʾalpê yiśrāʾēl, “the countless thousands of Israel”) speaks rhetorically of the vast numbers of people constituting the tribes of Israel as they set off on their march on the way to Canaan. The word (ribābâ) may signify a specific numerical term meaning “ten thousand” (see Jdg 20:10). More common, however, is its use in a phrase such as here to describe innumerable people. The words in our phrase are reversed in Genesis 24:60: (leʾalpê rebābâ, “for thousands of myriads”). Here are indisputable examples of the rhetorical use of numbers in Torah (see Introduction: Large Numbers—Toward a Solution).

B. The Rebellion and Judgment of a Fearful People (11:1–25:18)

OVERVIEW

We now begin an entirely new and unexpected account in the experience of the people of the first generation. They had been prepared by Moses, at the instruction of Yahweh, to be a holy people on a march of triumph bound for the Promised Land. But by the third day of the march the people faltered; the holy people became sullied with contempt for Yahweh. Chapters 11–20 present a dismal record of their acts of ingratitude and of God’s consequent judgments on his ungrateful people. Yet within these chapters are innumerable instances of his continuing grace. The reader of these texts goes astray if he or she focuses solely on God’s wrath or on the constant provocations to his anger by his meandering people. The more impressive feature in this text is God’s continuing mercy against continuing, obdurate rebellion.

Chapters 21–25 bring the narrative to an arresting climax by coupling the motifs of rebellion and hope. The materials of these chapters do not present a complete record of Israel’s experiences in the wilderness. The writing is focused, the choice of stories selective. The aspect of God’s grace is presented arrestingly in the amazing narrative of Balaam, the pagan mantic who failed to destroy Israel by the power of his words but who nearly destroyed the people by the persuasion of his guile (chs. 22–25). The judgment of God at the final rebellion of the people in ch. 25 ends the record of rebellion of the first generation. The experience of the new generation begins in ch. 26.

1. A Cycle of Rebellion and Atonement and the Record of Death (11:1–20:29)

OVERVIEW

These ten chapters now balance and contrast with the ten chapters that present the record of Israel’s preparation. Barely did the march begin before the rebellion was underway—a rebellion of the spirit of the people that manifested itself in a variety of ways. But always it came down to this: God’s demand of complete obedience and robust faith, a devotion of the whole person, was infrequently found in his people. These chapters call to mind the observation of Gleason L. Archer Jr., who reacted against the hypothesis of “Israel’s genius for religion” as an explanation for the lofty spirituality of the Bible and especially as the source of its grand monotheistic faith. Certain theologians ascribe to Israel a penchant for religion that is akin to the Greeks’ love for beauty and the Romans’ gift for order. Archer correctly rejoins, “It was not [a] product of the natural Hebrew ‘genius for religion’ (as is often asserted), for the Scripture record witnesses rather to the natural Hebrew genius for irreligion and apostasy” (SOTI-rev, 145). Such a judgment is not a slur against Jewish people, by the way; throughout the ages, many of those who have presented themselves as God’s people have displayed similar traits of irreligion and apostasy. Therein lies another reason the book of Numbers is so important for readers today.

a. The Beginning of Sorrows (11:1–35)
i. A judgment of fire (11:1–3)

OVERVIEW

There is a cyclical nature to Israel’s rebellions against God—obdurate people tend to repeat the sins of the past. The first rebellion of the redeemed people came on the third day of marching toward the mount of God after their miraculous crossing of the Red Sea (Ex 15:22–24). Now, three days out on their triumphal march to Canaan from Mount Sinai (cf. Nu 10:35), they fall back into their complaining behavior. The pattern of “three days” in both cases shows both similarities of actions as well as an intemperate, impatient attitude on the part of the people.

1Now the people complained about their hardships in the hearing of the LORD, and when he heard them his anger was aroused. Then fire from the LORD burned among them and consumed some of the outskirts of the camp. 2When the people cried out to Moses, he prayed to the LORD and the fire died down. 3So that place was called Taberah, because fire from the LORD had burned among them.

COMMENTARY

1 Instead of “Now the people complained,” the MT may also be translated, “Now the people became murmurous—an offense to Yahweh’s ears.” Nothing in the first ten chapters of Numbers has prepared us for this verse; rather, those chapters have emphasized repeatedly the complete obedience of Moses and the people to the dictates of Yahweh. But only three days into their march, the people revert to the disloyal complaining they expressed a year earlier, only three days past their deliverance from the waters of the Red Sea (Ex 15:22–27). In that earlier experience they had vented their subsequent complaints about manna (Ex 16) and a lack of water (17:1–7). Now the people revert to the behavior of ingratitude that marked their early experience in the wilderness. This attitude of ingratitude was seditious against the covenant and malicious against the person of God. They were actually in breach of covenant, deserving of the divine suzerain’s wrath.

Moses, the narrator of Numbers, has arranged his materials so carefully that this sudden outbreak of renewed pettiness against God seems unprecedented, unexpected—unbelievable. How, we wonder, with all the preparation for a holy walk, could there come such stumbling so soon?

The response of Yahweh to this outbreak of murmuring was one of wrath. The text says that “fire from the LORD burned among them.” This purging fire was limited to the outskirts of the camp—even this was a mercy of Yahweh. He might have cast his fire into the very midst of the camp and killed many more persons than suffered this terrible judgment. The judgment by “fire” is suggestive not only of judgment but also of refining, of cleansing. Perhaps a burst of fire will not only judge the offenders of God’s grace but will serve as well as a symbol of cleansing for the entire camp.

At times the expression “fire from the LORD” may refer to fire ignited by the divine casting of lightning (as seems possible in 1 Kings 18:38, in the encounter of Elijah with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel). The imagery of Baal (Baʿal) in the nature religion of Canaan often presents him in association with lightning and storm, as the one who casts his bolt, beats the drums of the heavens, then drives the clouds across the sky as he rides in his heavenly chariot. The poets of the Bible sometimes built on this imagery but applied it to Yahweh. In this way they despoiled Baal of his titles, and they ascribed greatness to Yahweh, the true God of heaven. For example, Psalm 68, to which reference was made at 10:35, extols Yahweh as the one “who rides on the clouds” (see NIV’s text and margin at Ps 68:4).

It seems altogether possible that the “fire from the LORD” in this text is judgment in the form of a bolt (or bolts) of lightning that caused terrible destructive fires among the people on the outskirts of the camp. (There are other times when it may be that the phrase refers to a flash from the fires of his altars.)

2 In the midst of his wrath, Yahweh remembered mercy. This is one of the ongoing themes of Scripture and is a truism emphasized in Numbers. The people truly deserved God’s considerable wrath. But the survivors of this outburst of his anger cried out to Moses for help in their behalf before Yahweh. Moses prayed, and the fire subsequently subsided. The Hebrew verb is šāqaʿ, a word meaning “to sink down” and thus a particularly picturesque term for the dying out of a raging fire.

3 The place name “Taberah” comes from a Hebrew noun meaning “burning”; it is mentioned only here and in Deuteronomy 9:22. This name comes in association with the verb “had burned.” Because of the raging of the fire of God in their midst, the people named that place of awful memory “Taberah” (“Burning”).

NOTES

1 (kemit ʾōnenîm, “complained”) is a Hithpo’el participle from the root (ʾānan). It may be related to an Akkadian term anânu (ênênu, unnînu), “to sigh” (see BDB, 59d). The Hebrew word is used only here and in Lamentations 3:39. The problem with the grammatical form is the (ke) prefix. It is possible to take this prefix as the preposition (ke, “like, as”) and to translate, “they have become as those who complain.” But it is more likely that the use of (ke) here is asseverative, expressing identity (see Williams, Hebrew Syntax, sec. 261). The idea seems to be: “Now the people became truly murmurous, an offense to the LORD’s ears.”

The NIV reads (raʿ, “evil thing, an offense”) as a prepositional phrase following the participle “they complained,” thus rendering it “hardships.” However, the BHS text has a strong disjunctive accent with the participle; the term (raʿ) goes with the following phrase. I suggest the translation: “Now the people became truly murmurous, an evil offense to the LORD’s ears.”