iv. The purification of the soldiers (31:19–20)

19“All of you who have killed anyone or touched anyone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselves and your captives. 20Purify every garment as well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood.”

COMMENTARY

19–20 The “seven days” of v.19 help us to sense the full weight of what the laws of cleanness pertained to, as this was holy war (see 19:11–13). Both people (31:19–20) and things (31:21–24) had to be cleansed. The rites of purification from contact with a dead body would demand the waters of cleansing from the ashes of the red heifer (see 19:12).

There is an emphatic pronoun at the beginning of this verse: “And you!” Here all who had been involved in the killing of others are addressed, even though those who were killed were the enemies of God and his people. The death of any person makes unclean the one who comes in contact with the corpse, even when the killing was commanded by God. Thus even in a text of judgment, there are still the lessons of ritual cleansing for the people of God.

NOTE

19 (titḥaṭṭeʾû, “purify yourselves”) is a Hithpael imperative from the root ḥāṭaʾ (“to purify oneself from uncleanness”), a verb used of the Levite in 8:21. Those who had had any contact with the dead were impure (see 19:12) and needed to undergo the rite of purification.

v. The purifying of the goods (31:21–24)

21Then Eleazar the priest said to the soldiers who had gone into battle, “This is the requirement of the law that the LORD gave Moses: 22Gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, lead 23and anything else that can withstand fire must be put through the fire, and then it will be clean. But it must also be purified with the water of cleansing. And whatever cannot withstand fire must be put through that water. 24On the seventh day wash your clothes and you will be clean. Then you may come into the camp.”

COMMENTARY

21–24 Purification extends to things as well as to people. Things that were ritually impure would contaminate people who were otherwise clean. Hence it is another mark of the grace of God to provide a means for the purification of goods as well. Metal objects had to be purified by having them pass through fire and then the waters of cleansing. Some of these metal objects that were so cleansed became gifts to the Lord (see v.50). Those items that could not withstand fire had to be cleansed in the water alone. Possibly Paul’s description of the bēma judgment of the work of believers (1Co 3:10–15) is patterned in part after this passage. In the case of the cleansing of these soldiers, they had to wait until the seventh day, then wash their clothes before they could enter the camp. This pattern of seven days of exclusion from the camp because of uncleanness is well established in Israel (see the story of Miriam in ch. 12).

b. The Division of the Spoils (31:25–54)

OVERVIEW

Another aspect of holy war was the just distribution of the spoils of war, both among those who fought in the battle as well as among those who stayed with the community, with appropriate shares to be given to the Lord, whose battle it was (v.28). This section describes rather elaborately that process of division. As in so many such sections in Numbers, this rather prosaic text reads with a certain grandeur—for it, too, is celebrative. These texts were meant to be read aloud as a declaration of the work of God in the lives of his people. Much like the antiphonal responses in Psalm 136, the patterns of remembrance of the works of the Lord in the deliverance of his people were designed to be recited in a variety of ways.

i. The share for the soldiers (31:25–41)

25The LORD said to Moses, 26“You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. 27Divide the spoils between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. 28From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the LORD one out of every five hundred, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep or goats. 29Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the LORD’s part. 30From the Israelites’ half, select one out of every fifty, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep, goats or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the LORD’s tabernacle.” 31So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.

32The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 3372,000 cattle, 3461,000 donkeys 35and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.

36The half share of those who fought in the battle was:

41Moses gave the tribute to Eleazar the priest as the LORD’s part, as the LORD commanded Moses.

25–41 The book of Numbers delights in lists, in the numbering of persons and things. Here in this section of the chapter is the command of the Lord to Moses to total up the spoils of the battle, both human and beast. The term “people” (bāʾādām, “among [the] men”) in this section relates only to the little girls who were spared from the ban (ḥērem); the animals included sheep, cattle, donkeys, and goats. Eleazar and heads of fathers’ houses were to aid Moses in taking this inventory. The task must have been enormous, given the numbers involved. The purpose of making this sum seems to be twofold: (1) it is a celebrative declaration of the work of God in their behalf; (2) it is a means to assure the equitable distribution of the spoils of war. Dividing such spoils was a proverbial symbol for exquisite joy in the ancient world (e.g., Isa 9:3, where the celebration of spoils is paired with that of the bringing in of a harvest).

The division of the spoils was to be made in two sections, one for those who had fought in the war and the other for the rest of the congregation. The two halves were equal, but their distribution was deliberately unequal—there were far fewer soldiers than those who remained in the camp. Yet it was the soldiers who had risked their lives, so theirs was the larger personal share. The term used for soldiers in v.27 is indicative of the type of man who had been called to serve in the elite corps. They are described as tōpeśê hammilḥāmâ, “those who are skilled for battle” (cf. Jer 2:8, “those who deal with the law”).

Before the men of war could enjoy their allotment of the spoils, there first had to be a tax set apart for the Lord. The ratio in this case was one to five hundred. Again, the soldiers who had risked their lives received larger personal shares (as they were a smaller collective unit than the vast numbers of the congregation), and their share to the Lord was also smaller than the share that was demanded of the people. The proportion to be given to the Lord is termed a “tax” or a “tribute” (mekes, from the verb kāsas, “to compute,” v.28; see Ex 12:4). This tribute was given to Eleazar the priest as a sacred offering (terûmâ) to the Lord (v.29).

From the half of the booty that was to be distributed to the members of the congregation, one unit of each fifty was to be given as a tribute to the Lord for the special use of the Levites in return for their sacral service at the tabernacle. Thus the people’s tax in this booty was ten times that of the soldiers’ share—one fiftieth compared to one five-hundreth.

The instructions the Lord gave to Moses (vv.25–30) are followed by a report of accomplishment (v.31). In this verse we find again the familiar words of obedience. Each time we read these words of compliance on the part of Moses, we groan within at the thought of the one time that Moses did not do as God had commanded him (ch. 20).

The list of the plunder as a whole is given in vv.32–35. The numbers were enormous; the victory was staggering. This was just the beginning; on the other side of the Jordan lay the rest of the land of God’s promise. The people should have been thinking, “If we received this much booty in a punitive war, just think what will be our portion when we are on the campaign of conquest!”

The table reads:

The half share follows with correct, simple arithmetic:

The Lord’s tax (to be given to Eleazar; ratio of one unit of five hundred):

Again, the section concludes with a summary statement of complete obedience on the part of Moses with regard to the presentation of the tax as a sacred contribution to the Lord; he gave these items to Eleazar the priest (v.41).

We may make a few observations about these numbers:

  1. 1. They are immense numbers, indicative of a great victory with enormous booty.
  2. 2. Though the numbers of the animals and women are rounded off to the thousands, the proportion of one to five hundred gets quite exacting; the supposition is that these numbers may well be “common numbers” rather than inflated sums.
  3. 3. The supposition, so often heard, that numbers are not copied well in the Bible is not buttressed in these sections of Numbers. It seems that in this book, at least, the copying of numbers (in the awkward manner of words rather than symbols) was done carefully. Perhaps the necessity for the sums and totals to work out correctly was a check against carelessness by later scribes.

As to the use to which the women would be put in the service of the priests, we can only guess. It is possible that they were given menial tasks to do in the service of the Lord, as many commentators suggest (see Ex 38:8). In these women there is something redemptive in the whole dismal record of the defeat of Midian. Though most of their countrymen had been slain, including their parents and brothers, the surviving young girls would eventually become part of the redeemed community. Eventually these few girls became mothers in Israel.

ii. The share for the people (31:42–47)

42The half belonging to the Israelites, which Moses set apart from that of the fighting men—43the community’s half—was 337,500 sheep, 4436,000 cattle, 4530,500 donkeys 46and 16,000 people. 47From the Israelites’ half, Moses selected one out of every fifty persons and animals, as the LORD commanded him, and gave them to the Levites, who were responsible for the care of the LORD’s tabernacle.

42–47 The statistics of the half share for the people follow in much the same procedure as the previous section for the soldiers. The numbers of the half are the same but are listed in a celebrative manner. In this case the tax, which would become a sacred tribute to the Lord, was proportionally higher: one unit of fifty (rather than one unit of five hundred).

This proportion would result in the following:

Again, Moses followed faithfully in the distribution of the Lord’s share. In this case it was given to the Levites.

iii. The extra share for the Lord (31:48–54)

48Then the officers who were over the units of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—went to Moses 49and said to him, “Your servants have counted the soldiers under our command, and not one is missing. 50So we have brought as an offering to the LORD the gold articles each of us acquired—armlets, bracelets, signet rings, earrings and necklaces—to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD.”

51Moses and Eleazar the priest accepted from them the gold—all the crafted articles. 52All the gold from the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds that Moses and Eleazar presented as a gift to the LORD weighed 16,750 shekels. 53Each soldier had taken plunder for himself. 54Moses and Eleazar the priest accepted the gold from the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds and brought it into the Tent of Meeting as a memorial for the Israelites before the LORD.

COMMENTARY

48–54 For a chapter that begins with such a grim story, there is a perfectly lovely ending. This is the account of a spontaneous extra gift to the Lord by the officers’ corps. Beyond the tax they were required to give of the animals and persons that had been distributed to them in the sharing of the booty of the war, there were innumerable objects the soldiers had taken for their own use as they looted the camps (v.53). Now the captains of thousands and of hundreds approached Moses (v.48) and made a magnanimous offering of numerous beautiful objects of gold—armlets, bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and other ornaments (v.50). This gift, they assured Moses, was in gratitude for a most remarkable fact: not one soldier of the elite Hebrew corps had died in the war (v.49)! The only explanation for this outcome was the presence of the Lord among his people in his holy sanctuary (cf. the comment of Goldberg, 134, “Gott ist im Israel gegenwartig im Heiligtum”; “God is present in Israel in his sanctuary”).

That no Israelite soldiers were lost was a miracle. But it was a miracle that compelled response on the part of God’s people. As Walther Eichrodt (Theology of the Old Testament [trans. J. A. Baker; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967], 163) points out, the important issue for the belief in miracles in Scripture lies not so much in the material facts of the miracles but in what they present of the person and work of God. The real importance of the miraculous for faith is in “its evidential character,” particularly “a clear impression of God’s care or retribution within it.”

Of course, the people made a special gift to the Lord. He had made a special gift of life to them. The gift by the officers’ corps is reminiscent of the extravagant gifts of the people from the despoiling of the Egyptians (Ex 35). This is a mark of the gratitude of the new generation. Moses and Eleazar the priest took from them the gold items, all of fashioned work (v.51). When they weighed them, they found the cumulative weight to be 16,750 shekels (about 420 pounds; v.52)! This gift is enormous—and it came from grateful men to an all-protective God.

Moses and Eleazar brought the gold into the Tent of Meeting, where it became a “memorial” (zikkārôn) of the victory the Lord had won (v.54). We suspect, though without specificity from the text, that the gold would have been melted down and reworked into a suitably fashioned symbol—an extravagant offering to the Lord.

The most interesting phrase in this entire section concerns the motivation of the chiefs. It was “to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD” (v.50). Thus the making of atonement was not prompted by sin or guilt but by overwhelming gratitude. They knew, as all officers know, that every battle is a calculated risk in which some soldiers will die. A good officer seeks to minimize his losses as he maximizes his gain. In this case the gain was overwhelming—complete victory. The losses were nil—not one Hebrew soldier died. The making of atonement, then, was an offering of expiation in gratitude to God for the gift he made of the lives of those who could have died. This is a payment, if you will, in return for what they might have lost.

REFLECTION

We have no reason to believe that the protection of the lives of every soldier in the wars of Israel ever happened again. This must have been a singular event in the history of Israel. If so, it is suitably predictive of the army of Christ in his final victory over all wickedness (Rev 19). No doubt in that final battle there will be no casualties among his forces. So here is a battle at the beginning of the wars of Israel that in one particular aspect points forward to the final battle of Savior Jesus. Gratitude to him will be in the measure of the gratitude of these officers back then.

6. The Settlement of the Transjordan Tribes (32:1–42)

OVERVIEW

There is a sense of direction and symmetry to the book of Numbers that is satisfying to the patient reader. Within the book, as we have seen, there are passages of dramatic encounters, miraculous acts, robust theology, and even comedic drama. There are also texts, such as the present chapter, that bear none of these characteristics. Yet the chapter is significant because it deals with the ways the will of God was manifest through the tribes of Israel as the new generation was taking its place in the world God had given to them. This chapter presents the account of the first of the tribes to settle in the land of their choice. In the case of two and one-half tribes, Transjordan was the inheritance of choice. For them—Reuben, Gad, and half of the tribe of Manasseh—the victories over Sihon and Og (ch. 21) and the punitive victory over Midian (ch. 31) signaled victory aplenty. It was time at last to make a home.

This chapter is most significant in what it presents of the life and character of Moses. Here we find another block to add to our view of his complex humanity—he flashes here in rage, it seems, before he knows fully what is being asked. But his rage is based on a lifetime of disappointment, a generation of waste, and the ever-present wilderness.

a. The Request of Reuben and Gad to Settle in Transjordan (32:1–19)

OVERVIEW

The chapter begins, as several chapters do, with the approach of petitioners to Moses. They come to him not because he is king but because he is the regent of the Lord who mediated the divine word in the league of tribes. As in the case of the daughters of Zelophehad in ch. 27, and as in the instance of the relatives of these women in ch. 36, so the leaders of the tribes of Reuben and Gad make their approach to Moses for the settlement of their landed claim. The abundance of fertile grazing land in Transjordan prompted the leaders of these two tribes to request of Moses and Eleazar that they might settle there, not across (west of) the Jordan River.

There are several approaches we may take in evaluating the request of these tribal leaders. It is customary among Christian commentators to regard their actions as sinful, an acceptance of lesser things rather than having faith to cling on for the best. But it is possible to see in the actions of the men of Gad and Reuben nothing untoward at all, only a pragmatic decision that led to a remarkable negotiation with the Lord and his servant Moses.

Transjordan, too, was a gift of God won by conquest. When we think of Canaan, we are prone to think of Cisjordan; Canaan proper is described this way in ch. 34. Yet the full inheritance of God’s people extended to the regions of Transjordan as well. But it was, in a sense, the fringe of the garment. It was not the heart and soul of the land. To settle on the fringe was a mixed blessing. The people who lived in Transjordan were able to do so by conscious choice.

But because they were somewhat removed from the center of the life of the land, they were the most prone to be influenced by outsiders. And clearly they were the most open for territorial expansion by their neighbors. Territorial living has both its advantages and its disadvantages. Ultimately, their request and the Lord’s decision through Moses expanded the territory of Israel. If we put the best construction on things, we may see this chapter as a rash adventure in faith rather than a record of rebellion.

As these tribal leaders evaluated the lands they had won from the people of Sihon and Og, they found themselves particularly attracted to these areas. The region and its habitations (Ataroth, Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Heshbon, Elealeh, Seban, Nebo, and Beon—cities and regions that are relatively well located) looked especially promising to these chiefs. Extensive excavations and surface surveys were conducted in these areas of Transjordan in the 1970s and 1980s. The consensus is that these regions did not support a high population density in the period of the exodus and conquest (however this period may be dated); yet the biblical evidence from this chapter accords well with the archaeological evidence. This was an ideal place for the running of large flocks and herds.

i. The original request (32:1–5)

1The Reubenites and Gadites, who had very large herds and flocks, saw that the lands of Jazer and Gilead were suitable for livestock. 2So they came to Moses and Eleazar the priest and to the leaders of the community, and said, 3“Ataroth, Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Heshbon, Elealeh, Sebam, Nebo and Beon—4the land the LORD subdued before the people of Israel—are suitable for livestock, and your servants have livestock. 5If we have found favor in your eyes,” they said, “let this land be given to your servants as our possession. Do not make us cross the Jordan.”

COMMENTARY

1 Verse 1 is characteristic of well-formed prosodic structure by exhibiting a chiasm based on the word “herds” or “livestock” (miqneh). Here is an attempt to render the order of the words of the verse and its emphasis:

Now the livestock was great of the people of Reuben,

and of the people of Gad, it was exceedingly numerous;

and they saw the land of Jazer

and the land of Gilead,

and they provided a region ideal for livestock.

2–5 There is a subtle shift in the wording of v.2 from that of v.1. In v.1 Reuben precedes Gad; in v.2 this order is reversed. Perhaps this is a gentle way to suggest that both tribes had an equal stake in the affair. Only later (see v.33) do we find that some clans of Manasseh were involved as well. The listing of sites within the land they desired (see v.3) adds verisimilitude to their request; specificity of this sort helps the story to be more believable. But these nobles of Gad and Reuben do more than add place names; they put the issue of the land in the realm of divine gift in v.4:

The land that Yahweh smote

before the congregation of Israel;

it is a land for livestock,

and your servants have livestock.

The repetition of the word “livestock” (miqneh) is for emphasis; their herds must have been exceptionally large. The conquest of the Midianite livestock would have further expanded the holdings of these tribes as well as the others. But their language suggests that their holdings in livestock were out of proportion to the other tribes. They needed the room that Transjordan seemed to provide. But it is not just the matter of livestock that animates these particular tribes; it is also the fact that God in his power has provided the land as a gift for his people. The battles of victory over the peoples of Transjordan were the battles of Yahweh. His people were his agents, but the outcome was his.

As we read these verses, we might wonder what the motivation of the two tribes really was. We may wonder how they knew that the region of Transjordan was more suitable for their needs than a share in Cisjordan would be. We may wonder whether they were selfish, grasping for land ahead of the other tribes. It is also possible that the people of Reuben, at least, were still operating under a mistaken notion of their right of primogeniture by desiring that the first share of the land be given to them as descendants of the firstborn of Israel’s tribal fathers.

Based on their subsequent words in this chapter, however, we may conclude that none of these issues was paramount. The text breathes a certain naïve transparency, a simplicity and candor that does not seem to admit complex reasoning. We may observe, simply, that these were two tribes with unusually large holdings of herds and flocks, and they believed that Transjordan was quite suitable for their needs. So the two tribes requested of Moses that the land of Transjordan be given to them as their singular possession on the basis of any grace that they had found in his sight as his servants (v.5). All seems respectful and deferential in tone and manner.

The possibility existed, however, that these polite words were covering a rebellious spirit. It was not just that they felt at home and should be allowed to settle in the place of their choice; these two tribes might have been abandoning their place in the league as a whole by saying something like, “We have ours; good luck with yours!” At least Moses read their words this way.

NOTES

1 (yaʿzēr, “Jazer”) is a place name of a region of Transjordan often associated with Heshbon (vv.1, 3, 35; 21:32; Jos 13:25; 21:39 [37]; 2Sa 24:5) and with vineyards (Isa 16:8–9 = Jer 48:32).

5 The tendency is to view verbs such as (yuttan, “be given”) as Pual imperfects. It is better, however, to parse this verb as a Qal passive jussive: “let [this land] be given [to your servants].”

ii. The angry response of Moses (32:6–15)

6Moses said to the Gadites and Reubenites, “Shall your countrymen go to war while you sit here? 7Why do you discourage the Israelites from going over into the land the LORD has given them? 8This is what your fathers did when I sent them from Kadesh Barnea to look over the land. 9After they went up to the Valley of Eshcol and viewed the land, they discouraged the Israelites from entering the land the LORD had given them. 10The LORD’s anger was aroused that day and he swore this oath: 11‘Because they have not followed me wholeheartedly, not one of the men twenty years old or more who came up out of Egypt will see the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—12not one except Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua son of Nun, for they followed the LORD wholeheartedly.’ 13The LORD’s anger burned against Israel and he made them wander in the desert forty years, until the whole generation of those who had done evil in his sight was gone.

14“And here you are, a brood of sinners, standing in the place of your fathers and making the LORD even more angry with Israel. 15If you turn away from following him, he will again leave all this people in the desert, and you will be the cause of their destruction.”

COMMENTARY

6–7 The response of Moses reveals his flash point. He raged against the two tribes that they had become no better than their fathers, for neither had they been willing to go to the land to fight the battle of conquest. We may wonder at the reason for Moses’ anger; it seems to be complex in nature. He may have suspected that the real reason for the request of these tribes was that they really did not want to participate in the war of conquest. This suspicion could not have come by their words alone, which seem respectful and reasonable, but by other information he may have had.

Additionally or alternatively, Moses may have reacted the way he did not because of their words but because of the torment within him that must have welled up constantly, uncontrollably. Moses could not enter the land; could it be possible that these two tribes who could enter the land chose not to do so? The words of the tribal spokesmen may have rubbed the wound of his own limitation with stinging salt.

Moses’ words may have been provoked by his anger, but they became the opportunity to review the basic theology of the wilderness period. He was able to contrast the first and second generations, to warn the second on the basis of the experience of the first. In this case our approach to the book of Numbers is vindicated by his homily: The old generation is dead; the new generation must act differently from their ancestors.

In any event, Moses charged these tribal leaders with posing an intolerable situation. By granting them the right to settle outside Canaan proper, not only would these tribes be lost from the battle plans, but their absence would be a means of hindering the other tribes from crossing the Jordan as well. “Think of it,” Moses seemed to be saying. “Could we have come this far after so long and still never enter the land?” For him, then, their question seemed not only selfish but also seditious. The entire nation might become discouraged (v.7), thus perhaps leading to an ominous replay of the failure of their parents—and this possibility forms the thesis of Numbers. Will the sons behave like their parents, or will they believe and inherit?

8 Here Moses rages, “This is what your fathers did.” Moses’ fear was that the failure of these two tribes to stay with the whole community in the war of conquest of Canaan would be the beginnings of a general revolt among the people against entering the land. It would be the failure of Kadesh (chs. 13–14) all over again.

In fact, this chapter has numerous word associations with chs. 13–14. In addition to the reporting of the story of those chapters in vv.6–15, several terms cause the reader to juxtapose the chapters. Among the most prominent are the following: (1) the verb “cross over” (ʿābar)—cf. 32:21 (“go over”), 27, 29–30, with 13:32 (untr. NIV); 14:7 (“passed through”), 41 (“disobeying”); (2) the term “children” (ṭap)—cf. 32:16–17, 24, 26, with 14:3, 31; (3) the phrase, “the inhabitants of this land” (yōšbê hāʾāreṣ)—cf. 32:17 with 14:14. Wenham (213, n. 1) lists other words as well, but those mentioned above seem the more convincing.

9–13 All these happenings afford Moses the opportunity to preach a brief homily (certainly shortened considerably in this chapter from what he might really have said) on the history of the national experience in the wilderness. Moses presents an example of a biblical use of history for the instruction of the people of God. He speaks with specificity, passion, and historical insight with a contemporary feel—the tying of the experience of the past into the present of his audience. In some ways this section may be thought of as a model of biblical exhortation. The section is also a splendid review of the core of the historical narrative in Numbers. The materials center particularly on the debacle of chs. 13–14, the rebellion of the first generation at Kadesh Barnea, which led to the divine sentence that they spend the rest of their lives in the wilderness.

The underlying theology is based on the notion that the land is the gift of Yahweh. How would it be possible for the Israelites to spurn his gift? Even though their ancestors had despised the gift, is it really possible that such an act of cowardice and ingratitude might be committed again? In asking these questions, Moses is developing the central message of this book. The new generation has a new opportunity to be different from their parents. They could be the people who will succeed. They do not have to repeat the failure of their parents.

But what if they are to fail? This possibility is the hidden horror in Numbers. What if the new generation is no better than their fathers and mothers? Will God then give a third generation an opportunity? Will God keep waiting until he finally has a people who will act on his word? Or is it possible that God could be spurned one time too many, and the Land of Promise will revert to its present, wicked inhabitants? These emotionally charged questions may be looming in the forefront of Moses’ mind as he preaches this homily.

The sermon is more than homily. It is also litany. The words of vv.10–12 are a confession of sorts—not the confession of faith that begins with “I believe,” but a litany of life beginning with, “This we have experienced.” The book of Numbers not only describes worship; it is a book of worship. Remembering failure is also a part of worship. (See Ps 95:6–11 for a splendid example.) Worship is not just responding to grace; it is also remembering past disaster—and learning to avoid it in the present.

With the words of v.11 we are in the heart of covenant—a covenant that was promised but rebuffed. Yet the promise is still present. God’s oath to the patriarchs—to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—is present in eternity. Jesus’ words to the Sadducees recorded in Matthew 22 are to the point here: “But about the resurrection from the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living” (22:31–32). This is not just a past oath. Since he lives, so does the promise. The only question will be in the generation that stands before him now: Will they be the ones, or must he wait for others? These words are liturgical in form; they are meant to be recited and remembered. The reference to twenty years and older speaks of the generational change represented by these emissaries from Reuben and Gad.

The promise to Caleb and Joshua is also part of the litany (v.12). This section is like the preaching of the apostles in the early NT. There is a pattern, a kerygma of grace and wrath. The NT preaching of the evangelists begins in grace but moves to wrath. The OT preaching of the prophets often begins in wrath but moves to grace. In both approaches there is a pattern of historical citation and present adjuration. There is no truly biblical preaching that does not ultimately tie history to the current message; neither the evangelist nor the prophet would draw his message merely from his existential situation.

14–15 Moses’ words in vv.14–15 are unusually harsh. In the phrase “brood of sinners” (v.14) he is prescient of the preaching of Jesus (e.g., Mt 12:34; cf. 3:7). There is moral culpability in the action of disunity that may bring divine ruination on the entire community. Moses’ words are as expressive of his deep, personal feelings as are Paul’s words in texts such as 2 Corinthians 1–3. This moment is intensely personal for the great prophet of God. Rightly or wrongly, he has been provoked to give vent to his deepest feelings. But those feelings are based on his experience—and the deep feelings of God that he experienced as none other in his day.

NOTES

11 The LXX adds an explanatory phrase after the words “twenty years old or more” that serves to explain it more fully: “who know [the difference between] good and evil.” This phrase suggests that the age of twenty was possibly regarded as an age of adult accountability (not unlike our consideration of twenty-one as the age of maturity).

13 (wayeni ʿēm, “and he made them wander”; GK 5675) is an unusual use of the verb nuaʿ, a word meaning “to quiver, wave, tremble” (GK 5675; see 2Ki 19:21 = Isa 37:22; Pss 22:7 [8]; 109:25; Da 10:10). Here, in 2 Samuel 15:20, and in Psalm 59:11 the verb has the idea “to cause to wander.” The connotation likely ties something of the latent meaning of this verb to this more unusual usage. The time in the wilderness was wandering, not as an aimless and pleasurable jaunt but as a journey that is like a quivering, trembling walk.

14 (lispôt, “to increase”) is a Qal infinitive construct of the root sāpâ (“to snatch away”). But the intent seems related to the root yāsap (“to add to”); hence the verb should be read as (lāsepet).

The prepositional phrase at the end of the verse, (ʾel-yiśrāʾēl), is also unusual. This phrase would normally be translated “to Israel,” but the expected meaning is “against” or “with Israel” (as though the preposition were misspelled for ʿal). However, the preposition ʾel may sometimes have the idea of “against.”

iii. The assurances of Reuben and Gad (32:16–19)

16Then they came up to him and said, “We would like to build pens here for our livestock and cities for our women and children. 17But we are ready to arm ourselves and go ahead of the Israelites until we have brought them to their place. Meanwhile our women and children will live in fortified cities, for protection from the inhabitants of the land. 18We will not return to our homes until every Israelite has received his inheritance. 19We will not receive any inheritance with them on the other side of the Jordan, because our inheritance has come to us on the east side of the Jordan.”

COMMENTARY

16–19 The response from the men addressed so angrily seems to be something like, “You have us all wrong. We are sincere in our desire to find the pleasure of the Lord. We will gladly go with the people into Canaan; only let us prepare temporary pens for our sheep and places to live for our children and our wives. Then we will come; and to them we will return.” They say these and similar things (see Note on v.17) in an attempt to assure Moses that they do not wish to shirk their part in conquering the land. They will join their brothers in battle but wish to leave their families and livestock behind in the portion of their choosing. Their promises are sound; they have met the demands implicit within the charge of Moses.

Many commentators believe that the chiefs of Gad and Reuben were acting disingenuously here, that they were covering their original intention with hastily drawn plans to accede to Moses’ desires. It appears to me, however, that it is possible the intentions of these men were honorable from the beginning. The reaction of Moses to them may have been based on his own fears of rebellion (and he had been given ample opportunity in the previous forty years to develop such a jaundiced view!) rather than a truly rebellious spirit in these men.

If this more positive view is correct, then both the implicit and explicit comparisons we might draw between this chapter and chs. 13–14 are invalid. In the former generation there was a rebellion that did spell ruin for the nation. But in this generation there is not rebellion, only petition; there is not a lack of faith, only an alternative plan. As long as both parties are clear as to the governing intention, then the story of the second generation will wind up differently from the account of the first. Nonetheless, the goal still needed to be upheld: God has time and the wilderness has sand!

NOTE

17 The term (ḥušîm, “ready”) is problematic. It may be parsed as a Qal masculine plural passive participle from ḥûš (“to make haste, be ready”). There are numerous alternative words suggested for this difficult term. BHS suggests [ḥemiššîm, “fifty,”] as in [Joshua 1:14; 4:12; Judges 7:11]. Some think this verb should be repointed as an active verb, ḥušîm, rather than the passive, for a more likely spelling. [Others emend to [ḥamušîm] (as in Ex 13:18), a plural adjective meaning “in battle array” (see Jos 1:14; 4:12; Jdg 7:11).] I prefer this emendation to ḥamušîm.

b. The Decision of Moses for Their Settlement (32:20–30)

20Then Moses said to them, “If you will do this—if you will arm yourselves before the LORD for battle, 21and if all of you will go armed over the Jordan before the LORD until he has driven his enemies out before him—22then when the land is subdued before the LORD, you may return and be free from your obligation to the LORD and to Israel. And this land will be your possession before the LORD.

23“But if you fail to do this, you will be sinning against the LORD; and you may be sure that your sin will find you out. 24Build cities for your women and children, and pens for your flocks, but do what you have promised.”

25The Gadites and Reubenites said to Moses, “We your servants will do as our lord commands. 26Our children and wives, our flocks and herds will remain here in the cities of Gilead. 27But your servants, every man armed for battle, will cross over to fight before the LORD, just as our lord says.”

28Then Moses gave orders about them to Eleazar the priest and Joshua son of Nun and to the family heads of the Israelite tribes. 29He said to them, “If the Gadites and Reubenites, every man armed for battle, cross over the Jordan with you before the LORD, then when the land is subdued before you, give them the land of Gilead as their possession. 30But if they do not cross over with you armed, they must accept their possession with you in Canaan.”

COMMENTARY

20–30 Moses was not easily calmed. He spoke to the people as, in a sense, a father to an errant but repentant child. He gave them words of comfort and also words of strong warning: “Your sin will find you out” (v.23). The language is striking: it is not just that their sin would be discovered but that their sin would be an active agent in discovering them. This is not unlike the picture of sin as lying at the door of Cain’s life (Ge 4:7). Moses’ words of v.20 are especially vivid: “If you are willing to do this thing, then prepare yourselves before Yahweh for war” (my translation).

Moses’ adjuration also reminded the people of Gad and Reuben that it was not just their participation he desired but also their commitment to the affirmation of faith. They needed to prepare for battle, but they also needed to know that the Lord was going to be the one to win the battle (v.21). The actions were the Lord’s; the people were partners with him in his holy war. Verse 22 also strongly emphasizes the role of Yahweh in the taking of the land. It will be subdued “before the LORD”; they will be innocent from “obligation to the LORD and to Israel[!]”; and the land will be their possession “before the LORD.”

The bargain was struck, but not without strong warnings of the seriousness of the matter if the people failed to live up to their word. In the permission Moses granted to them, we sense the negotiation that was possible in Israel, even from the hand of the Lord. The story of Abraham’s and the Lord’s bartering over the fate of Sodom (Ge 18:16–33) comes to mind as an example. In a sense the bargain with Moses was a bargain with God. Like the daughters of Zelophehad (ch. 27), these men had come to Moses in order to come to the Lord. When they agreed with Moses, they said, “Your servants will do just as my lord commands” (v.25). They were also saying that they would do as the Lord commanded. The specifying elements—children, wives, livestock, and cattle—were a part of the bargain. The language was like that of a contract; agreement was full and complete.

NOTE

24 The term (ṣōneʾ) has an unusual spelling of the more common (ṣō ʾn); it is used only in Psalm 8:7 [8] and here— (leṣōnaʾakem, “your flocks”).

c. The Public Declaration of the Agreement (32:31–32)

31The Gadites and Reubenites answered, “Your servants will do what the LORD has said. 32We will cross over before the LORD into Canaan armed, but the property we inherit will be on this side of the Jordan.”

COMMENTARY

31–32 These two verses serve as a public declaration of the decision to which the men of Gad and Reuben had come before the presence of Moses. Now it is made formal and binding before the congregation.

d. The Territories of Reuben and Gad (32:33–42)

OVERVIEW

It appears that after the principle of the settlement of Transjordan was established with the tribes of Reuben and Gad, a portion of the tribe of Manasseh joined with them in their agreement to settle east of the Jordan River and then to participate in the battle for Canaan. It is possible that the chapter has been compiled from two different records and that according to one of the traditions the men of Manasseh were present in the beginning of the bargaining. But since the text as we have it mentions Manasseh only at this late point in the negotiation, it may more likely be that the leaders of Manasseh were hesitant to approach Moses and that they only came forward with their own participation in the plan after the deal was made.

33Then Moses gave to the Gadites, the Reubenites and the half-tribe of Manasseh son of Joseph the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites and the kingdom of Og king of Bashan—the whole land with its cities and the territory around them.

34The Gadites built up Dibon, Ataroth, Aroer, 35Atroth Shophan, Jazer, Jogbehah, 36Beth Nimrah and Beth Haran as fortified cities, and built pens for their flocks. 37And the Reubenites rebuilt Heshbon, Elealeh and Kiriathaim, 38as well as Nebo and Baal Meon (these names were changed) and Sibmah. They gave names to the cities they rebuilt.

39The descendants of Makir son of Manasseh went to Gilead, captured it and drove out the Amorites who were there. 40So Moses gave Gilead to the Makirites, the descendants of Manasseh, and they settled there. 41Jair, a descendant of Manasseh, captured their settlements and called them Havvoth Jair. 42And Nobah captured Kenath and its surrounding settlements and called it Nobah after himself.

COMMENTARY

33 So the chapter that began with such hostility on the part of Moses ends with happy portents. The territory of Transjordan became part of the new homeland for some of the tribes of Israel. As the representative of God on earth, Moses bestowed the territory of Transjordan on Gad, Reuben, and some of the families of Manasseh.

34–38 Verses 34–38 are the happy record of the rebuilding and settling of the people of the Lord in that portion of the land he had given to them. The section includes as well notices about continuing conquests, which mark the Lord’s continuing pleasure. The listing of towns and cities adds to this text a sense of verisimilitude and a note of celebration. The citation of these habitations by name (e.g., Dibon, Ataroth, Aroer, Atroth Shophan, Jazer, and the like) is important not just for cartography but also for theology. This land now really belonged to Israel. The cities that had been destroyed were now being rebuilt, and in some cases they were being renamed (v.38) to show new relationships and to evince the new reality. The old gods were no longer in control; this was now the land of the people of Yahweh.

39–42 This pericope may well be a later addition to this chapter. It features the exploits of the family of Makir, of which the celebrated daughters of Zelophehad were a part (see chs. 27; 36), and their conquest of Gilead, along with the heroic exploits of Jair and Nobah. This is a further expansion of the people in Transjordan. Their territorial aggression was a part of the plan of God in further dispossessing the Amorites from the region. The taking of cities and renaming them after heroic persons is a part of the celebrative nature of the chapter, a projection of what lies ahead on the other side of the Jordan for the people of God.

The settlement of Transjordan was a considerably more complex issue than this chapter presents; this text relates only a few instances in the process. The point of the chapter is not to give a complete record or to present a full mapping of the territory; rather, the chapter speaks of territorial expansion and gifting by God.

B. A Review of the First Generation’s Journey, and Words of Warning and Encouragement to the Second Generation (33:1–56)

OVERVIEW

Numbers 33 is a somewhat curious piece in the book. Principally, it is a list of places (an onomasticon), similar to how some chapters in this book have been lists of numbers and names. It is the one chapter in which we read that Moses was commanded by the Lord to write an account of his experience in the wilderness (v.2)—a notice that certain critical scholars find to be the most potent argument against Moses’ having written the book!

For example, Gray, xxix–xxx, writes, “In one passage only (33:2) does the book lay any claim to the authority of Moses for its statements; that passage is closely related to others (P) which are clearly of far later origin than the age of Moses, and consequently the Mosaic authorship even of this particular passage cannot be seriously considered.” Noth, 243, says, “Yet the sentence contained in verse 2a, which follows awkwardly on verse 1, and has occasioned a brief summary of verse 1 in verse 2b, is certainly an addition to what is already a very late passage.” (Further discussion on the subject of the Mosaic authorship of Numbers is found in the Introduction: Authorship and Date.)

Yet Gray, Noth, and others notwithstanding, Moses certainly wrote this travel itinerary; Scripture explicitly states so. Gray’s rejection of the statement is based on an appeal to prior late-dating of the so-called Priestly document. His claim is simply nothing more than an example of special pleading. Gray argues that Moses cannot have been the author since the book does not assert his authorship; concerning the one verse of the book that does claim Mosaic authorship of a particular section, Gray dismisses its claim for other reasons. Using this approach, one can deny just about anything.

Greenstone, 337, tells a rabbinic story that points out a reason for the inclusion of this itinerary in the book of Numbers:

A king took his son who was ill to a distant place to be cured. On his return, with the son entirely cured, the king points out to him various places they had passed through and recalls certain occurrences that happened there. [In a similar manner this] list was written by Moses at the command of God as a record for future generations (Num. R. 23:3; Tan., Masseè 2).

Wenham (see pp. 216–30 for his extended discussion) has an elaborate schematization of the place names in six columns of seven entries each (by adding the beginning at Rameses and the ending on the plains of Moab to achieve a total of forty-two places). He finds some interesting correlations between several of these cycles, based in part on significant uses of certain numbers in the Bible (one, three, four, seven, and twelve).

R. Dennis Cole (“The Challenge of Faith’s Final Step: Israel’s Journey toward Victory in Numbers 33,” in Howard and Grisanti, eds., Giving the Sense, 359) presents a strong case that this chapter should be considered as Israel’s victory march:

Hence, the didactic intent of Numbers 33 is to challenge each generation of God’s people toward living faithfully according to that which he has revealed in his Word. His abiding presence and power are available in fullness to those who accept the challenge with vision and hope.

This view fits nicely into our motif: “God has time, and the wilderness has sand” (see Introduction).

1. The Stages of the Journey in the Wilderness (33:1–49)

a. Introduction (33:1–2)

1Here are the stages in the journey of the Israelites when they came out of Egypt by divisions under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. 2At the LORD’s command Moses recorded the stages in their journey. This is their journey by stages:

COMMENTARY

1–2 The listing of the numerous “stages” (massāʿîm—significantly, forty in number between Rameses in Egypt and the plains of Moab) in Israel’s wilderness experience appears at first to be a rather straightforward list that might easily be charted on a map. The chapter presents numerous difficulties, however, once one actually looks at the map. William G. Dever (Who Were the Early Israelites? 19) writes, “Dozens of sites are listed matter-of-factly here and there in the overall account, as though the reader of a later day knew of their existence. But the fact is that only a few sites in the entire biblical text have ever been persuasively identified.” Most of the sites were wilderness encampments, not cities with lasting archaeological evidence.

Many of the place names in the list (e.g., most of the place names in vv.19–29) are not recorded elsewhere in Exodus and Numbers. Moreover, some of the places names mentioned elsewhere in Numbers are lacking here (e.g., Taberah [11:3; see also 21:19]). Some of the places names mentioned in this list are found in a recapitulation in Deuteronomy, though with slightly different spellings and in an irregular order (cf. vv.30–34 with Dt 10:6–7); but even these place names are otherwise unknown. Wenham, 220, is correct in describing these data as being among the most intractable that biblical scholars face.

We may observe the following factors:

  1. 1. The recording of the list was stated as having been done by the hand of Moses at the command of the Lord (v.2).
  2. 2. The listing thus should be taken seriously as an accurate reprise of the stages of the journey, despite our difficulty in locating many of the sites today.
  3. 3. The numerical factor of forty sites between Rameses and the plains of Moab suggests some stylizing of the list, which may help to account for the inclusion or exclusion of some sites.
  4. 4. As in the case of genealogies in the Torah, not all the factors of significance in antiquity may be apparent to the modern reader.
  5. 5. Ultimately, the record is a recital of faith in the Lord’s blessing over his people for the extended period of their wilderness experience. Although certainly not without geographical importance, the list of the stages of Israel’s experience in the wilderness is fundamentally a religious document, a spiritual geographical litany of the Lord’s deliverance of his people. Harrison, 403–4, writes:

The locations were thus not so much areas on a map as memorials to God’s power and humanity’s weakness, as stages on a journey through life that were as much spiritual as physical, and above all else as a constant reminder of the justice and mercy of the Lord of the covenant, who had bound a self-willed, nomadic people to Himself in His great love for them.

Despite the many places that are mentioned in these verses, they do not really record a travel story. One of the most durable literary formats is the travel narrative, found in both ancient and modern writings. An Egyptian example is called “The Journey of Wen-Amon to Phoenicia,” a travel narrative from the Twenty-First Dynasty (eleventh century BC; see ANET, 25–29). In a travel narrative, the journey is the setting for the story, for character development, and for plot conflict and resolution. But Numbers 33 has none of these elements. It is merely an itinerary, the barest listing of place names. Even when great events are associated with places, they are only rarely noted in this chapter. The book of Numbers as a whole is a travel narrative; this chapter is simply a routing list (an onomasticon).

NOTE

2 The noun (massaʿ, “stage”) is derived from the verb (nāsaʿ, “to set out, journey”). It records the stopping places of the Hebrews in the wilderness, but it presents them not so much as their sites of dwelling (as though they were there to stay) as it does as staging points for the continuation of their journey. This word thrusts us forward in a recital of a journey that moves toward completion. Cole, 518, makes an interesting comparison between the onomasticon (list of names) in this chapter to those of the victorious campaigns of Egyptian monarchs, including Thutmose III, Seti I, Rameses II, and Shishak (Sheshonq); records are included in ANET, 234–58. On Shishak (Sheshonq), see Note at 21:1.

b. The Point of Departure (33:3–4)

3The Israelites set out from Rameses on the fifteenth day of the first month, the day after the Passover. They marched out boldly in full view of all the Egyptians, 4who were burying all their firstborn, whom the LORD had struck down among them; for the LORD had brought judgment on their gods.

COMMENTARY

3–4 Only at the beginning of the journey and at one point along the way (Mount Hor; vv.37–39) does the listing of places give way to narrative. These verses both note the specific time of the Israelites’ departure from Egypt and describe its manner (see Ex 12:37). They left disdainfully (see Ps 114:1–2) without watching the burial details of the many grieving Egyptian families whose firstborn had been slain by the hand of the Lord; as they did so, they were relishing the victory that Yahweh had won over the gods of the land (v.4). This section is a triumphant taunt, though even the mention of the dead adds a gentle note of sadness.

The city of Rameses (v.3) has traditionally been identified with Tanis (San el-Hajar [San el-Hagar]; cf. Ge 47:11; Ex 1:11). However, evidence now points to a location near Qantir-Khataana–Tell Daba as the correct site (see The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology [ed. E. M. Blaiklock and R. K. Harrison; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983], 384, 435). Tell Daba (also spelled Tell el-Dabʾa) is a bit more than twelve miles south of Tanis. The area of the ancient city is truly immense—six miles long and two miles wide (see the description by Kitchen, Reliability, 255).

The name “Rameses” is derived most likely from the great Pharaoh Rameses II, who is dated centuries later than the story of Joseph (Ge 47:11) and, many believe, later than the Hebrews’ time in Egypt (Ex 1:11). This chronology means that we have an example here of a historical updating of an ancient place name to a more current, recognizable name for later generations (see Notes; see also the use of “Hormah” and comments at Nu 21:3).

The stages of the journey of Israel may be viewed in a variety of ways. The simplest way is to see the stages as grouped in two sections, with an emphasis on the stop at Mount Hor, where Aaron the priest died; only at this point does the onomasticon breaks into narrative (vv.37–39).

NOTES

3 Many scholars have used the mention of (raʿmesēs, “Rameses”) to argue that since this city was named for Pharaoh Rameses II (ca. 1290–1213 BC), he must have been the pharaoh of the exodus, and the exodus was therefore in the thirteenth century BC (see, e.g., OTS–1996, 59–60). William H. Shea (“The Date of the Exodus,” in Howard and Grisanti, eds., Giving the Sense, 248) observes that Joseph reports that when the family of Jacob came into Egypt, they settled in “the district of Rameses” (Ge 47:11). But no chronology would place the entrance of the Hebrew family into Egypt during the reign of this pharaoh.

In other words, in Genesis 47:11 we have a certain updating of a place name to help the readers understand. The same phenomenon may also be the case in Numbers 33:3—a later updating of a place name for a new generation of readers. That is, Pharaoh Rameses II may have lived considerably later than both Israel’s entrance into and leaving of Egypt, despite the mention of a place name likely tied to his fame and reign. A most passionate argument for the thirteenth-century dating of the exodus is given by Kitchen, Reliability, especially 307–10.

In contrast to its negative use in 15:30, the expression (beyād rāmâ, “with a high hand”) is used here in a positive sense as a figure of triumph (note the NIV’s “boldly”). With hands held high, the Israelites left on their journey in a deliberate and conscious sense of the presence of the grander, higher hand of Yahweh held over them in blessing.

3–4 Cole, 520–27, following a suggestion of Wenham, 217–19, observes that the departure and encampment sites may have been organized into six groups, or stages, of seven sites; the seventh stage is then implied in the concluding paragraph (33:50–56)—the last stage will be the conquest of Canaan. Cole gives extensive charts to display this pattern. Timothy R. Ashley (The Book of Numbers [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 623–24) is more skeptical of Wenham’s approach and calls it too speculative.

c. The Stages of the Journey from Rameses to Mount Hor (33:5–37)

5The Israelites left Rameses and camped at Succoth.

6They left Succoth and camped at Etham, on the edge of the desert.

7They left Etham, turned back to Pi Hahiroth, to the east of Baal Zephon, and camped near Migdol.

8They left Pi Hahiroth and passed through the sea into the desert, and when they had traveled for three days in the Desert of Etham, they camped at Marah.

9They left Marah and went to Elim, where there were twelve springs and seventy palm trees, and they camped there.

10They left Elim and camped by the Red Sea.

11They left the Red Sea and camped in the Desert of Sin.

12They left the Desert of Sin and camped at Dophkah.

13They left Dophkah and camped at Alush.

14They left Alush and camped at Rephidim, where there was no water for the people to drink.

15They left Rephidim and camped in the Desert of Sinai.

16They left the Desert of Sinai and camped at Kibroth Hattaavah.

17They left Kibroth Hattaavah and camped at Hazeroth.

18They left Hazeroth and camped at Rithmah.

19They left Rithmah and camped at Rimmon Perez.

20They left Rimmon Perez and camped at Libnah.

21They left Libnah and camped at Rissah.

22They left Rissah and camped at Kehelathah.

23They left Kehelathah and camped at Mount Shepher.

24They left Mount Shepher and camped at Haradah.

25They left Haradah and camped at Makheloth.

26They left Makheloth and camped at Tahath.

27They left Tahath and camped at Terah.

28They left Terah and camped at Mithcah.

29They left Mithcah and camped at Hashmonah.

30They left Hashmonah and camped at Moseroth.

31They left Moseroth and camped at Bene Jaakan.

32They left Bene Jaakan and camped at Hor Haggidgad.

33They left Hor Haggidgad and camped at Jotbathah.

34They left Jotbathah and camped at Abronah.

35They left Abronah and camped at Ezion Geber.

36They left Ezion Geber and camped at Kadesh, in the Desert of Zin.

37They left Kadesh and camped at Mount Hor, on the border of Edom.

COMMENTARY

5–37 Succoth, Etham, and Pi Hahiroth (vv.5–7) were in Egypt. On traditional maps, the other sites are all located in the Sinai Peninsula. Below is a list of their staging areas in the order they are given; their English names; their verse numbers; a transcription of their Hebrew names (helpful in precision of names); their suggested English meanings (many of which are provisional in nature); and further comments about identification, significance, or parallel Scriptures. (Additionally, there exists the possibility—so far unverified by scientific research—that sites 4–40 are not in the Sinai Peninsula at all, but instead in Saudi Arabia! See further on this speculation in the Note on 33:8, 10.) The following identifications are given with the assumption of the traditional route of the journey that followed first the west side of the peninsula in a southerly direction, then arrived at the traditional site of Mount Sinai, and then moved northerly along the eastern side of the peninsula.

(1) Succoth (sukkōt, “Booths”; v.5)—see Exodus 13:20; Succoth is likely identified with modern Tell el-Maskhutah in the Wadi Tumeilat, about forty miles southeast of Tanis/Rameses.

(2) Wilderness of Etham (ʾētām, meaning unknown; v.6)—see Exodus 13:20; site of the first mention of the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire.

(3) Pi Hahiroth (pî haḥîrōt, “Mouth of Burning”; v.7)—see Exodus 14:2, 9; the Hebrews’ encampment was near Pi Hahiroth, between Migdol (migdōl, “Tower”) and the sea, to the east of Baal Zephon (baʿal ṣepôn, “Baʿal of the North”). It was from this encampment that they made their miraculous escape across the divinely dried seabed of the Red Sea (or Sea of Reeds; see Notes; Ex 14:2) in the great exodus (v.8). Alternatively (see Note on 33:8, 10), it is possible that the crossing of the Red Sea was near the lower eastern tip of the peninsula and that it proceeded to what is now Saudi Arabia, and then the march continued to Jebel al-Lawz, an alternative site for Mount Sinai.

(4) Marah (mārâ, “Bitter Spring”; v.8)—see Exodus 15:23; site of the bitter waters cleansed by the Lord through his servant Moses.

(5) Elim (ʾêlim, “Place of Trees,” “Terebinths”; v.9)—see Exodus 15:27; curiously, this site is the only place that is described in this list.

(6) Red Sea (yam-sûp, perhaps “Sea of Reeds”; v.10)—not mentioned in Exodus as a place of encampment, but mentioned in reference to a southwestwardly move before turning eastward to the south-central Sinai. See the Note on 33:8, 10.

(7) Desert of Sin (midbar-sîn, meaning for sîn unknown; v.11)—see Exodus 16:1; the arrival of the people of Israel here was on the fifteenth day of the second month; the location seems to be in the south-central Sinai Peninsula.

(8) Dophkah (dopqâ, “Beaten”; v.12)—not mentioned in Exodus; location unknown.

(9) Alush (ʾālûš, meaning unknown; v.13)—not mentioned in Exodus; location unknown.

(10) Rephidim (repîdim, “Spreading”; v.14)—see Exodus 17:1; curiously there is a note on the significance of this site (“no water”) when other sites are mentioned without any notice.

(11) Desert of Sinai (midbar sînāy, the meaning of sînāy unknown; v.15)—see Exodus 19:2; traditionally believed to be the central, southern section of the Sinai Peninsula. (This well-known peninsula is given its name precisely because of the traditional location of Mount Sinai here; see Notes.) Here Israel lingered for about eleven months. That the giving of the Torah is not mentioned in this passage is especially surprising. The departure from Sinai is recorded in Numbers 10:11–36.

(12) Kibroth Hattaavah (qibrōt hattaʾawâ, “Graves of Desire”; v.16)—see Numbers 11:34; all that is known about the site is that it lay a three-day journey’s distance from Sinai.

(13) Hazeroth (ḥaṣērōt, “Settlements”; v.17)—see Numbers 11:35; 12:16; Deuteronomy 1:1; location unknown.

(14) Rithmah (ritmâ, “Binding”; v.18)—not mentioned elsewhere (as with each of the next eleven sites).

(15) Rimmon Perez (rimmōn pāreṣ, “Pomegranate Breach”; v.19)—not mentioned elsewhere.

(16) Libnah (libnâ, “White”; v.20)—not to be confused with the Libnah of Joshua 10:29; the Libnah in Numbers is not mentioned elsewhere.

(17) Rissah (rissâ, meaning unknown; v.21)—not mentioned elsewhere.

(18) Kehelathah (qehēlātâ, “Assembly”; v.22)—not mentioned elsewhere.

(19) Mount Shepher (har-šāper, “Mount of Beauty”; v.23)—not mentioned elsewhere.

(20) Haradah (ḥarādâ, “Frightening”; v.24)—not mentioned elsewhere.

(21) Makheloth (maqhēlōt, “Place of Assembly”; v.25)—not mentioned elsewhere.

(22) Tahath (tāḥat, “Lower”; v.26)—not mentioned elsewhere.

(23) Terah (tārāḥ, meaning unknown; v.27)—not mentioned elsewhere.

(24) Mithcah (mitqâ, “Sweetness”[?]; v.28)—not mentioned elsewhere.

(25) Hashmonah (ḥašmōnâ, meaning unknown; v.29)—not mentioned elsewhere. The non-mention elsewhere of twelve staging places in a row (nos. 14 to 25) means that these sites are otherwise completely unknown to us. Given this fact, little ground is lost (pun intended) by giving attention to the alternative view respecting the crossing of the Red Sea and the alternative location for Mount Sinai (see Note on 33:8, 10).

(26) Moseroth (mōsērôt, “Bands”; v.30)—another form of “Moserah” (môsērâ), mentioned in Deuteronomy 10:6 as the place where Aaron died; but see on v.37.

(27) Bene Jaakan (benê-yaʿaqān, “Sons of Yaʿaqan”; v.31)—a place in Edom mentioned in Genesis 36:27 and 1 Chronicles 1:42 as “Akan” (ʿaqān). In Deuteronomy 10:6 this site is called beʾērōt benê-yaʿaqān (“The Wells of the Sons of Yaʿaqan”; “the wells of the Jaakanites,” NIV), but the order of the sites in Deuteronomy 10:6 is the reverse of that in Numbers 33:30–31. The somewhat extemporaneous nature of Deuteronomy sometimes has events in a less regular order than in the (presumably) more orderly patterns of Numbers.

(28) Hor Haggidgad (ḥōr haggidgad, “The Hollow of Gidgad”; v.32)—called Gudgodah (gudgōdâ) in Deuteronomy 10:7.

(29) Jotbathah (yoṭbātâ, “Pleasantness”; v.33)—mentioned in Deuteronomy 10:7 as a land with streams of water. So we have four otherwise unknown places (staging areas 26–29) that are mentioned in Deuteronomy 10:6–7 with slightly different spellings and some irregularity in order. Again, there is little to be lost in considering the alternatives for the location of the crossing of the Red Sea and the new idea for the location of Mount Sinai, mentioned in the Note on 33:8, 10.

(30) Abronah (ʿabrōnâ, “Regions Beyond”; v.34)—not mentioned elsewhere.

(31) Ezion Geber (ʿeṣyôn gāber, “Mighty Trees”[?]; v.35)—see Deuteronomy 2:8; 1 Kings 9:26; the well-known oasis near Elath on the Gulf of Aqaba. If the alternative view is considered (see Note at 33:8, 10), then this stage would be a movement north along the eastern side of the Red Sea (the region of Midian), rather than a movement north along its western side (the Sinai Peninsula).

(32) Kadesh (qādēš, “Sanctuary”; v.36)—see Numbers 13:21; 20:1; 27:14; 34:3; Deuteronomy 32:51; Joshua 15:1 (see also Dt 1:46; Nu 27:14); the well-known ʿAin Qedeis oasis, also known as Kadesh Barnea, in the Desert of Zin. At this point the alternative route (see Note at 33:8, 10) and that of the traditional view now come together. It is over seventy miles from Ezion Geber to Kadesh; numerous intermediate stops would be indicated. It was here that the revolt against Yahweh took place as the people listened to the evil majority report of the spies (Nu 13–14). God’s judgment of a forty-year period of wilderness waiting was given at Kadesh. It is possible that much of the thirty-eight years of Israel’s experience in the wilderness was spent with Kadesh as the central location. But if the alternative view is considered (see again the Note at 33:8, 10), it would also be possible that Moses led the people back to the region of Midian, where he was so familiar with the territory from his forty-year sojourn among the family group of Jethro. But at some point they would have returned to Kadesh; here also Miriam died (see 20:1).

(33) Mount Hor (hōr hāhār, “Hor the mountain”; v.37)—perhaps identified with Jebel Nebi Harum, about fifty miles south of the Dead Sea, southwest of Petra.

NOTES

8, 10 The full designation for (hayyām, “the sea”) is (yam-sûp), traditionally translated “the Red Sea” (Vul. following LXX) but in recent decades, as in the NIV’s margin, “the Sea of Reeds” ( [sûp] meaning “reeds”)—a translation already suggested in BDB, 693a [1909]); see the recent discussion by Kitchen, Reliability, 261–63. The term “the Red Sea” as the location of Yahweh’s victory over the armies of Pharaoh (Ex 14–15) has been commonly understood to refer to a site on the northwestern branch of the Red Sea, the area of the Gulf of Suez today. The more recent translation, “the Sea of Reeds,” has been thought by many to speak of an inland lake area (perhaps near, or including, “the Bitter Lakes” region). A suggestion is that in antiquity this area may have been marked by many reeds (see BDB, 693b). But in its uses in the book of Numbers (14:25; 21:4; 33:10, 11; also in Ex 23:31; Dt 1:40), (yam-sûp) speaks of the Gulf of Aqaba (the northeastern branch of the Red Sea), not the western branch (the Gulf of Suez) at all. The phrase is not unambiguous.

A more recent, speculative proposal for the location of the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea suggests the southern end of the Sinai Peninsula, across the Gulf of Aqaba, to modern Saudi Arabia (ancient Midian, as virtually all Bible maps show). The proposal includes evidence of a partly submerged “land bridge” that nearly traverses the distance across the gulf from the Sinai Peninsula to the land of Midian (modern Arabia). Passageway for modern ships has to be dredged, as the wind-borne wilderness sands, pushed by currents and tides, keep this “land bridge” largely in place. This idea is also linked to a proposal for an alternative site of Mount Sinai in Arabia (see Gal 4:25), at Jebel al-Lawz. At present, the speculation remains fascinating, but it cannot be validated one way or the other; the political situation in the Middle East precludes a scientific inquiry in Saudi Arabia to identify the location of the place so closely associated with the Hebrew Moses!

Here is one more element in the idea: If this new proposal gains more currency, it is possible that the phrase (yam-sûp, “Sea of Reeds”) may be emended to (yam-sôp, “sea’s end”; see Note at 11:25). That is, we may describe the tip of a peninsula as “land’s end.” Was it possible that yam-sôp (“sea’s end”) was another way of saying the same thing? If so, the issue of “reeds” becomes moot. Is it possible that later in Hebrew history, when the people were so far removed from these places, the pronunciation shifted slightly—a shift that has caused such confusion in our own day? Award-winning author Howard Blum has written a best-selling narrative that describes the story of two adventurers (Bob Cornuke and Larry Williams) who have been central to this story. Blum’s book is titled, The Gold of Exodus: The Discovery of the True Mount Sinai (New York: Pocket, 1999). Cornuke has written his story with a similar title: In Search of the Mountain of God: The Discovery of the Real Mt. Sinai (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000).

R. Dennis Cole, in his essay “The Challenge of Faith’s Final Step” (in Howard and Grisanti, eds., Giving the Sense, 352, n. 17) demurs rather strongly from this idea. He notes that the area of Midian is not so fixed on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba as this view maintains, and that Paul’s reference to Arabia in Galatians 1:17 is not a precise geographical term. Kitchen (Reliability, 274) is also strongly critical of shifting the location of either the crossing of the Sea of Reeds or the site of Mount Sinai: “As the Midianites could readily penetrate the Sinai Peninsula . . . there are no compelling grounds to move ‘Mount Sinai’ into Midian proper or anywhere else in northwest Arabia either.” Beitzel is likewise critical of this point of view. He believes that each of the arguments for the Saudi Arabia location for Mount Sinai may be answered and that none is decisive for rejecting the traditional viewpoint (see Barry J. Beitzel, ed., The Moody Atlas of the Bible [rev. ed.; Chicago: Moody Press, 2009], 109–10). See also Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, for a strong dissent of the new proposal.

15 (sînāy, “Sinai”), the mountain of God (also known as (har ḥōrēb, Mount Horeb; see 1Ki 19:8), is the most significant mountain locale in the Bible aside from Mount Zion and Jerusalem. However, the location of the mountain is as “iffy” as its pronunciation! Many people pronounce the word with three syllables rather than two. The letters “ai” (Heb. ay) form a diphthong in Hebrew. As with the name of the prophet Haggai, the word “Sinai” has two syllables. Sinai is the most elusive mountain in biblical geography to identify with precision. Not only is the site of the revelation of the Lord to Moses of importance on its own merits; but also, most of the other sites of the wilderness wanderings and the route that connects them are dependent on where one identifies Sinai. And, as LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush observe, “Direct evidence for the location of Sinai and the Israelite presence there may never be forthcoming. That presence was, historically speaking, ephemeral” (OTS–1996, 61).

The oldest tradition centers on Jebel Musa (“the Mountain of Moses”), a mountain of about 8,500 feet in the central-southern Sinai Peninsula (and it is that identification, of course, that has given the peninsula its name). But this tradition goes back only to the fourth century of our era. The broad plain at the base of Jebel Musa seems to serve as an admirable site for the encampment of the thousands of Israel. H. G. Andersen (“Mount Sinai,” ZPEB, 5:447–50) presents a defense of this traditional site. Another suggestion, particularly of some nineteenth-century writers, is Jebel Serbal, a mountain of about 6,700 feet in the central Sinai Peninsula. Yet another is Jebel Sin Bisher, a mountain of about 1,900 feet located about thirty miles southeast of Suez. This last suggestion, enthusiastically endorsed by Cole (“The Challenge of Israel’s Faith,” in Howard and Grisanti, eds., Giving the Sense, 352), is that of M. Harel (Masei Sinai [Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1968]; “The Route of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt” [Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1964]) and is cautiously accepted by Wenham, 220–27, his discussion being a fine summary of the difficulties one faces concerning this issue. See also the discussion by W. C. Kaiser Jr., A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age through the Jewish Wars (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 113–14.

d. The Events at Mount Hor (33:38–40)

38At the LORD’s command Aaron the priest went up Mount Hor, where he died on the first day of the fifth month of the fortieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt. 39Aaron was a hundred and twenty-three years old when he died on Mount Hor.

40The Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev of Canaan, heard that the Israelites were coming.

COMMENTARY

38–40 Unexpectedly, it is the staging area of Mount Hor that is singled out for special mention in this chapter. The area became the setting for a memorial notice to Aaron, the high priest and the brother of Moses and Miriam, who died here at the hoary age of 123. Not only is his age given, but so also is the date: the first day of the fifth month of the fortieth year. This date is the second one in the list; the first date was that of their leaving Rameses on the fifteenth day of the first month of the first year (v.3). This information reveals that the journeying from Tanis/Rameses to Mount Hor completed the forty years of wilderness wanderings.

The death of Aaron marked a pivotal date in the history of Israel. The death of the high priest was regarded as having an atoning effect (see ch. 35). Aaron was three years older than Moses (see Ex 7:7; cf. Dt 1:3; 34:5–7). His death came at a great age—a mark of Yahweh’s blessing on his life. By the mercy of the Lord, his time was extended to the very last year of Israel’s wilderness experience; his own sin (Nu 20) kept him from living into the time of—and participating in—the conquest of the land.

The second notice given with respect to Israel’s time at the staging area of Mount Hor is a word concerning the king of Arad (v.40). Even the king who dwelled in the Negev of the land of Canaan knew of the coming of the people of Israel; the reference is to the story of 21:1–3, the first of Israel’s victories on the military field—promise for a new generation’s being different from their ancestors.

e. The Stages of the Journey from Mount Hor to the Mountains of Abarim (33:41–47)

41They left Mount Hor and camped at Zalmonah.

42They left Zalmonah and camped at Punon.

43They left Punon and camped at Oboth.

44They left Oboth and camped at Iye Abarim, on the border of Moab.

45They left Iyim and camped at Dibon Gad.

46They left Dibon Gad and camped at Almon Diblathaim.

47They left Almon Diblathaim and camped in the mountains of Abarim, near Nebo.

COMMENTARY

41–47 The listing of place names continues:

(34) Zalmonah (ṣalmōnâ, “Resemblance”; v.41)—not mentioned elsewhere; there is an es-Salmaneh about twenty-five miles south of the Dead Sea.

(35) Punon (pûnōn, meaning unknown; v.42)—perhaps the same as the Edomite site pinōn in Genesis 36:41; 1 Chronicles 1:52; located between Petra and Zoar, famous for its mines.

(36) Oboth (ʾōbōt, “Water Skins”; v.43)—see Numbers 21:10–11 for the story of the stay at Oboth; probably the eastern outskirts of Idumea, not far from Moab. The route from Punon to Oboth is not as simple as this list might indicate. Eugene H. Merrill, 254, suggests that the people probably went southward from Punon to Ezion Geber, then eastward and northward around Edom along the wilderness road of Moab (cf. 21:4; Dt 2:8).

(37) Iye Abarim (ʿîyê hāʿabārîm [v.44]; short form ʿîyîm [v.45], meaning unknown; hāʿabārîm means “Beyond” [for location, see number 40 below]; v.47)—see Numbers 21:11; a location on the border of Moab.

(38) Dibon Gad (dîbōn gād, “Built Up by Gad”; v.45)—see Numbers 21:30; 32:3a; city in Moab north of the Arnon (Dhiban); also mentioned in the Mesha Inscription.

(39) Almon Diblathaim (ʿalmōn diblātāyim, meaning unknown, but perhaps “Hidden Figs” [debēlâ means “a lump of figs”]; v.46)—mentioned in Jeremiah 48:22; a site north of Dibon Gad but of unknown location.

(40) The mountains of Abarim (hārê hāʿabārîm, “The Mountains Beyond”; v.47)—see Numbers 27:12; the fortieth station, a mountainous region of northwestern Moab just northeast of the Dead Sea. Pisgah and Nebo are two ridges in this mountainous region.

f. The Encampment in Moab as the Staging Area for the Assault on the Land of Canaan (33:48–49)

48They left the mountains of Abarim and camped on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho. 49There on the plains of Moab they camped along the Jordan from Beth Jeshimoth to Abel Shittim.

COMMENTARY

48–49 At last, after a period of forty years, the people are situated on the plains of Moab across from the city of Jericho—the firstfruits of the land. Now only the Jordan River separates them from their goal, the Promised Land. The encampments of the thousands of Israel stretched from Beth Jeshimoth (bêt hayšimōt, “Place of Desolation”; see Jos 12:3; 13:20) to Abel Shittim (ʾābēl haššiṭṭîm, “Field/Brook of Acacias”; see Nu 25:1, where it is called Shittim; cf. Mic 6:5), in the lowlands of Moab. The distance from these two sites, north to south, was over five miles—a suitable spread for the thousands of the tribes of Israel.

Now we may make some concluding observations about this listing of the massāʿîm (“staging areas”; see 33:1) of Israel in the wilderness.

  1. 1. That there are forty places may be significant as a mnemonic device: as the people dwelled in the wilderness for forty years, so there are forty sites of their journeys.
  2. 2. Most of the “places” were temporary abodes; we should not be surprised that they are not easily located on modern maps. They are not made-up places, just encampments in the wilderness.
  3. 3. The principal story line was omitted from this listing; here only the names of the places are important. There is an assumption that the reader would know the basic associations as the places were listed.
  4. 4. The intrusion made by the account of the death of Aaron (vv.38–40) is remarkable. This travel account is something of an obituary for Moses, as he was about to die. But in the midst of it he memorializes his brother.
  5. 5. The fact that many of the names are not sites that can be located or that are found in other passages is an indication that this is an ancient text. The notice that the Lord commanded Moses to write it (v.2) is more credible because of our uncertainty over locations.
  6. 6. Most significantly, the document speaks not of rebellion but only of continuity. Were one only to read this list of staging places, the reader would likely conclude that Israel marched faithfully from one place to another in an orderly progression from Egypt to Moab. This point is that the new generation has become the replacement for the old. It is as though there had never been a first generation. The people who arrive at Moab are regarded as the people who left Egypt. The plan and purpose of God will be realized, despite the loss (and disappearance!) of an entire generation. But the new generation should still take into account the facts that God has time and the wilderness has sand!

2. Words of Warning and Encouragement to the Second Generation (33:50–56)

50On the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho the LORD said to Moses, 51“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you cross the Jordan into Canaan, 52drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and their cast idols, and demolish all their high places. 53Take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given you the land to possess. 54Distribute the land by lot, according to your clans. To a larger group give a larger inheritance, and to a smaller group a smaller one. Whatever falls to them by lot will be theirs. Distribute it according to your ancestral tribes.

55“‘But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you will live. 56And then I will do to you what I plan to do to them.’”

COMMENTARY

50–54 It is on the basis of triumphalism that the final pericope of this chapter has its meaning. The instructions of the Lord to the new generation come at the climax of the record of their triumphal march. They were now at their last massaʿ, their last staging area. Before them lies the land, behind them an exceedingly long and tortuous journey. Now is the time for their obedience so that their salvation will be made sure in the new land.

The commands of the Lord to the people are expressed in several significant verbs in v.52: (1) they are to “dispossess” (Hiphil of yāraš) the present inhabitants, (2) “destroy” (Piel of ʾābad) their idolatrous symbols, (3) “destroy” (Piel of ʾābad) all of their molten images, and (4) “shatter” (Hiphil of šāmad) their high places. Verse 53 repeats the verb “to dispossess” and then speaks of living in the land as God’s divine grant to the people. The land is his to give; he chooses to give the gift to his people.

The manner of the distribution of the land will be by lot, with the assurance that the lot will not be by chance but by the disposition of the Lord. In this way the people will be able to “take possession” (Hithpael of nāḥal, “to possess oneself of something”) of the land as a lasting inheritance. As in 35:8, consideration will be given for the size of the clans of Israel (v.54); there will be no claim of inequity or “influence-peddling,” to use a modern term. Possession will come by God’s will expressed through the fairness of divine lots.

55–56 The positive admonitions of vv.50–54 are followed by a strong warning. If the people do not succeed in their divine commission to dispossess the pagan inhabitants, they will experience two consequences: (1) the native peoples who remain will be perpetual trouble to the Israelites’ enjoyment of the land, and (2) the Lord will bring on Israel the dispossession he demanded that they themselves accomplish.

The description of trouble is, of course, sadly prophetic. The remaining Canaanites were to be barbs in the eye and pricks in the side (images Joshua uses in his farewell address; see Jos 23:13). These expressions describe constant annoyance (at the least) to terrible pain (at the most)—constant harassment. The most chilling words, however, are not the troubles that might come from peoples but that which may come from the Lord (v.56):

And it will happen,

just as I intend to do to them,

I will do to you.

This verse encapsulates the theology of the land in nuce. It is God’s land. He will give and will take it back as he wills.

These words, coming at the end of the travel itinerary, are most threatening indeed. For the present—that is, the time of the writing of Numbers—the outcome is uncertain. But the prospects are good. The second generation has fully replaced their erring fathers and mothers. The land lies before them as they wait in the final staging area. There is the Jordan. Over yonder is Jericho, the firstfruits of the land. And with them is the eternal Yahweh!

NOTE

52 (maśkîyōtām, “their carved images”) is from the word (māśkît), which means “showpiece, something to be displayed.” Here it is used of carved figures, idolatrous symbols of the pagan religious practices of the Canaanite peoples. These images include sexual symbols of the fertility deities that were so pervasive in that region (see Lev 26:1; Eze 8:12).

The second term, (massēkōtām, “their cast idols”), is also found in Exodus 32:4, 8; 34:17; Leviticus 19:4; Deuteronomy 9:16.

The third term, (bāmōtām, “their high places”), refers to hilltops (or artificial mounds) that were used in worshiping the nature gods of the ancient Near East. The licentious system of sexually centered worship was particularly exhibitionist in nature. Baal and Asherah were regarded as voyeuristic deities whose own libidos would be raised by viewing orgiastic rites or sacrificial acts. The raised platform was an enhancement “to let the gods” see more clearly. As is well known from the reading of the historical books, Israel adapted the use of (bāmôt, “high places”) for their own local patterns of the worship of Yahweh (or for syncretistic systems of worship of Yahweh and Baal). As the most enduring of paganisms even into Israel’s later history, the bāmôt were the banes of godly kings who fought desperately to destroy these “high places.” On the warfare of the righteous against the cult of Baal in ancient Israel, see Leah Bronner, The Stories of Elijah and Elisha as Polemics against Baal Worship (Leiden: Brill, 1968).

C. An Anticipation of the Promised Land (34:1–36:13)

OVERVIEW

These last three chapters of Numbers round out the book. They have about them the sense of appendages. Chapter 33, with its itinerary, final blessing, and warning (vv.50–56), admirably serves as the climax of the book. The prospects for conquest and the warning of failure are just what the new generation needs to be the people God wants them to be.

Although these last three chapters are somewhat anticlimactic, they also play a role in furthering the general driving force presented to the new generation. This message is: The land is before you for your habitation; do not behave as your fathers and mothers did, but instead move on in faith to take the land he offers. You are responsible for the decisions you are about to make. And recall that God has time and the wilderness has sand. If you behave as your parents did, God has time to wait for your children or your children’s children to behave courageously and to respond in faithful action; and the wilderness has no shortage of sand to accommodate your remains. (On this summary theme of Numbers, see the Introduction.)

1. A Preview of the Land (34:1–26)

a. The Boundaries (34:1–12)
i. Introduction (34:1–2)

1The LORD said to Moses, 2“Command the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter Canaan, the land that will be allotted to you as an inheritance will have these boundaries:

COMMENTARY

1–2 The listing of the four boundaries in this section of Numbers is given not only for informational purposes but also to display again the dimensions of God’s great gift to his people in the Land of Promise. The initial covenant specified the land in terms of the peoples who lived there (see Ge 15:18–21). This chapter presents the land in terms of an outline of its borders. The language is covenantal in nature; the description is that of a contract. Those who were in the final staging area in the plains of Moab would have their sensibilities greatly encouraged by the dimensions and directions of the land so described.

Some critical scholars tend to dismiss this chapter as an unauthentic piece from the vantage of anticipating the land; rather, they suggest this section is a later, backward projection based on some experience in the land itself. Noth, 248, for example, judges the situation this way: “In short, this whole section presupposes, on the one hand, the Pentateuchal narrative at an already late stage, and on the other, the deuteronomistic historical work, and is, therefore, part of the editorial unification of these two literary complexes.”

Yet it is possible to argue that the spies who scouted out the land in chs. 13–14 brought with them sufficient information for Moses to be able to construct this general outline of the land. The manner of the description of the borders certainly accords with what we know of Egyptian concepts of Canaan in the period of the exodus. Presumably, Moses would have kept the records of the spies. Further, both Caleb and Joshua may have assisted Moses in the construction of this outline of the land. We may further presume that had things gone differently in the events described in chs. 13–14 and had the majority report been one of confident expectation and courage, just such a report as this chapter presents may have been given thirty-eight years earlier. But at last, for the new generation, the report is given—as God’s promise.

Moreover, the text itself presents the outlines to have come directly from the Lord to Moses (vv.1–2). Based on the information Moses had before him from the report of the spies and with the assistance of Caleb and Joshua at hand, the direction of the words of the Lord to Moses would have been understandable and clear.

The presentation of the boundaries follows an orderly format. This is the way of the book of Numbers. Even when we have difficulty in making identifications of geographical sites (not a surprising matter, given the nature of the case), we may still be impressed with the order and format of these texts. They were designed to be read aloud. In Numbers even geography is a matter of worship, a litany of promise. This chapter is a celebration of God’s gifting. It is a liturgy of geography. It presents a deed of trust, a legal document from God to his people. Prophetically, it points to realization in Joshua 15. The repetition of the phrase “the land of Canaan” (Heb.) in v.2 has something triumphant about it. These chapters were designed to build confidence in the people and also to provoke their continuing worship of the Lord.

NOTE

2 In the phrase (ʾašer tippōl lākem, lit., “which will fall to you”), the use of the verb (nāpal, “to fall”) adds a colorful touch; reference is made to the distribution of the land by lot, but that lot will be the outworking of the will of the Lord (see the same wording in Jdg 18:1; Ps 16:6; Eze 47:14). The NIV (“that will be allotted to you”) is a more sedate rendering of this phrase.

ii. The southern boundary (34:3–5)

3“‘Your southern side will include some of the Desert of Zin along the border of Edom. On the east, your southern boundary will start from the end of the Salt Sea, 4cross south of Scorpion Pass, continue on to Zin and go south of Kadesh Barnea. Then it will go to Hazar Addar and over to Azmon, 5where it will turn, join the Wadi of Egypt and end at the Sea.

COMMENTARY

3–5 The southern boundary does not run on a straight east-west line; it forms a rough, broad angle with the southernmost point south of Kadesh. Similarly, the northern boundary forms a rough, broad angle with the northernmost curve extending through Lebo Hamath (v.8) and then reaching into northeastern Syria (v.9) before turning south and west in a swoop to the Sea of Galilee. The resultant picture of the land is somewhat ideal, jewel-like. The western and eastern boundaries are formed principally by the waterways; but the north and south are peaked outward, giving a dynamic shape to the outline of the land. However, the land is a real entity, not just an ideal in someone’s mind. Hence the exotic place names that form the outline of the borders are of signal importance.

The line of the border begins with the south, that which was more familiar to the people from their wilderness environment. There is a sense that movement is from the known to the unknown. The southern border would include part of the Desert of Zin near Edom, with the Dead Sea (yām-hammelaḥ, “The Salt Sea”) as the easternmost extension. The line moves southwest just south of “Scorpion Pass,” traverses Zin, and extends to the south of Kadesh Barnea. Then the border moves westward and northward passing through Azmon to the Wadi of Egypt (the Wadi el-ʿArish) on the Mediterranean.

Scorpion Pass (maʿalēh ʿaqrabbîm; v.4) is mentioned in Joshua 15:3 and Judges 1:36 and remains today a well-known feature of the wilderness. The inclusion of Kadesh Barnea, the site of Israel’s long sojourn in the wilderness (see comment on 33:36), is arresting. There was a sense in which during all those years they lived in the region of Kadesh, they were living on the fringe of the land. Certainly by their occupation of that region for a generation, it was fitting that it was to become a hereditary feature of the Land of Promise. The Wadi of Egypt (Wadi el-ʿArish) is a well-known geographical feature that separates Canaan proper from Egypt as it empties into the Great Sea. This wadi was part of the original promise (see Ge 15:18: “from the river of Egypt”). One should not confuse it with the great Nile River.

So with Edom on the east and the Great Sea (the Mediterranean) on the west, and with Kadesh Barnea as the southernmost extension of the border, the general sense of the line is fairly clear.

NOTES

3 The language used in this chapter—e.g., (peʾat-negeb, “southern side”)—to describe the four sides of the land by their boundaries is similar to that used in Exodus 27 to describe the sides of the tabernacle and in Ezekiel 47 to describe the new (prophetic) borders of the land (see vv.13–20).

4 Cole, 536, describes the “Scorpion Pass,” (maʿalēh ʿaqrabbîm) as “a winding road from the Nahal Zin basin into the Negeb south of Mampsis, that continued to be known by that name through the Roman period.” At some points the Roman road of the same name may be seen today from the modern road.

iii. The western boundary (34:6)

6“‘Your western boundary will be the coast of the Great Sea. This will be your boundary on the west.

COMMENTARY

6 The Great Sea is the Mediterranean and its coastlands. Certainly there was no misunderstanding of the western boundary. The Great Sea was feared by the peoples of Canaan; it was viewed as a malevolent, powerful, unpredictable force. It was deified by the Canaanites as Yammu (the Sea God) and was believed to be the home of Lotan (Heb. Leviathan), the fearsome sea monster deity.

iv. The northern boundary (34:7–9)

7“‘For your northern boundary, run a line from the Great Sea to Mount Hor 8and from Mount Hor to Lebo Hamath. Then the boundary will go to Zedad, 9continue to Ziphron and end at Hazar Enan. This will be your boundary on the north.

COMMENTARY

7–9 The northern boundary may be something of a bloated, mirror image of the southern. It does not form a straight line from west to east but moves northeastward to Lebo Hamath, where it turns, either dropping sharply to the eastern area north of the Sea of Galilee (so Greenstone, 384; see also Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “The Promised Land: A Biblical Historical View,” BSac 138 [October–December 1981]: esp. 304), or, more likely, moving even more northerly as it reaches to the sites of Zedad, Ziphron, and Hazar Enan (towns that Wenham, 231–33, suggests are considerably north and east of Damascus in Syria). The Mount Hor of v.7 cannot be confused with the Mount Hor in the south where Aaron died (see 33:37); the mountain here is in the region of Lebanon, perhaps Jebel ʿAlekar.

These two constructions of the northern boundary are dissimilar. That which presents Lebo Hamath as the northernmost point (forming a “cap” to the land) is more in line with the historical reality, where Lebo Hamath is presented as the remote north of the land (see Jos 13:5; 1Ki 8:65 = 2Ch 7:8; 2Ki 14:25; 1Ch 13:5; Am 6:14). The view that the northern boundary includes much of northeastern Syria seems not to correspond to biblical events but may present the biblical ideal that was never fully realized (see Ge 15:18: “from the river of Egypt, to the great river, the Euphrates”). Had Israel continued to expand under glorious kings such as David and Solomon, then perhaps the completion of the amalgamation of the northern territories as a part of Canaan would have been realized. Certainly the incongruity of this ideal northern boundary with the historical facts of occupation during Israel’s history would have been known by people at the time. Finally, the northern border is an eschatological promise.

NOTES

7–8, 10 (tetāʾû, “mark out”; vv.7–8), which the NIV translates as “run a line,” is problematic. The word in the text in these two verses appears to be a Piel imperfect from the root (tāʾâ), but BDB (1060d) lists it as dubious; similarly, BDB finds dubious (wehit ʾawwîtem), a supposed Hithpael of (ʾāwâ, “to mark, describe with a mark”; BDB 16c [a hapax legomenon]) in v.10. The suggested emendation for both verbs in these three verses is to connect them to the root (tāʾar), which in the Piel is a denominative verb that may mean “to draw, trace an outline.” There is a noun (tō ʾar) meaning “outline, form.” See, for example, the use of this noun in the phrase, “lovely in form” (, yepat tō ʾar), describing Rachel in Genesis 29:17. This emendation of difficult words seems to be an appropriate decision. Thus the verb in vv.7–8 may be emended to (tetāʾarû, a Piel imperfect second masculine plural of [tāʾar], “to trace out a line”). Similarly, the verb in v.10 should be emended to (wetē ʾartem, a Piel perfect second masculine plural of tāʾar with waw consecutive, meaning “and trace out a line”).

8 In (lebōʾ ḥamāt, “Lebo Hamath”), the term “Lebo” may also be translated “to the entrance of.” The phrase seems to be used as a geographical limit (Jdg 3:3, NIV margin).

v. The eastern boundary (34:10–12a)

10“‘For your eastern boundary, run a line from Hazar Enan to Shepham. 11The boundary will go down from Shepham to Riblah on the east side of Ain and continue along the slopes east of the Sea of Kinnereth. 12Then the boundary will go down along the Jordan and end at the Salt Sea.

COMMENTARY

10–12a The line from the northernmost point that traverses to the south finally to join the southern tip of the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee is the most precarious to attempt to draw. Perhaps a grand curve is intended that includes the sweep of much of southeastern Syria. The sites of Shepham and Riblah are unknown today. The Sea of Kinnereth (yām kinneret, another name for the Sea of Galilee) and the Jordan River form the traditional eastern border for the southern part of the line.

NOTES

10 See Note on 34:7–8, 10.

12 The Jordan River meanders in a valley from the southern point of the Sea of Galilee (600 feet below sea level) to the northern point of the Dead Sea (now nearly 1,400 feet below sea level—the lowest point on the earth!), a distance of about 75 miles. Today, that twisting, serpentine journey nearly doubles the distance to about 150 miles. The valley of the Jordan is a part of the massive Syrian-African rift, extending all the way to Uganda and Kenya in East Africa.

vi. Summary (34:12b)

12b“‘This will be your land, with its boundaries on every side.’”

COMMENTARY

12b “This will be your land, with its boundaries on every side.” These words convey grand gifting; the role of Yahweh as the Giver of the land cannot be stressed too greatly. At no time in Israel’s history did Israel ever realize the full extent of the land as these verses present it (but cf. Jos 23:14). But the ideal was always there. One day, many Christians believe, the rule of David’s greater son, the Lord Jesus, will fulfill each of these promises to overflowing. At that time the boundaries of ancient promise will form living markers for the heartland of his reign; yet ultimately, there is no line that may be drawn to show the full extent of his rule.

b. The Inheritance in Transjordan (34:13–15)

13Moses commanded the Israelites: “Assign this land by lot as an inheritance. The LORD has ordered that it be given to the nine and a half tribes, 14because the families of the tribe of Reuben, the tribe of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh have received their inheritance. 15These two and a half tribes have received their inheritance on the east side of the Jordan of Jericho, toward the sunrise.”

COMMENTARY

13–15 The new realities that the settlement of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh in Transjordan brought about (see ch. 32) demanded that this section be added. Since the Jordan River is the traditional eastern boundary of the land of Canaan, these tribes are outside the boundaries in a strict sense. Yet it is possible to see them as deliberately extending the borders of the Land of Promise. Again in these verses we find the obedience of Moses to the word of God as he allots the land of Canaan proper to the nine and one-half tribes.

c. The Personnel of the Inheritance (34:16–29)

16The LORD said to Moses, 17“These are the names of the men who are to assign the land for you as an inheritance: Eleazar the priest and Joshua son of Nun. 18And appoint one leader from each tribe to help assign the land. 19These are their names:

29These are the men the LORD commanded to assign the inheritance to the Israelites in the land of Canaan.

COMMENTARY

16–29 The list of the new tribal leaders recalls the list of the leaders of the first generation (1:5–16). This time the promise will be realized; these new leaders will assist Eleazar and Joshua in actually allotting that land.

Below is a list of the leaders’ names, along with suggested meanings for the transliterated Hebrew terms. The meanings of these names are somewhat speculative; Hebrew has so many homonyms in its verbal (triliteral) root structure that one is often unsure which presumed root is correctly identified with the name in question. Many of these names are theophoric; that is, they are constructed with a form of the divine name (here, largely a form of “El” [Heb. ʾēl], “God”) as a statement of the faith of the parents in Yahweh when they lovingly assigned these names to their children.

(1) Caleb (kālēb, “Dog”; see 13:6) son of Jepunneh (yepunneh, meaning unknown; perhaps, “He Makes Clear,” if related to the Piel of the verb pānâ, “to turn, make clear”), was the leader of tribe of Judah (v.19). He is a figure well known to us by this time (see chs. 13–14).

(2) Shemuel (šemūʾēl, “His Name Is God”) son of Ammihud (ʿammîhûd, “My Kinsman Is Majesty”) was the leader of the tribe of Simeon (v.20).

(3) Elidad (ʾelîdād, “My God Loves”) son of Kislon (kislôn, “Confidence”) was the leader of the tribe of Benjamin (v.21). It does not seem possible that this is the same person as the prophet Eldad (ʾeldād, “God Loves”) of 11:26; presumably that Eldad (whose father’s name is not given) was already deceased, unless he was very young when the Spirit fell on him in that unusual event.

(4) Bukki (buqqî, “Proven”[?]) son of Jogli (yoglî, “Led Away”) was the leader of the tribe of Dan (v.22).

(5) Hanniel (ḥannî ʾēl, “Grace of God”) son of Ephod (ʾēpōd, “Ephod,” as in the vestment of the priest) was the leader of the tribe of Manasseh, from the families of Joseph (v.23).

(6) Kemuel (qemû ʾēl, “God Establishes”) son of Shiphtan (šipṭān, “Judgment”) was the leader of the tribe of Ephraim (v.24).

(7) Elizaphan (ʾelîṣāpān, “My God Protects”) son of Parnach (parnāk, meaning unknown) was the leader of the tribe of Zebulun (v.25).

(8) Paltiel (palṭî ʾēl, “My Deliverance is God”) son of Azzan (ʿazzān, “Mighty”) was the leader of the tribe of Issachar (v.26).

(9) Ahihud (ʾaḥîhûd, “My Brother is Majesty”) son of Shelomi (šelōmî, “My Peace”) was the leader of the tribe of Asher (v.27).

(10) Pedahel (pedahʾēl, “God Ransoms”) son of Ammihud (the same name as the father of Shemuel; v.20) was the leader of the tribe of Naphtali (v.28).

The chapter ends with the report of accomplishment: “These are the men” (v.29). These are the names of the second generation; the leaders of the earlier lists were now dead. But with the outlines of the land now in mind and with new leaders of the tribes now in place, certainly soon the new generation will begin its long-anticipated conquest of the land under the hand of God. Cole, 541, writes: “The basic challenge lay before them: Be faithful to the Lord’s commands and he will bring abundant blessing. But if they rebelled as the previous generation in the wilderness did, they would likewise not inherit the land.” It remains true: God has time and the wilderness has sand.

NOTE

24 The NIV’s text adds “son of Joseph” to the words “from the tribe of Ephraim” to allow the patterning of the previous verse to be understood. Further, the MT begins adding the word “leader” (nāśîʾ) to each of the names in v. 22; it is possible that each verse should have this word included but that it was dropped from vv.19–21.

2. Levitical Cities and Cities of Refuge (35:1–34)

OVERVIEW

The materials of this chapter serve as a further appendage to the major story line of Numbers; the climax of the theology of the book comes in 33:50–56. Yet there is a sense of logic to this chapter, especially as it follows the account of the divine dimensions of the Land of Promise in ch. 34. There is a pattern in the book of Numbers that deals first with the laic tribes and their concerns and then moves to the holy tribe of the Levites and their concerns. This was true in the census enumerations and in various other sections throughout the book.

Chapter 34 presents the ideal dimensions of the whole land of Canaan, including the acknowledgment of God’s sanctioning the settlement of the two and one-half tribes in Transjordan. Now it was necessary for Moses to speak more clearly on the prospects for the settlement of the Levites. They were not to have a landed tribal holding as the other tribes, but they certainly needed places to live. The solution came in the concept of cities spread throughout the entire land, in and among the other tribes. In this way the Levites could serve as a “holy leaven” that would permeate the laic tribes with their presence as special representatives of the work of God in their midst. Among the people they would serve as holy guides to the truth and work of God (see Ge 49:7; Lev 10:11; Dt 31:9–13; 33:10).

We should not be surprised that critical scholars do not regard this chapter as an authentic piece from the time of Moses. Because of its thematic connection with Joshua 20–21, where the distribution of the cities of refuge and other Levitical cities is enacted, some scholars regard Numbers 35 as dependent on Joshua 20–21 rather than anticipatory of it (see, e.g., Noth, 253; see commentary on Joshua 21). Other passages that deal with the distribution of land among the families of the Levites include Leviticus 25:32, 34; Joshua 14:4; 1 Chronicles 13:2; 2 Chronicles 11:14; 31:15, 19. Later texts reflecting on these issues include Ezra 2:70; Nehemiah 7:73; 11:3, 20, 36. A prophetic perspective of future Levitical landed arrangements is given in Ezekiel 48:8–14.

Despite the fact that the distribution of land for the Levites is such a major theme in Scripture, critical scholars doubt whether there was any enactment at all of this arrangement in the history of the nation. Noth, 253–54, for example, concludes:

These considerations are perhaps, however, superfluous, since the whole passage is purely theoretical, as is clear from the prescriptions for the schematic measuring out of the pasture lands. According to these, the “city” with its “wall” must have been only a point without extension (v.5). The idea of cities of residence for the Levites must, in itself, go back to Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic ideology (so, too, surely the original form in Joshua 21); the present elaboration is a very late product.

In response to Noth, we may grant the concept that the provisions of this chapter were indeed an ideal, just as the outlines of the boundaries of the land were an ideal (see Nu 33) never fully realized in the historical period. Nonetheless, there were boundaries that corresponded at least in part to the ideal of the boundaries in Numbers; similarly, in the historical experience of the people there were provisions made for the dwellings of the Levites and for the cities of refuge that correspond at least in part to the ideal of this chapter, as Joshua 20–21 details.

a. The Levitical Cities (35:1–5)

1On the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho, the LORD said to Moses, 2“Command the Israelites to give the Levites towns to live in from the inheritance the Israelites will possess. And give them pasturelands around the towns. 3Then they will have towns to live in and pasturelands for their cattle, flocks and all their other livestock.

4“The pasturelands around the towns that you give the Levites will extend out fifteen hundred feet from the town wall. 5Outside the town, measure three thousand feet on the east side, three thousand on the south side, three thousand on the west and three thousand on the north, with the town in the center. They will have this area as pastureland for the towns.

COMMENTARY

1–3 Since the Levites will not receive a landed tribal allotment (1:47–53), they will need towns in which to live and raise their families and places to care for their livestock. The Levites are to be spread among the other tribes throughout the land, not placed in an isolated encampment. Joshua 21 presents the partial fulfillment of this command.

This chapter begins in the same pattern as ch. 34, with a command from Yahweh to Moses respecting the provisions the people need to have in mind as they contemplate the land of Canaan. The notation of their present location across from Jericho (v.1) adds pungency to the account. In their final staging area for their assault on the land, the people must have a perspective of how the land is to be apportioned. Some of the cities and territory will be given to the Levites. But these shares make up only a small portion of the whole; Greenstone, 352, estimates that the total holdings of the Levites envisioned here are a little over fifteen square miles—a small proportion of the nearly six thousand square miles of the land of Canaan.

The Levites are to be given cities along with adjacent open areas for pasture and farming activities. The term the NIV translates as “pasturelands” (migraš, from the verb gāraš, “to drive out”) includes open land for agriculture as well as for herds and flocks (see Jos 14:4; 21:2). These cities will be for their habitation, and the surrounding area will be for their use. It is not clear that these cities will be inhabited exclusively by Levites, but this plan seems to be the aim of the text—a notice that suggests the arrangement is rather idealistic.

However, we do know of priest towns in later Scripture. Anathoth is the most celebrated of such towns (Jos 21:18; 1Ki 2:26; Jer 1:1; 32:7–8), Bethel (Jdg 20:18; 1Sa 10:3; 2Ki 17:28), Nob (1Sa 21:1; 22:19), and Shiloh (1Sa 1:3) also come to mind. Greenstone, 352, concludes: “The exact distribution of the towns and the measurements of the open land as given here may not have been carried out, but there is no reason to doubt the fact that certain definite localities were set aside by each tribe for the priests and the Levites, where they might find homes for their families.”

4–5 The description of the allotment of land in each of these cities is not clear as we compare v.4 with v.5. Verse 4 speaks of a distance of one thousand cubits (the NIV converting this figure to “fifteen hundred feet”) from the town wall round about for the open land; v.5 speaks of a measurement of two thousand cubits (NIV’s “three thousand feet”) on each side of the city for the open land. These apposite dimensions have caused commentators to exercise remarkable mathematical creativity. We may observe that the juxtapositioning of these verses suggests that for the ancients there must have been a workable solution to what seems to us to be a considerable problem. If these two verses were separated by a large block of material, one might argue that they are possibly contradictory and that it was carelessness on the part of scribes or redactors not to see how they do not meld together. Since they are adjacent, they must work—or the work of the writer (or redactor) was most careless indeed! The situation is not unlike the comparison of Proverbs 26:4 and 26:5, verses that seem to be mutually exclusive but may be seen to speak in a complementary and comprehensive manner.

The simplest explanation for these two verses in Numbers is given by Wenham, 234. The city is regarded as a point encompassed by a square that is two thousand cubits to a side. From the central point of the city, each direction would be one thousand cubits. That this solution suggests a very small city is not really a difficulty; most of the towns and settlements of the land of Canaan were small—often just a matter of a few acres. Again, the small size of the settlements of Canaan fits better with the reduced numbers of Israel that we have suggested in terms of the census listings. If a city were to become larger, then correspondingly larger dimensions could have been added. The issue in the verses was not mathematics but simply an adequate provision for the landed needs of the people who would live in the cities. One might imagine that, were this provision of open lands not made, a grudging tribe might allow some Levitical families to live within a settlement but not give them any space (except at great cost) for their flocks, herds, and farming needs. A city apart from arable land and sufficient pasturelands was no great gift.

NOTE

4–5 Milgrom, 502–4 (“Excursus 74—The Levitical Town: An Exercise in Realistic Planning”), presents a more complex—but perhaps more workable—idea. He suggests that the length of the city walls (the city’s being viewed as a square for simplicity) would be factored in as “X” (for the east-west axis) and “Y” (for the north-south axis). The resultant pasturage would actually be two thousand cubits plus X by two thousand cubits plus Y. In this way the relative size of the city would be taken into account in the measurements for pasturage (see also Cole, 546).

b. The Cities of Refuge (35:6–33)
i. The basic concept of the cities of refuge (35:6–8)

6“Six of the towns you give the Levites will be cities of refuge, to which a person who has killed someone may flee. In addition, give them forty-two other towns. 7In all you must give the Levites forty-eight towns, together with their pasturelands. 8The towns you give the Levites from the land the Israelites possess are to be given in proportion to the inheritance of each tribe: Take many towns from a tribe that has many, but few from one that has few.”

COMMENTARY

6–8 Six Levitical cities were to be stationed strategically in the land—three in Transjordan and three in Cisjordan (Canaan proper)—as cities of refuge, or asylum, where a person guilty of unintentional manslaughter might escape blood revenge. Joshua 20 describes the sites that were eventually chosen.

The situation here arose, of course, from conditions of an age in which family members were expected to seek retribution for harm against one of their number. Here the term “refuge” or “asylum” (hammiqlāṭ; v.6) conveys safety for a manslayer from the avenger of blood out to kill him retributively. The term for “manslayer” is hārōṣēaḥ (GK 8357) a word that can point to premeditated murder (see Ex 20:13 = Dt 5:17, the commandment against murder; 1Ki 21:19; Jer 7:9; Hos 4:2; cf. Dt 22:26). It may also be used of one who has taken human life without premeditation, or inadvertently, as here (Dt 4:42; 19:3–4, 6; Jos 20–21). Further, the same verb may be used to describe the act of the blood-avenger (vv.27, 30).

These six cities of asylum were to be chosen in addition to forty-two cities for the Levites, thus giving a total of forty-eight cities (v.7). Further, the ideal was that the selection of the cities would be based on the relative size of the holdings of the various tribes and their relative populations (v.8). Though the prescription is ideal in nature, the general application is still clear. The cities that were later selected as the cities of asylum include Bezer, Ramoth-Gilead, and Golan in Transjordan, and Hebron, Shechem, and Kedesh in Cisjordan (see Dt 4:43; Jos 20:7–8; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 36, 38).

ii. Further details on the cities of refuge (35:9–15)

9Then the LORD said to Moses: 10“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you cross the Jordan into Canaan, 11select some towns to be your cities of refuge, to which a person who has killed someone accidentally may flee. 12They will be places of refuge from the avenger, so that a person accused of murder may not die before he stands trial before the assembly. 13These six towns you give will be your cities of refuge. 14Give three on this side of the Jordan and three in Canaan as cities of refuge. 15These six towns will be a place of refuge for Israelites, aliens and any other people living among them, so that anyone who has killed another accidentally can flee there.

COMMENTARY

9–15 Verse 9 is worded as a new oracle from Yahweh. It may be that the chapter is made of varied materials that were worked into a unified whole; it is also possible that the revelation of the Torah on the cities of asylum came in stages, not unlike the pattern we find elsewhere in Scripture (cf. the two oracles to Abraham following his obedience in the binding of Isaac; Ge 22:11–12, 15–18).

Through Moses, the Lord commanded the people who were about to enter the land personally to select special cities of asylum for manslayers seeking safety from blood-avengers. Verse 11 specifies the provision of these cities as being for accidental (bišgāgâ; see GK 8705) killers, those whose actions are opposite to purposeful sins of the “high hand” (15:30). Other references to inadvertent sins are found in 15:25; Leviticus 4:2, 22; and Joshua 20:3, 9.

The avenger of blood was a relative of the slain person who would take it on himself to protect the family rights by avenging his relatives of the loss suffered by the family. In fact, the term gō ʾēl (GK 1457), often translated “redeemer,” has this basic idea. The gō ʾēl was principally the “protector of family rights” (definition of Don Glenn, formerly of Dallas Seminary; see Lev 25:48; Ru 3:13). A redeemer is one who redeems the loss sustained by the family. This can be by payment of a price or by taking a life. In the latter case, one is an “avenger of blood” (gō ʾēl haddām; vv.19, 21). But in his rage against the loss of a family member, the gō ʾēl haddām might rashly kill the offender before he knew the circumstances of the death. If the killing was not premeditated or was accidental, the slaying of the offending party would add wrong to wrong.

Basically, the provision of the cities of asylum was another instance of the mercy of Yahweh in supplying the needs of his people living in their particular world setting. Note that this text does not demand that a relative act as a blood avenger; it simply assumes that in that culture, taking such action was precisely what would be done. As a result, given the ethos of the times, the provision of the cities of asylum was merciful and righteous.

There seems to be no significance to the number of the cities (six), but there is certainly significance to their placement. There would be three cities on each side of the Jordan River, thus providing accessibility from all parts of the land. Also, the inclusion of three cities of asylum in Transjordan served further to legitimize the holdings of the two and one-half tribes in the expanded territories.

Verse 15 explains that there will be equal access to these cities by all persons in the land—free citizens as well as sojourners or even temporary aliens. This provision is another aspect of God’s grace, who provides one law for all persons who come under the purview of the Torah of his grace.

NOTE

11 The verb (wehiqrîtem, “select”) is a Hiphil perfect with waw consecutive of the root qārâ. In the Qal stem this verb means “to encounter, meet.” In this formation the verb has the idea “to make a suitable selection, make one’s choice in.” Moreover, the command came through Moses in a direct manner: “You [plural] are personally to select.” The construction includes what is sometimes called the dative of personal reference, in which the action-command verb (the perfect with the waw consecutive here functioning as an imperative) is followed by a preposition with a pronominal suffix (lākem, “to you”; both the verb and the pronoun are plural). For more on this construction, see Note on 10:2.

iii. Basic stipulations concerning the taking of life and the cities of refuge (35:16–21)

16“‘If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. 17Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. 18Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. 19The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. 20If anyone with malice aforethought shoves another or throws something at him intentionally so that he dies 21or if in hostility he hits him with his fist so that he dies, that person shall be put to death; he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.

COMMENTARY

16–21 These verses present various descriptions of the taking of life that would indicate willful murder. The intent is all practical, as is the listing of stipulated foods for the household in Leviticus 11. Rather than having to keep in mind a vastly complicated system of classifying animals, for example, a cook in ancient Israel had only to know whether an animal ruminated and whether it had cloven hooves. If so, the meat was acceptable for the table; if not, the meat was to be excluded.

Similarly—but in contrast to the inordinately complicated system of modern jurisprudence concerning criminal homicide law—the provisions of this section are clear and straightforward. They are based on the notions of evident intent. The manner of a person’s death may suggest willful intent or accidental demise. If a person were killed with a lethal instrument, the means of death seemed purposeful and guilt of the killer was presumed. Lethal instruments might be iron implements (v.16), (heavy) stones (v.17), or wooden implements (v.18).

Further, if the person died by a physical blow delivered in hatred or in the context of an ambush (v.20), the killer was viewed as guilty and would have to die. For such a one was a murderer, not just an inadvertent manslayer. Modern gradations of murder by degree and extending to manslaughter continue some of these ideas.

NOTE

20 (yehdāpennû, “shoves”) may be used to describe a mere push or rejection (2Ki 4:27; Pr 10:3). The word is used of the Lord’s intended actions in driving the enemies of Israel from Canaan (Dt 6:19; 9:4). Here the idea is a “shove” that results in a fatality—perhaps, for example, if the one who is pushed falls against a rock. Again, intentionality is the point. One might shove another person playfully and the result might be death, or one might shove someone out of violent hatred with the intention of killing him.

iv. Cases to be decided concerning the taking of life and the cities of refuge (35:22–32)

22“‘But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally 23or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, 24the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. 25The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send him back to the city of refuge to which he fled. He must stay there until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil.

26“‘But if the accused ever goes outside the limits of the city of refuge to which he has fled 27and the avenger of blood finds him outside the city, the avenger of blood may kill the accused without being guilty of murder. 28The accused must stay in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest; only after the death of the high priest may he return to his own property.

29“‘These are to be legal requirements for you throughout the generations to come, wherever you live.

30“‘Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.

31“‘Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.

32“‘Do not accept a ransom for anyone who has fled to a city of refuge and so allow him to go back and live on his own land before the death of the high priest.

COMMENTARY

22–32 The cities of refuge were to be established for the person who had committed an act of involuntary manslaughter. But such cases are not always simple to determine, then or now. The killing of an individual by a lethal weapon brings a presumption of guilt on the slayer. Yet it is possible that this death was still inadvertent. In cases of doubt, judgments would have to be made by the people (v.24), presumably by their town elders (the term “assembly” can refer to the whole nation or to any group within the nation). The text is not specific, but apparently the judgment was made in the city in which the death occurred. If the council decided that the death was premeditated and deserving of death, the guilty party was delivered over to the blood avenger. But if the council decided the slayer was innocent of premeditated malice, the slayer had to go to the city of asylum for protection from the avenger. He would be protected only so long as he remained within that city (v.26); if the slayer left it for any reason, the avenger was allowed to kill him without any personal consequence (ʾên lô dām, “there is no blood guilt”; “without being guilty of murder,” NIV; v.27).

Most interestingly, permanent protection was guaranteed only if the refuge seeker remained in the city of asylum until the death of the high priest (vv.25, 28). There was an atoning significance for the entire populace when the high priest (notice the phrasing: “who was anointed with holy oil”) died. If the high priest died during the period of the slayer’s exile in the city of asylum, he was not only free to leave the city, but he could also resume his normal life again, including his stake in his ancestral land. Historical sources tell us that in the case of the death of a pharaoh in ancient Egypt, capital crimes were forgiven. The notice of the death of the pharaoh of the Hebrews’ oppression in Egypt (Ex 2:23) was the political opportunity God provided for Moses to return to Egypt without fear of reprisal for his crime of murder some forty years earlier.

As we think about the application of the high priest’s death to the freedom of the manslayer, we realize that the sin of killing, no matter how unintended, is serious. It cannot be passed over or left free of serious consequence. For an exile in a city of asylum, life was characterized by discontinuity and estrangement—but it was life. If the high priest should die while the slayer was in, he was free to leave without being subject again to the avenger of blood. This picture portrays redemption—the remission of sin. The sins do matter—they do affect one’s life; but they may be forgiven, and a person may be set free (see also Jos 20:6).

A further provision of mercy in these cases was the requirement of witnesses to confirm guilt (v.30). This provision was made to avoid the possibility of an innocent party’s being accused and sentenced to death on insufficient evidence. A minimum of two witnesses was required to forestall malicious false testimony from one isolated voice. As we know, even the provision of multiple witnesses does not automatically preclude collusion; recall the shocking perversion of Israel’s judicial system by the foreign priestess Jezebel in the incident of Naboth (1Ki 21; note also the false witnesses at the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin [Mk 14:55–64]).

The stipulations concerning ransom payments are also designed as extensions of mercy (vv.31–32). Conceivably, a wealthy person might take the route of paying ransom as a means of getting out of a sticky situation, while the poor person, who could not afford a ransom payment, would be at the mercy of the avenger or be forced to live for years in a city of asylum. Hence the alternative for the guilty party to pay a ransom did not figure in cases involving murder or manslaughter—deliberate or accidental killing. Exodus 21:29–30 presents an exception, namely, the case of a man’s ox lethally goring a neighbor.

REFLECTION

Christians reading these words about the salvific effect of the high priest’s death find their thoughts turning to the book of Hebrews, with its presentation of Christ as our High Priest (Heb 5–10). His death as high priest is the antitype for the atoning deaths of Israel’s high priests in antiquity. There can be no salvific merit in the death of a high priest in isolation; only when the death of that high priest is seen in a heilsgeschichtliche continuity with the death of Christ—as an arrow pointing forward to the death of the one who really mattered for the salvation of the community—can we understand this provision. Hence, even though many modern writers shy away from typological relationships between the Old and New Testaments, this connection is one we should not miss.

v. The divine perspective on murder and the land (35:33–34)

33“‘Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it. 34Do not defile the land where you live and where I dwell, for I, the LORD, dwell among the Israelites.’”

COMMENTARY

33–34 The underlying theology of this text is most significant: the shedding of human blood pollutes the land. The crime of murder is not only an offense against the sanctity of life; it is in fact a pollutant to the Lord’s sacred land. It is like the blood of innocent Abel screaming out to the Lord (Ge 4:10). Only the blood of Christ will be able to speak a better word (Heb 12:24).

The point of the present passage is not merely that there be cities for the Levites to inhabit or that there be cities of asylum in which the inadvertent manslayer can find refuge. All the theology of the chapter culminates in the last words of v.34: “For I am Yahweh who dwells in the midst of the people of Israel” (my translation). This statement encapsulates the central issue. If God is to reside among his people, the land may not be polluted. With all the attention we (rightly) give to issues of ecology and pollution in our own day, there is an act of pollution that far transcends the trashing of rivers, the killing of lakes, the denuding of forests, and the spilling of oil to mar even the seas; the transcendent pollution is the abuse of persons. The worst abuse of all is to cause wrongful death. God will not draw near to a land polluted with wrongly shed human blood.

3. A Review of the Inheritance of Women (36:1–13)

OVERVIEW

Each of the last three chapters of the book of Numbers is an appendage to the book; its theological climax comes directly in the last pericope of ch. 33. It is there that the will of the Lord for his people is stated in definitive form as they are about to enter the land. Of the last three chapters, this one is the most transparently additional, as it presents an interesting further development of the account of Zelophehad’s daughters (see 27:1–11). Since the Lord had instructed Moses that women who had no brothers might inherit their father’s land, new questions arose: What would happen to the family lands if these daughters were to marry men from other tribes? Would not the original intent of the first provision be frustrated? Such questions led to the decision that marriage was to be kept within one’s own tribe so that the family allotments would not “pass from tribe to tribe” (v.9).

Even though we may regard this chapter as somewhat anticlimactic, this observation is not to deny that the chapter is instructive. It shows a continuing pattern of the development of Torah in Israel. As the Lord spoke to Moses in general terms, specific cases arose that did not seem to fit the general framework of the revelation. In such instances, Moses presented the needs of the people to the Lord; then he received new instructions that not only addressed the immediate needs but also served as a further basis for application in Israel. (This system of case law and the establishing of precedent [“casuistic” law] shaped one of the two major types of Torah, the other type [termed “apodictic”] being that of nonnegotiable stipulations.)

The fact that these chapters are appendages does not preclude their having been written by Moses. In fact, Moses is still the principal human player in these chapters. The present account has three divisions followed by a summary statement (v.13).

a. Concerns of the Gileadites for the Daughters of Zelophehad (36:1–4)

1The family heads of the clan of Gilead son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, who were from the clans of the descendants of Joseph, came and spoke before Moses and the leaders, the heads of the Israelite families. 2They said, “When the LORD commanded my lord to give the land as an inheritance to the Israelites by lot, he ordered you to give the inheritance of our brother Zelophehad to his daughters. 3Now suppose they marry men from other Israelite tribes; then their inheritance will be taken from our ancestral inheritance and added to that of the tribe they marry into. And so part of the inheritance allotted to us will be taken away. 4When the Year of Jubilee for the Israelites comes, their inheritance will be added to that of the tribe into which they marry, and their property will be taken from the tribal inheritance of our forefathers.”

COMMENTARY

1–4 The grandiloquent pageantry of the setting demonstrates the importance of the issue. The family of the daughters of Zelophehad brought to Moses their petition. They did not dispute the former decision of the Lord that the brotherless daughters might inherit land to carry on their father’s heritage. But the family worried about the problems that would eventuate if these daughters should marry outside their clan and tribe. Upon marrying, their husband(s) would gain title to their land—part and parcel of the ancient patriarchal system. This would result in transfer of that land to a different tribe and threaten the very basis of the concept of tribal inheritance.

At issue was not a complaint or a grievance against women per se so much as a concern for the continuity of the lines of inheritance within the tribes. At the Year of Jubilee (hayyôbēl, “the cornet”; see Lev 25:12, 29–55; 27:17–25), when problems concerning lines of inheritance were to be resolved, this issue would remain unresolvable unless further instruction was obtained from the Lord through Moses.

So the perspective is not antiwoman but concern for the integrity of the landed distribution. At the same time, from the vantage of women’s right to participate equally in the community, this chapter in some manner diminishes the slight advance that was made in ch. 27. By this observation, I mean that women were still not considered independent entities within the community; their definition, their sense of their part in the community, continued to be connected to their husbands (and fathers and sons).

Nonetheless, this sequence of events (chs. 27–31) is a significant entry in the history of women’s issues. It takes two steps forward and one step back; but there is some forward movement—a countercultural thrust that has the blessing of God.

NOTE

3 The two forms of the verb (gāraʿ)— (wenigreʿâ, “will be taken”) and (yiggārēaʿ, “will be taken away”)—speak of something that abates or is withdrawn. The point is that this is the verb used in 27:4 on the part of the daughters in their initial complaint. The tie between these chapters (inclusio) is made compelling by the use of this same word.

b. The Law for the Marriages of the Women Who Inherit Familial Land (36:5–9)

5Then at the LORD’s command Moses gave this order to the Israelites: “What the tribe of the descendants of Joseph is saying is right. 6This is what the LORD commands for Zelophehad’s daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within the tribal clan of their father. 7No inheritance in Israel is to pass from tribe to tribe, for every Israelite shall keep the tribal land inherited from his forefathers. 8Every daughter who inherits land in any Israelite tribe must marry someone in her father’s tribal clan, so that every Israelite will possess the inheritance of his fathers. 9No inheritance may pass from tribe to tribe, for each Israelite tribe is to keep the land it inherits.”

COMMENTARY

5–9 Again, in great grace, the word of Yahweh came through Moses to present a decision. In this case, as in the case of the daughters of Zelophehad, the petitioners were correct in their observations—and the issue was decided in their favor. The women were permitted to marry whomever they chose—a surprising turn, as we usually think of women as being chosen in biblical times! Perhaps the fact that they inherited land made them active rather than passive agents in marriage. But they had to choose husbands from within their own clans. The issue was not their personal happiness but the solidarity of the larger family unit. As a man is to cleave to his wife (Ge 2:24), so a person in Israel was to cleave to the family inheritance. The destiny of the family in Israel was tied to the land.

The instance of these women becomes a law that is applicable in other, similar cases (v.8). The basic issue was to keep the inheritance of a family in the clan and the tribe of the fathers. Verse 9 summarizes the earlier elements and so reinforces them.

c. The Compliance of the Daughters of Zelophehad (36:10–12)

10So Zelophehad’s daughters did as the LORD commanded Moses. 11Zelophehad’s daughters—Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah and Noah—married their cousins on their father’s side. 12They married within the clans of the descendants of Manasseh son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in their father’s clan and tribe.

COMMENTARY

10–12 In a book (and in a culture) in which names of women are given only rarely, the names of these women are repeated: Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah (see again 27:1–11). They were married within their families, to paternal “cousins” (dōdêhen, “[sons of] their uncles”; v.11). In this manner the inheritance of their father remained within the clan.

The book of Numbers, which so often presents the rebellion of God’s people against his grace and in defiance of his will, ends here on a happy note. These noble women, who were concerned for their father’s name and their own place in the land, obeyed the Lord. This concluding section of Numbers ties in nicely with the epilogue of Proverbs. Its acrostic portrayal of the wise woman (Pr 31:10–31) exemplifies wisdom in action—through the life of a woman. Significantly in Numbers, a book so marred by disobedience, there is a final statement of obedience; and it is in the lives of these noble daughters of Zelophehad. Likely, we would never have heard of this man had he fathered sons instead of these daughters!

d. A Summary Statement of the Law of the Lord (36:13)

13These are the commands and regulations the LORD gave through Moses to the Israelites on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho.

COMMENTARY

13 The book of Numbers is far more than a record of commands and regulations. The true climax of the book comes in 33:50–56. Yet in this chapter there is a salutary feeling of theoretical issues being put to practical work. There is hope in the actions of the daughters of Zelophehad that they will be representative of the nation: this generation will do well.

There is an unstated supplement to the book. We follow the lead of Olson (see Introduction), who suggests a heading such as:

[D. The Prospects for the Second Generation Are for Good, but the Warning from the Experience of the First Generation Must Not Be Forgotten]

Chapter 36 presents the idea of Psalm 78:8: Let this people not be like their fathers and mothers, but let them obey the Lord and enjoy the good land! As stated in the Introduction, God has time and the wilderness has sand. If the second generation were to be like the first, then they, too, would be buried in the copious sands. And Yahweh in great mercy would use his time in his manner to await a generation that would obey him.

Yet based on the story of the daughters of Zelophehad, the provisional outlook appears to be good indeed! Harrison, 428, has it right: “The promises of God to Abraham (Ge 17:8), so long in the fulfilling, are now on the point of becoming reality as the Israelite warriors stand opposite Jericho, poised and waiting to cross the Jordan under Joshua’s leadership in order to occupy their heritage.”