MAJOR THEMES<\/p>\n
God\u2019s Justice and Mercy. God lived among his people in fiery, smoking pillars of glory (9:15\u201323). When his people sinned, he disciplined them (11:1\u20133; 21:6; 25:1\u20135, 6\u201313), including their leaders: Miriam (12:10), the scouts (14:36\u201338), the Levites (ch 16), Aaron, and even Moses (20:12). But God\u2019s merciful purpose prevailed, both in response to Moses\u2019s repeated intercession and as the goal of his unchanging purpose for Israel (32:10\u201312).<\/p>\n
Rebellion and Faithlessness. Israel started out as an army marching on the Promised Land, but rebellion turned them into a wandering rabble who shuffled off to desert graves. This established a warning for the rest of Israel\u2019s history. Sometimes the warning might contain a positive note about Israel\u2019s response to God in those years (Jer 2:2), but more often the emphasis would fall on God\u2019s faithfulness contrasted to Israel\u2019s faithlessness (Pss 78:18; 95:8\u201310; 106; Ezek 20).<\/p>\n
Priests and Levites. Exodus refers to Aaron as a Levite and to the Levites as priests (Exod 4:14; 6:16\u201325; 32:25\u201329), only hinting at a Levitical order (Exod 38:21\u201331). Even this hint presupposes Ithamar\u2019s appointment as head of the Levites, which surfaces only in Numbers (4:28). In Numbers, the priests remain on top of the hierarchy, with Levites functioning as auxiliary personnel (1:47\u201354; 3:1\u20134:49; 16:1\u201318:32; 35:1\u20138).<\/p>\n
Moses as the Prophet Par Excellence. Moses\u2019s significance is hard to overestimate, even though he was flesh and blood\u2014in fact, sometimes all too human (20:8\u201313). He was the matchless prophet with regard to the immediacy and quality of revelation he mediated (12:6\u20138), and he was the vital interceding prophet. In spite of this, Moses did not reserve a sole claim on the prophetic gift; rather, he wished for a democratization of it (11:25\u201329; cf. Joel 2:28\u201332; Acts 2:17\u201321).<\/p>\n
Large Numbers in the Book. The traditional approach has been to take the large numbers in the book of Numbers at face value. But most recent commentators think these numbers improbable, referring to both extrabiblical evidence and intra-biblical tensions with such large population figures. The figures of over 600,000 fighting men (1:46; 26:51) could indicate a total wilderness population in excess of two million. The objection that it would be impossible to feed that many people in the wilderness might be answered by the quite biblical assertion, \u201cIt took a miracle.\u201d Notes that camping and marching arrangements for that many would be impossible bear more weight, given the impossibility of squeezing millions of people into some of the oases mentioned in the itinerary. Indeed, commentators estimating Israel\u2019s population say these figures are considerably larger than those reached even during Israel\u2019s late monarchy (E. W. Davies 1995a:449 n. 3 citing Gottwald 1979:51).
\nGleason Archer disputes archaeological arguments that Canaan never supported such a large population that early, and he maintains that armies were indeed this large in the ancient Near East. If we look to later population figures, past archaeologists have estimated eighth-century Judah\u2019s population at about 250,000 (Albright 1963a:105 n. 118), suggesting a population in both kingdoms of less than one million (de Vaux 1961:66); and other figures estimate Palestine\u2019s population in the second half of the Iron Age as less than 500,000 (McCown 1947; Broshi and Finkelstein 1992). These lower population figures derive from estimates of the available water and land resources and of habitable floor space (Wilkinson 1974; Zorn 1994). Still, a conservative response might insist that we reassess the ancient Near Eastern evidence, giving more weight to the statistics in ancient written records\u2014especially the biblical record, which gives higher population counts to Israel, not only during the Exodus and wilderness wanderings (1:46; 26:51; Exod 12:37; 38:26), but during the monarchy as well (2 Sam 24:9; 1 Chr 21:5; 2 Chr 13:3; 17:14\u201318).
\nThere is another set of problems with these large numbers that reinterpreting archaeological assessments can\u2019t change: These large numbers also cause tension with intra-biblical data.
\n1. E. W. Davies (1995a:167) wonders how a small clan of 70 (Gen 46:27; Exod 1:5) would have grown so dramatically in around 400 years. He thinks growth to about 10,000 would be more reasonable. But Whitelaw calculates that if Jacob\u2019s sons and grandsons had four male descendants each, they would have grown to 835,584 in seven generations (1939:4.2166), fulfilling Deuteronomy 10:22.
\n2. How could only two midwives have served such a large population (Exod 1:15)? But this isn\u2019t a problem if Shiphrah and Puah spoke before the pharaoh on behalf of a full cadre of midwives. For that matter, the view that there were only two functioning midwives would remain a problem even for the much reduced population figures that various solutions suggest (e.g., 10,000\u2013140,000).
\n3. How do such large figures square with other known army and population counts in the biblical record itself? The Transjordan tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh together contributed only 40,000 to conquest efforts west of the Jordan, although their combined military strength in the final count in Numbers ran to 110,580 (26:5\u201351; Josh 4:12\u201313). But this may indicate that their entire force wasn\u2019t tasked to this fight, either because only elite shock troops went (see note on 32:17) or because these tribes showed less than wholesome enthusiasm for their commitment to help the conquest west of the Jordan (see commentary at 32:28\u201332).
\nEarly in the period of the judges, Dan looked for new territory. So they first sent out a group of five scouts (Judg 18), then a group of 600 to capture the territory (Judg 18:16), although their last wilderness count gave them 64,000 troops (26:43). But this was probably a limited response from just those clans (Judg 18:11) that planned to move away from their tribal allotment (Block 1999:493\u2013515).
\nCounts for Benjamin, Ephraim, Manasseh, Naphtali, Zebulun, and Issachar total 301,000 in the last Numbers census but 40,000 in Judges (ch 26; Judg 5:8). But unlike Numbers, the number in Judges doesn\u2019t purport to be a subset of any troop count; indeed, it\u2019s in the richly figurative song of Deborah and Barak.
\n4. The total number of firstborn children (cf. Num 3:43) appears too small for the overall figures. The number of males over age twenty, 603,550, divided by the 22,273 firstborn equals 27 sons per father, even without the large number who would have been under the age of twenty or not \u201cable to go to war\u201d (1:3). If you add the female offspring in this same age category, assuming a number equal to that of the males, you get 54 children per father. The average does decrease if we think in terms of a polygamous society and count every firstborn of a woman (3:12) instead of the firstborn from the male head of the larger polygamous household. If there were 44,546 mothers among the Israelites, and there were approximately the same number of women over twenty as there were men over twenty (i.e., 600,000), that would imply the unlikely conclusion that only one in fourteen women of marriageable age had any children.
\n5. The high count doesn\u2019t fit the description of Israel as too few to conquer and hold a land (Exod 23:29; Deut 7:7, 22). One might reassess ancient Near Eastern evidence and conclude that even though Israel fielded 600,000 troops, the nations Israel faced fielded even larger armies. But surely 600,000 troops drawn from a population of over two million ought to have been able to keep the land from becoming \u201cdesolate\u201d and handle any dangers that \u201cwild animals\u201d posed (Exod 23:29; Deut 7:22).
\nSuggestions for solutions to this population question include rhetorical explanations, historical explanations, and philological explanations. Three rhetorical explanations show up in discussions of these large numbers:
\nA. A century ago, Holzinger tried to explain the totals in 1:46 and 26:51 as gematria\u2014the use of Hebrew letters as representative of numbers and vice versa. For 603,550 in Numbers 1, he said the number represented by the Hebrew letters used in \u201ccommunity of Israel\u201d (1:2) added up to 603. He suggested similar but more complex and highly doubtful possibilities for the number 550. For 601,730 (26:51), he claimed that 601 derived from the letters in \u201call the ringleaders\u201d (25:4) and that 730 represented another phrase, which he conjectured. Few scholars have accepted this approach. Indeed, the problems are many. E. W. Davies mentions three: It doesn\u2019t explain the numbers for each tribe, the ways of calculating 550 and 730 are \u201cparticularly arbitrary,\u201d and \u201cit is by no means certain that a system of gematria was known in Israel prior to the Hellenistic period\u201d (E. W. Davies 1995a:453, citing Noth 1930:131\u2013132). To that, I would add, we would need the same kind of explanation for numbers elsewhere in the Exodus-Wilderness narrative, but this would undoubtedly lead only to more conjecture.
\nB. Thirty years ago, Barnouin constructed some numerical correspondences with various celestial movements. He concluded that the census numbers present \u201cthe people of Israel as \u2018armies of the LORD\u2019 (Exod 12:41; cf. Exod 7:4) corresponding to astral bodies, the Lord\u2019s celestial armies (Gen 2:1; Deut 17:3)\u201d (Milgrom 1989:338, summarizing Barnouin 1977). E. W. Davies (1995a:457\u2013460) thinks this takes too much \u201cnumerical juggling\u201d and ends up looking \u201carbitrary and artificial\u201d with its selective use of planetary periods.
\nC. Others have suggested that the numbers function as hyperbole. For example, Allen notes that the numbers are all rounded to the tens and suggests that they\u2019re the result of multiplying by a factor of 10 for \u201crhetorical exaggeration.\u201d He says the resulting army of about 60,000 and population of 250,000\u2013300,000 \u201cseems to fit the requirements of the social, geographical, and political realities without diminishing at all the sense of the miraculous and providential care of God\u201d (Allen 1990:688\u2013691). E. W. Davies rejects any attempt to fit them into history and says they were \u201cpurely fictitious,\u201d exaggerated numbers used for rhetorical effect. He notes that outside the Bible, Shalmaneser I claimed to have blinded 14,400 captives and deported 28,800, and Sennacherib boasted of taking 200,150 captives (ANET 288). He cites other places in the Old Testament where this kind of exaggeration emphasized \u201cthe invincible power of Yahweh\u2019s people\u201d (E. W. Davies 1995a:467, citing Judg 20:1\u20132; 1 Sam 15:4; 2 Chr 13:3; 14:8; 17:14\u201319). Davies says this same dynamic was incorporated into Numbers to display the fulfillment of the promise to the patriarchs (Gen 12:1\u20133) and show the prosperity of Jacob\u2019s sons (Gen 46): \u201cThe essence of that message was that a nation which seemed small and insignificant at the beginning of its existence could increase out of all proportion as a result of Yahweh\u2019s blessing and in fulfillment of his promise to the patriarchs\u201d (1995a:468).
\nIt\u2019s one thing to think of Moses\u2019s \u201cten thousand thousands of Israel\u201d (10:36, NRSV) or the 600,000 (11:21; Exod 12:37) as potential hyperbole, but quite another to think of 603,550 as hyperbole (1:46). Similarly, 50,000 may be a potential hyperbole, but what of Naphtali\u2019s 53,400 (1:43)? Conversely, it\u2019s not hard to think of 600,000 (11:21; Exod 12:37) as a rounded figure for 601,730 (26:51). More importantly, this would be an ill-considered use of hyperbole, because it would tend to undermine the point that God\u2019s power defeated Egypt in the Exodus and that the people were too few to fight and occupy a new land without God\u2019s providential care over their slow pattern of development.
\nThis leaves us with two other explanations, both suggesting misunderstandings by the book\u2019s author, editors, or copyists:
\nA. Albright thought the Priestly editor obtained a list that had passed through the hands of many scribes, which produced the two versions of the census that we have in Numbers 1 and 26. He said they had a historical basis, but the figures came from the period of the monarchy (Albright 1925; Albright 1957:222, 253; see also Dillmann and Knobel 1886:7). He noted comparable figures, such as the following: 800,000 warriors in Israel and 500,000 in Judah (2 Sam 24:9), or 1,300,000 in all; and the 1,100,000 warriors in Israel and 470,000 in Judah, or 1,570,000 in all, even excluding Levi and Benjamin (1 Chr 21:5). Albright thought the editor in Numbers got these numbers confused and so applied the rounded-off 500,000 from Judah to all twelve tribes in Numbers. He said this confusion is noticeable in that when you add the 600,000 from Numbers with the 500,000 from 2 Samuel, you come up with the 1,100,000 of 1 Chronicles. E. W. Davies (1995a:456\u2013457) thinks this solution \u201ccontrived and unnecessarily complicated,\u201d and notes that it involves \u201cunwarranted tinkering with the numbers\u201d in the two military counts. More to the point, he thinks the 500,000 figure is also too high because Israel during the monarchy would have had about one million in population, not two and a half million. I would suggest that whatever solution we find in Numbers might be presumed to explain the numbers in Chronicles as well.
\nB. The second suggestion of a misunderstanding rests on the potential to translate \u2019elep to mean \u201cchieftain,\u201d \u201cfamily\/tent group,\u201d or \u201ctroop\u201d instead of \u201cthousand.\u201d This attempt to solve the tensions has gained ascendancy, although, just like all the other suggested solutions, it has its own complications. Clearly, the term \u2019elep [505, 547] most often means \u201cthousand\u201d (e.g., Judg 20:2; Amos 5:3); however, it can also refer to a related group that is smaller than a tribe but larger than a family.
\nPetrie introduced this idea, arguing that \u2019elep, or \u201cthousand,\u201d could also be translated \u201cclan\u201d or \u201ctent group,\u201d and me\u2019ot [3967, 4395] (hundreds) would indicate the approximate number of fighting men in each tribe; he came up with a total population of about 20,000 (Petrie 1906:207\u2013221; Petrie 1923:42\u201346). Mendenhall agreed with the approach, suggesting that \u2019elep referred to a clan-based military unit (Mendenhall 1958), or as Gottwald called it, a \u201cmishpakhah in arms\u201d (1979:242\u2013291, especially 270; cf. mishpakhah [4940, 5476], \u201cfamily\u201d), and that me\u2019ot numbered the contingents each tribe sent to war. So for Reuben\u2019s 46,500, we should read 46 units comprising 500 contingents. Wenham argued that this idea broke down: If the two parts were two ways of numbering the same thing, we should expect a correspondence between the numbers labeled with \u2019elep and the numbers labeled with me\u2019ot. \u201cAlas, there is no such correspondence\u201d (J. W. Wenham 1967:29). Reuben has 46 \u2019elep and 5 me\u2019ot, and Simeon has 59 \u2019elep and 3 me\u2019ot, rather than something higher than 5. Similarly, Judah has 74 \u2019elep and 6 me\u2019ot, while Dan has 62 \u2019elep and 7 me\u2019ot rather than something lower than 6.
\nJ. W. Wenham (1967:29, following Clark 1955:82\u201392) links \u2019lp with \u2019allup [441B, 477], a term for tribal or clan \u201cchieftain\u201d (e.g., Gen 36:15, etc.). Wenham suggests that each of these \u201ccaptains of thousands\u201d might have seven or eight me\u2019ot of 75 men under his command, for a fighting force of about 18,000 men and a total population, including noncombatants, of about 72,000.
\nMore recently, Colin Humphreys has picked up the problem of the large numbers. He notes that \u2019lp has been vocalized three ways: \u2019elep to mean \u201cthousand\u201d (e.g., 3:50; Gen 20:16), \u2019allup to mean \u201cleader\u201d (chief, captain, chiliarch, etc.; e.g., Gen 36:15; Ps 55:13), and \u2019elep to mean \u201cgroup\u201d (family, clan, etc.; e.g., Judg 6:15; 1 Sam 10:19). He concludes that the present biblical text is the product of scribes misinterpreting \u2019elep in the census counts to mean \u201cthousand\u201d rather than \u201ctroops,\u201d as they should have; a later scribe misunderstood and ran together the two \u2019lp figures (598 + 5) to get 603,000 (Humphreys 1998:207).
\nHumphreys rejects the figures of Wenham and Clark as \u201cinconsistent with the key figure of 273,\u201d the number of firstborn sons that exceeded the Levites and needed redemption (3:46). He makes that number the starting point for recalculating (Humphreys 1998:206). He believes that number is \u201clikely to be correct [i.e., precisely accurate] because redemption was involved, which would be taken very seriously.\u201d Indeed, the ransom figures that follow check out exactly (Humphreys 1998:201). He assumes that the Levites represent a normal tribal population, so he uses their figures to build a table that establishes potential ratios for male population in each tribe, firstborn, and percentage over age 20. From this he concludes that the original list recorded 598 troops (units), totaling about 5,550 men, with an average of 9.3 men per troop. His results generally support the above-mentioned theory of Mendenhall (Humphreys 1998:211). He finds these figures consistent with known information about ancient Near Eastern troop size (Humphreys 1998:204).
\nHumphreys responds in his 1998 article to several objections of E. W. Davies\u2019 (1995a) to this type of approach. Among other things, Davies objects that to be valid such an approach should work on similarly high numbers elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g., 1 Chr 12:23\u201340)\u2014Humphreys does not show that his approach does and responds that each number problem should be considered in its own context. Davies also objects to the assumption that the numbers should even be interpreted in historical terms. But Humphreys thinks it incredible that the Priestly writer would simply invent high numbers and work up something that was logical and coherent with those numbers (Humphreys 1998:207\u2013210; contra E. W. Davies 1995a:463\u2013466).
\nAdditionally, Humphreys\u2019 approach has been challenged by Milgrom, who denies that the numbers add up (Milgrom 1999:131\u2013132) and suggests that careless bookkeeping would be inconsistent with record-keeping practices exemplified in Exodus 38:24\u201330 and Numbers 7:84\u201388, where numbers for each item are given separately and again as totals; and McEntire, who objects to Humphreys\u2019 assumption that the Levites were an average-sized tribe\u2014if they were not, it would skew all of Humphreys\u2019 figures (McEntire 1999:263). Humphreys\u2019 responses to these arguments can be found in his 2000 article.
\nIn his interaction with these arguments, Rendesburg (2001:392) accepts Davies\u2019 argument that the biblical record could use numeric hyperbole, but he sees that as more befitting the rounded 600,000 figure of Exodus 12:37 than the detailed figures of 603,550 and 601,730. He says, \u201cEpic tradition called for the army to be described in exaggerated numbers, whether it be the 600,000 of Israel or the 3,000,000 of Ugarit\u201d (Rendesburg 2001:393). Even so, Rendesburg also accepts the argument that \u2019lp should be translated as something other than \u201cthousand.\u201d He notes that Humphreys\u2019 approach shows historical veracity in regard to what we know of ancient populations and also clan troop sizes: It produces none with a clan fighting unit around the too-small size of 100 and none with the too-large size of 800 or 900 (Rendesburg 2001:394).
\nIn summary: Arguments from the ancient Near Eastern data can be circular, from either side of the debate. One view summons them as evidence for large numbers in military units (cf. endnote 11); others summon them as evidence that hyperbole was common in such figures. Supporters of the traditional view of these numbers will certainly want to see the ancient Near Eastern archaeological data reinterpreted to bring it in line with these larger numbers. Many are finding Humphreys\u2019 approach attractive, but serious problems remain. Any solution should work for the high numbers elsewhere in the Bible, especially analogous numbers (e.g., military counts), and a conservative doctrine of Scripture makes it very hard for this commentator to make room for the necessary element of Humphreys\u2019 argument that the editorial or scribal tradition that gave us these large numbers was mistaken.<\/p>\n
OUTLINE<\/p>\n
Various outlines have been suggested, some thematic, some chronological, and many of them geographical. The two counts of the people structure a story that revolves around two distinct generations (chs 1\u20134 and 26). The first rebelled and complained, was gradually extinguished during its wanderings, and was decisively terminated by the plague at the end of that period (25:9). The second count specifies that none of the first generation survived, except Joshua and Caleb (26:64\u201365). The end of the book shows Israel\u2019s new generation displaying great, but still unrealized, promise; it is not a settled matter whether they will continue in obedience and receive the Promised Land.<\/p>\n
I. Death of the Old Generation (1:1\u201325:18)
\nA. At Sinai: Preparing for the Journey to the Promised Land (1:1\u201310:10)
\n1. The first count (1:1\u20134:49; cf. 26:1\u201365)
\na. Mustering Israel\u2019s warriors (1:1\u201354)
\nb. Arranging the camp by tribes (2:1\u201331)
\nc. Summary of the first census (2:32\u201334)
\nd. Levites appointed for service (3:1\u201313)
\ne. Counting the Levites by clans (3:14\u201339)
\nf. Redeeming the firstborn sons (3:40\u201351)
\ng. Enlisting the Levites (4:1\u201349)
\n2. Commands for holiness in Israel (5:1\u201310:10)
\na. Removing the unclean from the community (5:1\u20134)
\nb. Holiness and restitution for sin (5:5\u201310)
\nc. Holiness and the test for suspicions (5:11\u201331)
\nd. Holiness and the Nazirite vow (6:1\u201321)
\ne. Priestly blessing for the community (6:22\u201327)
\nf. Dedicating the altar with tribal offerings (7:1\u201389)
\ng. Dedicating the Levites (8:1\u201326)
\nh. Observing the second Passover (9:1\u201314)
\ni. Following the cloud (9:15\u201323)
\nj. Signaling with trumpets (10:1\u201310)
\nB. In the Wilderness (10:11\u201321:35)
\n1. Moving from Sinai to Kadesh (10:11\u201312:16)
\na. Departing in battle order (10:11\u201336)
\nb. Wilderness complaints and God\u2019s response (11:1\u201335)
\nc. Miriam and Aaron complain about Moses (12:1\u201316)
\n2. Forty years near Kadesh (13:1\u201319:22)
\na. Sending scouts into the Promised Land (13:1\u201333)
\nb. Rebellion over the Promised Land (14:1\u201345)
\nc. Miscellaneous cultic laws (15:1\u201341)
\nd. Korah leads a rebellion against Moses and Aaron (16:1\u201350)
\ne. A sign for the rebels (17:1\u201313)
\nf. Regulations for the priests (18:1\u201332)
\ng. Two rituals for cleansing (19:1\u201322)
\n3. Moving from Kadesh to Moab (20:1\u201321:35)
\na. Moses strikes the rock (20:1\u201313)
\nb. Journey around Edom (20:14\u201321)
\nc. The death of Aaron (20:22\u201329)
\nd. Trouble on the way to Moab (21:1\u201335)
\nC. On the Plains of Moab: Preparing to Enter the Promised Land (22:1\u201325:18)
\n1. The Balaam story (22:1\u201324:25)
\na. Balaam hired to curse Israel (22:1\u201341)
\nb. Balaam\u2019s first ritual and prophecy (23:1\u201312)
\nc. Balaam\u2019s second ritual and prophecy (23:13\u201326)
\nd. Balaam\u2019s third ritual and prophecy (23:27\u201324:13)
\ne. Balaam\u2019s fourth prophecy (24:14\u201319)
\nf. Balaam curses Amalek (24:20\u201325)
\n2. National apostasy and divine punishment (25:1\u201318)
\nII. Birth of the New Generation (26:1\u201336:13)
\nA. The Second Count (26:1\u201365, cf. 1:1\u20134:49)
\nB. Laws about Land, Offerings, and Vows (27:1\u201330:16)
\n1. Inheritance of Zelophehad\u2019s daughters (27:1\u201311; cf. 36:1\u201313)
\n2. Commissioning of Joshua (27:12\u201323)
\n3. Regulations for offerings (28:1\u201329:40)
\n4. Regulations for vows (30:1\u201316)
\nC. Settlement Arrangements for the Transjordan (31:1\u201332:42)
\n1. Defeating Midian (31:1\u201354)
\n2. Transjordan tribes: Reuben and Gad (32:1\u201342)
\nD. Reprise of Wilderness Itinerary (33:1\u201349)
\nE. Laws about the Promised Land (33:50\u201336:13)
\n1. Orders for occupying the Promised Land (33:50\u201356)
\n2. Borders of the Promised Land (34:1\u201315)
\n3. Appointed officials (34:16\u201329)
\n4. Levitical holdings in the Promised Land (35:1\u201334)
\n5. Inheritance of Zelophehad\u2019s daughters (36:1\u201313; cf. 27:1\u201311)<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY ON
\nNumbers<\/p>\n
\u2666 I. Death of the Old Generation (1:1\u201325:18)
\nA. At Sinai: Preparing for the Journey to the Promised Land (1:1\u201310:10)
\n1. The first count (1:1\u20134:49, cf. 26:1\u201365)
\na. Mustering Israel\u2019s warriors (1:1\u201354)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
1:1 Tabernacle. In the ancient Near East portable shrines were pitched in the center of a camp as a place for the kings and priests to meet with their gods while on campaign (Harrison 1990:32). Since Yahweh was Israel\u2019s battle chief, the closer parallel is the Egyptian practice of placing their commander\u2019s tent in the middle of a rectangular camp and surrounding it with his officers. This is well illustrated in the military camp of Rameses II (Kitchen 1960:11; Milgrom 1989:11; Yadin 1963:264; see note at 2:2).<\/p>\n
1:2 record the names. Lit., \u201cto lift the head\u201d (cf. 26:2; Exod 30:12), which is combined with \u201cby their skulls,\u201d speaking of a headcount (1:2, 18, 20, 22; 3:47).<\/p>\n
by their clans and families. Lit., \u201cby their clans, by the house of their fathers.\u201d Terminology for Israel\u2019s subdivisions is inexact, especially the \u201cpaternal household\u201d (beth \u2019aboth [1004\/1, 1074\/3]), which is understood variously as a synonym for the whole nation (Ps 45:10[?]; NLT, \u201cfamily\u201d), a tribe (Josh 22:14; 1 Kgs 8:1), a tribal grouping of multiple clans (Hirsch 1971:2\u20133; Levine 1993:131\u2013133), a synonym for \u201cclan\u201d (Milgrom 1989:5), a subdivision of the clans (Gray 1903:4\u20136), or a nuclear family (Exod 12:3; Ps 45:10[?]). Allowing for flexibility and overlapping terminology, the general hierarchy was this: All Israel was divided into 12 tribes, which were subdivided into clans, then into patriarchal houses (i.e., an extended family under a paternal grandfather\u2019s authority), and finally into nuclear families (cf. analogous references in Josh 7:14; Judg 6:15; 1 Sam 10:21; 1 Chr 23:11).<\/p>\n
1:3 register the troops. Milgrom notes, \u201cThe Akkadian term for \u2018muster the troops,\u2019 is the exact cognate of the Hebrew paqad tsaba\u2019 \u201d [6485\/6635, 7212\/7372] (1989:4, citing Dossin and Parrot 1950:3.19).<\/p>\n
1:6\u201315 The order of the tribes is listed by order of birth (Gen 29\u201330), minus Levi, but grouped by mother: Leah (Reuben-Zebulun), then Rachel (Ephraim-Benjamin), then the concubines Bilhah and Zilpah (Dan-Naphtali).<\/p>\n
1:14 Deuel. This follows the Hebrew (also at 7:42, 47; 10:20); cf. \u201cReuel\u201d (LXX and Syriac). Elsewhere the Hebrew has \u201cReuel\u201d (re\u2018u\u2019el [7467, 8294]): Once for this same man (a copyist\u2019s error at 2:14, mistaking the initial Daleth [\u05d3] for Resh [\u05e8]), but otherwise for a son of Esau, an ancestor of an Edomite clan (Gen 36:4, 10, 13, 17; 1 Chr 1:35, 37), for Moses\u2019s father-in-law (10:29; Exod 2:18), and for a returning Benjamite exile (1 Chr 9:8).<\/p>\n
1:50 take care of it. The Hebrew is sharath [8334, 9250], a term referring to service like that of an administrative assistant (e.g., Exod 24:13; 1 Kgs 19:21; Ps 103:21). In the cult, it was used for priestly and for non-priestly attendants (e.g., 1:50; 3:31).<\/p>\n
1:50, 51, 53 Here we have a cluster of Tabernacle terms: \u201cTabernacle\u201d (mishkan [4908, 5438], four times) and \u201cTabernacle of the Covenant\u201d (mishkan ha\u2018eduth [5715, 6343], three times). The mishkan was God\u2019s camp tent, making good on his covenantal promise to dwell among his people (Exod 25:8; 29:45; Lev 26:11). The mishkan ha\u2018eduth, \u201cTabernacle of the Testimony\/Covenant,\u201d was so called because it housed the Ark of the Testimony (cf. 4:5 mg; 7:89 mg; Exod 25:22 mg), or Ark of the Covenant (10:33; 14:44; Deut 10:8; Heb 9:4), which held the tablets that testified to God\u2019s covenant with Israel (Exod 25:16, 21; 40:20).<\/p>\n
1:51 unauthorized person. Lit., \u201ca stranger.\u201d Here, this refers to anyone other than the Levitical and priestly servants of the Tabernacle (3:10, 38; 18:4, 7; Lev 22:10\u201312).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
At Sinai, Israel fell into idolatry and debauchery (Exod 32:1\u20136); nonetheless, the Lord sustained his covenant with them. So Numbers 1\u201310 picks up the account, recording initial high hopes and ready obedience in the people\u2019s first steps from slavery to landed nationhood.<\/p>\n
Selecting the Officials (1:1\u201316). Fourteen months after Israel\u2019s departure from Egypt (1:1), God told Moses to register potential men of arms, marking a transition from a band of freed slaves to an organized military camp on its way to becoming a great nation (1:1\u20134:49). Here the narrator makes no complaint about this standard feature of battle plans and assessment. Later leaders instituted counts not so much for enlisting servants of God and Torah as for measuring the military assets of king and country (2 Sam 24:1\u20132; 1 Chr 21:1). The ancient Near Eastern counts generally focus on the militarily fit (as do 2 Sam 24:9; 2 Chr 14:8), but for this all-important expedition there was no exemption from military service (Deut 20:5\u20138; 28:30). The Legend of King Keret describes a summons that allowed none of the expected deferments:<\/p>\n
The only son must shut up his house,
\nthe widow hire someone (to go).
\nThe invalid must take up his bed,
\nthe blind man must grope his way along.
\nThe newly-wed must go forth,
\nentrusting his wife to someone else,
\nhis beloved to someone unrelated.<\/p>\n
This entire, all-inclusive troop enlistment of Israel\u2019s young men died in the wilderness without advancing on the Promised Land, an appalling miscarriage of national purpose.<\/p>\n
Counting the Fighting Men; Exempting the Levites (1:17\u201353). Earlier, Moses had ascended Sinai to meet God. Thereafter, he came to the Tent of Meeting, which had been pitched outside the camp (Exod 33:7\u201311). Once the Tabernacle complex sited the sacred tent at camp center, the Levites formed a protective cordon between it and the camps of Israel\u2019s twelve tribes (1:53).
\nThe Lord had exempted the Levites from the military draft (1:48\u201353), but not from national service. They were to help the priests and to serve the Tabernacle as attendants in camp (1:50a), as porters when on the move (1:50b\u201351a), and as \u201cmilitaristic defenders of the cult and its cultic centers\u201d (Spencer 1998:546; 1:51b\u201353). In the last role, they were to \u201cput to death\u201d anyone engaged in unauthorized cultic activity (1:51; cf. 3:10, 38; 18:7).
\nGod dwelled in the camp with his people. The incarnation of Christ would further manifest this promise to dwell among his people (John 1:1\u201318). Even when Jesus went away, he promised the continuation of that presence (Matt 18:20; 28:20). For that reason, the New Testament can speak of the corporate body of believers (1 Cor 3:16; Eph 2:21\u201322; 1 Pet 2:5), and even of the individual believer\u2019s body (1 Cor 6:19), as God\u2019s dwelling place. And this sanctuary, too, must be protected against defilement (Matt 18:17; Acts 5:1\u201311; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 5; 11:27\u201334; 2 Thess 3:6, 14; 1 Tim 1:20; 2 John 1:10). One day, full realization of the promise of his presence will be found in the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:1\u20134).<\/p>\n
A Note of Compliance (1:54). The first chapter ends on a note of obedience, a recurring note early on in the book, although in the subsequent period, we seldom hear of orders being obeyed until the second generation.<\/p>\n
Order
\nObedience
\n1:1\u20133
\nMoses conducts the survey
\n1:17\u201319
\n1:3\u20134
\nMoses and Aaron and the tribal leaders conduct the survey
\n1:44
\n1:3
\nIsrael conducts a military registration
\n1:20a
\n1:2
\nThe count is organized by tribe, clan, and family
\n1:20b<\/p>\n
Israel\u2019s lists always number twelve tribes, no matter how they arrive at that number. This count balances Levi\u2019s omission by giving the Joseph tribes a double portion (1:10, 32\u201335; cf. Gen 49:22\u201326; Deut 33:13\u201317). The list retains the same ordering principle at work in verses 5\u201315, but partially adapted to the arrangement of the camp. The troop total of 603,550 accords with other accounts concerning the number of males who left Egypt (1:46; 11:21; Exod 12:37; 38:26). Including women and children, this would have constituted a camp of two to three million, demonstrating fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gen 17:1\u20138).<\/p>\n
\u2666 b. Arranging the camp by tribes (2:1\u201331)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
2:2 The tribal divisions will camp beneath their family banners. Lit., \u201ceach with\/under his division\/banner\u201d (\u2019ish \u2018al-diglo [376\/1714, 408\/1840]) \u201cand with his paternal household sign\u201d (be\u2019othoth lebeth \u2019abotham [1004\/1, 1074\/3]). Jewish tradition says each divisional banner displayed a figure: Judah\u2019s a lion, Reuben\u2019s a man, Ephraim\u2019s an ox, and Dan\u2019s an eagle (Cohen 1983:798; see 1:52; cf. Ezek 1:10; Rev 4:7), and each tribe\u2019s banner matched the color of its stone on the high priest\u2019s chestpiece (Numbers Rabbah 2:7; cf. Exod 39:14). Levine and Milgrom draw on Persian parallels to describe the degel [1714, 1840] as a \u201csociomilitary unit\u201d (Levine 1993:147\u2013148) or as a garrison of about 1,000 men living together with their families (Milgrom 1989:11). Yadin has shown this same three-tribe divisional plan in the Qumran War Scroll (1962:168\u2013181). The \u2019oth [226, 253] was an ensign or banner. For the expression \u201ctheir paternal house,\u201d see note on 1:2. The order for camping and marching in ch 2 differs somewhat from that of the military census (ch 1). In ch 1, the count began with Reuben, the firstborn; in ch 2, the camp arrangement and marching order begins with the preeminent tribe of Judah. Even so, the ordering of the subgroups that this chapter forms into larger, three-tribe groups remains the same.<\/p>\n
four sides of the Tabernacle. The Egyptian army of Rameses (thirteenth century BC) camped in a square with the royal tent in the middle, with the officers\u2019 tents placed round it for protection, like the Levites here (Kitchen 1960:11; Milgrom 1989:11; Yadin 1963:264).<\/p>\n
at some distance from it. The term neged [5048, 5584] can mean \u201cin front of\u201d (RSV, NRSV); however, here it means \u201cat a distance\u201d (NLT, also KJV, NASB, NIV). The rabbis figured 2,000 cubits (i.e., 3,000 feet) for this distance; it was the limit for walking on the Sabbath (b. Sotah 5:3), and it was the distance by which the Ark led Israel when crossing the Jordan (Josh 3:4).<\/p>\n
2:3\u20134 divisions of Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. Lit., \u201cthe division of the camp of Judah,\u201d that is, \u201cthe Judah division,\u201d comprising the tribes of Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. The same formula is followed for the other three-tribe divisions: Reuben (2:10\u201311), Ephraim (2:18\u201319), and Dan (2:25\u201326).<\/p>\n
Nahshon. This was Aaron\u2019s brother-in-law (Exod 6:23), his marriage perhaps forming a covenantal link between Aaron\u2019s priestly line and the royal line of Judah (Milgrom 1989:300 n. 8; Galil 1985).<\/p>\n
2:10 south side. Lit., \u201cright,\u201d or what is on the right as one faces east.<\/p>\n
2:14\u201315 Deuel. The Hebrew has Re\u2018u\u2019el [7467, 8294] (see note on 1:14).<\/p>\n
2:17 Tabernacle, carried by the Levites, will set out. Lit., \u201cwhen the Tent of Meeting sets out, the camp of the Levites.\u201d \u201cThe Tabernacle\u201d is in apposition to \u201cthe camp of the Levites,\u201d defining them as the Tent of Meeting division.<\/p>\n
2:31 These three tribes \u2026 under their banners. The last phrase is better understood as not referring to the Danite division marching under its divisional banner (1:52; 2:2, 3, 10, 17, 18, 25, 31, 34) but to all four three-tribe divisions marching under their divisional banners (Dillmann and Knobel 1886:13).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
These instructions came to both Moses and Aaron (2:1; see also 1:3, 17, 44), which is unusual; however, it is supported by a pattern of Moses\u2019s coleadership with his brother, the priest (Exod 4:14\u201316). God positioned the twelve tribes in four military divisions on the compass points around the Tabernacle. Inside that ring, the Levites formed a cordon between the Tabernacle and the flanking tribes.
\nReuben and Gad, who later settled in the east, camped to the south. The southern tribe of Judah camped on the east with Issachar and Zebulun, who later settled in the north. Benjamin, whose names means \u201csoutherner,\u201d camped to the west. And so it went, with no attention to the subsequent tribal geography. Instead, symmetry, lines of authority, and concentric holiness ruled how the camp was distributed. Dispersal around the four compass points made for a symmetrical camp. The listing of a tribal leader for each tribe and a lead tribe for each three-tribe division laid out lines of authority, a continuing motif throughout Numbers. And the concentric camp displayed concentric holiness, with holiness increasing as one worked from the boundaries of Israel\u2019s tribal camps into the inner cordon of Levites, the Tabernacle walls, and finally all the way into the Ark inside the Holiest Place.
\nHoffmeier mounts a spirited offense against dating the camp and Tabernacle description as late as a documentary hypothesis would (2005:202\u2013208). He says, \u201cThe plan of Ramesses II\u2019s camp, which unquestionably dates to the mid-thirteenth century, is the closest analogue to the wilderness Tabernacle as described in Exodus 25ff\u201d (2005:208). Locating the Tabernacle in the center of a rectangular camp is especially similar to Rameses II\u2019s camp at Kadesh, with the pharaoh\u2019s own tent camp located at the center of the armies\u2019 camps (Hoffmeier 2005:206; Gressmann 1913:240\u2013242; Homan 2000; Homan 2002:ch 7; Kitchen 2003:275\u2013283).
\nWe recognize in the symmetry the same beauty and order that characterized Genesis 1 (Allen 1990:713). This, in turn, formed a prototype for the new Temple (Ezek 40\u201348), with its primacy of the eastern side (Ezek 47:1a), centrality of the divine presence (Ezek 48:8\u201320), and inner court walls doing what the Levites did in the wilderness and the other court walls doing what the four three-tribe divisions did (E. W. Davies 1995b:19). Finally, this points us to the new creation\u2019s foursquare \u201cscheme for the new Jerusalem\u201d (Snaith 1969:123; see also G. J. Wenham 1981:68; see Rev 21:10\u201322:5).<\/p>\n
Eastern Tribes (2:1\u20139). The royal tribe of Judah (Gen 49:8\u201310) led the largest three-tribe division (2:9, cf. 2:16, 24, 31). They posted up to the east of the Tabernacle (2:3), an honored position at its entrance, and they led the way on the march (2:9). In the ancient Near East, the east was the primary direction, the front, the direction of the dawn. Eden had been sited \u201cin the east\u201d (Gen 2:8); therefore, although the east could also be a place of threat and exile, hope grew that God\u2019s redemption would come from the east, from the place of Paradise Lost (Sailhamer 1992:371; see Ezek 43:2\u20134; Zech 14:4; Matt 24:27). Judah\u2019s leadership here foreshadows Judah\u2019s future military leadership through its lionlike Davidic kings (Gen 49:8\u20139), a status which extends even to John\u2019s exclamation, \u201cLook, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the heir to David\u2019s throne, has won the victory\u201d (Rev 5:5).<\/p>\n
Southern Tribes (2:10\u201316). Reuben led a medium-sized division (2:16, cf. 2:9, 24, 31), which camped to the south (2:10) and marched second (2:16). Sherwood says the south was a place of dishonor (Douglas 1993:175\u2013179). It was the place for (1) Kohathites (3:28\u201329), from whom the Levitical rebel Korah would come (16:1); (2) Reuben, whom his father Jacob had cursed for having sexual relations with Jacob\u2019s concubine Bilhah (Gen 35:22; 49:3\u20134); (3) Simeon, who was rebuked for excessive violence in avenging Dinah\u2019s rape (Gen 34:30); and (4) Gad, with low status as a son of Leah\u2019s servant, Zilpah (Gen 30:9\u201311). One might better argue that the south was the prime location after the east (Gray 1903:16\u201318): (1) It is mentioned first after the east in this sequence; (2) Reuben and Simeon were also sons of Leah, Judah\u2019s mother (Gen 46:8\u201315); (3) the Kohathites were the premier Levitical clan, the clan of Moses and Aaron and the clan that carried the Tabernacle\u2019s most holy furnishings; and (4) the right-hand side (which, relative to Judah\u2019s position in the east, is the south) is a place of prominence.<\/p>\n
Central Tribe: Levites (2:17). The Levites formed an interior cordon to shield the sanctuary from violation by intruders (1:51; 2:17). The Levites\u2019 movement in their protected position in the column is described as the Tabernacle\u2019s movement (2:17). The four tribal divisions (cf. 3:23\u201339; the Aaronites [and Moses], the Kohathites, the Gershonites, and the Merarites) served as the Tabernacle\u2019s vanguard and rearguard, each marching under its three-tribe divisional banner.<\/p>\n
Western Tribes (2:18\u201324). Ephraim led the smallest division (2:24, cf. 2:9, 16, 31), comprising the three smallest tribes (2:18\u201323; cf. 2:3\u20138, 10\u201315, 25\u201330). The Ephraim division camped to the west (2:18) and moved third in the line of march (2:24), following not only the two divisions of Judah and Reuben, but also the Levitical Tabernacle division (2:9, 16).<\/p>\n
Northern Tribes (2:25\u201331). Dan led a medium-sized tribal division (2:31; cf. 2:9, 16, 24), which camped north of the Tabernacle. It marched at the tail of the column (2:31). Dan, as the firstborn of Jacob\u2019s children from his concubines (Gen 30:3\u20136), led the concubines\u2019 offspring, except for Gad, which was incorporated into Reuben\u2019s division (2:10).<\/p>\n
\u2666 c. Summary of the first census (2:32\u201334)<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
The military registration of chapter 1 recorded each tribe\u2019s figures individually and then gave a grand troop count of 603,550. Chapter 2 records the same individual tribal counts and grand total, but it includes subtotals for each three-tribe division (2:9, 16, 24, 31). The summary gives us a triple note of obedience: (1) The Levites were excused from the military count, \u201cas the LORD had commanded\u201d (2:33; cf. 1:47); (2) \u201cthe people of Israel did everything as the LORD had commanded Moses\u201d (2:34a); and (3) they camped and marched \u201cexactly as the LORD had instructed them\u201d (2:34b). They camped and marched in four three-tribe divisions, perhaps further subdivided by clan and paternal house (see note on 1:2).<\/p>\n
\u2666 d. Levites appointed for service (3:1\u201313)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
3:1 the family line of Aaron and Moses. Harrison (1990:61\u201363) thinks this \u201cfamily line\u201d (toledoth [8435, 9352]) is a colophon for ch 2, looking back to 2:1. But ch 3 does describe the family of Aaron, and Milgrom notes that Aaron is listed first only in genealogical texts (1989:15, citing 3:1; 26:59; Exod 6:20; 1 Chr 6:3 [5:29]; 23:13).<\/p>\n
3:3 ordained to minister as priests. Lit., \u201cfilled the hand to be a priest.\u201d Akkadian equivalents to \u201cfilling the hand\u201d hint that some symbol of office was placed in the person\u2019s hands (Milgrom 1989:300 n. 1).<\/p>\n
3:4 the wrong kind of fire, different than he had commanded. Lit., \u201cstrange [zar] fire,\u201d (cf. Lev 10:1\u20132), like the zar [2114A, 2424] (NLT, \u201cunauthorized person\u201d) intruding on holy space around the Tabernacle (1:51; 3:10, 38).<\/p>\n
Eleazar and Ithamar to serve as priests with their father, Aaron. Lit., \u201cand Eleazar and Ithamar served as priests before\/in the presence of Aaron their father.\u201d Levine translates with a temporal, \u201cduring the lifetime of\u201d (Levine 1993:156, citing Gen 11:28); see also NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV. But it is most likely a locative, \u201cbefore,\u201d i.e., \u201cunder the oversight of\u201d (see Deut 25:2; 1 Sam 3:1).<\/p>\n
3:7 in and around the Tabernacle. Lit., \u201cbefore the Tent of Meeting, performing the duties of the Tabernacle\u201d (cf. NLT mg). Milgrom notes that the Hittite \u201cInstructions for the Temple Officials\u201d permits\/requires the keepers to enter the temple precinct on the following conditions: when accompanying a layperson coming to perform a rite (e.g., 16:9) or when hunting or pursuing an intruder (Milgrom 1989:16; see ANET 209 or COS 1.83:219\u2013220).<\/p>\n
3:10 Appoint. The Hebrew is paqad [6485, 7212], the same term used for \u201cregistering troops\u201d (1:3, 19; 2:4, etc.).<\/p>\n
unauthorized person. The Hebrew term zar [2114A, 2424] has already been used to describe the \u201cwrong kind of fire, different than he had commanded\u201d offered by Nadab and Abihu (3:4), and for the intruder into sacred space (1:51); it would also include a non-Levite trying to perform Levitical tasks (1:51; 3:38; 18:4) or a non-Aaronite Levite trying to serve at the altar (3:10; 16:40; 18:7).<\/p>\n
3:12 I have chosen. Heb., wa\u2019ani hinneh laqakhti [3947, 4374]. Two things highlight God\u2019s sovereign choice here: (1) Starting the clause with the first-person pronoun \u2019ani [589, 638], rather than using the typical verb-subject order, emphasizes the subject\u2014\u201cI myself have chosen\u201d; (2) inserting the interjection hinneh [2009, 2180] after that pronoun stresses the subject of the following verb, hence, \u201cand, as for me, I myself have chosen\u201d (Waltke and O\u2019Connor 1990:300 n. 9).<\/p>\n
substitutes. The Hebrew takhath [8478A, 9393] sometimes expresses recompense (Gen 30:15; 44:4; Ps 38:20); however, here it means substituting \u201cin the place of\u201d (e.g., Gen 4:25; 22:13; Lev 16:32).<\/p>\n
firstborn sons. Lit., \u201cfirstborn who open a womb.\u201d<\/p>\n
3:13 set apart. This is the Hiphil of qadash [6942, 7727]. It denotes designating or declaring someone (8:17; Jer 1:5) or something (1 Kgs 9:3, 7) to be holy or consecrated.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
The note about a \u201cfamily line\u201d (toledoth [8435, 9352]; 3:1) serves multiple narrative functions: (1) It provides a unifying link to a common pentateuchal motif that organizes the story line around this term; (2) it follows the pattern already used to number the tribes in chapter 1; and (3) it relates the narrower line to the broader covenant community by the substitution motif. All of Abraham\u2019s offspring are dedicated to the Lord\u2019s service; however, priests and Levites are specifically consecrated to his service (cf. 1 Pet 2:9).<\/p>\n
The Death of Aaron\u2019s Sons (3:2\u20134). These verses set the tone for chapters 3 and 4, with their recurring mention of the Lord\u2019s potentially lethal presence. The Levites were to put to death any zar [2114A, 2424] who intruded on the Tabernacle (1:51). Since Levites couldn\u2019t police their priestly superiors, the Lord himself did so, killing even legitimate priests, including the firstborn (3:2), when they burned zar fire while on priestly duty (3:4; cf. Lev 10). Commentators offer a range of suggestions to explain the death of Aaron\u2019s priestly sons: (1) They may have been drunk, which prompted the prohibition of wine for serving priests (Allen 1990:721; see Lev 10:1\u20132, 8\u20139; cf. Num 3:8\u201311); however, we get no mention of that here; (2) apostasy (E. W. Davies 1995b:27; Robinson 1978); (3) they may have failed to take the correct precautions (Lev 16:12\u201313) or even taken presumptuous actions like Uzziah\u2019s (2 Chr 26:16); (4) they may have burned the wrong incense mixture (Chapman and Streane 1914:54; Levine 1993:156; Exod 30:9, 34\u201338); and (5) they may have used poor timing (Chapman and Streane 1914:54; Snijders 1954; Elliger 1966:136\u2013139; Lev 10:16\u201320). If it were because of presumption, one would expect that point to be made; and if it were about timing, like the offense of Eleazar and Ithamar, we might expect similar lenient treatment. But the point is its \u201cstrangeness,\u201d and it is the fire, not the incense, that is unauthorized; therefore, the text is best understood to speak of fire not taken from the altar (Haran 1960).
\nThe deaths of Aaron\u2019s sons had later parallels with those who proved negligent around holy things:<\/p>\n
The deaths of Eli\u2019s poorly supervised priestly sons (1 Sam 2:12\u201336, especially vv. 25, 31\u201334; 4:11)
\nThe deaths of 70 people for looking into the Ark (1 Sam 6:19)
\nThe rejection of Saul for neglecting the full obligation of kherem [2764, 3051] warfare (1 Sam 15)
\nThe death of Uzzah for touching the Ark (2 Sam 6:6\u20137)
\nUzziah\u2019s leprosy because of presumption in offering incense (2 Kgs 15:5; 2 Chr 26:16\u201321)
\nThe hellish expulsion of the wedding guest who dishonors his host with inappropriate dress (Matt 22:11\u201313)
\nThe deaths of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1\u201311)
\nThe deaths of certain Corinthians who abused the Lord\u2019s Supper (1 Cor 11:27\u201334)<\/p>\n
Assigning the Levites to Aaron and His Sons (3:5\u201313). In the ancient Near East the firstborn was expected to provide for the burial of deceased parents, to inherit the family gods and cultic objects, and care for the ancestral spirits, thereby keeping their name alive to act on behalf of the family (Milgrom 1989:17\u201318). The rabbis even maintained that the firstborn originally enjoyed priestly status:<\/p>\n
And he sent the firstborn of the sons of Israel\u2014for until that hour the firstborn had the (office of performing) worship, the tabernacle of ordinance not (as yet) being made, nor the priesthood given unto Aaron; and they offered burnt offerings and consecrated oblations of oxen before the Lord. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Exod 24:5)<\/p>\n
Substitution plays a fundamental role in Levitical theology in Numbers. God had claimed Israel\u2019s firstborn as his own on Passover night. By sparing Israel\u2019s firstborn, the Lord acquired them (Exod 13:1\u20132, 11\u201316), a principle that God reiterated (Exod 22:29\u201330; 34:19\u201320). After the golden calf incident, the Levites were substituted without formal statute (Exod 32:25\u201329), and this text formalized the arrangement. So the Levites should have been a constant reminder of God\u2019s claim on the firstborn, all the more so since Israel was itself God\u2019s firstborn (Exod 4:22). Old Testament Israel existed as the world\u2019s priestly people (Gen 12:1\u20133; Exod 19:6)\u2014and, indeed, the church today serves that purpose (Gal 3:6\u20137; 1 Pet 2:5\u20137; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
\nThis camp regulation channeled Levitical militarism into protection of the cult (1:51; 3:10, 38). Like the cherubim who guarded the way back into Eden (Gen 3:24), and like the ancient Near Eastern sadin who guarded pagan shrines (de Vaux 1961:348), the Levites were the forerunners of the gatekeepers of the Solomonic Temple, who protected the Temple from defilement by stray animals, unclean persons, and pagan intruders (e.g., 2 Kgs 22:4; 1 Chr 9:19; 26:13\u201319). Later, Nehemiah had them shut the gates to keep the Sabbath holy (Neh 13:19, 22).
\nThe purpose of summary execution for intruders was to prevent God\u2019s punishing the whole people for an individual\u2019s transgression (see 1:53; 16:1\u201317:13; cf. 25:8). G. J. Wenham (1981:71\u201372) says this Levitical obligation to kill encroachers foreshadowed the New Testament obligation of elders to correct erring brethren (see Matt 18:15\u201318; Acts 18:26; Gal 2:11; 6:1; 1 Thess 5:12\u201314; 1 Tim 5:19\u201320; Jas 5:19\u201320). Perhaps better connections would be the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1\u201310), the note that some are dead because they failed to recognize the Lord\u2019s Table (1 Cor 11:27\u201330), and the eschatological exclusion of the wicked from God\u2019s presence (Rev 21:8, 27; 22:15).<\/p>\n
\u2666 e. Counting the Levites by clans (3:14\u201339)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
3:15 one month old or older. Perhaps this was considered to be the age of viability (18:16; Lev 27:6). Milgrom says that with the high infant mortality rate, a child younger than 30 days was not yet considered a person; thus, even today Jewish practice maintains no mourning rites for such an infant (Milgrom 1989:23, citing, on nonpersonhood, Lev 27:6 and Tosefta Shabbat 15{16}:7; on mortality, Tanhuma Num 21; and for no rites being said, b. Mo\u2019ed Qatan 24b).<\/p>\n
3:17\u201320 This list corresponds with the list in Exod 6:16\u201319 but has its background in Gen 46:11. See also 1 Chr 6:16\u201319; 23:6\u20137, 12, 21; cf. Num 26:58.<\/p>\n
3:28 8,600. The Lucianic revision of the LXX reads \u201c8,300,\u201d which accommodates the grand total of 22,000 (3:39) instead of resulting in 22,300. Scribal error could play a role in either reading, since there is only a one-letter difference in Hebrew between \u201c8,600\u201d and \u201c8,300.\u201d<\/p>\n
responsible for the care of the sanctuary. Heb., shomre mishmereth haqqodesh [6944, 7731]. The verb shamar [8104, 9068] refers to guarding, keeping a watch over, as does the related noun mishmereth [4931, 5466], a frequent description of Levitical duty (1:53; 3:7, 25, 28, 31, 36, 38; 4:27, 31; 8:26; 9:19, 23; 18:3, 8; 19:9; 31:30, 47).<\/p>\n
3:30 Kohathite clans. Lit., \u201cpaternal house of the Kohathite clans.\u201d In this case, it appears that \u201cpaternal house\u201d is the larger group, comprising multiple clans (see note on 1:2).<\/p>\n
3:31 inner curtain. This is also called the \u201cveil\u201d (Exod 26:31\u201333; 35:12), \u201cveil of the screen\u201d (4:5; Exod 35:12; 39:34; 40:21), or \u201cveil of testimony\u201d (Lev 24:3); however, for clarity the NLT regularly uses \u201cinner curtain.\u201d<\/p>\n
3:32 responsibility. The Hebrew is pequddath [6486, 7213], a noun related to the verb paqad [6485, 7212], referring to a commission, appointment, or office (also 3:36).<\/p>\n
3:37 ropes. This is the framework\u2019s guylines (Exod 26:15\u201330; 27:10\u201318).<\/p>\n
3:38 final responsibility. Heb., shomerim mishmereth [8104\/4931, 9068\/5466] (see note on 3:28).<\/p>\n
sanctuary. Heb., hammiqdash [1886\/1886.1\/4720, 2021\/5219]. This refers to the entire Tabernacle complex, everything inside the Levitical inner cordon (1:53).<\/p>\n
Anyone other than a priest or Levite. See note on 3:10.<\/p>\n
3:39 Moses and Aaron counted. The verb is paqad [6485, 7212]. This is the same verb used for \u201cappointing\u201d (3:10) and for registering troops (see note on 1:3). Since the verb is singular, the scribes placed dots over \u201cAaron,\u201d indicating doubt whether his name should be included there with Moses\u2019s. Some Hebrew manuscripts lack it, as do the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Syriac. His name is omitted at 3:14 and 16, so perhaps it was later added here to harmonize with the command, which included him (1:3).<\/p>\n
22,000. The numbers given in this section of the Hebrew text add up to 22,300. But the Hebrew text of 3:39 records 22,000 as the total. The discrepancy cannot be from rounding off the numbers, because the figures in 3:43 and 3:46 show that the numbers here are not rounded off. The rabbis ingeniously suggested that the totals from verses 22, 28, and 34 included \u201cLevite\u201d firstborn, who could not therefore redeem others. More likely, the number of Kohathites should read \u201c8,300\u201d (see note on 3:28).<\/p>\n
Clan
\nMT
\nLXX
\nSuggested Totals
\nGershonites
\n7,500
\n7,500
\n7,500
\nKohathites
\n8,600
\n8,600
\n8,300
\nMerarites
\n6,200
\n6,050
\n6,200
\nCalculated Totals
\n22,300
\n22,150
\n22,000
\nRecorded Totals
\n22,000
\n22,000
\n22,000<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Chapter 3 briefly mentions each Levitical family\u2019s responsibilities, but that issue is largely left aside until chapter 4. The real concern of chapter 3 is the Levites\u2019 substitutionary role. The Lord told Moses to count and list the names of \u201cevery male who is one month old or older\u201d among the Levites (3:15), which he would later correlate with the firstborn males of that same age from the rest of the tribes (3:40\u201351). As has been the case so far in Numbers, the people promptly obeyed the Lord (3:16).<\/p>\n
Levi\u2019s Three Sons (3:17\u201320). These verses trace the Levitical clans back to Levi\u2019s three sons, who appear to be listed in birth order (Gen 46:11) rather than in their order of prominence, as chapter 4 treats them (cf. also 26:58). In Exodus the concern was to establish the lineage of Moses and Aaron (Exod 6:26); therefore, the same list (Exod 6:16\u201319a; cf. Num 3:17\u201320) preceded a more detailed genealogy (Exod 6:19b\u201325). But genealogy is not the concern here, so we get only an abbreviated clan breakdown repeated at the head of each family section (3:17\u201320, cf. 3:21, 27, 33).<\/p>\n
Gershonite Clans (3:21\u201326). The two-clan family of Gershonites formed the inner cordon\u2019s western quadrant (3:23). Led by Eliasaph son of Lael (3:24), they cared for all of the Tabernacle\u2019s fabric and leather coverings: the \u201cten curtains of finely woven linen,\u201d each 42 feet by 6 feet (Exod 26:1\u20136); the \u201celeven curtains of goat-hair cloth,\u201d each 45 feet by 6 feet (Exod 26:7\u201313); the layers of \u201ctanned ram skins\u201d and \u201cfine goatskin leather\u201d (4:6\u201314; Exod 26:14); and the embroidered linen curtains used as the entrance to the tent (Exod 26:36) and to enclose the courtyard (Exod 27:9, 16). Note that the more holy \u201cinner curtain\u201d was under the care of the Kohathites (3:31), and it covered the Ark when on the march (4:5). The Gershonite responsibilities also included all the ropes for tying all the curtains and coverings together, plus the equipment for handling and maintaining it, but not the structural guylines (4:24\u201326). The number of their males who were one month old or older was 7,500.<\/p>\n
Kohathite Clans (3:27\u201332). The four-clan family of the Kohathites formed the inner cordon\u2019s southern quadrant (v. 29). Led by Elizaphan son of Uzziel (v. 30), they cared for the Tabernacle\u2019s furnishings and utensils (4:4\u201320). Since they could not actually handle these utensils and furniture, the priests first packaged them for portage (4:5\u201320). The Kohathites then carried all of this on their own shoulders, rather than with oxcarts like the Gershonites and Merarites had for their heavier and less-sacred loads of fabrics and framework. Kohathites had the inner curtain in their care, along with other sacred objects (4:7, 9, 14; Exod 25:29, 38; 27:3). In fact, this curtain always hid God\u2019s throne-chariot, the Ark. It hung over the entrance to the Holiest Place and was draped over the Ark when it traveled. This curtain was the forerunner of the one that was torn from top to bottom upon Jesus\u2019 death (Matt 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45), which now opens up bold access to God\u2019s royal presence (Heb 4:16). The largest of the Levitical families, the Kohathites numbered 8,300 (or 8,600; see note and NLT mg at 3:28) males one month old or older (3:28).<\/p>\n
Merarite Clans (3:33\u201337). The two-clan family of Merarites formed the inner cordon\u2019s northern quadrant (3:35). Led by Zuriel son of Abihail, they cared for the Tabernacle\u2019s framework: its uprights and their bases, the crossbeams, and the guylines and their pegs (4:31). The smallest Levitical family, they numbered 6,200 males one month old or older.<\/p>\n
Summary (3:38\u201339). Moses, Aaron, and his sons descended from Levi. This family formed an honor guard at the Tabernacle\u2019s entrance to the east. The priests were responsible for the whole Tabernacle, supervising the Levites in all their duties (4:16, 27, 33). The Levite males one month old or older were enough to serve as substitutes for 22,000 of Israel\u2019s firstborn males, which was the purpose of this count (3:11\u201312); however, the following verses show that an additional provision was required for any firstborn sons over the 22,000 the Levites redeemed.<\/p>\n
\u2666 f. Redeeming the firstborn sons (3:40\u201351)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
3:40 count. Heb., paqad [6485, 7212] (see note on 1:3).<\/p>\n
make a list of their names. Lit., \u201clift up the record of their names\u201d (also 1 Chr 27:23), synonymous with the parallel expressions, \u201clift up the head\u201d (1:2; 4:2; 26:2; 31:26) and \u201cregister\u201d (1:3; Exod 30:12).<\/p>\n
3:43 22,273. It is difficult to reconcile this number of firstborn sons with the total of 603,550 Israelite fighting men (1:46). This figure would mean that each Israelite family would have about 27 males\u2014and that would be for each woman (see Introduction, \u201cLarge Numbers in the Book\u201d).<\/p>\n
3:46, 48, 51 redeem \u2026 redemption. The Hebrew is the noun peduyim [6302, 7012], which means \u201credemption price\u201d or \u201cransom.\u201d See the related term pidyom [6306, 7017] (3:49), used when redeeming property (Exod 21:30) or ransoming a life (Ps 49:8).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
After completing the count of males one month old or older among the Levites (3:21\u201339), Moses counted the twelve tribes\u2019 firstborn. The 273 left unredeemed by a Levite substitute were each redeemed with silver. It is not clear who paid the redemption price, whether it was collected from the Levites themselves, from all Israel, or from those who were determined to be as yet unredeemed. Traditional Jewish exegesis assumes the last option and suggests the 273 who had to pay were identified by lot, as noted in the following:<\/p>\n
Moses said: what should I do with the firstborns of Israel? How can I make any of them pay five shekels? If I say to one of them: \u201cGive me your redemption money and go,\u201d He will say to me: \u201cA Levite has already redeemed me!\u201d What did Moses do? He brought 22,000 lots on which he wrote \u201cLevite,\u201d and 273 lots on which he wrote \u201cfive shekels.\u201d He mixed the lots and put them in a box. Moses said to the firstborns: \u201cTake your lots.\u201d To one who drew a lot on which it was written \u201cLevite,\u201d he said: \u201cA Levite has already redeemed you.\u201d To one who drew a lot on which it was written \u201cFive shekels,\u201d he said: \u201cGive your redemption money and go.\u201d (b. Sanhedrin 17a)<\/p>\n
According to Milgrom (1989:19), God designated the 273 who were not yet redeemed by means of an oracle. In any case, this ransom depicted the slave price, given as a sign of bond servitude to the Lord rather than to Pharaoh or to the gods of the nations (G. J. Wenham 1981:71; contra Harrison 1990:78). The price of five silver shekels each was not only equivalent to a month\u2019s wages, it was the price at which a boy from one month to five years old was valued (Lev 27:6). This continued thereafter to be the price of redemption for the firstborn son (18:16).
\nIn the same way, the firstborn of the Levites\u2019 livestock were substituted for the firstborn of Israel\u2019s stock. Since the firstborn of pure animals already belonged to the Lord (18:15, 17), the rabbis concluded that the redeemed animals must have been impure animals not eligible for the altar and therefore redeemable (b. Bekhorot 4b; so also Dillmann and Knobel 1886:19). But the text doesn\u2019t limit it to unclean animals. Critical scholars think this was a late addition providing for redemption of firstborn livestock when sacrificing all these animals no longer seemed practical (E. W. Davies 1995b:35; McNeile 1911:18; Sturdy 1976:33). This is not necessary; it is better to see this exchange as a one-off instance from the wilderness period: All future firstborn livestock would still belong to the Lord and thus be sacrificed.
\nPayment went to the priests (3:51). Throughout the Old Testament, this provided an ongoing depiction of the principle of firstfruits, which in turn depicted the principle of substitution. This acknowledged that \u201cthe earth is the LORD\u2019s, and everything in it\u201d (1 Cor 10:26, quoting Ps 24:1). Under the new covenant, redemption is no longer with silver and gold, whether freeing a man from lifelong lameness (Acts 3:1\u20138) or from an \u201cempty life\u201d (1 Pet 1:18). Now we\u2019re reminded, \u201cGod paid a high price for you\u201d: Therefore, \u201cdon\u2019t be enslaved by the world\u201d (1 Cor 7:23), but rather \u201chonor God with your body\u201d (1 Cor 6:20).<\/p>\n
\u2666 g. Enlisting the Levites (4:1\u201349)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
4:2 Record the names. Lit., \u201clift up the head\u201d (also at 4:22); see note on 1:2.<\/p>\n
clans and families. Lit., \u201cclans and paternal houses\u201d; see note on 1:2.<\/p>\n
4:3 eligible to serve. Heb., ba\u2019 latsaba\u2019 la\u2018asoth mela\u2019kah (lit., \u201cgoing into the army\/host to do work\u201d). Tsaba\u2019 [6635, 7372] often refers to military service; here it is adapted for nonmilitary service to the cult. The term mela\u2019kah [4399, 4856] may refer to skilled labor, as opposed to general physical labor (\u2018abodah [5656, 6275]; 4:4), the term used more generally for the Levitical tasks (Milgrom 1989:24; Milgrom 1970:77\u201382).<\/p>\n
4:4 most sacred objects. Lit., \u201choly of holies.\u201d This generally refers to the Most Holy Place (Exod 26:33; 1 Kgs 8:6; 1 Chr 6:49; 2 Chr 3:8, 10; 5:7; Ezek 41:4), but here and in 4:19 it refers to the most sacred furniture and utensils.<\/p>\n
4:5 Ark of the Covenant. Lit., \u201cArk of the Testimony\u201d (7:89; Exod 25:21; 26:33\u201334; 30:6, 26; 31:7; 39:35; 40:3, 5, 21; Josh 4:16). The NLT uses \u201cArk of the Covenant\u201d regularly for both expressions. More frequent is \u201cArk of the LORD\u2019s Covenant\u201d (10:33; 14:44; Deut 10:8; 31:9, 25\u201326; Josh 3:3 [cf. v. 11], 17; 4:7, 18; 6:8; 8:33; 1 Sam 4:3\u20135; 1 Kgs 3:15; 6:19; 8:1, 6; 1 Chr 15:25\u201326, 28\u201329; 16:37; 17:1; 22:19; 28:2, 18; 2 Chr 5:2, 7; Jer 3:16). The Ark served as the repository for covenant documents (Exod 25:16, 21; 40:20). It was a box of acacia wood covered with gold inside and out, which measured 27 inches by 45 inches (Exod 25:10).<\/p>\n
4:6 fine goatskin leather. Heb., takhash [8476, 9391] (also at 4:8, 10\u201312, 14, 25). There are many possibilities for translating this: \u201cbadger skins\u201d (KJV, NKJV), \u201cporpoise skin\u201d (NASB), \u201cnarwhale skin\u201d (I. Aharoni 1938:462\u2013463), \u201cgoatskin\u201d (RSV, NLT), \u201csealskin\u201d (ASV, JPS), \u201chides of sea cows\u201d (NIV, following Dillmann and Knobel 1886), or \u201cdolphin skin\u201d (NJPS) or \u201cdugong skin\u201d because of a connection with the Arabic d\/tukhas (KBL; Holladay 1971), perhaps even \u201csomething of fine quality.\u201d Milgrom suggests \u201cyellow-orange\u201d (1989:25). Hoffmeier goes back to Robinson\u2019s discovering that the Bedouin made their sandals from \u201cthe thick skin of a fish.\u201d Robinson had noted that rather than being something fine and luxurious, \u201cThe skin is clumsy and coarse, and might answer very well for the external covering of the Tabernacle\u201d (Hoffmeier 2005:213, citing Robinson 1841:1.171).<\/p>\n
single piece of blue cloth. Heb., beged-kelil tekeleth. The MT connects kelil [3632B, 4003] (single) with beged [899A, 955] (cloth), i.e., a one-piece covering, like a robe. However, kelil may modify the color (tekeleth), i.e., entirely blue. Tekeleth [8504, 9418] is a bluish-purple or violet color produced from the secretions of the murex snail, particularly the murex brandaris, which is known as the fiery-horned snail or the Turk\u2019s blood snail. Milgrom (1989:412) notes that it took about 12,000 snails to produce 0.05 oz of the dye, which would have made it a precious commodity, available only to the most wealthy, hence its royal association.<\/p>\n
put the carrying poles of the Ark in place. The gold-covered acacia wood poles were inserted through rings attached to the Ark\u2019s legs (Exod 25:13\u201315; 35:12; 37:4\u20135; 40:20) and left in place even in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:15); therefore, this must refer either to adjusting them (Harrison 1990:83; Hirsch 1971:42) or to reinserting them after temporary removal for packing (Noordtzij 1983:44).<\/p>\n
4:7 table where the Bread of the Presence is displayed. Lit., \u201cTable of the Presence.\u201d This is an abbreviation for \u201cTable of the Bread of the Presence\u201d (Exod 25:23\u201330). It was a gold-rimmed and gold-covered table about 3 feet long and 1.5 feet wide on which on every Sabbath 12 loaves were laid out on the north side of the Holy Place (Lev 24:5\u20139). Here the Samaritan Pentateuch and LXX include the outer court\u2019s bronze washbasin (Exod 30:17\u201321) because it was also anointed with oil (Exod 30:26\u201328; 40:11) and was therefore holy (Lev 8:11).<\/p>\n
special bread. Lit., \u201cthe bread [displayed] continuously,\u201d like the flame that was kept blazing on the altar (Lev 6:9) or menorah that was kept burning each night (Exod 27:20\u201321; Lev 24:2\u20134). This was the \u201cBread of the Presence\u201d (Exod 25:30; 35:13; 39:36; 1 Sam 21:6; 1 Kgs 7:48; 2 Chr 4:19).<\/p>\n
4:8 scarlet cloth. Heb., beged tola\u2018ath [899A\/8438A, 955\/9357], a royal color ranging from purple to crimson to scarlet, possibly dyed from the coccus ilicis (BDB 1068).<\/p>\n
4:9 lampstand. Heb., menorath hamma\u2019or [4501\/1886.1\/3974, ZH4963\/2021\/4401], meaning \u201clampstand for the lighting.\u201d Its function was to light the holy place, but its symbolic significance was as a stylized tree of life (see comments on 8:1\u20134).<\/p>\n
lamp snuffers. The Hebrew is a dual form, indicating a two-part utensil, either the scissor-like snuffer (NLT, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NJB) or a pair of tongs (KJV, ESV, JPS, NJPS).<\/p>\n
trays. It is some kind of small pan connected with the Menorah, so \u201ctrays\u201d fits well (NLT, RSV, NRSV); cf. \u201cfire pans\u201d (NJPS) or \u201csnuffdishes\u201d (KJV, ASV, JPS). See the same term used for \u201cfirepans\u201d for the altar (Exod 27:3; 38:3) or for embers from the offering of incense (16:6; Lev 16:12).<\/p>\n
4:10 carrying frame. Heb., mot [4132, 4573], the term used for carrying the huge cluster of Eschol grapes (13:23). Related to the verb for \u201ctotter,\u201d perhaps mot depicts springy poles used as a yoke on someone\u2019s shoulders or used to carry a frame between two men walking single file.<\/p>\n
4:11 gold incense altar. Lit., \u201caltar of gold,\u201d known elsewhere as the incense altar (Exod 31:8). It sat in the Holy Place right in front of the curtain that concealed the Most Holy Place. It was acacia wood overlaid with gold and stood about 36 inches high and was 18 inches square (Exod 30:2). Like the Ark and Table for the Bread, it was fitted with rings for carrying poles. Perhaps its utensils were among those listed in 4:14.<\/p>\n
4:13 remove the ashes. This is an expression for fattening, but it is used here for clearing away the fatty soot, i.e., \u201cde-sooting\u201d (Waltke and O\u2019Connor 1990:413 \u00a724.4.f.7).<\/p>\n
purple cloth. The word for this color is \u2019argaman [713, 763]. It is another royal color of purple to reddish-purple. This is its only occurrence in Numbers, but it is elsewhere used in describing the Tabernacle curtains (Exod 26, 35\u201336, 38) and the priests\u2019 clothes (Exod 28, 39).<\/p>\n
4:14 firepans. Heb., makhtah [4289, 4746]. The KJV has \u201ccensers\u201d; however, these were probably used for removing ashes after the sacrifice was consumed (Lev 6:10).<\/p>\n
meat forks. Heb., mazleg [4207, 4657]; also translated \u201chooks\u201d (KJV, ASV, JPS, NJPS), used to manipulate the sacrifice so that it would be completely consumed.<\/p>\n
shovels. Or \u201cscoops\u201d or \u201cscrapers\u201d (NJPS) to clean the altar after use.<\/p>\n
basins. These were used for splashing sacrificial blood against the altar (Exod 27:3; 38:3).<\/p>\n
4:15 The verse repeats the term for \u201choly,\u201d emphasizing the point that wrongful contact with it led to death: \u201csanctuary\u201d (haqqodesh [6944, 7731]), the holy place; \u201csacred articles\u201d (kele haqqodesh [3627, 3998]), the utensils of the holy place.<\/p>\n
4:16 Eleazar son of Aaron the priest will be responsible for. This put the Kohathites under Eleazar\u2019s supervision; cf. Ithamar supervising the Gershonites and Merarites (4:28, 33). See the Hittite \u201cInstructions to Temple Officials\u201d for the practice of two classes of personnel tending a temple, one guarding it under the supervision of the other (ANET 207\u2013210; COS 1.83).<\/p>\n
daily grain offering. Heb., minkhath hattamid. The word tamid [8548, 9458] is understood to mean \u201cdaily\u201d or \u201cregular\u201d here. Noordtzij (1983:46) says this is the daily burnt offering (Exod 29:38) described as \u201cburnt offerings \u2026 made each day\u201d (Exod 29:42; or \u201cdaily burnt offering,\u201d Num 28\u201329). This was not always called \u2018olah [5930, 6592] as it is in Lev 6:13 [5]; Neh 10:33 [34], but rather minkhah [4503, 4966], because this term used of grain offering (Lev 2) was originally a general term for offering.<\/p>\n
4:18 destroyed from among the Levites. Lit., \u201ccut off from\u201d (see note on 9:13).<\/p>\n
4:20 enter the sanctuary to look at. The ancient Near East knew of lethal viewings of sacred objects. In the Sumerian \u201cCurse of Agade,\u201d the city was cursed because \u201cthe Akkadians saw the holy vessels of the gods\u201d (ANET 649). And the \u201cLamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur\u201d relates that Ur was destroyed because \u201cthe holy kettles that no one [was permitted] to look upon, the enemy looked upon\u201d (ANET 618).<\/p>\n
for even a moment. Heb., keballa\u2018 [3509\/3509.1\/1104, 3869\/1180] (to swallow). JPS and NJPS take the metaphor of being swallowed or engulfed as a metaphor for packaging, i.e., \u201cwhile they are being covered\u201d; however, most translations take this as a figure of speech for something momentary (cf. swallowing spit, Job 7:19), as an ancient Near Eastern equivalent to the blink of an eye. Sherwood (2002:144) suggests that the term might have been \u201cchosen to foreshadow 16:32, where the earth swallows up Korah (a Kohathite) and his followers.\u201d<\/p>\n
4:23 all \u2026 eligible. Heb., kol-habba\u2019 litsbo\u2019 tsaba\u2019 [3807\/3807.1\/935, 4200\/995] (all who enter for service); cf. the parallel expression \u201call who are able to go to war\u201d (1:3, 20, 45; kol-yotse\u2019 tsaba\u2019 [3318, 3655]); see note on 1:3.<\/p>\n
4:26 all the equipment related to their use. Lit., \u201call the vessels\/utensils\/fittings for their service.\u201d Milgrom thinks they are work tools (1989:30).<\/p>\n
4:27 They must assign. This is literally \u201cyou [pl.] must assign\u201d and may indicate that both Moses and Aaron gave these assignments or, more probably, that Aaron and his sons gave these assignments, as implied in the NLT.<\/p>\n
4:31 The Hebrew has all three terms for Levitical work: mishmereth [4931, 5466] (guard duty), massa\u2019 [4853, 5362] (portage, burden), and \u2018abodah [5656, 6275] (common labor).<\/p>\n
frames. These were 48 vertical boards (15 feet by 27 inches) of gold-covered acacia wood (Exod 26:15\u201325) that ran around the courtyard (150 feet by 75 feet). Each had gold rings through which 15 \u201ccrossbars\u201d made of gold-covered acacia wood were inserted horizontally (Exod 26:26\u201329).<\/p>\n
posts. These were made of gold-covered acacia wood, which were set in silver bases; they divided the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place (Exod 26:32\u201333).<\/p>\n
4:32 posts for the courtyard walls. These were 60 posts for the outer courtyard, set in their bronze bases (Exod 27:9\u201319).<\/p>\n
pegs. These were used for guying the pillars (Exod 27:19).<\/p>\n
ropes. These were used for running from the posts to the pegs (Exod 27:19).<\/p>\n
Assign the various loads to each man by name. The assignments may have been by the name of the carrier, emphasizing individual responsibility (NEB, NJB; see Harrison 1990), or they may have been by the name of the object, emphasizing attention to detail (KJV, NIV, JPS, NJPS; see Hirsch 1971:48; Milgrom 1989:31). Since the text indeed names the objects, I think the latter is the case.<\/p>\n
4:34 leaders \u2026 listed. See note on 1:3. This listing was from the earlier count (1:5\u201317, 44).<\/p>\n
clans and families. Lit., \u201cclans and paternal houses\u201d; see note on 1:2.<\/p>\n
4:35, 39, 47 all \u2026 eligible. See note on 4:23.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Just as Moses numbered the men of military age (1:16\u201345), so also he numbered the Levites of working age. This second Levitical count enrolls \u201cmen between the ages of thirty and fifty who are eligible to serve in the Tabernacle\u201d (4:3) and to care for its \u201csacred objects\u201d (4:4). Elsewhere the Levites are said to serve from ages 25 to 50 (8:24\u201325) or starting at 20 years (1 Chr 23:24; 2 Chr 31:17; Ezra 3:8). The rabbis harmonize this by positing an apprenticeship beginning at 20\u201325, with full service starting at 30 (Hertz 1977:607; citing Sifre Numbers \u00a762); this would parallel the community at Qumran, where five years\u2019 training preceded full service (1QSa 1:12\u201319; 1QM 7:3). Ashley suggests the age was raised to 30 because of the deaths of an immature Nadab and Abihu (1993:176). Perhaps this reflects three different historical settings: (1) age 30 for wilderness transport and service (ch 4), (2) age 25 for service in the Tent of Meeting, and (3) age 20 when there was no longer a need for transporting the Tabernacle (Harrison 1990:156\u2013157; Noordtzij 1983:81).<\/p>\n
Kohathite Work (4:4\u201320). The Kohathites\u2019 duties \u201crelate to the most sacred objects\u201d (4:4), so they were warned that \u201cthey must not touch the sacred objects, or they will die\u201d (4:15). In fact, they could not \u201center the sanctuary to look at the sacred objects for even a moment, or they will die\u201d (4:20). So \u201cAaron and his sons must enter the Tabernacle\u201d and prepare everything for Kohathite portage (4:5a).
\nWorking outward through decreasing degrees of holiness, the priests packaged the holy things for Levitical portage. First, the priest entered the Most Holy Place and prepared the Ark (4:5b\u20136). They covered it with the \u201cinner curtain,\u201d which closed off the Most Holy Place, then with a protective covering of leather, and finally with a blue covering over that. Finally, they adjusted or reinserted the Ark\u2019s carrying poles, which were generally left in their attaching rings (Exod 25:15; 38:5).<\/p>\n
Second, the priests prepared the Holy Place\u2019s furnishings (4:7\u201312): the table where the Bread of the Presence was displayed (4:7), the lampstand (4:9), the incense altar (4:11), and the remaining furnishings (4:12). In each case, they first bundled the items in a blue cloth and finally covered it all with a protective leather covering. In the case of the table, they added a layer of scarlet cloth before the protective leather cover. Both the table and the incense altar had their own carrying poles (4:8, 11); the other items were packed on carrying frames (4:10, 12).
\nThird, they turned to the outer court (4:13\u201315). The priests prepared the bronze altar: They removed the soot and ashes, then covered the altar with a purple cloth (4:13). Then they laid the altar utensils on that cloth. Next, as was done with the furnishings inside the Tent itself, they laid over that a protective leather covering. Finally, they inserted the carrying poles, as they had with the Ark, table, and incense altar in the Tent. It is interesting to note that no mention is made of the bronze washbasin that was also in the outer court (Exod 30:28).
\nWith that done, the Kohathites could take charge of their loads for the march without risking their lives (4:15). The priests never turned over the specially sanctified lamp oil, incense, grain offering, or anointing oil for Kohathite portage; rather, they carried that themselves (4:16). Only under the leadership of the priest Eleazar could the Kohathites handle the sanctuary and its furnishings (4:16). Every possible priestly precaution was to be taken to avoid a death like Aaron\u2019s two oldest sons had already experienced (3:1\u20134) and like what would happen at Beth-shemesh (\u201cthe LORD killed seventy men from Beth-shemesh because they looked into the Ark of the LORD\u201d; 1 Sam 6:19) and to Uzzah, when the Lord \u201cstruck him dead because he had laid his hand on the Ark\u201d (1 Chr 13:10; cf. 2 Sam 6:3\u20137).
\nWe now have bold access to the Lord\u2019s presence (Eph 3:12; Heb 4:16; 10:19), and eventually the Most Holy Place will stand wide open to human view (Rev 11:19). Just as with the varied Levitical duties of old, in the New Testament age, \u201cthere are different kinds of spiritual gifts \u2026 service\u201d (1 Cor 12:4\u20136), and each member of the congregation must work according to the gifts and calling that God sovereignly distributes (Rom 12:6; Eph 4:7).<\/p>\n
Gershonite Work (4:21\u201328). The Gershonites began their responsibilities at the mature age of 30, and they were excused from their heavy lifting at the age of 50 (4:23). They were assigned the Tabernacle coverings (4:25), both the multiple layers of the Tent itself (4:25) and the curtains that formed the surrounding courtyard enclosing the Tent and the space around the altar (4:26). Even though their loads didn\u2019t require the same intense priestly intervention that the Kohathite loads required, even the Gershonites carried loads assigned by the priests and remained accountable to \u201cIthamar son of Aaron the priest\u201d (4:28).<\/p>\n
Merarite Work (4:29\u201333). The Merarites began their responsibilities at the mature age of 30, and they were excused from their heavy lifting at the age of 50 (4:30). Their loads comprised the Tabernacle framework: \u201cthe crossbars, the posts, and the bases\u201d of the Tent itself (4:31), and the posts, bases, and guylines and pegs for its outer courtyard walls (4:32). Their loads didn\u2019t require the intense priestly intervention that the Kohathite loads required, but like the Gershonites, they carried loads assigned by the priests and remained accountable to the priest Ithamar (4:33, cf. 4:28).<\/p>\n
Summary of the Levitical Census Work (4:34\u201349). The registration in chapter 3 had been for substitutionary purposes, and it listed a Levitical leader for each of the three clans (3:24, 30, 35), though with a reminder of priestly supervision (3:32). Chapter 4 ignored the Levitical clan leaders to focus on priestly oversight for all the Levitical Tabernacle work (4:16, 19, 27, 33). Of course, it is likely that the leaders mentioned in chapter 3 still played a role in the chain of command for managing the Levitical work assignments.
\nFollowing the usual practice throughout the early chapters of Numbers, registration was by tribe, clan, and name (4:34, 38, 42, 46, 49). And as with the other counts, we get reminders of the purpose of the count (4:37, 41, 45, 47) and a note that the count went forward \u201cjust as the LORD had commanded\u201d (4:37, 41, 45, 49). For the Kohathites, the number eligible for Tabernacle service came to 2,750 (4:36), for the Gershonites, 2,630 (4:40), and for the Merarites, 3,200 (4:44). This came to a total Levitical workforce of 8,580 (4:48).<\/p>\n
\u2666 2. Commands for holiness in Israel (5:1\u201310:10)
\na. Removing the unclean from the community (5:1\u20134)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
5:2 skin disease. This is not the traditional \u201cleprosy\u201d (Hansen\u2019s disease, contra Harrison 1990:101); rather, it is a term for various skin diseases on people (Lev 13\u201314) or for something like mold, mildew, or dry rot when it appears on objects (Hulse 1975; see Lev 13:47, 51\u201353, 59).<\/p>\n
dead person. The Hebrew is nepesh [5315, 5883], used as the opposite of nepesh khayyah [2416A, 2645], \u201cliving soul\u201d (e.g., Gen 1:30; 2:7, 19). Here the word that is often translated \u201csoul\u201d does not indicate a ghost (i.e., something incorporeal, like a \u201csoul\u201d) but rather a corpse (see TWOT 2.587\u2013591).<\/p>\n
5:3 men. This is zakar [2145, 2351], a specific term for \u201cmale,\u201d as opposed to \u2019adam [120, 132], the general term for humanity.<\/p>\n
women. This is neqebah [5347, 5922], a specific term for female, as opposed to \u2019ishah [802, 851] for wife\/woman.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Now the book of Numbers turns to various regulations for sustaining a holy camp (5:1\u201310:10). At first, the concern is cleansing the camp (5:1\u20136:27), then dedicating the altar (7:1\u201389), and then dedicating the Levites (8:1\u201326). Following regulations for the second Passover (9:1\u201314), the section closes with a command to follow the cloud (9:15\u201323) when alerted by the signaling trumpets (10:1\u201310).
\nThis section deals with protecting the camp from ritual defilement (5:1\u20134) and moral defilement by wrongs left without restitution (5:5\u201310) or by unjustified jealousy or marital infidelity (5:11\u201331). Then the next chapter deals with the intensified purity required to fulfill a Nazirite\u2019s vow (6:1\u201327).
\nGod ordered the removal of anyone defiling the camp (5:2\u20133). God himself dwelt with his people (5:3b), fulfilling the central covenantal promise (Lev 26:11; Ezek 37:27; 2 Cor 6:16; Rev 21:3). Because of God\u2019s holy presence among them, the people had to remain ceremonially pure. Skin disease, bodily emissions, or contact with corpses caused ceremonial defilement (5:2). Short-term defilement could be caused by bodily discharges, such as those associated with copulation (Lev 15:16\u201318; cf. Exod 19:15; 1 Sam 21:4), menstruation (Lev 15:19, 24), afterbirth (Lev 12:2\u20135), or venereal disease (Lev 15:2, 25). People could also be defiled by contact with animal carcasses (Lev 11:24; 17:15). Long-term defilement by skin disease required isolation, whether outside the camp (5:3; 12:14; cf. Lev 13:46) or city (2 Kgs 7:3\u201311) or by quarantine (2 Kgs 15:5). This was to avoid defiling God\u2019s holy camp (5:3), especially his Tabernacle (19:13; Lev 15:31; 2 Kgs 23:16; Ezek 9:7).
\nJesus adopted a new approach to physical defilement when he healed the woman suffering from chronic bleeding (Matt 9:20; Mark 5:25; Luke 8:43). So, too, with ceremonial defilement from unclean foods (Acts 10:11\u201315), not washing (Mark 7:2), or association with Gentiles (John 18:28; Acts 11:3; 21:28; cf. Ps 79:1; Lam 1:10). In fact, the New Testament gives three key examples of language explicitly announcing an onward move from old ideas of ceremonial defilement: Jesus \u201cdeclared that every kind of food is acceptable in God\u2019s eyes\u201d (Mark 7:19; cf. Matt 15:11, 20; Col 2:20\u201323); Peter was warned, \u201cDo not call something unclean if God has made it clean\u201d (Acts 10:15); and Paul declared, \u201call foods are acceptable\u201d (Rom 14:20). The New Testament warns against ethical and spiritual defilement, however (Matt 15:11, 18\u201320; Mark 7:20\u201323; 1 Cor 8:7; Titus 1:15; Heb 12:15; Jas 3:6; Rev 3:4; 14:4).<\/p>\n
\u2666 b. Holiness and restitution for sin (5:5\u201310)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
5:6 are guilty. The nepesh [5315, 5883] (\u201csoul\u201d; see 5:2) of that person incurs \u201cguilt\u201d (\u2019asham). The term \u2019asham [816, 870] doesn\u2019t appear to refer to a subjective realization of guilt (contra Milgrom 1989:35, ESV, NJPS); rather, it refers to an objective condition of guilt: \u201care guilty\u201d (NLT) or \u201cincurs guilt,\u201d \u201cis found guilty\u201d (ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NJB).<\/p>\n
5:7 make full restitution. Lit., \u201che shall return the reparations on its head,\u201d understanding \u201chead\u201d to mean valuing things at their top or total value.<\/p>\n
5:8 But if the person who was wronged is dead. Though not in the Hebrew, this is supplied in the NLT to make it clear that v. 8 is a secondary provision in case of one\u2019s inability to accomplish what is stipulated in v. 7.<\/p>\n
near relatives. Heb., go\u2019el [1350B, 1457]. The nearest male relative, called a go\u2019el, functioned as an \u201cavenger\u201d to avenge wrongful death in the family (35:12; Deut 19:6, 12) or as a \u201credeemer\u201d to restore from deprivation (Lev 25:25, 48; Ruth 2:20; 4:9).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Because the Lord lived with his people (5:1\u20134), one could also \u201cbetray the LORD by doing wrong to another person\u201d (5:6). Failure in debt repayment was \u201can act of treachery towards God, who is the guarantor and pledge in transactions between man and man\u201d (Hirsch 1971:56). Restitution for this betrayal was paid to the victim, including a penalty of 20 percent (5:7). The normal restitution was double the value of the stolen article (Exod 22:3\u20134), or more if it were livestock (Exod 22:1), so perhaps \u201cthe intent of the sharp reduction of this penalty here to 20 percent is to encourage the voluntary surrender of the theft\u201d (Milgrom 1989:35). This complemented earlier laws (Exod 22:1\u201315; Lev 6:1\u20137), adding a provision for repayment if the person wronged no longer lived (5:8). A kinsman-redeemer could accept restitution for the family member who had suffered the loss (5:8a). If restitution couldn\u2019t even be made that way, then restitution went to the Lord through his representatives the priests, but was accompanied by a sacrifice (5:8b). The priests could accept and keep such offerings as part of their own priestly income. This modest requirement of restitution makes Zacchaeus\u2019s pledge of fourfold restoration to those he had cheated on taxes seem superabundant (Luke 19:8).<\/p>\n
\u2666 c. Holiness and the test for suspicions (5:11\u201331)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
5:12 goes astray. This verb, from the root satah, was used by the rabbis (cf. m. Nashim and b. Sotah) to refer to the woman who goes astray (the sotah) and this law in particular.<\/p>\n
5:13 defiled herself. This is a Niphal form of tame\u2019 [2930, 3237]; if read as a passive, it is \u201cshe is defiled\u201d (KJV, ASV, JPS). It is more likely reflexive, however, \u201cshe defiled herself\u201d (NLT, NKJV, NASB, NJB, NJPS, ESV).<\/p>\n
5:15 offering \u2026 on her behalf. The Hebrew (qorban [7133, 7933], \u201coffering\u201d; + the fem. sg. suffix) refers to an \u201coffering of her\u201d; this may be an offering \u201crequired of her\u201d (ESV) or \u201coffered on her behalf\u201d (NLT, KJV, ASV, NASB, JPS, NJPS). The qorban is the least common but most general expression for a gift or sacrifice.<\/p>\n
two quarts. The standard measure for a grain offering (15:4; 28:5, 13, 21; Exod 29:40).<\/p>\n
Do not mix it with olive oil or frankincense. This is plainer than grain offerings (Lev 2:1, 15; 6:15).<\/p>\n
jealousy offering. Lit., \u201cgrain offering of jealousies.\u201d The rabbis said the plural (jealousies) indicated double jealousy, that of God in addition to that of the husband (Snaith 1969:129), but more likely it is an intensive plural.<\/p>\n
an offering to prove whether or not she is guilty. Lit., \u201ca remembrance offering\u201d (minkhath zikkaron [2146, 2355]), \u201cbringing to mind the guilt\u201d (mazkereth \u2018awon [2142, 2349]), the second expression explaining the first. Reminders are significant in Numbers (10:10; 16:36\u201338; 17:10; 31:54).<\/p>\n
5:17 holy water. Heb., mayim qedoshim [6918, 7705]. Levine (1993:195) translates \u201choly water,\u201d but says it probably means \u201cpure water\u201d (mayim tehorim [2889, 3196]; e.g., Ezek 36:25) or even \u201crunning water\u201d (mayim khayyim [2416A, 2645]; e.g., 19:17). That\u2019s how the LXX translates it, with its hud\u014dr katharon z\u014dn [5204\/2513\/2198, 5623\/2754\/2409] (pure living water). This water was for demonstrating defilement, not cleansing it, so it was probably not the water of purification that was used with sacrificial ashes and hyssop (19:17\u201319; Lev 14:49\u201352; Heb 9:19). More likely, it was from the bronze basin where on-duty priests washed (Exod 30:17\u201321, 29).<\/p>\n
pour. Heb., nathan [5414, 5989], a word for \u201cputting,\u201d not \u201cpouring.\u201d It is likely that only a \u201cpinch\u201d of this dust was used in this recipe.<\/p>\n
5:18 he must unbind her hair. The word \u201chair\u201d isn\u2019t in the Hebrew, but translations like \u201cunbind,\u201d \u201cdishevel,\u201d \u201cunbraid,\u201d or \u201clet down\u201d imply hair (NLT, JPS, ASV, NASB), or perhaps \u201cuncovering\/baring her head\u201d (KJV, ESV, NAB, NJPS). It appears to have been a mark of shame over impurity (Lev 13:45; cf. Lam 4:15) or of remorse (Lev 10:6; 21:10; Ezek 24:17).<\/p>\n
jar of bitter water that brings a curse to those who are guilty. Lit., \u201cwaters of bitterness, which make bitter.\u201d The NLT adds \u201cjar\u201d and explains the idiom \u201cwhich make bitter.\u201d<\/p>\n
5:21 May the people know that the LORD\u2019s curse is upon you. Lit., \u201cMay the LORD make you into a curse (\u2019alah [423, 460]) and an oath (shebu\u2018ah [7621, 8652]) in the midst of your people.\u201d People would employ her name in a curse, for example, by saying, \u201cMay your life end up like that of so-and-so\u201d (cf. Isa 65:15; Jer 29:22; language and examples cited by Milgrom 1989:41).<\/p>\n
when he makes you infertile. The NLT adds this phrase to explain the meaning of the two following expressions: (1) \u201cwhen the LORD makes your yarek to collapse\/shrivel\u201d\u2014the yarek [3409, 3751] is the pelvic region, from the hips to the thighs; (2) \u201cyour abdomen to swell,\u201d perhaps alluding to a false pregnancy, which would be \u201cfeatured by distended belly, cessation of the menses and incapacity to conceive\u201d (Brichto 1975:66 n. 10), or to \u201ca prolapsed uterus\u201d (Frymer-Kensky 1984:18, 20\u201321).<\/p>\n
5:22 Yes, let it be so. Lit., \u201cAmen, amen!\u201d\u2014that is, \u201cAmen, that I did not defile myself; and if I did, in fact, defile myself, may the water enter me [to do me harm]!\u201d (Levine 1993:198).<\/p>\n
5:24 drink. Drinking can be seen as a metaphor for \u201creceiving one\u2019s destiny from the Hand of God\u201d (Hirsch 1971:73; see Ps 75:8; Jer 25:15, 27\u201329; 49:12; Obad 1:16).<\/p>\n
5:25 lift it up. This is the Hiphil of nup [5130, 5677], a verb for wielding something like a rod or a tool (Deut 23:25; 27:5; Josh 8:31; Isa 10:15), hence the common translation \u201cwave offering,\u201d which probably means to elevate it or \u201cmake a gesture of offering\u201d (NJB).<\/p>\n
5:26 as a token portion. Lit., \u201cas a memorial\u201d (see last note on 5:15).<\/p>\n
5:28 still be able to have children. Lit., \u201cand she will be seeded with seed,\u201d which forms an inclusio with zera\u2018 [2233, 2446] (seed) in 5:13.<\/p>\n
5:31 The husband will be innocent of any guilt in this matter. The rabbis interpreted this to mean the husband himself had to be innocent if this matter were to proceed (cf. Hos 4:14).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
A jealous husband was to take his wife to the priests to determine whether a basis for his suspicions existed, and she was innocent until proven guilty. In fact, only a miracle could convict her. This two-stage process followed other examples of leaving it to God to reveal guilt or innocence and to implement the penalty (16:6; Exod 22:8; 1 Kgs 8:31\u201332). In stage one, the husband was to take his wife to the priest, symbolizing taking her before the Lord. There the priest would administer her self-maledictory oath (5:16\u201322). In stage two, the priest would activate the oath by writing it on a scroll, which was washed into water that the woman then drank. To that was added a pinch of dust from the Tabernacle floor. If she was guilty, God would sabotage her reproductive organs; if she was innocent, nothing would happen, which would declare her innocence (5:23\u201331).
\nHints of an ordeal, the use of a potion, and the public humiliation of a potentially innocent wife combine to make this a troubling passage, all the more so if the husband retained his innocence whether his jealousy proved well-founded or false (5:31). Nonetheless, we cannot interrogate this passage as though it were an endorsement for inhumane practice. The Lord himself prescribed the ritual (5:12) and was guarantor of its outcome (5:21). So this was more than just a mere case of toned-down borrowing of an ancient Near Eastern practice like two laws (131 and 132) found in the Code of Hammurabi (ANET 171):<\/p>\n
131. If a man\u2019s wife is accused by her husband, but she was not caught while lying with another man, she shall make an oath by the god and return home.
\n132. If a finger has been pointed at a man\u2019s wife because of another man, but she has not been caught while lying with the other man, she shall leap into the River for the sake of her husband.<\/p>\n
On the one hand, Law 131 is parallel, though lacking a means for demonstrating guilt or innocence. On the other hand, Law 132 is precisely what the biblical law is not about: \u201cin the case of trial by ordeal the accused is guilty unless proven innocent; whereas in the case of the suspected sotah [see note on 5:12], the accused is innocent unless proven guilty\u201d (Brichto 1975:65\u201366). Allen calls the potion used here \u201choly dust added to holy water\u201d (1990:745), not to make it poisonous but to symbolize its holiness. So \u201cit has a harmful effect\u2014it becomes consequentially \u2018bitter\u2019\u2014only in the event the water ultimately encounters guilt in the woman\u2019s innards\u201d (Levine 1993:209).
\nI doubt if we should see this as a case where a husband \u201cwishes to vindicate his wife\u201d so he can avoid divorce (Hirsch 1971:66). \u201cPerhaps we should imagine the consequences on a woman rightly or falsely charged with adultery by an angry husband in a context in which there was no provision for her guilt or innocence to be demonstrated. That she was taken to the priest is finally an act of mercy\u201d (Allen 1990:743\u2013744). This required a jealous husband to go before the Lord and \u201cput up or shut up\u201d (Brichto 1975:67).
\nFrymer-Kensky notes that the outcome was left to God. If the ritual proved the woman guilty, pregnancy would become impossible. If the ritual proved her innocent, conception would be possible. She doubts that the penalty for proven guilt was a divinely instigated abortion, but she does suggest that the reward for innocence might even initiate a pregnancy (Frymer-Kensky 1984:18\u201323, especially 19). She concludes,<\/p>\n
It should be obvious that to call this procedure a \u201ctrial by ordeal\u201d is unwarranted and misleading. Judicial ordeals are distinguished by two important and interrelated aspects: the god\u2019s decision is manifest immediately, and the result of the trial is not itself the penalty for the offense. To use modern terminology, the god is the \u201cjury\u201d that gives a \u201cverdict\u201d of guilt or innocence during the ordeal, and the judge then imposes a \u201csentence\u201d in accord with this \u201cverdict.\u201d Here in Numbers 5, God is judge and jury. (Frymer-Kensky 1984:24)<\/p>\n
It is interesting to note that there is no biblical record of this trial ever being implemented, though rabbinical tradition talked about it:<\/p>\n
Bemidbar [Numbers] Rabbah records an aggadah (Naso 9) that illustrates the magical or divine nature of the bitter water, which can discern the difference between a good woman and an evil one. Two married sisters look very much alike but live in different towns. The one who lives in Jerusalem is \u201cclean,\u201d the other is \u201cdefiled,\u201d and goes to her good sister and pleads with her to take her place in the ritual of the bitter water. The good sister agrees, drinks the water, and is unharmed. Returning home, her sister, who has played the harlot, comes out to embrace her. As they kiss, \u201cthe harlot smelled the bitter water and instantly died.\u201d (Bach 1994:42)<\/p>\n
This rabbinical tradition has the flavor of a fairy tale rather than the ring of a historical narrative treating a legal situation; nonetheless, it catches the notion of how the potion worked. And rabbinic tradition extends the idea with expansive lex talionis:<\/p>\n
She painted her eyes for his sake, and so her eyes bulge. She braided her hair for his sake, and so the priest dishevels her hair. She beckoned to him with her fingers and so her fingernails fall off. She put on a fine girdle for his sake, and so the priest brings a common rope and ties it above her breasts. She extended her thigh to him and therefore her thigh falls away. She received him upon her womb, and therefore her belly swells. She fed him with the finest dainties; her offering is therefore the food of cattle. She gave him to drink choice wine in elegant flagons, therefore the priest gives her to drink the water of bitterness in a piece of earthenware. (Bach 1994:44, citing Numbers Rabbah 9:24)<\/p>\n
Shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple, Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai abolished the ordeal in favor of divorce (m. Sotah 9:9, citing Hos 4:14).
\nThis passage in Numbers warns us of two things that are highlighted elsewhere: (1) \u201cHave nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires\u201d (Col 3:5); (2) \u201cWatch out that no poisonous root of bitterness grows up to trouble you, corrupting many\u201d (Heb 12:15). This passage also tells us that God will judge between us and our accusers, so we should leave our case in God\u2019s hands (1 Pet 2:23), remembering that God hates either acquitting the guilty or condemning the innocent (Prov 17:15).<\/p>\n
\u2666 d. Holiness and the Nazirite Vow (6:1\u201321)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
6:2 take the special vow of a Nazirite. Heb., ki yapli\u2019 lindor neder nazir [5139B, 5687]. The term pala\u2019 [6381, 7098] can denote the formal articulation of the vow in public (HALOT); here it refers to a \u201cspecial, arduous, extraordinary\u201d vow (6:2; 15:3, 8; Lev 22:21; 27:2; BDB 810). The terms built on the root nzr are terms for \u201cconsecration\u201d or \u201coffice\u201d\u2014e.g., a royal crown (2 Sam 1:10; 2 Kgs 11:12, etc.), the high priest\u2019s diadem\/turban (Exod 29:6; 39:30; Lev 8:9), anointing oil (Lev 21:12), or the act or state of consecration itself (Jer 7:29; Hos 9:10; Zech 7:3).<\/p>\n
6:3 they. The plural used in the English in this passage does not imply that the vow was taken in groups; rather, it results from the use of plurals for a gender-neutral translation, as required by the notice that either a man or a woman could take this vow (6:2).<\/p>\n
give up. This is the verb nazar [5144A, 5693], meaning \u201cto live as a Nazirite,\u201d \u201cseparating oneself\/abstaining from\u201d what follows in the verse.<\/p>\n
alcoholic drinks. Heb., shekar [7941, 8911], meaning \u201cintoxicating drink,\u201d from a root frequently employed for \u201cdrunkard\u201d (e.g., Ps 107:27; Prov 26:9; Joel 1:5). It\u2019s a general term for various alcoholic drinks (cf. 1 Sam 1:15), often referring to alcohol made from grain (i.e., beer), or to alcohol made stronger by addition of honey, dates, or fruit and perhaps spices, but not distilled alcohol.<\/p>\n
vinegar made from wine. Heb., khomets yayin [2558\/3196, 2810\/3516], \u201csour wine,\u201d a cheap drink like what was offered to Jesus (Matt 27:48).<\/p>\n
other alcoholic drinks. Heb., khomets shekar, meaning \u201csome other vinegar\/cider.\u201d<\/p>\n
fresh grape juice. Heb., mishrat \u2018anabim \u201cjuice\/extract of the grape.\u201d Since mishrat comes from sherah [8281, 9223] (to release), this juice may have been infused from grapes by leaving squeezed-out grapes to steep in water. See \u201canything in which grapes have been steeped\u201d (NJPS).<\/p>\n
grapes or raisins. Whether moist or dried, they were in clusters (1 Sam 30:12; 2 Sam 16:1) or cakes (2 Sam 6:19; 1 Chr 16:3; Hos 3:1 mg).<\/p>\n
6:4 grape seeds. The Heb., khartsan [2785, 3079] can also be rendered \u201cunripe grapes\u201d (NAB, NJB) or \u201cpressed grapes\u201d (JPS).<\/p>\n
skins. This (zag [2085, 2293]) refers to \u201csome comparatively insignificant product of the vine\u201d (BDB 260).<\/p>\n
6:7 for the hair on their head is the symbol of their separation to God. Lit., \u201cfor the nezer [5145, 5694] to his God is on his head\u201d (see note on 6:2).<\/p>\n
6:8 This requirement applies as long as they are set apart. Lit., \u201call the days of his nezer\u201d (see note on 6:2).<\/p>\n
set apart. The word qadosh [6918, 7705] (holy) explains the purpose of nezer (consecrated).<\/p>\n
6:9 the hair they have dedicated will be defiled. Lit., \u201cthe head of his nezer is defiled\u201d (see note on 6:2).<\/p>\n
wait for seven days. This is the period of cleansing required for ordination (Exod 29:35; Lev 8:33), purification after childbirth (Lev 12:2), healing from skin diseases (Lev 14:8; cf. Lev 13:4\u20135, 21), and accidental defilement from discharges (Lev 15:13\u201328).<\/p>\n
then shave their heads. The legislation gives no indication of what was to be done with this defiled hair; possibly it was burnt, though probably not on the altar, as was the case at the successful conclusion of his vow, when the hair remained nezer [5145, 5694] (6:18; see note on 6:2).<\/p>\n
6:10 turtledoves or \u2026 pigeons. These two birds are often found together for sacrifices (Lev 1:14; 5:7, 11; 12:6, 8; 14:22, 30; 15:14, 29; cf. Luke 2:24). The turtledove could be used in burnt offerings (Lev 1:14) and, when poverty made it necessary, even as an inexpensive option for a sin offering (Lev 5:7). Here they are used for purification, as in the case following childbirth (Lev 12:6), leprosy (Lev 14:22, 30), or bodily discharge (Lev 15:14). The Nazirite was not given the least expensive option of bringing a flour offering, which was allowed of the layman who accidentally prolonged his impurity (Lev 5:3, 11\u201313).<\/p>\n
6:11 purify them. Lit., \u201cmake atonement for himself\u201d\u2014i.e., for the Nazirite.<\/p>\n
guilt they incurred through contact with the dead body. Lit., \u201cguilt over the nepesh [5315, 5883].\u201d This speaks not of their own guilty \u201csoul,\u201d but defilement from touching a corpse (see note on 5:2).<\/p>\n
Then they must reaffirm their commitment and let their hair begin to grow again. Lit., \u201cThen he must consecrate\u201d (using qadash [6942, 7727], not nazar [5144A, 5693]) \u201chis head on that day,\u201d i.e., restart the hair growth.<\/p>\n
6:14 female lamb. In sin offerings, a female lamb was required (Lev 4:32; 5:6).<\/p>\n
ram. The ram was slain for peace offerings (Lev 9:4, 18, 19).<\/p>\n
peace offering. The word shelem [8002, 8968] can also be rendered as \u201csalvation offering.\u201d The animal offerings for the successfully completed and abortive Nazirite period are the same, but now \u201cthe \u2019asham [817, 871] for desecration has been replaced by the shelamim for joy\u201d (Milgrom 1989:48).<\/p>\n
6:18 This appears to be the background for Acts 18:18; 21:24.<\/p>\n
Then the Nazirites will shave their heads. Lit., \u201cthen the Nazirite will shave \u2026 the head of his nezer [5145, 5694]\u201d (see notes on 6:2, 3).<\/p>\n
beneath the peace-offering. The hair is not so much offered to God (contra Gray 1903:68) as destroyed because it is holy and must not be defiled by use in merely common ways (de Vaux 1961:436; Noth 1968:57; cf. the uneaten portion of peace offerings in Lev 7:17; 19:6, 8). This would follow the same principle observed in the total destruction of things considered kherem [2764, 3051] (\u201cspecially set apart\u201d; Lev 27:28; Josh 6:17 mg).<\/p>\n
6:19 shoulder of the ram. This was the priest\u2019s portion (Lev 7:30\u201333). In the ancient Near East, the right thigh was the choice portion for presentation to deities. See the Epic of Gilgamesh 6:160\u2013167 (ANET 85) and the Hittite \u201cPurification Ritual Engaging the Help of Protective Demons\u201d (ANET 348).<\/p>\n
6:20 lift them up as a special offering before the LORD. See note on 5:25.<\/p>\n
6:21 if they can afford it. The rabbis derived from this that the community or patrons could help a poor Nazirite discharge these vows (Temurah 10a), as some royal patrons did during Roman times (Milgrom 1989:50, 305, citing m. Nazir 2:5; Sifre Zuta on 6:13; y. Nazir 5:3; Josephus Antiquities 19. 6.1 [19.293\u2013294]; Acts 21:24).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
The Nazirite vow was not mandatory: It was a \u201cspecial vow\u201d of consecration to the Lord (6:2). But if the vow was made, the vow had to be kept, from start to finish (6:9\u201312). The Nazirites we see in Scripture were all men, and all were subject to lifelong vows made by their parents before birth (Judg 13:7; 16:1; 1 Sam 1:11; Luke 1:15). But a woman could take the vow (6:2), though she would need consent from her father or husband, as with other vows (30:3\u201313). In fact, many women did, hence the term nezirah and laws about her status (e.g., m. Nazir 4:1 ff). Helena, the queen of Abiabene, took a seven-year vow on the condition that her son return safely from war, and her Nazirite period actually lasted twice or thrice that long (m. Nazir 3:6). Bernice, sister of King Agrippa II, took a 30-day vow after she had recovered from illness, which Josephus described as \u201ca custom\u201d (Wars 2.15.1 [2.313]). These extrabiblical examples assume that the vow tended to be temporary rather than lifelong, and the apostle Paul appears to have been among those who took such temporary vows.<\/p>\n
The Nazirites and the Vine. Like the on-duty priest (Lev 10:9; Ezek 44:21), the Nazirite had to avoid wine for the duration of the vow. This didn\u2019t indicate that wine was sinful, any more than trimming one\u2019s hair or burying one\u2019s dead was sinful; it was rather an extraordinary provision of ritual purity (6:20). And the exclusion of even the obviously nonintoxicating juice, grapes, raisins, seeds, and skins emphasized that extraordinary measures were taken. Perhaps this Recabite-like vow protested the decadence that wine depicted (Jer 35); however, its more likely connection is to the consecration required of on-duty priests, especially the high priest, who was always on duty. Note that pushing a Nazirite to drink was as serious an offense as forbidding a prophet to prophesy (Amos 2:12).<\/p>\n
The Nazirites and Their Hair. In the Old Testament, shaving the head was practiced in times of mourning (Job 1:20; Isa 3:24; 22:12; Jer 7:29; 16:6; Ezek 7:18; Amos 8:10; Mic 1:16), though never for priests (Lev 21:5; Ezek 44:20). It was this priestly prohibition that is parallel to the Nazirite vow, during which the hair was not to be trimmed at all. Cutting it off in mourning for the dead would have meant employing something dedicated to the living God as a memorial to the dead, which would be a profanation. Only at the conclusion of the vow was the hair to be cut off; then it was burnt as something dedicated to the Lord.<\/p>\n
The Nazirites and Contact with the Dead. The Nazirite vow banned proximity with death, even for burying close family. The Nazirite\u2019s hair was dedicated to the living God, so it could not even come into contact with death (6:7). The same degree of purity was demanded of the high priest (Lev 21:11), which is higher than for the regular priests, who could at least mourn and bury their immediate family (Lev 21:1\u20132; Ezek 44:25). Perhaps it is this Old Testament legislation of radical consecration that lies behind Jesus\u2019 call to discipleship: \u201cFollow me, and let the dead bury their own dead\u201d (Matt 8:22, NET). Taken with the wine prohibition, this hair regulation displayed a calling that allowed even laypeople to symbolize total dedication to Israel\u2019s national priestly calling (Exod 19:6; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
\nVerses 3\u20136 detail what a Nazirite abstained from to symbolize total dedication: wine and other grape products, haircuts, and contact with death. Verses 9\u201312 deal with accidental defilement\u2014only the death regulations applied because the other causes were avoidable. The detailed intent of the regulation may be complex, but the overall point is clear: If defiled during the vow, Nazirites must purify themselves and restart the vow.
\nFirst, the Nazirite was to sit through a seven-day waiting period, such as was common in cases requiring ritual purification; then, the hair was cut off (6:9). On the eighth day, when they were again considered free of ritual defilement, they were to bring a sin offering and a burnt offering (6:11), which purified them from the guilt incurred when contact with the dead interrupted their vow. Finally, they reaffirmed their vow and restarted their hair growth, setting the clock at zero on the period of the vow originally consecrated to the Lord. To solemnize this, they brought a guilt offering (6:12).
\nThe normal practice for discharging the Nazirite vow would have been to avoid defilement and complete the \u201ctime of separation as Nazirites,\u201d whereupon they would bring a series of offerings (6:13\u201315), which the priest would then present to the Lord (6:16\u201317). Then the Nazirites would shave off their dedicated hair and burn it on the altar (6:18), participate with the priest in a series of offerings (6:19\u201320a), and then return to normal life (6:20b).
\nThe purification offerings for restarting an interrupted vow were a sin offering, a burnt offering, and a guilt offering (6:11\u201313). To close out a successful vow, the Nazirite brought a burnt offering, a sin offering, a peace offering, and a combination offering of grain prepared as bread, cakes, and wafers, and liquid, probably wine (6:14\u201315). Then the decommissioned Nazirite could return to normal life, drinking wine again (6:20) and presumably trimming unruly hair as desired and burying family members as necessary.
\nVerse 21 forms an inclusio with verse 13. Nazirites were to bring the offerings noted in verses 13\u201315, and if they could \u201cafford it,\u201d they could bring additional offerings. But the core requirements were sacrosanct: The Nazirites had to \u201cbe careful to do whatever they vowed\u201d (6:21), a caution about vows that was embedded in the law (30:2; Deut 23:21\u201323) and in wisdom literature (Prov 20:25; Eccl 5:4\u20135) and continued in the New Testament (Acts 5:4).
\nThe total dedication that the Nazirite vow prefigured is still the goal of discipleship (Matt 8:22; Luke 14:26), and it should be a lifelong commitment, rather than a passing emphasis to be laid aside in favor of normal life.<\/p>\n
\u2666 e. Priestly blessing for the community (6:22\u201327)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
6:27 In the LXX, this verse follows 6:23, thereby expressing God\u2019s command in a single statement before giving the language of the blessing itself.<\/p>\n
bless the people of Israel in my name. Lit., \u201cthey will put my name upon the children of Israel,\u201d or, \u201cthey will link my name with Israel\u201d (Milgrom 1989:52).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
God alone had the power to bestow blessing; in fact, those who were wrongly related to him could neither bless (Mal 2:2) nor be blessed (Deut 28). Kings like David (2 Sam 6:18) and Solomon (1 Kgs 8:14, 55) sometimes assumed that responsibility; however, the main locus of formal blessing was in the Tabernacle, with priests making such pronouncements over arriving (Ps 118:26) or departing worshipers (Lev 9:22).
\nThe priestly blessing comprises three verses, each with poetically parallel expressions. This blessing may have provided the form and content for Malachi\u2019s diatribe against the priests (Fishbane 1983, citing Mal 1:6\u20132:9). Ashley even suggests that the Songs of Ascent (Pss 120\u2013134) were composed with a view to the terminology in this blessing. Two miniature silver scrolls inscribed with this blessing were discovered in a tomb in the Hinnom valley outside Jerusalem and have been dated to the end of the seventh century BC, which puts this some four centuries earlier than the earliest Qumran scrolls.
\nLet us examine this blessing line by line:<\/p>\n
\u201cMay the LORD bless you\u201d (6:24a). In the Old Testament, God\u2019s blessing comprised material bounty like those included in the positive side of covenant sanctions (Deut 28:3\u201314): wealth (Gen 24:35), posterity (Gen 28:3; Deut 1:11), land (Gen 35:12; 48:3\u20134), fertility, health, and victory (Deut 7:12\u201316), and strength and peace (Ps 29:11). The New Testament focuses the expectation of blessing on those who demonstrate an eschatological kingdom lifestyle (Matt 5:3\u201312), and that blessing rests first on the pious \u201cpoor\u201d (Luke 4:18; 6:20).<\/p>\n
\u201cMay the LORD \u2026 protect you\u201d (6:24b). This was the hope that God would guard his people against anything that worked against the blessing (Ps 121). Jesus himself taught his disciples to pray, \u201crescue us from the evil one\u201d (Matt 6:13), and he himself prayed that way for them (John 17:15).<\/p>\n
\u201cMay the LORD smile on you\u201d or \u201cmake his face shine on you\u201d (6:25a; see Pss 31:16; 67:1; 80:3, 7, 19; 119:135; Dan 9:17). When used figuratively, this verb for the sunrise speaks of the action of a superior who shows his pleasure toward a subject. It is nearly synonymous with the next three expressions.<\/p>\n
\u201cMay the LORD \u2026 be gracious to you\u201d (6:25b). This expresses a hope that God would respond to entreaties, saving his people from enemies, sickness, and sin (Pss 4:1; 6:2; 41:4; 51:1). \u201c \u2018Grace\u2019 denotes the attitude that issues in kindly action of a superior toward an inferior in which the inferior has no claim on the superior\u201d (Ashley 1993:152). In fact, it may even hint at reprieve from \u201cjustified \u2018displeasure\u2019 \u201d (Noth 1968:59).<\/p>\n
\u201cMay the LORD show you his favor\u201d or \u201clift up his face to you\u201d (6:26a). This means the Lord would \u201ctake into consideration\u201d or \u201cshow clemency\u201d (Gen 19:21; Deut 28:50; 1 Sam 25:35). This would certainly be the opposite of hiding his face in anger (Deut 31:17) or of letting one\u2019s face fall (Gen 4:5\u20136; Jer 3:12).<\/p>\n
\u201cMay the LORD \u2026 give you his peace\u201d (6:26b). Just as the term \u201cbless\u201d (6:24a) expresses the entire hope of verses 24\u201326, so does the term \u201cpeace\u201d (6:26b). Peace is not just freedom from disaster (Lev 26:6); in a positive sense, it implies prosperity (Deut 23:6; Prov 3:2), good health (Ps 38:3), friendship (Jer 20:10; 38:22), and general well-being (1 Sam 16:4; 2 Sam 18:28). Angels announced Christ\u2019s birth saying, \u201cPeace on earth to those with whom God is pleased\u201d (Luke 2:14). Jesus came saying \u201cgo in peace\u201d after his acts of forgiveness (Luke 7:50) and healing (Mark 5:34; Luke 8:48). He told his disciples to say \u201cmay God\u2019s peace be on this house\u201d wherever they found hospitality (Luke 10:5). The resurrected Lord kept offering peace to his followers (Luke 24:36; John 20:19, 21, 26), a peace with God (Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1) the world couldn\u2019t give (John 14:27). Small wonder the apostles tended to open and close their communications with a blessing of \u201cpeace.\u201d
\nClosely associated with the Tabernacle and Temple, this blessing linked God\u2019s name with his people (6:27); however, that didn\u2019t make it a uniquely Jewish blessing. Even the Old Testament indicates that the Lord\u2019s blessings were to be extended to the nations. That was the purpose statement for Abraham\u2019s call (Gen 12:1\u20133) and the vocational function of Hebrew nationhood (Exod 19:6; Deut 4:6\u20138; Isa 61:6). The Temple\u2019s own hymnbook adapted the language of this priestly blessing with a view to the nations (Ps 67). The New Testament sees this blessing fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who is Lord (Rom 10:9), and through the Holy Spirit, who is Lord (2 Cor 3:17). And the principle embodied in Abraham\u2019s call applies today: The people of God are to bless the nations (Gal 3:8), taking the gospel to the nations (Matt 24:14; Mark 13:10; Luke 24:47).<\/p>\n
\u2666 f. Dedicating the altar with tribal offerings (7:1\u201389)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
7:1 On the day Moses set up the Tabernacle. This occurred on the first day of the first month of the second year (Exod 40:17), so the narrative has just backtracked one month from the book\u2019s beginning on the first day of the second month of the second year (1:1). Nonetheless, the narration appears to be ordered this way purposely: tribal leaders are named (ch 7), but their appointment was announced earlier in the narrative (ch 1), and the tribal order of march is stated (ch 7), but the logic was given earlier in the narrative (ch 1).<\/p>\n
7:3 large wagons. Heb., \u2018egloth tsab: an \u2018agalah [5699, 6322] is a cart or wagon. A tsab [6632, 7369] also seems to be some kind of a cart or wagon, although the early versions translated it \u201ccovered\u201d (LXX, Vulgate, Targum Onqelos). These could either be two-wheeled carts or four-wheeled wagons that were suitable for light freight and pulled by a pair of oxen (IDB 1.540; ISBE 3.69\u201371; NBD 178; Hoffmeier 2005:221 and fig. 43).<\/p>\n
oxen. Heb., baqar [1241, 1330], literally \u201ccow,\u201d but used as a pack or draft animal.<\/p>\n
ox. Heb., shor [7794, 8802]. The baqar stands for the collective and the shor for the single animal without indication of sex or age (P\u00e9ter 1975:493, 496).<\/p>\n
7:5 for transporting. Lit., \u201cfor doing the work\/service\u201d (\u2018abodath [5656, 6275]), which, for these animals, implies transport rather than sacrifice.<\/p>\n
work they have to do. Lit., \u201ceach man according to his work\/service\u201d (\u2018abodatho), i.e., according to each man\u2019s load.<\/p>\n
7:10 dedication gifts. Heb., khanukkah [2598, 2853]. See also dedication ceremonies for homes (Deut 20:5) and city walls (Neh 12:27). The festival known as Hanukkah celebrates the Maccabees\u2019 purification and rededication of the altar.<\/p>\n
7:12 Nahshon \u2026 leader of the tribe. This follows the LXX, but if we follow the MT\u2019s omission of \u201cleader\u201d in the phrase \u201cleader of the tribe,\u201d we might like the rabbis\u2019 explanation: He is the only one of the 12 tribal chieftains who is not explicitly called a chieftain, \u201cso if he should ever feel tempted to lord it over the other chieftains by saying, \u2018I am your king, since I was the first to present the offering,\u2019 they could retort by saying, \u2018You are no more than a commoner, for every one of the others is called a chieftain while you are not described as a chieftain\u2019 \u201d (Milgrom 1989:54, quoting Numbers Rabbah 13:17).<\/p>\n
7:13 platter. Heb., qe\u2018arah [7086, 7883], meaning \u201cdish,\u201d \u201cbowl,\u201d or \u201cplatter,\u201d probably for dry goods.<\/p>\n
basin. Heb., mizraq [4219, 4670], meaning \u201cbowl\u201d or \u201cbasin,\u201d generally for liquids (see previous note). It is related to zaraq [2236, 2450] (to toss), hence a possible connection with tossing or sprinkling liquids. See Lev 1:5, 11; 3:2, 8, where zaraq is used to describe this action (BDB 284b).<\/p>\n
7:14 container. Heb., kap [3709, 4090], related to the \u201cpalm\u201d of a hand, so perhaps this was a utensil formed in the shape of an upturned palm (Levine 1993:257), perhaps a spoon (KJV, ASV), pan (NKJV, NASB, JPS), ladle (NJPS), or dish (NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV).<\/p>\n
7:15 a young bull. Heb., \u2019ekhad ben-baqar [1121\/1241, 1201\/1330], meaning \u201cone bull, a son of the cattle,\u201d i.e., a \u201cdomesticated bull,\u201d because wild animals were precluded from the altar (Milgrom 1989:55).<\/p>\n
7:16 male goat. Heb., se\u2018ir-\u2018izzim, lit., \u201ca he-goat\u201d (se\u2018ir [8163A, 8538]) \u201cof she-goats\u201d (\u2018izzim [5795, 6436]). This construction occurs elsewhere for the goat used to bloody Joseph\u2019s coat (Gen 37:31) or as an atoning offering at the Festival of Harvest (28:30). Otherwise, it always refers to the sin offering (7:16, 22, 28, 34, 40, 46, 52, 58, 64, 70, 76, 82; 15:24; 28:15; 29:11, 16, 19, 25; Lev 4:23; 9:3; 23:19; Ezek 43:22; 45:23).<\/p>\n
7:17 bulls. Heb., baqar [1241, 1330], meaning \u201cbulls\u201d (NLT, NET, NJB), not the castrated \u201coxen\u201d (JPS, NJPS, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV), which would have been forbidden in sacrifice (Milgrom 1989:55; see Lev 22:20).<\/p>\n
7:42 Deuel. See note on 2:14.<\/p>\n
7:48 seventh day. Rabbinic tradition says this was a Sabbath, on which individual offerings were prohibited, so an exception was made for the chieftain from Ephraim (Milgrom 1989:57, citing Sifre Numbers \u00a751; Numbers Rabbah 14:1, 2).<\/p>\n
7:89 speaking to him. Heb., middabber \u2019elayw [1696, 1819]. Some say this Hithpael verb\u2019s reflexive force means \u201cspeaking to himself\u201d and note that it has no antecedent; others suggest reading it as a Piel instead (a slight change in vowel pointing). Waltke keeps the Hithpael and calls the action \u201creciprocal,\u201d i.e., \u201cconversing with him\u201d (Waltke and O\u2019Connor 1990:431).<\/p>\n
cherubim. They were the first guardians of holy space (Gen 3:24), and representations of them in the Tabernacle served as reminders that this was inviolable holy space, especially as their wings folded over the top of the Ark. The biblical description is not complete enough to construct their appearance; however, they appear to be some kind of composite creature with human faces, wings, and perhaps a quadruped\u2019s body (Ezek 1:5\u20137; 10:8). Perhaps the term cherub comes from an Akkadian term for a being making gestures of adoration or from the verbal form for \u201cadorer\u201d; hence, they have outstretched arms\/wings and sometimes uplifted faces (Levine 1993:259; see Exod 25:20; 1 Kgs 6:23\u201328). In biblical accounts, \u201ctheir faces were turned downward toward the lid itself, probably to avoid facing God, who was present above them\u201d (Steinmann 2002:112; see Exod 25:20; 37:9).<\/p>\n
the Ark\u2019s cover. Heb., kapporeth [3727, 4114], which is on or above the Ark of Testimony (see ISBE 3.323\u2013324). The term kapporeth is variously translated: \u201cmercy seat\u201d (KJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NJB), \u201catonement cover\u201d (NIV), \u201cpropitiatory\u201d (NAB). Indeed, it is a place of propitiation; however, rather than taking \u201ccover\u201d in its metaphorical sense of \u201catonement,\u201d NLT joins JPS and NJPS in understanding it in its prosaic sense of cover. The Ark is God\u2019s footstool, and the lid is his throne (1 Chr 28:2; Ps 99:5).<\/p>\n
Ark of the Covenant. See note on 4:5.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
A month before the military registration of chapter 1, the Tabernacle was consecrated with anointing oil and blood-sprinkling rites. Leaders from each of the twelve tribes brought identical dedication offerings (7:12\u201383), and together they contributed six carts, each to be pulled by a pair of oxen. Moses distributed the oxen and carts to the Levitical clans, according to what they carried, which chapters 3 and 4 set out.<\/p>\n
Clan
\nCarts
\nOxen
\nLoads
\nGershonites
\n2
\n4
\nHeavy Tabernacle coverings (3:25\u201326; 4:24\u201326)
\nMerarites
\n4
\n8
\nHeavier Tabernacle framing (3:36\u201337; 4:31\u201332)
\nKohathites
\n\u2014
\n\u2014
\nHoly things, carried on the shoulder (4:4\u201315)<\/p>\n
Modern readers groan at formulaic repetition of material that would now be placed in a table or chart. In fact, Levine notes, \u201cIn cuneiform tablets we often find lines for columns actually incised on the clay, with headings that provide various kinds of information: names of disbursing and receiving agencies and of individuals, commodities, dates, and quantities,\u201d much as we have in 7:12\u201388 (Levine 1993:261). Whatever the case, the material follows this formula: (1) day of presentation; (2) identity of the tribe\u2019s representative, noting that he\u2019s a leader (except 7:12); (3) vessel offerings (platters and basins); (4) sacrificial offerings (grain offerings, gold containers of incense, and animals); and (5) inclusio repeating the tribe leader\u2019s name. The names match those of 1:5\u201315, but the order is the camping and marching order (2:3\u201330).<\/p>\n
Tribal Gifts (7:12\u201383). The formulaic repetition of the pattern for twelve iterations lets us know that each tribe brought one silver platter (130 shekels), one silver basin (70 shekels), one gold ladle (10 shekels), and 21 animals for sacrificial offerings: one young bull, one ram, one year-old male lamb (burnt offerings), one male goat (a sin offering), two bulls, five rams, five male goats, and five year-old male lambs (peace offerings). This gave a total of 2,400 shekels of silver (\u201c60 pounds,\u201d NLT), 120 shekels of gold (\u201cthree pounds,\u201d NLT), and 252 animals for sacrifice (cf. 7:84\u201388).
\nThe list makes several things obvious. First, the offerings brought over the course of twelve days would have provided lavishly for the required and voluntary sacrifices. Each of the animals was specifically described as a burnt, sin, or peace offering. It is not clear whether they were all offered up in a succession of twelve days of dedication; perhaps they were \u201ccontributed to the sacrificial store\u201d (Milgrom 1989:55).
\nSecond, the twelve tribal gifts were each identical. Rather than following a tithing principle that would permit giving according to their ability, the smaller tribes brought the same offerings that the larger tribes brought. Each tribe had an equal responsibility to the Tabernacle, as well as an equal share (cf. 31:4).
\nThird, the animals provided for peace offerings were two to five times more in number than those provided for burnt and sin offerings. Perhaps that should be a reminder that God desires fellowship with his people above all else.
\nFourth, the giving was abundant. This record would have driven home to subsequent generations how generous their forefathers had been with God\u2019s work, thereby teaching disciples of any time that disciplined and generous giving is necessary if the Lord\u2019s work is to flourish. And it should remind us individually and corporately that God not only records sin and guilt (Col 2:14), but gladly records the names and deeds of those who fear and honor him (Mal 3:16).<\/p>\n
The possibility of giving pleasure to God by our glad thank-offerings and worship may be a somewhat remote thought in the minds of Christians, but if so it is a measure of how much the church has lost sight of the real heart of Christian experience, which is fellowship with the Father and Son through the Spirit (1 John 1:3). How should we suppose, if this fellowship is real, that God is indifferent to it from his side? If our chief end is \u201cto enjoy him,\u201d should it be thought strange or improbable that he takes pleasure in his people? (Ps 149:4). (Philip 1993:101)<\/p>\n
Summary of Dedication of the Altar (7:84\u201389). The final verses summarize the totals given in the twelve tribal offerings (7:84\u201388), and they repeat that these offerings were given when Moses anointed the altar (7:84, 89, cf. 7:1). At that time Moses had heard God speaking from his throne\/chariot. This was a fulfillment of God\u2019s earlier promise (Exod 25:22). From then on, instead of going out to the edge of the camp to a Tent of Meeting, Moses could enter the Tabernacle \u201cto speak with the LORD\u201d (7:89).<\/p>\n
\u2666 g. Dedicating the Levites (8:1\u201326)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
8:2 set up. Heb., Hiphil of \u2018alah [5927, 6590]; some suggest it means \u201ckindle\u201d or \u201clight\u201d (Milgrom 1989:60, citing Targum Onqelos, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Rashi; cf. KJV, ASV, JPS), since it can refer to both the positioning and lighting (see Exod 25:37; 27:20; 30:8; 40:4; Lev 24:2). Most newer translations opt for \u201cset up,\u201d \u201cmount,\u201d \u201carrange\u201d (NLT, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NJPS, NKJV, NET).<\/p>\n
8:4 entire lampstand. The entire 75-pound menorah was hammered goldwork (Exod 25:39); other sacred objects were gold-plated wood (Exod 25:10\u201330; 30:3\u20135). The design corresponds with Late Bronze Age designs (fifteenth to thirteenth centuries BC) according to Meyers (1976:182\u2013184). For pictures of individual lamps and the Roman depiction of the one they looted in AD 70, see IDB 3.63\u201371.<\/p>\n
base. Heb., yarek [3409, 3751], the word for \u201cshaft\u201d (Exod 25:31; 37:17) or \u201cthigh\/side\u201d (e.g., Exod 28:42; 40:22, 24). It could be a collective singular reference to the seven stems upon which the lamps were mounted; cf. Vulgate ductili, and LXX kaulos, which is used for the stalk of a plant (Aristophanes Knights 824, 894), quill of a feather (Plato Phaedrus 251b), or the duct of the bladder (Crane 2004). However, a bottom-up description elsewhere locates the yarek at the base, then moves up through the central shaft, branches, cups, buds, and blossoms (Exod 25:31\u201336).<\/p>\n
beaten gold. This was shaped by a hammer over a model (Meyers 1976:31\u201333). The ancient Egyptians had developed this technique (Hoffmeier 2005:211\u2013212).<\/p>\n
8:7 sprinkling. Heb., nazah [5137A, 5684], meaning \u201csplatter\u201d or \u201csprinkle,\u201d a term generally used with blood rites (Exod 29:21; Lev 4:6) and a couple of times with oil (Lev 14:16, 27). This time the sprinkling is with water (also 19:18, 21; cf. blood and water, Lev 14:51).<\/p>\n
water of purification. Lit., \u201cwaters of sin,\u201d i.e., \u201cwater for removing sin.\u201d Commentators differ over its identity: (1) the ash-water mixture for purification ceremonies (\u201cwaters for impurity,\u201d 19:13, 20; 31:23\u2014so the medieval commentators and Gray 1903:79; Milgrom 1989:61; contra Levine 1993:274; Noordtzij 1983:77); (2) holy waters (5:17); (3) water from the bronze washbasin (Exod 30:17\u201321; so Harrison 1990:152); or (4) ordinary water (Exod 29:4; Lev 8:6).<\/p>\n
shave their entire body. Herodotus said Egyptian priests did this every other day (Histories 2.37).<\/p>\n
8:8 young bull. Heb., par ben-baqar [6499\/1121\/1241, 7228\/1201\/1330] (see note on 7:15).<\/p>\n
moistened with. This is a frequent phrase used with the grain offerings. The verb is often translated as \u201cmixed with\u201d (KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV).<\/p>\n
olive oil. Heb., shemen [8081, 9043], literally, \u201coil,\u201d which can be the oil of myrrh (Esth 2:12) or even fat (Isa 25:6); however, when unmodified, it generally means olive oil. In fact, the full term for olive oil (shemen zayit [2132, 2339]) occurs only three times (Exod 27:20; 30:24; Lev 24:2).<\/p>\n
8:11 Raising his hands, Aaron must then present the Levites to the LORD as a special offering from the people of Israel. Lit., \u201cand Aaron must wave the Levites as a wave offering before the LORD from the sons of Israel\u201d (see note on 5:25; cf. 6:20). This would have been done symbolically, perhaps \u201cas parallel ranks of Levites moved forward then stepped back in unison in the Tabernacle court near the altar\u201d (Harrison 1990:154). The \u201cwaved offering\u201d was part of the peace offering (Lev 3:1\u201317; 7:11\u201336); it was \u201cthe priest\u2019s portion being presented to the LORD with a waving motion before it became the property of the officiating priest\u201d (Harrison 1990:153). So, too, the Levites belonged to God, who in turn assigned them to the priests with the same motion.<\/p>\n
8:12 to purify the Levites and make them right with the LORD. Lit., \u201cto make expiation\/atonement for the Levites.\u201d<\/p>\n
8:16 reserved for me. Heb., netunim netunim hemmah li [5414, 5989], meaning \u201cformally assigned, dedicated, transferred to\u201d (see comments on 3:5\u201313). The repetition is emphatic.<\/p>\n
in place of \u2026 as their substitutes. See note on 3:12.<\/p>\n
all the firstborn sons of the Israelites. Lit., \u201cthe ones who open every womb, all the firstborn of the sons of Israel.\u201d<\/p>\n
8:17 set them apart. Heb., qadash [6942, 7727], meaning \u201cconsecrate, sanctify.\u201d Though they were consecrated for their service, they still lacked the sacred status of priest (cf. 3:9; 8:16).<\/p>\n
all the firstborn sons of the Egyptians. Lit., \u201call the firstborn in the land of Egypt,\u201d including animals (Exod 12:29).<\/p>\n
8:19 make sacrifices to purify the people. Lit., \u201catone for the sons of Israel.\u201d \u201cAtone\u201d rather than \u201cmake sacrifices\u201d would be preferable since the Levites did not make sacrifices; rather, by their Tabernacle service they were a living sacrifice to \u201c \u2018cover\u2019 the people \u2026 a kind of buffer\u201d (Riggans 1983:66), \u201cscreen\u201d (E. W. Davies 1995b:78), \u201cspiritual lightning rod\u201d (G. J. Wenham 1981:143; Milgrom 1989:371; Milgrom 1970:31; Cole 2000:278), or \u201cinsulators who protected the Israelites from the force of God\u2019s wrath\u201d (Harrison 1990:247 n. 60).<\/p>\n
sanctuary. Heb., haqqodesh [6944, 7731], the term for the Tabernacle that pointed to its sacred status rather than to its function, either as meeting place (\u2019ohel mo\u2018ed [168\/4150, 185\/4595], \u201cTent of Meeting\u201d), repository for the covenant documents (mishkan ha\u2018eduth [4908\/5715, 5438\/6343], \u201cTabernacle of the Covenant\u201d), or dwelling place for the Lord (mishkan,\u201cTabernacle\u201d). See note on 1:50.<\/p>\n
8:22 assisting Aaron and his sons. Lit., \u201cbefore Aaron and before his sons\u201d (see note on 3:4).<\/p>\n
8:24 must begin serving \u2026 at the age of twenty-five. Compare this age to the age of 30 noted in 4:3, 23, 30 (also 1 Chr 23:3) and the age of 20 in 1 Chr 23:24, 27 (cf. 2 Chr 31:17; Ezra 3:8). The LXX eliminates the contradiction between chs 4 and 8, using 25 in both places (e.g., 4:3, 23, 30). See commentary on 4:1\u20133.<\/p>\n
8:25 at the age of fifty. In contrast to the priests, \u201cage, not bodily defects, disqualifies Levites\u201d (Milgrom 1989:66, quoting Sifre Numbers \u00a762; Sifre Zuta on Numbers 8:23).<\/p>\n
8:26 may assist. Heb., sharath [8334, 9250], meaning \u201cserve\u201d or \u201cminister.\u201d Older translations have \u201cshall minister\u201d (KJV, ASV, NAB, JPS); the newer read \u201cmay serve\u201d (NASB, RSV, NRSV, NJPS).<\/p>\n
serving as guards. See note on 3:28.<\/p>\n
may not officiate in the service. Lit., \u201cbut he may not serve.\u201d They never officiated.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Preparing the Lamps (8:1\u20134).
\nIt was Aaron\u2019s responsibility (8:2; Exod 30:8; Lev 24:2) to set up the seven-branched lampstand exactly as God had commanded. This was a seven-branched rendition of the tree of life (Gen 2:9; 3:22), which in the Temple was accompanied by other Edenic imagery (1 Kgs 6:18, 29, 35; 2 Chr 3:5). It stood on the left-hand side as the priest entered the Holy Place, positioned so that it lit the room and its other two furnishings\u2014the table for the Bread of the Presence, which was opposite the lamp, and the gold incense altar, which stood before the entrance to the Most Holy Place. It shined the light of God\u2019s continual presence upon the bread, which symbolized the Provider\u2019s presence (Exod 40:22\u201325), and it shined upon the way into his glorious presence. This light was regularly lit and then tended from evening until morning (Exod 27:21; 30:7; Lev 24:1\u20134).
\nJesus is the light of the world (John 8:12a; 9:5; cf. John 1:9; 3:19; 12:46), and in turn so are his disciples individually (John 8:12b) and collectively (Matt 5:14\u201316; Eph 5:8\u201314). Thus, seven golden lampstands echo the menorah in John\u2019s vision of the seven churches of Asia Minor (Rev 1:12\u201320).<\/p>\n
Consecrating the Levites (8:5\u201326). The ritual of consecrating the Levites assumes chapters 1\u20134 as background, even repeating 4:5\u201313. The Levites\u2019 consecration is described in two terms: (1) They were \u201cset apart \u2026 from the rest of the people of Israel,\u201d and (2) they were made \u201cceremonially clean\u201d by sprinkling, shaving, and washing. It is interesting to compare and contrast this with the priestly ritual of Leviticus 8:<\/p>\n
Priests
\nLevites
\nWashed (Lev 8:6)
\nSprinkled (8:7)
\nPut on new garments (Lev 8:13)
\nWashed their clothes (8:21)
\nHad blood applied to their right ear, thumb, and toe (Exod 29:20; Lev 8:23; 14:14, 17, 25, 28)
\n\u2014
\nMade the priests \u201choly\u201d
\nMade them \u201cclean\u201d (8:6)<\/p>\n
Verses 8\u201322 describe a substitutionary ceremony. The people of Israel laid hands on the Levites (8:10), designating them as substitutes for all of Israel\u2019s firstborn males as \u201ca special offering to the LORD\u201d (8:13). This substitutionary arrangement involved all the Levites and their livestock, who served as substitutes for the firstborn males in all Israel, thereby fulfilling God\u2019s claim on the firstborn, established when he preserved Israel\u2019s firstborn while destroying those of Egypt (8:16\u201318). In turn, the Lord gave them to the priests as helpers at the Tabernacle (8:19a) and as living sacrifices doing spiritual service in place of all Israel (8:19b).
\nIn the New Testament, the laying on of hands signified transfer of blessing: on children (Matt 19:13), for healing (Mark 6:5; Luke 4:40; Acts 9:12, 17; 28:8), at baptism (Acts 9:17; 19:5\u20136; cf. Heb 6:2), or at ordination for ministry (Acts 6:6; 13:3; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6).
\nSince their wilderness duties involved heavy portage, full duty was confined to their prime years between the ages of 25 and 50; however, after that they might still assist in light duty guarding the Tabernacle (8:23\u201326).<\/p>\n
\u2666 h. Observing the second Passover (9:1\u201314)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
9:1 A year after Israel\u2019s departure from Egypt. See 7:1; 9:5; 10:11; 20:1; 33:3, 38.<\/p>\n
In the first month. This was one month before the date on which the book opens (1:1).<\/p>\n
9:2 prescribed time. Heb., mo\u2018ed [4150, 4595], the same term used for Tent of \u201cMeeting\u201d (\u2019ohel mo\u2018ed [168, 185]), but now referring not to an appointed place, but rather to an appointed time (Exod 12:6, 14; Lev 23:5).<\/p>\n
9:3 twilight. Heb., ben ha\u2018arbayim [6153, 6847], \u201cbetween the two evenings,\u201d i.e., between sunset and nightfall, the end of one day and the beginning of the next.<\/p>\n
9:6 dead body. Heb., nepesh \u2019adam [120, 132]; here again nepesh [5315, 5883] refers not to a \u201cghost\u201d or \u201csoul\u201d but to a corpse (see note on 5:2). Leviticus 21:1\u201312 instituted this law for the priests; subsequent legislation applied the principle more broadly (5:1\u20134; 6:6\u20137, 9\u201312; 19:1\u201322).<\/p>\n
9:10 because of touching a dead body. Lit., \u201cif he is unclean for a nepesh [5315, 5883]\u201d (see notes on 5:2; 9:6).<\/p>\n
9:11 one month later. Lit., \u201cin the second month\u201d; cf. \u201cfirst month\u201d (9:1, 3).<\/p>\n
bitter salad greens. Heb., maror [4844, 5353], meaning \u201cbitter thing,\u201d with something like \u201cherbs\u201d understood. The LXX uses pikris, which could be endive or chicory; the Vulgate has lactucis agrestibus, meaning \u201cwild lettuce.\u201d<\/p>\n
9:12 not break any of its bones. Lit., \u201cnot break any of it,\u201d with \u201cbones\u201d understood from the prior instructions in Exod 12:46. This assured that the lamb was not sectioned but roasted whole and intact.<\/p>\n
9:13 will be cut off from the community of Israel. Lit., \u201cthat nepesh [5315, 5883] will be cut off from the people.\u201d Milgrom notes that being \u201ccut off\u201d was the punishment for five categories of offense: violating (1) sacred time (9:13; Exod 12:15, 19; 31:14; Lev 23:29), (2) sacred substance (15:30; 18:3; Exod 30:33, 38; Lev 7:18, 20, 25, 27; 19:8), (3) purification rituals (19:13\u201320; Gen 17:14), (4) performing illicit worship (Lev 17:4, 9; 20:2\u20136; Ezek 14:4\u20138), or (5) illicit sex (Lev 18:27\u201329) (Milgrom 1989:406). It is not clear whether the cutting off meant: (1) excommunication from the community (19:20; Exod 12:15; 31:14; see de Vaulx 1972:125; Budd 1984:98); (2) execution by the community (Gray 1903:84\u201385; Noordtzij 1983:84), or (3) execution by God himself (Lev 17:10; 20:3, 6; Isa 48:19; 56:5; see McNeile 1911:48). Some say that in the wilderness the effect of either of the first two would be the same: \u201cexcommunication from the community \u2026 virtually amounted to a sentence of death\u201d (von Rad 1962:1.268; see Budd 1984:98; Cole 2000:109; Hyatt 1980:135). Hertz rules out the first two: \u201cnot by a human tribunal\u201d (Hertz 1977:609), as do others (G. J. Wenham 1981:99; Levine 1993:241\u2013242). In Egypt, the consequence of failure to follow the Passover ritual was death at the hands of the \u201cdeath angel\u201d (Exod 12:23), which might inform our understanding of \u201ccut off\u201d here. Taken together, the phrases \u201ccut off\u201d and \u201cbear their guilt\u201d \u201cindicate that the one so punished lost Yahweh\u2019s protection and, in essence, operated outside the sphere of the covenant relationship\u201d (Ashley 1993:181).<\/p>\n
9:14 foreigners living among you. Heb., yagur \u2019ittekem ger [1481, 1591], meaning \u201csojourner sojourning with you.\u201d The ger [1616, 1731] left the home village, tribe, or country to rely on ancient Near Eastern hospitality for shelter from war (2 Sam 4:3; Isa 16:4), famine (Ruth 1:1), or other hardship, but we need not identify these as \u201cfugitives\u201d or \u201crefugees.\u201d Generally, their rights to hold property, marry, and participate in judicial and cultic activities were curtailed. The ger was similar to but distinguished from the foreigner (ben-nekar [1121\/5236, 1201\/5797]), the visitor (toshab [3427, 3782]; NLT, \u201ctemporary resident\u201d), and the hired worker (sakir [7916, 8502]; NLT, \u201chired servants\u201d), all of whom were forbidden to observe the Passover in Exod 12:43\u201345 (Ashley 1993:181; E. W. Davies 1995b:84).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
God gave Moses this regulation a month before the events with which this book opened (9:1; cf. 1:1) to prepare the people for their first Passover outside of Egypt. God had Moses remind them of the necessary timing and ritual requirements (9:2), and they obeyed (9:5). But accidental ritual defilement kept some from celebrating the Passover; therefore, they came asking how they could participate (9:6).
\nGod\u2019s response addressed two things that would keep an Israelite from celebrating the Passover on its correct date: accidental defilement and being on a journey (9:9\u201313). The one who missed the real Passover date could celebrate it one month later, carefully following the same ritual (9:11); however, this was not a mere optional date for Passover. Participating while unclean or abstention for no good reason were both wrong and would result in being \u201ccut off\u201d so the offenders \u201csuffer the consequences of their guilt\u201d (9:13). This indicates a punitive result targeting the perpetrator rather than a purifying act on behalf of the community, and it meant the victim\u2019s death by the hand of God or his agents. These provisions applied equally to the native Israelite and to any foreigner who chose to live with Israel (9:14; see note).
\nFrom a Christian perspective, Jesus is the true Passover Lamb, \u201cwho takes away the sin of the world\u201d (John 1:29; 1 Cor 5:7). At his crucifixion, none of his bones were broken, perhaps in fulfillment of the Passover requirement (John 19:36; cf. Num 9:12), although this may be just as likely a fulfillment of Psalm 34:20\u2014or perhaps both (Brueggemann 2005:271). Abuse of the Lord\u2019s Table, which celebrates the true Passover, can also result in being \u201ccut off\u201d by the sleep of premature death (1 Cor 11:28\u201330).<\/p>\n
\u2666 i. Following the cloud (9:15\u201323)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
9:16 at night the cloud that covered the Tabernacle. The LXX reads, \u201cthe cloud covered it by day, and the appearance of fire by night,\u201d followed by KJV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, JPS; however, the MT has the more difficult reading, followed by NLT and NJPS.<\/p>\n
9:22 a year. Heb., yamim [3117, 3427] (days). Most modern translations render it \u201ca year\u201d (NLT, NASB, JPS, NJPS; see Snaith 1969:221; Binns 1927:56). Gray called that rendering \u201cquite unjustifiable \u2026 not to be defended by a reference to Lev 25:29,\u201d where year and days are parallel. He said, \u201cIt means simply an indefinite period\u201d (Gray 1903:87; cf. Gen 40:4; 1 Kgs 17:15; Neh 1:4 for that use of yom). Levine thinks the parallel in Lev 25:29 does show that it can mean year (Levine 1993:299). North (1961) suggests that it is a technical term for a four-month season. It might be better to have \u201cfor two days or a month or longer\u201d (HALOT; cf. NAB, RSV, NRSV, ESV) or \u201cany number of days\u201d (Ashley 1993:182).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
The initial fiery cloud signaled God\u2019s initial presence at the Tabernacle (9:15; Exod 40:34), which set the subsequent pattern: The cloud lifted and the people moved; the cloud settled and the people camped (9:17), whether for lengthy encampments (9:19) or stays of only a few days (9:20) or even overnight (9:21). As Milgrom (1989:75) puts it, \u201cIsrael\u2019s movements are generated solely by the Lord. He leads Israel to the land He has promised (10:29), moves it (9:15\u201323; 10:11), retards it (12:14\u201315; 14:26\u201335; 20:27\u201328), and causes it to detour (14:25).\u201d
\nIn the New Testament, the theophanic cloud image conveys particular manifestations of God\u2019s presence (Luke 9:34; Acts 1:9), and the Tabernacle image speaks of God\u2019s presence in Christ, in believers, and in his body, the church (John 1:14; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21\u201322; 1 Pet 2:5). God\u2019s presence in the Spirit not only indwells, God\u2019s spiritual presence also leads and guides. In the New Testament, Jesus himself was led by the Spirit (Matt 4:1; Luke 4:1), as was the apostolic community (Acts 8:29; 10:9\u201313; 11:12), and as are all of God\u2019s children (Rom 8:5, 9, 14; Gal 4:6; 5:16, 18).<\/p>\n
\u2666 j. Signaling with trumpets (10:1\u201310)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
10:2 trumpets. Heb., khatsotseroth [2689, 2956], perhaps from a word meaning \u201cto be narrow, stretched, to form a stalk, tube,\u201d indicating a long, straight instrument. This is not the shopar [7782, 8795] (e.g., Exod 19:16, 19) or yobel [3104, 3413] (Josh 6:4\u20138), which were made from rams\u2019 horns. Josephus describes these trumpets, and the arch of Titus depicts them as 1.5 feet to 2 feet long with flared bells (illustration in Best and Hutter 1975:323; IDB 3.473, illus. 87; IBD 3.1038). Hoffmeier notes Hickman\u2019s classic work on trumpets in ancient Egypt and describes many illustrations of trumpets in Egyptian military scenes (Hoffmeier 2005:221 and fig. 41, citing Hickman 1946:3\u20135; Cooney 1965:69; Naville 1908:plate clv).<\/p>\n
hammered silver. The trumpets were formed by hammering a sheet of silver over a trumpet-shaped form. Hoffmeier notes that Tutankhamen\u2019s tomb (c. 1325 BC) contained two trumpets, one of an alloy and the other silver, both with the wooden cores around which they were shaped (Hoffmeier 2005:221 and fig. 42).<\/p>\n
signaling. The Qumran War Scroll expands upon this regulation with \u201ctrumpets of rallying,\u201d \u201calarm,\u201d \u201cambush,\u201d \u201cpursuit,\u201d \u201creassembly,\u201d \u201cenlisting,\u201d \u201cfamous men,\u201d \u201ccamps,\u201d \u201cpulling out,\u201d and \u201cbattle formations\u201d (1QM [1Q33] 3:1\u20136), found in Garc\u00eda Mart\u00ednez 1994:96\u201397; Garc\u00eda Mart\u00ednez and Tigchelaar 1997:1.117; Vermes 1998:127).<\/p>\n
10:3 blown. Heb., taqa\u2018. Perhaps this is an example of sound mimicry; indeed, this is exactly the sound advised for rapid double-tonguing of a brass instrument today. The NLT follows the Jewish tradition, which takes this to indicate long blasts to signal the people to gather to Moses, to the Tent of Meeting, and to worship and understands staccato blasts (taqa\u2018 teru\u2018ah [8628\/8643, 9546\/9558]; see 10:5) for battle or the march (Milgrom 1989:74). Some understand the long and staccato blasts the other way around, taqa\u2018 indicating the short blast and taqa\u2018 teru\u2018ah indicating a sustained blast (Dillmann and Knobel 1886:49).<\/p>\n
10:4 clans. Rather than mishpakhah [4940, 5476], here it is \u2019elep [504A, 548], a word that can indicate either one thousand or a clan-based fighting unit (see 10:36).<\/p>\n
10:5 sound the signal to move on. Heb., taqa\u2018 teru\u2018ah (see note on 10:3).<\/p>\n
10:6 south. The LXX adds third and fourth blasts for the camps on the west and north, which some suggest as the original text (Budd 1984:105 n. 6b, citing Paterson 1900:47); others suggest that the first two were representative of the pattern, which had already been already established in 2:3\u201331, and this was meant to be understood but left unstated thereafter (Harrison 1990:170). The Vulgate has, \u201cand according to this manner shall the rest do.\u201d On the other hand, Ibn Ezra points out that the priests, who blew the horns (10:8), would already have moved on with the cultic objects (2:17; 10:21).<\/p>\n
sound short blasts as the signal for moving on. Lit., \u201cblow the teru\u2018ah for breaking camp\u201d (see note on 10:3).<\/p>\n
10:7 blow the trumpets with a different signal. Lit., \u201csound them, but don\u2019t sound the teru\u2018ah signal\u201d (lo\u2019 tari\u2018u [7321, 8131]; see note on 10:3).<\/p>\n
10:8 This is a permanent law for you. Heb., lekhuqqath \u2018olam [2708\/5769, 2978\/6409], an expression used mostly for continuity of priestly concerns (15:15; 18:23; 19:10, 21; Exod 12:14, 17; 27:21; 28:43; 29:9; Lev 3:17; 7:36; 10:9; 16:29, 31, 34; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 31, 41; 24:3).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
God ordered the fabrication of signaling trumpets, which would be used for the wilderness march (10:2\u20138) and later in the land (10:9\u201310). While on the march they were for calling assemblies (10:2\u20133) and signaling the break of camp (10:2, 5). One call would start the Judah corps on the move (10:5), then a second would signal the Reuben corps to move out (10:6). No further signals are mentioned for the three Levitical families (2:17), Ephraimites (2:18\u201324), or Danites (2:25\u201331), though the pattern of calls already established may have simply continued. Only the priests could blow these trumpets (10:8), whether on the march (10:2\u20138) or in the land (10:9\u201310). One might have expected civil or at least military leaders to blow these signaling trumpets. But priests were an integral part of warfare, addressing the warriors before battle (Deut 20:2\u20134), giving them God\u2019s battle guidance (27:18\u201321; Judg 20:26\u201328; 1 Sam 23:9; 30:7), and carrying the Ark and blowing the trumpets for battle (10:33\u201336; Josh 6; 1 Sam 4; 2 Sam 11:11).
\nIn the land, the trumpets would be blown \u201cin times of gladness\u201d (10:10), which might be coronation days (e.g., 2 Kgs 11:14; 1 Chr 29:22), victory celebrations (10:9; Esth 8:17; 9:17), or the annual festivals (2 Chr 30:21, 23, 26; Ezra 6:22; Neh 8:17). The trumpets would also be blown \u201cover \u2026 burnt offerings\u201d (10:10, mentioned only here and at 2 Chr 29:26\u201330).
\n\u201cThe trumpet blasts serve also as a prayer\u201d (Milgrom 1989:75; cf. 2 Chr 13:12\u201316). Any time the trumpet sounded, the people would have heard a note of reminder, \u201cI am the LORD your God\u201d (10:10), and God would have heard Israel\u2019s testimony that they were his people. That was God\u2019s central covenant promise (Lev 26:12), which was echoed by the prophets (Jer 7:23; 11:4; 30:22; Ezek 34:31; 36:28; Joel 2:27) and apostles (2 Cor 6:16; Rev 21:3). Reminders are an important motif in Numbers (5:15; 16:36\u201338; 17:10; 31:54).<\/p>\n
\u2666 B. In the Wilderness (10:11\u201321:35)
\n1. Moving from Sinai to Kadesh (10:11\u201312:16)
\na. Departing in battle order (10:11\u201336)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
10:11 In the second year. See Exod 40:17; cf. Num 1:1; 7:1; 9:1, 5; 20:1; 33:3, 38.<\/p>\n
10:12 stopped. Heb., shakan [7931, 8905], meaning \u201csettled\u201d or \u201cabode.\u201d This is a term referring to God\u2019s covenantal promise of abiding presence (Exod 29:45; 2 Cor 6:16; Rev 21:3), whether the subject is God himself (5:3; 35:34), his Tabernacle (mishkan [4908, 5438]; Josh 22:19), or this glory-cloud (Exod 40:35).<\/p>\n
Paran. This was \u201cnot a station but is the general name for the northern half of the Sinai Peninsula\u201d (Milgrom 1989:76). Several campsites were in the region (10:12; 12:16; 13:3, 26; Deut 1:1; 33:2).<\/p>\n
10:14 Judah\u2019s troops led the way. They marched behind their banner. Lit., \u201cthe degel of the sons of Judah set out at the head, according to their armies.\u201d On degel [1714, 1840], see note on 2:2, where it appears to be a three-tribe division (2:2\u20134, 10, 17, 25, 31, 34). In 1:52, it appears to be a divisional insignia (Hertz 1977:572; Unger 1966:315).<\/p>\n
10:20 Deuel. The LXX renders this as Rago\u0113ul (i.e., Reuel); see note on 1:14.<\/p>\n
10:21 carrying the sacred objects from the Tabernacle. Lit., \u201ccarrying the miqdash [4720, 5219],\u201d which is most often the sanctuary, but here it must refer to the holy things (Milgrom 1970:23\u201324 n. 78; see 4:4\u201320), perhaps by metonymy (Harrison 1990:174; Keil and Delitzsch 1884:3.559).<\/p>\n
10:28 marched, division by division. The phrase forms an inclusio with 10:12. The term \u201cdivisions\u201d or \u201chosts\u201d reminds us that God is the Lord of armies, which refers sometimes to heavenly armies (1 Sam 17:45a; Ps 148:2; Isa 6:1\u20133) and sometimes to the earthly armies of Israel (Exod 7:4; 12:41, 51; 1 Sam 17:45b; Ps 60:10).<\/p>\n
10:29 brother-in-law, Hobab son of Reuel. The Hebrew reads, \u201cHobab, son of Reuel, the khoten of Moses.\u201d Translating this is complicated by difficulty in identifying and distinguishing between Hobab, Reuel, and Jethro. Each is identified as Moses\u2019s khoten [2859A, 3162], which is generally translated \u201cfather-in-law\u201d (HALOT; see Exod 3:1; 4:18; 18:1\u201327; Judg 1:16; 4:11; 19:4\u20139). Hobab is identified as Moses\u2019s khoten here and in Judg 1:16 and 4:11, but that role is assigned elsewhere to Reuel (Exod 2:18) or Jethro (Exod 18). If we don\u2019t just ascribe this confusion to conflicting source material (Noth 1968:77\u201378), the possibilities boil down to these: (1) identify Hobab with Jethro as a son of Reuel; (2) identify Jethro, the elder sage, with Reuel as the father of Hobab, the vigorous desert scout (Albright 1963b:7); or (3) take this to be one person with three names (Gray 1903:93). Most translations render khoten as \u201cfather-in-law\u201d (KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, JPS, NJPS). The NLT reflects the possibility that khoten is a term for any male related through a bride from his family (Mitchell 1969), a father-in-law in the case of Jethro\/Reuel (Exod 2:18) or brother-in-law in the case of Hobab (Judg 4:11). For more on this, see Hughes 2002:469; Budd 1984:113\u201314; Milgrom 1989:78\u201379; Cole 2000:175\u201377.<\/p>\n
Midianite. Elsewhere Hobab is called a Kenite (Judg 1:16; 4:11). Midian is probably the name of a confederation of peoples (Dumbrell 1975), which included the Kenites, who were perhaps smiths who had worked the mines in the Sinai or Midian (24:21).<\/p>\n
10:33 They marched for three days. Armies and caravans traveled about 15 miles per day; therefore, the trip was about 40\u201350 miles (Cole 2000:178).<\/p>\n
mountain of the LORD. Lit., \u201cmountain of Yahweh.\u201d This was clearly Sinai, even though everywhere else Sinai is called the mountain of \u2019elohim [430, 466] (Exod 3:1; 4:27; 18:5; 24:13; 1 Kgs 19:8), and \u201cmountain of Yahweh\u201d refers to Jerusalem\u2019s Mount Zion (Ps 24:3; Isa 2:3; 30:29; Mic 4:2; Zech 8:3; cf. Gen 22:14; 2 Sam 21:6, LXX).<\/p>\n
moving ahead of them. Lit., \u201cbefore them on a journey of three days.\u201d If we take it that the Ark moved along three days ahead of them, it would be useless as a guide and comfort. Suggested solutions include the following: (1) The Syriac changes the text to \u201cone day,\u201d giving it a lead that would still allow the people to follow by sight. (2) This could be a scribal error of repetition of the formula from earlier in the verse (Levine 1996:316; Noth 1968:78; Snaith 1969:139). (3) The NLT follows Ashley (1993:198\u201399) in understanding this as a temporal phrase indicating that during the whole three-day journey, the Ark went \u201cbefore (lipne [3807.1\/6440, 4200\/7156) the people.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Pentateuch identifies Israel\u2019s divinely designated guidance variously: as a cloud-encased fire (9:15\u201323; 14:14; Deut 1:33), as the Ark (10:33; Josh 3:3, 6, 11), or as an angel (Exod 14:19a; 23:20\u201323). Those traditions are harmonizable; however, the contradiction of 10:21 with 2:17 is more difficult to explain. Suggested interpretations include: (1) Only on this particular occasion did the Ark go first rather than in the middle of the camp, either because this was an unusually inhospitable region for marching and camping (MacRae 1953:175) or to provide a picture of divine leadership at the start of this journey (Harrison 1990:179; Noordtzij 1983:94; Hertz 1977:613). (2) We should understand \u201cbefore them\u201d (lipnehem) as meaning \u201cin their presence\u201d (Deut 3:28, \u201che will cross over before this people\u201d; 10:11; 31:3; cf. Philip 1993:131).<\/p>\n
show. Heb., tur [8446, 9365], meaning \u201cto reconnoiter, to scout\u201d; the same term was used for the actions of the men who were commissioned to explore the land (13:2, 16).<\/p>\n
10:33\u201336 The LXX has the verses in the order 33, 35, 36, 34, keeping the verses about the Ark together; however, MT, Targum, Vulgate, and Syriac all have the order as 33, 34, 35, 36.<\/p>\n
10:35 Arise. This is a frequent battle cry (von Rad 1966b:109\u201315, 123), picturing the Lord as seated on his throne\/chariot, the Ark, and arising to ride it into battle.<\/p>\n
10:36 when the Ark was set down. Lit., \u201cwhen the Ark came to a rest,\u201d the Ark being the subject of an active verb, not passive.<\/p>\n
Return, O LORD. This is the opposite of \u201cto turn away from, abandon.\u201d Some suggest repointing to shebah [3427, 3782] (sit, rest) for an antithetical parallel with the opening words of 10:35 (Noordtzij 1983:96; von Rad 1962:1.237); however, that lacks any versional support.<\/p>\n
countless thousands. Lit., \u201cten thousands of thousands.\u201d The two clauses could be in apposition: \u201cReturn, O LORD, you who are Israel\u2019s myriads of thousands!\u201d (Ehrlich 1968\u20131969:1.255; Hertz 1977:613; Plaut 1979:103; NJPS). This would be understood in one of two ways: (1) Just as Elijah and Elisha are \u201cthe chariots and charioteers of Israel\u201d (2 Kgs 2:12; 13:14), so too God is Israel\u2019s most potent military asset. \u201cSo in Egypt, King Sesostris III is praised: \u2018He alone is a million\u2019; and the victory of Rameses II after the battle of Kaesh reads: \u2018Amun is worth more to me than millions of foot-soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of chariots\u2019 \u201d (Milgrom 1989:81). (2) It could read \u201cO LORD of countless thousands\u201d (Sturdy 1976:78; NEB), which would make Israel\u2019s \u201ccountless thousands\u201d the earthly counterpart of the Lord\u2019s celestial armies (Josh 5:14), including the sun, moon, and stars (e.g., Deut 4:19), which warred on Israel\u2019s side (Josh 10:12; Judg 5:20). One could compare this to such phrases as \u201cGod of Israel\u201d (Isa 21:10; Zeph 2:9), \u201cMighty One of Israel\u201d (Isa 1:24), and \u201cthe God of the armies of Israel\u201d (1 Sam 17:45).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
So far in the story, the people had been at Sinai, but now they began a three-stage journey: from Sinai to Kadesh (10:11\u201312:16), the 40 years near Kadesh (13:1\u201319:22), and finally the move from Kadesh to Moab (20:1\u201321:35). Up until this point in Numbers, they have demonstrated exemplary obedience, but now anarchy breaks out. The people (11:1\u20138), and even Miriam and Aaron (12:1\u20135), complain about Moses. Eventually it degenerates into mutiny as the people refuse to enter the Promised Land (14:1\u201310), and it also degenerates into Levitical anarchy as Korah refuses to acknowledge priestly leadership (16:1\u201330). The result is that the whole mutinous generation was consigned to death in the desert rather than life in the land (21:21\u201335).
\nVerse 12 summarizes 10:1\u201312:16: the stages of the journey were Taberah (11:1\u20133), Kibroth-hattaavah (11:4\u201335), and Hazeroth (12:1\u201316a). Describing each of the four tribal divisions as \u201ctroops,\u201d the narrator puts the Israelites on the march toward conquest. Once the cloud lifted, their marching order was to be as follows:<\/p>\n
ARK
\n(10:33-36)
\n\u25b2
\nJUDAH
\nIssachar, Zebulun
\n(10:13-16)
\n\u25b2
\nTABERNACLE
\nGershonites, Merarites
\n(10:17)
\n\u25b2
\nREUBEN
\nSimeon, Gad
\n(10:18-20)
\n\u25b2
\nSACRA
\ncarried by Kohathites
\n(10:21)
\n\u25b2
\nEPHRAIM
\nManasseh, Benjamin
\n(10:22-24)
\n\u25b2
\nDAN
\nAsher, Naphtali
\n(10:25-27)<\/p>\n
The Ark, carried on the shoulders of priests, led the way as Israel marched out \u201cdivision by division\u201d (10:28). Judah, the preeminent tribe both by virtue of size (2:5\u201315) and royal promise (Gen 49:8\u201310), led the first three-tribe division. The Tabernacle division marched second. Using their wagons, the Gershonites carried its fabric coverings, and the Merarites carried its framework. They moved ahead of the Kohathites so that when the third Levitical group arrived in camp, the Tabernacle was ready to house their shoulder-borne holy things (10:21). Earlier the Levites were said to march in the middle (2:17; see note on 10:33), after Reuben\u2019s division (2:16) and before Ephraim\u2019s division (2:24), which included Benjamin and Manasseh. But here, we have the Kohathites alone in this line of march before the Ephraim division. Finally, the Dan division marched in rear guard.<\/p>\n
Moses Asks for Hobab\u2019s Help (10:29\u201332). Moses asked for Hobab\u2019s help in setting up wilderness camping sites. Hobab initially declined the invitation, so Moses made the case by promising that Hobab could share in Israel\u2019s divine blessings if he came along. Hobab\u2019s reply isn\u2019t given; however, a positive reply is implied in that his Kenite descendants lived in the Promised Land (Judg 1:16; 4:11). Perhaps his affirmation of the agreement is omitted so that his descendants lack a scriptural basis for claiming the same rights as the twelve tribes in the land (Licht 1985). However, \u201cit is more likely due to the conviction that Israel\u2019s safe journey through the wilderness was due to the guidance of the Ark, not of Hobab\u201d (Milgrom 1989:80).
\nThere is no need to interpret Moses\u2019s recruitment of Hobab as a lack of trust in God\u2019s leadership; looking to the leadership of the apostles did not signify that to the early church, and the continued leadership of pastors and elders today similarly signifies no lack of trust. The Bible frequently incorporates what Milgrom (1989:79) labels \u201cdouble causality,\u201d giving the following examples: \u201cJacob\u2019s prosperity is attributed to both his cunning (Gen 30:32ff) and God\u2019s directives (31:10\u201312); Joseph\u2019s enslavement is attributed to his brother\u2019s designs (37:18ff) and divine design (45:5\u20138; 50:20).\u201d<\/p>\n
The Ark (10:33\u201336). Verses 35\u201336 are bracketed by inverted Nuns in the MT, indicating a scribal opinion that they belonged somewhere else or form a separate entity (Milgrom 1989:375\u2013376). Some suggest they came from The Book of the Wars of the Lord (21:14) or from the apocryphal book of Eldad and Medad, as suggested by medieval rabbinic sources.
\nIt is possible to read verses 33\u201336 as a temporary provision for the three-day journey described here, with the Ark normally moving along in the middle of the line of march with the Kohathites (10:21). However, the priests, rather than the Kohathites, carried the Ark, and verses 33\u201335 seem to indicate a regular wilderness pattern. The narrator describes the Ark as an active agent moving out ahead of the troops as a forward scout; thus, it moved out to the war cry, \u201cArise, O LORD, and let your enemies be scattered!\u201d (10:35), a phrase repeated almost verbatim in Psalm 68:1 [2]. The Ark was scouting out temporary resting places that would do until the nation finally came to rest in the Promised Land (Deut 12:9; Ps 95:11). And this rest would come not just because the weary march had ended for a time, but because the Lord would \u201creturn \u2026 to the countless thousands of Israel,\u201d settling down to dwell among his people (10:36; cf. Pss 6:4; 90:13; 126:4; Isa 44:22; Hos 14:1). This foreshadowed the rest in the Promised Land (e.g., Deut 12:9; Ps 95:11), the Ark\u2019s resting place in the Temple (Ps 132:8\u201318), and the eschatological rest for God\u2019s people (Isa 32:18; Matt 11:28; Heb 4:9).<\/p>\n
\u2666 b. Wilderness complaints and God\u2019s response (11:1\u201335)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
11:4 foreign rabble. Heb., ha\u2019sapsup [628, 671], a reduplicative form of \u2019asap [622, 665] (to collect), referring to the \u201criff-raff\u201d (NJPS), \u201cbunch of vagabonds\u201d (HALOT), or \u201crabble\u201d (BDB) that followed Israel from Egypt (Exod 12:38; Lev 24:10; Deut 29:11; Josh 8:35).<\/p>\n
good things of Egypt. This language is implied by 11:5 but is not actually present in this verse.<\/p>\n
11:6 our appetites are gone. Heb., napshenu yebeshah [3002, 3313], a complaint that nothing could whet their appetites (BDB 660b; Dillmann and Knobel 1886:57; Snaith 1969:227; so NASB, NIV, NLT; cf. 11:8). Some translations understand nepesh [5315, 5883] as a reference to the throat\/gullet, e.g., \u201cour gullets are shriveled\u201d (NJPS) or \u201cthroats are dry\u201d (Noth 1968:86; so NEB) or \u201cwe are dehydrated\u201d (Cole 2000:185) or \u201cour strength is dried up\u201d (RSV, NRSV, ESV). Perhaps the KJV did best by referring to a psychological or spiritual complaint like that of the psalmist (Ashley 1993:208\u2013209; KJV, ASV, JPS; cf. Ps 22:15; 90:6; 102:4, 11; 129:6).<\/p>\n
11:7 pale yellow like gum resin. Lit., \u201ca fragrant, yellowish gum that crystallizes on surfaces\u201d (cf. LXX, krustallos [2930, 3223]), a fine \u201cflaky substance\u201d (Exod 16:14). Commentators refer to a variety of naturally occurring phenomena in the Sinai, from fungi and lichens to secretions from insects or from such plants as the Tamarisk tree (Tamarix gallica). But only a miracle provided the recurring, reliably large quantities and the double-helping before each Sabbath (Exod 16:22\u201323).<\/p>\n
11:8 hand mills. In Hebrew this is a dual form, indicating a pair of stones, one working against the other.<\/p>\n
like pastries baked with olive oil. Lit., \u201clike the butter of the oil,\u201d i.e., \u201cthe upper layer of the first pressing of the olive oil\u201d (Milgrom 1989:84).<\/p>\n
11:10 Moses was also very aggravated. Lit., \u201cin the eyes of Moses it was evil.\u201d The \u201cit\u201d could refer to the people\u2019s complaint (Hirsch 1971:174), the Lord\u2019s angry response to Israel (Milgrom 1989:85; Noordtzij 1983:99), or his demand that Moses lead and provide for this people.<\/p>\n
11:11 Why \u2026? This is a common question in laments (e.g., Pss 2:1; 10:1; 22:1; 42:9; Lam 5:20; Joel 2:17; Hab 1:3, 13).<\/p>\n
these people. Lit., \u201cthis people\u201d (11:12, 14; Exod 32:9; 33:12), rather than \u201cmy people\u201d (Exod 9:27) or even \u201cyour people\u201d (Exod 33:13).<\/p>\n
11:12 Did I give birth to them? Lit., \u201cDid I conceive this entire people?\u201d The word order emphasizes the subject, Moses.<\/p>\n
Did I bring them into the world? The word order again emphasizes the subject, Moses.<\/p>\n
mother. Heb., \u2019omen [539B, 587], better rendered as \u201cguardian\u201d (Esth 2:7) or \u201cattendant\u201d (2 Sam 4:4; NLT, \u201cnurse\u201d), e.g., the caretakers of children in wealthy families (2 Kgs 10:5). Here it might well connote the pejorative-sounding \u201cbabysitter.\u201d<\/p>\n
11:13 They keep whining to me. Heb., yibku \u2018alay, understanding the imperfect of bakah [1058, 1134] as repeated action, which Milgrom (1989:86) characterizes as \u201cnagging,\u201d like what Samson\u2019s wife did (Judg 14:16\u201317). Perhaps the \u2018al [5921, 6584] should be understood as an adversative (Ashley 1993:204 n. 10): \u201ccrying out against me.\u201d<\/p>\n
11:16 who are recognized as elders and leaders of Israel. Lit., \u201cfrom the elders of Israel, whom you know as elders of the people, and officers.\u201d The verb is active (\u201cyou know\/acknowledge\u201d); and you is singular; therefore, Moses does the acknowledging; it is not via a plebiscite.<\/p>\n
leaders. Heb., shoter [7860, 8854] (official, officer). The LXX reads grammateis [1122, 1208] (scribes), but it is unlikely that these officials functioned solely in that capacity. The term was used to refer to the Israelite \u201cforemen\u201d who reported to Egyptian slave drivers (Exod 5:6, 10, 14\u201315, 19) and to Israel\u2019s administrative leadership (Deut 1:15; 16:18; 20:5, 8\u20139; 29:10; 31:28; Josh 1:10; 3:2; 8:33; 23:2; 24:1; 1 Chr 23:4; 26:29; 27:1; 2 Chr 19:11; 26:11; 34:13; Prov 6:7).<\/p>\n
11:17 talk to you. The pronoun is singular, i.e., to Moses.<\/p>\n
I will take some of the Spirit that is upon you. The expression \u201ctake\u201d means \u201cto reserve, set aside\u201d (HALOT), \u201clay aside, reserve, withdraw, withhold\u201d (BDB, TWOT).<\/p>\n
11:18 Purify. Heb., qadash [6942, 7727] (sanctify, consecrate), not the term taher [2891, 3197] used for ritual cleansing (8:21; 19:12, 19) or the Piel of khata\u2019 [2398, 2627] used for atonement rituals (Lev 8:15; 14:49).<\/p>\n
and you will have to eat it. Lit., \u201cand you will eat.\u201d It is too early in the passage to recognize the threat; here it still sounds like a cornucopian bonanza, as had been the case with manna (Exod 16:4, 12).<\/p>\n
11:20 a whole month. Lit., \u201ca month of days\u201d (also 11:21), completing the series of numbers of days in 11:19.<\/p>\n
until you gag. Lit., \u201cuntil it comes out of your nose.\u201d \u201cFor causing God\u2019s anger (lit., \u2018his nose to flare\u2019), the stench from the meat will fill the people\u2019s noses\u2014a fitting punishment\u201d (Milgrom 1989:88).<\/p>\n
11:25 never happened again. This is sometimes rendered \u201cdid not cease\u201d (KJV, Vulgate, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Targum Onqelos, Luther); however, the LXX and nearly all English translations have \u201cdid not continue\u201d or \u201cdid not do so again.\u201d<\/p>\n
11:26 listed among the elders. Lit., \u201camong [the names] that had been written down.\u201d There are several ways of understanding this: (1) They were written down in a count of elders like the military counts of chs 1\u20132 from whom the 70 were chosen, though they were not among the 70 themselves (Gray 1903:114). (2) They were listed among the 70 though only 68 went out to the Tent (Cole 2000:194). Snaith conjectures that they were among the 70 chosen, but were ritually impure at the time (Snaith 1969:259); some rabbis think they declined to come out because of feelings of inadequacy (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan; Sifre Numbers \u00a795; b. Sanhedrin 17a). (3) They were included in an original count of 72 though 70 went to the Tent (Noth 1968:90). Milgrom cites the following speculative but interesting explanation from Jewish tradition:<\/p>\n
Some say: they (e.g., their names) remained in the urn. For when the Holy One, Blessed Be He, said to Moses: \u201cGather for Me 70 of Israel\u2019s elders,\u201d Moses said (to himself): \u201cHow shall I do it\u201d (11:16); if I select five (from each tribe) then it will be wanting. If, on the other hand, I chose six out of one and five out of another, I shall cause jealousy among the tribes. What shall I do?\u201d He selected six men (out of each tribe), and brought 72 slips, on 70 of which he wrote the word \u201celder,\u201d leaving the other two blank. He then mixed them all up, deposited them in an urn, and said to them, \u201cCome and draw your slips.\u201d To each who drew a slip bearing the word \u201celder,\u201d he said, \u201cHeaven has already consecrated you.\u201d To him who drew a blank, he said, \u201cHeaven has rejected you, what can I do?\u201d (Milgrom 1989:90, quoting b. Sanhedrin 17a).<\/p>\n
gone out to the Tabernacle. Cole and Ashley reject the idea that the Tent was outside the camp rather than at camp center as Numbers has it; rather, they take \u201cgoing out\u201d to mean leaving their own tents, not the camp (Ashley 1993:215; Cole 2000:194).<\/p>\n
11:31 Now the LORD sent a wind. Lit., \u201cnow a wind proceeded [ruakh nasa\u2018] from the LORD.\u201d The ruakh [7307, 8120] is the subject, not the object of the verb, and nasa\u2018 [5265, 5825] is the same verb used to describe the Ark and the Israelites breaking camp and moving out (e.g., 1:51), e.g., \u201ca [theophanic] wind sallied forth from the LORD.\u201d<\/p>\n
quail. These are coturnix communis, which migrate north from Arabia and Africa in the spring and return south in August, following a route through Egypt, Sinai, and Palestine (Hoffmeier 2005:173\u2013174). The fat little birds fly poorly, so they\u2019re easily netted in their low-flying fatigue (Aristotle History of Animals 8.597b). In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Arabs in the northern Sinai would net one to two million of them during their fall migration (Gispen 1959:186\u2013187).<\/p>\n
let them fall. Heb., natash [5203, 5759], meaning \u201cleft, abandoned, forsook,\u201d which implies that they fell to the ground; see below on depth\/height.<\/p>\n
all around the camp. The manna fell inside the camp (11:9); however, the quail fell outside the camp, \u201cin the zone associated with uncleanness and death\u201d (G. J. Wenham 1981:109).<\/p>\n
For miles in every direction. Lit., \u201cfor a day\u2019s journey in this direction, and a day\u2019s journey in that direction surrounding the camp,\u201d i.e., 15\u201318 miles. Hoffmeier says, \u201ca day\u2019s journey represents a fixed and understood distance\u201d of 14\u201320 miles (Hoffmeier 2005:120\u2013124).<\/p>\n
flying about three feet above the ground. Lit., \u201ctwo cubits over the face\/surface of the earth,\u201d with no term for flying. Some interpret this as flying over the camp at the height of three feet (Vulgate, Targum Pseudo Jonathan, Rashi, NAB, NEB, NLT, NIV mg; see Ashley 1993:218; Budd 1984:129; Harrison 1990:190\u2013191; Hertz 1977:617; Noordtzij 1983:105; Snaith 1969:144), but it seems that we should interpret this as a lying on the ground to the depth of about three feet (most English translations, e.g., KJV, NASB, NRSV, JPS, NJPS, NJB, NLT mg, Targum Onqelos; see Cole 2000:197; Levine 1993:314; Milgrom 1989:92; G. J. Wenham 1981:109).<\/p>\n
11:32 caught. The actual meaning is \u201ccollect\u201d or \u201cgather,\u201d which implies that they were laying on the ground (see note about depth\/height on 11:31).<\/p>\n
11:34 the people who had craved meat from Egypt. Lit., \u201cthe people who had the craving.\u201d The Hebrew makes no mention of Egypt here. The \u201cmeat\u201d is also an addition borrowed from 11:5, which mentions \u201cfish.\u201d<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
So far in Numbers we have seen nothing but expressions of agreement with God\u2019s direction, obedience, and a high sense of expectancy. But the first three verses of chapter 11 introduce elements that were to become regular features of the subsequent wilderness experience: (1) complaint (11:4\u20135; 12:1\u20132; 14:1\u20134; 16:1\u20133, 41; 20:3\u20135; 21:5); (2) divine punishment (11:33; 12:9\u201310; 14:20\u201337; 16:32, 45\u201349; 17:10\u201313; 21:6); (3) Moses\u2019s intercession, which brings a measure of relief (11:2; 12:13; 16:22, 46\u201349; 21:7); and (4) memorializing the incident by giving a name to the site (11:34; 20:13; cf. Exod 15:23; 17:7).
\nComplaints had been tolerated earlier (Exod 15:24; 16:2; 17:3), but henceforth God would judge it (11:4, 19, 33; 14:2; 16:3; 20:3; 21:5), and that would require Moses\u2019s intercession. First, the people grumbled about general conditions (11:1\u20133), then troublemakers carped about their reliable\u2014and therefore repetitious\u2014diet of manna (11:4\u20139). Moses chimed in, moaning about his impossible responsibilities (11:10\u201315). Miriam and Aaron protested Moses\u2019s prophetic leadership (12:1\u201316). Sniveling reached an unforgivable crescendo when the people rejected not only their daily provisions but even their very salvation in the Promised Land (14:1\u20134). It continued with Korah\u2019s anarchy (ch 16).<\/p>\n
Complaint about Food (11:4\u20139). When the \u201cforeign rabble\u201d stirred up Israel, they took a fond look back to Egypt, where they had enjoyed \u201cfree\u201d meat and vegetables (11:5), something they had already done once before (Exod 16:3). Indeed, the waters of Egypt brimmed with fish, so even slaves could eat well (cf. Exod 7:21; Isa 19:8), and its gardens produced a bounty of \u201ccucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic\u201d (11:5), condiments that garnished the staple diet of even the poor in Egypt. This wish fits well with the traditional dating for this book, as opposed to suggestions that it reflects a later \u201cPriestly\u201d agenda. Hoffmeier notes that the foods listed here \u201creflect a genuine familiarity with Egyptian diet.\u2026 These five food items seem out of place in Canaan or Israel and hardly seem to reflect the dietary passions of an exilic or postexilic community\u201d (Hoffmeier 2005:175). Herodotus said the pyramid workmen were given \u201cradishes, onions, and garlics\u201d (Histories 2.125). The Egyptian diet of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries included the following: \u201cbread (made of millet or of maize), milk, new cheese, eggs, small salted fish, cucumbers and melons, and gourds of a great variety of kinds, onions and leeks, beans, chick-peas, lupins, the fruit of the black egg-plant, lentils, etc., dates (both fresh and dried), and pickles\u201d (Milgrom 1989:83).
\nBut, given the harsh conditions under which Israel had labored in Egypt, their food there was hardly \u201cfree.\u201d And Israel hadn\u2019t complained of irregular provisions threatening starvation, but of having no appetite for God\u2019s regular provision. They were complaining that their dietary staple, their \u201cdaily bread,\u201d was all too reliable (11:6; cf. Matt 6:11; Luke 11:3). And it was \u201cbread from heaven \u2026 the food of angels\u201d (Ps 78:24\u201325)!
\nLoathing manna meant turning up their nose at God\u2019s provision, and longing for Egypt meant abandoning God\u2019s deliverance. They were effectively repudiating the very basis of their covenant relation with God. They were showing signs of the same spirit that rejected the true bread from heaven, Jesus Christ, who gives eternal life (John 6:32\u201358).<\/p>\n
Moses Complains about his Load (11:10\u201315). The ubiquitous moaning not only infuriated the Lord (11:1\u20139), it also aggravated Moses (11:10). We might have thought Moses would take this out on the people, but instead he took it to the Lord (11:11). He didn\u2019t reproach God for treating the people shabbily; rather, the one whom we come to know as the intercessor par excellence complained on his own behalf. He probably brooded some on his reluctance to take the job in the first place (Exod 3:1\u20134:17), then descended to sarcastic questions: Am I their father (11:12)? Or maybe you think I\u2019m their mother? Is that why you have told me to carry them in my arms? My load is far too heavy (11:12, 14)! Then Moses turned to the people\u2019s own incessant complaint, wondering, \u201cWhere am I supposed to get meat for all these people?\u201d (11:13), perhaps foreshadowing his dangerous query, \u201cMust we bring you water from this rock?\u201d (20:10). This was a sharp turnaround from bragging about how well God was treating Israel (10:32). Other faithful servants experienced crises of faith (1 Kgs 19:4\u201318; Job 3:11; 6:9; Matt 11:2\u20133; 26:69\u201375); nonetheless, Moses\u2019s melodramatic suicide wish (11:15) looks like a shabby parody of Paul\u2019s sentiments (Rom 9:3).<\/p>\n
God Responds to Moses\u2019s Complaint (11:16\u201325). The Lord told Moses to assemble 70 respected leaders, which could have been the advisory council of elders at Sinai (Exod 18:25\u201326; 24:9) or a newly selected group. That such a body already existed should have reminded Moses that he was not doing this by himself (11:14). Seventy seems to be a number signifying a full council. We read of 70 nations (Gen 10; cf. LXX = 72), 70 descendants of Jacob (Exod 1:5; Deut 10:22), 70 elders of Israel (Exod 24:1, 9; Ezek 8:11), 70 humiliated kings (Judg 1:7), 70 who were struck by the Lord (1 Sam 6:19), 70 sons or brothers of a judge or king who likely served as royal counsel (Judg 8:30; 12:14; 2 Kgs 10:1\u20137), and eventually the 70-member Sanhedrin (Mark 14:53\u201355; Acts 4:3\u20136; Josephus Antiquities 14.168\u2013170, 15.173). The pattern of 70 culminated in the 70 that Jesus sent out with authority to preach the gospel (Luke 10:1\u201310), and the Spirit-anointed helpers for Moses set the pattern for selecting deacons who were \u201cfull of the Spirit\u201d to help the apostles (Acts 6:3).
\nRather than just advise Moses that he should make increased use of the 70, the Lord told Moses, \u201cbring them to the Tabernacle\u201d (11:16), indicating that the leadership problem would be solved in communion with the Lord (11:17). God promised that those who led with Moses would have a share of the same Spirit that empowered Moses. Here the Spirit is described in quantitative terms (cf. being \u201cfilled\u201d with the Spirit). So some commentators suggest that God rebuked Moses\u2019s complaint with a diminution or dilution of his Spirit. For example, Calvin said, \u201cthis division comprehends punishment in it\u201d (Calvin 1993:4.25), and Noordtzij said, \u201cMoses will no longer be the old Moses: part of the Lord\u2019s Spirit will be taken from him and divided among the seventy\u201d (Noordtzij 1983:101). But this was not to cause a lessening of the Spirit on Moses, such as when the Spirit of the Lord was withdrawn from Saul and given to David (1 Sam 16:13). Nor was it an outright succession, where the anointing passed from one to another, as with Elijah to Elisha (2 Kgs 2:9\u201315). Rather, it was to be a distribution of the same Spirit to the 70, although not in the same measure (cf. ch 12). It would imply \u201cno diminution of the spiritual power of Moses, \u2018even as a light that kindles other lights is not thereby dimmed\u2019 \u201d (Hertz 1977:615, quoting Sifre). Like the tongues of fire that rested on the 120 at Pentecost (Acts 2:3), this was to be a fresh outpouring in broader measure than before.
\nThen God turned to the people\u2019s complaint about food. He commanded the people to \u201cpurify\u201d themselves in preparation for the meat they sought (11:18), indicating that \u201ctomorrow\u201d was going to be about something more than the merely mundane matter of diet. The people might have thought they were about to experience straightforward blessing, but ominous talk of griping and gagging undercut that. The people didn\u2019t like manna every day; therefore, God was going to force meat on them day after day, until they gagged on it. The reason for this wrathful cuisine was that \u201cyou have rejected the LORD\u201d (11:20). That promise of superabundance prompted incredulity. Moses contemplated the impossibility of relief by means of the available resources (11:22), which would fail although they were vast (32:1; Exod 12:38). But God turned from national reserves to divine intervention, throwing down the gauntlet: \u201cNow you will see whether or not my word comes true\u201d (11:23).
\nThe Lord gave the 70 elders a portion of the Mosaic Spirit as promised (11:25; cf. 11:17), and they \u201cprophesied\u201d as observable evidence of the gift they had received (11:25; cf. Joel 2:28\u201332; Acts 2:17\u201321). This was not intelligible, authoritative proclamation; rather, the Hithpael of naba\u2019 [5012, 5547] here refers to ecstatic utterances or the behavior of spiritual ecstasy. And it \u201cnever happened again\u201d (11:25). This did not mean the Spirit departed from them or that their role as Moses\u2019s helpers was temporary; rather, ecstatic prophesying served as initial evidence of an ongoing anointing and function.<\/p>\n
Eldad and Medad (11:26\u201329). The prophetic outburst among the unnamed 70 was accompanied by the same sign among two elders who \u201chad not gone out to the Tabernacle\u201d (11:26\u201329). Moses\u2019s response contrasted sharply with Joshua\u2019s, and probably with what the reader\u2019s initial response might have been, given this book\u2019s sharp protection of Mosaic prerogatives. When Joshua wanted this stopped (11:28), Moses asked, \u201cAre you jealous for my sake?\u201d (11:29). A candid Joshua might have responded that he was jealous for his own sake, as his position as Moses\u2019s aide-de-camp was being diluted by the addition of 70 others\u2014now 72! Then Moses expressed the hope: \u201cI wish that all the LORD\u2019s people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his Spirit upon them all!\u201d (11:29). Moses\u2019s yearning was surely a godly wish. Joel echoed it in his promise of a democratized outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 2:28\u201332), and Peter\u2019s Pentecost sermon spoke of its implementation (Acts 2:17\u201321). The same sentiment drove Paul\u2019s wish that all would speak in tongues (1 Cor 14:5) and that all should eagerly desire the greater gifts, especially prophecy (1 Cor 12:27\u201331; 14:1\u20135). Just as Moses chided Joshua, so, too, Paul cautioned the early church: \u201cDo not stifle the Holy Spirit\u201d (1 Thess 5:19).<\/p>\n
God Responds to the People\u2019s Complaint by Sending Quail (11:30\u201335). God responded to the food \u201ccrisis\u201d just as he had threatened. The description of plentitude is expansive, even more so than the threat would have prepared the reader to hear (11:19\u201320). While the people had gathered manna daily within the camp, they would gather meat outside the camp, for 10\u201315 miles in every direction (11:31). This was not their daily food gathered in the measure of \u201ctwo quarts\u201d (Exod 16:16); rather, they gathered it \u201call that day and throughout the night and all the next day \u2026 fifty bushels\u201d (11:32). Sated, they stared around the camp; scattered everywhere was a fearsome glut. And before they could pick their teeth, the Lord \u201cstruck them with a severe plague\u201d (11:33). Once again, a negative memorial was established (cf. 11:3); that place got called Glutton\u2019s Cemetery (11:34). \u201cHe gave them their desire: but he sent leanness into their soul\u201d (Ps 106:15, Geneva Bible).<\/p>\n
\u2666 c. Miriam and Aaron complain about Moses (12:1\u201316)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
12:1 While they were at Hazeroth. Though not in the Hebrew text, this is implied by 12:16.<\/p>\n
Miriam and Aaron criticized Moses. The verb in Hebrew is feminine singular, so it was Miriam, joined by Aaron, who criticized Moses.<\/p>\n
Cushite woman. Elsewhere, the NLT has \u201cEthiopian\u201d for Cushite as does the LXX (Jer 38:7; Dan 11:43; Amos 9:7; cf. Acts 8:27). This might identify this wife as someone other than the Midianite Zipporah; however, in the Old Testament, kush [3569, 3934] can refer not only to a Nubian, but also to the Midianite inhabitants of Cushan. Commentators are divided, some favoring identification with Zipporah (Binns 1927:75\u201376; Sturdy 1976:89\u201390; de Vaulx 1972:159), others favoring another identification (Budd 1984:136; Gray 1903:106\u2013107; Noordtzij 1983:121\u2013122; G. J. Wenham 1981:110\u2013111), and some crediting the two stories to conflicting sources (Noth 1968:94; Snaith 1969:145). If this was Zipporah, the newfound hostility to this long-standing marriage must have been because she was just rejoining Moses after being left behind when he returned to Egypt (Exod 18:5). If this was a Nubian, she was a second wife taken either after Zipporah\u2019s unrecorded death or after a divorce, which some identify from the note that Moses \u201csent his wife away\u201d (Exod 18:2; cf. Deut 24:1, 3; Isa 50:1; Jer 3:8). And if this Cushite were black, the punishment that turned Miriam\u2019s skin white could have been an ironic application of the lex talionis.<\/p>\n
12:2 spoken through us, too. Perhaps they were claiming to be a prophetic family like the priestly families (Milgrom 1989:94; cf. Exod 4:16; 15:20; Mic 6:4).<\/p>\n
12:3 humble. Heb., \u2018anaw [6035, 6705]. The term can refer to (1) humiliation of victims bowed beneath the proud and powerful (Job 24:4; Prov 16:19; Isa 32:7; Amos 2:7; 8:4), (2) commendable humility (Pss 9:12; 10:12; 22:26; 25:9; 34:2; 37:11; 69:32; 76:9; 147:6; 149:4; Prov 3:34; Isa 11:4; 29:19; 61:1; Zeph 2:3), or possibly (3) dejection (12:3; HALOT). It is possible that the sense here is \u201cdejected,\u201d \u201cself-pitying,\u201d or \u201cmiserable\u201d in the light of Moses\u2019s reaction to the troubles in the previous chapter (Rogers 1986). The record shows us a Moses given to anger, self-pity, frustration, and impulsiveness, but not necessarily to self-effacement (Allen 1990:798\u2013799). However, it is difficult to think this says Moses was more dejected than any other man. The LXX has pra\u00fcs [4239, 4558], meaning \u201cmeek\u201d or \u201chumble,\u201d which English versions follow. If we follow that understanding, we will see this echoed in the description of Jesus (Matt 11:29).<\/p>\n
12:4 immediately. Heb., pit\u2019om [6597, 7328]. All but 1 of 25 uses of pit\u2019om introduce disaster or judgment (Daube 1964:1\u20138).<\/p>\n
12:6 If there were prophets among you, I, the LORD. Since the Hebrew reads, \u201cif your prophet were the LORD,\u201d some suggest that a Mem has dropped out and that it would have read, \u201cif there were a prophet from the LORD.\u201d The NLT (cf. KJV, NASB, NRSV et al.) follows an emendation suggested in BHS that changes nebi\u2019akem (your prophet) to nabi\u2019 bakem [5030, 5566] (a prophet among you); however, Ashley defends reading \u201cprophet of the LORD among you\u201d (NIV, NJPS) without emending the MT (Ashley 1993:220\u2013221 n. 7, citing GKC \u00a7130; Freedman 1972).<\/p>\n
12:7 my servant. This title was also given to Abraham (Gen 26:24), Caleb (14:24), Joshua (Josh 24:29), David (2 Sam 7:5, etc.), Elijah (2 Kgs 10:10), the prophets (2 Kgs 9:7; 17:13; Jer 7:25; Ezek 38:17; Zech 1:6), and even all Israel (Isa 41:8), but above all to the servant of the Lord (Isa 42\u201353, especially the servant songs in Isa 42:1\u20134; 49:1\u20137; 52:13\u201353:12).<\/p>\n
Of all my house, he is the one I trust. The English translations try various possibilities, such as \u201che is entrusted with all my house\u201d (RSV, NRSV) or \u201che is trusted\u201d (JPS, NAB) or he is \u201cfaithful in all my house\u201d (KJV, ASV, NASB, NIV); but the NLT fits the context well: \u201cOf all of God\u2019s household, Moses is the most trusted; he alone has direct access to the Deity and obtains an audience with him at will\u201d (Milgrom 1989:96; also Levine 1993:331).<\/p>\n
12:8 face to face. Without following Noth (1968:96) in seeing this as the address of equals, friendship is probably in view here (Exod 33:11; Deut 34:10). \u201cThe image is that of a royal house in which only the most trusted servant has regular access to the monarch. Such ones are literally called \u2018those who see the face of the king.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n
12:10 leprosy. See note on 5:2.<\/p>\n
12:11 we have so foolishly committed. The LXX reads, \u201cwhich we committed in ignorance,\u201d i.e., not committed with malice aforethought and thus expiable by intercession (cf. 15:22\u201330; Lev 4:2; 5:15, 17; Ezek 45:20).<\/p>\n
12:14 done nothing more than spit in her face. This is a gesture of legal rejection (Deut 25:9) or of public humiliation (Job 30:10; Isa 50:6; cf. Matt 26:67; 27:30).<\/p>\n
defiled. This is the Niphal of kalam [3637, 4007], not tame\u2019 [2930, 3237], the normal word for ritual defilement. Rather, here we have a term for shame and disgrace (as in Isa 41:11; 45:16; Jer 22:22).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
The litany of complaint continued. \u201cMiriam and Aaron criticized Moses because he had married a Cushite woman\u201d (12:1). This was a bit of peevish cover for the real complaint, which followed: \u201cHas the LORD spoken only through Moses? Hasn\u2019t he spoken through us, too?\u201d (12:2). The Lord had indeed spoken through them (e.g., Exod 15:21); however, Moses was the prophet par excellence. The siblings rejected Moses\u2019s prophetic supremacy, and \u201cthe LORD heard them\u201d (12:2), an ominous note.
\nA quick editorial aside notes, \u201cMoses was \u2026 more humble than any other person\u201d (12:3; see note). God summoned all three siblings to appear before him as litigants (12:4). Although the pillar of cloud was always there displaying God\u2019s presence, here it manifested a more particular presence as \u201cthe LORD descended in the pillar of cloud\u201d (12:5). The Lord \u201cstood at the entrance of the Tabernacle,\u201d not as a host greeting company but as a judge grilling defendants (12:5).
\nGod defended Moses\u2019s prophetic supremacy (12:6\u20139), not over against false prophets, but over against true\u2014but ordinary\u2014prophets. The ordinary prophet had access only to enigmatic forms of communication like \u201cvisions\u201d and \u201cdreams\u201d (12:6). Dreams (khalom [2472, 2706]) were sometimes enigmatic vehicles of revelation, especially to kings (Gen 20:3\u20137; 31:10\u201313; 41; 1 Kgs 3:5\u201314; Dan 2 and 4). True prophets might even get revelation that might be classified as \u201criddles\u201d (12:8). With Moses, it was clear, face-to-face communication (12:8), which made Moses unique among all the servants of God\u2019s household (12:7). God asked, \u201cWhy were you not afraid to criticize [him]?\u201d (12:8). Miriam and Aaron were out of line, and the Lord went away \u201cangry with them\u201d (12:9). How much worse for those who reject the Logos made flesh (John 1:1, 14)\u2014those who oppose the one who is \u201centrusted with God\u2019s entire house\u201d (Heb 3:2\u20136).
\nMiriam and Aaron had both criticized Moses, and the Lord had summoned them both for the rebuke (12:1, 5); however, divine punishment fell on Miriam. Aaron was spared, but he saw \u201cMiriam, her skin as white as snow from leprosy\u201d (12:10). This not only constituted a near death sentence, it also constituted an apparent elimination of any possibility of continuing in the covenant community, let alone playing the larger role she envisioned. Perhaps Aaron was spared only because his high-priestly role was essential (G. J. Wenham 1981:113). As a priest, his diagnosis would confirm her leprosy (Lev 13:2\u201317). Aaron cried out, acknowledging both Moses\u2019s authority and their sin: \u201cOh, my master! Please don\u2019t punish us for this sin we have so foolishly committed\u201d (12:11).
\nMoses did not gloat over the punishment that had hit his challenger; he immediately interceded for his presumptuous sister (12:13). Milgrom thinks the prayer\u2019s brevity indicates that Moses\u2019s heart wasn\u2019t in it (1989:98); however, I think it reflected urgency. The Lord immediately healed her, so she experienced only seven days of isolation outside the camp (12:15) and not the full 14-day isolation used to establish the fact of healing and then demonstrate freedom from defilement (Lev 13:5, 21, 26, 31\u201334). Mercifully, God held the camp in place until Miriam could rejoin the travelers (12:15; cf. 9:15\u201323).
\nThe New Testament still commands honor for those to whom honor is due (1 Thess 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17; Heb 13:17). And like the humble Moses, leaders must show tender care (1 Thess 5:14), not a despotic spirit (1 Pet 5:2\u20133). Paul warned that those who wouldn\u2019t acknowledge his apostolic authority ought to be publicly shamed (2 Thess 3:14). The ignominy may serve as a public example (1 Tim 5:20); however, it must aim for restoration (1 Cor 11:32; Gal 6:1; Jas 5:19\u201320; 1 John 5:16), trying to rescue while remaining aware of sin that defiles (Jude 1:22).
\nWe don\u2019t hear that the cloud lifted to signal the break of camp, although it had lifted to reveal God\u2019s judgment on Miriam (12:10). Given the provisions of 9:15\u201323, the cloud must have moved on, so they moved on from Hazeroth to the wilderness of Paran (12:16).<\/p>\n
\u2666 2. Forty years near Kadesh (13:1\u201319:22)
\na. Sending scouts into the Promised Land (13:1\u201333)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
13:1 The LORD now said. Numbers attributes the following idea to the Lord, whereas Deut 1:22\u201327 attributes it to the people and skips the bad report. The Samaritan Pentateuch conflates the two traditions, placing Deut 1:20\u201323 here before Num 13:1 and Deut 1:27\u201333 after Num 13:33. Philip (1993:154) says Moses put Israel\u2019s idea to the Lord, who told him how to proceed, and Noordtzij (1983:114) says \u201cNumbers focuses on the \u2018first cause,\u2019 while Deuteronomy describes the secondary cause.\u201d<\/p>\n
13:4 These were \u2026 the names. Many of the names are at least implicitly theophoric (i.e., their etymology is a sentence involving the name of a god), but none of them uses the Yah element that became common later in Israel\u2019s history (e.g., Hezekiah = \u201cYahweh strengthens\u201d).<\/p>\n
13:6 Caleb. The name means \u201cdog,\u201d which may have been part of a theophoric name indicating that he was the loyal friend or servant of that deity. \u201cA number of Akkadian names are composites of Kalbu (= Caleb), followed by the name of a god, meaning \u2018dog [= priest] of god X\u2019 \u201d (Noordtzij 1983:114, similar to a suggestion by Milgrom 1989:101).<\/p>\n
son of Jephunneh. Here Caleb is a leader of Judah and Jephunneh\u2019s son; elsewhere, he\u2019s called a Kenizzite (32:12; Josh 14:6, 14; 1 Chr 4:15) and Hezron\u2019s son (1 Chr 2:9, 18). The Kenizzites descended from Eliphaz, Esau\u2019s oldest son (Gen 36:10), but Judah absorbed them (Josh 14:6) into the clan of Hezron (Josh 15:17; Judg 1:13); therefore, Caleb could be called Hezron\u2019s \u201cson\u201d (i.e., descendant) in clan structure (1 Chr 2:9, 18) and yet as \u201cson of Jephunneh\u201d serve as a leader of Judah in tribal structure (Noordtzij 1983:114).<\/p>\n
13:16 explore. Heb., tur [8446, 9365]; see note on 10:33.<\/p>\n
Joshua. The LXX reads I\u0113sous [2424, 2652], changing the name from Hoshea, meaning \u201csalvation, rescue\u201d (13:8, 16; 2 Kgs 15:30; 17:1, 3\u20134, 6; 18:1, 9\u201310; 1 Chr 27:20; Neh 10:23) to Joshua, meaning \u201cYah[weh] saves.\u201d<\/p>\n
13:17 the land. Lit., \u201cthe land of Canaan,\u201d which comprised a region controlled by Egypt at that time (Y. Aharoni 1966:61\u201370) in what are now Israel, Lebanon, and southern Syria.<\/p>\n
Go north through the Negev. Lit., \u201cGo up there through the Negev.\u201d Negev means \u201cparched\u201d or \u201carid,\u201d but it became a geographical term for the southern part of Judah below the central mountain range, i.e., between Beersheba and the Sinai Peninsula (21:1; Gen 20:1; 24:62). So it came to mean \u201csouth\u201d (e.g., 35:5; Josh 11:2), just as \u201cthe sea\u201d came to mean \u201cwest\u201d; therefore, some translations mistakenly translate \u201csouth\u201d (e.g., KJV, JPS, ASV).<\/p>\n
13:20 the first ripe grapes. Lit., \u201cthe firstfruits of the grapes,\u201d which puts this in July or August, two or three months after leaving Sinai (10:11).<\/p>\n
13:21 Zin. This is the southern border of the Promised Land (34:3; Josh 15:1, 3), not to be confused with the wilderness of Sin (33:11\u201312; Exod 16:1; 17:1). Kadesh-barnea is sometimes said to be in the desert of Zin (20:1; 27:14; 33:36; Deut 32:51) and sometimes in the Desert of Paran; it must have sat astride their border (13:26).<\/p>\n
Rehob. This is not the site in Asher\u2019s territory (Josh 19:28; Judg 1:31), but probably Beth-rehob (Judg 18:28; 2 Sam 10:6, 8) in Dan\u2019s territory in the north.<\/p>\n
Lebo-hamath. Those who take this as a proper noun regard it as a city on Hamath\u2019s southern border, which represented the Promised Land\u2019s northern boundary (34:7\u20139; Josh 13:5; Judg 3:3; Ezek 48:1), as it was under David and Solomon (1 Kgs 8:65) and Jeroboam II (2 Kgs 14:25; Amos 6:14) (Y. Aharoni 1966:65\u201366; Milgrom 1989:103; Sturdy 1976:95). It is probably the same as \u201cthe great city of Hamath\u201d (Amos 6:2), which was on the Orontes (Ashley 1993:237; Sturdy 1976:95; G. J. Wenham 1981:231). Some favor translating the words, yielding \u201centrance of Hamath\u201d (cf. KJV, ASV, JPS, NKJV, NET), which they identify with a pass between Hermon and Lebanon (Binns 1927:83\u201384; McNeile 1911:70; Noordtzij 1983:116); however, \u201cthe place is a Canaanite, not a Syrian site, and is therefore best identified with the modern Libweh, about fourteen miles north-northeast of Baalbek\u201d (Harrison 1990:204\u2013205, citing ISBE 2.602\u2013603; see also Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002:47, map 51).<\/p>\n
13:22 Hebron. This means \u201cassociation,\u201d \u201cleague\u201d (BDB 289), \u201cplace of alliance\u201d (HALOT), or \u201cleague, confederacy, center\u201d (Noordtzij 1983:117). It was the place where God promised Abraham the land (Gen 13:14\u201318), the base from which he launched the strike that defeated the coalition of kings (Gen 14:13\u201316), and the patriarchal burial ground (Gen 23; 25:9; 35:27\u201329; 50:13). It ended up under the control of Caleb and his clan (Josh 14:13; 15:13; Judg 1:20). It eventually became the capital of the tribe of Judah, from which David first reigned (2 Sam 2:11; 5:5) and which Absalom sought to seize (2 Sam 15:9\u201310).<\/p>\n
descendants of Anak. Lit., \u201cneck.\u201d Noth suggests they were necklace people, perhaps for military decoration (Noth 1968:105). E. W. Davies tentatively concludes that it was an idiom for tall, long-necked, lanky people, which became associated with giants (E. W. Davies 1995b:136, citing BDB 778b, similar to a suggestion by Noordtzij 1983:117). Feared for their size (13:33, LXX gigantas), they were known as Anakites (Deut 2:10\u201311, 21; Josh 11:21\u201322; 14:12, 15), the \u201csons of the Anakim\u201d (Deut 1:28; 9:2, KJV), \u201csons of Anak\u201d (Josh 15:14), or as repa\u2019im [7497, 8328] (Deut 2:11). Some suggest that rather than \u201cdescendant,\u201d the term yalid [3211A, 3535] here means \u201cdependant\u201d or \u201cserf,\u201d referring to those who had given up their freedom and become a professional class of soldiers, hence the corps of Anak or of Raphah (de Vaux 1961:219; L\u2019Heureux 1976; MacLaurin 1965; see 2 Sam 21:16, 18). They are mentioned only in Numbers\u2014Judges, frequently in the neighborhood of Hebron (Josh 11:21; 14:12\u201315; 15:13\u201314; 21:11; Judg 1:20), but also scattered over Canaan\u2019s hill country (Josh 11:21\u201322). Joshua rooted them out of the hill country, but they survived in the Philistine coastal areas (Josh 11:21\u201322). David\u2019s warriors killed four of them (2 Sam 21:18\u201322), and David himself killed their famous representative Goliath (1 Sam 17).<\/p>\n
before \u2026 Zoan. Cf. Ps 78:12, 43; Isa 19:11\u201313; 30:4; Ezek 30:14. This statment enhances the reputation of David\u2019s first capital city, Hebron (2 Sam 2:1\u20134, 11), by making it even older than Zoan (= Dja\u2019net = Tanis = Avaris), the capital of the Hyksos pharaohs (Milgrom 1989:103; Snaith 1969:148), which appears to have been established about 1720 BC (ANET 252\u2013253; Gardiner 1961:165), when Abraham lived in the area (Gen 12\u201315; Harrison 1990:206).<\/p>\n
13:26 Kadesh. This was also known as Kadesh-barnea (32:8; 34:4), Meribah (20:13), Meribath-kadesh (27:14; Deut 32:51), or En-mishpat (Gen 14:7). \u201cWandering tribes favored settling their judicial disputes at the sanctuary at Kadesh\u2014hence the name En-Mishpat, \u2018Fountain of Judgment,\u2019 for Kadesh in Genesis 14:7\u201d (Noordtzij 1983:113). On the border between the wildernesses of Paran (13:26) and Zin (20:1; 27:14), it marked the Promised Land\u2019s southern boundary (34:4). The site is generally identified with a group of oases 50 miles south of Beersheba, one of which is still called \u2018Ain Qadeis, although some identify it with the nearby \u2018Ain el-Qudeirat (Y. Aharoni 1966:65).<\/p>\n
13:27 flowing with milk and honey. This is an ancient Near Eastern expression of abundance (Job 20:17), used in Egyptian (ANET 18\u201325) and Ugaritic (ANET 140) sources, and frequently used to describe the Promised Land as paradise (Exod 3:8, 17; Jer 11:5; 32:22; Ezek 20:6, 15, etc.). The Egyptian Sinuhe says of Canaan:<\/p>\n
A beautiful land called Yaa. There were figs and grapes, and more wine than water. Honey was there in abundance and its olive trees were numerous, and all kinds of fruit hung on the trees. There was barley and wheat, and various herds without number.\u2026 I had bread as my daily food and wine as my daily drink, boiled meat and roasted geese; and also game from the desert. (Noordtzij 1983:118, quoting from Gressmann, Ebeling, Ranke, and Rhodokanakis 1926:55\u201361; also found in ANET 18\u201322)<\/p>\n
Harrison thinks the honey was that of wild bees (Deut 32:13; Judg 14:8), though he notes some possibility of later domestication since it was given as firstfruits (Harrison 1990:211, citing 2 Chr 31:5). Or it could refer to cattle raising and agriculture, with the \u201choney\u201d (debash [1706, 1831]) being from grapes, dates, or figs rather than bees, or \u201cmilk and sap\u201d (Levine 1993:356; cf. Isa 55:1; Joel 3:18). A fall 2007 discovery of an industrial-scale apiary of potentially a hundred hives that date to around the tenth century BC lends new weight to the idea that the honey in these cases was bee honey, and even domesticated rather than wild honey (Hebrew University News Release 2007).<\/p>\n
13:28 large and fortified. Canaanites fortified their cities with walls 30 feet to 50 feet high and up to 15 feet thick (Milgrom 1989:105; Noordtzij 1983:119).<\/p>\n
giants \u2026 the descendants of Anak. NLT adds the explanatory \u201cgiants\u201d (see 13:22).<\/p>\n
13:29 On the following peoples, see relevant articles in Bible dictionaries, and in Wiseman 1973:<\/p>\n
Amalekites. They descended from Amalek, the offspring of Eliphaz son of Esau by the concubine Timna (Gen 36:12). They ranged across nearly the entire Exodus route (14:25). They attacked Israel at Rephidim on the way to Sinai (Exod 17:8\u201316) and kept attacking stragglers all the way through the wilderness (Deut 25:17\u201319). Saul tried unsuccessfully to destroy them, and Samuel had to finish off their king, Agag (1 Sam 15). David decisively defeated them (1 Sam 30:17\u201319), leaving only remnants at Mount Seir in Transjordan, who were wiped out during Hezekiah\u2019s reign (1 Chr 4:41\u201343).<\/p>\n
Hittites. These were an originally non-Semitic people of Asia Minor (1650\u20131200 BC), some of whom had settled in Canaan (Van Seters 1975:45\u201346; Josh 1:4; Ezek 16:3). Some lived in the Hebron region, possibly ruling there (Gen 23:3).<\/p>\n
Jebusites. These were descendants of Canaan\u2019s third son (Gen 10:16). They were the original inhabitants of Jebus\/Jerusalem (Josh 18:28; Judg 19:10; 1 Chr 11:4) and were there for most of the Bronze Age (2000\u20131550 BC). They survived Israelite raids until David took the city as his own, allowing survivors to remain in the city (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8; 2 Sam 5:5\u20139).<\/p>\n
Amorites. They had entered Canaan from Mesopotamia (Liverani 1973), where they had established powerful dynasties in the early second millennium BC; for example, Hammurabi was an Amorite. In Akkadian, Amurru means \u201cwest,\u201d and by the mid-third millennium the term designated the West-Semitic herdsmen and their territory on the Syrian steppes west of the Euphrates (Van Seters 1975:43\u201345). By the eighteenth century, Mari texts speak of them in central Syria. Fourteenth and thirteenth century Egyptian and Mesopotamian correspondence (the Amarna letters) defines their area as stretching from the Mediterranean to the Orontes and to Canaan on the south. In the annals of Sennacherib, the kings of the Amurru were those of Phoenicia, Philistia, Ammon, Edom, and Moab (ANET 287), so the Babylonians called the whole land Amurru. Like \u201cCanaanite,\u201d \u201cAmorite\u201d ended up serving as a general term for the populace of Canaan during the Bronze Age (Gen 14:7; 48:22; Deut 3:8).<\/p>\n
Canaanites. They lived along the sea coast and in the Jordan Valley and gave their name to the whole area (Milgrom 1989:119; Van Seters 1975:46\u201351). The term \u201cCanaanite\u201d could refer to any inhabitant of the province stretching from Egypt\u2019s own border to the Hittite border on the Orontes, i.e., Lebo-hamath (e.g., Gen 12:6; 50:11), or to one of the various peoples living there. It\u2019s impossible to establish their origins, whether they descended from ancient inhabitants of the region or migrated from elsewhere, and if so, when this migration occurred. The diversity of opinion and their uncertain origins complicates any effort to identify them with the Canaan that Noah cursed after the flood (Gen 9:25); however, the Genesis record seems to point in that direction (Gen 10:6) and thus provides a rationale for why Israel should dispossess the Canaanites from their lands. See Millard 1973 and Schoville 1994. Later the term came to refer to \u201cmerchants\u201d (Prov 31:24; Zech 14:21).<\/p>\n
Negev \u2026 hill country \u2026 coast \u2026 Jordan Valley. These are the four major geographical divisions of the Promised Land.<\/p>\n
13:32 land \u2026 will devour. This is an image that sometimes described an infertile or hostile environment (Lev 26:38; Ezek 36:13), even one like Sheol (McEvenue 1971:135\u2013136); however, here it refers to the land\u2019s high quality and location as a land bridge between Asia and Africa (Noordtzij 1983:120), which would keep it perpetually at war and generate a warlike people.<\/p>\n
13:33 giants \u2026 descendants of Anak. Lit., \u201csons of Anak, who come from the fallen ones\u201d (hannepilim [5303, 5872]). This is probably a reference to the legendary product of marriages between angels and mortal women (Gen 6:4; see 13:22).<\/p>\n
and that\u2019s what they thought, too. Heb., weken hayinu be\u2018enehem [3651A, 4027], \u201cand indeed we were so in their eyes,\u201d taking ken to mean \u201cthus, so.\u201d It is tempting to follow the commentators who recommend translating ken [3654, 4031] as another insect, paralleled with \u201cgrasshoppers\u201d (cf. Isa 51:6), i.e., \u201cand in their eyes, we were like gnats\u201d (Snaith 1969:260; Maarsingh 1987:47).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
This section begins the turn from complaint to outright mutiny, which doomed the entire first generation to a slow death in the wilderness. But revelation would not be put on hold, so what follows is not only wandering itinerary, but also a record of sundry cultic laws (15:1\u201341), priestly regulations (18:1\u201332), and cleansing rites (19:1\u201322). Though it is not throwaway filler, it surely constitutes an exasperating rupture in the narrative that had put the nation on the move toward the Promised Land. But then, they had been on the threshold of the land and would not enter. They were left with nothing but regulation\u2014and waiting to die\u2014a well-regulated death for the rebellious generation.<\/p>\n
Selecting the Scouts and Sending Them Out (13:1\u201324). The rebellion in this account did not consist in sending the scouts in to explore Canaan, for God had assigned this sortie (13:1). The problem was that they undertook the mission in unbelief and made their report in rebellion. Just as the organization of the earlier census counts had involved leaders from each tribe (1:1\u20134:4), this band of scouts included \u201cone leader from each of the twelve ancestral tribes\u201d (13:2).
\nThe list differs in tribal order and in leaders\u2019 names from the records of the polls (1:5\u201315) and of the gifts to dedicate the Tabernacle (2:4\u201330). The order change can\u2019t be explained, but the leaders were probably a younger group, more fit for the rigors of this reconnaissance mission.
\nMoses sent them out \u201cto explore the land\u201d (13:17), starting from the Negev and moving up through the hill country as they worked their way north. They were to check out the agricultural and military situation: They were told (13:18\u201320), \u201cSee what the land is like\u201d:<\/p>\n
Agricultural concerns
\nMilitary concerns
\n\u201cIs it good or bad?\u2026 Is the soil fertile or poor? Are there many trees? Do your best to bring back samples of the crops you see.\u201d (It happened to be the season for harvesting the first ripe grapes.)
\n\u201cFind out whether the people living there are strong or weak, few or many.\u2026 Do their towns have walls, or are they unprotected like open camps?<\/p>\n
The scouts began in \u201cthe wilderness of Zin,\u201d and followed a northward path through the hill country until they came to \u201cRehob, near Lebo-hamath\u201d (13:21). First they moved through the Negev to the ancient city of Hebron, Abraham\u2019s old territory, which had become giants\u2019 territory (13:22). At Eschol they took the requested crop samples from vineyards, and somewhere along the line they also took samples of orchard crops. We don\u2019t get a detailed itinerary of reconnaissance, just a sampling of what they saw while \u201cexploring the land for forty days\u201d (13:25). When they returned and offered a bad report of the good land, the resulting rebellion condemned the people to 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, one nomadic year for every day the scouts spent compiling their report (14:34).<\/p>\n
Report from the Scouts (13:26\u201333). Imagine the tension that simmered while the camp watched for the returning scouts. And excitement would have soared as they informally \u201creported to the whole community what they had seen and showed them the fruit they had taken from the land\u201d (13:26). The positive tone continued as they started their official report to Moses: \u201cIt is indeed a bountiful country\u2014a land flowing with milk and honey\u201d (13:27). But so much for the positive report\u2014they quickly went on to complain of invincible enemies living in fortified cities (13:28), and they even reported that they had come upon giant \u201cdescendants of Anak\u201d (13:22, 28). And the land was already fully occupied, from the Negev to the hill country to the coastal plains (13:29). Conquest and settlement would be doomed from the start.
\nBut Caleb, Judah\u2019s representative on the scouting mission, exhorted the people, \u201cWe can certainly conquer it!\u201d (13:30). Would that this had put some steel into the Israelites, but the other spies objected, \u201cWe can\u2019t go up against them!\u201d (13:31). They ignored the presence of the Lord of Heaven\u2019s Armies, whose powerful presence they announced every time they moved out (10:35). \u201cSo they spread this bad report\u201d (13:32). No more mention of \u201cmilk and honey\u201d; instead of giant clusters of grapes, all they saw were giants (13:32). They protested, \u201cNext to them we felt like grasshoppers, and that\u2019s what they thought, too!\u201d (13:33).
\nGod\u2019s reaction is conjectured by the midrash:<\/p>\n
I take no objection to your saying: \u201cwe looked like grasshoppers to ourselves\u201d but I take offense when you say \u201cso we must have looked to them.\u201d How do you know how I made you look to them? Perhaps you appeared to them as angels? (Milgrom 1989:107, citing Numbers Rabbah 16:11; Tanhuma B. Numbers 66)<\/p>\n
When Caleb said, \u201cWe can certainly conquer it\u201d (13:30), they should have prayed to God: \u201cIn your strength I can crush an army; with my God I can scale any wall\u201d (2 Sam 22:30; also Ps 18:29). If they saw giants walking, they should have seen Goliaths collapsing (1 Sam 17).
\nBelievers today need to stir up the same sentiments: If we think ourselves weak, we should know that God\u2019s power works best through unpretentious human weakness (2 Cor 12:9). Because our Lord Jesus has defeated all powers (Col 2:15), we can be strong in his power (Eph 6:10\u201313), joining in his victorious rule (Rev 3:21).<\/p>\n
\u2666 b. Rebellion over the Promised Land (14:1\u201345)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
14:3 little ones. Heb., tap [2945, 3251], a term that may be related to quick little steps (Budd 1984:155, citing Snaith 1969:150; cf. 31:17\u201318; Deut 2:34); hence, \u201ctoddlers.\u201d But it appears to be more widely applied to children, women, and the elderly (HALOT, citing Gen 34:29; 43:8; 45:19; 47:24; 50:8, 21; Deut 2:34; 3:6, 19; 2 Chr 20:13; 31:18, etc.).<\/p>\n
14:4 choose a new leader. Heb., nittenah ro\u2019sh [7218, 8031], \u201clet us set a head.\u201d An ambiguous expression, it may be the equivalent of (1) natan leb [3820, 4213], \u201cset the heart\u201d or \u201cdecide\u201d; (2) \u201cturn about,\u201d to \u201chead back for Egypt\u201d (NJPS); or (3) \u201cappoint a head\u201d to replace Moses. Milgrom (1989:108) prefers a combination of the first two, and Levine prefers the second (1993:363), but most English translations opt for the third.<\/p>\n
14:5 fell face down on the ground. This is an expression used 25 times in the Old Testament. It expresses deference of the lesser to the greater, sometimes to a human (e.g., 2 Sam 9:6; 14:4; 1 Kgs 18:7). When done before God, it expresses holy awe (Gen 17:3; Lev 9:24; Josh 5:14; 1 Kgs 18:39; Ezek 1:28; 3:23) and often accompanies a petition against divine punishment (16:22, 45; Josh 7:6).<\/p>\n
before the whole community of Israel. This suggests prostration before God (see previous note); however, the meaning of doing it before the community is less clear: It may reflect resignation, despair (Hirsch 1971:208), or fear for their lives (Ashley 1993:247; Milgrom 1989:108; de Vaulx 1972:175); however, Moses and Aaron plead not for their own lives but for the people (14:13\u201319). Alternatively, it may indicate passivity before divine judgment (Coats 1968:173); however, that is exactly the opposite of the attitude that Moses takes when he falls prostrate. Finally, it may mean intercession (Allen 1990:817; Ashley 1993:248; Budd 1984:156; G. J. Wenham 1981:121). In my opinion, they fell before the Lord, but it was a public act that rebuked the people even as it sought God\u2019s mercies for the people.<\/p>\n
14:7 a wonderful land. Heb., tobah ha\u2019arets me\u2019od me\u2019od [2896, 3202], meaning \u201ca very very good land,\u201d as opposed to the bad report on the land (13:32) and the good of returning to Egypt (14:3). For other instances of the emphatic doubling of me\u2019od [3966, 4394], see 14:7; Gen 7:19; 17:2, 6, 20; 30:43; Exod 1:7; 1 Kgs 7:47; 2 Kgs 10:4; Ezek 9:9; 16:13; 37:10.<\/p>\n
14:8 milk and honey. See 13:27.<\/p>\n
14:9 prey. Heb., lekhem [3899, 4312], \u201cbread.\u201d<\/p>\n
protection. Heb., tsel [6738, 7498] (shade, shadow). The life-threatening desert sun generated a metaphor for patronage as \u201cshade\u201d afforded by deities or kings (Ps 121:5; Isa 25:4). \u201cIt is even expressed in personal names, such as Si-lu-ush Dagan, \u2018Into-the-Protection-of-Dagan\u2019 \u201d (Levine 1993:364). This may also be related to the \u201cmother-hen language\u201d of some passages (Allen 1990:816, citing Ps 17:8; cf. Matt 23:37; Luke 13:34).<\/p>\n
14:14 face to face. Lit., \u201ceye to eye.\u201d Ironically, this phrase is parallel to the \u201cface to face\u201d way God revealed himself to Moses (12:8; Exod 33:11; Deut 5:4; 34:10).<\/p>\n
14:16 the land he swore to give them. This is an oath given to their forefathers, especially Abraham (Gen 12:7; 13:15\u201317; 15:18; 26:3; Exod 6:8; Deut 19:8).<\/p>\n
14:17 Lord. Heb., \u2019adonay [136, 151], not yhwh [3068, 3378].<\/p>\n
14:18 The LORD is slow to anger. This is a shorter version of Exod 34:6\u20137, a liturgical formula echoed throughout the OT (e.g., Neh 9:17, 19, 31; Pss 78:38; 103:8; Jer 32:18; Jonah 4:2).<\/p>\n
unfailing love. Heb., rab-khesed, or \u201cgreat in\u201d khesed [2617, 2876]. Some understand khesed as mercy or kindness (TWOT), and some as loyalty or covenant faithfulness (Ashley 1993:258; Budd 1984:158; HALOT). It is God\u2019s bountiful and freely given love, mercy, and goodness, which sustains his redemptive covenant with his people.<\/p>\n
forgiving \u2026 sin. Heb., nose\u2019 \u2018awon [5771\/5375, 6411\/5951], meaning \u201cto lift\/bear\/carry sin,\u201d implying the removal of punishment due for sin. When nasa\u2019 \u2018awon is used with a human subject, the meaning is usually that the person will bear the penalty of divine punishment. Can one say here that God has himself borne the penalty for sin or has taken it away? One cannot be certain of the dynamics of divine forgiveness, but a meaning such as this may not be wide of the mark (Ashley 1993:258).<\/p>\n
rebellion. Heb., pasha\u2018 [6588, 7322], not \u201ctransgression\u201d (most English versions), but \u201crebellion\u201d (NLT, NIV), since opposition to a person rather than infringement of rules is the point (Snaith 1969:158).<\/p>\n
third and fourth generations. This embraces all living members of a family, the maximum alive at any time (E. W. Davies 1995b:144).<\/p>\n
14:21 as surely as I live. Man swears by the Lord\u2019s life or name (Judg 8:19; 1 Sam 14:39), though not always (Gen 42:15; 2 Sam 15:21; 2 Kgs 2:2). God, however, can swear by none greater than himself (Isa 49:18; Jer 22:24; cf. Heb 6:13).<\/p>\n
14:22 again and again they have tested me. Lit., \u201cThey tested me these ten times,\u201d or as we might say, \u201ca dozen times.\u201d Some have suggested that it refers to the 10 rebellious spies, but most commentators think the \u201cten times\u201d refers to an indefinitely large number (Binns 1927:95; Budd 1984:158; Dillmann and Knobel 1886:97; Gray 1903:158; Noordtzij 1983:126; Snaith 1969:152; Sturdy 1976:260). Alternatively, rabbinic tradition actually counted 10 tests in the wilderness (b. Arakhin 15a, b): (1) at the Red Sea as they feared being run down by Pharaoh (Exod 14:11); (2) at Marah where they found only bitter water (Exod 15:23\u201324); (3) in the wilderness of Sin when they were hungry (Exod 16:1\u20133); (4) at Kadesh when they ignored the directive to store manna for the Sabbath (Exod 16:19\u201320); (5) at Kadesh when they ignored the prohibition against gathering manna on Sabbath (Exod 16:26\u201328); (6) at Rephidim where they complained about water (Exod 17:1); (7) at Sinai when Aaron supervised the making of a golden calf (Exod 32:1); (8) at Taberah as general complaint against the Lord (11:1); (9) at Kibroth-hattaavah when they wanted some meat instead of manna (11:4); (10) at Kadesh when they listened to the evil report rather than the report generated by faith and thus refused to enter Canaan (chs 13\u201314).<\/p>\n
14:24 attitude. Heb., ruakh [7307, 8120] (spirit), with a psychological connotation, \u201ca different motivating force\u201d (Noordtzij 1983:126).<\/p>\n
remained loyal to me. Lit., \u201che is fully after me.\u201d See this same testimony in Deut 1:36; Josh 14:8.<\/p>\n
14:25 the land where the Amalekites and Canaanites live. Lit., \u201cthe Amalekites and Canaanites are living in the valleys\/plains\u201d (\u2018emeq [6010, 6677]). An \u2018emeq is \u201ca plain between two mountain ridges, or between a mountain and the water\u201d (HALOT). Canaanites lived along the maritime \u2018emeq (Judg 1:19, 34; cf. Josh 5:1; 11:3), and the Amalekites lived in the southern reaches of the Jordan \u2018emeq, which reached down into the Negev (14:45; Josh 13:19, 27).<\/p>\n
Tomorrow. This should not be taken in its usual literal sense, since they stayed in Kadesh \u201cmany days\u201d (Deut 1:46), apparently 38 years (Deut 2:14). So it should be translated, \u201cin time to come\u201d or \u201cin the future\u201d (Noordtzij 1983:127; cf. Gen 30:33; Exod 13:14; Deut 6:20; Josh 4:6, 21; 22:24, 27; Isa 22:13).<\/p>\n
the Red Sea. Lit., \u201cthe Sea of Reeds\u201d (yam sup [3220\/5488A, 3542\/6068]), which could refer to the sea on either side of the Sinai Peninsula. Some think the direction ordered was southwest, toward the Gulf of Suez (Noordtzij 1983:127; cf. 33:10\u201311; Exod 10:19); others think southeast toward the Gulf of Aqabah\/Elath, one of the recognized north-south routes across the Sinai Peninsula (E. W. Davies 1995b:145; G. I. Davies 1979:42, 77; Levine 1993:368; Noth 1968:110; cf. 21:4 and 1 Kgs 9:26). Either way, the course heading was \u201cthreatening to nullify the great victory secured at the Sea (Exod 14:1\u201315:21)\u201d (Budd 1984:159).<\/p>\n
14:26 Moses and Aaron. The Hebrew continues in 14:28, 39 with singular verbs; it is addressed just to Moses.<\/p>\n
14:28 As surely as I live. See 14:21.<\/p>\n
declares the LORD. Heb., ne\u2019um-yhwh [5002\/3068, 5536\/3378]. This is a frequent formula in the OT (267 times), but occurs only one other place in the Pentateuch, there also with an oath (Gen 22:16).<\/p>\n
14:29 You will all drop dead. Lit., \u201cYour carcasses will fall in this wilderness, even all who were registered and all who were numbered,\u201d i.e., all your registered divisions (14:32). So this is particularly targeted at the registered military troops. The term used here (peger) generally refers to the human corpse fallen after battle (e.g., Amos 8:3), but it can refer to animal carcasses as well (Gen 15:11), or to a mixture of animal and human remains (Jer 31:40); it is used here with a contemptuous ring (cf. Lev 26:30; Ezek 6:5).<\/p>\n
14:30 I swore. Lit., \u201cI lifted up my hand,\u201d a conventional stance for taking an oath (Gen 14:22; Exod 6:8; Ezek 20:5, 15, 23, 28, 42).<\/p>\n
14:33 be like shepherds. This does not emphasize pastoral care for sheep but life as landless nomads (Ashley 1993:265; de Vaulx 1972:174).<\/p>\n
pay for your faithlessness. Lit., \u201cbear your harlotry,\u201d a frequent metaphor for idolatry (Exod 34:16) or any defection from proper relationship with God (15:39) to venerate other gods (Jer 3:2, 9; 13:27; Ezek 23:27; 43:7, 9; Hos 6:10).<\/p>\n
14:34 you will discover what it is like to have me for an enemy. Lit., \u201cthey will know my frustration.\u201d It could be God being frustrated by Israel, or it could be Israel being frustrated by God. Loewe concludes that the best translation is \u201cwhat it means to thwart me\u201d (1968:142, adopting the translation of NJPS).<\/p>\n
14:44 defiantly. Heb., \u2018apal [6075A, 6753] (Hiphil), a term for insolent, reckless action; cf. the parallel account, \u201cthinking it would be easy to attack the hill country\u201d (Deut 1:41).<\/p>\n
14:45 Hormah. Because khormah [2767, 3055] has the definite article here, some want to translate it as a generic noun meaning \u201cdestruction,\u201d or \u201cplace devoted to the ban\u201d; however, everywhere else in the OT, it is a proper noun referring to the town, though possibly with that meaning as historical background (21:3). Hormah must have been located somewhere in the north-central Negev; likely, Tell el-Meshash, about 10 miles east of it (Y. Aharoni 1966:184\u2013185; Budd 1984:160; Noth 1968:111), though other suggestions exist, such as Tell esh-Sheri\u2019ah, about 12 miles northwest of Beersheba (Albright 1924:6) or Tell el-Milh (Mazar 1965:298\u2013299).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Complaining Because of the Scouts\u2019 Report (14:1\u201310). Instead of bellowing midnight war cries for morning battles, the people \u201ccried all night\u201d (14:1), rebelling \u201cagainst Moses and Aaron\u201d (14:2). Earlier they had complained that Moses had led them out of the paradise of Egypt (11:4); now they say, \u201cIf only we had died in Egypt\u201d (14:2)\u2014which the Egyptians had been trying to arrange before they were delivered. Earlier, they had complained that Moses had led them into the wilderness to die; now they said, \u201cIf only we had died \u2026 here in the wilderness\u201d (14:2). They were thinking that Canaanite giants and fortified cities could only mean their death in battle and the loss of their women and children as slaves (14:3). Unbelief was pushing them back toward slavery in Egypt, and not just as an idle whim: \u201cThey plotted among themselves, \u2018Let\u2019s choose a new leader and go back to Egypt\u2019 \u201d (14:4). Usually when Moses fell on his face, he was interceding before God, seeking relief from divine wrath against Israel, but here he was begging the people to quit this lunacy (14:5).
\nJoshua joined Caleb\u2019s protest, siding with Moses and Aaron in a gesture of mourning (14:6). They reminded the people that the Promised Land was \u201cwonderful\u201d (14:7) and described the conditions of victory: \u201cIf the LORD is pleased with us\u201d he will give us this pleasant land (14:8); however, we must not displease him by rebelling against him and rejecting his gift of the land (14:9). The unbelieving scouts had fretted about formidable foes and forts; Joshua and Caleb said, \u201cThey are only helpless prey to us! They have no protection\u201d (14:9).
\nLike they had with Moses and Aaron, \u201cthe whole community\u201d turned on Joshua and Caleb and talked of stoning them (14:10). Wenham says the community attempted to act with judicial authority; however, it was more like a lynch mob, with parallels in the mutinies against the rule of David and Jeroboam (1 Sam 30:6; 1 Kgs 12:18). God\u2019s response to this general rejection of every single leader who urged them to do God\u2019s will was a display of theophanic power (14:10).<\/p>\n
God\u2019s Threat of Punishment (14:11\u201338). God complained, \u201cThey never believe me\u201d (14:11). This was not disbelief in God as an axiom of doctrine; rather, they wouldn\u2019t sustain a level of commitment that demonstrated that they actually found God credible and trusted him (Heb 11:6). In a divine act of quid pro quo, God proposed to answer Israel\u2019s rejection of him (14:11) by rejecting them and starting over with Moses as a new Abraham, a new father of a great nation (14:12; cf. Exod 32:10). This would have been consistent with the remnant principle, wherein God\u2019s judgment sometimes eliminated all but a faithful remnant, then passed along the covenant promise through the renewed people who descended from that remnant. So Moses might well have acquiesced, \u201cI am the Lord\u2019s servant. May everything you have said about me come true\u201d (Luke 1:38). Instead, he interceded for the rebellious people. Moses could find little from within Israel as a basis for appeal to the Lord, so he didn\u2019t even start a bidding campaign based on 50, 20, or 10 righteous in the camp (Gen 18:26\u201332). Instead, he argued, \u201cWhat will the Egyptians think?\u201d (14:13). One might wonder why God should be interested in Egypt\u2019s opinion about anything, especially since he had so recently humbled them and their gods. But they still had a public voice in the ancient Near East, and they would tell this to the people of this land. Although Israel was ripe for judgment, the nations wouldn\u2019t do well by the testimony that Israel\u2019s destruction would imply (14:15\u201316). Then Moses pled, \u201cProve that your power is as great as you have claimed\u201d by continuing their deliverance (14:17), and prove that your mercy is as great as you say by pardoning this people (14:18). Although it threatened to undo his carefully woven argument, Moses appealed to the Lord\u2019s consistent pattern of forgiveness: \u201cJust as you have forgiven them ever since they left Egypt\u201d (14:19).
\nMoses\u2019s intercession won the day (14:20), but there were conditions. Moses had contemplated judgment that did not annihilate, although it might persist for generations (14:18); however, the Lord\u2019s plan was extermination of the sinful generation with optimism for the coming generation. Earlier the Lord had proposed killing all of Israel and beginning anew with Moses\u2019s descendants; now he said he would annihilate the rebellious generation, beginning anew with the next generation (14:22). Just as Moses had appealed to God\u2019s glory, so the Lord himself appealed to it in his own oath (14:21). Israel was without excuse in this unbelieving fear of Canaan\u2019s inhabitants, for they had seen God\u2019s glorious deeds (14:22) and still discounted God\u2019s power. Caleb was \u201cdifferent \u2026 than the others\u201d in that he \u201cremained loyal\u201d to God; therefore, he would inherit the land (14:24).
\nThus far, the movement had always been toward the Promised Land. But now God had them turn around and get away from the land he was going to give them: \u201cset out for the wilderness\u201d (14:25). God warned that he had heard their complaints and wondered how long they would continue (14:27). Elsewhere in the book when God \u201chears\u201d of sinful behavior, it is a precursor to judgment. In this case, too, the Lord threatened judgment with an oath: \u201cAs surely as I live, declares the LORD\u201d (14:28). The judgment would come in the very terms of their libelous complaints about God (14:27\u201328). They had complained that they had been led out to die in the wilderness; therefore, that is what would happen (14:29). God would wipe out every military man age 20 and up, except the faithful Caleb and Joshua (14:29\u201330). But their libel wouldn\u2019t poison the hopes of the next generation. They had complained that their children would be captured; however, God would bring the next generation into the land so they could enjoy what their fathers had despised (14:31). The only effect on the children would be years of wandering in the wilderness, waiting for their mutinous parents to die off (14:32, 35). That would require 40 years, a year for each day of rebellious reconnaissance, a period when they learned the frustrating consequences of rebelling against God\u2019s plans (14:34).
\nAs is the case elsewhere in this book, the parties most to blame for the sin received concentrated judgment. Here it was \u201cthe ones who incited rebellion\u201d with their evil reports (14:36). They were not left to die out gradually; instead, they \u201cwere struck dead with a plague before the LORD\u201d (14:37). But the two faithful scouts \u201cremained alive\u201d (14:38).<\/p>\n
Israelites Experience Defeat (14:39\u201345). God\u2019s verdict led \u201cthe people [to be] filled with grief\u201d (14:39), but not repentant sorrow leading to renewed obedience (cf. 2 Cor 7:10). It was mere discontent for things lost, which refused to accept the finality of the curse upon their generation. They conceded, \u201cWe have sinned\u201d (14:40); however, it was sorrow come too late (cf. Heb 12:17). Rather than seeking God\u2019s will and promising a new obedience, they presumptuously said, \u201cWe are ready to enter the land\u201d (14:40b). Now, rather than the whine of the scouts, it was the warning of Moses: \u201cIt won\u2019t work.\u2026 You will only be crushed by your enemies\u201d (14:41\u201342). Again, it was lex talionis: \u201cThe LORD will abandon you because you have abandoned the LORD\u201d (14:43). The people pushed on anyway (14:44), and their enemies ran them down.<\/p>\n
\u2666 c. Miscellaneous cultic laws (15:1\u201341)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
15:3 special gifts. Heb., \u2019isheh. The NLT opts for a general term of offering, as do some commentators (Milgrom 1989:118; Noordtzij 1983:134); however, most translations follow the lead of the LXX (holokaut\u014dmata [3646, 3906]) and key lexicons in understanding this to derive from \u2019esh [784, 836] (fire) and therefore refer to an offering made by fire (BDB, HALOT).<\/p>\n
a pleasing aroma to the LORD. This indicates that the sacrifice was acceptable to the Lord and therefore efficacious (Lev 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 16). The Gilgamesh Epic employs the same image:<\/p>\n
Upon their pot-stands I heaped cane, cedar wood, and myrtle.
\nThe gods smelled the savor,
\nThe gods smelled the sweet savor,
\nThe gods crowded like flies around the sacrificer. (ANET 95)<\/p>\n
As was the case throughout the ancient Near East, Israel\u2019s worship incorporated aromatic substances, such as the cedar and hyssop thrown on the fire when they offered the red heifer, the daily incense offerings (Exod 30:7\u201310, 32\u201333), and the aromatic substances used with grain offerings (Lev 2).<\/p>\n
to fulfill a vow \u2026 or an offering at any of your annual festivals. It is not clear whether this phrase applies to both the \u201cburnt offering\u201d and the \u201csacrifice\u201d (Ashley 1993:279; Noordtzij 1983:134\u2013135) or just to the \u201csacrifice\u201d (Gray 1903:172\u2013173; McNeile 1911:79\u201380). It probably applies to both because peace offerings were offered when fulfilling a vow (Lev 7:15\u201316), and both burnt offerings and peace offerings were given at the annual festivals (29:39; Lev 23:4, 18, 37).<\/p>\n
15:7 liquid offering. By NT times, the wine was poured into a bowl on the southwest corner of the top of the altar; from there it flowed through an opening into the base of the altar (m. Zevahim 6:2; Hirsch 1971:225, citing b. Sukkah 48b and 49b), or was perhaps just poured around the base of the altar (Sir 50:14; Josephus Antiquities 3.234 [3.9.4]), as was the blood of certain offerings (Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34). But since the OT describes the wine as also a \u201cpleasing aroma,\u201d perhaps it was originally dribbled on the burning offering to sizzle and send its aroma heavenward.<\/p>\n
15:8 peace offering. This is variously translated as (1) \u201cpeace offering\u201d (KJV, ASV, JPS, NKJV, ESV, NET); (2) \u201coffering of well-being\u201d (NRSV, NJPS); (3) \u201cfellowship offering\u201d (NIV); (4) \u201ccommunion sacrifice\u201d (NJB); (5) \u201ccommunity offering\u201d (HALOT); and (6) following the LXX (holokaut\u014dma \u2026 eis s\u014dt\u0113rion [3646\/4992A, 3906\/5402]), \u201csalvation offering.\u201d The NLT does well to stay with the KJV tradition on this.<\/p>\n
15:13 native-born Israelites. These are noted as compared to the \u201crabble of non-Israelites\u201d that tagged along during the exodus from Egypt (11:4; Exod 12:38; Neh 13:3).<\/p>\n
15:14 visit you or live among you. Lit., \u201cif a sojourner sojourns with you, or whoever is in your midst throughout your generations.\u201d The resident aliens (ger [1616, 1731]; see Milgrom 1989:398\u2013402) were treated \u201clike native-born Israelites\u201d (Lev 19:34), sharing most civil rights and obligations. They were to be protected from racist abuse (Exod 23:9; Lev 19:33; Deut 10:19), and they were to observe Israel\u2019s laws and rituals, such as ritual purification (9:6\u201313), Passover (9:14; Exod 12:43), and circumcision (Josh 5:2\u201311). Of course, they wouldn\u2019t have inherited land, which was to pass down within the 12 ancestral tribes (26:55; 33:54; 34:13).<\/p>\n
15:20 flour you grind. Heb., \u2018arisotekem [6182, 6881]. Almost all translations go with the product of grain (flour, dough, or bread); however, it could refer to the vessel in which it was winnowed, ground, kneaded, or baked, as in Levine\u2019s rendering \u201cbread-baking utensils\u201d (1993:394).<\/p>\n
15:22 unintentionally. This term (along with the cognate noun that appears in 15:24\u201325, 27\u201329) has the sense of wandering or going astray. NJPS has \u201cunwittingly\u201d (e.g., Lev 4\u20135). It is the opposite of \u201cpremeditated\u201d or \u201cwith a high hand\u201d (cf. 15:30, \u201cbrazenly\u201d).<\/p>\n
15:25 they will be forgiven. Milgrom (1989:123\u2013124) prefers \u201cmay be forgiven\u201d to avoid any idea that forgiveness is an automatic effect inherent in the priestly ritual, rather than being dependent upon the free grace of God. But a language change is not needed here any more than it is needed in other places where a promise is baldly stated (Matt 17:20; Jas 5:14\u201316). Compare the prophetic use of \u201cperhaps,\u201d \u201cmaybe,\u201d and \u201cwho knows?\u201d in reference to divine sovereignty (Exod 32:30; 1 Sam 6:5; 14:6; 2 Sam 12:22; Jer 51:8; Dan 4:27; Joel 2:13\u201314; Amos 5:15; Jonah 3:9; Zeph 2:3; Acts 8:22; 2 Tim 2:25).<\/p>\n
15:30 brazenly. Lit., \u201cwith an upraised hand.\u201d It is not so much that the sin is deliberate as that it is defiant (Snaith 1969:155), as in shaking one\u2019s fist or \u201cthumbing his nose at God\u201d (Allen 1990:831).<\/p>\n
blasphemed the LORD. This is a Piel of gadap [1442, 1552], meaning \u201crevile, blaspheme,\u201d with \u201cthe LORD\u201d in the emphatic position, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense.<\/p>\n
cut off from the community. See 9:13.<\/p>\n
15:35 stone him. Stoning was to be imposed for the following: for an ox that kills a person (Exod 21:28\u201332), child sacrifice (Lev 20:2\u20135), divination (Lev 20:27), blasphemy (Lev 24:15, 23), Sabbath breaking (15:32\u201336), adultery (Deut 22:21\u201324), inducement to worship other gods (Deut 13:6\u201310), detestable religious practices (Deut 17:1\u20135), insubordination by a son (Deut 21:18\u201321), and violation of the sacred ban (Josh 7:25). Executions occurred outside the camp (Lev 24:14, 23) or city (1 Kgs 21:10, 13) so as to avoid profaning the holy camp or city with a corpse.<\/p>\n
15:38 tassels. Heb., tsitsith [6734, 7492], which could also be rendered \u201cfringes.\u201d Ancient Near Eastern background shows magical tendencies for decorations like these, but that sense is not present in this text; rather, the pedagogical verbal series \u201csee \u2026 remember \u2026 obey \u2026 remember \u2026 obey\u201d (15:39\u201340) sets the purpose of the tassels.<\/p>\n
15:39 instead of following your own desires and defiling yourselves, as you are prone to do. Lit., \u201cinstead of following (tur [8446, 9365]) after your own heart and your own eyes, after which you are inclined to whore (zanah [2181, 2388]).\u201d The term tur is the same one used of the Ark scouting out resting places (10:33) and the Lord himself scouting out campsites (Deut 1:33). More to the point in this context, it is used of the rebellious scouts doing reconnaissance of the land (13:2, 16, 21, 25, 32; 14:6\u20137, 34, 36, 38). The term zanah is a metaphor that speaks of illegitimate relations with other gods (Exod 34:15; Ezek 6:9).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Instead of the hoped-for record of initial conquest, we have a record of cultic matters like we saw in the preparatory chapters (5:1\u201310:10). Still, this forward-looking legislation assured the people that they would one day inherit the land. The section prescribes offerings (15:1\u201331), punishment for Sabbath violation (15:32\u201336), and tassels of remembrance (15:37\u201341).
\nThis legislation followed the rejection of the Promised Land, which had been premeditated rebellion. One law and one example dealt with the unforgivable nature of premeditated sins (15:30\u201336). This fixed the principle that the first generation\u2019s sin was unforgivable and that they had been condemned to die in the wilderness. But the legislation actually opens with a forward look, noting that the laws concern \u201cwhen you finally settle in the land\u201d (15:2). This fixed the principle that God would follow through on his promise to bring Israel to the land of Canaan. The careful provision for sacrifice for \u201cunintentional\u201d sins sustained hopes that things could be kept right with God. Indeed, these sacrifices would be a \u201cpleasing aroma to the LORD\u201d (15:3, 7).
\nThis section treats grain, oil, and wine offerings that were to accompany a variety of animal sacrifices. It provides minimal procedural direction, probably because they followed steps that had already been established (Lev 1:1\u20133:17; 6:8\u201323; 7:11\u201327). But here for the first time they heard the measure of grain and drink that was to accompany each offering:<\/p>\n
Grain
\nOil
\nWine
\nLamb
\n1\/10 ephah
\n1\/4 hin
\n1\/4 hin
\nRam
\n2\/10 ephah
\n1\/3 hin
\n1\/3 hin
\nBull
\n3\/10 ephah
\n1\/2 hin
\n1\/2 hin<\/p>\n
These commodities comprised the main agricultural products with which God would bless Israel when they settled in Canaan.
\nThe same law applied to a full citizen and to an alien; anyone enjoying God\u2019s rich provision in Canaan was to follow this practice. Even if the offering itself was freewill, the prescribed method indicated that the land flowing with milk and honey was \u201cno place for human arbitrariness or self-willed religion\u201d (Noordtzij 1983:136). The general pattern was that the more valuable the animal offered, the larger the accompanying grain, oil, and wine offerings. G. J. Wenham points out how this informs New Testament discipleship: \u201cEarly Christian commentators asked what offerings could match the Lamb of God. They pointed to Paul\u2019s remarks about his sufferings, filling up Christ\u2019s afflictions, and his life being poured out as a libation (Phil 2:17; Col 1:24; 2 Tim 4:6), a path which all Christ\u2019s disciples must follow, at least figuratively\u201d (1981:128\u2013129).<\/p>\n
Grain Offering (15:17\u201321). By offering their firstfruits, Israel acknowledged that they owed it all to God\u2019s largesse, whether agricultural products offered in their natural state (e.g., grain, fruit) or after processing (e.g., oil, flour, dough) or after preparation (e.g., bread). After offering the firstfruits (18:12; Exod 23:19; Deut 26:2\u201313; Neh 10:35, 37), Israel was free to use the rest. Levine titles this section \u201cDesacralizing the Dough\u201d (1993:393), but we would do better to speak of sacralizing the dough. As Paul said, \u201cThe entire batch of dough is holy because the portion given as an offering is holy\u201d (Rom 11:16). If the offering was coarse-ground grain, the emphasis would have fallen on \u201cimmediacy,\u201d on offering the earliest agricultural product, even before refining (Allen 1990:828). If it was dough or bread, the emphasis fell on first domestic use of the agricultural product. That is what the postexilic community made of it, as the woman put a handful of her dough into the fire, \u201cmaking every hearth an altar and every kitchen a house of God\u201d (G. J. Wenham 1981:129). That is what later Judaism also made of it, giving the first of the dough made in the land from grain grown outside the land, but not of dough kneaded outside the land from grain grown in the land (Hirsch 1971:238, citing m. Hallah 2:1). The firstfruits embodied a faith that what God had begun he would finish with abundance. The firstfruits could be safely offered up to God rather than stored up against an as yet uncertain harvest. It spoke of Israel\u2019s confidence in God\u2019s bounty.
\nThis principle of the firstfruits applies just as much in the spiritual realm as in the material. Paul drew the implication that the patriarchal covenant\u2019s firstfruits work through Israel (Jer 2:3), which he applied to the new covenant as well (Rom 11:16) and its resurrection benefits (Rom 8:23; 1 Cor 15:20, 23; 2 Thess 2:13). This was preeminently manifest through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15:20, 23) and then began to be manifest among the earliest Christians (2 Thess 2:13; Jas 1:18; Rev 14:4).<\/p>\n
Offerings for Inadvertent Offenses (15:22\u201331). This section contrasts inadvertent sins (15:22\u201329) with brazen sins (15:30\u201331), dealing first with the general idea of unintentional sins (15:22), then with unintentional sins of the community (15:24\u201326) and the individual (15:27). Then come brazen sins (15:30), followed by the example of a brazen Sabbath breaker (15:32\u201336).
\nLeviticus 4:14 prescribes a bull for the sin offering, but here the bull is for a burnt offering (15:24), and a young goat is for the sin offering. Leviticus also allows a goat or lamb for an individual, whereas Numbers mentions only a goat. To explain this difference, some suggest that Leviticus was dealing with sins of commission while Numbers dealt with sins of omission (Levine 1993:395, citing 15:22; Lev 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:2, 17). The key distinction, however, is not between sins of commission and omission but between unintentional and defiant sins (15:30). The passage explicitly talks of something done unintentionally (15:24). Therefore, G. J. Wenham thinks Numbers is modifying the Leviticus law, as happens elsewhere in the Torah as well (1981:131; e.g., Exod 13:2 and Num 3:12; Lev 7:34 and Deut 18:3; and Lev 11:39 and Deut 14:21). In fact, chapter 15 makes clarifications and additions. It adds a whole burnt offering for the individual (15:24), extends application of the law to the sojourner (15:26, 29), and explicitly denies expiation for defiant sins (15:30).
\nLeviticus 6:1\u20137 allows for sacrificial atonement for sins when they realize their guilt (Lev 6:4, NRSV). Those who despised the Lord and his very word (15:31) cut themselves off from any ability to acknowledge guilt. Cutting themselves off from their Maker, they were to be cut off from the community of his people, wherein he dwelled. The New Testament warns against \u201ca sin that leads to death\u201d (1 John 5:16) and of the impossibility of forgiveness for blasphemy against the Spirit (Mark 3:29) and apostasy (Heb 6:4\u20136; 10:26\u201331, referring to Deut 17:2\u20136). But it is also interesting to note that Jesus treated some very serious sins as things done in ignorance and called for their forgiveness (Luke 23:34), as did Peter (Acts 3:17). Then there is the forgivable ignorance of those who haven\u2019t heard the gospel (Rom 10:14), to say nothing of Paul\u2019s ignorant blasphemy (1 Tim 1:13). However, ignorance is reprehensible when people \u201cdeliberately forget\u201d what God has done, required, or promised (2 Pet 3:5).<\/p>\n
Law on Gathering Sticks on the Sabbath (15:32\u201336). Biblical law spoke of incarceration only as a temporary measure to wait for counsel on \u201cwhat to do\u201d (15:34; also Lev 24:12). Israel already knew that lighting a fire violated the Sabbath (Exod 35:2\u20133) and that Sabbath-breaking warranted the death penalty (Exod 31:15). This deliberation would have been to determine whether this sin might be covered by an offering so they didn\u2019t have to execute the man or if it was a brazen sin for which no offering was possible. Since gathering wood showed premeditated intent to light a Sabbath fire, it came under the strictures of brazen sin (15:30). So the whole community took the offender outside the camp for execution by stoning.<\/p>\n
Law on Tassels of Remembrance (15:37\u201341). Prevention is better than cure, and the first generation couldn\u2019t seem to remember much longer than three days (11:1\u20133; Allen 1990:828), so the Lord gave Israel an item of decoration on their clothing that would remind them of their sacred office and duty. Every time they glanced down and saw a tassel swinging from their clothes, they should have been reminded of the law and been urged to explore its implications. Swinging in silent exhortation, \u201cBe holy to your God\u201d (15:40), the tassels reminded the people that they were a national priesthood (Exod 19:6). It\u2019s decidedly less than \u201ccertain that the \u2018tassels\u2019 \u2026 originally had a magic, apotropaic significance\u201d that was later modified to signify remembering (Noth 1968:117). If anything, the biblical record runs in the opposite order: A godly mandate may have subsided into godless magic. Eventually, the tassels came to be seen as symbols of the power of the wearer, which explains how serious David\u2019s offense seemed to him after he had cut them off Saul\u2019s robe (1 Sam 24:1\u20137; cf. 1 Sam 15:24\u201331). Status- conscious Jews of Jesus\u2019 time liked to wear \u201cextra long tassels\u201d (Matt 23:5), and perhaps some magical significance drove sick people to attempt to touch Jesus\u2019 tassels (Matt 9:18\u201321; 14:36). Such people \u201care not to be thought of, then, as approaching [Jesus] in deep humility, seeking only to touch an insignificant part of his costume, but as seeking to avail themselves of his power by the surest method they knew\u201d (Stephens 1931:69; see also Bertman 1961).<\/p>\n
\u2666 d. Korah leads a rebellion against Moses and Aaron (16:1\u201350)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
16:1 conspired. Heb., wayyiqqakh [3947, 4374], meaning \u201ctook,\u201d and lacking the object needed for the transitive verb. The NLT follows the traditional understanding, \u201ctook men,\u201d i.e., \u201cassembled followers\u201d (Harrison 1990:231, 241, defending the rendering in KJV, ASV, RSV, JPS, ESV). Others suggest emending wayyiqqakh to read wayyaqom [6965, 7756] (\u201cand he arose\u201d) (Dillmann and Knobel 1886:89\u201390; Paterson 1900:51). Origen translated it hyper\u0113phaneuth\u0113. (\u201che became arrogant\u201d), which commentators think may have represented wayyoqakh [3354.1, 3689] (\u201cand he was bold, insolent\u201d; Ashley 1993:298; Budd 1984:180; Noth 1968:123; Snaith 1969:255\u2013256; de Vaulx 1972:188).<\/p>\n
On. Joseph\u2019s wife, Asenath, was the daughter of a priest of On (Gen 41:45, 50; 46:20). Hoffmeier says, \u201cThis, then, represents a direct connection between the Hebrews and the cult center at On and may explain why a man with the same name who was not a Levite would join a conspiracy against Aaron the priest\u201d (2005:230).<\/p>\n
16:5 his followers. Lit., \u201chis congregation,\u201d as though he were \u201cattempting to set up a rival \u2018Israel\u2019 \u201d (Sherwood 2002:164, citing Budd 1984:186\u2013187; Magonet 1982:17), a \u201cparody of the real community\u201d (Ashley 1993:306).<\/p>\n
Tomorrow. This is a term that \u201caccompanies announcements of decisive acts of Yahweh; today is the day of preparation, tomorrow is the day of performance, action, or judgment\u201d (Ashley 1993:308).<\/p>\n
16:12 come before you. Lit., \u201ccome up,\u201d a term for appearing before a superior (Gen 46:31; Deut 25:7; Judg 4:5).<\/p>\n
16:14 Are you trying to fool these men? Lit., \u201cWill you gouge out the eyes of these men?\u201d This was a punishment for runaway slaves, rebellious vassals, or prisoners of war (Judg 16:21; 2 Kgs 25:4\u20137; Jer 39:4\u20137; 52:7\u201311), but here, \u201cthis idiom means \u2018hoodwink\u2019 and corresponds to the modern idiom \u2018throw dust in the eyes\u2019 (Gray 1903:201) or \u2018pull the wool over the eyes\u2019 \u201d (Milgrom 1989:134). In Deut 16:19, taking a bribe blinds the eyes of officials and judges. If Moses understood the accusation in this way, that might explain his answer, \u201cI have not taken so much as a donkey from them\u201d (16:15).<\/p>\n
16:24 tents. Heb., mishkan [4908, 5438] (singular), meaning \u201ctent, dwelling.\u201d This doesn\u2019t indicate that Korah had set up a rival shrine (contra Budd 1984:181, 183; L\u2019Heureux 1976:86); rather, it is a collective singular referring to their own dwellings, although it is perhaps used as an ironic contrast to the \u201cTent of the LORD,\u201d since mishkan in the singular is otherwise reserved for the Tabernacle of the Lord.<\/p>\n
16:29 The verse literally reads, \u201cIf these men die the death of all men, and if the visitation (pequddah [6486, 7213]) of all men is visited (cf. verb paqad [6485, 7212]) upon them.\u201d This was often the visitation of punishment sent from a higher person to a subject (e.g., Isa 10:3; Mic 7:4); here it was God\u2019s destiny for all men (cf. 3:32).<\/p>\n
16:30 does something entirely new. Lit., \u201ccreates a creation.\u201d Milgrom (1989:137) prefers a reading \u201cmakes a great chasm,\u201d which results in the following parallel:<\/p>\n
Verse 30
\nVerses 31b\u201333a
\n1. But if the LORD makes a great chasm,
\n1. The ground under them burst asunder.
\n2. so that the ground opens its mouth,
\n2. The earth opened its mouth,
\n3. and swallows them up with all that belongs to them,
\n3. and swallowed them up with their household.
\n4. and they go down alive into Sheol \u2026
\n4. They went down alive into Sheol.<\/p>\n
The Piel of bara\u2019 [1254B, 1343\/5] means \u201cto cut, hew down\u201d (Josh 17:15, 18), and cognates have the idea of cutting or hewing (BDB 135a); however, the overwhelming evidence of OT usage of the Qal stem shows that it means \u201ccreate, fashion, shape.\u201d English translations nearly universally go with something like the NLT. This meant (1) the event about to occur was completely unexpected and unprecedented, comparable to the awesome deeds of creation (Snaith 1969:260; cf. Exod 34:10; Isa 48:6\u20137; Jer 31:22) or (2) the retribution that Yahweh would impose on the rebels would be as phenomenal as the work of creation (E. W. Davies 1995b:177; Noth 1968:128).<\/p>\n
go down. Because Dathan and Abiram refused to \u201cgo up\u201d (\u2018alah [5927, 6590]; 16:12, 14) they will \u201cgo down\u201d (yarad [3381, 3718]; 16:30, 33). For complaining that Moses \u201cbrought us up\u201d (he\u2018elithanu [5927, 6590]; 16:13) from Egypt to \u201chave us die (lahamithenu [4191, 4637]) in the wilderness\u201d (16:13), they will not \u201cdie (yemuthun) as all men do\u201d (16:29) but will \u201cgo down alive (weyaredu khayyim [2416A, 2645]; 16:30, 33) in Sheol\u201d (Milgrom 1989:137).<\/p>\n
grave. Heb., she\u2019ol [7585, 8619], the abode of the dead (Isa 14:9\u201311), especially the wicked (Pss 9:17; 31:17), to which the most wicked go down alive (Ps 55:15), whereas the righteous ascend heavenward (Prov 15:24). This may reflect the idea of maweth [4194, 4638] (\u201cdeath\u201d; Ugaritic, mot) awaiting the wicked with a gaping mouth to swallow them (Prov 1:12; Isa 5:14; Hab 2:5). Also called \u201cthe pit\u201d (Job 33:18; Ps 28:1) and \u201cAbaddon\u201d (Job 26:6), it has the following characteristics: (a) oblivion (Ps 88:12); (b) inability to experience God\u2019s presence (Ps 88:5); (c) inability to praise God (Pss 6:5; 30:9; 115:17; Isa 38:18); (d) location beneath the earth (here; Job 26:5; Jonah 2:6); (e) weariness (Job 3:17); (f) attenuation (Ps 88:4); (g) thirst (Isa 5:13); (h) awful silence (Pss 94:17; 115:17); (i) darkness (Job 10:21\u201322). Cf. Riggans 1983:135.<\/p>\n
you will know. This is a recognition formula consequent upon judgment (16:30; Exod 6:7; 11:7; 16:12; 1 Kgs 20:13; Isa 49:23; 60:16; Ezek 7:4, 9; Joel 2:27; 3:17; Zech 2:9; 4:9).<\/p>\n
16:38 [17:3] thin sheet to overlay the altar. The altar was already bronze plated (Exod 27:2; 38:2); the LXX harmonizes by saying Bezalel made the altar from these censers (Exod 38:22, LXX); however, that is chronologically impossible. More likely, the plating needed periodic renewal. The Egyptians had developed the technique of hammering out plate metal to cover wooden objects; the Hebrews had borrowed the word pakh [6341A, 7063] (plate of metal) from the Egyptians (Hoffmeier 2005:211\u2013212).<\/p>\n
16:46 [17:11] incense \u2026 to \u2026 make them right with the LORD. Lit., \u201cto make kapar for them.\u201d The term kapar [3722, 4105] means \u201cto cover, atone.\u201d Usually blood was required for atonement; however, here Aaron burned the same incense that caused destruction when mishandled.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
The Rebellion (16:1\u201327). Korah was a Levite from the Kohathite clan, from which Moses and Aaron themselves descended, and Dathan and Abiram descended from Israel\u2019s firstborn, Reuben. The two rebellions were essentially contradictory, as Korah wanted primacy through the priesthood (16:10), and the Reubenites wanted primacy through civil authority. But enemies can often make common cause in opposition to the work of God. (E.g., the Pharisees and Sadducees making common cause against Jesus [Matt 16:1], and Pilate and Herod changing from bitter enemies to fast friends in their joint abuse of Jesus [Luke 23:12].)
\nKorah came from the clan of Kohathites, which was the one closest to leadership: They were the clan of Moses and Aaron, and thus of the priests. He conspired with a significant portion of Israel\u2019s elite (16:2), whipping them up with egalitarian vitriol that sounded a lot like Miriam and Aaron\u2019s earlier complaint against Moses\u2019s unique prophetic role (16:3; cf. 12:2). Moses\u2019s response was to throw himself face down on the ground and call God to arbitrate (16:4). He told Korah to make preparations to engage in priest-like incense burning (16:6), warning that the outcome would show who had \u201cgone too far\u201d (16:7).
\nMoses reminded the rebel Levites of their own special standing before God and Israel, which they were degrading by their demand for priesthood (16:9). Since the offices and authority of Moses, Aaron, and even the Levites came from God, they were challenging God (16:11), a principle restated in the New Testament by Jesus and Paul (John 19:11; Rom 13:1\u20132).
\nAfter dealing specifically with the priestly pretensions of the Levites, Moses turned to the general rebellion that had spread to many of Israel\u2019s elite. Their ringleaders refused Moses\u2019s judicial summons (16:12, 14). They idealized their existence in Egypt as though it were paradise and libeled Moses as a murderous overlord (16:13), a tedious refrain in the wilderness complaints (14:2; 20:4; 21:5; Exod 14:11; 16:2; 17:3). The very people who had refused conquest now complained, \u201cYou haven\u2019t brought us into another land flowing with milk and honey\u201d (16:14; cf. Exod 3:8, 17). When they called Egypt \u201ca land flowing with milk and honey\u201d (16:13), they spoke literal truth (Gen 45:16\u201320; 47:6) but theological lies (11:5; 14:4; Exod 14:11; 16:3; 17:3). Isaiah\u2019s words are fitting here: \u201cWhat sorrow for those who say \u2026 bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter\u201d (Isa 5:20). They were early forerunners of those whom Jesus judged with these words: \u201cGod\u2019s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light\u201d (John 3:19). No wonder Moses \u201cbecame very angry\u201d and acted as an anti-intercessor. Protesting his own innocence and classifying their sins as belligerent rather than unintentional, he pled with God, \u201cDo not accept their grain offerings!\u201d (16:15).
\nThis should not be conceived of as a trial by ordeal (contra Coats 1968:171); it was more like the power encounter between Elijah and the Baal prophets (1 Kgs 18:20\u201340). If Korah\u2019s group were really \u201choly\u201d like he claimed, they would successfully offer their incense. But the moment they lit their censers, even though Moses had commanded it (16:17), they would have been guilty of offering \u201cunauthorized fire\u201d like that of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1\u20132), which should have given them pause. At this point, \u201cthe glorious presence of the LORD appeared to the whole community,\u201d a theophanic manifestation of judgment (16:19). God told Moses and Aaron to remove themselves from the community so God could strike the whole camp of rebels. Instead, Moses and Aaron interceded. Although God was threatening death, they looked to him as the source of all life (16:22); although the rebellion was widespread, they said, don\u2019t \u201cbe angry with all the people when only one man sins\u201d (16:22).
\nGod concurred but told Moses and Aaron to stand back (16:21) and to clear the ground around the \u201ctents of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram\u201d (16:25\u201327). Dathan and Abiram stood their ground before their tents, dragging \u201ctheir wives and children and little ones\u201d into this showdown with God (16:27).<\/p>\n
Punishment of Rebels (16:28\u201335). Although Moses was defending Aaron\u2019s priesthood, he first defended his own prophetic office. He prophesied and then proposed a test that resonated with one of the tests of a true prophet (Deut 18:21\u201322): If my prophecy doesn\u2019t come to pass, then \u201cthe LORD has not sent me\u201d (16:29). But if the ground swallows them alive, as I prophesy, then \u201cthe LORD sent me to do all these things\u201d and \u201cthese men have shown contempt for the LORD\u201d (16:28, 30). This narrative emphasizes the immediacy and miraculous nature of the rebels\u2019 punishment; Moses \u201chad hardly finished speaking the words when the ground suddenly split open beneath them,\u201d swallowing the rebels alive along with their households and their belongings (16:31\u201333). This sounds like the total destruction provisions of kherem [2764, 3051] warfare (e.g., Deut 2:34; 3:6; 13:15, 17; Josh 6:17; 7:15). As the rebel leadership suddenly disappeared, screaming their way down into the open maw of the earth, the camp shrank back in terror that the earth might swallow them, too (16:34). Although they shared some guilt in this widespread rebellion, they should have stood their ground with Moses, who had already moved them away from judgment to a place of safety. Next God\u2019s own fire \u201cburned up the 250 men who were offering incense\u201d (16:35; see 3:4). This killed Korah\u2019s followers, but not his sons, who survived to father the Temple musicians (26:10; 1 Chr 6:33; Pss 42; 44\u201349; 84; 85; 87; 88).<\/p>\n
Aftermath of the Rebellion (16:36\u201350). God directed \u201cEleazar son of Aaron the priest to pull all the incense burners from the fire \u2026 [and] scatter the burning coals\u201d (16:37). The rebels\u2019 incense burners were dubious implements for genuine priestly offerings; however, they could no longer be used for common purposes, either, because they had been \u201cused in the LORD\u2019s presence\u201d (16:38). So the Lord directed that they should be hammered into plates for re-covering the altar. Just as the tassels were a positive reminder of Israel\u2019s holiness (15:38), these plates could serve as a negative aide-m\u00e9moire (16:40; cf. 5:15; 10:10; 17:10; 31:54).
\n\u201cThe very next morning the whole community of Israel began muttering\u201d (16:41). In spite of the obviously divine nature of this twofold judgment, the people blamed Moses and Aaron: \u201cYou have killed the LORD\u2019s people!\u201d (16:41, emphasis added). As the demonstration gathered steam, \u201cthe glorious presence of the LORD appeared\u201d (16:42), not in beaming approval, but in blazing fury.
\nMoses and Aaron took up a judicial stance \u201cin front of the Tabernacle\u201d (16:43). The Lord echoed his warning that had preceded the earth\u2019s opening to ingest Korah, Dathan, and Abiram and the fiery judgment on the 250 rebel incense burners (16:26): \u201cGet away from all these people so that I can instantly destroy them!\u201d (16:45). Instead, \u201cMoses and Aaron fell face down on the ground,\u201d a regular posture of intercession throughout Numbers (14:5; 16:4, 22, 45; 20:6). Moses certainly couldn\u2019t claim that only one man had sinned this time (cf. 16:22). But rather than having Aaron get away from the people that God was judging, Moses directed him to carry burning incense \u201cout among the people\u201d as a covering act (16:46); \u201che stood between the dead and the living\u201d (16:48; Targum Neofiti). Whether this was Moses\u2019s own initiative or his response to God\u2019s unrecorded directive, it mitigated the punishment that had already broken out. Only \u201c14,700 died in that plague\u201d (16:49), a small percentage of the people (cf. 2:32) rather than all of them.<\/p>\n
\u2666 e. A sign for the rebels (17:1\u201313)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
17:1\u201313 [16\u201328] In the Hebrew this section is 17:16\u201328, keeping this story of Aaron\u2019s budding staff connected with the rebellion of ch 16.<\/p>\n
17:2 [17] twelve. This makes for a total of 13 when the Levites\u2019 staff was placed among them (see 17:6).<\/p>\n
staffs. Heb., matteh [4294, 4751], which can mean \u201cstaff\u201d or \u201ctribe.\u201d These may be the \u201cbare branches\u201d used for everyday walking sticks (Noth 1968:131; Gray 1903:215; see 1 Sam 14:43); more likely, they were symbols of position (Budd 1984:197; Noordtzij 1983:157; Sturdy 1976:124; see 21:18; Gen 38:18, 25; 49:10).<\/p>\n
17:4, 7, 10 [19, 22, 25] in front of the Ark containing the tablets of the Covenant. Heb., lipne ha\u2018eduth [5715, 6343], meaning, \u201cbefore the Covenant\u201d (17:4, 10; see 4:5). The term ha\u2018eduth sometimes refers only to the tablets (Exod 31:18; 32:15; 34:29), which were placed inside the Ark (Exod 16:34; 25:16, 21; 40:20), but it sometimes refers to the Ark itself, which contained them (17:4, 10; Exod 27:21; 30:36; Lev 16:13; 24:3). These staffs may have been placed inside the Most Holy Place in front of the Ark (Cole 2000:274); however, since that place was accessible to the high priest only on the Day of Atonement, perhaps they were instead placed right before the curtain separating the Most Holy Place from the rest of the Tabernacle. As E. W. Davies says, \u201cthere is no evidence that Aaron\u2019s rod was actually deposited in the temple\u201d (1995b:182; cf. Heb 9:4); only the two tablets were in the Ark by the time the Temple was dedicated (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n
17:6 [21] each of the twelve tribal leaders, including Aaron, brought Moses a staff. Lit., \u201cand all their leaders gave one staff per leader, a staff per leader for each paternal house, twelve staffs; and Aaron\u2019s staff was among their staffs.\u201d This makes a total of 13 staffs (Levine 1993:422) unless there was a single staff for the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh (Budd 1984:195; Cole 2000:274), which is unlikely. The Vulgate makes this explicit: \u201c12 staffs besides the staff of Aaron\u201d (virgae duodecim absque virga Aaron).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
The Lord told Moses to collect a staff from the leader of each of Israel\u2019s twelve tribes, then to lay Aaron\u2019s staff for the tribe of Levi among them, \u201cas it were, in the \u2018lap\u2019 of God\u201d (Allen 1990:847; cf. Prov 16:33). God told Moses, \u201cBuds will sprout on the staff belonging to the man I choose\u201d (17:5). At the least, the test would have required God\u2019s providential superintendence so the correct staff budded. But when Moses checked the very next day, not only had Aaron\u2019s rod sprouted, it had run full cycle from buds to blossoms and to ripe almonds (17:8). With the outcome manifestly imprinted with God\u2019s own green thumb, Moses brought out the staffs so the people could see the sign (17:9). \u201cEach man claimed his own staff,\u201d noting that his hadn\u2019t sprouted (17:9). This was added to a growing list of reminders\/warnings and negative memorials (5:15; 10:10; 16:38; 31:54), so Moses put Aaron\u2019s staff in front of the Ark, near the Ten Commandments (17:10; Heb 9:4).
\nSeeing this, the people of Israel protested, \u201cEveryone who even comes close to the Tabernacle of the LORD dies\u201d (17:13). This stretched the law against unauthorized approach, just as Eve had exaggerated the law against eating from the forbidden tree (Gen 3:3). They asked, \u201cAre we all doomed to die?\u201d The answer for this rebellious generation was yes, certainly and comprehensively. But this was not for disobediently entering God\u2019s presence; rather, it was for refusing to enter his presence in his new paradise, the Promised Land.
\nAaron\u2019s vindicated priesthood prefigured that of Christ (Heb 4\u201310), which God vindicated by raising him from the dead (Acts 17:31; Rom 1:4). The New Testament refers to the placement of Aaron\u2019s sprouting staff in the Ark (Heb 9:4), outlining the superiority of Jesus\u2019 priesthood in that he gives bold, general, and ongoing access rather than the limited access accorded only the high priest (Heb 10:19\u201321). No wonder Jesus said, \u201cI am the way\u201d (John 14:6). The principle still applies. As the rebels had said, all of God\u2019s people are indeed holy; however, God gives special authority to some, to Christ and his apostles and to their successors as leaders and elders of the church. With that authority comes the necessity of providing an exemplary standard of holiness.<\/p>\n
\u2666 f. Regulations for the priests (18:1\u201332)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
18:1 to Aaron. Only in this chapter (18:1, 8, 20) and in Lev 10:8 does God give directions directly to Aaron; generally, Moses relayed them to Aaron (18:25; e.g., 6:22; 8:1; Lev 8:1; 16:2; 21:1).<\/p>\n
relatives from the tribe of Levi. Lit., \u201cyour brothers from the house of your fathers.\u201d The NLT refers this to the entire Levitical clan as do some commentators (G. J. Wenham 1981:143). However, others think it refers only to the clan of Kohath (Ashley 1993:339; Milgrom 1989:146, citing Rashi and Ibn Ezra).<\/p>\n
offenses related to the sanctuary. Heb., \u2019eth-\u2018awon hammiqdash [5771, 6411]. The miqdash [4720, 5219] can refer either to the sacred area (Lev 12:4) or to sacred objects (10:21). The English translations apply it to the sacred space, in which case \u201chouse of your fathers\u201d means the entire Levitical tribe with their general Tabernacle responsibilities; however, some commentators think \u201csacred objects\u201d is meant here (Ashley 1993:338; Milgrom 1989:146), in which case \u201chouse of your fathers\u201d refers only to the Kohathites, who carried the sacred objects (see previous note).<\/p>\n
18:2 the tribe of Levi \u2026 to assist you. Lit., \u201ctribe of Levi (lewi [3878, 4290]) \u2026 they will be joined\/join themselves (lawah [3867, 4277]) with you,\u201d a play on the words for the priestly hierarchy and the name of the tribe.<\/p>\n
18:5 perform the sacred duties inside the sanctuary. Lit., \u201cyou must guard the service of haqqodesh.\u201d The qodesh [6944, 7731] can refer to the holy objects inside the sanctuary (Ashley 1993:338, 342; JPS; see notes on 18:1), or to the sacred area itself, as is the traditional understanding (KJV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NJB, NJPS, NLT).<\/p>\n
18:8 in charge of all the holy offerings that are brought to me. Heb., \u2019eth-mishmereth terumothay. The term mishmereth [4931, 5466] can refer to guarding things, as NLT has it, or it can refer to reserved things, i.e., \u201cthose gifts kept back from the altar as perquisites for the priests\u201d (Milgrom 1989:149). So Snaith prefers, \u201cI have given you all that is reserved (mishmereth, \u201ckept, kept back\u201d) of the offerings made to me\u201d (1969:163). This would be parallel to the first sentence of the following verse.<\/p>\n
18:10 You must eat it as a most holy offering. Heb., beqodesh haqqodashim to\u2019kalennu. The most natural translation of beqodesh haqqodashim [6944, 7731] is \u201cin the Holy of Holies.\u201d However, since only the high priest could enter that, and only on the Day of Atonement, that is not possible here. That leaves two possibilities, either (1) an inexact reference to sacred space within the Tabernacle courtyard (E. W. Davies 1995b:88; Noordtzij 1983:162; Riggans 1983:143; KJV, RSV, ESV, JPS; cf. Lev 6:16, 26) or (2) a reference to how the sacrifices are to be viewed, i.e., \u201cas very holy\u201d (Ashley 1993:348; Milgrom 1989:150; G. J. Wenham 1981:143; ASV, NASB, NRSV, NJB, NJPS, NLT, NET).<\/p>\n
18:11 your sons and daughters. Lit., \u201cyour sons and your daughters who are with you,\u201d thereby excluding married daughters who have joined their husbands\u2019 households (Lev 22:12).<\/p>\n
Any member of your family who is ceremonially clean. Lit., \u201call the pure of your household,\u201d including slaves (Lev 22:11) but not hired laborers maintaining their own households (Lev 10:10).<\/p>\n
18:12 best. This represents two different terms: \u201cfat\u201d (kheleb [2459, 2693]), like \u201ccream of the crop,\u201d and \u201cthe first (re\u2019shith [7225, 8040]) of what they give,\u201d referring either to first fruits or to first quality.<\/p>\n
18:14 specially set apart. Heb., kherem [2764, 3051], a technical term for an ultimate form of dedication, which once given to the Lord could not be redeemed (de Vaux 1961:260\u2013261; NIDOTTE 2.276\u2013277; TWOT 1.324\u2013325). It was solely God\u2019s (Lev 27:28), whether annihilated as a war offering (Josh 6:21; 1 Sam 15), entirely burned as a Tabernacle offering (Josh 6:17\u201321), or reserved for permanent use in the sanctuary (Josh 6:19).<\/p>\n
18:15 firstborn of every mother. The firstborn is assumed to be male (3:40; Exod 13:2, 12, 15). The redemption price is the five-shekel price of a male, with no mention of the three-shekel price for a female (Lev 27:6).<\/p>\n
redeem. Heb., padah [6299, 7009], meaning \u201cto get by payment what was not originally yours,\u201d whereas ga\u2019al [1350, 1457] is \u201cto get back your own possession\u201d (Budd 1984:206 n. 15, citing Snaith 1969:268).<\/p>\n
18:19 eternal and unbreakable covenant. Lit., \u201can eternal covenant of salt\u201d (Lev 2:13; 2 Chr 13:5). Salt was the food preservative par excellence in antiquity. Its use was required for all sacrifices (Lev 2:13; Ezek 43:24), and it stands in contrast to leaven and other fermentatives, whose use is forbidden on the altar (Lev 2:11). Thus salt is a symbol of permanence, and a \u201csalt covenant,\u201d therefore, means an unbreakable covenant\u2014the wave offerings would always belong to the priests. Salt likely played a central role at the solemn meal that sealed a covenant (as in Gen 26:30; 31:54; Exod 24:11). A Neo-Babylonian letter speaks of \u201call who have tasted the salt of the Jakin tribe,\u201d referring to the tribe\u2019s covenanted allies. Loyalty to the Persian monarch was claimed by having tasted the \u201csalt of the palace\u201d in Ezra 4:14. And Arabic milkhat\u2014a derivative of malakha, \u201cto salt\u201d\u2014means \u201ca treaty\u201d (Milgrom 1989:154). Snaith also refers to the Arabic idiom, \u201cto eat a man\u2019s salt,\u201d which signified creating a lasting bond of fellowship between host and guest (Snaith 1969). \u201cIt is therefore inviolable, because between the Lord\u2019s priests and Israel is \u2018salt\u2019 (Lev 2:13) and the Lord is witness\u201d (Noordtzij 1983:164).<\/p>\n
18:23 they will be held responsible for any offenses against it. Lit., \u201cthey will bear their guilt.\u201d To understand this, we need to identify the antecedent(s) of \u201cthey\u201d and \u201ctheir.\u201d Ashley lists four possibilities, which I represent by making the antecedent explicit (1993:356\u2013357): (1) The Israelites will bear the Levites\u2019 guilt, which is \u201cpatently absurd in the context\u201d (Ashley 1993:356). (2) Otherwise, the Israelites would bear their own guilt; however, that doesn\u2019t answer the panic of 17:12\u201313. Perhaps \u201cothers would incur guilt\u201d (NJPS) is a variation of this. (3) The Levites will bear their own guilt, which is the most common exegesis (Allen 1990:856; Dillmann and Knobel 1886:102\u2013103; Gray 1903:234\u2013235; Noordtzij 1983:166; e.g., NIV). (4) The Levites will bear the Israelites\u2019 guilt, meaning the Levites would answer for Israelite encroachment, rather than putting the whole nation in danger (Milgrom 1989:155; e.g., NLT). In my view, the choice lies between the last two options, and the NLT\u2019s rendering fits the last option.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
This chapter builds on the established priestly hierarchy (1:47\u201354; 3:1\u20134:49), which had just been threatened (ch 16) and then defended (ch 17). The regulations stipulated in this chapter applied to Aaron and his \u201cfather\u2019s family,\u201d which the NLT takes to mean his \u201crelatives from the tribe of Levi\u201d (18:1). They were responsible for the Tabernacle, the holiness of which is emphasized by calling it hammiqdash [4720, 5219], the \u201csacred place.\u201d The Levites dealt with unlawful intrusion by members of the laity, but only priests could deal with violations of the priesthood itself (18:1). Under Aaron\u2019s supervision, the Levites were warned \u201cnot to go near any of the sacred objects or the altar\u201d (18:3a). A double sanction backed this: If violation occurred, the priests would die for their passive failure to preserve holiness against incursion, and the Levites would die for their active sin in violating God\u2019s holiness (18:3). Only the priests could conduct the sacred duties that occurred at the altar and inside the tent itself (18:5). The Levites were \u201cspiritual lightning rods\u201d (G. J. Wenham 1981:143; cf. Milgrom 1989:371; Milgrom 1970:31; Cole 2000:278) or \u201cinsulators who protected the Israelites from the force of God\u2019s wrath\u201d (Harrison 1990:247 n. 60). Their obedience meant the Lord\u2019s fury would \u201cnever again blaze against the people of Israel\u201d (18:5). The \u201cnever again\u201d harkened back to the wrath that had already fallen on the people when factions overreached their cultic or civic aspirations (chs 12 and 16). God had chosen the Levites and assigned them to serve the priests at the Tabernacle (18:5; cf. 3:5\u201313). The same was the case for the priests (17:1\u201310; Heb 5:4).
\nJesus told his apostles, \u201cYou didn\u2019t choose me. I chose you\u201d (John 15:16; see Luke 6:13; John 6:70; Acts 1:24; 9:15; 10:41; Rom 9:11\u201316, 21; 1 Cor 9:16\u201318). The same holds true for disciples (1 John 4:10, 19), so none of us should usurp; we should remain within our callings (1 Cor 7:20\u201324).<\/p>\n
Sacrificial Portions for the Priests (18:8\u201319). The Lord put the priests \u201cin charge of all the holy offerings\u201d that people brought to the Tabernacle, some of which became the priests\u2019 \u201cpermanent share\u201d (18:8), as follows:<\/p>\n
1. The \u201cportion of the most holy offerings that is not burned on the fire \u2026 the grain offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings\u201d (18:9). God granted it to the priests rather than requiring that altar flames consume it, but the food was still consecrated and could not be eaten as common food, any more than the church is to partake of the bread and wine without discerning the Lord\u2019s body (1 Cor 11:27\u201329). They were to \u201ceat it as a most holy offering \u2026 treat it as most holy\u201d (18:10); therefore, only ceremonially clean male members of the priestly families could eat these offering portions (18:9; cf. Lev 6:16, 26; 7:6).
\n2. The \u201csacred offerings and special offerings\u201d (18:11). Numbers demonstrates the principle of graduated holiness, which extended even to the people\u2019s offerings. After describing the offerings that were \u201cmost holy,\u201d the legislation turned to other offerings, which were less holy, but still consecrated to the Lord (18:11). These were permitted to the whole priestly household, including women and resident servants, unless they were ceremonially unclean (18:11b; cf. Lev 7:31\u201334; 15:1\u201333; 22:3\u20138; 1 Sam 21:4). They were to eat them in a place that was ceremonially clean, though not in a \u201choly\u201d place.
\n3. The \u201cfirst crops,\u201d which would include \u201cthe best of the olive oil, new wine, and grain,\u201d a common merism for all the products of the soil (18:12\u201313; Exod 23:16\u201319; Lev 2:14; 23:17; Deut 18:4; 26:1\u201311). These, too, could be eaten by any ceremonially clean member of the priestly household (18:13).
\n4. \u201cEverything in Israel that is specially set apart for the LORD\u201d (18:14; cf. Lev 27:21, 28), things irretrievably dedicated to the Lord but not burnt as an offering.
\n5. The \u201cfirstborn of every mother, whether human or animal\u201d (18:15\u201319; cf. 3:40\u201351; Exod 13:2, 12\u201315; 22:29; 34:19; Lev 27:1\u201313; Deut 12:17; 15:19\u201323). In theory, it would have been possible that each mother would dedicate her firstborn son, as Samuel\u2019s mother did; however, God made other arrangements. After being observed for a month to determine if they were viable (18:16), the firstborn sons were redeemed at a set rate (3:47; 18:16; Lev 27:6). The firstborn of clean animals could not be redeemed (18:17); they belonged to the priests. The priests splattered the blood at the altar and burned the fat to make \u201ca pleasing aroma to the LORD\u201d (18:17). Because they were not sin or guilt offerings, it will probably not do to consider this language of soothing or quieting as an indication of quieting God\u2019s wrath; instead, it is better to see in this the pleasure that God takes in fellowship with his people, who are eating in his presence. The meat was theirs to be shared with the entire priestly household (18:18). God described this as their \u201cpermanent share\u201d (18:8), guaranteed by a lasting covenant with them and their descendants (18:19). It illustrates a permanent principle, which Paul cited as a basis for supporting those who preach the gospel (1 Cor 9:13).<\/p>\n
Responsibilities of Levites (18:20\u201324). This section gives the reason for the privileges described in verses 8\u201319. The priests received no territorial tribal land allotment (18:20, 24). Instead, they were given 48 cities with some surrounding pasture, which were scattered throughout the other tribes\u2019 territories (34:16\u201335:34; Josh 13\u201321). God said, \u201cI am your share and your allotment\u201d (18:20), not that the priests and Levites \u201cowned\u201d the Lord, but in the sense the psalmist described: \u201cLORD, you alone are my inheritance, my cup of blessing\u201d (Ps 16:5; see also Pss 73:26; 142:5; Lam 3:24).
\nThe Levites were paid with the \u201ctithes from the entire land of Israel\u201d (18:21). This text concerns a tithe of the field. Some texts speak of the tithe of the field (or its monetary equivalent) being brought to be enjoyed in God\u2019s presence along with the Levites (Deut 12:6, 11, 17\u201319; 14:22\u201327). And every third year this tithe was to be distributed locally among the Levites, aliens, fatherless, and widows (Deut 14:28; 26:12).
\nTithes were given as a sign of respect to God\u2019s priest (Gen 14:20) or as a gift to God (Gen 28:22); actually, the principle of both occasions was the same. It applied to everything and was based on the idea that Israel was God\u2019s tenant on the land (Lev 25:23). After captivity, the tithe became a Temple tax (Neh 10:38; 13:5, 10). Actually, it has that tone in this text (18:21), but under a monarchy, this could quickly degenerate into a royal tax (1 Sam 8:17).
\nThe triple notice that the Levites had \u201cno allotment of land\u201d (18:20, 23, 24) finds its parallel in the New Testament reminder that early believers looked for a \u201cheavenly homeland\u201d (Heb 11:16) rather than an earthly citizenship.<\/p>\n
Levites and the Wave Offerings (18:25\u201332). Verses 25\u201332 treat the Levitical obligations to the priesthood. They received a tithe from all the Israelites, and in turn, they gave a tithe to the priests, as though it were produce from their own fields and vineyards (18:26). The remainder belonged to the Levites. Their families could eat it anywhere they wanted, not just at the Tabernacle. Rather than being an expressly cultic meal, it was their \u201ccompensation\u201d for Tabernacle service (18:31). They were \u201cnot [to] be considered guilty\u201d for eating food offered to the Lord; nonetheless, they were to remain \u201ccareful not to treat the holy gifts of the people of Israel as though they were common\u201d (18:32). The sanction against violating this holiness required death (18:32). The Israelites\u2019 offerings were to be without blemish; in turn, the Levites\u2019 offerings were to be \u201cthe best portions of the gifts\u201d that Israel gave them (18:29). Postexilic failure to meet this requirement led to punishment (Mal 1:6\u20138).
\nJesus and Paul expected that those who received spiritual ministry should pay the ministers properly (Matt 10:9\u201310; 1 Cor 9:3\u201310). For the earliest gospel preachers, having the Lord as their portion meant depending upon the hospitality of those who would receive the message as from the Lord (Matt 10:11; Luke 10:7) and living from resources drawn to their ministry (1 Cor 9:13; 1 Tim 5:18).<\/p>\n
\u2666 g. Two rituals for cleansing (19:1\u201322)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
19:1 Moses and Aaron. The words \u201cand Aaron\u201d are lacking in some manuscripts, because \u201ctell\u201d and \u201cyou\u201d (19:2) are singular, referring to Moses. The LXX and some Vulgate mss have singulars in 19:3 as well, supporting the idea that \u201cand Aaron\u201d was originally lacking.<\/p>\n
19:2 heifer. Heb., parah [6510, 7239]. A parah may have had a calf and thus no longer be a heifer (1 Sam 6:7), so \u201ccow\u201d is more accurate (e.g., NJPS). Most English translations use \u201cheifer,\u201d following the LXX (damalis [1151, 1239]), probably because the animal was young enough to have never been yoked.<\/p>\n
no defects. Lit., \u201cperfect [temimah], which has in her no defect [mum].\u201d The term temimah [8549, 9459] means \u201cwhole, unscathed, free of blemish\u201d (e.g., Exod 12:5; 29:1; Lev 1:3, 10), and mum [3971, 4583] means \u201cspot, blemish, injury\u201d (Lev 21:17, 21, 23).<\/p>\n
19:6 hyssop. Heb., \u2019ezob [231, 257]. \u201cIt may have been a designation of several labiate plants such as thyme (Thymus capitatus L.), sage (Salvia tribola L.), or marjoram (Origanum maru L.)\u201d (Harrison 1990:256). Its hairy surface retained liquid, which made it ideal for sprinkling in cleansing rituals (19:18; Exod 12:22; Lev 14:4, 6, 49, 51).<\/p>\n
scarlet yarn. Lit., \u201cthe red of worms,\u201d i.e., a dye from a crimson worm, so \u201cscarlet stuff.\u201d<\/p>\n
19:9 ashes. Heb., \u2019eper [665, 709] (cf. \u2018apar [6083, 6760], 19:17), indicating dust-like ashes, not the heavy ash from the altar (Snaith 1969:272).<\/p>\n
water for the purification ceremony. Heb., me niddah [4325\/5079, 4784\/5614], meaning \u201cwater of impurity,\u201d perhaps \u201cderived from a privative Piel, \u2018remove impurity\u2019 \u201d (Milgrom 1989:160), hence \u201cde-impurifying\u201d (Budd 1984:213).<\/p>\n
This ceremony is performed for the removal of sin. This phrase is parallel with me niddah, i.e., water to \u201cde-defile\u201d and to \u201cde-sin.\u201d<\/p>\n
19:12 purify themselves. Lit., \u201ccleanse himself\u201d (singular), not emphasizing masculinity but individual responsibility.<\/p>\n
19:13 cut off. See 9:13.<\/p>\n
19:17 ashes. Heb., \u2018apar [6083, 6760] (dust); see note on \u2019eper [665, 709] (ashes) at 19:9.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Leviticus speaks of two ways of purification: washing and then waiting until evening (Lev 11:28, 39; 15:16\u201318), or for more serious cases, waiting seven days and offering a sacrifice (Lev 14:10\u201320; 15:13\u201315, 28\u201330). Here we get purification \u201cwith a concoction of water that contains all the ingredients of a sin offering\u201d (G. J. Wenham 1981:146). It seems like this legislation resolving contact with the dead would have fit better with Leviticus 11\u201315. Some suggest that it appears here because of the large numbers of dead in the judgment on Korah and his followers (Budd 1984:211\u2013212); however, this passage concerns contact with the dead in everyday circumstances rather than during instances of divine judgment (E. W. Davies 1995b:194).<\/p>\n
Red Heifer Ritual (19:1\u201310). As with nearly any sacrificial animal, the cow for this ritual was to be unblemished. It would not yet have been put to any common use (Levine 1993:461); therefore, it would have been \u201cas close to virginal purity as one could expect in an animal\u201d (Harrison 1990:255). It was brought to the priest Eleazar, which kept Aaron, the high priest, from being contaminated. This process defiled everyone associated with concocting the purification water. So the production of this cleansing water was moved \u201coutside the camp\u201d (19:3), to the realm of uncleanness where persons defiled by skin diseases and other infirmities were sent. The Septuagint adds \u201cto a clean place,\u201d a requirement that may seem oxymoronic given its location outside the camp, but one also required for burnt purification offerings (Lev 4:12). Levine explains why this happened in the wilderness rather than in the Tabernacle:<\/p>\n
This rite was not sacrificial, in the usual sense, but it bore a similarity to certain major expiatory sacrifices in which the element of riddance was operative. Rites of riddance were normally enacted outside the camp, for the obvious reason that the objective was to eliminate impurity through its distancing and destruction. Furthermore, \u2026 riddance implies the transfer of sinfulness and impurity to the victim, in this case, to the red cow. Wherever such transferal occurs, we are dealing with a contaminated object, and it would make little sense to retain such contamination inside the encampment. (1993:461)<\/p>\n
The rabbis wondered how this cleaning water \u201c \u2018purifies the impure, and at the same time renders the pure impure\u2019! So inscrutable was its nature\u2014they said\u2014that even King Solomon in his wisdom despaired of learning the meaning of the Red Heifer regulations\u201d (Hertz 1977:652). The best we can say is that this rite is parallel with the scapegoat, as well as with the burnt offerings. Those who prepared what would be used as a purifying agent became defiled for the day, the same period of defilement experienced by the one who carried the remainder of a sin offering outside the camp to burn it (Lev 16:28). The participants may have experienced different levels of defilement\u2014the supervising priest and the man who burned the cow had to wash their bodies and garments (19:7); however, the man who gathered the ashes this produced had only to wash his clothes (19:10).
\nSprinkling some of the blood \u201cseven times\u201d (19:4) symbolized dedication of the blood, and thus consecrating the whole animal (Noth 1968:140, citing Lev 4:6). This gesture from the outskirts of the camp was directed \u201ctoward the front of the Tabernacle\u201d (19:4), visually linking the ritual to the sanctuary. Burning the blood, which was \u201cthe most potent cleansing and sanctifying agent,\u201d is unique here to the Old Testament (G. J. Wenham 1981:146). The \u201cstick of cedar, a hyssop branch, and some scarlet\u201d added materials that were also used in a purification rite for lepers (Lev 14), the only other place these three elements were combined. There, they were bundled and used as a sprinkler; here they are burnt to ashes. The aromatic cedar and hyssop may have been burnt as a pleasing aroma to the Lord, and the red suggests both fire and blood, both of which were purifying agents. Commentators commonly associate the cow\u2019s redness with blood, which was necessary for cleansing in Israel\u2019s rites (Cole 2000:306; E. W. Davies 1995b:197; Levine 1993:460; Milgrom 1989:440; Noordtzij 1983:168; Sturdy 1976:134).
\nA large bovine provided for the maximum amount of ashes (Ashley 1993:364; Cole 2000:306; Milgrom 1981:440). Once the animal, including its blood, was reduced to \u201cthe ultimate biodegradable condition\u201d of a living being (Levine 1993:471), its ashes were deposited in a \u201cpurified place outside the camp,\u201d which almost seems like an oxymoron, since being outside the camp is generally associated with defilement. These ashes, when mixed with water, could subsequently function as \u201can instant sin offering\u201d; however, its de-defiling and de-sinning properties were activated upon use, not during the preparation process, which defiled its agents. Offering a sin offering was difficult and expensive; mourners needing purification after contact with their recently dead family member had in this \u201can alternate remedy which marked the seriousness of the pollution caused by death, yet dealt with it without the cost and inconvenience of sacrifice\u201d (G. J. Wenham 1981:146). E. W. Davies wonders whether Israel ever practiced this ritual on a regular basis, musing if perhaps the more general practice was washing in plain water to remove contamination incurred by contact with the dead (Lev 11:24\u201332; 22:4\u20136): \u201cThe Mishneh records that only seven or nine heifers were slain in all\u2014one by Moses, one by Ezra, and the others at a later period (Parah 3.5). However, there is evidence to suggest that some such rite was performed by the Essenes at Qumran in an effort to uphold the proper standards of Levitical purity\u201d (1995b:193\u2013194, citing Bowman 1958 on 1QS 3:4\u201310). Nonetheless, the text calls it \u201ca permanent law\u201d (19:21), so we must think it was integral to purification practices.
\nThis Old Testament provision for de-defiling and de-sinning foreshadowed the time when a fountain would be opened to cleanse the people from their impurities and sins (Zech 13:1). This was the psalmist\u2019s hope (Ps 51:2, 7), Isaiah\u2019s exhortation (Isa 1:16\u201318), and Ezekiel\u2019s promise (Ezek 36:25). Its fulfillment under the new covenant comes not by animal blood and water (Heb 9:13\u201314) but rather by Jesus\u2019 shed blood (1 John 1:7; 5:6; Rev 7:14). This cleansing is received by faith (Acts 15:9; 22:16; Heb 10:22) as a washing of the word (Eph 5:25\u201327) and cleansing by the Spirit (Titus 3:5). It is applied to the person who obeys the truth of the gospel (1 Pet 1:22).<\/p>\n
Purification from Uncleanness (19:11\u201322). Contact with animal carcasses caused only a one-day impurity (Lev 11:24\u201340); however, contact with a human corpse caused a seven-day impurity (19:11). Other seven-day impurity situations required only a sin offering on the eighth day: a new mother (Lev 12:2), a person with gonorrhea (Lev 15:13, 28), or a recovered leper (Lev 14:10). But contamination by a corpse was more severe, and thus it required sin offerings on the third and seventh days (19:12).
\nIt is interesting to note that no priestly involvement was required, only the help of \u201csomeone who is ceremonially clean\u201d (19:18). Also a bit surprising is the silence about being banished from the camp during the temporary period of uncleanness. Perhaps the banishment is presupposed here (Noordtzij 1983:172); however, the Nazirite who was defiled in this same manner wasn\u2019t banished either (6:9\u201312).
\nThe person\u2019s neglect or refusal of the purification ritual was a high-handed sin for which sacrifice was no longer possible, since they had refused the means of grace. Those who refused this water of purification would \u201cdefile the LORD\u2019s Tabernacle,\u201d so they were to be \u201ccut off from the community of Israel\u201d (19:13, 20). This defilement was contagious: Anything a defiled person touched became defiled (19:22). Exposure to a human corpse defiled anyone in the tent where death occurred (19:14) or even an open container in that tent (19:15). Touching even a bone or grave defiled (19:16), so graves were whitewashed, to help people avoid inadvertent contact with them (Matt 23:27; Luke 11:44). But God provided a means of cleansing, even from serious defilement.
\nThis causes us to think of the New Testament warning against defiling the temple of the Lord, whether our physical body (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16) or the church body (Eph 2:21\u201322; 1 Pet 2:5). The new covenant means of purification, by the blood of Jesus Christ, protects us from that defilement.<\/p>\n
\u2666 3. Moving from Kadesh to Moab (20:1\u201321:35)
\na. Moses strikes the rock (20:1\u201313)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
20:1 the first month of the year. Lit., \u201cthe first new moon\u201d (Exod 19:1; cf. Num 1:1; 7:1; 9:1, 5; 10:11; 33:3, 38). The unstated year must be the fortieth, since the summary of Israel\u2019s itinerary places Kadesh right before the stop where Aaron died in the fifth month of the fortieth year (33:38).<\/p>\n
wilderness of Zin. This was an area comprising the drainage area of the Nahal Zin (13:21), between the Sinai desert and Judah to the west of the southern end of the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n
Kadesh. This was also known as Kadesh-barnea (32:8; 34:4; Deut 1:2, 19; 2:14; 9:23; Josh 10:41; 14:6; 15:3), the principal oasis in the wilderness of Zin (13:26). Wenham suggests that Kadesh-barnea referred to a group of wells, one of which retains Kadesh in its name to this day, i.e., \u2018Ain Qadeis (G. J. Wenham 1981:150 n. 1). It is now more common to identify Kadesh-barnea with \u2018Ain Qudeirat (Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002; Har-El 1983:217).<\/p>\n
20:4\u20135 Why?\u2026 Why? This is a common and acceptable term in biblical laments (Pss 2:1; 10:1; 22:1; 42:9; 43:2; 44:23\u201324; 74:1, 11; 79:10; 80:12; 88:14; 115:2); however, in Numbers it is Israel\u2019s rebellious \u201cwhy?\u201d that we encounter primarily.<\/p>\n
20:9 the staff. The reference to \u201cthe staff\u201d (lit., \u201chis staff,\u201d 20:11) favors Moses\u2019s staff (Hirsch 1971:366\u2013367; Levine 1993:489; Milgrom 1989:165; Noth 1968:145). The mention of its being \u201ckept before the LORD\u201d (20:9), however, favor\u2019s Aaron\u2019s staff (Ashley 1993:382; Budd 1984:218; Harrison 1990:264; Noordtzij 1983:176; G. J. Wenham 1981:149). So \u201chis\u201d probably indicates that Moses had Aaron\u2019s staff in his possession for this incident. Since Moses placed Aaron\u2019s rod before the Lord, he could take it up again (Budd 1984:218).<\/p>\n
20:10 Must we. Translation options include the following: (1) \u201cShall we?\u201d (ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NJB, NJPS), indicating Moses\u2019s hesitation about whether it was right to do so; (2) \u201cMust we?\u201d (Ashley 1993:384; Noordtzij 1983:177; KJV, NLT, NET), indicating reluctance; (3) \u201cCan we?\u201d indicating doubt about the possibility; or perhaps (4) a taunt: \u201cDo you disbelieving rebels think we can really bring forth water for you from this rock?\u201d (Levine 1993:490). I incline toward a view that the statement taunts Israel, \u201cAre we going to have to do this to shut you up?\u201d This taunt included \u201cthe fatal pronoun [i.e., \u2018we\u2019] by which Moses ascribes the miracle to himself and to Aaron\u201d (Milgrom 1989:165).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Here begins the last of the three travel narratives of Exodus\u2014Numbers: Red Sea to Sinai (Exod 13\u201319), Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10:11\u201312:16), and Kadesh to the Transjordan (Num 20\u201321). G. J. Wenham notes that all three narratives share certain motifs (1981:148): (1) battles with enemies (14:45; 21:1\u201335; Exod 14; 17:8\u201316), (2) complaints about lack of food and water and divine provision (ch 11; 20:2\u201313; Exod 16\u201317), (3) the need for faith (14:11; 20:12; Exod 14:31), and (4) the role of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (ch 12; 20:1; Exod 15:20). But before the travel narrative resumes, we get the notice that all the highest members of Israel\u2019s first-generation leadership are excluded from entering the land. The details of the deaths of Miriam (20:1) and Aaron (20:22\u201329) bracket Moses\u2019s disobedience, which excludes him as well (20:8\u201313).
\nIn the anniversary month of Israel\u2019s deliverance from Egypt (20:1; see Exod 12:1\u20132), the people arrived back at Kadesh, where the unbelieving scouts had misled a rebellious people into rejecting their Promised Land (13:26). Here, a terse note tells us that \u201cMiriam died and was buried\u201d (20:1). Next we encounter another murmuring story about water, reminiscent of an earlier occasion at Rephidim in the wilderness of Sin (Exod 17:1\u20137). Israel arrived back at Kadesh-barnea, where the water sources had been depleted, perhaps by their on-and-off encampment there. So Israel moaned about lacking water and even had the brass to complain, \u201cno figs, no grapes, no pomegranates\u201d (20:5). Of course, they could have had this in profusion, but for their rebellion (13:23).
\nWhen Moses heard this renewed complaint, he fell into his typical intercessory stance, \u201cface down on the ground\u201d (20:6; cf. 14:5; 16:4, 22). God told Moses to \u201cspeak to the rock\u201d before the assembly of Israel (20:8). Instead Moses took \u201cthe staff\u201d from the Ark (20:9, 11; cf. 17:10; Heb 9:4) and lashed out verbally at the people and physically at the rock. He raged that they were rebels (20:10; cf. 17:10). He adopted \u201cthe fatal pronoun\u201d we (Milgrom 1989:165), forgetting that he was only God\u2019s instrument, not the performer of the miracle. Milgrom\u2019s survey of the medieval Jewish commentators\u2019 definitions of Moses\u2019s sin is representative:<\/p>\n
1. Moses\u2019s action in striking the rock: (a) that he struck it instead of speaking (Rashi, Rashbam, Arama, Shadal, Malbim); (b) that he chose it although the people wanted another rock (Orah Hayyim, Yalqut, Lekakh Tov); (c) that he struck it twice instead of once (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Ibn Ezra).<\/p>\n
2. His character, shown by (a) his blazing temper (Maimonides, Ibn Ezra, Tanhuma B. 4:210); (b) his cowardice (in fleeing to the sanctuary; 20:6; Albo, Biur); (c) his callousness (in mourning for Miriam while his people died of thirst; Yalqut, Lekakh Tov).<\/p>\n
3. His words, (a) which in the form of a question were misconstrued as doubting God (Meir ha-Kohen, Ramban); (b) which actually doubted God (Tanhuma B. 4:121\u2013122; Deuteronomy Rabbah 19:13\u201314); (c) calling Israel \u201crebels\u201d (Ibn Ezra); (d) notsi\u2019, \u201cshall we draw forth \u2026\u201d (Hananel, Ramban). (Milgrom 1989:448)<\/p>\n
Ruling out the other choices and focusing on arguments against 1a and 1c, Milgrom (1989:452) opts for 3d: \u201cMoses and Aaron might be interpreted as having put themselves forth as God.\u201d Perhaps a little of all three of these undermined God\u2019s holiness in front of Israel.
\nOccasional disobedience chips away at faith even as a little leaven can permeate a whole lump of dough (1 Cor 5:6). Despite Moses\u2019s long and faithful service (12:7; Heb 3:2, 5), at nearly the last moment, he, too, was excluded from the Promised Land (20:12). Moses blamed Israel for provoking him into this behavior (Deut 1:37; 3:26; 4:21), an explanation the psalmist accepted (Ps 106:32). But here God blamed Moses: inwardly\u2014\u201cyou did not trust me\u201d\u2014and outwardly\u2014you did not \u201cdemonstrate my holiness to the people of Israel\u201d (20:12). Moses failed to reach the very destination to which he successfully led the nation. Perhaps this story lay behind Paul\u2019s apprehension, \u201cI fear that after preaching to others I myself might be disqualified\u201d (1 Cor 9:27). Certainly it demonstrates the principle that from him to whom much is given, much is required (Luke 12:48), which is why teachers are judged more strictly (Jas 3:1).
\nSo this place got another negative memorializing place name; because they had \u201cargued with the LORD,\u201d it was named \u201cMeribah,\u201d or \u201cQuarrelsville\u201d (20:13). They quarreled with Moses (20:3), but as always, that implied a quarrel with God, whether both were mentioned (21:5) or not (14:2\u20134, 9, 27). Moses publicly failed to demonstrate it (20:12), so God himself \u201cdemonstrated his holiness among them\u201d (20:13), both by imposing a public sentence upon Moses and by maintaining his people despite Moses\u2019s fuming, faithless disobedience.<\/p>\n
\u2666 b. Journey around Edom (20:14\u201321)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
20:16 angel. Heb., mal\u2019ak [4397, 4855]. Some suggest a connection between \u201cmessenger\u201d (mal\u2019ak) and \u201cprophet\/messenger\u201d (nabi\u2019 [5030, 5566]), since elsewhere we read that the Lord led and guarded the people \u201cby a prophet\u201d (Hos 12:13). Hertz refers \u201cto Moses, the God-sent liberator and guide\u201d (1977:657); however, it is more likely that Moses was claiming that an angel of the Lord led them (cf. Exod 14:19; 23:20; 32:34; 33:2), phrasing designed to impress the Edomites (Ashley 1993:39).<\/p>\n
20:17 king\u2019s road. Fortresses from the Bronze Age through the Iron Age (2200\u20131000 BC) have been discovered at intervals along this trade route on the ridge east of the Jordan River, between Damascus and the Gulf of Aqaba (Ashley 1993:391\u2013392; Harrison 1990:270).<\/p>\n
20:19 main road. Heb., mesillah [4546, 5019], \u201ca track firmed with stones or fill\u201d (HALOT). Some mss of the Samaritan Pentateuch read mesulla\u2018, \u201crocky road,\u201d and the LXX reads, \u201cthrough the mountains,\u201d implying an alternative, more difficult route.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Earlier the Israelites had failed to enter Canaan from the south (14:40\u201345); now they would try from the east, across the Jordan. The route from their base at Kadesh to the Jordan River would take them through the eastern Arabah, which was Edomite territory. So Moses sent a note that followed a common ancient Near Eastern pattern for diplomatic exchanges, like we see in the Amarna letters (ANET 482\u2013490; Harrison 1990:270; G. J. Wenham 1981:153): (1) recipient = \u201cking of Edom\u201d (20:14), (2) sender and his status = \u201cyour relatives, the people of Israel\u201d (20:14), (3) circumstances prompting the petition = \u201chardships we have been through\u201d (20:14\u201316), and (4) petition = \u201clet us travel through your land\u201d (20:17).
\nMoses played on every theme that could help Israel\u2019s case. First he addressed the monarchial ego (20:14a). We read of 14 \u201cclan leaders\u201d (Gen 36:15\u201319) and eight kings ruling Edom (Gen 36:31\u201339). A diplomatic dispatch addressed \u201c \u2018to the king of Edom\u2019 could not fail in stroking the ego of a petty ruler in that territory\u201d (Ashley 1993:389). Then Moses spoke of brotherly ties (20:14b\u201315a). A brother-nation relationship between Israel and Edom went back to Jacob and Esau, although it was mostly a negative relationship from Jacob\u2019s trickery on through Edom\u2019s unrelenting hostility (Amos 1:11; Obad 1:10, 12). Moses mentioned their hardship in Egypt, which became a staple of Israel\u2019s confession when bringing firstfruits to the Tabernacle (Deut 26:5\u201310). Then Moses spoke of divine support (20:16). Without elaborating on the power of Egypt, of which Edom was of course well aware, Moses hastened to impress on Edom the power of Israel\u2019s God: The sending of his \u201cangel\u201d or \u201cmessenger\u201d was sufficient to break Egypt\u2019s resistance and to liberate Israel. Moses thus implied that Israel was backed by a strong God and that Edom should think twice before refusing its request (Noordtzij 1983:181\u2013182). Moses then spoke of peaceful intentions (20:17, 19). Moses pledged that Israel was only in transit; they wouldn\u2019t disrupt agriculture (20:17a), use up resources (20:17b), or wander around the countryside (20:17c).
\nBut Edom responded, \u201cStay out\u201d and threatened a military response for any move into its territory (20:18). So Moses added further reassurances to put to rest any worries about any potential military or economic threat (20:19). The answer was still \u201cstay out\u201d (20:20), which forced Israel \u201cto turn around\u201d (20:21), heading south to bypass Edom\u2019s territory even though they were trying to move north for a Jordan crossing.<\/p>\n
\u2666 c. The death of Aaron (20:22\u201329)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
20:22 Mount Hor. This was Aaron\u2019s death site (33:38; Deut 32:50), although another report says he died at Moserah, which was six stages before Mount Hor (Deut 10:6; cf. Num 33:30). Harrison (1990:272) eliminates any conflict in place names, saying the name moserah [4147A\/4149, 4593\/4594] (chastisement) was applied to the event of the death itself, not to the location of Aaron\u2019s death. The traditional site, Jebel Nabi Harun, \u201cthe Mount of the prophet Aaron\u201d is near Petra and thus in the heart of Edom, far from its border (Milgrom 1989:169; see also Josephus Antiquities 4.82\u201384). Aharoni tentatively suggests \u2018Imaret el-Khureishe (Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002).<\/p>\n
20:24 join his ancestors in death. Like the phrases \u201cgather to one\u2019s fathers\u201d or \u201csleeping with one\u2019s fathers\u201d (Judg 2:10; 1 Kgs 1:21; 14:31; 2 Kgs 22:20, NASB), this refers literally to an honorable burial in the family tomb, which signified being reunited with ancestors in the afterlife in Sheol, the opposite of being \u201ccut off\u201d from one\u2019s ancestors (Jer 8:2; 25:33; Ezek 29:5). Of course, neither Aaron nor Moses were buried in an ancestral grave, so we shouldn\u2019t make too much of the literal sense (Ashley 1993:395).<\/p>\n
20:26 remove Aaron\u2019s priestly garments. The sense of the verb is to \u201cstrip,\u201d often with the idea of punishment or degradation (Gen 37:23; 1 Sam 31:9\u201310; 1 Chr 10:9; Ezek 16:39; 23:26; Hos 2:3; Mic 3:3). \u201cIn no case does this stripping happen with the permission of the one stripped\u201d; therefore, perhaps it shows some sense of demotion in favor of another\u2019s elevation (Milgrom 1989:170). See the regulations about garment transferring from one person to another (Exod 29:29).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Aaron\u2019s death merits only a low-key report, though it parallels the story of Moses\u2019s subsequent death: (1) Both occurred on a mountain (20:22\u201328; Deut 34:1\u20134); (2) neither was allowed to enter the land (20:24; Deut 34:4); (3) mourning lasted for 30 days (20:29; Deut 34:8); and (4) a transfer of leadership was effected (20:28; Deut 34:9). One difference was that Moses at least got to overlook the Promised Land (Deut 3:27; 34:1\u20134). Despite Aaron\u2019s mostly faithful service as Moses\u2019s \u201cprophet\u201d (Exod 7:1), Aaron had joined Moses in the intolerable offense at Meribah (20:10). So it came time to transfer the office from Aaron to his son Eleazar. Removing Aaron\u2019s priestly garb and enrobing Eleazar with it not only commissioned Eleazar; it also decommissioned Aaron. This may be compared with Moses laying his hands on Joshua as his successor (27:20), or even more with the transfer from Elijah to Elisha, which was symbolized by a transfer of a garment (1 Kgs 19:19; 2 Kgs 2:13). This ceremony was something that \u201cthe whole community watched,\u201d not necessarily because they could see what was happening on the mountain, but because they had watched Aaron leave robed as the priest and saw Eleazar return enrobed\u2014without Aaron. The people extended mourning beyond the usual seven-day mourning period (Gen 50:10; 1 Sam 31:13; 1 Chr 10:12). Instead they mourned for 30 days (20:29), as they later would for Moses (Deut 34:8).
\nThe New Testament sees Aaron\u2019s blemished priesthood as being an antitype of the perfect priesthood of Christ, who made the old priesthood obsolete (Heb 4:14\u201310:18). Christ, our great high priest, intercedes for us (Heb 9:7\u201315); he entered the heavenly temple once for all (Heb 9:24), as Aaron entered the Most Holy Place on each Day of Atonement (Lev 16:12).<\/p>\n
\u2666 d. Trouble on the way to Moab (21:1\u201335)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
21:1 Arad. This is the name of an important city in the early Bronze Age. But it was destroyed about 2650 BC and unoccupied when the conquest happened (Y. Aharoni, Amiran, and M. Aharoni 1993), i.e., lacking \u201cCanaanite settlements\u201d (Budd 1984:230). So perhaps it is another site or even the name of the region, which may have had its capital at Hormah (Cole 2000:344; G. J. Wenham 1981:155), although Josh 12:14 distinguishes Arad from Hormah.<\/p>\n
road through Atharim. Heb., \u2019atharim [871, 926], a designation that confused the ancient versions, which omitted a character to speak of the \u201cway of the spies\u201d (tarim; cf. tur [8446, 9365]), i.e., the path taken earlier by the scouts (e.g., Targum Onkelos, Peshitta, Vulgate, KJV, ASV mg); however, it is hard to see how tarim would be expanded to the enigmatic \u2019atharim (Cole 2000:345).<\/p>\n
21:5 horrible manna. This term (qeloqel [7052, 7848]) may refer to \u201clightness\u201d (from qalal [7043, 7837], i.e., to something insubstantial); however, it might be related to qelalah [7045, 7839], \u201cto curse\u201d (e.g., Gen 27:13; Deut 28:15, 45, etc.). Earlier English translations understood the term qeloqel to be related to qalal and went for \u201clight\u201d bread (KJV, ASV, JPS) or \u201cmeager\u201d fare (NJB); however, most English translations now contain something like \u201cworthless\u201d (NKJV, RSV, ESV, NET) or \u201cmiserable\u201d (NASB, NRSV, NIV, NEB, REB, NJPS). Even more in line with understanding the term qeloqel as related to qelalah, Snaith says, \u201cAlmost any derogatory word will do\u201d (1969:280).<\/p>\n
21:6 poisonous snakes. Heb., hannekhashim hasserapim. Lit., \u201cfiery snakes.\u201d Some think it refers to their appearance, i.e., copper-red colored (Budd 1984:234; Coats 1968:117 n. 51) or fire-breathing, like those known in Egyptian lore (Joines 1974:44\u201345). The term is also the term used for the angels around the Lord\u2019s throne (Isa 6:2, 6) and possibly for flying serpents (Isa 14:29; 30:6, KJV); however, these snakes don\u2019t engage people in mythological terms of fire-breathing dragons flying through the air but rather like hissing snakes writhing in the dust. The LXX rendering \u201cdeadly snakes\u201d (opheis tous thanatountas [3789\/2289, 4058\/2506]) is more to the point. It focuses on the venomous bite, which causes fiery inflammation. Indeed, the term sarap [8314, 8597] (poisonous) can be listed alongside nakhash [5175, 5729] (snake) and \u2018aqrab [6137, 6832] (scorpion); see Deut 8:15.<\/p>\n
21:9 bronze. This was either a copper alloy hardened with other metals (Snaith 1969:172), as it undoubtedly means in some places (1 Sam 17:5; 1 Kgs 4:13), or copper itself (Ashley 1993:405; Budd 1984:234; Gray 1903:278; G. J. Wenham 1981:157). Note the lexical similarity between \u201ccopper\u201d (nekhoshet [5178, 5733]) and \u201cserpent\u201d (nakhash [5175, 5729])\u2014the Hebrew for \u201cbronze snake\u201d is an alliterative wordplay. The camp would have been near Timna, a copper production region at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqabah, where archaeologists have found a tent-shrine with the remains of a five-inch copper serpent with a gilded head (Rothenberg 1972:129\u2013132, 152, 183\u2013184). Bronze serpent images have been discovered at Gezer, Hazor, Megiddo, and Beth-shemesh (Joines 1968; Joines 1974:62ff.).<\/p>\n
21:11 Iye-abarim. Lit., \u201cthe ruins on the far side,\u201d i.e., in the Transjordan.<\/p>\n
21:12 Zered Brook. This flows from the east into the southern end of the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n
21:14 speaks of \u201cthe town of Waheb in the area of Suphah.\u201d Many commentators assume something is missing, such as a verb for traveling in that area; however, perhaps it is just an ellipsis. The KJV followed the Vulgate in changing supah to yam sup (\u201cwhat he did in the Red Sea\u201d). Christensen (1974) proposes emending \u2019eth-waheb [2052, 2259] to \u2019athah yhwh [857\/3068, 910\/3378], \u201cthe LORD came to,\u201d thus providing a verb for the place names. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads \u201cWaheb on the Reed Sea,\u201d and LXX reads \u201che has set Zoob aflame.\u201d<\/p>\n
21:15 settlement of Ar. Or \u201cseat of Ar\u201d (E. W. Davies 1995b:221), probably Moab\u2019s ancient capital (Deut 2:9, 18; Isa 15:1), which was Ar of Moab (21:28).<\/p>\n
21:16 Beer. Lit., \u201cwell\u201d; a common part of place names: \u201cBeer\u201d (Judg 9:21), \u201cBeeroth\u201d (\u201cwells,\u201d 2 Sam 4:2), and \u201cBeer-elim\u201d in Moab (Isa 15:8).<\/p>\n
21:19 Nahaliel. This means \u201criver of God\u201d or perhaps \u201cmighty river,\u201d taking \u2019el [410, 445] not as \u201cGod\u201d but as an adjective for powerful.<\/p>\n
Bamoth. This was probably Bamoth-baal, located between Dibon and Beth-baal-meon (Josh 13:17). Some identify it with the Beth-bamoth of the Moabite Stone (line 27; ANET 320\u2013321; COS 2.23:138).<\/p>\n
21:21 Amorites. This term has various references: Canaanites in general (Gen 15:16), peoples living west of the Jordan (Josh 5:1), inhabitants of the region of Judah (Josh 10:5), inhabitants of the Negev and area south of the Dead Sea (Gen 14:7). Here it is the inhabitants of the land east of the Dead Sea, stretching from the Arnon Gorge in the south to the Wadi Jabbok in the north (21:24), having a capital in Heshbon.<\/p>\n
21:23 Jahaz. This is possibly Khirbet el-Medeiyineh. It is mentioned in the Moabite Stone (lines 18\u201321; ANET 320\u2013321; COS 2.23:138) as occupied by the Israelite king Omri (885\u2013873 BC) when he was fighting the Moabite ruler Mesha, though it later reverted to Moabite control (2 Kgs 3:4\u201327).<\/p>\n
21:24 the boundary of the Ammonites was fortified. This is the reading of the MT; this border was not likely that imposing. The LXX (cf. NASB, RSV) reads \u201cthe boundary of the Ammonites was Iazer\u201d (cf. Jazer, 21:32), a reading which some scholars follow (Budd 1984:242), indicating a site east of the Jordan, probably Khirbet es-Sar.<\/p>\n
21:28 rulers of the Arnon heights. Lit., \u201clords (ba\u2018ale [1167, 1251]) of the high places\/heights of Arnon,\u201d perhaps a reference to the officiating priests at cultic shrines (E. W. Davies 1995b:232), though Ashley (1993:425) thinks not: \u201cThe Targum took \u2018heights\u2019 (bamoth [1116, 1195]) in the sense of \u2018high places,\u2019 i.e., Canaanite shrines, and the \u2018lords\u2019 (in MT) to be Canaanite priests. But bamoth here probably means only \u2018hill country\u2019 (Mic 3:12; Jer 26:18; Ezek 36:2), or perhaps \u2018strategic places\u2019 (i.e., \u2018the high ground\u2019; Deut 32:13; Isa 58:14).\u201d This is probably not a proper noun, such as Bamoth-Arnon (de Vaulx 1972:246) or Bamoth by the Arnon (NJPS). Some even suggest reading bala\u2018 [1104, 1180], i.e., \u201cswallowed\u201d (cf. LXX, katepien [2666, 2927]), which makes a nice parallel with \u201cburned\u201d (LXX, katephagen [2719, 2983]) (Ashley 1993:416, 425; Budd 1984:242; Snaith 1969:174; G. J. Wenham 1981:162 n. 3).<\/p>\n
21:29 Chemosh has left his sons as refugees, his daughters as captives of Sihon. The Moabite Stone has King Mesha saying, \u201cChemosh was angry with his land\u201d and so he let Israel oppress Moab \u201cmany days\u201d under Omri and Ahab (ANET 320\u2013321; COS 2.23).<\/p>\n
21:30 as far away as Nophah and Medeba. Heb., \u2018ad-nopakh \u2019asher \u2018ad-medeba\u2019. Lit., \u201cunto Nophah, which is unto Medeba.\u201d The MT has a point over the Resh (r) in \u2019asher [834, 889] (which), indicating doubt about it, and indeed the Samaritan Pentateuch and LXX omit the Resh, reading \u2019esh [784, 836], i.e., \u201cfire as far as Medeba\u201d (Budd 1984:242; NAB, NEB, NJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV).<\/p>\n
21:32 Jazer. This was a boundary of the Ammonites (21:24), probably Khirbet es-Sar (Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002:48, map 52).<\/p>\n
21:33 Edrei. This is modern Dera.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Chapter 21 has four units: (1) victory at Hormah (21:1\u20133); (2) the plague of fiery serpents (21:4\u20139); (3) the approach to Moab (21:10\u201320); and (4) victory over Sihon and Og (21:21\u201335).<\/p>\n
Victory at Hormah (21:1\u20133). Earlier, Israel had been clobbered and chased all the way to Hormah (14:45). At the same place, God now granted Israel a total reversal of that thorough defeat. If we take the place name khormah [2767, 3055] as an alliterative hint at kherem [2764, 3051] warfare, we may see here a reference to the total-war policy endorsed by Deuteronomy\u2019s treatment of Yahweh war (Deut 7).<\/p>\n
The Plague of Fiery Serpents (21:4\u20139). Reversing their journey to avoid Edom (20:21), Israel took \u201cthe road to the Red Sea\u201d (21:4). They got cranky and whined about food one last time (cf. 11:4\u20136; Exod 16). Even speaking against Moses implied a complaint against God (14:27, 29, 35; 16:11; Exod 16:7). But here, for the first time, the record explicitly charges them with finding fault with God. Why had God and Moses brought them \u201cout of Egypt to die \u2026 in the wilderness\u201d (21:5)\u2014as though they any longer had a choice in this matter (cf. 11:4\u20136; 14:2\u20134). Their \u201cdaily bread\u201d revolted them (Matt 6:11; Luke 11:3) though it was angel\u2019s food (Ps 78:25). \u201cWhen a person\u2019s heart is intent on rebellion and beset by discontent, even the best of gifts from the Lord can lose their savor; nothing will fully satisfy until the heart is made right\u201d (Cole 2000:347).
\nThat brought on a plague of venomous snakes, and judgment always aroused Moses\u2019s intercession. Surprisingly, God\u2019s response was to tell Moses, \u201cmake a replica of a poisonous snake\u201d to put on a pole. In the ancient Near East, snakes were often symbols of life and fertility, and in Egypt, snake images might have been used to ward off snake bites; however, in the Old Testament they symbolized death, sin, and the curse (Gen 3; Lev 11:41). And it was the latter rather than the former use that Moses drew on. \u201cJust as in the ordinary sacrifices, the participant had to identify with the sacrifice by laying his hand on the animal\u2019s head, so in this instance with the bronze serpent, \u2018looking at it\u2019 was the equivalent of manual contact\u201d (Philip 1993:232, citing G. J. Wenham 1981:157\u2013158).
\nThe story certainly lends itself to figurative interpretation, which might make the point well: Those who had been bitten \u201creceived a symbol of deliverance to remind them of [the] law\u2019s command. For the one who turned toward it was saved, not by the thing that was beheld, but by you, the Savior of all\u201d (Wis 16:6\u20137, NRSV). Or such interpretation might wander off into detailed and speculative allegorization (e.g., Philo Allegorical Interpretation 1:20 and On Planting 20). In fact, the New Testament itself presents a figurative interpretation:<\/p>\n
Just as the serpent brought deliverance when raised on a pole for all to see, so He, who was made sin for us (2 Cor 5:21), would be raised on a cross to deliver mankind from the penalty of wickedness (John 12:32). In the same way that the ancient Israelite was required to look in faith at the bronze serpent to be saved from death, so the modern sinner must also look in faith at the crucified Christ to receive the healing of the new birth (John 3:14\u201316). (Harrison 1990:279)<\/p>\n
The Approach to Moab (21:10\u201320). Verses 10\u201320 describe the journey from Mount Hor up to the Transjordan. They \u201cset out from Mount Hor,\u201d aiming to skirt the land of Edom (21:4) and \u201ctraveled next to Oboth\u201d (21:10). The fiery serpent event intervened, perhaps at Punon (21:5\u20139; see commentary at 33:42\u201343).
\nAs Israel traveled on through Moab\u2019s capital (21:15, 28) they came to a town named \u201cWell\u201d (21:16; see note on \u201cBeer\u201d), where they sang of a well that princes had commissioned or dedicated with the symbols of their office (21:18). The narrative quotes a short bit of a song from The Book of the Wars of the LORD (21:14). Like The Book of Jashar (Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18), this was probably an ancient book of popular songs celebrating Israel\u2019s struggle to possess Canaan. This could have been a work song for men digging the well (Eissfeldt 1965:88) or celebrating its completion (Ashley 1993:413). For Israel it expressed their joy at God\u2019s repeated provision of water (Exod 15:22\u201325; 17:1\u20137). If the ancients sang of a well in the sand, how much more fitting it is to sing of Jesus\u2019 Spirit that springs up in our souls (John 7:37\u201339) and of drinking of Christ (1 Cor 10:4), never to thirst again (John 4:10\u201315).
\nFrom there they passed through Mattanah, \u201cRiver of God\u201d (Nahaliel) and Bamoth, to Pisgah Peak looking back over the wilderness (21:18b\u201320). Now it was time to look ahead to the beginnings of conquest, first in the Transjordan (21:22\u201335) and soon in Canaan proper.<\/p>\n
Victory over Sihon and Og (21:21\u201335). Pisgah Peak was where Balaam later overlooked the camp and attempted to curse Israel (23:14), and it was where Moses would overlook Canaan and die (Deut 3:17; 34:1\u20135). At this point Israel overlooked the Amorite territory, which blocked the route through the Transjordan, just as Edom had earlier blocked the route through the Arabah. Verses 21\u201335 describe Israel\u2019s defeat of the two kings in the Transjordan, the Amorite king Sihon (21:21\u201330) and Og, king of Bashan (21:31\u201335).<\/p>\n
Moses dispatched a diplomatic request for the right of transit, using virtually the same language he had earlier with the king of Edom (20:14\u201317). Israel had detoured to steer clear of war with their brother nation Edom. But no brotherly constraint inhibited fighting the Amorites. Besides, they could hardly bypass its territory if they were to enter Canaan from the east. King Sihon turned down the appeal for transit rights and directly adopted a combat stance (21:23). Israel\u2019s troops took the day, conquered \u201call the towns of the Amorites\u201d (21:25), even Sihon\u2019s royal city of Heshbon, which he had earlier seized from the Moabites (21:26). Israel\u2019s victory was comprehensive (21:25, 30; Deut 2:24\u201327; Judg 11:19\u201322). For two reasons they didn\u2019t carry the battle beyond the Jabbok, into Ammonite territory. First, the border was fortified (21:24). Second, the Ammonites were descended from Lot and were therefore remote relations of Israel (Gen 19:38), and God had given them their own territory (Deut 2:9, 19).
\nThe narrator throws back into the Amorites\u2019 faces one of their own ballads with which they had taunted the Moabites (21:27\u201330). The Amorites had sung ditties to the Moabites about how they had rebuilt a captured Moabite city (21:27), then used it as a base from which to conquer Moab\u2019s own royal city (21:28a). They had sung of mastering the Moabite god Chemosh by seizing his cultic shrines (21:28b) and had taunted his worshipers as worshipers of a god who was a loser (21:29).
\nNext, Og of Bashan, the \u201clast survivor of the giant Rephaites,\u201d attacked Israel (21:33; Deut 3:11). Like Goliath, Og was famous for his massive weapons (1 Sam 17:4\u20137; 2 Sam 21:16, 18, 20, 22) and for his jumbo bedstead (Deut 3:11). God encouraged Moses, \u201cDo not be afraid of him\u201d and promised the same sweeping victory that he had already given over Sihon of the Amorites (21:34). The ensuing victory put the lie to Caleb\u2019s fellow scouts, who had fretted over invincible giant warriors (13:28\u201329). No wonder later writers celebrated these victories in song (Josh 2:10; Neh 9:22; Pss 135:11; 136:17\u201322).
\nThe church is also to put on God\u2019s armor to fight, but not with the sword or against flesh and blood\u2014the battle is against spiritual powers (Eph 6:11\u201318). In victories more sweeping and significant than Israel\u2019s march through the Transjordan, God \u201ccontinues to lead us along in Christ\u2019s triumphal procession\u201d (2 Cor 2:14a). And rather than the kherem-inspired [2764, 3051] scent of death, we \u201cspread the knowledge of Christ everywhere, like a sweet perfume\u201d (2 Cor 2:14b). Our victorious lives are a Christlike fragrance rising up to God. Here we may have a parallel with the kherem-produced riches that were offered to God and brought into the Temple in some cases (e.g., Josh 6:19) or used in support of the cult (18:14; Ezek 44:29). Of course, \u201cthis fragrance is perceived differently by those who are being saved and by those who are perishing. To those who are perishing, we are a dreadful smell of death and doom. But to those who are being saved, we are a life-giving perfume\u201d (2 Cor 2:15). Such would have been the case with the kherem warfare that Israel waged, too.<\/p>\n
\u2666 C. On the Plains of Moab: Preparing to Enter the Promised Land (22:1\u201325:18)
\n1. The Balaam story (22:1\u201324:25)
\na. Balaam hired to curse Israel (22:1\u201341)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
22:5 in his native land of Pethor near the Euphrates River. Lit., \u201cPethor, which is near the River, the land of the sons of his people\u201d (Heb., \u2019erets bene-\u2018ammo [776, 824]). The KJV and ASV follow the LXX, which reads, \u201cby the river of the land of the sons of his people.\u201d BHS proposes reading, \u201cland of the sons\/people of Amaw\u201d (\u2019erets bene-\u2018amaw), which was located between Aleppo and Carchemish (Yahuda 1945; followed by RSV, TEV, NEB). The Samaritan Pentateuch, Vulgate, and Syriac read \u201cAmmon\u201d (\u2018ammon [5983A, 6648]), which would put him close to Moab, although that would confuse the location of Pethor (Albright 1915).<\/p>\n
Pethor. This is probably Pitru, on the west bank of the Euphrates about 12 miles south of Carchemish.<\/p>\n
22:7 with money to pay Balaam to place a curse upon Israel. Lit., \u201cwith their \u2018divinations\u2019 in their hand.\u201d This could refer to (1) being handy with or \u201cversed in divination\u201d (NJPS), (2) the paraphernalia used in the practice (Hirsch 1971:393; Moore 1990:98 n. 8; Tanhuma B. Numbers 135; Numbers Rabbah 20:8, followed by Rashi, Sforno, Ramban, Abravanel), or (3) the fees involved, as nearly all English translations have it (Harrison 1990:295; Noordtzij 1983:203; Sturdy 1976:163).<\/p>\n
22:15 even more distinguished. Heb., kabed [3513, 3877], which may connote \u201cwealthier\u201d (see next note).<\/p>\n
22:17 I will pay you very well. Lit., \u201cI will honor (kabed [3513, 3877]) you greatly,\u201d a euphemism for monetary rewards, as the next verse makes explicit (Milgrom 1989:188).<\/p>\n
22:21 donkey. Heb., \u2019athon [860, 912] (a jenny), a female donkey, making her the more pitied for the rough treatment Balaam dished out.<\/p>\n
22:22 to block his way. Heb., lesatan lo. Lit., \u201cas his adversary.\u201d Here it is a common noun rather than the proper name \u201cSatan\u201d (satan [7854A, 8477]; cf. 1 Chr 21:1; Job 1\u20132; Zech 3:1).<\/p>\n
22:28 gave the donkey the ability to speak. Lit., \u201copened the donkey\u2019s mouth\u201d (see Ezek 3:27; 33:22).<\/p>\n
22:41 Bamoth-baal. Lit., \u201chigh places of Baal,\u201d i.e., \u201cthe cultic platform of Baal\u201d (Milgrom 1989:193, citing the LXX, \u201cstele of Baal\u201d).<\/p>\n
see some of the people. Lit., \u201cthe end\/edge [qatseh] of the people.\u201d The term qatseh [7097, 7895] may mean \u201cthe full extent of\u201d Israel (cf. Vulgate\u2019s extremam partem populi; followed by Noordtzij 1983:214, KJV, ASV, JPS). However, subsequent shifts for another view incline me to understand it as \u201csome of the people\u201d (so LXX, meros ti tou laou [3313\/5100\/2992, 3538\/5516\/3295]; followed by NLT, NAB, NASB, NIV, NJPS, ESV).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
An inscription written on a plastered wall at Deir \u2018Alla in modern Jordan speaks of \u201cBalaam son of Beor,\u201d who was esteemed as a seer who specialized in curses (Hackett 1986b; Kaiser 1996; Lamaire 1985; Thompson 1986; Zeron 1991). It has been dated anywhere from the ninth century BC to the Persian period (Ashley 1993:438). That doesn\u2019t prove that Balaam was a known historical character, but it does show that he was at least a known literary character in the Transjordan, within a few miles of where the biblical account is set. The accounts in Deir \u2018Alla and the book of Numbers show striking correspondences (Ashley 1993:439\u2013440): (1) both depict Balaam as a diviner or seer and an exorcist or baru prophet rather than a Hebrew prophet; (2) both use the divine names in pretty much the same way, including even Shaddai; and (3) in both, Balaam receives his revelation by night (cf. 22:20).
\nOrigen and Jerome thought Balaam was a good prophet who went bad and then struggled to curse Israel. Others depict him as a bad prophet whom God coerced into blessing Israel. Ambrose and Augustine depict him as entirely bad, which certainly fits the overall canonical assessment. Nonetheless, it is best to start with this passage itself rather than later judgments and note that this story is replete with irony and ambivalence (Lutzky 1999). Balaam is initially portrayed as an obedient servant of Yahweh (22:1\u201321, 31\u201341; 23:1\u201324:25); however, this role is juxtaposed alongside a satirical view of him as \u201cblind seer,\u201d quite unable to \u201csee\u201d Yahweh\u2019s angel standing directly in his path (22:22\u201330), unable to see what any ass can see (Moore 1990:1). Then as the canonical record develops, ambivalence dissolves into general condemnation (31:8, 16; Deut 23:3\u20136; Josh 13:22; 24:9; Judg 11:23\u201325; Neh 13:1\u20133; 2 Pet 2:15; Jude 1:11; Rev 2:14).
\nBalaam himself claimed to speak the words of the Lord and disclaimed any ability to say anything other than what the Lord allowed. But the canonical judgment doesn\u2019t allow him the title \u201cprophet,\u201d just one \u201cwho used magic to tell the future\u201d (Josh 13:22). Spiritual manifestations do not necessarily establish justification or sanctification. Egyptian magicians matched Moses sign for sign at first (Exod 7:22; 8:7; cf. Exod 8:18). False prophets may mislead with predictions and miracles (Deut 13:1\u20132). King Saul prophesied, even after his rejection and during his concerted attempts to kill the anointed king (1 Sam 19:23\u201324). Caiaphas prophesied Jesus\u2019 death (John 11:51\u201352). Jewish exorcists cast out demons in Jesus\u2019 name without believing in him (Mark 9:38\u201339; cf. Acts 19:13\u201316). The Corinthians reveled in charismatic experience but fell short on faith, hope, and love. False messiahs, men of lawlessness, and \u201cbeasts\u201d can perform signs and wonders (Matt 24:24; Mark 13:22; 2 Thess 2:9; Rev 13:11\u201315; 18:23). So Jesus warned,<\/p>\n
Not everyone who calls out to me, \u201cLord! Lord!\u201d will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, \u201cLord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.\u201d But I will reply, \u201cI never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God\u2019s laws.\u201d (Matt 7:21\u201323)<\/p>\n
Balak Sends for Balaam (22:1\u201314). \u201cThe taunt song of 21:27\u201330 must have been particularly galling to Moab\u201d (Allen 1990:886). Israel appeared to be \u201cstronger than Sihon, and thus a fortiori stronger than Moab\u201d (Noordtzij 1983:197). So Balak, whose name means \u201cdevastator,\u201d fell into a \u201cgut-wrenching fear\u201d (Allen 1990:886) that he couldn\u2019t live up to his name. His fear of Israel\u2019s great numbers made him a \u201cPharaoh redivivus\u201d and an ironic mirror image of the spies (Sherwood 2002:174, citing 13:31; Exod 1:8\u201312). Moab and Midian attempted to make common cause against Israel, despite their long-standing enmity for each other (Gen 36:35). \u201cIt is like the case of two dogs that were fighting with one another. A wolf attacked one of them. The other thought: If I do not come to his aid the wolf will kill him today, and tomorrow he will attack me. For a similar reason Moab joined with Midian\u201d (Milgrom 1989:186, citing Numbers Rabbah 20:4; cf. Josephus Antiquities 4.100\u2013102; Sifre Numbers \u00a7157; Sanhedrin 105a; Tanhuma B. Numbers 134).
\nBalak\u2019s solution was to hire a curse master to manipulate the will of the gods. He sent generous offers to Balaam, whose greed for payment became the basis for the New Testament judgment on him (2 Pet 2:15; Jude 1:11; Rev 2:14). On the first bid, Balaam told Balak\u2019s messengers to wait overnight, and he pronounced the first of his several warnings that he could only report \u201cwhatever the LORD directs me to say\u201d (22:8; see 22:18, 38; 23:12, 20, 26; 24:13). Perhaps Balaam was only invoking Yahweh\u2019s name before this Moabite delegation to increase their confidence in his access to where it counted so they might pay accordingly, but his statement proved to be true\u2014despite Balaam\u2019s pecuniary aspirations.
\nGod subjected Balaam to a bit of judicial cross-examination about what he was up to, just as he had done with the perpetrators of the first sin and the first murder (Gen 3:9\u201314; 4:9). In this one of four occasions where we read of God using dreams to warn non-Israelites not to proceed with their plans, God told Balaam, \u201cDo not go\u201d (22:12; cf. Gen 20:3; 31:24; Matt 2:1, 12). When he got up, Balaam lamented, \u201cThe LORD will not let me go with you\u201d (22:13), omitting the reason: It would be futile to accredit a mission to curse a nation that God had blessed since the times of the patriarchs (Gen 12:1\u20133; 27:33).<\/p>\n
Balaam Accepts Balak\u2019s Second Offer (22:15\u201321). Balak couldn\u2019t take seriously Balaam\u2019s protestation that he could only pronounce \u201cwhatever the LORD directs me to say\u201d (22:8). \u201cAfter all, what good was he as a sorcerer if he could not manipulate the gods to do or decree as he wanted?\u201d (Sherwood 2002:175). Thinking Balaam was negotiating for a better offer, Balak told Balaam, \u201cI will pay you very well\u201d and even promised, \u201cI will \u2026 do whatever you tell me\u201d (22:17).
\nBalaam\u2019s response spoke of \u201cYahweh my God\u201d (22:18). It is possible that this was an actual confession of loyal faith in Israel\u2019s God; at this early stage in the story that is the most natural reading of it. But that statement must have sounded bizarre to this story\u2019s first readers\u2014it came from a pagan! Of course, the larger narrative and subsequent canonical context undermines his confession. \u201cSince he professed allegiance to and intimacy with Israel\u2019s God, he would have had a better chance of convincing Him to curse His people Israel\u201d (Milgrom 1989:188). Indeed, rather than tell Balak that what he was seeking was impossible, Balaam put the king into a holding pattern, hoping the Lord might have something \u201celse to say\u201d if he kept trying (22:19). Indeed, the Lord reversed his early prohibition and allowed Balaam to accompany Balak\u2019s delegation (22:20). This introduces narrative tension: Does this mean he might also \u201cchange his mind and permit Balaam to curse this nation he had punished in times past?\u201d (Cole 2000:387). After all, Israel had recently been complaining again, so perhaps this was going to be another story of how God punished Israel\u2019s incessant complaining. But we soon get the first hint that God may relent with Balaam but not with his basic intent for Israel\u2019s blessing in the statement about God\u2019s anger being aroused because Balaam took the commission (22:22). Still, Balaam set off with at least some faint hope of pocketing a big paycheck.<\/p>\n
God Opposes Balaam (22:22\u201335). Levine calls these verses \u201ca picturesque fable mocking the reputed clairvoyance of diviners\u201d (Levine 2000:138). The story makes us wonder: First, will Balaam, the \u201cseer,\u201d be able to \u201csee\u201d the danger in front of his own nose? His donkey does! Second, will Balaam, the \u201coracle reciter\u201d so famous for conveying divine answers to divinatory requests in the past, have a \u201cword\u201d placed in his mouth? To our astonishment, he does.
\nGod grew just as angry and frustrated with Balaam as Balaam got with his donkey. Some wonder at God\u2019s anger at Balaam for doing what he had already permitted. But God knew that \u201che was hankering after the reward\u201d (Hertz 1977:672, following the Jewish tradition of Targum Onqelos, Rashi, Rashbam, Tosafot). Like the cherubim blocking the way back into Eden (Gen 3:24), the Lord seeking to kill Moses as he set out to return to Egypt (Exod 4:24), and the angel sent to destroy Jerusalem and confront David (1 Chr 21:14\u201317), God\u2019s agent became Balaam\u2019s militaristic adversary.
\nThe pitiful jenny saw what Balaam the \u201cseer\u201d (24:4, 16) couldn\u2019t see. We shouldn\u2019t think of her seeing as an example of animal premonition; it only reminds us that God sometimes chooses \u201cthings the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise\u201d (1 Cor 1:27). But Balaam was not to be put off in his search for the big payday. Three times he beat the jenny, the third time using his \u201cstaff\u201d (maqqel [4731, 5234]; 22:23, 25, 27). Perhaps this was just his \u201criding stick\u201d (Ashley 1993:452); however, if rhabdomancy (divination by use of a rod) was among Balaam\u2019s arsenal of divining techniques (Ashley 1993:457; see Hos 4:12), we may be \u201csupposed to conclude that this specialist is not only \u2018blind\u2019 but also incompetent: he does not know how to use his maqqel properly\u201d (Moore 1990:72).
\nJust as God had opened the donkey\u2019s eyes, so he opened the donkey\u2019s mouth (22:28; Ezek 3:27; 33:22), and why not\u2014who makes a mouth, who decides who can or cannot speak, who can see or cannot see (Exod 4:11)? We shouldn\u2019t make too much of this. \u201cThe donkey did not give a prophetic oracle; she merely said what a mistreated animal might say to an abusive master if given the chance. There was no preaching from the donkey!\u201d (Allen 1990:893).
\nBalaam\u2019s response was to wish for a sword rather than a staff (22:29). The Midrash scoffs: \u201cAt this, the ass laughed. He was intent on destroying the whole people by word of mouth, and to slay a poor ass he requires a sword\u201d (Hertz 1977:672). Indeed, \u201cThere was a sword very near, but the object was not about to be the donkey! (22:23, 31\u201333)\u201d (Zohar Balak; cf. Numbers Rabbah 20:14; the same idea is in Allen 1990:894). Balaam, the internationally famous seer and curse expert, couldn\u2019t even hold his own with a donkey (22:30).
\nFinally, \u201cthe LORD opened Balaam\u2019s eyes\u201d (22:31), which makes for sweet irony when Balaam later advertises himself as an ecstatic seer who falls prostrate with eyes wide open (24:4, 16), especially if we remember that this is the same language used of the donkey\u2019s previous \u201cvision\u201d (22:23). God himself joined the donkey\u2019s case against the serial jenny-beater (22:32). God accused Balaam of being perverse (22:32b) and echoed Balaam\u2019s own threat against his donkey, \u201cI would certainly have killed you\u201d but for the donkey, which you wanted to kill (22:33; cf. 22:29). Eventually, Balaam realized the error of his ways (22:34), whether confessing willful transgression of God\u2019s will or just a blunder.<\/p>\n
Balaam Tells Balak of His Inability to Curse Israel (22:36\u201341). With the power struggle between Balaam and God settled on the side of God\u2019s controlling things, a new power struggle began. King Balak took offense at Balaam\u2019s cavalier attitude toward the royal summons and financial offers: \u201cWhy didn\u2019t you come right away?\u201d (22:37). Balaam retorted, \u201cLook, now, I have come,\u201d then got down to business: \u201cI will speak only the message that God puts in my mouth\u201d (22:38). Balak should have immediately cancelled the contract when he first heard that vital stipulation. Balaam kept insisting that he was a seer who could recite only what the Lord gave him to say, but Balak kept hoping that Balaam might function as a sorcerer, hatching up effective curses that could force the hand of the gods.
\nNonetheless, Balaam accompanied Balak and accepted his sacrificial offers of hospitality, which he probably saw as a wonderful start in the direction of greater rewards (22:39\u201340). Unlike the sacrifices that Balaam later mandated as part of his divining rites, the sacrifice served the purposes of hospitality more than the purposes of religion. Sacrificial meals were \u201ca regular means of f\u00eating holy men\u201d (G. J. Wenham 1981:171, citing 1 Sam 9:12\u201313; 16:2\u201313; also E. W. Davies 1995b:252). Then Balak took Balaam to one of his cultic high places to give him a vantage point for doing his curse business. In case the whole majestic camp of Israel might put Balaam off, Balak showed Balaam only \u201csome of the people of Israel\u201d (22:41).<\/p>\n
\u2666 b. Balaam\u2019s first ritual and prophecy (23:1\u201312)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
23:4 seven. This was an important sacred number in the ancient Near East in general (NBD 834) and in Israel\u2019s own cultic calendar and ritual prescriptions (ch 29; Lev 8:11; 14:7, 16; 16:14, 19; 25:1\u201355).<\/p>\n
23:5 The LORD gave Balaam a message. Lit., \u201cthe LORD put a word in the mouth of Balaam.\u201d<\/p>\n
23:7 message. Heb., mashal [4912, 5442], a term referring more to form than content (Ashley 1993:469), used of apothegms (1 Sam 10:12; 24:13 [14]), proverbs (Ezek 12:22; 18:2\u20133), and lamentations (Isa 14:4; Mic 2:4). The term is used to classify Balaam\u2019s pronouncements (23:7, 18; 24:3, 15, 20, 23); however, it is never used for the discourses of Israel\u2019s prophets. This may imply that Balaam should not be placed among the prophets (Milgrom 1989:196; Noordtzij 1983:216).<\/p>\n
23:9 a people who live by themselves. This could be a lonely, unprotected condition (Jer 49:31; Mic 7:14), with \u201cno allies nearby\u201d (Judg 18:28); however, this is in parallel with \u201cset apart from other nations\u201d (lit., \u201cand among the nations is not reckoned\u201d), which makes it sound more like the privilege of election (Ashley 1993:471; G. J. Wenham 1981:173\u2013174, citing Exod 19:5; Deut 7:6; 10:14; 14:2). Others think \u201calone\u201d refers to Israel\u2019s strength and security, noting that this figure of speech is used of God (Deut 32:12) and of Israel (Deut 33:28; Jer 49:31; Gray 1903:346; Milgrom 1989:197).<\/p>\n
23:10 Who can count \u2026 Israel\u2019s people? Lit., \u201cWho can count the dust of Jacob and who can number a fourth of Israel?\u201d Like their \u201ccountless thousands\u201d (10:36), this is an echo of the patriarchal promise (Gen 13:16; 28:14). Some slightly emend the word translated \u201ca fourth\u201d to get an exact parallel between \u201cdust of Jacob\u201d and \u201cdust cloud of Jacob\u201d (HALOT, NRSV).<\/p>\n
23:11 you have blessed them. In Hebrew this is emphatic: you have \u201caltogether\u201d blessed them (KJV, ASV, JPS) or \u201conly blessed them\u201d (NET), \u201cdone nothing but bless them\u201d (RSV, NRSV, ESV).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Verses 1\u201312 set out Balaam\u2019s first ritual (23:1\u20136a), prophecy (23:6b\u201310), and Balak\u2019s disappointment with the result (23:11\u201312). In the ritual (23:1\u20136a) Balaam called for \u201cseven altars\u201d (23:1) and ordered king Balak, \u201cStand here by your burnt offerings\u201d (23:3). Might this be the narrator working a parody of Moses\u2019s saying, \u201cDon\u2019t be afraid. Just stand still and watch the LORD rescue you today\u201d (Exod 14:13; cf. 1 Sam 12:7, 16), or perhaps a parody of prayerful waiting (Hab 2:1)? In a parody of Moses\u2019s Sinai experience, Balaam went off alone to practice his divinatory rites (cf. 24:1). He reported to God that he had gotten Balak to offer sacrifices (23:4), which implies that he thought they would be acceptable to the Lord. Balaam could have understood the sacrifices as incubation for a revelatory dream, so he promised king Balak, \u201cI will tell you whatever [the LORD] reveals to me\u201d (23:3). To the reader\u2019s surprise, \u201cthe LORD gave Balaam a message\u201d (23:5).
\nThe resulting \u201cmessage\u201d wasn\u2019t Israel\u2019s doom (23:7); rather, it protested the impossibility of any such thing. When he asked, \u201cWho can count Jacob\u2019s descendants?\u201d (23:10), he echoed the patriarchal promise of numerous offspring (Gen 13:16; 28:14), like the earlier mention of \u201ccountless thousands\u201d (10:36). When he asked, \u201cWho can count even a fourth of Israel\u2019s people?\u201d (23:10), it is possible that his vantage point over part of Israel gave him a view of one of the four tribal divisions camped at each of the four compass points around the Tabernacle (ch 2; see 22:41; 23:13). Instead of cursing Israel, Balaam blessed himself by Israel, \u201clet my life end like theirs\u201d (23:10), an ancient Near Eastern idiom that perhaps also expresses a desire for inclusion in the blessing promised to Abraham, \u201cAll the families on earth will be blessed through you\u201d (Gen 12:3)\u2014though this may also be translated \u201cblessing themselves by you\u201d (RSV, NJB, NJPS, NET).
\nKing Balak complained, \u201cYou have blessed them!\u201d (23:11). As Milgrom notes, \u201cOstensibly there is no blessing in Balaam\u2019s first oracle, only praise\u201d (Milgrom 1989:197). Balaam\u2019s mantra was that he couldn\u2019t say anything but what God put in his mouth (23:12; see 22:18, 38; 23:20, 26, 27; 24:13).<\/p>\n
\u2666 c. Balaam\u2019s second ritual and prophecy (23:13\u201326)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
23:14 plateau of Zophim. Lit., \u201cPeak of Watchers,\u201d which might have been an occultic site for seeking omens, such as by observing the stars or the flight of birds, or it could just have meant something like \u201cLookout Point.\u201d<\/p>\n
23:21 proclaimed their king. Heb., teru\u2018ah [8643, 9558], the term used earlier for trumpet calls (10:5); here, it is used in celebrating Yahweh as Israel\u2019s king (Exod 15:18; Deut 33:5; Judg 8:23; 1 Sam 8:7; 12:12; Pss 47; 98:6; Isa 33:22). This is the first place in the OT that the Lord is called \u201cking,\u201d although there was an earlier mention that he \u201cwill reign forever\u201d (Exod 15:18).<\/p>\n
23:22 for them he is as strong as a wild ox. Lit., \u201clike the horns (keto\u2018apoth [8443, 9361]) of the wild ox (re\u2019em [7214, 8028]) are to\/for him\u201d (cf. same expression in 24:8). The versions don\u2019t know what to make of keto\u2018apoth: the LXX has h\u014ds doxa [5613\/1391, 6055\/1518] (like glory), the Targums have \u201cin strength,\u201d and the Vulgate goes with fortitudo similis est rinocerotis (his strength resembles that of the rhinoceros). HALOT goes with \u201chorns\u201d in this verse, reflecting the re\u2019em, the bull-like wild aurochs. The extinct aurochs served as an almost mythical figure of strength (24:8; Deut 33:17; Job 39:9; Pss 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa 34:7). Even the horn itself was a symbol of strength and vitality (Deut 33:17; 2 Sam 22:3; Ps 18:2), might and dignity (1 Sam 2:1, 10; Pss 89:17, 24; 92:10; 112:9; 132:17; Lam 2:17), and sometimes arrogance (Ps 75:4\u20136). It is not clear whether the lo [3807.12050.2, 4200\/2257] (to him) attributes this intimidating power to Israel\u2019s God or to the lionlike nation of Israel (cf. 23:25). \u201cPerhaps, however, the distinction is more apparent than real, for the writer would clearly have understood Yahweh\u2019s strength and indomitable power to be manifest in the military prowess of Israel\u201d (E. W. Davies 1995b:263).<\/p>\n
23:23 No curse can touch Jacob; no magic has any power against Israel. Lit., \u201cThere is no enchantment in\/against Jacob, no divination in\/against Israel.\u201d Some take this to mean none is permitted in Israel (Binns 1927:165; Dillmann and Knobel 1886:154; Gray 1903:355\u2013356; McNeile 1911:134; i.e., ASV, JPS, NJPS, LXX); however, saying that no magic is effective against Israel fits this context better (Ashley 1993:481; Budd 1984:268; Noordtzij 1983:222; Noth 1968:187; Sherwood 2002:179; de Vaulx 1972:280; G. J. Wenham 1981:176; i.e., NLT, KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NJB, NIV, NAB, NET).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
We see a bit of comedy in the notion that a change of location might make for a change of luck, even if it overlooked another quarter of the camp (23:13) or was a more auspicious occultic lookout (23:14). Once again God \u201cgave him a message\u201d (23:16), a phrase stressed in the first two messages (23:1\u201324) but not for his last two messages, when the Spirit came on him (23:25\u201324:25). At this point, Balak seemed to acknowledge Balaam\u2019s claim to be a seer rather than a sorcerer, asking, \u201cWhat did the LORD say?\u201d (23:17).
\nWhen Balaam exclaimed, \u201cGod \u2026 does not lie.\u2026 he does not change his mind\u201d (23:19), he wasn\u2019t stating a theological absolute about God\u2019s unchanging will. Certainly the Bible has language about God not changing (1 Sam 15:29; Mal 3:6; Rom 11:29; Heb 13:8; Jas 1:17); however, it also freely uses language about God changing his mind, often in response to prophetic intervention (e.g., Exod 32:9\u201314; Amos 7:3, 6) and human repentance (Jonah 3:10; 4:2). But here Balaam was challenging king Balak\u2019s notion that sacrificial bribes or repetitive applications of magical pressure could get God to \u201cchange his mind\u201d (23:19): \u201cGod has blessed, and I cannot reverse it!\u201d was his point (23:20).
\nBalaam had to report that in spite of his fondest wishes to succeed as a highly paid curse specialist, \u201cno misfortune\u201d was headed Israel\u2019s way (23:21a). Why? \u201cThe LORD their God is with them\u201d (23:21b). God lives \u201cin the high and holy place,\u201d but he also makes his home \u201cwith those whose spirits are contrite and humble\u201d (Isa 57:15), whether in Israel, among the church (2 Cor 6:16), or in eternity (Rev 21:3). This was the key covenant promise (Exod 25:8; 29:45; Ps 135:21). And he was their king (23:21)\u2014proclaimed as an enthronement shout echoed over Israel\u2019s camp (see Exod 15:18; Deut 33:5; Judg 8:23; 1 Sam 8:7; 12:12; Isa 33:22).
\nBalaam reported, \u201cGod brought them out of Egypt\u201d (23:22). Balaam spoke of Israel as a powerful aurochs (23:22; 24:8) or lion (23:24), roaring while it bulled its way through the wilderness. No international curse expert was going to lay a glove\u2014or tongue\u2014on them. Disgusted, Balak told Balaam not to curse or bless them; however, bless was all that God would let Balaam do when he turned his eyes on Israel (23:26). That may have put his life at risk among King Balak\u2019s retinue\u2014but then Balaam had insisted on accepting this commission.<\/p>\n
\u2666 d. Balaam\u2019s third ritual and prophecy (23:27\u201324:13)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
23:28 Mount Peor. This was perhaps in the vicinity of Beth-peor (cf. Deut 3:29; 4:46; 34:6; Josh 13:20), which was a little north of Mount Nebo. It was likely a sanctuary of Baal of Peor (25:3, 5, 18; Hos 9:10).<\/p>\n
24:1 did not resort to divination as before. Heb., welo\u2019 halak kepa\u2018am-bepa\u2018am [5173, 5728]. The expression kepa\u2018am-bepa\u2018am [6471, 7193] could mean \u201cat times in the past\u201d or \u201ccustomarily\u201d (e.g., 1 Sam 20:25, cf. BDB 822a); however, here it more likely refers to \u201cthe immediately preceding times\u201d (Ashley 1993:486).<\/p>\n
24:3 whose eyes see clearly. Lit., \u201cwhose eye is opened\/uncovered\u201d (cf. 24:4); cf. LXX, ho al\u0113thin\u014ds hor\u014dn [230\/3708, 242\/3972], the one whose \u201ceye\/sight is true.\u201d<\/p>\n
24:4 the message. Heb., ne\u2019um [5002, 5536], or \u201cdeclaration, utterance, oracle.\u201d Ashley notes that it is used with a human subject only here and 24:15\u201316 and a few other times (2 Sam 23:1; Ps 36:1; Prov 30:1); rather, it is almost always used of the Lord\u2019s words in prophetic oracles (Isa 14:22; Ezek 13:6; Hos 2:13, 16, 21; Mic 4:6).<\/p>\n
Almighty. Shadday [7706, 8724] was the patriarchs\u2019 ancient name for Israel\u2019s God (Exod 6:3; cf. Gen 17:1; 28:3; 35:11). In Canaanite texts such as the Deir \u2018Alla inscription, the shaddayin are the gods (\u2019lhn) in El\u2019s council (for the text, see Hackett 1986a), so perhaps the title applies to God in his role as head of the divine council (Ashley 1993:488, citing Hackett 1986b:86\u201387).<\/p>\n
bows down. Lit., \u201cfalls down.\u201d Some think this refers to ecstatic trance (Budd 1984:269; Noth 1968:190) or to a state of sleep to receive a dream, as the LXX understands it; however, Milgrom thinks it merely refers to homage to God (Milgrom 1989:203), as the NLT takes it.<\/p>\n
24:6 like palm groves. Heb., kinekhalim 3509.1\/5158\/5158A, 3869\/5707\/5708]. Earlier translations understood the term to refer to something like a valley or wadi (HALOT nkhl I, e.g., KJV, RSV, NIV, JPS), as some still do (NET). Indeed, the LXX (napai) refers to wooded vales, dells, or glens, perhaps understanding the Hebrew to be referring to a wadi or brook. But now it\u2019s more likely to be translated \u201cpalm groves,\u201d which makes for more consistent imagery throughout the verse (HALOT nkhl II, e.g., NLT, NRSV, NJPS, ESV, NET mg).<\/p>\n
like tall trees. Heb., ka\u2019ahalim [3509\/3509.1\/174, 3869\/193], a wordplay on \u2019ohaleka [168, 185], \u201ctents\u201d (24:5). Traditionally, these were aloes or perhaps cardamom (BDB), but commentators suggest various things: \u201cice-plant, forming lush grassland Mesembrianthemum nodiflorum\u201d (HALOT) or the aromatic eaglewood tree (Aquilaria agallocha) found not in Palestine but rather in India and Malaysia (Harrison 1990:318; Snaith 1969:298). If the latter is correct, this would be more a theological comment about Eden-like conditions than a botanical note about the actual location of the plant species.<\/p>\n
like cedars beside the waters. This is poetic license, since cedars don\u2019t grow along the rivers but on mountainsides.<\/p>\n
24:7 Water will flow from their buckets. This symbolizes fertility, whether water flowing from twin irrigation buckets hooked on both ends of a carrying pole (Ashley 1993:491; Milgrom 1989:204) or abundant semen (Allen 1990:907). See next comment.<\/p>\n
their offspring have all they need. Lit., \u201chis seed is in many waters.\u201d The phrase refers to Israel\u2019s expanding population (Ashley 1993:492; Harrison 1990:318; Sturdy 1976:176; G. J. Wenham 1981:177).<\/p>\n
Their king. Cf. the patriarchal promise (Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11), which focused on Judah (Gen 49:9\u201310). For Jewish messianic interpretation built on this prediction, see Vermes 1961:159\u2013160.<\/p>\n
24:8 for them he is as strong as a wild ox. Lit., \u201clike the horns of the wild ox for him\u201d (see 23:22).<\/p>\n
shooting them with arrows. Lit., \u201ccrushing his arrows.\u201d The verb makhats [4272, 4730] usually implies a club used for crushing foreheads (24:17; Judg 5:26; Pss 68:21; 110:6; Hab 3:13), loins (Deut 33:11), or feet (Ps 68:21); however, the NLT follows the LXX in understanding this as \u201cstriking\u201d enemies with arrows.<\/p>\n
24:10 angrily clapped his hands. Lit., \u201cclapped his hands,\u201d with the explanatory \u201cangrily\u201d supplied by NLT. This was an ancient Near Eastern gesture of contempt, derision, or remorse (Job 27:23; 34:37; Lam 2:15; Ezek 6:11; 21:14, 17; 25:6). The gesture was probably not clapping the hands together but striking the palm against a thigh (Levine 2000:198).<\/p>\n
you have blessed them. Heb., berakta barek [1288A, 1385], doubling the verb to intensify its force, i.e., \u201cyou have actually blessed\u201d (see 23:11).<\/p>\n
24:13 I would be powerless to do anything against the will of the LORD. Lit., \u201cI would be unable to transgress the mouth of Yahweh, to do good or bad,\u201d a climactic declaration that unifies the whole Balaam cycle (Coats 1973:26; Sherwood 2002:180).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Even after telling Balaam \u201cif you won\u2019t curse them, at least don\u2019t bless them\u201d (23:25), Balak opted for a third attempt from a new location, saying, \u201cPerhaps it will please God to let you curse them from there\u201d (23:27b). Balak took Balaam to Mount Peor, which may have been the abode of Baal of Peor (25:3, 5). Certainly, it takes on horrible associations by chapter 25, so its mention here portends trouble. For a third time, Balaam supervised his seven preparatory ritual offerings (23:29). But this time we see three differences from before: First, \u201che did not resort to divination as before\u201d (24:1). This could refer to his customary practice as a curse expert; in this context it must surely refer to his practice with the previous messages in chapters 22\u201323.<\/p>\n
Now the reader learns what it is that Balaam has been doing when he separated himself from Balak: He has been seeking omens (nekhashim). Is this information meant to put Balaam\u2019s prophetic activity in a new light? Balaam has stated (23:23) that there is no divination (nakhash [5173, 5728]) that is effective against Jacob. Are we to conclude that he learned this the hard way? (Sherwood 2002:179)<\/p>\n
Second, Balaam now views all \u201cthe people of Israel camped, tribe by tribe\u201d (24:2). Once Balaam was set to bless Israel, he abandoned Balak\u2019s caution and decided to \u201cview the entire Israelite encampment with impunity\u201d rather than just a portion as before (Milgrom 1989:202; cf. 22:41; 23:13). Third, \u201cthe Spirit of God came upon him\u201d (24:2). Earlier God \u201cgave Balaam a message\u201d (23:5, 16), but here we see the language describing a prophetic, ecstatic trance (24:3; cf. 11:25\u201329) or visionary state (Ashley 1993:487; G. J. Wenham 1981:176; cf. 11:17; 1 Sam 10:5, 10; 11:6; 19:20; 1 Kgs 22:24). Balaam described himself as an ecstatic falling into a visionary trance (Budd 1984:269; Noordtzij 1983:225; Noth 1968:190) or at least falling asleep to receive revelation in a dream, as the Septuagint understands it. When he said his eyes were wide open (24:4), he may have been recalling with irony the uncovering of his eyes so he could finally see the angel that his donkey had been veering away from (22:31).
\nThe content of his revelation is rich with the metaphors of idyllic and imperial prosperity and strength. Israel is prospering \u201clike gardens by the riverside \u2026 like cedars beside the waters\u201d (24:6). This is Edenic language of luxurious riverside growth, including even cedars, though they grow not there but on craggy hillsides. And the point is that they are \u201cplanted by the LORD\u201d (24:6). Israel is like the exotic, pampered garden of a king who can sustain anything he wants to in luxurious growth\u2014and he can do so anywhere he wants to, even on a trek through the wilderness.
\nIsrael and its rapidly multiplying offspring would enjoy abundance: \u201cWater will flow from their buckets\u201d (24:7). This, coupled with the mention of \u201coffspring\u201d experiencing plenty, must refer to Israel\u2019s expanding population. The Egyptians had found this intimidating, and Balak had too, which was why he had summoned Balaam. The ancient Near Eastern image is that of a farmer with overflowing supplies of water, which the New Testament adopts as a wonderful image of spiritual supply (John 7:37\u201339).
\nThe patriarchal promise included royal hopes, which finally focused on Judah (Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11; 49:9\u201310). Balaam spoke of a future king who would prove \u201cgreater than Agag\u201d (24:7b), the Amalekite king in the distant future whom Saul, Israel\u2019s first king, would eventually defeat (1 Sam 15:8). What are the options for how to understand this message? The first option is to take it as \u201ca straightforward prophecy of Israel\u2019s oldest enemy [i.e., the Amalekites],\u201d which in turn was a promise of Israel\u2019s triumph over all its foes (G. J. Wenham 1981:178, citing Exod 17:14\u201316; also suggested as a distinct possibility by Allen 1990:906). This would make the prophecy a prediction that is more specific than most distant predictions are (Ashley 1993:493). A second option is that this was an earlier Agag who was known to Balaam\u2019s hearers, which sounds a bit like special pleading. Or, third, this may have been a throne name (Harrison 1990:319) or recurring title like Pharaoh in Egypt (Keil 1869:189; Noordtzij 1983:228), Abimelech in Philistia, and Ben-Hadad in Syria (Allen 1990:906).
\nWhen this future king of Israel would come to power, God, who had \u201cbrought them out of Egypt,\u201d would make Israel \u201cstrong as a wild ox\u201d (24:8; cf. 23:22), \u201clike a lion\u201d (24:9; Gen 49:9). Thus the message continues with the question, \u201cWho dares to arouse her\u201d (24:9a) with attempts to curse, especially when blessings and curses aimed at Israel are God-ordained boomerangs, as the original Abrahamic covenant had said (24:9b; Gen 12:3)? This implied there would be a curse on Moab for commissioning a curse expert. It also implied a blessing on Balaam for refusing to curse and only bless Israel (Coats 1982:72). And surely Balaam could have been as blessed as anyone who attached themselves to Israel, if he had stayed the course of blessing Israel. Consider the mixed multitude at the Exodus, Jethro and Hobab in the wilderness, Rahab and Ruth during the period of Joshua and the judges, and Gentiles who are grafted into the one true vine through Christ (Rom 11:17).
\nThis kingdom would be a powerful international force that \u201cdevours all the nations that oppose him\u201d (24:8). Balak, who thought he had hired a qualified curse master, hadn\u2019t been listening to Balaam\u2019s warnings of his inability to say anything but what God gave him to say (24:13; see 22:20, 35; 23:12, 26). His dissatisfaction with Balaam\u2019s messages had begun with mild rebuke (23:11) and progressed to impatience (23:25); now they led to outraged revocation of the contract (24:10). One can imagine Balaam figuring out ways to spend a \u201cpalace filled with silver and gold\u201d but frustrated that he was \u201cpowerless to do anything\u201d (24:13) to earn it.<\/p>\n
\u2666 e. Balaam\u2019s fourth prophecy (24:14\u201319)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
24:16 the Most High. Heb., \u2018elyon [5945B, 6610]. The adjective \u2018elyon combines with other divine titles such as \u2019el [410A, 446] (Gen 14:18\u201320, 22), \u2019elohim [430, 466] (Pss 57:2; 78:56), and yhwh [3068, 3378] (Pss 7:17; 47:2), and \u201csons of the Most High\u201d bene-\u2018elyon [1121, 1201] is found in parallel with \u2019elohim (Ps 82:6). \u2018Elyon may have originally had the notion of the highest god in a pantheon, and perhaps had that connotation for Balaam himself.<\/p>\n
24:17 I see him. This is a different kind of seeing from before (22:41; 23:13; 24:2); nonetheless, the verbs for seeing constitute a unifying motif for chs 22\u201324 (Alter 1985:105). The identity of \u201chim\u201d may be corporate Israel (Binns 1927:171\u2013172; Gray 1903:369; McNeile 1911:139); however, it is more likely the individual(s) called the \u201cstar\u201d and \u201cscepter\u201d (Dillmann and Knobel 1886:159; Keil 1869:192; Noordtzij 1983:230\u2013231; Noth 1968:192; G. J. Wenham 1981:178\u2013179).<\/p>\n
star. The Bible seldom uses this as a royal symbol, as it is here (Isa 14:12; cf. Ezek 32:7; Rev 22:16); and we see no compelling ancient Near Eastern examples (contra Ashley 1993:500, citing Cook and Espin 1871:745 and Binns 1927:171\u2013172).<\/p>\n
scepter. Heb., shebet [7626, 8657], a royal insignia (Ps 45:6; Amos 1:5, 8), which harkens back to a patriarchal royal promise (Gen 49:10). Some suggest that shebet also means \u201ccomet\u201d or \u201cmeteor,\u201d which would maintain a parallel with \u201cstar\u201d (Milgrom 1989:208); however, HALOT doesn\u2019t list such a meaning, and forcing parallelism makes for poor translation.<\/p>\n
cracking the skulls. Lit., \u201cand he will tear down.\u201d However, the NLT follows the Samaritan Pentateuch and Jer 48:45, which appears to be using Num 24:17. This reads Daleth (\u05d3) in place of Resh (\u05e8): qodqod [6936, 7721] (\u201ccrown of head, skull\u201d) rather than qarqar [6979A\/D, 7979] (\u201ctear down, shatter\u201d), forming synonymous parallelism with \u201ccrushing the foreheads.\u201d<\/p>\n
people of Sheth. If we take this as \u201cSeth,\u201d we have almost the equivalent of the \u201csons of Adam,\u201d indicating that Israel will be at odds with all the rest of mankind, which may shed light on Balaam\u2019s earlier comment that Israel lived \u201cby themselves, set apart from other nations\u201d (23:9). If parallelism leads us to see \u201cMoab\u201d and \u201cSheth\u201d as comparable entities, we have the following choices: (1) Moab and Sheth could be two names for Moab (cf. Jacob\/Israel, Edom\/Seir), or (2) the sutu may have been a neighboring people in Canaan, whose former name and location died out by Jeremiah\u2019s time, when he used this text with \u201csons of tumult\u201d (Jer 48:45, sons of sha\u2019on [7588A, 8623]; NLT, \u201crebellious people\u201d).<\/p>\n
24:19 Ir. The NLT takes it as a proper noun rather than a common noun meaning \u201ccity\u201d (\u2018ir [5892\/5893, 6551\/6553]), but perhaps it is a reference to Ar-Moab (21:28) or Ir-Moab (22:36). It could also be a collective singular for \u201cMoab\u2019s cities.\u201d<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Rather than the sought-for curse on Israel, which implied a blessing for Moab, Balaam progressed from implying a blessing on Israel (23:1\u201312), to explicit blessing (23:13\u201326), to threatening Israel\u2019s enemies (23:27\u201324:13), to threatening Moab itself (24:14\u201319): \u201cLet me tell you what the Israelites will do to your people\u201d (24:14). He began his final message with the same language he used to open his third (24:15; cf. 24:3), but at this point he began speaking of \u201cthe future\u201d (24:14, 17). One of the rabbis asks, \u201cHow can he know the knowledge of the Most High, when he cannot even read the mind of his ass?\u201d (b. Sanhedrin 105b, cited by Vermes 1961:165). But when Balaam said, \u201cI see him\u201d (24:17), he spoke of a spiritual sight that he had lacked before; he now looked into Israel\u2019s future and saw a powerful king, which spelled ruin for Israel\u2019s foes. As to Edom, who had so mistreated Israel (20:14\u201321), they would receive their initial judgment when David defeated them (2 Sam 8:14), but they would arise to trouble Israel until their final judgment (Isa 63:1\u20136; Obadiah).
\nWhat are the options for dating \u201cthe future \u2026 far in the distant future\u201d (24:14, 17)? At the least we would not expect to see an immediate fulfillment under the leadership of Moses or even Joshua. Harrison even speaks of \u201cthe obvious eschatological tone\u201d of this prophecy (1990:323). Whatever fulfillment Israel experienced early in its history, or even during David\u2019s rule, the fullest realization of the message would come with the eschatological messianic kingdom.
\nThe vision spoke of a rising \u201cstar\u201d (24:17), a common ancient Near Eastern image for a ruler, with which Old Testament usage resonates. Joseph saw 11 stars symbolizing his brothers, and the sun and moon symbolizing his parents, all bowing down before him (Gen 37:9). The overreaching king of Babylon sought to raise his throne higher than \u201cGod\u2019s stars\u201d (Isa 14:13) and earned the derisive title \u201cshining star, son of the morning\u201d (Isa 14:12). Finally, the Old Testament uses the starry hosts as a reference to God\u2019s heavenly armies (Judg 5:20; Ps 148:2; Isa 40:26). The mention of a \u201cscepter\u201d also foretells a powerful king for Israel (24:17). Naturally, Jewish literature began interpreting Balaam\u2019s prophecies messianically: The Qumran community looked to the star and scepter and hoped for the messiahs of Aaron and Israel, i.e., the anointed priest and king (CD 7:18\u201321). Rabbi Akiba hailed the leader of the second Jewish revolt (AD 132\u2013135) as Bar Kochba, meaning, \u201cson of the Star.\u201d Targum Onkelos elaborated on the mention of \u201cCyprus\u201d (or \u201cKittim\u201d) in 24:24 to describe the Romans attacking Mesopotamia (cf. Dan 11:30). Josephus identified \u201cAsshur\u201d (24:22, 24) with the Seleucid Empire of Antiochus Epiphanes (Antiquities 13.6.7) and said, \u201cFrom which completion of all these predictions that he made, one may easily guess that the rest will have their completion in time to come\u201d (Antiquities 4.125).
\nAlthough intertestamental passages quote Balaam\u2019s prophecy as a reference to the coming Messiah, the New Testament never does. So Noordtzij plays down any idea of direct messianic prophecy in favor of referring this to the development of Israel\u2019s monarchy. Indeed, David initially fulfilled this prophecy; however, in so doing he foreshadowed the coming of the Messiah. Certainly the New Testament usage of Balaam\u2019s imagery (Matt 2:2, 7, 9; Rev 2:28; 22:16) is in keeping with the expectation that Jesus was the ruler whom Balaam promised (Matt 26:63; Mark 14:61; Luke 22:67\u201370; John 1:20; 4:25). The trajectory set out in Balaam\u2019s prophecy is fulfilled when we hear, \u201cThe world has now become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign forever and ever\u201d (Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n
\u2666 f. Balaam curses Amalek (24:20\u201325)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
24:20 Amalek. A tribe in the Sinai peninsula, they were Israel\u2019s implacable enemies (14:43\u201345; Exod 17:8\u201316; Judg 6:3, 33).<\/p>\n
greatest of nations. Lit., \u201cfirst (re\u2019shith [7225, 8040]) of the nations.\u201d This was the Amalekites\u2019 debatable self-assessment (Ashley 1993:506\u2013507), either because of their antiquity (Gen 14:7) or supremacy (cf. Amos 6:1).<\/p>\n
its destiny. Heb., \u2019akharith [319, 344]. Lit., \u201cits end,\u201d which plays off its antonym, re\u2019shith (first); Milgrom 1989:209.<\/p>\n
24:22 Kenites. This is the rendering in KJV, NIV, NLT. Others prefer \u201cKain\u201d (Noordtzij 1983:234; with ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, JPS, NJPS). This oracle plays on qeni [7017, 7808] (\u201cKenite\u201d; 24:21), qayin [7014A, 7804] (\u201cKain\/Kenite\u201d; 24:22), and qen [7064, 7860] (\u201cnest\u201d; 24:21). And if \u201cKain\u201d is right, it is a proper name substituting for a tribe, like Jacob\/Israel = Israelites; Amalek = Amalekites. They were a seminomadic group in the Sinai Peninsula, and they were represented as a subgroup of the Midianites but also as Israelites through Moses\u2019s wife and brother-in-law (10:29; Judg 1:16; 4:11). Milgrom says, \u201cThe name means \u2018smith,\u2019 implying that they were itinerant craftsmen, a guild of metalworkers who plied their metallurgical skills over a wide area\u201d (1989:209).<\/p>\n
Assyria. Heb., \u2019ashur [805\/A, 857], probably not Assyria but rather the Ashurites (cf. Asshurites), a tribe in the northern Sinai (Gen 25:3, 18; 2 Sam 2:9; Ps 83:8; cf. Budd 1984:270; Harrison 1990:326; de Vaulx 1972:295). If it were the great imperial power Assyria, they would pose the same threat to the Hebrews that they would to the Kenites. Rather, this tells the Kenites that they will be subdued by their neighbors (G. J. Wenham 1981:181).<\/p>\n
24:24 Ships will come from the coasts of Cyprus. Lit., \u201cships from the hand of Kittim.\u201d The term \u201chand\u201d was a metaphor for the coast, and the \u201cKittim\u201d are traditionally understood to be the inhabitants of Cyprus (Gen 10:4; cf. Isa 23:1; Jer 2:10; Ezek 27:6). Later, kittim [3794, 4183] came to refer to any western maritime peoples, and eventually to the Romans (e.g., Dan 11:30; LXX rh\u014dmaioi and the Qumran War Scroll [4Q491 f10ii:9; f11ii:1ff; f13:3, 5]).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
As judgment on Moab and Edom would ensure Israel\u2019s future (24:17), so judgment on \u201cAmalek\u201d would help sustain Israel (24:20). A preeminent tribe in the Negev, who had opposed Israel\u2019s very birth as a nation-state (cf. Exod 17:8\u201316), they merited destruction. Saul initiated that destruction, which David, and later Hezekiah, completed (1 Sam 15:18; 30:17; 1 Chr 4:43). It is more surprising to see the \u201cKenites\u201d as objects of judgment (24:21). They remained on good terms with Israel (Judg 5:24; 1 Sam 30:29). Saul gave them a friendly \u201cheads-up\u201d before attacking their neighbors the Amalekites (1 Sam 15:6), perhaps because descendants of Moses\u2019s in-laws were Kenites (Judg 1:16; 4:11). Some Kenites even settled in Judah\u2019s southern wilderness (Judg 1:16). That makes us wonder why they should be chosen for doom in an oracle implying blessing for Israel. Ashley notes that this \u201cdoes not predict that Israel would be involved in the fall of this friendly power\u201d; rather, \u201cit would be Asshur that attacked them\u201d (1993:508, citing 24:22).
\nBalaam closed with a proverbial saying about any nation\u2019s ability to resist God\u2019s decree. Neither Balak\u2019s Moab nor any of Israel\u2019s other ancient neighbors such as the Edomites, Amalekites, or Kenites would survive God\u2019s decree of destruction. And on the horizon, Balaam saw the Kittim (24:24; NLT, \u201cCyprus\u201d), which eventually became a generic term for any hostile foreign power, such as the Syrian Seleucids, Egyptian Ptolomies, or Romans. \u201cThey, too, will be utterly destroyed\u201d (24:24).<\/p>\n
\u2666 2. National apostasy and divine punishment (25:1\u201318)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
25:1 having sexual relations with local Moabite women. Lit., \u201cplaying the harlot with the daughters of Moab.\u201d This was in the spiritual as well as the physical sense (Exod 34:15; Deut 31:16; Judg 2:17; 8:33; Jer 5:7; Ezek 16:36; 20:30; 23:35; Hos 4:12; 5:4; 9:1; cf. Rev 2:14). Cultic prostitution was a feature of Canaanite religion (Harrison 1990:337; G. J. Wenham 1981:185; Herodotus 1920:1.199; contra Levine 2000:296, who cites Gruber 1983; Gruber 1986; van der Toorn 1989). This verse speaks of relations with Moabite women, but the story actually recounts a sexual alliance with a Midianite woman (25:4\u20136). \u201cThe Midianites were a mobile group (cf. Jdg 6) who evidently at this time were worshiping at the same shrine as the Moabites, so it should cause no undue tension to read that the slain woman was a Midianite (25:6, 16, 17f.)\u201d (G. J. Wenham 1981:185). We need not consider these verses to be \u201ctwo unconnected stories, one about promiscuity with Moabite women (25:1\u20135) and the other with a Midianite woman (25:6\u201318)\u201d (E. W. Davies 1995b:284); rather, the second is a specific incident of the first.<\/p>\n
25:2 gods of Moab. Most English translations render the plural \u2019elohim [430, 466] as \u201cgods\u201d; however, since the context indicates that Baal of Peor is intended (25:3, 5), perhaps it should be \u201cMoab\u2019s god\u201d (Noordtzij 1983:239; NAB, NJPS), just as the plural \u2019elohim is translated \u201cgod\u201d when it refers to the pagan god Nisroch (2 Kgs 19:37) or goddess Ashtoreth (1 Kgs 11:5).<\/p>\n
25:3 joined. Heb., tsamad [6775, 7537]. The verb means \u201cyoked,\u201d i.e., becoming adherents of a false god, or perhaps even understood as a double entendre based on the sexual sense of \u201ccoupled.\u201d<\/p>\n
Baal of Peor. This could mean either \u201cthe Master of Peor\u201d (i.e., the local chief deity) or \u201cthe deity worshiped at a site named pe\u2018or [6465, 7186]\u201d (Levine 2000:284); the two ideas amount to basically the same thing. Other biblical examples are Baal-hermon (Judg 3:3) and Baal-hazor (2 Sam 13:23); extrabiblical examples are Baal-Lebanon, Baal-Tarsus, Baal-Tyre, Baal-Sidon (Ashley 1993:517 n. 22).<\/p>\n
25:4 execute them. Hiphil of yaqa\u2018 [3363, 3697], elsewhere referring to the \u201cdislocation\u201d of Jacob\u2019s thigh (Gen 32:25), \u201cexecution\u201d of the Gibeonites (2 Sam 21:13), and public \u201cexposure\u201d of Saul at Beth-shan (1 Sam 31:10). Hence, \u201cto display with broken legs and arms (alternatively, to impale, break upon a wheel)\u201d (HALOT). Levine translates, \u201cimpale them to YHWH, facing the sun\u201d (2000:285).<\/p>\n
25:6 brought a Midianite woman into his tent. MT, \u201cbrought to his brothers the Midianite,\u201d i.e., \u201cto his family\u201d (NIV). Levine translates, \u201cpresented the Midianite woman to his kinsmen\u201d (2000:286), perhaps as his new bride (Gray 1903:384). The NLT follows the BHS suggestion to emend from \u2019ekhayw [251\/2050.2, 278\/2257] (his brothers) to \u2019oholo [168\/2050.2, 185\/2257] (his tent); see 25:8. See note at 25:1 about the Moabite women and the Midianite woman.<\/p>\n
25:8 rushed after the man into his tent. Lit., \u201cwent after the man of Israel to the qubbah [6898, 7688],\u201d a hapax legomenon that is not the usual word for tent. It may even have referred to her god\u2019s tent-shrine, e.g., a Midianite tent-sanctuary or a domed tent-sanctuary (Budd 1984:274; HALOT). If so, the sex there was not only promiscuous but also a pagan rite (Levine 2000:280).<\/p>\n
25:13 making them right with me. Lit., \u201cmaking atonement\/paying ransom for the sons of Israel,\u201d in this case the sinners themselves dying rather than offering a substitutionary sacrifice.<\/p>\n
25:15 Cozbi. This name means \u201cdeceiver.\u201d Lutzky sees a play on two different meanings of the root kazab: kazab I means \u201cto lie, deceive, disappoint,\u201d whereas kazab II means \u201cto be voluptuous.\u201d Since in Akkadian kuzbu (voluptuousness, sexual vigor) is an attribute of Ishtar and Asherah, Lutzky suggests the possibility that this narrative is directed against the worship of the fertility goddesses. Part of the rhetoric would be in the wordplay on the root of Cozbi\u2019s name: \u201cThough the goddess may be alluring and full of promise (kazab II), she is no more than a delusion (kazab I) to whom all pleas for deliverance would be in vain\u201d (Lutzky 1997:548; see also Niditch 1993:45). The root kazab [3576, 3941] has been heard in 23:19: God is not a man that he should deceive, nor a descendant of Adam that he should repent. \u201cInstead of following the God who does not deceive, the people have followed the deceiver\u201d (Sherwood 2002:181\u2013182, citing Lutzky 1997; Niditch 1993).<\/p>\n
Zur, the leader of a Midianite clan. Lit., \u201cZur, the head of some tribes of a paternal house of Midian.\u201d He is also called a king (31:8) and a chieftain (Josh 13:21). It appears that Moses had killed Zur earlier (Josh 13:21; cf. Num 21:24\u201335).<\/p>\n
25:18 Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader. Lit., \u201cCozbi, daughter of a chieftain of Midian, their kinswoman,\u201d implying the obligation for a kinsman-redeemer-avenger to avenge her death (Milgrom 1989:218).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Allen notes, \u201cThis chapter presents a formative encounter with Baal worship, a miniature of the disaster that would one day engulf and destroy the nation.\u201d As such, it is both \u201can end and a beginning. It marks the end of the first generation; it also points to the beginning of a whole new series of wicked acts that will finally lead to Israel\u2019s punishment\u201d (Allen 1990:914; see Judg 2:13; 1 Kgs 18; 2 Kgs 17:16; Jer 2:8).
\nThe \u201cfathers\u201d of Moab failed in using Balaam to destroy Israel by a curse; however, Balaam succeeded in using the daughters of Moab to entice Israel into liaisons that would bring on God\u2019s curse. Israel\u2019s troops may have considered the captured Moabite women fair game for victor\u2019s beds after conquering this territory, which the Amorite king Sihon had earlier seized from the Moabites (21:25\u201326). But this account goes further: The \u201cmen defiled themselves\u201d because they began to (literally) \u201cplay the harlot with the daughters of Moab\u201d (see 25:1 and note). That the Israelite men rather than the Moabite women were said to \u201cplay the harlot\u201d implies that this went beyond physical harlotry to the spiritual whoredom that verse 2 indicates: They \u201cfeasted with them and worshiped the gods of Moab\u201d (25:2). Just as the sex may have been cultic, so, too, the meal may have been cultic (cf. meat offered to idols, Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; 1 Cor 8:4, cf. 1 Cor 10:25). Israel became \u201ccoupled\u201d with a false God (25:3a), adherents enticed into worship by forbidden coupling with foreign women. One last time in Numbers, \u201cthe LORD\u2019s anger [blazes] against his people\u201d (25:3b).
\nGod set out to deal with this by publicly executing the guilty ringleaders and participants in Baal worship (25:4). At that moment, one of the guilty men strutted \u201cright before the eyes of Moses and all the people\u201d (25:6). Commentators give three suggestions for identifying the offense: (1) illicit sex (Keil 1869:205), (2) foreign marriage (Baentsch 1903:624\u2013625; Binns 1927:178; Budd 1984:280; Noordtzij 1983:241; Noth 1968:198; Sturdy 1976:184), or (3) cultic offense (Cross 1973:201\u2013203; Levine 2000:280; Milgrom 1989:212, 214, 476\u2013480; de Vaulx 1972:299; G. J. Wenham 1981:187). Ashley concludes, \u201cAll three factors seem to apply\u201d (Ashley 1993:520).
\nFor whatever reason, Moses didn\u2019t react immediately. The rabbis suggest it was because he himself had a Midianite wife (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan; see Sifre Numbers \u00a7111; b. Sanhedrin 82a). But Phinehas, whose father Eleazar and grandfather Aaron had stood between the living and the dead during the rebellion of Korah (16:36\u201350), now intervened to save many lives. Allen says, \u201cHe is typical of Christ the Victor (see Pss 2; 110; Rev 19). He is an early embodiment of \u2018star\u2019 and \u2018scepter\u2019 of 24:17, the smiter of Moab\u201d (1990:920). He killed the pair in the very act (25:8).
\nWhat are we to think of this violent deed? As a Levite, Phinehas would have been charged to protect the sanctity of the Tabernacle, even to the point of killing intruders (chs 3\u20134). This pair was not defiling the Tabernacle itself, however. Phinehas responded in the same way that Moses had ordered the Levites to respond to the golden calf incident (Exod 32:24\u201329). Some rabbis think Phinehas set a dangerous precedent by taking the law into his own hands. His proverbial zeal (Ps 106:30\u201331) later motivated the Maccabean fighters (1 Macc 2:23\u201327) and subsequent Zealots (4 Macc 18:12). God approved of Phinehas\u2019s \u201cbeing as zealous among them as I was\u201d (25:11) and established a \u201ccovenant of peace with him\u201d (25:12). Just as God would later grant perpetual kingship to the line of David, God gave Phinehas\u2019s line a \u201cpermanent right to the priesthood\u201d (25:13). The text here mentions \u201cthe priesthood,\u201d not \u201cthe high priesthood,\u201d but it may be that the high priesthood is intended here, or at least that his line, later called Zadokites (Ezek 40:46; 44:15; 48:11) would be exclusive officiants at the Temple.
\nJewish tradition has made much of Phinehas\u2019s zeal, ranking him third after Moses and Aaron (Sir 45:23). Some Christian commentators treat him as a type of Christ, because he embodied an ideal of Hebrew priesthood and the same zeal that Jesus showed in the Temple (Mark 11:15\u201317; John 2:13\u201317; cf. Pss 69:9; 119:139). But the biblical record itself draws a moral rather than a Christological lesson from this account, following Paul\u2019s principle that \u201cthese things happened as a warning to us\u201d so that we would not repeat their immoral behavior (1 Cor 10:6\u20138). Micah told Israel to \u201cremember\u201d that event (Mic 6:5), and the New Testament writers compared contemporary false prophets to Balaam\u2019s enticements (2 Pet 2:15; Jude 1:11; Rev 2:14).
\nThe quick action of Phinehas had the effect of purifying (lit., \u201cmaking atonement for\u201d) the people of Israel (25:13), assuaging God\u2019s wrath by killing the most guilty before God\u2019s wrath struck down the whole guilty community. Despite the prompt action of Phinehas, \u201c24,000 people had died\u201d (25:9) by a plague, which exceeded even the 14,700 struck down after Korah\u2019s rebellion (16:49). These were the last first-generation corpses that had been doomed to fall in the wilderness (14:29). The census that follows the incident expressly certifies this (26:64).
\nThe story ends by noting that the offenders were from leading families in their two nations. The man from Israel was \u201cthe leader of a family from the tribe of Simeon\u201d (25:14), which camped to the south of the Tabernacle. This tribe experienced severe losses in the wilderness, dropping from 59,300 to 22,220; perhaps the losses from plague account for a significant portion of the loss of 37,080 men. The guilty woman from Midian was \u201cCozbi,\u201d daughter of \u201cZur, the leader of a Midianite clan\u201d (25:15). This execution of one of their princesses would have done little to improve relations between Israel and Midian, who would have felt compelled to avenge it, but the Midianites had maneuvered Israel into a horrible sin for which God\u2019s judgment was due. Indeed, conflict continued (Judg 6\u20138).<\/p>\n
\u2666 II. Birth of the New Generation (26:1\u201336:13)
\nA. The Second Count (26:1\u201365; cf. 1:1\u20134:49)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
26:1a After the plague had ended. The Masoretes marked a major break at the end of 26:1a which is not shown in most English versions; however, this is a temporal clause that clearly goes with the rest of 26:1 and the following verses.<\/p>\n
26:9 Nemuel. This is omitted elsewhere (16:1, 12; Deut 11:6). Some ask whether it was accidentally written here because of its occurrence in 26:12 (E. W. Davies 1995b:293).<\/p>\n
26:12 Jemuel. The NLT harmonizes with Gen 46:10 and Exod 6:15, as does the Syriac. The Hebrew reads \u201cNemuel\u201d (cf. NLT mg).<\/p>\n
26:13 Zohar. Heb., zerakh [2226\/2227, 2438\/2439]. NLT harmonizes what is probably a variant spelling with Gen 46:10 and Exod 6:15. Zerah was one of the chief clans of Judah (Gen 46:12), but since Simeon was absorbed into Judah, it is plausible to conjecture that representatives of this Simeonite clan became linked to both tribes (Milgrom 1989:222). Compare the lists of Simeon\u2019s sons:<\/p>\n
Gen 46:10
\nExod 6:15
\nNum 26:12\u201313
\nJemuel
\nJemuel
\nNemuel (cf. NLT mg), possibly a variant spelling
\nJamin
\nJamin
\nJamin
\nOhad
\nOhad
\nOmitted, possibly because he did not found a family, perhaps dying in childhood
\nJakin
\nJakin
\nJakin
\nZohar
\nZohar
\nZerah (cf. NLT mg), possibly a variant spelling
\nShaul
\nShaul
\nShaul<\/p>\n
26:15 Zephon. Cf. Ziphion (Gen 46:16 mg).<\/p>\n
26:16 Ozni. Cf. Ezbon (Gen 46:16).<\/p>\n
26:23 Puah. This follows the reading pu\u2019ah [6312, 7025] (LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, Peshitta, and 1 Chr 7:1). The Hebrew reads \u201cPuvah\u201d (so NLT mg), the clan of the judge Tola (Judg 10:1\u20132).<\/p>\n
26:30 Iezer. This is \u201csynonymous with Abiezer (Josh 17:2), the clan of the judge Gideon (Judg 6:11, 24, 34)\u201d (Milgrom 1989:224). He is the first-named son of Gilead but may have been the son of his sister Hammoleketh, who was regarded as his \u201cson\u201d for genealogical purposes (1 Chr 7:18).<\/p>\n
26:35 Beker. He is elsewhere called a son of Benjamin rather than of Ephraim (Gen 46:21; cf. \u201cBicri,\u201d 2 Sam 20:1); this is a difficulty that causes his omission in the LXX. Perhaps this clan changed its tribal identity while in Egypt, or possibly the family lived along the Benjamin-Ephraim border (Milgrom 1989:225).<\/p>\n
26:44 Beriah. This was also a clan of Ephraim (1 Chr 7:21\u201324) and Benjamin (1 Chr 8:13); see previous note.<\/p>\n
26:46 Serah. The only female in the genealogical lists, she is also mentioned in Gen 46:17 and 1 Chr 7:30. Ramban cites the Targum on this verse: \u201cthe name of the daughter of the wife of Asher\u201d (this is not in the extant Targum texts, however). This suggests that her father died without male offspring. She is therefore in the same category as the daughters of Zelophehad (27:1\u201311), which explains her being mentioned here. Otherwise, her presence remains a mystery (Milgrom 1989:226).<\/p>\n
26:58 Kohath was the ancestor of Amram. Cf. 3:19; Exod 6:14\u201318.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Numbers 26 turns the page on the first generation; the plague of chapter 25 had eliminated them. From here on, occupation of the Promised Land again becomes the focus in Numbers.
\nGod commanded Moses and Aaron\u2019s successor, Eleazar, to conduct a count of the new generation (26:1\u20132). The first counts had determined camp divisions in the wilderness; this count would determine land divisions in the Promised Land, which now lay just across the Jordan (26:3). And in a note that we grew used to hearing in the early part of the book, we read of Moses and Eleazar\u2019s prompt and exact obedience (26:3\u20134). A new count of the liberated people would have spoken volumes about new possibilities for this new generation (26:4b).
\nThe counting of the tribes is arranged almost exactly as it was in the military census of chapter 1 (see 1:6\u201315): Reuben (26:5\u201311), Simeon (26:12\u201314), Gad (26:15\u201318), Judah (26:19\u201322), Issachar (26:23\u201325), Zebulun (26:26\u201327), Manasseh (26:28\u201334), Ephraim (26:35\u201337), Benjamin (26:38\u201341), Dan (26:42\u201343), Asher (26:44\u201347), and Naphtali (26:48\u201350). The list also adheres to the same three-tribe groupings of chapters 1 and 2 (see note at 2:2). Verses 5\u201351 name each tribe\u2019s clans, numbers its able-bodied men, and gives an overall total. For Reuben (26:9\u201311), Judah (26:19), and Manasseh (26:33), the text provides additional information. The resulting count may be compared with the first count as follows:<\/p>\n
Tribes
\nCensus (year 2)
\nCensus (year 40)
\nDecrease
\nIncrease
\nPercentage
\nReuben
\n46,500
\n43,730
\n2,770
\n-6%
\nSimeon
\n59,300
\n22,200
\n37,100
\n-63%
\nGad
\n45,650
\n40,500
\n5,150
\n-11%
\nJudah
\n74,600
\n76,500
\n1,900
\n+3%
\nIssachar
\n54,400
\n64,300
\n9,900
\n+18%
\nZebulun
\n57,400
\n60,500
\n3,100
\n+5%
\nEphraim
\n40,500
\n32,500
\n8,000
\n-20%
\nManasseh
\n32,200
\n52,700
\n20,500
\n+64%
\nBenjamin
\n35,400
\n45,600
\n10,200
\n+29%
\nDan
\n62,700
\n64,400
\n1,700
\n+3%
\nAsher
\n41,500
\n53,400
\n11,900
\n+29%
\nNaphtali
\n53,400
\n45,400
\n8,000
\n-15%
\nTOTAL
\n603,550
\n601,730
\n1,820
\n-0.3%<\/p>\n
The major changes are the sharp decline in Simeon, which was soon absorbed by Judah (Josh 19:1; Judg 1:3), and the marked increase in Manasseh, which soon expanded beyond its settled territory (Josh 17:11, 16) and came to dominate events during the judgeships of two of its sons, Gideon and Abimelech (Judg 6\u20139; 12:1\u20136).
\nReuben suffered small losses (26:5\u201311); indeed, the account includes a supplementary note that neither the Reubenites nor the Korahites died out, despite their involvement in the rebellion (26:8\u201311). The Korahites continued into the postexilic period as Temple singers (Pss 42\u201349, 84, 85, 87, 88) and guards (1 Chr 9:19; 26:1\u201319). Nonetheless, they are mentioned here as a \u201cwarning.\u201d Simeon lost nearly two-thirds of its soldiery (26:12\u201314), which foreboded their absorption into the tribe of Judah, fulfilling Jacob\u2019s last words to the violent brothers Levi and Simeon (Gen 49:5\u20137). Gad suffered about a 10 percent loss (26:15\u201318). The royal tribe of Judah, already the largest tribe, enjoyed a slight increase (26:19\u201322). Verse 19 notes the absence of Er and Onan from the clan lists (cf. Gen 46:12). From Judah\u2019s line, Perez is the only grandson noted (Gen 46:12), indicating a precedence befitting the line from which king David would come (Ruth 4:18\u201322), and thus from which Jesus would come (Matt 1:3; Luke 3:33). Issachar experienced about 20 percent growth (26:23\u201326), and Zebulun experienced modest growth (26:26\u201327).
\nSince Levi is omitted from the count to determine land allotments, the Joseph tribes (26:28) of Manasseh (26:29\u201334) and Ephraim (26:35\u201337) are listed separately. In the first count, Ephraim had been listed first, as the larger tribe enjoying the preeminence foretold in Jacob\u2019s blessing (Gen 48:19). In this count, the brothers are listed in birth order, Manasseh before Ephraim (Gen 46:20). Ephraim had been larger in the first census, but it suffered a 20 percent decrease to become the second-smallest tribe; meanwhile, Manasseh had enjoyed an increase of over 60 percent, approximately double the growth of even the growing tribes of Issachar, Benjamin, and Asher. Manasseh produced the \u201cMakirite clan\u201d (26:29a), which continued through \u201cGilead, Makir\u2019s son,\u201d and subdivided into five subclans (26:29b\u201332). The narrator brought this up to the sixth and seventh generations to mention Zelophehad and his daughters in anticipation of their inheritance and the related laws (26:33; see 27:1\u201311; 36:1\u201313). Parallel lists of Benjamin clans differ (26:38\u201341; cf. Gen 46:21; 1 Chr 7:6). Allen (1990:935\u2013936) gives the following potential explanations for the differences:<\/p>\n
1. The name Beker may have been misunderstood in 1 Chronicles 8:1 as bekoro [1060\/2050.2, 1147\/2257], \u201chis firstborn,\u201d leading to the unusual list of ordinals in the rest of the names of that listing.
\n2. The name Ahiram in 26:38 (= Aharah of 1 Chr 8:1) may be identified with Ehi of Genesis 46:21; alternatively, perhaps there is a confusion of the two names Ehi and Rosh of Genesis 46:21 in the name Ahiram.
\n3. Shuphupham (= Shupham of Samaritan Pentateuch, Vulgate, Syriac) is confused perhaps with Muppim of Genesis 46:21.
\n4. Hupham of 26:39 may equal Huppim of Genesis 46:21; but he may be a descendant, not a direct son (see 1 Chr 7:12; yet 1 Chr 7:12 may list descendants who have similar names as their forebears; this issue is complex).
\n5. Ard in 26:40 is listed as a son of Bela, along with Naaman. Perhaps these men were not born at the time recorded in Genesis 46.<\/p>\n
In any case, Benjamin experienced about a 30 percent growth, while Dan held steady in population and ranked second only to Judah in both counts (26:42\u201343). Since there is only one clan listed here and no evidence elsewhere for any other clans, this one family group must have been most fruitful. Asher experienced 30 percent growth (26:44\u201347), and Naphtali experienced a 15 percent loss (26:48\u201350).
\nThe final twelve-tribe troop count of 601,730 constituted a negligible loss after the rigors of 40 years in the wilderness (26:51). It sustained the reality of the patriarchal promise of numerous offspring, as more than half of the tribes grew, and despite the judgments of the wilderness, the overall population remained stable. As G. J. Wenham (1981:190) concludes, \u201cGod\u2019s promises to the patriarchs may be delayed by human sin, but they are not ultimately frustrated by it (cf. Rom 11).\u201d
\nWith the recount completed, attention turned to the division of the land (26:52\u201362), with treatment of the method for allotting it (26:52\u201356) and the concerns of the Levitical clans (26:57\u201362). The size of the tribe was supposed to determine the size of its area (26:53), and casting lots was to determine its location (26:55). Earlier the Levites were listed separately because they were exempted from military duty and set apart for cultic duty at the Tabernacle. Here they are listed separately because they are not entitled to a land allotment (26:62; see 18:23). Rather than listing just the three Levitical clans listed earlier (3:21\u201337), this account lists five Levitical clans: four clans named not for Levi\u2019s sons but for some of his grandsons (Libni, Hebron, Mahli, and Mushi) and one named for a great-grandson, Korah (whose sons lived on, 26:10\u201311; cf. ch 16).<\/p>\n
The chart that follows shows the clans that descended from Levi. Those in parentheses are not included in the list of Numbers 26; however, they are found in clan lists elsewhere (Gen 46:11; Exod 6:16\u201325; Num 3:17\u201339; 1 Chr 6:1\u201329; 23:6\u201323; 24:20\u201330). There are also some variations in the lists in Chronicles which are not represented in the chart: \u201cLadan and Shimei, the sons of Gershon\u201d (1 Chr 23:7 mg); \u201cthe descendants of Kohath included Amminadab, Korah, Assir,\u201d etc. (1 Chr 6:22\u201324), and \u201cthe descendants of Merari included Mahli, Libni, Shimei,\u201d etc. (1 Chr 6:29\u201330). This may hint that these clans died out or were cut off in the wilderness.
\nVerses 63\u201365 form a postscript, summarizing the results of the two troop counts and recapitulating the point of the census. The outcome demonstrated that the entire first generation of wilderness wanderers had perished, just as God had threatened (14:23\u201338).<\/p>\n
\u2666 B. Laws about Land, Offerings, and Vows (27:1\u201330:16)
\n1. Inheritance of Zelophehad\u2019s daughters (27:1\u201311; cf. 36:1\u201313)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
27:5 their case. The MT enlarges the final Nun, which serves as a feminine plural suffix, emphasizing this feminine request for land.<\/p>\n
27:7 give them. This is masculine plural, although we would expect feminine. It was probably a scribal mistake, given how common the masculine plural is compared to the feminine plural (Allen 1990:943\u2013944), though Harrison suggests it was to put the woman on the same footing as male heirs (1990:360).<\/p>\n
Assign them. This is the expected feminine plural.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Chapters 27\u201330 deal with matters preparatory to occupying the land. With the foresight of faith, Zelophehad\u2019s daughters sought to protect their family\u2019s inheritance even though only daughters remained (27:1\u201311; cf. 36:1\u201313). Then Moses commissioned Joshua (27:12\u201323) before setting out various regulations for offerings (28:1\u201331), festivals (29:1\u201340), and vows (30:1\u201316).
\nTwo assumptions drive the story of Zelophehad\u2019s daughters: First, the land belongs to the Lord (Lev 25:23); second, males inherit property and perpetuate the family (Deut 21:15\u201317). The first assumption was never to be challenged (1 Kgs 21:16\u201319; Mic 2:1\u20135); however, driven by the foresight of faith, Zelophehad\u2019s daughters challenged the second assumption. So they came to the Tabernacle and petitioned Israel\u2019s leaders (27:2). They noted that their father had not been among Korah\u2019s followers, whose families might well be excluded from land ownership in Canaan; rather, he died because of the guilt shared by everyone in the first generation over the scout episode (27:3b; see ch 14). The problem was not his death, but that he left no sons (27:3c). \u201cIn contradistinction to their men who feared to invade Canaan and wished to return to Egypt (14:1\u20134), they boldly stepped forward and demanded an inheritance in the promised land\u201d (Milgrom 1989:230, citing Sifre Numbers \u00a7133; Sifre Zuta on 27:1; Numbers Rabbah 21:10).
\nApparently levirate marriage was not an option since Zelophehad\u2019s wife would also have died off with the rest of the first generation, as any of his surviving brothers would have (see Gen 38:1\u201326; Deut 25:5\u201310; Ruth 3:1\u201313). And the daughters must not have been married yet, or any land they received would have passed to the clans of their husbands rather than keeping their father\u2019s name alive (cf. 36:3). Zelophehad\u2019s daughters didn\u2019t end up changing the patrilineal pattern, but they did open the way for daughters to keep the father\u2019s name alive in the absence of sons. Thus, \u201cthe daughter does not really inherit; she transfers the inheritance from father to grandson and thereby keeps the ancestral land in the father\u2019s line\u201d (Milgrom 1989:232). So God told Moses to give them their father\u2019s land (27:7). Then the law was generalized, but with qualifications aimed at keeping the land in the family and clan (27:9\u201311; cf. 36:1\u201313). If a man had no sons, then his land went to his daughters (27:8); if no daughters, then to his brothers (27:9); if no brothers, then to his paternal uncles (27:10).<\/p>\n
\u2666 2. Commissioning of Joshua (27:12\u201323)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
27:17 who will guide them wherever they go and will lead them into battle. Lit., \u201cwho can go out before them and come in before them and lead them out and lead them in.\u201d This has a military connotation, which the NLT makes explicit.<\/p>\n
like sheep without a shepherd. This was an image widely used of royalty in the ancient Near East. It was used for David, Israel\u2019s shepherd-king and for the Lord himself (Ps 23), and it was quoted in Matt 9:36 and Mark 6:34, as well as echoed in John 10:3\u20134, 9.<\/p>\n
27:21 the Urim\u2014one of the sacred lots cast before the LORD. Lit., \u201cthe Urim before the LORD.\u201d This is short for Urim and Thummim, as in 1 Sam 28:6.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Why does the author tell this story here, when it could have been left until Deuteronomy\u2019s postscript (Deut 34)\u2014especially since Moses still had so many laws (chs 28\u201336) and a lengthy testament (Deut 1\u201333) to deliver? Here it drives home the point about judgment eliminating all the first generation in the wilderness\u2014even the great leader, because of his own sin. That is the first point made in the story (27:12\u201314), which later notes recount (Deut 3:21\u201329; 32:48\u201352; 34:1\u20138).
\nLike Aaron when his office passed to Eleazar, Moses was told to climb a mountain (27:12; see 20:24\u201328; 33:38; Deut 32:50). Unlike Aaron with Eleazar, Moses\u2019s commissioning of his successor was not followed immediately by his death. From the mount he could view the Promised Land, which he was not going to enter (27:12). Like Abraham he would live to a ripe old age and then \u201c[join] his ancestors\u201d (Gen 25:8; Deut 32:50), in his case 120 years (Deut 34:7). However, like Miriam and Aaron before him, he would die without the pleasure of leading the people into the long-promised land (27:13; see 20:24\u201328; 33:38). Like the rest of the rebellious first generation, his grave would be in the wilderness. It is interesting to note that God didn\u2019t even allow for the possibility that his bones might later be reburied in Canaan (cf. Gen 47:29\u201331; 50:5, 25). This resulted from Moses and Aaron\u2019s tarnishing God\u2019s holiness at Meribah (27:14).
\nOn the one hand, Moses was not set aside in the sense that Paul spoke of (being disqualified; 1 Cor 9:27), especially if taken in the sense of Jesus\u2019 words about losing one\u2019s soul (Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25). Happily, \u201cthere was another Land of Promise from which Moses was not excluded by his offense\u201d (Binns 1927:189). His presence at the Transfiguration demonstrates that (Matt 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30). On the other hand, as Binns also notes, \u201cA lifetime of faithful service is apparently wiped out by a single lapse\u201d (1927:189). The account in Deuteronomy shows Moses pleading for God to relent; however, God cut off that plea, much as he cut off Paul\u2019s plea for relief from the thorn in the flesh (Deut 3:23\u201327; 2 Cor 12:8\u20139). In the face of the one who sovereignly determines who has breath (27:16), Moses resigned himself to his punishment. He only asked, \u201cPlease appoint a new \u2026 leader for the community\u201d (27:16). His main concern was for someone to lead them in the conquest; without such a leader, they would be left like \u201csheep without a shepherd\u201d (27:17). They would fail as an army, be scattered as a people, and fall prey in the wild.
\nThe Lord responded with directions (27:18\u201321). He chose Joshua, because even before his commissioning he had \u201cthe Spirit in him\u201d (27:18). This must have been evidenced during Joshua\u2019s already long record of service (11:26\u201330; 13:1\u201314:38; Exod 17:8\u201316; 24:13; 32:15\u201320; 33:7\u201311). The commissioning was to effect a transfer of some of Moses\u2019s \u201cauthority\u201d to Joshua so the community would acknowledge him as their leader (27:20). The public nature of this commissioning ritual, over which Moses himself officiated, would have lent Joshua an \u201caura that commands awe and respect\u201d (Levine 2000:351). This didn\u2019t make Joshua Moses\u2019s equal, since he received only \u201csome\u201d of Moses\u2019s gravitas (27:20). He wouldn\u2019t enjoy Moses\u2019s direct link with God (12:6\u20138); Joshua was told that he would have to take recourse to the priestly Urim (27:21). However, it\u2019s interesting to note that we hear of no use of the Urim and Thummim in the book of Joshua; rather, we hear that the Lord spoke with Joshua (Noordtzij 1983:257, citing Josh 1:1; 3:7; 4:1; 5:2). Displaying a ready obedience, Moses commissioned Joshua (27:22\u201323).
\nThis succession narrative shows various connections to other texts: (1) There is much in the events that parallels the transfer from Aaron to Eleazar (20:22\u201329). The differences are that priestly succession involved divestiture and investiture, passing along the sacred vestments; in the transfer from Moses to Joshua, the \u201cauthority\u201d is passed on. (2) The succession of Elijah to Elisha involved a transfer of a cloak, like the priestly succession of Aaron to Eleazar, and the transfer of charismatic power, like the succession from Moses to Joshua. (3) The apostolic succession from Jesus involved an even greater transfer of power and authority, which \u201cclothes\u201d a person with power, like a priestly garment or royal robe might (Luke 24:49). This allows those so anointed to expand the messianic work beyond even what the Christ did during his earthly ministry (John 14:12) and gives them kingdom authority to rule (Dan 7:18, 22, 27; Matt 19:28; Luke 22:29; 1 Cor 6:3; Rev 2:26).<\/p>\n
\u2666 3. Regulations for offerings (28:1\u201329:40)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
28:5 With each lamb you must offer. The phrase \u201cwith each lamb\u201d is only implied in the Hebrew (see 28:4).<\/p>\n
28:7 Along with it you must present the proper liquid offering of one quart of alcoholic drink with each lamb, poured out in the Holy Place as an offering to the LORD. Lit., \u201cand of its libation, a fourth of a hin for one lamb; in the Sanctuary pour out a libation of shekar to the LORD.\u201d On shekar [7941, 8911], see note at 6:3.<\/p>\n
28:9 On the Sabbath day, sacrifice two. Lit., \u201cand on the Sabbath day, two,\u201d with no verb following. The NLT adds \u201csacrifice,\u201d as do the LXX, Vulgate, and Temple Scroll (11QTemple 13:17).<\/p>\n
four quarts of choice flour. This doubles what was offered daily but without mention of increase in the amount of olive oil. Yet it is probably implied as a necessary increase to moisten the flour.<\/p>\n
28:26 At the Festival of Harvest,when you present the first of your new grain. Lit., \u201cAnd on the Day of Firstfruits when you present the new grain\/meal offering.\u201d<\/p>\n
29:1 Festival of Trumpets. The word \u201ctrumpets\u201d is not in the Hebrew, but it is implied by the verb, which is used for trumpet calls (10:1\u201310), including those blown the first of every month (10:10). As early as the third century BC, this feast was connected with Rosh Hashanah, or the New Year, an identity that Allen accepts (1990:953). More likely, the OT evidence favors a New Year in the spring rather than autumn; in fact, the OT itself has no evidence of a New Year festival within Judaism (Ashley 1993:569 n. 35; Kraus 1966:61\u201366; Mowinckel 1992:2.94\u201395; Ringgren 1970:185\u2013200). \u201cThe Festival of the Final Harvest\u201d is connected to \u201cthe end of the harvest season\u201d (betse\u2019th hashanah [3318, 3655]; Exod 23:16), or the \u201cturn of the year\u201d (tequpath hashanah [8622A, 9543]; Exod 34:22), which might then be identified with this festival. However, Block (ISBE 3.529\u2013532) says it is likely that betse\u2019th hashanah means \u201cspringtime,\u201d as does ba\u2019 shanah [935, 995]; cf. 2 Kgs 13:20. He concludes that Israel\u2019s fall festivals were harvest festivals, not New Year festivals; they lacked all reference to creation, primordial monsters, sacred marriage of the king, or other ancient Near Eastern imagery generally associated with New Year rituals (ISBE 3.532).<\/p>\n
29:6 special gift to the LORD. Cf. ESV, \u201ca food offering to the LORD.\u201d Lexicons have \u201coffering(s) made by fire\u201d (BDB 78; HALOT 93) for the word \u2019isheh [801, 852], so this is perhaps better rendered as, \u201ca fire offering to the LORD.\u201d<\/p>\n
29:7 the Day of Atonement. Though the technical term yom hakkippurim [3725, 4113] is not used in these verses, the ritual described here is clearly the one described in detail elsewhere as the Day of Atonement (Lev 16; 23:26\u201332).<\/p>\n
the people must go without food. Lit., \u201cand there shall be for you affliction of your souls,\u201d which is generally interpreted in terms of fasting (Ps 35:13; Isa 58:3, 5). It may also refer to wearing sackcloth or to refraining from various foods or drinks, bathing, or sexual intercourse.<\/p>\n
do no ordinary work. Lit., \u201call work you shall not do,\u201d the same strict restriction used for the Sabbath (Lev 23:3), which was more restrictive than for other festivals.<\/p>\n
29:11 sin offering of atonement. This probably included the goat that was the purification offering for the people\u2019s sins (Lev 16:7\u20139, 15\u201319) and possibly the bull offering for the priest\u2019s own household (Lev 16:6, 11\u201314).<\/p>\n
29:12 Festival of Shelters. This is how it was commonly known (sukkoth [5521, 6109]; Lev 23:34; Deut 16:13; Ezra 3:4; Zech 14:16\u201318; 2 Macc 10:6), but it was also known as \u201cthe Festival of the LORD\u201d (Lev 23:39; Judg 21:19), or even \u201cthe Festival,\u201d that is, the outstanding festival (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:2, 65; 2 Chr 5:3; 7:8\u20139; Neh 8:14; Ezek 45:23, 25).<\/p>\n
29:35 On the eighth day of the festival. Lit., \u201con the eighth day,\u201d which was \u201cthe last day, the climax of the festival\u201d (John 7:37).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
After he had commissioned Joshua, Moses received the next task for the Israelites\u2014to set up the cultic calendar that the people would follow in the land. Chapters 28\u201329 also deal with offerings, overlapping Leviticus 23 and developing it further. Similar but less complete and systematic festal calendars are found elsewhere (Exod 23:14\u201317; 34:18\u201324; Lev 23; Deut 16:1\u201317; Ezek 45:18\u201346:15).
\nGod described the offerings as \u201cspecial gifts,\u201d a \u201cpleasing aroma to me,\u201d and \u201cmy food\u201d (28:1\u20132). Figurative expressions sometimes have God eating and drinking; however, the Bible ridicules those who actually believe that God eats and drinks of the sacrifices (Deut 32:38; Ps 50:7\u201315). These expressions indicate the pleasure that God would take in the offerings of his children. But these \u201cgifts\u201d were not to be brought only at the whim of the worshiper. God warned, \u201cSee to it that they are brought at the appointed times and offered according to my instructions\u201d (28:2).
\nThe treatment of the sacrificial calendar works from the most frequent events to the least frequent: the daily (28:1\u20138), weekly (28:9\u201310), monthly (28:11\u201315), and annual offerings. The latter are treated in calendar order: Passover and Unleavened Bread (28:16\u201325), Harvest (28:26\u201331), Trumpets (29:1\u20136), Day of Atonement (29:7\u201311), and Shelters (29:12\u201339). The offerings were cumulative, so that the Sabbath offering was added to the daily offering (28:10) and likewise with the annual offerings (28:10, 15, 24, 31; 29:16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38).
\nMilgrom (1989:237\u2013238) details the prominence of the number seven and its multiples in the cultic system:<\/p>\n
In addition to the frequency of the number seven (and its multiple fourteen) in the above table, there are other occurrences of seven: the seven festivals (including the paschal observance, 28:16, and excluding Sabbaths and new moons); the seven-day Unleavened Bread and Sukkot festivals; the preponderance of festivals in the seventh month (New Year, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Atzereth); the seven festival days, in addition to the Sabbath, on which work is prohibited, listed in 28:18, 25, 26; 29:1, 7, 12, 35; the bulls required for Sukkot add up to seventy; the total number of animals offered on this seven-day festival is 7 \u00d7 7 \u00d7 2 lambs, 7 \u00d7 2 rams, 7 \u00d7 10 bulls, and 7 goats.<\/p>\n
Occasion
\nLambs
\nRams
\nBulls
\nGoats
\nEach day (28:3\u20138)
\n2
\n\u2014
\n\u2014
\n\u2014
\nEach Sabbath (28:9\u201310)
\n2
\n\u2014
\n\u2014
\n\u2014
\nEach new moon (28:11\u201315)
\n7
\n1
\n2
\n1
\nEach Day of Unleavened Bread (28:16\u201325)
\n7
\n1
\n2
\n1
\nFeast of Weeks (28:26\u201331)
\n7
\n1
\n2
\n1
\nFeast of Trumpets (29:1\u20136)
\n7
\n1
\n1
\n1
\nYom Kippur (29:7\u201311)
\n7
\n1
\n1
\n1
\n1st of Sukkot (29:12\u201316)
\n14
\n2
\n13
\n1
\n2nd of Sukkot (29:17\u201319)
\n14
\n2
\n12
\n1
\n3rd of Sukkot (29:20\u201322)
\n14
\n2
\n11
\n1
\n4th of Sukkot (29:23\u201325)
\n14
\n2
\n10
\n1
\n5th of Sukkot (29:26\u201328)
\n14
\n2
\n9
\n1
\n6th of Sukkot (29:29\u201331)
\n14
\n2
\n8
\n1
\n7th of Sukkot (29:32\u201334)
\n14
\n2
\n7
\n1
\n8th day, Shemini Atzereth (29:35\u201338)
\n7
\n1
\n1
\n1<\/p>\n
Each animal offering was accompanied by oil-moistened grain offerings, and a liquid offering as follows:<\/p>\n
Grain
\nDrink
\nDaily (morning & evening)
\nLamb
\n1\/10 ephah moistened with 1\/4 hin oil (28:5)
\n1\/4 hin (28:7)
\nWeekly
\nLamb (28:9)
\n2\/10 ephah with oil (28:9)
\n1\/2 hin (28:14)
\nMonthly & Annual Festivals
\nBull Ram Lamb
\n3\/10 ephah with oil (28:12, 20, 28; 29:3, 9, 14) 2\/10 ephah with oil (28:12, 20, 28; 29:3, 9) 1\/10 ephah with oil (28:13, 21, 29; 29:4, 10)
\n1\/3 hin (28:14) 1\/4 hin (28:14) 1\/4 hin (28:14)<\/p>\n
The amount of grain used for the lamb was doubled for the weekly offering, though not for each lamb in the monthly offering. We might suppose the amount of oil remained proportionate to the size of the grain offerings, since the amount is only listed for the offering of 1\/10 ephah (28:5 mg). The drink offerings for the bulls, rams, and lambs for all the annual festivals must have remained the same as those recorded for the monthly festival, since grain offerings stayed the same for each (28:14; see 29:6, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 37).<\/p>\n
Daily Offerings (28:3\u20138). The daily offering \u201cconstituted the basis of the whole sacrificial system in Israel\u201d (E. W. Davies 1995b:308). Offered both morning and evening, it consisted of a burnt offering of a lamb together with its grain and wine offerings (28:3\u20138). A parenthetical note describes this as a tamid [8548, 9458] offering, a perpetual offering prescribed at Sinai itself (28:6). The grain offering consisted of 1\/10 ephah of choice flour mixed with a quarter hin of the best olive oil (28:5). In addition, a drink offering of a quarter hin of \u201calcoholic drink\u201d accompanied each lamb (28:7). Although wine and alcohol were forbidden to priests while on duty (Lev 10:9), they were used in Israel\u2019s joyous festive meals (Deut 14:26) and recommended to the tired and weak (Prov 31:6). As an offering, wine and stronger drinks were poured out at the bronze altar upon which the lamb was burnt (Sir 50:15; Josephus Antiquities 3.234 [3.9.4]).
\nJesus became \u201cthe Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world\u201d (John 1:29); in fact, he died at the time of the evening sacrifice, whereupon sacrifice became obsolete (G. J. Wenham 1981:199\u2013200). Nonetheless, Jewish and Christian commentators have always regarded the daily burnt offerings as a model of worship for all time. Prayer should be offered at least every morning and evening; indeed, the whole of life is to be dedicated to God through repeated acts of praise and thanksgiving (Rom 12:1; 1 Thess 5:16\u201318).<\/p>\n
Weekly Offerings (28:9\u201310). The weekly Sabbath offering included two lambs but doubled the amount of grain used, which probably implies a doubled amount of oil used to moisten it. This was in addition to the daily offering (28:10), which would continue on the Sabbath as on every other day.
\nThe worshiper rested on the Sabbath, imitating the Creator, whose image he bears (Exod 20:8\u201311), and recalling the Lord as his redeemer from slavery (Deut 5:12\u201315). Jesus and the apostles honored the Sabbath by attending synagogue (Luke 4:16; Acts 13:42), but they rejected many of the rabbinic traditions about how to observe it (John 5:9\u201311; Col 2:16) because Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath (Matt 12:8; Luke 6:5). He reasserted the principle that Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27; cf. Exod 23:12; Deut 5:14). So, too, the church has celebrated its redemption by congregating and sharing in the Lord\u2019s Table once a week (Acts 20:7), though now on the first day of the week rather than the Sabbath (Matt 28:1; 1 Cor 16:2; Rev 1:10), knowing that Jesus is our Sabbath (Heb 4:1\u20135).<\/p>\n
Monthly Offerings (28:11\u201315). The quantities for the sacrificial supplements have already been given (15:2\u201312). Like the daily and Sabbath offerings, lambs were offered, but now seven of them. In addition, the offering included a ram and two bulls (28:11). Each of those included a prescribed grain (28:12) and liquid offering (28:13). The lamb had the same grain offering and drink offering as the daily lamb offering; the ram had twice the grain offering. Finally, there was the \u201cgoat for a sin offering,\u201d which was not included in the daily or Sabbath offerings but was repeated in the annual festivals (28:15, 22; 29:5, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38).
\nAll of this was in addition to the prescribed daily offering (28:15). The offering amounts are the same as those required on the Festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread (28:16\u201325) and Harvest (28:26\u201331) and similar to the requirements for the Festival of Trumpets (29:1\u20136) and the Day of Atonement (29:7\u201311). Only the repetitive doubled offerings of the Festival of Shelters exceeded this monthly offering (29:12\u201338). This established the new moon as a dominant Sabbath-like festival that provided a monthly opportunity for family worship (1 Sam 20:5; 2 Kgs 4:23).
\nAmos complained that no one wanted to stop trading on the Sabbath (Amos 8:5), and Isaiah complained that the new moons had become \u201csinful and false\u201d (Isa 1:13). Because of that, Hosea even called for an end to them (Hos 2:11). In this New Covenant age, one should think oneself neither favored nor condemned for participating or not participating in new moon festivities, which were only shadows pointing forward to Christ (Gal 4:10; Col 2:16\u201317).<\/p>\n
Passover and Unleavened Bread (28:16\u201325). The spring Festival of Passover was celebrated at home rather than as a public celebration (Exod 12:3\u201314), and its practices were already laid down (Exod 12:14\u201320; Lev 23:4\u20138; also Deut 16:1\u20138). No more regulation was needed, so the next verse goes right to the weeklong Festival of Unleavened Bread, with which it was associated (Exod 12:15; 34:18; Lev 23:4\u20138; Deut 16:16).
\nThis was a week away from job-related work (28:18), though it allowed the normal domestic labors that the stricter laws prohibited for the Sabbath (Lev 23:3) and Day of Atonement (29:7). Each day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread a series of offerings were made, which were the same as those already described for the Festival of the New Moon (28:19\u201325).
\nFrom the start, this festival was a matter of faith (Heb 11:28); Jesus observed it (Matt 26:17; Mark 14:12\u201316; John 2:13) and was crucified at Passover time (John 11:55), considering his own death his \u201cexodus\u201d (Luke 9:31). He died as our Passover lamb, so we are to remove all the \u201cyeast\u201d (i.e., wickedness) from our lives (1 Cor 5:7).<\/p>\n
Firstfruits (28:26\u201331). Better known as the Festival of Harvest (Exod 23:16) or Festival of Weeks (Exod 34:22 mg; Deut 16:10 mg), the Festival of Harvest celebrated the conclusion of the barley harvest seven weeks after the first cutting of grain (28:26\u201331; cf. Exod 23:16; Lev 23:15\u201321; Deut 16:9\u201312). Later Jewish tradition connected it also with the giving of the law at Sinai in the third month after leaving Egypt (Exod 19:1; 2 Chr 15:10\u201315). Because it was timed seven weeks (50 days) after Passover and Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:9\u201322), it came to be called Pentecost, a term well-known from a foundational event for the New Testament church (Acts 2). It appears that Paul gladly celebrated this festival (Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8).<\/p>\n
Day for Blowing Trumpets (29:1\u20136). Chapter 29 continues the list of annual festivals that started in chapter 28 with the Festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread (28:16\u201325) and the Festival of Harvest (28:26\u201331). Now we have the festivals that fall in \u201cthe seventh, and most sacred, month of the Hebrew calendar\u201d (Ashley 1993:568): the Festival of Trumpets (29:1\u20136), the Day of Atonement (29:7\u201311), and the Festival of Shelters (29:12\u201340).
\nThe first day of the seventh month was the Festival of Trumpets (29:1\u20136). This was celebrated as a day off from regular work, a day for a holy convocation at which a series of offerings were made. These offerings were the same as those offered at the annual festivals already mentioned in chapter 28, with the exception that only one bull was offered, instead of the two used in those festivals (29:2; cf. 28:11, 19, 27). Verse six notes that the special offerings for the Festival of Trumpets were compiled with the new moon offerings (28:9) and daily offerings (28:3\u20138): 16 lambs, 2 rams, 3 bulls, and 2 goats, each with whatever was prescribed by way of accompanying oil-moistened grain offerings and liquid offerings.<\/p>\n
Day of Atonement (29:7\u201311). The Day of Atonement fell on the tenth day of the seventh month. Whereas the other annual occasions were festive, this holy convocation was a day to \u201cpractice self-affliction\u201d (Levine 2000:388). This was to symbolize penitence (30:13; Ps 35:13; Isa 58:3\u20135; Heb 9:7\u201312, 23\u201328). That meant a strict prohibition of work, during which the same offerings presented at the first of the month (29:1\u20137) were repeated (29:8\u201311).
\nHarrison\u2019s summary of the Christian meaning of this is strong. He points out that this solemn day was the Old Testament\u2019s answer to the problem of universal sinfulness (Rom 3:23), which would lead to death without God\u2019s provision of forgiveness (Rom 6:23). By its repetition, it foreshadowed God\u2019s final provision; however, the blood of bulls and goats could not actually cleanse (Heb 10:4). Only the Lamb of God could do that (2 Cor 5:19). So Jesus became our High Priest (Heb 7:24), who did not need first to offer a sacrifice for his own sin, and whose blood redeems (Eph 1:7; 1 Pet 1:18\u201319), justifies (Rom 5:9), brings peace with God (Col 1:20), pardons (Eph 1:7), and sanctifies (Heb 13:12; 1 John 1:7) (Harrison 1990:371).<\/p>\n
Festival of Shelters (29:12\u201339). The Festival of Shelters was an extended celebration marking the end of the agricultural year. It ran from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the seventh month (29:12\u201334), with an \u201ceighth day\u201d for a closing assembly (29:35\u201338). Massive daily offerings were made, doubling the number of lambs and rams offered in other annual festivals, and repeating it for seven days. Rather than offering the 70 bulls at the rate of 10 per day, the festival started out with 13 (29:13), then 12 (29:17), and so forth each day until the count worked its way down to seven bulls offered on the seventh day (29:32). I see no reason to think this indicates a decline in intensity of joy as the festival went on (Noth 1968:223; Sturdy 1976:207) or to connect it in some way to the waning moon (Binns 1927:198\u2013199); rather, it was probably to arrive at the number seven by the final day (Keil 1869:222), \u201ca number that insinuates itself into the entirety of this cultic calendar\u201d (Milgrom 1989:248).
\nThe \u201ceighth day\u201d closed out the festival (1 Kgs 8:66; 2 Chr 7:9) with the stricter Sabbath-like work restrictions (29:35) and with offerings that no longer followed the seven-day succession but were like those offered at the Festival of Trumpets on the first of this month (29:1\u20136) and on the Day of Atonement on the tenth of this month (29:7\u201311).
\nA carnival-like festival developed over time, especially after the return from exile. The seven-day succession of offerings continued (29:12\u201334; Lev 23:33\u201336), and each celebrant gathered branches to construct a sukkah [5521, 6109] in which to sleep and eat meals throughout the festival (Lev 23:40\u201342; Neh 8:13\u201318). Scraps of these branches were bound together and waved in an act of rejoicing as the people joined in the daily hallel [1984A, 2146] (Pss 113\u2013118; cf. John 12:13; Rev 7:9). Eventually, water and light rituals became important to the festival. By the time of Jesus it seems that the first day of the festival included a procession that the priests led down to the Pool of Siloam to draw out a supply of water, which was to last for the whole festival. This water was carried in joyous procession, with shouts, \u201cSave us, O LORD\u201d or \u201cHosanna\u201d (hoshi\u2018ah nna\u2019 [3467, 3828]; Ps 118:25; cf. 2 Kgs 19:19; Matt 21:9\u201311; Mark 11:8\u201310). At night, \u201cFour huge Menorahs fitted out with wicks made from the worn-out garments of the priests illumined the entire temple area. Under them the celebrants danced a torch dance to the accompaniment of flute playing, and the Levites chanted the Psalms of Ascent (120\u2013134)\u201d (IDB 456).<\/p>\n
The Gospel of John mentions this festival. The festival\u2019s water ritual was accompanied by the words of the prophet Isaiah: \u201cWith joy you will drink deeply from the fountain of salvation!\u201d (Isa 12:3; cf. Pss 41:1; 63:1; 143:6), a promise that Jesus fulfilled: \u201cAnyone who is thirsty may come to me!\u201d (John 7:37; cf. John 4:10; 6:35; Rev 21:6; 22:1, 17). In addition, at a particular point, the Temple precincts were flooded with light, a symbolism he also fulfilled: \u201cI am the light of the world. If you follow me, you won\u2019t have to walk in darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life\u201d (John 8:12).
\nThe passage closes with a refreshing return to the ready obedience that characterized the response of Moses and the people recorded earlier in the book (29:40).<\/p>\n
\u2666 4. Regulations for vows (30:1\u201316)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
30:2 [3] a man. Heb., \u2019ish [376, 408], which can refer to people generally (e.g., Judg 9:49; Isa 2:9, 11, 17), but here it is \u201cman\u201d in contrast with \u201cwomen\u201d (\u2019ishah [802, 851]; 30:3\u201315).<\/p>\n
vow. Heb., neder [5088, 5624], in this chapter a vow to do something positive, such as offering a sacrifice; however, outside of this chapter, the term can refer to either vows of positive action or of abstinence.<\/p>\n
a pledge under oath. Lit., \u201chas sworn an oath to bind a bond on his soul.\u201d It is a \u201cbinding obligation, a vow of abstinence\u201d (HALOT), e.g., a self-imposed fast (30:13; see 1 Sam 14:24) or abstinence from sleep (Ps 132:2\u20135).<\/p>\n
30:4 [5] does not object. Lit., \u201cmade himself deaf to her,\u201d i.e., he kept silent about it. This condition allowed no passive \u201cpocket veto\u201d of her vow; the man must speak if he would forbid it.<\/p>\n
30:6 [7] and later marries. Lit., \u201cif a woman belongs to a man,\u201d whether by espousal (Budd 1984:323; Snaith 1969:193; Sturdy 1976:210) or marriage (Ashley 1993:579). The KJV and traditional interpretation understood this to mean the woman was already espoused or married when taking the vow, even though this would be redundant with the next section (30:10\u201312). Perhaps a future tense is implied, i.e., \u201cif a woman comes to belong to a man,\u201d but still hasn\u2019t fulfilled the vow (see Ashley 1993:580; E. W. Davies 1995b:318; Noordtzij 1983:268; G. J. Wenham 1981:208). Newer translations refer to getting married after coming under the vow (NAB, NASB, NRSV, ESV, NJB, NJPS).<\/p>\n
30:15 [16] he will be punished for her guilt. Lit., \u201che shall bear her guilt\/punishment.\u201d Either the husband has forced her to break her vow\/oath or he has deceived her into believing that he had annulled her vow\/oath as soon as he was informed of it (Rashbam). In such a case, it is as if he has taken over her vow and has violated it (Ramban; see Milgrom 1989:254).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Vows were a common part of ancient Near Eastern religion (Beyerlin 1978:30\u201335, 228\u2013237). The material could have come to Moses any time, perhaps at the same time as the material on the Nazirite vow (ch 6); however, it fits well here. Commentators suggest various connections, which are summarized by G. J. Wenham (1981:206\u2013207):<\/p>\n
Vows were accompanied by sacrifice, perhaps to begin it and then in thanks when the prayer was answered (Lev 7:16; Ps 50:14); and this would be most possible at the feast times when worshipers went to the Temple in Jerusalem.
\nVows were frequent in wartime (Num 21:2; Judg 11:30; 21:1\u20137), and Israel was now facing its wars of conquest (Num 21, 31\u201332). Not only that, but wives would be left behind for battle (Num 32:26), and returning husbands might not want the family bound by vows their wives had made in their absence.
\nIncluding vows here heightens the parallel with the Sinaitic legislation, which also contains material on vows (Lev 27; Num 6).
\nIsrael had already made a vow that they would annihilate the Canaanites (Num 21:2), and this material might be confirming that vow as an acceptable program for conquest.<\/p>\n
Vows were strictly voluntary, but once made, they were binding. Scripture pays more attention to the matter than we do, from the psalmist\u2019s promise (Ps 116:12\u201314), to Moses and Qoheleth\u2019s warnings (Deut 12:11; 23:21; Eccl 5:4; cf. Eccl 1:1 mg). It arranges for redeeming vowed property (Deut 23:21\u201323). It even speaks of wicked vows, such as those made to the Queen of Heaven (Jer 44:25) or with fees from prostitution (Deut 23:18; cf. Prov 7:14). It lays out guidelines for making vows of property to the Lord (Lev 27). And it warns people to confess their sin if they \u201cmake a foolish vow of any kind\u201d (Lev 5:4\u20136).
\nThe New Testament says less about vows: Herod\u2019s vow to dancing Herodias (Mark 6:23), Paul\u2019s Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18), and the one he funded (Acts 21:23) are about all we hear of. Jesus opposed the use of vows to evade responsibilities to one\u2019s parents (Matt 15:3\u20139). As in this text, wives were expected to be subject to their husbands (Eph 5:22\u201324; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet 3:1\u20137), although mutual consent had become a strong consideration (1 Cor 7:4). Perhaps James\u2019s warning about the tongue also applies here (Jas 5:12). If the vow involved an oath, Jesus thought it better to avoid them (Matt 5:33\u201337); a simple yes or no without a vow was better (Jas 5:12).<\/p>\n
Vows Made by Men (30:1\u20132). The general principle is this: A grown man must keep his word, whether it is a vow to do something positive, such as bringing an offering or sacrifice, or a pledge to forgo something, such as sleep (Ps 132:2\u20135) or food (1 Sam 14:24). A vow might be made in the crisis of sickness, military threat, or the like (e.g., 21:2; Gen 28:20\u201322); however, once the crisis was passed, the man must do \u201cexactly what he said\u201d (30:2). Some among Judaism thought this meant a vow was binding even if it did not correctly represent the speaker\u2019s intention, like Isaac\u2019s blessing of Jacob into which he was tricked (Gen 27:33\u201335). Later Judaism taught that \u201cno utterance is binding unless the mouth and the heart agree\u201d (E. W. Davies 1995b:317, quoting m. Terumot 3:8), even though that could certainly be abused with dishonest equivocation. But Ashley (1993:578 n. 24) cites vows that were binding no matter what: Isaac\u2019s blessing of Jacob (Gen 27) and Jephthah\u2019s foolish and tragic vow (Judg 11:35).<\/p>\n
Vows Made by Women (30:3\u201316). Numbers 30:3\u201316 rounds off chapters 27\u201330 with an inclusio that returns to the issue of women\u2019s rights, which began the section (27:1\u201311) (Ashley 1993:576; Budd 1984:324). Verses 3\u201316 set out the matter for women of various classes: a daughter with her father (30:3\u20135), a woman who is getting married (30:6\u20138), a woman who has been widowed or divorced (30:9), and a wife and her husband (30:10\u201312). Then it makes a generalization about women and vows (30:13\u201315) and closes with a summary (30:16). The section assumes that fathers and husbands assume responsibility for vows made by their daughters and wives, probably because of reasons of authority over their women and control over all family wealth.<\/p>\n
Case One (30:3\u20135). If a father opposes the vow of a girl living at home, it is abrogated. Philip suggests that this is about rash vows, which the father could disallow (1993:304), or a vow that is \u201cto her detriment.\u201d But this verse makes no such qualification of which vows the father might disallow. It was left to his own discretion, with no requirement that he justify his decision (E. W. Davies 1995b:317; Noth 1968:225); perhaps he would annul them if they were to his detriment. For that matter, the only biblical example we have of a father, an unmarried daughter, and a rash vow is that of Jephthah\u2019s own rash vow about his daughter (Judg 11)! It doesn\u2019t seem that rashness constituted justifiable grounds for exemption from fulfilling the obligation (Noordtzij 1983:268), as various texts show (Ashley 1993:574, citing 30:6, 8; Gen 27; Lev 5:4). This verse is not so much about protecting the girl against rash vows, but about protecting her from God\u2019s judgment if her father wouldn\u2019t allow her to fulfill them, i.e., \u201cthe LORD will forgive her\u201d (30:5), not \u201cshe will be rescued from a rash vow.\u201d It also implies that \u201cneither wives nor children may substitute self-imposed religious obligations for God-given duties\u201d (G. J. Wenham 1981:208). For example, a vow of qorban that keeps one from taking care of one\u2019s parents is abrogated (Mark 7:10\u201313).<\/p>\n
Case Two (30:6\u20138). If a new husband doesn\u2019t intend to back his fianc\u00e9e\u2019s vows, her vow is abrogated. Proverbs warns, \u201cDon\u2019t trap yourself by making a rash promise to God and only later counting the cost\u201d (Prov 20:25). So perhaps what is \u201cimpulsive\u201d (30:6) is the very fact of taking a long-term pledge while expecting to marry soon (Noth 1968:226). A young husband might find the provisions of the vow too burdensome, even if they had been an acceptable burden to his bride\u2019s economically better-established father. As is the case elsewhere for men with women under their authority, there is no pocket veto of the vow. The new husband must accept or revoke the vow \u201con the day he hears of it\u201d (30:7\u20138a). Again, if the man abrogates the vow, the woman remains guiltless (30:8b; cf. 30:5).<\/p>\n
Case Three (30:9). A widowed or divorced woman who returned to her father\u2019s house remained responsible for her vows. She might seek help from her father, brothers, or sons; however, she remained accountable for the vow and could not return to her premarital status.<\/p>\n
Case Four (30:10\u201312). A husband can veto his wife\u2019s vows if he does so as soon as he knows about it, even if the vows are made after they are married; however, he can\u2019t have second thoughts later. The best example of this is Hannah\u2019s vow (1 Sam 1:11), against which her husband took no action and which she and her husband together implemented (1 Sam 1:22\u201325), implying his concurrence with her vow (1 Sam 1:23). In fact, perhaps Hannah\u2019s vow (1 Sam 1:11) is later called her husband\u2019s vow (1 Sam 1:21), \u201cbecause having not objected to it, he is obligated to fulfill it\u201d (Milgrom 1989:254).<\/p>\n
A Generalization (30:13\u201315). Each of the cases shifted blame for not fulfilling the vow off the woman if her man abrogated it. If the man did so immediately, no penalty accrued to the woman or to himself; however, if he delayed in abrogating the vow, the man assumed the guilt the woman would have carried for refusing to fulfill her vow (Ashley 1993:582; de Vaulx 1972:347\u2013348).<\/p>\n
Summary: Vows Made by Women under Authority (30:16; cf. 30:3\u20138, 10\u201315). The final verse summarizes the matter of women and their vows when under a man\u2019s authority, which is probably why the issues of widows and divorc\u00e9es (30:9) are not included here.<\/p>\n
\u2666 C. Settlement Arrangements for the Transjordan (31:1\u201332:42)
\n1. Defeating Midian (31:1\u201354)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
31:3 Choose. Niphal of khalats [2502\/2502A, 2740\/2741]; BDB and HALOT note two potential senses: (1) \u201cdraw off\/out, withdraw,\u201d i.e., \u201cselect, choose\u201d (Snaith 1969:324\u2013325; NLT, NAB, NJPS), or \u201cdeploy\u201d or \u201cdetach\u201d (Levine 2000:447, 450); or (2) \u201cequip,\u201d i.e., \u201carm\u201d as LXX exopliz\u014d reads it (Budd 1984:325; KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, JPS, NIV, NET). The second is related to terms for \u201cbelt\u201d (khalitsah [2488, 2723]) and \u201cloins\u201d (khalatsayim [2504, 2743]), i.e., associated with girding or strapping on equipment for battle.<\/p>\n
31:6 holy objects of the sanctuary. Heb., kele haqqodesh [3627\/6944, 3998\/7731]. The most common meaning of this expression is the sanctuary furniture or utensils (3:31; 4:15; 18:3; 1 Kgs 8:4; 1 Chr 9:29; 2 Chr 5:5), perhaps taking the place of the Ark (Budd 1984:330, citing 10:35\u201336; 14:44; 1 Sam 4:4) or being used in addition to it (Noth 1968:229). Others suggest it refers to (1) just the Ark (Ashley 1993:592; Snaith 1969:194\u2013195), though the term is plural here rather than singular (10:35; 14:44; Josh 6:6; 1 Sam 4); (2) the signaling trumpets, reading the expression in apposition to the trumpets (E. W. Davies 1995b:323; Harrison 1990:383; Keil 1869:225\u2013226; see 10:1\u201310; Josh 6), although since they were not anointed, some doubt that they could qualify as holy objects (Ashley 1993:592; Milgrom 1970:1.49 n. 186); (3) the priestly garments, an unusual use of keli, though possible (Dillmann and Knobel 1886:189; Gray 1903:420; see Deut 22:5); or (4) the Urim and Thummim (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Noordtzij 1983:271; Milgrom 1989:257; and perhaps Levine 2000:452), which the priest would consult during war (e.g., 1 Sam 14:18, \u201cephod,\u201d following the LXX rather than the MT\u2019s \u201cArk of God\u201d; cf. 1 Sam 23:1\u20136), but note that the high priest kept control of them (Ashley 1993:592; Dillmann and Knobel 1886:189; McNeile 1911:164), and that in this case no decision about battle was required (Harrison 1990:383).<\/p>\n
31:8 All five of the Midianite kings \u2026 died in the battle. Lit., \u201cthey killed the Midianite kings,\u201d plus the expression \u2018al-khalelehem [2490A, 2726]. Some see this as a reference to being put on\/upon the khalal, i.e., impaling stake, gibbet (Allen 1990:966).<\/p>\n
31:9 children. Heb., tap [2945, 3251] (see note on 14:3).<\/p>\n
31:11 This verse uses two roughly synonymous terms: \u201cplunder\u201d (shalal [7998, 8965]), \u201cbooty, spoil, goods that have been plundered\u201d (HALOT), and \u201ccaptives\u201d (maleqoakh [4455, 4917]), the animate spoils of war, such as the livestock and captives (31:11, 12, 26, 32; Isa 49:24).<\/p>\n
31:18 young girls. Lit., \u201cthe tap [2945, 3251] among the women\u201d (see note on 14:3).<\/p>\n
31:23 water of purification. Heb., me niddah [4325\/5079, 4784\/5614] (lit., \u201cwaters of impurity\u201d; cf. 19:9, 13, 17\u201320).<\/p>\n
must be purified by the water alone. Heb., ta\u2018abiru bammayim [5674\/4325, 6296\/4784] (\u201cmust pass through the waters\u201d). E. W. Davies takes the article in bammayim to be generic (1995b:326, citing GKC \u00a7126n and Wright 1985:218\u2013219), referring to ordinary water rather than to the antecedent \u201cwaters of impurity\u201d (me niddah [4325\/5079, 4784\/5614]); however, Ashley thinks something like \u201cliving or running waters\u201d would have been used if the author didn\u2019t mean to refer back to me niddah (Ashley 1993:596).<\/p>\n
31:27 plunder. Heb., malqoakh [4455, 4917] (see note on 31:11).<\/p>\n
31:28 donkeys. Modern readers might expect camels here, but camels were not used for caravanning until the end of the Late Bronze or Early Iron Age (Albright 1970). Camels are mentioned in the Bible for only a few ancient journeys (cf. Gen 24:10\u201364; 31:17, 34; 37:25; Exod 9:3), a fact that corresponds nicely with extrabiblical data (Kitchen 2003:338).<\/p>\n
31:40 16,000 virgin girls. Lit., \u201cand the human souls were 16,000,\u201d i.e., half of the 32,000 virgins kept alive after killing \u201call the boys and all the women who have had intercourse\u201d (31:17, 35).<\/p>\n
31:50 armbands. Heb., \u2019ets\u2018ada [685, 731]. Most English translations have \u201canklets\u201d; see HALOT, \u201cwalking-chain (stretching from ankle to ankle) \u2026 [or] a band, bracelet.\u201d<\/p>\n
bracelets. Heb., tsamid [6781, 7543]; cf. Ezek 16:11 and 23:42: \u201ctsemidim on your hands,\u201d i.e., \u201cwrists.\u201d<\/p>\n
necklaces. Heb., kumaz [3558, 3921], an \u201cornament for neck and breasts\u201d (HALOT, citing 31:50; Exod 35:22).<\/p>\n
purify our lives before the LORD. Lit., \u201cto make atonement\/pay a ransom for our souls before the LORD.\u201d Commentators suggest various rationales for this offering: Some say (1) thanksgiving for God\u2019s favor during the war (Sturdy 1976:217); (2) ransom\/expiation (NJB, NJPS) from \u201ccorpse defilement\u201d or even to deal with \u201cguilt feelings at the slaughter of the Midianites, whereas their own company had escaped unscathed\u201d (Harrison 1990:391); or (3) atoning for their disregard of the ban during the war (Noordtzij 1983:276), which has the advantage of fitting the context (31:14\u201320). But most commentators think it was (4) guilt over the census of 31:48\u201349 (Ashley 1993:599\u2013600; Binns 1927:207; Budd 1984:332; Dillmann and Knobel 1886:192; Gray 1903:425; Noth 1968:232; Snaith 1969:196; G. J. Wenham 1981:212). \u201cOnly census taking that was done in response to direct instruction from God was permissible, as were those described in chapters 1 and 26\u201d (Cole 2000:504).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Numbers 31 picks up many loose ends from earlier in the narrative but primarily looks forward. Defeating the Midianites (31:1\u201354) set the stage for the settlement arrangements of the Transjordan tribes (32:1\u201342). The Midianites descended from Abraham through his concubine Keturah (Gen 25:2\u20134). They had moved away from Isaac and settled in the east (Gen 25:6), where they became a traveling merchant people (Gen 37:25\u201328). Some of them, such as Moses\u2019s in-laws (Exod 2:15\u20133:1; 4:18\u201320), stayed on good terms with Israel. But some followed Balaam\u2019s advice to seduce the Israelites into the licentious rites of Baal-peor (25:17\u201318).<\/p>\n
Israel Mobilized (31:1\u20135). For wooing Israel away from their true husband at the Baal-peor incident (ch 25), these Midianites earned the death penalty for adultery (Harrison 1990:382, citing Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22). This punitive vindication took up the task of the kinsman-redeemer to avenge Midian\u2019s seduction (Mendenhall 1973:99). God said the task was to \u201ctake revenge on the Midianites for leading [the Israelites] into idolatry\u201d (31:2); Moses said it was \u201cto fight the LORD\u2019s war of revenge against Midian\u201d (31:3). In other words, the supreme commander of \u201cthe LORD\u2019s army\u201d (Josh 5:15; 1 Sam 1:3) declared war to defend his own honor as God of Israel, and thus to defend Israel\u2019s honor as the people of God. By divine decree, revenge was to be Moses\u2019s last act before he died (31:2; cf. 1 Kgs 2:5, 8).
\nIsrael chose 1,000 from each tribe, a figure often regarded as \u201cunrealistic\u201d (Sturdy 1976:216) or \u201cpurely schematic and artificial\u201d (E. W. Davies 1995b:322). But this followed the same principle as each tribe offering exactly the same altar dedication gifts, regardless of population (ch 7). Small tribes bore a disproportionate military burden, which meant gaining a disproportionate gain in plunder.<\/p>\n
The Battle (31:6\u201313). Phinehas the priest led them into battle for a holy war (G. J. Wenham 1981:211, citing Deut 20:2\u20134). As was the case earlier (25:6\u20138), he was \u201cacting as the antidote to Balaam\u201d (Cole 2000:495). The priests took \u201cthe holy objects of the sanctuary\u201d and the priestly \u201ctrumpets for sounding the charge\u201d (31:6), further emphasizing that this was holy war. So they took the field and killed every Midianite who battled against them (31:7), including all five Midianite chieftains (31:8).
\nChapters 22\u201324 may have left us a bit ambivalent about Balaam. But here we find him as an executed member of the coalition against whom God had commissioned a war of vengeance (31:8). Next we hear him called an augur, or one \u201cwho used magic to tell the future\u201d (Josh 13:22). Eventually, we read the judgment that he had wished to curse Israel, though God wouldn\u2019t let him (Neh 13:2). After burning the Midianite towns and camps (31:10), Israel\u2019s victorious troops returned with Midianite cattle, flocks, and captives (31:9).<\/p>\n
The Issue of Captive Women (31:14\u201318). The general law commanded death for the men in enemy armies; however, victors could carry away \u201call the women, children, livestock, and other plunder\u201d (Deut 20:14). But after this battle, Moses raged, \u201cWhy have you let all the women live?\u201d (31:15). These women were covered in guilt over the very matter that prompted the war of vengeance: sexual seduction that led to spiritual apostasy and thus to the plague at Baal-peor (31:16; see ch 25). Moses ordered, \u201cKill all the boys\u201d (31:17a), who were \u201cthe future Midian, a potential danger and peril for Israel if allowed to grow up\u201d (Philip 1993:313). He also ordered the death of \u201call the women who have had intercourse\u201d (31:17b). Only the young virgins could be left alive to be taken as wives or concubines, after mourning their parents (Deut 21:10\u201314). \u201cBy this they could be brought under the umbrella of the covenant community of faith\u201d (Cole 2000:499), made \u201cpart of the redeemed community.\u2026 mothers in Israel\u201d (Allen 1990:971).
\nThis slaughter was not the result of \u201ccollateral damage\u201d in the heat of battle, or even an outrage committed in the heat of war\u2019s bloodlust. It was purposeful judicial slaughter after the battle was already over. In fact, this action fits the modern definition of ethnic cleansing or possibly even genocide. The conquest was a holy war aimed at driving out an entire human population from Canaan (33:50\u201353), annihilating everyone there to purge idolatry and remove its temptations (Deut 20:16\u201318). It was a divine act against a people who had filled up their cup of wrath (cf. Gen 15:16), as at the flood and in Sodom (Gen 6; 19). And it should be noted that the Lord threatened the same against Israel if she mimicked their sins (Lev 18:24\u201330; 20:22; Deut 18:12). Allen (1990:967) notes that this ties in with eschatological judgment, which will exceed the scope of anything like the losses that Midian suffered that day.<\/p>\n
Purification of the Nation (31:19\u201324). Even glorious battles fought and won with God\u2019s blessing cause death, which doesn\u2019t belong in the presence of the God of the living. Purification was therefore necessary, following the ritual laid down earlier (19:9\u201320; Lev 13:49\u201359). The returning army and its captives stayed outside the camp for seven days (19:16; Lev 13:5, 21, 26, 32\u201334), undergoing ritual purification on the third and seventh days (19:12; 31:19). They washed their clothes (19:19) and anything made of hides (Lev 13:47\u201359), goat hair (cf. 1 Sam 19:13, 16), or wood. Where possible, they purified things with fire and the \u201cwater of purification\u201d (31:22\u201323). Things that were not fireproof they \u201cpurified by the water alone\u201d (31:23). This use of fire and water mimicked what we would now recognize as good hygienic procedure; however, it was actually about reconstituting the community\u2019s ritual purity. It was an older baptism, which foretold deeper cleansings with water and fire (Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16; cf. Mark 1:8; John 1:26; Acts 1:4\u20138; 11:16; Eph 5:26; Heb 10:22; 1 Pet 3:21).<\/p>\n
Distribution of the Spoils (31:25\u201354). Moses, Eleazar, and the clan heads supervised the division of spoils and captives (31:26), dividing it all into two parts, half for the combatants and half for the noncombatants (31:27). Perhaps Moses and Eleazar supervised distribution among the priests and the clan leaders supervised distribution among the laity. This record provided later generations of warriors the rationale for carrying away plunder (e.g., Judg 8:24\u201327; 1 Sam 15:20; 2 Sam 8:9\u201312; 1 Chr 26:26\u201328).
\nThe Lord\u2019s share was 1\/500 of the combatants\u2019 half of the plunder and captives (31:28), or 1\/1000 of the total. This was given to \u201cEleazar the priest as an offering to the LORD\u201d (31:29). The Levites\u2019 share was 1\/50 of the noncombatants\u2019 half of the plunder and captives, or 1\/100 of the total. Perhaps the relation of this 1\/100 and 1\/1000 was a tithe-like 10 percent. Thus the 675,000 sheep and goats, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys, and 32,000 virgins were divided in half\u2014one half went to the army and the other half to the civilians. The army then gave a tribute to the Lord of 675 sheep and goats, 72 cattle, 61 donkeys, and 32 virgins. The civilians, on the other hand, were required to give the Levites 6,750 sheep and goats, 720 cattle, 610 donkeys, and 320 virgins.
\nThese large numbers are consistent with all the other large numbers in the book. Since it would be difficult to reinterpret \u2019elep [505, 547] as \u201cclan\u201d or \u201cmilitary unit\u201d when used of livestock and virgins, the likelihood that the authors used \u2019elep to mean \u201cthousand\u201d in the population counts seems high. And like the case with population figures, the math works out with \u201cthousands\u201d: As mentioned, the combatant\u2019s half of \u201c675,000 sheep and goats\u201d (31:32) came to 337,500, of which a 1\/500 share meant \u201c675 were the LORD\u2019s share\u201d (31:37), and so on with the 72 cattle (31:38), 61 donkeys (31:39), and 32 virgins (31:40). The virgins would have been assigned to the priests as household servants or perhaps to work at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting (Exod 38:8; 1 Sam 2:22).
\nHalf of the plunder belonged to the noncombatants (31:42), a principle later followed by Joshua and David (Josh 22:8; 1 Sam 30:24). From that they had to contribute a 1\/50 share to the Levites (31:47). If this provided \u201cthe standard for coming campaigns\u201d (Cole 2000:501), \u201cthe people should have been thinking, If we received this much booty in a punitive war, just think how much will be our portion when we are on the campaign of conquest!\u201d (Allen 1990:970).
\nAfter defeating Midian, the officers rejoiced that they had suffered no battle casualties (31:48\u201349). This post-battle testimony is common in ancient Near Eastern battle reports (Ashley 1993:589 n. 25). They volunteered an offering of the gold jewelry they had captured, saying, \u201cThis will purify our lives before the LORD and make us right with him\u201d (31:50). Moses accepted the offering as \u201ca reminder to the LORD that the people of Israel belong to him\u201d (31:54). The question is whether this was to remind Israel of the incident or to remind the Lord so that he would not forget Israel. \u201cPerhaps the two alternatives are not mutually exclusive, for the offerings may have been designed to ensure both that Yahweh would constantly remember his people (cf. 10:10), and that the Israelites would continually direct their thoughts to him\u201d (E. W. Davies 1995b:328\u2013329; so, too, Ashley 1993:601).<\/p>\n
\u2666 2. Transjordan tribes: Reuben and Gad (32:1\u201342)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
32:1 Reuben and Gad. The Samaritan Pentateuch adds \u201cand the half-tribe of Manasseh\u201d to harmonize with 32:33 (also added at 32:2, 6, 25, 29, 31).<\/p>\n
Gilead. This is a fluid term, here referring to the hilly Transjordan district south of the Jabbok, but sometimes referring to the entire Transjordan (Deut 3:12\u201317; Josh 12:2, 5; 13:31; 22:9, 13).<\/p>\n
32:3 Most of these cities can be located with fair certainty. Nine towns are mentioned in vv. 34\u201338, where the first four are assigned to Gad and the remainder to Reuben. They also occur in Isa 15\u201316 and in Jer 48, where they belong to Moab.<\/p>\n
Ataroth. This is Khirbet \u2018Attarus, 10 miles northwest of Dibon and mentioned in the Moabite Stone as a Gadite site.<\/p>\n
Dibon. Dhiban is 3 miles north of the Arnon. Gad\u2019s settlement there is confirmed by its alternate name Dibon-gad (33:45) and its attribution to Gad in the Moabite Stone (lines 10ff., in ANET 320). It may have become a Reubenite town at a later date (Josh 13:17).<\/p>\n
Jazer. This is perhaps Khirbet es-Sar.<\/p>\n
Nimrah. Beth-nimrah (32:36), probably located at Tell el-Bleibil, about 12 miles north of the Dead Sea on Wadi Sha\u2019ib (cf. \u201cwaters of Nimrim,\u201d Isa 15:6; Jer 48:34). The name is still preserved in Tell Nimrim, south-southwest of Tell Beleibil.<\/p>\n
Heshbon. Hisban, 13 miles east of the Dead Sea\u2019s northern tip.<\/p>\n
Elealeh. El-\u2019Al, northwest of Heshbon.<\/p>\n
Sibmah. Sebam (32:3 mg), Khirbet Cam el-Kibsh between Heshbon and Nebo.<\/p>\n
Nebo. Possibly Khirbet \u2018Ayun Musa. The inscription of King Mesha of Moab (lines 14\u201318, in ANET 320) shows that this location was a center for Yahweh worship in the period before 850 BC.<\/p>\n
Beon. Ma\u2019in, 4.5 miles southwest of Madaba. Perhaps an altered form of Baal-meon (Ashley 1993:616; Budd 1984:345; Harrison 1990:399\u2013400; Ezek 25:9); cf. Beth-baal-meon (Josh 13:17) or Beth-meon (Jer 48:23).<\/p>\n
32:5 instead of giving us land across the Jordan River. Lit., \u201cdo not make us cross the Jordan.\u201d<\/p>\n
32:12 Kenizzite. See Josh 14:6, 14; Judg 1:13. The Kenizzites were some of Canaan\u2019s original occupants; however, their land was promised to Abram (Gen 15:19). To this clan belonged Jephunneh, the father of Caleb (32:12; Josh 14:6, 14). It had evidently been absorbed by the tribe of Judah, so he could also be classified as a Judahite (13:6; 34:19).<\/p>\n
32:17 we will arm ourselves and lead our fellow Israelites into battle. Lit., \u201cwe will khalats ourselves and khush before the sons of Israel.\u201d On khalats [2502A, 2741], see note at 31:3. The term khush [2363, 2590] denotes swiftness, whether escaping (Ps 55:8), attacking (Judg 20:37), or coming to the aid of someone (Pss 22:19; 38:22; 71:12); however, many commentators doubt that it makes sense here. The LXX has prophulak\u0113 (advance guard), so commentators sometimes talk of \u201cadvance troops\u201d (Levine 2000:490), \u201cshock-troops\u201d (NJPS), or a \u201cvanguard\u201d (Milgrom 1989:270), perhaps \u201cselect,\u201d i.e., elite troops (cf. 31:5). Some follow the BHS suggestion to emend khushim to khamushim [2567, 2821], \u201carrayed in groups of fifty\u201d (HALOT), i.e., \u201cin battle array\u201d (BDB 332b, citing 32:17; Exod 13:18; Josh 1:14; Judg 7:11). Commentaries following this idea describe an army divided into five parts with vanguard, rear guard, main body, and two flanking groups (Allen 1990:980; Budd 1984:344; Gray 1903:432; Snaith 1969:197\u2013198).<\/p>\n
32:34 descendants of Gad. They were to take the central region of Sihon\u2019s former kingdom (Josh 13:24\u201328). Joshua actually made different allotments, which is evidence of changing circumstances, not contradictory sources (Ashley 1993:615; contra Gray 1903:433\u2013444; McNeile 1911:174; Noth 1968:240).<\/p>\n
Ataroth. Khirbet \u2018Attarus. The Moabite Stone says, \u201cThe men of Gad.\u2026 had been living in the land of Ataroth from ancient times\u201d (line 10; see in COS 2.23:137\u2013138; ANET 320\u2013321).<\/p>\n
Aroer. \u2018Ara\u2019ir, just north of the Arnon and thus belonging to the southern group of Gadite towns; however, it was later absorbed by Reuben (Josh 13:15\u201316). It was of strategic importance because the King\u2019s Highway ran past it (Milgrom 1989:274\u2013275).<\/p>\n
32:35 Atroth-shophan. This is mentioned only here, probably associated with Ataroth.<\/p>\n
Jazer. See the note on 21:32.<\/p>\n
Jogbehah. Khirbet el-Jubeihat, 7 miles northwest of Amman, making it the northernmost Gadite site listed in this chapter. It is mentioned once more, together with Nobah (Judg 8:11; cf. Num 32:42).<\/p>\n
32:36 Beth-nimrah. This is equivalent to Nimrah (see 32:3).<\/p>\n
Beth-haran. Tell Iktanu, just west of Heshbon. This town\u2019s name is spelled Beth-haram in Josh 13:27.<\/p>\n
32:42 Nobah. This man is mentioned only here, with no tribe or clan listed, although he is implied to be from Manasseh by the context of the preceding verse. If the town (cf. Judg 8:11), which he named after himself, is identified with Kenath, then it is located in the eastern Bashan and is the only settlement north of the Yarmuk recorded in this chapter.<\/p>\n
Kenath. Qanawat, 55 miles east of the Sea of Galilee.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Reuben and Gad asked for a land distribution from this victory in addition to the other plunder. Moses rejected their first proposal (32:1\u201315) but accepted a compromise proposal (32:17\u201327). Interpreters are divided over whether this request was motivated by faith or greed, and whether the outcome was good or bad. On the one hand, the promise to Abraham was for Canaan, land west of the Jordan. So the request echoed the earlier rejection of the land, which was exactly Moses\u2019s charge (32:6\u201315; cf. chs 13\u201314). G. J. Wenham even points out various parallels in terminology that chapter 32 shares with chapters 13\u201314 (1981:213 n. 1). On the other hand, Allen likens the request of Reuben and Gad to that of Zelophehad\u2019s daughters. He thinks it possible to see this in a positive light once all conditions were met: \u201cTransjordan, too, was a gift of God won by conquest\u201d (Deut 2:24, 31; 3:2, 16, 18; cf. Deut 2:9, 18, 37). Once things are understood, \u201cThere is no lack of faith, only an alternate plan\u201d (Allen 1990:980). Harrison actually makes a military boon of this proposal: \u201cThis proposal could be of tactical importance for the nation, since it would afford protection for Israel\u2019s eastern flank once the other tribes had possessed Canaan\u201d (1990:396). Nonetheless, their vulnerable position on the wrong side of the Jordan rift meant that they got hit first and most often. Later records do not question the legitimacy of the Transjordan tribes when they settle there (Josh 22:1\u20139).
\nLater Christian commentators have likened the proposal of Gad and Reuben to those who gave excuses for ignoring the call of Christ (Luke 14:18\u201320; 16:10\u201331), although that must be based upon their first proposal rather than the actual compromise agreement. Verses 1\u20135 report Reuben and Gad\u2019s first proposal for settling in the Transjordan: They herded \u201cvast numbers of livestock\u201d (32:1) throughout the wilderness journey (Exod 12:38; 17:3; 34:3) and augmented them with plunder from the Amorites and Midianites (31:9\u201312, 26). Together with Simeon, Reuben and Gad formed a division that marched and camped together (2:10). Reuben was the firstborn; however, Jacob said, \u201cYou are as unruly as a flood, and you will be first no longer\u201d (Gen 49:4). In fact, after verse 1, Gad takes first place even in this narrative (32:2, 6, 25, 29, 31, 33). By the time Moses gave his parting blessings to the tribes, there was concern that Reuben might even die out (Deut 33:6), but Gad was vigorous and expanding (Deut 33:20\u201321). Reuben is conspicuously absent from the geographical notes in Samuel\u2014Kings. The Moabite leader, Mesha, mentioned Gad but not Reuben in the Moabite Stone of the ninth century BC (Beyerlin 1978:239; ANET 320; Thomas 1961:196).
\nJust as Lot chose apparent prosperity in the southern Transjordan (Gen 13), Reuben and Gad chose the Transjordan \u201clands of Jazer and Gilead\u201d (32:1). These highlands overlooking the Jordan were blessed with fertile soil, sufficient rainfall, and streams like the Yarmuk, Jabbok, and Arnon. Ticking off a list of its towns (32:3), they said, \u201cThe LORD has conquered this whole area for the community of Israel\u201d (32:4), which indeed reflected God\u2019s promise to Moses (Exod 23:31; Deut 2:24, 31; 3:2, 16, 18), for which they later praised the Lord (Ps 136:17\u201322). So they asked, \u201cLet us have this land \u2026 instead of giving us land across the Jordan River\u201d (32:5).
\nMoses accused them of once again rejecting the Promised Land (32:6\u201315; cf. chs 13\u201314). The accusation of discouraging the rest of the people (32:7) reminds readers of the rebellious scouts (chs 13\u201314), a story with which there are many connections. Later, the Song of Deborah echoes these words against Reuben and Gad, implying that these two tribes showed a continuing disregard for Israel\u2019s unity (Judg 5:15\u201317).
\nMoses launched into a homily covering their national history. The divine oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been diverted by another divine oath, which had excluded an entire unbelieving and disobedient generation from the land (32:11; see 14:30). The only exceptions would be faithful Caleb and Joshua (32:12). Verse 13 summarizes the threat of 14:33\u201335, and Moses told this second generation, \u201cHere you are \u2026 doing exactly the same thing!\u201d (32:14). He called them a \u201cbrood of sinners,\u201d imagery later used by John the Baptist and Jesus about their opponents among the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt 3:7; 12:34). One generation had already been destroyed by this attitude; now Moses said, if this continues, \u201cyou will be responsible for destroying this entire nation!\u201d (32:15).<\/p>\n
Moses Accepts Compromise Petition (32:16\u201327). Verses 16\u201327 recount a compromise proposal, which Moses accepted. Their first request was \u201cLet us have this land \u2026 instead of giving us land across the Jordan River\u201d (32:5); this time they told Moses that they would build facilities to protect their livestock and dependents while they were away at war (32:16\u201317), then they would lead the charge into Canaan proper (32:17) and stick with it for the duration (32:18). Moses accepted this, codifying it as a binding covenant, with appropriate threats and curses: \u201cIf you keep your word \u2026, then \u2026\u201d (32:20\u201322); however, \u201cIf you fail to keep your word, then \u2026\u201d (32:23). They were bound to fulfill their \u201cduty to the LORD and to the rest of the people of Israel\u201d if they wanted the Transjordan (32:22). Otherwise, \u201cYour sin will find you out\u201d (32:23), a phrase personifying sin (cf. Gen 4:7) and meaning there would be no escaping God the Judge. Reuben and Gad agreed, adopting the language that Moses had added about arming themselves to fight for the Lord (32:27).<\/p>\n
Ratification of Proposal to Settle Transjordan (32:28\u201332). Knowing that he was near the end of his life, Moses passed this agreement along to Eleazar and Joshua, who would succeed him, and to the tribal leaders (32:28). He added that failure to adhere to the agreement would mean a revocation of approval for a Transjordan allotment, and these two tribes would have to settle in Canaan with the rest of the tribes (32:30). Gad and Reuben ratified their acceptance, adopting the language of ready obedience like we saw early in the book (32:31). In fact, the Transjordan tribes ended up sending 40,000 (Josh 4:12\u201313), about one-third of their number from the second military count (26:7, 18, 37). Apparently the other two-thirds remained behind to protect their women and children from any Amorites, Ammonites, or Moabites still operating in this recently conquered region. Perhaps that explains the lingering irritation with these two tribes in the Song of Deborah (Judg 5).<\/p>\n
Land Allotments in Transjordan (32:33\u201342). Verses 33\u201342 describe the agreement that allocated cities in the Transjordan to Gad, Reuben, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. This list differs from a later and fuller account (Josh 13:15\u201332), where Reuben settled east of the Dead Sea, Gad settled between the Dead Sea and Galilee, and Manasseh settled in northern Gilead. Here we see Gad rebuilding Dibon and Aroer, which later fell in Reuben\u2019s territory (32:34; cf. Josh 13:16\u201317), and Reuben occupying Heshbon, which later belonged to Gad (32:37; cf. Josh 21:39). Perhaps they ranged widely throughout the Transjordan with their vast flocks (Miller and Hayes 1986:102\u2013103), or perhaps \u201cover the years Reuben was assimilated into Gad, as also happened to Simeon and Judah\u201d (Noordtzij 1983:284). \u201cMoses assigned land\u201d (32:33), with no mention of using lots, by which Canaan proper was to be distributed (26:55; 33:54; 34:13; 36:2).
\nVerses 34\u201338 list 14 towns that Gad and Reuben built or rebuilt. Gad took eight cities that comprised the central part of the former kingdom of Sihon the Amorite (32:34\u201336; Josh 13:24\u201328). Reuben took six cities lying to the south of Gad (32:37\u201338). In some cases, they planned to change the names, probably to rid the names of pagan references like Nebo and Baal (32:38).
\nVerses 39\u201342 record the actions of three Manassite clans in the Upper Transjordan: Makir, Jair, and Nobah (cf. Josh 1). The \u201chalf-tribe of Manasseh,\u201d a newly dominant tribe, horned in on the deal brokered by Reuben and Gad. Manasseh\u2019s forces did most of the fighting in the Transjordan, so later, their descendants are described as having \u201ca great reputation as mighty warriors\u201d (1 Chr 5:23\u201324). No battles are listed for Gad and Reuben, or, for that matter, the rest of Israel! We\u2019ve already heard of Amorite defeats (21:33\u201335); however, here we see the Makirites taking Gilead, Transjordan territory that was north of the Jabbok and therefore north of Gad, stretching from Gilead into Bashan and the Golan (32:39). Similarly, we see various other clans of Manasseh conquering their Transjordan territory (32:40\u201342).<\/p>\n
\u2666 D. Reprise of Wilderness Itinerary (33:1\u201349)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
33:3 Cf. 1:1; 7:1; 9:1, 5; 10:10; 20:1; 33:38.<\/p>\n
33:4 The LORD had defeated the gods of Egypt that night. Lit., \u201cOn their gods the LORD had done judgments\u201d (cf. Exod 12:12), lacking \u201cthat night.\u201d Thus, the defeat of or judgment against the gods of Egypt may be better understood as having occurred throughout the plague cycle.<\/p>\n
33:38 Cf. 1:1; 7:1; 9:1, 5; 10:11; 20:1; 33:3. Numbers 20:1 tells us Israel returned to Kadesh \u201cin the first month\u201d; however, no year is given there, so the mention of a year here indicates the end of the wilderness period.<\/p>\n
33:39 Aaron was 123. Compare his age as 83 at the beginning of the Exodus (Exod 7:7).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Chapter 33 reprises the wilderness itinerary of the Israelites: from Egypt to Sinai (33:1\u201315), the wilderness wanderings (33:16\u201336), and from Kadesh to Moab (33:27\u201349). The result is a list of 42 stations from their Egyptian starting point in Rameses to their final encampment at the Jordan. Some commentators omit the first and last sites to arrive at 40 stages, one for each year in the wilderness. But this results in a list where the first stage is still in Egypt but the last is not yet in Canaan; therefore, it does not render 40 stages \u201cin the wilderness.\u201d And, of course, there is no question of anything like a stay of one year at each stage.
\nThe whole trip could have been made in about a month if they had been able to proceed directly from Egypt to Sinai (about 230 miles), a 15-day trip, and directly from there to Kadesh on the border with Canaan (about 160 miles), an 11-day trip (Deut 1:2).
\nThe ancient Near East knew of such precise accounts of the stages of a journey, taking the form \u201cand they departed from x and encamped at y\u201d (IDB 3.57\u201360, 78\u201379), especially when such movements were part of a military campaign (Cole 2000:518; e.g., \u201cThe Journey of Wen-Amon to Phoenicia,\u201d an Egyptian example from the eleventh century BC translated in ANET 25\u201329). For many of the sites some historical allusion is included (33:6\u20137, 9, 14, 36\u201340). As we saw in chapters 1\u201310, Israel began well, but that didn\u2019t continue. It was like what Paul lamented in the Galatian church: \u201cYou were running the race so well. Who has held you back from following the truth?\u201d (Gal 5:7). So these verses have the same message that the psalmist has: \u201cI listen carefully to what God the LORD is saying, for he speaks peace to his faithful people. But let them not return to their foolish ways\u201d (Ps 85:8).
\nThe itinerary through 40 grumbling years witnesses to God\u2019s gracious sustenance for his people. In fact, the lack of mention of any murmuring is interesting.<\/p>\n
This may be meant to indicate that more important than all the sorry history of sin and failure is the divine provision of grace. When the story is ultimately told, it will be the latter, not the former, that will adorn the permanent record of the pilgrimage. F. B. Meyer, in a comment on this, says, \u201cWhen we get to heaven and study the way-book, we shall find all the deeds of love and self-denial carefully recorded, though we have forgotten them; and all the sins blotted out, though we remember them.\u201d (Philip 1993:336, quoting Meyer 1903:1.150)<\/p>\n
A preface gives the nature of the list (33:1), the author (33:2), the time and place for the beginning of the journey (33:3), and the circumstances under which the journey began (33:4). It records the stages of the journey from Egypt to the borders of the Promised Land. \u201cMoses kept a written record of their progress\u201d (33:2)\u2014this is the only bit of Numbers directly said to have been written by Moses, although the whole of it can be described as \u201cof Moses.\u201d They started on \u201cthe fifteenth day of the first month\u201d (33:3), the day after Passover (Exod 12:6, 18) and the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:6). The addition of \u201cthat night\u201d in NLT is potentially misleading (see note on 33:4), especially if we see the multiday sequence of plague signs as a series of victories over Egyptian gods. Indeed, many of the plagues can be understood as judgments against various Egyptian deities as follows (Greenberg 1972; L\u00f6wenstamm 1971), although this understanding is more compelling for some than others:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Water to blood (Exod 7:14\u201325): Hapi, the god of the Nile, bringer of fertility; a compelling understanding, given how important the Nile was to Egypt\u2019s very existence
\n\u2022 Frogs (Exod 8:1\u201315): Hekqet, the frog-headed goddess of fruitfulness
\n\u2022 Flies (Exod 8:20\u201332): Keper, in the form of a beetle, symbolizing the daily cycle of the sun across the sky
\n\u2022 Plague on cattle (Exod 9:1\u20137): Hathor, a cow-headed goddess or cow-shaped goddess with a human head adorned with horns; Kenum, a ram-headed god; Amon, a ram-headed king of gods and patron of the pharaohs; Isis, queen of the gods who wears cow or ram horns
\n\u2022 Hail, thunder, and lightning (Exod 9:13\u201335): Nut, the sky goddess and protector of the dead
\n\u2022 Locusts (Exod 10:1\u201320): Serapia, protector of locusts
\n\u2022 Darkness (Exod 10:21\u201329): Re, personified sun, king of the gods and father of mankind
\n\u2022 Death of firstborn (Exod 11:1\u201312:36): Taurt, goddess of maternity who presided over childbirth and was a protective household deity. Perhaps this last one should rather be seen as an attack on the household (dynasty) of the deified pharaoh himself.<\/p>\n
Small wonder the Hebrews pumped their fists as they left Egypt (see 33:3, KJV).
\nThe list of stages does not allow us to identify the route exactly; place names survive through the ages only through continuity of settlement on the same site, which was always unlikely for desert encampments. In addition, the text of this list shows many variants, though they tend to be orthographic errors. Where available, the list will note the occurrence of these place names in the earlier travel narrative as well, although this list mentions many sites not included in the earlier travel narratives. The following is a numbered list of the sites the Israelites traveled to, with what is known about them:<\/p>\n
Egypt to the Red Sea (33:5\u20138).<\/p>\n
1. Rameses (33:3, 5; see Exod 12:37) was named for the great Pharaoh Rameses II, who lived well after Joseph (Gen 47:11) and even after the Exodus, an example of updating a place name to a more current and recognizable name. \u201cMost scholars are agreed that this is probably to be identified with Pi-Rameses of Egyptian texts. This city was undertaken by Seti I and completed by Rameses II and is located at Tanis, Qantir, or perhaps even both sites.\u201d
\n2. Succoth (33:5\u20136; see Exod 12:37; 13:20) is probably Tell Maskhuta near the modern Timsah Lake (Rainey and Notley 2006:119).
\n3. Etham (33:6\u20138; see Exod 13:20) is perhaps Tell Abu Seifeh, and was the place where the fiery cloud-pillar was first mentioned (Exod 13:21). The name may be related to the Egyptian word htm, meaning \u201cfortress\u201d (contra HALOT; contra Rainey and Notley 2006:119, who think that identification phonetically problematic). It may have been an unidentified fortification somewhere along the line of the present Suez Canal. Levine suggests that it may be a variant, abbreviated form of Pithom (2000:516).
\n4. Pi-hahiroth (33:7\u20138; see Exod 14:2, 9), or \u201cMouth of the Canals,\u201d empties into the Sea of Reeds. It would have been in the eastern part of the Nile Delta region but still west of the Bitter Lakes, so Pharaoh\u2019s armies could trap Israel up against their waters. It was \u201copposite Baal-zephon,\u201d which is perhaps modern Mount Casius on the Mediterranean coast (Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002, map 48). They camped near Migdol, a place-name meaning \u201cwatchtower\u201d or \u201cfortress,\u201d perhaps Egypt\u2019s northernmost frontier town (Ezek 29:10; 30:6).<\/p>\n
Red Sea to Sinai (33:8\u201315).<\/p>\n
5. Marah (33:8\u20139; see Exod 15:23, 25, 27) was where bitter waters were made sweet (Exod 15:23). Its location is uncertain. Some have identified it with Ein Hawarah, 47 miles southeast of Suez, but a more likely identification would be Bir el-Murah, 10 miles east of Suez in west-central Sinai, since it would best fit the three-day journey at 20 miles per day (Hoffmeier 2005:161\u2013162). \u201cAlthough identified as Shur in Exodus 15:22, this need not imply two versions. Etham is simply Egyptian for Hebrew Shur, both meaning \u2018wall, fortification.\u2019 The location probably refers to the defense line built by the Egyptians along the present Suez Canal\u201d (Milgrom 1989:279).
\n6. Elim (33:9\u201310; see Exod 15:27; 16:1) was perhaps located at Wadi Gharandel, about 75 miles south of the Bitter Lakes, or 55 miles south of Suez. Counting the wells and trees on a piece of property is found in Hittite records (Harrison 1990:405), especially in ancient Near Eastern military itineraries (Milgrom 1989:279). Jewish exegetes connected the 12 springs and 70 palms at this location to the 12 tribes and 70 elders (11:16).
\n7. Red Sea (33:10\u201311; see 14:25; 21:4; Exod 15) is literally \u201cSea of Reeds.\u201d This was a later encampment on the eastern shore of the Suez Gulf (Hoffmeier 2005:164), which followed the crossing of Reed Sea, \u201cone of the marshy lakes in the Isthmus of Suez\u201d (Hoffmeier 2005:164). This station is not mentioned in the Exodus record.
\n8. Wilderness of Sin (33:11\u201312; see Exod 16:1; 17:1) refers to a coastal area of northwest Sinai along the Suez Gulf. Some identify it with Dibbet-er-Rammeleh (Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002:map 48), which would fit the traditional location for Mount Sinai in the south of the peninsula.
\n9. Dophkah (33:12\u201313; cf. LXX Raphaka) was possibly Serabit el-Khadem (Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002:map 48), though some consider this identification doubtful (Budd 1984:354; G. I. Davies 1979:84). Hoffmeier thinks Dophkah may be connected linguistically with mfk\u2019t, an Egyptian word for turquoise, which was mined in the district of Wadi Maghara, about 20 miles inland from the gulf of Suez (Hoffmeier 2005:165\u2013169).
\n10. Alush (33:13\u201314) is an unknown desert location not mentioned in Exodus, but some suggest Wadi el-\u2019Esh (Snaith 1969:200; Hoffmeier 2005:169), though G. I. Davies doubts it (1979:84) and Budd calls that association \u201cphilologically dubious\u201d (1984:355).
\n11. Rephidim (33:14\u201315; see Exod 17:1, 8; 19:2). If the traditional southern location of Sinai is held, Rephidim is usually identified with Wadi Feiran near the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula (Harrison 1990:405), though some now identifiy it with Wadi Refayid, about 30 miles north of the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula (Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002:map 48; Hoffmeier 2005:170). This was the place where water came from the rock, a phenomenon like the modern Bedouin practice of tapping rock formations for shallow ground water in the southern Sinai (Hoffmeier 2005:170\u201371).
\n12. Wilderness of Sinai (33:15). This would be located in the south-central portion of the peninsula.<\/p>\n
Wilderness Wanderings (33:16\u201336).<\/p>\n
13. Kibroth-hattaavah (33:16\u201317; see 11:34\u201335), meaning \u201cGraves of Desire\u201d or \u201cGlutton\u2019s Cemetery\u201d (11:34; Deut 9:22), was a three-day journey from Sinai (10:33). Some suggest Wadi es-Sudr or upper Wadi Gheidara (Cole 2000:523). Missing from this list of campsites are Taberah (11:3) and later Mattanah, Nahaliel, and Bamoth (21:18\u201319).
\n14. Hazeroth (33:17\u201318; see 11:35; 12:16; Deut 1:1) means something like \u201ccourtyards, villages, settlements.\u201d It is an unknown location, possibly identified with the philologically equivalent Wadi Khudeirat, 22 miles northeast of Jebel Musa, the traditional location of Sinai; however, \u201cDoubts about the latter identification are automatically transferred to the former\u201d (Milgrom 1989:280). Now some suggest \u2018Ain Khadra, about 40 miles northeast of Jebel Musa (Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002).
\n15. Rithmah (33:18\u201319), a name perhaps derived from the broom plant (Gray 1903:445\u2013446), is an otherwise unknown site mentioned only here.
\n16. Rimmon-perez (33:19\u201320), or perhaps \u201cPomegranate Gap,\u201d is otherwise unknown and mentioned only here.
\n17. Libnah (33:20\u201321), or \u201cWhite Place,\u201d is perhaps a variant of Liban, located near Hazeroth and Di-zahab (Deut 1:1); otherwise, it is mentioned only here, because Libnah in Joshua 10:29 is clearly recognized as a different place.
\n18. Rissah (33:21\u201322) is mentioned only here; its location is unknown.
\n19. Kehelathah (33:22\u201323), or \u201cGathering Place,\u201d an unknown place mentioned only here but is perhaps a duplicate of Makheloth (33:25).
\n20. Mount Shepher (33:23\u201324), or \u201cMount of Beauty,\u201d is mentioned only here.
\n21. Haradah (33:24\u201325), or \u201cFrightening\u201d or \u201cTrembling,\u201d is mentioned only here and is perhaps another symbolic name like Kibroth-hattaavah (33:16).
\n22. Makheloth (33:25\u201326), or \u201cPlace of Assembly,\u201d is an unknown location mentioned only here, unless it is taken as a duplication of Kehelathah (33:22).
\n23. Tahath (33:26\u201327), or \u201cFoot of the Mountain\u201d (Levine 2000:519), is mentioned only here.
\n24. Terah (33:27\u201328) is mentioned only here and is otherwise known only as the name of Abraham\u2019s father (Gen 11:24\u201332; Josh 24:2).
\n25. Mithcah (33:28\u201329), or \u201cSweetness,\u201d is mentioned only here but may be associated with sweet water.
\n26. Hashmonah (33:29\u201330) is mentioned only here, which makes 12 consecutive place names that are unknown to us. Cf. Heshmon, a town in the Negev of Judah (Josh 15:27).
\n27. Moseroth (33:30\u201331), or \u201cReins\u201d or \u201cBand\u201d or \u201cStraps,\u201d is another form of Moserah, where Aaron died (Deut 10:6), although Numbers says he died on Mount Hor (33:38). These could be alternate names for the same place or for sites in the same vicinity. It is also possible that this is not so much a place name as a common noun moserah [4147A, 4593], meaning \u201cchastisement,\u201d which gives not the place but the reason for Aaron\u2019s death (Ashley 1993:630, who cites as \u201cnot particularly convincing\u201d this suggestion by Harrison 1969:511).
\n28. Bene-jaakan (33:31\u201332), or \u201cSons of Jaakan,\u201d is a place in Edom that is elsewhere called Akan (1 Chr 1:42; cf. Gen 36:27) or \u201cthe wells of the people of Jaakan\u201d (Deut 10:6).
\n29. Hor-haggidgad (33:32\u201333), or \u201cCave of Gidgad,\u201d was also called Gudgodah (Deut 10:7). It is an unknown site, tentatively identified with Wadi Ghadhaghedh (Levine 2000:520).
\n30. Jotbathah (33:33\u201334), or \u201cPleasantness,\u201d was a place with streams of sweet water (Deut 10:7). It is tentatively identified as Tabbeh in southern Arabia (Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002; Baly 1963:174), that is, \u2018Ain Tabah, 6 miles south of Elath.
\n31. Abronah (33:34\u201335), or \u201cRegions Beyond,\u201d is mentioned only here. It is probably right at the head of the Gulf of Aqabah, possibly just west of Elath (Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002:map 48) or at \u2018Ain Defiyeh, about 7 miles north of Ezion-geber at the head of the Gulf of Aqabah.
\n32. Ezion-geber (33:35\u201336), or \u201cMighty Trees,\u201d was the oft-mentioned oasis near Elath at the north end of the Gulf of Aqabah (Deut 2:8; 1 Kgs 9:26; 22:48; 2 Chr 8:17; 20:36). Nelson Glueck\u2019s identification with Tell el-Kheleifeh at Elath has been widely accepted (Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002:map 48); however, others have questioned it (Ashley 1993:631\u2013632; Levine 2000:520), and an alternative has been suggested at Jezeirat Faraun, a small island a couple of miles south of the head of the Gulf of Aqabah (G. I. Davies 1979:85\u201386; Flinder 1989).
\n33. Kadesh (33:36\u201337; called Kadesh in 13:26; 20:1, 14, 16, 22; 27:14 and Kadesh-barnea in 32:8; Deut 1:2; 1:19; 2:14; 9:23), or \u201cSanctuary\u201d (see note on 13:26). In the nineteenth century it was identified with the well-known \u2018Ain Qedeis oasis located some 50 to 75 miles from Ezion-geber, which would mean that three to five intermediate stops were left unmentioned. Various twentieth-century studies have placed it instead at \u2018Ain Qudeirat. \u201cIt stands near the junction of a road leading from Suezto Beer-sheba\/Hebron, the \u2018way of Shur\u2019 (Gen 16:7) and the road branching from the coastal highway, the \u2018way of the land of the Philistines\u2019 (Ex 13:17) near el-\u2019Ar\u00eesh, which leads to \u2018Aqabah. This area is now the largest oasis in the northern Sinai and has a spring that produces about 40 cubic meters of water per hour\u201d (Rainey and Notley 2006:121). It was either \u201clocated in\u201d (NLT, NAB, NIV) or \u201cidentified with\u201d (e.g., KJV, NASB, ESV, JPS, NJPS) \u201cthe wilderness of Zin\u201d (33:36). Here the people rebelled after hearing the spies\u2019 report (chs 13\u201314), Korah led a rebellion (chs 16\u201317), Miriam died, Moses struck the rock, and Edom refused passage to the children of Israel (ch 20).<\/p>\n
Kadesh to Moab (33:37\u201349).<\/p>\n
34. Mount Hor (33:37\u201340; see 20:22\u201323, 25, 27; 21:4 and the note on 20:22), where Aaron died at age 123, in the 40th year of wandering (33:38). Deuteronomy 2:14 indicates that the journey from Kadesh to Mount Hor took 38 years, which means stages 1\u201333 and 34\u201340 went quickly. An early tradition identified Mount Hor with Nebi Harun near Petra (Josephus Antiquities 4.82\u201384 [4.4.7]), and later geographers identified it with Jebel Madeirah just south of Petra (Cole 2000:625); however, Imaret el-Khureiseh, located 8 miles north of Kadesh, \u201cdeserves some consideration\u201d (Rainey and Notley 2006:121). The list of stages also makes a brief note to opposition from the king of Arad (33:40; cf. 21:1\u20133).
\n35. Zalmonah (33:41\u201342), or \u201cBlack Place\u201d or \u201cGloomsville,\u201d is an unknown site not to be identified with either of the Mount Zalmons mentioned elsewhere (Judg 9:48; Ps 68:14). It may have been in the region of Wadi es-Salmaneh east of \u2018Ain Hazeva and 22 miles west of the Dead Sea (Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002:map 52; Cole 2000:526). Verses 41\u201349 give the impression that Israel cut through the territories of Edom and Moab (Deut 2:2\u201313, 29), although they had turned away from them at first (21:4).
\n36. Punon (33:42\u201343) is not mentioned in the narrative section of Exodus or Numbers, but it is at this point, before moving to Oboth, that we have the story of the fiery serpents (21:5\u20139). It\u2019s identified with Khirbet Feinan in Wadi Feinan\u2014tentatively by some (e.g., Rasmussen 1989:248) and \u201csurely\u201d by others (e.g., Rainey and Notley 2006:121). This would locate it on the eastern edge of the Arabah and 30 miles south of the Dead Sea, in Edomite country.
\n37. Oboth (33:43\u201344; see 21:10\u201311) faced Moab from the east (21:10). It might be identified with \u2018Ain el-Weieh, just to the north of modern Feinan but before entering the Zered (Rainey and Notley 2006:121); however, G. I. Davies objects that this makes for an inexplicable detour to the west and prefers something north of there (Davies 1979:90); however, Israel was \u201cwandering.\u201d
\n38. Iye-abarim (33:44\u201345; see 21:11), or \u201cRuins of Abarim\u201d or \u201cRuins of the Passes,\u201d faced Moab from the east somewhere in the Zered Gorge (21:11\u201312), perhaps el-Medeiyineh, (Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002:map 52; Rainey and Notley 2006:122).
\n39. Dibon-gad (33:45\u201346; see \u201cDibon\u201d at 21:30 and note at 32:3) or Dhiban, located four miles north of the Arnon and 13 miles east of the Dead Sea. The \u201c-gad\u201d element denotes the fact that after the conquest Gad rebuilt and fortified this formerly Moabite town (32:34).
\n40. Almon-diblathaim (33:46\u201347) is probably a variant of Beth-diblathaim, perhaps a conflation of two names: Baal-meon and Beth-diblathaim (Snaith 1969:201). Jeremiah mentions it along with Nebo and Dibon in his oracle against Moab (Jer 48:22; see the Moabite Stone, line 30). It has been tentatively located at Khirbet Deleilat esh-Sherqiyeh, which is near both Medeba and Baal-meon, which Mesha mentions with Beth-diblathaim (Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002:map 52). This would locate it east of the Dead Sea and 21 miles southeast of Amman.
\n41. The mountains east of the river (33:47\u201348), or \u201cMountains of Abarim\u201d (see 21:11; 27:12; 33:47\u201349), were facing Mount Nebo, which is traditionally identified with a 2,600-foot peak five miles northwest of Madaba. These were in the Plains of Moab facing Jericho, thus providing a view of the land (Deut 32:49).
\n42. The Plains of Moab (33:48\u201350; see 21:12; 22:1; 26:3, 63; 35:1, 13\u201314) were located \u201ceast of the Jordan River, across from Jericho\u201d (22:1; cf. 34:15; Josh 13:32). The people camped at Beth-jeshimoth, or perhaps \u201cHouse of the Wilderness\u201d (Josh 12:3; 13:20; Ezek 25:9), which is possibly echoed in the Arabic toponym Khirbet es-Suweimeh (Levine 2000:522), although Glueck identified it with Tell el-\u2019Azeimah 12 miles south of Jericho, on the east side of the Jordan and just north of the Dead Sea (Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002:map 52).<\/p>\n
\u2666 E. Laws about the Promised Land (33:50\u201336:13)
\n1. Orders for occupying the Promised Land (33:50\u201356)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
33:52 carved and molten images. These are maskith [4906, 5381], figures \u201ccarved\u201d from stone (Lev 26:1, e.g., \u201cfigured stones\u201d; Gray 1903:450), and massekoth [4541, 5011], which are images cast from \u201cmolten\u201d metal (Exod 34:17; Lev 19:4).<\/p>\n
pagan shrines. Lit., \u201chigh places,\u201d perhaps referring to cult platforms (Sturdy 1976:231), since they could even be found in a valley such as the valley of Ben-Hinnom (Jer 7:31).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
The final section of Numbers (33:50\u201336:13) deals with laws pertaining to life in the Promised Land. Moses gave laws for occupying it (33:50\u201356), established its borders (34:1\u201315), appointed officials to distribute it (34:16\u201329), described the Levitical holdings in it (35:1\u201334), and returned to the issue of women who might inherit it (36:1\u201313).
\nIsrael was to drive out the Canaanites and eliminate all vestiges of their religion (Exod 23:23\u201333; 34:11\u201326; Lev 26:1). They were to destroy all the idols and shrines (33:52). To Canaan\u2019s ancient inhabitants, this wanton destruction must have looked something like the Taliban\u2019s demolition of Buddhist cliff carvings in Afghanistan. The \u201cpagan shrines\u201d (33:52) were probably the hill shrines or cult platforms that are condemned elsewhere (1 Kgs 13:2, 32\u201334; 2 Kgs 12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 23:5\u201320). The initial fulfillment of this command came under Joshua (Josh 11:20, 23). Later Judean kings performed poorly on this count (1 Kgs 22:43; 2 Kgs 12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35), and their attitude toward these shrines determined the Deuteronomistic Historian\u2019s evaluation of them (e.g., 1 Kgs 14:22\u201323).
\nGod had given Israel a land grant, which they were to distribute among the tribes and clans. Lots determined the location of a tribe\u2019s holding (26:55), then a lot would determine the same for each clan within those tribal borders (33:54). The Canaanites were to be driven out (33:55; Exod 23:33; 34:11\u201313; Deut 7:16). God warned that if they failed in this he would do to the Israelites what he had planned to do to these idolatrous nations (33:56). That is, if Israel failed to drive out the \u201cHivites, Canaanites, and Hittites\u201d (Exod 23:28), God would send invaders to terrify Israel and drive them out of the land (Exod 23:27). Benjamin\u2019s failure to expel the Jebusites (Judg 1:21\u201336) fulfilled the warning that they would be \u201csplinters in your eyes\u201d (33:55). Indeed, like \u201ca snare and a trap \u2026 [like] brambles in your eyes\u201d (Josh 23:13), the influence of these Canaanite remnants led to Israel\u2019s collapse (Ps 106:34\u201336).
\nThis was an international application of a personal warning against keeping company with the wicked (Pss 1:1; 26:4). Under Old Testament law it meant avoiding intermarriage with pagans (Exod 34:16; Ezra 9\u201310; Neh 13), and it disallowed treaties with nearby pagan neighbors (Deut 7:2). The same principle carried into the New Testament, which warns, \u201cBad company corrupts good character\u201d (1 Cor 15:33); \u201cDon\u2019t team up with those who are unbelievers.\u2026 Come out from among unbelievers, and separate yourselves from them\u201d (2 Cor 6:14, 17); and \u201cIf you want to be a friend of the world, you make yourself an enemy of God\u201d (Jas 4:4). Peter preached, \u201cSave yourselves from this crooked generation!\u201d (Acts 2:40), and about \u201cBabylon,\u201d the heavenly voice still warns, \u201cCome away from her, my people. Do not take part in her sins, or you will be punished with her\u201d (Rev 18:4).<\/p>\n
\u2666 2. Borders of the Promised Land (34:1\u201315)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
34:4 Scorpion Pass. Lit., \u201cthe ascent of \u2018aqrabbim [6137A, 6832] (scorpions),\u201d perhaps the same location as Naqb es-Tsafa.<\/p>\n
Hazar-addar. This may be \u2018Ain Qedis (Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002:map 51).<\/p>\n
Azmon. This may be \u2018Ain Muweilekh, about 60 miles south of Gaza.<\/p>\n
34:5 Brook of Egypt. Milgrom identifies this as the modern Wadi el-\u2019Arish, describing it as \u201ca long and deep watercourse that is full only after a substantial rain. It constituted a natural barrier between the Negev and the Sinai Peninsula\u201d (1989:286; see Josh 15:4, 47; 1 Kgs 8:65; 2 Kgs 24:7; 2 Chr 7:8; Isa 27:12).<\/p>\n
34:7 Mount Hor. This is not the Mount Hor on Edom\u2019s border, where Aaron died (20:22\u201328); rather, this is one of the peaks in the Lebanon range, perhaps Ras Shakkah, about 15 miles north of Byblos.<\/p>\n
34:11 run down along the eastern edge of the Sea of Galilee. Lit., \u201cand the boundary ran down and makhah the katep of Kinnereth to the East.\u201d For makhah [4229A, 4682], lexicons suggest \u201cstrike\u201d (BDB) or \u201cencounter, meet\u201d (HALOT). Levine suggests, \u201cthe border \u2018abutted\u2019 \u201d (2000:535). The term katep [3802, 4190] means \u201cshoulder,\u201d metaphorically referring to a mountain slope (Josh 15:8\u201310; 18:12, 16, 18) or a \u201cridge\u201d (Budd 1984:367).<\/p>\n
Galilee. Lit., \u201cKinnereth,\u201d meaning \u201charp-shaped\u201d (Deut 3:17; Josh 11:2; 12:3; 13:27; 19:35; 1 Kgs 15:20). It is successively known as the Sea of Gennesar (1 Macc 11:67) or Gennesaret (Matt 14:34; Mark 6:53; Luke 5:1 mg), Tiberias (John 6:1; 21:1 mg), and Galilee, as NLT regularly names it.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Perhaps the scouts of chapter 13 returned with enough geographical information for Moses to do this mapping. It describes the borders of \u201cCanaan\u201d (34:2) as \u201ccongruent with those of the Egyptian province of Canaan during the second half of the second millennium\u201d (Milgrom 1989:285; also Y. Aharoni 1966:68\u201369; Levine 2000:540). This same sphere of Egyptian hegemony would later be reflected in these words: \u201cBabylon captured the entire area formerly claimed by Egypt\u2014from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates River\u201d (2 Kgs 24:7). Sometimes the Promised Land\u2019s description was a modest \u201cfrom Dan in the north to Beersheba in the south\u201d (Judg 20:1), or from Lebo-hamath in the north to the Arabah Valley or the Brook of Egypt in the south (1 Kgs 8:65). But often descriptions were expansionistic: \u201cas far as you can see in every direction\u2014north and south, east and west\u201d (Gen 13:14; 28:14), \u201call the way from the border of Egypt to the great Euphrates River\u201d (Gen 15:18), or Egypt to Lebanon and the Mediterranean to the Euphrates (Deut 1:7). In any case, Canaan comprised an area larger than Israel proved able to possess, except during the reigns of David and Solomon.
\nThe southern border is described in 34:1\u20135. It began at the southern tip of the Dead Sea (34:3) and ran \u201csouth past Scorpion Pass\u201d then southeast to its \u201csouthernmost point\u201d at \u201cKadesh-barnea\u201d (34:4). It continued west along the \u201cwilderness of Zin\u201d (see 34:3; cf. 13:21; 33:36), passing through \u201cHazar-addar\u201d and \u201cAzmon.\u201d It then followed the northwestern course of the \u201cBrook of Egypt\u201d to end at the Mediterranean (34:5).
\nThe western border was the Mediterranean coastline (34:6). Its people and territories remained unconquered after the conquest (Josh 13:2\u20136; Judg 1:19, 27, 29, 31; cf. Judg 3:1\u20136). Generally, the coastal plains remained occupied by the Philistines in the south and by the Phoenicians in the north (2 Sam 5:17\u201325; 8:1\u201314; 2 Chr 2:1\u201316). Israel remained unable to control Mediterranean ports, with only a few temporary exceptions: (1) Dor may have been an Israelite port during David\u2019s time (Levine 2000:540). (2) For a short period, Hezekiah revolted against the Babylonian supremacy and imprisoned Padi of Ekron in Jerusalem, which is not mentioned in the Bible but only in Babylonian tablets (Snaith 1969:340), though it is doubtful whether this actually constituted an occupation, which would have given him control of Padi\u2019s Philistine ports (Budd 1984:366). (3) During the time of the Maccabees, Jonathan and Simon seized Joppa for a port (Philip 1993:340; see 1 Macc 10:76; 12:33; 14:5).
\nThe northern border (34:7\u20139) is the most difficult to define, but it took in much of modern Lebanon, thus reaching further north than the boundaries of Dan, the proverbial northern limit (e.g., Judg 20:1). It began at the Mediterranean Sea; Budd and Snaith place it between Tyre and Sidon (Budd 1984:366; Snaith 1969:340), but Milgrom (1989:286) starts \u201cjust north of Byblos, in present-day Lebanon, which marked the northern boundary of the Egyptian province of Canaan according to the peace treaty between Rameses II and the Hittites at the beginning of the thirteenth century B.C.E.\u201d (so also Y. Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai 2002:map 51). From the Mediterranean, the northern border ran east to Mount Hor, one of the summits of the Lebanese range. From there the northern boundary ran to Lebo-hamath, at the head of the Orontes River (see note on 13:21). The description of the northern border in Joshua 13:4 adds Aphek, or modern Afqa, 15 miles east of Byblos. From there it ran to Zedad, modern Tsada east of the Sirion (the Anti-Lebanon Range), about 35 miles northeast of Lebweh (Lebo). From there the northern boundary ran to Ziphron and to Hazar-enan, both of which remain unknown. Milgrom suggests they may be the oases east of Zedad called Hawwarin and Qaryatein (1989:287; so also Cole 2000:537). Harrison suggests locating Hazar-enan at the base of Mount Hermon (1990:413).
\nThe eastern border (34:10\u201315) is difficult to nail down north of the Sea of Galilee, because Hazar-enan, Shepham, Riblah, and Ain cannot be located; however, south of the Sea of Galilee the Jordan River forms the border. Shepham is mentioned only here and is unknown from any other source. Perhaps Riblah refers to the important ancient Near Eastern site on the Orontes, the location of Egypt\u2019s battles with Judah and then Babylon (608 and 588 BC; 2 Kgs 23:33\u201335; 25:6, 21; Jer 39:5\u20137; 52:9\u201311, 27). But some commentators doubt this location because it was so out of the way and because that toponymn was always written without the definite article (Levine 2000:535, citing Gray 1903:461; contrast 34:11, which reads \u201cthe Riblah\u201d). The Septuagint has Arb\u0113la, which could be Arbela in Galilee just west of the widest part of the Sea of Kinnereth (1 Macc 9:2), near Hermon. The name \u2018ayin [5871\/5869, 6526\/6524], meaning \u201cspring,\u201d would have been as common in ancient Canaan as \u201cSpringfield\u201d is in the United States. Gray suggests it may be a mispronunciation of \u2018iyyon [5859, 6510] (1903:461\u2013462, citing 1 Kgs 15:20; 2 Kgs 15:29), which was right at the source of the Jordan. The rest of the eastern border followed southward along \u201cthe eastern edge of the Sea of Galilee\u201d (34:11), then \u201calong the Jordan to the Dead Sea\u201d (34:12). Elsewhere the eastern boundary is described solely in terms of the Jordan and Dead Sea (Ezek 47:18).
\nVerses 13\u201315 form an inclusio with verse 2 and deal with the \u201cnine and a half remaining tribes\u201d after \u201cReuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh\u201d had arranged to settle in the Transjordan. It was a magnificent land grant. \u201cThe size of the land and Israel\u2019s inability to occupy it all remind us of God\u2019s liberality \u2018who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think\u2019 (Eph 3:20; cf. Rom 8:32; Jas 1:5)\u201d (G. J. Wenham 1981:232).<\/p>\n
\u2666 3. Appointed officials (34:16\u201329)<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Gad and Reuben settled in the Transjordan, so only 10 tribal leaders were appointed to deal with the nine and one-half tribes settling within Canaan proper. They were chosen on the same principle as those chosen to supervise the earlier census (1:1\u201315); however, Joshua and Eleazar (34:17) replaced Moses and Aaron as overall supervisors (34:17; cf. 1:3). The 10 tribes are listed in a geographical order, moving from south to north, but with Judah being given precedence in the south, rather than Simeon. It is a list \u201cfitting for a new beginning\u201d (Ashley 1993:644).
\nThe southern tribes (34:19\u201322) comprised Judah, Simeon, Benjamin, and Dan. Though Dan originally settled in the south, the tribe later migrated to the north (Josh 19:40\u201348; Judg 18). The central tribes (34:23\u201324) comprised the two Joseph tribes, Ephraim and the half-tribe of Manasseh. The northern tribes (34:25\u201328) comprised Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali.<\/p>\n
\u2666 4. Levitical holdings in the Promised Land (35:1\u201334)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
35:4 1,500 feet from the town walls in every direction. This is the \u201cradius\u201d measured from the \u201ctown walls\u201d rather than from a theoretical center, because the hamlet was of negligible size.<\/p>\n
35:5 3,000 feet outside the town walls in every direction. Lit., \u201cfrom the outside of the city, the east quarter, 2,000 cubits, the south quarter, 2,000 cubits, the west quarter, 2,000 cubits, and the north quarter, 2,000 cubits; and the city is in the midst.\u201d This is the perimeter measurement on each quarter (Budd 1984:376). Levine suggests a more complicated design with the town itself being 3,000 feet square and the pastureland extending out from that 1,500 feet for a total area of 6,000 feet squared (Levine 2000:571).<\/p>\n
35:11 accidentally. Heb., bishegagah. The Geneva Bible-KJV-ASV tradition has \u201cunawares\u201d; however, it is better to use a term like \u201caccidentally\u201d (NIV, NKJV, NLT), \u201cwithout intent\u201d (RSV, NRSV, ESV), or \u201cunintentionally\u201d (NASB, NJPS, NET). The term shegagah [7684, 8705] here and in 35:15 is the same term used elsewhere for unintentional sins (15:24\u201329).<\/p>\n
35:12 from a dead person\u2019s relatives who want to avenge the death. Heb., miggo\u2019el, meaning \u201cfrom the avenger\u201d (see 35:19). Since the go\u2019el [1350B, 1457] was an individual, \u201crelatives\u201d could be a misleading translation; and since this vengeance is later translated as a responsibility (35:19), the phrase \u201cwho want to\u201d may also be misleading. In addition to this responsibility, the go\u2019el could be responsible to recover money owing to a relative (5:8), to recover family property (Lev 25:25; Ruth 4:1\u20136; Jer 32:8\u201312), to redeem a kinsman from slavery (Lev 25:47\u201349), or even to contract a levirate marriage (Deut 25:5\u20139; Ruth 3:13; 4:5).<\/p>\n
35:15 foreigners living among you, and traveling merchants. Lit., \u201cfor the ger and for the toshab among you,\u201d possibly a hendiadys, i.e., \u201cfor the alien, even the one living among you,\u201d e.g., \u201cresident aliens\u201d (Milgrom 1989:292). BDB, which defines the ger [1616, 1731] as a \u201ctemporary dweller, new-comer (no inherited rights), (as opposed to homeborn),\u201d then defines the toshab [8453, 9369] as \u201csojourner, apparently of a more temporary and dependent (Lv 22:10; 25:6) kind than the ger, (with which it is often joined).\u201d The NLT rather reflects the interpretation that toshab describes in economic terms what ger describes in legal terms (TDOT 2.439\u2013449).<\/p>\n
35:19 the victim\u2019s nearest relative is responsible for putting the murderer to death. Lit., \u201cthe redeemer (go\u2019el [1350B, 1457]) of blood, he shall kill the murderer.\u201d<\/p>\n
35:20 pushes. Heb., hadap [1920, 2074]. Older translations followed the Geneva Bible\u2019s choice of a \u201cthrusting\u201d movement (KJV, ASV, JPS) or \u201cstab\u201d (RSV); however, newer translations prefer \u201cpush\u201d (NLT, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, NJPS) or \u201cshove\u201d (NIV), like sheep butting (Ezek 34:21), a person shoving someone away (2 Kgs 4:27), knocking them down (Jer 46:15), or driving them out (Deut 9:4; Josh 23:5; Job 18:18). Therefore, it is something like pushing someone off a building or cliff.<\/p>\n
throws a dangerous object at him. Lit., \u201cor throws at him\u201d; no object is mentioned, though the LXX has \u201canything\u201d as an object. More significantly, the Hebrew includes bitsediyyah [6660, 7402] after this phrase, meaning \u201cwhile lying in wait,\u201d i.e., a premeditated ambush, which most translations indicate with a term for ambush (e.g., KJV, RSV, JPS, LXX) or premeditation (NIV, NET, NJPS). The NLT omits this telling qualification, though it\u2019s already implied in the preexisting hatred mentioned in the verse.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
In Numbers, directions about the Levites frequently follow directions for the other tribes: The first census (1:1\u201346) was followed by a note that the Levites were exempt (1:47\u201354); camp arrangements (ch 2) were followed by Levitical arrangements (ch 3); and the final census (26:1\u201356) was followed by a Levitical count (26:57\u201362). Here, land arrangements for the tribes (ch 34) are followed by allocation of Levitical cities (ch 35).
\nThe tribes of Israel selected and apportioned to the Levites \u201ctowns to live in\u201d (35:2), along with each town\u2019s surrounding pastureland (35:3). Ranging outward from the town center for 1,500 feet, the surrounding pastureland had a perimeter with 3,000 feet on each side (35:4). Greenberg (1968) suggests that verse 5 is a theoretical conclusion that the frontage on each side would be a minimum of 3,000 feet (this is followed by G. J. Wenham 1981:235, with similar solutions suggested by Budd 1984:378; Keil 1869:259\u2013260; Milgrom 1989:502\u2013504; Noordtzij 1983:296). Since this comprised an area suitable for a small village, rather than a town or city, it is possible that as a city grew, its boundaries pushed out so that the overall dimensions of the pastureland increased proportionately (Allen 1990:1000; Milgrom 1989:502\u2013504; G. J. Wenham 1981:234\u2013235).
\nSome say the Levites were allowed to dwell in these cities and to use the surrounding pastureland, but were not actually given possession of them (Budd 1984:376). That\u2019s an unnatural reading of this text. E. W. Davies, however, thinks they probably had possession only of a small quarter in each city, with other people constituting the majority living in them (1995b:358, citing Haran 1978:124, 130\u2013131; Albright 1946:123). Noordtzij notes that we know that some Levitical sites had mixed populations, though they were probably governed by the Levites: Hebron, Shechem, Libnah, Gibeon, Gezer, Jokneam, Taanach, and Kadesh. He compares this to the Hittite temple cities, which were not populated exclusively by temple personnel but were governed by them (Noordtzij 1983:296).
\nEach tribe was to \u201cgive property in proportion to the size of its land\u201d (35:8), though it appears that the idea of proportionality didn\u2019t actually work out in practice (Josh 21). Judah and Simeon contributed nine cities between them. Naphtali gave only three, even though it was larger than Ephraim or Gad, which each contributed four. The even larger tribes of Issachar and Dan didn\u2019t give a larger share.
\nIt is interesting to find that neither Jerusalem nor any of the earlier worship centers like Gilgal, Shiloh, or Mizpah were among these, although the patriarchal Hebron was included (Josh 21:11, 13). Mazar (1959, cited by E. W. Davies 1995b:356\u2013357) notes that the Levitical cities sat at the frontiers, and he thinks these areas would have had mixed populations that needed Levites to promulgate Yahweh worship among them (cf. Y. Aharoni 1966:272\u2013273).<\/p>\n
Cities of Refuge (35:9\u201334). Six of the 48 Levitical cities were additionally classified as cities of refuge (Deut 4:43; Josh 20:7\u20139; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 36\u201338; see Josh 20:1\u20139), where a person who had committed accidental manslaughter could flee for refuge from the act of blood vengeance. They were not for premeditated, deliberate murders (Exod 21:12\u201314; Deut 19:4\u201313), which would have been an example of an unforgivable deliberate sin (15:29\u201331). This extended the principle of finding refuge at the altar of a shrine, Tabernacle, or Temple (Exod 21:12\u201314; 1 Kgs 1:50\u201353).
\nThe killer received initial asylum until he could be \u201ctried by the community\u201d (35:12). So that the killer would not have to make the risky flight all the way to the altar at a central sanctuary, the people were told to \u201cdesignate six cities of refuge\u201d (35:13). Three were to be in the Transjordan (35:14a; Josh 20:8) and three in Canaan proper (35:14b; Josh 20:7). The Transjordan cities were (1) Bezer, possibly the modern Umm el-\u2019Amad, which is about 15 miles east of the mouth of the Jordan; (2) Ramoth-gilead, the modern Tell Ramid, which is about 20 miles east of the Jordan to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee; and (3) Golan, the modern Sakhem el-Jolan, which is 18 miles east of the Sea of Galilee. Those located in Canaan proper were (1) Kedesh in Galilee for the northern region\u2014the modern Tell Qades; (2) Shechem for the central region\u2014the modern Tell Balatah; and (3) Hebron for the south\u2014the modern el-Khalil.
\nLike other important laws, this law about cities of refuge benefited not only the native Israelites but also any foreigners living or working in Israel (35:15). The law applied to anyone who accidentally killed someone; elsewhere, the law forbade granting protection to the willful offender (Exod 21:14).
\nFirst, the text lays out various scenarios defined as murder (35:16\u201321). The crucial factor was premeditation. Had the act come from ongoing hatred, or was it rather the result of a violent surge of anger? One way to tell was if the slayer used a weapon that might indicate purposeful action: iron (35:16), stone (35:17), or wood (35:18). Another way to tell was if the person had lain in wait or already had a reputation for hating someone (35:20); then even if the death was the result of a shove (35:20) or blow from the fist (35:21), it was murder. Then \u201cthe murderer must be put to death\u201d (35:17), and \u201cthe victim\u2019s nearest relative is responsible\u201d (35:19). There may be the same distinction in the words of Jesus, \u201cFather, forgive them, for they don\u2019t know what they are doing\u201d (Luke 23:34), and in Paul telling Timothy, \u201cGod had mercy on me because I [acted] in ignorance and unbelief\u201d (1 Tim 1:13). But the better New Testament parallel is Jesus\u2019 teaching that connects blame for murder to its motivating hatred (Matt 5:21\u201322).
\nSecond, the text lays out scenarios defined as accidental homicide (35:22), which was the judgment if the killer had \u201c[not] shown previous hostility\u201d (35:22) and \u201cthey were not enemies\u201d (35:23). Absence of premeditation meant accidental homicide, whether the death resulted from a shove (35:22) or from an object like a stone (35:17), whether thrown (35:22b) or dropped on the victim (35:23).
\nThird, the chapter lays out the procedure for allowing flight to the city of refuge (35:24\u201334). If community representatives judged that the conditions for accidental homicide applied (35:23) rather than those for first-degree murder (35:16\u201321), then they were obligated to \u201cprotect the slayer from the avenger\u201d while the slayer returned to the city of refuge (35:25). This implies that the investigation or trial took place elsewhere. It could have been outside the city of refuge to which he had fled (Ashley 1993:653; G. J. Wenham 1981:238), whether it was one nearest to his own hometown or the one nearest the place where the slaying occurred (Noordtzij 1983:300). Perhaps the trial was to be at the Tent of Meeting, which eventually meant in Jerusalem (Sturdy 1976:242).
\nThen the killer had to stay in the city of refuge \u201cuntil the death of the high priest\u201d (35:25). Noth explains this in terms of royal amnesty, with the priest taking on the role generally reserved for ancient Near Eastern kings, granting amnesty at the end of an era (Wellhausen 1983:150, followed by Noth 1968:255; Noordtzij 1983:302). But E. W. Davies thinks this ignores the law\u2019s own focus on the necessity of expiation for the manslayers (1995b:365). Indeed, it was the death of the high priest, not the edict of a newly anointed priest, that effected this release. Maimonides thinks that the death of the high priest was an event that moved the entire people so much that no thoughts of vengeance could arise in the avenger of blood. According to the Talmud, the high priest should by the power of prayer have made such a calamity as murder an impossibility in Israel. That he had not succeeded in doing so was a proof that he had failed in his duty. Hence he had to bear the penalty of knowing how welcome his death would be to the man exiled to the city of refuge (Hertz 1977:722). More to the point, G. J. Wenham (1981:228) explains this in terms of substitutionary atonement:<\/p>\n
That it was the high priest\u2019s death, not the exile of the manslaughterer, that atoned is confirmed by the mishnaic dictate, \u201cIf after the slayer has been sentenced as an accidental homicide the high priest dies, he need not go into exile\u201d and the talmudic comment thereon, \u201cBut is it not the exile that expiates? It is not the exile that expiates, but the death of the high priest.\u201d<\/p>\n
The several other commentators who also interpret it as atonement are surely correct (Keil 1869:265; Budd 1984:384; Harrison 1990:422; Ashley 1993:654; Cole 2000:554). If the avenger caught him away from the city of refuge and killed him, it was not murder (35:27); rather, it was justifiable vengeance\u2014not even homicide.
\nA guilty murderer was given over to the family go\u2019el [1350B, 1457] (35:19, 21); however, judgment was reached before a community court (35:24) and required \u201cmore than one witness\u201d (35:30), preventing retribution from degenerating into a family blood feud (Deut 17:6; 19:15). This ancient Near Eastern principle of sufficient witness was also written into the Code of Hammurabi (\u00a79\u201311; ANET 166), and the same Old Testament principle (Heb 10:28) was carried into New Testament church discipline (1 Tim 5:19; cf. Matt 18:16; John 8:17; Rev 11:3).
\nNeither the go\u2019el [1350B, 1457] nor the authorities could \u201caccept a ransom payment for the life,\u201d whether to forestall execution of the murderer (35:31) or to allow the premature release of a killer who had \u201cfled to a city of refuge\u201d (35:32). This would violate two principles: It would violate the principle of lex talionis, and it would violate the principle of equality, favoring the rich over the poor, who could not afford ransom\u2014or bribery. Instead, \u201cMurderers must always be put to death\u201d (35:31), or the death of the high priest must occur before release from the city of refuge (35:32). Human bloodshed must be atoned for by human death (Gen 9:5; Exod 21:12; Lev 24:17; cf. Deut 19:11\u201313). Because the killer had to stay until this happened, we must see the city of refuge as more than just a place for protective custody; it was punitive confinement (Harrison 1990:421) or even a form of banishment (E. W. Davies 1995b:367, citing Josephus Antiquities 4.172\u2013173 [4.7.4]; Philo On Special Laws 3.123). Levine (2000:570) thinks the fugitives were probably lodged in a specific quarter in the town, perhaps there supervised by Levites, and maybe even put to work like indentured servants.
\nFinally, the chapter closes out with the religious basis for this regulation (35:33). It was to protect the land from pollution (35:33) and defilement (35:34). God commanded them to keep the land clean because \u201cI live there myself\u201d (35:34), and he is a pure God, who \u201ccannot stand the sight of evil\u201d (Hab 1:13).
\nChristian application of this legislation will recognize three ideas: First, it affirms the sanctity of human life (Exod 20:13) and the authority of the man made in God\u2019s image and likeness to administrate judicial penalties, including a death penalty (Gen 9:5). Second, the cities of refuge foreshadowed Christ, who is the sinner\u2019s refuge from the avenger of blood (Philip 1993:351\u2013352, citing Prov 18:10; cf. Ps 18:2 \/\/ 2 Sam 22:3; Pss 27:1; 61:3; 91:2; 144:2 on the tower of safety). Third, the high priest anticipated the ministry of Jesus, who not only offered sacrifices and prayer on behalf of the people, but whose own death was atoning (G. J. Wenham 1981:239, citing Heb 4\u20139).<\/p>\n
\u2666 5. Inheritance of Zelophehad\u2019s daughters (36:1\u201313; cf. 27:1\u201311)<\/p>\n
NOTES<\/p>\n
36:4 Jubilee. This was named for the ram\u2019s horn (yobel [3104, 3413]) that ushered in the year (Lev 25:9).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
To close the book, we get an anticlimactic bit of case law rather than an expression like, \u201cArise, O LORD, and let your enemies be scattered! Let them flee before you!\u201d (10:35). Numbers 36:1\u201313 recounts a clan appeal against a family decision. Without further protections, the right of daughters to inherit would alienate clan property if they married outside it (36:3). Even the Year of Jubilee wouldn\u2019t remedy that loss (Lev 25:8\u201355; Westbrook 1991:38ff.).
\nThe Lord gave further directives for this business of daughters inheriting and then marrying. This was not so much prescribing whom they must marry, but setting limits on whom they could marry. If they weren\u2019t heiresses, they could choose husbands from any tribe in Israel; however, with tribal lands in their hands, they had to marry within their tribe. The geographical integrity of each clan\u2019s holdings must be sustained (36:7). Zelophehad\u2019s daughters were part of the Gileadite segment of Manasseh (36:1; cf. 26:29\u201333), which took Transjordan territory (32:39\u201342); however, that was protected inheritance, just as much as any within Canaan proper. Zelophehad\u2019s daughters followed this new provision (36:10). In this case the issue was not so much the potential of being unequally yoked (contra Philip 1993:358, citing 2 Cor 6:14), but about joining in a marriage that would cut the family off from specific covenant blessings.
\nThe book closes with a geographical note about \u201cthe commands and regulations\u201d coming to Moses \u201con the plains of Moab\u201d (36:13). It is not clear whether this refers only to chapters 27\u201336 (Snaith 1969; Sturdy 1976), to the larger corpus of chapters 22\u201336 (Gray 1903; McNeile 1911; Ashley 1993:659), or to the entire book of Numbers (Binns 1927; Budd 1984:389; Cole 2000:563). Whatever the case, it is a fitting verse to close out the entire book, with its implication of good prospects for Israel if they will obey the Lord\u2019s commands.<\/p>\n
Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy<\/p>\n
author Baker, W. David and Brueggemann, Dale A. and Merrill, Eugene H.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
MAJOR THEMES God\u2019s Justice and Mercy. God lived among his people in fiery, smoking pillars of glory (9:15\u201323). When his people sinned, he disciplined them (11:1\u20133; 21:6; 25:1\u20135, 6\u201313), including their leaders: Miriam (12:10), the scouts (14:36\u201338), the Levites (ch 16), Aaron, and even Moses (20:12). But God\u2019s merciful purpose prevailed, both in response to … <\/p>\n