Numbers 2:3

The Tribes on the East

2:3 “Now those who will be camping ¹  on the east, toward the sunrise, ²  are the divisions ³  of the camp of Judah under their standard. The leader of the people of Judah is ⁴  Nahshon son of Amminadab.

Numbers 2:9

2:9 All those numbered of the camp of Judah, according to their divisions, are 186,400. They will travel ⁵  at the front.

Numbers 2:16

2:16 All those numbered of the camp of Reuben, according to their divisions, are 151,450. They will travel second.

Numbers 2:31-32

2:31 All those numbered of the camp of Dan are 157,600. They will travel last, under their standards.”

Summary

2:32 These are the Israelites, numbered according to their families. ⁶  All those numbered in the camps, by their divisions, are 603,550.

Numbers 4:5

4:5 When it is time for the camp to journey, ⁷  Aaron and his sons must come and take down the screening curtain and cover the ark of the testimony with it.

Numbers 5:2

5:2 “Command the Israelites to expel ⁸  from the camp every leper, ⁹  everyone who has a discharge, ¹⁰  and whoever becomes defiled by a corpse. ¹¹ 

Numbers 5:4

5:4 So the Israelites did so, and expelled them outside the camp. As the Lord had spoken ¹²  to Moses, so the Israelites did.

Numbers 10:2

10:2 “Make ¹³  two trumpets of silver; you are to make ¹⁴  them from a single hammered piece. ¹⁵  You will use them ¹⁶  for assembling the community and for directing the traveling of the camps.

Numbers 11:1

The Israelites Complain

11:1 ¹⁷ When the people complained, ¹⁸  it displeased ¹⁹  the Lord. When the Lord heard ²⁰  it, his anger burned, ²¹  and so ²²  the fire of the Lord ²³  burned among them and consumed some of the outer parts of the camp.

Numbers 14:44

14:44 But they dared ²⁴  to go up to the crest of the hill, although ²⁵  neither the ark of the covenant of the Lord nor Moses departed from the camp.

Numbers 15:35-36

15:35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; the whole community must stone ²⁶  him with stones outside the camp.” 15:36 So the whole community took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, ²⁷  just as the Lord commanded Moses.

Numbers 19:3

19:3 You must give it to Eleazar the priest so that he can take it outside the camp, and it must be slaughtered before him. ²⁸ 

Numbers 19:7

19:7 Then the priest must wash ²⁹  his clothes and bathe himself ³⁰  in water, and afterward he may come ³¹  into the camp, but the priest will be ceremonially unclean until evening.

[2:3]  ¹ tn The sentence begins with a vav (ו) on a word that is not a finite verb, indicating a new section begins here. The verbal form is a participle with the article used substantivally, with the meaning “and/now those camping.” Many English versions employ a finite verb; cf. KJV “on the east side…shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch.”

[2:3]  ² tc The two synonyms might seem to be tautological, but this is fairly common and therefore acceptable in Hebrew prose (cf. Exod 26:18; 38:13; etc.).

[2:3]  ³ tn The sentence actually has “[those camping…are] the standard of the camp of Judah according to their divisions.”

[2:3]  ⁴ tn Or “will be.”

[2:9]  ⁵ tn The verb is נָסָע (nasa’): “to journey, travel, set out,” and here, “to move camp.” Judah will go first, or, literally, at the head of the nation, when they begin to travel.

[2:32]  ⁹ tn Heb “the house of their fathers.” So also in v. 34.

[4:5]  ¹³ tn The Hebrew text uses the infinitive construct in an adverbial clause of time; literally it says “in the journeying of the camp.” The genitive in such constructions is usually the subject. Here the implication is that people would be preparing to transport the camp and its equipment.

[5:2]  ¹⁷ tn The construction uses the Piel imperative followed by this Piel imperfect/jussive form; it is here subordinated to the preceding volitive, providing the content of the command. The verb שָׁלַח (shalakh) in this verbal stem is a strong word, meaning “expel, put out, send away, or release” (as in “let my people go”).

[5:2]  ¹⁸ sn The word צָרוּעַ (tsarua’), although translated “leper,” does not primarily refer to leprosy proper (i.e., Hansen’s disease). The RSV and the NASB continued the KJV tradition of using “leper” and “leprosy.” More recent studies have concluded that the Hebrew word is a generic term covering all infectious skin diseases (including leprosy when that actually showed up). True leprosy was known and feared certainly by the time of Amos (ca. 760 b.c.). There is evidence that the disease was known in Egypt by 1500 b.c. So this term would include that disease in all probability. But in view of the diagnosis and healing described in Leviticus 13 and 14, the term must be broader. The whole basis for the laws of separation may be found in the book of Leviticus. The holiness of the Lord who dwelt among his people meant that a high standard was imposed on them for their living arrangements as well as access to the sanctuary. Anything that was corrupted, diseased, dying, or contaminated was simply not compatible with the holiness of God and was therefore excluded. This is not to say that it was treated as sin, or the afflicted as sinners. It simply was revealing – and safeguarding – the holiness of the Lord. It thus provided a revelation for all time that in the world to come nothing unclean will enter into the heavenly sanctuary. As the Apostle Paul says, we will all be changed from this corruptible body into one that is incorruptible (1 Cor 15:53). So while the laws of purity and holiness were practical for the immediate audience, they have far-reaching implications for theology. The purity regulations have been done away with in Christ – the problem is dealt with differently in the new covenant. There is no earthly temple, and so the separation laws are not in force. Wisdom would instruct someone with an infectious disease to isolate, however. But just because the procedure is fulfilled in Christ does not mean that believers today are fit for glory just as they are. On the contrary, they must be changed before going into his presence. In like manner the sacrifices have been done away in Christ – not what they covered. Sin is still sin, even though it is dealt with differently on this side of the cross. But the ritual and the regulations of the old covenant at Sinai have been fulfilled in Christ.

[5:2]  ¹⁹ sn The rules of discharge (Lev 12 and 15) include everything from menstruation to chronic diseases (see G. Wyper, ISBE 1:947, as well as R. K. Harrison, Leviticus (TOTC), 158-66, and G. J. Wenham, Leviticus (NICOT), 217-25.

[5:2]  ²⁰ tn The word is נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh), which usually simply means “[whole] life,” i.e., the soul in the body, the person. But here it must mean the corpse, the dead person, since that is what will defile (although it was also possible to become unclean by touching certain diseased people, such as a leper).

[5:4]  ²¹ tn The perfect tense is here given a past perfect nuance to stress that the word of the Lord preceded the obedience.

[10:2]  ²⁵ tn The Hebrew text uses what is called the “ethical dative” – “make [for] you two trumpets.” It need not be translated, but can simply be taken to underscore the direct imperative.

[10:2]  ²⁶ tn The imperfect tense is again instruction or legislation.

[10:2]  ²⁷ sn The instructions are not clearly spelled out here. But the trumpets were to be made of silver ingots beaten out into a sheet of silver and then bent to form a trumpet. There is archaeological evidence of silver smelting as early as 3000 b.c. Making silver trumpets would have been a fairly easy thing for the Israelites to do. The trumpet would have been straight, with a tapered form, very unlike the “ram’s horn” (שׁוֹפָר, shofar). The trumpets were used by the priests in Israel from the outset, but later were used more widely. The sound would be sharp and piercing, but limited in scope to a few notes. See further C. Sachs, The History of Musical Instruments.

[10:2]  ²⁸ tn Heb “and they shall be for you for assembling,” which is the way of expressing possession. Here the intent concerns how Moses was to use them.

[11:1]  ²⁹ sn The chapter includes the initial general complaints (vv. 1-3), the complaints about food (vv. 4-9), Moses’ own complaint to the Lord (vv. 10-15), God’s response to Moses (vv. 16-25), Eldad and Medad (vv. 26-29), and the quail (vv. 30-35). The first part records the burning of the camp, named Taberah. Here is one of the several naming narratives in the wilderness experience. The occasion for divine judgment is the complaining of the people. The passages serve to warn believers of all ages not to murmur as the Israelites did, for such complaining reveals a lack of faith in the power and goodness of God. For additional literature, see W. Brueggemann, “From Hurt to Joy, from Death to Life,” Int 28 (1974): 3-19; B. S. Childs, “The Etiological Tale Re-examined,” VT 24 (1974): 387-97; G. W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness; and A. C. Tunyogi, “The Rebellions of Israel,” JBL 81 (1962): 385-90.

[11:1]  ³⁰ tn The temporal clause uses the Hitpoel infinitive construct from אָנַן (’anan). It is a rare word, occurring in Lam 3:39. With this blunt introduction the constant emphasis of obedience to the word of the Lord found throughout the first ten chapters suddenly comes to an end. It is probable that the people were tired of moving for several days, the excitement of the new beginning died out quickly in the “great and terrible wilderness.” Resentment, frustration, discomfort – whatever it all involved – led to complaining and not gratitude.

[11:1]  ³¹ tn Heb “it was evil in the ears of the Lord.” The word רַע (ra’) is a much stronger word than “displeased” would suggest. The bold anthropomorphism shows that what the Lord heard was painful to him.

[11:1]  ³² tn The preterite with vav (ו) consecutive is here subordinated to the next verb as a temporal clause.

[11:1]  ³³ tn The common Hebrew expression uses the verb חָרָה (harah, “to be hot, to burn, to be kindled”). The subject is אַפּוֹ (’appo), “his anger” or more literally, his nose, which in this anthropomorphic expression flares in rage. The emphasis is superlative – “his anger raged.”

[11:1]  ³⁴ tn The vav (ו) consecutive does not simply show sequence in the verbs, but here expresses the result of the anger of the Lord for their complaining. With such a response to the complaining, one must conclude that it was unreasonable. There had been no long deprivation or endured suffering; the complaining was early and showed a rebellious spirit.

[11:1]  ³⁵ sn The “fire of the Lord” is supernatural, for it is said to come from the Lord and not from a natural source. God gave them something to complain about – something to fear. The other significant place where this “fire of the Lord” destroyed was in the case of Nadab and Abihu who brought strange fire to the altar (Lev 10:2).

[14:44]  ³³ tn N. H. Snaith compares Arabic ’afala (“to swell”) and gafala (“reckless, headstrong”; Leviticus and Numbers [NCB], 248). The wordעֹפֶל (’ofel) means a “rounded hill” or a “tumor.” The idea behind the verb may be that of “swelling,” and so “act presumptuously.”

[14:44]  ³⁴ tn The disjunctive vav (ו) here introduces a circumstantial clause; the most appropriate one here would be the concessive “although.”

[15:35]  ³⁷ tn The sentence begins with the emphatic use of the infinitive absolute with the verb in the Hophal imperfect: “he shall surely be put to death.” Then, a second infinitive absolute רָגוֹם (ragom) provides the explanatory activity – all the community is to stone him with stones. The punishment is consistent with other decrees from God (see Exod 31:14,15; 35:2). Moses had either forgotten such, or they had simply neglected to (or were hesitant to) enact them.

[15:36]  ⁴¹ tn Heb “stoned him with stones, and he died.”

[19:3]  ⁴⁵ tc The clause is a little ambiguous. It reads “and he shall slaughter it before him.” It sounds as if someone else will kill the heifer in the priest’s presence. Since no one is named as the subject, it may be translated as a passive. Some commentators simply interpret that Eleazar was to kill the animal personally, but that is a little forced for “before him.” The Greek text gives a third person plural sense to the verb; the Vulgate follows that reading.

[19:7]  ⁴⁹ tn The sequence continues with the perfect tense and vav (ו) consecutive.

[19:7]  ⁵⁰ tn Heb “his flesh.”

[19:7]  ⁵¹ tn This is the imperfect of permission.