1. the tent of meeting] Heb. ’ôhel mô‘çd. A.V. ‘tabernacle of the congregation’ confuses mô‘çd with ‘çdah. LXX. σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου (‘tent of witness’) confuses mô‘çd with ‘çdûth. The name ‘tent of meeting’ is a term very frequently employed in P for the Tabernacle (cf. [ Num 3:7] f., [ Num 4:2] f., [ Exo 27:21], [ Lev 1:1]; [ Lev 1:3]). [ Exo 29:42] (P ) shews the meaning which attached to it—‘where I will meet with you to speak there unto thee’; it was understood to mean ‘the tent where Jehovah met His people by appointment,’ the ‘tent of tryst.’ But the name was also used in earlier times for the sacred tent, which in [ Exo 33:7-11] (E ) is pictured as an ordinary nomad tent which Moses could himself carry and pitch outside the camp. And it seems probable that in the primitive days of which E preserves a record a somewhat different meaning attached to the name. See note on [ Num 12:4].
2. their families] Rather their clans, i.e. groups of families related by blood.
fathers’ houses] here denotes families, smaller groups consisting of close relations; see [ Num 1:4], [ Exo 12:3]. The term is, however, elastic. It may denote even an entire tribe, as being descended from a single ancestor ([ Num 17:2]), or the main subdivision of a tribe, i.e. a ‘clan’ ([ Num 3:24], [ Exo 6:14]).
their polls] lit. skulls, a metaphor for ‘individual persons.’ Cf. our word ‘poll-tax,’ and the ‘poll’ at an election. This expression and ‘fathers’ houses’ are not found earlier than P.
5. The twenty-four names in the following verses recur in chs. 2, 7. and [ Num 10:14-27]. Some of them are of types which were frequent in early times, Amminadab ([ Num 1:7]), Ammhud ([ Num 1:10]), Elishama (id. [Note: d. idem, ‘the same,’ referring to the book last mentioned.] ), Abidan ([ Num 1:11]), Ahiezer ([ Num 1:12]), Ahira ([ Num 1:15]), but others are unknown to pre-exilic O.T. writings, Nethanel ([ Num 1:8]), Gamaliel ([ Num 1:10]), and the names compounded with Zur and Shaddai (including Shedeur, [ Num 1:5]). No certain traces of names compounded with Shaddai have been found apart from this list. It is probable that the compiler made an artificial selection of ancient and modern names. See Gray, Numbers, pp. 6 f., and Heb. Proper Names, pp. 191–211.
7. Nahshon the son of Amminaaab] See [Rth 4:20], [ Mat 1:4].
8. Nethanel] ‘God hath given.’ The name is frequent in Chron., Ezr. and Neh., and is the same as Nathaniel, [ Joh 1:45].
10. Gamaliel ‘God is a [my] reward.’ See [ Act 5:34]. It was the name of several Rabbis in the 1st and following centuries a.d.
14. Deuel] The more probable form Reuel is given in [ Num 2:14]. Cf. [ Num 10:29]. The letters R [Note: Redactor.] and D are easily confused in Hebrew.
16. they that were called] i.e. ‘chosen’ to help Moses in conducting the census.
their fathers] Their ancestors, the sons of Jacob.
thousands] Another term for a group of relations, irrespective of its exact number; it is probable that it denotes a large group such as a clan, rather than a small group such as a ‘fathers’ house’ ([ Num 1:2]); cf. [ Jdg 6:15], [ 1Sa 10:19]; [ 1Sa 10:21], [ Mic 5:2].
17–46. The numbers ascertained by the census.
There can be no doubt that the numbers given in chs. 1–3 and 26 are purely artificial. Gray (Numbers, pp. 10–15) shews that (1) they are impossible, (2) when compared with each other they yield absurd results, (3) they are inconsistent with numbers given in Hebrew literature earlier than P .
(1) The number of male Israelites of fighting age is put at 603,550, which appears in round numbers as 600,000 in [ Num 11:21], [ Exo 12:37]. But the fighting men could form hardly more than a quarter of the whole; so that the population would reach a total of some 2¼ millions. The present population of the Sinaitic peninsula is estimated at from 4,000 to 6,000, and a body of over 2 million people could not find subsistence even if dispersed all over the peninsula.
(2) The male first-born numbered 22,273 ([ Num 3:43]); and it is fair to suppose that the number of families in which the first-born child was a female would be about the same, giving a total of some 44,546 families; in which case there was an average of about 50 children to a family.
Again, from [ Num 3:12] we gather that the ‘first-born’ means the first-born of the mother, not the eldest son of a father who might have several wives. There were, therefore, 44,546 mothers. But this number (assuming that the number of women over 20 years of age was the same as that of the men, i.e. 600,000) involves the extreme improbability that only 1 in 14 women over 20 years of age had any children.
(3) According to [ Jdg 5:8] the tribes of Benjamin, Ephraim. Manasseh, Naphtali, Zebulun and Issachar yielded only 40,000 persons, i.e. apparently fighting men. But in these six tribes the fighting men were 273,300 at the first census, and 301,000 at the second ( Numbers 26).
Again, in Judges 18 it is related that the Danites had no proper territory belonging to them; and therefore 600 armed men (obviously the greater part of the tribe) migrated to the north. But the fighting men of Dan numbered 62,700 at the first census, and 64,400 at the second. See, further, the additional note at the end of the chapter.
47–54. The Levites were not to be numbered as fighting men, but were assigned other duties on the march. These duties are stated more fully in chs. 3, 4.
48. For the Lord spake] And Jehovah spake. The rendering of the R.V., which is quite inadmissible, conceals the difficulty that the command not to number the Levites follows the statement that they were not numbered. Some transposition, the extent of which is uncertain, has taken place; or perhaps [ Num 1:47] is a gloss.
50. the tabernacle of the testimony] Better the dwelling, &c. The Heb. mishkân, denoting the place where Jehovah’s presence dwelt among His people, is used in the Hexateuch by P only. The rendering ‘tabernacle’ confuses it with ’ôhel ‘tent.’ See note on [ Num 1:1].
The ‘testimony’ or ‘witness’ refers to the stone tablets of the decalogue, which were placed in the ark and were a testimony or witness to the ethical character of Israel’s God and the ethical character which He desired to see in His people. Similar expressions are ‘the ark of the testimony’ ([ Exo 25:22]), the ‘tablets of the testimony’ ([ Exo 31:18]), the ‘veil of the testimony’ ([ Lev 24:3]). On the significance of the various names of the Tabernacle see the writer’s Exodus, p. lxxxvii.
51. the stranger] Not a ‘foreigner,’ but one who does not belong to the particular class mentioned in the context—here and in [ Num 18:4], the Levites; in [ Num 3:10]; [ Num 3:38], [ Num 18:7], the priests.
53. that there be no wrath] i.e. Divine judgement for the violation of the sacredness of the Tabernacle; cf. [ Num 8:19]. The Tabernacle was an outward expression of a great religious ideal—that of the dwelling of Jehovah in the midst of His people. But the religious ideal of the Jew fell short of the truth revealed in Christianity. The Jew strained every nerve to safeguard the awful unapproachableness of God, whereas the Christian knows that he can ‘draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace’ ([ Heb 4:16]). For this purpose the Jewish writers represented the Tabernacle as surrounded by a cordon of ‘clergy,’ i.e. the sons of Aaron and the three Levitical families. And outside them the laity of Israel pitched their tents according to their tribes, in the positions specified in ch. 2. This arrangement is a counterpart of Ezekiel’s ideal description of the assignment of land to the several tribes round the Temple which should be built when Israel was restored from exile ( Ezekiel 48).