Numbers 1:1 to Numbers 10:10 form the first main division of the book. It is entirely derived from P , and contains a series of injunctions bearing upon ritual and Levitical matters, which are represented as forming part of the legislation at Sinai. A comparison of Numbers 1:1 with Numbers 10:11 shews that the chapters are regarded as occupying the last nineteen days before the departure from the sacred mountain. A month had elapsed since the Tabernacle had been completed and set up (cf. Exodus 40:1; Exodus 40:17), and the compiler of the Hexateuch assigns to that period the communication of the laws in Leviticus, and also the offerings of the princes for the Tabernacle (Numbers 7) and the law of the supplementary Passover (Numbers 9:1-14).

The contents of this section are as follows:

Num 1:1–4. The census of the tribes, their arrangement in camp and on the march, and the duties of the sacred tribe of Levi.

Num 1:5, 6. A series of unconnected regulations dealing with (a) the exclusion of unclean persons from the camp (Numbers 5:1-4), (b) payments in compensation for wrongs (Numbers 1:5-10), (c) the Ordeal of Jealousy (Numbers 1:11-31), (d) Nazirites (Numbers 6:1-21), (e) the triple formula of priestly blessing (Numbers 1:22-27).

7. The offerings of the princes.

Numbers 8:1-4. The golden Lampstand.

Numbers 8:5-26. The Levites: their purification and dedication (Numbers 1:5-22), the age of service (Numbers 1:23-26).

Numbers 9:1-14. The supplementary Passover.

Numbers 9:15-23. The fiery cloud upon the Tabernacle.

Numbers 10:1-10. The two silver clarions.

The great variety of these contents makes it probable that they were selected by the compiler from a larger mass of traditions which had been developed in the priestly circle of which he was a member.

Additional Note on the numbers of the Israelites

An attempt has been made by Prof. Flinders Petrie (Researches in Sinai, pp. 207–17) to remove the difficulty by understanding the thousands in the figures of the census to mean’ inmates of a household or tent,’ the hundreds only being the numbers of individuals. Reuben for example (Numbers 1:21) consists of 46 thousands or ‘families,’ containing in all 500 individuals. But (1) this disregards the statement that the numbers are those of fighting men only; (2) ’eleph ‘thousand,’ if it is not a numeral, must at least have the same meaning as in Numbers 1:16, where, though its exact force is doubtful, it clearly denotes a larger body than the inmates of a tent; (3) the suggestion multiplies enormously the difficulty of the large number of first-born.

The explanation given by Dr Orr (The Problem of the Old Testament, pp. 367–9) is even less successful. From the number of fighting men (603,550) he calculates the total number of males as 900,000. This is probably too small; but even with that figure none of the difficulties above mentioned disappear. He takes notice, however, of only one of these difficulties. If the males numbered 900,000, and the first-born sons 22,273 (Numbers 3:43); every mother had over 40 sons. Against this calculation he employs two main arguments. (1) He disregards the fact that the first-born under consideration were males. (First-born females were never offered to God, and the passage, Numbers 3:40-43, is concerned with those who should be offered if Levites were not substituted for them; in Numbers 1:40; Numbers 1:43 they are explicitly described as ‘first-born males.’) He maintains, in spite of the text, that about half of them must have been daughters! (2) He suggests that the ‘first-born’ did not include married men with families—fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers. And he adds that some of the first-born may have died previously. Let us, for the sake of argument, admit both these possibilities, and allow for them liberally by reckoning to every single family a first-born son ‘of the rising generation,’ a father, a grandfather and a great-grandfather. This multiplies the first-born (in Numbers 1:43) by four. But the net result is still an average of more than 10 male children, and therefore more than 20 children in all, to every mother, which is a highly improbable average. As a matter of fact the admission is far too liberal. If three living first-born are reckoned to each family (and even that is a high reckoning), each contains more than 13 males, and therefore more than 26 children in all. Dr Orr further remarks that ‘account still has to be taken … of polygamous marriages, or concubinage, where possibly only the first-born of the house was reckoned.’ But this is in defiance of Numbers 3:12, Exodus 13:2, where the ‘first-born’ is clearly defined as that which ‘openeth the womb.’ He refers to the law of inheritance in Deuteronomy 21:15-17, but disregards the law of dedication to God, with which, as has been said above, Numbers 3:40-43 is concerned. There is not a trace in the Old Testament of any distinction between mother and mother with respect to the dedication of her first-born son.

Dr Orr’s treatment of the passage is an example of the straits to which writers are reduced who try to explain away at all costs the difficulties to be found in the Old Testament. It is a much wiser course frankly to acknowledge them, and to realise that it is not in the accuracy of such details as figures that the value of the Hebrew Bible lies (see Introd. chs. 4, 5).

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. Numbers 3:7 f., Numbers 4:2 f., Exodus 27:21, Leviticus 1:1; Leviticus 1:3). Exodus 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 Exodus 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 Numbers 12:4.

1–16. Moses is directed to number the fighting men of Israel with the help of twelve princes.

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 Numbers 1:4, Exodus 12:3. The term is, however, elastic. It may denote even an entire tribe, as being descended from a single ancestor (Numbers 17:2), or the main subdivision of a tribe, i.e. a ‘clan’ (Numbers 3:24, Exodus 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 Numbers 10:14-27. Some of them are of types which were frequent in early times, Amminadab (Numbers 1:7), Ammhud (Numbers 1:10), Elishama (id. [Note: d. idem, ‘the same,’ referring to the book last mentioned.] ), Abidan (Numbers 1:11), Ahiezer (Numbers 1:12), Ahira (Numbers 1:15), but others are unknown to pre-exilic O.T. writings, Nethanel (Numbers 1:8), Gamaliel (Numbers 1:10), and the names compounded with Zur and Shaddai (including Shedeur, Numbers 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 Ruth 4:20, Matthew 1:4.

8. Nethanel] ‘God hath given.’ The name is frequent in Chron., Ezr. and Neh., and is the same as Nathaniel, John 1:45.

10. Gamaliel ‘God is a [my] reward.’ See Acts 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 Numbers 2:14. Cf. Numbers 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’ (Numbers 1:2); cf. Jdg 6:15, 1 Samuel 10:19; 1 Samuel 10:21, Micah 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 Numbers 11:21, Exodus 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 (Numbers 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 Numbers 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 Numbers 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 Numbers 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’ (Exodus 25:22), the ‘tablets of the testimony’ (Exodus 31:18), the ‘veil of the testimony’ (Leviticus 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 Numbers 18:4, the Levites; in Numbers 3:10; Numbers 3:38, Numbers 18:7, the priests.

53. that there be no wrath] i.e. Divine judgement for the violation of the sacredness of the Tabernacle; cf. Numbers 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’ (Hebrews 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).