fication " to cut off," and denotes that which is taken away from use and abuse on the part of men, and surrendered to God in an irrevocable and unredeemable manner, viz. human beings by being put to death, cattle and inanimate objects by being either given up to the sanctuary for ever or destroyed for the glory of the Lord. The latter took place, no doubt, only with the property of idolaters j at all events, it is^ commanded simply for the infliction of punishment on idolatrous towns (Deut. xiii. 13 sqq.). It follows from this, however, that the Vow of banning could only be made in connection with persons who obstinately resisted that saiictification of life which was binding upon them; and that an individual was not at liberty to devote a human being to the ban simply at his own will and pleasure, otherwise the ban might have been abused to purposes of ungodliness, and have amounted to a breach of the law, which prohibited the killing of any man, even though he were a slave (Ex. xxi. 20). In a manner analogous to this, too, the owner of cattle and fields was only allowed to put them under the ban when they had been either desecrated by idolatry or abused to unholy purposes. I'or there can be no doubt that the idea which lay at the foundation of the ban was that of a compulsory dedication of something which resisted or impeded sanctification; so that in all cases in which it was carried into execution by the community or the magistracy, it was an act of the judicial holiness of God manifesting itself in righteousness and judgment.
Yers. 30-33. Lastly, the tenth of the land, both of the seed of the land — i,e, not of what was sown, but of what was yielded, the produce of the seed (Deut. xiv. 22), the harvest reaped, or "corn of the threshing-floor," Num. xviii. 27 — and also of the fruit of the tree, i.e, "the fulness of the press" (Num. xviii. 27), the wine and oil (Deut. xiv. 23), belonged to the Lord, were holy to Him, and could not be dedicated to Him by a vow. At the same time they could be redeemed by the addition of a fifth beyond the actual amount. — Ver. 32. With regard to all the tithes of the flock and herd, of all that passed under the rod of the herdsman, the tenth (animal) was to be holy to the Lord. No discrimination was to be made in this case between good and bad, and no exchange to be made: if, however, this did take place, the tenth animal was to te holy as well as the one for which it was exchanged, and could not be redeemed. The words " whatsoever passeth under the rod" may he explained from the custom of numbering the flocks by driving the animals one by one past the shepherd, who counted them with a rod stretched out over them (cf. Jer. xxxiii. 13, Ezek. xx. 37). They mean everything that is submitted to the process of numbering, and are correctly explained by the Rabbins as referring to the fact that every year the additions to the flock and herd were tithed, and not the whole of the cattle. In these directions the tithe is referred to as something well known. In the laws published hitherto, it is true that no mention has been made of it; but, like the burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, and peace-offerings, it formed from time immemorial an essential part of the worship of God; so that not only did Jacob vow that he would tithe for the Lord all that He should give him in a foreign land (Gen. xxviii. 22), but Abraham gave a tenth of his booty to Melchizedek the priest (Gen. xiv. 20). Under these circumstances, it was really unnecessary to enjoin upon the Israelites for the first time the offering of tithe to Jehovah. All that was required was to incorporate this in the covenant legislation, and bring it into harmony with the spirit of the law. This is done here in connection with the holy consecratiops; and in Num. xviii. 20-32 instructions are given in the proper place concerning their appropriation, and further directions are added in Deut. xii. 6, 11, xiv. 22 sqq. respecting a second tithe. — The laws contained in this chapter are brought to a close in ver. 34 with a new concluding formula (see chap. xxvi. 46), by which they are attached to the law mven at Sinai.
HE fourth book of Moses, which the Jews call either Vayedalher (m''*i), from the opening word, D''"iDDD (^AptO- /jLOLj Numerij LXX», Yulg.), or DHIpD recensiones (==liber recensionum), and to which the heading "i^D^ (in the wilderness) is given in the Masoretic texts with a more direct reference to its general contents, narrates the guidance of Israel through the desert, from Mount Sinai to the border of Canaan by the river Jordan, and embraces the whole period from the second month of the second year after the exodus from Egypt to the tenth month of the fortieth year.
As soon as their mode of life in a spiritual point of view had been fully regulated by the laws of Leviticus, the Israelites were to enter upon their journey to Canaan, and take possession of the inheritance promised to their fathers. But just as the way from Goshen to Sinai was a preparation of the chosen people for their reception into the covenant with God, so the way from Sinai to Canaan was also a preparation for the possession of the promised land. On their journey through the wilderness the Israelites were to experience on the one hand the faithful watchfulness and gracious deliverance of their God in every season of distress and danger, as v/ell as the stern severity of the divine judgments upon the despisers of their God, that they might learn thereby to trust entirely in the Lord, and strive after His kingdom alone; and on the other hand they were to receive during their journey the laws and ordinances relating to their civil and political constitution, and thereby to be placed in a condition to form and maintain themselves as a consolidated nation by the side of and in opposition to the earthly kingdoms formed by the nations of the world, and to fulfil the task assigned them by God in the midst of the nations of the earth. These laws, which were given in part at Sinai, in relation to the external and internal organization of the tribes of Israel as the army and the congregation of Jehovah, and in part on various occasions during the march thrpugh the desert, as well as after their arrival in the steppes of Moab, on the other side of the Jordan opposite to Jericho, with especial reference to the conquest of Canaan and their settlement there, are not only attached externally to the history itself in the order in which they were given, but are so incorporated internally into the historical narrative, according to their peculiar character and contejits, as to form a complete whole, which divides itself into three distinct parts corresponding to the chronological development of the history itself.
The FIRST part, which extends from chap. i.-x. 10, contains the preparations for departing from Sinai, arranged in four groups: — viz. (1) the outward arrangement and classification of the tribes in the camp and on their march, or the numbering and grouping of the twelve tribes around th^ sanctuary of their God (chap. i. and ii.), and the appointment of the Levites in the place of the first-bom of the nation to act as servants of the priests in the sanctuary (chap. iii. and iv.); (2) the internal or moral and spiritual organization of the nation as the congregation of the Lord, by laws relating to the maintenance of the cleanliness of the camp, restitution for trespasses, conjugal fidelity, the fulfilment of the vow of the Nazarite, and the priestly blessing (chap. v. and vi.); (3) the closing events at Sinai, viz. the presentation of dedicatory offerings on the part of the tribe princes for the transport of the tabernacle and the altar service (chap, vii.), the consecration of the Levites (chap, viii.), and the feast of Passover, with an arrangement for a supplementary Passover (chap. ix. 1-14); (4) the appointment of aigns artd signals for the march in the desert (chap. ix. 5-x. 10). In the second pai't (chap. x. 11-xxi.), the history of the journey is given in the three stages of its progress from Sinai to the heights of J^isgah, near to the Jordan, viz. (1) from their departure from the desert of Sitiai (chap. x. 11-36) to their arrival at the desert of Paran, at Kadesh, including the occurrences at Tabeerah, at fhe graves of lust, and at Hazeroth (chap. xi. and xii.), and the events at Kadesh which led God to condemn the people who had revolted against Him to wander in the wilderness for forty years, until the older generation that came out of Egypt had all died (chap. xiii. and xiv.); (2) all that is related of the execution of this divine judgment, extending from the end of the second year to the reassembling of the congregation at Kadesh at the beginning of the fortieth year, is the history of the rebellion and destruction of Korah (chap, xvi.-xvii. 15), which is preceded by laws relating to the offering of sacrifices after entering Canaan, to the punishment of blasphemers, and to mementos upon the clothes (chap, xv.), and followed by the divine institution of the Aaronic priesthood (chap. xvii. 16-28), with directions as to the duties and rights of the priests and Levites (chap, xviii,), and the law concerning purification from uncleanness arising from contact with the dead (chap, xix.); (3) the journey of Israel in the fortieth year from Kadesh to Mount Hor, round Mount Seir, past Moab, and through the territory of the Amorites to the heights of Pisgah, with the defeat of the kings of the Amorites, Sihon and Og, and the conquest of their kingdoms in Gilead and Bashan (chap. XX. and xxi.). In the third part (chap, xxii.-xxxvi.), the events which occurred in the steppes of Moab, on the eastern side of the plain of Jordan, are gathered into five groups, with the 1 iws that were given there, viz. (1) the attempts of the Moabites md Midianites to destroy the people of Israel, first by the force of Balaam's curse, which was turned against his will into a blessing (chap, xxii.-xxiv.), and then by the seduction of the Israelites to idolatry (chap, xxv.); (2) the fresh numbering of the people according to their families (chap, xxvi.), together with a rule for the inheritance of landed property by daughters (chap, xxvii. l—ll), and the appointment of Joshua as the successor of Moses (chap, xxvii. 12-23); (3) laws relating to the sacrifices to be offered by the congregation on the Sabbath and feast days, and to the binding character of vows made by dependent persons (chap, xxviii.-xxx.); (4) the defeat of the Midianites (chap, xxxi.), the division of the land that had been conquered on the other side of the Jordan among the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh (chap, xxxii.), and the list of the halting-places (chap, xxxiii. 1-49); (5) directions as to the expulsion of the Canaanites, the conquest of Canaan and division of it among the tribes of Israel, the Levites and free cities, and the marriage of heiresses (chap, xxxiii. 50-rXxxvi.).
Four weeks after the erection of the tabernacle (cf. chap. i. 1 and Ex. xl. 17), Moses had the number of the whole congregation taken, by the command of God, according to the families and fathers' houses of the twelve tribes, and a list made of all the males above twenty years of age for service in the army of Jehovah (chap. i. 1-3). Nine months before, the numbering of the people had taken place for the purpose of collecting atonement-money from every male of twenty years old and upwards (Ex. xxx. 11 sqq., compared with chap, xxxviii. 25, 26), and the result was 603,550, the same number as is given here as the sum of all that were mustered in the twelve tribes (chap. i. 46). This correspondence in the number of the male population after the lapse of a year is to be explained, as we have already observed at Ex. xxx. 16, simply from the fact that the result of the previous census, which was taken for the purpose of raising head-money from every one who was fit for war, was taken as the basis of the mustering of all who were fit for war, which took place after the erection of the tabernacle; so that, strictly speaking, this mustering merely consisted in the registering of those who had been numbered in the public records, according to their families and fathers' houses. It is most probable, however, that the numbering and registering took place according to the classification adopted at Jethro's suggestion for the administration of justice, viz. in thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens (Ex. xviii. 25), and that the number of men in the different tribes was reckoned in this way simply by thousands, hundreds, and tens, — a conclusion which we may draw from the fact, that there are no units given in the case of any of the tribes. On this plan the supernumerary units might be used to balance the changes that had taken place in the actual condition of the families and fathers' houses, between Ihe numbering and the preparation of the muster-rolls, so that the few changes that had occurred in the course of nine months among those who were fit for war were not taken any further into consideration, on account of their being so inconsiderable in relation to the total result. A fresh census was taken 38 years later in the steppes of Moab (chap, xxvi.), for the division of the land of Canaan among the tribes according to the number of their families (chap, xxxiii. 54). The number which this gave was 601,730 men of twenty years old and upwards, not a single one of whom, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, was included amdng those that were mustered at Sinai, because the whole of that generation had died in the wilderness (chap. xxvi. 63 sqq.). In the historical account, instead of these exact numbers, the number of adult males is given in a round sum of 600,000 (chap. xi. 21; Ex. xii. 37). To this the Levites had to be added, of whom there were 22,000 males at the first numbering and 23,000 at the second, reckoning the whole from a month old and upwards (chap. iii. 39, xxvi. 62). Accordingly, on the precarious supposition that the results obtained from the official registration of births and deaths in our own day furnish any approximative standard for the people of Israel, who had grown up under essentially different territorial and historical circumstances, the whole number of the Israelites in the time of Moses would have been about two millions.^
Modern critics have taken offence at these numbers, though without sufficient reason.^ When David had the census taken by
^ Statistics show that, out of 10,000 inhabitants in any country, about 5580 are over twenty years of age (cf. Chr. Bernoulli^ Hdb. der Populationistik^ 1841). This is the case in Belgium, where, out of 1000 inhabitants, 421 are under twenty years of age. According to the Danish census of 1840, out of 1000 inhabitants there were —
According to this standard, if there were 600,000 males in Israel above twenty years of age, there would be in all 1,000,000 or 1,100,000 males, and therefore, including the females, more than two millions.
2 Knobel has raised the following objections to the historical truth or validity of the numbers given above: (1.) So large a number could not possibly have lived for any considerable time in the peninsula of Sinai, as modern travellers estimate the present population at not more than from four to seven thousand, and state that the land could never have been capable of sustaining a population of 50,000. But the books of Moses do not affirm that the Israelites lived for forty years upon the natural produce of the desert, but that they were fed mira-
Joab, in the closing years of his reign, there were 800,000 men capable of bearing arms in Israel, and 500,000 in Judah (2 Sam. xxiv. 9). Now, if we suppose the entire population of a country to be about four times the number of its fighting men, there would be culously with manna by God (see at Ex. xvi. SI). Moreover, the peninsula of Sinai yielded much more subsistence in ancient times than is to be found there at present, as is generally admitted, and only denied by Kndbel in the interests of rationalism. The following are Ritter^s remarks in his Erdkunde^ 14, pp. 926-7:
" We have repeatedly referred above to the earher state of the country, which must have been vastly different from that of the present time. The abundant vegetation, for example; the larger number of trees, and their superiority in size, the destruction of which would be followed by a decrease in the quantity of smaller shrubs, etc.; also the greater abundance of the various kinds of food of which the children of Israel could avail themselves in their season; the more general cultivation of the land, as seen in the monumental period of the earhest Egyptians, viz. the period of their mines and cities, as well as in Christian times in the wide-spread remains of monasteries, hermitages, walls, gardens, fields, and wells.; and, lastly, the possibility of a better employment of the temporary flow of water in the wadys, and of the rain, which falls by no means unfrequently, but which would need to be kept with dihgence and by artificial means for the unfruitful periods of the year, as is the case in other districts of the same latitude. These circumstances, which are supported by the numerous inscriptions of Sinai and Serbal, together with those in the Wady Mokatteb and a hundred other valleys, as well as upon rocky and mountainous heights, which are now found scattered in wild solitude and utter neglect throughout the whole of the central group of mountains, prove that at one time a more numerous population both could and did exist there." (2.) " If the Israelites had been a nation of several millions in the Mosaic age, with their bravery at that time, they would have conquered the small land more easily and more rapidly than they seem to have done according to the accounts in the books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel, which show that they were obliged to tolerate the Canaanites for a long time, that they were frequently oppressed by them, and that it was not till the time of David and Solomon that their supremacy was completely estab-
lished." This objection of KnobeVs is founded upon the supposition that the tribes of Canaan were very small and weak. But where has he learned that? As they had no less than 31 kings, according to Josh, xii., and dwelt,in many hundreds of towns, they can hardly have been numerically weaker than the Ipraehtes with their 600,000 men, but in all probabihty were considerably stronger in numbers, and by no means inferior in bravery; to say nothing of the fact that the Israelites neither conquered Canaan under Joshua by the strength of their hands, nor failed to exterminate them afterwards from want of physical strength. (8.) Of the remaining objections, viz. that so large a number could not have gone through the Arabian Gulf in a single night, or crossed the Jordan in a day, that Joshua could not have circumcised the whole of the males, ete., the first has been answered in vol. ii. (pp. 46, 47), by a proof that it was possible for the Red Sea to be crossed in the given time, and the others will be answered when we come to the particular events referred to.
cnAP. I- IV.
about five millions of inhabitants in Palestine at that time. The area of this land, according to the boundaries given in chap, xxxiv. 2-12, the whole of which was occupied by Israel and Judah in the time c^ David, with the exception of a small strip of the Phoenician coast, was more than 500 square miles.^ Accordingly there would be 10,000 inhabitants to each square mile (German); a dense though by no means unparalleled population;^ so that it is certainly possible that in the time of Christ it may have been more numerous still, according to the accounts of JosephuSy which are confirmed by Dio Cassius (cf. C, v, Ramner^ Paldstina^ p. 93). And if Canaan could contain and support five millions of inhabitants in the flourishing period of the Israelitish kingdom, two millions or more could easily have settled and been sustained in the time of Joshua and the Judges, notwithstanding the fact that there still remained large tracts of land in the possession of the Canaanites and Philistines, and that the Israelites dwelt in the midst of the Canaanitish population which had not yet been entirely eradicated (Judg. iii. 1-5).
If we compare together the results of the two numberings in the second and fortieth years of their march, we shall find a considerable increase in some of the tribes, and a large decrease in others. The number of men of twenty years old and upwards in the different tribes was as follows: —
1 The German mile being equal to about five English miles, this would give 12,500 square miles Englifih.
2 In the kingdom of Saxony (according to the census of the year 1855) there are 7501 persons to the square mile; in Belgium (according to the census of
Judah 1900, Zebulon 3100, Issachar 9900, Benjamin 10^200, Asher 11,900, Manasseh 20,900. This increase, which was about 19 per cent, in the case of Issachar, 29 per cent, in that of Benjamin and Asher, and 63 per cent, in that of Manasseh, is very large, no doubt; but even that of Manasseh is not unparalleled. The total population of Prussia increased from 10,349,031 to 17,139,288 between the end of 1816 and the end of 1855, that is to say, more than 65 per cent, in 39 years; whilst in England the population increased 47 per cent, between 1815 and 1849, i.e. in 34 years. On the other hand, there was a decrease in Keuben of 2770, in Gad of 5150, in Ephraim of 8000, in Naphtali of 8000, and in Simeon of 37,100. The cause of this diminution of 6 per cent, in the case of Reuben, 12 per cent, in Gad, 15 per cent, in Naphtali, 20 per cent, in Ephraim, and nearly 63 per cent, in Simeon, it is most natural to seek for in the different judgments which fell upon the nation. If it be true, as the earlier commentators conjectured, with great plausibility, on account of the part taken by Zimri, a prince of the tribe (chap. XXV. 6, 14), that the Simeonites were the worst of those who joined in the idolatrous worship of Baal Peor, the plague, in which 24,000 men were destroyed (chap. xxv. 9), would fall upon them with greater severity than upon the other tribes; and this would serve as the principal explanation of the circumstance, that in the census which was taken immediately afterwards, the number of men in that tribe who were capable of bearing arms had melted away to 22,200. But for all that, the total number included in the census had only been reduced by 1820 men during the forty years of their journeying through the wilderness.
The tribe of Levi appears very small in comparison with tlie rest of the tribes. In the second year of their journey, when the first census was taken, it only numbered 22,000 males of a month old and upwards; and in the fortieth year, when the second was taken, only 23,000 (chap. iii. 39, xxvi. 62). " Reckoning," says
1856) 8462; and in the district of Diisseldorf there are 98*32 square miles and (according to the census of 1855) 1,007,570 inhabitants, so that there must be 10,248 persons to the square mile. Consequently, not only could more than five millions have lived in Palestine,,but, if we take into account on the one hand what is confirmed by both biblical and other testimonies, viz. the extraordinary fertility of the land in ancient times (cf. v. Raumer^ Pal. pp. 92 sqq.), and on the other hand the well-known fact that the inhabitants of warm countries require less food than Europeans living in colder cUmates, they could also have found a sufficient supply of food.
Knobelj " that in Belgium, for example, in the rural districts, out of 10,000 males, 1074 die in the first month after their birth, and 3684 between the first month and the twentieth year, so that only 5242 are then alive, the tribe of Levi would only number about 13,000 men of 20 years old and upwards, and consequently would not be half as numerous as the smallest of the other tribes, whilst it w'^ould be hardly a sixth part the size of Judah, which was the strongest
of the tribes." But notwithstanding this, the correctness of the numbers given is not to be called in question. It is not only supported by the fact, that the number of the Levitcs capable of service between the ages of 30 and 50 amounted to 8580 (chap. iv. 48), — a number wdiich bears the most perfect proportion to that of 22,000 of a month old and upwards, — but is also confirmed by the fact, that in the time of David the tribe of Levi only numbered 38,000 of thirty years old and upwards (1 Chron. xxiii. 3); so that in the interval between Moses and David their rate of increase was still below that of the other tribes, which had grown from 600,000 to 1,300,000 in the same time. Now, if we cannot discover any reason for this smaller rate of increase in the tribe of Levi, we see, at any rate, that it was not uniform in the other tribes. If Levi was not half as strong as Manasseh in the first numbering, neither Manasseh nor Benjamin was half as strong as Judah; and in the second numberii^, even Ephraim had not half the number of men that Judah had. A much greater difficulty appears to lie in the fact, that the number of all the male first-born of the twelve tribes, which was only 22,273 according to the census taken for the purpose of their redemption by the Levites (chap^ iii. 43), bore no kind of proportion to the total number of men capable of bearing arms in the whole of the male population, as calculated from these. If the 603,550 men of twenty years old and upwards presuppose, according to what has been stated above, a population of more than a million males; then, on the assumption that 22,273 was the sum total of the first-born sons throughout the entire nation^ there would be only one first-born to 40 or 45 males, and consequently every father of a family must have begotten, or still have had, from S 9 to 44 sons; whereas the ordinary proportion of first-born sons to the whole male population is one to four. But the calculation which yields this enormous disproportion, or rather this inconceivable proportion, is founded upon the supposition that the law, which commanded the sanctification of the male first-born, had a retrospective force, and was to be understood as requiring that not only the firstborn sons, who were born from the time when the law was given, but all the first-born sons throughout the entire nation, should be offered to the Lord and redeemed with five shekels each, even though they were fathers or grandfathers, or even great-grandfathers, at that time. Now if the law is to be interpreted in this sense, as having a retrospective force, and applying to those who were born before it was issued, as it has been from the time of J. D. Michaelis down to that of Knobel, it is an unwarrantable liberty to restrict its application to the first-born sons, who had not yet become fathers themselves, — a mere subterfuge, in fact, invented for the purpose of getting rid of the disproportion, but without answering the desired end.^ If we look more closely at the law, we cannot find in the words themselves " all the first-born, whatsoever
^ This is evident from the different attempts which have been made to get rid of the difficulty, in accordance with this hypothesis. J. D. Michaelis thought that he could explain the disproportion from the prevalence of polygamy among the Israelites; but he has overlooked the fact, that polygamy never prevailed among the Israelites, or any other people, with anything like the universaUty which this would suppose. Hdvernick adopted this view, but differed so far from Michaelis^ that he understood by first-horn only those who were so on both the father's and mother's side, — a supposition which does not remove the difficulty, but only renders it perfectly incredible. Others imagined, that only those first-born were counted who had been born as the result of marriages contracted within the last six years. Baumgarten supports this on the ground that, according to Lev. xxvii. 6, the redemption-fee for boys of this age was five shekels (chap. iii. 47); but this applies to vows, and proves nothing in relation to first-born, who could not have been the object of a vow (Lev. xxvii. 26). Bunsen comes to the same conclusion, on the ground that it was at this age that children were generally dedicated to Moloch (sic!). Lastly, Kurtz endeavours to solve the difficulty, first, by referring to the great fruitfulness of the Israelitish women; secondly, by excluding, (a) the first-born of the father, unless at the same time the first-born of the mother; (ft) all the firstbom who were fathers of families themselves; and thirdly, by observing, that in a population of 600,000 males above 20 years of age, we may assume that there would be about 200,000 under the age of fifteen. Now, if we deduct these 200,000 who were not yet fifteen, from the 600,000 who were above twenty, there would remain 400,000 married men. " In that case the total number of 22,273 first-born would yield this proportion, that there would be one first-born to nine male births. And on the ground assigned under No. 2 (a), this proportion would have to be reduced one-half. So that for every family we should have, on an average, four or five sons, or nine children, — a result by no means surprising, considering the fruitfuluess of Hebrew marriages." This would be undoubtedly true, and the facii of the calculation quite correct, as 9 X 22,273 = 200,457, if only the subtraction upon which it is based were reconcilable with the rules of arithmetic, or if the reduction of 600,000 men to 400,000 could in any way be justified.
openeth the womb'* (Ex. xiii. 2, cf. Num. iii. 12), or in the ratio legis, or in the circumstances under whicli the law was given, either a nfjcessity or warrant for any such explanation or extension. According to Ex. xiii. 2, after the institution of the Passover and its first commemoration, God gave the command, " Sanctify unto Me all the first-born both of man and of beast;" and added, according to vers. 11 sqq., the further explanation, that when the Israelites came into the land of Canaan, they were to set apart every firstborn unto the Lord, but to redeem their first-born sons. This further definition places it beyond all doubt, that what God prescribed to His people was not a supplementary sanctification of all the male first-born who were then to be found in Israel, but simply the sanctification of all that should be born from that time forward. A confirmation of this is to be found in the explanation given in Num. iii. 13 and viii. 17: " All the first-born are Mine; for on the day that I smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, I hallowed unto Me all the first-born in Israel, both man and beast." According to this distinct explanation, God had actually sanctified to Himself all the first-born of Israel by the fact, that through the blood of the paschal lamb He granted protection to His people from the stroke of the destroyer (Ex. xii. 22, 23), and had instituted the Passover, in order that He might thei:ein adopt the whole nation of Israel, with all its sons, as the people of His possession, or induct the nation which He had chosen as His first-born son (Ex. iv. 22) into the condition of a child of God. This condition of sonship was henceforth to be practically manifested by the Israelites, not only by the yearly repetition of the feast of Passover, but also by the presentation of all the male first-bom of their sons and their cattle to the Lord, the first-born of the cattle being sacrificed to Him upon the altar, and the first-born sons being redeemed from the obligation resting upon them to serve at the sanctuary of their God. Of course the reference was only to the first-born of men and cattle that should come into the Y^orld from that time forward, and not to those whom God had already sanctified to Himself, by sparing the Israelites and their cattle.^
^ Vitringa drew the correct conclusion from Ex. xiii. 11, 12, in combination "with the fact that this law was not carried out previous to the adoption of the Levites in the place of the first-born for service at the sanctuary — that the law was intended chiefly for the future: *' This law," he observes (in his Obs. ss. L.
ii. c. 2, § 13), "relates to the tabernacle to be afterwards erected, and to the regular priests to be solemnly appointed; when this law, with many others of a
This being established, it follows that the 22,273 first-born, who were exchanged for the Levites (ch. iii. 45 sqq.), consisted only of the first-born sons who had been born between the time of the exodus from Egypt and the numbering of the twelve tribes, which took place thirteen months afterwards. Now, if, in order to form an idea of the proportion which this number would bear to the whole of the male population of the twelve tribes of Israel, we avail ourselves of the results furnished by modern statistics, we may fairly assume, according to these, that in a nation comprising 603,550 males above 20 years of age, there would be 190,000 to 195,100 between the ages of 20 and 30.^ And, supposing that this was the age at which the Israelites married, there would be from 19,000 to 19,500 marriages contracted upon an average every year; and in a nation which had grown up in a land so celebrated as Egypt was in antiquity for the extraordinary fruitfulness of its inhabitants, almost as many first-born, say at least 19,000, might be expected to come into the world. This average number would be greater if we fixed the age for marrying between 18 and 28, or reduced it to the seven years between 18 and 25.^ But even without doing this, we must take into consideration the important fact that such averages, based upon a considerable length of time, only give an approximative idea of the actual state of things in any single year; and that, as a matter of fact, in years of oppression and distress the numbers may sink to half the average, whilst in other
similar kind, would have to be observed. The first-born were set apart by God to be consecrated to Him, as servants of the priests and of the sacred things, either in their own persons, or in that of others who were afterwards substituted in the goodness of God. This command therefore presupposed the erection of the tabernacle, the ordination of priests, the building of an altar, and the ceremonial of the sacred service, and showed from the very nature of the case, that there could not be any application of this law of the first-born before that time."
^ According to the census of the town of Basle, given by Bernoulli in his Populationistik^ p. 42, and classified by age, out of 1000 inhabitants in the year 1837, there were 326 under 20 years of age, 224 between 20 and 30, and 450 of 30 years old and upwards. Now, if we apply this ratio to the people of Israel, out of 603,550 males of 20 years old and upwards, there would be 197,653 between the ages of 20 and 30. The statistics of the city of Vienna and its suburbs, as given by Brachelli (GeograpJiie imd Statistik^ 1861), yield very nearly the same results. At the end of the year 1856 there were 88,973 male inhabitants under 20 years of age, 44,000 between 20 and 30, and 97,853 of 30 years old and upwards, not including the military and those who were in hospitals. According to this ratio, out of the 603,550 Israelites above 20 years of age, 187,209 would be between 20 and 30.
^ From a comparison with the betrothals which take place every year in years, under peculiarly favourable circumstances, they may rise again to double the amount.^ When the Israelites were groaning under the hard lash of the Egyptian taskmasters, and then under the inhuman and cruel edict of Pharaoh, which commanded all the Hebrew boys that were born to be immediately put to death, the number of marriages no doubt diminished from year to year. But the longer this oppression continued, the greater would be the number of marriages concluded at once (especially in a nation rejoicing in the promise of numerous increase which it had received from its God), when Moses had risen up and proved himself, by the mighty signs and wonders with which he smote Egypt and its haughty king, to be the man whom the God of the fathers had sent and endowed with power to redeem His nation out of the bondage of Egypt, and lead it into Canaan, the good land that He had promised to the fathers. At that time, when the spirits of the nation revived, and the hope of a glorious future filled every heart, there might very well have been about 38,000 marriages contracted in a year, say from the time of the seventh plague, three months before the exodus, and about 37,600 children born by the second month of the second year after the exodus, 22,273 of them being boys, as the proportion of male births to female varies very remarkably, and may be shown to have risen even as high as 157 to 100, whilst among the Jews of modern times it has frequently been as high as 6 to 5, and has even risen to 3 to 2 (or more exactly 29 to 20).^ the Prussian state, it is evident that the number given in the text as the average number of marriages contracted every year is not too high, but most assuredly too low. In the year 1858 there were 167,387 betrothals in a population of 17,793,900; in 1816, on the other hand, there were 117,448 in a population of 10,402,600 (vid. Brachelli^ Geog. und Statistik von Preussen, 1861). The first ratio, if applied to Israel with its two millions, would yield 19,000 marriages annually; the second, 22,580; whilst we have, in addition, to bear in mind how many men there are in the European states who would gladly marry, if they were not prevented from doing so by inability to find the means of supporting a house of their own.
^ How great the variations are in the number of marriages contracted year by year, even in large states embracing different tribes, and when no unusual circumstances have disturbed the ordinary course of things, is evident from the statistics of the Austrian empire as given by Brachelli^ from which we may see that in the year 1851, with a total population of 36|^ millions, there were 361,249 betrothals, and in the year 1854, when the population had increased by half a million, only 279,802. The variations in particular districts are, as might be supposed, considerably larger.
2 According to Bernoidli (p. 143), in the city of Geneva, there were 157 boys born to every 100 girls in the year 1832. He also observes, at p. 153: " It is
In this way the problem before us may be solved altogether independently of the question, whether the law relates to all the firstborn sons on the father's side, or only to those who were first-born on both father's and mother's side, and without there having been a daughter born before. This latter view we regard as quite unfounded, as a mere subterfuge resorted to for the purpose of removing the supposed disproportion, and in support of which the expression " opening the womb" (fissura uteri, i.e. qui Jindit uterum) is pressed in a most unwarrantable manner. On this point, J". D. Michaelis has correctly observed, that "the etymology ought not to be too strongly pressed, inasmuch as it is not upon this, but upon usage chiefly, that the force of words depends." It is a fact common to all languages, that in many words the original literal signification falls more and more into the background in the course of years, and at length is gradually lost sight of altogether. Moreover, the expression "openeth the womb" is generally employed in cases in which a common term is required to designate the first-born of both man and beast (Ex. xiii. 2, 12-15, xxxiv. 19, 20; Num. iii. 12, 13, viii. 16, 17, xviii. 15; Ezek. xx. 16); but even then, wherever the two are distinguished, the term "ii32 is appHed as a rule to the first-born sons, and "^^S to the first-born of animals (comp. Ex. xiii. lU with vers. 12 and 13a; and chap, xxxiv. 205 with vers. 19 and 20a). On the other hand, where only firstborn sons are referred to, as in Deut. xxi. 15-17, we look in vain for the expression peter recheniy "openeth the womb." Again, the Old Testament, like modern law, recognises only first-born sons, and does not apply the term first-born to daughters at all; and in relation to the inheritance, even in the case of two wives, both of whom had born sons to their husband, it recognises only one first-bom son, so that the fact of its being the first birth on the mother's side is not taken into consideration at all (cf. Gen. xlvi. 8, xHx. 3; Deut. xxi. 15-17). And the established rule in relation to the birthright,—namely, that the first son of the father was called the firstbom, and possessed all the rights of the first-born, independently remarkable that, according to a very frequent observation, there are an unusual number of boys born among the Jews; " and as a proof, he cites the fact that, according to Burdach, the lists of births in Leghorn show 120 male children born among the Jews to 100 female, whilst, according to Huf eland, there wei-e 528 male Jews and 365 female born in Berlin in the course of 16 years, the proportion therefore being 145 to 100. Ajid, according to this same proportion, we have calculated above, that there would be 15,327 girls to 22,273 boys.
altogether of the question whether there had been daughters bom before, — Nvould no doubt be equally applicable to the sanctification of the first-born sons. Or are we really to believ<3, that inasmuch as the child first born is quite as often a girl as a boy, God exempted every father in Israel whose eldest child was a daughter from the obligation to manifest his own sonship by consecrating his first-born son to God, and so demanded the performance of this duty from half the nation only? We cannot for a moment believe that such an interpretation of the law as this would really be in accordance with the spirit of the Old Testament economy.
Chap. i. Muster of the Twelve Tribes, with the exception OF THAT OF Levi. — Vers. 1-3. Before the departure of Israel from Sinai, God commanded Moses, on the first of the second month in the second year after the exodus from Egypt, to take the number of the whole congregation of the children of Israel, " according to their families, according to their fathers' houses (see Ex. vi. 14), in (according to) the number of their names^^ i.e. each one counted singly and entered, but only " every male according to their heads of twenty years old and upwards^ (see Ex. xxx. 14), viz. only N3V fc<)f^'?3 " all who go forth of the army^^ i.e. all the men capable of bearing arms, because by means of this numbering the tribes and their subdivisions were to be organized as hosts of Jehovah, that the whole congregation might fight as an army for the cause of their Lord (see at Ex. vii. 4).
Vers. 4-16. Moses and Aaron, who were commanded to number, or rather to muster, the people, were to have with them " a man of every tribe, who was head-man of his fathers^ houses^^ i,e, a tribeprince, viz. to help them to carry out the mustering. Beth aboth (" fathers' houses"), in ver. 2, is a technical expression for the subdivisions in which the mishpachoth, or families of the tribes, were arranged, and is applied in ver. 4 according to its original usage, based upon the natural division of the tribes into mishpachoth and families, to the fathers' houses which every tribe possessed in the family of its first-born. In vers. 5-15, these heads of tribes are mentioned by name, as in chap. ii. 3 sqq., vii. 12 sqq., x. 14 sqq. In ver. 16 they are designated as ^'called men of the congregation,^^ because they were called to diets of the congregation, as representatives of the tribes, to regulate the affairs of the nation; also ^^ princes of the tribes of their father s,^^ and ^' heads of the thoursands of Israel:^^ '^ princes^^ from the nobility of their birth; and
^^heads^^ as chiefs of the alapliim composing the tribes. Alaphim is equivalent to mishpachoth (cf. chap. x. 4; Josh. xxii. 14); because the number of heads of families in the mishpachoth of a tribe might easily amount to a thousand (see at Ex. xviii. 25). In a similar manner, the term " hundred^* in the old German came to be used in several different senses (see Grimm, deutsche Rechts-alterthiimer, p. 532).
Vers. 17-47. This command was carried out by Moses and Aaron. They took for this purpose the twelve heads of tribes who are pointed out (see at Lev. xxiv. 11) by name, and had the whole congregation gathered together by them and enrolled in genealogical tables, 'l?!^'?, to announce themselves as horn, Le. to have themselves entered in genealogical registers (books of generations). This entry is called a ^1^3, mustering, in ver. 19, etc. In vers. 20-43 the number is given of those who were mustered of all the different tribes, and in vers. 44-47 the total of the whole nation, with the exception of the tribe of Levi. " Their generations " (vers. 20, 22, 24, etc.), Le, those who were begotten by them, so that " the sons of Reuben, Simeon^'' etc., are mentioned as the fathers from whom the mishpachoth and fathers' houses had sprung. The 7 before jij^pt^ •'J3 in ver. 22, and the following names (in vers. 24, 26, etc.), signifies " with regard to " (as in Isa. xxxii. 1; Ps. xvii. 4, etc.).
Vers. 48-54. Moses was not to muster the tribe of Levi along with the children of Israel, i.e. with the other tribes, or take their number, but to appoint the Levites for the service of the dwelling of the testimony (Ex. xxxviii. 21), i.e. of the tabernacle, that they might encamp around it, might take it down when the camp was broken up, and set it up when Israel encamped again, and that no stranger {zar, non-Levite, as in Lev. xxii. 10) might come near it and be put to death (see chap. iii.). The rest of the tribes were to encamp every man in his place of encampment, and by his banner (see at chap. ii. 2), in their hosts (see chap, ii.), that wrath might not come upon the congregation, viz. through the approach of a stranger. ^^P, the wrath of Jehovah, breaking in judgment upon the unholy who approached His sanctuary in opposition to His command (chap. viii. 19, xviii. 5, 22). On the expression " keep the charge^'' {shamar mishmereth), see at Gen. xxvi. 5 and Lev. viii. 35.
Chap. ii. Order of the Twelve Tribes in the Camp and ON THE March. — Vers. 1, 2. The twelve tribes were to encamp each one by his standard, by the signs of their fathers' houses, opposite to tlie tabernacle (at some distance) round about, and, according to the more precise directions given afterwards, in such order that on everv side of the tabernacle three tribes were encamped side by side and united under one banner, so that the twelve tribes formed four large camps or divisions of an army. Between these camps and the court surrounding the tabernacle, the three leading mishpacJioth of the Levites were to be encamped on three sides, and Moses and Aaron with the sons of Aaron (i.e. the priests) upon the fourth, i.e. the front or eastern side, before the entrance (chap. iii. 21-38). ^y^,, a standard, banner, or flag, denotes primarily the larger Jleld sign, possessed by every division composed of three tribes, which was also the banner of the tribe at the head of each division; and secondarily, in a derivative signification, it denotes the army united under one standard, like ar^ixeia, or vexillum. It is used thus, for example, in vers. 17, 31, 34, and in combination with n^no in vers. 3, 10, 18, and 25, where " standard of the camp of Judah, Reuben, Ephraim, and Dan " signifies the hosts of the tribes arranged under these banners. T\T\\<^ the signs (ensigns), were the smaller flags or banners which were carried at the head of the different tribes and subdivisions of the tribes (the fathers' houses). Neither the Mosaic law, nor the Old Testament generally, gives us any intimation as to the form or character of the standard (degel). According to rabbinical tradition, the standard of Judah bore the figure of a lion, that of Reuben the likeness of a man or of a man's head, that of Ephraim the figure of an ox, and that of Dan the figure of an eagle; so that the four living creatures united in the cherubic forms described by Ezekiel were represented upon these four standards.^
^ Jerome Prado, in his commentary upon Ezekiel (chap. i. p. 44), gives the following minute description according to rabbinical tradition: " The different
leaders of the tribes had their own standards, with the crests of their ancestors depicted upon them. On the east, above the tent of Naasson the first-born of JudaJi<, there shone a standard of a green colour, this colour having been adopted by him because it was in a green stone, viz. an emerald, that the name of his forefather Judah was engraved on the breastplate of the high priest (Ex. xxv. 15 sqq.), and on this standard there was depicted a lion, the crest and hieroglyphic of his ancestor Judah, whom Jacob had compared to a lion, saying, * Judah is a lion's whelp.' Towards the south, above the tent of Elisur the son of Reuben^ there floated a red standard, having the colour of the sardus, on which the name of his father, viz. Reuben, was engraved upon the breastplate of the high priest. The symbol depicted upon this standard was a human head, because Reuben was the first-born, and head of the family. On the west, above the tent of Elishamah the son of Ephraim^ there was a golden flag, on which the
Vers. 3-31. Order of the tribes in the camp and on the march, — Vers. 3-9. The standard of the tribe of Judah was to encamp in front, namely towards the east, according to its hosts; and by its side the tribes of Issachar and Zebulun, the descendants of Leah, under the command and banner of Judah: an army of 186,400 men, which was to march out first when the camp was broken up (ver. 9), so that Judah led the way as the champion of his brethren (Gen. xlix. 10). — Ver. 4. ''His host, and those that were numhered of them" (cf. vers. 6, 8, 11, etc.), i.e. the army according to its numbered men. — Vers. 10-16. On the south side was the standard of Reuben, with which Simeon and Gad, descendants of Leah and her maid Zilpah, were associated, and to which they were subordinated. In ver. 14, Reuel is a mistake for Deuel (chap. i. 14, vii. 42, X. 20), which is the reading given here in 118 MSS. cited by Kennicott and De Rossi, in several of the ancient editions, and in the Samaritan, Vulgate, and Jon. Saad., whereas the LXX., Onh., Syr., and Pers. read Reuel. This army of 151,450 men was to break up and^march as the second division. — Yer. 17. The tabernacle, the camp of the Levites, was to break up after this in the midst of the camps (i.e. of the other tribes). ''As they encamp, so shall they break up," that is to say, with Levi in the midst of the tribes, " every man in his place, according to his banner^ IJ, place, as in Deut. xxiii. 13, Isa. Ivii. 8. — Vers. 18-24. On the west the standard of Ephraim, with the tribes of Manasseh and Benjamin, that is to say, the whole of the descendants of Rachel, 108,100^ men, as the third division of the army. — Vers. 25—31. Lastly, towards tlfe north was the standard of Gad, with Asher and Naphtali, the descendants of the maids Bilhah and Zilpah, 157,600 men, who were
head of a calf was depicted, because it was through the vision of the calves or oxen that his ancestor Joseph had predicted and provided for the famine in Egypt (Gen. xli.); and hence Moses, when blessing the tribe of Joseph, i.e. Ephraim (Deut. xxxiii. 17), said, ' his glory is that of the first-born of a bull.' The golden splendour of the standard of Ephraim resembled that of the chrysolite, in which the name of Ephraim was engraved upon the breastplate. Towards the north, above the tent of Ahiezer the son of Dan^ there floated a motley standard of white and red, like the jaspis (or, as some say, a carbuncle), in which the name of Dan was engraved upon the breastplate. The crest upon this was an eagle, the great foe to serpents, which had been chosen by the leader in the place of a serpent, because his forefather Jacob had compared Dan to a serpent, saying, ' Dan is a serpent in the way, an adder {cerastes^ a horned snake) in the path; ' but Ahiezer substituted the eagle, the destroyer of serpents as he shrank from carrying an adder upon his flag."
to be the last to break up, and formed the rear on the march. — Ver. 31. D^lY^*]? (according' to their standards) is equivalent to DHNnv? (according to their hosts) in vers. 9, 16, and 24, i.e. according to the hosts of which they consisted.
Vers. 32—34. In ver. 32 we have the whole number given, G03,550 men, not including the Levites (ver. 33, see at chap. i. 49); and in ver. 34 the concluding remark as to the subsequent execution of the divine command, — an anticipatory notice, as in Ex. xii. 50, xl. 16, etc.
Chap. iii. Muster of the Tribe of Levi. — As Jacob had adopted the two sons of Joseph as his own sons, and thus promoted them to the rank of heads of tribes, the tribe of Levi formed, strictly speaking, the thirteenth tribe of the whole nation, and was excepted from the muster of the ^welve tribes who were destined to form the army of Jehovah, because God had ch 3sen it for the service of the sanctuary. Out of this tribe God had not only called Moses to be the deliverer, lawgiver, and leader of His people, but Moses* brother Aaron, with the sons of the latter, to be the custodians of the sanctuary. And now, lastly, the whole tribe was chosen, in the place of the first-borp of all the tribes, to assist the priests in performing the duties of the sanctuary, and was numbered and mustered for this its special calling.
Vers. 1-4. In order to indicate at the very outset the position which the Levites were to occupy in relation to the priests (viz. Aaron and his descendants), the account of their muster commences not only with the enumeration of the sons of Aaron who were chosen as priests (vers. 2-4), but with the heading: " These are the generations of Aaron and Moses in the day (i.e. at the time) when Jehovah spake with Moses in Mount Sinai (ver. 1). The toledoth (see at Gen. ii. 4) of Moses and Aaron are not only the families which sprang from Aaron and Moses, but the Levitical families generally, which were named after Aaron and Moses, because they were both of them raised into the position of heads or spiritual fathers of the whole tribe, namely, at the time when God spoke to Moses upon Sinai. Understood in this way, the notice as to the time is neither a superfluous repetition, nor introduced with reference to the subsequent numbering of the people in the steppes of Moab (chap. xxvi. 57 sqq.). Aaron is placed before Moses here (see at Ex. vi. 26 sqq.), not merely as being the elder of the two, but because his sons received the priesthood, whilst the sons of
Moses, on the contrary, were classed among the rest of the Levitical families (cf. 1 Cliron. xxiii. 14). — Vers. 2 sqq. Names of the sons of Aaron, the " anointed priests (see Lev. viii. 12), whose hand they filled to he priests^^ i.e, who were appointed to the priesthood (see at Lev. vii. 37). On Nadab and Abihu, see Lev. x. 1, 2. As they had neither of them any children when they were put to death, Eleazar and Ithamar were the only priests " in the sight of Aaron their father ^^ Le, during his lifetime, "/n the sight of:^^ as in Gen. xi. 28.
Vers. 5-10. The Levites are placed before Aaron the priest, to be his servants. — Ver. 6. "Bring near:^^ as in Ex. xxviii. 1. The expression ''JSip ID^ is frequently met with in connection with the position of a servant, as standing before his master to receive his commands. — Ver. 7. They were to keep the charge of Aaron and the whole congregation before the tabernacle, to attend to the service of the dwelling, Le. to observe what Aaron (the priest) and the whole congregation were bound to perform in relation to the service at the dwelling-place of Jehovah. " To keep the charge;" see chap. i. 53 and Gen. xxvi. 5. In ver. 8 this is more fully explained: they were to keep the vessels of the tabernacle, and to attend to all that was binding upon the children of Israel in relation to them, i.e. to take the oversight of the furniture, to keep it safe and clean. — Ver. 9. Moses was also to give the Levites to Aaron and his sons. " They are wholly given to him out of the children of Israel:" the repetition of DJIH^ here and in chap. viii. 16 is emphatic, and expressive of complete surrender {Ewald^ § 313). The Levites, however, as nethunim, must be distinguished from the nethinim of non-Israelitish descent, who were given to the Levites at a later period as temple slaves, to perform the lowest duties connected with the sanctuary (see at Josh. ix. 27). — Ver. 10. Aaron and his sons were to be appointed by Moses to take charge of the priesthood; as no stranger, no one who was not a son of Aaron, could approach the sanctuary without being put to death (cf. chap. i. 53 and Lev. xxii. 10).
Vers. 11-13. God appointed the Levites for this service, because He had decided to adopt them as His own in the place of all the first-born of Egypt. When He slew the first-born of Egypt, He sanctified to Himself all the first-bom of Israel, of man and beast, for His own possession (see Ex. xiii. 1, 2). By virtue of this sanctification, which was founded upon the adoption of the whole nation as His first-born son (see vol. ii. p. 33), the nation was required to dedicate to Him its first-bom sons for service at the sane- tuarv, and sacrifice all the first-born of its cattle to Him. But now the Levites and their cattle were to be adopted in their place, and the first-born sons of Israel to be released in return (vers. 40 sqq.). By this arrangement, through which the care of the service at the sanctuary was transferred to ouq tribe, which would and should henceforth devote itself with undivided interest to this vocation, not only was a more orderly performance of this service secured, than could have been effected through the first-born of all the tribes; but so far as the whole nation was concerned, the fulfilment of its obligations in relation to this service was undoubtedly facilitated. Moreover, the Levites had proved, themselves to be the most suitable of all the tribes for this post, through their firm and faithful defence of the honour of the Lord at the worship of the golden calf (Ex. xxxii. 26 sqq.). It is in this spirit, which distinguished the tribe of Levi, that we may undoubtedly discover the reason why they were chosen by God for the service of the sanctuary, and not in the fact that Moses and Aaron belonged to the tribe, and desired to form a hierarchical caste of the members of their own tribe, such as was to be found among other nations: the magi, for example, among the Medes, the Chaldeans among the Persians, and the Brahmins among the Indians. ^\^) ''^^? Vj " io Me, to Me, Jehovah^^ (vers. 13, 41, and 45; cf. Ges. § 121, 3).
Vers. 14-20. The muster of the Levites included all the males from a month old and upwards, because they were to be sanctified to Jehovah in the place of the first-born; and it was at the age of a month that the latter were either to be given up or redeemed (comp. vers. 40 and 43 with chap, xviii. 16). In vers. 17-20 the sons of Levi and their sons are enumerated, v^ho were the founders of the mishpachoth among the Levites, as in Ex. vi. 16-19.
Vers. 21-26. The Gershonites were divided into two families, containing 7500 males. They were to encamp under their chief Eliasaph, behind the tabernacle, i.e. on the western side (vers. 23, 24), and were to take charge of the dwelling-place and the tent, the covering, the curtain at the entrance, the hangings round the court with the curtains at the door, and the €ords of the tent, " in relation to all the service thereof ^^ (vers. 25 sqq.); that is to say, according to the more precise injunctions in chap. iv. 25-27, they were to carry the tapestry of the dwelling (the inner covering, Ex. xxvi. 1 sqq.), and of the tent (i.e, the covering made of goats' hair, Ex. xxvi. 7 sqq.), the covering thereof (i.e. the covering of rams' skins dyed red, and the covering of sea-cow skin upon the top of it, Ex. xxvii. 16), the hangings of the court and the curtain at the entrance (Ex. xxvii. 9, 16), which surrounded the altar (of burntoffering) and the dwelling round about, and their cords, i.e. the cords' of the tapestry, coverings, and curtains (Ex. xxvii. 14), and all the instruments of their service, i.e. the things used in connection with their service (Ex. xxvii. 19), and were to attend to everything that had to be done to them; in other words, to perform whatever was usually done with those portions of the sanctuary that are mentioned here, especially in setting up the tabernacle or taking it down. The suffix in 1""iri''p (ver. 26) does not refer to the court mentioned immediately before; for, according to ver. 37, the Merarites were to carry the cords of the hangings of the court, but to the " dwelling and tent," which stand farther off. In the same way the words, " for all the service thereof, ^^ refer to all those portions of the sanctuary that are mentioned, and mean " everything that had to be done or attended to in connection with these things."
Vers. 27-32. The Kohathites, who were divided into four families, and numbered 8600, were to encamp on the south side of the tabernacle, and more especially to keep the charge of the sanctuary (ver. 28), viz. to take care of the ark of the covenant, the table (of shew-bread), the candlestick, the altars (of incense and burntoffering), with the holy things required for the service performed in connection therewith, and the curtain (the veil before the most holy place), and to perform whatever had to be done (" all the service thereof," see at ver. 2^), i.e. to carry the said holy things after they had been rolled up in covers by the priests (see chap. iv. 5 sqq.). — ^Ver. 32. As the priests also formed part of the Kohathites, their, chief is mentioned as well, viz. Eleazar the eldest son of Aaron the high priest, who was placed over the chiefs of the three Levitical families, and called "T^i^S, oversight of the keepers of the charge of the sanctuary,^'' i.e. authority, superior, of the servants of the sanctuary.
Vers. 33—37. The Merarites, who formed two families, comprising 6200 males, were to encamp on the north side of the tabernacle, under their prince Zuriel, and to observe the boards, bolts, pillars, and sockets of the dwelling-place (Ex. xxvi. 15, 26, 32, 37), together with all the vessels thereof (the plugs and tools), and all that had to be done in connection therewith, also the pillars of the court with their sockets, the plugs and the cords (Ex. xxvii. 10, 19, XXXV. 18); that is to say, they were to take charge of these when the tabernacle was taken down, to carry them on the march, and to fix them when the tabernacle was set up again (chap. iv. 31, 32).
Vers. 38, 39. Moses and Aaron, with the sons of the latter (the priests), were to encamp in front, before the tabernacle, viz. on the eastern side, " as keepers of the charge of the sanctuary for the charge of the children of Jsrael,^^ i.e. to attend to everything that was binding upon the children of Israel in relation to the care of the sanctuary, as no stranger was allowed to approach it on pain of death (see chap. i. 51). — Ver. 39. The number of the Levites mustered, 22,000, does not agree with the numbers assigned to the three families, as 7500 + 8G00 + G200 -• 22,300. But the total is correct; for, according to ver. 46, the number of the first-born, 22,273, exceeded the total number of the Levites by 273. The attempt made by the Rabbins and others to reconcile the two, by supposing the 300 Levites in excess to be themselves first-born, who were omitted in the general muster, because they were not qualified to represent the first-born of the other tribes, is evidently forced and unsatisfactory. The whole account is so circumstantial, that such a fact as this would never have been omitted. We must rather assume that there is a copyist's error in the number of one of the Levitical families; possibly in ver. 28 we should read ^^^ for ^^ (8300 for 8600). The puncta extraordinaria above PQt^l are intended to indicate that this word is either suspicious or spurious (see at Gen. xxxiii. 5); and it is actually omitted in /Sam., Syr.y and 12 MSS., but without sufiicient reason: for although the divine command to muster the Levites (vers. 5 and 14) was addressed to Moses alone^ yet if we compare chap. iv. 1, 34, 37, 41, 45, where the Levites qualified for service are said to have been mustered by Moses and Aaron, and still more chap. iv. 46, where the elders of Israel are said to have taken part in the numbering of the Levites as well as in that of the twelve tribes (chap. i. 3, 4), there can be no reason to doubt that Aaron also took part in the mustering of the whole of the Levites, for the purpose of adoption in the place of the first-born of Israel; and no suspicion attaches to this introduction of his name in ver. 39, although it is not mentioned in vers. 5, 11, 14, 40, and 44.
Vers. 40-51. After this, Moses numbered the first-born of the children of Israel, to exchange them for the Levites according to the command of God, which is repeated in vers. 41 and 44-45 from vers. 11-13, and to adopt the latter in their stead for the service at the sanctuary (on vers. 41 and 45, of. vers. 11-13). The number of the first-born of the twelve tribes amounted to 22,273 of a month old and upwards (ver. 43). Of this number 22,000 were exchanged for the 22,000 Levites, and the cattle of the Levites were also set against the first-born of the cattle of the tribes of Israel, though without their being numbered and exchanged head for head. In vers. 44 and 45 the command of God concerning the adoption of the Levites is repeated, for the purpose of adding the further instructions with regard to the 273, the number by which the firstborn of the tribes exceeded those of the Levites. " And as for the redemption of the 273 (lit. the 273 to be redeemed) of the first-born of the children of Israel which are more than the Levites, thou shall take five shekels a head^^ etc. This was the general price established by the law for the redemption of the first-born of men (see chap, xviii. 16). On the sacred shekel, see at Ex. xxx. 13. The redemption money for 273 first-born, in all 1365 shekels, was to be paid to Aaron and his sons as compensation for the persons who properly belonged to Jehovah, and had been appointed as first-born for the service of the priests. — Yer. 49. '' The redeemed of the Levites ^^ are the 22,000 who were redeemed by means of the Levites. In ver. 50, the Chethibh Q^^I^n is the correct reading, and the Keri Ci^nan an unnecessary emendation. The number of the first-born and that of the Levites has already been noticed at pp. 8, 9.
Chap. iv. EuLES OF Service, and numbering of the Levites QUALIFIED FOR SERVICE. — After the adoption of the Levites for service at the sanctuary, in the place of the first-born of Israel, Moses and Aaron mustered the three families of the Levites by the command of God for the service to be performed by those who were between the ages of 30 and 50. The particulars of the service are first of all described in detail (vers. 4-33); and then the men in each family are taken, of the specified age for service (vers. 34-49). The three families are not arranged according to the relative ages of their founders, but according to the importance or sacredness of their service. The Kohathites take the lead, because the holiest parts of the tabernacle were to be carried and kept by this family, which included the priests, Aaron and his sons. The service to be performed by each of the three Levitical families is introduced in every case by a command from God to take the sum of the men from 30 years old to 50 (see vers. 1-3, 21-23, 29 and 30).
Vers. 2-20. Service of the Kohathites, and the number qualified for service. — Vers. 2, 3. " Take the sum of the sons of Kohath from among the sons of Levi:^^ i.e. by raising them out of the sum total of tlie Levltes, by numbering them first and specially, viz. the men from 30 to 50 years of age, " every one who comes to the service,''^ i.e. who has to enter upon service " to do work at the tabernacle." i<2y (^Angl. 'hosV) signifies military service, and is used here with special reference to tlie service of the Levites as the militia sacra of Jehovah. — Ver. 4. The service of the Kohathites at the tabernacle is (relates to) " the most holy " (see at Ex. xxx. 10). This term includes, as is afterwards explained, the most holy things in the tabernacle, viz. the ark of the covenant, the table of shew-bread, the candlestick, the altar of incense and altar of burnt-offering, together with all the other things belonging to these. When the camp was broken up, the priests were to roll them up in wrappers, and hand them over in this state to the Kohathites, for them to carry (vers. 5-15). First of all (vers. 5, 6), Aaron and his sons were to take down the curtain between the holy place and the most holy (see Ex. xxvi. 31), and to cover the ark of testimony with it (Ex. xxv. 10). Over this they were to place a wrapper of sea-cow skin (tachash, see Ex. xxv. 5), and over this again another covering of cloth made entirely of hyacinth-coloured purple (as in Ex. xxviii. 31). The sea-cow skin was to protect the inner curtain, which was covered over the ark, from storm and rain; the hyacinth purple, to distinguish the ark of the covenant as the throne of the glory of Jehovah. Lastly, they were to place the staves into the rings again, that is to say, the bearing poles, which were always left in their places on the ark (Ex. xxv. 15), but had necessarily to be taken out while it was being covered and wrapped up. — Vers. 7, 8. Ov^er the table of shew-bread (Ex. xxv. 23) they w^ere to spread a hyacinth cloth, to place the plates, bowls, wine-pitchers, and drink-offering bowls (Ex. xxv. 29) upon the top of this, and to lay shew-bread thereon; and then to spread a crimson cloth over these vessels and the shew-bread, and cover this with a sea-cow skin, and lastly to put the bearing poles in their places. — Vers. 9, 10. The candlestick, with its lamps, snuffers, extinguishers (Ex. xxv. 31-37), and all its oil-vessels (oil-cans), " \vherewith they serve ity" i.e. prepare it for the holy service, were to be covered with a hyacinth cloth, and then with a wrapper of sea-cow skin, and laid upon the carriage. tDlD (vers. 10 and 12), bearing frame, in chap. xiii. 23 bearing poles. — Vers. 11, 12. So again they were to wrap up the altar of incense (Ex. xxx. 1), to adjust its bearing poles; and having wrapped it up in such coverings, along with the vessels belonging to it, to lay it upon the frame. — Vers. 13, 14. The altar of burnt-offering was first of all to be cleansed from the ashes; a crimson cloth was then to be covered over it, and the whole of the furniture belonging to it to be placed upon the top; and lastly, the whole was to be covered with a sea-cow skin. The only thing not mentioned is the copper laver (Ex. XXX. 18), probably because it was carried without any cover at all. The statement in the Septuagint and the Samaritan text, which follows ver. 14, respecting its covering and conveyance upon a frame, is no doubt a spurious interpolation. — Ver. 15. After the priests had completed the wrapping up of all these things, tlie Kohathites were to come up to carry them; but they were not to touch " the holy " (the holy things), lest they should die (see chap. i. 53, xviii. 3, and comp. 2 Sam. vi. 6, 7). — Ver. 16. The oversight of the oil for the candlestick (Ex. xxvii. 20), the incense (Ex. XXX. 34), the continual meat-offering (Ex. xxix. 40), and the anointing oil (Ex. XXX. 23), belonged to Eleazar as the head of all the Levites (chap. iii. 32). He had also the oversight of the dwelling^ and all the holy things and furniture belonging to it; and, as a comparison of vers. 28 and 33 clearly shows, of the services of the Kohathites also. — Vers. 17-20. In order to prevent as far as possible any calamity from befalling the Levites while carrying the most holy things, the priests are again urged by the command of God to do what Jias already been described in detail in vers. 5—15, lest through any carelessness on their part they should cut off the tribe of the families of the Kohathites, i,e. should cause their destruction; viz. if they should approach the holy things before they had been wrapped up by Aaron and his sons in the manner prescribed and handed over to them to carry. If the Kohathites should come for only a single moment to look at the holy things, they would die. ^ri^"i3n"PKj " cut ye not o^," i.e. " take care that the Kohathites are not cut off through your mistake and negligence" (Ros.). " The tribe of the families of the Kohathites: " shebet, the tribe, is not used here, as it frequently is, in its derivative sense of tribe (tribus)^ but in the original literal sense of stirps. — Ver. 19. " T7iis do to them:^^ sc. what is prescribed in vers. 5-15 with reference to their service. — Ver. 20. yp33j " like a swallow, a gulp^^ is probably a proverbial expression, according to the analogy of Job vii. 19, for " a single instant,^ of which the Arabic also furnishes examples (see A, Schultens on Job vii. 19). The Sept, rendering, i^crmva, conveys the actual sense. A historical illustration of ver. 20 is furnished by 1 Sam. vi. 19.^
^ According to Knohel., vers. 17-20 have been interpolated by the Jehovist into the Elohistic text. But the reasons for this assumption are weak through-
Vers. 21-28. 2'he service of the Gershonites is introduced in vers. 21-23 in the same manner as tliat of the Kohathites in vers. 1-3; and in vers. 24-26 it is described in accordance with the brief notice and explanation ah'eady given in chap. iii. 24-26. — Ver. 27. Their service was to be performed " according to the mouth (i.e. according to the appointment) of Aaron and his sons, with regard to all their carrying (all that they were to carry), and all their doing.^^ — ^' And ye (the priests) ahall appoint to them for attendance (in charge) all their carrying,^' i.e. all the things they were to carry. niDD'pn "ijps, to give into keeping. The combination of "ii?2 with ^ and the accusative of the object is analogous to ^ l^J, to give into a person's hand, in Gen. xxvii. 17; and there is no satisfactory reason for any such emendations of the text as Knohel proposes. — Ver. 28. " Their charge (mishmereth) is in the hand of Ithamar," i.e. is to be carried out under his superintendence (cf. Ex. xxxviii. 21).
Vers. 34-49. Completion of the prescribed mustering, and statement of the number of men qualified for service in the three Levitical families: viz. 2750 Kohathites, 2630 Gershonites, and 3200 Merarites — in all, 8580 Levites tit for service: a number which bears a just proportion to the total number of male Levites of a month old and upwards, viz. 22,000 (see above, p. 9). — Ver. 49. '^ According to the commandment of Jehovah, they appointed them through the hand of Moses (i.e. under his direction), each one out. Neither the peculiar use of the word sJiehet, to which there is no corresponding parallel in the whole of the Old Testament, nor the construction of tJ^jj with nj<, which is only met with in 1 Sam. ix. 18 and xxx. 21, nor the Hiphil TT'lDn, can be regarded as criteria of a Jehovistic usage. And the assertion, that the Elohist lays the emphasis upon approaching and touching the holy things (ver. 15, chap. viii. 19, xviii. 3, 22), and not upon seeing or looking at them, rests upon an antithesis which is arbitrarily forced upon the text, since not only seeing (ver. 20), but touching also (ver. 19), is described as causing death; so that seeing and touching form no antithesis ^i all.
to Ms service, and his burden, and his mustered things (VIpB), i.e, the things assigned to him at the time of the mustering as his special charge (see Ex. xxxviii. 21)1
From the outward organization of the tribes of Israel as the army of Jehovah, the law proceeds to their internal moral and spiritual order, for the purpose of giving an inward support, both moral and religious, to their outward or social and political unity. This is the object of the directions concerning the removal of unclean persons from the camp (chap. v. 1-4), the restitution of anything unjustly appropriated (vers. 5-10), th^ri course to be pursued with a wife suspected of adultery (vers. 11-31), and also of the laws relating to the Nazarite (chap. vi. 1-21), and to the priestly blessing (vers. 22-27).
Chap. v. 1-4. Eemoval of Unclean Persons out of the Camp. — As Jehovah, the Holy One, dwelt in the midst of the camp of His people, those who were affected with the uncleanness of leprosy (Lev. xiii.), of a diseased flux, or of menstruation (Lev. XV. 2 sqq., 19 sqq.), and those who had become unclean through touching a corpse (chap. xix. 11 sqq., cf. Lev. xxi. 1, xxii. 4), whether male or female, were to be removed o^t of the camp, that they might not defile it by their uncleanness. The command of God, to remove these persons out of the camp, was carried out at once by the nation; and even in Canaan it was so far observed, that lepers at any rate were placed in special pest-houses outside the cities (see at Lev. xiii. 45, 46).
Vers. 5-10. Kestitution in case of a Trespass. — No crime against the property of a neighbour was to remain without expiation in the congregation of Israel, which was encamped or dwelt around the sanctuary of Jehovah; and the wrong committed was not to remain without restitution, because such crimes involved unfaithfulness (/V^y see Lev. v. 15) towards Jehovah. ^' Jf a man or a woman do one of the sins of men, to commit unfaithfulness against Jehovah, and the same soul has incurred guilt, they shall confess their sin which they have done, and (the doer) shall recom- f>ense his deld according to its swn" (iCNiB^ as in Lev. v. 24), etc. Dixn nNDn"73Dj one of the sins occurring among men, not " a sin against a man" {Luther, Bos., etc). The meaning is a sin, with which a t^yp was committed against Jehovah, i.e. one of the acts described in Lev. v. 21, 22, by which injury was done to the property of a neighbour, whereby a man brought a debt upon himself, for the wiping out of which a material restitution of the other's property was prescribed, together with the addition of a fifth of its value, and also the presentation of a sin-offering (Lev. v. 23—26). To guard against that disturbance of fellowship and peace in the congregation, which would arise from such trespasses as these, the law already given in Lev. v. 20 is here renewed and supplemented by the additional stipulation, that if the man who had been unjustly deprived of some of his property had no Goel, to whom restitution could be made for the debt, the compensation should be paid to Jehovah for the priests. The Goel was the nearest relative, upon whom the obligation rested to redeem a person who had fallen into slavery through poverty (Lev. xxv. 25). The allusion to the Goel in this connection presupposes that the injured person was no longer alive. To this there are appended, in vers. 9 and 10, the directions which are substantially connected with this, viz. that every heave-offering (terumah, see at Lev. ii. 9) in the holy gifts of the children of Israel, which they presented to the priest, was to belong to him (the priest), and also all the holy gifts which were brought by different individuals. The reference is not to literal sacrifices, i.e. gifts intended for the altar, but to dedicatory offerings, first-fruits, and such like. V^np"nt< t^''^^ " with regard to every mans, his holy gifts.., to him (the priest) shall they be; what any man gives to the priest shall belong to him^ The second clause serves to explain and confirm the first. HK: as far, with regard to, quoad (see Ewald, § 277, cZ; Ges. § 117, 2, note).
Vers. 11-31. Sentence of God upon Wives suspected OF Adultery. — As any suspicion cherished by a man against his wife, that she either is or has been guilty of adultery, whether wellfounded or not, is sufficient to shake the mamage connection to its very roots, and to undermine, along with marriage, the foundation of the civil commonwealth, it was of the greatest importance to guard against this moral evil, which was so utterly irreconcilable with the holiness of the people of God, by appointing a process in harmony with the spirit of the theocratical law, and adapted to bring to light the guilt or innocence of any wife who had fallen into such suspicion, and at the same time to warn fickle wives against unfaithfulness. This serves to explain not only the introduction of the law respecting the jealousy-offering in this place, but also the general importance of the subject, and the reason for its being so elaborately described.
Vers. 12-15. If a man's wife w^ent aside, and was guilty^ of unfaithfulness towards him (ver. 13 is an explanatory clause), through a (another) man having lain with her with emissio seminis, and it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, on account of her haying defiled herself secretly, and there being no witness against her, and her not having been taken (in the act); but if, for all that, a spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he was jealous of his wife, and she was defiled,... or she was not defiled: the man was to take his wife to the priest, and bring as her sacrificial gift, on her account, the tenth of an ephah of barley meal, without putting oil or incense, " for it is a meat-offering of jealousy, a meat-offering of memory^ to bring iniquity to remembrancer As the woman's crime, of which her husband accused her, was naturally denied by herself, and was neither to be supported by w^itnesses nor proved by her being taken in the very act, the only way left to determine whether there was any foundation or not for the spirit of jealousy excited in her husband, and to prevent an unrighteous severance of the divinely appointed marriage, was to let the thing be decided by the verdict of God Himself. To this end the man was to bring his wife to the priest with a sacrificial gift, which is expressly called "^J^li^, her offering, brought ^yV " on her account," that is to say, with a meatoffering, the symbol of the fruit of her walk and conduct before God. Being the sacrificial gift of a wife who had gone aside and w^as suspected of adultery, this meat-offering could not possess the character of the ordinary meat-offerings, which shadowed forth the fruit of the sanctification of life in good works (vol. ii. p. 207); could not consist, that is to say, of fine wheaten flour, but only of barley meal. Barley was worth only half as much as wheat (2 Kings vii, 1, 16, 18), so that only the poorer classes, or the people generally in times of great distress, used barley meal as their daily food (Judg. vii. 13; 2 Kings iv. 42; Ezek. iv. 12; John vi. 9, 13), whilst those who were better off used it for fodder (1 Kings v. 8). Barley meal was prescribed for this sacrifice, neither as a sign that the adulteress had conducted herself like an irrational animal (Philo, Jonathan, Talm,, the Rabb.j etc.), nor " because the persons presenting the offering were invoking tlie punishment of a crime, and not the favour of God" (Cler., Eos.): for the guilt of the woman was not yet established; nor even, taking a milder view of the matter, to indicate that the offerer might be innocent, and in that case no offering at all was required {Knohel), but to represent the questionable repute in which the woman stood, or the ambiguous, suspicious character of her conduct. Because such conduct as hers did not proceed from the Spirit of God, and was not carried out in prayer i oil and incense, the symbols of the Spirit of God and prayer (see vol. ii. pp. 174 and 209), were not to be added to her offering. It was an offering of jealousy (^^Jp, an intensive plural), and the object was to bring the ground of that jealousy to light; and in this respect it is called the " meat-offering of remembrance,^^ sc. of the woman, before Jehovah (cf. chap. x. 10, xxxi. 54; Ex. xxviii. 12, 29, xxx. 16; Lev. xxiii. 24), namely, " the remembrance of iniquity ^^ brinmnfc her crime to remembrance before the Lord, that it n ight be judged by Him.
Vers. 16-22. The priest was to bring her near to the alt;.r at which he stood, and place her before Jehovah, who had declared Himself to be present at the altar, and then to take holy water, j^robably water out of the basin before the sanctuary, which served for holy purposes (Ex. xxx. 18), in an earthen vessel, and put dust in it from the floor of the dwelling. He was then to loosen the liair of the woman who was standing before Jehovah, and place the jealousy-offering in her hands, and holding the water in his own hand, to pronounce a solemn oath of purification before her, which she had to appropriate to herself by a confirmatory Amen, Amen. The water, which the priest had prepared for the woman to drink, was taken from the sanctuary, and the dust to be put into it from the floor of the dwelling, to impregnate this drink with the power of the Holy Spirit that dwelt in the sanctuary. The dust was strewed upon the water, not to indicate that man was formed from dust and must return to dust again, but as an allusion to the fact, that dust was eaten by the serpent (Gen. iii. 14) as the curse of sin, and therefore as the symbol of a state deserving a curse, a state of the deepest humiliation and disgrace (MicaL vii. 17; Isa. xlix. 23; Ps. Ixxii. 9). On the very same ground, an earthen vessel was chosen; that is to say, one quite worthless in comparison with the copper one. The loosening of the hair of the head (see Lev. xiii. 45), in other cases a sign of mourning, is to be regarded here as a removal or loosening of the female head-dress, and a symbol of the loss of the proper ornament of female morality and conjugal fidelity. During the administration of the oath, the offering was placed in her hands, that she might bring the fruit of her own conduct before God, and give it up to His holy judgment. The priest, as the representative of God, held the vessel in his hand, with the water in it, which was called the " water of bitterness^ the curse-brhiging'j^ inasmuch as, if the crime imputed to her was wellfounded, it would bring upon the woman bitter suffering as the curse of God. — Ver. 19. The oath which the priest required her to take is called, in ver. 21, ^^^\} ^V?^? " oatJi of cursing^^ (see Gen. xxvi. 28); but it first of all presupposes the possibility of the woman being innocent, and contains the assurance, that in that case the curse-water would do her no harm. " If no (other) man has lain tvith thee, and thou hast not gone aside to union Q^^lp^y accus. of more precise definition, as in Lev. xv. 2,. 18), under thy liushand^^ i.e. as a w^ fe subject to thy husband (Ezek. xxiii. 5; Hos. iv. 12), " then rem lin free from the water of bitterness^ this curse-bringing,^^ i.e. from the effects of this curse-water. The~imperative is a sign of certain assurance (see Gen. xii. 2, xx. 7; cf. Ges. § 130, 1). ''But if thou hast gone aside under thy husband, if thou hast defiled thyself, and a man has given thee his seed beside thy husband,^... (the priest shall proceed to say; this is the meaning of the repetition of i^'^^... V'''^vn\, ver. 21), '' Jehovah shall make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, by making thy hip to fall and thy belly to swell; and this curse-bringing water shall come into thy bowels, to make the belly to vanish and the hip to falV To this oath that was spoken before her the woman was to reply, " true, true^'' or " truly, truly ^"^ and thus confirm it as taken by herself (cf. Deut. xxvii. 15 sqq.; Neh. V. 13). It cannot be determined with any certainty what was the nature of the disease threatened in this curse. Michaelis supposes it to be dropsy of the ovary {hydrops ovarii), in which a tumour is formed in the place of the ovarium, which may even swell SQ as to contain 100 lbs. of fluid, and with which the patient becomes dreadfully emaciated. Josephus says it is ordinary dropsy (hydrops ascites: Ant. iii. 11, 6). At any rate, the idea of the curse is this: At^ o)v yap rj dfiaprla, Bca tovtwv r] ri/JLcopla (" the punishment shall come from the same source as the sin," Theodoret). The punishment was to answer exactly to the crime, and to fall upon those bodily organs which had been the instruments of the woman's sin, viz. the organs of child-bearing.
Vers. 23-28. After the woman's Amen, the priest was to write
" these curses" tliose contained in the oath, in a book-roll, and wash them in the bitter water, i.e. wash tlie writing in the vessel with water, so that the words of the curse should pass into the water, and be imparted to it; a symbolical act, to set forth the truth, that God imparted to the water the power to act injuriously upon a guilty body, though it would do no harm to an innocent one. The remark in ver. 24, that the priest was to give her this water to drink, is anticipatory; for according to ver. 26 this did not take place till after the presentation of the sacrifice and the burning of the memorial of it upon the altar. The woman's offering, however, was not presented to God till after the oath of purification, because it was by the oath that she first of all purified herself from the suspicion of adultery, so that the fruit of her conduct could be given up to the fire of the holiness of God. As a known adulteress, she could not have offered a meat-offering at all. But as the suspicion which rested upon her was not entirely removed by her oath, since she might have taken a false oath, the priest was to give her the curse-water to drink after the offering, that her guilt or innocence might be brought to light in the effects produced by the drink. This is given in ver. 27 as the design of the course prescribed: " When he hath made her to drink the water^ then it shall come to pass, that if she he defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, the water that causeth the curse shall come (enter) into her as bitterness (i.e. producing bitter sufferings), namely, her belly shall swell and her hip vanish: and so the woman shall become a curse in the midst of her peopled — Ver. 28. ''But if she have not defiled herself, and is clean (from the crime of which she was suspected), she will remain free (from the threatened punishment of God), and will conceive seed,'^ i.e. be blessed with the capacity and power to conceive and bring forth children.
Vers. 29-31 bring t]ie law of jealousy to a formal close, with the additional remark, that the man who adopted this course with a wife suspected of adultery was free from sin, but the woman would bear her guilt (see Lev. v. 1), i.e. in case she were guilty, would bear the punishment threatened by God. Nothing is said about what w^as to be done in case the woman refused to take the oath prescribed, because that would amount to a confession of her guilt, when she would have to be put to death as an adulteress, according to the law in Lev. xx. 10; and not she alone, but the adulterer also. In the law just mentioned the man is placed on an equality with the woman with reference to the sin of adultery; and thus the apparent partiality, that a man could sue his wife for adultery, but not the wife her husband, is removed. But the law before us applied to the woman only, because the man was at liberty to marry more than one wife, or to take concubines to his own wife; so that he only violated the marriage tie, and was guilty of adultery, whert he formed an illicit connection with another man's wife. In that case, the man whose marriage had been violated could proceed against his adulterous wife, and in most instances convict the adulterer also, in order that he might receive his punishment too. For a really guilty wife would not have made up her mind so easily to take the required oath of purification, as the curse of God under which she came was no easier to bear than the punishment of death. For this law prescribed no ordeal whose effects were uncertain, like the ordeals of other nations, but* a judgment of God, from which the guilty could not escape, because it had been appointed by the living God.
Chap. vi. 1-21. The Nazarite. — The legal regulations concerning the vow of the Nazarite are appended quite appropriately to the laws intended to promote the spiritual order of the congregation of Israel. For the Nazarite brought to light the priestly character of the covenant nation in a peculiar form, which had necessarily to be incorporated into the spiritual organization of the community, so that it might become a means of furthering the sanctification of the people in covenant with the Lord.^
Vers. 1 and 2. The words, " if a man or woman make a separate voWy a Nazarite vow, to live consecrated to the Lorcl^^ with which the law is introduced, show not only that the vow of the Nazarite was a matter of free choice, but that it was a mode of practising godliness and piety already customary among the people. Nazir, from "IW to separate, lit, the separated, is applied ^to the man who vowed that he would make a separation to (for) Jehovah, i.e. lead a separate life for the Lord and His service. The origin of this custom is involved in obscurity. There is no certain clue to indicate that it was derived from Egypt, for the so-called hair-offering vows are met with among several ancient tribes (see the proofs in Spencer, de legg. Hehr, rit. iv. 16, and Knohel in loc), and have no special rela- tlonship to the Nazarite, whilst vows of abstinence were common to all the religions of antiquity. The Nazarite vow was taken at first for a particular time, at the close of which the separation terminated with release from the vow. This is the only form in which it is taken into consideration, or rules are laid down for it in the law before us. In after times, however, we find life-long Nazarites among the Israelites, e.g. Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist, who were vowed or dedicated to the Lord by their parents even before they were born (Judg. xiii. 5, 14; 1 Sam. i. 11; Luke i. 15).^ Vers. 3-8. The vow consisted of the three following points, vers. 1-4: In the first place, he was to abstain from wine and intoxicating drink (sJiecar, see Lev. x. 9); and neither to drink vinegar of wine, strong drink, nor any juice of the grape (lit. dissolving of grapes, i.e. fresh must pressed out), nor to eat fresh grapes, or dried (raisins). In fact, during the whole period of his vow, he was not to eat of anything prepared from the vine, " from the kernels even to the hush^^ i.e. not the smallest quantity of the fruit of the vine. The design of this prohibition can hardly have been, merely that, by abstaining from intoxicating drink, the Nazarite might preserve perfect clearness and temperance of mind, like the priests when engaged in their duties, and so conduct himself as one sanctified to the Lord {Bdhr); but it goes much further, and embraces entire abstinence from all the delicice carnis by which holiness could be impaired. Vinegar, fresh and dried grapes, and food prepared from grapes and raisins, e.g. raisin-cakes, are not intoxicating;' but grape-cakes, as being the dainties sought after by epicures and debauchees, are cited in Hos. iii. 1 as a symbol of the sensual attractions of idolatry, a luxurious kind of food, that was not in harmony with the solemnity of the worship of Jehovah. The Nazarite was to avoid everything that proceeded from the vine, because its fruit was regarded as the sum and substance of all sensual enjoyments. — Ver. 5. Secondly/, during the whole term of his vow of consecration, no razor was to come upon his head. Till the days were fulfilled which he had consecrated to the Lord, he was to be holy, " to make great the free growth (see Lev. x. 6) of the hair of his head^ The free growth of the hair is called, in
* This is also related by Hegesippus (in Euseb. hist. eccl. ii. 23) of James the Just, the first bishop of Jerusalem. On other cases of this kind in the Talmud, and particularly on the later form of the Nazarite vow, — for example, that of the Apostle Paul (Acts xviii. 18), — see Winer^ hihl. R. W. ii. pp. 138-9, and Oelder in Herzog''s Cycl.
ver. 7, " the diadem of Ids God upon his head^^ like the golden diadem upon the turban of the high priest (Ex. xxix. 6), and the anointing oil upon the high priest's head (Lev. xxi. 12). By this he sanctified his head (ver. 11) to the Lord, so that the consecration of the Nazarite culminated in his uncut hair, and. expressed in the most perfect way the meaning of his vow (^Oehler). Letting the hair grow, therefore, was not a sign of separation, because it was the Israelitish custom to go about with the hair cut; nor a practical profession of a renunciation of the world, and separation from human society (^Hengstenberg, pp. 190-1); nor a sign of abstinence from every appearance of self-gratification {Baur on Amos ii. 11); nor even a kind of humiliation and self-denial {Lightfootj Carpzov, appar, p. 154); still less a " sign of dependence upon some other present power ^ (M, Bautngarfen), or " the symbol of a state of perfect liberty" (Vitriiiga, ohss, ss, 1, c. 6, § 9; cf. vi. 22, 8). The free growth of the hair, unhindered by the hand of man, was rather " the symbol of strength and abundant vitality" (cf. 2 Sam. xiv. 25, 2^). It was not regarded by the Hebrews as a sign of sanctity, as Bdhr supposes, but simply as an ornament, in which the whole strength and fulness of vitality were exhibited, and which the Nazarite wore in honour of the Lord, as a sign that he " belonged to the Lord, and dedicated himself to His service," with all his vital powers.^ — Vers. 6-8. Because the Nazarite wore the diadem of his God upon his head in the growth of his hair, and was holy to the Lord during the whole period of his consecration, he was to approach no dead person during that time, not even to defile himself for his parents, or his brothers and sisters, when they died, according to the law laid down for the high priest in Lev. xxi. 11. Consequently, as a matter of course, he was to guard most scrupulously against other defilements, not only like ordinary Israelites, but also like the priests. Samson's mother, too, was not allowed to eat anything unclean during the period of her pregnancy (Judg. xiii. 4, 7, 14).
Vers. 9-12. But if any one died suddenly in a moment " by him" (Ivy, in his neighbourhood), and he therefore involuntarily
^ In support of this explanation, Oeliler calls to mind those heathen hairofferings of the Athenian youths, for example (Plut. Thes. c. 6), which were founded upon the idea, that the hair in general was a symbol of vital power, and the hair of the beard a sign of virility; and also more especially the example of Samson, whose hair was not only the symbol, but the vehicle, of the power which fitted him to be the deliverer of his people defiled his consecrated head, he was to shave his head on the day of his purification, i.e. on the seventh day (see chap. xix. 11, 14, 16, and 19), not "because such uncleanness was more especially caught and retained by the hair," as Knohel fancies, but because it was the diadem of his God (ver. 7), the ornament of his condition, which was sanctified to God. On the eighth day, that is to say, on the day after the legal purification, he was to bring to the priest at the tabernacle two turtle-doves or young pigeons, that he might make atonement for him (see at Lev. xv. 14, 15, 29 sqq., xiv. 30, 31, and xii. 8), on account of his having been defiled by a corpse, by preparing the one as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering; he was also " to sanctify his head that same day^^ i.e. to consecrate it to God afresh, by the unimpeded growth of his hair. — Yer. 12. He was then " to consecrate to Jehovah the days of his coneecrationy^ i.e. to commence afresh the time of dedication that he had vowed, and " to bring a yearling sheep as a trespass-offering;" and the days that were before were " to fall,^ i.e. the days of consecration that had already elapsed were not to be reckoned on account of their having fallen, " because his consecration had become unclean^ He was therefore to commence the whole time of his consecration entirely afresh, and to observe it as required by the vow. To this end he was to bring a trespass-offering, as a payment or recompense for being reinstated in the former state of consecration, from which he had fallen through his defilement, but not as compensation " for having prolonged the days of separation through his carelessness with regard to the defilement; that is to say, for having extended the time during which he led a separate, retired, and inactive life, and suspended his duties to his own family and the congregation, thus doing an injury to them, and incurring a debt in relation to them through his neglect" (Knobel). For the time that the Nazarite vow lasted was not a lazy life, involving a withdrawal from the duties of citizenship, by which the congregation might be injured, but was perfectly reconcilable with the performance of all domestic and social duties, the burial of the dead alone excepted; and no harm could result from this, either to his own relations or the community generally, of sufficient importance to require that the omission should be repaired by a trespass-offering, from which neither his relatives nor the congregation derived any actual advantage. Nor was it a species of fine, for having deprived Jehovah of the time dedicated to Him through the breach of the vow, or for withholding the payment of his vow for so much longer a time