Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

{OeTiler in Herzog), For the position of a Nazarite was only assumed for a definite period, according to the vow; and after this had been interrupted, it had to be commenced again from the very beginning: so that the time dedicated to God was not shortened in any way by the interruption of the peiiod of dedication, and nothing whatever was withheld from God of what had been vowed to Him, so as to need the presentation of a trespass-offering as a compensation or fine. And there is no more reason for saying that the payment of the vow was withheld, inasmuch as the vow was fulfilled or paid by the punctual observance of the three things of which it was composed; and the sacrifices to be presented after the time of consecration was over, had not in the Ipast the character of a payment, but simply constituted a solemn conclusion, corresponding to the idea of the consecration itself, and were the means by which the Nazarite came out of his state of consecration, without involving the least allusion to satisfaction, or reparation for any wrong that had been done.

The position of the Nazarite, therefore, as Fhiloy Maimonides, and others clearly saw, was a condition of life consecrated to the Lord, resembling the sanctified relation in which the priests stood to Jehovah, and differing from the priesthood solely in the fact that it involved no official service at the sanctuary, and was not based upon a divine calling and institution, but was undertaken spontaneously for a certain time and through a special vow. The object was simply the realization of the idea of a priestly life, with its purity and freedom from all contamination from everything connected with death and corruption, a self-surrender to God stretching beyond the deepest earthly ties, "a spontaneous appropriation of what was imposed upon the priest by virtue of the calling connected with his descent, namely, the obligation to conduct himself as a person betrothed to God, and therefore to avoid everything that would be opposed to such surrender" (^Oeliler). In this respect the Nazarite' s sanctification of life was a step towards the realization of the priestly character, which had been set before the whole nation as its goal at the time of its first calling (Ex. xix. 5); and although it was simply the performance of a vow, and therefore a work of perfect spontaneity, it was also a work of the Spirit of God which dwelt in the congregation of Israel, so that Amos could describe the raising up of Nazarites along with prophets as a special manifestation of divine grace. The offerings, with which the vow was brought to a close after the time of consecration had expired, and the Nazarite was released from his consecration, also corresponded to the character we have described.

Vers. 13-21. The directions as to the release from consecration are called " the law of the Nazarite^^ (ver. 13), because the idea of the Nazarite's vows culminated in the sacrificial festival which terminated the consecration, and it was in this that it attained to its fullest manifestation. " On the day of the completion of the days of his consecration J ^ i.e, on the day when the time of consecration expired, the Nazarite' was to bring to the tabernacle, or offer as his gifts to the Lord, a sheep of a year old as a burnt-offering, and an ewe of a year old as a sin-offering; the latter as an expiation for the sins committed involuntarily during the period of consecration, the former as an embodiment of that surrender of himself, body and soul, to the Lord, upon which every act of worship should rest. In addition to this he was to bring a ram without blemish as a peace-offering, together with a basket of unleavened cakes and wafers baked, which were required, according to Lev. vii. 12, for every praise-offering, " and their meat and drink-offerings,^^ i.e. the gifts of meal, oil, and wine, which belonged, according to chap. xv. 3 sqq., to the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. — Ver. 16. The sinoffering and burnt-offering were carried out according to the general instructions. — Ver. 17. The completion of the consecration vow was concentrated in the preparation of the ram and the basket of unleavened bread for the peace-offering, along with the appropriate meat-offering and drink-offering. — Ver. 18. The Nazarite had also to shave his consecrated head, and put the hair into the altar-fire under the peace-offering that was burning, and thus hand over and sacrifice to the Lord the hair of his head which had been worn in honour of Him. — Vers. 19, 20. When this had been done, the priest took the boiled shoulderof the ram,with an unleavened cake and wafer out of the basket, and placed these pieces in the hands of the Nazarite, and waved them before Jehovah. They then became the portion of the priest, in addition to the wave-breast and heave-leg which fell to the priest in the case of every peace-offering (Lev. vii. 32-34), to set forth the participation of the Lord in the sacrificial meal (see vol. ii. pp. 329, 330). But the fact that, in addition to these, the boiled shoulder was given up symbolically to the Lord through the process of waving, together with a cake and wafer, was intended to indicate that the table-fellowship with the Lord, shadowed forth in the sacrificial meal of the peace-offering, took place here in a higher degree; inasmuch as the Lord directed a portion of the Nazarite's meal to be handed over to His representatives and servants for them to eat, that he might thus enjoy the blessedness of having fellowship with his God, in accordance with that condition of priestly sanctity into which the Nazarite had entered through the vow that he had made, — Yer. 20. ^^ After that the Nazarite may drink wine^^ (again), probably at the sacrificial meal, after the Lord had received His share of the sacrifice, and his release from consecration had thus been completed. — Ver. 21. " This is the law of the Nazarite^ who vowed his sacrificial gifts to the Lord on the ground of his consecration,^* i,e, who offered his sacrifice in accordance w^itli the state of a Nazarite into which he had entered. For the sacrifices mentioned in vers. 14 sqq. were not the object of a special vow, but contained in the vow of the Nazarite, and therefore already vow^ed (Knohel), " Beside what his hand grasps,** i.e. what he is otherwise able to perform (Lev. V. 11), '^ according to the measure of his vow, which he vowed, so must he do according to the law of his consecration,** i.e. he had to offer the sacrifices previously mentioned on the ground of his consecration vow. Beyond that he was free to vow anything else according to his ability, to present other sacrificial gifts to the Lord for His sanctuary and His servants, which did not necessarily belong to the vow of the Nazarite, but were frequently added. From this the custom afterwards grew up, that when poor persons took the Nazarite's vow upon them, those who were better off defrayed the expenses of the sacrifices (Acts xxi. 24; Josephus, Ant. xix. 6, 1; Mishnah Nasir, ii. 5 sqq.).

Vers. 22-27. The Priestly or Aaronic Blessing. — The spiritual character of the congregation of Israel culminated in the blessing with which the priests were to bless the people. The directions as to this blessing, therefore, impressed the seal of perfection upon the whole order and organization of the people of God, inasmuch as Israel was first truly formed into a congregation of Jehovah by the fact that God not only bestowed His blessing upon it, but placed the communication of this blessing in the hands of the priests, the chosen and constant mediators of the blessings of His grace, and imposed it upon them as one portion of their official duty. The blessing which the priests were to impart to the people, consisted of a triple blessing of two members each, which stood related to each other thus: The second in each case contained a special application of the first to the people, and the three gradations unfolded the substance of the blessing step by step with ever increasing emphasis. — The first (ver. 24), ^^ Jehovah bless thee and keep theey^ conveyed the blessing in the most general form, merely describing it as coming from Jehovah, and setting forth preservation from the evil of the world as His work. " The blessing of God is the goodness of God in action, by which a supply of all good pours down to us from His good favour as from their only fountain; then follows, secondly, the prayer that He would keep the people, which signifies that He alone is the defender of the Church, and that it is He who preserves it with His guardian care" (Calvin), — The second (ver. 25), '' Jehovah make His face shine upon theCj and he gracious unto thee,^ defined the blessing more closely as the manifestation of the favour and grace of God. The face of God is the personality of God as turned towards man. Fire goes out from Jehovah's face, and consumes the enemy and the i'ebellious (Lev. X. 2, cf. xvii. 10, xx. 3; Ex. xiv. 24; Ps. xxxiv. 17), and also a sunlight shining with love and full of life and good (Deut. XXX. 30; Ps. xxvii. 1, xliii. 3, xliv. 4). If " the light of the sun is sweet, and pleasant for the eyes to behold" (Eccl. xi. 7), "the light of the divine countenance, the everlasting light (Ps. xxxvi. 10), is the sum of all delight" (Baumg.), This light sends rays of mercy into a heart in need of salvation, and makes it the recipient of grace. — The third (ver. 26), " Jehovah lift up His face to thee, and set (or give) thee peace'''* (goc)d, salvation), set forth the blessing of God as a manifestation of power, or a work of power upon man, the end of which is peace (shalom), the sum of all the good which God sets, prepares, or establishes for His people. ^^ C3"'^S ^b^^, to lift up the face to any one, is equivalent to looking at him, and does not differ from n\y^V i<\^l or D''K^ (Gen. xliii. 29, xliv. 21). When affirmed of God, it denotes His providential work upon man. When God looks at a man. He saves him out of his distresses (Ps. iv. 7, xxxiii. 18, xxxiv. 16). — In these three blessings most of the fathers and earlier theologians saw an allusion to the mystery of the Trinity, and rested their conclusion, (a) upon the triple repetition of the name Jehovah; (b) upon the ratio prcedicatiy that Jehovah, by whom the blessing is desired and imparted, is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and (c) upon the distinctorum henedictionis memhrorum consideration according to which bis trina beneficia are mentioned (cf. Calovii Bibl. illustr, ad h. I.). There is truth in this, though the grounds assigned seetti faulty. As the threefold repetition of a word or sentence serves to express the thought as strongly as possible (cf. Jer. vii. 4, xxii. 29), the triple blessing expressed in the most unconditional manner the thought, that God would bestow upon His congregation the whole fulness of the blessing enfolded in His Divine Being which was manifested as Jehovah. But not only does the name Jehovah denote God as the absolute Being, who revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Spirit in the historical development of His purpose of salvation for the redemption of fallen man; but the substance of this blessing, which He caused to be pronounced upon His congregation, unfolded the grace of God in the threefold way in which it is communicated to us through the Father, Son, and Spirit.^ — -Yer. 27. This blessing was not to remain merely a pious wish, however, but to be mianifested in the people with all the power of a blessing from God. This assurance closes the divine command: " They shall put My nnme upon the children of Israel^ and I will bless themr

Chap. vii. Pkesentation of Dedicatory Gifts by the Princes of the Tribes. — Yer. 1. This presentation took place at the time (Di'') when Moses, after having completed the erection of the tabernacle, anointed and sanctified the dwelling and the altar, together with their furniture (Lev. viii. 10, 11). Chronologically considered, this ought to have been noticed after Lev. viii. 10. But in order to avoid interrupting the connection of the Sinaitic laws, it is introduced for the first time at this point, and placed at the

^ See the admirable elaboration of these points in Luther''s exposition of the blessing. Luther refers the first blessing to " bodily hfe and good." The blessing, he says, desired for the people "that God would give them prosperity and every good, and also guard and preserve them." This is carried out still further, in a manner corresponding to his exposition of the first article. The second blessing he refers to " the spiritual nature and the soul," and observes,

" Just as the sun, when it rises and diffuses its rich glory and soft light over all the world, merely lifts up its face upon all the world;... so when God gives His word, He causes His face to shine clearly and joyously upon all minds, and makes them joyful and light, and as it were new hearts and new men. For it brings forgiveness of sins, and shows God as a gracious and merciful Father, who pities and sympathizes with our grief and sorrow. The third also relates to the spiritual nature and the soul, and is a desire for consolation and final victory over the cross, death, the devil, and all the gates of hell, together with the world and the evil desires of the flesh. The desire of this blessing is, that the Lord God will lift up the light of His word upon us, and so keep it over us, that it may shine in our hearts with strength enough to overcome all the opposition of the devil, death, and sin, and all adversity, terror, or despair."

head of the events which immediately preceded the departure of the people from Sinai, because these gifts consisted in part of materials that were indispensably necessary for the transport of the tabernacle during the march through the desert. Moreover, there was only an interval of at the most forty days between the anointing of the tabernacle, which commenced after the first day of the first month (cf. Ex. xl. 16 and Lev. viii. 10), and lasted eight days, and the departure from Sinai, on the twentieth day of the second month (chap. X. 11), and from this we have to deduct six days for the Passover, which took place before their departure (chap. ix. 1 sqq.); and it was within this period that the laws and ordinances from Lev. xi. to Num. vi. had to be published, and the dedicatory offerings to be presented. Now, as the presentation itself was distributed, according to vers. 11 sqq., over twelve or thirteen days, we may very well assume that it did not entirely precede the publication of the laws referred to, but was carried on in part contemporaneously with it. The presentation of the dedicatory gifts of one tribe-prince might possibly occupy only a few hours of the day appointed for the purpose; and the rest of the day, therefore, might very conveniently be made use of by Moses for publishing the laws. In this case the short space of a month and a few days would be amply sufficient for everything that took place.

Vers. 2-9. The presentation of six waggons and twelve oxen for the carriage of the materials of the tabernacle is mentioned first, and was no doubt the first thing that took place. The princes of Israel, viz. the heads of the tribe-houses (fathers' houses), or princes of the tribes (see chap. i. 4 sqq.), " those who stood over those that were numbered" i.e. who were their leaders or rulers, offered as their sacrificial gift six covered waggons and twelve oxen, one ox for each prince, and a waggon for every two. ^^ TO^, ajxd^a^ XafiinjvLKa<; (LXX.), Le, according to Euseh, Emis.y two-w^heeled -vehicles, though the Greek scholiasts explain \a/jb7rrivr] as signifying afxa^a 7repi(\)avr)<;, ^aacktKr} and peBcov 7r€pi(f)ave(; 6 iarlv dpfia a/ceTracFTOv (cf. Schleussnery Lex, in LXX. s. v.), and Aquila, a/jua^at crKeTraarat, i.e. plaustra tecta (^Vulg. and Rabb.). The meaning " litters," which Gesenius and De Wette support, can neither be defended etymologically, nor based upon D"'^^ in Isa. Ixvi. 20. — Vers. 4-6. At the command of God, Moses received them to apply them to the purposes of the tabernacle, and handed them over to the Levites, " to every one according to the measure of his service^" i.e. to the different classes of Levites, according to the requirements of their respective duties. — Vers. 7-9. He gave two waggons and four oxen to the Gershonites, and four waggons and eight oxen to the Merarites, as the former had less weight to carry, in the coverings and curtains of the dwelhng and the hangings of the court, than the latter, who had to take charge of the beams and pillars (chap. iv. 24 sqq., 31 sqq.). " Under the hand of Itharnar^^ (ver. 8); as in chap. iv. 28, 33. The Kohathites received no waggon, because it was their place to attend to " the sanctuary" (the holy), i.e. the holy things, w^hich had to be conveyed upon their shoulders, and were provided with poles for the purpose (chap. iv. 4 sqq.).

Vers. 10-88. Presentation of dedicatory gifts for the altar. — Ver. 10. Every prince offered " the dedication of the altar/^ i.e. what served for the dedication of the altar, equivalent to his sacrificial gift for the consecration of the altar, " on the day,^ i.e. at the time, " that they anointed itJ^ " Day:" as in Gen. ii. 4. Moses was directed by God to receive the gifts from the princes on separate days, one after another; so that the presentation extended over twelve days. The reason for this regulation was not to make a greater display, as Knohel supposes, or to avoid cutting short the important ceremony of consecration, but was involved in the very nature of the gifts presented. Each prince, for example, offered, (1) a silver dish {kearah, Ex. ^xv. 29) of 130 sacred shekels weight, i.e. about 4J lbs.; (T) a silver howl {mizrak^ a sacrificial bowl, not a sacrificial can, or wine-can, as in Ex. xxvii. 3) of 70 shekels weight, both filled with fine flour mixed with oil for a meat-offering; (3) a golden spoon (caph, as in Ex. xxv. 29) filled with incense for an incense-offering; (4) a bullock^ a ram, and a sheep of a year old for a burnt-offering; (5) a shaggy goat for a sin-offering; (6) two oxen, five rams, five he-goats, and five sheep or a year old for a peaceoffering. Out of these gifts the fine flour, the incense, and the sacrificial animals were intended for sacrificing upon the altar, and that not as a provision for a lengthened period, but for immediate use in the way prescribed. This could not have been carried out if more than one prince had presented his gifts, and brought them to be sacrificed on any one day. For the limited space in the court of the tabernacle would not have allowed of 252 animals being received, slaughtered, and prepared for sacrificing all at once, or on the same day; and it would have been also impossible to burn 36 whole animals (oxen, rams, ^nd sheep), and the fat portions of 216 animals, upon the altar. — Vers. 12— 83* All the princes brought the same gifts. The order in which the twelve princes, whose names have already been given at chap. i. 5-15, made their presentation, corresponded to the order of the 'tribes in the camp (chap, ii.), the tribe-prince of Judah taking the lead, and the prince of Naphtali coming last. In the statements as to the weight of the silver kearoth and the golden cappoth, the vv^ord shekel is invariably omitted, as in Gen. xx. 16, etc. — In vers. 84-86, the dedication gifts are summed np, and the total weight given, viz. twelve silver dishes and twelve silver bowls, weighing together 2400 shekels, and. twelve golden spoons, weighing 120 shekels in all. On the sacred shekel, see at Ex. xxx. 13; and on the probable value of the shekel of gold^ at Ex. xxxviii. 24, 25. The sacrificial animals are added together in the same way in vers. 87, 88.

Yer. 89. Whilst the tribe-princes had thus given to the altar the consecration of a sanctuary of their God, through their sacrificial gifts, Jehovah acknowledged it as His sanctuary, by causing Moses, when he went into the tabernacle to speak to Him, and to present his own entreaties and those of the people, to-hear the voice of Him that spake to him from between the two cherubim upon the ark of the covenant. The suffix in ^riK points back to the name Jehovah, which, though not expressly mentioned before, is contained implicite in ohel moed, " the tent of meeting J^ For the holy tent became an ohel moed first of all, from the fact that it was there that Jehovah appeared to Moses, or met with him {^V^^, Ex.:?^xv. 22). ^^'Vr', part, Hithpaely to hold conversation. On the fact itself, see the explanation in Ex. XXV. 20, 22. " This voice from the inmost sanctuary to Moses, the representative of Israel, was Jehovah's reply to the joyfulness and readiness with which the princes of Israel responded to Him, and made the tent, so far as they were concerned, a place of holy meeting" (Baumg,), This was the reason for connecting the remark in ver. 89 with the account of the dedicatory gifts.

Chap. viii. Consecration of the Levites. — The command of God to consecrate the Levites for their service, is introduced in vers. 1-4 by directions issued to Aaron with regard, to the lighting of the candlestick in the dwelling of the tabernacle. Aaron was to place the seven lamps upon the candlestick' in such a manner that they would shine VJ3 7^D"?N. These directions are not a mere repetition, but also a more precise definition, of the general instructions given in Ex. xxv. 37, when the candlestick was made, to place the seven lamps upon the candlestick in such a manner that each should give light over against its front, Le» should throw its light upon the side opposite to the front of the candlestick (see vol. ii. p. 173). In itself, therefore, there is nothing at all striking in the renewal and explanation of those directions, which committed the task of lighting the lamps to Aaron; for this had not been done before, as Ex. xxvii. 21 merely assigns the daily preparation of the candlestick to Aaron and his sons; and their being placed in the connection in which we find them may be explained from the signification of the seven lamps in relation to the dwelling of God, viz. as indicating that Israel was thereby to be represented perpetually before the Lord as a people causing its light to shine in the darkness of this world (vol. ii. p. 174). And when Aaron is commanded to attend to the lighting of the candlestick, so that it may light up the dwelling, in these special instructions the entire fulfilment of his service in the dwelling is enforced upon him as a duty. In this respect the instructions themselves, coupled with the statement of the fact that Aaron had fulfilled them, stand quite appropriately between the account of what the tribe-princes had done for the consecration of the altar service as representatives of the congregation, and the account of the solemn inauguration of the Levites in their service in the sanctuary. The repetition on this occasion (ver. 4) of an allusion to the artistic character of the candlestick, which had been made according to the pattern seen by Moses in the mount (Ex. xxv. 31 sqq.), is quite in keeping w^ith the antiquated style of narrative adopted in these books.

Vers. 5-22. Consecration of the Levites for their service in the sanctuary. — The choice of the Levites for service in the sanctuary, in the place of the first-born of the people generally, has been already noticed in chap. iii. 5 sqq., and the duties binding upon them in chap. iv. 4 sqq. But before entering upon their duties they w^ere to be consecrated to the work, and then formally handed over to the priests. This consecration is commanded in vers. 7 sqq., and is not called t^^i?, like the consecration of the priests (Ex. xxix. 1; Lev. viii. 11), but "in^, to cleanse. It consisted in sprinkling them with sin-water, shaving off the whole of the hair from their bodies, and washing their clothes, accom-' panied by a sacrificial ceremony, by which they were presented symbolically to the Lord as a sacrifice for His service. The first part of this ceremony had reference to outward purification, and represented cleansing from the defilement of sin; hence the performance of it is called t^tsnnn (to cleanse from sin) in ver. 21. " SprinhU sin-water upon themP The \yords are addressed to Moses, who had to officiate at the inauguration of tlie Levites, as he had already done at that of the priests. " Water of sin" is water having reference to sin, designed to remove it, just as the sacrifice offered for the expiation of sin is called riKtjn (sin) in Lev. iv. 14, etc.; whilst the " water of uncleanness" in chap. xix. 9, 13, signifies water by which uncleanness was removed or wiped away. The nature of this purifying water is not explained, and cannot be determined with any certainty. We find directions for preparing sprinkling w^ater in a peculiar manner, for the purpose of cleansing persons who were cured of leprosy, in Lev. xiv. 5 sqq., 50 sqq.; and also for cleansing both persons and houses that had been defiled by a corpse, in chap. xix. 9 sqq. Neither of these, however, was applicable to the cleansing of the Levites, as they were both of them composed of significant ingredients, which stood in the closest I'elation to the special cleansing to be effected by them, and had evidently no adaptation to the purification of the Levites. At the same time, the expression " sin-water" precludes our understanding it to mean simply clean water. So that nothing remains but to regard it as referring to the water in the laver of the sanctuary, •which was provided for the purpose of cleansing the priests for the performance of their duties (Ex. xxx. 18 sqq.), and might therefore be regarded by virtue of this as cleansing from sin, and be called " sin-water" in consequence. " And they shall cause the razor to pass over their whole hody^^ Le. shave off all the hair upon their body, "anc? wash their clothes, and so cleanse themselves T "^VJ!} *i''?Vn is to be distinguished from n?;i. The latter signifies to make bald or shave the hair entirely off, which was required of the leper when he was cleansed (Lev. xiv. 8, 9); the former signifies merely cutting the hair, which was part of the regular mode of adorning the body. The Levites also were not required to bathe their bodies, as lepers were (Lev. xiv. 8, 9), and also the priests at their consecration (Lev. viii. 6), because they were not affected with any special uncleanness, and their duties did not require them to touch the most holy instruments of worship. The washing of the clothes, on the other hand, was a thing generally required as a preparation for acts of worship (Gen. xxxv. 2; Ex. xix. 10), and was omitted in the case of the consecration of the priests, simply because they received a holy official dress. 1'^'^tsn for ^"^[l^r^^ '^^ in 2 Chron. xxx. 18. — Ver. 8. After this purification the Levites were to bring two young bullocks, one with the corresponding meat-offering for a burnt-sacrifice, the other for a sin-offering. — Ver. 9. Moses was then to cause them to draw near before the tabernacle, i.e. to enter the court, and to gather together the whole congregation of Israel, viz. in the persons of their heads and representatives.-— Yer. 10. After this the Le\'ites were to come before Jehovah, i.e, in front of the altar; and the children of Israel, i.e. the tribe-princes in the name of the Israelites, were to lay their hands upon them, not merely "as a sign that they released them from the possession of the nation, and assigned them and handed them over to Jehovah'' {Knohel)y but in order that by this symbohcal act they might transfer to the Levites the obligation resting upon the whok nation to serve the Lord in the persons of its first-born sons, and might present them to the Lord as representatives of the first-born of Israel, to serve Him as living sacrifices.— Yer. 11. This transfer was to be completed by Aaron's waving the Levites as a wave-offering before Jehovah on behalf of the children of Israel, i.e. by his offering them symbolically to the Lord as a sacrifice presented on the part of the Israelites. The ceremony of waving consisted no doubt in his conducting the Levites solemnly up to the altar, and then back again. On the signification of the verb, see at Lev. vii. 30. The design of the waving is given in ver. 11, viz. " that they might he to perform the service of JehomW (vers. 24-26 compared with chap.

iv. 4-33). Yer. 12. The Levites were then to close this transfer of themselves to the Lord with a sin-offering and burnt-offering, in which they laid their hands upon the sacrificial animals. ^ By this imposition of hands they made the sacrificial animals their representatives, in which they presented their own bodies to the Lord as a living sacrifice well-pleasing to Him (see vol. ii. pp. 279, 280). The signification of the dedication of the Levites, as here enjoined, is still further explained in vers. 13-19. The meaning of vers. 13 sqq. is this: According to the command already given (in vers. 6-12), thou shalt place the Levites before Aaron and his sons, and wave them as a wave-offering before the Lord, and so separate them from the midst of the chHdren of Israel, that they may be Mine. They shall then come to serve the tabernacle. So shalt thou cleanse them and wave them. The same reason is assigned for this in vers. 16, 17, as in chap. iii. 11-13 (i^ -^^32 for ^"^^^^ cf. chap. lii. 13); and in vers. 18 and 19, what was commanded in chap. iii. 6-9 is described as having been carried out. On ver. 196 see chap. i. 53. — Yers. 20-22 contain an account of the execution of the divine twenty-five years of age and upwards to the fiftieth year. " This is what concerns the Levites,'" i.e. what follows applies to the Levites. " From the age of twenty-Jive years shall lie (the Levite) come to do service at the work of the tabernacle; and at fifty years of age shall he return from the service of the work, and not work any further, but only serve his brethren at the tabernacle in keeping charge^* i.e. help them to look after the furniture of the tabernacle. " Charge" (mishmereth)y as distinguished from " work," signified the oversight of all the furniture of the tabernacle (see chap. iii. 8); " work" (service) applied to laborious service, e.g. the taking down and setting up of the tabernacle and cleaning it, carrying wood and water for the sacrificial worship, slaying the animals for the daily and festal sacrifices of the congregation, etc. — Ver. 266. " So shalt thou do to the Levites (i.e. proceed with them) in their servicesJ^ ni^w'p from rnwrpy attendance upon an official post. Both the heading and final clause, by which this law relating to the Levites* period of service is bounded, and its position immediately after the induction of the Levites into their office, show uumistakeably that this law was binding for all time, and was intended to apply to the standing service of the Levites at the sanctuary; and consequently that it was not at variance with the instructions in chap, iv., to muster the Levites between thirty and fifty years of age, and organize them for the transport of the tabernacle on the journey through the wilderness (chap. iv. 3-49). The transport of the tabernacle required the strength of a full-grown man, and therefore the more advanced age of thirty years; whereas the duties connected with the tabernacle when standing were of a lighter description, and could easily be performed from the twenty-fifth year (see Hengstenberg^s Dissertations, vol. ii. pp. 321 sqq.). At a later period, when the sanctuary was permanently established on Mount Zion, David employed the Levites from their twentieth year (1 Chron. xxiii. 24, 25), and expressly stated that he did so because the Levites had no longer to carry the dwelling and its furniture; and this regulation continued in force from that time forw^ard (cf. 2 Chron. xxxi. 17; Ezra iii. 8). But if the supposed discrepancy between the verses before us and chap. iv. 3, 47, is removed by this distinction, which is gathered in the most simple manner from the context, there is no ground whatever for critics to deny that the regulation before us could have proceeded from the pen of the Elohist.

FOR A Supplementary Passover. — ^Verg. 1-5. On the first institution of the Passover, before the exodus from Egypt, God had appointed the observance of this feast as an everlasting statute for all future generations (Ex. xii. 14, 24, 25). In the first month of the second year after the exodus, that is to say, immediately after the erection of the tabernacle (Ex. xL 2, 17), this command was renewed, and the people were commanded " to keep the Passover in its appointed season, according to all its statutes and rights;" not to postpone it, that is, according to an interpretation that might possibly have been put upon Ex. xii. 24, 25, until they came to Canaan, but to keep it there at Sinai. And Israel kept it in the wilderness of Sinai, in exact accordance with the commands which God had given before (Ex. xii.). There is no express command, it is true, that the blood of the paschal lambs, instead of being smeared upon the lintel and posts of the house-doors (or the entrances to the tents), was to be sprinkled upon the altar of burntoffering; nor is it recorded that this was actually done; but it followed of itself from the altered circumstances, inasmuch as there was no destroying angel to pass through the camp at Sinai and smite the enemies of Israel, whilst there was an altar in existence now upon which all the sacrificial blood was to be poured out, and therefore the blood of the paschal sacrifice also.^

^ If we take into consideration still further, the fact that the law had already been issued that the blood of all the animals slain for food, whether inside or outside the camp, was to be sprinkled upon the altar (Lev. xvii. 3-6), there can be no doubt that the blood of the paschal lambs would also have to be sprinkled upon the altar,, notwithstanding the difficulties referred to by Kurtz, arising from the small number of priests to perform the task, viz. Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar, as Nadab and Abihu were now dead. But (1) Kurtz estimates the number of paschal lambs much too high, viz. at 100,000 to 140,000; for when he reckons the whole number of the people at about two millions, and gives one lamb upon an average to every fifteen or twenty persons, he includes infants and sucklings among those who partook of the Passover. But as thffl^ were only 603,550 males of twenty years old and upwards in the twelve tribes, we cannot reckon more than about 700,000 males as participants in the paschal meal, since the children under ten or twelve years of age would not come into the calculation, even if those who were between eight and twelve partook of the meal, siikce there would be many adults who could not eat the Passover, because they were unclean. Now if, as Josephus affirms {de hell. jud. vi. 9, 3), there were never less than ten, and often as many as twenty, who joined together in the time of Christ {oiiK tT^aaaov xvhpuv §£»«... 'xoXhol S« xctl avu uKQaiv d&pol^ovrect), we need not assume that there were more than 50,000 lambs required for the feast of Passover at Sinai; because even if all the women who were clean took part in ih» feast, they would confine tiiem-

Vers. 6-14. There were certain men who were defiled by human corpses (see Lev. xix. 28), and could not eat the Passover on the day appointed. These men came to Moses, and asked, " WIii/ are we diminished (prevented) from offering the sacrificial gift of Jehovah at its season in the midst of the children of Israel (i.e. in common with the rest of the Israelites) V* The exclusion of persons defiled from offering the Passover followed from the law, that only clean persons were to participate in a sacrificial meal (Lev. vii. 21), and that no one could offer any sacrifice in an unclean state. — Ver. 8. Moses told them to wait (stand), and he would hear what the Lord, of whom he would inquire, would command. — Vers. 9 sqq. Jehovah gave these general instructions: ''Every one who is defiled hy a corpse or upon a distant^ journey, of you and your future families, shall keep the Passover in the second month on the fourteenth, between the tido evenings" and that in all respects according to the statute of this feast, the three leading points of which — viz. eating the lamb with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, leaving nothing till the next day, and not breaking a bone (Ex. xii. 8, 10, 46) — are repeated selves as much as possible to the quantity actually needed, and one whole sheep of a year old would furnish flesh enough for one supper for fifteen males and fifteen females. (2) The slaughtering of all these lambs need not have taken place in the narrow space afforded by the court, even if it was afterwards performed in the more roomy courts of the later temple, as has been inferred from 2 Chron. xxx. 16 and xxxv. 11. Lastly, the sprinkling of the blood was no doubt the business of the priests. But the Levites assisted them, so that they sprinkled the blood upon the altar " out of the hand of the Levites*' (2 Chron. xxx. 16). Moreover, we are by no means in a condition to pronounce positively whether three priests were sufficient or not at Sinai, because we have no precise information respecting the course pursued. The altar, no doubt, would appear too small for the performance of the whole within the short time of hardly three hours (from the ninth hour of the day to the eleventh). But if it was possible, in the time of the Emperor Nero, to sprinkle the blood of 256,500 paschal lambs (for tliat number was actually counted under Cestius; see Josephus^ K c.) upon the altar of the temple of that time, which was six, or eight, on even ten times larger, ill; must have been also possible, in Moses' time, for the blood of 50,000 lambs to be sprinkled upon the altar of the tabernacle, which was five cubits in length, and the same in breadth.

^ The nphi is marked as suspicious by puncta extraordinaria, probably first of all simply on the ground that the more exact definition is not found in ver. 13. The Rabbins suppose the marks to indicate that rechokah is not to be taken here in its literal sense, but denotes merely distance from Jerusalem, or from the threshold of the outer court of the temple. See Mishnah Pesach ix. 2, with the commentaries of Bartenora and Maimonides, and the conjectures of the PesiJcta on the ten passages in the Pentateuch with punctis extraordi- Tiariis^ in Driisii notas uberiores ad h. v.

here. But lest any one should pervert this permission, to celebrate the Passover a month later in case of insuperable difficulties, which had only been given for the purpose of enforcing the obligation to keep the covenant meal upon every member of the nation, into an excuse for postponing it without any necessity and merely from indifference, on the ground that he could make it up afterwards, the threat is held out in ver. 13, that whoever should omit to keep the feast at the legal time, if he was neither unclean nor upon a journey, should be cut off; and in ver. 14 the command is repeated with reference to foreigners, that they were also to keep the law and ordinance with the greatest minuteness when they observed the Passover: cf. Ex. xii. 48, 49, according to which the stranger was required first of all to let himself be circumcised. In ver. 14^, n\T stands for "Triri, as in Ex. xii. 49; cf. Ewald, § 295, d, ^,,, ] et,,. etj both... and.

With the mustering of the people and the internal organization of the congregation, the preparations for the march from the desert of Sinai to the promised land of Canaan were completed; and when the feast of the Passover was ended, the time for leaving Sinai had arrived. Nothing now remained to be noticed except the required instructions respecting the guidance of the people in their journey through the wilderness, to which the account of the actual departure and march is appended. The account before us describes first of all the manner in which God Himself conducted the march (chap, ix. 15-23); and secondly, instructions are given respecting the signals to be used for regulating the order of the march (chap. x. 1-10).

Chap. ix. 15-23. Signs for removing and encamping. — On their way through the desert from the border of Egypt to Sinai, Jehovah Himself had undertaken to guide His people by a cloudy as the visible sign and vehicle of His gracious presence (Ex. xiii. 21, 22). This cloud had come down upon the dwelling when the tabernacle was erected, whilst the glory of the Lord filled the holy of holies (Ex. xl. 34-38). In ver. 15 the historian refers to this fact, and then describes more fully what had been already briefly alluded to in Ex. xl. 36, 37, namely, that when the cloud rose up from the dwelling of the tabernacle it was a sign for removing, and when it came down upon the dwelling, a sign for encamping. In ver. 15a, ^^ on the day of the setting 2ip of the dwelling j^^ Ex. xl. 34, 35, is resunved; and in ver. 15b the appearance of the cloud during the night, from evening till morning, is described in accordance with Ex. xl. 38. (On the fact itself, see the exposition of Ex. xiii. 21, 22.) nnvn br\kh J3^'p, " the dwelling of the tent of witness " ('' used for the genitive to avoid a double construct state: Ewald, § 292, a). In the place of ohel moed, " tent of the meeting of Jehovah with His people," we have here " tent of witness " (or " testimony"), i.e. of the tables with the decalogue which were laid up in the ark of the covenant (Ex. xxv. 16), because the decalogue formed the basis of the covenant of Jehovah with Israel, and the pledge of the gracious presence of the Lord in the tabernacle. In the place of " dwellings of the tent of witness," we have " dwelling of witness " (testimony) in chap. x. 11, and " tent of witness" in chap, xviii. 2, xvii. 22, to denote the whole dwelling, as divided into the holy place and the holy of holies, and not the holy of holies alone. This is unmistakeably evident from a comparison of the verse before us with Ex. xl. 34, according to which the cloud covered not merely one portion of the tabernacle, but the whole of the tent of meeting (ohel moed). The rendering, " the cloud covered the dwelling at the tent of witness," i.e, at that part of it in which the witness (or ** testimony") was kept, viz. the holy of holies, which Rosenmaller and Knohel adopt, cannot be sustained, inasmuch as b has no such meaning, but simply conveys the idea of motion and passage into a place or condition (cf. JSwald, § 217, <i); and the dwelling or tabernacle was not first made into the tent of witness through the cloud which covered it. — Ver. 16. The covering of the dwelling, with the cloud which shone by night as a fiery look, was constant, and not merely a phenomenon which appeared when the tabernacle was first erected, and then vanished away again. — Ver. 17. '^ In accordance with the rising of the cloud from the tent, then afterward,s the children of Israel broke wp^"* i.e. whenever the cloud ascended up from the tent, they always broke up immediately afterwards; " and at the place where the cloud came down, there they encamped^ The i??^j or settling down of the cloud, sc, upon the tabernacle, we can only understand in the following manner, as the tabernacle w^as all taken to pieces during the march: viz. that the cloud visibly descended from the height at which it ordinarily soared above the ark of the covenant, as it was carried in front of the army, for a signal that the tabernacle was to be set up there; and when this had been done, it settled down upon it. — Yer. 18. As Jehovah was with His people in the cloud, the rising and falling of the cloud was " the command of the Lord" to the Israelites to break up or to pitch the camp. As long, therefore, as the cloud rested upon the dwelling, i.e. remained stationary, they continued their encampment.— Vers. 19 sqq. Whether it might rest many days long (^''l^^n, to lengthen out the resting), or only a few days (Gen. xxxiv. 30), or only from evening till morning, and then rise up again in the morning, or for a day and a night, or for two days, or for a month, or for days (yamim), i.e. sl space of time not precisely determined (cf. Gen. iv. 3, xl. 4), they encamped without departing. " Kept the charge of the Lord'^ (vers. 19 and 23), i.e, observed what was to be observed towards Jehovah (see Lev. viii. 35). With ^^^? K^."'1, " was it that," or " did it happen that," two other possible cases are introduced. After ver. 20a, the apodosis, " they kept the charge of the Lordy^ is to be repeated in thought from ver. 19. The elaboration of the account (vers. 15-23), which abounds with repetitions, is intended to bring out the importance of the fact, and to awaken the consciousness not only of the absolute dependence of Israel upon the guidance of Jehovah, but also of the gracious care of their God, which was thereby displayed to the Israelites throughout all their joumeyings.

Chap. X. 1-10. The Silver Signal-Trumpets. — Although God Himself appointed the time for removal and encampment by the movement of the cloud of His presence, signals were also requisite for ordering and conducting the march of so numerous a body, by means of which Moses, as commander-in-chief, might make known his commands to the different divisions of the camp. To this end God directed him to prepare two silver trumpets of beaten work (mikshah, see Ex. xxv. 18), which should serve " for the calling of the assembly, and for the breaking up of the camps," i,e, which were to be used for this purpose. The form of these trumpets is not further described. No doubt they were straight, not curved, as we may infer both from the representation of these trumpets on the triumphal arch of Titus at Home, and also from the fact, that none but straight trumpets occur on the old Egyptian monuments (see my Arch. ii. p. 187). With regard to the use of them for calling the congregation, the following directions are given in vers. 3, 4: " When they shall blow with them (i.e. with both), the whole congregation (in all its representatives) shall assemble at the door of the tabernacle; if they Mow with only one, the princes or heads of the families of Israel shall assemble together." — Vers. 5, 6. To give the signal for breaking up the camp, they were to blow nV'nri^ i.e. a noise or alarm. At the first blast the tribes on the east, i.e, those who were encamped in the front of the tabernacle, were to break up; at the second, those who were encamped on the south; and so on in the order prescribed in chap, ii., though this is not expressly mentioned here. The alarm was to be blown Dn^yiDpPj with regard to their breaking up or marching. — Ver. 7. But to call the congregation together they were to bloiv, not to sound an alarm. V?^ signifies blowing in short, sharp tones. y''"}n = nynn Vi?^, blowing in a continued peal. — Vers. 8-10. These trumpets were to be used for the holy purposes of the congregation generally, and therefore not only the making, but the manner of using them was prescribed by God Himself. They were to be blown by the priests alone, and " to be for an eternal ordinance to the families of Israel/^ i.e. to be preserved and used by them in all future times, according to the appointment of God. The blast of these trumpets was to call Israel to remembrance before Jehovah in time of war and on their feast-days. — Ver. 9. " ^f ye 90 to war in your land against the enemy who oppresses you, and ye blow the trumpets, ye shall bring yourselves to remembrance before Jehovah, and shall be saved (by Him) from your enemies!^ '^'?C''9 ^^^j ^^ come into war, or go to war, is to be distinguished from ^Dnfep t5i2, to make ready for war, go out to battle (chap. xxxi. 21, xxxii. 6). — Ver. 10. " And on your joyous day, and your feasts and new moons, ye shall blow the trumpets over your burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, that they may be to you for a memorial (remembrance) before your God." — nnpK^n Di** is any day on which a practical expression was given to their joy, in the form of a sacrifice. The Ci''7^j^ are the feasts enumerated in chaps, xxviii. and xxix. and Lev. xxiii. The " beginnings of the months," or new-moon days, were not, strictly speaking, feast-days, with the exception of the seventh new moon of the year (see at chap, xxviii. 11). On the object, viz. '^ for a memorial" see Ex. xxviii. 29, and the explanation, vol. ii. p. 199. In accordance with this divine appointment, so full of promise, we find that in after times the trumpets were blown by the priests in war (chap. xxxi. 6; 2 Chron. xiii. 12, 14, xx. 21, 22, 28) as well as on joyful occasions, such as at the removal of the ark (1 Chron. XV. 24, xvi. 6), at the consecration of Solomon's temple (2 Chron. v. *12, vii. 6), the laying of the foundation of the second temple

The straight and shortest way from Sinai to Kadesh, on the southern border of Canaan, was only a journey of eleven days (Deut. i. 2). By this road God led His people, whom He had received into the covenant of His grace at Sinai, and placed under the discipline of the law, to the ultimate object of their journey through the desert; so that, a few months after leaving Horeb or Sinai, the Israelites had already arrived at Kadesh, in the desert of Zin, on the southern border of the promised land, and were able to send out men as spies, to survey the inheritance of which they were to take possession. The way from Sinai to the desert of Zin forms the first stage in the history of the guidance of Israel through the wilderness to Canaan.

Removal of the Camp from the Desert o/ aSiWz.— Chap. x. 11-36.

Vers. 11, 12. After all the preparations were completed for the journey of the Israelites from Sinai to Canaan, on the 20th day of the second month, in the second year, the cloud rose up from the tent of witness, and the children of Israel broke up out of the desert of Sinai, ^^n'^ysp^, " according to their journeys" (lit, breakings up; see at Gen. xiii* 3 and Ex. 37), Le, in the order prescribed in chap. ii. 9, 16, 24, 31, and described in vers. 14 sqq. of this chapter. " And the cloud rested in the desert of Parang In these words, the whole journey from the desert of Sinai to the desert of Paran is given summarily, or as a heading; and the more minute description follows from ver. 14 to chap. xii. 16. The ''desert of Paran'' was not the first station, but the third; and the Israehtes did not arrive at it till after they had left Hazeroth (chap. xii. 16). The desert of Sinai is mentioned as the starting-point of the journey through the desert, in contrast with the desert of Paran, in the neighbourhood of Kadesh, whence the spies were sent out to Canaan (cliap. xiii. 2, 21), tlie goal and termination of their journey through the desert. That the words, ^^ the cloud rested in the desert of Paran" (ver. 126), contain a prehminary statement (Hke Gen. xxvii. 23, xxxvii. 5, as compared with ver. 8, and 1 Kings vi. 9 as compared with ver. 14, etc.), is unmistakeably apparent, from the fact that Moses' negotiations with Hobab, respecting his accompanying the Israehtes to Canaan, as a guide who knew the road, are noticed for the first time in vers. 29 sqq., although they took place before the departure from Sinai, and that after this the account of the breaking-up is resumed in ver. 33, and the journey itself described. Hence, although Kurtz (iii. 220) rejects this explanation of ver. 126 as " forced," and regards the desert of Paran as a place df encampment between Tabeerah and Kibroth-hattaavah, even he cannot help identifying the breaking-up described- in ver. 33 with that mentioned in ver. 12; that is to say, regarding ver. 12 as a summary of the events which are afterwards more fully described.

The desert of Paran is the large desert plateau which is bounded on the east by the Arabah, the deep valley running from the southern point of the Dead Sea to the Elanitic Gulf, and stretches westwards to the desert of Shur (Jifar; see Gen. xvi. 7; Ex. xv. 22), that separates Egypt from Philistia: it reaches southwards to Jebel et Tih, the foremost spur of the Horeb mountains, and northwards to the mountains of the Amorites, the southern border of Canaan. The origin and etymology of the name are obscure. The opinion that it was derived from "iVS, to open wide, and originally denoted the broad valley of Wady Murreh, between the Hebrew Negeb and the desert of Tih, and w^as then transferred to the whole district, has very little probability in it {KnoheT), All that can be regarded as certain is, that the El-Paran of Gen. xiv. 6 is a proof that in the very earliest times the name was applied to the whole of the desert of Tih down to the Elanitic Gulf, and that the Paran of the Bible had no historical connection either w^ith the KCDiJLT) ^apav and tribe of ^apavcrac mentioned hj PtoL (v. 17, i. 3), or with the town of ^apdv, of which the remains are still to be seen in the Wady Feiran at Serbal, or with the tower of Faran Ahrun of Edrisi, the modern Hammdn Faraun^ on the Eed Sea, to the south of the Wady Gharandel. By the Arabian geographers, Isztachri, Kazwini, and others, and also by the Bedouins, it is called et Tih, i.e. the wandering of the children of Israel, as being the ground upon which the children of Israel wandered about in the wilderness for forty years (or more accurately, thirty-eight). This desert plateau, which is thirty German miles (150 English) long from south to north, and almost as broad, consists, according to Arabian geographers, partly of sand and partly of firm soil, and is intersected through almost its entire length by the Wady el Arish, which commences at a short distance from the northern extremity of the southern border mountains of et Tih, and runs in nearly a straight line from south to north, only turning in a north-westerly direction towards the Mediterranean Sea, on the north-east of the Jebel el Helal. This wady divides the desert of Paran into a western and an eastern half. The western half lies lower than the eastern, and slopes off gradually, without any perceptible natural boundary, into tlie flat desert of Shur (Jifar), on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea. The eastern half (between the Arabah and the Wady el Arish) consists throughout of a lofty mountainous country, intersected by larger and smaller wadys, and with extensive table-land between the loftier ranges, which slopes off somewhat in a northerly direction, its southern edge being formed by the eastern spurs of the JeBel et Tih. It is intersected by the Wady el Jerafeh, which commences at the foot of the northern slope of the mountains of Tih, and after proceeding at first in a northerly direction, turns higher up in a north-easterly direction towards the Arabah, but rises in its northern portion to a strong mountain fortress, which is called, from its present inhabitants, the highlands of the Azazimehy and is bounded on both south and north by steep and lofty mountain ranges. The southern boundary is formed by the range which connects the Araif en Nakha with the Jehel el Mukrah on the east; the northern boundary, by the mountain barrier which stretches along the Wady Murreh from west to east, and rises precipitously from it, and of which the following description has been given by Rowland and Williams, the first of modern travellers to visit this district, who entered the terra incognita by proceeding directly south from Hebron, past Arara or Aroer, and surveyed it from the border of the Rachmah plateau, i.e, of the mountains of the Amorites (Deut. i. 7, 20, 44), or the southernmost plateau of the mountains of Judah (see at chap. xiv. 45): — " A gigantic

mountain towered above us in savage grandeur, with masses of naked rock, resembling the bastions of some Cyclopean architecture, the end of which it was impossible for the eye to reach, towards either the west or the east. It extended also a long way towards the south; and with its rugged, broken, and dazzling masses of chalk, which reflected the burning rays of the sun, it looked like an unapproachable furnace, a most fearful desert, without the slightest trace of vegetation. A broad defile, called Wady Murreh, ran at the foot of this bulwark, towards the east; and after a course of several miles, on reaching the strangely formed mountain of Moddera (Madurah), it is divided into two parts, the southern branch still retaining the same name, and running eastwards to the Arabah, whilst the other was called Wady Fikreh, and ran in a northeasterly direction to the Dead Sea. This mountain barrier proved to us beyond a doubt that we were now standing on the southern boundary of the promised land; and we were confirmed in this opinion by the statement of the guide, that Kadesh was only a few hours distant from the point where we were standing" (Bitter, xiv.

p. 1084). The place of encampment in the desert of Paran is to be sought for at the north-west corner of this lofty mountain range (see at chap. xii. 16).

In vers. 13-28 the remov^al of the different camps is more fully described, according to the order of march established in chap, ii., the order in which the different sections of the Levites drew out and marched being particularly described in this place alone (cf. vers. 17 and 21 with chap. ii. 17). First of all (lit, " at the beginning^^) the banner of Judah drew out, with Issachar and Zebulun (vers. 14—16; cf. chap. ii. 3—9). The tabernacle was then taken down, and the Gershonites and Merarites broke up, carrying those portions of it which were assigned to them (ver. 17; cf. chap, iv. 24 sqq., and 31 sqq.), that they might set up the dwelling at the place to be chosen for the next encampment, before the Kohathites arrived with the sacred things (ver. 21). The banner of Reuben followed next with Simeon and Gad (vers. 18—21; cf. chap. ii. 10-16), and the Kohathites joined them bearing the sacred things (ver. 21). ^"^i^tp^ (= ^y^, chap. vii. 9, and ^'p']^}'} ^p, chap. iv. 4) signifies the sacred things mentioned in chap. iii. 31. In ver. 21b the subject is the Gershonites and Merarites, who had broken up before with the component parts of the dwelling, and set up the dwelling, D^fiIl■^5;J against their (the Kohathites') arrival, so that they might place the holy things at once within it. — Vers. 22-28. Behind the sacred things came the banners of Ephraim, with Manasseh and Benjamin (see c*hap. ii. 18-24), and Dan with Asher and Naphtali (chap. ii. 25—31); so that the camp of Dan was the " collector of all the camps according to their hosts^^ Le. formed that division of the army which kept the hosts together.

Vers. 29-32. The conversation in which Moses persuaded Hohab the Midianite, the son of Keguel (see at Ex. ii. 16), and his brotherin-law, to go with the Israelites, and being well acquainted with the desert to act as their leader, preceded the departure in order of time; but it is placed between the setting out and the march itself, as being subordinate to the main events. When and why Ilobab came into the camp of the Israelites, — whether he came with his father Reguel (or Jethro) when Israel first arrived at Horeb, and so remained behind when Jethro left (Ex. xviii. 27), or whether he did not come till afterwards, — was left uncertain, because it was a matter of no consequence in relation to what is narrated here.^ The request addressed to Hobab, that he would go with them to the place which Jehovah had promised to give them, i.e, to Canaan, was supported by the promise that he would do good to them (Hobab and his company), as Jehovah had spoken good concerning Israel, i.e. had promised it prosperity in Canaan. And when Hobab declined the request, and said that he should return into his own land, i.e. to Midian at the south-east of Sinai (see at Ex. ii. 15 and iii. 1), and to his kindred, Moses repeated the request, ''Leave us not, forasmuch as iliou knowest our encamping in the desert,^ i.e. knowest where we can pitch our tents; " therefore he to us as eyeSj^ i.e. be our leader and guide, — and promised at the same time to do him the good that Jehovah would do to them. Although Jehovah led the march of the Israelites in the pillar of cloud, not only giving the sign for them to break up and to encamp, but showing generally the direction they were to take; yet Hobab, who was well acquainted with the desert, would be able to render very important service to the Israelites, if he only pointed out, in those places where the sign to encamp was given by the cloud, the

^ The grounds upon which Knobel affirms that the "Elohist" is not the author of the account in vers. 29-36, and pronounces it a Jehovistic interpolation, are perfectly futile. The assertion that the Elohist had already given a full description of the departure in vers. 11-28, rests upon an oversight of the peculiarities of the Semitic historians. The expression " they set forward" in ver. 28 is an anticipatory remark, as Knobel himself admits in other places (e.g. Gen. vii. 12, viii. 3; Ex. vii. 6, xii. 50, xvi. 34). The other argument, that Moses' brother-in-law is not mentioned anywhere else, involves a petltio principii, and is just as powerless a proof, as such peculiarities of style as "mount of the Lord," " ark of the covenant of the Lord," ^''pTI to do good (ver. 29), and others of a similar kind, of which the critics have not even attempted to prove that they are at variance with the style of the Elohist, to say nothing of their having actually done so.

springs, oases, and plots of pasture which are often buried quite out of sight in the mountains and valleys that overspread the desert. What Ilobab ultimately decided to do, we are not told; but " as no further refusal is mentioned, and the departure of Israel is related immediately afterwards, he probably consented'* (Knohel), This is raised to a certainty by the fact that, at the commencertient of the period of the Judges, the sons of the brother-in-law of Moses went into the desert of Judah to the south of Arad along with the sons of Judah (Judg. i. 16), and therefore had entered Canaan with the Israelites, and that they were still living in that neighbourhood in the time of Saul (1 Sam. xv. 6, xxvii. 10, xxx. 29).

Vers. 33-36. " And they (the Israelites) departed from the mount of Jehovah (Ex. iii. 1) three days journey; the ark of the covenant of Jehovah going before them, to search out a resting-place for them. And the cloud of Jehovah was over them by day, when they broke up from the campT Jehovah still did as He had already done on the way to Sinai (Ex. xiii. 21, 22): He went before them in the pillar of cloud, according to His promise (Ex. xxxiii. 13), on their journey from Sinai to Canaan; with this simple difference, however, that henceforth the cloud that embodied the presence of Jehovah was connected with the ark of the covenant, as the visible throne of His gracious presence which had been appointed by Jehovah Himself, To this end the ark of the covenant was carried separately from the rest of the sacred things, in front of the whole army; so that the cloud which went before them floated above the ark, leading the procession, and regulating its movements and the direction it took in such a manner that the permanent connection between the cloud and the sanctuary might be visibly manifested even during their march. It is true that, in the order observed in the camp and on the nlarch, no mention is made of the ark of the covenant going in front of the whole army; but this omission is no more a proof of any discrepancy between this verse and chap. ii. 17, or of a difference of authorship, than the separation of the different divisions of the Levites upon the march, which is also not mentioned in chap, ii. 17, although the Gershonites and Merarites actually marched between the banners of Judah and Reuben, and the Kohathites with the holy things between the banners of Keuben and Ephraim (vers. 17 and 21).^ The words, "the cloud was above them" (the Israelites), and so forth, can be reconciled with this supposition

^ As the critics do not deny that vers. 11-28 are written by the " Elohist" notwithstanding this difference, they have no right to bring forward the account without any difficulty, whether we understand them as signifying that the cloud, which appeared as a guiding column floating above the ark and moved forward along with it, also extended itself along the whole procession, and spread out as a protecting shade over the whole army (as 0. v. Gerlach and Baumgarten suppose), or that " above them" (upon them) is to be regarded as expressive of the fact that it accompanied them as a protection and shade. Nor is Ps. cv. 39, which seems, so far as the words are concerned, rather to favour the first explanation, really at variance with this view; for the Psalmist's intention is not so much to give a physical description of the phenomenon, as to describe the sheltering protection of God in poetical words as a spreading out of the cloud above the wandering people of God, in the form of a protection against both heat and rain (cf. Isa. iv. 5, 6). Moreover, vers. 336 and 34 have a poetical character, answering to the elevated nature of their subject, and are to be intei'preted as follows according to the laws of a poetical parallelism: The one thought that the ark of the covenant, with the cloud soaring above it, led the way and sheltered those who were marching, is divided into two clauses; in ver. 336 only the ark of the covenant is mentioned as going in front of the Israelites, and in ver. 34 only the cloud as a shelter over them: whereas the carrying of the ark in front of the army could only accomplish the end proposed, viz. to search out a resting-place for them, by Jehovah going above them in the cloud, and showing the bearers of the ark both the way they were to take, and the place where they were to rest. The ark with the tables of the law is not called " the ark of testimony " here, according to its contents, as in Ex. XXV. 22, xxvi. 33, 34, xxx. 6, etc., but the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, according to its design and signification for Israel, which was the only point, or at any rate the principal point, in consideration here. The resting-place which the ark of the covenant found at the end of three days, is not mentioned in ver. 34; it was not Tabeerah, however (chap. xi. 3), but Kibroth-hattaavah (chap. xi. 34, 35; cf. chap, xxxiii. 16).

In vers. 35 and 36, the words which Moses was in the habit of uttering, both when the ark removed and when it came to rest again, are given not only as a proof of the joyous confidence of Moses, but as an encouragement to the congregation to cherish the same believing confidence. When breaking up, he said, " Rise up, of the ark going first a^a contradiction to chap, ii., and therefore a proof that vers. S3 sqq. are not of Elohistic origin.

Jehovah! that Thine enemies may he scattered, and they t/iat hate Thee may flee before Thy face;' and when it rested, " Return, Jehovah, to the ten thousand thousands of Is7'ael T' Moses could speak in this way, because he knew that Jehovah and the ark of the covenant were inseparably connected, and saw in the ark of the covenant, as the throne of Jehovah, a material pledge of the gracious presence of the Almighty God. He said this, however, not merely with reference to enemies who might encounter the Israelites in the desert, but with a confident anticipation of the callino* of Israel, to strive for the cause of the Lord in this hostile world, and rear His kingdom upon earth. Human power was not sufficient for this; but to accomplish this end, it was necessary that the Almighty God should go before His people, and scatter their foes. The prayer addressed to God to do this, is an expression of bold believing confidence, — a prayer sure of its answer; and to Israel it was the word with which the congregation of God was to carr^^ on the conflict at all times against the powers and authorities)f a whole hostile world. It is in this sense that in Ps. Ixviii. 2, the words are held up by David before himself and his generation as a banner of victory, " to arm the Church with confidence, and fortify it against the violent attacks of its foes" (^Calvin). ^^'^^ is construed with an accusative: return to the ten thousands of the hosts of Israel, Le, after having scattered Thine enemies, turn back again to Thy people to dwell among them. The " thousands of Israel," as in chap. i. 16.^

1 The inverted nuns^ C, at the beginning and close of vers. 35, 36, which are found, according to R. MenacJierri's de Lonzano Or Torah (f. 17), in all the

Spanish and German MSS., and are sanctioned by the Masorah, are said by the

Talmud {tract de sahhatho) to be merely signa parentheseos^ quas monerent praeter

Jiistorise seriem versum 35 et 36 ad capitis finem inseri (cf. Matt. Hilleri de

Arcano KetJiib et Keri lihri duo, pp. 158, 159). The Cabbalists, on the other hand, according to R. Menach. 1. c, find an allusion in it to the JShecMnah^

'* quse velut ohversa ad tergum facie sequentes Israelitas ex impenso amore respi- which are supported by the Masora Erffurt, the inverted nun is found in the endum ut sic retrorsum agantur omnes Jiostes IsraeWarum; the second, ut esset symholum perpetuum perversitatis populi, inter tot illustria signa liherationis et maximorum benejiciorum Dei acerbe quiritantium, ad declarandam ingratitudinem et contumaciam suam (cf. J. Bnxtorf Tiberias, p. 169).

Vers. 1-3. After a three days' march the Israelites arrived at a resting-place; but the people began at once to be discontented with their situation.^ The people were like those who complain in the ears of Jehovah of something had; i.e. they behaved like persons who groan and murmur because of some misfortune that has happened to them. No special occasion is mentioned for the complaint. The words are expressive, no doubt, of the general dissatisfaction and discontent of the people at the difficulties and privations connected with the journey through the wilderness, to wdiich they gave utterance so loudly, that their complaining reached the ears of Jehovah. At this His wrath burned, inasmuch as the complaint was directed against Him and His guidance, " so that fire of Jehovah burned aga nst them, and ate at the end of the camp." ^ "ii^|i signifies here, not to burn a person (Job i. 16), but to burn against. " Fire of Jeh ^vah;" a fire sent by Jehovah, but not proceeding directly from f/(L Hin., or bursting forth from the cloud, as in Lev. x. 2. Whether it was kindled through a flash of lightning, or in some other such way, cannot be more exactly determined. There is not sufficient ground for the supposition that the fire merely seized upon the bushes about the camp and the tents of the people, but not upon human beings (Ros., Knohel). All that is plainly taught in the words is, that the fire did not extend over the whole camp, but merely broke out at one end of it, and sank down again, i.e. was extinguished very quickly, at the intercession of Moses; so that in this judgment the Lord merely manifested His power to destroy the murmurers, that He might infuse into the whole nation a wholesome dread of His holy majesty. — Ver. 3. From this judgment the place where the fire had burned received the name of " Taheerahj^ i.e. burning, or place of burning. Now, as this spot is distinctly described as the end or outermost edge of the camp, this " place

^ The arguments by which Knohel undertakes to prove, that in chaps, xi. and xii. of the original work different foreign accounts respecting the first encampments after leaving Sinai have been woven together by the " Jehovist," are founded upon misinterpretations and arbitrary assumptions and canclusions, such as the assertion that the tabernacle stood outside the camp (chaps, xi. 25, xii. 5); that Miriam entered the tabernacle (chap. xii. 4, 5); that the original work had already reported the arrival of Israel in Par an in chap. x. 12; and that no reference is ever made to a camping-place called Tabeerah, and others of the same kind. For the proof, see the explanation of the verses referred to.

of burning" must not be regarded, as it is by Knohel and others, as a different station from the " graves of hist." Tabeerah was simply the local name given to a distant part of the whole camp, which received soon after the name of Kihroth-Hattaavah, on account of the greater judgment which the people brought upon themselves through their rebellion. This explains not only the omission of the name Tabeerah from the list of encampments in chap, xxxiii. 16, but also the circumstance, that nothing is said about any removal from Tabeerah to Kibroth-Hattaavah, and that the account of the murmuring of the people, because of the want of those supplies of food to which they had been accustomed in Egypt, is attached, without anything further, to the preceding narrative. There is nothing very surprising either, in the fact that the people should have given utterance to their wish for the luxuries of Egypt, which they had been deprived of so long, immediately after this judgment of God, if we only understand the whole affair as taking place in exact accordance with the words of the texts, viz. that the unbelieving and discontented mass did not discern the chastising hand of God at all in the conflagration which broke out at the end of the camp, because it was not declared to be a punishment from God, and was not preceded by a previous announcement; and therefore that they gave utterance in loud murmurings to the discontent of their hearts respecting the want of flesh, without any regard to what had just befallen them.

Yers. 4-9. The first impulse to this came from the mob that had come out of Egypt along vdth the Israelites. " The mixed multitude:'^ see at Ex. xii. 38. They felt and expressed a longing for the better food which they had enjoyed in Egypt, and which was not to be had in the desert, and urged on the Israelites to cry out for flesh again, especially for the flesh and the savoury vegetables in which Egypt abounded. The words " they wept again^^ {2\^ used adverbially, as in Gen. xxvi. 18, etc.) point back to the former complaints of the people respecting the absence of flesh in the desert of Sin (Ex. xvi. 2 sqq.), although there is nothing said about their weeping there. By the flesh which they missed, we are not to understand either the fish which they expressly mention in the following verse (as in Lev. xi. 11), or merely oxen, sheep, and goats; but the word "ib'S signifies flesh generally, as being a better kind of food than the bread-like manna. It is true they possessed herds of cattle, but these would not have been sufficient to supply their wants, as cattle could not be bought for slaughtering, and it was necessary to spare what they had. The greedy people also longed for other flesh, and said, " We remember the fish which we ate in Egypt for nothing P Even if fish could not be had for nothing in Egypt, according to the extravagant assertions of the murmurers, it is certain that it could be procured for such nominal prices that even the poorest of the people could eat it. The abundance of the fish in the Nile and the neighbouring waters is attested unanimously by both classical writers {e.g, Diod, Sic, i. 36, 52; Herod, ii. 93; StrahOj xvii. p. 829) and modern travellers (cf. Hengstenherg, Egypt, etc., p. 211 Eng. tr.). This also applies to the vegetables for which the Israelites longed in the desert. The Q^'^^K^p^ or cucumbers, which are still called katteh or chate in the present day, are a species differing from the ordinary cucumbers in size and colour, and distinguished for softness and sweet flavour, and are described by Forskal {Flor, Aeg. p. 168), as fructus in j^gypto omnium vulgatissimus, totis plantains agris. D'^ntpDK: water-melons, which are still called hattieh in modern Egypt, and are both cultivated in immense quantities and sold so cheaply in the market, that the poor as well as the rich can enjoy their refreshing flesh and cooling juice (see Sonnini in Hengstenberg, ut sup. p. 212). "i^VC ^^^s not signify grass here, but, according to the ancient versions, chives, from their grass-like appearance; laudatissimus porrus in jEgypto (Plin. h. n. 19, 33). DvV3: onions, which flourish better in Egypt than elsewhere, and have a mild and pleasant taste. According to Herod, ii. 125, they were the ordinary food of the workmen at the pyramids; and, according to Hasselquist, Sonnini, and others, they still form almost the only food of the poor, and are also a favourite dish with all classes, either roasted, or boiled as a vegetable, and eaten with animal food, Dtp^itj? I garlic, which is still called tum, tom in the East {Seetzen, iii. p. 234), and is mentioned by Herodotus in connection with onions, as forming a leading article of food with the Egyptian workmen. Of all these things, which had been cheap as well as refreshing, not one was to be had in the desert. Hence the people complained still further, " and now our soul is dried away,'' i.e. faint for want of strong and refreshing food, and wanting in fresh vital power Of (cf. Ps. xxii. 16, cii. 5): ''we have nothing Q^ 'C^, there is nothing in Bxistence, equivalent to nothing to be had) except that our eye (falls) upon this manna,^ i.e. we see nothing else before us but the manna, sc. which has no juice, and supplies no vital force. Greediness longs for juic3r_and,_^ayoury food, and in fact^as a rule, for change of food and stimulating flaYour. "This isthe perverted nature of man, which cannot continue in the quiet enjoyment of what is clean and unmixed, but, from its own inward discord, desires a stimulating admixture of what is sharp and sour" (Baumgarten). To point out this inward perversion on the part of the murmuring people, Moses once more described the nature, form, and taste of the manna, and its mode of preparation, as a pleasant food which God sent down to His people with the dew of heaven (see at Ex. xvi. 14, 15, and 31). But this sweet bread of heaven wanted "the sharp and sour, which are required to give a stimulating flavour to the food of man, on account of his sinful, restless desires, and the incessant changes of his earthly life." In this respect the manna resembled the spiritual food supplied by the word of God, of which the sinful heart of man may also speedily become weary, and turn to the more piquant productions of the spirit of the world.

Vers. 10-15. When Moses heard the people weep, " according to their families^ every one before the door of his tent^^ i.e. heard complaining in all the families in front of every tent, so that the weeping had become universal througliout the whole nation (of. Zech. xii. 12 sqq.), and the wrath of the Lord burned on account of it, and the thing displeased Moses also, he brought his complaint to the Lord. The words " Moses also was displeased^^ are introduced as a circumstantial clause, to explain the matter more clearly, and show the reason for the complaint which Moses poured out before the Lord, and do not refer exclusively either to the murmuring of the people or to the wrath of Jehovah, but to both together. This follows evidently from the position in which the clause stands between the two antecedent clauses in ver. 10 and the apodosis in ver. 11, and still more evidently from the complaint of Moses which follows. For " the whole attitude of Moses shows that his displeasure was excited not merely by the unrestrained rebellion of the people against Jehovah, but also by the unrestrained wrath of Jehovah against the nation" {Kurtz). But in what was the wrath of Jehovah manifested? It broke out against the people first of all when they had been satiated with flesh (ver. 33). There is no mention of any earlier manifestation. Hence Moses can only have discovered a sign of the burning wrath of Jehovah in the fact that, although the discontent of the people burst forth in loud cries, God did not help, but withdrew with His help, and let the whole storm of the infuriated people burst upon him. — Vers. 11 sqq. In Moses' complaint there is an unmistakeable discontent arising from the excessive burden of his office. " Why hast Thou done evil to Thy servant? and why have I not found favour in Thy sight, to lay upon me the burden of all this people?" The " burden of all this people" is the expression which he uses to denote " the care of governing the people, and providing everything for it" (C, a. Lap,), This burden, which God imposed upon him in connection with his office, appeared to him a bad and ungracious treatment on the part of God. This is the language of the discontent of despair, which differs from the murmuring of unbelief, in the fact that it is addressed to God, for the purpose of entreating help and deliverance from Him; whereas unbelief complains of the ways of God, but while complaining of its troubles, does not pray to the Lord its God. " Have I conceived all this people,^ Moses continues, " or have I brought it forth, that Thou requirest me to carry it in my bosom, as a nursing father carries the suckling, into the promised land?" He does not intend by these words to throw off entirely all care for the people, but simply to plead with God that the duty of carrying and providing for Israel rests with Him, the Creator and Father of Israel (Ex. iv. 22; Isa. Ixiii. 16). Moses, a weak man, was wanting in the omnipotent power which alone could satisfy the crying of the people for flesh, vy 131)^ " they weep unto Tne," Le, they come weeping to ask me to relieve their distress. " / am not able to carry this burden alone; it is too heavy for me^ — Yer. 15. ''If Thou deal thus with me, then kill me quite (^^'7 inf, abs., expressive of the uninterrupted process of killing; see Ewald, § 280, b.), if I have found favour in Thine eyes (i.e. if Thou wilt show me favour), and let me not see my misfortuner "My misfortune:" Le, the calamity to which I must eventually succumb.

Vers. 16-23. There was good ground for his complaint. The burden of the office laid upon the shoulders of Moses was really too heavy for one man; and even the discontent which broke out in the complaint was nothing more than an outpouring of zeal for the office assigned him by God, under the burden of which his strength would eventually break down, unless he received some support. He was not tired of the office, but would stake his life for it if God did not relieve him in some way, as office and life were really one in him. Jehovah therefore relieved him in the distress of which he complained, without blaming the words of His servant, which bordered on despair. " Gather unto Jfe," He said to Moses (vers. 16, 17), " seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest as elders and officers {shoterim, see Ex. v. 6) of the people, and bring them unto the tabernacle, that they may place themselves there with thee. I tvill come down (see at ver. 25) and speak with thee there, and will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them, that they may hear the burden of the people with theer — Vers. 18 sqq. Jehovah would also relieve the complaining of the people, and that in such a way that the murmurers should experience at the same time the holiness of His judgments. The people were to sanctify themselves for the next day, and -were then to eat flesh (receive flesh to eat), tinpnn (as in Ex. xix. 10), to prepare themselves by purifications for the revelation of the glory of God in the miraculous gift of flesh. Jehovah would give them flesh, so that they should eat it not one day, or two, or five, or ten, or twenty, but a whole month long (of " days," as in Gen. xxix. 14, xli. 1), " till it come out of your nostrils, and become loathsome unto you," as a punishment for having despised Jehovah in the midst of them, in their contempt of the manna given by God, and for having shown their regret at leaving the land of Egypt in their longing for the provisions of that land. — Vers. 21 sqq. When Moses thereupon expressed his amazement at the promise of God to provide flesh for 600,000 men for a whole month long even to satiety, and said, " Shall flocks and herds he slain for them, to suffice them f or shall all the fish of the sea he gathered together for them, to suffice them V^ he was answered by the words, " Is the arm of Jehovah too short (i,e, does it not reach far enough; is it too weak and powerless)? Thou shalt see now whether My word shall come to pass unto thee or notr

Vers. 24-30. After receiving from the Lord this reply to his complaint, Moses went out (sc, " of the tabernacle," where he had laid his complaint before the Lord) into the camp; and having made known to the people the will of God, gathered together seventy men of the elders of the people, and directed them to station themselves around the tabernacle. " Around the tahernacle^^ does not signify in this passage on all four sides, but in a semicircle around the front of the tabernacle; the verb is used in this sense in chap. xxi. 4, when it is applied to the march round Edom. — Ver. 25. Jehovah then came down in the cloud, which soared on high above the tabernacle, and now came down to the door of it (chap. xii. 5; Ex. xxxiii. 9; Deut. xxxi. 15). The statement in chap. ix. 18 sqq., and Ex. xl. 37, 38, that the cloud dwelt Q^^) above the dwelling of the tabernacle during the time of encampment, can be reconciled with this without any difficulty; since the only idea that we can form of this " dwelling upon it" is, that the cloud stood still, soaring in quietness above the tabernacle, without moving to and fro like a cloud driven by the wind. There is no such discrepancy, therefore, as Knohel fi;ids in these statements. When Jehovah had come down, He spoke to Moses, sc. to explain to him and to the elders w^hat was about to be done, and then laid upon the seventy elders of the Spirit which was upon him. We are not to understand this as implying, that the fulness of the Spirit possessed by Moses was diminished in consequence; still less to regard it, with Calvin^ as signum indignationisj or nofa ignominicB, which God intended to stamp upon him. For the Spirit of God is not something material, which is diminished by being divided, but resembles a flame of fire, which does not decrease in intensity, but increases rather by extension. As Theodoret observed, " Just as a person who kindles a thousand flames from one, does not lessen the first, whilst he communicates light to the others, so God did not diminish the grace imparted to Moses by the fact that He communicated of it to the seventy." God did this to show to Moses, as well as to the whole nation, that the Spirit which Moses had received was perfectly sufficient for the performance of the duties of his office, and that no supernatural increase of that Spirit was needed, but simply a strengthening of the natural powers of Moses by the support of men who, w^hen endowed with the power of the Spirit that was taken from him, would help him to bear the burden of his office. We have no description of the way in which this transference took place; it is therefore impossible to determine whether it was effected by a sign which would strike the outward senses, or passed altogether within the sphere of the Spirit's life, in a manner which corresponded to the nature of the Spirit itself. In any case, however, it must have been effected in such a way, that Moses and the elders received a convincing proof of the reality of the affair. When the Spirit descended upon the elders, " thej/ prophesied, and did not add;" i,e. they did not repeat the prophesyings any further. 'iSp^ N71 is rendered correctly by the LXX,, Kol ovfc en irpoaeOevro; the rendering supported by the Vulgate and OnJcelos, nee vitro cessaverunt (" and ceased not"), is incorrect. ^T^^r^*?? " to prophesy y^ is to be understood generally, and especially here, not as the foretelling of future things, but as speaking in an ecstatic and elevated state of mind, under the impulse and inspiration of the Spirit of God, just like the " speaking with tongues," which frequently followed the gift of the Holy Ghost in the days of the apostles. But we are not to infer from the fact, that the prophesying was not repeated, that the Spirit therefore departed from them after this one extraordinary manifestation. This miraculous manifestation of the Spirit was intended simply to give to the whole nation the visible proof that God had endowed them with His Spirit, as helpers of Moses, and had given them the authority required for the exercise of their calling. — Ver. 26. But in order to prove to the whole congregation that the Spirit of the Lord was working there, the Spirit came not only upon the elders assembled round!Moses, and in front of the tabernacle, but also upon two of the persons who had been chosen, viz. Eldad and Medad, who had remained behind in the camp, for some reason that is not reported, so that they also prophesied. " Them that were written^^ conscripti, for " called," because the calling of the elders generally took place in writing, from which we may see how thoroughly the Israelites had acquired the art of writing in Egypt. — Vers. 27, 28. This phenomenon in the camp itself produced such excitement, that a boy pV^n, with the article like ^^^^\} in Gen. xiv. 13) reported the thing to Moses, whereupon Joshua requested Moses to prohibit the two from prophesying. Joshua felt himself warranted in doing this, because he had been Moses' servant from his youth up (see at Ex. xvii. 9), and in this capacity he regarded the prophesying of these men in the camp as detracting from the authority of his lord, since they had not received this gift from Moses, at least not through his mediation. Joshua was jealous for the honour of Moses, just as the disciples of Jesus, in Mark ix. 38, 39, were for the honour of their Lord; and he was reproved by Moses, as the latter afterwards were by Christ. — Ver. 29. Moses replied, '^ Jrt thou jealous for me f Would that all the Lorcts people were prophets^ that Jehovah "would put His Spirit upon them /" As a true servant of God, who sought not his own glory, but the glory of his God, and the spread of His kingdom, Moses rejoiced in this manifestation of the Spirit of God in the midst of the nation, and desired that all might become partakers of this grace. — Yer. 30. Moses returned with the elders into the camp, sc. from the tabernacle, which stood upon an open space in the midst of the camp, at some distance from the tents of the Levites and the rest of the tribes of Israel, which were pitched around it, so that whoever wished to go to it, had first of all to go out of his tent.^

^ For the purpose of overthrowing the historical character of this marvellous event, the critics, from Vater to Knobel, have identified the appointment of the seventy elders to support Moses with the judicial institute established at Sinai by the advice of Jethro (Ex. xviii.), and adduce the obvious differences

No account has been handed down of the further action of this committee of elders. It is impossible to determine, therefore, in what way they assisted Moses in bearing the burden of governing the people. All that can be regarded as following unquestionably from the purpose given here is, that they did not form a permanent body, which continued from the time of Moses to the Captivity, and after the Captivity was revived again in the Sanhedrim, as Talmudists, Kabbins, and many of the earlier theologians suppose (see Selden de Synedriis^ I. i. c, 14, ii. c, 4; Jo. Marchii sylloge dissertatt. phil. theoL ad V, T, exercit. 12, pp. 343 sqq.). On the opposite side vid, Relandi Antiquitates, ss. ii. 7, 3; Carpz, apparat, pp. 573 sq., etc.

Vers. 31-34. As soon as Moses had returned with the elders into the camp, God fulfilled His second promise. '^ A wind arose from Jehovahj and brought quails {salvinij see Ex. xvi. 13) over from the sea, and threw them over the camp about a days journey wide from here and there (i.e. on both sides), in the neighbourhood of the camp, and about two cubits above the surface." The wind was a south-east wind (Ps. Ixxviii. 26), which blew from the Arabian Gulf and brought the quails — which fly northwards in the spring from the interior of Africa in very great numbers (see vol. ii. p. 67) — from the sea to the Israelites. na, which only occurs here and in the Psalm of MoSes (Ps. xc. 10), signifies to drive over, in between these two entirely different institutions as arguments for the supposed diversity" of documents and legends. But what ground is there for identifying things so totally different from one another? The assertion of Knohel, that in Deut. i. 9-18, Moses " evidently" refers to both events (Ex. xviii. and Num. xi.), is unfounded and untrue. Or are the same official duties and rank assigned to the elders who were chosen as judges in Ex. xviii., as to the seventy elders who were called by God, and endowed with His Spirit, that they might help Moses to govern the people who had rebelled against him and against Jehovah on account of the want of flesh, and to restore and uphold the authority of Moses as the divinely chosen leader of Israel, which had been shaken thereby? Can the judges of a land be identified without reserve with the executive of the land? The mere fact, that this executive court was chosen, like the judges, from the whole body of elders, does not warrant us in identifying the two institutions. Nor does it follow from the fact, that at Sinai seventy of the elders of Israel ascended the mountain with Moses, Aaron, and his sons, and there saw God (Ex. xxiv. 9 sqq.), that the seventy persons chosen here were the same as the seventy mentioned there. The sameness of the numbers does not prove that the persons were the same, but simply that the number seventy was the most suitable, on account of its historical and symbolical significance, to form a representation of the whole body of the people. For a further refutation of this futile objection, see Ranke^ Unterss. ub. d. Pent. II. pp. 183 sqq.

Arabic and Syriac to pass over, not " to cut off," as the Rabbins suppose: the wind cut off the quails from the sea. TOJ^ to throw them scattered about (Ex. xxix. 5, xxxi. 12, xxxii. 4). The idea is not that the wind caused the flock of quails to spread itself out as much as two days' journey over the camp, and to fly about two cubits above the surface of the ground; so that, being exhausted with their flight across the sea, they fell partly into the hands of the Israelites and partly upon the ground, as Knohel follows the Vulgate {volabant in acre duohiis cubitis altitudme siiper terram) and many of the Rabbins in supposing: for '"'^n?^[' ^^ t;'D3 does not mean to cause to fly or spread out over the camp, but to throw over or upon the camp. The words cannot therefore be understood in any other way than they are in Ps. Ixxviii. 27, 28, viz. that the wind threw them about over the camp, so that they fell upon the ground a day's journey on either side of it, and that in such numbers that they lay, of course not for the whole distance mentioned, but in places about the camp, as much as two cubits deep. It is only in this sense of the words, that the people could possibly gather quails the whole of that day, the whole night, and the whole of the next day, in such quantities that he who had gathered but little had collected ten homers. A homer, the largest measure of capacity among the Hebrews, which contained ten ephahs, held, according to the lower reckoning of Thenius, 10,143 Parisian inches, or about two bushels Dresden measure. By tliis enormous quantity, which so immensely surpassed the natural size of the flocks of quails, God purposed to show the people His power, to give them flesh not for one day or several days, but for a whole month, both to put to shame their unbelief, and also to punish their greediness. As they could not eat this quantity all at once, they spread them round the camp to dry in the sun, in the same manner in which the Egyptians are in the habit of drying fish (Herod, ii. 77). — Ver. 33. But while the flesh was still between their teeth, and before it was ground, i.e. masticated, the wrath of the Lord burned against them, and produced among the people a very great destruction. This catastrophe is not to be regarded as "the effect of the excessive quantity of quails that they had eaten, on account of the quails feeding upon things which are injurious to man, so that eating the flesh of quails produces convulsions and giddiness (for proofs, see iBochart, Hieroz, ii. pp. 657 sqq.)," as Knohel supposes, but as an extraordinary judgment inflicted by God upon the greedy people, by which a great multitude of people were suddenly swept away.

— ^Ver. 34. From this judgment tlie place of encampment received the name Kibroth-hattaavah, i.e. graves of greediness, because there the people found their graves while giving vent to their greedy desires.

Ver. 35. From the graves of greediness the people removed to Hazerothy and there they remained (^l>^ as in Ex. xxiv. 12). The situation of these two places of encampment is altogether unknown. Hazerotliy it is true, has been regarded by many since Burckhardt (Syr. p. 808) as identical with the modern Hadlira (in Robiiison's Pal. Ain el Hudhera)^ eighteen hours to the north-east of Sinai, partly because of the resemblance in the name, and partly because there are not only low palm-trees and bushes there, but also a spring, of which Robinson says (Pal. i. p. 223) that it is the only spring in the neighbourhood, and yields tolerably good water, though somewhat brackish, the whole year round. But Hadlira does not answer to the Hebrew "i^*n, to shut in, from which Hazeroth (enclosures) is derived; and there are springs in many other places in the desert of et Tih with both drinkable and brackish water. Moreover, the situation of this well does not point to Hadhraj which is only.two days' journey from Sinai, so that the Israelites might at any rate have pitched their tents by this well after their first journey of three days (chap. x. 33), whereas they took three days to reach the graves of lust, and then marched from thence to Hazeroth. Consequently they would only have come to Hadhra on the supposition that they had been about to take the road to the sea, and intended to march along the coast to the Arabah, and so on through the Arabah to the Dead Sea {Robinson, p. 223); in which case, however, they would not have arrived at Kadesh. The conjecture that Kibroth-liattaavah is the same as Di'Saliab (Deut. i. 1), the modern Dahab {Mersa Daliab, Minna el Dahab\ to the east of Sinai, on the Elanitic Gulf, is still more untenable. For what end could be answered by such a circuitous route, which, instead of bringing the Israelites nearer to the end of their journey, would have taken them to Mecca rather than to Canaan? As the Israelites proceeded from Hazeroth to Kadesh in the desert of Paran (chap. xiii. 3 and 26), they must have marched from Sinai to Canaan by the most direct route, through the midst of the great desert of et Tih, most probably by the desert road which leads from the Wady es Sheikh into the Wadi/ ez-Zuranuk, which breaks through the southern border mountains of et Tih, and passes on through the Wady ez-Zalakah over el Ain to Bir-et-

Thermnedy and then due north past Jehel Araif to the Hebron road. By this route they could go from Iloreb to Kadesh Barnea in eleven days (Deut. i. 2), and it is here that we are to seek for the two stations in question. Hazeroth is probably to be found, as Fries and Kurtz suppose, in Bir-et-Themmedy and Kihrotli-hattaavah in the neighbourhood of the southern border mountains of et Till.