There is a problem with the identity of Hobab. The MT says that he is the son of Reuel, making him the brother-in-law of Moses. But Judg 4:11 says he is the father-in-law. In Judg 1:16; 4:11 Hobab is traced to the Kenites, but in Exod 3:1 and 18:1 Jethro (Reuel) is priest of Midian. Jethro is identified with Reuel on the basis of Exod 2:18 and 3:1 , and so Hobab becomes Moses’ חֹתֵן ( khoten ), a relative by marriage and perhaps brother-in-law. There is not enough information to decide on the identity and relationships involved here. Some suggest that there is one person with the three names (G. B. Gray, Numbers [ICC], 93); others suggest Hobab is a family name (R. F. Johnson, IDB 2:615), and some suggest that the expression “the son of Reuel the Midianite” had dropped out of the genealogy of Judges, leading to the conflict (J. Crichton, ISBE 2:1055). If Hobab is the same as Jethro, then Exod 18:27 does not make much sense, for Jethro did go home. On this basis many conclude Hobab is a brother-in-law. This would mean that after Jethro returned home, Moses conversed with Hobab, his brother-in-law. For more discussion, see the articles and the commentaries.


These two formulaic prayers were offered by Moses at the beginning and at the end of the journeys. They prayed for the Lord to fight ahead of the nation when it was on the move, and to protect them when they camped. The theme of the first is found in Ps 68:1 . The prayers reflect the true mentality of holy war, that it was the Lord who fought for Israel and defended her. The prayers have been included in the prayer book for synagogue services.


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


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


Here is the pattern that will become in the wilderness experience so common – the complaining turns to a cry to Moses, which is then interpreted as a prayer to the Lord , and there is healing. The sequence presents a symbolic lesson, an illustration of the intercession of the Holy Spirit. The NT will say that in times of suffering Christians do not know how to pray, but the Spirit intercedes for them, changing their cries into the proper prayers ().


The story of the sending of the quail is a good example of poetic justice, or talionic justice. God had provided for the people, but even in that provision they were not satisfied, for they remembered other foods they had in Egypt. No doubt there was not the variety of foods in the Sinai that might have been available in Egypt, but their life had been bitter bondage there as well. They had cried to the Lord for salvation, but now they forget, as they remember things they used to have. God will give them what they crave, but it will not do for them what they desire. For more information on this story, see B. J. Malina, The Palestinian Manna Tradition . For the attempt to explain manna and the other foods by natural phenomena, see F. W. Bodenheimer, “The Manna of Sinai,” BA 10 (1947): 1-6.


The Hebrews were complaining both about the bland taste of the manna and dehydration – they were parched in the wilderness.


Moses begins to feel the burden of caring for this people, a stubborn and rebellious people. His complaint shows how contagious their complaining has been. It is one thing to cry out to God about the load of ministry, but it is quite another to do it in such a way as to reflect a lack of faith in God’s provision. God has to remind the leader Moses that he, the Lord , can do anything. This is a variation on the theme from Exodus – “who am I that I should lead….”


The questions Moses asks are rhetorical. He is actually affirming that they are not his people, that he did not produce them, but now is to support them. His point is that God produced this nation, but has put the burden of caring for their needs on him.


The Lord provides Spirit-empowered assistance for Moses. Here is another variation on the theme of Moses’ faith. Just as he refused to lead alone and was given Aaron to share the work, so here he protests the burden and will share it with seventy elders. If God’s servant will not trust wholeheartedly, that individual will not be used by God as he or she might have been. Others will share in the power and the work. Probably one could say that it was God’s will for others to share this leadership – but not to receive it through these circumstances.


The explanation is the interpretation of their behavior – it is in reality what they have done, even though they would not say they despised the Lord . They had complained and shown a lack of faith and a contempt for the program, which was in essence despising the Lord .


This anthropomorphic expression concerns the power of God. The “hand of the Lord ” is idiomatic for his power, what he is able to do. The question is rhetorical; it is affirming that his hand is not shortened, i.e., that his power is not limited. Moses should have known this, and so this is a rebuke for him at this point. God had provided the manna, among all the other powerful acts they had witnessed. Meat would be no problem. But the lack of faith by the people was infectious.


The effort of Joshua is to protect Moses’ prerogative as leader by stopping these men in the camp from prophesying. Joshua did not understand the significance in the Lord ’s plan to let other share the burden of leadership.


The irony in this chapter is expressed in part by the use of the word רוּחַ ( ruakh ). In the last episode it clearly meant the Spirit of the Lord that empowered the men for their spiritual service. But here the word is “wind.” Both the spiritual service and the judgment come from God.


The “quail” ordinarily cross the Sinai at various times of the year, but what is described here is not the natural phenomenon. Biblical scholars looking for natural explanations usually note that these birds fly at a low height and can be swatted down easily. But the description here is more of a supernatural supply and provision. See J. Gray, “The Desert Sojourn of the Hebrews and the Sinai Horeb Tradition,” VT 4 (1954): 148-54.


This is about two thousand liters.


The name “the graves of the ones who craved” is again explained by a wordplay, a popular etymology. In Hebrew קִבְרוֹת הַתַּאֲוָה ( qivrot hatta ’ avah ) is the technical name. It is the place that the people craved the meat, longing for the meat of Egypt, and basically rebelled against God. The naming marks another station in the wilderness where the people failed to accept God’s good gifts with grace and to pray for their other needs to be met.


In this short chapter we find a prime example of jealousy among leaders and how God dealt with it. Miriam and Aaron are envious of Moses’ leadership, but they use an occasion – his marriage – to criticize him. Often the immediate criticism is simply a surface issue for a deeper matter. God indicates very clearly he will speak through many people, including them, but Moses is different. Moses is the mediator of the covenant. The chapter is a lesson of what not to do. They should have fulfilled their duties before God and not tried to compete or challenge the leader in this way. There is a touch of divine irony here, for Miriam is turned white with leprosy. The chapter falls easily into the sections of the story: the accusation (vv. 1-3 ), the Lord ’s response (vv. 4-10 ), the intercession of Moses (vv. 11-16 ). For further information, see J. S. Kselman, “A Note on Numbers 12:6-8 ,” VT 26 (1976): 500-504.


The statement is striking. Obviously the Lord knows all things. But the statement of the obvious here is meant to indicate that the Lord was about to do something about this.


The title “my servant” or “servant of the Lord ” is reserved in the Bible for distinguished personages, people who are truly spiritual leaders, like Moses, David, Hezekiah, and also the Messiah. Here it underscores Moses’ obedience.


The word “leprosy” and “leprous” covers a wide variety of skin diseases, and need not be limited to the actual disease of leprosy known today as Hansen’s disease. The description of it here has to do with snow, either the whiteness or the wetness. If that is the case then there would be open wounds and sores – like Job’s illness (see M. Noth, Numbers [OTL] , 95-96).


Chapter provides the names of the spies sent into the land (vv. 1-16 ), their instructions (vv. 17-20 ), their activities (vv. 21-25 ), and their reports (vv. 26-33 ). It is a chapter that serves as a good lesson on faith, for some of the spies walked by faith, and some by sight.


The difference in the names is slight, a change from “he saves” to “the Lord saves.” The Greek text of the OT used Iesoun for Hebrew Yeshua .


The reference to the first ripe grapes would put the time somewhere at the end of July.


Zin is on the southern edge of the land, but Rehob is far north, near Mount Hermon. The spies covered all the land.


These names are thought to be three clans that were in the Hebron area (see Josh 15:14 ; Judg 1:20 ). To call them descendants of Anak is usually taken to mean that they were large or tall people ( 2 Sam 21:18-22 ). They were ultimately driven out by Caleb.


The text now provides a brief historical aside for the readers. Zoan was probably the city of Tanis, although that is disputed today by some scholars. It was known in Egypt in the New Kingdom as “the fields of Tanis,” which corresponded to the “fields of Zoar” in the Hebrew Bible ( Ps 78:12, 43 ).


Kadesh is Ain Qadeis, about 50 miles (83 km) south of Beer Sheba. It is called Kadesh-barnea in Num 32:8 .


This is the common expression for the material abundance of the land (see further, F. C. Fensham, “An Ancient Tradition of the Fertility of Palestine,” PEQ 98 [1966]: 166-67).


For more discussion on these people groups, see D. J. Wiseman, ed., Peoples of Old Testament Times .


The expression has been interpreted in a number of ways by commentators, such as that the land was infertile, that the Canaanites were cannibals, that it was a land filled with warlike dissensions, or that it denotes a land geared for battle. It may be that they intended the land to seem infertile and insecure.


This chapter forms part of the story already begun. There are three major sections here: dissatisfaction with the reports (vv. 1-10 ), the threat of divine punishment (vv. 11-38 ), and the defeat of the Israelites (vv. 39-45 ). See K. D. Sakenfeld, “The Problem of Divine Forgiveness in ,” CBQ 37 (1975): 317-30; also J. R. Bartlett, “The Use of the Word רֹאשׁ as a Title in the Old Testament,” VT 19 (1969): 1-10.


This action of Moses and Aaron is typical of them in the wilderness with the Israelites. The act shows self-abasement and deference before the sovereign Lord . They are not bowing before the people here, but in front of the people they bow before God. According to Num 17:6-15 this prostration is for the purpose of intercessory prayer. Here it prevents immediate wrath from God.


The expression must indicate that they could destroy the enemies as easily as they could eat bread.


The glory of the Lord refers to the reality of the Lord ’s presence in a manifestation of his power and splendor. It showed to all that God was a living God. The appearance of the glory indicated blessing for the obedient, but disaster for the disobedient.


The Decalogue adds “to those who hate me.” The point of the line is that the effects of sin, if not the sinful traits themselves, are passed on to the next generation.


This is the oath formula, but in the Pentateuch it occurs here and in v. 28 .


The judgment on Israel is that they turn back to the desert and not attack the tribes in the land. So a parenthetical clause is inserted to state who was living there. They would surely block the entrance to the land from the south – unless God removed them. And he is not going to do that for Israel.


It is worth mentioning in passing that this is one of the Rabbinic proof texts for having at least ten men to form a congregation and have prayer. If God called ten men (the bad spies) a “congregation,” then a congregation must have ten men. But here the word “community/congregation” refers in this context to the people of Israel as a whole, not just to the ten spies.


Here again is the oath that God swore in his wrath, an oath he swore by himself, that they would not enter the land. “As the Lord lives,” or “by the life of the Lord ,” are ways to render it.


Their sin was unbelief. They could have gone and conquered the area if they had trusted the Lord for their victory. They did not, and so they were condemned to perish in the wilderness. Now, thinking that by going they can undo all that, they plan to go. But this is also disobedience, for the Lord said they would not now take the land, and yet they think they can. Here is their second sin, presumption.


The wilderness wandering officially having begun, these rules were then given for the people to be used when they finally entered the land. That they would be provided here would be of some encouragement to the nation after their great failure. God still spoke of a land that was to be their land, even though they had sinned greatly. This chapter collects a number of religious rules. The first 16 verses deal with rulings for sacrifices. Then, vv. 17-36 concerns sins of omission. Finally, rules concerning tassels are covered (vv. 37-41 ). For additional reading, see G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925); B. A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord (SJLA); D. J. McCarthy , “The Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice,” JBL 88 (1969): 166-76; “Further Notes on the Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice,” JBL 92 (1973): 205-10; J. Milgrom, “Sin Offering or Purification Offering,” VT 21 (1971): 237-39; N. H. Snaith, “Sacrifices in the Old Testament,” VT 7 (1957): 308-17; R. J. Thompson, Penitence and Sacrifice in Early Israel ; R. de Vaux, Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice .


Obviously, as the wording of the text affirms, this kind of offering would be made after they were in the land and able to produce the grain and oil for the sacrifices. The instructions anticipated their ability to do this, and this would give hope to them. The amounts are difficult to determine, but it may be that they were to bring 4.5 liters of flour and 1.8 liters each of oil and wine.


The drink-offering was an ancient custom, mentioned in the Ugaritic tablets of Ras Shamra (14th century b.c. ). The drink offering was poured out at the base of the altar (see Sir 50:15 and Josephus, Ant. 3.9.4 [3.234]).


These regulations supplement what was already ruled on in the Levitical code for the purification and reparation offerings. See those rulings in Lev 4-7 for all the details. Some biblical scholars view the rules in Leviticus as more elaborate and therefore later. However, this probably represents a misunderstanding of the purpose of each collection.


The point is that the person’s iniquity remains with him – he must pay for his sin. The judgment of God in such a case is both appropriate and unavoidable.


For this brief passage, see A. Phillips, “The Case of the Woodgatherer Reconsidered,” VT 19 (1969): 125-28; J. Weingreen, “The Case of the Woodgatherer (Numbers XV 32-36),” VT 16 (1966): 361-64; and B. J. Bamberger, “Revelations of Torah after Sinai,” HUCA 16 (1941): 97-113. Weingreen argues that there is something of the Rabbinic method of setting a fence around the Law here; in other words, if this sin were not punished, the Law would have been violated in greater ways. Gathering of wood, although seemingly harmless, is done with intent to kindle fire, and so reveals a culpable intent.


This is a reference to the צִיצִת ( tsitsit ), the fringes on the borders of the robes. They were meant to hang from the corners of the upper garment ( Deut 22:12 ), which was worn on top of the clothing. The tassel was probably made by twisting the overhanging threads of the garment into a knot that would hang down. This was a reminder of the covenant. The tassels were retained down through history, and today more elaborate prayer shawls with tassels are worn during prayer. For more information, see F. J. Stephens, “The Ancient Significance of Sisith,” JBL 50 (1931): 59-70; and S. Bertman, “Tasselled Garments in the Ancient East Mediterranean,” BA 24 (1961): 119-28.


The blue color may represent the heavenly origin of the Law, or perhaps, since it is a royal color, the majesty of the Lord .


There are three main movements in the story of ch. . The first is the rebellion itself (vv. 1-19 ). The second is the judgment (vv. 20-35 ). Third is the atonement for the rebels (vv. 36-50 ). The whole chapter is a marvelous account of a massive rebellion against the leaders that concludes with reconciliation. For further study see G. Hort, “The Death of Qorah,” ABR 7 (1959): 2-26; and J. Liver, “Korah, Dathan and Abiram,” Studies in the Bible (ScrHier 8), 189-217.


The question indicates that they had been murmuring against Aaron, that is, expressing disloyalty and challenging his leadership. But it is actually against the Lord that they had been murmuring because the Lord had put Aaron in that position.


The group of people siding with Korah is meant, and not the entire community of the people of Israel. They are an assembly of rebels, their “community” consisting in their common plot.


It is Moses and Aaron who prostrate themselves; they have the good of the people at heart.


The impression is that the people did not hear what the Lord said to Moses, but only what Moses said to the people as a result. They saw the brilliant cloud, and perhaps heard the sound of his voice, but the relaying of the instructions indicates they did not hear the actual instruction from the Lord himself.


Beginning with 16:36 , the verse numbers through 17:13 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 16:36 ET = 17:1 HT, 16:37 ET = 17:2 HT, 17:1 ET = 17:16 HT, etc., through 17:13 ET = 17:28 HT. With 18:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same. But in the English chap. there are two parts: Aaron’s rod budding (1-9), and the rod preserved as a memorial (10-13). Both sections begin with the same formula.


The whole congregation here is trying to project its guilt on Moses and Aaron. It was they and their rebellion that brought about the deaths, not Moses and Aaron. The Lord had punished the sinners. The fact that the leaders had organized a rebellion against the Lord was forgotten by these people. The point here is that the Israelites had learned nothing of spiritual value from the event.


Num 17:1 in the English Bible is 17:16 in the Hebrew text ( BHS ). See also the note on 16:36 .


There is no clear answer why the tribe of Levi had used an almond staff. The almond tree is one of the first to bud in the spring, and its white blossoms are a beautiful sign that winter is over. Its name became a name for “watcher”; Jeremiah plays on this name for God’s watching over his people ( 1:11-12 ).


Num 17:13 in the English Bible is 17:28 in the Hebrew text ( BHS ). See also the note on 16:36 .


This chapter and the next may have been inserted here to explain how the priests are to function because in the preceding chapter Aaron’s position was affirmed. The chapter seems to fall into four units: responsibilities of priests (vv. 1-7 ), their portions (vv. 8-19 ), responsibilities of Levites (vv. 20-24 ), and instructions for Levites (vv. 25-32 ).


The responsibility for the sanctuary included obligations relating to any violation of the sanctuary. This was stated to forestall any further violations of the sanctuary. The priests were to pay for any ritual errors, primarily if any came too near. Since the priests and Levites come near all the time, they risk violating ritual laws more than any. So, with the great privileges come great responsibilities. The bottom line is that they were responsible for the sanctuary.


The verb forms a wordplay on the name Levi, and makes an allusion to the naming of the tribe Levi by Leah in the book of Genesis. There Leah hoped that with the birth of Levi her husband would be attached to her. Here, with the selection of the tribe to serve in the sanctuary, there is the wordplay again showing that the Levites will be attached to Aaron and the priests. The verb is יִלָּווּ ( yillavu ), which forms a nice wordplay with Levi ( לֵוִי ). The tribe will now be attached to the sanctuary. The verb is the imperfect with a vav ( ו ) that shows volitive sequence after the imperative, here indicating a purpose clause.


Salt was used in all the offerings; its importance as a preservative made it a natural symbol for the covenant which was established by sacrifice. Even general agreements were attested by sacrifice, and the phrase “covenant of salt” speaks of such agreements as binding and irrevocable. Note the expression in Ezra 4:14 , “we have been salted with the salt of the palace.” See further J. F. Ross, IDB 4:167.


The Levites have the care of the tent of meeting, and so they are responsible for any transgressions against it.


In the last chapter the needs of the priests and Levites were addressed. Now the concern is for the people. This provision from the sacrifice of the red heifer is a precaution to ensure that the purity of the tabernacle was not violated by pollutions of impurity or death. This chapter has two main parts, both dealing with ceremonial purity: the ritual of the red heifer (vv. 1-10 ), and the purification from uncleanness (vv. 11-22 ). For further study see J. Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow (),” VT 31 (1981): 62-72.


Some modern commentators prefer “cow” to “heifer,” thinking that the latter came from the influence of the Greek. Young animals were usually prescribed for the ritual, especially here, and so “heifer” is the better translation. A bull could not be given for this purification ritual because that is what was given for the high priests or the community according to .


Seven is a number with religious significance; it is often required in sacrificial ritual for atonement or for purification.


In addition to the general references, see R. K. Harrison, “The Biblical Problem of Hyssop,” EvQ 26 (1954): 218-24.


There is no clear explanation available as to why these items were to be burned with the heifer. N. H. Snaith suggests that in accordance with Babylonian sacrifices they would have enhanced the rites with an aroma ( Leviticus and Numbers [NCB], 272). In the wood and the hyssop may have been bound together by the scarlet wool to make a sprinkling device. It may be that the symbolism is what is important here. Cedar wood, for example, is durable; it may have symbolized resistance to future corruption and defilement, an early acquired immunity perhaps (R. K. Harrison, Numbers [WEC], 256).


Here the text makes clear that he had at least one assistant.


The ashes were to be stored somewhere outside the camp to be used in a water portion for cleansing someone who was defiled. This is a ritual that was enacted in the wilderness; it is something of a restoring rite for people alienated from community.


It is in passages like this that the view that being “cut off” meant the death penalty is the hardest to support. Would the Law prescribe death for someone who touches a corpse and fails to follow the ritual? Besides, the statement in this section that his uncleanness remains with him suggests that he still lives on.


See Matt 23:27 and Acts 23:3 for application of this by the time of Jesus.


This gives the indication of the weight of the matter, for “until the evening” is the shortest period of ritual uncleanness in the Law. The problem of contamination had to be taken seriously, but this was a relatively simple matter to deal with – if one were willing to obey the Law.


This chapter is the account of how Moses struck the rock in disobedience to the Lord , and thereby was prohibited from entering the land. For additional literature on this part, see E. Arden, “How Moses Failed God,” JBL 76 (1957): 50-52; J. Gray, “The Desert Sojourn of the Hebrews and the Sinai Horeb Tradition,” VT 4 (1954): 148-54; T. W. Mann, “Theological Reflections on the Denial of Moses,” JBL 98 (1979): 481-94; and J. R. Porter, “The Role of Kadesh-Barnea in the Narrative of the Exodus,” JTS 44 (1943): 130-43.


The text does not indicate here what year this was, but from comparing the other passages about the itinerary, this is probably the end of the wanderings, the fortieth year, for Aaron died some forty years after the exodus. So in that year the people come through the wilderness of Zin and prepare for a journey through the Moabite plains.


The Israelites stayed in Kadesh for some time during the wandering; here the stop at Kadesh Barnea may have lasted several months. See the commentaries for the general itinerary.


The death of Miriam is recorded without any qualifications or epitaph. In her older age she had been self-willed and rebellious, and so no doubt humbled by the vivid rebuke from God. But she had made her contribution from the beginning.


Using the basic meaning of the word קָדַשׁ ( qadash , “to be separate, distinct, set apart”), we can understand better what Moses failed to do. He was supposed to have acted in a way that would have shown God to be distinct, different, holy. Instead, he gave the impression that God was capricious and hostile – very human. The leader has to be aware of what image he is conveying to the people.


For this particular section, see W. F. Albright, “From the Patriarchs to Moses: 2. Moses out of Egypt,” BA 36 (1973): 57-58; J. R. Bartlett, “The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom,” JTS 20 (1969): 1-20, and “The Rise and Fall of the Kingdom of Edom,” PEQ 104 (1972): 22-37, and “The Brotherhood of Edom,” JSOT 4 (1977): 2-7.


Some modern biblical scholars are convinced, largely through arguments from silence, that there were no unified kingdoms in Edom until the 9th century, and no settlements there before the 12th century, and so the story must be late and largely fabricated. The evidence is beginning to point to the contrary. But the cities and residents of the region would largely be Bedouin, and so leave no real remains.


This a main highway running from Damascus in the north to the Gulf of Aqaba, along the ridge of the land. Some scholars suggest that the name may have been given by the later Assyrians (see B. Obed, “Observations on Methods of Assyrian Rule in Transjordan after the Palestinian Campaign of Tiglathpileser III,” JNES 29 [1970]: 177-86). Bronze Age fortresses have been discovered along this highway, attesting to its existence in the time of Moses. The original name came from the king who developed the highway, probably as a trading road (see S. Cohen, IDB 3:35-36).


The traditional location for this is near Petra (Josephus, Ant. 4.4.7). There is serious doubt about this location since it is well inside Edomite territory, and since it is very inaccessible for the transfer of the office. Another view places it not too far from Kadesh Barnea, about 15 miles (25 km) northeast at Jebel Madurah, on the northwest edge of Edom and so a suitable point of departure for approaching Canaan from the south (see J. L. Mihelec, IDB 2:644; and J. de Vaulx, Les Nombres [SB], 231). Others suggest it was at the foot of Mount Hor and not actually up in the mountains (see Deut 10:6 ).


This is the standard poetic expression for death. The bones would be buried, often with the bones of relatives in the same tomb, giving rise to the expression.


This chapter has several events in it: the victory over Arad (vv. 1-3 ), the plague of serpents (vv. 4-9 ), the approach to Moab (vv. 10-20 ), and the victory over Sihon and Og (vv. 21-35 ). For information, see D. M. Gunn, “The ‘Battle Report’: Oral or Scribal Convention.” JBL 93 (1974): 513-18; and of the extensive literature on the archaeological site, see EAEHL 1:74-89.


The name Arad probably refers to a place a number of miles away from Tel Arad in southern Israel. The name could also refer to the whole region (like Edom).


The image of the snake was to be a symbol of the curse that the Israelites were experiencing; by lifting the snake up on a pole Moses was indicating that the curse would be drawn away from the people – if they looked to it, which was a sign of faith. This symbol was later stored in the temple, until it became an object of worship and had to be removed ( 2 Kgs 18:4 ). Jesus, of course, alluded to it and used it as an illustration of his own mission. He would become the curse, and be lifted up, so that people who looked by faith to him would live ( John 3:14 ). For further material, see D. J. Wiseman, “Flying Serpents,” TynBul 23 (1972): 108-10; and K. R. Joines, “The Bronze Serpent in the Israelite Cult,” JBL 87 (1968): 245-56.


See further D. L. Christensen, “ Numbers 21:14-15 and the Book of the Wars of Yahweh,” CBQ 36 (1974): 359-60; G. W. Coats, “The Wilderness Itinerary,” CBQ 34 (1972): 135-52; G. I. Davies, “The Wilderness Itinerary,” TB 25 (1974): 46-81; idem, The Way of the Wilderness ; G. E. Mendenhall, “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine,” BA 25 (1962): 66-87.


These places are uncertain. Oboth may be some 15 miles (25 km) from the south end of the Dead Sea at a place called ‘Ain el-Weiba. Iye Abarim may be the modern Mahay at the southeastern corner of Moab. See J. Simons, The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament .


The place is unknown; it is apparently an important city in the region.


Isa 15:8 mentions a Moabite Beerelim, which Simons suggests is Wadi Ettemed.


The brief song is supposed to be an old workers’ song, and so the mention of leaders and princes is unusual. Some think they are given credit because they directed where the workers were to dig. The scepter and staff might have served some symbolic or divining custom.


For this section, see further J. R. Bartlett, “Sihon and Og of the Amorites,” VT 20 (1970): 257-77, and “The Moabites and the Edomites,” Peoples of Old Testament Times , 229-58; S. H. Horn, “The Excavations at Tell Hesban, 1973,” ADAJ 18 (1973): 87-88.


There is a justice, always, in the divine plan for the conquest of the land. Modern students of the Bible often think that the conquest passages are crude and unjust. But an understanding of the ancient Near East is critical here. This Sihon was not a part of the original population of the land. He himself invaded the territory and destroyed the population of Moab that was indigenous there and established his own kingdom. The ancient history is filled with such events; it is the way of life they chose – conquer or be conquered. For Israel to defeat them was in part a turning of their own devices back on their heads – “those that live by the sword will die by the sword.” Sihon knew this, and he did not wait, but took the war to Israel. Israel wanted to pass through, not fight. But now they would either fight or be pushed into the gorge. So God used Israel to defeat Sihon, who had no claim to the land, as part of divine judgment.


Proverbs of antiquity could include pithy sayings or longer songs, riddles, or poems composed to catch the significance or the irony of an event. This is a brief poem to remember the event, like an Egyptian victory song. It may have originated as an Amorite war taunt song; it was sung to commemorate this victory. It was cited later by Jeremiah (48:45-46). The composer invites his victorious people to rebuild the conquered city as a new capital for Sihon. He then turns to address the other cities which his God(s) has/have given to him. See P. D. Hanson, “The Song of Heshbon and David’s Nir,” HTR 61 (1968): 301.


The note of holy war emerges here as the victory is a victory over the local gods as well as over the people.


The fifth section of the book ( 22:1-33:56 ) traces the Israelite activities in Transjordan. It is hard to determine how long they were in Transjordan, but a good amount of time must have elapsed for the number of moves they made and the wars they fought. There is a considerable amount of information available on this section of the book. Some of the most helpful works include: H. C. Brichto, The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible (JBLMS); E. Burrows, The Oracles of Jacob and Balaam ; G. W. Coats, “Balaam, Sinner or Saint?” BR 18 (1973): 21-29; P. C. Craigie, “The Conquest and Early Hebrew Poetry,” TynBul 20 (1969): 76-94; I. Parker, “The Way of God and the Way of Balaam,” ExpTim 17 (1905): 45; and J. A. Wharton, “The Command to Bless: An Exposition of Numbers 22:41 – 23:25 ,” Int 13 (1959): 37-48. This first part introduces the characters and sets the stage for the oracles. It can be divided into four sections: the invitation declined (vv. 1-14 ), the second invitation extended (vv. 15-21 ), God opposes Balaam (vv. 22-35 ), and Balaam meets Balak (vv. 36-41 ).


There is much literature on pagan diviners and especially prophecy in places in the east like Mari (see, for example, H. B. Huffmon, “Prophecy in the Mari Letters,” BA 31 [1968]: 101-24). Balaam appears to be a pagan diviner who was of some reputation; he was called to curse the Israelites, but God intervened and gave him blessings only. The passage forms a nice complement to texts that deal with blessings and curses. It shows that no one can curse someone whom God has blessed.


In the light of subsequent events one should not take too seriously that Balaam referred to Yahweh as his God. He is referring properly to the deity for which he is acting as the agent.


God’s anger now seems to contradict the permission he gave Balaam just before this. Some commentators argue that God’s anger is a response to Balaam’s character in setting out – which the Bible does not explain. God saw in him greed and pleasure for the riches, which is why he was so willing to go.


Balaam is not here making a general confession of sin. What he is admitting to is a procedural mistake. The basic meaning of the word is “to miss the mark.” He now knows he took the wrong way, i.e., in coming to curse Israel.


The reference is to Balaam’s way. He is saying that if what he is doing is so perverse, so evil, he will turn around and go home. Of course, it did not appear that he had much of a chance of going forward.


Balak again refers to his ability to “honor” the seer. This certainly meant payment for his service, usually gold ornaments, rings and jewelry, as well as some animals.


The understanding is that Balak was making a sacrifice for a covenant relationship, and so he gave some of the meat to the men and to the seer.


The name Bamoth Baal means “the high places of Baal.”


The first part of Balaam’s activity ends in disaster for Balak – he blesses Israel. The chapter falls into four units: the first prophecy (vv. 1-10 ), the relocation (vv. 11-17 ), the second prophecy (vv. 18-24 ), and a further location (vv. 25-30 ).


He went up to a bald spot, to a barren height. The statement underscores the general belief that such tops were the closest things to the gods. On such heights people built their shrines and temples.


The opening lines seem to be a formula for the seer to identify himself and the occasion for the oracle. The tension is laid out early; Balaam knows that God has intended to bless Israel, but he has been paid to curse them.


Balaam reports his observation of the nation of Israel spread out below him in the valley. Based on that vision, and the Lord ’s word, he announces the uniqueness of Israel – they are not just like one of the other nations. He was correct, of course; they were the only people linked with the living God by covenant.


The reference in the oracle is back to Gen 13:16 , which would not be clear to Balaam. But God had described their growth like the dust of the earth. Here it is part of the description of the vast numbers.


Here the seer’s words link with the promise of Gen 12:3 , that whoever blesses Israel will be blessed. Since the blessing belongs to them, the upright (and not Balak), Balaam would like his lot to be with them.


The reference is probably to the first speech, where the Lord blessed Israel. Balaam knows that there is nothing he can do to reverse what God has said.


The line could mean that God has regarded Israel as the ideal congregation without any blemish or flaw. But it could also mean that God has not looked on their iniquity, meaning, held it against them.


The expression is “the horns of the wild ox” (KJV “unicorn”). The point of the image is strength or power. Horns are also used in the Bible to represent kingship (see Pss 89 and 132 ).


The oracle compares Israel first to a lion, or better, lioness, because she does the tracking and hunting of food while the lion moves up and down roaring and distracting the prey. But the lion is also the traditional emblem of Judah, Dan and Gad, as well as the symbol of royalty. So this also supports the motif of royalty as well as power for Israel.


Balak is stubborn, as indeed Balaam is persistent. But Balak still thinks that if another location were used it just might work. Balaam had actually told Balak in the prophecy that other attempts would fail. But Balak refuses to give up so easily. So he insists they perform the ritual and try again. This time, however, Balaam will change his approach, and this will result in a dramatic outpouring of power on him.


For a thorough study of the arrangement of this passage, see E. B. Smick, “A Study of the Structure of the Third Balaam Oracle,” The Law and the Prophets , 242-52. He sees the oracle as having an introductory strophe (vv. 3, 4 ), followed by two stanzas (vv. 5, 6 ) that introduce the body (vv. 7 b-9b) before the final benediction (v. 9 b).


The language seems to be more poetic than precise. N. H. Snaith notes that cedars do not grow beside water; he also connects “aloes” to the eaglewood that is more exotic, and capable of giving off an aroma ( Leviticus and Numbers [NCB], 298).


These two lines are difficult, but the general sense is that of irrigation buckets and a well-watered land. The point is that Israel will be prosperous and fruitful.


Many commentators see this as a reference to Agag of 1 Sam 15:32-33 , the Amalekite king slain by Samuel, for that is the one we know. But that is by no means clear, for this text does not identify this Agag. If it is that king, then this poem, or this line in this poem, would have to be later, unless one were to try to argue for a specific prophecy. Whoever this Agag is, he is a symbol of power.


This is apparently a sign of contempt or derision (see Job 27:23 ; and Lam 2:15 ).


This is a figure for a king (see also Isa 14:12 ) not only in the Bible but in the ancient Near Eastern literature as a whole. The immediate reference of the prophecy seems to be to David, but the eschatological theme goes beyond him. There is to be a connection made between this passage and the sighting of a star in its ascendancy by the magi, who then traveled to Bethlehem to see the one born King of the Jews ( Matt 2:2 ). The expression “son of a star” ( Aram Bar Kochba ) became a title for a later claimant to kingship, but he was doomed by the Romans in a.d. 135.


The “scepter” is metonymical for a king who will rise to power. NEB strangely rendered this as “comet” to make a parallel with “star.”


The prophecy begins to be fulfilled when David defeated Moab and Edom and established an empire including them. But the Messianic promise extends far beyond that to the end of the age and the inclusion of these defeated people in the program of the coming King.


Seir is the chief mountain range of Edom ( Deut 33:2 ), and so the reference here is to the general area of Edom.


This probably means that it held first place, or it thought that it was “the first of the nations.” It was not the first, either in order or greatness.


A pun is made on the name Kenite by using the word “your nest” ( קִנֶּךָ , qinnekha ); the location may be the rocky cliffs overlooking Petra.


Chapter tells of Israel’s sins on the steppes of Moab, and God’s punishment. In the overall plan of the book, here we have another possible threat to God’s program, although here it comes from within the camp (Balaam was the threat from without). If the Moabites could not defeat them one way, they would try another. The chapter has three parts: fornication (vv. 1-3 ), God’s punishment (vv. 4-9 ), and aftermath (vv. 10-18 ). See further G. E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation , 105-21; and S. C. Reif, “What Enraged Phinehas? A Study of Numbers 25:8 ,” JBL 90 (1971): 200-206.


The account apparently means that the men were having sex with the Moabite women. Why the men submitted to such a temptation at this point is hard to say. It may be that as military heroes the men took liberties with the women of occupied territories.


What Israel experienced here was some of the debased ritual practices of the Canaanite people. The act of prostrating themselves before the pagan deities was probably participation in a fertility ritual, nothing short of cultic prostitution. This was a blatant disregard of the covenant and the Law. If something were not done, the nation would have destroyed itself.


The meaning must be the leaders behind the apostasy, for they would now be arrested. They were responsible for the tribes’ conformity to the Law, but here they had not only failed in their duty, but had participated. The leaders were executed; the rest of the guilty died by the plague.


The leaders who were guilty were commanded by God to be publicly exposed by hanging, probably a reference to impaling, but possibly some other form of harsh punishment. The point was that the swaying of their executed bodies would be a startling warning for any who so blatantly set the Law aside and indulged in apostasy through pagan sexual orgies.


Phinehas saw all this as part of the pagan sexual ritual that was defiling the camp. He had seen that the Lord himself had had the guilty put to death. And there was already some plague breaking out in the camp that had to be stopped. And so in his zeal he dramatically put an end to this incident, that served to stop the rest and end the plague.


The atonement that he made in this passage refers to the killing of the two obviously blatant sinners. By doing this he dispensed with any animal sacrifice, for the sinners themselves died. In Leviticus it was the life of the substitutionary animal that was taken in place of the sinners that made atonement. The point is that sin was punished by death, and so God was free to end the plague and pardon the people. God’s holiness and righteousness have always been every bit as important as God’s mercy and compassion, for without righteousness and holiness mercy and compassion mean nothing.


The passage makes it clear that this individual was a leader, one who was supposed to be preventing this thing from happening. The judgment was swift and severe, because the crime was so great, and the danger of it spreading was certain. Paul refers to this horrible incident when he reminds Christians not to do similar things ( 1 Cor 10:6-8 ).


Cozbi’s father, Zur, was one of five Midianite kings who eventually succumbed to Israel ( Num 31:8 ). When the text gives the name and family of a woman, it is asserting that she is important, at least for social reasons, among her people.


The breakdown of ch. for outlining purposes will be essentially according to the tribes of Israel. The format and structure is similar to the first census, and so less comment is necessary here.


This is a significant reduction from the first count of 40,500.


For additional information on this section, see N. H. Snaith, “The Daughters of Zelophehad,” VT 16 (1966): 124-27; and J. Weingreen, “The Case of the Daughters of Zelophehad,” VT 16 (1966): 518-22.


See further J. Lindblom, “Lot Casting in the Old Testament,” VT 12 (1962): 164-78; E. Lipinski, “Urim and Thummim,” VT 20 (1970): 495-96; and S. E. Loewenstamm, “The Death of Moses,” Tarbiz 27 (1957/58): 142-57.


Using the basic meaning of the word קָדַשׁ ( qadash , “to be separate, distinct, set apart”), we can understand better what Moses failed to do. He was supposed to have acted in a way that would have shown God to be distinct, different, holy. Instead, he gave the impression that God was capricious and hostile – very human. The leader has to be aware of what image he is conveying to the people.


This is probably technical terminology for a military leader ( Josh 14:11 ; 1 Sam 18:13-16 ; 1 Kgs 3:7 ; 2 Kgs 11:9 ). The image of a shepherd can also be military in nature ( 1 Kgs 22:17 ).


The word “spirit” probably refers to the Holy Spirit, in which case it would be rendered “in whom is the Spirit.” This would likely be a permanent endowment for Joshua. But it is also possible to take it to refer to a proper spirit to do all the things required of such a leader (which ultimately is a gift from the Spirit of God). The Hebrew text simply says “in whom is a spirit.”


This symbolic act would indicate the transfer of leadership to Joshua.


The new leader would not have the privilege that Moses had in speaking to God face to face. Rather, he would have to inquire of the Lord through the priest, and the priest would seek a decision by means of the Urim. The Urim and the Thummim were the sacred lots that the priest had in his pouch, the “breastplate” as it has traditionally been called. Since the Law had now been fully established, there would be fewer cases that the leader would need further rulings. Now it would simply be seeking the Lord ’s word for matters such as whether to advance or not. The size, shape or substance of these objects is uncertain. See further C. Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim .


For additional reading on these chapters, see G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament ; A. F. Rainey, “The Order of Sacrifices in the Old Testament Ritual Texts,” Bib 51 (1970): 485-98; N. H. Snaith, The Jewish New Year Festival .


See L. R. Fisher, “New Ritual Calendar from Ugarit,” HTR 63 (1970): 485-501.


The sacrifice was to be kept burning, but each morning the priests would have to clean the grill and put a new offering on the altar. So the idea of a continual burnt offering is more that of a regular offering.


That is about two quarts.


That is about one quart.


That is, about 4 quarts.


Beginning with 29:40 , the verse numbers through 30:16 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 29:40 ET = 30:1 HT, 30:1 ET = 30:2 HT, etc., through 30:16 ET = 30:17 HT. With 31:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same.


deals with vows that are different than the vows discussed in and . The material is placed here after all the rulings of the offerings, but it could have been revealed to Moses at any time, such as the Nazirite vows, or the question of the daughters’ inheritance. The logic of placing it here may be that a festival was the ideal place for discharging a vow. For additional material on vows, see R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel , 465-66.


In other words, he will pay the penalty for making her break her vows if he makes her stop what she vowed. It will not be her responsibility.


This lengthy chapter records the mobilization of the troops (vv. 1-5 ), the war itself (vv. 6-13 ), the death of the captive women (vv. 14-18 ), the purification of the nations (vv. 19-24 ), and the distribution of the spoils (vv. 25-54 ). For more detail, see G. W. Coats, “Moses in Midian,” JBL 92 (1973): 3-10; and W. J. Dumbrell, “Midian – a Land or a League?” VT 25 (1975): 323-37.


The war was commanded by the Lord and was to be divine vengeance on the Midianites. So it was holy war. No Israelites then could take spoils in this – it was not a time for plunder and aggrandizement. It was part of the judgment of God upon those who would destroy or pervert his plan and his people.


This would be the last major enterprise that Moses would have to undertake. He would soon die and “be gathered to his people” as Aaron was.


Some commentators argue that given the size of the nation (which they reject) the small number for the army is a sign of the unrealistic character of the story. The number is a round number, but it is also a holy war, and God would give them the victory. They are beginning to learn here, and at Jericho, and later against these Midianites under Gideon, that God does not want or need a large army in order to obtain victory.


It is not clear what articles from the sanctuary were included. Tg. Ps.-J. adds (interpretively) “the Urim and Thummim.”


Many modern biblical scholars assume that this passage is fictitious. The text says that they killed every male, but Judges accounts for the Midianites. The texts can be harmonized rather simply – they killed every Midianite who was in the battle. Midianite tribes and cities dotted the whole region, but that does not mean Israel went and killed every single one of them. There apparently was a core of Midianites whom Balaam had influenced to pervert Israel.


Here again we see that there was no unified empire, but Midianite tribal groups.


And what was Balaam doing among the Midianites? The implication is strong. This pagan diviner had to submit to the revealed will of God in the oracles, but he nonetheless could be hired. He had been a part of the attempt to destroy Israel that failed; he then apparently became part of the plan, if not the adviser, to destroy them with sexual immorality and pagan ritual.


Many contemporary scholars see this story as fictitious, composed by the Jews during the captivity. According to this interpretation, the spoils of war here indicate the wealth of the Jews in captivity, which was to be given to the Levites and priests for the restoration of the sanctuary in Jerusalem. The conclusion drawn from this interpretation is that returning Jews had the same problem as the earlier ones: to gain a foothold in the land. Against this interpretation of the account is a lack of hard evidence, a lack which makes this interpretation appear contrived and subjective. If this was the intent of a later writer, he surely could have stated this more clearly than by making up such a story.


These verses are a reminder that taking a life, even if justified through holy war, still separates one from the holiness of God. It is part of the violation of the fallen world, and only through the ritual of purification can one be once again made fit for the presence of the Lord .


Purification by fire is unique to this event. Making these metallic objects “pass through the fire” was not only a way of purifying (burning off impurities), but it seems to be a dedicatory rite as well to the Lord and his people. The aspect of passing through the fire is one used by these pagans for child sacrifice.


Here again we encounter one of the difficulties of the book, the use of the large numbers. Only twelve thousand soldiers fought the Midianites, but they brought back this amount of plunder, including 32,000 girls. Until a solution for numbers in the book can be found, or the current translation confirmed, one must remain cautious in interpretation.


The expression here may include the idea of finding protection from divine wrath, which is so common to Leviticus, but it may also be a thank offering for the fact that their lives had been spared.


Or about 420 imperial pounds.


While the tribes are on the other side of Jordan, the matter of which tribes would settle there has to be discussed. This chapter begins the settlement of Israel into the tribal territories, something to be continued in Joshua. The chapter has the petitions (vv. 1-5 ), the response by Moses (vv. 6-15 ), the proposal (vv. 16-27 ), and the conclusion of the matter (vv. 28-42 ). For literature on this subject, both critical and conservative, see S. E. Loewenstein, “The Relation of the Settlement of Gad and Reuben in Numbers 32:1-38 , Its Background and Its Composition,” Tarbiz 42 (1972): 12-26; J. Mauchline, “Gilead and Gilgal, Some Reflections on the Israelite Occupation of Palestine,” VT 6 (1956): 19-33; and A. Bergmann, “The Israelite Tribe of Half-Manasseh,” JPOS 16 (1936): 224-54.


This material can be arranged into four sections: from Egypt to Sinai (vv. 1-15 ), the wilderness wanderings (vv. 16-36 ), from Kadesh to Moab (vv. 37-49 ), and final orders for Canaan (vv. 50-56 ).


This chapter falls into several sections: the south (vv. 1-5 ), the west (v. 6 ), the north (vv. 7-9 ), the east (vv. 10-15 ), and then a list of appointed officials (vv. 16-29 ).


That is, the Mediterranean.


That is, the Mediterranean Sea (also in the following verse).


This section has two main parts, the Levitical cities (vv. 1-8 ) and the Cities of Refuge (vv. 9-34 ).


The precise nature of the layout described here is not altogether clear. V. 4 speaks of the distance from the wall as being 500 yards; v. 5 , however, describes measurements of 1,000 yards. Various proposals have been made in order to harmonize vv. 4 and 5 . P. J. Budd, Numbers (WBC), 376, makes the following suggestion: “It may be best to assume that the cubits of the Levitical pasture lands are cubit frontages of land – in other words on each side of the city there was a block of land with a frontage of two thousand cubits (v 5 ), and a depth of 1000 cubits (v 4 ).”


This place is otherwise unattested and its location is unknown. Perhaps it is Khirbet Sufah, 4 mi (6 km) SSE of Madaba, Jordan.


Paran is the well-known desert area between Mount Sinai and Kadesh Barnea (cf. Num 10:12; 12:16 ).


Tophel refers possibly to et£-T£afîleh , 15 mi (25 km) SE of the Dead Sea, or to Da‚bîlu , another name for Paran. See H. Cazelles, “Tophel ( Deut. 1:1 ),” VT 9 (1959): 412-15.


Laban . Perhaps this refers to Libnah ( Num 33:20 ).


Hazeroth . This probably refers to àAin Khadra . See Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible , 199-200.


An eleven-day journey was about 140 mi (233 km).


Horeb is another name for Sinai. “Horeb” occurs 9 times in the Book of Deuteronomy and “Sinai” only once ( 33:2 ). “Sinai” occurs 13 times in the Book of Exodus and “Horeb” only 3 times.


Kadesh Barnea . Possibly this refers to àAin Qudeis , about 50 mi (80 km) southwest of Beer Sheba, but more likely to àAin Qudeirat , 5 mi (8 km) NW of àAin Qudeis . See R. Cohen, “Did I Excavate Kadesh-Barnea?” BAR 7 (1981): 20-33.


Mount Seir is synonymous with Edom. “By way of Mount Seir” refers to the route from Horeb that ended up in Edom Cf. CEV “by way of the Mount Seir Road”; TEV “by way of the hill country of Edom.”


The eleventh month is Shebat in the Hebrew calendar, January/February in the modern (Gregorian) calendar.


The fortieth year would be 1406 b.c. according to the “early” date of the exodus. See E. H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests , 66-75.


See Deut 2:26 – 3:22 .


Heshbon is probably modern Tell Hesban , about 7.5 mi (12 km) south southwest of Amman, Jordan.


Ashtaroth is probably Tell àAshtarah , about 22 mi (35 km) due east of the Sea of Galilee.


Edrei is probably modern Deràa , 60 mi (95 km) south of Damascus (see Num 21:33 ; Josh 12:4; 13:12, 31 ).


Caleb had, with Joshua, brought back to Israel a minority report from Canaan urging a conquest of the land, for he was confident of the Lord ’s power ( Num 13:6, 8, 16, 30; 14:30, 38 ).


Do not know good from bad . This is a figure of speech called a merism (suggesting a whole by referring to its extreme opposites). Other examples are the tree of “the knowledge of good and evil” ( Gen 2:9 ), the boy who knows enough “to reject the wrong and choose the right” ( Isa 7:16; 8:4 ), and those who “cannot tell their right hand from their left” ( Jonah 4:11 ). A young child is characterized by lack of knowledge.


Hormah is probably Khirbet el-Meshash, 5.5 mi (9 km) west of Arad and 7.5 mi (12 km) SE of Beer Sheba. Its name is a derivative of the verb חָרָם ( kharam , “to ban; to exterminate”). See Num 21:3 .


The descendants of Esau ( Heb “sons of Esau”; the phrase also occurs in 2:8, 12, 22, 29 ). These are the inhabitants of the land otherwise known as Edom, south and east of the Dead Sea. Jacob’s brother Esau had settled there after his bitter strife with Jacob ( Gen 36:1-8 ). “Edom” means “reddish,” probably because of the red sandstone of the region, but also by popular etymology because Esau, at birth, was reddish ( Gen 25:25 ).


Mount Seir is synonymous with Edom.


Elat was a port city at the head of the eastern arm of the Red Sea, that is, the Gulf of Aqaba (or Gulf of Eilat). Solomon ( 1 Kgs 9:28 ), Uzziah ( 2 Kgs 14:22 ), and Ahaz ( 2 Kgs 16:5-6 ) used it as a port but eventually it became permanently part of Edom. It may be what is known today as Tell el-Kheleifeh . Modern Eilat is located further west along the northern coast. See G. Pratico, “Nelson Glueck’s 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal,” BASOR 259 (1985): 1-32.


Ezion Geber . A place near the Gulf of Aqaba, Ezion-geber must be distinguished from Elat (cf. 1 Kgs 9:26-28 ; 2 Chr 8:17-18 ). It was, however, also a port city ( 1 Kgs 22:48-49 ). It may be the same as the modern site Gezirat al-Fauran , 15 mi (24 km) south-southwest from Tell el-Kheleifah .


Ar was a Moabite city on the Arnon River east of the Dead Sea. It is mentioned elsewhere in the “Book of the Wars of Yahweh” ( Num 21:15 ; cf. 21:28 ; Isa 15:1 ). Here it is synonymous with the whole land of Moab.


The descendants of Lot . Following the destruction of the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah, as God’s judgment, Lot fathered two sons by his two daughters, namely, Moab and Ammon ( Gen 19:30-38 ). Thus, these descendants of Lot in and around Ar were the Moabites.


Emites . These giant people, like the Anakites ( Deut 1:28 ), were also known as Rephaites (v. 11 ). They appear elsewhere in the narrative of the invasion of the kings of the east where they are said to have lived around Shaveh Kiriathaim, perhaps 9 to 11 mi (15 to 18 km) east of the north end of the Dead Sea ( Gen 14:5 ).


Rephaites . The earliest reference to this infamous giant race is, again, in the story of the invasion of the eastern kings ( Gen 14:5 ). They lived around Ashteroth Karnaim, probably modern Tell Ashtarah (cf. Deut 1:4 ), in the Bashan plateau east of the Sea of Galilee. Og, king of Bashan, was a Rephaite ( Deut 3:11 ; Josh 12:4; 13:12 ). Other texts speak of them or their kinfolk in both Transjordan ( Deut 2:20; 3:13 ) and Canaan ( Josh 11:21-22; 14:12, 15; 15:13-14 ; Judg 1:20 ; 1 Sam 17:4 ; 1 Chr 20:4-8 ). They also appear in extra-biblical literature, especially in connection with the city state of Ugarit. See C. L’Heureux, “Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim,” HTR 67 (1974): 265-74.


Horites . Most likely these are the same as the well-known people of ancient Near Eastern texts described as Hurrians. They were geographically widespread and probably non-Semitic. Genesis speaks of them as the indigenous peoples of Edom that Esau expelled ( Gen 36:8-19, 31-43 ) and also as among those who confronted the kings of the east ( Gen 14:6 ).


Wadi Zered . Now known as Wadi el-H£esa , this valley marked the boundary between Moab to the north and Edom to the south.


Ar . See note on this word in Deut 2:9 .


Lot’s descendants . See note on this phrase in Deut 2:9 .


Rephaites . See note on this word in Deut 2:11 .


Zamzummites . Just as the Moabites called Rephaites by the name Emites, the Ammonites called them Zamzummites (or Zazites; Gen 14:5 ).


Avvites . Otherwise unknown, these people were probably also Anakite (or Rephaite) giants who lived in the lower Mediterranean coastal plain until they were expelled by the Caphtorites.


Caphtorites . These peoples are familiar from both the OT ( Gen 10:14 ; 1 Chr 1:12 ; Jer 47:4 ; Amos 9:7 ) and ancient Near Eastern texts (Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature , 2:37-38; ANET 138). They originated in Crete (OT “Caphtor”) and are identified as the ancestors of the Philistines ( Gen 10:14 ; Jer 47:4 ).


Heshbon is the name of a prominent site (now Tell Hesba„n , about 7.5 mi [12 km] south southwest of Amman, Jordan). Sihon made it his capital after having driven Moab from the area and forced them south to the Arnon ( Num 21:26-30 ). Heshbon is also mentioned in Deut 1:4 .


Kedemoth . This is probably Aleiyan , about 8 mi (13 km) north of the Arnon and between Dibon and Mattanah.


Jahaz . This is probably Khirbet el-Medeiyineh. See J. Dearman, “The Levitical Cities of Reuben and Moabite Toponymy,” BASOR 276 (1984): 55-57.


Aroer . Now known as àAraáir on the northern edge of the Arnon river, Aroer marked the southern limit of Moab and, later, of the allotment of the tribe of Reuben ( Josh 13:9, 16 ).


Wadi Jabbok . Now known as the Zerqa River, this is a major tributary of the Jordan that normally served as a boundary between Ammon and Gad ( Deut 3:16 ).


Bashan . This plateau country, famous for its oaks ( Isa 2:13 ) and cattle ( Deut 32:14 ; Amos 4:1 ), was north of Gilead along the Yarmuk River.


Edrei is probably modern Deràa , 60 mi (95 km) south of Damascus (see Num 21:33 ; Josh 12:4; 13:12, 31 ; also mentioned in Deut 1:4 ).


Argob . This is a subdistrict of Bashan, perhaps north of the Yarmuk River. See Y. Aharoni, Land of the Bible , 314.


Mount Hermon . This is the famous peak at the southern end of the Anti-Lebanon mountain range known today as Jebel es-Sheik.


Sidonians were Phoenician inhabitants of the city of Sidon (now in Lebanon), about 47 mi (75 km) north of Mount Carmel.


Sirion . This name is attested in the Ugaritic texts as sryn . See UT 495.


Senir . Probably this was actually one of the peaks of Hermon and not the main mountain ( Song of Songs 4:8 ; 1 Chr 5:23 ). It is mentioned in a royal inscription of Shalmaneser III of Assyria ( saniru ; see ANET 280).


Salecah . Today this is known as Salkhad , in Jordan, about 31 mi (50 km) east of the Jordan River in the Hauran Desert.


Edrei . See note on this term in 3:1 .


Rabbath . This place name (usually occurring as Rabbah; 2 Sam 11:11; 12:27 ; Jer 49:3 ) refers to the ancient capital of the Ammonite kingdom, now the modern city of Amman, Jordan. The word means “great [one],” probably because of its political importance. The fact that the sarcophagus “still remain[ed]” there suggests this part of the verse is post-Mosaic, having been added as a matter of explanation for the existence of the artifact and also to verify the claim as to its size.


Reubenites and Gadites . By the time of Moses’ address the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh had already been granted permission to settle in the Transjordan, provided they helped the other tribes subdue the occupants of Canaan (cf. Num 32:28-42 ).


Half the tribe of Manasseh . The tribe of Manasseh split into clans, with half opting to settle in Bashan and the other half in Canaan (cf. Num 32:39-42 ; Josh 17:1-13 ).


Argob . See note on this term in v. 4 .


Geshurites . Geshur was a city and its surrounding area somewhere northeast of Bashan (cf. Josh 12:5 ; 13:11, 13 ). One of David’s wives was Maacah, the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur and mother of Absalom (cf. 2 Sam 13:37; 15:8 ; 1 Chr 3:2 ).


Maacathites . These were the people of a territory southwest of Mount Hermon on the Jordan River. The name probably has nothing to do with David’s wife from Geshur (see note on “Geshurites” earlier in this verse).


Havvoth-Jair . The Hebrew name means “villages of Jair,” the latter being named after a son (i.e., descendant) of Manasseh who took the area by conquest.


Machir was the name of another descendant of Manasseh (cf. Num 32:41 ; 1 Chr 7:14-19 ). Eastern Manasseh was thus divided between the Jairites and the Machirites.


The Salt Sea is another name for the Dead Sea (cf. Gen 14:3 ; Josh 3:16 ).


Pisgah . This appears to refer to a small range of mountains, the most prominent peak of which is Mount Nebo ( Num 21:20; 23:14 ; Deut 3:27 ; cf. 34:1 ).


Beth Peor . This is probably the spot near Pisgah where Balaam attempted to curse the nation Israel ( Num 23:28 ). The Moabites also worshiped Baal there by the name “Baal [of] Peor” ( Num 25:1-5 ).


This is the first occurrence of the word בְּרִית ( bÿrit , “covenant”) in the Book of Deuteronomy but it appears commonly hereafter ( 4:23, 31; 5:2, 3; 7:9, 12; 8:18; 9:9, 10, 11, 15; 10:2, 4, 5, 8; 17:2; 29:1, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, 25; 31:9, 16, 20, 25, 26; 33:9 ). Etymologically, it derives from the notion of linking or yoking together. See M. Weinfeld, TDOT 2:255.


I invoke heaven and earth as witnesses against you . This stock formula introduces what is known form-critically as a רִיב ( riv ) or controversy pattern. It is commonly used in the ancient Near Eastern world in legal contexts and in the OT as a forensic or judicial device to draw attention to Israel’s violation of the Lord ’s covenant with them (see Deut 30:19 ; Isa 1:2; 3:13 ; Jer 2:9 ). Since court proceedings required the testimony of witnesses, the Lord here summons heaven and earth (that is, all creation) to testify to his faithfulness, Israel’s disobedience, and the threat of judgment.


The phrase is not used here in a technical sense for the eschaton, but rather refers to a future time when Israel will be punished for its sin and experience exile. See Deut 31:29 .


Mount Siyon (the Hebrew name is שִׂיאֹן [ si ’ on ], not to be confused with Zion [ צִיּוֹן , tsiyyon ]) is another name for Mount Hermon, also called Sirion and Senir (cf. Deut 3:9 ).


The sea of the Arabah refers to the Dead Sea, also known as the Salt Sea in OT times (cf. Deut 3:17 ).


For NT variations on the Shema see Matt 22:37-39 ; Mark 12:29-30 ; Luke 10:27 .


Tie them as a sign on your forearm . Later Jewish tradition referred to the little leather containers tied to the forearms and foreheads as tefillin . They were to contain the following passages from the Torah: Exod 13:1-10, 11-16 ; Deut 6:5-9; 11:13-21 . The purpose was to serve as a “sign” of covenant relationship and obedience.


Fasten them as symbols on your forehead . These were also known later as tefillin (see previous note) or phylacteries (from the Greek term). These box-like containers, like those on the forearms, held the same scraps of the Torah. It was the hypocritical practice of wearing these without heartfelt sincerity that caused Jesus to speak scathingly about them (cf. Matt 23:5 ).


The Hebrew term מְזוּזֹת ( mÿzuzot ) refers both to the door frames and to small cases attached on them containing scripture texts (always Deut 6:4-9 and 11:13-21 ; and sometimes the decalogue; Exod 13:1-10, 11-16 ; and Num 10:35-36 ). See J. H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (JPSTC), 443-44.


The place name Massah ( מַסָּה , massah ) derives from a root ( נָסָה , nasah ) meaning “to test; to try.” The reference here is to the experience in the Sinai desert when Moses struck the rock to obtain water ( Exod 17:1-2 ). The complaining Israelites had, thus, “tested” the Lord , a wickedness that gave rise to the naming of the place ( Exod 17:7 ; cf. Deut 9:22; 33:8 ).


Hittites . The center of Hittite power was in Anatolia (central modern Turkey). In the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 b.c. ) they were at their zenith, establishing outposts and colonies near and far. Some elements were obviously in Canaan at the time of the Conquest (1400-1350 b.c. ).


Girgashites . These cannot be ethnically identified and are unknown outside the OT. They usually appear in such lists only when the intention is to have seven groups in all (see also the note on the word “seven” later in this verse).


Amorites . Originally from the upper Euphrates region ( Amurru ), the Amorites appear to have migrated into Canaan beginning in 2200 b.c. or thereabouts.


Canaanites . These were the indigenous peoples of the land, going back to the beginning of recorded history (ca. 3000 b.c. ). The OT identifies them as descendants of Ham ( Gen 10:6 ), the only Hamites to have settled north and east of Egypt.


Perizzites . This is probably a subgroup of Canaanites ( Gen 13:7; 34:30 ).


Hivites . These are usually thought to be the same as the Hurrians, a people well-known in ancient Near Eastern texts. They are likely identical to the Horites (see note on the term “Horites” in Deut 2:12 ).


Jebusites . These inhabited the hill country, particularly in and about Jerusalem (cf. Num 13:29 ; Josh 15:8 ; 2 Sam 5:6; 24:16 ).


Seven . This is an ideal number in the OT, one symbolizing fullness or completeness. Therefore, the intent of the text here is not to be precise and list all of Israel’s enemies but simply to state that Israel will have a full complement of foes to deal with. For other lists of Canaanites, some with fewer than seven peoples, see Exod 3:8; 13:5; 23:23, 28; 33:2; 34:11 ; Deut 20:17 ; Josh 3:10; 9:1; 24:11 . Moreover, the “Table of Nations” ( Gen 10:15-19 ) suggests that all of these (possibly excepting the Perizzites) were offspring of Canaan and therefore Canaanites.


Sacred pillars . The Hebrew word ( מַצֵּבֹת , matsevot ) denotes a standing pillar, usually made of stone. Its purpose was to mark the presence of a shrine or altar thought to have been visited by deity. Though sometimes associated with pure worship of the Lord ( Gen 28:18, 22; 31:13; 35:14 ; Exod 24:4 ), these pillars were usually associated with pagan cults and rituals ( Exod 23:24; 34:13 ; Deut 12:3 ; 1 Kgs 14:23 ; 2 Kgs 17:10 ; Hos 3:4; 10:1 ; Jer 43:13 ).


Sacred Asherah poles . A leading deity of the Canaanite pantheon was Asherah, wife/sister of El and goddess of fertility. She was commonly worshiped at shrines in or near groves of evergreen trees, or, failing that, at places marked by wooden poles (Hebrew אֲשֵׁרִים [’ asherim ], as here). They were to be burned or cut down ( Deut 12:3; 16:21 ; Judg 6:25, 28, 30 ; 2 Kgs 18:4 ).


Redeeming you from the place of slavery . The Hebrew verb translated “redeeming” (from the root פָּדָה , padah ) has the idea of redemption by the payment of a ransom. The initial symbol of this was the Passover lamb, offered by Israel to the Lord as ransom in exchange for deliverance from bondage and death ( Exod 12:1-14 ). Later, the firstborn sons of Israel, represented by the Levites, became the ransom ( Num 3:11-13 ). These were all types of the redemption effected by the death of Christ who described his atoning work as “a ransom for many” ( Matt 20:28 ; cf. 1 Pet 1:18 ).


One of the ironies about the promises to the patriarchs concerning offspring was the characteristic barrenness of the wives of the men to whom these pledges were made (cf. Gen 11:30; 25:21; 29:31 ). Their affliction is in each case described by the very Hebrew word used here ( עֲקָרָה , ’ aqarah ), an affliction that will no longer prevail in Canaan.


Jesus quoted this text to the devil in the midst of his forty-day fast to make the point that spiritual nourishment is incomparably more important than mere physical bread ( Matt 4:4 ; cf. Luke 4:4 ).


A land whose stones are iron . Since iron deposits are few and far between in Palestine, the reference here is probably to iron ore found in mines as opposed to the meteorite iron more commonly known in that area.


Anakites . See note on this term in Deut 1:28 .


The very finger of God . This is a double figure of speech (1) in which God is ascribed human features (anthropomorphism) and (2) in which a part stands for the whole (synecdoche). That is, God, as Spirit, has no literal finger nor, if he had, would he write with his finger. Rather, the sense is that God himself – not Moses in any way – was responsible for the composition of the Ten Commandments (cf. Exod 31:18; 32:16; 34:1 ).


Taberah . By popular etymology this derives from the Hebrew verb בָעַר ( ba ’ a r , “to burn”), thus, here, “burning.” The reference is to the Lord ’s fiery wrath against Israel because of their constant complaints against him ( Num 11:1-3 ).


Massah . See note on this term in Deut 6:16 .


Kibroth-Hattaavah . This place name means in Hebrew “burial places of appetite,” that is, graves that resulted from overindulgence. The reference is to the Israelites stuffing themselves with the quail God had provided and doing so with thanklessness ( Num 11:31-35 ).


The same words . The care with which the replacement copy must be made underscores the importance of verbal precision in relaying the Lord ’s commandments.


Acacia wood ( Heb “shittim wood”). This is wood from the acacia, the most common timber tree of the Sinai region. Most likely it is the species Acacia raddiana because this has the largest trunk. See F. N. Hepper, Illustrated Encyclopedia of Bible Plants , 63.


Beeroth Bene-Yaaqan . This Hebrew name could be translated “the wells of Bene-Yaaqan” or “the wells of the sons of Yaaqan,” a site whose location cannot be determined (cf. Num 33:31-32 ; 1 Chr 1:42 ).


Moserah . Since Aaron in other texts ( Num 20:28; 33:38 ) is said to have died on Mount Hor, this must be the Arabah region in which Hor was located.


Gudgodah . This is probably the same as Haggidgad, which is also associated with Jotbathah ( Num 33:33 ).


Jotbathah . This place, whose Hebrew name can be translated “place of wadis,” is possibly modern Ain Tabah , just north of Eilat, or Tabah , 6.5 mi (11 km) south of Eilat on the west shore of the Gulf of Aqaba.


The Lord set apart the tribe of Levi . This was not the initial commissioning of the tribe of Levi to this ministry (cf. Num 3:11-13; 8:12-26 ), but with Aaron’s death it seemed appropriate to Moses to reiterate Levi’s responsibilities. There is no reference in the Book of Numbers to this having been done, but the account of Eleazar’s succession to the priesthood there ( Num 20:25-28 ) would provide a setting for this to have occurred.


To formulate blessings . The most famous example of this is the priestly “blessing formula” of Num 6:24-26 .


Levi has no allotment or inheritance . As the priestly tribe, Levi would have no land allotment except for forty-eight towns set apart for their use ( Num 35:1-8 ; Josh 21:1-42 ). But theirs was a far greater inheritance, for the Lord himself was their apportionment, that is, service to him would be their full-time and lifelong privilege ( Num 18:20-24 ; Deut 18:2 ; Josh 13:33 ).


Dathan and Abiram . These two (along with others) had challenged Moses’ leadership in the desert with the result that the earth beneath them opened up and they and their families disappeared ( Num 16:1-3, 31-35 ).


From the beginning to the end of the year . This refers to the agricultural year that was marked by the onset of the heavy rains, thus the autumn. See note on the phrase “the former and the latter rains” in v. 14 .


The autumn and the spring rains . The “former” ( יוֹרֶה , yoreh ) and “latter” ( מַלְקוֹשׁ , malqosh ) rains come in abundance respectively in September/October and March/April. Planting of most crops takes place before the former rains fall and the harvests follow the latter rains.


A blessing and a curse . Every extant treaty text of the late Bronze Age attests to a section known as the “blessings and curses,” the former for covenant loyalty and the latter for covenant breach. Blessings were promised rewards for obedience; curses were threatened judgments for disobedience. In the Book of Deuteronomy these are fully developed in 27:1 – 28:68 . Here Moses adumbrates the whole by way of anticipation.


Mount Gerizim…Mount Ebal . These two mountains are near the ancient site of Shechem and the modern city of Nablus. The valley between them is like a great amphitheater with the mountain slopes as seating sections. The place was sacred because it was there that Abraham pitched his camp and built his first altar after coming to Canaan ( Gen 12:6 ). Jacob also settled at Shechem for a time and dug a well from which Jesus once requested a drink of water ( Gen 33:18-20 ; John 4:5-7 ). When Joshua and the Israelites finally brought Canaan under control they assembled at Shechem as Moses commanded and undertook a ritual of covenant reaffirmation ( Josh 8:30-35; 24:1, 25 ). Half the tribes stood on Mt. Gerizim and half on Mt. Ebal and in antiphonal chorus pledged their loyalty to the Lord before Joshua and the Levites who stood in the valley below ( Josh 8:33 ; cf. Deut 27:11-13 ).


Gilgal . From a Hebrew verb root גָלַל ( galal , “to roll”) this place name means “circle” or “rolling,” a name given because God had “rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you” ( Josh 5:9 ). It is perhaps to be identified with Khirbet el-Metjir, 1.2 mi (2 km) northeast of OT Jericho.


Every leafy tree . This expression refers to evergreens which, because they keep their foliage throughout the year, provided apt symbolism for nature cults such as those practiced in Canaan. The deity particularly in view is Asherah, wife of the great god El, who was considered the goddess of fertility and whose worship frequently took place at shrines near or among clusters (groves) of such trees (see also Deut 7:5 ). See J. Hadley, NIDOTTE 1:569-70; J. DeMoor, TDOT 1:438-44.


Sacred pillars . These are the stelae (stone pillars; the Hebrew term is מַצֵּבֹת , matsevot ) associated with Baal worship, perhaps to mark a spot hallowed by an alleged visitation of the gods. See also Deut 7:5 .


Sacred Asherah poles . The Hebrew term (plural) is אֲשֵׁרִים (’ asherim ). See note on the word “(leafy) tree” in v. 2 , and also Deut 7:5 .


They have no allotment or inheritance with you . See note on the word “inheritance” in Deut 10:9 .


This injunction to worship in a single and central sanctuary – one limited and appropriate to the thrice-annual festival celebrations (see Exod 23:14-17; 34:22-24 ; Lev 23:4-36 ; Deut 16:16-17 ) – marks a departure from previous times when worship was carried out at local shrines (cf. Gen 8:20; 12:7; 13:18; 22:9; 26:25; 35:1, 3, 7 ; Exod 17:15 ). Apart from the corporate worship of the whole theocratic community, however, worship at local altars would still be permitted as in the past ( Deut 16:21 ; Judg 6:24-27; 13:19-20 ; 1 Sam 7:17; 10:5, 13 ; 2 Sam 24:18-25 ; 1 Kgs 18:30 ).


The blood is life itself . This is a figure of speech (metonymy) in which the cause or means (the blood) stands for the result or effect (life). That is, life depends upon the existence and circulation of blood, a truth known empirically but not scientifically tested and proved until the 17th century a.d. (cf. Lev 17:11 ).


These other sacrifices would be so-called peace or fellowship offerings whose ritual required a different use of the blood from that of burnt (sin and trespass) offerings (cf. Lev 3; 7:11-14, 19-21 ).


Beginning with 12:32 , the verse numbers through 13:18 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 12:32 ET = 13:1 HT, 13:1 ET = 13:2 HT, 13:2 ET = 13:3 HT, etc., through 13:18 ET = 13:19 HT. With 14:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same.


Do not add to it or subtract from it . This prohibition makes at least two profound theological points: (1) This work by Moses is of divine origination (i.e., it is inspired) and therefore can tolerate no human alteration; and (2) the work is complete as it stands (i.e., it is canonical).


Execution by means of pelting the offender with stones afforded a mechanism whereby the whole community could share in it. In a very real sense it could be done not only in the name of the community and on its behalf but by its members (cf. Lev 24:14 ; Num 15:35 ; Deut 21:21 ; Josh 7:25 ).


Some see in this statement an argument for the deterrent effect of capital punishment ( Deut 17:13; 19:20; 21:21 ).


Do not cut yourselves or shave your forehead bald . These were pagan practices associated with mourning the dead; they were not be imitated by God’s people (though they frequently were; cf. 1 Kgs 18:28 ; Jer 16:6; 41:5; 47:5 ; Hos 7:14 [LXX]; Mic 5:1 ). For other warnings against such practices see Lev 21:5 ; Jer 16:5 .


Do not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk . This strange prohibition – one whose rationale is unclear but probably related to pagan ritual – may seem out of place here but actually is not for the following reasons: (1) the passage as a whole opens with a prohibition against heathen mourning rites (i.e., death, vv. 1-2 ) and closes with what appear to be birth and infancy rites. (2) In the other two places where the stipulation occurs ( Exod 23:19 and Exod 34:26 ) it similarly concludes major sections. (3) Whatever the practice signified it clearly was abhorrent to the Lord and fittingly concludes the topic of various breaches of purity and holiness as represented by the ingestion of unclean animals (vv. 3-21 ). See C. M. Carmichael, “On Separating Life and Death: An Explanation of Some Biblical Laws,” HTR 69 (1976): 1-7; J. Milgrom, “You Shall Not Boil a Kid In Its Mother’s Milk,” BRev 1 (1985): 48-55; R. J. Ratner and B. Zuckerman, “In Rereading the ‘Kid in Milk’ Inscriptions,” BRev 1 (1985): 56-58; and M. Haran, “Seething a Kid in its Mother’s Milk,” JJS 30 (1979): 23-35.


Elsewhere in the OT, the Israelites are called “Hebrews” ( עִבְרִי , ’ ivriy ) by outsiders, rarely by themselves (cf. Gen 14:13; 39:14, 17; 41:12 ; Exod 1:15, 16, 19; 2:6, 7, 11, 13 ; 1 Sam 4:6 ; Jonah 1:9 ). Thus, here and in the parallel passage in Exod 21:2-6 the term עִבְרִי may designate non-Israelites, specifically a people well-known throughout the ancient Near East as ’ apiru or habiru . They lived a rather vagabond lifestyle, frequently hiring themselves out as laborers or mercenary soldiers. While accounting nicely for the surprising use of the term here in an Israelite law code, the suggestion has against it the unlikelihood that a set of laws would address such a marginal people so specifically (as opposed to simply calling them aliens or the like). More likely עִבְרִי is chosen as a term to remind Israel that when they were “Hebrews,” that is, when they were in Egypt, they were slaves. Now that they are free they must not keep their fellow Israelites in economic bondage. See v. 15 .


When the bondslave’s ear was drilled through to the door , the door in question was that of the master’s house. In effect, the bondslave is declaring his undying and lifelong loyalty to his creditor. The scar (or even hole) in the earlobe would testify to the community that the slave had surrendered independence and personal rights. This may be what Paul had in mind when he said “I bear on my body the marks of Jesus” ( Gal 6:17 ).


The month Abib , later called Nisan ( Neh 2:1 ; Esth 3:7 ), corresponds to March-April in the modern calendar.


Sacred pillar . This refers to the stelae (stone pillars; the Hebrew term is מַצֵּבֹת , matsevot ) associated with Baal worship, perhaps to mark a spot hallowed by an alleged visitation of the gods. See also Deut 7:5 .


Of his inheritance . This is a figurative way of speaking of the produce of the land the Lord will give to his people. It is the Lord ’s inheritance, but the Levites are allowed to eat it since they themselves have no inheritance among the other tribes of Israel.


These three cities , later designated by Joshua, were Kedesh of Galilee, Shechem, and Hebron ( Josh 20:7-9 ).


You will add three more cities . Since these are alluded to nowhere else and thus were probably never added, this must be a provision for other cities of refuge should they be needed (cf. v. 8 ). See P. C. Craigie, Deuteronomy (NICOT), 267.


Purge out the blood of the innocent . Because of the corporate nature of Israel’s community life, the whole community shared in the guilt of unavenged murder unless and until vengeance occurred. Only this would restore spiritual and moral equilibrium ( Num 35:33 ).


This kind of justice is commonly called lex talionis or “measure for measure” (cf. Exod 21:23-25 ; Lev 24:19-20 ). It is likely that it is the principle that is important and not always a strict application. That is, the punishment should fit the crime and it may do so by the payment of fines or other suitable and equitable compensation (cf. Exod 22:21 ; Num 35:31 ). See T. S. Frymer-Kensky, “Tit for Tat: The Principle of Equal Retribution in Near Eastern and Biblical Law,” BA 43 (1980): 230-34.


The reference to the priest suggests also the presence of the ark of the covenant, the visible sign of God’s presence. The whole setting is clearly that of “holy war” or “Yahweh war,” in which God himself takes initiative as the true commander of the forces of Israel (cf. Exod 14:14-18; 15:3-10 ; Deut 3:22; 7:18-24; 31:6, 8 ).


Hittite . The center of Hittite power was in Anatolia (central modern Turkey). In the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 b.c. ) they were at their zenith, establishing outposts and colonies near and far. Some elements were obviously in Canaan at the time of the Conquest (1400-1350 b.c. ).


Amorite . Originally from the upper Euphrates region (Amurru), the Amorites appear to have migrated into Canaan beginning in 2200 b.c. or thereabouts.


Canaanite . These were the indigenous peoples of the land of Palestine, going back to the beginning of recorded history (ca. 3000 b.c. ). The OT identifies them as descendants of Ham ( Gen 10:6 ), the only Hamites to have settled north and east of Egypt.


Perizzite . This probably refers to a subgroup of Canaanites ( Gen 13:7; 34:30 ).


Hivite . These are usually thought to be the same as the Hurrians, a people well-known in ancient Near Eastern texts. They are likely identical to the Horites (see note on “Horites” in Deut 2:12 ).


The unworked heifer, fresh stream, and uncultivated valley speak of ritual purity – of freedom from human contamination.


This requirement for the woman to shave her head may symbolize the putting away of the old life and customs in preparation for being numbered among the people of the Lord . The same is true for the two following requirements.


Heb “send her off.” The Hebrew term שִׁלַּחְתָּה ( shillakhtah ) is a somewhat euphemistic way of referring to divorce, the matter clearly in view here (cf. Deut 22:19, 29; 24:1, 3 ; Jer 3:1 ; Mal 2:16 ). This passage does not have the matter of divorce as its principal objective, so it should not be understood as endorsing divorce generally. It merely makes the point that if grounds for divorce exist (see Deut 24:1-4 ), and then divorce ensues, the husband could in no way gain profit from it.


You have humiliated her . Since divorce was considered rejection, the wife subjected to it would “lose face” in addition to the already humiliating event of having become a wife by force ( 21:11-13 ). Furthermore, the Hebrew verb translated “humiliated” here ( עָנָה , ’ anah ), commonly used to speak of rape (cf. Gen 34:2 ; 2 Sam 13:12, 14, 22, 32 ; Judg 19:24 ), likely has sexual overtones as well. The woman may not be enslaved or abused after the divorce because it would be double humiliation (see also E. H. Merrill, Deuteronomy [NAC], 291).


The idea behind the phrase cursed by God seems to be not that the person was impaled because he was cursed but that to leave him exposed there was to invite the curse of God upon the whole land. Why this would be so is not clear, though the rabbinic idea that even a criminal is created in the image of God may give some clue (thus J. H. Tigay, Deuteronomy [JPSTC], 198). Paul cites this text (see Gal 3:13 ) to make the point that Christ, suspended from a cross, thereby took upon himself the curse associated with such a display of divine wrath and judgment (T. George, Galatians [NAC], 238-39).


In light of v. 17 this would evidently be blood-stained sheets indicative of the first instance of intercourse. See E. H. Merrill, Deuteronomy (NAC), 302-3.


Beginning with 22:30 , the verse numbers through 23:25 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 22:30 ET = 23:1 HT, 23:1 ET = 23:2 HT, 23:2 ET = 23:3 HT, etc., through 23:25 ET = 23:26 HT. With 24:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same.


This presupposes either the death of the father or their divorce since it would be impossible for one to marry his stepmother while his father was still married to her.


The Hebrew term translated “assembly” ( קָהָל , qahal ) does not refer here to the nation as such but to the formal services of the tabernacle or temple. Since emasculated or other sexually abnormal persons were commonly associated with pagan temple personnel, the thrust here may be primarily polemical in intent. One should not read into this anything having to do with the mentally and physically handicapped as fit to participate in the life and ministry of the church.


An Ammonite or Moabite . These descendants of Lot by his two daughters (cf. Gen 19:30-38 ) were thereby the products of incest and therefore excluded from the worshiping community. However, these two nations also failed to show proper hospitality to Israel on their way to Canaan (v. 4 ).


Concessions were made to the Edomites and Egyptians (as compared to the others listed in vv. 1-6 ) because the Edomites (i.e., Esauites) were full “brothers” of Israel and the Egyptians had provided security and sustenance for Israel for more than four centuries.


For the continuation of these practices into NT times see Matt 12:1-8 ; Mark 2:23-28 ; Luke 6:1-5 .


The issue here is not divorce and its grounds per se but prohibition of remarriage to a mate whom one has previously divorced.


Taking millstones as security on a loan would amount to taking the owner’s own life in pledge, since the millstones were the owner’s means of earning a living and supporting his family.


What the Lord your God did to Miriam . The reference is to Miriam’s having contracted leprosy because of her intemperate challenge to Moses’ leadership ( Num 12:1-15 ). The purpose for the allusion here appears to be the assertion of the theocratic leadership of the priests who, like Moses, should not be despised.


This is the so-called “levirate” custom (from the Latin term levir , “brother-in-law”), an ancient provision whereby a man who died without male descendants to carry on his name could have a son by proxy, that is, through a surviving brother who would marry his widow and whose first son would then be attributed to the brother who had died. This is the only reference to this practice in an OT legal text but it is illustrated in the story of Judah and his sons () and possibly in the account of Ruth and Boaz ( Ruth 2:8; 3:12; 4:6 ).


The removal of the sandal was likely symbolic of the relinquishment by the man of any claim to his dead brother’s estate since the sandal was associated with the soil or land (cf. Ruth 4:7-8 ). Spitting in the face was a sign of utmost disgust or disdain, an emotion the rejected widow would feel toward her uncooperative brother-in-law (cf. Num 12:14 ; Lev 15:8 ). See W. Bailey, NIDOTTE 2:544.


See Exod 17:8-16 .


This command is fulfilled in 1 Sam 15:1-33 .


The place where he chooses to locate his name . This is a circumlocution for the central sanctuary, first the tabernacle and later the Jerusalem temple. See Deut 12:1-14 and especially the note on the word “you” in v. 14 .


A wandering Aramean . This is a reference to Jacob whose mother Rebekah was an Aramean ( Gen 24:10; 25:20, 26 ) and who himself lived in Aram for at least twenty years ( Gen 31:41-42 ).


These practices suggest overtones of pagan ritual, all of which the confessor denies having undertaken. In Canaan they were connected with fertility practices associated with harvest time. See E. H. Merrill, Deuteronomy (NAC), 335-36.


Come in…go out . To “come in” and “go out” is a figure of speech (merism) indicating all of life and its activities.


See note on the similar expression in v. 6 .


These are the plagues the Lord inflicted on the Egyptians prior to the exodus which, though they did not fall upon the Israelites, must have caused great terror (cf. Exod 15:26 ).


Beginning with 29:1 , the verse numbers through 29:29 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 29:1 ET = 28:69 HT, 29:2 ET = 29:1 HT, 29:3 ET = 29:2 HT, etc., through 29:29 ET = 29:28 HT. With 30:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same.


Horeb is another name for Mount Sinai (which some English versions substitute here for clarity, cf. NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT).


Olive oil from rock probably suggests olive trees growing on rocky ledges and yet doing so productively. See E. H. Merrill, Deuteronomy (NAC), 415; cf. TEV “their olive trees flourished in stony ground.”


They have made me jealous . The “jealousy” of God is not a spirit of pettiness prompted by his insecurity, but righteous indignation caused by the disloyalty of his people to his covenant grace (see note on the word “God” in Deut 4:24 ). The jealousy of Israel, however (see next line), will be envy because of God’s lavish attention to another nation. This is an ironic wordplay. See H. Peels, NIDOTTE 3:938-39.


Sodom…Gomorrah . The term “vine” is a reference to the pagan deities which, the passage says, find their ultimate source in Sodom and Gomorrah, that is, in the soil of perversion exemplified by these places (cf. Gen 18:20; 19:4-28 ; Isa 1:10; 3:9 ; Jer 23:14 ; Lam 4:6 ; Ezek 16:44-52 ; Matt 10:15; 11:23-24 ).


Abarim . This refers to the high plateau region of the Transjordan, the highest elevation of which is Mount Pisgah (or Nebo; cf. Deut 34:1 ). See also the note on the name “Pisgah” in Deut 3:17 .


Mount Hor . See note on the name “Moserah” in Deut 10:6 .


Jeshurun is a term of affection referring to Israel, derived from the Hebrew verb יָשַׁר ( yashar , “be upright”). See note on the term in Deut 32:15 .


The following blessing is given to the tribes in order, although the tribe of Simeon is curiously missing from the list.


Thummim and Urim . These terms, whose meaning is uncertain, refer to sacred stones carried in a pouch on the breastplate of the high priest and examined on occasion as a means of ascertaining God’s will or direction. See Exod 28:30 ; Lev 8:8 ; Num 27:21 ; 1 Sam 28:6 . See also C. Van Dam, NIDOTTE 1:329-31.


Massah means “testing” in Hebrew; the name is a wordplay on what took place there. Cf. Exod 17:7 ; Deut 6:16; 9:22 ; Ps 95:8-9 .


Meribah means “contention, argument” in Hebrew; this is another wordplay on the incident that took place there. Cf. Num 20:13, 24 ; Ps 106:32 .


This statement no doubt alludes to the Levites’ destruction of their own fellow tribesmen following the golden calf incident ( Exod 32:25-29 ).


This apparently refers to Joseph’s special status among his brothers as a result of his being chosen by God to save the family from the famine and to lead Egypt.


Ephraim and Manasseh were the sons of Joseph who became founders of the two tribes into which Joseph’s descendants were split ( Gen 48:19-20 ). Jacob’s blessing granted favored status to Ephraim; this is probably why Ephraim is viewed here as more numerous than Manasseh.


He will leap forth from Bashan . This may refer to Dan’s conquest of Laish, a region just to the west of Bashan ( Judg 18:27-28 ).


Dip his foot in olive oil . This is a metaphor for prosperity, one especially apt in light of the abundance of olive groves in the area settled by Asher. The Hebrew term refers to olive oil, which symbolizes blessing in the OT. See R. Way, NIDOTTE 4:171-73.


For the geography involved, see note on the term “Pisgah” in Deut 3:17 . map For the location of Jericho see Map5-B2 ; Map6-E1 ; Map7-E1 ; Map8-E3 ; Map10-A2 ; Map11-A1 .


See Num 27:18 .


See Num 12:8 ; Deut 18:15-18 .


The ark of the covenant refers to the wooden chest that symbolized God’s presence among his covenant people.


The first month was the month Abib (= late March-early April in the modern calendar). The Passover in Egypt also occurred on the tenth day of the first month ( Exod 12:2; 13:4 ).


One might take the disgrace of Egypt as a reference to their uncircumcised condition (see Gen 34:14 ), but the generation that left Egypt was circumcised (see v. 5 ). It more likely refers to the disgrace they experienced in Egyptian slavery. When this new generation reached the promised land and renewed their covenantal commitment to the Lord by submitting to the rite of circumcision, the Lord ’s deliverance of his people from slavery, which had begun with the plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea, reached its climax. See T. C. Butler, Joshua (WBC), 59.


The name Gilgal sounds like the Hebrew verb “roll away” ( גַּלַל , galal ).


The Lord’s heavenly army, like an earthly army, has a commander who leads the troops. For the phrase שַׂר־צְבָא ( sar-tsÿva ’, “army commander”) in the human sphere, see among many other references Gen 21:22, 32; 26:26 ; Judg 4:2, 7 ; 1 Sam 12:9 .


The commander’s appearance seems to be for Joshua’s encouragement. Joshua could now lead Israel into battle knowing that the Lord ’s invisible army would ensure victory.


The precise geographical location of the Israelite defeat at this “steep slope” is uncertain.


Tearing one’s clothes was an outward expression of extreme sorrow (see Gen 37:34; 44:13 ).


Throwing dirt on one’s head was an outward expression of extreme sorrow (see Lam 2:10 ; Ezek 27:30 ).


For the legal background of this action, see Deut 21:22-23 .


Verses 22-27 appear to elaborate on v. 21 b.


For the legal background of the removal of the corpses before sundown, see Deut 21:22-23 .


The Sea of Kinnereth is another name for the Sea of Galilee. See the note on the word “Kinnereth” in 11:2 .


The Salt Sea is another name for the Dead Sea.


The Hebrew name Havvoth Jair means “the tent villages of Jair.”


The statement to this very day reflects the perspective of the author, who must have written prior to David’s conquest of the Jebusites (see 2 Sam 5:6-7 ).


On the Israelites’ failure to conquer the Canaanites completely, see Judg 1:27-28 .


Instead of Yiron some English translations read Iron .


The western tribes here imagine a possible motive for the action of the eastern tribes. T. C. Butler explains the significance of the land’s “impurity”: “East Jordan is impure because it is not Yahweh’s possession. Rather it is simply ‘your possession.’ That means it is land where Yahweh does not live, land which his presence has not sanctified and purified” ( Joshua [WBC], 247).