The next unit describes the preparation of skilled workers to build all that has been listed now for several chapters. This chapter would have been the bridge to the building of the sanctuary (35-39) if it were not for the idolatrous interlude. God called individuals and prepared them by his Spirit to be skilled to do the work for the tabernacle. If this were the substance of an exposition, it would clearly be a message on gifted people doing the work – close to the spiritual lesson of . There would be two levels of meaning: the physical, which looks at the skilled artisans providing for a place to worship Yahweh, and the spiritual, which would bring in the Spirit-filled servants of God participating in building up his kingdom.


The expression in the Bible means that the individual was given special, supernatural enablement to do what God wanted done. It usually is said of someone with exceptional power or ability. The image of “filling” usually means under the control of the Spirit, so that the Spirit is the dominant force in the life.


The following qualities are the ways in which the Spirit’s enablement will be displayed. “Skill” is the ability to produce something valuable to God and the community, “understanding” is the ability to distinguish between things, to perceive the best way to follow, and “knowledge” is the experiential awareness of how things are done.


There are some questions about the arrangement of the book. The placement of this section here, however, should come as no surprise. After the instructions and preparation for work, a Sabbath day when work could not be done had to be legislated. In all that they were going to do, they must not violate the Sabbath,


The instruction for the Sabbath at this point seems rather abrupt, but it follows logically the extended plans of building the sanctuary. B. Jacob, following some of the earlier treatments, suggests that these are specific rules given for the duration of the building of the sanctuary ( Exodus , 844). The Sabbath day is a day of complete cessation; no labor or work could be done. The point here is that God’s covenant people must faithfully keep the sign of the covenant as a living commemoration of the finished work of Yahweh, and as an active part in their sanctification. See also H. Routtenberg, “The Laws of Sabbath: Biblical Sources,” Dor le Dor 6 (1977): 41-43, 99-101, 153-55, 204-6; G. Robinson, “The Idea of Rest in the OT and the Search for the Basic Character of Sabbath,” ZAW 92 (1980): 32-42; M. Tsevat, “The Basic Meaning of the Biblical Sabbath, ZAW 84 (1972): 447-59; M. T. Willshaw, “A Joyous Sign,” ExpTim 89 (1978): 179-80.


The word “rest” essentially means “to cease, stop.” So describing God as “resting” on the seventh day does not indicate that he was tired – he simply finished creation and then ceased or stopped. But in this verse is a very bold anthropomorphism in the form of the verb וַיִּנָּפַשׁ ( vayyinnafash ), a Niphal preterite from the root נָפַשׁ ( nafash ), the word that is related to “life, soul” or more specifically “breath, throat.” The verb is usually translated here as “he was refreshed,” offering a very human picture. It could also be rendered “he took breath” (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 345). Elsewhere the verb is used of people and animals. The anthropomorphism is clearly intended to teach people to stop and refresh themselves physically, spiritually, and emotionally on this day of rest.


The expression “the finger of God” has come up before in the book, in the plagues ( Exod 8:15 ) to express that it was a demonstration of the power and authority of God. So here too the commandments given to Moses on stone tablets came from God. It too is a bold anthropomorphism; to attribute such a material action to Yahweh would have been thought provoking to say the least. But by using “God” and by stating it in an obviously figurative way, balance is maintained. Since no one writes with one finger, the expression simply says that the Law came directly from God.


This narrative is an unhappy interlude in the flow of the argument of the book. After the giving of the Law and the instructions for the tabernacle, the people get into idolatry. So this section tells what the people were doing when Moses was on the mountain. Here is an instant violation of the covenant that they had just agreed to uphold. But through it all Moses shines as the great intercessor for the people. So the subject matter is the sin of idolatry, its effects and its remedy. Because of the similarities to Jeroboam’s setting up the calves in Dan and Bethel, modern critics have often said this passage was written at that time. U. Cassuto shows how the language of this chapter would not fit an Iron Age setting in Dan. Rather, he argues, this story was well enough known for Jeroboam to imitate the practice ( Exodus , 407-10). This chapter can be divided into four parts for an easier exposition: idolatry ( 32:1-6 ), intercession ( 32:7-14 ), judgment ( 32:15-29 ), intercession again ( 32:30-33:6 ). Of course, these sections are far more complex than this, but this gives an overview. Four summary statements for expository points might be: I. Impatience often leads to foolish violations of the faith, II. Violations of the covenant require intercession to escape condemnation, III. Those spared of divine wrath must purge evil from their midst, and IV. Those who purge evil from their midst will find reinstatement through intercession. Several important studies are available for this. See, among others, D. R. Davis, “Rebellion, Presence, and Covenant: A Study in Exodus 32-34 ,” WTJ 44 (1982): 71-87; M. Greenberg, “Moses’ Intercessory Prayer,” Ecumenical Institute for Advanced Theological Studies (1978): 21-35; R. A. Hamer, “The New Covenant of Moses,” Judaism 27 (1978): 345-50; R. L. Honeycutt, Jr., “Aaron, the Priesthood, and the Golden Calf,” RevExp 74 (1977): 523-35; J. N. Oswalt, “The Golden Calves and the Egyptian Concept of Deity,” EvQ 45 (1973): 13-20.


B. Jacob ( Exodus , 937-38) argues that Aaron simply did not have the resolution that Moses did, and wanting to keep peace he gave in to the crowd. He also tries to explain that Aaron was wanting to show their folly through the deed. U. Cassuto also says that Aaron’s request for the gold was a form of procrastination, but that the people quickly did it and so he had no alternative but to go through with it ( Exodus , 412). These may be right, since Aaron fully understood what was wrong with this, and what the program was all about. The text gives no strong indication to support these ideas, but there are enough hints from the way Aaron does things to warrant such a conclusion.


The word means a “young bull” and need not be translated as “calf” (although “calf” has become the traditional rendering in English). The word could describe an animal three years old. Aaron probably made an inner structure of wood and then, after melting down the gold, plated it. The verb “molten” does not need to imply that the image was solid gold; the word is used in Isa 30:22 for gold plating. So it was a young bull calf that was overlaid with gold, and the gold was fashioned with the stylus.


The word is חַג ( khag ), the pilgrim’s festival. This was the word used by Moses for their pilgrimage into the wilderness. Aaron seems here to be trying to do what Moses had intended they do, make a feast to Yahweh at Sinai, but his efforts will not compete with the idol. As B. Jacob says, Aaron saw all this happening and tried to rescue the true belief ( Exodus , 941).


By giving the people to Moses in this way, God is saying that they have no longer any right to claim him as their God, since they have shared his honor with another. This is God’s talionic response to their “These are your gods who brought you up.” The use of these pronoun changes also would form an appeal to Moses to respond, since Moses knew that God had brought them up from Egypt.


This is a bold anthropomorphism; it is as if God has now had a chance to get to know these people and has discovered how rebellious they are. The point of the figure is that there has been discernible evidence of their nature.


B. Jacob says the image is that of the people walking before God, and when he called to them the directions, they would not bend their neck to listen; they were resolute in doing what they intended to do ( Exodus , 943). The figure describes them as refusing to submit, but resisting in pride.


See F. C. Fensham, “New Light from Ugaritica V on Ex, 32:17 ( br’h ),” JNSL 2 (1972): 86-7.


See A. Newman, “Compositional Analysis and Functional Ambiguity Equivalence: Translating Exodus 32, 17-18 ,” Babel 21 (1975): 29-35.


See N. M. Waldham, “The Breaking of the Tablets,” Judaism 27 (1978): 442-47.


“My lord” refers to Moses.


Aaron first tried to blame the people, and then he tried to make it sound like a miracle – was it to sound like one of the plagues where out of the furnace came life? This text does not mention it, but Deut 9:20 tells how angry God was with Aaron. Only intercession saved his life.


The book that is referred to here should not be interpreted as the NT “book of life” which is portrayed (figuratively) as a register of all the names of the saints who are redeemed and will inherit eternal life. Here it refers to the names of those who are living and serving in this life, whose names, it was imagined, were on the roster in the heavenly courts as belonging to the chosen. Moses would rather die than live if these people are not forgiven (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 356).


The Law said that God would not clear the guilty. But here the punishment is postponed to some future date when he would revisit this matter. Others have taken the line to mean that whenever a reckoning was considered necessary, then this sin would be included (see B. Jacob, Exodus , 957). The repetition of the verb traditionally rendered “visit” in both clauses puts emphasis on the certainty – so “indeed.”


Most commentators have difficulty with this verse. W. C. Kaiser says the strict chronology is not always kept, and so the plague here may very well refer to the killing of the three thousand (“Exodus,” EBC 2:481).


This seems not to be the same as the Angel of the Presence introduced before.


See T. Ishida, “The Structure and Historical Implications of Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations,” Bib (1979): 461-90.


The people would rather have risked divine discipline than to go without Yahweh in their midst. So they mourned, and they took off the ornaments. Such had been used in making the golden calf, and so because of their association with all of that they were to be removed as a sign of remorse.


This unit of the book could actually include all of chap. , starting with the point of the Lord ’s withdrawal from the people. If that section is not part of the exposition, it would have to be explained as the background. The point is that sinfulness prevents the active presence of the Lord leading his people. But then the rest of chap. forms the development. In vv. 7-11 there is the gracious provision: the Lord reveals through his faithful mediator. The Lord was leading his people, but now more remotely because of their sin. Then, in vv. 12-17 Moses intercedes for the people, and the intercession of the mediator guarantees the Lord ’s presence. The point of all of this is that God wanted the people to come to know that if he was not with them they should not go. Finally, the presence of the Lord is verified to the mediator by a special revelation (18-23). The point of the whole chapter is that by his grace the Lord renews the promise of his presence by special revelation.


A widespread contemporary view is that this section represents a source that thought the tent of meeting was already erected (see S. R. Driver, Exodus , 359). But the better view is that this is a temporary tent used for meeting the Lord . U. Cassuto explains this view very well ( Exodus , 429-30), namely, that because the building of the tabernacle was now in doubt if the Lord was not going to be in their midst, another plan seemed necessary. Moses took this tent, his tent, and put some distance between the camp and it. Here he would use the tent as the place to meet God, calling it by the same name since it was a surrogate tent. Thus, the entire section was a temporary means of meeting God, until the current wrath was past.


Moses did not live in the tent. But Joshua remained there most of the time to guard the tent, it seems, lest any of the people approach it out of curiosity.


Heb “my face.” This represents the presence of Yahweh going with the people (see 2 Sam 17:11 for an illustration). The “presence” probably refers to the angel of the presence or some similar manifestation of God’s leading and caring for his people.


The expression certainly refers to the peace of mind and security of knowing that God was with them. But the expression came to mean “settle them in the land of promise” and give them rest and peace from their enemies. U. Cassuto ( Exodus , 434) observes how in 32:10 God had told Moses, “Leave me alone” (“give me rest”), but now he promises to give them rest. The parallelism underscores the great transition through intercession.


See W. Brueggemann, “The Crisis and Promise of Presence in Israel,” HBT 1 (1979): 47-86; and N. M. Waldman, “God’s Ways – A Comparative Note,” JQR 70 (1979): 67-70.


Moses now wanted to see the glory of Yahweh, more than what he had already seen and experienced. He wanted to see God in all his majesty. The LXX chose to translate this without a word for “glory” or “honor”; instead they used the pronoun seautou , “yourself” – show me the real You. God tells him that he cannot see it fully, but in part. It will be enough for Moses to disclose to him the reality of the divine presence as well as God’s moral nature. It would be impossible for Moses to comprehend all of the nature of God, for there is a boundary between God and man. But God would let him see his goodness, the sum of his nature, pass by in a flash. B. Jacob ( Exodus , 972) says that the glory refers to God’s majesty, might, and glory, as manifested in nature, in his providence, his laws, and his judgments. He adds that this glory should and would be made visible to man – that was its purpose in the world.


The word “goodness” refers to the divine appearance in summary fashion.


God declares his mercy and grace in similar terms to his earlier self-revelation (“I am that I am”): “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious.” In other words, the grace and mercy of God are bound up in his own will. Obviously, in this passage the recipients of that favor are the penitent Israelites who were forgiven through Moses’ intercession. The two words are at the heart of God’s dealings with people. The first is חָנַן ( khanan , “to be gracious, show favor”). It means to grant favor or grace to someone, grace meaning unmerited favor. All of God’s dealings are gracious, but especially in forgiving sins and granting salvation it is critical. Parallel to this is רָחַם ( rakham ), a word that means “show compassion, tender mercy.” It is a word that is related to the noun “womb,” the connection being in providing care and protection for that which is helpless and dependent – a motherly quality. In both of these constructions the verbs simply express what God will do, without explaining why. See further, J. R. Lundbom, “God’s Use of the Idem per idem to Terminate Debate,” HTR 71 (1978): 193-201; and J. Piper, “Prolegomena to Understanding Romans 9:14-15 : An Interpretation of Exodus 33:19 ,” JETS 22 (1979): 203-16.


Note the use in Exod 40:3 , “and you will screen the ark with the curtain.” The glory is covered, veiled from being seen.


The restoration of the faltering community continues in this chapter. First, Moses is instructed to make new tablets and take them to the mountain (1-4). Then, through the promised theophany God proclaims his moral character (5-8). Moses responds with the reiteration of the intercession (8), and God responds with the renewal of the covenant (10-28). To put these into expository form, as principles, the chapter would run as follows: I. God provides for spiritual renewal (1-4), II. God reminds people of his moral standard (5-9), III. God renews his covenant promises and stipulations (10-28).


The same word is used in Exod 33:21 . It is as if Moses was to be at his post when Yahweh wanted to communicate to him.


Deuteronomy says that Moses was also to make an ark of acacia wood before the tablets, apparently to put the tablets in until the sanctuary was built. But this ark may not have been the ark built later; or, it might be the wood box, but Bezalel still had to do all the golden work with it.


U. Cassuto ( Exodus , 439) suggests that these two names be written as a sentence: “Yahweh, He is Yahweh.” In this manner it reflects “I am that I am.” It is impossible to define his name in any other way than to make this affirmation and then show what it means.


This is literally “long of anger.” His anger prolongs itself, allowing for people to repent before punishment is inflicted.


These two words (“loyal love” and “truth”) are often found together, occasionally in a hendiadys construction. If that is the interpretation here, then it means “faithful covenant love.” Even if they are left separate, they are dual elements of a single quality. The first word is God’s faithful covenant love; the second word is God’s reliability and faithfulness.


As in the ten commandments ( 20:5-6 ), this expression shows that the iniquity and its punishment will continue in the family if left unchecked. This does not go on as long as the outcomes for good (thousands versus third or fourth generations), and it is limited to those who hate God.


The idea is that God will be doing awesome things in dealing with them, i.e., to fulfill his program.


A snare would be a trap, an allurement to ruin. See Exod 23:33 .


In Exod 20:3 it was “gods.”


Here, too, the emphasis on God’s being a jealous God is repeated (see Exod 20:5 ). The use of “name” here is to stress that this is his nature, his character.


See G. Brin, “The Firstling of Unclean Animals,” JQR 68 (1971): 1-15.


See M. Dahood, “Vocative lamed in Exodus 2,4 and Merismus in 34,21,” Bib 62 (1981): 413-15.


The verb “covet” means more than desire; it means that some action will be taken to try to acquire the land that is being coveted. It is one thing to envy someone for their land; it is another to be consumed by the desire that stops at nothing to get it (it, not something like it).


See M. Haran, “The Passover Sacrifice,” Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel (VTSup), 86-116.


See the note on this same command in 23:19 .


Now, at the culmination of the renewing of the covenant, comes the account of Moses’ shining face. It is important to read this in its context first, holding off on the connection to Paul’s discussion in 2 Corinthians. There is a delicate balance here in Exodus. On the one hand Moses’ shining face served to authenticate the message, but on the other hand Moses prevented the people from seeing more than they could handle. The subject matter in the OT, then, is how to authenticate the message. The section again can be subdivided into three points that develop the whole idea: I. The one who spends time with God reflects his glory (29-30). It will not always be as Moses; rather, the glory of the Lord is reflected differently today, but nonetheless reflected. II. The glory of Yahweh authenticates the message (31-32). III. The authentication of the message must be used cautiously with the weak and immature (33-35).


See on this H. Routtenberg, “The Laws of the Sabbath: Biblical Sources,” Dor le Dor 6 (1977): 41-43, 99-101, 153-55, 204-6; G. Robinson, “The Idea of Rest in the Old Testament and the Search for the Basic Character of Sabbath,” ZAW 92 (1980): 32-43.


Kindling a fire receives special attention here because the people thought that kindling a fire was not work, but only a preparation for some kind of work. The Law makes sure that this too was not done. But see also G. Robinson, “The Prohibition of Strange Fire in Ancient Israel: A Look at the Case of Gathering Wood and Kindling Fire on the Sabbath,” VT 28 (1978): 301-17.


The presence of these three verses in this place has raised all kinds of questions. It may be that after the renewal of the covenant the people needed a reminder to obey God, and obeying the sign of the covenant was the starting point. But there is more to it than this; it is part of the narrative design of the book. It is the artistic design that puts the filling of the Spirit section ( 31:1-11 ) prior to the Sabbath laws ( 31:12-18 ) before the idolatry section, and then after the renewal there is the Sabbath reminder ( 35:1-3 ) before the filling of the Spirit material ( 35:4-36:7 ).


The book now turns to record how all the work of the sanctuary was done. This next unit picks up on the ideas in Exod 31:1-11 . But it adds several features. The first part is the instruction of God for all people to give willingly ( 35:4-19 ); the next section tells how the faithful brought an offering for the service of the tabernacle ( 35:20-29 ); the next section tells how God set some apart with special gifts ( 35:30-35 ), and finally, the narrative reports how the faithful people of God enthusiastically began the work ( 36:1-7 ).


U. Cassuto notes that the expression “with whom was found” does not rule out the idea that these folks went out and cut down acacia trees ( Exodus , 458). It is unlikely that they had much wood in their tents.


The expression means that God has given them the ability and the desire to teach others how to do the work. The infinitive construct “to teach” is related to the word Torah, “instruction, guide, law.” They will be able to direct others in the work.


The verb means more than “approach” or “draw near”; קָרַב ( qarav ) is the word used for drawing near the altar as in bringing an offering. Here they offer themselves, their talents and their time.


For a good summary of the differences between the instruction section and the completion section, and the reasons for the changes and the omissions, see B. Jacob, Exodus , 1022-23.


Since it was a small altar, it needed only two rings, one on either side, in order to be carried. The second mention of their location clarifies that they should be on the sides, the right and the left, as one approached the altar.


The word for “serve” is not the ordinary one. It means “to serve in a host,” especially in a war. It appears that women were organized into bands and served at the tent of meeting. S. R. Driver thinks that this meant “no doubt” washing, cleaning, or repairing ( Exodus , 391). But there is no hint of that (see 1 Sam 2:22 ; and see Ps 68:11 [12 Hebrew text]). They seem to have had more to do than what Driver said.


There were 3000 shekels in a talent, and so the total weight here in shekels would be 87,730 shekels of gold. If the sanctuary shekel was 224 grs., then this was about 40,940 oz. troy. This is estimated to be a little over a ton (cf. NCV “over 2,000 pounds”; TEV “a thousand kilogrammes”; CEV “two thousand two hundred nine pounds”; NLT “about 2,200 pounds”), although other widely diverging estimates are also given.


This would be a total of 301,775 shekels (about 140,828 oz), being a half shekel exacted per person from 605,550 male Israelites 20 years old or more ( Num 1:46 ). The amount is estimated to be around 3.75 tons.


The weight would be about half an ounce.


The total shekels would have been 212,400 shekels, which would be about 108,749 oz. This would make about 2.5 to 3 tons.


The bronze altar is the altar for the burnt offering; the large bronze basin is not included here in the list.


This chapter also will be almost identical to the instructions given earlier, with a few changes along the way.


The twelve names were those of Israel’s sons. The idea was not the remembrance of the twelve sons as such, but the twelve tribes that bore their names.


The last sections of the book bring several themes together to a full conclusion. Not only is it the completion of the tabernacle, it is the fulfillment of God’s plan revealed at the beginning of the book, i.e., to reside with his people.


The situation and wording in Exod 39:43 are reminiscent of Gen 1:28 and 31 , with the motifs of blessing people and inspecting what has been made.


All of Exod 39:32-40:38 could be taken as a unit. The first section ( 39:32-43 ) shows that the Israelites had carefully and accurately completed the preparation and brought everything they had made to Moses: The work of the Lord builds on the faithful obedience of the people. In the second section are the instruction and the implementation ( 40:1-33 ): The work of the Lord progresses through the unifying of the work. The last part ( 40:34-38 ) may take the most attention: When the work was completed, the glory filled the tabernacle: By his glorious presence, the Lord blesses and directs his people in their worship.


U. Cassuto ( Exodus , 480) notes that the items inside the tent did not need to be enumerated since they were already holy, but items in the courtyard needed special attention. People needed to know that items outside the tent were just as holy.


The second clause of v. 1 , “and the Lord spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying,” introduces the following discourse. This is a standard introductory formula (see, e.g., Exod 20:1; 25:1; 31:1 ; etc.). The combination of the first and second clauses is, therefore, “bulky” because of the way they happen to be juxtaposed in this transitional verse (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 8). The first clause of v. 1 connects the book back to the end of the Book of Exodus while the second looks forward the ritual legislation that follows in Lev 1:2 ff. There are two “Tents of Meeting”: the one that stood outside the camp (see, e.g., Exod 33:7 ) and the one that stood in the midst of the camp ( Exod 40:2 ; Num 2:2 ff) and served as the Lord ’s residence until the construction of the temple in the days of Solomon ( Exod 27:21; 29:4 ; 1 Kgs 8:4 ; 2 Chr 5:5 , etc.; cf. 2 Sam 7:6 ). Exod 40:35 uses both “tabernacle” and “tent of meeting” to refer to the same tent: “Moses could not enter the tent of meeting because the cloud had settled on it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.” It is clear that “tent of meeting” in Lev 1:1 refers to the “tabernacle.” The latter term refers to the tent as a “residence,” while the former refers to it as a divinely appointed place of “meeting” between God and man (see R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:873-77 and 2:1130-34). This corresponds to the change in terms in Exod 40:35 , where “tent of meeting” is used when referring to Moses’ inability to enter the tent, but “tabernacle” when referring to the Lord taking up residence there in the form of the glory cloud. The quotation introduced here extends from Lev 1:2 through 3:17 , and encompasses the burnt, grain, and peace offering regulations. Compare the notes on Lev 4:1; 5:14; and 6:1 [5:20 HT] below.


The burnt offering ( עֹלָה , ’ olah ) was basically a “a gift of a soothing aroma to the Lord ” (vv. 9, 13, 17 ). It could serve as a votive or freewill offering (e.g., Lev 22:18-20 ), an accompaniment of prayer and supplication (e.g., 1 Sam 7:9-10 ), part of the regular daily, weekly, monthly, and festival cultic pattern (e.g., Num 28-29 ), or to make atonement either alone (e.g., Lev 1:4; 16:24 ) or in combination with the grain offering (e.g., Lev 14:20 ) or sin offering (e.g., Lev 5:7; 9:7 ). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 4:996-1022.


The standard English translation of “gift” ( אִשֶּׁה , ’ isheh ) is “an offering [made] by fire” (cf. KJV, ASV). It is based on a supposed etymological relationship to the Hebrew word for “fire” ( אֵשׁ , ’ esh ) and is still maintained in many versions (e.g., NIV, RSV, NRSV, NLT; B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 7-8). For various reasons, including the fact that some offerings referred to by this term are not burned on the altar (see, e.g., Lev 24:9 ), it is probably better to understand the term to mean “gift” (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 22) or “food gift” (“food offering” in NEB and TEV; J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:161-62). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 1:540-49 for a complete discussion.


The “grain offering” ( מִנְחָה [ minkhah ]; here קָרְבַּן מִנְחָה , [ qorbban minkhah ], “an offering of a grain offering”) generally accompanied a burnt or peace offering to supplement the meat with bread (the libation provided the drink; cf. Num 15:1-10 ), thus completing the food “gift” to the Lord . It made atonement (see the note on Lev 1:4 ) along with the burnt offering (e.g., Lev 14:20 ) or alone as a sin offering for the poor ( Lev 5:11-13 ).


This is not just any “incense” ( קְטֹרֶת , qÿtoret ; R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 3:913-16), but specifically “frankincense” ( לְבֹנָה , lÿvonah ; R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:756-57).


The “memorial portion” ( אַזְכָרָה , ’ azkharah ) was the part of the grain offering that was burnt on the altar (see the previous clause), as opposed to the remainder, which was normally consumed by the priests (v. 3 ; see the full regulations in Lev 6:14-23 [7-16]). It was probably intended to call to mind (i.e., memorialize) before the Lord the reason for the presentation of the particular offering (see the remarks in R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 1:335-39).


These “loaves” were either “ring-shaped” ( HALOT 317 s.v. חַלָּה ) or “perforated” (BDB 319 s.v. חַלָּה ; cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:184).


Lev 7:9 makes it clear that one cooked “on” a griddle but “in” a pan. This suggests that the oil in the pan served for deep fat frying, hence the translation “deep fried in olive oil” (see, e.g., J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:185); cf. also NAB.


The “first fruit” referred to here was given to the priests as a prebend for their service to the Lord , not offered on the altar ( Num 18:12 ).


The peace offering sacrifice primarily enacted and practiced communion between God and man (and between the people of God). This was illustrated by the fact that the fat parts of the animal were consumed on the altar of the Lord but the meat was consumed by the worshipers in a meal before God. This is the only kind of offering in which common worshipers partook of the meat of the animal. When there was a series of offerings that included a peace offering (see, e.g., Lev 9:8-21 , sin offerings, burnt offerings, and afterward the peace offerings in vv. 18-21), the peace offering was always offered last because it expressed the fact that all was well between God and his worshiper(s). There were various kinds of peace offerings, depending on the worship intended on the specific occasion. The “thank offering” expressed thanksgiving (e.g., Lev 7:11-15; 22:29-30 ), the “votive offering” fulfilled a vow (e.g., Lev 7:16-18; 22:21-25 ), and the “freewill offering” was offered as an expression of devotion and praise to God (e.g., Lev 7:16-18; 22:21-25 ). The so-called “ordination offering” was also a kind of peace offering that was used to consecrate the priests at their ordination (e.g., Exod 29:19-34 ; Lev 7:37; 8:22-32 ). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 1:1066-73 and 4:135-43.


See the note on this phrase in 3:3 .


The quotation introduced here extends from Lev 4:2 through 5:13 , and encompasses all the sin offering regulations. Compare the notes on Lev 1:1 above, and 5:14 and 6:1 [5:20 HT] below.


The word for “sin offering” (sometimes translated “purification offering”) is the same as the word for “sin” earlier in the verse. One can tell which rendering is intended only by the context. The primary purpose of the “sin offering” ( חַטָּאת , khatta ’ t ) was to “purge” ( כִּפֶּר , kipper , “to make atonement,” see 4:20, 26, 31, 35 , and the notes on Lev 1:4 and esp. Lev 16:20, 33 ) the sanctuary or its furniture in order to cleanse it from any impurities and/or (re)consecrate it for holy purposes (see, e.g., Lev 8:15; 16:19 ). By making this atonement the impurities of the person or community were cleansed and the people became clean. See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:93-103.


See v. 7 , where this altar is identified as the altar of fragrant incense.


Cf. Lev 4:11-12 above for the disposition of “the [rest of] the bull.”


The focus of sin offering “atonement” was purging impurities from the tabernacle (see the note on Lev 1:4 ).


See the note on the word “slaughter” in v. 15 .


Lev 5:2-3 are parallel laws of uncleanness (contracted from animals and people, respectively), and both seem to assume that the contraction of uncleanness was originally unknown to the person (vv. 2 and 3 ) but became known to him or her at a later time (v. 3 ; i.e., “has come to know” in v. 3 is to be assumed for v. 2 as well). Uncleanness itself did not make a person “guilty” unless he or she failed to handle it according to the normal purification regulations (see, e.g., “wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening,” Lev 15:5 NIV; cf. Lev 11:39-40; 15:5-12, 16-24 ; , etc.). The problem here in Lev 5:2-3 is that, because the person had not been aware of his or her uncleanness, he or she had incurred guilt for not carrying out these regular procedures, and it would now be too late for that. Thus, the unclean person needs to bring a sin offering to atone for the contamination caused by his or her neglect of the purity regulations.


The action seems to involve both a twisting action, breaking the neck of the bird and severing its vertebrae, as well as pinching or nipping the skin, but in this case not severing the head from the main body (note the rest of this verse).


The term “[standard] regulation” ( מִשְׁפָּט , mishppat ) here refers to the set of regulations for burnt offering birds in Lev 1:14-17 .


A tenth of an ephah would be about 2.3 liters, one day’s ration for a single person (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:306). English versions handle the amount somewhat differently, cf. NCV “about two quarts”; TEV “one kilogramme”; CEV “two pounds.”


The “memorial portion” ( אַזְכָּרָה , ’ azkkarah ) was the part of the grain offering that was burnt on the altar ( Lev 2:2 ), as opposed to the remainder, which was normally consumed by the priests ( Lev 2:3 ; see the full regulations in Lev 6:14-23 [ 6:7-16 HT]). It was probably intended to call to mind (i.e., memorialize) before the Lord the reason for the presentation of the particular offering (see the remarks in R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 1:335-39).


The quotation introduced here extends from Lev 5:14 through 5:19 , encompassing the first main section of guilt offering regulations. Compare the notes on Lev 1:1; 4:1; and 6:1 [5:20 HT].


Heb “from the holy things of the Lord .” The Hebrew expression here has the same structure as Lev 4:2 , “from any of the commandments of the Lord .” The latter introduces the sin offering regulations and the former the guilt offering regulations. The sin offering deals with violations of “any of the commandments,” whereas the guilt offering focuses specifically on violations of regulations regarding “holy things” (i.e., things that have been consecrated to the Lord ; see the full discussion in J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:320-27).


Regarding “make atonement” see the note on Lev 1:4 .


Beginning with 6:1 , the verse numbers through 6:30 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 6:1 ET = 5:20 HT, 6:2 ET = 5:21 HT, 6:8 ET = 6:1 HT, etc., through 6:30 ET = 6:23 HT. Beginning with 7:1 the verse numbers in the English text and Hebrew text are again the same.


This paragraph is Lev 6:1-7 in the English Bible but Lev 5:20-26 in the Hebrew text. The quotation introduced by v. 1 extends from Lev 6:2 (5:21 HT) through 6:7 (5:26 HT), encompassing the third main section of guilt offering regulations. Compare the notes on Lev 1:1; 4:1; and 5:14 above.


Lev 6:8 in the English Bible = 6:1 in the Hebrew text. See also the note on 6:1 .


The following paragraphs are Lev 6:8-30 in the English Bible but 6:1-23 in the Hebrew text. This initial verse makes the special priestly regulations for the people’s burnt and grain offerings into a single unit (i.e., Lev 6:8-18 [ 6:1-11 HT]; cf. Lev 1-2 above). Note also the separate introductions for various priestly regulations in Lev 6:19 [12 HT], 24 [17 HT], and for the common people in Lev 7:22, 28 below.


See the note on Lev 2:2 .


See the note on Lev 6:8 [ 6:1 HT] above.


A tenth of an ephah is about 2.3 liters, one day’s ration for a single person (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:306).


See the note on Lev 6:8 [ 6:1 HT].


The exact meaning of this penalty clause is not certain. It could mean that he will be executed, whether by God or by man, he will be excommunicated from sanctuary worship and/or community benefits (cf. TEV, CEV), or his line will be terminated by God (i.e., extirpation), etc. See J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 100; J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:457-60; and B. A. Levine, Leviticus (JPSTC), 241-42 for further discussion.


For these categories of unclean animals see .


For the interpretation of this last clause see the note on Lev 7:20 .


See the note on Lev 7:20 .


The Hebrew term translated “law” ( תוֹרָה [ torah ]) occurs up to this point in the book only in Lev 6:9 [ 6:2 HT], 14 [7 HT], 25 [18 HT], 7:1, 7, 11, and here in 7:37 . This suggests that Lev 7:37-38 is a summary of only this section of the book (i.e., Lev 6:8 [ 6:1 HT]- 7:36 ), not all of Lev 1-7 .


The inclusion of the “ordination offering” ( מִלּוּאִים , milu ’ im ; the term apparently comes from the notion of “filling [of the hand],” cf. Lev 8:33 ) here anticipates . It is a kind of peace offering, as the regulations in Lev 8:22-32 will show (cf. Exod 29:19-34 ). In the context of the ordination ritual for the priests it fits into the sequence of offerings as a peace offering would: sin offering ( Lev 8:14-17 ), burnt and grain offering ( Lev 8:18-21 ), and finally peace (i.e., ordination) offering ( Lev 8:22-32 ). Moreover, in this case, Moses received the breast of the ordination offering as his due since he was the presiding priest over the sacrificial procedures ( Lev 8:29 ; cf. Lev 7:30-31 ), while Aaron and his sons ate the portions that would have been consumed by the common worshipers in a regular peace offering procedure ( Exod 29:31-34 ; cf. Lev 7:15-18 ). For a general introduction to the peace offering see the note on Lev 3:1 .


is the fulfillment account of the ordination legislation recorded in , and is directly connected to the command to ordain the tabernacle and priesthood in Exod 40:1-16 as well as the partial record of its fulfillment in Exod 40:17-38 .


For “tent of meeting” see the note on Lev 1:1 above.


Here Moses actually clothes Aaron (cf. v. 13 below for Aaron’s sons). Regarding the various articles of clothing see J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 111-12 and esp. J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:501-13.


The term “tunic” refers to a shirt-like garment worn next to the skin and, therefore, put on first (cf. Exod 28:4, 39-40; 29:5, 8; 39:27 ). Traditionally this has been translated “coat” (so KJV, ASV), but that English word designates an outer garment.


The robe was a long shirt-like over-garment that reached down below the knees. Its hem was embroidered with pomegranates and golden bells around the bottom ( Exod 28:4, 31-35; 29:5; 39:22-26 ).


The ephod was an apron like garment suspended from shoulder straps. It draped over the robe and extended from the chest down to the thighs ( Exod 28:4, 6-14, 25-28; 29:5; 39:2-7 ).


The decorated band of the ephod served as a sort of belt around Aaron’s body that would hold the ephod closely to him rather than allowing it to hang loosely across his front ( Exod 28:8, 27; 29:5; 39:5, 20 ).


The breastpiece was made of the same material as the ephod and was attached to it by means of gold rings and chains on its four corners ( Exod 28:15-30; 29:5; 39:8-21 ). It had twelve stones attached to it (representing the twelve tribes of Israel), and a pocket in which the Urim and Thummim were kept (see following).


The Urim and Thummim were two small objects used in the casting of lots to discern the will of God (see Exod 28:30 ; Num 27:21 ; Deut 33:8 ; 1 Sam 14:41 in the LXX and 28:6 ; Ezra 2:63 and Neh 7:65 ). It appears that by casting them one could obtain a yes or no answer, or no answer at all ( 1 Sam 28:6 ; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 111-12). See the extensive discussion in J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:507-11.


The gold plate was attached as a holy diadem to the front of the turban by means of a blue cord, and had written on it “Holy to the Lord ” ( Exod 28:36-37; 39:30-31 ). This was a particularly important article of high priestly clothing in that it served as the main emblem indicating Aaron’s acceptable representation of Israel before the Lord ( Exod 28:38 ).


The expression “and consecrated it” refers to the effect of the anointing earlier in the verse (cf. “to consecrate them/him” in vv. 11 and 12 ). “To consecrate” means “to make holy” or “make sacred”; i.e., put something into the category of holy/sacred as opposed to common/profane (see Lev 10:10 below). Thus, the person or thing consecrated is put into the realm of God’s holy things.


See Lev 4:3-12 above for the sin offering of the priests. In this case, however, the blood manipulation is different because Moses, not Aaron (and his sons), is functioning as the priest. On the one hand, Aaron and his sons are, in a sense, treated as if they were commoners so that the blood manipulation took place at the burnt offering altar in the court of the tabernacle (see v. 15 below), not at the incense altar inside the tabernacle tent itself (contrast Lev 4:5-7 and compare 4:30 ). On the other hand, since it was a sin offering for the priests, therefore, the priests themselves could not eat its flesh ( Lev 4:11-12; 6:30 [23 HT]), which was the normal priestly practice for sin offerings of commoners ( Lev 6:26 [19], 29[22]).


Contrary to some English versions (e.g., NAB, NASB, NIV, NLT), Aaron ( not Moses) most likely slaughtered the bull, possibly with the help of his sons, although the verb is singular, not plural. Moses then performed the ritual procedures that involved direct contact with the altar. Compare the pattern in Lev 1:5-9 , where the offerer does the slaughtering and the priests perform the procedures that involve direct contact with the altar. In Moses is functioning as the priest in order to consecrate the priesthood. The explicit reintroduction of the name of Moses as the subject of the next verb seems to reinforce this understanding of the passage (cf. also vv. 19 and 23 below).


See Lev 3:3-4 for the terminology of fat and kidneys here.


See Lev 4:11-12, 21; 6:30 [23 HT].


The “palms” refer to the up-turned hands, positioned in such a way that the articles of the offering could be placed on them.


See Lev 7:30-31, 34 .


This eighth day is the one after the seven days of ordination referred to in Lev 8:33-35 .


See Lev 4:5-12 and the notes there regarding the sin offering for priest(s). The distinction here is that the blood of the sin offering for the priests was applied to the horns of the burnt offering altar in the court of the tabernacle, not the incense altar inside the tabernacle tent itself. See the notes on Lev 8:14-15 .


The phrase “like the first one” at the end of the verse refers back to the sin offering for the priests described in vv. 8-11 above. The blood of the sin offering of the common people was applied to the burnt offering altar just like that of the priests.


The latter part of the verse (“in addition to the morning burnt offering”) refers to the complex of morning (and evening) burnt and grain offerings that was the daily regulation for the tabernacle from the time of its erection ( Exod 40:29 ). The regulations for it were appended to the end of the section of priestly consecration regulations in (see Exod 29:38-40 ) precisely because they were to be maintained throughout the priestly consecration period and beyond ( Lev 8:33-36 ). Thus, the morning burnt and grain offerings would already have been placed on the altar before the inaugural burnt and grain offerings referred to here.


The two pairs of categories in this verse refer to: (1) the status of a person, place, thing, or time – “holy” ( קֹדֶשׁ , qodesh ) versus “common” ( חֹל , khol ); as opposed to (2) the condition of a person, place, or thing – “unclean” ( טָמֵא , tame ’) versus “clean” ( טָהוֹר , tahor ). Someone or something could gain “holy” status by being “consecrated” (i.e., made holy; e.g., the Hebrew Piel קִדֵּשׁ ( qiddesh ) in Lev 8:15, 30 ), and to treat someone or something that was holy as if it were “common” would be to “profane” that person or thing (the Hebrew Piel הִלֵּל [ hillel ], e.g., in Lev 19:29 and 22:15 ). Similarly, on another level, someone or something could be in a “clean” condition , but one could “defile” (the Hebrew Piel טִמֵּא [ timme ’], e.g., in Gen 34:5 and Num 6:9 ) that person or thing and thereby make it “unclean.” To “purify” (the Hebrew Piel טִהֵר [ tiher ], e.g., in Lev 16:19 and Num 8:6, 15 ) that unclean person or thing would be to make it “clean” once again. With regard to the animals (), some were by nature “unclean,” so they could never be eaten, but others were by nature “clean” and, therefore, edible ( Lev 11:2, 46-47 ). The meat of clean animals could become inedible by too long of a delay in eating it, in which case the Hebrew term פִּגּוּל ( pigul ) “foul, spoiled” is used to describe it ( Lev 7:18; 19:7 ; cf. also Ezek 4:14 and Isa 65:4 ), not the term for “unclean” ( טָהוֹר , tahor ). Strictly speaking, therefore, unclean meat never becomes clean, and clean meat never becomes unclean.


Cf. Lev 2:3 and 6:14-18 [ 6:7-11 HT] for these regulations.


Cf. Lev 7:14, 28-34 for these regulations.


This is the very same male goat offered in Lev 9:15 (cf. the note on Lev 10:1 above).


This translation is quite literal. On the surface it appears to mean that the priests would “bear the iniquity” of the congregation by the act of eating the sin offering (so J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:622-25, 635-40). Such a notion is, however, found nowhere else in the Levitical regulations and seems unlikely (so J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 136). A more likely interpretation is reflected in this interpretive rendering: “he gave it to you [as payment] for [your work of] bearing the iniquity of the congregation.” The previous section of the chapter deals with the prebends that the priests received for performing the ministry of the tabernacle ( Lev 10:12-15 ). Lev 10:16-18 , therefore, seems to continue the very same topic in the light of the most immediate situation (see R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:702-4).


The term here rendered “within” refers to the bringing of the blood inside the holy place for application to the altar of incense rather than to the altar of burnt offering in the courtyard of the tabernacle (cf. Lev 4:7, 16-18; 6:30 [23 HT]).


Regarding “clean” versus “unclean,” see the note on Lev 10:10 .


A small animal generally understood to be Hyrax syriacus ; KJV, ASV, NIV “coney”; NKJV “rock hyrax.”


The regulations against touching the carcasses of dead unclean animals (contrast the restriction against eating their flesh) is treated in more detail in Lev 11:24-28 (cf. also vv. 29-40 ). For the time being, this chapter continues to develop the issue of what can and cannot be eaten.


Compare the regulations in Lev 11:2-8 .


The Hebrew term translated “law” ( תוֹרָה , torah ) introduces here a summary or colophon for all of . Similar summaries are found in Lev 7:37-38; 13:59; 14:54-57; and 15:32-33 .


The regulations for the “male child” in vv. 2-4 contrast with those for the “female child” in v. 5 (see the note there).


See the note on Lev 1:3 regarding the “burnt offering.”


See the note on Lev 4:3 regarding the term “sin offering.”


See the note on Lev 1:4 “make atonement.” The purpose of sin offering “atonement,” in particular, was to purge impurities from the tabernacle (see Lev 15:31 and 16:5-19, 29-34 ), whether they were caused by physical uncleannesses or by sins and iniquities. In this case, the woman has not “sinned” morally by having a child. Even Mary brought such offerings for giving birth to Jesus ( Luke 2:22-24 ), though she certainly did not “sin” in giving birth to him. Note that the result of bringing this “sin offering” was “she will be clean,” not “she will be forgiven” (cf. Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13 ). The impurity of the blood flow has caused the need for this “sin offering,” not some moral or relational infringement of the law (contrast Lev 4:2 , “When a person sins by straying unintentionally from any of the commandments of the Lord ”).


Instead of just the normal quarantine isolation, this condition calls for the more drastic and enduring response stated in Lev 13:45-46 . Raw flesh, of course, sometimes oozes blood to one degree or another, and blood flows are by nature impure (see, e.g., Lev 12 and 15 ; cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 191).


The warp (vertical) and woof (horizontal) thread may be two different sets of thread not yet woven together, or they may refer to two different kinds of thread already woven, in which case one might have the disease in it while the other does not. See the explanation in J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:809-10.


The Hebrew term translated “law” ( תוֹרָה , torah ) introduces here a summary or colophon for all of . Similar summaries are found in Lev 7:37-38; 11:46-47; 14:54-57; and 15:32-33 .


Twigs of hyssop (probably one or several species of marjoram thymus ), a spice and herb plant that grows out of walls in Palestine (see 1 Kgs 4:33 [ 5:13 HT], HALOT 27 s.v. אֵזוֹב , and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 195), were particularly leafy and therefore especially useful for sprinkling the purifying liquid (cf. vv. 5-7 ). Many of the details of the ritual procedure are obscure. It has been proposed, for example, that the “cedar wood” was a stick to which the hyssop was bound with the crimson material to make a sort of sprinkling instrument (Hartley, 195). In light of the burning of these three materials as part of the preparation of the ashes of the red heifer in Num 19:5-6 , however, this seems unlikely.


The reddish color of cedar wood and the crimson colored fabric called for in v. 4 (see the note there, esp. the association with the color of blood) as well as the priestly commands to bring “two live” birds (v. 4 a), to slaughter one of them “over fresh water” (literally “ living water,” v. 5 b), and the subsequent ritual with the (second) “live” bird (vv. 6-7 ) combine to communicate the concept of “life” and “being alive” in this passage. This contrasts with the fear of death associated with the serious skin diseases in view here (see, e.g., Aaron’s description of Miriam’s skin disease in Num 12:12 , “Do not let her be like the dead one when it goes out from its mother’s womb and its flesh half eaten away”). Since the slaughtered bird here is not sacrificed at the altar and is not designated as an expiatory “sin offering,” this ritual procedure probably symbolizes the renewed life of the diseased person and displays it publicly for all to see. It is preparatory to the expiatory rituals that will follow (vv. 10-20 , esp. vv. 18-20 ), but is not itself expiatory. Thus, although there are important similarities between the bird ritual here, the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement ( Lev 16:20-22 ), and the red heifer for cleansing from corpse contamination (), this bird ritual is different in that the latter two constitute “sin offerings” ( Lev 16:5, 8-10 ; Num 19:9, 17 ). Neither of the birds in Lev 14:4-7 is designated or treated as a “sin offering.” Nevertheless, the very nature of the live bird ritual itself and its obvious similarity to the scapegoat ritual suggests that the patient’s disease has been removed far away so that he or she is free from its effects both personally and communally.


Once the priest pronounced the house “unclean” everything in it was also officially unclean. Therefore, if they emptied the house of its furniture, etc. before the official pronouncement by the priest those possessions would thereby remain officially “clean” and avoid destruction or purification procedures.


Cf. Lev 13:47-59 .


Cf. Lev 14:33-53 .


Cf. Lev 13:9-28, 43 .


Cf. Lev 13:2 .


Cf. Lev 13:4, 18-28, 38-39 . For explanations of all these terms for disease in Lev 14:56 see 13:2 .


frag. G) is indeed fragmentary, but it does have ימי ז בו כל “…in him, all the days of the fl[ow],” supporting Smr and LXX tradition. The LXX adds after MT “blocks his discharge” the following: “all the days of the flow of his body, by which his body is affected by the flow,” followed by “it is his uncleanness” (i.e., the last two words of the MT). The contrast between the dripping or flowing from the male sexual member as opposed to there being a blockage is important. One might not understand that even though a blockage actually causes a lack of discharge, it is still unclean.


For the “burnt offering” see the note on Lev 1:3 .


The term “tunic” refers to a shirt-like garment worn next to the skin and, therefore, put on first (cf. Exod 28:4, 39-40; 29:5, 8; 39:27 ). It covered the upper body only. For detailed remarks on the terminology for the priestly clothing in this verse (except the “linen leggings”) see the notes on Lev 8:7-9 and the literature cited there.


The sash fastened the tunic around the waist ( Exod 28:4, 39; 29:9; 39:29 ).


Presumably in this case the blood was sprinkled seven times on the ground in front of the ark on which the atonement plate was mounted.


The exact meaning of this penalty clause is not certain. It could mean (1) that he will be executed, whether by God or by man, (2) that he will be excommunicated from sanctuary worship and/or community benefits, or (3) that his line will be terminated by God (i.e., extirpation). See also the note on Lev 7:20 .


The general statement prohibiting sexual intercourse between close relatives serves as an opening summary statement for the following section, which gives details concerning which degrees of relationship are specifically forbidden.


That is, to have sexual intercourse with one’s granddaughter would be like openly exposing one’s own shameful nakedness (see the note on v. 7 above).


Regarding the last clause, see the notes on vv. 7 and 10 above.


Regarding the “cut off” penalty see the note on Lev 7:20 .


Regarding the difficult etymology and meaning of the term for “idols” ( אֱלִילִים , ’ elilim ), see B. A. Levine, Leviticus (JPSTC), 126; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 304; N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (NBC), 89; and Judith M. Hadley, NIDOTTE 1:411. It appears to be a diminutive play on words with אֵל (’ el , “god; God”) and, perhaps at the same time, recalls a common Semitic word for “worthless; weak; powerless; nothingness.” Snaith suggests a rendering of “worthless godlings.”


Regarding “profaned,” see the note on Lev 10:10 above.


On the “cut off” penalty see the note on Lev 7:20 .


Some scholars make a distinction between the verb אָהַב (’ ahav , “to love”) with the direct object and the more unusual construction with the preposition לְ ( lamed ) as it is here and in Lev 19:34 and 2 Chr 19:2 only. If there is a distinction, the construction here probably calls for direct and helpful action toward one’s neighbor (see the discussion in J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 305, and esp. 317-18). Such love stands in contrast to taking vengeance or bearing a grudge against someone and, in NT terms, amounts to fulfilling the so-called “golden rule” ( Matt 7:12 ).


Cf. Deut 22:11 where the Hebrew term translated “two different kinds” ( כִּלְאַיִם , kil ’ ayim ) refers to a mixture of linen and wool woven together in a garment.


That is, the woman had previously been assigned for marriage to another man but the marriage deal had not yet been consummated. In the meantime, the woman has lost her virginity and has, therefore, lost part of her value to the master in the sale to the man for whom she had been designated. Compensation was, therefore, required (see the explanation in B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 130-31).


On the guilt offering see the note on Lev 5:15 above.


The prohibition here concerns those who would seek special knowledge through the spirits of the dead, whether the dead in general or dead relatives in particular (i.e., familiar spirits; see J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 321, and B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 134). Cf. Lev 20:6 below.


An ephah is a dry measure which measures about four gallons, or perhaps one third of a bushel, while a hin is a liquid measure of about 3.6 liters (= approximately 1 quart).


On the “cut off” penalty see the notes on Lev 7:20 and 17:4 .


For structure and coherence in Lev 20:6-27 see the note on v. 27 below.


Compare the regulations in Lev 18:6-23 .


See the note on Lev 18:7 above.


Regarding “profane,” see the note on Lev 10:10 above.


Regarding the Hebrew term for “gifts,” see the note on Lev 1:9 above (cf. also 3:11 and 16 in combination with the word for “food” that follows in the next phrase here).


For a helpful discussion of divorce in general and as it relates to this passage see B. A. Levine, Leviticus (JPSTC), 143-44.


See the note on Lev 16:2 for the rendering “veil-canopy.”


Regarding the “cut off” penalty, see the note on Lev 7:20 . Cf. the interpretive translation of TEV “he can never again serve at the altar.”


The diseases and discharges mentioned here are those described in Lev 13-15 .


The phrase “any of these” refers back to the unclean things touched in vv. 4 b-5.


When a person trespassed in regard to something sacred to the Lord , reparation was to be made for the trespass, involving restitution of that which was violated plus one fifth of its value as a fine. It is possible that the restoration of the offering and the additional one fifth of its value were made as a monetary payment (see, e.g., B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 150). See the regulations for the “guilt offering” in Lev 5:16; 6:5 [5:24 HT] and the notes there.


That is, when the lay people eat portions of offerings that should have been eaten only by priests and those who belonged to priestly households.


See the note on Lev 21:20 above.


This term for offering “gift” is explained in the note on Lev 1:9 .


The freewill offering was voluntary, so the regulations regarding it were more relaxed. Once a vow was made, the paying of it was not voluntary (see B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 151-52, for very helpful remarks on this verse).


Compare Lev 21:20 b.


See Lev 7:30 for a note on the “waving” of a “wave offering.”


See the note on Lev 5:11 .


See the note on Lev 2:1 .


See the note on Lev 1:9 .


Compare Lev 19:9-10 .


See the description of this day and its regulations in and the notes there.


E. S. Gerstenberger ( Leviticus [OTL], 352) takes v. 44 to be an introduction to another set of festival regulations, perhaps something like those found in Exod 23:14-17 . For others this verse reemphasizes the Mosaic authority of the preceding festival regulations (e.g., J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 390).


The “memorial portion” ( אַזְכָרָה , ’ azkharah ) was normally the part of the grain offering that was burnt on the altar (see Lev 2:2 and the notes there), as opposed to the remainder, which was normally consumed by the priests ( Lev 2:3 ; see the full regulations in Lev 6:14-23 [ 6:7-16 HT]).


See the note on Lev 1:9 regarding the term “gift.”


See the note on v. 11 above and esp. Exod 22:28 [27 HT].


See the note on v. 11 above.


See the note on v. 18 above.


On the “loud horn blasts” see the note on Lev 23:24 , but unlike the language there, the Hebrew term for “horn” ( שׁוֹפָר , shofar ) actually appears here in this verse (twice).


This refers to the region of fields just outside and surrounding the city where cattle were kept and garden crops were grown (B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 177).


For the literature regarding the difficult etymology and meaning of the term for “idols” ( אֱלִילִם , ’ elilim ), see the literature cited in the note on Lev 19:4 . It appears to be a diminutive play on words with אֵל (’ el , “god, God”) and, perhaps at the same time, recalls a common Semitic word for “worthless, weak, powerless, nothingness.” Snaith suggests a rendering of “worthless godlings.”


Regarding these cultic installations, see the remarks in B. A. Levine, Leviticus (JPSTC), 188, and R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:903. The term rendered “incense altars” might better be rendered “sanctuaries [of foreign deities]” or “stelae.”


The tithed animal was the tenth one that passed under the shepherd’s rod or staff as they were being counted (see J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 485, and B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 200).


The book of Numbers is the fourth book of the Pentateuch, traditionally called the Law of Moses. It provides a record of the experience of the Israelites during the wilderness wanderings, and records the laws for the camp as they traveled from place to place. The book focuses on the difficulties of the Israelites due to their lack of faith, rebellion, and apostasy. It also records God’s protection of his people from opposition from without. The book makes a fitting contribution to the collection of holy writings as it shows the spiritual and physical progression of the company of the redeemed toward the promised land. The book has to be studied in conjunction with the other books of the Pentateuch. It builds on the promises made to Abraham in Genesis and the redemption from bondage in Exodus; it completes the cultic instructions for Israel that were laid down in Leviticus, and it concerns the worship in and the movement of the tabernacle that was built in Exodus. But the information here, both legal and historical, was not the major concern in those books. The book gets its title in English (following the Greek tradition) from the two censuses taken of the people, one at the beginning of the wanderings and the other at the end (although the Hebrew title is taken from the beginning of the book, בַּמִּדְבַּר [ bammidbar ], “in the wilderness”). In these lists particular emphasis is given to the leaders of the clans, a theme that will continue in the book as the focus is on how the leaders function in all the trials and temptations of the journey. The material in this book is essentially a theological interpretation of historical events, and as such it stands as an integral part of the revelation of God. In the study of the book of Numbers, when these issues of the nature of the text are significant to the interpretation and acceptance of the text, the notes will comment on them briefly. The indication at the outset of the book is that Moses had a good number of people who were able to help him compile the statistics and the facts of the wandering community. In Num 11:16-18 there is a group of leaders known as שֹׁטְּרִים ( shottÿrim ). This term was used in Exod 5:16-19 to describe the officers or foremen of the Israelites. They were appointed supervisors of the clans by Moses, and by the time of Joshua ( Josh 1:10 ) they were a literary guild. The Hebrew word, cognate with Akkadian sataru, means “to write.” These people were to Israel what the scribes and chroniclers were to the pagan nations. They assisted Moses and the priests in their keeping of records. So no matter what they were called from time to time, there was a group of literate people who could keep the records and preserve the information from the very beginning. Their work matches the activities of scribes in the ancient world who used all the literary devices to preserve the material. There is no reason to doubt that the events recorded were attested to and preserved by such eyewitnesses. But their work would have been essentially to serve the leader, Moses. The book essentially follows the order of the events chronologically, more or less. Where it departs from that order it does so for literary or theological reasons. At the center of the theological concern is the tabernacle, its significance to the faith, and therefore the care in using it and in moving it. Its importance explains the presence and the arrangement of the ritual laws. With the records and statistics provided for him, Moses could then introduce into the record the great events in the wilderness experience of Israel, which were to become warnings and encouragements for all time. Most of this material comes from the two years at the beginning of the experience and the two years at the end. But this itself may be a literary device ( merism ) to show the nature of the wanderings throughout. The Hebrew text of the book of Numbers has been preserved fairly well. It has not been preserved as well as Leviticus, which was most important to the ministry of the priests and Levites. But in comparison with some of the prophetic writings, Numbers represents a well-preserved text. The problems will be discussed in the relevant passages. So Numbers is essentially a part of the unfolding revelation of the Torah, the Law. It shows God’s faithfulness to his covenant plan and to his covenant people, but it also shows the problems incurred by the people’s lack of faith and obedience. The book focuses frequently on the nature of the holy Lord God, for at the center of all this material is the person and the works of the Lord . This provided the standard for the faith and practice of the people. For more information on chapter one, see W. F. Albright, “The Administrative Divisions of Israel and Judah,” JPOS 5 (1925): 17-54; A. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood ; A. Lucas, “The Number of the Israelites at the Time of the Exodus,” PEQ 76 (1944): 351-64; G. E. Mendenhall, “The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26 ,” JBL 77 (1958): 52-66; E. Nielsen, “The Levites in the Old Testament,” ASTI 3 (1964): 16-27; L. A. Snijders, “The Meaning of זר in the Old Testament: An Exegetical Study,” OTS 10 (1954): 1-154; and J. W. Wenham, “Large Numbers in the Old Testament,” TynBul 18 (1967): 19-53.


The holy name is “Yahweh.” This is the ancient name for the God of the covenant community. The name was explained or interpreted by Moses for the Israelites by the etymological connection to the verb “to be.” God said that its significance was “ I am that I am ” ( אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה , ’ ehyeh ’ aser ’ ehyeh ) using the first person of the verb; the name, the third person of the verb, would therefore mean “He is.” The name indicates that God is the sovereign Lord of creation, the eternal God, the covenant Lord; he is sovereignly independent of all creation, but he is intimately involved with all his people. Most English translations do not use it, but follow the Jewish custom of using substitute words for the holy name, such as “the Lord ,” “the Eternal One,” etc.


This was one of several names by which the tabernacle was known. This was the tent with its furnishings that the Israelites built according to the book of Exodus. While that tabernacle was being built, the Lord met with Moses in a tent of meeting nearby ( Exod 33:7 ), but when the project was finished, the title was transferred to the tabernacle. It may be that the expression “tent of meeting” refers to the inner tabernacle where God revealed himself to Moses and Aaron, and the word “tabernacle” refers to the whole shrine, the curtained structure with all its contents. This would mean that God addressed Moses from between the cherubim in the holy of holies (see R. A. Cole, Exodus [TOTC], 191). The point is clear, though – the shrine was functioning as the sign of God’s actual presence and leadership among his people.


The English word “wilderness” is workable for the Hebrew term, because it describes land that is wild. The term “desert” works if one thinks of land deserted by people. But to many modern readers “desert” suggests the idea of an arid land without growth. The word must not be pressed to mean only sand dunes; it describes land that has rocks, canyons, oases, shrubs and trees occasionally, some animal life, and of course sand.


The exact location of Mount Sinai has been debated for some time. The traditional view from very early times is that it is located in the south, Jebel Musa, south of the monastery of St. Catherine. The other plausible suggestion is Ras es-Safsafeh, which is on the other end of the valley near the monastery. The mountain is also called Horeb in the Bible. The wilderness of Sinai would refer to the large plain that is at the base of the mountain. See further G. E. Wright, IDB 4:376-78; and G. I. Davies, The Way of the Wilderness .


This means that the Israelites had spent nine months at Sinai, because they had arrived there in the third month following the exodus. This account does not follow a strict chronology (see Num 9:1 ). The difference of one month in the narrative is not a critical difference, but a literary general reference. Here begins a new section of major importance to the future of the nation – the numbering for war and for settlement.


See J. R. Bartlett, “The Use of the Word ראשׁ as a Title in the Old Testament,” VT 19 (1969): 1-10.


This name and the name Ammishaddai below have the theophoric element ( שַׁדַּי , shadday , “the Almighty”). It would mean “the Almighty is my rock”; the later name means “the Almighty is my kinsman.” Other theophoric elements in the passage are “father,” “brother,” and “God.”


Nahshon was an ancestor of Boaz and David, and therefore of Christ ( Luke 3:32-33 ).


There has been much discussion about the numbers in the Israelite wilderness experience. The immediate difficulty for even the casual reader is the enormous number of the population. If indeed there were 603,550 men twenty years of age and older who could fight, the total population of the exodus community counting women and children would have been well over a million, or even two million as calculated by some. This is not a figure that the Bible ever gives, but given the sizes of families the estimate would not be far off. This is a staggering number to have cross the Sea, drink from the oases, or assemble in the plain by Sinai. It is not a question of whether or not God could provide for such a number; it is rather a problem of logistics for a population of that size in that period of time. The problem is not with the text itself, but with the interpretation of the word אֶלֶף (’ elef ), traditionally translated “thousand.” The word certainly can be taken as “thousand,” and most often is. But in view of the problem of the large number here, some scholars have chosen one of the other meanings attested in literature for this word, perhaps “troop,” or “family,” or “tent group,” even though a word for “family” has already been used (see A. H. McNeile, Numbers, 7; J. Garstang, Joshua-Judges, 120; J. Bright, History of Israel, 144). Another suggestion is to take the word as a “chief” or “captain” based on Ugaritic usage (see R. E. D. Clarke, “The Large Numbers of the Old Testament,” JTVI 87 [1955]: 82-92; and J. W. Wenham, “Large Numbers in the Old Testament,” TynBul 18 [1967]: 19-53). This interpretation would reduce the size of the Israelite army to about 18,000 men from a population of about 72,000 people. That is a radical change from the traditional reading and may be too arbitrary an estimate. A more unlikely calculation following the idea of a new meaning would attempt to divide the numbers and use the first part to refer to the units and the second the measurement (e.g., 65 thousand and four hundred would become 65 units of four hundred). Another approach has been to study the numbers rhetorically, analyzing the numerical values of letters and words. But this method, known as gematria, came in much later than the biblical period (see for it G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament , 184; and A. Noordtzij, Numbers [BSC], 24). On this system the numbers for “the sons of Israel” would be 603. But the number of the people in the MT is 603,550. Another rhetorical approach is that which says the text used exaggerations in the numbers on an epic scale to make the point of God’s blessing. R. B. Allen’s view that the numbers have been magnified by a factor of ten (“Numbers,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary , 2:688-91), which would mean the army was only 60,000 men, seems every bit as arbitrary as Wenham’s view to get down to 18,000. Moreover, such views cannot be harmonized with the instructions in the chapter for them to count every individual skull – that seems very clear. This is not the same kind of general expression one finds in “Saul has killed his thousands, David his ten thousands” ( 1 Sam 18:7 ). There one expects the bragging and the exaggerations. But in a text of numbering each male, to argue that the numbers have been inflated ten-fold to form the rhetoric of praise for the way God has blessed the nation demands a much more convincing argument than has typically been given. On the surface it seems satisfactory, but it raises a lot of questions. Everything in Exodus and Numbers attests to the fact that the Israelites were in a population explosion, that their numbers were greater than their Egyptian overlords. Pharaoh had attempted to counter their growth by killing males from the ranks. That only two midwives are named must be taken to mean that they were heads of the guilds, for two could not service a population – even of the smaller estimate given above. But even though the size had to have been great and seen as a threat, we are at a loss to know exactly how to determine it. There is clearly a problem with the word “thousand” here and in many places in the OT, as the literature will show, but the problem cannot really be solved without additional information. The suggestions proposed so far seem to be rather arbitrary attempts to reduce the number to a less-embarrassing total, one that would seem more workable in the light of contemporary populations and armies, as well as space and time for the people’s movement in the wilderness. An army of 10,000 or 20,000 men in those days would have been a large army; an army of 600,000 (albeit a people’s army, which may mean that only a portion of the males would actually fight at any time – as was true at Ai) is large even by today’s standards. But the count appears to have been literal, and the totals calculated accordingly, totals which match other passages in the text. If some formula is used to reduce the thousands in this army, then there is the problem of knowing what to do when a battle has only five thousand, or three thousand men. One can only conclude that on the basis of what we know the word should be left with the translation “thousand,” no matter what difficulties this might suggest to the reader. One should be cautious, though, in speaking of a population of two million, knowing that there are serious problems with the calculation of that number, if not with the word “thousand” itself. It is very doubtful that the population of the wilderness community was in the neighborhood of two million. Nevertheless, until a more convincing explanation of the word “thousand” or the calculation of the numbers is provided, one should retain the reading of the MT but note the difficulty with the large numbers.


From the giving of the Law on the priesthood comes the prerogative of the tribe of Levi. There were, however, members of other tribes who served as priests from time to time (see Judg 17:5 ).


For this chapter, see C. E. Douglas, “The Twelve Houses of Israel,” JTS 37 (1936): 49-56; C. C. Roach, “The Camp in the Wilderness: A Sermon on Numbers 2:2 ,” Int 13 (1959): 49-54; and G. St. Clair, “Israel in Camp: A Study,” JTS 8 (1907): 185-217.


The Israelites were camping as a military camp, each tribe with the standards and emblems of the family. The standard was the symbol fastened to the end of a pole and carried to battle. It served to rally the tribe to the battle. The Bible nowhere describes these, although the serpent emblem of Numbers 21:8-9 may give a clue. But they probably did not have shapes of animals in view of the prohibition in the Decalogue. The standards may have been smaller for the families than the ones for the tribes. See further K. A. Kitchen, “Some Egyptian Background to the Old Testament,” TynBul 5 (1960): 11; and T. W. Mann, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Tradition , 169-73.


For significant literature for this chapter, see M. Aberbach and L. Smolar, “Aaron, Jeroboam, and their Golden Calves,” JBL 86 (1967): 129-40; G. Brin, “The First-born in Israel in the Biblical Period” (Ph.D. diss., University of Tel Aviv, 1971); S. H. Hooke, “Theory and Practice of Substitution,” VT 2 (1952): 2-17; and J. Morgenstern, “A Chapter in the History of the High Priesthood,” AJSL 55 (1938): 1-24.


The two young priests had been cut down before they had children; the ranks of the family of Aaron were thereby cut in half in one judgment from God. The significance of the act of judgment was to show that the priests had to sanctify the Lord before the people – they were to be examples that the sanctuary and its contents were distinct.


The use of the verb קָרַב ( qarav ) forms an interesting wordplay in the passage. The act of making an offering is described by this verb, as was the reference to the priests’ offering of strange fire. Now the ceremonial presentation of the priests is expressed by the same word – they are being offered to God.


In the Exodus event of the Passover night the principle of substitution was presented. The firstborn child was redeemed by the blood of the Lamb and so belonged to God, but then God chose the Levites to serve in the place of the firstborn. The ritual of consecrating the firstborn son to the Lord was nevertheless carried out, even with Jesus, the firstborn son of Mary ( Luke 2:22-23 ).


Both Moses and Aaron came from this line ( 6:16-20 ). During the Hebrew monarchy this branch of the line of Levi was exemplary in music ( 1 Chr 6:33-48 ). They were also helpful to Hezekiah in his reforms ( 1 Chr 29:12-14 ).


The sanctuary shekel was first mentioned in Exod 30:13 . The half-shekel of Exod 38:26 would then be 10 gerahs. Consequently, the calculations would indicate that five shekels was about two ounces of silver for each person. See R. B. Y. Scott, “Weights and Measures of the Bible,” BA 22 (1951): 22-40, and “The Scale-Weights from Ophel, 1963-1964,” PEQ 97 (1965): 128-39.


The word used is “silver.” Coins were not in existence until after 700 b.c. (starting with Lydia).


The chapter has four main parts to it: Kohathites (1-20), Gershonites (21-28), Merarites (29-33) and the census of the Levites (34-49).


The Hebrew actually has the “table of faces,” and this has been traditionally rendered “table of shewbread.”


One would assume that he would prepare and wrap these items, but that the Kohathites would carry them to the next place.


The verb is simply the Qal , “do not cut off.” The context calls for a permissive nuance – “do not let them be cut off.” It was a difficult task to be handling the holy things correctly; Moses and Aaron were to see to it that they did it right and did not handle the objects, that is, Moses and Aaron were to safeguard their lives by making certain that proper procedures were followed.


The material here suggests that Eleazar had heavier responsibilities than Ithamar, Aaron’s fourth and youngest son. It is the first indication that the Zadokite Levites would take precedence over the Ithamar Levites (see 1 Chr 24:3-6 ).


More recent studies have concluded that these “boards” were made of two long uprights joined by cross-bars (like a ladder). They were frames rather than boards, meaning that the structure under the tent was not a solid building. It also meant that the “boards” would have been lighter to carry.


The fifth chapter falls into four main parts: separation of the unclean (vv. 1-4 ), restitution for sin (vv. 5-10 ), the jealousy ordeal (vv. 11-28 ), and the summary (vv. 29-31 ). There is a good deal of literature on the biblical theme of holiness (for which see the notes on Leviticus primarily). But with regard to this chapter, see (with caution), Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger ; J. Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism ; and K. Milgrom, “Two Kinds of h£at£t£a„át , ” VT 26 (1976): 333-37.


The word צָרוּעַ ( tsarua ’), although translated “leper,” does not primarily refer to leprosy proper (i.e., Hansen’s disease). The RSV and the NASB continued the KJV tradition of using “leper” and “leprosy.” More recent studies have concluded that the Hebrew word is a generic term covering all infectious skin diseases (including leprosy when that actually showed up). True leprosy was known and feared certainly by the time of Amos (ca. 760 b.c. ). There is evidence that the disease was known in Egypt by 1500 b.c. So this term would include that disease in all probability. But in view of the diagnosis and healing described in Leviticus 13 and 14 , the term must be broader. The whole basis for the laws of separation may be found in the book of Leviticus. The holiness of the Lord who dwelt among his people meant that a high standard was imposed on them for their living arrangements as well as access to the sanctuary. Anything that was corrupted, diseased, dying, or contaminated was simply not compatible with the holiness of God and was therefore excluded. This is not to say that it was treated as sin, or the afflicted as sinners. It simply was revealing – and safeguarding – the holiness of the Lord . It thus provided a revelation for all time that in the world to come nothing unclean will enter into the heavenly sanctuary. As the Apostle Paul says, we will all be changed from this corruptible body into one that is incorruptible ( 1 Cor 15:53 ). So while the laws of purity and holiness were practical for the immediate audience, they have far-reaching implications for theology. The purity regulations have been done away with in Christ – the problem is dealt with differently in the new covenant. There is no earthly temple, and so the separation laws are not in force. Wisdom would instruct someone with an infectious disease to isolate, however. But just because the procedure is fulfilled in Christ does not mean that believers today are fit for glory just as they are. On the contrary, they must be changed before going into his presence. In like manner the sacrifices have been done away in Christ – not what they covered. Sin is still sin, even though it is dealt with differently on this side of the cross. But the ritual and the regulations of the old covenant at Sinai have been fulfilled in Christ.


The rules of discharge ( Lev 12 and 15 ) include everything from menstruation to chronic diseases (see G. Wyper, ISBE 1:947, as well as R. K. Harrison, Leviticus (TOTC), 158-66, and G. J. Wenham, Leviticus (NICOT), 217-25.


This type of law is known as casuistic. The law is introduced with “when/if” and then the procedure to be adopted follows it. The type of law was common in the Law Code of Hammurabi.


For more information on the word, see A. R. Johnson, “The Primary Meaning of גאל , ” VTSup 1 (1953): 67-77.


The “holy gifts” are described with the root of קֹדֶשׁ ( qodesh ) to convey that they were separate. Such things had been taken out of the ordinary and normal activities of life.


There is a good bit of bibliography here. See, e.g., J. M. Sasson, “ and the Waters of Judgment,” BZ 16 (1972): 249-51; and M. Fishbane, “Accusation of Adultery: A Study of Law and Scribal Practice in Numbers 5:11-31 ,” HUCA 45 (1974): 25-46.


The dust may have come from the sanctuary floor, but it is still dust, and therefore would have all the pollutants in it.


Although there would be stress involved, a woman who was innocent would have nothing to hide, and would be confident. The wording of the priest’s oath is actually designed to enable the potion to keep her from harm and not produce the physical effects it was designed to do.


For information on such curses, see M. R. Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” ZAW 81 (1969): 74-92; A. C. Thiselton, “The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings,” JTS 25 (1974): 283-99; and F. C. Fensham, “Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Vassal Treaties and the Old Testament,” ZAW 74 (1962): 1-9.


The outcome of this would be that she would be quoted by people in such forms of expression as an oath or a curse (see Jer 29:22 ).


Most commentators take the expressions to be euphemisms of miscarriage or stillbirth, meaning that there would be no fruit from an illegitimate union. The idea of the abdomen swelling has been reinterpreted by NEB to mean “fall away.” If this interpretation stands, then the idea is that the woman has become pregnant, and that has aroused the suspicion of the husband for some reason. R. K. Harrison ( Numbers [WEC], 111-13) discusses a variety of other explanations for diseases and conditions that might be described by these terms. He translates it with “miscarriage,” but leaves open what the description might actually be. Cf. NRSV “makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge.”


The words written on the scroll were written with a combination of ingredients mixed into an ink. The idea is probably that they would have been washed or flaked off into the water, so that she drank the words of the curse – it became a part of her being.


The text does not say what the consequences are. Presumably the punishment would come from God, and not from those administering the test.


This chapter can be divided into five sections: The vow is described in vv. 1-8 , then the contingencies for defilement are enumerated in vv. 9-12 , then there is a discussion of discharging the vows in vv. 13-20 , and then a summary in v. 21 ; after this is the high priestly blessing (vv. 22-27 ). For information on the vow, see G. B. Gray, “The Nazirite,” JTS 1 (1899-1900): 201-11; Z. Weisman, “The Biblical Nazirite, Its Types and Roots,” Tarbiz 36 (1967): 207-20; and W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (OTL), 1:303-6.


Here is another hapax legomenon , a word only found here. The word seems linked to the verb “to be clear,” and so may mean the thin skin of the grape. The reason for the strictness with these two words in this verse is uncertain. We know the actual meanings of the words, and the combination must form a merism here, meaning no part of the grape could be eaten. Abstaining from these common elements of food was to be a mark of commitment to the Lord . Hos 3:1 even denounces the raisin cakes as part of a pagan world, and eating them would be a violation of the oath.


There is an interesting parallel between this prohibition and the planting of trees. They could not be pruned or trimmed for three years, but allowed to grow free ( Lev 20:23 ). Only then could the tree be cut and the fruit eaten. The natural condition was to be a sign that it was the Lord ’s. It was to be undisturbed by humans. Since the Nazirite was to be consecrated to the Lord , that meant his whole person, hair included. In the pagan world the trimming of the beard and the cutting of the hair was often a sign of devotion to some deity.


The expression is figurative for the vow that he took; the figure is the metonymy because the reference to the head is a reference to the long hair that symbolizes the oath.


The peace offering שְׁלָמִים ( shÿlamim ) is instructed in Lev 3 and 7 . The form is always in the plural. It was a sacrifice that celebrated the fact that the worshiper was at peace with God, and was not offered in order to make peace with God. The peace offering was essentially a communal meal in the presence of God. Some have tried to equate this offering with similar sounding names in Akkadian and Ugaritic (see B. A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord [SJLA], 3-52), but the unique features of the Israelite sacrifice make this connection untenable.


The offerings for the termination of the Nazirite vow would not have been inexpensive. This indicates that the person making the short term vow may have had income, or have come from a wealthier section of society. Short term vows had to be considered carefully as this ruling required a good amount of food to be brought.


Some commentators see this burning of the hair as an offering (McNeile, Numbers, 35; G. B. Gray, Numbers [ICC] , 68). But others probably with more foundation see it as destroying something that has served a purpose, something that if left alone might be venerated (see R. de Vaux, Israel , 436).


The ritual of lifting the hands filled with the offering and waving them in the presence of the Lord was designed to symbolize the transfer of the offering to God in the sight of all. This concludes the worshiper’s part; the offering now becomes the property of the priest – his priest’s due (or “raised/heave offering”).


The “wave offering” may be interpreted as a “special gift” to be transferred to the Lord , and the “heave offering” as a “special contribution” to God – the priest’s due. These two offerings have also inspired a good deal of study.


This brief section records the blessing of the priest, especially the high priest after he emerges from the holy of holies to bless the people (see Lev 9:22 ). The two main elements in the oracle are “grace and peace.” It is probable that the Apostle Paul based his salutations on this oracle. For additional information, see L. J. Liebreich, “The Songs of Ascent and the Priestly Blessing,” JBL 74 (1955): 33-36; P. D. Miller, “The Blessing of God: An Interpretation of Num 6:22-27 ,” Int 29 (1975): 240-51; and A. Murtonen, “The Use and Meaning of the Words lébarek and bérakah in the Old Testament,” VT 9 (1959): 158-77.


This long and repetitious chapter has several parts to it: the introduction (vv. 1-3 ), the assigning of gifts (vv. 4-9 ), the time of presentation (vv. 10-11 ), and then the tribes (vv. 12-83 ), and then a summary (vv. 84-89 ).


For a discussion and drawings, see W. S. McCullough, IDB 1:540. But see also D. J. Wiseman, IBD 1:254.


Some commentators take the word “dedication” in the sense of a dedication gift, and so make it the direct object. Many modern scholars assume that this is a late word, belonging only in P, the Chronicler, and the heading of (a Davidic psalm).


The tribe of Judah is listed first. It seems that it had already achieved a place of prominence based on the patriarchal promise of the Messiahship in Judah ( Gen 49:10 ).


Even though the chapter seems wearisome and repetitious to the modern reader, it is a significant document. A. Rainey shows how it matches the exact ledgers of ancient sanctuaries (see ZPEB 5:202). The recording would have been done by the priestly scribes. Of the many points that can be observed here, it should not be missed that each tribe, regardless of its size or relative importance, was on equal footing before the Lord . Each tribe shared in the work of the Lord equally. Each tribe approached the sanctuary in precisely the same way on this memorable occasion. All such devotion to the work of the Lord was to receive the blessing of God.


This chapter has three main sections to it: the lighting of the lamps (vv. 1-4 ), the separation of the Levites (vv. 5-22 ), and the work of the Levites (vv. 23-26 ). Many modern scholars assume that the chapter belongs to P and was added late. But the chapter reiterates some of the Mosaic material concerning the work of the Levites in the new sanctuary. For the chapter to make sense the historical setting must be accepted; if the historical setting is accepted, the chapter is necessary as part of that early legislation. For more reading, see M. Haran, “The Nature of the ’ohel mo‘edh in the Pentateuchal Sources,” JSS 5 (1960): 50-65, and “The Priestly Image of the Tabernacle,” HUCA 36 (1965): 191-226; and C. L. Meyers, The Tabernacle Menorah .


The idea is that it was all hammered from a single plate of gold.


The first sacrifice was for the purification of the Levites. The second animal, which Moses was to take, would be used for the purification of the tabernacle from all pollution.


The consecration ceremony was to be done in full view of the assembled people. In all probability the laying on of the hands was done through representatives of the tribes, and not all the people. This ritual of the imposition of hands showed that the people were taking part in the consecration, and that the Levites represented them in the service of the Lord .


The “purification offering” cleansed the tabernacle from impurity, and the burnt offering atoned by nullifying and removing the effects of sin in the Levites.


The firstborn were those that were essentially redeemed from death in Egypt when the blood was put on the doors. So in the very real sense they belonged to God ( Exod 13:2,12 ). The firstborn was one who stood in special relationship to the father, being the successive offspring. Here, the Levites would stand in for the firstborn in that special role and special relationship. God also made it clear that the nation of Israel was his firstborn son ( Exod 4:22-23 ), and so they stood in that relationship before all the nations. The tribe of Reuben was to have been the firstborn tribe, but in view of the presumptuous attempt to take over the leadership through pagan methods ( Gen 35:22; 49:3-4 ), was passed over. The tribes of Levi and Simeon were also put down for their ancestors’ activities, but sanctuary service was still given to Levi.


The chapter has just the two sections, the observance of the Passover (vv. 1-14 ) and the cloud that led the Israelites in the wilderness (vv. 15-23 ). It must be remembered that the material in vv. 7-9 is chronologically earlier than vv. 1-6 , as the notices in the text will make clear. The two main discussions here are the last major issues to be reiterated before dealing with the commencement of the journey.


For a detailed study note on the Passover, see the discussion with the original institution in . The word פֶּסַח ( pesakh ) – here in pause and with the article – has become the technical name for the spring festival of Israel. In the name is explained by the use of the verb “to pass over” ( עָבַר , ’ avar ), indicating that the angel of death would pass over the house with the blood applied. Many scholarly attempts have been made to supply the etymology of the word, but none has been compelling enough to be accepted by a large number of biblical scholars. For general literature on the Passover, see J. B. Segal, The Hebrew Passover , as well as the Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias.


The delay of four weeks for such people would have permitted enough time for them to return from their journey, or to recover from any short termed defilement such as is mentioned here. Apart from this provision, the Passover was to be kept precisely at the proper time.


The pronouncement of such a person’s penalty is that his life will be cut off from his people. There are at least three possible interpretations for this: physical death at the hand of the community (G. B. Gray, Numbers [ICC], 84-85), physical and/or spiritual death at the hand of God (J. Milgrom, “A Prolegomenon to Lev 17:11 ,” JBL 90 [1971]: 154-55), or excommunication or separation from the community (R. A. Cole, Exodus [TOTC] , 109). The direct intervention of God seem to be the most likely in view of the lack of directions for the community to follow. Excommunication from the camp in the wilderness would have been tantamount to a death sentence by the community, and so there really are just two views.


This section ( Num 9:15-23 ) recapitulates the account in Exod 40:34 but also contains some additional detail about the cloud that signaled Israel’s journeys. Here again material from the book of Exodus is used to explain more of the laws for the camp in motion.


The explanation and identification of this cloud has been a subject of much debate. Some commentators have concluded that it was identical with the cloud that led the Israelites away from Egypt and through the sea, but others have made a more compelling case that this is a different phenomenon (see ZPEB 4:796). A number of modern scholars see the description as a retrojection from later, perhaps Solomonic times (see G. H. Davies, IDB 3:817). Others have tried to connect it with Ugaritic terminology, but unconvincingly (see T. W. Mann, “The Pillar of Cloud in the Reed Sea Narrative,” JBL 90 [1971]: 15-30; G. E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation , 32-66, 209-13; and R. Good, “Cloud Messengers?” UF 10 [1978]: 436-37).


The cloud apparently was centered over the tent, over the spot of the ark of the covenant in the most holy place. It thereafter spread over the whole tabernacle.


Here we have a short section ( 10:1-10 ) dealing with the regulations for blowing trumpets in times of war or in times of peace.


The instructions are not clearly spelled out here. But the trumpets were to be made of silver ingots beaten out into a sheet of silver and then bent to form a trumpet. There is archaeological evidence of silver smelting as early as 3000 b.c. Making silver trumpets would have been a fairly easy thing for the Israelites to do. The trumpet would have been straight, with a tapered form, very unlike the “ram’s horn” ( שׁוֹפָר , shofar ). The trumpets were used by the priests in Israel from the outset, but later were used more widely. The sound would be sharp and piercing, but limited in scope to a few notes. See further C. Sachs, The History of Musical Instruments .


The signal for moving camp was apparently different in tone and may have been sharper notes or a different sequence. It was in some way distinguishable.


This section is somewhat mechanical: It begins with an introduction (vv. 11, 12 ), and then begins with Judah (vv. 13-17 ), followed by the rest of the tribes (vv. 18-27 ), and finally closes with a summary (v. 28 ). The last few verses (vv. 29-36 ) treat the departure of Hobab.


The verb is the same as the noun: “they journeyed on their journeyings.” This underscores the point of their continual traveling.


The “standard” ( דֶּגֶל , degel ) was apparently some kind of a symbol put up on a pole to signify the tribal hosts. R. de Vaux thought it simply referred to a pole or a mast, but that would not distinguish tribes ( Ancient Israel, 226-27).


For additional bibliography for this short section, see W. F. Albright, “Jethro, Hobab, and Reuel in Early Hebrew Tradition,” CBQ 25 (1963): 1-11; G. W. Coats, “Moses in Midian,” JBL 92 (1973): 3-10; B. Mazar, “The Sanctuary of Arad and the Family of Hobab the Kenite,” JNES 24 (1965): 297-303; and T. C. Mitchell, “The Meaning of the Noun h£tn in the Old Testament,” VT 19 (1969): 93-112.