translation_id: net-engnet

book_id: NUM

label: NET translator note

text: The temporal clause uses the Hitpoel infinitive construct from אָנַן (’ anan ). It is a rare word, occurring in Lam 3:39 . With this blunt introduction the constant emphasis of obedience to the word of the Lord found throughout the first ten chapters suddenly comes to an end. It is probable that the people were tired of moving for several days, the excitement of the new beginning died out quickly in the “great and terrible wilderness.” Resentment, frustration, discomfort – whatever it all involved – led to complaining and not gratitude.


text: Heb “it was evil in the ears of the Lord .” The word רַע ( ra ’) is a much stronger word than “displeased” would suggest. The bold anthropomorphism shows that what the Lord heard was painful to him.


text: The preterite with vav ( ו ) consecutive is here subordinated to the next verb as a temporal clause.


text: The common Hebrew expression uses the verb חָרָה ( harah , “to be hot, to burn, to be kindled”). The subject is אַפּוֹ (’ appo ), “his anger” or more literally, his nose, which in this anthropomorphic expression flares in rage. The emphasis is superlative – “his anger raged.”


text: The vav ( ו ) consecutive does not simply show sequence in the verbs, but here expresses the result of the anger of the Lord for their complaining. With such a response to the complaining, one must conclude that it was unreasonable. There had been no long deprivation or endured suffering; the complaining was early and showed a rebellious spirit.


text: Heb “Moses.”


text: The name תַּבְעֵרָה ( tav ’ erah ) is given to the spot as a commemorative of the wilderness experience. It is explained by the formula using the same verbal root, “to burn.” Such naming narratives are found dozens of times in the OT, and most frequently in the Pentateuch. The explanation is seldom an exact etymology, and so in the literature is called a popular etymology. It is best to explain the connection as a figure of speech, a paronomasia, which is a phonetic wordplay that may or may not be etymologically connected. Usually the name is connected to the explanation by a play on the verbal root – here the preterite explaining the noun. The significance of commemorating the place by such a device is to “burn” it into the memory of Israel. The narrative itself would be remembered more easily by the name and its motif. The namings in the wilderness wanderings remind the faithful of unbelief, and warn us all not to murmur as they murmured. See further A. P. Ross, “Paronomasia and Popular Etymologies in the Naming Narrative of the Old Testament,” Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1982.


text: The mixed multitude (or “rabble,” so NASB, NIV, NRSV; NLT “foreign rabble”) is the translation of an unusual word, הֲָאסַפְסֻף ( ha ’ safsuf ). It occurs in the Hebrew Bible only here. It may mean “a gathering of people” from the verb אָסַף (’ asaf ), yielding the idea of a mixed multitude (in line with Exod 12:38 ). But the root is different, and so no clear connection can be established. Many commentators therefore think the word is stronger, showing contempt through a word that would be equivalent to “riff-raff.”


text: The Hebrew simply uses the cognate accusative, saying “they craved a craving” ( הִתְאַוּוּ תַּאֲוָה , hit ’ avvu ta ’ vah ), but the context shows that they had this strong craving for food. The verb describes a strong desire, which is not always negative ( Ps 132:13-14 ). But the word is a significant one in the Torah; it was used in the garden story for Eve’s desire for the tree, and it is used in the Decalogue in the warning against coveting ( Deut 5:21 ).


label: NET textual note

text: The Greek and the Latin versions read “and they sat down” for “and they returned,” involving just a change in vocalization (which they did not have). This may reflect the same expression in Judg 20:26 . But the change does not improve this verse. tn The Hebrew text uses a verbal hendiadys here, one word serving as an adverb for the other. It literally reads “and they returned and they wept,” which means they wept again. Here the weeping is put for the complaint, showing how emotionally stirred up the people had become by the craving. The words throughout here are metonymies. The craving is a metonymy of cause, for it would have then led to expressions (otherwise the desires would not have been known). And the weeping is either a metonymy of effect, or of adjunct, for the actual complaints follow.


text: The Hebrew expresses the strong wish or longing idiomatically: “Who will give us flesh to eat?” It is a rhetorical expression not intended to be taken literally, but merely to give expression to the longing they had. See GKC 476 §151. a .1.


text: The perfect tense here expresses the experience of a state of mind. sn As with all who complain in such situations, their memory was selective. It was their bitter cries to the Lord from the suffering in bondage that God heard and answered. And now, shortly after being set free, their memory of Egypt is for things they do not now have. It is also somewhat unlikely that they as slaves had such abundant foods in Egypt.


text: The imperfect tense would here be the customary imperfect, showing continual or incomplete action in past time.


text: The adverb “freely” is from the word חָנַן ( khanan , “to be gracious”), from which is derived the noun “grace.” The word underscores the idea of “free, without cost, for no reason, gratis.” Here the simple sense is “freely,” without any cost. But there may be more significance in the choice of the words in this passage, showing the ingratitude of the Israelites to God for His deliverance from bondage. To them now the bondage is preferable to the salvation – this is what angered the Lord .


text: Heb “our souls.”


text: Heb “before our eyes,” meaning that “we see nothing except this manna.”


text: Heb “And its taste was like the taste of fresh olive oil.”


text: The temporal clause is constructed of the infinitive construct from יָרָד ( yarad ) with a temporal preposition, followed by the subjective genitive.


text: Heb “came down.”


text: The participle “weeping” is functioning here as the noun in the accusative case, an adverbial accusative of state. It is explicative of the object.


text: Heb “it was evil in the eyes of Moses.”


text: The verb is the Hiphil of רָעַע ( ra ’ a ’, “to be evil”). Moses laments (with the rhetorical question) that God seems to have caused him evil.


text: The infinitive construct with the preposition is expressing the result of not finding favor with God (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 12-13, §57). What Moses is claiming is that because he has been given this burden God did not show him favor.


text: The verb means “to beget, give birth to.” The figurative image from procreation completes the parallel question, first the conceiving and second the giving birth to the nation.


text: The word אֹמֵן (’ omen ) is often translated “nurse,” but the form is a masculine form and would better be rendered as a “foster parent.” This does not work as well, though, with the יֹנֵק ( yoneq ), the “sucking child.” The two metaphors are simply designed to portray the duty of a parent to a child as a picture of Moses’ duty for the nation. The idea that it portrays God as a mother pushes it too far (see M. Noth, Numbers [OTL] , 86-87).


text: The Hebrew text simply has “from where to me flesh?” which means “from where will I have meat?”


text: The cohortative coming after the imperative stresses purpose (it is an indirect volitive).


text: The word order shows the emphasis: “I am not able, I by myself, to bear all this people.” The infinitive לָשֵׂאת ( lase ’ t ) serves as the direct object of the verb. The expression is figurative, for bearing or carrying the people means being responsible for all their needs and cares.


text: The subject of the verb “heavy” is unstated; in the context it probably refers to the people, or the burden of caring for the people. This responsibility was turning out to be a heavier responsibility than Moses anticipated. Alone he was totally inadequate.


text: The participle expresses the future idea of what God is doing, or what he is going to be doing. Moses would rather be killed than be given a totally impossible duty over a people that were not his.


text: The imperative of הָרַג ( harag ) is followed by the infinitive absolute for emphasis. The point is more that the infinitive adds to the emphasis of the imperative mood, which would be immediate compliance.


text: Or “my own ruin” (NIV). The word “trouble” here probably refers to the stress and difficulty of caring for a complaining group of people. The suffix on the noun would be objective, perhaps stressing the indirect object of the noun – trouble for me. The expression “on my trouble” ( בְּרָעָתִי , bÿra ’ ati ) is one of the so-called tiqqune sopherim , or “emendations of the scribes.” According to this tradition the original reading in v. 15 was [to look] “on your evil” ( בְּרָעָתֶךָ , bÿra ’ atekha ), meaning “the calamity that you bring about” for Israel. However, since such an expression could be mistakenly thought to attribute evil to the Lord, the ancient scribes changed it to the reading found in the MT.


text: The “officials” ( שֹׁטְּרִים , shottÿrim ) were a group of the elders who seem to have had some administrative capacities. The LXX used the word “scribes.” For further discussion, see R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 69-70.


text: The imperfect tense here is to be classified as a final imperfect, showing the result of this action by God. Moses would be relieved of some of the responsibility when these others were given the grace to understand and to resolve cases.


text: The Hitpael is used to stress that they are to prepare for a holy appearance. The day was going to be special and so required their being set apart for it. But it is a holy day in the sense of the judgment that was to follow.


text: Heb “in the ears.”


text: Possibly this could be given an optative translation, to reflect the earlier one: “O that someone would give….” But the verb is not the same; here it is the Hiphil of the verb “to eat” – “who will make us eat” (i.e., provide meat for us to eat).


text: The word “life” is not in the text. The expression is simply “it was for us,” or “we had good,” meaning “we had it good,” or “life was good.”


text: Heb “a month of days.” So also in v. 21 .


text: The expression לְזָרָה ( lÿzarah ) has been translated “ill” or “loathsome.” It occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible. The Greek text interprets it as “sickness.” It could be nausea or vomiting (so G. B. Gray, Numbers [ICC], 112) from overeating.


text: The use of the demonstrative pronoun here (“why is this we went out …”) is enclitic, providing emphasis to the sentence: “Why in the world did we ever leave Egypt?”


text: Heb “the people who I am in their midst,” i.e., among whom I am.


text: The Hebrew sentence stresses the number. The sentence begins “600,000….”


text: The word order places the object first here: “Meat I will give them.” This adds to the contrast between the number and the statement of the Lord .


text: The verb is the perfect tense with a vav ( ו ) consecutive, carrying the sequence from the preceding imperfect tense. However, this verb may be subordinated to the preceding to express a purpose clause.


text: Or “will happen” (TEV); KJV “shall come to pass unto thee.”


text: Heb “on him”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


text: The temporal clause is introduced by the temporal indicator וַיְהִי ( vayÿhi ), which need not be translated. It introduces the time of the infinitive as past time narrative. The infinitive construct is from נוּחַ ( nuakh , “to rest”). The figurative expression of the Spirit resting upon them indicates the temporary indwelling and empowering by the Spirit in their lives.


text: The text may mean that these men gave ecstatic utterances, much like Saul did when the Spirit came upon him and he made the same prophetic utterances (see 1 Sam 10:10-13 ). But there is no strong evidence for this (see K. L. Barker, “Zechariah,” EBC 7:605-6). In fact there is no consensus among scholars as to the origin and meaning of the verb “prophesy” or the noun “prophet.” It has something to do with speech, being God’s spokesman or spokeswoman or making predictions or authoritative utterances or ecstatic utterances. It certainly does mean that the same Holy Spirit, the same divine provision that was for Moses to enable him to do the things that God had commanded him to do, was now given to them. It would have included wisdom and power with what they were saying and doing – in a way that was visible and demonstrable to the people! The people needed to know that the same provision was given to these men, authenticating their leadership among the clans. And so it could not simply be a change in their understanding and wisdom.


text: The final verb of the clause stresses that this was not repeated: “they did not add” is the literal rendering of וְלֹא יָסָפוּ ( vÿlo ’ yasafu ). It was a one-time spiritual experience associated with their installation.


text: The form of the word is the passive participle כְּתֻבִים ( kÿtuvim , “written”). It is normally taken to mean “among those registered,” but it is not clear if that means they were to be among the seventy or not. That seems unlikely since there is no mention of the seventy being registered, and vv. 24-25 says all seventy went out and prophesied. The registration may be to eldership, or the role of the officer.


text: The article indicates that the “young man” was definite in the mind of the writer, but indefinite in English.


text: The form is the Piel participle מְשָׁרֵת ( mÿsharet ), meaning “minister, servant, assistant.” The word has a loftier meaning than the ordinary word for slave.


text: The verb is בָּחַר ( bakhar , “to choose”); here the form is the masculine plural participle with a suffix, serving as the object of the preposition מִן ( min ). It would therefore mean “[one of] his chosen men,” or “[one of] his choice men.”


text: Heb “answered and said.”


text: The Piel participle מְקַנֵּא ( mÿqanne ’) serves as a verb here in this interrogative sentence. The word means “to be jealous; to be envious.” That can be in a good sense, such as with the translation “zeal,” or it can be in a negative sense as here. Joshua’s apparent “zeal” is questioned by Moses – was he zealous/envious for Moses sake, or for some other reason?


text: The optative is expressed by the interrogative clause in Hebrew, “who will give….” Moses expresses here the wish that the whole nation would have that portion of the Spirit. The new covenant, of course, would turn Moses’ wish into a certainty.


text: The verb means “burst forth” or “sprang up.” See the ways it is used in Gen 33:12 , Judg 16:3, 14 ; Isa 33:20 .


text: Or “left them fluttering.”


text: Heb “two cubits.” The standard cubit in the OT is assumed by most authorities to be about eighteen inches (45 cm) in length.


text: Heb “rose up, stood up.”


text: The verb (a preterite) is followed by the infinitive absolute of the same root, to emphasize the action of spreading out the quail. Although it is hard to translate the expression, it indicates that they spread these quail out all over the area. The vision of them spread all over was evidence of God’s abundant provision for their needs.


text: The verb is a prefixed conjugation, normally an imperfect tense. But coming after the adverb טֶּרֶם ( terem ) it is treated as a preterite.


text: The words “different food” are implied, and are supplied in the translation for clarity.