In form the Hebrew term וְחֵי ( vÿkhey , “shall live”) is the construct plural noun (i.e., “the life of”), but here it is used as the finite verb (cf. v. 35 and GKC 218 §76. i ).


Heb “your money” and “your food.” With regard to “interest” and “profit” see the note on v. 36 above.


Heb “to be to you for a God.”


Heb “you shall not serve against him service of a slave.” A distinction is being made here between the status of slave and indentured servant.


See the note on Lev 25:6 above.


Heb “and.” The Hebrew conjunction ו ( vav , “and”) can be considered to have adversative force here.


Heb “may go out from you.”


Heb “fathers.”


Or perhaps reflexive Niphal rather than passive, “they shall not sell themselves [as in] a slave sale.”


Heb “You shall not rule in him in violence”; cf. NASB “with severity”; NIV “ruthlessly.”


Heb “And your male slave and your female slave.” Smr has these as plural terms, “slaves,” not singular.


Heb “ from the nations which surround you, from them you shall buy male slave and female slave.”


The word “slaves” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied here.


Heb “family which is” (i.e., singular rather than plural).


Heb “and your brothers, the sons of Israel, a man in his brother you shall not rule in him in violence.”


Heb “And if the hand of a foreigner and resident with you reaches” (cf. v. 26 for this idiom).


Heb “and.” The Hebrew conjunction ו ( vav , “and”) can be considered to have resultative force here.


Heb “offshoot, descendant.”


Heb “right of redemption shall be to him.”


Heb “the son of his uncle.”


Heb “or from the remainder of his flesh from his family.”


The LXX, followed by the Syriac, actually has “if,” which is not in the MT.


Heb “the years.”


Heb “as days of a hired worker he shall be with him.” For this and the following verses see the explanation in P. J. Budd, Leviticus (NCBC), 358-59.


Heb “to the mouth of them.”


Heb “but if a little remains in the years.”


Heb “be with him”; the referent (the one who bought him) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “As a hired worker year in year.”


Heb “He”; the referent (the one who bought him) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “And if.”


Heb “go out.”


Heb “because to me the sons of Israel are servants.”


Heb “on.” The “sculpted stone” appears to be some sort of stone with images carved into (see B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 181, and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 449).


Heb “and my sanctuary you shall fear.” Cf. NCV “respect”; CEV “honor.”


Heb “and my commandments you shall keep and do them.” This appears to be a kind of verbal hendiadys, where the first verb is a modifier of the action of the second verb (see GKC 386 §120. d , although שָׁמַר [ shamar , “to keep”] is not cited there; cf. Lev 20:8; 25:18 , etc.).


Heb “the tree of the field will give its fruit.” As a collective singular this has been translated as plural.


Heb “will reach for you the vintage season.”


Heb “to satisfaction”; KJV, ASV, NASB “to the full.”


Heb “and there will be no one who terrifies.” The words “to sleep” have been supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “harmful animal,” singular, but taken here as a collective plural (so almost all English versions).


Heb “no sword”; the words “of war” are supplied in the translation to indicate what the metaphor of the sword represents.


Heb “to the sword.”


Heb “cause to arise,” but probably used here for the Lord ’s intention of confirming or maintaining the covenant commitment made at Sinai. Cf. KJV “establish”; NASB “will confirm”; NAB “carry out”; NIV “will keep.”


Heb “old [produce] growing old.”


Heb “and old from the presence of new you will bring out.”


LXX codexes Vaticanus and Alexandrinus have “my covenant” rather than “my tabernacle.” Cf. NAB, NASB, NRSV “my dwelling.”


Heb “and my soul [ נֶפֶשׁ , nefesh ] will not abhor you.”


Heb “from being to them slaves.”


In other words, to walk as free people and not as slaves. Cf. NIV “with (+ your CEV, NLT) heads held high”; NCV “proudly.”


Heb “And if.”


Heb “and do not do.”


Heb “to not do.”


Or “I also” (see HALOT 76 s.v. אַף 6.b).


Heb “soul.” These expressions may refer either to the physical effects of consumption and fever as the rendering in the text suggests (e.g., J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 452, 454, “diminishing eyesight and loss of appetite”), or perhaps the more psychological effects, “which exhausts the eyes” because of anxious hope “and causes depression” ( Heb “causes soul [ נֶפֶשׁ , nefesh ] to pine away”), e.g., B. A. Levine, Leviticus (JPSTC), 185.


Heb “and.” The Hebrew conjunction ו ( vav , “and”) can be considered to have causal force here.


That is, “your enemies will eat” the produce that grows from the sown seed.


Heb “And if until these.”


Heb “I will add to discipline you seven [times] on your sins.”


Heb “the tree of the land will not give its fruit.” The collective singular has been translated as a plural. Tg. Onq. , some medieval Hebrew mss , Smr, LXX, and Tg. Ps.-J. have “the field” as in v. 4 , rather than “the land.”


Heb “hostile with me,” but see the added preposition בְּ ( bet ) on the phrase “in hostility” in v. 24 and 27 .


Heb “your blow, stroke”; cf. TEV “punishment”; NLT “I will inflict you with seven more disasters.”


Heb “the animal of the field.” This collective singular has been translated as a plural. The expression “animal of the field” refers to a wild (i.e., nondomesticated) animal.


The words “of your children” are not in the Hebrew text, but are implied.


Heb “and diminish you.”


Heb “And if in these.”


Heb “with me,” but see the added preposition בְּ ( bet ) on the phrase “in hostility” in vv. 24 and 27 .


Heb “and I myself will also strike you.”


Heb “vengeance of covenant”; cf. NAB “the avenger of my covenant.”


Heb “and.” The Hebrew conjunction ו ( vav , “and”) has a concessive force in this context.


Heb “in hand of enemy,” but Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg. Neof. have “in the hands of your enemies” (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 454).


Heb “When I break to you staff of bread” (KJV, ASV, and NASB all similar).


Heb “they will return your bread in weight.”


Heb “And if in this.”


Heb “with me.”


Heb “in rage of hostility with you”; NASB “with wrathful hostility”; NRSV “I will continue hostile to you in fury”; CEV “I’ll get really furious.”


Heb “and the flesh of your daughters you will eat.” The phrase “you will eat” has not been repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons.


The translation reflects the Hebrew wordplay “your corpses…the corpses of your idols.” Since idols, being lifeless, do not really have “corpses,” the translation uses “dead bodies” for people and “lifeless bodies” for the idols.


Heb “and my soul will abhor you.”


Heb “And I will give your cities a waste”; NLT “make your cities desolate.”


Heb “and I will empty sword” (see HALOT 1228 s.v. ריק 3).


There are two Hebrew roots רָצָה ( ratsah ), one meaning “to be pleased with; to take pleasure” ( HALOT 1280-81 s.v. רצה ; cf. “enjoy” in NASB, NIV, NRSV, and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 452), and the other meaning “to restore” ( HALOT 1281-82 s.v. II רצה ; cf. NAB “retrieve” and B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 189).


Heb “it shall rest which it did not rest.”


Heb “And.”


Heb “and.” The Hebrew conjunction ו ( vav , “and”) is used in a concessive sense here.


The term rendered “to stand up” is a noun, not an infinitive. It occurs only here and appears to designate someone who would take a powerful stand for them against their enemies.


Heb “in” (so KJV, ASV; also later in this verse).


Heb “fathers’” (also in the following verse).


Heb “And.” Many English versions take this to be a conditional clause (“if…”) though there is no conditional particle (see, e.g., NASB, NIV, NRSV; but see the very different rendering in B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 190). The temporal translation offered here (“when”) takes into account the particle אָז (’ az , “then”), which occurs twice in v. 41 . The obvious contextual contrast between vv. 39 and 40 is expressed by “however” in the translation.


Heb “in their trespassing which they trespassed in me.” See the note on Lev 5:15 , although the term is used in a more technical sense there in relation to the “guilt offering.”


Heb “and also which they walked.”


Heb “with me.”


Heb “or then,” although the LXX has “then” and the Syriac “and then.”


Heb “and then they make up for.” On the verb “make up for” see the note on v. 34 above.


Heb “my covenant with Abraham I will remember.” The phrase “I will remember” has not been repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons.


Heb “from them.” The preposition “from” refers here to the agent of the action (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 455).


The jussive form of the verb with the simple vav ( ו ) here calls for a translation that expresses purpose.


The verb is the Hophal infinitive construct with the third feminine singular suffix (GKC 182 §67. y ; cf. v. 34 ).


Heb “from them.”


Heb “because and in because,” a double expression, which is used only here and in Ezek 13:10 (without the vav ) for emphasis (GKC 492 §158. b ).


Heb “and their soul has abhorred.”


Heb “covenant of former ones.” sn For similar expressions referring back to the ancestors who refused to follow the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant see, for example, Deut 19:14 , Jer 11:10 , and Ps 79:8 (see B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 192, and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 471).


Heb “gave” (so NLT); KJV, ASV, NCV “made.”


Heb “by the hand of” (so KJV).


Cf. the note on Lev 22:21 . Some take this as an expression for fulfilling a vow, “to fulfill a vow” (e.g., HALOT 927-28 s.v. פלא piel and NASB; cf. NRSV “in fulfillment of a vow”) or, alternatively, “to make a vow” or “for making a vow” ( HALOT 928 s.v. פלא piel [II פלא ]). Perhaps it refers to the making a special vow, from the verb פָלָא ( pala ’, “to be wonderful; to be remarkable”), cf. Milgrom, Numbers [JPSTC], 44. B. A. Levine, Leviticus (JPSTC), 151 and 193, suggests that this is a special term for “setting aside a votive offering” (related to פָלָה , palah , “to set aside”). In general, the point of the expression seems to be that this sacrifice is a special gift to God that arose out of special circumstances in the life of the worshiper.


Heb “in your valuation, persons to the Lord ,” but “in your valuation” is a frozen form and, therefore, the person (“your”) does not figure into the translation (see J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 73). Instead of offering a person to the Lord one could redeem that person with the appropriate amount of money delineated in the following verses (see the note on Lev 5:15 above and the explanation in Hartley, 480-81).


Heb “your conversion value shall be [for] the male.”


Heb “from a son of twenty years and until a son of sixty years.”


See the note on Lev 5:15 .


Heb “five shekels silver.”


Heb “and the priest shall cause him to be valued.”


Heb “on the mouth which the hand of the one who vowed reaches.”


Heb “which they may present from it an offering.” The plural active verb is sometimes best rendered in the passive (GKC 460 §144. f , g ). Some medieval Hebrew mss , Smr, a ms of the Targum, and the Vulgate all have the singular verb instead (cf. similarly v. 11 ).


Heb “from it.” The masculine suffix “it” here is used for the feminine in the MT, but one medieval Hebrew ms , some mss of Smr, the LXX, and the Syriac have the feminine. The referent (this kind of animal) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “it and its substitute.” The referent (the original animal offered) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “and the priest shall cause it to be valued.” See the note on v. 8 above.


Heb “And if redeeming [infinitive absolute] he redeems it [finite verb].” For the infinitive absolute used to highlight contrast rather than emphasis see GKC 343 §113. p . The referent of “he” (the person who made the vow) and “it” (the animal) have both been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “on,” meaning “on top of, in addition to” (likewise in v. 15 ).


The expression “it shall stand” may be a technical term for “it shall be legally valid”; cf. NLT “assessment will be final.”


Heb “and it shall be to him.”


Heb “a conversion value shall be to the mouth of its seed.”


Heb “seed of a homer of barley in fifty shekels of silver.”


Heb “from the year of the jubilee.” For the meaning of “jubilee,” see the note on Lev 25:10 above.


Heb “And if.” The Hebrew conjunction ו ( vav , “and”) can be considered to have adversative force here.


Heb “the silver.”


Heb “And if redeeming [infinitive absolute] he redeems [finite verb] the field, the one who consecrated it.” For the infinitive absolute used to highlight contrast rather than emphasis see GKC 343 §113. p .


Heb “the silver of the conversion value.”


Heb “and it shall rise to him.” See HALOT 1087 s.v. קום 7 for the rendering offered here, but see also the note on the end of v. 14 above (cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 476, 478).


Heb “and if he sells.”


Heb “When it goes out” (cf. Lev 25:25-34 ).


Heb “like the field of the permanent dedication.” The Hebrew word חֵרֶם ( kherem ) is a much discussed term. In this and the following verses it refers in a general way to the fact that something is permanently devoted to the Lord and therefore cannot be redeemed (cf. v. 20 b). See J. A. Naudé, NIDOTTE 2:276-77; N. Lohfink, TDOT 5:180-99, esp. pp. 184, 188, and 198-99; and the numerous explanations in J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 483-85.


Heb “to the priest it shall be his property.”


Heb “his field of purchase,” which is to be distinguished from his own ancestral “landed property” (cf. v. 16 above).


Heb “give” (so KJV, ASV, NASB, NLT).


See the note on Lev 5:15 .


Heb “to the Lord it is.”


Heb “And if.”


Heb “in” or “by.”


Heb “Surely, any permanently dedicated [thing] which a man shall permanently dedicate to the Lord .” The Hebrew term חֵרֶם ( kherem ) refers to things that are devoted permanently to the Lord (see the note on v. 21 above).


Heb “permanently dedicated from among men.”


On the “tithe” system in Israel, see R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:1035-55 and esp. pp. 1041-42 on Lev 27:30-33 .


Heb “And if redeeming [infinitive absolute] a man redeems [finite verb].” For the infinitive absolute used to highlight contrast rather than emphasis see GKC 343 §113. p .


Heb “its one fifth on it.”


Heb “he”; the referent (the owner of the animal) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “And if exchanging [infinitive absolute] he exchanges it [finite verb].” For the infinitive absolute used to highlight contrast rather than emphasis see GKC 343 §113. p .


Heb “it and its substitute.” The referent (the original animal offered) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “it shall be and its substitute shall be holy.”


Most of the commentaries and English versions translate, “which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel.” The preposition אֶל (’ el ), however, does not usually mean “for.” In this book it is commonly used when the Lord commands Moses “to speak [un]to” a person or group of persons (see, e.g., Lev 1:2; 4:2 , etc.). The translation “to tell” here reflects this pattern in the book of Leviticus.


The book begins with the vav ( ו ) consecutive and the preterite, “and he spoke.” This does not indicate that the book is a continuation of the previous material, for in that case certain other books in the canon would have to be linked with the writings of other people just because they followed them. This form is simply the narrative verb; the conjunction need not be translated. The verb should not be limited to a literary formula, but does indicate the divine source of the command for Moses. God was speaking to Moses throughout the wilderness wanderings from the tent, and so the ideas are from him, and not from the “will of man.”


The construction uses the infinitive construct of יָצַא ( yatsa ’, “to go out”), with a suffix serving as the subjective genitive, and the lamed preposition providing the temporal indication: “according to the going out of them.” The Israelites are clearly intended as the subject.


Heb “they”; the referent (the Israelites) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “saying.” A new sentence was started here in the English translation for stylistic reasons.


The construction is literally “lift up the head[s],” ( שְׂאוּ אֶת־רֹאשׁ , sÿ ’ u ’ et-ro ’ sh ). This idiom for taking a census occurs elsewhere ( Exod 30:12 ; Lev 5:24; Num 1:24 ; etc.). The idea is simply that of counting heads to arrive at the base for the standing army. This is a different event than the one recorded in Exod 30:11-16 , which was taken for a different purpose altogether. The verb is plural, indicating that Moses had help in taking the census.


Smr lacks the Hebrew word “all” here.


Heb “the congregation of Israel.”


The tribe ( מַטֶּה , matteh or שֵׁבֶט , shevet ) is the main category. The family groups or clans ( מִשְׁפְּחֹת , mishpÿkhot ) and the households or families ( בֵּית אֲבֹת , bet ’ avot ) were sub-divisions of the tribe.


This clause simply has “in/with the number of the names of every male with respect to their skulls [individually].” Counting heads, or every skull, simply meant that each person was to be numbered in the census. Except for the Levites, no male was exempt from the count.


The verb ( פָּקַד , paqad ) means “to visit, appoint, muster, number.” The word is a common one in scripture. It has as its basic meaning the idea of “determining the destiny” of someone, by appointing, mustering, or visiting. When God “visits,” it is a divine intervention for either blessing or cursing. Here it is the taking of a census for war (see G. André, Determining the Destiny [ConBOT], 16).


The construction uses the participle “going out” followed by the noun “army.” It describes everyone “going out in a military group,” meaning serving in the army. It was the duty of every able-bodied Israelite to serve in this “peoples” army. There were probably exemptions for the infirm or the crippled, but every male over twenty was chosen. For a discussion of warfare, see P. C. Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament , and P. D. Miller, “The Divine Council and the Prophetic Call to War,” VT 18 (1968): 100-107.


The text simply has “from twenty years old and higher.”


Heb “and up.”


The noun ( צָבָא , tsava ’) means “army” or “military group.” But the word can also be used for nonmilitary divisions of labor ( Num 4:3 ).


Heb “and with you.”


The construction uses the noun in a distributive sense: “a man, a man for a tribe,” meaning a man for each tribe.


The clause expresses a distributive function, “a man” means “each man.”


Heb “the house of his fathers.”


The verb is עָמַד (’ amad , “to stand”). It literally then is, “who will stand with you.” They will help in the count, but they will also serve as leaders as the camp moves from place to place.


The preposition lamed ( ל ) prefixed to the name could be taken in the sense of “from,” but could also be “with regard to” (specification).


There is a textual difficulty with this verb. The Greek form uses r and not d, giving the name Ra‘oul. There is even some variation in the Hebrew traditions, but BHS (following the Leningrad codex of a.d. 1008) has preferred the name Deuel.


The form has a Kethib-Qere problem, but the sentence calls for the Qere, the passive participle in the construct – “the called of….” These men were God’s choice, and not Moses’, or their own choice. He announced who they would be, and then named them. So they were truly “called” ( קָרָא , qara ’). The other reading is probably due to a copyist’s error.


The word is נָשִׂיא ( nasi ’, “exalted one, prince, leader”). Cf. KJV, ASV, NAB “princes.” These were men apparently revered or respected in their tribes, and so the clear choice to assist Moses with the leadership. See further, E. A. Speiser, “Background and Function of the Biblical na„sÃþá ,” CBQ 25 (1963): 111-17.


Heb “exalted ones of the tribes of their fathers.” The earlier group of elders was chosen by Moses at the advice of his father-in-law. This group represents the few leaders of the tribes that were chosen by God, a more literate group apparently, who were the forerunners of the שֹׁטְּרִים ( shottÿrim ).


The Hebrew text has אַלְפֵי (’ alfey, “thousands of”). There is some question over this reading in the MT, however. The community groups that have these leaders were larger tribes, but there is little certainty about the size of the divisions.


The verb is the Hiphil of the root קָהַל ( qahal ), meaning “to call, assemble”; the related noun is an “assembly.”


The LXX adds “of the second year.”


The verb is the Hitpael preterite form וַיִּתְיַלְדוּ ( vayyityaldu ) . The cognate noun תּוֹלְדוֹת ( tolÿdot ) is the word that means “genealogies, family records, records of ancestry.” The root is יָלַד ( yalad , “to bear, give birth to”). Here they were recording their family connections, and not, of course, producing children. The verbal stem seems to be both declarative and reflexive.


Heb “those numbered of them.” The form is פְּקֻדֵיהֶם ( pÿqudehem ), the passive participle with the pronominal suffix. This indicates that the number came to 46,500, but it specifically refers to “those numbered.” This expression occurs frequently throughout the book of Numbers.


Some witnesses have omitted “those that were numbered of them,” to preserve the literary pattern of the text. The omission is supported by the absence of the expression in the Greek as well as in some MT mss. Most modern commentators follow this.


The LXX has vv. 24-35 after v. 37 .


The verse does not have the preposition, only “the descendants of Naphtali.”


The construction uses both the passive participle הַפְּקֻדִים ( happÿqudim ) and the verb פָּקַד ( paqad ), giving a literal translation of “these were the numbered ones, whom Moses and Aaron numbered.”


Heb “they were one man for the house of his fathers.”


Literally the text has, “and all the numbered of the Israelites were according to their families.” The verb in the sentence is actually without a complement (see v. 46 ).


The vav ( ו ) on this word indicates a disjunction with the previous sequence of reports. It may be taken as a contrastive clause, translated “but” or “however.”


The construction is unexpected, for Levites would be from the tribe of Levi. The note seems more likely to express that all these people were organized by tribal lineage, and so too the Levites, according to the tribe of their fathers – individual families of Levites.


The form in the text is הָתְפָּקְדוּ ( hotpaqÿdu ); if this is correct, then it is an isolated instance of the reflexive of the Qal of פָּקַד ( paqad ) . Some, however, explain the form as the Hitpael without the doubling of the middle letter and with a compensatory lengthening of the vowel before it (G. B. Gray, Numbers [ICC] , 10).


Heb “had spoken to Moses, saying.” The infinitive construct of אָמַר (’ amar ), sometimes rendered “saying” in older English translations, does not need to be translated, but can be taken simply as the indicator of direct discourse. Most recent English translations, including the present one, leave the form untranslated for stylistic reasons to avoid redundancy.


The construction has literally, “only the tribe of Levi you shall not number.” The Greek text rendered the particle אַךְ (’ akh ) forcefully with “see to it that” or “take care that.” For the uses of this form, see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 65, §388-89.


Heb “lift up their head.”


Heb “in the midst of the sons of Israel.”


The same verb translated “number” ( פָּקַד , paqad ) is now used to mean “appoint” ( הַפְקֵד , hafqed ), which focuses more on the purpose of the verbal action of numbering people. Here the idea is that the Levites were appointed to take care of the tabernacle. On the use of this verb with the Levites’ appointment, see M. Gertner, “The Masorah and the Levites,” VT 10 (1960): 252.


The Hebrew name used here is מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדֻת ( mishkan ha ’ edut ) . The tabernacle or dwelling place of the Lord was given this name because it was here that the tablets of the Law were kept. The whole shrine was therefore a reminder ( הָעֵדוּת , a “warning sign” or “testimony”) of the stipulations of the covenant. For the ancient Near Eastern customs of storing the code in the sanctuaries, see M. G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King , 14-19, and idem, The Structure of Biblical Authority, 35-36. Other items were in the ark in the beginning, but by the days of Solomon only the tablets were there ( 1 Kgs 8:9 ).


The imperfect tense here is an obligatory imperfect telling that they are bound to do this since they are appointed for this specific task.


The addition of the pronoun before the verb is emphatic – they are the ones who are to attend to the tabernacle. The verb used is שָׁרַת ( sharat ) in the Piel, indicating that they are to serve, minister to, attend to all the details about this shrine.


Heb “the tabernacle.” The pronoun (“it”) was used in the translation here for stylistic reasons.


The construction uses the infinitive construct with the temporal preposition; the “tabernacle” is then the following genitive. Literally it is “and in the moving of the tabernacle,” meaning, “when the tabernacle is supposed to be moved,” i.e., when people are supposed to move it. The verb נָסָע ( nasa ’) means “pull up the tent pegs and move,” or more simply, “journey.”


Here we have the parallel construction using the infinitive construct in a temporal adverbial clause.


Heb “raise it up.”


The word used here is זָר ( zar ), normally translated “stranger” or “outsider.” It is most often used for a foreigner, an outsider, who does not belong in Israel, or who, although allowed in the land, may be viewed with suspicion. But here it seems to include even Israelites other than the tribe of Levi.


Instead of “wrath” the Greek text has “sin,” focusing the emphasis on the human error and not on the wrath of God. This may have been a conscious change to explain the divine wrath. tn Heb “so that there be no wrath on.” In context this is clearly the divine anger, so “the Lord ’s” has been supplied in the translation for clarity.


The main verb of the clause is the perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive, וְשָׁמְרוּ ( vÿshamÿru ) meaning they “shall guard, protect, watch over, care for.” It may carry the same obligatory nuance as the preceding verbs because of the sequence. The object used with this is the cognate noun מִשְׁמֶרֶת ( mishmeret ): “The Levites must care for the care of the tabernacle.” The cognate intensifies the construction to stress that they are responsible for this care.


The LXX adds “and Aaron.”


Heb “a man by his own standard.”


The imperfect tense is to be taken in the nuance of instruction.


Heb “of/for the house of their fathers.”


The Hebrew expression מִנֶּגֶד ( minneged ) means “from before” or “opposite; facing” and “at some distance” or “away from the front of” (see BDB 617 s.v. נֶגֶד 2.c. a ; DCH 5:603-4 s.v. 3 .b).


The sentence begins with a vav ( ו ) on a word that is not a finite verb, indicating a new section begins here. The verbal form is a participle with the article used substantivally, with the meaning “and/now those camping.” Many English versions employ a finite verb; cf. KJV “on the east side…shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch.”


The two synonyms might seem to be tautological, but this is fairly common and therefore acceptable in Hebrew prose (cf. Exod 26:18; 38:13 ; etc.).


The sentence actually has “[those camping…are] the standard of the camp of Judah according to their divisions.”


Or “will be.”


The expression “and his divisions and those numbered of them” is somewhat tautological. The words are synonyms used for statistical purposes, and so neither should be simply deleted.


Heb “by him” [i.e., Judah].


This part has been supplied; the text simply has “the tribe of Zebulun.”


The verb is נָסָע ( nasa ’): “to journey, travel, set out,” and here, “to move camp.” Judah will go first, or, literally, at the head of the nation, when they begin to travel.


Here and throughout the line is literally “[under] the standard of the camp of Reuben…according to their divisions.”


The Hebrew text simply has “and the tribe of Gad.”


The Leningrad codex, upon which BHS is based, has “Reuel” here. In reading “Deuel” the translation presented above follows many medieval Hebrew manuscripts, Smr, and the Latin Vulgate. Cf. Num 1:14 .


The Hebrew expression is עַל־יָדוֹ (’ al-yado , “upon his hand”). This clearly refers to a specifically designated place for each man.


Here too the Hebrew text simply has “and the tribe of Benjamin.”


The Hebrew text has “and the tribe of Naphtali.”


Heb “the house of their fathers.” So also in v. 34 .


The Hebrew word is כֵּן ( ken , “thus, so”).


The construction is וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת ( vÿ ’ elleh tolÿdot ), which was traditionally translated “now these are the generations,” much as it was translated throughout the book of Genesis. The noun can refer to records, stories, genealogies, names, and accounts of people. Here it is the recorded genealogical list with assigned posts included. Like Genesis, it is a heading of a section, and not a colophon as some have suggested. It is here similar to Exodus: “these are the names of.” R. K. Harrison, Numbers (WEC), 62, insists that it is a colophon and should end chapter , but if that is followed in the Pentateuch, it creates difficulty throughout the narratives. See the discussion by A. P. Ross, Creation and Blessing , 69-74.


The expression in the Hebrew text (“in the day of”) is idiomatic for “when.”


The verb מָשַׁח ( mashakh ) means “to anoint”; here the form modifies the “priests.” The service of consecration was carried out with anointing oil ( Exod 30:30 ). The verb is used for the anointing of kings as well as priests in the OT, and so out of that derived the technical title “Messiah” for the coming ideal king – the “Anointed One.”


In this verse the expression is in a relative clause: “who he filled their hand” means “whose hands he filled,” or “whom he consecrated.” The idiomatic expression used here is from ; it literally is “he filled their hand” ( מִלֵּא יָדָם , mille ’ yadam ). In the ordination service Moses placed some of the meat from the sacrifice in the hand of the ordinand, and this signified what he was going to be about – having his hand full, or being consecrated to the priesthood. There is some evidence that this practice or expression was also known in Mesopotamia. In modern ordination services a NT or a Bible may be placed in the ordinand’s hand – it is what the ministry will be about.


The form is an infinitival construction for the word for the priest, showing the purpose for the filling of the hands.


The verb form is the preterite with vav ( ו ) consecutive, literally “and Nadab died.” Some commentators wish to make the verb a past perfect, rendering it “and Nadab had died,” but this is not necessary. In tracing through the line from Aaron it simply reports that the first two sons died. The reference is to the event recorded in where the sons brought “strange” or foreign” fire to the sanctuary.


This initial clause is omitted in one Hebrew ms , Smr, and the Vulgate.


The form בְּהַקְרִבָם ( bÿhaqrivam ) is the Hiphil infinitive construct functioning as a temporal clause: “when they brought near,” meaning, “when they offered.” The verb קָרַב ( qarav ) is familiar to students of the NT because of “corban” in Mark 7:11 .


Or “prohibited.” See HALOT 279 s.v. זָר 3.


The expression אֵשׁ זָרָה (’ esh zarah , “strange fire”) seems imprecise and has been interpreted numerous ways (see the helpful summary in J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC 4], 132-33). The infraction may have involved any of the following or a combination thereof: (1) using coals from some place other than the burnt offering altar (i.e., “unauthorized coals” according to J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:598; cf. Lev 16:12 and cf. “unauthorized person” [ אִישׁ זָר , ’ ish zar ] in Num 16:40 [ 17:5 HT], NASB “layman”), (2) using the wrong kind of incense (cf. the Exod 30:9 regulation against “strange incense” [ קְטֹרֶת זָרָה , qÿtoret zarah ] on the incense altar and the possible connection to Exod 30:34-38 ), (3) performing an incense offering at an unprescribed time (B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 59), or (4) entering the Holy of Holies at an inappropriate time ( Lev 16:1-2 ). sn This event is narrated in Lev 10:1-7 .


The verb is the Piel preterite from the root כָּהַן ( kahan ): “to function as a priest” or “to minister.”


The expression “in the presence of” can also mean “during the lifetime of” (see Gen 11:28 ; see also BDB 818 s.v. פָּנֶה II.7.a; cf. NASB, NIV, NCV, NRSV, TEV).


The verb literally means “make it [the tribe] stand” ( וְהַעֲמַדְתָּ אֹתוֹ , vÿha ’ amadta ’ oto ). The verb is the Hiphil perfect with a vav ( ו ) consecutive; it will take the same imperative nuance as the form before it, but follow in sequence (“and then”). This refers to the ceremonial presentation in which the tribe would take its place before Aaron, that is, stand before him and await their assignments. The Levites will function more like a sacred guard than anything else, for they had to protect and care for the sanctuary when it was erected and when it was transported (see J. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology , 8-10).


The verb וְשֵׁרְתוּ ( vÿsherÿtu ) is the Piel perfect with a vav ( ו ) consecutive; it carries the same volitional force as the preceding verb forms, but may here be subordinated in the sequence to express the purpose or result of the preceding action.


The Hebrew text uses the perfect tense of שָׁמַר ( shamar ) with a vav ( ו ) consecutive to continue the instruction of the preceding verse. It may be translated “and they shall keep” or “they must/are to keep,” but in this context it refers to their appointed duties. The verb is followed by its cognate accusative – “they are to keep his keeping,” or as it is often translated, “his charge.” This would mean whatever Aaron needed them to do. But the noun is also used for the people in the next phrase, and so “charge” cannot be the meaning here. The verse is explaining that the Levites will have duties to perform to meet the needs of Aaron and the congregation.


The form is the Qal infinitive construct from עָבַד (’ avad , “to serve, to work”); it is taken here as a verbal noun and means “by (or in) serving” (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 36, §195). This explains the verb “keep [his charge].” Here too the form is followed by a cognate accusative; they will be there to “serve the service” or “work the work.”


The construction uses the infinitive construct (epexegetically) followed by its cognate accusative. It would convey “to serve the service of the tabernacle,” but more simply it may be rendered as “serving.” Their spiritual and practical service is to serve. sn The Levites had the duty of taking care of all the tabernacle and its furnishings, especially in times when it was to be moved. But they were also appointed to be gate-keepers ( 2 Kgs 22:4 ; 1 Chr 9:19 ) in order to safeguard the purity of the place and the activities that went on there. Their offices seem to have then become hereditary in time ( 1 Sam 1:3 ); they even took on more priestly functions, such as pronouncing the benediction ( Deut 10:8 ). See further R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel , 348-49.


The verb וְנָתַתָּה ( vÿnatattah ) is normally “give.” Here, though, the context refers to the assignment of the Levites to the priests for their duties. The form is the perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive, continuing the sequence for the imperfect of instruction.


This emphasis is derived from the simple repetition of the passive participle, נְתוּנִם נְתוּנִם ( nÿtunim nÿtunim ). See GKC 396 §123. e . The forms serve as the predicate with the subject pronoun.


The Hebrew text simply has the preposition, “from the Israelites.”


The LXX includes the following words here: “and all things pertaining to the altar and within the veil.” Cf. Num 18:7 .


The word is זָר ( zar ), usually rendered “stranger, foreigner, pagan.” But in this context it simply refers to anyone who is not a Levite or a priest, an unauthorized person or intruder in the tabernacle. That person would be put to death.


The particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh ) here carries its deictic force, calling attention to the fact that is being declared. It is underscoring the fact that the Lord himself chose Levi.


Literally “in the place of.”


The form הַכֹּתִי ( hakkoti ) is the Hiphil infinitive construct of the verb נָכָה ( nakhah , “to strike, smite, attack”). Here, after the idiomatic “in the day of,” the form functions in an adverbial clause of time – “when I destroyed.”


Heb “the house of their fathers.” So also in v. 20 .


Heb “you are to/shall number them.”


Heb “at the mouth of the Lord .”


The Pual perfect may be given the past perfect translation in this sentence because the act of commanding preceded the act of numbering.


The word “sons of” does at the outset refer to the sons of Levi. But as the listing continues the expression refers more to the family groups of the various descendants.


The vav ( ו ) disjunctive on the noun at the beginning of the verse here signals a greater emphasis on the individual rather than another item in the numbering of the clans.


Heb “a father’s house.” So also in vv. 30,35 .


The disjunctive vav ( ו ) here introduces a new section, listing the various duties of the clan in the sanctuary. The Gershonites had a long tradition of service here. In the days of David Asaph and his family were prominent as musicians. Others in the clan controlled the Temple treasuries. But in the wilderness they had specific oversight concerning the tent structure, which included the holy place and the holy of holies.


The phrases in this verse seem to be direct objects without verbs. BHS suggests deleting the sign of the accusative (for which see P. P. Saydon, “Meanings and Uses of the Particle אֵת ,” VT 14 [1964]: 263-75).


Heb “for all the service of it [them].”


The construction here is a little different. The Hebrew text uses the participle in construct plural: שֹׁמְרֵי ( shomÿrey , literally “keepers of”). The form specifies the duties of the 8,600 Kohathites. The genitive that follows this participle is the cognate מִשְׁמֶרֶת ( mishmeret ) that has been used before. So the expression indicates that they were responsible for the care of this part of the cult center. There is no reason to delete one of the forms (as does J. A. Paterson, Numbers , 42), for the repetition stresses the central importance of their work.


The verb is יְשָׁרְתוּ ( yÿsharÿtu , “they will serve/minister”). The imperfect tense in this place, however, probably describes what the priests would do, what they used to do. The verb is in a relative clause: “which they would serve with them,” which should be changed to read “with which they would serve.”


The word is literally “its [their] service.” It describes all the implements that were there for the maintenance of these things.


The Hebrew construction has “the leader of the leaders of” ( וּנְשִׂיא נְשִׂיאֵי , unÿsi ’ nÿsi ’ ey ).


Heb “the keepers of the responsibility” ( שֹׁמְרֵי מִשְׁמֶרֶת , shomÿrey mishmeret ). The participle is a genitive specifying the duty to which he was appointed (thing possessed); its cognate genitive emphasizes that their responsibility was over the holy place.


The Hebrew text has “these they the families of Merari.” The independent personal pronoun has an anaphoric use, somewhat equivalent to the copula “and” (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 23, §115).


Heb “and all their service.” This could possibly be a hendiadys: “and all their working tools.” However, the parallel with v. 26 suggests this is a separate phrase.


In some Hebrew mss and Smr “and Aaron” is not in the verse. The omission arose probably by scribal error with such repetitious material that could easily give rise to variant traditions.


Here again the verb and its cognate noun are used: keeping the keep, or keeping charge over, or taking responsibility for the care of, or the like.


Here again the Hebrew has “at the mouth of,” meaning in accordance with what the Lord said. So also in v. 51 .


The total is a rounded off number; it does not duplicate the precise total of 22,300. Some modern scholars try to explain it by positing an error in v. 28 , suggesting that “six” should be read as “three” ( שֵׁשׁ [ shesh ] as שָׁלֹשׁ [ shalosh ]).


The verb נָשָׂא ( nasa ’ , “take”) has here the sense of collect, take a census, or register the names.


The verb is the perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive; it carries forward the instructions from the preceding verse. The verb “take” now has the sense of appointing or designating the Levites.


The verb again is the perfect tense in sequence; the meaning of “take” may be interpreted here with the sense of “collect.”


The idea is expressed simply by repetition: “take five, five, shekels according to the skull.” They were to collect five shekels for each individual.


The verb form now is the imperfect of instruction or legislation.


Heb “them,” referring to the five shekels.


Heb “lift up the head.” The form נָשֹׂא ( naso ’) is the Qal infinitive absolute functioning here as a pure verb form. This serves to emphasize the basic verbal root idea (see GKC 346 §113. bb ). sn The census of chapter was to register all male Levites from a month old and up. It arranged the general duties of each of the tribes. The second census of Levites now will focus on those between 30 and 50 years of age, those who were actually in service. These are the working Levites. The duties here will be more specific for each of the families. The Kohathites, although part of the ordinary ministry of Levites, were a special group chosen to handle the most holy furnishings. J. Milgrom shows three aspects of their service: (1) skilled labor ( מְלָאכָה , mÿla ’ khah ) or “work,” (2) physical labor ( עֲבֹדָה , ‘avodah ) or “service,” and (3) assisting the priests ( שָׁרֵת , sharet ) or “ministering” (see his Studies in Levitical Terminology , 1:60-70).


The word “company” is literally “host, army” ( צָבָא , tsava ’). The repetition of similar expressions makes the translation difficult: Heb “all [who] come to the host to do work in the tent.”


The Hebrew text simply has “the holy of holies,” or “the holy of the holy things” ( קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים , qodesh haqqodashim ). The context indicates that this refers to all the sacred furnishings.


The Hebrew text uses the infinitive construct in an adverbial clause of time; literally it says “in the journeying of the camp.” The genitive in such constructions is usually the subject. Here the implication is that people would be preparing to transport the camp and its equipment.


The exact meaning of the Hebrew word here is difficult to determine. The term תַּחַשׁ ( takhash ) has been translated “badgers’ [skins]” by KJV. ASV has “sealskin” while RSV uses “goatskin”; NEB and NASB have “porpoise skin,” and NIV has “hides of sea cows.” This is close to “porpoise,” and seems influenced by the Arabic. The evidence is not strong for any of these meanings, and some of the suggestions would be problematic. It is possible the word is simply used for “fine leather,” based on the Egyptian ths . This has been followed by NRSV (“fine leather”) and NLT (“fine goatskin leather”) along with the present translation. See further HALOT 1720-21 s.v. תַּחַשׁ .


The Greek has “violet” instead of blue. This is also the case in vv. 8, 10, and 14 .


The “pole” or “bar” ( מוֹט , mot ) is of a different style than the poles used for transporting the ark. It seems to be a flexible bar carried by two men with the implements being transported tied to the bar. The NEB suggests the items were put in a bag and slung over the bar, but there is no indication of the manner.


The Greek text has “and he must place the cover upon the altar” instead of “and they must take away the ashes from the altar.” The verb is the Piel form; its nuance seems to be privative, i.e., stating that the object is deprived of the material – the ashes are removed. This is the main altar in the courtyard.


For this passage the Greek and Smr have a substantial addition concerning the purple cloth for the laver and its base, and a further covering of skin (see D. W. Gooding, “On the Use of the LXX for Dating Midrashic Elements in the Targums,” JTS 25 [1974]: 1-11).


The verb form is the Piel perfect with a vav ( ו ) consecutive; it continues the future sequence, but in this verse forms a subordinate clause to the parallel sequential verb to follow.


The Piel infinitive construct with the preposition serves as the direct object of the preceding verbal form, answering the question of what it was that they finished.


Heb “after this.”


The form is the Qal infinitive construct from נָשָׂא ( nasa ’, “to lift, carry”); here it indicates the purpose clause after the verb “come.”


The imperfect tense may be given the nuance of negated instruction (“they are not to”) or negated obligation (“they must not”).


Here the article expresses the generic idea of any holy thing (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 19, §92).


The verb is the perfect tense with a vav ( ו ) consecutive, following the imperfect tense warning against touching the holy thing. The form shows the consequence of touching the holy thing, and so could be translated “or they will die” or “lest they die.” The first is stronger.


The word מַשָּׂא ( massa ’) is normally rendered “burden,” especially in prophetic literature. It indicates the load that one must carry, whether an oracle, or here the physical responsibility.


This is supplied to the line to clarify “appointed.”


Heb “and.”


The word order is different in the Hebrew text: Do this…and they will live. Consequently, the verb “and they will live” is a perfect tense with a vav ( ו ) consecutive to express the future consequence of “doing this” for them.


The perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive continues the instruction for Aaron.


The distributive sense is obtained by the repetition, “a man” and “a man.”


In the Hebrew text the verse has as the subject “they,” but to avoid confusion the antecedent has been clarified in the translation.


The two forms are the infinitive construct and then the noun: “to serve and for the burden.” They are to serve and they are to take the responsibility. The infinitive is explaining the verb.


This whole clause is not in the Greek text; it is likely missing due to homoioteleuton.


The work of these people would have been very demanding, since the size and weight of the various curtains and courtyard hangings would have been great. For a detailed discussion of these, see the notes in the book of Exodus on the construction of the items.


The term “whether” is supplied to introduce the enumerated parts of the explanatory phrase.


Here again is the use of the noun “burden” in the sense of the loads they were to carry (see the use of carts in Num 7:7 ).


The expression is literally “upon/at the mouth of” ( עַל־פִּי , ’ al-pi ); it means that the work of these men would be under the direct orders of Aaron and his sons.


Or “burden.”


Or “the direction” (NASB, TEV); Heb “under/by the hand of.” The word “hand” is often used idiomatically for “power” or “authority.” So also in vv. 33, 37, 45, 48 .


Heb “you shall assign by names the vessels of the responsibility of their burden.”


The text multiplies the vocabulary of service here in the summary. In the Hebrew text the line reads literally: “everyone who came to serve the service of serving, and the service of burden.” The Levites came into service in the shrine, and that involved working in the sanctuary as well as carrying it from one place to the next.


The verb is the simple perfect tense – “he numbered them.” There is no expressed subject; therefore, the verb can be rendered as a passive.


Or “his burden.”


The passive form simply reads “those numbered by him.” Because of the cryptic nature of the word, some suggest reading a preterite, “and they were numbered.” This is supported by the Greek, Syriac, Targum, and Vulgate. It would follow in the emendation that the relative pronoun be changed to “just as” ( כַּאֲשֶׁר , ka ’ asher ). The MT is impossible the way it stands; it can only be rendered into smooth English by adding something that is missing.


The construction uses the Piel imperative followed by this Piel imperfect/jussive form; it is here subordinated to the preceding volitive, providing the content of the command. The verb שָׁלַח ( shalakh ) in this verbal stem is a strong word, meaning “expel, put out, send away, or release” (as in “let my people go”).


The word is נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ), which usually simply means “[whole] life,” i.e., the soul in the body, the person. But here it must mean the corpse, the dead person, since that is what will defile (although it was also possible to become unclean by touching certain diseased people, such as a leper).


The imperfect tense functions here as a final imperfect, expressing the purpose of putting such folks outside the camp. The two preceding imperfects (repeated for emphasis) are taken here as instruction or legislation.


The perfect tense is here given a past perfect nuance to stress that the word of the Lord preceded the obedience.


The verse simply says “any sin of a man,” but the genitive could mean that it is any sin that a man would commit (subjective genitive), or one committed against a man (objective genitive). Because of the similarity with Lev 5:22, the subjective is better. The sin is essentially “missing the mark” which is the standard of the Law of the Lord . The sin is not in this case accidental or inadvertent. It means here simply failing to live up to the standard of the Lord . Since both men and women are mentioned in the preceding clause, the translation uses “people” here.


The verb is מַעַל ( ma ’ al ), which means to “defraud, violate, trespass against,” or “to deal treacherously, do an act of treachery.” In doing any sin that people do, the guilty have been unfaithful to the Lord , and therefore must bring him a sacrifice.


The word used here for this violation is אָשָׁם (’ asham ). It can be translated “guilt, to be guilty”; it can also be used for the reparation offering. The basic assumption here is that the individual is in a state of sin – is guilty. In that state he or she feels remorse for the sin and seeks forgiveness through repentance. See further P. P. Saydon, “Sin Offering and Trespass Offering,” CBQ 8 (1946): 393-98; H. C. Thompson, “The Significance of the Term ’Asham in the Old Testament,” TGUOS 14 (1953): 20-26.


The verb is the Hitpael perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive from the verb יָדָה ( yadah ), which in this stem means “acknowledge, confess sin,” but in the Hiphil (primarily) it means “praise, give thanks.” In both cases one is acknowledging something, either the sin, or the person and work of the Lord . Here the verb comes in the apodosis: “when…then he must confess.”


The verb is the Hiphil perfect of שׁוּב ( shuv , “return”). Here it has the sense of “repay” with the word “reparation” (traditionally rendered “guilt offering,” but now is understood to refer to what was defrauded). The Levitical rulings called for the guilty to restore what was taken, if it could be made right, and pay a fifth more as a surcharge.


This is now the third use of אָשָׁם (’ asham ); the first referred to “guilt,” the second to “reparation,” and now “wronged.” The idea of “guilt” lies behind the second two uses as well as the first. In the second “he must repay his guilt” (meaning what he is guilty of); and here it can also mean “the one against whom he is guilty of sinning.”


The editors of BHS prefer to follow the Greek, Syriac, and Latin and not read “for the Lord ” here, but read a form of the verb “to be” instead. But the text makes more sense as it stands: The payment is to be made to the Lord for the benefit of the priests.


The Hebrew word תְּרוּמָה ( tÿrumah ) seems to be a general word for any offering that goes to the priests (see J. Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology [SJLA 36] , 159-72).


Heb “and a man lies with her with the emission of semen.” This makes it clear that there was adultery involved, so that the going astray is going astray morally. The indication in the text is that if she had never behaved suspiciously the sin might not have been detected.


The sign of the accusative אֹתָהּ (’ otah ) is probably to be repointed to the preposition with the suffix, אִתָּהּ (’ ittah ).


Heb “and it is concealed from the eyes of her husband.”


The Hebrew text has the construct case, “spirit of jealousy.” The word “spirit” here has the sense of attitude, mood, feelings. The word קִנְאָה ( qin ’ ah ) is the genitive of attribute, modifying what kind of feelings they are. The word means either “zeal” or “jealousy,” depending on the context. It is a passionate feeling to guard or protect an institution or relationship. It can also express strong emotional possessiveness such as envy and coveting. Here there is a feeling of jealousy, but no proof of infidelity.


The word is now used in the Piel stem; the connotation is certainly “suspicious,” for his jealousy seems now to have some basis, even if it is merely suspicion.


The noun clause begins with the conjunction and the pronoun; here it is forming a circumstantial clause, either temporal or causal.


All the conditions have been laid down now for the instruction to begin – if all this happened, then this is the procedure to follow.


The Hebrew word is “jealousy,” which also would be an acceptable translation here. But since the connotation is that suspicion has been raised about the other person, “suspicion” seems to be a better rendering in this context.


The word “remembering” is זִכָּרוֹן ( zikkaron ); the meaning of the word here is not so much “memorial,” which would not communicate much, but the idea of bearing witness before God concerning the charges. The truth would come to light through this ritual, and so the attestation would stand. This memorial would bring the truth to light. It was a somber occasion, and so no sweet smelling additives were placed on the altar.


The final verbal form, מַזְכֶּרֶת ( mazkeret ), explains what the memorial was all about – it was causing iniquity to be remembered.


The verb is the Hiphil of the word “to stand.” It could be rendered “station her,” but that sounds too unnatural. This is a meeting between an accused person and the Judge of the whole earth.


This is probably water taken from the large bronze basin in the courtyard. It is water set apart for sacred service. “Clean water” (so NEB) does not capture the sense very well, but it does have the support of the Greek that has “pure running water.” That pure water would no doubt be from the bronze basin anyway.


Heb “from.” The preposition is used here with a partitive sense.


The expression has been challenged. The first part, “bitter water,” has been thought to mean “water of contention” (so NEB), but this is not convincing. It has some support in the versions which read “contention” and “testing,” no doubt trying to fit the passage better. N. H. Snaith ( Leviticus and Numbers [NCB], 129) suggests from an Arabic word that it was designed to cause an abortion – but that would raise an entirely different question, one of who the father of a child was. And that has not been introduced here. The water was “bitter” in view of the consequences it held for her if she was proven to be guilty. That is then enforced by the wordplay with the last word, the Piel participle הַמְאָרֲרִים ( ham ’ ararim ). The bitter water, if it convicted her, would pronounce a curse on her. So she was literally holding her life in her hands. sn This ancient ritual seems to have functioned like a lie detector test, with all the stress and tension involved. It can be compared to water tests in the pagan world, with the exception that in Israel it was stacked more toward an innocent verdict. It seems to have been a temporary provision, for this is the only place that it appears, and no provision is made for its use later. It may have served as a didactic force, warning more than actually legislating. No provision is made in it for a similar charge to be brought against the man, but in the case of the suspicion of the woman the man would be very hesitant to demand this test given the harshness on false witnessing in Israel. The passage remains a rather strange section of the Law.


The word “other” is implied, since the woman would not be guilty of having sexual relations with her own husband.


The pronoun is emphatic – “but you, if you have gone astray.”


This is an example of the rhetorical device known as aposiopesis, or “sudden silence.” The sentence is broken off due to the intensity or emphasis of the moment. The reader is left to conclude what the sentence would have said.


Heb “the priest will say.”


This interpretation takes the two nouns as a hendiadys. The literal wording is “the Lord make you a curse and an oath among the people.” In what sense would she be an oath? The point of the whole passage is that the priest is making her take an oath to see if she has been sinful and will be cursed.


The construction uses the infinitive construct with the preposition to form an adverbial clause: “in the giving of the Lord …,” meaning, “if and when the Lord makes such and such to happen.”


TEV takes the expression “your thigh” as a euphemism for the genitals: “cause your genital organs to shrink.”


The verb is the perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive. It could be taken as a jussive following the words of the priest in the previous section, but it is more likely to be a simple future.


Heb “fall away.”


The word “amen” carries the idea of “so be it,” or “truly.” The woman who submits to this test is willing to have the test demonstrate the examination of God.


Heb “will be free”; the words “of ill effects” have been supplied as a clarification.


Heb “law of jealousies.”


The word “iniquity” can also mean the guilt for the iniquity as well as the punishment of consequences for the iniquity. These categories of meanings grew up through figurative usage (metonymies). Here the idea is that if she is guilty then she must “bear the consequences.”


The formula is used here again: “a man or a woman – when he takes.” The vow is open to both men and women.


The vow is considered special in view of the use of the verb יַפְלִא ( yafli ’), the Hiphil imperfect of the verb “to be wonderful, extraordinary.”


The construction uses the infinitive construct followed by the cognate accusative: “to vow a vow.” This intensifies the idea that the vow is being taken carefully.


The name of the vow is taken from the verb that follows; נָזַר ( nazar ) means “to consecrate oneself,” and so the Nazirite is a consecrated one. These are folks who would make a decision to take an oath for a time or for a lifetime to be committed to the Lord and show signs of separation from the world. Samuel was to be a Nazirite, as the fragment of the text from Qumran confirms – “he will be a נָזִיר ( nazir ) forever” ( 1 Sam 1:22 ).


The form of the verb is an Hiphil infinitive construct, forming the wordplay and explanation for the name Nazirite. The Hiphil is here an internal causative, having the meaning of “consecrate oneself” or just “consecrate to the Lord .”


The operative verb now will be the Hiphil of נָזַר ( nazar ); the consecration to the Lord meant separation from certain things in the world. The first will be wine and strong drink – barley beer (from Akkadian sikaru , a fermented beer). But the second word may be somewhat wider in its application than beer. The Nazirite, then, was to avoid all intoxicants as a sign of his commitment to the Lord . The restriction may have proved a hardship in the daily diet of the one taking the vow, but it spoke a protest to the corrupt religious and social world that used alcohol to excess.


The “vinegar” ( חֹמֶץ , homets ) is some kind of drink preparation that has been allowed to go sour.


This word occurs only here. It may come from the word “to water, to be moist,” and so refer to juice.


Heb “dried” (so KJV, ASV, NRSV).


This word also is rare, occurring only here.


The parallel expression in v. 8 (“all the days of his separation”) lacks the word “vow.” This word is also absent in v. 5 in a few medieval Hebrew manuscripts. The presence of the word in v. 5 may be due to dittography.


Heb “days.”


The word “holy” here has the sense of distinct, different, set apart.


The Piel infinitive absolute functions as a verb in this passage; the Piel carries the sense of “grow lengthy” or “let grow long.”


The Hebrew verb is simply “enter, go,” no doubt with the sense of go near.


The Hebrew has נֶפֶשׁ מֵת ( nefesh met ), literally a “dead person.” But since the word נֶפֶשׁ can also be used for animals, the restriction would be for any kind of corpse. Death was very much a part of the fallen world, and so for one so committed to the Lord , avoiding all such contamination would be a witness to the greatest separation, even in a family.


The vav ( ו ) conjunction at the beginning of the clause specifies the cases of corpses that are to be avoided, no matter how painful it might be.


The construction uses the infinitive construct with the preposition and the suffixed subjective genitive – “in the dying of them” – to form the adverbial clause of time. sn The Nazirite would defile himself, i.e., ruin his vow, by contacting their corpses. Jesus’ hard saying in Matt 8:22 , “let the dead bury their own dead,” makes sense in the light of this passage – Jesus was calling for commitment to himself.


The word “separation” here is metonymy of adjunct – what is on his head is long hair that goes with the vow.


The genitive could perhaps be interpreted as possession, i.e., “the vow of his God,” but it seems more likely that an objective genitive would be more to the point.


The construction uses the imperfect tense followed by the infinitive absolute, יָמוּת מֵת ( yamut met ). Because the verb is in a conditional clause, the emphasis that is to be given through the infinitive must stress the contingency. The point is “if someone dies – unexpectedly.” The next words underscore the suddenness of this.


The verb is the Piel perfect with a vav ( ו ) consecutive; it continues the idea within the conditional clause.


The imperfect tense in this verse is still instructional rather than a simple future. The translations can vary, but the point that it is directive must be caught.


The traditional translation of חַטָּאת ( khatta ’ t ) is “sin offering,” but it is more precise to render it “purification offering” (as with the other names of sacrifices) to show the outcome, not the cause of the offering (see ). Besides, this offering was made for ritual defilements (for which no confession was required) as well as certain sins (for which a confession of sin was required). This offering restored the person to the ritual state of purity by purifying the area into which he would be going.


The repetition of “the one…and the one” forms the distributive sense of “the one…and the other.”


The burnt offering () reflects the essence of atonement: By this sacrifice the worshiper was completely surrendering to God, and God was completely accepting the worshiper.


The verb וְכִפֶּר ( vÿkhipper ) is the Piel perfect with vav ( ו ) consecutive. The meaning of the verb is “to expiate, pacify, atone.” It refers to the complete removal of the barrier of fellowship between the person and God, and the total acceptance of that person into his presence. The idea of “to cover,” often linked to this meaning, is derived from a homonym, and not from this word and its usage.


The verb “to sin” has a wide range of meanings, beginning with the idea of “missing the way or the goal.” In view of the nature of this case – the prescribed ritual without confession – the idea is more that he failed to keep the vow’s stipulations in this strange circumstance than that he committed intentional sin.


The verb simply means “to consecrate,” but because it refers to a vow that was interrupted, it must here mean to “reconsecrate.”


The same idea is to be found now in the use of the word נָזַר ( nazar ), which refers to a recommitment after the vow was interrupted.


The necessity of bringing the reparation offering was due to the reinstatement into the vow that had been interrupted.


Heb “will fall”; KJV “shall be lost”; ASV, NASB, NRSV “shall be void.”


The similar expression in v. 9 includes the word “head” (i.e., “his consecrated head”). The LXX includes this word in v. 12 as well.


The Hebrew text has “he/one shall bring him”; since there is no expressed subject, this verb should be taken in the passive sense – “he shall be brought.” Since the context suggests an obligatory nuance, the translation “he must be brought” has been used. Some scholars solve the problem by emending the Hebrew text here, but there is no manuscript evidence to support the emendation.


Heb “he shall offer his offering” – the object is a cognate accusative.


The suffixes in the MT are plural in this verse, whereas in v. 17 they are singular. This seems to be a matter of stylistic choice, referring to whomever may be taking the vow.


“all these” is supplied as the object.


Heb “make.”


The “peace offering” is usually written as “a sacrifice of peace” ( זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים , zevakh shÿlamim ). The word “sacrifice” is related to the word “to slaughter,” and so indicates that this is a bloody offering in celebration of peace with God.


Some versions simply interpret this to say that he shaves his hair, for it is the hair that is the sign of the consecration to God. But the text says he shaves his consecrated head. The whole person is obviously consecrated to God – not just the head. But the symbolic act of cutting the hair shows that the vow has been completed (see Acts 21:23-24 ). The understanding of the importance of the hair in the ancient world has been the subject of considerable study over the years (see R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel , 436; and J. A. Thompson, “Numbers,” New Bible Commentary: Revised , 177).


Heb “which is under the peace offering.” The verse does not mean that the hair had to be put under that sacrifice and directly on the fire.


The line does not include the word “head”; it literally has “after the consecrating of himself his consecrated [head].” The infinitive construct is here functioning in the temporal clause with the suffix as the subject and the object following.


The imperfect tense here would then have the nuance of permission. It is not an instruction at this point; rather, the prohibition has been lifted and the person is free to drink wine.


Actually, “law” here means a whole set of laws, the basic rulings on this topic.


Heb “whatever else his hand is able to provide.” The imperfect tense has the nuance of potential imperfect – “whatever he can provide.”


Heb “according to the vow that he vows, so he must do.”


Or “thus.”


The Piel imperfect has the nuance of instruction. The particle “thus” explains that the following oracle is the form to use.


Here is the only use of the verb אָמַר (’ amar ) as an infinitive absolute; it functions as a verb form, an imperative or an imperfect of instruction. Several commentators have attempted to emend the text to get around the difficulty, but such emendations are unnecessary.


The short blessing uses the jussive throughout, here the Piel jussive with a pronominal suffix. While the jussive has quite a range of nuances, including wish, desire, prayer, or greeting, the jussives here are stronger. The formal subject of the verb is the Lord , and the speaker pronouncing the blessing is the priest, notably after emerging from the holy of holies where atonement has been made. The Lord says in this passage that when the priest says this, then the Lord will bless them. The jussive then is an oracle, not a wish or a prayer. It is a declaration of what the Lord imparts. It is as binding and sure as a patriarchal blessing which once said officially could not be taken back. The priest here is then pronouncing the word of the Lord , declaring to the congregation the outcome of the atonement.


The verb “to keep” concerns the divine protection of the people; its basic meaning is “to exercise great care over,” “to guard,” or “to give attention to” (see TWOT 2:939). No doubt the priestly blessing informed the prayer and promise that makes up , for the verb occurs six times in the eight verses. So in addition to the divine provision (“bless” basically means “enrich” in a number of ways) there is the assurance of divine protection.


Whereas the first line of the blessing had three Hebrew words, the second has five, and the third has seven. In this second line and the following third, the blessing takes the form of an emblem followed by the truth. For the Lord to make his face shine on them would mean to be gracious to them. M. Noth rightly calls this image of the shining face “a figure of speech for benevolence and favour” ( Numbers [OTL], 59); see, for example, Pss 4:7; 31:17; 44:4; 67:2; 80:4, 8, 20; 119:135 ; Dan 9:17 ). The image may have its inspiration in the theophanies. The picture is of divine favor – the beaming face of a parent for his beloved.


The last line of the blessing also has first the image and then the parallel interpretation – for God to lift up his face is for God to give peace. The idea of the fallen face is one of anger (see Gen 4:6,7 ); and the idea of the hidden face is that of withholding support, favor, or peace (see Deut 31:18 ; Ps 30:8 ; Ps 44:25 ). If God lifts his face toward his people, it means he has given them peace – peace, prosperity, completeness, health, safety, general well-being, and the like.


The idea of their putting the name of Yahweh on the people is somewhat problematic. The pronouncing of the name of Yahweh in this context over the people was taken to be the effectual means of blessings. “Putting the name on them” is an expression that emphasizes the truth that he is their God and they are his people or that having his name is having his blessing.


The construction of this line begins with the temporal indicator (traditionally translated “and it came to pass”) and then after the idiomatic “in the day of” (= “when”) uses the Piel infinitive construct from כָּלָה ( kalah ). The infinitive is governed by the subjective genitive, “Moses,” the formal subject of the clause. The object of the infinitive is the second infinitive, “to set up” ( לְהָקִים , lÿhaqim ). This infinitive, the Hiphil , serves as the direct object, answering the question of what it was that Moses completed. The entire clause is an adverbial clause of time. sn This chapter belongs chronologically after Lev 8:11 , because Aaron and his sons were not yet made the celebrants and officiants of the new shrine (completed in Exodus). Here then chapters 7-9 are actually earlier than chapters 1-6 , and form a supplement by adding information not found in Exodus and Leviticus. The first verse here recapitulates the first act of Moses in consecrating the shrine ( Exod 30:23-31 ).


Heb “the house of their fathers.”


The form is the Qal active participle from the verb “to stand” ( עָמַד , ’ amad ). The form describes these leaders as “the ones standing over [the ones numbered].” The expression, along with the clear indication of the first census in chapter , shows that this was a supervisory capacity.


Heb “and they brought.”


The object is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied.


The verb is the perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive; following the imperative, this could be given an independent volitive translation (“they shall be”), but more fittingly a subordinated translation expressing the purpose of receiving the gifts.


The sentence uses the infinitive construct expressing purpose, followed by its cognate accusative: “[that they may be] for doing the work of” (literally, “serving the service of”).


The noun אִישׁ (’ ish ) is in apposition to the word “Levites,” and is to be taken in a distributive sense: “to the Levites, [to each] man according to his service.”


The expression כְּפִי ( kÿfi ) is “according to the mouth of.” Here, it would say “according to the mouth of his service,” which would mean “what his service calls for.”


Heb “hand.”


The verb is the imperfect tense, but it describes their customary activity – they had to carry, they used to carry.


Heb “upon them,” meaning “their duty.”


The verse begins with the preterite and vav ( ו ) consecutive: “and they offered.”


The direct object, “gifts,” is implied but not actually stated in the Hebrew text. It has been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons and for clarity.


The sign of the accusative here must indicate an adverbial accusative and not the direct object; they offered their gifts for the dedication of the altar.


The adverbial clause uses the Niphal infinitive construct as the main verb. The word is the well-known מָשַׁח ( mashakh , “to anoint, smear”).


Heb “offered,” but this is redundant and has been translated as “presented” for stylistic reasons. The same phrase occurs in vv. 11 and 12 .


The distributive sense is achieved by repetition: “one leader for the day, one leader for the day.”


The word “shekels” has been supplied in the translation for clarity. So also in vv. 19, 20, 25, 26, 31, 32, 37, 38, 43, 44, 49, 50, 55, 56, 60, 62, 66, 68, 73, 74, 79, 85, 86 .


The phrase “presented an offering” is not found in the Hebrew text at this point but has been supplied to clarify what action is being done. The same phrase is absent from the Hebrew text in the following verses which tell who makes the offerings ( 7:30, 36, 42, 48, 54, 60, 66, 72, 78 ).


The adverbial clause of time is constructed with the infinitive construct of the verb “to enter” ( בּוֹא , bo ’) with the preposition and with the subjective genitive that follows serving as the subject of the clause. The verse is strategic in the structure of the book: At the completion of the dedication with the offerings Moses received more revelation from the Lord in the tent. This verse therefore lays the foundation for what follows.


The MT is obscure here, simply giving the purpose infinitive and the prepositional phrase (“with him”). But the following clause using the Hitpael of the same verb, introducing a reflexive sense: “then he heard the voice speaking with him.” The Greek clarified it by inserting “Lord” after the word “voice.” The editor of BHS favors emendation of the form to a Piel participle rather than the Hitpael of the MT (reading מְדַבֵּר [ mÿdabber ] instead of מִדַּבֵּר [ middabber ], the Hitpael with assimilation). Most commentators agree with the change, assuming there was a mistaken pointing in the MT.


The Hebrew word כַּפֹּרֶת ( kapporet ) has been traditionally rendered “mercy seat,” but since the ark is the footstool (see ), this translation is somewhat misleading. The word is etymologically connected to the verb “to make atonement.” A technical translation would be “place of atonement” or “propitiatory”; a more common translation would be “cover, lid” – provided that the definition “to cover” does not get transferred to the verb “to atone,” for that idea belongs to a homonym. See also Exod 25:17 .


The cherubim are the carved forms of the angels attached to the ark. They indicate the guarding role of this order of angels in the holy of holies. They were also embroidered on the curtains. For basic material see ZPEB 1:788-90, and R. K. Harrison, ISBE 1:642-43.


The verb is עָלָה (’ alah ). The Hiphil infinitive construct functions in a temporal clause. The idea of arranging the lamps on the lampstand certainly involved raising the lamps and placing them on the tops of each shaft and branch. Some have taken the idea to mean cause the flame to go up, or light the lamps.


The imperfect tense forms part of the instruction, and so the translation has to indicate that. The instruction would seem obvious, but the light was to shine in the area immediately in front of the lampstand, so that it would illumine the way and illumine the table that was across the room (hence, “in front of”).


The Hebrew text literally has “and this is the work of the lampstand,” but that rendering does not convey the sense that it is describing how it was made.


The verb טָהַר ( tahar ) means that Moses was “to purify” or “to make ceremonially clean” the Levites so that they could enter the sanctuary and do the work prescribed for them. Whatever is “unclean” is not permitted in the sanctuary at all.


Or, more literally, “and thus you shall do.” The verb is the imperfect tense of instruction or legislation. Here it introduces the procedures to be followed.


The genitive in this expression indicates the purpose of the water – it is for their purification. The expression is literally “the waters of sin.” The word “purification” is the same as for the “sin/purification offering” – חַטָּאת ( khatta ’ at ). This water seems to have been taken from the main laver and is contrasted with the complete washing of the priests in Lev 8:6 .


The verb is the Hiphil perfect with a vav ( ו ) of sequence. This verb, and those to follow, has the force of a jussive since it comes after the imperative. Here the instruction is for them to remove the hair from their bodies (“flesh”). There is no indication that this was repeated (as the Egyptian priests did every few days). It seems to have been for this special occasion only. A similar requirement was for the leper ( Lev 14:7-9 ).


Heb “flesh.”


Or “let/have them wash”; the priests were given new clothes ( Lev 8:13 ), but the Levites simply washed their own.


The verb is a reflexive (or possibly passive) in this verse, indicating the summary of the process. The ritual steps that have been prescribed will lead to this conclusion. The verb could be treated as a final imperfect (being a perfect with vav [ ו ] consecutive), and so translated “that they may….” The major difference here is that the ritual made the Levites “clean,” whereas the ritual for the priests made them “holy” or “sanctified” ( Lev 8:12 ).


The Hebrew text actually has “wave the Levites as a wave offering.” The wave offering was part of the ritual of the peace offering and indicated the priest’s portion being presented to God in a lifted, waving motion for all to see. The Levites were going to be in the sanctuary to serve the Lord and assist the priests. It is unclear how Moses would have presented them as wave offerings, but the intent is that they would be living sacrifices, as Paul would later say in Rom 12:1 for all Christians.


The construction emphasizes the spiritual service of the Levites, using the infinitive construct of עָבַד (’ avad ) followed by its cognate accusative.


The clause begins with a vav ( ו ) on the noun “the Levites,” indicating a disjunctive clause. Here it is clearly a subordinate clause prior to the instruction for Moses, and so translated as a circumstantial clause of time.


The imperative is from the verb “to do; to make,” but in the sentence it clearly means to sacrifice the animals.


The Greek text adds the Lord here: “before the Lord , before Aaron.”


The vav ( ו ) consecutive on the perfect tense not only carries the nuance of instruction forward to this clause, but also marks this clause out as a summary of what has taken place, i.e., by doing all this ritual Moses will have separated the Levites from the people for God’s own possession.


The imperfect tense could also be given the nuance of the imperfect of permission: “the Levites may go in.”


Heb “to serve.”


The two verbs in the rest of this verse are perfect tenses with vav ( ו ) consecutive constructions, making them equal to the imperfect. Some commentators try to get around the difficulty of repetition by making these future perfects, “and you will have cleansed,” as opposed to a summary statement, “for thus you will cleanse….”


The Greek text adds “before the Lord .”


As before, the emphasis is obtained by repeating the passive participle: “given, given to me.”


Or “as substitutes” for all the firstborn of the Israelites.


The idiomatic “on the day of” precedes the infinitive construct of נָכָה ( nakhah ) to form the temporal clause: “in the day of my striking…” becomes “when I struck.”


The verb is the Hitpael of חָטָּא ( khatta ’). In this stem the meaning of the root “to sin” is likely to be connected to the noun “sin/purification” offering in a denominative sense, although some would take it as a privative usage, “to remove sin.” The idea is clear enough: They performed all the ritual in order to purify themselves ceremonially.


The Hebrew text has “this [is that] which [pertains] to the Levites.” “This is what concerns the Levites, meaning, the following rulings are for them.


The age of twenty-five indicated in v. 24 should be compared with the age of thirty indicated in Num 4:3,23,30 . In order to harmonize the numbers given in chapter with the number given in Num 8:24 the LXX (and perhaps its Hebrew Vorlage ) has thirty in all of these references. See further G. J. Wenham, Numbers (TOTC 4), 97-98.


The infinitive is לִצְבֹא ( litsvo ’), related to the word for “host, army, company,” and so “to serve as a company.” The meaning is strengthened by the cognate accusative following it.


The verb is the Piel perfect of שָׁרַת ( sharat , “to serve, minister”). Here the form has the vav ( ו ) consecutive, and so is equal to the imperfect tense stressing permission. After the Levites reached the age of retirement, they were permitted to assist the others, but were not permitted to do the work themselves.


Heb “brothers,” but the meaning in this context is “fellow Levites.”


Heb “you shall do, make.”


The temporal clause is formed with the infinitive construct of יָצָא ( yatsa ’, “to go out; to leave”). This verse indicates that a full year had passed since the exodus and the original Passover; now a second ruling on the Passover is included at the beginning of the second year. This would have occurred immediately after the consecration of the tabernacle, in the month before the census at Sinai.


The verb is simply “to do; to make” ( עָשָׂה [’ asah ] in the jussive). It must have the idea here of “to perform; to keep; to observe” the ritual of the Passover.


The Greek text uses a plural here but the singular in vv. 7 and 13 ; the Smr uses the plural in all three places.


The literal Hebrew expression is “between the evenings” (so also in vv. 5, 11 ). Sunset is certainly one evening; the other may refer to the change in the middle of the afternoon to the late afternoon, or the beginning of dusk. The idea is probably just at twilight, or dusk (see R. B. Allen, TWOT 2:694).


The two verbs in this verse are identical; they are imperfects of instruction. The English translation has been modified for stylistic variation.


The two words in this last section are standard “Torah” words. The word חֹק ( khoq ) is a binding statute, something engraved and monumental. The word מִשְׁפָּט ( mishpat ) means “judgment, decision,” but with a more general idea of “custom” at its core. The verse is making it very clear that the Passover had to follow the custom and form that was legislated in Egypt.


Heb “spoke to.”


The infinitive construct functions as the direct object of the preceding verb (a Hebrew complementary usage), answering the question of what he said.


The LXX omits this first clause; it also omits “at twilight.”


In the Hebrew text the noun has no definite article, and so it signifies “some” or “certain” men.


The meaning, of course, is to be ceremonially unclean, and therefore disqualified from entering the sanctuary.


Or “a human corpse” (so NAB, NKJV). So also in v.7; cf. v. 10 .


This clause begins with the vav ( ו ) conjunction and negative before the perfect tense. Here is the main verb of the sentence: They were not able to observe the Passover. The first part of the verse provides the explanation for their problem.


The verb is simply “stand,” but in the more general sense of waiting to hear the answer.


The cohortative may be subordinated to the imperative: “stand…[that I] may hear.”


This sense is conveyed by the repetition of “man” – “if a man, a man becomes unclean.”


The perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive functions as the equivalent of an imperfect tense. In the apodosis of this conditional sentence, the permission nuance fits well.


The disjunctive vav ( ו ) signals a contrastive clause here: “but the man” on the other hand….


The verb חָדַל ( khadal ) means “to cease; to leave off; to fail.” The implication here is that it is a person who simply neglects to do it. It does not indicate that he forgot, but more likely that he made the decision to leave it undone.


The word for “sin” here should be interpreted to mean the consequences of his sin (so a metonymy of effect). Whoever willingly violates the Law will have to pay the consequences.


The words translated “resident foreigner” and “live” are from the same Hebrew root, גּוּר ( gur ), traditionally translated “to sojourn.” The “sojourner” who “sojourns” is a foreigner, a resident alien, who lives in the land as a temporary resident with rights of land ownership.


The verb is the simple perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive. It is therefore the equivalent to the imperfect that comes before it. The desiderative imperfect fits this usage well, since the alien is not required to keep the feast, but may indeed desire to do so.


The Hebrew text has “there will be to you,” which is the way of expressing possession in Hebrew. Since this is legal instruction, the imperfect tense must be instruction or legislation.


Or “you must have one statute.”


The conjunction is used here to specify the application of the law: “and for the resident foreigner, and for the one…” indicates “both for the resident foreigner and the one who….”


Heb “and/now on the day.”


The construction uses the temporal expression with the Hiphil infinitive construct followed by the object, the tabernacle. “On the day of the setting up of the tabernacle” leaves the subject unstated, and so the entire clause may be expressed in the passive voice.


The imperfect tense in this and the next line should be classified as a customary imperfect, stressing incomplete action but in the past time – something that used to happen, or would happen.


Heb “like the appearance of fire.”


The MT lacks the words “by day,” but a number of ancient versions have this reading (e.g., Greek, Syriac, Tg. Ps.-J. , Latin Vulgate).


The verb in this initial temporal clause is the Niphal infinitive construct.


Heb “in the place where it settled there”; the relative clause modifies the noun “place,” and the resumptive adverb completes the related idea – “which it settled there” means “where it settled.”


Heb “at the mouth of” (so also in vv. 20, 23 ).


Heb “all the days of – that the cloud settled over the tabernacle.” “All” is the adverbial accusative of time telling how long they camped in one spot – all. The word is then qualified by the genitive of the thing measured – “all of the days” – and this in turn is qualified by a noun clause functioning as a genitive after “days of.”


This is the same Hebrew expression that was used earlier for the Levites “keeping their charge” or more clearly, “fulfilling their obligations” to take care of the needs of the people and the sanctuary. It is a general expression using שָׁמַר ( shamar ) followed by its cognate noun מִשְׁמֶרֶת ( mishmeret ).


The sentence uses וְיֵשׁ ( vÿyesh ) followed by a noun clause introduced with אֲשֶׁר (’ asher ) to express an existing situation; it is best translated as an adverbial clause of time: “and it was when the cloud was….”


The word “number” is in apposition to the word “days” to indicate that their stay was prolonged for quite a few days.


Heb “mouth of the Lord .”


The construction is the same in the preceding verse.


“Only” is supplied to reflect the contrast between the two verses.


The construction in this half of the verse uses two vav ( ו ) consecutive clauses. The first is subordinated to the second as a temporal clause: “when…then….”


The MT has אוֹ־יָמִים (’ o-yamim ). Most translators use “or a year” to interpret this expression in view of the sequence of words leading up to it, as well as in comparison with passages like Judg 17:10 and 1 Sam 1:3 and 27:7 . See also the uses in Gen 40:4 and 1 Kgs 17:15 . For the view that it means four months, see F. S. North, “Four Month Season of the Hebrew Bible,” VT 11 (1961): 446-48.


In the Hebrew text this sentence has a temporal clause using the preposition with the Hiphil infinitive construct of אָרַךְ (’ arakh ) followed by the subjective genitive, “the cloud.” But this infinitive is followed by the infinitive construct לִשְׁכֹּן ( lishkon ), the two of them forming a verbal hendiadys: “the cloud made long to stay” becomes “the cloud prolonged its stay.”


Heb “and they would not journey”; the clause can be taken adverbially, explaining the preceding verbal clause.


Heb “hand.”


The Hebrew text uses what is called the “ethical dative” – “make [ for ] you two trumpets.” It need not be translated, but can simply be taken to underscore the direct imperative.


The imperfect tense is again instruction or legislation.


Heb “and they shall be for you for assembling,” which is the way of expressing possession. Here the intent concerns how Moses was to use them.


The perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive is here subordinated as a temporal clause to the following similar verbal construction.


The verb תָקַע ( taqa ’) means “to strike, drive, blow a trumpet.”


Heb “the assembly shall assemble themselves.”


Heb “they shall assemble themselves.”


The word for an alarm is תְּרוּעָה ( tÿru ’ ah ). The root verb of this word means “to give a blast on the trumpet.” It may also on occasion mean “give a shout” in battle ( Josh 6:10 ). In this passage it must refer to the sound of the trumpet.


Heb “the camps that are camping.”


The perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive functions as the equivalent of the imperfect tense. Here the emphasis is on the start of the journey.


The MT does not mention the departures of the northerly and westerly tribes. The Greek text completes the description by adding them, making a full schedule of the departure of the groups of tribes. The Greek is not likely to be original, however, since it carries all the signs of addition to complete the text, making a smooth, full reading. The MT is to be preferred; it apparently used two of the groups to give the idea.


The Hebrew text has “they shall blow an alarm”; the sentence without a formal subject should be taken as a passive idea.


There is no expressed subject in the initial temporal clause. It simply says, “and in the assembling the assembly.” But since the next verb is the second person of the verb, that may be taken as the intended subject here.


Both the “adversary” and “opposes” come from the same root: צָרַר ( tsarar ), “to hem in, oppress, harass,” or basically, “be an adversary.”


The Niphal perfect in this passage has the passive nuance and not a reflexive idea – the Israelites would be spared because God remembered them.


The conjunction may be taken as explicative or epexegetical, and so rendered “namely; even; that is,” or it may be taken as emphatic conjunction, and translated “especially.”


The vav ( ו ) is taken here in its alternative use and translated “or.”


The form is the perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive. After the instruction imperfects, this form could be given the same nuance, or more likely, subordinated as a purpose or result clause.


The verb “to be” ( הָיָה , hayah ) has the meaning “to become” when followed by the preposition lamed ( ל ) .


Smr inserts a lengthy portion from Deut 1:6-8 , expressing the command for Israel to take the land from the Amorites. tn The expression is difficult; it is מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדֻת ( mishkan ha ’ edut ). The reference is to the sacred shrine that covered the ark with the commandments inside. NEB renders the expression as “tabernacle of the Token”; NAB has “the dwelling of the commandments.”


Heb “mouth.”


Heb “hand.”


Heb “carrying the sanctuary,” a metonymy of whole for parts, representing all the holy objects that were located in the sanctuary.


The verb is the third person plural form; without an expressed subject it is treated as a passive.


Heb “against their coming.”


The MT uses a word that actually means “assembler,” so these three tribes made up a strong rear force recognized as the assembler of all the tribes.


Or “journeyings of.”


The verb is the preterite with vav ( ו ) consecutive. But in this sentence it should be subordinated as a temporal clause to the preceding statement, even though it follows it.


The verb is the Hiphil of the root “to be good” ( יָטַב , yatav ); it may be translated “treat well, deal favorably, generously with.” Here it is a perfect tense with vav ( ו ) following the imperative, showing a sequence in the verbal ideas.


The Hebrew text simply has “has spoken good” for Israel.


Heb “he”; the referent (Hobab) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “he”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The form with אַל־נָא (’ al-na ’) is a jussive; negated it stresses a more immediate request, as if Hobab is starting to leave, or at least determined to leave.


In the Hebrew text the expression is more graphic: “you will be for us for eyes.” Hobab was familiar with the entire Sinai region, and he could certainly direct the people where they were to go. The text does not record Hobab’s response. But the fact that Kenites were in Canaan as allies of Judah ( Judg 1:16 ) would indicate that he gave in and came with Moses. The first refusal may simply be the polite Semitic practice of declining first so that the appeal might be made more urgently.


Heb “and it shall be.”


The phrase “a journey of three days” is made up of the adverbial accusative qualified with the genitives.


The scribes sensed that there was a dislocation with vv. 34-36 , and so they used the inverted letters nun ( נ ) as brackets to indicate this.


The adverbial clause of time is composed of the infinitive construct with a temporal preposition and a suffixed subjective genitive.


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.


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.


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


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.”


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.


Heb “Moses.”


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.


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.”


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 ).


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.