NUMBERS, BOOK OF. The fourth book of Moses. Traces the history of the Heb. people during their wilderness wanderings from Mount Sinai to the plains of Moab.

1. Title. The Eng. title is a literal tr. of the LXX ̓Αριθμοί. This title reflects the censuses of chs. 4 and 26. Some have proposed that this title was chosen by someone with a superficial knowledge of the book since the censuses appear to have so little to do with its major thrusts. This is esp. so since the Heb. title בְּמִדְבַּ֥ר, “in the wilderness” (based on the fifth word of the first v.), seems so much more apt. However, the two censuses do relate directly to the overall themes of the book. The first represents the organization of the people for the impending journey and the occupation of the land that was intended to follow shortly. The second census and its accompanying reorganization was necessitated by the people’s failure to obey God at Kadesh-barnea, the resulting death of that generation in the wilderness, and the preparation of the new generation to possess the land at last.

2. Background. Because the date of the Exodus is a matter of considerable controversy, the events that this book records are difficult to place in their precise context in ancient Near Eastern history. The Exodus is variously dated from 1440 b.c. to about 1260 b.c. The earlier date has been generally favored by conservatives because of several Biblical chronologies, notably 1 Kings 6:1. Archeologists have favored the later date.

The Book of Numbers is important in this debate esp. in one particular, that several chs. of the book (20-25; 31) deal with Israel’s relations with Edom in the Negeb and with the several Trans-Jordanian kingdoms. A noted archeologist, the late Nelson Glueck, made extensive surface explorations of the Negeb and Trans-Jordan areas between 1930 and 1940. His findings convinced him that during much of the second millennium b.c., prob. for climatic reasons, these regions were largely uninhabited, and only after 1300 was there settled occupation. If this were true, the early date for the Exodus would be impossible.

Recently, however, the validity of Glueck’s findings has been contested. In particular, L. Harding has pointed to well-stocked tombs of the Hyksos period (1750-1550 b.c.) in the neighborhood of Amman (Biblical Rabbath-Ammon). Such tombs argue against purely nomadic occupation. In addition, other discoveries have called into question the trustworthiness of surface observation alone without an accompanying archeological “dig.”

Whichever date one accepts for the Exodus, political conditions in the Sinai Peninsula and the Arabah would have favored the Hebrews. In 1440, during Ikhnaton’s reign, Egyp. influence outside its own borders was at a low ebb. In the later situation, although Ramses II (1290-1225) and his predecessor, Seti I, reasserted their control over Pal., Ramses does not seem to have had much influence in the Negeb and the Arabah. This is confirmed by two facts. First, Merneptah, Ramses’ successor, had to conduct a raid in those areas in 1225 to reestablish control. Second, an Egyp. temple recently found in the Arabah appears to have been largely destroyed at the beginning of the reign of Ramses and to have remained in this condition during his lifetime, only being repaired some years after his death. In either case, the Biblical indication that the Hebrews were not harassed by any outside power would be confirmed.

Recent articles concerning the role of the Midianites in the late second millennium have concluded that the Biblical references to this group are well suited to this era and would, in fact, be foreign to any other. They were a nomadic people who possessed little territory, but who through commercial and military enterprises controlled vast areas.

3. Composition. It has long been recognized that, from the point of view of structure, this book is of a more diverse nature than any other in the Pentateuch. Although the main organizing principle is chronological (the book begins at Sinai and ends on the threshold of the Promised Land, thirty-eight years later), much of the material appears to be in topical order. For example, Exodus ends with the Tabernacle erected and the Shekinah resident in it. This event is recapitulated in Numbers 9:15-21; suggesting the beginning of the next section of the narrative. This leaves the question: did the events of chs. 1-8 occur before or after the Tabernacle was erected?

This example and several others, which will be touched upon later in this discussion, have led many scholars to the belief that the book of Numbers is not a literary unity. That is, the materials in the book were not rigidly organized according to one principle. Rather, the book is a collection of those accounts that apply to the Wilderness period, with diverse materials such as legislation, genealogy, and travel accounts, being inserted into a loosely constructed chronological framework. The presence of smooth transitions between episodes in some cases and their lack in others favors this conclusion.

The Wellhausen school of Biblical criticism found the diversity of material in the book well-suited to its documentary hypothesis. Based upon the evidence of two divine names, Yahweh (KJV Jehovah, RSV Lord) and Elohim (God), the difficulty of reconciling practices of Judges and Samuel with those prescribed in the Pentateuch, and a refusal to credit special revelation, scholars of the 19th cent. concluded that the Pentateuch in its present form came at the end of OT history, in the time of Ezra and not at the time of Moses. Their contention was that four separate books or documents had been written during the course of Israel’s history, each with a concept of God and religion somewhat more developed than the former. These were J for Jehovah (or Judah, ca. 850 b.c., [dates vary from scholar to scholar]), E for Elohim (or Ephraim, ca. 750 b.c.), D for Deuteronomy (621 b.c.), and P for Priestly (444 b.c.). J and E were combined first, then D was appended. Finally, P was worked into the JED compilation, giving the whole a decidedly legalistic and priestly cast.

As mentioned above, the apparent diversity of Numbers seemed clear evidence of the validity of such an approach. The book has been divided as follows: JE, Num. 10:29-12:15; 20:14-21; 21:12-32; 22:2-25:5. P included the rest of the book’s contents except 21:33-35, which was assigned to D (on the basis of a parallel with Deuteronomy 3:1-3). J and E could not be separated in Numbers because the one criterion, supposed differing use of the divine names, is not applicable. The names are used interchangeably. In fact, those passages where one would expect “God” to be used, according to critical theory, are the very ones that use “Yahweh,” and vice versa.

The inherent fallacies and weaknesses in the JEDP system have long been pointed out by theological conservatives and others who were not so oriented. It has been the recovery, however, of large amounts of information concerning the ancient Near E that has caused a basic reorientation in the theory. The following points are relevant to the study of Numbers. The method of construction that the documentary hypothesis embraced was unknown in the ancient Near E. No examples can be adduced of two (not to mention four) complete books being cut apart and the majority of their contents being interleaved into one volume. It appears that a written lit. grew as stories or groups of traditions were compiled to form a whole. Often (e.g., the Gilgamesh epic) the same units of tradition might be combined differently to form several different wholes. But the documentary hypothesis saw the process in reverse, with several wholes being broken into units to form one new whole. Second, it is evident that the kind of rigid restriction of material (only narrative in this volume, only legislation in that, only priestly concerns in that) is an artificial criterion for distinguishing different sources. A third inherent fallacy that has become apparent was Wellhausen’s belief that development was inevitably upward. Fuller understanding of history has shown that man’s progress often has been in great bursts of development, or insight, followed by a slip backward and then long centuries of slow recovery of what had been formerly momentarily possessed. This corresponds well with the history of Israel. The revelation at Sinai could not even be carried through the desert without being forgotten and/or corrupted. Fourth, it is now very clear that the conviction concerning the lateness of the priesthood and of priestly concerns in Israel is completely false. The primacy of priest and cult in all the early civilizations of the ancient Near E makes it impossible to deny the Biblical claims (such as those in Numbers) that priestly concerns were of great importance in early Israel.

If the JEDP system cannot adequately explain the composition of the Book of Numbers, how did it arrive at its present form? J. S. Wright has made the following proposal: Presuming that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (see section on authorship), it is reasonable to assume that various kinds of information were collected in different ways. Many records, such as itineraries, may have been jotted down as time permitted. These, along with Moses’ personal reminiscences and observations, would have been kept with his own belongings. Revelations and legal materials may well have been handed over to the priests for publication and enactment. Still other information, such as genealogies, may have been recorded by scribes or others.

Near the end of Moses’ life he may have felt that this mass of material relating to the Exodus and the sojourn, variously recorded and filed, ought to be collected in one library or collection of scrolls. It is suggested that by this time Moses had prepared a group of longer scrolls that contained the basic narratives. The beginning of these scrolls is marked by a somewhat slow-moving recapitulation of the situation at the end of the previous roll. In addition, there were several long legislative scrolls. When these two groups were placed in approximate chronological order, the shorter records, consisting of revelations, laws, and genealogies, were placed in the gaps between larger groups. Sometimes these smaller units were placed as near their correct chronological position as possible, but at other times they were treated more topically.

When these suggestions are applied to Numbers, the following emerges: The previous narrative scroll concluded at the end of the present Book of Exodus. After this were collected all the revelations and regulations that pertained to the cult and the covenant that had been given during the Sinai period (many of them prior to the setting up of the Tabernacle). These regulations include the entire Book of Leviticus and extend to Numbers 9:15. They are broken in two places, Numbers 1-4 and 7, by miscellaneous records, which perhaps had also been in the keeping of the priests.

The new narrative scroll began at 9:15 with a lengthy introduction. This narrative continues through ch. 14, where it breaks off abruptly. Chapter 15 is composed of miscellaneous revelations and records dealing with cultic observance. Their significance at this point in the account is not completely clear (see discussion on content). Wright suggests that chs. 16-19 are grouped together because all are dealing with priestly prerogatives. Chapters 20 and 21 appear to be a collection of narrative fragments that are supplemented with an itinerary and quotations from a now-lost Heb. epic poem of the period. The Tale of Balaam (22-24) with its Mosaic epilogue constitute a return to highly detailed narrative. There follows a collection of miscellaneous materials through ch. 30. Included are census records, revelations, reports of revelations, and reports of legal judgments. Chapter 31 picks up the narrative dropped at ch. 25 carrying it through 32:32. The remainder of the book is again a miscellaneous collection.

This recognition of the composite literary nature of the book in no way denies its unity of outlook, purpose, or theology. It is clear that all of the units of tradition have the same view of God and of His purpose in Heb. history. These are not accounts whose fundamentally different purposes or understandings have been warped to conform to one overriding viewpoint. Rather, the eminently successful combination of such diverse literary structures could have been possible only because of their remarkable internal unity.

4. Authorship. Tradition has long held that the Pentateuch was authored by Moses. This tradition goes back at least as far as the NT where Jesus and the apostles attest it in passing (they nowhere argue for it). Various scholars have questioned this. One of the first was Jerome, tr. of the Lat. Vul. in the 5th cent. a.d. Not questioning the Pentateuch’s origin with Moses, he yet voiced the conviction that the five books had been subject to considerable revision, with Ezra being responsible for the final revision.

This last note was re-echoed by the liberal critics of the 19th cent. They were convinced, however, that Moses did not write any of the Pentateuch and doubted seriously if he was actively connected with more than a small fraction of the material. Rather, unknown authors were responsible for J and E, perhaps the priest Hilkiah for D, and Ezra for P as well as for the final revision in which he everywhere thrust his peculiar legalistic and priestly concerns on the former writings.

Recent OT criticism is divided on this issue. At one end of the spectrum is W. F. Albright who, while denying Mosaic authorship as such, has asserted more and more positively that the majority of Pentateuchal materials must be traced to Moses for their origin. On the other hand, the late Ger. scholar, Martin Noth, made the Pentateuchal traditions the work of the twelve tribes in Canaan and denied that a man called Moses ever led the Heb. people or had anything to do with their traditions. Between these extremes an almost infinite variety of critical opinion is held.

Conservative scholars have generally refused to give up the traditional view. It is clear that the plain sense of Scripture supports some form of this opinion. Although there is no statement in the Pentateuch that Moses wrote the five books in toto, there are numerous statements that he wrote portions of them (in Numbers, see Num 33:2). In confirmation of this, archeology has shown that, contra Wellhausen, writing was widely known at this time. More telling than this is the fact that the Pentateuch (after Genesis, which is prologue) plainly claims to record the events and revelations that occurred in the years between the Exodus and the Conquest. If this is so, and if Moses was indeed recording itineraries and other information, who more than he should be responsible for the writing of these materials?

On the other hand, the Bible does not make it an article of faith that Moses wrote every word of the Pentateuch. Numbers yields several instructive examples in this respect. It may be noted that Numbers (as well as Exodus and Leviticus) everywhere refers to Moses in the third person, except in direct quotations. This does not suggest the direct writing of Moses. The praise of Moses as the meekest man on earth (Num 12:3) would be rather crass if it were coming from Moses’ own mouth (unless one presumes that the passage was dictated to Moses by God, which is nowhere indicated). The reference to the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num 21:14f.) prob. indicates an editor’s use of a slightly later source to better pinpoint the place of the camp to a generation no longer familiar with the exact area. Again, Numbers 32:34-42 seems to date to the settlement period as an editor’s statement of what the Trans-Jordanian tribes eventually did in the lands that the action just described (32:1-32) had promised to them. These relatively minor matters in no way detract from the integrity of the Pentateuch, unless one assumes that editors were necessarily uninspired, an unwarranted conclusion. Mosaic authorship, as taught by the Bible, nowhere demands that every word be his.

5. Purpose. The apparent purpose in compiling the Book of Numbers is to record the beginnings of the outworkings of the covenant in Israel’s life. Modifications and adjustments in the structure of covenant stipulations are reported. More importantly, Israel’s reaction to those stipulations is recorded. The themes of trust and obedience are paramount, and the intimate relation of these to the blessing or curse from God is illustrated again and again.

6. Text. Like most of the rest of the Pentateuch, the text of Numbers seems to have been remarkably stable. Variants in the Samaritan rescension and the LXX are generally minor and, on established principles of textual criticism, generally indicate the MT to be the better text. The Samaritan rescension is characteristically expansionist, including wherever possible parallels from Deuteronomy. Likewise, variants in the LXX are usually longer than the MT.

Portions of one of the Numbers scrolls from Qumran (4Q Num^b) exhibit a most interesting textual character. This text seems to occupy a middle ground between the Samaritan rescension and the LXX. Ordinarily it follows the Samaritan rescension, exhibiting similar expansionist tendencies and often agreeing with the minor Samaritan rescension deviations from the MT. However, in cases where the MT and the Samaritan rescension agree against the LXX, this text normally follows the LXX. Frank Cross is of the opinion that this kind of text was the normal Palestinian text during the 5th-2nd centuries b.c., and that the expansions are the result of continual rabbinical revision. On the other hand, the MT was preserved in a much more conservative priestly climate in Babylon, being reintroduced in Pal. only in the 2nd and 1st centuries b.c.

7. Special Problems.

a. Census numbers. It has been recognized for many years that a fighting force of some 600,000 fighting men (Num 1:46; 26:51) indicates a total community of between two and three million people. Although not an a priori impossibility, this literal interpretation is called into question by several factors. Great armies of this period (e.g., Egypt and Assyria) numbered only in the tens of thousands. Indeed, Joshua’s army appears to have been only about forty thousand (whereas Josh 4:13 may only refer to the number of Reuben, Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh, 8:3, 11, 12 seem to indicate that forty thousand was the total. If all the fighting men went with him, as is explicitly said, and he only used thirty-five thousand, then 555,000 men would have been left as spectators—which seems highly unlikely.) The difficulty of feeding three million people in the Sinai desert has been noted. In addition, archeological investigation indicates that the total population of Canaan at this time was somewhat less than three million, which makes it difficult to understand how the Canaanites were able to restrict the Heb. conquest to the central highlands.

None of these arguments is insuperable (for a detailed defense see Whitelaw, ISBE, IV, 2166, 2167). Yet they are all troublesome, and several alternative proposals have been put forward. R. K. Harrison suggests that large numbers had a fixed symbolism that is now lost to us. Other suggestions have to do with the meaning of the Heb. word אֶ֫לֶפ֮, H547, (a thousand). The word ’alluph (chieftain) uses the same consonants, and it has been proposed that this latter word is what was intended. Thus, for example, Numbers 1:39 would read 60 chieftains and 2700 men from Dan instead of 62,700 men. Another suggestion holds that ’eleph did not originally mean “a thousand,” but rather “a troop” or “military unit.” By this reasoning only later was the number of men in such a unit fixed at one thousand. The army included 600 troops of soldiers. Each of these solutions has numerous problems implicit in it, so that a final solution cannot be claimed.

b. Biblical evaluation of the period. It often has been claimed that the prophetic evaluation of the period is different from that found in the Pentateuch itself. Passages such as Amos 5:25; Hosea 2:15; 9:10; 11:1-4; Jeremiah 2:2, 3; 31:2 are quoted to show that the prophets regarded this period as an idyllic time, when Israel lived in unbroken fellowship with God. In contrast, it is said, the writers of P, and those under the influence of that school, were so impressed by God’s dramatic punishment in the Exile that they came to believe that Israel had never served God faithfully. As a result, they forced their interpretation into the Pentateuch.

A study of the prophetic passages quoted demonstrates that the supposed contrast is much overdrawn. It is not said that all Israel served God without fail in the wilderness. Rather, the period is looked upon from the point of view of the prophets’ own apostate times. The point is that at least in the wilderness Israel did not seek other gods. She was responsive to Yahweh, even though she often disobeyed him. The prophets in their time observed that Israel no longer even responded to God’s overtures. Several of the references stress the helplessness of Israel and God’s care of her. A wistfulness is expressed because, despite that care, Israel turned her back on Yahweh so completely.

c. Itinerary of the wilderness journey. Attempts to reconstruct the wilderness journey have been, for the most part unsuccessful. Two reasons account for this. In the first place, the sites named are not easily identifiable cities whose names have remained the same over many centuries. Instead, they were scattered campgrounds that are difficult to recognize and whose names may have differed with different groups. Second, the Biblical data are difficult to harmonize.

Numbers 33 suggests four stages in the journey: Egypt to Sinai (Num 33:3-15); Sinai to Ezion-Geber (33:16-35); Ezion-geber to Kadesh (33:36, with thirty-seven years wandering spent in this area? Cf. 13:26; 20:1.); Kadesh to Moab (33:36, 37). Although this reconstruction corresponds well with Deuteronomy 1:46 and 2:1, there are at least three difficulties with it. The first is the obvious fact that Numbers 33 includes no mention of the encampments during the years in the Kadesh area. This silence has led radical critics to deny that there was any wandering. They contend that 20:1 picks up the narrative within days of where 14:45 leaves it. Defeated in their attempt to enter the land from the S, the Hebrews simply turned away and went around to the E.

The second difficulty is the large number of encampments between Sinai and Eziongeber, whereas 11:34 and 12:16 imply only two stops on a more direct route to Kadesh. A third factor is the command of 14:25 to go away from Kadesh “tomorrow...by the way to the Red Sea,” a movement which is not reflected in the above interpretation of ch. 33.

In view of these difficulties, the following reconstruction may be proposed: Perhaps Rithmah (33:18, 19) refers to the Wadi Abu Retemat, which is just S of Kadesh. Thus, Rithmah would have been the location of the camp at the time the spies were sent out (KD, III, 243). If this is correct, then the seventeen places recorded in 19-36 would refer to the thirty-seven years of wandering. This means that the Hebrews began their sojourn at Kadesh (13:26; 33:36, 37), wandered in the area S and E of there to Ezion-geber (33:20-35), eventually terminating at Kadesh again (20:1; 33:36). Frustrated in their attempt to drive NE through Edom to the Red Sea, they turned southward again (21:4), entered the Arabah N of Ezion-geber, and from there proceeded to Moab. This reconstruction, not without difficulties, has the virtue of reconciling most of the Biblical data.

8. Content.

a. Outline.

b. At Sinai. The materials of this section round out our knowledge of the Hebrews’ eleven-month stay at Sinai. Whether or not all of these events occurred between the first and the twentieth days of the second month of the second year (Num 1:1; 10:11) is not possible to ascertain, esp. since the subjects appear to be grouped topically (see outline) rather than chronologically.

It has been urged at various times that the square camp (2:1-34) is an artificial design created by later priests who knew nothing of the actual events. Recent studies, however, of Egyp. encampments during the time of Ikhnaton and Ramses II indicate that Egyp. armies of that time used the square camp pattern, whereas the Assyrian armies of later days used a round pattern.

The first vv. of ch. 5 present a fine example of transition from one topical collection to another. Earlier, the camp was discussed. Here, the regulation concerning leprosy in the camp leads smoothly into a collection of miscellaneous regulations. Perhaps these regulations, similar to many others in the book, were given by God in response to specific situations. This may account for their rather random nature and the fact that they are not included in the larger body of legislation in Leviticus.

Of special interest is the trial-by-ordeal for infidelity (5:11-31). This “lie-detector” test was a very ancient practice in the ancient Near E and attests to the antiquity of the Book of Numbers. The practice appears barbarous to those of the present day, but examination shows that, viewed in the context of the ancient world, the Bible’s application of the ordeal was remarkably restrained and humane.

Again note that the regulation concerning the benediction of the priests (6:22-26) leads into a section containing narration and legislation having to do with the Tabernacle. This indicates the care with which the material was collected. It is not simply a haphazard arrangement, but one which shows order and logic.

c. Sinai to Kadesh. Virtually all commentators connect the narrations of the Pillar and the Trumpets (Num 9:15-10:10) to the first section of the book. This is compelling since 10:11ff. speak so distinctly of the departure. On the other hand, the section on the Pillar and the Trumpets has nothing to do with the encampment but everything to do with the journey. In its generality, it provides a transition from the encampment and an introduction to the journey.

This section is notable for its consistent record of distrust and disobedience on the part of the people. All segments are included. The entire people were involved in the craving for meat (ch. 11) and again in the refusal to enter the land (and, conversely, their attempt to enter after it had been refused them, ch. 14). Miriam and Aaron were caught up in it (ch. 12), as were tribal leaders (ch. 13). Chapter 14, with the primary disobedience and the major punishment, is the watershed of the book.

d. Wilderness sojourn. On the face of it, ch. 15 with its several commandments and regulations seems an anticlimax after the drama and tragedy of 14. Perhaps a combination of reasons explains this material’s presence at this point. First, prob. a narrative scroll ended at ch. 14, leaving a place for insertions. Second, although the land had been denied to the present generation, it had been promised to the next. These regulations concerning the land served to seal that promise. Third, it was failure to observe these very kinds of commands that had brought Israel to this unhappy place. It must not happen again.

Chapters 16-18, although seeming diverse, all deal with the life of the priesthood, its meaning and value in the Heb. nation. Contrary to Wright’s suggestion, however, ch. 19, with its prescriptions for cleansing from uncleanness acquired by association with the dead, does not seem to fit into that priestly topic. Perhaps it was included at this point because of its beginning with a command to the priests.

The reader of Numbers often is startled to learn how little actually is said of the thirty-seven years in the wilderness. Even if it be granted that chs. 20 and 21 contain incidents scattered throughout the whole period, we know very little. If on the other hand, as Scripture seems to indicate, all of the events related in these chs. took place on the way to Moab during the last year of the journey, we know next to nothing. Perhaps it may be that the old generation, having committed the final apostasy, is of no more concern in the outworking of the covenant.

e. On the plains of Moab. The engaging tale of Balaam (Num 22-24) has been subjected to a number of studies by Prof. Albright. He suggests that whereas the rest of the language of Numbers represents the updating and modernizing of a later era, the poetic sections of this account reach back into the 13th cent. This provides another confirmation of the authenticity of the sources of the book.

After the apostasy at Peor (ch. 25), virtually all of the remainder of the book looks forward to the conquest. A second military census is taken. Miscellaneous questions concerning land allotment and inheritance are answered. The new commander is appointed. The final threat of an enemy behind their backs (the Midianites) is removed, and the Promised Land is allotted to the two and a half tribes. In contrast to the previous generation, whose disobedience was more pronounced as it got closer to its destination, there is about this group an aura of faith and purpose that was (as related in Joshua) to open the door of the land to them.

9. Theology. A comparison of Numbers with examples of modern critical history writing will demonstrate a crucial difference between the two. Whereas modern history seeks primarily to give a full account of what happened and from a human point of view to explain why it happened, the Book of Numbers is seeking to convey a point of view concerning the nature of the Creator and His creation. This need not presuppose that Numbers therefore does not accurately report those historic events which it records. In fact, given the truth that it is in history which God reveals Himself, there is every reason to believe that the Hebrews would be at pains to treat historic events as exactly as possible that they might know God better. What is different is that Numbers does not record all events, but only those that best convey the truths the book is seeking to teach. It is a selective history, with theological truth constituting the criterion for selection.

The book’s theology revolves around the outworking of the covenant between God and Israel. In the latter half of Exodus and virtually all Leviticus the stipulations of the covenant are detailed. In return for protection and blessing and a new land, the people agree to serve God only, and that without idolatry. When the covenant was put into practice, however, the gap between profession and reality is plain. A covenant’s working principle is trust, yet it is evident that the Israelites, particularly the first generation, found it almost impossible to trust. The extreme sinfulness of man is taught as clearly in this book as in any other in Scripture. Man does not tend upward toward God and goodness. Rather, given every evidence of God’s presence (the Tabernacle) and His power (various deliverances), man remains proud, selfish, and afraid.

In contrast, God’s faithfulness is clearly depicted in the book. The covenant was broken repeatedly and finally in such a way that the people would not even allow God to keep His promise to them. He would have been more than justified in abandoning them or even destroying them, as He threatened. It took fervent intercessory prayer by Moses to bring from God the continuation of the covenant. He did not annul it even though the people, by their action, had chosen to do so. His purpose to do good to this nation, and through it to the world, would not be thwarted.

The anger of God, as depicted in ch. 14, is offensive to many people and often is termed “sub-Christian.” But it depicts the personal nature of God and expresses the dynamic, passionate nature of Biblical faith. Halfhearted faith is an abomination in the Bible. This divine “explosion” is much more understandable and acceptable to the fiery Mediterranean temperament than it is to the more stolid and inhibited outlook of the northern European peoples.

Another truth that this book teaches is the holiness of God. God is unutterably holy. This is not infinite versus finite, but it is a question of ethical purity, as the entire law shows. In this respect there is a gulf fixed between God and man, which can only destroy that person who attempts to bridge it (Miriam, Korah). The impure cannot exist in the presence of the pure. A myriad of object lessons is used to teach the Heb. people this truth. The minute distinctions between clean and unclean objects, the safeguards around the Tabernacle and its service, the mass of concrete legislation, are all endeavors to demonstrate that in the spiritual and moral realms, there is that which defiles and separates, and there is that which cleanses and unites. God in His grace provided and provides a way of access into His holy presence.

Christians can find great profit in the study of this book. They will find in it valuable correctives for over-familiarity with almighty God. They will gain new appreciation for the dimensions of the gulf that God’s grace has bridged in Jesus Christ. They will become more sensitive to their own great professions and little trust. They will rejoice in the consistency of God’s purpose to bless those who will in the slightest degree permit Him to do so. They will be strengthened to believe God for deliverance from situations beyond their control. They will be encouraged to press on from the vagaries of a “desert” existence to that Christian rest that is the inheritance of every Christian, if he will but possess it.

Bibliography G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (1912); T. Whitelaw, ISBE, IV (1939), 2163-2170; W. F. Albright, “The Oracles of Balaam,” JBL, LXIII (1944), 207-233; KD, III (1949), 1-268; J. S. Wright, “The Composition of the Pentateuch,” EQ, XXV (1953), 2-17; G. E. Mendenhall, “The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26,” JBL, LXXVII (1958), 52-66; INT, XIII (1959); E. J. Young, Introduction to the Old Testament, rev. ed. (1960), 89-98; M. Haran, “Studies in the Accounts of the Levitical Cities,” JBL, LXXX (1961), 45-54, 156-165; M. Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (1968); W. A. Sumner, “Israel’s Encounters with Edom, Moab, Ammon, Sihon and Og according to the Deuteronomist,” VetTest, XVIII (1968), 216-228; O. Eissfeldt, “Protektorat Der Midianiter über ihre Nachbarn im letzten Viertel des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr.,” JBL, LXXXVII (1968), 383-393; G. W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness (1968); R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (1970), 614-634.