Numbers Introduction

The first critique does not accept the supernatural way in which the texts of Exodus and Numbers describe God’s provision of manna and meat for the people. The issue of space depends upon where one locates Mount Sinai. The traditional site of Jebel Musa in the southern Sinai peninsula may not have a broad enough single area, but other regions would have more ample space. The final two issues can be resolved through the understanding of the practices of nomadic peoples who leave relatively little trace of their material culture except in a culturally significant location, like a clan burial site.

The internal difficulties also present problems for the traditional literal approach. First, the 603,550 total male militia over 20 years of age (Nm 1:46; 2:32) would yield a total male population of perhaps a million. Dividing by the 22,273 firstborn males (Nm 3:43), one would come up with 40–50 males per family, far more than is realistic. Second, in the period of the Judges, the armies of Deborah and Barak only numbered 40,000 (Jdg 5:8), far less than the 301,000 counted in the second census for those six tribes. The same general number of 40,000 are said to have crossed the Jordan toward Jericho (Jos 4:13), and only 30,000 were deployed against Ai and Bethel in the second campaign in Joshua (Jos 8:3).

Such problems have led many scholars to propose other options for interpreting the large numbers. (1) The census represents a later period in Israel’s history, such as the Davidic kingdom period. This view should be rejected since it assumes the unreliability of the numbers in their current context. (2) The numbers are hyperbolic, multiplied for rhetorical purposes perhaps by a factor of ten to highlight the providence of God in blessing Israel with an abundance of children. This view would only be acceptable if we assume the original readers understood the figurative nature of the numbers. (3) The Hebrew term ’eleph (“thousand”) should be translated as “clan” or “military unit” (see Nm 1:16; 10:4; 1Sm 10:19; 23:23; Mic 5:2). In this case, Numbers 1:20-43 would enumerate 598 clans comprising 5,550 men. However, the summation in Numbers 1:46 (see Ex 38:26; Nm 2:32) lists not 598 but six hundred ’eleph and three ’elaphim (and five hundred fifty). Also, in contexts of counting, the term seems to mean “thousand,” especially in the census of Numbers 1–4 where the number of thousands is always followed by the number of hundreds (except for an even 22,000 in Nm 3:39).

Any proposed solution that reduces the large numbers runs into other difficulties. A small group of Israelites could scarcely have provided the huge quantities of precious materials (over 2,000 pounds of gold alone!) for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 38:24-29). Archaeology informs us that Pharaoh Merneptah encountered Israel as a significant people about 1230 BC. The number of soldiers needed to invade Canaan was surely more than a few thousand. Also, the assignment of a half shekel for each warrior in Exodus 38:26 seems to confirm the literal number of 603,550 (also the round number of 600,000 in Ex 12:37).

Furthermore, the internal difficulties can be explained. The 22,273 firstborn males are those who were born in approximately a year and a half between the exodus from Egypt and the time of the census. A population that included 603,550 males would have about 200,000 males from age 20 to 30, which might result in about 20,000 marriages per year. Allowing for the possibility of two gestation periods in some cases, that population could produce 22,273 firstborn males in 18 months. As for the smaller armies in the books of Joshua and Judges, first, Deborah and Barak’s army of 40,000 (only 10,000 of which marched out) reflects Barak’s inability to recruit and muster all available men. While Saul was physically and rhetorically imposing and recruited an immense army (1Sm 9:2; 11:7-8), Barak was a wimp (Jdg 4:8). The fact that only 40,000 members of the Transjordan army crossed the Jordan may reflect their decision to hold back two thirds of their forces to protect their villages and homesteads, in spite of their promises to send them all (Nm 32:20-32). And the fact that Joshua only deployed 30,000 against Ai and Bethel simply reflects Joshua’s decision to use only as much force as he deemed necessary to accomplish the objective. Some soldiers would have been protecting the main camp, while others may have been unavailable for reasons of health or ceremonial uncleanness.

In conclusion, rejecting the large numbers in the Pentateuch and book of Judges seems to create far more difficulties than accepting them. Nevertheless, the issues involved are complex, and no scholarly consensus has been reached. Whatever the interpretation of the numbers, the theological importance is clear: in spite of the faithlessness of the people of Israel, God was faithful to bless and increase them even during the difficult times encountered in their wilderness journey.