AUTHOR

The book of Numbers is about faithfulness—portraying the faithfulness of God in dealing with a people who are often unfaithful. As a whole the book presents a challenge to the people of God to live holy and righteous lives according to the Word of God, and as a result enjoy the blessings and benefits of living in right relationship to him.

The English title “Numbers” derives from the Septuagint name Arithmoi, based on the two censuses in chapters 1 and 26, as well as other references to the twelve tribes of Israel. The Hebrew title, Bemidbar—“In the Wilderness,” describes the geographical setting of much of the book. After deliverance from bondage and oppression in Egypt, Israel would experience God’s faithfulness in the wilderness. There he provided for their needs and promised them a land of fullness and prosperity—“flowing with milk and honey” (Nm 14:8). The challenge for the people was to live faithful to God’s revelation and to receive their inheritance of the land promised to Abraham and the patriarchs in the past, and to their descendants in the present and future.

Traditionally, Christian scholars have held that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, except for the account of his death in Deuteronomy 34. In support of this view are several explicit comments which Moses personally wrote down the words of the covenant from God (Ex 24:4; Dt 31:9), the stages of the Israelite journey from Egypt to Moab (Nm 33:2), and the song of Israel’s rebellion (Dt 31:19-22). In addition, hundreds of references are made to the Lord revealing himself to Moses (from Ex 3:4 to Dt 34:4). The New Testament also ascribes the Pentateuch to Moses, usually in the context of Jesus’s references to Pentateuch laws (Mt 8:4; 19:7-9; Mk 1:44; 7:10; Lk 5:14; 24:44; Jn 1:17,45). Several times references to the Scriptures are voiced in the phrase, “Moses and the prophets,” in which Moses is equated with the pentateuchal Torah (Lk 16:31; 24:27,44; Ac 28:23).

Ascribing the Pentateuch to Moses would place the date of the book of Numbers in the late fifteenth century or late thirteenth century BC. Based on ancient archaeological and historical evidence, several parallels to this era exist internally in the book of Numbers. The census lists in chapters 1 and 26 show parallels with those found in texts from Egyptian, Mari, Ugarit, and Alalakh of the second millennium BC, and the organization of the Israelite tribal camps in a rectangular fashion around the central shrine is similar to the encampment of the armies of Ramses II of the thirteenth century BC. G. Wenham notes several other second millennium parallels among the people of the ancient Near East, including: (1) the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 BC) design of the lampstand (Nm 8:4); (2) tasseled garments (Nm 15:38); (3) the positioning of the Levites as guardians of the tabernacle (Nm 1:50-51); (4) the bronze serpent (Nm 21:9) which is similar to one found in the excavation of a Midianite shrine at Timna’; and (5) the holy day calendar (Nm 28–29) which finds parallels at both Ugarit and Emar from the fifteenth to the fourteenth centuries BC.

Most evangelical scholars suggest that the book of Numbers originated in the age of Moses and Joshua, with varying degrees of minor expansion and editing through the early kingdom periods. The prophets of the eighth through the sixth centuries BC exhibit great familiarity with the words of the law, and in fact most of their oracles of judgment are founded upon knowledge of the Pentateuch.

THE NUMBER OF ISRAELITES IN THE MILITARY

One of the most controversial issues in the interpretation of the book of Numbers is the large numbers of Israelites reflected in the military censuses of Numbers 1–2 and 26. When taken literally the numbers of the Israelite militia total 603,550 in the first census and 601,730 in the second census yielding a total population of four to five times those figures, or 2 to 3 million or even more. Critical scholars challenged this interpretation based upon several external and internal issues. External to the text are the following: (1) the ability of the Sinai region to support that many people, (2) the need for at least a three- to five-square-mile area to house such a group, (3) the lack of archaeological evidence for any sizeable population ever existing in any of the regions or sites listed in the Israelite itinerary, and (4) the lack of evidence of an immense burial and garbage disposal site anywhere in the region.

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.