TRANSLATING THE BOOK OF NUMBERS

The content of the book

The book of Numbers is the most diverse of the Pentateuch (Genesis – Deuteronomy)
with respect to its literary composition. It thus features many different genres,
including narratives and collections of poetry as well as legal, cultic, and ritual texts.
Frequently, these different types of writing come together in one passage, where it is
then important to distinguish them clearly when translating, not only with respect to
form but also with regard to communicative function.
The overriding concern throughout the book is how YHWH (Yahweh), the
Holy God, can be present among his chosen people. This is only possible if the
Israelites respect God’s holiness and moral purity by rigorously separating what is
holy, sacred and ritually clean from that which is profane and ritually unclean.
(Uncleanness, as defined in the Pentateuch, is caused by death, sins, and certain
bodily conditions that can be classed as abnormal.) The abundant legal and ritual
material in the book shows how this dividing line should be safeguarded. The
Israelites have to organize their way of life in the camp in certain ways and follow a
system of rituals, so as to keep the camp holy and keep out what is considered
unclean. This also applies to their personal lives. Sacrifices and purification are the
remedy for uncleanness. To this end, the dedication of the Levites, who are to serve in
the Tent of Meeting (the tent where God is present among his people), is regulated as
well. The Levites are to act as a human buffer between God and the people, who
cannot approach the holiness of God.[<Sherwood 2002:116] The book portrays a
ritually ideal situation: a proper dwelling for the presence of a holy God, who lives
among his chosen people. It also gives a vivid object lesson of the opposite scenario,
that is, what happens when people, who know better, deliberately disobey God. That
can only result in severe punishment, usually separation in the form of death.
The Israelites repeatedly rebel against Moses and worship other gods during
the journey in the wilderness, but these are not just narratives on their own. The
rebellions amount to contamination with what is unholy. Thus the people act contrary
to the will of their Lord and disregard the order of things that he has arranged to keep
Israel a people set apart to serve him alone (cf. Lev 26.45-46; Num 35.34). Therefore,
the disobedient generation has to be punished and die out before Israel’s journey to
the promised land of Canaan can be completed. The book of Numbers actually
becomes a story of two generations: the older generation that experienced deliverance
in the exodus but was rebellious and unfaithful to the Lord, and a new generation that
would be given another chance to remain faithful and thus enter the land of Canaan.
The primary textual markers of this generational structure are the two census
lists of the twelve tribes that occur in chapters 1 and 26. These two sets of “numbers”
serve to divide the book into two major portions, 1–25 and 26–36. During the first
section, the entire generation of rebellious people (those who escaped from Egypt
during the Exodus) die out in the wilderness; in the second section, the new
generation make preparations to finally enter the promised land of Canaan.
Even in the narrative texts of Numbers, the Lord’s overriding concern is for
his people Israel to remain holy to him and avoid any type of moral and spiritual
contamination. This thematic principle is more important in the overall organization
of the book than the strict chronological order of events. These events serve as vivid
object lessons regarding the results of obedience—or more often, disobedience—to
God. Ritual purity and defilement along with their relational consequences
(individuals or the entire people in relation to the Lord) are the key concepts that are
repeated throughout the book.
The book can be outlined according to a general geographical pattern as
follows: After an initial period of rest in the desert region of Sinai (I: 1.1-10.10), the
second part observes the gradual movement of the people of Israel from Sinai towards
the land of Canaan and records the major events that occurred along the way (II:
10.11-21.35). The book concludes with another period of non-movement, as the
people are encamped on “the plains of Moab, along the Jordan River, across from
Jericho” (III: 22.1-36.13).
Putting this in a larger context, it is worth noting briefly how Numbers fits into
the books of the Pentateuch and Joshua as a whole, since these books cover the
history of early Israel from the time their forefather Abraham entered the promised
land until they returned to it under Joshua.[< Milgrom xvii] In the middle of this
history, God’s covenant with the Israelites during their time of rest at Sinai (until
Num 10.11) marks the end of their slavery and the beginning of freedom. (Exo 19.1
mentions their arrival at Sinai.)

Outline of the Book of Numbers

I. Orientation [< Ashley 1993:8]: Regulations in the Desert of Sinai (1.1–10.10)

A. Organization 1.1–4.49
1. Census of the Israelites: the old generation 1.1-54
2. Encampment of the Israelite tribes 2.1-34
3. Census of the Levites and their tasks 3.1–4.49

B. Purity 5.1–6.27
1. Unclean people; unfaithful wives 5.1-31
2. Nazirites 6.1-21
3. The priestly blessing 6.22-27

C. Rituals and the system of worship 7.1–10.10

1. Offerings for dedicating the altar 7.1-89
2. The lamps 8.1-4
3. Dedicating the Levites 8.5-26
4. Passover 9.1-14
5. The cloud above the Tent of Meeting 9.15-23
6. The trumpets 10.1-10

II. Disorientation [< Ashley 1993:8]: Moving from the Desert of Sinai to the Land of
Moab (10.11–21.35)

A. From the Sinai to the wilderness of Paran 10.11–12.16

1. The Israelites break camp 10.11-36
2. The people complain 11.1-35
3. Miriam and Aaron contest Moses’ authority 12.1-16

B. Near the Land of Canaan 13.1–20.13

1. Spies explore the land of Canaan and report 13.1-33
2. The people rebel and provoke the Lord’s judgment 14.1-45
 3. Laws about sacrifices and offerings 15.1-29
4. Deliberate sin – a man breaks the sabbath 15.30-36
5. Tassels as reminders 15.37-41
6. Korah and others contest Moses’ and Aaron’s authority 16.1-50
7. Aaron’s budding staff demonstrates his authority 17.1-13
8. Duties and offerings of priests and Levites 18.1-32
9. Rituals using water for purification 19.1-22

C. From Kadesh to the plains of Moab 20.1–21.35

1. The people contest Moses’ and Aaron’s authority again 20.1-13
2. The king of Edom refuses to let the Israelites pass 20.14-21
3. The death of Aaron 20.22-29
4. Victory over Canaanites 21.1-3
5. Rebellion. The snake made of bronze 21.4-9
6. Journey to the plains of Moab 21.10-20
7. Victory over King Sihon and King Og 21.21-35

III. New Orientation [< Ashley 1993:8]: Encamped in the plains of Moab (22.1–
36.13)

A. Balaam is forced to bless Israel; Israel is unfaithful 22.1–25.18

1. The king of Moab sends for Balaam 22.1-20
2. Balaam and his donkey travel to Moab 22.21-40
3. Balaam’s first prophecy 22.41–23.12
4. Balaam’s second prophecy 23.13-26
5. Balaam’s third prophecy 23.27–24.14
6. Balaam’s final prophecies 24.15-25
7. Israel’s unfaithfulness at Peor; Phinehas’ faithfulness 25.1-18

B. Events near the Land of Canaan 25.19–33.49

1. Second census of the Israelites: the new generation 25.19–26.65
2. The inheritance case of Zelophehad’s daughters 27.1-11
3. Moses’ leadership and authority transferred to Joshua 27.12-23
4. A calendar of offerings and ritual festivals 28.1–29.40
5. Vows of women 30.1-16
6. Punishment and plunder of the people of Midian 31.1-54
7. Territory of the Israelite tribes east of the Jordan 32.1-42
8. Summary of the journeys from Egypt to the Jordan 33.1-49

C. Division of the land of Canaan 33.50–36.13

1. Instructions to defeat and divide the land 33.50–34.29
2. Cities for the Levites and cities of refuge 35.1-34
3. The land inheritance of married women 36.1-13

As this outline suggests, the book of Numbers can be treated as a coherent whole.
As Mary Douglas noted, the legal and narrative texts are not just separate
bodies of material, but they alternate throughout the book.[< Douglas 1993:102-103]
The chiastic structure below, which focuses on the book’s narrative and legal
chapters, only summarizes the circular ring structure she proposed for the book of
Numbers:[< Douglas 118-122]
A Narrative (1–4): God’s Order for Israel
B Law (5–6): Keeping Faith
C Narrative (7–8): Offerings
D Narrative and Law (9–10.10): Feasts (Passover) and Trumpets
E Narrative (10.11–14.45): In the Wilderness
F Law (15): Offerings and Purification
X Narrative (16–17): Crisis and Resolution
F’ Law (18–19): Offerings and Purification
E’ Narrative (20–27): In the Wilderness
D’ Law (28–30): Feasts (Passover) and Trumpets
C’ Narrative (31–33.49): Offerings
B’ Law (31.50–35): Keeping Faith
A’ Narrative (36): God’s Order for Israel

Through this alternation, law and narrative reinforce and respond to each other in an
ongoing process of elaboration and development.[<Gane 2004:479]
The laws prescribe how the people of Israel are to be organized as the holy
army of God as they travel to the land of Canaan, and what they are to do when they
arrive there, while the narrative describes the journey that this involves. Not only the
Israelites’ army is to be well-organized, but their camp and their system of worship
must manifest complete, obedient devotion to the Lord.[<Wenham 1981:14] The use
of rituals is not limited to crisis situations. The legal prescriptive texts are concerned
to create a total religious environment which continually reminds the people of God’s
immediate holy presence [<Wenham 1981:30] and how they must behave in order to
remain in fellowship with him.
In spite of its coherence, the book contains some minor discrepancies, which
suggest either that the book in all aspects is not the work of a single author or at least
that the final editorial process was carried out in stages over the years. For example,
according to 32.8 the spies, who explore the land of Canaan, were sent from Kadesh,
which is in the wilderness of Zin (see 20.1; 33.36), but in 13.3 they are sent from the
wilderness of Paran, which is more to the south. The point is that in 13.26 these two
locations are combined: ‘in the wilderness of Paran, at Kadesh’. The fact that Kadesh
is variously located in both wildernesses may well indicate that it was on the border of
those areas. More importantly, while 31.16 blames Balaam for persuading the women
of Midian to tempt the Israelites into worshipping another god, chapters 22–24
present a more positive, or at least more ambivalent picture of him. On the basis of
31.16, Balaam is still portrayed negatively in 2 Peter 2.15-16 and Rev 2.14.
No matter how one views the issue of authorship (whether one or many),
translators must deal with the text at hand and convey it in all its diversity, as clearly
and accurately as possible in the target language.

Numbers, other books, and the history of Israel

The book of Numbers includes many parallels to the book of Exodus in particular and
also to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In some of these cases, Numbers gives more
details, thus interpreting the other books further. These books have many sacrificial
and other ritual terms in common. Translators are encouraged to render these parallels
consistently in relation to each other. Thus, it is also recommended that translators
should carefully consult the UBS Handbooks on Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy
whenever such parallel passages are encountered in the text.
 The book of Numbers is concerned with what is holy particularly from the
perspective of the priests. During the later history of the people of Israel, the book
gave support to the rites in the temple and to the priests, who descended from Aaron
and who presided over these rites. The authority of the Aaronic priests was not to be
contested (chapters 16–17). The reputation and authority of Aaron in the book of
Numbers remains supreme due to the holy, almighty God whom he represented before
the people.

The title of the book: its significance

The ancient Greek version, the Septuagint, named it arithmoi ‘Numbers’, reflecting
the various censuses of the Israelites in the book. This title passed into the Latin
(Vulgate Numeri). Jewish tradition generally refers to it as bemidbar ‘In the
wilderness’, which comes from the corresponding phrase (“in the wilderness of
Sinai”) in the first verse of the book.
In the language of translation, the book is likely to be known under a name
derived from ‘Numeri’. But if this is not the case, it is preferable to provide the more
meaningful title ‘In the wilderness’ or ‘In the desert’, which reflects that of ancient
Jewish tradition.
Why would this title be especially meaningful? Not least because the desert is
a place for profound spiritual experiences, a place for spiritual and moral purification
(cf. Matt 4:1-11). The people of God in the book are on a journey: they have to make
choices between good and evil, between real and unreal, between pure and impure,
between obedience and disobedience to the Lord. Readers of the book are asked to do
the same. They must also realize that God is serious about his holiness and
corresponding desire for a holy, obedient people. Any form of disobedience (sin)
destroys the fellowship between God and his people. All those who refuse to obey
will indeed be severely punished; Israel had to learn that lesson again and again the
hard way. On the other hand, repeatedly throughout the book of Numbers the LORD
God demonstrates his mercy and willingness to forgive the penitent and restore them
to fellowship with him (e.g., Num 21.4-9). Numbers leaves an inheritance of hope for
all future generations who read this narrative of Israel’s journey in the wilderness and
who find themselves captured and shaped by this story of repeated human failures
overcome by God’s constant faithfulness.[< Olson 193]

Language and style

Large portions of Numbers consist of legal and judicial texts. The type of language
required in such literature demands precise forms and a rather technical vocabulary.
The concern for precision in the smallest detail sometimes results in a great deal of
repetition and a rather heavy style. At least it may seem so to us today. Translators
must therefore find out what kind of style is used in corresponding legal and judicial
texts in the language of the translation and then adapt the biblical text to the norms for
such texts in the receptor language (e.g., in terms of key terminology, verb tense
usage, participant/object reference, formulas or conjunctions for beginning new
sections, and so forth). It is also important that translators remain consistent in their
use of these repeated technical terms and discourse formulas. For this purpose, the
preparation of a translation word/phrase-book for Numbers may be very helpful for
use as a reference tool.
The phrase “The LORD said/spoke to Moses (and Aaron)…” is a common
discourse opener throughout the book, often beginning a major new section or a
different topic, e.g., 1.1; 2.1; 5.1, 5, 11; 6.1, etc. In narrative passages, this same
phrase seems to occur at some peak or turning point of the account, e.g., 16.23, 36;
20.7, 12; 21.8, 34.
Balaam’s prophecies and part of chapter 21 consist of poetry, which of course
require an appropriate manner of translation that will be dealt with in the commentary
on these sections.

Chronology?
The narrative texts include only a few chronological indications. Therefore, when
such temporal references occur they must be carefully noted in terms of both position
and function within the book of Numbers as a whole. For example, it is in the second
year after the exodus from Egypt, on the first day of the second month (1.1, 18) that
Moses is instructed to hold a census. But in 7.1, at the beginning of the major section
on rituals and the system of worship, the narrative moves back in time: the offerings
for the dedication of the altar are presented “on the day when Moses had finished
setting up the Tent of the LORD’s presence” (GNT). This important event −
according to Exo 40.2, 17 − already took place a month earlier, at the beginning of the
first month. The same day – “the day when the Tent of the LORD’s presence was set
up” (GNT) – is referred to in Num 9.15 when the cloud covers the Tent. And we are
still in that first month when Passover is celebrated in 9.1-5. It is only in 10.11, after
the section on rituals and the system of worship has been completed (7.1-10.10), that
the narrative returns to the second month of the second year. Suggestions as to how
translators might handle such potentially confusing matters will be given in the
commentary. The following chart, which is adapted from Cole,[<Cole 2000:135] may
be helpful.

Date Scripture Event

(month/day/year)
1/14/1 Exo 14.6, 31-32 Exodus from Egypt
3/14/1 Exo 19.1 Israel arrives at Sinai
1/1/2 Exo 40.2, 17 Tent of Meeting erected
Lev 8.1-36 Purification of priests begins
Lev 1.1–7.38 Offerings on the altar commence
Num 7.1, 3 Tribal offerings begin
Num 9.15 Cloud covers the Tent
1/8/2 Lev 9.1 Purification of priests concluded
1/14/2 Num 9.1 Second Passover
2/1/2 Num 1.1-2 First census commences
2/14/2 Num 9.11 Second Passover for impure people
2/20/2 Num 10.11 Cloud departs—Israel leaves Sinai

In Num 20.1 the chronological indication ‘in the first month’ is incomplete. In
33.38 Aaron dies ‘in the fortieth year after the Israelites had left Egypt’. But this year
is crucial: the Israelites were to wander in the wilderness for forty years until the
generation that had come out of Egypt would have died out (14.32-33) and the second
census (of chapter 26) would be needed. However, apart from this span of forty years,
the book pays little attention to the time sequence of events. Instead of paying much
attention to chronological development, the text is more static or topical in character.
Thus, even the narratives’ overriding concern is ritual and moral purity. Nevertheless,
the narratives do create suspense by repeating the complaints and rebellions of the
people against God and Moses. This raises a lingering question in the reader’s
(hearer’s) mind throughout the first half of the book: will the people eventually arrive
in the land of Canaan, or will their persistent disobedience finally exclude them?
This key question is answered in the third major section of the book, after the
second census (25.19 –26.65). This is another way in which the book of Numbers can
be organized, that is, along with the geographical plan that was summarized above.
The first census belongs to the “old generation of rebellion” (chapters 1–25), while
the second census begins “the new generation of hope” (chapters 26–36),[< Gane
2004:476-477] which no longer rebels against the Lord. A new beginning for Israel in
the second part of Numbers is suggested, for example, in the appointment of Joshua to
succeed Moses (27.12-23), the two sets of instructions concerning the inheritance of
Jewish women in the land of Canaan (27.1-11 and 36.1-13, an inclusio or envelope
structure), in the precise directions for dividing up the Promised Land, and in repeated
references to the people’s current location “by the Jordan [River] across from Jericho”
(26.3, 36.13 – another text-demarcating inclusio).
These details effectively set the stage for the book of Deuteronomy (cf. Deut.
1.1, 5). The book of Numbers is thus a transitional account, effectively bridging the
historical and legislative record from Leviticus (27.34; cf. Num 1.1) to Deuteronomy
(Num. 36.13; cf. Deut 1.1-5).

PART I: 1.1–10.10: REGULATIONS IN THE DESERT OF SINAI

Part I-A: 1.1–4.49: Organization

Numbers 1–2 records the census of the first generation of the people of Israel who left
Egypt in the Exodus and the arrangement of their camp. The two chapters are very
closely interrelated in subject matter and in the literary design that supports this
content. Numbers 3–4 shift the focus from the whole congregation of Israel to the
specific tribe of Levi and their special role in the cult, in the camp, and on the march.
All four chapters are organized around the two-part sequence of divine command
(“The Lord spoke to…”) and fulfilment by the people.

1.1-54
A census is taken to discover the number of men old enough for military duty.

Section Heading: “Census of the Israelites.” GNT has “The First Census of Israel”
which already suggests that another census will take place later (26.1-65). But here, in
the beginning of the book, there is no sign that the people will rebel and that only the
next generation will enter the land of Canaan, and that therefore there will be a second
census. So it may be better to leave out “first” in this section heading.
Verses 47-54 may be given their own section heading: “The role of the tribe of
Levi” or “the special work of the tribe of Levi.”

1.1
RSV
The Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting, on the
first day of the second month, in the second year after they had come out of the
land of Egypt, saying,
GNT
On the first day of the second month in the second year after the people of Israel
left Egypt, the Lord spoke to Moses there in the Tent of his presence in the Sinai
Desert. He said,

The Lord: In order to translate the proper name of God from the Hebrew,
RSV and GNT have adopted the solution chosen by numerous other English
translations. “Lord” (LORD) with all capital letters is used when the Hebrew has the
four consonants YHWH, as is the case here. But “Lord” is used when the Hebrew has
Adonay, meaning “Lord” or “Master.” Already before the Christian era, the Jews
avoided pronouncing the proper name of God, YHWH (a “positive taboo”). Instead,
they would pronounce the Hebrew title meaning “Lord.”
In some languages it is legitimate to add, if necessary, a possessive form such
as “my Lord” or “their Lord” (according to the context), although this was never done
with the personal name of God in Hebrew. This may be obligatory especially in
languages that have an inclusive/exclusive reference system. Otherwise it would
appear that the person speaking did not consider God to be his or her own God.
Some translations simply transcribe the Hebrew name YHWH as “Yahweh”
(NJB and NBJ), since it is a proper noun. However, the pronunciation in ancient times
− and hence the name’s spelling with vowels in languages today − is uncertain.
Other translations made an effort to render the supposed meaning of this name
by “the Eternal One” (for example, La nouvelle version Segond révisée 1995). The
name is an early form of the Hebrew verb hayah “to be” in the third person singular.
Such renderings replace a personal name by an impersonal abstraction, and this may
give a wrong impression in the Target Language (TL).
In some cultures there may be a familiar personal, tribal or national name for
the supreme Deity distinct from the generic term for “god” but quite similar in usage
to YHWH (for example, Chauta in Chewa, a major Bantu language of south-central
Africa). In such cases it may be wise to adopt this name as the equivalent for YHWH
and give a full explanation of the biblical name in the glossary or in the Introduction
to the Old Testament (or Genesis).
The Lord spoke to Moses: This expression, or something very similar, is
repeated again and again in Numbers to underscore the divine origin of all the
commands and directions that Moses gives to the people of Israel. This repetition
should be retained in a translation if possible, but in some cases, depending on the
nature of the translation, the phrase may have to be condensed or even omitted
sometimes for stylistic reasons. Notice how the GNT shifts this expression to a
position further in the sentence so as to produce a more natural reading. Other
languages may prefer a different position.
The wilderness: The word refers to a dry and barren, uncultivated region
where there may be some vegetation. Its main component of meaning is that it is a
desolate area where no human beings live. The target language term chosen should
not suggest a desert of sand with dunes and little else.
Sinai: As the GNT rendering “the Sinai Desert” shows, Sinai is the name of a
whole area, not just of the mountain. If the word “desert” is misleading, something
like “the Wilderness of Sinai” could be used instead.
The tent of meeting: Even at the beginning of the book, the tent of meeting is
already considered known to the reader. It is the portable sanctuary of the people of
Israel, described in Exodus 25-30, and in which God meets with Moses to
communicate to him the divine will (see Exo 33.7-11) and reveals himself to his
people. Translators should therefore be consistent in their use of this expression. The
GNT rendering, “Tent of his (the Lord’s) presence,” highlights these facts and may
provide a better model for most languages. Alternative renderings are “the tent where
the Lord is,” or “the tent where the Lord appears,” or “the holy tent.” Note that this
expression may need to be distinguished from the “tabernacle of the Testimony” in
1.50, which the GNT does not do (see further comments there).
In some languages the word tent itself presents problems. It has to be
translated “temporary (or, portable) shelter” or “house made of skins.”
There may be an equivalent in the target language that stems from ancient
ancestral religious practices. But such a term should be used only if it has already
been widely accepted among the churches.
The second month: The fact that this is one month after the completion of the
tent of meeting (Exo 40.17) seems more important than the actual name and place of
this month in the Hebrew calendar (Ziph, from mid-April to mid-May). This was
approximately 13 months after they had come out of the land of Egypt, that is, after
the Exodus, a major temporal point of reference in the history of Israel, equivalent to
the BC/AD distinction in classical Christian chronology.
The Hebrew word “month” (chodesh), literally “new moon,” has reference to
a lunar month, which includes roughly 29.5 days. Some languages may have a
distinct term for this, or even a traditional term for the lunar month which now refers
to the modern calendrical month, for example, Chewa mwezi “moon.”
GNT has reversed the order of the clauses in the verse, so that it is no longer
quite clear that “there” should refer to “the Sinai Desert.” Rather than reversing the
order of clauses, translators should first consider rendering the clauses in their
existing order but into separate sentences: “… This was on the first day of the second
month …” This is to ensure that not too much new information is packed into a single
sentence, though languages differ in how much is natural or normal in this respect.
They: GNT has made explicit that this refers to “the people of Israel.”

1.2-3
RSV
2
“Take a census of all the congregation of the people of Israel, by families, by
fathers' houses, according to the number of names, every male, head by head; 3
from twenty years old and upward, all in Israel who are able to go forth to war,
you and Aaron shall number them, company by company.

GNT
2
“You and Aaron are to take a census of the people of Israel by clans and
families. List the names of all the men 3 twenty years old or older who are fit for
military service.

Take a census: The Hebrew imperative form at this point is in the plural;
Moses is not the only person spoken to. This is also clear from verse 3: you (singular)
and Aaron. Hence the rendering in GNT: “You and Aaron are to take.” In 1.17 it is
indeed Moses and Aaron who carry out the instructions that are given here. So in
languages that lack a plural imperative form or in which a plural imperative on its
own would be awkward or overly ambiguous, GNT is a good model to follow. The
English word census refers to the “value, total amount, sum” of items to be counted.
Take a census is the equivalent of the original Hebrew idiom “lift up the head[s] of
...” (Chewa: “count up”; in some languages: “count the heads of …”).
 Congregation: A better equivalent for the Hebrew ‘edah would be
“community.” GNT leaves this term untranslated, perhaps because it considered this
term repetitive in combination with “people” in the same sentence. However, this is
not a good solution, if it can be avoided. ‘edah refers to the entire national, legal and
cultic society of Israel. The people that are numbered in the census are not only a
potential army but a worshipping community, people who are organized around the
Lord’s Tent of Meeting.[<Sherwood 2002:141] The word used for “congregation /
church” in the New Testament may not be satisfactory in translation, since it would
normally refer to a much smaller group. Thus, the vernacular word for “congregation”
(Chewa) would wrongly suggest that a meeting for worship is taking place.
By families, by fathers’ houses: The Hebrew expressions lemishpechotam
and levet ’avotam (literally ‘house of their fathers’), respectively, are not
synonymous. Here a mishpachah, a clan, is composed of several families or “houses.”
The GNT rendering “by clans and families” brings out this difference in size between
“clan”and “house” more clearly, beginning with the larger unit (compare Josh 7.14).
(Even in cultures where the term “clan” is sometimes used in the context of feuds
between families or factions in society, probably the nature of the subject of this
chapter with reference to Israel will still allow for the term “clan” to be used without
causing confusion over this.) A “house” is, at least, an extended family, which
includes three or four generations. If “houses” or a similar metaphorical term can be
maintained in the translation, fathers’ can be understood as “ancestral” (compare
NRSV: “in their clans, by ancestral houses”). The kinship system involved is clearly
based on patriarchal lines of descent, not matriarchal. Note that many languages do
not have separate words for families, clans, and tribes. Thus “clans” may have to be
represented as a short phrase such as “family groups,” and tribes (see verse 4) as
“large groups of families.”
Every male, head by head: The point of the phrase head by head is that no
man should be left out (compare NIV: “one by one”).
From twenty years old and upward … able to go forth to war: These two
phrases are not to be read separately but form one requirement; once a young man is
twenty he is considered mature enough to take part in military activities. This point
should be clear in the translation.
Number: A better equivalent for the Hebrew verb − (paqad) literally “visit” −
is “enroll (NRSV), record (NJPSVV), muster.”
Company by company: Literally “by their troops.” This term shows that the
census is primarily a military one. GNT has left it untranslated. The men are counted
in so far as they are fit for military service. Israel is arranged into a well-organized
army in preparation for their march to take possession of the land of Canaan.

1.4
RSV
And there shall be with you a man from each tribe, each man being the head of
the house of his fathers.

GNT
Ask one clan chief from each tribe to help you.”

With you: Again, this is in the plural in the Hebrew; not only Moses is
referred to, but Aaron as well.
 Tribe … house of his fathers: Israel consisted of twelve tribes. A tribe
(matteh), the largest social unit in the nation, was composed of several clans, which,
in turn, were composed of several families or houses. The renderings in a translation
may not exactly correspond in size with these terms, but they should at least reflect
the increasingly smaller units of organization recorded here; they should also fit in a
verse like Joshua 7.14 (“… tribes … clans … houses …”). Having a representative
from each tribe involved in making the census would help to ensure its fairness, hence
also credibility and legitimacy.
Given this framework of kinship terms, “family chief” would have been more
accurate in GNT than “clan chief.”
Each man being …: In this way RSV makes explicit that these men were
already family chiefs before they were selected to help Moses and Aaron.
Verses 4 and 16 provide a frame around the actual listing of leaders’ names in
verses 5-15.

1.5-16
RSV
5
And these are the names of the men who shall attend you. From Reuben, Elizur
the son of Shedeur; 6 from Simeon, Shelumi-el the son of Zurishaddai; 7 from
Judah, Nahshon the son of Amminadab; 8 from Issachar, Nethanel the son of
Zuar; 9 from Zebulun, Eliab the son of Helon; 10 from the sons of Joseph, from
Ephraim, Elishama the son of Ammihud, and from Manasseh, Gamaliel the son of
Pedahzur; 11 from Benjamin, Abidan the son of Gideoni; 12 from Dan, Ahi-ezer the
son of Ammishaddai; 13 from Asher, Pagiel the son of Ochran; 14 from Gad,
Eliasaph the son of Deuel; 15 from Naphtali, Ahira the son of Enan.” 16 These were
the ones chosen from the congregation, the leaders of their ancestral tribes, the
heads of the clans of Israel.

GNT
5-16
These are the men, leaders within their tribes, who were chosen from the
community for this work:
Tribe Clan chief
Reuben Elizur son of Shedeur
Simeon Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai
Judah Nahshon son of Amminadab
Issachar Nethanel son of Zuar
Zebulun Eliab son of Helon
Ephraim Elishama son of Ammihud
Manasseh Gamaliel son of Pedahzur
Benjamin Abidan son of Gideoni
Dan Ahiezer son of Ammishaddai
Asher Pagiel son of Ochran
Gad Eliasaph son of Deuel
Naphtali Ahira son of Enan

A major issue is where God’s direct speech ends. (This is crucial particularly
in languages in which direct speech is not simply ended with closing quotation marks
but with the verb of speaking!) The grammatical structure of verse 5, including its use
of the second person plural pronoun in verse 5 (you), clearly indicates that God’s
direct speech continues in the Hebrew at least till the end of verse 15 (or even to the
end of verse 16). So God does not only give the general instructions in verses 2-4; he
also specifically instructs who are to be selected to assist Moses and Aaron in verses
5-15. So RSV is more in line with the Hebrew text here than GNT in which God’s
direct speech already ends after verse 4. The unfortunate result in GNT is that verses
5-16 have become narrative text. Even more seriously, in GNT the specific selection
of tribal leaders now appears to have been only a decision matter for the community
itself and not for God! As part of their restructuring, GNT has put the concluding
summary found in verse 16 (“chosen from the community”) before verse 5. This is
not a recommended way of handling this section.
From the sons of Joseph, from Ephraim … and from Manasseh: These
two tribes are almost put together; Ephraim and Manasseh were Joseph’s sons. The
simple list of GNT has wrongly left out this important connection between Ephraim
and Manasseh.
The two sons of Joseph are included according to promise (Gen 49.22-26;
Deut 33.13-17, especially verse 17). The traditional number of twelve tribes is
retained in this way, in view of the exclusion of the tribe of Levi from the census.
These were the ones chosen: The Hebrew has no past tense here, so that a
rendering like “these are the ones chosen”, “these are the ones called” (see Buber,
LUT84, RSO, and NJPSVV) is also possible. And this, in turn, makes it possible to
include even verse 16 in God’s direct speech (see DUCL and NBV). But a
disadvantage of including verse 16 in the direct speech is that it makes God say things
to Moses and Aaron which presumably they know already. Thus, verse 16 is better
understood as a concluding statement by the author/editor of this part of the book (as
suggested also by the Hebrew syntactic structure, whereby the sentence begins with
“these” and ends with a seemingly redundant pronoun “they”).
Who chose them? The Hebrew passive participle does not express this and, if
possible, the subject should be left implicit. But this may not be possible in the
translation. In that case the subject to be expressed is either God, who chose them, or
Moses and Aaron, who were the human instruments to effect this divine action.
DUCL, which makes verse 16 part of God’s direct speech, renders “it is they whom I
have chosen.” But with verse 16 not being part of God’s direct speech, an alternative
model would be “These are the ones whom God (or Moses and Aaron) chose …”
Thus, while translators are encouraged to close the direct speech at the end of
verse 15, GNT’s list layout is still recommended as fitting the context of a census.
CEV has done exactly this (see also NIV and NET); it combines direct speech in
verses 2-15 with a list layout for verses 5-15. Verse 16, then, is no longer direct
speech and so it must be formatted differently from the list.
“Clan chief” is one of the headings in the list layout of GNT. As explained
under verse 4, “family chief” would be more accurate than “clan chief.” The list
layout in FRCL is without headings, but every line in the list in FRCL begins with
“the tribe of …” to serve as a generic marker of the specific names that follow.
The congregation: See at 1.2. Consistency of usage during translation is
important.
The leaders of their ancestral tribes: The Hebrew nasi’ refers to a prominent
and distinguished leader, for example, a much respected sheikh of a tribe; thus GNT’s
“leaders” seems a rather flat translation. In English, chiefs or “chieftains” (NJPSVV)
would be a better alternative.
While in verse 4 these men are referred to as heads of their ancestral houses,
here in verse 16 they are even referred to as chiefs of their ancestral tribes. The
difference may be due to the selection of these men for their special representative
task. In any case, the difference in terminology should be maintained in translation.
 The heads of the clans of Israel: Literally, the Hebrew does not have clans
but “thousands.” This is not a kinship term but refers to divisions in a tribe, more
specifically, to military contingents.
Although RSV translates the leaders and the heads, there is, in fact, nothing
in the Hebrew construction that necessarily corresponds with the definite articles, the
and the. Thus “These are the ones chosen from the congregation, chiefs of their
ancestral tribes, heads of divisions in Israel” would have been a more accurate
translation. It is not certain that these men are the only chiefs and heads of this kind in
Israel’s military organization.
In verse 4 RSV already makes explicit that these men were already family
chiefs before they were chosen to help Moses and Aaron. Verse 16, then, does not
imply that they were selected to become family chiefs at this point. They were
selected to be heads of divisions. GNT makes this clear: “… [already] leaders within
their tribes, who were chosen from the community for this work.”
In summary, the following models are recommended for verse 16:
“These men, leaders of their ancestral tribes, are the ones chosen from the
community; they are heads of divisions in Israel.”
“These men, leaders of their ancestral tribes, are (were) the ones chosen from
the community to be heads of divisions in Israel.”
The names of these same leaders are found also in chapters 2, 7, and 10, so
translators will need to make a note of that fact for future cross-reference and render
them consistently.

1.17-18
RSV
17
Moses and Aaron took these men who have been named, 18 and on the first day
of the second month, they assembled the whole congregation together, who
registered themselves by families, by fathers' houses, according to the number of
names from twenty years old and upward, head by head,

GNT
17
With the help of these twelve men Moses and Aaron 18 called together the
whole community on the first day of the second month and registered all the
people by clans and families. The names of all the men twenty years old or older
were recorded and counted,

With 1.17 a new paragraph begins: the instructions given in the preceding
section are now going to be carried out. The time and setting given in verses 18 and
19 repeat the information of 1.1 in reverse order.
Took these men: A literal translation may suggest that Moses and Aaron
“took” or carried these men off somewhere. In some languages, then, it will be more
natural to translate “called these men.”
These men who have been named is closer to the Hebrew than “these twelve
men” (GNT). The demonstrative “these” in the target language should refer back to
the names listed in the preceding verses.
They assembled the whole congregation together: It is not immediately
clear who is the subject here. Did only Moses and Aaron assemble the congregation,
or did the twelve men do this, or all fourteen of them? In line with verses 4-5 the
twelve men do not have more than an assisting role, so the GNT rendering “With the
help of these twelve men Moses and Aaron called together” provides a good solution.
For congregation or “community” see at 1.2.
 On the first day of the second month: See 1.1. As in 1.1, this is still in the
second year (specified in the ancient Greek translation) since the Exodus from Egypt.
Who registered themselves: This RSV rendering brings out much more
accurately than GNT the reflexive character of the Hebrew verb; the verb’s subject
are all the men twenty years old or older in the community. In some languages a
passive form will be more natural, for example: “and the names of all the men twenty
years old or older were registered (or: recorded) by clans and families.” If a passive
construction is not available, either, GNT is a good model: in GNT the subject of “and
registered” is the same as of “called together.”
By families, by fathers’ houses: See at 1.2, where we indicated a preference
for GNT’s “by clans and families.”
From twenty years old and upward: As in 1.3.
Head by head: See at 1.2: not a single man should be left out. Hence the GNT
rendering “all the men” or, better perhaps: “each one of the men.”

1.19
RSV
as the Lord commanded Moses. So he numbered them in the wilderness of Sinai.

GNT
as the Lord had commanded. In the Sinai Desert, Moses registered the people.

This verse functions as a summary of the preceding passage, either 17-19 or,
more likely, 2-19. The Leningrad Codex, on which the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
[BHS] edition is based, has a minor break in the text between 1.19 and 1.20. This
would suggest that verse 19 is not the introduction to verse 20.
In both RSV and GNT the clause as the Lord commanded Moses (“as the
Lord had commanded”) is connected with what precedes. Although this is often the
case with this clause in the Hebrew, such a connection seems unlikely here. By way
of a summary, the text explicitly returns to Moses as the central figure and to the verb
numbered (see 1.3 where the same verb paqad occurs in the Hebrew). TOB renders
the verse as follows: “As the Lord had commanded him, Moses numbered them in the
desert of Sinai.” Reversing the order of these clauses (as in NBS02) will bring out
even more clearly that this verse is a summary: “Moses numbered them in the desert
of Sinai, as the Lord had commanded him.” In some languages an introductory
conjunction or transitional expression may help to indicate a summary statement, for
instance, “And so” or “In this way”. GNT leaves “commanded” without an object, but
in the Hebrew Moses is indeed mentioned directly after “commanded.”
Commanded: GNT renders “had commanded.” Although, unlike English,
Hebrew has no separate verb form to express that something already took place
earlier, that is, before a certain point in the past, here it is clear that the verb refers
back to the Lord’s commands in 1.2-15. This distinction in time should be indicated in
translation.
The wilderness of Sinai: See at 1.1.

1.20-46
RSV
20
The people of Reuben, Israel's first-born, their generations, by their
families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of names, head by
head, every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go
 forth to war: 21 the number of the tribe of Reuben was forty-six thousand five
hundred.
22
Of the people of Simeon, their generations, by their families, by their
fathers' houses, those of them that were numbered, according to the number of
names, head by head, every male from twenty years old and upward, all who
were able to go forth to war: 23 the number of the tribe of Simeon was fifty-nine
thousand three hundred.
24
Of the people of Gad, their generations, by their families, by their fathers'
houses, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and
upward, all who were able to go forth to war: 25 the number of the tribe of Gad
was forty-five thousand six hundred and fifty.
26
Of the people of Judah, their generations, by their families, by their fathers'
houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and upward,
every man able to go forth to war: 27 the number of the tribe of Judah was
seventy-four thousand six hundred.
28
Of the people of Issachar, their generations, by their families, by their
fathers' houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and
upward, every man able to go forth to war: 29 the number of the tribe of Issachar
was fifty-four thousand four hundred.
30
Of the people of Zebulun, their generations, by their families, by their
fathers' houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and
upward, every man able to go forth to war: 31 the number of the tribe of Zebulun
was fifty-seven thousand four hundred.
32
Of the people of Joseph, namely, of the people of Ephraim, their
generations, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number
of names, from twenty years old and upward, every man able to go forth to war:
33
the number of the tribe of Ephraim was forty thousand five hundred.
34
Of the people of Manasseh, their generations, by their families, by their
fathers' houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and
upward, every man able to go forth to war: 35 the number of the tribe of
Manasseh was thirty-two thousand two hundred.
36
Of the people of Benjamin, their generations, by their families, by their
fathers' houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and
upward, every man able to go forth to war: 37 the number of the tribe of
Benjamin was thirty-five thousand four hundred.
38
Of the people of Dan, their generations, by their families, by their fathers'
houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and upward,
every man able to go forth to war: 39 the number of the tribe of Dan was sixty-
two thousand seven hundred.
40
Of the people of Asher, their generations, by their families, by their fathers'
houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and upward,
every man able to go forth to war: 41 the number of the tribe of Asher was forty-
one thousand five hundred.
42
Of the people of Naphtali, their generations, by their families, by their
fathers' houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and
upward, every man able to go forth to war: 43 the number of the tribe of Naphtali
was fifty-three thousand four hundred.
44
These are those who were numbered, whom Moses and Aaron numbered
with the help of the leaders of Israel, twelve men, each representing his fathers'
house. 45 So the whole number of the people of Israel, by their fathers' houses,
from twenty years old and upward, every man able to go forth to war in Israel --
46
their whole number was six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty.

GNT
20-46
The men twenty years old or older who were fit for military service were
registered by name according to clan and family, beginning with the tribe of
Reuben, Jacob's eldest son. The totals were as follows:
 Tribe Number
Reuben 46,500
Simeon 59,300
Gad 45,650
Judah 74,600
Issachar 54,400
Zebulun 57,400
Ephraim 40,500
Manasseh 32,200
Benjamin 35,400
Dan 62,700
Asher 41,500
Naphtali 53,400
Total:603,550

Reuben, Israel’s first-born: It should be made clear that Israel refers to

Reuben’s father – Jacob, who was renamed Israel - and not to the people of Israel. (It
is probably for this reason that GNT has actually replaced Israel with “Jacob.”) But at
the same time, the Hebrew brings out that the people and their common ancestor share
the same name. So a better way to avoid confusion between the ancestor and the
people named after him is to keep the name Israel and to translate, for example,
“Reuben, the firstborn of Israel’s sons” or “Reuben, the firstborn of the ancestor
Israel”.
Various formulaic phrases recur all through verses 20-43 and are the same for
the census of every tribe. In translation, these phrases should be rendered consistently
in terms of wording and order of occurrence. If a language requires that the various
phrases are put in a different order, this should be done consistently for every tribe as
well.
In this passage their generations refers to the descendants of a particular
ancestor through an unspecified number of generations. A rendering like “their
descendants” (NGB51) or even “successors” is therefore more accurate and probably
less puzzling than generations. Compare also NRSV: “their lineage.”
By their families, by their fathers’ houses: See at 1.2. For reasons
mentioned there, a rendering such as “according to clan and family” (GNT) or “by
clans and families” is closer to the Hebrew kinship terminology.
According to the number of names: This phrase too recurs all through verses
20-43. It should be noted, however, that the preceding phrase in verse 22 (those of
them that were numbered; about the tribe of Simeon) is absent elsewhere. This
difference is unaccounted for in GNT.
Head by head: See at 1.2.
Who were able to go forth to war or “who were fit for military service”:
GNT moves this phrase closer to the beginning of the sentence. This is helpful since it
makes it clear from the start that only those fit for military service are included.
Except for the beginning of verse 20, there is no past tense verb form in the Hebrew
of 1.20-43. This phrase is the same as in 1.3 and may itself not need a past tense in
translation: “those able to go forth to war.” At the same time, the Hebrew past tense
form at the beginning of verse 20 makes it clear that the list of 1.20-43 as a whole
does refer to the past. This is brought out in NET: “And they were as follows: The
descendants of Reuben …”.
The number of the tribe of …: The Hebrew term pequdim is of the same root
as the verb paqad (“enroll,” discussed at 1.3). NRSV and NJPSVV translate “Those
enrolled of/from the tribe of …”
 Of the people of Joseph, namely of the people of Ephraim … and of
Manasseh: Ephraim and Manasseh were Joseph’s sons. Here in verses 32-35 these
two tribes are combined under the name of their Father, Joseph. GNT has left out this
connection between Ephraim and Manasseh. But even in a list layout, this problem
can be solved by inserting “Joseph’s sons” in the list (as in NAV) or by listing “tribe
of Ephraim, son of Joseph” and “tribe of Manasseh, son of Joseph” (as in FRCL).
Of the people of Naphtali (in verse 42): Strictly speaking, the preposition
corresponding to of is lacking in the Hebrew. The reason for this may be to mark the
fact that the people of Naphtali are mentioned last in this list.[< Rendsburg] Already
ancient translations have treated this phrase in the same way as with the other tribes.
Their whole number was …: NJPSV translates the term pequdim more
accurately: “All who were enrolled came to …”
GNT has severely reduced verses 20-46, and verse 44 has been left completely
untranslated. But GNT’s list layout in itself is helpful, not least because the Hebrew in
verses 20-43 seems like a list: many of its sentences are not grammatically complete.
FRCL has a list layout as well but in a more convincing way: it takes only verses 20-
43 together, while its rendering of verse 44 is set off as distinct, not part of the list as
such. Alternatively, for each tribe the verses about it can be put in a separate
paragraph (as in NIV, for example). The numbers can be printed in figures in any
case, not only to make the translation easier to read but also because figures are
probably more fitting in a list of this kind. Finally, even a translation along the lines of
RSV but with fewer or no verbs (see NBV and REB) would bring out the list
character of 1.20-43 more clearly.
FRCL is also different from GNT in that the list layout in FRCL is without
headings. Instead, every line in the list in FRCL begins with the refrain “the tribe of
…”
Thousand: The surprisingly high numbers have been the subject of much
discussion among scholars. There is one point that has sometimes been made which,
if valid, might affect translation. As mentioned under 1.16, the Hebrew word for
“thousand”, ’elef, was not necessarily a precise number and could also mean
“division, contingent, clan”. So if we read the numbers in this way (’elef meaning
“contingent”), the tribe of Reuben in verse 21, for example, only consists of “46
contingents, that is, 500 men.” On this basis, the tribes together would consist of 598
(that is 46 + 59 + 45 + 74 + 54 + 57 + 40 + 32 + 35 + 62 + 41 + 53) contingents, and
the total number of men would only be 5550 (that is 500 + 300 + 650 + 600 + 400 +
400 + 500 + 200 + 400 + 700 + 500 + 400). The number of men in one contingent
would have to vary between 5 (in the tribe of Simeon) and 14 (in the tribe of Gad).
According to this view, the thousands were only treated as part of the actual
numbers at a later stage in the transmission of the Hebrew text. And only this led to
the addition of the total number of 603,550 in verse 46.
In short, then, the alternative meaning of ’elef might explain what lies behind
the text. But there are many problems with this view, especially in relation to other
parts of this book (see 11.21) and in other books as well (see, for example, Exo 38.26,
where the same number 603,550 occurs, and Exo 1.7, 9, where it is implied that the
Egyptians fear the Israelites because they are with so many). And even if it were to be
a valid point of view, the total number in verse 46 still shows that the text itself treats
the thousands as part of the actual numbers. (The same applies to 26.51 in the context
of chapter 26, the second census of the Israelites.) The word’elef in the census lists
must surely mean “thousand”, because every time it alternates with “hundreds” and
with other numbers in the same phrase. Thus, as in the case of similar issues of this
nature (where we lack the necessary explanatory or background information), it is the
actual text with its high numbers that should be translated. The text may reflect an
epic tradition that attributed great numbers to the Israelites in the wilderness,
conveying a sense of the grandeur of the Lord’s army.[<Milgrom 1990:339; Levine
1993:139; Davies 1995:17]; God promised Abraham descendants in great number. It
is implied that there is no ground for Israel’s fear of other nations.

1.47-54
These verses may be given their own Section Heading: “The role of the tribe of
Levi”, “The special role of the tribe of Levi” (FRCL) [<Compare “The Levites’
special role” in Wenham (1981:60)], “The special work of the tribe of Levi.”

1.47-49
RSV
47
But the Levites were not numbered by their ancestral tribe along with them.
48
For the Lord said to Moses, 49 “Only the tribe of Levi you shall not number, and
you shall not take a census of them among the people of Israel;

GNT
47
The Levites were not registered with the other tribes, 48 because the Lord
had said to Moses, 49 “When you take a census of the men fit for military service,
do not include the tribe of Levi.

The Levites: These are the descendants of Levi, Israel’s third son. To bring
out that these are indeed a specific tribe of descendants of Israel and not some other
group of people, a rendering like “the descendants of Levi” may be helpful, or, in line
with how the other tribes have been referred to, “the people of Levi”.
Numbered: The same verbal root is used here as in 1.3 and 1.19.
By their ancestral tribe: Or “by their fathers’ tribe”. Ancestral has been
briefly discussed under 1.2-3.
Said: GNT renders “had said.” Unlike English, Hebrew has no separate verb
form to express that something already took place earlier than the past, that is, before
some other point in the past. Thus GNT is not necessarily more accurate here.
Although GNT’s “had said” shows that the Lord’s direct speech of verses 49-53
actually took place earlier, this may, in fact, make the translation more difficult to
follow. The Hebrew text of this chapter does not show an interest in the chronological
order of things, but rather highlights what is most important to the account as it is
being presented. It is only here in verses 48-49 that the text mentions for the first time
that the Lord said that the Levites should not be included in the census.
The Lord’s instructions concerning the Levites occur in verses 49-53. In
theory, these instructions could have been included in the Lord’s instructions
concerning the census in 1.2-15 so that chronologically they would have come before
the census itself (1.17-46) was carried out. But the fact that the instructions
concerning the Levites only come as part of verses 48-53 shows that in this text things
do not always come in their most likely chronological place but are mentioned where
they are the most relevant or prominent. Coming after the statement in verse 47, the
role of the Levites is made a separate and important theme. It follows that RSV’s
simple past tense form said is sufficient (and it may even be correct chronologically!).
There is perhaps one more indication why the text does not intend to give
chronological information here and why a simple past tense form said or, more
literally, “spoke” is already sufficient. It should be noted that conjunctions such as for
(RSV) or “because” (GNT) are not based on the Hebrew at all. On the contrary, verse
48 begins with the verb form itself (“and the Lord spoke”). And the Leningrad Codex,
on which the BHS edition is based, has a minor break in the text between 1.47 and
1.48 (which has been adopted by NRSV and TOB). Thus verse 48 starts another
theme in its own right – the role of the tribe of Levi – rather than giving chronological
information. This interpretation is supported by the fact that this same verbal
expression also begins major discourse units in 1.1 and 2.1.
Only … you shall not number and you shall not take a census: The verbs
are in the singular; only Moses is addressed (in contrast to the plural imperative in
1.2). These two synonymous verbs, when taken together with the clause-initial
Hebrew particle ’ak (only) indicate that the Lord is speaking with some emphasis
here. This is conveyed in NJPSV: “Do not on any account enroll the tribe of Levi or
take a census of them with the Israelites.” Perhaps this extra force can be conveyed in
the target language as well, e.g., by a corresponding emphatic particle or conjunction.
A census of them: GNT repeats whose census it was: “of the men fit for
military service.” This does not correspond with anything in the Hebrew, but it
reminds the reader whose census it was and what it was about. If such a reminder is
not needed in the translation, it should be left out.

1.50-51
RSV
50
but appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of the testimony, and over all its
furnishings, and over all that belongs to it; they are to carry the tabernacle and
all its furnishings, and they shall tend it, and shall encamp around the tabernacle.
51
When the tabernacle is to set out, the Levites shall take it down; and when the
tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up. And if any one else comes
near, he shall be put to death.

GNT
50
Instead, put the Levites in charge of the Tent of my presence and all its
equipment. They shall carry it and its equipment, serve in it, and set up their
camp round it. 51 Whenever you move your camp, the Levites shall take the Tent
down and set it up again at each new camping place. Anyone else who comes
near the Tent shall be put to death.

Appoint: The Hebrew imperative is in the singular: still only Moses is

addressed.
Notice that in the RSV the sentence of verse 49 is continued in verse 50 by
means of a semi-colon. Another semicolon is used within verse 50. In most languages
this results in a sentence that is much too long and hard to follow. It can also be
difficult to enunciate with the proper intonation when reading the text aloud. In such
cases the GNT model should be followed. This comment applies throughout the book
of Numbers: watch out for the semicolon; in many cases a new sentence is needed!
Tabernacle of the testimony: GNT renders this expression as “Tent of my
(the Lord’s) presence” as in 1.1 and this certainly avoids confusion: it shows that the
tabernacle here is indeed the same as “the tent of meeting” (see at 1.1). But the
Hebrew term here, mishkan ha‘edut is different from the one in verse 1, ’ohel mo‘ed.
It would be good to distinguish these special terms in a translation, as long as it is
pointed out (in an introduction, initial footnote, or glossary entry) that in general they
refer to the same place where the Lord resides in the midst of his people and
communicates with them there.
RSV renders tabernacle where the Hebrew has mishkan “dwelling-place.”
This can certainly be rendered “tent” or “holy tent” because it corresponds with the
tent in 1.1, a temporary shelter.
The testimony (ha‘edut) refers not to the Lord’s presence directly, but more
indirectly to the verbal text of the covenant, the Ten Commandments, written on the
two stone tablets, which were kept in the ark (the covenant chest) as a testimony and
solemn reminder of God’s faithfulness to his people. As an alternative to GNT,
translators are encouraged to render mishkan ha‘edut more precisely, for example, as
“(sacred) place of the testimony,” “(holy) tent of the testimony” or, if testimony or
“reminder” is considered too abstract, “tent (place) where the covenant text is kept”
(similar to FRCL) or “tent of the sacred covenant.” NJPSV has “Tabernacle of the
Pact,” but “tent of the treaty” or even “tent containing the (sacred) agreement” could
also be used. In contexts where the term is repeated an abbreviation may be sufficient.
See also the Handbook on Exodus at Exo 16.34.
All its furnishings: The Hebrew uses a general term for utensils, equipment,
and vessels. “All that belongs to it” is another possible rendering.
They are to carry … and they shall tend it: In the Hebrew these verbs are
reinforced by the presence of the independent pronoun “they”—that is, only the
Levites are allowed near the sacred tent.
And shall encamp around the tabernacle: As verse 51 and especially verse
53 show as well, only the Levites can make camp near the tabernacle and come near
it. They form the inner circle around it. The verb “encamp, make camp” and the
related noun “camp” may not exist in some languages; in such languages a descriptive
term may be used, for example, “establish their (temporary) dwellings/shelters/tents”;
“a place of (temporary) shelters/tents.”
When the tabernacle is to set out: The GNT rendering “whenever” expresses
that the actions in verse 51 are to be understood as repetitive: they are not just about
one change of camp but about many. In many languages it will be impossible to say
of something inanimate that it should move on; a living subject will have to be
included. Hence the GNT rendering “whenever you move your camp.” But neither the
second person forms nor the word “camp” are based on the Hebrew. Instead, the
original seems to imply a personification (the tent behaving like an animate being) to
suggest that the Lord, who symbolically dwells within the tent, will determine when
the people move out or camp at a particular place (see the next sentence). In this case,
a model translation would be: “When the Lord wants the tent to move…”—or, to
better reflect the ambiguity of the original: “When it is time for the tent to be
moved…”
When the tabernacle is to be pitched: The Hebrew verb literally means
“when it settles.” Again, in many languages it will be impossible to say of something
inanimate that it should settle, or be pitched or set up; a living subject would have to
be included. But GNT’s “at each new camping place” provides a good alternative and
can easily be understood as repetitive. Alternative models are: “When the Lord wants
the tent to be pitched…” or “When it is time to pitch the tent…”
And if anyone else comes near: That is to say, near to the tabernacle, which
is being set up. “Anyone” (zar) is literally ‘stranger’, ‘foreigner’, ‘outsider’, but here
it refers to any Israelite other than a Levite. Thus, a more general rendering is
appropriate.
 He shall be put to death: A connotatively positive or neutral expression
needs to be found in the target language, for example, to avoid the negative overtones
of a verb like “murder” in English.

1.52-53
RSV
52
The people of Israel shall pitch their tents by their companies, every man by
his own camp and every man by his own standard; 53 but the Levites shall
encamp around the tabernacle of the testimony, that there may be no wrath upon
the congregation of the people of Israel; and the Levites shall keep charge of the
tabernacle of the testimony.”

GNT
52
The rest of the Israelites shall set up camp, company by company, each man
with his own group and under his own banner. 53 But the Levites shall camp
round the Tent to guard it, so that no one may come near and cause my anger to
strike the community of Israel.”

Shall pitch their tents: The Hebrew has “shall settle their camp,” but this
action is repetitive and the camp is temporary. The target language may require a
different verb form to indicate this fact.
By their companies: Literally “by their troops” (see at 1.3).
By his own standard: The Hebrew word translated standard seems to
involve something visible which marked off one group of tribes from another.[<Budd
18] This justifies the traditional renderings standard or “banner.” Another way to
convey this is “(visible) sign-marker,” or if necessary, a cultural equivalent, for
example, “(tribal) flag.” Israel is arranged into a well-organized army. There are, in
total, only four banners, one for each three tribes. This becomes clear in chapter 2.
Tabernacle of the testimony: See at 1.50-51.
Congregation: The GNT rendering “community” is more accurate (see at
1.2).
Wrath: In some languages it may be necessary to specify that this is the anger
of the Lord. In that case, GNT’s “my anger” is a good model since the Lord is still
speaking.
Keep charge: The Hebrew expression used here is shamar mishmeret,
literally “guard the guarding.” The cognate verb plus (object) noun construction
serves to emphasize the activity involved. The verb (shamar) must be variously
translated according to the context in which it occurs, here: “care for, keep watch,
undertake guard-duty.”
In the camp, the Levites form the inner circle around the tabernacle. This
protective arrangement is directly related to the overriding concern of the book: how
can God, the Holy One, be present among his unholy people (see the Introduction).

1.54
RSV
Thus did the people of Israel; they did according to all that the Lord commanded
Moses.

GNT
So the people of Israel did everything that the Lord had commanded Moses.
 With its repetition of the verb did, which corresponds to the Hebrew, RSV
shows more clearly than GNT that this verse summarizes the outcome of the whole
chapter. For this reason, verse 54 is not part of the preceding paragraph of verses 48-
53 but forms a paragraph of its own. In many languages there is a way of similarly
indicating the discourse function of this final verse, for example, by means of an
appropriate concluding conjunction or phrase like “This is precisely how” (Chewa).
According to all that: Or “exactly what” (FRCL).

2.1-34
The twelve tribes of the Israelites are divided into four groups of three tribes each.
This arrangement is both for camping and for marching. The tribes camp around the
tent of meeting in a square. The Levites form a cordon around the tent, separating the
tent from the lay tribes (1.53; 2.17). Their relative closeness to the sanctuary
symbolized the greater sanctity of the Levites. and their special role as servants of the
holy tent of meeting.
This chapter is symmetrically and purposefully structured as follows:

Summary of the LORD’s command concerning the camp (1-2)

Eastern camp—Judah, Issachar, Zebulon (3-9)
Southern camp—Reuben, Simeon, Gad (10-16)
Tent of Meeting and Levites (17)
Western camp—Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin (18-24)
Northern camp—Dan, Asher, Naphtali (25-31)
Summary of total numbers (32-33; cf. 1.46-47)
Summary of Israel’s obedience to the LORD’s command (34)

The segment that does not seem to fit the overall pattern (verses 32-33) in fact serves
to tie this chapter into the preceding census chapter (cf. 1.44-47). Note also the
placement of the reference to the Levites in the center of the chapter, which mimics
their location in the middle of the camp as a whole and their distinctive importance
among the tribes of Israel (see 8.5-26, 18.1-32, and 35.1-5).
On the east side the three tribes are located which were descendants of Judah
and his full brothers (the other two sons of Leah who were not cursed in Genesis 49).
They are faced on the west side by the three tribes that descended from Joseph and
Benjamin, the sons of Rachel. The tribes that descended from cursed sons or sons
born by maidservants stand on the south and north sides.[< Douglas 100, 177-178]

Section Heading: Possible headings are: “Encampment of the Israelites,”

“Organization for Israel’s Camp” (NLT), “Encampment of the Israelites on their
Journey,” “The Order of Encampment and Marching of the Israelites” (similar to
NRSV), or “The Arrangement of the Tribes in Camp” (GNT). It is the organization,
tribes, and camp that are important in this chapter.

2.1-2
RSV
1
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “The people of Israel shall encamp each by
his own standard, with the ensigns of their fathers' houses; they shall encamp
facing the tent of meeting on every side.
GNT
1
The Lord gave Moses and Aaron the following instructions. 2 When the Israelites
set up camp, each man will camp under the banner of his division and the flag of
his own clan. The camp is to be set up all round the Tent.

Said: The Hebrew literally has “spoke …, saying.” Verse 1 introduces the
Lord’s direct speech of verses 2-31, as the quotation marks at the beginning of verse 2
in RSV show. In verse 1 and in their use of quotation marks in verse 2 and 31, FRCL
and DUCL are similar to RSV. The GNT does not indicate formally that a direct
quotation begins in verse 2, but the words themselves clearly suggest this.
Each by his own standard: This may give the wrong suggestion that each
person has his own standard. GNT’s “under the banner of his division” can solve this
problem.
With the ensigns of their fathers’ houses: RSV may suggest that the ensigns
are on the standard itself, while in the GNT rendering the word “and” suggests that
the “banner” and the “flag” or ensigns are different things. The Hebrew lacks “and”
and is therefore somewhat ambiguous at this point. But the rest of the chapter will
make clear that there are, in total, only four banners or standards, one for the leading
tribe of each set of three tribes mentioned, that is, Judah, Reuben, Ephraim, and Dan
(verses 3, 10, 18, 25). For that reason, the standard or “banner” on the one hand, and
the ensigns of their fathers’ houses on the other hand should be treated as different
things.
It is not clear from the Hebrew whether the ensigns, or emblems, are really
flags; a more generic rendering like “signs” would be correct, leaving open what kind
of visual markers they are. However, if no meaningful generic term is available, then
“flag” may be the less undesirable option. In any case, the target language term for an
(advertising) signboard should not be used.
Fathers’ houses: GNT has “clan.” As explained under 1.2-3, “families” is
more accurate here than “clans.”
Facing the tent: The Hebrew term “from a distance” (minneged) seems to
have been missed in both RSV and GNT. The tribe of Levi was to camp all around the
Tent of Meeting, in close proximity to it. All the other tribes had to be further away.
“The Israelites are to camp around the Tent of Meeting some distance from it” and
“They must camp at some distance around the tent of meeting” (NET) are possible
models.

2.3-9
RSV
3
Those to encamp on the east side toward the sunrise shall be of the standard of
the camp of Judah by their companies, the leader of the people of Judah being
Nahshon the son of Amminadab, 4 his host as numbered being seventy-four
thousand six hundred. 5 Those to encamp next to him shall be the tribe of
Issachar, the leader of the people of Issachar being Nethanel the son of Zuar, 6
his host as numbered being fifty-four thousand four hundred. 7 Then the tribe of
Zebulun, the leader of the people of Zebulun being Eliab the son of Helon, 8 his
host as numbered being fifty-seven thousand four hundred. 9 The whole number
of the camp of Judah, by their companies, is a hundred and eighty-six thousand
four hundred. They shall set out first on the march.

GNT
3-9
On the east side, those under the banner of the division of Judah shall
camp in their groups, under their leaders, as follows:
 Tribe Leader Number
Judah Nahshon son of Amminadab 74,600
Issachar Nethanel son of Zuar 54,400
Zebulun Eliab son of Helon 57,400
Total: 186,400
The division of Judah shall march first.

The numbers here and in the rest of the chapter correspond exactly with those
in chapter 1. See the explanation under 1.20-46.
On the east side toward the sunrise: On the face of it, toward the sunrise
seems superfluous and unnecessary after the information that this is on the eastern
side of the Tent. Probably for this reason GNT has left it out. But toward the sunrise
(“where the sun rises” in NBV) is crucial information. Although Reuben was Israel’s
firstborn son, it is not the standard of the camp of Reuben (located on the south) but
the standard of the camp of Judah that will be at this side, which is the side of the
entrance to the Tent (3.38)! The position of Judah’s camp at this privileged side
underlines how important the tribe of Judah is. If toward the sunrise poses a problem
in translation, “on the front side,” or even “at the side of the entrance” are possibly
other ways to bring this out. NJPSV renders the importance of this non-literally:
“Camped on the front, or east side.” In some languages the directions of sunrise and
sunset are culturally significant (e.g., in burial rituals) and there may be particular
technical or idiomatic ways of expressing them (“where the sun comes out”—Chewa).
By their companies: Literally “by their troops” (as in 1.3); the Hebrew word
is tsava’ in the plural. Israel is arranged as a well-organized army.
Leader: The Hebrew nasi’ (also in 1.16) refers to a prominent and
distinguished leader, for example, a much respected sheikh of a tribe, so that leader
seems a rather flat translation. In English, “chief,” “headman,” or “chieftain”
(NJPSV) may be a better alternative.
His host: Again, the Hebrew word is tsava’ (in the singular): “his troop”
(NJPSV).
Then the tribe of Zebulun: Nothing in the Hebrew text corresponds with
then; the Hebrew only has “the tribe of Zebulun” and seems like a list at this point.
The sentence is not grammatically complete. Perhaps the target language does have a
special conjunction or transitional term to indicate the last item in a list, whether short
(as this) or long. In some languages (for example, Albanian) it will be more natural
and seem less repetitive if this first sentence about Zebulun is moved to the beginning
of verse 5, combining it with the tribe of Issachar: “Those to encamp next to him shall
be the tribes of Issachar and Zebulun ...”
They shall set out first on the march: This is to be understood as repetitive;
it is not just about one change of camp but about many. Chewa may provide a good
model for this: “Those ones [clans] should be out in front as they move/travel.” They
refers to all the three tribes under the banner of Judah. The meaning of the verb can be
described as “move off, set out, journey further, march.” The translation should fit the
context of an (also military) camp.
GNT’s list layout is still to be recommended. FRCL has a list as well, but
without headings such as “Tribe.” This does not make the translation unclear, because
FRCL renders “under a chief of their tribe” instead of “under their leaders” (GNT). In
any case, whether there is a list layout or not, the verses about each group of three
tribes can be put in a separate paragraph as, for example, in GNT, or can even be
preceded and followed by a blank line as in NIV. (See also the suggested model
above, under Then the tribe of Zebulun.) And the numbers can be printed in figures
in any case, not only to make the translation easier to read but also because figures are
probably more fitting in a list of this kind.
In spite of what KJV suggests (“All that were numbered”), the Hebrew of
verse 9 shows no indication of any past tense at all. This comment applies to verses
16, 24, and 31 as well.

2.10-16
RSV
10
“On the south side shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben by their
11
companies, the leader of the people of Reuben being Elizur the son of Shedeur,
his host as numbered being forty-six thousand five hundred. 12 And those to
encamp next to him shall be the tribe of Simeon, the leader of the people of
Simeon being Shelumi-el the son of Zurishaddai, 13 his host as numbered being
fifty-nine thousand three hundred. 14 Then the tribe of Gad, the leader of the
people of Gad being Eliasaph the son of Reuel, 15 his host as numbered being
forty-five thousand six hundred and fifty. 16 The whole number of the camp of
Reuben, by their companies, is a hundred and fifty-one thousand four hundred
and fifty. They shall set out second.

GNT
10-16
On the south, those under the banner of the division of Reuben shall
camp in their groups, under their leaders, as follows:
Tribe Leader Number
Reuben Elizur son of Shedeur 46,500
Simeon Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai 59,300
Gad Eliasaph son of Deuel 45,650
Total: 151,450
The division of Reuben shall march second.

The comments on verses 3-9 apply here as well. For example, in some
languages it will be more natural and seem less repetitive if Then the tribe of Gad is
moved to the beginning of verse 12, combining it with the tribe of Simeon: “Those to
encamp next to him shall be the tribes of Simeon and Gad ...”
Reuel (RSV) or “Deuel” (GNT): There is evidence for both these forms.
Reuel follows the BHS edition as well as the ancient Greek and Syriac translations.
(The Hebrew letters for d and r look very similar and are easily confused.) “Dehuel”
is found in the Vulgate and the Samaritan Pentateuch. But elsewhere in the book of
Numbers (1.14; 7.42, 47; 10.20) the same person, the father of Eliasaph, is
consistently called “Deuel.” So here “Deuel” is recommended as well.
They shall set out second: The Hebrew verb and its meaning are the same as
at the end of verse 9. Chewa translates: “They should be the second group when
travelling.”

2.17
RSV
“Then the tent of meeting shall set out, with the camp of the Levites in the
midst of the camps; as they encamp, so shall they set out, each in position,
standard by standard.

GNT
17
Then, between the first two divisions and the last two the Levites are to
march carrying the Tent. Each division shall march in the same order as they
camp, each in position under its banner.
 As in 1.51, where a form of the same verb occurs, it may be impossible or
unnatural in some languages to say of the tent of meeting (that is, something
inanimate) that it should set out. Thus GNT renders “the Levites … carrying the
Tent,” or perhaps an indefinite construction (“they should carry out”) or a passive
(“the Tent should be carried”) may be used. Also, the verbs are to be understood as
repetitive: they are not just about one change of camp but about many.
They … each in position … standard by standard: All this refers to the four
camps or groups of tribes, since the term degel (“standard”) is always connected with
a division (of three tribes) in the rest of the chapter. Hence the renderings “each
division” (GNT) and “the tribes” (NAV). The Hebrew expression (literally, “each
on/at his hand”) refers here to a specifically designated position for each tribe on the
march. The following model is similar to NLT: “All the tribes are to travel in the
same order that they camp, each in position under the appropriate standard.”
This verse is a paragraph in its own right and should be formatted as such due
to its importance within this chapter (as indicated by its distinct structure and content).
It deals with the central place of the Tent with the Levites (in line with 1.50-53) when
the Israelites are journeying between camps, from one place to another, between the
two first divisions and the two last ones. So the verse interrupts the instructions about
the arrangement of the four groups of tribes in a camp. Because the Tent is in the
centre, the verse occurs right here, between verses 3-16 about the first two divisions
and verses 18-31 about the last two. The camping arrangement of the priests and
Levites around the Tent of Meeting is described in more detail in chapter three.

2.18-24
RSV
18
“On the west side shall be the standard of the camp of Ephraim by their
companies, the leader of the people of Ephraim being Elishama the son of
Ammihud, 19 his host as numbered being forty thousand five hundred. 20 And
next to him shall be the tribe of Manasseh, the leader of the people of Manasseh
being Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur, 21 his host as numbered being thirty-two
thousand two hundred. 22 Then the tribe of Benjamin, the leader of the people of
Benjamin being Abidan the son of Gideoni, 23 his host as numbered being thirty-
five thousand four hundred. 24 The whole number of the camp of Ephraim, by
their companies, is a hundred and eight thousand one hundred. They shall set
out third on the march.

GNT
18-24
On the west, those under the banner of the division of Ephraim shall
camp in their groups, under their leaders, as follows:
Tribe Leader Number
Ephraim Elishama son of Ammihud 40,500
Manasseh Gamaliel son of Pedahzur 32,200
Benjamin Abidan son of Gideoni 35,400
Total: 108,100
The division of Ephraim shall march third.

The comments on verses 3-9 apply here as well.

And next to him in verse 20 is slightly different from “(and) those to encamp
next to him” in verses 5, 12, and 27 in that “those to encamp” is lacking in the
Hebrew. But in this context this variation does not lead to a difference in meaning.
 They shall set out third on the march: The Hebrew verb and its meaning are
the same as at the end of verse 9.

2.25-31
RSV
25
“On the north side shall be the standard of the camp of Dan by their
companies, the leader of the people of Dan being Ahi-ezer the son of
Ammishaddai, 26 his host as numbered being sixty-two thousand seven hundred.
27
And those to encamp next to him shall be the tribe of Asher, the leader of the
people of Asher being Pagiel the son of Ochran, 28 his host as numbered being
forty-one thousand five hundred. 29 Then the tribe of Naphtali, the leader of the
people of Naphtali being Ahira the son of Enan, 30 his host as numbered being
fifty-three thousand four hundred. 31 The whole number of the camp of Dan is a
hundred and fifty-seven thousand six hundred. They shall set out last, standard
by standard.”

GNT
25-31
On the north, those under the banner of the division of Dan shall camp in
their groups, under their leaders, as follows:
Tribe Leader Number
Dan Ahiezer son of Ammishaddai 62,700
Asher Pagiel son of Ochran 41,500
Naphtali Ahira son of Enan 53,400
Total: 157,600
The division of Dan shall march last.

The comments on verses 3-9 apply here as well.

The Lord’s direct speech only ends with verse 31.
They shall set out last, standard by standard: The Hebrew verb and its
meaning are the same as at the end of verse 9. At this point, the Hebrew also has,
literally, “by their standards” (NIV: “under their standards”; Chewa: “following their
flags”). Since this phrase helps mark the close of a major discourse unit, it should not
be simply omitted as in GNT.

2.32-33
RSV
32
These are the people of Israel as numbered by their fathers' houses; all in
the camps who were numbered by their companies were six hundred and three
thousand five hundred and fifty. 33 But the Levites were not numbered among
the people of Israel, as the Lord commanded Moses.

GNT
32
The total number of the people of Israel enrolled in the divisions, group by
group, was 603,550. 33 As the Lord had commanded Moses, the Levites were not
registered with the rest of the Israelites.

These verses function as a summary (as do 1.44-47). They are no longer part
of the Lord’s direct speech. But in spite of what RSV and GNT suggest, the Hebrew
of verse 32 shows no indication of any past tense at all. (This is different from 1.46
where a past tense form occurs in the Hebrew.) Verse 32 marks the onset of a general
summary (verses 32-34) which brings the tribal census and location reports of
chapters 1-2 to a close. Many languages will have a way of indicating this shift from
direct speech to a summary at this point. Helpful models are NIV (“All those in the
camps, by their divisions, number 603,550.”), NJPSV (“The total enrolled in the
divisions, for all troops: 603,550.”), and Chewa: “Now (discourse shift marker) these
ones (just mentioned) they are the (people of) Israel as (he/they) counted them …” In
some languages, the use of a present tense in the context of what is expected to be a
summary of a historical narrative (and thus set in the past) would be naturally taken
literally as switching to something that is actually happening currently. In these cases,
a past tense may be unavoidable.
For the total number, see the discussion under 1.20-46.
Fathers’ houses: As explained under 1.2-3, “families” is more accurate here
than “clans” or GNT’s “groups.”
Levites: Or “the tribe of Levi.”
The verb numbered in verse 33 is the same as in 1.47. In fact, most of verse
33 repeats 1.47 and serves primarily as an emphatic reminder. For this reason, “had
commanded” (GNT) may sound more natural than commanded.

2.34
RSV
34
Thus did the people of Israel. According to all that the Lord commanded
Moses, so they encamped by their standards, and so they set out, every one in
his family, according to his fathers' house.

GNT
34
So the people of Israel did everything the Lord had commanded Moses.
They camped, each under his own banner, and they marched, each with his own
clan.

According to all that the Lord commanded Moses: In the Hebrew, this
clause is connected to what precedes. The NRSV rendering “The Israelites did just as
the Lord had commanded Moses” as well as GNT show this correctly. This sentence
is similar to 1.54, thus also serving as a structural marker of the end of a major unit of
discourse, namely, chapters 1–2.
Fathers’ house: “family” is more accurate here than GNT’s “clan.”

3.1-4.49
Numbers 3–4 are concerned with the service of the Levites for the priests and the
already completed tent of meeting. The Levites are mobilized for this task in the camp
in the Sinai Desert.
The Levites take a special place in Israel for two reasons. First, they serve the
priests (3.5-10) at the tent of meeting. Second, they are consecrated to the Lord in that
they replace all first-born Israelites (3.11-13), who had been consecrated to the Lord
before. (In the last plague before the Exodus from Egypt the first-born sons of the
Egyptians died, but the fist-born Israelites were spared. After this all first-born boys
had to be given to God. Thus every family in Israel could look at the Levites and
remember that one of them was serving God instead of the eldest boy in the
family.)[<Wenham 1981:47]
Hence there are two censuses. There is a census of the Levites who replace the
first-born sons (3.14-51), and a census of the Levites between thirty and fifty years of
age with a duty of service towards the tent of meeting (4.1-49).
Section Heading: “Tasks and Census of the Levites,” “Tasks and Census of the Clans
of the Levites,” or “the Tribe of Levi.”
Alternatively, this heading can be put just before 3.5 if 3.1-4 is given its own
heading (see below).
GNT has a separate section heading for 3.40-51: “The Levites Take the Place
of the Firstborn Sons.” The problem with this is that it suggests that this subject only
begins here. But in fact it already comes up in 3.11-13. Even more importantly, 3.40-
51 are an intricate part of the first census of the Levites (3.14-51). The point is that
this census as a whole determines whether there are enough Levites to take the place
of all the firstborn Israelites. So even if the text would be divided into shorter
sections, 3.14-51 should remain part of the same section and have one section heading
only.
Translators may indeed feel that one section heading for 3.1–4.49 (or 3.5–
4.49) is not enough for such a long stretch of text. In that case the following
alternative is recommended:

3.1-13 The Special Role of the Tribe of Levi in Israel

3.14-51 Census of the Levites
(or: Census of the Levites Taking the Place of Israel’s Firstborn Sons)
4.1-49 Census and Tasks of the Levite Clans

Ways to further subdivide chapter 4 into smaller sections will be discussed under 4.1-
49 below.

3.1-4
These verses may be given their own section heading as in GNT: “Aaron’s Sons.” As
the priests, Aaron and his sons have a central position in the tribe of Levi as indicated
by the key structural term generations (toledot) in 3.1 (cf. Gen 2.4a, 37.2). This
information is not given in its chronological place. At this particular point in the book,
this paragraph functions primarily as the introduction to chapters 3–4 about the
Levites. A slightly longer section heading can bring all this out: “The Tribe of Levi.
Aaron’s Sons.”

3.1
RSV
1
These are the generations of Aaron and Moses at the time when the Lord spoke
with Moses on Mount Sinai.

GNT
1
This is the family of Aaron and Moses at the time the Lord spoke to Moses on
Mount Sinai.

Generations: The Hebrew term toledot refers rather to the descendants of a

particular ancestor through an unspecified number of generations, sometimes
including what happened to them. But in verses 2-4 only two generations are
involved. Renderings like “family account” (similar to NIV), “family line” (NLT),
“lineage” (NRSV) or “descendants,” and “family members” (FRCL) are therefore
more convincing and probably less puzzling in the context than generations or
“genealogy” (NBS02). This key term will have been dealt with already in the book of
Genesis, so translators are advised to reconsider and, if satisfactory, use the target
language expression used there.
 It is, in fact, only Aaron’s descendants who are mentioned here, not Moses’s.
But Moses’s descendants are perhaps implied as well since the Levites include the
clan of the Amramites (3.9, 27) and Amram is Moses’s father.[<Rashbam]
Aaron and Moses: The context here is a family lineage. Aaron, who is not
only the high priest but the elder brother, is now mentioned before Moses. The order
of the original Hebrew should be followed here, even if not as common. All this is
different from 1.44 and 2.1 where Moses as the leader is mentioned before Aaron.

3.2-4
RSV
2
These are the names of the sons of Aaron: Nadab the first-born, and Abihu,
Eleazar, and Ithamar; 3 these are the names of the sons of Aaron, the anointed
priests, whom he ordained to minister in the priest's office. 4 But Nadab and
Abihu died before the Lord when they offered unholy fire before the Lord in the
wilderness of Sinai; and they had no children. So Eleazar and Ithamar served as
priests in the lifetime of Aaron their father.

GNT
2
Aaron had four sons: Nadab, the eldest, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. 3 They
were anointed and ordained as priests, 4 but Nadab and Abihu were killed when
they offered unholy fire to the Lord in the Sinai Desert. They had no children, so
Eleazar and Ithamar served as priests during Aaron's lifetime.

These are the names: This naming formula occurs periodically throughout
the Pentateuch (e.g., Gen 25.13; Exo 6.16; Num 1.5, 34.17). As a formula it should be
rendered consistently on each occasion, even if not literally.
Anointed priests: men who have received the authority to offer sacrifices and
perform other religious ceremonies on behalf of others, so that they mediate between
God and the people. Olive oil was smeared or rubbed on the priests to appoint them
to, or set them apart for, their task. See the Handbook on Exodus at Exo 28.41 where
the instructions for this anointment are discussed. From the verb “anoint” (mashach)
is derived the title “Messiah”, the “Anointed One” of God.
Whom he ordained to minister in the priest’s office: The Hebrew reads
literally “whose hand he filled for the priesthood.” This means: “whose hands he
filled with offerings which they had to offer as priests,” or, in more general terms,
“whom he ordained to minister [that is, to serve] as priests” (NRSV). In some
languages “fill somebody’s hand” or a similar idiom may actually serve as a model.
This is an idiom that may originally have referred to the act of placing some object in
the hand of the person being invested with authority and installed into office. (The
idiom also occurs in, for example, Exo 28.41, 29.9, and Lev 8.33.) If no target
language idiom or figurative expression is available, then “install,” “induct,” or
perhaps even the verb “initiate” may be used for “ordain,” that is, to formally place
someone into a religious office. Once again, translators should review and evaluate
the terms that they have already been using to render these technical Hebrew words
that pertain to the priesthood.
Many translations, including the ancient Greek one and the Vulgate, treat this
verb here in 3.3 as plural in meaning. GNT is an example: “they were … ordained.”
But strictly speaking, the subject of this verb in the Hebrew is in the singular, he, and
refers to Moses as the one who performed the act (as explicitly in NAV). This is in
line with the instructions to Moses in Exo 29.9. Thus, it makes sense that 3.1
mentions not only Aaron but Moses as well.
 Died before the Lord: That is, they died in the Tent where the Lord
manifested his presence in Israel (compare FRCL “died before the sanctuary,” NBV
“had died near the sanctuary,” and NJB “died in Yahweh’s presence”). This seems a
more straightforward interpretation than the NJPSV rendering “died by the will of the
Lord.”
They offered: The Hebrew verb here, hiqrib (“bring, present”), is a technical
term referring to the offering of a sacrifice. It is used here even though Nadab and
Abihu’s offering is not authorized.
Unholy fire: More accurately, the Hebrew word translated unholy means
“prohibited,” “alien,” or “strange” (as in KJV). The fire was “unauthorized” (NIV and
NJB), “unacceptable” (CEV), because it had not been taken from the altar (compare
Lev 16.12). Its preparation had been legally incorrect according to the ceremonial
regulations of the Mosaic law code.
The wilderness of Sinai: See at 1.1.
And they had no children: It is probably better to incorporate this clause into
the following sentence, as GNT does, where it more clearly provides an explanation.
Verse 4 recalls and summarizes the story about Nadab and Abihu, which is
narrated in Lev 10.1-7.

3.5-10
For a possible section heading see above (under 3.1–4.49).

RSV
5
And the Lord said to Moses, 6 “Bring the tribe of Levi near, and set them
before Aaron the priest, that they may minister to him. 7 They shall perform
duties for him and for the whole congregation before the tent of meeting, as they
minister at the tabernacle; 8 they shall have charge of all the furnishings of the
tent of meeting, and attend to the duties for the people of Israel as they minister
at the tabernacle. 9 And you shall give the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they
are wholly given to him from among the people of Israel. 10 And you shall
appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall attend to their priesthood; but if any
one else comes near, he shall be put to death.”

GNT
5
The Lord said to Moses, 6 “Bring forward the tribe of Levi and appoint them
as servants of Aaron the priest. 7 They shall do the work required for the Tent of
my presence and perform duties for the priests and for the whole community. 8
They shall take charge of all the equipment of the Tent and perform the duties for
the rest of the Israelites. 9 The only responsibility the Levites have is to serve
Aaron and his sons. 10 You shall appoint Aaron and his sons to carry out the
duties of the priesthood; anyone else who tries to do so shall be put to death.”

In this paragraph the Levites are appointed to do various tasks on behalf of the
priests. This is one reason why the tribe of Levi is special. The purpose of the second
census of the Levites, in 4.1-49, will be to divide these tasks among the clans of the
tribe of Levi.
Bring the tribe of Levi near: The Hebrew verb is the same as in verse 4:
hiqrib (“bring, present”), where it refers to Nadab and Abihu’s unauthorized offering.
Here, by contrast, an act of communal dedicating to the Lord is involved. A literal
rendering of the RSV may well be misleading in the target language (“near” what or
where?), so unless a specific term for this type of action already exists, something
along the lines of the GNT (“bring forward”) will be needed.
 And set them before: This refers to a public ceremonial “presentation” to
announce and ratify their assignment as Aaron’s assistants (and to the entire
priesthood). The target language term used for this activity should harmonize with the
preceding verb, for example, “bring them forward (publicly) and present them to
Aaron.”
Perform duties for him and for the whole congregation: In other words,
“take care to do tasks for him and for the whole community,” that is, on their behalf.
The Hebrew expression used here is shamar mishmeret “keep watch, undertake
guard-duty” (compare also 1.53). It implies that these tasks have to be carried out
regularly and in a most careful manner. For him refers to Aaron. At this point FRCL
and DUCL mention Aaron explicitly. GNT’s “for the priests” unnecessarily makes
this reference much wider and more general.
Attend to the duties for the people of Israel: The intensified verb plus
cognate noun construction, with shamar mishmeret, is the same here as in the
preceding verse.
The tent of meeting … the tabernacle: See at 1.1. As in 1.50-51 RSV
renders tabernacle where the Hebrew has mishkan “dwelling-place.” This
corresponds with the tent of meeting, a temporary shelter. Because of the overlap in
meaning, GNT here in verse 7 only renders “Tent of my presence.” But if mishkan is
rendered “my dwelling-place”, with the pronoun (as in GECL), both terms can
probably be kept in the translation in a more natural way, perhaps using some sort of
appositional construction, for example, “The Tent of my presence, my dwelling
place.”
As they minister at the tabernacle: This occurs in verses 7 as well as 8. GNT
has left out tabernacle (but see above on RSV and GECL) as well as the verb
minister. But the corresponding Hebrew phrase “to do the ministry of (or: serve in)
the dwelling-place” is too significant to be left out altogether. It is the main theme of
chapters 3–4 and repetition serves to underscore that fact in many languages.
Furnishings: See at 1.50.
Give … to: That is, “assign to” (NJPSV), “put at the disposal of” (FRCL).
They are wholly given to him: In this phrase to him refers to Aaron. GECL
has “to them,” that is, to Aaron and his sons, because this is in line with the preceding
sentence. To him follows BHS. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient Greek
translation read “to me,” that is, to the Lord. This was probably under the influence of
8.16, where it is said about the Levites: “they are wholly given to me.” But there is no
convincing reason to follow these versions here in 3.9.
In Hebrew the passive participle given is repeated, and this justifies the
intensive adverb wholly in RSV. REB combines it with the preceding part of the
verse as follows: “assign the Levites to Aaron and his sons as especially [or:
exclusively] dedicated to him” (compare “wholly given to me [the Lord]” in 8.16).
Although this passive participle is similar to the designation or title netinim, “those
who were given” (Ezra 2.43), it is not therefore a designation or title itself (in spite of
the NBS02 rendering “with the title/capacity ‘given’”).
And you shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall attend to their
priesthood: As is also clear from the rest of verse 10, the point is really that only
Aaron and his sons will be priests, and nobody else. The Hebrew construction itself
clearly implies the same: “it is Aaron and his sons [that is, nobody else] whom you
shall appoint to attend to the priesthood.” The following would be a good model: “But
you shall appoint [only] Aaron and his sons; it is they [alone] who shall attend to the
priesthood” (similar to NRSV). Instead of attend to the priesthood, GNT’s “carry
out the duties of the priesthood” (or: “of [my] priests”) may be an easier translation
model to follow.
After RSV, NRSV has actually changed the translation to “But you shall make
a register of Aaron and his descendants.” Indeed, the verb in the Hebrew is the same
as in 1.3 and elsewhere: “number, enroll, muster.” But at this point in the text there
are only three people, Aaron and his two remaining sons, who could be enrolled by
Moses. There are no other “descendants” yet. And the verb can also mean “appoint,
entrust with an official duty, assign.” [<HALOT 3:956] This is how NRSV itself
renders the same verb in 4.32. So the same can be done here.
If any one else comes near: See at 1.51. GNT’s “anyone else who tries to do
so” is only one interpretation of comes near. Particularly after the brief story about
Nadab and Abihu in verse 4, it is more accurate to follow models such as “and any
outsider who comes near” (NRSV), that is, “who approaches the sanctuary” (NIV), or
“Anyone unauthorized who comes too close to the sanctuary” (NBV). (Instead of
“sanctuary” one could use the chosen term for tent of meeting; see at 1.1.)
He shall be put to death: See at 1.51.

3.11-13
RSV
11
And the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Behold, I have taken the Levites from
among the people of Israel instead of every first-born that opens the womb
among the people of Israel. The Levites shall be mine, 13 for all the first-born are
mine; on the day that I slew all the first-born in the land of Egypt, I consecrated
for my own all the first-born in Israel, both of man and of beast; they shall be
mine: I am the Lord.”

GNT
11
The Lord said to Moses, 12-13 “The Levites are now to be mine. When I killed
all the firstborn of the Egyptians, I consecrated as my own the eldest son of each
Israelite family and the firstborn of every animal. Now, instead of having the
firstborn sons of Israel as my own, I have the Levites; they will belong to me. I
am the Lord.”

This paragraph gives another reason why the tribe of Levi is given such a
special position: the Lord claims the Levites in place of all the firstborn in Israel. The
first census of the Levites, in 3.14-51, will determine whether there are enough
Levites to take the place of all the firstborn Israelites.
Here, 3.13 gives the historical background of the preceding verse and recalls
the Exodus (see Exo 11.7 and 13.2, 15). Thus, in order to present a sequence that is
easier to follow in English, the GNT has reversed the order of verses 12 and 13 and
combined them into one unit.
Behold: This particle (hinneh) emphasizes what the Lord is saying here, that it
is he himself who has made a choice of the tribe of Levi to serve in this
substitutionary purpose (note the expression “instead of”).
I have taken: This should not be interpreted as a past tense. A past tense
rendering would not take the function of the Hebrew verb into account at this point. “I
hereby take” (NJPSV) is more accurate and also fits the context better.
That opens the womb or “that breaches the womb”: A literal rendering may
well turn out to be offensive or embarrassing in the target language. If a local idiom is
not available, then this expression may have to be left implicit.
 I slew: Literally, “I struck, smote, attacked.” It is important not to use a target
language verb having a negative connotation, e.g., “I murdered.”
I consecrated for my own: Or “I claimed for myself” (NAV), “I set apart (or
chose) for myself.” The Hebrew has literally “I declared holy to myself.”
They shall be mine: In the immediate context they refers to the first-born in
Israel, both of man and of beast. The following rendering of this part of verse 13
brings this out: “I consecrated for my own all the firstborn in Israel; those of man as
well as those of beast belong to me” (NBS02). GNT’s arrangement of the text (“I
have the Levites; they will belong to me.”) wrongly suggests that they refers to the
Levites.
The change from past tense (I consecrated) to future or present tense (shall
be mine or “belong to me”) may be awkward in translation. In such cases NJPSV
provides a helpful model: “I consecrated every first-born in Israel, man and beast, to
Myself, to be mine, the Lord’s.” This translation also brings out the function of I am
the Lord at this particular point in the text; this phrase gives a reason: “because I am
the Lord” (DUCL). In addition to its function as a concluding emphasizer, this
formulaic divine self-designation may also be an abbreviated way of referring to
certain parallel passages in the Pentateuch, in this case Lev 11.44-45. It should be
translated consistently, if possible, in some distinctive manner that highlights its
function, for example, Chewa: “I it is me Chauta [YHWH].”

3.14-39
Section heading: GNT’s section heading for this passage is: “The Census of the
Levites.” But see the discussion above (under 3.1–4.49).
As in chapters 1–2, the stereotyped, repetitive nature of the original text
should be preserved in translation because in this case, the form calls attention to its
function as an official record or listing of the names of those involved in the cultic
service of Israel.

3.14-16
RSV
14
And the Lord said to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, 15 “Number the sons
of Levi, by fathers' houses and by families; every male from a month old and
upward you shall number.” 16 So Moses numbered them according to the word of
the Lord, as he was commanded.

GNT
14
In the Sinai Desert the Lord commanded Moses 15 to register the Levites by
clans and families, enrolling every male a month old or older, 16 and Moses did
so.

The wilderness of Sinai: See at 1.1.

Number: The Hebrew verb is in the singular each time. As in 1.3, a better
equivalent for the verb is “enroll (NRSV), muster.”
By fathers’ houses and by families: See at 1.2, where the same phrases
occur, though in reverse order. Again, “by clans and families” reflects the kinship
system in the Hebrew more accurately.
As he was commanded: It may be necessary to make the Lord and/or Moses
explicit: “as Moses was commanded,” “as the Lord commanded him,” or “as the Lord
commanded Moses.” NIV avoids some repetitiveness by combining this phrase with
what precedes: “as he was commanded by the word of the Lord.”
The repetitiveness of the Hebrew text may be a marker of its importance, in
this case, to distinguish the census of the Levites from the general census of the other
tribes. Thus, if it is possible to preserve the repetition in a natural way, it would be
advisable to do this, rather than to condense the text as much as the GNT has done.

3.17-20
RSV
17
And these were the sons of Levi by their names: Gershon and Kohath and
Merari. 18 And these are the names of the sons of Gershon by their families: Libni
and Shime-i. 19 And the sons of Kohath by their families: Amram, Izhar, Hebron,
and Uzziel. 20 And the sons of Merari by their families: Mahli and Mushi. These are
the families of the Levites, by their fathers' houses.

GNT
17-20
Levi had three sons: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, who were the ancestors
of the clans that bear their names. Gershon had two sons: Libni and Shimei;
Kohath had four sons: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel; and Merari had two
sons: Mahli and Mushi. They were the ancestors of the families that bear their
names.

And these were … And these are: GNT renders this whole paragraph in the
past tense. But RSV is closer to the Hebrew in that it has a past tense in verse 17 only.
RSV thus brings out more clearly than GNT that the paragraph is part of a list. In
languages where a change of tense from past to present as in RSV would be awkward,
NBS02 provides a good model: it translates this whole paragraph in the present tense.
By their families: “by their clans” reflects the Hebrew lemishpechotam better.
See at 1.2. Compare “by clan” (NJPSV) and “clan by clan” (NBS02). GNT translates
“clans” and at the same time avoids the repetition of this phrase.
These are the families of the Levites, by their fathers’ houses: See at 1.2.
Compare “the clans of the Levites, family by family” (NBS02). NBV brings out the
difference in size between mishpachah and “house” still more clearly: “the clans of
the Levites, which in turn were divided into families.” A similar model may be:
“These are the clans of the Levites, which consisted of families.” NJPSV has made
this sentence the beginning and introduction of a new paragraph. But actually it is not
just this sentence but all of verses 17-20 that together form an introduction to verses
21-37.

3.21-22
RSV
21
Of Gershon were the family of the Libnites and the family of the Shimeites;
these were the families of the Gershonites. 22 Their number according to the
number of all the males from a month old and upward was a seven thousand five
hundred.

a 3.22 Heb their number was

GNT
21
The clan of Gershon was composed of the families of Libni and Shimei. 22
The total number of males one month old or older that were enrolled was 7,500.
 Were: The Hebrew has no past tense in these verses, and no verbs either.
From the book’s point of view, only verse 22 is bound to refer to the past. NBS02
translates with a present tense in verse 21, and with a past tense only in verse 22. In
some languages it may be possible to bring out the list character of the text by leaving
out verbs altogether.
Family ... family ... families: Verse 18 already refers to Gershon and his sons
Linbi and Shimei. As in verse 18, “clan” and “clans” (NJPSV and NBS02) reflects the
Hebrew mishpachah better. Although the Hebrew and the RSV in verse 21 may seem
repetitive, GNT does not help to make the Hebrew kinship system clearer. If it is
necessary to reduce the repetitiveness, FRCL provides a better model: “Gershon was
the ancestor of the Gershonites, divided into two clans, those of the Libnites and of
the Shimeites.” In any case, the singular “clan” in GNT (“the clan of Gershon”)
becomes misleading because there are two Gershonite clans. Therefore, the GNT
should not be followed as a model here.
Their number: The footnote in RSV mentions that here in verse 22 the
Hebrew repeats “their number” at that point. NRSV translates “their enrollment.” The
Hebrew word is a form of the same verb as in 1.3, where NRSV translates “enroll” as
well (see at 1.3). With “number” and “enrolled,” GNT brings out both aspects of
meaning of this verb.
Seven thousand five hundred: For the possible meaning of thousand at an
earlier stage in the transmission of the Hebrew text, see the comment at 1.20-46.
However, the actual text no longer allows for this meaning but adds up this and other
high numbers in 3.39. Thus it is the actual text with its high numbers that should be
translated.

3.23-24
RSV
23
The families of the Gershonites were to encamp behind the tabernacle on the
west, 24 with Eliasaph, the son of Lael as head of the fathers' house of the
Gershonites.

GNT
23 24
This clan was to camp on the west behind the Tent, with Eliasaph son of Lael
as chief of the clan.

Families: The Hebrew mishpechot is best understood as “clans.” Again, the

singular “clan” in GNT is misleading.
Were to encamp: The Hebrew has no past tense in this verse. The verb is the
same as in 1.53 and, for example, 2.2. Here in 3.23 as well as in 1.53 and 2.2, LUT84,
KJV and RSO translate with a command: “shall encamp,” “shall pitch,” and “are to
encamp.” As a command, then, it is to be carried out repeatedly, that is, whenever the
Israelites build up their camp. In some languages a repetitive command or a present
(“encamp”) or even future tense may help to bring out the list character of the text.
The Hebrew verb certainly allows for such a rendering. Having said that, the
translation should not give the wrong impression that the Lord is speaking to Moses
here in verse 23. Verses 23-24 are a statement by the author.
Behind the tabernacle on the west: This does not contradict 2.18 (“On the
west side shall be the standard of the camp of Ephraim”). In line with 2.17, the camp
of the Levites is close to the “Tent,” closer than any other tribe’s. The camp of
Ephraim is behind the Tent, but not as close as the camp of the Gershonites. Behind is
to be understood as “closely behind” or “very close to the Tent on the (its) western
side.” The division of the Levites’ position around the Tent among their clans starts
here in 3.23.
Tabernacle: See at 1.50-51.
With Eliasaph…as head: This is actually quite a difficult or potentially
ambiguous construction in many languages. It may be clearer to separate the content
of verses 23 and 24, even if this results in sentences that are relatively short.
Head of the fathers’ house of the Gershonites: Strictly speaking, the
Hebrew does not have head but “chief” (GNT), “chieftain” (NJPSV). The Hebrew
nasi’, as in 1.16, refers to a prominent and distinguished leader, for example, a sheikh.
On the face of it, the term fathers’ house seems to correspond with the Gershonites.
It would then seem to be used here in a wider sense than in, for example, 1.4.
Compare NLT: “the leader of the Gershonite clans.” However, a rendering such as
“the family leader for the Gershonites” (similar to NBG51 and TOB) shows a more
accurate analysis of the Hebrew construction nesi’ vet-av lagershuni (“a leader of the
house of the father of the Gershonites”). In this analysis fathers’ house or “family” is
not directly connected with Gershonites. It thus remains valid to interpret fathers’
house (or more accurately “father’s house”) in the same way as in 1.2 and 4:
“family.” That makes Eliasaph one of several family chiefs, the one who takes up this
role among the Gershonites. In the end, though, the complications that go with
fathers’ house at this point may have to be avoided in translation. A good model
would be a combination of GNT and NLT: “… as chief of the clans.” Alternatively,
GECL is even less complicated: “Their chief was …”

3.25-26
RSV
25
And the charge of the sons of Gershon in the tent of meeting was to be the
tabernacle, the tent with its covering, the screen for the door of the tent of
meeting, 26 the hangings of the court, the screen for the door of the court which
is around the tabernacle and the altar, and its cords; all the service pertaining to
these.

GNT
25
They were responsible for the Tent, its inner cover, its outer cover, the curtain
for the entrance, 26 the curtains for the court which is round the Tent and the
altar, and the curtain for the entrance of the court. They were responsible for all
the service connected with these items.

Charge: Or “duty, task, responsibility.” As in 3.7-8, where the same Hebrew

word mishmeret is used, this responsibility refers to duties that are to be done
regularly.
Was to be: After verses 23-24, most translations continue with a past tense in
these verses as well. But the Hebrew lacks a past tense form, or any verb, for that
matter. (LUT84, KJV and RSO translate verses 23-26 with a present or future tense,
thus showing more clearly that the text is instructional.) In some languages it may be
possible to leave verbs out altogether, so as to bring out that this verse is part of a list:
“Charge of the sons of Gershon in the tent of meeting: the dwelling-place, …”
(similar to Buber). In this case, perhaps some special indentation on the printed page
would also help to distinguish this genre.
Tabernacle: In general, the tabernacle is the same as the tent of meeting (see
at 1.50-51). However, in this verse the tabernacle (Hebrew mishkan “dwelling-
place”) is not quite the same as the tent of meeting as a whole but, more precisely,
the tabernacle is God’s dwelling-place under the tent coverings.
Hence, the tent with its covering corresponds with the “inner cover” and
“outer cover” over the tabernacle, and these renderings are used in GNT. By not
repeating the word “tent,” GNT avoids the confusion which RSV may cause (How
many tents?). The CEV avoids confusion by translating “the tent itself, along with its
outer covering” at this point. So the following coverings are mentioned: the inner
cover (which is the tent itself) as well as the outer cover. But, while the outer covering
is referred to as one covering here in 3.25, this is not the case in 4.25 and Exo 26.14
(see the discussion at Num 4.25).
The screen for the door or “the curtain for the entrance” functions as a cover
for the entrance to the tent (in verse 25) and also the entrance to the court (in verse
26).
The hangings of the court or “the curtains for the court”: These curtains form
an enclosure, a fence. They close off the court, which is the area around the tent of
meeting and the altar.
In some languages it may be appropriate to use the same word “covering,
curtain” throughout these verses (DUCL).
Cords or “tent ropes” has not been translated in GNT.
All the service pertaining to these and “They were responsible for all the
service connected with these items”: Literally the Hebrew has only “for all the service
to this.” A literal rendering like the RSV would be very confusing in most languages,
especially coming at the end of such a long and detailed sentence. Even more
explicitly than GNT, CEV actually explains what this service meant: “the Gershonites
were responsible for setting these things up and taking them down.”

3.27-28
RSV
27
Of Kohath were the family of the Amramites, and the family of the
Izharites, and the family of the Hebronites, and the family of the Uzzielites;
these are the families of the Kohathites. 28 According to the number of all the
males, from a month old and upward, there were eight thousand six hundred,
attending to the duties of the sanctuary.

GNT
27
The clan of Kohath was composed of the families of Amram, Izhar, Hebron,
and Uzziel. 28 The total number of males one month old or older that were
enrolled was 8,600.

Were: The Hebrew has no verbs in these verses. (From the book’s point of
view, only verse 28 is bound to refer to the past. NBS02 translates with a present
tense in verse 27, and with a past tense only in verse 28.) In some languages it may be
possible to bring out the list character of the text by leaving out verbs altogether.
Family and families: Verse 19 already refers to Kohath and his sons. As in
verse 19, “clan” and “clans” (NJPSV and NBS02) reflects the Hebrew mishpachah
better. As in verses 21-22, FRCL provides a good model which is not repetitive:
“Kohath was the ancestor of the Kohathites, [who were] divided into four clans, those
of the Amramites, Hebronites, and Uzzielites,” or one could say, “The descendants of
Kohath were divided into four clans, those of …” In any case, the singular “clan” in
GNT (“the clan of Kohath”) becomes misleading because there are four Kohathite
clans.
 Eight thousand six hundred: Following some manuscripts of the ancient
Greek translation, FRCL, GECL, and DUCL translate “8300” here. NIV and CEV
mention this alternative in a footnote. This would bring the figure into line with the
total in verse 39, where the numbers of verses 22, 28, and 34 are added up. At an
earlier stage, the Hebrew text may have read “three,” where, after the accidental
omission of just one consonant, the traditional Hebrew text now reads “six.” But this
is only a possibility, and the textual evidence of those manuscripts of the ancient
Greek translation is very limited indeed. (See at 3.39 for quite another way to account
for the difference of 300.)
GNT leaves attending to the duties of the sanctuary untranslated. But the
same Hebrew phrase occurs at the end of verse 32, where GNT does translate it. Such
inconsistency should be avoided in translation.
Attending to the duties: See at 3.7-8.
Sanctuary: “holy space, holy area” (NBV) and “Holy Place” (GNT, verse 32)
are good renderings of the Hebrew qodesh.

3.29-30
RSV
29
The families of the sons of Kohath were to encamp on the south side of the
tabernacle, 30 with Elizaphan the son of Uzziel as head of the fathers' house of the
families of the Kohathites.

GNT
29 30
This clan was to camp on the south side of the Tent, with Elizaphan son of
Uzziel as chief of the clan.

Families: The Hebrew mishpechot is best understood as “clans” (FRCL). The

singular “clan” in GNT is misleading.
Were to encamp: See at 3.23, where the Hebrew verb is the same.
On the south side of the tabernacle: This does not contradict 2.10 (“On the
south side shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben”). In line with 2.17, the camp
of the Levites is close to the “Tent,” closer than any other tribe’s. The camp of
Reuben is not as close to the Tent as the camp of the Kohathite clans.
Head of the fathers’ house of the families of the Kohathites: See at 3.24. It
remains valid to interpret fathers’ house (or rather “father’s house”) in the same way
as in 1.2 and 4: “family.” A rendering such as “the family leader for the Kohathite
clans” (similar to TOB) shows a more accurate analysis of the Hebrew construction
nesi’ vet-av lemishpechot haqehati. That makes Elizaphan one of several family
chiefs, the one who takes up this role among the Kohathites. In the end, though, the
complications that go with fathers’ house at this point should be avoided in
translation. A good model would be a combination of GNT and NLT: “… as chief of
the clans.” Alternatively, GECL is even less complicated: “Their chief was …”

3.31
RSV
31
And their charge was to be the ark, the table, the lampstand, the altars, the
vessels of the sanctuary with which the priests minister, and the screen; all the
service pertaining to these.

GNT
31
They were responsible for the Covenant Box, the table, the lampstand, the
altars, the utensils the priests use in the Holy Place, and the curtain at the
entrance to the Most Holy Place. They were responsible for all the service
connected with these items.

Charge: See at 3.25.

Was to be: See at 3.25. The Hebrew lacks a past tense form, or any verb, for
that matter. Compare the non-past rendering of LUT84, KJV, and RSO.
Ark: A wooden box or chest. The text of the covenant, the two stone tablets,
was kept in it. Hence the GNT rendering “Covenant Box.” Because of its size (see
Exo 25.10) and for stylistic reasons, it may be better to translate “chest” than “box,”
which may suggest something quite flimsy or temporary, like a cardboard “box” in
English. Also, it may not be necessary to include the word “covenant” when, as here,
this is not mentioned in the Hebrew. So “chest” (NBS02) and “sacred chest” (FRCL,
CEV) are good models.
Table refers to the table with the sacred loaves of bread on it, the bread that
symbolized the Lord’s presence and provision for his people (see Exo 25.23-30). This
function of the table is specified in CEV (“table for the sacred bread”) and GECL
(“table with the dedicated loaves”). Along these lines, other models are “table for the
bread that had been set apart” and “table for special bread.”
Lampstand: A holder for lamps, that is, an ornamental stand with branches
for holding seven oil lamps (see Exo 25.31-40). “A thing for setting a lamp upon” in
some languages.
Altars refers to two altars: one for sacrificing animals on it (see Exo 27.1-8)
and one for burning incense on it (see Exo 30.1-9).
The vessels of the sanctuary: A generic rendering such as “utensils” (GNT),
“articles” (NIV), or the target language term for “implements” is more in place than
the very specific rendering “vessels.” Not all these objects contain something; they
included other pieces of equipment. Sanctuary: “holy space, holy area” and “Holy
Place” (GNT) are good renderings of the Hebrew qodesh.
With which the priests minister: The Hebrew has “with which they
minister.” In the target language it may be necessary to mention explicitly who did the
ministering. RSV (and GNT) make the priests explicit. Renderings which avoid an
explicit subject of the verb are: “the utensils used in the sanctuary” (FRCL), “the
articles of the sanctuary used in ministering” (NIV).
The screen: This screen is not to be confused with “the screen for the door of
the tent of meeting” in 3.25. To bring this out, GNT has “the curtain at the entrance to
the most Holy Place.” But FRCL is more concise in achieving the same purpose: “the
inner curtain of the dwelling-place.” Another possibility is “the inner curtain dividing
the Tent.”

3.32
RSV
32
And Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest was to be chief over the leaders of the
Levites, and to have oversight of those who had charge of the sanctuary.

GNT
32
The chief of the Levites was Eleazar son of Aaron the priest. He was in
charge of those who carried out the duties in the Holy Place.
 In RSV this verse still belongs to the paragraph of verses 27-32 about the
Kohathite clans. This makes sense, because the end of the verse still refers to the
Kohathites and to their task in the same way as at the end of verse 28. But in GNT
verse 32 is set off as a separate paragraph. This also makes sense, because verse 31
concludes the section in a manner similar to the endings of the other two Levite
divisions in verses 26 (Gershon) and 37 (Merari). Furthermore, the beginning of the
verse refers to the whole Levite tribe and Eleazar’s leading position in it. One
advantage of RSV is that readers will better understand the implicit reference to the
Kohathites (those who had charge of the sanctuary, see below) at the end of the
verse. Eleazar was, after all, a Kohathite. On the other hand, it does appear that the
discourse structure of this chapter favors the special status of verse 32 as a separate
unit that refers to all three of the Levite divisions. Hence the GNT decision can also
be supported and is perhaps preferable from a functional perspective.
So why does verse 32 come at this point? The text is dealing with the
Kohathite clans and their task. In their involvement with the ark and the other “most
holy things” (4.19 RSV), they are exposed to more danger than the other Levite clans.
So it is Aaron’s eldest son, Eleazar, “the head chieftain of the Levites” (NJPSV), who
is given a specific responsibility for the Kohathites in view of their special needs
(compare 4.15-20).[<Budd 40]
Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest: In many languages the rendering the
may wrongly suggest that he is the only son. “Eleazar son of Aaron the priest” (GNT)
is more accurate.
Was to be: See at 3.25. The Hebrew lacks a past tense form, or any verb, for
that matter. This applies to the whole of verse 32. Compare the non-past rendering of
LUT84, KJV, and RSO.
Chief over the leaders of the Levites: The Hebrew nasi’ (“chieftain” rather
than just “leader”), which was discussed under 1.16, is actually repeated here: “chief
of the chiefs of the Levites.” This repetition underlines Eleazar’s important position.
“The chief of the Levites” (GNT) does not bring this out at all. Even if in some
languages such repetition is not stylistically acceptable, RSV, NJPSV (“the head
chieftain of the Levites”), and Chewa (“the great one of the leaders of the Levites”)
are good models.
Oversight: Or “responsibility.”
Who had charge of the sanctuary and “who carried out the duties in the
Holy Place”: See 3.7-8 and especially the end of 3.28, where the same phrase occurs
in the Hebrew and where RSV translates: “attending to the duties of the sanctuary.”
This phrase refers to the Kohathites here in verse 32 as well as in verse 28.

3.33-34
RSV
33
Of Merari were the family of the Mahlites and the family of the Mushites:
these are the families of Merari. 34 Their number according to the number of all
the males from a month old and upward was six thousand two hundred.

GNT
33
The clan of Merari was composed of the families of Mahli and Mushi. 34 The
total number of males one month old or older that were enrolled was 6,200.

Were: The Hebrew has no verbs in these verses. (From the book’s point of
view, only verse 34 is bound to refer to the past. NBS02 translates with a present
tense in verse 33, and with a past tense only in verse 34.) In some languages it may be
possible to bring out the list character of the text by leaving out verbs altogether.
Family and families: “Clan” and “clans” (NJPSV and NBS02) reflects the
Hebrew mishpachah better. Again, FRCL provides a good model which is not
repetitive: “Merari was the ancestor of the Merarites, divided into two clans, those of
the Mahlites and of the Mushites.” In any case, the singular “clan” in GNT (“the clan
of Merari”) becomes misleading because there are two Merarite clans.

3.35
RSV
35
And the head of the fathers' house of the families of Merari was Zuriel the son
of Abihail; they were to encamp on the north side of the tabernacle.

GNT
35
This clan was to camp on the north side of the Tent, with Zuriel son of Abihail
as chief of the clan.

Head of the fathers’ house of the families of Merari: A rendering such as

“the family leader for the clans of Merari” (similar to TOB) shows a more accurate
analysis of the Hebrew construction nesi’ vet-av lemishpechot merari. See at 3.24 and
3.30 and the translation models mentioned there. Again, the singular “clan” in GNT is
misleading.
Were to encamp: See at 3.23 and 3.29, where the Hebrew verb is the same, as
well as the non-past rendering of LUT84, KJV, and RSO.
On the north side of the tabernacle: This does not contradict 2.25 (“On the
north side shall be the standard of the camp of Dan”). In line with 2.17, the camp of
the Levites is close to the “Tent,” closer than any other tribe’s. The camp of Dan is
not as close to the Tent as the camp of the clans of Merari.
In the Hebrew (and in RSV) the order of the two sentences in this verse is the
reverse of the order in verses 23-24 and 29-30. Perhaps the reversal was intended to
overtly mark this information as pertaining to the third and final Levite division. GNT
has adapted the order here in verse 35 to those earlier verses.

3.36-37
RSV
36
And the appointed charge of the sons of Merari was to be the frames of the
tabernacle, the bars, the pillars, the bases, and all their accessories; all the
service pertaining to these; 37 also the pillars of the court round about, with their
bases and pegs and cords.

GNT
36
They were assigned responsibility for the frames for the Tent, its bars, posts,
bases, and all its fittings. They were responsible for all the service connected with
these items. 37 They were also responsible for the posts, bases, pegs, and ropes
for the outer court.

Both appointed charge and “were assigned responsibility” are slightly

different from the renderings in 3.25, 31, where RSV translates “charge” and GNT
translates “were responsible.” In the Hebrew, the same word mishmeret occurs here,
but this time it is preceded by another word that is similar in meaning: “appointment,
responsibility.” Taken together, the two words can be rendered “assigned duties”
(similar to NJPSV).
 Was to be and “were”: See at 3.25. The Hebrew lacks a past tense form, or
any verb, for that matter. Verses 36-37 form one sentence in the Hebrew. GNT has
broken it up into three sentences.
Frames: The “planks” (NJPSV) which form the wooden framework of the
mishkan (“dwelling-place”). They stand in vertical, upright position (compare Exo
26.15).
Bars: Wooden “crossbars” (NIV), in horizontal position, that keep the frames
together. Compare Exo 26.26.
Pillars: These are upright “posts”, wooden tent-poles (compare Exo 26.32,
37).
Bases: Metal bases or sockets in which planks and posts are set up (compare
Exo 26.19).
Accessories: In this context, “fittings” and “equipment” (NIV) are good
renderings as well.
All the service pertaining to these: See at 3.26 and the reservations
mentioned there against past tense forms in the translation of these verses. As in verse
26 and 31, CEV actually explains what this service meant: “The Merari clans were
responsible for setting these things up and taking them down.” It is also helpful that
CEV puts this at the very end of verse 37, that is, after the list of items. In GNT and
CEV, “They are responsible” would be better than “They were responsible.”
Pegs and cords: Metal tent pegs (compare Exo 27.19) and ropes. “Metal” may
need to be specified lest readers assume that they were wooden.

3.38
RSV
38
And those to encamp before the tabernacle on the east, before the tent of
meeting toward the sunrise, were Moses and Aaron and his sons, having charge
of the rites within the sanctuary, whatever had to be done for the people of
Israel; and any one else who came near was to be put to death.

GNT
38
Moses and Aaron and his sons were to camp in front of the Tent on the
east. They were responsible for carrying out the services performed in the Holy
Place for the people of Israel. Anyone else who tried to do so was to be put to
death.

Those to encamp: Again, the Hebrew has no past tense in this whole verse,
and at this particular point there is not even a verb, but only a participle (“those
encamping”) of the same meaning as in 3.23.
Were: The lack of a past tense in the Hebrew of this verse has led to the non-
past rendering of LUT84, KJV, and RSO.
On the east … toward the sunrise: See at 2.3. This is the side of the entrance
to the Tent (3.38). This privileged position for Moses and Aaron and his sons at this
side underlines their central position in the tribe of Levi. If toward the sunrise (or an
idiomatic rendering such as “towards the morning”) poses a problem in translation,
“in front” (NJPSV), “on the front side,” or even “at the side of the entrance” are
possibly other ways to bring this out. However, the implication that this was the most
honourable position should still be conveyed if possible, for example, “the honoured
place on the front side”.
Before the tabernacle … before the tent of meeting: This important place
for Moses and Aaron and his sons is part of the camp of the Levites (compare 2.17).
This camp is close to the “Tent,” closer than any other tribe’s. So Moses and Aaron
are closer to the “Tent” than the camp of Judah, which is also on the east (2.3). Before
is to be understood as “closely before, right in front.”
Having charge of the rites: The Hebrew expression used here is “keeping
watch, undertake guard-duty,” which was already discussed under 3.7-8 (shamar
mishmeret). And mishmeret means “charge” (RSV, see at 3.25) or “duty, task,
responsibility.” There is, in fact, nothing in the Hebrew that corresponds with rites.
Translators are encouraged to render the Hebrew expression here in 3.38 consistently
with 3.7-8, where RSV has “perform duties” and “attend to the duties.” This
consistency is important, although neither RSV nor GNT maintain it. The consistency
can bring out that this expression applies to the tribe of Levi and also to Moses and
Aaron and his sons in exactly the same way. By using the same expression, the
Hebrew makes no distinction at these points between humble duties for the Levites
and higher tasks for the priests.
Within the sanctuary: Although within does not literally correspond with
anything in the Hebrew, it helps to underline that it refers to the “Holy Place,” the
inner sanctuary. Only Moses and Aaron and his sons are allowed to enter there. And
this leads to the statement that follows:
And anyone else who came near was to be put to death: There is no reason
for the past tense. The Hebrew is exactly the same as at the end of 3.10.

3.39
RSV
39
All who were numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron numbered at
the commandment of the Lord, by families, all the males from a month old and
upward, were twenty-two thousand.

GNT
39
The total number of all the Levite males one month old or older that Moses
enrolled by clans at the command of the Lord, was 22,000.

Since this is a concluding summary verse (see verses 14-16), it may be

appropriate in some languages to set it off as a separate paragraph (as in NIV).
Whom Moses and Aaron numbered: It is only here that the Hebrew of this
verse has a verb. As in 1.3, a better equivalent for the Hebrew verb is “enrolled”
(NRSV) or “recorded” (NJPSV). and Aaron is not mentioned in GNT. In the
traditional Hebrew text we’aharon “and Aaron” does occur, although in that text it
has been marked with dots (see BHS). This may possibly indicate that the scribes of
the original manuscripts intended to omit it [< Tov 1992:56 and 2012:52]. Indeed, the
name is lacking in some manuscripts of the traditional Hebrew text, in the Samaritan
Pentateuch, and in the ancient Syriac translation. And numbered / “enrolled” is a
singular verb in the Hebrew. On the other hand, there are reasons to accept the
Hebrew reading “and Aaron” here. The name does occur in the ancient Greek
translation and the Vulgate. Also, the meaning of the dots in the Hebrew text is not
quite certain: Hebrew tradition explained those dots as indicating doubtful letters [<
Tov 1992:56 and 2012:52]. Furthermore, in Hebrew a singular verb can precede a
subject like Moses and Aaron without any problem. Finally, the text with “and
Aaron” is the harder, less likely reading and hence more likely to have been changed
by scribes (see 3:14, 16 where Aaron is not mentioned). Translators are thus
encouraged to follow NRSV (“Moses and Aaron enrolled”) or “Moses … with
Aaron” (LUT84, NBG51).
 Families: “clans” (GNT) is a more accurate translation of the Hebrew
mishpechot. See at 1.2.
Were twenty-two thousand: On the basis of verse 22 (7,500), verse 28
(8,600, see there), and verse 34 (6,200) one might have expected 22,300 here.
However, the text unambiguously reads 22,000. (According to Rashi and his grandson
Rashbam, rabbis and commentators from the Middle Ages, the subtotals in verses 22,
28, and 34 include 300 firstborn Levites. But these are not included in the total figure
of 22,000: a firstborn Levite cannot serve as ransom for another firstborn.) Were:
The Hebrew lacks a verb here, although the verse is bound to refer to the past. In
some languages it may be possible to bring out the list character of the text by leaving
out the verb altogether (as in Buber).

3.40-51
Section heading: GNT’s section heading for this passage is: “The Levites Take the
Place of the Firstborn Sons.” But see the discussion above (under 3.1–4.49).

3.40-41
RSV
40
And the Lord said to Moses, “Number all the first-born males of the people
of Israel, from a month old and upward, taking their number by names. 41 And
you shall take the Levites for me-- I am the Lord--instead of all the first-born
among the people of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of all the
firstlings among the cattle of the people of Israel.”

GNT
40-41
The Lord said to Moses, “All of Israel's firstborn sons belong to me. So
register by name every firstborn male Israelite, one month old or older. But in
place of them I claim all the Levites as mine! I am the Lord! I also claim the
livestock of the Levites in place of all the firstborn of the livestock.”

This paragraph does not introduce a new theme but returns to the subject of
3.11-13 (see there).
Number: Or “enroll,” “record”; see at 3.39.
Taking their number by names and “count their names” (NRSV) do not
make clear whether this instruction concerns a counting of their number or a listing of
their names. REB and similarly NBV have clearly chosen the first: “and count the
number of persons,” while other translations choose the second: “and make a list of
their names” (NIV, similarly NJPSV). Given the census in this context, REB is
recommended as a model in languages where the choice has to be made. A similar
model would be: “and count them individually.”
You shall take the Levites for me: This, and “But you shall accept the
Levites for me” (NRSV) seem a more accurate rendering than GNT (“claim”).
I am the Lord is a reason for the sentence which it emphatically interrupts.
The question is: what is being emphasized by this special placement? On the basis of
3.13, this would seem to be the Lord’s right to possess all the firstborn sons of Israel
(hence GNT’s inclusion of this implicit information at the beginning and the
reordering of verses 40-41, which are combined). Moving this clause to the end of the
verse (NIV), or rendering it as in NJPSV: “and take the Levites for Me, the LORD, in
place of …” would seem to be missing the point of the Hebrew word order here.
3.42-43
RSV
42
So Moses numbered all the first-born among the people of Israel, as the Lord
commanded him. 43 And all the first-born males, according to the number of
names, from a month old and upward as numbered were twenty-two thousand
two hundred and seventy-three.

GNT
42 43
Moses obeyed, and registered all the firstborn males one month old or older;
the total was 22,273.

Numbered: Or “enrolled,” “recorded”; see at 3.39. Moses carries out the

instructions of the preceding verses.
As the Lord commanded him has been rendered as “obeyed” in GNT. But
GNT has left the object, the Lord, implicit, which may detract from this repeated
emphasis of the original text.

3.44-45
RSV
44
And the Lord said to Moses, 45 “Take the Levites instead of all the first-born
among the people of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle;
and the Levites shall be mine: I am the Lord.

GNT
44
The Lord said to Moses, 45 “Now dedicate the Levites as mine in place of all
the firstborn Israelite sons, and dedicate the livestock of the Levites in place of
the firstborn of the Israelites' livestock.

Take the Levites or “Accept the Levites” (NRSV): the meaning of the verb is
the same as in verse 41, which is repeated here. The emphasis conveyed by such
repetition should be retained in the target language unless there is a reason for not
doing so, e.g., ambiguity or an unnatural style. GNT’s “Now” wrongly suggests that a
new step is involved. These verses are largely a repetition of 3.40-41.

3.46-48
RSV
46
And for the redemption of the two hundred and seventy-three of the first-born
of the people of Israel, over and above the number of the male Levites, 47 you
shall take five shekels apiece; reckoning by the shekel of the sanctuary, the
shekel of twenty gerahs, you shall take them, 48 and give the money by which the
excess number of them is redeemed to Aaron and his sons.”

GNT
46
Since the firstborn Israelite sons outnumber the Levites by 273, you must buy
back the extra sons. 47 For each one pay five pieces of silver, according to the
official standard, 48 and give this money to Aaron and his sons.”

The total number of male Levites – 22,000 – is mentioned in 3.39, while the
total number of firstborn Israelite sons – 22,273 – is mentioned in 3.43.
GNT is probably easier to read because after verse 46 it starts verse 47 with a
new sentence; it also uses figures rather than spelling out the numbers. But GNT’s
“you must buy back the extra sons” wrongly suggests in English that this comes as
something new and unexpected. RSV and NRSV are more accurate in that the
redemption (or “the price of redemption”) of the 273 is almost taken for granted, and
in the text the question is only how it is to be done. The Hebrew actually has a
participle here, which is what KJV brings out (“And for those that are to be redeemed
of …”). GNT could be revised slightly to read: “Since the firstborn Israelite sons to be
redeemed [bought back] outnumber the Levites by 273, you must buy back those
extra sons.” Verse 46 can also be rendered as follows: “To buy out the 273 of the
firstborn Israelite sons that outnumber the male Levites, …”
Five shekels apiece, that is, five shekels per head, per person. Shekels are not
coins but pieces of silver by weight.
Reckoning by the shekel of the sanctuary may also be translated “by the
holy shekel” or “by the shekel of the holy place.” This indicates that there may have
been more than one standard. REB has “by the sacred standard.” The text specifies
that this “sanctuary weight” of the shekel equalled twenty gerahs. The gerah was the
smallest unit of weight, which was less than 0.6 grams. GNT has considered all this as
unnecessary information and simply says “according to the official standard.” One
may also say “weighed according to the correct [or “standard” or “official”] weight.”
In any case, this expression will normally have been dealt with at Exo 30.13, so
translators should re-evaluate what was used there and either use the same term if it is
satisfactory or choose a revision to use at both places (and any others where this
technical expression occurs—for example, Lev 5.15; Num 7.13).

3.49-51
RSV
49
So Moses took the redemption money from those who were over and above
those redeemed by the Levites; 50 from the first-born of the people of Israel he
took the money, one thousand three hundred and sixty-five shekels, reckoned by
the shekel of the sanctuary; 51 and Moses gave the redemption money to Aaron
and his sons, according to the word of the Lord, as the Lord commanded Moses.

GNT
49 50 51
Moses obeyed and took the 1,365 pieces of silver and gave them to Aaron
and his sons.

In these verses Moses carries out the instructions of 3.44-48. To reduce the
repetition that this involves, GNT simply starts with “Moses obeyed.” But this
rendering is unnecessarily free, that is, condensed in comparison with according to
the word of the Lord, as the Lord commanded Moses. The repetition stresses the
notion of explicit obedience, which is an important feature of these legislative texts.
DUCL provides a model which is more accurate as well as concise: “Moses collected
1365 silver pieces and gave these to Aaron and his sons [on behalf of the 273 extra
firstborn persons], as the Lord had commanded Moses.” DUCL combines verses 49-
51 into a single unit.
Redemption money or “ransom money.” The Hebrew has virtually the same
word for redemption here as in 3.46.
Those who were over and above those redeemed by the Levites: That is,
the 273 firstborn Israelites that outnumbered the 22,000 that were substituted for by
the Levites.

4.1-49
This chapter may be given its own Section Heading: “Census and Tasks of the
Kohathites and Other Levite Clans.” But see the discussion above under 3.1–4.49.
Chapter 4 concerns the census of the Levites between thirty and fifty years of age
with a duty of service towards the tent of meeting. The first census (3.14-39) included
all male members of the clans of Levi from one month of age upwards. The present
census of chapter 4 gives more details concerning the actual ritual duties of those
Levites engaged in caring for the Tent and its furnishings. (The census of the other
tribes in chapter 1 concerns military service.)
GNT divides chapter 4 into shorter sections:

4.1-20 The Duties of the Levite Clan of Kohath

4.21-28 The Duties of the Levite Clan of Gershon
4.29-33 The Duties of the Levite Clan of Merari
4.34-49 The Census of the Levites

But there are actually several clans of Kohath, as there are also of Gershon and of
Merari. Still more importantly, in this chapter the census of each Levite group of clans
already comes up well before verse 34. Their census is already connected to their task
from the beginning: “take a census” (GNT verses 2, 22, and 29). The headings of the
shorter sections in GNT do not make that clear.
Also, GNT has formulated its first three section headings in the same way and
this may suggest that the three Levite groups are given equal tasks. But the text of
chapter 4 shows repeatedly that there is a descending priority or hierarchy in these
instructions and the associated evaluation of work: the duties of the clans of Kohath
are more closely connected to the holy objects of the tent of meeting than are the
duties of the other clans. Furthermore, the charge of the clans of Gershon can be
considered as still more important than the charge of the clans of Merari (see below at
4.27).
If headings for shorter sections are used, they could be adapted as follows:

4.1-20 Census and Duties of the Levites: The Clans of Kohath

(or: Census and Special Duties of the Levite Clans of Kohath)
4.21-28 Census and Duties of the Levites: The Clans of Gershon
4.29-33 Census and Duties of the Levites: The Clans of Merari
4.34-49 The Census of the Levite Clans
(or: The Census of the Levite Clans Is Carried Out)

4.1-20
GNT gives these verses their own Section Heading: “The Duties of the Levite Clan
of Kohath.” But see the discussion above under 4.1-49 (and under 3.1–4.49).

4.1-4
RSV
1
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “Take a census of the sons of Kohath
from among the sons of Levi, by their families and their fathers' houses, 3 from
thirty years old up to fifty years old, all who can enter the service, to do the work
in the tent of meeting. 4 This is the service of the sons of Kohath in the tent of
meeting: the most holy things.

GNT
 1
The Lord told Moses 2 to take a census of the Levite clan of Kohath by sub-
clans and families, 3 and to register all the men between the ages of 30 and 50
who were qualified to work in the Tent of the Lord's presence. 4 Their service
involves the most holy things.

GNT shifts this segment into indirect speech, which is a less emphatic way of
communication in most languages. This procedure should be avoided in translation,
unless there is a good reason for following the GNT model.
To Moses and Aaron: GNT does not mention Aaron. But most Hebrew
manuscripts, including the one on which BHS is based, do mention both Moses and
Aaron. Most translations, including FRCL and CEV, follow this and mention both.
Take a census: The Hebrew employs an infinitive construction here, which at
this point functions like an imperative (literally, “lift up the head of”). This infinitive
does not distinguish between singular and plural. Thus, this form can be employed in
Hebrew to address both Moses and Aaron. As in 1.2, the Hebrew word rendered
census refers to the “value, total amount, sum” to be counted; take a census is the
equivalent of the original Hebrew idiom “lift up the head[s] of …”
The sons of Kohath: Although Kohath was not Levi’s eldest son, his clans
come first in this chapter (compare the enrolment of Levite clans in chapter three,
where the clans of Gershon are listed first). The clans of Kohath are assigned to carry
the most holy objects that are in or near the tent of meeting. The reason for this is
most likely that Kohath, as Aaron’s grandfather (Exo 6.16-20), was a closer relative to
Aaron the high priest than were Kohath’s two brothers, Gershon (older) and Merari
(younger).
By their families and their fathers’ houses: See 1.2-3: “by clans and by
families” (FRCL). Earlier in the verse GNT refers to the sons of Kohath as the “clan
of Kohath”. Because of that singular form “clan,” GNT is forced to render “sub-clans
and families” here.
All who can enter the service: On the basis of the Hebrew, there is no reason
for translating can. The models “all who are subject to service” (NJPSV) and “all who
are eligible to service” express more clearly that this concerns an obligation (or a
privilege) to serve as Levites, namely, those who were between 30 and 50 years of
age. The Hebrew tsava’ here in verse 3 (and in verses 23, 30 and 35) can refer to
military service as well as service in the sanctuary. The text brings out that levitical
service is just as integral to Israel’s military advance, under the Lord’s leading, as the
carrying of weapons.[<Budd p.48]
To do the work in the tent of meeting: The Hebrew phrase “to do work”
only occurs here in verse 3, in connection with the especially important duties of the
chosen clans of the Kohathites, to which Aaron and his sons belong. This phrase “to
do work” does not occur in verses 23 and 30 in connection with the other Levite
clans. The tent of meeting: See at 1.1.
Service: The Hebrew word here in verse 4 can be rendered “service,” “task,”
responsibility.” If the target language has a term for “service” that has some religious
or ritual implications, that may be used here—unless the term has unwanted
connotative associations with pagan worship practices, or any terms that are too
closely associated with one particular religious group or another.
The most holy things: The specially holy objects (literally, “the holy of the
holy things”) that are in or near the tent of meeting for which the clans of Kohath are
responsible. An alternative translation is “the most holy” (NBV), “that which is the
most holy,” that is, the most holy category of objects, as pointed out by Rashi, the
Jewish medieval commentator. (Things is lacking, but implied, in the Hebrew.)
4.5-6
RSV
5
When the camp is to set out, Aaron and his sons shall go in and take down the
veil of the screen, and cover the ark of the testimony with it; 6 then they shall put
on it a covering of goatskin, and spread over that a cloth all of blue, and shall put
in its poles.

GNT
5
The Lord gave Moses the following instructions. When it is time to break
camp, Aaron and his sons shall enter the Tent, take down the curtain in front of
the Covenant Box, and cover the Box with it. 6 They shall put a fine leather cover
over it, spread a blue cloth on top, and then insert the carrying poles.

After the general description of the Kohathites’ task in verse 4, more detailed
instructions now follow in 4.5-14 regarding the most holy objects. These are
instructions for the most central members of the Kohathite clan, Aaron and his sons.
This transition may have been the reason for GNT to include “The Lord gave Moses
the following instructions.” This sentence is lacking in the Hebrew.
When the camp is to set out: This is to be understood as repetitive; it is not
just about one change of camp but about many. Some languages may have a special
verb form to mark such iterative action. The meaning of the verb can be described as
“move off, journey further.”
Shall go in: GNT makes explicit that it is the “Tent” which Aaron and his
sons will enter. Again, the verb is to be understood as repetitive. Indeed, the whole
section is not about one change of camp but about many.
The veil of the screen is better rendered as “the covering curtain” or “the
screening curtain” (NRSV). The same term is discussed in the Handbook on Exodus
in connection with Exo 35.12. There GNT has translated “the curtain to screen it off.”
The ark of the testimony: The ark was a wooden chest, quite different from
Noah’s “ark.” The text of the covenant, the two stone tablets displaying the ten
commandments were kept in the ark (the covenant chest) as a testimony and reminder
of the Lord’s faithfulness to his people. For more on testimony (Hebrew ha‘edut) see
at 1.50.
Goatskin: In the Hebrew, tachash is linked with ‘or (“skin”) to mean a type of
leather, as a protective cover of the ark. The meaning of tachash is uncertain, but it
was probably not a goat. It is often taken to mean “dolphin” (after the Arabic tuchas),
and this is what NJPSV, TOB, and NBS02 translate. NIV and NBV translate “sea
cow”: some local Beduin tribes that live near the sea have for centuries made sandals
and other articles from the skins of a sea animal called dugong.[<Hope:42] But
tachash can also be related to th-ch-s (“stretch leather”) in Egyptian. CEV and NRSV
follow GNT in translating “fine leather.” Translators are advised to use this or an
equivalent of this (“fine tanned animal skin”). The Handbook on Exodus recommends
the same at 25.5.
A cloth all of blue or “a cloth of pure blue” (NJPSV), a bluish purple, dark
blue (or violet, according to French translations). When the camp was on the move,
the ark was distinguished from everything else by its blue outer cover.[<Wenham
1981:73] What kind of material was involved is not quite clear. The word for “bluish
purple” also refers to wool that is dyed a purple color.
Poles: GNT’s “carrying poles” expresses more clearly that with these the ark
was carried. Another model to consider is FRCL: “poles serving to carry the chest.”
Some languages may have a term referring to poles that are used for a very similar
purpose.

4.7-8
RSV
7
And over the table of the bread of the Presence they shall spread a cloth of
blue, and put upon it the plates, the dishes for incense, the bowls, and the
flagons for the drink offering; the continual bread also shall be on it; 8 then they
shall spread over them a cloth of scarlet, and cover the same with a covering of
goatskin, and shall put in its poles.

GNT
7
They shall spread a blue cloth over the table for the bread offered to the
Lord and put on it the dishes, the incense bowls, the offering bowls, and the jars
for the wine offering. There shall always be bread on the table. 8 They shall
spread a red cloth over all this, put a fine leather cover over it, and then insert
the carrying poles.

Table of the bread of the Presence: Literally “table of the presence,” or

“table of display” (NJPSV). RSV, GNT, and many other translations include “bread.”
The Hebrew does not mention bread here, but elsewhere the phrase “bread of the
presence” occurs in connection with this particular table. (This phrase is discussed in
the Exodus Handbook at Exo 25.30.) The Hebrew word translated as Presence
literally means “face” and is frequently used to represent the actual person of the Lord
himself. Hence GNT’s rendering “the bread offered to the Lord.” CEV translates
“table for the sacred bread” and has an informative footnote: “This bread was offered
to the Lord and was a symbol of his presence in the sacred tent. It was put out on a
special table and was replaced with fresh bread each Sabbath (Leviticus 24.5-9).”
A cloth of blue: See at 4.6 about the color and the material. Blue marked out
the holiest objects, those most closely associated with the presence of God.
The plates, the dishes for incense: The word for plates is a general term for a
dish which was probably deeper than the flat plates used in many places today. The
word for dishes is the same word for the palm of the hand; hence “bowls” (GNT)
seems to express the hollow shape more accurately. Translators should select similar
shaped objects used in the receptor culture: the first, a shallow dish or bowl of some
kind; and the second, a deeper cup-like object. The words for incense have been
added by RSV and similarly GNT, but they are not in the Hebrew. References such as
Num 7.86 suggest that these dishes were sometimes used for incense, but it is best to
omit this here. Exo 25.29 is the parallel verse, as far as these terms are concerned, and
translators will want to refer back to the terms that they used at that point in order to
maintain consistency of usage.
The bowls, and the flagons for the drink offering: It is most likely that both
the bowls (or “vessels”) and the flagons were used for the drink offering. Exo 25.29
mentions the same terms in reverse order, literally “and the flagons and the bowls
which it was poured out in them.” Thus, the flagons were used to pour out the drink
offering into the bowls. A translation should bring out that the bowls as well as the
flagons (but not the earlier mentioned objects) are connected with the drink offering.
The whole phrase could then, at least in English, be rendered as follows: “the plates
and the bowls, the vessels and flagons/jugs for the drink offering” (compare the
Vulgate and LUT84). The drink offering (or “libation”) is discussed in the Handbook
on Exodus at Exo 29.40.
 The continual bread also shall be on it: The point of this can be expressed
much more clearly: “The bread shall always remain on the table” (similar to GNT).
FRCL goes even further: “they will also put on it the loaves which are to be offered to
me [that is, to the Lord] permanently.”
A cloth of scarlet: The Hebrew refers to crimson red material. It came from
the larvae of an insect found on the oak trees of that area. The Hebrew uses two words
to describe this color, literally “worm-scarlet.” This should be considered a deep, rich
red, like “crimson,” which NRSV now uses instead of scarlet. A rendering like
“bright red” (CEV) may also help to express that the color was special.
Goatskin: See at 4.6.
Poles: GNT’s “carrying poles” expresses more clearly that with these the table
was carried. Another model to consider is FRCL: “poles serving to carry the table.”

4.9-10
RSV
9
And they shall take a cloth of blue, and cover the lampstand for the light, with
its lamps, its snuffers, its trays, and all the vessels for oil with which it is
supplied: 10 and they shall put it with all its utensils in a covering of goatskin and
put it upon the carrying frame.

GNT
9
They shall take a blue cloth and cover the lampstand, with its lamps, tongs,
trays, and all the olive oil containers. 10 They shall wrap it and all its equipment
in a fine leather cover and place it on a carrying frame.

A cloth of blue: See at 4.6 about the color and the material.
Lampstand for the light or “the lampstand”: Literally “the lampstand of the
luminary [source of light].” Compare “the lampstand for lighting” (NJPSV). It is not a
holder of candles but rather a stand commonly used at that time for holding seven oil
lamps. In cultures where “lampstands” are unknown, one may use a descriptive
phrase; for example, “lamp holder,” “thing on which lamps are placed,” or even “pole
that has lamps on top.” Compare (the Handbook on) Exo 25.31.
Lamps: These were probably small bowl-shaped objects, filled with olive oil,
with a wick floating in them. One end of the wick extended onto a lip of the bowl,
where the oil in the wick burned and provided light.
Snuffers refers to a pair of “tongs” (GNT), a tool similar to pliers or tweezers,
which was used to remove the burned wick. Compare (the Handbook on) Exo 25.38.
Trays refers to the small pans or receptacles where the burned wicks were
placed. NJPSV and REB have “firepans.” The same Hebrew word occurs in 4.14,
where RSV and GNT have translated it “firepans” as well.
All the vessels for oil: GNT’s “olive oil” makes explicit what kind of oil is
involved but “containers” may give the wrong impression that the vessels are large. It
may be necessary to translate “small vessels of olive oil.”
With which it is supplied: A literal rendering of “it” may well be ambiguous
in the target language. GNT actually does not translate this phrase. In any case, “that
are used in its [the lampstand’s] service” (NJPSV) would be more accurate.
And they shall put it: A new sentence is needed here, as in GNT. The
clumsy, overly long sentences of the RSV must be avoided in most languages.
Goatskin: See at 4.6.
The carrying frame: GNT’s “a carrying frame” is to be preferred. A
translation like RSV will wrongly suggest that the carrying frame here in verse 10 and
the one in verse 12 are the same. Also, in some languages an expression with a more
indefinite meaning may have to be used, depending on the context to fill out the
intended purpose, for example, Chewa: chonyamulira chake “its thing for carrying
[the specified items] upon.”

4.11
RSV
11
And over the golden altar they shall spread a cloth of blue, and cover it with a
covering of goatskin, and shall put in its poles;

GNT
11
Next they shall spread a blue cloth over the gold altar, put a fine leather
cover over it, and then insert the carrying poles.

And: GNT has “Next”, but it is not specified in the Hebrew that this is the
next stage in a process. Perhaps no conjunction at all is the best way of introducing
this distinct element of the instructions.
Golden altar: Exo 30.1-5 describes how this altar for burning incense is to be
constructed. CEV translates “gold incense altar” and mentions in a note: “This altar
for offering incense was inside the sacred tent; it was made of acacia wood covered
with gold.”
A cloth of blue: See at 4.6 about the color and the material.
And cover it with a covering of goatskin: The covering of goatskin comes
directly on the blue cloth. CEV makes this clear: “… and then with a piece of fine
leather.” Goatskin: See at 4.6.
Poles: GNT’s “carrying poles” expresses more clearly that with these the altar
was carried.

4.12
RSV
12
and they shall take all the vessels of the service which are used in the
sanctuary, and put them in a cloth of blue, and cover them with a covering of
goatskin, and put them on the carrying frame.

GNT
12
They shall take all the utensils used in the Holy Place, wrap them in a blue
cloth, put a fine leather cover over them, and place them on a carrying frame.

And: As in the preceding verse, a distinct set of sacred items is being

described. Thus and may not be a good way to introduce this sentence. It is probably
more helpful to set off each new item (or related set of items) as a new paragraph (as
in the NIV).
Vessels of the service which are used in the sanctuary: Or, perhaps more
clearly, “service vessels with which the service in the sanctuary is performed”
(NJPSV). These vessels or “utensils” (GNT) are not just used with the gold altar but
in all the worship that goes on in the sanctuary. So these vessels are not just related to
the golden altar in verse 11. To indicate this, GNT should have started a new
paragraph in verse 12 (and not only in verse 11). Similarly, RSV and NRSV should
have started verse 12 with a new sentence. This is what NJPSV has done. NIV and
CEV start a new paragraph for verse 12 as well as for verse 11.
 Sanctuary and “Holy Place” are quite literal renderings of qodesh, which is
the term used here in the Hebrew. If needed, one could instead use the chosen term for
tent of meeting; see at 1.1. About qodesh see at 3.28.
A cloth of blue: See at 4.6 about the color and the material.
Goatskin: See at 4.6.
The carrying frame: See at 4.10.

4.13-14
RSV
13
And they shall take away the ashes from the altar, and spread a purple cloth
over it; 14 and they shall put on it all the utensils of the altar, which are used for
the service there, the firepans, the forks, the shovels, and the basins, all the
utensils of the altar; and they shall spread upon it a covering of goatskin, and
shall put in its poles.

GNT
13
They shall remove the greasy ashes from the altar and spread a purple cloth
over it. 14 They shall put on it all the equipment used in the service at the altar:
firepans, hooks, shovels, and basins. Then they shall put a fine leather cover over
it and insert the carrying poles.

The altar: Exo 27.1-8 describes how this altar is to be constructed. In line
with this, NIV and CEV translate “bronze altar.” NBV has “altar for burnt offerings.”
FRCL has “the other altar.” Translations should indeed make it clear that this altar,
which stood in front of the sanctuary, is not the same as the gold altar mentioned in
4.11.
Ashes: GNT specifies that these ashes were “greasy,” but this information can
probably be left implicit.
A purple cloth: More specifically, the color is red purple.
And they shall put on it: A natural target language style for instructions
should determine whether the initial conjunction and is needed (RSV) or not (GNT).
In any case the pronoun “it” might need to be specified, that is, “on the cloth”.
Forks (GNT’s “hooks”) can be translated more specifically as “flesh hooks”
(NJPSV) or “meat forks” (CEV). With the shovels the altar is to be cleaned. The
basins are used for sprinkling or splashing certain offerings with liquid (hence
“sprinkling bowls” in CEV). The Exodus Handbook discusses these terms at Exo
27.3, where they occur as well, though in a different order.
Goatskin: See at 4.6.
Poles: GNT’s “carrying poles” expresses more clearly that the altar was
carried with these.

4.15
RSV
15
And when Aaron and his sons have finished covering the sanctuary and all the
furnishings of the sanctuary, as the camp sets out, after that the sons of Kohath
shall come to carry these, but they must not touch the holy things, lest they die.
These are the things of the tent of meeting which the sons of Kohath are to carry.

GNT
15
When it is time to break camp, the clan of Kohath shall come to carry the
sacred objects only after Aaron and his sons have finished covering them and all
their equipment. The clan of Kohath must not touch the sacred objects, or they
will die.
These are the responsibilities of the clan of Kohath whenever the Tent is
moved.

The first part of the verse summarizes the preceding verses 5-14. GNT starts
the verse with “When it is time to break camp.” This could wrongly suggest that the
breaking of the camp is a new subject. But moving the camp is already the subject
since verse 5 and verses 5-14 already show preparations for breaking camp. Perhaps a
conjunction like “whenever” (or something similar in the target language) would
work better.
Sanctuary: The Hebrew has qodesh. The same term occurs in 4.12 where it
refers to the sanctuary (tent of meeting). But here in verse 15 qodesh is better
understood as “what is holy”; it does not refer to the sanctuary itself but to all the
sacred objects inside the sanctuary which were mentioned in the preceding verses 5-
14. As Rashi puts it, it refers to “the ark and the altar.” Thus, the sanctuary and all
the furnishings of the sanctuary is better translated as follows: “the sacred objects
and all the furnishings of the sacred objects” (NJPSV). Compare CEV: “the sacred
objects and the furnishings of the sacred tent”; NIV: “the holy furnishings and all the
holy articles.”
After that: the point of this is expressed more clearly in GNT (“only after”)
and NJPSV (“only then”). It is only after Aaron and his sons have finished the task of
covering the holy things that the other members of the clans of Kohath can come and
carry them. In this way the Kohathites can avoid directly touching what is holy.
CEV and similarly FRCL change the order of sentences in the verse and may
express this point more clearly: “When the camp is ready to be moved, the Kohathites
will be responsible for carrying the sacred objects and the furnishings of the sacred
tent. But Aaron and his sons must have already covered those things so the Kohathites
won’t touch them and die.” (CEV).
Must not touch the holy things or “must not directly touch any sacred
object” (similar to FRCL). In Chewa, the specification “directly” can be expressed
“touch with their hands.” This applies to the Kohathite clans. Of the Kohathites, only
Aaron and his sons have been allowed to be in direct touch with what is holy to the
Lord (qodesh again).
These are the things of the tent of meeting which the sons of Kohath are
to carry: This sentence refers back to what precedes and really serves to bring to an
end by way of summary this whole section about the Kohathites’ task. Translations
such as “So these are the things …” or “Those, then, are the things …” may bring this
out more clearly (note the initial transitional expressions). Probably for this same
reason GNT treats this sentence as a separate paragraph. The Hebrew term for tent of
meeting is the same as in 1.1 (see there). Are to carry renders the meaning of the
Hebrew word massa’ (“burden, load”) more clearly than “responsibilities” (GNT; the
term massa’ is used in the prophetic literature to refer to the weighty message that the
Lord’s prophets must deliver).
The sons of Kohath: The singular “clan” in GNT (“the clan of Kohath”) is
misleading. “The clans of Kohath” or even “the descendants of Kohath” (FRCL)
would be more accurate.

4.16
RSV
 16
“And Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest shall have charge of the oil for the
light, the fragrant incense, the continual cereal offering, and the anointing oil,
with the oversight of all the tabernacle and all that is in it, of the sanctuary and
its vessels.”

GNT
16
Eleazar son of Aaron the priest shall be responsible for the whole Tent and
for the oil for the lamps, the incense, the grain offerings, the anointing oil, and
everything else in the Tent that has been consecrated to the Lord.

Both 3.32 and 4.16 mention Eleazar, Aaron’s eldest son, in connection with
the clans of Kohath and their central task. But 4.16 specifies Eleazar’s responsibilities
in more detail.
And: In most languages this conjunction is not a good way to introduce a new
paragraph.
Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest: On the problem with the see at 3.32.
Priest: See at 3.3.
Oil for the light: NJPSV (“the lighting oil”) brings out that the Hebrew does
not specify the lights or lamps here. But in some languages an object or location for
“lighting” will be needed; in that case, “in the Tent” may serve the purpose.
Fragrant incense: Fragrant incense is a sweet-smelling aromatic substance
which is burned in the fire of a sacrifice. In a number of languages fragrant incense
will be expressed as “fragrant spices for burning.”
The continual cereal offering: Instead of rendering the Hebrew tamid
(“continual”) explicitly, GNT only translates with a plural: “grain offerings.” But
tamid does serve to express the regularity of this type of offering. This aspect is better
expressed in “the regular grain offering” (NRSV) and “the regular meal offering”
(NJPSV). No specific grain is mentioned or implied; the point is that these offerings
consist of agricultural food. Thus a generic term for “cereal” or “grain” should be
used. In line with this, FRCL has “daily vegetational offerings.” The basic texts for
this meal offering are Lev 2.1-16 and 6.14-18.
Anointing oil: As mentioned at 3.3, olive oil was applied or rubbed on the
priests to appoint them to their task. Hence the CEV rendering: “the olive oil used for
dedications and ordinations.”
All the tabernacle: See at 1.50. RSV renders tabernacle where the Hebrew
has mishkan “dwelling-place.” This can certainly be rendered “tent” or “holy tent”
because it corresponds with the tent in 1.1, a temporary shelter. Compare GNT’s “the
whole Tent.”
Of all the tabernacle and all that is in it, of the sanctuary and its vessels:
NET suggests a parallel construction: “over all the tabernacle with all that is in it, over
the sanctuary and over all its furnishings”. The phrase of the sanctuary and its
vessels may seem repetitive and unnecessary. But the prepositions of this phrase in
the Hebrew construction suggest that more is involved than just repetition of the
preceding phrase. NBG51 brings this out: “what is holy [qodesh] as well as its
utensils.” The intention of this is perhaps brought out more clearly in FRCL: “the holy
dwelling-place and everything that it contains, as much the sacred objects [that is, the
holy things] as the utensils.” Compare also NJB and NBJ89.
So the second half of the verse actually underlines that Eleazar is responsible
for much more than just the utensils that are mentioned in the first half of the verse.
(The English in NLT captures this well: “In fact, the supervision of the entire
Tabernacle and everything in it will be Eleazar’s responsibility.”)
 The following model is recommended for this verse: “Eleazar son of Aaron
the priest has the responsibility for the lighting oil, the fragrant incense, the daily
grain/agricultural offerings, and the anointing oil. In fact, he has the responsibility for
the whole tabernacle and everything that is in it, as much the sacred objects [that is,
the holy things] as their utensils.”

4.17-20
RSV
17
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 18 “Let not the tribe of the families of the
Kohathites be destroyed from among the Levites; 19 but deal thus with them,
that they may live and not die when they come near to the most holy things:
Aaron and his sons shall go in and appoint them each to his task and to his
burden, 20 but they shall not go in to look upon the holy things even for a
moment, lest they die.”

GNT
17
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 18 “Do not let the clan of Kohath 19 be
killed by coming near these most sacred objects. To prevent this happening,
Aaron and his sons shall go in and assign each man his task and tell him what to
carry. 20 But if the Kohathites enter the Tent and see the priests preparing the
sacred objects for moving,a they will die.”

a 4.20 see...moving; or see the sacred objects even for a moment.

After 4.15, verses 17-20 specify in more detail how the Kohathites should
carry out their assigned tasks without directly interfering with the most holy objects,
so that they will not die.
The tribe of the families of the Kohathites: The Kohathites are actually not a
tribe but a large subdivision of the tribe of Levi: the Kohathite branch. As already
mentioned at 1.2, a mishpachah is composed of several families, so that “clan” is a
more accurate translation than “family.” Here in 4.18 the plural mishpechot occurs:
“clans.” So NJPSV (“the group of Kohathite clans”) gives a more accurate translation
than RSV. Compare also FRCL (“the clans of the Kohathites”). The four Kohathite
clans are mentioned explicitly in 3.27. So again translators are advised not to follow
GNT’s “the clan [singular] of Kohath” here in 4.18.
From among the Levites has not been translated in GNT, but NBV is a good
model for this verse: “Prevent it that the Kohathite branch of the Levites is
exterminated.” (“Branch” could be replaced with “clans,” for example, “Let not the
Levite clans of Kohath be destroyed/killed.”)
But deal thus with them: Or “But let them follow this procedure.”
When they come near to the most holy things: GNT’s “by coming near”
may be misleading. The point is not that the Kohathite clans are not allowed to come
near the most holy things. Their assignments require them to come near them, but
only in the specified manner. So verses 17-20 regulate how their death should be
prevented while they carry out their awesome task.
The most holy things: These objects refer to the same objects as in 4.15 (and
4.4), as GNT’s “these” makes clear: “these most sacred objects”. For translational
models see at 4.4 where the same phrase occurs.
But they shall not go in to look upon the holy things even for a moment:
Of course they refers to the Kohathite clans, and this may have to be made explicit. In
4.15 it was enough for the Kohathites not to touch the holy objects. But here in verse
20 the prohibition seems to go even further: they are not even allowed to see them
while they are still uncovered!
… Even for a moment: GNT and NJPSV mention this rendering in a
footnote. It is found in many translations and does not change the main point of the
prohibition. However, in the Hebrew the holy things are actually not the object of the
verb “look/see” but of what is actually the verb “engulf/envelop.” This is shown in
translations such as Buber and KJV: “But they shall not go in to see when the holy
things are covered.” And GNT itself is based on this analysis as well. A similar model
to follow (based on NJPSV) would be: “But let the Kohathites not come inside and
look while the sacred objects are still being covered/enveloped.” That is, the sacred
objects are still uncovered and therefore still visible. In some languages, the
equivalent of the phrase “catch a glimpse” (based on NBV) may be used: “But let the
Kohathites not come inside and catch a glimpse of the sacred objects while they are
still being covered/enveloped.”

4.21-28
GNT gives this paragraph its own Section Heading: “The Duties of the Levite Clan
of Gershon.” But see the discussion above under 4.1-49 (and under 3.1–4.49).

4:21-23
RSV
21
The Lord said to Moses, 22 “Take a census of the sons of Gershon also, by
their families and their fathers' houses; 23 from thirty years old up to fifty years
old, you shall number them, all who can enter for service, to do the work in the
tent of meeting.

GNT
21
The Lord told Moses 22 to take a census of the Levite clan of Gershon by
sub-clans and families, 23 and to register all the men between the ages of 30 and
50 who were qualified to work in the Tent of the Lord's presence.

Again, GNT shifts this segment into indirect speech, which is a less emphatic
way of communication in most languages. This procedure should be avoided in
translation, unless there is a good reason for following the GNT model.
Take a census: See at 4.2.
By their families and their fathers’ houses: See at 4.2 (and 1.2-3). Earlier in
the verse GNT refers to the sons of Gershon as the “clan of Gershon.” Because of
that singular form “clan,” GNT is forced to render “sub-clans and families” here.
“Clans of Gershon” would be a more accurate model.
Number: See at 1.3.
All who can enter for service: See at 4.3 (“all who can enter the service”; the
small difference is not based on the Hebrew).
To do the work in the tent of meeting: The Hebrew phrase “to do work”
only occurs in verse 3, that is, in connection with the special task of the Kohathites, to
which Aaron and his sons belong. Here in verse 23 a more submissive formulation is
used in the Hebrew: “to render service in the tent of meeting.” This seems to
underscore the fact that the responsibilites of the Gershonites are indeed less central
and perhaps more subordinate than that of the Kohathites. The tent of meeting: See
at 1.1.
4.24-26
RSV
24
This is the service of the families of the Gershonites, in serving and bearing
burdens: 25 they shall carry the curtains of the tabernacle, and the tent of
meeting with its covering, and the covering of goatskin that is on top of it, and
the screen for the door of the tent of meeting, 26 and the hangings of the court,
and the screen for the entrance of the gate of the court which is around the
tabernacle and the altar, and their cords, and all the equipment for their service;
and they shall do all that needs to be done with regard to them.

GNT
24
They shall be responsible for carrying the following objects: 25 the Tent, its
inner cover, its outer cover, the fine leather cover on top of it, the curtain for the
entrance, 26 the curtains and ropes for the court that is round the Tent and the
altar, the curtains for the entrance of the court, and all the fittings used in setting
up these objects. They shall perform all the tasks required for these things.

Service: See at 4.4. Compare GNT’s “responsible.”

In serving and bearing burdens: Good models are “as they serve and carry
burdens” (similar to NIV), “how they have to serve and what they are to carry”
(similar to TOB), or “as they serve by carrying burdens.” The Hebrew does not only
include massa’ (“burden, load,” as in verse 15) but la`avod (“to serve”) as well. So
this phrase seems more submissive than at the end of verse 15. (GNT and many other
translations do not bring this out.) Thus the Hebrew seems to suggest that the task of
the Gershonites is indeed less central and perhaps more subordinate than that of the
Kohathites.
The curtains: The Hebrew word always refers to tent fabric, or material used
in making tents. See also the Handbook on Exodus at 26.1. NJPSV renders “cloths.”
Of the tabernacle, and the tent of meeting with its covering … and the
screen for the door of the tent of meeting, and the hangings of the court, and the
screen for the entrance of the gate of the court which is around the tabernacle
and the altar, and their cords: See at 3.25-26 where the Gershonite clans are given
this same task. As in 3.25, the tent of meeting with its covering corresponds with
GNT’s “inner cover” (that is, the tent itself) and “outer cover.”
And the covering of goatskin that is on top of it: For goatskin see at 4.6.
This whole phrase does not occur in 3.25-26. So only 4.25 here has its covering / “its
outer cover” as well as the covering of goatskin that is on top of it. CEV avoids
confusion by combining these two coverings in one translation: “its [that is, the tent’s]
two outer coverings.” A footnote in CEV then refers to Exo 26.14 where these two
coverings are mentioned for the first time. (If the tent itself is to be included – GNT’s
“inner cover” – in 4.25 actually refers here to three coverings. This corresponds with
Exo 26.1-14 but not with Num 3.25.) See also the Handbook on Exodus at 26.14.
All the equipment for their service: The Hebrew is best analyzed as follows:
“all the fittings needed for their [that is, the objects’] use.” GNT’s “all the fittings
used in setting up these objects” follows this analysis. Both NIV (“all the equipment
used in its service”) and NAV (“all the necessary equipment”) express this more
concisely.

4.27
RSV
27
All the service of the sons of the Gershonites shall be at the command of Aaron
and his sons, in all that they are to carry, and in all that they have to do; and you
shall assign to their charge all that they are to carry.

GNT
27
Moses and Aaron shall see to it that the Gershonites perform all the duties and
carry everything that Aaron and his sons assign to them.

Most of this verse about the Gershonites has no parallel verse in the passage
on the Merarites (4.29-33). Perhaps this indicates that the Gershonites and their
charge are considered as still more important than the Merarites and their charge.
Thus, the difference between 4.27-28 on the hand and 4.33 on the other may well be
significant. In GECL this difference is no longer clear, since it has combined verse
27-28 together.
Service: See at 4.4.
Are to carry: As in 4.15, this renders the two aspects of the Hebrew word
massa’ (“burden, load”).
And you shall assign: Some interpret the Hebrew verb as singular. The
subject of the verb would then be Moses, because the Lord has already spoken to him
in verse 21. NBV follows this interpretation. (GNT seems to have interpreted the
Hebrew verb in the same way. Probably on this basis, then, GNT has combined
Moses with Aaron in one phrase at the beginning of the verse. But the result is that in
GNT Moses is no longer directly spoken to.) Translators are advised that the Hebrew
verb is actually plural, and this has been rendered in Buber and LUT84. Presumably
the plural refers to the priests, that is, to Aaron and his sons, since they are to oversee
the Gershonites as they perform their duties.[<Wevers 70] This direct speech segment
would serve to underscore the authority and primacy of Aaron and his sons within the
tribe of Levi.
As the beginning of the verse already refers to Aaron and his sons in third
person, it may be difficult in some languages to refer to them in second person now.
In such cases, the translation may continue in third person. For this, FRCL and NAV
are good models to follow: “These [that is, Aaron and his sons] will tell them [that is,
to the Gershonites] what they have to do and to carry” (FRCL); “They [that is, Aaron
and his sons] have to see to it that the Gershon group carry out all their duties.”
(NAV).

4.28
RSV
28
This is the service of the families of the sons of the Gershonites in the tent of
meeting, and their work is to be under the oversight of Ithamar the son of Aaron
the priest.

GNT
28
These are the responsibilities of the Gershon clan in the Tent; they shall carry
them out under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron the priest.

This is the service: The sentence refers back to what precedes and really
functions as a summary to bring to an end this whole section about the Gershonites’
task (see a similar concluding expression in verse 33). Translations such as “So this is
the service …” or “Those, then, are the responsibilities …” may bring this out more
clearly. Service: See at 4.4.
 The families of the sons of the Gershonites: Again, GNT’s singular form
“clan” is misleading. “Clans of Gershon” would be more accurate.
Their work: Or “charge, duty, task, responsibility.” In the Hebrew the same
word mishmeret is used as in 3.7-8, 25.
Under the oversight [Hebrew “hand”, as in verse 33] of Ithamar the son of
Aaron the priest: In many languages the rendering the may wrongly suggest that he
is the only son. “Ithamar [the youngest] son of Aaron the priest” (GNT) is more
accurate. It is only Aaron’s youngest son, Ithamar, who is connected with the
Gershonites at this point. Their task is less central than the task of the Kohathites.
(But see the remark under 4.27.)

4.29-33
GNT gives this paragraph its own Section Heading: “The Duties of the Levite Clan
of Merari.” But see the discussion above under 4.1-49 (and under 3.1–4.49).

4.29-30
RSV
29
“As for the sons of Merari, you shall number them by their families and their
fathers' houses; 30 from thirty years old up to fifty years old, you shall number
them, every one that can enter the service, to do the work of the tent of
meeting.

GNT
29
The Lord told Moses to take a census of the Levite clan of Merari by sub-
clans and families, 30 and to register all the men between the ages of 30 and 50
who were qualified to work in the Tent of the Lord's presence.

The direct address of the Lord continues in this section (see verse 21). Again,
GNT transforms all this into indirect speech, which may not be as effective in other
languages when giving a series of instructions.
By their families and their fathers’ houses: See at 4.2 (and 1.2-3). Earlier in
the verse GNT refers to the sons of Merari as the “clan of Merari.” Because of that
singular form “clan,” GNT is forced to render “sub-clans and families” here. “Clans
of Merari” is a more accurate rendering.
Number: See at 1.3. The two verbs here are in the singular: it is Moses who is
being addressed.
Everyone that can enter the service: See the comments under 4.3 (“all who
can enter the service”; the small difference is not based on the Hebrew).
To do the work of the tent of meeting: The Hebrew phrase “to do work”
only occurs in verse 3, in connection with the special task of the clans of Kohath, to
which Aaron and his sons belong. Here in verse 30, as in verse 23 (for the clans of
Gershon), the Hebrew uses a more submissive formulation: “to render the service of
the tent of meeting.” This appears to underline the point that the task of the clans of
Merari is indeed less central and perhaps more subordinate than that of the Kohathite
clan. The tent of meeting: See at 1.1.

4.31-32
RSV
31
And this is what they are charged to carry, as the whole of their service in the
tent of meeting: the frames of the tabernacle, with its bars, pillars, and bases, 32
and the pillars of the court round about with their bases, pegs, and cords, with all
their equipment and all their accessories; and you shall assign by name the
objects which they are required to carry.

GNT
31
They shall be responsible for carrying the frames, bars, posts, and bases of the
Tent, 32 and the posts, bases, pegs, and ropes of the court round the Tent, with
all the fittings used in setting them up. Each man will be responsible for carrying
specific items.

What they charged to carry: The Hebrew includes mishmeret (“duty, task,
responsibility”). As in 3.7-8, 25, where the same word mishmeret is used, it indicates
that this responsibility is to be kept regularly, whenever the tent and its furnishings are
to be moved. And, as in 4.24, the Hebrew also includes massa’ (“burden, load”).
As the whole of their service: On service see at 4.4.
As was the case in 4.24, these phrases at the beginning of verse 31 seem more
submissive than at the end of verse 15. (GNT and many other translations do not bring
this important distinction out.) This would again suggest that the task of the Merarites
is indeed less central and thus more subordinate than that of the Kohathites, perhaps
even that of the Gershonites as well. The text itself seems to imply this since the
Merarites are the last Levite division listed with the least amount of description given
to their assigned tasks.
Tent of meeting: See at 1.1.
Frames … bars … pillars … bases: See at 3.36.
The pillars of the court round about with their bases, pegs, and cords: See
at 3.37.
Equipment … accessories: See at 3.36 (at the end), where RSV translates the
same Hebrew nouns into “accessories” and “service,” respectively. While GNT has
“… used in setting them up” here in 4.32, it has “They were responsible for all the
service connected with these items” at the end of 3.36. But since the parallel phrases
have the same Hebrew nouns, there is no need for such variation in translation at this
point. Variation should not appear in a translation where two or more passages of the
biblical text are exactly the same. Variation can then be used to more accurately
reflect where differences actually occur in the original Hebrew.
You shall assign by name: the Hebrew verb is in the plural, and this has been
rendered in Buber, LUT84, and NAV. As at the end of 4.27 (see comments there), the
plural presumably refers to the priests, that is, to Aaron and his sons. FRCL is a good
model to follow: “The priests will make up the lists of objects which everyone will be
personally charged to carry.”

4.33
RSV
33
This is the service of the families of the sons of Merari, the whole of their
service in the tent of meeting, under the hand of Ithamar the son of Aaron the
priest.”

GNT
33
These are the responsibilities of the Merari clan in their service in the Tent:
they shall carry them out under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron the priest.

This is the service … the whole of their service: The sentence refers back to
what precedes and really serves to bring to an end by way of a summary the whole
section about the Merarites’ assignments. Translations such as “So this is the service
…” or “Those, then, are the responsibilities …” may bring this out more clearly. On
service see at 4.4. Like the Hebrew, RSV actually repeats the word service, but here
GNT (“responsibilities … service”) is probably more natural.
The families of the sons of Merari: Again, GNT’s singular form “clan” is
misleading.
Ithamar the son of Aaron the priest: On the problem with the see 4.28. It is
only Aaron’s youngest son, Ithamar, who is connected with the Merarites at this point.
This too would suggest that their task is less central than the task of the Kohathites,
who are under the supervision of Aaron’s elder son, Eleazar (verse 16).

4.34-49
GNT gives these verses their own Section Heading: “The Census of the Levites.” But
see the discussion above under 4.1-49 (and under 3.1–4.49). Again, following the
order of tabernacle service assignments earlier in this chapter, the census of the clans
of Kohath (grandfather of Aaron the high priest) are given first, even though Kohath
was the second son of Levi while Gershon was the oldest (see Exo 6.16-20).

RSV
34
And Moses and Aaron and the leaders of the congregation numbered the
sons of the Kohathites, by their families and their fathers' houses, 35 from thirty
years old up to fifty years old, every one that could enter the service, for work in
the tent of meeting; 36 and their number by families was two thousand seven
hundred and fifty. 37 This was the number of the families of the Kohathites, all
who served in the tent of meeting, whom Moses and Aaron numbered according
to the commandment of the Lord by Moses.
38
The number of the sons of Gershon, by their families and their fathers'
houses, 39 from thirty years old up to fifty years old, every one that could enter
the service for work in the tent of meeting -- 40 their number by their families
and their fathers' houses was two thousand six hundred and thirty. 41 This was
the number of the families of the sons of Gershon, all who served in the tent of
meeting, whom Moses and Aaron numbered according to the commandment of
the Lord.
42
The number of the families of the sons of Merari, by their families and their
fathers' houses, 43 from thirty years old up to fifty years old, every one that could
enter the service, for work in the tent of meeting -- 44 their number by families
was three thousand two hundred. 45 These are those who were numbered of the
families of the sons of Merari, whom Moses and Aaron numbered according to
the commandment of the Lord by Moses.
46
All those who were numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron and
the leaders of Israel numbered, by their families and their fathers' houses, 47
from thirty years old up to fifty years old, every one that could enter to do the
work of service and the work of bearing burdens in the tent of meeting, 48 those
who were numbered of them were eight thousand five hundred and eighty. 49
According to the commandment of the Lord through Moses they were appointed,
each to his task of serving or carrying; thus they were numbered by him, as the
Lord commanded Moses.

GNT
34-48
Following the Lord's command, Moses, Aaron, and the leaders of the
community took a census of the three Levite clans, Kohath, Gershon, and Merari.
They did this by sub-clans and families and registered all the men between the
 ages of 30 and 50 who were qualified to work in the Tent of the Lord's presence,
as follows:
Clan Number
Kohath 2,750
Gershon 2,630
Merari 3,200
Total: 8,580
49
Each man was registered as the Lord had commanded Moses; and at the
command of the Lord given through Moses, each man was assigned responsibility
for his task of serving or carrying.

The section covering 4.34-49, in which the preceding instructions are carried out,
consists of four paragraphs: verses 34-37 (about the Kohathites), 38-41 (about the
Gershonites), 42-45 (about the Merarites), and 46-49 (summary). GNT has translated
them as one paragraph, treating verse 49 as a summary. If the model of GNT is
followed, the list layout is to be recommended as fitting the context of a census. If the
model of RSV is followed, the numbers can still be printed in figures, not only to
make the translation easier to read but also because figures are probably more fitting
in this context. The RSV model treats verses 46-49 as a summary of the discourse
section that begins at verse 34.
Leaders: As mentioned at 1.16, the Hebrew nasi’ refers to a prominent and
distinguished leader, for example, a much respected sheikh of a tribe, so that leaders
on its own seems a rather flat translation. In English, chiefs or “chieftains” (NJPSV)
would be a better alternative.
Congregation: GNT’s “community” is a better equivalent for the Hebrew
‘edah. As mentioned at 1.2, it refers to the national, legal and cultic community of
Israel.
Numbered: A better equivalent for the Hebrew verb is “enrolled (NRSV),
recorded (NJPSV), mustered.”
By their families and their fathers’ houses: See at 4.2 (and 1.2-3): “by clans
and by families” (FRCL). Again, GNT is forced to render “sub-clans and families”
because its earlier rendering “three Levite clans …” implies that Kohath, Gershon,
and Merari only consist of one clan each. Families: clans.
Every one that could enter the service: See the comments under 4.3 (the
small difference between every one and “all” is not based on the Hebrew). On the
basis of the Hebrew, there is no reason for translating could. NJPSV’s “all who were
subject to service” (or “eligible for”) expresses better that this concerns an obligation
(or a privilege) to serve as Levites.
For work: more precisely “for service.” See “service” at 4.4.
The tent of meeting: See at 1.1.
According to the commandment of the Lord: In verse 49, this phrase
(literally, “upon the mouth of the Lord”) occurs at the beginning of the Hebrew
sentence, and a synonymous expression occurs at the end. This boundary-marking
inclusio also serves to stress the divine authority behind the enrolment made by
Moses. And that is also the main contribution of this final verse in the concluding
paragraph (4.46-49).
Each: The Hebrew word is actually repeated, and this justifies translations
such as “man by man” (Buber) and “one by one” (REB).
Carrying: As in 4.15, this renders the meaning of the Hebrew word massa’
(“burden, load”).
 Thus they were numbered [NRSV “enrolled”] by him: The Hebrew form
makes no clear sense in the context. Except for the words by him, RSV and NRSV
follow a correction of the Hebrew text, a correction based on the ancient Greek (that
is, the Septuagint) and other early translations. Most modern versions do the same.

Part I-B: 5.1–6.27: Purity

In the preceding section of the book (chapters 1–4), the order and arrangement of the
tribes of Israel in their camp was set. The relationship between priests and Levites
was also dealt with. The main issue concerned how a sinful people were to live in the
presence of divine holiness—keeping the profane, or common, separate from the
sacred. The book of Numbers now goes on to deal with relations between priests and
people, and the removal of impure people from the camp. Thus the central theme of
the preservation of holiness in Israel’s camp continues from Part I-A, but now by
means of the prevention and elimination of defilement.
Although the laws in chapters 5–6 are very diverse, they do have one thing in
common: they are concerned with the ritual purity of the people themselves. The
priests play a crucial part in restoring ceremonial purity of the people, as is
emphasized in 5.9-10. The Lord’s holiness does not tolerate ceremonially unclean
persons living in the camp, where the Lord dwells himself in the tent of the testimony.
People with certain skin diseases, for example, are ritually unclean and should
therefore be expelled from the camp (5.1-4). The trial by ordeal (5.11-31) is intended
to determine whether a wife has been unfaithful to her husband. If she has, she is
unclean and becomes a curse (5.27).
Priests are also involved in the rituals around the vows of the nazirites, non-
priestly people who devoted themselves to God for a certain period (6.1-21).
The priests’ blessing of the people (6.22-27) is also well-placed; it finishes this
part of the book about the priests and the people. The priests not only safeguard the
purity of the people but bring divine blessing on them as well. In fact, the priestly
blessing is the Lord’s positive response to the purity of the camp and his people.

5.1-4
Section Heading: “The Purity of the Camp” (NIV), and similarly “Purity in Israel’s
Camp” (NLT for verses 1-10). Three types of personal impurity that threaten the
corporate purity of the camp are mentioned here, namely, people who have infectious
skin diseases, a bodily (genital) discharge, and those who have been in contact with a
dead body. Each of these conditions represents the impurity of “dirt” and the power of
death in different ways. All such persons are ritually unclean and must therefore be
expelled from the camp. But they are only excluded from the camp as long as they are
still unclean. (Chapter 19.1-22 explains how, under certain conditions, they can again
become ritually clean.) Section headings like “Exclusion of Ritually Unclean People
from the Camp” may give the wrong suggestion that these people are expelled and
can never come back into the camp. The section heading “Unclean People” (GNT)
avoids this problem. Alternatively, perhaps the target language term for “separation”
could also be used instead of “exclusion.”

5.1-3
RSV
 1
The Lord said to Moses, 2 * “Command the people of Israel that they put out
of the camp every leper, and every one having a discharge, and every one that is
unclean through contact with the dead; 3 you shall put out both male and female,
putting them outside the camp, that they may not defile their camp, in the midst
of which I dwell.”

GNT
1
The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Command the people of Israel to expel from the
camp everyone with a dreaded skin disease or a bodily discharge and everyone
who is unclean by contact with a corpse. 3 Send all these ritually unclean people
out, so that they will not defile the camp, where I live among my people.”

Leper: Such a translation is unfair to persons suffering from Hansen’s disease,

commonly called leprosy today. As is clear in Leviticus 13-14, the Hebrew word does
not refer to leprosy specifically, but more generally to a group of manifest skin
conditions that involve an infectious rash or an oozing discharge. A more general
rendering such as “a dreaded skin disease” (GNT) or “leprosy and other skin
diseases” is much to be preferred. Although the rendering “an infectious skin disease”
(NIV) may seem accurate, it is problematic: “infectious” may take the reader’s
attention away from the ritual impurity involved.
Having a discharge: This refers not to semen but to an abnormal fluid that
comes out of the male sexual organ as a result of some kind of sickness (probably a
sexually transmitted disease, for example, gonorrhea). See the Handbook on Leviticus
at Lev 15.2. It also refers to menstruation. Renderings like “bodily discharge” (GNT),
“genital discharge” (NBS02) or “bodily emission” are general enough to cover all
this. If the translation is more explicit, it should be acceptable terminology to be used
when speaking publicly to men and women together. A way to indicate that these
discharges are irregular is to translate: “suffering from a discharge” or “suffering from
a genital flux” (Alter).
The dead (GNT’s “a corpse”) does not necessarily refer to humans only, but
to a corpse of any kind. The Hebrew nefesh (the word used here) can refer to animals
as well (for example in Gen 1.20-24).
Both male and female: GNT’s “all these ritually unclean people” misses the
point that these circumstances apply equally to women as well as men. (This is an
important matter, since a number of other instructions in the Book of Numbers apply
specifically to men or specifically to women.)
Defile: that is, to cause to be polluted, that is, ritually impure or unclean.
Languages often have an idiomatic or euphemistic manner of expressing this and
related concepts, for example, Chewa: “to cause [someone/thing] to be bad”; Tonga:
“to cause [someone/thing] to become dirty” (Tonga is the major language of southern
Zambia). Translators must ensure that they maintain consistency with regard to all
these terms pertaining to ceremonial purity and pollution that have already been
researched and tested in previous books, such as Leviticus.

5.4
RSV
4
And the people of Israel did so, and drove them outside the camp; as the Lord
said to Moses, so the people of Israel did.

GNT
4
The Israelites obeyed and expelled them all from the camp.
 In this verse it is implied, but not said, that Moses, in turn, had commanded
the Israelites what to do (compare v. 1). Moses’ obedience is taken for granted. In
some languages, this may need to be made explicit, for example: “As the Lord said to
Moses, so he commanded the people of Israel and they obeyed.” This verse focuses
on the obedience of the Israelites, as underscored by the repetition, which has been
removed in the GNT.
Drove them outside: The translation should not imply that any physical
violence was involved. If there is a danger of this, then a weaker action must be used,
for example, “put them outside” (NET) or “made them stay outside.”

5.5-10
Section Heading: “Repayment for Wrongs Done” (GNT) or “Restitution for Wrongs”
(NIV). This section concerns wrongs that can cause a breakdown in community
relations and hence also violate the holiness of the camp. These verses essentially
repeat the main points of Lev 6.1-7 (numbered 5.20-26 in Hebrew), but they also
expand upon these points by dealing with an additional situation in the first half of
verse 8 (see below). For this reason, a heading like NFB’s “More about the Guilt
Offering” (if that is the term chosen for Leviticus 5-6) is also helpful, but then a cross
reference to the Leviticus passage must be given.

5.5-7
RSV
5
And the Lord said to Moses, 6 “Say to the people of Israel, When a man or
woman commits any of the sins that men commit by breaking faith with the
Lord, and that person is guilty, 7 he shall confess his sin which he has
committed; and he shall make full restitution for his wrong, adding a fifth to it,
and giving it to him to whom he did the wrong.

GNT
5
The Lord gave Moses 6 the following instructions for the people of Israel.
When anyone is unfaithful to the Lord and commits a wrong against someone, 7
he must confess his sin and make full repayment, plus an additional twenty per
cent, to the person he has wronged.

A man or a woman: GNT’s “anyone” does not express that these

circumstances apply equally to women as well as men. (This distinction must be made
since a number of other instructions in the Book of Numbers apply specifically to men
or specifically to women.)
Commits any of the sins that men commit: GNT’s “and commits a wrong
against someone” reflects the Hebrew more accurately. Compare also NJPSV:
“commits any wrong toward a fellow man.” But what sort of sin is being referred to
here (this may make a difference in some languages)? Lev 6.1-7 (5.20-26 in Hebrew)
seems to indicate that sins of theft, deceit, cheating, fraud and/or false testimony were
involved.
By breaking faith with the Lord: or “and so is unfaithful to the Lord” (NIV).
The Hebrew verb (ma‘al) along with the preposition “with/against” (b-) is a strong
one and refers to some sort of sacrilege (see Deut 32.51). Such interpersonal sins
pollute the holiness of the camp in which the Lord dwells.
And that person is guilty: This may wrongly suggest that the person who
commits the sin is perhaps not always guilty. So a translation like “…, then that
person is guilty” (similar to NIV and NRSV) is needed. The guilt is the result of sin.
Unfortunately, GNT leaves this whole clause untranslated. Guilt implies the need for
restitution, compensation, repayment. Indeed, the Hebrew verb here, we’oshmah, is of
the same root as the related noun ’asham (“full restitution, compensation”) in the next
verse. This verb is an important term in the description of Israel’s cultic system. It
refers to a situation that has resulted from some illegal action. It is incompatible with
God’s holiness, and therefore the condition of “being guilty” can only be removed
through confession, ritual purification, and restitution.
He shall confess: The Hebrew has “they shall confess,” a plural verb still
referring to the man and woman mentioned at the beginning of the whole sentence. A
public, oral confession is implied. Translations such as “he/she/they must reveal”
(Chewa) and “he/she must speak out” (Tonga) bring this out.
Make full restitution… adding a fifth: This may present a rather
complicated translation challenge in some languages, especially those that do not have
a modern or concise numbering system. For example, a fifth may have to be
translated as “twenty per cent” (GNT), “one part in five” (Chewa), or “one piece
taken from every five pieces.” Although it is not mentioned specifically, this penalty
is probably to be paid in money.
The following model takes all this into account:
“… When a man or a woman commits a wrong against someone and so is unfaithful
to the Lord, that person is guilty and must confess the sin that has been committed.
That person shall make full restitution for the wrong, add one fifth to it, and give it to
the one who was wronged.” (similar to NRSV).

5.8
RSV
8
But if the man has no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the wrong,
the restitution for wrong shall go to the Lord for the priest, in addition to the ram
of atonement with which atonement is made for him.

GNT
8
But if that person has died and has no near relative to whom payment can be
made, it shall be given to the Lord for the priest. This payment is in addition to
the ram used to perform the ritual of purification for the guilty person.

The man: The person against whom the sin has been committed, “the injured
party” (NRSV). It may be important to add in translation, as in GNT, the implication
that “that person has died.” Otherwise, why would a kinsman, a “near relative,” even
be mentioned?
Has no kinsman: The Hebrew go’el means “redeemer,” somebody who can
claim the restitution for himself, a “near relative” (GNT), “close relative” (NIV) or
“next of kin” (NRSV). The Hebrew does not specify what kind of male relative the
kinsman would be. First, the kinsman would be a brother, and then uncles and cousins
on the father’s side, and after them some other near relative.[<Budd 57] Here, the first
half of the verse implies a situation where the victim has died. GNT has made this
explicit: “has died and has no near relative.” This exceptional situation was not yet
covered in the earlier law of Lev 6.1-7.
Restitution for wrong: “payment” (GNT). The Hebrew term here is the same
as in verse 7: ’asham.
Shall go to the Lord for the priest: This variation between “to” and “for”
finds no support in the Hebrew, and makes the translation only more complicated.
Clearer models are “… belongs to the Lord and must be given to the priest” (NIV),
“… must be given to the Lord, that is, put before the priest” (FRCL), or even “must be
given to the Lord, that is, to the priests.”
The priest: There is no specific priest in mind here, so “a priest” or “the
priests” (in general) are alternative translation models.
In addition to: GNT starts a new, separate sentence here: “This payment is in
addition to …” GNT is a good model. RSV may give the wrong impression that the
instruction about the ram of atonement is only relevant when the victim, the person
who was harmed, has died (the first part of verse 8). But instead, the instruction about
the ram also applies when the victim is still alive (as in this whole section). This is
also clear from Lev 6.6-7 (numbered 5.25-26 in Hebrew).
The ram of atonement with which atonement is made for him: This
sacrifice implies that the repayment with interest is not adequate by itself to
accomplish the ritual of forgiveness. GNT’s “the ram used [or “sacrificed”] to
perform the ritual of purification for the guilty person” clarifies what atonement
means. The Hebrew verb actually means “he [that is, the priest] makes atonement.”
RSV and GNT do not bring this out. But FRCL explicitly mentions the priest as
subject. The verb itself literally means “cover,” that is, to appease, make amends, or
perhaps even reconcile (see also Lev 17.11 and the Exodus Handbook at 25.17 and
29.33).
For him: The preceding verses refer to male and female separately, so here in
verse 8 GNT’s “for the guilty person” is a better translation.
MODEL:
“But if the injured party has died and has no near relative to whom restitution can be
made for the wrong, the restitution belongs to the Lord and must be given to the
priest. This restitution is in addition to the ram with which the priest performs the
ritual of purification for the guilty person.”

5.9-10
RSV
9
And every offering, all the holy things of the people of Israel, which they bring
to the priest, shall be his; 10 and every man's holy things shall be his; whatever
any man gives to the priest shall be his.”

GNT
9
Also every special contribution which the Israelites offer to the Lord belongs to
the priest to whom they present it. 10 Each priest shall keep the offerings
presented to him.

These verses underline that the priests play a crucial part in restoring
ceremonial purity of the people. In this way, the livelihood of the priests is also to be
secured.
Every offering, all the holy things: NIV takes this together: “all the sacred
contributions.” The Hebrew word terumah has the wide, general meaning of offering,
“contribution” (GNT), special gift, or donation, especially those that go to the priests.
Holy things are holy in the sense that they are offered or dedicated to the Lord.
Shall be his: GNT makes it clearer that his refers to the priest each time.

5.11-31
Section Heading: “Cases of Wives with Suspicious Husbands” (GNT). It is important
that the heading should indeed be neutral about the wives referred to in this section:
the unfaithfulness of the married woman still has to be proved. In fact, without the
husband’s jealous suspicion, a trial by ordeal would not be necessary at all. A heading
like “Test of Wives Suspected of Unfaithfulness (or ‘Adultery’)” (similar to GECL)
refers to the method of trial: the innocence of the accused woman is determined by
subjecting her to physical danger. The law itself is stated twice, both at the beginning
and at the end of this section (verses 12-14 and 29-30). Verses 16-28 describe the
procedure of this trial step by step. This is very detailed to reflect the seriousness of
the offence; adultery was ultimately a violation against God and would pollute the
whole camp. Since the entire community was potentially affected by this defilement,
the judgment procedure had to be carried out in public. In some receptor languages it
will be appropriate to employ present tense verbs for these procedural steps. This has
mostly been done in DUCL and NBV.
Sherwood (2002:146) makes an important comment:
“For a married woman to have to stand in public with her head uncovered and have
her head unbound by a man [the priest] who is not her husband would act out the
shame of the suspected adultery … But it would also deprive the husband of honor.
One would expect that a husband would think long and hard before exposing himself
to such a loss of honor.”
This law, then, is to protect the woman against the lynch mentality of the
community and the rage of her husband.

5.11-15
RSV
11
And the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Say to the people of Israel, If any man's
wife goes astray and acts unfaithfully against him, 13 if a man lies with her
carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected
though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she
was not taken in the act; 14 and if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he
is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself; or if the spirit of jealousy comes
upon him, and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself; 15
then the man shall bring his wife to the priest, and bring the offering required of
her, a tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it and put no
frankincense on it, for it is a cereal offering of jealousy, a cereal offering of
remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance.

GNT
11
The Lord commanded Moses 12-14 to give the Israelites the following
instructions. It may happen that a man becomes suspicious that his wife is
unfaithful to him and has defiled herself by having intercourse with another man.
But the husband may not be certain, for his wife may have kept it secret — there
was no witness, and she was not caught in the act. Or it may happen that a
husband becomes suspicious of his wife, even though she has not been unfaithful.
15
In either case the man shall take his wife to the priest. He shall also take the
required offering of one kilogramme of barley flour, but he shall not pour any
olive oil on it or put any incense on it, because it is an offering from a suspicious
husband, made to bring the truth to light.

In comparison with the Hebrew text and RSV, GNT has rearranged the
sentences in verses 12-14. The result is that in GNT it is already clear from the
beginning that there are two possibilities: either the wife has been unfaithful or she
has not. And while verses 12-15 are one long sentence in the Hebrew text and in RSV,
this has been broken up into separate sentences in GNT. In this respect, GNT is likely
to be a much clearer model. However, in many languages it may be more natural and
appropriately emphatic to express these instructions in the form of direct speech
(RSV), rather than indirect as in GNT. Verses 12-14 define the legal case, while verse
15 begins the instructions as to how to deal with the situation.
Goes astray: As the Hebrew verb implies, “falls into false paths” means to
behave incorrectly, in a way that it makes her husband suspicious.
Acts unfaithfully against him: The Hebrew verb (ma‘al) along with the
preposition “with/against” (b-) is a strong one and indicates some sort of sacrilege
against the Lord (see 5.6). Acts of adultery violate God’s holiness and threaten the
people as a whole, among whom the Lord dwells. A similarly forceful expression is
therefore needed in the target language (Chewa: “she does unfaithful things”).
Lies with her carnally: “Has had intercourse with her” (NRSV). As much as
possible, translations should take into account that the Hebrew text is even more
explicit about the sexual intercourse here than in 5.19 (“has lain with you,” RSV and
NRSV).
Has defiled herself: That is, she has made herself ceremonially unclean.
The spirit of jealousy comes upon him: The Hebrew ruach does not
necessarily mean “spirit”; it can mean “wind, gush,” or as here “attitude, mood,
feeling.” NJPSV translates “a fit of jealousy”; NIV has “feelings of jealousy.”
The offering required of her: The Hebrew qorban is the commonest and
vaguest expression for sacrificial gift. Since the death of an animal is not specified
here, a more general word for “offering” in the target language will be needed, that is,
instead of the more specific “sacrifice.” GNT has left of her untranslated. A more
accurate rendering of the Hebrew is “the offering concerning her” (FRCL) or “the
offering required for her” (NET).
A tenth of an ephah of barley meal: An ephah was a dry measure for corn.
Many believe that it was approximately 40 liters. Others believe it was 22 liters. (See
the Handbook on Leviticus at Lev 5.11 and the Handbook on Exodus at 16.36.) To
translate the phrase a tenth of an ephah, some translations try to give a rough
equivalent by employing a receptor language term: “three kilos” (FRCL), “two and a
quarter kilos” (DUCL), “one kilogramme” (GNT). As these translations show, there is
no certainty as to what the measurement implied. It is better to provide the reader with
a meaningful equivalent rather than being overly concerned about the precise value of
this uncertain term. So NBJ89 (“a tenth of a measure of barley flour”) is a much better
model if translators do not want to follow RSV. A target language equivalent might
be even more appropriate, for example, “one basket” (as long as consistency is
maintained with other places where the “ephah” is mentioned.) In general, if
approximate local dry and liquid measures are available in the language, it is
preferable to use them rather than the anachronistic metric measurements. Barley
meal, a coarse flour, of the hairy grainy kernel-fruit, was the cheapest, most common
type of cereal grain; it was also available to the poor.
No oil … no frankincense: It is perhaps the possible association with sin or
the uncertain status of the accusation that makes this ordeal offering a dry one.[<Budd
64] “Olive oil” and “incense” are used in the normal cereal offering (see the
Handbook on Leviticus at Lev 2.1). (Another dry cereal offering is the poor man’s
cereal offering in Lev 5.11.)
A cereal offering of jealousy: A food offering resulting from, or necessitated
by a husband’s jealousy. For cereal offering see at 4.16. As indicated by “from a
suspicious husband” (GNT), of jealousy does not make the offering a special type of
cereal offering in its own right.
Of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance: RSV and NJPSV
(“which recalls wrongdoing”) are more accurate than “made to bring the truth to
light” (GNT). Other possible models would be: “made to bring a wrongdoing to light”
or “causing people to think [seriously] about sinfulness.”

5.16
RSV
16
“And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord;

GNT
16
The priest shall bring the woman forward and make her stand in front of the
altar.

The step by step procedure of the trial by ordeal begins here. In some receptor
languages it may be appropriate to employ present tense verbs for this (NBV).
Shall bring her near: The target language expression should not suggest that
the priest actually carried the woman and “set” her down by the altar! Perhaps “call”
or “lead forward” is a better model than “bring.”
Before the Lord: The following verses suggest that this is before the altar: “in
front of the altar” (GNT). This is most likely, since the altar is mentioned in 5.25, but
it is not certain. Verse 18 repeats that the priest has to set or publicly display the
woman before the Lord. The repetition marks this statement as important. The Lord
would judge the guilty, for his holiness was at stake. The following model clarifies the
location without giving up anything in translation:
“And the priest brings her near the altar, thus setting her before the Lord.”

5.17
RSV
17
and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the
dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.

GNT
17
He shall pour some holy water into a clay bowl and take some of the earth that
is on the floor of the Tent of the Lord's presence and put it in the water to make it
bitter.

Tabernacle: RSV renders tabernacle where the Hebrew has mishkan

“dwelling-place.” See at 1.50-51.
Holy water: Possibly water from the laver (Exo 30.18). In any case, this is
water set aside for a sacred purpose, that is, in connection with some command of the
Lord. NEB’s “pure water” seems to miss the function or nature of this water.
And put it into the water: the dust apparently gives the water a bitter taste.
GNT makes this explicit: “… to make it bitter.” The Hebrew text mentions this in
verse 18: “the water of bitterness.”

5.18
RSV
18
And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and unbind the hair of the
woman's head, and place in her hands the cereal offering of remembrance, which
is the cereal offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water
of bitterness that brings the curse.

GNT
18
Then he shall loosen the woman's hair and put the offering of flour in her
hands. In his hands the priest shall hold the bowl containing the bitter water that
brings a curse.

And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord: This repeats part of
verse 16, which is why GNT leaves it untranslated here. But see the discussion at
verse 16.
Unbind the hair: Loose hair could be a sign of uncleanness (Lev 13.45). It
may also be a sign of shame or mourning (Lev 10.6). “Loosen” (GNT) is a more
generic rendering than RSV. It is not clear what exactly the priest does to the
woman’s hair. REB has “uncover her head” (similar to NET and NJPSV). In some
cultures, “remove her veil” (CEV) may be appropriate as a cultural equivalent. See
the comment by Sherwood under 5.11-31 (Section Heading) above. In other cultures
for a man to unloose or handle a woman’s hair is either immoral or the near
equivalent of a sexual act; if so, some indirect way of expressing the action will be
needed, for example: “cause the woman to untie her hair.”
Cereal offering of remembrance … cereal offering of jealousy: See at 5.15.
Water of bitterness: The meaning “bitter water” (GNT) in the sense of bad
tasting water, and not just “water that brings about bitterness” in a figurative, psycho-
social sense, is not to be excluded, though the latter is clearly in focus.
That brings the curse: If this is not clear or gives a wrong implication,
translators may follow DUCL: “which brings a curse on the guilty.” The last phrase is
crucial, for we must assume that the accused woman was innocent until the Lord
himself found her guilty.

5.19
RSV
19
Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with
you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness, while you were under your
husband's authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse.

GNT
19
Then the priest shall make the woman agree to this oath spoken by the priest:
“If you have not committed adultery, you will not be harmed by the curse that
this water brings.

This verse includes the first part of the oath: if the woman has not committed
adultery, she will not be cursed and harmed or killed.
The priest shall make her take an oath, saying: This would suggest that the
woman herself will speak the words of the oath and recite some kind of self-curse.
But the Hebrew has “… and he shall say to the woman.” And the actual words that
follow are spoken by the priest to her. GNT avoids the confusion from the beginning:
“the priest shall make the woman agree to this oath spoken by the priest.” However,
that the woman actually agrees is not based on the Hebrew at this point! “The priest
shall put the woman under oath and say to her” (NIV, and similarly REB, NET, and
NLT) is a better model: it is accurate as well as clear. In certain languages, like those
of the Bantu family, the predication “he shall cause her to take an oath” can all be
expressed by the causative form of the verb.
If no man has lain with you: NRSV has the same. Some sort of euphemism
or less direct manner of expression will be needed in most languages so as to not give
offence or cause shame when this passage is read publicly. The Hebrew is not as
explicit here as in 5.13, where RSV and NRSV have “lies with her carnally” and “has
had intercourse with her.”
Uncleanness: This refers to the same ceremonial uncleanness but potentially
contagious pollution as “has defiled herself” (RSV) in 5.13-14. This important notion
should not be simply left implicit in the translation as in the GNT.

5.20-22
RSV
20
But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband's authority,
and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain
with you, 21 then’ (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and
say to the woman) ‘the Lord make you an execration and an oath among your
people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell; 22 may
this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your body swell
and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’

GNT
20
But if you have committed adultery, 21 may the Lord make your name a curse
among your people. May he cause your genital organs to shrink and your
stomach to swell up. 22 May this water enter your stomach and cause it to swell
up and your genital organs to shrink.”
The woman shall respond, “I agree; may the Lord do so.”

These verses include the second part of the oath: if the woman has committed
adultery, she will indeed be cursed and harmed severely.
Have gone astray: See at 5.12, where the Hebrew has the same verb.
Have defiled yourself: See at 5.13, where the Hebrew has the same verb.
Again, the GNT omits this crucial thematic concept.
Has lain with you: The Hebrew is just as explicit as in 5.19 (and not quite as
explicit as in 5.13). Languages will differ not only in how explicit they can be at this
point, but also regarding how much repetition sounds natural in such procedural and
directive texts.
(Let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the
woman): The first part could still give the wrong impression that the woman herself is
the one who speaks the words that follow. NIV avoids this by saying: “… -- here the
priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath -- …”. GNT leaves out the
whole sentence. NIV is a better model: it shows clearly that the text is procedural in
character. However, this interruption “… -- here the priest is to put the woman under
this curse of the oath -- …” may have to be expressed as an independent sentence for
the sake of clarity or naturalness, for example, modifying the NIV: (20) “But if you
have gone astray…then this curse applies [or will fall]: (21) Here the priest is to…”
Make you an execration and an oath among your people: That is, a curse
sealed by an oath. Some translations bring out more clearly how the people are
involved: “cause your people to curse and denounce you” (NIV); or more specifically:
“… your compatriots quote you as an example when they pronounce a curse” (FRCL
and similarly NBV). That is, the curse and punishment that has befallen the woman
will be used in future oaths. Alternative models are: “cause the people to see that you
are a curse” (in TNIV footnote) and “may the people see that the Lord’s curse is upon
you” (NLT).
Thigh fall away: In the Bible the upper thigh is often a euphemistic reference
to the area of “genital organs” (GNT). In some receptor languages “lap” (NBV) or
“lower abdomen” (Chewa, Tonga) will be appropriate as a less explicit reference to
the “womb” (DUCL). Fall away can be understood as “shrivel” (NJB), “waste away”
(NIV). Compare “your womb miscarry” (TNIV, and similarly REB), which implies
that the woman was pregnant with a child that her husband doubted was his! This
curse might also have a future reference, as expressed in CEV’s “you will never be
able to give birth to a child.”
Body: Or “belly, internal organs.”
Amen, Amen: This strong affirmation can be rendered “May it be so! May it
be so!” (NBS02), “Amen. So be it.” (NIV), or “Yes, exactly!” (Chewa). GNT makes
the subject explicit (“the Lord”), but in many receptor languages this will not be
necessary. The woman is to accept and affirm as valid all that the priest has said, so
not only verses 20-22 but verse 19 as well.

5.23
RSV
23
“Then the priest shall write these curses in a book, and wash them off into
the water of bitterness;

GNT
23
Then the priest shall write this curse down and wash the writing off into the
bowl of bitter water.

The spoken words of the curse are now written down for added effect. The
writing is washed into the dust-filled, now bitter water.
Book: Probably a piece of parchment or a scroll; the Hebrew only refers to a
written record in some form. Similarly to GNT, NRSV has “put … in writing.”
Wash off: Or “dissolve” (DUCL, NBV), “scrape off” (NET), namely, the
words of the curse that have been written on the scroll.
Water of bitterness: As in 5.18.

5.24-26
RSV
24
and he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the
curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter
pain. 25 And the priest shall take the cereal offering of jealousy out of the
woman's hand, and shall wave the cereal offering before the Lord and bring it to
the altar; 26 and the priest shall take a handful of the cereal offering, as its
memorial portion, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall make the
woman drink the water.

GNT
24
Before he makes the woman drink the water, which may then cause her bitter
pain, 25 the priest shall take the offering of flour out of the woman's hands, hold it
out in dedication to the Lord, and present it on the altar. 26 Then he shall take a
handful of it as a token offering and burn it on the altar. Finally, he shall make
the woman drink the water.
 After verse 23 (“the water of bitterness”), verse 24 is there to explain that the
woman has to drink the bitter water, so as to take the potential curse into her body.
But this is not yet the moment that she drinks the water. That comes only at the end of
verse 26, after the cereal offering. GNT makes this clear at the very beginning of
verse 24: “Before …”. CEV (“so that when the woman drinks this water, the curses
will enter her body.”) is a good alternative: it reflects that verse 24 is not the next step,
but a summary preview of what is to follow. If in certain receptor languages such
solutions cannot be applied, at least NRSV’s small correction of RSV can be adopted.
NRSV no longer begins verse 24 and verse 25 with “and,” keeping each verse
separate from the other. Along these same lines, verse 25 could begin with a
conjunction which indicates that it is not in temporal continuity with verse 24, for
example, “So,” “Thus,” “To be specific.”
The cereal offering of jealousy: See at 5.15.
Wave … before the Lord: It is not a separate kind of offering. It is more
likely that it had to do with a particular gesture associated with sacrifices that required
something extra (Translator’s Handbook on Leviticus at 7.30). “Elevate” (NRSV,
NJPSV), “hold out” (GNT), and “lift up” are now considered a more accurate
rendering of the Hebrew verb than wave.
As its memorial portion: “As a token of the whole offering” (DUCL) or as a
reminder to the Lord.
Burn it: The Hebrew verb actually means “cause to go up in smoke.” NRSV’s
“Turn it into smoke” renders this more precisely than RSV. However, this expression
could turn out to sound rather mystical or magical if rendered literally.

5.27-28
RSV
27
And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and
has acted unfaithfully against her husband, the water that brings the curse shall
enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her body shall swell, and her thigh shall
fall away, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. 28 But if
the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall
conceive children.

GNT
27
If she has committed adultery, the water will cause bitter pain; her stomach
will swell up and her genital organs will shrink. Her name will become a curse
among her people. 28 But if she is innocent, she will not be harmed and will be
able to bear children.

Has defiled yourself: See at 5.13, where the Hebrew has the same verb.
Cause bitter pain: GNT moves this expression (literally, “for bitter things”)
ahead in the sentence and condenses the text somewhat for clarity.
Body: Or “belly, internal organs.” As in 5.21.
Thigh … fall away: See at 5.21.
Become an execration among her people: See at 5.21.
Clean: Not just “innocent” (GNT) but ritually clean, that is, “pure” as opposed
to being “polluted” or “defiled.” GNT again leaves out the notion of personal
“defilement,” which if true could have brought pollution upon the whole community
of Israel. Thus, one’s individual sins in the camp where the Lord resides could, if not
dealt with, bring corporate punishment upon the people. This important principle is
reiterated again and again in the judicial texts of the Pentateuch.
 Shall be free: The woman shall be without guilt (NIV: “cleared from guilt”)
and remain unpunished. GNT’s “she will not be harmed” somewhat misses the point
that a judicial case before the Lord was involved here, one that had potentially serious
communal implications.
Conceive children: Renderings such as “able to retain seed” (NJPSV), “able
to receive seed,” or even “able to produce seed” are similar to the Hebrew (“she will
be seeded with seed”) and may, in fact, be a better model in some receptor languages.

5.29-31
RSV
29
“This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, though under her
husband's authority, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when the spirit of
jealousy comes upon a man and he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the
woman before the Lord, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law. 31 The
man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity.”

GNT
29-30
This is the law in cases where a man is jealous and becomes suspicious
that his wife has committed adultery. The woman shall be made to stand in front
of the altar, and the priest shall perform this ritual. 31 The husband shall be free
of guilt, but the woman, if guilty, must suffer the consequences.

This is the law … all this law: The instructions for such cases of jealousy do
not begin here. Rather, verses 29-31 summarize the preceding section. Some
translations bring this out well: “This, then, is the law of jealousy …” (NIV); “Such is
the law for cases of jealousy …”(REB). Instead of law, NJB and NJPSV translate
“ritual” in both instances. This reflects the general meaning of the Hebrew torah
(“instruction, teaching, direction”) in the context of this section.
Goes astray and defiles herself …the spirit of jealousy: See at 5.12-14.
Note that translations like the RSV (also NJPSV, NIV, REB, and many others) clearly
imply that the woman is guilty at the outset, which is not actually the case, as this
chapter indicates in all the directions that are given. To avoid this wrong implication
models such as the GNT and CEV are recommended.
He shall set the woman before the Lord: See at 5.16. The difference,
however, is, that here in verse 30 he shall set still refers to the husband, while in verse
16 it refers to the priest. Here in verse 30, FRCL makes the husband the explicit
subject. This distinction ought to be maintained in translation, for it may carry the
implication that this action has been initiated by a jealous husband.
But the woman: The Hebrew is more specific: “but that woman” (NJPSV),
that is, the one who is actually guilty of adultery and of potentially polluting the entire
people. Perhaps a reversal in word order might bring this out better in some
languages, for example, following the GNT: “The woman, if guilty, must suffer the
consequences, but her husband shall be free of guilt.”

6.1-21
Section Heading: God’s presence among his people requires special rules for those
who dedicate themselves to him in a special way, through a specific kind of life, a life
of separation, or abstention. The Hebrew for such a person is nazir, literally, “a
consecrated person.” Such an individual was like a lay priest who devoted him- or
herself to serving the Lord for a particular time (or even for life, as in the case of
Samson and Samuel). Concise headings are “Nazirites” (RSV) and “Rules for
Nazirites” (CEV). Clearer models are “Rules for those who dedicate [or “devote”]
themselves to the Lord” (based on GECL) and “Rules for consecrating someone to the
Lord” (PV). An alternative is “Vows of Nazirites.”
The rules for nazirites are given in verses 1-8. Verse 9-12 explain what should
be done when, during the period of his vow, a nazirite has become unclean by
unintentionally touching a dead person. Verses 13-20 deal with what should be done
when nazirites have completed the time of their separation, that is, devotion to the
Lord. Verse 21 functions as a summary of this entire section.

6.1-3
RSV
1
And the Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to the people of Israel, When either a man
or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, b to separate himself to
the Lord, 3 he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no
vinegar made from wine or strong drink, and shall not drink any juice of grapes
or eat grapes, fresh or dried.

GNT
1
The Lord commanded Moses 2 to give the following instructions to the people
of Israel. Any men or women who make a special vow to become nazirites and
dedicate themselves to the Lord 3 shall abstain from wine and beer. They shall
not drink any kind of drink made from grapes or eat any grapes or raisins.

And the Lord said: GNT again shifts the entire discourse into the mode of
indirect speech, which in many languages is not as natural for giving instructions.
Either a man or a woman: The text clearly makes the point that women as
well as men can become nazirites, and that the instructions apply to both. The
masculine forms (himself) that follow are meant to refer to the woman as well as the
man. This may be awkward in some receptor languages. In such cases, GNT and
likewise NRSV (“men or women … themselves …”) will be easier to follow, as long
as it is clear that this involves an individual person. This applies to the whole section.
Makes a special vow: Because of the probable meaning of yafli’ (the first of
the two Hebrew verbs here), the rendering “makes an exceptional/extraordinary vow”
(NFB) is more accurate and more expressive. The meaning of yafli’ is not quite
certain, but seems to refer to some extraordinary activity. A translation like “explicitly
utters … a vow” (NJPSV) does seem more speculative and is therefore not
recommended as a model.
Nazirite: The RSV footnote says: “That is one separated or one consecrated.”
This is indeed the meaning of the Hebrew nazir, and a religious purpose is implied,
that is, a special devotion to the Lord’s service. So this term does not just refer to a
person who makes a promise or swears an oath. Translators should avoid this wrong
meaning, especially in some receptor languages where a similar term already exists.
To separate himself to the Lord: The Hebrew verb is of the same root as
nazir. As the context shows, this dedication takes the form of abstinence as an
outward symbol of the person’s dedication to God. The nazirite must keep away from
certain things. Separate himself to or “set himself apart for” preserves this wordplay
and its underlying notion more than GNT’s “dedicate themselves to.”
Strong drink: Any kind of intoxicating drink that can make one drunk. This
would include “beer” (GNT). After “wine,” NJPSV translates “any other intoxicant,”
though many languages will have to specify that a “drink” is involved.
 Vinegar: Water was sometimes mixed with wine vinegar for a refreshing,
thirst-quenching drink.

6.4
RSV
4
All the days of his separation c he shall eat nothing that is produced by the
grapevine, not even the seeds or the skins.

GNT
4
As long as they are nazirites, they shall not eat anything that comes from a
grapevine, not even the seeds or skins of grapes.

The listing in verse 3 already makes it clear how strictly nazirites are
forbidden alcohol and anything from the vine. Verse 4 underlines this point.
All the days of his separation: The nazirate or religious separation is not
intended to continue indefinitely, but only for a certain time. The RSV footnote says:
“Or Naziriteship.” The Hebrew word involved – nezer – is of the same root as nazir.
GNT will be easier to follow. Translators are advised to follow GNT’s “As long as
they are nazirites” or “for as long as they have separated themselves as Nazirites,”
rather than to add a footnote.

6.5
RSV
5
“All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall come upon his head;
until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the Lord, he shall
be holy; he shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long.

GNT
5
As long as they are under the nazirite vow, they must not cut their hair or
shave. They are bound by the vow for the full time that they are dedicated to the
Lord, and they shall let their hair grow.

No razor shall come upon his head: GNT brings out that neither shaving nor
cutting the hair on the head are allowed. By using the plural “they,” GNT avoids the
problem of referring to both males and females that a singular form presents in some
languages. Although GECL and FRCL mention the beard as well, this is not
recommended; the present verse should apply to women as well (see 6.2), hence
GNT’s “shave” (unless this would imply a beard in the target language). Jdg 16.17
(Samson) illustrates that the uncut hair is considered a sign of the person’s vow and
the Lord’s presence in or with the nazirite; it does not express dedication to
asceticism.
Holy: Consecrated to the Lord, that is, set apart for the Lord’s service,
devoted/dedicated to serving the Lord, and therefore to be treated with respect.
Grow long: GNT removes the qualifier “long” which is clearly implied in the
Hebrew verb.

6.6-8
RSV
6
“All the days that he separates himself to the Lord he shall not go near a
dead body. 7 Neither for his father nor for his mother, nor for brother or sister, if
they die, shall he make himself unclean; because his separation to God is upon
his head. 8 All the days of his separation he is holy to the Lord.

GNT
6-7
Their hair is the sign of their dedication to God, and so they must not defile
themselves by going near a corpse, not even that of their father, mother,
brother, or sister. 8 As long as they are nazirites, they are consecrated to the
Lord.

Go near: Or “go close to” (CEV). The Hebrew verb is simply “come.” It does
not necessarily imply “touch.”
A dead body: As mentioned under 5.2, the Hebrew nefesh (the word used
here) can refer to animals as well (for instance in Gen 1.20-24). But here in 6.6 the
context suggests that it primarily refers to dead humans. NJPSV translates “a dead
person.”
Neither for: The awkward RSV sentence structure is clarified in GNT, which
also brings out the emphatic (climactic) nature of this personal restriction, “not even
that of.”
Because his separation to God is upon his head: (As in 6.4, the Hebrew
word involved – nezer – is of the same root as nazir.) GNT makes it clear that this
clause is actually about the hair: “Their hair is the sign of their dedication to God.”
GNT has also rearranged the order of sentences in verses 6-7 in order to clarify the
function (dedication) of the form (uncut hair).

6.9
RSV
9
“And if any man dies very suddenly beside him, and he defiles his
consecrated head, then he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing; on
the seventh day he shall shave it.

GNT
9
If the consecrated hair of a nazirite is defiled because he or she is right
beside someone who suddenly dies, they must wait seven days and then shave
off their hair; and so they become ritually clean.

What should be done when, during the period of his naziriteship, a nazirite has
become unclean by accidentally touching a dead person? This verse starts the
paragraph (verses 9-12) with instructions about what the nazirite and the priest are to
do in such a case.
Any man … beside him: The Hebrew has no reference to a man here. GNT’s
“he or she is right beside” reflects that the nazirite can be a woman. By only slightly
revising RSV, NRSV achieves the same: “someone … nearby.”
Suddenly: “Unforeseen” (GECL) or “unexpectedly” (TOB).
His consecrated head: As discussed at 6.1-3, women as well as men could
become nazirites. If in a receptor language his can only refer to a male nazirite, “the
consecrated head” (NRSV) or “the consecrated hair” (GNT) is recommended. It is, in
fact, not the consecrated head but the vow that would be “defiled,” or broken, were
the nazirite to come into contact with a corpse.
Shave: The Hebrew verb form (gillach) does not imply that someone else does
the shaving.
On the day of his cleansing: This is the seventh day. Again, GNT has
rearranged the order of sentences and inserted “they must wait seven days,” for a
literal rendering like the RSV would be very difficult to understand in many
languages. His cleansing corresponds with GNT’s “and so they become ritually
clean” (or: “in order to become clean”), which is the ultimate goal of the purification
process being described in this verse.

6.10
RSV
10
On the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the
priest to the door of the tent of meeting,

GNT
10
On the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the
priest to the door of the tent of meeting,

Turtledoves … pigeons: The Hebrew word for turtledoves is turim. The

singular form tor is onomatopoeic: it is imitative of the sound this bird makes. In
some languages “doves” are considered wild while “pigeons” are domesticated. But in
languages which do not distinguish between “doves” and “pigeons,” one may
translate “pigeons [or “doves”] of any type.”
To the door of: Perhaps this is more accurately stated as “at the entrance to”
(NIV, REB), especially in languages where a “door” refers to something solid that
opens and closes on hinges!
The tent of meeting: See at 1.1.

6.11-12
RSV
11
and the priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt
offering, and make atonement for him, because he sinned by reason of the dead
body. And he shall consecrate his head that same day, 12 and separate himself to
the Lord for the days of his separation, and bring a male lamb a year old for a
guilt offering; but the former time shall be void, because his separation was
defiled.

GNT
11
The priest shall offer one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, to
perform the ritual of purification for them because of their contact with a corpse.
On the same day they shall reconsecrate their hair 12 and rededicate to the Lord
their time as nazirites. The previous period of time doesn't count, because their
consecrated hair was defiled. As a repayment offering they shall bring a one-
year-old lamb.

And: Again, the RSV carries a sentence over into the next verse, rendering it
too long or complex in many languages.
Sin offering: A similar translation is “sacrifice for the sin” (NBS02). This
may give the wrong impression that the nazirite’s sin was intentional. The context of
this section makes it clear that only an unintentional sin is meant. (This is also
explained in the Handbook on Leviticus at the start of chapter 4.) The offering
restores a person to a state of ritual purity when, as in this case, a taboo has
unintentionally been broken.[<Budd 72] Thus, “purification offering” (REB, NBV),
with a focus on the outcome rather than the cause, is a much more accurate rendering.
“Offering to make a person pure” is another way of putting this; however, in some
languages the word for “sacrifice” will have to be used since an animal’s death is
involved.
Burnt offering: This offering involves the burning of the whole of the
sacrificial animal: no-one received any flesh to eat. In this sacrifice the entire animal
except the skin is burned on the altar. REB translates “whole-offering,” which
emphasizes the fact that the entire animal is offered to the Lord; it could also
symbolize that the individual was wholly surrendering to the Lord in personal
devotion. A rendering like “sacrifice burnt whole” or “sacrifice of complete burning”
may work well in some receptor languages.
Make atonement: Similarly to 5.8, GNT’s “to perform the ritual of
purification for them” clarifies what atonement means. The verb itself literally means
“cover,” that is, to appease or make amends, so that fellowship is restored between a
defiled person and the Lord.
Because he sinned by reason of the dead body: Again, this may give the
wrong impression that the nazirite’s sin was intentional. However, GNT goes too far,
leaving it out of the translation altogether: “because of their contact with a corpse.”
NRSV solves the problem: “because they incurred guilt by reason of the corpse.”
REB is similar: “for the sin he has incurred through contact with the dead body.” The
following MODEL is recommended: “because they incurred sin (or “guilt”) through
contact with the dead body.”
Consecrate his head: The verb here is literally “make holy.” Instead of
“head,” GNT has “hair,” as in 6.6. But here in the context of verse 11 “consecrate
himself” or indeed “reconsecrate themselves” is more fitting (see the discussion of
this complex expression at 6.9).
And separate himself: The RSV translation may be confusing. The notion of
(re)consecration is simply reiterated here for emphasis using a different verb (nazar),
which is best rendering in this context as “rededicate” (GNT).
A male lamb a year old: The Hebrew keves indicates that the one-year-old
lamb is male: usually the word refers to a young ram. The distinction between this
lamb and a female lamb should be kept clear. (A female lamb is mentioned in 6.14.)
Guilt offering: This sacrifice is essentially about compensation for damage
done, so GNT is more accurate: “repayment offering” (see the discussion in the
Leviticus Handbook at 5.15). Still better are FRCL (“reparation offering,” also NET)
and NBV (“restoration offering”), which avoid any possible association with the
payment of money.
The former time shall be void: This refers to all the prior time which the
person had spent as a nazirite; it “does not count” (GNT, NIV), “is lost” (NET) or “is
not to be included” (REB).
Because his separation was defiled: As in 6.4, the Hebrew word involved –
nezer – is of the same root as nazir. The Hebrew refers only to the separation, that is,
to the time of one’s nazirite vow and not to the nazirite’s head or “hair” (GNT). Was
defiled is in Hebrew of the same root as the verb in 5.13. NBV translates the clause as
follows: “because of the desecration of his naziriteship”; one could also say: “because
he became defiled during his vow of separation.”

6.13
RSV
13
“And this is the law for the Nazirite, when the time of his separation has
been completed: he shall be brought to the door of the tent of meeting,
GNT
13
When nazirites complete their vows, they shall perform this ritual. They
shall go to the entrance of the Tent

Verses 13-20 describe what should be done when nazirites have completed the
time of their consecration. (GNT divides verses 13-20 into smaller paragraphs. Verses
13-15 mention what the nazirite is required to offer. Verses 16-18 mention sacrifices
and the shaving of the hair. Verses 19-20 further describe the peace offering.) A
slightly different paragraph division (see NIV) would arrange this section as an
alternating sequence of instructions detailing what the nazirite must do (verses 13-15,
18, plus the final sentence of verse 20) as distinct from what the priest must do (verses
16-17, 19-20).
Separation: See at 6.4.
Law: Like GNT, NJB and NJPSV translate “ritual”; perhaps some languages
would require a plural, “rituals,” or lacking that, a term like “regulations.” This
reflects the general meaning of the Hebrew torah (“instruction, teaching, direction”)
in the context of this section (see verse 21).
He shall be brought: The Hebrew verb form (yavi’) does seem to imply that
another, unspecified, person has to bring him. GNT (“they shall go”) does not show
this.
The tent of meeting: See at 1.1.

6.14
RSV
14
and he shall offer his gift to the Lord, one male lamb a year old without blemish
for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb a year old without blemish as a sin
offering, and one ram without blemish as a peace offering,

GNT
14
and present to the Lord three animals without any defects: a one-year-old
male lamb for a burnt offering, a one-year-old ewe lamb for a sin offering, and a
ram for a fellowship offering.

Offer his gift: The Hebrew qorban (also in 5.15) is the commonest and
vaguest expression for sacrificial gift. This general term (perhaps unmodified “gift”
works best) introduces the specific types of offering that follow in this verse and the
next.
Burnt offering … sin offering: See at 6.11.
Ram: A male sheep, older than the previously mentioned male lamb.
Peace offering: The meaning of the Hebrew root is captured better by the
translation “offering of well-being” (NJPSV, NRSV). For this type of sacrifice,
worshippers took part in the eating of the sacrificial animal (see the Handbook on
Leviticus at chapter 3). Fellowship was therefore central to this ritual, expressing a
final state of harmony between God and worshiper after the nazirite vow had been
fulfilled. “Fellowship offering” (GNT, NIV) and “shared-offering” (REB) give
expression to this notion.

6.15
RSV
15
and a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mixed with oil, and
unleavened wafers spread with oil, and their cereal offering and their drink
offerings.

GNT
15
They shall also offer a basket of bread made without yeast: thick loaves made
of flour mixed with olive oil and biscuits brushed with olive oil, and in addition the
required offerings of corn and wine.

Unleavened bread: Such “bread without yeast” is baked quickly from barley
meal and water. Two forms of bread without yeast are mentioned here: cakes
(probably ring-shaped “loaves”) and wafers (“biscuits,” flat loaves of bread still eaten
in the Near East today). As the Handbook on Leviticus mentions at Lev 2.4, the
translator should use two rather general terms for these, for instance, “thick bread”
and “thin bread,” respectively. However, it is important that they both designate kinds
of bread that are made without yeast (that is, without the substance which causes the
bread to rise); compare Chewa: “non-puffed-up bread”; Tonga: “bread without
fermented-grain” [i.e., traditional yeast].
Fine flour: Finely milled flour (thus not the coarse flour in 5.15). See the
Handbook on Leviticus at Lev 2.1. “Choice flour” (NJPSV) reflects the high quality
of this particular kind of flour.
Mixed with oil: “With oil mixed in” (NJPSV) or “kneaded in oil.”
Spread with oil: Or “brushed,” “smeared”, “coated” with oil.
Cereal offering: See at 4.16.
Drink offerings: NJPSV has “libations.” (See the Handbook on Exodus at
Exo 29.40 on this.) GNT ends the verse with “… the required offerings of corn and
wine.” Indeed, the verse indicates that the usual accompaniments to animal sacrifices
are to be made in this case, too.[<Budd 72]
NIV takes the final plural pronouns their as referring to the three offerings
that were specified in verse 14. Thus NIV moves the final two offerings from the end
of verse 15 to the beginning of this verse: “together with their grain offerings and
drink offerings” (see also CEV). This would be an alternative model to follow in
translation.

6.16-17
RSV
16
And the priest shall present them before the Lord and offer his sin offering and
his burnt offering, 17 and he shall offer the ram as a sacrifice of peace offering to
the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread; the priest shall offer also its
cereal offering and its drink offering.

GNT
16
The priest shall present all these to the Lord and offer the sin offering and
the burnt offering. 17 He shall sacrifice the ram to the Lord as a fellowship
offering, and offer it with the basket of bread; he shall also present the offerings
of corn and wine.

All the sacrificial actions reported in verses 16-17 are carried out by the priest.
The various offerings mentioned in verses 14-15 are repeated, but now the text makes
clear that it is actually the priest who offers them to the Lord on behalf of the nazirite.
Thus the translation should not wrongly suggest that another set of offerings, distinct
from those listed in 14-15, are now being given. RSV’s them will probably need to be
made more specific, for example, “all these” (GNT, REB).
His sin offering … his burnt offering: See at 6.11. His refers to the nazirite.
The ram: The same ram as in 6.14; see there.
Unleavened bread: See at 6.15.
A sacrifice of peace: This corresponds with the “peace offering” in 6.14 and
can be rendered in the same way (as in GNT: “fellowship offering”).
Cereal offering: See at 4.16.
Drink offering: See at 6.15.

6.18
RSV
18
And the Nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the door of the tent of
meeting, and shall take the hair from his consecrated head and put it on the fire
which is under the sacrifice of the peace offering.

GNT
18
At the entrance of the Tent the nazirite shall shave off his or her hair and put it
on the fire on which the fellowship offering is being burnt.

Verse 18 returns to the action of the nazirite, namely the ritual shaving of his
or her hair.
His consecrated head: See at 6.9. GNT’s “his or her hair” is not specific
enough and is better replaced with “the consecrated hair” (GNT in verse 9). The hair
of course is a symbol of the vow of consecration, or dedication to the Lord, which the
nazirite made.
Put it on the fire which is under: The location of the fire (RSV’s under) is
not important and may be confusing if a literal translation is made; thus GNT has
simply “put it on the fire.” Or one could translate: “burn it [the hair] with the fire that
consumes/destroys the fellowship offering.”
Peace offering: See at 6.14. There is a slight problem here in that only part of
the peace/fellowship offering was burnt; the other part was to be eaten by the priest,
as is outlined in the next verse (see also Lev 7.11-18). One can deal with this
difficulty at this point by translating something like: “burn it [the hair] together with
that part of the fellowship offering/sacrifice which must be destroyed.”

6.19
RSV
19
And the priest shall take the shoulder of the ram, when it is boiled, and one
unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put
them upon the hands of the Nazirite, after he has shaven the hair of his
consecration,

GNT
19
Then, when the shoulder of the ram is boiled, the priest shall take it and put
it, together with one thick loaf of bread and one biscuit from the basket, into the
hands of the nazirite.

Verses 19-20 deal with those parts of the peace offering and the food that
belong to the priest. As pointed out in the comments above, this distinction may have
to be made explicit in order to avoid confusion, for example: “the priest’s portion of
the ram for a peace offering” or “the shoulder of the ram of the fellowship offering
that is for the priest.” If this translation gets too complicated, then a less explicit
rendering may be used and a note supplied to provide the necessary explanation.
The shoulder of the ram, when it is boiled: The Hebrew shows that the
shoulder (the arm or front leg) itself is boiled. GNT expresses this more clearly:
“when the shoulder of the ram is boiled.”
Unleavened cake … basket … unleavened wafer: See at 6.15.
After he has shaven the hair of his consecration: At first glance, GNT has
not translated this clause, but in fact it has referred to this essential activity with
“Then” at the beginning of the verse, which implies everything that was mentioned in
the preceding verse. This makes the whole procedure easier to follow. If the clause is
retained, it must be specified that it is the nazirite who does the shaving, as shown in
verse 18. (Hair is not literally mentioned in the Hebrew.)

6.20
RSV
20
and the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the Lord; they are a
holy portion for the priest, together with the breast that is waved and the thigh
that is offered; and after that the Nazirite may drink wine.

GNT
20
Next, the priest shall present them as a special gift to the Lord; they are a
sacred offering for the priest, in addition to the breast and the leg of the ram
which by law belong to the priest. After that, the nazirite may drink wine.

Wave … for a wave offering … waved: NRSV’s “elevate … as an elevation

offering … elevated” is now considered a more accurate translation; the exact gesture
is not known. (See the discussion in the Handbook on Exodus at Exo 29.24.) In any
case, the action apparently symbolized the transfer of the offering to the Lord in the
sight of all present (CEV: “who will lift them up in dedication to me”). Some scholars
connect the meaning “to be elevated” to the meaning “to surpass.” Hence GNT’s
translation “present … as a special gift” or REB’s “present them as a dedicated
portion” (see the comments at 5.25). FRCL offers another model, though rather
complex at the end: “The priest himself then offers them to the Lord, with the ritual
gesture of presentation.”
They are a holy portion for the priest: The gifts mentioned in verse 19 are
holy in that they are consecrated to the Lord and belong to the priest. GNT’s “sacred
offering” may wrongly suggest that the text refers to another, additional offering
again, which is not the case.
Together with the breast … and the thigh: In the case of a peace offering
the breast and the thigh already belong to the priest anyway (Lev 7.31-34). “In
addition to” (GNT) brings this out more clearly than together with. The following
model shows this still more clearly: “these, in addition to the breast that is elevated
and the thigh that is offered, are holy and belong to the priest.”
The thigh refers to the ram’s shank, near the upper joint of the hind “leg.”
Situated near the organs of reproduction, this part was related to the mystery of life
and was withdrawn from normal public consumption.
That is offered: As in 5.9, the Hebrew word terumah has the wide, general
meaning of offering, contribution, special gift. GNT does not mention this, assuming
it to be implicitly understood information. This may or may not need to be made
explicit in other languages.
 And after that the Nazirite may drink wine: Having come to the end of this
ritual, the person is actually no longer a nazirite. His or her vow of dedication to the
Lord has come to a successful conclusion and this is symbolized by the act of
drinking wine, which was forbidden before. Since the vow has ended, it may be
necessary for precision to replace the Nazirite with “the person.” One might even
have to include an extra clause, as in CEV: “After this, you will no longer be a
nazirite and will be free to drink wine.”

6.21
RSV
21
“This is the law for the Nazirite who takes a vow. His offering to the Lord
shall be according to his vow as a Nazirite, apart from what else he can afford; in
accordance with the vow which he takes, so shall he do according to the law for
his separation as a Nazirite.”

GNT
21
These are the regulations for nazirites; but if a nazirite promises an offering
beyond what his or her vow requires them to give, they must fulfil exactly the
promise they made.

This is the law: The first sentence refers back to the entire preceding section.
REB and NJB bring this out: “Such is the law” (REB); “Such is the ritual” (NJB).
One may have to be more explicit: “All these instructions apply to the law concerning
nazirites.” “Ritual” or “regulations” (GNT) reflects the general meaning of the
Hebrew torah (“instruction, teaching, direction”) in the context of 6.1-21.
Offering: The Hebrew qorban (also in 5.15) is the commonest and vaguest
expression for sacrificial gift.
Apart from what else he can afford: GNT brings out that the regulations of
this section are only the minimal requirement. Nazirites are encouraged to offer more
if they can.[<Budd 73] The following model, based on NRSV and FRCL, is
recommended:
“Such is the ritual concerning those who are consecrated to the Lord by a vow; and
such are the gifts they should offer to the Lord on that occasion. If they can add other
gifts, they may do so; but in any case, what they promised they must offer, strictly
following the ritual for their consecration.” The adverb “strictly” is intended to bring
out the emphasis that the repetition found in the Hebrew implicitly conveys.

6.22-27
Section Heading: Possible headings are: “The Priestly Blessing” (GNT, NIV); “The
Formula of the Blessing” (FRCL, NBS02); “The way of pronouncing blessings”
(Chewa). These, and “The Priestly Benediction” (NRSV) bring out that this blessing
consists of specific formulas. The priests – Aaron and his sons – are only allowed to
use the wording which Moses is to teach them. However, verse 27 stresses the fact
that it is the Lord, not the priests, who actually has the power to perform what the
blessing stipulates. Thus, in some languages a more appropriate title would be
something like: “The Lord blesses his people”. This section is well-placed; it
concludes this part of the book (5.1–6.27) about the priests and the people. It
summarizes the blessed outcome of a people who have demonstrated their devotion to
God by avoiding various acts of ritual pollution.
 In the Hebrew, the formulas of blessing in verses 24-26 are not just prose; they
are arranged metrically, suitable for oral recitation. There are three poetic lines of
increasing length (3—5—7 words) that form a climactic structure. Each line includes
the name of the Lord and consists of a pair of related verbs that offer the people the
crucial generic blessings of protection, grace (provision), and peace. Verses 24-26
should therefore, if at all possible, be translated in some distinctive manner, that is, in
a vernacular style (or genre) that highlights their religious function.
Since such a key theological passage is often used in the liturgical tradition of
many churches, it would be well for translators to devote additional time and effort
towards polishing the text so that it has a distinguished sound and yet is dignified
enough for use in public worship. One other point: in some languages with a long
Christian history or translation tradition, this blessing may already exist in one or
more familiar wordings that translators will have to keep in mind as they prepare their
own rendition. If they can retain what is meaningful and also well-known to the
majority, so much the better. In some cases, however, there may be competing
formulas available for this passage that must be harmonized into a mutually
acceptable version that all churches will accept.

6.22-23
RSV
22
The Lord said to Moses, 23 “Say to Aaron and his sons, Thus you shall bless
the people of Israel: you shall say to them,

GNT
22
The Lord commanded Moses 23 to tell Aaron and his sons to use the
following words in blessing the people of Israel:

Verse 23 consists of direct speech (Say to Aaron and his sons) and embedded
direct speech (Thus you shall bless …). GNT removes the embedded quotation of
verses 24-26 by rendering verse 23 as indirect speech. However, in languages that
prefer direct to indirect discourse such embedding will usually not present a problem.
DUCL renders the most deeply embedded direct speech as direct speech: “The Lord
commanded Moses to say to Aaron and his sons: ‘Thus you will bless the Israelites:
…’.”
Thus you shall bless: The verb addresses Aaron and his sons in second person
plural. Thus indicates that they are to use this particular formulation. Other
translations are “in this manner”, “this is how” (NIV), “this is the way” (NET).
You shall say to them: Literally “Say to them” (NJPSV); “Say this to Aaron
and his sons” (CEV). This command, too, addresses Aaron and his sons, who are in
turn to pronounce the words of the blessing of verses 24-26.

6.24-26
RSV
24
The Lord bless you and keep you:
25
The Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you:
26
The Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.

GNT
24
May the Lord bless you and take care of you;
25
May the Lord be kind and gracious to you;
26
May the Lord look on you with favour and give you peace.
 This blessing was probably used also in temple worship (see Ps 67.1). All of
the verbs in the Hebrew may be interpreted as jussives—two of these verbs are indeed
explicit jussives—and in this context function as wishes, prayers (CEV’s “I pray that
…”), or as divine oracles that actually perform each blessing as it is being uttered by
the priest. (The ancient Greek version, the Septuagint, already interpreted these verbs
as jussives and translated them with optative forms.) As already noted, verse 27 will
make the point that the Lord is the sole author of the entire blessing. He, not the
priests, will realize these wishes and bring them to pass. No verbal magic is involved.
You: The Hebrew here uses the singular. Every Israelite is blessed
individually. It may indicate that this blessing wish could also be pronounced on
individuals, and not only upon the community as a whole.[<Knierim&Coats 96]
Bless: In this context, where God blesses people, the meaning can be
described as: to endue with special power and protection; to grant well-being that can
come from God alone. In some languages (e.g., Chewa, Tonga) there are specific
verbs to express such a “blessing,” where God alone must be the expressed or implied
agent.
Keep: “Protect” (NJPSV), “guard,” or “care for.”
Make his face to shine upon you: This phrase is used in the context of
salvation, delivery (see Ps 31.17 and 80.4,9,20). The shining face stands for
benevolence, kindness, and favor. Hence GNT’s “be kind to you.” But in many
receptor languages there may be ways to render this meaning and at the same time
keep something of the idiomatic anthropomorphic form: “May the Lord let the light of
his face shine over you” (NBV); “May the Lord look kindly on you” (REB); “May-
the-Lord look-on-you with-love” (Tonga). NLT’s “smile on you” may be needed. In
some receptor languages “towards” may have to be used instead of upon or “on.” To
shine may have to be rendered “to be without shadow.” And in some cases another
local idiom, featuring another part of the body, for instance the heart, may have to be
used (Chewa: “and may-he-be-favourable-towards-you in-the-heart”).
Lift up his countenance on you: GNT’s “look on you with favor” captures
the meaning well; “favor” is general for the more specific concepts of peace,
prosperity, health, well-being, etc.—as expressed in the next term “peace” (shalom).
(The opposite is found in, for example, Deut 31.18 where the Lord hides his face as a
sign of disfavor or withdrawal of support; compare also Gen 4.6-7.) But there may be
ways to render this meaning and keep something of the figurative form at the same
time: “May the Lord turn his face towards you” (NBV); “May-Chauta gaze-upon-you
with mercy” (Chewa).
Give you peace: This is what many translations have. Literally, however, the
Hebrew yasem expresses a more dynamic action: “put in place,” “make to work,”
“appoint,” “establish” so that the phrase is best understood as follows:
“make/establish peace for you” (compare Ps 147.14); “put peace into place for you.”
A few translations have expressed this: RVE95 and RVC10: “and put peace in you”;
NBJ98: “bring you peace.” Other languages may have a similar expression. A helpful
model is TLA03: “fill you with peace.” Peace is not simply absence of conflict, but
well-being, wholeness, physically and spiritually.

6.27
RSV
27
“So shall they put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will bless
them.”
GNT
27
And the Lord said, “If they pronounce my name as a blessing upon the
people of Israel, I will bless them.”

So … they: This connects this verse clearly with the preceding verses. GNT
inserts “And the Lord said.” But this rendering unfortunately disconnects the verse
from what precedes and may even suggest that an additional blessing is being
proposed here. They has reference to the “priests,” which may need to be made
explicit here.
Put my name upon: “Pronounce my name … upon” (GNT) or “Link my
name with” (NJPSV). Pronouncing the blessing effectively lays the Lord’s name on
his people and marks his covenantal presence among them. As verses 24-26 show,
this involves an emphatic repetition of this divine name.
And I will bless them: The Hebrew has “and I, I will bless them,” that is to
say “and I myself will bless them,” or even “but I myself will bless them.” Chewa
transfers this emphasis to the verb: “I-will-indeed/surely-bless-them” (one word). The
priests are to pronounce the blessing, but it is the Lord who is the sole author of the
blessing. Even priests can only pronounce the blessing; it is only the Lord who
blesses. (Them refers to the Israelites, which again may need to be made explicit.)
GNT rearranges the verse and offers an alternative model. But DUCL includes
a slightly different version of this model which is more accurate at the same time:
“When (or even “As”) they thus pronounce my name upon the Israelites, I will bless
them.”

Part I-C: 7.1–10.10: Rituals and the system of worship

This distinct part of the book deals with what is presented as the final stage of putting
all things in place for the ritual ceremonies and the system of worship prior to the
journey from Sinai. This final stage includes the setting up of the tent of meeting, the
dedication of the altar, and the dedication of the Levites. Also included in this section
are some ongoing duties and processes such as the placement of the lamps in the tent
of meeting, the keeping of the Passover, the guidance by the cloud of the Lord, and
the signalling trumpets.
This part of the book does not come in its chronological place. See the
discussion under 7.1 and the chart in the Introduction.

7.1-89
Section Heading: “Offerings for dedicating the altar” is a possible heading. Most of
the chapter describes the dedication of the altar before it is first used. Some of these
offerings are various kinds of vessels, while others are the sacrifices of certain
animals. The general term “offerings” in the heading refers to both types of offering,
inanimate as well as animate. The altar is the main object to be dedicated in this
chapter. But in 7.1-9 wagons and oxen for the transportation of certain tabernacle
objects are offered as well. “The offerings of the tribal leaders” (similar to GNT) or
“The chiefs of Israel bring their offerings” (similar to DUCL) better fits both parts of
this chapter, which describes all the offerings that are presented by the chiefs of Israel.
 After the introduction in verse 1, verses 2-11 recount the initial tribal offerings
of oxen and wagons for use in transporting the tent of meeting on the journeys of the
people of Israel on their way to the promised land of Canaan. It may be that the
original administrative accounting record or archival chart of the event (a common
practice in other Ancient Near Eastern cultures) was later incorporated into this
narrative report in the final form of the text.
Verses 12-83 then deal with a dedication offering procedure for the altar
which is identical for each of twelve days. RSV divides verses 12-83 into twelve
successive paragraphs (one for each day and chief), while GNT rearranges this part of
the chapter into one list and one description for all twelve days and chiefs taken
together. For each of the twelve days and chiefs the text describes in the same way the
impressively rich and generous offerings involved. We will deal with this difference
between RSV and GNT below.
The final list in verses 84-88 summarizes all these offerings, taking together
the totals of the twelve days and chiefs.
After the consecration of the tent of meeting and the dedication of the altar,
the tent of meeting can be used for its intended purpose. Verse 89 describes how
Moses would regularly speak with the Lord in the tent of meeting at the center of the
camp. The tent of meeting thus becomes a special place where the Lord carries on a
living dialogue with Moses and the people.

7.1-3
RSV
1
On the day when Moses had finished setting up the tabernacle, and had
anointed and consecrated it with all its furnishings, and had anointed and
consecrated the altar with all its utensils, 2 the leaders of Israel, heads of their
fathers' houses, the leaders of the tribes, who were over those who were
numbered, 3 offered and brought their offerings before the Lord, six covered
wagons and twelve oxen, a wagon for every two of the leaders, and for each one
an ox; they offered them before the tabernacle.

GNT
1
On the day Moses finished setting up the Tent of the Lord's presence, he
anointed and dedicated the Tent and all its equipment, and the altar and all its
equipment. 2 Then the clan chiefs who were leaders in the tribes of Israel, the
same men who were in charge of the census, 3 brought their offerings to the
Lord: six wagons and twelve oxen, a wagon for every two leaders and an ox for
each leader. After they had presented them,

On the day: This is not the same day as in Num 1.1, which refers to the first
day of the second month of the second year after the people of Israel had left Egypt.
Rather, it is presumably the day narrated in Exodus 40, namely, the first day of the
first month in the second year after the exodus from Egypt. Here in 7.1 the narrative
moves back in time to that day: the offerings for the dedication of the altar are
presented “on the day when Moses had finished setting up the Tent of the LORD’s
presence.” This important event − according to Exo 40.2, 17 − already took place a
month before Num 1.1, that is, in the second year, but at the beginning of the first
month (not the second).
There is a reason why the text moves back in time at this point. The narrative
that resumes here is directly connected to the date of Exo 40.2, 17. This is because the
section of Num 7.1-10.10 takes up and finishes the subject of rituals and the system of
worship in the tabernacle that was presented in Exodus 25-40. Still, one might ask
why Num 7.1-10.10 was not put in its chronological place. The reason seems to be
that precedence was given to the divinely stipulated organization of the nation of
Israel (encampment, census, purity) over this stage of putting the system of ritual
worship in place. As always in the book of Numbers, the topic under discussion is
considered to be more important for the development of the text than the specific
chronology of events. (As mentioned in the Introduction, it is only in 10.11, after the
section of 7.1-10.10 has been completed, that the narrative will return to the second
month of the second year.)
Translators may want to include a footnote:
“On the day … refers to the same day as in Exo 40.2, 17; Num 7.1–10.10 finishes the
subject of rituals and the system of worship in the tabernacle that was presented in
Exodus 25–40.”
Tabernacle or “the Tent of the Lord’s presence”: The Hebrew has mishkan
“dwelling place.” See at 1.50.
Anointed and consecrated: So far, only the priests have been anointed. Now
the same verb mashach is applied to the tabernacle, altar, and utensils themselves.
These were already mentioned in Exo 40.9-10 and Lev 8.10-11 (see the Handbooks
there). In some languages a different word may be required for human beings and
inanimate objects. But a general word like “put it [the oil] on...” may be preferable,
and in some languages a verb like “sprinkle” (as in the following chapter) may be
necessary to somehow distinguish this ritual action. (A verb such as “pour” might
give the wrong suggestion that a large amount of oil was involved, something we do
not know.) This act gives formal expression to the dedication (the consecration, the
setting apart) of all these holy objects. The verbs may therfore be understood to mean
“anointed and thereby consecrated.”
Altar: Presumably this refers to the altar for burnt offerings, which stood in
front of the tabernacle, for the sacrificing of animals (see Exo 27.1-8).
Leaders … leaders: See the discussion at 1.16, where the Hebrew has the
same term nasi’ (these men helped Moses with the census). This term refers to a
prominent and distinguished leader, for example, a much respected sheikh of a tribe.
Thus leaders seems a rather flat translation. In English, “chiefs” or “chieftains”
(NJPSV) is probably a better alternative, as long as such a term does not have
unwanted ethnic or political connotations. For this reason Chewa uses a general
descriptive expression: “the great ones of Israel.”
Heads of their fathers’ houses: A “house” is, at least, an extended family,
which includes three or four generations. If “houses” or a similar metaphorical term
can be maintained in the translation, fathers’ can be understood as “ancestral.” The
kinship system involved is clearly based on patriarchal lines of descent, not
matriarchal. See also at 1.2. On the difference in size between tribe and fathers’
house, see the brief discussion of kinship terms at 1.4. Consistency of usage should of
course be maintained in the case of all such technical terms, not only within the book
of Numbers, but throughout the Pentateuch and the Old Testament as a whole.
Who were over those who were numbered: Like GNT’s “who were in
charge of the census,” this refers to the men involved in the census of chapter 1. In
line with 1.2-3, a more accurate rendering of pequdim is given in “who were over
those who were enrolled” (NRSV) and “who were in charge of enrollment” (NJPSV).
It should be noted that, unlike these translations, the Hebrew has no past tense form
here corresponding with were. The translations quoted here give the wrong
suggestion that the census had already taken place before. (We have already seen that
the date in 7.1 is actually earlier than the date given in 1.1!) A better model would be
“who supervize/oversee those enrolled.”
Offerings: The Hebrew employs a general term for all kinds of offering.
“Gifts” is also an appropriate translation, if this may be used with reference to God in
the target language.
Covered wagons: The translation covered (in the ancient Greek translation
and the Vulgate) of the rare Hebrew word is highly uncertain. GNT’s “wagons” or
“transport wagons” is sufficient, though some commentators feel that these wagons
(carts) were indeed covered in order to protect the tabernacle contents from dust and
to shade them from public view. In some languages a more specific term like
“oxcarts” (Chewa) may be appropriate.
Oxen: The Hebrew term shor is more general, covering cows and bulls as well
as oxen. It is implied, however, that these animals are intended to pull the wagons.
Hence the traditional and more specific rendering “oxen.”
Offered or “presented”: In these verses the technical term hiqrib (“bring near,
present”), which refers to the offering of a sacrifice, occurs only near the end of verse
3. Nominal or verbal forms of this word (qrb) occur 35 times in chapter 7, indicating
the thematic importance of this concept of “giving” to the Lord. Although the text
does not explicitly say so, it is safe to assume, given the formality of this offertory
ceremony, that the Lord had commanded it. God then tells Moses what to do with the
offering (verse 4).
Verses 1-3 are composed as a single long and complex sentence in the RSV.
This is far too much to be natural or easy to follow in many languages. Therefore, the
paragraph may need to be broken down into at least two sentences, as in GNT.

7.4-6
RSV
4
Then the Lord said to Moses, 5 “Accept these from them, that they may be used
in doing the service of the tent of meeting, and give them to the Levites, to each
man according to his service.” 6 So Moses took the wagons and the oxen, and
gave them to the Levites.

GNT
4
the Lord said to Moses, 5 “Accept these gifts for use in the work to be done for
the Tent; give them to the Levites according to the work they have to do.” 6 So
Moses gave the wagons and the oxen to the Levites.

Accept these: An appropriate object may need to be specified for the sake of
clarity, e.g., “offerings” or “gifts” (GNT).
From them: That is, from the chiefs mentioned in v. 2.
Service and “work” are renderings of the Hebrew `avodah. This service to the
priests and to the already completed tent of meeting is carried out by the Levites.
Each man according to his service: We already saw that the same term
occurs in 3.7-8 and especially in chapter 4, where different tasks were given to the
different Levite clans. NJPSV translates “according to their respective services.” NIV
has “as each man’s work requires.” However, since groups rather than individuals are
actually involved with these tabernacle tasks, perhaps a clearer rendering would be
something like: “each group according to its assigned service/task/work.”
Tent of meeting: See at 1.1.
 So Moses took: A translation should not imply that Moses personally handled
all of these offerings. If that is the case, translators may choose to follow the model of
GNT, which leaves this verb implicit.

7.7-8
RSV
7
Two wagons and four oxen he gave to the sons of Gershon, according to their
service; 8 and four wagons and eight oxen he gave to the sons of Merari,
according to their service, under the direction of Ithamar the son of Aaron the
priest.

GNT
7
He gave two wagons and four oxen to the Gershonites, 8 and four wagons and
eight oxen to the Merarites. All their work was to be done under the direction of
Ithamar son of Aaron.

According to their service: The tasks of the Gershonites and Merarites are
specified in 4.24-28 and 4.29-33, respectively. The Merarites had to deal with the
tent’s heavier framing materials and therefore were allocated twice the amount of
wagons and oxen. GNT has “all their work” only once, and begins a new sentence at
this point. This rendering serves to clarify the fact that the Gershonites as well as the
Merarites served under Ithamar’s direction (as already mentioned in 4.28, 33).
However, the problem with GNT’s separate sentence is that it suggests that the role of
Ithamar is new information, mentioned here for the first time. This problem can be
avoided with the following translation (similar to DUCL): “Under the direction of
Ithamar son of Aaron, all their work could thus be done.”

7.9
RSV
9
But to the sons of Kohath he gave none, because they were charged with the
care of the holy things which had to be carried on the shoulder.

GNT
9
But Moses gave no wagons or oxen to the Kohathites, because the sacred
objects they took care of had to be carried on their shoulders.

He gave none: GNT specifies the objects implicit in the Hebrew: gave (or
allocated / assigned) “no wagons or oxen.”
Charged with the care of: The Hebrew only has `avodat “service of.” This
expression may be rendered in different ways, e.g., “they were in charge of” (CEV);
“they had the job of caring for” (Chewa).
The holy things: These are all the sacred objects inside the sanctuary and the
altar for burnt offerings in front of it (4.4-15). See at 4.15, where the same term
qodesh occurs.
To be carried on the shoulder: Being holy objects, they were not to be
transported on wagons but instead carried more personally and carefully on poles
(4.11) held on the shoulders of the Kohathite porters.

7.10-11
RSV
10
And the leaders offered offerings for the dedication of the altar on the day it
was anointed; and the leaders offered their offering before the altar. 11 And the
Lord said to Moses, “They shall offer their offerings, one leader each day, for the
dedication of the altar.”

GNT
10
The leaders also brought offerings to celebrate the dedication of the altar.
When they were ready to present their gifts at the altar, 11 the Lord said to
Moses, “Tell them that each day for a period of twelve days one of the leaders is
to present his gifts for the dedication of the altar.”

And: GNT treats these verses as a paragraph of their own; they no longer deal
with the wagons and oxen. GNT’s “also” indicates this change of subject more
clearly, namely, offerings that were given in addition to the six wagons and twelve
oxen (verse 3). Verses 10-11 introduce by way of summary the repeated ritual
sequence of offerings for the altar that is found in 7.12-83. Thus verses 10-11 and
verses 12-83 refer to the same procedure.
Leaders: See at 7.2. NJPSV has “chieftains” again.
Offered offerings for the dedication of the altar: The noun offerings is
absent from the Hebrew, which only has the verb offered/“brought”. Also, the
Hebrew employs a special term, chanukah, for dedication here. Thus the singular
“brought the dedication offering for the altar” (NJPSV) is more accurate. The problem
is in some Bantu languages that this special dedication “offering” consisted of many
individual items. In such cases, the plural “offerings” must be used—also for “their
offering” below.
Their offering: The Hebrew employs the same general term for all kinds of
offering as in 7.3.
One leader each day: It is clear from 7.3 that there were twelve chiefs
involved. GNT makes that explicit here in verse 11: “for a period of twelve days one
of the leaders ...” GNT thus shows more clearly that verses 10-11 form the
introduction to verses 12-83, in which the twelve day procedure of the offerings for
dedicating the altar is described from day to day. GNT’s “his gifts” does not imply
that these were personal offerings – the leader presented the offering on behalf of his
whole tribe.

7.12-83
For each of the twelve days and chiefs the Hebrew text describes the offering in much
the same way. The function of all the repetition in relation to this text’s content and
position in Numbers may be to underscore the fact that each tribe of Israel had an
identical share in and responsibility for the support and maintenance of the tent of
meeting, where the Lord communicated with his people. It also suggests the central
importance of this place of fellowship, the altar of sacrifice in particular, to the nation
as a whole.
RSV follows the arrangement of the Hebrew text and divides these verses into
twelve successive paragraphs (one per day and chief). However, GNT groups them all
together. GNT first gives a list of days and chiefs, which is followed by a description
of the offerings, brought by each one of them. We will deal with this difference
between RSV and GNT below. The GNT rendering of 7.12-83 is given first. This is
followed by a discussion of the first of the successive paragraphs of RSV. These
comments will largely suffice for the remaining eleven paragraphs. (Some of these
comments apply to GNT as well.) Finally, after verse 83, we will compare and
evaluate these two very different translation models.
 The names of the chiefs are the same as in 1.5-15, but they and their tribes are
mentioned in accordance with the layout of the camp (2.3-31), starting with Judah.
They came one after the other on twelve consecutive days in the order of precedence
of their tribes in the camp around the tent of meeting and in the prescribed order of
the people’s march on their communal journeys.

GNT
12-83
They presented their offerings in the following order:
Day Tribe Leader
1st Judah Nahshon son of Amminadab
2nd Issachar Nethanel son of Zuar
3rd Zebulun Eliab son of Helon
4th Reuben Elizur son of Shedeur
5th Simeon Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai
6th Gad Eliasaph son of Deuel
7th Ephraim Elishama son of Ammihud
8th Manasseh Gamaliel son of Pedahzur
9th Benjamin Abidan son of Gideoni
10th Dan Ahiezer son of Ammishaddai
11th Asher Pagiel son of Ochran
12th Naphtali Ahira son of Enan
The offerings each one brought were identical: one silver bowl weighing 1.5
kilogrammes and one silver basin weighing 800 grammes, by the official
standard, both of them full of flour mixed with oil for the grain offering; one gold
dish weighing 110 grammes, full of incense; one young bull, one ram, and a one-
year-old lamb, for the burnt offering; one goat for the sin offering; and two bulls,
five rams, five goats, and five one-year-old lambs for the fellowship offering.

7.12-17
RSV
12
He who offered his offering the first day was Nahshon the son of Amminadab,
of the tribe of Judah; 13 and his offering was one silver plate whose weight was a
hundred and thirty shekels, one silver basin of seventy shekels, according to the
shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a cereal
offering; 14 one golden dish of ten shekels, full of incense; 15 one young bull, one
ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 16 one male goat for a sin
offering; 17 and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male
goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Nahshon the son
of Amminadab.

Offered his offering: After offered/“presented” (and at the end of the

paragraph) the Hebrew employs the same general term for all kinds of offering as in
7.3, 10-11.
Tribe: See at 1.4.
Silver plate: The verbal root of the Hebrew qe`arah means “to be deep.” This
must have been a dish with a recession that was hollowed out. As was mentioned at
4.7, the word for plate is a general term for a dish which was probably deeper than
the flat plates used in many places today. “Silver bowl” (GNT) thus seems more
accurate.
Silver basin: As in 4.14, this basin is to be used for sprinkling or splashing
certain offerings with liquid, including sacrificial blood against the altar (Lev. 1.5,
11). Hence the rendering “silver sprinkling bowl” in CEV.
A hundred and thirty shekels … seventy shekels … ten shekels: GNT’s
equivalents “1.5 kilogrammes” (or, stylistically better, “1500 grammes) and “800
grammes” are based on reasonable estimates. The standard weight of silver (and gold)
may have been about 11.4 grammes, or 0.4 ounces. Most translations simply
transliterate the Hebrew word shekel, which should then of course be clearly defined
in the glossary.
According to the shekel of the sanctuary: This official standard is also
mentioned in Exo 38.24 (see the Exodus Handbook there). GNT’s “by the official
standard” does not show that this standard is the one connected to the sanctuary, that
is, either kept at the sanctuary, or the weighing system used for the offerings given
there (different from the later royal standard). “By the official standard of the
sanctuary” (similar to FRCL and DUCL) is a better model for this. (If the notion
“standard” is difficult, “measuring unit” or even “norms” may be alternatives.)
Instead of sanctuary (holy place) one could use the chosen term for tent of meeting;
see at 1.1.
Fine flour mixed with oil: See at 6.15. NJPSV has “choice flour with oil
mixed in.” This was probably wheat flour, though it may not be necessary to specify
this, unless the target language requires it.
Cereal offering or “grain offering”: See at 4.16.
Golden dish: This dish, or pan, is comparatively light (only ten shekels or
“110 grammes”). To express this, DUCL translates “small gold dish.” As mentioned
under 4.7, the Hebrew word for dish is the same as for the palm of the hand; hence
“bowl” would express the hollow shape more accurately. Translators should select a
deeper cup-like object used in the receptor culture.
Young bull: Though young, it was already a mature animal. See the Exodus
Handbook at 29.1.
Male goat: If the receptor language has a single word that contains the idea of
maleness as well as the idea of goat, then it should be used here.
Burnt offering … sin offering: See at 6:11. The burnt offering was for the
consecration of the participants, the sin offering for the forgiveness of unintentional
offences.
Sacrifice of peace offerings: The plural offerings is only connected with the
individual sacrificial items. The text refers here to one event. In most languages the
singular would be sufficient here: “fellowship offering” (GNT, NIV) or “shared-
offering” (REB). See at 6:14.
Oxen: In the Hebrew the same general term is used as in 7:3, covering cows
and bulls as well as oxen. It is implied here that these animals are intended for
sacrifice, and this will make the rendering “oxen” inappropriate in certain cultures in
which oxen are not considered suitable for sacrifice. GNT as well as REB, NET, and
CEV have “bulls” here.
This was the offering: The Hebrew employs the same general term for all
kinds of offering as in the beginning of the paragraph. It should be noted that here, at
the end of the paragraph, the Hebrew has no past tense form corresponding with was,
either. It is only a verbless sentence that rounds off the paragraph. Perhaps there is a
similar device, for example, a special verb form or conjunction, to signal the close of
a discourse unit in the target language, as in Chewa: “These they are the very things
that were the offerings of Nahshon …”

7.18-23
RSV
18
On the second day Nethanel the son of Zuar, the leader of Issachar, made an
offering; 19 he offered for his offering one silver plate, whose weight was a
hundred and thirty shekels, one silver basin of seventy shekels, according to the
shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a cereal
offering; 20 one golden dish of ten shekels, full of incense; 21 one young bull, one
ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 22 one male goat for a sin
offering; 23 and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male
goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Nethanel the son
of Zuar.

Leader: Better “chieftain” (NJPSV). See at 7.2.

Nethanel: This name occurs quite often in the Old Testament, and therefore
care must be taken to spell it consistently, as in the case of all proper names.
Issachar: The classifier “tribe of” is left out here. Translators must determine
whether such condensation is natural, or whether the classifier needs to be retained for
the sake of clarity.
Made an offering: The Hebrew only has the technical term hiqrib (“bring,
present”).
He offered for his offering: Here the Hebrew employs this term again,
followed by the general term for all kinds of offering.

7.24-29
RSV
24
On the third day Eliab the son of Helon, the leader of the men of Zebulun: 25
his offering was one silver plate, whose weight was a hundred and thirty shekels,
one silver basin of seventy shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, both
of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a cereal offering; 26 one golden dish of
ten shekels, full of incense; 27 one young bull, one ram, one male lamb a year
old, for a burnt offering; 28 one male goat for a sin offering; 29 and for the
sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male goats, and five male
lambs a year old. This was the offering of Eliab the son of Helon.

The men of: Literally, “sons/descendants of Zebulun”: “Zebulunites.”

There is no verb in the Hebrew of verse 24, which is in line with the list
character of the text where there is a tendency to include a certain amount of
condensation as the sequence progresses. At the end of verse 29, the Hebrew has no
verb or any past tense form corresponding with was. With verbs at these points, RSV
somewhat changes the text from a list to a narrative. To compensate for this, even the
RSV itself could be adapted and cast into a list. Hence the following model is
recommended for this chapter (all of 7.12-88).
24
On the third day: Eliab the son of Helon, the leader of the men of Zebulun.
25
His offering:
one silver plate (weight: a hundred and thirty shekels),
one silver basin (weight: seventy shekels,
according to the shekel of the sanctuary),
both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a cereal offering;
26
one golden dish of ten shekels, full of incense;
27
one young bull, one ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering;
28
one male goat for a sin offering;
29
and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male goats,
and five male lambs a year old.
– The offering of Eliab the son of Helon.
In this way, the form calls attention to its function as an official record or list, even
though it occurs within the context of a narrative report. On the other hand, in some
languages a verb of “offering” connected to each giver may still be needed (for
example, “…Eliab…offered these things: …”); in other languages, there may be some
type of discourse marker or technical term that immediately signals the genre of such
a listing of items. In any case, the same discourse genre should be used in translation
if one is available in the target language.

7.30-35
RSV
30
On the fourth day Elizur the son of Shedeur, the leader of the men of
Reuben: 31 his offering was one silver plate whose weight was a hundred and
thirty shekels, one silver basin of seventy shekels, according to the shekel of the
sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a cereal offering; 32
one golden dish of ten shekels, full of incense; 33 one young bull, one ram, one
male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 34 one male goat for a sin offering; 35
and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male goats, and
five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Elizur the son of Shedeur.

Again there is no verb or any past tense form in the Hebrew of verse 30 and at
the end of the paragraph. This is in line with the list character of the text.

7.36-41
RSV
36
On the fifth day Shelumi-el the son of Zurishaddai, the leader of the men of
Simeon: 37 his offering was one silver plate, whose weight was a hundred and
thirty shekels, one silver basin of seventy shekels, according to the shekel of the
sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a cereal offering; 38
one golden dish of ten shekels, full of incense; 39 one young bull, one ram, one
male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 40 one male goat for a sin offering; 41
and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male goats, and
five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Shelumi-el the son of
Zurishaddai.

Was: Again there is no verb or any past tense form in the Hebrew. The same
applies to the rest of the list that follows, up to and including verse 88!
Shelumi-el: There is no need for the hyphen in this name in a translation.

7.42-47
RSV
42
On the sixth day Eliasaph the son of Deuel, the leader of the men of Gad: 43
his offering was one silver plate, whose weight was a hundred and thirty shekels,
one silver basin of seventy shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, both
of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a cereal offering; 44 one golden dish of
ten shekels, full of incense; 45 one young bull, one ram, one male lamb a year
old, for a burnt offering; 46 one male goat for a sin offering; 47 and for the
sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male goats, and five male
lambs a year old. This was the offering of Eliasaph the son of Deuel.

7.48-53
RSV
48
On the seventh day Elishama the son of Ammihud, the leader of the men of
Ephraim: 49 his offering was one silver plate, whose weight was a hundred and
thirty shekels, one silver basin of seventy shekels, according to the shekel of the
sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a cereal offering; 50
one golden dish of ten shekels, full of incense; 51 one young bull, one ram, one
male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 52 one male goat for a sin offering; 53
and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male goats, and
five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Elishama the son of
Ammihud.

7.54-59
RSV
54
On the eighth day Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur, the leader of the men of
Manasseh: 55 his offering was one silver plate, whose weight was a hundred and
thirty shekels, one silver basin of seventy shekels, according to the shekel of the
sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a cereal offering; 56
one golden dish of ten shekels, full of incense; 57 one young bull, one ram, one
male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 58 one male goat for a sin offering; 59
and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male goats, and
five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur.

7.60-65
RSV
60
On the ninth day Abidan the son of Gideoni, the leader of the men of
Benjamin: 61 his offering was one silver plate, whose weight was a hundred and
thirty shekels, one silver basin of seventy shekels, according to the shekel of the
sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a cereal offering; 62
one golden dish of ten shekels, full of incense; 63 one young bull, one ram, one
male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 64 one male goat for a sin offering; 65
and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male goats, and
five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Abidan the son of Gideoni.

7.66-71
RSV
66
On the tenth day Ahiezer the son of Ammishaddai, the leader of the men of
Dan: 67 his offering was one silver plate, whose weight was a hundred and thirty
shekels, one silver basin of seventy shekels, according to the shekel of the
sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a cereal offering; 68
one golden dish of ten shekels, full of incense; 69 one young bull, one ram, one
male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 70 one male goat for a sin offering; 71
and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male goats, and
five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Ahiezer the son of
Ammishaddai.

7.72-77
RSV
72
On the eleventh day Pagiel the son of Ochran, the leader of the men of
Asher: 73 his offering was one silver plate, whose weight was a hundred and thirty
shekels, one silver basin of seventy shekels, according to the shekel of the
sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a cereal offering; 74
one golden dish of ten shekels, full of incense; 75 one young bull, one ram, one
male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 76 one male goat for a sin offering; 77
and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male goats, and
five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Pagiel the son of Ochran.

7.78-83
RSV
 78
On the twelfth day Ahira the son of Enan, the leader of the men of Naphtali:
79
his offering was one silver plate, whose weight was a hundred and thirty
shekels, one silver basin of seventy shekels, according to the shekel of the
sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a cereal offering; 80
one golden dish of ten shekels, full of incense; 81 one young bull, one ram, one
male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 82 one male goat for a sin offering; 83
and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male goats, and
five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Ahira the son of Enan.

Evaluation. It is clear that RSV and GNT have translated 7.12-83 very
differently. RSV closely follows the arrangement of the Hebrew text. The detailed
repetition in the Hebrew may well have served to emphasize how amazingly rich and
generous these gifts were, and that for twelve consecutive days! (It is left implicit
whether or not the offerings were sacrificed immediately every day.) More
importantly, this text falls in line with the theology of worship that is expressed in
such ritual and celebratory texts in the books of Exodus-Numbers. They underscore
the fellowship that was to prevail between the Lord and his covenant people of Israel.
This was a communal religious exercise that promoted the unity and harmony of the
people among themselves and between this chosen nation and their ever-present God.
This text belongs to the Ancient Near Eastern genre of temple accounts, or
archives, which listed standard quantities and items in parallel columns. It has been
suggested that 7.12-88 matches in many respects the list layout of quantities and items
as found in Ancient Near Eastern cuneiform tablets and inscriptions.[< Levine pp
259-266] As we have seen, the Hebrew employs fewer verbs as the text progresses.
This feature would fit with such a list structure.
On the face of it, GNT may seem to be an easier model to follow than RSV:
GNT actually displays a list (of days, tribes and leaders) and this perhaps shows
something of the background to the structure of our chapter. The disadvantage is,
however, that GNT separates the leaders’ names from the items that they offer. This
does not correspond with the list structure in the ancient cuneiform tablets, in which
items and persons who offered them are kept together: they are mentioned in one set
of parallel columns. In keeping with this, the Hebrew text and RSV keep the items
and leaders together as well. The repetitive sequence may have carried some liturgical
significance too as this passage was later recalled in worshipful remembrance of the
Lord’s establishment of a place of meeting and worship in the very midst of his
chosen people.
Conclusion. It is recommended, then, that translators follow the textual
arrangement of the Hebrew text and RSV. However, RSV occasionally employs verbs
where the Hebrew does not, thus changing the text from a list with enumerations into
a more narrative-sounding text. We have already commented on this when it occurs in
RSV. Where the target language allows, translators should avoid this. Rather, a
translation along the lines of RSV should be displayed more in accordance with the
style of an administrative list (a model is given at 7.24-29). This will also make the
translation easier to read when it is printed out on the page. The stereotyped, repetitive
nature of the original text should be preserved in translation because in this case, the
form calls attention to its function as an official record or list.

7.84-88
RSV
84
This was the dedication offering for the altar, on the day when it was
anointed, from the leaders of Israel: twelve silver plates, twelve silver basins,
twelve golden dishes, 85 each silver plate weighing a hundred and thirty shekels
and each basin seventy, all the silver of the vessels two thousand four hundred
shekels according to the shekel of the sanctuary, 86 the twelve golden dishes, full
of incense, weighing ten shekels apiece according to the shekel of the sanctuary,
all the gold of the dishes being a hundred and twenty shekels; 87 all the cattle for
the burnt offering twelve bulls, twelve rams, twelve male lambs a year old, with
their cereal offering; and twelve male goats for a sin offering; 88 and all the cattle
for the sacrifice of peace offerings twenty-four bulls, the rams sixty, the male
goats sixty, the male lambs a year old sixty. This was the dedication offering for
the altar, after it was anointed.

GNT
84-88
The totals of the offerings brought by the twelve leaders for the dedication
of the altar were as follows:
— twelve silver bowls and twelve silver basins weighing a total of 27.6
kilogrammes
— twelve gold dishes weighing a total of 1.32 kilogrammes, filled with
incense
— twelve bulls, twelve rams, and twelve one-year-old lambs, together with
the grain offerings that go with them, for the burnt offerings
— twelve goats for the sin offerings
— 24 bulls, 60 rams, 60 goats, 60 one-year-old lambs, for the fellowship offerings

This final list summarizes the offerings, taking together the totals of the twelve
days and chiefs. If the target language has a way of marking such a concluding or
summary paragraph, it should be used here. If this passage is not clearly marked and
the RSV is followed more or less literally, it may suggest to listeners that at the end of
the 12 days this huge offering by all the chiefs of Israel was made all at once!
Was: The Hebrew does not employ any verb form corresponding with was or
GNT’s “were as follows.” (The only exception to this is after it was anointed in
verse 88.) The expected norms of the target language should again be observed.
Dedication of the altar: See 7.1, 10-11. This repetition provides a concluding
bracket (inclusio) around this entire pericope, verses 10-88.

7.89
RSV
89
And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the Lord, he
heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was upon the
ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and it spoke to him.

GNT
89
When Moses went into the Tent to talk with the Lord, he heard the Lord
speaking to him from above the lid on the Covenant Box, between the two
winged creatures.

After the consecration of the tent of meeting and the dedication of the altar,
the tent of meeting can be used. Verse 89 describes how Moses would regularly speak
there with the Lord. This dialogue no longer has to take place outside the camp, as in
Exo 33.7-11, but now occurs in the tent of meeting in the center of the camp. Verse 89
is no longer part of the dedication procedure itself. It is the fulfillment of the promise
made to Moses in Exo 25:22 (“… from above the mercy seat … I will speak with you
…”).[< Budd 85] Verse 89 makes it clear that the tent of meeting itself becomes a
special place where the Lord carries on a living dialogue with Moses and the people.
In a translation verse 89 should preferably be preceded by a blank line, showing that it
is not linked directly to what precedes. (This may also by signalled by an appropriate
discourse marker, for example: “So it is/was that…”
This verse does not lead directly to the following sections either, since those
sections all have their own introductory sentence (for example, “Now the Lord said to
Moses” in 8.1).
And when Moses went: Because of the initial Hebrew infinitive form at this
point, it is probable that this verse describes a habit: something which Moses did
regularly. FRCL (“When Moses would enter …”), DUCL and NBV (“Whenever
Moses entered …”) are good models. Some languages employ a past habitual verb for
this. A past habitual form is recommended, certainly in languages (like Chewa) in
which a choice between habitual and non-habitual verb forms has to be made.
Tent of meeting: See at 1.1.
The voice: The voice of the Lord. GNT’s “the Lord” is a much more direct
reference to God than the voice. It is recommended, however, that the translation
keeps the reference as indirect as in the source text. If the voice would be awkward or
unclear, however, “his voice” or even (as in the ancient Greek translation) “The
Lord’s voice” are better alternatives than GNT.
Mercy seat: The Hebrew term, kapporeth, probably comes from the verb
kipper, “to cover over” in the sense of covering over, or atoning for, sins. For more
about the form and function of this golden cover on top of the ark, with the two
cherubim on top of it, see the Exodus Handbook at 25.17. The translation used to refer
to this item in Exodus should either be re-evaluated at this point or reproduced
consistently, with reference to the glossary description indicated as well. The same
advice applies to the following key terms.
Ark of the testimony: On this covenant chest see the Exodus Handbook at
25.21-22 and 16.34. On testimony as such see also at Num 1.50.
From between the two cherubim: That is, in midair above the ark, protected,
as it were, by the cherubim. See the Exodus Handbook at 25.20 for more on the
cherubim or “winged creatures.”
And it spoke to him: NRSV’s “thus” links this more smoothly with the
preceding parts of the verse: “thus it spoke to him.” Compare “thus the Lord spoke to
him” (NBV) and “thus He spoke to him” (NJPSV). Given the probable habitual time
reference for this transitional verse (see the discussion above), a rendering such as
“the Lord would speak to him” may be more accurate.

8.1-4
Section heading: The heading “Placing the Lamps” (GNT) makes it clear that the
lamps have already been made. The subject of the placement of the lamps on the
seven branches of the lampstand, the menorah, may have been prompted at this point
by the preceding verse, 7.89, about Moses’ speaking with the Lord in the tent. The
way in which the lamps were to shine indicated the direction from which the Lord
spoke, namely, the holy place.[<Budd p.88] The light emanating from the seven
lamps on the lampstand represents the Lord’s unseen presence.[< Olson 47]
Rashbam, a rabbi and commentator from the Middle Ages, already suggested
another possible reason for this section: Even though all the other tasks associated
with the construction of the tent of meeting had already been completed, the task of
lighting the lampstand is an ongoing duty. 7.89 describes an ongoing practice as well.
 It is, in any case, Aaron’s first ceremonial act after the tent of meeting has
been constructed and consecrated.[<Knierim and Coats 107] Again, this could explain
why the section occurs in the text at this point. In a sense it recounts in the form of
narrative the actual fulfilment of earlier legislative material, for example, Exo 25.31-
40; 27.20-21; 37.17-24; Lev 24.1-4.

8.1-2
RSV
1
Now the Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to Aaron, When you set up the lamps, the
seven lamps shall give light in front of the lampstand.”

GNT
1
The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Tell Aaron that when he puts the seven lamps on
the lampstand, he should place them so that the light shines towards the front.”

Now the Lord said to Moses: This is the familiar introductory formula of
divine speech that often serves as an opening to a new section of text. A similar
marker needs to be found and used consistently in the target language.
Say to Aaron, When you: The words When you are the beginning of
embedded direct speech. GNT employs indirect speech: “that when he …” This may
be a helpful model in languages in which direct speech within direct speech would be
awkward.
When you set up … they shall give light: Because of the Hebrew verb forms
involved, it is probable that the verse describes a habit: a ritual procedure Aaron was
to carry out on a regular or even daily basis (see above). Set up is literally “cause to
go up.” NJPSV has “mount.”
Lamps: These detachable lamps were probably small bowl-shaped lamps
made to hold the olive oil, with one part of the rim pinched to hold the wick. Since the
text does not indicate what material was used for the lamps, it is better to assume that,
like the lampstand in verse 4, these lamps were made of gold, if this must be made
clear in the translation. These lamps are not to be confused with more modern types
that readers may be familiar with. See the Exodus Handbook at 25.37, 37.23, as well
as the illustration at 25.6. There were seven lamps, symbolizing completeness,
perfection, perhaps also here the very presence, or glory, of God.
The lampstand is not a holder of candles but rather a stand commonly used at
the time for holding seven oil lamps. In cultures where “lampstands” are unknown,
one may use a descriptive phrase; for example, “lamp holder,” “thing on which lamps
are placed,” or even “pole having seven branches with lamps.” See (the illustration in)
the Exodus Handbook at 25.31.
In front of: The wicks (or lamp faces) are to be placed at the front of the
lampstand, for the light to shine forward to the front of the lampstand, thus illumining
the entire holy place, in particular, the golden table and the altar of incense.

8.3
RSV
3
And Aaron did so; he set up its lamps to give light in front of the lampstand, as
the Lord commanded Moses.

GNT
3
Aaron obeyed and placed the lamps facing the front of the lampstand.
 As the Lord commanded Moses: GNT combines this expression with And
Aaron did so, condensing it all to “obeyed.” However, the repeated references to a
person’s (or the people’s) explicit and immediate obedience to the Lord’s instructions
is a prominent feature of Pentateuchal texts, and such emphasis should be retained in
a translation if possible, perhaps by a different device such as word order or an
emphatic particle.

8.4
RSV
4
And this was the workmanship of the lampstand, hammered work of gold; from
its base to its flowers, it was hammered work; according to the pattern which the
Lord had shown Moses, so he made the lampstand.

GNT
4
From top to bottom the lampstand was made of hammered gold, according to
the pattern that the Lord had shown Moses.

He made: This shows that after verses 1-3, about the actual placement of the
lamps, verse 4 refers back to Exo 37.17,23 where the lampstand and lamps were
“made.” So they are not made at this point in Numbers 8, and a translation should not
imply this. A rendering like “he had made” can make this clear. The passive verb
“was made” (GNT, REB and others) here in verse 4 leaves open who made it. The
Hebrew singular verb form can certainly be interpreted in this way. In certain
languages, however, it may be necessary to specify who was the maker. Translators
who face this choice may include “people” or “Moses” as the explicit subject. It is
very unlikely that Aaron is meant to be the subject here, since he is only associated
with the positioning of the lamps on the lampstand after they have been made.
Hammered work refers to any metal that is beaten or hammered artistically
into a desired form or shape. The gold was pounded into the desired shape with a
hammer.
From its base to its flowers: The base refers to the bottom part that supports
the shaft of the lampstand. The flowers are decorations on the lampstand, shaped like
“blossoms” (NIV) or “petals” (GNT in Exo 25.31). NBV’s “flower decoration” makes
clear that these are not flowers but decorations shaped like them. Although the exact
way in which the lampstand was made is not in focus here, GNT’s “from top to
bottom” is quite a vague translation.
Pattern or “model” (FCL). The Hebrew mar’eh is better rendered “vision”
(NBS02), “view” or “depiction,” since the word is related to the root ra’ah “to see.”
In languages where it is difficult to translate pattern in this context, one may say, for
example, “in the precise way in which the Lord had shown Moses.” The term occurs
in Exo 25.9,40 as well. Again, the people’s exact obedience of God’s explicit
instructions is being underscored by this reiteration of earlier material at the precise
time when the tabernacle is dedicated for actual use.

8.5-26
Section Heading: A heading like “The Setting Apart of the Levites” (NIV) is
misleading: the Levites have already been set apart in 1.47-54 and 3.5–4.49. A
heading like “Regulations for the Tribe of Levi” (DUCL) does not show what
distinguishes 8.5-26 from 1.47-54 and 3.5–4.49, either. What is still required is the
Levites’ official purification and dedication to their tasks.[< Olson 48] Headings such
as “Dedicating the Levites,” “The Purification and Dedication of the Levites” (GNT),
or “The Levites Are Dedicated” make this distinction much more clearly and are
recommended here.
In verses 5-14 the Lord instructs Moses how to dedicate the Levites. The
instructions continue in the paragraph of verses 15-19, but this time with more
background information, drawing heavily on 3.5-13, 40-51. The instructions are
carried out in verses 20-22. Milgrom [<Milgrom 368-369] points out the chiastic
arrangement of verses 5-22, which highlights verse 17 (all the first-born among the
people of Israel are mine) as the central core of the passage.
Finally, verses 23-26 summarize selected portions of chapter 4 concerning the
working conditions of the Levites (see 4.1-3, 21-23, 29-30 as well as 4.35, 39, 43, 47).
The translation of this section should be compared with Leviticus 8, where a
corresponding ritual ceremony for the dedication of priests is described.

8.5-7
RSV
5
And the Lord said to Moses, 6 “Take the Levites from among the people of
Israel, and cleanse them. 7 And thus you shall do to them, to cleanse them:
sprinkle the water of expiation upon them, and let them go with a razor over all
their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves.

GNT
5
The Lord said to Moses, 6 “Separate the Levites from the rest of the people of
Israel and purify them 7 in the following way: sprinkle them with the water of
purification and tell them to shave their whole bodies and to wash their clothes.
Then they will be ritually clean.

Take: The target language verb should not imply that any force was applied in
this action, or even any physical contact. This was simply a positive (not a negative!)
process of ritual selection and separation.
Cleanse: As GNT shows (“purify … be ritually clean”), this is meant in a
ritual, ceremonial sense. It does not refer to ordinary washing of bodies and utensils.
NIV has made this more explicit in verse 6: “make them ceremonially clean.”
Sprinkle: That is, scatter in droplets (of water). The Hebrew text does not
have “wash.” Thus the Levites are sprinkled, while at their consecration the priests
were “washed” (Exo 29.4; 40.12; Lev 8.6).
Water of expiation or “water of sin-offering.” Hence NBS02’s “water for the
sin” and CEV’s “water that washes away their sins.” But sin in the sense of moral
wrongdoing is not in view here. This is why “water of purification” (GNT, NJPSV),
“water of cleansing” (similar to NIV), and “water that purifies them” are more
accurate models.
Let them go with a razor over all their body: A literal rendering of this
instruction will probably turn out to be quite unnatural in the target language; most
languages will have a verb for “shave” (see GNT).

8.8
RSV
8
Then let them take a young bull and its cereal offering of fine flour mixed with
oil, and you shall take another young bull for a sin offering.

GNT
8
Then they are to take a young bull and the required grain offering of flour mixed
with olive oil; and you are to take another bull for the sin offering.

Then let them take…and you shall take: The text seems to imply that the
first young bull was to be chosen and brought to the place of sacrifice by the Levites,
while the second was to come from Moses and the people of Israel as a whole.
Although the Hebrew “you” is singular in form, it is probably not the case that Moses
is to carry out all these actions by himself. If that would be the implication of a literal
rendering, the translation may use a plural “you” instead. The translation of this verse
may have to be harmonized with that of verse 12.
Young bull: See 7.15 and the Exodus Handbook at 29.1. The killing of a
young bull for the sacrifices that accompany the consecration of the Levites parallels
the sacrifices made for the priests (Lev 4.3; 8.2,14; 16.3,6,11).
Cereal offering or “grain offering”: See at 4.16.
Fine flour mixed with oil: See at 6.15. NJPSV has “choice flour with oil
mixed in.”
Sin offering: See at 6:11.

8.9
RSV
9
And you shall present the Levites before the tent of meeting, and assemble the
whole congregation of the people of Israel.

GNT
9
Then assemble the whole community of Israel and make the Levites stand in
front of the Tent of my presence.

The Hebrew suggests that first the Levites were assembled at the tent and then
the whole community. In this case, the order of the RSV is better as a model than
GNT.
Present: “Bring forward” (NJPSV) or “bring close” follows the Hebrew more
closely, although the more general “bring to” (Chewa) would imply this as well. No
force by Moses or reluctance on the part of the Levites should be implied in the
translation of this verb. For this reason, GNT’s “make the Levites stand” is
problematic.
Tent of meeting: See at 1.1.
Congregation or “community”: See at 1.2.

8.10-11
RSV
10
When you present the Levites before the Lord, the people of Israel shall lay
their hands upon the Levites, 11 and Aaron shall offer the Levites before the Lord
as a wave offering from the people of Israel, that it may be theirs to do the
service of the Lord.

GNT
10
The people of Israel are to place their hands on the heads of the Levites, 11 and
then Aaron shall dedicate the Levites to me as a special gift from the Israelites,
so that they may do my work.

Present … before the Lord: GNT leaves this untranslated, presumably to

avoid repetition after verse 9, possibly also to avoid the implication that another act of
“presenting” the Levites was involved. But its rendering “Tent of my presence” in
verse 9 shows that to be in front of the tent of meeting is to be before the Lord.
The people of Israel: Presumably this refers not to the entire people, but to
representatives of the community. Perhaps a translational footnote will be necessary
to clarify this point, which applies elsewhere in this text as well, for example, in the
case of the Levites and the bull in verse 12.
Lay their hands upon: One may have to specify on what part of their body
hands were laid. If so, “place their hands on the heads of” (GNT) is probably the best
choice. This gesture expresses that the Levites represent the entire people of Israel,
taking the place of the first-born (verse 16).
Offer … as a wave offering: “present … as an elevation offering” (NRSV) is
more accurate, though some sort of motion of waving up and down several times may
have been involved as well. See the discussion at 6.20. The Hebrew phrase here in
8.11 is the same as in 6.20 (where RSV has “wave … for a wave offering”). But here
the usage seems more figurative [< Levine 276] since it is difficult to conceive how
the Levites themselves could have been elevated on this occasion. Referring to the
Levites as a wave offering means, in any case, that they were “a special gift” (GNT),
an offering of dedication. Note that the GNT translation indicates the function
(“dedicate”) of this “special gift,” but not the form (“wave”) as in RSV. Perhaps it is
possible to include both in a natural way in the target language.
Do the service of the Lord: Or “perform the service of the Lord” (NJPSV),
“do the work for the Lord,” “carry out the tasks for the Lord.” (As discussed at 4.4,
the Hebrew word for service can be rendered “service,” “task,” responsibility.”) GNT
replaces of the Lord with a first person pronoun: “do my work.” Since the Lord
himself is speaking, this could be applied to the various models mentioned here.

8.12
RSV
12
Then the Levites shall lay their hands upon the heads of the bulls; and you
shall offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering to the Lord,
to make atonement for the Levites.

GNT
12
The Levites shall then put their hands on the heads of the two bulls; one is to
be offered as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, in order to perform
the ritual of purification for the Levites.

Lay their hands upon: See verse 10. As the people identified with the Levites
as their ritual representative, so also now the Levites identify with the offering: the
two bulls are sacrificed on their behalf. It does not mean that their sins are transferred
to the bulls. Rather, this action symbolized the offering or dedication of their lives to
the Lord’s service in the tabernacle. Animals on which sins are transferred were not
sacrificed but sent into the desert, as in Lev 16.21-22.
You shall offer: The Hebrew verb, with its vowels, is an imperative in the
singular (“and you shall do/make”), addressing Moses. This is followed in many
translations, including NIV (“use”). The Vulgate has a second person verb form as
well. The ancient Greek translation, however, has a third person verb: “and he will
make/do.” (The consonants of the Hebrew form still lie at the basis of this rendering.)
In the wider context, this would refer to Aaron. This reading is followed in several
translations: “and he shall offer” (NRSV), “Aaron will offer” (FRCL) and “Aaron
offers” (GECL). It is tempting to follow this reading, since one would expect that only
a priest was qualified to offer a sin offering and a burnt offering. However, after the
various instructions to Moses earlier in this same section, the text does not give us any
hint that the imperative verb at this point should not refer to Moses. He is still being
spoken to. (Also, Lev 8:21 mentions Moses explicitly as the one who carries out a
burnt offering. So his sacrificial action here is not unheard of.)
The passive form “is to be offered” (GNT) avoids this problem of reference by
leaving open whose task it was to do this, perhaps on the grounds that Moses could
not reasonably be expected to do everything himself in person. The same is done in
NJPSV (“shall be offered”), REB (“to be offered”), and CEV (“will be sacrificed”).
But in many languages the subject of the verb will have to be specified. At least in
such cases, Moses is to be preferred as the subject (of the imperative form). Buber
provides an excellent model for this: “and you will cause to prepare.” Moses is the
one who is spoken to, while others will actually offer the sacrifices.
Sin offering … burnt offering: That is, for the purposes of purification and
consecration respectively; see at 6:11.
Make atonement: As in 5.8 the Hebrew verb means “cover,” that is, to
appease, make amends, or perhaps even reconcile (see also Exo 25.17; Lev 17.11).
GNT stresses that the ceremony has a ritual, rather than just moral, meaning. NLT
makes this even more explicit: “to purify the Levites and make them right with the
Lord.”
Not only the burnt offering was necessary to “make atonement,” but the sin
offering as well. This should be clear not only to readers of the translation, but to
listeners as well.

8.13
RSV
13
And you shall cause the Levites to attend Aaron and his sons, and shall offer
them as a wave offering to the Lord.

GNT
13
“Dedicate the Levites as a special gift to me, and put Aaron and his sons in
charge of them.

GNT starts a new paragraph here, while RSV starts one at verse 14. But the
Hebrew pattern of verbs suggests that verses 12-14 can be regarded as a distinct
paragraph as well as the closure of the larger paragraph covering verses 5-14. As
noted above, verses 15-19 include more background information giving the reasons
behind the dedication of the Levites, drawing heavily on 3.5-13, 40-51 (where the
wave offering is not mentioned).
Cause the Levites to attend Aaron and his sons: or “cause the Levites to
serve Aaron and his sons,” that is, the priests. In some languages, a literal rendering of
this phrase may imply that force was involved in order to get the Levites to do their
job. In such a case, a translation like “Tell the Levites to …” (Chewa) may be
preferable.
Offer … as a wave offering: See at 8.11.
To the Lord: Since the Lord himself is speaking, GNT translates “to me.” “To
me, the Lord” is an alternative.

8.14
RSV
 14
“Thus you shall separate the Levites from among the people of Israel, and
the Levites shall be mine.

GNT
14
Separate the Levites in this way from the rest of the Israelites, so that they will
belong to me.

Thus: This conjunction is not found in the Hebrew, but it could well serve to
mark the close of a discourse unit in English. An expression should be used in the
translation to show that this is the conclusion of the section spanning verses 5-14 as
well as the paragraph incorporating verses 12-14, e.g., Chewa: “This is how you
should separate the Levites ...”
Shall be mine: This (or GNT’s “belong to me”) would be the first, most
general result of the dedication ritual recorded in verses 5-14.

8.15
RSV
15
And after that the Levites shall go in to do service at the tent of meeting, when
you have cleansed them and offered them as a wave offering.

GNT
15
After you have purified and dedicated the Levites, they will be qualified to work
in the Tent.

And after that: Contrary to RSV and GNT, the Hebrew structure at the
beginning of verse 15 indicates that a new paragraph begins there (see NIV). An
appropriate introductory expression is therefore needed to distinguish this in the target
language.
Shall go in: The Levites will certainly not all enter the tent at once or on the
same occasion. Translations like “may go in” (NRSV) and “will be qualified” (GNT)
make more sense in the context, renderings which are also supported by the Hebrew
verb type here.
Do service: See at 8.11.
Cleansed: See at 8.5.
Offered … as a wave offering: See at 8.11.
When you have cleansed and “after you have purified”: When (RSV) and
“after” (GNT) both give the wrong suggestion that this action takes place before the
Levites go in to do service (“are qualified to work”). The Hebrew verbs, however,
suggest a very different logical order and sentence construction in verse 15, which
actually lies at the basis of NET, FRCL, NBJ98, and NBS02, as well as LUT84 and
Buber. Following this model, verse 15 would look thus in RSV:
“And after that the Levites shall go in to do service at the tent of meeting.
(Thus / In this way) you will cleanse them and offer them as a wave offering, [verse
16] because they are wholly given …”

8.16-18
RSV
16
For they are wholly given to me from among the people of Israel; instead of all
that open the womb, the first-born of all the people of Israel, I have taken them
for myself. 17 For all the first-born among the people of Israel are mine, both of
man and of beast; on the day that I slew all the first-born in the land of Egypt I
consecrated them for myself, 18 and I have taken the Levites instead of all the
first-born among the people of Israel.

GNT
16
I have claimed them in the place of all the firstborn sons of the Israelites, and
they belong to me alone. 17 When I killed all the firstborn in Egypt, I consecrated
as my own the eldest son of each Israelite family and the firstborn of every
animal. 18 I am now taking the Levites instead of all the firstborn of the Israelites,

For the connection with verse 15, see the discussion at the end of that verse.
Verses 16-18 repeat much of 3.12 and 13. Verses 16-18 are also somewhat repetitive
in themselves. For this reason perhaps, GNT has rather reduced the content of verse
17 at the beginning. On the other hand, repetition in biblical Hebrew normally serves
a pragmatic purpose in the discourse, and therefore, that function (e.g., emphasis,
emotion) must be identified and reproduced, if possible, in one’s translation.
They are wholly given to me: See at 3.9 for a discussion of wholly given. As
in 3.9, the Hebrew literally has “given given.” GNT seems not to have rendered this
emphasis anywhere. In many languages a rendering like “they are assigned to be
given totally to me” (NBV) or “the Levites are assigned and dedicated to me” (REB)
will be needed. In Chewa, an emphasizing term (“Indeed” or “For sure”) is used at the
beginning of verse 16.
Instead of: “In place of” (GNT) or “as substitutes for” would be a more
precise rendering.
The first-born: “Sons” (GNT) needs to be specified in many languages;
otherwise, the term would include female children as well.
I have taken them for myself: A literal rendering may be misleading or
unclear; GNT’s model (“they belong to me alone”) may need to be followed. It is not
recommended to simply leave out this expression as being redundant as CEV seems
to do, not unless the emphasising function of the Hebrew’s apparent reiteration can be
reproduced in another way.
That opens the womb: See at 3.12.
I slew: See at 3.13.
I consecrated them for myself, and I have taken: Consecrated is discussed
at 3.13. Them does not refer to the first-born among the Egyptians but only the eldest
sons among the Israelites. GNT has made this explicit. There is a problem with the
rendering and I have taken and certainly with GNT’s “I am now taking.” These
translations do not take the different Hebrew verb form into account. This time the
Hebrew verb form expresses that the action follows chronologically on the preceding
verb I consecrated. In many languages both verbs should be translated with the same
(past or perfect) tense. This has been done in NBG51 and LUT84: “… and I took.” So
the beginning of verse 18 follows on verse 17 much more closely than GNT suggests.
Finally, verse 18 expresses a contrast between the Levites and the first-born Israelites.
For this reason, NRSV has changed and I have taken to “but I have taken.” The
following model, similar to REB, is recommended here: “I consecrated the first-born
among the Israelites for myself and/but took the Levites in their place.”

8.19
RSV
19
And I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and his sons from among the
people of Israel, to do the service for the people of Israel at the tent of meeting,
and to make atonement for the people of Israel, that there may be no plague
among the people of Israel in case the people of Israel should come near the
sanctuary.”

GNT
19
and I assign the Levites to Aaron and his sons, as a gift from the Israelites, to
work in the Tent for the people of Israel and to protect the Israelites from the
disaster that would strike them if they came too near the Holy Place.”

And I have given: In Hebrew, the type of verb form is the same as for “and I
have taken” in verse 18. The model of LUT84 and NBG51 can be recommended here
as well: “and I gave.” In verse 14, the Levites were dedicated to the Lord, and now he
gives them to the priesthood and the nation of Israel as a whole. The substitutionary
nature of the Levites’ service is highlighted in this verse.
As a gift: Literally “as given ones.” Compare NBG51: “as ones that have been
given.” However, such renderings may turn out to sound rather redundant in the target
language (“I have given…as given ones”). GNT’s “assign … as a gift” avoids this
problem; similarly Chewa: “offer/hand over … as a gift.” In other languages the
repetition may serve its emphatic function, as in the original. In any case, the style of
the translation should not be allowed to detract from its content.
Service: See at 7.5 and 8.11.
Tent of meeting: See at 1.1.
Make atonement: As in 5.8 and 8.12 the Hebrew verb means “cover,” that is,
to appease, make amends, or perhaps even reconcile. GNT’s “protect” stresses that
the service of the Levites has a ritual significance. The Levites were like a protective
hedge for the community at large in relation to the tabernacle (see 1.53).
Plague: The nature of this destructive blow or “disaster” is not indicated. Thus
the most general term possible ought to be chosen in translation.
Sanctuary: “Holy Place” (GNT) is a good rendering of the Hebrew qodesh.

8.20-22
RSV
20
Thus did Moses and Aaron and all the congregation of the people of Israel to
the Levites; according to all that the Lord commanded Moses concerning the
Levites, the people of Israel did to them. 21 And the Levites purified themselves
from sin, and washed their clothes; and Aaron offered them as a wave offering
before the Lord, and Aaron made atonement for them to cleanse them. 22 And
after that the Levites went in to do their service in the tent of meeting in
attendance upon Aaron and his sons; as the Lord had commanded Moses
concerning the Levites, so they did to them.

GNT
20
So Moses, Aaron, and all the people of Israel dedicated the Levites, as the
Lord commanded Moses. 21 The Levites purified themselves and washed their
clothes, and Aaron dedicated them as a special gift to the Lord. He also
performed the ritual of purification for them. 22 The people did everything the
Lord had commanded Moses concerning the Levites. And so the Levites were
qualified to work in the Tent under Aaron and his sons.

The Lord’s instructions concerning the dedication of the Levites are explicitly
carried out here in verses 20-22. Since there is a shift from the Lord’s direct speech to
this summary narrative report, a new paragraph unit should begin at verse 20, as in
both RSV (Thus…) and GNB (“So…”).
 Congregation: See at 1.2. GNT has left the Hebrew `edah untranslated,
instead of giving its usual translation “community.”
According to all that the Lord commanded Moses … the people … did to
them: Some of this may seem repetitive. This is probably why GNT has reduced this
part of verse 20 to “as the Lord commanded Moses.” But as noted earlier, the
repetition in the Hebrew emphasizes the fact that all God’s instructions were carried
out by the people in all their detail. If such repetition has a similar function in the
target language, it should of course be preserved; alternatively, the point of the
repetition can be made in some other way. NLT, for example, is a good model to
follow in verse 20: “So Moses, Aaron, and the whole community of Israel dedicated
the Levites, carefully following all the Lord's instructions to Moses.”
Purified themselves from sin: At this point the Israelites carry out the
instructions of 8.7. The root of the Hebrew verb is the same as of the word for “sin” in
verse 7. (Rashbam, the medieval commentator, notes that the verb means “to become
pure using the water of purification.”) However, the “water” of verse 7 is not repeated
here. This is why we conclude that CEV (“sprinkled themselves with the water of
forgiveness”) perhaps follows verse 7 too closely. Even so, it will still be helpful to
bring out the connection between verse 21 and 7. Again, sin in the sense of deliberate
moral wrongdoing is not in view here; rather, the reference is to ritual pollution that
renders a person unfit to participate in worship. For these reasons, “purified
themselves” (GNT, NIV, NJPSV) is a better model for translation.
Offered them as a wave offering: See at 8.11.
Made atonement for them: See at 8.12.
To cleanse them: See at 8.7. GNT shows that these last two verbs are meant
in a ritual, ceremonial sense by translating them together: “performed the ritual of
purification for them.”
To do their service: See at 7.5 (and 8.11).
In attendance upon Aaron and his sons: Or “under (the supervision of)
Aaron and his sons.” Compare 8.13.
GNT has changed the order of the two sentences in verse 22, putting “the
Levites were qualified …” at the end, outside the scope of the carrying out of the
instructions to Moses. This may seem more logical but it obscures the fact that the
section treats the Levites’ service in the tent of meeting (see at 1.1) as part of the
instructions to Moses (see verses 13 and 19). GNT’s change also separates the means,
namely, the purification process (verse 21), from the result, which is being qualified
to serve in the tent (verse 22a). It also obscures the boundary-marking inclusio based
on the key verbs “command” and “do” which enclose this paragraph (verses 20-22).

8.23-26
RSV
23
And the Lord said to Moses, 24 “This is what pertains to the Levites: from
twenty-five years old and upward they shall go in to perform the work in the
service of the tent of meeting; 25 and from the age of fifty years they shall
withdraw from the work of the service and serve no more, 26 but minister to their
brethren in the tent of meeting, to keep the charge, and they shall do no service.
Thus shall you do to the Levites in assigning their duties.”

GNT
23
The Lord said to Moses, 24 “From the age of 25 each Levite shall perform his
duties in the Tent of my presence, 25 and at the age of 50 he shall retire. 26 After
that, he may help his fellow-Levites in performing their duties in the Tent, but he
must not perform any service by himself. This is how you are to regulate the
duties of the Levites.”

This is what pertains to the Levites: GNT leaves this opening clause
implicit; however, its prominence in the Hebrew should encourage translators to do
more with it, e.g., Chewa: “This is the work of the Levites: …”
From twenty-five years old: This minimum age for Levites is five years less
than in 4.3, 23, 30, 47, where it is specified as thirty. It has been suggested that the
minimum age was reduced due to a shortage of Levites at a later stage in the history
of Israel.[< Budd 92,94] The possibility for Levites to be of assistance beyond the age
of fifty has no parallel in chapter 4, and was perhaps added for the same reason,
namely, a later change in the nation’s social or political circumstances. In any case,
the text should not be harmonized (as apparently in the ancient Greek translation), but
translated as it stands.
The work of the service: The Hebrew terms here are tsava’ and `avodah.
Tsava’ already occurred in 4.3, 23, 30, 35. It can refer to military service as well as
service in the sanctuary. As in chapter 4, the present verses bring out that Levitical
service is just as integral to Israel’s military advance, under the Lord’s leading, as the
carrying of weapons. For `avodah (service) see at 4.4 and 7.5. In view of these two
terms in the Hebrew, it may be better to actually specify what it is that the Levites
“retire” from, rather than leaving this implicit as in GNT—that is, “work,” “service,”
or if natural, both: “the work of serving” (as in Chewa).
Keep the charge: See at 1.53 and 3.7, 8. In those verses the same expression
shamar mishmeret occurs, that is, to “perform their duties” (after GNT).
They: RSV employs this plural reference to the Levites in these verses. But
the Hebrew has singular forms instead of these. In some languages it may also be
more natural to refer to one typical Levite at these points. This has been done in REB
(“a Levite …”), TOB and NBJ98 (“the Levite …”), in GNT (“each Levite”), and
NBS02 (“every Levite …”).
Thus you shall do to the Levites: A literal rendering could well be
misleading if “do to” implies some physical action. NIV suggests a good, section-
concluding model: “This, then, is how you are to assign the responsibilities of the
Levites.”
In assigning their duties: Literally “in/regarding their duties.” This renders
the same word mishmeret above but in its plural form. (GNT translates “duties” both
times.)

9.1-14
Section Heading: “The Second Passover” (GNT, NLT) makes it clear that this is a
section about the second Passover (a year after the first Passover recorded in Exodus
12). But this should not imply that there are two different Passover festivals. A
heading like “The Second Celebration of Passover” would take care of this potential
problem. NBV has simply “Passover Celebration.” In fact, the present section
concentrates on the date of the festival. Thus a heading like “The date of the
celebration of Passover” (FRCL, NBS02) is a good model to follow. Who could
actually celebrate the Passover at that time is also in focus; thus a heading like
“Requirements concerning the Passover celebration” (or something similar) could
also fit here.
 Why this section was included at this point in the book is a subject of debate.
The people of Israel are soon going to depart from the wilderness of Sinai (in 10.11),
so this Passover provides a parallel to the first Passover which was celebrated
immediately before the Israelites departed from Egypt.[< Budd 97] But the main
reason for including it seems to be to instruct (in verses 9-12) persons who have been
unclean or away on a journey during Passover to celebrate this festival exactly a
month later. This shows again that the book of Numbers, like the Pentateuch
generally, is concerned with regulating situations of purity and impurity among the
Lord’s covenant people of Israel.
As a result of their continued disobedience and rebellion (e.g., Numbers 14),
the people would not celebrate another Passover until they had finally entered the
Promised Land (Josh 5.10).

9.1-3
RSV
1
And the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the first month of
the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying, 2 “Let the
people of Israel keep the passover at its appointed time. 3 On the fourteenth day
of this month, in the evening, you shall keep it at its appointed time; according to
all its statutes and all its ordinances you shall keep it.”

GNT
1
The Lord spoke to Moses in the Sinai Desert in the first month of the second
year after the people of Israel had left Egypt. He said, 2-3 “On the fourteenth day
of this month, beginning at sunset, the people of Israel are to observe the
Passover according to all the rules and regulations for it.”

The wilderness of Sinai: See at 1.1.

In the first month of the second year: This is the same month and year as in
7.1 (see the discussion on chronology there), though not necessarily the same day.
The first month corresponds to the beginning of spring, and the month begins
anywhere from the last half of March to the first half of April. (Hebrew months were
determined by the moon, and so their calendar months constantly change with respect
to our modern calendar.)
Saying: In many languages it is better to start a new sentence at this point, as
in GNT: “He said,…”
Keep: Or “celebrate” (DUCL, FRCL, CEV, NBS02). Some cultures
distinguish between formal and informal “celebrations”; in that case, a term for the
former should be used. The Hebrew verb literally means “do,” “make,” “prepare.”
Passover: The Hebrew pesach is probably derived from the verb pasach,
which may have meant “to pass by,” “to leap,” or “to limp.” Translators will be able
to capture some of this meaning with the idea of “deliverance” or “passing over”; for
example, “The festival of deliverance [or redemption, or liberation],” “The festival of
passing over,” “The festival to remember the passing over.” See the Handbook on
Exodus at the beginning of chapter 12, which also explains why associations with the
Christian feast of Easter, for example, due to the use of the same term for both, should
be avoided. Any new term coined here should of course be carefully checked for
hidden associations, e.g., “passing by” in the sense of a “detour.” On the other hand,
the target language may use a loanword here that has been generally accepted in the
community. But it is important to make sure that such terms of foreign origin are
carefully explained in a glossary and the translation marked accordingly.
 At its appointed time: This simply refers to the fourteenth day of this
month [that is, the first month], in the evening, which is probably why GNT left it
untranslated. (The Passover of Exodus 12 was celebrated in the first month as well.)
The Lord of course was the one who “appointed” or “decreed” it.
In the evening: Literally “between the two evenings,” that is, the period
between sunset and nightfall.
You shall keep: The Hebrew form is in the plural. To ensure that “you” is not
misinterpreted as a singular in reference to Moses, GNT has “the people of Israel are
to observe the Passover,” combining verses 2 and 3. “Keep,” literally “do, make,”
refers to all the ritual requirements of the Passover celebration.
Statutes … ordinances: A statute (chuqqah) means a task, obligation, or law.
An ordinance (mishpat) means a legal decision or judgment, or established custom.
Since in this context these “rules and regulations” (GNT) specifically concern a
festival, “in accordance with all its rules and rites” (NJPSV) provides a good model.

9.4-5
RSV
4
So Moses told the people of Israel that they should keep the passover. 5 And
they kept the passover in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, in
the evening, in the wilderness of Sinai; according to all that the Lord commanded
Moses, so the people of Israel did.

GNT
4
So Moses told the people to observe the Passover, 5 and on the evening of the
fourteenth day of the first month they did so in the Sinai Desert. The people did
everything just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

Commanded: Instructions are carried out here which had been given to
Moses in the preceding verses. In many languages a translation like “had
commanded” (GNT) will give expression to this more clearly.

9.6-7
RSV
6
And there were certain men who were unclean through touching the dead body
of a man, so that they could not keep the passover on that day; and they came
before Moses and Aaron on that day; 7 and those men said to him, “We are
unclean through touching the dead body of a man; why are we kept from offering
the Lord's offering at its appointed time among the people of Israel?”

GNT
6
But there were some people who were ritually unclean because they had
touched a corpse, and they were not able to keep the Passover on that day. They
went to Moses and Aaron 7 and said, “We are unclean because we have touched a
corpse, but why should we be excluded from presenting the Lord's offering with
the rest of the Israelites?”

The topic of uncleanness preventing people from joining in the Passover

celebration starts in verse 6. In GNT this is the beginning of a new paragraph. A
literal reproduction of every clause-initial Hebrew and (waw) will be unnatural in
many languages.
Men … man … men: The Hebrew does not focus on male gender here, so
that “people … corpse” (GNT) will often be a better model to follow.
 Touching: Literally the text has “unclean through a (dead) body of a human.”
NJPSV keeps close to this: “unclean by reason of a corpse.” The Hebrew lacks any
verb here. RSV and GNT (“because they had touched”) make explicit how the corpse
could have made these people unclean. A translation should not imply, however, that
they had touched a corpse deliberately. Perhaps that was the case, for example, in case
of a death in the family, but maybe not. “Impure because of contact with a dead body”
[< Levine 296] avoids this problem and is thus a better model. (RSV and GNT
actually have “contact with the dead / a corpse” in 5.2.) Some languages may even
have a verb that limits reference to purely “touching,” with no implication as to
whether that action was deliberate or not.
So that: It is implied that if a person is ritually unclean, this prevents him from
any involvement in feasts (Lev 7.20). RSV (So that they could not keep) makes this
connection much more explicit than GNT (“and …”)!
Said to him: Him refers to Moses, even though the preceding clause mentions
that these people have come to Moses and Aaron. This may be awkward in some
languages. GNT simply translates “said”; alternatively, “Moses” could be made
explicit here since he is the one who replies in verse 8.
Why are we …: Such a literal translation may not be very meaningful. In
effect, the speakers answer their own question: they are “kept from offering” because
they are “unclean”; they indict themselves in their own words! In this case, some type
of conjunction to indicate contra-expectation must be used, as in GNT: “but why …?”
Offering the Lord’s offering: Even though Passover is involved, the Hebrew
employs a general term for all kinds of offering: qorban. As regards the verb, the
same term as in 7.3 is employed: hiqrib (“bring, present”). “Presenting the Lord’s
offering” (GNT) expresses the meaning of the Hebrew verb more accurately. In many
languages “presenting the (or ‘an’) offering to the Lord” will be an easier model to
follow.

9.8
RSV
8
And Moses said to them, “Wait, that I may hear what the Lord will command
concerning you.”

GNT
8
Moses answered, “Wait until I receive instructions from the Lord.”

Wait: “Stand by” (NJPSV), “Stay here” (Levine).

That I may hear: This is a slight hint that Moses has to go somewhere to
hear. Similarly, NJPSV has “and let me hear.” The discussion between the Lord and
Moses is presumably to take place privately in the tent of meeting (7.89).[< Olson 51]
GNT lacks any hint of this. In some languages a certain type of verb with “hear” is
needed to indicate that this latter action will not take place immediately, on the spot.

9.9-11
RSV
9
The Lord said to Moses, 10 “Say to the people of Israel, If any man of you or
of your descendants is unclean through touching a dead body, or is afar off on a
journey, he shall still keep the passover to the Lord. 11 In the second month on
the fourteenth day in the evening they shall keep it; they shall eat it with
unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
GNT
9
The Lord told Moses 10 to say to the people of Israel, “When any of you or
your descendants are unclean from touching a corpse or are far away on a
journey, but still want to keep the Passover, 11 you are permitted to observe it
one month later instead, on the evening of the fourteenth day of the second
month. Celebrate it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

Say to the people of Israel: GNT employs indirect speech here: “to say to the
people of Israel.” This may be a helpful model in languages in which direct speech
within direct speech would be awkward.
If: The normal target language construction for a hypothetical case should be
used; the conjunction “When” (GNT) may not be the most appropriate to indicate this.
Man: Again, the Hebrew does not focus on persons of the male gender here,
and the translation must not imply this (see GNT).
Or of your descendants: “today or in generations to come” (FRCL) does
more justice to the Hebrew ledorotekhem (“your generations”).
Is unclean: A verb like “becomes unclean” may be needed in translation.
Some languages have a verb form that conveys the notion of “becoming unclean” or
“polluting oneself” (Chewa).
Touching: See at 9.7.
Afar off: “Far away” (GNT) from home, possibly abroad (that is, away from
the land of Canaan, in which the people of Israel will live). This passage obviously
refers to a later time when the people will have settled down in that land (see also
10.9).
He shall still keep the passover: This translation implies that these unclean or
faraway people are actually required to celebrate the Passover festival just like all
other Israelites (and to do this one month later). Taken this way, this clause is an
introductory link to the beginning of verse 11, which specifies the date. NBG51,
WV77, NFB, LUT84, NRSV, REB, FRCL, DUCL, PV, and TNIV follow this
interpretation.
GNT’s “but still want to keep the Passover,” however, implies that this later
celebration of Passover was only voluntary. In this case, the unclean or faraway
people concerned could decide whether they still wanted to celebrate Passover or not.
For those who thus wanted to, verse 11 gives regulations about the date. EÜ, NET,
NIV, NJPSV, NLT, GECL, CEV, WV95, NBV, and Levine follow this interpretation.
The clause still belongs to the prolonged conditional case decribed in verse 10.[<
Levine 297] Translators are recommended to follow this interpretation, since verse 13
indicates that only those people are punished who could have celebrated Passover in
the first month (because they were ritually clean and not far away) but did not.
They shall keep it … they shall eat it: The Hebrew verbs are indeed in the
third person (they). Although “you” (GNT) may be more natural in some languages,
use of the third person is still recommended if possible: it shows more clearly that
future generations are included as well.
Unleavened bread: Such “bread without yeast” (that is, without the substance
which causes the bread to rise) is baked quickly from barley meal and water. Compare
Chewa: “non-puffed-up bread”; Tonga: “bread without fermented-grain” [i.e., millet,
traditional yeast]. See the Exodus Handbook at 12:8.
Bitter herbs: These are not identified. As the Exodus Handbook mentions at
12:8, Jewish tradition permitted the use of five different plants: lettuce, chicory,
pepperwort, snakeroot, and dandelion. However, translators should not mention any
particular herb or spice by name; use of a generic term or descriptive expression is
recommended, for example, Chewa: “a bitter relish of leaves (leafy plants).”

9.12
RSV
12
They shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break a bone of it; according
to all the statute for the passover they shall keep it.

GNT
12
Do not leave any of the food until the following morning and do not break any
of the animal's bones. Observe the Passover according to all the regulations.

Leave none of it: It may be necessary to specify the antecedent of it in the

translation, as GNT has done: “any of the food” – or “Passover meal.” In view of the
next verb phrase, however, the reference should perhaps be made more specific, that
is, to “the (Passover) lamb” or “lamb of the Passover meal.”
Nor break a bone of it is literally “and a bone they will not break in it.” Here
the it definitely refers to the Passover animal, so it will be necessary to make this
clear, if it was not specified in the preceding clause. This verse is a repetition of the
instruction given in Exo 12.46.
Statute: A statute (chuqqah) means an obligation or law (see at 9.3).

9.13
RSV
13
But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, yet refrains from keeping the
passover, that person shall be cut off from his people, because he did not offer
the Lord's offering at its appointed time; that man shall bear his sin.

GNT
13
But anyone who is ritually clean and not away on a journey and who does not
observe the Passover, shall no longer be considered one of my people, because
he did not present the offering to me at the appointed time. He must suffer the
consequences of his sin.

Cut off: That is, “excluded” (FRCL), “expelled” (WV95, DUCL, NBV) from
the community. (GNT’s “shall no longer be considered one of my people” is rather
too indirect and wordy.) This is the most important aspect of the meaning in the
context. Scholars are not certain whether this actually meant execution; therefore, this
more specific sense should not be translated. NFB translates “exterminated,” but adds
in a note that it is not certain what this involves: death penalty, expulsion from the
community, or premature death.
Offer the Lord’s offering: See at 9.7.
Bear his sin: “Suffer the consequences of his sin” (GNT) will be a better
model in some languages.

9.14
RSV
14
And if a stranger sojourns among you, and will keep the passover to the Lord,
according to the statute of the passover and according to its ordinance, so shall
he do; you shall have one statute, both for the sojourner and for the native.”

GNT
 14
“If foreigners living among you want to keep the Passover, they must
observe it according to all the rules and regulations. The same law applies to
everyone, whether native or foreigner.”

A stranger sojourns among you: More clearly, NRSV translates “any alien
residing among you.” As mentioned in the Leviticus Handbook at 16.29, this is a
collective singular referring to any and all resident aliens who happened to live among
the people of Israel and who chose to observe the Mosaic Law (see also the Exodus
Handbook at 12.19). In some languages the word stranger may be understood as any
person who is not a member of the receptor-language group. If this is the case, it may
be necessary to say “any non-Israelites living among you” or “any other people (or,
tribes) living among you.” The “sojourner” (ger, resident alien) must be distinguished
from the “foreigner” (ben-nekar), the “temporary resident” (towshav), and the “hired
hand” (sakir) (see Exo 12.43,45).
And will keep the passover: As GNT makes clear (“want to keep the
Passover”), resident aliens were not obliged to do this.
Statute … ordinance: See at 9.3. Again, since in this context these “rules and
regulations” (GNT) concern a festival, not some legal judgment, NJPSV translates “in
accordance with the [its] rules and rites.”
Native: This is also a collective singular, but all the Israelites are obviously
intended. In some languages the word for native may be understood as a member of
one particular language group. This may be avoided by saying explicitly “you
Israelites” or something similar, for example, “owner(s) of the land” (Tonga).
This verse repeats but at the same time also abbreviates Exo 12.48-49.
Terminology that is exactly the same in the original should be reproduced in
translation.

9.15-23
Section Heading: Of course headings like “The Fiery Cloud” (GNT, NLT) or simply
“The Cloud” (DUCL) are possible, but the headings “The Cloud over the Sacred
Tent” (CEV), “The Cloud Covers the Holy Place” (similar to FRCL), and “The Cloud
as Sign of the Presence of God” (GECL) are a bit more revealing of the contents of
this section.
This section clearly reiterates the summary found at the end of the book of
Exodus (40.36-38) and builds on this vivid description of God’s visible presence with
the people of Israel on its many journeys (verses 15-16). The cloud of the Lord
continually guided the Israelites in the wilderness (verses 17-23); this was an ongoing
process. (It was not some magical cloud; it moved and stopped only at the command
of the Lord.) It is of interest to see that this theme is included at this point in the book,
just before the Israelites actually move the camp and march away from Sinai (in
10.11). In its present position, this section shows how the report about the entire
campaign from Sinai to Canaan (following from 10.11) is to be understood.[<
Knierim and Coats 129] Israel strictly obeys the Lord’s directions, given through the
cloud. Such uncomplaining obedience contrasts markedly with the disobedience and
rebellion that are so often reported after 10.11.
Another factor that may have led to the inclusion of this section at this point,
right after the second celebration of Passover, is that in Exodus the guiding cloud of
the Lord (Exo 13.21-22) is mentioned almost directly after the first Passover as well.
 The present section repeats the time indication of 7.1, if in a shorter form: “On
the day that the Tent of the Lord’s presence was set up ...”

9.15-16
RSV
15
On the day that the tabernacle was set up, the cloud covered the tabernacle,
the tent of the testimony; and at evening it was over the tabernacle like the
appearance of fire until morning. 16 So it was continually; the cloud covered it by
dayd and the appearance of fire by night.

d 9.16 Gk Syr Vg: Heb lacks by day

GNT
15-16
On the day the Tent of the Lord's presence was set up, a cloud came and
covered it. At night the cloud looked like fire.

On the day: See at 7.1. The narrative is still directly connected to the date of
Exo 40.2, 17. Many Bantu languages have a demonstrative form that makes reference
to such a past event quite specific.
Tabernacle or “the Tent of the Lord’s presence”: As in 7.1, the Hebrew has
mishkan “dwelling place.” See at 1.50.
The cloud: The Hebrew includes the definite article, which is translated with
the. This indicates that the cloud is already supposed to be known to the reader.
Again, many languages have a system of demonstrative reference that will indicate
this familiarity. Much of the sentence corresponds with Exo 40.34, where the cloud is
for the first time said to cover the tent of meeting. “A cloud came” (GNT) gives the
wrong impression that this cloud appears in the narrative for the first time. Although it
is mentioned in Numbers for the first time, it was already mentioned in Exodus
(starting in 13.21). Only a translation like the cloud or “the cloud-mass” will keep the
link with Exo 40.34 intact.
The tabernacle, the tent of the testimony: As an alternative to GNT,
translators are encouraged to render the Hebrew hammishkan le’ohel ha`edut more
precisely. A similar phrase, mishkan ha‘edut (“the tabernacle of the testimony”),
occurs in 1.50. See the discussion there. A consistent rendering in the translation is
needed, especially in the case of such important thematic expressions.
At evening it was over the tabernacle like the appearance of fire until
morning: NRSV has rephrased this without changing the interpretation: “from
evening until morning it was over the tabernacle, having the appearance of fire.” NIV
makes explicit that it refers to the cloud. “Looked like fire” (GNT, NIV) does not
render the Hebrew mar’eh, which in this context means “appearance, brightness.”
Thus the Hebrew shows that the comparison with fire is not so directly and easily
made. A translation like “…, as it were, like fire …” would express this comparative
idea better. The following model, similar to NJPSV, is recommended: “in the evening
the cloud rested over the Tabernacle in the likeness of fire until morning” (that is, “…,
staying there until morning”). To express the notion with verbs, one could translate:
“the cloud, appearing like (a) fire, rested over / covered the tabernacle until morning.”
So it was continually: GNT and, for example, CEV have left this
untranslated. But with this sentence the Hebrew marks explicitly that what is
described here happened continually, time and time again. (GNT only shows this,
very briefly, in verse 17: “whenever”.) There is no reason to leave out this sentence,
especially in the case of such a rhythmically fashioned text. Another way of
expressing it would be: “This was always the case.” or “This happened every time /
continually.”
By day: As RSV’s footnote mentions, this reading is not based on the Hebrew
text but follows the ancient Greek and Syriac translations as well as the Vulgate. With
this rendering, RSV now suggests that the cloud and the appearance of fire are
really two different things. But although this would seem to be in agreement with Exo
13.21 and 40.38, it does not agree with (RSV’s own rendering of) the preceding verse
15, just discussed above, where the appearance of fire is only the nightly
manifestation of the cloud! In line with the Hebrew text of verse 15, the present part
of verse 16 should thus be interpreted as follows: “the cloud covered it, appearing as
fire by/at night” (NJPSV, Levine). Compare also NBS02: “the cloud covered it; at
night, it [the cloud] had the appearance of a fire.” In fact, this is not only in line with
verse 15 but with verse 21 as well.

9.17-18
RSV
17
And whenever the cloud was taken up from over the tent, after that the people
of Israel set out; and in the place where the cloud settled down, there the people
of Israel encamped. 18 At the command of the Lord the people of Israel set out,
and at the command of the Lord they encamped; as long as the cloud rested over
the tabernacle, they remained in camp.

GNT
17
Whenever the cloud lifted, the people of Israel broke camp, and they set up
camp again in the place where the cloud came down. 18 The people broke camp at
the command of the Lord, and at his command they set up camp. As long as the
cloud stayed over the Tent, they stayed in the same camp.

Whenever …: Like verse 16, verses 17-23 are to be understood as referring to

repetitive actions; it is not just about one change of camp but about many. (This is
also clear from the most used Hebrew verb type in these verses.) In comparison with
RSV, NRSV (“would”) has made this repetitive meaning explicit on the verbs in these
verses. The beginning of a new paragraph here, dealing with the people’s travelling or
camping along their way, would be supported by the Hebrew construction in verse 17.
After that indicates promptness [< Levine 299]: “directly after that.” But
neither would the people of Israel set out before the cloud was taken up. The people
broke camp only in response to the Lord’s direct command through the movements of
the cloud.
The cloud was taken up is literally “the cloud’s being taken up,” using a
passive verb form. The cloud did not rise by its own power, but moved only according
to divine impulse. A rendering like “lifted” (GNT) or “moved” (CEV) may give the
wrong impression that the cloud was some sort of magical force unto itself.
Set out or “broke camp”: The meaning of the verb can be described as “move
off, journey further, march.” The verb form is the same as at the end of 2.9.

9.19-20
RSV
19
Even when the cloud continued over the tabernacle many days, the people of
Israel kept the charge of the Lord, and did not set out. 20 Sometimes the cloud
was a few days over the tabernacle, and according to the command of the Lord
they remained in camp; then according to the command of the Lord they set out.
GNT
19
When the cloud stayed over the Tent for a long time, they obeyed the Lord and
did not move on. 20 Sometimes the cloud remained over the Tent for only a few
days; in any case, they remained in camp or moved, according to the command
of the Lord.

Verses 19-23 may seem quite repetitive but they give strong emphasis to the
point made in verse 18. The Lord’s continual guidance of his people as well as the
people’s continual obedience are stressed in these verses. The poetic prose of the text
underscores this relationship of reciprocity: the Lord leads, his people follow.
Kept the charge of the Lord: The Hebrew expression shamar mishmeret
(“keep charge”) has been discussed at 1.53. Here it most likely means “kept the
obligation owed to (the requirement set by) the Lord.” GNT follows this in a slightly
simplified form of this: “obeyed the Lord” in verse 19; “in obedience to” in verse 23.
Set out: See at verses 17-18.

9.21-22
RSV
21
And sometimes the cloud remained from evening until morning; and when the
cloud was taken up in the morning, they set out, or if it continued for a day and a
night, when the cloud was taken up they set out. 22 Whether it was two days, or a
month, or a longer time, that the cloud continued over the tabernacle, abiding
there, the people of Israel remained in camp and did not set out; but when it was
taken up they set out.

GNT
21
Sometimes the cloud remained only from evening until morning, and they
moved on as soon as the cloud lifted. Whenever the cloud lifted, they moved on.
22
Whether it was two days, a month, a year, or longer, as long as the cloud
remained over the Tent, they did not move on; but when it lifted, they moved.

Sometimes the cloud remained from evening until morning: That is, stayed
in one place “only from evening until morning” (GNT), for the shortest possible time.
When the cloud was taken up: As at verse 17, a passive construction (“was
lifted”) is closer to the Hebrew text.
Or if it continued for a day and a night …: The Hebrew literally has
“whether at day or night.” The following is a much clearer model, similar to NJPSV:
“Day or night, whenever the cloud was lifted, they would break camp.”
Two days, or a month, or a longer time: Instead of a longer time, GNT has
“a year.” This does more justice to the idiomatic use of yamim (literally “days”). The
whole phrase marks progression from a short time to a long time. NJPSV expresses
this rhetorical progression very clearly: “Whether it was two days or a month or a
year – however long the cloud lingered over the Tabernacle – ...” (This model is
recommended, except perhaps for the verb “lingered,” which could imply a deliberate
delay in some languages.)

9.23
RSV
23
At the command of the Lord they encamped, and at the command of the Lord
they set out; they kept the charge of the Lord, at the command of the Lord by
Moses.
GNT
23
They set up camp and broke camp in obedience to the commands which the
Lord gave through Moses.

What is new in this verse is that it defines the relation between the Lord’s
command and Moses’ authority. The Lord issues instructions and Moses carries them
out and in turn commands the Israelites.[< Levine 300] He is the mediator between
the people and the Lord.
At the command of: Most translations have this. The Hebrew literally means
“at the mouth of.” In some languages this repeated figurative expression (or
something similar) may be easier to translate.
Kept the charge of the Lord: See at 9.19. The tragedy of Israel’s subsequent
disobedience (chapter 11) is emphatically foreshadowed by this entire section, which
stresses their implicit obedience to every direction and command of the Lord.
Through Moses: Literally, “by the hand of Moses,” perhaps to stress his
agency and/or authority. In any case, this expression occurs in prominent position at
the end of this paragraph and larger section of discourse.

10.1-10
Section heading: “The Silver Trumpets” (GNT and others) or simply “The
Trumpets” (DUCL) may be adequate, but “The Signalling Trumpets” (GECL) and
“The Community Gathers at the Sound of the Trumpets” (PV) are recommended
headings because they indicate what the important ongoing function of these trumpets
will be. (While “silver” is only mentioned once, their signalling function is mentioned
several times in the section.) The trumpets will be blown as a signal for major and
minor assemblies (verses 1-4, 7), for breaking up of the camp (verses 5-6), for
military directions (verse 9), as well as for celebrations (verse 10).
In its position within Numbers, this section comes as the last preparation
before the beginning of the Israelites’ march away from Sinai (in 10.11) is
undertaken. This section also shows how different aspects of the entire campaign
from Sinai to Canaan (from 10.11) are to be understood as being directed either
directly or implicitly by the Lord. As mentioned above, this also applies to the
preceding sections concerning the ongoing celebration of the Passover as well as the
guidance by the cloud on the journey. Interestingly, the signalling trumpets come last.
In this way the end of the first part of the book of Numbers (1.1–10.10) returns to the
theme of the beginning: the organization of the camp of Israel. In this way the section
about the trumpets performs an importance discourse function of bringing the first
major portion of Numbers to a close.
The trumpets do not only signal the breaking up of the camp and the start of
the march in a military sense; verse 10 stipulates that they are to be blown on future
occasions of festivals and sacrifices as well. Clearly, this section of 10.1-10 is still
part of the final stage of putting all things in place for the ritual ceremonies and the
whole system of worship prior to the journey from Sinai (7.1–10.10).
For this reason, TOB’s choice to start its second major section of the book
already at 10.1 (“From Sinai to the plains of Moab – The People Start to March”) is
not recommended. There is some overlap to be sure, but the obvious text-initial
markers found at 10.11 indicate that the next major section of discourse begins at that
point.
10.1-2
RSV
1
The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Make two silver trumpets; of hammered work you
shall make them; and you shall use them for summoning the congregation, and
for breaking camp.

GNT
1
The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Make two trumpets of hammered silver to use for
calling the people together and for breaking camp.

Trumpets: These are long and straight metallic instruments used for signal
calls. Translators should select an instrument that readers will expect to be used for
this purpose. These are different in form from the rams’ horns that may also be
translated as “trumpets” (see the Exodus Handbook at 19.13 for an illustration). In
terms of function, these two types of trumpet are sometimes the same, at other times
different. If possible, then, it would be good for translators to distinguish them in the
text. An illustration of the silver trumpet in comparison with the ram’s horn might
also be helpful at some point in the translation.
Hammered work: As in 8.4, the term refers to any metal that is beaten or
hammered into a desired form or shape. The silver was pounded with a hammer.
You is singular and refers to Moses.
Congregation: As mentioned at 1.2, a better equivalent for the Hebrew ‘edah
would be “community.” GNT only has the all too vague rendering “people,” which is
not a good solution, if it can be avoided (if not, perhaps “clans of Israel” would be
better). The term refers to the entire national, legal and cultic society of Israel.

10.3-4
RSV
3
And when both are blown, all the congregation shall gather themselves to you
at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 4 But if they blow only one, then the
leaders, the heads of the tribes of Israel, shall gather themselves to you.

GNT
3
When long blasts are sounded on both trumpets, the whole community is to
gather round you at the entrance to the Tent of my presence. 4 But when only
one trumpet is sounded, then only the leaders of the clans are to gather round
you.

Are blown … they blow: The Hebrew does not specify who they are. Verse 8
mentions that they are “the sons of Aaron, the priests,” on behalf of the people of
Israel. The action of blowing is not specified, either. The “long blasts” in GNT are
only speculative, and so this translation should not be followed as a model.
To you: Moses is still being spoken to.
The leaders: As in 1.16, the Hebrew nasi’ refers to a prominent and
distinguished leader, for example, a much respected sheikh of a tribe; thus leaders
seems a rather flat translation. In English, “the chiefs” or “the chieftains” (NJPSV)
would be a better alternative. The is correct: the Hebrew has a definite article here
(unlike in 1.16).
The heads of the tribes of Israel: In 1.16 RSV has translated this as “the
heads of the clans of Israel.” Literally, the Hebrew does not have tribes or “clans” but
“thousands.” Still, this refers to divisions in a tribe, more specifically, to military
contingents (“militias” according to Levine).
 Although RSV translates the heads, there is, in fact, nothing in the Hebrew
construction that necessarily corresponds with this definite article the. Thus “the
chiefs, heads of divisions in Israel” is a more accurate translation. It is possible but
not certain that these chiefs are the only heads of this kind in Israel’s military
organization.
(Perhaps GNT’s “leaders of the clans,” though not quite exact, is the best
solution if a more specific rendering would turn out to be awkward or unclear in
translation.)

10.5-7
RSV
5
When you blow an alarm, the camps that are on the east side shall set out. 6
And when you blow an alarm the second time, the camps that are on the south
side shall set out. An alarm is to be blown whenever they are to set out. 7 But
when the assembly is to be gathered together, you shall blow, but you shall not
sound an alarm.

GNT
5
When short blasts are sounded, the tribes camped on the east will move out. 6
When short blasts are sounded a second time, the tribes on the south will move
out. So short blasts are to be sounded to break camp, 7 but in order to call the
community together, long blasts are to be sounded.

You blow: The Hebrew verbs are plural and refer to the people of Israel, on
whose behalf the priests (verse 8) are to blow the trumpets. GNT leaves this open; it
avoids making either the people or the priests explicit and translates “are sounded”
and “are to be sounded.” This rendering is recommended, if it is possible; the use of
“you” (whether singular or plural) is often ambiguous in such directive texts.
An alarm: These verses do not specify how many trumpets should be blown.
However, these verses do seem to make a distinction between two ways of blowing
the trumpets. An alarm, or perhaps better, a “blast” (loud sound), is to be blown to
break camp and set out. But the blowing should not be an alarm when the assembly /
“community” is called together without breaking camp. This distinction between
alarm and no alarm is rendered as “short blasts” and “long blasts” in GNT and
NJPSV. This makes the distinction more strongly and clearly but it is also quite
speculative about the difference between these sounds. (According to Jewish tradition,
the convocation trumpet sound was one long blast (verses 3-4, 7), while the “moving
out” signal (verses 5-6) was three shorter blasts. GNT seems to follow this tradition.)
There is a problem with RSV as well: alarm gives the wrong suggestion that this is
about an unexpected emergency or some immediate danger! See the recommended
model below.
The camps that are on the east side: These are the camps of Judah, Issachar,
and Zebulun (see 2.3-9).
Set out or “move out”: The meaning of the verb can be described as “move
off, journey further, resume their journey, march.” The verb form is the same as at the
end of 2.9 and in 9.17-18.
The camps that are on the south side: These are the camps of Reuben,
Simeon, and Gad (2.10-16). It is striking that only the most important sides are
mentioned: the east and the south. (The ancient Greek translation actually adds the
signals to the camps on the western and nothern sides.)
 Assembly: The Hebrew term here is not `edah (as in 10.2) but qahal. While
`edah refers to the entire national, legal and cultic society of Israel, qahal refers to the
assembly, the gathering (of the community). As a general rule, if the target language
allows for a distinction between the two, translators are recommended to reserve the
translation “community” for `edah and render qahal as “assembly,” “gathering,”
“congregation.” In the present section, however, the “community” (verses 2-3) and
the assembly (verse 7) are the same.
The following model is recommended. Part of it is based on CEV:
5-6 When you give a trumpet signal, the first blast will be the signal for the tribes

camped on the east side to set out, and the second blast will be the signal for those on
the south. A trumpet signal is to be given whenever they are to set out. 7 But when the
assembly is to be gathered together, you shall sound a different trumpet signal.

10.8
RSV
8
And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets. The trumpets shall
be to you for a perpetual statute throughout your generations.

GNT
8
The trumpets are to be blown by Aaron's sons, the priests.
“The following rule is to be observed for all time to come.

Blow: As in verses 3-4.

GNT treats the second part as the beginning of a new paragraph, connecting it
with what follows. But the Hebrew plural verb wehayu means “they shall be,” hence
the trumpets shall be. It does not say “it shall be” so there is no basis for GNT’s text
arrangement in the Hebrew. In fact, verse 8 seems to stand on its own as a hinge text
that refers to the instructions that have come before (verses 1-7) as well as those that
follow (verses 9-10).
Perpetual statute: For statute (chuqqah) see at 9.3. The expression
“perpetual statute,” or “lasting ordinance” (NIV), refers to a piece of divine legislation
that is especially important, like the Passover (Exodus 12), the day of Atonement
(Leviticus 16), and the heifer ritual (Numbers 19). It should therefore be translated
consistently on each of its occurrences.

10.9
RSV
9
And when you go to war in your land against the adversary who oppresses you,
then you shall sound an alarm with the trumpets, that you may be remembered
before the Lord your God, and you shall be saved from your enemies.

GNT
9
When you are at war in your land, defending yourselves against an enemy who
has attacked you, sound the signal for battle on these trumpets. I, the Lord your
God, will help you and save you from your enemies.

And when: Better, “When” (GNT); a new paragraph could begin here
(NJPSV).
You(r): The Hebrew has plural forms, which refer to the people of Israel.
In your land looks forward to the future when the land of Canaan will be
theirs.[< Sherwood 151]
 Against: In spite of GNT’s “defending … against,” the Hebrew only has
against. It is not made clear whether this would be a defense or a counter-attack.
Adversary: Most likely an “enemy” in a political and military, not an
individual, sense. Therefore, a plural or collective reference should be used.
Oppresses: Or “attacks,” “is hostile.” Both adversary and oppresses come
from the same Hebrew root, thus “oppressor who oppresses” or “attacker who
attacks.”
Sound an alarm with the trumpets: Following the discussion and model
given at verses 5-7, it is better to translate “give a trumpet signal,” as distinct from
“sound / blow the trumpet” in verses 3-4,8. (Here CEV has “give a warning signal on
the trumpets.”)
That you may be remembered before the Lord, your God: In many
languages, an active construction is more natural: “that the Lord, your God, may
remember you” or “hear you.” (Compare CEV: “Then I, the Lord, will hear it and
rescue you.” This translation reminds readers that it is the Lord in fact who is
speaking here.) Levine translates: “so that you will be brought to the attention of
…”[< Levine 306] as a way of bringing out the distinct nuance of the Hebrew
“remember.”

10.10
RSV
10
On the day of your gladness also, and at your appointed feasts, and at the
beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings
and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; they shall serve you for
remembrance before your God: I am the Lord your God.”

GNT
10
Also on joyful occasions — at your New Moon Festivals and your other religious
festivals — you are to blow the trumpets when you present your burnt offerings
and your fellowship offerings. Then I will help you. I am the Lord your God.”

And at your appointed feasts: The Hebrew “and” (waw) here is probably
explicative, “that is (to say), …” GNT simply uses two parenthetical dash markers.
Blow: As in verses 3-4, 8.
Burnt offerings: See at 6:11.
Sacrifices of your peace offerings: All this is in the plural. For a discussion
of “peace offering” see at 6.14.
Remembrance: Or “reminder / memorial.” But a reminder to whom? To the
people or to God? After verse 9, the second interpretation is the more likely. It is also
implied by GNT’s “Then I will help you.” NJPSV and REB provide a helpful model:
“They shall be a reminder of you [on your behalf] before your God.” Or similar to
DUCL: “Then I will be reminded of you” (though “remind” for which purpose may
still need to be specified, for example, “to help you” or “of your need / distress”).
I am the Lord your God: This divine disclosure (or self-identification)
formula marks the end of the large discourse unit that concludes at this point (7.1-
10.10). This important formula has occurred elsewhere in the legislative material of
the Pentateuch (e.g., Exo 6.2,7; 7.17; 14.4; 29.46; Lev 19.11; 18.2; 25.17) and should
be translated consistently on each occasion.

PART II: 10.11–21.35: FROM THE DESERT OF SINAI TO MOAB

This part of the book deals with the Israelites’ actual journey through the desert from
Sinai to the plains of Moab. As mentioned in the Introduction, this part of the book
can be divided into three:
II-A. From the Sinai to the wilderness of Paran (10.11–12.16)
II-B. Near the land of Canaan (13.1–20.13)
II-C. From Kadesh to the plains of Moab (20.14–21.35)
During the journey, at the end of both part A and B and in 21.4-9, Moses’
authority is opposed. These rebellions serve as object lessons regarding the results of
disobedience to God, which amounts to contamination with what is unholy. Even in
narrative texts such as these, the overriding concern is for Israel to remain holy to the
Lord and avoid any type of moral and spiritual contamination.

Part II-A: 10.11–12.16: From the Sinai to the wilderness of Paran

A typical narrative pattern in the Pentateuch is to begin with a short summary of the
account to come and then to give the details. Part II-A begins with a very short
summary of the journey from Sinai to Paran, near the Land of Canaan (10.11-12). The
same journey is then presented again in what follows, but in much greater detail
(10.13–12.16). Thus, the Israelites’ same encampment in the wilderness of Paran,
which was already mentioned in the summary (in 10.12), is mentioned again at the
end (in 12.16).
Part II-A consists of the following sections:
1. The Israelites break camp (10.11-36)
2. The people complain (11.1-35)
3. Miriam and Aaron oppose Moses’ authority (12.1-16)

10.11-36
Section Heading: “The Israelites Break Camp” (GNT) or, more specifically, “The
Israelites Leave Sinai” (NIV). The four camps of the tribes (one on each side of the
tent of meeting) set out on the march in the order that follows the instructions in
chapter 2. They will do so time and time again on their journey to Paran.
Alternatively, it is possible to apply this section heading to 10.11-28 only
(with a different section heading for verses 29-36). Verses 14-28 describe the
procedure with which the Israelite tribes break camp. Verses 29-36 deal with the
question who will guide the Israelites during this journey from Sinai. Some
translations have a section heading for verses 29-36 to make this clear: “Who will
guide the people?” (TOB); “Moses looks for a guide for the journey” (FRCL,
NBS02). The heading “God himself leads his people” (GECL) is probably the most
helpful model: it covers verses 29-36 and brings out why the passage was included at
this point in the book.
GNT’s section heading at verse 33—“The People Set Out”—is not helpful.
The tribes have already been setting out since verse 14! And a heading at verse 29, as
we just explained, leads to a clearer division between verses 14-28 (concerning the
procedure of breaking camp) and verses 29-36 (concerning guidance).

10.11-12
RSV
 11
In the second year, in the second month, on the twentieth day of the month,
the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle of the testimony, 12 and the
people of Israel set out by stages from the wilderness of Sinai; and the cloud
settled down in the wilderness of Paran.

GNT
11
On the twentieth day of the second month in the second year after the
people left Egypt, the cloud over the Tent of the Lord's presence lifted, 12 and the
Israelites started on their journey out of the Sinai Desert. The cloud came to rest
in the wilderness of Paran.

This opening paragraph gives a summary of what is to come in 10.13-12.16, as

explained above. Chronologically, then, 10.13-12.16 does not follow after this
opening paragraph, but overlaps it. If this is not understood, the reader will draw the
wrong conclusion that the people arrived in Paran (10.13) before they came to
Kibroth-Hattaavah and Hazeroth (11.35) and somehow went back to Paran again
(12.16)! (We will return to this below.)
In the second year, in the second month, on the twentieth day of the
month: See at 1.1, where the first day of this month was mentioned. It is the second
year since the Exodus from Egypt. GNT makes this explicit: “the second year after
the people left Egypt.” It is only here in 10.11, after the section on rituals and the
system of worship has been completed (7.1-10.10), that the narrative returns to the
second month of the second year. Again, a footnote may be necessary to clarify the
chronology, the connection with 1.1, and the fact that the people had not moved from
the region of Sinai since that time.
The cloud was taken up uses a passive verb form. The cloud did not rise by
its own power. As mentioned at 9.17, a rendering like “lifted” (GNT) or “moved on”
(CEV) may give that wrong impression.
The tabernacle of the testimony: As an alternative to GNT, translators are
encouraged to render the Hebrew hammishkan ha`edut more precisely. This phrase
already occurs in 1.50. See the discussion there.
Set out by stages: The meaning of the verb set out can be described as “move
off, journey further, march,” as at the end of 2.9 and in 9.17-18. By stages reflects the
Hebrew mas`ehem “their marches, departures.” In this way the Hebrew refers to a
series of daily marches, journeying further and further away from Sinai, to the
wilderness of Paran. This is why GNT translates “started on their journey.” (“Broke
camp” would only have referred to the first departure, the one from Sinai.) Still more
clearly, NLT translates “set out … and traveled on from place to place.”
The cloud settled down …: GECL divides this into two parts: “The cloud led
them to the desert of Paran; there it settled down.” CEV translates “And some time
later, the cloud stopped in the Paran Desert.” In some languages there may be no other
way to express that this was a journey in stages which took time, and that the
wilderness in Paran was the end of this part of the journey, not the beginning! It may
therefore be better to translate: “The cloud would lead them to the wilderness of
Paran, where it would stop.” At the same time it would probably be helpful to put this
sentence in brackets. This would help to show that Paran is not mentioned in its
chronological place but refers only to the end of this part of the journey (see 12.16).
Wilderness: See at 1.1.
Paran: The wilderness of Paran was probably to the south of the land of
Canaan. 12.16 implies that Paran was in the northern part of the Sinai peninsula: it
was not too far from Canaan and to the west of the territory of the Midianites (see 1
Kgs 11.18). Under normal cicumstances it should have taken the people only a few
months to journey to Canaan, their final destination.

10.13
RSV
13
They set out for the first time at the command of the Lord by Moses.

GNT
13
They began to march at the command of the Lord through Moses,

Chronologically, 10.13-12.16 does not follow after the summary of 10.11-12,

but overlaps it in time. RSV and GNT do not bring this out. The following model
indicates more clearly that verse 13 does not move on in time but begins to explain
10.11-12 in more detail: “It was the first time that they set off on their journey at the
command of the Lord given through Moses.” (similar to TOB and REB). The
translation should not suggest, however, that when they broke camp on earlier
occasions, this had been without permission. CEV avoids that wrong suggestion and
translates: “This was the first time the Lord had told Moses to command the people of
Israel to move on.”

10.14-16
RSV
14
The standard of the camp of the men of Judah set out first by their companies;
and over their host was Nahshon the son of Amminadab. 15 And over the host of
the tribe of the men of Issachar was Nethanel the son of Zuar. 16 And over the
host of the tribe of the men of Zebulun was Eliab the son of Helon.

GNT
14
and each time they moved, they were in the same order. Those under the
banner of the division led by the tribe of Judah started out first, company by
company, with Nahshon son of Amminadab in command. 15 Nethanel son of Zuar
was in command of the tribe of Issachar, 16 and Eliab son of Helon was in
command of the tribe of Zebulun.

The four camps set out in the order that follows the instructions in chapter 2.
GNT has included this explanation in the translation (even though the Hebrew does
not): “and each time they moved, they were in the same order.”
The standard of the camp of the men of Judah: See 2.3. It is of course not
just the standard or “banner” itself that set out, but the three tribes under this banner.
“Those under the banner of the division led by the tribe of Judah” (GNT) and “those
following the standard of the clan of Judah” (Chewa) make this explicit. The
instructions concerning the camp of Judah of 2.3-9 are carried out here. To this camp
belonged the tribes of Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, which were encamped on the east
side (2.3). On standard see at 1.52.
Set out first: This is to be understood as repetitive; it is not just about one
change of camp but about many. The instruction was given in 2.9. The meaning of the
verb can be described as “move off, set out, journey further, march.” The translation
should fit the context of a camp, or place where temporary, protective shelters/tents
are located.
By their companies: Literally “by their troops.” See at 1.3 and 1.52. Chewa
translates: “group by group.”
 Over their host: As in 2.4, the Hebrew word is tsava’ (in the singular): “his
troop.” In some languages it will be unnecessary to use this expression, hence GNT:
“with Nahshon … in command.” Chewa translates: “and their leader was Nahshon
…”
Tribe: As discussed at 1.4, a tribe (matteh), the largest social unit in the
nation, was composed of several clans, which, in turn, were composed of several
families or houses.

10.17
RSV
17
And when the tabernacle was taken down, the sons of Gershon and the sons
of Merari, who carried the tabernacle, set out.

GNT
17
Then the Tent would be taken down, and the clans of Gershon and Merari,
who carried it, would start out.

In 2.17 the camp of the Levites was in central position. In this way the Levites
form a protective barrier around the tent of meeting, thus separating the tent from the
lay tribes both for camping and for marching. At that point no distinction was made
between the positions of the different Levite clans. But that is changed here in chapter
10. During a march the Gershonite and Merarite clans, who carried the tabernacle,
are not positioned in the middle between the second and third camp, but already
between the first camp of Judah (verses 14-16) and the second camp of Reuben
(verses 18-20). In this way these Levite clans were already in a position to set up the
tent of meeting at the next camping site in time before the holy objects themselves
would arrive, carried by the Kohathites (verse 21). The place of most of these objects
was inside the tent. Thus, chapter 10 is more specific about this than chapter 2,
probably because the text is now more concerned with the details of the marching
from site to site.[< Budd 110]
Who carried the tabernacle: This summarizes the duties mentioned in 3.25-
26; 4.25-26 (for the Gershonites) and in 3.36-37; 4.31-32 (for the Merarites). As in
1.50-51 and elsewhere, RSV renders tabernacle where the Hebrew has mishkan
“dwelling-place.” This can certainly be rendered “tent,” “holy tent” (or “tent of
God”), because it corresponds with the tent in 1.1, a temporary shelter.
Was taken down … set out: These verbs are to be understood as repetitive,
hence “would be taken down … would start out” (GNT).

10.18-20
RSV
18
And the standard of the camp of Reuben set out by their companies; and over
their host was Elizur the son of Shedeur. 19 And over the host of the tribe of the
men of Simeon was Shelumi-el the son of Zurishaddai. 20 And over the host of the
tribe of the men of Gad was Eliasaph the son of Deuel.

GNT
18
Next, those under the banner of the division led by the tribe of Reuben would
start out, company by company, with Elizur son of Shedeur in command. 19
Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai was in command of the tribe of Simeon, 20 and
Eliasaph son of Deuel was in command of the tribe of Gad.
 GNT is correct in beginning a new paragraph at verse 18. This paragraph is
not related to verse 17 any more than verses 14-16.
Set out: This is to be understood as repetitive, hence “would start out” (GNT).
The instructions that are carried out here were given in 2.10-16. To this second camp
belonged the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, which were encamped on the south
side (2.10). According to 2.16 they were to set out second. Although this is not
repeated here, GNT makes it explicit at the beginning of this paragraph: “Next.” In
many languages this will make the translation more natural as well as clear.

10.21
RSV
21
Then the Kohathites set out, carrying the holy things, and the tabernacle was
set up before their arrival.

GNT
21
Then the Levite clan of Kohath would start out, carrying the sacred objects.
By the time they arrived at the next camp, the Tent had been set up again.

Set out: This is to be understood as repetitive, hence “would start out” (GNT).
Carrying the holy things: This summarizes the Kohathites’ duties mentioned
in 3.31; 4.4, 15.
The holy things: The Hebrew has miqdash. This term can refer not only to the
“Holy Place,” the inner sanctuary (as in 3.38) but also to “the best, most holy part” (as
in 18.29). The holy things or “the sacred objects” were already specified in 3.31: the
ark, the table, the lampstand, and the altars, among others. But where was the ark
located during the marches? According to verse 33 it seems as if the Lord’s Covenant
Box was being carried out in front, leading the procession of people.
Was set up: This is also to be understood as repetitive: “would be set up
again” (NJPSV). The Hebrew literally has “they set up,” “they erected.” Both RSV
and GNT (“had been set up”) make clear that this does not anymore refer to the
Kohathites but to others. (GNT’s “had been set up” also brings out that this had
already been done before the Kohathites arrived with the holy objects.) In some
languages all this may have to be made explicit as follows: “the other Levites would
have set up …”
Before their arrival: That is, before the arrival of the Kohathites with the
sacred objects. See the discussion at verse 17.

10.22-24
RSV
22
And the standard of the camp of the men of Ephraim set out by their
companies; and over their host was Elishama the son of Ammihud. 23 And over
24
the host of the tribe of the men of Manasseh was Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur.
And over the host of the tribe of the men of Benjamin was Abidan the son of
Gideoni.

GNT
22
Next, those under the banner of the division led by the tribe of Ephraim
would start out, company by company, with Elishama son of Ammihud in
command. 23 Gamaliel son of Pedahzur was in command of the tribe of Manasseh,
24
and Abidan son of Gideoni was in command of the tribe of Benjamin.
 GNT is correct in beginning a new paragraph at verse 22. This paragraph is
not related to verse 21 any more than verses 18-20.
Set out: This is to be understood as repetitive, hence “would start out” (GNT).
The instructions that are carried out here were given in 2.18-24. To this third camp
belonged the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, which were encamped on
the west side of the tent of meeting (2.18). According to 2.24 they were to set out
third. Although this is nor repeated here, GNT makes it explicit at the beginning of
this paragraph: “Next.” In many languages this will make the translation more natural
as well as clear.

10.25-27
RSV
25
Then the standard of the camp of the men of Dan, acting as the rear guard
of all the camps, set out by their companies; and over their host was Ahiezer the
son of Ammishaddai. 26 And over the host of the tribe of the men of Asher was
Pagiel the son of Ochran. 27 And over the host of the tribe of the men of Naphtali
was Ahira the son of Enan.

GNT
25
Finally, those under the banner of the division led by the tribe of Dan,
serving as the rearguard of all the divisions, would start out, company by
company, with Ahiezer son of Ammishaddai in command. 26 Pagiel son of Ochran
was in command of the tribe of Asher, 27 and Ahira son of Enan was in command
of the tribe of Naphtali.

Acting as the rear guard: This may give the wrong suggestion that these
tribes were not the real rearguard but only acted as such. Renderings like “serving as
the rearguard” (GNT) or “forming the rearguard” avoid this problem. In some
languages “forming the last division/camp” may be easier to understand.
Set out: This is to be understood as repetitive, hence “would start out” (GNT).
The instructions that are carried out here were given in 2.25-31. To this fourth and last
camp belonged the tribes of Dan, Asher, and Naphtali, which were encamped on the
north side (2.25). According to 2.31 they were to set out last. GNT makes this explicit
at the beginning of the paragraph: “Finally.” In many languages this will make the
translation more natural as well as clear.

10.28
RSV
28
This was the order of march of the people of Israel according to their hosts,
when they set out.

GNT
28
This, then, was the order of march, company by company, whenever the
Israelites broke camp and set out.

This was: At the beginning of the verse, the Hebrew does not refer to the past;
it has no verb at this point. In some languages it may be possible and more natural to
follow this Hebrew construction and employ a present tense construction. “This, then,
…” (GNT) makes explicit in English that the verse does not introduce a new topic but
summarizes the preceding verses 13-27.
 Order of march: As in verse 12, this reflects the Hebrew mas`im “marches,
departures.” In this way the Hebrew refers to the arrangement of the tribal camps in
the daily marches, as they journey further and further away from Sinai.
According to their host: Literally “by their troops.” RSV translated this as
“by their companies” in verse 14 (see there). GNT is more consistent and has
“company by company” both here and in verse 14.
When they set out: In most languages a translation with a past tense form will
be needed here. When and especially “whenever” bring out that this is to be
understood as repetitive.
The following models are recommended: “Such was the order of march of the
Israelites, as they marched troop by troop.” (NJPSV); “These, then, are the marching
arrangements for the people of Israel, as they moved camp troop by troop.”

10.29-36
This section is placed here to point out that the Lord, not a human guide, will lead the
Israelites on their journey. It may be given its own section heading: “Who will guide
the people?” (TOB); “God himself leads his people” (GECL). See the discussion
above at 10.11-36.

10.29
RSV
29
And Moses said to Hobab the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses' father-in-
law, “We are setting out for the place of which the Lord said, ‘I will give it to you’;
come with us, and we will do you good; for the Lord has promised good to
Israel.”

GNT
29
Moses said to his brother-in-law Hobab son of Jethro the Midianite, “We are
about to start out for the place which the Lord said he would give us. He has
promised to make Israel prosperous, so come with us, and we will share our
prosperity with you.”

And: It is recommended (with GNT and NRSV) to leave this out. Instead,
some natural marker of a new narrative beginning in the language may be used.
Chronologically these verses do not come after verse 28 but they overlap in time with
the preceding verses 14-28. Both passages start with the first camp movement. This is
clear from verse 33 (“they set out from the mount of the Lord”) as well as verse 14.
Hobab the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law: It is Reuel
who is Moses’ father-in-law, not Hobab. To avoid confusion about this, the phrase
may have to be rearranged in translation, for instance as follows: “Hobab the son of
Moses’ father-in-law, Reuel the Midianite” or “Hobab the son of his Midianite father-
in-law, Reuel” (FRCL and similarly GECL). Note that the target language may have a
specific term for “father-in-law.” Moses invited his brother-in-law Hobab to
accompany Israel on their journey through Canaan. But the Hebrew makes a point of
connecting Moses and Hobab through Moses’ father-in-law, who is already known
from Exodus. GNT (“his brother-in-law …”) only mentions who Hobab’s father is but
does not at all show that the text actually refers to Moses’ father-in-law here. This is
one reason why we cannot recommend GNT as a model. Reuel was discussed in the
Handbook on Exodus at 2:18. GNT does not use the name Reuel but identifies him –
here and in Exodus – as “Jethro” on the grounds that it is the more familiar name of
Moses’ father-in-law. We cannot recommend this either, since the two different
names probably go back to different traditions concerning this person and his
background. (We here have a complex combination of names and the commentators
are not agreed as to how to interpret the relationships involved.[< Milgrom 78] As
narrated in Exodus 18, his father-in-law had given valuable advice about organizing
the people.) Verse 29 here is the only place in Numbers where Moses’ father-in-law is
mentioned, so there will not be any problem in rendering Reuel at this point.
Midianite refers to the land of Midian from which Reuel came. It does not mean that
Reuel was a descendant of Midian. In some languages it will be necessary to translate
“from Midian” (DUCL) or “from the land of Midian” to make this clear.
Are setting out or “are about to start out”: As before, the meaning of the verb
“set out” can be described as “move off, journey further, march.” Since this verb is a
key term in this chapter, it would be advisable to translate it consistently, if this is
natural in the target language. GNT shows that this is said at the beginning of the
journey. NBV translates “we now depart.”
Place refers to a large area, not just to a specific town or village. NBV has
“area/region.” FRCL, GECL and DUCL even translate “land,” “country.”
I will give it to you: you is a plural form in Hebrew and refers to the
Israelites. This short sentence is a quotation of what the Lord said. The direct speech
has been changed to indirect speech in GNT: “he would give us.” In some languages
the indirect speech is more natural here, while in many others the direct speech will be
more natural.
Do you good: you is singular and addresses Hobab. GNT has “share our
prosperity with you”. However, the renderings “be generous with you” (NJPSV) and
“treat you well” (NET) are more accurate.
For the Lord has promised good to Israel: This clause mentions a reason.
GNT has moved it away from the end of the verse, which may be a useful model for
other languages. In the Hebrew, promised good to Israel is literally “spoken good
about Israel,” and the words meaning good in the last two phrases are of the same
root. If possible, this connection between the two phrases should be kept intact by
translating these words in a similar way.

10.30
RSV
30
But he said to him, “I will not go; I will depart to my own land and to my
kindred.”

GNT
30
Hobab answered, “No, I am going back to my native land.”

But: The Hebrew has no “but” here. However, in some languages it will be
needed to connect verse 30 to verse 29 in a natural way. Hobab apparently refuses to
come with the Israelites.
He said to him: Instead of only using pronouns (as in the Hebrew), many
languages would specify at least one of the persons involved. GNT is an example:
“Hobab answered.”
Depart: The Hebrew just has “go.”
To my own land and to my kindred: Instead of to my own land, “to my
native land” (GNT) brings out that the text does not refer to Hobab’s property, but to
his country. Kindred translates a word meaning “relatives” and refers to all those
related by both blood and marriage. In Hebrew the two terms are a case of the type of
expression that is called hendiadys, in which a single idea is expressed by two phrases
joined by a conjunction, where the one phrase qualifies the other. GNT does not take
this stylistic feature into account. A better model for this verse, based on REB and
NLT, would be: “But Hobab replied, ‘No, I will not go. I must return to my own
country and my own people/family.’” In some languages it will be natural to translate
with plural forms: “… to our place where our relatives live” (Chewa).

10.31-32
RSV
31
And he said, “Do not leave us, I pray you, for you know how we are to encamp
in the wilderness, and you will serve as eyes for us. 32 And if you go with us,
whatever good the Lord will do to us, the same will we do to you.”

GNT
31
“Please don't leave us,” Moses said. “You know where we can camp in the
wilderness, and you can be our guide. 32 If you come with us, we will share with
you all the blessings that the Lord gives us.”

I pray you: “I beg you” (REB) and “please” are better renderings of the
Hebrew na, which serves to underline the request made to Hobab.
Serve as eyes for us: GNT renders this Hebrew expression as “be our guide.”
Moses does not seem to trust in the Lord, who had promised that the cloud would
guide the people on their journey (verse 34 and 9.15-23). This lack of trust on Moses’
part becomes a theme in Numbers from this point.
Good: The Hebrew word is of the same root as at the end of verse 29.
The text does not give Hobab’s response to these verses’ second invitation.
The text only wants to point out that the Lord, not a human guide, will lead the
Israelites on their journey.

10.33-34
RSV
33
So they set out from the mount of the Lord three days' journey; and the ark
of the covenant of the Lord went before them three days' journey, to seek out a
resting place for them. 34 And the cloud of the Lord was over them by day,
whenever they set out from the camp.

GNT
33
When the people left Sinai, the holy mountain, they travelled for three days.
The Lord's Covenant Box always went ahead of them to find a place for them to
camp. 34 As they moved on from each camp, the cloud of the Lord was over them
by day.

GNT has a section heading at verse 33: “The People Set Out.” But see the
discussion above at 10.11-36. Verses 33-34 make it clear again that it is not Hobab
who guides the Israelites on their journey.
Set out: This refers only to the first departure, the one from Sinai.
Ark of the covenant: As mentioned at 4.5, the ark was a wooden chest. The
text of the covenant, the two stone tablets displaying the ten commandments were
kept in the ark (the covenant chest) as a testimony and reminder of the Lord’s
faithfulness to his people. In some languages it will be very awkward to say that the
covenant chest “went … to find a place …,” since it is only an object. CEV makes the
carriers of the ark explicit and reads: “… the Levites who carried the sacred chest led
the way, so the Lord could show them where to camp.” In a number of other
languages and cultures, however, this notion would not be strange at all; for example,
this is what is believed to happen at certain central African funerals, when the casket
of a person killed through sorcery mysteriously directs its bearers to the location of
the guilty party. In fact, in such situations a footnote may be needed to counteract any
conflicting or potentially confusing traditional religious beliefs.
Went before them: if taken literally, this would contradict 10.21, where it is
said that the holy things – that is, including the ark – travelled in the middle of the
march. GNT’s “went ahead of them” makes the main point clear: both the ark and the
cloud guided the Israelites.
Whenever they set out: This is to be understood as repetitive again.

10.35-36
RSV
35
And whenever the ark set out, Moses said, “Arise, O Lord, and let thy
enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee.” 36 And when
it rested, he said, “Return, O Lord, to the ten thousand thousands of Israel.”

GNT
35
Whenever the Covenant Box started out, Moses would say, “Arise, Lord;
scatter your enemies and put to flight those who hate you!”* 36 And whenever it
stopped, he would say, “Return, Lord, to the thousands of families of Israel.”a

a Return…Israel; or: Return, Lord, you who are like an army of millions for Israel.

Ancient Jewish scribes had these two verses preceded and followed by the
Hebrew letter nun in inverted form. Perhaps this indicated that these verses originally
occurred in a different place in this text, a suggestion already made in works by early
Jewish rabbis.[< Tov 1992:54-55 and 2012:51] Perhaps these verses were taken from
another text.[< Levine 318] Translators are recommended to keep these verses in their
present place, but to treat them as a separate paragraph. Of the ancient translations,
only the Greek Septuagint places these verses elsewhere (before verse 34).
And: This is not meant to suggest that verses 35-36 took place only after
verses 33-34. In some languages it is better to leave it out in translation.
Whenever the ark set out … when it rested: This is, of course, to be
understood as repetitive. Again, in some languages it will be very awkward to say that
the covenant chest set out and rested. But CEV’s solution to this problem goes too
far. It does not even mention the ark anymore: “Each day as the Israelites began their
journey …” A translation should bring out that the ark – not only the cloud in verse
34 – marks the Lord’s presence with his people. (1 Samuel 4-6 shows that this chest
was regarded as a portable throne on which God sat while fighting Israel’s enemies.)
So a better model for such languages would be: “Whenever the ark was ready for the
journey,” or “Whenever the ark was about to be moved / transported” (similar to
DUCL). In the same way when it rested could be rendered “when the ark was set
down” (NLT).
Arise: “Advance” (NJPSV) or “Attack” (Levine) may stylistically be a better
alternative.
Let thy enemies be scattered: It is implied that the Lord should do this. GNT
brings this out with an imperative: “scatter your enemies.” Similarly, CEV has “defeat
your enemies.” Moses’ whole request to the Lord is very similar to Psalm 68:1.
 Flee before thee: In some languages “flee at your approach” (REB) may be a
better model.
Return, Lord, to: It is possible to understand the Hebrew phrase in this way
(the Lord returning to the ten thousands of Israel). This suggests the notion of a “holy
war” (footnote in NET) and that the Lord was coming back from a battle against the
enemies without the Israelite army being involved in it.[< Knierim & Coats 167] CEV
may be a natural way to render an alternative interpretation: “Our Lord, stay close to
Israel’s thousands and thousands of people,” that is, protect them from all hostile
forces. The Hebrew actually lacks the preposition, and reads: “Return, Lord, ten
thousand thousands of Israel.” Similarly to NJPSV, GNT’s note shows one way of
connecting “return, Lord” to the rest of the sentence: “Return, Lord, you who are like
…” But this rendering seems quite speculative. NRSV is a better way of following the
Hebrew closely: “Return, O Lord of the ten thousand thousands of Israel.”
Ten thousand thousands of Israel: GECL (“countless multitudes of Israel”)
as well as NIV and REB (“countless thousands of Israel”) show the main point of this.
NJPSV puts it in a more poetic way: “Israel’s myriads of thousands.” Thousands: As
discussed at 1.16, the Hebrew term actually refers to divisions in a tribe, more
specifically, to military contingents. A rendering like “families” (GNT) certainly takes
the reader away from the military meaning of the term. Again, a rendering similar to
NRSV is recommended: “Return, O Lord of the ten thousand thousands of Israel” or,
better still, “Return, O Lord of the tens of thousands of armies/militias of Israel.”

11.1-35
Section Heading for this chapter: “The People Complain” (NBV) or “The Israelites
Complain” (CEV, NET). This heading highlights that the picture of Israel’s total
obedience in the preceding chapters is about to shift abruptly to the repeated
rebellions beginning in chapter 11. That includes their leader, Moses. The themes of
food, leadership, complaining and punishment alternate or overlap throughout this
chapter. Thus, it is possible to apply this section heading to 11.1-3, with different
section headings for the verses that follow. If this is done, it may be instructive to use
a similar heading again, for example: “The People Complain Again.”
This is what GNT has:

11.1-3 The Place Named Taberah

11.4-30 Moses Chooses Seventy Leaders
11.31-35 The Lord Sends Quails

CEV divides 11.4-30 into two:

11.1-3 The Israelites Complain

11.4-15 The People Grumble about Being Hungry
11.16-30 Seventy Leaders Are Chosen To Help Moses.
11.31-35 The Lord Sends Quails

These headings for smaller sections will be discussed and evaluated below.

11.1-3
RSV
 1 And the people complained in the hearing of the Lord about their
misfortunes; and when the Lord heard it, his anger was kindled, and the fire of
the Lord burned among them, and consumed some outlying parts of the camp. 2
Then the people cried to Moses; and Moses prayed to the Lord, and the fire
abated. 3 So the name of that place was called Taberah,e because the fire of the
Lord burned among them.

GNT
1 The people began to complain to the Lord about their troubles. When the
Lord heard them, he was angry and sent fire on the people. It burnt among them
and destroyed one end of the camp. 2 The people cried out to Moses for help; he
prayed to the Lord, and the fire died down. 3 So the place was named Taberah,a
because there the fire of the Lord burnt among them.

GNT gives these three verses a section heading of their own: “The Place
Named Taberah”. But this does not show that the people’s first complaint and
rebellion in the book begins here. After only three days on the march, they were
already upset and ready to blame the Lord again for their hardships as they saw them.
So this is a significant turning point that needs to be marked much more clearly. Even
just for verses 1-3 a heading such as “The Israelites Complain” (CEV) or “The First
Rebellion” is much more helpful since it highlights the new theme of rebellion in this
and following chapters of the book. The episode of verses 1-3 is only told very briefly
as a summary; the pattern of repeated rebellion is more important than the event
itself.[<Sherwood 153]
Complained: It is uncertain whether the Hebrew construction implies “were
complaining, continued to complain” (similar to Levine) or “began to complain” (as
in GNT and the majority of translations). Whichever sounds more natural in
translation may be used in this case.
Complained in the hearing of the Lord about their misfortunes: RSV,
GNT and NIV interpret the Hebrew ra` to mean “misfortunes” (NIV: “hardships”).
But ra` would probably not combine in this way with this verb “complain” in
Hebrew. KJV, NET, TOB and NBJ98 interpret ra` similarly but connect it with what
follows: “… a lament evil in the ears of Yahweh” (NBJ98); “And when the people
complained, it displeased the Lord” (NET); “… which the Lord heard with
displeasure” (TOB). But a phrase “evil in the ears [not the eyes] of the Lord” occurs
nowhere else in Biblical Hebrew. It seems more likely that ra` functions here as an
adverb with the meaning “badly, bitterly.” This is found in quite a number of
translations, for example NJPSV: “The people took to complaining bitterly before the
Lord.” There is, however, still one other problem. Both NJPSV and GNT give the
wrong suggestion that the people complained and prayed directly to the Lord. But the
people were not trying to communicate with him. The Hebrew construction seems to
imply that the Lord overheard them: “within earshot of the Lord” (in the hearing of
the Lord). The following translation, then, is recommended as a model: “The people
complained (were complaining) bitterly, in the hearing of the Lord.”
The fire of the Lord: Some think that this is a reference to lightning, but other
places where this expression is used (for example, Lev 10.2) suggest that this is a
supernatural, not a natural phenomenon. There was an actual fire that consumed
things, leading to the name that was given to that place.
Some outlying parts of the camp: This and “one end of the camp” (GNT)
both suggest that the Hebrew specifies how many outlying parts were touched by the
fire. But the Hebrew merely has “ravaging the outskirts of the camp” (NJPSV)
without specifying how many outlying parts of it. This would imply that an
unspecified number of people died during this divine act. The outskirts of the camp
were seen as a boundary area where danger and impurity lurk and threaten the
community (see Lev 14.8 and Num 5,1-4).[< Mary Douglas]
Cried: Or “appealed” (NJB). The Hebrew verb implies that they “cried for
help” (GNT) or “screamed for help” (NLT).
The fire abated: This would imply that the fire was still burning. Sooner or
later the fire probably went out completely, and in some languages it may be
necessary to state this explicitly.
Taberah: The note in RSV gives the meaning: “burning”. It is recommended
to include this meaning in a note or within the translation itself, as in DUCL
(“Taberah: Burning”). In Hebrew it is related to a root meaning “to burn, consume,
scorch.” In this way the place name becomes a memory of the Lord’s punishment for
the people’s rebellion as well as a warning to the people not to repeat their offense
(which they did anyway).

11.4-30
Section Heading: This second rebellion story combines the provision of manna and
quail (Exodus 16) with Moses’ need for additional leaders (Exodus 18).[< Olson 64]
The section heading in GNT only deals with the need for additional leaders: “Moses
Chooses Seventy Leaders.” But this response only comes after the complaint of the
people as well as of Moses himself. It would be better to combine the two elements in
one heading or include headings in different places. This is what CEV has:
11.4-15 The people grumble about being hungry
11.16-30 Seventy leaders are chosen to help Moses

11.4-6
RSV
4 Now the rabble that was among them had a strong craving; and the people
of Israel also wept again, and said, “O that we had meat to eat! 5 We remember
the fish we ate in Egypt for nothing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the
onions, and the garlic; 6 but now our strength is dried up, and there is nothing at
all but this manna to look at.”

GNT
4 There were some foreigners travelling with the Israelites. They had a strong
craving for meat, and even the Israelites themselves began to complain: “If only
we could have some meat! 5 In Egypt we used to eat all the fish we wanted, and
it cost us nothing. Remember the cucumbers, the watermelons, the leeks, the
onions, and the garlic we had? 6 But now our strength is gone. There is nothing
at all to eat — nothing but this manna day after day!”

Now: The Hebrew text seems to imply that this second incident of
complaining happened immediately or soon after the “burning” at Taberah. This
would only highlight the people’s hard-heartedness: they could not learn their lessons
from the Lord.
Rabble: Perhaps this refers to the non-Israelites who joined the Israelites
when they went out of Egypt (the “mixed crowd” in Exo 12.38), hence the rendering
“some foreigners” in GNT. The Hebrew asafsuf here in verse 4 implies something
inferior, literally “people gathered together”. Renderings such as rabble, “riffraff”
(NJPSV) or “troublemakers” express this well. In many languages a double
translation will be possible: “the rabble of strangers” (NBV, WV95). An alternative is
to combine RSV and GNT: “the rabble that was travelling with the Israelites.”
Wept again: The Hebrew yashuvu indicates that the Israelites wept again.
GNT’s rendering “began to” is inaccurate. Wept is used in the sense of whine,
“complain.”
Oh that we had: This expresses a strong wish on the part of the people. If
possible, some of their negative, resentful attitude should be shown in the translation
of these verses. In Egypt they had been living as oppressed slaves.
Melons: More precisely “water melons” (NBV). For all the food items
mentioned here, the closest equivalents in the target language should be used.
Our strength is dried up: An idiomatic reference to dehydration. A more
concrete rendering is “Our throats are dry” (Levine). The Hebrew nefesh used here
may designate the interior of the thorax. Translators are encouraged to use an idiom
which is natural in the target language. An example from Chewa: “In our necks it has
dried out.”
Manna: This is the first time this is mentioned in Numbers, but the reader is
clearly expected to know about manna already. The biblical text introduces it for the
first time in Exo 16.14-15, 31-35, and this cross-reference ought to be given. See the
Handbook on Exodus at Exo 16.14, 31. GNT well expresses the frustrated, disgusted
attitude of the people. The target language will undoubtedly have a way of expressing
this same connotation.

11.7-9
RSV
7 Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of
bdellium. 8 The people went about and gathered it, and ground it in mills or beat
it in mortars, and boiled it in pots, and made cakes of it; and the taste of it was
like the taste of cakes baked with oil. 9 When the dew fell upon the camp in the
night, the manna fell with it.

GNT
(7 Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of
bdellium. 8 The people went about and gathered it, and ground it in mills or beat
it in mortars, and boiled it in pots, and made cakes of it; and the taste of it was
like the taste of cakes baked with oil. 9 When the dew fell upon the camp in the
night, the manna fell with it.)

This description of manna in verses 7-9 interrupts the narrative. This is why
GNT has put this paragraph in brackets. It is like a comment describing the manna
which was mentioned at the end of verse 6. It is a reminder that the Lord has been
faithfully providing food to eat all along their journey from Egypt. There was no
starvation. The paragraph tells about an event that happened every day.
Coriander seed: As the Handbook on Exodus mentions at Exo 16.31, this
describes the size and shape of the manna, but not the color or taste. (The taste is
described in the next verse.) Exo 16.31 describes the color of the manna as white.
(Coriander is a small herbal plant that actually produces small brown seeds.) In areas
where the coriander plant is unknown, one may express the size and color as GNT
does in Exo 16.31: “it was like a small white seed.” Chewa provides an example:
“The manna was like millet seed[s], and it looked like [whitish] birdlime” [which was
made from a certain tree resin].”
 Its appearance: Its look; more specifically, its “color” (NRSV, NET, NBV)
or “texture” (Levine).
Bdellium: As the Handbook on Genesis mentions at Gen 2.12, this is a
fragrant yellowish gum resin obtained by making cuts in the bark of a bush grown
principally in South Arabia. This balsamic gum resin was used as a perfume and said
to have soothing medical properties.
Ground it in mills or beat it in mortars: Some languages (like Chewa) will
have rather close local equivalents for “mills” and “mortars,” but other languages may
need to use descriptive phrases, for example, “grinding stones” (see the Handbook on
Exodus at 11.5) or “a stone for pounding/crushing grain.”
Cakes: These were round and flat, perhaps something like scones, but
certainly not “thin wafers” (CEV).
Like the taste of cakes baked with oil: The Hebrew construction is rather
awkward here, which is reproduced in RSV and GNT. In any case, the “oil” being
referred to is of course fresh “olive oil.” Exodus 16.31 describes manna as tasting like
honey (see the Handbook on Exodus).
Taken together the statements in RSV and GNT in verse 7 will not make sense
to many readers. The following models are recommended instead: “Now the manna
was like coriander seed, and in color it was like bdellium.” (NJPSV).
More explicitly in NLT: “The manna looked like small coriander seeds, and it
was pale yellow like gum resin.” Likewise GECL and FRCL: “Manna had the form of
coriander seeds and looked whitish like bdellium resin.”
The manna fell with it: The translation should not imply that the manna was
all wet with dew when it came down or when it was gathered. The text is simply
describing the time (early morning) and the manner (spread out over the ground) in
which the manna would appear every day.

11.10
RSV
10 Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families, every man at
the door of his tent; and the anger of the Lord blazed hotly, and Moses was
displeased.

GNT
10 Moses heard all the people complaining as they stood about in groups at
the entrances of their tents. He was distressed because the Lord was angry with
them,

This verse continues the narrative after the complaint of the rabble and the
Israelites in verses 4-6. Many languages will have a special way of linking up the
story line with what has gone before, that is, after the digression about manna in
verses 7-9, for example, by means of a demonstrative back-reference (“Now Moses
heard those people…”).
Throughout their families: The word mishpachah occurs here in the Hebrew.
As has been explained at 1.2, a more accurate rendering than families in English is
“clans.” GNT’s “stood about in groups” seems to suggest that the clans actually stood
together in groups, but the Hebrew does not indicate this. NJPSV provides a better
model for this part of the verse: “Moses heard the people weeping, every clan apart,
each person at the entrance of his tent.” This “weeping” was, as already indicated, not
due to sorrow, but in bitter complaint against the Lord.
 And the anger of the Lord blazed hotly, and Moses was displeased: On the
face of it, RSV understands these to be two separate reactions to the complaint of the
people at the beginning of the verse. What exactly was Moses displeased about?
- In GNT Moses’ distress is a reaction to the anger of the Lord, not to the
people’s complaint.
- In some translations, Moses is displeased about the people’s complaint:
“Moses also was displeased” (KJV, similarly NLT, supported by Noth[<Noth
86]).
- In the following model Moses reacts to both the people’s complaint and the
Lord’s anger: “When Moses heard the people weeping, every clan apart, each
person at the entrance of his tent, and the anger of the Lord blazed hotly, he
[Moses] was distressed …” (based on WV95 and NFB). In a different way,
CEV seems to express this idea as well: “The Israelites stood around their
tents complaining. Moses heard them and was upset that they had made the
[Lord] angry.”
- Because no strong case can be made for one interpretation over another, the
translator may have to leave the links between clauses in this verse more
ambiguous: “Moses heard the people weeping in complaint, every clan apart
and each person at the entrance of his tent. Then the anger of the Lord burned
hotly, and Moses was distressed.”

11.11-15
RSV
11 Moses said to the Lord, “Why hast thou dealt ill with thy servant? And why
have I not found favor in thy sight, that thou dost lay the burden of all this people
upon me? 12 Did I conceive all this people? Did I bring them forth, that thou
shouldst say to me, ‘Carry them in your bosom, as a nurse carries the sucking
child,’ to the land which thou didst swear to give their fathers? 13 Where am I to
get meat to give to all this people? For they weep before me and say, ‘Give us
meat, that we may eat.’ 14 I am not able to carry all this people alone, the
burden is too heavy for me. 15 If thou wilt deal thus with me, kill me at once, if I
find favor in thy sight, that I may not see my wretchedness.”

GNT
11 and he said to the Lord, “Why have you treated me so badly? Why are you
displeased with me? Why have you given me the responsibility for all these
people? 12 I didn't create them or bring them to birth! Why should you ask me to
act like a nurse and carry them in my arms like babies all the way to the land you
promised to their ancestors? 13 Where could I get enough meat for all these
people? They keep whining and asking for meat. 14 I can't be responsible for all
these people by myself; it's too much for me! 15 If you are going to treat me like
this, take pity on me and kill me, so that I won't have to endure your cruelty any
longer.”

Thy servant: Moses is angry and very frustrated, but because he is addressing
the Lord, he remains respectful and refers to himself indirectly as thy servant. In
GNT, Moses only refers to himself as “me.” In some languages such a rendering may
be needed, but it leaves out Moses’ expression of respect when speaking to the Lord.
A combination of both (“me, your servant”) as in GECL and Chewa would be a better
model.
“Why… And why…”: These two rhetorical questions (broken down into
three in the GNT) give expression to Moses’ urgent but bitter complaint to God.
There is also an ironic tone to his words. Translators should try to duplicate these
strong feelings and Moses’ overall rebellious attitude, if not by rhetorical questions,
then by some other appropriate literary devices in their language.
Burden: This renders the meaning of the Hebrew word massa’ (“burden,
load”) more clearly than “responsibility” (GNT). As mentioned at 4.15, the term
massa’ is often used in the prophetic literature to refer to the weighty message that the
Lord’s prophets must deliver. Moses had not wanted the leadership (Exo 4.10, 13) and
never ceased to see it as a burden, especially at times like this when the people
themselves did make life difficult for him.
Did I conceive … Did I bring forth: Both verbs, conceive and “bring to
birth” are the verbs normally used to refer to pregnancy and giving birth in Hebrew.
The two questions are rhetorical and again ironic as well; GNT renders their intention
by means of an exclamation: “I didn’t …!” In Hebrew the second verb is reinforced
by the presence of the independent pronoun “I”—that is, “Was it I who gave birth to
them??” Of course Moses didn’t, and he blames the Lord for placing the whole
burden upon him. It is the relation between the Lord and the people of Israel which is
like the relation between mother and child.[< Noth 86]
‘Carry them in your bosom …’: GNT removes the enclosed quotation, and
this may be necessary for clarity in most languages, but not necessarily all. The direct
speech serves to personalize the burden that Moses is feeling and reacting to.
Ironically, he can even cite the Lord’s words when giving him this onerous
assignment! The same issue arises in the next verse (13), where the people demand of
Moses to “Give us meat…!” Translators should use the manner of expression that is
most natural and forceful in their language.
Nurse: The Hebrew word omen is clearly not feminine, so it does not carry the
meaning “foster-mother” (NBV), although the sucking child (or NET’s “nursing
child”) might suggest this. The gender-neutral “caretaker” (NJPSV) as well as “male
nurse” (Levine) and “foster-father” (NET) are more accurate.
Their fathers: By saying “their ancestors,” and not “our ancestors,” Moses
distances himself from the people and puts himself apart from them.
Kill me at once, if I find favor in Thy sight: Moses is speaking to the Lord
very directly, and seemingly respectfully as well. But the combination of these
apparently contradictory notions (“kill” and “find favor”) highlights the sharp irony in
these words that borders on disrespect. Who could dare speak to God this way?
That I might not see my wretchedness: Literally, “…that I might not look on
my (own) badness.” But what does this mean? Even the ancient scribes had difficulty
at this point and emended the text slightly so as not to attribute evil to the Lord, that
is, from “your badness” to “my badness.” The former reading (“your badness”) is
apparently the basis for the GNT’s rendering “your cruelty”—that is, to me (Moses)
for laying on me the burden of this people. Most other versions adopt the latter
reading, as in the Masoretic Text (“my badness” ), for example, “do not let me face
my own ruin” (NIV) or “my trouble” (NET). This apparently refers to the severe
pressures of leadership that Moses is currently experiencing or, more likely, to the
worse problems that he will face when he fails to procure “meat” for the complaining
people.

11.16-30
Section Heading: “Seventy leaders are chosen to help Moses.” These verses deal
with Moses’ need for additional leaders (mentioned already in Exo 18:13-26),
although it is not explained how exactly these elders will relieve Moses of part of his
burden. That aspect is developed more fully in Exo 18.13-26. Here in Numbers 11 the
point is rather that the spirit of the Lord will no longer be on Moses only but on these
leaders as well (verses 17, 25). Thus, they would share not only the responsibilities of
leadership but also the continual complaints of the people as well.

11.16
RSV
16 And the Lord said to Moses, “Gather for me seventy men of the elders of
Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them; and
bring them to the tent of meeting, and let them take their stand there with you.

GNT
16 The Lord said to Moses, “Assemble seventy respected men who are
recognized as leaders of the people, bring them to me at the Tent of my
presence, and tell them to stand there beside you.

Elders: As the Handbook on Exodus explains at Exo 3.16, these were senior
tribesmen of Israel, clan-leaders who were recognized for both their maturity and their
ability to function as “leaders,” not necessarily for the number of years they had lived.
If in a receptor language the two ideas of leadership and authority that these people
had can be combined in one term, then that term will be a good translation for elders.
However, if such a term cannot be found, “leaders” is a good model. “Respected
men” (GNT) does not adequately express that these were people with an official
position in the community.
Whom you know to be …: NJPSV translates: “of whom you have experience
as elders and officers of the people.” Another good model is NBV: “of whom you
know that they fulfill their task as overseer of the people well.” The Hebrew verb
yada`ta “you know” is in the singular: the Lord says this to Moses. GNT (“who are
recognized as”) suggests that all the people rather than Moses know them as elders.
But the singular Hebrew verb indicates that it is Moses himself who knows this. Thus
Moses does have the responsibility of making the selection of those men who were to
work with him in a loose governing, perhaps also spiritual or pastoral, capacity among
the people.
Officers: This may indicate some distinct administrative, overseeing function.
The translation “scribes” (TOB) goes back to the ancient Greek version, the
Septuagint, but all that can be said about the meaning of the Hebrew shoter is that an
overseeing, mustering, recording task is involved. Officers may wrongly imply that
these men already had some sort of an official position within an established
bureaucracy (with uniforms and all!). “Overseers” or “supervisors” would be better.
Tent of meeting: See at 1.1.
Let them take their stand: The implication is that they would await the
Lord’s announcement or instructions there at the Tent along with Moses.

11.17
RSV
17 And I will come down and talk with you there; and I will take some of the
spirit which is upon you and put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of
the people with you, that you may not bear it yourself alone.

GNT
17 I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take some of the spirit I
have given you and give it to them. Then they can help you to bear the
responsibility for these people, and you will not have to bear it alone.

Come down: As in Exo 19.11, this assumes a descending from God's dwelling
place, from a position of authority and rule.
There: At the tent of meeting. In some languages it will be necessary to
specify this and translate: “come down to the tent of meeting and speak with you
there.”
Take some of the spirit …: This is a very important theme in this section of
11.16-30. The spirit will not be taken away from Moses altogether. Nor should the
translation imply that this spirit is a quantitative element that may be moved from one
point, person, or location to another. NJPSV avoids this misunderstanding: “I will
draw upon the spirit that is on you and put it upon them” (or less explicitly: “I will
endow them with some of the same spirit that I have given you”). The Hebrew verb
atsal means “to withdraw, reserve.”
Spirit: This spirit was the gift from God to Moses to enable him to fulfill his
leadership role. In verses 25-30 the spirit is described as a spirit of prophecy. There is
no clear indication that the spirit is a separate being, so there is no need to capitalize
spirit and write “Spirit” as some translations do. NBS02’s rendering—souffle “breath,
wind, power”—is possible as well. But translators should allow for the possibility that
this “spirit” was closely associated with the Lord and his being; it was not simply
some endowment of character or personal capacity.
Burden: See 11.11, 14. Numbers 11 does not explain how exactly these elders
will relieve Moses of part of his burden. As mentioned at the beginning of this
section, that aspect is described in Exo 18.13-26 but not here. A cross reference to the
latter passage is therefore recommended.

11.18-20
RSV
18 And say to the people, ‘Consecrate yourselves for tomorrow, and you shall eat
meat; for you have wept in the hearing of the Lord, saying, “Who will give us
meat to eat? For it was well with us in Egypt.” Therefore the Lord will give you
meat, and you shall eat. 19 You shall not eat one day, or two days, or five days,
or ten days, or twenty days, 20 but a whole month, until it comes out at your
nostrils and becomes loathsome to you, because you have rejected the Lord who
is among you, and have wept before him, saying, “Why did we come forth out of
Egypt?” ’ ”

GNT
18 Now tell the people, ‘Purify yourselves for tomorrow; you will have meat to
eat. The Lord has heard you whining and saying that you wished you had some
meat and that you were better off in Egypt. Now the Lord will give you meat, and
you will have to eat it. 19 You will have to eat it not just for one or two days, or
five, or ten, or even twenty days, 20 but for a whole month, until it comes out of
your ears, until you are sick of it. This will happen because you have rejected the
Lord who is here among you and have complained to him that you should never
have left Egypt.’ ”

Consecrate yourselves: The verb here is literally “make holy.” As in, for
example, Lev 11.44, to consecrate oneself has more to do with being designated or set
apart for a special purpose in preparation for some divine activity or manifestation
(see Exo 19.10) than with personal moral purity. Thus, the Lord instructs Moses to
tell the people that they must avoid all ritual impurity and uncleanness. This will
prepare them for the Lord’s public intervention on the next day. Hence the renderings
“purify yourselves” in GNT and “make yourselves ritually fit” (Levine) are
recommended.
Wept: In the sense of complaining, “whining” (as in 11.4).
In the hearing of the Lord: As mentioned at 11.1, the people were not trying
to communicate with the Lord. The Hebrew construction implies that the Lord
overheard them: “within earshot of the Lord.” After all, God’s presence within the
camps of Israel was represented by the ark within the tent of meeting.
You shall eat: More to the point, “You will have to eat it” (GNT) as an act of
punishment: The people complained about the lack of meat; soon they would have an
excess of meat to deal with.
Until it comes out at your nostrils: GNT employs a more natural idiom in
English: “until it comes out of your ears.” Other languages may have equivalent
idioms, for example, Chewa: “until you vomit.”
You have rejected the Lord: That is, the people had doubted the Lord’s
ability to provide for them and dishonored him through their continual complaining.
A verb that expresses this shameful attitude and behavior is needed in the vernacular.
Saying, “…”: This introduces the words of the people (quoted within the
words of Moses, which the Lord instructs him to say). GNT has turned this embedded
direct speech to indirect speech: “saying that …” and this will be helpful in many
languages. Thus in GNT the number of closing quotation marks at the end of verse 20
is reduced by one (in comparison with RSV). In other languages, however, a
reproduction of the embedded quote serves to highlight the people’s sin and guilt, as it
were, in their own words.

11.21-22
RSV
21 But Moses said, “The people among whom I am number six hundred thousand
on foot; and thou hast said, ‘I will give them meat, that they may eat a whole
month!’ 22 Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them, to suffice them? Or
shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, to suffice them?”

GNT
21 Moses said to the Lord, “Here I am leading 600,000 people, and you say
that you will give them enough meat for a month? 22 Could enough cattle and
sheep be killed to satisfy them? Are all the fish in the sea enough for them?”

Six hundred thousand on foot: The same phrase occurs in Exo 12.37. On
foot is literally “strong footmen, foot soldiers” but probably all adult males are
intended here. This would not include women and children! CEV translates “grown
men.” GNT has left this untranslated (or perhaps it was meant to be included in its
verb “leading,” but this does not seem adequate). See Num 1.46 for a discussion of
thousand.
Flocks and herds: flocks consist of sheep and goats; herds are cattle (cows).
No amount of flocks, herds, and fish is enough to feed such a large multitude!
The two rhetorical questions in verse 22 imply considerable doubt on Moses’ part. He
simply did not believe that the Lord could do what he had just promised.

11.23
RSV
23 And the Lord said to Moses, “Is the Lord's hand shortened? Now you shall see
whether my word will come true for you or not.”

GNT
23 “Is there a limit to my power?” the Lord answered. “You will soon see
whether what I have said will happen or not!”

Is the Lord’s hand shortened?: GNT shows the meaning of this idiom more
clearly. But it is worthwhile, if possible, to preserve the image of the Lord’s hand at
the same time since it is such a common figure in the Hebrew Bible: “Has my arm
lost its power?” (NLT); “Is anything beyond the reach of the Lord’s arm?” (Levine).
The Lord’s rhetorical question conveys the notion of rebuke because of Moses’
expressed doubt.
Come true for you: GNT should have included “to you” as NJPSV has done:
“You shall soon see whether what I have said happens to you or not!”

11.24-25
RSV
24 So Moses went out and told the people the words of the Lord; and he
gathered seventy men of the elders of the people, and placed them round about
the tent. 25 Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took
some of the spirit that was upon him and put it upon the seventy elders; and
when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied. But they did so no more.

GNT
24 So Moses went out and told the people what the Lord had said. He
assembled 70 of the leaders and placed them round the Tent. 25 Then the Lord
came down in the cloud and spoke to him. He took some of the spirit he had
given to Moses and gave it to the 70 leaders. When the spirit came on them, they
began to shout like prophets, but not for long.

Gathered … placed …: Moses carries out the Lord’s command (verse 16).
The cloud: The Hebrew includes the definite article, which is translated with
the. This indicates that the cloud is already supposed to be known to the reader.
Again, many languages have a system of demonstrative reference that will indicate
this familiarity. Perhaps an additional marker is needed: “the cloud of the Lord.”
Took some of the spirit: These words show the exact fulfilment of the Lord’s
command to Moses in verse 17. The verbal correspondence between these two verses
should therefore be retained.
Rested: “settled down,” or “came upon.” Some languages may have to
express this spiritual phenomenon differently, for example, Chewa: “After the people
had received that spirit …”
They prophesied: GNT’s “shout like prophets” is a poor attempt to express
that ecstasy is involved. NJPSV is better: “they spoke in ecstasy,” that is, in an excited
(or unusual, amazing) manner. The activity of prophesying here is not that of
foretelling the future or of speaking out with judgments on behalf of God. The same
verb is used in 1 Sam 10.5, 10, where Saul and the prophets are engaging in ecstatic
behavior that consists of dancing and shouting in addition to uttering some type of
extraordinary speech.
But they did so no more: The ecstatic, “prophetic” speech of the seventy
elders did not last long, only long enough for the Lord to authenticate them as the
authorized leaders and associates of Moses. In order to bring out this fact, it may be
better to leave this as a separate sentence, as in the RSV.

11.26-27
RSV
26 Now two men remained in the camp, one named Eldad, and the other
named Medad, and the spirit rested upon them; they were among those
registered, but they had not gone out to the tent, and so they prophesied in the
camp. 27 And a young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad and Medad are
prophesying in the camp.”

GNT
26 Two of the 70 leaders, Eldad and Medad, had stayed in the camp and had
not gone out to the Tent. There in the camp the spirit came on them, and they
too began to shout like prophets. 27 A young man ran out to tell Moses what
Eldad and Medad were doing.

Two men remained in the camp in contrast to the other elders, who were
round about the tent of meeting (verses 16, 24). RSV may give the wrong impression
that the other elders had gone outside the camp into the desert. But the Tent was
situated in the middle of the camp. Perhaps in order to avoid this misunderstanding,
GNT has moved the sentence “and had not gone out to the Tent” forward. (Perhaps
“had not gone over to the Tent” would be more accurate.) But a disadvantage of GNT
is that the connection of “had not gone out to the Tent” with they were among those
registered may now be lost. This is taken care of in RSV and in the model below.
They were among those registered, that is, they were among the chosen
elders, “the 70 leaders” (GNT). NBV has “They were on the list of seventy”; NIV and
NLT have “They were listed among the elders.” The Hebrew has the word ketuvim
“written.”
They prophesied: See at 11.25. The same expression for “prophesied” should
be used here.
Similarly to TOB, NJPSV brings out well the connections between the
different parts of verse 26: “Two men, one named Eldad and the other Medad, had
remained in camp; yet the spirit rested upon them [as well]—they were among those
who had been registered with the others, but they had not gone out to the Tent—and
they spoke in ecstasy in the camp.”
A modified version of GNT is recommended as a model for verse 26: “Two of
the 70 leaders, Eldad and Medad, had stayed in the camp. These two men had been
registered with the others, but they had not gone to the Tent of the Lord. There in the
camp the spirit came on them, and they too began to shout like prophets.”

11.28-30
RSV
28 And Joshua the son of Nun, the minister of Moses, one of his chosen men,
said, “My lord Moses, forbid them.” 29 But Moses said to him, “Are you jealous
for my sake? Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would
put his spirit upon them!” 30 And Moses and the elders of Israel returned to the
camp.

GNT
28 Then Joshua son of Nun, who had been Moses' helper since he was a
young man, spoke up and said to Moses, “Stop them, sir!”
 29 Moses answered, “Are you concerned about my interests? I wish that the
Lord would give his spirit to all his people and make all of them shout like
prophets!” 30 Then Moses and the 70 leaders of Israel went back to camp.

Son of Nun simply identifies Joshua by the name of his father. Nothing more
is known of Nun except that he was from the tribe of Ephraim (see Exo 17.9).
Minister: Joshua is decribed like this in Exo 24.13; 33.11 as well. The
Hebrew term, mesharet, always suggests a high form of service, including the service
of a priest. But this does not suggest that Joshua performed a priestly function. He
was rather Moses’ most trusted “helper”—his “right-hand man” as it were.
One of his chosen men: GNT gives an alternative understanding of the same
Hebrew expression: “since he was a young man”; in other words, Joshua had been
serving Moses “since the time of his youth.” NIV supports the GNT rendering while
NET supports the RSV interpretation.
My lord, Moses: An appropriate honorific for the Hebrew adoniy should be
used in the translation. The closest equivalent to GNT’s “sir” may be too weak. In any
case, the vocative phrase must be positioned in a natural position in the clause. In
some languages, this may be at the beginning (RSV), while in others this exclamatory
utterance may sound better at the end (GNT).
Jealous: The Hebrew verb expresses great zeal and a passion for possession,
whether positive or negative, that is felt with regard to a specific person or a certain
cause. Other possible renderings in this context are: “Concerned” (GNT, DUCL),
“supporting” (LUT84, WV95), “worried” (GECL).
Would that: The translation should indicate that Moses is expressing a strong
wish here (GNT: “I wish that”). There may be a special marker in some languages to
indicate this (NET: “Oh that…”).
Returned to the camp: That is, these men returned to their tents within the
surrounding camp proper. If this phrase is not translated correctly, it might imply that
the tent of meeting was located outside the main camp of Israel, rather than where it
actually was—in the center.

11.31-35
Section Heading: The narrative now returns to where it left off in verses 18-20 (with
the Lord’s promise to send meat). “The Lord Sends Quails” (as in GNT) is not really
sufficient, for these quail turned out to be a punishment for the people’s complaints
against the Lord. “The Lord Sends Quail and (or “as”) Punishment” would be a more
accurate summary of this concluding section. A cross reference to Psalm 78.26-31
would be appropriate here.

11.31
RSV
31 And there went forth a wind from the Lord, and it brought quails from the
sea, and let them fall beside the camp, about a day's journey on this side and a
day's journey on the other side, round about the camp, and about two cubits
above the face of the earth.

GNT
31 Suddenly the Lord sent a wind that brought quails from the sea, flying less
than a metre above the ground. They settled on the camp and all round it for
many kilometres in every direction.b
b 11.31 *sea, flying… direction; or sea. They settled in the camp and all round it
for many kilometres in every direction, until they were piled up nearly a metre
deep on the ground.

And: The GNT has “Suddenly” but commentators and versions differ as to the
time gap here, for example, CEV: “Some time later.” It would probably be safer not to
indicate any specific time period but simply to use the standard narrative beginning in
the language for a new paragraph/section.
Wind: The Hebrew word is ruach, the same word that was translated “spirit”
in verses 17, 25, 26, 29 above. As mentioned above, the rebellion story in this chapter
combines the provision of manna and quail (Exodus 16) with Moses’ need for
additional leaders (Exodus 18) and the Lord’s punishment of the people for their
disrespectful complaining. In some languages it will be possible to highlight the irony
in this account by translating ruach here in verse 31 in the same way (“breath”
perhaps) as in the preceding verses.
Quails: The Handbook on Exodus at Exo 16.13 explains that these were the
same small plump birds known in many parts of the world today. They are light
brown in color, with black and pale streaks. They migrated across certain parts of the
Sinai peninsula in spring and autumn, but after becoming exhausted they would drop
for shelter before migrating farther.[< Levine 327] In cultures where quails are
unknown, translators may transliterate the term; for example, “birds named ‘quail.’ ”
Another option is to use the name of a medium-sized wild bird resembling the quail,
one that is edible and locally known.
From the sea: Probably from the Gulf of Aqaba (Elath).
And let them fall: In the Hebrew it sounds as if the wind (ruach) from the
Lord is personified; it brings the masses of quail exactly where God wanted them to
be. This may be difficult to express naturally in some languages, however, so it is left
implicit in translations like GNT: “they settled on…”
About a day's journey on this side and a day's journey on the other side:
This indicates that the quails were there in abundance. In translation this phrase could
be made shorter: “about a day’s journey on both sides.”[<Budd 123] Alternatively, if
this would result in an awkward translation, a wording like GNT could be used: “all
around it [the camp] for many kilometres in every direction.”
About two cubits above the face of the earth: GNT (see also REB) has
rendered this phrase as “flying less than a metre above the ground” and moved it
forward in the verse. This is a plausible meaning of the phrase. A cubit is a standard
measure taken from part of the human body, the forearm: almost half a metre. In a
note, GNT offers a different understanding of this phrase: “until they were piled up
nearly a metre deep on the ground.” The question is, then: are the quails flying about
two cubits above the ground or are they piled up as high as two cubits? (In Hebrew,
there is no verb to specify this, but the text already mentioned that the wind let the
quails fall.) A majority of translations go for the latter. Thus CEV has “piled up about
a meter high” and NRSV “about two cubits deep on the ground.” If translators follow
GNT, they should choose the rendering of the GNT note: “They settled in the camp
and all round it for many kilometres in every direction, until they were piled up nearly
a metre deep on the ground.”

11.32
RSV
32 And the people rose all that day, and all night, and all the next day, and
gathered the quails; he who gathered least gathered ten homers; and they
spread them out for themselves all around the camp.

GNT
32 So all that day, all night, and all the next day, the people worked catching
quails; no one gathered less than a thousand kilogrammes. They spread them out
to dry all round the camp.

All that day, and all night …: The sequence of time phrases helps to give an
impression of the great amount of birds that were caught. Thus, a translation that
collapse the time reference (for example, “For two days”) is not recommended.
Rose … gathered: In many languages it will be more natural to put these
verbs more closely together: “All that day and night and all the next day the people
went out and gathered quail.” (NIV). The reason that GNT translates gathered as
“catching” has to do with its translation “flying less than a metre above the ground”
(rather than “about two cubits deep on the ground” as in NRSV) in 11.31.
Ten homers: A homer was a large, dry measure. Estimates of its quantity vary
(see the Handbook on Leviticus at Lev 27.16), so a translation should not give the
impression that an exact equivalent in litres or kilogrammes can be given (see GNT).
At the same time it should be clear that the amount of quails people gathered was
enormous. This is why “ten large baskets” (CEV) and “ten donkey’s loads” (GECL,
NBV), or some equivalent form of quantitative measurement in the target language
(e.g., “over 40 bushels”) are much more convincing models. Meaningless
transliterations are not recommended.
Spread them out: To let them “dry” (GNT), an Egyptian custom, as a means
of preserving the meat.

11.33
RSV
33 While the meat was yet between their teeth, before it was consumed, the
anger of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord smote the people
with a very great plague. 34 Therefore the name of that place was called Kibroth-
hattaavah,* because there they buried the people who had the craving.

*That is Graves of craving.

GNT
33 While there was still plenty of meat for them to eat, the Lord became angry
with the people and caused an epidemic to break out among them. 34 That place
was named Kibroth Hattaavah (which means “Graves of Craving”), because there
they buried the people who had craved meat.

Yet … before it was consumed: The Hebrew shows indeed that the Lord’s
punishment already came while the meat “was still in their mouths” (NLT) or “while
they were still chewing” (Chewa). Similar expressions for the Lord’s burning anger in
punishment occurs in 11.1 and 11.10. It is implied that the greedy and unrestrained
eating of the people on top of all their former complaining has brought about death
due to some virulent sickness or disease.[< Noth 91] (Exo 16.18, 21 mentions that in
the case of the manna everyone gathered according to what he could eat, not more.)
Kibroth-hataavah: RSV gives the meaning of this name in a footnote – “That
is Graves of craving.” – while GNT includes it in the translation. The Hebrew ta’avah
can mean “yearning, craving desire.” CEV has “Graves for the Greedy.” The NBV
shows that even a translation which normally does not include explanations of names
can still hint at the meaning of “Kibroth-Hataavah” here: “That place received the
name Kibroth-Hattaawah, with reference to the insatiable people that were buried
there.”

11.35
RSV
35 From Kibroth-hattaavah the people journeyed to Hazeroth; and they remained
at Hazeroth.

GNT
35 From there the people moved to Hazeroth, where they made camp.

From Kibroth-hattaavah: Or, in some languages more simply, “From there”

(GNT).
If and they remained at Hazeroth would also be too repetitive for natural
narrative, then “where they made camp” (GNT) or “where they remained” are good
equivalents. This was not only the next campsite of Israel, but it was also the scene of
their next act of rebellion against the Lord, resulting in his punishment of the guilty.
(NRSV has actually moved this clause to the beginning of 12.1, where it serves as an
explicit narrative introducer to the next act of rebellion. See at 12.1.)

12.1-16
Section Heading for this chapter: Miriam and Aaron (RSV) or “Miriam Is
Punished” (GNT). The headings in a few other translations show more clearly that
this will be another rebellion story: “Moses’ Authority Contested” (NBV); “Miriam
and Aaron Are Jealous of Moses” (CEV); “Miriam and Aaron Rebel against Moses”
(GECL); “The Complaints of Miriam and Aaron” (NLT). In the previous chapter the
seventy elders were endowed with a portion of the spirit of leadership that Moses had,
and they prophesied in testimony of this fact (11.25). This may have prompted
Miriam and Aaron to demand their share of the leadership.[< Milgrom 1990:93]

12.1-3
RSV
1 Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman
whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman; 2 and they said,
“Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us
also?” And the Lord heard it. 3 Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all
men that were on the face of the earth.

GNT
1 Moses had married a Cushitea woman, and Miriam and Aaron criticized him
for it. 2 They said, “Has the Lord spoken only throughb Moses? Hasn't he also
spoken throughc us?” The Lord heard what they said. 3 (Moses was a humble
man, more humble than anyone else on earth.)

a
12.1 Cushite (compare Hab 3.7); or Midianite; or Ethiopian.
b
12.1 through; or to.
c
12.1 through; or to.
 An explicit narrative introducer may be necessary in some languages to
properly begin this new episode. NRSV achieves this in that it has moved the final
clause of 11.35 to the beginning of 12.1: “While they were at Hazeroth, …”
Miriam and Aaron: Moses’ sister and brother. (Tradition associates Miriam
with the unnamed older sister of Moses in Exodus 2.) The sister is mentioned before
the brother here and the initial Hebrew verb is feminine singular, “and she spoke.”
This may well be because she is the major character in this chapter and perhaps
initiates the complaint against Moses. If it is awkward to keep this order in translation,
it is hopefully possible to, for example, re-order the sentence: “Miriam – and Aaron as
well – spoke against Moses …” In any case, a footnote may be needed to point out
that Miriam was the sister of Moses or at least a cross reference to Exo 15.20.
Spoke against: Or “criticized” (GNT); “began to find fault with” (REB).
Moses’ marriage is only the pretext for the real issue that provoked this verbal attack,
namely, Moses’ position and prophetic standing (verse 2). There is no indication in
the Hebrew that Miriam and Aaron only spoke to others and that Moses did not hear
about their verbal attack. So if it is necessary to avoid that impression, a rendering
such as “criticized openly” would be helpful.
Cushite: From Cush, that is, the lands of the Upper Nile River in southern
Egypt, meaning Nubia and Northern Sudan. The name Cush already occurs in
Babylonian, Old Persian and Egyptian. The traditional identification with Ethiopia is
only based on the ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint (cf. Isa 20.3; Nah. 3.5).
The footnote in GNT suggests that Cushite could mean Midianite. This would make it
a reference to Zipporah, Moses’ wife from Midian (Exo 2.21). However, there is no
support for this view; it is only based on Hab 3.7, where “Cushan” [not “Cush”] and
“Midian” are mentioned in parallel clauses. It seems more likely that a second
marriage of Moses is in view, with a woman perhaps from the rabble of strangers
(11.4); the Cushites were descendants of Ham (Gen 10.6).[< Rashbam]
For he had married a Cushite woman: RSV may seem repetitive here, but
the repetition is purposeful and seems to suggest an underlying racial issue in addition
to the problem of leadership (as in the case of “Ruth the Moabitess” in Ruth 2).
NJPSV and similarly NBV solve this stylistic problem by interpreting the end of verse
1 as direct speech: “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite
woman he had married: ‘He married a Cushite woman!’” This brings out well the
implication of the repetition in Hebrew. In languages where direct speech cannot be
used in this way, GNT can be followed, perhaps replacing “for it” at the end with the
more prominent “because of this.” GNT has reversed the order of the sentences in this
verse.
Has the Lord … spoken only through …?: Miriam’s and Aaron’s two
parallel questions are rhetorical (and the verb is now plural, “and they said…”); these
questions have the force of strong negative-positive assertions. Two Hebrew adverbs
raq and ’ak are juxtaposed for emphasis, “indeed only.” In some languages this
forceful implication may have to be expressed in some other way, for example: “The
Lord has spoken to us, not just to him.” (CEV). There was some basis for this claim.
Miriam is called a prophet in Exo 15.20. The Lord speaks to Aaron in Lev 10.8. But
they did not have the stature of Moses either in the eyes of the people or, more
importantly, before the Lord. Thus, Moses’ unique leadership role is at stake.
And the Lord heard it: NLT – “But the Lord heard them.” – is quite similar
to GNT, although the initial “but” makes the sentence fit better in the context of this
verse.
 Now the man Moses was very meek: Or better, “humble” (GNT), “modest”
(NBV), or “unassuming” (Levine), “long-suffering,” or not “self-assertive” (NET
note). The Hebrew does include man, which perhaps emphasizes Moses’ humanness,
so GNT is correct in keeping this word: “Moses was a humble man.” GNT has put the
verse in brackets, since it seems to interrupt the flow of the story. (For this reason,
perhaps, CEV has even moved it to the beginning of verse 1: “Although Moses was
the most humble person in all the world, Miriam and Aaron started complaining …”)
But the statement about Moses is not so out of place as it may seem. The point here is
that Moses had not claimed his special status; his unique authority had been conferred
by the Lord, as the Lord himself is about to point out in the strongest of terms.[<
Budd 136] This immediately undercuts Miriam and Aaron’s complaint. In any case, in
some languages it may be necessary to mark verse 3 as an “off-the-event-line”
descriptive comment by the narrator, for example, through the use of an initial
transitional expression or a disjunctive particle.

12.4-5
RSV
4 And suddenly the Lord said to Moses and to Aaron and Miriam, “Come out, you
three, to the tent of meeting.” And the three of them came out. 5 And the Lord
came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the door of the tent, and called Aaron
and Miriam; and they both came forward.

GNT
4 Suddenly the Lord said to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, “I want the three of
you to come out to the Tent of my presence.” They went, 5 and the Lord came
down in a pillar of cloud, stood at the entrance of the Tent, and called out,
“Aaron! Miriam!” The two of them stepped forward,

And suddenly: This is specified in the Hebrew; it is as if the Lord is right

there on the scene listening to the preceding conversation! Rashbam, the Jewish
medieval commentator, already noted that suddenly means “immediately” in this
context. NBV and NLT translate “immediately” as well.
To Moses and to Aaron and Miriam: RSV groups Aaron and Miriam
together in this way, putting them separate from Moses, but the Hebrew does not do
so at this point. The Hebrew has “to Moses and to Aaron and to Miriam” which
amounts to the same as “to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam” in GNT. The Lord addresses
the three as a group, which is brought out by what he says next.
Come out: This should not imply outside the main camp of the people, only
“over to” the tent which was located in the center of the camp.
Tent of meeting: See at 1.1.
In a pillar of cloud: This means a cloud the size and shape of a pillar or
column, but not a solid object. An alternative translation may be “in a cloud in the
form of a pillar” or “in a cloud that looked like a pillar (of smoke).” In cultures where
“pillars” or “columns” are unknown, something like “in a thick cloud” is possible, or
even “in a tall, tree-like cloud.” Since the Hebrew has no definite article, there is no
indication whether this pillar of cloud has been mentioned before. (The same phrase,
that is, without a definite article, occurs in Exo 13.21.)
And stood: It may be necessary to clarify that it was the “pillar of cloud” that
“stood at the entrance of the Tent.” The translation should not imply that the Lord
himself was somehow visible there. It was the Lord then who “called out” to Miriam
and Aaron, presumably from inside the cloud.
12.6-8
RSV
6 And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make
myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. 7 Not so with my
servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. 8 With him I speak mouth to
mouth, clearly, and not in dark speech; and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why
then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”

GNT
6 and the Lord said, “Now hear what I have to say! When there are prophets
among you,d I reveal myself to them in visions and speak to them in dreams. 7 It
is different when I speak with my servant Moses; I have put him in charge of all
my people Israel.e 8 So I speak to him face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he
has even seen my form! How dare you speak against my servant Moses?”

d 12.6 Some ancient translations When… you; Hebrew unclear.

e 12.7 I have put… Israel; or he can be trusted with all my affairs.

Verses 6-8 are composed in an elevated rhetorical style. Some scholars and
versions (like the NIV and REB) consider these three verses to be poetry and format
the text accordingly. The second half of this passage contrasts with the first in
chiastic, reverse order, with an emphasis on the center of the structure where Moses is
named:[< based on Sherwood 156]

A If there is a prophet of the Lord among you,

B I make myself known to him in a vision;
C In a dream I speak with him.
D Not so my servant Moses;
D’ In all my household he is my confidant.
C’ Mouth to mouth I speak with him,
B’ Face to face and not in riddles;
A’ The likeness of the Lord he beholds.

And he said: This refers to the Lord, who speaks directly to Aaron and
Miriam.
If there is a prophet among you: The footnote in GNT says that this follows
some ancient translations and that the Hebrew is unclear. But although the Hebrew
construction seems very concise, this does not mean that there is a problem with the
Hebrew text. The Hebrew literally says: “If there is a prophet of yours, [who is] of the
Lord” (Levine 329). For this reason NJPSV and NBV are to be preferred: “When a
prophet of the Lord arises among you” (NJPSV); “When there is a prophet of the
Lord among you” (NBV). You is plural in the Hebrew with reference to the people of
Israel as a whole; prophet is singular, but refers to any “prophet of the Lord” and
may therefore be expressed as a plural in translation (CEV).
The Lord: GNT leaves this untranslated so it does not have to decide in which
clause it belongs. Is it part of the clause I the Lord make myself known to him in a
vision or of the clause “When a prophet of the Lord arises among you, …” (the
preferred reading in NJPSV and NIV)? As mentioned above, on the basis of sentence
structure in the Hebrew language, NJPSV is to be preferred.
 Vision: The Hebrew mar’ah includes the root ‘to see’. It is the sort of vision
normally seen by prophets. Many languages will have a term that approximates this,
for example, Chewa: masomphenya “things gazed upon with the eyes.”
Entrusted with: “In charge of.” This has sometimes been understood as “he is
faithful [trustworthy] in all my house” (KJV, NIV, ESV) but this would give the
wrong suggestion that, unlike Moses, the prophets are not faithful. As the Lord’s
servant, Moses’ position is compared with that of the chief slave, or steward, who is
the confidant of his master and the person to whom his master’s whole house is
entrusted. It is a position of honor and great responsibility. An alternative rendering is
“he is my confidant, in all my house.” (WV95, similarly NFB, TOB, and NBS02); “he
is trusted throughout my household.” (NJPSV).
All my house refers to “my people Israel” (GNT, Chewa). GNT gives an
alternative interpretation in a footnote: “he can be trusted with all my affairs.” This
would still need to be specified with reference to God’s people Israel.
Clearly: The Hebrew mar’eh is related to “vision” and refers to what is seen,
not what is heard. After the words speak mouth to mouth this may not be understood
correctly. Thus GNT’s “face to face” is to be preferred. The two sentences may be
restructured to distinguish what is seen from what is heard more consistently:

“Mouth to mouth I speak with him, and not in riddles;

Face to face, he even beholds the likeness of the Lord.”

Form of the Lord: Although not the Lord himself, this likeness or
manifestation of him (compare Exo 24.15-18; 33.17-23;Deut 4.12) is much more than
a vision or dreams, which are received by prophets but are still in need of
interpretation. Communication between the Lord and Moses is direct and unmediated;
this was unique in the history of God’s revelation to his people.
Why then were you not afraid …?: Like Miriam’s and Aaron’s questions in
verse 2, the Lord’s question here is rhetorical; it has the force of a forceful assertion,
in this case, an accusation or indictment of their sinful behavior. This implication
should be brought out in the translation.

12.9-10
RSV
9 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, and he departed; 10
and when the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as
white as snow. And Aaron turned towards Miriam, and behold, she was leprous.

GNT
9 The Lord was angry with them; and so as he departed 10 and the cloud left
the Tent, Miriam's skin was suddenly covered with a dreaded disease and turned
as white as snow. When Aaron looked at her and saw that she was covered with
the disease,

And the anger of the Lord: Once again the Lord’s anger is aroused against
the rebellious among his people (see 11.1, 10, 33). A similar expression in translation
should be used on these occurrences to highlight this as a recurrent theme of this
section in Numbers.
He departed; and when the cloud removed: GNT keeps these two phrases
more closely together: “as he departed and the cloud left.” A slightly more accurate
way of rendering this is: “and he [the Lord] departed, and when the cloud lifted…”
This helps to show that the Lord’s departure and the cloud’s removal go together. The
first three clauses are closely connected in the Hebrew as a dramatic way of building
up to the climactic “Behold!” (wehinneh).
Behold: The Hebrew structure of sentences indicates that Miriam’s disease
came suddenly, immediately when the cloud left. GNT expresses the dramatic
revelation (“behold”) as “suddenly,” but other languages may have another way of
doing this, perhaps quite close to the original, e.g., old Chewa: “just have a look!”
Leprous: See at 5.2 (under “leper”).
As white as snow: Or “as fluffy as snow.” The Hebrew only has “as snow”
(NET): thus, the point of comparison between the skin and the snow is not necessarily
the color. As a footnote in NET points out, wetness or moistness could also be in
view, in which case there would be open wounds and sores. This seems to be
suggested by Aaron’s later figurative description in verse 12. If skin color or quality
had been an issue when Miriam called attention to Moses’ Cushite wife, she was now
appropriately punished. This description is important because it is then repeated from
Aaron’s perspective (the first time perhaps being that of Moses himself). GNT
removes the repetition (“she was covered with the disease”), but in some languages it
may be retained for emphasis.

12.11-13
RSV
11 And Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, do not punish us because we have
done foolishly and have sinned. 12 Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh
is half consumed when he comes out of his mother's womb.” 13 And Moses cried
to the Lord, “Heal her, O God, I beseech thee.”

GNT
11 he said to Moses, “Please, sir, do not make us suffer this punishment for our
foolish sin. 12 Don't let her become like something born dead with half its flesh
eaten away.”
13 So Moses cried out to the Lord, “O God, heal her!”

Oh, my lord: The Hebrew phrase bi adoni is used to respectfully address a

person of higher rank. After Miriam’s sudden skin disease Aaron uses this phrase to
show that he now recognizes Moses’ position as mediator who can intercede with
God.
Do not punish us: RSV’s footnote mentions what the Hebrew literally has:
“lay not sin upon us.” As the Hebrew term is a legal one (“lay,” “impose”), Levine
translates: “Do not impose on us punishment.” Aaron thus acknowledges that he is as
guilty as his sister; perhaps he even fears that he will be next to feel the Lord’s
burning anger!
Because we have done foolishly and we have sinned: GNT appears to
combine Aaron’s two expressions of remorse into one: “for our foolish sin.” But this
seems to water down what he actually said and is therefore not recommended. REB is
better: “My lord, do not make us pay the penalty of sin, foolish and wicked though we
have been.”
Let her not be: Moses of course could not heal Miriam, but Aaron appeals to
his brother to plead on her behalf to the Lord.
As one dead: The skin disease is compared with the disfigured appearance of
a stillborn child.[< Budd 137]
Cried: See at 11.2.
 I beseech thee: In the Hebrew, Moses employs the word na twice. This marks
his plea to God as urgent and emphatic. GNT leaves this element of the plea
untranslated. But it would not be difficult in most languages to express this urgency
and emotion, for example: “Please heal her, O God [note: not “Lord”], I beg of you!”

12.14-15
RSV
14 But the Lord said to Moses, “If her father had but spit in her face, should she
not be shamed seven days? Let her be shut up outside the camp seven days, and
after that she may be brought in again.” 15 So Miriam was shut up outside the
camp seven days; and the people did not set out on the march till Miriam was
brought in again.

GNT
14 The Lord answered, “If her father had spat in her face, she would have to bear
her disgrace for seven days. So let her be shut out of the camp for a week, and
after that she can be brought back in.” 15 Miriam was shut out of the camp for
seven days, and the people did not move on until she was brought back in.

But: See below.

Spit in her face: Obviously a deed of humiliation (Deut 25.9; Job 30.10; Isa
50.6). The point is that seven days would have been required to clear a much lesser
act involving personal shame. The Lord implies that Miriam cannot get off scot free; a
period of public humiliation and separation is necessary, perhaps for her own good as
well, that is, to help temper her pride and aspirations to leadership.).
Should she not be …?: A rhetorical question, rendered as a rather weak,
colorless statement in GNT. REB does a good job of alluding to the hypothetical
nature of this case: “Suppose her father had spat in her face, would she not have to
remain in disgrace for seven days?”
Shut up gives the wrong suggestion that Miriam was locked up somewhere
outside the camp. But the point is that she is expelled to some location outside the
camp. She was now ritually “unclean” and threatened the purity of the entire camp.
Seven days: It is not made clear whether this means that Miriam would only
be healed after seven days. Since prayers by Moses are normally effective at once, it
has been suggested [< Noth 97; Budd 137] that Miriam was healed immediately after
Moses’ petition, and that she was excluded from the camp because of the shame
involved and the need for rituals of purification to be performed (Lev. 13.5, 33-34;
14.8). This would make verses 14-15 a new stage in the story, after Miriam’s implied
healing in verse 13. For this reason, it is better not to translate But at the beginning of
verse 14. The word “So” in GNT (“So let her be shut out”) helpfully marks the
connection between the disgrace because of spitting and Miriam’s disgrace. The text
probably wants to present Miriam’s punishment as mild: even though Miriam has
turned against the Lord’s confidant, she is healed and the period of shame is short. It
also reiterates the power of Moses’ intercession; he is the (only) one with real
influence before the Lord. Hence it was foolish to question the quality and extent of
his leadership.
And the people did not set out: This implies that the cloud of the Lord did
not move either. The lesson of this latest act of rebellion would have to sink in for a
week.

12.16
RSV
16 After that the people set out from Hazeroth, and encamped in the wilderness
of Paran.

GNT
16 Then they left Hazeroth and set up camp in the wilderness of Paran.

This verse brings the Israelites’ journey from Sinai to Paran (10.13-12.16) to its
conclusion. The encampment in the wilderness of Paran was mentioned already in
10.12 (in the initial summary of this journey in 10.11-12).

Part II-B: 13.1–19.22: Events near the land of Canaan

This part of the book consists of the following sections:

1. Spies explore the land of Canaan and report 13.1-33
2. The people rebel and provoke the Lord’s judgment 14.1-45
3. Laws about supplementary sacrifices and offerings 15.1-29
4. Deliberate sin – a man breaks the sabbath 15.30-36
5. Tassels as reminders of God’s law 15.37-41
6. Korah and others contest Moses’ and Aaron’s authority 16.1-50
7. Aaron’s budding staff demonstrates his authority 17.1-13
8. Duties and income of priests and Levites 18.1-32
9. Rituals using water for purification 19.1-22

At last Israel has reached the edge of the Promised Land. Chapters 13–14 are
an important turning point in the book. They explain the reason for the forty years of
the people’s wandering in the wilderness: because the old rebellious generations had
not obeyed the Lord and had broken the covenant, they were punished with death in
the wilderness before a new generation could enter the land of Canaan.
In spite of this rebellion by the old generation, chapter 15 already has the new
generation in mind. This chapter is concerned with sacrifices and offerings that the
people are to present to God when they will live in the land of Canaan. It includes not
only future generations of Israelites, but aliens who live among them as well. These
laws for life in Canaan come as a reassurance that God’s promise to lead the people to
the land of Canaan still stands, in spite of the old generation’s continued rebellions, as
reported in the preceding chapters. At the same time, some features in this chapter—
the community has to be holy (15.40); the Lord speaks only through Moses (15.1, 17,
37); willful, defiant sin (15.30-31)—provide the background to yet another rebellion
in chapter 16. This again illustrates what happened when anyone deliberately
disobeyed God and his commands and thereby broke fellowship with the Lord of the
covenant with Israel.
In chapter 16, Moses’ and Aaron’s very legitimacy as the people’s leaders is
called into question. Korah and his followers claim equal status with the priests. The
intention behind this chapter then is to confirm that Moses’ and Aaron’s authority is
strongly supported by the Lord and that only the descendants of Aaron are qualified to
be priests. In chapter 17 Aaron’s budding staff further demonstrates his divinely
established authority. As was explained in the introduction, legal and narrative texts in
the book of Numbers alternate and thus reinforce and respond to each other. In this
alternating sequence of “Story” and “Law,” the rebellions of chapters 16–17 form the
dramatic midpoint of the book.[< Douglas 1993:118]
After the dramatic reaffirmation of Aaron’s high priestly position in chapters
16-17, chapter 18 follows with an overview of the various benefits for priests and
Levites as well as their responsibilities. Maintaining the purity of the sanctuary and of
the priesthood is the chapter’s main concern. Unauthorized entry of holy space, even
by Levites, brings death. Death can be avoided only by accepting Aaron’s sole right to
function in the holy place. Thus Aaron’s authority is again highlighted by these
regulations after the narrative of chapters 16–17. Chapter 19 then deals with another,
unique, ritual of purification which is required after contact with dead bodies and can
be performed by lay people. Thus, the text gradually moves from a focus on priests in
chapter 17 to priests and Levites in chapter 18 to lay people in chapter 19.

13.1-33
Section Heading: The section heading of this chapter in GNT is too brief: “The
Spies.” Better alternatives are: “Spies Explore the Land of Canaan and Report”;
“Twelve Spies Explore Canaan” (similar to NLT); Moses Sends Spies into Canaan”
(NBS02).
The spies’ report actually starts in verse 26. If translators consider the whole
chapter too long to have only one section heading, verses 26-33 may be given their
own heading: “The Spies Report Back” (similar to NBS02); “The Men Report Back
to the People” (CEV); “The Spies’ Reports” (NET). (NBS02 and CEV insert the
heading before verse 25, but it would be better to insert it before verse 26. See the
discussion below at 13.26.) The plural in NET’s heading is a hint that there are
actually two conflicting reports: from Caleb (verse 30) and from the spies in general.
In some languages this would have to be stated as: “The Different Reports of the
Spies.”

13.1-2
RSV
1 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I
give to the people of Israel; from each tribe of their fathers shall you send a man,
every one a leader among them.”

GNT
1 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Choose one of the leaders from each of the
twelve tribes and send them as spies to explore the land of Canaan, which I am
giving to the Israelites.”

The Lord said to Moses: One of the common formulas for a divine directive
given to Moses again begins this next section of the text (as in 1.1; 4.1; 6;1; 8.1; 11.1;
12.1).
Send men to spy out the land: In the Hebrew, Send is marked as a command
addressed to a single individual. It is the men who should spy out the land, while
Moses has to select and send them. GNT has reformulated the sentence to bring this
out: “Choose … and send them as spies to explore the land.”
To spy out: That is, to seek out, reconnoiter, explore, search through, check
out. A word should not be chosen that has negative connotations in the target
language. There should be no suggestion that Moses was sending these men to do
something illegal or immoral. Instead of “spies” (GNT), “explorers” or “scouts” may
be more appropriate.
Which I give: In this context, the Hebrew participle form can be given a
future interpretation: “which I am about to give” (note in NET). GNT’s “which I am
giving” can be understood in the same way in English, but not necessarily other
languages which may require a definite future reference. On the other hand, some
interpreters read this participle as expressing a definite certainty, a fact that is already
complete; in this case a perfect participle (or the equivalent) may be more appropriate:
“which I have given” (as in Deut 1.20).
From each tribe of their fathers: For tribe (matteh) see at 1.4. Perhaps
instead of simply of their fathers GNT adds “twelve” for clarification, while NLT
includes this in the section heading. NJPSV has “from each of their ancestral tribes.”
Leader: As mentioned under 1.5-16, the Hebrew nasi’ refers to a prominent
and distinguished leader, for example, a much respected sheikh or chief of a tribe;
thus “leaders” seems a rather flat translation. In English, “chieftain” (NJPSV, Alter)
would be a better alternative.

13.3-16
RSV
3 So Moses sent them from the wilderness of Paran, according to the command of
the Lord, all of them men who were heads of the people of Israel. 4 And these
were their names: From the tribe of Reuben, Shammua the son of Zaccur; 5 from
the tribe of Simeon, Shaphat the son of Hori; 6 from the tribe of Judah, Caleb the
son of Jephunneh; 7 from the tribe of Issachar, Igal the son of Joseph; 8 from the
tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea the son of Nun; 9 from the tribe of Benjamin, Palti the
son of Raphu; 10 from the tribe of Zebulun, Gaddiel the son of Sodi; 11 from the
tribe of Joseph (that is from the tribe of Manasseh), Gaddi the son of Susi; 12
from the tribe of Dan, Ammiel the son of Gemalli; 13 from the tribe of Asher,
Sethur the son of Michael; 14 from the tribe of Naphtali, Nahbi the son of Vophsi;
15 from the tribe of Gad, Geuel the son of Machi. 16 These were the names of the
men whom Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Hoshea the son of
Nun Joshua.

GNT
3–15 Moses obeyed and from the wilderness of Paran he sent out leaders, as
follows:
Tribe Leader
Reuben Shammua son of Zaccur
Simeon Shaphat son of Hori
Judah Caleb son of Jephunneh
Issachar Igal son of Joseph
Ephraim Hoshea son of Nun
Benjamin Palti son of Raphu
Zebulun Gaddiel son of Sodi
Manasseh Gaddi son of Susi
Dan Ammiel son of Gemalli
Asher Sethur son of Michael
Naphtali Nahbi son of Vophsi
Gad Geuel son of Machi
16 These are the spies Moses sent to explore the land. He changed the name of
Hoshea son of Nun to Joshua.
 As in 1.5-16, GNT’s list layout is recommended unless the target language has
a natural idiomatic way to deal with lists such as this. The list layout in FRCL is
without headings, but every line in the list in FRCL ends with “the tribe of …” to
serve as a generic marker of the specific names that follow.
Wilderness: See at 1.1.
According to the command of the Lord: GNT renders this only as “obeyed.”
But it is also possible to render it as a separate sentence without reducing it to one
verb: “So Moses did as the Lord commanded him.” (NLT) or “Moses obeyed the
command of the Lord.” In some languages it will be more natural to translate “at the
mouth of the Lord” (or upon the word of the Lord) since the Hebrew text actually has
“mouth,” not command.
Heads of the people of Israel: GNT renders this as “leaders.” Both
translations leave out the definite article, which is correct. These are not all the leaders
of the Israelites; they are not the same men as those listed in 1.5-16 and in chapter 7,
who were presumably older and not so well suited for an exploratory mission into
strange territory. It is unclear why GNT has left of the people of Israel untranslated,
except perhaps to avoid repetition.
And these were the names: In some languages these in verse 4 and in verse
16 may have to be translated differently: verse 4 introduces the list, while verse 16
refers back to it. But the reference to the names marks the beginning and the end of
the list and therefore should be retained if possible. The Hebrew has no past tense at
these points, so that a rendering like “these are the names” is also possible.
From the tribe of Joseph (that is from the tribe of Manasseh): It is
somewhat puzzling in verse 11 that only the tribe of Manasseh is mentioned in direct
connection with Manasseh’s father Joseph (verse 8 already refers to Ephraim,
Manasseh’s brother). In its list, GNT has translated “Manasseh” and has simply
removed the tribe of Joseph, but there is no evidence for this in ancient biblical
manuscripts. NBV combines the two phrases into one: “from the descendants of
Joseph of the tribe of Manasseh.” In some languages, the order of the RSV will have
to be reversed since the explanation, presumably between the brackets, should refer to
the more famous or important person of the two mentioned. In light of this, FRCL
provides another helpful model: “from the tribe of Manasseh, son of Joseph.”
To spy out: See 13.2.
Moses called: This can give the wrong impression that only Moses called him
Joshua, while others continued to call him Hoshea. GNT solves this by translating
“changed his name.”
Hoshea and Joshua are both formed of the same Hebrew root, meaning “to
save, deliver (from danger).” What, then, was the point of changing this name? Unlike
hoshea` (Hoshea), the form yehoshua` (Joshua) includes the letter y, so that the name
specifies YHWH, the Lord, as the God of the covenant who saves his people. DUCL
includes the meanings of the names in the translation: “Hoshea, Help, … Joshua, the
Lord helps.” This shows the reference to the Lord in the second name more explicitly.
Even though Joshua has already been mentioned in 11.28 (and a number of times in
Exodus), now is the first time that the text mentions this change of names. It is
probably significant that this is mentioned at the end of the list and just before the
spies are sent out to explore the land of Canaan. (Jewish medieval commentators
already noted this. Rashi suggested that Moses changed the name at this point as a
prayer that the Lord would save Joshua from the spies’ rebellion later in the
narrative.) Translators are advised to follow DUCL in this matter (the meanings can
also be put in brackets). Alternatively, the meanings of the names can be mentioned in
a footnote.

13.17
RSV
17 Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and said to them, “Go up
into the Negeb yonder, and go up into the hill country,

GNT
17 When Moses sent them out, he said to them, “Go north from here into the
southern part of the land of Canaan and then on into the hill country.

Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan: After verses 2 and 3 this
sentence may now seem quite repetitive. Perhaps for this reason GNT has reduced it
to a short “when” clause: “When Moses sent them out, …” A similar translation is
CEV: “Before Moses sent them into Canaan, he said: …” In some languages this
repeated information may cause some confusion since it sounds as if Moses had
already sent these men out in verse 3. The repetition marks a resumption of the
narrative story line: after the list of names in verses 4-16 the text now returns to the
major theme of the present section.
Go up: The Hebrew verb `alah does not in every case indicate going up
higher. GNT translates “Go north” since in this particular case the spies are instructed
to go in a northern direction. “Going up” is a key verb, not only in Numbers, but
throughout the Hebrew narrative books. It usually indicates movement towards, or
into the land of Israel and (later) its capital Jerusalem, while “going down” refers to a
corresponding departure. If possible, then, a similar verb in the target language should
be used consistently to reflect this geographical symbolism.
The Negeb: negev means ‘south’ and refers to the wilderness territory
stretching to the south of the Canaanite hill country. GNT translates “the southern part
of the land of Canaan” but this does not express that the Negeb is a specific
geographical term. CEV expressed this more clearly by means of capital letters:
“After you go through the Southern Desert of Canaan, continue north into the hill
country.” A more formal correspondence version may prefer to keep “Negev” (NIV)
as a place name and define the region in a footnote or glossary.
Yonder: NRSV has revised this and translated “there,” meaning “over there.”
It may seem confusing that GNT has “from here.” The point is that the wilderness of
the Negeb is nearby, next to the wilderness of Paran where the Israelites were
presently located (verse 3). This should be clearly expressed; for example, Alter
translates: “Go up this way through the Negeb.”
The hill country: Or “mountain region” (FRCL), the central mountain range
of Canaan. It was the highest part of the entire land, though the hills were not all that
high, comparatively speaking, as those further north in Lebanon, for example.

13.18-19
RSV
18 and see what the land is, and whether the people who dwell in it are strong or
weak, whether they are few or many, 19 and whether the land that they dwell in
is good or bad, and whether the cities that they dwell in are camps or
strongholds,

GNT
18 Find out what kind of country it is, how many people live there, and how
strong they are. 19 Find out whether the land is good or bad and whether the
people live in open towns or in fortified cities.

In many languages, it is not natural to pack so much information as the RSV

into a single sentence, stretching from verse 17 into verse 20. GNT gives a good
model for breaking this unit up into shorter sentences.
Cities … camps or strongholds: This rendering may not make the difference
very clear between the two. The point is that camps are open and vulnerable, while
strongholds are fortified and thus more difficult to conquer. GNT’s “in open towns or
in fortified cities” makes this distinction clear. CEV has “if they live in open towns or
walled cities.” Alter has “in open [that is, unwalled] settlements or in fortresses.”
Canaan consisted of a variety of city-states and regional mini-kingdoms.
Good or bad: Apparently this does not refer to the quality of the soil (for that,
see verse 20), but simply the quality of the land in general, whether it was relatively
“easy or difficult” (REB) to live in.

13.20
RSV
20 and whether the land is rich or poor, and whether there is wood in it or not.
Be of good courage, and bring some of the fruit of the land.” Now the time was
the season of the first ripe grapes.

GNT
20 Find out whether the soil is fertile and whether the land is wooded. And be
sure to bring back some of the fruit that grows there.” (It was the season when
grapes were beginning to ripen.)

Whether the land is rich or poor: GNT’s “Whether the soil is fertile” makes
it clear that this refers to the quality of the soil, not to the economical situation of the
country. Instead of rich or poor some languages will employ an idiomatic expression
like “fat or spare/meagre.” Levine translates “bountiful or lacking.”
Wood: Or “forests” (GECL, NET). NLT has “Are there many trees?” Then, as
nowadays, trees were a valuable resource.
Be of good courage: In RSV this is a general encouragement which comes
after the instructions, while in GNT the verb is connected directly to the instruction to
bring back some of the fruit. The latter seems more plausible. The Hebrew verb is of
the root “to be strong,” and is often understood as “be bold, brave, courageous”
(similar to RSV). See, for example, TOB: “Be bold enough to take fruits of the land,”
and PV: “Do not be afraid to pick fruits of the land.” This interpretation was already
given by the Jewish medieval commentator Rashbam (“Do not be afraid of anyone”).
These versions seem to emphasize that the spies should not fear the Canaanites when
they take fruits. But the Hebrew verb is also understood as “be determined to…”,
“muster strength to …”, or “take pains to…” (NJPSV), similar to GNT. This may fit
better with verse 23, where a single cluster of grapes is so heavy that it requires two
men to carry it (just as the inhabitants of the land will turn out to be unusually
large).[< Alter]. Strength, perseverance, as well as courage would be needed to travel
such a long distance in hostile territory with a visible sample of the fruit of the land.
Now the time …: Now in RSV and the brackets in GNT intend to show that
the sentence gives some background information about the season in which the spies
undertake their journey. Some languages will have a distinctive way of marking such
information, for example, Chewa: “And so we can say …” The text provides this
information to prepare the reader for verses 23-24.
Season of the first ripe grapes: In Canaan this time would be mid summer,
towards the end of July. In this season the spies should be able to see how fertile the
land was.

13.21
RSV
21 So they went up and spied out the land from the wilderness of Zin to
Rehob, near the entrance of Hamath.

GNT
21 So the men went north and explored the land from the wilderness of Zin in
the south all the way to Rehob, near Hamath Pass in the north.

They went up: After the speech of Moses and at the beginning of a new
paragraph (recommended here), it may be necessary to specify the referent of they,
that is, “the men” (GNT), “the twelve men” (CEV), or possibly “the explorers.” For
the verb went up see at 13.17 (“Go up”).
Spied out: See at 13.2.
Zin … Rehob: GNT makes explicit that these two locations were “in the
south” and “in the north” of the land of Canaan. This and the words “all the way”
helps to make explicit what verse 21 aims to show: the men explored the whole land
of Canaan. That makes this verse a geographical summary of the whole expedition,
not just the beginning of their journey. For this reason verse 21 may be set apart as a
paragraph of its own. If this is not done, the text may be read as if it were a straight
narrative sequence, which is incorrect. In the verses that follow, some places of the
journey are mentioned more specifically. The Hebrew form of the name Zin is
literally tsin, starting with a different sound than z or s. The wilderness of tsin (Zin) is
not to be confused with the wilderness of sin “Sin” (see the Exodus Handbook at
16.1), which was apparently located somewhere to the south of the region of Zin.
The entrance of Hamath: Some translations treat the Hebrew for entrance as
part of the name: “near Lebo-hamath” (NRSV); “toward Lebo Hamath” (NIV). This
is recommended; 1 Kgs 8.65 indicates that Lebo was part of the name. The Hebrew
form levo (English “Lebo”) means “to enter, to come.” This place was regarded as the
northern limit of Israel and may well be the same as the valley between the two ranges
of the Lebanon Mountains. Through this valley one had access to the city of
Hamath.[< Noth] This makes the renderings “Hamath Pass” (GNT) and “the Hamath
Pass” (DUCL) plausible as well. The point is that, together, Rehob and Hamath lie
approximately along the northern border of what would later become the traditional
territory of Israel.

13.22-24
RSV
22 They went up into the Negeb, and came to Hebron; and Ahiman, Sheshai, and
Talmai, the descendants of Anak, were there. (Hebron was built seven years
before Zoan in Egypt.) 23 And they came to the Valley of Eshcol, and cut down
from there a branch with a single cluster of grapes, and they carried it on a pole
between two of them; they brought also some pomegranates and figs. 24 That
place was called the Valley of Eshcol,h because of the cluster which the men of
Israel cut down from there.
h
13.24 That is Cluster

GNT
22 They went first into the southern part of the land and came to Hebron, where
the clans of Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the descendants of a race of giants
called the Anakim, lived. (Hebron was founded seven years before Zoan in
Egypt.) 23 They came to the Valley of Eshcol, and there they cut off a branch
which had one bunch of grapes on it so heavy that it took two men to carry it on
a pole between them. They also brought back some pomegranates and figs. 24
(That place was named the Valley of Eshcola because of the bunch of grapes the
Israelites cut off there.)

a
13.24 eshcol: This name in Hebrew means “bunch of grapes”.

It is recommended to start a new paragraph at verse 22, since verses 22-24 are
a more detailed description of the journey in the south of the land, while verse 21 is a
short, more general, summary of the journey throughout the land, from south to north.
Hebron: About forty kilometers south of Jerusalem. Verses 22-24 only refer
to the southern part of Canaan. Hebron is the first major, probably fortified town of
Canaan that the explorers come to on their journey. It is situated at a relatively high
elevation and hence also a very strategic point in the southern mountainous region. It
was near Hebron that God first promised to Abraham that he would give his
descendants this land (Gen 13.14-18). The Patriarchs and their wives were also buried
there (“the cave of Machpelah,” Gen 49.30-31; 50.13).
Ahiman …: GNT’s “the clans of Ahiman …” reflects that these three names
probably do not refer to individuals but to clans. In any case, the meaning of these
names is uncertain.
The descendants of Anak: The Anakites were legendary original inhabitants
of the land, famous for their height (see also the “giants” in verse 33). The Hebrew
text includes a definite article: The descendants of the Anak. This is why there is
doubt as to whether Anak is a proper name of one person. So GNT (“the descendants
of a race of giants called the Anakim”) is recommended as a model, even though there
is no reason to end this form with the Hebrew plural ending “im.” NJPSV has
“Anakites,” with the English plural ending. (The meaning of the term is uncertain,
perhaps “long-necked people,” “neck-chain people.”) See also Deut 1.28 and 9.2. The
term chosen in the target language for “giants” should not have a connotation with
any mythic tradition of the target culture.
Zoan: Better known as Tanis, which became the capital city of Egypt from the
tenth century B.C.—the time of King David—but was actually built much earlier. It
seems that the text makes a connection between the antiquity of Hebron (regarded as a
little older than Zoan) and the Anakites who live there.
Cluster of grapes: A “cluster” is a “bunch,” or tightly packed grouping, of
small fruits, in this case grapes. In cultures which do not have or know about such
bunches of grapes, either a close functional equivalent may be used or a descriptive
phrase, for example, “a branch full of small fruits” (see also Gen 40.10). A fuller
glossary entry will probably be needed then for “grapes” and “wine” due to the great
importance of this fruit and its product in the Bible.
Carried it on a pole: To show how rich and fertile the land was.
Pomegranates: On this term see the Handbook on Exodus at 28.33-34.
Valley: Or “wadi” (NJPSV, Levine). As the Handbook on Deuteronomy
points out at 1.28, a wadi is a ravine or watercourse that is dry during the dry season
but that can become a torrent in the rainy season. However, in cultures where dry
ravines or wadis like this do not exist, it will be better to translate “the dry river
(valley) named Eshcol,” with a footnote explaining what a “wadi” is like.
Eshcol: As the footnotes of RSV and GNT indicate, the Hebrew ’eshkol
means ‘bunch of grapes,’ ‘grape cluster.’ But it may be more effective to include this
information in the translation itself—“wadi Eshcol (‘wadi of the grape cluster’)”
(similar to FRCL and NBS02)—or perhaps to translate the name as “Wadi of Grapes”
(similar to GECL). The Valley of Eshcol is not far from Hebron. It was known for its
productive vineyards and orchards.
Some languages may mark subordinate or explanatory information in a
different way than by the use of brackets, as found in verses 22 and 24 of GNT.

13.25
RSV
25 At the end of forty days they returned from spying out the land.

GNT
25 After exploring the land for 40 days, the spies returned …

They returned: This verb marks the conceptual closure of returning from a
mission and forms an inclusio with forms of the same verb in 13.2, 16-17, 21. It may
be necessary to specify the referent of they in the same way as in verse 21.
Spying out: See at 13.2.

13.26-33
Section Heading: For a possible section heading see the discussion under 13.1-33.
The majority of versions, including GNT, begin the new section already at verse 25.
But the Hebrew narrative structure seems to support versions like the NIV and NET
which include verse 25 with the preceding section and begin a new one at verse 26.

13.26
RSV
26 And they came to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation of the people
of Israel in the wilderness of Paran, at Kadesh; they brought back word to them
and to all the congregation, and showed them the fruit of the land.

GNT
26 to Moses, Aaron, and the whole community of Israel at Kadesh in the
wilderness of Paran. They reported what they had seen and showed them the
fruit they had brought.

In GNT, this verse starts in the middle of the sentence, because GNT
combines verse 25 with 26. See above and at 13.25 why these two verses are better
put in different paragraphs.
And they came: The Hebrew literally has: “and they went and they came”—a
double verb of returning to report back, which initiates a new unit.
Congregation: See 1.2. GNT’s rendering “community” is recommended.
They brought back word to them and to all the congregation: This
sentence is actually an initial summary of the rest of the section (verses 27-33). Apart
from the term congregation instead of “community,” RSV is more accurate than
GNT. GNT reduces the clause to “they reported what they had seen.” But it should be
clear at this point that the explorers reported not just to Moses and Aaron but to the
whole community as well. (Otherwise the reference to the people in verse 30 would
not make sense.) GNT may be corrected as follows: “They reported to all of them
what they had seen” (similar to FRCL).
Kadesh: This place will become the Israelites’ chief base for the next decades.
It is located about 80 kilometers south of Beersheba in the wilderness of Paran (Zin).
It formed the southern border of the land of Canaan and the western border with
Edom. This place is called Kadesh-Barnea in 32.8.

13.27-29
RSV
27 And they told him, “We came to the land to which you sent us; it flows with
milk and honey, and this is its fruit. 28 Yet the people who dwell in the land are
strong, and the cities are fortified and very large; and besides, we saw the
descendants of Anak there. 29 The Amalekites dwell in the land of the Negeb; the
Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites dwell in the hill country; and the
Canaanites dwell by the sea, and along the Jordan.”

GNT
27 They said to Moses, “We explored the land and found it to be rich and fertile;
and here is some of its fruit. 28 But the people who live there are powerful, and
their cities are very large and well fortified. Even worse, we saw the descendants
of the giants there. 29 Amalekites live in the southern part of the land; Hittites,
Jebusites, and Amorites live in the hill country; and Canaanites live by the
Mediterranean Sea and along the River Jordan.”

Him: Although Aaron and the representatives of the community are present,
as verse 26 makes clear, it is to Moses as leader that the explorers address the words
of their report.[< Alter] GNT makes explicit that they told “Moses.”
It flows with milk and honey: This expression is found frequently in the
Pentateuch to describe the land of Canaan as “rich and fertile”: abundant in fruits and
crops. NJPSV and Alter are more accurate than RSV in that they include the Hebrew
focus particle gam in its rendering: “Really, it flows with milk and honey” (NBV);
“it’s actually flowing with milk and honey” (Alter). Moses has repeatedly used this
idiom. Now the eyewitnesses confirm that it is actually (gam) true. Translators are
advised to keep the idiom as NBV and Alter have done, or at least to render this
clause with a natural idiom or expression of the target language. See the Handbook on
Exodus at 3.8. An example of such a natural and compact idiom in a target language
would be dziko la mwana-alirenji (“land of what could a child cry for”) in Chewa.
This is its fruit: The men are visibly showing the fruit to the gathered
assembly. GNT (“here is some of its fruit”) makes this clear.
Yet: The Hebrew is quite emphatic: “However, on the other hand …” RSV’s
Yet and GNT’s “But” are not as forceful as the Hebrew text at this point. The Hebrew
word order also focuses upon the adjective strong, for this was the main concern and
fear of the majority of the explorers.
Besides: The Hebrew includes another gam here. Here the gam focuses upon a
negative feature of the land, hence GNT’s “Even worse, …”
The descendants of Anak: See at 13.22. For reasons mentioned there, “the
descendants of the giants” (GNT) would be a better model to follow.
 Amalekites: Israel’s hereditary enemy. The background of this tribal
(bedouin-like) group is explained in the introduction to Exo 17.8-16 in the Exodus
Handbook.
Hittites … Jebusites … Amorites: See the Exodus Handbook at 3.8. As the
spies’ majority report puts it, the hostile peoples mentioned in verse 29 were quite
well established already over almost the entire land of Canaan; the spies were thereby
suggesting that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for Israel to conquer this
territory.
The sea: While this refers to the “Mediterranean Sea,” in many translations it
will be strange to find this term in the direct speech of characters in the text (the spies
who are reporting). Readers, just as the original hearers, do not need the exact name
of the sea in this report. The point is rather that the descriptions in verse 29 cover
almost the whole land; the spies are implying that others have already taken most of
the land—the southern wilderness (Amalekites), the central and northern hill country
(Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites), the western and eastern lowlands (Canaanites).
Jordan: Note that in some languages, it is clearer and more natural to include
“River” along with “Jordan” (as in GNT).

13.30
RSV
30 But Caleb quieted the people before Moses, and said, “Let us go up at once,
and occupy it; for we are well able to overcome it.”

GNT
30 Caleb silenced the people who were complaining againstb Moses, and said,
“We should attack now and take the land; we are strong enough to conquer it.”

b
13.30 complaining against; or gathered round.

But: It may be useful to include this conjunction if this makes the translation
more coherent, to indicate the contrast between the report of the majority (verses 28-
29) and what Caleb is about to say. On the other hand, it may not be necessary, since
the text has not yet mentioned how the people reacted. If some sort of a transition to
Caleb’s words is needed, perhaps a simple temporal conjunction like “Then” might be
sufficient. In any case, it seems logical to employ “But” at the beginning of verse 31,
at the point where the spies emphasize their fears and explicitly contradict Caleb’s
proposal.
Quieted … before Moses: Note that only Caleb plays a role here; Joshua will
not be mentioned until 14.6. The Hebrew text says that Caleb silenced, hushed the
people, which implies that the people must have reacted in some vocal way. But the
text does not specify exactly how the people reacted and leaves this to the reader’s
imagination. It does not say that the people “were complaining against Moses.” Thus
NLT’s “… as they stood before Moses” is a better alternative, or GNT’s footnote: “…
who were gathered round Moses.” Alter translates likewise: “silenced the people
around Moses.” CEV has simply “Caleb calmed down the crowd.” The verb hasah ‘to
hush, silence’ probably resembles the sound that would be used in urging others to be
silent. In a number of languages translators may be able to use a similar sounding
onomatopoetic verb (many Bantu languages can use an ideophone here, like Chewa
chete).
 Let us go up at once: Caleb’s words in Hebrew are emphatic (an infinitive
absolute before a verb of the same root): “Indeed, let us attack now.” Go up is the
same verb as in 13.17, but this time it refers to military action: “attack.”
We are well able to overcome it: The Hebrew is again emphatic (another
infinitive absolute before a verb of the same root): “We are surely strong enough to
conquer it.”

13.31-33
RSV
31 Then the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up
against the people; for they are stronger than we.” 32 So they brought to the
people of Israel an evil report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The
land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its
inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are men of great stature. 33 And
there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim); and
we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

GNT
31 But the men who had gone with Caleb said, “No, we are not strong enough
to attack them; the people there are more powerful than we are.” 32 So they
spread a false report among the Israelites about the land they had explored. They
said, “That land doesn't even produce enough to feed the people who live there.
Everyone we saw was very tall, 33 and we even saw giants there, the
descendants of Anak. We felt as small as grasshoppers, and that is how we must
have looked to them.”

Verse 31 is where the report changes from positive to negative, so this is a

natural point to start a new paragraph with a conjunction like “But,” as GNT does.
What was initially only implied in the latter part of the spies’ report (verses 28-29) is
now openly stated in direct contrast to Caleb’s preceding claim: We cannot possibly
conquer this land! (The suspense builds. How will the people respond? This will only
become clear in chapter 14.)
Gone up: See at 13.17.
Go up: The same verb, but as in the preceding verse it refers to military
action: “attack.”
The people: In some languages, it is necessary to be more specific, for
example, “the people of that land.”
An evil report: That is, a discrediting report[< Levine] or “false” (GNT).
CEV has: “Then they started spreading rumors and saying …”
Had spied out … to spy it out: See at 13.1.
A land that devours its inhabitants: This may be a reference to infertility,
and that is how GNT interprets this phrase: “That land doesn't even produce enough
to feed the people who live there,” which is rather ironic given the size of a single
bunch of grapes (verse 23)! But it has also been suggested that the metaphor
represents the land as being insecure and in a state of repeated war. Canaan was
surrounded by Near Eastern empires at war with each other, and its different ethnic
groups would have waged war among themselves as well. RSV and Alter—“a land
that consumes those who dwell in it”—are a better model to follow than GNT. If such
a personification of the land does not work in the target language, perhaps the
following will do: “The peoples of that land devour themselves in war(fare)!” In any
case, it is important for the translation to indicate that the spies are exaggerating the
potential dangers. They almost compare the land with the underworld, which
swallows up the living (Isa 5.14)!
Nephilim: The explorers continue to exaggerate their negative report. The
probable meaning of the term Nephilim is “fallen ones,” that is, fallen out of the
domain of the gods, but still of exceptional stature. (The Hebrew nafal means “to
fall.”) If Nephilim is retained in translation, it will have no meaning; and if it is used
it will have to be explained either in the text or in a note. Many translation actually
render this as “giants,” suggesting mythological origins. This would work well if it
obviously exaggerates the reputation of the people being referred to. If a word for
giants is not known, it may be possible to say, for example, “huge and powerful men,”
or it may be possible to compare these men with some local object such a “men as big
as trees.” As well as “very tall men,” there are other expressions in existing
translations, such as “very big men with double strength” and “unbelievably big
strong men.” However, expressions that are too modern or colloquial should not be
used since reference is being made to an ancient people. More background
information is given in the Handbook on Genesis at 6.4.
The sons of Anak: Even though the Hebrew does not include a definite article
here, the comments at 13.22 still apply. NJPSV translates “the Anakites.”
Grasshoppers: A clear image of smallness, hence GNT’s “small as
grasshoppers.” In languages that have several words for grasshoppers (or locusts), a
term for the smallest species should be used.
And so we seemed to them: The Hebrew says: “and so we were in their eyes”
(Alter). This highlights that the spies project their negative perception of themselves
onto the giants, since they would hardly have spoken with them during their
exploration of the land.

14.1-45
Section Heading: A heading for the whole chapter would be: “The people rebel and
provoke the Lord’s judgment.” Such a heading will help to highlight the recurring
theme of rebellion by the people. GNT has four section headings in this chapter:
- The People Complain (verses 1-10)
- Moses Prays for the People (verses 11-25)
- The Lord Punishes the People for Complaining (verses 26-38)
- The First Attempt to Invade the Land (verses 39-45)
(For verses 1-10, a heading such as “The People Complain in Unbelief” would be
more to the point. An alternative for verses 39-45 would be “A Failed Attempt ….”)
Headings along these lines will highlight some of the specific subjects in this chapter.

14.1-4
RSV
1 Then all the congregation raised a loud cry; and the people wept that night.
2 And all the people of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron; the whole
congregation said to them, “Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! Or
would that we had died in this wilderness! 3 Why does the Lord bring us into this
land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become a prey;
would it not be better for us to go back to Egypt?”
4 And they said to one another, “Let us choose a captain, and go back to
Egypt.”

GNT
 1 All night long the people cried out in distress. 2 They complained against
Moses and Aaron, and said, “It would have been better to die in Egypt or even
here in the wilderness! 3 Why is the Lord taking us into that land? We will be
killed in battle, and our wives and children will be captured. Wouldn't it be better
to go back to Egypt?” 4 So they said to one another, “Let's choose a leader and
go back to Egypt!”

All the congregation: See at 1.2. NJPSV’s rendering “community” is

recommended. Notice the repetition of all in verses 1-2; GNT appears to have
removed this particular emphasis of the Hebrew text.
The people wept that night: GNT has combined this information with the
first part of the verse, making it one sentence. In so doing GNT has replaced wept
with “in distress”, which gives little expression to the people’s intense emotional
behavior. It would then be better to translate: “All night long the community cried out
loudly and wept” or “All night long the community wept loud and bitterly” (similar to
Alter’s footnote). Some languages distinguish several types of “weeping,” for
example, on account of mourning, sadness, hopelessness, anger, fear, penitence, even
joy. Therefore, translators will have to imagine themselves in the biblical situation
and select the appropriate term to fit the dramatic communal setting at this point.
Would that … Or would that …: This matches the two chiastic parallel
clauses of the Hebrew: “If only we had died in the land of Egypt! If only in this
wilderness we had died!” (similar to Alter). If such a doubly-expressed wish for death
is awkward in the target language, then a combined rendering like GNT may be
considered. Many languages will have a particular wish formula or another way of
duplicating this strong expression of the people’s desire.
Murmured: As the Handbook on Exodus mentions at 15.24, this expressive
verb is repeated several times in Exodus and Numbers. It describes the rebellious
complaining of the people throughout their wilderness wandering. It is voiced against
God or his representatives and therefore always has a negative connotation (the
people are not complaining for a justifiable reason). Most English translations use
either “complained” or “grumbled.” This “murmuring motif,” as it has been called,
shows how much difficulty Moses had in building a relationship with the people
during this entire period. A translation should attempt to render this verb consistently
where it occurs in the Hebrew.
To fall by the sword?: In the Hebrew sentence this phrase is still part of the
question. So GNT could have translated: “Why is the Lord taking us into that land, to
be killed in battle?” It is probably for reasons of naturalness that GNT has translated
this phrase as a separate objection, coming after the question. If “swords” are
unknown in the culture, the target language may have a close functional equivalent
that can serve in this context, one that would not be unknown in a biblical setting, for
example, a “spear” or “arrows” (or perhaps even a generic term like “weapons”).
However, the non-figurative sense should be apparent: warfare or “battle” (GNT).
Our wives and our little ones: GNT uses the natural English expression “our
wives and children.” Translators are advised to use the normal expression for this in
their language.
Will become a prey: The Hebrew word refers to people being taken prisoner
as a result of warfare. “Spoils of war” (REB) and “plunder” (NET) seem to refer to
non-human items captured in this way. “Carried off as slaves” states the meaning
explicitly, while GNT’s “captured” perhaps leaves too much implicit.
 Would it not be better for us: As the following sentence indicates, this is not
a real question, but a rhetorical one, which may need to be marked in some way, for
example: “Surely it would be better for us to return to Egypt, not so?”
Leader: The Hebrew has ro’sh “head,” which will be an acceptable term for
leader in many languages.

14.5
RSV
5 Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of the
congregation of the people of Israel.

GNT
5 Then Moses and Aaron bowed to the ground in front of all the people.

Fell on their faces or “flung themselves on the ground” (REB) are accurate
renderings. After the people’s rebellion Moses’ and Aaron’s reaction is immediate
and emotional. GNT’s rendering “bowed to the ground” is not only less accurate, but
does not express this reaction adequately. The act shows awe-filled submission and
self-abasement before the Lord and aims to turn his anger away from some rebellious
act on the part of the people (also in 16.4, 22, 45; 20.6). In some translations, it may
be necessary to clarify the symbolic meaning of this action, for example: “threw
themselves on the ground in alarm …”
Before: Although the context indicates otherwise, this verse can be
misunderstood as if Moses and Aaron fell on their faces as a sign of respect for the
assembly. To avoid this problem, NBG51 translates “in the sight of” / “in the presence
of,” not before. Another way to avoid the misunderstanding is to translate “fell on
their faces before the Lord in front of …” CEV’s “bowed down to pray” is premature
since Moses does not begin his prayer until verse 13.
All the assembly of the congregation: The Hebrew is literally “all the qahal
of the `edah of the Israelites.” (This occurs only here and in Exo 12.6.) NET
translates: “the whole assembled community.”

14.6
RSV
6 And Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who were among
those who had spied out the land, rent their clothes,

GNT
6 And Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh, two of the spies, tore their
clothes in sorrow

Joshua: This is the first time that Joshua and Caleb are mentioned together. It
is they as eye-witnesses among the scouts, instead of Moses and Aaron, who step
forward to call upon the people not to complain and rebel.
Had spied out: See 13.2.
Rent their clothes: A sign of mourning, anger, alarm, shock, or frustration.
GNT’s rendering includes “in sorrow” while FRCL adds “upset,” so as to indicate
what it meant in ancient Israelite culure to tear one’s clothes. These two explorers are
shocked and dismayed at how the people rebel against the Lord.

14.7-9
RSV
7 and said to all the congregation of the people of Israel, “The land, which we
passed through to spy it out, is an exceedingly good land. 8 If the Lord delights in
us, he will bring us into this land and give it to us, a land which flows with milk
and honey. 9 Only, do not rebel against the Lord; and do not fear the people of
the land, for they are bread for us; their protection is removed from them, and
the Lord is with us; do not fear them.”

GNT
7 and said to the people, “The land we explored is an excellent land. 8 If the Lord
is pleased with us, he will take us there and give us that rich and fertile land. 9
Do not rebel against the Lord and don't be afraid of the people who live there. We
will conquer them easily. The Lord is with us and has defeated the gods who
protected them; so don't be afraid.”

Joshua and Caleb’s emotive speech in these verses closely echoes the positive
aspects of the explorers’ report (13.27).
Congregation: See at 1.2. NJPSV’s rendering “community” is recommended.
Spy out: See 13.2.
Exceedingly good: Literally “very very good,” a strong superlative
expression.
If the Lord delights in us: What would please the Lord in this particular
situation? The CEV brings out the implication here: “If we obey the Lord, …”
A land which flows with milk and honey: As mentioned at 13.27, this
expression is found frequently in the Pentateuch to describe the land of Canaan as
“rich and fertile”: abundant in fruits and crops, and by extension also livestock and
wild game. Translators are advised to keep the idiom, or at least to render this phrase
with a natural idiom or expression of the target language.
Only: GNT leaves the Hebrew ak (“only,” “but”) untranslated, but this
particle does highlight how important it is for the people not to rebel. Perhaps an
emphatic particle or emotive interjection would be natural and expected here, for
example Chewa: “But please, …”
Do not rebel: Or “do not resist” (NBV). The Hebrew verb timrodu occurs
only here in the Book of Numbers. It occurs at the end of the phrase (after “against the
Lord), which seems to indicate that this is a strong prohibition: “you must not rebel”
(NJPSV), “you must not act in defiance of …” (REB).
Do not fear: In the Hebrew, the verb is preceded by a separate pronoun
(’attem), which again indicates that this is a strong prohibition. There may be an
idiomatic way of expressing this emphasis in the target language, for example: “and,
just listen now, don’t be afraid of …!”
They are bread for us: Rashi, the Jewish medieval commentator, already
explained it as follows: “we will devour them like bread.” As the note in NET points
out, the expression must indicate that they could destroy the enemies as easily as they
could eat bread. Hence GNT’s “We will conquer them easily.” NLT has “They are
only helpless prey to us!” WV95 has “They are easy prey to us.” NIV has “We will
swallow them up.” Chewa could say: “We will swallow them [as food].” In, for
example, Albanian: “They are a small bite for us.” In modern English: “We eat them
for breakfast.” [< Sherwood]
Their protection: Literally “their shadow/shade,” a metaphor for protection in
this hot desert region. An English equivalent might be “their protective cover.” GNT
and several other translations take this to be the protection given by the gods of the
people in the land. This interpretation is possible, but not certain. A helpful model is
NBV, which leaves this open: “They have nobody who protects them.” A similar
translation would be: “They have nothing to protect them.”

14.10
RSV
10 But all the congregation said to stone them with stones.
Then the glory of the Lord appeared at the tent of meeting to all the people of
Israel.

GNT
10 The whole community was threatening to stone them to death, but suddenly
the people saw the dazzling light of the Lord's presence appear over the tent.

Congregation: See at 1.2. GNT’s rendering “community” is recommended.

Said: The community did not actually stone them but “was threatening” to do
this. To stone them was their immediate intention; thus, they were just about to
commit murder, right before the Lord.
Stone them with stones: Although RSV suggests otherwise, the roots of the
two Hebrew words involved are not the same. GNT’s “to death” not only makes the
purpose of the stoning explicit but avoids RSV’s repetitiveness. Ironically here, such
severe punishment was reserved for major religious offences and breeches of the
covenant (Lev 20.2, 27; 24.23; Num 15.36; Deut 13.10; 21.21; 22.21).
Whom did the community threaten to stone? “Moses and Aaron” (EÜ, CEV)
or “Joshua and Caleb” (Rashi, Alter’s footnote, Noth, PV, NLT)? Or all four of them?
The text does not make this clear, so translators are advised to leave it open. If a
choice has to be made, “Joshua and Caleb” is more plausible, since they are more
outspoken in this chapter than Moses and Aaron. Besides, they have just spoken up to
contradict the majority of scouts.
Then the glory of the Lord appeared: In RSV this is the starting point of a
new paragraph. But GNT connects this phrase with what precedes: “but suddenly …,”
which corresponds more closely with what the Hebrew word order and verb type
express. If a new paragraph is needed after the speech of Joshua and Caleb, then it
should begin at the start of verse 10 (as in NIV and NET). The glory of the Lord may
be understood as “the dazzling light of the Lord’s presence” (see the Exodus
Handbook at 16.7 and 24.17), which “appeared in the tent of meeting.” Rashi notes
that this refers to the cloud (9.15-23). A consistent way of referring to this divine
manifestation should be maintained.
At the tent of meeting: See at 1.1. At or “in” (NBV, Alter) is an accurate
translation of the Hebrew preposition be. Even inside, the dazzling light would still
have been visible to all. GNT’s “over the tent” seems to follow only the ancient Greek
translation, the Septuagint. In this context, the sudden appearance of the Lord’s
majesty would indicate that some calamity was about to befall the people on account
of their rebellious behavior.

14.11-25
Section Heading: If several headings are planned for chapter 14, appropriate
headings for 14.11-25 would be “Moses Prays for the People” (GNT), “Moses
Intercedes for the People” (NBS02), or “Moses Asks to Pardon the People” (FRCL).
Moses’ role as mediator between the Lord and the rebellious people is important in
Numbers.
A similar dialogue between Moses and the Lord is found in Exo 32.9-14,
where God decides to destroy Israel and start over again with Moses to form a new
nation, and where Moses intercedes as well. The narrator of Numbers seems to be
comparing the people’s unwillingness to conquer the land of Canaan with the people’s
unfaithfulness as shown in the worship of the golden calf in Exodus 32.[< Sherwood;
Olson 80]

14.11-12
RSV
11 And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will this people despise me? And how
long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs which I have wrought
among them? 12 I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I
will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they.”

GNT
11 The Lord said to Moses, “How much longer will these people reject me? How
much longer will they refuse to trust in me, even though I have performed so
many miracles among them? 12 I will send an epidemic and destroy them, but I
will make you the father of a nation that is larger and more powerful than they
are!”

How long: The emotive aspect of the two rhetorical questions should be
brought out, for example, anger, extreme frustration. (Other examples occur in Exo
10.3; 16.28.) The GNT marks them even more clearly as rhetorical questions: “How
much longer…”
This people: The Hebrew `am is a singular form, referring to the people as
one entity. GNT’s “these people” does not show this.
Despise in the sense of “treat disrespectfully, discard, reject.”
Believe in the sense of “trust, rely on,” that is, the Lord’s power to provide and
protect them.
Signs in the sense of “miracles” (GNT) or “mighty works.”
I will strike: A transitional expression may be needed after the two rhetorical
questions of verse 11, for example Chewa: “So it (is) that I will strike them …”
Pestilence: A generic term for “epidemic, plague” should be used if possible.
Disinherit: The Hebrew is literally “dispossess” or “take away one’s
possession.” Hence GNT’s rendering “destroy.”
Make of you: you of course refers to Moses, not to the people. GNT’s “make
you the father of” indicates this clearly. The wording reminds us of Exo 32.10 where
the Lord proposes to wipe out the Israelites and start all over with Moses after the
incident of the golden calf.
Nation: Or “people”; the Hebrew goy is a singular form as well.

14.13-14
RSV
13 But Moses said to the Lord, “Then the Egyptians will hear of it, for thou
didst bring up this people in thy might from among them, 14 and they will tell the
inhabitants of this land. They have heard that thou, O Lord, art in the midst of
this people; for thou, O Lord, art seen face to face, and thy cloud stands over
them and thou goest before them, in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire
by night.
GNT
13 But Moses said to the Lord, “You brought these people out of Egypt by your
power. When the Egyptians hear what you have done to your people, 14 they will
tell it to the people who live in this land. These people have already heard that
you, Lord, are with us, that you are plainly seen when your cloud stops over us,
and that you go before us in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.

In some languages Moses must begin his speech to the Lord with an
expression of the proper respect when addressing the deity.
GNT has reversed the order of the clauses in verse 13, so that “When the
Egyptians hear” stands closer to “they will tell” (in verse 14). This may be helpful in
other languages.
It is important to keep the distinction between Israelites, Egyptians and
Canaanites clear, especially the various pronominal references. With regard to the
combination of sentences in the Hebrew of verse 14, RSV follows this sentence
structure much more closely than GNT (see the reasons given below).
This people: See at 14.11. This is a reference to the Israelites, not to the
people of the land of Canaan. If necessary, perhaps “your people” could be used to
clarify this, also in verse 14.
The inhabitants of this land. They: GNT translates “the people who live in
this land. These people …” All this refers to the Canaanites. (However, since GNT
already used “these people” to refer to the Israelites, there may be some confusion if
this is translated literally.) Instead of They Levine translates “They, in turn, …” to
indicate that it does not refer to the Egyptians but to the Canaanites.
Face to face: The Hebrew is literally “eye to eye.” This expression only
occurs here and in Isa 52.8. These human terms are clearly intended to express the
closest of contact. In comparison with this, GNT’s “you are plainly seen” seems a flat
translation. It is recommended to use a more idiomatic expression instead. Some
languages will already have almost the same idiom as in Hebrew.
For thou, O Lord, art seen face to face, and thy cloud stands over them:
GNT connects the first clause closely with the second: “that you are plainly seen
when your cloud stops over us.” But these two clauses are separate in the Hebrew
text. And in this context the Hebrew clause connector ’asher is probably better
understood as for or “who” (see below) than as “that.”
What difference does this make, then? GNT and many other translations do
not distinguish between kiy and ’asher (“have already heard that … and that … and
that …”). Thus they suggest that the Canaanites heard everything which is mentioned
in the rest of the verse, including the pillar of cloud. But the combination of sentences
in RSV (and likewise in NRSV and Alter) resembles the Hebrew more closely: the
inhabitants of the land have heard that the Lord is in the midst of the Israelites (and,
following the sentence structure, that is all that they have heard). Next, Moses gives
the background to this in the rest of the verse, when he reminds the Lord how close he
has been to his own people (for … and … and …).
Reading all this, translators may still feel that GNT is easier to work with as a
model in their language. If that is the case, it will still be important to correct its
translation of ’asher (following NBJ98), to bring out the emphasis underlying the
threefold repetition of “you” (with reference to the Lord) and to separate the clauses
properly, as follows:
… These people have already heard that you, Lord, are with us — you, Lord, who
are seen eye to eye; that your cloud stops over us; and that you yourself go
before us in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.
Them: Moses speaks about the Israelites in the third person. Perhaps to avoid
confusion with the Canaanites, GNT translates “us.”
Pillar of cloud … pillar of fire: For cloud and fire see at 9.15-16. See also
Exo 13.21, where the Handbook mentions that pillar may be difficult, since pillar
suggests something solid in contrast with cloud and fire. It may be easier to translate
“in the form of a pillar/column.” If it is very difficult to express this, the following
may be considered: “in a visible cloud by day and a visible fire by night.” Of course,
both a cloud and fire are naturally visible, but by stating the obvious explicitly, the
translation can highlight the extraordinary character of each divine manifestation.

14.15-16
RSV
15 Now if thou dost kill this people as one man, then the nations who have heard
thy fame will say, 16 ‘Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the
land which he swore to give to them, therefore he has slain them in the
wilderness.’

GNT
15 Now if you kill all your people, the nations who have heard of your fame will
say 16 that you killed your people in the wilderness because you were not able to
bring them into the land you promised to give them.

As one man: GNT renders this as “all” (in “all your people”), but this does not
take the Hebrew ’echad (one) into account. NRSV expresses the meaning more
convincingly: “all at one time.” FRCL has “in one hit.” Rashi already explained it as
meaning “suddenly.” Many Bantu languages will have an ideophone that would
express this dramatically.
Who have heard thy fame: This clause has a positive meaning. The meaning
of the Hebrew word shema` can be described as “what is heard,” “news,” “report.” In
the context of verse 15 this should indeed be understood as something positive. Some
translations make this interpretation explicit: “your renown/reputation” (TOB, NFB,
Levine); “all your great deeds …” (PV). The ancient Greek translation, the
Septuagint, reads “your name” at this point, presumably with a positive meaning as
well. The point that Moses makes is that the other nations had already heard at an
earlier time about the Lord’s great reputation, that the Lord is in the midst of his
people, but now the nations will hear that the Lord was not able to live up to this
reputation and killed his people instead. Thus in his pleading with the Lord, Moses
focuses on the Lord’s own reputation with the nations, a reputation of supreme power.
If he now destroys the Israelites, this reputation will be damaged and the nations will
question whether the god of the Israelites has any real power.
In the rest of the Old Testament, this Hebrew form shema` most of the time
refers to a strong reputation of power, which inspires fear in others.
By contrast, NIV gives a negative meaning to the expression: “the nations who
have heard this report [on verse 12] about you.” Similar renderings are found in REB
(“these reports”) and LUT84 (“such a rumor”). When understood in this way, the
clause loses its point somewhat and does not focus on a change in the Lord’s
reputation: what the other nations will hear is simply that the Lord has destroyed his
people. This may even give the wrong suggestion that there would be nations who had
heard the report (on verse 12), and other nations who had not heard about it.
An alternative may be a translation that does not choose between a positive
and negative meaning: “the nations who have heard [what is] spoken about you”
(NBS02).
Because: GNT inverts the clause order of verse 16, giving the result before the
reason. This may be a more natural ordering in other languages as well.
He has slain: GNT’s “killed” is not an adequate rendering; the Hebrew verb is
stronger and really means “slaughtered,” “butchered.” The implication is that this is
what the other nations will be saying in derision about the Lord.
RSV keeps verse 16 in direct speech: Moses quotes what the other nations will
say about the Lord. GNT changes the verse into indirect speech, so that Moses
himself still speaks to the Lord: “you.” But in some languages direct speech, even
when embedded, makes more of an impression on the listener.

14.17-18
RSV
17 And now, I pray thee, let the power of the Lord be great as thou has
promised, saying, 18 ‘The Lord is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love,
forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty,
visiting the iniquity of fathers upon children, upon the third and upon the fourth
generation.’

GNT
17 So now Lord, I pray, show us your power and do what you promised when you
said, 18 ‘I, the Lord, am not easily angered, and I show great love and
faithfulness and forgive sin and rebellion. Yet I will not fail to punish children and
grandchildren to the third and fourth generation for the sins of their parents.’

And now: Moses has completed the basis for his request to the Lord (verses
13-16), and he is now about to appeal to the Lord’s covenantal characteristics (verses
17-18). Thus, a new paragraph and an appropriate transitional expression may be
needed at the beginning of verse 17 (GNT: “So now …”). Note that Moses does not
actually reach his request until verse 19: “forgive.”
I pray thee: Or “I beg of you!” Although the Hebrew has no verb of this
meaning here, what the text does have is a small word, na’, which makes a request
more urgent and compelling: “do show us your power.”
Let the power of the Lord be great: The power of the Lord would be made
manifest before Israel and the surrounding nations in the greatness of his forgiveness.
The Hebrew term for the Lord is not the usual name YHWH, but Adonay “Lord.”
Most English translations show the difference between the two terms by printing Lord
in capitals when it is a rendering of YHWH, while it should not be in capitals when it
is a rendering of Adonay, as is the case here. A request to the Lord which refers to him
in third person will be hard to express in some languages. Similarly to GNT, then, a
shift to the second person “do show us your power” is a helpful model. Since the Lord
is then being addressed directly, it may be natural to add a vocative “(O) Lord” as
well.
Lord … slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity
and transgression: (The Hebrew has YHWH again.) RSV has kept this description of
the Lord in the third person. GNT has changed it to the first: “I, the Lord, am …” This
may be more natural in many languages, since the sentence is part of the Lord’s own
words (as quoted by Moses) in verse 18. The characteristics of the Lord in this
sentence are frequently mentioned in the Old Testament and should be translated in
the same way. As the Exodus Handbook explains at 34.6, slow to anger, literally
“long of nostrils,” is an idiom suggesting that the nostrils are slow in reflecting the
heat (redness) of anger. One may translate “he does not get angry quickly” or “his
heart does not get hot quickly” or “he is very patient.” The phrase abounding in
steadfast love occurs in Exo 34.6 as well. The word chesed, usually translated in
RSV as steadfast love, suggests a constant and “unchanging love.” Another way to
express this is “I show great love,” but a distinctive way to express this should be
looked for, one that fits naturally in the many contexts where chesed occurs. As the
Exodus Handbook mentions at 34.7, the word for iniquity suggests activity that is
crooked or wrong. The word for transgression refers to rebellion or revolt. Forgiving
comes from the word meaning to lift or raise. In context it may be understood as
“taking away the guilt or consequences” of iniquity and transgression. In some
languages, the activity of God’s forgiveness may be more naturally stated as a
separate sentence.
But he will by no means clear the guilty is literally “and clearing he will not
clear” or “leave-unpunished he will not leave-unpunished.” This is an emphatic
negative form in contrast (“But”) to what has just been said (see the Exodus
Handbook at 34.7). NJPSV’s rendering “yet not remitting all punishment” could be
made more emphatic as follows: “yet not remitting any punishment,” and this will
often be a helpful model. NBJ98 and similarly DUCL and GECL translate: “but he
leaves nothing unpunished.” The emphasis in the construction should be brought out
in the target language through some suitable means. In some languages (Chewa) this
can be done in a way that is very similar to the literal Hebrew double verbal
expression.
In, for example, RSV, NRSV, and NIV the words the guilty are taken to be
implied by the verb and the context. GNT combines this with the idea expressed in the
following clause, “Yet I will not fail to punish.”
Visiting the iniquity of fathers upon children, upon the third and upon the
fourth generation: See the Exodus Handbook at 20.5. The expression emphasizes
that the effects of habitual sinfulness are passed on from one generation to the next.
Some languages may have an idiomatic way of saying this. In fact, this principle is
about to be illustrated when the Lord punishes the people for their disobedience. The
children will have to suffer, wandering in a barren wilderness, along with their
parents.

14.19
RSV
19 Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray thee, according to the greatness of
thy steadfast love, and according as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt
even until now.”

GNT
And now, Lord, according to the greatness of your unchanging love, forgive, I
pray, the sin of these people, just as you have forgiven them ever since they left
Egypt.”

Pardon: Finally, Moses reaches the point of his long appeal, which began in
verse 13: he pleads for forgiveness on behalf of his people. The first verb in the
Hebrew is different from the verb forgiven, which (as in verse 18) comes from the
word meaning to lift or raise. But it is hard to see how the meaning of the two verbs
are different. GNT simply translates the first verb in the same way: “… forgive …
forgiven …” However, if the target language has several words for forgiveness, this
would be the place to use them.
I pray thee: See at 14.17. Here a translation like “please forgive” would be
appropriate, perhaps strengthened by a vocative expression, as in GNT (Lord).

14.20
RSV
20 Then the Lord said, “I have pardoned, according to your word;

GNT
20 The Lord answered, “I will forgive them, as you have asked.

I have pardoned: The pardoning takes place at the moment that the Lord says
these words. For this reason NJPSV has “I pardon.” In some languages it may not be
natural to repeat the same verb in the answer immediately after verse 19. If that is the
case, the reordering of REB provides a helpful model: “Your prayer is answered, and
I pardon them.”

14.21-23
RSV
21 but truly, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the
Lord, 22 none of the men who have seen my glory and my signs which I wrought
in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have put me to the proof these ten times
and have not hearkened to my voice, 23 shall see the land which I swore to give
to their fathers; and none of those who despised me shall see it.

GNT
21 But I promise that as surely as I live and as surely as my presence fills the
earth, 22 none of these people will live to enter that land. They have seen the
dazzling light of my presence and the miracles that I performed in Egypt and in
the wilderness, but they have tried my patience over and over again and have
refused to obey me. 23 They will never enter the land which I promised to their
ancestors. None of those who have rejected me will ever enter it.

But truly is RSV’s way of rendering the strongly adversative conjunction in

Hebrew (’ulam; see Exo 9.16). Better perhaps would be “Nevertheless” or “On the
other hand.” Indeed, the Lord had forgiven the people (verse 20), but they still had to
bear the punishment for their rebellious attitude and behavior.
As I live, and as …: Both phrases mark these words of the Lord as an oath.
GNT makes this emphatic duplication more explicit: “as surely as I live and as surely
as …” The oath itself only starts in verse 22.
The glory of the Lord: As in 14.10, this may be understood as “the dazzling
light of the Lord’s presence.” Since the Lord is speaking here, in some languages it
will be awkward if he refers to himself in the third person (as the Lord). GNT solves
this problem by translating “my presence,” with a pronoun in the first person. An
alternative may be to add a pronoun in apposition: “of me, the Lord.”
None of the men who …: This corresponds with GNT’s “none of these
people will live to enter that land.” By including the phrase “will live to enter that
land” here, GNT can introduce a sentence break in verse 22. (Verses 21-23 together
form a very long sentence in RSV and NIV, too long to be natural in most languages,
including English.)
Signs in the sense of “miracles” (GNT). As in 14.11.
Put me to the proof or “tested me” (CEV, NLT), “challenged me” (REB,
Levine). The verb waynassu is used here in a bad sense: “provoked me”; “had doubts
about me” (Chewa).
These ten times or “already ten times” (NBV). Although it is mainly implied
that this was “too many times” (CEV), “over and over again,” there is no reason to
leave out the number ten. Early Jewish commentators made various suggestions as to
the ten specific acts of rebellion that might be implied here.
Shall see the land: Because of its restructuring, GNT can begin a new
sentence here (verse 23): “They will never enter the land…” Note that the negative
oath formula in Hebrew makes this a very strong assertion, which should be
duplicated somehow in translation. This emphasis is increased by the repetition at the
end of the Lord’s utterance: “None of those” (GNT). The people had rejected the land
that God had promised them, so now he declares that they will never see it at all.
Despised: See at 14.11.

14.24-25
RSV
24 But my servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit and has followed me
fully, I will bring into the land into which he went, and his descendants shall
possess it. 25 Now, since the Amalekites and the Canaanites dwell in the valleys,
turn tomorrow and set out for the wilderness by the way to the Red Sea.”

GNT
24 But because my servant Caleb has a different attitude and has remained loyal
to me, I will bring him into the land which he explored, and his descendants will
possess the land 25 in whose valleys the Amalekites and the Canaanites now live.
Turn back tomorrow and go into the wilderness in the direction of the Gulf of
Aqaba.”

But my servant Caleb: Although But is not found in the Hebrew, the position
of my servant Caleb in the sentence does indicate that what will happen to Caleb
stands in sharp contrast to what will happen to the people. The translation should
somehow mark that contrast here. This is the only time in the book of Numbers (and
in the whole Bible) that Caleb is called my servant; previously Moses had been given
this divinely bestowed title (12.7).
He has a different spirit: The Hebrew says “a different spirit was with him.”
(Compare NJPSV: “he was imbued with a different spirit.”) This, and the term ruach
“spirit” indicate that Caleb’s inner frame of mind or disposition was different from the
others. (See also at 11.17.) In comparison with the Hebrew expression GNT’s
rendering “attitude” seems a rather flat translation. CEV expresses the meaning more
simply than GNT, and more clearly: “But my servant Caleb isn’t like the others.”
Some languages may have an idiomatic expression similar to the Hebrew, for
example: “he has a different heart” (Chewa).
And has followed me fully: The Hebrew literally has “and has filled after
me,” an indication of absolute loyalty. [< Alter] RSV and GNT (“and has remained
loyal to me”) are dynamic translations of this Hebrew idiom. In other languages other
dynamic translations may be possible.
 Since the Amalekites and the Canaanites dwell in the valleys: RSV (also
NIV) suggests that this is the reason why the people have to turn tomorrow. But the
Hebrew construction does not indicate this. It seems more likely that this is a separate
sentence in the Hebrew: “Now the Amalekites and the Canaanites occupy the valleys”
(NJPSV, also NBS02). GNT and TOB connect this sentence with the preceding verse,
and this adds to the impact of the prediction. A similar model would be: “… [25] even
though the Amalekites and the Canaanites now live in the valleys.”
Turn tomorrow: To better express the focal force of the temporal adverb in
Hebrew, one might consider a rendering like “Right away tomorrow, turn back …”
To the Red Sea: See the Exodus Handbook at 10.19. GNT’s “the Gulf of
Aqaba” is not recommended, even though geographically it may be more precise.
Only to the Red Sea (or the Hebrew-based “Sea of Reeds”) really expresses that the
Israelites are commanded to go on the way that leads back to the beginning of their
journey through the wilderness. Some commentators suggest that there was actually a
well-known route (or “road”) called “The Way of the Red/Reed Sea.”

14.26-38
Section Heading: If several headings are planned for chapter 14 to help distinguish
among the different speeches, an appropriate heading for 14.26-38 would be “The
Lord Punishes the People for Complaining” (GNT) or “The Lord Condemns the
People for Complaining.”

14.26-27
RSV
26 And the Lord said to Moses and to Aaron, 27 “How long shall this wicked
congregation murmur against me? I have heard the murmurings of the people of
Israel, which they murmur against me.

GNT
26 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 27 “How much longer are these wicked
people going to complain against me? I have heard enough of these complaints!

How long: In the same way as in 14.11, the GNT marks this as a rhetorical
question by translating “How much longer…” The Lord’s speech which begins here
greatly expands upon what he said by way of summary in verses 11-12.
Congregation: See at 1.2. NJPSV’s rendering “community” is recommended.
Murmur … murmurings: See at 14.2. GNT reduces the repetition of this
statement by the Lord but brings out its emotive force at the same time: “I have heard
enough …!” Other languages will have similar ways of expressing this emphasis.

14.28
RSV
28 Say to them, ‘As I live, says the Lord, what you have said in my hearing I will
do to you:

GNT
28 Now give them this answer: ‘I swear that as surely as I live, I will do to you
just what you have asked. I, the Lord, have spoken.
 Say: Although verse 26 mentions that the Lord speaks to Moses and Aaron,
the Hebrew form of the imperative say is in the singular. Since only one person would
be transmitting the Lord’s message to the people, it is undoubtedly Moses who is
meant, in case this needs to be specified (see verse 39). The words say to them are
followed by the Lord’s own message, as it has to be passed on to the people (verses
28-34). GNT translates “give … this answer.” But this would imply that the people
had asked the Lord a direct question, and this is not clear from the first part of the
chapter. Thus, “response” would be a better term if “answer” might be misunderstood.
As I live: This phrase indicates that the Lord’s words are an oath. GNT has
made that explicit: “I swear …” (see verse 21).
Says the Lord: This corresponds with “I, the Lord, have spoken” in GNT. The
Hebrew phrase ne’um YHWH occurs frequently in prophetic books of the Old
Testament, when the prophet is instructed to deliver a message from the Lord to the
people. The phrase translates a Hebrew noun construction that may more literally be
rendered “direct pronouncement of the Lord.” See the Handbook on Jeremiah at 1.8.
In some languages it will be helpful to translate “This is the Lord’s message: …,”
“This is a message from the Lord,” or “Listen to what the Lord says” and move this
phrase to the beginning of the oath. The phrase indicates that Moses is given divine
instructions like a prophet. For readers to recognize this, it is advisable to translate the
phrase in the same way as in prophetic books. If the Prophets have not yet been
translated, a note of the rendering here will have to be made for future reference in
order to preserve consistency of usage.
Said in my hearing: Literally “said in my ears.” This does not mean that the
people “asked” (GNT) directly. A much better model is NRSV: “I will do to you the
very things I heard you say.” What the people said (wishing for death in the desert in
verse 2) and what the Lord is going to do are clearly connected.

14.29-30
RSV
29 your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness; and of all your number,
numbered from twenty years old and upward, who have murmured against me,
30 not one shall come into the land where I swore that I would make you dwell,
except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun.

GNT
29 You will die and your corpses will be scattered across this wilderness. Because
you have complained against me, none of you over twenty years of age will enter
that land. 30 I promised to let you live there, but not one of you will, except
Caleb and Joshua.

The sentence covering verses 29-30 in the RSV will be too long in many
languages. GNT suggests one way of breaking this up.
Your dead bodies: Some languages distinguish between human and other
types of animate corpses; obviously, the right choice should be made here.
Shall fall: Perhaps in order to indicate that this death would occur periodically
and individually, not all at once, GNT translates “will die … will be scattered across
this wilderness.”
Numbered or “recorded” (NJPSV). See at 1.2-3 where a form of the Hebrew
paqad occurs as well. The census had originally had a military purpose in view of the
conquest of the land. Now it becomes a list of those condemned to perish in the
wilderness.[< Sherwood]
 From twenty years old and upward: As in 1.3, 18.
Murmured: See at 14.2.
Not one: That is, not anyone or “not one of you” (GNT). The Hebrew
construction emphasizes that there will be no exception.
I swore: Literally “I lifted up my hand.”
Where I swore that I would make you dwell: In its reorganization of RSV’s
sentence structure, GNT makes this information part of a new sentence: “I promised
to let you live there.”
I swore: Literally “I lifted up my hand.” Perhaps the target language also has a
term for “swearing” or “oath-making” that indicates some sort of an accompanying
gesture. GNT’s “promised” is rather weak; “solemnly promised” (CEV) is better if no
word for taking an oath is available or natural in this context.

14.31
RSV
31 But your little ones, who you said would become a prey, I will bring in, and
they shall know the land which you have despised.

GNT
31 You said that your children would be captured, but I will bring them into the
land that you rejected, and it will be their home.

But your little ones: See at 14.3. The Hebrew puts emphasis on the little
ones, thus making the contrast with the present generation of adults.
Who you said would become a prey: The community said this in 14.3.
I will bring in: It should be clear from the previous verse that the children will
be brought “into the land” (GNT). But in view of the importance of ‘the land’ in the
Old Testament, it may be better to retain it in this verse.
They shall know the land: Or “they shall get to know the land” (NBV). If a
translation along the lines of GNT (“it will be their home”) is needed, DUCL may
actually be more helpful: “In that land … they will feel at home.” In fact, DUCL
shows the contrast between the two generations and between despised and know
more clearly than GNT or RSV: “Into that land, which you rejected, they will feel at
home.” (DUCL). A similar rendering would be: “They will fully enjoy the land that
you have rejected.”

14.32-33
RSV
32 But as for you, your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness. 33 And your
children shall be shepherds in the wilderness forty years, and shall suffer for your
faithlessness, until the last of your dead bodies lies in the wilderness.

GNT
32 You will die here in this wilderness. 33 Your children will wander in the
wilderness for forty years, suffering for your unfaithfulness, until the last one of
you dies.

As for you: The Hebrew puts emphasis on the present generation of adults in
the community, thus showing the contrast with the children who are the next
generation. Chewa has: “But the rest of you here …” GNT fails to bring out this
emphasis.
 Your dead bodies shall fall: The Hebrew paints a gruesome picture here.
GNT’s “you will die” is a flat translation by comparison. It is better to translate: “your
corpses will perish in this desert” or at least “you will perish in this desert.” The same
expression is used in verse 29, but the word order is reversed, perhaps to suggest the
certainty of what the Lord predicts here. Many African languages will have an
ideophone to express this imagery in an emphtically visualisable manner.
Shall be shepherds: The main point of this is that they “will wander” (GNT)
or “roam to and fro”. In many languages, it would be possible to reword RSV as a
simile: “will have to wander like shepherds (herdsmen).” The Hebrew ro`im may
indeed refer to the action of a shepherd taking sheep to pasture. However, it may also
refer to the action of sheep which are grazing. According to Rashbam, the Jewish
medieval commentator, the Israelites are compared to grazing sheep, not to shepherds.
Renderings like “roam” (NJPSV), “will wander” (GNT, DUCL) seem to be in line
with both interpretations.
Suffer for your faithlessness: Literally “carry / lift up / take away your
unfaithfulness.” The Hebrew zenutekem does not state that the people have no faith
(faithlessness). Here it expresses the idea that they are not faithful in their trust and
obedience of God. Thus “unfaithfulness” (GNT) and “rebelliousness” or “betrayal”
(mentioned by Alter in a footnote) are more accurate. Instead of suffer for, REB has
“paying the penalty for.”
The last of your dead bodies lies: Again, GNT’s “the last one of you dies”
seems rather flat. NLT and Chewa are more helpful: “until the last of you lies dead in
the wilderness” (NLT); “until all of you have finished dying in the wilderness”
(Chewa).

14.34-35
RSV
34 According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, forty
days, for every day a year, you shall bear your iniquity, forty years, and you shall
know my displeasure.’ 35 I, the Lord, have spoken; surely this will I do to all this
wicked congregation that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness
they shall come to a full end, and there they shall die.”

GNT
34 You will suffer the consequences of your sin for forty years, one year for each
of the forty days you spent exploring the land. You will know what it means to
have me against you! 35 I swear that I will do this to you wicked people who
have gathered together against me. Here in the wilderness every one of you will
die. I, the Lord, have spoken.’ ”

The words of the Lord’s own message, as it had to be passed on to the people
by Moses, start in verse 28 and come to an end here. But in RSV the Lord’s words for
the people are marked as ending just before verse 34, while in GNT and CEV they are
still made to continue (see the placement of the single quotation mark in these
translations). In the Hebrew of verses 28-34 the people are addressed directly in
second person, while in verse 35 the Lord speaks to Moses and Aaron again, referring
to the people in the third person. RSV has preserved this difference, but GNT changes
the third person forms into second person in verse 35, thus ending the Lord’s message
to the people only after this verse. The Lord’s message, as it had to be explicitly
passed on to the people (verses 28-34), is a part of the Lord’s instructions to Moses
(verses 26-35). RSV’s double and single quotation marks are placed correctly and
make this clear. It may be necessary also to mark this distinction verbally in the
translation, for example: “This is what I, the Lord, want you to tell the people.”
Spied out: See at 13.2.
Bear your iniquity or “bear your crimes” (Alter). This can be described as
“suffer the consequences of your sin” (GNT), or more accurately – the Hebrew term
for “iniquities” is in the plural – as “suffer the consequences of your sins” (NLT).
My displeasure: The meaning of the Hebrew term tenu’ah is uncertain. RSV
seems to be based on understanding the root nw’ as “disapprove, express
disapproval”: the Lord is displeased with the people. GNT (and likewise NIV and
REB) seem to follow this interpretation as well. However, following the meaning of
this root we should probably understand it to mean “withdrawal.” Rashi, the Jewish
medieval commentator, notes that it is an expression for “turn away.” DUCL and
ZÜR are a helpful model: “Then you shall know what it means when I turn myself
away from you.” NBV restructures the verse as follows to bring out the punitive
dimension:
“Forty days you have spied out the land: (so) forty years you will bear the
consequences of your crimes, one year for each day. Then you will find out what it
means when I take my hands off you” (similar to NBV)
Some translations are based on the same interpretation but reverse the roles of the
Lord and the people: “and you shall know what it is to abandon me” (NBJ98); “… to
thwart me” (NJPSV, NET).
I, the Lord, have spoken: RSV and GNT translate this in the same way. The
Hebrew phrase is different from the one in verse 28.
Surely this will I do: Again, the Hebrew indicates that the Lord’s words are
an oath. GNT has made that explicit: “I swear …”
Congregation that are gathered together against me: The term for
congregation is the same as in, for example, 1.2. But a rendering like “community”
would be too positive here. The verb in the Hebrew puns on the noun to which it is
related. Thus, the entire expression should be rendered in a way that fits the people’s
wicked behaviour. NJPSV does this as follows: “all that wicked band that has banded
together against Me.” Another possibility that reveals the original play on words is
“this whole assembly that has assembled against me here.”
They shall come to a full end: GNT has only rendered this weakly as “every
one of you” in the next clause: “Here in the wilderness every one of you will die.”
NJPSV combines the two clauses, which involves a play on the two verbs, more
forcefully: “in this very wilderness they shall die to the last man.” Another possibility,
based on the REB is: “There will be an end of them here in this wilderness; right here
they will all die.”

14.36-38
RSV
36 And the men whom Moses sent to spy out the land, and who returned and
made all the congregation to murmur against him by bringing up an evil report
against the land, 37 the men who brought up an evil report of the land, died by
plague before the Lord. 38 But Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of
Jephunneh remained alive, of those men who went to spy out the land.

GNT
36–37 The men Moses had sent to explore the land brought back a false report
which caused the people to complain against the Lord. And so the Lord struck
them with a disease, and they died. 38 Of the twelve spies only Joshua and Caleb
survived.

Congregation: See at 1.2. NJPSV’s rendering “community” is recommended.

Murmur: See at 14.2.
An evil report against the land: See at 13.32, where RSV has translated “an
evil report of the land.” Against corresponds with a different preposition in the
Hebrew. NRSV has revised this as follows: “a bad report about the land.” The
repetition of evil report and the land in these verses serves to highlight the nature of
the ten men’s sin and hence also the justice of the Lord’s severe punishment.
An evil report of the land: The Hebrew word dibbah already means
“discrediting report” of its own. In verse 32 and 36 it had been used without an
adjective, but here, for the sake of emphasis, ra`ah “evil” is added to dibbah.
Translators should highlight this in some way, for example: “a false and evil report of
the land” (similar to Alter). This is recommended especially if, as in GNT, the phrase
is only translated once.
Plague: The Hebrew term is quite general, so the translation should not be
more specific. “Deadly disease” (DUCL) or “killing sickness” is recommended.
Died … before the Lord: GNT simply marks the Lord as the subject and
translates “the Lord struck them,” but the formulation in the Hebrew indicates that
something else is needed in a translation. NJPSV has: “…died of plague, by the will
of the Lord.” Levine translates “in the presence of YHWH” at this point. Although
somewhat more speculative about the place, NBV is based on the same interpretation:
“near the sanctuary.”

14.39-45
Section Heading: If several headings are planned for chapter 14, an appropriate
heading for 14.39-45 would be “The First Attempt to Invade the Land” (GNT). This
attempt fails totally, marking the beginning of the end of the old rebellious generation.
This failure can be highlighted in a heading such as “Israel Fails to Invade the Land”
or “A Failed Attempt to Invade the Land.”

14.39-40
RSV
39 And Moses told these words to all the people of Israel, and the people
mourned greatly. 40 And they rose early in the morning, and went up to the
heights of the hill country, saying, “See, we are here, we will go up to the place
which the Lord has promised; for we have sinned.”

GNT
39 When Moses told the Israelites what the Lord had said, they mourned
bitterly. 40 Early the next morning they started out to invade the hill country,
saying, “Now we are ready to go to the place which the Lord told us about. We
admit that we have sinned.”

Mourned: In some languages this rendering would imply that the people
mourned the loss of somebody who had died. Here it refers to the people receiving the
bad news from Moses about not being allowed to enter the land. Helpful alternatives
are “filled with grief” (NLT), “were overcome by grief” (NJPSV), “filled with
remorse,” or “there was much sorrow among the people” (NLB).
 Went up to the heights of the hill country: This may give the wrong
impression that the people actually reached the hill country. The context that follows
indicates that this was not the case (“Do not go up” in verse 42). GNT avoids the
problem and translates: “started out to invade the hill country”; compare NLT: “set
out for the hill country of Canaan.”
See, we are here: Instead of we are here, GNT translates “we are ready,”
which expresses the intention of the people well. But GNT’s “Now” does not express
the people’s emotion behind the exclamation See (“Look!”—as if they could actually
see their destination in the distance).
Promised: Literally “said.” Hence GNT’s rendering “told us about.”
For we have sinned: “We admit that we have sinned” (GNT) and “It is true,
we have sinned” (TOB) show more clearly how this is connected with the people’s
previous sentence. In this context, “It is true” (TOB) makes more sense of the Hebrew
conjunction kiy than For does. The irony is, of course, that the people do not
understand the depth of their sin at all. The Lord promised them the land; they did not
trust in his power. Now they also ignore his oath that they would not enter the land
(verses 28-34).

14.41-43
RSV
41 But Moses said, “Why now are you transgressing the command of the Lord, for
that will not succeed? 42 Do not go up lest you be struck down before your
enemies, for the Lord is not among you. 43 For there the Amalekites and the
Canaanites are before you, and you shall fall by the sword; because you have
turned back from following the Lord, the Lord will not be with you.”

GNT
41 But Moses said, “Then why are you disobeying the Lord now? You will not
succeed! 42 Don't go. The Lord is not with you, and your enemies will defeat you.
43 When you face the Amalekites and the Canaanites, you will die in battle; the
Lord will not be with you, because you have refused to follow him.”

The command of the Lord: Literally “the mouth of the Lord.” Commands
and instructions were normally communicated orally.
Do not go up: This is the opposite command of 13.17.
The Lord is not among you or literally “in the midst of you.” This is
connected with the notion that the ark was the token of the Lord’s personal presence
in the midst of his people. (Verse 44 will refer to this idea more explicitly.) “The Lord
is not with you” (GNT) does not express this fully enough; “The Lord is not coming
along with you” would express it a bit more clearly. In some languages REB will be a
helpful model: “you will not have the Lord with you.”
Because you have turned back from following the Lord, the Lord will not
be with you: RSV treats the first clause as the reason for the last one. GNT reverses
the order of these two clauses, but the relation between them remains the same.
However, the Hebrew construction ki-`al-ken normally connects the “because”-clause
with the clause that precedes, not with the clause that follows. REB shows the correct
connections between the parts of the verse:
“For in front of you are the Amalekites and Canaanites, and you will fall by the
sword, because you have ceased to follow the Lord, and he will no longer be with
you.”
 Notice that verse 43 reiterates in more specific terms what has been said more
generally in verse 42.

14.44-45
RSV
44 But they presumed to go up to the heights of the hill country, although neither
the ark of the covenant of the Lord, nor Moses, departed out of the camp. 45
Then the Amalekites and the Canaanites who dwelt in that hill country came
down, and defeated them and pursued them, even to Hormah.

GNT
44 Yet they still dared to go up into the hill country, even though neither the
Lord's Covenant Box nor Moses left the camp. 45 Then the Amalekites and the
Canaanites who lived there attacked and defeated them, and pursued them as far
as Hormah.

The ark (the Lord’s presence), Moses, and presumably a number of other
obedient people remain in the camp. God does not approve of this military effort and
so it is doomed to failure.
Ark of the covenant of the Lord: See at 3.31 for a brief discussion of the
ark. (The phrase “the ark of the testimony” has been discussed at 4.5.)
Came down: In many languages it may be unnatural to desribe their coming
from the hill country in this way. GNT’s “attacked” is a helpful alternative.
Pursued or, more accurately, “crushed.” The final two verbs in Hebrew
express a wordplay: wayyakkum and wayyaktum “they struck them and completely
crushed (or scattered) them!”
Hormah: Probably a site between Beersheba and today’s Arad, near the Dead
Sea in the south.[< Levine 371 / Noth 111] In any case, this place is in the opposite
direction (southeast) from where the Israelite army intended to go (northwest).

15.1-29
Section Heading: Chapter 15 begins with a number of laws concerning sacrifices and
offerings for future generations of Israelites. The people are to present these as a
means of maintaining their covenantal relationship with the Lord when they take up
residence in the land of Canaan. There is thus a dramatic contrast between the
instructions of this chapter, which will come into force “when you come into the
land” and the preceding chapter, which tells the sad story of how the older generation
in fact excluded themselves from the promised land of Canaan by rebelling against
the Lord. On the other hand, the fact that these sacrificial regulations are given here
guarantees God’s promise that the next generation will indeed enter the land.
This chapter is very much concerned with the aliens living among the
Israelites as well. The non-Israelites are welcomed into the very center of the camp to
offer sacrifices and offerings at the tent of meeting.
These laws for life in Canaan come as a reassurance: God’s promise to lead
the people to the land of Canaan is still valid, in spite of the old generation’s
rebellions in the preceding chapters. (Abraham ibn Ezra, one of the Jewish medieval
commentators, already suggested that after the old generation was mourning, their
children had to be comforted by letting them know that they would come to the
land.)[< Alter 756]
 Possible section headings are “Laws about Sacrifice” (GNT) or “Laws about
sacrifices and offerings.” But headings such as “The offerings which accompany the
sacrifices” (FRCL), “Instructions about the gifts which accompany animal sacrifices”
(GECL), and “Supplementary Offerings” (NIV) are more specific and say a bit more
about the content of this chapter. Certain major sacrifices were regularly accompanied
by a grain offering and a drink offering.
In situations where translators prefer to use headings for shorter passages it
may be helpful to have a separate section heading for 15.22-29, “Sacrifices for
Unintentional Offenses.”
There will have to be a section heading for 15.30-36 and 15.37-41 as well (see
below).

15.1-3
RSV
1 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to the people of Israel, When you come into
the land you are to inhabit, which I give you, 3 and you offer to the Lord from the
herd or from the flock an offering by fire or a burnt offering or a sacrifice, to fulfil
a vow or as a freewill offering or at your appointed feasts, to make a pleasing
odor to the Lord,

GNT
1 The Lord gave Moses 2 the following regulations for the people of Israel to
observe in the land that he was going to give them. 3 A bull, a ram, a sheep, or a
goat may be presented to the Lord as a burnt offering or as a sacrifice in
fulfilment of a vow or as a freewill offering or as an offering at your regular
religious festivals; the smell of these food offerings is pleasing to the Lord.

Verses 1-3 introduce the general situation for which the specific instructions
are given in the verses that follow. In the Hebrew and in RSV verses 2-5 form one
long sentence. GNT has helpfully divided it into a number of separate sentences.
The Lord said to Moses, Say to the people of Israel: This introductory
divine speech formula occurs three times in chapter 15, on each occasion at the
beginning of a new paragraph or section (verses 1, 17, 37). It will be helpful then to
translate this formula consistently.
Say to the people of Israel: With this command the Lord introduces the
words as Moses is to speak them to the people on the Lord’s behalf. It occurs in
verses 18 and 38 as well as here. In GNT this embedded direct speech to the people
has been changed into indirect speech about them. But in some languages, embedded
direct speech is not unnatural; in fact, direct speech would be the most appropriate
way for God to give instructions to his people. In fact, GNT achieves this in verse 37-
38: “The Lord commanded Moses to say to the people of Israel: ‘…’.” This model is
recommended here and for verses 17-18 as well.
When you come … which I give you, and you offer: It is the Israelites who
are addressed here, in the plural. GNT refers to them in third person, as part of the
indirect speech about them: “that he was going to give them.” Again, since this is in
fact a reassuring renewal of the Lord’s promise to give the land of Canaan to Israel,
direct speech would be a more suitable mode of expression in many languages.
From the herd or from the flock: This refers to cattle (bulls and cows) on the
one hand, and goats and sheep on the other. It will often be helpful to specify this, as
GNT does. The regulation applies in the case of animals in general.
 An offering by fire or a burnt offering or a sacrifice: This wrongly suggests
that the Hebrew speaks about three different types of offerings. But an offering by
fire is only the general term (see also 1 Sam 2.28), which is followed by two specific
types of sacrifice. NRSV has corrected this. See the model below. Burnt offering:
See at 6.11. REB translates “whole-offerings.” Sacrifice: The Hebrew zevach
signifies any sacrifice of slaughtered sheep, goat or cattle. REB renders zevach as
“any sacrifice.”
To fulfil a vow or as a freewill offering: As the Handbook on Leviticus
explains at 7.16, a votive offering and a freewill offering always go together. The
entire phrase may simply indicate “either required or voluntary offerings.” The first is
the result of a vow or promise made, and the second is due to a spontaneous desire on
the part of the worshiper. Some languages may find it more natural to mention
voluntary offerings (“offerings from the heart” or “offerings from one’s own desire”)
before those required by a vow or promise.
A pleasing odor to the Lord: See the Handbook on Leviticus at 1.9. Dynamic
renderings are: “with a pleasant odor which the Lord accepts gladly” or “in which the
Lord takes pleasure and therefore accepts,” or “when you give offerings in this way, it
pleases the Lord.” This same anthropomorphic expression occurs also in verses 7, 10,
and 14, thus underscoring the restored relationship between God and man which these
sacrifices and offerings bring about.
NRSV separates the clauses in verse 3 more accurately from each other:
“… and you make an offering by fire to the Lord from the herd or from the flock—
whether a burnt offering or a sacrifice, to fulfill a vow or as a freewill offering or at
your appointed festivals—to make a pleasing odor for the Lord, ...”
In some languages the verse will become easier to read if the last clause is
moved up:
“… and you make an offering by fire to the Lord from the herd or from the flock—
whether a whole-offering or any sacrifice—to make a pleasing odor for the Lord,
whether to fulfill a vow or as a freewill offering or at your appointed festivals, ...”

15.4-5
RSV
4 then he who brings his offering shall offer to the Lord a cereal offering of a
tenth of an ephah of fine flour, mixed with a fourth of a hin of oil; 5 and wine for
the drink offering, a fourth of a hin, you shall prepare with the burnt offering, or
for the sacrifice, for each lamb.

GNT
4–5 Whoever presents a sheep or a goat as a burnt offering to the Lord is to
bring with each animal a kilogramme of flour mixed with 1 litre of olive oil as a
grain offering, together with 1 litre of wine.

Verses 4-12 give instructions which offerings of produce, or “food,” from the
three main crops of Canaan—grain, olive oil, and wine—should accompany the ritual
sacrifice of animals, beginning with the smallest. Verses 4-5 deal with the sacrifices
of the youngest livestock, that is, lambs.
Then he: Normally only adult males would offer such sacrifices; thus, GNT’s
“whoever” may be misleading in some languages.
His offering: As explained at 5.15, the Hebrew qorban is the commonest and
most general expression for a sacrificial gift to the Lord. Here it refers to any of the
offerings or sacrifices mentioned in verses 2-3.
 Cereal offering: “For a grain offering” in GNT. As noted at 4.16, no specific
grain is mentioned or implied; the point is that it consists of agricultural food. Thus a
generic term for “cereal” or “grain” should be used. In some languages (e.g., Mayan
languages) a generic word for grain may not exist. “Seeds which are eaten” (seeds are
usually only for sowing in these languages) can be substituted in some cases.
A tenth of an ephah: See at 5.15.
Fine flour: See at 6.15.
A fourth of a hin of oil: The hin was the standard liquid measure, equal
approximately to one gallon, or 3.8 liters. So a fourth of a hin equals about “1 litre.”
GNT’s “olive oil” makes explicit what kind of oil is to be mixed with the grain
offering.
Wine for the drink offering: GNT reduces this to “wine.” As the Handbook
on Exodus mentions at 29.40, the word for wine refers to fermented grape juice. This
was to be used for a libation, or a drink offering. The word for drink offering comes
from the verb meaning “to pour,” so the wine was poured out “as an offering,” most
probably at the base of the altar. Since grape “wine” is such an important term in the
Bible, local cultural substitutes, for example, “palm wine,” are not recommended.
Rather, a loanword (for example, waini in Tonga, vinyo in Chewa or vino in Russian)
with or without a generic marker (“fermented drink”) may be used along with a
glossary entry.
For each lamb: The Hebrew kebes signifies a male young sheep (see at 6.12).
GNT’s “a sheep or a goat” is misleading in that it suggests that two animals are
mentioned here, which is not the case. In the Hebrew the phrase for each lamb comes
at the end of the whole sentence. In many languages it will be helpful to mention it
already at the beginning and translate “then for one lamb, he who brings …” or,
similarly to GNT, “then for one young sheep, whoever presents …” (GNT should
have included “young.”)
Other animals, increasing in size and hence requiring more offerings, will be
mentioned in the verses that follow (rams in 6-7; bulls in 8-10). FRCL and NBV
include a general instruction at the beginning of verse 4, before the specific
instructions concerning the various animals:
“He who will present the animal to me will have it accompanied by vegetational
offerings: …” (FRCL), that is, by offerings from his crops/produce.

15.6-7
RSV
6 Or for a ram, you shall prepare for a cereal offering two tenths of an ephah of
fine flour mixed with a third of a hin of oil; 7 and for the drink offering you shall
offer a third of a hin of wine, a pleasing odor to the Lord.

GNT
6 When a ram is offered, 2 kilogrammes of flour mixed with 1.5 litres of olive oil
are to be presented as a grain offering, 7 together with one and a half litres of
wine. The smell of these sacrifices is pleasing to the Lord.

Ram: A male sheep. When a larger animal such as a ram is sacrificed, the
portions of the added agricultural offerings have to be larger. Again, it should be clear
in the translation that these additional offerings are not separate from the main animal
sacrifices, but supplementary to them.
You shall prepare … you shall offer: The Hebrew verbs are in the singular,
addressing the individual Israelite who sacrifices a ram. In some languages where
such instructions are concerned, they must be stated in the active voice, not in the
passive, such as GNT’s “is offered.” An alternative to “you” (singular) might be “a
person” (male, if the gender needs to be specified).

15.8-10
RSV
8 And when you prepare a bull for a burnt offering, or for a sacrifice, to fulfil a
vow, or for peace offerings to the Lord, 9 then one shall offer with the bull a
cereal offering of three tenths of an ephah of fine flour, mixed with half a hin of
oil, 10 and you shall offer for the drink offering half a hin of wine, as an offering
by fire, a pleasing odor to the Lord.

GNT
8 When a bull is offered to the Lord as a burnt offering or as a sacrifice in
fulfilment of a vow or as a fellowship offering, 9 a grain offering of 3 kilogrammes
of flour mixed with 2 litres of olive oil is to be presented, 10 together with 2 litres
of wine. The smell of this sacrifice is pleasing to the Lord.

You prepare … you shall offer: Again, the verbs are in the singular,
addressing the individual Israelite who sacrifices a bull.
Bull: Literally “son of cattle”: a male gender of cattle. When the largest
animal, a bull, is sacrificed, the portions of the added offerings are still greater.
Peace offerings: Here is the first time that this special offering is mentioned.
The Hebrew shelamim should not be regarded as a plural form, so a translation in the
singular would be correct. As explained at 6.14, the meaning of the Hebrew root is
captured better by the translation “offering of well-being” (NJPSV, NRSV). For this
type of sacrifice, worshippers took part in the eating of the sacrificial animal.
Fellowship, or communion, was therefore central to this ritual, expressing a final state
of harmony between God and worshiper. “Fellowship offering” (GNT, NIV) and
“shared-offering” (REB) give expression to this notion.
As an offering by fire: As mentioned at 15.3, this is only a general term; it
does not refer to a specific type of sacrifice. Interestingly, in the Hebrew this general
term for offering comes at the beginning (verse 3) and the end (here in verse 10) of
the specific discussion about supplemental offerings. It is often regarded as
synonymous with a pleasing odor to the Lord. For this reason GNT and, for
example, TOB, FRCL, DUCL and NBV, have left it untranslated. The word As
wrongly suggests that the offering by fire is the same as the drink offering. It is much
more likely that it refers to the bull sacrifice and the added vegetational (food)
offerings altogether. This is why the separate sentence in GNT—“The smell of this
sacrifice is pleasing to the Lord.”— is a helpful model.

15.11-12
RSV
11 “Thus it shall be done for each bull or ram, or for each of the male lambs or
the kids. 12 According to the number that you prepare, so shall you do with every
one according to their number.

GNT
11 That is what shall be offered with each bull, ram, sheep, or goat. 12 When
more than one animal is offered, the accompanying offering is to be increased
proportionately.
 Verses 11-12 serve as a summary of the preceding section about supplemental
offerings covering verses 3-10.
Bull: The Hebrew shor signifies a mature animal from the cattle. Its sex is not
emphasized here, but it is the same animal as in verses 8-10.
Male lambs: The Hebrew kebasim signifies male young sheep. The singular
of the same term is used in verse 5.
Kids: The Hebrew `izzim signifies goats. There is no particular reason to
translate kids (young goats). This RSV rendering was probably meant to bring the age
of the goats in line with that of the male lambs. Therefore the GNT wording is
recommended at this point: “with each bull (or head of cattle), ram, sheep, or goat.”
You prepare … shall you do: The Hebrew verbs are in the plural again,
since, as noted, verses 11-12 form a general summary for this section.
According to the number … their number: GNT makes good sense of this.
An even simpler model is “Do this for each animal, for as many as you offer as a
sacrifice” (similar to NIV). But in languages where a chiastic structure would be good
style, it is worth preserving the chiastic structure in the Hebrew, which helps to mark
this summary ending of the section:
“According to the number that you prepare, thus you shall prepare according to their
number.” (Sherwood)

15.13-14
RSV
13 All who are native shall do these things in this way, in offering an offering by
fire, a pleasing odor to the Lord. 14 And if a stranger is sojourning with you, or
any one is among you throughout your generations, and he wishes to offer an
offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the Lord, he shall do as you do.

GNT
13 All native Israelites are to do this when they present a food offering, a smell
pleasing to the Lord. 14 And if at any time foreigners living among you, whether
on a temporary or a permanent basis, make a food offering, a smell that pleases
the Lord, they are to observe the same regulations.

Native: See at 9.14.

These things: It should be clear in the translation that “this” (GNT) refers to
all the instructions about animal sacrifices and their supplemental offerings that were
given in the preceding paragraphs.
In offering an offering by fire: As mentioned at 15.3 and 15.10, this is a
general term. This is also how GNT interpreted it there. It is all the more surprising
that GNT has “food offering” here in verses 13-14, which could easily be
misunderstood as referring only to the grain and drink offerings, and not to the animal
sacrifices. The animal sacrifices are clearly included in TOB (“will offer his
sacrifices”) and FRCL (“they offer sacrifices”). NBV and WV95 use a general term as
well, treating it as synonymous with a pleasing odor to the Lord: “This applies to
every born Israelite who wants to present a sacrifice to the Lord, a fragrant gift which
pleases him” (NBV). And the supplemental offerings are to come with the animal
sacrifices.
A stranger is sojourning with you: See at 9.14.
The non-Israelites have the opportunity to offer ritual sacrifices as well, in
accordance with the same regulations. They are thus welcomed into the very centre of
the camp to offer sacrifices and offerings in worship at the tent of meeting. The unity
of the entire community of Israel is thereby reinforced by these parallel measures.

15.15-16
RSV
15 For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who
sojourns with you, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are,
so shall the sojourner be before the Lord. 16 One law and one ordinance shall be
for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.”

GNT
15 For all time to come, the same a rules are binding on you and on the
foreigners who live among you. You and they are alike in the Lord's sight; 16 the
same laws and regulations apply to you and to them.

a 15.15 Some ancient translations the same; Hebrew the congregation the same.

For the assembly: See at 10.7. GNT has not translated this word. Its footnote
refers to the fact that this term is absent from the Latin Vulgate and the Syriac. But the
Hebrew sentence can certainly be interpreted as follows: “As for the assembly, …”
(NRSV), that is, the whole assembly, Israelites and non-Israelites as well. (Buber
translates the sentence literally as follows.) there be one statute with you and …” In
any case, there is no reason to follow the Syriac, Latin, and GNT.) In this context the
term “assembly” (qahal) may have more specific reference to any gathering for
worship, especially when presenting sacrifices and other offerings to the Lord at the
tent of meeting, as has just been discussed.
You: The Hebrew is plural.
Statute … ordinance: As mentioned at 9.3, a statute (chuqqah) means a task,
obligation, or law. An ordinance (mishpat) means a fixed legal decision or judgment,
or established custom.
Throughout your generations: This phrase suggests the new beginning that
will occur when the new (second) generation finally enters the land of Canaan. It thus
marks the contrast to the old generation and its rebellion in previous chapters. The
same or similar expression occurs in verses 21, 23, and 38, and a distinctive
translation should reflect this repetitive emphasis, for example, GNT’s “For all time to
come”—which is positioned here at the beginning of the sentence for added impact.
DHE provides the rendering “which will pass from parents to children.”
Law: NJPSV translates “ritual,” reflecting the general meaning of the Hebrew
term torah (“instruction, teaching, direction”). But of course not only one “ritual” was
involved, but an entire interrelated complex of them, and therefore a plural expression
may be needed to bring this out, for example, “the same rules and regulations.”

15.17-21
RSV
17 The Lord said to Moses, 18 “Say to the people of Israel, When you come
into the land to which I bring you 19 and when you eat of the food of the land,
you shall present an offering to the Lord. 20 Of the first of your coarse meal you
shall present a cake as an offering; as an offering from the threshing floor, so
shall you present it. 21 Of the first of your coarse meal you shall give to the Lord
an offering throughout your generations.
GNT
17 The Lord gave Moses 18 the following regulations for the people of Israel to
observe in the land that he was going to give them. 19 When any food produced
there is eaten, some of it is to be set aside as a special contribution to the Lord.
20 When you bake bread, the first loaf of the first bread made from the new corn
is to be presented as a special contribution to the Lord. This is to be presented in
the same way as the special contribution you make from the corn you thresh. 21
For all time to come, this special gift is to be given to the Lord from the bread you
bake.

After the animal sacrifices (and the gifts that accompany them) in 15.1-16 the
text now turns to the special offering of bread as a token offering of the first fruit of
the harvest, acknowledging that all products of nature are gifts from God.
Say to the people of Israel: See at 15.2. Verses 17 and 18 are very similar to
verses 1-2, thus marking a new section in Hebrew (even though the reason for this
may not be so evident in terms of the text’s content). NET notes this with the heading
“Rules for First Fruits.”
You: The Hebrew is plural.
Food of the land: Literally “bread of the land” (NJPSV). Other renderings are
“the bread of that land” (WV95), “the bread of the country” (REB), “the bread of that
land” (WV), “the yield of the fields” (NBV). This figurative expression refers to
“crops” (NLT) or “food produced there” (GNT).
Present an offering to the Lord: Literally, “Raise up something that is
raised”—that is, “offered up” to the Lord. Throughout verses 19-21 the Hebrew word
terumah has the wide, general meaning of offering, “contribution” (GNT), special
gift, or donation. In this case, crops rather than animals seem to be referred to, and
this may make a difference in the translation here. Renderings such as “set aside as a
special offering to the Lord” and “set aside a contribution for the Lord” express this
meaning clearly. See also the discussion of the term terumah at 5.9.
Of the first of your coarse meal: Probably whole-grain flour or bread dough
made from barley, the first of the major grain crops to be harvested in Israel. GNT has
a more general term: “made from the new corn” in the UK edition; “made from the
new grain” in the US edition.
First: The first loaf of the first bread baked from the first grain harvested is for
the Lord. The rest is only available to eat after the offering has been made.
Cake: Probably a ring-shaped loaf of baked bread, as mentioned at 6.15. As
the Handbook on Leviticus mentions at Lev 2.4, the translator should use a rather
general term, for instance, “flat bread.” (RSV’s cake should not be literally followed
because that would turn out to mean something quite different.)
As an offering from the threshing floor …: GNT and NBV— “just as you
also set aside part of your grain after threshing”— highlight that this special
contribution must be the first fruit of the land, to be offered before the rest is available
for food.
Throughout your generations: Verse 21 seems repetitive, but it highlights
that this offering is to be made in obedience to the Lord “for all time to come” (GNT).
As in 15.15, this phrase marks the contrast to the old generation and its rebellion in
previous chapters.

15.22-29
Section Heading: In cases where translators prefer to use headings for shorter
passages it may be helpful to have a separate section heading for 15.22-29, “Sacrifices
for Unintentional Offenses.”

15.22-23
RSV
22 “But if you err, and do not observe all these commandments which the Lord
has spoken to Moses, 23 all that the Lord has commanded you by Moses, from
the day that the Lord gave commandment, and onward throughout your
generations,

GNT
22 But suppose someone unintentionally fails to keep some of these
regulations which the Lord has given Moses. 23 And suppose that in the future
the community fails to do everything that the Lord commanded through Moses.

If and “suppose” point to a hypothetical, not an actual case of unintentional

disobedience. Compare “But perhaps” (Chewa).
You … your is plural in the Hebrew. Unintentional sins of the community are
dealt with in verses 22-26 and unintentional sins of individuals in verses 27-29. Thus
GNT’s rendering “suppose someone…” could wrongly suggest that only one person
was involved.
Err: Literally “go astray, make a mistake unintentionally, unwittingly.” The
verbs err and do not observe have been taken together in GNT: “unintentionally
fails to keep.” The normal word for “sin” in the translation should not be used here.
All these commandments: (The word mitswot comes from a verb meaning to
order or to command, and so it is usually translated as “commandments.”) This phrase
can be understood as referring specifically to the regulations in the preceding verses
(15.1-21). But verse 23 clearly refers to all that the Lord has commanded you by
Moses, that is, “any command whatever that the Lord gave you through Moses”
(REB), not just the regulations of 15.1-21. It is because of this specification in verse
23 that the regulations that will follow apply to any unintentional violation of any of
the commandments. For this reason, perhaps, GNT translates this verse as a separate
sentence, but this rendering is rather confusing.
But how are verse 22 and 23 meant to be understood together? To clarify their
relationship, RSV has to be adapted. The following suggestion is based partly on TOB
and NJPSV:
“If you unwittingly fail to observe any of these commandments which the Lord has
spoken to Moses—in fact anything that the Lord has commanded you through
Moses—from the day that the Lord gave you his commands, and onward throughout
your generations, …”
In some languages it may be helpful for the sake of sentence length to restructure this
section to conclude at the end of verse 23 as follows:
“22-23 It could happen that from the day when the Lord gave commandment and
onward through the ages, you might at times unwittingly fail to observe one of these
commandments which the Lord has declared to Moses, in fact anything that the Lord
has commanded you through Moses.”
By Moses or “through Moses” will be difficult to express in some languages,
though a phrase that corresponds to the Hebrew (“by the hand of Moses”) may be
available, for example, “in the mouth of Moses.”
15.24
RSV
24 then if it was done unwittingly without the knowledge of the congregation, all
the congregation shall offer one young bull for a burnt offering, a pleasing odor to
the Lord, with its cereal offering and its drink offering, according to the ordinance,
and one male goat for a sin offering.

GNT
24 If the mistake was made because of the ignorance of the community, they are
to offer a bull as a burnt offering, a smell that pleases the Lord, with the proper
grain offering and wine offering. In addition, they are to offer a male goat as a sin
offering.

If it was done: The referent of it may need to be specified in some languages.

GNT’s “mistake” is rather weak in English; “offense” or “error” might be more
appropriate alternatives.
Without the knowledge of the congregation: That is, if the community as a
whole unwittingly failed to keep a certain command.
Congregation: See at 1.2. GNT’s rendering “community” is recommended.
Young bull: See at 7.15.
Burnt offering: See at 6.11.
A pleasing odor to the Lord: See at 15.3.
Cereal offering … drink offering: See at 15.4-5.
Ordinance: That is, established custom (see at 15.16).
Male goat: See at 7.16. The command concerning the sin offering of a male
goat may be more meaningfully expressed as a separate sentence, “In addition, they
are to offer…” (GNT).
Sin offering: See at 6.11.

15.25-26
RSV
25 And the priest shall make atonement for all the congregation of the people of
Israel, and they shall be forgiven; because it was an error, and they have brought
their offering, an offering by fire to the Lord, and their sin offering before the
Lord, for their error. 26 And all the congregation of the people of Israel shall be
forgiven, and the stranger who sojourns among them, because the whole
population was involved in the error.

GNT
25 The priest shall perform the ritual of purification for the community, and they
will be forgiven, because the mistake was unintentional and they brought their sin
offering as a food offering to the Lord. 26 The whole community of Israel and the
foreigners living among them will be forgiven, because everyone was involved in
the mistake.

Verse 25 appears to make it clear that the preceding instructions about handling
unintentional offenses (verses 22-24) were to be carried out by the officiating priest,
not by the offenders themselves. If this is not marked in the translation, it may sound
as if an additional ritual is being specified here. Thus, it may be necessary to translate:
“With it the priest …” (NLT), or more specifically, “By doing these things, the priest
…”
Make atonement: See at 5.8 and 6.11.
 The final expression be forgiven is passive and must be changed to active
form in some languages. While the agent is not expressed, it is clearly God who will
forgive the people. As the Handbook on Leviticus mentions at 4.20, it may be
necessary to say “and God will forgive them” or, less directly, “they obtain God's
forgiveness.”
Error in the sense of “unintentional mistake (or offense).”
Their offering: As explained at 5.15, the Hebrew qorban is the commonest
and most general expression for sacrificial gift. The term isheh (offering by fire) is
general as well (see at 15.3). But in this instance these two terms correspond with the
“burnt offering … with its cereal offering and its drink offering” in 15.24. The term
for sin offering is the same as in verse 24. It will be helpful to show this
correspondence with verse 24 and translate “a burnt offering and a sin offering”
(based on FRCL and NBV) or “their gifts as a burnt offering and a sin offering”
(DUCL) or simply “these sacrifices” (GECL). GNT’s “their sin offering as a food
offering” deals with this correspondence in the wrong way. A food offering was
normally identified with some type of cereal offering, but not an animal sacrifice.
The stranger who sojourns among them can receive forgiveness too; this is
not reserved for the Israelites.[< Douglas 54] See at 9.14.

15.27-28
RSV
27 “If one person sins unwittingly, he shall offer a female goat a year old for a
sin offering. 28 And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the
person who commits an error, when he sins unwittingly, to make atonement for
him; and he shall be forgiven.

GNT
27 If an individual sins unintentionally, he is to offer a one-year-old female
goat as a sin offering. 28 At the altar the priest shall perform the ritual of
purification to purify the person from his sin, and he will be forgiven.

Shifting from the unintentional errors or offenses of the entire community

(verses 24-26), the Lord’s instructions now shift in parallel fashion to those cases
involving individuals (verses 27-29).
If one person sins unwittingly: If the terms for “sin” and “unintentionally”
sound like a contradiction in the language, then the term for “err” (or unintentional
offense) that was used in verse 22 may be used here as well. Notice that the GNT has
removed the two occurrences of this term “unintentionally” in verse 28. But the
repetition is there to emphasize the non-wilful nature of the offense, so it is
recommended to retain at least one instance of this notion in verse 28. Furthermore,
GNT’s unmarked usage of “sin” in verse 28 may be misleading, if that is followed as
a model.
One person … he shall be forgiven: The person can be male or female. The
Hebrew nefesh “person” is feminine, but the pronoun at the end of verse 28 is
masculine (literally “it will be forgiven to him”). However, if a choice must be made
in the language, then the masculine form should be used since “he” would be the most
likely offender in such cases.
Make atonement … to make atonement: The verb in the Hebrew is the same
in both instances (as also in verse 25). If such repetition is maintained in translation it
may sound especially effective when the text is uttered aloud. On the other hand, the
translator may take the opportunity to highlight various aspects of its meaning:
“perform the ritual of purification to purify … from his sin” (GNT). As noted above,
there may be a collocational clash in some languages if the concepts of “purification”
and “sin” are closely combined.
Before the Lord has been rendered “at the altar” in GNT.

15.29
RSV
29 You shall have one law for him who does anything unwittingly, for him who is
native among the people of Israel, and for the stranger who sojourns among
them.

GNT
29 The same regulation applies to all who unintentionally commit a sin, whether
they are native Israelites or resident foreigners.

This verse concludes the paragraph dealing with unintentional offenses of the
individual. It corresponds to verse 26 in the sense that it points out that the prescribed
rituals apply to the resident alien as well as the ethnic Israelite.
Law: As in 15.16, NJPSV translates “ritual,” reflecting the general meaning of
the Hebrew term torah (“instruction, teaching, direction”).
Native: See at 9.14.
The stranger who sojourns among them: See at 9.14.

15.30-36
Section Heading: In cases where translators prefer to use headings for shorter
passages it may be helpful to have a separate section heading for 15.30-36. It is
recommended, then, to start a new section with verses 30-31, since they already deal
with people who sin deliberately, in contrast to the preceding unintentional cases.
Possible headings for verses 30-31 would be “The Punishment for Wilful
Sins,” or simply “Deliberate Sin” (NET, for verses 30-36). Verses 30-31 deal with
deliberate sins in general terms, with a shocking immediate example in verses 32-36.
Many translations have a section heading for verses 32-36 (and not for verses
30-31). For example, GNT has “The Man Who Broke the Sabbath.” The man violates
the commandment to keep the Sabbath day, which is a threat to the covenant
community’s way of life as instituted by the Lord. The story about this becomes a
piece of law indicating what should be done with a person who violates this
commandment.[< Alter] That is why verses 32-36 may have been placed where they
are, as another example of rebellion by the people, or indeed, a prime example of a
“deliberate sin,” which has been referred to in the previous verses 30-31.
In order not to have too many section headings for short passages, it may be
advisable to combine the two section headings into one, for example: “Deliberate Sin
– A Man Breaks the Sabbath,” or simply to follow NET in having one heading for
verses 30-36: “Deliberate Sin.”

15.30-31
RSV
30 But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a
sojourner, reviles the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from among his
people. 31 Because he has despised the word of the Lord, and has broken his
commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon
him.”

GNT
30 But any person who sins deliberately, whether he is a native or a foreigner,
is guilty of treating the Lord with contempt, and he shall be put to death, 31
because he has rejected what the Lord said and has deliberately broken one of
his commands. He is responsible for his own death.

Who does anything with a high hand: This is usually taken to mean “who
sins deliberately” (GNT) or “who acts defiantly” (NJPSV), in arrogance and being
fully aware of the law. This stands in contrast to the unintentional sins of the
preceding verses. A literal rendering, such as that of the RSV, may refer to a gesture
that has an entirely different meaning in another culture
Reviles the Lord: Who blasphemes God, who treats him with contempt (see
GNT). For such a defiant sin there is no sacrifice for purification or forgiveness.
Be cut off from among his people: That is, “excluded” (FRCL), “expelled”
(DUCL, NBV) from the community. GNT translates “Be put to death” (GNT). But it
is not certain whether execution is what is meant by this verb; therefore, this more
specific sense should not be translated. See at 9.13.
Be utterly cut off: Two forms of the same Hebrew verb occur together at this
point, making the phrase more emphatic.
Commandment: See at 15.22.
The word for iniquity suggests activity that is crooked or wrong. See at 14.18.
In GNT’s interpretation, the person’s arrogant, defiant attitude towards sin and the
Lord’s covenant regulations makes him “responsible for his own death.” But NBV
translates: “He must bear the consequences of his sin.”

15.32-34
RSV
32 While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man
gathering sticks on the sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering
sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put
him in custody, because it had not been made plain what should be done to him.

GNT
32 Once, while the Israelites were still in the wilderness, a man was found
gathering firewood on the Sabbath. 33 He was taken to Moses, Aaron, and the
whole community, 34 and was put under guard, because it was not clear what
should be done with him.

The time setting of this shocking incident is not specified, so the translation
should not imply that it took place immediately after the Lord gave the instructions
recorded in 15.1-31. This is why the GNT begins with the indefinite time marker
“Once …”
Wilderness: See at 1.1.
Sticks: Literally “woods,” pieces of wood. GNT’s “firewood” makes explicit
that the man wanted to make a fire with it.
On the sabbath day: The Israelites were forbidden to do any work (Exo
20.10; 31.12-14) or even to light a fire (Exo 35.3) on this holy day. The point is that
the man deliberately does not follow this absolute commandment. This is why he is
put in custody (in an unspecified place of detention) until a decision could be made
about his punishment.
Congregation: See at 1.2. GNT’s rendering “community” is recommended.
It had not been made plain: It had not been made clear; it had not been
indicated precisely. Perhaps the degree of that man’s “intentionality” in carrying out
the prohibited action had yet to be determined. The Hebrew construction could also
suggest that the people may have been reluctant to impose the capital punishment that
they knew this man was guilty of.

15.35-36
RSV
35 And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the
congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 And all the
congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with
stones, as the Lord commanded Moses.

GNT
35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must be put to death; the whole
community is to stone him to death outside the camp.” 36 So the whole
community took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord had
commanded.

Shall be put to death: As the Handbook on Leviticus mentions at 20.2, this is

a very emphatic construction in Hebrew which may be translated literally, “dying he
shall die.” The emphasis is retained in translations like “shall be surely put to death”
(KJV). Other English versions underline the certainty of this punishment by using the
auxiliary verb “must” (GNT). Other languages may say something like “there is no
doubt that he will be executed.” The translation should of course indicate that this was
a just and lawful “killing,” in fact, an “execution,” in case several words for “kill”
exist in the language.
Stone him … with stones: This expression indicates the death penalty by
means of throwing stones at the guilty party. It may be translated “shall kill him by
throwing stones on him,” or “throw stones at him until he dies.” If translators must
chose between smaller stones and larger rocks in their language, the latter is probably
more likely, although the Hebrew does not specify this.
Outside the camp: If the man would be stoned inside the camp, his dead body
would make the camp unclean.
As the Lord commanded Moses: GNT leaves out the reference to Moses in
verse 36 perhaps in order not to suggest that it was Moses’ responsibility alone to see
that this execution was carried out. Rather, it was the duty of the community as a
whole to execute this judgment from the Lord.

15.37-41
Section Heading: GNT has “Rules about Tassels.” A shorter statement of this law
occurs in Deut 22.12. (Modern Jews still wear these fringes and a blue cord on the
prayer shawl that is worn during a Jewish worship service.) In the preceding story the
Sabbath breaker broke a commandment—the tassels are thus a visible reminder to
keep the commandments as a means of maintaining covenant fellowship with the
Lord. This concluding part of chapter 15 underscores the obedience that the Lord
demanded of Israel and the symbolic external symbol that was to continually remind
the people of this necessity. (It will be followed by another dramatic case study in
chapter 16 illustrating what happened when anyone deliberately disobeyed God and
his commands.)

15.37-38
RSV
37 The Lord said to Moses, 38 “Speak to the people of Israel, and bid them to
make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and
to put upon the tassel of each corner a cord of blue;

GNT
37 The Lord commanded Moses 38 to say to the people of Israel: “Make
tassels on the corners of your garments and put a blue cord on each tassel. You
are to do this for all time to come.

Bid them: The Lord speaks to Moses to convey instructions to the Israelites
(in the third person), as in the cases of verses 1 and 17. In some languages this may
have to be changed to the second person, addressing the Israelites in direct speech
(“Speak to the people of Israel: ‘Make tassels …’”). The reason for this is that the
Israelites are spoken to directly in the verses that follow.
Tassels: A tassel (Hebrew tsitsit) is a cluster of loose threads which are
intertwined or twisted together and bound at one end. The tassels are to be sewn as a
reminder on the edges of the Israelites’ outer garments or robes. Deut 22.12 uses a
different term with almost the same meaning. In some languages, this technical term
may be rather difficult to translate. Chewa uses a term for “fringes on the corners,”
which is not quite exact. Perhaps an illustration would help here.
Blue: This refers to the dye for the cord. The Hebrew term, tekhelet, also
occurs in 4:6-12. See the description of this color, which symbolized royalty and
divinity, and a few more precise translations (“pure blue,” “bluish purple”) at 4:6.

15.39
RSV
39 and it shall be to you a tassel to look upon and remember all the
commandments of the Lord, to do them, not to follow after your own heart and
your own eyes, which you are inclined to go after wantonly.

GNT
39 The tassels will serve as reminders, and each time you see them you will
remember all my commands and obey them; then you will not turn away from
me and follow your own wishes and desires.

And it shall be to you a tassel to look upon: The Hebrew text as literally
rendered by the RSV will probably be very unnatural in other languages. GNT gives a
good model for restructuring this verse.
You: In contrast to verse 38, in verses 39-41 the Lord addresses the Israelites
directly in the plural.
Commandments: See at 15.22.
To do them: “To obey them” (GNT) or “to observe them” (NJPSV).
Your own heart and your own eyes: GNT removes these figures of speech
and says “your own wishes and desires.” In some languages, however, either one or
both of these figures may express the intended meaning naturally.
 Wantonly, an archaic word in English, is not an accurate rendering of the
Hebrew zonim. GNT (“turn away from me”) and NBV (“become unfaithful to me”)
capture the meaning of the Hebrew zonim much better. See the discussion at 14.33
(zenutekem). NBV is a good model to follow for the second half of this verse: “… so
that you observe them and do not become unfaithful to me by following the desires of
your heart and eyes.

15.40
RSV
40 So you shall remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your
God.

GNT
40 The tassels will remind you to keep all my commands, and you will belong
completely to me.

So you shall remember: The close connection between verses 39 and 40 is

brought out by GNT’s repetition of the topic “The tassels …” REB has “This token”
to suggest the symbolic nature of the tassels.
Be holy to your God: That is, be totally dedicated to God and set apart for his
service, hence GNT’s “you will belong completely to me” and NBV’s “to remain
dedicated to your God.” REB combines the form with the meaning in its rendering:
“keep yourselves holy, consecrated to your God.”

15.41
RSV
41 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your
God: I am the Lord your God.”

GNT
41 I am the Lord your God; I brought you out of Egypt to be your God. I am the
Lord.”

Verse 41 brings all the instructions and commands of chapter 15 to an

emphatic, theologically-centered close. To indicate that this verse applies to the whole
chapter, not just the section beginning at verse 37, it may be set off as a separate
paragraph.
I am the Lord your God: In the Hebrew your is plural. This same important
divine declaration occurs for emphasis at the beginning and ending of verse 41. It
occurs also in Num 10.10 and closely parallels Exo 20.2 (see the Handbook on
Exodus here and also at 6.2 for the expression “I am the Lord”).
Who brought you out of the land of Egypt: This clause occurs a number of
times in Exodus (for instance 16.6 and 20.2), Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. GNT has
left land and the final your God untranslated, presumably to avoid repetition. But in
many languages it will not be a problem to repeat such standard key expressions.

16.1-50
Section Heading: Some features in chapter 15—the community has to be holy
(15.40); the Lord speaks only through Moses (15.1, 17, 37); willful, defiant sin
(15.30-31)—provide the general background to the specific rebellion here in chapter
16. This chapter illustrates what happened when anyone deliberately disobeyed God
and his commands. Certain functions associated with the tent of meeting and
leadership of the community should be performed only by those whom God has
chosen.[<Olson 107-108] A section heading such as “Korah and Others Contest the
Authority of Moses and Aaron” will highlight the character of these instances of
rebellion more explicitly than GNT’s section heading—“The Rebellion of Korah,
Dathan, and Abiram.” The heading for chapters 16 and 17 together in DUCL and
NBV is: “The authority of Moses and Aaron is contested,” to which the words “but
confirmed” would need to be added. Their very legitimacy as the people’s leaders is
called into question, and by implication, the right of the Lord himself to choose his
leaders is also challenged. The intention behind this text then is to confirm that their
authority has been given and is strongly supported by the Lord.
As was explained in the Introduction, the legal and narrative texts in the book
of Numbers alternate and are not just separate bodies of material. Law and narrative
alternate and thus reinforce and respond to each other. In this alternating sequence of
“Story” and “Law,” chapters 16–17 form the dramatic midpoint of the book.[<
Douglas 1993:118]
This is the first rebellion in the book of Numbers in which Levites are
involved. Ironically, it is recorded in the biblical text immediately after the Lord’s
renewed proclamation of his covenant relationship with the people of Israel (15.41).
Korah is a close relative of Moses and Aaron, and he makes a rival claim to
leadership of Israel (verse 3). His clan, the Kohathites, were responsible for “the most
holy things” (4.4). Korah wants his entire clan to be included in the priesthood, even
though his clan already has a more important task than the clans of Gershon and
Merari (chapters 3–4).
Dathan and Abiram, who were Reubenites, objected to Moses’ leadership as
well, but seemingly for a somewhat different reason, namely, the apparent lack of
success in reaching the land of Canaan (which reiterates the reason for the rebellion
narrated in chapters 11–14). The proximity of these two groups—Korahites and
Reubenites—on the southern border of the camp of Israel (2.10; 3.29) may have
contributed to their dual rebellion at this time (a suggestion already made by Rashi,
the Jewish medieval commentator).
Thus, it appears that the narrator has conjoined two distinct, but closely related
instances of community revolt in the first major section of chapter 16—both of which
protest the leadership that the Lord had chosen for Israel in bringing the people out of
Egypt. These two stories of rebellion, which apparently occurred around the same
time, are carefully interwoven with a certain degree of overlapping or merging in the
distinct sequence of scenes, or episodes, that constitutes this account.
One way of interpreting and arranging the dramatic sequence of events in this
first major section (verses 1-35) is summarized in the following outline:

Introduction (1-2):
The two groups of rebels are named—Korah the Levite with his followers and the
Reubenites, Dathan, Abiram and On, who are all combined in their opposition to the
leadership of Moses and Aaron.

Conflict 1 (3-11):
Korah’s crowd comes to confront Moses, who tries to convince the rebels to back
down and proposes the test involving incense censers.

Conflict 2 (12-14):
Moses summons the Reubenites to a meeting, but they refuse to come.
 Conflict 1 continues (15-19):
Moses’ speech carries on from verse 11, but with greater intensity against Korah and
his followers. The “glory of the Lord” appears in verse 19, at the center of the first
portion of the narrative covering chapter 16.

Revelation (20-24, 27a echoing verse 24):

The Lord now speaks and threatens to destroy the entire community of Israel, thus
prompting the fervent intercession of Moses and Aaron. The Lord relents, but warns
of impending judgment upon all the rebels and their families.

Conflict 2 continues (25-26, 27b):

Moses goes to confront the Reubenites at their camp.

Judgment announced (28-30):

An extraordinary death for all the rebels is predicted.

Judgment inflicted (31-35):

The Lord’s awful punishment befalls the two groups of rebels in reverse order: First,
an opening in the earth below (earthquake?) swallows the Reubenites (and those who
belong to Korah); second, fire from heaven (lightning?) consumes Korah’s followers.

The literary composition of this narrative is indeed complex, but it is not uncommon
in biblical narrative. The account is not told in a precise, chronological manner, as we
might prefer today, but rather the key events are presented in a dramatic fashion that
focuses on certain crucial attitudes or actions on the part of the rebels and the Lord’s
punitive response. Thus, the text is clearly formulated to be read as a unified account
and understood as a single graphic admonition that warns of the serious consequences
of rebelling against the Lord by opposing the leaders whom he has chosen.
(GNT starts a new section at 16.36, 16.41, and 17.1. The headings for those
sections will be discussed below.)

16.1-2
RSV
1 Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and
Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, 2 took men;
and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two
hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-
known men;

GNT
1–2 Korah son of Izhar, from the Levite clan of Kohath, rebelled against the
leadership of Moses. He was joined by three members of the tribe of Reuben —
Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth — and by 250 other
Israelites, well-known leaders chosen by the community.

Now Korah: In many languages, this new section in the book of Numbers will
have to be signaled by the appropriate discourse marker.
Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi: Num 3.19 and Exo 6.18 already refer to
Izhar as Kohath’s second son and to Amram (the father of Aaron and Moses) as his
eldest. Korah is thus closely related to Moses and Aaron: they are cousins. This might
have led Korah to feel that he had a right to contest Moses’ and Aaron’s authority.
GNT’s rendering “from the Levite clan of Kohath” brings out that Kohath’s was one
of the clans of the tribe of Levi (on “clan” see at 1.2), but in this translation it is no
longer clear that Korah is related to Moses and Aaron so closely.
 Dathan and Abiram … and On: These were members of “the tribe of
Reuben.” On “tribe” see at 1.4. NJPSVV simply renders “descendants of Reuben.”
“On” is not mentioned again after this verse (or indeed anywhere else in the Old
Testament); perhaps he withdrew from the revolt.
Took men: It is a well-known problem that the Hebrew only reads
wayyiqqach: took, without specifying who or what was taken (men does not occur in
the Hebrew at all). It has been suggested that the lack of an object at this point is an
intentional literary strategy to get the reader/listener thinking about what Korah wants
to take, which we find later in this passage is the censer of Aaron that represents his
high priestly function.[< Gane 2004:633] To avoid the problem in translation, a
different meaning of the Hebrew verb is sometimes assumed. Thus, NIV has: “Korah
… and certain Reubenites became insolent and rose up against Moses,”[< cf. Budd
179-180 ‘were insolent’] a reading suggested by Origen, while GECL translates:
“Korah was so bold as to rebel against Moses.” In Arabic, the verb waqacha does
indeed mean “be insolent, behave in an impudent manner,” but there is really no basis
for such an interpretation of the verb laqach in the Hebrew Old Testament. (Levine
proposes a somewhat similar translation: “Korah … took counsel, along with Dathan
and …” comparing this meaning with the Akkadian verb leqû “take, grasp,
learn.”[<Levine 411]) In the sentence as we have it in the Hebrew text, then, it seems
more plausible to treat this verb as preliminary to further action, meaning “start up,”
“determine,” “decide” or something similar. The Jewish early medieval grammarian
Jonah ibn Janah already gave this explanation. See NJPSV: “Korah … betook himself,
along with Dathan and …, to rise up against Moses.”
Who is/are the subject of the verb wayyiqach (took)? Although wayyiqach is a
singular verb, it occurs at the beginning of the clause, so that it can have the four men
as its plural subject. See the model below for what all this means for the sentence
structure of these verses.
Rose up before Moses: Other possible renderings are: “confronted Moses”
(NRSV); “rebelled against Moses” (NET). GNT makes the reason for the rebellion
explicit: “rebelled against the leadership of Moses.”
Leaders: The Hebrew term is nasi’. As has been mentioned at 1.16, this term
refers to a prominent and distinguished leader, for example, a much respected sheikh
of a tribe; thus leaders seems a rather flat translation. In English, chiefs or
“chieftains” (NJPSVV) would be a better alternative.
Congregation: See at 1.2. The GNT rendering “community” is more accurate.
Assembly: The Hebrew term mo`ed is also used in the phrase “tent of
meeting,” which has been discussed at 1.1. Here it refers to the community of the
people assembled in one place. NJPSVV translates: “chieftains of the community,
chosen in the assembly, men of repute.”
Well-known men: Literally “men of a name.” It is implied that these were
“men of repute” (NJPSVV), “men of good standing” (REB) in the community. Thus,
it was men with a high status in the community who also took part in this rebellion.
Who of all the men in these two verses took the initiative to rebel? In GNT it
is only Korah who takes the initiative; in verses 1-2 he is “joined by three members of
the tribe of Reuben … and by 250 other Israelites.” Subsequent verses which say
“Korah and his/your followers” would indeed seem to indicate that Korah is, in fact,
their leader or the primary instigator in some sense (verses 5, 6, 16, 19). But RSV
follows the Hebrew of verses 1-2 more closely in that Korah and the three Reubenites
are acting together from the start.
NJPSVV follows the Hebrew sentence structure closely:
 “1 Now Korah, son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, betook himself, along
with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—descendants of
Reuben— 2 to rise up against Moses, together with two hundred and fifty
Israelites, chieftains of the community, chosen in the assembly, men of
repute.”
Following our earlier comments, this translation could be rephrased as
follows:
“1 Now Korah, son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, along with Dathan and
Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—descendants of Reuben—
determined/decided 2 to rebel against Moses. They were joined by two
hundred and fifty Israelites, chieftains of the community, chosen in the
assembly, men of repute.”

16.3
RSV
3 and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and
said to them, “You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one
of them, and the Lord is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above
the assembly of the Lord?”

GNT
3 They assembled before Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too
far! All the members of the community belong to the Lord, and the Lord is with all
of us. Why, then, Moses, do you set yourself above the Lord's community?”

They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron is

literally “they came together on (or, over) Moses and on (or, over) Aaron. The
Hebrew preposition which RSV translates negatively as against may actually have a
neutral meaning: “They assembled before Moses and Aaron” (GNT); “together they
went to Moses and Aaron” (CEV). The Exodus Handbook recommends this neutral
interpretation at 32.1, where the same Hebrew construction occurs. But here the
negative interpretation fits well with the context. NIV translates: “They came as a
group to oppose Moses and Aaron.” In this case, “they” probably refers to Korah and
his group since the text later reveals that the Reubenites remained in their camp
(verses 12-14). But since the complaint of both groups of rebels was essentially the
same—protesting the leadership of Moses and Aaron—perhaps the ambiguity of the
original should be retained.
You have gone too far is literally “much to you (plural),” hence “too much is
yours.” In other words, “you have assumed too much authority.” The target language
may well have a corresponding idiom that would fit here. Aaron is no doubt included
with Moses in this accusation, so the plural “you” should be used.
For congregation or better, “community” (GNT); see at 1.2.
Are holy: GNT has “belong to the Lord.” See at 6.5 and 15.40.
Every one of them follows the Hebrew closely and does seem more emphatic
than “All the members” (GNT).
Among them: The Hebrew is in the third person. GNT has first person: “all of
us.” This may be more natural in some languages, since the community includes
Korah and the others who are speaking in opposition to Moses and Aaron.
Why then do you exalt yourselves: The pronoun “you” is again plural in
Hebrew and therefore includes Aaron. Therefore, a translation such as GNT is not
recommended as a model: “Why then, Moses, …?”
 Assembly: The Hebrew term here is not `edah (as in the previous verses) but
qahal. As mentioned at 10.7, `edah refers to the entire national, legal and cultic
society of Israel, but qahal refers to the assembly, the gathering (of the community).
This distinction should be preserved (consistently) in translation, if possible.

16.4-5
RSV
4 When Moses heard it, he fell on his face; 5 and he said to Korah and all his
company, “In the morning the Lord will show who is his, and who is holy, and will
cause him to come near to him; him whom he will choose he will cause to come
near to him.

GNT
4 When Moses heard this, he threw himself on the ground and prayed. 5 Then he
said to Korah and his followers, “Tomorrow morning the Lord will show us who
belongs to him; he will let the one who belongs to him, that is, the one he has
chosen, approach him at the altar.

Fell on his face: See at 14.5. GNT’s “threw himself on the ground” is an
adequate expression of Moses’ act of awe-filled submission before the Lord. His
reaction is emotional and immediate. As in 14.5, it may be necessary to clarify the
culturally symbolic meaning of this action, for example: “threw himself on the ground
in alarm …” or “… in despair” (DUCL, also mentioned by Rashi; compare also Josh
7:6). That is better than giving the impression that Moses took time to pray, as GNT
does: “and prayed. Then …” That is not what the phrase “to fall on one’s face” means
in Hebrew. Furthermore, the impression should not be given that Moses’ reaction was
due to his fear of Korah and the crowd of leaders now assembled before him and
Aaron.
Company: Literally “community” (see at 1.2). RSV and GNT both make it
clear that this is a reference to Korah’s “followers,” not to the rest of the Israelite
community. Note, however, the note of sarcasm in the use of the standard term
here.[<Sherwood 164] With his disloyal company Korah has created a caricature of a
true “community”; he believes that he can thereby speak for the community of Israel
as a whole.[<Noth 124] Korah’s community is a rebellious threat to the real
community. To highlight this caricature, translators are recommended to use the
normal rendering for “community” here (as in verses 2-3). Some languages may be
able to mark such sarcastic usage, for example, through the use of selected
pronominal and/or demonstrative forms (“Korah and all that community/company of
his”). If this does not convey the note of sarcasm in the target language, an alternative
may be to put the term between quotation marks as a signal to the reader at least. If
none of this will preserve the note of sarcasm, a rendering like “followers” would be
fine.
Who is his, and who is holy: In some languages it is better to leave out and
or use a different connective (for example, “that is to say”) in order to show that the
phrases who is his and who is holy refer to the same person. This person and him
whom he will choose are one and the same. (The Hebrew bo him is in the singular.)
To make clear that only one person is referred to, GNT takes the three phrases
together: “the one who belongs to (or better, ‘is allied with’) him, that is, the one he
has chosen.” For the concept of holy, see verse 3 and the discussion at 6.5.
Cause him to come near to him: NJPSVV has “will grant him access to
Himself.” GNT translates: “let (or ‘allow’) the one who belongs to him … approach
him at the altar,” a reference to the task of the high priest alone. This implies that
Moses is not referring to his own position; he is referring to Aaron’s position of
authority as high priest. This interpretation fits best in the context (see verses 10-11).
NLT—“The Lord will allow only those whom he selects to enter his own
presence”— is not recommended as a model. NLT translates a plural (“those”) where
the Hebrew has a singular form. As a result, the sentence in NLT is no longer
understood as a reference to one person, in this case, Aaron.

16.6-7
RSV
6 Do this: take censers, Korah and all his company; 7 put fire in them and put
incense upon them before the Lord tomorrow, and the man whom the Lord
chooses shall be the holy one. You have gone too far, sons of Levi!”

GNT
6–7 Tomorrow morning you and your followers take firepans, put live coals and
incense on them, and take them to the altar. Then we will see which of us the
Lord has chosen. You Levites are the ones who have gone too far!”

Do … take … put: These imperative forms, which address Korah and all his
company, are in the plural. Moses speaks directly not only to Korah, but also to the
sons of Levi (“Levites” who are involved in the rebellion as well: see below). It is
clear that GNT distorts this by translating “you and your followers,” as if only Korah
is addressed. NBV provides a better model: “Listen what you have to do, Korah, and
you, his followers, as well: …”
Company: See at 16.5. The repeated word “community” would preserve what
seems to be a note of sarcasm and criticism on Moses’ part. Korah’s “community”
was in rebellion against the true “community” of God, as led by Moses and Aaron.
Censers or “firepans”: This is a key term in this chapter since it is also used
symbolically to represent the priesthood, those who are duly authorized to burn
incense for worship in the Lord’s house. RSV and GNT render the Hebrew machtot as
“trays” in 4.9 and as “firepans” in 4.14. See the discussion at those verses (see also
the similar situation recounted in Leviticus 10). Here the censers will be used as
containers for embers or coals used to ignite an offering of incense.
Fire: Smouldering pieces of coal, as GNT’s “live coals” indicates.
Incense: As mentioned at 4.16, this is a sweet-smelling aromatic substance
which is burned in the fire of a sacrifice. In a number of languages incense will be
expressed as “spices for burning.” Other languages may have a well-known loanword
to convey the intended meaning in a manner that reflects the original religious setting.
However, this loanword should not be specific to a particular church body that
happens to use such “incense” during its liturgy or worship.
Before the Lord: That is, “to the altar” (GNT). See at 5.16.
You have gone too far: Moses thus turns the initial accusation of Korah’s
crowd (see 16.3) back at them, and the translation should clearly indicate this.
Sons of Levi: This form of address seems puzzling: so far only Korah has
explicitly been referred to as a Levite. At this point in the text the rebellion is
described as coming from other Levites as well. The whole tribe was probably not
involved, but some Levites are apparently not content with being chosen for religious
service; rather, they seek the priesthood as well.[<Sherwood 164] The three
Reubenites and the 250 chieftains of verse 1 are not in view here.
16.8
RSV
8 And Moses said to Korah, “Hear now, you sons of Levi:

GNT
8 Moses continued to speak to Korah. “Listen, you Levites!

And Moses said: As is the norm in Numbers, this repeated expression

conveys some instruction or directive from the Lord. In some languages, however, a
literal translation suggests that Moses speaks for the first time to Korah at this point
(or begins a completely new speech sequence). Thus, the fact that this is a
continuation of the speech begun in verse 5 may have to be marked, as in GNT’s
“Moses continued to speak to Korah …” or “Moses also said to Korah …” (NIV).
Hear: As in verses 6 and 7, this imperative form is in the plural. Although
reference is only made to Korah, Moses’ words are directed towards those Levites
who now seem to make up the majority of Korah’s following. It now emerges that
Korah is not just taking the side of the 250 who wish to assume some form of
additional leadership responsibilities within the community of Israel. As one of the
Levites, Korah now claims rights of his own, and even goes as far as claiming the
special rights of the priesthood that are reserved for Aaron and his sons.
Now is not a time word and should not be rendered in such a literal way.
Rather, the Hebrew na simply makes the imperative stronger and more urgent, hence
renderings such as “Listen” (GNT, REB), “Listen carefully” (NBV). This particle has
been discussed at 10.31, 12.13, and 14.17.

16.9-10
RSV
9 is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the
congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself, to do service in the
tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister to them;
10 and that he has brought you near him, and all your brethren the sons of Levi
with you? And would you seek the priesthood also?

GNT
9 Do you consider it a small matter that the God of Israel has set you apart from
the rest of the community, so that you can approach him, perform your service in
the Lord's Tent, and minister to the community and serve them? 10 He has let
you and all the other Levites have this honour — and now you are trying to get
the priesthood too!

Is it too small a thing for you: In some languages it will be more natural to
translate this rhetorical question of accusation as: “Is it not enough for you …?”
(NBV). Chewa has “Are you not full up [satisfied, as with food] with this …?” You is
plural in the Hebrew: Korah and the Levites who follow him are still being addressed
in these verses.
God of Israel: It may be necessary in some languages to express the sense of
this phrase as “the God whom Israel worships” (see the Exodus Handbook at 24:10)
or “the God who leads Israel.”
Congregation: See at 1.2. The GNT rendering “community” is more accurate.
To bring you near to himself: The Hebrew has the same verb here as in 16.5:
hiqrib. GNT’s rendering (“approach”) is consistent with that verse. The same applies
to NJPSVV: “and given you access to Him.”
 To do service in the tabernacle: Literally, “to do the ministry of the
dwelling-place.” It is “you” (plural), Korah and these Levites, who are to do this. The
Hebrew phrase is the same as at the end of 3.7 and 3.8, where RSV has translated “as
they minister at the tabernacle.” See the discussion at those verses.
To stand before the congregation: In many languages the meaning of this
idiom will not be clear, while GNT (“minister to the community”) will be more
readily understood. But in some languages it will be possible to combine “stand” and
“service” naturally in one phrase. NBV, for example, has: “to stand at the service of
the whole community.” The Levites normally did literally “stand” when performing
their various religious duties.
To minister to them: This phrase really has the same meaning. (CEV takes
this and the preceding phrase together: “and by helping the community to worship in
the proper way.”) These phrases may seem quite repetitive, but they highlight what a
privilege the Levites received when they were charged, also by the Lord in his law,
with all the (nonpriestly) work in and around the central tent of meeting.
He has brought you near him: In Hebrew the second person form (you) is
now in the singular: Korah alone is being addressed. The verb is the same as in verse
9, except that near him is lacking in the Hebrew. It is more accurate to translate “he
brought you close” (Alter) or “He has advanced you” (NJPSVV) or “the Lord has
allowed you.” In NLT the clause starts with “Korah, …,” illustrating another way in
which the change to the second person singular can be made clear in a language like
English.
And would you seek the priesthood also? This is another accusatory
rhetorical question, as GNT makes clear. Instead of seek, DUCL and NBV have
“demand,” while Chewa has “desire to gain [for yourself].” Another possibility might
be: “dare to seek.”

16.11
RSV
11 Therefore it is against the Lord that you and all your company have gathered
together; what is Aaron that you murmur against him?”

GNT
11 When you complain against Aaron, it is really against the Lord that you and
your followers are rebelling.”

Therefore: Verse 11 concludes the paragraph. The actions and words of

Korah’s company lead to the conclusion that these men are in effect rebelling against
the Lord! The preceding verses also reveal how much Korah and his followers
disregard their own privileged position in religious service (see 4.1-20). “Truly, …”
(NJPSVV) or “So in doing this, …” (Chewa) seem better ways then to introduce verse
11. This verse also marks the end of the first Korah segment of the narrative, which
now turns to the Reubenite rebels in verse 12.
You is a singular form in the Hebrew; Moses still addresses Korah, but his
whole group is included, as the next phrase makes clear.
Company: In Hebrew, the word `edah still carries a note of sarcasm and
criticism on Moses’ part. See at 16.5, 6.
Against the Lord … have gathered together: The Hebrew shows the same
pun as in 14.35: the verb “assemble” in the Hebrew puns on the noun “assembly”
(`edah) to which it is related. Thus, the entire expression should be rendered in a way
that fits Korah’s wicked behaviour. For example: “Therefore it is against the Lord that
you and your whole band have banded together.” Or similarly: “Therefore it is against
the Lord that you and your whole assembly have assembled together.”
What is Aaron that …: Another rhetorical question. In some languages this
formulation may give the wrong impression that Moses looks down on Aaron. But the
point is that in challenging Aaron’s authority Korah and his band are actually
challenging the Lord, who had put Aaron in that position of worship leader. GNT has
restructured the verse to make this critical implication clear.
Murmur: See at 14.2.
The following model is recommended for this verse:
“Truly, you murmur against (or “complain about,” “speak against”) Aaron, but in fact
it is against the Lord that you and your whole band have banded together.”

16.12-14
RSV
12 And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab; and they said,
“We will not come up. 13 Is it a small thing that you have brought us up out of a
land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, that you must also
make yourself a prince over us? 14 Moreover you have not brought us into a land
flowing with milk and honey, nor given us inheritance of fields and vineyards. Will
you put out the eyes of these men? We will not come up.”

GNT
12 Then Moses sent for Dathan and Abiram, but they said, “We will not come!
13 Isn't it enough that you have brought us out of the fertile land of Egypt to kill
us here in the wilderness? Do you also have to lord it over us? 14 You certainly
have not brought us into a fertile land or given us fields and vineyards as our
possession, and now you are trying to deceive us. We will not come!”

The narrative now returns to the Reubenite rebels, and a special discourse
marker may be needed in the translation to indicate this. The chiastic structure of
these verses (12-14) supports the interpretation of their unity as a distinct literary
element in the account. Having spoken to “Korah and all his company … the sons of
Levi” in verses 5-11, Moses next sends for the Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram.
Come up (in verses 12 and 14) has the connotation of appearing before
somebody of higher status or authority. (Rashbam, the Jewish medieval commentator,
already noted that verbs relating to “going up” are commonly used in the Hebrew
Bible for appearing before judges.) A rendering such as “appear” would be a good
model to follow in this context. There is also narrative irony here: since they refuse to
go up (to Moses), they will, in fact, soon go down into the ground.[< Sherwood 165]
The forcefulness of this refusal may require a special device in the target language,
for example, an initial negative: “No, we will not come!”
Is it a small thing …? This rhetorical question is similar to the one in verse 9,
and in many languages, it will be possible to duplicate the accusatory function and
force by means of a corresponding rhetorical question, for example in Chewa: “Is it
[really] insufficient for you to …?” In other languages, however, it will be more
natural to translate it as in GNT: “Isn’t it enough …?”
Brought us up: Literally “make us come up.” The Hebrew verb is of the same
root as the previous verb, come up, in verses 12 and 14. Although the verb is different
from the one in 15.41 (“brought you”; literally “make you go out”), it is hard to see a
meaningful distinction. In any case, the Reubenite rebels are implying that it is all
Moses’ fault that the community of Israel are now in such a difficult setting in the
Sinai Wilderness.
Flowing with milk and honey: Here we have an ironic contrast with what
was said in 13.27.
To kill us: Deliberate murder should not be implied. Nevertheless, this is
another case of hyperbole in the rebels’ complaint.
Wilderness: See at 1.1.
Make yourself a prince: The Hebrew verb means “appoint oneself as lord,
ruler, or master.” GNT’s “lord it over us” and CEV’s “boss us around” are idiomatic
equivalents in English. The verb has a negative connotation.
Moreover: The Hebrew particle af introduces an additional argument in the
discourse. This makes moreover, or REB’s “what is more,” a more accurate
rendering than GNT’s “certainly.”
Inheritance of fields and vineyards: The Hebrew term nachalah indicates
inherited, legitimate, property, a piece of hereditary land that must not be sold or
taken away. The Hebrew collective singular nouns ‘field and vineyard’ are a
metonymic reference to property and wealth in general.
Will you put out the eyes of these men?: This rhetorical question seems to
contain a figurative expression, literally, ‘to bore out the eyes’. Although it means “to
deceive” (GNT), as a translation this is rather flat. In some languages it will be
possible to use an idiom which refers to eyes in a natural way, for example, “throw
dust in the eyes of …”; “turn a wheel before the eyes” (NBV); “grab us in the eyes”
(Chewa). Compare also NET: “Do you think you can blind these men?”
We will not come up: The Reubenite rebels end their obstinate refusal in the
same way that they began it. In some languages, the emphatic force of this repetition
needs to be marked, for example: “No, as for us we are not coming there!” (Chewa).

16.15
RSV
15 And Moses was very angry, and said to the Lord, “Do not respect their
offering. I have not taken one ass from them, and I have not harmed one of
them.”

GNT
15 Moses was angry and said to the Lord, “Do not accept any offerings these
men bring. I have not wronged any of them; I have not even taken one of their
donkeys.”

And Moses was very angry: The target language may require an appropriate
transitional to this next stage in the confrontation, which appears to shift back to the
Korah group, for example: “At that point …”
And said to the Lord: A literal rendering might sound like a command in
some languages; if so, a different verb may be used, for example, “prayed.”
Their offering: This general term refers back to the offering of incense which
Korah and his “community” are supposed to give as a test (verses 6-7). It seems
unlikely that minchah refers to a “cereal offering” here (the meaning in, for example,
4.16). Instead, the term seems to be used here in a wider sense: “gift” or “offering” in
general (but with reference to incense—verse 7). It would be best to treat their as
referring to Korah and his “community.”
I have not taken one ass from them or, with more emphasis, “I have not
taken from them so much as a single donkey” (REB). Note that the referent for them
is ambiguous. Moses implies that he has no motives of self-interest. This statement is
probably a conventional formula through which a leader expresses his innocence
(Samuel makes a similar statement in 1 Sam 12.3-5).
And I have not harmed: Moses’ claims here may be viewed as progressing
from the lesser wrong (taken a donkey) to the greater evil (harmed a person), or from
the specific to the general. In any case, languages may prefer a shift in the order of
these two clauses, as exemplified by the GNT in relation to the RSV.

16.16-17
RSV
16 And Moses said to Korah, “Be present, you and all your company, before the
Lord, you and they, and Aaron, tomorrow; 17 and let every one of you take his
censer, and put incense upon it, and every one of you bring before the Lord his
censer, two hundred and fifty censers; you also, and Aaron, each his censer.”

GNT
16 Moses said to Korah, “Tomorrow you and your 250 followers must come to the
Tent of the Lord's presence; Aaron will also be there. 17 Each of you will take his
firepan, put incense on it, and then present it at the altar.”

Be present … before the Lord: Literally “Be before the Lord.” GNT—“ you
… must come to the Tent of the Lord’s presence” —is a helpful model, since it gives
a concrete indication of the place of meeting, thus making explicit what was clearly in
the Hebrew text.
You … company … you … you also: See the discussion of company at 16.4.
You is in the singular with reference specifically to Korah (in contrast to every one of
you). The testing procedure outlined in verses 6-7 is now given in somewhat more
detail.
Censer: See at 16.6.
Incense: See at 16.7.
Before the Lord: GNT has “at the altar.” After the rendering “to the Tent of
the Lord’s presence” this clarification may may be overly specific. Another, more
explicit model is this (based on the NLT): “You and all your followers must come
here to the tent of meeting tomorrow and present yourselves before the Lord.”
And Aaron: How Aaron relates to the proposed meeting is not clear in the
RSV, and a literal rendering will probably sound quite confusing. An alternative
model is GNT’s “Aaron will also be there.”
Two hundred and fifty: GNT has moved this number to the beginning of the
previous sentence (verse 16). This will be more natural in some languages. Moses
does not seem to refer to the Reubenite rebels here, since the chieftains in 16.2
already number 250 separately from the Reubenites in 16.1.

16.18
RSV
18 So every man took his censer, and they put fire in them and laid incense upon
them, and they stood at the entrance of the tent of meeting with Moses and
Aaron.

GNT
18 So every man took his firepan, put live coals and incense on it, and stood at
the entrance of the Tent with Moses and Aaron.
 Fire: See at 16.7.
Tent of meeting: See at 1.1. This significant location may have been made
explicit already in verse 17. Yet the repetition is also significant—in essence, they are
all about to appear “before the Lord.”

16.19
RSV
19 Then Korah assembled all the congregation against them at the entrance of
the tent of meeting. And the glory of the Lord appeared to all the congregation.

GNT
19 Then Korah gathered the whole community, and they stood facing Moses and
Aaron at the entrance of the Tent. Suddenly the dazzling light of the Lord's
presence appeared to the whole community,

All the congregation: This could refer only to the “community” that followed
Korah (see at 16.5)—“all his community”— or to the entire “community” of Israel.
This same expression occurs twice in verse 19. Perhaps there is a play on one
reference over against the other (that is Korah’s rebellious community versus the
whole community of Israel). This is how NBG51, TOB, NIV, REB, and NBV have
understood the text. Thus TOB has “his whole following” and then “the whole
community.” Alternatively, the reference is broader in both cases, that is, to the entire
community of Israel. This is preferred by GECL, CEV, PV, and most other English
and French translations.
Against them: That is, physically, “facing Moses and Aaron” (GNT), yet also
figuratively opposing their leadership.
Glory of the Lord: See at 14.10. This divine manifestation occurs in
prominent position in the structural center of the narrative of 16.1-35.
All the congregation: See at 1.2. The GNT rendering “community” is more
accurate. Probably the whole community of Israel is meant now on the second
occurrence of this phrase, as seems clear from verses 22 and 24.
GNT includes “suddenly” in the translation, but there is no indication for this
in the Hebrew. There is no reason, either, to connect the final sentence with the
conversation in the verses that follow, as GNT does (which is contradicted by the
ancient scribal punctuation). The glory of the Lord does not just appear as the
background to the Lord’s words to Moses and Aaron; rather, as already noted, this
divine manifestation is focal in the text.

16.20-21
RSV
20 And the Lord said to Moses and to Aaron, 21 “Separate yourselves from
among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment.”

GNT
20 and the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 21 “Stand back from these people, and
I will destroy them immediately.”

Separate: The verb is of the same root as in 16.9. This perhaps conveys an
ironic implication, which would argue for the use of similar verbs also in the
translation, if possible.
 Congregation: Possibly the “community” that followed Korah. See at 16.5.
(This may then need to be specified in translation since the last mention of this word
in verse 19b was inclusive of the entire community of Israel.) However, the
subsequent occurrences of congregation (“community”) in verse 22 onwards seem to
point to the entire community of Israel, so probably Moses and Aaron fear that the
Lord is about to destroy the entire nation and start again with the two brothers.[<
Alter footnote on 766] Translators may prefer to leave the reference ambiguous, as in
the original.
Consume: Literally “bring to an end,” “destroy,” “annihilate” (NJPSVV).
In a moment: Probably this does not mean “immediately” (GNT) or “at this
very moment,” but “within an instant,” “in a single moment” (REB), “in the twinkling
of an eye” (NBV), or even “all [of them] at one time” (Chewa). The Hebrew karaga`
only occurs here, in 17.10, and Psalm 73.19, where it really cannot mean
“immediately.”

16.22
RSV
22 And they fell on their faces, and said, “O God, the God of the spirits of all
flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be angry with all the congregation?”

GNT
22 But Moses and Aaron bowed down with their faces to the ground and said, “O
God, you are the source of all life. When one person sins, do you get angry with
the whole community?”

Fell on their faces: See at 14.5. It may be important to specify the plural
subject here, as in GNT’s “Moses and Aaron.”
O God: Literally ’el, the generic Semitic term for the deity, seems here to
highlight God as the Creator of life and Lord over all, but a distinct translation is not
called for.
The God of the spirits of all flesh: This phrase only occurs here and in 27.16.
Spirits is usually taken to refer to “life” (GNT), all living creatures. But Rashi and
Rashbam, the Jewish medieval commentators, interpret ruchot (plural) as “minds”:
Moses and Aaron argue that since God knows the minds and thoughts of all people
and therefore knows who is guilty and who is not, there is no reason for him to punish
the whole community. Understood in this way, the phrase certainly makes sense in
combination with the question that follows. However, in the Hebrew Bible in general
ruach mostly refers to spirit in the sense of “wind, breath,” and hence the breath of
life (Gen 6.17). All flesh refers to all humankind, or even all living creatures,
including animals. See Gen 7.15 and Job 12.10. Helpful models which still preserve
the plural are: “You who have given life to all creatures” (FRCL); “You are the God
who gives breath to all creatures.” (NLT). CEV’s rendering— “Our God, you gave
these people life”—is too specific and is therefore not recommended as a model.
Shall one man sin, and …: It may sometimes be more natural to say: “Will
you be angry with the whole community if only one man has sinned?” (FRCL) or “Do
not punish in anger the (or “this”) whole community for the sin of one man” (similar
to DUCL). This rhetorical question conveys a respectful protest and makes a request
at the same time. It implies that a gracious God would (or should) not do what is
being queried (see 14.17-20). Note that it is helpful, as in GNT, to separate this
question from the preceding description of God.
16.23-24
RSV
23 And the Lord said to Moses, 24 “Say to the congregation, Get away from about
the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.”

GNT
23 The Lord said to Moses, 24 “Tell the people to move away from the tents of
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.”

Congregation: The rendering “community” is formally correct, but perhaps in

this context just “the people” (GNT, CEV, NLT) would sound more natural so as not
to be confused with “the [rebellious] community of Korah.”
Dwelling: The place where Korah, Dathan, and Abiram are living with their
families. The Hebrew term mishkan is in the singular, probably implying that their
tents were all in close proximity to each other in the southern section of the camp.
However, GNT’s “tents” will probably be more natural.
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram: At this point, the names Dathan and Abiram
are lacking in the ancient Greek translation, and NBJ98 has left them out. Although
this would make sense before verse 25—Dathan and Abiram are not at the entrance of
the tent of meeting—translators are advised to follow the Hebrew text. In his warning,
the Lord is apparently referring to the danger of being in physical proximity to any of
the rebels. The mention of Dathan and Abiram also forms a transition back to Moses’
confrontation with them (verses 12-14).

16.25-26
RSV
25 Then Moses rose and went to Dathan and Abiram; and the elders of Israel
followed him. 26 And he said to the congregation, “Depart, I pray you, from the
tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be swept away
with all their sins.”

GNT
25 Then Moses, accompanied by the leaders of Israel, went to Dathan and
Abiram. 26 He said to the people, “Stand away from the tents of these wicked
men and don't touch anything that belongs to them. Otherwise, you will be wiped
out with them for all their sins.”

Went to Dathan and Abiram: This implies that the Reubenite rebels are not
actually present at the tent of meeting. According to verses 12 and 14, they had
refused to appear there as commanded.
And the elders of Israel followed him: This clause is more naturally joined
with Moses at the beginning of the verse, as in GNT: “Moses, accompanied by the
leaders of Israel …” For elders see at 11.16.
Congregation: The rendering “community of Israel” is recommended.
The tents of these wicked men: If the clause sequence of the RSV (and CEV)
has been followed, this phrase may be ambiguous. “These” might be wrongly taken to
refer to “the elders of Israel.” The Hebrew term for “wicked” implies being guilty
with respect to some specific prohibited actions or unlawful behaviour, in this case,
rebellion against the Lord and his chosen leaders, Moses and Aaron.
Lest you be swept away: A separate sentence may be needed to convey the
desired impact in translation, for example, GNT: “Otherwise, you will be wiped out
(or ‘destroyed’) …”
 With all their sins: This is a mistranslation of the Hebrew preposition b-.
GNT’s “for all their sins” is better, but still not clear enough in English. Best at
conveying the intended sense is REB’s “because of all their sins.”

16.27
RSV
27 So they got away from about the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram; and
Dathan and Abiram came out and stood at the door of their tents, together with
their wives, their sons, and their little ones.

GNT
27 So they moved away from the tents of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.
Dathan and Abiram had come out and were standing at the entrance of their
tents, with their wives and children.

They …: This pronoun refers to the people of the community at large. The
first sentence is almost a literal repetition of the instruction which was given to the
community at the end of verse 24. Thus, the sentence continues the narrative from that
point.
Dwelling: See at 16.24.
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram: As in verse 24, the names Dathan and
Abiram are lacking in the ancient Greek translation at the end of this sentence.
(NBJ98 has left them out both here and in verse 24.) Although this would make
sense—verse 25 suggests that Dathan and Abiram are not at the entrance of the tent of
meeting—translators are advised to follow the Hebrew text. The narrator again
weaves the two groups of rebels into one with respect to divine punishment.
And Dathan and Abiram came out …: This second sentence does not
continue the narrative after the first sentence; it rather continues the narrative about
Dathan and Abiram in verses 25-26 (referred to above as “Conflict 2”). It is probably
for this reason that GNT starts a new paragraph with this sentence and uses a past
perfect tense “had come out” (also NIV). It is important that a confusing sequence of
events is not presented in translation.
Little ones: See 14.3.
(CEV does not offer a good model for translating this verse, since it only
translates the first part: “So everyone moved away from those tents, except Korah,
Dathan, Abiram, and their families.”)

16.28
RSV
28 And Moses said, “Hereby you shall know that the Lord has sent me to do all
these works, and that it has not been of my own accord.

GNT
28 Moses said to the people, “This is how you will know that the Lord has sent me
to do all these things and that it is not by my own choice that I have done them.

Moses said: GNT adds “to the people.” Such a clarification may be helpful,
perhaps with the addition of “all.” The point is that Moses did not say this to the
rebels mentioned in verse 27, but rather to the whole community of Israel, who were
witnessing these events.
 Hereby you shall know: CEV suggests a helpful reordering which places this
thought at the end of the verse (“And here’s how you will know:”) so that it
immediately precedes verse 29 where it applies.
All these works … it has not been of my own accord: Literally “not from
my [own] heart.” Since the heart is regarded as the seat of thought, of a person’s will
and intention, renderings like “not by my own choice” (GNT) and “not of my own
devising” (NJPSVV) are helpful models. Other languages may have an idiomatic way
of saying this, for example, Chewa: “not the things from my own head, no.” The
antecedent of it may also cause problems in some languages; the apparent singular
form has reference to “all these things”—or better perhaps: “all these things that I
have done” (NLT), that is, throughout his time as the leader of Israel. This inclusive
temporal reference may need to be made explicit in translation (for example, by the
verb tense)—the text should not be understood as referring only to the events of that
day.

16.29
RSV
29 If these men die the common death of all men, or if they are visited by the
fate of all men, then the Lord has not sent me.

GNT
29 If these men die a natural death without some punishment from God, then the
Lord did not send me.

The common death of all men: There may be an idiomatic, perhaps

euphemistic, way of putting this in the target language, for example, “if they leave us
(‘die’) as all millet-eaters” (Tonga).
Or if they are visited by the fate of all men: The first two clauses appear to
be an instance of synonymous parallelism and thus are saying essentially the same
thing—with increasing poetic emphasis. In this case, the conjunction “or” in the
middle may be misleading, thus suggesting that two different outcomes are being
referred to. “That is” or no conjunction at all would be a more accurate translation
option. Furthermore, the second Hebrew construction does not specifically include a
term fate. More literally the Hebrew says: “If what befalls to all people befalls to
them …” In other words: “merely sharing the common fate of man” (REB); “and
experience only what usually happens to people” (similar to NIV); “if nothing unusual
happens” (NLT)—the end of life should be implied. There seems to be no need for
GNT’s more specific and direct translation: “without some punishment from God,”
although the Hebrew verb (p-q-d) does imply that in some contexts (Isa 10.3). Even if
GNT is followed, the divine name “the Lord” (taken from the context) should be used.

16.30
RSV
30 But if the Lord creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth, and
swallows them up, with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into
Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the Lord.”

GNT
30 But if the Lord does something unheard of, and the earth opens up and
swallows them with all they own, so that they go down alive to the world of the
dead, you will know that these men have rejected the Lord.”
 Creates something new: Literally with emphasis “creates a creation,” that is,
causes some new, unparalleled circumstance or event. NLT’s “does something
entirely new” thus seems more accurate in meaning than GNT’s “does something
unheard of” or REB’s “works a miracle.”
And the ground opens its mouth: Languages will differ in the extent to
which they can preserve the graphic personification and imagery that is found here
(see Gen 4.11) and in the clauses that follow. In any case, translators should try to
duplicate the vividness and forcefulness of the original text in their language, for it
serves to mark what is obviously a peak point in the book of Numbers.
Go down … into Sheol: Sheol was regarded as a dark and gloomy place
where all the dead—both the wicked and the righteous—were gathered in a shadowy
and slowly disappearing existence. It was believed to be located beneath the earth;
therefore the expression is “go down to Sheol.” A common translation of Sheol is
“world of the dead” (GNT); a similar rendering is “place of the dead people.” It does
not refer to a concrete place or to “hell” as a place of punishment in contrast to
heaven, so it should not be translated in that way. If possible, translators should try to
distinguish between Sheol and the ordinary word for “grave” (qeber; see 19.16, 18).
Despised the Lord: means ultimately to reject the Lord and his will, including
the leaders whom he has chosen (“they have shown contempt for the Lord”—NLT).

16.31-32
RSV
31 And as he finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split
asunder; 32 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their
households and all the men that belonged to Korah and all their goods.

GNT
31 As soon as he had finished speaking, the ground under Dathan and Abiram
split open 32 and swallowed them and their families, together with all of Korah's
followers and their possessions.

And as he finished speaking: In many translations, it will be necessary to

remind readers (listeners) of who actually was speaking the preceding words (verses
28-30), that is, “Moses.” The Lord’s judgment was manifested after Moses spoke
these words.
Under them: Starting in verse 27b, the narrative is actually still about Dathan
and Abiram at this point. GNT makes this explicit: “under Dathan and Abiram.”
Households: Literally “houses.” See 1.2.
And all the men that belonged to Korah and all their goods: This phrase
almost comes as an afterthought. FRCL has “as well as” and GNT has “together
with,” thus adding “Korah’s followers” to Dathan, Abiram, and their families. REB
has understood the Hebrew phrase in another way, namely, as an apposition to what
was just said about Dathan and Abiram’s families and possessions: “…the earth
opened its mouth and swallowed them and their homes—all the followers of Korah
and all their property.” (Instead of using a dash in the text, the translation could make
the appositional construction explicit with a transition like “that is to say, …”.) Note,
however, that the Hebrew text does not mention Korah’s family here. As 26.11
mentions explicitly, his children had not perished. Finally, it is noteworthy that the
brief account of this episode in Deut 11.6 (and Psalm 106.16-18) only mentions
Dathan and Abiram, not Korah.
16.33-34
RSV
33 So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol; and the
earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly. 34
And all Israel that were round about them fled at their cry; for they said, “Lest
the earth swallow us up!”

GNT
33 So they went down alive to the world of the dead, with their possessions. The
earth closed over them, and they vanished. 34 All the people of Israel who were
there fled when they heard their cry. They shouted, “Run! The earth might
swallow us too!”

So they…: This restatement of the punishment of the rebels found in verse 32

thus parallels the Lord’s twofold prediction of destruction in verse 30. The translation
should not imply a temporal sequence, namely, that what is reported in verse 33
happened after what is said in verse 32. The repetitive expressions of these two verses
serve as a climax in the account that highlights the divine punishment that will befall
all those who defy and rebel against the Lord and his chosen leaders.
From the midst of the assembly: This information at the end of verse 33 has
been left implicit in the GNT, perhaps because it was felt that it is essentially repeated
at the beginning of verse 34: “All the people of Israel.” However, all repetition in the
Bible serves a particular communicative purpose. If that purpose can be duplicated by
such lexical recursion in translation, then the form of the text ought to be retained. In
this case, it serves to emphasize that the shocking punishment that took place occurred
before the very eyes of many Israelites who may have been inclined to go along with
the rebels. What a graphic object lesson and warning that such sympathetic action
would have led to a tragic end! The dramatic nature of the narrative description in
these verses 31-35 might call for the use of selected ideophones in some languages,
for example, the earth swallowing (Chewa: uuuphu!) and fire completely consuming
(psiti!) people all at once.
Assembly: The Hebrew term here is not `edah but qahal. See at 10.7.
Fled at their cry: Not only sights, but sounds too added to the terrifying
drama of the scene; “fled when they heard their screams” (NLT) perhaps captures this
better than GNT’s low-key rendering “fled when they heard their cry” (as if all the
witnesses of these events cried out at once).
Lest the earth swallow us up!: This gives the reason for an unstated
imperative, which GNT makes explicit as “Run (away)!” and REB as “Look out!”

16.35
RSV
35 And fire came forth from the Lord, and consumed the two hundred and fifty
men offering the incense.

GNT
35 Then the Lord sent a fire that blazed out and burnt up the 250 men who
had presented the incense.

This verse returns without an explicit transition to the scene of the Korah-led
rebel group, presumably somewhere in the vicinity of the tent of meeting where the
250 were offering their illegitimate incense to the Lord. The separation of this scene
from the preceding one may have to be clarified in translation, at the very least by a
new paragraph.
And fire came forth from the Lord: The Hebrew does not indicate that this
event happened sequentially, after what was reported in verses 31-34. In fact, it would
be plausible to translate: “And fire had come forth …” Thus, there is no reason to
translate “Then” (GNT) or worse, “Suddenly” (CEV). A transitional expression such
as “Meanwhile” (Chewa) will be better—it seems that the narrator of this verse wants
to point out that the 250 chieftains with their firepans and incense (verse 17) were
punished by fire from heaven at approximately the same time that the earth was
opening up to swallow the families of Dathan and Abiram. (In some languages the
following model may be another way to avoid the impression that this event happened
sequentially: “As for the 250 men who …, the Lord sent a fire …”)
Incense: See at 16.7.

16.36-40
Section Heading: GNT inserts a section heading at the beginning of verse 36: “The
Firepans.” This is not recommended, since verses 36-40 include some reflections on
the rebellion of Korah and the 250 chieftains. Moreover, verses 36-40 are a
continuation of the dreadful event reported in verse 35, so if a section heading would
be included at all, it would be better to treat verses 35-40 as one section. This has
been done in GECL: “Who comes into the presence of God unauthorized …”
16.36 is numbered 17.1 in editions of the Hebrew Bible, as noted in RSV, and
so 16.50 turns out to be 17.15 in the Hebrew text.

16.36-38
RSV
36 Then the Lord said to Moses, 37 “Tell Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest to
take up the censers out of the blaze; then scatter the fire far and wide. For they
are holy, 38 the censers of these men who have sinned at the cost of their lives;
so let them be made into hammered plates as a covering for the altar, for they
offered them before the Lord; therefore they are holy. Thus they shall be a sign
to the people of Israel.”

GNT
36 Then the Lord said to Moses, 37 “Tell Eleazar son of Aaron the priest to
remove the bronze firepans from the remains of the men who have been burnt,
and scatter the coals from the firepans somewhere else, because the firepans are
holy. 38 They became holy when they were presented at the Lord's altar. So take
the firepans of these men who were put to death for their sin, beat them into thin
plates, and make a covering for the altar. It will be a warning to the people of
Israel.”

Then: Presumably, this speech began immediately after the event of verse 35.
This may make a difference in languages (like Chewa) that have several words for
“then,” depending on the length of time separating the events being referred to.
Eleazar: The reason why Eleazar is chosen for this role, rather than Aaron, is
probably that the high priest himself must have no contact of any kind with the dead
(Lev 21.11).[< Budd 195] Eleazar’s task also falls within his assignment in 4.16. His
qualification for this important task is revealed by the seemingly incidental phrase the
son of Aaron.
 To take up: The Hebrew employs indirect speech here, literally: “and let him
take up.” In some languages it will be natural to employ embedded direct speech:
“Say to Eleazar …: ‘Remove …’”
Censers: See at 16.6. GNT includes “bronze” here instead of in verse 39,
where the Hebrew mentions “bronze” for the first time in this chapter. According to
Exo 27.3 the firepans were to be made of bronze, but the Hebrew of Num 16.6 does
not specify this.
Blaze: The Hebrew serefah is a general term for the debris left by a fire. GNT
describes it as “the remains of the men who have been burnt,” which may be overly
explicit. NJPSVV has “the charred remains” and REB “the burnt remains.”
Scatter the fire far and wide: For fire see 16.7, where GNT translates “live
coals.” Here GNT has “coals from the firepans. This was the second of two
commands: the bronze censers were to be retrieved, and the potentially polluting
burning coals (and bodily remains) scattered about far away from the camp. Thus
GNT’s “somewhere else” does not seem to be explicit enough.
For they are holy: They, that is, the censers, are holy (or, “set apart/sacred to
me”; see at 6.5), because Moses had instructed Korah and his “community” to bring
them to the altar (16.6-7). DUCL has: “Those firepans now belong to me.” The
religious idea behind this is that materials used in a sacrifice in the complex of the tent
of meeting have become holy and should be given some legitimate ritual use, even if
the sacrifice just carried out was illegitimate.[< Noth 130; Levine 418]
The censers of these men who have sinned at the cost of their lives: In the
Hebrew this whole phrase is marked as a direct object in the sentence. RSV combines
this semantically complex phrase with the preceding words for they are holy in one
sentence. But it would be closer to the Hebrew sentence structure to combine the
phrase with what follows: The censers of these men who have sinned at the cost of
their lives - let them be made into hammered plates as a covering for the altar.
REB follows the Hebrew sentence structure, which highlights these censers: “The
censers of these men who sinned at the cost of their lives you shall make into beaten
plates to overlay the altar.” GNT is based on this understanding of the Hebrew as
well: “So take the firepans of these men who were put to death for (because of) their
sin, beat them into thin plates, ...”
Hammered plates: This refers to pieces of metal which have been beaten flat
with hammers to serve as plating for some other object. The clause in GNT—“beat
them into thin plates”—will be a natural model in many languages.
As a covering for the altar: In some languages, the literal word for
“covering” may imply something temporary, which can be easily removed again
(“uncovered”); that is not what is being described in this verse. The Hebrew term for
“covering, plating” is of the same root as the verb “to overlay” (with a metal, for
example). In some languages, “to overlay the altar” (REB) or “fasten them on to the
altar” will be more precise.
For they offered them before the Lord: The same verb for “offer” as in 9.7
is employed here: hiqrib (“bring, present”). The phrase before the Lord has been
discussed at 5.16. “For they presented them at the Lord’s altar” (similar to GNT)
expresses the meaning of the Hebrew clause more accurately.
For they are holy: “And they became holy” (NRSV) is a more accurate
rendering of the type of verb in the Hebrew. GNT has reversed the order of this clause
and the preceding one: “They became holy when they were presented at the Lord's
altar.” In many languages this will help to emphasize that the firepans had become
holy, separated unto the Lord, at the time of their initial consecration as vessels for
use in worship.
They shall be a sign: The Hebrew verb is more accurately rendered as a
command: “Let them be (or become)…” (NIV) or “Let them serve as…” (NLT). In
this context, “warning” (GNT) or “reminder” is a good rendering as well. A combined
translation (form plus function) “a sign of warning” may also be possible. They still
refers to the censers. GNT makes this a reference (“It”) to the metal overlay for the
altar, and this may be more natural in some languages.

16.39-40
RSV
39 So Eleazar the priest took the bronze censers, which those who were burned
had offered; and they were hammered out as a covering for the altar, 40 to be a
reminder to the people of Israel, so that no one who is not a priest, who is not of
the descendants of Aaron, should draw near to burn incense before the Lord, lest
he become as Korah and as his company—as the Lord said to Eleazar through
Moses.

GNT
39 So Eleazar the priest took the firepans and had them beaten into thin plates to
make a covering for the altar. 40 This was a warning to the Israelites that no one
who was not a descendant of Aaron should come to the altar to burn incense for
the Lord. Otherwise he would be destroyed like Korah and his men. All this was
done as the Lord had commanded Eleazar through Moses.

Bronze censers: This is the first time that the Hebrew text of this chapter
mentions that the censers were made of bronze (see the Exodus Handbook at 25.3).
GNT (“firepans”) has not translated that here, but has included it in verse 37.
Which those who were burned had offered: GNT leaves this untranslated.
However, in many languages such repetition serves the same emphasizing function as
in Hebrew. If so, these words, which serve to underscore once again the sin of the
rebels and their awful punishment, should not be left out.
Who were burned: The Hebrew form is of the same root as serefah in verse
37.
Had offered: The verbal form in English indicates that the act of “offering”
took place before the men were “burned.” In languages that do not have this verbal
form, the sequence may be changed to their chronological order, for example,
“…censers, which those men used when offering and were burned up.” The Hebrew
form is of the verb hiqrib. See 16.38 and 9.7.
Hammered out as a covering for the altar: See at 16.38.
To be a reminder: The Hebrew term has virtually the same meaning as the
one in verse 38. GNT has “This was a warning.” But there is no present or past tense
in the Hebrew text. Thus, NRSV is more accurate than RSV and GNT in translating
this as an appositional construction: “… —a reminder to the Israelites that …” In
some languages this will make the narrative more vivid.
No one who is not a priest, who is not of the descendants of Aaron: The
Hebrew has no past tense here. The text primarily addresses itself to Israelites at a
time when there were still Aaronite priests, and this should be clear from the
translation as well. Therefore, GNT’s “who was not a descendant of Aaron” is not
recommended. Who is not a priest is literally: “who is an outsider” (the term used in
NJPSV and NRSV). Another way to handle this is illustrated by the NIV: “… no one
except a descendant of Aaron …”
Descendants: Literally ‘seed.’ Some languages will have a similar term—
singular or collective—to refer to descendants.
Draw near: NET has “approach”; REB has “come forward.” In some
languages it will be natural to specify the place: “come to the altar” (GNT).
Incense: See at 16.7.
Before the Lord: See at 16.7 and 5.16.
Lest he become as Korah: Chewa: “… lest similar things befall him as befell
Korah …” GNT begins a new sentence here: “Otherwise he would be destroyed like
Korah …”
Company: See at 16.5.
—As the Lord said to Eleazar through Moses: Literally “… by the hand of
Moses.” Hence NET: “—just as the Lord had spoken by the authority of Moses.” It
will often be more natural to start a new sentence here, as in GNT: “All this was done
as …” Some translations put the clause before the phrase “—a reminder …,” treating
the clause as a logical continuation of verse 39. See, for example, NBV: “this is how
the Lord had commanded it through Moses’ mouth to Eleazar. These plates are to
remind the Israelites that …”

16.41-50
Section Heading: The rebellion against the authority of Moses and Aaron expands,
this time involving the whole community of Israel. GNT inserts another section
heading at the beginning of verse 41: “Aaron Saves the People.” However, no section
heading is necessary here if—as suggested above— there is one section heading for
chapters 16 and 17 together. But if headings for shorter sections are preferred, “The
Israelites Rebel and Are Punished” (CEV), or “The People Protest against Moses and
Aaron” (FRCL), or “Moses and Aaron save the rebellious people” (GECL) would be
more in line with the continued theme of rebellion. These would be better than
something like “The Budding of Aaron’s Staff” (NIV, NET).

16.41
RSV
41 But on the morrow all the congregation of the people of Israel murmured
against Moses and against Aaron, saying, “You have killed the people of the
Lord.”

GNT
41 The next day the whole community complained against Moses and Aaron
and said, “You have killed some of the Lord's people.”

On the morrow: NRSV and GNT both have “The next day.”
Congregation: See at 1.2. The GNT rendering “community” is more accurate.
Murmured: See at 14.2. The complaining community appears not to have
gotten the deadly message!
You have killed the people of the Lord: A rendering like “some of the
Lord’s people” (GNT) may describe the situation more accurately, since not all of the
Lord’s people were killed during the preceding events. Thus, this is another instance
of hyperbole. However, such a change is not recommended, because “some” takes
away from the people’s exaggerated, even irrational emotional outburst. In fact,
Moses and Aaron did not kill anybody; the rebels died due to the direct punitive
action of the Lord. But Moses and Aaron are treated like scapegoats here—the people
wanted to blame someone for the frustration that they were feeling. You is emphatic,
since in the Hebrew text this plural pronoun comes in addition to the full verb you
have killed; this might be brought out (in English) by a rendering like “it is you who
…” or “you two are the ones who …”

16.42
RSV
42 And when the congregation had assembled against Moses and against Aaron,
they turned toward the tent of meeting; and behold, the cloud covered it, and the
glory of the Lord appeared.

GNT
42 After they had all gathered to protest to Moses and Aaron, they turned
towards the Tent and saw that the cloud was covering it and that the dazzling
light of the Lord's presence had appeared.

Congregation: See at 1.2. The rendering “community” would be more

accurate.
Had assembled against: See 16.3. NIV translates: “gathered in opposition
to.”
They turned toward the tent of meeting: Who turned? According to NRSV,
NJPSV, NJPSV, CEV, TOB and PV, the subject of this verb is Moses and Aaron:
“Moses and Aaron turned …” (also in NBJ98 and DHE: “these ones”). However, the
Hebrew of this verse seems to favour a different reading. According to NIV, HSV,
WV, NFB, NTV and CEI, the subject is still the entire community: “and people
turned …” (HSVU, NTV); “and the Israelites turned …” (CEI). This would include
Moses and Aaron themselves—in this section starting with verse 41, the text is not
suggesting that Moses and Aaron were already at the tent of meeting.
Tent of meeting: See at 1.1.
Behold: See 12.10. The force of this Hebrew particle may be conveyed by a
creative rendering like, “this is what they saw—the cloud…,” or “Look!—the cloud
…”
Cloud: See at 9.15.
Glory of the Lord: See at 14.10.

16.43-45
RSV
43 And Moses and Aaron came to the front of the tent of meeting, 44 and the
Lord said to Moses, 45 “Get away from the midst of this congregation, that I may
consume them in a moment.” And they fell on their faces.

GNT
43 Moses and Aaron went and stood in front of the Tent, 44 and the Lord said to
Moses, 45 “Stand back from these people, and I will destroy them on the spot!”
The two of them bowed down with their faces to the ground,

And: Or “When …” (REB); “At that [immediate point in] time …” (Chewa).
Such a transitional word or phrase may be even more important if verse 43 is joined to
verse 44 as in the case of most versions.
To the front of: At the entrance of the tent of meeting.
 Get away: Literally “lift yourselves”: withdraw, separate yourselves. More
expressive in English is GNT: “Stand back!” and REB: “Stand well clear of …”
This congregation: See at 1.2. The rendering “this community”(NJPSVV) is
more accurate.
Consume: Literally “bring to an end” or “destroy” as in 16.21.
In a moment: See 16.21. The wording of the sentence is similar to that verse.
They: A reference to Moses and Aaron. GNT’s “The two of them” makes this
clear.
Fell on their faces: See at 14.5; 16.22.

16.46
RSV
46 And Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer, and put fire therein from off the
altar, and lay incense on it, and carry it quickly to the congregation, and make
atonement for them; for wrath has gone forth from the Lord, the plague has
begun.”

GNT
46 and Moses said to Aaron, “Take your firepan, put live coals from the altar in it,
and put some incense on the coals. Then hurry with it to the people and perform
the ritual of purification for them. Hurry! The Lord's anger has already broken out
and an epidemic has already begun.”

Take … and put … and lay … and carry … and make atonement …:
Moses’ directions are very urgent and this is reflected in the Hebrew construction of
closely related imperative clauses that comprise the lengthy sentence of verse 46. In
some languages this would sound very natural in an oral expression of this passage. In
other languages, however, this sequence of commands may be too long and thus a
break must be made somewhere. The English versions differ in this respect; GNT, for
example, begins a new sentence at the fourth verb “Then hurry with it …”
Censer … fire … incense: See at 16.6.
Congregation: See at 1.2. “Community” (NJPSVV) is more accurate.
Make atonement: See at 6.11. This imperative constitutes the climax of the
whole sequence of commands, so it may be best to break the sentence after this
clause. The key term “make atonement” (k-p-r) should be translated contextually (but
also with reference to past usage) and carefully. GNT’s “perform the ritual of
purification,” for example, does not adequately capture the significance of the Hebrew
verb here. In view of the next explanatory clause, a rendering like “make expiation for
[the people’s sin]” (REB) may be better in that it is a more urgent preparation for the
Lord’s anger.
For wrath: The Hebrew noun is the same as in 1.53. Some translations try to
capture the urgency in Moses’ words at this point, for example, GNT: “Hurry! The
Lord’s anger…” NLT indicates this at the beginning of the sequence of commands:
“Quick, take an incense burner …”
Plague: The nature of this destructive event is not indicated. Thus a general
term possible ought to be chosen in translation. “Disaster” (GNT’s rendering of the
same term in 8.19) or widespread “affliction” would be more general renderings as
well. See at 14.37. The Hebrew term is the same as in Exo 12.13, where it refers more
literally to the ‘smiting’ (or ‘striking’) of all the firstborn in Egypt.

16.47
RSV
47 So Aaron took it as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly; and
behold, the plague had already begun among the people; and he put on the
incense, and made atonement for the people.

GNT
47 Aaron obeyed, took his firepan and ran into the middle of the assembled
people. When he saw that the plague had already begun, he put the incense on
the coals and performed the ritual of purification for the people.

So Aaron took it: It may be necessary to specify what Aaron “took,” as in

GNT: “Aaron … took his firepan ...”
Assembly: The Hebrew term is qahal. See at 16.3.
And behold, the plague had already begun: The Hebrew particle (see verse
42) precedes the same expression as reported at the end of verse 46, as if now Aaron
actually witnessed the “disaster” that was taking place before his eyes. There may be
a way of bringing out this added nuance in the translation, for example, “Aaron saw
for himself that…”
He put on the incense: GNT clarifies that Aaron “put the incense on the
coals,” as instructed in the preceding verse. Rashbam, the Jewish medieval
commentator, already noted that incense, which causes death when handled by non-
priests, puts a stop to death when it is in the hands of the Lord’s true priest.
People: The Hebrew term `am, which is different from `edah “community”
and qahal “assembly,” is apparently used here as a synonym with no difference in
meaning.
Made atonement: See the preceding verse and 6.11.

16.48
RSV
48 And he stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stopped.

GNT
48 This stopped the plague, and he was left standing between the living and the
dead.

He stood: There is no reason for the reordered rendering in GNT. Especially

in its position at the end of the verse, the clause “he was left standing …” wrongly
suggests that that there was nothing left for Aaron to do! On the contrary, Aaron with
his burning incense stands as a buffer—a go-between, even a mediator—between
those people who had already died (probably a certain portion or section of the camp)
and those still alive. This reminds us of the arrangement of the camp in 1.53, where
the Levites form a buffer or protective barrier around the tabernacle against the Lord’s
wrath. NFB, NBV, and CRV have “he went to stand,” that is,“he placed himself.”
The plague was stopped: GNT—“This stopped the plague”—may be
followed if it is more natural to specify what halted the plague, namely, the actions of
Aaron. However, there is no reason for moving this clause to the beginning of the
verse, which confuses the meaning.

16.49
RSV
49 Now those who died by the plague were fourteen thousand seven hundred,
besides those who died in the affair of Korah.

GNT
49 The number of people who died was 14,700, not counting those who died in
Korah's rebellion.

Now those who died: The RSV’s construction, following the Hebrew, is
awkward in English. GNT gives a good alternative; also NIV (and others): “But
14,700 people died from the plague…”
Affair: Although the Hebrew term is very general, “rebellion” (GNT) fits the
context better. Since Korah was not the only guilty person, perhaps something like
“the rebellion involving Korah” (NLT) would prevent possible misunderstanding.

16.50
RSV
50 And Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance of the tent of meeting, when the
plague was stopped.

GNT
50 When the plague had stopped, Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance of the
Tent.

And Aaron returned: Many languages will prefer a reordering of clauses in

this verse, as illustrated by GNT. Moses had sent Aaron out into the camp on his
saving mission earlier, as reported in verse 46.
The entrance of the tent of meeting: The same phrase is used as in, for
example, 6.10.

17.1-13
Section Heading: After Korah’s rebellion in the previous chapter, Aaron’s selection
by God as the legitimate priest is confirmed once again in the present chapter. In light
of this, a heading like “Aaron’s Stick” (GNT, similar to FRCL and NBS02) is not
very informative to the reader. “The Budding of Aaron’s Staff” (NET, NLT) and
“Aaron’s Walking Stick Blooms and Produces Almonds” (CEV) point indirectly at
the confirmation of his authority. “God confirms the priesthood of Aaron and his
descendants” (GECL) highlights the theme of this chapter most explicitly, but this
heading may be rather long. Most of these aspects can be combined in a heading like:
“Aaron’s budding staff demonstrates his authority.”
The heading for chapters 16 and 17 together in DUCL and NBV is as follows:
“The authority of Moses and Aaron is contested.” It may be helpful to rephrase this:
“The authority of Moses and Aaron is contested but confirmed.”
17.1 is numbered 17.16 in the Hebrew, as noted in RSV. According to the
traditional chapter and verse numbering in the Hebrew text, chapter 17 already started
at the verse that is numbered 16.36 in RSV, GNT, and many other translations.

17.1-3
RSV
1 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, and get from them
rods, one for each fathers' house, from all their leaders according to their fathers'
houses, twelve rods. Write each man's name upon his rod, 3 and write Aaron's
name upon the rod of Levi. For there shall be one rod for the head of each
fathers' house.

GNT
1 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Tell the people of Israel to give you twelve sticks,
one from the leader of each tribe. Write each man's name on his stick 3 and then
write Aaron's name on the stick representing Levi. There will be one stick for each
tribal leader.

The Lord said: A section (episode) introducing transitional word or phrase

may be needed for naturalness in translation, for example, simply “Then…” (NLT) or
“After that…(implying some time later, not immediately)” (Chewa).
Rods: “Sticks” (GNT) or “staffs” (NRSV) are more contemporary renderings
in English. The closest formal and functional equivalent would be the ideal, as in
some cultures, the royal “walking stick” of the chief or king—unless this item
happens to be too closely associated with traditional religious belief, or even magic.
Fathers’ house: NRSV has “ancestral house.” See at 1.2.
Leaders: As mentioned at 1.16 and 16.2, the Hebrew nasi’ refers to a
prominent and distinguished leader, for example, a much respected sheikh of a tribe;
thus leaders seems a rather flat translation. In English, chiefs or “chieftains”
(NJPSVV) would be a better alternative.
Twelve rods: Israel consisted of twelve tribes. The number twelve indicates
that, unlike 1.2, these verses treat a father’s house as synonymous with a tribe. In
some languages it will be more natural to use the term “tribe” (GNT) than to render
father’s house or “ancestral house.” (Interestingly, the Hebrew word matteh “rod”
also means “tribe.” There may be a deliberate play on meanings here.)
Rod of Levi: This rod is not one of the twelve rods but it comes in addition to
the twelve.[< Noordtzij 157] (It is already clear from chapter 2, especially verse 33,
that there are twelve tribes, excluding the Levites, since Joseph’s descendants were
divided into two, the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim.) Although Aaron was a
descendant of Levi’s second son, Kohath, the Lord reiterates his choice of Aaron as
the leader of the clan, hence also the priesthood.
For there shall be one rod ...: This sentence explains that although Levi was
not numbered with or granted a specific location among the other tribes, his
descendants were still recognized as a “father’s house” (in effect, the 13th) also having
a “tribal leader,” namely, Aaron.

17.4-5
RSV
4 Then you shall deposit them in the tent of meeting before the testimony, where
I meet with you. 5 And the rod of the man whom I choose shall sprout; thus I will
make to cease from me the murmurings of the people of Israel, which they
murmur against you.”

GNT
4 Take them to the Tent of my presence and put them in front of the Covenant
Box, where I meet you. 5 Then the stick of the man I have chosen will sprout. In
this way I will put a stop to the constant complaining of these Israelites against
you.”

Deposit them: “Place them” (NRSV).

 Tent of meeting: See at 1.1.
Testimony: As explained at 1.50, the Hebrew ha‘edut refers not to the Lord’s
presence directly, but more indirectly to the verbal text of the covenant, as
summarized in the Ten Commandments. These were written on the two stone tablets,
which were kept in the ark (the covenant chest) as a testimony and solemn reminder
of God’s faithfulness to his people. NJPSVV has “in the Tent of Meeting before the
Pact.” If this is considered too abstract, one may translate “covenant chest” (compare
GNT’s “Covenant Box” or Chewa’s “Box of Testimony”). These tablets are called
simply “the testimony” in Exod. 25.16, 21 and by the longer reference “tables of the
testimony” in Exod. 31.18; 32.15. The “ark of the testimony” is found in Exod. 25.22;
26.33-34. The translation should maintain consistent wording with reference to these
important religious objects.
Where I meet with you: In some languages it may be necessary or more
natural to translate “where I usually (or ‘regularly’) meet with you.” You is plural in
the Hebrew, referring to the people of Israel as a whole.
Sprout: That is, put out, or generate, new shoots.
Thus I will make to cease from me: Or more idiomatically, “In this way I
will put a stop to…” (GNT), “Then I will finally put an end to…” (NLT); or “So I
will rid myself of…” (NET).
Murmurings … murmur: Both words are of the same root which is an
emphatic construction in Hebrew. See at 14.2. In many languages it will be more
natural to combine the two words in one phrase that highlights the negative quality of
the behavior being referred to, as in NJPSVV (“incessant mutterings”) and GNT
(“constant complaining”).
Against you: You is plural in the Hebrew, referring to Moses and Aaron.

17.6-7
RSV
6 Moses spoke to the people of Israel; and all their leaders gave him rods, one for
each leader, according to their fathers' houses, twelve rods; and the rod of Aaron
was among their rods. 7 And Moses deposited the rods before the Lord in the tent
of the testimony.

GNT
6 So Moses spoke to the Israelites, and each of their leaders gave him a stick,
one for each tribe, twelve in all, and Aaron's stick was put with them. 7 Moses
then put all the sticks in the Tent in front of the Lord's Covenant Box.

Leaders: See at 17.2 and 1.16.

Rods: See at 17.2.
Fathers’ houses: See at 17.2.
The rod of Aaron: As indicated in 17.3, 8, this rod represents the tribe of
Levi, but at issue was the priestly leadership of Aaron.
Was among their rods: This rod is not one of the twelve rods but it comes in
addition to the twelve—thus actually the thirteenth. In many languages, “with” (GNT)
or “along with” (Chewa) will express this more clearly than among.
Before the Lord: Where this is located was already indicated by the phrase in
the tent of the testimony (see verse 4). Renderings such as “Before the Lord” (NIV,
REB, NBV) or “before the Lord’s presence” are sufficiently clear.
Tent of the testimony: This phrase ’ohel ha`edut occurs in 9.15 as well.
17.8
RSV
8 And on the morrow Moses went into the tent of the testimony; and behold,
the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi had sprouted and put forth buds, and
produced blossoms, and it bore ripe almonds.

GNT
8 The next day, when Moses went into the Tent, he saw that Aaron's stick,
representing the tribe of Levi, had sprouted. It had budded, blossomed, and
produced ripe almonds!

On the morrow: As in 16.41, GNT has “The next day.”

Tent of the testimony: As in 17.7.
Behold: See at 12.10. There is usually some idiomatic way of bringing out the
emphasis of this Hebrew particle and the dramatic verb-packed report in translation.
GNT attempts this by beginning a new sentence after “sprouted” (and by putting an
exclamation mark at the end of the verse). REB tries harder, using some reiteration:
“… the staff for the tribe of Levi, had budded. Indeed, it had put forth buds,
blossomed, …”
House of Levi: GNT’s “tribe” seems more logical, but house may well be a
deliberate word choice in the Hebrew. It reminds us of Exo 2.1, where the lineage of
Moses is first mentioned: “a man of the house of Levi went and married a Levite
woman.”
Sprouted: That is, put out new shoots. The Hebrew for buds comes from the
same root.
Blossoms: The Hebrew term is in the singular, referring to collective blossoms
or flowers.
Ripe almonds: The almond tree is the first of the trees to come into blossom
at the end of January or the beginning of February (a distinctive white, see Eccl 12.5).
The Hebrew only has sheqedim: almonds, so there is no need to add ripe. In any
case, its bud and flower formed part of the decoration on the golden bowls next to the
tabernacle lampstand (Exo 25.31-40).

17.9
RSV
9 Then Moses brought out all the rods from before the Lord to all the people of
Israel; and they looked, and each man took his rod.

GNT
9 Moses took all the sticks and showed them to the Israelites. They saw what had
happened, and each leader took his own stick back.

From before the Lord: NIV has “from the Lord’s presence.” NBV has “out
of the holy place of the Lord.” There seems to be no reason to leave this phrase
untranslated—as GNT has done—unless the phrase would make the text overly
repetitive in the target language.
They looked: The Hebrew verb is without an object, so GNT’s “They saw
what had happened” is a helpful model in languages where an object would be
needed.
Each man: There were thirteen sticks, so this must refer to the staff of Aaron
plus the twelve chieftains, who were mentioned in 17.2. If this reference has to be
clarified in the translation, “each chieftain” will be a better rendering than “each
leader” (GNT).

17.10-11
RSV
10 And the Lord said to Moses, “Put back the rod of Aaron before the testimony,
to be kept as a sign for the rebels, that you may make an end of their
murmurings against me, lest they die.” 11 Thus did Moses; as the Lord
commanded him, so he did.

GNT
10 The Lord said to Moses, “Put Aaron's stick back in front of the Covenant Box.
It is to be kept as a warning to the rebel Israelites that they will die unless their
complaining stops.” 11 Moses did as the Lord commanded.

Before the testimony: That is, “in front of the Covenant Box” (GNT) or
covenant chest.
Sign: The Hebrew term is the same as in 16.38 and should be rendered the
same here. This is a key concept in these two chapters: here was another visible
warning and reminder that the Lord’s authority and that of his chosen leaders must not
be contested or rebelled against.
Rebels: Literally “rebellious sons” or “sons of rebellion.”
Murmurings: The same noun as in 17.5.
Thus did Moses: Here the explicit obedience of Moses is stressed, in contrast
to the behaviour of his complaining countrymen and women, and this needs more
emphasis than the GNT gives it. See, for example, the REB: “Moses did this, doing
exactly as the Lord had commanded him.”

17.12-13
RSV
12 And the people of Israel said to Moses, “Behold, we perish, we are undone,
we are all undone. 13 Every one who comes near, who comes near to the
tabernacle of the Lord, shall die. Are we all to perish?”

GNT
12 The people of Israel said to Moses, “Then that's the end of us! 13 If anyone
who even comes near the Tent must die, then we are all as good as dead!”

Behold, we perish, we are undone …: The Hebrew verbs, preceded by an

interjection in Hebrew, are virtually synonymous; their repetition indicates how
terrified the people are. There are various ways of expressing the dramatic nature of
the original text, for example: “Look, we are doomed! We are dead! We are ruined!”
(NLT). The same is true of the reiterated who comes near, who comes near in verse
13. GNT’s “who even comes near” or “close” (NLT) will be a helpful model in
languages where repetition would not make the translation expressive.
Tabernacle of the Lord: See at 1.50 for the term mishkan: tabernacle.
Are we all to perish?: Or “Are we all doomed to die?” (NLT). The question
seems to be rhetorical. As NJPSVV puts it quite expressively: “Alas, we are [all]
doomed to perish!”
The people’s plaintive cry ends the way it starts: we perish … are we all to
perish?
 It seems that the Israelites have finally gotten the message that nobody can
enter the tabernacle who has not been given the Lord’s authority to do so. Only Aaron
and his descendants can enter the sanctuary and carry out the specific duties of the
priesthood. This distressing moment of perplexity precedes the next chapter, which
outlines the responsibilities of the priests and Levites and the people’s obligations
towards them in order to maintain the proper divinely ordained cultic relationship.

18.1-32
Section Heading: Chapter 18 deals with the benefits for priests and Levites as much
as their responsibilities. “Duties and income of priests and Levites” (NBV) may thus
be a better model to follow. The purity of the sanctuary and of the priesthood, which
reflect or symbolize the holiness of the Lord, are the chapter’s main concerns.
Unauthorized entry of holy space, even by Levites, brings death. Death can be
avoided only by accepting Aaron’s sole right to function in the holy place.[<
KnierimCoats 218]
It is noteworthy that chapter 18 comes directly after chapters 16–17, in which
Aaron’s authority was contested and confirmed. As is clear from 18.1, God directs his
address to Aaron alone for the first time.[< Alter] (It is only in this chapter and in Lev
10.8 that God speaks directly to Aaron alone.)[< Olson 114] Most of the regulations
in this chapter are actually already known and have been legislated before (chapters
3–4 and 8.5-26). But chapter 18 does not intend to refer back to those earlier passages.
Rather, its role is to highlight Aaron’s authority after chapters 16–17, perhaps now in
the hearing of the young new generation of Israel which would one day enter the land
of Canaan. The priests and Levites form the first and second line of protection around
the tent of meeting against death by the wrath of God. In this way then this chapter
appears to respond to the people’s fearful outcry at the end of ch. 17: “Anyone who
even comes near the tabernacle of the Lord will die! Are we all doomed to die?”
(verse 13).
Before we conclude that chapters 16–18 are simply pieces of propaganda
designed to ensure unquestioning loyalty to the Aaronic priests, it is good to
remember that the Old Testament (for example in 1 Sam 2.12-36) does criticize
instances of Aaronic priests’ misconduct and abuse of authority.[< Olson 117-118]
And 18.3 reminds us of the severe penalty that the Lord threatens to bring upon any
Levite who approaches too close to the holy things found in the tent of meeting.
Some translators will prefer to divide the chapter into smaller parts. GNT, for
example, has several section headings for the different parts of chapter 18:

Verses 1-7 Duties of Priests and Levites

Verses 8-20 The Share of the Priests
Verses 21-24 The Share of the Levites
Verses 25-32 The Levites’ Tithe

Note that each one of these sections begins with the formulaic introduction: “The
Lord said to Aaron” (“…to Moses” in verse 25). The CEV follows the same division,
using easier language for the headings:

Verses 1-7 The Duties of the Priests and Levites

Verses 8-20 The Priests’ Share of Offerings Given to the Lord
Verses 21-24 What the Levites Receive
 Verses 25-32 What the Levites Must Give

Headings for these shorter passages will be mentioned again below.

18.1
RSV
1 So the Lord said to Aaron, “You and your sons and your fathers' house with you shall bear
iniquity in connection with the sanctuary; and you and your sons with you shall bear iniquity in
connection with your priesthood.

GNT
1 The Lord said to Aaron, “You, your sons, and the Levites must suffer the consequences of
any guilt connected with serving in the Tent of my presence; but only you and your sons will
suffer the consequences of service in the priesthood.

And your fathers’ house: As mentioned at 1.2, a “house” is, at least, an

extended family, which includes three or four generations. If “house” or a similar
metaphorical term can be maintained in the translation, fathers’ can be understood as
“ancestral” (NJPSV, NRSV). The Hebrew is actually in the singular: “your father’s.”
This is a reference to the house of which Aaron is himself a member. A number of
translations take this to be the descendants of Levi as a whole (the founding father of
the tribe of Levi): “and the other members of the tribe of Levi” (DUCL); “and your
brothers of the tribe of Levi” (FRCL); “the Levites” (GNT). But the Hebrew text
mentions these only in verse 2. Rashi, the Jewish medieval commentator, already
noted that your father’s house refers specifically to the descendants of Kohath, the
Levite clan whose task it is to carry the most holy objects (3.27-31; chapter 4). Aaron
and his sons are members of this clan. REB is already a better model in that it does
not mention Levi: “together with the members of your father’s tribe.” This translation
can be understood as a reference to the clan of Kohath. If an explicit name is really
needed here translators are advised to refer to the clan of Kohath, not to the tribe of
Levi.
Shall bear iniquity in connection with the sanctuary: Literally “shall carry
guilt of the sanctuary.” The sense of this is the clan to which Aaron belongs, the
Kohathites, “must carry the consequences of any offense [that occurs] in connection
with the sacred place” (similar to Chewa) or “are to bear the responsibility [or “to
carry the burden”] for offenses against the sanctuary” (NIV) or “are responsible for
what happens at the sacred tent” (CEV). One such offense would be that others come
too close to the sanctuary (footnote in CEV), while another would be the unauthorized
handling of sacred objects, which had happened in the events recorded in chapter 16.
Sanctuary: The Hebrew has miqdash. Here the term is usually taken to refer
to the tent of meeting, the “holy place” (NBV). GNT has “Tent of my presence,”
which is another way to highlight its holiness. But the term occurs in 3.38 and 10.21
as well. In 3.38 it refers to the inner sanctuary (the place for the sacred objects), while
in 10.21 it refers to the sacred objects themselves, as they were to be carried by the
Kohathite clan of the Levites. Like most translations of 18.1, NBS02 has “sanctuary,”
but a footnote mentions that “sacred objects” is another possible translation, as in
10.21. It may refer to both—the holy place and the sacred objects found therein; the
Levites, let alone lay people, were not to intrude upon this sacred space where only
the Aaronic priests could go.
 You and your sons with you: A reference to Aaron and his own sons. The
phrase “only you and your sons” (GNT, NBV) helpfully brings out the contrast with
the larger father’s house to which Aaron and his sons belong.
Shall bear iniquity in connection with your priesthood: Again, the sense of
this is that Aaron and his sons “are to bear the responsibility [or “to carry the burden”]
for offenses against the priesthood” (NIV). The implication is that there would be a
serious divine punishment that follows any violation of the regulations regarding the
defilement of the priestly office. Only Aaron and his sons are authorized to carry out
the ritual duties of the priesthood.
Your priesthood: The Hebrew term for priesthood already occurred in 3.10
and 16.10 so consistency in usage should be maintained when translating if possible.
Your is plural in the Hebrew, referring to Aaron and his sons.
In many languages it is much better to break this long sentence into two, rather
than to maintain it as one by means of a semicolon (RSV, GNT).

18.2
RSV
2 And with you bring your brethren also, the tribe of Levi, the tribe of your father, that they may
join you, and minister to you while you and your sons with you are before the tent of the
testimony.

GNT
2Bring in your relatives, the tribe of Levi, to work with you and help you while you and your
sons are serving at the Tent.

And: In many languages, this is better left untranslated, since a separate issue
is dealt with here in verse 2, having to do with the rest of the tribe of Levi, a point
emphasized also by the particle gam (also) in Hebrew.
With you bring: Literally “let come with you.” If it is necessary in the target
language to specify the place to which they should come, NBV is a helpful model:
“let your kinsmen … come together with you to the holy place.” GNT leaves with
you untranslated.
Your brethren: Literally “your brothers.” The pronoun your is singular in the
Hebrew, referring only to Aaron and the priestly family. Instead of brethren or
“relatives,” NJPSV’s “kinsmen” brings out more clearly that this is a reference to
fellow-members of a tribe. Rashi notes that this is a reference to the clans of Gershon
and Merari, that is, the “Gershonites” (3.21-26) and the “Merarites” (3.33-37).
Also: This indicates that the other two clan members of the tribe of Levi are
mentioned separately from Aaron’s father’s house (verse 1), which is smaller. As
already mentioned at verse 1, GNT does not make this distinction at all and leaves the
Hebrew gam untranslated. The tribe [not “the house”] of your father is the same as
the tribe of Levi.
Tribe: See at 1.4.
That they may join you: “To be attached to you” (NJPSV) is more accurate
than GNT’s rather flat translation “to work with you.” This is of some importance,
because this verb plays on the name Levi (see Gen 29.34). The Hebrew root of this
verb (‘to join oneself to, to be attached’) and of the name Levi (‘joining, adhesion’) is
the same: l-w-h. Use of this verb also suggests a certain subordination of the clans of
Gershon and Merari to that of Kohath and the priestly family of Aaron.
Minister: Or “help” (GNT), “assist” (REB), “serve.”
 You and your sons with you: the Aaronic priests, who have their own duties
to perform in the tent of the testimony.
Tent of the testimony: See the discussion of testimony at 1.50.

18.3
RSV
3 They shall attend you and attend to all duties of the tent; but shall not come near to the
vessels of the sanctuary or to the altar, lest they, and you, die.

GNT
3They are to fulfil their duties to you and their responsibilities for the Tent, but they must not
have any contact with sacred objects in the Holy Place or with the altar. If they do, both they
and you will be put to death.

They: This still refers to the “brethren” or “kinsmen” (NJPSV) in 18.2—the

fellow members of the tribe of Levi. This verse summarizes what the Levites may and
may not do. In some languages that prefer shorter, content-based paragraphs, it might
be advisable to begin a new paragraph here, covering verses 3-4, where the focus is
on the Levites. The focus shifts back to the priesthood again (as in verses 1-2) at verse
5, where another paragraph break could be made.
Attend you and attend to all duties of …: The Hebrew expression used here
is the same as in 1.53 and 3.7: shamar mishmeret, literally “guard the guarding.” The
cognate verb plus (object) noun construction serves to emphasize the activity
involved. Although the context is different here, there is no reason to leave mishmeret
untranslated the first time, as is the case with attend you. GNT translates it in both
cases, which makes this translation a better model: “fulfil their duties to you and their
responsibilities for …” You is singular in the Hebrew and refers to Aaron (although
his priestly sons may be included by implication).
All duties of the tent: The Hebrew actually has “the duties of all the tent,”
that is, “the whole tent” (NRSV), or “the Tent as a whole” (NJPSV), in contrast to the
sanctuary or Holy Place itself, to which the Levites are denied access.
Vessels: The Hebrew uses the same general term for ritual utensils,
equipment, and vessels as in, for example, 1.50. For this reason “furnishings”
(NJPSV) or “sacred objects” (GNT) seem better translations.
Sanctuary: As in, for example, 3.28, “holy space, holy area” and “Holy
Place” (GNT) are good renderings of the Hebrew qodesh.
Altar: As in 3.26, 31.
Lest they, and you, die: In the Hebrew, the pronoun you is in the plural,
referring to Aaron and his sons. In order to reduce the sentence length, GNT begins a
new sentence at this point and uses a more contextually appropriate verb: “If they do,
both they and you will be put to death.”

18.4
RSV
4They shall join you, and attend to the tent of meeting, for all the service of the tent; and no
one else shall come near you.

GNT
4They are to work with you and fulfil their responsibilities for all the service in the Tent, but no
unqualified person may work with you.
 They shall join you: They still refers to the fellow members of the tribe of
Levi. NJPSV has “they shall be attached to you.” See at 18.2. you is singular in the
Hebrew and refers to Aaron. Again the priority and authority of the priests is
underscored, as well as the division of labor between the priests (in the sanctuary) and
the Levites (outside the sanctuary).
Attend: The Hebrew is shamar mishmeret, literally “guard the guarding,” the
same expression as in 18.3.
Tent of meeting: See at 1.1.
Service: In the Hebrew the same term is used as in, for example, 3.26.
And no one else: This clause may begin with a conjunctive and or “but”
(GNT), or made into an independent sentence with no initial conjunction. In contrast
to the Levites, no one else (literally “alien, stranger”) here refers to anyone who is not
a member of the tribe of Levi (that is, who is neither a consecrated priest nor a
devoted Levite[<Levine 441]). NJPSV has “outsider.” In some languages, renderings
such as “no unqualified person” (GNT) and “no unauthorized person” (NLT) may
give the wrong suggestion that there are other outsiders who can be authorized and
given access.
Come near you: The same verb as in 18.3. RSV’s literal rendering might be
misunderstood. GECL and DUCL translate: “You are not to let yourselves be helped
by anybody other than the Levites.” but GNT’s “may work with you” is simpler and
may be clear enough. You is plural in the Hebrew, referring to Aaron and his sons.
NJPSV and NBV offer an alternative translation, combining the end of verse 4
with verse 5: “No outsider shall come near you, when you [that is, Aaron and his
sons] attend to the sacred objects and the altar” (similar to NBV). Under this
interpretation, not even the Levites can come near the priests—the priests having
access to the inside of the sacred space. (Lay people are not really considered in this
section at all.)

18.5
RSV
5 And you shall attend to the duties of the sanctuary and the duties of the altar, that there be
wrath no more upon the people of Israel.

GNT
5 You and your sons alone must fulfil the responsibilities for the Holy Place and the altar, so
that my anger will not again break out against the people of Israel.

And: In many languages this can be left untranslated since it may imply that
an additional responsibility is being described here. Rather, verse 5 (see also verse 7)
now specifies the work of the priests in distinction from that of the Levites, which is
summarized in verse 6.
You is plural in the Hebrew, referring to Aaron and his sons. The focus shifts
back to the priesthood again (as in verses 1-2). GNT has made this explicit: “you and
your sons alone.” A more restrained explicitation is found in FRCL and NFB: “you
yourselves,” and in TOB: “It is you who …,” thus highlighting the contrast with the
rest of the people of Israel, including the Levites.
You shall attend to the duties of … the duties of: See at 18.3.
Sanctuary: See at 18.3.
Wrath … no more: Wrath will “not again” break out in punishment for some
violation of these restrictions. This reminds the reader of the Lord’s anthropomorphic
wrath in chapter 16 (see at 16.46). The point seems to be that the people as a whole
would no longer be punished for violations involving the sanctuary or the holy
objects. Rather, any individual or group violator would be divinely punished—along
with the priests and the Levites. The purpose for these regulations is to prevent
another punishment of the people of Israel at large on account of the sin or violation
of certain individuals or groups among them.

18.6
RSV
6And behold, I have taken your brethren the Levites from among the people of Israel; they
are a gift to you, given to the Lord, to do the service of the tent of meeting.

GNT
6I am the one who has chosen your relatives the Levites from among the Israelites as a gift to
you. They are dedicated to me, so that they can carry out their duties in the Tent.

And behold, I have taken: The emphatic Hebrew construction not only
includes a verb, but this particle (hinneh) and an independent pronoun as well,
drawing attention to the speaker and what he does. And is again best left untranslated.
Translations like “I am the one who has chosen” (GNT) and “It is I who have
selected” (REB) draw attention only to the speaker, but the Hebrew verb form
actually marks that the speaker is fully committed to carry out a certain action.
NJPSV (“I hereby take …”) and NBV (“I hereby set apart …”) render this
performative sense well. In a language like English this commitment is expressed by a
present tense. A language like Chewa would express this as follows: “Choosing, I
have indeed chosen.” NRSV has revised RSV as follows: “It is I who now take …”
All these elements can be combined (similar to TOB): “Listen, I hereby take ...”
Your brethren: See at 18.2. Your is a plural form in the Hebrew. The
brethren are the Levites who are to assist the priests by serving on the perimeter of the
sanctuary.
A gift to you: You is plural in the Hebrew.
Given to the Lord: GNT has “dedicated to me,” thus referring to the Lord in
first person (“me”). Since the Lord is still speaking, this will often be a good model to
follow. Alternatively, a combined appositive expression may be used: “dedicated to
me, the Lord.”
Service: In the Hebrew the same term is used as in 18.4 and, for example,
3.26.
Of the tent of meeting: See at 1.1. The GNT mistranslates with the
preposition “in,” which is not in the Hebrew. In fact, the Levites were to remain
outside the tent of meeting, lest they pollute it and provoke the Lord to punish them as
well as the priests. NIV’s “at” the tent of meeting is a better rendering; most precise
would be “outside.”
GNT breaks up this long and rather complex sentence into two at “They are
dedicated to me…”

18.7
RSV
7And you and your sons with you shall attend to your priesthood for all that concerns the altar
and that is within the veil; and you shall serve. I give your priesthood as a gift,k and any one
else who comes near shall be put to death.”

k 18.7 Heb service of gift

GNT
7 But you and your sons alone shall fulfil all the responsibilities of the priesthood that concern
the altar and what is in the Most Holy Place. These things are your responsibility, because I
have given you the gift of the priesthood. Any unqualified person who comes near the sacred
objects shall be put to death.”

This is the final summarizing verse in the paragraph about the priesthood (only
for Aaron and his sons) and their work within the tent of meeting (including both the
Holy Place and the Most Holy Place) and service at the tabernacle in general (a task
only for the Levites).
And you and your sons with you: This is a reference again to Aaron and his
sons only, in contrast to the Levites. GNT expresses this contrast more clearly: “But
[instead of ‘And’] you and your sons alone.” See at 18.1.
Attend to your priesthood: For priesthood see at 18.1. Your is plural in the
Hebrew.
All that concerns the altar: Or “all the priestly rituals associated with the
altar” (NLT).
Within the veil: NRSV has “the area behind the curtain,” which is actually
closer to the Hebrew. GNT refers to that area directly: “what is in the Most Holy
Place.” Perhaps a combined expression would also work: “what is behind the curtain
in the Most Holy Place.” Veil has been discussed at 4.5. Thus the priests alone and
exclusively are responsible for everything that goes on inside the tent of meeting, both
within the Holy Place (referred to metonymically by the “altar”) and also once a year
on the Day of Atonement in the Most Holy Place (within the veil).
You shall serve: This verb is a plural form in the Hebrew, referring to Aaron
and his sons. REB has “This duty is yours.”
I give your priesthood as a gift: As RSV’s footnote indicates, the Hebrew
has literally “as a service of gift.” FRCL has “gift of this ministry.” CEV is a helpful
model: “Your work as priests is a gift from me.” In some languages, “gift” might be
more clearly rendered as “blessing,” that is, a special benefit bestowed by God.
Any one else: Any one who is not a descendant of Aaron, including any
Levite.
Who comes near: In certain languages the place to which they should not
approach has to be specified. This is what GNT does: “who comes near the sacred
objects,” which are situated in the Holy Place.
Shall be put to death: A just and lawful “killing, execution” should be
implied, not “murder.”

18.8-20
Section Heading: The heading for the discourse unit covering verses 8-20 in GNT is
“The Share of the Priests” (see the discussion of headings for 18.1-32 above). GNT’s
division of this unit into paragraphs will be commented on below.

18.8
RSV
8 Then the Lord said to Aaron, “And behold, I have given you whatever is kept of the
offerings made to me, all the consecrated things of the people of Israel; I have given them to
you as a portion, and to your sons as a perpetual due.

GNT
 8 The Lord said to Aaron, “Remember that I am giving you all the special contributions
made to me that are not burnt as sacrifices. I am giving them to you and to your descendants
as the part assigned to you for ever.

And behold, I have given you: The Hebrew performative construction is the
same as at the beginning of 18.6, drawing attention to the speaker and to his full
commitment to the verbal action specified. The various elements can be combined as
follows (based on FRCL, NJPSV, TOB, and NBV): “Listen, I hereby give you.” See
also REB: “I, the Lord, commit to your control.” You is singular in the Hebrew.
Whatever is kept of: NRSV has adapted this to “I have given you charge of
…,” which is much closer to the Hebrew term mishmeret. See at 3.25, for example,
where the rendering “responsibility” was also suggested. NLT has: “I myself have put
you in charge of …”
The offerings made to me, all the consecrated things: See at 5.9, where the
Hebrew terms are the same. RSV, NRSV, and NJPSV are based on the following
understanding of the Hebrew: “the contributions made to me, namely all the holy
things of the people of Israel.” [< Budd 199] In some languages it may actually be
easier to allocate these two phrases to different sentences: “…in charge of the
offerings presented to me; all the holy offerings the Israelites give me I give …”
(NIV, similarly NBV). The Hebrew word terumah has the wide, general meaning of
offering, special gift, or donation, especially those that go to the priests, “special
contributions” (GNT). Consecrated things or “holy things” (Alter) are holy in the
sense that they are offered or dedicated to the Lord; compare Chewa: “the things that
the Israelites set aside for me.” Although GNT’s rendering “that are not burnt as
sacrifices” fits the context (verse 9), this information is not part of verse 8 itself and
does not have to be included here.
Portion: Or “share,” “allotment.” See the Handbook on Leviticus at 7.35.
You … portion … your sons … perpetual due: GNT rearranges the
parallelism by putting “you and your descendants” together. The same applies to “the
part assigned to you for ever.” A literal rendering of RSV’s “sons” would be too
limiting in some languages. For “perpetual due” NLT translates “as your permanent
share.”

18.9
RSV
9This shall be yours of the most holy things, reserved from the fire; every offering of theirs,
every cereal offering of theirs and every sin offering of theirs and every guilt offering of theirs,
which they render to me, shall be most holy to you and to your sons.

GNT
9Of the most sacred offerings not burnt on the altar, the following belong to you: the grain
offerings, the sin offerings, and the repayment offerings. Everything that is presented to me as
a sacred offering belongs to you and your sons.

This shall be yours …: Both RSV and GNT place the opening sentence at the
beginning of the verse. But in some languages it may be more natural to put this
sentence of general reference after the specific offerings have been mentioned. Yours
… you is singular in the Hebrew, still referring to Aaron, though of course this
includes his descendants.
The most holy things: See at 4.4, where the same Hebrew term occurs. Here
it refers to the same consecrated things as in 18.8.
 Reserved from the fire: Literally “from the fire.” What is meant are “the
most sacred offerings not burnt on the altar.” Making some information explicit, one
may translate “What is not burnt of the most holy offerings” (NBV) or “the part of the
most holy offerings that is kept from the fire” (NIV). As noted above, in some
languages it may be more natural to include this near the end of the verse, after the
specific offerings have been mentioned. This is what CEV does, closing the verse as
follows: “Your share of these sacrifices will be the parts not burned on the altar”
(italics ours).
Cereal offering: See 4.16 and the Handbook on Leviticus at Lev 2.1.
Sin offering: See at 6.11.
Guilt offering: See at 6.12.
Most holy: The Hebrew term is the same as for the most holy things earlier
in this verse. NBV has “the most holy gifts” in both places. GNT clarifies the
reference here: “… presented to me as a sacred offering belongs to you …” NLT has:
“… This portion of all the holy offerings … will be most holy, and it belongs to you
and your sons.”

18.10
RSV
10 In a most holy place shall you eat of it; every male may eat of it; it is holy to you.

GNT
10 You must eat these things in a holy place, and only males may eat them; consider them
holy.

Eat of it: Since a number of items have just been mentioned (verse 9), “these
things” (GNT) will sound more natural in many languages than “it.” However if
“these things” would imply that all such sacrifices are eaten at once, then something
like “any of these offerings” may be used.
In a most holy place: The Hebrew reads beqodesh haqodashim, literally “in
the [not “a”] holy of holies.” Thus TOB translates “in the most holy place,” while
Alter, supported by Levine [<Levine 445] has “in the most holy precincts.” But after
verse 9 NJPSV, NRSV, NBS02 and a number of other translations understand the
Hebrew differently: “As most holy things you shall eat it” (NBS02); “you are to eat it
as a most holy offering” (NET, NLT).
Every male: In many languages, “only males” is a helpful model, to highlight
the contrast between offerings that may be eaten by males only and those that may be
eaten by females as well as males (verse 11).
It is holy to you: The Hebrew seems to emphasize the fact that the offerings
being referred to here are reserved, consecrated, or set aside specifically for Aaron’s
(the priesthood’s) use, but only for the male members of the family. GNT’s “consider
them holy,” as well as the wording of many other versions, does not really suggest
this.

18.11
RSV
11 This also is yours, the offering of their gift, all the wave offerings of the people of Israel; I
have given them to you, and to your sons and daughters with you, as a perpetual due; every
one who is clean in your house may eat of it.

GNT
 11 “In addition, any other special contributions that the Israelites present to me shall be
yours. I am giving them to you, your sons, and your daughters for all time to come. Every
member of your family who is ritually clean may eat them.

The text now turns to offerings which are given to female as well as male
descendants of Aaron, which is probably why GNT and other translations start a new
paragraph here. GNT’s “In addition, …” is a more natural transition than This also.
The offering of their gift: As has been mentioned at 18.8, the Hebrew word
terumah has the wide, general meaning of offering, special gift, or donation,
especially those that go to the priests. However, the combination here with “their gift”
causes some difficulty of interpretation, and various possibilities have been suggested.
GNT seems to lump these all together as “any other special contributions …”
Wave offerings: See at 6.20 and the motivation for the rendering “elevation
offerings” (NRSV, NJPSV, NBV). The GNT rendering might be modified to include
these: “any other special contributions, including the elevation offerings …”
Instead of the offerings of their gift, all the wave offerings NRSV has
translated “whatever is set aside from the gifts of all the elevation offerings of the
Israelites.”
To your sons and daughters: A literal translation turns out to be rather
awkward in some languages. An alternative might be: “to all your descendants, both
male and female …”
Perpetual due: As in 18.8. GNT has: “for all time to come.”
Clean: As in 9.13.
House: As mentioned at 1.2, a “house” is, at least, an extended family, which
includes three or four generations.

18.12-13
RSV
12 All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine and of the grain, the first fruits of what
they give to the Lord, I give to you. 13 The first ripe fruits of all that is in their land, which they
bring to the Lord, shall be yours; every one who is clean in your house may eat of it.

GNT
12 “I am giving you all the best of the first produce which the Israelites give me each year:
olive oil, wine, and corn. 13 It all belongs to you. Every member of your family who is ritually
clean may eat it.

The text now turns to the three major products of the land, which is probably
why GNT puts verses 12-13 in a new paragraph.
I give to you: This verbal phrase is better relocated at the beginning of the
sentence (GNT) rather than at the end (RSV). RSV only mimics the Hebrew structure.
Best: The Hebrew term for “fat” is used here, as a figure of speech, meaning
“the best part.”
Oil: Specifically fresh “olive oil.”
Wine: Specifically “new wine” (Hebrew tirosh), that is, the newly processed
juice of grapes before or shortly after the fermentation process has begun.
Grain: GNT’s “corn” should not be used as a model since it may wrongly
result as “maize” in translation.
First fruits: In many languages, “first produce” will be more readily
understood. The Hebrew re’shit simply means “first,” “what come first,” implying
that what comes first is the best.
 First ripe fruits: The meaning of the Hebrew plural term bikurey is best
described as “first ones,” “firstlings,” “first-born.” The word ripe is quite
unnecessary—it has been omitted in NRSV. This would seem to be an all-
encompassing summary phrase that includes other types of produce in addition to the
three principal crops already mentioned—the olive oil, new wine, and grain. This
nuance is missed in GNT; thus a better model would be NET: “And whatever first
ripe fruit [or: ‘produce, crops’] in their land they bring to the Lord will be yours.”
You … yours … your is singular in the Hebrew, still referring to Aaron as the
primary addressee (but the text has his descendants in mind as well as the final
sentence in verse 13 indicates).

18.14
RSV
14 Every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours.

GNT
14 “Everything in Israel that has been unconditionally dedicated to me belongs to you.

Since this verse specifies a new category of items to be offered to the priests, it
may require an initial transitional expression, e.g., “In addition …” (as in v. 11).
Devoted thing: As the Handbook on Leviticus explains at 27.21, the Hebrew
cherem (“ban”) is a term for something that must be completely and irrevocably
withdrawn from human use. GNT’s “unconditionally dedicated” expresses this rather
well. The Handbook on Exodus explains at 22.20 that for something to be placed
under or devoted to this cherem required it to be set apart either for total destruction
or, as in the present context, solely for sacred use, that is by the priests. NJPSV and
Alter translate “everything that has been proscribed.” Translators should look for as
strong a term as possible to express the idea of something that is absolutely and
forever given over to the Lord and cannot be redeemed or used for some other
purpose, no matter how worthy. NLT provides another model: “Everything in Israel
that is specially set apart for the LORD also belongs to you.”
Yours: See at 18.12-13.

18.15-16
RSV
15 Everything that opens the womb of all flesh, whether man or beast, which they offer to the
Lord, shall be yours; nevertheless the first-born of man you shall redeem, and the firstling of
unclean beasts you shall redeem. 16 And their redemption price (at a month old you shall
redeem them) you shall fix at five shekels in silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary,
which is twenty gerahs.

GNT
15 “Every firstborn child or animal that the Israelites present to me belongs to you. But you
must accept payment to buy back every firstborn child, and must also accept payment for
every firstborn animal that is ritually unclean. 16 Children shall be bought back at the age of
one month for the fixed price of five pieces of silver, according to the official standard.

Another category of offerings to be given to the priests is described in verses

15-18. The general principle is stated in verse 15, and the details follow in verses 16-
18. Again it is pointed out that these gifts belong to the Lord in the first place.
That opens the womb: See at 3.12. Many languages may have a special term
that is used to designate the “firstborn,” but only referring to humans, not animals.
 Which they offer: Literally “they bring forward.” GNT makes explicit who
they are: “that the Israelites present.” It is implied that each firstborn is presented.
Yours … you: See at 18.12-13.
You shall redeem: Literally “ransom, buy out”: the compound Hebrew verbal
phrase is emphatic here. GNT’s “you must accept payment to buy back” is a helpful
model, since it also indicates that it is the Israelite who presents his firstborn child
who pays, not the priest. Another way to make this clear is to translate “you shall have
… redeemed” (NJPSV, TOB, NBV) or “allow the redemption of …”
Verse 15 does not yet specify how much should be paid, but in some
languages the following may be a helpful model: “you must accept a specified amount
of money” (based on GECL and NBV). Firstborn children belong to God but are not
acceptable for sacrifice because their life is sacred, while the firstborn of unclean
animals are not acceptable because unclean animals cannot be used in the cult.[<
Alter] “Firstborn” is not limited to males here, but this restriction would seem to be
implied by texts such as 3.40-41 and Exo 13.12-13; 34.19-20; Lev 27.6; Deut 15.19.
Unclean: Ritually impure.
And their redemption price: The complex sentence structure of v. 16 in the
RSV is clarified in GNT: “Children shall be bought back …” “Shall” does not focus
on some future event, but one that must be carried out at all times. Languages may
have different tenses and/or aspects to indicate this nuance.
Shekels … shekel of the sanctuary … gerahs: See at 3.47; also Exo 30.13;
Lev 27.6.

18.17-18
RSV
17 But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, you shall not
redeem; they are holy. You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shall burn their fat as
an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the Lord; 18 but their flesh shall be yours, as the breast
that is waved and as the right thigh are yours.

GNT
17 But the firstborn of cows, sheep, and goats are not to be bought back; they belong
completely to me and are to be sacrificed. Throw their blood against the altar and burn their
fat as a food offering, a smell pleasing to me. 18 The meat from them belongs to you, like the
breast and the right hind leg of the special offering.

Cow: As discussed at 7.3, the Hebrew term shor is more general, covering
bulls and oxen as well as cows.
Sheep: The Hebrew term kesev refers to a young ram. It should be borne in
mind, though, that the emphasis is not on the sex or age of these animals, but on their
firstborn status. Idiomatically, the three animals mentioned here are types and thus
refer to domestic livestock in general.
Holy: God had prior claim on the firstlings of these animals,[< Levine] as in
the case of the firstborn human males (verse 16). Thus, GNT’s “they belong
completely to me.”
Offering by fire: As explained at 15.3, the Hebrew ’isheh is a general term; it
does not refer to a specific type of sacrifice; GNT: “are to be sacrificed.”
A pleasing odor to the Lord: See at 15.3. It is often regarded as synonymous
with an offering by fire and as an expression of its function.
 The breast that is waved: NRSV (“the breast that is elevated”) and NJPSV
(“the breast of elevation offering”) are now considered more accurate translations. See
at 6.20.
Right thigh: The Hebrew shoq refers to the shank of an animal. The right rear
shank of a sacrificial animal belonged to the priest, as did the breast. See at 6.20.
You … yours: See at 18.12-13.

18.19
RSV
19All the holy offerings which the people of Israel present to the Lord I give to you, and to your
sons and daughters with you, as a perpetual due; it is a covenant of salt for ever before the
Lord for you and for your offspring with you.”

GNT
19 “I am giving to you, to your sons, and to your daughters, for all time to come, all the
special contributions which the Israelites present to me. This is an unbreakable covenant that
I have made with you and your descendants.”

The first half of this verse bears a strong similarity to 18.8 and may thus
function as a section final boundary (inclusio). The Lord’s direct speech to Aaron now
ends the way it started in that verse. This verse also appears to summarize the whole
section covering verses 8-18.
Offerings: As mentioned at 18.8, the Hebrew word terumah has the wide,
general meaning of offering, special gift, or donation, especially those that go to the
priests.
To the Lord … before the Lord: GNT has “to me … that I have made,” thus
referring to the Lord in first person. Since the Lord is still speaking, this will often be
a good model to follow, or alternatively, “to me … that I the Lord have made.”
As a perpetual due: GNT renders this expression as “for all time to come”
and moves it closer to the initial verb of “giving.” This may be a clearer model to
follow also in other languages.
A covenant of salt: In the Old Testament this phrase occurs only here and in 2
Chr 13.5. Salt being a preservative, the renderings “unbreakable covenant” (GNT) and
“irrevocable alliance” (FRCL) capture the meaning. (See Lev 2.13 for the phrase “the
salt of the covenant.”) GECL combines the literal rendering of salt with what it stands
for: “These privileges are as irrevocable as a covenant which is affirmed by eating salt
together.”
Sons and daughters: See at 18.11.

18.20
RSV
20 And the Lord said to Aaron, “You shall have no inheritance in their land, neither shall you
have any portion among them; I am your portion and your inheritance among the people of
Israel.

GNT
20 The Lord said to Aaron, “You will not receive any property that can be inherited, and no
part of the land of Israel will be assigned to you. I, the Lord, am all you need.”

This concluding verse seems to give another reason why the priests are to
receive the special dues and offerings that have been specified in the preceding verses.
The first reason was given in verses 1-7, namely, that the priests had special
responsibilities in connection with keeping the tent of meeting holy and unpolluted.
Furthermore, if any violation should occur, even on the part of the Levites, the priests
would be held responsible and would have to die along with the offenders. In verse 20
it is the fact that the descendants of Aaron have no land inheritance in the land of
Israel which is highlighted; they were to depend for their livelihood on the Lord
alone. This principle is applied specifically to the Levites in the next section (verses
21-24).
You is again singular as Aaron is addressed as the representative of his whole
clan.
Inheritance … portion: Together the two Hebrew terms nachalah and cheleq
often mean “permanent estate.” NJPSV has “territorial share.” Both terms refer to a
distinct section of land and thus are used together for emphasis, a fact that is
underscored also by their chiastic arrangement within the verse.

18.21-24
Section heading: The Lord’s direct speech to Aaron still continues, but the text now
turns its attention from the priests to the subject of the Levites. The heading for verses
21-24 in GNT is “The Share of the Levites” (see the discussion of headings for 18.1-
32 above). CEV’s heading (“What the Levites Receive”) helpfully indicates that this
is something the Levites receive, in contrast to the section that follows.

18.21
RSV
21 “To the Levites I have given every tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their
service which they serve, their service in the tent of meeting.

GNT
21 The Lord said, “I have given to the Levites every tithe that the people of Israel present to
me. This is in payment for their service in taking care of the Tent of my presence.

To the Levites: In the Hebrew this is placed before the first sentence actually
starts, thus marking the change of topic from priests to Levites. NBV achieves the
same by translating “Concerning the Levites, them I give …”
I have given: The Hebrew performative construction not only includes a verb,
but (as in 18.6) the particle hinneh as well, drawing attention to the speaker and what
he does. The very speech act itself effects, or carries out, the content of what is being
said. The Hebrew verb form actually marks that the speaker is fully committed to
carry out a certain action. NJPSV (“I hereby give …”) renders this well. In a language
like English this commitment is expressed by a present tense; other languages may
use a continuative or customary verbal aspect for this purpose. These elements can be
combined as follows: “Listen, I hereby give to the Levites ...” or even “Concerning
the Levites, listen, I hereby give them …
Tithe: See the Handbook on Leviticus at 27.30.
Service … their service in the tent of meeting: See at 18.6. Again, it is
advisable to divide this sentence into two in order to reduce its complexity; the GNT
is a model.

18.22
RSV
22 And henceforth the people of Israel shall not come near the tent of meeting, lest they bear
sin and die.

GNT
22 The other Israelites must no longer approach the Tent and in this way bring on themselves
the penalty of death.

And henceforth: Or “no longer” (GNT, NET), “From now on, no …” (NLT).
The Hebrew is literally “not … again.”
The people of Israel: As the GNT clarifies, this refers to all Israelites other
than those of the tribe of Levi, including the Aaronic priestly clan.
Bear sin: Or “bear offense” (Alter) “load guilt upon themselves” (NBV), or
“bear the consequences of their sin” (NET footnote). GNT leaves the notion of sin
untranslated, but that is not advisable because it highlights the reason for such a
severe punishment—death. A violation of the sacred space of the tent of meeting was
a sin against the holiness of the Lord himself and therefore had to be punished
accordingly.

18.23-24
RSV
23 But the Levites shall do the service of the tent of meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity;
it shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations; and among the people of Israel
they shall have no inheritance. 24 For the tithe of the people of Israel, which they present as
an offering to the Lord, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance; therefore I have said of
them that they shall have no inheritance among the people of Israel.”

GNT
23From now on only the Levites will take care of the Tent and bear the full responsibility for it.
This is a permanent rule that applies also to your descendants. The Levites shall have no
permanent property in Israel, 24 because I have given to them as their possession the tithe
which the Israelites present to me as a special contribution. That is why I told them that they
would have no permanent property in Israel.”

But: GNT’s “From now on…” seems to reinforce the point made by the
Hebrew “not … again” in verse 22. But (Hebrew “and”) is used to heighten the
contrast between the Levites and the other tribes of Israel.
The Levites: GNT’s “only the Levites” is more accurate, since the Hebrew
noun phrase is emphatic, literally “the Levite, he.”
Do the service: The Hebrew heightens the action by using a compound
expression: “serve the service.” The same term for service is used as in 18.4 and, for
example, 3.26.
Tent of meeting: See at 1.1.
They shall bear their iniquity: See at 18.1. NRSV is much clearer: “they
shall bear responsibility for their own offenses.” They is actually an independent
pronoun in the Hebrew, in addition to the verb. This expresses that it is the Levites
who are fully responsible for the service of the tent of meeting. Some commentators
[< Ashley 356-57] feel that their could refer to the people of Israel in general, an
interpretation that may be reflected in NLT’s “they [the Levites] will be held
responsible for any offense against it [the Tent].” However, the first understanding
above is preferable.
A perpetual statute: Or “a permanent rule” (GNT), “a lasting ordinance”
(NIV), “this rule is binding on” (REB).
 Throughout your generations: As in 15.15, DHE provides the rendering
“which will pass from parents to children.”
Have no inheritance: Literally, ‘they will not inherit an inheritance,’
corresponding to the similar construction regarding “service” at the beginning of the
verse. NJPSV has “have no territorial share.” NLT has “will receive no allotment of
land.” See at 18.20.
Tithe: See at 18.21.
Present as an offering: As mentioned at 18.8 and, for example, 18.19, the
Hebrew word terumah has the wide, general meaning of offering, special gift,
donation, or even “special contribution” (GNT). The same term occurs here.
To the Lord: As in 18.19, GNT has “to me,” thus referring to the Lord in first
person. Since the Lord is still speaking, this will often be a good model to follow.
Therefore I have said of them: A new sentence is much more effective as a
concluding divine statement, as in GNT: “That is why I told them…”
The direct speech to Aaron ends at this point, thus concluding the section.

18.25-32
Section heading: The text now turns from what the Levites receive to what they are
to give. CEV’s heading—“What the Levites Must Give”—is a helpful model to
follow. The heading “The Levites’ Tithe” (GNT) may be less understandable, since it
does not specify whether the Levites receive this tithe or give it.

18.25-26
RSV
25 And the Lord said to Moses, 26 “Moreover you shall say to the Levites, ‘When you take
from the people of Israel the tithe which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then
you shall present an offering from it to the Lord, a tithe of the tithe.

GNT
25 The Lord commanded Moses 26 to say to the Levites: “When you receive from the
Israelites the tithe that the Lord gives you as your possession, you must present a tenth of it
as a special contribution to the Lord.

And the Lord said to Moses: This speech opener again introduces a new
section. In some languages, such repetition can perform the same function. GNT
modifies the phrase to indicate the nature of the following speech act: “The Lord
commanded Moses…”
To Moses: It is noteworthy that the Lord’s speech is no longer directed at
Aaron, but at Moses. It would be unseemly, a conflict of interest, for Aaron himself to
command the Levites to present an offering to Aaron and his sons, and so the Lord
turns to Moses for this part of the instructions.[< Olson 116]
Moreover you shall say to the Levites, ‘…: In the Hebrew this sentence is
directly spoken to Moses by the Lord. The words that Moses is to say are then
presented in embedded direct speech. In many languages it will be helpful to reduce
the levels of direct speech and follow GNT: “… to say to the Levites: ‘…”
You take: The Hebrew verb is plural—the Levites are being addressed. A
literal rendering of the verb “take” will be misleading in many languages, as if the
Levites were robbing the people of this tithe or forcing them to give it. GNT’s
“receive” conveys the correct idea.
Tithe: As in 18.21. Here a tithe of the tithe, or “a tenth of it” (GNT).
 Which I have given you: The GNT shifts to “the Lord” here so that the
translation does not mistakenly suggest that “I” refers to Moses, the spokesman.
Present an offering: As mentioned at 18.8 and, for example, 18.24, the
Hebrew terumah has the wide, general meaning of offering, special gift, or donation.
The same term occurs here.

18.27
RSV
27 And your offering shall be reckoned to you as though it were the grain of the threshing floor,
and as the fulness of the wine press.

GNT
27 This special contribution will be considered as the equivalent of the offering which the
farmer makes of new corn and new wine.

Verse 27 is saying to the Levites that when they give their own tithe to the
priests, their action will be the equivalent of the actions of farmers who give a tithe
from their crops to the priests (see 18.12).
Offering: As in the preceding verse, the term terumah, with the wide, general
meaning of offering, is used here as well. Consistency in the use of these technical
terms is advisable.
Reckoned to you: GNT (“considered”) leaves to you untranslated and
implied. The verb may also be rendered “credited” (NET) or “counted as” (REB).
As though it were: The Hebrew simply has “as,” “like.” But the rendering as
though it were helpfully reminds the reader that Levites did not themselves have any
grain or wine to offer. GNT specifies “the farmer” (the owner of the threshing floor
and the wine press) and adds “the equivalent of” to make this clear.
The fullness of the wine press simply refers to a full harvest of grapes that is
converted into “new wine” (GNT) at the wine press.

18.28-29
RSV
28 So shall you also present an offering to the Lord from all your tithes, which you receive from
the people of Israel; and from it you shall give the Lord's offering to Aaron the priest. 29 Out of
all the gifts to you, you shall present every offering due to the Lord, from all the best of them,
giving the hallowed part from them.’

GNT
28 In this way you also will present the special contribution that belongs to the Lord from all the
tithes which you receive from the Israelites. You are to give this special contribution for the
Lord to Aaron the priest. 29 Give it from the best that you receive.

These verses reiterate a number of the preceding instructions (hence GNT’s

“In this way…”) but now focus on Aaron as a representative of the entire priesthood.
From the tithes which the Levites receive from the Israelites, the Levites are to
present a tenth as an offering to the Lord … to Aaron the priest.
And from it: And may wrongly suggest that it is only an offering out of the
offering out of the tithes which the Levites receive. This is of course not the case.
“You are to give this special contribution” (GNT) indicates correctly that it is the very
offering (a tenth) out of the tithes they receive.
 Best: As in 18.12-13, the Hebrew term for “fat” is used here, as a figure of
speech, meaning “the best part.” Just as the Israelites’ tithes are to be from “the best”
of their produce (verse 12), so also the Levites’ tithe was to correspond in quality.
The hallowed part: Or “the consecrated part of it” (Alter); “which will be
consecrated to me [that is, the Lord]” (FRCL). This again refers to the best part of all
the tithes the Levites received from the Israelites. This reiteration underscores the fact
that the Levites’ own tithe should be the best tenth of all the tithes they receive. GNT
leaves this apparent repetition untranslated, but this is not a recommended procedure
here. There are various ways of bringing out the emphasis of the original, for
example: “and the gift which you [thereby] consecrate must be taken from the
choicest of them” (REB), or adapting the GNT: “Give it as a consecrated offering
from the best that you receive.”

18.30
RSV
30 Therefore you shall say to them, ‘When you have offered from it the best of it, then the rest
shall be reckoned to the Levites as produce of the threshing floor, and as produce of the wine
press;

GNT
When you have presented the best part, you may keep the rest, just as the farmer keeps
30
what is left after he makes his offering.

Therefore you shall say to them: As in 18.25, in the Hebrew this sentence is
directly spoken by the Lord to Moses. (Therefore does not correspond with anything
in the Hebrew sentence. NRSV has changed the translation into “Say also to them.”)
At first sight, GNT seems to have left this sentence untranslated, but this is in line
with how GNT has reduced the number of levels of direct speech in 18.25 (“… to say
to the Levites: ‘…’”). It is also possible to retain this speech introducer as a new
paragraph marker, for example: “Give the Levites these further instructions, ‘When
you …’.”
The Levites: After the second person in you have offered, in many languages
it will be helpful not to translate the Levites, but, for example, “you, the Levites”
(NJPSV) or simply “you” (REB, GNT). Otherwise it would seem as if these are two
different groups.
The rest shall be reckoned: REB is quite similar: “what remains will count.”
The Hebrew only has a verb: “it shall be reckoned”—without any word with the
meaning “rest.” But a majority of translations take wenechshav (“and it shall be
reckoned”) as a reference to all the gifts received by the Levites (verse 29) minus the
best part of those gifts. In other words, “it shall be reckoned” is about the rest of the
gifts that remain after the Levites have themselves presented the best part of these
gifts as a tithe to the priests. The Levites are allowed to keep the gifts that remain,
hence GNT’s “you may keep the rest” (also FRCL, GECL). Rashi already commented
that this remainder was considered as undedicated food for the Levites in the same
way as it was for other Israelites. We find this quite explicitly stated in PV, which
makes use of shorter sentences:
When you have taken it [the best part], you will keep the rest for yourselves.
The other Israelites will keep for themselves the rest of their cereals, of their
new wine and of their oil. It is the same thing.
This understanding also fits well with verse 31.
 NIV, NBS02, and NBV take wenechshav to be a reference specifically to the
best part of the gifts. NIV has: “Say to the Levites: ‘When you present the best part, it
will be reckoned to you as the product of the threshing floor or the winepress ...” If
understood in this way, verse 30 makes essentially the same point as verse 27. NLT
expresses this more clearly: “When you present the best part as your offering, it will
be considered as though it came from your own threshing floor or winepress.”

18.31-32
RSV
31 and you may eat it in any place, you and your households; for it is your reward in return for
your service in the tent of meeting. 32 And you shall bear no sin by reason of it, when you
have offered the best of it. And you shall not profane the holy things of the people of Israel,
lest you die.’ ”

GNT
31 You and your families may eat the rest anywhere, because it is your wages for your service
in the Tent. 32 You will not become guilty when you eat it, as long as you have presented the
best of it to the Lord. But be sure not to profane the sacred gifts of the Israelites by eating any
of the gifts before the best part is offered; if you do, you will be put to death.”

And you: It is still the Levites who are being addressed. A new sentence
should begin here, not only due to length, but also because of the new content that is
being added to the instructions for the Levites.
It: This can only refer to the rest of the food, which the Levites are allowed to
keep for themselves.
Your households: Literally “your [plural] house.” See at 1.2 for the Hebrew
term for “house.”
Reward: NRSV has changed this to “payment”; NLT has “compensation.”
The Hebrew term sakhar often refers to “wages.”
Service in the tent of meeting: As in 18.6, 21. The noun is more naturally
rendered as a verb in some languages: “for serving” (NLT).
And you shall bear no sin: This is more naturally expressed as “You will not
be considered guilty…” (NLT).
Profane: Or “defile” (NIV). GNT brings out the implication of the Hebrew by
rendering “But be sure not to profane…”
Holy things: See under “consecrated things” at 18.8.
GNT adds the clauses “by eating of the gifts before the best part is offered; if
you do.” This will certainly help the reader to understand more precisely what “to
profane the sacred gifts of the Israelites” would mean in this context.
However, NIV’s translation of verse 32 is more helpful in that it is shorter and
closer to the Hebrew (it could be made more natural in some languages by beginning
a new sentence at the semicolon):
… By presenting the best part of it you will not be guilty in this matter; then
you will not defile the holy offerings of the Israelites, and you will not die.’”
(NIV; similarly REB)
The chapter ends on a note of reassurance: because the agricultural offerings which
the Levites received are their just wages for serving in the cult, they run no risk of
perishing for eating them. However, at the same time it is a note of warning: they are
not to misuse these gifts and must always offer the best to the Lord. If they don’t, they
will surely die by again violating the Lord’s holiness in this way.
19.1-22
Section Heading: Having given instructions concerning possible pollution of the tent
of meeting in chapter 18, another potential cause of contamination is considered here:
how is the Israelite community to deal with the defilement that is caused by the bodies
of those who die in their midst? How are the Israelites to make sure that the dead do
not injure the community? The special ritual of purification in this chapter addresses
these questions. This ritual involves the ashes of a red cow, which would be mixed
with water and sprinkled on persons who have been in contact with a dead body.
This issue is of particular relevance at this point in the book due to the large
number of deaths that have been reported in the preceding narrative passages, e.g.,
chapters 14 and 16. Furthermore, the instructions concerning the special duties and
dues of the Aaronic priests and Levites (chapter 18) have suggested a new beginning
for the next generation of Israel who would enter the land of Canaan. However, at the
same time this implied the dying off of the entire preceding generation. Thus, death
would be the order of the day and undoubtedly have to be dealt with on a regular basis
by many in Israel from now on. Hence the special need for this rite of purification.
Helpful section headings for the whole chapter are: “Rituals using water for
purification,” “The preparation of the water that purifies” (PV) or, more briefly, “The
water for purification” (WV95, NBV), “The Water of Cleansing” (NIV). La nouvelle
version Segond révisée (1995) treats the chapter as a unity, but puts two headings
together at the beginning of the chapter: “The red cow; the water against defilement,”
but the connection between these two seeming disparate topics is not clear.
GNT divides this chapter into two parts, each with its own heading: “Ashes of
the Red Cow” (verses 1-10); “Contact with a Corpse” (verses 11-22). CEV does the
same, with the headings: “The Ceremony to Wash Away Sin” (verses 1-10); “What
Must Be Done after Touching a Dead Body” (verses 11-22). Verses 11-22 deal
specifically with the question what to do after there has been contact with a dead
body, so a heading such as “Purification from Uncleanness” (NET) is too general. The
impurity of the dead is regarded as the most severe of all. (As already mentioned in
5.2, everyone who was unclean by contact with a corpse had to be expelled from the
camp.) All death is ultimately the punishment for sin and the opposite of life, which is
symbolized by God in his holiness. If this impurity caused by death would not be
dealt with, those who are contaminated by it would defile their sacrifices, exclude
themselves from fellowship with others, and in the end even pollute the tent of
meeting itself.
A separate heading for verses 1-10 as in GNT suggests that these verses can be
read and understood on their own. Verse 9 does indeed mention that the ashes of the
red cow are needed for the preparation of water that purifies from sin. But since
verses 1-10 do not mention the subject of contact with a dead body, the reader may
not connect these verses with the ritual of purification with water after such contact in
verses 11-22. However, the two halves of chapter 19 are clearly linked: The first half
describes the prescription, the remedy as it were for the pollution caused by a dead
body, while the second half provides instructions concerning its application in several
brief case studies.
Translators are therefore advised to keep the chapter together, or at least to use
headings that make the connection between its first and second part more explicit. For
example:

Verses 1-10 Ashes of the Red Cow for the Water of Purification
 Verses 11-22 Purification with Water after Contact with a Corpse

This ritual of purification was normally performed by lay people because the priests
were to avoid all contact with dead bodies (Lev 21.1-4, 11). Thus, the wider text
gradually moves from a focus on priests in chapter 17 to priests and Levites in chapter
18 to lay people in chapter 19.[< Olson 119-120] After the many deaths reported in
chapters 16–17, the ritual effects of contact with dead bodies must be understood and
dealt with thoroughly.[< Budd 213]
This unique ritual of purification will be referred to again in 31.19-24. There is
no other reference to it in the Bible, with the exception of Hebrews 9.13-14 where the
ritual involving the ashes of a heifer is compared with the purification effected by the
blood of Christ.

19.1-3
RSV
1 Now the Lord said to Moses and to Aaron, 2 “This is the statute of the law which the Lord
has commanded: Tell the people of Israel to bring you a red heifer without defect, in which
there is no blemish, and upon which a yoke has never come. 3 And you shall give her to
Eleazar the priest, and she shall be taken outside the camp and slaughtered before him;

GNT
1 The Lord commanded Moses and Aaron 2 to give the Israelites the following regulations.
Bring to Moses and Aaron a red cow which has no defects and which has never been put to
work, 3 and they will give it to Eleazar the priest. It is to be taken outside the camp and killed
in his presence.a
a 19.3 It … presence; or He is to take it outside to the east of the camp and kill it.

Now: Literally this is not matched by the Hebrew. Perhaps RSV wants to
indicate in this way that chapter 19 did not necessarily ‘happen’ after chapter 18, but
has been placed here to fit a certain literary arrangement. As mentioned above, the
text gradually moves from a focus on priests in chapter 17 to priests and Levites in
chapter 18 to lay people in chapter 19.
The Lord said to Moses and to Aaron: The normal speech introduction
begins this new section of the book. As in 18.25-26, GNT helpfully removes one level
of quotation by indicating the nature of the speech act that Moses and Aaron were to
communicate to the people of Israel: “The Lord commanded Moses and Aaron to …”
Statute of the law: A specific and a general term are combined in this phrase.
As mentioned at 9.3, a statute (chuqqah) means a specific task, obligation, or law. As
pointed out at 5.30, law (torah) has the more general meaning of “instruction,
teaching, direction,” or this term could refer to the entire code of laws that the Lord
gave to Israel as part of his covenant with them. But perhaps it is better to understand
this double reference to a type of law as a way of indicating the very specific nature of
this particular regulation. NJPSV translates “ritual law” (similar to 5.30), which is
more accurate and expressive than GNT’s (and DUCL’s) rather general rendering
“regulations.”
Which the Lord has commanded: In many languages the third person
reference to the Lord would be awkward, as these are the Lord’s own words in the
Hebrew. In DUCL the Lord refers to himself in the first person at this point: “Give the
Israelites in my name the following regulation: …” It is also possible to keep the
translation similar to RSV and still take care of this problem: “What I, the Lord,
command you now is a ritual law” (similar to GECL).
 Tell the people of Israel: In the Hebrew this phrase is still part of the Lord’s
own words to Moses and Aaron. GNT has changed this phrase into indirect speech to
link up with verse 1: “to give the Israelites the following regulations.”
To bring you …: In the Hebrew this phrase is still part of the Lord’s own
words to Moses and Aaron about the Israelites, literally: “that they bring you …”
(NBS02, similarly Buber and Alter). GNT has changed this phrase to direct speech,
addressed not to Moses and Aaron, but to the Israelites: “Bring to Moses and Aaron
…” As a result, Moses and Aaron are referred to in the third person (here and in verse
3: “they”). In some languages this may be a necessary model to follow (but probably
with quotation marks).
A red heifer: The Hebrew parah adumah refers to “a red cow.” The term
parah itself does not specify whether the cow is a young or an adult one. The
rendering heifer (a young cow which has not yet born a calf) goes back to the
Septuagint. A large animal is chosen for the purpose at hand in order to provide the
maximum quantity of ashes. On the other hand, a cow “which has never been put to
work” is probably a young one. In languages without a generic term for a cow (a
female bovine) it will be good to choose a term which will imply that the cow is
young. Female animals were used in other rites of purification (Lev 4.28, 32; 5.6;
14.10; Num 15.27; 16.4). Red (adom), or reddish-brown, is probably associated with
the blood (dam) in the ritual that follows (verse 5).
No defect … no blemish: Literally “complete/intact … no spot/injury.” The
Hebrew thus strongly emphasizes that the red cow has to be absolutely perfect,
humanly speaking (taken by Jewish tradition to mean a totally red cow). If it is
difficult to find several different terms to refer to such imperfections, translators
should at least express a similar degree of emphasis, for example: “absolutely no
defect” (PV).
A yoke is made from bent wood and is placed on the neck of draught animals
to control them when plowing (see the Handbook on Deuteronomy at 31.3). Even in
cultures where yokes are no longer well-known, it will often be possible to translate
“that has never been used for ploughing” (CEV). This is more specific than GNT’s
rather vague rendering “… to work.” But the main idea is that the cow should not
have been used for common or ordinary work purposes.[< Alter]
You shall give: The Lord is still speaking to Moses and Aaron. GNT has
“they will give,” referring to Moses and Aaron in the third person. As explained
above, instead of addressing Moses and Aaron, the direct speech in GNT addresses
the Israelites.
Eleazar the priest: The book of Numbers introduces him into the text in 3.2-
4. The job of organizing and supervising this process of purification thus passes from
Moses and Aaron to Eleazar, Aaron’s son, to the priests in general (verses 6-7), for
this ordinance concerning purification from the dead was to be “an everlasting
statute” (verse 10).
She shall be taken … and slaughtered before him: The Hebrew uses
impersonal third-person verbs: “one shall take her … and slaughter her before him,”
that is, under the supervision of Eleazar. This type of impersonal verbal construction
where the subject is not specified may be natural in the language of translation. It is
clear from the phrase before him as well as from the verses that follow that Eleazar
does not slaughter the red cow himself. As Rashi and Rashbam already noted, this is
done by another person. Therefore the footnote in GNT is not a credible alternative.
Outside the camp: Impurity is transferred to the red cow, which thereby
becomes ritually contaminated. That is why this transfer has to take place outside the
camp. There is no basis in the Hebrew for the rendering “to the east of” in GNT’s
footnote, but see verse 4.

19.4
RSV
4and Eleazar the priest shall take some of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle some of her
blood toward the front of the tent of meeting seven times.

GNT
4Then Eleazar is to take some of its blood and with his finger sprinkle it seven times in the
direction of the Tent.

And Eleazar shall take: GNT renders the Hebrew “And” as “Then” to
indicate that a series of ritual acts is being carried out in sequence. A particular type
of verb tense/aspect may also be needed for this purpose, e.g., GNT: “is to take.”
With his finger: If possible, this term should be left general in translation. If a
particular finger must be specified, then the first (index, fore) finger is most likely.
Sprinkle: See at 8.7.
Toward the front of the tent of meeting: See at 1.1. This takes place outside
the camp—a considerable distance from the tent of meeting itself. The front of the
tent of meeting was facing the east—hence the words “to the east of” in GNT’s
footnote in verse 3—but this piece of information is not in focus here. What is in
focus is that the sprinkling took place in the direction of the entrance of the sanctuary.
Languages may have an idiom to express this, for example Chewa: “towards the eyes
of the tent.” The action of killing the red cow thus established a symbolic ritual
(sacrificial) connection with the altar in the tent of meeting where such a procedure
would normally be carried out.

19.5
RSV
5And the heifer shall be burned in his sight; her skin, her flesh, and her blood, with her dung,
shall be burned;

GNT
5The whole animal, including skin, meat, blood, and intestines, is to be burnt in the presence
of the priest.

The heifer shall be burned: As in verse 3, the Hebrew uses an impersonal

third-person verb: “one shall burn the cow.”
In his sight: Literally “before his eyes.” GNT makes clear that this means “in
the presence of the priest” —that is to say, under his supervision. The general word
“priest” comes from verse 6 where it is now used instead of the specific “Eleazar.”
Her skin, her flesh, and her blood, with her dung: The animal is to be
completely burnt, down to each and every part. GNT highlights this: “the whole
animal, including …” The term for dung refers to the contents of the intestines, not to
the “intestines” themselves. No other biblical ritual has such strict requirements for
burning the whole animal.[< Olson 120] Blood means life and can therefore undo the
impurity of death. In other words, “by burning the blood with the cow, the ashes will
have a powerful cleansing effect,” [< Ashley 365] as documented in the second half
of this chapter.
19.6
RSV
6and the priest shall take cedarwood and hyssop and scarlet stuff, and cast them into the
midst of the burning of the heifer.

GNT
6 Then he is to take some cedar wood, a sprig of hyssop, and a red cord and throw them into
the fire.

Cedarwood: As the Leviticus Handbook mentions at 14.4, in many languages

it will be necessary to know what quantity of wood is intended. While we cannot be
certain, probably it was a smaller piece that could be carried in one hand of a single
individual. In those languages where cedar trees are unknown, it may be necessary to
use an expression like “a piece of wood with a strong fragrance,” “a piece of wood
with a darker, light reddish color,” “some juniper wood,” or something similar.
Hyssop: See the Leviticus Handbook at 14.4. REB and NBV render this word
as “marjoram.” In some languages it will be necessary to say “a sprig [or branch] of
hyssop” (GNT).
Scarlet stuff: As in the case of cleansing from infectious skin deseases (Lev
14.4-7, 49-52), the word translated scarlet here normally refers to “dark red cloth.”
The other word literally means the worm or insect (called “cochineal”) which
produces a dark red color used as a dye. In this context the entire expression is
thought to refer to a small piece of cloth, yarn (NLT), or even a “cord” (GNT) which
was dark red in color. Because of this color it is probably associated with the blood in
the ritual in verse 5.
Each of these three additives function as powerful cleansing agents, or ritual
detergents, that become part of the ingredients of the resulting ashes (verse 6).[<
Olson 120]

19.7-8
RSV
7Then the priest shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterwards he shall
come into the camp; and the priest shall be unclean until evening. 8 He who burns the heifer
shall wash his clothes in water and bathe his body in water, and shall be unclean until
evening.

GNT
7After that, he is to wash his clothes and pour water over himself, and then he may enter the
camp; but he remains ritually unclean until evening. 8 The man who burnt the cow must also
wash his clothes and pour water over himself, but he also remains unclean until evening.

The priest: It may be helpful to specify again that the priest is still being
referred to here, especially in view of “the man…” of verse 8.
Bathe his body in water: This would suggest that the priest is to immerse
himself in water, which of course would not be very plentiful in the arid region where
the people were traveling. But the Hebrew can simply be taken to mean “wash his
body with water” (NBV) and hence “pour water over himself” (GNT). The same
applies to the person (male) who burns the cow in verse 8.
Unclean: That is, “ritually unclean” (GNT), “ritually impure,” and unable to
come into contact with others.

19.9
RSV
9 And a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and deposit them outside
the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the people of Israel
for the water for impurity, for the removal of sin.

GNT
9 Then a man who is ritually clean is to collect the ashes of the cow and put them in a ritually
clean place outside the camp, where they are to be kept for the Israelite community to use in
preparing the water for removing ritual uncleanness. This ritual is performed to remove sin.

A man who is clean: The priest and the person who burnt the cow are still
ritually unclean until the evening, so only somebody else—who is still ritually
clean—can bring the ashes to the ritually clean place. It may need to be specified that
this is “another” or “a different person.” By handling the ashes, this third person will
also become ritually unclean (verse 10).
Congregation: GNT’s “community” is a better equivalent for the Hebrew
‘edah. As mentioned at 1.2, it refers to the national, legal, and cultic, or religious
community of Israel.
They shall be kept: This refers to a ritual preservation of the ashes of the cow,
not the water. In many languages, it will be necessary to begin a new sentence at this
point, for naturalness as well as to ease the text-processing effort of those who are
listening to the translation aloud.
For the water of impurity: The Hebrew niddah literally means “separation,”
“exclusion,” “casting off,” “riddance,” (that is, removal of impurity). GNT renders the
meaning of the phrase accurately: “to use in preparing the water for removing ritual
uncleanness.” The ashes mixed with water will serve to rid the community of ritual
contamination, which is discussed in part two (verses 11-22) of this chapter.
For the removal of sin: In the Hebrew, this is literally a short independent
sentence, which includes the term chattat: “She is a sin offering.” (Alter translates: “It
is an offense offering.) See the discussion of the term for “sin offering” at 6.11. As
was mentioned there, the offering would restore a person to a state of ritual purity
when a taboo has unintentionally been broken. Thus, “purification offering” (REB),
with a focus on the outcome (a removal of pollution) rather than the cause (contact
with a dead body), is a much more accurate rendering of the term chattat. Since the
Hebrew pronoun is feminine, the Hebrew sentence most likely refers to the cow.
Thus, the most accurate and helpful model at this point is found in REB: “for the cow
is a purification-offering.” In some languages, it will be more natural at this point in
the ritual to employ a different tense (WV95, NFB): “The cow was (has served as) a
purification offering.” (Other interpreters[< Ashley 367] take “cow” as a figurative
reference to its “ashes,” which will then be available for use at any time in future
purification rituals.)

19.10
RSV
10 And he who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until
evening. And this shall be to the people of Israel, and to the stranger who sojourns among
them, a perpetual statute.

GNT
10 The man who collected the ashes must wash his clothes, but he remains unclean until
evening. This regulation is valid for all time to come, both for the Israelites and for the
foreigners living among them.
 And he who gathers: This still refers to the ceremonially clean man
mentioned in verse nine. Now, on account of his handling the ashes of the cow, he too
has become ritually unclean and must purify himself like the others (verses 7-8),
though apparently he does not require a ritual bath.
And this shall be …: The Hebrew simply continues the sentence: “… and it
shall be …,” referring back to the whole passage that precedes, that is, verses 1-10.
This concluding transitional sentence needs to be more clearly marked as such, as in
the GNT, or REB: “This statute is to be binding for all time…” These words
summarize the preceding section and introduce the next.
The stranger who sojourns …: See at 9.14.
Statute: As mentioned at 9.3 and 19.2, a statute (chuqqah) means a specific
task, obligation, or law. This noun, probably placed at the end in Hebrew for
emphasis, may fit more naturally at the beginning of the sentence.

19.11-22
Section heading: Verses 1-10 dealt with the preparation of the ashes for the water of
purification. Verses 11-22 now describe the situations in which this water is to be
used to restore purification. As noted earlier, it is important to indicate the connection
between these two sections of chapter 19. Thus, a helpful heading for verses 11-22
would be: “Purification with Water after Contact with a Corpse.” See at the beginning
of chapter 19 for a discussion of this and other alternatives for a section heading.
Verses 11-13 are a paragraph of their own. They give a brief and general
description of impurity through contact with a dead body and the need to restore ritual
purity.Verses 14-22 then give more specific case-study applications.

19.11-12
RSV
11 “He who touches the dead body of any person shall be unclean seven days; 12 he shall
cleanse himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and so be clean; but if
he does not cleanse himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not become
clean.

GNT
11 Whoever touches a corpse is ritually unclean for seven days. 12 He must purify himself
with the water for purification on the third day and on the seventh day, and then he will be
clean. But if he does not purify himself on both the third and the seventh day, he will not be
clean.

The dead body of any person: In some languages, human corpses are
distinguished from animal corpses. Here the former are in view. Verse 11 introduces
the basic problem that is being dealt with in this chapter—dead bodies as the cause of
pollution.
With the water: GNT renders “with the water of purification.” Most
translations agree with RSV or GNT on this, but literally the Hebrew only says “with
it” (as in NBG51 and NJPSV). Since the Hebrew word for water is plural and the
Hebrew word for ashes is singular, strictly speaking “with it” refers to the ashes
(which are kept outside the camp—verse 9). SB00, Alter, and CRV translate “with the
ashes,” and this is in itself more accurate. Having said that, it is clear from verse 9 that
it is the ashes mixed with water that will serve as the prescribed cleansing agent to rid
this person of ritual contamination. For this reason, CEV’s rendering is probably the
most helpful for the reader: “with the water mixed with the cow's ashes.”
Verse 12 gives the purifying instruction first in positive terms, and then in
negative terms, thus lending more emphasis to it. To underscore this contrast, GNT
begins a new sentence at the negative half (“But …”).

19.13
RSV
13 Whoever touches a dead person, the body of any man who has died, and does not cleanse
himself, defiles the tabernacle of the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from Israel;
because the water for impurity was not thrown upon him, he shall be unclean; his
uncleanness is still on him.

GNT
13 Whoever touches a corpse and does not purify himself remains unclean, because the water
for purification has not been thrown over him. He defiles the Lord's Tent, and he will no longer
be considered one of God's people.

Verse 13 repeats certain points after the preceding verse, but this was probably
done for reasons of emphasis, thus indicating how serious a matter such defilement
was to the Lord.
Defiles: See at 5.3. GNT begins a new sentence here: “He defiles …,” thus
avoiding RSV’s extremely lengthy sentence.
The tabernacle: The Hebrew has mishkan “dwelling-place.” As mentioned at
1.50-51, this can be rendered “tent” or “holy tent.”
Cut off: See at 9.13.
The water for impurity: As mentioned at 19.9, the Hebrew niddah literally
means “separation,” “exclusion,” “casting off,” “riddance,” (that is, removal of
impurity).
Thrown: Or “sprinkled.”
He shall be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him: GNT has reduced this
to one phrase: “remains unclean.” However, in many languages it is possible to bring
out the emphasis implied by such repetition through the use of synonyms, for example
REB: “he remains unclean, and his impurity is still upon him.”

19.14-15
RSV
14 “This is the law when a man dies in a tent: every one who comes into the tent, and every
one who is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days. 15 And every open vessel, which has no
cover fastened upon it, is unclean.

GNT
14 If someone dies in a tent, anyone who is in the tent at the time of death or who enters it
becomes ritually unclean for seven days. 15 Every jar and pot in the tent that has no lidb on it
also becomes unclean.

b 19.15 No lid; or no lid fastened.

After the more general paragraph of verses 11-13, verses 11-22 apply the
purification procedure in more detail by means of several particular cases.
Law: As pointed out at 5.30, law (torah) can have the more general meaning
of “instruction, teaching, direction. NJPSV translates “ritual”; NLT suggests “ritual
law.” GNT appears to keep the reference to “law” implicit here, but an opening phrase
to introduce these specific cases may be helpful, for example: “This is the ritual law
that applies when…” (NLT).
Every one who is in the tent: GNT helpfully makes explicit “at the time of
death.”
Which has no cover fastened upon it: As GNT’s footnote indicates, there is
some uncertainty about the Hebrew text here. Nothing specific is said in the text about
the way the cover is supposed to be attached to the vessel. What matters is that the
vessel’s contents are considered contaminated if there is any crack in the seal or if it is
standing open in any way. Renderings like “that has no tight lid on it” (Alter) or
“which has not been closed with a tight lid” (GECL) seem more appropriate.

19.16
RSV
16 Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone
of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.

GNT
16If someone touches a person who has been killed or has died a natural death out of doors
or if someone touches a human bone or a grave, he becomes unclean for seven days.

If one touches human remains in the open field, even a grave, it leads to the
same ritual impurity as in verse 14. Any dead body, or anything that is left of it, is
equally contaminant.
Slain with a sword: The specific instrument of killing is not really
important—only the corpse itself, which pollutes anyone who touches it.
A bone of a man: Whether a single bone or an entire skeleton, the polluting
effect is the same for anyone who handles it in any way.

19.17
RSV
17 For the unclean they shall take some ashes of the burnt sin offering, and running water
shall be added in a vessel;

GNT
17 To remove the uncleanness, some ashes from the red cow which was burnt to remove
sin shall be taken and put in a pot, and fresh water added.

The text moves back again after the sample cases of pollution to the procedure
for purifying those who have been affected. Some translations may therefore wish to
begin a new paragraph here.
For the unclean: That is, “for the unclean person” (Alter), namely, anyone
who has been polluted under the circumstances that have been mentioned in the
preceding verses.
They shall take: It is not specified who is to do this; as noted earlier, this was
probably a layman and not a priest because participation in this ritual defiles the
“clean” person. The ritual could be performed by anyone who was ritually clean. For
languages in which the subject needs to be specified, CEV is a helpful model: “Before
you can be made clean, someone who is clean [supplied from verse 18] must take ...”
GNT makes explicit that some ashes are not only to “be taken” but also “put in a pot,
that is, before water is added.
 Some ashes: These are to be taken from the ashes from the red cow which
were kept in a ceremonially clean place outside the camp (19.9). GNT helpfully
makes this more explicit: “some ashes from the red cow.”
The burnt sin offering: See the discussion of the term for “sin offering” at
6.11 and 19.9. GNT helpfully makes explicit that this is a reference to the red cow:
“the red cow which was burnt to remove sin.” In light of the discussion of chattat at
19.9, it may be even better to translate: “the red cow which was burnt to purify those
who have become unclean” (NBV).
Running water: Literally “living water.” This would be “fresh water” (GNT),
but in the desert it would probably have been “spring water” (CEV, similarly NBV),
coming from a natural source, not a cistern. This water is to be added to the ashes so
that they could be more easily applied to the person needing purification.

19.18
RSV
18 then a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent,
and upon all the furnishings, and upon the persons who were there, and upon him who
touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave;

GNT
18In the first case, someone who is ritually clean is to take a sprig of hyssop, dip it in the
water, and sprinkle the tent, everything in it, and the people who were there. In the second
case, someone who is ritually clean is to sprinkle the water on the man who had touched the
human bone or the dead body or the grave.

A clean person: If translators already had to make this subject explicit in

verse 17 (as in CEV), they will now have to translate “that same person” (CEV).
Hyssop: See at 19.6.
Sprinkle: See at 8.7 and 19.4.
Furnishings: The Hebrew uses a general term for domestic utensils,
equipment, and vessels. Other possible renderings are “everything in it” or “all that
belongs to it.”
The slain or the dead: That is, “a corpse (whether the person was killed or
died naturally)” (REB). GNT has left the slain untranslated.
“The first case” was when someone had died in his tent (verses 14-15), while
“the second case” was when a dead body had been touched upon in the open field
(verse 16). GNT tries to separate these cases here in verse 18 as well, but the
procedure is the same for both.

19.19
RSV
19 and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh
day; thus on the seventh day he shall cleanse him, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe
himself in water, and at evening he shall be clean.

GNT
19 On the third day and on the seventh the person who is ritually clean is to sprinkle the water
on the unclean person. On the seventh day he is to purify the man, who, after washing his
clothes and pouring water over himself, becomes ritually clean at sunset.

On the third day and on the seventh day: In many languages it it more
natural to have this twofold expression of time to come at the beginning of the
sentence, as in the GNT. It is helpful to begin a new sentence then at the next mention
of “the seventh day.”
The unclean: That is, “the [ritually] unclean person” (NJPSV).
And he shall wash: GNT makes clear that this (and the rest of the verse)
refers to the person who has just been purified, not the person who has purified him:
“who, after washing his clothes …” NLT offers a slightly different model: “... the
people being cleansed must wash their clothes and bathe themselves.” The generic
plural has been used here no doubt to avoid a singular reference to “his” implying a
male alone (GNT: “the man”) since presumably females required such ritual
purification as well.
Bathe himself in water: This might suggest that the purified person is to
immerse himself in water. But the Hebrew can simply be taken to mean “wash
himself with water”; hence GNT’s “pouring water over himself.”

19.20
RSV
20 “But the man who is unclean and does not cleanse himself, that person shall be cut off
from the midst of the assembly, since he has defiled the sanctuary of the Lord; because the
water for impurity has not been thrown upon him, he is unclean.

GNT
20 Anyone who has become ritually unclean and does not purify himself remains unclean,
because the water for purification has not been thrown over him. He defiles the Lord's Tent
and will no longer be considered one of God's people.

This verse is very similar to 19.13. Again, certain points are repeated and
emphasized. The repeated elements must be conveyed in a corresponding manner in
translation, while the variations should be expressed, where possible and natural in the
target language.
Cut off: See at 9.13 and 19.13.
From the midst of the assembly: See at 10.7 for a discussion of the Hebrew
term qahal “assembly.”
Defiled: See at 5.3 and 19.13.
Sanctuary: The Hebrew has miqdash. See at 18.1.
The water for impurity: See at 19.13.
Thrown: Or “sprinkled”; the Hebrew uses a different verb (also in verse 13)
from that found in verses 19 and 21, for example, but the intended sense appears to be
the same, perhaps with somewhat greater emphasis here.

19.21-22
RSV
21 And it shall be a perpetual statute for them. He who sprinkles the water for impurity shall
wash his clothes; and he who touches the water for impurity shall be unclean until evening. 22
And whatever the unclean person touches shall be unclean; and any one who touches it shall
be unclean until evening.”

GNT
21You are to observe this rule for all time to come. The person who sprinkles the water for
purification must also wash his clothes; anyone who touches the water remains ritually
unclean until evening. 22 Whatever an unclean person touches is unclean, and anyone else
who touches it remains unclean until evening.
 The first sentence of verse 21 parallels a corresponding directive toward the
end of verse ten, and this may indicate that it belongs as a conclusion to the section
that ends in verse 20.[< Ashley 374] However, this general command also acts as a
transition to the final paragraph, verses 21b-22, which seems almost like an appendix
to the discussion of the chapter as a whole. This is because it deals with the person
who was enlisted to carry out the ritual of purification, first mentioned in verses 18-
19. Thus the purifier too becomes unclean during this process and must himself take
care of his defiled state before re-entering the camp of Israel.
A perpetual statute: See at 19.10.
For them: That is, for the Israelites. The Lord is still speaking to Moses and
Aaron about the Israelites. GNT refers to the Israelites in second person: “you are to
…” This is in line with GNT’s restructuring of direct speech in 19.2-3 (see the
discussion there). In order to make this reference even clearer, one may translate “you
Israelites are to …”
Verse 22 highlights again what the consequences are if ritual impurity of
persons is not dealt with and taken very seriously. Pollution, like sin, is seen as highly
contagious and must therefore be immediately counteracted so that a state of ritual
purity can be restored within the community of the people of a holy God.

Part II-C: 20.1–21.35

Num 10.11–21.35 deals with the middle part of the Israelites’ journey through the
wilderness, from the desert of Sinai to Moab, on the east of the Dead Sea. Coming
after the rebellions and the purity concerns of chapters 16–19, chapters 20–21 narrate
a number of events on the journey from Kadesh to the plains of Moab (the southern
part of the area east of the River Jordan), where chapters 22–36 take place. As has
already been explained in the Introduction, legal and narrative texts alternate in the
Book of Numbers.
Chapters 20–21 consist of the following sections:
1. Death of Miriam; Moses’ and Aaron’s Rebellion 20.1-13
2. Edom Does Not Allow Israel to Pass Through 20.14-21
3. Death of Aaron 20.22-29
4. Victory over the Canaanites 21.1-3
5. The Bronze Snake of Deliverance 21.4-9
6. From Mount Hor to the Valley of the Moabites 21.10-20
7. Victory over King Sihon and King Og (east of the Jordan) 21.21-35
Kadesh is an oasis area in the wilderness of Zin (see 20.1; 33.36), bordering
the land of Canaan. However, 13.26 still locates Kadesh in the wilderness of Paran,
which is further to the south. The fact that Kadesh is variously located in both these
deserts may indicate that it was on the border between those areas.
In any case, the place name “Kadesh” is an important locative marker within
the structure of Numbers as a whole. It was at Kadesh (13.26) that the protest
occurred (over the twelve explorers’ report) which led to the punishment of
wandering in the wilderness for “the whole community of the people of Israel”—cf.
“the people of Israel, the whole community” in 20.1. A journey of some “forty days”
(13.25) thus ended up taking almost forty years! This was due to the people’s
rebellious nature—both then and now (20.2-3).
From chapter 20 onwards the narrative of the book is situated in the fortieth
and last year of the journey through the desert (see at 20.1 below). The old generation
is dying out. A new generation has grown up. The end of the wandering now comes
into view.
Chapter 20 is concerned with the fact that Miriam, Aaron, and Moses, who are
members of the old generation, will not enter the Promised Land either. It seems that
this is why Moses’ and Aaron’s own rebellion—the reason why they are denied entry
into the Land of Canaan—is placed near the end of the wanderings.[< Noth 144]
Most translations divide chapter 20 into the sections mentioned above, and this
handbook follows that practice. But DUCL has only one heading for the whole
chapter: “From Kadesh to the Mount of Hor.” Although this heading does not really
express what this chapter is about, it may still be helpful to keep chapter 20 together
in one section, with a heading that expresses the theme of the chapter, for example:
“After Moses’ and Aaron’s rebellion Aaron passes away” or “The Lord’s Judgment of
Death upon Miriam, Moses, and Aaron.”
The same applies to chapter 21. Most translations divide this chapter into the
sections mentioned above. Only DUCL has one heading for the whole chapter: “On
their way to Moab.” Alternatives to this might be “To Transjordan” or “The first
conquests” or “Israel Fights Their Way to the Transjordan/Plains of Moab.” Chapter
21 forms the background to later Israelite dominance over most of the area east of the
Jordan, known as the Transjordan region.[< cf. Levine 40]

20.1-13
Section Headings: GNT gives a short heading: “Events at Kadesh,” which does not
tell anything about the function of this section. Other translations prefer to avoid
geographical references in this heading: “Water from a Rock” (CEV, similar to NIV);
“Moses Strikes the Rock” (NLT). NBV’s heading “Miriam’s death; the water of
Meriba” (NBV) gives more accurate information about the contents of verses 1-13.
Like NFB, WV95 divides this into two, with a heading for verse 1 (“The death of
Miriam”) and for verses 2-13 (“Water from the rock”). Some translations only have
“The Waters of Meribah” (NRSV). However, translators are advised to include
Miriam in the section heading. As Moses’ and Aaron’s sister (chapter 12), Miriam is
an important member of the older generation, which will not enter the land of Canaan.
As the rest of this section makes clear, her brothers Moses and Aaron will not enter
the Promised Land either. See below for a helpful section heading that highlights this.
In this section, the people contest Moses’ and Aaron’s authority yet again. The
section heading could mention this, since it fits the theme of rebellion in the book.
What is even more important, however, is that the leaders, Moses and Aaron, have
now become rebels themselves (see verses 11-12). In what way did they rebel? One
answer is that, with Aaron’s apparent agreement, Moses strikes the rock twice instead
of just speaking to it, ordering it to yield water, as the Lord had instructed him.
Another answer is that in verse 10 Moses gives the impression that he and Aaron (that
is, not God) were the ones who performed the miracle. The Lord’s subsequent word
of condemnation in verse 12 implies that this is what their rebellion was about and
why it was wrong.
Their rebellion really stands out in both actions (striking the rock twice) and
words: Moses calls the people rebels, but he himself does not follow the explicit
divine instruction exactly. For this reason, it will be a good alternative if the section
heading refers to their rebellious behavior or its consequences, for example: “Moses’
and Aaron’s rebellion”; “Moses and Aaron are denied entry into the land of Canaan”;
“Moses and Aaron provoke their deaths.”
 Exo 17.1-7 is a close counterpart to Num 20.1-13. But Moses’ rebellion is
only mentioned in Numbers 20. While in Exo 17.6 Moses (with no mention of Aaron)
is told to strike the rock, in Num 20.8 he is only directed to speak to it, so that Moses’
striking of the rock in 20.11 amounts to a rebellious act against the Lord’s instruction.

20.1
RSV
1 And the people of Israel, the whole congregation, came into the wilderness of Zin in the
first month, and the people stayed in Kadesh; and Miriam died there, and was buried there.

GNT
1 In the first month the whole community of Israel came to the wilderness of Zin and
camped at Kadesh. There Miriam died and was buried.

A new and distinct section of the discourse begins here and should be marked
appropriately in the target language. GNT, for example, places the time reference at
the beginning of the verse.
Congregation: GNT’s “community” is a better equivalent for the Hebrew
‘edah. See at 1.2. The phrase “the whole community of Israel” may be there to
emphasize that a whole new generation of Israelites is now getting ready to enter the
land of Canaan.
Wilderness: See at 1.1.
Zin: As mentioned at 13.21, the Hebrew form of the name is literally tsin,
starting with a different sound than z or s. The wilderness of tsin (Zin) is not to be
confused with the wilderness of sin “Sin” (see the Exodus Handbook at 16.1), which
was apparently located somewhere to the south of the region of Zin.
In the first month: The chronological indication ‘in the first month’ is
incomplete; it is not followed by the year. It is probably the fortieth year that is
meant―the last year of the journey through the desert.[< cf. Ashley 380] The Jewish
medieval commentator Rashbam already expressed this view. Num 33.38 mentions
that Aaron died on Mount Hor forty years after Israel’s exodus from Egypt. Mount
Hor was the first stop after “the wilderness of Zin, that is, Kadesh” (33.36)—the same
location as here in 20.1. (20.28 also states that Aaron died―shortly after Miriam.) It
seems most likely, then, that from chapter 20 onwards the narrative is situated in the
fortieth and last year of the journey through the desert. Since this is such an important
point in time (the end of the old generation of Israel), it may be helpful to translate:
“In the first month of the fortieth year of their journey …” The alternative would be to
add a footnote: “Probably the fortieth and last year of the journey through the desert.
Aaron died in that same year (cf. 33.38), probably shortly after Miriam (20.28).”
Stayed in Kadesh: After the verb came, it will be more natural in a number of
languages to translate “camped at Kadesh.” In other languages, the time of staying
will have to be specified. A model for this would be “stayed some time at Kadesh”
(REB). The Hebrew verb yashav often refers to a short period of residence.
There: The repetition of this locative adverb (sham) emphasizes the site of
Miriam’s death, as is the location of Aaron’s death at Mount Hor later in the chapter,
in contrast to the unknown place where Moses died and was buried by the Lord (Deut
34.6).

20.2
RSV
 2 Now there was no water for the congregation; and they assembled themselves together
against Moses and against Aaron.

GNT
2 There was no water where they camped, so the people gathered round Moses and Aaron

Now there was no water: The shift in subject from the death of Miriam in
verse 1 to the lack of water is rather sharp, and this needs to be moderated in some
languages by the use of a transitional device, for example: “There at that place …” In
other languages, the purpose for the water may need to be specified, for example,
“water to drink,” or the result, “and they assembled…,” must be more clearly marked,
as in GNT: “so.”
Congregation: See at 20.1 and 1.2.
Assembled against: See at 16.3.

20.3
RSV
3And the people contended with Moses, and said, “Would that we had died when our
brethren died before the Lord!

GNT
3and complained: “It would have been better if we had died in front of the Lord's Tent along
with our fellow-Israelites.

Contended with: NRSV has adapted this to “quarreled with,” and this
captures the meaning of the Hebrew verb wayyarev. But it may still be better to
translate “disputed with” (REB; Alter) because this Hebrew verb often occurs in the
context of a legal dispute, and is of the same root as the name Meribah (“strife,
quarrel, dispute”) used later in the passage (verse 13).
Before the Lord: In a number of languages this phrase may be awkward. NLT
has “in the Lord’s presence,” which may well be misleading. GNT assumes that this
would be “in front of the Lord’s Tent.” However, the brethren who died were the
“fellow-Israelites” who perished after the rebellion in chapter 16, and these were not
killed in front of the tent of meeting. NJPSV and others give a more plausible
translation: “at the instance [insistence] of the Lord” (NJPSV); “through the
intervention of the Lord” (WV95, NBV). This is not a reference to a specific location.
The same interpretation can be expressed as follows: “along with the others, whom
the Lord caused to die” (similar to GECL).
The rebellious people are implying that it is better to die of the plague through
the intervention of the Lord than to die of thirst, for which, they imply, the Lord is
also responsible! Their fault could also be viewed as their impatience and lack of faith
that the Lord would provide should they humbly ask.

20.4-5
RSV
4 Why have you brought the assembly of the Lord into this wilderness, that we should die
here, both we and our cattle? 5 And why have you made us come up out of Egypt, to bring us
to this evil place? It is no place for grain, or figs, or vines, or pomegranates; and there is no
water to drink.”

GNT
4Why have you brought us out into this wilderness? Just so that we can die here with our
animals? 5 Why did you bring us out of Egypt into this miserable place where nothing will
grow? There's no corn, no figs, no grapes, no pomegranates. There is not even any water to
drink!”

Assembly: The Hebrew term here is qahal, not `edah. As has been mentioned
at 10.7, `edah refers to the entire national, legal, and cultic society of Israel, while
qahal refers to the assembly, the gathering (of the community). As a general rule, if
the target language allows for a distinction between the two, translators are
recommended to reserve the translation “community” for `edah and render qahal as
“assembly,” “gathering,” “congregation.” In the present section, however, the
“community” (verses 1-2) and the assembly (verses 4, 6, 8-9) have reference to the
same group of people. GNT’s use of a simple pronoun, “us,” may be more natural
also in other languages.
Cattle: The Hebrew term be`ir is a collective noun, referring to “livestock”
(NRSV), that is, including cattle, sheep, and goats. The implication may be here that
the people feel that they are being treated no better than animals!
Evil place: Instead of this literal translation, a number of translations use
another expressive term: NRSV and NJPSV have “wretched place,” while GNT has
“miserable place.” The term for “evil” should not imply negative personal morality.
It is no place for …: GNT renders this more directly as “where nothing will
grow.”
Vines: In some languages it will be more natural to mention what the vines
produce: “grapes” (GNT).
Pomegranates: See at 13.23.

20.6
RSV
6Then Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly to the door of the tent of
meeting, and fell on their faces. And the glory of the Lord appeared to them,

GNT
6Moses and Aaron moved away from the people and stood at the entrance of the Tent. They
bowed down with their faces to the ground, and the dazzling light of the Lord's presence
appeared to them.

From the presence of the assembly: See at 20.4. NRSV has: “away from the
assembly” (the Hebrew term is qahal) since a significant separation is referred to.
Tent of meeting: See at 1.1.
Fell on their faces: See at 16.4.
The glory of the Lord appeared: See at 16.19.

20.7-8
RSV
7and the Lord said to Moses, 8 “Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron
your brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water; so you shall bring water out
of the rock for them; so you shall give drink to the congregation and their cattle.”

GNT
7 The Lord said to Moses, 8 “Take the stick that is in front of the Covenant Box, and then
you and Aaron assemble the whole community. There in front of them all speak to that rock
over there, and water will gush out of it. In this way you will bring water out of the rock for the
people, for them and their animals to drink.”
 The rod: See at 17.2-3. NRSV and, for example, NBV translate “the staff.”
The Hebrew refers to “the staff,” not, for example, “your staff,” with reference to
Moses, who is the primary addressee in these verses. So whose staff is this? It is a
reference to Aaron’s staff as reported in 17.1-11. This staff has been set aside for
keeping in the tent of meeting “before the Lord” (verse 9). It is already here in verse 8
that GNT translates quite specifically: “the stick that is in front of the Covenant Box.”
DUCL translates in the same way. The staff was thus located in the tent of meeting
(17.4), which may also have to be specified here, perhaps in a footnote. A number of
commentators agree that Aaron’s staff is the staff that is being referred to here.[<
Noordtzij 176; Ashley 382] Why was this staff needed? It was this staff which was to
serve as a visual reminder of the Israelites’ rebelliousness (see 17.10)[< Rashbam]
and the divine punishment that results from such behaviour.
The alternative, less likely, view is that the staff is Moses’ staff (known from
the book of Exodus and, in fact, mentioned explicitly in Exo 17.5, 6), with which
miracles had been performed in Egypt.[< Levine; Milgrom] CEV’s rendering (in
rather familiar language) is based on this interpretation: “… and said, ‘Moses, get
your walking stick.’” The same interpretation is followed in REB, TOB, FRCL, and
GECL: “your staff.” Support for this comes from verse 11: “his [that is, Moses’]
staff,” although this could mean merely that the staff was currently being carried by
Moses.
Assemble: The root of the verb is the same as in 20.2 and 16.3, but the context
is different: Moses and Aaron are to call the community together in one place.
You and Aaron: GNT translates: “and then you and Aaron assemble …,” thus
not involving Aaron in the taking of the stick. REB and PV do the same: “Take your
staff and, with your brother Aaron, assemble …” (The Hebrew does have “your
brother.”) Alternatively and less likely, in NJPSV and NLT, Aaron is involved in the
taking of the stick as well: “You and Aaron must take the staff and assemble the entire
community” (NLT).
Congregation: The Hebrew term (qahal) is the same as in 20.4, 6, where RSV
translated “assembly.” Here in verse 8, GNT emphasizes that this refers to “the whole
community … the people.”
Tell: The Hebrew verb is in the plural: this instruction is given not only to
Moses, but to Aaron as well, for example, “Both of you must command…” (The other
verbs in this verse are in the singular.) No reason is given why Moses and Aaron have
to speak to the rock, and not strike it (as was the case in Exo 17.6). GNT begins a new
sentence at this point, which may be advisable in many languages to avoid a complex,
overly long construction.
The rock: GNT (also NLT) has “that rock over there” in order to bring out the
force of the definite article in Hebrew. The “rock-face, cliff” (sela‘) being referred to
here must have been a prominent or well-known feature of the landscape.
Cattle: See at 20.4.

20.9
RSV
9 And Moses took the rod from before the Lord, as he commanded him.

GNT
9 Moses went and got the stick, as the Lord had commanded.
 Took: In some languages it may be necessary to express that a change in
location was involved when Moses took the rod, hence GNT’s “went and got.”
From before the Lord: That is, from its place before the covenant box in the
tent of meeting (see GNT’s phrase in verse 8). GNT’s casual formulation “went and
got the stick” may well give the wrong suggestion that Moses was familiar with the
place where the stick was and was just picking it up quickly. It may be better to
translate “from the Lord’s presence” or “from the tent of meeting” or again “from its
place before the covenant box.”

20.10
RSV
10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to
them, “Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?”

GNT
10 He and Aaron assembled the whole community in front of the rock, and Moses said,
“Listen, you rebels! Do we have to get water out of this rock for you?”

Gathered together: The Hebrew verb has been rendered “assembled” in 20.8.
Assembly: See at 20.4, 6. The Hebrew term is qahal.
The rock: Some languages may have to specify, for example, by means of a
demonstrative adjective, that this was the same “rock” which was mentioned in verse
8. The Hebrew word order puts special emphasis on the expression “From this rock
…”
Rebels: Note that Moses actually calls the people rebels when in fact it is he
and Aaron who are now the true rebels, for which they will be punished.[< Olson 129]
A “rebel” is someone who resists or protests against some established authority. In the
Old Testament this negative reaction is usually manifested against God.
Shall we bring forth water: Moses is annoyed at the people’s disbelief. GNT
expresses more clearly that Moses is annoyed or angry: “Do we have to get water
…?” Other languages will have different ways of expressing Moses’ anger, for
example, Chewa: “Say, must we do this and cause water to come out …?!”
Milgrom argues that Moses’ sin is his presumptuous claim that it is he and
Aaron who will bring forth the water from the rock, rather than God.

20.11
RSV
11 And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his rod twice; and water came forth
abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their cattle.

GNT
11Then Moses raised the stick and struck the rock twice with it, and a great stream of water
gushed out, and all the people and animals drank.

Lifted up his hand: GNT translates “raised the stick,” which is more natural
in English. The main point is that this phrase introduces and emphasizes the fact that
Moses strikes the rock, instead of only speaking to it. Some conclude therefore that it
is the striking of the rock that is the cause for the punishment of Moses and Aaron.
And water came forth abundantly: There may be a more natural or even an
idiomatic way of saying this, as in GNT: “a great stream of water gushed out” (similar
to NLT).
 Congregation: The Hebrew term here is ‘edah, just as in verses 1-2. See the
discussion at 20.4.
Cattle: See at 20.4. All the people as well as their livestock got to drink their
fill in accordance with their initial complaint (verse 4) and the Lord’s subsequent
promise (verse 8).

20.12
RSV
12 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe in me, to sanctify me
in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land
which I have given them.”

GNT
12 But the Lord reprimanded Moses and Aaron. He said, “Because you did not have enough
faith to acknowledge my holy power before the people of Israel, you will not lead them into the
land that I promised to give them .”

And: In verse 11, things might still appear to be all right. However, verse 12
makes it clear that this is not the case. “But” (GNT) highlights this contrast in the
apparent situation.
Believe in me, to sanctify me: GNT expresses the connection between these
two verbs more clearly: “have enough faith to acknowledge my holy power.” NJPSV
offers a similar translation, while it renders the second verb more closely to the
Hebrew meaning than in GNT: “Because you did not trust Me enough to affirm My
sanctity in the sight of the Israelite people, …” (NJPSV). NET is quite similar:
“Because you did not trust me enough to show me as holy [or: “demonstrate my
holiness” (NLT)] before the Israelites” (see 14.11). In some languages it will be more
natural to separate the two phrases: “You have not had faith in (or: put your full trust
in) me. You have not shown to the Israelites that I am the true holy God. For this, …”
(similarly PV and FRCL).
NET adds a helpful footnote: Moses “was supposed to have acted in a way
that would have shown God to be distinct, different, holy. Instead, he gave the
impression that God was capricious and hostile.” As mentioned at verse 10, Moses,
apparently with a certain degree of anger and/or pride, claimed that it was he and
Aaron who would bring forth the water from the rock. A further problem was that this
was a public sin, having been committed in full view of all the people of Israel.
Therefore: The Hebrew lakhen “therefore” emphasizes the reason why Moses
and Aaron will not enter the land of Canaan. Human leadership is frail and prone to
failure to reach its goals. Rashi suggests that if Moses and Aaron had not disobeyed
the Lord in front of the people and if Moses had only spoken to the rock, they would
have been allowed to enter the Promised Land. Rashbam (or perhaps a scribe who
prepared a copy of his commentary) clearly struggled with this verse when he wrote:
“Moses thought that talking to the rock meant hitting it … Moses, our rabbi, could not
have transgressed God’s word except inadvertently ...” However, that is not the
picture that the biblical text gives us here.

20.13
RSV
13These are the waters of Meribah,l where the people of Israel contended with the Lord, and
he showed himself holy among them.

l 20.13 That is Contention.

GNT
13 This happened at Meribah,a where the people of Israel complained against the Lord and
where he showed them that he was holy.

a 20.13 Meribah: This name in Hebrew means “complaining”.

These refers back to the waters that were already mentioned. The impression
should be avoided that this verse starts a new subject.
These are the waters of Meribah: For some reason, GNT leaves “waters”
untranslated, which is not recommended. GNT also changes the verb into a past tense
(“happened”), which may be more natural in some languages. However, the Hebrew
sentence is without a verb and so RSV’s rendering with a present tense (are) is also
valid.
Meribah: This name occurs in Exo 17.7 as well. Both RSV and GNT give its
meaning in a footnote. The name and the verb that follows are of the same root (r-y-b)
in Hebrew. NRSV gives “quarrel” as its meaning. Some translations include the
meaning of Meribah in the text itself (see, for example, NLT below, also NBS02).
This place is clearly very significant in the book of Numbers. As Ashley puts it: “As
the people had refused to rely on Yahweh in their first sojourn at Kadesh and were
condemned to die outside the land of promise (14.11, 22-35), so here in the second
sojourn there (many years later), the leaders make the same mistake and are sentenced
to the same fate.”[< Ashley 386]
Contended: NRSV has “quarreled.” The verb often occurs in the context of a
well-argued legal dispute.
Showed himself holy: Literally this verb can also be understood as “he was
sanctified, made holy” (mentioned by the Jewish commentators Rashi and Rashbam).
The verb form is of the same root in Hebrew as the verb “sanctify” in verse 12, which
is part of the place name “Kadesh.” Translators are advised to render the basic
meaning of these verbs consistently, for example: “he showed them that he is a holy
God.”
Among them: It seems that both RSV and GNT (also NBG51 and NBV, for
example) take “them” to refer to the Israelites. But NRSV takes the pronoun to refer
to the water (plural in Hebrew) out of the rock and revises the translation as follows:
“and by which he showed his holiness” (similarly NBJ98). Compare also Rashbam
and REB “through which his holiness was upheld”.[< Noth 147] 1 Cor 10.4 refers to
this rock as a symbol of Christ and its water as a symbol of spiritual life.
Where: Although quite a number of translations have this, it gives the wrong
suggestion that the point of the verse is simply to specify where these things
happened. However, the Hebrew conjunction ’asher, standing on its own, introduces
more information about the waters of Meribah:
“These are the waters of Meribah, because the Israelites contended with the Lord, and
his holiness was maintained among them.” (NET)
The point of the verse is actually to connect the name and its meaning with what is
reported in this account, as is clear also from NLT and NJPSV:
“This place was known as the waters of Meribah (which means “arguing”) because
there the people of Israel argued with the Lord, and there he demonstrated his holiness
among them.” (NLT).
“Those are the Waters of Meribah—meaning that the Israelites quarrelled with the
Lord—through which He affirmed His sanctity.” (NJPSV).
20.14-21
Section Heading: GNT has: “The King of Edom Refuses to Let Israel Pass.” Some
examples of shorter headings: “Edom refuses Israel passage” (TOB, NLT); “Edom
refuses passage” (NBJ98); “Rejection by the Edomites” (NET).
The Israelites are about to leave the large desert of the peninsula of Sinai.
They will travel east, in order to reach the east bank of the river Jordan, from where
they will move west to invade the land of Canaan. This means they must first pass
through the land of Edom. Moses’ sending of messengers to Edom to ask for passage
recalls Jacob’s sending messengers to his brother Esau (Genesis 32). In marked
contrast to their ancestor Esau (Genesis 33), the people of Edom behave quite
differently, belligerently rejecting Israel’s request for passage.

20.14-15
RSV
14 Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, “Thus says your brother
Israel: You know all the adversity that has befallen us: 15 how our fathers went down to Egypt,
and we dwelt in Egypt a long time; and the Egyptians dealt harshly with us and our fathers;

GNT
14 Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom. They said, “This message is
from your kinsmen, the tribes of Israel. You know the hardships we have suffered, 15 how our
ancestors went to Egypt, where we lived many years. The Egyptians ill-treated our ancestors
and us,

Kadesh: As in 20.1. Since this is a distinct new episode in the narrative

account, it may need to be marked by some type of discourse opener or transitional
expression, for example, “While they were still in Kadesh…” (Chewa).
Edom: The area between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba, though the
ruler or leader (“king”) of Edom may well have controlled other territory at that time.
Moses sent messengers: Some languages may have a special term to
designate “messengers” who were sent on a special, official mission like this, e.g.,
“ambassadors” (NLT).
Thus says …: The standard phrase with which the messenger introduces the
message itself, hence GNT’s “This message is …”, or “Here is a message from …”
Your brother Israel: The Edomites were descendants of Esau, Jacob’s
brother. (Edom is also another name for Esau.) This formal Hebrew expression of
friendship refers to the Israelite people in the singular, as a collective entity. The
plural rendering in GNT—“your kinsmen, the tribes …”—is a good model in
languages where your brother Israel could only refer to one individual ancestor.
You know: Some languages may have a certain marker to signal this
flashback in temporal reference, for example, “As you well know …”
All the adversity that has befallen us: Literally, “All the hardship that has
found us.” Many languages will have their own idiomatic phrase to express this, for
example, “all that we have been through” (DUCL). Moses’ message is trying to win
Edom’s sympathy so that they will grant his request.
Went down to Egypt: This does not mean that they descended to a lower
point. Rather, in Hebrew “to go down” (to another country) is the opposite of “to go
up” (the verb used for going to Israel, to the land of Canaan). Given this contrast,
“went” (GNT) may still be a flat translation. PV’s “Our ancestors departed for Egypt”
expresses much better what the Hebrew verb implies.
20.16
RSV
16and when we cried to the Lord, he heard our voice, and sent an angel and brought us forth
out of Egypt; and here we are in Kadesh, a city on the edge of your territory.

GNT
16and we cried to the Lord for help. He heard our cry and sent an angel, who led us out of
Egypt. Now we are at Kadesh, a town at the border of your territory.

Cried: See at 11.2.

He heard our voice: Or “he answered our prayer for help.”
Angel: Literally, “messenger,” referring either to an angel (Levine; see Exo
14.19; 23.20; 33.2) or to Moses (according to Rashi). The literal Hebrew should
probably be retained here, with an optional footnote referring to Moses.
Your: The Hebrew form is singular—Moses’ messengers address the king of
Edom. However, polite terms of formality (e.g., plural) may be needed in the
language of translation in order to sound natural in the narrative situation being
described.
And here we are: The Hebrew has hineh, which emphasizes the immediacy
and urgency of Moses’ message to the king of Edom.

20.17
RSV
17 Now let us pass through your land. We will not pass through field or vineyard, neither will
we drink water from a well; we will go along the King's Highway, we will not turn aside to the
right hand or to the left, until we have passed through your territory.”

GNT
17 Please permit us to pass through your land. We and our cattle will not leave the road or go
into your fields or vineyards, and we will not drink from your wells. We will stay on the main
roadb until we are out of your territory.”

b 20.17 main road; or king’s highway

Now let us pass through your land: GNT renders this as a polite request—
“Please permit us to pass through your land”—which corresponds much more closely
to the Hebrew verb and particle (“please”). This utterance should not sound like a
command. Languages will have a certain form that should be used to seek permission
in a deferential manner as part of an official diplomatic petition.
We: GNT adds “and our cattle,” which is not explicitly mentioned in the
Hebrew. GNT probably included this because it would be cattle that would leave the
road to go through fields.
Drink water from a well: Obviously more than one well is being referred to,
hence GNT’s “drink from your wells.”
King’s Highway: Literally, “the road of the king” (NLT has “the king’s
road”), a major north-south route from Damascus to Aqaba, along the eastern bank of
the Jordan. This was a wide, well-marked trail which had been flattened so that one
could drive wagons along it, especially chariots, so that even a king could use it on an
expedition.[< Noth 150] Other possible models: “road for kings”; “route for the
kings”; “royal route.” GNT’s footnote is likely to raise more questions than give
answers; “highway” even sounds anachronistic, as if the road were paved.
 Not turn aside to the right hand or to the left: GNT has translated “not
leave the road” (one might add “at all” to bring out the force of this idiom) and moved
this phrase to a place earlier in the verse.

20.18
RSV
18 But Edom said to him, “You shall not pass through, lest I come out with the sword against
you.”

GNT
18 But the Edomites answered, “We refuse to let you pass through our country! If you try, we
will march out and attack you.”

Edom: This does not refer to the country as a whole, but to some of its people,
perhaps the authorities (GNT’s and GECL’s “Edomites”) or more likely—in line with
verse 14—to its ruler, chieftain, or “king”: DUCL, FRCL, CEV, and NLT translate
“the king of Edom.” However, there may be some significance to the fact that “the
king of Edom” is not referred to after verse 14. It is as if “Edom” as an entire
people/nation reacts negatively to Israel’s request for safe passage (verses 18-21).
You … I … you are singular forms: the nation of Edom speaks as an
individual to an individual.[< Sherwood 172] However, in many languages plural
forms (“you [pl.] … we … you [pl.]”) will be needed to avoid confusion or
unnaturalness.
You shall not pass through: The Hebrew verb form has the nuance of strong
prohibition; Edom’s response is abrupt and blunt. The Hebrew actually says: “you
shall not pass through me.” DUCL renders this as follows: “If you do try to pass
through my territory ...” FRCL has “You will not pass through my country!”
Lest I come out with the sword: A reference to war, hence GNT’s “march
out and attack” or “come out to meet you with our army.” GNT also begins a new
sentence here, replacing “lest” with the threat, “If you try [to enter] …”

20.19
RSV
19 And the people of Israel said to him, “We will go up by the highway; and if we drink of your
water, I and my cattle, then I will pay for it; let me only pass through on foot, nothing more.”

GNT
19 The people of Israel said, “We will stay on the main road, and if we or our animals drink
any of your water, we will pay for it — all we want is to pass through.”

And the people of Israel said: This probably refers to the “messengers”
mentioned in verse 14, perhaps after a return with Moses’ second appeal for passage
on behalf of the entire people.
By the highway: This wrongly suggests that the Hebrew term is the same as
the specific road mentioned in verse 17. Rather, here the Hebrew refers to any
flattened road in general, a set course or path that does not change (for example, the
course of the stars). GNT’s “on the main road” (also NIV, NLT) is a more helpful
rendering. An idiomatic rendering in English is “keep to the beaten track” (NJPSV).
I: The Hebrew returns to singular forms: the Israelite people are presented as
speaking in the singular, as a collective entity. See also the reference to Israel as a
unified group or nation in verse 14. In many languages, it will be necessary to use
plural forms, as in GNT (“we”).
Cattle: The word for cattle is very general and includes all types of herded
animals—also donkeys, camels, sheep, and goats. “Livestock” is a good alternative in
some languages.
Let me only … nothing more: Here are two more places in the text, where
the Hebrew formulation is clearly submissive and deferential in tone. These words
also seek to downplay the magnitude of this request. Translators should render this
request in a way that sounds similarly submissive and deferential in their language—
however, using speech that is appropriate for kings and leaders. For example: “It is
only a small matter; just let us pass through on foot” (NRSV); It is only a matter of
letting me pass through on foot” (NBJ98); “Ours is a small request; we would simply
cross your land on foot” (similar to REB).

20.20
RSV
20 But he said, “You shall not pass through.” And Edom came out against them with many
men, and with a strong force.

GNT
20 The Edomites repeated, “We refuse!” and they marched out with a powerful army to
attack the people of Israel.

But he said: “He” refers to “the Edomites” (GNT), “the people of Edom,” or
possibly, “the king of Edom” (NLT).
You: The Hebrew has a singular form, but again the reference is plural.
With many men, and with a strong force: A direct translation of the RSV
might suggest that two distinct armies of Edom were sent out to meet Israel. The
meaning is rather “with a large and powerful force” (NET). “With a strong force” is
literally “with a strong hand” in Hebrew.

20.21
RSV
21 Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his territory; so Israel turned away from
him.

GNT
21 Because the Edomites would not let the Israelites pass through their territory, the Israelites
turned and went another way.

Thus: Verse 21 summarizes the final outcome of this narrative episode, which
began in verse 14. Some languages may have a special introductory word or phrase to
indicate this discourse function, for example, “In this way/manner” (Chewa).
Turned away from him: This might sound like a sign of personal disapproval
or disgust, but the Hebrew phrase only describes a movement, a change of direction.
“Turned and went another way” (GNT) or “drew away from his territory” (WV95) are
good ways to express this report. The people of Israel thus avoid further confrontation
with Edom (see 21.4), possibly because that territory was given by the Lord to Esau’s
descendants (Deut 2.4-5).
20.22-29
Section Heading: “The Death of Aaron” (GNT). Aaron died at Mount Hor,
somewhere in the vicinity of Edom’s territory (verse 23). The Lord has denied Aaron
entry into the Promised Land on account of his act of rebellion (20.12, 24). Probably
for this reason, GECL’s section heading is “Aaron must die.” His third son Eleazar
succeeds him as high priest. (As mentioned above, an alternative is to have one
section heading for the whole chapter.)

20.22-23
RSV
22 And they journeyed from Kadesh, and the people of Israel, the whole congregation, came
to Mount Hor. 23 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron at Mount Hor, on the border of the
land of Edom,

GNT
22 The whole community of Israel left Kadesh and arrived at Mount Hor, 23 on the border of
Edom. There the Lord said to Moses and Aaron,

And: Another narrative episode begins here and may need to be appropriately
marked by some conjunctive or disjunctive expression. GNT moves the subject to the
head of the sentence, “The whole community of Israel…”
Journeyed: The Hebrew verb is the same as the verb which RSV translates as
“set out” in, for example, 2.9; 9.17-18; 10.12. Its meaning can be described as “move
off, journey further, march forward.”
Congregation: GNT’s “community” is a better equivalent for the Hebrew
‘edah. See at 1.2. As in 20.1, the phrase “the whole community of Israel” may be used
to emphasize that a whole new generation of Israelites is now getting ready to enter
the land of Canaan.
Mount Hor: The context of the narrative suggests that this mountain was east
of Kadesh, but its exact location is uncertain. GNT shifts the phrase “on the border
with Edom” to the end of verse 22, where “Mount Hor” is first mentioned. This site of
Aaron’s death appears to be foregrounded in this text through repetition (verses 22,
23, 25, 27, 28) and by the somewhat unusual, alliterative construction “Hor, the
mountain” (hor hahar).

20.24
RSV
24 “Aaron shall be gathered to his people; for he shall not enter the land which I have given to
the people of Israel, because you rebelled against my command at the waters of Meribah.

GNT
24 “Aaron is not going to enter the land which I promised to give to Israel; he is going to die,
because the two of you rebelled against my command at Meribah.

Gathered to his people: GNT takes this expression to mean the same as
“die,” although the Hebrew of 20.26 seems to indicate otherwise. As the Handbook on
Genesis explains at 25.8, it is often taken to refer to being in Sheol, the place of the
dead in the deep parts of the earth. Others understand it to refer to being remembered
by the living as one of the honored ancestors. In any case, some kind of solidarity and
unity with the faithful forefathers appears to be referred to.[< cf. Ashley 395; Cole
467] This is a specific expression, which occurs only in the Pentateuch, marking the
death of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, and Moses—people who stood at the
cradle of Israel. Because this is expressed as a passive construction, it may be
necessary to shift to the active and say, for example, “He died and united himself with
his kinsmen,” or “He died and joined his dead kinsmen.” A physical “gathering” is
not meant, so in some languages it is important to make clear that the kinsmen or
relatives are dead people: “He died and joined his relatives who had died before him.”
The term “ancestors” may present problems in some languages (for example, the
Bantu group of languages) because it is taken to refer to “ancestral spirits,” who are
still actively involved with the living in traditional religious beliefs and practices. In
such cases, an expression like “relatives who have [already] died” may need to be
used; alternatively, an explanatory footnote may be needed.
Note also that GNT has reordered the clauses of verse 24, placing the fact of
Aaron’s not entering the land before that of his death. This arrangement may sound
more natural in other languages as well.
You rebelled: The form is in the plural, addressing both Moses and Aaron.
Alter translates “you both,” to make this double reference clear. This same applies to
GNT: “the two of you.”
My command: Literally, “my mouth.” In some languages it may also be more
natural, perhaps even more precise, to refer to [the words of] “my mouth” than to my
command.
At the waters of Meribah: It is hard to see why GNT left “the waters of”
untranslated. Since the Hebrew word for water is a plural form anyway, NBV’s “at
the water of Meribah” and NLT’s “concerning the water at Meribah” are helpful
models. In some languages, “at the Meribah source” (DUCL, FRCL, GECL) might be
an alternative. The “waters at Meribah” were a source of life for the people of Israel,
but they were also a source of death for their leaders on account of their disobedience.

20.25-26
RSV
25Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up to Mount Hor; 26 and strip Aaron of his
garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son; and Aaron shall be gathered to his people, and
shall die there.”

GNT
25 Take Aaron and his son Eleazar up Mount Hor, 26 and there remove Aaron's priestly robes
and put them on Eleazar. Aaron is going to die there.”

Take Aaron and his son Eleazar: This command might present a problem
since the Lord is still addressing “Moses and Aaron” (verse 23). So who then is to
“take Aaron” and carry out the rest of the instructions of this verse? The verb is
singular, so probably just Moses is meant. Someone may have to be specified (for
example, “You Moses, take Aaron …”) unless the language has a natural passive
construction, for example, “Let Aaron and his son Eleazar be taken/brought …”
Strip Aaron of his garments: Aaron will die as a common man, an ordinary
Israelite. The adjective “priestly” (GNT) may need to be added to specify “sacred
garments” (see Exo 28.2) or, better perhaps, “robes,” so as not to imply that Aaron
was left completely naked in shame before those present, his son in particular. A
respectful verb for “strip” may need to be used as well, for example, GNT’s
“remove.”
Put them upon Eleazar his son: The office and authority of high priest
thereby passes to Aaron’s eldest living son.
 Shall be gathered to his people: See at 20.24. This expression occurs before
the actual verb shall die, which would suggest that these expressions are not
synonymous. In some languages it may be necessary to reverse the order, depending
on the expression that has been chosen to render “shall be gathered to his people.”
(However, see the following comment.)
Shall die there: It is only at the end of the verse that Aaron’s death on Mount
Hor is referred to explicitly. The preceding phrases prepare Moses step by step for the
loss of his brother.[< Alter] This feature of discourse heightening is worth preserving
in translation.

20.27-29
RSV
27 Moses did as the Lord commanded; and they went up Mount Hor in the sight of all the
congregation. 28 And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his
son; and Aaron died there on the top of the mountain. Then Moses and Eleazar came down
from the mountain. 29 And when all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, all the house
of Israel wept for Aaron thirty days.

GNT
27Moses did what the Lord had commanded. They went up Mount Hor in the sight of the
whole community, 28 and Moses removed Aaron's priestly robes and put them on Eleazar.
There on the top of the mountain Aaron died, and Moses and Eleazar came back down. 29
The whole community learnt that Aaron had died, and they all mourned for him for 30 days.

And they went up: Who is included in “they”? Probably just Moses, Aaron,
and Eleazar, as specified in Chewa for example, “all three of them.”
In the sight of all the congregation: Or more idiomatically, “while the whole
community was watching.” On congregation see at 20.22.
And Aaron died there…: Or better, to bring out the focus of the Hebrew in
this entire passage: “There on the top of the mountain Aaron died” (GNT).
All the house of Israel: In verse 29 Israel is referred to as one extended
family, hence GNT’s “the whole community.”
Saw: Probably a literal rendering is most accurate in this case: “The whole
community saw that Aaron had died”—How? When only Moses and Eleazar, wearing
Aaron’s priestly robes, came down from Mount Hor.
Wept: The most natural expression for public mourning should be used here,
for example, “they cried a crying” (Chewa).
Thirty days: The same period of mourning was later on observed for Moses
(Deut 34.8).

21.1-3
Section Heading: GNT’s heading “Victory over the Canaanites” may give the wrong
suggestion that this section already marks the end of the conquest of the Canaanites in
the Promised Land. The heading in GECL and PV may be more helpful: “A first
victory over the Canaanites.” The heading in LUT84 is quite similar: “Victory over
the Canaanites in the South.” CEV specifies the location: “Israel Defeats the
Canaanites at Hormah.” NBV has “The king of Arad defeated.”
This section seems to interrupt the flow of the narrative— it is both before and
after this section that the community of Israel is near Mount Hor. But this section is
not connected with Mount Hor. It would seem to fit better in the narrative account
after the people of Israel leave Kadesh (20.22a) and before they come to Mount Hor
(20.22b). It may have been put here as the last episode before the final transition to
the theme of the conquest east of the Jordan.[< Noth 154] In any case, this brief
account marks the turning point in Israel’s fortunes—the first of many victories over
the hostile non-Israelite people who lived in this part of the world.

21.1
RSV
1 When the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the Negeb, heard that Israel was
coming by the way of Atharim, he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive.

GNT
1 When the Canaanite king of Arad in the southern part of Canaan heard that the Israelites
were coming by way of Atharim, he attacked them and captured some of them.

The Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the Negeb: This literal
rendering may give the wrong suggestion that there were no other Canaanites living
elsewhere. Negeb actually means “south,” and viewed from the land of Canaan it
refers to “the southern part of Canaan” (GNT). GNT, then, makes this information
explicit. But the style of the resulting repetition—“Canaanite … Canaan”—would be
considered incorrect or unnatural in some languages. GECL makes the meaning of
Negeb explicit as well, but in a different way: “The Canaanite king of Arad in the
land of the South ...” In some languages, “the king of Arad—a Canaanite who lived in
the land of the South” (NFB) may be a helpful alternative.
Arad: A city or town west of the Dead Sea, in the southern region of the land
of Canaan.
Israel was coming: In some languages Israel could only refer to a country of
that name, not to its people. Hence GNT’s rendering “Israelites,” or “people of
Israel.”
By the way of Atharim: The location is unknown. Most translations,
including LUT84, have “Atharim.” (CEV even has “on their way to the village of
Atharim.”) But the Hebrew actually says “the way of the Atharim” (TOB, NBS02). A
slightly different Hebrew form, tarim, lies at the basis of the rendering “the
explorers,” which is found in several ancient versions, including the Vulgate and the
Syriac Version. This reading is also followed by the Jewish medieval commentators
Rashi and Rashbam, and lies at the basis of a few older translations: “by the way of
the spies” (KJV, so SV and LUT12); “track road” (Buber); “the way of the trails”
(Levine).[< Levine 84] That would make it a reference to the explorers of chapter 13,
who “went into the Negeb” (13.22); Israel was now following their route. The form
tarim could be related to the verb “to spy out,” which has been discussed at 13.2. It is
surprising that this rendering has not received more attention. However, a proper
name was probably intended,[< Budd 229] and therefore a more or less literal
rendering of this phrase may be the best that can be done.
Fought against Israel is understood by GNT and NIV to mean that the
Canaanites (or Canaanite army) “attacked the Israelites.” In languages that favor the
passive voice, one may say “The Israelites were attacked by [the army of] the king of
Arad.”
This verse contains quite a bit of information, perhaps too much to pack into
one sentence in the language of translation. If this is the case, the initial time clause
may be shifted forward and made into a separate sentence, for example, “The king of
Arad was ruling in the southern part of Canaan. When he heard that the people of
Israel were coming …”
21.2
RSV
2And Israel vowed a vow to the Lord, and said, “If thou wilt indeed give this people into my
hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.”

GNT
2Then the Israelites made a vow to the Lord: “If you will let us conquer these people, we will
unconditionally dedicatea them and their cities to you and will destroy them.”

a 21.2 Unconditionally dedicate: Anything dedicated in this way belonged completely to the
Lord and could not be used; it had to be destroyed.

Israel: As mentioned at 21.1, in some languages Israel could only refer to a

country of that name, not to its people. Hence GNT’s rendering “Israelites.”
Vowed a vow: See the discussion at 6.2 as well as the Handbook on Genesis
at 28.20.
Indeed give … into my hand: In the Hebrew, the people of Israel refer to
themselves in the singular (my). In Hebrew, an intensifying infinitive form of give
has been added to the main verb, the function of which is well expressed by “indeed,”
or “really.” In some languages translators may be able to use this (… into my hand)
or a similar idiom (“… into our power”). If this is not possible, an alternative is to
take GNT as a model: “let us [plural] conquer ...”
Utterly destroy: As the Joshua Handbook explains at 6.17; 8.25-26, this is not
mindless slaughter or a case of ethnic cleansing, as RSV’s literal rendering might
imply. Rather, the Hebrew verb (charam) refers to a religious act of destroying
completely what had been dedicated exclusively and irrevocably to the Lord (and
could therefore not be taken as war-booty or used for any other self- or group-
centered purpose). GNT brings this out by translating the verb as “unconditionally [or
“completely”] dedicate … to you.” An alternative is to translate “execute the ban
upon their cities” (GECL), “put its towns under the ban” (Alter), or “execute the ban
of destruction upon their cities.” An explanatory footnote like that of the GNT might
also be helpful at this point. As translators, we do not have to like everything we find
in the Bible, but we do have a duty to translate it as faithfully and accurately as we are
able.

21.3
RSV
3And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and gave over the Canaanites; and they
utterly destroyed them and their cities; so the name of the place was called Hormah.m

m 21.3 Heb Destruction

GNT
3The Lord heard them and helped them to conquer the Canaanites. So the Israelites
completely destroyed them and their cities, and named the place Hormah.b

b 21.3 Hormah: This name in Hebrew means “destruction”.

And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel: Or “The Lord heard the
prayer of the people of Israel …”
 Gave over the Canaanites: The Hebrew lacks “in his hand” (see verse 2).
The ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint, has included this. Alter does the same:
“He gave the Canaanite into his [that is, Israel’s] hand,” that is, “into their power.”
They utterly destroyed: As in 21.2, where the verb occurs for the first time,
and where translators may prefer to make the verb’s components of meaning more
explicit than here. Note that the pronouns “they…them” are ambiguous in the RSV.
Hormah is based on the same root as the verb “utterly destroy” in Hebrew
(verses 2-3). The footnote in RSV and GNT points to this similarity in meaning.
GECL includes the meaning of Hormah in the translation itself since it is a significant
wordplay: “Hormah (ban).” The same applies to “Hormah (‘anathema’)” (NBS02)
and “Hormah, which means ‘the ruin’” (FRCL), but perhaps something like
“complete destruction” would be more precise and meaningful in translation.
It was to Hormah that the Israelites had been pursued when they were defeated
by the Amalekites and Canaanites (14.45). But this time Hormah marks the Israelites’
victory, the first of many over the peoples of this region.

21.4-9
Section Heading: A majority of translations have “The Bronze Serpent” or “The
Snake Made of Bronze” (GNT). LUT84 has “Moses erects the metal serpent.” PV has
“The venomous serpents and the serpent of bronze.”
The detour back south around the land of Edom (see 20.21), even in the
direction of the Red Sea, made the people impatient. In this last rebellion story in
Numbers, the people complain not only against Moses, but directly against God as
well. The Lord sends poisonous snakes as punishment. The people repent, and the
Lord again relents in answer to Moses’ prayer of intercession. Then anyone who looks
at the bronze snake, which Moses makes, is healed.
In the Ancient Near East the serpent was a symbol of evil power and chaos as
well as a symbol of fertility, life, and healing. It annually sloughs off its old skin cells
and thus represents recurring youthfulness. If an individual suffered from the poison
of some plant or animal, then gazing upon an image of that same animal or plant was
thought to heal or guard the person from further attack.[< Olson 136-137] In this
account, however, there is no magic involved. Rather, those who wish to escape death
must obey the command of the Lord, given through his servant Moses.

21.4-5
RSV
4 From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom;
and the people became impatient on the way. 5 And the people spoke against God and
against Moses, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there
is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.”

GNT
4 The Israelites left Mount Hor by the road that leads to the Gulf of Aqaba, in order to go
round the territory of Edom. But on the way the people lost their patience 5 and spoke against
God and Moses. They complained, “Why did you bring us out of Egypt to die in this desert,
where there is no food or water? We can't stand any more of this miserable food!”

From Mount Hor: See at 20.22-23.

 By the way to the Red Sea: See at 14.25. Perhaps the direction “south” might
be added to indicate why the people complained; they seemed to be going backwards,
in the direction that they had come from!
And the people became impatient: Literally, “and the soul of the people
became short,” that is, impatient, irritated, discouraged—or perhaps a mixture of all of
these negative feelings. There may well be an idiom to express this in the target
language, for example, “the people were not limp in their hearts” (Chewa).
On the way: Either “along the way” (CEV, NET) that they were travelling, or
“because the way was getting too long” for them. NLT translates: “But the people
grew impatient with the long journey.”
Spoke against: See at 12.1. The sense suggests verbal rebellion.
You brought us up: See at 16.13. The only difference is that in 16.13 you is
singular, while here it is plural: the people address God and Moses. (Aaron, we recall,
has already died.). This is of course a rhetorical question that implies that the Lord
and Moses should not have done this; they had treated the people badly! This feeling
and expression of ill-will should be reflected somehow in the translation.
We loathe this worthless food: The Hebrew is a clear expression of disgust
and disdain: “Our very self is disgusted with this worthless food” (similar to Alter).
By complaining about the food that the Lord was graciously providing for them, the
people were in fact complaining about God himself!

21.6-7
RSV
6Then the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many
people of Israel died. 7 And the people came to Moses, and said, “We have sinned, for we
have spoken against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord, that he take away the
serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.

GNT
6Then the Lord sent poisonous snakes among the people, and many Israelites were bitten
and died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the Lord
and against you. Now pray to the Lord to take these snakes away.” So Moses prayed for the
people.

Then: The text (Hebrew “and”) suggests not merely temporal sequence, but
consequence as well: “As a result,” or “So …”
The Lord sent: In some languages, it would not be appropriate to say “the
Lord sent …,” but rather, “the Lord caused … to enter among.”
Fiery serpents: The word for serpent is the common generic term for snake
and does not indicate what kind of snake. The word for fiery is derived from the root
“to burn.” The term is applied to snakes because of the burning effect of the venom as
the bite inflames the skin (so already Rashi). The ancient Greek translation, the
Septuagint, translates “deadly.” NRSV has “poisonous serpents.” In some languages
there will be different words for snakes, depending on whether they are poisonous or
not. The poisonous variety should be chosen here. If no generic terms for a poisonous
snake is available, then some type of common local “viper” may have to be used.
We have sinned, for …: The same confession as Aaron’s in 12.11.
Expressions that are exactly the same in different verses should be reproduced
correspondingly, if possible. The logical relations between clauses—“sinned” (the
result) and “spoken against” (the means)—may need to be expressed differently in
translation, thus GNT’s “we sinned when we spoke against.”
 Pray to the Lord: The appropriate request forms should be used; these words
should not sound like a blunt command to Moses.
Prayed for: That is, Moses prayed to the Lord “on behalf of” the people, or
“for their benefit.”

21.8-9
RSV
8 And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who
is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole;
and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

GNT
8Then the Lord told Moses to make a metal snake and put it on a pole, so that anyone who
was bitten could look at it and be healed. 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it on a
pole. Anyone who had been bitten would look at the bronze snake and be healed.

These verses lie at the basis of John 3.14-15: like this serpent, the Son of Man
is to be lifted up as well as a means of salvation for people about to die.
Fiery serpent: Literally the Hebrew only has “fiery figure” or “seraph figure”
(NJPSV). But it corresponds with the “bronze serpent” in verse 9, and therefore
“serpent” (snake) should be used here to clarify the reference. In some languages to
avoid confusion, it may be necessary to qualify the nature of the “fiery serpent” that
Moses was commanded to “make,” for example, “metal” (GNT), “replica” (NLT), or
even “image/likeness of.”
Set it on a pole: This simple text may allow for a number of different options
in translation, depending on how the solid serpent is “set,” that is, “attached” or
“fastened on to” the pole. Translators must try to visualize this scene and use the most
appropriate terms available in their language. The “pole,” or “standard,” undoubtedly
made of wood, should be a tall object that would be high enough for many people to
see at once.
When he sees it: That is, “when he looks at it”—deliberately, not by chance.
In some languages a specific verb may be needed to express this, for example, “gazed
upon” (Chewa). Those who responded after being bitten, were healed.
Bronze serpent: This is a wordplay since the Hebrew words for “serpent” and
“bronze” sound similar: nechash nechoshet. Some scholars feel that reddish “copper”
(“fiery” in color!), rather than “bronze” is a more accurate translation of the Hebrew
term in this context.[< Wenham 157; Ashley 405] For bronze see 16.39 and the
Exodus Handbook at 25.3.

21.10-20
Section Heading:
ESV has “The Song of the Well,” because of the song in verses 17-18. However, this
is rather misleading because the song is only a digression in the context of Israel’s
journey towards Moab. (Within the travel itinerary of verses 10-13, 16-17a, and 18b-
20 two song fragments are inserted in verses 14-15 and 17-18.)
Most translations have a heading like CEV: “Israel’s Journey to Moab.” But
this heading wrongly suggests that Israel actually arrives in Moab. A much more
accurate and helpful heading is found in a study edition of FRCL: “Israel marches
around Edom and Moab” —that is, the Israelites march around the eastern border of
both these territories on their way to the north, thus avoiding conflict.
21.10-12
RSV
10 And the people of Israel set out, and encamped in Oboth. 11 And they set out from Oboth,
and encamped at Iyeabarim, in the wilderness which is opposite Moab, toward the sunrise. 12
From there they set out, and encamped in the Valley of Zered.

GNT
10 The Israelites moved on and camped at Oboth. 11 After leaving that place, they camped
at the ruins of Abarim in the wilderness east of Moabite territory. 12 Then they camped in the
Valley of Zered.

Set out: See at 9.17-18. Perhaps something like “set out again” will be needed,
since this is a resumption rather than the beginning of Israel’s journey.
Oboth: This site is unknown, but it was probably somewhere between the
Gulf of Aqaba and the Dead Sea.
Iyeabarim or “Iye-abarim” (NRSV): The Hebrew `iye can be translated
“ruins” (GNT) or, more precisely, “heaps of stones,” a reference to heaps of stones in
the desert, which mark the direction of watercourses. “Abarim” (GNT) apparently
referred to a mountain range in this region (27.12; 33.47).
Opposite Moab, toward the sunrise: In other words, “bordering on Moab to
the east” (NJPSV). GNT’s “east of Moab territory” is quite similar. The Israelites are
not yet entering Moab itself; rather, they are going around it along its eastern border.
Valley of Zered: The “wadi Zered” (NRSV, NJPSV) empties out into the
southern part of the Dead Sea and marks the border between Edom and Moab. It is
more accurate to use “wadi” than the rather generic term valley: the Hebrew refers to
a dry (except during the rains) river valley, a wadi.

21.13
RSV
13 From there they set out, and encamped on the other side of the Arnon, which is in the
wilderness that extends from the boundary of the Amorites; for the Arnon is the boundary of
Moab, between Moab and the Amorites.

GNT
13 From there they moved again and camped on the north side of the River Arnon, in the
wilderness which extends into Amorite territory. (The Arnon was the border between the
Moabites and the Amorites.)

The other side of the Arnon: Since the Israelites are journeying from the
south to the north, this is “on the north side of the River Arnon” (GNT). The Israelites
have now circumvented Moab and reached its northern border. (The territory of the
Amorites was north of Moab on the eastern side of the Dead Sea.)
Which is in the wilderness: This phrase starts the description of where the
other side (of the River Arnon) is located.
For the Arnon is the boundary …: The brackets in GNT may be helpful,
since this sentence is clearly meant to provide background information (not a reason
as for seems to suggest). However, in many languages a past tense like “was” (GNT)
will not be necessary—the Hebrew does not locate this sentence in earlier times,
before the text was written. NIV is a more helpful model: “The Arnon is the border of
Moab, between Moab and the Amorites.”
21.14-15
RSV
14 Wherefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the Lord,
“Waheb in Suphah,
and the valleys of the Arnon,
15 and the slope of the valleys that extends to the seat of Ar,
and leans to the border of Moab.”

GNT
14That is why The Book of the Lord’s Battles speaks of “ …the town of Waheb in the area of
Suphah, and the valleys; the River Arnon, 15 and the slope of the valleys that extend to the
town of Ar and towards the border of Moab.”

Wherefore: GNT’s “That is why” is a clearer introduction to the citation that

follows.
Book of the Wars of the Lord: This is one of several lost books (or strictly
speaking, scrolls) mentioned in the Bible. The reference from this text is used to
confirm the accuracy of the geographical information given in the preceding verse.
NRSV is a more helpful model, since it divides the phrases more correctly
than RSV and translates “wadis” instead of valleys:
“Waheb in Suphah and the wadis.
The Arnon and the slopes of the wadis
that extend to the seat of Ar
and lie along the border of Moab.” (NRSV, similarly Levine)
However, the Hebrew hardly shows any poetic features, so translators are advised to
present these lines as prose, as in GNT. The Hebrew construction indicates that these
phrases are actually part of a larger sentence. This is why in GNT and NJPSV the
quotation starts with three dots …, which indicate an omission of some text. It may be
helpful in some languages to include “these places” after “speaks of” (GNT).
Waheb in Suphah: These locations are unknown, and this makes GNT’s
rendering “the town of Waheb in the area of Suphah” quite speculative.
And the slope of the valleys: NRSV’s “and the slopes of the wadis” paints a
clearer picture of the landscape involved. Another helpful and more comprehensible
alternative is NJPSV: “with its tributary wadis” (similarly NBV).
Seat: The Hebrew term is quite generic in meaning: “site” (NIV, TOB),
“dwelling” (NET). If a more specific rendering is needed, “town” (GNT) or even
“village” could be used.
Ar: The precise location is uncertain. According to Deut 2.18, it is at the
Moabite border, which fits the context here.
Leans to the border: In this poetic way, the Hebrew describes how the border
of Moab follows the various wadis that supply the Arnon River. Some languages will
have other ways of describing this border in a poetic fashion. NJPSV has “hugging
the territory of Moab.”

21.16
RSV
16And from there they continued to Beer;n that is the well of which the Lord said to Moses,
“Gather the people together, and I will give them water.”

n 21.16 That is Well

GNT
16From there they went on to a place called Wells, where the Lord said to Moses, “Bring the
people together, and I will give them water.”

From there they continued to Beer: The Hebrew only has “From there to
Beer” (NJPSV, Alter). In the context of a list of halting-places during a journey this
may be a natural formulation in some languages. Other languages may have to specify
“the people [of Israel] travelled …”
Beer, that is the well of which …: The Hebrew be’er refers to a well of
underground water. (There is no justification for the plural “Wells” in GNT in this
verse.) RSV mentions the meaning in a footnote, but an equally good solution is to
put the meaning in the translation, as follows:
“a place called Well, where …”
“Beer (‘Well’). That’s the well where …” (Similar to NBS02)
This is not a direct report about the well. Instead, the narrative implies that this
well and the brief episode that follows are already known to readers and are included
here as a reminder, not as new information. In many languages, the formulation
“That’s the well where the Lord said to Moses: …” will help readers to understand
that the episode is already meant to be known to the reader. Some languages (like
Chewa) have a “distant past” tense, which will help to distinguish the different time
settings being referred to in this verse. If care is not taken, the translation might
suggest that this event of the Lord’s providing water occurred on the present journey.

21.17-18
RSV
17Then Israel sang this song:
“Spring up, O well!—Sing to it!—
18 the well which the princes dug,
which the nobles of the people delved,
with the scepter and with their staves.”
And from the wilderness they went on to Mattanah,

GNT
17At that time the people of Israel sang this song:
“Wells, produce your water;
And we will greet it with a song —
18 The well dug by princes
And by leaders of the people,
Dug with a royal sceptre
And with their sticks.”
They moved from the wilderness to Mattanah,

Then … sang: RSV’s then may wrongly suggest that the singing was the next
event in the travel sequence after verse 16. Rather, the Hebrew ’az indicates that the
theme of the sentence is closely connected to the earlier report of the Lord’s providing
water for the people at Beer and came as a direct response to that miracle. In English,
renderings such as “At that time” (GNT, GECL, similarly NBV) or “There” (NLT), or
“On that occasion” express this more clearly.
The Hebrew of verses 17b-18 contains a number of parallelisms or repetitions,
so translators are advised to present the song as poetry, or some other type of marked
discourse that would be appropriate for the joyous occasion being referred to. Wells
and water have been popular themes in Arabic poetry.
 Spring up, O well: At the beginning, the song addresses the well directly. If
such personified speech is not natural in the language, perhaps a wish form would
work as a better model, for example: “May this well produce its water.”
Sing to it!: The people of Israel are addressed with this brief command. The
Hebrew imperative form is in the plural, instructing the Israelites to sing to the well.
In languages where such a sudden change of addressee (the people, not the well)
would not enhance the poetry, a rendering like “We will greet it with a song” (GNT)
is a helpful model.
Princes: The Hebrew term is sarim, tribal leaders. NJPSV and Levine
translate “chieftains.” See Exo 18.21.
Nobles: Literally, a nadiv is someone who is able and willing to contribute
wealth. “Honourable people,” “great ones,” or “well-known ones” might be
translation alternatives here.
At least in English, nobles and staves (or “staffs,” NJPSV) are more poetic
renderings than “leaders” and “sticks.” With these, the princes and noblemen point at
the place where there should be water. The digging of this crucial well was carried out
under their higher authority and leadership.[< Noth 160]
They went on is lacking in the Hebrew. The text now returns to the list of
resting-places during Israel’s journey (see at 21.16). NBV has: “From the wilderness
it was/went on to Mattanah.” In some languages, however, a full sentence may be
needed, showing that after the song the text now returns to a listing of the stopping-
places on the route. FRCL, for example, translates: “From the desert, the stages that
followed brought them to ...”; “Moving from the wilderness, the people arrived at
Mattanah” (Chewa).
From the wilderness: The ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint, has read
and translated “from the well.” This location was actually mentioned last (in verse
16).

21.19-20
RSV
19 and from Mattanah to Nahaliel, and from Nahaliel to Bamoth, 20 and from Bamoth to the
valley lying in the region of Moab by the top of Pisgah which looks down upon the desert.o

o 21.20 Or Jeshimon

GNT
19 and from there they went on to Nahaliel, and from Nahaliel to Bamoth, 20 and from Bamoth
to the valley in the territory of the Moabites, below the top of Mount Pisgah, looking out over
the desert.

And from Bamoth to … Moab: Since the region of Moab is the final location
mentioned in the listing of Israel’s travel stages, it may need to be marked in some
way, for example, “and finally from Bamoth to … Moab.”
Region of Moab: Literally, “field of Moab,” but this might suggest only a
small plot rather than an entire “territory” as intended.
By the top of Pisgah which looks down: GNT “looking out” may give the
wrong suggestion that this is about the Israelites enjoying the view, rather than giving
geographical information about the journey. To prevent this, NBV may be helpful:
“and then on to the Pisgah. From the top of that mountain one looks out over the
Jeshimon.” Pisgah is a location on the highlands east of the northern tip of the valley
of the Dead Sea—that is, further north from the Arnon River and on the east side of
the Jordan River, across from the city of Jericho.
Desert: The Hebrew has yeshimon. Although most translations have “desert”
or “wasteland” (NJPSV, NLT), “Jeshimon” (REB, SB00, NBV) is recommended as a
model, for it is indeed a specific place name, which refers either to part of the desert
of Judah or to part of the valley of the River Jordan. CEV avoids the unknown name,
but is still quite specific: “the desert north of the Dead Sea.”

21.21-35
Section Heading: Israel wins decisive battles in Transjordan, north of the Arnon
River, that is, east of the Jordan River and north of the border with Moab. Helpful
headings are “Conquest of Transjordan: victories over Sihon and Og” (TOB) and
“Conquest of Transjordan” (NBJ98). GNT’s heading “Victory over King Sihon and
King Og” is accurate enough, but does not highlight that this section is about the
conquest of Transjordan. The text attaches great importance to this conquest and the
encounters with the nations involved, beginning with the Amorites. The Transjordan
will be the eastern area from where the new generation of Israelites will enter the land
of Canaan.
This section would appear to fit historically at an earlier point in the text. Thus
21.21-35 takes us back to a point in time before the travels recorded in verses 16-20,
since the southern border of King Sihon’s territory lies near the Arnon River, rather
than close to Mount Pisgah, which is further north (verse 20).[< Noordtzij 191]
Perhaps in this way the overall narrative account emphasizes the climactic location to
which the Lord has brought Israel after all her travels, battles, and controversies—that
is, on the east side of the Jordan River, across from the city of Jericho (see 21.20
above, as well as 22.1; 26.3; 26.63; 33.50; 35.1; 36.13).
The Song about Heshbon and Moab is discussed below, starting at verse 27.

21.21-22
RSV
21 Then Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, saying, 22 “Let me pass
through your land; we will not turn aside into field or vineyard; we will not drink the water of a
well; we will go by the King's Highway, until we have passed through your territory.”

GNT
21 Then the people of Israel sent messengers to the Amorite king Sihon to say: 22 “Let us
pass through your land. We and our cattle will not leave the road and go into your fields or
vineyards, and we will not drink water from your wells; we will stay on the main roadc until we
are out of your territory.”

c 21.22 main road; or king’s highway

Then: The introduction to this section should not suggest that the following
events took place after the people reached the heights of Pisgah, as reported in verse
20 (since Pisgah is already located in the land of the Amorites). Possible renderings
are “One day …” or “It happened that …” or “During their travels …”
Israel: Rather than “the people of Israel” (GNT), it may be more precise to
say “the leaders of Israel.”
Sent messengers: As in 20.14.
Sihon king of the Amorites and “the Amorite king Sihon” (GNT): In some
languages these constructions could imply that there might be more than one king or
chieftain of the Amorites. But the context does not point in that direction at all, and a
translation should not imply it. Literally, the Hebrew has: “Sihon the king of the
Amorite,” thus referring to all of the Amorites with a singular or collective form.
Helpful translation models are: “King Sihon of the Amorites” (NRSV, CEV), “Sihon
the king of the Amorites” (NBG51, DUCL, WV95). Chapter 21 refers to the Amorites
as a specific ethnic group of people in a land with specific borders, for example in
verse 24. (In contrast to this, Sihon and Og are referred to as “the two kings of the
Amorites” in Deut 4.47, where the term Amorites is a generic designation for the
population of the whole Transjordan region.)
Let me pass through your land: Israel speaks (through the messengers) in
the singular, as a collective entity. The Hebrew verb is in the first person singular.
Hence the translation me. In a number of languages this would imply that Israel is an
individual person, which is why GNT’s “Let us pass” may be helpful. Although the
type of verb is the same as in the similar request in 20.17, the particle “please” is
lacking here in 21.22. Thus, although the request is still polite, it is not quite as
deferential as the one in 20.17. Many languages will have certain forms indicating
different levels of politeness (or honor) that should be used to seek permission as part
of such a diplomatic petition.
We will not turn aside into field or vineyard: As in 20.17, although a verb
“pass through” is used there.
We will not drink the water of a well: As in 20.17.
We will go by the King’s Highway: As in 20.17, although there is a small
grammatical difference in the Hebrew: the preposition be – is lacking in 20.17. This
does not affect the meaning. The rendering King’s Highway and GNT’s footnote
have been discussed at 20.17.
Until we have passed through your territory: As in 20.17.

21.23
RSV
23 But Sihon would not allow Israel to pass through his territory. He gathered all his men
together, and went out against Israel to the wilderness, and came to Jahaz, and fought
against Israel.

GNT
23But Sihon would not permit the people of Israel to pass through his territory. He gathered
his army and went out to Jahaz in the wilderness and attacked the Israelites.

Sihon: In some languages, his title is necessary, “King Sihon.”

Would not allow Israel to pass through: Literally, “did not give Israel
passage.”
All his men: Literally, “all his people.” The collective noun `am often
designates “troops” (Alter), “army” (GNT).
Jahaz: The precise location is unknown, but ancient sources suggest that this
place may have been near the town of Dibon.
Fought against: The same verb as in 21.1.

21.24
RSV
24 And Israel slew him with the edge of the sword, and took possession of his land from the
Arnon to the Jabbok, as far as to the Ammonites; for Jazer was the boundary of the
Ammonites.p
p 21.24 Gk: Heb the boundary of the Ammonites was strong

GNT
24 But the Israelites killed many of the enemy in battle and occupied their land from the River
Arnon north to the Jabbok, that is, to the Ammonites, because the Ammonite border was
strongly defended.d

d 21.24 because … strongly defended; some ancient translations as far as Jazer on the
Ammonite border

Slew: Literally, “struck, smote, attacked.” As was mentioned at 3.13, it is

important not to use a target language verb having a negative connotation, e.g.,
“murdered.”
Him: The Hebrew form is in the singular, referring to King Sihon, but his
army is included by implication. Hence GNT’s “many of the enemy.”
With the edge of the sword: Literally, “by the mouth of the sword.” The non-
figurative sense should be apparent: warfare, “battle” (GNT) or “with their weapons.”
In some languages, this non-figurative sense can be expressed by means of an idiom,
for example, “defeated with a sword” (Chewa).
From the Arnon to the Jabbok, as far as to the Ammonites: GNT’s “from
the River Arnon north to the Jabbok, that is, to the Ammonites” gives the wrong
suggestion that the Arnon is further north than the Jabbok and that the Jabbok marks
the beginning of the region of the Ammonites. (The Hebrew offers no clear basis for
the rendering “that is” in GNT.) The border of the Ammonites is to the east. If the
location of rivers needs to be made more explicit, CEV is a better model: “from the
Arnon River gorge in the south to the Jabbok River gorge in the north.” The most
helpful and clear model can be found in FRCL: “between the Arnon [River/gorge] in
the south, the Jabbok [River/gorge] in the north and the fortified frontier of the
Ammonites in the east.” (PV is quite similar.) FRCL’s “fortified” is the translation of
the end of the verse (see the next point).
For Jazer was the boundary of the Ammonites: As specified in the
footnote, RSV follows the ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint, at this point.
(The Greek translator may have interpreted the Hebrew as ya`zer and translated it as a
place name, Jazer; see verse 32.) NRSV has revised this and has followed the
Hebrew text (`az), as indicated also in the RSV footnote: “for the boundary of the
Ammonites was strong.” Like NRSV, GNT and many other translations base
themselves on the Hebrew text (“was strongly defended”), although GNT mentions
the other reading. FRCL (“fortified”) follows the Hebrew as well.

21.25
RSV
And Israel took all these cities, and Israel settled in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon,
and in all its villages.

GNT
25 So the people of Israel captured all the Amorite cities, including Heshbon and all the
surrounding towns, and settled in them.

And Israel took: GNT’s “So” better indicates that this verse provides a
conclusion or outcome of the preceding battle. The more specific verb “captured”
(GNT) may be clearer in this context than took of RSV.
 Settled in: The Hebrew verb includes the notion that the Israelites stayed there
themselves. This is actually the first time in Numbers that the text mentions that some
of the people of Israel settle somewhere near the land of Canaan, after capturing
towns and land (the first step of the conquest). A translation like “occupied” (NIV)
does not bring this out and is therefore not recommended. A more accurate model is
NFB: “went to live there.”
In Heshbon, and in all its villages: Literally, “in Heshbon and in all its
daughters.” In Hebrew idiom, the city figures as a mother and nearby settlements as
daughters. Given the context (verses 21, 26) these towns are part of the area of the
Amorites. GNT makes this clear: “all the Amorite cities, including Heshbon and all
the surrounding towns.”

21.26
RSV
26 For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the
former king of Moab and taken all his land out of his hand, as far as the Arnon.

GNT
26 Heshbon was the capital city of the Amorite king Sihon, who had fought against the former
king of Moab and had captured all his land as far as the River Arnon.

Heshbon: Verse 26 identifies this city as the victim of an earlier battle when
king Sihon had displaced the king of Moab and made Heshbon his headquarters or
“capital city” (GNT).[< Knierim and Coats 243]
Had fought against: The root of the verb is the same as in 21.1. But here the
verb type and the context indicate that the narrator flashes back in time, referring to an
event that took place well before Israel’s conquest described in this verse. In
languages without a verb type like had fought, it may be advisable to add a phrase
like “formerly,” “in former times.”
The former king: Unlike most translations, Alter has “the first king.”
However, ri’shon can simply indicate priority (former, “earlier”).
As far as the Arnon: It may be helpful to specify the location more precisely,
for example, “as far south as the River Arnon.”

21.27
RSV
27 Therefore the ballad singers say,
“Come to Heshbon, let it be built,
let the city of Sihon be established.

GNT
27 That is why the poets sing,
“Come to Heshbon, to King Sihon's city!
We want to see it rebuilt and restored.

Therefore: It is important to make clear how the song of verses 27-30 relates
to verse 26. It does not apply to what Israel has just done in the present by defeating
King Sihon. Rather, it applies to what Sihon had done in the past by defeating the
Moabites. The NLT makes the connection clear by translating verse 27a, “For this
reason the ancient poets wrote this about him: …”
The ballad singers: The Hebrew root m-sh-l is quite generic: “formulate a
poetic expression or a proverb,” “compare,” “be like.” Ballad is perhaps too specific.
Adequate, more generic, renderings are “the poets” (GNT, NBV) and perhaps “the
bards” (NJPSV). (The Hebrew does not say “their poets”.) The Hebrew uses the same
root m-sh-l for Balaam’s prophecies—or, as Levine puts it,[< Levine 102] poetically
“balanced verses”—in the chapters that follow.
Say: NJPSV highlights that the poets do this repeatedly: “Therefore the bards
would recite” (or perhaps “sing”).
The poem may be Amorite in origin, at least in part: it was a victory song that
celebrated the greatness of the Amorite city Heshbon and king Sihon’s conquest of
Moab. In the present context, the purpose of this quotation is to “corroborate what has
been reported in v. 26” [< Ashley 423] and to celebrate “the magnitude of Israel’s
victory over Sihon. The man who defeated Moab is [himself] destroyed in one blow
by Israel.”[< Noordtzij 193]
Why would a victory song celebrating one foreign nation’s defeat of another
have been preserved in the text? Israel’s anti-Moabite tradition may have led to the
inclusion of the song here. Jer 48.45-46 contains a slightly different form of the same
song as the one here in 21.27-30.[< Olson 139] Another suggestion is that the song is
placed here “to justify Israel’s right to hold the land … lying between the Arnon and
the Jabbok” (see Jdg 11.12-28).[< Wenham 161]
… let it be built … (GNT “… rebuilt”): According to some commentators,
the Israelites are mocking their defeated Amorite enemy here. Other commentators
suggest that it is important to maintain the original context of this song at the time of
Sihon’s victory over the Moabites. Its application to Israel then is by implication: they
have just conquered the well-known King Sihon, who had defeated the Moabites!
Given the song’s present form and context, it is probably Israelite poets who
are meant to be speaking. The poem begins and ends (verses 27-30) with the situation
of the present: Israel has defeated Sihon. Verses 28-29 refer to the past, in which
Sihon destroyed Moab.[< NBV translators’ notes] The poem thus celebrates Israel’s
victory over the former Amorite conqueror of Moab. The poets of the song in its
present context are Israelite.
The phrases, parallelisms, word-pairings, and verbs doing double duty are
quite standard in this poem.

21.28
RSV
28 For fire went forth from Heshbon,
flame from the city of Sihon.
It devoured Ar of Moab,
the lords of the heights of the Arnon.

GNT
28 Once from this city of Heshbon
Sihon's army went forth like a fire;
It destroyed the city of Ar in Moab
And devourede the hills of the upper Arnon.

e 21.28 One ancient translation devoured; Hebrew the lords of

For fire went forth: “For” initiates a poetic expression of the reason for what
has been said in verse 27. GNT clarifies the time frame (“Once”) and the personified
metaphor (“Sihon’s army went forth like a fire”). The parallel descriptive terms in
Hebrew might be rendered as “like a flaming [or blazing] fire.”
 Devoured: Literally, “ate.” Avoiding this figure of speech, GNT translates “It
(referring to Sihon’s army) destroyed.”
The lords of: Translating ba`aley in the Hebrew text (RSV, KJV, NJPSV,
TOB, WV95, FRCL, NBS02, NET). See also NIV: “the citizens of …” An alternative
is found in a number of translations which follow the Septuagint at this point. The
ancient Greek translator read bal`ah here, interpreting it as a verb form of the root b-l-
`: “devour,” “swallow up”. GNT (“devoured …”) and, for example, NRSV (“and
swallowed up”), LUT84, REB, CEV, NBJ98, and ESV are based on the Septuagint
reading. As the footnote of NET says, the Greek-based translation makes for a better
parallelism between the two lines, but the Hebrew text makes good sense as it stands.
The heights of the Arnon: Like RSV, NRSV, KJV, LUT84, NIV, TOB,
WV95, FRCL, and NBS02 take this phrase to be a reference to man-made (pagan)
stone cultic platforms or “high places.” (The same applies to PV, which translates
“false gods” instead of heights.) A few translations treat it as a feature of the natural
landscape: “the hills of the upper Arnon” (GNT, similarly DUCL, CEV), or possibly
“high ground” or “strategic places.”[< Ashley 425]

21.29
RSV
29Woe to you, O Moab!
You are undone, O people of Chemosh!
He has made his sons fugitives,
and his daughters captives,
to an Amorite king, Sihon.

GNT
How terrible for you, people of Moab!
29
You worshippers of Chemosh are brought to ruin!
Your god let the men become refugees,
And the women became captives of the Amorite king.

Woe to you: This is the first occurrence of this formulaic warning or taunt in
the Hebrew Bible. Some ways to express this are “How terrible for you” (GNT),
“Your destruction is certain” (NLT), “May misfortune befall you” (Chewa).
You are undone: Literally, “you are lost,” “you will perish.” This expression
is in parallel with “Woe to you” in the preceding line.
O people of Chemosh: This was the national god of Moab, hence GNT’s
“You worshippers of Chemosh” (see Jer 48.46). The qualifier “god” may be needed to
clarify this reference in translation.
He has made … captives: He refers to the god of Moab, who is unable to
defend his people and has therefore been compelled to make his sons and daughters
fugitives and captives.[< Alter] This reference may need to be clarified as in GNT.
The mocking tone of these words should also be expressed in the translation if
possible. The repetition of Sihon’s name in this praise poem is probably significant,
and should be retained if this can be done in a poetic manner in the target language.

21.30
RSV
30So their posterity perished from Heshbon,q as far as Dibon,
and we laid waste until fire spread to Medeba.”r

q 21.30 Gk: Heb we have shot at them. Heshbon has perished

r 21.30 Compare Sam and Gk: Heb we have laid waste to Nophah which to Medeba

GNT
30But now their descendants are destroyed,
All the way from Heshbon to Dibon,
From Nashim to Nophah, near Medeba.”f
f 21.30 Verse 30 in Hebrew is unclear.

So: There does not seem to be sufficient reason for inserting a contrastive
“But” (GNT) as a rendering of the Hebrew “and” at this point in the poem. Rather, a
concluding and/or climactic expression “So now” would seem to fit better.
Their posterity perished: As RSV’s footnote indicates, the renderings their
posterity (so also Levine)[< Levine 108] and “their descendants” (GNT) follow the
ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint. (The Greek translator may have interpreted
the Hebrew as weninam “and their shoot,” “and their offspring”.) The Hebrew text
actually reads wanniram.
Following Rashi, Alter reads this as a noun (weniram), which could be taken
to mean “and their yoke.” To put cattle (or people) under a yoke is to master them.
Hence Alter’s translation (taken from Rashi): “their mastery is lost …”
However, the more widely accepted interpretation of the Hebrew form in the
text, wanniram, is to treat the form as a first person plural verb of the root y-r-h: “and
we shot at them” (so already Rashbam), or “and we have cast them down” (NJPSV,
similarly Noth: “But we have gained the upper hand”). NFB offers a helpful, if rather
prosaic model here: “But when we shot our arrows at them, everything perished, from
Heshbon as far as Dibon …”
The “we” who are speaking here are most likely the Israelites who have
destroyed Heshbon and who, perhaps mockingly, express the wish for that city to be
rebuilt (verse 27).[< Noth 165; cf. also NBV translators’ notes] (If these were the
words of the original Amorite singers, who had praised Sihon’s great victory, it would
have been easy for the Israelites to apply these same words to themselves.)
And we laid waste: Like, for example, “we have wrought desolation”
(NJPSV), “we have demolished them” (NIV), this is an adequate rendering of the
Hebrew verb wannashim. This verb stands in close parallel to the line that precedes.
There is thus no need to leave this form untranslated and treat it as an (unknown)
location, as GNT does (“Nashim”).
Until fire spread: As RSV’s footnote mentions, the Septuagint and the
Samaritan Pentateuch did not read ’asher (“which”) but ’esh (“fire”). RSV’s
rendering is recommended—the fire here in verse 30 and the fire in verse 28 form an
inclusio, while the Hebrew reduces the phrase to a piece of geographical information.
Medeba: A town on the main north-south highway, south of Heshbon and east
of the Dead Sea. Despite the difficulty of this verse, its general sense and purpose
seems clear, for it speaks of the complete destruction of Moab and now also of the
Amorites throughout the territory that they had occupied, since Heshbon lies east of
the northern end of the Dead Sea, while Dibon lies just north of the Arnon River to
the south.[< Noordtzij 194] Therefore, the use of a footnote like that of the GNT
(“Verse 30 in Hebrew is unclear”) is not recommended.

21.31-32
RSV
31 Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites. 32 And Moses sent to spy out Jazer; and
they took its villages, and dispossessed the Amorites that were there.
GNT
31 So the people of Israel settled in the territory of the Amorites, 32 and Moses sent men to
find the best way to attack the city of Jazer. The Israelites captured it and its surrounding
towns and drove out the Amorites living there.

Thus Israel: Verses 31-32 are perhaps best interpreted as concluding

comments that draw this account of the military campaign against the Amorites to a
close. An appropriate final transitional expression may therefore be needed, for
example, “In this way the people of Israel…”
Dwelt in: NRSV, NIV, and GNT have “settled in ...” The verb is the same as
in 21.25. In chapter 32, we read that the tribes of Reuben and Gad want to settle in
this captured Transjordan area rather than enter the land of Canaan.
And Moses: Perhaps better would be “Moses also…” since the expedition
against the city of Jazer concludes the Amorite account.
They took its villages: According to the Hebrew text. GNT follows the
Septuagint: “The Israelites captured it and its surrounding towns,” that is, the chief
city (or town) of Jazer as well as its surrounding towns (or villages).

21.33
RSV
33 Then they turned and went up by the way to Bashan; and Og the king of Bashan came out
against them, he and all his people, to battle at Edre-i.

GNT
33 Then the Israelites turned and took the road to Bashan, and King Og of Bashan marched
out with his army to attack them at Edrei.

Then: Verse 33 now begins a new paragraph, which summarizes the conquest
of Og, King of Bashan. This paragraph (verses 33-35) is virtually the same as the text
of Deut 3.1-3. The Transjordanian territories from the Dead Sea to Kinneret are now
in Israel’s hands.
Bashan: A fruitful plain, east of Lake Kinneret (that is, more to the north).
Levine translates “the Bashan,” since in Hebrew this name is always accompanied by
a definite article or otherwise made definite. It is the geographical name of a well-
known place—it does not refer to an ethnic group.
Came out against: GNT translates more specifically, with a more military
term: “marched out.”
All his people: See at 21.23 (under “all his men”).

21.34-35
RSV
34But the Lord said to Moses, “Do not fear him; for I have given him into your hand, and all
his people, and his land; and you shall do to him as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites,
who dwelt at Heshbon.” 35 So they slew him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was
not one survivor left to him; and they possessed his land.

GNT
34The Lord said to Moses, “Do not be afraid of him. I will give you victory over him, all his
people, and his land. Do to him what you did to Sihon, the Amorite king who ruled at
Heshbon.” 35 So the Israelites killed Og, his sons, and all his people, leaving no survivors, and
then they occupied his land.
 But: This conjunction (Hebrew “And”) suggests that the arrival of Og’s army
might arouse fear in the hearts of Israel, as indeed expressed in the Lord’s words.
Whatever sounds most natural in the target language in this particular setting may be
used. Perhaps simply “Then” is sufficient.
I have given them into your hand: Although GNT renders the sense of this
expression (“I will give you victory over him”), some languages will have a natural
idiom which, like the Hebrew, refers to a bodily part, for example, “I have delivered
them into your hands.”
And you shall do to him: If “do” needs to be made more specific, perhaps
something like “defeat” or “conquer” will work—or even “destroy” in view of verse
35.
And they possessed his land: The verb here (y-r-sh) differs from that used in
verse 31; it refers more formally to “taking rightful possession” of a piece of land or
some other property. The same verb occurs in, for example, Gen 28.4 and Lev 20.24,
in which the Lord promises to give the land to the people of Israel.

PART III: 22.1–36.13: ENCAMPED IN THE PLAINS OF MOAB

The book of Numbers concludes with a period of non-movement, as the people are
encamped on “the plains of Moab, along the Jordan River, across from Jericho”
(Israel’s location now throughout the rest of Numbers and Deuteronomy). The
journey through the desert has come to an end, and a new generation of Israelites will
now be given another chance to remain faithful and thus enter the Promised Land.
Chapter 22 marks the beginning of their new orientation to life.[< Ashley 1993:8]
As mentioned in the Introduction, this part of the book can be divided into
three:
III-A. Balaam is forced to bless Israel; Israel is unfaithful (22.1–25.18)
III-B. Events near the land of Canaan (25.19–33.49)
III-C. Division of the land of Canaan (33.50–36.13)

Part III-A: 22.1–25.18: Balaam is forced to bless Israel; Israel is unfaithful

The theme of Part III-A is that Israel are the people blessed by God—even a foreign,
pagan seer can only say what God allows him to say.
The Book of Micah briefly refers to the story of the prophet Balaam, as an
illustration of how God saved his people (6.5). In the Balaam Narrative the Israelites
are viewed from the perspective of the Moabites, who regard them as a powerful
threat.[< Levine 137] It is of crucial significance in the Book of Numbers that
Balaam, as a non-Israelite who was in high esteem, acknowledges the Lord (22.8, 19).
While 31.16 blames Balaam for persuading the women of Midian to tempt the
Israelites into worshipping another god (hence the inclusion of chapter 25 in this
section), chapters 22–24 present a more ambivalent picture of him. The text seems to
contain some evaluative observations about Balaam, which will be discussed below.
On the basis of 31.16, Balaam is portrayed negatively in 2 Peter 2.15-16,
where he is also referred to as a prophet, and Rev 2.14. Both Deut 23.6 and Josh 24.10
state that the Lord refused to listen to Balaam, and this implies that Balaam attempted
to curse the Israelites, or at least it was his desire to do so. The question is, of course,
whether this is also clear from Numbers 22–24. He appears as a reluctant prophet,
who, like Jonah, was more or less compelled against his will to proclaim the words of
the Lord.
In 1967 archaeologists found an Aramaic inscription on a temple wall in Deir
‘Alla, about fifteen kilometers east of the Jordan, in a delta of the Jabbok and the
Jordan. It dates back to probably the ninth or eighth century B.C. and refers to
“Balaam the son of Beor” (as in Num 22.5), as “a man who was a seer of the gods,”
[< Cole 368] who receives a message from them in the night.
The number three plays an important part in the composition of the Balaam
Narrative.[< Wenham 166] Part III-A consists of the following sections:

1. The king of Moab sends for Balaam; Balaam encounters God twice (22.1-21)
2. Balaam and his donkey travel to Moab; a third encounter with God (22.22-40)—
God becoming the third, genuine “messenger” to Balaam, after the two groups from
Balak in section 1.
3. Balaam’s first prophecy (22.41–23.12)
4. Balaam’s second prophecy (23.13-26)
5. Balaam’s third prophecy (23.27–24.14)
6. Balaam’s final prophecies[=TOB] (24.15-25)
7. Israel’s unfaithfulness at Peor; Phinehas’ faithfulness (25.1-18)

Each of Balaam’s first three prophecies is preceded by sacrifices. There is a

satiric parallel between the three times that King Balak and Balaam set up altars and
offer these sacrifices and the three times (in 22.22-40) that Balaam and his ass are
stopped by the Lord’s messenger. Balaam was frustrated in 22.22-40; Balak will
become more and more frustrated after each prophecy in chapters 23 and 24. [< Alter]
Similarly to the formulas of blessing in 6.24-26, Balaam’s oracles are not just
uttered in prose; they are arranged metrically, suitable for oral recitation. The actual
oracles (in 23.7b-10, 18-24; 24.3-9, 15-24) should therefore, if at all possible, be
translated in some distinctive manner, that is, in a vernacular style (or genre) that
highlights their prophetic function—indeed, as speeches from the Lord.
Coming to the end of the old generation of Israelites, the Balaam prophecies
are a great sign of hope for the new generation, which is about to enter the land of
Canaan. Chapter 25 marks the old generation’s final rebellion.

22.1-21
Section Heading: For this section, which introduces the main characters in the
narrative, a heading such as “The king of Moab sends for Balaam” (GNT, similarly
NFB and SB00) or “Balak summons Balaam to curse Israel” (NRSV) is appropriate.
Although NET’s heading “Balaam Refuses to Curse Israel” is accurate, it also gives
away something which the text mentions only in 22.13, and this reduces the narrative
suspense (What will Balaam do?) that is built up in the text itself. By contrast,
WV95’s more general heading “Balaam the Seer” actually increases the suspense
concerning who this person is and what his role is in relation to Israel.
In many translations, the section starts at the beginning of 22.1, for example:
LUT84, NIV, REB, NET, TOB, WV95, ZÜR, DHE, FRCL, PV, GECL, DUCL,
SB00, NLT. Balak is introduced into the narrative in verse 2. Yet he is not introduced
in the Hebrew in a way that draws any special attention to him. A number of
translations (Buber, NBG51, NBJ98, CEV, NBV) actually place the section heading
between verse 1 and 2. It is indeed at this point in the text that the Codex
Leningradensis—the manuscript on which the standard edition of the Hebrew Old
Testament is based—shows a break by leaving space between the margin and the start
of the line (indentation). In the wording of the Hebrew text itself, however, there is no
discourse transition marker at the beginning of verse 2 that would divide the text at
that point. Rather, the phrase at the beginning of verse 1, “The Israelites set out and
…” marks the beginning of a new stage in the Israelites’ journey. It is a typical and
characteristic starting-point of a new paragraph in Numbers. Furthermore, the
reference of Israel being encamped on the plains of Moab on the east side of the
Jordan River across from Jericho is a locative marker that occurs at or near the
beginning of many of the sections in this final portion of Numbers (for example, 26.3;
33.50; 35.1). The proximate presence of the numerous Israelites is what motivates
King Balak into action in this section of the narrative. On balance, then, translators
are advised to start the new section at the beginning of verse 1. Verse 2 then carries on
in Hebrew with the typical verbal construction that indicates the continuation of a
narrative account: “And Balak saw …”

22.1
RSV
1 Then the people of Israel set out, and encamped in the plains of Moab beyond the Jordan
at Jericho.

GNT
1 The Israelites moved on and set up camp in the plains of Moab east of the Jordan and
opposite Jericho.

The people of Israel set out, and encamped: As mentioned above, this is a
typical and characteristic starting-point of a new narrative paragraph in Numbers. The
verb set out has been discussed at 9.17-18.
Plains: It would be more accurate to translate “steppes” (NJPSV) or
“unforested grasslands, prairie.” The journey through the desert is now at an end; this
marks the end of the “journey motif” in the book of Numbers. The rest of the book of
Numbers will be situated here in the steppes of Moab.
Beyond the Jordan at Jericho: The Old Testament expression beyond the
Jordan should be understood from the perspective of the land of Canaan (west of the
River Jordan), and so actually refers to the land which is east of the Jordan. It is
important that this is clear to the reader, so GNT’s “east of the Jordan” is
recommended. Coming directly after this expression, the phrase at Jericho may
wrongly suggest that this city was located east of the Jordan. Jericho was actually
located west of the Jordan. Renderings like “across the Jordan from Jericho” (NRSV),
“east of the Jordan and opposite Jericho” (GNT, DUCL), and “on the eastern bank of
the Jordan, facing Jericho” (FRCL) take this setting into account.

22.2-3
RSV
2 And Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites. 3 And Moab was in
great dread of the people, because they were many; Moab was overcome with fear of the
people of Israel.

GNT
2 When the king of Moab, Balak son of Zippor, heard what the Israelites had done to the
Amorites and how many Israelites there were, 3 he and all his people became terrified.
 Balak: The Hebrew does not specify at this point that Balak was the king, or
tribal chieftain, of Moab. But in many languages it will be helpful or even necessary
to add this information here: “the king of Moab, Balak …” (GNT), although it might
reduce the suspense built up in the narrarive (the Hebrew text mentions this only at
the end of verse 4: “Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time.”). The
name Balak is perhaps a royal praise name—it can be taken to mean “devastator”; the
Hebrew root balaq means “to lay waste,” “to crush.” Nothing is known about Zippor,
who may have been the actual father of Balak, or a more famous ancestor.
Saw all that Israel had done: In Hebrew, the verb “to see” expresses that a
person has come to know something of significance, whether he found out by actually
seeing it or not. In English this is often expressed with the verb “to hear,” hence the
rendering “heard” (GNT, also CEV). In some languages it may be more natural to
translate “learnt,” “discovered” (FRCL, similarly PV).
Moab: Given the context, this should be taken as a reference to the people of
Moab, not the land. In some languages, Moab would give the impression that this is a
different subject, having nothing to do with Balak. GNT combines them together as
one subject: “The king of Moab, Balak, … he and all his people ...” This makes GNT
a helpful model.
Was overcome with fear: This expression reiterates and hence reinforces and
intensifies the phrase “was in great dread of” earlier in this verse. Like the Egyptians
in Exo 1.12. Many languages will have an idiom to express this extreme emotion, for
example, “they fell down with fear” (Chewa).

22.4-5
RSV
4 And Moab said to the elders of Midian, “This horde will now lick up all that is round about us,
as the ox licks up the grass of the field.” So Balak the son of Zippor, who was king of Moab at
that time, 5 sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor at Pethor, which is near the River, in
the land of Amaw to call him, saying, “Behold, a people has come out of Egypt; they cover the
face of the earth, and they are dwelling opposite me.

GNT
4 The Moabites said to the leaders of the Midianites, “This horde will soon destroy everything
round us, like a bull eating the grass in a pasture.” So King Balak 5 sent messengers to
summon Balaam son of Beor, who was at Pethor near the River Euphrates in the land of
Amaw. They brought him this message from Balak: “I want you to know that a whole nation
has come from Egypt; its people are spreading out everywhere and threatening to take over
our land.

Moab: As in verse 3, this should be understood as a reference to the people of

Moab (or more precisely, their leaders or elders), not the land, hence GNT’s “the
Moabites.”
The elders of Midian: See the discussion of elders at 11.16, where the
Hebrew employs the same term for “the elders of Israel.” Perhaps there was an
attempt to forge a coalition between Moab and (part of) Midian to jointly oppose
Israel. (The land of Midian has already been referred to in 10.29; see also 25.6.)
This horde: Both this rendering and “that huge mob” (CEV) have quite a
negative association, for which there is no support in the text. In fact, such renderings
may give the wrong suggestion that the Moabites look down on the Israelites. In fact,
they feel threatened by the sheer size and reputation of the people of Israel. A
translation like “crowd” or “multitude” (FRCL) is more neutral. This is probably a
better model, since the Hebrew term qahal is used elsewhere in Numbers to refer to
the “assembly” or “gathering” of the Israelites (see at 10.7). It should be clear in the
translation that this expression has reference to the “people of Israel,” who were
mentioned in verse 2.
Will lick up all … as the ox licks up …: The Hebrew employs two forms of
the same verb in both parts of this comparison, the first time with a metaphorical
meaning, the second time with a concrete meaning. GNT has “destroy” in the first
phrase, thus making the meaning more explicit, while it retains the illustration in the
phrase that follows: “like a bull eating …” In many languages a literal rendering like
“lick up grass” will sound strange or even meaningless. The Moabites are implying
that the Israelites will destroy everything and that nothing will be left. Therefore, it
may be helpful to use “devour” (NLT, for both verbs), “eat up” (REB, for both verbs)
or “eating bare” instead. Some languages have a specific verb to refer to oxen (cows)
eating grass, but this may not sound natural in the first part of the comparison, with
“people” as the subject. A more generic term, “cattle,” may also sound more
appropriate, rather than the specific singular “bull” since a great crowd of people are
being referred to with this imagery.
… who was king of Moab at that time, sent …: As mentioned before, this is
the first time that the Hebrew makes the connection between King Balak and his
country Moab explicit. In the Hebrew, the verb sent is actually the start of a new
sentence: “Now Balak son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time. He sent …”
(NRSV). NRSV is not only more accurate; it also highlights that this statement about
Balak is a sentence on its own, a short clarification after the opening verses of this
chapter. In many languages the natural alternative will be to include this information
already in verse 2, as GNT has done (see the discussion there).
Balaam the son of Beor at Pethor: The form Balaam goes back to the
ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint, and to the Samaritan Version. The Hebrew
form is Bil`am. The exact location of Pethor is uncertain, but the name corresponds
with Pitru, an Assyrian city at the River Euphrates, in the most northerly part of
present-day Syria, over 400 miles away from Moab. Of course Pethor is not the place
from where the messengers are sent. But it is not connected with Balaam’s father
Beor either. Rather, it is the place or area where Balaam lives. GNT makes this clear:
“who [that is, Balaam] was [living] at Pethor.” A similar rendering may be needed in
other languages to avoid misunderstanding.
The River: The Old Testament frequently refers to the well-known River
Euphrates in Mesopotamia as the River. It will often be helpful to include the name
of this river in the translation: “the River Euphrates” (GNT) or just “the Euphrates”
(FRCL, GECL, DUCL).
In the land of Amaw: This rendering, or “the land of the Amawites” (NFB,
REB) is based on the Hebrew form `amaw, treating this form as the name of a land or
its people. The Vulgate and the Peshitta (the ancient Latin and Syriac translations)
read `ammon “Ammon” here (probably trying to make sense of a difficult text), but
the Amawites are actually known from cuneiform texts. An alternative, however, is to
treat `amaw (the form in the Hebrew text) as a common noun that needs to be
translated. NRSV mentions a possible rendering in a footnote: “land of his kinsfolk.”
NJPSV translates the same: “in the land of his kinsfolk.” The Hebrew text as it stands
does indeed mean “the land of his people.” If this alternative is followed, TOB and
NBV are good models: “at Pethor … his land of origin” (TOB); “in Pethor … in his
native area” (NBV). It is not entirely clear, however, what the function of this piece of
information would be in the text. The context (Pethor) does seem to call for a
geographical specification of where the messengers had to go.
 To call him: NRSV has revised this as follows: “to summon him.” See also
NJPSV: “to invite him.” In some languages it will be more natural to put this phrase
earlier in the sentence, as GNT has done (“to summon”). No notion of compelling
should be implied in whichever verb is chosen; this was really a “plea” for assistance
on Balak’s part.
Saying: Although the message comes from Balak, it is his messengers who
will convey it to Balaam. It will often be helpful to translate, for example: “They [that
is, the messengers] had to say” (NFB); “They had to summon him with these words”
(NBV). GNT’s “They brought him this message from Balak” may wrongly suggest
that the messengers have already arrived at Pethor to meet Balaam, whereas the text
mentions this only in verses 7-8.
Behold, a people has come out of Egypt: The initial hineh indicates the
urgency of Balak’s appeal. Instead of the literal “Behold!” (RSV), GNT brings out the
emphasis by the opening expression “I want you to know…” In some languages,
“[Please] listen!” or the equivalent would be appropriate to begin this formal message.
Balak has been closely following Israel’s progress from Egypt; their exodus and
travels towards Canaan was a matter of serious concern to all people of the region.
They cover the face of the earth: The message deliberately overstates the
size of the people of Israel, in order to make the request to Balaam more urgent.
NJPSV has “it hides the earth from view.” Chewa has: “they have filled up the land.”
(The same exaggerative phrase is used in Exodus 10, in connection with the plague of
locusts. Instead of face, the Hebrew idiom has “eye”; see the Exodus Handbook at
10.15.)
They are dwelling opposite me: NRSV has “They have settled next to me.”
The point is that they have settled very close to Moab, so that Balak feels that his
kingdom or territory are threatened. REB expresses this well: “they … are settling at
my very door.” Compare also idioms like “we are looking upon each other” (Chewa)
and “on my doorstep.” The first person singular form shows again that this is Balak’s
message. GNT has “threatening to take over our land,” making explicit that Balak
feels threatened. While it is Balak’s message, GNT’s plural “our” makes Balak speak
on behalf of his people, and this may be a natural model to follow in some languages.

22.6
RSV
6Come now, curse this people for me, since they are too mighty for me; perhaps I shall be
able to defeat them and drive them from the land; for I know that he whom you bless is
blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed.”

GNT
6They outnumber us, so please come and put a curse on them for me. Then perhaps we will
be able to defeat them and drive them out of the land. I know that when you pronounce a
blessing, people are blessed, and when you pronounce a curse, they are placed under a
curse.”

Come now: Background information about the situation has been given in the
first part of the message, in verse 5. Now the message moves on to the actual request.
In Hebrew, we`atah (“and now”) normally points to such a development in the text.
Some languages would not use a temporal word like “now” for this purpose. NJPSV,
for example, has “Come then.” NET translates “So now, please come.” The Hebrew
na’ expresses the urgency of the request, something which RSV has left untranslated.
“Please come” (also in GNT), “Do come” (DUCL), or “You must come” are helpful
models. In languages that have the option of honorific forms when speaking to an
individual, this would probably be a message in which such a form should be used.
Some languages would use a plural form of “you” here for politeness, even though
only one person is being addressed. Again, it is important not to give the impression
that Balak is issuing commands here to Balaam; rather, he is urgently entreating him.
Curse this people: For cultures in which several types of “curse” are
available, depending on the situation, translators will have to select the term that best
fits the wider context of this passage—who is being asked to curse whom, for what
reason, and to accomplish what effect.
Since they are too mighty for me: This phrase is actually still part of the
background information. Perhaps for this reason, NBV and GNT have put it at the
beginning of the verse (directly after verse 5): “They outnumber us.” Again, GNT’s
plural forms “us … we” in this verse are based on the Septuagint—the ancient Greek
translation—and may be a natural model to follow in some languages.
Perhaps I shall be able: A new sentence should begin here, as in GNT. The
modal particle “perhaps” might be conveyed by a corresponding word in the
translation or by means of some modification of the verb form. This clear indication
of doubt on Balak’s part contrasts with the confidence that he expresses in Balaam’s
powers in the next sentence.
To defeat them and drive them from the land: Literally “to defeat him/it
and drive him/it [that is, the people of Israel] from the land.” The land does not refer
to the promised land of Canaan, but to the “region” (FRCL) in which Balak is living
and ruling. Compare Chewa: “my country/territory.”
He whom you bless is blessed and he whom you curse is cursed: NRSV has
slightly revised this: “Whomever you bless is blessed and whomever you curse is
cursed.” Balak believes that due to Balaam’s authority and direct access to his god(s),
his blessings and curses are effective and irrevocable by virtue of the power of his
god(s). The Hebrew repeats a form of the same verb in both these phrases. In many
languages it will be expressive and forceful to do the same. GNT actually does this
already, even though the phrases are a bit longer: “… blessing … blessed … curse …
curse.” DHE94 reduces the two phrases to one sentence: “your blessings and your
curses always come true.” CEV tries to capture the meaning: “… anyone you bless
will be successful, but anyone you curse will fail.” GECL goes even further: “He
whom you bless – everything he does is a success, and he whom you curse rushes
towards his ruin.” It is to be doubted, though, whether blessing should be seen simply
in terms of success. Rather, the statement is a reminder of the promise to Abram in
Gen 12.3. In some cultures, only God can directly “bless” human beings; in this case
the translation may have to be adjusted for naturalness, for example, “The
person/people whom you ask/pray to be blessed …”

22.7
RSV
7 So the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the fees for divination in
their hand; and they came to Balaam, and gave him Balak's message.

GNT
7 So the Moabite and Midianite leaders took with them the payment for the curse, went to
Balaam, and gave him Balak's message.

Verse 7 may seem repetitive after verses 4-5 (“Balak … sent messengers …”).
However, this is typical Hebrew narrative style. The text now specifies that the
messengers were the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian (see at 22.4). The
addition of Midianites is perhaps puzzling,[< Alter] but this may suggest that the two
peoples have indeed forged an alliance against Israel, whom they view as a common
threat.
Fees for divination: The root of the Hebrew term qesamim (a plural form)
means ‘to seek divination,’ ‘to tell the future.’ In this instance, qesamim is
traditionally understood as a metonym referring to “the fee for divination” (NIV), or
perhaps simply the down-payment necessary to initiate this activity. In some
languages it will be more natural to translate “the salary for the diviner” (NBJ98 or
“gifts for the diviner” (NBS02). The GNT specifies what kind of divination Balak is
looking for: “payment for the curse.” Such a specific rendering seems unnecessary,
except in languages where it would be difficult to find a generic term for ‘divination’
or ‘diviner’, or in cultures where ‘diviners’ do not ‘curse’ but deal only in ‘revealing
secret things’, including the future.
Instead of fees for divination in their hand, Rashi and Rashbam already
proposed that qesamim refers to divination tools [not to fees], that is, representative
models of omens, like ceramic sheep livers found by archaeologists. Balak would then
have been dissatisfied with the readings of his own diviners and would have sent the
model of the divination ‘results’ to Balaam for a second opinion, more favorable to
what he wanted to hear.[< Sherwood 174-175]
And gave him Balak’s message: Literally “spoke to him the words of Balak.”
TOB and NBS02 have: “they reported to him the words of Balak,” namely, what was
reported already in verses 5b-6.

22.8
RSV
8And he said to them, “Lodge here this night, and I will bring back word to you, as the Lord
speaks to me”; so the princes of Moab stayed with Balaam.

GNT
8Balaam said to them, “Spend the night here, and tomorrow I will report to you whatever the
Lord tells me.” So the Moabite leaders stayed with Balaam.

He said: It should be made clear in translation that this does not refer to Balak,
who was mentioned at the end of the preceding verse, but to “Balaam” (GNT).
Lodge here: Many languages will have an idiomatic way of expressing this,
for example, “Lie down right here today,” this night implied (Chewa). The translation
should not imply that some physical structure or building was located there in which
the messengers would “lodge.” Hence GNT renders “Spend the night.”
I will bring back word: Balaam indicates that he will receive a message from
the Lord in a dream during the night, hence GNT’s “tomorrow I will report.” NLT has
“in the morning …” (The Deir ‘Alla inscription contains the line: “The gods came to
him during the night,” which is the time when diviners and prophets normally receive
their perceptive or predictive messages.)
As the Lord speaks to me: NRSV is more accurate: “just as the Lord speaks
to me.” NIV is helpful as well: “I will bring you back the answer the Lord gives me.”
It is interesting in this entire section, Balaam normally uses the covenant name of
Israel’s God, “the Lord,” but the narrator uses “God” to refer to his instructions to
Balaam (see verse 9). These distinctions should be preserved in the translation. It may
be that Balaam felt that he would somehow have to involve the name of Israel’s deity
in order to effectively put a curse upon them.
 The princes of Moab: The elders of Midian are no longer mentioned, which
may indicate that the Moabites were more important, or simply that the narrator
wishes to get them “off stage” in order to concentrate on those persons who are
central to his account. For princes see 21.18. Here in 22.8 NJPSV translates “the
Moabite dignitaries.”

22.9
RSV
9 And God came to Balaam and said, “Who are these men with you?”

GNT
9 God came to Balaam and asked, “Who are these men that are staying with you?”

God came to Balaam: The Hebrew does not specify how God “came” or even
if some visible manifestation was involved. CEV, in fact, leaves this verb
untranslated: “During the night, God asked Balaam …,” thus only implying that God
approached Balaam. NBV may therefore be misleading: “God appeared to Balaam,”
since this implies that he appeared visibly to Balaam in some way. The precise time of
God’s coming is not mentioned here either, but on the basis of verse 20 (also implied
in verse 8), it may be assumed that this was sometime “during the night” (CEV). In
some languages, the fact that God acts for the first time in this episode may need to be
marked—by a temporal phase as already noted, or by some other introductory
expression (“So …”).
And said: It may be more natural to specify the speech act here, “and asked”
(GNT).
These men with you may wrongly suggest that Balaam and these men belong
to the same group. GNT’s “these men that are staying with you” avoids such a
misunderstanding. In languages that use honorific forms: in contrast to the Moabite
emissaries, God does not use honorific pronouns (for example, 2nd person plural)
when speaking with Balaam.

22.10-11
RSV
10 And Balaam said to God, “Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, has sent to me, saying, 11
‘Behold, a people has come out of Egypt, and it covers the face of the earth; now come, curse
them for me; perhaps I shall be able to fight against them and drive them out.’ ”

GNT
10 He answered, “King Balak of Moab has sent them to tell me 11 that a people who came
from Egypt has spread out over the whole land. He wants me to curse them for him, so that
he can fight them and drive them out.”

And Balaam said to God: The verb “said” may not be appropriate here in
some languages; better is “answered” (GNT). Also, in some languages, the addressee,
God, and/or the respondent are more naturally left implicit; thus “He answered”
(GNT).
Has sent to me, saying, …: NRSV has revised this: “has sent me this
message: ...” The Hebrew does not refer explicitly to the men who were mentioned in
the question in verse 9, but in many languages it would be natural to do this and
translate: “has sent them to tell me” (GNT). One might also say: “has sent messengers
to tell me.”
 ‘Behold, a people has come …’: Balaam quotes the message directly
(although the words are not exactly the same as in verses 5-6). In some languages,
indirect speech will be necessary: “… that a people who came …” (GNT). In other
languages, the direct speech can be maintained in a natural way and with greater
impact and an emphasis on the urgent message of King Balak, as in the Hebrew.
The Hebrew text differs slightly from verse 5, but the words which are the
same should be reproduced here, especially if the direct speech is retained. Here in
verse 11, GNT’s “who came” is a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew verb than
has come (which is based on the Septuagint and a few other ancient versions). Also,
Balaam refers to the people with a definite article; he speaks of them as an already
known entity even though he does not refer to them explicitly by name. NBJ98
renders all this more accurately: “Look, the people that has come out of Egypt has
covered the whole land” (similar to Buber, ZÜR, TOB, and FRCL).
The face of the earth: Literally “the eye of the land/earth” (as in 22.5).

22.12
RSV
12 God said to Balaam, “You shall not go with them; you shall not curse the people, for they
are blessed.”

GNT
12 God said to Balaam, “Do not go with these men, and do not put a curse on the people of
Israel, because they have my blessing.”

You shall not go: The Hebrew verbal expression conveys the force of an
imperative, a prohibition, which would be more natural in many languages: “Do not
go” (GNT), “You must not go” (NET); the same goes for the next verb, “do not put a
curse” (GNT), “you must not curse” (NET).
They are blessed: Literally “it is blessed,” referring to the people of Israel in
the singular. CRV has “there is a blessing on them.” Like GNT (“because they have
my blessing”), some Common Language translations make explicit who gives this
blessing: “because I have blessed them” (similar to GECL, FRCL, PV). Similarly, in
some languages an active construction is more natural in cases where the agent (“I”)
is known, as in this instance.

22.13-14
RSV
13 So Balaam rose in the morning, and said to the princes of Balak, “Go to your own land; for
the Lord has refused to let me go with you.” 14 So the princes of Moab rose and went to Balak,
and said, “Balaam refuses to come with us.”

GNT
13 The next morning Balaam went to Balak's messengers and said, “Go back home; the
Lord has refused to let me go with you.” 14 So they returned to Balak and told him that Balaam
had refused to come with them.

And said: It may or may not be necessary to make explicit the fact that
Balaam “went to” (GNT) Balak’s messengers to deliver his message from the Lord.
Go to your own land: Translators would like to know the manner in which
Balaam orally expressed this command: what tone of voice did he use or how curt
was he? This matter of politeness (or the lack of it) in direct speech cannot be avoided
in some languages. The Hebrew text leaves this an open question. GNT sounds rather
impolite: “Go back home…”, and so does NLT: “Go on home!” Other cultures may
prefer to sound more polite (for example, Chewa: “Return to”), which may require
that the command be immediately linked with a valid reason, “because…”.
The Lord has refused to let me go with you: Balaam does not explain why
in any further detail; he withholds the crucial information that Israel is blessed.[<
Sherwood 175]
Princes: See at 22.8 and 21.18. Again, NJPSV has “dignitaries.”
And said, “Balaam…”: Again, in many languages, the direct speech is quite
natural in narrative discourse, rather than to shift to indirect speech as in GNT. Notice
that the messengers seemingly blame Balaam for the failure of their mission—not the
Lord!
So the princes of Moab rose and went: This departure from the place to
which they were sent (verse 5) to return home to Balak marks the end of the first
episode. Some languages may have a special way of marking such a discourse unit
closure.

22.15-17
RSV
15 Once again Balak sent princes, more in number and more honorable than they. 16 And
they came to Balaam and said to him, “Thus says Balak the son of Zippor: ‘Let nothing hinder
you from coming to me; 17 for I will surely do you great honor, and whatever you say to me I
will do; come, curse this people for me.’

GNT
15 Then Balak sent a larger number of leaders, who were more important than the first. 16
They went to Balaam and gave him this message from Balak: “Please don't let anything
prevent you from coming to me! 17 I will reward you richly and do anything you say. Please
come and curse these people for me.”

Verse 15 marks the beginning of a new episode, in which Balak sends a

different, more honorable group of messengers. In most languages this will be a
natural starting-point of a new paragraph. Narrative tension is increased by the
sending of a more high-powered delegation with Balak’s request.[< Sherwood 175]
Once again: Literally, “And Balak added again to send…” In other words, he
tried again, or made another attempt. GNT’s “Then” does not bring out this new
development in the narrative clearly enough and seems to suggest merely a temporal
transition.
Honorable: NRSV and NIV have “distinguished.” The Hebrew nikbadim
literally means “weighty,” and hence “honored,” or “highly respected.”
Than they refers to the first group of messengers. GNT makes this explicit:
“than the first” ones (or group).
And said to him, “Thus says Balak the son of Zippor: …: GNT leaves out
this introductory formula of the message, thus reducing the number of levels of direct
speech: “and gave him this message from Balak.” While this may work in a number
of languages, there is no reason to leave out “the son of Zippor” since Zippor may
have been even better known than Balak at that time. GNT could have included these
words after “Balak.” FRCL and PV reduce the number of direct speech levels in a
different way: “I, Balak, son of Zippor, beseech you, do not refuse to come to me.”
What GNT, FRCL and PV do not take into account, however, is that the expression
“Thus says Balak …” mimics the so-called divine “messenger formula,” which is
frequently used in the prophetic literature to indicate the onset of an oracle from the
Lord (for example, Jer 2.1; Ezek 16.3; Am 1.3). Thus there may be an element of
ironic usage here.
Let nothing hinder you: GNT’s “Please don’t let anything prevent you”
takes the Hebrew particle na’ into account, which marks the request as urgent (as in
22.6).
I will surely do you great honor: This phrase does not specify what this
honor will consist of, although it hints at material rewards or perhaps a position
among Balak’s high court officials. Thus, while the meaning of GNT’s “I will reward
you richly” may still be wide and adequate enough, a rendering like “I’ll pay you very
well” (CEV) narrows the meaning down too much to some monetary benefit and
anyway is too explicit in the context of this diplomatic encounter.
Come: For the same reason, “Please come” (GNT, DUCL) expresses the
urgency of the request more adequately. The particle na’ occurs here again, thus
indicating the urgency of Balak’s repeated request. As in 22.6, “Do come” or “You
must come” are helpful models as well.

22.18-19
RSV
18 But Balaam answered and said to the servants of Balak, “Though Balak were to give me his
house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the command of the Lord my God, to do
less or more. 19 Pray, now, tarry here this night also, that I may know what more the Lord will
say to me.”

GNT
18 But Balaam answered, “Even if Balak gave me all the silver and gold in his palace, I
could not disobey the command of the Lord my God in even the smallest matter. 19 But please
stay the night, as the others did, so that I may learn whether or not the Lord has something
else to tell me.”

But Balaam answered: The Hebrew conjunction is the typical “And,” but in
many languages “But” (RSV, GNT) would sound more appropriate to indicate the
note of contra-expectation involved in Balaam’s response (one would have expected
him to agree to go now after what was promised to him in verses 16b-17a).
The servants of Balak: Most translations follow the Hebrew and have
servants here. (Probably in line with this, NJPSV has “officials” and NBS02 has
“people.”) However, LUT84, REB, NBJ98, FRCL, PV, DUCL, and NLT translate
“the messengers of Balak,” a reading which is based on the ancient Syriac Version.
Perhaps this rendering was chosen in line with the term “messengers” in verse 4, or
because “servants” was considered an odd reading, so soon after the term “princes” in
verse 15. However, there is no problem with the Hebrew text here, so translators are
advised to base their rendering on the Hebrew—unless the term for “servants” would
suggest men having too menial a position for the mission that they were on.
I could not go beyond the command of the Lord my God: Literally, “I
could not pass by the mouth of the Lord my God.” In some languages it may also be
more natural to refer to “[the words of] the mouth of the Lord my God.” See 14.41
and 20.24 for other instances of “mouth” in reference to God’s command. Go beyond
is rendered as “disobey” in GNT.
The Lord my God: It is of interest that Balaam recognizes the Lord as his
God.[< Budd 263] He seemed to know this divine name even before Balak’s
messengers first came with their request (verse 8). Of course, it might be expected
that a well-known diviner-prophet in the region would know such details. After God’s
first revelation (verse 12), Balaam realized that he was under the Lord’s authority and
control.
To do less or more: Literally “to do small or great,” hence: “whether it is to
do something small or something great.” GNT expresses what this phrase implies: “in
even the smallest matter” (in other words, “anything at all”). Several translations
combine this phrase with the preceding one as follows: “I cannot do anything,
whether small or great, (that will go) against the order of the Lord my God” (PV,
DHE94). Balaam will do only what God allows him to do, regardless of the reward.
Pray, now, tarry here this night also: The Hebrew text includes the particles
we`atah and na’ (see the discussion at 22.6). The Hebrew construction is as follows:
“So please stay here, you too, overnight” (similar to NJPSV). GNT’s “But please stay
the night, as the others [or “other messengers”] did” is a helpful model. RSV’s
rendering may be misleading, as if the messengers are being requested to stay for a
second night.
That I may know what more the Lord will say to me: Balaam does not
imply that he will definitely receive another message from the Lord that night.
Perhaps he is hoping that this will be the case for the sake of reward, but the
translation should remain neutral, as in GNT: “so that I may learn whether or not the
Lord has something else to tell me.”

22.20-21
RSV
20 And God came to Balaam at night and said to him, “If the men have come to call you, rise,
go with them; but only what I bid you, that shall you do.”
21 So Balaam rose in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab.

GNT
20 That night God came to Balaam and said, “If these men have come to ask you to go with
them, get ready to go, but do only what I tell you.” 21 So the next morning Balaam saddled his
donkey and went with the Moabite leaders.

God came to Balaam: See at 22.9. Here in verse 20, though, CEV simply has
“God said,” which leaves too much implicit.
At night: As noted in verse 8, this was the normal time for revelations,
dreams, and visions in the Hebrew Bible. This time reference should not be omitted.
If the men: The translation should not imply that God does not know what is
going on, or realize why Balak’s messengers have come to Balaam. If this is a
potential problem, then perhaps “if” might be rendered as “since/because.”
But only what I bid you, that you shall do: Literally “But only the word
which I speak to you, that you shall do.” The Hebrew ’oto (that) emphatically refers
again to the earlier phrase “the word which I speak to you.” Balaam is not permitted
to say or do anything else: “But you will only do the word that I will say to you.”
Thus, precision and exactness was required concerning even the words and deeds that
accompanied a blessing or a curse. NRSV has revised RSV as follows: “But do only
what I tell you to do.” The use of “to do” recalls a phrase in 22.17, where Balak,
through his dignitaries, says: “Whatever you [Balaam] say to me I will do.”[<
Sherwood 176] The repetition of the key verbs “speak” and “do” is functional in these
episodes. Both the saying and the doing are under the Lord’s complete control.
His ass: The term used to refer to the “donkey” is different and unusual since
normally the larger, stronger male donkey was used for riding (see, for example, Exo
4.20).[< Ashley 451] The Fauna Handbook comments: “ 'athon (feminine gender)
refers specifically to a saddle donkey or a donkey used for riding. A saddle donkey is
usually a large strong female donkey—the males are too difficult to control when they
are near a female in heat. The Hebrew word is derived from a root that means
‘strong’.” The narrator here introduces a “character” who will be important in the
following episode. In languages that do not distinguish between male and female
donkeys, or those that do not have a precise word for “donkey” at all, it is not
essential to convey the feminine component.
Princes: See at 22.8 and 21.18. Again, NJPSV has “dignitaries.”
And went: The second episode concludes as did the first (verse 14), with the
Moabite emissaries leaving to return home, only this time, by way of contrast, Balaam
goes with them.
RSV starts a new paragraph with verse 21, while GNT starts another
paragraph (actually a new section) only in verse 22. The latter is to be preferred, since
verse 21 brings the narrative to a close in a conventional way: in verse 21 Balaam
simply carries out God’s instructions of verse 20.[< Levine 153] And although verse
21 involves a change of place, it is only in verse 22 that Balaam begins to face
opposition from God. This way of understanding the structure of this narrative
corresponds with the wording and interpretation of verse 14, which is viewed as
concluding the first episode.

22.22-40
Section Heading: In this section, Balaam travels to Moab with Balak’s dignitaries.
On the way, he faces opposition from the angel of the Lord. Balaam’s donkey realizes
this before he does. In many translations, Balaam and his speaking donkey are
mentioned in the heading: “Balaam and his Donkey” (GNT, NLT); “Balaam’s she-
ass” (FRCL, NBJ98); “Balaam, the Donkey, and the Angel” (NRSV); “Balaam and
his Donkey Meet an Angel” (CEV). However, the headings in GECL and NET seem
more profound and reflect more of what actually goes on in this section: “The shrewd
she-ass – Balaam is warned” (GECL); “God Opposes Balaam” (NET).
This section seems to highlight the contrast between the perception of the
donkey and Balaam’s lack of it. Perhaps a heading like “A Wise Donkey—Foolish
Balaam (or ‘Prophet’)” might serve to bring out this ironic dimension of the narrative.
Having told Balaam to go with the Moabite dignitaries (in verse 20), God is
now angry with him for going, and the “angel of the Lord” stands in his way. This
change has troubled many readers of the Bible. The Jewish medieval commentators
already reflected on the question. According to Nachmanides, for example, God was
angry at Balaam for going without revealing to Balak’s messengers the divine
command in its full meaning. Instead, Balaam allowed the messengers to hope that he
might be able to curse Israel after all, or perhaps he actually secretly hoped that he
would eventually be able to pronounce this curse and thus enrich himself.
However, Balaam’s case does not stand on its own. Other biblical examples of
illustrious persons who on their way meet a divine angel who appears to stop them are
Jacob (Gen 32.24-32), Moses (Exo 4.24), and Joshua (Josh 5.13-15).
The Balaam narrative is not without humor. The famous seer appears as a fool
in contrast to his donkey. Who is actually the ass here? The donkey? Is it not Balaam
himself? An animal without prejudice can see things to which a man in his
stubbornness is blind.[< Noth 178] The story mocks the capabilities [as well as the
motives] of Balaam and of diviners in general.[< Levine 138, 154]
 GNT has a separate section heading for verses 36-40: “Balak Welcomes
Balaam.” In some situations, readers may prefer shorter sections. However, such short
sections may lead to a fragmentation of the text and a loss of the narrative flow.
The number three plays an important part in the composition of this specific
section as well. Three times the angel of the Lord stands in the way (verses 22, 24,
26); three times the ass sees the angel, while Balaam does not; three times the ass
swerves aside; three times Balaam blindly beats her (verses 23, 25, 27).

22.22-23
RSV
22 But God's anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of the Lord took his stand in
the way as his adversary. Now he was riding on the ass, and his two servants were with him.
23 And the ass saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand;
and the ass turned aside out of the road, and went into the field; and Balaam struck the ass,
to turn her into the road.

GNT
22 God was angry that Balaam was going, and as Balaam was riding along on his donkey,
accompanied by his two servants, the angel of the Lord stood in the road to bar his way. 23
When the donkey saw the angel standing there holding a sword, it left the road and turned
into the fields. Balaam beat the donkey and brought it back on to the road.

But God’s anger was kindled: Although but is not literally based on the
Hebrew (NRSV has dropped it), it may be helpful to mark the contrast between verse
22 and the preceding verses (especially God’s consent in verse 20) in some way
(“Nevertheless”). See the discussion above about the section heading.
God: The Hebrew has Elohim, not YHWH (“the Lord”). There is notable
variation between the divine names in this chapter, and it is important for translators
to reproduce this, if possible.
… because he went: GNT and NRSV (“was going”) give a more accurate
rendering of the durative, continuous aspect of the Hebrew participle holek. Making
explicit the antecedent for “he,” namely “Balaam” (GNT), is helpful, especially at the
beginning of a new section. Instead of because, a few translations (NBG51, NIV,
NAV, WV95) and Ashley render the Hebrew kiy as “when/while.”[< Ashley 454]
With a translation like “when he was going” or “when he went” (NBG51, NIV), the
apparent contradiction with God’s consent in verse 20 is perhaps not as strong.
The angel of the Lord: Buber has “messenger” instead of “angel.” The
Hebrew makes no distinction between the angel of the Lord and “an angel of the
Lord” (NJPSV). As the Handbook on Genesis explains at 16.7, this phrase has the
sense of God's presence being shown to someone; that is, it describes a visible
manifestation of God to a person. The angel of the Lord is a form in which the Lord
(YHWH) appears. GNT, CEV, FRCL, PV, GECL, and DUCL render “angel of the
Lord” in verse 22 but then change this to “angel” in verse 23. It may be asked then
whether “angel” adequately expresses the unique manifestation of God. It seems
better to translate “angel of the Lord” in verse 23 and elsewhere in this section as well
(as in NLT and DHE94). The narrative repetition of this full expression highlights the
importance of the divine personage being referred to, or at least being represented in
this angelic being.
Ass: As noted in verse 21, the Hebrew actually refers to a female ass, but the
gender of the animal does not seem to be important for the Balaam narrative. In
languages that do not make a gender distinction between he- and she-asses, pronouns
may still indicate the feminine gender (for example in verse 23, “to turn her”).
 Took his stand in the road as his adversary: The main verb implies a
deliberate action, which is reinforced by the following infinitive “to oppose [as an
adversary].” (Perhaps ironically, the term for adversary, satan, is the same one that
occurs in Job 1.6.)
Now he was riding: “Now,” literally “And,” begins a circumstantial, or
background, clause in Hebrew. Some languages can mark this with a special
conjunction, as in the case of “Now” (RSV, GNT). “Was riding” is an adequate
rendering of the durative, continuous aspect of the Hebrew participle rokhev.
And his two servants were with him: The translation should not imply that
these two servants were also riding on Balaam’s donkey. The two servants were
probably walking along behind Balaam.
And the ass saw: The narrative action line resumes at this point. An
appropriate conjunction may (or may not) be necessary to indicate this, as in GNT:
“When the donkey saw.”
A drawn sword: Some translations have “a naked (uncovered) sword”
(LUT84, TOB, NBJ98). Some Common Language translations only translate “sword”
(GNT, CEV, PV, DHE94), but this loses the connotation that the angel is ready to
strike with his sword. Thus, in some languages it may be necessary to translate “a
ready sword” or “a pulled out sword” (Chewa).
The ass turned aside …: In the Ancient Near East, strange or unexpected
animal behavior was often interpreted as a sign that required divination. However,
imperceptive Balaam does not seem to interpret the ass’s behavior in this way.
Instead, he beats the ass.
Into the field: This would not be a cultivated “field” or garden of some kind;
it is rather into the “open country” or even “bush” land.
To turn her: The Hebrew infinitive is causative as well as a purpose
construction, that is, to indicate the purpose for Balaam’s beating his donkey. GNT’s
“and brought it back” does not express this clearly enough; NET is more accurate: “to
make her turn back to the road.” (In Hebrew the same verb (natah) is used to refer to
the donkey’s action of “turning” first “off” (or “away from” the road) and then back
“on” again after Balaam’s beating. Many languages will require different verbs to
indicate these contrasting motions.)

22.24-25
RSV
24 Then the angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on
either side. 25 And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she pushed against the wall, and
pressed Balaam's foot against the wall; so he struck her again.

GNT
24 Then the angel stood where the road narrowed between two vineyards and had a stone
wall on each side. 25 When the donkey saw the angel, it moved over against the wall and
crushed Balaam's foot against it. Again Balaam beat the donkey.

Then the angel of the Lord stood: Since Balaam was unperceptive on the
first occasion, the angel of the Lord tries again. This time the normal word for “stand”
is used (compare verse 22).
A narrow path: Or idiomatically, “a hollow road” (NBG51, WV95, DUCL)
or “a footpath” (Alter). Each time the pathway of diversion grows narrower.[< Cole
390]
 She pushed … and pressed Balaam’s foot: The same Hebrew verb is used in
both actions, a rhetorical feature that would be nice to retain in translation if possible.
In any case, the action is not a gentle squeeze, but a violent, potentially injurious
“crushing” (GNT), as the donkey does everything possible to avoid running into the
angel of the Lord.
Wall: GNT has “stone wall.” The Hebrew refers to a dry-stone wall, made
without mortar from loose stones from the field. What is more important than what
the wall is made of is the function of the wall, that is, to provide a barrier of protection
for the vineyard and leaving Balaam very little room to manoeuvre: NJPSV translates
“fence,” a structure which encloses a vineyard or field; the problem is that “fence” in
English does not suggest construction in stone.
So he struck her again: The literal Hebrew “and he added to strike her” could
mean now, a second time (“again”), or even “harder” than the first time (verse 23), or
perhaps both senses are intended. There does seem to be a progression in the severity
of Balaam’s beatings, with the worst yet to come (verse 27).

22.26-27
RSV
26Then the angel of the Lord went ahead, and stood in a narrow place, where there was no
way to turn either to the right or to the left. 27 When the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she lay
down under Balaam; and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he struck the ass with his staff.

GNT
26 Once more the angel moved ahead; he stood in a narrow place where there was no room
at all to pass on either side. 27 This time, when the donkey saw the angel, it lay down. Balaam
lost his temper and began to beat the donkey with his stick.

Then … went ahead: RSV leaves the beginning of the Hebrew sentence
untranslated: “once more” (GNT, TOB); “again” (NBG51). Literally the Hebrew has
“And the angel of the Lord added to move forward …” Therefore, a transitional
expression like “Once more” is closer to the sense of the original. Furthermore, the
verb for “added” ironically repeats the construction used in the preceding sentence:
“and he [Balaam] added to beat her [the donkey]!” Each stage in the unfolding
narrative is thus dramatically highlighted.
A narrow place: On this third occasion in the sequence, the climax is reached:
there is absolutely no room for the donkey bearing Balaam to turn (RSV: “either to
the right or the left”) or to move forward at all (GNT: “to pass on either side”) without
running into the angel of the Lord. This explains the animal’s subsequent action.
When the ass saw: Literally, “And the donkey saw.” For the sake of narrative
naturalness, a language may prefer a different transitional conjunction, either to
indicate simple time (RSV: “When”) or a climax (GNT: “This time, when”).
She lay down under Balaam: GNT leaves under Balaam untranslated,
perhaps because it is implied all along that Balaam was sitting on the ass. In some
languages, however, to draw attention to the incongruity of the scene, the repetition of
Balaam’s name throws the spotlight on him. What will the prophet do this time?
Balaam’s anger was kindled: The image of burning anger is idiomatic in
other languages as well. Ironically, Balaam does not know (as the reader does) that
God is angry with him (22.22).[< Sherwood 176] (The same verbal expression is used
as in verse 22.)
And he struck the ass with his staff: The verb for beating is the same as in
previous occurrences (verses 23 and 25), but this time Balaam’s “staff,” or walking
stick (perhaps even his divining rod [< Ashley 457]), is mentioned as the instrument.
This no doubt suggests the increased severity in the beating that reflected Balaam’s
growing anger and frustration.

22.28-30
RSV
28 Then the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to
you, that you have struck me these three times?” 29 And Balaam said to the ass, “Because
you have made sport of me. I wish I had a sword in my hand, for then I would kill you.” 30 And
the ass said to Balaam, “Am I not your ass, upon which you have ridden all your life long to
this day? Was I ever accustomed to do so to you?” And he said, “No.”

GNT
28 Then the Lord gave the donkey the power of speech, and it said to Balaam, “What have I
done to you? Why have you beaten me these three times?”
29 Balaam answered, “Because you have made a fool of me! If I had a sword, I would kill
you.”
30 The donkey replied, “Am I not the same donkey on which you have ridden all your life?
Have I ever treated you like this before?”
“No,” he answered.

Note the different format used in these verses. GNT marks each change of
speaker with a separate paragraph. The decision as to how to handle such dialogues in
narrative texts has probably already been made. The point is that the agreed
formatting procedure should also be observed here.
Opened the mouth of the ass: Of course this does not mean that the Lord
physically opened the mouth of the ass more widely, as a literal translation might
suggest, but that he “made (or ‘caused’) the donkey speak” (REB, TOB, NBV,
DUCL). The Hebrew does not specifically refer to “the power of speech” (GNT) as a
distinct faculty or human-like ability. The same expression is used of the “opening” of
the prophet Ezekiel’s mouth (Ezek 3.27; 33.22). In this case, the Lord uses the vocal
chords of a lowly beast of burden to reveal reality to an incognizant prophet and what
he must do in the uncertain situation at hand.
What have I done to you: This rhetorical question is seemingly spoken with
some emotion, and a natural equivalent should be sought in translation. It may also be
advisable to divide the single long question into two, as in GNT.
You have made sport of me!: Other models are: “you have made a fool of
me!” (GNT, NRSV, and NIV); “you have made a mockery of me!” (NJPSV); “you
have made me look like a fool!” (NLT).
I wish I had a sword …: Ironically, Balaam does not realize that the ass is
actually avoiding the angel’s threatening sword.[< Sherwood 177] There is probably a
particular way in which such strong wishes are expressed in the target language.
Am I not … Was I ever accustomed to do …?: In verse 30 the ass asks
Balaam two more rhetorical questions; the implied answer to the first one is positive
and to the second one negative. In a number of languages, rhetorical questions may
not be natural at this point. NJPSV renders the first one as follows: “Look, I am the
ass that you have been riding all along until this day!” In English, ever marks the
verbal phrase in the second rhetorical question as quite strong (in the Hebrew this is
achieved by adding an infinitive form of the same root to the verb ‘to habituate,
accustom’). Another way to express this is: “Have I ever at all behaved like this
before?”
All your life: Literally “as long as you have been” (footnote in Alter).
 No: Anyone hearing (reading) this passage would agree that the donkey is in
the right and his master, Balaam, clearly in the wrong. The latter too seems to realize
this, for all he can do is simply respond “No” (lo’) to the second rhetorical question.

22.31
RSV
31 Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in
the way, with his drawn sword in his hand; and he bowed his head, and fell on his face.

GNT
31 Then the Lord let Balaam see the angel standing there with his sword; and Balaam threw
himself face downwards on the ground.

The Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw: Literally, “opened” is
“uncovered” in Hebrew. Even as an alternative rendering, “the Lord let Balaam see”
(GNT) is not recommended, since it does not express—not as clearly as the Hebrew
does—that Balaam was not able to see the angel before (the angel was not simply
hidden from his view). If the expression opened the eyes of cannot be used, DUCL
and DHE94 are better models in that they imply more clearly that Balaam could not
see the angel before: “Then the Lord showed also to Balaam …” (DUCL); “Then the
Lord enabled Balaam to see …” Here we have a pagan “seer” who cannot see unless
the Lord allows it; “this kind of statement would not be lost on an Israelite
audience.”[< Ashley 457]
The angel of the Lord standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his
hand: NRSV has made a small, but accurate revision: “… in the road.” There was a
definite trail that the group was seeking to follow on their journey to King Balak.
Balaam now sees the angel of the Lord for the first time, and this has a strong impact
on him. The appearance of the angel is not new to the reader, but it is new to Balaam.
There is thus no good reason to reduce the phrase to “the angel standing there with his
sword,” as GNT has done. On drawn sword see at 22.23.
And he bowed his head is just one word, meaning to bow or kneel down to
show respect probably in this case mixed with fear (see the Exodus Handbook at
12.27). In many languages, a new sentence should begin here, rather than using the
punctuation link of a semicolon, which often leads to improper intonation patterns
when the biblical text is read publicly aloud.
And fell on his face: NRSV combines this with the preceding verb into one
action: “and he bowed down, falling on his face.” The same verbal construction
occurs in Gen 24.26, 48; Exo 4.31; 12.27. And fell may wrongly suggest that Balaam
fell on his face by accident. “…, so he bowed his head and threw himself down with
his face to the ground” (NET) thus seems to be a more helpful model. In some
translations, it may be necessary to specify this action further, for example: “and he
bowed down in alarm / to the angel, throwing himself right down with his face
[literally “his nostrils”] to the ground.”

22.32-33
RSV
32 And the angel of the Lord said to him, “Why have you struck your ass these three times?
Behold, I have come forth to withstand you, because your way is perverse before me; 33 and
the ass saw me, and turned aside before me these three times. If she had not turned aside
from me, surely just now I would have slain you and let her live.”
GNT
32 The angel demanded, “Why have you beaten your donkey three times like this? I have
come to bar your way, because you should not be making this journey.a 33 But your donkey
saw me and turned aside three times. If it hadn't, I would have killed you and spared the
donkey.”

a 22.32 Probable text you should…journey; Hebrew unclear.

And the angel of the Lord said to him: In some languages, it may sound
more natural to give some idea of the condemnatory nature of the angel’s following
rhetorical question—thus, GNT’s “demanded.” In other languages, the rhetorical
question itself can be marked, e.g., through some special particle, to indicate its
particular reproving force and intent.
Why have you struck: This question of course does not expect an answer or
an explanation from Balaam; rather, it admonishes him: “You should not have beaten
...”
Behold, I have come forth to withstand you: It seems that KJV and RSV
still have followed the Septuagint and Vulgate (the ancient Greek and Latin
translations), which read “... to oppose you.” The Hebrew lacks “(against) you.”
NRSV follows the Hebrew: “... as an adversary” (see verse 22). However, NJPSV is
still more accurate: like the Hebrew, NJPSV highlights the angel’s reference to
himself in the first person with the focal particle hineh: “It is I [or ‘I am the one’] who
came out as an adversary” (NJPSV). A few translations combine this emphasis on the
first person with a Septuagint-based rendering at the end of the clause: “You see, it is
I who have come to bar your way” (TOB); “I myself have opposed you.” (GECL); “I
was the one who blocked your way” (CEV).
Perverse: This word seems to have come straight from the Vulgate
(“perversa”). The form in the Hebrew text, yarat, is to be understood as “sloping”
(EÜ), which only makes sense metaphorically (“downhill,” “precipitate”). NBG51,
NIV, and NBS02 translate along these lines, with reference to Balaam: “because with
Me, this way leads to ruin” (NBG51); “because your path is a reckless one before me”
(NIV); “because in my eyes this journey is ill-considered” (NBS02). The alternative is
to read yera` (“is wrong, evil”) as the Hebrew form instead (as in the Samaritan
Pentateuch, Septuagint, and Vulgate) and translate from the angel’s perspective, for
example, “because your way is wrong in my eyes” (LUT84); “because this here
journey of yours upsets me” (Chewa). With the translation “because you should not
be making this journey” GNT does not make a choice between these two alternatives,
in spite of its footnote. In the end it seems best to read yarat (“sloping,” “precipitate”),
the more difficult and hence preferable form here.
And the ass saw me: Another example of where the use of a semicolon results
in awkward sentence structure. A new sentence should begin at verse 33 (GNT).
If she had not turned aside: GNT’s reduction “if she hadn’t” removes some
of the drama and forcefulness of the angel’s words at this point. Languages that, like
Hebrew, use repetition to show different types of emphasis should retain it here, as in
the RSV.
Surely just now: GNT misses the emphasis of the Hebrew here: “I would
have certainly killed you by now” (NLT); “Surely, I would have killed you on the
spot” (Chewa).
I would have slain you and let her live: The Hebrew construction marks a
strong contrast between you (death) and her (life). Alter’s translation highlights this
contrast as follows: “it is you I would have killed, while her I would have let live.
Thus, Balaam owes not only a revelatory message to his donkey, but his very life as
well.

22.34-35
RSV
34Then Balaam said to the angel of the Lord, “I have sinned, for I did not know that thou didst
stand in the road against me. Now therefore, if it is evil in thy sight, I will go back again.” 35
And the angel of the Lord said to Balaam, “Go with the men; but only the word which I bid
you, that shall you speak.” So Balaam went on with the princes of Balak.

GNT
34 Balaam replied, “I have sinned. I did not know that you were standing in the road to
oppose me; but now if you think it is wrong for me to go on, I will return home.”
35 But the angel said, “Go on with these men, but say only what I tell you to say.” So
Balaam went on with them.

I have sinned: REB’s “I have done wrong” is too weak an expression in

English. The Hebrew has the usual verb for “sin” here (chata’), not the usual verb for
“err unintentionally” (shagah) as some translations seem to suggest: “I erred”
(NJPSV); “I have made a mistake” (FRCL, PV). There is no reason why this instance
of the verb chata’ should be translated in a different way from other instances
elsewhere (see Num 14.40; 21.7). Whether Balaam is sincere is another question. If
his confession is considered sincere, then this would imply that his attitude has
changed and that he should be evaluated positively. On the other hand, considering
Balaam’s situation and whom he is presently speaking to, this could easily be
understood as a confession of convenience.
For I did not know: The linking conjunction of reason (“For”) may need to
be retained in many languages instead of being left implicit as in GNT.
Now therefore: The Hebrew we`atah marks a development in the text from
the confession to the actual request or conclusion (see at 22.6). NET (“so now”)
expresses this more clearly than RSV.
If it is evil in thy sight: The adjective “evil” does not fit the context well in
English. Better is GNT’s “now if you think it is wrong.” NLT’s “if you are against my
going” is again rather too weak in comparison with the Hebrew expression.
Only the word which I bid you, that shall you speak: The Hebrew ’oto
(that) emphatically refers again to the word which I bid [speak to] you. This
instruction echoes the one used by God in 22.20, except for the verb at the end: in
verse 20 it ends with “that shall you do,” while this one ends with that shall you
speak. NRSV: “but speak only what I tell you to speak.” Perhaps it is implied that
Balaam was inwardly harboring other intentions; perhaps he has become greedy after
all.[< Alter] The parallelism between these verses also supports the interpretation of
those who view this “angel” as having a divine character. Moreover, from now on the
situation of Balaam and his donkey becomes transformed into that between Balak and
Balaam, a prophet who, contrary to Balak’s will, can do only what the Lord tells him.
Princes: See at 22.8, 20 and 21.18. Again, NJPSV has “dignitaries.” It may be
important, as in the original, to remind hearers again who had commissioned them:
“of Balak” (RSV); this then connects with the onset of the next episode in verse 36.

22.36
RSV
36 When Balak heard that Balaam had come, he went out to meet him at the city of Moab,
on the boundary formed by the Arnon, at the extremity of the boundary.
GNT
36 When Balak heard that Balaam was coming, he went to meet him at Ar, a city on the
River Arnon at the border of Moab.

GNT has another section heading for verses 36-40: “Balak Welcomes
Balaam.” See the earlier discussion of the section heading for 22.22-40.
When Balak heard: The narrator draws the first episode of the Balaam
account to a close by mentioning again the person who instigated the action, King
Balak (verses 2, 4-5, 15). Normally, an honorable person would wait for his guest to
arrive to receive him, but so anxious is Balak to curse Israel that he literally cannot
wait to get started.
The city of Moab: The Hebrew text reads `ir mo’av, literally “the city of
Moab” (NBG51). Since this rendering does not quite make sense in the context, some
translations have simply put the Hebrew form itself in the translation: “Ir-moab”
(NRSV, NJPSV, TOB, SB00, CRV). Others have understood it as a reference to an
unspecified Moabite city: “a city of Moab” (KJV); “a Moabite town” (NLT); “the
Moabite town” (NIV, RSO, NBV). Still other translations have “Ar of Moab”
(LUT84, REB, NBJ98, FRCL). GECL (“on to the border town of Moab at the Arnon
River”) is a helpful model and one that seems to make the most sense in this context.
(The alternative—to translate “Ar-Moab,” taking it as a reference to the border city of
that name in 21.15, 28—would be based on a slightly different Hebrew form: `ar
mo’av.)
On the boundary ... boundary: This phrase refers to the northern border of
Moab. King Balak goes out to meet Balaam at the furthest point to which his power
extended—a sign of great respect for the diviner.[< Noth 180] The Hebrew text seems
to emphasize the distance involved here, which should therefore not be deleted as in
GNT, for example: “at the farthest border of his land” (NLT); “to the very furthest
limit” (Chewa).

22.37-38
RSV
37 And Balak said to Balaam, “Did I not send to you to call you? Why did you not come to me?
Am I not able to honor you?” 38 Balaam said to Balak, “Lo, I have come to you! Have I now
any power at all to speak anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that must I speak.”

GNT
37 Balak said to him, “Why didn't you come when I sent for you the first time? Did you think I
wasn't able to reward you enough?”
38 Balaam answered, “I came, didn't I? But now, what power have I got? I can say only what
God tells me to say.”

Balak asks Balaam three questions. Only the second one of these is in need of
an answer from Balaam; Balak’s other questions are rhetorical. (No polite formalities
of greeting here; Balak gets right to the point!) Balaam’s answer actually includes a
rhetorical question as well. Translators must take care to ensure that these distinctions
are reflected also in their rendering. Also the matter of the use of honorific forms must
be determined in keeping with the norms of the target culture. In this case, probably
both Balak and Balaam would use such terms of respect (for example, plural
pronouns) when addressing each other.
Did I not send to you to call you?: The Hebrew verb construction is
emphatic. NBG51 and NBV capture the sense of this as follows: “Had I not sent for
you urgently?” NLT and NIV are similar: “Didn’t I send you an urgent
invitation?”(NLT); “Did I not send you an urgent summons?” (NIV; since Balak
actually sent messengers twice, NIV could be revised as follows: “Did I not send for
you several times?”) REB has “Did I not send time and again to summon you?” As
NET comments in a footnote, Balak is showing frustration with Balaam for refusing
him. In some languages it will be helpful to express this with an exclamation: “I sent
for you so urgently.” (GECL); or “I had repeatedly invited you!”
Why did you not come to me?: LUT84 gives more expression to the
exclamative character of this question: “Why then did you not come to me?” This
makes the connection with the first question more explicit. Compare also NBV: “Why
did you not come before now?” The Hebrew “to me” might be an added implication
that Balaam had dishonored Balak by not responding quickly to the call of a king.
GNT combines and restructures Balak’s first two questions: “Why didn't you
come when I sent for you the first time?” GNT thus changes the first question into a
time-clause (“... when I sent for you the first time”), placing it at the end of the
sentence (similarly CEV and FRCL). However, it is doubtful that this adequately
expresses Balak’s obvious frustration in his first question.
Am I not able to honor you?: The Hebrew (ha’umnam) again calls for a
more emphatic rendering of this rhetorical question: “Am I really not able to reward
you?” (NIV, similarly NJPSV). For the same reason, GNT could be adapted as
follows: “Did you really think I wasn’t able to reward you enough?” The king seems
to think that Balaam is motivated by greed and does not sufficiently respect his kingly
capacity.
Lo, I have come to you!: REB captures this phrase more naturally: “I have
come, as you see”; another possibility: “Look, here I am!” GNT as well as NBV,
DUCL change Balaam’s statement into a rhetorical question: “I came, didn’t I?” This
may be a helpful model in other languages as well.
Have I now any power at all to speak anything?: As the Hebrew `atah
(literally “now,” but see at 22.6) indicates, Balaam now moves on to the point he
actually wants to make: “I’m indeed here before you—but I cannot (or am not free to)
do what you want!” Any power at all reflects the sense of the emphatic verb
construction in the Hebrew: “Now can I really speak anything?” The implied answer
to this rhetorical question is of course “not at all.” GNT has made the question shorter
and perhaps sharper: “But now, what power have I got?” In the context, “But ...”
makes good sense.
The word that God puts in my mouth, that must I speak: As in 22.20, 35,
the Hebrew ’oto (that) emphatically refers again to the preceding words (here the
word that God puts in my mouth). NRSV expresses the emphasis as follows: “The
word God puts in my mouth, that is what I must say [literally: speak].” Or based on
the GNT: “Only what God tells me to say, that I can speak” (see 1 Kgs 22.14). For the
fourth time in the Book of Balaam, the prophet confesses that he could only speak that
which the Lord, the God of Israel, revealed.[< Cole 395] Does this pointed usage give
a subtle hint as to how his actual “curses” are going to turn out?

22.39-40
RSV
39 Then Balaam went with Balak, and they came to Kiriath-huzoth. 40 And Balak sacrificed
oxen and sheep, and sent to Balaam and to the princes who were with him.

GNT
39 So Balaam went with Balak to the town of Huzoth, 40 where Balak slaughtered cattle and
sheep and gave some of the meat to Balaam and the leaders who were with him.

Went with ... they came to: GNT has left the second verb untranslated,
combining the first two phrases.
Kiriath-huzoth: A place in Moab, east of the northern end of the Dead Sea,
but the exact location is unknown. The Hebrew qiryat refers to a town or village.
GNT translates this first part of the place-name: “the town of Huzoth.” (The second
part, chutsot, means “streets.”) It may be helpful to do this, as long as the same is
done with other place-names that start with Kiriath.
And Balak sacrificed: It may be advisable to begin a new sentence at this
point (verse 40), changing the GNT’s “where” to “There ...” This rite no doubt
involved some pagan deity (such as “Baal,” verse 40), who was now in an implicit
power-contest with the Lord.
Oxen and sheep: This expression refers to cattle—covering cows and bulls as
well as oxen—on the one hand, and goats and sheep on the other (that is, large
domestic animals and small ones). There is no reason for the specific rendering oxen,
since the Hebrew terms are generic—the same as in 15.3 (where RSV has “herd and
flock”). Furthermore, the “oxen” will be inappropriate in certain cultures in which
oxen are not considered suitable for sacrifice. NIV and REB have “cattle and sheep.”
And sent to: In this context of sacrifice, what it was that Balak sent can be
made explicit as follows: “and sent of that [that is, of what was sacrificed] to …”
(NBG51, LUT84); “and sent portions to” (REB). GNT has “and gave some of the
meat to ...” Balak’s sacrifice is a communal event, thereby bringing Balaam into the
sacral community of Moab,[< Noth 181] so as to secure the curse against Israel on
their behalf.[< Budd 264] (See Exo 18.12 for a similar sacrifice, though in a different
context.)
Princes: As in 21.18 and 22.8, 20, 35. NJPSV has “dignitaries.”

22.41-23.12
Section Heading: Here we have another instance where a new section, based on the
Hebrew discourse structure, does not correspond with the traditional chapter division.
Helpful section headings are: “Balaam’s First Prophecy” (GNT); “Balaam’s first
oracle” (TOB); “Balaam blesses the people of Israel” (FRCL, PV). Each of Balaam’s
oracles is delivered from a promontory, or high place, where he can look out over the
Israelites, who are encamped in the distance. After Balak and Balaam have offered
sacrifices, Balaam departs alone to a hill, where God tells him what to say. Balaam
returns to Balak and delivers a prophecy of blessing for Israel directly from the Lord.
Note that there is a similar structural pattern of nine narrative elements that is
essentially followed for each of the first three of Balaam’s oracles:[<Cole 398]

a. Balak takes Balaam to an observation point to view Israel (22.41; 23.13-14a; 23.27-
28)
b. Balaam instructs Balak to offer sacrifices (23:1; missing; 23.29)
c. Balak obeys Balaam by sacrificing the prescribed animals (23.2; 23.14b; 23.30)
d. Balaam tells Balak to stand by his offering altars (23.3; 23.25; missing)
e. Balaam goes alone to meet the Lord and receive a revelation (23.4-5; 23.16; 24.1-2,
in this case, Balaam does not journey off alone)
f. Balaam returns to Balak, standing by his offering (23.6; 23.17; missing)
g. Balaam obeys the Lord and speaks an oracle of blessing upon Israel (23.7-10;
23.18-24; 24.3-9)
h. Balak admonishes Balaam for uttering an oracle of blessing, his sense of frustration
increasing in each of the three scenes (23.11; 23.25; 24.10-11)
i. Balaam responds by saying that he must speak what the Lord tells him to (23.12;
23.26; 24.12-13)

Each sequence embodies a narrative in miniature, beginning with a problem, which is

followed by a build-up in tension, a peak point at the oracle of the Lord, and finally a
denouement. Balaam’s fourth oracle (24.15-19) breaks this clearly established pattern,
which may be an indication that it represents the climax of them all.
This structure within the text has more than just literary significance. It also
helps to demarcate the discourse into corresponding units. Translations that fail to see
the pattern here may propose paragraph or sectional breaks and accompanying titles
that do not jibe well with the Hebrew text’s organization.

22.41
RSV
41 And on the morrow Balak took Balaam and brought him up to Bamothbaal; and from
there he saw the nearest of the people.

GNT
41 Next morning Balak took Balaam up to Bamoth Baal, from where Balaam could see a
part of the people of Israel.

And on the morrow: A temporal construction should be used that also

indicates the beginning of a new section of narrative discourse. This is the only time
indicator given for all of Balaam’s oracles. The Hebrew text (wayehi) clearly marks
this disjunctive break: “And-it-was/happened in-the-morning and-he-took ...”
Bamothbaal: The place-name means “high places [that is, sacrificial worship
sites] of Baal.” GECL (and already the Vulgate) has actually put the rendering of the
name in the translation: “the high places of Baal.” Thus, a rendering like “to the place
for worshiping Baal” (Chewa) would not necessarily be reading too much into this
text, for it highlights the ironic incongruity of the whole situation, as in the original.
From a pagan worship site, a foreign prophet is being commissioned by a fearful king
to curse the people of Yahweh.
The nearest of the people: The Hebrew text here is ambiguous, literally: “the
end/outskirts of the people.” In either case, the great number of Israelites is
dramatized: either only part of the multitude can be seen (GNT), or the entire vast
expanse of them encamped in the valley below (“the extent of the nation,” NET).

23.1-2
RSV
1And Balaam said to Balak, “Build for me here seven altars, and provide for me here seven
bulls and seven rams.” 2 Balak did as Balaam had said; and Balak and Balaam offered on
each altar a bull and a ram.

GNT
1 He said to Balak, “Build seven altars here for me, and bring me seven bulls and seven
rams.”
2 Balak did as he was told, and he and Balaam offered a bull and a ram on each altar.
 In verse 2, GNT starts a new paragraph. This makes sense in languages in
which a new paragraph is always started after a direct speech. In other languages,
however, it will be more natural if verse 2 is still treated as part of the same
paragraph—verse 2 puts Balaam’s instruction of verse 1 into action.
Seven: The number seven is significant in the Balaam Narrative (as in the
Scriptures as a whole): Balaam pronounces seven oracles (four are long; three are
short).
Bulls: The Hebrew term, par, is the same as in, for example, 7.15, where RSV
translates “young bull.” However, though young, they were already mature animals.
See also the Exodus Handbook at 29.1.
Balak and Balaam: Although some Hebrew and Greek manuscripts lack
these names at this point, they are included in the traditional Hebrew text and should
be translated. In some languages it will be more natural in the context to render this
phrase as follows: “he and Balaam” (GNT); “Balak … with Balaam” (NBG51); “the
two of them” (NIV, NLT); “they both/together” (GECL, FRCL).
Offered … a bull and a ram: Literally “made a bull and a ram go up …”
This verb “made to go up” and the term “burnt offering” are of the same root in
Hebrew. Hence the rendering “offered a bull and a ram … as a burnt offering”
(GECL, NBJ98, NBS02). However, a specific type of sacrifice (out of the sacrificial
system of the Pentateuch) is probably not in view here, given the Moabite ritual
context. Even so, instead of offered, a slightly more specific rendering of this
particular verb will be helpful, for example: “sacrificed” (CEV).

23.3-4
RSV
3And Balaam said to Balak, “Stand beside your burnt offering, and I will go; perhaps the Lord
will come to meet me; and whatever he shows me I will tell you.” And he went to a bare
height. 4 And God met Balaam; and Balaam said to him, “I have prepared the seven altars,
and I have offered upon each altar a bull and a ram.”

GNT
3 Then Balaam said to Balak, “Stand here by your burnt offering, while I go to see whether or
not the Lord will meet me. I will tell you whatever he reveals to me.” So he went alone to the
top of a hill, 4 and God met him. Balaam said to him, “I have built the seven altars and offered
a bull and a ram on each.”

Stand beside: The Hebrew verb suggests more than a casual “standing”
nearby the altars and their sacrificial animals; rather, a more deliberate stance is
suggested, for example: “station yourself” (NET, Alter) or “stand watch.”[<Noordtzij
215]
Burnt offering: See at 6.11. Perhaps under the influence of verses 1-2, where
seven altars are mentioned, the Syriac and the Samaritan Versions have a plural. The
same applies to, for example, NRSV (“burnt offerings”). However, the Hebrew
standard text reads a singular form. As in verse 2, a specific type of sacrifice (as found
in the Pentateuch) is probably not in view here, hence REB’s more generic rendering
“sacrifice.”
And I will go …: The Hebrew verb form we’elkhah connects this phrase with
the preceding instruction Stand beside …. Balak is expected to wait (watching,
guarding, praying?) by his sacrifice, while Balaam goes off to receive a message or
vision from the Lord (not at the site of the sacrifice). GNT’s “while I go” brings out
this connection more clearly. The text does not specify where Balaam will go, hence
renderings such as “while I go off” (NBG51, WV95, DUCL, FRCL), “while I go
aside” (NRSV, NIV), and “while I go a bit further” (PV, NBV, CRV). The problem
with GECL’s “I want to go over there” is that the Hebrew in this verse does not
specify any direction in which Balaam wants to go. None of these renderings express
what the Hebrew verb form implies: a wish by the speaker. For this reason, REB
provides a more helpful model: “and let me go off by myself.”
Perhaps: The Hebrew starts a new sentence with this expression of Balaam’s
hope (Hebrew ’ulay). GNT’s “… to see whether or not …” does not adequately
express the emphasis implied in this new thought. A better model, then, is provided
by REB: “It may be that …”
The Lord will come to meet me: Translators have struggled to render the
Hebrew passive verb yiqqareh. GNT’s “the Lord will meet me” just leaves this verb
untranslated. Literally the Hebrew has: “the Lord will (allow to) be met to meet me.”
Thus, a translation like “Perhaps the Lord will make it happen that he meets me”
(similar to NBJ98) or “Perhaps the Lord will take the occasion to encounter me”
(similar to Levine) would be a helpful model. A form of the same verb occurs in Exo
3.18. As the Handbook on Exodus explains, it conveys the idea of an unexpected
meeting initiated by the Lord himself.
He shows me: Literally “he lets me see” (NBG51, NBJ98). Renderings like
“he reveals to me” (GNT, GECL) and “he will make me know” (TOB, FRCL) may be
helpful if communication through a literal “seeing” would suggest only a physical
vision of some kind, which is not implied here.
A bare height: Not “height” in the sense of an elevated height that has been
built. “A bare hill” (NBG51) or “the top of a hill” (GNT) may be more helpful in that
it avoids this misunderstanding. Balaam had to go to a high place—closer to God
(compare the note in NET)—from where he could see the people of Israel, the object
of the curse or blessing. Otherwise the curse or blessing would not be effective.[<
Noth 182]
And God met Balaam: This phrase marks the first meeting of God (as
distinct from “the Lord”) with Balaam in Moab. Balaam has just expressed
uncertainty whether this would happen. The new sentence in RSV and NRSV (“Then
God met Balaam”) does more justice to the importance of this meeting than GNT’s
“…, and God met him,” which simply continues the preceding sentence. The Hebrew
verb here, wayyiqqar, is passive again—it will be helpful if its translation is consistent
with the rendering of yiqqareh earlier in this verse.
And Balaam said to him: Literally “and he said to him.” In the context in
which this phrase occurs, this has to mean that Balaam spoke the following words to
God, perhaps in the form of a prayer. This is the only time in the Balaam Narrative
that it mentions that Balaam speaks to God before he receives a revelation.
I have prepared: If GNT’s “I have built” is followed, it should not imply that
Balaam himself constructed all of the altars needed for the sacrificial offerings.
The seven altars: The Hebrew includes the definite article (the), as Balaam is
referring to the seven altars of verse 1. But Balaam is not simply informing God that
he built these altars. Rather, he seems to assume that the sacrifices were required and
is asking God to respond in return.

23.5-7a
RSV
5And the Lord put a word in Balaam's mouth, and said, “Return to Balak, and thus you shall
speak.” 6 And he returned to him, and lo, he and all the princes of Moab were standing beside
his burnt offering. 7 And Balaam took up his discourse, and said,
GNT
5 The Lord told Balaam what to say and sent him back to Balak to give him his message. 6
So he went back and found Balak still standing by his burnt offering, with all the leaders of
Moab.
7 Balaam uttered this prophecy:

Verses 5-7a form the introduction to the actual message, Balaam’s first
prophecy, which starts in verse 7b.
Put a word in Balaam’s mouth: Instead of this concrete idiom, GNT and
FRCL will be more natural in many languages: “The Lord told Balaam [exactly] what
to say” (GNT); “the Lord gave Balaam the message which he had to pronounce”
(FRCL). In FRCL, “message” corresponds with word. This is why FRCL still
corresponds more closely with the Hebrew idiom than GNT.
Return to Balak and thus you shall speak: NRSV has revised this direct
speech as follows: “Return to Balak, and this is what you must say,” which is more
natural in English. Still, readers may think that this direct speech already forms (or
introduces) the actual message itself, and since this is not the case, the text will sound
unnatural. GNT avoids this misunderstanding and translates this part of verse 5
without using direct speech: “The Lord ... sent him back to Balak to give him his
message.” This would be another way to express it: “Return to Balak and give him my
message,” or “...and tell him these things” (Chewa).
And he returned to him, and lo, he ...: The Hebrew wehineh (lo) indicates
that what comes is seen from Balaam’s perspective. This expression highlights the
fact that Balaam came back to find Balak doing what he had told him to do (v. 3).
This is made clear in GNT: “So he [Balaam] went back and found Balak ...” (The
second he refers to Balak, which may need to be made explicit as in GNT.)
The princes of Moab: As in 21.18 and 22.8, 20, 35. NJPSV has “dignitaries.”
Burnt offering: REB has “sacrifice.” See at 23.3.
Took up his discourse: The Hebrew verb (yissa’) in itself indicates that some
form of marked, distinctive speech is about to follow. GNT and DHE94 have “uttered
this prophecy,” thus indicating that the actual words of the message will now follow.
NRSV, NIV, and REB have “uttered his oracle.” TOB has “pronounced his
incantation” (that is, a recitation of magic words, which might be misleading in some
languages). The Hebrew term mashal normally refers to a brief proverb, wisdom
saying and/or artistically structured poetic expression (formulated in parallelisms)—1
Kgs 4.32 (5.12) mentions Solomon’s “proverbs”—or a longer argumentation or
discourse (for example in Job 27.1). Here in Numbers 23–24, “oracle” and “oracle
speech” (NBV, WV95) are appropriate renderings. See the brief discussion of the root
m-sh-l at 21.27.

23.7b
RSV
“From Aram Balak has brought me,
the king of Moab from the eastern mountains:
‘Come, curse Jacob for me,
and come, denounce Israel!’

GNT
“Balak king of Moab has brought me
From Syria, from the eastern mountains.
‘Come and speak for me,’ he said.
 ‘Put a curse on the people of Israel.’

As has been mentioned in the introduction to 22.1-25.18, verses 7b-10 and

Balaam’s other oracles should be translated in a distinctive manner, that is, in a style
(or genre) that highlights and reproduces their prophetic function.
A comment should be made on the parallel lines in verse 7b and the rest of the
oracles. In RSV, the first pair of lines reflects the poetic structure of the Hebrew: the
second line is parallel to the first. This means that the second line restates, contrasts
with, qualifies, augments, embellishes, and/or intensifies the first line. (Thus, From
Aram is parallel to from the eastern mountains, while Balak and the king of Moab
are parallel as well.) The same applies to the second pair of lines: the fourth line is
parallel to the third. GNT, on the other hand, has combined the first and second pair
of lines each into one natural sentence that clarifies the parallel connections between
the two lines. Many listeners/readers will find such reformulated sentences easier to
understand. However, translators should take care that such a restructuring of the lines
does not diminish the overall solemn sense of the text or make the translation less
distinctive in style. GECL is a good example of a translation that has been rendered in
a functionally equivalent poetic fashion.
Note that in the Hebrew, this oracle consists of seven parallel couplets. In
addition, the passage seems to divide into two parts (7-8 and 9-10), with constituent
segments that are also roughly in parallel: verses 7b and 9a (focus on location); verses
7b and 9b-10a (focus on Israel); verses 8 and 10b (focus on Balaam’s personal
reaction).
From Aram: As mentioned in 22.5, Balaam came from Pethor, which was
probably located in the most northerly part of present-day Syria. GNT’s “from Syria”
would fit this geographical information. However, since the rest of the verse already
indicates that Balaam was brought from the east (from the eastern mountains), it
will often not be necessary to use the contemporary term “Syria” in translation. It
might be helpful, though, to make explicit the fact that he came “from afar.” RSV
places from Aram at the beginning of the verse, while GNT has put “from Syria”
later in the sentence. At least in English, GNT makes for a more natural sentence
structure, while RSV is stylistically more distinctive. These opening lines seem to be
a formula for the seer to identify himself and the occasion for the oracle (footnote in
NET), and a similar pattern is observed in the oracles that follow.
Jacob … Israel: In the third and fourth line, Jacob and Israel both refer to the
Israelite people, that is, all Israel, including Judah and northern Israel. GECL has “the
people of Jacob … Israel,” probably in order to avoid the impression that these are
two different persons. DUCL translates “the descendants of Jacob … Israel.” (FRCL
reverses this: “Israel, the descendants of Jacob.”) Presumably for the same reason,
GNT even omits “Jacob” (and adds “the people of”).
Come …: From this point to the end of the verse, the words of Balak are
quoted in embedded direct speech. GNT inserts “he said” to make this clear.
Curse … denounce: The Hebrew words have the same meaning, except
perhaps that the second one is a more explicit expression of anger: “tell Israel’s
doom” (NJPSV); “call evil upon Israel.”

23.8
RSV
8 How can I curse whom God has not cursed?
How can I denounce whom the Lord has not denounced?
GNT
8 How can I curse what God has not cursed,
Or speak of doom when the Lord has not?

How can I: In some languages, the contrast expressed in this verse needs to be
initially marked, for example, “But how can I …” (Chewa).
Curse: The Hebrew verb is different from those of verse 7 and may imply that
the curse would be accompanied by acts of magic or sorcery: “enchant.” Perhaps a
different expression for “curse” may be used here, for example: “to call troubles down
upon” or “to wish evil against.”
Denounce: See at verse 7. NBJ98 has “fulminate.”
The two parallel questions are rhetorical—Balaam is implying that it is totally
impossible for him to curse whom the Lord has not cursed.

23.9
RSV
9For from the top of the mountains I see him,
from the hills I behold him;
lo, a people dwelling alone,
and not reckoning itself among the nations!

GNT
9 From the high rocks I can see them;
I can watch them from the hills.
They are a nation that lives alone;
They know they are blessed more than other nations.

For: Given the context, verse 9 does not introduce the reason for what has
been said in verse 8. Rather, the Hebrew particle kiy may be understood here as
exclamative: “Yes” (NBJ98) or “Indeed”—similar to lo later in the verse. There
seems to be no reason to leave this untranslated, as in GNT. Alternatively, kiy can be
taken to introduce a temporal clause: “As (or While) I see them … gaze on them …,
… (NJPSV, TOB).
Him refers to the people of Israel. In many languages it will be more natural to
use a plural form: “them” (GNT).
Lo: The Hebrew hen indicates that what comes is seen from Balaam’s
perspective, probably in both a visual and visionary sense. “I see ...” (NIV, REB,
TOB) expresses this in another way.
A people dwelling alone: The emphasis here is not so much on Israel’s
physical isolation, but rather on the security and safety that they enjoy, being “set
apart” also by the Lord’s blessing.[<Ashley 471]
Not reckoning itself among the nations: This does not imply that Israel
considers itself too small to be a nation. Instead, this phrase is close in meaning to the
parallel phrase in the previous line (dwelling alone). REB is a helpful model: “I see a
people that dwells apart, that has not made itself one with the nations.” FRCL is
helpful as well: “it knows itself to be different from other nations” (similar in PV).
Interestingly, WV95 reformulates this in a negative way: “and does not consider itself
as one of them” (also NIV). They consider themselves to be a unique people (NET
note). The Hebrew term goyim refers to nations other than Israel itself. (The problem
with GNT’s rendering “they know they are blessed more than other nations” is that
this translation is not closely parallel in meaning to the previous line.)
23.10
RSV
10Who can count the dust of Jacob,
or number the fourth partss of Israel?
Let me die the death of the righteous,
and let my end be like his!”

s 23.10 Or dust clouds

GNT
10The descendants of Israel are like the dust —
There are too many of them to be counted.
Let me end my days like one of God's people;
Let me die in peace like the righteous.”

The first two parallel lines are rhetorical questions in the Hebrew and cite
physical evidence for the Lord’s blessing of Israel. GNT brings out their implied
negative answer: “There are too many of them to be counted.”
Or number: The form in the Hebrew text (mispár) does not quite fit the
context grammatically. Most translations follow the Samaritan Pentateuch and the
Septuagint, reading the Hebrew form as mi sáfar “who numbers …?” (parallel to the
first line).
The fourth parts: RSV mentions an alternative in a footnote: “dust clouds.”
NRSV reverses this, mentioning “fourth part” in a note and putting “the dust-cloud”
in the translation itself. The Hebrew form rova` is indeed best understood to mean
“dust,” in parallel with the first line and referring figuratively to “the dust-cloud of
Israel” (NRSV),[<Ashley 472] in other words “the myriads of Israel” (REB) or “the
crowds of Israel” (NBG51), as in Gen 13:16.
Let me die the death of the righteous: In some languages it may be helpful
to replace this expression of Balaam’s surprising wish with another: “end my days
like those who are upright” (similar to GNT). PV translates “die like those who obey
God,” putting the meaning of righteous in different words. The ones implied here are,
also somewhat surprisingly (in view of their past history), the people of Israel.
Let my end be like his: NLT makes use of another expression: “let my life
end like theirs.” His, though singular in the Hebrew, refers to the righteous (a plural
form in the Hebrew). The request calls for a death like whatever death the people of
Israel will face.[< Knierim 257] GNT and a few other translations make explicit that
this would mean to “die in peace.”
Balaam’s first oracle from the Lord ends with verse 10.

23.11-12
RSV
11 And Balak said to Balaam, “What have you done to me? I took you to curse my enemies,
and behold, you have done nothing but bless them.” 12 And he answered, “Must I not take
heed to speak what the Lord puts in my mouth?”

GNT
11 Then Balak said to Balaam, “What have you done to me? I brought you here to curse my
enemies, but all you have done is bless them.”
12 He answered, “I can say only what the Lord tells me to say.”

What have you done to me?: Clearly, this rhetorical question is expressed
with some strong emotion, including anger. The reference is not to physical harm, but
rather to certain magical (mystical) damage—blessing Israel instead of cursing them!
I took you: GNT’s “I brought you here” is a natural model in many languages.
And behold: There is no reason to eliminate the emphasis of the original here
(as GNT does), for example: “… but look at what you have done: You have blessed
them instead!”
Curse: See at 23.8, where the same verb is used in the Hebrew.
And he answered: It may be necessary to specify the subject, “Balaam”
(NET).
Must I not take heed …?: Instead of take heed, NRSV has “take care.” The
Hebrew sentence is a rhetorical question implying an emphatic affirmative assertion.
But apart from that, the sentence is similar to Balaam’s statement in 22.20, 35, and
especially 22.38. In fact, the same emphatic construction (with ’oto “that”) occurs
here in 23.12. It would be good to show this similarity in the translation as well—
Balaam does not give in to King Balak’s pressure! NRSV—with one change—is a
helpful model: “Must I not take care to say only/exactly what the Lord puts into my
mouth?”

23.13-26
Section Heading: Helpful headings are “Balaam’s Second Prophecy” (GNT);
“Balaam’s second oracle”; “Balaam’s second blessing” (FRCL); “Balaam blesses the
people of Israel for the second time.” King Balak makes another attempt to get
Balaam to pronounce a curse on the people of Israel, not a blessing.
Note the structural pattern of nine narrative elements that is essentially
followed for each of the first three of Balaam’s oracles, as discussed at the beginning
of the section on 22.41–23.12 above.

23.13
RSV
13 And Balak said to him, “Come with me to another place, from which you may see them;
you shall see only the nearest of them, and shall not see them all; then curse them for me
from there.”

GNT
13 Then Balak said to Balaam, “Come with me to another place from which you can see
only some of the Israelites. Curse them for me from there.”

And Balak said: Some languages may have an introductory word or phrase to
indicate that a new episode and sequence of events begins here, for example, “Then”
(GNT), “After that” (Chewa).
Come with me: The Hebrew includes the small word na’, thus making
Balak’s request more urgent and compelling: “Please come with me” or “Do come
with me.”
To another place: Or: “to a different place.” By changing location Balak
hopes to achieve his desired outcome.
Them: In verse 13, RSV refers to the people of Israel four times in this way.
In many languages it will indeed be more natural to use a plural form, although the
Hebrew has singular forms. On the first occasion, “the people of Israel” may need to
be specified for clarity of reference.
The nearest of them: As in 22.41, the Hebrew text here is ambiguous; the
Hebrew is literally: “the end/outskirts of him/it.”
 From which you may see them; you shall see only the nearest of them, and
shall not see them all: GNT words this in more natural English. As in 22.41 the text
aims to dramatize again the great number of Israelites, this time through the mouth of
King Balak, who is now making this statement. A few translations have, in different
ways, attempted to make Balak’s words sound more logical in their context, implying
that he wants Balaam to have a better view from this new place: “There, you will see
all the Israelites. From here, you only saw part of them” (PV, similarly FRCL); “...
from where you can see the whole people. From here you only see the end of their
camp” (GECL). However, as the italicized words show, these renderings are quite
speculative when compared with the Hebrew text. CEV translates in order to bring out
a somewhat different implication: “Maybe if you see a smaller part of the Israelites,
you will be able to curse them for me.” The chiastic structure of this verse would
appear to support this interpretation.[<Cole 408] It seems that Balak fears that a sight
of the whole of Israel would overwhelm Balaam and make him pronounce another
blessing, which he did not want to happen.[< Budd 267; Levine 179-180]
Curse: See at 23.8, where the same verb is used in the Hebrew.

23.14
RSV
14 And he took him to the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah, and built seven altars, and
offered a bull and a ram on each altar.

GNT
14 He took him to the field of Zophim on the top of Mount Pisgah. There also he built seven
altars and offered a bull and a ram on each of them.

And he took him: It may be helpful to state the pronominal referents

explicitly here: “So Balak took Balaam …” (NET, NLT).
The field of Zophim: A literal rendering of “field” could be misleading here,
implying a cultivated garden for growing crops. Given the root of this form in
Hebrew, Zophim can be rendered “lookouts,” referring either to a proper name or to a
common noun; hence helpful translations might be: “the Lookouts’ Field” (Alter);
“Lookout Plateau” (Levine); “Field of the Watchers” (REB, NBS02, RSO); “an
observation post” (TOB, PV) or “place for spying out.”
Pisgah: See at 21.20.
And offered a bull and a ram on each altar: See at 23.2.

23.15
RSV
15Balaam said to Balak, “Stand here beside your burnt offering, while I meet the Lord
yonder.”

GNT
15 Balaam said to Balak, “Stand here by your burnt offering, and I will meet God over there.”

Balaam said: The difference with 23.3 is that the Hebrew does not specify
Balaam as the subject here. However, many translations (including the Septuagint
and Peshitta, the ancient Greek and Syriac translations) refer to him explicitly.
Stand here beside your burnt offering: As in 23.3, except that 23.3 lacks
“here.” The Hebrew text includes the same particle koh at either end of Balaam’s
words, perhaps to highlight the difference in locations being referred to: “right here …
over yonder.”
I meet the Lord yonder: The Hebrew passive verb ’iqqareh, which is of the
same root as yiqqareh in 23.3, literally means “I will meet” or, more precisely, “I will
be met.” (Compare NBG51: “while a meeting befalls me over there.”) The Septuagint
refers to “God” (GNT) explicitly here, but the Lord is lacking in the Hebrew. In
contrast to 23.3, then, Balaam does not refer to the Lord explicitly. Unless it is
necessary to make the Lord an explicit object in the target language, it may be good to
mark this difference with 23.3 and translate along the same lines as WV95 and ZÜR:
“while I wait over there for an encounter.” If a reference to the Lord is needed in the
target language, it will still be helpful to indicate at the same time that the verb is
passive: “I will be met by the Lord.” Even the greatest of prophets cannot determine
precisely when and where the Lord will grant them a revelation. Based on this, NBV
has: “I will wait over there until the Lord comes to me.”

23.16-18a
RSV
16 And the Lord met Balaam, and put a word in his mouth, and said, “Return to Balak, and
thus shall you speak.” 17 And he came to him, and lo, he was standing beside his burnt
offering, and the princes of Moab with him. And Balak said to him, “What has the Lord
spoken?” 18 And Balaam took up his discourse, and said,

GNT
16 The Lord met Balaam, told him what to say, and sent him back to Balak to give him his
message. 17 So he went back and found Balak still standing by his burnt offering, with the
leaders of Moab. Balak asked what the Lord had said, 18 and Balaam uttered this prophecy:

Verses 16-18a form a close parallel to 23.4-7a, and thus the similarities should
be translated correspondently.
The Lord met Balaam: As in 23.4, the Hebrew verb, wayyiqqar, is passive
again—; therefore it is recommended that its translation be kept similar to the
rendering of yiqqareh in 23.3, 15.
And put a word in his mouth: See at 23.5.
Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak: See at 23.5.
And he came to him, and lo, he …: See at 23.6. Only the verb in Hebrew (he
came) is slightly different from the verb in verse 6 (“he returned”). In spite of this,
GNT has “he went back” here as well as in verse 6.
He was standing beside his burnt offering, and the princes of Moab with
him: See at 23.6.
And Balak said to him, “What has the Lord spoken?: Balak’s question
shows how anxious he is to know what the Lord said. He is now portrayed as being
more anxious than in 23.6, where he does not seem to ask anything. In many
languages, only direct speech will bring out this anxiety in an effective manner. This
is why indirect speech like in GNT (“Balak asked what the Lord had said”) is not
recommended. There is another reason why Balak’s question should really stand out
in translation: it has no parallel in the context of the other prophecies. (After the third
prophecy in chapter 24 Balak does not ask this question either.) Balak explicitly
mentions the Lord: this shows his resignation to the fact that it is the Lord, the God
of the people whom he is trying to curse, who ultimately decides about who or what
will be blessed or cursed.[< Sherwood 179]
Took up his discourse: See at 23.7a.
23.18b
RSV
“Rise, Balak, and hear;
hearken to me, O son of Zippor:

GNT
“Come, Balak son of Zippor,
And listen to what I have to say.

Balaam’s second prophecy starts with an opening formula and consists of

eleven parallel couplets. As is the first oracle, so this second one also seems to be
divided into two parts consisting of three roughly parallel segments (after the
introduction in verse 18b, verses 19-20 and 21-24): verses 19 and 21b-22 (focus on
God, the Lord); verses 20 and 23 (focus on not cursing Israel); verses 21a and 24
(focus on blessing in Israel). See the comments at 23.7b concerning the need to
translate Balaam’s oracles in a distinctive manner, that is, in a style (or genre) that
highlights their prophetic function.
Rise: Or “stand up.” The meaning of this imperative is that Balak has to pay
attention [< Budd 267] since he is already standing. Hence renderings such as “Up”
(NJPSV, REB), “Come” (GNT), and “Pay good attention” (NBV, WV95).
Hear; hearken: Of these two imperative forms, the second one is of the same
root as ’ozen “ear.” The form may be rendered “listen carefully” (FRCL, PV),
although “lend me your ear” (NBV) is probably more poetic. Balak is being prepared
to receive the next prophecy of the Lord through Balaam.

23.19
RSV
God is not man, that he should lie,
19
or a son of man, that he should repent.
Has he said, and will he not do it?
Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?

GNT
God is not like men, who lie;
19
He is not a human who changes his mind.
Whatever he promises, he does;
He speaks, and it is done.

Verse 19 clearly indicates the divine source of the prophecy and forms the
basis for the point that is made in verse 20 (God’s blessing upon Israel cannot be
reversed). It also expresses a general principle; for this reason, verb forms which
indicate habitual or repeated action should be used in some languages. A close
parallel to the first half of the verse can be found in 1 Sam 15.29. In the build-up
towards verse 20, the second half of verse 19 consists of two rhetorical questions to
which the implied emphatic answer is no. NJPSV makes use of the modal verb
“would,” thus indicating more clearly that the implied answer is no: “Would He speak
and not act, Promise and not fulfill?” In some languages it may be helpful to express
the point they make by means of positive statements, as GNT has done, although
some rhetorical underscoring should be included to duplicate the impact of the
original poetry.
 Man: The contrast is not between male and female but between human beings
and divine beings, specifically the God of Israel, Yahweh, who is implied.
Son of man: Or more literally “son of a human.” The idiomatic expression is
used in the sense of “human being,” a “mere mortal.” [<Ashley 477] A literal
rendering may give the wrong suggestion that the expression refers to some unnamed
person’s child, or idiomatically, to some extraordinary individual (Chewa).
In the second half of verse 19, the contrast to the first part is given: God
cannot fail like a human being; on the contrary, he always keeps his promises.
Repent is used here in the sense of “change his mind” (compare GNT, CEV,
NLT). A helpful alternative is rendering is “come back on his decision” (NBV).
Fulfil: The Hebrew verb is literally “cause to arise.” See the Handbook on 1
Samuel at 3.12 for one other instance of this verb, expressing that the Lord will make
everything happen that he had previously said would happen. He will most certainly
fulfil his promises, in this case, those made by Balaam with reference to Israel.

23.20
RSV
20 Behold, I received a command to bless:
he has blessed, and I cannot revoke it.

GNT
I have been instructed to bless,
20
And when God blesses, I cannot call it back.

Behold: The Hebrew hineh seems to indicate that Balaam now really comes to
the point. In some languages this is better expressed with a rendering like “Listen”
(NLT), “Yes indeed” (one word in Chewa, Ndithu).
I have received a command to bless: This line has been translated in various
ways. Literally the Hebrew text has barekh laqachti: “I have taken to bless.” (The
word order in the Hebrew puts emphasis on to bless: Balaam contradicts Balak’s
earlier statement in verse 11, where Balak says: “I took you [leqachtikha—the same
verb] to curse …”) Now “I have taken to bless” can be understood to mean “I have
received to bless” (KJV, so already Rashi: “I have received the command from him to
bless them”) or “I have accepted to bless.” Most translations have followed the sense
of the Hebrew: RSV (likewise NIV and REB), GNT (“I have been instructed to
bless,” so LUT84), TOB (“I have assumed the charge to bless”), NBJ98 (“I have
received the charge of a blessing”), NBS02 (“I have taken the blessing”). In some
languages the passive form may have to be adapted as follows: “He [God] has
commanded me to bless” (WV95). Also, some languages need to specify what is
blessed: “I have accepted to bless this people” (FRCL, PV). CEV does both: “My
command from God was to bless these people.” (The ancient Greek, Latin, and Syriac
versions, that is, the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Peshitta, have read the first Hebrew
verb as luqqachti and thus translated it passively: “I have been taken to bless.” LUT12
seems to have followed this: “to bless I have been brought over.” Compare also CRV:
“I have been chosen to bless.” Although this reading makes sense as well, there is no
reason to deviate from the meaningful Hebrew text here.)
He has blessed, and I cannot revoke it: This translation might suggest that
Balaam is referring to the blessing in the previous prophecy (not this one). This is
what NET suggests in a footnote. However, the Hebrew line could equally be
interpreted as a general principle (similar to verse 19): “And when he has blessed, I
cannot revoke it” (similar to GNT). The rendering cannot may be misleading: it may
suggest that Balaam wanted to revoke the blessing but he couldn’t. The Hebrew does
not imply or express this. To solve the problem, a rendering like “and I will not
revoke it” (similar to TOB, WV95, FRCL) may actually be more helpful. This
translational decision matters— it affects how Balaam is portrayed in the prophecy
and the narrative. (The Septuagint has read the first verb of this line differently: “I
bless.” This reading has been followed by NBJ98: “I will bless and I will not revoke.”
There is no reason, though, to deviate from the third person verb form in the Hebrew.)

23.21
RSV
He has not beheld misfortune in Jacob;
21
nor has he seen trouble in Israel.
The Lord their God is with them,
and the shout of a king is among them.

GNT
I foresee that Israel's future
21
Will bring her no misfortune or trouble.
The Lord their God is with them;
They proclaim that he is their king.

He has not beheld … nor has he seen: The verbs in the Hebrew text are in
the third person. If they are translated with a personal subject (he), the subject would
be God. RSV above, NRSV, KJV, REB, and NBS02 have done this: “He has
discovered no iniquity in Jacob and has seen no mischief in Israel” (REB). NIV
includes this as an alternative in a note: “He has not looked on Jacob’s offenses or on
the wrongs found in Israel.” Most translations, however, understand these verbs as
impersonal: “one observes no calamity … one sees no suffering …” (TOB). NIV’s
main translation is based on the same understanding of the verbs: “No misfortune is
seen in Jacob, no misery observed in Israel.” This will be more natural in a number of
languages. (GNT’s “I foresee” seems to be based on the Syriac Version, in which the
two verbs are in the first person, referring to Balaam. However, there seems to be no
reason to deviate from the Hebrew text here.)
Misfortune … trouble: The words ’awen and `amal occur in parallel lines
and are parallel in meaning. As just mentioned, REB renders these as “iniquity” and
“mischief,” treating the sentence as a moral assessment of Israel by God. It is
doubtful, however, whether such a moral assessment fits the context of a blessing—a
translation like REB can easily give the wrong suggestion that the Israelites are
blessed because of their moral qualities. There is no hint of this in the book of
Numbers, certainly not in view of the people’s behaviour as reported in chapters 11–
19. A morally positive assessment of Israel does not fit in well with the rest of the
book, either. It is more plausible to understand ’awen and `amal to mean physical
misfortune and trouble (or “distress”).[< Levine 183-184; Milgrom 199] This could
refer to the terrible calamities that Balak wanted Balaam to call down upon Israel
through his curses.
Jacob and Israel are parallel references to the same nation. In some languages
this would not be clear, in which case it may be better to mention only Israel in the
translation (as in GNT). Other languages may have an idiomatic way of indicating
that the second line is equivalent to the first, for example: “No, trouble has not been
seen for Israel at all.”
 And the shout of a king is among them: (The word for shout is used
normally for the sound of the trumpet—see at 10.5—but also of the battle cry.) This
translation leaves open whether king refers to some human king or to God as Israel’s
king. NRSV (with Noth)[< Noth 187] has opted more explicitly for the latter: “…,
acclaimed as a king among them.” The same interpretation can be expressed as
follows: “He [God] receives their royal acclamation” (similar to FRCL); “They
acclaim him as their king” (similar to GNT and NLT).[<Ashley 479]

23.22
RSV
22 God brings them out of Egypt;
they have as it were the horns of the wild ox.

GNT
God has brought them out of Egypt;
22
He fights for them like a wild ox.

This verse provides the evidence for the preceding acclamation. God has
proven his kingship among Israel by means of the great Exodus experience.
Brings them out: The Hebrew verb form is literally “the one who causes them
to go out,” that is, of Egypt—the participle being a typical hymnic form.[<Ashley
479] However, if a choice as to time has to be made, it will be best to refer to the past
(GNT’s “God has brought”), not the present.
They (also in NIV) would refer to the Israelites. But NRSV remains closer to
the Hebrew and renders:
“God, who brings them out of Egypt, is like the horns of a wild ox for them.”
Indeed in most translations, including NRSV and GNT (“He”), the horns (or what
they stand for) are connected to God, not the Israelites.
As it were the horns of the wild ox: As it were and “like” (NRSV, GNT)
express that a simile is being used. The point of the image of the horns is strength and
power. In many languages this needs to be made clear, for example as in TOB: “he
has the strength of a buffalo,” or GNT: “he fights for them [with strength].” GNT
provides a helpful translation model for this verse: it connects the image of the horns
with God and makes the point of the image explicit. Also, GNT has two separate lines
(like in the Hebrew poetry) instead of one long sentence (like in NRSV).
It is uncertain to which type of animal the Hebrew re’em refers. For some
reason, most English translations have wild ox (also NRSV, NIV, REB), German and
Dutch translations frequently have “wild bull” (NBV, LUT84), while French versions
frequently have “buffalo” (TOB, NBJ98, FRCL, PV, Chewa).
The rendering horns is actually not quite certain either, although it is
plausible—the Hebrew term here should probably be connected with the Arabic root
yafa`a “to tower high” or `aṭafa “to bend.”

23.23
RSV
23For there is no enchantment against Jacob,
no divination against Israel;
now it shall be said of Jacob and Israel,
‘What has God wrought!’

GNT
23 There is no magic charm, no witchcraft,
 That can be used against the nation of Israel.a
Now people will say about Israel,
‘Look what God has done!’

a 23.23 Or No magic charms are used in Israel, no witchcraft is practised there.

For seems to make little sense after the preceding verse. But the Hebrew
particle kiy can highlight the sentence it introduces: “Lo” (NJPSV), “Surely”
(Ashley[<Ashley 474]), or “No indeed.”
Enchantment: That is, “interpreting omens and signs.” NJPSV has translated
the Hebrew term nachash as “augury,” which is what RSV translates in Deut 18.10.
As the Handbook on Deuteronomy mentions there, this involves interpreting various
signs and omens, such as the pattern of birds in flight, the disposition of sticks or
arrows flung on the ground, or the examination of an animal’s entrails. Chewa renders
this as “the instruments for practicing sorcery,” which is a generic term that would fit
the context here.
Divination: The Hebrew term qesem is of the same root as the term in 22.7,
and is best understood as “prediction,” “telling the future.” The term does not specify
the way in which this is done. As the Handbook on Deuteronomy mentions at 18.10,
today we do not know the precise distinction between these terms for divination. They
have to do with the various means of predicting future events, and certain kinds of
magic or witchcraft. Chewa has “the instruments for doing divination” (another single
generic term, zanyanga).
Against Jacob … against Israel: To avoid confusion between Jacob and
Israel, GNT leaves out “Jacob” (in the main text as well as in the footnote) as it did in
23.7b, 21. Given the context—Balaam is speaking—the meaning “against” (KJV,
NBG51, NBJ98, NIV, NET, CRV) may well be plausible.[<Ashley 474] Based on
this, WV95 translates: “No spell has any force against Jacob, no divination [has any
force] against Israel” (similarly DUCL, NLT, CEV, DHE). Literally, however, the
Hebrew has “in Jacob … in Israel” (Buber, ZÜR, LUT84, TOB, NBS02, FRCL,
NJPSV, REB, footnote in GNT, Levine, Alter), just as in verse 21. Read in this way,
the first part of the verse combines well with the second part (see the discussion and
model below).
Now it shall be said of …: A new utterance should begin at this point—that
is, without the use of a semicolon as in RSV. Now (NRSV, NIV, REB, NLT, NBG51,
WV95, ZÜR, DHE) is an appropriate translation of the Hebrew ka`et. A few
translations have “at the right time” (LUT84, NBS02, TOB, FRCL, PV). In this verse,
“at once” (NJPSV) or “promptly” (Levine) makes very good sense: “Lo, there is no
augury in Jacob, no divination in Israel: Jacob is told at once, yea Israel, what God
has planned” (NJPSV). When we look at the verse as a whole, the main point seems
to be that in the case of Israel God communicates directly, without the need for
divination. GNT avoids the passive form and translates “people will say,” but this
does not combine well with the main point of the verse. NBV avoids the passive form
in a much more plausible way, making God the speaker: “God himself speaks to
Jacob, at his own time, God himself says to Israel what he will bring about.”
‘What has God wrought’: If these are words spoken by the people, they
could be interpreted as their direct speech (as in RSV, GNT, NET, NLT). But see the
discussion above: it is also plausible that these words are the indirect speech of God
(see the NBV above). The Hebrew verb type indicates the result of something that has
been done. Therefore, in contrast to the GNT model for translation, which is also
valid, another option is to follow NJPSV:
 “Lo, there is no augury in Jacob, no divination in Israel: Jacob is told at once,
yea Israel, what God has planned.”
In some languages it may be more natural to combine this with NBV’s avoidance of
the passive form:
“Lo, there is no augury in Jacob, no divination in Israel: God himself
speaks/says at once to Jacob, to Israel, what he has planned.”
However, the passive form can also be avoided by changing the verb, leaving the
speaker unspecified:
“Truly, there is no augury in Jacob, no divination in Israel: the people hear at
once what God has planned.”

23.24
RSV
24 Behold, a people! As a lioness it rises up
and as a lion it lifts itself;
it does not lie down till it devours the prey,
and drinks the blood of the slain.”

GNT
24 The nation of Israel is like a mighty lion:
It doesn't rest until it has torn and devoured,
Until it has drunk the blood of those it has killed.”

Behold, a people: NRSV has “Look, a people.” Another helpful model is

“Just look at this people!” In the context of an oracle this phrase (with a rendering of
the Hebrew particle hen) is more expressive than GNT’s “The nation of Israel …”—
especially in the context of a prophetic, visionary setting.
Lioness … lion: The two Hebrew terms (lavi’ and ’aryeh) are mentioned in
parallel lines in a number of places in the Old Testament. In Nahum 2.12 they are
mentioned with their cubs in one phrase. On this basis, lavi’ is often understood as
feminine. However, the gender is not important for the image of Israel as a lion here
in verse 24. In some languages it may be natural to combine the two into one: “a
mighty lion” (GNT), while other languages may have several terms for “lion”
available, including certain poetic praise expressions, which would fit well here.
Lie down: This is the literal meaning of the Hebrew verb, but may be
misleading since lions often lie down while devouring their prey. “It does not rest”
(GNT) therefore may be a more natural phrase in some languages.
It devours the prey: The root of the term teref means “to tear.” Hence GNT’s
rendering “it has torn and devoured,” which may be more expressive in some
languages. Verse 24 seems to imply a reversal of intentions (Balak’s)[<Cole 413] and
hence function as the final climax of Balaam’s second prophecy: Israel’s power is
described in increasingly strong terms, reminding us of the description of Judah in
Gen 49.9. Balak might well be alarmed, considering that apparently he may turn out
to be the lion’s prey![< Sherwood 179] These vivid images anticipate the oracles that
follow (24.8-9, 17).
Balaam’s second oracle ends with verse 24.

23.25-26
RSV
25 And Balak said to Balaam, “Neither curse them at all, nor bless them at all.” 26 But
Balaam answered Balak, “Did I not tell you, ‘All that the Lord says, that I must do’?”
GNT
25 Then Balak said to Balaam, “You refuse to curse the people of Israel, but at least don't
bless them!”
26 Balaam answered, “Didn't I tell you that I had to do everything that the Lord told me?”

Neither curse them at all, nor bless them at all: In a number of languages, a
literal rendering is very misleading. Balak’s words, which are emphatically expressed
in Hebrew, will be easier to understand if GNT is followed here: “You refuse to curse
… them.” CEV, REB, NBV, as well as a number of French translations are very
similar to GNT. NLT renders: “Then Balak said to Balaam, ‘Fine, but if you won't
curse them, at least don't bless them!’” It seems that the Moabite king decides that he
would prefer silence over either blessing or cursing.[<Cole 414] Balak is getting
increasingly frustrated, and this feeling might well be brought out in translation.
All that the Lord says, that I must do: Balaam reminds Balak of what he
said to him earlier in 22.38 and 23.12 (see the discussion there). The Hebrew ’oto
(that) emphatically refers again to the earlier phrase “All that the Lord says.” This
forceful construction is the same as in those earlier verses. The point Balaam makes
here is very similar to what he said in 23.12. It is important to note that both sections
(around the first and second prophecy) end in this way.

23.27-24.14
Section Heading: Helpful headings are “Balaam’s Third Prophecy” (GNT);
“Balaam’s third oracle”; “Balaam’s third blessing” (FRCL); “Balaam blesses the
people of Israel for the third time.” As in the case of chapter 23, so also here we see
that the traditional chapter break does not match that of the original Hebrew discourse
structure.
King Balak makes yet another attempt to make Balaam pronounce a curse on
the people of Israel, not a blessing. However, Balaam understands that the Lord wants
to bless Israel. The organization of the introduction to this third oracle is similar to
that of the preceding two (see the structural pattern at 22.41–23.12 above), but there
are several noteworthy differences. This time Balaam does not move away from the
sacrifices in order to receive his oracle from the Lord, and the text mentions explicitly
that the spirit of God is on him (as on a true prophet).
24.12-13 contains the final two elements of the structural pattern. It may be
appropriate, however, to include verse 14 in this section as well. Reasons for this will
be discussed below at 24.14.

23.27-28
RSV
27 And Balak said to Balaam, “Come now, I will take you to another place; perhaps it will
please God that you may curse them for me from there.” 28 So Balak took Balaam to the top
of Peor, that overlooks the desert.t

t 23.28 Or Jeshimon

GNT
27 Balak said, “Come with me, and I will take you to another place. Perhaps God will be
willing to let you curse them for me from there.” 28 So he took Balaam to the top of Mount
Peor overlooking the desert.
 And Balak said: A similar marker may be needed as in 23.13 to indicate the
beginning of a new narrative unit.
Come now: As in 23.13, the Hebrew includes the small word na’, thus making
Balak’s request more urgent and compelling: “Please come” or “Do come.”
I will take you: Balak’s words sound a bit more directive and forceful than in
23.13, for example, Chewa: “Let’s do this together, let us go to …”
Perhaps it will please God that …: Literally “Perhaps it will be right in the
eyes of God that …” There seems to be no reason to omit “in the eyes of”—the
Hebrew text refers to God by means of a human attribute. Again, this may be
significant in a context where some visionary experience and pronouncement is being
referred to. Balak did not include this phrase in 23.13. Balak clings to the hope
(Perhaps) for a curse, especially if just the right location can be found. He does not
realize that place does not matter if the intent is contrary to the will of God.[<Cole
415].
So Balak took Balaam: The verb for “take” should not imply a literal
(physical) carrying (see 23.14). There may be an idiomatic way of expressing this, for
example, “he led him.”
Peor: A mountain, probably located about twenty kilometers east of the
northern end of the Dead Sea. This place will become important in the next episode of
the narrative (Num 25.3, 18; 31.16).
That overlooks: In some languages it may be helpful to translate
“dominating” (NBS02) or “that looks toward” (NET).
The desert: As in 21.20, the Hebrew has yeshimon. For reasons mentioned
there, “Jeshimon” (RSV’s footnote, REB, SB00, NBV) is recommended.

23.29-30
RSV
29 And Balaam said to Balak, “Build for me here seven altars, and provide for me here seven
bulls and seven rams.” 30 And Balak did as Balaam had said, and offered a bull and a ram on
each altar.

GNT
29Balaam said to him, “Build seven altars for me here and bring me seven bulls and seven
rams.” 30 Balak did as he was told, and offered a bull and a ram on each altar.

And offered: The Hebrew of verses 29-30 and of 23.1-2 is the same, but there
is one difference. Here in verse 30 no subject is specified—it is probably only Balak
who sacrifices the bulls and rams. 23.2 explicitly mentions “Balak and Balaam” as the
compound subject.

24.1-3a
RSV
1 When Balaam saw that it pleased the Lord to bless Israel, he did not go, as at other
times, to look for omens, but set his face toward the wilderness. 2 And Balaam lifted up his
eyes, and saw Israel encamping tribe by tribe. And the Spirit of God came upon him, 3 and he
took up his discourse, and said,

GNT
1 By now Balaam knew that the Lord wanted him to bless the people of Israel, so he did
not go to look for omens, as he had done before. He turned towards the desert 2 and saw the
people of Israel camped tribe by tribe. The spirit of God took control of him, 3 and he uttered
this prophecy:
 This introduction to the third prophecy indicates that it will be different from
the first two oracles. Balaam is no longer looking for omens; instead he looks out
straightaway to the wilderness where Israel is encamped.[< Alter] He now sees the
whole people of Israel, not just part of it, and the spirit of God is upon him. It is clear
that this time Balaam knows that what will come is a blessing. He is obedient [<
Knierim 258] and will now pronounce his most comprehensive blessing of Israel.[<
Alter] No longer a pagan diviner, he has become a prophet of the Lord.[< Levine 191]
When Balaam saw: Balaam already understood before this point in the
account that the Lord wanted to bless Israel. The translation should not suggest that he
realizes (saw) this only now at this point in the account. In the Hebrew, the sentences
in this paragraph are independent. In many languages it will be more natural to
connect them more closely. There is no equivalent of when in the Hebrew here, but
renderings like “when” or “By now” (GNT) can help to show that Balaam had already
begun to see that the Lord wanted to bless Israel and that his will could not be undone.
It pleased the Lord: Literally “it was good in the eyes of the Lord.” See at
23.27.
As at other times: Literally “as time after time” or “as time on time.” It may
be helpful to translate “the first two times” (CEV). This refers to the two previous
occasions more explicitly.
Omens: The Hebrew nechashim is of the same root as in 23.23 where RSV
has translated “enchantment” and NET “divination.”
Wilderness: The Hebrew has the frequently used term midbar. See at 1.1.
Lifted up his eyes: In many languages this Hebrew idiom can be translated
naturally, as in NJPSV: “Balaam looked up.” GNT leaves the idiom untranslated.
Israel … tribe by tribe: Balaam does not just see part of Israel as he did
before. Instead, he sees the whole nation of Israel, presented (as in the first part of the
book of Numbers) as a people composed of twelve distinct tribes.
The Spirit of God came upon him: Literally “the spirit of God was upon
him” (Alter). This phrase—with a form of the verb “to be”—is rare in Hebrew, but it
is used for prophets (for example, Azariah in 2 Chr 15.1). Thus, this phrase reflects a
changing perception of Balaam’s role: the Hebrew now explicitly refers to Balaam as
to a divinely inspired prophet. (Very similar phrases are used in connection with
judges in Jdg 3.10 and 11.29, as well as for Saul in the company of prophets in 1 Sam
10.10.) In some languages, “took control of him” (GNT, CEV) will be more natural;
Chewa has “grabbed by the spirit.” For Spirit see the discussion at 11.17.
Took up his discourse: See at 23.7.
This third oracle of Balaam (verses 3-9) consists of twelve parallel units (an
appropriate number with reference to “Israel”). Again, it is a blessing of God’s people
rather than a cursing as Balak so urgently desires. In fact, the amount of divine benefit
applied to the nation here is stepped up to a perceptibly higher level than in the
preceding oracles. This oracle has a clear beginning, which is also distinct from the
first and second oracles in that it highlights the inspiration of the prophet Balaam
(verses 3b-4). There is also a prominent blessing at the end in verse 9b. In between we
find two strophes, the first (verses 5-7a) which emphasizes the prosperity of Israel,
the second (verses 8-9a) which foregrounds the nation’s power—the two being
connected by a “hinge couplet” (verse 7b), with syntactic links to the preceding
strophe and semantic links to the subsequent strophe.

24.3b-4
RSV
“The oracle of Balaam the son of Beor,
the oracle of the man whose eye is opened,u
4 the oracle of him who hears the words of God,
who sees the vision of the Almighty,
falling down, but having his eyes uncovered:

u 24.3 Or closed or perfect

GNT
“The message of Balaam son of Beor,
The words of the man who can see clearly,a
4 Who can hear what God is saying.
With staring eyes I see in a trance
A vision from Almighty God.

a 24.3 who can see clearly; or whose eyes are closed.

Balaam introduces his third prophecy in a distinctive manner.[< Ashley 487]

See the comments at 23.7b concerning the need to translate Balaam’s oracles in a
style (or genre) that highlights their prophetic function. Again, this first part of the
third prophecy indicates that it will be different from the first two oracles.
Oracle … oracle … oracle: Unlike the previous two prophecies, Balaam’s
third prophecy is introduced with the Hebrew term ne’um, which often appears in the
middle or at the end of prophetic messages in the Prophetic Books (compare also 2
Sam 23.1 and Pro 30.1). The term thus marks the message of “Balaam,” who
mentions himself by name here for the first time, as the message of a prophet.
Translators are advised to render it in the same way as in the Prophetic Books. NJPSV
translates “word” three times; GNT has “message,” “words,” leaving the third
occurrence of ne’um untranslated.
Whose eye is opened: As the notes in RSV and GNT suggest, the meaning of
the Hebrew verb shetum here in 24.3 is uncertain. A rendering like “perfect” (the
Greek Septuagint has “the pure of vision”) can only be based on a different Hebrew
form. The rendering “closed” can be traced to the Latin Vulgate, but would be based
on a different Hebrew form, setum. The rendering “opened” goes back to the ancient
Syriac translation and to the Jewish medieval commentators Rashi, Rashbam and Ibn
Ezra. This is what the vast majority of translations have (also Alter and Levine)[<
Levine 191-193]—it makes more sense in the context, as a parallel to “having his
eyes uncovered” at the end of verse 4. Instead of whose eye is opened, GNT has
“who can see clearly” (similarly PV). This may be more natural in some languages,
but a more figurative or idiomatic translation is recommended. Some languages can
retain the Hebrew imagery except for changing to the plural “eyes.”
The oracle of him who hears: In some languages it may be more natural to
begin a new sentence at verse 4, for example: “He is a man who hears …”
Who sees the vision of the Almighty: The verb yichzeh “he sees” is of the
same root as the form ch z h in the inscription from Deir `Alla, where Balaam is
described as “the man who sees (ch z h) the gods.” For vision see the discussion in the
Handbook on Genesis at 15.1. The vision of the Almighty should be understood as
“the vision given by / received from the Almighty,” not as “the vision which gives a
view of the Almighty.”[< Noth 190] In some languages, the closest equivalent to a
“vision” is a “dream,” especially one that is thought to give some sort of revelation.
 The Almighty: There is no agreement on the background and meaning of the
Hebrew term shadday. As the Handbook on Genesis explains at 17.1, the term has
commonly been thought to express the power of God. Some scholars consider that the
term is related to the root shadda “be strong, vigorous, violent” in Arabic. Others
relate it to the Akkadian word śādū “mountain,” in which case Shaddai may originally
have been thought of as god of a mountain or of mountains in general.[< Budd 269;
Levine 195] NBJ98 and TOB10 have “Shaddaï” (leaving the term untranslated), but
traditionally most translations render the Almighty, “Almighty God” (GNT for
example) or “the All-powerful” (FRCL, CEV). These renderings of the term are all
based on the ancient Greek and Latin translations, the Septuagint and Vulgate. The
renderings “the Mighty” (TOB88/94, NBS02, and GRCL) and “the Awe-inspiring
One” (NBV) are supported by the Arabic root shadda mentioned above. Some
languages may have an appropriate praise name for God that can be used here, for
example, Mphambe “the (almighty) storm god of thunder and lightning,” who is also
recognized as the Creator (Chewa).
Falling down: Most likely a reference to the state of ecstasy in which the seer
is flung to the ground[< Alter] and robbed of the normal control of his own body.[<
Noth 190] GNT, REB, and NBV have brought out only this aspect: “in a trance.”
TOB has “when he falls in ecstacy.”
Having his eyes uncovered: Interestingly (and perhaps ironically), Balaam’s
eyes are uncovered at the beginning of Balaam’s third prophecy—a parallel to the
narrative with the ass in 22.31, where his eyes are uncovered during the third
encounter between the ass and the angel of the Lord. See the discussion there. In some
languages this last line may be expressed as follows: “he sees things in a dream with
eyes uncovered”—“dream” in parallel with the preceding line where “vision” is used.
Cole describes the chiastic structure of this impressive prophetic introduction
as follows:[< Cole 417]
(A) … [with] unveiled eyes, (B) … he hears the words of God,
(B’) the vision of Shaddai he beholds, (A’) … with uncovered eyes.
Thus, the terms for God are put together at the center of the chiasmus, emphasizing
that it is not Balaam who reveals mysteries, but the great and mighty ’el shadday who
enables the prophet to become such a spokesman.[< Cole 419]

24.5-6
RSV
5 How fair are your tents, O Jacob,
your encampments, O Israel!
6 Like valleys that stretch afar,
like gardens beside a river,
like aloes that the Lord has planted,
like cedar trees beside the waters.

GNT
5The tents of Israel are beautiful,
6Like long rows of palms
Or gardens beside a river,
Like aloes planted by the Lord
Or cedars beside the water.

How: The Hebrew pronoun mah marks the sentence as an exclamation of

admiration. GNT does not bring this out. Many languages will have an idiomatic way
of expressing this emotive utterance, in Chewa for example with a verbless negative
exclamation at the end of the second line “…[are these] not attractive!”
Fair: Or “beautiful,” “pleasing,” “good.” A somewhat archaic rendering like
fair fits the poetic context well in English.
Encampments: The Hebrew term does not have a military connotation.
Therefore, renderings like “settlements” or “dwelling-places” are likely to be more
helpful.
Jacob ... Israel: As in 23.7b, Jacob and Israel both refer to the Israelite
people, that is, all Israel, including Judah and northern Israel. GNT omits “Jacob”
(and actually combines two lines into one), presumably in order to avoid the
impression that these are two different persons. FRCL achieves this in a different
way: “People of Israel, you descendants of Jacob, ...” A completely reductive
translation like GNT’s should be avoided, if possible.
Valleys that stretch afar: The meaning of the Hebrew nechalim is twofold,
and both alternatives fit the context. It can refer to “brook valleys” (ZÜR), “wadis”
(NBS02), “streams” (TOB, FRCL, PV)—NIV, WV95, and DUCL have “valleys” as
well— or alternatively to date-palms. NRSV, NJPSV, and NLT have “palm groves.”
NBV has “palm trees.” In the rendering “long rows of palms” (GNT, DHE), “long”
corresponds with the verb phrase that stretch afar. If translators choose to render
“palm trees,” they will probably have a close local equivalent or loanword available.
Aloes: The aloe is likely to have been the eaglewood, a large tree which may
reach a height of 36 meters. Its wood is aromatic. It is native to south-east Asia and
northern India. It may seem unlikely that one of Balaam’s oracles should mention a
tree which is not indigenous. But such aromatic aloes were probably imported for
decorative use at royal courts in the Ancient Near East. The language seems to be
more poetic than precise—the words are not to be understood as an exact portrait of
the land of Canaan.[< Flora and Fauna of the Bible 90-91] Therefore, if no close local
equivalent is available, a general expression like “beautiful trees” or “sweet-smelling
trees” might be used.
The Lord has planted: This is the first (and only) mention of “Yahweh” by
Balaam in his oracles, and thus it underscores the importance of the apparent turning
point here and the prophetic influence of “the spirit of God” (verse 2). Some
languages will have different words available for “planting” so the term appropriate
for trees needs to be chosen.
Cedar trees: See at 19.6 for a brief discussion of “cedarwood.”
Beside the waters: The language is poetic, for cedars grow on heights. But in
the poetry here the point is not botanical precision, but rather to evoke a total picture
of life-giving prosperity among the people of Israel. Israel is here compared to
fragrant, exotic, and strong trees.[< Ashley 490]

24.7
RSV
7Water shall flow from his buckets,
and his seed shall be in many waters,
his king shall be higher than Agag,
and his kingdom shall be exalted.

GNT
7They will have abundant rainfall
And plant their seed in well-watered fields.b
Their king shall be greater than Agag,
 And his rule shall be extended far and wide.

b 24.7 One ancient translation They… fields; Hebrew unclear.

The first half of this verse has been translated in various ways. A few versions
(for example, NBJ98) follow the ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint, which
reads (perhaps in view of 7b): “A man will come out of his seed and will dominate
many nations.” The majority of translations, however, (including the Latin Vulgate)
render the Hebrew text as it stands.
His buckets: This is how the medieval commentator Rashi interpreted the
Hebrew term—the meaning of which is uncertain. REB has “his vessels”: “The water
in his vessels shall overflow.” Some translations make the reference of his explicit:
“Israel’s buckets” (NBV); “the wells of Israel” (GECL). (GECL translates buckets
rather freely as “wells”). There may be a reference here to “watering buckets” used
for irrigation purposes,[< Ashley 491, Cole 420] in which case a local equivalent term
will not be difficult to find.
His seed shall be in many waters: NRSV’s revision of this line makes more
sense: “His seed shall have abundant water” (similarly LUT84 and ZÜR). In some
languages, “his seed [or planted ‘seeds’] receives water in abundance” (NBV) will be
more natural. WV95 and GECL understand this as follows: “what he sows is watered
in abundance” (WV95); “the seed stands, watered richly, in the fields.” GNT seems to
be based on the same understanding: “and plant their seed in well-watered fields”
(even though the footnote in GNT claims that this rendering is based on an ancient
translation). This picture of irrigation and a well-watered land makes good sense after
the description of abundant vegetation in verse 6. A few other translations interpret
the Hebrew text slightly differently, taking his seed to be a reference to Israel’s
descendants: “his seed shall be like great waters” (REB, RSO); “and their descendants
will be like abundant water” (NET). NLT seems to be based on this interpretation as
well: “their offspring have all they need.”
His king shall be higher than Agag: Other models are “Their king shall be
greater than Agag” (GNT, similarly NIV, NET, NBV) and “Their king shall rise
above Agag” (NJPSV). On Agag see below. This half-verse does not seem to be very
closely connected in meaning with the preceding text, but as noted in the structural
description above, it may function as a poetic transitional segment to the next strophe
(verses 8-9a). It may, depending on one’s interpretation, also serve to foreshadow the
central content of Balaam’s next oracle, especially verses 17-19.
And his kingdom shall be exalted: GNT expresses more clearly what this
means: “And his rule shall be extended far and wide.” CEV rearranges the order of
these two lines, and this may be a helpful model in some languages: “Your king will
rule with power and be a greater king than Agag the Amalekite.” CEV renders “your,”
addressing Israel directly, and mentions in a footnote that “the Amalekites were
longtime enemies of the Israelites (see Exodus 17.8-16), and Agag was one of their
most powerful kings.” One could add to this that the text may refer here to the Agag
of 1 Sam 15.8-9, 32-33, although Agag may have been a dynastic name for other
Amalekite kings as well (like “Pharaoh” in Egypt).[< Cole 420-421]

24.8
RSV
8God brings him out of Egypt;
he has as it were the horns of the wild ox,
he shall eat up the nations his adversaries,
 and shall break their bones in pieces,
and pierce them through with his arrows.

GNT
8God brought them out of Egypt;
He fights for them like a wild ox.
They devour their enemies,
Crush their bones, smash their arrows.

The first part of this verse bears a strong similarity to 23.22. There is no
connective conjunction (waw), which strengthens the suggestion above that a new
poetic paragraph, or “strophe,” begins here (including verses 8-9a).
God brings him out of Egypt: See at 23.22 where the same participle occurs
in the Hebrew (“brings out”). As in verse 7, Israel is referred to in the singular (him
or, as Buber translates, “it”). In some languages a plural pronoun will be more natural
(“them” in GNT), while in others an explicit reference “Israel” or “the Israelites” may
be needed for the sake of clarity.
He has as it were the horns of a wild ox: This is how RSV understands the
Hebrew line. He could then refer to Israel or to God. The ambiguity here may be
deliberate: the Lord is the one who empowers and preserves Israel. However, most
translations, including GNT, combine this line with the previous line in one sentence,
applying it to God:
“God who brings him out of Egypt [a relative clause, see above],
is like the horns of a wild ox for him [that is, for Israel]” (NRSV).
As in 23.22, GNT expresses this with two separate lines (like in the Hebrew poetry).
See also the discussion at 23.22 of horns and wild ox.
He shall eat up the nations his adversaries: The metaphor “eat” for “totally
destroy” is familiar in many other languages. This phrase is ambiguous—it is often
understood as a reference to Israel (rather than God), and a number of translations
make that explicit: “they devour their enemies” (GNT, similarly GECL); “they shall
devour enemy nations” (NJPSV); “Israel will devour the enemy nations” (DHE);
compare also FRCL, PV, and Levine.[< Levine 197] CEV follows the same
interpretation: “you will defeat your enemies.” (GNT, GECL, and CEV have left
nations untranslated, apparently feeling that this concept is implicit in “their
enemies”; however, the “nations” is a key term in the Hebrew Bible and therefore
should be retained if possible.) On the other hand, a number of translations (NLT,
DUCL, CRV, Friedman) interpret this phrase as a reference to God.
Shall break their bones in pieces: It may be overly graphic and hence too
distracting to render this expression literally in some languages; however, where
possible the ferocious animal imagery should be kept.
Pierce them through with his arrows: The Hebrew verb yimchats means
“smash” (as in GNT and NJPSV), “destroy,” not pierce through. In GNT and
NJPSV, “their arrows” are taken to be the nations’ arrows, which are smashed by
Israel. However, this is not plausible, since the Hebrew text literally has his arrows,
that is, Israel’s arrows (or God’s), not the arrows of the nations. The following
rendering of the Hebrew construction is recommended: “smash them with his arrows”
(LUT84) or, if Israel is more naturally referred to in the plural, “smash them with
their arrows”. Compare also CEV and NLT, which have: “shooting them with
arrows,” perhaps because the collocation of the verb “smash” with “arrows” is not
natural in English.
 Following the Peshitta (the ancient Syriac translation), Alter, Levine, and
WV95 offer a rendering which is quite different: “and smashes his loins.” This would
make sense as a parallel after the preceding phrase “crush their bones.” However, the
rendition “his loins” is not based on the actual Hebrew text (chitsaw his arrows), but
on chalatsaw, a correction of the Hebrew.

24.9
RSV
9He couched, he lay down like a lion,
and like a lioness; who will rouse him up?
Blessed be every one who blesses you,
and cursed be every one who curses you.”

GNT
9The nation is like a mighty lion;
When it is sleeping, no one dares wake it.
Whoever blesses Israel will be blessed,
And whoever curses Israel will be cursed.”

He couched: “Couch” is rather obscure literary language, so NRSV has “he

crouched.” The same verb form occurs in Gen 49.9, in the context of the same image,
and these similarities should be maintained, especially since they occur alike in
prophetic speech. In view of the blessing that concludes this verse, it is probably
correct to view the pronoun “he” (or “it”) as referring now to the people, or “nation”
(GNT) of Israel.
He lay down: The Hebrew form is of the same verb as in 23.24. As mentioned
there, the literal meaning “lie down” of the Hebrew may be misleading since lions
often lie down while devouring their prey. “When it is sleeping” (GNT) or “resting”
therefore may be a more natural phrase in some languages.
Lion … lioness: See at 23.24. As mentioned there, in some languages, where
different types of lions are not distinguished, it may be natural to combine the two
references into one: “a mighty lion” (GNT). GNT restructures the first two lines: “The
nation is like a mighty lion; …” In this way, GNT makes a smooth transition from its
references to Israel in the plural (verses 7-8) to the image of a single animal here in
verse 9—a transition not made in NIV (“Like a lion they …, like a lioness—who
dares to rouse them?”). (Such a transition is lacking in NIV: “Like a lion they …, like
a lioness—who dares to rouse them?”)
Who will rouse him up?: Just as in Gen 49.9, the poet has dropped the
thought of a female lion and speaks of him. The question is rhetorical and may be
expressed as “no one dares to stir it up” (or “awaken him,” compare GNT).
Blessed be every one who blesses you: The Hebrew also allows for a
translation which is still more explicitly in the singular: “Blessed is the one who
blesses you” (NET). GNT keeps the references to Israel in the third person: “Whoever
blesses Israel will be blessed.” But the disadvantage of this procedure is that it does
not clearly distinguish the final two lines, which as described earlier probably
function as a conclusion to the entire third oracle of Balaam.
And cursed be every one who curses you: The same applies here—NET
translates “and cursed is the one who curses you!”
The last two lines of this prophecy are exactly the same as the end of Isaac’s
blessing of Jacob in Gen 27.29, though in reverse order. This sameness should be
reflected also in translation, along with the necessary cross-reference.
 At the end of the prophecy, the references to Israel thus change to second
person, so that Israel is addressed directly. Verse 5 addresses Israel in the second
person as well. In the verses in between, CEV has changed the third person references
to Israel to second person. In some languages it will be helpful to do this, although it
may eliminate the deliberate ambiguity of reference (“he/it” = the Lord/Israel) that is
arguably implicit in the Hebrew text of verse 8.

24.10-11
RSV
10 And Balak's anger was kindled against Balaam, and he struck his hands together; and
Balak said to Balaam, “I called you to curse my enemies, and behold, you have blessed them
these three times. 11 Therefore now flee to your place; I said, ‘I will certainly honor you,’ but
the Lord has held you back from honor.”

GNT
10 Balak clenched his fists in anger and said to Balaam, “I called you to curse my enemies,
but three times now you have blessed them instead. 11 Now go off home! I promised to
reward you, but the Lord has kept you from getting the reward.”

And he struck his hands together: The Hebrew literally has “he clapped his
palms” (Alter). This is not an expression of despair—even less an appreciatory
applause, as a literal translation might suggest. In line with Noth’s interpretation,[<
Noth 192] GNT and DUCL take it to be an expression of anger and make this clear by
combining this clause with the first (“… clenched his fists in anger …”). At the same
time, these translations have adapted the bodily gesture to a gesture that expresses
anger in Western culture. Such a translational strategy may be a helpful model in
other languages. Balak is angry and has lost all his patience. Alternatively, the
expression may be one of contempt or derision—that is how the expression is used in
Lam 2.15 and Job 27.23 (NET note).
I called you: As in 23.11, Balak’s words to Balaam emphatically express his
anger, frustration, and great disappointment.
Therefore now flee to your place: The normal Hebrew conjunction for
“therefore,” indicating a logical conclusion, is not used here. An idiomatic expression
that fits the situational setting is called for, “So now” (NET). Balak’s subsequent
command (verb b-r-ch) is also a strong one that plays on the verb “bless” (b-r-k) of
his preceding utterance: “Now go off home!” (GNT).
‘I will certainly honor you’: GNT renders this phrase with indirect speech,
which may be more natural in some languages: “I promised to …” Balak is quoting
himself—the Hebrew is almost the same as what his messengers said in 22.17 (“I will
surely do you great honor”). RSV has translated the phrase in these two places with
the right level of consistency.
The Lord has held you back from honor: The contrast in outcomes is
stressed in Hebrew by the particle hineh, which is not translated by either the RSV or
GNT (perhaps something like “But see now, …” would work here). Balak seems to
blame the Lord for Balaam’s loss, with a considerable measure of irony: “Look, this
god in whose name you claim to speak has cost you your fee!”[< Ashley 495]

24.12-13
RSV
12 And Balaam said to Balak, “Did I not tell your messengers whom you sent to me, 13 ‘If Balak
should give me his house full of silver and gold, I would not be able to go beyond the word of
the Lord, to do either good or bad of my own will; what the Lord speaks, that will I speak’?
GNT
12 Balaam answered, “I told the messengers you sent to me that 13 even if you gave me all
the silver and gold in your palace, I could not disobey the command of the Lord by doing
anything of myself. I will say only what the Lord tells me to say.”

NBS02, FRCL, GECL, PV start a new section here. This is not

recommended—verses 12-13 contain the final two elements of the structural pattern
of narrative elements around the oracles (see above at 22.41-23.12): Balak
admonishes Balaam for uttering an oracle of blessing; Balaam responds by saying that
he must not fail to speak what the Lord tells him to. Thus, verses 12-13 are still
connected to the preceding oracle setting.
And: After verses 10-11, some languages would require a transitional marker
like “But” at this point—something NJPSV includes at the start of Balaam’s answer.
Said to Balak: Often simply “answered” (GNT) is more natural as a response.
Did I not tell …?: “But I even told …” (NJPSV) expresses the force of the
rhetorical question better than “I told …” (GNT). NLT helps to break up the length of
this utterance and also highlights the significant repetition of wording that occurs
here: “Don’t you remember what I told your messengers? I said, …”
Messengers: The Hebrew term is the same as in 22.5.
If Balak should give me his house full of silver and gold, I would not be
able to go beyond the word of the Lord: Balaam is quoting his own words in 22.18,
except that he referred there to the Lord as “the Lord, my God.” See at 22.18 above.
To do either good or bad: The words good or bad are different from “small
or great” in 22.18. GNT takes good or bad to mean “anything” (so also NLT); one
could also say “anything at all” to bring out this inclusiveness.
Of my own will: In the same phrase, of my own will (NRSV, REB) / “of
myself” (GNT, NBG51, NBJ98, NBS02) is lacking in 22.18. TOB’s “of my own
initiative” is a helpful rendering as well. A few translations seem to render the
Hebrew more literally: “out of my heart” (Vulgate, LUT84, Buber, ZÜR); however, in
the Old Testament the heart is regarded as the seat of a person’s inner self, will, or
mind, not just of his emotions. KJV already has “of mine own mind.”
What the Lord speaks, that I will speak: There is a strong similarity
between this statement and the Lord’s instruction to Balaam in 22.35. The Hebrew
’oto (that) emphatically refers again to precisely what the Lord speaks.

24.14
RSV
14 And now, behold, I am going to my people; come, I will let you know what this people will
do to your people in the latter days.”

GNT
14 Balaam said to Balak, “Now I am going back to my own people, but before I go, I am
warning you what the people of Israel will do to your people in the future.”

The content of verse 14 does not correspond with any of the elements in the
structural pattern (see at 22.41-23.12). Instead, verse 14 already introduces the oracles
that follow. This is probably why GNT includes verse 14 in its section 24.14-25
(“Balaam’s Final Prophecies”). The consequence of this is that GNT’s section
heading interrupts Balaam’s direct speech of verses 12-14. GNT even inserts the
phrase “Balaam said to Balak,” which is lacking in the Hebrew. There seems to be no
valid reason to split Balaam’s direct speech into two parts in this way. However, to
mark the onset of the new discourse unit, the beginning of Balaam’s fourth oracle, a
paragraph break—not a new section—might be made at verse 14. Someone reading
this passage aloud might then insert an appropriate pause at this point. NRSV, NIV,
CEV, NLT start a new section at verse 15.
And now, behold: As the Hebrew `atah (literally “now,” but see at 22.6)
indicates, Balaam now moves on to the next point he wants to make, introducing the
oracles that follow.
I am going to my people: A literal rendering might suggest that Balaam says
that he is about to die (see, for example, Gen 49.29). An alternative translation might
be: “I am on the way back home to the people of my own tribe.” The Hebrew
construction indicates something that Balaam is about to do (after he pronounces the
following oracles).
Come, I will let you know ...: Unlike previously, Balaam is the one who takes
the initiative, not Balak. The Hebrew literally has “Come, I will advise you”
(NBS02). But it is not likely that Balaam wants Balak to move physically closer to
him, and so an appropriate transitional expression is needed: “But first” (NLT); “but
before I go” (GNT). The intended speech act of the verb (literally, “counsel, advise”)
can be brought out more clearly: “I am warning you” (GNT); “let me warn you”
(REB); “I will inform you” (NJPSV).
This people: The reference may need to be clarified: “the people of Israel”
(GNT).
In the latter days: In this context, this phrase is usually taken to be a
reference to the future in general (as in GNT: “in the future”)—“at a later time”
(Noth), not the end of time. However, some interpreters[< Ashley 499, Cole 423] do
see some added significance in the Hebrew expression, which would call for a more
distinctive translation, for example, “in the days to come” (REB, also NJPSV);
compare also Gen 49.1.

24.15-25
Section Heading: After Balaam has been summarily dismissed by Balak and as he is
about to leave, he utters another prophecy, now one with ominous implications for
King Balak and his people: Moab will suffer defeat at Israel’s hands. Balaam does
this without being asked to do so and without the sacrifices that preceded the first two
prophecies. Balaam seems to have grown into his role as a true and active prophet of
God.[< Olson 148]
TOB and GNT have “Balaam’s Final Prophecies” for a section heading. These
translations start the new section already at verse 10 and verse 14 (but see the
discussion at verse 14 and verse 12), respectively. More appropriately, NLT
(“Balaam’s Final Messages”) starts the new section at 24.15.
Most translations include verses 20-25 in this section, but verses 20-24 really
consist of three separate oracles against foreign, non-Israelite peoples. (CEV, for
example, takes 24.15-25 as one section, while its heading “Balaam’s Fourth Message”
seems to refer to verses 15-19 only. This is not recommended.) This is why some
translations divide 24.15-25 into two sections. NIV has “Balaam’s Fourth Oracle”
(verses 15-19) and “Balaam’s Final Oracles” (verses 20-25). If verses 20-25 are given
a separate section heading, a title like “Oracles on other peoples” (NFB) will highlight
that these verses do not belong to the preceding series of prophecies about Israel.
 FRCL (and PV) start a new section at 24.12—something already criticized
earlier. However, their two section headings are worth noting: “Balaam announces the
glorious future of (the people of) Israel” and “Balaam announces the destruction of
Israel’s enemies.” These headings highlight the contrast between Israel’s future in
verses 15-19 and that of other nations in verses 20-24. These contrastive headings
may help to suggest why the oracles about other nations in verses 20-24 have been
included at this particular point in the text.

24.15a
RSV
15 And he took up his discourse, and said,

GNT
15 Then he uttered this prophecy:

Took up his discourse: See at 23.7a. After a long prophetic introduction that
duplicates earlier material (verses 15b-16, see below), Balaam’s fourth oracle appears
to adopt a chiastic structure:
(A) Israel and its great future ruler (17a-b), (B) destruction of Moab predicted
(17c),
(B’) destruction of Edom predicted (18a), (A’) Israel and its great future ruler
(18b-19).

24.15b-16
RSV
“The oracle of Balaam the son of Beor,
the oracle of the man whose eye is opened,v
16 the oracle of him who hears the words of God,
and knows the knowledge of the Most High,
who sees the vision of the Almighty,
falling down, but having his eyes uncovered:
v 24.15 Or closed or perfect

GNT
“The message of Balaam son of Beor,
The words of the man who can see clearly,c
16 Who can hear what God is saying
And receive the knowledge that comes from the Most High.
With staring eyes I see in a trance
A vision from Almighty God.

c 24.15 who can see clearly; or whose eyes are closed.

And knows the knowledge of the Most High: The Hebrew text of verses
15b-16 is the same as in 24.3b-4 (see the discussions there), except for this phrase
which is part of verse 16, but not of verse 4 (only the ancient Greek translation, the
Septuagint, includes it in both places). Literally, the word combination Knows the
knowledge occurs in the Hebrew. However, in many other languages this
combination may not be natural. Hence, for example, renditions like “receive the
knowledge” (GNT) or “who knows what the Most High knows” (NBV, DHE). A
somewhat different interpretation views the redundant Hebrew construction as an
emphatic assertion: “who truly (or ‘surely’) knows what comes…” It seems ironical
that Balaam should say this about himself, since he has been totally dependent on God
for everything he is allowed to see and say. For the divine name the Most High see
Gen 14.18-20 and Deut 32.8; Chewa has Wopambanazonse “the-One-who-surpasses-
all-things,” a single word).

24.17
RSV
17 I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not nigh:
a star shall come forth out of Jacob,
and a scepter shall rise out of Israel;
it shall crush the foreheadw of Moab,
and break down all the sons of Sheth.

w 24.17 Heb corners (of the head)

GNT
17I look into the future,
And I see the nation of Israel.
A king, like a bright star, will arise in that nation.
Like a comet he will come from Israel.
He will strike the leaders of Moab
And beat down all the people of Seth.d

d 24.17 the people of Seth; or who are proud and violent.

Balaam sees a human king rising out of Israel sometime in the distant future.
The star and scepter are in all likelihood both metonyms for a king or even for a
messianic figure. Verse 17 has been interpreted variously as a prophetic reference to
King David or to the Messiah. The star which leads the Wise Men to Jesus (Matt 2.2)
is a reminder of this verse.
Him, … him: In this way, the first two lines of the verse already refer to a
star, which is mentioned more explicitly only in the third line. This delay in explicit
reference to the star marks it as important and adds suspense to the text, arousing the
hearer’s interest. Therefore, it is recommended to maintain this delay in identification
of the star in translation if that is possible. Furthermore, the pronoun “him” could
refer to “Israel” as a nation (as in the preceding oracle), to a human ruler, or probably
to both simultaneously (deliberate poetic-prophetic ambiguity). NJPSV and similarly
NBV achieve the delay in identification in a slightly different way, which may be
helpful in some languages: “What I see for them is not yet, what I behold will not be
soon: a star …” (NJPSV); to maintain the ambiguity of the Hebrew text, the second
line might be rendered: “he whom I behold will not come soon.”
But not now; … but not nigh (NRSV: “near”): FRCL has adapted this as
follows: “but it is not for today, … but it will take place later.” NLT may be even
better as a model: “… but not here and now, … but far in the distant future.” In some
languages this will be more natural, and at the same time more in line with the distinct
genre of this prophetic text than a rendering like “I look into the future” (GNT,
DUCL).
A star shall come forth …: The Hebrew phrase actually includes the common
verb of movement darak, which leads Alter and Levine to translate “a star steps forth
…”, “a star marches forth …” In languages that have a similar idiom, this may be a
useful model. The figure of a “star” used with reference to a “king” was common in
the ancient near east, and the royal reference is confirmed by the parallel term
“scepter.”[< Ashley 500]
A scepter: The Jewish medieval commentator Rashi interpreted this as
referring to a king who chastizes and rules. GNT, Alter, Levine, and NFB have
“comet,” which has the same shape as a scepter and fits well with “star” as a parallel.
However, a scepter was a well-known king’s symbol of authority in the Ancient Near
East, so it is helpful to retain this image of royal reference in the translation. (The
ancient Syriac translation, the Peshitta, renders “prince” here.)
Jacob … Israel: To avoid confusion between Jacob and Israel, GNT leaves
out “Jacob” (as it did in 23.7b, 21, 23), translating “that nation” instead.
Forehead of Moab: The Hebrew form is not as certain as RSV and its
footnote appear to suggest. The term is usually taken to mean “forehead,” but since
the Hebrew form in the text (pa’atey) is dual, what seems more appropriate is the
rendering “temples” (that is, the temples of the forehead). This is what LUT84, Buber,
EÜ, ZÜR, NBJ98, FRCL, NBG51, NFB, NBV, and CRV have. It combines well with
the verb crush / “smashes” (Alter). The head may then be a figurative reference to
“headship” in the person of a king or the “leaders” of Moab in general (GNT).
Alternatively, the Hebrew form is sometimes understood to mean “corners” (KJV)
and hence “borders.” For example, NRSV has revised RSV by translating
“borderlands of Moab” (mentioning “forehead” in a footnote). The renderings
“leaders” (GNT, DUCL), “warriors” (REB), and “princes” (RSO) go back to the
Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.
The Jewish medieval commentators Rashi and Ibn Ezra considered this line to
be a reference to King David, who killed Moabites during a military campaign (2 Sam
8.2). Rashbam, however, saw it as a reference to the Messiah.
Break down all the sons of Sheth: RSV (break down) and GNT (“beat
down”) treat the Hebrew consonants in the text, qrqr, as a form of the root q-r-q-r.
This rendering is far from certain, as there are no other forms of this root elsewhere in
the Hebrew of the Old Testament. On the positive side, however, “beat down” would
be a plausible parallel with the verb in the preceding line, “smash.” The renderings of
KJV, REB, TOB, PV, NBG51, NBV, DUCL, ZÜR are very similar to those of GNT
and RSV.
A proposed alternative is to start from the consonants qdqd, reading them as
qodqod, which means “skull,” “top of the head” (the ancient Hebrew letters for d and
r are very similar). This choice would be based only on the Samaritan Pentateuch and
on Jer 48.45, where qodqod occurs in a context similar to this part of Num 24.17. On
the positive side, however, “skull” would be a plausible parallel with “temples” in the
previous line: “ and will smash the temples of the Moabites and the skull of all the
sons of Seth” (LUT84, similarly Buber, EÜ, NIV, NET, NLT, Alter, Levine, FRCL,
NBJ98, WV95). NRSV is based on this interpretation as well, treating “skull” as a
metaphor for “territory” (just as it took temples as a metaphor for borderlands in the
previous line—see above): “it shall crush the borderlands of Moab, and the territory
of all the Shethites” (NRSV).
All the sons of Sheth: GNT and most translations have “Seth”—the Hebrew
form shet is also the form of the name of Adam and Eve’s son in, for example, Gen
4.25. (In translation, it will then be helpful to use the same form of the name as in Gen
4.25.) On this basis, it has been suggested that “all the people of Seth” stand for all
(neighboring) peoples (so already Rashi)—Israel will defeat all its enemies. Others
have linked them with nomads in the area near Moab, which leads to renderings such
as “those tribes who live in the desert” (CEV) and “Sutites” (NFB)—the Sutu or
Shutu were a nomadic people south of Moab and are known from Egyptian texts. (In a
footnote, GNT mentions an alternative rendering: “who are proud and violent.”
However, this doubtful rendering can be based only on Jer 48.45, not on Num 24.17.)

24.18-19
RSV
18 Edom shall be dispossessed,
Seir also, his enemies, shall be dispossessed,
while Israel does valiantly.
19 By Jacob shall dominion be exercised,
and the survivors of cities be destroyed!”

GNT
18 He will conquer his enemies in Edom
And make their land his property,
While Israel continues victorious.
19 The nation of Israel will trample them down
And wipe out the last survivors.”

Balaam’s fourth prophecy concludes with this reference to Israel’s power.

Edom … Seir: Both names refer to the same area. Seir is the chief mountain
range of Edom, so the reference is to the general area of Edom. GNT has dropped
Seir, presumably to avoid the impression that Seir is a different nation from Edom.
Shall be dispossessed: This rendering is based on a corrected Hebrew form
(yarush). In both instances, the Hebrew text has yereshah, which literally means
“possession” (that is, what is taken possession of). NJPSV translates “becomes a
possession.” GNT changes the passive construction into an active one, with the
subject continuing from the preceding verse: “He will conquer his enemies in Edom.”
The second line then might be rendered as follows: “And make their land of Seir his
property.” However, the Hebrew construction appears to put primary focus on the
land of “Edom” (and “Seir”), that is, in contrast to “Israel” in the final line.
Seir also, his enemies: This may wrongly suggest that only Seir is the enemy,
not Edom (or even worse, that Seir is Edom’s enemy!). The following models are
helpful in that they avoid such a misunderstanding:

“The land of his enemy he conquers, the land of Edom and Seir …” (NBV)

“His enemies, the Edomites, he will rule,

Seir, their land, he will conquer …” (DUCL)

NRSV has “a possession of its enemies,” implying that the enemy is Israel. However,
the Hebrew grammatical construction makes this interpretation unlikely.
Israel does valiantly: Other helpful models are GNT and “Israel exercises its
power” (NBS02). Or, to indicate the contrast with Edom: “but Israel will act
valiantly” (NET).
Israel … Jacob: GNT replaces Jacob with “Israel,” probably to avoid
confusion.
By Jacob shall dominion be exercised: Scholars regard the Hebrew text as
uncertain. Literally the Hebrew text may be understood as follows: “one out of Jacob
shall rule” (NRSV, WV95; Hebrew consonants: wyrd my`qb). This is what the Latin
Vulgate has as well. Hence also NIV’s rendering “A ruler shall come out of Jacob and
destroy …” (similarly LUT84, TOB, NBV, NET, and NLT) and NJPSV’s “a victor
issues from Jacob to wipe out …” This interpretation, with reference to a royal ruler
(see verse 17), is supported by the chiastic arrangement suggested as a possibility
above. Alternatively, Alter and Levine suggest that the Hebrew text read weyirdem
ya`aqob (the m being the final consonant of the first form): “Jacob will subdue them.”
GNT’s rendering “… will trample them down” (similarly REB, SB00) follows this
model.
And the survivors of cities be destroyed: NIV’s “and destroy the survivors
of the city” (also NBG51) follows the Hebrew more closely, which has a third person
singular active verb (“he will destroy” NET, similar to NLT). Other helpful models
are: “who escapes from the city he kills” (NBV), “he exterminates the last inhabitants
of their cities” (FRCL). GNT has left the Hebrew me`ir (“of the city”) untranslated,
while only a few translations (REB, NBJ98, DUCL) emend me`ir to me`ar (Ar is a
city mentioned in 21.15, 28, where Balak first went out to meet Balaam). This seems
unnecessary.

24.20
RSV
20Then he looked on Amalek, and took up his discourse, and said,
“Amalek was the first of the nations,
but in the end he shall come to destruction.”

GNT
20Then in his vision Balaam saw the Amalekites and uttered this prophecy:
“Amalek was the most powerful nation of all,
But at the end it will perish for ever.”

Three brief oracles against foreign, non-Israelite peoples are included in the
text at this point. These three bring the total number of Balaam’s oracles to seven, the
number symbolizing completeness. They continue the theme of divine punishment
found at the end of the preceding oracle (verse 19b) and thus act as a poetic
denouement, as it were, on Balaam’s set of prophecies, with reference to all those
who oppose the people of Yahweh. On the contrast between Israel in verses 15-19 and
other nations in verses 20-24 see the discussion at 24.15-25 (section headings).
Then he looked on: GNT’s “in his vision ... Balaam saw” may be a helpful
model. Literally, “And he saw ...” (see verse 17)—a new unit of discourse may need
to be marked in a special way in translation, especially for those who are hearing the
text being read.
Amalek was the first to wage war against the Israelites on the journey from
Egypt (Exo 17.8-16). Here the tribal ancestor is used poetically to refer to his people
as a whole.
Took up his discourse: See at 23.7a.
Amalek was the first of the nations: Amalek was not the oldest, greatest, or
“most powerful” (GNT) nation. The Hebrew has no past tense here. For these reasons,
NJPSV’s “A leading nation is Amalek” makes sense (see 14.25), or more likely:
“Amelek was the first of the nations to oppose (Israel).” King “Agag” (24.8) too was
an Amelekite.
At the end ...: NRSV is slightly more accurate: “but its end is to perish
forever.” REB is similar to this: “but his end will be utter destruction.” This
expression corresponds poetically to “the first” in the preceding line. Instead of “end,”
NJPSV and NLT translate “fate,” “destiny.” An alternative rendering, which is found
in the ancient Greek Septuagint, is “offspring.” Very few translations seem to follow
this interpretation (Buber, NBJ98).
Shall come to destruction: Because of the Hebrew `adey in the second line, it
seems best to include the temporal reference “forever” (NRSV, GNT). This is the
central theme of all three short prophecies: all of Israel’s enemies or potential rivals in
the land (the nations mentioned are simply close at hand and representative) will
ultimately be destroyed by the Lord (see also verses 22a and 24b).

24.21-22
RSV
21And he looked on the Kenite, and took up his discourse, and said,
“Enduring is your dwelling place,
and your nest is set in the rock;
22 nevertheless Kain shall be wasted.
How long shall Asshur take you away captive?”

GNT
21In his vision he saw the Kenites, and uttered this prophecy:
“The place where you live is secure,
Safe as a nest set high on a cliff,
22 But you Kenites will be destroyed
When Assyria takes you captive.”e

e 24.22 Verse 22 in Hebrew is unclear.

And he looked on: As in 24.20. The beginning of this new paragraph may
require special marking.
The Kenite: Cain (Hebrew qayin) was believed to be the ancestor of “the
Kenites” (GNT)—the consonants of the two names are the same: q y n. Most French
translations have “Qenites.”
Took up his discourse: See at 23.7a.
Nest: The Hebrew qen is a word play on the name of the Kenites (qeyni).
Set in the rock: Or “set high on a cliff” (GNT) with reference to the probable
original homeland of the Kenites in the mountains of Midian, that is, in a location
which was seemingly well-protected against enemy attack.
Kain ...: The prophecy addresses the Kenites directly in second person. In
many languages it will therefore be helpful to adapt the third person in this line to the
second, as GNT and NIV have done: “you Kenites.” An alternative would be “you
people of Kain.” Kain should actually be spelled in the same way as in Genesis 4.
Unlike RSV, REB has “Cain” both here and in Gen 4.1.
... shall be wasted: The Hebrew verb ba`er can mean “destroy” (see GNT) or
“burn,” which is how Alter translates this line: “But Cain will be for burning”—
perhaps a play on the meaning of qayin: “smith,” “metal worker.”[< Budd 270]
(compare also Gen 4.22). NRSV has “... is destined for burning”; NET translates “...
will be consumed.” NRSV, REB, TOB, FRCL, GECL, and DHE render this meaning
of ba`er as well.
How long...: It is possible to understand the Hebrew `ad-mah as a conjunction
and translate “when” (GNT, NJPSV)[< Levine 205] or “until” (KJV). TOB may be a
helpful model: “and finally Asshur will take you prisoner.”
Asshur: As a footnote in NET explains, Asshur may refer to a north Arabian
group of people of Abrahamic stock (Gen 25.3), with whom the Kenites warred, and
not the later empire of “Assyria” (GNT).[< Ashley 508]
24.23-24
RSV
23And he took up his discourse, and said,
“Alas, who shall live when God does this?
24 But ships shall come from Kittim
and shall afflict Asshur and Eber;
and he also shall come to destruction.”

GNT
23 Balaam uttered this prophecy:
“Who are these people gathering in the north?f
24 Invaders will sail from Cyprus;
They will conquer Assyria and Eber,
But they, in turn, will perish for ever.”

f 24.23 Probable text Who… north; Hebrew unclear.

Took up his discourse: See at 23.7a.

Alas, who shall live when God does this?: This is a close rendering of the
Hebrew text as it stands; see NET: “O, who will survive when God does this!”[<
Ashley 505; Cole 429] NLT is similar: “Alas, who can survive unless God has willed
it?” What is not clear from the Hebrew text, however, is how this line and verse 24
are connected. The point seems to be that even great kingdoms far away (in contrast
to the Amelekites and Kenites) will perish, if they carry out agression against the
people of Israel. The rendering in REB and GNT—“Who are these people gathering
in the north?”—is only based on a emended form of the Hebrew text.
Ships from Kittim: Literally “ships from the hand of the Kittites.” The word
ships refers figuratively to the people who sail them. Kittim is derived from the name
of the town of Kition on the eastern coast of Cyprus and its inhabitants.[< Noth 194;
Budd 270] In the Old Testament it is used in a general sense for those living near the
(eastern) Mediterranean and for foreign powers which come from that area (Isa 23.1,
12; Jer 2.10; Ezek 27.6). Perhaps verse 24 refers to the Sea Peoples (the Philistines) in
the thirteenth and twelfth centuries B.C. See also the Handbook on Daniel at 11.30,
where Kittim may be a reference to the Romans.
Afflict: GNT’s “conquer” is more accurate in the present context of warfare.
The Hebrew verb means “oppress,” “ subjugate.”
Asshur: At this point, this proper name could be a reference to the Assyrian
empire, although an argument can also be made that it still refers to the “Ashurites”
mentioned in verse 22.[< Ashley 510, Cole 431].
Eber: This is what most translations have, although it is unclear what it stands
for. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and Peshitta interpret Eber as “the Hebrews.” Some
scholars take it as a reference to `avar-naharah (Aramaic for “Beyond the River” in
Ezra 4.10-11), that is, the land west of the River Euphrates,[< Levine 206] while
others suggest northern Syria as a possibility.[< Cole 431]
And he also: After invading Assyria and the land west of the Euphrates (or the
furthest reaches of the land of Canaan), the invaders will be defeated themselves.
Hence GNT’s “But they, in turn, ...”
Shall come to destruction: The Hebrew is the same as at the end of 24.20.
Again, because of the Hebrew `adey, it seems best to include “forever” (NRSV,
GNT).
24.25
RSV
25 Then Balaam rose, and went back to his place; and Balak also went his way.

GNT
25 Then Balaam got ready and went back home, and Balak went on his way.

After his amazing prophecies regarding Israel and future warfare in and
around the land of Israel, Balaam merely “got ready and” (GNT) went back to his
place. Whether this place is “home,” that is back to Pethor, is debatable, for Balaam
appears to be heavily involved (see 31.16) on the local scene in Israel’s sinfulness that
follows in chapter 25. Thus, the literal “returned to his place” could also either refer to
some other location in the land nearby, or be a conventional way of ending a narrative
episode (as in Jdg 9.55; 1 Sam 14.46). In any case, no hint is given whether Balaam’s
momentous messages had any spiritual impact or effect on him at all!

25.1-18
Section Heading: GNT focuses too narrowly on the location: “The People of Israel at
Peor.” Other headings focus on the idolatry, thus giving more adequate expression to
the content of the chapter and its function in the book: “Israel worships the Baal of the
Peor” (NBV); “Israel’s idolatry with Baal-Peor” (NBG51); “The Israelites give
themselves over to idolatry” (NBS02, FRCL). A heading like “Israel’s idolatry;
Phinehas’ faithfulness” would include Phinehas’ role in a helpful manner. Headings
such as “Moab Seduces Israel” (NIV, NLT) and “Israel’s Sin with the Moabite
Women” (NET) focus too narrowly on sexual acts and on Moab, neither of which is
justified by the content of the chapter as a whole.
Chapter 25, the concluding aftermath of Israel’s contact with Moab, contains
the final and tragic episode of the old generation of Israelites, who were counted in
the census of chapter 1, and narrates their final rebellion and punishment. They
submit to the god Baal of Peor by taking part in what seem to be fertility rituals with
Moabite women. The resulting plague kills the last members of this generation,
putting an end to idolatry before the people can enter the land of Canaan. This sets the
stage for the new census that is reported in chapter 26.
The episode illustrates what happens when the people of Israel give up their
unique position (referred to in 23.9 in Balaam’s first prophecy) and become a people
intertwined with neighboring peoples in the pagan world—a huge and dramatic
contrast, which is marked even more by the fact that the episode is placed directly
after the Balaam cycle. The Lord has just blessed the Israelites, repeatedly, but they
blithely turn away from him to another god—marking this rebellion as an anticlimax.
Furthermore, later mention of Balaam’s involvement (31.16) somewhat incongruously
connects the shameful events of chapter 25 with those of the preceding three chapters.
The old rebellious, recalcitrant generation thus makes room for the new one,
waiting in their tribal camps on the edge on the land of Canaan (chapters 26–36).
On the other hand, this episode also highlights of importance of the Levitical
priesthood in dealing with such flagrant public lapses in morality. Thus, Phinehas, son
of the high priest Eleazar, serves as an example of how the sanctuary and the worship
of Yahweh must be rigorously protected against any influence of paganism on the part
of the people. In fact, there are a number of interesting parallels between this account
of Phinehas’ zeal coupled with a deadly plague sent by the Lord into the camp of
Israel and the narrative of what happened at Mount Sinai after the golden calf incident
(Exodus 32; there may even be a prediction of this event in 32.34[< Milgrom 211]).
Also in this episode we return to the ministry of the Lord’s true prophet,
Moses, who has been off the scene since chapter 21. Here in chapter 25 the Lord
again speaks directly to his chosen leader (25.4, 10, 16)—a feature of the discourse
that also serves to divide it into smaller thematic sections.

25.1
RSV
1 While Israel dwelt in Shittim the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of
Moab.

GNT
1 When the Israelites were camped in the Valley of Acacia, the men began to have sexual
intercourse with the Moabite women who were there.

While Israel dwelt: Some languages will need to mark this onset of a new
narrative episode. Apparently, at least a short passage of time elapsed after Balaam
“went to his place” (24.25) and the events recorded in chapter 25 occur. Thus, it
seems likely—ironically so—that very soon after Balaam’s amazing prophecies of
blessing concerning “the Israelites” (GNT) on the heights above their camp (chapters
23–24), the people again become involved in some shocking apostasy.
Shittim means “acacia trees” (see the Handbook on Exodus at 25.5). The full
name of the place is “Abel-shittim” (33.49). GNT’s “Valley of Acacia” is a helpful
model. It is located in the foothills of Moab, east of the Jordan River, not far from
Jericho (which is west of the Jordan)—very close to the Promised Land.
The people: In some languages it may be necessary to state this as “some of
the men” (CEV) so that that text does not imply that every last one of them was
guilty. The general term “the people”—with probable reference to the men—is
repeated three times for emphasis in the first two verses. How could “these people” do
such a thing, when they were supposed to behave as the people of God?
Began to play the harlot with: (On the basis of a slightly different reading of
the Hebrew verb form, the Greek Septuagint rendered “profaned themselves.” The
effect of this is that the text is more emphatically worded: “and they profaned by
committing fornication.”[< Cole 435]) As verse 2 will show, the meaning of this
whole phrase is not restricted to “began to have sexual intercourse” (GNT). It could
also refer to intermarriage with Moabite women, leading to idolatry.[< Levine 283;
Dozeman 198] As the Handbook on Leviticus mentions at 17.7, play the harlot (root
z-n-h) is a common expression in the Old Testament to speak of general
unfaithfulness and disloyalty towards God (Jer 2.20). A person who worships or
makes sacrifices to another god while claiming loyalty to the Lord, is like a man
committing adultery, who betrays his wife and is unfaithful to his promise. Indeed,
Baal fertility cults at the time did practice temple prostitution. But the main point of
this expression is to indicate that the Israelites are both publicly and privately
betraying the Lord, and something of this religious infidelity should be communicated
in translation. For this reason (and not simply in order to avoid sexually explicit
language) NBV, GECL, DHE and NJPSV may be helpful models: “began to associate
themselves with” (NBV, GECL); “began to corrupt themselves with” (DHE);
“profaned themselves by cohabiting with” (similar to NJPSV).
 GNT’s “who were there” might wrongly suggest that these Moabite women
were living within the actual Israelite camp, which is doubtful—at least not publicly,
which makes Zimri’s sin so flagrant (verse 6).

25.2-3
RSV
2 These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate, and bowed down
to their gods. 3 So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the Lord was kindled
against Israel;

GNT
2These women invited them to sacrificial feasts, where the god of Moab was worshipped.
The Israelites ate the food and worshipped the god 3 Baal of Peor. So the Lord was angry
with them

These: The Hebrew verb is feminine and so can only refer to “these women”
(GNT).
The people: GNT’s “them” would presumably refer to “the men” mentioned
in verse 1, but the Hebrew is not that specific. Were Israelite women somehow also
involved in the worship of Baal too (verse 2)? The Hebrew text does not rule that out,
and therefore a more general translation is recommended—even “the people” as in
RSV.
The sacrifices of their gods: It is more accurate to translate “the sacrifices to
their gods” (NIV); “the sacrifices offered to their gods” (REB).
The people ate: REB’s “The Israelites ate the sacrificial food” indicates what
they ate; NLT has “feasted with them.”
Their gods: In the Hebrew, their is feminine (referring to the Moabite
women), while gods could be a plural or singular form. Most translations have a
plural here; thus, “the gods of Moab” (REB) or simply “those gods” seem plausible
renderings. An alternative is to take this plural form as a specific reference to the god
“Baal” specified in verse 3.[< Milgrom 212; Ashley 517] This is apparently the
reason for GNT’s somewhat paraphrastic rendering: “… to sacrificial feasts, where
the god of Moab was worshipped.” Perhaps GNT also rendered “the god of Moab”
because “their” would in English not have referred unambiguously to the women. A
problem with this rendering is that the national god of Moab was Chemosh, not Baal.
In balance, this is probably another instance of the Hebrew narrative technique
of presenting a general reference first (“their gods,” verse 2), followed by a more
specific one appropriate to the current context (“Baal of Peor,” verse 3). If this is the
translational problem, “the gods of Moab” (REB) or simply “those gods” seem more
plausible renderings.
Israel yoked himself to: The image is that of the people binding themselves
closely to Baal-Peor like two oxen in a team (Psa 106.28). Perhaps some sort of
covenantal agreement was involved.[< Milgrom 212] Other helpful renderings are
“Israel clung to” (Alter, similarly LUT84 and Buber); “when Israel had tied itself to”
(NBG51); “In this way, Israel joined in the worship of” (NLT). GNT seems to have
left this verb untranslated.
Baal of Peor: Probably the local deity. “Baal,” which is mentioned here for
the first time in the Hebrew Bible, is the name of the Canaanite god of vegetation and
general fertility, while Peor refers to the mountain where he is worshipped. It was
common to speak of him in various local manifestations.[< Ashley 517] Ironically,
this was the place at which (or nearby) the Lord richly blessed Israel through the third
and fourth oracles of Balaam (see at 23.28).
And the anger of the Lord was kindled: This figurative expression has
already been used several times in Numbers to indicate the Lord’s response to Israel’s
acts of religious unfaithfulness (see 11.1,10,33; 12.9). Perhaps, instead of And, a
consequential conjunction will be needed (“So” GNT).

25.4-5
RSV
4and the Lord said to Moses, “Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them in the sun
before the Lord, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.” 5 And Moses
said to the judges of Israel, “Every one of you slay his men who have yoked themselves to
Baal of Peor.”

GNT
4and said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of Israel and, in obedience to me, execute them in
broad daylight,a and then I will no longer be angry with the people.” 5 Moses said to the
officials, “Each of you is to kill every man in your tribe who has become a worshipper of Baal
of Peor.”
a 25.4 in broad daylight; or publicly.

All the chiefs: The Hebrew uses the same term as in, for example, 1.4:
“heads.” The sense of the phrase is probably that only all the chiefs who were
involved with pagan worship were to be put to death.[< Levine 285; Cole 439;
Samaritan Version] If this is the accepted interpretation, then the translation may have
to reflect this (for example, “the leaders,” “the guilty leaders”; compare CEV) since a
literal rendering will undoubtedly be understood as referring to the entire Israelite
leadership.
Hang them: Literally “display/expose them hanging.” The verb, at least as far
as scholars can determine, does not specify the method of execution, hence GNT’s
generic rendering “execute them.” NRSV and NBJ98 have “impale them,” which may
be the best translation of an uncertain term. The point is that this was to be a public,
shameful type of execution to teach a lesson.
In the sun: That is, publicly (GNT’s footnote, NBG51); see 2 Sam 21.6-13.
Before the Lord: This phrase lends a ritual, sacrificial sense to the command
to hang the guilty chiefs. They had led their people into a public sacrilege. GNT
seems to have rendered it as “in obedience to me.” The third person reference to the
Lord may have to be changed to the first person for the sake of naturalness since the
Lord himself is speaking.
The fierce anger of the Lord: This is a similar expression of the Lord’s
determination to punish the offenders as that found in verse 3. This emphatic
correspondence should be retained in translation, if possible.
Judges: This has to be a group distinct from the “chiefs” just mentioned,
perhaps from among those reported as appointed by Moses in Exo 18.13-26. In this
context, these are probably judges in the narrower, judicial, sense (magistrates), rather
than rulers or “officials” (GNT) in a wider sense.
His men who have yoked themselves to: See at 25.3 where the same
expression is used. Moses refers specifically to the men (“every man in your tribe,”
GNT) who have clung to Baal, not to all the chiefs. It has been suggested that Moses
seems to narrow down the Lord’s instruction that all the chiefs be killed.[< Alter] But
equally, it may be suggested that Moses applied the command not only to the chiefs
who had sinned, but to other men who had worshipped Baal-Peor as well.[< Noth
197] In any case, the movement from a general to a specific reference, that is, from
“all the leaders” (verse 4) to just those who have “joined themselves” to Baal worship
(verse 5), is a typical Hebrew narrative technique.

25.6
RSV
6 And behold, one of the people of Israel came and brought a Midianite woman to his
family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the people of Israel,
while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meeting.

GNT
6 One of the Israelites took a Midianite woman into his tent in the sight of Moses and the
whole community, while they were mourning at the entrance of the Tent of the Lord's
presence.

And behold: On the face of it, verse 6 starts a different story, as some scholars
have suggested. However, the Hebrew particle hineh indicates that verses 6-9 form a
new paragraph, but are still a continuation of the same narrative, in fact an immediate
continuation. In some languages, “Just then, ...” (NRSV, NJPSV, NLT, NET) and “at
that moment” (FRCL) may be helpful ways to bring this out.
A Midianite woman: Although this is what most translations have, the
Hebrew literally has “the Midianite woman.” Perhaps this is already a hint that she
was well-known because of her status among the Midianites (see at verse 15; also
22.14-15). It seems surprising that a Midianite woman is mentioned here, not a
Moabite woman. Perhaps this reflects an assimilation of the two peoples.[< Alter] As
mentioned at 22.4, perhaps there was a coalition between Moab and (part of) Midian,
an alliance of convenience to oppose a common enemy, Israel. (An alternative may be
to translate “his Midianite woman,” namely, one whom he had already intermarried
with.[< Milgrom 212])
To his family: Literally “to his brothers.” (GNT leaves it untranslated and
picks up “into his tent” from verse 8.) It can be understood as a reference to his
family (also CEV), or “to his clan” (NET footnote), or to his fellow-Israelites in
general.
In the sight of ... and in the sight of ...: The repetition suggests a certain
emphasis, as if the fellow did not care at all who saw him, which may be rendered as
follows: “right before the eyes of ... and ...” (NLT).
Congregation: The Hebrew term is `edah, which is better rendered as
“community.” See at 1.2.
Weeping: In cultures where weeping is not a standard expression of
mourning, especially as a sign of penitence, it may be helpful to translate “mourning”
(GNT) instead.
The door of the tent of meeting: See at 6.10. It seems that the people had
assembled here at this time of crisis. The contrast in behavior—a sinful man with a
penitent people—in full view of this sacred setting is indeed striking.

25.7-9
RSV
7 When Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose and left the
congregation, and took a spear in his hand 8 and went after the man of Israel into the inner
room, and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman, through her body. Thus
the plague was stayed from the people of Israel. 9 Nevertheless those that died by the plague
were twenty-four thousand.

GNT
7 When Phinehas, the son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest, saw this, he got up
and left the assembly. He took a spear, 8 followed the man and the woman into the tent, and
drove the spear through both of them. In this way the epidemic that was destroying Israel was
stopped, 9 but it had already killed 24,000 people.

Phinehas...son of Aaron: Phinehas (see Exo 6.25) was actually the

“grandson” of Aaron (GNT).
Congregation: The Hebrew has the same term, `edah, as in verse 6.
And took a spear: Many languages would prefer a new sentence here (GNT).
Inner room: The meaning of the very rare Hebrew term qubbah is uncertain.
In some langauges related to Hebrew, it refers to a vaulted or domed room. The
ancient Syriac and Latin translations, the Peshitta and Vulgate, have “chamber,
room.” Similarly, NBJ98, TOB, and DHE render “alcove.” The text does not specify
where this inner room / “chamber” (NJPSV, ZÜR) was. What is clearly implied,
however, is that this room is private. Plausible renderings of the specific Hebrew term
are: “the sleeping chamber” (WV95), “his sleeping chamber” (NBV), “the inner space
of the tent” (GECL, also NET note), “his private chamber” (see below on the word
play with qebatah). If such a specific translation is impossible, “his tent” (CEV, NLT)
may be an alternative. (It has also been suggested that pagan worship took place at
this qubbah: a qubbe was a small, sacred tent used by various Arab tribes, in which
stone objects venerated by the tribe, were deposited.)[< Levine 288; Ashley 520; Cole
441]
Through her body: The equally rare Hebrew form qebatah (“her belly”—
here a euphemism for the female genitalia) is a word play on qubbah above. It may
well be possible to express this in translation, for example: “into the (his) private
chamber ... through her private parts” (Everett Fox; Plaut). In any case, the single
spear clearly pierced both the man and the woman in whatever act they were engaged.
Thus the plague was stayed: Thus (Hebrew waw) indicates consequence (“In
this way,” GNT; “So,” NET, NLT). Only now does the text indicate that a plague had
resulted from the Lord’s fierce anger (verses 3-4). It may also be a reference to the
killing of those who had taken part in the idolatry (verses 4-5). In some languages it
may therefore be good to add a phrase and translate “the epidemic that was destroying
Israel was stopped” (GNT). For plague see at 14.37.
Nevertheless: The Hebrew simply summarizes: “And they were, those who
died by the plague, twenty-four thousand,” without indicating any contrast with the
preceding verse like nevertheless or “but” (GNT). Verse 9 concludes this stage of the
narrative (verses 4-9), even as it prepares the way for the next unit (verses 10-15).

25.10-11
RSV
10 And the Lord said to Moses, 11 “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest,
has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy
among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy.

GNT
10 The Lord said to Moses, 11 “Because of what Phinehas has done, I am no longer angry
with the people of Israel. He refused to tolerate the worship of any god but me, and that is
why I did not destroy them in my anger.
 And the Lord said to Moses: This divine speech formula parallels that which
is found at the beginning of verse 4. However, the words used are slightly different, in
particular, the main verb: wayedabber (verse 10; see 20.7) versus wayyomer (verse 4;
see 20.12). Some commentators see a special significance in this shift of usage,[<
Cole 438] and it should be retained in translation, if possible.
In any case, a divine speech introduction seems to demarcate stages of
progression in the narrative—first a general statement of the crisis (1-3), then the
righteous punitive action by Phinehas against a pair of blatant offenders (4-9), the
Lord’s recognition of and response to Phinehas’ intervention—a “covenant of peace”
(10-15), followed by a concluding portion (16-18) that reflects back on the entire
account.
Has turned back my wrath: Or “has turned my anger away” (NIV), “has
averted.” In some languages, GNT’s rendering will sound more natural while
retaining the focus upon the action of Phinehas: “Because of what Phinehas has done,
I am no longer angry ...” This phrase reflects the role of the priests in defending the
people in the face of the holiness of God.
In that he was jealous with my jealousy among them: (The Lord refers to
himself as a “jealous” God in Exo 20.5; see the Handbook on Exodus.) Some
translations understand my jealousy as “jealousy that I have,” for instance:
“for he was as zealous as I am for my honor among them” (NIV);
“he displayed among them the same jealous anger that moved me” (REB);
“by being as zealous among them as I was” (NLT).
Other translations take it to mean “jealousy for me / for my sake,” for example:
“By displaying among them his passion for Me” (NJPSV);
“by manifesting such zeal among them on my behalf” (NRSV);
“through his jealousy for me” (LUT84).
(Of the two interpretations, it is the latter fits best with verse 13 below: “because he
was jealous for his God.”) GNT expresses very well the meaning of jealousy in the
context of the narrative: “He refused to tolerate the worship of any god but me.” (In
many languages it will be helpful to start a new sentence at this point, as in GNT.)
In my jealousy: Alternative renderings for jealousy, based on a verbal
concept (q-n-’) “act zealously,” are: “passion” (NJPSV), “zeal” (NIV, Alter), and
“zealous anger” (NLT). The (Hebrew) word ‘zeal’ means a passionate intensity to
protect or preserve divine or social institutions (NET note). The repetition of this key
term indicates its emphatic nature in the present context: Phinehas reflecting the very
holy character of the Lord. This feature of the narrative should be maintained if
possible also in the translation.

25.12-13
RSV
12 Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace; 13 and it shall be to him, and to
his descendants after him, the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous
for his God, and made atonement for the people of Israel.’ ”

GNT
12 So tell him that I am making a covenant with him that is valid for all time to come. 13 He and
his descendants are permanently established as priests, because he did not tolerate any
rivals to me and brought about forgiveness for the people's sin.”
 Phinehas’ role and its significance are referred to in similar terms in 1 Macc
2.54 and Sir 45.23-24 as well.
Therefore say: The Lord is telling Moses is to pass on these words to
Phinehas as a formal consequence of what Phinehas has done (verse 11). In many
languages it will be helpful to include “(to) him” (GNT). The words that follow are
indirect speech: the phrase I give to him—not “the Lord will give to you”—indicates
that these are still the Lord’s own words, not the words in the form that Moses will
speak himself. In many languages it will be helpful to introduce indirect speech in a
way similar to GNT: “So tell him that ...” In fact, the Hebrew construction would
suggest a greater level of fomality in this discourse: “Therefore, announce to him ...”
(similar to NET).
Behold, I give: The Hebrew participle coupled with the particle hinni,
expresses an imminent and deliberate future action: “Indeed, I am giving,” “I am
surely about to give.” GNT shifts to a more natural verb in English: “I am making ...”
My covenant of peace: A literal translation might suggest that the Lord is
making peace with Phinehas! NJPSV has “my pact of friendship” (similarly NBV).
The NET note suggests “my pledge of friendship” and adds: “This is the designation
of the leadership of the priestly ministry.” Mal 2.5 refers to this covenant with the
same phrase (see also Isa 54.10; Ezek 34.25).
It shall be to him ... the covenant of a perpetual priesthood: This statement
clarifies the nature of “the covenant of peace” just mentioned. In some languages it
will be helpful to formulate this with verbs instead of abstract concepts, for example:
“That covenant makes them priests for all time” (FRCL), or adjusting the GNT: “This
covenant means that he and his descendants are permanently established as priests.”
He was jealous for: GNT translates as in verse 11: “he did not tolerate ...” So
does NJPSV: “he took impassioned action.” Or to retain the idea of “zeal”: “because
he was zealous (or: ‘acted zealously’) for the honor of his God” (NIV; also NET).
Made atonement for: Or “obtained forgiveness for” (FRCL, DHE; or: “... on
behalf of”). See at 5.8 and 8.12. As the note in NET puts it: The atonement that he
made in this passage refers to the killing of the two obviously blatant sinners … The
point is that sin was punished by death, and so God was free to end the plague and
pardon the people.

25.14-15
RSV
14 The name of the slain man of Israel, who was slain with the Midianite woman, was Zimri
the son of Salu, head of a fathers' house belonging to the Simeonites. 15 And the name of the
Midianite woman who was slain was Cozbi the daughter of Zur, who was the head of the
people of a fathers' house in Midian.

GNT
14 The name of the Israelite who was killed with the Midianite woman was Zimri son of
Salu, the head of a family in the tribe of Simeon. 15 The woman's name was Cozbi. Zur, her
father, was chief of a group of Midianite clans.

Because of the social position of both Zimri and Cozbi, their sexual-religious
encounter has wider implications: it is a model for the immoral and idolatrous
amalgamation of the two peoples, Israel and Midian (or Moab, hence any non-
Israelite people), which is punished and condemned in this chapter. These details
regarding names and families is placed at the end of the account so that they do not
deflect from the main point of the narrative, which is focused on the sin of infidelity
to the Lord. Furthermore, “Listing the names at the end of the narrative gives them a
certain emphasis.”[< Ashley 524] Since these two individuals were from leading
families in both nations; they should have known and behaved better.
Head of a fathers’ house: Strictly speaking, the rendering a fathers’ house
should have been “a father’s house”—the Hebrew ’av is singular. NRSV has “head of
an ancestral house” (see the discussion at 1.2). Instead of ro’sh (head), the Hebrew
has nasi’, the same term as in, for example, 1.16. This term refers to a prominent and
distinguished leader, for example, a much respected sheikh or chief of a tribe.
NJPSV’s “chieftain” seems a better alternative for this than head. The phrase
“chieftain of the ancestral house of ...” also occurs in 3.24, 30, 35.
Belonging to the Simeonites: This is a reference to “the tribe of Simeon”
(GNT). A rendering like “one of the leaders of the Simeon tribe” (CEV, similarly
FRCL and PV) seems to miss the point that Salu was actually the chief of one of the
ancestral houses within that tribe, and not simply a member of the leadership
committee of the tribe as a whole. After the Reubenites and Levites rebelled in
chapter 16, this time it is a descendant of Simeon, the other son who is cursed by
Jacob in Gen 49.3-7, who is involved in a rebellious act.[< Douglas 203]
Cozbi: This name is quite siginificant in the narrative—it points to the root k-
z-b: “to deceive, lie” or “to be voluptuous” (an attribute of some fertility
goddesses).[< Sherwood 181] Her father, Zur, is referred to later as a “king” in 31.8.
Head of the people of a fathers’ house: In this instance, the Hebrew does
have ro’sh (head). Because of the very infrequent word people (’ummot, literally
“peoples,” “leagues”), the phrase is unusual. How should this word be connected to
the rest of the phrase? Translations deal with this problem in different ways. NRSV
translates “head of a clan, of an ancestral house in Midian.” The sense of the phrase in
NJPSV and REB is similar: “the tribal head of an ancestral house in Midian.” FRCL,
on the other hand, translates “chief of several clans of a Midianite tribe.” In any case,
Cozbi is the daughter of somebody who has an important position among the
Midianite people. The unusual phrase seems to be another indication of this.

25.16-18
RSV
16 And the Lord said to Moses, 17 “Harass the Midianites, and smite them; 18 for they have
harassed you with their wiles, with which they beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the
matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian, their sister, who was slain on the day of
the plague on account of Peor.”

GNT
16 The Lord commanded Moses, 17 “Attack the Midianites and destroy them, 18 because of
the evil they did to you when they deceived you at Peor, and because of Cozbi, who was
killed at the time of the epidemic at Peor.”

And the Lord said to Moses: This introduction to divine speech is exactly the
same as in verse 10 and, similarly, begins a new narrative paragraph unit. Verses 16-
18 summarize and repeat the salient points of the story. They unify various elements
in the chapter.[< Ashley 524; see also Cole 445]
Harass: GNT and many other translations have “attack.” If possible, however,
the same rendering should be given here and at the beginning of verse 18, where the
same Hebrew verb is used in a non-military sense. This significant play on meanings
might be preserved in English, for example, by translating: “Attack the Midianites and
destroy them, because they attacked you with deceit …” (adapting the NLT).
 Smite may be understood as “defeat” (NRSV, NJPSV, CEV) or “kill” (NIV,
DUCL, NBV, PV). In some languages, GNT’s “destroy” will allow for both
interpretations. This command will be carried out during the war with the Midiantes
in chapter 31. (Balaam is mentioned again in 31.8, 16—the apparent instigator of the
idolatrous events reported in 25.1-3.)
Harassed you with their wiles, with which they beguiled you: NRSV has
“harrassed you by the trickery with which they deceived you.” Or again, to preserve
more closely the emphatic repetition present in the Hebrew: “... by the deceit with
which they deceived you ...”
And in the matter of: Literally, “and upon the word of...” This the second
reason for attacking and destroying the Midianites. Thus GNT translates more
naturally “and because of...”
The prince of Midian: NJPSV’s “the Midianite chieftain” is a more accurate
rendering—the Hebrew has nasi’, as in verse 14.
Their sister: This implies that the Midianites are held responsible for her
actions. She was “their kinswoman” (NJPSV, Alter). NBV translates “somebody from
their own people.” In some languages, even a rendering like “their own sister” will
help to make the implication clear. It is not clear why GNT leaves it untranslated.
When the text gives the name and family of a woman, it is asserting that she is
important, at least for social reasons, among her people (NET note). It is important to
avoid a translation such as NLT: “and because of Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite
leader, who was killed at the time of the plague,” which might imply that it was
Cozbi’s father who was killed in the account of chapter 25.
On account of Peor: This is the second time, now at the very end, that this
expression (literally “upon the word of Peor”) appears in verse 18, thus highlighting
by way of summary reference the tragic event that occasioned the narrative of chapter
25.

Part III-B: 25.19–33.49: Events near the land of Canaan

The new orientation for the Israelites becomes concrete in Part III-B, with specific
arrangements for their life in the land of Canaan—what they are to do when they
arrive there. This includes several sections devoted to the concerns of women. The
entire generation of rebellious people (those who escaped from Egypt during the
Exodus) has died out in the wilderness, as climaxed by the plague reported in chapter
25; it is the new generation that makes preparations to finally enter the land of
Canaan. The people are ready to be God’s renewed community. The significance of
this pivotal juncture in the history of Israel as a nation is marked by a second census,
or “numbering” of the people, which is patterned after that of the first census recorded
in chapter 1. The theme of the death of the old generation and the birth of the new
generation of hope is one which continues beyond Numbers and the Pentateuch.

Part III-B consists of the following sections:

1. Second census of the Israelites: the new generation 25.19–26.65
2. The inheritance case of Zelophehad’s daughters 27.1-11
3. Moses’ leadership and authority transferred to Joshua 27.12-23
4. A calendar of offerings and ritual festivals 28.1–29.40
5. Vows of women 30.1-16
6. Punishment and plunder of the people of Midian 31.1-54
7. Territory of the Israelite tribes east of the Jordan 32.1-42
8. Summary of the journeys from Egypt to the Jordan 33.1-49

25.19–26.65
Section Heading: The format and structure of the second census is similar to the first
census in chapter 1. A difference between the censuses is that the second census in
chapter 26 adds a more detailed level of names of clans within each of the twelve
tribes, or founders of the clans.[< Olson 161] See at 26.5-7 below for a brief
discussion of its formulaic language and layout in print. The names of the clans
appear to be related to the genealogy in Gen 46.8-25. Thus, this census serves as a
partial genealogy as well. Certain variations, differences, or indeed difficulties, that
occur in this listing of names in chapter 26 will be noted where they occur in the text.
The aim of the first census was a military registration of the old generation for
the march through the wilderness. Here, on the other hand, the census of the new
generation is also intended to make preparations for the division of the Promised
Land—how strong will the army be when it enters it? How should they divide the
Promised Land? The larger a clan or tribe turns out to be according to this census, the
larger its future territory (26.52-54) as determined by lot (26.55-56).
Helpful section headings are: “The Second Census” (GNT); “The second
census of Israel” (NBG51, TOB); “The Israelites (are) counted again / a second time”
(NBV, CEV); “The Second Registration of Israel’s Troops” (NLT), which is more
accurate for this chapter than “Second census of the tribes of Israel” (FRCL); and
“(A) Census of the New Generation” (NRSV, ESV). This last heading is helpful in
that it reflects that this census is a sign of God’s promise for the new generation,
which makes preparations to enter and divide the Promised Land.
Some German and French translations (LUT84, GECL, NBJ98, TOB, FRCL,
PV) start a new section at verse 57: “Second census of the Levites” (TOB); “Second
census of the tribe of Levi” (FRCL). If this is followed, it is important to include
“second”—the reader should realize that this separate census of the Levites is
intended to replace their first enrollment in chapter 3.
TOB, NBS02, and FRCL start another section already at verse 52 as well:
“(General) instructions for the division of the (promised) land”.
If headings are inserted at verse 52 and/or verse 57, it is important to insert
one at verse 63 as well. At that point the text returns to the second census in general
and thus serves as a conclusion to this discourse unit as a whole. Verse 63 summarizes
the whole census, not just the census of the Levites. Thus, TOB, NBS02, and FRCL
include a heading at verse 63: “Conclusion of the census.” Furthermore, this closing
portion provides an important interpretive perspective on this entire section,
underscoring the Lord’s justice and mercy. His justice was manifested in his
punishment of the whole older generation of Israelites for their unfaithfulness to his
covenant; his mercy is revealed in allowing faithful Caleb and Joshua to enter the
Promised Land.
If even shorter sections are preferred, NLT may be a helpful model, with
separate section headings for each tribe, including “Results of the Registration” at
verse 51 and “The Tribe of Levi” at verse 57. However, it is unfortunate that NLT
lacks a section heading at verse 63.

25.19–26.1
RSV
 1 After the plague the Lord said to Moses and to Eleazar the son of Aaron, the priest,

GNT
1 After the epidemic the Lord said to Moses and Eleazar son of Aaron,

After the plague: In editions of the Hebrew text and in a number of

translations, this phrase is still treated as the end of the previous chapter and
numbered as 25.19. However, the construction of the phrase indicates clearly that it
introduces the sentence that follows in 26.1. Most translations treat 25.19 as
belonging to chapter 26. KJV, RSV, NRSV, GNT, NIV, REB, CEV, and NLT
actually include it in 26.1 itself. Translators are advised to do the same. (The term for
plague is the same as in 25.8.)
The Lord said: This divine message formula is an important opening
discourse marker in the book of Numbers as a whole (see at 25.4, 10, 16).
Eleazar the son of Aaron, the priest: Eleazar had taken over his high priestly
role after the death of his father (20.28). There is no reason for eliminating “the
priest” from this passage as GNT has done.

26.2
RSV
2“Take a census of all the congregation of the people of Israel, from twenty years old and
upward, by their fathers' houses, all in Israel who are able to go forth to war.”

GNT
2“Take a census by families of the whole community of Israel, of all men twenty years old or
older who are fit for military service.”

Take a census: As in 1.2. The Hebrew imperative form at this point is in the
plural; Moses is not the only person spoken to, but Eleazar as well. In languages that
lack a plural imperative form or in which a plural imperative on its own would be
awkward or overly ambiguous, it may be helpful to translate “you and Eleazar are to
take a census” (similar to GNT’s solution in 1.2).
Of all the congregation of the people of Israel: As in 1.2.
From twenty years old and upward … able to go forth to war: See at 1.3.
A new generation has grown up to replace the wilderness generation, ready to take
part in military activities that will be involved in taking possession of Canaan.
By their fathers’ houses: The Hebrew expression is levet ’avotam. See the
discussion at 1.2. NRSV (“by their ancestral houses”) and GNT (“by families”) are
consistent with their renderings in 1.2. GNT’s ordering of these distinct phrases may
be more natural, in which case it is to be preferred.

26.3-4
RSV
3And Moses and Eleazar the priest spoke with them in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at
Jericho, saying, 4 “Take a census of the people,x from twenty years old and upward,” as the
Lord commanded Moses. The people of Israel, who came forth out of the land of Egypt, were:

x 26.4 Supplying take a census of the people Compare verse 2

GNT
3–4Moses and Eleazar obeyed, and called together all the men of that age group. They
assembled in the plains of Moab across the River Jordan from Jericho.
 These were the Israelites who came out of Egypt:

Take a census of the people: RSV, NRSV, ESV, and NIV (similarly NET,
NLT, TOB, and Budd)[< Budd 286] consider this phrase, which does not occur in the
Hebrew, to be implied from verse 2. This is the easy way out of handling a
problematic Hebrew text and may be followed by translators if it is absolutely
necessary. In the discussion that follows, however, we will attempt to understand and
translate the text without supplying this phrase.
The major problem in verses 3-4 is that verse 4 does not seem to correspond
with the direct speech (words of Moses and Eleazar) that one would expect after the
introduction in verse 3. This makes the Hebrew text difficult to translate. Broadly, the
following models can be found among translations:
- A few translations have attempted to solve the problem by replacing spoke
with them, saying with “numbered them” (LUT84, WV95, Noth) or
“mustered them” (NBJ98, SB00, ZÜR, NAV). Such a rendering would bring
the text more in line with the first census (see 1.3 and 1.19), but is not based
on the Hebrew and has little support from ancient translations (only from the
Syriac Peshitta). Therefore, it seems better to explore other options.
- Buber and NBG51 follow the Hebrew (spoke with them, saying) and take
just from twenty years old and upward as Moses’ and Eleazar’s direct
speech: “From twenty year olds and upward …!” (Buber).
The alternative could be to include the next phrase in the direct speech as well:
“Those twenty years of age and above, as the Lord commanded Moses”
(Levine). Either way, the direct speech appears to be incomplete as it stands.
- Probably in order to solve this problem, Alter treats the phrase that follows as
part of the direct speech as well: “From twenty years and up, as the Lord
charged Moses and the Israelites who came out of the land of Egypt.”
However, the phrase about the Israelites does not seem to make sense if it is
part of the words of Moses and Eleazar in this context.
- NJPSV, on the other hand, follows the Hebrew text, avoiding the direct
speech at the same time:
3
So Moses and Eleazar the priest, on the steppes of Moab, at the Jordan near
Jericho, gave instructions about them, namely, 4 those from twenty years up, as
the Lord had commanded Moses. The descendants of the Israelites who came
out of the land of Egypt were: …
If this model is followed, the words in italics could still be rendered more
naturally, for example: “gave instructions concerning those from twenty years
up, as the Lord had commanded Moses.”
A possible advantage of a rendering like “gave instructions” is that this is still
quite close in meaning to spoke.
- Similarly, NBV and GECL start from the Hebrew text in the same way as
Buber and NBG51 above, but then rephrase it in translation in order to avoid
the very short and incomplete direct speech:
“… called together all men of twenty years and older … as the Lord had
commanded Moses” (NBV);
“… obeyed the command of the Lord and called together all the male adults”
(GECL).
GNT seems to go back to the same analysis of the Hebrew text.
In the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho: As in 22.1. The only
difference is by the Jordan (“at the Jordan” in NJPSV) instead of “beyond the
Jordan.” However, the Israelites are still on the eastern side of the Jordan, so it is
important not to give the wrong suggestion in translation that they have already
crossed this river. This whole phrase is repeated in the rest of Numbers (24.63; 31.12;
33.48, 50; 35.1; 36.13), so that it unifies the final part of the book. Jericho will be the
first point of attack in the conquest of the Land of Canaan.
As the Lord commanded Moses: It is worth noting that NIV, NLT, TOB,
Budd, [< Budd 284] and Levine [< Levine 309] render this phrase as the final part of
Moses’ and Eleazar’s direct speech. This might sound more natural in some
languages. In GNT, this phrase appears to be matched by “obeyed.”
The people of Israel, who came forth out of the land of Egypt, were: …:
RSV, NRSV, GNT, ESV, NJPSV (see above), and Levine take this phrase as the
introduction to the actual census that follows (and as the start of a new paragraph).
These translations add the verb were so as to make it a full sentence. Another option
would be to begin with “These were …” (NIV). However, such additions may not be
necessary—the Hebrew phrase can easily be interpreted (and in some languages
translated) as a title of the census record that follows.
At first sight, the choice of words in this phrase seems strange, since this is the
second census and the first generation has already died. This is not a listing of
individuals at all, but rather a list of clans. However, instead of the people of Israel
one may also translate “the sons/descendants of the Israelites,” and this is what
NJPSV, NBV, and Levine have (“the descendants of the Israelites”).[< Levine 313,
332] Compare also NLT: “the descendants of Israel.”
A few translations do not treat the phrase as the introduction to the census that
follows, but rather as a reference to the first census in Numbers, soon after the Exodus
from Egypt. NET and Alter (see above) treat this whole phrase as part of the direct
speech in verse 4. And CEV, after rephrasing the direct speech, renders: “just as
Moses and their ancestors had done when they left Egypt.”

26.5-7
RSV
5 Reuben, the first-born of Israel; the sons of Reuben: of Hanoch, the family of the
Hanochites; of Pallu, the family of the Palluites; 6 of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites; of
Carmi, the family of the Carmites. 7 These are the families of the Reubenites; and their
number was forty-three thousand seven hundred and thirty.

GNT
5 The tribe of Reuben (Reuben was the eldest son of Jacob): the clans of Hanoch, Pallu, 6
Hezron, and Carmi. 7 These clans numbered 43,730 men.

Various formulaic phrases recur all through verses 5-62 and are almost the
same for the census of every tribe, with some variation for the tribe of Levi in verses
57-62. In translation, these phrases should be rendered consistently in terms of
wording and order of occurrence. For each tribe, GNT has comprised the references to
the different clans into one phrase: “the clans of …”
Verses 5-50 of the second census correspond with 1.20-43 of the first. The list
layout, which GNT and FRCL have in 1.20-43, has been discussed at that point. The
alternative was mentioned as well: for each tribe the verses about it can be put in a
separate paragraph (or can even be preceded and followed by a blank line as in NIV,
for example). The numbers can be printed in figures in any case, not only to make the
translation easier to read but also because figures are probably more fitting in a
numerical list of this kind. Finally, it was mentioned that even a translation with few
or no verbs would bring out the list character of 1.20-43 more clearly. Here in chapter
26, however, a list layout would be too complicated. This is because some verses
provide narrative background information, and these would interrupt and disturb the
list layout (as can be seen in GECL). However, translators are advised to adopt the
alternative possibilities: a layout like in NIV, as well as figures and formulaic
language can help to bring out the list character of most of chapter 26.
Reuben, the first-born of Israel: GNT has “Jacob” instead of Israel, but see
the discussion at 1.20. It is important to indicate that Israel the father is being referred
to here, not Israel the nation. For that reason it may be necessary to state explicitly
that Reuben was “the first-born son of Israel.”
The sons of Reuben: Instead of sons of …, NRSV has “descendants of
…”—the text does not only refer to his direct sons. This applies throughout verses 5-
50, where NRSV translates “descendants of …” consistently (except in verses 19 and
28), while GNT renders “tribe of ...” In some languages, this will be easier to
understand—a tribe consists of several clans.
Family … families: mishpachah, a clan, is composed of several families. See
at 1.2, where we already indicated a preference for “clans” (GNT, NRSV).
And their number was …: CEV moves this phrase to the beginning of verses
5-7. For each tribe in verses 5-50, CEV puts the phrase with the total number at the
beginning of the paragraph on that tribe, not at the end. Given the context of a census,
this may be a helpful model in some languages. The Hebrew term pequdim, which
RSV translates as number, is of the same root as the verb paqad (“enroll,” discussed
at 1.3). Because of this, NRSV translates this phrase as follows: “The number of those
enrolled was …” See the discussion of pequdim at 1.20-46 (“The number of the tribe
of …”).

26.8-11
RSV
8 And the sons of Pallu: Eliab. 9 The sons of Eliab: Nemuel, Dathan, and Abiram. These are
the Dathan and Abiram, chosen from the congregation, who contended against Moses and
Aaron in the company of Korah, when they contended against the Lord, 10 and the earth
opened its mouth and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died,
when the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men; and they became a warning. 11
Notwithstanding, the sons of Korah did not die.

GNT
8 The descendants of Pallu were Eliab 9 and his sons Nemuel, Dathan, and Abiram. (These
are the Dathan and Abiram who were chosen by the community. They defied Moses and
Aaron and joined the followers of Korah when they rebelled against the Lord. 10 The ground
opened and swallowed them, and they died with Korah and his followers when fire destroyed
250 men; they became a warning to the people. 11 But the sons of Korah were not killed.)

This paragraph has no parallel with the tribes that follow in verses 12-50. It is
specifically about one of the Reubenite clans, the Palluites, of which Dathan and
Abiram were members. The round brackets in GNT (and CRV) may give the wrong
suggestion to some readers that this information is unimportant. In fact, it stands as a
“warning” to the people (verse 10). The point of the paragraph is actually to
summarize and refer to the leadership role of Dathan and Abiram in the rebellion of
Numbers 16. It seems better to print verses 8-11 as one paragraph, without brackets.
RSV and GNT use verbs in the past tense. In some languages a different tense
will have to be used throughout this paragraph (for example, “had contended” instead
of contended) to show that the paragraph refers to an event that has already happened
before this census. This has been done in GECL, WV95, NBV, and DUCL.
The sons of Pallu: Eliab: The Hebrew uses the standard formulaic phrase in
the plural—“the sons of …”—even though only one son is mentioned here. GNT’s
rendering “The descendants of Pallu were Eliab and his sons …” will be a helpful
model in a number of languages—it solves the problem without giving up the
formulaic style. NIV and REB change sons into “son.”
Chosen from the congregation: This phrase is the same as in 1.16. The
words are similar to those in 16.2, where Dathan and Abiram were introduced into the
text.
Contended against Moses … contended against the Lord: The same
Hebrew verb is used, literally meaning “fight, have a fight with.” Hence the rendering
in NBV and DUCL: “had resisted against.” It may not be possible in translation to use
the same verb when the action is directed against a human (Moses) and the Lord. In
English, however, “rebel” would work.
In the company of Korah … that company: As in 16.5, the standard term
`edah “community” is used here, referring to Korah’s “followers” (GNT), not to the
rest of the Israelite community. See the discussion at 16.5 on the note of sarcasm in
the use of the standard term.
And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up: The Hebrew is
the same as in 16.32.
When the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men: In 16.35 the Hebrew
uses the same words.
A warning in the sense of a warning sign, a signal. The Hebrew term nes is
the same as in 21.8-9: “pole,” “standard.” In some languages, this declaration may
need to be introduced by a different verb, for example, NLT: “This served as a
warning to…” Note that this is the first of three warnings in this chapter, all involving
“death” of the offenders (see also verses 19 and 61).
Notwithstanding, the sons of Korah did not die: The contrast in verse 11
with the preceding recall of the death of Korah and his followers may need to be
marked by the appropriate conjunction (literally “and”): “However” (NLT), “But”
(GNT). The question remains as to which “sons” are being referred to here—Korah’s
immediate sons (NLT: “But the sons of Korah did not die that day”) or his
“descendants” (NIV: “The line of Korah, however, did not die out”). Either rendering
is allowed by the context, for the former case implies the latter.

26.12-18
RSV
12 The sons of Simeon according to their families: of Nemuel, the family of the Nemuelites;
of Jamin, the family of the Jaminites; of Jachin, the family of the Jachinites; 13 of Zerah, the
family of the Zerahites; of Shaul, the family of the Shaulites. 14 These are the families of the
Simeonites, twenty-two thousand two hundred.
15 The sons of Gad according to their families: of Zephon, the family of the Zephonites; of
Haggi, the family of the Haggites; of Shuni, the family of the Shunites; 16 of Ozni, the family of
the Oznites; of Eri, the family of the Erites; 17 of Arod, the family of the Arodites; of Areli, the
family of the Arelites. 18 These are the families of the sons of Gad according to their number,
forty thousand five hundred.

GNT
12 The tribe of Simeon: the clans of Nemuel, Jamin, Jachin, 13 Zerah, and Shaul. 14 These
clans numbered 22,200 men.
 15 The tribe of Gad: the clans of Zephon, Haggi, Shuni, 16 Ozni, Eri, 17 Arod, and Areli. 18
These clans numbered 40,500 men.

These are the paragraphs about the census of the tribe of Simeon and the tribe
of Gad. The terms and formulations are virtually the same as in 26.5-7. One very
small difference with verse 7 lies in the short phrase according to their number in
verse 18 (which is lacking in verse 14). Instead of … according to their number,
NJPSV has “…; persons enrolled: …”—a careful rendering of the Hebrew pequdim
(see at verse 7).
Shaul: It is worth footnoting or cross-referencing this name to Gen 46.10 and
Exo 6.15, where it is recorded that “Shaul” was the offspring of a Canaanite woman,
thus introducing a significant foreign element in the line of Israel’s descendants.
Arod: Most translations have “Arod,” which is the form of the name in the
traditional Hebrew text and the Latin Vulgate. Only NIV and NLT follow the
Septuagint and Syriac versions and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and render “Arodi,”
probably in order to bring the text in line with Gen 46.16, where the form “Arodi”
occurs. However, it seems better to render variant forms of proper names faithfully,
rather than trying to “correct” the Hebrew text. This recommendation applies to all
other instances of where such spelling variants (or omissions and additions) occur in
the listing of names in Numbers 26, that is, in comparison with the Septuagint
version, chapter one of Numbers, Genesis 46, or the genealogies of 1 Chronicles. (For
a brief discussion of this issue of variants among the different tribal listings, see Cole
454.)[< Cole 454]
Note that in the Septuagint, the listing of Gad occurs after that of Zebulun,
which corresponds to the order found in Genesis 46 (verse 16).

26.19-22
RSV
19 The sons of Judah were Er and Onan; and Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. 20
And the sons of Judah according to their families were: of Shelah, the family of the
Shelanites; of Perez, the family of the Perezites; of Zerah, the family of the Zerahites. 21 And
the sons of Perez were: of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites; of Hamul, the family of the
Hamulites. 22 These are the families of Judah according to their number, seventy-six thousand
five hundred.

GNT
19–21 The tribe of Judah: the clans of Shelah, Perez, Zerah, Hezron, and Hamul. (Two of
Judah's sons, Er and Onan, had died in the land of Canaan.) 22 These clans numbered
76,500 men.

This is the paragraph about the census of the tribe of Judah. It runs parallel to
the previous paragraphs of 26.5-7 and 12-18. However, it also includes verse 19 and
verse 21.
… Er and Onan; and Er and Onan died (“had died” GNT): The point of
this information (verse 19) is that there are no clans that descend from Judah’s first
two sons. They “had died” (GNT) without offspring (Gen 38.7-10). In order to put
this point across more clearly, GNT places the phrase after the list of clans. The same
is done in GECL, FRCL, PV, DUCL, and CEV. This will be a helpful model to
follow in a number of languages. Again, the GNT puts this historical comment in
parentheses, which tends to demote its significance; its position in the Hebrew text,
however, indicates that, on the contrary, this was a point of great importance.
 Although not stated explicitly as such, the “death” of Er and Onan served as a
second “warning” to the new generation: Just as the Lord does not tolerate political
rebellion in the ranks (verse 10), so also he does not allow cases of disobedient,
ritually unacceptable behavior.
In the land of Canaan: Er and Onan died before the family settled in Egypt
(Gen 46.12).[< Plaut 1076]
The sons [‘descendants’ NRSV] of Perez were: of Hezron …; of Hamul:
…: Verse 21 specifies the two clans (“subclans” in NLT) that descend from Perez: the
Hezronites and the Hamulites. GNT simply includes these in its list of clans, so that
it is unclear that they are subclans under the clan of the Perezites. Hezron and Hamul
were sons of Perez (Gen 46.12), not of Judah, which is what GNT appears to suggest.
King David was a descendant of Perez and Chezron (Ruth 4.18-22). This may be the
reason why the text makes a point of mentioning them here.
According to their number: As in 26.18.
Seventy-six thousand five hundred: Judah is the largest tribe, both in this
census and the first (see 1.27).

26.23-27
RSV
23 The sons of Issachar according to their families: of Tola, the family of the Tolaites; of
Puvah, the family of the Punites; 24 of Jashub, the family of the Jashubites; of Shimron, the
family of the Shimronites. 25 These are the families of Issachar according to their number,
sixty-four thousand three hundred.
26 The sons of Zebulun, according to their families: of Sered, the family of the Seredites; of
Elon, the family of the Elonites; of Jahleel, the family of the Jahleelites. 27 These are the
families of the Zebulunites according to their number, sixty thousand five hundred.

GNT
23 The tribe of Issachar: the clans of Tola, Puah, 24 Jashub, and Shimron. 25 These clans
numbered 64,300 men.
26 The tribe of Zebulun: the clans of Sered, Elon, and Jahleel. 27 These clans numbered
60,500 men.

These are the paragraphs about the census of the tribes of Issachar and
Zebulun (see Gen 46.13-14). They both run parallel to the previous paragraphs of
26.5-7 and 12-18.
Puvah … Punites: GNT and NIV have “Puah.” A more precise transcription
of the name in Hebrew here is puwah. Punites is left untranslated in GNT’s approach.
Instead of Punites, REB, NIV, and NLT have “Puite,” following the ancient
translations and the Samaritan Pentateuch. However, there seems to be no clear reason
to drop the n.
According to their number: As in 26.18.

26.28
RSV
28 The sons of Joseph according to their families: Manasseh and Ephraim.

GNT
28 The tribes of Joseph, who was the father of two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim.

This is the introduction to the paragraphs on the tribes of Manasseh (verses

29-34) and Ephraim (verses 35-37), which reverses the order of chapter one, perhaps
to reflect the inversion of the population numbers in this second generation.[< Cole
456] The two paragraphs are rounded off (inclusio) with another reference to Joseph,
their common ancestor, at the end of verse 37.
According to their families: NRSV has “by their clans.” At 1.2 and 26.5-7,
we already indicated a preference for “clans.” In some languages it may be awkward
to mention Joseph’s sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, directly after this reference to
clans. Some translations, therefore, have rearranged the phrases in this verse. NBV,
for example, translates:
“Sons of Joseph: Manasseh and Ephraim. Different [or, “separate”] clans
descended from both.”
In some languages it will be helpful to rephrase this:
“Sons of Joseph: Manasseh and Ephraim. These are their clans: …”
This seems more helpful than GNT, which has left “clans” untranslated.

26.29-34
RSV
29 The sons of Manasseh: of Machir, the family of the Machirites; and Machir was the father of
Gilead; of Gilead, the family of the Gileadites. 30 These are the sons of Gilead: of Iezer, the
family of the Iezerites; of Helek, the family of the Helekites; 31 and of Asriel, the family of the
Asrielites; and of Shechem, the family of the Shechemites; 32 and of Shemida, the family of
the Shemidaites; and of Hepher, the family of the Hepherites. 33 Now Zelophehad the son of
Hepher had no sons, but daughters: and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were
Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 34 These are the families of Manasseh; and their
number was fifty-two thousand seven hundred.

GNT
29 The tribe of Manasseh: Machir son of Manasseh was the father of Gilead, and the
following clans traced their ancestry to Gilead: 30 the clans of Iezer, Helek, 31 Asriel, Shechem,
32 Shemida, and Hepher. 33 Zelophehad son of Hepher had no sons, but only daughters; their
names were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 34 These clans numbered 52,700
men.

The sons of Manasseh: Since Manasseh has only one direct son, Machir, in
some languages it will be more helpful to translate “descendants” (NRSV) or “tribe”
(GNT). To clarify this line at the beginning, it may be helpful to modify GNT’s
rendering slightly to read: “Machir, the only son of Manasseh, was the father of …”
And Machir was the father of Gilead: The Hebrew verb holid “begot”
(NJPSV) is a typical feature of the formulaic language of genealogical lists. Was the
father of translates the Hebrew for “bore, gave birth to.” As the Handbook of Genesis
mentions at 4.18, many languages do not say that a man “gives birth to” his child but
prefer the form of RSV. Other languages (Chewa for example) do have a verb to
indicate that a man “begets” a child.
Family … families: Again, “clan … clans” (NRSV) is to be preferred.
This paragraph runs parallel to previous paragraphs, but only in part. Verses
30-32 deal with the clans that descend from Gilead. One of these clans is the clan of
Hepher. This line of ancestry leads the reader to verse 33, where it is mentioned that
Hepher’s son, Zelophehad, had no sons, but daughters. The mere mention of women
is remarkable in a text designed to calculate potential numbers of men for war.[< Cole
457] The brackets in NIV and NLT around verse 33 are likely to suggest to some
readers that this information is unimportant. However, the reverse is true—
Zelophehad’s daughters will figure prominently in chapters 27 and 36, where
inheritance through daughters will be the issue. Some languages may have special
particles (conjunctions) available to mark the importance of this historical remark
(“But …”).
And their number was …: NJPSV translates “Those are the clans of
Manasseh; persons enrolled: 52,700.” This is not only more accurate—the Hebrew
construction lacks a past tense verb—but also more formulaic.

26.35-37
RSV
35 These are the sons of Ephraim according to their families: of Shuthelah, the family of the
Shuthelahites; of Becher, the family of the Becherites; of Tahan, the family of the Tahanites.
36 And these are the sons of Shuthelah: of Eran, the family of the Eranites. 37 These are the
families of the sons of Ephraim according to their number, thirty-two thousand five hundred.
These are the sons of Joseph according to their families.

GNT
35 The tribe of Ephraim: the clans of Shuthelah, Becher, and Tahan. 36 The clan of Eran
traced its descent from Shuthelah. 37 These clans numbered 32,500 men.
These are the clans descended from Joseph.

This paragraph runs parallel to previous paragraphs (26.5-7, 12-18, 23-27),

except for the addition in verse 36 that the clan of Eran traces its descent from
Shutelah (GNT). There are a number of minor textual variants in comparison with the
Septuagint, but see the recommendation at 26.17.
The sons of Shuthelah: Since only one direct son of Shuthelah is mentioned
here, Eran, it will be more helpful in some languages to translate “descendants”
(NRSV, NJPSV). Another possibility is to rephrase the sentence as in GNT, or as in
NLT: “This was the subclan (or clan) descended from the Shuthelahites: the Eranites,
named after their ancestor Eran.”
According to their number: As in 26.18.
These are the sons of Joseph according to their families: This phrase closes
the paragraphs about Manasseh’s and Ephraim’s descendants. (These paragraphs were
introduced by means of the reference to Joseph, their common ancestor, in verse 28.)
This paragraph begins and ends with the formulaic demonstrative expression “These
[are] …” The first “These” points to what is coming in the text; the second “These” to
the names that have just been reported. In some languages, different words for
“These” will be needed to indicate their precise direction of reference.

26.38-41
RSV
38 The sons of Benjamin according to their families: of Bela, the family of the Bela-ites; of
Ashbel, the family of the Ashbelites; of Ahiram, the family of the Ahiramites; 39 of
Shephupham, the family of the Shuphamites; of Hupham, the family of the Huphamites. 40
And the sons of Bela were Ard and Naaman: of Ard, the family of the Ardites; of Naaman, the
family of the Naamites. 41 These are the sons of Benjamin according to their families; and
their number was forty-five thousand six hundred.

GNT
38 The tribe of Benjamin: the clans of Bela, Ashbel, Ahiram, 39 Shephupham, and Hupham.
40The clans of Ard and Naaman traced their descent from Bela. 41 These clans numbered
45,600 men.

This paragraph runs parallel to previous paragraphs (26.5-7, 12-18, 23-27),

except for the addition in verse 40 that the clans of Ard and Naaman trace their
descent from Bela (GNT). There are some textual variants between the enumeration
of Benjamin here and those found in Genesis 46, 1 Chr 7.6, 8.1-2, and the Septuagint
(Cole 458).[<Cole 458] However, these variations do not affect the translation of the
present text. See the recommendation at 26.17.
Shephupham … Shuphamites: KJV, NIV, REB, NLT, LUT84, FRCL, and
PV change Shephupham to Shupham (following the Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta,
and the Samaritan Pentateuch), probably to bring the name more in line with the name
of the clan, Shuphamites.
Of Ard: NJPSV, RSO and NBG51 put this between brackets, since it is
lacking in the Hebrew. Most translations, however, supply it from the context.
The family of the Ardites … the family of the Naamites: Instead of family,
NLT uses the term “subclan” here (as in verse 36), which is quite helpful. (Similarly
to verse 36, NLT rephrases verse 40 as follows:
“These were the subclans descended from the Belaites:
The Ardites, named after their ancestor Ard.
The Naamites, named after their ancestor Naaman.”)
And their number was …: As in 26.34.

26.42-43
RSV
42 These are the sons of Dan according to their families: of Shuham, the family of the
Shuhamites. These are the families of Dan according to their families. 43 All the families of the
Shuhamites, according to their number, were sixty-four thousand four hundred.

GNT
42 The tribe of Dan: the clan of Shuham, 43 which numbered 64,400 men.

These are the families of Dan according to their families: This sentence at
the end of verse 42 seems quite repetitive and has no corresponding counterpart in the
other paragraphs. At the same time, verse 42 mentions only one clan, the Shuhamites,
by name: of Shuham, the family of the Shuhamites.
All the families of the Shuhamites, according to their number, ...: (For
according to their number, see at 26.18.) Note the word all (“total” in NBS02),
which is lacking in the other paragraphs. The text does not mention any other clans or
divide the Shuhamite clan into any further (sub)clans. Instead, the point is made that
the 64,400 men were all Shuhamite. GNT does not bring this out. Among other
translations that rephrase this paragraph, CEV, FRCL, and PV are more accurate than
GNT:
42-43
There were 64,400 men from the tribe of Dan; they were all from the clan
of Shuham. (CEV)
42
The tribe of Dan consisted of one single clan, that of the Shuhamites,
descendants of Shuham. 43 This clan numbered 64,400 men. (FRCL, similarly
PV)

26.44-47
RSV
44 The sons of Asher according to their families: of Imnah, the family of the Imnites; of Ishvi,
the family of the Ishvites; of Beriah, the family of the Beriites. 45 Of the sons of Beriah: of
Heber, the family of the Heberites; of Malchi-el, the family of the Malchi-elites. 46 And the
name of the daughter of Asher was Serah. 47 These are the families of the sons of Asher
according to their number, fifty-three thousand four hundred.
GNT
44 The tribe of Asher: the clans of Imnah, Ishvi, and Beriah. 45 The clans of Heber and
Malchiel traced their descent from Beriah. 46 Asher had a daughter named Serah. 47 These
clans numbered 53,400 men.

This paragraph runs parallel to previous paragraphs (26.5-7, 12-18, 23-27),

except for the addition in verse 45 that the clans of Heber and Malchiel trace their
descent from Beriah (GNT).
Furthermore, in this context of a military census (26.2), the phrase And the
name of the daughter of Asher was Serah in verse 46 seems a striking interruption;
it heightens the importance of Serah and the role of women in general.[< Cole 460]
Perhaps for this reason, NIV puts the phrase in brackets; however, brackets do not
normally indicate items of importance in most printing traditions. (Serah is also
mentioned in Gen 46.17 and 1 Chr 7.30.)
According to their number: As in 26.18.

26.48-50
RSV
48 The sons of Naphtali according to their families: of Jahzeel, the family of the Jahzeelites;
of Guni, the family of the Gunites; 49 of Jezer, the family of the Jezerites; of Shillem, the family
of the Shillemites. 50 These are the families of Naphtali according to their families; and their
number was forty-five thousand four hundred.

GNT
48 The tribe of Naphtali: the clans of Jahzeel, Guni, 49 Jezer, and Shillem. 50 These clans
numbered 45,400 men.

This paragraph runs parallel to previous paragraphs (26.5-7, 12-18, 23-27),

except for the beginning of verse 50.
These are the families of Naphtali according to their families: In this
sentence at the beginning of verse 50, the phrase according to their families seems
quite repetitive and is often left untranslated. It has no corresponding counterpart in
the other paragraphs (except at the end of verse 42).
And their number was …: As in 26.34, 41.

26.51
RSV
51 This was the number of the people of Israel, six hundred and one thousand seven
hundred and thirty.

GNT
51 The total number of the Israelite men was 601,730.

This number is slightly smaller than the total number in the first census (1.46).
See at 1.20-46 (at “thousand”) for a discussion of the surprisingly high numbers in the
two censuses. Here in 26.5-50, if theoretically the Hebrew ’elef would be taken to
mean “contingent” (not “thousand”), the tribe of Reuben in verse 7, for example,
would only consist of “43 contingents, that is, 730 men.” On this theoretical basis, in
chapter 26 the tribes together would consist of 596 (that is 43 + 22 + 40 + 76 + 64 +
60 + 52 + 32 + 45 + 64 + 53 + 45) contingents, and the total number of men would
only be 5730 (that is 730 + 200 + 500 + 500 + 300 + 500 + 700 + 500 + 600 + 400 +
400 + 400).[< Noth 204; Budd 287, 290] The number of men in one contingent would
have to vary between 5 (in the tribe of Issachar) and 17 (in the tribe of Reuben). In the
end, however, the total number of 601,730 still shows that the text itself treats the
thousands as part of the actual numbers. Thus, it is the actual text with its high
numbers that should be translated.
This was the number of the people of Israel: NRSV (similarly NBV)
renders “This was the number of the Israelites enrolled”—a more accurate rendering
of pequdim. For the same reason, NLT renders (more naturally): “In summary, the
registered troops of all Israel numbered 601,730.” NLT has also made explicit that
this sentence gives the total number of enrolled Israelites (“In summary”). Similarly,
some translations add “total” (CEV, FRCL, WV95, CRV). In some languages, DHE
may be a helpful model: “The Israelites counted in the census amounted to …”
One detail should still be considered: the Hebrew construction here in 26.51
lacks a past tense verb (unlike the construction in 1.46). Thus, NJPSV translates “This
is the enrollment of the Israelites.” Like NJPSV, LUT84 and PV have a present tense
form. CRV translates without a verb, thus making the style fitting for a list.

26.52-53
RSV
52 The Lord said to Moses: 53 “To these the land shall be divided for inheritance according
to the number of names.

GNT
52 The Lord said to Moses, 53 “Divide the land among the tribes, according to their size.

Verses 52-56 specify the second purpose of the census—dividing portions of

inheritance, or tribal territory, in the Promised Land. (The first purpose was noted in
verse 2 as determining the number of males eligible for military service.) These verses
also specify the two principles that would govern the orderly distribution of land: the
“principle of proportion” (relative size of tribal population) and the principle of
“providential probability” (determination by lot).[< Cole 461]
To these: This refers back to the Israelites enrolled in the second census (verse
51). The Hebrew does not refer explicitly to the tribes at this point—the term for
“tribes” only comes up in verse 55. But in many languages it will be helpful to
include a more specific reference than these. Thus, GNT (“among the tribes”), REB
(“among these tribes”), and many other translations already refer to “tribes” here in
verse 53. This is helpful especially if, as in GNT, “tribe” has already been used in the
translation of 26.5-50 (see the discussion of this point at 26.5). However, the
alternative renderings “among these clans” (TOB, footnote in Alter), “to these men”
(EÜ), and “to these people” (Chewa) are equally valid.
The land shall be divided: Since this is spoken to Moses, an imperative will
be more natural in some languages: “Divide the land” (GNT). Such a rendering is also
more natural in languages that use passive constructions only rarely.
For inheritance: As mentioned at 16.14, the Hebrew term nachalah indicates
inherited, legitimate, property, an area of hereditary land that must not be sold or
taken away. NIV’s “as an inheritance” is probably more natural in English. Compare
also Chewa: “that it might be their inheritance,” as well as TOB’s model below.
According to the number of names: The Hebrew mispar means simply
“number, quantity.” (GNT’s rendering “size” already has verse 54 in mind.)
TOB provides a helpful model for verse 53: “It is between those clans that the
land will be divided: the parts/portions will be in proportion to the number of
persons.” (REB has “... according to the number of names enrolled.”)
26.54-56
RSV
54 To a large tribe you shall give a large inheritance, and to a small tribe you shall give a small
inheritance; every tribe shall be given its inheritance according to its numbers. 55 But the land
shall be divided by lot; according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit. 56
Their inheritance shall be divided according to lot between the larger and the smaller.”

GNT
54–56 Divide the land by drawing lots, and give a large share to a large tribe and a small one to
a small tribe.”

NLT is quoted below as a helpful model. (GNT’s rendering may be easy to

understand, but it leaves out a number of nuances.)
A large tribe ... a small tribe ... every tribe: The same rendering is found in
NRSV and a number of other translations. Literally, however, in verse 54 the Hebrew
only has “a large ... a small ... each.” Thus, the following renderings are equally valid:
“with larger groups ... with smaller groups ... each” (NJPSV), “to a larger group ... to
a smaller group ... each” (NIV, similarly REB), “the one who has a large number ...
the one who has a small number ... to each” (NBJ98), “those who are large in number
... those who are small in number ... to each” (NBS02). Again, TOB employs the term
“clan.”
You shall give ...: Since the Lord is still speaking to Moses in these verses,
imperative forms will be more natural in some languages: “Divide ... give ...” (GNT).
NLT makes a similar choice; see below.
Inheritance: See at 26.53.
According to its numbers: NRSV and NJPSV have “according to its
enrollment.” REB has “in proportion to its size as shown in the census.” These are
careful renderings of the Hebrew pequdim. See at 26.18.
But … by lot … according to lot: The Hebrew term goral refers to stones or
pieces of wood or bone which were cast in order to come to an impartial decision,
which was interpreted as the will of God. See the Handbook on Leviticus at 16.8. By
means of this procedure, decisions would be made how to divide the land. It may be
helpful to make the procedure more explicit, as in GNT: “by drawing lots.” In the
Hebrew, the particle ’ak (But) emphasizes that it is only by lot / only “by drawing
lots” that the land shall be divided. The most generic term for divining by lots in the
language may be used; expressions common to traditional (pagan) religious practices
should probably be avoided.
According to the names of the tribes of their fathers: In many languages,
this literal translation will not really communicate very much. A helpful model is
NJPSV: “according to the listings of their ancestral tribes.” (For tribes see at 1.4.)
Verse 56 then explains what this phrase implies: “Each portion shall be
assigned by lot, whether for larger or smaller groups.” (NJPSV). (EÜ has “… between
the large and the small tribes.”)
NLT is a helpful easy to understand reflection of what the Hebrew
communicates, especially in verses 55-56:
54
Give the larger tribes more land and the smaller tribes less land, each group
receiving a grant in proportion to the size of its population. 55 But you must
assign the land by lot, and give land to each ancestral tribe according to the
number of names on the list. 56 Each grant of land must be assigned by lot
among the larger and smaller tribal groups.”
26.57
RSV
57 These are the Levites as numbered according to their families: of Gershon, the family of
the Gershonites; of Kohath, the family of the Kohathites; of Merari, the family of the Merarites.

GNT
57 The tribe of Levi consisted of the clans of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari.

The tribe of Levi is enrolled separately from the other tribes, as was the case in
the beginning of the book (chapters 3–4). The beginning of this new and distinct
section may need to be marked in a special way.
These are the Levites as numbered according to their families: NRSV and
NJPSV translate “This is the enrollment of the Levites by their clans.” Similarly,
WV95 has “These are the enrolled/registered Levites according to their clans.” The
term “enrollment” is a careful rendering of the Hebrew pequdim (see at verses 7 and
18). Since the Hebrew construction lacks a past tense verb, a rendering with a past
tense (“consisted” in GNT) may not be necessary. Again, “by their clans” reflects the
Hebrew lemishpechotam better. Instead of Levites, GNT translates “the tribe of Levi”
(similarly to what it has done in verses 5-50). In some languages, this will be easier to
understand—a tribe consists of several clans.
Gershon … Kohath … Merari ...: Compare 3.17.

26.58
RSV
58 These are the families of Levi: the family of the Libnites, the family of the Hebronites, the
family of the Mahlites, the family of the Mushites, the family of the Korahites. And Kohath was
the father of Amram.

GNT
58 Their descendants included the sub-clans of Libni, Hebron, Mahli, Mushi, and Korah.
Kohath was the father of Amram,

These are the families of Levi: …: Initially this verse may seem confusing
after verse 57. However, out of the clans of the Gershonites, Kohathites and
Merarites, verse 58 selects only a few specific clans or “subclans” (GNT): Libni was a
son of Gershon (3.18), Hebron was a son of Kohath (3.19), Mahli and Mushi were
Merari’s sons (3.20), while Korah was a son of Izhar, who was a son of Kohath (3.19;
16.1). Therefore, the renderings of NIV and CEV—“These also were Levite clans”
(NIV); “as well as the clans of …” (CEV)—are not very helpful: “also” and “as well
as” give the wrong suggestion that these clans are outside of and in addition to the
clans of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. Instead, where possible, translators are advised
to follow GNT or FRCL (“They included the subclans of …”), or to translate, for
example: “These are subclans of Levi: ...”
And Kohath was the father of Amram: For was the father of, see at 26.29.
Amram has already been mentioned in 3.19, 27.
NLT offers a helpful model of verse 58:
“The Libnites, the Hebronites, the Mahlites, the Mushites, and the Korahites
were all subclans of the Levites.
Now Kohath was the ancestor of Amram, …”
This final clause is the start of a short paragraph referring to Amram’s children:
Aaron, Miriam and Moses, as well as Aaron’s sons (verses 59-61). The round
brackets in NIV may give the wrong suggestion to some readers that this information
is unimportant. The point of this specially included paragraph is actually to remind the
reader of the preeminent place of Aaron, his sons, and Moses in the clan structure of
the tribe of Levi. The placement of the lineage [of Levi] at the conclusion of the
second census was to ensure the continued priority of the Aaronic priesthood for the
new generation.[< Cole 463] It seems much better, then, to print verses 58 (the end) to
61 as one paragraph, without brackets.

26.59-61
RSV
The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in
Egypt; and she bore to Amram Aaron and Moses and Miriam their sister. 60 And to Aaron
were born Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. 61 But Nadab and Abihu died when they
offered unholy fire before the Lord.

GNT
59 who was married to Levi's daughter Jochebed, who was born in Egypt. She bore Amram
two sons, Aaron and Moses, and a daughter, Miriam. 60 Aaron had four sons, Nadab, Abihu,
Eleazar, and Ithamar. 61 Nadab and Abihu died when they offered unholy fire to the Lord.

Jochebed is mentioned only here and in Exo 6.20.

The daughter of Levi: Jochebed was a sister of Kohath, Amram’s father. The
point of this phrase is that it implies that Amram had married his father’s sister—
something mentioned explicitly in Exo 6.20. As the Handbook on Exodus points out
there, such a marriage was later forbidden for Israelites (see Lev 18.12 and 20.19), but
it was evidently culturally accepted when Amram and Jochebed were married. The
point here seems to be that this close familial relationship ensured the purity of the
priestly line.
Who was born to Levi in Egypt: Like quite a number of other translations,
RSV follows the ancient Syriac and Latin translations here. The Hebrew text literally
has: “whom she [that is, her mother, Levi’s wife] bore to Levi in Egypt.”[< Levine
327] Following this, NBV translates: “whose wife had borne him in Egypt” (similarly
NFB), while WV95 has: “Her mother had borne her to him in Egypt.” (GNT has left
to Levi untranslated.)
NIV and TNIV mention these two phrases as an alternative in a footnote, but
give a different interpretation in the translation itself: “… Jochebed, a descendant of
Levi, who was born to the Levites in Egypt.” GECL and NLT follow this
interpretation as well, presumably because these four translations want to allow for a
number of generations between Levi on the one hand and Aaron and Moses on the
other. However, the problem with this is that the rendering “to the Levites” seems
artificial and a strain on the Hebrew.
Aaron and Moses: Aaron is listed first, because he was older, but also
because the purpose of the list at this point is to show the primacy of the priestly line
of descent through Aaron.
Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar: See 3.2.
But Nadab and Abihu … unholy fire …: As in 3.4. See the discussion there.
The priesthood of Eleazar and Ithamar is shown to be valid once again. RSV’s But
helps to distinguish the unexpected note of verse 61 following upon 60. The report of
this “death” also functions implicitly as the third warning “sign” to the new
generation (see verses 10 and 19), reminding them of the Lord’s concern now for
strict ritual observance within the priesthood.

26.62
RSV
62 And those numbered of them were twenty-three thousand, every male from a month old
and upward; for they were not numbered among the people of Israel, because there was no
inheritance given to them among the people of Israel.

GNT
62The male Levites who were one month old or older numbered 23,000. They were listed
separately from the rest of the Israelites, because they were not given any property in Israel.

And those numbered of them were: NRSV translates: “The number of those
enrolled was …” The Hebrew is the same as in verse 7 (see the discussion there: “and
their number was”) and 4.48, where reference is made to the total number of adult
Levites enrolled in their first census.
This verse has a parallel verse in the first census of the Levites (every male
from a month old and upward), which is found in 3.39. See the discussion there.
For they were not numbered among the people of Israel: A literal
rendering of the conjunction For may be misleading, as if a reason is being given; it is
best omitted. Again, NRSV has “enrolled.” After verses 57-58, which are about the
enrollment of the Levite clans, this phrase may seem odd. In some languages it will be
necessary to avoid misunderstanding to translate along the lines of FRCL and DHE:
“they had not been enrolled with the other Israelites.” In some languages it will be
helpful to go even further and translate with a positive sentence, without the negation
not: “They were listed separately from the rest of the Israelites” (GNT, similarly REB
and NBV). It is important to avoid the suggestion that the Levites were not Israelites.
Inheritance: See at 26.53.

26.63
RSV
63 These were those numbered by Moses and Eleazar the priest, who numbered the people
of Israel in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.

GNT
63 All these clans were listed by Moses and Eleazar when they took a census of the
Israelites in the plains of Moab across the River Jordan from Jericho.

Translators are advised to include a section heading here if they have inserted
headings at preceding verses (notably verses 52 and 57). See the discussion under
25.19-26.65. Thus verses 63-65 serve as a summary conclusion to chapter 26,
including both “retrospective and prospective elements,”[< Cole 463] for example,
references to Moses, the old leader of the people, and to Joshua, the new one about to
be chosen (27.18).
These refers to all the clans that were mentioned in verses 5-51 and 57-62,
thus summarizing the whole census. GNT’s “all these clans” helps to make this clear.
Were: The Hebrew construction lacks a past tense verb. NJPSV, NIV, NLT,
TOB, and WV95 (“are”), LUT84, PV, and already the Latin Vulgate translate with a
present tense form at this point. This may make the style more fitting for a list.
Those numbered … who numbered: Again, NRSV and NJPSV translated
“enrolled” instead of numbered. In some languages, who numbered or “who
enrolled” (NRSV) would give the wrong suggestion that this does not refer to a
census which has been described already. GNT helpfully avoids this suggestion in
English: “when they took a census.”
By Moses and Eleazar the priest: As instructed in 26.1-2.
In the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho: As in 26.3. The second
census is framed by this specification of the place. The Israelites are still on the
eastern side of the Jordan.

26.64-65
RSV
64 But among these there was not a man of those numbered by Moses and Aaron the priest,
who had numbered the people of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai. 65 For the Lord had said of
them, “They shall die in the wilderness.” There was not left a man of them, except Caleb the
son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun.

GNT
64 There was not even one man left among those whom Moses and Aaron had listed in the
first census in the Sinai Desert. 65 The Lord had said that all of them would die in the
wilderness, and except for Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun they all did.

But among these: Literally, the Hebrew only has “and,” which can be left
untranslated (as in GNT).
Numbered: Again, NRSV has “enrolled.” It may be helpful to make explicit
that this happened “in the first census” (GNT).
In the wilderness of Sinai: See at 1.1.
For the Lord had said of them, …: This is a summary that refers back to
14.29-30, 32, 35. GNT has rendered the Lord’s direct words (They shall die in the
wilderness) as indirect speech: “… that all of them would die in the wilderness.”
While this may be more natural in some languages, it may also make the Lord’s
decision sound less forceful. The disobedient generation had to die out according to
the Lord’s explicit command before Israel’s journey to the land of Canaan can be
completed.
There was not left a man of them, except …: Again, this confirms what the
Lord had said in 14.30. Only Caleb and Joshua had brought back a positive report
about the prospects for conquering the land. Thus, the census of chapter 26 itself was
written proof that God kept his word. This census also marked the beginning of a new
day for God’s people.[< Ashley 540]

27.1-11
Section Heading: 26.52-56 mentioned one of the purposes of the second census—
dividing portions of inheritance, or tribal territory, in the Promised Land. After this,
the present section deals with the specific inheritance case of Zelophehad’s daughters,
who were mentioned, seemingly as an aside, in 26.33. Now the reason for their
mention is made clear. Zelophehad, a descendant of Manasseh, had died without
having a son, so his daughters ask that they be given the right to inherit instead. It is
their request that gives rise to new and general lawgiving about who inherits the land
when there are daughters, but no son, or when there are no children at all. Matters of
land and inheritance were sacred in Semitic culture.[< Cole 465]
The issue of inheritance by daughters in the absence of sons is not presented as
an abstract legal precedent, but as an impassioned plea for justice by these women.[<
Alter] Their chief concern is that the inheritance of the clan is not lost and that the
name of their father’s clan does not disappear. Their request is granted and will be put
into effect in Josh 17.3-6. Women can inherit property in the land that the Lord has
promised to the people of Israel. Furthermore, this story is another instance
exemplifying the principle that in biblical days, justice was for the dead as well as the
living.[< Gane 740]
This section may be divided into two portions:[< Cole 464]
27.1-5: A specific legal case is presented with an appeal for justice.
27:6-11: A precedent-setting decision is delivered, based on a word from the
Lord.
An epilogue, listing some restrictions regarding the case of Zelophehad’s
daughters, is reserved for the very end of the book of Numbers (chapter 36), where
additional legislative issues arising from the earlier Zelophehad decision are brought
up and decided. There is a sense then that the case of Zelophehad and his daughters
serves as a narrative frame which circumscribes “the section in Numbers that deals
with the new generation and its future life in the Promised Land.”[< Sherwood 182]
GNT, NIV, ESV, NLT and some other translations have “The Daughters of
Zelophehad” as the section heading for 27.1-11. In many languages it will be more
helpful if the heading expresses something of what is at stake in this passage, for
example: “The Daughters of Zelophehad Are Given [or Inherit] Land” (CEV); “The
daughters of Zelophehad inherit from their father” (PV). These headings still keep
close to the narrative content of the passage. Other, more general headings which still
express what is at stake are found in NBJ98 (“Inheritance by daughters”) and GECL
(“Inheritance laws when there are no sons”).

27.1-2
RSV
1 Then drew near the daughters of Zelophehad the son of Hepher, son of Gilead, son of
Machir, son of Manasseh, from the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph. The names of his
daughters were: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 2 And they stood before Moses,
and before Eleazar the priest, and before the leaders and all the congregation, at the door of
the tent of meeting, saying,

GNT
1 Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah were the daughters of Zelophehad son of
Hepher, son of Gilead, son of Machir, son of Manasseh, son of Joseph. 2 They went and
stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders, and the whole community at the entrance
of the Tent of the Lord's presence and said,

Then: The opening Hebrew verbal construction appears to indicate that there
is a close connection between this account concerning the daughters of Zelophehad
and the general tribal inheritance account in the preceding chapter. Apparently then,
Zelophehad’s daughters brought up their special case very soon after the close of the
overall tribal census proceedings. Therefore, Then or some similar transitional
expression (Chewa: “At that time”) might be appropriate to indicate the linkage
between these chapter divisions (which of course were not indicated in the original
Hebrew text).
Drew near: NRSV and a number of other translations have “came forward”
(LUT84, NJPSV, NET, HSV, Levine). In many languages it will be more natural to
introduce the daughters (as the new topic) first and to specify their movements and
actions next. This is why a number of translations move the verb to the beginning of
verse 2: “came to / approached the entrance of the tent of meeting” (NBV, NIV,
similarly GECL). In this way, the verb is also quite naturally connected with the
location in verse 2. Such a rendering also takes into account that the Hebrew verb (of
the root q-r-b) is the same as in 16.40 (“draw near”) and means generally to approach
the altar, the sanctuary, or any holy object for some formal cultic or a special religious
purpose.[< Knierim & Coats 273]
GNT moves the verb to the beginning of verse 2 as well: “They went and …”,
but this rendering of the verb itself is not very precise; “They came forward and …”
would have been more accurate.
From the families of Manasseh: mishpachah, a clan, is composed of several
families. See at 1.2, where we already indicated a preference for “clans.” Thus, NRSV
translates “a member of the Manassite clans.” The phrase may seem unnecessary in its
present place, after the successive generations, and this may be the reason why GNT
(like the Latin Vulgate) has left it untranslated. However, the phrase seems to
highlight that the issue brought forward by the daughters directly affects the tribe of
Manasseh. A more precise alternative, therefore, may be to rearrange the sentence, as
in NJPSV: “The daughters of Zelophehad, of Manassite family—son of Hepher son of
Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh son of Joseph—came forward.”
They stood before Moses …: In some languages, “they presented themselves
before Moses …” (TOB, RVE95, RVC10) will be a more natural model.
Leaders: The Hebrew term nesi’im is best rendered as “chieftains” (NJPSV).
See at 1.16 and 2.3-9.
Congregation: As discussed at 1.2, a better equivalent for the Hebrew ‘edah
would be “community.” The whole community was not only confronted with the
daughters’ appeal but encouraged by their staunch faith. Here, at least, were five
women who genuinely believed that God would fulfil the promise he made forty years
earlier (14.31).”[< Brown 242-243]
Tent of meeting: See at 1.1.

27.3
RSV
3 “Our father died in the wilderness; he was not among the company of those who gathered
themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah, but died for his own sin; and
he had no sons.

GNT
3“Our father died in the wilderness without leaving any sons. He was not among the followers
of Korah, who rebelled against the Lord; he died because of his own sin.

Our father died: Some languages have several verbs for “dying.” In this case,
the one that indicates or implies a death “from natural causes” should be used.
He was not among the company … of Korah: The daughters assume that the
conspirators against the Lord in the Korah rebellion (chapter 16) deserved to be
punished not only by death but by denial of inheritance to their descendants as well.
This is why they make the point that their father was not among those who rebelled,[<
Ibn Ezra, Alter] implying that his descendants should be able to inherit. They are
anxious to show that their father was in no way implicated in that rebellion.[< Budd
301]
The company of those who gathered themselves together against the Lord
in the company of …: The Hebrew shows the same pun as in 14.35 and 16.11: the
verb “assemble” in the Hebrew puns on the noun “assembly” (`edah) to which it is
related. Again, the entire expression should be rendered in a way that fits the wicked
behavior of Korah’s company. For example: “the band (group, assembly) of those
who banded (assembled) together against the Lord. (Levine has “banded together
against” as well.) A rendering like “community” (1.2) would be too positive here.
But died for his own sin: The Hebrew construction puts emphasis on for his
own sin—he did not die for (literally “in”) a sin committed jointly with others, let
alone those of the rebellious Korahite groups! In some languages a rendering like “but
it was (only) for his own sin that he died” would express this. What his own sin was is
not made clear. Alter suggests that it refers to the rebellion of all the adults of the old
generation after the spies had returned from the land of Canaan (14.1-38). The main
point the daughters are making, however, is that their father did not take part in the sin
of Korah’s rebellion, and therefore his clan should have an inheritance too.
And he had no sons: The Hebrew does not indicate any connection between
this phrase and the previous phrase that he “died for his own sin.” Thus, there is no
suggestion that Zelophehad had no sons because he had committed a sin. Such a
suggestion should be avoided in translation. GNT achieves this by rendering the
phrase as “without leaving any sons” and moving it close to the beginning of the
verse. In some languages this will be a helpful model. FRCL, NLT, and HSV avoid
the connection by starting a new sentence: “However, he had no sons.”

27.4
RSV
4Why should the name of our father be taken away from his family, because he had no son?
Give to us a possession among our father's brethren.”

GNT
4Just because he had no sons, why should our father's name disappear from Israel? Give us
property among our father's relatives.”

The established practice in Israel was that only males could inherit property. It
is against this background that the daughters make their appeal.
The name of our father: That is, the continued existence of a man’s family
name was important to the Israelites. The daughters are implying that it could be
preserved only in connection with the inheritance of his land by his descendants.[<
Noth 211]
Be taken away: Many languages will have an idiomatic equivalent here
(Chewa: “die out”) and in any case must avoid GNT’s potentially misleading
“disappear.”
From his family: NRSV renders the Hebrew term mishpachah as “clan.” See
at 1.2. Since the inheritance issue affects the clan and its property first and foremost,
there seems little reason for GNT’s rendering “from Israel.”
Give: In the Hebrew, the imperative form is in the singular: the daughters are
addressing Moses, as the central key person. In languages that indicate honorific
forms of address and register, a polite verb form may be necessary (for example, a
plural imperative in Chewa) for the sake of naturalness—and to avoid the impression
that the daughters were here making a demand. The Greek Septuagint and the Latin
Vulgate, as well as the Samaritan Pentateuch have a plural form, probably because
verse 2 mentions that the daughters not only stand before Moses, but before Eleazar,
the chieftains, and the community as well.
A possession: The Hebrew term, achuzah, refers to property, particularly in
the form of land, which is held in possession. It is close in meaning to nachalah,
which RSV translates as “inheritance” (26.53).
 Brethren: This can be interpreted more loosely as fellow-members of the
clan: “relatives” (GNT, NET), “kinsmen” (NJPSV), or, better still, “the rest of his
relatives in our clan” (CEV). However, it seems quite natural that Zelophehad’s
daughters should refer to their “father’s brothers” (NRSV, HSV; “our uncles,”
DUCL), given the specific context of inheritance (see also the ruling in verses 8-11).

27.5
RSV
5 Moses brought their case before the Lord.

GNT
5 Moses presented their case to the Lord,

Brought … before the Lord: Since the request of Zelophehad’s daughters

had no legal precedent, Moses looked to the Lord for direction (as in 9.8-9). The text
does not specify how or where this happened, although it appears that it took place “at
the door of the tent of meeting” (verse 2), where God would meet the leaders of his
people for judgment (see 20:6). The root of the Hebrew verb—q-r-b—is the same as
in verse 1 (“came forward”). A consequential conjunctive expression may be needed
to introduce this sentence, for example, “So” (NET).
Their case: Or “their claim.” Their is a feminine pronoun in the Hebrew,
referring to the daughters. In some languages, a rendering like “the case of these
women” (DHE) may be necessary to make explicit that this is not a reference to their
father’s brothers in verse 4. A few translations have “their request” (FRCL, PV,
CRV), but this probably does not reflect the legal nature of the case. As mentioned at
9.3, the Hebrew term mishpat refers to a legal decision, a judgment on a specific legal
case which will have consequences for the community. Therefore, GECL is a helpful
model: “Moses asked the Lord for a decision.”
It appears in the Hebrew (from one of the most important manuscripts of the
Hebrew text) that this short sentence concludes the first paragraph of this chapter,
rather than leading off the second paragraph, as in most versions. The second
paragraph would then begin with the Lord’s official word of judgment on this case.
Furthermore, GNT’s decision to link verse 5 directly with verse 6 would be incorrect.
The formulaic expression “And the Lord said (unto Moses) …” is used frequently in
Numbers to begin a new paragraph unit (see verse 12, 18; also 26.52; 28:1).

27.6-7
RSV
6 And the Lord said to Moses, 7 “The daughters of Zelophehad are right; you shall give them
possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren and cause the inheritance of their
father to pass to them.

GNT
6and the Lord said to him, 7 “What the daughters of Zelophehad request is right; give them
property among their father's relatives. Let his inheritance pass on to them.

And the Lord said to Moses: This formula of divine revelation recurs
throughout the book of Numbers, normally at the beginning of a new unit of direct
speech (see verses 12 and 18). As a prominent discourse marker, indeed “an important
thematic element,”[< Cole 466] it should be translated concordantly wherever it
occurs.
 Are right: The fronted Hebrew construction emphasizes what the daughters
have said—that is, the legal appeal that they have made; hence GNT’s “request is
right” (NET: “have a valid claim”). The Hebrew term ken means upright, firm, or
dependable.[< Ashley 546]
You shall give them possession of an inheritance: The Hebrew intensifies
the verb give by adding an infinitive form of the same verb. In English this emphasis
may be expressed as follows: “you must certainly give them” (NIV), or “indeed, you
must apportion for them.” For inheritance (nachalah) see at 26.53. The meaning of
the two Hebrew terms involved, achuzah and nachalah, is virtually the same, so the
literal translation possession of an inheritance (also NET) may seem awkward.
Instead, the combination of the two synonyms can be interpreted as an
intensification:[< Alter] “a secure inheritance.” NRSV avoids a literal translation as
well: “you shall indeed let them possess an inheritance …” NIV is a helpful model as
well: “You must certainly give them property as an inheritance …”
Brethren: See at 27.4.
To pass to them: In the Hebrew, the pronoun (them) is feminine (RVE95). It
thus refers to the daughters, not to their uncles or relatives. At this point, some
languages, for example Spanish (in RVE95 and DHE) and French (in NBS02), make
the same distinction between a feminine and a masculine pronoun that can be made in
Hebrew. In languages that would not make this distinction, translators are advised to
refer to the daughters explicitly (“his daughters”). An alternative may be to rearrange
the order of the phrases in the verse in such a way that the pronoun refers to the
daughters unambiguously, for example: “You must certainly give them property as an
inheritance and transfer their father's inheritance over to them among their father's
brothers.” The causative expression with the Hebrew verb “pass over” appears to
mark this as an official decree or a legal ruling; hence NET’s “transfer.”

27.8
RSV
8And you shall say to the people of Israel, ‘If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall
cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter.

GNT
8 Tell the people of Israel that whenever a man dies without leaving a son, his daughter is to
inherit his property.

And you shall say to the people of Israel: The Lord is still speaking to
Moses. This phrase marks the start of the actual ruling on the daughters’ case (in
embedded direct speech). GNT adapts this to indirect speech: “Tell the people of
Israel that …” This may be more natural in some languages, but perhaps it no longer
marks a clear start of the actual ruling. In certain languages (like Chewa), any formal
ruling or legal decision must be given or reported in direct speech, as in the Hebrew.
If a man dies …, then you shall …: The following verses (8b-11) of this
section follow the legal pattern of case (or casuistic) law, which typically displays a
standard pattern: an opening conditional statement, followed by more definite
circumstances and further conditions along with the action to be taken.[< Ashley 542]
You shall cause his inheritance to pass …: The verb construction is the same
as in verse 7, but this time the verb is in the plural, addressing the people of Israel. For
inheritance the Hebrew has nachalah (here and in the following verses); see at 26.53.

27.9-10
RSV
9And if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers. 10 And if he
has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father's brothers.

GNT
9If he has no daughter, his brothers are to inherit it. 10 If he has no brothers, his father's
brothers are to inherit it.

Three specific case laws follow the one at issue with Zelophehad’s daughters
(verse 8). Verses 9-10 go on to reiterate the fact that inheritance in Israel was passed
to males on the father’s side.[< Dozeman 218]
You shall give: Both times, the verb is in the plural, addressing the people of
Israel.
And: As in GNT, this conjunction may be omitted for the sake of naturalness.
Brothers … no brothers … his father’s brothers: The surviving male
relatives are listed in order of closeness in verses 9-10.[< Wenham 192] Clearly,
brothers here is used in the narrow sense of the word, not in the more general sense
of “relatives” or “kinsmen.”[< Levine 347]

27.11
RSV
11 And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman that is
next to him of his family, and he shall possess it. And it shall be to the people of Israel a
statute and ordinance, as the Lord commanded Moses.’ ”

GNT
11 If he has no brothers or uncles, then his nearest relative is to inherit it and hold it as his own
property. The people of Israel are to observe this as a legal requirement, just as I, the Lord,
have commanded you.”

You shall give: As in verses 9-11.

His kinsman that is next to him: The Hebrew literally means “his flesh.” An
equivalent idiom in English would be “his blood relative,” “his nearest relative,” or
even “who is of his own flesh and blood.”
His family: mishpachah, a clan, is composed of several families. See at 1.2.
NRSV has “the nearest kinsman of his clan.”
And it shall be to the people of Israel: The initial Hebrew “And it shall be”
marks this as another official divine ruling. There should be some way of indicating
such “legal language” in translation.
A statute and ordinance: As mentioned at 9.3, 15.15-16, and 27.5 above, a
statute (chuqqah) means a task, obligation, or law, while an ordinance (mishpat)
means a fixed legal decision or judgment, or established custom. These terms can be
rendered together in one phrase, for example: “a legal requirement” (GNT, NIV,
NLT) or “legal precedent” (REB). In any case, such fixed expressions should be
rendered consistently also in translation.
As the Lord commanded Moses: Since the Lord is still speaking here, it may
sound more nature to adjust this reference as in the GNT: “Just as I, the Lord, have
commanded you.”

27.12-23
Section Heading: The previous section already raised the theme of possession and
inheritance. This theme recurs in 27.12-23. However, in contrast to Zelophehad’s
daughters, whose inheritance in the Promised Land has been assured, the Lord reveals
to Moses that he is now about to die without entering that land (the original divine
judgment occurred in 20.12). But there is also a thematic similarity in these two
accounts: just as Zelophehad was punished for his individual sin (verse 3), so also
Moses would be punished for his personal failure in leadership. Therefore, Moses’
headship and authority are to be transferred in an orderly manner to Joshua, through
whom possession of the land of Canaan will be achieved. The Lord tells Moses to
view this land—the land he will not enter because of his action at Meribah (20.1-13).
The Lord tells him that he will die in the Abarim mountains after viewing the
Promised Land (27.13).[< Levine 341] At the Lord’s command, Moses transfers some
of his authority to Joshua, his successor. The high priest Eleazar will instruct Joshua
about God’s will. This account thus provides a counterpart to the succession of Aaron
by Eleazar in 20.22-29.[< Dozeman 219]
It seems that this section has not been placed where it fits chronologically:
while verse 13 states that Moses will die when he has seen the land from the Abarim
mountains, he still speaks and is very active in leading the people in the chapters that
follow. However, the census in chapter 26 already marks the replacement of the old
wilderness generation with the new generation that will possess the land of Canaan, so
that the replacement of Moses by somebody who is allowed to enter this land (see
14.30) is now called for as well. The new generation needs a new leader.
The heading in GNT is “Joshua is Chosen as Successor to Moses.” The word
“chosen” may be misleading: it wrongly suggests that a choice was made between
different candidates. More accurately, NBS02 and FRCL have “Joshua is designated
to succeed Moses.” NIV and ESV are more brief: “Joshua to Succeed Moses.” The
advantage of “Moses’ successor” (NBG51) is that it does not spoil the narrative
suspense by giving away the identity of the successor from the beginning.
On the other hand, a section heading which expresses that authority is
transferred from Moses to Joshua will cover the content of the passage best. Examples
are: “Moses transfers leadership to Joshua” (NBV); “Moses transfers his charge to
Joshua” (PV). But it might even be better to indicate that it is the Lord who has made
this choice and transfer of authority, for example: “The Lord transfers leadership to
Joshua”; or “The Lord chooses Joshua as successor to Moses.”

27.12-13
RSV
12 The Lord said to Moses, “Go up into this mountain of Abarim, and see the land which I
have given to the people of Israel. 13 And when you have seen it, you also shall be gathered
to your people, as your brother Aaron was gathered,

GNT
12 The Lord said to Moses, “Go up the Abarim Mountains and look out over the land that I
am giving to the Israelites. 13 After you have seen it, you will die, as your brother Aaron did,

The Lord said to Moses: Some translations begin this new paragraph and
section with the temporal marker “Then” (NIV, NET), which might suggest that what
is reported here occurred immediately after the case of Zelophehad’s daughters. As
noted above, this is probably not the case, and there is a thematic rather than a
temporal connection between the two major sections of this chapter. Perhaps leaving
the transition unmarked (as in the GNT and RSV) is the best solution; another option,
if naturalness demands some sort of linkage, might be NLT’s “One day,” which is not
specific as to time.
Abarim refers to a mountain “range” (TOB) about ten miles away in the
northwestern region of Moab east of the Jordan River (21.11; 33.47). This location is
specified as “Mount Nebo” in Deut 32.49 and 34.1 (also here in the Septuagint as
well).
See the land: Some languages have several words for “see”; the one that
suggests a deliberate (and perhaps extended) viewing should be chosen (NLT: “look
out over the land”).
I have given: As in 18.8, the Hebrew perfect verb form actually marks that the
speaker is fully committed to carry out a certain action. In languages like English this
commitment is expressed by a near future or present tense: “I am giving” (GNT); “I
give” (TOB, NBV). Other languages may use a continuative or customary verbal
aspect for this purpose. In some languages a special verb may be needed to express
what the Lord is here declaring, for example: bestow, grant, assign, allot.
You also: For no apparent reason, GNT leaves also untranslated.
Shall be gathered to your people: See at 20.24. Care may be needed here, for
renderings like “you will die” might suggest either a curse or an immediate
punishment (perhaps as a result of viewing the land!).
As your brother Aaron was gathered: This refers back to 20.24-28.

27.14
RSV
14 because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin during the strife of the
congregation, to sanctify me at the waters before their eyes.” (These are the waters of
Meribah of Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin.)

GNT
14 because both of you rebelled against my command in the wilderness of Zin. When the
whole community complained against me at Meribah, you refused to acknowledge my holy
power before them.” (Meribah is the spring at Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin.)

Reference is made here to the events told in 20.2-13.

Zin: As mentioned at 20.1 and 13.21, the Hebrew form of the name Zin is
literally tsin, starting with a different sound than z or s. The rules for transliterating
proper names should have already been formulated for the entire Old Testament, for
example, whether to base such transliteration upon the actual Hebrew sounds or those
of English (or the major language of wider communication in the region of the target
language).
Strife … Meribah: At both points in the text, the Hebrew actually uses the
term merivah, the meaning of which is mentioned by RSV, GNT, and NRSV in a
footnote in 20.13 (see there): “contention” (RSV), “complaining” (GNT), “quarrel”
(NRSV). (merivah is related to the verb “quarrel” of the root r-y-b in 20.13.)
Congregation: A better equivalent for the Hebrew ‘edah would be
“community” (GNT). See at 1.2.
You rebelled against my word …, to sanctify me …: As in 20.24, the verb
you rebelled is in the plural, referring to Moses and Aaron. In many languages this
will have to be made explicit: “both of you” (GNT, CEV, NIV, NLT); “you and
Aaron” (REB). The meaning of the whole sentence is as follows: “you rebelled
against my command to sanctify me …,” that is to say: my instruction, against which
you rebelled, was to make it clear that it was I who brought forth water from the rock
rather than claiming the deed for yourselves).”[< Alter] Thus, the comma in RSV is
misleading.
To sanctify me at the waters before their eyes: GNT translates “You refused
to acknowledge my holy power before them,” thus starting a new, separate sentence
(after “both of you rebelled …”). NJPSV renders the verb more closely to the Hebrew
meaning than in GNT: “to uphold My sanctity in their sight by means of the water”
(NJPSV). NLT has “you failed to demonstrate my holiness to them at the waters.” The
italicized phrases in these translation models are consistent with 20.12, where the
same construction is found in the Hebrew. (The short phrase at the waters occurs
only here in 27.14 (not in 20.12). There is no reason to leave it untranslated, as GNT
has done.)
NJPSV’s slight restructuring of the order of the phrases makes it a helpful
model for this verse:
“… For, in the wilderness of Zin, when the community was contentious, you
disobeyed My command to uphold My sanctity in their sight by means of the
water.” Those are the Waters of Meribath-kadesh [Meribah of Kadesh], in the
wilderness of Zin.
In some languages it will be more natural to separate this rendering into different
sentences (something GNT, FRCL, and PV have done as well):
For, in the wilderness of Zin, when the community was rebellious, you both
rebelled against my command. You did not maintain my holiness before the
people at the waters.” Those were the Waters of Meribah (Quarrel / Rebellion)
of Kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin.
The Septuagint and the Peshitta (the ancient Greek and Syriac translations) have
included a negative (“not”) as well to produce a more emphatic expression.
Note that the final sentence is probably a comment on the location given by
the author (or editor) of Numbers; it therefore falls outside of the Lord’s quotation.
This is a more likely interpretation than including it as part of the Lord’s words, as in
the NET and CEV.

27.15-17
RSV
15Moses said to the Lord, 16 “Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man
over the congregation, 17 who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall
lead them out and bring them in; that the congregation of the Lord may not be as sheep which
have no shepherd.”

GNT
15Moses prayed, 16 “Lord God, source of all life, appoint, I pray, a man who can lead the
people 17 and can command them in battle, so that your community will not be like sheep
without a shepherd.”

Moses said to the Lord: Since what follows is actually a prayer on Moses’
part, that the Lord would choose a fitting leader for the people, GNT’s speech
introduction is helpful: “Moses prayed …”
The God of the spirits of all flesh: See at 16.22, the only other place where
this phrase occurs; a correspondent translation is therefore recommended. Here, this
unusual phrase, which speaks of the sovereignty of God over all humankind,[< Cole
468] points forward to the need for a man “who has (such a) spirit within him” (27.18,
where the same term ruach occurs).
 Appoint: The verb (p-q-d) is the same one that is used throughout the book to
refer to the action of “numbering” the people. However, that does not fit the present
context so well (other possibilities in English are “select” or “choose”).
Congregation: As in 27.14.
Who shall go out before them and come in before them: This idiom
designating leadership has a definite military connotation,[< Sherwood 182; Levine
349-350] with the sense of “to lead in battle.”[< Alter] This is clear from Josh 14.11
and 1 Sam 18.16. Alternatively, it has the more general sense of “who shall lead them
in all matters and whom the people shall follow.”[< Plaut 1080] The Hebrew uses
forms of the same verbs in the next clause: who shall lead them out and bring them
in. In some languages, the meaning of the idiom might be brought out, as in GNT:
“and can command them in battle” (or alternatively, as in FRCL: “direct it in all
circumstances”). However, the rendering “can” is misleading in English: Moses is not
just speaking about a possibility; rather, he is referring to a definite requirement for
the leadership role.
That the congregation …: This is a sentence-ending purpose clause and may
need to be marked as such in translation (which the RSV does not do clearly enough),
for example, “so that” (GNT).
As sheep which have no shepherd: In language-cultures that are not familiar
with sheep, it may be necessary to mark the ground of this comparison, for example:
“As sheep which have no shepherd to lead (guide, protect, etc.) them.” The term
“shepherd” (ro‘eh) is common in the Prophets as a reference to the king or (in the
plural) to the leaders of the people (Isa 44.28; Jer 23.4; Ezek 34.2; Zech 10.2-3; see
also 2 Sam 5.2). The “sheep” in this context has reference to a vulnerable
community[< Brown 251] (1 Kgs 22.17; Ezek 34.5).

27.18
RSV
18And the Lord said to Moses, “Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and
lay your hand upon him;

GNT
18The Lord said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a capable man, and place your hands
on his head.

Take: In many languages, this is a very ambiguous verb, which needs to be

specified according to the context—who is taking what for which purpose. A literal
translation could refer to a physical “picking up (and carrying)” of Joshua. If this is
the case, a verb like “choose” or even “appoint” (from verse 15) will be needed.
Joshua the son of Nun: See at 11.28.
In whom is the spirit: the Hebrew term ruach already occurred in Moses’
reference to the “God of all spirits” in 27.16. See also at 11.17, 29. There is no clear
indication that the spirit is a separate being (see also Deut 34.9), so there is no need to
capitalize spirit and write “Spirit” as, for example, ESV, NLT, and (in a footnote)
NIV and NET have done, though “spirit of/from God” is a possibility. The equivalent
of the is lacking in the Hebrew at this point, so NBS02’s rendering—du souffle
“(some) breath, power”—is possible as well, as is “spirit of leadership.”[< Cole 469].
Compare also REB: “a man powerful in spirit.” GNT’s “a capable man” seems rather
weak by comparison. In some languages, like many of those in Africa, the unmarked
word “spirit” in this context may, according to traditional religious beliefs, refer to
possession by an ancestral spirit or even to some malevolent spirit-being. In this case,
a figurative substitute like “strong heart” (Chewa) can be used instead.
Lay your hand upon him: This refers to a public gesture by which power and
authority of leadership are symbolically transmitted or transferred. As mentioned at
8.10, one may have to specify on what part of Joshua’s body Moses would lay his
hand. If so, “place your hands on his head” (GNT) is probably the best choice.
However, there is no reason to translate hand into “hands” (GNT), even though the
Hebrew has “hands” in verse 23.

27.19
RSV
19cause him to stand before Eleazar the priest and all the congregation, and you shall
commission him in their sight.

GNT
19Make him stand in front of Eleazar the priest and the whole community, and there before
them all proclaim him as your successor.

Cause him to stand: A new sentence should begin at this point (not as in
RSV). Care must be taken so that the verb does not suggest some inability on Joshua’s
part—that he was unable to stand up without some assistance. This expression
indicates attentive submission and readiness for service.[< Brown 253] Some options
are “Bring him to stand before…”; “Position him” (NET note); “Present him” (NLT).
Congregation: As in 27.14. This applies to the rest of the chapter as well.
Commission him in their sight: Literally “install him in office before their
eyes” (TOB). See the Handbook on Deuteronomy at 31.14, 23, where the Hebrew
uses forms of the same verb. Some languages may have a specific verb that refers to
such a “formal inducting into public office,” as in cultures that have a royal (chiefly)
tradition of leadership (Chewa).

27.20
RSV
20 You shall invest him with some of your authority, that all the congregation of the people of
Israel may obey.

GNT
20 Give him some of your own authority, so that the whole community of Israel will obey him.

Some of your own authority: This authority will not be taken away from
Moses altogether. The Hebrew term hod “majesty, power” is typically associated with
kings, or with God (Psa 96.6). The word occurs only here in the Pentateuch. This
notion of leadership implies that the leader has charisma in order to have the loyalty
of those he would lead.[< Alter] The problem in some languages will be how to
express reference to some part or only a portion of an abstract personal concept, like
“authority,” that is normally understood as a whole. A specific verb may be required,
such as “delegate” (NET) rather than GNT’s “give.” “Some of your
responsibilities”[< Brown 253] might be added to “authority and …” to give this
expression more concreteness, if necessary.

27.21
RSV
21 And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of
the Urim before the Lord; at his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in,
both he and all the people of Israel with him, the whole congregation.”

GNT
21He will depend on Eleazar the priest, who will learn my will by using the Urim and
Thummim.a In this way Eleazar will direct Joshua and the whole community of Israel in all
their affairs.”

a27.21 urim and thummim: Two objects used by the priest to determine God's will; it is not
known precisely how they were used.

And he shall stand before Eleazar: See verse 19. In contrast to Moses, who
received messages from the Lord directly, Joshua would seek God’s will only through
Eleazar, the high priest.
Who shall enquire for him: RSV and GNT imply that it is Eleazar who will
enquire for Joshua,[< Noth 215] not the other way round. The same applies to most
other translations (Buber, KJV, NRSV, NJPSV, NIV, REB, NET, ESV, LUT84,
GECL, ZÜR, TOB, NJB98, NBS02, FRCL, PV, NBG51, WV95, DUCL, NBV, HSV,
NFB, CRV, DHE, Levine). CEV has “But Joshua must depend on Eleazar to find out
from me.” The literal Hebrew construction here is “and he-will-enquire for him.” (In
some languages, the translation will have to specify what is being enquired. REB may
be a helpful model for this: “who will obtain a decision for him”; NET has “seek
counsel.”) Only a few translations understand the Hebrew construction differently:
“and he-will-enquire of him.”[< Knierim & Coats 277] Thus, Alter translates: “… and
[Joshua] will enquire of him [Eleazar].” Along the same lines, RVE95 renders: “He
[Joshua] will present himself before Eleazar the priest and will consult him [Eleazar]
...” But this understanding is not as likely or as strongly supported by commentators.
In any case, under both interpretations, Joshua—unlike Moses—will be dependent on
an intermediary instead of receiving instructions from God and speaking with him
directly.
By the judgment of the Urim: In line with the previous phrase, Alter
translates “for the ruling of the Urim.” Compare also WV95: “a verdict of the urim.”
Urim: Usually mentioned with Thummim. The Urim and Thummim were two
cultic objects (possibly stones or carved objects like dice) that yielded yes-or-no
responses [< Alter] when the priest needed to ascertain the will of God. They were the
sacred lots that the priest had in his pouch (NET note). GNT adds the “Thummim,”
but the Hebrew text only mentions the Urim. The Handbook on Leviticus mentions
(at 8.8) that in most translations the two terms are simply transliterated, but Moffatt,
LUT84, and GECL render the meaning quite adequately with “the sacred lots.” Other
languages may have to say “the lots of God.” See also Exo 28.30 and 1 Sam 14.41-42.
Traditional religious or magical terms used for divination (“lots”) in the local culture
are best avoided because of the negative connotation that they may still carry for some
people. On the other hand, reference to the “Urim” should not simply be omitted from
the text, as in the CEV, due to its perceived difficulty.
Before the Lord: Since the Lord is speaking, some languages would prefer to
say “before me.” (Compare GNT’s “who will learn my will” and DHE’s “and Eleazar
will consult me.”) However, an equally good alternative would be “in the holy place”
(WV95).
At his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in: A new
sentence should begin here (not as in RSV). Although the community (they) are the
subject of this sentence, the verbs and idiom are the same as in 27.17. The repetition
in the Hebrew puts emphasis on at his word. In this repeated phrase at his word, the
pronoun his may well refer to Eleazar (so already the medieval commentator
Rashi).[< Noth 215] GNT and GECL clearly go for this interpretation: “Eleazar will
direct Joshua …” (GNT); “According to Eleazar’s decision must he and all the
Israelites act” (GECL). RVC10, however, is exceptional in that it makes Joshua the
explicit subject: “when Joshua commands it, …” Alternatively, however, the pronoun
may refer to the Urim as the symbolic mouthpiece of the Lord. This interpretation is
followed by Alter and TOB: “by it” (Alter); “It is according to that decision that …”
(TOB). WV95 and CRV are similar to this: “According to the verdict of the Lord …”
(WV95); “By the instruction of the Lord … and by His instruction …” (CRV). This
reading seems to fit the context well.
Both he and all the people of Israel with him: he and him refer to Joshua,
and it will probably be necessary to make this reference explicit in the translation in
order to avoid possible ambiguity (with Eleazar).

27.22-23
RSV
22And Moses did as the Lord commanded him; he took Joshua and caused him to stand
before Eleazar the priest and the whole congregation, 23 and he laid his hands upon him, and
commissioned him as the Lord directed through Moses.

GNT
22Moses did as the Lord had commanded him. He made Joshua stand before Eleazar the
priest and the whole community. 23 As the Lord had commanded, Moses put his hands on
Joshua's head and proclaimed him as his successor.

The phrases in verses 22-23 are the same as in the preceding verses and should
be translated correspondingly here to indicate that the Lord’s explicit directions were
carried out exactly. Such repetition is often used in Hebrew narrative for this purpose.
The exception is his hands (plural) where verse 18 has “your hand” (singular).
Moses did as the Lord commanded him: The theme of Moses’ total
obedience is repeated here as the ministry of Moses gradually draws to its close.[<
Brown 253]

28.1–29.40
Section Heading: These chapters interrupt the narrative in order to set out regulations
for carrying out daily and Sabbath offerings and offerings at the various religious
festivals. A helpful general heading for the whole of 28.1–29.40 is “Calendar of the
regular/ordinary/daily and the festival offerings.”
These regulations, then, constitute a ritual code, a calendar of offerings throughout
the year, in the following order:
- Introduction 28.1-2
- Daily offerings 28.3-8
- Weekly offering (on the Sabbath) 28.9-10
- Monthly offering (on the first day) 28.11-15
- Offerings at the Passover Festival 28.16-25
- Offerings at the Harvest Festival 28.26-31
- Offerings at the Trumpets Festival 29.1-6
- Offerings at the Day of Atonement 29.7-11
- Offerings at the Festival of Shelters 29.12-38
 - Summary 29.39-40
GNT and NET do without a general heading and insert headings for these
shorter sections, taking 28.1-8 as one section: “Regular Offerings” (GNT); “Daily
Offerings” (NET). GNT then continues with seven shorter sections:
- “The Sabbath Offering” 28.9-10
- “The Offering on the First Day of the Month” 28.11-15
- “The Offerings at the Festival of Unleavened Bread” 28.16-25
- “The Offerings at the Harvest Festival” 28.26-31
- “The Offerings at the New Year Festival” 29.1-6
- “The Offerings at the Day of Atonement” 29.7-11
- “The Offerings at the Festival of Shelters” 29.12-40
In many languages, such shorter sections will be helpful. However, if these are used,
29.39-40 should be given its own heading (“Summary”). The reason is that 29.39-40
is a general summary of the two chapters as a whole and should not simply come
under the same heading as 29.12-38 (GNT, NET, CEV, NLT).
NBS02, FRCL, and PV have a general heading as well as specific ones: the
overarching heading “Rules concerning the sacrifices” (at 28.1) is continued by a
shorter heading (“for …”) at the points mentioned above. This will be a helpful
approach in many languages.
It is interesting to note the prominence of the sacred number “seven” in these
two chapters, symbolizing wholeness, completeness, and well-being. After the regular
or daily offerings (28.3-8), the offerings for seven feasts are listed, beginning with the
Sabbath. The last annual festival mentioned, that “of Shelters”, is divided into seven
ordinary days, followed by an eighth, a day of rest when “an assembly” is to be held
(29.35). The number seven periodically reappears in the amount of lambs that are to
be sacrificed during the yearly feasts, either 7 or 14 per day. Similar multiples of
seven appear for other sacrificial animals.
Parallels with earlier chapters suggest that the new generation will be given
challenges that are similar to those of their parents. The list of tribal offerings at the
dedication of the altar for the tent of meeting in chapter 7 and the laws concerning
sacrifices and offerings in chapter 15 are echoed by the list of offerings to be given at
holy days and festivals in chapters 28–29. The celebration of the festival of Passover
in chapter 9 is complemented by the instructions for future celebrations of Passover in
28.16-25.[< Olson 158]
29.39 specifies that all the offerings in these two chapters come “in addition to
your votive offerings and your freewill offerings,” that is, in addition to the private
offerings referred to in 15.3. With its reference to the Lord’s command to Moses,
29.40 acts as a boundary-marking inclusio for these two chapters. To a large extent,
chapters 28–29 are parallel to Leviticus 23 (with the offering sets in the same order)[<
Gane 751], while 28.3-8 is largely parallel to Exo 29.38-42. However, Numbers 28–
29 is the only place in the Pentateuch whose primary focus is to give a systematic
table of quantities to be used at regular public offerings,[< Budd 312] thus making the
new generation of Israel fit to worship under the new leadership of Joshua. In fact, the
amounts of agricultural produce and livestock required for these offerings suggest that
these regulations are included by way of anticipation for when the people of Israel had
been settled in the land of Canaan.
As Brown comments,[< Brown 255] the sacrifices were ‘dramatized prayers’,
expressing the deepest human longings, and ‘dramatized divine promises or
warnings’, vividly communicating the Lord’s mind to his people about everyday life.
They were a constant reminder of Israel’s vital relationship with their saving God,
upon whom their present existence and future hope depended.

28.1-2
RSV
1 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Command the people of Israel, and say to them, ‘My offering,
my food for my offerings by fire, my pleasing odor, you shall take heed to offer to me in its due
season.’

GNT
1 The Lord commanded Moses 2 to instruct the Israelites to present to God at the
appointed times the required food offerings that are pleasing to him.

The Lord said to Moses: The section begins with this prominent discourse
opening marker, the so-called “divine message formula” (it next occurs at 31.1). As
mentioned above, chapters 28 and 29 interrupt the chronology of the narrative.
Chronologically they do not come after chapter 27, since in 27.12-23 Moses has
already transferred the leadership to Joshua. For this reason, translators are advised to
follow most versions by not inserting markers of chronology such as “And …” (KJV,
LUT84, ZÜR) or “Further …” (SV).
Command the people of Israel and say to them …: With this command in
direct speech the Lord introduces the words that follow, which Moses will have to
speak to the people on the Lord’s behalf. In GNT this direct speech has been changed
into indirect speech: “to instruct the Israelites to …” Many languages will prefer to
retain the direct speech as a more appropriate form of discourse for the direct
commands of God.
‘My offering … its due season.’: Again, GNT changes this embedded direct
speech into indirect speech: “to present to God at the appointed times …” This
reduces the number of levels of embedded direct speech, thus making the English
more natural. As already noted earlier, embedded direct speech is quite natural in
some languages; in fact, direct speech would be the most natural way for the Lord to
give instructions to his people. GNT could have achieved this as follows: “The Lord
told Moses to give the Israelites the following instructions: ‘Present to me … at the
appointed times’.” Compare CEV: “The Lord told Moses to say to the people of
Israel: Offer sacrifices to me …”
My … my … my underscore the anthropomorphic notion that sacrifices are
actually food for God himself and that the smoke from the altar is a pleasing odor in
his nostrils (see the Handbook on Genesis at 8.21). Unfortunately, this important
perspective is no longer clear from GNT, where these first person pronouns have been
left untranslated.
My offering: The fronted position of this term again indicates the importance
of this concept in the entire section that follows. As mentioned at 5.15, the Hebrew
qorban is the commonest and vaguest expression for a sacrificial gift. It probably
serves as a generic term here for all the sacrifices in the following instructions. Since
the death of an animal is not specified here, a more general word for “offering” in the
target language will be needed, that is, instead of the more specific “sacrifice.”
My food: Literally “my bread,” a figure of speech for food in general, since
here it refers to the burnt flesh of animals as well as grain offerings. In the same way,
in some languages, the local staple food can be taken to refer to food in general, and
this will help to make the translation more expressive. Offerings constitute the daily
symbolic ‘meals’ of the Lord that are essential for maintaining his Presence among
the Israelites.[< Gane 750]
My offerings by fire: As mentioned at 15.3 and 10, the Hebrew term is only
general; it does not refer to a specific type of sacrifice, but to whatever is completely
consumed in the altar fire. (Even drink or libation offerings will only be referred to
later in the section.) The term may have to be rendered “offerings consumed by fire”
(NBS02) in some languages. ESV and REB render this term as “food offering” on top
of the phrase “my food,” but this wrongly suggests that a food offering was a specific
type of offering in its own right. Note that the entire phrase my food for my offerings
by fire stands in apposition to the earlier, generic mention of My offering.
My pleasing odor: See at 15.3. This gives the figurative result of my
offerings by fire.
You shall take heed to offer: NRSV has adapted this to “you shall take care
to offer.” NET is very similar: “Be sure to offer …” The Hebrew verb is in the second
person plural, addressing the Israelites. In these verses the technical term hiqrib
(“bring near, present”) is related to the earlier noun qorban and refers to the offering
of a sacrifice. Nominal or verbal forms of this word (qrb) occur frequently in this
section (as they did in chapter 7), indicating the thematic importance of this concept
of “bringing [offerings] near,” that is, “giving” them to the Lord.
In its due season: The Hebrew phrase is bemo`ado. NET has “at its appointed
time,” that is, for religious worship or festivals. GNT’s plural (“at the appointed
times”) probably fits the context better. A form of this phrase occurs at the end of this
section as well, in 29.39, so that the section is framed by these two phrases.
The rather complex combination of ritual terms of verse 2, listed in apposition
to one another, may need to be broken up in translation and rendered as two
sentences. The following is one suggestion as a possible model: “Be careful to give
my offerings at the appointed times. These food offerings by fire present me with a
pleasing aroma.”

28.3
RSV
3And you shall say to them, This is the offering by fire which you shall offer to the Lord: two
male lambs a year old without blemish, day by day, as a continual offering.

GNT
3 These are the food offerings that are to be presented to the Lord: for the daily burnt
offering, two one-year-old male lambs without any defects.

Verses 3-8 are about the basic daily offerings, which were foundational for all
the other types to come in these two chapters.
Offering by fire: See at 28.2. Again, there is no clear reason for rendering this
as “food offerings” (GNT).
You shall offer: See at 28.2. The verb is in the plural.
Two male lambs: As mentioned at 6.12, the Hebrew keves refers to a one-
year-old lamb that is male: usually the word refers to a young ram. If possible, the
distinction between this lamb and a female lamb should be kept clear.
Without blemish: Not obviously defective or deformed in any way. See 6.14
and the discussion at 19.2.
Continual: NRSV has correctly changed this to “regularly.” The offering was
performed “daily” (GNT). The same instruction is given in Exo 29.38.
 Offering: GNT’s translation “burnt offering” is more precise, since the
Hebrew has ‘olah. See the discussion of the burnt offering at Num 6.11. Most of the
offerings listed in chapters 28–29 are of this type.

28.4-5
RSV
4 The one lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer in the
evening; 5 also a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a cereal offering, mixed with a fourth of a
hin of beaten oil.

GNT
4 Offer the first lamb in the morning, and the second in the evening, 5 each with a grain
offering of one kilogramme of flour, mixed with 1 litre of the best olive oil.

Exo 29.39-41 contain virtually the same instructions.

You shall offer: The Hebrew literally has “you shall do”—a verb with a
generic meaning. Thus, a specific verb like “sacrifice” is not required here.
In the evening: Literally “between the two evenings.” As the Handbook on
Exodus mentions at 12.6, the expression probably meant the time between sunset and
darkness, or “at twilight” (NRSV, NJPSV, NIV). Some languages will have a specific
expression for this, for example: “at the fall of the evening” (RVE95, NBS02, NBV,
HSV).
A tenth of an ephah: See at Num 5.15.
Fine flour: See at 6.15.
Cereal offering: See at 4.16.
A fourth of a hin: See at 15.4-5.
Beaten oil: The “best olive oil” (GNT) was the oil that drips from olives
beaten with mortar and pestle, and not extracted from the olives with an oil press.

28.6
RSV
6It is a continual burnt offering, which was ordained at Mount Sinai for a pleasing odor, an
offering by fire to the Lord.

GNT
6 This is the daily offering that is completely burnt, which was first offered at Mount Sinai as a
food offering, a smell pleasing to the Lord.

Continual: See at 28.3.

Burnt offering: As in 28.3, the Hebrew has `olah. GNT’s “offering that is
completely burnt” may be helpful. Again, see at 6.11.
Which was ordained at Mount Sinai: Literally the Hebrew has: “which was
done on Mount Sinai,” hence Alter’s “like the one done on Mount Sinai” (see Exo
29.38-42). Ibn Ezra, the Jewish medieval commentator, deduced from this sentence
that the sacrifices, first established and performed at Sinai, were not done during the
forty years of wandering in the wilderness.[< Alter] Indeed, many translations
(particularly in English) seem to take the view that this offering was instituted for the
time that the Israelites would live in the land of Canaan, and was not yet performed
during their journey through the desert. Compare the renderings ordained (also in
NRSV and ESV) and “instituted” (NJPSV, NIV, REB, NET, NLT, NBG51, NBV,
HSV, and Levine, who allows for a rare meaning “cause to be done” of the verb
`asah).[< Levine 374] Other translations, however, are closer to the above-mentioned
plain sense of the Hebrew: “which was first offered” (GNT, CEV, DUCL); “offered”
)NBS02); “which you offered” (the Latin Vulgate, LUT12, LUT84); “executed”
(WV95); “which was executed” (TOB, GECL, ZÜR); “which was presented …”
(FRCL, PV); “first prepared” (Buber). The reference here gives the current law the
full authority of Sinaitic legislation.[< Ashley 564]
For a pleasing odor: See at 28.2.

28.7
RSV
7Its drink offering shall be a fourth of a hin for each lamb; in the holy place you shall pour out
a drink offering of strong drink to the Lord.

GNT
7 As the wine offering with the first lamb, pour out at the altar 1 litre of wine.

Its drink offering: See the discussion at 15.5 and in the Handbook on Exodus
at Exo 29.40. NJPSV has “libation.” Chewa renders “drink offering” as “the offering
of something [generic term] to drink.” Strictly speaking, the pronoun its refers to the
“offering by fire” (verses 3 and 6) to which this drink offering belongs. (Both its and
“offering by fire” are masculine in the Hebrew.) According to Levine, its probably
refers to the lamb in verse 4.[< Levine 374] (The Hebrew word for “lamb” is
masculine as well.) In some languages, a rendering like “the drink offering combined
with it / belonging to it” (similar to NBJ98, NBG51, HSV) or “the accompanying
drink offering” (NIV) will be more natural. Compare also “the proper drink-offering”
(REB), “the proper liquid offering” (NLT), and “the required libation” (TOB).
A fourth of a hin: As in 28.5.
The holy place: See at 3.28 (“sanctuary,” which is also NRSV’s rendering
here) and 4.12.
Strong drink: As mentioned at 6.3, this refers to any kind of intoxicating
drink. In general, it can refer to beer. However, since it is unlikely that beer was used
for libations, the text probably refers to some sort of wine (compare 15.5, 7, 10)
which was distinct from the ordinary kind.[< Alter, Rashi] Hence GNT’s rendering
“wine.”

28.8
RSV
8 The other lamb you shall offer in the evening; like the cereal offering of the morning, and like
its drink offering, you shall offer it as an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the Lord.

GNT
8 In the evening offer the second lamb in the same way as the morning offering, together with
its wine offering. It also is a food offering, a smell pleasing to the Lord.

The various terms are the same as those in verses 4-7 concerning the first male
lamb.
In the evening: In some languages this specification of the time setting must
come first in the sentence, as in the GNT; in others, a position after the verb is more
natural.
You shall offer … you shall offer: The Hebrew literally has “you shall do,”
as in 28.4.
 Like the cereal offering of the morning, and like its drink offering: Again,
its probably refers to the morning when this drink offering was presented. In many
languages, a rendering such as “like the cereal offering and drink offering in the
morning” will be more natural. See, for example, NET: “just as you offered the cereal
offering and drink offering in the morning,” and NBV: “with the same cereal offering
and wine offering as in the morning.” According to Levine, its probably refers to the
lamb in verse 4.[< Levine 374]

28.9
RSV
9 “On the sabbath day two male lambs a year old without blemish, and two tenths of an
ephah of fine flour for a cereal offering, mixed with oil, and its drink offering:

GNT
9 On the Sabbath day offer two one-year-old male lambs without any defects, 2
kilogrammes of flour mixed with olive oil as a grain offering, and the wine offering.

Verses 9-10 are about the weekly offering, which takes place on the sabbath.
This would be an appropriate place to indicate a new paragraph with a sub-heading
(perhaps as a way of highlighting the seven different offerings for which instructions
are given). Compare GNT’s heading “the sabbath offering.” In the Pentateuch, this is
the only place which speaks of public offerings on the sabbath. “The Sabbath
Offerings” (NLT) might be another appropriate title, but “Weekly Offerings” (NET)
removes the original emphasis upon the seventh, the Sabbath Day.
On the sabbath day: As in 15.32.
Two male lambs a year old without blemish: As in 28.3. There is no action
verb in the Hebrew text, so one must normally be added in translation: “offer” (GNT),
“you must offer” (NET), “make this [regular] offering” (Chewa).
Of an ephah of fine flour for a cereal offering: As in 28.5.
Oil: As in verse 5, GNT’s “olive oil” is more specific.
Its drink offering: See at 28.7. Its probably refers to the cereal offering which
is presented at the same time. In any case, a rendering like “the drink offering
combined with it / belonging to it” (similar to NBJ98, NBG51, HSV) will be more
natural in some languages. Compare also “the proper drink-offering” (REB), “the
proper libation” (NJPSV), and “the required libation” (TOB). In some languages,
NLT’s translation of the whole verse is a helpful model:
“On the Sabbath day, sacrifice two one-year-old male lambs with no defects.
They must be accompanied by a grain offering of four quarts of choice flour
moistened with olive oil, and a liquid offering.”

28.10
RSV
10 this is the burnt offering of every sabbath, besides the continual burnt offering and its drink
offering.

GNT
10This burnt offering is to be offered every Sabbath in addition to the daily offering with its
wine offering.

Burnt offering: See at 28.6.

 Besides: GNT and NLT make it more explicit that this weekly burnt offering
“is to be offered … in addition to the daily offering …” (GNT). Similarly, FRCL
translates: “This complete sacrifice is added each sabbath to the daily offering …”
This point should be made very clear in the translation.
The continual burnt offering and its drink offering: Its refers to the daily
burnt offering (28.3-8) [<thus also Levine 376] with which this drink offering was
combined (verse 7). (Both its and “burnt offering” are feminine in the Hebrew.) In
some languages, “and its accompanying liquid offering” (NLT) will be more natural.

28.11
RSV
11 “At the beginnings of your months you shall offer a burnt offering to the Lord: two young
bulls, one ram, seven male lambs a year old without blemish;

GNT
11 Present a burnt offering to the Lord at the beginning of each month: two young bulls, one
ram, seven one-year-old male lambs, all without any defects.

Verses 11-15 deal with “the offering on the first day of the month” (GNT’s
section heading). “The Monthly Offerings” (NLT) might be another possible section
heading. The new moon was an important feature of the life of the ancient Near
East,[< Ashley 565], but in the case of Israel it has been clearly de-paganized and set
within the regular ritual worship practice in honor of the one true God, Yahweh.
At the beginnings of your months: The same phrase occurs in 10.10. In some
languages, GNT’s “at the beginning of each month” expresses the monthly frequency
of this burnt offering more clearly.
You shall offer: As in 28.1, where the Hebrew technical term hiqrib (“bring
near, present”) has been discussed.
Young bulls: See at 7.15.
Ram: A male sheep, older than the male lambs. In some languages (like
Chewa), the “male” component of each of the animals mentioned here needs to be
specified.
Male lambs: See at 28.3.

28.12-13
RSV
12 also three tenths of an ephah of fine flour for a cereal offering, mixed with oil, for each bull;
and two tenths of fine flour for a cereal offering, mixed with oil, for the one ram; 13 and a tenth
of fine flour mixed with oil as a cereal offering for every lamb; for a burnt offering of pleasing
odor, an offering by fire to the Lord.

GNT
12 As a grain offering, offer flour mixed with olive oil: with each bull, 3 kilogrammes of flour;
with the ram, 2 kilogrammes; 13 and with each lamb, one kilogramme. These burnt offerings
are food offerings, a smell pleasing to the Lord.

Verses 12 and 13 are linked to verse 11 in the original to form one very long
sentence, as reproduced in the RSV (also NET and others). In some languages, such a
construction is either unnatural or very difficult to follow, especially for a listening
audience. GNT offers a good suggestion as to how the sentence may be broken up
into more intelligible portions.
Of an ephah of fine flour for a cereal offering: As in 28.5, 9.
 Mixed with oil: As in 28.9. Again, GNT’s “olive oil” is more specific.
For a burnt offering …: This phrase sums up the whole of verses 11-13, so in
some languages a new sentence will be more natural: “These burnt offerings are …”
(GNT). This would also serve to break up what would otherwise be an overly long
(and detailed) sentence in some languages.
Of pleasing odor, an offering by fire: See at 28.2. Again, there is no clear
reason for rendering an offering by fire as “food offerings” (GNT).

28.14
RSV
14 Their drink offerings shall be half a hin of wine for a bull, a third of a hin for a ram, and a
fourth of a hin for a lamb; this is the burnt offering of each month throughout the months of the
year.

GNT
14 The proper wine offering is 2 litres of wine with each bull, one and a half litres with the ram,
and one litre with each lamb. This is the regulation for the burnt offering for the first day of
each month throughout the year.

Their drink offerings: See at 28.7. Their probably refers to the cereal
offerings which are presented at the same time (or perhaps to the sacrificed animals).
In some languages, renderings such as “the proper wine offering” (GNT) and “the
required libations” (TOB) will be more natural. Compare also “the drink offerings
belonging to them” (similar to NBJ98, NBG51, HSV).
It may be necessary to clarify the fact that these “drink [wine] offerings” were
to be offered in addition to the previously mentioned “burnt offering,” for example:
“You must also present a liquid offering with each sacrifice: …” (NLT).

28.15
RSV
15Also one male goat for a sin offering to the Lord; it shall be offered besides the continual
burnt offering and its drink offering.

GNT
15 And in addition to the daily burnt offering with its wine offering, offer one male goat as a sin
offering.

Male goat: As mentioned at 7.16, if the receptor language has a single word
that contains the idea of maleness as well as the idea of goat, then it should be used
here.
Sin offering: See at 6:11. While the burnt offering was for the consecration of
the participants, the sin offering was for the forgiveness of unintentional offences. Its
purpose was to secure expiation for unintentional offences and omissions, thus
safeguarding the purity of the holy place.[< Levine 379] Hence some versions render
this as “purification offering” (NET).[ <Ashley 566]
It shall be offered: Literally the Hebrew has “it shall be done,” so a specific
verb like “sacrifice” is not needed here; in some languages (Chewa), the specific term
for “sacrifice” would exclude “drink/wine” offerings. In languages where the passive
verb form is considered awkward, a rendering like “you shall offer it” will be a
helpful model.
Besides the continual burnt offering and its drink offering: According to
most translations, its refers to the continual burnt offering—the daily burnt offering
(28.3-8) with which this drink offering was combined (verse 7). NLT is a helpful
model: “This is in addition to the regular burnt offering and its accompanying liquid
offering.” (Only NBG51 and similarly DHE understand the pronoun its to refer to the
offering of the goat—something which Rashi explicitly rejects. NBG51 translates:
“One goat will be prepared for the Lord as a sin offering with the accompanying
libation offering above the daily burnt offering.”)

28.16
RSV
16 “On the fourteenth day of the first month is the Lord's passover.

GNT
16 The Passover Festival in honour of the Lord is to be held on the fourteenth day of the
first month.

Verses 16-25 deal with “the offerings at the festival of unleavened bread”
(GNT’s section heading) and are largely parallel to Lev 23.5-14.
The first month: The calendar is based on the agricultural seasons and begins
in the early spring (any time from late March to early May).
The Lord’s passover: GNT, TOB, FRCL, and NBV have “the Passover
(Festival) in honour of the Lord.” NBG51, WV95, NBS02, and ZÜR are similar: “the
Passover for the Lord.” In many languages, this will express the meaning of the
Hebrew construction more explicitly. Another possible rendering would be “the
festival in remembrance of the Lord’s passing over of his people.” For passover see
at 9.2, the Handbook on Exodus at 12.11, 27, and the Handbook on Leviticus at 23.5.

28.17
RSV
17 And on the fifteenth day of this month is a feast; seven days shall unleavened bread be
eaten.

GNT
17On the fifteenth day a religious festival begins which lasts seven days, during which only
bread prepared without yeast is to be eaten.

Is a feast: Since this celebration lasted for seven days, is a feast is to be

understood in the sense of “a feast begins.” This is what GNT does: “a religious
festival begins.”
Feast: The Hebrew term chag is related to the root ch-g-g, “to make
pilgrimage, keep a pilgrim-feast.” See at Exo 23.14, where the verb is used to refer to
the three main festivals.
Unleavened bread: See at 6.15, the Handbook on Exodus at 12.15, 17, and
the Handbook on Leviticus at 23.6.
Shall … be eaten: The passive verb form would be awkward in some
languages. Alternative renderings are “you shall eat” (FRCL, PV), “the people shall
eat,” or an imperative (“eat,” DUCL).

28.18
RSV
18 On the first day there shall be a holy convocation: you shall do no laborious work,
GNT
18 On the first day of the festival you are to gather for worship, and no work is to be done.

On the first day: That is, the fifteenth day of the first month and the first of
the seven days of the feast.
A holy convocation: As in Exo 12.16 and Lev 23.7. Note GNT, “you [or, ‘the
people’] are to gather for worship.” It is holy, which sets it apart from all other days
by the Lord as His festival.[<Noordtzij 262] In some languages it will be necessary to
have an explicit goal for the verb “worship,” for example, “… to worship me.”
You shall do no laborious work: That is, “you shall not work at your
occupations” (NRSV, NJPSV) or “you shall not do the work that you usually do every
day” (Handbook on Leviticus at 23.7). In the Hebrew construction, “work” is
qualified by the term `avodah “labor, service”—in contrast to the Sabbath Day or the
Day of Atonement when no work at all was allowed. (What is not prohibited here, for
example, is the necessary preparation of daily food.[< Plaut 1083]) GNT has left this
nuance of labor untranslated, so that the difference with 29.7 is no longer clear.

28.19
RSV
19but offer an offering by fire, a burnt offering to the Lord: two young bulls, one ram, and
seven male lambs a year old; see that they are without blemish;

GNT
19Offer a burnt offering as a food offering to the Lord: two young bulls, one ram, and seven
one-year-old male lambs, all without any defects.

But: The Hebrew lacks such a strong conjunction marking contrast here. It is
thus possible to leave it out, as in GNT. On the other hand, a conjunction like “But…”
may be necessary (as in Chewa) to counter the possible implication that making such
a burnt offering might be a type of “labor” that contradicts the prohibition of the
preceding sentence.
Offer: As in 28.1, 11, where the Hebrew technical term hiqrib (“bring near,
present”) has been discussed. NJPSV has “you shall present.”
An offering by fire, a burnt offering to the Lord: To avoid the suggestion
that two offerings are involved, RSV can be rephrased as follows: “a burnt offering as
an offering by fire to the Lord” (similar to GNT). Or a slightly different specifying
construction might be used: “ … a burnt offering—that is, an offering by fire to the
Lord of two young bulls, …”
Offering by fire: See at 28.2. Again, there is no clear reason for the rendering
“food offering” (GNT).
Burnt offering: As in 28.6, 10.

28.20-21
RSV
20 also their cereal offering of fine flour mixed with oil; three tenths of an ephah shall you offer
for a bull, and two tenths for a ram; 21 a tenth shall you offer for each of the seven lambs;

GNT
20 Offer the proper grain offering of flour mixed with olive oil: 3 kilogrammes with each bull, 2
kilogrammes with the ram, 21 and one kilogramme with each lamb.
 Also: A new sentence is recommended as this new category of supplementary
offerings begins to be detailed.
Their cereal offering: Their probably refers to the burnt offerings which are
presented at the same time (or to the sacrificed animals). Renderings such as “the
proper grain offering” (GNT) and “the required offering” (TOB) are likely to be more
natural in some languages. Compare also “the cereal offering belonging to them”
(similar to HSV).
Fine flour: As in 28.5, 9.
Mixed with oil: As in 28.9.

28.22
RSV
22 also one male goat for a sin offering, to make atonement for you.

GNT
22 Also offer one male goat as a sin offering, and in this way perform the ritual of purification
for the people.

Male goat … sin offering: As in 28.15.

To make atonement for you: Similarly to 5.8, GNT’s “perform the ritual of
purification for the people” clarifies what atonement means in this case of prescribed
worship. GNT stresses that the ceremony has a ritual, rather than just moral, meaning.
The verb itself literally means “cover,” that is, to appease, apologize, or make
amends, so that fellowship is restored between a defiled person and the Lord.

28.23
RSV
23 You shall offer these besides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a continual
burnt offering.

GNT
23 Offer these in addition to the regular morning burnt offering.

You shall offer these: As in 28.4, the Hebrew literally has “you shall do,” so a
specific verb like “sacrifice” is not needed here. (In some languages, such a specific
verb might not apply to the non-animal offerings in this context.)
These refers to all the offerings mentioned in verses 19-22. It may be helpful
to make this more explicit: “all of these” (CEV); “these offerings” (NLT, NBV).
The burnt offering of the morning, which is for a continual burnt offering
was referred to in 28.3-4. Again, “regular” (NRSV and GNT) is more accurate than
continual.

28.24
RSV
24 In the same way you shall offer daily, for seven days, the food of an offering by fire, a
pleasing odor to the Lord; it shall be offered besides the continual burnt offering and its drink
offering.

GNT
24In the same way, for seven days offer to the Lord a food offering, a smell pleasing to him.
Offer this in addition to the daily burnt offering and wine offering.
 In the same way: That is, as just specified in the preceding verses (literally,
“like these”). Thus, exactly the same set of ritual offering procedures is to be carried
out for seven days in succession.
You shall offer: Again, the Hebrew literally has “you shall do,” as in 28.4.
The food of an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the Lord: For food and a
pleasing odor see at 28.2. As noted there, offerings constitute the daily symbolic
“meals” of the Lord that are essential for maintaining his Presence among the
Israelites. Literally the Hebrew has “bread,” which is a figure of speech for food in
general. The question is how these phrases should be combined in translation. The
Hebrew construction allows for NBV’s rendering: “this food as an offering ...” NTV
is quite similar: “the food which you will present as a special offering, an agreeable
aroma to the Lord.” The Hebrew construction also allows for the following
renderings: “the food of an offering by fire as a pleasing odor” (similar to HSV); “the
food for the offering made by fire … as an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (NIV).
NBS02 has “you shall offer them as a nourishment consumed by fire, an odor
pleasing to the Lord.” NJPSV translates “you shall offer the like … as food, an
offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord.” All these renderings seem to underscore
in varying degrees the anthropomorphic notion (see at 28.2) that sacrifices are
actually food for God himself and that the smoke from the altar is a pleasing odor in
his nostrils. Alternatively, if the food is understood in a non-anthropomorphic sense, a
translation like “an offering of food” (Chewa) is also possible.
It shall be offered besides …: Note that this sentence makes the same point
as verse 23, applying it to each of the seven days. Literally the Hebrew has “besides
… it shall be done.” If the passive verb form is considered awkward, it is helpful to
translate, for example, “you [or, ‘the people’] will add these to …” (PV).
Besides the continual burnt offering and its drink offering: As in 28.15. Its
refers to the continual burnt offering—the daily burnt offering (28.3-8) with which
this drink offering was combined (verse 7).

28.25
RSV
25 And on the seventh day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work.

GNT
25 Meet for worship on the seventh day and do no work.

And on the seventh day: The normal order of procedural discourse in the
receptor language should be observed in translation. This also applies to the location
of the time phrase. For example, the order of the RSV seems to emphasize the entire
commanded sequence of seven days of ritual activities, while the order of the GNT
emphasizes what is to be done now on the seventh day.
A holy convocation: As on the first day of this feast; see at 28.18.
…; you shall do no laborious work: See at 28.18. In many languages, it is
more natural to begin a new sentence where RSV places a semicolon.

28.26
RSV
26 “On the day of the first fruits, when you offer a cereal offering of new grain to the Lord at
your feast of weeks, you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work,

GNT
 26 On the first day of the Harvest Festival, when you present the offering of new corn to the
Lord, you are to gather for worship, and no work is to be done.

Verses 26-31 deal with “the offerings at the harvest festival” (GNT’s section
heading) and are largely parallel to Lev 23.15-22.
The day of the first fruits: That is, the first yield of the harvest. It is implied
that what comes first is the best. As in 18.13, the meaning of the Hebrew plural term
bikurim is best described as “first ones,” “firstlings,” “first-born.” This offering was
also a symbolic indication that the whole harvest belonged to the Lord. The Hebrew
only refers to one day (the day), not to “the first day” (GNT). This day “marked the
end of the Passover season, coming seven weeks and a day afterward.”[< Cole 476]
When you offer: A form of the verb hiqrib (“bring near, present”) occurs here
again. See at 28.1.
A cereal offering of new grain: Literally “a new cereal offering” (NET), but
the context indicates that this grain belongs to the first yield of what has been the new
harvest. Note that the offering is one of grain, not “corn” (maize) as the GNT
suggests.
Feast of Weeks: This name does not refer to the duration of the feast itself,
but to the seven weeks counted from the beginning of Passover to this festival.[<
Alter] As the Handbook on Exodus mentions at 34.22, it is also known as Pentecost
(Greek for “fiftieth day” after Passover). GNT leaves the term untranslated but
includes “Harvest Festival” near the beginning of the sentence; this feast is referred to
as the Harvest Festival in Exo 23.16 (see the Handbook on Exodus at that point).
You shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work: As in
verse 18. Instead of the semicolon, it is more natural in many languages to begin a
new sentence (or place a colon as in verse 18).

28.27-30
RSV
27but offer a burnt offering, a pleasing odor to the Lord: two young bulls, one ram, seven male
lambs a year old; 28 also their cereal offering of fine flour mixed with oil, three tenths of an
ephah for each bull, two tenths for one ram, 29 a tenth for each of the seven lambs; 30 with one
male goat, to make atonement for you.

GNT
27 Offer a burnt offering as a smell pleasing to the Lord: two young bulls, one ram, and seven
one-year-old male lambs, all without any defects. 28 Offer the proper grain offering of flour
mixed with olive oil: 3 kilogrammes with each bull, 2 kilogrammes with the ram, 29 and one
kilogramme with each lamb. 30 Also offer one male goat as a sin offering, and in this way
perform the ritual of purification for the people. 30 Also offer one male goat as a sin offering,
and in this way perform the ritual of purification for the people.

Offer: Again, the Hebrew has a form of the verb hiqrib (“bring near,
present”). See at 28.1.
Burnt offering: As in 28.6, 10, 23.
A pleasing odor to the Lord: See at 28.2.
Their cereal offering: See at 28.20.
With one male goat: Unlike in 28.22, the Hebrew does not specify for which
offering the goat is required. However, the phrase that follows (to make atonement
for you) suggests that the goat is to be offered “as a sin offering” (GNT and already
the Greek Septuagint make this explicit). In most languages it will be helpful to
translate verse 30 as a separate sentence, in the same way as verse 22.
28.31
RSV
31 Besides the continual burnt offering and its cereal offering, you shall offer them and their
drink offering. See that they are without blemish.

GNT
31 Offer these and the wine offering in addition to the daily burnt offering and grain offering.

Besides the continual burnt offering and its cereal offering you shall offer
them and their drink offering: That is, in addition to the daily offerings described in
28.3-8 (including the cereal offering in verse 5). This point should be very clear in the
translation. (Compare 28.10, 15, 23-24.) You shall offer is literally “you shall do.”
See at 28.4. Translators should put this verb in the most natural point in the sentence,
whether first (GNT) or after the reference to the offerings “besides” (RSV). In order
to determine the most appropriate position, the entire text for this section may need to
be read aloud for testing.

29.1
RSV
1 “On the first day of the seventh month you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no
laborious work. It is a day for you to blow the trumpets,

GNT
1 On the first day of the seventh month you are to gather for worship, and no work is to be
done. On that day trumpets are to be blown.

Most of chapter 29 deals with the seventh, and most sacred month of the
Hebrew year,[< Ashley 568] when three special festivals are celebrated: New Year,
Atonement, and Tabernacles, with most attention being devoted to the last. 29.1-6
deals with “the offerings at the New Year festival” (GNT’s section heading) and is
largely parallel to Lev 23.23-25. A heading such as “Blowing Trumpets” (NET)
seems to miss the point.
The seventh month: This month, approximately equivalent to September,
figures as the seventh month because the calendar is based on the agricultural seasons
and begins in the early spring. The fact that it was the “seventh” month made it
especially significant.
A holy convocation: See at 28.18.
You shall do no laborious work: See at 28.18.
A day … to blow the trumpets: The Hebrew lacks trumpets. Thus, REB,
TOB, and NBS02 translate “A day of acclamation.” NBG51 is similar: “a day of
jubilation.” PV helpfully gives this day a festival name: “the day of shouts of joy.”
Trumpets were blown on all festivals and new moons (10.10), but the ram’s horn
became the instrument for the occasion referred to here.[< Plaut 1084] It may thus be
advisable to translate “a day when the rams’ horns are sounded” (similar to NJPSV)
instead. (NBV has “horns” as well.) In the postbiblical period, this day would become
the celebration of the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah).

29.2
RSV
2and you shall offer a burnt offering, a pleasing odor to the Lord: one young bull, one ram,
seven male lambs a year old without blemish;
GNT
2Present a burnt offering to the Lord, a smell pleasing to him: one young bull, one ram, and
seven one-year-old male lambs, all without any defects.

You shall offer: As in, for example, 28.4, the Hebrew literally has “you shall
do”—a verb with a generic meaning. Thus, a more specific verb like “sacrifice” is not
required here.
Burnt offering: As in 28.6, 10, 23, 27.
A pleasing odor to the Lord: See at 28.2.

29.3-4
RSV
3 also their cereal offering of fine flour mixed with oil, three tenths of an ephah for the bull, two
tenths for the ram, 4 and one tenth for each of the seven lambs;

GNT
3Offer the proper grain offering of flour mixed with olive oil: 3 kilogrammes of flour with the
bull, 2 kilogrammes with the ram, 4 and one kilogramme with each lamb.

Again, it would be advisable to begin a new sentence with verse three, where
the list of accompanying offerings begins.
Oil: As 28.5, GNT’s “olive oil” is more specific.
Their cereal offering: The pronoun their has to refer to the animals that are
offered as a burnt offering here.

29.5
RSV
5 with one male goat for a sin offering, to make atonement for you;

GNT
5 Also offer one male goat as a sin offering, and in this way perform the ritual of purification for
the people.

See at 28.22.

29.6
RSV
6besides the burnt offering of the new moon, and its cereal offering, and the continual burnt
offering and its cereal offering, and their drink offering, according to the ordinance for them, a
pleasing odor, an offering by fire to the Lord.

GNT
6 Offer these in addition to the regular burnt offering for the first day of the month with its grain
offering, and the daily burnt offering with its grain offering and wine offering. These food
offerings are a smell pleasing to the Lord.

Besides …: See at 28.10.

The burnt offering of the new moon, and its cereal offering are included
here as well. These are offered on the first day of every month. The offerings on the
day of jubilation, that is, on the first day of the seventh month (29.1-6) are in addition
to these monthly offerings and to the daily offerings. This point should be clear in the
translation. Compare, for example: “Offer these in addition to” (GNT); “These
offerings are / will be made in addition to” (similar to NLT and CEV).
Their drink offerings: If this is considered unclear, it may be helpful to
translate “each with its drink offering” (following NJPSV’s “each with its libation as
described”).
A pleasing odor: See at 28.2. This phrase thus forms a boundary marker for
this unit. Again we note the anthropomorphic soothing aspect of the sacrifices by
which God is heartened and satisfied with the act of the worshiper,[< Cole 478]
thereby restoring or reinforcing spiritual fellowship.
An offering by fire: See at 28.2.

29.7
RSV
7 “On the tenth day of this seventh month you shall have a holy convocation, and afflict
yourselves; you shall do no work,

GNT
7 Gather for worship on the tenth day of the seventh month; eat no food and do no work.

29.7-11 deals with “the offerings at the Day of Atonement” (GNT’s section
heading) and is largely parallel to Lev 23.26-32.
On the tenth day of this seventh month: This is the Day of Atonement (Lev
23.27), though that name is not mentioned here.
A holy convocation: See at 28.18.
Afflict yourselves or “humiliate yourselves”: This idiom indicates abstaining
from food, fasting (as already noted by Ibn Ezra, the Jewish medieval commentator).
(It occurs only one more time in the book of Numbers—in 30.14.) A literal translation
could well be misleading. GNT’s “eat no food” and NLT’s “you must go without
food” are helpful models. Compare also: “you must/shall fast” (TOB, NBJ98, WV95,
LUT84, and GECL). Note that the Day of Atonement is the only festival for which
this command is given.
Do no work: That is, “Do no work of any kind” (Chewa). Thus, a stricter
prohibition applies to this day, the Day of Atonement, than to the other holy days on
which only occupational labor is forbidden.[< Plaut 1084] Translators should
maintain this unique difference with the phrase “do no laborious work” in 28.18, 25,
26; 29.1, 12, 35 intact.

29.8
RSV
8but you shall offer a burnt offering to the Lord, a pleasing odor: one young bull, one ram,
seven male lambs a year old; they shall be to you without blemish;

GNT
8Offer a burnt offering to the Lord, a smell pleasing to him: one young bull, one ram, and
seven one-year-old male lambs, all without any defects.

But: The Hebrew lacks such a strong conjunction marking contrast here. See
the comments at 28.19.
You shall offer: A form of the verb hiqrib (“bring near, present”) occurs here
again. See at 28.1.
Burnt offering: As in 28.6, 10, 23, 27; 29.2.
 A pleasing odor: See at 28.2.

29.9-10
RSV
9 and their cereal offering of fine flour mixed with oil, three tenths of an ephah for the bull, two
tenths for the one ram, 10 a tenth for each of the seven lambs:

GNT
9Offer the proper grain offering of flour mixed with olive oil: 3 kilogrammes of flour with the
bull, 2 kilogrammes with the ram, 10 and one kilogramme with each lamb.

Their cereal offering: The pronoun their has to refer to the animals that are
offered as a burnt offering here. As already noted (verse 3), beginning a new sentence
is often helpful or even necessary here for ease of comprehension as well as reading
the text aloud.
Fine flour: As in 28.5, 9.
Oil: As in 28.9. Again, GNT’s “olive oil” is more specific.

29.11
RSV
11 also one male goat for a sin offering, besides the sin offering of atonement, and the
continual burnt offering and its cereal offering, and their drink offerings.

GNT
11 Also offer one male goat as a sin offering, in addition to the goat offered in the ritual of
purification for the people, and the daily burnt offering with its grain offering and wine offering.

One male goat for a sin offering: As in 28.15, 22. Here, it is one of the
offerings required for the Day of Atonement.
Besides …: Or, more explicitly, “in addition to” (GNT, REB, CEV, NLT). In
many languages, it will be natural to start a new sentence here: “All these offerings
come in addition to …” (similar to FRCL). This point should be very clear in the
translation.
… the sin offering of atonement: Which sin offering this refers to is not
immediately clear, since it has not been referred to before in these chapters. Rashi, the
Jewish medieval commentator, noted that this sin offering refers to the sin offering on
the Day of Atonement, which is mentioned in Exo 30.10 [< Noth 220, 223; Levine
388-389] and Lev 16.9, 15 (footnote in NBS02). TOB makes this explicit and
translates: “the sin offering of the day of the Great Pardon.” The terms for “sin” and
“atonement” used in prior texts should be used here as well (for example, 28.15, 22).
… and the continual burnt offering and its cereal offering: As in 28.31,
this refers to the daily offerings described in 28.3-8 (including the cereal offering in
verse 5).
And their drink offerings: NJPSV has “each with its libation” (similar to
29.6), which in some languages may fit more naturally.

29.12
RSV
12 “On the fifteenth day of the seventh month you shall have a holy convocation; you shall
do no laborious work, and you shall keep a feast to the Lord seven days;

GNT
 12 Gather for worship on the fifteenth day of the seventh month. Celebrate this festival in
honour of the Lord for seven days and do no work.

29.12-38 deals with “the offerings at the festival of shelters” (GNT’s section
heading) and is largely parallel to Lev 23.33-43.
On the fifteenth day of the seventh month: That is, five days after the Day
of Atonement. (NLT adds this: “Five days later, on the fifteenth day of the same
month.”) The celebration in question is the seven-day harvest festival of Booths (Lev
23.34), and since that name is not mentioned here, it would be important to include a
cross reference. The text devotes a paragraph to each of the eight days of this festival.
In many languages, it is more natural to begin with the time reference as in the RSV,
rather than to follow the GNT model.
You shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work: As in
28.25.
Feast: See at 28.17.

29.13
RSV
13and you shall offer a burnt offering, an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the Lord, thirteen
young bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old; they shall be without blemish;

GNT
13On this first day offer a food offering to the Lord, a smell pleasing to him: thirteen young
bulls, two rams, and fourteen one-year-old male lambs, all without any defects.

You shall offer: As in 29.8. These offerings are to take place on the fifteenth
day of the seventh month (29.12). GNT adds “On this first day” to clarify this; an
alternative might be “On the first day of this festival.”
Burnt offering: As in 28.6, 10, 23, 27; 29.2, 8. Why GNT has “food offering”
is not clear—perhaps reflecting the wording of 28.1, though the term “food” (literally
“bread”) is not present here.
Offering by fire: See at 28.2.
A pleasing odor: See at 28.2.
Thirteen young bulls: The bulls, which decrease by one on each successive
day of the festival, begin with the number thirteen in order that on the seventh day
there will be a perfect match of seven bulls for the seven days—a pairing of the sacred
number.[< Alter]

29.14-15
RSV
14 and their cereal offering of fine flour mixed with oil, three tenths of an ephah for each of the
thirteen bulls, two tenths for each of the two rams, 15 and a tenth for each of the fourteen
lambs;

GNT
14 Offer the proper grain offering of flour mixed with olive oil: 3 kilogrammes of flour with each
bull, 2 kilogrammes with each ram, 15 and one kilogramme with each lamb, with the required
wine offerings.

Their cereal offering: The pronoun their has to refer to the animals that are
offered as a burnt offering here. Again, a new sentence should probably begin here as
in the GNT.
 Fine flour: As in 28.5, 9.
Oil: As in 28.9. Again, GNT’s “olive oil” is more specific.

29.16
RSV
16 also one male goat for a sin offering, besides the continual burnt offering, its cereal offering
and its drink offering.

GNT
16Also offer one male goat as a sin offering. Offer these in addition to the daily burnt offering
with its grain offering and wine offering.

One male goat for a sin offering: As in 28.15, 22, with a new sentence
beginning at verse 16 to distinguish the sin offering.
Besides …: Or, more explicitly, “in addition to” (GNT, REB, CEV, NLT). In
many languages, it will be natural to start a new sentence here too: “All these
offerings come in addition to …” (similar to FRCL). This point should be very clear
in the translation.
The continual burnt offering, its cereal offering and its drink offering:
The pronoun its refers to the “regular burnt offering” (NRSV) in both cases.

29.17-19
RSV
17 “On the second day twelve young bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old
without blemish, 18 with the cereal offering and the drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams,
and for the lambs, by number, according to the ordinance; 19 also one male goat for a sin
offering, besides the continual burnt offering and its cereal offering, and their drink offerings.

GNT
17 On the second day offer twelve young bulls, two rams, and fourteen one-year-old male
lambs, all without any defects. 18–19 Offer with them all the other offerings required for the first
day.

There is no verb (“you shall offer) in the Hebrew text of verses 17-19. This
passage takes the form of a list. In some languages there may be a special way in
which such a text is expressed stylistically or structured.
Twelve young bulls: It has been explained at verse 13 why the bulls decrease
by one on each successive day of the festival.
By number, according to the ordinance: NRSV takes this together: “as
prescribed in accordance with their number”; “according to their number as
prescribed” (NET). This will be more natural in some languages.
Also one male goat for a sin offering: As in 28.15, 22.
Besides the continual burnt offering and its cereal offering: The pronoun
its refers to the “regular burnt offering” (NRSV).
And their drink offerings: The pronoun their has to refer to the “regular
burnt offering and its grain offering” (NRSV).
In some languages, translators may want to avoid the repetition in the text of
29.17-34. On the face of it, GNT may seem a helpful model for verses 18-19: “Offer
with them all the other offerings required for the first day.” The problem, however, is
that this would leave out the drink offerings for the animals in verse 18, since these
are not mentioned in verse 14 in connection with the first day.
 A more helpful model for translators who need to reduce the repetition in the
text is FRCL, with one adaptation in italics (see also the GECL for verses 20-34):
17-34 From the second to the seventh day, in addition to the daily complete sacrifice, you
will offer as sacrifices animals without blemish, accompanied by the usual offerings (or: with
the accompanying cereal offering, drink offerings, and sin offering). The list is as follows:
second day: twelve bulls, two rams and fourteen lambs of one year, as well as a goat;
third day: eleven bulls, two rams and fourteen lambs of one year, as well as a goat;
fourth day: ten bulls, two rams and fourteen lambs of one year, as well as a goat;
fifth day: nine bulls, two rams and fourteen lambs of one year, as well as a goat;
sixth day: eight bulls, two rams and fourteen lambs of one year, as well as a goat;
seventh day: seven bulls, two rams and fourteen lambs of one year, as well as a goat.

29.20-22
RSV
20 “On the third day eleven bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without
blemish, 21 with the cereal offering and the drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for
the lambs, by number, according to the ordinance; 22 also one male goat for a sin offering,
besides the continual burnt offering and its cereal offering and its drink offering.

GNT
20 On the third day offer eleven young bulls, two rams, and fourteen one-year-old male
lambs, all without any defects. 21–22 Offer with them all the other offerings required for the first
day.

Only two details (see below) are different from verses 17-19.
Eleven bulls: The bulls decrease in number by one each day.
The continual burnt offering, its cereal offering and its drink offering:
The pronoun its refers to the “regular burnt offering” (NRSV) in both cases.
The problem with GNT’s reduction of the text in verses 21-22 is the same as
in verses 18-19 (see there): GNT leaves out the drink offerings for the animals in
verse 21, since these offerings are not mentioned in verse 14 in connection with the
first day. Therefore, if the GNT is being used as a model, some way must be found to
reintroduce these drink offerings into the text of the translation. This problem applies
to each of the sections that follow up to and including verse 38.

29.23-25
RSV
23 “On the fourth day ten bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without blemish,
24with the cereal offering and the drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs,
by number, according to the ordinance; 25 also one male goat for a sin offering, besides the
continual burnt offering, its cereal offering and its drink offering.

GNT
23 On the fourth day offer ten young bulls, two rams, and fourteen one-year-old male
lambs, all without any defects. 24–25 Offer with them all the other offerings required for the first
day.

Only the day and the number of bulls (ten) is different from verses 20-22.
Concerning GNT’s reduction of the text in verses 24-25 see the comment at
29.21-22.

29.26-28
RSV
 26 “On the fifth day nine bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without blemish, 27
with the cereal offering and the drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs, by
number, according to the ordinance; 28 also one male goat for a sin offering; besides the
continual burnt offering and its cereal offering and its drink offering.

GNT
26 On the fifth day offer nine young bulls, two rams, and fourteen one-year-old male lambs,
all without any defects. 27–28 Offer with them all the other offerings required for the first day.

Only the day and the number of bulls (nine) is different from verses 23-25.
Concerning GNT’s reduction of the text in verses 27-28 see the comment at
29.21-22.

29.29-31
RSV
29 “On the sixth day eight bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without blemish,
30with the cereal offering and the drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs,
by number, according to the ordinance; 31 also one male goat for a sin offering; besides the
continual burnt offering, its cereal offering, and its drink offerings.

GNT
29 On the sixth day offer eight young bulls, two rams, and fourteen one-year-old male
lambs, all without any defects. 30–31 Offer with them all the other offerings required for the first
day.

Only the day and the number of bulls (eight) is different from verses 26-28.
Concerning GNT’s reduction of the text in verses 30-31 see the comment at
29.21-22.

29.32-34
RSV
32 “On the seventh day seven bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without
blemish, 33 with the cereal offering and the drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for
the lambs, by number, according to the ordinance; 34 also one male goat for a sin offering;
besides the continual burnt offering, its cereal offering, and its drink offering.

GNT
32 On the seventh day offer seven young bulls, two rams, and fourteen one-year-old male
lambs, all without any defects. 33–34 Offer with them all the other offerings required for the first
day.

On the seventh day there is a perfect match of seven bulls for the seven
days—a pairing of the sacred number.[< Alter] Otherwise verses 32-34 are the same
as verses 29-31.
Concerning GNT’s reduction of the text in verses 33-34 see the comment at
29.21-22.

29.35
RSV
35 “On the eighth day you shall have a solemn assembly: you shall do no laborious work,

GNT
35 On the eighth day gather for worship and do no work.
 Have a solemn assembly: Since this is the second gathering for worship
during this festival, it may be better to say “have another solemn assembly” or
“gather again for worship. The Hebrew term `atseret is the same as in Lev 23.36,
where the Handbook makes the same suggestion.
You shall do no laborious work: See at 28.18.

29.36
RSV
36but you shall offer a burnt offering, an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the Lord: one bull,
one ram, seven male lambs a year old without blemish,

GNT
36Offer a burnt offering as a food offering to the Lord, a smell pleasing to him: one young bull,
one ram, and seven one-year-old male lambs, all without any defects.

But: The Hebrew lacks such a strong conjunction marking contrast here (and
in 28.19 and 29.8). See the comments at 28.19.
You shall offer: A form of the verb hiqrib (“bring near, present”) occurs here
again. See at 28.1.
A burnt offering, an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the Lord: As on
the first day (see 29.13).

29.37-38
RSV
37 and the cereal offering and the drink offerings for the bull, for the ram, and for the lambs, by
number, according to the ordinance; 38 also one male goat for a sin offering; besides the
continual burnt offering and its cereal offering and its drink offering.

GNT
37–38 Offer with them all the other offerings required for the first day.

Apart from the exact number of animals (the bull … the ram …), verses 37-
38 are the same as verses 33-34.
Concerning GNT’s reduction of the text in verses 37-38 see the comment at
29.21-22.

29.39
RSV
39 “These you shall offer to the Lord at your appointed feasts, in addition to your votive
offerings and your freewill offerings, for your burnt offerings, and for your cereal offerings, and
for your drink offerings, and for your peace offerings.”

GNT
39 These are the regulations concerning the burnt offerings, grain offerings, wine offerings,
and fellowship offerings that you are to make to the Lord at your appointed festivals. These
are in addition to the offerings you give in fulfilment of a vow or as freewill offerings.

These you shall offer …: This verse closes and summarizes the whole series
of regulations in chapters 28 and 29. In some languages it will be helpful to show that
These refers backwards: “These, then, …” or “So [all] these …” (DUCL). Some
languages may have a special transitional word, conjunction, or phrase to signal the
functional notion of this concluding summary, which should be set off as a separate
paragraph. You shall offer is literally “you shall do”—see at 28.4.
At your appointed feasts: The Hebrew phrase is bemo`adeykhem. A singular
form of this phrase occurs at the beginning of this section as well, in 28.2 (“in its due
season”), so that the larger section covering chapters 28–29 is framed by these two
phrases. Perhaps in order to be consistent, NET translates “at your appointed times.”
In addition to your votive offerings and your freewill offerings: That is, in
addition to the offerings referred to in 15.3. See the discussion there (“vow … freewill
offering”). GNT puts this information in a separate sentence: “These are in addition to
…,” which will be helpful in many languages (see below).
For your burnt offerings, and for your cereal offerings, and for your
drink offerings, and for your peace offerings: (On peace offerings see at 6.14.)
How is this long phrase related to the rest of the verse? GNT and a number of other
translations connect it to the beginning of the verse (that is, to These you shall offer
to the Lord at your appointed feasts). In this way, the offerings in this phrase are
the same as all the offerings in chapters 28–29, the present section. It is according to
this interpretation that GNT has moved this phrase forward: “These are the
regulations concerning the burnt offerings, grain offerings, wine offerings, and
fellowship offerings that you are to make to the Lord at your appointed festivals ...”
(The animal, grain and oil, and drink offerings were to be submitted in addition to any
other vow, freewill or thanksgiving offerings brought by individuals, families, or the
community.[< Cole 481]) Buber and a number of other translations are based on the
same interpretation (even though they restructure the verse in different ways):
- These things you must present …, in addition to your vows and your freewill
offerings, as your burnt offerings, your grain offerings, your drink offerings,
your drink offerings, and your peace offerings. (NET, similarly NRSV);
- This you will prepare for the Lord as your burnt offerings, your food
offerings, your libation offerings and your peace offerings, besides your vow
offerings and your freewill offerings. (NBG51);
- In addition to what you vow and your freewill offerings, prepare these for the
Lord at your appointed feasts: your burnt offerings, grain offerings, drink
offerings and fellowship offerings. (NIV);
- These are the burnt offerings, grain offerings, wine offerings and peace
offerings which you must offer to the Lord on your festive days. They fall
outside your votive offerings and your voluntary gifts. (NBV, similarly DUCL
and GNT).
However, a similar number of translations connect these offerings to the votive and
freewill offerings:
- You shall do these for YHWH at your appointed times, aside from your vows
and your contributions for your burnt offerings and for your grain offerings
and for your libations and for your peace offerings. (Friedman);
- These offerings you must present to the Lord on your feasts, besides the burnt
offerings, flour offerings, libation offerings and slaughter offerings which you
offer because of a vow or as voluntary gifts. (WV95, similarly NFB).
The same interpretation is followed in TOB, NBJ98, FRCL, LUT84, EÜ, ZÜR,
GECL, REB, NLT.
Both interpretations fit in with chapter 15, where the votive and freewill
offerings are regulated (15.3). However, the first interpretation (GNT and others) does
more justice to the grammatical construction of 29.39 in the Hebrew (the specific use
of the preposition le-).
29.40
RSV
40 y And Moses told the people of Israel everything just as the Lord had commanded
Moses.

y 29.40 Ch 30.1 in Heb

GNT
40 So Moses told the people of Israel everything that the Lord had commanded him.

As noted in RSV, 29.40 is numbered 30.1 in the Hebrew. That is to say: according to
the traditional chapter and verse numbering applied to the Hebrew text, chapter 30
already starts at this verse, which is numbered 29.40 in RSV, GNT, and many other
translations. However, in one of the most important manuscripts of the Hebrew text
there is a short break in the text after this verse, not before. This verse is obviously the
conclusion of the present chapter and section; it summarizes how Moses carried out
the command (28.1-2) to instruct the Israelites. This is in line with other concluding
formulae in Numbers,[< Ashley 572] such as at 1.19, 3.51, 4.37, 5.4, 9.22, 15.36,
27.23.

30.1-16
Section Heading: Votive and freewill offerings have just been mentioned in 29.39.
This forms a bridge to chapter 30, which takes the subject of vows further,
emphasizing their binding nature. Thus the heading in GNT is quite general: “Rules
about Vows.”
However, after verse two, the chapter focuses on the women that make vows,
not on the content of the vows themselves. Hence, headings such as “The vows made
by women” (NRSV, similarly NBV) and “The vows made by women in relation to
their fathers and husbands.” In terms of the larger structure of the concluding portion
of Numbers, chapter 30, which deals in general with the subject of women’s rights,
refers back to the inheritance case of Zelophehad’s daughters in 27.1-11, which is
brought up again in the book’s final chapter (36). Thus, at the beginning, middle, and
end of this portion the rights of a normally underprivileged group are addressed.[<
Ashley 576]
The laws in this chapter determine who is ultimately responsible for a vow.
They distinguish between situations in which a woman’s vow may or may not be
made void by the objection of the father or husband in what was a patriarchal society:
- the vow of a man (verse 2)
- the vow of an unmarried girl, who is still under her father’s authority (verses
3-5)
- the vow of an unmarried girl who is about to get married and thus becomes
subject to her husband (verses 6-8)
- the vow of a widow or divorced woman (an exception: a woman who is not
subject to the authority of a man; verse 9)
- the vow of a married woman, who is subject to her husband (verses 10-15)[<
Noth 225] (According to Alter, NET, and Levine most of these verses are still
about the widow. This will be discussed below.)
Wenham suggests a parallel structure of two groups of cases in a scheme
typical of biblical law:[< Wenham 206]
Men’s vows unbreakable (2) Widows’ and divorcees’ vows
unbreakable (9)
Girls’ vows voidable by father (3-5) Wives’ vows voidable by husband
without penalty (10-12)
Girls’ vows voidable by fiancé (6-8) Wives’ vows voidable with penalty (13-
15)

Ashley proposes another outline that reveals the conceptual symmetry that is
manifested in this chapter:[< Ashley 578]
a. Particular type of woman cited (verses 3, 6, 10)
b. Condition for validating the vow (verses 4, 7, 11, 14)
c. Condition for voiding the vow (verses 5a, 8a, 12a, 14)
d. Consequences of voiding the vow (verses 5b, 8b, 12b, 15)
The section ends with a short summary in verse 16, which clearly establishes
an inclusio with its beginning in verse 1. (The RSV verse numbering is followed here.
See at 29.40. The Hebrew verse numbering in this section would be 30.2-17.)

30.1
RSV
1 Moses said to the heads of the tribes of the people of Israel, “This is what the Lord has
commanded.

GNT
1 Moses gave the following instructions to the leaders of the tribes of Israel.

Tribes: See at 1.4.

This is what the Lord has commanded: GNT has left this untranslated,
perhaps attempting to combine the notion of “command” with “instructions.”
However, this sounds as if Moses himself is giving these instructions, which is a
rather serious distortion. Among translations which similarly reduce the levels of
direct speech, there are more helpful models: “Moses conveyed to the chiefs of the
tribes of Israel other commands of the Lord: …” (FRCL); “The Lord told Moses to
say to Israel’s tribal leaders: …” (CEV).

30.2
RSV
2When a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall
not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.

GNT
2When a man makes a vow to give something to the Lord or takes an oath to abstain from
something, he must not break his promise, but must do everything that he said he would.

The Hebrew of this verse is marked stylistically by a series of phrases in

which the direct object is of the same root as the verb: “vow a vow,” “swear a
swearing,” “bind a bond.” Thus, the general principle that vows of any sort must be
kept is asserted firmly.
A man: Some languages may need to specify “(adult) male person” (Chewa).
Vow … oath … pledge: The first term (Hebrew neder) refers to a conditional
promise made to God: if God will do such-and-such, the vow taker commits himself
to do something and take a certain action. The second term, shevu`ah, is an oath
binding from the moment it is pronounced.[< Alter] The third term, ’issar, is a
promise to abstain from something and not to do it.[< Noth 224; already Rashi] Thus,
two terms for vow are used here: neder for the positive vows and ’issar for the
negative.[<Ashley 577] This understanding is reflected in the GNT’s renderings.
Levine, on the other hand, relates ’issar to the Aramaic contractual term ’esar:
“binding agreement.”[< Levine 429-30] In any case, translators may need to do some
research in their language to find the appropriate terminology to maintain the Hebrew
distinctions, if possible; if not, some creative reconstruction may be necessary to
avoid dull repetition, for example, of the word “promise to do/not to do.”
Vows a vow: “Makes a vow to give something” (GNT). But a vow might
involve some other type of action on behalf of the Lord. Thus, a more general
expression “makes a vow to do something for the Lord” may be more accurate.
“Doing” would include “giving.”
To bind himself by a pledge: In the Hebrew, the verb form le’esor and the
term ’issar are of the same root. Bind himself has the meaning of “to limit himself,”
“to impose an abstention on himself.” GNT’s “takes an oath to abstain from
something” might be more simply expressed as “takes an oath not to do something.”
Of course, the target language may have a specific verb which expresses this negative
notion.
He shall not break his word: Literally, “he shall not defile/desecrate/profane
(yachel) his word.” Some languages may have idiomatic expressions for this: “he
must not smash that promise of his” (Chewa).
According to all that proceeds out of his mouth: This reiterates the
preceding negative expression in a positive way for emphasis. Languages may have a
similar idiom that would be just as forceful, for example: “as it has come over his
lips” (LUT84), “the things that he has vowed with his mouth” (Chewa). If an idiom is
not possible, NLT’s “exactly what he said he would do” and GNT’s “everything that
he said he would” are helpful models.

30.3-4
RSV
3 Or when a woman vows a vow to the Lord, and binds herself by a pledge, while within her
father's house, in her youth, 4 and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she
has bound herself, and says nothing to her; then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge
by which she has bound herself shall stand.

GNT
3 When a young woman still living in her father's house makes a vow to give something to
the Lord or promises to abstain from something, 4 she must do everything that she vowed or
promised unless her father raises an objection when he hears about it.

Or when: The Hebrew particle kiy simply introduces another case concerning
which a command is given. Or is meant to do the same in RSV; NRSV has dropped
it. Since this verse begins the list of vows for women, it may be helpful to indicate
this by a new paragraph, as in the GNT.
A woman: Since this is clearly referring to a “young woman” (GNT), some
languages may have to make an additional specification, for example: “A woman if
she happens to be a maiden” (Chewa).
 As in verse 2, the text makes a distinction between a positive vow and a
negative pledge. Therefore, the corresponding terminology should be used in
translation.
Within her father’s house: This expression may cause difficulties in
societies, like the Chewa, that are traditionally matrilineal and matrilocal. Thus
children, whether male or female, are not said to be “living in their father’s house,”
but in the Chewa case simply “at home” [literally ‘at their place’]. However, because
of the importance of the father in the following discussion, an unnatural expression
may have to be used “in the house of her/his father.”
And her father hears of her vow and of her pledge: The Samaritan
Pentateuch and the ancient Greek and Syriac translations (the Septuagint and Peshitta)
have plural forms: “vows” and “pledges.” There is no need to follow this—although
the plural may be more natural in some languages, it seems likely that just one vow is
being referred to, perhaps repeated, but no different. The girl’s father hears of her
vow—probably not that he “heard” it directly. A different verbal expression will
probably be needed to convey this nuance. GNT’s “when he hears about it” could also
be expressed as “as soon as he hears about it.”
In her youth: This expression conveys the notion that the woman was
“young,” but not exactly how young (though old enough to know the significance of
vows in Israelite culture). Jewish tradition has it that a “young woman” (GNT; RSV:
woman) is classified as a na`arah beginning at the age of twelve years and a day. The
Hebrew terms na`arah and ne`urah (“youth”) are both of the root n`r.
And says nothing to her: Literally, “and keeps silent towards her” about the
vow that she made.
All her vows … and every pledge: In the Hebrew, vows is plural while
pledge is singular. Instead of the singular, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Syriac
Peshitta have “pledges” in the plural as well. In this case, whatever sounds more
natural in the social setting being described may be used in translation.
By which she has bound herself: This phrase refers to the “pledge,” that is,
to her self-imposed obligation to abstain from something.
… shall stand: That is, they shall remain valid, be in force, or be formally
established with the approval of her father.
Note how the GNT streamlines the expression of these verses so that they are
less redundant and easier to follow. If this wording sounds more natural in translation,
it may be used as a model. This recommendation applies throughout the various
sections of this chapter.

30.5
RSV
5But if her father expresses disapproval to her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers,
no pledge by which she has bound herself, shall stand; and the Lord will forgive her, because
her father opposed her.

GNT
5But if her father forbids her to fulfil the vow when he hears about it, she is not required to
keep it. The Lord will forgive her, because her father refused to let her keep it.

Expresses disapproval to her: The Hebrew verb heni’ also means “restrains”
(NJPSV), forbids” (GNT). Compare also NET: “overrules.” But why would a father
do this? “If the young woman entered into a vow or took an oath that she might not be
able to fulfil or one that might cause hardship or embarrassment to the family, the
patriarch could cancel the obligation.”[< Cole 483]
Vow … pledge by which she has bound herself: On this distinction see at
30.3-4.
Shall stand: The same Hebrew verb as in verse 4 is used here, but in this case
it may need to be expressed quite differently, for example: “she is not required to keep
it” (GNT); “there is no law which forces that child to do/keep it” (Chewa).
Forgive or “pardon” (FRCL), “untie” (Chewa): The central meaning here is
the legal sense of releasing (NBV, DUCL) the young woman from the commitment or
obligation that she now cannot keep. From another perspective, the non-performance
of the vow incurs guilt, but since the woman has been prevented from fulfilling the
vow by a higher authority, the Lord absolves her of this vow.[< Ashley 580]
Opposed her: In the Hebrew, the same verb, heni’, occurs here as at the
beginning of this verse. This correspondence might have been retained in the GNT:
“because her father [or, it was her father who] forbade her.

30.6-7
RSV
6 And if she is married to a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her
lips by which she has bound herself, 7 and her husband hears of it, and says nothing to her on
the day that he hears; then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound
herself shall stand.

GNT
6 If an unmarried woman makes a vow, whether deliberately or carelessly, or promises to
abstain from something, and then marries, 7 she must do everything that she vowed or
promised unless her husband raises an objection when he hears about it.

If she is married to a husband: Literally, the Hebrew idiom reads: “if she
indeed becomes a man’s” (similar to Alter). NRSV has revised the translation: “If she
marries.” The na`arah of the preceding section is undoubtedly in view here too, but
she would seem to be older now and closer to marriage—hence first referred to as “an
unmarried woman” (GNT). The different situation and case that begins in verse 6 may
need to be marked by a new paragraph.
While under her vows: That is, while she is still under obligation to fulfil her
earlier vows. Literally the Hebrew has: “and her vows are [still] upon her.” GNT
reformulates this and expresses the sense well: “If an unmarried woman makes a vow
[the plural form is not in focus] … and then marries.” NRSV follows this
interpretation too: “If she marries, while obligated by her vows …” Compare also
NIV: “If she marries after she makes a vow …”
Any thoughtless utterance of her lips: This presents a new kind of verbal
obligation, one that is not even distinguished by the term “vow.” This would be an
“impulsive pledge” (NLT) or “a vow uttered without thinking/considering well”
(Chewa). GNT includes “carelessly.” She is not able to foresee the potential effects of
a change in circumstances: coming under the jurisdiction of a husband who may feel
adversely affected by an obligation she took upon herself while single.[< Gane 762]
And says nothing to her … shall stand: As in verse 4; see the discussion
there (only “all” is lacking with reference to “vows”).

30.8
RSV
8 But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he expresses disapproval, then he
shall make void her vow which was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips, by which
she bound herself; and the Lord will forgive her.

GNT
8 But if her husband forbids her to fulfil the vow when he hears about it, she is not required to
keep it. The Lord will forgive her.

On the day that her husband comes to hear of it: Lit. “on the day of her
husband’s hearing.” In some languages this temporal phrase (GNT: “when he hears
about it”) may be more naturally expressed at the beginning of the sentence; in other
languages the location makes no difference.
He expresses disapproval: See at 30.5. As in that verse, the Hebrew includes
“to her.”
Then he shall make void her vow: The verb (hefer) means “suspend, annul,
render ineffectual” a covenant, promise or prior agreement. The Samaritan Pentateuch
and the Syriac Peshitta have a plural: “her vows.”
Forgive: See at 30.5.

30.9
RSV
9But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself,
shall stand against her.

GNT
9 A widow or a divorced woman must keep every vow she makes and every promise to
abstain from something.

The text now moves on to the subject of vows of a widow or divorced woman.
There was no man in her life to assume legal responsibility for her. A woman in that
position did not return to her premarital state, when her father could annul her vows.
The fact that widows and divorcees are classified together implies that in the
functional relationship, the divorcee’s former husband was viewed as if he were dead,
like the late husband of the widow.[< Cole 485] Thus, the situation involving the case
of an unbreakable vow parallels that of men in general as discussed in verse two (see
the chart above).
But: The Hebrew lacks a strong conjunction marking contrast here. In the
context, however, the case of the widow or divorced woman does stand in contrast to
the previous cases (where there is a man who has the responsibility). In line with this,
NRSV and NJPSV put this verse in brackets, after which they treat verse 10 as the
continuation of the case of the woman who has just married.
Divorced woman: As the Handbook on Leviticus mentions at 21.7, in some
languages this idea is conveyed by expressions like “driven out” or “sent away,”
which is very similar to the actual Hebrew word. In other languages, the nature of the
divorce may need to be more precisely specified in relation to the prevailing
sociocultural setting, for example, “to set free”—divorce with the permission of both
couple’s families (Chewa).
This example illustrates that the concept of “divorce” is a good example of the
problem of cognitive frame mismatches across languages and cultures. Being “sent
away” (by the husband) and “set free” (by mutual agreement of the families) are two
very different social practices, but a translator may have no choice but to use the
common term available for “divorced” and then either add a note or depend on the
context to clarify the text’s intended meaning.
Shall stand against her: This emphasizes the woman’s obligation to fulfil her
vow, failing which, she would place herself under God’s judgment (implied).

30.10-11
RSV
10And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound herself by a pledge with an oath, 11 and
her husband heard of it, and said nothing to her, and did not oppose her; then all her vows
shall stand, and every pledge by which she bound herself shall stand.

GNT
10 If a married woman makes a vow or promises to abstain from something, 11 she must do
everything that she vowed or promised unless her husband raises an objection when he
hears about it.

If she vowed in her husband’s house …: Alter takes this as a continued

reference to the widow or divorced woman, noting that commitments she had made
while married are still valid or void depending on what her husband had said.
Similarly, NRSV, NET, and NJPSV treat verse 10 onwards as a continuation of the
case of the woman who (in verse 6-8) had just married: “So, too, if, while in her
husband's household, she makes a vow …” (NJPSV).
However, this interpretation becomes problematic in verse 12 (see the
discussion there). It thus seems more plausible to treat verse 10 onwards as a different
case, indeed, the fourth and final one: the situation of “a married woman” (she is
correctly made explicit in GNT and NBS02). The concluding and most detailed case
relates to married women who make vows or oaths.[< Cole 485; also Ashley 581]
Other translations which apply verses 10-11 to the married woman and render
the verbs with a present tense are NIV (“a woman living with her husband”), REB,
CEV, NLT, LUT84, GECL, FRCL, PV, NBV, DUCL.
As noted earlier, local cultural perception and expression may influence the
wording of references such as in her husband’s house. This would be very unnatural
in a Chewa setting, for example, and is better left implicit as in the GNT.
Or bound herself by a pledge with an oath: The terms are the same as in
30.3.
And her husband heard of it: The GNT’s location of this phrase (“when he
hears about it”) at the end of the sentence may be quite unnatural in some languages
(e.g., Chewa).
And said nothing to her: Literally, “and kept silent towards her.” Compare
30.4.
And did not oppose her: The same verb, heni’, is used as in 30.5.
All her vows … and every pledge: As in 30.4. In the Hebrew, vows is plural
while pledge is singular. Instead of the singular, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Greek
Septuagint, and the Syriac Peshitta have “pledges” in the plural as well. Note the
smoother reading of the GNT, which simplifies the description of the case study being
presented in these verses.
… shall stand: As in 30.4. Levine, who agrees with Alter that this still refers
to the widow or divorced woman, notes that since her husband had remained silent,
there was now nothing that could be done to release her from the obligation.[< Levine
433] The general principle that applies in these verses seems to be that the husband
may confirm by mere inaction or he may formally nullify his wife’s vow or oath.[<
Cole 485]

30.12
RSV
12 But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever
proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning her pledge of herself, shall not
stand: her husband has made them void, and the Lord will forgive her.

GNT
12 But if her husband forbids her to fulfil the vow when he hears about it, she is not required to
keep it. The Lord will forgive her, because her husband prevented her from keeping her vow.

But if her husband makes them null and void: Alter translates: “But if her
husband indeed annulled [past tense] them.” Alter, Levine, and NET take this verse as
another continued reference to the widow or divorced woman. However, the problem
with this interpretation is that the Hebrew type of verb at this point (yefar) can hardly
refer to the past—it is combined with the phrase on the day that he hears them.
GNT’s present tense form “forbids” is more plausible. Other translations with present
tenses in this part of the verse are NIV, REB, CEV, NLT, LUT84, GECL, TOB,
NBJ98, FRCL, PV, NBV, WV95, DUCL. (For the lexical meaning of the verb see at
30.8.) The presence of the intensifying infinitive absolute (hafer) seems to add an
important nuance to the verb here: “clearly nullifies” (NET), “clearly repudiates”
(REB).
Shall not stand: That is, they are not valid.
Her husband has made them void: At this point in the verse, the type of verb
(hafer) highlights that this is now an accomplished fact.
Forgive: See at 30.5.

30.13
RSV
13 Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband
may make void.

GNT
13 Her husband has the right to affirm or to annul any vow or promise that she has made.

Vow … binding oath: The terms are the same as in 30.2. See the discussion
there on “vow … oath … pledge.”
To afflict herself or “to deny herself” (NRSV). GNT leaves it untranslated.
See at 29.7. Here, any kind of self-denial seems to be in mind.[< Budd 323] On the
other hand, the use of this same verb in conjunction with the feast of Atonement
(29.7) may suggest some sort of a religious vow, such as fasting or to forego sexual
relations for a time.
Establish: Literally “cause to stand.” The Hebrew verb (heqim) can be
understood as “validate” (compare NRSV), “confirm” (NET), or “reaffirm.”

30.14
RSV
14 But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or
all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her
on the day that he heard of them.
GNT
14 But if, by the day after he hears of the vow, he has raised no objection, she must do
everything that she has vowed or promised. He has affirmed the vow by not objecting on the
day he heard of it.

Milgrom describes the reinforcing chiastic structure of this verse as follows:[<

Milgrom 1990, xxii; Sherwood 183]
A But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day,
B then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her;
B’ he has established them,
A because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them.
Says nothing: The Hebrew verbal construction is emphatic: “remains
completely silent” (NET); “says nothing at all” or “has no objection at all” (see GNT)
would be other ways to express this in English.
From day to day: This appears to be a Hebrew idiom, which may be
misleading if rendered literally as in RSV; GNT seeks to capture the idea with “by the
day after”; another possibility might be “within a day.”
Establishes … has established: See at 30.13. The emphasis and focus of the
Hebrew text (as shown also by the structure above) may be brought out by a separate
concluding sentence as in the GNT.

30.15
RSV
15 But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her
iniquity.”

GNT
15But if he later annuls the vow, he must suffer the consequences for the failure to fulfil the
vow.

The husband should make his decision immediately, as soon as he learns about
the vow. If he remains silent, the vows are still binding. If the woman then ignores her
vow, it is the husband who bears the consequences of the violated commitment.[<
Alter]
If he makes them null and void: As in 30.12.
After he has heard of them: A different time phrase is used in the Hebrew,
one that seems to indicate that a longer period of time is involved: “after [the day] he
finds out” (NJPSV); “later” (GNT).[< Noordtzij 269; Ashley 582]

30.16
RSV
16 These are the statutes which the Lord commanded Moses, as between a man and his
wife, and between a father and his daughter, while in her youth, within her father's house.

GNT
16 These are the rules that the Lord gave Moses concerning vows made by an unmarried
woman living in her father's house or by a married woman.

This is clearly a summary verse that concludes all the instructions concerning
vows and pledges in chapter 30. In some languages, such a boundary sentence needs
to be marked in a special way, for example, “These very ones, they are the commands
which…” (Chewa).
Statutes: As mentioned at 9.3, a statute (chuqqah) means a task, obligation,
or law. The target language may have a specific legal term that refers to the type of
regulations found in this chapter.
As between a man and his wife: The literalistic RSV rendering sounds
awkward in English and will probably sound the same if translated correspondingly in
other languages. The GNT offers a more natural model.
Within her father’s house: See at verse 3.

31.1-54
Section Heading: The new generation of Israelites carries out the Lord’s command
(25.16-18) and wages war against Midian. However, most of the chapter actually
deals with the ritual rules concerning purification after a war (31.19-24) and the
division of the loot (31.25-47)—rules to maintain the purity of the Lord’s people.
(This may explain why chapter 31 comes at this point in the book—after the treatment
of cultic matters in chapters 28–30.)
Although these features might justify GNT’s heading “The Holy War against
Midian” at 31.1, a term like “holy war” is better avoided in the heading. This is
because the notion of a “holy war” is rather complex, and a literal translation of this
phrase could well be misleading or even erroneous. In the history of the ancient Near
East, there are not many wars which are described as specifically initiated by deities,
like this one.[< Gane 768] The following alternatives are more neutral: “The war
against the Midianites” (NBS02); “Victory over the Midianites and division of the
loot” (LUT84); “Punishment and plunder of the people of Midian.” NIV’s heading
“Vengeance on the Midianites” (or even “God commands the Israelites to take
vengeance on the Midianites”) is probably the most helpful because it points to a
relationship with an earlier passage (25.16-18) and the term “vengeance” refers to the
opening verb in 31.1.
A number of translations divide the chapter into parts, each with a new section
heading. See, for example, the heading in NRSV, CEV, and NLT at verse 25:
“Disposition of Captives and Booty” (NRSV), and in GNT at verse 13 (“The Army
Returns”) as well as verse 25 (“Division of the Loot”; see the discussion there).
However, these proposals miss the theme of “purity,” which is so important in this
chapter. The proportion of this chapter dealing with the war itself is comparatively
small, verses 1-12 at most and only verse 7 in particular. The rest of the chapter is
concerned with issues of purity (13-24), dividing the spoils equitably (25-47), and
making a free-will thank-offering to the Lord (48-54). In view of this, perhaps two
major headings are needed, for example: “Vengeance on the Midianites” (1-12),
followed by “Procedures for Purification” or “Maintaining Purity and Equity among
the Israelites” (13-54). (On the specific question whether in this case a new section
should start with verse 13 or 12, see the discussion below at 31.12.)
The new generation, unlike the old one, is completely obedient to God’s
commands, so he gives them total victory over a people who had earlier seduced the
old generation into idolatry (25.16-18). Thus, the new generation’s first military
victory reverses the old generation’s military defeat (chapters 13–14).[< Olson 180]
Central to this chapter are the power of the Lord to defeat enemies, the need to
support the sanctuary, priests and Levites, and the notion of maintaining purity
during all these proceedings.
 Moses’ command to slaughter the young boys and sexually active women in
31.14-18 stands in contrast to the kpr (“purification) of “the officers” in 31.48-54.
Both actions can be viewed as enactments of the Lord’s nqm (“vengeance”) and
attempts to avert the “plague” (Num 31.16; cf. 25.7-9,18, and Exo 30.12), but each
offers a very different solution to that threat. In both events the holiness of the Lord is
highlighted—by ridding the camp of pollution, on the one hand, and presenting
offerings for his sanctuary on the other.
Practices of war similar to those in this chapter were known in ancient Near
Eastern societies, for example, Mari and Moab.[< Levine 467-8] They also remind us
of the rules for warfare in Deut 20.10-18. From a somewhat different, forward-
looking perspective, chapter 31has the function of providing case law precedents for
future holy war endeavors for the generation that would enter the land of Canaan and
for generations to come.[< Cole 490]

31.1-2
RSV
1 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Avenge the people of Israel on the Midianites; afterward you
shall be gathered to your people.”

GNT
1 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Punish the Midianites for what they did to the people of Israel.
After you have done that, you will die.”

The Lord said to Moses: This introductory speech formula clearly indicates
the beginning of a new section of the narrative discourse at this point.
Avenge the people of Israel: Literally “avenge the vengeance of …,” which
is an emphatic construction in Hebrew, comparable to “Be sure to …” The basic
meaning of the verb is to “take revenge” or “vindicate yourselves against.”[< Ashley
591] In some languages, “punish” (GNT, GECL) will express the meaning more
clearly. In other languages, there may be several verbs available to express the notion
of “vengeance,” those having a positive as distinct from those with a negative
connotation. One of the former should of course be selected.
On the Midianites: Literally “from the Midianites,” which express the nuance
of retribution.[< Levine 450] GNT explicitly states the underlying implication: “for
what they did to.”
Afterward: In many languages (like Chewa), it will sound more natural to
express this as a separate sentence, “After you have done that” (GNT).
You shall be gathered to your people: See at 20.24 and 27.13.

31.3-4
RSV
3 And Moses said to the people, “Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go
against Midian, to execute the Lord's vengeance on Midian. 4 You shall send a thousand from
each of the tribes of Israel to the war.”

GNT
3 So Moses said to the people, “Get ready for war, so that you can attack Midian and punish
them for what they did to the Lord. 4 From each tribe of Israel send a thousand men to war.”

And Moses said to the people: In the Hebrew, Moses’ words mirror the
construction of verse 2. All along the long journey from Egypt to the border of
Canaan, Moses faithfully relayed to the Israelites what the Lord said to him—right to
this final major joint enterprise against another prominent enemy along the way.
Arm: The verbal root ch-l-ts can mean either “to pick out” or “to equip, to
arm.” Another possible translation is “gird” (for battle), since this Hebrew root seems
to be related to the word for “loins.”[< Levine 450] In translation, a full phrase may
be required: “give instruments [weapons] of war.”
From among you: This is a partitive construction in Hebrew, indicating that
not all of the available soldiers were involved (as GNT’s rendering “get ready for
war” might suggest). NLT and Chewa make this clear: “Choose some men and arm
them.” The selective nature of this military expedition is made clear in verses 4 and 5.
Go against Midian: Literally “be against Midian,” but with the nuance
“move/act against.” Hence renderings such as “turn against” (NBG51 and HSV), “go
to war against” (NIV), “attack” (FRCL, DHE, NBV), and “pour war upon” (Chewa).
To execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian: This is the same expression
that was used in verse 1. Repetition of the object of the Lord’s punishment, “[the
people of] Midian,” is of course a common technique for showing emphasis.
For the war … to the war: The Hebrew is the same in both cases. Alter
translates “for/to the army,” but the phrase can also be interpreted to mean “for
military service” and “for/to war” (GNT). See the discussion of the Hebrew term
tsava’ at 4.3.
A thousand: That is, “a thousand men” (GNT) or more precisely, “soldiers.”
This was only a token representation; being a “holy war,” it was not the size of
Israel’s army that was significant—only the fact that the Lord was fighting on their
behalf.
Tribe: see at 1.4.

31.5
RSV
5 So there were provided, out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand from each tribe, twelve
thousand armed for war.

GNT
5 So a thousand men were chosen from each tribe, a total of 12,000 men ready for battle.

There were provided: NIV is similar: “were supplied.” This rendering seems
a rather wide and broad translation of the rare Hebrew verb. More precise would be
“were numbered” (already the ancient Greek translation) and “were chosen” (GNT,
GECL, and already the ancient Syriac translation). Compare also “conscripted”
(NRSV) and “recruited” (NBV, WV95). The specific verb corresponds to the specific
number of men who were recruited.
Out of the thousands of Israel: This significant qualification (Chewa:
“among the many-many men of Israel”) is left untranslated in the GNT. The fact is
that more men could—and from a human perspective, should—have been conscripted
for this battle, but numbers were not necessary, for the Lord was in charge of military
operations (verse 7).
Armed for war: Or “battle-ready” (similar to GNT). The Hebrew has a form
of the same verb as in 31.3, as well as the same term, tsava “war.”

31.6
RSV
6And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand from each tribe, together with Phinehas the
son of Eleazar the priest, with the vessels of the sanctuary and the trumpets for the alarm in
his hand.

GNT
6 Moses sent them to war under the command of Phinehas son of Eleazar the priest, who
took charge of the sacred objects and the trumpets for giving signals.

A thousand from each tribe: Again, GNT leaves out this significant number,
which is not recommended as Moses now explicitly carries out the Lord’s commands.
Together with Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest: Phinehas (who is
already mentioned in 25.7 and 11), not Eleazar himself: any contamination by contact
with dead bodies in the battlefield is strictly forbidden for the high priest (Lev 21.11).
The implication of together with is more clearly expressed as “under the command
of” (GNT).
The vessels of the sanctuary: See at 3.31. Here in 31.6 it is uncertain which
sacred utensils are to be brought. Perhaps this is why some translations give a much
more general rendering: “the sacred objects” (GNT, FRCL, NLT, NBJ98, NBV).
Such a generic rendering would, for example, include the Ark, and this would change
the meaning considerably. Sacred utensils were probably signs of holy war,[< Olson
176] serving as symbols of the priest’s status [< Niditch 83] or, more likely, of the
Lord’s presence during the battle.[< Duguid 331] Perhaps it is even a reference to the
sacred lots: the Urim (see 27.21) and Thummim.[< Levine 452 after the Targum]
The trumpets for the alarm: The phrase is similar to 10.9 (“an alarm with
the trumpets”)—the verb in 10.9 and the term teru`ah here are of the same root.
GNT’s “giving signals” may be confusing. “Trumpets for sounding the battle signal”
(CEV, FRCL, PV, TLA03) or “the trumpets for sounding the [battle] charge” (NLT)
expresses the function of the signal sounded by these trumpets more clearly.
In his hand: Since Phinehas could not have carried all these objects himself,
GNT’s “who took charge of” or “who was in charge of” (NET) are helpful models.

31.7-8
RSV
7 They warred against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and slew every male. 8 They
slew the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five
kings of Midian; and they also slew Balaam the son of Beor with the sword.

GNT
7 They attacked Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and killed all the men, 8
including the five kings of Midian: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba. They also killed Balaam
son of Beor.

They warred against Midian: The Hebrew verb is of the same root as tsava’
“war” in verses 3-5. However, a somewhat different translation might be needed in
this context, for example: “attacked” (GNT), “fought against” (NET).
Slew every male: Not every Midianite male in the entire region, but all those
in the army that fought in this particular battle.
With the rest of their slain: This phrase refers to the Midianite troops who
had been killed in battle. The names of the five “kings,” or “chiefs,” of Midian are
listed again in the same order in Josh 13.21.
Zur: Cozbi’s father (25.15).
 Balaam: 31.16 refers to Balaam as the instigator of the Israelites’ apostasy. In
some languages, a special demonstrative pronoun may be needed to indicate the fact
that Balaam was an important personage mentioned earlier in the narrative (24.25):
“that [already known] Balaam” (Chewa).

31.9-10
RSV
9 And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and they
took as booty all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods. 10 All their cities in the places
where they dwelt, and all their encampments, they burned with fire,

GNT
9 The people of Israel captured the Midianite women and children, took their cattle and
their flocks, plundered all their wealth, 10 and burnt all their cities and camps.

The people of Israel: More accurately, “the soldiers of Israel” or “the Israelite
army” (NLT).
Took captive: As in 21.1, not as in 21.3 (“they utterly destroyed them …”).
For example, Chewa has “they grabbed them [alive].” The Israelites did not kill these
women and children (compare verse 15). War regulations as found in Deuteronomy
20 seem to be operative in the minds of the Israelite commanders here. Deut 20.13-14
dictates that in a holy war, the Israelites must kill all adult males but can take the
women, children, cattle and everything else as booty.
Took as booty: Different verbs may be needed in translation with reference to
livestock on the one hand and inanimate goods or “wealth” (GNT) on the other.
Hence the two verbs in GNT: “took” and “plundered.”
Cattle: The Hebrew term behemah can refer to animals in the most general
sense; here it refers to domestic animals (of all types).
Flocks: The Hebrew term miqneh (which RSV has translated as “cattle” in
20.19) is very general as well and includes all types of herded animals—also donkeys,
camels, sheep, and goats. “Livestock” is a good alternative in some languages.
All their cities in the places where they dwelt: Or, slightly more literally,
“all their cities in their areas of settlement.” The term “towns” may be needed if
“cities” implies large, established (even modern!) communities.
And all their encampments: Probably circular encampments characteristic of
desert tribes.[< Levine 454] In any case, these dwelling places would be less
permanent than the “cities” just mentioned.
Burned with fire: The verb should imply a complete, not just a partial
“burning.”

31.11
RSV
11 and took all the spoil and all the booty, both of man and of beast.

GNT
11 They took all the loot that they had captured, including the prisoners and the animals,

The Hebrew terms for spoil and booty are very close in meaning, referring to
goods that have been plundered. This is probably why GNT reduces the two to one
and only translates “loot.” However, if synonyms are available in the target language,
they should be used, especially if this serves to highlight the totality and amount of
“plunder” (NLT) involved.
Both of man and of beast: The Hebrew ha’adam can be rendered as “human
being” instead of man. For this reason, a generic rendering like “both human and
animal” is recommended. In this way, the pair of words involved is still contrastive—
something which is no longer the case in GNT’s rendering “including the prisoners
and the animals.”
The GNT begins a new sentence here in verse 11 and carries it on into verse
12 as one long summary statement that brings this first, the military section of chapter
31 to a conclusion. In many languages, this is a more natural arrangement than that of
the RSV (or ESV), which adds verse 11 to verse 10. On the other hand, it may be that
verse 11 constitutes a short summarizing sentence on its own—“Thus, they took
…”—that concludes the first major discourse unit of this chapter.

31.12
RSV
12 Then they brought the captives and the booty and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the
priest, and to the congregation of the people of Israel, at the camp on the plains of Moab by
the Jordan at Jericho.

GNT
12 and brought them to Moses and Eleazar and to the community of the people of Israel, who
were at the camp on the plains of Moab across the Jordan from Jericho.

Then they brought: Depending on one’s interpretation of the sentence

connections and discourse structure in verses 11-12, it may be necessary to specify
“the soldiers” for they and to retain the mention of the captives and the booty (see
verse 11), rather than leaving “them” implicit as in GNT.
Congregation: As discussed at 1.2, a better equivalent for the Hebrew ‘edah
would be “community.”
Plains: See at 22.1. This important geographical reference, which runs as a
thematic motif through the final third of Numbers, normally serves to initiate a major
discourse unit (except at the very end of the book, 36.13), for example: 26.3, 33.50,
and 35.1. (This was already noted at the beginning of 22.1-21.) If this interpretation is
accepted, then a new paragraph or section begins at verse 12.

31.13-14
RSV
13 Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation, went forth to
meet them outside the camp. 14 And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the
commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in
the war.

GNT
13 Moses, Eleazar, and all the other leaders of the community went out of the camp to meet
the army. 14 Moses was angry with the officers, the commanders of battalions and companies,
who had returned from the war.

Eleazar the priest: It may or may not be necessary to specify here that
Eleazar is the priest, as in the Hebrew. GNT leaves this qualification out (also in
verse 12), perhaps since it was already mentioned in verse 6. However, it would seem
to be worth retaining here in verse 13 where Israel’s leaders are mentioned.
 Leaders of the congregation: The Hebrew has nesi’ey ha`edah: “chieftains of
the community.” As noted at 1.16, nasi’ refers to a prominent and distinguished
leader, for example, a much respected sheikh of a tribe; thus leaders seems a rather
flat translation. In English, chiefs or “chieftains” (NJPSV) would be a better
alternative. As mentioned at 1.2, a better equivalent for the Hebrew ‘edah would be
“community.”
To meet them outside the camp: The returning soldiers could not yet enter
the camp, in which the sacred tent of meeting was situated, since they had been in
contact with the dead bodies of those who were killed in battle.[< Rashbam] They still
had to undergo the ritual of purification. The specification “soldiers” (them) is
perhaps more precise than GNT’s “army” since the entire fighting force of Israel was
not engaged in this campaign.
And Moses was angry with …: Why Moses is angry is explained in verse 15.
A different conjunction (rather than And) may be needed in translation to indicate
what might appear to be a surprising reaction on the part of Moses: “But” (NLT,
NET).
Officers: The Hebrew pequdey literally means “those selected” or “those
numbered.” This appears to be a more generic term (see 7.2), which is here specified
by the following expressions.
The commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds: Since
these terms are essentially in apposition to “officers,” they may be introduced by an
expression like “that is [to say].” Regarding the terms themselves, since these are
primarily military positions, the equivalent of “captains” or “chiefs” may be used.
From service in the war: The Hebrew tsava’ is best understood here as
“service” or “military service.” The phrase as a whole can be translated “from the
battle” (NLT, DHE).

31.15
RSV
15 Moses said to them, “Have you let all the women live?

GNT
15 He asked them, “Why have you kept all the women alive?

The principle of the “ban” in holy war required the dedication of booty
(whether of men, beasts, or objects) to the Lord through destruction.[< Budd 331]
Although the Israelites have followed the holy war instructions (Deut 20.13-14),
Moses is angry: the women of Midian should not be allowed to live, because they had
seduced the Israelites into apostasy and associated adultery.
Moses said: More precisely “asked” (GNT) or “demanded” (NLT), depending
on one’s interpretation of the nature of this question (see below).
Have you let all the women live?: The Hebrew phrase takes the form of a
question which can be answered with yes or no. But the answer is already obvious in
the context. Thus, NJPSV interprets the Hebrew as a rhetorical question, rendering it
as an exclamation: “You have spared every female!” TOB and CEV make this
exclamation even more explicit: “What! You have let all the women live!” (TOB); “I
can’t believe you let the women live!” (CEV). The question in GNT, NLT, and GECL
is a real question, expecting an answer or explanation in response: “Why …” This is
based on what the major ancient versions have (Samaritan Pentateuch, Greek
Septuagint, Syriac Peshitta, Latin Vulgate). The Hebrew literally has “every female.”
 Let … live: The form of the Hebrew verb could be interpreted either as
“preserved alive” or “allowed to live”—the implication being that this ought not have
been done.

31.16
RSV
16 Behold, these caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously
against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of
the Lord.

GNT
16 Remember that it was the women who followed Balaam's instructions and at Peor led the
people to be unfaithful to the Lord. That was what brought the epidemic on the Lord's people.

Behold, these: The Hebrew particle hen and the separate pronoun hennah
“they” emphasize that it is these women (and nobody else) who acted in the way
described. Renderings such as “Remember that it was the women who …” (GNT),
“You should recall that …” (Chewa), “Yet they are the very ones who …” (NJPSV),
and “It is those ones who …” (NBS02) bring this out well.
Caused the people of Israel … to act …: The Hebrew has “were to the
people of Israel … by instigating …” As in 31.3, “were” has the nuance of
“moved/acted against.”[< Levine 455] For this reason, a more accurate translation is:
“were detrimental to the Israelites … by instigating …” (Levine). See the model for
this interpretation below. (Translators who prefer RSV at this point could consider
translating “pushed” as in FRCL and PV or “tempted” instead of caused.)
By the counsel of Balaam: Literally “by the word of Balaam” (NBS02);
sometimes also translated as “in the Balaam affair” (Levine, footnote in NBS02).
GNT turns the phrase into a short clause of its own: “who followed Balaam’s
instructions,” and this may be a helpful model since the sentence of verse 16 is rather
complex in nature and hence difficult to follow if rendered literally as in the RSV.
To act treacherously against the Lord: Literally “by instigating (limsor)
sacrilege/disloyalty (ma`al).” Such behaviour is the opposite of what the Lord expects
of his people and hence a capital offense worthy of death.
In the matter of Peor: GNT’s “at Peor” is probably easier to understand. The
Hebrew, however, does not simply refer to the location itself. RSV (the matter of)
and Levine (“in the Peor incident”) are more accurate as a rendering of the Hebrew
generic term dabar. Chewa’s “[judicial] case” would even be allowable in this
context.
Based on the above, the following model of this part of the verse is
recommended: “They are the very ones who, at Balaam’s instruction (or, counsel),
were detrimental against (who acted against) the people of Israel, by instigating
sacrilegious (or, impious, offensive) rebellion against the Lord in the Peor incident ...”
NIV is quite similar: “They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and
were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor
...”

31.17-18
RSV
17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known
man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him,
keep alive for yourselves.
GNT
17 So now kill every boy and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse, 18 but keep
alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins.

The extremely disturbing practice of massacring most or all of a conquered

population was widespread in the Ancient Near East. It is striking that Moses, whose
own wife is Midianite, should now be so unbending toward the Midianite population
[< Alter] and consider most of all the nature of the sin of idolatrous apostasy against
the Lord in which these women were presumably engaged, whether actually or
potentially in Midianite culture. Thus, one interpretation is that the women in general
were not allowed to live since they might have been some of the seducers of Baal-
Peor (25.1-5), while the virgins would be taken by Israelites and absorbed into the
mainstream of Israelite religion and culture.[< Plaut 1102] Their number might also
serve to restore the Israelite population that was depleted in the devastating plague at
Shittim (25.9).[< Gane 769]
We are very distant from the original historical setting and socio-religious
mindset of ancient Israel. These passages are disturbing, even shockingly abhorrent,
to us today, but translators have the obligation of rendering the biblical text as it
stands, without attempting to soften or explain it in any way.
Every male among the little ones: These boys are apparently viewed as
potential warriors and thus enemies to be killed.[< Olson 178]
Every woman who has known man or, as in NRSV, “every woman who has
known a man,” is a traditional reference to married women. In Hebrew, “has known”
is used figuratively to mean “has had sex with.” See the Genesis Handbook at 4.1.
LUT84 and DHE translate with a negative phrase: “all women who are not (no
longer) virgins,” which creates a parallel contrast with “virgins” in verse 18.
By lying with him: Literally “by lying with a male” or “through the lying
down of a male.” In some languages (Chewa), either “knowing” a man or
“lying/sleeping” with him is sufficient to make the point; to use both expressions
would be unnaturally redundant.
Keep alive for yourselves: Strangely, the GNT retains this somewhat
awkward expression. “But allow [them] to live among you” or “But do not kill … you
may keep them for yourselves” (CEV), or “But you may spare for yourselves” (REB)
might be better models.
All the young girls who have not known man …: The young girls being
referred to here had not been tainted with the impurity of the enemy. Of course, the
term used for “young girls” must refer to those who are normally capable of having
sex with a man. In contrast to “every male among the little ones” in verse 17, at this
point the Hebrew literally has: “all the little ones among the women who have not
known lying down with a male.” There is thus no reason for GNT’s (and EÜ’s)
division of this group into two categories: “all the girls and all the [adult] women who
…” (Perhaps GNT has taken the Hebrew to mean: “all the little ones among the
women, [and those women] who have not known lying down with a male,” but the
grammar of the Hebrew sentence makes this unlikely.)

31.19
RSV
19 Encamp outside the camp seven days; whoever of you has killed any person, and whoever
has touched any slain, purify yourselves and your captives on the third day and on the
seventh day.
GNT
19 Now all of you who have killed anyone or have touched a corpse must stay outside the
camp for seven days. On the third day and on the seventh day purify yourselves and the
women you have captured.

Encamp outside the camp: If encamp outside gives the wrong suggestion
that there should be another camp, separate from the main camp, it is better to
translate “must stay outside” (GNT, NIV, NLT) instead. NET is similar: “remain
outside.” The sentence construction of GNT is easier to follow than that of RSV:
“Now all of you who … must stay outside ...” NET puts a new section heading at
verse 19 (“Purification After Battle”), but since the larger section covering verses 13-
24 (or 12-24) deals with various issues involving “purification,” a subunit is probably
not necessary or helpful at this point.
… Purify yourselves …: These instructions are in full keeping with the
regulations in chapter 19 (especially verses 9-19) regarding purification from ritual
contamination through contact with a corpse. The soldiers have been rendered unclean
by killing people or touching corpses and must go through a ritual of separation and
cleansing.[< Olson 179] In most languages the same expression for “purification” or
ritual “cleansing” can be used in these chapters.
And your captives: GNT translates “and the women you have captured,”
since all the males among the enemy had been killed (verse 7). However, in this case
it will probably be necessary to go further and specify “virgins” again since all the
other women have been executed (verse 17). These girls must also be purified because
they have presumably contacted dead bodies.[< Gane 770]
On the third day: This specification of time may need to be positioned earlier
in the clause, and in many languages it may be clearer to begin a new sentence at this
point (GNT).

31.20
RSV
20 You shall purify every garment, every article of skin, all work of goats' hair, and every article
of wood.”

GNT
20You must also purify every piece of clothing and everything made of leather, goats' hair, or
wood.”

You shall purify: Levine points out that, strictly speaking, verse 20 still has
the purification in mind of the fighting men themselves, not the purification of the
items mentioned here. Thus, he translates: “you must purify yourselves [with respect
to] any clothing …” Compare also Buber: “All clothing …, let it be purified from
you.” Indeed, the Hebrew verb form is the same as in verse 19: titchatta’u “purify
yourselves,” that is to say, “you must purify yourselves.”
However, according to almost every translation, including RSV and GNT, it is
the items themselves which need to be purified here. Since these items are specified in
such detail, it may be argued that these objects needed to be purified in and of
themselves, since they were associated with the men who had had contact with
ritually impure dead bodies. The ancient Greek and Syriac translations, the Septuagint
and the Peshitta, already understood the Hebrew in that way. Strictly speaking,
though, this implies that a slightly different Hebrew form (of the same root ch ṭ ’) is
being read here: techaṭṭe’u “you must purify,” that is to say, you must cleanse
[something] from impurity.

31.21
RSV
21 And Eleazar the priest said to the men of war who had gone to battle: “This is the statute
of the law which the Lord has commanded Moses:

GNT
21 Eleazar the priest said to the men who had returned from battle, “These are the
regulations that the Lord has given to Moses.

And Eleazar the priest said: The ritual leadership of Eleazar the high priest
is foregrounded as he takes over in conveying the instructions that Moses had
received from the Lord. It may be helpful to indicate this by beginning a new
paragraph at verse 21.
The men of war: The Hebrew uses the same term for war, tsava’, as in 31.4,
5. GNT only has “the men” at this point, probably to avoid repetition (“war …
battle”). However, “the men” seems too general. NJPSV’s “the troops” (or “soldiers”)
does more justice to the Hebrew tsava’ and may thus be more helpful.
Had gone to battle: “Had returned from battle” will be more natural in most
languages.
This is the statute of the law: This phrase, perhaps more naturally expressed
in the plural (“regulations”—GNT), occurs only here and in 19:2 (see the expression
used at that point), thus linking the provisions in the verses below to the laws on
corpse impurity in chapter 19. This refers specifically to the instructions that follow.

31.22-23
RSV
22 only the gold, the silver, the bronze, the iron, the tin, and the lead, 23 everything that can
stand the fire, you shall pass through the fire, and it shall be clean. Nevertheless it shall also
be purified with the water of impurity; and whatever cannot stand the fire, you shall pass
through the water.

GNT
22–23 Everything that will not burn, such as gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, or lead, is to be
purified by passing it through fire. Everything else is to be purified by the water for purification.

After having been passed through fire, the fireproof substances are to be
washed in the specially prepared water of impurity to complete the process of
purification. Substances which are not fireproof must simply be cleansed with that
water.[< Alter] The following model is recommended, combining verses 22 and 23:
“Only the gold … and the lead—that is, all metals that do not burn—must be passed
through fire in order to be made ceremonially pure. These metal objects must then be
further purified with the water of purification. But everything that burns must be
purified by the water alone.” (NLT)
Only: The Hebrew particle ’ak is usually found in a limitation of something
previously given.[< Ashley 596]
The gold, the silver, the bronze, the iron, the tin, and the lead: These
metals are listed from highest to lowest in value. On bronze see 16.39, 21.9, and the
Exodus Handbook at 25.3.
 Everything that can stand the fire: That is, everything that can be passed
through fire without being destroyed or melted. It may be necessary to highlight in the
translation that this phrase still refers to the metals, for example: “…, that is, all
metals that do not burn” (NLT); “…, in short / in one word, all that resists the fire”
(DHE).
And it shall be clean: GNT rephrases this as follows: “… is to be purified.”
NLT has “in order to be made ceremonially pure” to convey the notion of purpose.
Nevertheless it shall also be purified with the water of impurity: This
special water (see at 19.9) is still needed to purify all the metal that has been put
through the fire. This is the interpretation of RSV and almost all other translations.
They take it as a reference to “everything that can stand the fire” (at the beginning of
verse 23). In some languages, “moreover” (Levine), “but … still” (NET), “even
though” (RVE95, RVC10) may express this more clearly than nevertheless. Only
very few translations connect this whole phrase with what follows (the substances
which are not fireproof):
“Other things must be purified by the water of ritual purification; whatever cannot
stand fire is to be passed through the water.” (REB and similarly NBS02).
At this point, GNT leaves the water of impurity (in reference to the metals)
untranslated. This is probably because GNT agrees with the interpretation of REB.
And whatever cannot stand the fire: GNT renders this as “everything else,”
which may be more helpful in some languages. The dividing word and (Hebrew we-)
counts against REB’s and GNT’s above interpretation: we- is quite a strong indication
that the phrase before it should be connected to the metals that have been in the fire,
and not to whatever cannot stand the fire. See the model of NLT above.
The water of impurity: See at 19.9. This special water is needed to purify
“everything that can stand the fire.” GNT has “the water for purification.” (In 19.9 it
translated the same phrase more explicitly and accurately: “the water for removing
ritual uncleanness.”) As mentioned above, the problem with GNT is that, like REB, it
connects this water only with “everything else” (that is, what cannot stand the fire),
whereas in the Hebrew this water is also required to further purify the metals that
have first been put through the fire.
The water: This refers to the water of purification which is needed to purify
whatever cannot stand the fire without being destroyed (that is, “everything else” in
GNT).

31.24
RSV
24 You must wash your clothes on the seventh day, and you shall be clean; and afterward you
shall come into the camp.”

GNT
24On the seventh day you must wash your clothes; then you will be ritually clean and will be
permitted to enter the camp.”

Verse 24 essentially summarizes verses 19-20.

You must wash your clothes: The implication should not be given that the
men are to use the “water of purification,” just mentioned in the preceding verse, for
this purpose!
On the seventh day: That is, of their period of ritual confinement outside the
camp.
 Afterward you shall come into the camp: This expresses permission to enter
the camp on the seventh day, not a command. Hence renderings like: “… will be
permitted to enter the camp” (GNT); “Then you may return to the camp” (NLT);
“Afterwards you can return into the camp” (NBS02).

31.25-26
RSV
25 The Lord said to Moses, 26 “Take the count of the booty that was taken, both of man and
of beast, you and Eleazar the priest and the heads of the fathers' houses of the congregation;

GNT
25The Lord said to Moses, 26 “You and Eleazar, together with the other leaders of the
community, are to count everything that has been captured, including the prisoners and the
animals.

As noted earlier, a number of translations divide the chapter into parts and
start a new section here. See, for example, the heading in NRSV, CEV, and NLT:
“Disposition of Captives and Booty” (NRSV), and in GNT: “Division of the Loot.”
However, if a section heading is inserted here, a term for “spoils” (malqoach) that has
a negative connotation (goods illegally or improperly gained) must not be used;
GNT’s “loot” is rather questionable in this regard as far as English is concerned. In
any case, this process of dividing up the spoils and offering a share for the Lord’s
service is recorded in a number of distinct paragraphs: dividing it in general (verses
25-27), the overall levy for the Lord (28-31), the count of the booty and the levy—for
the soldiers (32-41), for the people (42-47), and the special offering of the
commanders (48-54).
Take the count of …: The idiom is here “take up the head,” meaning: “to
count the totals” (NET footnote), or “total up.” A possible translation is “take a head
count”—this is close to the Hebrew idiom.
The booty that was taken: Literally “the take of the (captured) booty.”
Compare NRSV: “the booty captured” [in war].
Both of man and of beast: This phrase is the same as in 31.11. The Hebrew
ha’adam can be rendered as “human being” instead of man. REB translates “human
beings.” In the context it refers to the virgin females whose lives had been spared
(verse 35 and 18). (This is probably why TLA03 translates “the women,” but this may
be misleading.) For this reason, a generic rendering like “both human and animal” is
recommended. In this way, the pair of words involved is still contrastive—something
which is no longer the case in GNT’s rendering “including the prisoners and the
animals.”
Fathers’ houses: Literally “fathers,” as a reference to a social-organizational
unit. NRSV has “ancestral houses.” See the discussion at 1.2. Renderings like “family
heads” (NIV, NJPSV, NBG51, HSV) or even “family leaders” (NLT) will often be
more expressive than just “leaders” (GNT).
Congregation: As discussed at 1.2, a better equivalent for the Hebrew ‘edah
would be “community.”

31.27
RSV
27 and divide the booty into two parts, between the warriors who went out to battle and all the
congregation.
GNT
27 Divide what was taken into two equal parts, one part for the soldiers and the other part for
the rest of the community.

Divide … into two parts: Clearly, a new sentence should begin here (not as
the RSV). GNT’s “… two equal parts” expresses more precisely the meaning of the
Hebrew verb in the context. Verses 27-30 explain the tax on the booty that is to be
raised from the fighting men and from the rest of the Israelites.
Warriors: Literally “those who took / bore the war,” which is why the
renderings “who took part in the war” (NET, EÜ) or even “them that took the war
upon them” (KJV) are also possible.
Who went out to battle: Literally “who went out (to war) as the military
force.” And all the congregation: This is more clearly expressed in GNT as “the
other part for the rest of the community.”
Verse 27 is an initial summary statement concerning the division of goods,
which is then specified in terms of proportional tribute in the verses that follow (vv.
28-31).

31.28
RSV
28And levy for the Lord a tribute from the men of war who went out to battle, one out of five
hundred, of the persons and of the oxen and of the asses and of the flocks;

GNT
28From the part that belongs to the soldiers, withhold as a tax for the Lord one out of every
500 prisoners and the same proportion of the cattle, donkeys, sheep, and goats.

Levy: Or, literally, “raise.” Some languages may have an idiomatic term to
express this (Chewa: “extract”), together with the following noun tribute.
Tribute: Tax or dues, consisting of a specific share of the loot. Compare NLT:
“First give the Lord his share of the plunder.” On the other hand, a word like “tax”
(GNT) may anachronistically imply that a formal government institution was already
in place to implement it; in this case, a word like “share” or “levy” might be more
appropriate.
For the Lord: Levine notes that this was a levy for the sanctuary and the
priests.[< Levine 460] It seems to be implied that 1/500 of these animals are to be
sacrificed while 1/500 of these virgin females are given to the priests.
Men of war who went out to battle: Literally, “men of war, who bear the
war” (see at 31.27).
One out of …: Instead of one, the Hebrew literally has “one life” (NET) or
“one living creature” (Alter).
Persons: As noted at 31.26, the Hebrew ha’adam can also be rendered as
“human beings” (REB). In the context of the chapter it is a reference to the virgin
females whose lives had been spared (verses 18 and 35).
Oxen: In the Hebrew the same general term is used as in 7:3, 17, covering
cows and bulls as well as oxen. Thus, GNT, NET, and REB have “cattle.” Since the
implication seems to be that these animals are intended for sacrifice, this will make
the rendering “oxen” inappropriate in certain cultures in which oxen are not
considered suitable for sacrifice.
Flocks: As mentioned at 11.22 and 15.3, flocks consist of “sheep, and goats”
(GNT).
31.29
RSV
29 take it from their half, and give it to Eleazar the priest as an offering to the Lord.

GNT
29 Give them to Eleazar the priest as a special contribution to the Lord.

Take it: The Hebrew lacks it. RSV supplies this pronoun, as a reference to “
tax” / “a tribute” in verse 28. GNT helpfully begins a new sentence and supplies the
pronoun “them,” referring to all the living beings in verse 28. It depends on the
language of translation which of these alternatives is more natural. Translators must
also ensure that the referent for “them” (RSV it) is clear in the context of reading this
text aloud.
Their refers to “the men of war” in 31.28.
Offering: As in 5.9, the Hebrew word terumah has the wide, general meaning
of offering, “special contribution” (GNT), special donation, especially those that go
to the priests. The tax or levy from the fighting men went to the priesthood. As noted
earlier, it seems to be implied that these animals are intended to be sacrificed while
the virgin females are given to the priests.

31.30
RSV
30 And from the people of Israel's half you shall take one drawn out of every fifty, of the
persons, of the oxen, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all the cattle, and give them to the
Levites who have charge of the tabernacle of the Lord.”

GNT
30 From the part given to the rest of the people, take one out of every fifty prisoners and the
same proportion of the cattle, donkeys, sheep, and goats. Give them to the Levites who are in
charge of the Lord's Tent.”

Having dealt with the soldiers, the Lord turns to the share owed by the
community at large.
One drawn out of every fifty: The Hebrew ’achuz means drawn, “withheld.”
Persons: See at 31.26, 28.
Oxen: See at 31.28. Again, GNT, NET, and REB have “cattle” at this point.
Flocks: See at 31.28.
Of all the cattle: NRSV and NJPSV have: “…—all the animals—…” An
alternative is PV: “… and the other animals.” It is a reference to domestic animals in
general.
And give them to the Levites: It seems to be implied that 1/50 of these
animals are intended to be sacrificed while 1/50 of these virgin females are given to
the Levites. Thus, a larger proportion was to be passed from the rest of the people to
the Levites, who were more numerous than the priests (verse 29).
Who have charge of: The Hebrew expression used here is shomrey
mishmeret, literally “guarding the guarding.” See at 1.53. “Who are in charge of
maintaining the Lord’s Tabernacle” (NLT), or “who are responsible for the care of the
Lord’s tabernacle” (NET) are helpful models.
The tabernacle: RSV renders tabernacle where the Hebrew has mishkan
“dwelling-place.” See at 1.50-51.
31.31
RSV
31 And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses.

GNT
31 Moses and Eleazar did what the Lord commanded.

As the Lord commanded Moses: GNT leaves Moses untranslated. But in

verse 25 the Lord speaks directly only to Moses, not to Eleazar as well. This phrase
marks the conclusion of a sub-unit in this long set of instructions (also in verses 41
and 47).

31.32-35
RSV
32 Now the booty remaining of the spoil that the men of war took was: six hundred and
seventy-five thousand sheep, 33 seventy-two thousand cattle, 34 sixty-one thousand asses, 35
and thirty-two thousand persons in all, women who had not known man by lying with him.

GNT
32–35 The following is a list of what was captured by the soldiers, in addition to what they
kept for themselves: 675,000 sheep and goats, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys, and 32,000
virgins.

The booty remaining of the spoil that the men of war took: That is,
literally, “the booty in excess of the plunder that the men of war / of the army
plundered.” What this means is not entirely clear. GNT takes the view that this refers
to all that was left over after the men of war had taken their plunder: “in addition to
what they kept for themselves.” It is important to note that the numbers given here in
verses 32-35 refer to the total booty, not just to the half which the men of war would
receive (verse 27). In any case, numbered figures as set out as in the GNT will be
easier to read than the wording of the RSV.
In connection with these numbers, the NET note makes a helpful comment:
“Here again we encounter one of the difficulties of the book, the use of the large
numbers. Only twelve thousand soldiers fought the Midianites, but they brought back
this amount of plunder, including 32,000 girls. Until a solution for numbers in the
book can be found, or the current translation [of the Hebrew text] confirmed, one
must remain cautious in interpretation”—and, we might add, when translating these
figures as well.
Sheep: RSV translates the same Hebrew word as “flocks” in 31.28. As
mentioned there, flocks consist of “sheep and goats” (GNT).
Cattle: In the Hebrew the same general term is used as in 7:3, 17 and 31.28,
covering cows and bulls as well as oxen.
Persons: As noted before, the Hebrew ha’adam can be rendered as “human
being.” NJPSV translates “human beings” here. All these persons are women who
had not known man by lying with him (see at 31.18). NJPSV brings this out:
“human beings, namely, the women who had not had carnal relations.” NBV uses
“namely” as well. NIV and GNT leave “persons”/”human beings” untranslated,
referring only to “women who had never slept with a man” (NIV) or, very briefly and
helpfully by this stage in the account, to “virgins” (GNT).
31.36-40
RSV
36 And the half, the portion of those who had gone out to war, was in number three hundred
and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep, 37 and the Lord's tribute of sheep was six
hundred and seventy-five. 38 The cattle were thirty-six thousand, of which the Lord's tribute
was seventy-two. 39 The asses were thirty thousand five hundred, of which the Lord's tribute
was sixty-one. 40 The persons were sixteen thousand, of which the Lord's tribute was thirty-
two persons.

GNT
36–40 The half-share of the soldiers was 337,500 sheep and goats, of which 675 were the tax
for the Lord; 36,000 cattle for the soldiers, of which 72 were the tax for the Lord; 30,500
donkeys for the soldiers, of which 61 were the tax for the Lord; and 16,000 virgins for the
soldiers, of which 32 were the tax for the Lord.

The numbers in verses 36-40 are half of those in verses 32-35 and apply to the
half-share to which those who had gone out to war were entitled (verse 27).
War: The Hebrew uses the same term for war, tsava’, as in 31.4, 5.
The Lord’s tribute: For tribute see 31.28. The phrase is literally “the tax /
levy / dues for the Lord.” In the case of the half-share for the warriors, this tax is
1/500 (verse 28)—hence the figures “72,” “61,” and “32,” respectively. The
translation will be easier to read if verses 32-35 and 36-40 are presented as lists
(DUCL).
Sheep … cattle … asses … persons: As in 31.32-35. The Hebrew only
mentions persons (“human beings” in NJPSV), although it is clear from the context
that they are “virgins” (GNT).

31.41
RSV
41And Moses gave the tribute, which was the offering for the Lord, to Eleazar the priest, as
the Lord commanded Moses.

GNT
41So Moses gave Eleazar the tax as a special contribution to the Lord, as the Lord had
commanded.

Tribute: See at 31.28.

The offering for the Lord: The Hebrew phrase is the same as in 31.29 (where
the command was given). See the discussion there.
As the Lord commanded Moses: See at 31.31.

31.42-47
RSV
42 From the people of Israel's half, which Moses separated from that of the men who had
gone to war— 43 now the congregation's half was three hundred and thirty-seven thousand
five hundred sheep, 44 thirty-six thousand cattle, 45 and thirty thousand five hundred asses, 46
and sixteen thousand persons— 47 from the people of Israel's half Moses took one of every
fifty, both of persons and of beasts, and gave them to the Levites who had charge of the
tabernacle of the Lord; as the Lord commanded Moses.

GNT
The share of the community was the same as that for the soldiers: 337,500 sheep and
42–46
goats, 36,000 cattle, 30,500 donkeys, and 16,000 virgins. 47 From this share Moses took one
out of every 50 prisoners and animals, and as the Lord had commanded, gave them to the
Levites who were in charge of the Lord's Tent.

Separated: See at 31.27, where RSV renders the same Hebrew verb as “divide
into two parts.” The Lord now specifies the numbers with regard to the tribute owed
by the community at large—to be taken from the same half-share that was allowed to
them as the fighting men (from the total booty listed in verses 32-35).
Who had gone to war: A form of the Hebrew verb already occurred in 31.7;
it is of the same root as tsava’ “war” in verses 3-5.
The people of Israel’s half … the congregation’s half: The phrases the
people of Israel and the congregation refer to the same people. As discussed at 1.2,
“community “ is a better equivalent for the Hebrew ‘edah than congregation. Hence
GNT’s “the share of the community.” (GNT leaves the people of Israel untranslated,
perhaps to avoid the wrong suggestion that the two phrases refer to different groups of
people.)
Was …: GNT’s translation “was the same as that for the soldiers: …” is
helpful: it is a quick reminder to the reader that the share of the booty for the
community is exactly the same as for the men who had gone out to war (verse 27).
Sheep … cattle … asses … persons: As in 31.32-35, 36-40. The Hebrew only
mentions persons (“human beings” in NJPSV), not “virgins” (GNT), although it is
clear from the context that they are virgins.
One of every fifty: Literally “one (drawn) portion out of every fifty.” See at
31.30.
Both of persons and of beasts: The terms in this phrase are the same as in
31.11, 25. NJPSV translates “humans and animals.” (The Hebrew ha’adam can be
rendered as “human beings.”) In this context it again refers to the virgin females
whose lives had been spared (verse 35 and 18). A generic rendering like RSV or
NJPSV is recommended. In this way, the pair of words involved is still contrastive—
something which is no longer the case in GNT’s rendering “including the prisoners
and the animals.”
Gave them to the Levites who had charge of the tabernacle of the Lord:
See at 31.30. This verse parallels the close of the preceding sub-section in verse 41.

31.48
RSV
48 Then the officers who were over the thousands of the army, the captains of thousands and
the captains of hundreds, came near to Moses,

GNT
48 Then the officers who had commanded the army went to Moses

Here begins the concluding part of chapter 31. It should therefore be marked
by a new paragraph and, in some languages, by an appropriate conjunction as well,
“At that very time” (Chewa; the Hebrew is literally “And”).
The officers: As was noted in 31.14, the Hebrew pequdey literally means
“those selected.”
The captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds: The Hebrew is
the same as in 31.14 (where RSV has “commanders”). Since these are primarily
military positions, the equivalent of “captains” or “chiefs” may be used. The
distinction between these larger and smaller military groups should be maintained in
translation if possible (naturally), not simply eliminated as in the GNT (in contrast to
verse 14).

31.49
RSV
49 and said to Moses, “Your servants have counted the men of war who are under our
command, and there is not a man missing from us.

GNT
49 and reported, “Sir, we have counted the soldiers under our command and not one of them
is missing.

Your servants: The captains refer to themselves in this way to show Moses
their respect. In languages where such a reference to oneself would not be natural, the
respect and deference should be expressed in a different way, for example, “Sir”
(GNT, CEV). In some languages, “We, your servants” (NLT, CRV, DHE) will work.
Have counted: As in 31.26, the idiom is “take up the head,” meaning: to
count the total numbers. A possible translation is “have taken a head count”—this is
close to the Hebrew idiom.
Under our command: Literally “in our hand.” Some languages will have a
similar idiom to express this. No Israelite men were lost in battle, which is another
feature of the “holy war”—the Lord fighting on behalf of his people.

31.50
RSV
50And we have brought the Lord's offering, what each man found, articles of gold, armlets
and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and beads, to make atonement for ourselves before the
Lord.”

GNT
50 So we are bringing the gold ornaments, armlets, bracelets, rings, earrings, and necklaces
that each of us has taken. We offer them to the Lord as a payment for our lives, so that he will
protect us.”

And we have brought: The tense of the verb used in translation may differ in
accordance with what is most natural-sounding (GNT: “So we are bringing”).
The Lord’s offering: The Hebrew qorban (also in 5.15) is the commonest and
vaguest expression for an offering. In many languages, it will be helpful to translate
“the offering for/to the Lord.” The reason for the offering of the articles of gold was
that, miraculously, not a single man was missing after this war.[< Noth 232]
Armlets and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and beads: This list is a
specification of the articles of gold. Armlets and signet rings could be worn by men
and women, but the bracelets, earrings and beads are women’s ornaments. Most
languages will have fairly close equivalents for all of these articles. The exact
meaning of kumaz (beads) is not certain; renderings such as “pendants” (Alter) and
“necklaces” (GNT) are more likely.
Beads: the meaning of kumaz is uncertain; it probably refers to an ornament
for neck and breast. GNT’s “necklaces” and Alter’s “pendant” fit this description.
To make atonement for ourselves (or, more literally, “… our lives”):
Perhaps they had to make atonement for the general slaughter in which they had
engaged.[< Plaut 1105] The war is holy, but the killing defiles and incurs guilt.[<
Olson 179] Another interpretation is that a “ransom” (a possible translation) had to be
paid to the Lord for counting (verse 49) the lives (of the men of war) that had been
spared. See Exo 30.12. In a way that is not clear today, a census was thought to entail
danger (compare 2 Samuel 24).[< Ashley 599] The renderings “as a payment for our
lives” (GNT, DUCL) and “as expiation for our lives” (REB) follow this interpretation.

31.51
RSV
51 And Moses and Eleazar the priest received from them the gold, all wrought articles.

GNT
51 Moses and Eleazar received the gold, all of which was in the form of ornaments.

And: A more suitable conjunction may be needed: “So” (NLT), “Then”

(Chewa).
Received: In some languages, a special verb for “receiving” or “accepting” a
gift, donation, or offering is available.
From them: That is, from the “captains” (or “commanders”), who may need
to be specified for clarity.
Wrought articles: That is, “[hand-]crafted articles” (NRSV), manufactured
ornaments, decorative articles made by artisans.

31.52
RSV
52And all the gold of the offering that they offered to the Lord, from the commanders of
thousands and the commanders of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty
shekels.

GNT
52 The total contribution of the officers weighed nearly 200 kilogrammes.

Offering: As mentioned at 5.9, the Hebrew word terumah has the wide,
general meaning of offering, “contribution” (GNT), special gifts, or donations,
especially those that go to the priests. The fact that the offering involved gold
(something omitted by GNT) should also be specified to match the emphasis of the
original.
That they offered: The Hebrew verb is of the same root as terumah. The
same word combination occurs in 15.19, 20; 18.19, 24, 26, 28, 30. See the discussion
at 15.19 (“present an offering to the Lord”).
To the Lord: Among other things left implicit, GNT leaves out to the Lord,
which would seem to be a significant omission.
Shekels: See at 7.13.

31.53
RSV
53 (The men of war had taken booty, every man for himself.)

GNT
53 Those who were not officers kept the loot they had taken.

The men of war: The entire donation was presented by the commanders
(verses 48-52 and 54). Hence GNT’s “those who were not officers” here in verse 53.
These men, common soldiers, took and kept their own spoil. FRCL has “As for the
common soldiers, ...” Buber, GECL, NFB, NBV, and DUCL follow the same
interpretation.
The reason why RSV and CRV put this verse in brackets is probably that it
interrupts verses 52 and 54, which are both about the commanders. The word order of
the Hebrew seems to indicate that this is indeed a parenthesis, and some languages
will have an appropriate way of marking this verbally, that is, without the need for
actual parentheses: “It so happened that ordinary soldiers had taken…” (Chewa).

31.54
RSV
54 And Moses and Eleazar the priest received the gold from the commanders of thousands
and of hundreds, and brought it into the tent of meeting, as a memorial for the people of Israel
before the Lord.

GNT
54 So Moses and Eleazar took the gold to the Tent, so that the Lord would protect the people
of Israel.

Tent of meeting: See at 1.1.

Memorial for the people of Israel before the Lord: An act of devotion and
loyalty that brings the Israelites to the attention of their God.[< Levine 463] It is not
clear, however, whether the memorial (or “reminder”) is for the people of Israel or for
the Lord, or both. (The same applies to Exo 30.16; see the Handbook there.) CEV
makes the first option explicit, though in rather ambiguous terms: “to remind Israel of
what had happened,” (This might urge Israel to further generosity toward the support
of the tabernacle as a result.[< Ashley 601]) The second option is made explicit in
GNT and some other translations: “so that the Lord would protect …” (GNT); “that
the Lord might remember …” (REB, similarly NBV, DUCL, FRCL, GECL, DHE);
also NLT’s distinct, but possible rendering: “as a reminder to the Lord that the people
of Israel belong to him.” It is difficult to choose between these alternative
interpretations, and so it is recommended that translators try to retain both options in a
more generalized wording (if this does not result in confusing ambiguity or
meaninglessness).

32.1-42
Section Heading: Chapter 32 is concerned with the allotment of the territory of the
Israelite tribes east of the Jordan River. It addresses the issue whether it is acceptable
and legitimate for these tribes to settle outside the promised land of Canaan itself,
which included only the territory to the west of the Jordan (Exo 16.35; Josh 5.1, 12).
A special dispensation is given to them, but on certain conditions. Note that this
chapter is placed near the end of Part III B of the book: the events occurring near the
land of Canaan (25.19–33.49). Thus, the issue of chapter 32 is dealt with before the
summary of the whole journey from Egypt to the Jordan (33.1-49) and the instructions
to defeat and divide the land (33.50–34.29).
Two tribes, Reuben and Gad, seek Moses’ permission to settle east of the
River Jordan, where there is much grazing land available for their cattle. No doubt
they noticed this when fighting the former kings, Sihon and Og, for their territory
(21.21-35; note especially verse 25). Therefore, these tribes do not want to go with the
other Israelites to settle west of the river, in the land of Canaan. Moses rebukes them
for this proposal—he is afraid that the new generation of Israelites, like the old
generation (chapters 13–14), will be discouraged from conquering the entire land.
However, the men of Reuben and Gad then promise to help their fellow-Israelites to
conquer Canaan. Afterwards, the two tribes, as well as half the tribe of Manasseh
(32.39-42), will settle east of the Jordan.
This compromise finds its expression in headings such as “Reuben and Gad
Settle in Gilead” (ESV), “Reuben and Gad establish themselves east of the Jordan”
(RVE95, DHE), and especially “Reuben and Gad request territory east of the Jordan”
(HSV, similarly GECL). More explicitly, one might say, “Crisis averted: Reuben and
Gad settle east of the Jordan.” These headings may therefore be more helpful than the
shorter headings “The Tribes East of the Jordan” (GNT, NLT) and “The Transjordan
Tribes” (NIV), which are likely to give the wrong suggestion that these tribes were
actually meant to settle east of the Jordan from the start.
The alternation of speeches in chapter 32 seems to exhibit an inverted
(chiastic) structural arrangement:[< see Cole 506, following Milgrom 492-493]
A Gad and Reuben request land in Transjordan (1-5)
B Moses rejects this request (6-15)
C Gad and Reuben propose a compromise (16-19)
D Moses states a twofold condition (20-24)
C’ Gad and Reuben accept Moses’ condition (25-27)
B’ Moses proposes this compromise to Israel’s leaders (28-30)
A’ Gad and Reuben pledge themselves to this agreement (31-32)
The middle of this structure (D, 20-24) indicates the major turning point of the crucial
negotiations between the tribes of Gad and Reuben and Moses, representing the entire
nation of Israel.
The remainder of the chapter then summarizes the apportionment of the
Transjordan territories, first generally (verse 33), then naming the specific settlements
for the Gadites (34-36), the Reubenites (37-38), and finally, the Manassehites (39-42).

32.1
RSV
1 Now the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle; and
they saw the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead, and behold, the place was a place for
cattle.

GNT
1 The tribes of Reuben and Gad had a lot of livestock. When they saw how suitable the
land of Jazer and Gilead was for cattle,

Now: Chapter 32 takes place in “the plains of Moab, along the Jordan River,
across from Jericho” (22.1–36.13), but its chronological position in Part III of the
book is not entirely clear; it does not necessarily come directly after chapter 31.[<
Knierim 299] A discourse marker (like now in English, or a formulaic narrative
opener like “It was found that …” in Chewa) will help to show that a new section
begins here, without suggesting that it comes directly after the preceding chapter
chronologically.
The sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad: This refers to “the tribes of
Reuben and Gad” (GNT). Another possible rendering is “the Reubenites and the
Gadites.” This order of names is followed only here in this chapter.
Had a very great multitude of cattle: As in 20.19, the word for cattle is very
general and includes all types of herded animals—also donkeys, camels, sheep, and
goats. “Livestock” (GNT) is a good alternative in some languages. The Hebrew uses a
strong expression to describe the multitude of cattle. In comparison with this, “a lot
of …” (GNT, CEV) seems rather weak. Better models are “a very great number of
livestock” (ESV) and “an immense quantity of cattle” (RVE95). This description
comes at the beginning of the present narrative unit to indicate its prominence; it
motivates the following discussion.
The land of Jazer and the land of Gilead: These fertile, well-watered
regions are east of the Jordan River. Jazer was a town (21.32). In some languages, a
rendering like “the land (or ‘region’) around Jazer” will help to avoid
misunderstanding.
And they saw …, and behold, … place for cattle: The Hebrew wehineh
(behold) indicates that what comes is seen from the perspective of the Reubenites and
Gadites. Many languages will express this as follows: “and they saw what a suitable
place for cattle the land ... was”; “they saw how suitable the land ... was for cattle”
(GNT). Duguid makes an interesting suggestion: seeing is frequently the prelude to
bad decisions because our eyes tend to make superficial judgments (see Gen 3.6).[<
Duguid 338]

32.2
RSV
2So the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben came and said to Moses and to Eleazar the
priest and to the leaders of the congregation,

GNT
2 they went to Moses, Eleazar, and the other leaders of the community and said,

The sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben: Presumably this refers to their
tribal representatives. In some languages the sons may be unnatural, thus calling for a
better equivalent, for example, “the leaders/great ones” (Chewa). The repetition here
of these names from verse 1 creates a certain emphasis in the Hebrew; these two
tribes in a sort of dialogue confrontation with Moses and the other leaders of Israel are
in focus throughout most of the chapter. Unlike in verse 1, the sons of Gad are
mentioned from here on before the sons of Reuben. Perhaps this is related to the fact
that verse 3 first mentions cities for the Gadites, as is clear from verses 34-36; or
perhaps they were the primary initiators of this request. There seems to be no reason
to put “the sons of Reuben” before “the sons of Gad,” as in the Greek Septuagint and
Syriac Peshitta. In some languages, “they” (GNT) may be sufficient and more natural.
Came and said to Moses and to Eleazar …: In some languages it may be
more natural to connect the phrase to Moses and to Eleazar … directly to the first
verb (came or GNT’s “went,” or perhaps “approached”) instead of the second verb
(and said): “came to Moses … and said” (REB, NJPSV). It may then also be more
natural to start a new sentence with the second verb: “They said: …” (NLT, DUCL,
PV).
The leaders of the congregation: See at 31.13.

32.3-4
RSV
3 “Ataroth, Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Heshbon, Elealeh, Sebam, Nebo, and Beon, 4 the land
which the Lord smote before the congregation of Israel, is a land for cattle; and your servants
have cattle.”
GNT
3–4 “This region which the Lord has helped the Israelites to occupy — the towns of Ataroth,
Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Heshbon, Elealeh, Sibmah, Nebo, and Beon — is good land for
livestock, and we have so much livestock.

Ataroth, Dibon, …: It may be helpful to make explicit that these are towns:
“the towns of Ataroth …” (GNT); “Notice the towns of Ataroth …” (NLT, making
this a separate sentence). All the places mentioned here are east of the northern half of
the Dead Sea and in the southern half of the area east of the Jordan.
Heshbon: The capital city of the Amorite king Sihon (21.26).
Sebam: In verse 38, the Hebrew has a slightly different name for this town:
Sibmah. The Greek Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch have “Sibmah” not only
in verse 38, but here in verse 3 as well.
The land which the Lord smote before the congregation of Israel: In some
languages it will be more natural to place this phrase before the actual list of towns.
This has been done in GNT: “This region …—the towns of …—…” But see also
NLT. Another option is to shift the order of verses 3 and 4, putting the list of towns at
the end: “… This includes the towns of …”
Instead of the archaic smote, NRSV, NIV, REB have “subdued,” but in some
languages this verb does not combine well with the land as the object. NJPSV and
NLT solve this problem: “the land that the Lord has conquered for the community of
Israel” (NJPSV); “The Lord has conquered this whole area for the community of
Israel” (NLT, with a new sentence). The Hebrew verb means “attack,” “destroy.”
GNT’s “help to occupy” is rather different from this. For congregation see at 1.2.
NBV is a helpful model: “The region of Ataroth, Dibon, …, which the Lord has
conquered for the people of Israel, that region is …”
A land for cattle: Another expression may be needed: “good land for
livestock” (GNT); “ideal for cattle” (NET); “very suitable for cattle” (NBV). For
cattle see at 32.1.
Your servants: This is how the Gadites and Reubenites refer to themselves, as
another sign of deference in view of their great request. GNT (“we”) may be more
natural in English, but does not indicate any deference. In some languages, a
rendering like “we, your servants” (DHE) will be natural and will express the
speakers’ deference at the same time. In the Hebrew, your is in the singular: the
Gadites and Reubenites are addressing Moses as Israel’s leader and chief spokesman
(even though verse 2 mentioned other addressees as well: Eleazar and the chieftains).
Have cattle: As above, the implied qualifier will probably need to be stated
explicitly: “much cattle” (GNT). NLT offers another model: “and it (the land) is
ideally suited for all our livestock.” This may represent an implicit request.

32.5
RSV
5 And they said, “If we have found favor in your sight, let this land be given to your servants
for a possession; do not take us across the Jordan.”

GNT
5Please give us this land as our property, and do not make us cross the River Jordan and
settle there.”

And they said: This phrase interrupts the Gadites’ and Reubenites’ direct
speech. They have built up the case for their request carefully; they have just
mentioned a series of towns and said this is good land for livestock (verses 3-4). After
this, the phrase and they said introduces and highlights their explicit request to settle
east of the Jordan. In languages where a phrase like and they said is only used to
mark a change of speaker, translators may have to leave it untranslated (GNT) or,
better still, to render it with a different verb: “they continued” (NJPSV). Other
languages may have different idiomatic options, for example, Chewa: “So spoke the
Gadites and Reubenites” (at the end of verse 5). The carefully built-up request creates
narrative tension. Will the large request be granted? Will it result in a conflict or the
break-up of the people of Israel?[< Sherwood]
If we have found favor in your sight: This phrase is a strong indication of
the deference with which the Gadites and Reubenites make their request. (Your is still
singular in the Hebrew, addressing Moses.) GNT’s “Please” does not quite bring out
the same degree of deference in English. Better equivalents are Chewa: “If your heart
is kindly towards us,” and DUCL: “If you mean well by us.”
Let this land be given: The passive form in the Hebrew text is another
indication that the request is put forward in a careful manner. In some languages, a
passive construction performs a similar pragmatic function; in other languages,
however, a direct, polite request in the active form would sound more natural: “Give
us this land” (GNT)—in combination with the required deference (see the previous
point).
Your servants: See at 32.4. “Slaves” may be going too far.
A possession: See at 27.4.
Do not take us across the Jordan: GNT’s “do not make us cross” is more
expressive and is actually a literal rendering of the Hebrew verb. The Gadites and
Reubenites are implying that they do not want to settle west of the Jordan; the point is
not that they are afraid to cross the river, or even to fight on the other side on behalf of
the other tribes (which Moses seems to assume in his response). Probably for this
reason, GNT has made the implication explicit, adding “and settle there,” while NLT
has: “instead of giving us land across the Jordan River.” Some languages can avoid
the implication of fear by reversing the order of sentences: “do not make us cross the
Jordan, but instead give us this possession” (similar to DUCL).

32.6
RSV
6 But Moses said to the sons of Gad and to the sons of Reuben, “Shall your brethren go to
the war while you sit here?

GNT
6 Moses replied, “Do you want to stay here while your fellow-Israelites go to war?

But: Literally, “And,” but in many languages the contrast in Moses’ thinking
needs to be marked by the appropriate antithetical expression. Moses’ sharp rebuke
starts here (extending through verse 15). Hence the new paragraph in RSV and GNT.
He rejects the request as a breach of Israel’s unity.[< Ashley 608]
Shall your brethren go to the war while you sit here?: The question is
rhetorical: Moses is not asking for information but is expressing surprise and strong
disapproval. In the Hebrew, the disapproval is reinforced by the presence of the
independent pronoun “you.” Hence, TOB has “What! Your brothers will go out to
battle and you, you would stay here?” Chewa adds a pragmatic implication within the
verb: “merely sit/dwell.”
 Sit here?: The fighting in the region east of the Jordan (against the Amorites,
Moabites, and Midianites) has already been concluded successfully. Thus. any tribes
remaining here could “dwell, reside” (another sense of the verb “sit”) in relative
safety. There could be an element of sarcasm in Moses’ expression. Also, Moses must
have been specially frustrated by this appeal to stay east of the Jordan, when he
himself would have given anything to have crossed that river.[< Brown 278]
Cole notes a number of verbal parallels between Moses’ speech of 32.6-15 and
the words and events recorded in Numbers 11–14.[< Cole 509]

32.7
RSV
7 Why will you discourage the heart of the people of Israel from going over into the land which
the Lord has given them?

GNT
7How dare you try to discourage the people of Israel from crossing the Jordan into the land
which the Lord has given them?

Why …?: Moses’ question is again rhetorical and constitutes a further rebuke.
Hence, REB (similar to GNT) has “How dare you discourage …?”; NLT is idiomatic
in English: “Why do you want to discourage…” GECL changes the question into
another sentence form, yet the essential implication of accusation remains: “If you
stay here, you take from the Israelites all courage to …”
Discourage the heart of the people … from: With their request, the Gadites
and Reubenites would discourage the other tribes from pursuing military occupation
of the land of Canaan.[< Knierim 300] The Hebrew verb itself (teni’un) can be taken
to be more general in meaning: “turn round,” Hence the renderings “turn the minds of
the Israelites from crossing into ...” (NJPSV) and “turn the will of the Israelites
against crossing over into …” (Levine). Some languages may have idiomatic
equivalents: “Why do you want to cause the Israelites to throw away their heart?”

32.8
RSV
8 Thus did your fathers, when I sent them from Kadesh-barnea to see the land.

GNT
8 That is what your fathers did when I sent them from Kadesh Barnea to explore the land.

Thus did your fathers: Moses is referring to the failure of the previous
generation to take possession of the land (chapters 13–14) as a negative example. It is
implied that if the Gadites and Reubenites do as their fathers did they will suffer the
same fate.[< Sherwood 184] The phrase your fathers highlights this parallel brought
out by the particle Thus even more: “did the same thing” (NLT, NET). This also
applies to verse 14.
I sent them from Kadesh-barnea: This is referred to in 13.3 and 13.26
(where Kadesh is mentioned). The fuller form of this name as found here is more
common in Deuteronomy, for example, 1.19, 2.14, 9.23.
To see the land: In this context, the verb should perhaps be rendered more
precisely, for example, as “explore” (GNT, CEV, NLT, FRCL) or “survey” (NJPSV).

32.9
RSV
9For when they went up to the Valley of Eshcol, and saw the land, they discouraged the heart
of the people of Israel from going into the land which the Lord had given them.

GNT
9They went as far as the Valley of Eshcol and saw the land, but when they returned, they
discouraged the people from entering the land which the Lord had given them.

For when they went up: Literally, “And they went up”; see at 13.17 (“go
up”). The problem is that “when,” attached to the first clause of this verse (RSV),
seems to suggest that the scouts’ action of “discouraging” occurred at the same time
as their “seeing the land.” In fact, this happened only “After they went up … and
explored the land” (NLT)—or, as the GNT indicates, “but when they returned, they
discouraged.”
Valley of Eshcol: See 13.23-24.
And saw the land: NLT and FRCL repeat the more specific verb “explored.”
They discouraged the heart of the people of Israel from going into …: In
the Hebrew, a form of the same verb (wayyani’u) is used as in verse 7. Again, NJPSV
translates “they turned the minds of the Israelites from invading …”
Had given them: In some languages the verb may have to be modified to
avoid wrong implication: “had promised to give”

32.10
RSV
10 And the Lord's anger was kindled on that day, and he swore, saying,

GNT
10 The Lord was angry that day and made a promise:

And the Lord’s anger was kindled: See at 12.9. The conjunction “And” may
not be necessary (GNT).
And he swore, saying: In some languages, a translation like “promise” (GNT)
will suggest that something positive is coming. This does not fit the context—the oath
in verses 11-12 is not positive towards the Israelites at all. Hence “swore an oath” (in
Chewa, positive or negative, beneficial or punitive, according to the context).

32.11
RSV
11 ‘Surely none of the men who came up out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward,
shall see the land which I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, because they
have not wholly followed me;

GNT
11 ‘I swear that because they did not remain loyal to me, none of the men twenty years old or
older who came out of Egypt will enter the land that I promised to Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob.’

Verse 11 is a reference to the Lord’s words in 14.22-23.

Surely: The Hebrew particle ’im does not literally mean surely—it only
marks the beginning of a negative oath. Many versions thus leave it untranslated. On
the other hand, in some languages it is necessary to emphasize the onset of such an
oath, especially if pronounced by persons (God) who have the power to carry it out
(“Most certainly” Chewa). GNT explicitly marks this oath with the opening phrase “I
swear that …”
Who came up: See at 13.17 (“go up”).
From twenty years old and upward: See at 1.3, 18; 14.29.
Shall see: In some languages this may be a natural verb to use in this context
(“ever see” NLT); others will require an adjustment, for example, “enter” (GNT).
The land: The—less often used—Hebrew term ’adamah can mean “land” or
“country.” Its connotation of “arable land, soil” underlines the fertility of the land of
Canaan in the present context.
Which I swore to give to Abraham …: The Hebrew literally has which I
swore to Abraham …, thus lacking to give (see 11.12). GNT, FRCL, and TOB are
actually a close rendering of this Hebrew construction: “that I promised to Abraham
…” Compare also REB: “which I promised on oath to Abraham …” (similarly NIV,
GECL, NBV). DHE has “which I had solemnly promised to Abraham …” However,
other languages will naturally include some idea of what has been promised: “that I
will give to” (Chewa).
They have not wholly followed me: The Hebrew literally has “they have not
filled after me.”[< Alter] RSV and GNT (“they did not remain loyal to me”) are
dynamic translations of this Hebrew idiom, which occurs in 14.24 as well (in
connection with Caleb: “he has followed me fully”). In other languages other dynamic
translations may be possible. It may be necessary to relocate this clause of reason
closer to the beginning of the verse (“because they did not remain loyal to me” GNT),
rather than at the end, as in the Hebrew (and RSV).

32.12
RSV
12 none except Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua the son of Nun, for they
have wholly followed the Lord.’

GNT
12 This included everyone, except Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua son of
Nun; they remained loyal to the Lord.

Part of verse 12 is a reference to the Lord’s words in 14.24. In many languages

it will be necessary to begin a new sentence here, with the appropriate lexical
adjustments: “This included everyone, …” (GNT); “The only exceptions are …”
(NLT).
The Kenizzite: Caleb and his father Jephunneh are identified here as
Kenizzite for the first time (also in Josh 14.6, 14). The term may be rendered as “of
the Kenizzite clan.” The Kenizzites were not Israelites—Gen 36.11, 15, 42 mention
Kenaz among the descendants of Esau. In Gen 15.19, the Kenizzites are mentioned
among the prior inhabitants of Canaan. Since the book of Numbers makes it clear that
Caleb was chosen as a leader of Judah (13.2, 6; 34.18-19), at some point the
Kenizzites must have become related to or absorbed by the tribe of Judah (see Josh
14.6; 1 Chr 4.15).[< Ashley 233]
They have wholly followed the Lord: See at 32.11.

32.13
RSV
13And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the
wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was
consumed.

GNT
13The Lord was angry with the people and made them wander in the wilderness for 40 years
until that whole generation that had displeased him was dead.

And: Some languages may prefer a more consequential conjunction to

indicate that the events of this verse are in consequence to the cause that was specified
in the preceding verses, for example, “So” (NET) or simply “Then.” Verse 13
summarizes the basic content of 14.33-35.
Made them wander: The form of the Hebrew verb is causative. As the
Handbook on Genesis mentions at 4.12, the word rendered wander refers in other
contexts to a person's unstable movements, as in “to totter” or “to stagger.”
Until all the generation … was consumed: Literally the Hebrew has “until
the completion of all the generation.” NRSV has “until all the generation … had
disappeared,” thus avoiding the wrong suggestion that the old generation would be
consumed by fire or some other disaster. Other ways of avoiding this suggestion are
“… was dead” (GNT); “… had died” (CEV, NLT); “… was gone” (NIV, REB). In
languages that do not have a specific word for “generation,” a paraphrase will be
needed, for example, “all those people.”
That had done evil in the sight of the Lord: This is the only time in
Numbers that this phrase occurs. It can also be rendered as follows: “That had done
what the Lord considers wrong” or “that had done what displeases the Lord.”

32.14
RSV
14 And behold, you have risen in your fathers' stead, a brood of sinful men, to increase still
more the fierce anger of the Lord against Israel!

GNT
14And now you have taken your fathers' place, a new generation of sinful men ready to bring
down the fierce anger of the Lord on Israel again.

And behold: The Hebrew hineh seems to indicate that Moses now really
comes to the point. As in 23.20, in some languages this is better expressed with a
rendering like “And now you are doing the same” (DUCL, similarly GECL), “Now
look …” (NET), or more idiomatically (in English), “And/But here you are …” (NIV,
NLT). It is appropriate to start a new paragraph here, as Moses shifts from the past to
a present time frame.
You have risen in your fathers’ stead: Some languages have their own idiom
to express the meaning of this. For example, GNT and ZÜR translate “you have taken
your fathers’ place,” Chewa has “you have entered into the place of your parents,”
while REB renders “you are now following in your fathers’ footsteps.” On your
fathers see at 32.8.
A brood of sinful men: The Hebrew root r-b-h can signify “to become
numerous,” “become great.” Thus, KJV translates “an increase of sinful men,” while
NBG51 has “a multitude of sinful men,” and FRCL and PV have “band of sinners.”
However, the root r-b-h can also signify “to make numerous,” “make great,” “rear,
raise up children” and this is how RSV and quite a number of other translations
understand it (for example, NRSV, NIV, NJPSV, NET, NLT, ESV, and ZÜR). Some
languages will have to translate “you brood of sinful men” (similar to EÜ) or, for
example, “as a new generation of sinners” (WV95) in order to make clear that sinful
men (or “people”) refers to the present generation of Gadites and Reubenites, not to
their fathers. Renderings like “sons of sinful fathers” (DHE) and “who are as bad as
your ancestors” (TLA03) wrongly suggest that sinful men refers to the fathers. But
the Hebrew phrase does not focus on sin as sinful nature inherited from the fathers.
Instead, the Hebrew focuses on the sin as committed by the people themselves (as in,
for example, Gen 13.13).[< Levine 488]
To increase still more: NET and ESV translate in the same way. Literally the
Hebrew has “to add more to …” (as in Isa 29.1 and 30.1). GNT’s “ready to bring
down … again” seems to be a free rendering of this. A helpful model may be “making
the Lord even more angry with Israel” (NIV, similarly CEV). In some languages it
will be helpful to start a new sentence: “You are making the Lord even angrier with
Israel” (NLT), perhaps even with a rhetorical question: “Do you want the Lord to
become angry with Israel again?” (similar to TLA03).
Anger … against Israel: The Hebrew literally has “anger … to/towards
Israel.” In some languages this will be quite natural. GNT’s “anger … on Israel” may
be helpful as well. (Instead of Israel, a rendering such as “the Israelites,” “people of
Israel” may be helpful.)

32.15
RSV
15 For if you turn away from following him, he will again abandon them in the wilderness; and
you will destroy all this people.”

GNT
15 If you people of Reuben and Gad refuse to follow him now, he will once again abandon all
these people in the wilderness, and you will be responsible for their destruction.”

For: The Hebrew particle here, which appears to mark the conclusion of
Moses’ address, may be rendered in several ways—literally For (RSV), left
untranslated (GNT), or even as a discourse emphasizer, “Indeed,” or “Surely.”
You: The pronoun in plural. Moses is still speaking to the Gadites and
Reubenites, as made explicit by GNT: “you people of Reuben and Gad.” If this is
done, it would be more in line with the Hebrew of verses 2 and 6 to reverse the order
and say: “you people of Gad and Reuben.”
Turn away from following him: See at 14.43 for a similar expression.
Again abandon them: Literally “he will add still to abandon him,” a reference
to the people of Israel as a whole in the singular—something not quite clear from
GNT’s “all these people.” At the end of his speech as at the beginning, Moses seeks to
emphasize the unity of Israel as a nation that either fights or falls together. The
example of what had happened to the former generation should have served as an
obvious warning to anyone in the present generation who desires to break ranks and
rebel against the Lord (or so it seemed to Moses).
You will destroy all this people: Moses’ words are rather hyperbolic. He
does not mean destruction or killing in the literal sense. NJPSV is a helpful model:
“you will bring calamity upon all this people” (similarly NBG51). NIV and REB
bring out the implication more clearly: “you will be the cause of their destruction,”
while GNT has “you will be responsible for their destruction.” NLT and NTV are
similar to GNT, at the same time taking into account that all this people is in the
singular, hence highlighting again the theme of unity: “You will be responsible for
destroying this entire nation!” This sentence, the final clause in particular, marks the
climax at the end of Moses’ speech.

32.16
RSV
16 Then they came near to him, and said, “We will build sheepfolds here for our flocks, and
cities for our little ones,

GNT
16 They approached Moses and said, “First, allow us to build stone enclosures here for our
sheep and fortified towns for our dependants.

“The Gadites and Reubenites” (it will probably be helpful to specify them
here) will meet Moses’ main objection. They do not rebel but propose a compromise.
Their proposal starts here. Hence the new paragraph in RSV and GNT. Note that these
men mention building the sheepfolds first and the cities for their little ones last.
Perhaps they do this because they consider that the sheepfolds sound less permanent
and therefore less objectionable to Moses than the cities; in any case, it continues to
highlight the pre-eminence of flocks in their planning.
They came near to him: The Hebrew verb is used to indicate a lesser party
coming into the presences of a greater (Gen 43.19; 2 Kgs 5.13)[< Ashley 611] and
indicates that leaders of the two tribes now enter into formal negotiations with Moses,
the leader of Israel, with regard to their standing request.
We will build: It seems that the text implies that the cities of 32.3-4 had been
destroyed, hence “rebuild” may be in focus here. Alternatively, the proposal may refer
to “fortifying” the villages that they had occupied.
Sheepfolds: As the Handbook on 1 Samuel mentions at 24.3, the Hebrew term
refers to a fence-like enclosure made of stones (GNT’s “stone enclosures”). Some
sheepfolds were permanent, consisting of stone walls and a roof; others were
temporary constructions.
Flocks: As mentioned at 11.22, 15.3, and 31.28, flocks (Hebrew tso’n) consist
of sheep and goats. But it has been suggested that in the present verse the term is
being used metonymically to refer to enclosures for all types of “livestock.”[< Cole
510] Thus, NLT translates “pens for our livestock.”
Little ones: The same term occurs in 14.3, where it refers to children. In the
present context, a rendering like “dependants” (GNT) or “families” (NET, NBS02,
FRCL, PV, DHE) makes good sense. Some translations have “our women and
children” (NIV) or “our wives and children” (CEV, NLT, NTV), but the Hebrew does
not mention women here.
Cities: The Hebrew uses the regular term for this, `arim. GNT has “fortified
towns.” On the face of it, “towns” (NJPSV) would have been sufficient. But the
rendering “fortified towns” may help to indicate more clearly to the reader that these
towns and the “fortified towns” in verse 17 are the same (so already Rashi). It also
agrees with the suggestion above that the proposal involved a “fortifying” procedure
rather than a more substantial “rebuilding,” which would have required considerably
more time.

32.17
RSV
17 but we will take up arms, ready to go before the people of Israel, until we have brought
them to their place; and our little ones shall live in the fortified cities because of the
inhabitants of the land.

GNT
17 Then we will be ready to go with our fellow-Israelites into battle and lead the attack until we
have settled them in the land that will be theirs. In the meantime, our dependants can live
here in the fortified towns, safe from the people of this land.

But we will take up arms: The Hebrew verb literally means “become
equipped (for battle)”; “put weapons on ourselves.” This verb is preceded by an
independent pronoun we, and this indicates a contrast between the Gadites and
Reubenites themselves and their little ones (verse 16). RSV’s but may help to show
this contrast in English, but KJV and TOB are clearer on this: “but we ourselves …”
(KJV); “and we ourselves, we …” (TOB). In many languages, this new stage in the
line of reasoning is better marked by beginning a new sentence.
Ready to go before the people of Israel: The Gadites and Reubenites not
only promise that they will fight along with the other Israelites—they will actually go
in front (before …). GNT makes this explicit: “and lead the attack” (thus following
the Septuagint’s “in the vanguard”). Interestingly, this would represent a shift in the
normal battle array or marching order where Reuben and Gad were in the second rank
(2.16).
Perhaps similar to ready to go, the Hebrew chushim is quite often understood
to mean “swiftly,” “hurriedly” (so Levine, Buber, NBG51, PV, and already Rashi,
Rashbam, and Abraham Ibn Ezra). Compare also the renderings “immediately”
(GECL) and “shock troops” (Milgrom). Hence NJPSV’s “we will hasten as shock
troops in the van[guard] of the Israelites.” Other versions (NET) adopt an emended
verb meaning “equipped in battle array.”[< Ashley 603])
Their place: The Gadites and Reubenites are referring to different areas in the
land of Canaan allotted to the other tribes: “in the land that will be theirs” (GNT).
And our little ones: The reference to their own “dependants” should be
expressed as a new sentence: “In the meantime, our dependants …” (GNT);
“Meanwhile, our families …” (NLT).
The fortified cities: Rashi already noted that these are the cities mentioned in
verse 16.
Because of the inhabitants of the land: Or “in the face of.” In some
languages, the reason for the fortified cities may have to be made more explicit: “safe
from the inhabitants of the land” (NBV, WV, similarly GNT), “for fear of the people
in this land” (Chewa). In NLT this has become a longer clause: “so they will be safe
from any attacks by the local people.”

32.18
RSV
18 We will not return to our homes until the people of Israel have inherited each his
inheritance.

GNT
18 We will not return to our homes until all the other Israelites have taken possession of the
land assigned to them.

We will not return to our homes: In some languages this location may have
to be noted more precisely, for example, “we will not come back here to our place of
dwelling.” Two positive statements of commitment (verses 16-17) are now followed
by a pair of negative assertions (18-19).
The people of Israel: Since the Gadites and Reubenites are not referring to
themselves. GNT’s “all the other Israelites” avoids this misunderstanding. Another
possibility is “every Israelite” (NET).
Have inherited: In some languages this verb does not combine well
stylistically with the corresponding noun inheritance later in the sentence. Hence
renderings such as “received” (NIV), “obtained” (NRSV), “is in possession of”
(TOB).
Inheritance: The Hebrew nachalah refers to a distinct section of land which
has been apportioned or allocated and hence belongs to an individual or family. In
some languages the term “inheritance” may imply that which is received upon the
death of some close relative. In such cases, translators will have to determine whether
or not that component of meaning is still active; if there is a problem in this regard, a
paraphrase may be necessary, like “the land assigned to them” (GNT).
Each his …: In this way the Hebrew is referring to the portion assigned to
each individual Israelite family. GNT’s “the land assigned to them” seems to lose this
emphasis on the individual. In the end, TOB is a better model: “… until each of the
Israelites is in possession of his inheritance”; alternatively, people of Israel could be
restated as “every Israelite family.”

32.19
RSV
19 For we will not inherit with them on the other side of the Jordan and beyond; because our
inheritance has come to us on this side of the Jordan to the east.”

GNT
19We will not take possession of any property among them on the other side of the Jordan,
because we have received our share here east of the Jordan.”

For: As in verse 15, this particle may well function as an emphasizer here:
“Indeed,” “Surely,” “You may be sure,…”
We will not inherit: The Hebrew verbal construction is stronger than the
English suggests here; better would be a rendering such as “we do not claim” (NLT)
or “we do not wish to inherit” (Ashley).
On the other side of the Jordan and beyond: The Gadites and Reubenites
are referring here to the land of Canaan, west of the Jordan. Instead of and beyond, it
may be helpful to translate “and further” (NBG51), “or still further away” (NBV), or
even “or anywhere else” (an indication of further emphasis). It seems that it is part of
the Gadites’ and Reubenites’ negotiation strategy to make it sound far-fetched that
they would inherit any land west of the Jordan.
Because our inheritance has come to us: Also as part of their negotiation
strategy, the Gadites and Reubenites make it sound as if they have already received
the land east of the Jordan as their full inheritance. On inheritance see 32.18.
On this side of the Jordan to the east: GNT’s “here east of the Jordan”
makes it more explicit that the two tribes are now referring to the eastern side of the
Jordan. This is where they are currently located.

32.20-22
RSV
20So Moses said to them, “If you will do this, if you will take up arms to go before the Lord for
the war, 21 and every armed man of you will pass over the Jordan before the Lord, until he has
driven out his enemies from before him 22 and the land is subdued before the Lord; then after
that you shall return and be free of obligation to the Lord and to Israel; and this land shall be
your possession before the Lord.

GNT
20 Moses answered, “If you really mean what you say, then here in the presence of the
Lord get ready to go into battle. 21 All your fighting men are to cross the Jordan and under the
command of the Lord they are to attack our enemies until the Lord defeats them 22 and takes
possession of the land. After that, you may return, because you will have fulfilled your
obligation to the Lord and to your fellow-Israelites. Then the Lord will acknowledge that this
land east of the Jordan is yours.

Having heard the deferential words of the Gadites and Reubenites, Moses
modifies his harsh earlier line and works to reach a compromise with them and an
agreement that will preserve the unity of the nation. Verses 20-24 constitute the
central portion of the larger discourse structure proposed earlier. It takes the form of a
covenantal agreement involving blessings and curses: “If you do X, then you will have
Y blessing; but if you do not do X, then Z curse will come to you.”[< Cole 511] The
covenant partners are the two tribes of Gad and Reuben on the one side and the
remaining ten tribes on the other; Moses acts as the mediator while the Lord is the
divine witness (note the repeated phrase before the Lord) and the supreme arbiter
who ensures that all agreements are fulfilled.
If you will do this: Verses 20-22 form one long sentence construction with a
number of conditions under which the request will be granted: “If you will do this …
[22] … then after that …” In many languages it will be better to break up this long
construction into separate imperative sentences for each of the points, as in GNT.
Moses states the proposed agreement in the form of an oath in Hebrew. Compare also
the negative counterpart in verse 23: “But if you will not do so …” Some languages
may have idiomatic ways of marking or wording such formal oath declarations.
Take up arms: In the Hebrew, the verb is the same as in 32.17.
Before the Lord for the war: The Gadites and Reubenites had offered to go
“before the people of Israel” (verse 17) but Moses changes this to going before the
Lord for the war. Thus Moses puts the conquest on a theological level (both here and
in the next verse):[< Sherwood 185] the conquest will be the Lord’s doing—a “holy
war.” GNT renders before the Lord as “in the presence of the Lord”; Chewa has
“before the eyes of Chauta (local equivalent for YHWH).”
Every armed man of you: The Hebrew chaluts is of the root ch-l-ts (see
31.3), which can mean either “to pick out” or “to equip, to arm.” NRSV has “all those
of you who bear arms.” GNT’s “all your fighting men” takes the literal meaning “to
pick out” more into account.
Before the Lord: Here in verse 21, GNT renders this contextually as “under
the command of the Lord.”
Until he has driven out his enemies from before him [22] and the land is
subdued before the Lord: The Lord is significantly the subject of these actions. In
order to make this clear, GNT translates “until the Lord defeats them [22] and takes
possession of the land,” thus referring to the Lord as the explicit subject earlier in the
sentence construction. This will be helpful in many languages. Instead of has driven
out or “defeats,” the Hebrew literally has “has dispossessed” (as in 21.32), that is, to
cause A to have what B possessed before.
 Then after that you shall return: Moses now specifies what will happen if
the specified conditions are fulfilled.
Be free of obligation to the Lord and to Israel: Literally “be clear (or
‘clean’) of the Lord and of Israel.” The idiom refers to being clear of the obligations
of a pledge or covenant because its conditions will have been fulfilled.[< Alter]
Compare NBV: “then you will have fulfilled your duty …”
Your possession before the Lord: For possession see at 27.4. In some
languages, the key phrase before the Lord becomes more meaningful if expressed as
in GNT: “Then the Lord will acknowledge that this land east of the Jordan is yours.”
Other models are: “from the Lord” (NLT); “in the eyes of the Lord” (CRV); “with the
Lord’s approval” (FRCL, PV, DHE).

32.23
RSV
23 But if you will not do so, behold, you have sinned against the Lord; and be sure your sin will
find you out.

GNT
But if you do not keep your promise, I warn you that you will be sinning against the Lord.
23
Make no mistake about it; you will be punished for your sin.

But if you will not do so: This phrase introduces the negative outcome (the
“curse” part) if the conditions in verses 20-22a are not met. It may be helpful to
specify the adverbial so, as in the GNT: “keep your promise.”
Behold: The emphatic hineh here should be rendered if possible, for example,
“surely,” “truly,” or “I warn you” (GNT).
Be sure: Literally, “know,” an imperative verb in the plural. (Compare FRCL:
“know it well!”) It introduces a warning, so in some languages “I warn you” (GNT,
REB) will be a helpful model.
Your sin will find you out: Literally, “… will find you.” GNT expresses the
sense of this personification of sin: “you will be punished for your sin.” Similarly,
NBV has “you will undergo the consequences of your sin.” But in other languages it
may be possible to retain the force of the original imagery, for example, “your sin will
follow after you” (Chewa, which is similar to a local proverb to that effect). Sin is in
the singular in the Hebrew (the Syriac Peshitta and the Samaritan Pentateuch have a
plural).

32.24
RSV
24 Build cities for your little ones, and folds for your sheep; and do what you have promised.”

GNT
24 So build your towns and the enclosures for your sheep, but do what you have promised!”

Build: Moses’ official expression of permission may require an appropriate

initial transitional expression: “So” (GNT); “Go ahead and” (NLT).
Cities for your little ones, and folds for your sheep: As in verse 16, though
in reverse order, thus forming a chiasm with verse 16.[< Milgrom p. xxii] This is how,
according to Rashi, Moses corrected the priorities the two tribes had expressed: the
fortified cities for the children should be built before the enclosures for their livestock.
 And do what you have promised: Literally “What goes out from your mouth
do” (the same expression as in 30.2). This idiom is used for oaths, which cannot be
retracted once they are pronounced.[< Alter] Instead of and, a more natural
conjunction may be “but” (GNT, NLT, NET). In some languages, this climactic
utterance may require a little extra emphasis for the sake of naturalness: “you must
really do” (Chewa).

32.25
RSV
25 And the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben said to Moses, “Your servants will do as my
lord commands.

GNT
25 The men of Gad and Reuben said, “Sir, we will do as you command.

And: A new paragraph begins at this point and should be marked

appropriately in translation, for example, “Now then …” (Chewa).
The sons: In some languages “the men” (GNT) may be as unnatural as the
sons, thus calling for a better equivalent. See at 32.2.
Your servants: See at 32.5. In some languages, a rendering like “we, your
servants” (NLT, NTV) will be natural and will express the speakers’ deference at the
same time. GNT (“we”) leaves this untranslated which is not helpful. Perhaps a verbal
phrase like “obey and do” or “obediently do” would work.
My lord: The men use this deferential title for Moses, in which my is in the
singular, even though there is more than one speaker. The two tribes thereby indicate
that they are speaking “with one voice.” In languages where this will not work, “Sir”
(GNT, CEV), “our lord” (CRV) or even “their lord” (in third person like “your
servants”) may be helpful. This expression of deference is essential at the end of the
negotiation process, marking the formal ratification of the covenantal agreement.[<
Ashley 613; Cole 512] There is no reason to leave it untranslated (for example,
FRCL, PV, GECL). In some languages, a rendering like “you, our lord/master” will
be natural and will express the speakers’ deference at the same time.

32.26-27
RSV
26 Our little ones, our wives, our flocks, and all our cattle, shall remain there in the cities of
Gilead; 27 but your servants will pass over, every man who is armed for war, before the Lord
to battle, as my lord orders.”

GNT
26 Our wives and children and our cattle and sheep will remain here in the towns of Gilead. 27
But all of us are ready to go into battle under the Lord's command. We will cross the Jordan
and fight, just as you have said.”

Flocks … cattle: In the Hebrew, the first term (miqneh) is very general and
includes all types of cattle. In 32.1, GNT has “livestock,” which would also have been
accurate here. In Hebrew, the second term (behemah), translated cattle, can refer to
cattle or even to animals in general. (See the discussion of these similar generic terms
at 31.9.) By using both of these terms, the Gadites and Reubenites seem to emphasize
that they will really leave everything behind (note the all) while they themselves will
go into battle, like the other Israelites. GNT’s “cattle and sheep” does not express this.
 There: Many languages would say “here” (GNT)—the speakers are still in the
land east of the Jordan.
Gilead: In this context, Gilead seems to be a general reference to the land east
of the Jordan.[< Noth 239] “The land of Jazer” (32.1) is no longer mentioned here.
But: It is advisable to begin a new sentence here (eliminate the semicolon).
Your servants: As in 32.5, 25.
Every man who is armed for war: As in 32.21 (“every armed man”), but
adding the word tsava’, which RSV and NET translate as for war. (See the discussion
of the Hebrew term tsava’ at 4.3.) The phrase “armed for war” or “battle-ready” also
occurs at the end of 31.5.
Before the Lord to battle: The Gadites and Reubenites show their
commitment to the agreement by adopting the theological language used by Moses in
verses 20-21. As in verse 21, GNT renders before the Lord as “under the command
of the Lord.”
My lord: See at 32.25. It should be duplicated in translation if at all possible.

32.28
RSV
28 So Moses gave command concerning them to Eleazar the priest, and to Joshua the son
of Nun, and to the heads of the fathers' houses of the tribes of the people of Israel.

GNT
28 So Moses gave these commands to Eleazar, Joshua, and the other leaders of Israel:

So: There is no discourse marker in the Hebrew at this point, but So (many
versions) or “After that” (NBV) helps to indicate that Moses’ instructions in verses
29-39 come as his affirmative response to what the Gadites and Reubenites have said
in verses 25-27. A new paragraph in the discourse may be indicated here.
Concerning them: Or “about them” (NIV, NET). This refers to the Gadites
and Reubenites, as is clearly specified in the next verse.
Fathers’ houses: See at 31.26. It may be noted that the group that Moses
summons as witnesses here is the same group that will divide the land in 34.16-29.[<
Ashley 614]

32.29-30
RSV
29 And Moses said to them, “If the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben, every man who is
armed to battle before the Lord, will pass with you over the Jordan and the land shall be
subdued before you, then you shall give them the land of Gilead for a possession; 30 but if
they will not pass over with you armed, they shall have possessions among you in the land of
Canaan.”

GNT
29“If the men of Gad and Reuben cross the Jordan ready for battle at the Lord's command
and if with their help you are able to conquer the land, then give them the land of Gilead as
their property. 30 But if they do not cross the Jordan and go into battle with you, they are to
receive their share of the property in the land of Canaan, as you do.”

Moses repeats the agreement that was proposed in verses 25-27. These
correspondences in wording should be retained in translation. Moses then specifies
the punitive sanction in case the Gadites and Reubenites fail to keep the conditions.
 And Moses said to them: The pronoun them refers to Eleazar, Joshua, and
the heads of the ancestral houses (verse 28), not to the Gadites and Reubenites. In
view of verse 28, in some languages it will be natural to leave this phrase untranslated
(as in GNT).
Every man who is armed: As in 32.21 and 27, the Hebrew chaluts is of the
root ch-l-ts (see 31.3), which can mean either “to pick out” or “to equip, to arm.”
Before the Lord to battle: As in 32.27 (“to battle before the Lord”), though in
reverse order.
With you … before you: The you addresses Eleazar, Joshua and the heads of
the ancestral houses (verse 28).
And the land shall be subdued: As in 32.22.
Gilead: As in 32.26, this seems to be a general reference to the land east of the
Jordan.
A possession: See at 27.4.
But: New sentence, here stating the negative in case of disobedience.
They shall have possessions …: In many languages, this will not sound like a
sanction. In such cases, the following models are helpful: “… they must accept their
possession with you in Canaan” (NIV); “then they must accept land with the rest of
you in the land of Canaan” (NLT, similarly NTV); “then they must content
themselves with a piece of [perhaps ‘left-over’] land among you” (GECL). Their
request for an inheritance in the area east of the Jordan will be denied if they fail to
keep the covenant agreement.[< Ashley 614]

32.31-32
RSV
31And the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben answered, “As the Lord has said to your
servants, so we will do. 32 We will pass over armed before the Lord into the land of Canaan,
and the possession of our inheritance shall remain with us beyond the Jordan.”

GNT
31 The men of Gad and Reuben answered, “Sir, we will do as the Lord has commanded. 32
Under his command we will cross into the land of Canaan and go into battle, so that we can
retain our property here east of the Jordan.”

The Gadites and Reubenites repeat the agreement in the presence of the chief
tribal witnesses and representatives. All this repetition underscores the significance of
this covenantal agreement.
As the Lord has said: The Lord is also called upon to testify to the oath
taking.[< Cole 514]
Your servants: As in 32.4, 5, 25. In GNT, the rendering “Sir” compensates
for this—a different way to express the Gadites’ and Reubenites’ deference towards
Moses.
We will pass over: The initial independent and emphatic pronoun “we”
should be reflected in translation, for example, “Indeed” or “To be sure, we …”
Armed: As in 32.21, 27, 29, the Hebrew chaluts is of the root ch-l-ts (see
31.3), which can mean either “to pick out” or “to equip, to arm.” GNT seems to have
rendered this as “and go into battle.”
Before the Lord: GNT has “under his command,” similar to 32.21, 27.
The possession of our inheritance: See at 27.7.
Beyond the Jordan: That is, as seen from Canaan: “east of the Jordan”
(GNT).
32.33
RSV
33 And Moses gave to them, to the sons of Gad and to the sons of Reuben and to the half-
tribe of Manasseh the son of Joseph, the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites and the
kingdom of Og king of Bashan, the land and its cities with their territories, the cities of the land
throughout the country.

GNT
33 So Moses assigned to the tribes of Gad and Reuben and to half the tribe of Manasseh
all the territory of King Sihon of the Amorites and King Og of Bashan, including the towns and
the country round them.

And: An appropriate transitional expression is needed as the narrative shifts

from direct speech back to an historical account, “So” (GNT, NET); “Then” (NIV).
Verse 33 serves as a general summary of the threefold apportionment of cities that
follows to the end of the chapter.
The half-tribe of Manasseh the son of Joseph: Until this point, there was no
mention of this “half-tribe” as part of the Transjordanian group of tribes. A partial
explanation for this group’s inclusion is given later in verses 39-42. Its connection
with the wider context of the final third of Numbers may be that Zelophehad’s
daughters belonged to the clan of Machir of the tribe of Manasseh (verse 39; also see
at 27.1 and 36.1). For some unclear reason, GNT has left the son of Joseph
untranslated, which is not recommended.
The kingdom of Sihon … and the kingdom of Og …: The area for the
Transjordanian group covers the whole of the country to the east of the Jordan; it is
identified here with the former domains of the defeated kings Sihon and Og (21.21-
35). These territories had already been conquered, but Moses now “assigns” (GNT)
them to these three tribes. (Josh 13.15-33 specifies in more detail how these territories
were divided between the tribes of Gad, Reuben, and half of Manasseh.)
The land and its cities with their territories, the cities of the land
throughout the country: Literally the Hebrew has: “the land according to its cities
with territories, the cities of the land roundabout” (Buber). The repetition and the
word throughout / “roundabout” (Hebrew saviv) make the two phrases somewhat
emphatic. NIV comprises all this in one phrase: “…—the whole land with its cities
and the territory [or better: “territories”] around them.” The land refers to the areas of
the kingdoms of Sihon and Og combined. If this is not clear, translators may want to
restructure the verse along the following lines:
“[all] the territory and towns that King Sihon the Amorite had ruled, as well as [all]
the territory and towns that King Og of Bashan had ruled” (CEV).

32.34-36
RSV
34 And the sons of Gad built Dibon, Ataroth, Aroer, 35 Atroth-shophan, Jazer, Jogbehah, 36
Beth-nimrah and Beth-haran, fortified cities, and folds for sheep.

GNT
34The tribe of Gad rebuilt the fortified towns of Dibon, Ataroth, Aroer, 35 Atroth Shophan,
Jazer, Jogbehah, 36 Beth Nimrah, and Beth Haran.

This is the first of three sets of cities, or settlements, that are listed—those
belonging to the Gadites (verse 34-36). These places are partially located and
described (to the extent possible) in commentaries in case such information is
desirable in footnotes.[< Ashley 615-619; Cole 515-516; Noordtzij 283-286]
Built: The implication is that they “rebuilt” (GNT, NJPSV)[< Levine 489,
495] or “fortified” (Ashley) these towns after conquering and destroying them. These
are the specific locations where the soldiers left their dependants before crossing the
Jordan to fight alongside the other tribes in the conquest of Canaan.
Fortified cities: As in 32.17. GNT moves “the fortified towns of …” close to
the beginning of the sentence, to make sure that readers understand that “Dibon …
Beth Haran” are these fortified cities. Such a rendering may be necessary in some
languages.
Folds for sheep: Or “pens for their flocks” (NLT, NET). See at 32.16 (and
32.24). GNT has left this untranslated here. But it should of course be included,
especially because of the explicit mention of this expression in verse 24.

32.37-38
RSV
37And the sons of Reuben built Heshbon, Elealeh, Kiriathaim, 38 Nebo, and Baal-meon (their
names to be changed), and Sibmah; and they gave other names to the cities which they built.

GNT
The tribe of Reuben rebuilt Heshbon, Elealeh, Kiriathaim, 38 Nebo, Baal Meon (this name
37
was changed), and Sibmah. They gave new names to the towns they rebuilt.

Verses 37-38 may be helpfully set off as a separate paragraph to indicate the
threefold division of this listing of cities.
Built: See at 32.34.
Heshbon …: The previous ruler of these towns had probably been Sihon king
of Heshbon (21.21-26).[< Budd 339-340]
… (their names to be changed) … and they gave other names to …: As
Rashi already noted, some of these towns bore names associated with pagan gods.
The Israelites were impelled to rename these towns, so that the pagan gods are not
mentioned when reading the sacred text.[< Budd 345; Ashley 605, 616]
For the phrase (their names to be changed), GNT has “(this name was
changed).” Literally the Hebrew phrase is best understood as “name being changed”:
it is not clear how many names this refers to. Translations vary on this, but NET and
WV95 leave it open: “… (with a change of name) …” Compare also Alter: “changed
in name.” If this is not possible, GNT is a good model to follow, since the name Baal-
meon stands out as a name associated with a pagan god, Baal. For “Nebo” see Isa
46.1. Like Rashi, NBV and CEV apply the phrase to both Nebo and Baal-meon:
“The tribe of Reuben rebuilt Heshbon, Elealeh, Kiriathaim, Sibmah, as well as the
towns that used to be known as Nebo and Baal-Meon. They renamed all those places.”
(CEV).

32.39
RSV
39 And the sons of Machir the son of Manasseh went to Gilead and took it, and dispossessed
the Amorites who were in it.

GNT
39 The clan of Machir son of Manasseh invaded the land of Gilead, occupied it, and drove
out the Amorites who were there.
 The third and final set of city names begins here and runs to the end of the
chapter (separate paragraph).
The sons of Machir: In some languages it will be more helpful to translate
“the clan of Machir” (GNT). In other languages, it may be more natural to translate
“soldiers” or “men” in this context.
Went to Gilead and took it: Or “invaded the land of Gilead and occupied it”
(GNT). It offers the reason for Moses’ action in verse 40. In the Hebrew, the second
verb (took) is the same as in 21.32.
Perhaps went to Gilead and took it is actually a back-reference to 21.32. If
translators accept this interpretation, they will want to avoid the suggestion that these
military actions took place sometime during the discussions recorded here in chapter
32. They may then find the model of TLA03 (see below under verse 40) helpful.
Dispossessed: As in 21.32 and 32.21 (where RSV translates “has driven out”).

32.40
RSV
40 And Moses gave Gilead to Machir the son of Manasseh, and he settled in it.

GNT
40 So Moses gave Gilead to the clan of Machir, and they lived there.

And: Since verse 39 offers the reason for verse 40, it may be helpful to
translate “So” (NRSV, GNT, NIV, CEV, NLT, NET, NJPSV, and already the Latin
Vulgate), “then” (REB, TOB, FRCL, PV, Levine), or “therefore” (GECL, DUCL).
TLA03 translates “because,” reversing the order of sentences in verses 39-40. This
may be a helpful model in some languages:
“[40a] Moses gave the lands of the region of Gilead to the descendants of Machir,
who was the son of Manasseh, because [39] they drove [or past perfect ‘had driven’]
out the Amorites that lived there. [40b] Therefore they settled in this region.”
(TLA03)
Moses gave: In many languages “allocated,” “apportioned,” or “assigned” will
be better.
To Machir the son of Manasseh: Not to the individual Machir himself, but to
“the clan of Machir” (GNT).
Settled in: See at 21.25.

32.41
RSV
41 And Jair the son of Manasseh went and took their villages, and called them Havvoth-jair.z

z 32.41 That is the villages of Jair

GNT
41 Jair, of the tribe of Manasseh, attacked and captured some villages and named them
“Villages of Jair”.

And Jair the son of Manasseh: And is better left untranslated (GNT) or
replaced by a more neutral conjunction like “Now” (NET) that does not indicate a
direct chronological progression. Son is more precisely rendered as “another clan”
(NLT) or simply “of the tribe of” (GNT).
 Took their villages: (For took see 32.39.) It is not clear, who is meant by
their. The closest referent would be “Gilead” (construed collectively) in the preceding
verses, hence, “some villages in Gilead.”[< Ashley 618] GNT’s “some villages”
leaves this pronoun untranslated. Instead of their, Levine proposes to read Ham (a
difference of only one vowel in Hebrew). Ham is mentioned in Gen 14.5 and would
by context be located here in the Transjordanian area.[< Levine 497; Budd 345]
Hence “the tent villages of Ham” in NEB.
Havvoth-jair: RSV gives the meaning in a footnote, but GNT and Alter put
the meaning in the translation itself: “Villages of Jair”; “Jair’s Hamlets.” This is more
helpful, given the first part of the verse.

32.42
RSV
42 And Nobah went and took Kenath and its villages, and called it Nobah, after his own name.

GNT
42 Nobah attacked and captured Kenath and its villages, and he renamed it Nobah, after
himself.

And: Again, better left untranslated (GNT) or replaced by a non-chronological

term like “Meanwhile” (NLT).
Kenath and its villages: Literally “Kenath and its daughters.” As in 21.25, the
city figures as a mother and nearby settlements, or related villages as daughters. The
original name reappears in 1 Chr 2.23.
Nobah: A member of the tribe of Manasseh, not otherwise identified (see Jdg
8.11).

33.1-49
Section Heading: This section is a temporal flashback; it summarizes and
recapitulates the whole narrative of the Book of Numbers in the form of an itinerary
of all the places through which the Israelites have journeyed through the wilderness.
For the forty years, there are, significantly, forty stopping places between Egypt
(Rameses) and the plains of Moab near the Jordan. Sixteen of these (in verses 13, 19-
29) do not appear elsewhere in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and this may
reflect some traditions about the wilderness wanderings that were not included
elsewhere in the narrative of Exodus and Numbers. In any case, this is not just a
random collection of place names but a list designed to shape Israel’s perspective on
her wilderness wanderings as a whole.[< Duguid 346]
The section heading in GNT and DUCL is “The Journey from Egypt to
Moab.” However, headings such as “The Stages of Israel’s Journey from Egypt”
(NRSV), “From Egypt to the Jordan: the journeying stages of Israel” (TOB), or, more
briefly, “List of stopping places” (NBV) and “Route of the Israelites” (DHE) bring
out more clearly that this section follows the pattern of a list of stopping, or
“camping” places.
ESV’s heading makes more explicit that the section is a temporal flashback:
“Recounting Israel’s Journey.” The same applies to NLT: “Remembering Israel’s
Journey.”
Other helpful headings are: “Overview of the resting-places of the journey
through the desert” (LUT84); “Summary of the journeys from Egypt to the Jordan.”
 The text pays more attention to some of the campsites by referring to what
took place there. These incidents seem to function as words of warning or hope for the
new generation.[< Olson 184] Because of these short expansions, the itinerary in this
chapter has sometimes been compared with the annals of the Ancient Near East,
which were constructed to report the deeds of the kings.[< Knierim and Coats 309]
Chapter 33 is a transitional travel summary that looks back in history as well
as forward, thereby leading to the conclusion of the book of Numbers in the chapters
that follow. Note that this chapter stands between the granting of tribal inheritance in
Transjordan to the two and one-half tribes (chapter 32) and the defining of the
boundaries of the promised land which will be divided among the other nine and one-
half tribes (chapter 34).[< Cole 518]

33.1
RSV
1 These are the stages of the people of Israel, when they went forth out of the land of
Egypt by their hosts under the leadership of Moses and Aaron.

GNT
1 The following account gives the names of the places where the Israelites set up camp
after they left Egypt in their tribes under the leadership of Moses and Aaron.

These are: In languages that distinguish between back-pointing (anaphoric)

and forward-pointing (cataphoric) demonstrative pronouns, the latter is needed here if
the RSV model is followed. Some other formal expression may be used to announce
the listing that is to come: “The following account gives the names of …” (GNT).
Verses 1-2 serve as an introduction to the actual listing of stages or campsites, which
begins in verse 3.
Stages reflects the same Hebrew term as in 10.12: “marches, departures.” In
this way the Hebrew refers to a series of successive marches, “routes of march”
(Levine), on their circuitous route from Egypt to Canaan. Hence, RVE95 translates
“journeys,” while DHE has “stages of the journey.” NLT and NTV provide a helpful
model: “This is the route [a singular term] the Iraelites followed ...” In some
languages this may be better expressed by referring to the camping places associated
with these stages of the journey, as in GNT: “… the names of the places where the
Israelites set up camp.” In some languages (for example, Chewa), the latter phrase can
be expressed by a single word.
By their hosts: Literally “by their troops.” The Hebrew is the same as in 1.3,
where RSV has translated “company by company.” The nation of Israel is presented
as a well-organized army in preparation for their march to take possession of the land
of Canaan. “By their divisions” (similar to NIV) expresses the military sense of the
term more clearly than GNT (“in their tribes”). NLT reformulates the military phrase
in a helpful way: “as they marched out of Egypt.”
Under the leadership of Moses and Aaron: Literally “by the hand of …”
This figurative expression also has a military connotation (see at 31.49). In view of
this, a closer equivalent might be “under the command of …”

33.2
RSV
2Moses wrote down their starting places, stage by stage, by command of the Lord; and these
are their stages according to their starting places.
GNT
2At the command of the Lord, Moses wrote down the name of the place each time they set
up camp.

Moses wrote down: The Pentateuch rarely refers to Moses writing. He writes
down the law (Exo 24.4; 34.27; Deut 31.9, 24), the curse against Amalek (Exo 17.14),
his final song (Deut 31.22), and this itinerary.[< Nowell 138] This is the only place in
Numbers that mentions Moses writing.[< Ashley 626] Moses is rather known as the
spokesman for the Lord, as at 30.1.
Their starting places, stage by stage … these are their stages according to
their starting places: The Hebrew features a chiastic arrangement, perhaps to reflect
the people’s disciplined marching order, literally:
A their goings out,
B of their settings out, …
B’ their settings out,
A’ of their goings out.
For “their settings out” / their stages (Hebrew mas`eyhem) see at verse 1.
By command of the Lord: What was it that was done at the command of the
Lord? According to GNT’s rendering, Moses, “at the command of the Lord,”
recorded the wanderings. Thus it was the recording of the wanderings by Moses that
was directed by the Lord. This interpretation, which can already be found with the
Jewish medieval commentator Nachmanides, is followed by quite a number of
translations (for example, NIV, NLT, LUT84, EÜ, ZÜR, WV, NBV, RVC10). But
since the phrase by command of the Lord occurs at the end of the verse in the
Hebrew, the alternative interpretation—they set out from place to place “at the
command of the Lord”—is also possible, though less likely: “Moses noted the stations
when / from where they set out at the command of the Lord (NBJ98 / TOB); “…, how
they wandered at the command of the Lord, …” (LUT12). The NET seems to have
left the reading (certainly, the hearing of this text) ambiguous: “Moses recorded their
departures according to their journeys, by the commandment of the Lord.”

33.3-4
RSV
3They set out from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the
day after the passover the people of Israel went out triumphantly in the sight of all the
Egyptians, 4 while the Egyptians were burying all their first-born, whom the Lord had struck
down among them; upon their gods also the Lord executed judgments.

GNT
3 The people of Israel left Egypt on the fifteenth day of the first month of the year, the day
after the first Passover. Under the Lord's protection they left the city of Rameses in full view of
the Egyptians, 4 who were burying the firstborn sons that the Lord had killed. By doing this,
the Lord showed that he was more powerful than the gods of Egypt.

Only here at the beginning of the journey account and at one significant point
along the way (to note the death of Aaron, verses 37-39) does the formulaic record of
the people’s movements and place names include a brief narrative segment, serving a
theological purpose.[< Brown 289]
They set out from Rameses: The meaning of the verb set out can be
described as “move off, journey further, march,” as, for example, in 2.9; 9.17-18; and
10.12.
Rameses was a city they had built during their slavery (Exo 1.11; 12.37).
 The first month: As mentioned at 9.1, The first month corresponds to the
beginning of spring, and the month begins anywhere from the last half of March to the
first half of April.
Passover: See at 9.2.
Went out triumphantly: It may be advisable to begin a new sentence at this
point, as in the GNT. The Hebrew has “went out with a high/raised hand,” a gesture
expressing the meaning “defiantly” (REB, NET), “boldly” (NRSV, NIV). In some
cultures, however, this meaning can be expressed with a similar gesture. GNT’s
“under the Lord’s protection they left” seems rather far away from the meaning of the
original Hebrew expression, which occurs in Exo 14.8 as well (see the Exodus
Handbook there). RSV’s triumphantly, or “victoriously,” would be a translation
option that reflects upon the miraculous nature of this exodus from Egypt.
In the sight of all the Egyptians: Literally, “under the eyes of (FRCL, PV,
NBV) all the Egyptians”; “while all the Egyptians are watching” (Chewa), which can
be understood figuratively as “without the Egyptians doing anything to stop them.”
While the Egyptians were burying all their first-born: In some languages it
will be appropriate to start a new sentence: “The Egyptians were then burying …”
(NBV); “Meanwhile, the Egyptians were burying …” (NLT), thus still showing the
overlap in time and contrastive national situations with verse 3. This activity is not
mentioned in Exodus 12.
Had struck: A form of the same verb occurs in 3.13, where RSV has “slew.”
See the discussion there.
Upon their gods also the Lord executed judgments: Another new sentence
may be needed here in some languages, as in the GNT. The Hebrew construction puts
emphasis on their gods. NRSV expresses this well: “The Lord executed judgments
even against their gods.” The ten plagues and the exodus of the Israelites were a clear
demonstration of the impotence of the gods of Egypt in the face of Yahweh, the all-
powerful God of Israel. Compare also the following renderings: “Thus he had
punished [even] their gods” (DUCL); “The Lord had defeated the gods of Egypt that
night with great acts of judgment!” (NLT). This sentence resonates with the Lord’s
prediction in Exo 12.12.[< Levine] See the discussion in the Exodus Handbook at that
point.

33.5
RSV
5 So the people of Israel set out from Rameses, and encamped at Succoth.

GNT
5 The people of Israel left Rameses and set up camp at Sukkoth.

So the people of Israel set out from Rameses: After the narrative summary
in verses 3-4, this sentence repeats the first movement, which was mentioned at the
beginning of verse 3, and forms the beginning of the list of camping places. In many
languages it will be appropriate to start a new paragraph here, as RSV and GNT have
done. So does not occur in the Hebrew, but it makes clear that an earlier journey (not
another, new one) is being mentioned again.
Sukkoth: Compare Exo 12.37.

33.6
RSV
6And they set out from Succoth, and encamped at Etham, which is on the edge of the
wilderness.

GNT
6 Their next camp was at Etham on the edge of the desert.

The Hebrew text of verse 6 is virtually the same as Exo 13.20.

And they set out: The meaning of the verb can be described as “move off, set
out, journey further, march.” An idiomatic way of reporting this long journey account
should be sought in translation. Often this will mean the elimination of the Hebrew
“ands” (waw) and perhaps their replacement by natural conjunctions in the target
language. Some languages, like Chewa, will have a corresponding verb for “set out on
a journey,” while others will need to use a more general verb such as “travelled”
(NET) or “left” (NLT). Another option, if more natural, is to reduce the repetition
somewhat, as in GNT: “Their next camp was at …”
On the edge of the wilderness means “near the border (FRCL, DHE, NTV)
of the wilderness.” On the translation of “wilderness,” see at 1.1.

33.7
RSV
7And they set out from Etham, and turned back to Pi-hahiroth, which is east of Baal-zephon;
and they encamped before Migdol.

GNT
7 From there they turned back to Pi Hahiroth, east of Baal Zephon, and camped near Migdol.

And they set out from Etham, and turned back to: Again the GNT
condenses the text: “From there they turned back to…” This will sound more natural
in some languages, but not necessarily all, especially those that favour narrative
repetition.
Pi-hahiroth, Baal-zephon, and Migdol, at or near Israel’s miraculous
crossing of the Red Sea, are mentioned in Exo 14.2.
East of Baal-zephon: NRSV and NJPSV are more accurate: “which faces
Baal-zephon.” Compare also NLT (“opposite …”), NET (“before…”), and WV95
(“close to …”).

33.8
RSV
8And they set out from before Hahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the
wilderness, and they went a three days' journey in the wilderness of Etham, and encamped at
Marah.

GNT
8They left Pi Hahiroth and passed through the Red Sea into the desert of Shur; after a three
days' march they camped at Marah.

Hahiroth is a variant of the name “Pi-hahiroth” (NRSV, GNT). NRSV and

GNT follow the Syriac Peshitta Version and Latin Vulgate here.
Through the midst of the sea is literally “in the middle of the sea” (as in Exo
14.16, 22). The Hebrew only briefly focuses on the miraculous passing of the
Israelites right through the sea (Exodus 14). “Through the middle of the sea” (Buber,
GECL) and “Right through the sea” (NBV) express this better than GNT, which
focuses on the geographical location as such (“through the Red Sea”). But the Hebrew
only has “sea” here, not “sea of Reeds.” In some languages, the different (and
significant) event of passing through the sea would naturally require explicit mention
of the subject, “the people,” “the Israelites.”
Three days’ journey: Compare Exo 15.22.
Marah: Compare Exo 15.23.

33.9
RSV
9And they set out from Marah, and came to Elim; at Elim there were twelve springs of water
and seventy palm trees, and they encamped there.

GNT
9From there they went to Elim, where they camped, because there were twelve springs of
water and 70 palm trees there.

Elim … twelve springs of water … seventy palm trees: As in Exo 15.27.

See the discussion there. The palm trees were date palms. The translation of this
verse should reflect that at Elim is probably the information in focus. Thus, a
restructuring of the content may follow GNT’s explanatory clause (“because”) but
begin a new sentence with “at Elim” in the middle of the verse: “because at Elim ...”

33.10-14
RSV
10 And they set out from Elim, and encamped by the Red Sea. 11 And they set out from the
Red Sea, and encamped in the wilderness of Sin. 12 And they set out from the wilderness of
Sin, and encamped at Dophkah. 13 And they set out from Dophkah, and encamped at Alush.
14 And they set out from Alush, and encamped at Rephidim, where there was no water for the
people to drink.

GNT
10 They left Elim and camped near the Gulf of Suez. 11 Their next camp was in the desert of
Sin. 12 Then they camped at Dophkah, 13 and after that at Alush. 14 Next was Rephidim, where
there was no water for them to drink.

GNT starts a new paragraph here at verse 10. There is no particular reason to
do this, except that verse 9 interrupts the list of camping places with some more
information about Elim. Translations that follow this model may require an explicit
mention of the subject: “The Israelites left Elim…” Starting with verse 11, GNT
reduces the repetition in the text. Translators will have to decide which version best
models a natural narrative account (travel report) in their language, especially when
the text is being read aloud.
From Elim: As mentioned in Exo 16.1.
Red Sea: Literally “Sea of Reeds,” which is the rendering NRSV mentions in
a footnote and which a number of translations put in the text itself (GECL, FRCL, PV,
WV95, DUCL, TLA03). See the Exodus Handbook at 10.19; there should of course
be consistency in the rendering of this important geographical location. GNT’s “Gulf
of Suez” may be geographically accurate, but it sounds anachronistic and takes the
reader away from the notion that the text still refers to the sea through which the
Israelites passed miraculously.
The wilderness of Sin: As the Handbook on Exodus mentions at 16.1, this
was a large barren area probably along the west coast of the Sinai peninsula. Sin
(Hebrew sin) has no relation to the English word “sin.” It is simply the name of a
region that possibly has some connection with the name “Sinai” in verse 15.
Wilderness of Sin may also be expressed as “the wilderness named Sin” or “the Sin
Wilderness.” (Note that NET writes “Zin” here as at verse 36, thus confusing Sin with
the place name in verse 36; these two names are spelled differently in Hebrew and
should be kept distinct in spelling and pronunciation.)
Rephidim, where there was no water for the people to drink: Compare Exo
17.1. There does not seem to be a good reason for GNT’s replacement of the people
with the simple pronoun “them.”

33.15-37
RSV
15 And they set out from Rephidim, and encamped in the wilderness of Sinai. 16 And they set
out from the wilderness of Sinai, and encamped at Kibroth-hattaavah. 17 And they set out from
Kibroth-hattaavah, and encamped at Hazeroth. 18 And they set out from Hazeroth, and
encamped at Rithmah. 19 And they set out from Rithmah, and encamped at Rimmon-perez. 20
And they set out from Rimmon-perez, and encamped at Libnah. 21 And they set out from
Libnah, and encamped at Rissah. 22 And they set out from Rissah, and encamped at
Kehelathah. 23 And they set out from Kehelathah, and encamped at Mount Shepher. 24 And
they set out from Mount Shepher, and encamped at Haradah. 25 And they set out from
Haradah, and encamped at Makheloth. 26 And they set out from Makheloth, and encamped at
Tahath. 27 And they set out from Tahath, and encamped at Terah. 28 And they set out from
Terah, and encamped at Mithkah. 29 And they set out from Mithkah, and encamped at
Hashmonah. 30 And they set out from Hashmonah, and encamped at Moseroth. 31 And they
set out from Moseroth, and encamped at Bene-jaakan. 32 And they set out from Bene-jaakan,
and encamped at Hor-haggidgad. 33 And they set out from Hor-haggidgad, and encamped at
Jotbathah. 34 And they set out from Jotbathah, and encamped at Abronah. 35 And they set out
from Abronah, and encamped at Ezion-geber. 36 And they set out from Ezion-geber, and
encamped in the wilderness of Zin (that is, Kadesh). 37 And they set out from Kadesh, and
encamped at Mount Hor, on the edge of the land of Edom.

GNT
15–37 From Rephidim to Mount Hor they set up camp at the following places: the Sinai
Desert, Kibroth Hattaavah (or “Graves of Craving”), Hazeroth, Rithmah, Rimmon Perez,
Libnah, Rissah, Kehelathah, Mount Shepher, Haradah, Makheloth, Tahath, Terah, Mithkah,
Hashmonah, Moseroth, Bene Jaakan, Hor Haggidgad, Jotbathah, Abronah, Eziongeber, the
wilderness of Zin (that is, Kadesh), and Mount Hor, at the edge of the land of Edom.

There are different translation models available for both expressing all the
places mentioned in this section and formatting the text. Some languages will prefer a
more condensed manner of expression as in GNT and some versions may like the list
format of the NLT. The latter version (also others like REB) helpfully visualizes the
rhythmic repetition that characterizes this listing of journeys and campsites, which is
undoubtedly a literary feature that orally distinguishes the nature and significance of
this extensive travel narrative. Translators should therefore carefully research and test
each option first, rather than arbitrarily choosing one or the other.
It is likely that this section of the itinerary blends together the journey from
Sinai to Kadesh with the wandering in the wilderness.[< Ashley 630]
The wilderness of Sinai: See at 1.1. This stage of the journey is also
mentioned in Exo 19.2. As the GNT rendering “the Sinai Desert” shows, Sinai is the
name of a whole area, not just of the mountain.
Kibroth-hattaavah (verse 16) recalls the incident recorded in chapter 11.
GNT adds the meaning “Graves of Craving,” as in 11.34. See the discussion there. It
is important to maintain consistency of wording.
 Hazeroth (verse 17): Compare 11.35.
The places Rithmah (verse 18) to Mitkah are not mentioned elsewhere; the
general area is the wilderness of Paran (12.16).
Haradah (verse 24) means “Terror,” so it does not sound like a conventional
place-name but appears to refer to some event that occurred there (even though the
name or event is not mentioned elsewhere).
Moseroth (verse 30) probably refers to the same place as “Moserah” in Deut
10.6, where it is mentioned that Aaron died there. It has been suggested that Mount.
Hor (verse 38) and Moserah/Moseroth may be alternative names for the same site, or
sites in the same vicinity.[< Ashley 630]
Bene-jaakan (verse 31): Literally, “the children of Jaakan”; compare Deut
10.6 and 1 Chr 1.42.
Hor-haggidgad (verse 32) probably refers to the same place as “Gudgod” in
Deut 10.7.
Jotbathah (verse 33) probably refers to the same place as “Jotbathah” in Deut
10.7.
Abronah (verses 34-35) is not mentioned elsewhere.
Ezion-geber (verses 35-36): Compare Deut 2.8 (and 1 Kgs 9.26). It was
located at the north end of the Gulf of Aqaba.
The wilderness of Zin (verse 36): As noted at 13.21 and 20.1, the wilderness
of tsin (Zin) is not to be confused with the wilderness of sin “Sin” (as the NET does;
see the Exodus Handbook at 16.1) in 33.11-12, which was apparently located
somewhere to the south of the region of Zin.
(That is, Kadesh): NLT translates “at Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin”
(similarly GECL, FRCL, and NTV) which will be more natural in a number of
languages. Here in verse 36 and in 20.1, Kadesh is indeed referred to as a place in the
wilderness of Zin. In 13.26, however, it is connected with the wilderness of Paran.
The fact that Kadesh is variously located in both wildernesses may well indicate that
it was on the border of those areas. (It is worth mentioning that the Greek Septuagint
includes an extra sentence here, so that its text reads: “… the wilderness of Zin. They
set out from the wilderness of Zin and encamped in the wilderness of Paran, that is,
Kadesh.”[< Wevers 561] But since this is not part of the Hebrew text, it is not
recommended as a model.)
Mount Hor (verse 37): See at 20.22-23. In view of the important historical
notes that follow in verses 38-39, it may be helpful to group 37-39 together as a
distinct paragraph unit.
On the edge of the land of Edom: That is, “on the border (FRCL, DHE,
NTV) of the land of Edom.”

33.38-39
RSV
38 And Aaron the priest went up Mount Hor at the command of the Lord, and died there, in
the fortieth year after the people of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, on the first day of
the fifth month. 39 And Aaron was a hundred and twenty-three years old when he died on
Mount Hor.

GNT
38–39 At the command of the Lord, Aaron the priest climbed Mount Hor. At the age of 123
he died there on the first day of the fifth month of the fortieth year after the Israelites had left
Egypt.
 A more detailed account of the death of Aaron is found in 20.22-29.
And Aaron the priest …: It may be important in some languages to mark
these verses as a comment that has been inserted into the journey list (travel
narrative), for example, by means of a shift in word order (GNT) or through the use of
an appropriate transitional conjunction: “It so happened that …” (Chewa).
Went up Mount Hor: Compare 20.27.
At the command of the Lord: Literally “at the mouth of the Lord.” See at
verse 2; also at 9.23. Aaron thus left the scene along with the entire rebellious
generation of Israel in the fortieth year after… The fact that this is only the second
explicit date mentioned in the journey list (after that at the beginning in verse 3) also
serves to suggest the importance of Aaron’s death and its timing.
A hundred and twenty-three years old when he died: In Exo 7.7, before the
exodus, Aaron is said to be 83.

33.40
RSV
40 And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the Negeb in the land of Canaan,
heard of the coming of the people of Israel.

GNT
40 The king of Arad in southern Canaan heard that the Israelites were coming.

RSV and GNT both treat verse 40 as a paragraph on its own, since it interrupts
the mentioning of Mount Hor in the preceding and following verses. On the other
hand, the battle with the king of Arad was the very next event recorded after the death
of Aaron (21.1-3); it was Israel’s first major military victory on the way to Canaan.
And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the Negeb: This part of
the verse is the same as in 21.1. See the discussion there. Again, the onset of this
verse may need special marking by means of a suitable disjunctive expression.
In the land of Canaan: This phrase (which is absent from 21.1) highlights
that the Israelites are getting close to the land of Canaan at this point in the itinerary.

33.41-49
RSV
41 And they set out from Mount Hor, and encamped at Zalmonah. 42 And they set out from
Zalmonah, and encamped at Punon. 43 And they set out from Punon, and encamped at
Oboth. 44 And they set out from Oboth, and encamped at Iye-abarim, in the territory of Moab.
45 And they set out from Iyim, and encamped at Dibon-gad. 46 And they set out from Dibon-
gad, and encamped at Almon-diblathaim. 47 And they set out from Almon-diblathaim, and
encamped in the mountains of Abarim, before Nebo. 48 And they set out from the mountains
of Abarim, and encamped in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho; 49 they encamped
by the Jordan from Beth-jeshimoth as far as Abelshittim in the plains of Moab.

GNT
41–49 From Mount Hor to the plains of Moab the Israelites set up camp at the following
places: Zalmonah, Punon, Oboth, the ruins of Abarim in the territory of Moab, Dibon Gad,
Almon Diblathaim, the Abarim Mountains near Mount Nebo, and in the plains of Moab across
the River Jordan from Jericho, between Beth Jeshimoth and the Valley of Acacia.

Again, translators will have to decide whether it is better to condense the text
as in the GNT or to record the rhythmic repetition of movements and places that is
featured in this section (more or less as the RSV, but perhaps modifying the
conjunctions used to link up each stage with the next).
 From Mount Hor: Compare 21.5. A demonstrative link word may be needed
to connect this reference to its last occurrence at the end of verse 39 (Chewa: “there”).
Oboth (verse 43): Compare 21.10.
Iye-abarim (verse 44): See at 21.11.
Dibon-gad (verse 46): Compare 32.34, where it says that the Gadites built (or
rebuilt) Dibon.[< Levine 521]
The mountains of Abarim (verse 47): See at 21.11 and 27.12.
Before Nebo: Other possible renderings are “facing Nebo” (TOB, FRCL);
“opposite …” (NBG51, RVC10, GECL); “near …” (NIV, CEV); “close to ...”
(WV95). Several translations have “Mount Nebo” or “the mountain Nebo” (GNT,
CEV, NLT, FRCL, PV, DUCL, NTV, TLA03). However, GECL (“opposite the city
of Nebo”) makes equally good sense, since Nebo is mentioned as one of the cities in
32.3, 38.
And encamped in the plains of Moab (verse 48): As in 22.1. It would be
more accurate to translate “steppes” (NJPSV) or “unforested grasslands, prairie.” As
has already been noted, this combined reference to the “plains of Moab” together with
the River Jordan is an important discourse boundary marker in the last third of the
book of Numbers. See also the repetition in verse 50.
By the Jordan at Jericho (verse 48): As in 26.3 (and slightly different from
22.1). See the discussion there.
Abelshittim: See at 25.1. As noted there, GNT’s “Valley of Acacia” is a
helpful model.

Part III-C: 33.50–36.13: Division of the land of Canaan

The book of Numbers ends with a number of regulations, given in preparation for
crossing the Jordan and dividing and settling in the land of Canaan, that is, the land
west of the Jordan. The promised land has been Israel’s goal throughout the book of
Numbers.
Part III-C consists of the following sections:
1. Instructions to defeat and divide the land 33.50–34.29
2. Cities for the Levites and cities of refuge 35.1-34
3. The land inheritance of married women 36.1-13
Distinct groupings of laws and regulations in this section are frequently
introduced by the divine speech formula, as is the case with didactic and legislative
material throughout the book of Numbers, “And the Lord spoke to Moses…,” for
example, 33.50; 34.1, 16; 35.1. The entire unit is bounded by the significant reference
to Israel’s location “on the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho” (33.50, 36.13).

33.50–34.29
Section Heading: The Lord instructs the people of Israel to expel all the Canaanites
from the land and to destroy all their idols and places of worship. This must be done
in order to keep the Israelites from being led into idolatry, that is, a people purified of
paganism. (This divinely-stated ideal is never achieved in the biblical history, as
becomes clear in Jdg 1.1–3.6.) The planned boundaries of the land listed in 34.1-12
correspond in part to those in Ezek 47.15-20.[< Levine 539] However, many of the
places listed cannot be identified with certainty today.
 A number of translations have one heading for the whole of this section, for
example, “Instructions to defeat and divide the land” or “Boundaries and repartition
of Canaan” (RVE95).
Like a number of other translations, GNT divides this section into smaller
parts—a model which may be preferred in some languages:
- “Instructions before Crossing the Jordan” (33.50-56). A better alternative
would be “Directions for the Conquest of Canaan” (NRSV). A heading like
“At the Border of Canaan” (NET) is not very instructive either.
- “The Boundaries of the Land” (34.1-15)
- “The Leaders Responsible for Dividing the Land” (34.16-29). It may be
helpful to replace “leaders” with the more specific “chieftains” because of the
term used in 34.18.
Some versions, such as the NIV, miss the major discourse break that occurs at 33.50,
perhaps because a new chapter does not begin at this point.
Moses’ message from the Lord in 33.50-56 contains a radical command (51-
52), a loving provision (53-54), and a necessary warning (55-56).[< Brown 292]

33.50-51
RSV
50 And the Lord said to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, 51 “Say to the
people of Israel, When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan,

GNT
50 There in the plains of Moab across the Jordan from Jericho the Lord gave Moses 51 the
following instructions for Israel: “When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan,

In the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho: See at 33.48. To mark the
back reference for this familiar setting (see at 22.1), GNT helpfully adds “There” and
has eliminated RSV’s And.
The Lord said to Moses … “Say to the people of Israel, When …: GNT
renders this as follows:
… the Lord gave Moses the following instructions for Israel: “When …
In this way, GNT reduces the levels of direct speech, which may be more natural in
some languages. However, a rendering like “… the Lord told Moses to say to the
Israelites” would achieve this as well. This is what GNT has done in 35.9-10.
Into the land of Canaan: In some languages it will be more natural to say:
“and enter the land of Canaan” (DHE; similarly GECL, DUCL, CEV, TLA03). GNT
has this in 35.10. Compare also Chewa: “so that you might enter the land of Canaan.”
The sentence when you pass over … implies that reference is made to the territory
west of the Jordan.
Verses 51b-54 form one long sentence construction, opening with the
conditional statement When you pass over … In many languages it will be necessary
for both naturalness and clarity to break up this long construction into separate
imperative sentences for each of the points, as GNT does in verses 52-54. (Compare
also the negative counterpart in verse 55-56: “But if …”)

33.52
RSV
52 then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their
figured stones, and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places;
GNT
52 you must drive out all the inhabitants of the land. Destroy all their stone and metal idols and
all their places of worship.

Then you shall drive out: As in 32.21, as well as 21.32 and 32.39 (where
RSV translates “dispossessed”). GNT has “you must drive out,” (not “kill” or
“destroy” the inhabitants) which expresses more clearly that this is a command
(RSV’s shall is not a future tense marker). The same applies to the verbs that follow
in verses 52-54.
And destroy: In some languages it may sound more natural to begin a new
sentence here and group all the items listed for destruction together.
Figured stones: The Hebrew term occurs only here and in Lev 26.1. As the
Handbook on Leviticus notes there, the root meaning of the word has to do with the
verb “to look.” Some commentators therefore take it to refer to some sort of
remarkable stone or mosaic at which people look with adoration. However, most
translations take it to refer to a stone that has been carved or shaped by human efforts
to represent an object of worship. Chewa has “their engraved stones”; NET “their
carved images.” The problem is that in some languages if the material is stone, the
images or idols are not “carved” (which is used only for wood); rather, some other
appropriate verb must be used to designate the artistic action involved.
Molten images: Figures made from metal that has been melted down, and
formed into particular objects, as opposed to those carved out of wood or stone. These
statues were meant to be symbolic images of idols. In some languages, the phrase
“metal images” (ESV) will be the one to use. NRSV has “cast images,” while NIV
has “cast idols.” TOB is slightly more explicit: “statues of melted/cast metal.” FRCL
takes the two terms (figured stones and molten images) together, thus providing a
helpful model: “all the statues of stone or of metal representing their gods,” or more
concisely, “all their carved and molten images” (NLT); “all their stone and metal
idols” (GNT).
High places: These were man-made sacrificial (pagan) worship-sites in the
open air—man-made stone cultic platforms, raised above the ground. They were
probably derived from Canaanite hill shrines that the Israelites encountered when
drawing near to the land. Helpful renderings are “cult places” (NJPSV, DHE),
“sacrificial places” (NBV) or perhaps even “altars” (GECL, CEV). Chewa uses a term
from ancient traditional religious practice: “ancestral worship shrines.”

33.53
RSV
53 and you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given the land to you to
possess it.

GNT
53 Occupy the land and settle in it, because I am giving it to you.

And you shall take possession of: This is the same Hebrew verb as in the
preceding verse, but it must be translated differently due to the different objects
involved—“dispossess” people (52); “take possession of” land (53). It may be
possible in some languages to duplicate this significant verbal correspondence. The
concept of “possess” (y-r-sh) is being emphasized throughout, a gift from the Lord to
his people Israel.
 To you: The Hebrew construction emphasizes this by placing it at the
beginning of the sentence: “for to you have I given the land” (NBG51, LUT84). TOB
makes this emphasis quite explicit: “for it is to you (people) that I have given this
land” (“people” may be needed in some languages to bring out the emphasis of the
original). FRCL expresses the same emphasis by rendering the final phrase to possess
it as “it belongs to you”: “… because I have given it to you, it belongs to you.”

33.54
RSV
54 You shall inherit the land by lot according to your families; to a large tribe you shall give a
large inheritance, and to a small tribe you shall give a small inheritance; wherever the lot falls
to any man, that shall be his; according to the tribes of your fathers you shall inherit.

GNT
54 Divide the land among the various tribes and clans by drawing lots, giving a large piece of
property to a large clan and a small one to a small clan.

You shall inherit: In some languages this verb may not combine well
stylistically with the phrase by lot. Hence renderings like “divide” (GNT) and
“allocate” (Levine). GNT continues to use an imperative form. Perhaps the original
sense of the sentence can be brought out by a rendering such as “Thus you will inherit
the land by dividing it among your clans by lot.” The highlighted notion of “inherit”
(n-ch-l) complements that of “possess” in the preceding verses.
By lot … the lot: See at 26.55, where GNT translates “by drawing lots” as
well. To clarify the nature of this procedure, a qualification like “sacred lot” (NLT)
may also be used.
According to your families: As before, “according to your clans” (NRSV,
NIV) or “clan by clan” (NJPSV, NBS02) is a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew
lemishpechoteykhem. See the discussion at 1.2.
To a large tribe … to a small tribe: ESV translates “tribe” as well. However,
the Hebrew does not use any kinship term here. Similarly to 26.54 (see there), the
Hebrew only has the adjectives “a large ... a small ...” Thus NRSV is more accurate:
“to a large one … to a small one.” If a term is needed in the translation, it is equally
valid to use “group,” “groups,” or “clan” (TOB, PV, similarly NBJ98, DHE, NTV,
NLT), for example:
“to a larger group … to a smaller group” (NIV, NET),
“with larger groups … with smaller groups” (NJPSV).
Inheritance: See at 26.53 for an explanation of the Hebrew term nachalah.
Wherever the lot falls to any man, that shall be his: The Hebrew lacks
man. NJPSV is a little more accurate: “Wherever the lot falls for anyone, that shall be
his.” Strictly speaking, “any one … his” refers back to the larger and smaller groups.
NLT actually expresses the point of this sentence, doing so quite naturally: “The
decision of the sacred lot is final.” Note also NET: “Everyone's inheritance must be in
the place where his lot falls.” GNT has greatly condensed verse 54 and has
unfortunately left this sentence untranslated in the process. The divine instruction is
very explicit here, and this specificity should be reflected in translation if possible.
According to the tribes of your fathers: NRSV, NJPSV, and NIV have
“according to your ancestral tribes.”

33.55-56
RSV
55 But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them
whom you let remain shall be as pricks in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall
trouble you in the land where you dwell. 56 And I will do to you as I thought to do to them.”

GNT
55 But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those that are left will be as
troublesome as splinters in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they will fight against you.
56 If you do not drive them out, I will destroy you, as I planned to destroy them.”

But if you do not drive out …: As explained above, verses 55-56 form the
negative brief counterpart of verses 51b-54. In some cases, it may be helpful to mark
this contrast by starting a new paragraph at verse 55. In one sense, these verses mark a
climactic moment in the book of Numbers: for Israel to take possession of the land
that the Lord had graciously provided for them, the proviso was that they had to expel
the present inhabitants. Failing that, the Israelites would “inherit” great troubles
instead!
For the meaning of drive out, see at verse 52.
Then those of them whom you let remain: There is a significant nuance here
that GNT has missed (also NLT). The Israelites will have deliberately allowed these
pagans to remain in the land: “then those whom you allow to remain” (NET).
Shall be pricks in your eyes and thorns in your sides: That is, they will
continually attack you as you try to dwell in the land. The danger of the Canaanite
presence is thus described here in terms of military harassment, rather than cultic
temptation as expressed elsewhere (Exo 34.11-13; Deut 7.4; Josh 23.7, 11-13). In
some languages, other figures of speech may be available to graphically express the
intended meaning.
And they shall trouble you: That is, treat with hostility, attack, harass. Hence
GNT’s “and they will fight against you.” A form of the same verb occurs in 25.16,
where RSV translates “harass.” Another conjunction (Chewa: “In this case…”) may
be necessary in order to bring out the Lord’s concluding contrastive prediction.
Do to you … do to them: A specific translation of the verb, as in GNT
(“destroy you … destroy them”) will not always be necessary. NBJ98, FRCL,
RVC10, and CEV have the more generic verb “treat.” The Lord’s final utterance is
expressed with terse poetic forcefulness, which should be matched in translation.

34.1-15
Section heading: As mentioned above for the section of 33.50–34.29, GNT and a
number of other translations divide this section into smaller parts. In languages where
this is preferred, helpful general section headings for 34.1-15 are: “The Boundaries of
the Land” (GNT, DUCL); “The borders of the territory” (TLA03). The heading in
FRCL is more specific: “The boundaries of Canaan”— the territory does not include
the area for the tribes east of the Jordan (34.13-15).
Smaller section headings may highlight the structure of this passage: “The
Southern Border” (at verse 3); “The Western Border” (6); “The Northern Border” (7);
“The Eastern Border” (10); “Moses’ Summary” (13). This is of course an idealized
delimitation of Israel’s territory; for most of their history, only part of this region was
occupied by the Israelites,[< Brown 295] though it came close during the reign of
Solomon, especially if the nation’s wider economic and political influence is
considered. But the main point of this listing is religious: “to display again the
dimensions of God’s great gift to his people.”[< Allen 232]
34.1-2
RSV
1 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Command the people of Israel, and say to them, When you
enter the land of Canaan (this is the land that shall fall to you for an inheritance, the land of
Canaan in its full extent),

GNT
1 The Lord gave Moses 2 the following instructions for the people of Israel: “When you
enter Canaan, the land which I am giving you, the borders of your territory will be as follows.

The Lord said to Moses…: This speech introduction is very similar to that at
33.50-51; see there for ways to reduce the level of direct speech embedding, which is
followed again here by the GNT.
This is the land …: There is no need to put this statement in brackets and thus
make it a parenthetical statement as in RSV.
That shall fall to you: The verb fall is used here, so there is no indication who
carries out this process. Rashi, the Jewish medieval commentator, already noted that
this was because the division of the land was going to be carried out by lot. On the
other hand, the lot was done to allow the Lord the choice of demarcation. Thus,
GNT’s “which I am giving you” (also RVC10) can be a model in languages where the
agent should be specified for reasons of naturalness. You is plural in the Hebrew.
For an inheritance: As mentioned at 16.14 and 32.18, the Hebrew term
nachalah indicates inherited, legitimate, property, an area of hereditary land which
has been apportioned or allocated and which must not be sold or taken away. NIV’s
“as an inheritance” is probably more natural in English. Compare also Chewa: “that it
will become your inheritance.” This sentence reiterates what was just stated in 33.54.
In its full extent: This rendering may give the wrong suggestion that the land
of Canaan includes the area east of the Jordan. Thus, NRSV has revised this to say
“defined by its boundaries.” which is closer to the Hebrew. The Hebrew literally has
“(according) to its borders.”
When you enter the land of Canaan (this is … ) …: In RSV, the sentence
continues into verse 3. But the Hebrew allows for the following model (similar to
Buber, LUT84, NBG51), which (like GNT) finishes the sentence within the present
verse:
When you enter the land of Canaan, this [as follows] will be the land that will
fall to you as an inheritance, the land of Canaan, defined by its boundaries: ...

34.3-5
RSV
3your south side shall be from the wilderness of Zin along the side of Edom, and your
southern boundary shall be from the end of the Salt Sea on the east; 4 and your boundary
shall turn south of the ascent of Akrabbim, and cross to Zin, and its end shall be south of
Kadesh-barnea; then it shall go on to Hazar-addar, and pass along to Azmon; 5 and the
boundary shall turn from Azmon to the Brook of Egypt, and its termination shall be at the sea.

GNT
3 The southern border will extend from the wilderness of Zin along the border of Edom. It will
begin on the east at the southern end of the Dead Sea. 4 Then it will turn southwards towards
Akrabbim Pass and continue on through Zin as far south as Kadesh Barnea. Then it will turn
north-west to Hazar Addar and on to Azmon, 5 where it will turn towards the valley at the
border of Egypt and end at the Mediterranean.
 The systematic delineation of the borders in chapter 34 underscores the
certainty of God’s promise and reminds the new generation of the description of the
area covered by the spies in chapter 13. The original promise of the land to the old
generation is still valid for the new one.[< Olson 187] See also Ezek 47.19.
Your south side …: As indicated at verse 2, the Hebrew starts a new sentence
here. “The southern border” (GNT) of the land corresponds with the southern border
for the tribe of Judah in Josh 15.1-4.[< Noth 248-249])
Along the side of Edom: Or “near Edom” (NBS02). This would be the
western edge of the territory controlled by the kingdom (or chiefdom) of Edom.
And your southern boundary shall be …: This phrase goes back to the
beginning of the border, resuming its description in more detail. Thus, the translation
should not give the wrong suggestion that this phrase continues the southern boundary
where the previous verse left it. GNT avoids this problem by translating: “It will
begin …” Compare also “Your southern boundary shall start …” (NJPSV, similar to
NBS02) and “It begins …” (DUCL).
Salt Sea: See the Handbook on Genesis at 14.3. Sea here means a large lake,
“the Lake of Salt” (Chewa).
Your boundary shall turn south of the ascent of Akrabbim: The verb turn
means “change direction,” hence the rendering “goes in a curve southerly around the
Scorpions Pass” (NBV), so that this place lies inside the border (Rashi). GNT begins a
new sentence, which may be helpful in some languages: “Then it will turn southwards
towards …”. Akrabbim means “Scorpions” in Hebrew; hence also the rendering
“Scorpions Ascent” (footnote in NET).
South of Kadesh-barnea: Literally, “to the south of Kadesh-barnea.” Hence
NBV’s “goes directly to a point south of Kadesh-Barnea.” A helpful model is NLT:
“Its southernmost point will be Kadesh-barnea.”
Then it shall go on to Hazar-addar, and pass along to Azmon: As above,
GNT reworks this into a separate sentence: “Then it will turn north-west to Hazar
Addar and on to Azmon.”
The Brook of Egypt: Probably the Wadi El-Arish (about eighty kilometers
south of Gaza) which streams into the Mediterranean Sea.[< Noth 249] NBV and
DHE are helpful models: “the wadi which forms the border with Egypt” (NBV); “the
creek which borders with Egypt” (DHE).
The wilderness of Zin … Zin (Hebrew tsin): See at 13.21 and 33.36. The
unknown location of Zin presumably gives its name to the wilderness of Zin.[<
Budd 366]
And its termination: That is the southern boundary will “end at” (GNT), or
“reach its western side at.”
The sea: That is, “the Mediterranean” (GNT) Sea. See at 13.29.

34.6
RSV
6 “For the western boundary, you shall have the Great Sea and itsa coast; this shall be your
western boundary.

a 34.6 Syr: Heb lacks its

GNT
6 “The western border will be the Mediterranean Sea.
 The Great Sea: Again, this refers to the “Mediterranean Sea” (GNT). Even
though it consists of a single sentence, it may be helpful to set verse 6 off as a
separate paragraph since it constitutes a distinct section within the overall description.

34.7-9
RSV
7 “This shall be your northern boundary: from the Great Sea you shall mark out your line to
Mount Hor; 8 from Mount Hor you shall mark it out to the entrance of Hamath, and the end of
the boundary shall be at Zedad; 9 then the boundary shall extend to Ziphron, and its end shall
be at Hazar-enan; this shall be your northern boundary.

GNT
7 “The northern border will follow a line from the Mediterranean to Mount Hor 8 and from
there to Hamath Pass. It will continue to Zedad 9 and to Ziphron, and will end at Hazar Enan.

The northern border is rather unclear but apparently extends into Syria, well
north of Sidon.[< Alter] It largely corresponds with the northern boundary of the tribe
of Dan in Ezek 48.1-2[< Noth 250] (that is, after their migration to the north—Josh
19.47).[< Budd 365] See also Ezek 47.15-17. These verses comprise a distinct
paragraph in the description.
You shall mark out your line: Literally, “you shall mark, delineate [your
border].” Or, to eliminate the notion that the people were to literally demarcate this
border for themselves, the GNT may be followed: “The northern border will follow a
line from …”
Mount Hor: This seems to refer to an unknown location in Lebanon; it is not
the Mount Hor where Aaron died. Hence the footnote in CEV: “Not the same as in
33.37.”
The entrance of Hamath: See at 13.21.
Hazar-enan: Ezek 47.17 locates this site as being somewhere near the
northern border of Damascus.[< Ashley 641]

34.10-12
RSV
10 “You shall mark out your eastern boundary from Hazar-enan to Shepham; 11 and the
boundary shall go down from Shepham to Riblah on the east side of Ain; and the boundary
shall go down, and reach to the shoulder of the sea of Chinnereth on the east; 12 and the
boundary shall go down to the Jordan, and its end shall be at the Salt Sea. This shall be your
land with its boundaries all round.”

GNT
10 “The eastern border will follow a line from Hazar Enan to Shepham. 11 It will then go
south to Harbel, east of Ain, and on to the hills on the eastern shore of Lake Galilee, 12 then
south along the River Jordan to the Dead Sea.
“These will be the four borders of your land.”

You shall mark out: Or “you shall delineate,” or following GNT: “The
eastern border will follow a line from …” Verses 10-12 constitute a separate
paragraph, the fourth and last one of this geographical listing of boundaries. The GNT
provides a model for translations that need to condense this description somewhat.
Shall go down to the Jordan, and its end shall be at the Salt Sea: The
territory specified here does not include the area for the tribes east of the Jordan
(compare 34.14-15). For Salt Sea, see at 34.3.
 The shoulder of the sea of Chinnereth on the east: The Hebrew term ketef,
literally, ‘shoulder’, can also refer to a mountain slope or a hillside. Compare GECL:
“slopes,” and DUCL: “hills.” Instead of sea of Chinnereth, some translations (NTV)
have “Lake of Galilee,” probably because this name is better known. The problem
with this is that the designation Galilee did not yet exist at the time of Israel’s
conquest of Canaan. It may be more helpful to translate “sea of Chinnereth” and
mention in a footnote that this lake was “known in New Testament times as Lake of
Galilee or Lake of Gennesareth” (DHE). Another reason for retaining the original
name is that the word means “harp.” Thus, the lake (or sea) of Galilee was apparently
so named because it is shaped somewhat like a harp (NET note).[< Budd 367]
Go down: It is implied by the repeated use of the verb (y-r-d) that at these
points, the eastern border goes from higher places in the north to lower places further
south. Thus, by using the direction “south” alone, the GNT is somewhat misleading;
perhaps “descend south” would be an option in some languages.
This shall be your land with its boundaries all round: Since this sentence
refers to all the four borders (verses 3-12) and acts as a concluding summary, GNT
helpfully makes it a paragraph of its own, also making the number of borders explicit:
“the four borders.”
All round: This should not be left untranslated as in GNT—it specifies the
ideal borders of the land as complete and whole, thus emphasizing the implication that
the Transjordan territory is not included,[< Knierim and Coats 314] a point that is
further emphasized in the following paragraph.

34.13-15
RSV
13 Moses commanded the people of Israel, saying, “This is the land which you shall inherit
by lot, which the Lord has commanded to give to the nine tribes and to the half-tribe; 14 for the
tribe of the sons of Reuben by fathers' houses and the tribe of the sons of Gad by their
fathers' houses have received their inheritance, and also the half-tribe of Manasseh; 15 the
two tribes and the half-tribe have received their inheritance beyond the Jordan at Jericho
eastward, toward the sunrise.”

GNT
13 So Moses said to the Israelites, “This is the land that you will receive by drawing lots, the
land that the Lord has assigned to the nine and a half tribes. 14 The tribes of Reuben and Gad
and the eastern half of Manasseh have received their property, divided according to their
families, 15 on the eastern side of the Jordan, opposite Jericho.”

The main subject (Israel’s “land … inheritance”) that is repeated in verse 13

(from verse 2) suggests that this paragraph (13-15) is meant to conclude the section
which began in verse one. Moses now takes over in speaking from the Lord to
indicate the conclusion of the official demarcation of the land’s boundaries and to
reiterate the exception caused by the Transjordan territories (see chapter 32).
Moses commanded: In many languages the verb must be changed (or simply
left implicit) because what follows does not sound at all like a “command.”
Inherit by lot: See at 33.54. Again, GNT has “by drawing lots.”
The Lord has commanded: In this case the verb “command” sounds more
natural; in fact, it may be more appropriate than the weaker “assigned” (GNT).
To the nine tribes and to the half-tribe: 34.1-15 does not include
Transjordan and the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh—a point made
explicitly in the following sentence (verse 14).[< Knierim and Coats 316]
 For the tribe of the sons of Reuben: A new sentence and a rewording along
the lines of GNT will probably be necessary to maintain clarity.
By fathers’ houses: See at 1.2.
Have received their inheritance: Literally, “Have taken their inheritance”
(NRSV). Buber, RVE95, and RVC10 have preserved this nuance of deliberate
decision as well.

34.16-29
Section heading: As mentioned above for the section of 33.50–34.29, GNT, NET,
and a few other translations divide this section into smaller parts. In languages where
this is preferred, helpful section headings for 34.16-29 are: “The Leaders Responsible
for Dividing the Land” (GNT, similarly DUCL); “The Leaders Who Will Divide the
Land” (CEV); “Leaders to divide the land” (NTV). Instead of “leaders,” the more
specific term “chieftains” may be more appropriate (see below at 34.18). The listing
of the new tribal leaders recalls that of the first generation (1.5-16), thus suggesting
that a new beginning is being made in the history of Israel as a nation.
The tribes that settle in the Transjordan territory are not included in this
process of dividing the land of Canaan. Thus, the names of representatives for the
tribes of Reuben and Gad are omitted.[< Levine 536] The Levites, who will be the
subject in 35.1-8, are not included, either.

34.16-18
RSV
16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “These are the names of the men who shall divide the land to
you for inheritance: Eleazar the priest and Joshua the son of Nun. 18 You shall take one
leader of every tribe, to divide the land for inheritance.

GNT
16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Eleazar the priest and Joshua son of Nun will divide the land
for the people. 18 Take also one leader from each tribe to help them divide it.”

The Lord said to Moses: This familiar divine speech formula again marks the
beginning of a new major section of discourse (see at 33.50; 34.1).
Divide … for inheritance: The Hebrew verb form is of the same root as
nachalah (16.14; 26.53) and means “give as an inheritance,” “assign as an
inheritance” (NIV).[< discussed in Levine 536] NBV and a number of other
translations have “divide.” Some languages (like Chewa) may have a specific verb
available since it was the traditional right and duty of tribal chiefs to
“distribute/apportion/divide out” plots and parcels of land within their territory.
Eleazar, the religious leader, and Joshua, the political leader, have replaced
the names of Aaron and Moses (1.3) as the two overall tribal heads who are to oversee
the entire land allocation process.
You shall take: The Hebrew verb form is plural.
Leader: As mentioned at 1.16, the Hebrew nasi’ refers to a prominent and
distinguished leader, for example, a much respected sheikh of a tribe; thus leader
seems a rather flat translation. In English, chief or “chieftain” (NJPSV) would be a
better alternative—and more appropriate to the setting, as already indicated.

34.19-29
RSV
19 These are the names of the men: Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh. 20 Of
the tribe of the sons of Simeon, Shemuel the son of Ammihud. 21 Of the tribe of Benjamin,
Elidad the son of Chislon. 22 Of the tribe of the sons of Dan a leader, Bukki the son of Jogli. 23
Of the sons of Joseph: of the tribe of the sons of Manasseh a leader, Hanniel the son of
Ephod. 24 And of the tribe of the sons of Ephraim a leader, Kemuel the son of Shiphtan. 25 Of
the tribe of the sons of Zebulun a leader, Eli-zaphan the son of Parnach. 26 Of the tribe of the
sons of Issachar a leader, Paltiel the son of Azzan. 27 And of the tribe of the sons of Asher a
leader, Ahihud the son of Shelomi. 28 Of the tribe of the sons of Naphtali a leader, Pedahel the
son of Ammihud. 29 These are the men whom the Lord commanded to divide the inheritance
for the people of Israel in the land of Canaan.”

GNT
19–28These are the men the Lord chose:
Tribe Leader
Judah Caleb son of Jephunneh
Simeon Shemuel son of Ammihud
Benjamin Elidad son of Chislon
Dan Bukki son of Jogli
Manasseh Hanniel son of Ephod
Ephraim Kemuel son of Shiphtan
Zebulun Elizaphan son of Parnach
Issachar Paltiel son of Azzan
Asher Ahihud son of Shelomi
Naphtali Pedahel son of Ammihud
29 These are the men that the Lord assigned to divide the property for the people of Israel in
the land of Canaan.

GNT restructures the text, also visually, adopting a list layout (also NLT).
While this literary convention may be helpful for silent readers of the text, it denies its
original orality and would present difficulties for anyone reading the text aloud in
public worship (as rare as such an occasion might be). Similar to CEV and REB, NIV
offers a list layout without restructuring the translation itself: it starts a new line for
each name and each phrase (“from the tribe of”), which follows the formulaic,
rhythmic, wording of the Hebrew text. Any restructuring should preserve the order of
the tribes—overall, the order follows their locations from south to north (Dan seen
here as occupying its original location in the south)[< Budd 367, 369]. Probably due
to its already emerging political as well as religious prominence, Judah is mentioned
first, even though the tribe of Simeon would receive the southernmost territory.
All except for faithful Caleb of Judah (14.24, 30, 38), who is mentioned first,
the names of the fathers of the leaders here in chapter 34 do not correspond with the
names of the leaders in earlier lists. This means that the generation of leaders who
perished in the wilderness was not succeeded in leadership by their sons, but rather by
the sons of men who had not been leaders in the first generation.[< Sherwood 187;
Budd 366]
Most of the names included in this list are “theophoric” (‘God-bearing’) in
nature, perhaps implicitly conveying a spiritual message to the community[< Brown
297] and to the reader. Some translations might wish to footnote these: Shemuel
(“hear of God”), Elidad (“God loves”), Hanniel (“grace of God”), Kemuel (“God
establishes”), Elizaphan (“God protects”), Paltiel (“deliverance is God”), and Pedahel
(“God ransoms”’).[< Brown 297]
Leader: See at 34.18.
To divide the inheritance: The verb form is similar to 34.17, 18.
 These are the men: Literally, “These (the ones) who …”—forms an inclusio
marking the beginning of the list in verse 17 and its ending here. Note that “these” in
verse 17 is cataphoric, while here in verse 29 “these” is anaphoric in reference.
Whom the Lord commanded: See at verse 13. This repetition underscores
that fact that it was the Lord who was in charge, ultimately directing this most
sensitive land distribution process.

35.1-34
Section Heading: After the delimited boundaries of the land and the topic of the
division of territories in chapter 34, chapter 35 is concerned with some special cities
therein: cities of residence for the Levites, which included the cities of asylum, or
“refuge.” An appropriate heading for the whole chapter would be “Cities for the
Levites and asylum cities” (similar to ZÜR) or “Cities for the Levites and cities of
refuge” (NBV).
Since the Levites are not considered a tribe (1.47-49), they do not receive their
own territory (26.62; compare also 34.16-29, where the tribe of Levi is not included),
but the twelve tribes are instructed to allocate towns to them. Here in 35.1-8 the
Levites are assigned forty-eight cities, which are scattered among the territories of the
twelve tribes. Spreading out the Levite ministers of the Lord in this way will help to
maintain the religious unity of the nation,[< Gane 795] which was to be a theocratic
state.
In 35.9-34, cities of refuge are set aside. Anyone who had killed a person
accidentally would be safe there (from any relative blood avenger) until the proper
legal measures were taken and judgment was passed as to whether the killing had
been intentional or not. Josh 20.1-9 contains similar instructions regarding the cities
of refuge.
Like most translations, GNT divides this chapter into two parts:
- “The Cities Assigned to the Levites” (verses 1-8)
- “The Cities of Refuge” (verses 9-34). SB00 has “Asylum cities.” TOB and
NBS02 have “The cities of refuge for manslayers.”
In addition, a few translations have a separate section for verses 16-34: “Concerning
Murder and Blood Revenge” (NRSV); “Laws about Murder and Accidental Killing”
(CEV). However, such a separate heading may not be helpful—verses 25-28 and 32
mention “the city of refuge,” thus putting the specific regulations within the wider
context of those cities.
After the formulaic introduction of verse 1, verses 2-8 roughly assume a
chiastic organization as shown below:
A Instruction: Give the Levites cities and pasture land from the nation’s overall
“inheritance” (2)
B Purpose: Cities to live in and land for flocks to graze on (3)
C Dimensions: In general around the cities (4)
C’ Dimensions: More specific measurements (5)
B’ Purpose: Cities of refuge and specific number of cities (6ab)
A’ Instruction: Give the Levites cities and pasture land proportionally according
to the size of the “inheritance” of each tribe (6c-8).

35.1-3
RSV
 1 The Lord said to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, 2 “Command the
people of Israel, that they give to the Levites, from the inheritance of their possession, cities to
dwell in; and you shall give to the Levites pasture lands round about the cities. 3 The cities
shall be theirs to dwell in, and their pasture lands shall be for their cattle and for their livestock
and for all their beasts.

GNT
1 In the plains of Moab across the Jordan from Jericho the Lord said to Moses, 2 “Tell the
Israelites that from the property they receive they must give the Levites some cities to live in
and pasture land round the cities. 3 These cities will belong to the Levites, and they will live
there. The pasture land will be for their cattle and all their other animals.

In the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho: See at 26.3. This important
location, which ties the non-travel chapters of Numbers into a major sectional unit
(from 22.1), is often better situated at the beginning of the verse, as in GNT, before
“the Lord said …”
Command … that they give … and you shall give: The verbal sequence of
verse 2 is rather complex. A minor chiastic construction is again present in the
Hebrew, perhaps to distinguish the two things being “given” to the Levites—first the
cities to live in, and then some land around the cities for pasturage. In some
languages, the second half of the verse is better expressed as a separate sentence,
especially if the original shift in subject (from they to plural you) is retained: “You
must also give …” (NET).
The inheritance of their possession: As mentioned at 16.14, the Hebrew term
nachalah (inheritance) indicates inherited, legitimate, property, an area of hereditary
land that must not be sold or taken away. In some languages (like Chewa), the fact
that this “inheritance” has been mentioned before in the narrative and is therefore
“known information,” must be marked by an appropriate back-referencing
demonstrative pronoun. As mentioned at 27.4, the Hebrew term achuzah refers to
property, particularly in the form of land, which is held in possession.
Pasture lands: Some languages (Chewa) will have a single word to express
this concept, as in Hebrew. Otherwise, some sort of descriptive expression will need
to be used, for example, “grazing land” (NET) or “land for livestock.” See the
Leviticus Handbook at 25.34.
The cities shall be theirs to dwell in: Most commentators indicate that “the
Levites were not to own the towns, but only to live in them.”[< Ashley 645; Cole 544;
Noordtzij 295] If this interpretation is accepted, then the GNT should not be followed
as a model (“These cities will belong to the Levites”). On the translation of “cities,”
see at 13.19; the Hebrew word for “city” (`ir) did not in itself specify whether the site
was walled or unwalled (see Deut 3.5).
Cattle: The Hebrew term behemah can refer to animals in the most general
sense; here and in 31.9 it refers to domestic animals (of all types).
Livestock: The Hebrew term rekhush normally refers to “goods,”
“possessions” (as in 16.32). This is what a number of translations have (KJV, NET,
Buber, NBJ98, NBS02, TOB, NBG51, HSV). Many translations, however, take it to
refer to animals in possession, that is, to livestock, which fits the context better
(animals are mentioned before and after this term and all with reference to “pasture
land”).
Beasts: Another general term for all kinds of animals. For some languages
NIV provides a good model for rendering the three terms in this phrase: “for their
cattle, flocks, and all their other livestock.”
35.4-5
RSV
4 The pasture lands of the cities, which you shall give to the Levites, shall reach from the wall
of the city outward a thousand cubits all round. 5 And you shall measure, outside the city, for
the east side two thousand cubits, and for the south side two thousand cubits, and for the
west side two thousand cubits, and for the north side two thousand cubits, the city being in
the middle; this shall belong to them as pasture land for their cities.

GNT
4 The pasture land is to extend outwards from the city walls 450 metres in each direction, 5 so
that there is a square area measuring 900 metres on each side, with the city in the middle.

From the wall of the city outward a thousand cubits … outside the city …
two thousand cubits: There seems to be a contradiction between one thousand
cubits (verse 4) and two thousand cubits (verse 5). Most translations are based on
one of the following three interpretations:
- According to Alter (in a footnote), this contradiction is most simply resolved
by assuming that the two thousand cubits in verse 5 are from outer perimeter
to outer perimeter, surrounding the pasture land, with the breadth of the town
itself (“with the city in the middle,” GNT) excluded from the calculation.
GNT’s rendering “a square area measuring 900 metres on each side”—two
thousand cubits being the equivalent of 900 metres—seems to be based on this
interpretation as well. The same applies to FRCL, GECL, DHE, CEV, PV, and
TLA03. Under this interpretation, the Hebrew phrase michuts la`ir (left
untranslated in GNT) is understood as outside the city (RSV in verse 5). The
problem with this interpretation is that there is no room for the city itself!

- Some translations interpret michuts la`ir as “from the outside of the city.” See,
for example, NET: “from outside the wall of the town,” as well as NTV and
NLT: “outside the town walls in every direction.” In line with this, Rashi’s
and Rashbam’s solution was that an area extending two thousand cubits
beyond the town walls was designated as follows: an inner zone of one
thousand cubits for open space and an outer zone of another thousand cubits
for planted fields and vineyards. NLT seems to make a somewhat similar
distinction between “the pastureland … around these towns” (verse 4) and
“the larger pastureland for the towns” (verse 5):
4 The pastureland assigned to the Levites around these towns will
extend 1,500 feet [i.e., 1000 cubits] from the town walls in every
direction. 5 Measure off 3,000 feet [i.e., 2000 cubits] outside the town
walls in every direction—east, south, west, north—with the town at the
center. This area will serve as the larger pastureland for the towns.
(NLT)
However, such a distinction as found in Rashi and NLT cannot be found in the
Hebrew, since the Hebrew reads the same in both verses: migreshey he`arim
(“outskirts of the cities” or pasturelands of the cities). Instead, it would then
make more sense to read “two thousand” already in verse 4 (following the
Greek Septuagint)[< Budd 376], as do EÜ and WV95. NLT would then read
as follows:
4 The pastureland assigned to the Levites around these towns will
extend 3,000 feet [i.e., 2000 cubits] from the town walls in every
direction. 5 Measure off 3,000 feet [i.e., 2000 cubits] outside the town
 walls in every direction—east, south, west, north—with the town at the
center. This area will serve as the pastureland for the towns. (NLT, but
following the Septuagint’s “2000 cubits” in verse 4 and rendering
“pastureland” in verse 5.)

- Budd has suggested that the two thousand cubits of these pasture lands are
actually their front side (towards the city), with a block of land on each side of
the city with a frontage of two thousand cubits (verse 5) and a depth of one
thousand cubits (verse 4).[< Budd 376; Gispen 291-292] This interpretation
lies at the basis of DUCL. After verse 4 (which is as in GNT), DUCL
translates verse 5 as follows:
On the east, south, west as well as north side, plots [i.e., a plot of land
on each side] should be measured of five hundred by a thousand metres
[i.e., one thousand by two thousand cubits].
However, this rendering seems to make use of the thousand cubits from verse
4 in a rather strange way.

- Levine translates verse 5 as follows (similar to RSV):

You shall measure off, outside of the town, two thousand cubits as the
eastern limit, and two thousand cubits as the southern limit, and two
thousand cubits as the northern limit, with the town at the center. Such
shall be your town plots.
According to Levine this means that the walled town itself is a square
measuring two thousand cubits on each side. Outside this idealized town (to be
applied specifically to each individual case), all around the town wall, the
pasture lands are a thousand cubits wide.[< Levine 552, illustration on 571]
This interpretation works well, as long as This (RSV) in the last clause is
taken in the translation to refer to verses 4-5 as a whole, not just to the
preceding sentence. Hence Levine’s rendering “Such …” instead of This …

Outside the city: A small, separate, point is that, after verses 3 and 4
(“cities”), it may be helpful in some languages to translate “outside each city.”

35.6-7
RSV
6 The cities which you give to the Levites shall be the six cities of refuge, where you shall
permit the manslayer to flee, and in addition to them you shall give forty-two cities. 7 All the
cities which you give to the Levites shall be forty-eight, with their pasture lands.

GNT
6 You are to give the Levites six cities of refuge to which a man can escape if he kills
someone accidentally. In addition, give them 42 other cities 7 with their pasture land, making a
total of 48.

The six cities of refuge: The RSV presents an awkward beginning to verse 6.
The sense is clarified in the NET: “Now from these towns that you will give to the
Levites you must select six towns of refuge …” These cities are referred to again in
verses 9-34. They are among the total of 48 cities given to the Levites, not cities of
any of the tribes which have been allotted land. Thus, the city of refuge provides a
compromise: it protects the unintentional killer who flees to it (away from the
avenger—verse 12), but also requires that person to be in a kind of “exile” within the
land, unable to return to home and family, until the death of the high priest.[< Olson
190] Instead of cities of refuge one could translate “asylum cities” (GECL, EÜ,
ZÜR), “Safe Towns” (CEV), “cities of protection,” or “towns for fleeing to” (Chewa).
The Hebrew term for refuge comes from the root q-l-ṭ “to draw in, take in.”
Note that the NIV begins a new “Cities of Refuge” section at verse 6, rather
than at verse 9 as most other versions; this is not recommended.
The manslayer: A person who has killed somebody regardless of intent.[<
Gunther Plaut 1124] Compare GECL’s and GNT’s “a man … if he kills someone
accidentally.” A number of other translations include “accidentally” or
“unintentionally” as well (in view of verse 11): CEV, NLT, FRCL, PV, TLA03, NTV,
DUCL. Therefore, a rendering like “murderer” (a person who killed someone
intentionally) should be avoided. In some languages, a plural, “manslayers” (better, if
possible: “personslayers”) is needed so as to avoid the wrong suggestion that the text
is referring to one specific, known individual.
All the cities: Or “the cities all together” (Chewa) for languages that do not
have an indigenous word for “total.”
To flee: Or “flee for safety” (NLT); “run for protection” (CEV).
Pasture lands: See at 35.5.

35.8
RSV
8 And as for the cities which you shall give from the possession of the people of Israel, from
the larger tribes you shall take many, and from the smaller tribes you shall take few; each, in
proportion to the inheritance which it inherits, shall give of its cities to the Levites.”

GNT
8 The number of Levite cities in each tribe is to be determined according to the size of its
territory.”

And as for the cities which you shall give from the possession of the
people of Israel: In some languages this formulation will give the wrong suggestion
that these cities are different from those in verses 1-7. Instead, these cities are the
same. A rendering such as “When you set aside these towns …” (REB, similarly
NBV) helps to make this clear. Another alternative is NLT: “These towns will come
from the property (better: ‘territory’ or ‘land’) of the people of Israel.” On possession
(Hebrew achuzah) see at 35.2.
From the larger tribes … from the smaller tribes: Similarly to 26.54 and
33.54, the Hebrew does not use any kinship term here, such as “tribe.” Thus, while
tribes is certainly plausible in this context, NJPSV’s “from the larger groups … from
the smaller [groups]” is equally possible. In some languages like Chewa, the people of
Israel as a whole would be referred to as a “tribe” and each of the large family groups
as “clans.” Of course, this translation decision will have been made long before this
point in the text; the point is to maintain consistency of usage.
Many … few: That is, many cities … few cities.
Each: That is, “each tribe” (GNT, TOB) or “each group.”
In proportion to the inheritance which it inherits: On inheritance (Hebrew
nachalah) see at 35.2. NRSV has revised this phrase as follows: “each in proportion
to the inheritance that it obtains.” In many languages, “according to the size of its
territory” (GNT) or “according to the size of its inheritance” will be more natural.
Some languages may actually have a specific term that refers to a “land inheritance.”
Overall, NLT is a helpful model, with relatively short sentences:
 These towns will come [or: “you will set aside”] from the property of the
people of Israel. The larger tribes will give more towns to the Levites, while
the smaller tribes will give fewer. Each tribe will give property in proportion
to the size of its land.

35.9-34
Section Heading: As mentioned at the beginning of chapter 35, some translation have
a separate heading for 35.9-34: “The Cities of Refuge” (GNT); “Asylum cities”
(SB00); “The cities of refuge for manslayers” (TOB and NBS02). Since most of this
section is concerned with defining the “person who kills someone,” a title may be
chosen to reflect this prominence, for example, “Persons who kill accidently and their
towns of safety.” Translators are advised to take Josh 20.1-9 into account, which
contains similar instructions regarding the cities of refuge. This section expands upon
the brief reference of Exo 21.13 (see the Handbook there). The legislation given here
was designed to preserve the wholeness, holiness, and purity of the Promised Land.

35.9-10
RSV
9 And the Lord said to Moses, 10 “Say to the people of Israel, When you cross the Jordan
into the land of Canaan,

GNT
9 The Lord told Moses 10 to say to the people of Israel: “When you cross the River Jordan
and enter the land of Canaan,

“Say to the people of Israel, …: GNT has “… to say to the people of Israel,”
thus reducing the levels of direct speech. This may be more natural in some
languages.
When you cross the Jordan …: As in 33.51, where RSV has “When you
pass over the Jordan ...” The sentence implies that reference is made to the territory
west of the Jordan River.
Into the land of Canaan: As noted at 33.51, in some languages it will be
more natural to say: “and enter the land of Canaan” (GNT, similarly GECL, DUCL),
or “(in order) to enter the land of Canaan” (PV, DHE, NTV, similarly NBS02 and
DHE). The repetition of this information again underscores the fact that the following
instructions are to prepare the people for their life in Canaan, the land promised to
them by the Lord (Num 15.1-2).
CRV combines these two phrases as follows: “when you, crossing the Jordan,
enter the land of Canaan,” thus emphasizing the entering of the land rather than the
passing over of the Jordan. This may be a helpful model in some languages.

35.11
RSV
11 then you shall select cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer who kills any
person without intent may flee there.

GNT
11 you are to choose cities of refuge to which a man can escape if he kills someone
accidentally.
 You shall select cities: GNT, NBS02, and a number of other translations have
“choose.” Some translations have “designate” (NET, NLT, RVC10) or “set apart”
(TLA03). Only NBJ98 has “you will find cities,” while NBS02 mentions “you will
find for yourselves cities” in a footnote, perhaps because the root q-r-h generally
points to a chance event.
Manslayer: See at 35.6.
Without intent: Literally, “by error,” “by unintentional mistake.” The same
term occurs in 15.24-27, in the passage on sacrifices for unintentional offenses, where
RSV translates “unwittingly … because it was an error … unwittingly” and GNT has
“mistake … unintentional … mistake.” For without intent Chewa has “by accident.”

35.12
RSV
12 The cities shall be for you a refuge from the avenger, that the manslayer may not die until
he stands before the congregation for judgment.

GNT
12 There he will be safe from the dead person's relative who seeks revenge. No one accused
of manslaughter is to be put to death without a public trial.

The cities: In some languages “These cities” or simply “There” (GNT).

Refuge: As in 35.6.
The avenger: The Hebrew term go’el (“redeemer,” the next of kin; see at 5.8
under “kinsman”) is a shorter form of go’el hadam (“avenger of blood” or “restorer of
blood”[< Levine 548, 561]), which occurs elsewhere in the present chapter. It is
implied here that blood vengeance was practiced in Israel.[< Noth 254] At the same
time, the go’el is not to engage in revenge for its own sake—he restores and
“redeems” the family loss. This concept of retribution also implies that only the
manslayer can lose his life, not any member of his family;[< Budd 380] thus the
justice of such capital punishment was limited to the guilty person. The avenger is the
nearest relative of the person who was killed, “the dead man’s next-of-kin” (REB),
not just anyone “who wants to take vengeance” (RVC10) or “who seeks revenge”
(GNT). FRCL, then, is more accurate: “the man charged with avenging the victim.”
Similar to FRCL, “the relative appointed to avenge the victim” is a helpful model in
some languages.
May not die until: A natural death is not being referred to here, as RSV seems
to suggest, but rather a killing. In some languages, a sentence without a negating word
like not may be more natural: “may only be killed if he is found guilty in a public
trial” (GECL, similarly DUCL).
Before the congregation: A better equivalent for the Hebrew ‘edah would be
“community” or, since the context is a trial, “assembly” (NIV), “people” (DHE), or
“council of elders” (Chewa). Congregation would wrongly suggest that a meeting for
worship is taking place. There is no reason to leave the term untranslated, as in CEV.
For judgment: The community is given the responsibility for judging
between the accused person and the blood avenger by determining whether the
accused has committed premeditated murder. If he has, he must be executed by the
appointed blood avenger.[< Alter]
Given the context, renderings such as “a public trial” (GNT) and “a trial
before the community” are more accurate. In some languages, a verb construction
may be helpful: “before he has stood trial before the community” (NBV, NET),
“before being tried by the community” (NLT).
35.13-14
RSV
13 And the cities which you give shall be your six cities of refuge. 14 You shall give three cities
beyond the Jordan, and three cities in the land of Canaan, to be cities of refuge.

GNT
13 Choose six cities, 14 three east of the Jordan and three in the land of Canaan.

After verses 11-12, verses 13-14 deal with the number and location of these
cities of refuge. These are named in Josh 20.8-9. A city of refuge had to be within
feasible reach everywhere in the country.
And the cities …: See below.
Which you give: In languages where the verb give is unnatural or cannot
stand on its own, NJPSV’s “that you thus assign” and RVC10’s “which you give to
the Levites” (compare verse 6) are helpful models. These renderings are closer to the
meaning of the Hebrew verb than GNT’s “choose.”
Your six cities of refuge: NRSV has revised this: “six cities of refuge for
you.”
Verse 13 has been translated more accurately in NBS02: “Of the cities which
you will give (or ‘appoint’), six will be cities of refuge for you” (similarly TOB,
RVE95, RVC10, and NBV), that is, in contrast to the other forty-two cities in verse 6.
Beyond the Jordan: That is, “east of the Jordan” (GNT), where the tribes of
Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh have settled.

35.15
RSV
15 These six cities shall be for refuge for the people of Israel, and for the stranger and for the
sojourner among them, that any one who kills any person without intent may flee there.

GNT
15 These will serve as cities of refuge for Israelites and for foreigners who are temporary or
permanent residents. Anyone who kills someone accidentally can escape to one of them.

For the stranger and for the sojourner: NJPSV and Alter interpret this
phrase as a hendiadys (in which a single idea is expressed by two phrases joined by a
conjunction, where the one phrase qualifies the other): “resident aliens.” Compare
also RVC10: “the foreigners who live among them” (see above at 9.14). It is difficult
to make a distinction between the two, as becomes clear when we compare GNT’s
“… temporary or permanent residents” with the (more frequent) reverse renderings
“for the resident or transient alien” (NRSV); “to the immigrants and the temporary
residents” (NBS02); “to the immigrant and the passing guest” (TOB). In any case,
translators are advised to express the holistic intention of the phrase—something
which FRCL has done as follows: “Every person, Israelite, foreigner, or passing
guest” (FRCL, similarly PV). Compare also NIV: “Israelites, aliens, and any other
people living among them.”
Among them: In some languages, a second person form will be more natural:
“in your midst” (NBS02); “among you” (DHE); “those living among you” (Chewa).
Without intent: See at 35.11.

35.16-18
RSV
16 “But if he struck him down with an instrument of iron, so that he died, he is a murderer;
the murderer shall be put to death. 17 And if he struck him down with a stone in the hand, by
which a man may die, and he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. 18 Or
if he struck him down with a weapon of wood in the hand, by which a man may die, and he
died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.

GNT
16–18 “If, however, anyone uses a weapon of iron or stone or wood to kill someone, he is
guilty of murder and is to be put to death.

If the killing was done with a lethal weapon, a weapon that could kill, this
implies that the killing was intentional.[< Rashi] In many languages it will be natural
to begin a new paragraph at verse 16, one that runs through verse 21.
But if: Here begins a series of hypothetical case-law scenarios. This type of
legal discourse, the “formula of option,”[< Cole 552] may be marked in a special way
in some languages, that is, by a particular conditional construction.
An instrument of iron: The general Hebrew term instrument may be rendered
contextually as “a weapon” (GNT). NET’s “tool” is probably too specific. Iron was
chiefly used for designed weapons—clear evidence of intent to kill, and hence a crime
punishable by death.
A stone in the hand, by which a man may die: A perhaps improvised but
certainly fatal weapon. NET has “a stone large enough that he could die”; that
contextual implication is acceptable, but “by throwing” is not. Compare HSV’s “…
by which he [the victim] could die” and NRSV’s “… that could (RVE95: “can”)
cause death.”
A weapon of wood in the hand, by which a man may die: This probably
refers to an implement that was actually meant for another purpose but has been
appropriated as a fatal weapon. The repeated phrase in the hand perhaps suggests the
deliberate nature of this killing.
He is a murderer: Used here in the sense of intentional killer. In some
languages, a phrase like “he is guilty of murder” (GNT) or “it is murder” (NLT) is
more appropriate to the context of an actual trial and therefore is not recommended
here.
The murderer shall be put to death: In the Hebrew, an intensifying
infinitive form of “die” has been added to the main verb (be put to death), the
function of which is well expressed by “surely” or some similar emphasizing word.
Hence NET’s “the murderer must surely be put to death.”
GNT compresses verses 16-18 into one sentence (similar in GECL and
DUCL). Although this may be helpful, GNT seems to leave the phrase by which a
man may die untranslated. This phrase needs to be included; it stresses that the use of
one of these weapons is an indication of the murderer’s intention to kill. The words
for “killing” (the crime) and “death” (the punishment) are repeated in this passage for
stylistic and thematic emphasis. While it may work to abridge and shorten the text, as
in GNT, for silent readers, this clearly blunts the impact of this text. Furthermore,
such a translation strategy does not work for oral readings and audiences of this
passage, at least not in many cultures of the world.

35.19
RSV
19 The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall
put him to death.
GNT
19 The dead person's nearest relative has the responsibility for putting the murderer to death.
When he finds him, he is to kill him.

The avenger of blood: See at 35.12.

Himself: That is, he alone and nobody else (also in WV95). The Hebrew
marks this sense with an independent pronoun “he.” NRSV’s “The avenger of blood
is the one who shall put …”, TOB’s “It is the avenger who …” and Chewa’s “he is the
very one who …” bring this out. In some languages it may be more natural to say:
“The victim's nearest relative is responsible for putting the murderer to death” (NLT,
similarly GNT).
When he meets him: The translation should not suggest that this meeting
would just happen by chance. To avoid this, NBV, EÜ, and FRCL have “as soon as he
finds him,” similar to GNT. In any case, this injunction is better expressed as an
independent sentence, not connected to the preceding by a semicolon (RSV).

35.20-21
RSV
20 And if he stabbed him from hatred, or hurled at him, lying in wait, so that he died, 21 or in
enmity struck him down with his hand, so that he died, then he who struck the blow shall be
put to death; he is a murderer; the avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death, when he
meets him.

GNT
20 “If anyone hates someone and kills him by pushing him down or by throwing something
at him 21 or by striking him with his fist, he is guilty of murder and is to be put to death. The
dead man's nearest relative has the responsibility for putting the murderer to death. When he
finds him, he is to kill him.

And if he: The referent for he is not clear. Verses 20-21 deal with another set
of possible instances of intentional killing. It should be clear from the translation that
he stabbed him … refers to a murderer and his victim (not to the avenger and the
murderer in verse 19). GNT achieves this by removing the conjunction And,
translating: “anyone … someone … him” (similar to CRV).
Stabbed: NRSV’s “pushes” and GNT’s “by pushing … down” are more
accurate. The verbs in RSV are in the past tense. NRSV has revised these into present
tense forms, which may be more natural for these new instances of intentional killing.
From hatred: In some languages it will be helpful to render this as a separate
sentence: “If anyone hates someone and …” (GNT); “if someone hates another person
and …” (NLT).
Hurled: Many languages will need to include the (unspecified) object of a
transitive verb: “by throwing something” (GNT); “hurls something.” (NRSV).
Lying in wait: That is, “on purpose” (NJPSV), “intentionally” (NET),
although lying in wait is a more vivid rendering (compare the old English phrase
“with malice aforethought”). GNT leaves it untranslated, which is not recommended.
The related verb in Hebrew (ts-d-h) means “do on purpose,” “intend,” “hunt down”
(see Exo 21.13 and 1 Sam 24.12).
In enmity: Again GNT wrongly leaves this reiteration of sinful emotion
untranslated. In some languages, “out of enmity” (NBV) or, again, “if someone hates
another person and …” (NLT) will be more natural.
 Struck him down with his hand: Compare NRSV’s “strikes another with the
hand.” The more specific “fist” (GNT, NLT) is a possible alternative.
Shall be put to death; he is a murderer: See at verses 16-18.
When he meets him: See at verse 19.

35.22-23
RSV
22 “But if he stabbed him suddenly without enmity, or hurled anything on him without lying
in wait, 23 or used a stone, by which a man may die, and without seeing him cast it upon him,
so that he died, though he was not his enemy, and did not seek his harm;

GNT
22 “But suppose anyone accidentally kills someone he does not hate, whether by pushing
him down or by throwing something at him. 23 Or suppose that, without looking, anyone
throws a stone that kills someone whom he did not intend to hurt and who was not his enemy.

Verses 22-23 deal with exactly the same kinds of killing as in verses 20-21,
but in these cases the manslayer had no intention to kill. This distinction in motive
may be marked in the text by beginning a new paragraph at verse 22.
But if he: Again, to indicate the new set of circumstances, GNT employs an
initial transitional formula: “But suppose anyone (better: ‘someone’) …”
Suddenly: The Hebrew literally means “suddenly,” “immediately.” However,
in this context, “unexpectedly” (HSV) and “accidentally” (GNT, CEV, DHE, TOB,
NBV) are more helpful renderings.
Without enmity … without lying in wait: The opposite of 35.20-21. The
correspondence in vocabulary between these verses should be maintained if possible.
By which a man may die: As in 35.17-18.
Without seeing him: Literally, “without looking” (GNT). In some languages
adverbs like “first” or “properly” need to be added to qualify the verb “looking.”
Cast it upon him: Literally, “let it fall on him.”
Though he was not his enemy and did not seek his harm: These phrases
reinforce the fact that the person who killed the other did not intend to do this; there
was no ill feeling between them. The question about which pronouns refer to the
attacker and which ones to the victim is difficult to answer:

- GNT and DUCL reverse the order of the two phrases and understand the
pronouns as follows: “whom [i.e., the victim] he [i.e., the killer] did not intend
to hurt and who [the victim] was not his [the killer’s] enemy.” Without
reversing the phrases, GECL is based on the same view: “When, however,
someone has killed a person, who [i.e. the victim] was not his [i.e. the killer]
enemy and to whom [the victim] he [the killer] did not want to cause harm,
…”

- REB takes the opposite view: “provided the attacker was not his [i.e., the
victim’s] enemy and was not harming him [the victim] of set purpose.”
Compare also FRCL: “without being the enemy of the victim and without
wishing to harm him [i.e., the victim].” The fact that he is an independent
pronoun in the Hebrew makes the interpretation of REB, FRCL, RVC10, and
CRV the most likely in the context.
 - Perhaps the Hebrew is deliberately ambiguous. NRSV avoids making a choice
as to whom the various pronouns refer: “though they were not enemies and no
harm was intended.” Compare also NTV: “by accident … though they were
not enemies.”

Verses 22-24 form one long sentence construction in the Hebrew. GNT
helpfully divides this into separate sentences by translating “But suppose … Or
suppose … In such cases …” (instead of If … then …).

35.24
RSV
24 then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood, in
accordance with these ordinances;

GNT
24 In such cases the community shall judge in favour of the one who caused the death and not
in favour of the dead person's relative who is seeking revenge.

Then: See the remark at the end of verses 22-23. GNT helpfully starts a new
sentence: “In such cases …,” which serves to mark this as the conclusion of the
preceding hypothetical cases, detailing the action that needs to be taken by the
community.
Congregation: As mentioned at 1.2, a better equivalent for the Hebrew ‘edah
would be “community” (GNT). Here it probably refers specifically to the male leaders
of the community in whose boundaries the slaying had occurred; some languages may
have a specific term or phrase that refers to such a local council (of elders).
Shall judge between … and …: GNT has “shall judge in favor of … and not
in favor of …,” thus making the decision in favor of the manslayer explicit in the
translation. But the Hebrew only makes this explicit in the next verse. CEV has “…
must hold a trial and decide if you are guilty,” thus highlighting the context of a court.
Another helpful rendering of the verb is “pronounce a judgment” (FRCL). Some
languages may want to say “decide between” (NJPSV, ZÜR) or “act as a judge
between” (DHE).
In accordance with these ordinances: The demonstrative pronoun “these”
refers ahead to what is stated in subsequent verses. For this reason, WV95 translates:
“The following rules apply.” Compare also “… the community must follow the
following rules …” (NTV) and “in conformity with these laws: …” (RVC10). GNT’s
“In such cases” (also in NJPSV) corresponds with this phrase, but seems to refer back
to the preceding verses. On the term ordinance (Hebrew mishpat) see 9.3. In this
context, with reference to the content of the following verses, the word might also be
rendered as “principles” or “procedures.”

35.25
RSV
25 and the congregation shall rescue the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood,
and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, to which he had fled, and he shall
live in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil.

GNT
25 The community is to rescue the one guilty of manslaughter from the dead person's relative,
and they are to return him to the city of refuge to which he had escaped. He must live there
until the death of the man who is then High Priest.
 And: In many languages it will be helpful to start a new sentence, as GNT has
done.
Shall rescue: In some languages the verb for “protect” (NLT) would be more
appropriate in the situation being described. Even in English, “rescue” implies that the
“manslayer” is already in the hands of the “avenger,” but if this were the case, he
would already be dead!
The manslayer: GNT has “the one guilty of manslaughter.” But it seems
unhelpful to include “guilty,” since this verse still refers to the manslayer whose
killing was unintentional (verses 22-23). Thus, “the one accused of manslaughter”
would be better.
And the congregation: “People/Leaders of the community” may be more
natural in some languages.
Restore him: Literally, “let him return.” The congregational meeting to
adjudicate this case may have been held outside the city of refuge, at the city gates.[<
Wenham 238]
Until the death of the high priest …: The death of the high priest functions
as a substitute expiation for the blood shed by unintentional killers who live within the
city. As Ashley notes, “In this case, the high priest’s death was on behalf of the killer,
much as the priest offers sacrifices on behalf of the people elsewhere.”[< Ashley 654].
This refers to a natural death, not some other act of deliberate or inadvertent killing.
Who was anointed with the holy oil: (On the verb anointed see at 3.3.) GNT
simply interprets this phrase temporally by means of the word “then” in “who is then
High Priest” (compare also “the High Priest in office” in GECL). However, the
context would seem to indicate that there is a more significant, religious significance
to this phrase. It underlines the unique position of the high (literally, “great”) priest,
who was the only priest who was anointed on his head (Exo 29.7; Lev 8.12). The
mention of the anointing of the high priest highlights both the role of the priest as the
one who carried out the atonement ceremonies for the sins of the nation throughout
his days in office (Lev 16.1-34) and the role of the cities of refuge in maintaining the
holiness of the land.”[< Cole 554] It seems unwarranted, therefore, to omit the phrase
altogether, as GNT does. In some languages, “until the death of the consecrated high
priest” (PV) will be a helpful model. Also, the translation should not give the wrong
suggestion (as RSV and NRSV seem to do) that there was also another high priest
who had not been anointed. NET solves this problem in English by adding a comma:
“the high priest, who was anointed with the consecrated oil” (similarly NIV); an
appositional construction would do the same: “the high priest, the one anointed …”
Compare also REB: “till the death of the duly anointed high priest.”

35.26-27
RSV
26 But if the manslayer shall at any time go beyond the bounds of his city of refuge to which he
fled, 27 and the avenger of blood finds him outside the bounds of his city of refuge, and the
avenger of blood slays the manslayer, he shall not be guilty of blood.

GNT
26If the one guilty of manslaughter leaves the city of refuge to which he has escaped 27 and if
the dead person's relative finds him and kills him, this act of revenge is not murder.

But if: A contrastive conjunction like But (literally “And”) is necessary for
naturalness in many languages (NET, NLT, Chewa).
 The manslayer: Again, GNT’s “one guilty of manslaughter” may give the
wrong impression. It is difficult to find a suitable expression in some languages,
notably English, for example, “slayer” (NET, NLT). Chewa must say explicitly “the
person who killed his/her fellow accidentally.”
At any time go beyond: In the Hebrew, an infinitive of the same root
intensifies the main verb: “going-out he-shall-go out.” In many languages, at any
time or “ever” (NJPSV) is a good rendering of the Hebrew infinitive.
The bounds of: Literally “the boundary of” (NET).
His city of refuge: For city of refuge see at 35.6. GNT renders the pronoun
his as “to which he has escaped” (similarly NBS02).
He shall not be guilty of blood: Or, more literally, “there is to/on him no
blood.” Some languages may say “bloodguilt” (Alter, NBV, HSV). It should be clear
in the translation that he/“him” refers to the avenger of blood. In GNT’s “this act of
revenge is not murder,” the phrase “act of revenge” seems unnecessary; in fact, in
English “revenge” has a negative connotation. NLT just translates “it will not be
considered murder,” Chewa says “he does not become guilty of murder,” while
DUCL has “then it is not murder” (indeed the opposite of NLT’s “it is murder” in
35.16-18).

35.28
RSV
28 For the man must remain in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest; but after the
death of the high priest the manslayer may return to the land of his possession.

GNT
28 The person guilty of manslaughter must remain in the city of refuge until the death of the
High Priest, but after that he may return home.

This verse summarizes and reinforces the points made in verses 25-27.
The land of his possession: On possession (Hebrew achuzah) see at 35.2.
The land refers specifically to the manslayer’s own plot of land, hence renderings
such as “his land holding” (NJPSV) and “his own property” (NIV, NLT). GNT’s
“home” will be more natural in some languages, but seems less accurate since the
whole context of this passage stresses the notion of place—safe versus dangerous
territory for the person who kills another, whether deliberately or accidentally.

35.29
RSV
29 “And these things shall be for a statute and ordinance to you throughout your
generations in all your dwellings.

GNT
29 These rules apply to you and your descendants wherever you may live.

And these things shall be: Literally “And these shall be.” In many languages,
“These rules” (GNT) will be a helpful model. These things can refer both to what
precedes and to what follows, so it is also helpful to remove And and set off verse 29
as a separate paragraph (like NRSV, CEV, FRCL, GECL, TLA03, NBV, DUCL, and
CRV). If these things refers to what precedes, it refers to all the preceding rules,
starting in verse 10,[< Knierim and Coats 327] not just to a few directly preceding
verses. If, on the other hand, these things refers to what follows, it refers to verses 30-
34.
Throughout your generations: In some languages, “throughout the
generations to come” (NIV) may be a more natural way to preserve the term
“generations.” Other helpful models are NLT: “for you to observe from generation to
generation,” and DHE (as in 15.15 and 18.23): “which will pass from parents to
children.”
A statute and ordinance: See at 27.11.

35.30
RSV
30 If any one kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses;
but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness.

GNT
30 “Anyone accused of murder may be found guilty and put to death only on the evidence
of two or more witnesses; the evidence of one witness is not sufficient to support an
accusation of murder.

Most versions indicate a new paragraph beginning at verse 30. There is a

degree of chiastic organization evident in these verses:
A The case of murder and the need for witnesses (30)
B Do not allow ransom for X (31)
B’ Do not allow ransom for Y (32)
A’ The reason for dealing severely with murder cases—pollution of the land (33).
Verse 34 seems to function more on its own as a closure for the whole section.
Any one kills a person: As in 35.15 (“anyone who kills any person”).
The murderer shall be put to death: GNT makes the trial procedure explicit:
“Anyone accused of murder may be found guilty and …” Instead of “put to death,”
some languages may have a specific term for “executed.”
On the evidence of witnesses: Literally, “at the mouth of witnesses.” In this
phrase, GNT makes explicit that the death sentence can be passed and carried out
“only on the evidence of two or more witnesses” (a principle stated in Deut 17.6 as
well).
But no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness: The
Hebrew literally has: “one witness shall not give evidence against a person to death.”
GNT’s “the evidence of one witness is not sufficient to support an accusation of
murder” is actually closer to the Hebrew than RSV. Helpful models are: “but one
witness alone cannot give evidence against a person, so that he must die” (ZÜR) and
“but the evidence of one witness is not sufficient to condemn someone to death”
(NBV).
NLT offers a concise model for the entire verse:
“All murderers must be put to death, but only if evidence is presented by more
than one witness. No one may be put to death on the testimony of only one
witness.”

35.31
RSV
31 Moreover you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death; but
he shall be put to death.
GNT
31 A murderer must be put to death. He cannot escape this penalty by the payment of money.

Moreover is lacking in the Hebrew. In some languages, “moreover” (NET)

may still be a helpful way to indicate that another, different, limitation on the trial
proceedings starts here. Chewa has: “In addition to this …”
You shall accept: The verb is a generalized plural form. In most languages it
will be more natural to negativize the verb (“you must not accept,” NET) rather than
the noun (no ransom).
Ransom: The Hebrew term kopher (literally “cover”) derives from the root k-
p-r “cover,” “make atonement” (see at 6.11 and 16.46), with the component of some
type of “substitution” implied.[< Cole 555] It refers to a “payment” (REB), a
“payment of money” (GNT) to avoid (“cover up”) the punishment. However, the
problem is that such a rendering completely eliminates the notion of substitution, and
the expression will not be easily distinguishable from a “bribe,” which is quite
different. Some languages will be able to say “ransom payment” (NLT), sometimes
even with a single term (Chewa). There can be no ransom for a convicted murderer
who killed with intent.
Who is guilty of death: This phrase gives the reason why a ransom is not
acceptable. Hence RVE95’s “because he is condemned to death.” RSV may still be
taken to mean “who is guilty of the death of the victim.” But NRSV revises the phrase
as follows: “who is subject to the death penalty,” which is how most translations
interpret this phrase. A rendering like RVE95 and DHE’s “who is condemned to
death” will fit the context of a trial. NBV goes even further and translates “who has
been found guilty and condemned to death,” so as to avoid the suggestion that this
condemnation might be wrong. Compare also NIV: “who deserves to die.” GNT
seems to assume that the term “murderer” already includes the notion of being “guilty
of death”; perhaps that is true but the Hebrew’s emphasis on personal “guilt” may still
need to be made explicit.
He shall be put to death: That is, by the “avenger of blood” (verse 19). GNT
has moved this phrase to the first sentence of the verse: “A murderer must be put to
death.” More accurately, NET renders the phrase as “he must surely be put to death.”
See at 35.16-18.

35.32
RSV
32 And you shall accept no ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may
return to dwell in the land before the death of the high priest.

GNT
32If someone has fled to a city of refuge, do not allow him to make a payment in order to
return home before the death of the High Priest.

And: Some languages may have a conjunction to indicate that this case is in
parallel with the one of the preceding verse: “And so” (Chewa).
His city of refuge: As in 35.26-27 (where GNT has translated “the city of
refuge to which he has escaped”).
… that he may return to dwell in the land: This clause states the purpose of
paying a (forbidden) ransom and leaving the city of refuge before it is allowed. NIV
(below) brings this out more clearly. The land refers to the murderer’s own territory.
Hence GNT’s “home.” However, the qualifier of verse 28 “of his possession” is not
present here.
Return … before the death of the high priest: That is, instead of remaining
in the city of refuge until the high priest dies (verse 28). Since the text is referring to
the high priest in verse 28, many translations (including the Greek Septuagint and the
Syriac Peshitta) have high priest, even though the Hebrew literally has “priest.”
A more helpful model is found in NIV:
Do not accept a ransom for anyone who has fled to a city of refuge and so
allow him to go back and live on his own land before the death of the high
priest. (similar to NLT)
Another helpful model to mention is CEV. This translation brings out that the
manslayer who had been staying in the city of refuge had been pronounced innocent
at his trial there:
And if you have been proven innocent of murder and are living in a Safe
Town, you cannot pay to go back home; you must stay there until the high
priest dies.
CEV’s interpretation is probably correct; however, CEV’s reformulation of the text to
directly address the concerned party (from “you” plural to “you” singular) is not
necessarily the best model to follow. The point of verse 32 is that a ransom payment
does not form an exception to verses 25-27, and those verses are about a manslayer
who has been found innocent of intentional killing.

35.33-34
RSV
33 You shall not thus pollute the land in which you live; for blood pollutes the land, and no
expiation can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of him
who shed it. 34 You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell; for I
the Lord dwell in the midst of the people of Israel.”

GNT
33 If you did this, you would defile the land where you are living. Murder defiles the land, and
except by the death of the murderer there is no way to perform the ritual of purification for the
land where someone has been murdered. 34 Do not defile the land where you are living,
because I am the Lord and I live among the people of Israel.”

You shall not thus pollute the land: GNT’s “defile” expresses the ritual
meaning of the word better than pollute, which nowadays will only make readers
think of environmental pollution. However, if possible, perhaps a verb different from
“defile” could be used (for example, “desecrate”) since “defile” is already used in
verse 34 for a different, but semantically related Hebrew verb. Thus, the land would
become ritually impure—unfit for the Lord to live there among his people. Both RSV
(thus) and GNT (“If you did this”) connect verse 33 to verse 32, but these words are
lacking in the Hebrew.
It is therefore equally possible to treat verses 33-34, both of which begin in a
similar way, as a concluding comment on the whole passage of 35.9-32. In fact, to
visually indicate this important discourse function, several versions (NIV, NET) set
these two verses off as a separate paragraph. These verses give a theological rationale
for the penalties attached to taking human life.[< Ashley 656]
For blood pollutes the land: That is, any type of “killing,” whether deliberate
or accidental, causes pollution, a ritual desecration of the whole land. Thus, GNT
(also NLT) is wrong to limit this to “murder”; “any killing” or “the taking a human
life” would be better. NIV uses the term “bloodshed.” In order to clarify as well as
preserve the image, DUCL translates “For the blood from a murder defiles the land.”
It may also be possible to translate, for example, “blood that has been shed defiles the
land” or “when blood has been spilled, it defiles the land.” The Hebrew sentence
includes an independent pronoun, “it,” putting emphasis on blood. Thus an accurate
translation would be “for it is the blood (that has been shed) which defiles the land.”
No expiation can be made …: Here we have the verbal form (k-p-r) of the
noun “ransom” that was used in verses 31-32. But it may be difficult to use “ransom”
with “land” as its object; other translation alternatives, in addition to “no expiation,”
might be “no purification” or “no cleansing.” GNT’s rendering “perform the ritual of
purification” may give the wrong suggestion that this refers to some other existing
ritual (other than sentencing the murderer to death).
… for the land, for the blood that is shed in it …: The land must be
cleansed of the blood of the victim that has flowed into the earth.[< Levine 560] The
renderings “atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed”
(NIV) and “the earth cannot be purified of the blood shed on it” (RVE95) are helpful
models to clarify the connection between the verb, land, and blood that is shed on it.
… except by the blood of him who shed it: That is, “except by the death of
the murderer” (GNT). To preserve the image, it may also be possible to translate, for
example, “except by the murderer’s own blood.” See also the discussion in the
Genesis Handbook at 9.6.
You shall not defile the land: Verse 34 begins very much like 33; perhaps to
indicate that this is the ultimate conclusion of the whole section beginning at verse 9,
NET adds the initial conjunction “Therefore,” which may be helpful in other
languages as well. For defile see at 5.3. GECL, NBV, and WV95 have “desecrate.”
In the midst of which I dwell: REB has “the land in which I dwell”—the
Hebrew “in the midst of it” refers to the land, not to the people. This is not clear in
GNT, and the double reference to “dwelling” (dwell) in the land and also among the
people should be maintained. The Hebrew verb suggests a continual mode of
“dwelling” for those languages that make such distinctions in tense/aspect.
For I the Lord dwell: The initial conjunction (kiy) indicates a reason, but also
in this case a climactic conclusion—with a definite focus upon “I, the Lord.”

Thus, the regulations in chapter 35 ensure that God’s land, which the new
generation is about to receive, remains pure. The fact that Yahweh resides in the land
was both a warning (against pollution) and a promise (of blessing) for the people of
Israel.

36.1-13
Section Heading: The text now returns to another land “inheritance” narrative to
round out the book. This section and 27.1-11 form an inclusio or frame around all the
material related to the new generation.[< Olson 165] Thus, 36.1-13 is not merely a
supplement, but rather the passage performs an important structural and thematic
function within Numbers. Some of the book’s prominent themes now recalled here in
the final chapter are these: the unity of the people, care for the family and clan,
faithful stewardship of the land, reliance on good constructive leadership, and an
obedience to what the Lord has commanded.[< Brown 304-307]
The earlier situation of Zelophehad’s daughters (27.1-11) now serves as a test
case which results in the additional law that women who inherit land must marry men
belonging to their own tribe, in order to keep their property within the same tribe.
Since the holdings of the clans were defined within tribal territories, the whole system
of keeping land with the original clans and tribes would have been upset if women
who inherit property were to marry outside the tribe.[< Alter, Olson 164] Each tribe is
to retain its full inheritance in the land.
The case of inheriting daughters puts a certain strain on the patriarchal system
(in which inheritance passes down the male line), but its patriarchal character remains
firmly in place. A limitation on the choice of husbands (a limitation which would not
apply to non-inheriting daughters) is imposed on these women in order to preserve the
allotment of land in the tribal configuration.[< Alter]
Thus, helpful section headings are “Marriage of Female Heirs” (NRSV, ESV,
NBG51, WV), “Law/Rule for the marriage of female heirs” (RVC10, similarly
RVE95, NBS02, and FRCL), or, more explicitly, “Marriage prohibition for female
heirs outside their tribe” (HSV, similarly LUT84).
DHE’s heading “Inheritance of women” and especially NIV’s heading
“Inheritance of Zelophehad’s Daughters” give the wrong suggestion that the chapter
is concerned with the possibility for these daughters to inherit. This issue was already
dealt with in 27.1-11. Perhaps “Preserving a clan’s inheritance in the land” would
speak more directly to the primary issue dealt with in this chapter.
Numbers 36 is clearly divided into four paragraphs: The problem presented by
the inheritance of Zelophehad’s daughters (1-4); The Lord’s solution, delivered
through Moses (5-9); The decision is successfully implemented (10-12); and
Conclusion (13). The first three sections each ends with a reference to the need for
retaining a given tribe/clan’s inheritance in the land (verses 4, 9, 12).
The summary in verse 13 refers not just to chapter 36, but to all the rules and
regulations which the Israelites received during their encampment on the plains of
Moab near the River Jordan (chapters 22–36). Moreover, the final verse concludes
Numbers in a way similar to that in Leviticus (27.37). To help indicate these
important structural functions, it may be helpful to insert a blank line directly before
verse 13.

36.1
RSV
1 The heads of the fathers' houses of the families of the sons of Gilead the son of Machir,
son of Manasseh, of the fathers' houses of the sons of Joseph, came near and spoke before
Moses and before the leaders, the heads of the fathers' houses of the people of Israel;

GNT
1 The heads of the families in the clan of Gilead, the son of Machir and grandson of
Manasseh son of Joseph, went to Moses and the other leaders.

The heads: Or “leaders,” “great ones,” etc.—whatever is most natural in the

language of translation. The same designation is used at the end of verse one. A
narrative-opening conjunction or transitional expression may be needed at the
beginning.
Fathers’ houses: As in 32.28, each time the Hebrew literally has “fathers,” as
a reference to a social-organizational unit. Again, NRSV (“ancestral houses”) and
GNT (“families”) are consistent with their renderings in 1.2 and 26.2.
The families of the sons of Gilead …: The term mishpachah, which RSV has
rendered as families (and NRSV as “clans”) is actually in the singular here, so “clan”
(GNT, NIV, TOB, NBS02) is to be preferred. So the phrase refers to “the clan of
Gilead” (GNT).
Of the fathers’ houses of the sons of Joseph: NBS02 is more accurate:
“among the clans (Hebrew mishpechot) of the sons of Joseph.” Compare also NRSV:
“of the Josephite clans.” In some languages, a rendering like “who were among the
Josephite families [or “clans,” preferably]” (NET) will be easier to understand here.
GNT has reduced this whole phrase to “son of Joseph,” perhaps to avoid the wrong
suggestion that Manasseh was not one of Joseph’s own sons, but a later descendant of
his. However, in some languages it is better to avoid this misunderstanding by
keeping the whole phrase and translate “that is to say [RVC10], one of the clans of the
sons of Joseph” (TOB), or even to move the phrase forward and translate:
“The heads of the ancestral houses of one of the Josephite clans, the clan of
Gilead, the son of Machir and grandson of Manasseh, came forward …”
That is also what FRCL has done:
“Of the descendants of Joseph, the family heads of the clan of Gilaad, son of
Machir and grandson of Manasseh, came …”
Came near: The verb is the same as in in 27.1. Again, “went” (GNT) is not a
very precise rendering; “came forward” or “approached” would be more accurate.
And spoke: Given the context, “and appealed” (NJPSV) will be more natural
in some languages, or “came … with a petition” (NLT). Compare also NBV: “and put
the following to him.”
Before the leaders: The Hebrew term is nesi’im. As mentioned at 1.16, nasi’
refers to a prominent and distinguished leader, for example, a much respected sheikh
of a tribe; thus leaders seems a rather flat translation. In English, chiefs or
“chieftains” (NJPSV) would be a better alternative. In apposition to the leaders, the
Hebrew continues with the heads of the fathers’ houses of the people of Israel.
GNT has simply eliminated the last phrasal designation, which is not recommended.
This does make for easier reading, but in the original such copious expression served
as an appropriate introduction to an important new section of the overall discourse.

36.2
RSV
2they said, “The Lord commanded my lord to give the land for inheritance by lot to the people
of Israel; and my lord was commanded by the Lord to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our
brother to his daughters.

GNT
2They said, “The Lord commanded you to distribute the land to the people of Israel by
drawing lots. He also commanded you to give the property of our relative Zelophehad to his
daughters.

They said: They refers to the heads of the ancestral houses of the clan of
Gilead (verse1). They are speaking to Moses and the chieftains, not the other way
round. The translation should be clear on this, and a new sentence might begin here.
These clan leaders are voicing their concern in verses 2-4.
The Lord commanded my lord: See at 11.28 and 32.25 on the deferential
title my lord for Moses. An appropriate human honorific for the Hebrew adoniy
should be used in translation. It should also be duplicated later in the verse if at all
possible. In some languages, a rendering like “you (plural), our lord/master” (Chewa)
or “you, sir” (REB) will be natural and will express the speakers’ deference at the
same time. GNT’s “you” does not express that deference; in fact, just the opposite is
the case and their statement sounds rather rude in English.
To give the land for inheritance: On inheritance (nachalah) see at 16.14;
26.53. With this sentence, the Gileadites are not yet raising the main point of their
case; that only comes in the next sentence. Instead of “give,” a verb like “distribute”
or “divide (out)” may be more suitable in this context.
By lot: See at 26.55, where GNT translates “by drawing lots” as well. To
clarify the nature of this procedure, a qualification like “sacred lot” (NLT, also in
33.54) may also be used.
My lord was commanded by the Lord to give …: The Gileadites now come
to their main point, which may be distinguished by a separate sentence: the case of
Zelophehad’s daughters (27.1-11). GNT’s “also” brings this out. The passive phrase
was commanded may be awkward in some languages. To solve this, GNT has
converted the passive my lord was commanded … into the active form: “He [the
Lord] also commanded you” (also in GECL, PV, DHE).
However, this rendering seems to ignore the difference that exists in the
Hebrew between this passive clause in the middle of the verse (“my lord was
commanded by the Lord”) and the active clause at the beginning (“The Lord
commanded my lord”). This difference is taken into account by CRV and EÜ, which
may be helpful alternative models: “You, our lord, received from the Lord the
command to give …” (CRV); “But my lord also received from the Lord the command
to give …” (EÜ). In this way, the clause will still be different from the active clause
(“The Lord commanded my lord”) at the beginning of the verse. (EÜ’s “also” helps to
bring out that this sentence introduces the main point.)
On the other hand, if translators consider having the active form in both
clauses the best stylistic choice in their language, they may want to bring out the
relation between the two clauses as follows: “when the Lord commanded … he also
commanded …” (similar to FRCL)—making the second clause the main clause.
Brother: In languages in which “brother” would refer to a younger or older
sibling, a rendering such as “relative” (GNT), “kinsman” (NJPSV) or “clan member”
will be needed.

36.3
RSV
3 But if they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the people of Israel then their
inheritance will be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and added to the inheritance of
the tribe to which they belong; so it will be taken away from the lot of our inheritance.

GNT
3But remember, if they marry men of another tribe, their property will then belong to that tribe,
and the total allotted to us will be reduced.

But: Literally “And.” The GNT helpfully adds “remember” to indicate that the
speakers are not giving Moses some new information here; “as you know” would also
work.
If they are married … then their inheritance: They and their refer to the
daughters of Zelophehad. This may need to be made specific, for example, “our
daughters,” or idiomatically in Chewa, “our children.”
If they are married to …: Literally, “If they become wives of …,” which in
some languages will be more natural and idiomatic. For example, in Chewa men
“marry” (-kwatira) while women “are/get married” (-kwatiwa); that is normal usage.
 Inheritance (nachalah) refers specifically to inherited land; see at 35.2.
Instead of maintaining the if ... then ... construction, translators may find
TLA03 a helpful model: “However, we are concerned that they will marry into
another tribe. Because then ...” or “... If that happens, then ...”
Our fathers: Or “our ancestors” (NRSV).
The tribe to which they belong: Through their marriages, the daughters now
belong to their husbands’ tribes. Compare “the tribe into which they marry” (NRSV,
NJPSV). On the term matteh “tribe” see at 1.4. There may be some subtle cultural
issues that translators will have to carefully investigate before translating these verses.
For example, Chewa society is matrilineal, and therefore wives do not “belong to”
their husband’s tribe. Furthermore, in a traditional (rural) setting a woman does not
“own property”; rather, it belongs to her clan if she dies. In a patrilineal society, on
the other hand, any property or possessions belong to her husband and his clan.
It will be taken away from: In some languages, “will be reduced” (GNT,
NLT) or “will be diminished” (NJPSV, FRCL, PV) will be more natural. Other
(patrilineal) cultures, however, may use expressions similar to those of the Hebrew.
The lot of our inheritance: Although lot translates the same Hebrew term
goral as in 26.55-56 (“lot”), a rendering such as “the allotted portion of our
inheritance” (NRSV) or “the inheritance assigned to us by lot” (NBG51) will be
clearer in many languages. Our refers to the heads of the ancestral houses of the clan
of Gilead (verse1), who are still speaking. In some languages it will be helpful to
make the speakers the subject of the sentence: “We would lose part of the territory
that you [Moses] gave us” (TLA03).
NLT provides a good model for this verse (once the cultural issues and
associated wordings have been sorted out):
“But if they marry men from another tribe, their grants of land will go with
them to the tribe into which they marry. In this way, the total area of our tribal
land will be reduced.”

36.4
RSV
4 And when the jubilee of the people of Israel comes, then their inheritance will be added to
the inheritance of the tribe to which they belong; and their inheritance will be taken from the
inheritance of the tribe of our fathers.”

GNT
4In the Year of Restoration, when all property that has been sold is restored to its original
owners, the property of Zelophehad's daughters will be permanently added to the tribe into
which they marry and will be lost to our tribe.”

And when the jubilee of the people of Israel comes: In the jubilee year, the
end of a forty-nine year cycle (Lev 25.8-55), land that has been sold is supposed to
revert to its original owners. This is not the case, however, for inherited land. Thus,
the land inherited by Zelophehad’s daughters, were they to marry outside their own
tribe, would still remain attached to their husbands’ tribes, even after the occurrence
of the jubilee year.[< Alter; Levine 578] This last point can be highlighted by
translating “And even when …” (NJPSV) instead of just and when. Thus, the rule of
the year of jubilee applies only to the restoration of lands to former owners, not to
inherited land. Translators are advised not to use the word jubilee (which is ultimately
a transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning “ram’s horn”) but to look for a term in
their own language that expresses the idea of “restoration,” “liberation,” or “giving
back.” Chewa has “Israel’s celebration of the 50th year.” GNT translates “Year of
Restoration,” but adds a long explanatory clause: “when all property that has been
sold is restored to its original owners” (which misses the point that inherited land fell
outside the scope of this rule). Since the Hebrew text does not have this clause, it may
be better to put an explanation in a footnote. In fact, CEV’s footnote may be a helpful
model:
This was a sacred year for Israel, traditionally called the “Year of Jubilee.”
During this year, all property had to go back to its original owner. But here,
the property was not sold; it became part of the other tribe's land when the
daughter who owned it married into that tribe. So the property could not be
returned even during this year.
Their inheritance: Their refers to the daughters of Zelophehad, not to the
people of Israel. Hence GNT’s “the property of Zelophehad’s daughters.”
Will be added to the inheritance of the tribe to which they belong: As in
verse 3. Concerning added, GNT’s rendering “permanently” highlights that the
daughters’ inheritance would be added to the tribe(s) into which they would have
married. Instead of the tribe to which they belong, RVE95 and RVC10 translate “the
tribe of their husbands,” while NJPSV and NET translate again “the tribe into which
they marry.”
And their inheritance will be taken from the inheritance of the tribe of
our fathers: This sentence highlights what the situation would mean for the
Gileadites. However, after the preceding sentence (“will be added to”), the present
sentence (“will be taken from”) in RSV may seem like a chronological step back in
some languages. GNT’s “and will be lost to our tribe” avoids this problem and is a
more natural way of highlighting the outcome in a number of languages. TLA03 is
similar to GNT, but uses the active form: “And our tribe will lose part of the territory
that was hers.” NET starts with “so”: “So their inheritance will be taken away from
the inheritance of our ancestral tribe.”
Instead of our fathers, alternative renderings are “our ancestral tribe” (NRSV,
NET) or “our forefathers” (NIV).
The speech of the Gileadite leaders contains a lot of repetition. Perhaps the
repetition indicates that they are nervous about the substance of their request: they
seem anxious that part of their tribal inheritance might slip away from them and be
annexed by another tribe unless Moses takes immediate steps to rectify the
situation.[< Alter] Alternatively, this repetition may simply be a stylistic feature that
is characteristic of such formal public negotiation in Hebrew discourse, especially
where a legal precedent is being discussed.

36.5
RSV
5 And Moses commanded the people of Israel according to the word of the Lord, saying,
“The tribe of the sons of Joseph is right.

GNT
5 So Moses gave the people of Israel the following command from the Lord. He said, “What
the tribe of Manasseh says is right,

And Moses commanded: As indicated above, the second section in this

chapter begins here, and so a new paragraph is called for. A separate heading may or
may not be needed as well, depending on the project’s translation guidelines. NET’s
heading “Moses’ Decision” is somewhat misleading since he spoke “the following
command from the Lord” (GNT).
According to the word of the Lord: Literally, “upon the mouth of the Lord.”
Despite what this phrase might suggest, there is no indication here that Moses has just
consulted an oracle. He is confronted in 36.2-4 with a consequence of the Lord’s
ruling (in chapter 27) that had not been anticipated. Moses now interprets how the
ruling is to be applied to the daughters of Zelophehad (36.5-6). This phrase marks that
act of interpretation as an extension of the revelation in chapter 27.[< Alter] That
Moses faithfully followed the commandments of the Lord is a key theme in the book
of Numbers.[< Cole 561]
The tribe of the sons of Joseph is right: Also in the Hebrew, this is a clear
echo of Moses’ earlier response to Zelophehad’s daughters in 27.7: “The daughters of
Zelophehad are right.” The renderings of both phrases should therefore be consistent.
Concerning the tribe of the sons of Joseph (also in REB, RVE95, NBS02, and
ZÜR), this is indeed what the Hebrew has. The translation may therefore say: “the
tribe of Joseph’s descendants.” Similarly, FRCL has “those descendants of Joseph.”
Compare also NLT, DHE, and NTV: “the men of the tribe of Joseph.” NET has “the
tribe of the Josephites.” The text does not say “Manasseh” (GNT, CEV, GECL,
DUCL, TLA03). It is Joseph, not Manasseh, who is the first and most distant ancestor
mentioned in verse 1.
Is right: NLT’s rendering is more idiomatic for English: “The claim of the
men of the tribe of Joseph is legitimate.”

36.6
RSV
6This is what the Lord commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, ‘Let them marry
whom they think best; only, they shall marry within the family of the tribe of their father.

GNT
6and so the Lord says that the daughters of Zelophehad are free to marry anyone they wish
but only within their own tribe.

This is what the Lord commands: In some languages, a rendering like “The
Lord has said to me that the daughters of Zelophehad can …” (TLA03) will help to
indicate that Moses is still speaking. TLA03 and GNT (“and so the Lord says that
…”) change the embedded direct speech into indirect speech, which is helpful in some
languages. The explicit mention again of the Lord’s “command” makes it clear that
Moses is not giving an independent personal ruling here.
Let them marry whom they think best: More literally, “To the one who is
good in their eyes let them become wives”; more idiomatically, “anyone they like”
(NLT).
They shall marry: Literally, “they shall become wives to.”
Within the family of the tribe of their father: Instead of family, “clan”
(NRSV) is a more accurate rendering of mishpachat. The Hebrew puts emphasis on
this phrase by placing it at the beginning of the sentence. Other languages may
express the emphasis on this important restriction by adding “only” (GNT, Alter) or
“as long as it is within …” (NLT).
Translations differ on one ambiguity in the Hebrew phrase. RSV and ESV
(“… the clan …”) can be taken to mean that the husband should not just be a member
of their father’s tribe but specifically of their father’s clan within that tribe. Buber,
RVE95, NBG51, and HSV follow the same interpretation. Chewa has “as long as they
(women) are married with those (men) of the family of the clan of their parents.”
The alternative rendering, “into a clan of their father’s tribe” (NRSV), only
implies that the husband has to be a member of either their father’s clan or any other
clan within their father’s tribe.[< Noth 257-258] Many translations follow this second
interpretation; compare NJPSV, REB, LUT84, EÜ, ZÜR, TOB, NBJ98, FRCL, PV,
DHE, TLA03, NBV, WV95, and NFB. CRV’s “one of the clans of their father’s
tribe” makes this quite explicit. By implication, GNT is based on the same
interpretation: “only within their own tribe” (also GECL and DUCL). (This
interpretation would be in line with the phrase “married into the clans [plural] of the
sons of Manasseh” at the start of verse 12.)
A few translations try to solve the problem by treating “clan” and “tribe” as
almost synonyms: “within the tribal clan of their father” (NIV); “within the clan of
their father’s tribe” (Alter). This may be a way to solve the ambiguity. (This
interpretation would be in line with the order in the phrase “the tribe of their father’s
clan” at the end of verse 12.)
In any case, translators are advised to treat this phrase in verse 6 and the
phrase in verse 8 below (“One of the family of the tribe of her father”) consistently.

36.7
RSV
7The inheritance of the people of Israel shall not be transferred from one tribe to another; for
every one of the people of Israel shall cleave to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.

GNT
7 The property of every Israelite will remain attached to his tribe.

After ruling on the case of Zelophehad’s daughters, Moses now applies the
same ruling generally to all the Israelites (verses 7-9). Verse 9 repeats verse 7, with
slight variants, thus forming a frame around verse 8. The overriding concern is that
any inherited plot of land should stay within the tribe to which God originally gave
it,[< Olson 192] thereby maintaining tribal territorial sovereignty.[< Cole 561] Again,
the GNT drastically reduces the Hebrew text in its translation, apparently leaving the
entire first clause implicit. This is not recommended as a model.
The inheritance of the people of Israel shall not be transferred: The
Hebrew does not refer to the inheritance in its totality, but to any individual plot of
inherited land. Therefore, NJPSV is a better model: “No inheritance of the Israelites
may pass over from one tribe to another.”
For: The initial Hebrew particle (kiy) in this instance is probably emphatic:
“No indeed…”
Every one of the people of Israel: That is, “every Israelite” (GNT).
Shall cleave: Or “will remain attached” (GNT, PV); “must hold on” (LUT84);
“must retain” (NET).
His fathers: In verse 8, GNT translates “ancestors.” See at 36.4 (at “our
fathers”).

36.8
RSV
8And every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the people of Israel shall
be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father, so that every one of the people of Israel
may possess the inheritance of his fathers.
GNT
8 Every woman who inherits property in an Israelite tribe must marry a man belonging to that
tribe. In this way all Israelites will inherit the property of their ancestors,

And every daughter: The generalized instruction (not just for Zelophehad’s
daughters) continues: “Every woman who…” (GNT).
Who possesses an inheritance … may possess the inheritance: The Hebrew
expression is literally: “take possession of an inheritance.” In some languages, an
expression like “inherit property” (GNT) or “inherit land” (NIV) is more natural.
Shall be wife to one of …: GNT has “must marry a man belonging to …” (see
above at verse 3 for a comment about the possible cultural influence on “marriage”
terminology).
One of the family of the tribe of her father: Again, instead of family, “clan”
(NRSV) is a more accurate rendering of mishpachat. Similar to verse 6, translations
differ on the ambiguity in the Hebrew phrase. RSV and ESV (“the clan”) can be taken
to mean that the husband should not just be a member of their father’s tribe but
specifically of their father’s clan within that tribe. Buber, RVE95, NBG51, HSV, and
LUT84 follow the same interpretation.
The alternative rendering, “someone from a clan of her father’s tribe”
(NJPSV), only implies that the husband has to be a member of either their father’s
clan or any other clan within their father’s tribe. Again, many translations follow this
second interpretation; compare REB and NET (“a man from any family in her father’s
tribe”), EÜ, ZÜR, TOB, NBJ98, NBS02, FRCL, DHE, NBV, WV95, and NFB.
CRV’s “one from the clans of her father’s tribe” makes this quite explicit. By
implication, GNT and CEV are based on the same interpretation: “a man belonging to
that tribe” (GNT, similarly PV); “someone from her own tribe” (CEV, similarly
TLA03). Chewa has: “they should be married to the children (sons) of the relatives of
their fathers,” which is based on this interpretation as well. (This second interpretation
would be in line with the phrase “married into the clans [plural] of the sons of
Manasseh” in verse 12.)
As in verse 6, NIV and Alter attempt to solve the problem by treating “clan”
and “tribe” as almost synonyms: “someone in her father’s tribal clan” (NIV);
“someone from the clan of her father’s tribe” (Alter). Unlike in verse 6, NRSV
translates “one from the clan of her father’s tribe” as well. (This interpretation would
be in line with the order in the phrase “the tribe of their father’s clan” in verse 12.)
In any case, translators are advised to render this phrase in verse 8 and the
phrase in verse 6 (“Within the family of the tribe of their father”) consistently.
His fathers: See at 36.7. NLT renders the close of verse 8 as “will keep their
ancestral property.”

36.9
RSV
9So no inheritance shall be transferred from one tribe to another; for each of the tribes of the
people of Israel shall cleave to its own inheritance.’ ”

GNT
9 and the property will not pass from one tribe to another. Each tribe will continue to possess
its own property.”
 As mentioned above, verse 9 repeats verse 7, with slight variants, thus forming
a frame around verse 8.
So no inheritance: Translators may want to use a particle like So, “Thus”
(NJPSV), “In this way” (Chewa), or “Therefore” (GECL) to indicate that verse 9 is a
repeat of verse 7. An alternative is “In this way, no inheritance …” (compare FRCL,
PV, and TLA03).

36.10-11
RSV
10 The daughters of Zelophehad did as the Lord commanded Moses; 11 for Mahlah, Tirzah,
Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married to sons of their
father's brothers.

GNT
10–11 So Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, did as
the Lord had commanded Moses, and they married their cousins.

The daughters of Zelophehad did as the Lord commanded Moses: As

direct speech shifts to narrative report, a new paragraph should begin. More than is
clear from RSV, the Hebrew puts emphasis on as the Lord commanded Moses, as
follows: “As the Lord commanded Moses, thus the daughters of Zelophehad did.”
GNT avoids the repetition of the daughters of Zelophehad by joining these two
verses together. In itself this may be helpful, but in so doing GNT reduces the
emphasis on the fact that the Lord had commanded this. This problem can be solved
in GNT by shifting the phrase “So as the Lord had commanded Moses …” to the front
of verse 10.
Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milkah, and Noah, the daughters of
Zelophehad: The daughters have been mentioned by name in 27.1 and 26.33.
Were married to: Literally “became wives to …”
Their father’s brothers: The Hebrew word for “uncle” often refers
specifically to a father’s brother. Some languages, for example, many Bantu
patrilineal societies, will have a specific term to refer to a father’s brother. But GNT’s
“their cousins” wrongly suggests that the daughters might have married relatives on
their mother’s side. NIV’s and NLT’s “(their) cousins on their father’s side” and
RVE95’s “sons of their paternal uncles” is more accurate in the context.

36.12
RSV
12 They were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph, and their
inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father.

GNT
12They married within the clans of the tribe of Manasseh son of Joseph, and their property
remained in their father's tribe.

The point of this conclusion is that the daughters faithfully obeyed the Lord’s
command, which as has been noted, is one of the key requisites for blessing according
to Numbers. A word like “Thus” would help to indicate this, either at the beginning of
the verse (TOB) or at the start of the second sentence: “Thus / in this way their
inheritance of land remained in …” (NLT, DHE, NTV, FRCL).
They were married into: Literally “They became wives to.”
 Into the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph: Instead of
families, “clans” (GNT, NRSV) is a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew
mishpechot, which is in the plural this time. The Greek Septuagint, the Syriac
Peshitta, and the Latin Vulgate have a singular form. However, there is no reason to
deviate from the plural, which is marked as such by the vowels –e– and –o- in this
Hebrew form.
In the tribe of the family of their father: Again, “in the tribe of their father’s
clan” (NRSV, NJPSV) is more accurate. Note that the Hebrew mentions tribe
(matteh) before “clan” (mishpachat). Thus, this phrase seems to treat matteh and
mishpachah as near-synonyms.

36.13
RSV
13 These are the commandments and the ordinances which the Lord commanded by
Moses to the people of Israel in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.

GNT
13 These are the rules and regulations that the Lord gave the Israelites through Moses in
the plains of Moab across the River Jordan from Jericho.

This summary concludes the sections of law and cult procedure in the third
and final part of Numbers—the time that the Israelites were encamped in the plains of
Moab (chapters 22–36). As a way to indicate this, verse 13 should be a paragraph of
its own, possibly preceded by a blank line. It is not just a summary of chapter 36.
Thus, Numbers concludes with a simple summary, yet one that is full of thematic
implications for Israel’s future and the book of Deuteronomy.
The commandments and the ordinances: As mentioned at 15.22, the word
mitswot comes from a verb meaning “to order” or “to command,” and so it is usually
translated as “commandments.” As mentioned at 9.3, ordinance (mishpat) means a
legal decision or judgment, or established custom.
By Moses: Literally “by the hand of Moses” (as in 4.37, 45). This particular
phraseology of the commandments coming via the hand of Moses also occurs in Exo
35.29; Lev 8.36; 10.11; 26.46.
In the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho: As in 26.3; see the
discussion there. This phrase unifies the final part of the Book of Numbers (chapters
22–36) and constitutes an inclusio for it. The Hebrew `al yarden (By the Jordan) is
slightly different from “beyond the Jordan” in 22.1, but the same as in 26.3.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bible Texts and Versions Cited:

BHS
Septuagint (Rahlfs)
Vulgate (Weber)

Alter
Buber
CEI (La Sacra Bibbia, versione ufficiale a cura della Conferenza Episcopale Italiana
2008)
CEV (CEV refers to both CEV99 and CEVR06)
Chewa (Buku Loyera. 1997. Blantyre: Bible Society of Malawi.)
CRV (Russian BS 2011)
DUCL
DHE (Spanish: Dios Habla Hoy de Estudio 1994)
ESV
EÜ (German)
Everett Fox
FRCL
GECL
GNT
HSV (Dutch)
KJV
LUT12
LUT84
Moffatt
NAV (New Afrikaans Version)
NBG51
NBJ98
NBS02 (Nouvelle Bible Segond Edition d’étude 2002)
NBV (Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling)
NEB
NET
NFB (Nije Fryske Bibeloersetting)
NIV
NJB
NJPSV
NLB (New Living Bible)
NLT (NLT refers to both NLT04 and NLT07)
Nouvelle version Segond révisée 1995
NRSV
NTV (Spanish: Nueva Traducción Viviente)
PV
REB
RSO
RSV
RVE95 (Spanish)
RVC10 (Spanish)
SB00 (Swedish Bible 2000)
SV (Statenvertaling)
TLA03 (Spanish)
TNIV
TOB88/94
TOB10 (TOB refers to both TOB94 and TOB10)
Tonga (Ibbaibele. 1996. Lusaka: Bible Society of Zambia.)
WV77 (Dutch)
WV95 (Dutch)
ZÜR (Zürcher Bibel)

Lexicons:
HALOT 3

Commentaries:
Rashi
Rashbam
Ibn Ezra
Ashley, Timothy R. 1993. The Book of Numbers (NICOT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Brown, Raymond. 2002. The Message of Numbers (The Bible Speaks Today).
Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity.
Budd, Philip J. 1984. Numbers (Word Biblical Commentary). Waco, Texas: Word.
Cole, R.D. 2000. Numbers (New American Commentary 3B). Nashville: Broadman
& Holman.
Davies, E.W. 1995. Numbers (New Century Bible Commentary). London: Marshall
Pickering / Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Dozeman, Thomas B. 1998. “The Book of Numbers,” in L.E. Keck (ed.), The New
Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. II, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1-268.
Douglas, Mary. 1993. In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of
Numbers (JSOT SS 158). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Duguid, Iain M. 2006. Numbers: God’s Presence in the Wilderness (Preaching the
Word). Wheaton: Crossway Books.
Friedman, Richard Elliott. 2003. The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into
the Five Books of Moses. San Francisco: HarperCollins.
Gane, R. 2004. The NIV Application Commentary: Leviticus, Numbers, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan.
Gispen, W.H. 1959. Het boek Numeri I (Commentaar op het Oude Testament).
Kampen: Kok.
Gispen, W.H. 1964. Het boek Numeri II (Commentaar op het Oude Testament).
Kampen: Kok.
Knierim, R.P. and G.W. Coats. 2005. Numbers (The Forms of the Old Testament
Literature 4). Grand Rapids / Cambridge UK: Eerdmans.
Levine, B.A. 1993. Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (The Anchor Bible 4A). New York: Doubleday.
Milgrom, J. 1990. Numbers. Philadelphia/New York: Jewish Publication Society.
Noordtzij, A. 1983. Numbers – Korte Verklaring (Bible Student’s Commentary).
Translated by Ed van der Mass. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Noth, Martin. 1968. Numbers: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library).
Translated by J.D. Martin. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Nowell, Irene. 2011. Numbers (New Collegeville Bible Commentary 5) Collegeville,
Minnesota: Liturgical Press.
Olson, Dennis T. 1996. Numbers (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching
and Preaching). Louisville: John Knox.
Plaut, W. Gunther (Ed.). 2005. The Torah: A Modern Commentary (Revised edition).
New York: Union for Reform Judaism.
Sherwood, S.K. 2002. Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Berit Olam Studies in
Hebrew Narrative & Poetry). Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press.
Wenham, G.J. 1981. Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale Old
Testament Commentaries). Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

Other works:
Flora and Fauna of the Bible (Helps for Translators). Second Edition 1980. United
Bible Societies.
Allen, Ronald B. 1994. “Numbers,” in K.L. Barker and J. Kohlenberger III, eds., NIV
Bible Commentary, Volume 1: Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 171-235.
Childs, Brevard S. 1979. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. London:
SCM Press.
Hope, Edward R. 2005. All Creatures Great and Small: Living Things in the Bible
(UBS Technical Helps). New York: United Bible Societies.
van Midden, Piet J. (ed.). 2002. In de woestijn: Numeri (ACEBT 20). Maastricht:
Shaker.
Niditch, Susan. 1993. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence.
New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rendsburg, Gary A. 2012. “Marking Closure,” Paper presented at the International
Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Amsterdam, 24 July 2012.
Sysling, H. and I. Spijker. 2002. Numeri: toelichting (Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling;
Unpublished translators’ notes on Numbers in the New Dutch Bible Translation).
Haarlem: Netherlands Bible Society.
Tov, Emanuel 1992. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress /
Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
Tov, Emanuel 2012. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Third edition revised and
expanded. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Wevers, John W. 1998. Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers (SBL Septuagint and
Cognate Studies Series 46). Atlanta GA: Scholars Press.