Bilangan 13:4

13:4 Now these were their names: from the tribe of Reuben, Shammua son of Zaccur;

Bilangan 34:14

34:14 because the tribe of the Reubenites by their families, ¹  the tribe of the Gadites by their families, and half of the tribe of Manasseh have received their inheritance.

Bilangan 1:21

1:21 Those of them who were numbered ²  from the tribe of Reuben were 46,500. ³ 

Bilangan 1:5

1:5 Now these are the names of the men who are to help ⁴  you:

from ⁵  Reuben, Elizur son of Shedeur;

Bilangan 10:18

Journey Arrangements for the Tribes

10:18 The standard of the camp of Reuben set out according to their companies; over his company was Elizur son of Shedeur.

Bilangan 2:10

The Tribes on the South

2:10 “On the south will be the divisions of the camp of Reuben under their standard. ⁶  The leader of the people of Reuben is Elizur son of Shedeur.

Bilangan 7:30

7:30 On the fourth day Elizur son of Shedeur, leader of the Reubenites, presented an offering.

Bilangan 32:37

32:37 The Reubenites rebuilt Heshbon, Elealeh, Kiriathaim,

Bilangan 26:5

Reuben

26:5 Reuben was the firstborn of Israel. The Reubenites: from ⁷  Hanoch, the family of the Hanochites; from Pallu, the family of the Palluites;

Bilangan 32:25

32:25 So the Gadites and the Reubenites replied to Moses, “Your servants will do as my lord commands.

Bilangan 32:31

32:31 Then the Gadites and the Reubenites answered, “Your servants will do what the Lord has spoken. ⁸ 

Bilangan 16:1

The Rebellion of Korah

16:1 ⁹ Now Korah son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth, who were Reubenites, ¹⁰  took men ¹¹ 

Bilangan 32:1

The Petition of the Reubenites and Gadites

32:1 ¹² Now the Reubenites and the Gadites possessed a very large number of cattle. When they saw that the lands of Jazer and Gilead were ideal for cattle, ¹³ 

Bilangan 32:33

Land Assignment

32:33 So Moses gave to the Gadites, the Reubenites, and to half the tribe of Manasseh son of Joseph the realm of King Sihon of the Amorites, and the realm of King Og of Bashan, the entire land with its cities and the territory surrounding them. ¹⁴ 

Bilangan 32:2

32:2 the Gadites and the Reubenites came and addressed Moses, Eleazar the priest, and the leaders of the community. They said,

Bilangan 1:20

1:20 And they were as follows:

The descendants of Reuben, the firstborn son of Israel: According to the records of their clans and families, all the males twenty years old or older who could serve in the army were listed by name individually.

Bilangan 32:29

32:29 Moses said to them: “If the Gadites and the Reubenites cross the Jordan with you, each one equipped for battle in the Lord’s presence, and you conquer the land, ¹⁵  then you must allot them the territory of Gilead as their possession.

Bilangan 26:7

26:7 These were the families of the Reubenites; and those numbered of them were 43,730. ¹⁶ 

Bilangan 32:6

Moses’ Response

32:6 Moses said to the Gadites and the Reubenites, “Must your brothers go to war while you ¹⁷  remain here?

Bilangan 2:16

2:16 All those numbered of the camp of Reuben, according to their divisions, are 151,450. They will travel second.

Bilangan 13:3

13:3 So Moses sent them from the wilderness of Paran at the command ¹⁸  of the Lord. All of them were leaders ¹⁹  of the Israelites.

Bilangan 1:2

1:2 “Take a census ²⁰  of the entire ²¹  Israelite community ²²  by their clans and families, ²³  counting the name of every individual male. ²⁴ 

Bilangan 2:3

The Tribes on the East

2:3 “Now those who will be camping ²⁵  on the east, toward the sunrise, ²⁶  are the divisions ²⁷  of the camp of Judah under their standard. The leader of the people of Judah is ²⁸  Nahshon son of Amminadab.

Bilangan 32:16

The Offer of the Reubenites and Gadites

32:16 Then they came very close to him and said, “We will build sheep folds here for our flocks and cities for our families, ²⁹ 

[34:14]  ¹ tn Heb “the house of their fathers.” So also a little later in this verse.

[1:21]  ² tn Heb “those numbered of them.” The form is פְּקֻדֵיהֶם (pÿqudehem), the passive participle with the pronominal suffix. This indicates that the number came to 46,500, but it specifically refers to “those numbered.” This expression occurs frequently throughout the book of Numbers.

[1:21]  ³ sn There has been much discussion about the numbers in the Israelite wilderness experience. The immediate difficulty for even the casual reader is the enormous number of the population. If indeed there were 603,550 men twenty years of age and older who could fight, the total population of the exodus community counting women and children would have been well over a million, or even two million as calculated by some. This is not a figure that the Bible ever gives, but given the sizes of families the estimate would not be far off. This is a staggering number to have cross the Sea, drink from the oases, or assemble in the plain by Sinai. It is not a question of whether or not God could provide for such a number; it is rather a problem of logistics for a population of that size in that period of time. The problem is not with the text itself, but with the interpretation of the word אֶלֶף (’elef), traditionally translated “thousand.” The word certainly can be taken as “thousand,” and most often is. But in view of the problem of the large number here, some scholars have chosen one of the other meanings attested in literature for this word, perhaps “troop,” or “family,” or “tent group,” even though a word for “family” has already been used (see A. H. McNeile, Numbers, 7; J. Garstang, Joshua-Judges, 120; J. Bright, History of Israel, 144). Another suggestion is to take the word as a “chief” or “captain” based on Ugaritic usage (see R. E. D. Clarke, “The Large Numbers of the Old Testament,” JTVI 87 [1955]: 82-92; and J. W. Wenham, “Large Numbers in the Old Testament,” TynBul 18 [1967]: 19-53). This interpretation would reduce the size of the Israelite army to about 18,000 men from a population of about 72,000 people. That is a radical change from the traditional reading and may be too arbitrary an estimate. A more unlikely calculation following the idea of a new meaning would attempt to divide the numbers and use the first part to refer to the units and the second the measurement (e.g., 65 thousand and four hundred would become 65 units of four hundred). Another approach has been to study the numbers rhetorically, analyzing the numerical values of letters and words. But this method, known as gematria, came in much later than the biblical period (see for it G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament, 184; and A. Noordtzij, Numbers [BSC], 24). On this system the numbers for “the sons of Israel” would be 603. But the number of the people in the MT is 603,550. Another rhetorical approach is that which says the text used exaggerations in the numbers on an epic scale to make the point of God’s blessing. R. B. Allen’s view that the numbers have been magnified by a factor of ten (“Numbers,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 2:688-91), which would mean the army was only 60,000 men, seems every bit as arbitrary as Wenham’s view to get down to 18,000. Moreover, such views cannot be harmonized with the instructions in the chapter for them to count every individual skull – that seems very clear. This is not the same kind of general expression one finds in “Saul has killed his thousands, David his ten thousands” (1 Sam 18:7). There one expects the bragging and the exaggerations. But in a text of numbering each male, to argue that the numbers have been inflated ten-fold to form the rhetoric of praise for the way God has blessed the nation demands a much more convincing argument than has typically been given. On the surface it seems satisfactory, but it raises a lot of questions. Everything in Exodus and Numbers attests to the fact that the Israelites were in a population explosion, that their numbers were greater than their Egyptian overlords. Pharaoh had attempted to counter their growth by killing males from the ranks. That only two midwives are named must be taken to mean that they were heads of the guilds, for two could not service a population – even of the smaller estimate given above. But even though the size had to have been great and seen as a threat, we are at a loss to know exactly how to determine it. There is clearly a problem with the word “thousand” here and in many places in the OT, as the literature will show, but the problem cannot really be solved without additional information. The suggestions proposed so far seem to be rather arbitrary attempts to reduce the number to a less-embarrassing total, one that would seem more workable in the light of contemporary populations and armies, as well as space and time for the people’s movement in the wilderness. An army of 10,000 or 20,000 men in those days would have been a large army; an army of 600,000 (albeit a people’s army, which may mean that only a portion of the males would actually fight at any time – as was true at Ai) is large even by today’s standards. But the count appears to have been literal, and the totals calculated accordingly, totals which match other passages in the text. If some formula is used to reduce the thousands in this army, then there is the problem of knowing what to do when a battle has only five thousand, or three thousand men. One can only conclude that on the basis of what we know the word should be left with the translation “thousand,” no matter what difficulties this might suggest to the reader. One should be cautious, though, in speaking of a population of two million, knowing that there are serious problems with the calculation of that number, if not with the word “thousand” itself. It is very doubtful that the population of the wilderness community was in the neighborhood of two million. Nevertheless, until a more convincing explanation of the word “thousand” or the calculation of the numbers is provided, one should retain the reading of the MT but note the difficulty with the large numbers.

[1:5]  ⁴ tn The verb is עָמַד (’amad, “to stand”). It literally then is, “who will stand with you.” They will help in the count, but they will also serve as leaders as the camp moves from place to place.

[1:5]  ⁵ tn The preposition lamed (ל) prefixed to the name could be taken in the sense of “from,” but could also be “with regard to” (specification).

[2:10]  ⁶ tn Here and throughout the line is literally “[under] the standard of the camp of Reuben…according to their divisions.”

[26:5]  ⁷ tc The Hebrew text has no preposition here, but one has been supplied in the translation for clarity. Cf. vv. 23, 30, 31, 32.

[32:31]  ⁸ tn Heb “that which the Lord has spoken to your servants, thus we will do.”

[16:1]  ⁹ sn There are three main movements in the story of ch. 16. The first is the rebellion itself (vv. 1-19). The second is the judgment (vv. 20-35). Third is the atonement for the rebels (vv. 36-50). The whole chapter is a marvelous account of a massive rebellion against the leaders that concludes with reconciliation. For further study see G. Hort, “The Death of Qorah,” ABR 7 (1959): 2-26; and J. Liver, “Korah, Dathan and Abiram,” Studies in the Bible (ScrHier 8), 189-217.

[16:1]  ¹⁰ tc The MT reading is plural (“the sons of Reuben”); the Smr and LXX have the singular (“the son of Reuben”).

[16:1]  ¹¹ tn In the Hebrew text there is no object for the verb “took.” The translation presented above supplies the word “men.” However, it is possible that the MT has suffered damage here. The LXX has “and he spoke.” The Syriac and Targum have “and he was divided.” The editor of BHS suggests that perhaps the MT should be emended to “and he arose.”

[32:1]  ¹² sn While the tribes are on the other side of Jordan, the matter of which tribes would settle there has to be discussed. This chapter begins the settlement of Israel into the tribal territories, something to be continued in Joshua. The chapter has the petitions (vv. 1-5), the response by Moses (vv. 6-15), the proposal (vv. 16-27), and the conclusion of the matter (vv. 28-42). For literature on this subject, both critical and conservative, see S. E. Loewenstein, “The Relation of the Settlement of Gad and Reuben in Numbers 32:1-38, Its Background and Its Composition,” Tarbiz 42 (1972): 12-26; J. Mauchline, “Gilead and Gilgal, Some Reflections on the Israelite Occupation of Palestine,” VT 6 (1956): 19-33; and A. Bergmann, “The Israelite Tribe of Half-Manasseh,” JPOS 16 (1936): 224-54.

[32:1]  ¹³ tn Heb “the place was a place of/for cattle.”

[32:33]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “the land with its cities in the borders of the cities of the land all around.”

[32:29]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “and the land is subdued before you.”

[26:7]  ¹⁶ sn The Reubenites had decreased from 46,500 to 43,730.

[32:6]  ¹⁷ tn The vav (ו) is a vav disjunctive prefixed to the pronoun; it fits best here as a circumstantial clause, “while you stay here.”

[13:3]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “mouth.”

[13:3]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “heads.”

[1:2]  ²⁰ tn The construction is literally “lift up the head[s],” (שְׂאוּ אֶת־רֹאשׁ, sÿ’u ’et-ro’sh). This idiom for taking a census occurs elsewhere (Exod 30:12; Lev 5:24; Num 1:24; etc.). The idea is simply that of counting heads to arrive at the base for the standing army. This is a different event than the one recorded in Exod 30:11-16, which was taken for a different purpose altogether. The verb is plural, indicating that Moses had help in taking the census.

[1:2]  ²¹ tc Smr lacks the Hebrew word “all” here.

[1:2]  ²² tn Heb “the congregation of Israel.”

[1:2]  ²³ tn The tribe (מַטֶּה, matteh or שֵׁבֶט, shevet) is the main category. The family groups or clans (מִשְׁפְּחֹת, mishpÿkhot) and the households or families (בֵּית אֲבֹת, bet ’avot) were sub-divisions of the tribe.

[1:2]  ²⁴ tn This clause simply has “in/with the number of the names of every male with respect to their skulls [individually].” Counting heads, or every skull, simply meant that each person was to be numbered in the census. Except for the Levites, no male was exempt from the count.

[2:3]  ²⁵ tn The sentence begins with a vav (ו) on a word that is not a finite verb, indicating a new section begins here. The verbal form is a participle with the article used substantivally, with the meaning “and/now those camping.” Many English versions employ a finite verb; cf. KJV “on the east side…shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch.”

[2:3]  ²⁶ tc The two synonyms might seem to be tautological, but this is fairly common and therefore acceptable in Hebrew prose (cf. Exod 26:18; 38:13; etc.).

[2:3]  ²⁷ tn The sentence actually has “[those camping…are] the standard of the camp of Judah according to their divisions.”

[2:3]  ²⁸ tn Or “will be.”

[32:16]  ²⁹ tn Heb “our little ones.”