The Heb word “eretz” may signify either “earth” (ie the globe as a whole) or “land” (ie a country or territory, in a more restricted sense). [“The second major use of eretz is to designate a particular territory” (Laird, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p 74).] This second meaning is most familiar, perhaps, in the phrase “Eretz Israel” (the Land of Israel). In the Greek, “ge” reproduces the same ambiguity found in “eretz” [see Footnote, at end of article].

The meaning attached to these two quite common words may have profound implications for the interpretation of prophecy, particularly in those books that deal most especially with the Last Days: Daniel in the Old Testament and Revelation in the New.

“Eretz” in Daniel

In Daniel, the word “eretz” is used about 40 times. [This total includes the Aramaic word “ara”, which is used in the Aramaic portions of Daniel (Dan 2-7), is cognate with the Hebrew “eretz”, and is considered by the authorities to be equivalent to “eretz”.] Does “eretz”/”ara” mean the whole world? Or does it mean some specific Land?

Obviously, a number of occurrences of “eretz” or “ara” in Daniel are, by themselves, ambiguous on this point — else, this would not be a matter for investigation! But some passages do give fairly clear direction as to how “eretz” should be read in Daniel:

• Dan 1:2: “These [articles from the temple of God] he [Nebuchadnezzar] carried off to the temple of his god in Babylon [lit, the ‘eretz’ of Shinar]…”: Plainly, “eretz” refers to a specific, and narrowly-restricted land, not to the whole globe.

• Dan 2:39: “Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole ‘ara’ (‘eretz’)…”: The Greek empire of Alexander the Great, big as it was, did not cover all the earth, not even all known civilization. But it did rule over the whole “Land of Israel” .

• Dan 4:1: “King Nebuchadnezzar, to the peoples, nations, and men of every language, who live in all the ‘ara’ “: But the Babylonian Empire covered only Mesopotamia and a part of the Middle East.

• Dan 4:10: “I [Nebuchadnezzar] looked and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the ‘ara’ “: By Daniel’s own interpretation, the tree represented Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:22). He was visible to the end of the “Land” (Dan 4:11,20) — ie, to the end of his own domain, not the ends of the globe! All in all, “ara” appears 10 times in this chapter, each instance plainly meaning the specific Land over which Nebuchadnezzar ruled.

• Dan 6:25: “Then king Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations, and men of every language throughout the ‘ara’ “: The same idea of “land” as Dan 4:1, except the restricted “Land” here is the Medo-Persian Empire, not the Babylonian.

• Dan 9:6: Daniel prays: “We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes and our fathers, and to all the people of the ‘eretz’ “: As the context (Dan 9:7) makes plain, the people to whom the prophets spoke were the people of the “Land” of Israel, not the people of the whole earth!

So, in Daniel, the “eretz” (or “ara”) is not the whole globe, but a particular part of it, occupied successively by the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Greek Empires of antiquity. Notice also the “Land (‘eretz’) promised to Abraham’s seed”, as defined in Gen 15:18: from the “river of Egypt” to the Euphrates; such a “land” was roughly equivalent to the “lands” of these empires.

Now see how this precise delineation of the “eretz”/”ara” of Daniel’s prophecy has significant effect on the interpretations of this Book:

(1) “The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom which will appear on the ‘ara’… It will devour the whole ara, trampling down and crushing it” (Dan 7:23). The fourth kingdom (Rome) was to be no more of a truly “world empire” than were the first three (Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece). Nor would it “trample down and crush” even the whole of its own domains; rather, the Romans most often brought law and order and peace to barbarian rabble.

But these words were especially true of Rome’s relations with the little province of Judea — the land (“eretz”) promised, Biblically, to Abraham and his seed (Gen 13:15-18), and thus to Christ and his brethren (Gal 3:16,27-29). Unable to tame the recalcitrant Jews who lived there, the Romans finally trampled down Jerusalem and its temple, plowed the rubble under, sold into slavery all survivors of the nation, and forbade their return to the land of their forefathers — all in fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy (Mat 23:36-38; 24:1,2; Mar 13:2; Luk 21:6,20-24).

(2) “He [the King of the North] will invade the ‘eretz’ [‘many’ is not in the original] and sweep through… like a flood. He will invade the beautiful ‘eretz’. Many [‘countries’ is not in the original here] will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. He will extend his power over the ‘eretz’; Egypt will not escape… He will pitch his royal tents between the seas [Mediterranean Sea and Dead Sea] at the beautiful holy mountain [the Temple Mount, at Jerusalem]. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him” (Dan 11:40-45). What is plain here, by the context, is that the “King of the North” is particularly attracted to the “eretz” of Israel, and that this special Land encompasses also Edom, Moab, and Ammon (modern Jordan) as well as Egypt. This Land (“eretz”/”ara”) — controlled successively by the empires of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome — is the “theater” in which God generally operates.

Also, “at that time” of Dan 12:1 links Dan 12 irrevocably with Dan 11. This indicates that “the time, times and half a time” (Dan 12:7), the 1,290 days (Dan 12:11), and the 1,335 days (Dan 12:12) — each a period of roughly 3 1/2 years — give the duration of the Last Days “trampling down” of the beautiful land (Israel) and the beautiful holy mountain (at Jerusalem). This period ends with the resurrection and judgment (Dan 12:1-4), and the “end of the days” (Dan 12:13). So the time period of 3 1/2 years, which also figures prominently in the Book of Revelation, obviously has to do with the “eretz” of Israel in the Last Days — not with Europe during the Middle Ages. The right definition of “eretz” in Daniel helps to determine the proper setting for such prophecies.

“Ge” in Revelation

In Revelation, does the word “ge” (used about 80 times) mean the whole world? Or does it mean some specific Land? [” ‘Ge’ may denote a country or territory” (WE Vine, Expository Dictionary of NT Words 2:13).] While the Apocalypse surely speaks of events that ultimately have a great effect on the whole world, there is good reason to believe that much of the action (like that of other Bible prophecies) takes place in the more restricted arena of the Middle East.

Once again, a number of occurrences of “ge” in Revelation are ambiguous on this point, or offer no evidence in the immediate context by which may be determined the extent of the territory involved. But some passages do give us fairly clear direction as to how “ge” should be read in Revelation:

• Rev 1:7: “Look, he is coming with the clouds; and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the ‘ge’ will mourn because of him.” This quotes Zec 12:10 — 13:1, where the peoples of the “eretz” are the tribes of Israel!

• Rev 6:13: “And the stars in the sky fell to ‘ge’, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind”: The stars falling to the ‘ge’ are compared to the fig tree (Biblical symbol of Israel) losing its fruit.

• Rev 7:1,2: “After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the ‘ge’, holding back the four winds of the ‘ge’ to prevent any wind from blowing on the ‘ge’ or on the sea or on any tree. Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the ‘ge’ and the sea”: This is a quotation from Eze 7:2: “the four corners of the land (‘eretz’)” of Israel.

• Rev 7:3: “Do not harm the ‘ge’ or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God”: The servants who are sealed are out of the twelve tribes of Israel (Rev 7:4-8; cp Rev 14:3).

• Rev 9:3: “And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the ‘ge’ and were given power like that of scorpions of the ‘ge’ “: A clear allusion to Joel’s prophecy, of a great “locust” [the Hebrew word is closely related to the Hebrew for ‘Arab’] invasion of Israel.

• Rev 14:15: “Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the ‘ge’ is ripe”: The subsequent treading of the “winepress” (cp Rev 14:16-19) causes blood to flow for 1,600 “stadia” (about 200 miles), which happens to be the very distance from the north to the south of Israel!

• Rev 20:8,9: “(Satan) will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the ‘ge’ — Gog and Magog — to gather them for battle… They marched across the breadth of the ‘ge’ and surrounded the camp of God’s people”: Very similar to Rev 7:1,2. The four quarters, or corners, of the whole world? (Literally, of course, there are no such things as four corners of the whole world!) Or the four corners of a particular “land”, THE Land? The geography of Eze 38; 39 (also about “Gog and Magog”) helps to limit and define the Land of Revelation: the allies of Gog are at the four corners of the Land promised to Abraham and his seed (Gen 13:15-18; 15:18): Libya at the west corner, Ethiopia/Sudan at the south corner, Persia at the east corner, and the others at the north corner.

• Rev 21:1: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new ‘ge’, for the first heaven and the first ‘ge’ had passed away”: This quotes Isa 65:17,18, where — by common Hebrew parallelism — “new heavens” = “Jerusalem a delight”, and “new eretz” = “its people a joy”.

Kings of the “Ge”

Another set of passages in Revelation links “ge” with certain kings. Who are these “kings of the ge”? Are they kings (and rulers) of all nations in the world? Or are they some subset thereof? If we can use Scripture to determine their identity, then we will have a good idea as to the limits (if any) of the particular “ge” in which the events of Revelation are played out:

• Rev 6:15: “Then the kings of the earth… .hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains”: This is a quotation from Psa 2:2, where the “kings of the earth” were, in the first place, the kings of Philistia, Moab, Syria, Ammon, and Edom (2Sa 8), who opposed the rule of David in Jerusalem.

• Rev 16:14: “They are the spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the earth… [The AV text uses ‘ge’ alongside ‘oikoumene’ (which signifies ‘the habitable world’); some texts (and consequently some versions) omit ‘ge’/earth altogether.] to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty”: A quotation from Zec 14:2,3 — where “all nations” means “all surrounding nations” (Zec 14:14), and the only nations listed in the context are Egypt (Zec 14:18,19) and the Canaanites (Zec 14:21).

• Rev 17:2: “With her the kings of the earth committed adultery and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries”: Quoting Jer 51:7, where the nations have drunk of the golden cup of Babylon. What nations? All the “mixed”, or “mingled” [Heb ‘ereb’, the word for ‘Arab’!] nations (cp Jer 25:17-25)!

• Rev 21:23-26: This is the most decisive of the Rev passages in identifying the “kings of the ge”. These verses are an extended allusion to Isa 60: “Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn… Then you will look and be radiant, your heart will throb and swell with joy; the wealth on the seas will be brought to you, to you the riches of the nations will come… Your gates will always stand open, they will never be shut, day or night, so that men may bring you the wealth of the nations — their kings led in triumphal procession… the sun will no more be your light by day, nor will the brightness of the moon shine on you, for the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory…” The kings of the “eretz”, or “ge”, who bring their gifts into a glorified Jerusalem are plainly identified by Isaiah as Midian, Ephah, Sheba, Kedar, Nebaioth (Isa 60:6,7), and Lebanon (Isa 60:13) — all Arab peoples!

The thirty of so passages in the above surveys help, by their OT contexts, to define and limit the “ge” intended in the Apocalypse. They strongly suggest that the other 50 or so occurrences of “ge” might profitably be read and interpreted along the same lines.

Of these remaining passages using “ge”:

• 4 have to do with the seals (Rev 6);

• 9 have to do with the trumpets (Rev 8-10);

• 3 have to do with the vials or bowls (Rev 16);

• 5 have to do with the witnesses (Rev 11), who perish in Jerusalem (Rev 11:8);

• 5 have to do with the Dragon cast out of “heaven”; and

• 6 have to do with the Beast.

So this is strong evidence that the seals, trumpets, and vials all have to do with a specific Land — a Land bounded on all four corners by the key nations listed in Ezekiel 38; 39… a Land occupied by Israel and ten antagonistic kings… the Land described in Genesis 15:18.

This particular Land is also the arena, or “theater”, in which the witnesses and the Dragon and the Beast operate.

_____

Footnote:

Alfred Edersheim, the noted Hebrew scholar, has this to say about the Biblical use of “the land”:

“Palestine was to the Rabbis simply ‘the land’, all other countries being summed up under the designation of ‘outside the land.’ In the Talmud, even the expression ‘Holy Land,’ so common among later Jews and Christians, does not once occur. It needed not that addition, which might have suggested a comparison with other countries; for to the Rabbinist Palestine was not only holy, but the only holy ground, to the utter exclusion of all other countries, although they marked within its boundaries an ascending scale of ten degrees of sanctity, rising from the bare soil of Palestine to the most holy place in the Temple…

“But ‘outside the land’ everything was darkness and death. The very dust of a heathen country was unclean, and it defiled by contact. It was regarded like a grave, or like the putrescence of death. If a spot of heathen dust had touched an offering, it must at once be burnt. More than that, if by mischance any heathen dust had been brought into Palestine, it did not and could not mingle with that of ‘the land,’ but remained to the end what it had been — unclean, defiled, and defiling everything to which it adhered…

“It was to the extreme boundary tracts of ‘the land,’ that Jesus had withdrawn from the Pharisees, when they were offended at his opposition to their ‘blind’ traditionalism; and there he healed by the word of his power the daughter of the ‘woman of Canaan,’ the intensity of whose faith drew from his lips words of precious commendation (Mat 15:28; Mar 7:29).

“It was chiefly a heathen district where the Saviour spoke the word of healing, and where the woman would not let the Messiah of Israel go without an answer. She herself was a Gentile. Indeed, not only that district, but all around, and farther on, the territory of Philip, was almost entirely heathen. More than that, strange as it may sound, all around the districts inhabited by the Jews the country was, so to speak, fringed by foreign nationalities and by heathen worship, rites, and customs” (“Sketches of Jewish Social Life”).

The exceedingly high numbers of the able-bodied men over the age of twenty conscripted into the armies of Israel, as recorded in Num 1; 26, continue to trouble modern scholars. The numbers of soldiers in each listing total in excess of 600,000 (603,550 in Num 1:46; 601,730 in Num 26:51). These numbers of men mustered for warfare demand a total population in excess of 2 million. Indeed, perhaps a population of 3 or 4 or even 5 million might be required to supply a conscripted army of 600,000 able-bodied men over twenty years old. Such numbers are exceedingly large for the times, for the locale, for the desert wanderings, and in comparison to the numbers of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan whom the Israelites set out to conquer.

Many faithful readers of the Bible have taken these numbers at face value… Some commentators go to considerable length to work out the mathematical possibilities of these numbers in terms of birth-rate statistics, the logistics of crossing the Red Sea in one night, dwelling in the desert, marching in the order of the tribes, massing on the eastern shore of the Jordan, and conquering the Promised Land (see, for example, Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch 2:46-47; 3:4-15). Yet the more the modern reader studies these attempts to make these large numbers manageable in the constraints of the social-geographical context of the Late Bronze Age, the more difficult these issues become. Frankly, we begin to wonder whether we are not engaging in special pleading.

Corruption in transmission

Various solutions have been suggested to solve the problem of the large numbers. Some have argued that these numbers may have been corrupted in transmission. The general faithfulness of the textual transmission of the Hebrew Bible (and the Greek NT) is truly marvelous. At the same time, in neither testament is this process perfect. We have certain examples of corruption of numbers in parallel passages in the historical literature: ie, compare 2Sa 10:18 with 1Ch 19:18; Num 25:9 with 1Co 10:8; see 1Sa 13:1. So it is possible for one to argue that the numbers of the census listings in Num 1-4 and 26 have suffered transmission problems. This is possible, but we may observe that the present text does not betray notices of textual difficulties in these numbers. Moreover, if textual transmission error is the explanation for these large numbers, it would not be the isolated addition of a digit here or the dropping of a digit there. For textual transmission difficulties to be of any “help” in coming to terms with these census lists, they would have to be massive in scope. The entire list has to be in error. Again, the textual record does not betray any discussion of such problems. It almost takes more faith to believe in transmission problems in these lists than it does to work out the logistics of the numbers as they stand.

Different meanings

Others have felt that the word for “thousand” might have a different meaning here than the usual numerical idea. The word “elep” is a graphic term derived from pastoral language that was used to number herds. As one looks out over many sheep, one may speak of an “elep” (“a thousand”) sheep. Thus the word “thousands” may be a simple statement of approximation: There were “thousands” of persons in each tribe.

In some Bible passages the Heb word for “thousand” (“elep”) is a technical term for a company of men that may or may not equal 1,000 (eg, Num 31:5; Josh 22:14 [“a family division”]; 1Sa 23:23 [“clans”]). Thus one might argue that the term “elep” has lost all sense of a specific numerical value and means simply a “troop.” Thus each tribe might be composed of 30 to 70 troops, and the total of the fighting men for these troops would number in the hundreds. This would mean that for Reuben there were 46 troops with 500 fighting men; for Simeon 59 troops with 300 fighting men, etc. This would yield a total of 589 troops and some 5,550 fighting men; with each troop having about 9 or 10 men. This is the preferred conclusion of Noth (Numbers 22,23). The problem with this, however, is that the numbers are totaled in such a way as to regard the term “elep” as one more than 999. To regard the word “elep” as a rough approximation only works where approximation is the intent. (See, for example, 1Sa 4:10, where Israel had 30,000 foot soldiers defeated by the Philistines. Doubtless the number in this passage gives merely an approximation of the number of soldiers who were defeated.)

Others have observed that the term “elep” (“thousand”) is very close in spelling to the word “allup”, a term meaning “chieftain” or “commander” elsewhere in the Bible. In Gen 36:15-43, this word is used for the chieftains of Edom. Petrie argued in 1923 that the term “elep” may mean a family unit, living in one tent, perhaps a “clan.” One solution for the large numbers in these lists may be found in this confusion of the word for “thousand” and that for “chieftain” or “clan.” In this way the figure 53,400 (of Asher in Num 26:47) might mean “53 units (chiefs, clans) and 400 men.” The figure 32,200 (of Manasseh in Num 1:35) would mean “32 units (chiefs, clans) and 200 men.” Such a procedure would give a greatly reduced total for the whole population. But this procedure would also be at variance with the fact that the Bible text adds the “thousands” in the same way that it adds the “hundreds” for the large total. The numbers joined to “elep” and to the hundreds are linked in Hebrew by the simple “and” (“waw”), which normally suggests that they should be added together. This approach would presuppose that the early meaning of the word “elep” (or “allup”) as “chief” or “clan” was not understood by later editors, who mistakenly added these words as numbers to the hundreds. Such an approach leads to a greatly reduced number for the fighting men and the total population of Israel than is usually assumed. The totals for the Twelve Tribes in this approach would be 5,550 men and 598 “chiefs.” With the additional numbers required for women and children, the population of the community would be more nearly 15,000 to 18,000, rather than the 2 million or more required by the traditional understanding of these numbers.

This sort of speculation, however, has its own difficulties, which may be as hard to solve as the problem of the larger numbers. First, the proportion of “chiefs” to fighting men seems quite top-heavy (46 “chiefs” for 500 men in Reuben; 59 “chiefs” for 300 men in Simeon, etc) This is a very high percentage of officers to fighting men in any army. Second, the totals in Num 1:46; 2:32 do not bear this distinction in the meaning of the term “elep”. The ancients were able to add figures in the same manner we do, and they seem to have added the numbers for the Twelve Tribes without any distinction for the hundreds and the thousands as different types of groupings. They carried the figures for the hundreds into the column for the thousands, as any school child might.

A variation on the above approach is given by Noordtzij, who states that we cannot translate the term “elep” as “thousand” but only by an X as we no longer know how large it was. He concludes that the total complement of the army of Israel in Numbers 1:46 should not be read 603,550, but 603 X + 550 men.

Dual meanings

Wenham has a more complex solution to the problem of these large numbers. He believes that the term “elep” is used in two distinct ways in these lists, one to indicate “armed men” and the other to indicate “thousands.” Along the way scribes confused the two meanings and simply added both terms as though they were “thousands.” Wenham says the numbers for the tribe of Simeon, given as 59,300 (Num 1:22), were originally intended to mean something like 57 armed men and 23 hundreds of units.

But this came to be written: 57 “lp” and 2 “lp” 3 hundreds. He summarizes: “Not realizing that ‘lp’ in one case meant ‘armed man’ and in the other ‘thousand,’ this was tidied up to read 59,300. When these figures are carefully decoded, a remarkably clear picture of the whole military organization emerges. The total fighting force is some 18,000 which would probably mean a figure of about 72,000 for the whole migration.”

Many would regard this total as a more satisfactory number for the Hebrew population in terms of its former slave status in Egypt, the gravely difficult conditions for provision of a very large population in the desert, and the fright occasioned by the smallness of their numbers against the fortified cities of Canaan. There are some texts in the OT that suggest the population of the Hebrew nation was quite small. For example, Deu 7:7 states that the Lord’s affection was set on Israel, not because they were more numerous than other peoples, “for you were the fewest of all peoples” (however, see below).

Yet in this case, as in the former, the totals of Num 1:46; 2:32 would have to be regarded as errors of understanding by later scribes of an unusual, complex, and otherwise non-attested use of the word “elep”. Those who believe strongly in the reliability of the text of Scripture, have difficulty in approaches such as these, for they suggest the possibility of an error in the text of Scripture, even if the error of a scribe at a later time than the writing of the text and made as a later insertion. There are later insertions in the text of Scripture that most scholars regard as mistakes. The “three witnesses” text of 1Jo 5:7,8 is a classic example. Yet the textual critics are unanimous in asserting that no Greek texts from before the sixteenth century have this reading. There is, however, no known textual suspicion for the integrity of Num 1:46. If this is an error in calculation by a later scribe who was unaware of Moses’ sophisticated employment of the word “elep” in the census in the desert, we have no record of this.

We do not mean to imply that the above type of approach necessarily springs from an unbelief in miracles as such, as is sometimes assumed; for numerous reverent or conservative scholars have been attracted to this or similar positions. The work of God with His people is miraculous throughout the desert experience, no matter how many or how few they might have been. This type of approach is based on an attempt to find what is believed to be a more realistic number for the peoples of Israel at this time.

The Large Numbers — Toward a Solution

a. The problem

Still we cannot escape the problem of the large numbers in the Book of Numbers… The principal problem is one of believability. To put it bluntly, the numbers of the tribes of Israel stated and implied in this book just seem to be far too large to be historically credible. If the numbers of the men who are mustered for war from the age of twenty and up actually add up to over 600,000, then the total population would have had to be at least 2 million people — perhaps considerably more. This does not seem to be an excessively large number for the people of a nation in our own crowded days, but it seems to be nearly an impossibly large sum for the totals of the nation of Israel in ancient times at the very beginning of its existence, a fugitive people fleeing Egypt, crossing the sea in one night, gathering at a mountain in the Sinai, then living a generation in the desert before finally entering Canaan.

But if the numbers of the Bible are correct, we have to imagine a population twice the size of a major metropolitan area, and then to view that vast number of people living their lives in the Desert of Sinai for a period of 40 years. Scholars have attempted to explain exactly how such numbers can be accounted for. Keil, for example, even worked out the mathematics for the crossing of the Red Sea by a population this size. Yet is it reasonable to have to account for these large numbers in this literal a manner?

Here is another comparison. The mid-1988 estimate for the population of the present state of Israel is 4,400,000. The present population of the modern country of Israel is only roughly twice the size of the number of Hebrews who approached from the desert with great fear to conquer the land. The population of Israel is mixed between scattered rural settlements, small towns, and three large cities. As we look at the modern cities with their sprawling size and multistoried buildings, we wonder how the ancient farmlands, towns, and cities might have accommodated such numbers. Since the testimony of the wicked Hebrew spies was an exaggerated report of the size of the cities, their towering walls, and hulking men — all the stuff of fear — the implication at the least is that the Canaanite population was significantly larger and more powerful than the approaching Hebrew populace (see, for example, the refrain of proportion: “to drive out before you nations greater and stronger than you”: Deu 4:38; 7:1). The more we think of them, these numbers boggle our minds.

Then we may ask what we know of the population of Canaan in the Biblical period. Numerous attempts have been made to estimate populations at various periods. More recent scientific estimations of the population of Canaan during the Iron Age reduce greatly earlier estimates of several million. Israeli archaeologist Yigal Shiloh suggests the combined population of Judah and Israel in the eighth century BC to be about 900,000. Since we may presume that the population of Canaan was as least as dense in the eighth century under Hebrew settlement as 700 years earlier, during Canaanite times, it is just not possible to imagine an invading force of Hebrews that might number several millions having any reason to trust in the Lord God for the conquest of the land. By sheer numbers they would simply overwhelm the native population.

A well-worn problem in the large numbers of the families of Israel in the Book of Numbers has to do with the growth from seventy persons to more than two million in just four centuries. Again, there have been commentators who have worked out the mathematics of this increase and have stated that such an increase, while grandly dramatic, is not beyond the possibility of human reproduction — particularly when that reproduction capacity is enhanced and blessed by the Lord in fulfillment of his promise to make his people many, though they began with so very few.

We do know that Scripture assures us that the growth of the population of the Hebrew peoples was a dramatic outworking of God’s grace, a fulfillment of his promise. The narrative of growth in Exo 1:7 is emphatic. Three verbs along with complementary adverbs and rhetorical flourish exult in the work of God in their dramatic growth: “But the Israelites were fruitful and multiplied greatly and became exceedingly numerous, so that the land was filled with them.” This unprecedented growth of the nation was in fulfillment of numerous promises of God to the fathers (see Gen 17:2,6; 22:17; 26:4; 28:14; 35:11; 48:4). Moses is able to use the patriarchal phrase of abundance as he recounts his experience as their leader: “The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky” (Deu 1:10; cf Exo 32:13).

Yet there are counter-indications to this immense size of the population also well known: ie, the sheer logistics of 2 million people or more crossing the Red Sea (or Sea of Reeds) in one night and their organization and provision in the desert for a generation. Now all this is possible within the wonder of the work of the Lord, certainly. We have no doubt of the ability of God to provide for 2 million or 2 billion persons, if that is His pleasure. But we still wonder at these large numbers in terms of the lands and cities of the ancient world. Were the cities of ancient Canaan in the Late Bronze Age sufficiently large to be a formidable threat to the millions of Hebrews who were about to descend on them from the desert? Would the ten spies have been so fearful of the residents of the land if they (the spies) represented a people so very large in numbers? And could the very land of Canaan have absorbed such a huge company in Bible times, right at the beginning of Israel’s experience? We do not doubt that the population of Israel under her great kings David and Solomon might have numbered one million. But we pause at the thought of more than twice that many persons right at the beginning of her history.

So there we have it: The numbers of the Book of Numbers are just too large!

b. A suggestion

It is suggested, then, that the large numbers in the census lists in the Book of Numbers are deliberately and purposefully exaggerated as a rhetorical device to bring glory to God, derision to enemies, and point forward to the fulfillment of God’s promise to the fathers that their descendants will be innumerable, as the stars.

The figure given in the two census lists for the army of Israel may possibly be a magnification by a factor of ten. An army of about 60,000 men would fit what we know of the criteria of the region and the times. Wenham’s reduction to 18,000 (see above) seems to be too small a figure and is based on too complex a solution to be convincing. Similarly, others’ reduction by even greater factors leave much too small a figure. We desire a solution that is both simple in concept and yet provides a sufficiently large population to be the fulfillment of promise but not so large as to be seemingly impossible.

The suggestion of a rhetorical exaggeration by a factor of ten has much to commend it. It is a simple answer that does not demand convolutions in numbers that other suggestions require. It results in an army in excess of 60,000 men, with a total population of about 250,000 to 300,000. This sum seems to fit the requirements of the social, geographical, and political realities without diminishing at all the sense of the miraculous and providential care of God. An army of 60,000 is not an insignificant force, but it was likely considerably smaller than the combined armies of the city-states of Canaan at the time. In this way the peoples of Israel must have seemed to be a “swarm” as they lived in Egypt, but they were still “the smallest of nations” when ranked with great world powers. This smaller number accords with the large (but not supernatural!) force the Egyptian Pharaoh sent in pursuit of them to the Sea of Reeds. Six hundred chariots (Exo 14:7) is a considerable force and would surely be a death threat against the unorganized people of Israel. This approach also allows for the drama of the conquest of the Book of Judges, where battles were won by the armies of Israel in league with Yahweh their Great Warrior. This smaller number fits as well for the failures to occupy the full land as that book also details. It also accords well with the well-known Mernepthah stele that records Israel as among the peoples of Canaan during his raid, which we may place during the period of the judges. A population of several million would have more of an impression on this pharaoh!

Again, this smaller number does not diminish the miraculous. It enhances it; for we confront now a cluster of miracles that we may embrace readily rather than shun from some sense of embarrassment, as some do! The supernatural increase of the people in Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea in one night, the gathering of the people at Mount Sinai, their daily provision in the desert, their entry into the Promised Land — all was miraculous! Only the Lord could so provide for this vast number of people in this manner; and mark it well, a population of over one-quarter million is indeed vast. But now we can envision a series of miracles that fits the geography, the topography, and the times.

Furthermore, now we can also deal with the large numbers, not as problem words, but as power words. The deliberate exaggeration was not for misrepresentation. This rhetorical use of numbers was a mark of faith in the Lord who had provided great increase to a family of seventy persons and who one day would make his people as the stars in number. One day they would truly be innumerable — except to Him, who counts them all and knows their names! These “embarrassing numbers” are not embarrassing at all. These numbers celebrate Yahweh. They are numbers of worship! I envision this text being read in worship celebrations. The studied units, with their formulaic structure and power numbers, would evoke pride of patriotism, sense of belonging, and — most importantly — the celebration of the Lord.

It appears to me that the numbers of the census are real figures. They are treated like real integers; there is no confusion of hundreds and thousands. Here are numbers that are internally consistent and coherent. Yet I propose that they may have been deliberately magnified by a factor of ten for rhetorical reasons. The promise was that the people would number as the stars. Six-hundred thousand must have seemed like an “astronomical” number in these early Bible times. Certainly the “real” number of 60,000 men was very large, particularly for the desert sojourn. But the 60,000 would still not be an overwhelming force for the task ahead of conquering the peoples of the land, who are seven in number and far more numerous than Israel. To have any success in their task, this army would need to have the help of the Lord along every step of their path. From the abortive battle in the first generation with the Amalekites (Num 14:44,45) to their decisive victories a generation later with Arad (Num 21:1-3) and the small kingdoms of Sihon and Og (21:21-31), these numbers fit the situation. Here now is a seasoned army of approximately 60,000 men, ready to march across the dry bed of the Jordan River and to take the ancient city of Jericho as the firstfruits of conquest in the land — an offering to the Lord.

This number of about 60,000 fits the requirements of both a great (miraculous) growth and a manageable size for the time and place of their habitation. The use of deliberate exaggeration by a factor of ten may be regarded as a celebration of the work of the Lord. We have not taken seriously enough the formulaic nature of the chapters that give the numbers of the tribes. Not only does this make “neat” record keeping, there is within these sections a sense of the sublime, of the orderly presentation of an offering of joy to God. These census lists that some moderns find to be frightfully dull may well have been conceived by their author as a joyful offering of praise to God. And may we not think that God takes pleasure in these words still?

This rhetorical use of numbers is also a prophetic symbol (a type!) of the numbers yet to come! One day the people of God will be like the stars of heaven; they will be innumerable, uncountable to all but him who knows the number and name of every star (Psa 147:4)!

The obvious objection one may bring, that people do not use numbers this way today, is not overwhelming. We know that in ancient times numbers were used with deliberate exaggeration for rhetorical effect. One needs only to think of the ancient Sumerian king list to find an example that long predates the time of Moses. In this list the reigns of kings from remote antiquity were vastly exaggerated. We believe this was for the rhetorical function of indicating their tremendous importance. We may also find rhetorical uses of numbers in the genealogies of Genesis.

An even more common use of rhetorical language is in battle boasting and the songs about heroes: “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands” (1Sa 18:7). [This hyperbolic exaggeration of ’10 times over’ is suggested in other passages, like Ecc 7:19; Zec 8:23; Mat 25:28/Luk 19:24: GB.]

I am aware that some may regard the concept of “rhetorical use of numbers” as a departure from “literal interpretation.” In fact, it is not. A departure from literal interpretation would be to spiritualize the numbers, to find some mystical significance in them that was never really intended, or to pretend to some bizarre meaning imported from another environment.

Literal interpretation of numbers includes understandings that extend from mathematical exactitude, through general approximation, to literary license. The only demand of literal interpretation (better, “normal” interpretation) is that the reader seek to find the use he believes the text itself presents and demands. It is an abuse of literal interpretation to insist that the way we use numbers in our digital and pocket-calculator age is the way that Bible persons ought to have used numbers in their day.

(Sources: Ron Allen, “Introduction to Numbers”, EBC; DM Fouts, “A Defense Of The Hyperbolic Interpretation Of Large Numbers In The Old Testament”, JETS 40:3:378)

---

“For the purpose of local government the people were provided with ‘rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties and rulers of tens’. Obviously, in this context, ‘ten’, ‘fifty’, ‘hundred’ and ‘thousand’ were the names of administrative units, not exact numbers.

“The ordinary Hebrew word for ‘thousand’ is sometimes used to mean ‘family’, and is actually translated that way in Jdg 6:15.

“The Hebrew word for ‘captain’ is spelt the same as the word for ‘thousand’, although the pronunciation is different. Since a regiment in the Jewish army was also called a thousand, it is easy to see how this association of words would arise. Thus it is possible that some of the ‘thousands’ who fought, or were slain in battle, were really captains. If so, then the size of the army of Israel, and of its casualty lists, may possibly have been smaller than they appear in our English Bible” (GT ch 18).

---

“It would appear that the Heb word for ‘thousand’ had also a definite idiomatic usage in the sense of ‘family’ or ‘squad’ or ‘group’. Some instances seem to require one of these secondary meanings. ‘Present yourselves before the Lord by your tribe, and by your thousands’ commanded Samuel, and they ‘came near by their families’ (1Sa 10:19-21). Saul had a small permanent army of three thousand men, but soon afterwards these are numbered at six hundred (1Sa 13:2,15). This might indicate a ‘thousand’ to be a squad of 200 men, but the conclusion cannot be insisted on. However a similar result comes out of a consideration of the capture of Ai. Joshua sent ‘thirty thousand’ might men of valour against the city (Jos 8:3). If these are the same as the five (literal) thousand mentioned in v 12 — this is Prof Garstang’s suggestion — then again one ‘thousand’ works out at approximately 200. If also the twelve ‘thousand’ inhabitants of Ai (v 25) are computed similarly, this would give a figure of 2,400 for the population of the place — a figure which accords remarkably well with the size of the site explored by the archeologists.

“The slaughter of 42,000 Ephraimites by Jephthah’s men at the fords of Jordan is not easy to harmonize with Ephraim’s total of 32,500 at the conquest of the Land. Should the figure be read as 2,040, or were ‘thousands’ so many squads of fighting men? (Jdg 12:6; Num 26:37).

“In the civil war against Benjamin there is a strange disparity between the large and small numbers cited in Jdg 20:31,21,25. This would cease to be a problem if the suggestion just made applied here also. The remarkable contrast between Saul’s 600, in 1Sa 13:15, and his 210,000 in 1Sa 15:4, seems to call for a similar solution. When one comes to the problem posed by the figures in 1Ki 20:29,30, this solution (or something even more drastic) seems to be required. The figures in 2Ch 17:14-19 give Jehoshaphat a standing army ‘ready prepared for war’ of 1,160,000 besides the garrisons of his many ‘fenced cities’. Some find difficulty in taking these figures as real. To others they are a headache. The idiomatic use of the word ‘thousand’ may help towards a solution here” (WEnj 83,84).

1. A world buildup of crises — wars, famines (droughts), pestilence (epidemics, pollution), and earthquakes will become more prevalent and more frequent around the globe (Mat 24:6,7; Mar 13:7,8; Luk 21:10,11; Rev 6:2-8).

2. Chaos in world leadership — statesmen, corporation heads, economists, scientists, and strategists will find that they cannot cope with these “natural” and man-made disasters that pile one on top of the other. This is but the beginning of their total helplessness, with no available solution except the feeblest stop-gap measures (Luk 21:25,26; Isa 24:4-13; 13:6-13).

3. An increase in nationalism — where every nation looks more and more to its own interests during the economic slumps and crises, and where armaments also increase (Luk 21:10; Joe 3:9,10; Dan 2:41-43).

4. An attack on Israel — the culmination of intense anti-Semitic feeling around the world, particularly by the Arabs, who foster those feelings by oil market manipulation, self-serving propaganda, and “jihad” frenzy (Psa 83; Eze 35; 36; Oba; Zec 14; Luk 21:2-24; Rev 11:2).

5. Initial divine judgments on the world — because they have cursed God’s people and are filled with violence and wickedness, as in the days of Noah and Lot (Gen 12:3; Zec 2:8,9; Oba 1:15; Luk 17:26-30; Rev 8; 9).

6. Pockets of faithful witnessing — that God is forewarning mankind via these plagues (as He did through Moses in Egypt), that they should repent and be ready for the coming of Christ (Mat 24:14; Mar 13:10; Rev 11:4-6; 14:7,8).

7. Reactions of stubbornness and apostasy — few will heed the Gospel message, and many will leave the faith; false prophets will abound and mankind will become utterly degenerate, cursing God and His faithful few (2Ti 3:1-5; Mat 24:10-12,24; Rev 9:20,21; 11:7-10).

8. A great tribulation settles on Israel and the world — perhaps lasting 3 1/2 years (Luk 21:20-24; Rev 11:2,3; Jer 30:7)! It will be a time of total confusion and despair and misery; some countries will have totalitarian-type governments who suppress and oppress in order to have some semblance of control (Mat 24:21,22; Rev 13; 12:17; Dan 7:23-25).

9. The coming of “Elijah” — probably an Elijah-like prophet of the Last Days (Mat 17:11) — who will preach to the oppressed of Israel (Mal 3:1; 4:5,6) during the 3 1/2 years (Luk 4:25; Jam 5:17,18; Dan 12:7; Rev 11).

10. Repentance of the remnant of Israel, along with the faithful prayers of believers everywhere, will bring back Christ before the world destroys itself (Lev 26:40-42; Deu 4:30; 30:1-7; Joe 2:12-20; Jer 31:17-20; 50:4,5; Mat 23:39; Act 3:19,20; Mat 6:10; Rev 22:17; Mat 24:22).

11. Christ’s Return — visible, with clouds of glory, and with the angels, whom he sends to raise the dead and gather the faithful to himself (Mat 24:30,31; 1Th 4:16,17; Act 24:15; Joh 5:29; 1Co 15:51-54; Mat 25:31-46; Rev 20:4-6,11-15). He comes back to the Mount of Olives, initiating a tremendous earthquake (Act 1:10-12; Zec 14:3-5; Rev 16:17-21).

12. This will also involve, at the same time, the deliverance of faithful Israel — oppressed Jews in and around Jerusalem are delivered by the King of Glory (Joe 2:32; Luk 21:27,28; Zec 12:9-11; Mat 23:37-39; Psa 24:7-9). Jews who have been carried captive into Assyria and Egypt will be brought back to Israel by a “second exodus” (Isa 11:11-16; 19:20-25; 60:9; 63:11-14; Mic 7:15).

13. The wrath of God appears concurrent with Jesus’ coming, with total destruction being poured out on the enemies of Israel, and on other centers of evil (after the example of Sodom), and with wicked men being annihilated (2Th 1:5-9; Mat 13:41,42; Rev 11:17,18; 16:1-10; Dan 2:44,45; 7:11,26; Is 13:11 with Rev 6:12-17).

14. A last attempt to defeat Christ and his glorified saints will come from Gog and its allies (Eze 38; 39; Rev 19:11-21; 20:8-10). This rebellion will be speedily crushed.

15. The Millennium (ie 1,000-year reign of Christ on the earth) will fill the earth with the Glory of the Lord, and bring peace and righteousness to all (Num 14:21; Isa 11:9; Hab 2:14; Psa 72; Isa 2:2-4; Isa 35; Zec 14:16; Rev 20:6).

16. The effect of the Millennial Reign of Christ and his saints will be that all sin and death is removed from the earth, so that — finally — God will be “All in all” (1Co 15:24-28,54-57; Rev 21:3,4,22-27; 22:3-5).

LAW: The orderly means by which a society enforces its will. A law not enforced is simply not a law. Based on accumulated experience of past.

COVENANT: A binding promise in a relationship between individuals and groups. It has far-reaching effects on behavior and attitudes. Based on loyalty and love in future.

In both cases, where there is no relationship, there is no obligation — and no security.

COMPARATIVE STUDY:

(A) PURPOSE: Law/to regulate existing relationships by orderly means; Covenant/to create new relationships (ie marriage).

(B) PENALTY: Law/punishment defined by and administered by society’s means (police/military); Covenant/punishment and reward meted out by God (curses/blessings).

(C) NORMS: Law/formal rules defined by society; Covenant/precepts and principles developed by God.

(D) BINDING: Law/by enactment of legitimate social power, regardless of individual’s attitude; Covenant/by voluntary commitment of individual (ie baptism).

(E) VALIDITY: Law/territorially bound, not valid beyond territory; Covenant/unlimited, bound to the individual wherever he might be.

(F) TIME REFERENCE: Law/past; does not operate until a violation has taken place; may deter bad behavior; Covenant/ future; a solemn promise concerning future behavior.

“The primary function of any political system is to secure and maintain its own power… All that any legal system in normal human society can expect to do is to secure its own continuity by maintaining a delicate balance between conflicting interests.”

“It is clear that in Biblical usage love is first of all a label for the fact that persons have established and continue to maintain personal relationships with others, in which the concern for the wellbeing of the other is recognized as an obligation that takes precedence over other concerns such as the exercise of power or profiting at the other’s expense.”

(Adapted from NZ)

There were various reasons for the laying on of hands:

• Blessing, or benediction: Gen 48:14; Mat 19:13,15;
• Transfer of sin to sacrifice: Exo 29:10,15,19; Lev 1:4,12;

• Confirmation by witnesses of a capital offense: Lev 24:14;

• Appointment to office: Num 8:10; Acts 6:6; 13:3; 1Ti 5:21;

• Outward sign of healing: Mat 9:18; Mar 6:5; Luk 4:40; Acts 9:12,17; 28:8;

• Outward sign of imparting the Holy Spirit: Acts 8:17,19; 19:6; 1Ti 4:14; 2Ti 1:6.

I went on a search to become a leader.

I searched high and low. I spoke with authority, people listened but, alas, there was one who was wiser than I and they followed him.

I sought to inspire confidence but the crowd responded, “Why should we trust you?”

I postured and I assumed the look of leadership with a countenance that glowed with confidence and pride. But many passed me by and never noticed my air of elegance.

I ran ahead of the others, pointing the way to new heights. I demonstrated that I knew the route to greatness. And then I looked back and I was alone.

What shall I do, I wondered? I’ve tried hard and used all that I know.

And I sat me down and I pondered long.

And then I listened to the voices around me. And I heard what the group was going to accomplish.

I rolled up my sleeves and joined in the work.

As we worked I asked, “Are we all together in what we want to do and how to get the job done?”

And we thought together and we fought together and we struggled towards our goal.

I found myself encouraging the fainthearted. I sought the ideas of those too shy to speak out.

I taught those who had little skill. I praised those who worked hard.

When our task was completed, one of the group turned to me and said, “This would not have been done without your leadership.”

At first I said, “I did not lead; I just worked with the rest.”

And then I understood: leadership is not a goal. It is a way of reaching the goal.

I lead best when I help others to go where we have decided we want to go.

I lead best when I help others to use themselves creatively.

I lead best when I forget about myself as leader and focus on the group, their needs and their goals.

To lead is to serve, to give, to achieve together.

In his letter to the Corinthian ecclesia, the apostle Paul attempts to set right several difficult local problems — one of which was the attitude and manner in which the brethren were celebrating the Lord’s Supper. In stating the divine principles concerning the memorial, he exhorts us as well.

“Take, eat; this is my body” (1Co 11:24). The words originally spoken by Christ had a two-fold meaning; Paul perceives this and endeavors to pass it along. The bread represented the literal body of Christ, and it represented the spiritual “body” also — those who in sincerity and truth believe and obey Christ’s teachings, which are the “bread of life”. It is certainly no coincidence that the chapter concerning the memorial feast is followed by observations and instructions regarding the many-membered Body consisting of Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, all given one life through Christ their head (1Co 12).

Brethren in this age, just as their forerunners in the first century, when assembled for the solemn meal, should listen for the words of consecration spoken over them, and not just over the literal body, by the One who walks in the midst of the lampstands: “This is my body.”

It follows that the ecclesia cannot properly be the Body of Christ when it is beset by separations, schisms, ill will, and turmoil (1Co 11:18,19). How best can such wrongs be avoided? By bearing in mind, as Paul continues, that the bread and wine are taken in remembrance of Christ (vv 24,25). If everything is centered upon him, then troubles of all sorts will diminish.

And not just in token of Christ’s life, but especially because of Christ’s death, as the passover lamb without blemish (Joh 1:29), is this meal instituted. “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1Co 11:26). The “shewing” is a “setting forth”, after the order of the Jewish Passover, a solemn proclamation to all who are in the house, as well as to “the stranger who sojourns with thee” (Exo 12:48). It is an intensely personal rite — though it may be observed as part of a large group: “This is done because of that which the Lord did unto ME…” (Exo 13:8).

The personal aspect of the memorial is intertwined with the corporate, just as in the other rite enjoined upon all believers — baptism. True, each has its pluralistic qualities. By the one, a believer enters the Body of Christ; by the other, he regularly reaffirms his standing there. But each rite is essentially an individual one, as was the offering of sacrifice at tabernacle or temple — the closest approach by the single soul to communion and oneness with God, to fellowship of the sufferings of His Son.

Paul stresses that, if each individual believer will fully enter into this spirit of the Lord’s Supper, then the schisms and doubts and disruptions of the Body as a whole will be minimized, perhaps even eliminated. Those who seek to please themselves, whether by self-indulgence (as in Corinth) or self-exaltation (remember the Pharisee who prayed in the temple!), are not truly “looking unto Christ”. What they do, then, they do unworthily, and “are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1Co 11:27). In effect, they have said with the rabble before Pilate’s judgment seat, “We have no king but Caesar, the ‘god of this world’. This man’s blood be upon us!” In short, any partaking of the emblems is an unworthy, or vain, pretense if he who eats and drinks does not always see “Christ crucified” (1Co 1:23); that is, if he does not see the reason for his Lord’s crucifixion, which is… his own sins. All this is so “that no flesh should glory in his presence” (1Co 1:29). The memorial meeting is not the time nor the place (is there ever one?) for one sinner to attempt to criticize the lives of his brethren.

A contemplation of one’s own sinfulness and consequent need for redemption is surely sufficient to occupy fully the mind of the saint at the Lord’s Supper. “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup” (1Co 11:28). Certainly Paul is here alluding to that first supper:

“And as they did eat, he said, ‘Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.’ And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, ‘Lord, is it I?’ ” (Mat 26:21,22).

It is possible still for the disciple to betray his Master. He who falls away from the Truth, who allows the soil of his heart to bear again its natural thorns and briers, is crucifying to himself the Son of God afresh, putting him to an open shame (Heb 6:6,8). He is treading under foot the holy blood of the covenant (Heb 10:29), even as swine heedlessly trample pearls in the mud (Mat 7:6). It is indeed better for such a one never to have known the way of life than, having known it, to insult and outrage the precious Spirit of grace mediated by Christ. ‘I would never do such a thing,’ is the instinctive reaction. But that is just the point! None of us is immune from just such a falling away; the wolves of the world follow hard behind the flock of Christ, and the stragglers are swiftly torn apart. Christ must speak to each of us, in the bread and wine; his eyes must gaze into ours and turn our vision inward. ‘One of you will betray me.’ ‘Are you speaking of me? Lord, is it I? Give me strength that it be not so. Lord, I am so weak. Let me cling close to you. Purge from me all that offends you, so that I betray you not in thought or deed.’ Surely here is the only correct attitude for each of us who assemble to the memorial meal: all of us together constituting “One Body” but each steadfastly examining himself alone in the light of the Perfect Example. Not “Who is he that would betray Christ?” but instead, “Is it I?”

“The most pressing and urgent lifelong consideration of any who aspire to the kingdom of God must be their own complete personal transformation of character. The realization of this urgent necessity is far too dim among us. This is our foremost ecclesial concern, and the root of most ecclesial problems.

“Any attempt to judge, criticize or regulate the lives and conduct of others — until we have brought ourselves into line with the commandments of God in this respect — is hypocrisy.

“We tend to feel, or at least to act as though we feel, that if we can legislate righteousness upon others, and surround ourselves with the external appearance of a sound ecclesial framework, then our own personal shortcomings will somehow be absorbed, and overlooked, and compensated for, in the general ecclesial strength. We tend very much to get our priorities in this respect completely reversed. Jesus said: ‘Thou hypocrite; first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother’s eye’ (Mat 7:5).

“We shall find that the more attention and concern we give to our own very numerous shortcomings, the less will be the vehemence of our zeal to condemn our brethren, and the more cautiously, and gently, and Christ-likely shall we approach that task.

“Let us, then, frankly examine our own conduct and characters in the light of the plain, simple commands of Scripture, and see if we are in any position to presume to operate on the eyes of others.

“Let us judge, and suspect, and expose ourselves at least as critically as we so eagerly judge and suspect and expose others. Rather, indeed, let us judge ourselves far more searchingly than we judge others, for this is the prescribed course of Scripture, of wisdom, and of love. The divine command is:

‘Let a man examine… HIMSELF’ ” (GVG, Ber 60:338).