You shall take the Levites for me—I am Yahweh—instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel; and the livestock of the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the livestock of the children of Israel.”
Moses counted, as Yahweh commanded him, all the firstborn among the children of Israel. All the firstborn males according to the number of names from a month old and upward, of those who were counted of them, were twenty-two thousand two hundred seventy-three.
Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, “Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites instead of their livestock; and the Levites shall be mine. I am Yahweh.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On v41 So that now the Levites should satisfy unto the…
So that now the Levites should satisfy unto the Lord for the firstborn of Israel, save for the 273 which were more than the Levites, for whom they paid money.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv41, 45 Instead of all the first-born, to wit, such are…
Instead of all the first-born, to wit, such are now alive of them, but those which should be born of them hereafter are otherwise disposed.
The cattle of the Levites; not that they were to be taken from the Levites, or to be sacrificed to God, any more than the Levites themselves were, but that they together with the Levites were to be presented before the Lord by way of acknowledgment, that the Levites might be set apart for God’s service, and their cattle for themselves as God’s ministers, and for their support in God’s work.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv41–45 And Moses numbered, as the Lord commanded him,.... No…
And Moses numbered, as the Lord commanded him,.... No doubt assisted by others, though not mentioned:
all the firstborn among the children of Israel; which some think were only those that were born since they came out of Egypt, as Bonfrerius, Bishop Patrick, and others.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On v41 Instead of the first-born - Such as are now…
Instead of the first-born - Such as are now alive of them, but those which should be born of them hereafter are otherwise disposed. Of the Levites - Not that they were to be taken from the Levites, or to be sacrificed to God, any more than the Levites themselves were; but they together with the Levites were to be presented before the Lord by way of acknowledgment, that the Levites might be set apart for God's service, and their cattle for themselves as God's ministers, and for their support in God's work.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On v43 Verse 43. All the first-born males - were twenty…
Verse 43. All the first-born males - were twenty and two thousand two hundred and threescore and thirteen.] Thus we find there were 273 first-born beyond the number of the Levites. These are ordered, Nu 3:46, to be redeemed; and the redemption price is to be five shekels each, Nu 3:47, about 15s. And this money, amounting to 1,365 shekels, equal to £204 15s. English, he took of the first-born of Israel, Nu 3:50. But how was this collected among 22,273 persons? Rabbi Solomon Jarchi says, "to prevent contention, Moses took 22,000 slips of parchment, and wrote on each a son of Levi, and 273 others, on which he wrote five shekels; then he mixed them in a basket, and each man took out one; those who drew the slips on which five shekels were written, paid the money; the others went free." This is a most stupid and silly tale, for such a mode of settlement never could have been resorted to by an intelligent people. It would have been much more simple to have paid it out of a general fund; and it is very likely that in this way the expense was defrayed.
This species of redeeming of men is referred to by St. Peter, 1Pe 1:18-19: "Ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation, received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious (τιμιω αιματι, valuable) blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot," c. And it is not the first-born only which are thus redeemed, for he, by the grace of God, tasted death for EVERY man Heb 2:9. Reader, give glory to God that such a ransom has been paid for thy soul, and see that, redeemed from thy vain conversation, thy empty, fruitless, and graceless observances, on which thou hast built thy hopes of salvation, thou walk in newness of life, giving thy whole soul with thankfulness unto the Father who hath translated thee from darkness, and placed thee in the kingdom of his beloved Son. To Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever! Amen.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On v41 Num 3:41. Instead of the firstborn — Such as…
Num 3:41. Instead of the firstborn — Such as are now alive of them; but those which should be born of them hereafter are otherwise disposed of. Cattle of the Levites — Not that they were to be taken from the Levites, or to be sacrificed to God, any more than the Levites themselves were; but they, together with the Levites, were to be presented before the Lord by way of acknowledgment, that the Levites might be set apart for God’s service, and their cattle for themselves as God’s ministers, and for their support in God’s work.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv43–44 This result, when compared with the number of male…
This result, when compared with the number of male adults (603,550, compare Num 2:32), is small, the usual proportion of first-born sons to a total male population being about one in four: and the explanation offered is that the law of Exo 13:1-2, prescribed a dedication of those only who should be firstborn “thenceforward”.
On the other hand, the number is very large to be born among two millions of persons in a single year; and it must be admitted, that some unusual causes must have been concerned. Such, not to mention the divine blessing, may be found in the sudden development of national energies which would immediately ensue on the Exodus. Before that event, the miserable estate of the people, and especially the inhuman order for the destruction of their first-born, would check very seriously the ratio of marriages and births; and this ratio would naturally, when the check was removed, exhibit a sudden and striking increase.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On v41 Cattle. These were kept by the Levites, and were…
Cattle. These were kept by the Levites, and were not intended for sacrifice. (Menochius)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On v41 the cattle of the Levites--These, which they kept to…
the cattle of the Levites--These, which they kept to graze on the glebes and meadows in the suburbs of their cities, to supply their families with dairy produce and animal food, were also taken as an equivalent for all the firstlings of the cattle which the Israelites at that time possessed. In consequence of this exchange the firstlings were not brought then, as afterwards, to the altar and the priests.
Next: Numbers Chapter 4
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv41, 44 41. The cattle of the Levites — These do…
41. The cattle of the Levites — These do not seem to have been enumerated, but were estimated in the mass as equal to the firstborn cattle of all the other tribes. They were not all immediately sacrificed, nor were they taken from the Levites, but left in their possession to be sacrificed when needed. This is an impressive illustration of that stewardship of property required by Jesus Christ of all his followers. Having consecrated all their substance to him, they are to be ready to present it as a cheerful sacrifice at the first intimation of his will.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On v41 41. instead of all the firstlings among the cattle]…
41. instead of all the firstlings among the cattle] This is inconsistent with Num_18:17 which enjoins that the firstlings of such cattle as are suitable for sacrifice may not be redeemed. The difficulty has been explained by supposing that the reference is to animals not suitable for sacrifice. But it is more probable that the present command dates from a later time when commands such as Num_18:17 were found impracticable.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv41, 43, 45 (41) And thou shalt take the Levites for me…
(41) And thou shalt take the Levites for me (I am the Lord) . . . —Or, And thou shalt take the Levites for Me—for Me, Jehovah. The assertions which have been frequently made respecting the transference of the priesthood of the firstborn to the Levites appear to be altogether without foundation. For (1) the priesthood which was exercised in patriarchal times was not restricted to the firstborn, but appears to have been common to the head of every family. (2) This priesthood was exercised previously to the exodus, and consequently previously to the command given to Moses to sanctify the firstborn. And (3) the priesthood, which belonged not to the firstborn exclusively, but to the Israelites at large, was thenceforth strictly confined to the family of Aaron, who inherited it not as the substitutes of the firstborn, but in the place of the whole nation.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On v43 Twenty and two thousand two hundred and threescore and…
Twenty and two thousand two hundred and threescore and thirteen. These were the first-born of the twelve tribes; but who were included under the designation "first-born" is a matter of grave dispute. The smallness of their number (not much above one per cent. of the whole population) has given rise to several conflicting theories, all of which seem to be artificial, arbitrary, and therefore unsatisfactory. It is urged by some that the expression "every male that openeth the womb" must be strictly pressed, and that there would be no "first-born" in those families (which form a considerable majority) in which either a girl was born first, or the eldest, being a boy, had died. It is further urged that only those first-horn would be counted who were not themselves fathers of families. These considerations will indeed reduce the probable numbers very largely, but not to the required amount. Others, again, give an entirely different turn to the difficulty by urging that as the command in Exodus 13. I was prospective only, so at this time only the first-born since the exodus were counted. This makes it necessary to assume an altogether unprecedented birth-rate during that short period. One other explanation strives to satisfy the arithmetical conditions of the problem by assuming that the whole of the Divine legislation in this matter was in reality directed against the worship of Moloch, and was designed to prevent the offering of first-born to him by redeeming them unto himself. As the rites of Moloch only demanded young children of tender age, only such were counted in this census. It may, indeed, be very probably concluded that their heavenly Father did claim these first-born, partly in order to save them from Moloch, because the people would thereafter be exposed to the fascination of that horrid superstition; but there is no proof whatever that they were acquainted with it at this time. These cruel rites, together with many other heathen abominations, are forbidden in Lev_18:21 and Deu_18:10, in view of the entry into Canaan, where they were practiced. The prophet Amos, when he reproaches them with having "carried the tabernacle of" their "Moloch" even in the wilderness, (Amo_5:26) absolves them by implication from any darker superstition; and the highly rhetorical passage Eze_20:26 seems to refer to the consequences of disobedience at a later date, and can hardly be pressed against the entire silence of the Pentateuch. Anyhow it does not seem possible, on the strength of a supposed intention on the part of God of which no trace appears in the text, to impose a narrow and arbitrary limit upon the plain command to number "all the first-born, from a month old and upward." If we turn from these speculations to the reason and ground of the matter as stated by God himself, it will appear much more simple. It was distinctly on the ground of their preservation from the destroying angel in Egypt that the first-born of Israel were claimed as God"s peculium now (see verse 13). The command in Exo_13:1 was no doubt prospective, but the sanctification of the first-born was based upon the deliverance itself; and this command was intended not to limit that sanctification for the present, but to continue it for the future. Now if we turn to Exo_12:29, Exo_12:30, and ask who the first-born were whom the destroying angel cut off, we see plainly enough that they included the eldest son, being a child, in every house; that every family lost one, and only one. On the one hand, Pharaoh himself was in all probability a firstborn, but he was not in any personal danger, because he ranked and suffered as a father, not as a son. On the other hand, the majority of families in which the first-born was a daughter, or had died, did not therefore escape: "there was not a house where there was not one dead.
Taking this as the only sure ground to go upon, we may conclude with some confidence that the first-born now claimed by God in-eluded all the eldest sons in the families of Israel who were not themselves the heads of houses. These were the destroyed in Egypt these the redeemed in Israel. How they came to be so few in proportion is a matter in itself of extremely slight importance, and dependant, perhaps, upon causes of which no record was left.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv42, 44 all the firstborn people
all the firstborn people
"all the firstborn sons"
Read full note →
22,273 men
"twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three men" (See: Numbers)
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.