{"id":3669,"date":"2022-09-24T00:18:10","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T05:18:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-numbers-22\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T00:18:10","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T05:18:10","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-numbers-22","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-numbers-22\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 2:2"},"content":{"rendered":"

Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of their father’s house: far off about the tabernacle of the congregation shall they pitch. <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

2<\/strong>. Each tribe has a (?) standard<\/em>; and each family has an ensign, or more strictly a sign<\/em>, which may imply any kind of mark, such as a pole or spear or other object. Doughty ( Arabia Deserta<\/em>, i. 221) describes a Bedawin chief as striking his lance into the ground as a sign round which his people encamped. The meaning of the word deghel<\/em>, rendered ‘standard,’ is doubtful. It perhaps denotes something looked at<\/em> or conspicuous<\/em> (cf. Son 5:10<\/span>, R.V. ‘chiefest’); and an Assyr. root formed of the same consonants has that meaning. And hence might be derived ‘banner’ (Son 2:4<\/span>)1 [Note: The verb in Psa 20:6<\/span> [Eng. 5] cannot be safely used as evidence; many think that the passage is corrupt.] . In the present passage some would render it ‘company’ or ‘battalion,’ and so in Num 2:3<\/em><\/span> ; Num 2:10<\/em><\/span><\/em> ; Num 2:18<\/em><\/span><\/em> ; Num 2:25<\/em><\/span><\/em>. This would certainly be more suitable in Num 2:3<\/em><\/span>, where the literal rendering of the Heb. is ‘those that pitch shall be the deghel<\/em> of the camp of Judah,’ and it is supported by the LXX. ( ), Syriac, and Targum. If this is right, deghel<\/em> is used with a secondary meaning. Cf. the words maeh<\/em> and shbhe<\/em>, each of which can denote both a ‘staff’ and a ‘tribe.’ Cf. also the Lat. vexillum<\/em>, a ‘standard’ (Tac. Hist.<\/em> i. 32) and a ‘company’ belonging to a vexillum<\/em> ( id.<\/em> <\/em> i. 70).<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

standard … ensign – <\/B>The standard marked the division, or camp (cf. Num 1:9<\/span>, Num 1:16<\/span>, Num 1:24<\/span>, Num 1:31<\/span>); the ensign the family. There would thus be four standards only, one for each camp of three tribes. The standard was probably a solid figure or emblem mounted on a pole, such as the Egyptians used. Tradition appropriates the four cherubic forms (Eze 1:5-12<\/span>; Rev 4:7<\/span> ff), the lion, man, ox, and eagle, to the camps of Judah, Reuben, Ephraim, and Dan respectively; and this, as to the first, has a certain support from Gen 49:9<\/span> (compare Rev 5:5<\/span>), and as to the third, from Deu 33:17<\/span>.<\/P>

Far off – <\/B>See the margin, over against; i. e. facing the tabernacle on every side. The distance was perhaps 2,000 cubits or rather more than 14 mile: compare Jos 3:4<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 2<\/span>. Every man-shall pitch by his own standard<\/B><\/I>] Commentators, critics, philosophers, and professional men, have taken a great deal of pains to illustrate this chapter by showing the best method of encampment for such a vast number of men, and the manner in which they conceive the Israelites formed their camp in the wilderness. As God gave them the plan, it was doubtless in every respect perfect; and fully answered the double purpose of convenience and security. Scheuchzer<\/I> has entered into this subject with his usual ability, and in very considerable detail. Following the plan of Reyher<\/I>, as in the preceding chapter, he endeavours to ascertain the precise order in which the several tribes were disposed; and as his work is both scarce and dear, the reader will not be displeased-to meet here with a translation of all that refers to the subject. <\/P>

SCHEUCHZER’S DESCRIPTION AND PLAN OF THE ENCAMPMENTS<\/P>

OF THE ISRAELITES IN THE WILDERNESS<\/P>

See graphic at end of chapter<\/I> <\/P>


<\/P>

“If we form a proper idea of God, of his essence and his attributes, we shall easily perceive that this infinite and supreme Being wills and executes what his Divine wisdom<\/I> appoints; in a word, we shall see that he is the God of order<\/I>. This order displays itself in the perfection, arrangement, and assemblage of all created beings; in the construction of the earth which we inhabit, where every thing is formed in order, number, weight, and measure; and in all bodies, great and small. It is certain that Noah’s ark<\/I> is a perfect model of naval architecture<\/I>. The temple<\/I> of Solomon<\/I>, and that of Ezekiel<\/I> were likewise masterpieces in their kind. But at present we are to consider the Divine arrangement of the Israelitish camp, and the manner in which it was formed.<\/P>

<\/P>

“The Israelitish army was divided Into three principal divisions. The first<\/I>, which was the least in extent, but the strongest and the most powerful, occupied the centre of the army: this was the throne of God<\/I>, i. e., the TABERNACLE. The second<\/I>, which was composed of the priests<\/I> and Levites<\/I>, surrounded the first. The third<\/I>, and the farthest from the centre, took in all the other tribes of Israel, who were at least about a mile from the tabernacle. For it appears from Josephus, iii. 4, that the nearest approach they dared make to the ark, except during the time of worship, was a distance of 2,000 cubits. The reverence due to the Divine Majesty, the numerous army of the Israelites, composed of 600,000 soldiers, with their families, which made about 3,000,000 souls, naturally demanded a considerable extent of ground. We are not to imagine that all these families pitched their tents pellmell, without order, like beasts, or as the troops of Tartary, and the eastern armies; on the contrary, their camp was divided according to the most exact rules. And we cannot even doubt that their camp was laid out, and the place of every division and tribe exactly assigned by some engineers, or geometricians, before the army stopped to encamp, in order that every person might at once find his own quarter, and the road he ought to take to reach the other tents.<\/P>

<\/P>

“Four divisions, which faced the four quarters of the heavens, each with his own ensign, formed the centre of the army. JUDAH was placed on the east, and under him he had Issachar<\/I> and Zebulun<\/I>; on the south was REUBEN, and under him Simeon<\/I> and Gad<\/I>: on the west was Ephraim<\/I>, and under him Manasseh<\/I> and Benjamin<\/I>; finally, DAN was on the north, and he had under him Asher<\/I> and Naphtali<\/I>. It has been pretended by some that these four principal divisions were not alone distinguished by their ensigns, but that each particular tribe had likewise its standard or ensign. On this subject we might refer to the Talmudists, who have gone so far as to define the colours<\/I>, and the figures<\/I> or arms<\/I>, of the very ensigns. They pretend that on that of JUDAH a lion<\/I> was painted, with this inscription: ‘Rise, Lord, let thine enemies be dispersed, and let<\/I> those that hate thee flee before thee<\/I>;’ and they found this description of Judah’s ensign in Ge 49:9<\/span>. They give to ISSACHAR an ass<\/I>, Ge 49:14<\/span>; to ZEBULUN a ship<\/I>, Ge 49:13<\/span>; to REUBEN a river<\/I>, Ge 49:4<\/span>, (others give REUBEN the figure of a man<\/I>\ud83d\ude09 to SIMEON a sword<\/I>, Ge 49:5<\/span>; to GAD a lion<\/I>, De 33:20<\/span>; to EPHRAIM a unicorn<\/I>, De 33:17<\/span>; an ox<\/I> to MANASSEH, De 33:17<\/span>; a wolf<\/I> to BENJAMIN, Ge 49:27<\/span>; and a serpent<\/I> to DAN, Ge 49:17<\/span>, though others give him an eagle<\/I>. In short, they pretend that the ensign of ASHER was a handful of corn<\/I>, Ge 49:20<\/span>, and that of NAPHTALI a stag<\/I>, Ge 49:21<\/span>.<\/P>

<\/P>

“To prove that the sums here are correctly added, we have but to join together the detached numbers, and see if they agree with the total. The text will furnish us with an example of this: there was in the quarter of: – <\/P>


<\/P>


<\/P> <\/TD>


<\/P> <\/TD>


<\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

Judah<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

186,400<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

Nu 2:9<\/span><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

Reuben<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

151,450<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

Nu 2:16<\/span><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

Ephraim<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

108,100<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

Nu 2:24<\/span><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

Dan<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

157,600<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

Nu 2:31<\/span><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE>


<\/P>

“Among other things we must remark that rule of military tactics which requires that the advanced<\/I> and rear guards<\/I> should be stronger than the centre.<\/P>

<\/P>

“In a well-regulated camp, cleanliness is considered indispensably necessary; this is particularly remarkable in the Israelitish army, where the most exact order was maintained. Hence every person who had any kind of disease, and those who were reputed unclean<\/I>, were forbidden to enter it; Nu 5:2-3<\/span>; De 23:10<\/span>.<\/P>

<\/P>

“Those who have the health of men, and of a whole army confided to them, are not ignorant that diseases may be easily produced by putrid exhalations from excrementitious matter; and that such matter will produce in camps pestilential fevers and dysenteries. For this reason, care should be always taken that offices, at a distance from the camp, be provided for the soldiers, and also that those who are sick should be separated from the others, and sent to hospitals to be properly treated.<\/P>

<\/P>

“In military tactics we find two distinct wings spoken of; the right and the left. The Israelitish army not only had them on one side, as is customary, but on all their four sides. On the eastern<\/I> side, the tribe of Issachar formed the right<\/I>, that of Zebulun the left<\/I>, and that of Judah the centre<\/I>. On the south<\/I>, Simeon formed the right wing<\/I>, Gad the left<\/I>, and Reuben the centre.<\/I> Towards the west<\/I>, Manasseh composed the right<\/I>, Benjamin the left<\/I>, and Ephraim the centre<\/I>. And on the north<\/I>, Asher was on the right<\/I> wing<\/I>, Naphtali on the left wing<\/I>, and Dan in the centre<\/I>. Notwithstanding this, however, the army was not in danger of being easily broken; for every tribe being numerous, they were supported by several ranks, in such a manner that the first being broken, the second was capable of making resistance; and if the second gave way, or shared the same fate as the first, it found itself supported by the third, and so on with the rest. The square form in which the Jewish army was ordinarily placed, was the very best for security and defence. The use and importance of the hollow<\/I> square<\/I> in military tactics is well known.<\/P>

<\/P>

“For so large a multitude of people, and for so numerous an army, it was needful that all the necessary articles of life should be prepared beforehand, or be found ready to purchase. In these respects nothing was wanting to the Israelites. Their bread came down to them from heaven, and they had besides an abundance of every thing that could contribute to magnificence. If we may credit Josephus, they had amongst them public markets<\/I>, and a variety of shops<\/I>. Ant., i. iii. c. 12, sec. 5. The tabernacle being erected, it was placed in the midst of the camp, each of the three tribes stretching themselves on the wings, and leaving between them a sufficient space to pass.<\/P>

<\/P>

“It was, says Josephus, like a well appointed market where every thing was ready for sale in due order, and all sorts of artificers kept their shops; so that this camp might be considered a movable city.<\/P>

<\/P>

“In Ex 32:27<\/span> we likewise find that mention is made of the gates<\/I> of the camp: ‘Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp.’ From whence we may certainly conclude that if the camp had gates<\/I>, the Israelites had also sentinels<\/I> to guard them. If this be true, we may also believe that they were surrounded with entrenchments<\/I>, or that at least their gates were defended by some fortifications. Sagittarius<\/I> (de Jan. Vet., c. 18. 10) pretends that the tabernacle was not only guarded by the Levites, but that there were likewise sentinels at the gates, and at the entrance of the Israelitish camps. See Clarke on <\/span>Ex 32:27<\/span><\/span>.<\/P>

<\/P>

“If we examine and compare the camp of Israel with that of our most numerous armies, which in these days are composed of 100,000 or of 150,000 men, we cannot but consider it of vast extent. The Jews say it was twelve miles in circumference; this is not at all improbable, and consequently the front of each wing must be three miles in extent. But taking in the tents, the soldiers and their numerous families, the beasts of burden, the cattle, and the goods, it certainly must have formed a very considerable inclosure, much more than twelve miles. See Clarke on <\/span>Ex 12:37<\/span><\/span>, and “<\/I>Ex 13:18<\/I><\/span>“<\/I>. Reyher<\/I> (Math. Mos., p. 568) assigns to the <\/P>

Tribe of JUDAH,<\/P>

A space of 298 2\/5 cubits in breadth<\/P>

and 250 in length<\/P>

——<\/P>

Which makes 74,600 square cubits. <\/P>


<\/P>

“We must observe that we are here merely speaking of the ground which the soldiers of this tribe occupied whilst remaining close<\/I> to each other<\/I> in their ranks, and that in this computation there is but one cubit square allowed for each man; wherefore, if we take in the arrangement of the soldiers, the tents, the necessary spaces, the families, the beasts of burden, and the movables, a much larger extent of ground is requisite. All those circumstances do not come into Reyher’s calculation. He continues thus: – <\/P>

For the tribe of ISSACHAR,<\/P>

217 3\/5 cubits in breadth<\/P>

250 in length<\/P>

——<\/P>

Total 54,400 square cubits.<\/P>

<\/P>

For the tribe of GAD,<\/P>

140 5\/11 cubits in breadth<\/P>

325 in length<\/P>

——<\/P>

Total 45,650 square cubits.<\/P>

<\/P>

For the tribe of ZEBULUN,<\/P>

229 3\/4 cubits in breadth<\/P>

250 in length<\/P>

——<\/P>

Total 57,400 square cubits.<\/P>

<\/P>

For the tribe of EPHRAIM,<\/P>

202 1\/2 cubits in breadth<\/P>

200 in length<\/P>

——<\/P>

Total 40,500 square cubits.<\/P>

<\/P>

For the tribe of REUBEN,<\/P>

143 1\/5 cubits in breadth<\/P>

325 in length<\/P>

——<\/P>

Total 46,500 square cubits.<\/P>

<\/P>

For the tribe of MANASSEH,<\/P>

161 cubits in breadth<\/P>

200 in length<\/P>

——<\/P>

Total 32,200 square cubits.<\/P>

<\/P>

For the tribe of SIMEON,<\/P>

182 6\/13 cubits in breadth<\/P>

325 in length<\/P>

——<\/P>

Total 59,300 square cubits.<\/P>

<\/P>

For the tribe of BENJAMIN,<\/P>

177 cubits in breadth<\/P>

200 in length<\/P>

——<\/P>

Total 35,400 square cubits.<\/P>

<\/P>

For the tribe of DAN,<\/P>

156 3\/4 cubits in breadth<\/P>

400 in length<\/P>

——<\/P>

Total 62,700 square cubits.<\/P>

<\/P>

For the tribe of ASHER,<\/P>

103 3\/4 cubits in breadth<\/P>

400 in length<\/P>

——<\/P>

Total 41,500 square cubits.<\/P>

<\/P>

For the tribe of NAPHTALI,<\/P>

133 1\/2 cubits in breadth<\/P>

400 in length<\/P>

——<\/P>

Total 53,400 square cubits. <\/P>


<\/P>

“If we make the ichnography, or even the scenography, of the camp on this plan, in following it we must first, in the centre<\/I>, form a parallelogram<\/I> of 100 cubits long and 50 broad for the court<\/I> of the tabernacle with an empty space all round of 50 cubits broad. We must then place the camp of the Levites in the following order: – <\/P>

To the west, the Gershonites<\/I>, Nu 3:22-23<\/span>.<\/P>

Breadth 30 cubits<\/P>

Length 250 cubits<\/P>

—–<\/P>

Total 7,500<\/P>

<\/P>

To the south, the Kohathites<\/I>, Nu 3:28<\/span>-:29.<\/P>

Breadth 86 cubits<\/P>

Length 100 cubits<\/P>

—–<\/P>

Total 8,600<\/P>

<\/P>

To the north, the Merarites<\/I>, Nu 3:34-35<\/span>.<\/P>

Breadth 62 cubits<\/P>

Length 100 cubits<\/P>

—–<\/P>

Total 6,200 <\/P>


<\/P>

“On the east we must place tents for Moses, Aaron, and his sons, Nu 3:38<\/span>.<\/P>

<\/P>

“At the place where the camp of the Levites ends, a space must be left of 2,000 square cubits, after which we must take the dimensions of the camp of the twelve tribes.<\/P>

<\/P>

“This plan is in the main well imagined, but it does not afford an ichnography of sufficient extent. To come more accurately to a proper understanding of this subject, I shall examine the rules that are now in use for encampments, and compare them afterward with what is laid down in the Holy Scriptures, in order that we may hereby form to ourselves an idea of the camp of God, the grandeur and perfection of which surpassed every thing of the kind ever seen. I shall now mention what I am about to propose as the foundation upon which I shall proceed.<\/P>

<\/P>

“In Ex 18:21<\/span>, De 1:15<\/span>, we find the advice given by Jethro to Moses respecting political government and military discipline: ‘Thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.’ [See the note on “<\/B><\/I>Ex 18:21<\/B><\/I><\/span>“<\/I>.] We may very well compare these tribunes<\/I>, or rather these chiliarchs<\/I>, to our colonels<\/I>, the centurions<\/I> or hecatontarchs<\/I> to commanders<\/I> or captains<\/I>, the quinquagenaries<\/I> or pentecontarchs<\/I> to lieutenants<\/I>, and the decurions<\/I> or decarchs<\/I> to our sergeants<\/I>. These chiefs, whether they were named magistrates<\/I> or officers<\/I>, were each drawn from his own particular tribe, so that it was not permitted to place over one tribe an officer taken from another. Whatever matter the decarchs<\/I> could not decide upon or terminate, went to the pentecontarchs<\/I>, and from thence by degrees to the hecatontarchs<\/I>, to the chiliarchs<\/I>, to Moses<\/I>, and at length to GOD himself, the sovereign head of the army. If we divide the whole army (such as it was at its departure from Egypt) by the numbers already laid down, we shall find 600 chiliarchs, 6,000 hecatontarchs, 12,000 pentecontarchs, 60,000 decarchs, which in all make 78,600 officers. Josephus regulates the number of them still more exactly by saying that there were chiefs set over 10,000, 1,000, 500, 50, 30, 20, and 10. We find this regulation in Ant. Jud<\/I>., b. iii., c. 4: ‘Take a review of the army, and appoint chosen rulers over tens of thousands, and then over thousands, then divide them into five hundreds, and again into hundreds, and into fifties, and set rulers over each of them who may distinguish them into thirties, and keep them in order; and at last number them by twenties and by tens, and let there be one commander over each number, to be denominated from the number of those over whom they are rulers.’<\/P>

<\/P>

“We ought not to pass over in silence this division by tens<\/I>, for twice 10 make 20, three times 10, 30, five times 10, 50, ten times 10, 100, ten times 50, 500, ten times 1,000, 10,000. It was in this manner, as is pretended, that Cangu<\/I>, the first of the great Khams, (as he is called,) and after him Tamerlane<\/I>, drew out an army, i. e., by 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, mentioned in Alhazen<\/I>, c. v. Probably these Tartars borrowed from the very Hebrews themselves this manner of laying out a camp. At all events it is certain that nothing more ancient of the kind can be found than that mentioned in the books of Moses. To distinguish it from that of the Greeks and Romans we may with justice call it the Hebrew castrametation, or, if we judge it more proper, the Divine castrametation, and consequently the most perfect of all. For although Moses places the pentecontarchs<\/I> in the middle, between the hecatontarchs<\/I> and the decarchs<\/I>, i. e., 50 between 100 and 10; and although Josephus afterward places 1,000 between 500 and 10,000, and 30 and 20 between 10 and 50, this does not at all derange the progression by tens<\/I>, which Is the foundation of arithmetic. These subaltern officers were equally useful and necessary, as we now see that their number, far from creating confusion, helps maintain order, and that the more there are of them the better is order preserved. According to the modern method of carrying on war, the next in rank to the generals of the army (who have the supreme command) are field marshals<\/I> and brigadiers<\/I>, who command 5,000 men.<\/P>

<\/P>

There are then between the chiliarchs<\/I> or colonels<\/I> and the hecatontarchs<\/I> or captains, lieutenant-colonels<\/I>; and between the hecatontarchs<\/I> and the decarchs, lieutenant-captains<\/I>; and these have under them lieutenants<\/I> and ensigns<\/I>.<\/P>

<\/P>

“It is certain that this method of distributing an army by tens<\/I>, and of encamping, which is very concise, has far greater advantages even with respect to expense than the very best plans of the Greeks, Romans<\/I>, or any other ancient nation. On this subject we have the testimony of Simon Steven<\/I>, Castrametat. c. 1, art. 1, and c. 4. art. 3, Oper. Math<\/I>., p. 574 and 596, c. According to this arrangement each soldier, or if more proper, each father of a family<\/I>, being thus placed by ten<\/I> and ten<\/I> in a straight line one after the other, might very easily name themselves first, second<\/I>, c. Each troop in like manner might be distinguished by its ensigns<\/I>, that of 100 might have them small, that of 1,000 larger, and that of 10,000 still larger. Every officer, from the lowest subaltern to the general officers of the camp, and even to the generalissimos themselves, had only an easy inspection of ten men each the decarch<\/I> had the inspection of 10 soldiers, the hecatontarch<\/I> of 10 decarchs<\/I>, and the chiliarch<\/I> of 10 hecatontarchs<\/I>. After the chiliarchs<\/I>, which in no troop can amount to ten, there is the chief or head of each tribe. Each then exactly fulfilling the duty assigned him, we may suppose every thing to be in good order, even were the camp larger and more numerous. The same may be said respecting the contentions that might arise among the soldiers, as well as every thing relative to the general duty of the officers, as to the labours they were to undertake, whether for striking their tents for works of fortification or for making entrenchments. This arrangement might be easily retained in the memory, or a general list be kept of the names of both officers and soldiers to distribute to them their pay, and to keep exact accounts.<\/P>

<\/P>

“It was possible in one moment to know the number of those who were either wanting or were out of their ranks, and to avoid this disorder in future by obliging each man to attend to his duty and keep in his rank. If by chance it happened that any one man wished to desert or had escaped, it was easy to notice him and inflict on him the punishment he merited. The ensigns<\/I> being distinguished by their marks<\/I>, and the company<\/I> being known, it was easy to find any soldier whatever.<\/P>

<\/P>

“The armies themselves might have certain marks to distinguish them, and by that means they might at once ascertain the person in question for example: 8. 2. 7. 3. might signify the eighth<\/I> soldier or father<\/I> of a family, of the second rank<\/I>, of the seventh<\/I> company, in the third chiliad<\/I>; 7. 3. 5. the halberdier<\/I> of the decurion<\/I> or sergeant<\/I> of the seventh<\/I> line, in the third<\/I> company, of the fifth chiliad<\/I> or thousand; 5. 8. the hecatontarchs<\/I> or captains of the fifth<\/I> company, in the eighth chiliad<\/I>; 7. the chiliarchs<\/I> or colonels<\/I> of the seventh<\/I> rank; 0. finally, the general of the whole army. Farther, by the same means the loss or misplacing of their arms might be prevented. Again, the soldiers might in a very short time be instructed and formed to the exercise of arms, each decad<\/I> having its sergeant<\/I> for its master; and the chariots or other carriages might easily be divided amongst several, 10 under the decurion<\/I>, 100 under the hecatontarch<\/I>; and by thus following the above method, every thing might be kept in good order. <\/P>

A PLAN OF THE WHOLE ISRAELITISH CAMP<\/P>

See graphic at end of chapter <\/I> <\/P>


<\/P>

“We shall finally, in one plate, represent the whole camp of the Israelites, in that order which appears the most proper. For this purpose we must extract the square roots of the preceding spaces, in order that we may be able to assign to each tribe square areas, or rectangular parallelograms. I therefore find for <\/P>


<\/P>


<\/P> <\/TD>


<\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

Reuben<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

3049 square cubits.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

Simeon<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

3443<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

The Gershonites<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

1224<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

The Kohathites<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

1311<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

The Merarites<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

1113<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

Judah<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

3862<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

Issachar<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

3298<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

Zebulun<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

3388<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

Gad<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

3019<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

Ahser<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

2880<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

Manasseh<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

2537<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

Ephraim<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

2846<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

Benjamin<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

2660<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

Dan<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

3541<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>

Naphtali<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD>

3268<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE>


<\/P>

“The tabernacle, which was 100 cubits long and 50 broad, I place in the centre of the camp, at the distance of 840 feet from the camp of the Levites, which is placed exactly in the same manner as described in the sacred writings. I find therefore that the whole space of the camp is 259,600,000 feet. Now, according to the manner we have just divided the camp for each tribe, the sum total being 125,210,000, it follows that the space between the tents contained 134,390,000. If, with Eisenschmid<\/I>, we estimate the Roman mile at 766 French fathoms and two feet, (consequently 21,141,604 square feet to a Roman square mile,) the Israelitish camp will contain a little more than 12 such square miles.”<\/P>

<\/P>

The reader will have the goodness to observe that the preceding observations, as well as the following plate or diagram, which was made by Scheuchzer on the exactest proportions<\/I>, could not be accurately copied here without an engraved<\/I> plate; and after all, the common reader could have profited no more by the plate<\/I> than he can by the diagram. It is not even hoped that disquisitions of this kind can give any thing more than a general idea<\/I> how the thing probably was; for to pretend to minute exactness, in such cases, would be absurd. The sacred text informs us that such and such tribes occupied the east<\/I>, such the west<\/I>, c., c. but how they were arranged individually we cannot pretend absolutely to say. Scheuchzer’s plan is such as we may suppose judgment and skill would lay down but still it is very probable that the plan of the Israelites’ castrametation was more perfect than any thing we can well imagine; for as it was the plan which probably God himself laid down, it must be in every respect what it ought to be, for the comfort and safety of this numerous multitude.<\/P>

<\/P>

As there are some differences between the mode of distributing the command of a large army among the British, and that used on the continent, which is followed by Scheuchzer, I shall lay down the descending<\/I> scale of British commanders, which some may think applies better to the preceding arrangement of the Israelitish army than the other.<\/P>

<\/P>

The command of a large army in the British service is thus divided: –<\/P>


<\/P>

1. The Commander-in-chief.<\/P>


<\/P>

2. Lieutenant-generals, who command divisions of the army: (these divisions consist of 2 or 3 brigades each, which, on an average, amount to 5,000 men.)<\/P>


<\/P>

3. Major-generals, who command brigades: (these brigades consist of from 2 to 3,000<\/span> men [2,500 is perhaps the average] according to the strength of the respective regiments of which the brigade is composed.)<\/P>


<\/P>

4. Colonels in the army, or lieutenant-colonels, who command single regiments; they are assisted in the command of these regiments by the majors<\/B><\/I> of the regiments. [I mention the major<\/I>, that there may be no break in the descending scale of gradation of ranks, as in the event of the absence of the above two officers, he is the next in command.]<\/P>


<\/P>

5. Captains who command companies: these companies (on the war establishment) consist of 100 men each, and there are 10 companies in every regiment, consequently a colonel, or lieutenant-colonel, commands 1,000 men.<\/P>


<\/P>

6. Lieutenants, of which there are 2 to every company.<\/P>

7. Ensign; 1 to each company.<\/P>


<\/P>

* 6 & 7 – Subaltern officers having no command, but assisting the captain.<\/P>

<\/P>

1. Commander-in-chief.<\/P>

2. Lieutenant-generals commanding divisions 5,000 each.<\/P>

3. Major-generals, brigades 2,500.<\/P>


<\/P>

* 1 – 3 – These are called general officers.<\/P>


<\/P>

4. Colonels, lieutenant-colonels, and majors; 3 officers belonging to each regiment in the service, and are solely employed in the disciplining and commanding the men; these are mounted on horseback, and termed field-officers.<\/P>


<\/P>

5. 1 Captain<\/P>

6. 2 Lieutenants<\/P>

7. 1 Ensign<\/P>


<\/P>

* 5 – 7 – to each company.<\/P>

<\/P>

Ascending<\/I> scale of ranks which every officer must pass through.<\/P>

<\/P>

Ensign |<\/P>

Lieutenant |<\/P>

Captain | to every regiment.<\/P>

Major |<\/P>

Lieutenant-colonel |<\/P>

Colonel |<\/P>

Major-general, brigade-commander.<\/P>

Lieutenant-general, division-commander.<\/P>

General-in-chief, who commands the whole army. <\/P>

<\/P>

<\/P>

<\/P>

<\/P>

Though I particularly refer the reader to the above diagram of the Israelitish camp, taken from Scheuchzers plate, which I have thought necessary to be subjoined to his description, yet I think it also proper to introduce that on the following page, as it gives a general and tolerably correct idea of this immense camp, in the description of which the inspired writer has been so very particular; but still I must say these things are to be considered as PROBABLE, not as absolutely certain; as comprising a general view of what may be supposed probable, likely, and practicable.<\/P>

The whole may be said to consist of three camps, viz.,<\/P>

1. The camp of the Lord;<\/P>

2. The camp of the Levites; and ,<\/P>

3. The people.<\/P>

These in the grand camp in the wilderness, corresponded with the holy of holies, the holy place, and the outward court of the Temple at Jerusalem. See Ainsworth.<\/P>

<\/P>

<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

By his own standard, <\/B>or ensign<\/I>, by that to which he is allotted by the following order. It is manifest that there were four great standards or ensigns, which here follow, distinguished by their colours or figures, or otherwise; also that there were other particular ensigns belonging to each of their fathers houses or families, as is here said. <\/P>

Far off; <\/B>partly out of reverence to God and his worship, and the portion allotted to it, and partly for caution, lest their vicinity to it might tempt them to make too near approaches to it. It is supposed they were at two thousand cubits distance from it, which was the space between the people and the ark, Jos 3:4<\/span>, and it is not improbable, because the Levites encamped round about it between them and the tabernacle. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2. Every man . . . shall pitch byhis own standard, with the ensign of their father’s house<\/B>Standardswere visible signs of a certain recognized form for directing themovements of large bodies of people. As the Israelites were commandedto encamp “each by his own standard, with the ensign of theirfather’s house,” the direction has been considered as implyingthat they possessed three varieties: (1) the great tribal standards,which served as rallying points for the twelve large clans of thepeople; (2) the standards of the subdivided portions; and, (3) thoseof families or houses. The latter must have been absolutelynecessary, as one ensign only for a tribe would not have been visibleat the extremities of so large a body. We possess no authenticinformation as to their forms, material, colors, and devices. But itis probable that they might bear some resemblance to those of Egypt,only stripped of any idolatrous symbols. These were of an umbrella ora fanlike form, made of ostrich feathers, shawls, c., lifted on thepoints of long poles, which were borne, either like the sacredcentral one, on a car, or on men’s shoulders, while others might belike the beacon lights which are set on poles by Eastern pilgrims atnight. Jewish writers say that the standards of the Hebrew tribeswere symbols borrowed from the prophetic blessing of JacobJudah’sbeing a lion, Benjamin’s a wolf, &c. [Ge49:3-24<\/span>] and that the ensigns or banners were distinguished bytheir colorsthe colors of each tribe being the same as that of theprecious stone representing that tribe in the breastplate of the highpriest [Ex 28:17-21<\/span>]. <\/P>

far off about the tabernacleof the congregation shall they pitch<\/B>that is, “overagainst,” at a reverential distance. The place of every tribe issuccessively and specifically described because each had a certainpart assigned both in the order of march and the disposition of theencampment.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard<\/strong>,…. Or banner, of which there were four, as appears from the following account, under each of which were placed three tribes; and so every man of each tribe was to pitch his tent in the tribe he belonged to, and by the standard under which his tribe was marshalled, and in the rank that he was placed:<\/p>\n

with the ensigns of their father’s house<\/strong>; which were either lesser standards or banners, somewhat different from the great standard or banner, which belonged to the camp consisting of three tribes, and which were peculiar to their several families and houses, and distinguished one from another, like flags in different regiments; or these were signs f, as the word may be rendered, or marks in the standards or banners, which, distinguished one from another; so the Targum of Jonathan, the signs which were marked in their standards: but what they were is not easy to say; Aben Ezra observes, and Abendana from him, that their ancients were used to say, that there was in the standard of Reuben the form of a man, on account of the mandrakes,<\/p>\n

Ge 30:14<\/span>; and in the standard of Judah the form of a lion, because Jacob compared him to one, Ge 49:9<\/span>; and in the standard of Ephraim the form of an ox, from the sense of those words, the firstling of his bullock, De 33:17<\/span>; and in the standard of Dan the form of an eagle, so that they might be like the cherubim the prophet Ezekiel saw, Eze 1:10<\/span>, which is not very likely, such images and representations not being very agreeable, yea, even detestable to the people of the Jews in later times, and can hardly be thought to be in use with their early ancestors: others, as Jarchi, fancy that those standards were distinguished by their colours, as our flags or ensigns are; which, if they stopped here, would not be much amiss, but they go on and say, that each was according to the colour of his stone fixed in the breastplate, so that there were three colours in every flag or standard; thus, for instance, in the standard of Judah, which is the first, were the colours of the three precious stones, on which were the names of Judah, Issachar, and Reuben, namely, the emerald, sapphire, and diamond; and so in the rest of the standards; but others say, the letters of the names of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, differently disposed of, were on those standards; but rather, one would think, the names of the three tribes under every standard were embroidered on them, which would sufficiently distinguish one from another, and direct where tribe was to pitch; but of those things there is no certainty:<\/p>\n

far off about the tabernacle of the congregation shall they pitch<\/strong>: a mile from it, according to Jarchi, or two thousand cubits, which is supposed to be a sabbath day’s journey, Ac 1:12<\/span>; and this distance is gathered from Jos 3:4<\/span>, and is not improbable.<\/p>\n

f “in signis”, Pagninus, Montanus; “sub signis”, Tigurine version; “cum signis”, Junius Tremellius, Drusius “apud signa”, Piscator.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

OUR STANDARD IS OUR STRENGTH<\/strong><\/p>\n

Num 2:2<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

THE Scripture going before and immediately following our text, seems to be a mere jumble of hard names. But in this verse the word of the Lord brings order out of confusion. The calling of the muster-roll is completed with a sentence which assigns his place to every man. Now that the individuals are disposed of, it only remains to arrange the position of the lines, and the march may begin at a moments warning.<\/p>\n

There are not a few phases of life in which a roll-call seems to be a necessity. Confusion appears to rise of itself, is just tumbled into, but order is most often affected with difficulty, and only comes about when a master is in command. As children at the public school we did not consider the roll-call a useless performance. The names may have been varied, and some of them almost unpronounceable, yet the teacher delighted in this task because it resulted in setting things to rights. Two objects are had in the school-roll, two were contemplated in the command of our text, and perchance the same motives most often give rise to the great muster-rolls of life. The one is a strengthening of the sense of individuality, personal responsibility. The other contemplates some organization of individuals into classes, corps, lines, etc. In our text God addresses His speech to every man.<\/em> Some people talk as if they half doubted Jehovahs acquaintance with us as individuals; as though the human unit were swallowed up and lost sight of in the great human mass. Be not deceived. Shall Raphael forget his Transfiguration, and remember only the panorama to which his genius gave birth? Shall Michael Angelo forget his Moses and think only of a galaxy of marble statuary? Shall the fond parent forget the son, or the daughter, and be mindful only of the family? Then why suppose that God is unmindful of your individualism and mine, since we are the conceptions of His Divine genius, the work of His holy hands and the offspring of His infinite love?<\/p>\n

It was for the deepening of this individual sense that Paul wrote: Let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another, for every man shall bear his own burden. It was written to heighten the consciousness of personal accountability. As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God; so then every one of us shall give an account of himself to God.<\/p>\n

And yet after we have emphasized individuality as we may and ought to do, we will not find it militating against the gathering of groups or the sense of interdependence. The very same writer who said, Every man shall bear his own burden, hastened to save his words from a too narrow interpretation by the added line: Bear ye one anothers burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ. The writer who said, So then every one of us shall give an account of himself to God, waited not for the ink to dry from these words before he was penning those others: None of us liveth to himself and no man dieth to himself. So I conclude that if one sentence of inspiration cannot clash with another, the man is not lost sight of in the human mass, and although he must join groups, and live in groups, and move with groups, still every man<\/em> has the responsibility of deciding which is his circle, and of choosing the standard beneath which he will stand.<\/p>\n

I am aware that the standards of our text were only staffs or banners, and that those who gathered about them formed lines to march through the wilderness toward Canaan. But these standards meant more than wooden staffs and flaunting flags; they were the centers around which revolved social, intellectual and religious life. This march may have been confined as to place, but in its experiences, it was universala life march. So I must interpret our text this morning, Every man shall pitch by his own standard. <\/em>In the ring of social life let us begin with this statement of fact:<\/p>\n

<\/span>STANDARDS ARE AT ONCE ITS BANE AND BLESSING.<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is one kind of social communism that I believe in, and there is another kind, which if I ever advocate it, I must first have lost my senses. I am persuaded that the Scripture is to be taken literally when it says, God hath made of our blood all nations of men.<\/em> The Chinaman, the Japanese, the Hottentot is as much your brother and mine, as is the needy American. Each of them have a claim upon our lives which we may not disregard; a right to our sympathy and assistance which we dare not ignore or despise. If one of them hunger and there is opportunity, we must feed him; if he is naked we must clothe; if he thirsts we must give him to drink; if he is sick or in prison we must visit him. But that is not the social communism that many are just now advocating. The effort is to break down all lines, and merge all social circles into one great communion, in which distinction in birth shall be forgotten, in breeding taken no note of, in education disregarded, in aesthetic taste overlookedan effort as unreasonable as impracticable. Human nature is too greatly above that of swine to ever allow that men be pigged together socially. Lift up your social standards then! They ought to exist, and every man shall pitch by his own.<\/em><\/p>\n

But if we enjoy their blessing<\/strong>, and escape the bane<\/strong>, we dare not raise up or rally about those that are false.<\/p>\n

Wealth<\/strong> is the false standard of social position in all too many cities and circles today. A mans place in the various groups that grade from lower to higher is too often as absolutely dependent upon the size of his pocketbook as though he had to buy a ticket of entrance at a price corresponding to the position desired. When will society learn that money is a wretched measure of the man? How many new illustrations need we have of the truth that gold is more often a matter of accident, a question of heirship, or a tale of greed, than an evidence of intellectual acumen or force of character? Edward Bellamys Looking Backward may be optimistic, and even visionary, but it will repay your study with its many sound social principles. One of that authors greater intentions was the correcting of mens methods of estimating their fellows. If his theories are impracticable they have at least the virtue of regarding character as above cloth, and brain above boodle. Whether his effort is to work a reform or not, it is a step in the right direction when a brilliant author employs his rhetoric to expose a giant fallacy. Surely wealth in itself is no crime, and its possession, instead of branding a man as unworthy of social distinction, often bespeaks his superior right to such honors. But falsity is introduced when circles disregard mutual affinities and overlook differences that must repel, and open widest arms to every man who brings a bit of gold.<\/p>\n

Along the track of this too widely prevalent practice is to be found the record of not a few failures in life. Young men and women, dazzled and deceived by standards of splendid and expensive show, have grown weary of the dull colors in their own lives and have forsaken the very posts for which their birth, breeding and abilities had measured them. No wonder the Apostle reserved the sentence, The pride of life, as the capstone or climax of his resume of all iniquity, The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, is the order of his speech. How often this pride of life has led men to forsake the standards of real honesty and largest opportunity, to take refuge beneath those of greater pretentions, but of far less safety. It is John Foster, I believe, who tells a tale in illustration of this truth. It seems that a young man living *at Springfield, Mass., was most favorably considered by a business firm who thought of employing him at a splendid salary, and opening for him a way to partnership in their stock. But before they acquainted him with their intentions, they inquired after his private life. When they learned that he spent several nights of the week in a billiard room, and on Sunday afternoon drove a hired span into the country, they decided to give the place to another. The standard under which he had pitched was not so essentially immoral as false! His gambling was not so much a mania for the game as a necessity of keeping up his pretentions to wealth. His unnecessary expenditures rendered necessary some increase of revenues. Young man, pitch by your own standard, whatever one your neighbor may stand beside. Consult your own interests, note well your own ability, and take account of eventual good. If you would like a loftier standard than that under which you stand, climb to higher ground, and carry your own with you, and you will have it.<\/p>\n

But some one says, What of heredity, of family, of blood? That has long determined lofty standards abroad, and is fast becoming an important factor in American social life. There are not a few people who claim and are accorded a place beneath societys most ample folds, because their fathers were noble men, and their mothers most spirited women. I am a firm believer in heredity<\/strong>, but who can forget that it works in diverse directions? Diseases and vice have discovered a facility of transmission which health and virtue have seldom outrun, and the circle that emphasizes heredity is bigoted and blind if it does not consider its whole swing. You may remember Hawthornes teaching in his House of Seven Gables. He is looking upon the likeness of Judge Pyncheon, and comparing it with that of the founder of the home when he says, That likeness implied that the weaknesses and defects, the bad passions, the mean tendencies and the moral diseases which lead to crime are handed down from one generation to another by a far surer process of transmission than human law has been able to establish in respect to the riches and honor which it seeks to entail upon posterity. A sad commentary, surely, on the law of boasted heredity, and yet how many circles furnish demonstrations of its truth. To my mind some of the most pathetic and curious scenes of real life are discovered in upper social circles. Who has looked upon their gatherings, but has beheld men and women who were but a slight remove from fools, whose characters discovered consummate weaknesses, whose souls were dwindled and dwarfed, mingling as freely with the excellent in mind and spirit, as though a place purchased with fathers gold, or inherited from mothers virtues were equally honorable with that attained by some force of personal character, or acquired by some individual excellence of mind and heart? How splendid a thing it would be if some best orator could have the ear of the youth of the land long enough to thunder into it the necessity of correct standards for social life. When will the day come in which we shall pitch by those that aspire to personal effort, that speak of personal worth, that rightly represent essential character? Not till then will young men cease to court those whose only attractions are their giddiness and their fathers gold. Until then will young women continue to open their parlors, and unbolt their hearts to men who, relying upon the influence of a monied and virtuous ancestry, have before your very eyes, trampled a sisters virtue under foot and in fiendish leer laughed at the wreck. I doubt if there be a fact of social life that gives such pain to the noblest among us, as the indisputable evidence that for familys sake some such men are now permitted to stain the social circles of this city. Oh, would God that all knew and would practice the rules which Gresley put into words: Reject the society of the vicious; shun the agreeable infidel and the accomplished profligate; lay it down as a fixed rule that no brilliancy of connection, no allurement of rank or fashion shall tempt you to associate with profligate or openly irreligious men! If you do fall into their vices, such it is, your heart will be estranged from virtue and the love of God. You are to pitch by your own social standard. How important then that you make your own the right one!<\/p>\n

But as already intimated, standards affect other phases of life quite as much as they do its social side.<\/p>\n

<\/span>THEY ARE HELPERS AND HINDERERS TO INTELLECTUAL PROGRESS.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here again it is necessary to distinguish between the true and the false, the higher and the lower, the nobler and the more debased. The young, if left without direction, are peculiarly apt to make fatal blunder at this point. There are not a few people who wait not till the bud of youth has fully blossomed ere they have fixed their intellectual fate.<\/p>\n

Our indolence is too often an overmatch for our ambition, and our ease-seeking natures readily fall in with the debasing suggestion that we are incapable of the largest learning and should school ourselves into contentment with mediocre attainments. Every man who decides upon such a standard has most narrowly circumscribed his literary and scientific horizon. It may have been the superior wisdom of Socrates that led him to affirm his ignorance repeatedly. But often it is only the superior blindness, or the splendid laziness of young men and women that convinces them that the larger learning and richer culture are beyond their ken.<\/p>\n

I have sometimes thought, however, that certain older people were in part to blame for this meager estimate that the young too often put upon their own mental and spiritual powers. We are ready enough to detect in our juniors the first evidence of egotism, the slightest indication of an over-ambition. We are ready enough to reprove the one and repress the other. We are all too slow to feel the pulse of a larger hope, the throb of loftiest aspiration that may be, yes often is, thrilling through the young life. It is not an unusual thing to hear parents and other elders call the children upstarts, and remind them of their oversmartness. Such compliments as would excite their faith in self, encourage them to the largest expectation, and stimulate them to best endeavor, are only too seldom heard. But a little while ago, I read a short comment upon Longfellows first poem. The writer said of it, It was the realization of an early dream.<\/p>\n

When a mere boy, Longfellow wrote from his boarding school, asking of the fond mother if she did not think that he might one day write books which would be read all over the land? What answer that mother gave her boys question, the author of this scrip did not say; perchance we shall never know. I imagine, however, that could the mothers letter be found, its every line would sparkle with the wisest counsel, and appear almost swollen with the bigness of hope for her talented son. None should be surprised that Guizots children were ambitious and talented, when they learn how well he understood their young lives, how thoroughly he sympathized with their early aspirations, and how kindly he touched and tended their loftiest hopes and sentiments. Not one of them but was worthy of such a father. The boy of his heart, his first-born son, had not death snatched him when just budding to manhood, promised to equal, if indeed he had not outstripped his illustrious sire. It was to that boy, as a contestant for one of the University prizes, that Guizot wrote: Our destiny consists of two parts: The one is hidden from us and God settles it according to His will; the other depends upon ourselves, and this is the only one which we ought to trouble ourselves about. * * You are right to be ambitious. Ambition is one of the best of youthful passions. It is a wish for distinction, unalloyed by any of the bad feelings which are often mixed with it in later life. One is sometimes too ambitious at forty, but never at twenty. I call that the lifting of a lofty standard, and a most sensible way of stimulating the boy to choose it as his own, pitch by it and prove himself worthy of it.<\/p>\n

It was Sir Wm. Hamilton, was it not, who gave us that striking sentence? In the world there is nothing great but man; in man there is nothing great but mind. Then how dare we neglect this noblest part of self; how can we allow, much less assist, our loved ones to be guilty of the same? Young men and women, let me speak freely to you! If we do not grow in mind, become cultured, keen in intellect, broad in judgment and wide in learning, the fault will most often be with our ignoble efforts, not with our more capable natures. Pitch by the standard of hope, stand under the flag of self-help, and by the grace of God, make the most of life on the intellectual side.<\/p>\n

There is another theory, somewhat popular today, which deserves to be exploded. I refer to the notion that to educate boys is to render them effeminate and unfit them for the more manly duties of life. This notion accounts in part for the unequal state of things now existing in this and other cities of the land. Our public schools, high schools and academies are filled with girls and young ladies, whilst the boys and young men are found following business pursuits. Fathers who have adopted this plan of education for their children, attempt to justify their action by affirming that, aside from the importance of remuneration, the boys are getting the most practical learning. We do not charge that there is any want of sincerity in this plea, but are soundly convinced that it is faulty and hurtful in the extreme. It is that theory which has circumscribed many a more capable life to the narrow limits of a dingy shop, restricted personal influence to the small circle of fellow-laborers, tied and tethered its victim to the lowest rung of the intellectual ladder. With a false premise no right conclusion is reached, and when your theory of life is wrong, its out-working is apt to tell the tale. Against the soundness of this theory Henry Ward Beecher once hurled such facts of history as left it tottering if not utterly demolished. He says, When you show me a man who has been cultured, you ought to show; me a man who is better built to meet the contingencies of life than any that are uncultured. He reminds us of our experience in the late war with these different classes. We expected the rude swain, who had known only coarseness, to make the better soldier, and resist the hardships of the campaign more easily than the college-bred and the sons of wealth and refinement. But the facts as noted were, that for endurance of hardships, efficiency of service, adaptation to the camp-life and the survival of suffering and wounds, the brain power was the preservative, and mental resources far outweighed muscular strength. He also cites the history of the French Revolution, and reminds us that the nobility bore their exile and wanderings more nobly and were far more self-helpful than the common peasantry and the lower ranks. Neither does he let us forget the trials of Kossuth and his noble band after the Hungarian expulsion. He pertinently remarks of them, No equal number of men ever justified culture more, by adapting themselves to their circumstances, and without complaint or repining, meeting the hardships of their changed methods of livelihood.<\/p>\n

We cannot all know equal ambition; we will not all follow like studies; we should not all end at the same goal; but every one should be impressed that in intellectual life, his standard is his strength, and whilst pitching by his own, purpose to carry, it with advancing step.<\/p>\n

But our first suggestion will not be complete in statement until this one is added:<\/p>\n

<\/span>STANDARDS ARE THE FRIENDS AND FOES OF RELIGION.<\/strong><\/p>\n

That Christianity has often been impeded by false standards is as certain as that its truth is capable of wrong and even hurtful interpretation. But that its strong staff of truth and its crimson flag of atonement have furnished at once a rallying point and an inspiration to the faithful hosts, none can deny. Dr. Cuyler, in a late article, shows at once the beauty and the necessity of raising our standards of religion, instead of lowering them, as too many have done and are doing. But the religious decision is the first needful step. When Joshua stood before Israel and delivered a discourse, which reached its climax in the sentence, Choose you this day whom ye will serve, he declared an absolute necessity. As between the standards of good and evil, God and the devil, every man must choose. No feet are swift enough to do service under both banners; no arms strong enough to bring these standards into a common compass, and no soul is great enough to pay tribute to each. It was said of Jesus that he taught as one having authority and not as the scribes. There was no faltering in his speech, no uncertainty of sound or meaning. Yet in what words of His find you a more emphatic ring than in these? No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon. Take your standard and pitch by it; you must be godly or godless. There are but two states in all the universe.<\/p>\n

To decide for God and holiness is to settle upon the standard most important, and yet there remains to be made another choice of considerable consequence. I refer to church connection or denominational faith<\/strong>. We cannot be glad that our too meager knowledge of the truth, our poorer interpretations, our prejudices and petty preferences have divided our common Christian faith into many sects. But, on the other hand, it is well to remember that there is such a thing as a denominational psychology. So long as men continue to be born apart, bred differently, and enjoy independent thought, it is a good thing to have several standards so that every man may pitch by his own. Not by the one that he has a prejudice for, but by the one which he believes to be nearest the New Testament model. The story is told that an English gentleman, meeting his neighbors coachman on Monday morning, found him indulging a very positive smile. Well, John, said he, what has happened to make you look so pleasant today? Why, sir, what do you think? We are a pretty lot at our house, that we are. I started out with five of us in the old carriage yesterday morning. First of all, I drove the young mistress to the church, and then old master to the Wesleyans; next I took young master to the Romans, my wife went to the Ranters, and when I had put up the horse, I took a turn myself with the Calvinists. Somebody says, That is just it; that is what troubles me! There are so many divisions among those who own one Lord and read a common Bible that I consider myself as well off to let them alone.<\/p>\n

Many a husband, godless by preference, has employed this argument against a wifes tender entreaties for the church. Many a son has met and opposed parental concern with this plea. This argument is self-defeating, the plea its own contradiction. The man who rejects Christ Himself because His followers are gathered beneath many standards, adds to existing divisions a new one, and one most radically removed from the measure of truth. If he claims to accept Christ and yet refuses to identify himself with any body of His people, he either admits an inability to form an opinion, or else the want of courage to act that opinion out. This case is not unlike that of the Romish Priest who came to a Protestant Bible society meeting and said: Now, gentlemen, here you are telling us that we should take the Bible for our guide and join you. Which one of you pray? Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian or Quaker? All of you claim to be the best and how shall I decide? An Irishman present responded, I can answer the gentleman: Believe on Christ, take His Word as your guide, join any one of us, and you will be a vast deal better than you are. Yes, the man who believes on Christ and takes His Word as a guide will find a standard which, if pitched by, will make him a vast deal better than he was.<\/p>\n

But when once we have pitched by a standard we ought to stay by it. You are westward sufficiently far to understand me when I say: There are too many squatters in the churchespeople who pitch by the Baptist standard today, who will be professing allegiance to the Methodist standard tomorrow, and who next-day will be seeking a place beneath the flag of Presbyterianism. I dont know how any could have more admiration for the man who changes standards for the sake of truth than I do. But I confess that I feel a mingled pity and contempt for those who tramp from church to church and never do any good anywhere. Cant you decide on a standard and pitch by it, or will you so act as to secure a name among those who are ever learning, yet never coming to a knowledge of the truth? I hold up today, as infinitely above all, the standard of Christs righteousness; I point to the banner colored with His atoning Blood; I unfold the flag whereon is inscribed the word of His infinite love! Oh, men and women, dying without the camp, will you not rally to this standard and make it your own? Will you not pitch beneath this flag and be forever safe from sin and death, to engage in the sweet service of our loving Lord?<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2<\/strong>. <\/strong> Every man standard <\/strong> See Num 1:52<\/span>, note. <\/p>\n

Ensign <\/strong> There were banners for the subdivisions of the tribes as well as for the tribe. It would be difficult for every man to see the tribal ensign, hence smaller groups were marked by their own banners. How the ensign ( Hebrews, oth<\/em>) differs from the standard (Hebrews, degel<\/em>) we know not. It was probably smaller. “As the Israelites were commanded to encamp, ‘each by his own standard, with the ensign of their father’s house,’ the direction has been considered as implying that they possessed three varieties 1,) the great tribal standards; 2,) the ensigns of the subdivisions; 3,) those of families or houses.” JAMIESON. <\/p>\n

Far off <\/strong> Rather, opposite <\/em> to the tabernacle on all sides, thus making a hollow square, with the sacred tent in the centre.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Num 2:2<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> The tribes being mustered, registered, and formed into distinct troops; the next order given to Moses and Aaron is about the regular form of their encampments. Their general camp is appointed to be in the form of an oblong square, of twelve miles in compass, according to the Jews; each side to consist of the united bodies of three tribes, nearest related in blood to each other, to pitch at such a distance from the tabernacle, which stood in the midst of them, as might bespeak their reverence to that sacred place, and make their whole camp a general fence and guard to it. This distance was about 2000 cubits, as is inferred from Jos 3:4<\/span> and was left for the priests and Levites to pitch their tents within, next to the tabernacle: the two strongest bodies, those of Judah and Dan, were to march in front and rear; the standard, <\/em>by which they were to pitch, <\/em>is thought by some to have been the common banner, under which every three tribes were united: besides which, each tribe seems to have had a separate ensign, <\/em>in the nature of our colours. How these standards were distinguished, is uncertain. The learned Dr. Gregory Sharpe quotes Aben Ezra in testimony of his opinion, that the four cherubic animals formed the four standards of Israel. “There were figures in each standard,” says Aben Ezra; “and our ancients said, that, in the standard of Reuben, <\/em>there was the figure of a man; <\/em>which they argue from the mandrakes: in the standard of Judah <\/em>was the figure of a lion, <\/em>to which Jacob his father has compared him: in the standard of Ephraim, <\/em>the figure of a bullock; <\/em>from the text, his glory is like the firstling of his bullock: <\/em>and in the standard of Dan, <\/em>there was the figure of an eagle; <\/em>in order that they should be like the cherubim seen afterwards by the prophet Ezekiel.” See the Rise and Fall of Jerusalem, p. 34. The Jews tell us further, that in the midst of Judah’s standard was inscribed, in large characters, Let Jehovah arise, and his enemies shall fly before him: <\/em>and to the same purpose in the other standards. The best comment on this subject, will be an inspection of Lamy’s print of the camp of the Israelites, to which we refer the reader: as also to book 1 Chronicles 7<\/span> sect. 6 of the Universal History. Dr. Beaumont upon this verse observes, that, “according to the manner of this encamping, the Christian church is described, Rev 4:4<\/span>; Rev 4:11<\/span> as a throne in the midst; and the temple is God’s throne, Eze 43:4-7<\/span>. The elders are double the number of these tribes here encamping, because the church is increased, Isa 54:2<\/span>. Between the throne and the circuit about it, are four living creatures, the ministers and watchmen of the church; as here the Levites in four quarters: Thus, the church, <\/em>are those who are round about the Lord; <\/em>Psa 76:11<\/span>.” <\/p>\n

REFLECTIONS.<\/strong>Order in their march and encampments is here prescribed. They were a military body, moving to the promised land. God’s Israel, like them, are fighting the good fight of faith, and waiting to change the tabernacle of the body for the city of God. Each tribe was encamped under the ensign of his squadron; and each man posted under his own standard, among his own relations. Thus mutual love would be cultivated, and mutual assistance be given.Each squadron had a different ensign, but all served in the same cause. The different denominations of real christians, though their standards differ, are engaged in the same warfare. The tabernacle was in the centre: for God is the strength of his Israel; their courage and success is from him. And each of their camps at a respectful distance; not so near, as to disturb the solemn service; nor so distant, as to make their attendance inconvenient. Note; <\/em>Our wilderness-state is short: yet a little while, and we shall encamp around the throne of God in glory; and Jesus, the captain of our salvation, will spread over us the banner of his everlasting love. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

“Handfuls of Purpose”<\/p>\n

For All Gleaners<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Every man… shall pitch by his own standard!” <\/em> Num 2:2<\/p>\n

Order is necessary to success. Men cannot be allowed to run from standard to standard. Obedience to this precept would reconstruct the Christian army. There is a natural fondness in the human heart in the matter of changing standards. Such changing represents action without progress. It is to be especially noticed that there is a standard for every man. Individuality is the gift of God. Individuality does not destroy the social bond; while contributing to its strength it adds much to its variety. Denominationalism in the Church has its uses. As no one standard is the army, so no one denomination is the Church.<\/p>\n

There is a psychology of denominationalism. Moral or intellectual constitution renders it impossible that all men should be content with the same ecclesiastical conditions. Every temperament has its own standard. No man should say that another is not in the army because he does not belong to some particular standard. Loose-mindedness which supposes that it is a matter of indifference as to whether any special standard should be chosen is strongly discouraged by the spirit of this text. Observe, every man is not called upon to direct the army. Some men have simply to pitch by their standard, and wait for orders. “Blessed is that servant who, when his Lord cometh, shall be found watching.” “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.” Enemies of Christ are sometimes bolder in the avowal of their standard, than his friends. Boldness in the faith when regulated by intelligence and chastened by patience is a sign of progress in the highest life.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Num 2:2 Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of their father’s house: far off about the tabernacle of the congregation shall they pitch.<\/p>\n

Ver. 2. Far off about the tabernacle.<\/strong> ] About it: the emperor’s tent is among his soldiers. Xerxes pitched his tent not only among, but above his soldiers, that he might look on them, when in fight, for their encouragement. So the Lord, who, as he “is round about his people”: Psa 125:2 so they are “round about the Lord.” Psa 76:12 “A people near unto him.” Psa 148:14 Yet not so near, but they must know, and keep their just distance; as here they pitched far off, about the tabernacle, a mile off, as is gathered from Jos 3:4<\/span> . God, though he loves to be acquainted with men in the walks of their obedience, yet he takes state upon him in his ordinances, and will be trembled at in our addresses to his Majesty.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

man. Hebrew. ‘ish. See App-14. <\/p>\n

children = sons. See note on Num 1:2. <\/p>\n

pitch = encamp. <\/p>\n

standard. Hebrew. degel. <\/p>\n

ensign. Each standard is said to have had as its “sign” one of the twelve constellations (see note on Gen 1:16, and App-12. Hebrew. ‘oth) depicted on it. One standard, with its sign on it for each tribe. Hence called “ensign”. See notes on the tribes below, from the Targum of Jonathan. <\/p>\n

far off = over against. Same as Psa 38:12, yet so as to be in view. Compare 2Ki 2:7. Deu 32:52. Gen 21:16. <\/p>\n

tabernacle = tent. Hebrew. ‘ohel. See App-40. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Every man: The Israelites, it appears, encamped in four grand divisions, with the tabernacle in the centre; though at some distance from it. The form of the camp was quadrangular, containing, according to Scheuchzer, a little more than twelve square miles. Under each of the four divisions, three tribes were placed, under one general standard. Between these four great camps and the tabernacle, were pitched four smaller camps of the priests and Levites, who were in immediate attendance upon it; the camp of Moses, and of Aaron and his sons, being on the east side of the tabernacle, where the entrance was. Judah was placed on the east, and under him he had Issachar and Zebulun; on the south was Reuben, and under him Simeon and Gad; on the west was Ephraim, and under him Manasseh and Benjamin; and Dan was on the north, and under him Asher and Naphtali. Every tribe had its particular standard, probably with the name of the tribe embroidered with large letters. It seems highly improbable that the figures of animals should have been painted on them, as the Jewish writers assert; for even in after ages, when Vitellius wished to march through Judea, their great men besought him to march another way, as the law of the land did not permit images – such as were on the Roman standardto be brought into it. Josephus Ant. 1. xviii. c. 5 sec. 3. <\/p>\n

shall pitch: Num 2:3, Num 2:10, Num 1:52, Num 10:14, Num 10:18, Num 10:22, Num 10:25 <\/p>\n

the ensign: Isa 11:10-12, Isa 18:3, Zec 9:16 <\/p>\n

far off: Heb. over against, Jos 3:4 <\/p>\n

about the: Num 1:50, Num 1:53, Psa 76:11, Isa 12:6, Eze 43:7, 1Co 14:33, 1Co 14:40, Phi 1:27, Col 2:19, Rev 4:2-5 <\/p>\n

Reciprocal: Num 2:34 – so they Num 24:2 – abiding Rev 4:7 – the first beast Rev 21:12 – and names<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Num 2:2. His own standard It is manifest there were four great standards or ensigns, which here follow, distinguished by their colours or figures; also there were other particular ensigns belonging to each of their fathers houses or families. Far off Partly out of reverence to God and his worship, and the portion allotted to it, and partly for caution, lest their vicinity to it might tempt them to make too near approaches to it. It is supposed they were at two thousand cubits distance from it, which was the space between the people and the ark; and it is not improbable, because the Levites encamped round about it, between them and the tabernacle. It is observable, those tribes were placed together, that were nearest of kin to each other. Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun were the three youngest sons of Leah, and Issachar and Zebulun would not grudge to be under Judah, their elder brother. Reuben and Simeon would not be content with their place. Therefore Reuben, Jacobs eldest son, is chief of the next squadron.<\/p>\n

Simeon doubtless is willing to be under him. And Gad, the son of Leahs handmaid, is fitly added to him, in Levis room. Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, are all the posterity of Rachel. Dan, the eldest son of Bilhah, leads the rest; to them are added the two younger sons of the handmaids. So much of the wisdom of God appears even in these smaller circumstances!<\/p>\n

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2:2 {a} Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of their father’s house: far off about the tabernacle of the congregation shall they pitch.<\/p>\n

(a) In the twelve tribes were four principle standards, so that every three tribes had their standard.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of their father’s house: far off about the tabernacle of the congregation shall they pitch. 2. Each tribe has a (?) standard; and each family has an ensign, or more strictly a sign, which may imply any kind of … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 2:2”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3669","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3669","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3669"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3669\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3669"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3669"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3669"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}