The Pulpit Commentary
In the first month of the second year. Before the census, and all the other events recorded in this hook, except in part the offerings of the princes (see Num_7:1). There was, however, an obvious reason for mentioning together the two passovers, the second of which immediately preceded the departure from Sinai.

The Pulpit Commentary
Let the children of Israel also keep the passover at his appointed season. Septuagint, ποιείτωσαν τὸ πάσχα. Cf. Mat_26:18, ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα, and Luk_22:19, τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. They may have been in doubt as to whether they were to keep it in the wilderness, and indeed they do not seem to have attempted to keep it again until they reached the promised land (see on Jos_5:5, Jos_5:6). The passover had indeed been made an "ordinance for ever," but only when they were come to the land which the Lord should give them (Exo_12:24, Exo_12:25; Exo_13:5). Apart, therefore, from express command, it would have been doubtful whether the feast should not at least he postponed. Inasmuch, however, as they had been detained at Sinai by Divine direction (albeit partly in consequence of their own idolatry, but for which they might already have been "at home"), it pleased God that they should not lack the blessing and support of the passover at its proper season.

The Pulpit Commentary
At even. See on Exo_12:6. According to all the rites of it, and according to all the ceremonies thereof. This must be understood only of the essential rites and ceremonies of the passover, as mentioned below (Exo_12:11, Exo_12:12). It is singular that no mention is made of the considerable departure which circumstances necessitated from the original institution. It was not possible, e.g; to strike the blood of the lamb upon the lintel and the side-posts of the doors, because in the wilderness they had no doors. In after ages this rite (which was of the essence of the institution) was represented by the sprinkling of the blood of the lambs on the altar (2Ch_30:16), but no command is on record which expressly authorized the change. In Le Exo_17:3-6 there is indeed a general direction, applying apparently to all domestic animals slain for food, that they be brought to the tabernacle to be slain, and that the priest sprinkle the blood upon the altar; and in Deu_16:5-7 there is an order that in future times the passover was only to he slain at the place which the Lord should choose. The actual practice in later ages seems to have been founded partly upon the command in Deuteronomy, which restricted the killing of the passover to Jerusalem (not, however, to the temple), and partly on the command in Leviticus, which really applied (at any rate in the letter) to the time of wandering only. As the celebration of the paschal feast had apparently been neglected from the time of Joshua until that of the later kings (Jos_5:10; 2Ki_23:22), they were no doubt guided in the observance of it by the analogy of other sacrifices in the absence of express commands. It would, however, be an obvious source of error to assume that the practice of the age of Josiah or Hezekiah was the practice of the earliest passovers; so far as these necessarily differed from the original institution, it is absolutely uncertain how the difficulty was solved. Nothing perhaps better illustrates the mingled rigidity and elasticity of the Divine ordinances than the observance of the passover, in which so much of changed detail was united with so real and so unvarying a uniformity.

The Pulpit Commentary
And they kept the passover. It is a question which inevitably arises here, how they obtained a sufficient number of lambs for the requirement of so many people, and how they were slain sacrificially within the appointed time. The first difficulty does not seem serious when we consider,

(1) that kids were available as well as lambs (see on Exo_12:3);

(2) that the desert tribes would have abundance of lambs and kids for sale at this season, and that the Israelites certainly had money;

(3) that in view of their speedy departure they would be disposed to kill off the young of their own flocks. The second difficulty is more serious, and would be insurmountable if we had to believe that the ritual of this passover was the same which afterwards prevailed. Josephus tells us (‘Bell. Jud.,' 6.9, 3) that in his day 256,000 Iambs were slain and their blood sprinkled upon the altar within the three hours "between the evenings." At that time, according to the same authority, a lamb was shared by ten, and often by as many as twenty people. The number of males who would partake of the paschal meal in the wilderness may be set down as not more than 800,000. If the women partook of it at all (which is very doubtful; cf. Exo_12:44, Exo_12:48), they would doubtless content themselves with the scraps left by the men. Allowing twenty souls to each lamb, the number required would be not more than 40,000. It is obvious at once that the three priests could not possibly kill 40,000 lambs in three hours, much less sprinkle their blood upon the altar; indeed the same may be said for 10,000, or even 5000, especially as they could not have acquired the extreme dexterity and dispatch which long practice taught to the later priests. Nor is it satisfactory to reply that the priests did the work "out of the hand of the Levites ‘ (2Ch_30:16),

(1) because this passover took place before the Levites were formally separated for the service of God and of the priests (see Num_8:22);

(2) because the smallness of the space about the altar would not allow of many people assisting;

(3) because the actual slaying and sprinkling, which was restricted to the priests (being distinctively sacrificial in nature), are the very things which we find impossible in the time. There are but two alternative conclusions, from one or other of which there is no honest escape: either

(a) the numbers of the people are greatly exaggerated, or

(b) the ritual of after days was not observed on this occasion.

As to (a), see what is said on the whole question of numbers in the Introduction. As to (b), it must be borne in mind that no direction whatever had been given, as far as we know, either that the lambs must be slain by the priests only, or that their blood must be poured upon the altar. If the Jews were left to follow the original institution as nearly as possible, they would have killed the lambs themselves, and sprinkled the blood around the doors of their tents. It is true that according to the Levitical ritual, now recently put into use, all other animals slain in sacrifice (or indeed for food) must be slain at the tabernacle by the priest, and the blood sprinkled on the altar; and it is true that this general rule was afterwards held especially binding in the case of the passover. But there is nothing to show that it was held binding then: the passover had been ordained before the establishment of the Levitical priesthood and law of sacrifice; and it might very well have been considered that it retained its primal character unaffected by subsequent legislation, and that the priesthood of the people (in other rites transferred to Aaron and his sons) was recalled and revived in the case of this special rite. If this was the case both at this passover and at that under Joshua, it is easy enough to understand why the later practice was so entirely different; the neglect or disuse of centuries obliterated the tradition of the passover, and when it was revived by the later kings, they naturally followed the analogy of all other sacrifices, and the apparently express command of Le Jos_17:3-6. They could not indeed obey this command in their daily life, but they could and did obey it in the striking and typical case of the paschal feast.

The Pulpit Commentary
There were certain men. It has been supposed by many that these men must have been Mishael and Elizaphan, who had recently (cf. Exo_40:17; Le Exo_9:1; Exo_10:4) been defiled by burying their cousins Nadab and Abihu. This, however, is based upon the assumption that the totals given in Exo_38:26 and in Num_1:46 are really independent, and that therefore no one belonging to any other tribe than that of Levi had died in the interval. As that assumption is untenable (see above on Num_1:46), so this "coincidence" falls to the ground. We know indeed that Mishael and Elizaphan were defiled at this time, and we do not know that any one else was; but, on the other hand, the words "the dead body of a man" seem to point to a single corpse only. Dead body. Hebrew, nephesh, as in Num_5:2; Num_6:11, and other places. It is inexplicable how this word, which properly means "soul," should have come to be used of a corpse; perhaps it is an additional testimony to the complete absence from Jewish teaching of any doctrine of an immortal spirit. The Septuagint uses ψύχη here.

The Pulpit Commentary
Wherefore are we kept back. The direction to remove from the camp all that were defiled by the dead (Num_5:2) had not apparently been given at this time, nor was there any express command that such should not partake of the passover, for Le Num_7:20 may probably refer only to such uncleannesses as are mentioned in Le Num_15:3; but that men were in fact considered as defiled by contact with the dead is clear from Le Num_21:1. The men, therefore, had reason for asking why they were excommunicated, and Moses for referring the matter to the Divine decision.

The Pulpit Commentary
If any man of you or of your posterity. The particular case of these men is made the occasion for a general provision for all succeeding times. Shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey. It is somewhat strange that these two cases only were provided for: a man otherwise unclean (as, e.g; in the case described Le Num_15:13), even if actually recovered, was unable to take advantage of the little passover. Probably the real reason of it is to be found in this, that both the far journey and' the burial of the dead would presumably be works of charity. Afar off. This word, hsilgnE:egaugnaLרְחֹקָה}, is one of ten in the Pentateuch distinguished in the Hebrew Bibles with puncta extraordinaria, for some unknown and probably trifling reasons. The Rabbins ruled that it meant a distance of fifteen miles or more from the temple at sunrise of the fourteenth of Abib.

The Pulpit Commentary
The fourteenth day of the second month. The interval gave ample time to return from any ordinary journey, or to be purified from pollution of death. It was in the spirit of this command, though not in the letter of it, that Hezekiah acted (2Ch_30:2). And possibly it was in the spirit of this command that our Lord acted when he ate the passover by anticipation with his disciples twenty-four hours before the proper time—at which time he was himself to be the Lamb slain. With unleavened bread and bitter herbs. These and the following directions are expressly added for fear lest any should think that the little passover might be celebrated with less solemnity and with less carefulness than the great passover.

The Pulpit Commentary
According to all the ordinances of the passover. The later Jews held that this passover need only be kept for one day, and that leaven need not be put away from the house. But this was a clear departure from the original rule, for it was evidently intended that it should be in all respects a true passover, and in this case six clear days were allowed for the keeping of it (see on Num_10:11).

The Pulpit Commentary
But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey. This threat was added no doubt in order to prevent men from taking advantage of the permission to keep a supplemental passover in order to suit their own convenience or interest. Only two reasons could absolve a man from the absolute necessity of keeping the passover at the due season, and these reasons must be bona fide, and not pretended. Because he brought not the offering of the Lord. In the original institution the paschal lamb did not appear distinctly in the character of an offering made to God, although undoubtedly it was such. It was rather the eating of the lamb that was insisted upon, as placing the partaker in communion with the God and Church of Israel, and so in a state of salvation. But after the law of sacrifices had been elaborated, then the paschal lamb, though prior to them all, naturally took its place amongst them as the greatest of them all, and as uniting in itself the special beauties of all.

The Pulpit Commentary
Ye shall have one ordinance. This is repeated from Exo_12:49 as a further warning not to tamper more than absolute necessity required with the unity, either in time or in circumstance, of the great national rite.

THE SIGNALS OF GOD (Num_9:15-23).

The Pulpit Commentary
On the day that the tabernacle was reared up. Here we are sent back again to the great day of Israel's sojourn at Sinai, when God took visible possession of his dwelling in the midst of them (Exo_40:34). Everything after that was but preparatory to the approaching departure, and therefore is narrated not in any order of time, but either as it referred back to the first day of the first month, or forward to the twentieth day of the second month. The cloud covered the tabernacle, namely, the tent of the testimony. The testimony was the decalogue written on the two tables of stone, and enshrined within the ark, the moral law which lay at the heart of Judaism. The tent of the testimony was the holy of holies in which the ark dwelt (see on Num_10:11; Num_18:2). The exact meaning of the words מִשְׁכָּז לְאֹהֶל הָעֵדֻח is disputed, or the rather significance of the לְ with which the phrase "tent of the testimony" is appended to the word "tabernacle" (dwelling). Some take it as equivalent in construction to the genitive, "the dwelling of the tent of the testimony;" in which case it would simply mean that the cloud covered the whole tabernacle, the mishcan which enveloped and enclosed the ohel, which again enshrined the ark and the testimony. Others take לְ here in the sense of "at" or "towards," and read, "covered the dwelling, towards the tent of the testimony," i.e; over that part of it in which the testimony was kept. Apart from the strict grammatical question, the comparison of other passages cited (especially Exo_40:34) seems in favour of the first interpretation, and so apparently the Septuagint and the Targums.

The Pulpit Commentary
So it was alway. This supernatural phenomenon was not transitory, like the glory-cloud within the tabernacle (Exo_40:35; cf. 1Ki_8:10), but permanent, as long at least as the Israelites were in the wilderness.

The Pulpit Commentary
When the cloud was taken up. This verse and the following to the end of the chapter are an amplification of Exo_40:36-38 (cf. Exo_13:21, Exo_13:22; Neh_9:12; Psa_78:14). It would appear from Exo_13:21 that there was nothing new in the fact of the cloudy fiery pillar directing the movements of the host, but only in the fact of its resting on the tabernacle when in repose. In the place where the cloud abode, or "came down." שָׁכַז. As the tabernacle was taken all to pieces, and its portions widely separated on the march, the cloud could not rest upon it as a signal for halting. We must probably picture to ourselves the cloud rising to some considerable height when it was "taken up," so as to be visible for a great distance, and as settling down again over the spot where the tabernacle was to be set up. In this way the signals given by the cloud would be immediately perceived by a vast multitude.

The Pulpit Commentary
Tarried long. Hebrew, אָרַךְ, "to prolong," i.e; the resting. The Septuagint has ἐφέλκηται … ἡμέρας πλείους.

The Pulpit Commentary
And so it was. Rather, "did it happen that." וְיֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר hypothetical clause introducing several other cases which actually occurred, and by which their perfect obedience was proved.

The Pulpit Commentary
From even unto the morning. Allowing but a single night's rest.

The Pulpit Commentary
Or a year. Rather, "days" (yamin): an undefined period (Gen_4:3; Gen_40:4), often equivalent to a year (Le 25:29). It is not known whether or on what occasion the Israelites actually remained in camp for a year. But it is evident that this passage must have been written after the wanderings were over, because it is a kind of retrospect of the whole period as regards one important feature of it. It may of course have been added here by the hand of Moses on the eve of entry upon the promised land: or it may have been added by a later hand, perhaps that of Ezra when he revised these books (see the Introduction).