Numbers is Number Four Trivia Quiz

Answer: 20

Numbers 1:44-46 in the New American Standard Bible reads:
"These are the ones who were numbered, whom Moses and Aaron numbered, with the leaders of Israel, twelve men, each of whom was of his father's household. So all the numbered men of the sons of Israel by their fathers' households, from twenty years old and upward, whoever was able to go out to war in Israel, even all the numbered men were 603,550."

Interestingly enough, Jewish tradition suggests that a boy becomes a man when he turns 13 years old. However, regardless of whether 13 is the beginning of adulthood or not, the LORD clearly didn't consider the males mature enough to fight in wars until they were at least 20. I actually find this really interesting. As an American, I honestly think that the Bible has a better idea regarding the age of sending people to war than my country does (the American age is 18).

Numbers 1 goes on to say that the LORD exempted the Levites from being in the army or being numbered because He gave them the special responsibility of caring for His tabernacle.

Question submitted by Ceduh

Answer: Nadab

His other sons were, in order from oldest to youngest: Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.

We later learn in Numbers 3:4 that Aaron's oldest sons, Nadab and Abihu, died because they offered "a strange fire". The Bible (King James Version) also says that they were childless.

Question submitted by ilona_ritter

Answer: Census data: the number of men of a certain age

The title "Numbers" refers to two censuses. In Chapter 1 of the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, the Lord directs Moses to count the number of men of age 20 or greater, as the Israelites start their journey to the Promised Land. The second survey account occurs in Chapter 26, as the Lord tells Moses and Eleazar to count the new generation, 38 years later. The numbers were of men who were age 20 and over, and the census would reflect the fighting strength of the Israelite army. The results were 601,730 and 603,550 men respectively, according to "Atozmom's Blog" which cites the census numbers of each tribe of Israel and the totals. Atozmom points out how close the two numbers were. He comments that God had replaced the body of Israelites in those years, as the human body replaces cells over the years. I reflect that God now had a new body of chosen people, with the same history and ancestry. They would move more certainly toward the Promised Land than the former body did, with Joshua leading and God directing.

Question submitted by Allison03

Answer: The Levites

The Levites were the priests, which is why they were in charge of the tabernacle. Aaron, Moses's brother, was a Levite. The Levites descended from Levi, one of Jacob's sons. According to Numbers 18:3, the Levites had no inheritance of land. This was because, as priests, they were spread out among the other tribes.

Question submitted by ilona_ritter

Answer: The 14th day of the second month

This regulation is found in Numbers 9, verse 6 and following. Verse 11 states "In the second month on the fourteenth day at twilight they shall keep it" (English Standard Version, ESV).

The 15th day of the first month is the start of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the 1st day of the seventh month is the Feast of Trumpets and the 10th day of the seventh month is the most solemn day of all in the Jewish calendar - the Day of Atonement, or Yom Kippur.

All these dates can be found in Leviticus 23.

Question submitted by Watchkeeper

Answer: Me

Although any of these options would be reasonable, the correct answer has to be "Me" because that is what the text actually says.

Numbers 22:22 states, "But God was angry because he [Balaam] was going, and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the way as an adversary against him." Notice how God was the one who was angry and then the "angel" of the LORD said that Balaam's actions were against "me," implying that the messenger was a human appearance or manifestation of God. This is the same messenger who appeared to Moses inside the burning bush and said "I am who I am" (see Exodus 3). Some Christian theologians believe that the angel of the LORD--in Hebrew, the messenger of Yahweh--was Jesus. Jesus clearly said that nobody ever saw the Father (see John 6:46), so logically, every visible appearance of God was the Son/Word and NOT the Father. Please note that the identification of Jesus as the Lord's angel by no means implies that Jesus was a created being. It actually affirms His deity because, like already said, God seemed to appear in human form in the Old Testament as His angel/messenger.

I love how He told Balaam that He would have killed him and let the donkey live, right after the abusive Balaam said that he would have killed her! Take that, Balaam! See Numbers chapter 22, verses 22-41 for more details.

More notes, in case anyone is unaware: Usually when "LORD" is in all caps like this, it has nothing to do with screaming on the Internet or even emphasis. Most English Bibles spell the word like that as an English version of His Hebrew name, "YHWH" ("Yahweh"). Typically when "Lord" is used, it is an English translation of a different name for God, "Adonai". However, I have noticed that not everbody spells "LORD" in all caps, so therefore, "Lord" and "LORD" can sometimes refer to the same name. At any rate, God is still God, whether you call Him "Elohim" (God), "Yahweh" (LORD) or "Adonai" (Lord).

Question submitted by Ceduh

Answer: A bronze snake

In John 3:14, Jesus said "Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up" (International Standard Version (ISV), this time). In the New International Version (NIV) Bible, it was called a snake. Moses did not lift a staff or tablets or an urn in Numbers 21. From ISV: "So Moses made a bronze serpent and fastened it to a pole. If a person who had been bitten by a poisonous serpent looked to the serpent, he lived." The quote from John 3:14 was a reference to the manner of death that the Son of Man, as Jesus referred to Himself, would experience. He would be lifted up on the cross, and executed via crucifixion. This comparison bothered me for years - how can Jesus be compared to a serpent? I understood the parallels: Lifted on a cross vs. lifted on a pole. The Israelites sinned and were bitten by snakes; some New Testament Israelites at Jesus' time sinned and were infected by evil. The bitten person had to look up to the bronze serpent to be saved; the sinful person had to look up to God to be saved. But I was still stuck with the question "how can we compare Jesus to a snake?!" The late Bishop Fulton Sheen gave me the missing piece in one of his last sermons, before his passing. He said that the bronze snake looked like the poisonous snakes; Jesus looked like the man part of the pair responsible for the original sin (Adam); the bronze snake looked like the real snake but had no poison; Jesus on the cross looked like a criminal, as this was the punishment by Romans for Jews who committed capital crimes, but Jesus had no sin.

In Numbers 21, the Israelites complained about the food available in the desert, and told Moses that he had brought them out into the desert to die, whining that at least in Egypt they had had food. God had punished the ingratitude by sending seraph serpents to bite and kill. The form "seraph" would mean a snake whose bite causes a burning sensation, a severe inflammation of the skin that kills a person, i.e., a venomous serpent, says Angel Manuel Rodriguez in his essay "Serpents and Seraphim."

I pondered that snakes in the desert were a real danger for the group who was crossing the desert to the Promised Land, and the sin of complaining about God's provisions could be punished by the removal of God's protection from a pit of snakes. The original sin of Adam and Eve had the consequence of the removal of God's protection from the "serpent" of the garden. Seraph snakes can be connected to a fallen seraphim, the "fiery one"? The cure came in a man lifted on a cross, said Jesus in John 3:14, the Son of Man.

Seriously, this is a very cool pair of readings and I continue to study and ponder on it. This correlation between Numbers 21 and John 3 is very deep and I am sure I have not even gotten close to its depths. Anyone with further insight, let me (Allison03) know!


Question submitted by Allison03

Answer: By fleeing to a designated city

The designated cities, originally six in number and called "Cities of Refuge", belonged to the Levitical priests. Three of them were east of the Jordan and three on the west. This ordinance is found in Numbers 35, where verse 6 states, "The cities that you give to the Levites shall be the six cities of refuge, where you shall permit the manslayer to flee, and in addition to them you shall give forty-two cities" (English Standard Version, ESV).

Question submitted by Watchkeeper

Answer: Moses talked to the rock, according to the Lord's directions.

Moses was instructed by God to talk to the rock, and yet Moses did not do so. Instead he hit the rock with his staff which the Lord did NOT instruct Moses to do. Now, 38 or 39 years earlier, Moses had appealed to the Lord when the Israelites were thirsty in the desert and the Lord had instructed Moses then to hit the rock at Horeb, and upon doing so water had flowed from the rock. Why, do you wonder, was Moses told he now could not enter the Promised Land because of his disobedience? This seems upon first reading to be a strong penalty for doing what was apparently acceptable 39 years before.

Upon research, there seem to be many reasons. First, we see that in Numbers 12, that Moses was characterized as a humble man. It says in Numbers 12:3, "Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth." Well, now, you might say that Moses purportedly wrote the book of Numbers, so how can he be humble and say that he was humble? We must assume that God directed him to write this, as it says "more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth" and we know that God knew the humility of everyone on earth, and it is doubtful that Moses knew of others' humility. In fact, the actions of Moses in the same chapter show that he was indeed humble. When his brother and sister complained against him, he did not complain to God. God saw and intervened and Moses actually asked God to relent against Marian. If you read all of Moses' interactions in Exodus and Numbers (up until Chapter 20), we do see that Moses follows God's direction and pleads when his people are justly punished. Fast forward 39 years to Chapter 20 at Meribah and we see him and Aaron not only ignoring directions, but saying to the people "Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?" Note the wording! "MUST WE..." as if he and Aaron are in control. This is not humble! Has Moses changed so much, or was he acting in anger? The Lord said that Moses did not trust the Lord and of course this was true, but Moses also did not credit the Lord for the miracle of the water from a rock. Moses had assumed leadership over God ... would he have also claimed that HE had produced the Promised Land for them, later, if he entered with his people? Well, that was not possible now, since Moses would not enter the Promised Land in the 40th year, the Lord decided.

Why was Moses directed in the second incident to take the rod, if he was not to strike the rock? By the 38-39th year in the desert, and through the escape from Egypt before that, the rod was a symbol of God's power. It was kept in the tabernacle, as an object of the Lord's power. Take it, but only speak to the rock while holding the rod, was the order. This was a kind but firm direction from a good Father, when confronted with wayward and quarreling children (Heads of rock? Hearts of stone?). Speak and trust that you had the power of God (the rod) with you. Moses, as God had said, did not trust.

Also note that at Horeb (in Exodus), striking the rock was the direction from God, and following that, a battle took place against Amalek. Force was necessary. The battle had Moses holding the staff of the power of God, and when he raised his arms, the battle went in the Israelites' favor. Amalek was defeated because helpers held Moses' arms with the staff raised to God. It was obvious that God's power was in play. In Numbers 20, with the rock, when God wanted just a command used, Moses used force. Matthew Henry says, "[The Lord] bids him speak to the rock, which would do as it was bidden, to shame the people who had been so often spoken to, and would not hear nor obey." But Moses instead used force. Following that incident, negotiations with Edom proved not fruitful. Moses discarded the use of words with the rock, and later the words he used failed in a conflict. Force was threatened in return, from Edom. Would events with negotiations have gone differently if Moses had obeyed God at the rock? I speculate that God would have provided, as always, if the people and Moses had trusted.

Question submitted by Allison03

Answer: Zelophehad's daughters

Numbers 27 first addresses the daughters of Zelophehad, so see chapter 27 for their story. Zelophehad had no sons and he died. Normally the dead father's sons were given an inheritance, but because he had no sons, his daughters asked Moses if they could have their inheritance. They argued that they deserved to have it just as much as if they were males. Moses asked the LORD and the LORD indeed said that Zelophehad's daughters deserved to have the inheritance. Zelophehad's daughters were Mahlah, Noah (yes, Noah!), Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.

The LORD said in Numbers 36, which is the last chapter of Numbers, that the daughters could choose to marry any men, as long as their husbands belonged to the same tribe of their father, Zelophehad. This was to make sure that every Israelite received an inheritance from his or her tribal ancestor; the inheritance wasn't supposed to be mixed between tribes.

Aaron did have nameless daughters, but clearly Aaron's daughters is still an incorrect choice. Moses didn't have daughters and neither did Joseph; at least the Bible doesn't record them having daughters. Actually, Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah descended from Joseph's firstborn son, Manasseh. In other words, they were from the tribe of Manasseh.

Question submitted by Ceduh