The Military Census

Then, the 24th: “Of the children of Gad, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war.”

The 26th: “Of the children of Judah, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war.”

The 28th verse and 29th: “Of the children of Issachar.”

The 30th and 31st: “Of the children of Zebulun.”

The 32nd: “Of the children of Joseph,” both Ephraim, and in verses 34 and 35, Manasseh, the two tribes of Joseph. Then verse 36 deals with the children of Benjamin. Thirty-eight, following, the children of Dan, and forty and following, the children of Asher, and then 42 following, the children of Naphtali, and then it tells us in verse 47: “But the Levites after the tribe of their fathers were not numbered among them. For the LORD had spoken unto Moses, saying , Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi, neither take the sum of them among the children of Israel: but thou shalt appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of testimony, and over all the vessels thereof, and over all things that belong to it: they shall bear the tabernacle, and all the vessels thereof; and they shall minister unto it, and shall encamp round about the tabernacle. And when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down: and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. And the children of Israel shall pitch their tents, every man by his own camp, and every man by his own standard, throughout their hosts. But the Levites shall pitch round about the tabernacle of testimony, that there be no wrath upon the congregation of the children of Israel: and the Levites shall keep the charge of the tabernacle of testimony. And the children of Israel did according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so did they.”

In verses four through nineteen, the fact of the census is cited and the represented of the twelve tribes, Levi not being named, in verses five through fifteen. In verses twenty through forty-six, we are given the results of the census, a total in verse forty-six of six hundred and three, five hundred and fifty thousand fighting men. This is similar to the results cited in Exodus 38:26. In that verse, the number came from all the men twenty years old and upward, who paid the half shekel head tax. Now, what this means is, from the number of able-bodied men twenty years old and older, they knew the headcount, but this census was by tribes, or clans. So, this census was a military census in terms of the clans or tribes.

About forty years later, another census, just before they went into Canaan, gave a slightly lower total; six hundred and one thousand, seven hundred and thirty. There were, however, great variations in this latter census in the tribal count. In verses 47-54, the work of the Levites is cited. Now, one reference is made in verse 2 to tribes. This can be translated to families or clans. The words are, in old English, very much similar, virtually identical. Verse 3 tells us it is a census of all that are able to go forth to warn Israel, all who were eligible for military service. This indicates clearly that the aged and the crippled were not counted in the census.

Since God was the king of His covenant people, a census was exclusively His privilege and for His purposes. A census was thus a religious fact. At one time, the U.S. census was a careful account of the religious faith of the people of the various religious bodies, including denominations with less than 100 members, and it was a record also of the histories, doctrines, and activities of each group. Now that’s an amazing fact. There were two fat volumes of a census every year that listed the religious affiliation of all the people who had no more than a little group meeting in your home. You were counted as a religious body, what you stood for, why you were separated from other bodies, what your history was, all this was recorded in the census. One volume gave the data, another volume gave the historical information. This is how important a religious census of the United States was regarded, prior to World War 2. After World War 2, of course, this kind of census taking ended.

There are a number of important aspects of the census of our text. First, it was a census of the strength of the tribes or clans, not of Israel as a monolithic unit. Military action was normally by tribal or clan action under the command of a central authority. Hebrew documents give the cut-off age for able-bodied men as 60, so it meant that able-bodied men from 20 to 60 were eligible for military service.

This kind of practice was common in a good deal of Europe until fairly modern times. It was certainly true in places like Scotland. Some of history’s most effective armies have been precisely this kind of army, where there has been a strong clan loyalty, and of course, the longest to have this were the Scots and the Welsh. The power of a common purpose, united with a strong blood bond, has been militarily very important. The emphasis on loyalty to the central state power is a modern emphasis. It has not been good in terms of military action. Revolutionary France replaced the historic regions of France also with artificially created departments, so that instead of France being divided, although the loyalties are still there, the Britons, the Burgundians and so on, these were wiped out, the boundaries were abolished to create artificial departments. This was to destroy the local loyalties. This has been done throughout the world, and because of it, the ability of armies has been decreased dramatically because there is no longer the close ties, the close common purpose.

In the United States, of course, we have the same kind of thing. Years ago, I baptized a retired U.S. Army officer, a remarkable man, 74 years of age when he was baptized. He had first served in the Spanish/American War, he served with Pershing in Mexico against Pancho Villa, he served in World War 1 and trained troops in World War 2. He said in the old days in the Army, you knew every man under you by name. You knew his family. You made sure he wrote letters home. You knew what his strength and his weakness was, and that made the unit a better unit in combat, but all that has been destroyed, and of course, today, the move to wipe out the states and to create ten federal districts is well underway. Mississippi just became the twenty-third state, on November 6, to abolish its boundaries, preparatory to creating ten federal districts.

The head tax of Exodus 38:26, indicated the number of able-bodied men in Israel. the purpose of this census that we are dealing with now was to establish the tribal or clan militias. God honored the clan loyalties and made them basic to Israel’s military action. IN the twentieth century, as both the purposes of war and the constituency of armies have grown more abstract. The willingness of men to fight has decreased. A depersonalized army is vulnerable. This is why very highly personal guerilla forces have an intense personal dedication and are very difficult for armies to deal with.

The second, the census made clear that Israel was an army on the march from slavery to freedom, from the wilderness to the Promised Land. Whereas at the beginning, God had saved them miraculously, the time was now come for them to battle for their inheritance. They were not going to be raptured into the Promised Land. God’s empowering grace was the preparation for warfare, not for inaction. In his hymn, “Am I a Soldier of the Cross,” Isaac Watts ably depicted the expectations of false faith. “Must I be carried to the skies on flowery beds of ease, while others fought to win the prize and sail through bloody seas?” Salvation required Israel to be future-oriented. They could not rest contented with the wilderness.

Now our idea of the wilderness years is governed by our knowledge of what Arabia is now, and so our ideas of the wilderness journey are very unrealistic. Arabia was once a highly forested land, with many streams. It was underpopulated, and it was well able to contain Israel on the march. In fact, the land was destroyed because cutting down the forest to make charcoal to sell to Egypt was, for generations, a major business in Arabia.

Therefore, life in the wilderness was not too unpleasant. There was grazing for all their herds. To remain content with the wilderness was, no doubt, a temptation to some. Others wanted to return to Egypt. The covenant Lord, however, required them to look ahead to the Promised Land and to growth in the covenant law and life in the Promised Land.

Then third, the names of some of the clan leaders indicate that some kind of religious motivation was present, because almost all the names reflect the covenant and God. Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the men were altogether faithful to their names, but basically so. In verse 6, Shelumiel means “at peace with God” or “my friend is God.” Amminadab in verse 7 means “the divine kinsman is generous.” Nethaneel in verse 8 means “God hath given.” Eliab is “God is Father.” Elishama means “God hath heard,” both in verse 10. Ammihud, “the divine kinsman is glorious.” Gamaliel, “God is my reward,” and Pedahzur, “the rock hath redeemed.” Abidan means “the father hath judged,” verse 11. Ahiezer is “the divine brother is a help,” and Ammishaddai, “the people shaddai,” verse 12, shaddai referring to God. Pagiel means “the lot of fate is given by God,” in verse 13. Eliasaph, “God hath added,” and Deuel (or Reuel), “God is friend.” The name is a shortened form of Dereuel{?}, this is in verse 14. Ahira means “the divine brother is a friend” in verse 15, however, we have one curious name in the lot; Nashon, verse 7. It means “serpent.”

Now, while these religious names were no guarantee of faith, they to indicate that, to some extent, the covenant governed people’s thinking.

Then fourth, in verse 16, the clan leaders listed in verses 5 through 15 are called the heads of thousands in Israel. These twelve men were heads of family groups of a thousand. That is, a thousand families. The thousand was a subgroup within the tribe or clan. All such clan leaders were responsible for all families under their rule. Allegiance to the law and the focus of authority on the tribal level rested with these men. Under them were the hundreds, and the existence of hundred courts is well-documented in English history, and they existed in the American colonies, so that wherever there were a hundred families, there was a court and a self-governing unit. This meant decentralization, and an emphasis on the family and local authority, because the hundred referred to a hundred families. While this was no assurance to faithlessness, this structure meant a particular strength in times of faith.

Then fifth, Levi was not included in the census and in the militia, because priority remained with them in the maintenance of the center. In the modern world, the core of the educational curriculum is no longer the Bible. It is what is called liberal arts, only they are neither liberal nor very good in the way of arts. Liberal means free. Arts that lead or school people into freedom. When the Bible was the core of the liberal arts curriculum, it trained people for freedom. How artificial the modern liberals arts is became very clear when World War 2 broke out. It was regarded by Washington as the least important aspect of the university’s curriculum, and treated accordingly. This levitical exemption from the military census is the legal basis for the continuing exemption of the clergy from military draft in the United States.

Then sixth, the tribes were the encamp around the sanctuary, every man by his own camp, and every man by his own standard, according to verse 52. There were, thus, four standards, one for each direction; north, west, east, and south. The three tribes on each side and the four standards were those of Judah, Reuben, Ephraim and Dan. Each of the four had two other tribes under their leadership. The Levites were separate. They were right around the sanctuary, the sanctuary in the middle of the camp, then the Levites around it, and then outside the twelve tribes. They were there that there be no wrath upon the congregation of the children of Israel, verse 53 tells us. The other tribes were to protect the people as a whole. The Levites had to protect the sanctuary. Any profane trespass against the sanctuary was punishable by death. No law gives any human agency this power, and according to one Jewish tradition, God, rather than a human court, would look to the punishment.

The census of the twelve tribes gave varying results. Judah had the most with 74, and Benjamin had only 35,000. In the New Testament, our Lord calls the twelve disciples to replace the twelve tribes. This fact is seldom taken seriously. We are too much influenced by the Roman Imperial centralizing pattern, whereas the biblical standard is unity, not union. Unity is in the faith. Union is organizational. Now, this does not mean a toleration of false theologies, but it does militate against a false ecumenicism, which seeks, of course, to centralize all church authorities. Man’s attempt to centralize authority have, as their presupposition, a belief that a full awareness of the nature of truth and authority rests in the man-centered institution, and this is a dangerous illusion.

Let us pray.

Our Lord and our God, we thank thee for thy word, for thy word is truth, and thou hast ordained the family as the basic unit of society, of the church, of the state, of all things. Use us as thine instruments to reestablish the biblical pattern, to recognize that the key to the future is in our hands as families and that thou wilt only bless thine ordained way. In Christ’s name. Amen.

Are there any questions now with regard to our lesson? Yes?

[Audience] There doesn’t seem to be any indication in this chapter about why God wanted the people numbered? Why {?} order of census?

[Rushdoony] He was preparing them for battle. They had to fight. He had worked the miracles. He had destroyed Egypt. Now they had to do it, they couldn’t simply walk in. They couldn’t be raptured, as I said, into the Promised Land, and it’s that kind of thinking that God is striking at here. He’s telling them, “You’re going to have to fight, so get ready.”

[Audience] It’s for their knowledge.

[Rushdoony] What?

[Audience] That numbering was for their knowledge then, to understand their strength?

[Rushdoony] I couldn’t get that.

[Audience] I said the numbering was for their knowledge then?

[Rushdoony] It was to let them know, “You are being numbered because now you are an army. So, because you are counted by the heads of your tribes, you’ve been drafted.”

[Audience] What lesson is there in this for us today?

[Rushdoony] Could you speak up a bit?

[Audience] Yes. What lesson is there in that for us today?

[Rushdoony] It’s to recognize God’s basic pattern, the family, to recognize we’ve warped the whole nature of life today in that, we expect Washington to do everything. Now, consider what would happen if you applied the premises of this chapter to our life today. It would mean that you would have state militias, state armies, not a national one. We still have remnants of a state guard, although it’s disappearing. Now, this would mean that Washington could not plunge into a war heedlessly. What Bush has done to deal with the present is to consult with Gorbachev and to consult with the U.N., but he has not consulted with the American people or congress. Well, what would happen if his army had to come from the fifty states, and they told him, “Nothing doing,” or if the word from the fifty states was, “Well, there are ten who are ready to go along with you, but the rest? No.” You see, it would alter the political process dramatically. It would mean there would be none of the kind of thing we’ve had in this century when, against popular opinion we were put into two World Wars, and we were put into other countries, as Vietnam when the people were not in favor of it. It would radically alter the political process, and this is the kind of thing that we’ve abandoned. We’ve gotten away with. It began after the French Revolution. After the 1790’s, progressively, this kind of centralization began to take over one country after another, and the results have been deadly, and this is why, of course, in the modern army there is less efficiency, more efficient weapons, but a very large number of soldiers never fire a gun. They go through the motions. They take cover. The fire power has decreased, because it’s not their war, and they’re in the midst of impersonal surroundings, so it has been very bad, and its consequences are very much with us. Yes?

[Audience] Were the soldiers from these tribes given the right to say “no” if they were asked to go fight?

[Rushdoony] The tribe could refuse, yes. It was a tribal decision. It was a family decision in other words, and we know that in some instances, they did not, and it could be for a bad reason at times. For example, if you read the song of Deborah, she levels a charge against Reuben for not joining in, out of laziness and cowardice, when they were getting rid of Napressor{?}. So, they had a stronger army, and this is why God cut back through Gideon on the forces that were going to fight in that battle, or campaign. He wanted the willing-hearted. Yes?

[Audience] Was an individual member of a family obligated to go or could he individually make a decision not to go?

[Rushdoony] No, he had to go, but it was a tribal decision. The clan decided, and this is the way it was in Scotland, too, for a long, long time, and in Wales. The clan would decide, or it could be a subsection of the clan, and then the decision was binding upon all the members, but it was not a decision that was lightly entered into by the clan leader, because they were his kinsmen, he was responsible to them, and he couldn’t make the decision abstractly, with total disregard to those who were under his authority. Yes?

[Audience] What about the man who was recently married and had no fruit? He was exempt from {?}

[Rushdoony] Well, the law exempted those who were recently married. For a year, they were to be at home.

[Audience] And it exempted cowards, too, right?

[Rushdoony] What? And those who were afraid to fight, yes, they were exempted. Yes?

[Audience] I was particularly struck by the closing comment you made concerning the differences between union and unity, or unity and union, and I would like to ask you if there is any connection or relationship to the words of Jesus as given to John in the letters to the churches in Revelation, where Jesus points out in the very beginning that they have left their first love, which I would take to be the unity of the church to its head, and have replaced that unity with a union that he refers to as the deeds first, and then the doctrines, and {?} letter of the Nicolaitins.

[Rushdoony] Well, they had abandoned their zeal and concern for the faith, but it was not union. That did not come until centuries later. As a matter of fact, if you go through the seven ecumenical counsels of the early church, you find there was no attempt to create union. What they would do when confronted by heretical doctrines was to summon men from all sides together, so that some of the heretics were summoned to an ecumenical council, and they would discuss the matter, what scripture said, and so on. Then, come to a decision. They would pronounce anathemas upon all who departed from the orthodox faith, but that did not mean they tried to compel them to unite. That came later. They might excommunicate them if they were in their jurisdiction, but there was no attempt to force a union on everyone.

[Audience] Now this business of forcing unions then, would you say originated after the church became centralized in Rome?

[Rushdoony] Well, to a degree, but even that centralization did not take place until the Council of Trent, after the Reformation, and since then it’s taken place in all the Protestant churches, virtually, so it’s been an aspect of the modern world essentially. There was some of it early that began, but nothing such as we know now. This is why ecumenism then meant being united in the faith. Now, it’s uniting the churches, the institutions together institutionally, and that’s a very, very different thing. Yes?

[Audience] The distinction between unity and union is what thing, the difference between spirit and government, or spirit and law, or what?

[Rushdoony] No, it isn’t. It’s institutionalization versus the faith. So, it’s the faith maintained, and it was theologians who dealt with this matter in the councils. Now, when you have an ecumenical council, so called, its organizational heads that come together and try to say what the church should do, and that’s very different. Yes, this will be the last question, our time is almost over.

[Audience] They’re talking about an additional draft, a new draft. It’ll be interesting to see whether or not clergy are exempted from this draft, this time around.

[Rushdoony] Yes, some of the announcements of a new draft have mentioned women. It’s been in the latter paragraph or two of some of the reports. So, every time we go into a war we come out with less freedom, because the war begins at the top, a centralized top, and therefore, it opposes the individualism and the particularity of those below. Well, let us unite now in prayer.

Our Father, we thank thee for thy word which speaks to our everyday problems, burdens, needs, and conditions. Give us grace to hear thy word, and to obey it. We thank thee that in all things, thou art very near, and thy way is not something remote and abstract, but as close as we are to ourselves. And now go in peace. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost bless you and keep you, guide and protect you this day and always. Amen.

End of tape.