1Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,2“Command the children of Israel that they put out of the camp every leper, everyone who has a discharge, and whoever is unclean by a corpse.3You shall put both male and female outside of the camp so that they don’t defile their camp, in the midst of which I dwell.”
4The children of Israel did so, and put them outside of the camp; as Yahweh spoke to Moses, so the children of Israel did.
Leviticus 13:46(v2)All the days in which the plague is in him he shall be unclean. He is unclean. He shall dwell alone. His dwelling shall be outside of the…
Leviticus 21:1(v2)Yahweh said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them, ‘A priest shall not defile himself for the dead among his…
Deuteronomy 23:14(v3)for Yahweh your God walks in the middle of your camp, to deliver you, and to give up your enemies before you. Therefore your camp shall be…
Leviticus 26:11-12(v3)I will set my tent among you, and my soul won’t abhor you. I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you will be my people.
Numbers 9:6-10(v2)There were certain men, who were unclean because of the dead body of a man, so that they could not keep the Passover on that day, and they…
Show all 25 cross-references
Numbers 12:14(v2)Yahweh said to Moses, “If her father had but spit in her face, shouldn’t she be ashamed seven days? Let her be shut up outside of the camp…
Numbers 31:19(v2)“Encamp outside of the camp for seven days. Whoever has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves on the…
Numbers 35:34(v3)You shall not defile the land which you inhabit, where I dwell; for I, Yahweh, dwell among the children of Israel.’ ”
Psalms 68:18(v3)You have ascended on high. You have led away captives. You have received gifts among people, yes, among the rebellious also, that Yah God…
Revelation 21:3(v3)I heard a loud voice out of heaven saying, “Behold, God’s dwelling is with people, and he will dwell with them, and they will be his…
Leviticus 15:2-27(v2)“Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘When any man has a discharge from his body, because of his discharge he is unclean. This…
Numbers 19:11-16(v2)“He who touches the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days. He shall purify himself with water on the third day, and on the…
Numbers 19:22(v3)“Whatever the unclean person touches shall be unclean; and the soul that touches it shall be unclean until evening.”
Deuteronomy 24:8-9(v2)Be careful in the plague of leprosy, that you observe diligently and do according to all that the Levitical priests teach you. As I…
1 Kings 7:3(v3)It was covered with cedar above over the forty-five beams, that were on the pillars, fifteen in a row.
2 Kings 7:3(v2)Now there were four leprous men at the entrance of the gate. They said to one another, “Why do we sit here until we die?
Isaiah 12:6(v3)Cry aloud and shout, you inhabitant of Zion; for the Holy One of Israel is great among you!”
Haggai 2:13-14(v3)Then Haggai said, “If one who is unclean by reason of a dead body touch any of these, will it be unclean?” The priests answered, “It will…
1 Corinthians 5:7-13(v3)Purge out the old yeast, that you may be a new lump, even as you are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed in…
2 Corinthians 6:16-17(v3)What agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are a temple of the living God. Even as God said, “I will dwell in them and…
2 Thessalonians 3:6(v3)Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks in rebellion,…
Titus 3:10(v3)Avoid a factious man after a first and second warning,
Hebrews 12:15-16(v3)looking carefully lest there be any man who falls short of the grace of God, lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and many…
2 John 1:10-11(v3)If anyone comes to you, and doesn’t bring this teaching, don’t receive him into your house, and don’t welcome him, for he who welcomes him…
Revelation 21:27(v3)There will in no way enter into it anything profane, or one who causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the…
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this passage (24 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Geneva Bible translators1599 · Public DomainOn v3There were three manner of tents: of the Lord,…
There were three manner of tents: of the Lord, of the Levites, and of the Israelites.
Or, in a place out of the host.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp1656 · Public DomainOn vv2–3Num 5:2 Command the children of Israel, that they…
Num 5:2 Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead:
Ver. 2. Put out of the camp.] To show, that sin unrepented of, throws us out of the communion of faith and saints; shuts us out of the congregation of God in earth and heaven. No fellowship, place, or reward with them. See Rev 21:27. {See Trapp on "Rev 21:27"}
Read full note →
Defiled by the dead.] Heb., Defiled by a soul. The Hebrews call a dead corpse Nephesh here, and elsewhere; that is, a soul, to note that it shall live again, and that the soul shall return to it. The heathene also (saith a grave interpreter) called a dead body a soul: possibly from some glimpse of the resurrection.
{a} Animamque sepulchro condimus - Virg., Aeneid.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole1685 · Public DomainOn vv2–3Out of the camp, in which the people dwelt;…
Out of the camp, in which the people dwelt; as afterward out of the cities and towns, that they might not converse with others, and infect them.
An issue, to wit, of genital seed in men, or of blood in women in their seasons.
Read full note →
By the dead, i.e. by the touch of the dead. See Lev 21:1; Num 6:6.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry1710 · Public DomainOn v1Here is, I. A command for the purifying of…
Here is, I. A command for the purifying of the camp, by turning out from within its lines all those that were ceremonially unclean, by issues, leprosies, or the touch of dead bodies, until they were cleansed according to the law, Num 5:2, Num 5:3.
1. These orders are executed immediately, Num 5:4. (1.) The camp was now newly-modelled and put in order, and therefore, to complete the reformation of it, it is next to be cleansed. Note, The purity of the church must be as carefully consulted and preserved as the peace and order of it. It is requisite, not only that every Israelite be confined to his own standard, but that every polluted Israelite be separated from it. The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable. (2.) God's tabernacle was now fixed in the midst of their camp, and therefore they must be careful to keep it clean. Note, The greater profession of religion any house or family make the more they are obliged to put away iniquity far from their tabernacle, Job 22:23. The person, the place, in the midst of which God dwells, must not be defiled; for, if it be, he will be affronted, offended, and provoked to withdraw, Co1 3:16, Co1 3:17.
Read full note →
2. This expulsion of the unclean out of the camp was to signify, (1.) What the governors of the church ought to do: they must separate between the precious and the vile, and purge out scandalous persons, as old leaven (Co1 5:8, Co1 5:13), lest others should be infected and defiled, Heb 12:15. It is for the glory of Christ and the edification of his church that those who are openly and incorrigibly profane and vicious should be put out and kept from Christian communion till they repent. (2.) What God himself will do in the great day: he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather out of his kingdom all things that offend. As here the unclean were shut out of the camp, so into the new Jerusalem no unclean thing shall enter, Rev 21:27.
II. A law concerning restitution, in case of wrong done to a neighbour. It is called a sin that men commit (Num 5:6), because it is common among men; a sin of man, that is, a sin against man, so it is thought it should be translated and understood. If a man overreach or defraud his brother in any matter, it is to be looked upon as a trespass against the Lord, who is the protector of right, the punisher of wrong, and who strictly charges and commands us to do justly. Now what is to be done when a man's awakened conscience charges him with guilt of this kind, and brings it to his remembrance though done long ago? 1. He must confess his sin, confess it to God, confess it to his neighbour, and so take shame to himself. If he have denied it before, though it go against the grain to own himself in a lie, yet he must do it; because his heart was hardened he denied it, therefore he has no other way of making it appear that his heart is now softened but by confessing it. 2. He must bring a sacrifice, a ram of atonement, Num 5:8. Satisfaction must be made for the offence done to God, whose law is broken, as well as for the loss sustained by our neighbour; restitution in this case is not sufficient without faith and repentance. 3. Yet the sacrifices would not be accepted till full amends were made to the party wronged, not only the principal, but a fifth part added to it, Num 5:7. It is certain that while that which is got by injustice is knowingly retained in the hands the guilt of the injustice remains upon the conscience, and is not purged by sacrifice nor offering, prayers not tears, for it is one and the same continued act of sin persisted in. This law we had before (Lev 6:4), and it is here added that if the party wronged was dead, and he had no near kinsman who was entitled to the debt, or if it was any way uncertain to whom the restitution should be made, this should not serve for an excuse to detain what was unjustly gotten; to whomsoever it pertained, it was certainly none of his that got it by sin, and therefore it must be given to the priest, Num 5:8. If there were any that could make out a title to it, it must not be given to the priest (God hates robbery for burnt-offerings); but, if there were not, then it lapsed to the great Lord (ob defectum sanguinis - for want of issue), and the priests were his receivers. Note, Some work of piety or charity is a piece of necessary justice to be done by those who are conscience to themselves that they have done wrong, but know not how otherwise to make restitution; what is not our property will never be our profit.
III. A general rule concerning hallowed things given upon this occasion, that, whatever was given to the priest, his it shall be, Num 5:9, Num 5:10. 1. He that gave it was not to receive his gift again upon any pretence whatsoever. This law ratifies and confirms all grants for pious uses, that people might not give things to the priests in a fit of zeal, and then recall them in a fit of vexation. 2. The other priests should not come in sharers with that priest who then officiated, and to whom the hallowed thing, whatever it was, was given. Let him that was most ready and diligent in attending fare the better for it: if he do the work, let him have the pay, and much good may it do him.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill1763 · Public DomainOn vv1–4And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... Jarchi says, what…
And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... Jarchi says, what follows was said on the day the tabernacle was erected, but it seems rather to have been delivered after the several camps were formed, and the people numbered, when those that were unclean were ordered to be cast out of them:
saying; as follows.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley1765 · Public DomainOn vv1, 3A command to remove the unclean out of the…
A command to remove the unclean out of the camp, ver. 1-4. Laws concerning restitution, ver. 5-10. The law concerning a woman suspected of adultery, ver. 11-31.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke1810 · Public DomainOn vv1, 2, 4The Israelites are commanded to purify the camp by…
CHAPTER V
The Israelites are commanded to purify the camp by excluding all
Read full note →
lepers, and all diseased and unclean persons, 1-3.
They do so, 4.
Law concerning him who has defrauded another-he shall confess
his sin, restore the principal and add besides one fifth of its
value, 5-7.
If he have no kinsman to whom the recompense can be made, it
shall be given unto the Lord, 8.
All the holy things offered to the Lord shall be the priest's
portion, 9,10.
The law concerning jealousy, 11-14.
The suspected woman's offering, 15.
She is to be brought before the Lord, 16.
The priest shall take holy water, and put it in dust from the
floor of the tabernacle, 17.
Shall put the offering in her hand, and adjure her, 18-20.
The form of the oath, 21, 22;
which is to be written on a book, blotted out in the bitter
waters, and these the suspected person shall be obliged to
drink, 23, 24.
The jealousy-offering shall be waved before the Lord, 25, 26.
The effect which shall be produced if the suspected person be
guilty, 27.
The effect if not guilty, 28.
Recapitulation, with the purpose and design of the law, 29, 30.
NOTES ON CHAP. V
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson1811 · Public DomainOn vv1, 3Num 5:1. The camps and divisions of priests, Levites,…
Num 5:1. The camps and divisions of priests, Levites, and people being thus settled, now was the time when the law about excluding leprous and unclean persons from the camps was to take place; God having, for wise reasons, appointed that all persons under such legal impurities should, in proportion to the degree of them, be excluded from the community where he himself dwelt by the symbols of his divine presence till they were cleansed again. This the Israelites began now to put in execution by express order from God to Moses.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes1834 · Public DomainOn v1The general purpose of the directions given in this…
The general purpose of the directions given in this and the next chapter is to attest and to vindicate, by modes in harmony with the spirit of the theocratical law, the sanctity of the people of God. Thus, the congregation of Israel was made to typify the Church of God, within which, in its perfection, nothing that offends can be allowed to remain (compare Mat 8:22; Rev 21:27).
The general purpose of the directions given in this and the next chapter is to attest and to vindicate, by modes in harmony with the spirit of the theocratical law, the sanctity of the people of God. Thus, the congregation of Israel was made to typify the Church of God, within which, in its perfection, nothing that offends can be allowed to remain (compare Mat 8:22; Rev 21:27).
Read full note →
Compare the marginal references. The precepts of Lev. 13 and Lev. 15 are now first fully carried out. They could hardly have been so earlier, during the hurry and confusion which must have attended the march out of Egypt, and the encampments which next followed.
The general purpose of the directions given in this and the next chapter is to attest and to vindicate, by modes in harmony with the spirit of the theocratical law, the sanctity of the people of God. Thus, the congregation of Israel was made to typify the Church of God, within which, in its perfection, nothing that offends can be allowed to remain (compare Mat 8:22; Rev 21:27).
The general purpose of the directions given in this and the next chapter is to attest and to vindicate, by modes in harmony with the spirit of the theocratical law, the sanctity of the people of God. Thus, the congregation of Israel was made to typify the Church of God, within which, in its perfection, nothing that offends can be allowed to remain (compare Mat 8:22; Rev 21:27).
Compare the marginal references. The precepts of Lev. 13 and Lev. 15 are now first fully carried out. They could hardly have been so earlier, during the hurry and confusion which must have attended the march out of Egypt, and the encampments which next followed.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary1859 · Public DomainOn vv2–3Camp; in the midst of which God had fixed…
Camp; in the midst of which God had fixed his tabernacle. See Leviticus xvi. 16. Some pretend that these unclean persons were only excluded from the camp of the Lord, and from that of the Levites, which occupied 2000 cubits round the tabernacle. But God will not permit any of the camp to be defiled by such people. They were to absent themselves for seven days, and then wash themselves, &c., chap. xix. 11. If lepers be excluded from the camp, how much more do heretics deserve to be cast out of the Church! (Theodoret, q. 8.) (Worthington)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures1864 · Public DomainOn v1Exclusion of Lepers and all Persons Levitically Unclean from…
THIRD SECTION
Exclusion of Lepers and all Persons Levitically Unclean from the Holy Camp. Camp Laws for Those Morally Guilty
Read full note →
Num_5:1-10
1And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead: 3Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell. 4And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp: as the Lord spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel.
5And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 6Speak unto the children of Israel, When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to do a trespass against the Lord, and that person be guilty; 7Then they shall confess their sin which they have done: and he shall recompense his 1trespass 2with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed. 8But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the atrespass unto, 3let the trespass be recompensed unto the Lord, even to the priest; 4beside 9the ram of the atonement, whereby an atonement shall be made for him. And every 5offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel, which they bring unto the priest, shall be his. 10And every man’s hallowed things shall be his: whatsoever any man giveth the priest, it shall be his.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
In this section it becomes especially clear, that the component parts of the Book of Numbers appear under the concrete view-point, that the military encampment of God shall be kept sacred, particularly, too, because it should be free from every censure, and so be invincible. For as regards the matter composing this chapter, the greater part has formed the substance of previous writings. The first section, Num_5:1-4, appears already in Leviticus 11-15. The second section, Num_5:5-10, is for the most part in the passage on the sin-offering, Lev_5:14-19; comp. Num_7:1-10. Thus the concrete reference, or the formal totality of the representation of the idea of this book demanded the apparent repetition, as this in fact obtains everywhere in the books of the Bible. It is not the materials that determine their formal disposition; but the power of the form reigns, organizes and animates the materials, as the soul does the body. In this its characteristic trait the Scriptures contrast with the many short-comings of more recent and modern criticism. Because men do not know the formative power of biblical ideas, they rummage the materials of the Bible helter-skelter, and endlessly, e.g. in respect to the Pentateuch, Job, the four Gospels, the relation between the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians.
In general, we may regard these concrete constructions as giving emphasis to previous constructions. The military camp is the congregation of God in higher potency.
Num_5:1-4. The period of exclusion was for the menstruous seven days; for momentary uncleanness, for bloody flux, an indefinite period, according to the continuance of the malady. “Only those named were affected by the law, not such as were rendered unclean only for the current day. Women confined were, according to Leviticus 12, called unclean, but apart from holy things were not said to defile.” [“God was not acting as a physician and merely consulting the health of the people, but exercised them in purity. For by joining with the lepers those who had an issue, etc., he instructs the people simply to keep away from all uncleanness.” Calvin. Their camps.—The plural is supposed to refer to the successive encampments (Bush). Others, both Jewish and Christian commentators, understand the reference to be to the arrangement of the encampment into three camps: (1) the Tabernacle, (2) the Levites, (3) the rest of Israel. Their would then refer to numbers (2) and (3). See Bush in loc.—Tr.]
Num_5:5-10. Any sin that men commit [e. g. Lev. 5:21, 22 (Lev_6:2-3)—Tr.], to do a trespass against the LORD; so that restitution may hot be dispensed with [comp. Lev. 5:23–26 (Lev_6:4-7)]. Here the specification of Lev. 5:23 (Lev_6:24) sqq. is supplemented by supposing a case where the man to whom restitution ought to be made is not present. From the words: if the man have no kinsman (goel) to whom restitution may be made for guilt, Keil [also Calvin.—Tr.] infers that it is assumed that the offended person himself is no longer alive. It is nearer the mark to see a goel [redeemer] in the qualified receiver of the debt (be it the offended person himself or a kinsman). The redeemer or receiver becomes here, in some measure, the freer of the guilty person that has confessed the consciousness of his guilt. When, therefore, this one is wanting, the indemnity is to be paid to the priest, except the sin-offering, which is paid to God. Jehovah gives the indemnity to the priest. This then leads to the more general specification, that so-called heave-offerings [comp. Exo_25:1-9] or votive gifts may be made to the priest. These gifts could be personal, so that they needed not to flow into the Temple treasury. By this it was made possible for these cases of guilt to be treated more confidentially, which also gave the greater encouragement to the confession of guilt and to restitution.
____________________
FOURTH SECTION
Marriage Inviolable in the Sacred Army. The Offering of Jealousy. The Water of Cursing
Num_5:11-31
11And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 12Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man’s wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, 13And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken 6 with the manner; 14And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled; or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled: 15Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her 7offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an 8offering of jealousy, an coffering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before he Lord: 17And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that Isaiah 9 in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water: 18And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman’s head, and put the coffering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy coffering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse: 19And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness 10 11with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: 20But if thou hast gone aside1 2to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thine husband: 21Then the priest shall charge the woman with 12an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to 1314rot, and thy belly to swell; 22And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to frot. And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. 23And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out 15with the bitter water: 24And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, 16 and become bitter. 25Then the priest shall take the jealousy coffering out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the coffering before the Lord, and 17offer it upon the altar: 26And the priest shall take a handful of the coffering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water. 27And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, h and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall frot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. 28And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and 18shall conceive 29seed. This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside1 2to another instead of her husband, and is defiled; 30Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law. 31Then shall the an be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear, her iniquity.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
[Num_5:13. “Καὶ κοιμηθῇ τις μετ’ αὐτῆς κοίτην σπέρματος.” lxx. “Et coierit aliquis cum ea coitu seminis.” Calvin.
Num_5:20. ויתן אותך, etc. Καὶ ἔδωκέ τις τὴν κοίτην αὐτοῦ ἐν σοί. LXX. Dederitque aliquis in te semen suum. Calvin.
The euphemism of the A. V. and of Dr. Lange’s translator, Pastor Fay, in rendering these verses may not endanger the correct understanding of the passage, as would be the case in Lev_15:18, where a literal rendering is given. See the Comm. there. But still it is safe not to attempt to be more delicate than God’s written word.—Tr.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
a) The offering of jealousy. This law is so unique and peculiar that it is no wonder that theological literature has busied itself a great deal with the subject (see a list of the literature in Knobel, p. 20; Keil, p. 210. Especially deserving of notice is Oehler’s article in Herzog’s R. Enc. XIX., p. 472, Eiferopfer). Knobel expresses surprise that this ordinance should be put just here. Other modern “critical” deliverances can infer nothing better than that the extraordinary representations of this biblical passage afford an evident proof against the doctrine of inspiration. But both views spring from a want of penetration into the idea of this ordinance. As regards the place of this passage, it, as well as the two that precede [Num_5:1-4; Numbers 5-10], has to do with preserving the purity of Jehovah’s military encampment. The jealous man, that suspects his wife of adultery, is a combatant of Jehovah’s, and as such should keep himself pure. But, while in a jealous mood, he might transgress in two ways. He might in an outburst of anger abuse or repudiate his wife on mere suspicion: or also, as a loose character, he might continue to indulge his sensual lust with the woman, though he regarded her as a courtezan. Either would conflict in the grossest way with the theocratic personal dignity. Also the woman, moved by the man’s arbitrariness, might capriciously surrender herself to the sensual pleasure. We have cause to deplore such a reciprocal effect as a great heathendom of disregard of personality within Christendom; especially among Romanish nations. Some of these, as the Spaniards, gratify their jealousy by revenge, while others, especially the French, suffer their suspicion to degenerate into an immoral tolerance that lets each do as he pleases. In either case marriage is desecrated, personality is degraded; and whereas, in the one case, the births of the woman must suffer injury from the anger of the man, in the other case, a condition of bastardy spreads through the nation, that injures the moral roots of its existence. Hence the giving of the law took another course in order to preserve the integrity of marriage, by permitting the writing of divorce, yet under discipline and oversight, and by not forbidding the man to maintain concubines. The woman, it is true, Seems to be at disadvantage by these legal enactments. Still she had her liberty if she remained unmarried, whereas the man also became a transgressor if he sinned with another man’s wife. But this stricter position of the woman does not rest on merely psychological reasons. The giving of the Law operated still more in favor of sacred births than of sacred marriages. By the moral refinement of the births Israel was to be elevated from generation to generation, till it attained the realization of ethical virginity (see Joh_1:12-13). Hence the holy legislation took in charge the natural right of jealousy, just as it did the matter of divorce. It did not, indeed, deal with the case where the woman could be convicted of her guilt, and so, on the other hand, fortifying the denial by a simple oath, could make the evil in this case only worse. Hence no other recourse than this was possible on legal ground. But the spirit of the legislation was quite conscious that even with this awful conjuration no absolute certainty was attained, but only a legal and social certainty. Moreover, it is assumed, not without reason, that the awful form of this cleansing procedure made it primarily a preventive measure that was not often carried into execution.
With respect to the significance of the particular parts of this transaction, it must assuredly be called an error when they are so often construed as if they would anticipate the punishment. The justice of the Scripture distinguishes between suspicion and certain judgment. Hence the justice of Joseph of Nazareth consisted in his seeking a middle course in his suspicion, and being unwilling to dismiss his betrothed with a public rebuke (see on Mat_1:19). Thus it is a glaring assumption when the inferior sort of material of the offering, viz. barley meal, that was else used to feed cattle, is made to signify that the adulteress does not distinguish herself from the beasts (Philo), or that the woman has behaved like an irrational brute (Jonathan, etc.). The same is true in respect to the mingling of dust with the holy water that the woman must drink. To the interpretation just mentioned, Keil, as well as Knobel, objects that the woman bringing the offering might, in fact, be innocent. Yet further on he adopts the explanation: “Dust is poured into the water, not to signify that man is made of dust, and must return to dust again, but as an allusion to the serpent’s eating dust (Gen_3:14), as a curse of sin, consequently as an image of deserving a curse, of the deepest shame and humiliation (Mic_7:17; Isa_49:23; Psa_72:9).” The serpent, of course, sometimes feeds on the dust of the Temple; still it is not said that this was destined for its food. Oehler here agrees with Keil: “By drinking, the penetration of the curse into the inmost part of the body is effected (comp. the expression in Psa_109:18). We say effected, not symbolized. For according to the simple meaning of the words in Num_5:27 the water is not merely to be regarded as a symbol and pledge, but the actual vehicle of the divine curse, Keil says very justly (p. 301), etc.” Is an hypothetical curse, that possibly may be not only without injurious effect, but may even bring about a blessing, to be called here directly a curse?
But besides these significations that forestall judgment, rabbinical exaggerations of a fabulous kind have especially obscured the passage. For instance, “the immediate effect” is thus described (Sota, III. 4): “Hardly had she drunk the bitter water, when, if she were unclean, her countenance began to turn yellow, her eyes protruded, and her veins burst,” etc. No wonder that the same treatise has it that, even before the decision, her veil and garments were torn off her, black clothes put on her, and a cord to girdle her breast.
b) The moving cause, Num_5:10-14. The somewhat cumbersome expression admits indeed the assumption that the man’s jealousy was well-founded, still without deciding. [The spirit of jealousy, Num_5:14. Comp. Pro_6:34. Son_8:6.—Tr.].
c) The presentation of the woman before the priest with her offering, Num_5:15. The poor bond of union that still exists between both parties, is designated by the inferior offering, which still the man must provide, but the woman is to present. It is a meal offering, mincha, consisting of the tenth part of an epha of barley meal. Barley, worth only half as much as wheat, was the food of the poor, and even of the cattle. But these two, in their present relation, were a house that had become poor. They were to add neither oil nor frankincense, for it would be contrary to the truth, since, in such agitation, the life of the soul and the spirit of prayer are completely depressed, if both are not entirely wanting. This is indicated by the conclusion of the verse.
d) The priest’s procedure. 1) The adjuration or administering the oath, Num_5:16-22. The first efficacy lies in the slow deliberateness and formality of the solemn procedure, by which time is allowed to the woman for awakening, for confession. One may regard it as correct when the Talmud informs us: did she submit to confess, then her marriage letter (kethuba) was destroyed, by which she lost what her husband promised her at their marriage, but otherwise she departed without punishment. [How reconcile this with Lev_20:10, according to which an adulteress must suffer death? Keil judiciously states that “nothing is said about what was to be done” in case of implied confession.—Tr.] Therefore the priest placed her before the Lord at the altar of burnt-offering. In a mean earthen vessel he dipped holy water (wash-water of the fore-court? [see Translator’s note below]) such as served for sacred uses in the Temple [Tabernacle], and put into it dust from the floor of the Temple, yet that means a sacred dust, so reckoned along with the Temple, which, just as the water, must imbue with sacred dread a conscience sensible of guilt. Then the woman’s head is uncovered; she stands with flowing hair, not already as a great sinner, but as one provisorily shorn of her dignity, forsaken of her husband and all the world, whom one, moreover, may look in the eyes, and now the offering of rebuke is laid in her hands. She must hold it so a long while; the trembling hand of one conscious of guilt would readily let it fall. 2) Then follows the administration of the oath.—In very definite and drastic terms innocence and guilt are distinguished, and it is announced to her that the hypothetically bitter (see Num_5:27) and cursing water, which she must now drink, will do her no harm in case she is innocent, but that it will do her harm in case she is guilty. Before the hypothetical announcement of the curse, is again intimated a pause full of anxiety, according to the words: “has any man lain with thee besides thy husband?” Then follows the awful formula of the oath, which, in case she is guilty, loads with a curse on the one hand her memory among the nation, and on the other her body, her female organization, with which she has sinned. Thereupon she must declare her readiness to drink the water with the words amen, amen, by which she makes the oath her own. [“Some think the Amen being doubled, respects both parts of the adjuration, both that which freed her if innocent, and that which condemned her if guilty.” M. Henry.—Tr.]. Another pause. The priest writes the curse or form of oath on a tablet, and with the bitter water washes off the writing, so that she must in a symbolical way drink the very formula of oath. She drinks some of the water. 3) Now the priest completes the offering, and only after that she drinks all the water.
One must not mend this representation by condensation, since just its slow movement, with pauses, portrays the psychological intent of the action.
In regard to the corporeal side of the curse, it is indeed assumed that the effect will begin to appear at once, but not that it will at once be completed; a myth of the Talmud that negative criticism eagerly appropriates. It has been supposed that the threatened sickness was dropsy of the ovary, or else dropsy in general (see Keil in loc., Knobel, p. 23). Evidently a disease of females is meant, such as answers for a punishment of a sexual sin, and it is certain that even an inferior agitation of spirit in a woman can have such consequences. It is not easy to imagine how the “incorporated” curse, that Keil assumes, and which Oehler (Herzog, R.-Enc. XIX. p. 474) would have only to be completed by ethical ingredients, can be transformed into a blessing in the body of the innocent woman. As an apologetical analogy for a dogma, this analogy is very far-fetched, unless one would affirm that in conjunction with the agitation accompanying the consciousness of guilt the bitter water itself must become poison to the woman that drank it.
But it must be specially noticed that the innocent and yet sorely-tried woman could, in this situation, rise to a very exaltation of trust in God. Standing there with her loosened hair, she must become to her husband the object of utmost compassion. Were there added to that the appearance of a joyous, heroic courage, the tables would be turned; she triumphed over the husband. Hence nothing more was to be done to the man, when innocence had celebrated its victory over him. His jealousy was punished by being openly put to shame, and he must acknowledge her again as his married wife, whereas marriage intercourse was legally prohibited during his suspicion (according to Sota i. 3, “hindered by watching him!”) The innocent wife, on the other hand, receives notice of a blessing (Num_5:28), which on her part, also, is psychologically well-founded, which, however, the Talmud represents in an untrue fashion. The Gamara adds: “if previously her births were hard, afterwards they were easy; had she daughters before, she afterwards receives sons.”
It is an abstract procedure of supra-naturalism when one would eliminate from this law of jealousy the psychological and ethical ingredients. It has indeed a human relationship with the ordeals of the middle ages, but these have on their part also a relationship to the theocratic faith of revelation, on whose summit appears this significant, divine ordinance, testifying as it does to wonderful wisdom and acquaintance with the heart. The New Testament aspect of the matter is, that the woman threatened with fearful vengeance is taken under the protection of the sanctuary, as even now-a-days Christian authorities now and then take under their protection one threatened with Lynch-law by putting him in prison. The slow deliberateness of the proceeding may also serve to elucidate the fact that Christ wrote on the ground when the adulteress was brought before Him. Any way, He brought about a great, silent pause.
It has been assumed that this proceeding, which from the very first was hemmed about with many limitations (see Oehler, ibid. p. 476), was seldom used, and that later it was abolished (ibid.). But one could wish very much that the moral ideas corresponding to this typical law might everywhere make their light and right prevail.
[Num_5:17. Holy water. “Let my readers, however, consider whether He does not rather mean the water in which the ashes of the red heifer were sprinkled, and whereby solemn purifications were made (Num_19:1).” Calvin. This suggestion does not deserve to be ignored as it seems to be by all later commentaries. Seeing the varied uses to which that water was put, it would naturally be the next to be thought of for the present purpose, at least after the ceremony of the red heifer was once instituted. But the record of the latter institution being given in connection with events occurring on the subsequent march, is not proof that it was not instituted before. In the case of the ordinances in Num_5:1-10, we see that they were instituted before.
Num_5:28. וְנִזְרְעָה זַֽרַע, “and she shall be sown with seed.” The nearest meaning of the words would only suggest that the woman is to receive from her husband what is due to a wife (comp. Exo_20:10; 1Co_7:3). The phrase may be taken as the expression for what is honorable, looking toward offspring, as שִׁכְבַת־זֶרַע Num_5:13, comp. Lev_19:20; Lev_15:18, refers to intercourse without such intent. Comp. Nah_1:14. The phrase is ἅπ. λεγ.—Tr.].
HOMILETICAL HINTS
Chap. 5. The preservation of the purity of God’s army. Jealousy as a legal suffering and as a passion. Jealousy, an obscure witness for the exclusiveness and sanctity of marriage. The power of conscience; both of a good and of a bad conscience.
Footnotes:
[1]guilt.
[2]the very sum. De Wette; according to its full value, Bunsen; according to its total amount, Zunz.
[3]the guilt recompensed belongs to the Lord, for the priest.
[4]except.
[5]Or, heave offering.
[6]in the act.
[7]oblation.
[8]meal-offering.
[9]on.
[10]Or, being in the power of thy husband.
[11]Heb. under thy husband.
[12]the.
[13]Heb. fall.
[14]shrink.
[15]into.
[16]for bitterness.
[17]present it at.
[18][Heb. shall be sown with seed. Calvin.—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon1874 · Public DomainOn vv1–3REMOVAL OF THE UNCLEAN FROM THE CAMP, Num_5:1-4.
REMOVAL OF THE UNCLEAN FROM THE CAMP, Num_5:1-4.
For some general reasons for the mixture of ritual legislation with history see Introduction, (1.) The purification of the camp from the defilement of leprosy was enjoined for reasons concisely stated by Dr. A. Clarke: “1.) On a purely physical reason; the disease was contagious. 2.) There was also a spiritual reason; the camp was the habitation of God, and nothing impure should be permitted to remain where he dwelt. 3.) The camp is the emblem of the Church, where nothing that is defiled should enter, and in which nothing that is unholy should be tolerated.” We may add a fourth reason. This purification was educational, as were all the other Levitical cleansings, and tended to the development of the notion of spiritual purity. “Howbeit,” says St. Paul in one of his generalizations, “that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual.”
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges1878 · Public DomainOn vv1–21–4. Exclusion of unclean persons. The compiler has very…
1–4. Exclusion of unclean persons. The compiler has very suitably placed this in connexion with the careful arrangements enjoined in the preceding chapter to preserve the sacredness of the Dwelling of Jehovah. Because of His presence the whole camp (‘in the midst whereof I dwell’) was sacred, and all pollution must be rigorously avoided (cf. Lev_15:31). The same principle is applied, in Num_35:33 f., to the whole land of Canaan.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. H. Mackintosh1880 · Public DomainOn v1Numbers 5
Numbers 5
’’And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead: both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell. And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp: as the Lord spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel." Numbers 5: 1-4.
Read full note →
Here we have unfolded to us, in few words, the great foundation principle on which the discipline of the assembly is founded - a principle, we may say, of the very last importance, though, alas! so little understood or attended to. It was the presence of God in the midst of His people Israel that demanded holiness on their part. "That they defile not their camps in the midst of which I dwell." The place where the Holy one dwells must be holy. This is a plain and a necessary truth.
We have already remarked that redemption was the basis of God’s dwelling in the midst of His people. But we must remember that discipline was essential to His continuance amongst them. He could not dwell where evil was deliberately and avowedly sanctioned. Blessed be His name, He can and does bear with weakness; but He is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity. Evil cannot dwell with Him, nor can He have fellowship with it. It would involve a denial of His very nature; and He cannot deny Himself.
It may, however, be said, in reply, "Does not God the Holy Ghost dwell in the individual believer, and yet there is much evil in him?" True, the Holy Ghost dwells in the believer, on the ground of accomplished redemption. He is there, not as the sanction of what is of nature, But as the seal of what is of Christ: and His presence and fellowship are enjoyed just in proportion as the evil in us is habitually judged. Will any one assert that we can realise and delight in the Spirit’s indwelling while allowing our indwelling pravity, and indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind? Far away be the impious thought! No; we must judge ourselves, and put away everything inconsistent with the holiness of the One who dwells in us. Our "old man" is not recognised at all. It has no existence before God. It has been condemned, utterly, in the cross of Christ. we feel its workings, alas! and have to mourn over them, and judge ourselves on account of them; but God sees us in Christ - in the Spirit - in the new creation. And, moreover, the Holy Ghost dwells in the body of the believer, on the ground of the blood of Christ; and His indwelling demands the judgement of evil in every shape and form.
So also, in reference to the assembly. No doubt, there is evil there - evil in each individual member, and therefore evil in the body corporate. But it must be judged; and, if judged, it is not allowed to act, it is rendered null. But to say that an assembly is not to judge evil is nothing more or less than corporate antinomianism. What should we say to a professing Christian who maintained that He was not solemnly responsible to judge evil, in himself and in His ways? we should, with great decision, pronounce him an antinomian. And if it be wrong for a single individual to take such ground, must it not be proportionally wrong for an assembly? We cannot see how this can be called in question.
What would have been the result, had Israel refused to obey the peremptory "command" given at the opening of the chapter before us? Supposing they had said, "We are not responsible to judge evil; and we do not feel that it becomes poor, failing, erring mortals such as we to judge anybody. These people with the leprosy, and the issue, and so forth, are as much Israelites as we are, and have as good a right to all the blessings and privileges of the camp as we have; we do not therefore feel it would be right for us to put them out."
Now what, we ask, would have been God’s rejoinder to such a reply? If the reader will just turn for an instant to Joshua 7 he will find as solemn an answer as could well be given. Let him draw near and carefully inspect that "great heap of stones" in the valley of Achor. Let him read the inscription thereon. What is it? "God in greatly to be feared in the assembly of his: saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are round about him." "Our God is a consuming fire." What is the meaning of all this? Let us hear it and consider it! Lust had conceived in the heart of one member of the congregation, and brought forth sin. What then? Did this involve the whole congregation? Yes, verily, this is the solemn truth, "Israel (not merely Achan) hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff. Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they were accursed: neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed thing from among you." Joshua 7: 11, 12.
This is peculiarly solemn and searching. It, most assuredly, utters a loud voice in our ears, and conveys a holy lesson to our hearts. There were, so far as the narrative informs us, many hundreds of thousands throughout the camp of Israel as ignorant, as Joshua himself seems to have been, of the fact of Achan’s sin and yet the word was, "Israel hath sinned - transgressed - taken the accursed thing - stolen and dissembled." How was this? The assembly was one. God’s presence in the midst of the congregation constituted it one, so one, that the sin of each was the sin of all. "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Human reason may demur to this, as it is sure to demur to everything that lies beyond its narrow range. But God says it, and this is enough for the believing mind. It doth not become us to ask," Why? how? or wherefore?" The testimony of God settles everything, and we have only to believe and obey. It is enough for us to know that the fact of God’s presence demands holiness, purity, and the judgement of evil. Let us remember this. It is not upon the principle so justly repudiated by every lowly mind, "Stand by thyself, I am holier than thou." No, no; it is entirely on the ground of what God is. "Be ye holy, for I am holy." God could not give the sanction of His holy presence to unjudged wickedness. What! Give a victory at Ai with an Achan in the camp? Impossible! a victory, under such circumstances, would have been a dishonour to God, and the very worst thing that could have happened to Israel. It could not be. Israel must be chastised. They must be humbled and broken. They must be brought down to the valley of Achor - the place of trouble, for there alone can "a door of hope" be opened when evil has come in.
Let not the reader misunderstand this great practical principle. It has, we fear, been greatly misunderstood by many of God’s people. Many there are who seem to think that it can never be right for those who are saved by grace, and who are themselves signal monuments of mercy, to exercise discipline in any form, or on any ground whatsoever. To such persons, Matthew 7: 1 seems to condemn utterly the thought of our undertaking to judge. Are we not, say they, expressly told by our Lord, not to judge? are not these His own veritable words, "Judge not, that ye be not judged?" No doubt. But what do these words mean? Do they mean that we are not to judge the doctrine and manner of life of such as present themselves for Christian fellowship? Do they lend any support to the idea that, no matter what a man holds, or what he teaches, or what he does, we are to receive him all the same? Can this be the force and meaning of our Lord’s words? Who could, for one moment, cede anything so monstrous as this? Does not our Lord, in this very same chapter, tell us to "beware of false prophets?" But how can we beware of any one, if we are not to judge? If judgement is not to be exercised in any case, why tell us to beware?
Christian reader, the truth is as simple as possible. God’s assembly is responsible to judge the doctrine and morals of all who claim entrance at the door. We are not to judge motives, but we are to judge ways. We are directly taught by the inspired apostle, in 1 Corinthians 5, that we are bound to judge all who take the ground of being inside the assembly. "For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." Verses 12, 13.
This is most distinct. We are not to judge those "without" but we are to judge those "within." That is, those who take the ground of being Christians - of being members of God’s assembly - all such come within the range of judgement. The very moment a man enters the assembly, he takes His place in that sphere where discipline is exercised upon everything contrary to the holiness of the One who dwells there.
And let not the reader suppose, for a moment, that the unity of the body is touched when the discipline of the house is maintained. This would be a very serious mistake indeed; and yet alas! it is a very common one. We frequently hear it said of those who rightly seek to maintain the discipline of the house of God, that they are rending the body of Christ. There could hardly be a greater mistake. The fact is, the former is our bounden duty; the latter, an utter impossibility? The discipline of God’s house must be carried out; but the unity of Christ’s body can never be dissolved.
Again, we sometimes hear persons speak of cutting off the limbs of the body of Christ. This also is a mistake. Not a single limb of the body of Christ can ever be disturbed. Each member has been incorporated into its place by the Holy Ghost, in pursuance of the eternal purpose of God, and on the ground of the accomplished atonement of Christ; nor can any power of men or devils ever sever a single limb from the body. All are indissolubly joined together in a perfect unity, and maintained therein by divine power. The unity of the Church of God may be compared to a chain stretching across a river; you see it at either side, but it dips in the middle, and if you were to judge by the sight of your eyes, you might suppose that the chain had given way at the centre. So is it with the Church of God; it was seen to be one at the beginning; it will be seen to be one by and by; and it is, in God’s sight, one now, though the unity be not visible to mortal eyes.
It is of the very last moment that the Christian reader should be thoroughly clear on this great Church question. The enemy has sought, by every means in his power, to cast dust into the eyes of God’s dear people, in order that they might not see the truth in this matter. We have, on the one side, the boasted unity of Roman Catholicism; and, on the other hand, the deplorable divisions of Protestantism. Rome points, with an air of triumph, to the numerous sects of Protestants; and Protestants likewise point to the numerous errors, corruptions, and abuses of Romanism. Thus the earnest seeker after truth hardly knows where to turn or what to think; while, on the other hand, the careless, the indifferent, the self-indulgent, and the world-loving are only too ready to draw a plea, from all that they see around them, for flinging aside all serious thought and concern about divine things; and even if, like Pilate, they sometimes flippantly ask the question, "What is truth?" they, like him, turn on their heel without waiting for an answer.
Now, we are firmly persuaded that the true secret of the whole matter - the grand solution of the difficulty - the real relief for the hearts of God’s beloved saints, will be found in the truth of the indivisible unity of the church of God, the body of Christ, on the earth. This truth is not merely to be held as a doctrine, but to be confessed, maintained, and carried out, at all cost to ourselves. It is a great formative truth for the soul, and contains in it the only answer to Rome’s boasted unity on the one hand, and to Protestant divisions on the other. It will enable us to testify to Protestantism that we have found unity, and to Roman Catholicism that we have found the unity of the Spirit.
It may, however, be argued, in reply, that it is the veriest Utopianism to seek to carry out such an idea, in the present condition of things. Everything is in such ruin and confusion that we are just like a number of children who have lost their way in a wood, and are trying to make the best of their way home, some in large parties, some in groups of two or three, and some all alone.
Now this may seem very plausible; and we do not doubt, in the least, but that it would carry immense weight with a large number of the Lord’s people, at the present moment. But, in the judgement of faith, such a mode of putting the matter possesses no weight whatever. And for this simple reason, that the one all important question for faith is this, namely," Is the unity of the Church a human theory or a divine reality?" A divine reality, most surely, as it is written, "There is one body, and one Spirit." (Eph 4: 4) If we deny that there is "one body," we may, with equal force, deny that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all," inasmuch as all lie side by side, on the page of inspiration, and if we disturb one, we disturb all.
Nor are we confined to one solitary passage of scripture on this subject; though had we but one, it were amply sufficient. But we have more that one. Hearken to the following: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread." (1 Cor. 10: 16, 17) Read also 1 Corinthians 12: 12-27, where this whole subject is unfolded and applied.
In a word, then, the word of God doth, most clearly and fully, establish the truth of the indissoluble unity of the body of Christ; and, moreover, it establishes, as clearly and as fully, the truth of the discipline of God’s house. But, be it observed, the proper carrying out of the latter will never interfere with the former. The two things are perfectly compatible. Are we to suppose that when the apostle commanded the church of Corinth to put away from amongst them "that wicked person," the unity of the body was touched? Surely not. And yet was not that man a member of the body of Christ? Truly so, for we find him restored in the second epistle. The discipline of the house of God had done its work with a member of the body of Christ, and the erring one was brought back. Such was the object of the church’s act.
All this may help to clear the mind of the reader as to the deeply interesting subject of reception at the Lord’s table and exclusion from it. There seems to be a considerable amount of confusion in the minds of many Christians as to these things. Some there are who seem to think that provided a person be a Christian, he should, on no account, be refused a place at the Lord’s table. The case in 1 Corinthians 5 is quite sufficient to settle this question. Evidently that man was not put away on the ground of his not being a Christian. He was, as we know, spite of his failure and sin, a child of God; and yet was the assembly at Corinth commanded to put him away; and had they not done so, they would have brought down the judgement of God upon the whole assembly. God’s presence is in the Assembly, and therefore evil must be judged.
Thus, whether we look at the fifth chapter of Numbers or at the fifth chapter of 1 Corinthians, we learn the same solemn truth, namely, that "Holiness becometh God’s house for ever." And farther we learn that it is with God’s own people that discipline must be maintained, and not with those outside. For what do we read in the opening lines of Numbers 5: 1. Were the children of Israel commanded to put out of the camp every one that was not an Israelite, every one that was not circumcised, every one who could not trace his pedigree, in an unbroken line, up to Abraham? Were these the ground of exclusion from the camp? Not at all. Who then were to be put out "Every leper" - that is, every one in whom sin is allowed to work. "Every one that hath an issue" - that is, every one from whom a defiling influence is emanating: and, "whosoever is defiled by the dead." These were the persons that were to be separated from the camp in the wilderness, and their antitypes are to be separated from the assembly now.
And why, we may ask, was this separation demanded? Was it to uphold the reputation or respectability of the people? Nothing of the sort. What then? "That they defile not their camps in the midst whereof I dwell." And so is it now. We do not judge and put away bad doctrine, in order to maintain our orthodoxy; neither do we judge and put away moral evil, in order to maintain our reputation and respectability. The only ground of judgement and putting away is this, "Holiness becometh thine house, O Lord, for ever." God dwells in the midst of His people. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I." Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"(l Cor. 3: 16) And again, "Now therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." Ephesians 2: 19-22.
But it may be that the reader feels disposed to put some such question as the following, How is it possible to find a pure, a Perfect church? Is there not, will there not - must there not be some evil in every assembly, in spite of the most intense pastoral vigilance and corporate faithfulness? How then can this high standard of purity be maintained?" No doubt there is evil in the assembly, inasmuch as there is indwelling sin in each member of the assembly. But it must not be allowed; it must not be sanctioned; it must be judged and kept under. It is not the presence of judged evil that defiles, But the allowance and sanction of evil. It is with the Church, in its corporate character, as with the members in their individual character. If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged." (1 Cor. 11: 31) Hence, therefore, no amount of evil should lead a man to separate from the Church of God; but if an assembly denies its solemn responsibility to judge evil, both in doctrine and morals, it is no longer on the ground of the Church Of God at all, and it becomes your bounden duty to separate from it. So long as an assembly is on the ground of the Church of God, however feeble it be, and few in number, to separate from it is schism. But if an assembly be not on God’s ground - and most certainly it is not, if it denies its duty to judge evil - then it is schism to continue in association with it.
But will not this tend to multiply and perpetuate divisions? Most assuredly not. It may tend to break up mere human associations; but this is not schism, but the very reverse, inasmuch as all such associations, however large, powerful, and apparently useful, are positively antagonistic to the unity of the body of Christ, the Church of God.
It cannot fail to strike the thoughtful reader that the Spirit of God is awakening attention, on all hands, to the great question of the Church. Men are beginning to see that there is very much more in this subject than the mere notion of an individual mind, or the dogma of a party. The question," What is the Church?" is forcing itself upon many hearts and demanding an answer. And what a mercy to have an answer to give! an answer as clear, as distinct, and as authoritative as the voice of God, the voice of holy scripture, can give. Is it not an unspeakable privilege, when assailed on all sides, by the claims of churches, "High Church," "Low Church," "Broad Church," "State Church," "Free Church," to be able to fall back upon the one true Church of the living God, the body of Christ? We most assuredly esteem it as such; and we are firmly persuaded that here alone is the divine solution of the difficulties of thousands of the people of God.
But where is this Church to be found? Is it not a hopeless undertaking to set out to look for it amid the ruin and confusion which surround us? No, blessed be God! for, albeit we may not see all the members of the Church gathered together, yet it is our privilege and holy duty to know and occupy the ground of the Church of God, and no other. And how is this ground to be discerned? We believe that the first step towards discerning the true ground of the Church of God is, to stand apart from everything that is contrary thereto. We need not expect to discover what is true while our minds are beclouded by what is false. The divine order is, "Cease to do evil; learn to do well." God does not give us light for two steps at a time. Hence, the moment we discover that we are on wrong ground, it is our duty to abandon it, and wait on God for further light, which He will, most surely, give.
But we must proceed with our chapter.
"The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel; when a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to do a trespass against the Lord, and that person be guilty; then they shall confess their sin which they have done; and he shall recompense his trespass with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed. But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto the Lord, even to the priest; beside the ram of the atonement, whereby an atonement shall be made for him."
The doctrine of the trespass offering has been considered in our "Notes on Leviticus," chapter 5; and to that we must refer our reader, as we do not mean to occupy his time or our own in going into any points which have been already considered. We shall merely notice here the very important questions of confession and restitution. Not only is it true that both God and man are gainers by the Great Trespass Offering presented on the cross at Calvary; but we also learn, from the foregoing quotation, that God looked for confession and restitution, when any trespass had been committed. The sincerity of the former would be evidenced by the latter. It was not sufficient for a Jew, who had trespassed against his brother, to go and say, "I am sorry," He had to restore the thing wherein he had trespassed and add a fifth thereto. Now, although we are not under the law, yet may we gather much instruction from its institutions; although we are not under the schoolmaster, we may learn some good lessons from him. If, then, we have trespassed against any one, it is not enough that we confess our sin to God and to our brother, we must make restitution; we are called upon to give practical proof of the fact that we have judged ourselves on account of that thing in which we have trespassed.
We question if this is felt as it ought to be. We fear there is a light, flippant, easy-going style in reference to sin and failure, which must be very grievous indeed to the Spirit of God. We rest content with the mere lip confession, without the deep, heartfelt sense of the evil of sin in God’s sight. The thing itself is not judged in its moral roots, and, as a consequence of this trifling with sin, the heart becomes hard, and the conscience loses its tenderness. This is very serious. We know of few things more precious than a tender conscience. We do not mean a scrupulous conscience, which is governed by its own crotchets; or a morbid conscience, which is governed by its own fears. Both these are most troublesome guests for any one to entertain. But we mean a tender conscience, which is governed, in all things, by the word of God, and which refers, at all times, to His authority. This sound description of conscience we consider an inestimable treasure. It regulates everything, takes cognisance of the very smallest matter connected with our daily walk and habits - our mode of dress - our houses - our furniture - our table - our entire deportment, spirit, and style - our mode of conducting our business, or, if it be our lot to serve others, the mode in which we discharge the service, whatever it be. In short, everything falls under the healthful moral influence of a tender conscience. "Herein," says the blessed apostle, "do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and men." Acts 24: 16.
This is what we may well covet. There is something morally beautiful and attractive in this exercise of the greatest and most gifted servant of Christ. He, with all his splendid gifts, with all his marvellous powers, with all his profound insight into the ways and counsels of God, with all he had to speak of and glory in, with all the wonderful revelations made to him in the third heavens; in a word, he, the most honoured of apostles and privileged of saints, gave holy diligence to keep always a conscience void of offence both toward God and man; and if, in an unguarded moment, he uttered a hasty word, as he did to Ananias the high priest, he was ready, the very next moment, to confess and make restitution, so that the hasty utterance, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall" was withdrawn, and God’s word given instead - "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."
Nor we do not believe that Paul could have retired to rest, that night, with a conscience void of offence, if he had not withdrawn his words. There must be confession, when we do or say what is wrong; and if there be not the confession, our communion will assuredly be interrupted. Communion, with unconfessed sin upon the conscience, is a moral impossibility. We may talk of it; but it is all the merest delusion. We must keep a clean conscience if we would walk with God. There is nothing more to be dreaded than moral insensibility a slovenly conscience, an obtuse moral sense that can allow all sorts of things to pass unjudged; that can commit sin, pass on, and coolly say, "What evil have I done?"
Reader, let us, with holy vigilance, watch against all this. Let us seek to cultivate a tender conscience. It will demand from us what it demanded from Paul, namely, "exercise." But it is blessed exercise, and it will yield most precious fruits. Do not suppose that there is anything that savours of the legal in this exercise; nay, it is most thoroughly Christian; indeed we look upon those noble words of Paul as the very embodiment, in a condensed form, of the whole of a Christian’s practice. "To have always a conscience void of offence toward God and men" comprehends everything.
But alas! how little do we habitually ponder the claims of God, or the claims of our fellow-man! How little is our conscience up to the mark! Claims of all sorts are neglected, yet we feel it not.
There is no brokenness and contrition before the Lord. We commit trespass in a thousand things, yet there is no confession or restitution. Things are allowed to pass that ought to be judged, confessed, and put away. There is sin in our holy things; there is lightness and indifference of spirit in the assembly and at the Lord’s table; we rob God, in various ways; we think our own thoughts, speak our own words, do our own pleasure; and what is all this but robbing God, seeing that we are not our own but bought with a price?
Now, we cannot but think that all this must sadly hinder our spiritual growth. It grieves the Spirit of God and hinders His gracious ministry of Christ to our souls whereby alone we grow up into Him. We know, from various parts of God’s word, how much He prizes a tender spirit, a contrite heart. "To this man will I look, even to him that is of a contrite spirit and trembles at my word." With such an one God can dwell; but with hardness and insensibility, coldness and indifference, He can have no fellowship. Oh! then let us exercise ourselves to have always a pure and uncondemning conscience, both as to God and as to our fellow-man.
The third and last section of our chapter, which we need not quote at length, teaches us a deeply solemn lesson, whether we view it from a dispensational or a moral point of view. It contains the record of the great ordinance designed for the trial of jealousy. Its place here is remarkable. In the first section, we have the corporate judgement of evil: in the second, we have individual self-judgement, confession, and restitution: and in the third, we learn that God cannot endure even the mere suspicion of evil.
Now, we fully believe that this very impressive ordinance has a dispensational bearing upon the relationship between Jehovah and Israel. The prophets dwell largely upon Israel’s conduct as a wife, and upon Jehovah’s jealousy, on that score. We do not attempt to quote the passages, but the reader will find them throughout the pages of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Israel could not abide the searching trial of the bitter water. Her unfaithfulness has been made manifest. She has broken her vows. She has gone aside from her Husband, the Holy One of Israel, whose burning jealousy has been poured forth upon the Faithless nation. He is a jealous God, and cannot bear the thought that the heart that He claims as His own should be given to another.
Thus we see that this ordinance for the trial of jealousy bears very distinctly upon it the impress of the divine character. In it He most fully enters into the thoughts and feelings of an injured husband, or of one who even suspected an injury. The bare suspicion is perfectly intolerable, and where it takes possession of the heart, the matter must be sifted to the very bottom. The suspected one must undergo a process of such a searching nature that only the faithful one can endure. If there was a trace of guilt, the bitter water could search down into the very depths of the soul, and bring it full out. There was no escape for the guilty one; and, we may say, that the very fact of there being no possible escape for the guilty, only made the vindication of the innocent more triumphant. The self-same process that declared the guilt of the guilty, made manifest the innocence of the faithful. To one who is thoroughly conscious of integrity, the more searching the investigation the more welcome it is. If there were a possibility of a guilty one escaping, through any defect in the mode of trial, it would only make against the innocent. But the process was divine, and therefore perfect; and hence, when the suspected wife had gone through it in safety, her fidelity was perfectly manifested, and full confidence restored.
What a mercy, then, to have had such a perfect mode of settling all suspected cases! Suspicion is the death blow to all loving intimacy, and God would not have it in the midst of His congregation. He would not only have His people collectively to judge evil, and individually to judge themselves; But where there was even the suspicion of evil, and no evidence forthcoming, He Himself devised a method of trial which perfectly brought the truth to light. The guilty one had to drink death, and found it to be judgement.* The faithful one drank death, and found it victory.
{*The "dust" lifted from the floor of the tabernacle may be viewed as the figure of death. "Thou hast brought me into the dust of death." The "water prefigures the word, which, being brought to bear upon the conscience, by the power of the Holy Ghost, makes everything manifest. If there has been any unfaithfulness to Christ, the true husband of His people, it must be thoroughly judged. This holds good with regard to the nation of Israel, to the Church of God, and to the individual believer. If the heart be not true to Christ, it will not be able to stand the searching power of the word. But if there be truth in the inward parts, the more one is searched and tried, the better. How blessed it is when we can truly say, “Search me, O God, and know my Heart: try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." Psalm 139: 23, 24}
C. H. Mackintosh, Notes on the Pentateuch — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary1880 · Public DomainOn vv2–4Every leper. The law of the leper had been…
Every leper. The law of the leper had been given in great detail in Leviticus 13 and 14, and it had been already ordered that he should be put out of the camp, (Lev_13:46, and cf. Lev_14:3) Every one that hath an issue. These defilements are treated of in Leviticus 15; where, however, it is not expressly ordered that those so polluted should be put out of the comp. Whosoever is defiled by the dead. The fact of being thus defiled is recognized in Lev_11:24 Lev_21:1, but the formal regulations concerning it are not given until Num_19:21. Probably the popular opinion and practice was sufficiently definite to explain the present command.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator1887 · Public DomainOn v2Put out of the camp every leper, and every…
Num_5:2-3
Put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead.
Read full note →
.
Where God dwells there must be purity:
I. God himself is pure, and cannot associate with the impure. If discipline is lax, God departs. It is not the large church, or the intelligent or the wealthy one, that attracts Him, but the pure one. As the lightning passes by the polished marble and the carved wood to touch the iron or steel, because there it finds something akin to itself, so God passes by those to dwell with the pure, because in them He finds a character akin to His own.
II. God will not, because he cannot, do any good to the impure. Any one tolerating sin would not appreciate the design of God and accept His blessing; and where He cannot bless, He will not come to dwell. Let us then put out of the camp every leper, everything that defileth; for the presence of God in our midst is of the utmost importance to us as His Church and people. His presence is essential.
1. To our comfort as Churches and Christians. What the shining sun is in nature His presence is with us--our brightness, our joy, &c.
2. To our prosperity. God with His Church has been in all ages the secret of its power and success. His presence is the life of the ministry and of all Christian work (D. Lloyd.)
The exclusion of the unclean:
I. As a sanitary measure.
1. The universal application of the rule.
2. The sacred reason by which it was enforced. Impurity separates from God.
II. As a spiritual parable.
1. Sin is a defiling thing.
2. Sin is a deadly thing.
3. Sin is a separating thing.
Where sin is cherished God will not dwell.
(1) The openly and persistently wicked should be expelled from the Church on earth.
(a) Because of their corrupt influence (1Co_5:6-13).
(b) Because of the dishonour to God which their presence in the Church involves.
(2) The wicked will be excluded from the city of God above.
Conclusion:
1. He who demands this purity has provided the means whereby we may attain unto it. The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.
2. Let us diligently use the means which He has provided. Wash you, make you clean, &c. (W. Jones.)
In the midst whereof I dwell--
God ever present with His people
This teaches us that God is evermore present with His people. This appeareth in the example of Joseph (Gen_39:21; Gen_39:23). I will propound a few reasons.
1. He will save those that are His. His presence is not a vain presence, neither is He an idle beholder of things that are done; but His presence is to prosper and to save (Jer_30:11). We must not therefore dream of a presence that effecteth nothing, but rather willeth His people oftentimes to stand still, while He worketh all in all.
2. They have good success in their lawful labours, so that He maketh the works of their hands prosperous.
Uses:
1. For the increase of a sound faith in God. He leaveth them not to themselves; He with-draweth not His strength from them; He delivereth them not to the lust and pleasure of their enemies. This is it which He telleth Joshua after the death of Moses (Jdg_1:5).
2. This teacheth us this good duty, that we take heed we do not defile ourselves with the pollutions of sin. For how shall we dare to commit sin that is so highly displeasing in His sight, forasmuch as He is with us to behold us and all our actions? (W. Attersoll.)
2. As the source of blessing. Life, light, power, beauty, &c.
III. Gods presence in the midst of his people should exert a great and blessed influence upon them.
1. A restraint from sin.
2. An incentive to holiness.
3. An encouragement to duty.
4. An assurance of support in the toils and trials of life.
5. An assurance of victory in the conflicts of life.
6. An assurance of perfect salvation. (W. Jones.)
The presence of God among His people demands holiness on their part
Redemption was the basis of Gods dwelling in the midst of His people. But we must remember that discipline was essential to His continuance amongst them. He could not dwell where evil was deliberately sanctioned. It may, however, be said, in reply, Does not God the Holy Ghost dwell in the individual believer, and yet there is much evil in him? True, the Holy Ghost dwells in the believer, on the ground of accomplished redemption. He is there, not as the sanction of what is of nature, but as the seal of what is of Christ; and His presence and fellowship are enjoyed just in proportion as the evil in us is habitually judged. So also in reference to the assembly. No doubt, there is evil there--evil in each individual member, and therefore evil in the body corporate. But it must be judged; and, if judged, it is not allowed to act, it is rendered null. We are not to judge motives, but we are to judge ways. The very moment a man enters the assembly, he takes his place in that sphere where discipline is exercised upon ever, thing contrary to the holiness of the One who dwells there. And let not the reader suppose, for a moment, that the unity of the body is touched when the discipline of the house is maintained. We frequently hear it said of those who rightly seek to maintain the discipline of the house of God, that they are rending the body of Christ. There could hardly be a greater mistake. The fact is, the former is our bounden duty; the latter, an utter impossibility. The discipline of Gods house must be carried out; but the unity of Christs body can never be dissolved. And why, we may ask, was this separation demanded? Was it to uphold the reputation or respectability of the people? Nothing of the sort. What then? That they defile not their camps in the midst whereof I dwell. And so is it now. We do not judge and put away bad doctrine, in order to maintain our orthodoxy; neither do we judge and put away moral evil, in order to maintain our reputation and respectability. The only ground of judgment and putting away is this, Holiness becometh Thine house, O Lord, forever. God dwells in the midst of His people. (C. H. Mackintosh.)
No Church ought to tolerate open offenders:
No Church ought to tolerate any filthy livers, or unclean persons, or notorious offenders among them (Deu_23:17; 1Co_5:1-2; Eph_5:3-5). This truth may be further strengthened by many reasons.
1. For it is a comely thing for the saints of God to do so: that as they differ from heathen men, so they may differ from heathen meetings. Moses teacheth that they ought to put out evil from them, because they are an holy people (Deu_23:14).
2. For the neglect of this duty, the wrath of God falleth upon the sons of men. He is the God of order, and requireth that all things in the Church be done in order. Hence it is that the apostle saith (Col_3:6). And we have sundry examples of this in the people of Israel, who were diversely destroyed because of their sins (1Co_10:5).
3. We showed before that they were as unclean beasts, and should not be admitted to the fellowship of Christs sheep which are clean, lest they defile them through their contagion, and tread down with their feet the residue of their pastures. The apostle saith (1Co_5:6). Sin therefore being infectious, the sinner is not to be tolerated in the assembly of the righteous.
Uses:
1. It should minister great matter of much sorrow to every society of Christian men and women, when any of the congregation grow to be thus profane and defiled with the contagion of sin. Is it not a great grief to have any one member of the body cut off? This the apostle teacheth (1Co_5:2.)
2. It is a cause of great mercy and of a wonderful blessing from God, when such as transgress are resisted and punished. So long as sin is suffered, God is offended, and His wrath is extended over those places and persons. He hath a controversy against those that sin against Him.
3. Every congregation is bound to purge their own body from such excrements and filthiness as annoy it. We must have herein true zeal and godly courage in the cause of God and His truth. We must not stand in fear of the faces of men, though they be never so great and mighty. The censures of the Church must not be like the spiders web, which catcheth flies and gnats, whereas the bigger creatures break from it. This reproveth such as dare not deal with great men, rich men, and mighty men: they are afraid to touch them lest they purchase their displeasure.
4. Is no Church to tolerate any open offenders among them? Then they must use the censure of excommunication as an ordinance of God, not an invention of men; and not only know the nature and use of it, but practise it to the glory of God, and to the good of others. This is it which our Saviour Christ hath left and commanded to be executed among us (Mat_18:17). (W. Attersoll.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible1887 · Public DomainOn v1Numbers 5
DEFILEMENT AND PURGATION
Numbers 5
Read full note →
THE separation of Israel as a people belonging to Jehovah proceeded on ideas of holiness which excluded from privilege many of the Hebrews themselves. The law did not ordain that in cases of defilement there might be immediate purification by washing or sacrifice. So far as ceremonial uncleanness was concerned, we may think this might have been provided for, and moral offences alone might have involved the offender in continued defilement. But just as idolatry, blasphemy, and murder caused pollution which could not be removed by sacrifice, but only by the capital punishment of the guilty, so certain bodily conditions and defects, and certain diseases, chiefly leprosy and those akin to it, were held to cause a defilement which could not be purged by any ceremony. A high standard of bodily health and purity was required for the priesthood; a lower standard was to be applied to the people. And the system declaring the uncleanness of many animals, and of the person under various conditions, touched at countless points the life of society. An Israelite who was unclean for one or other of a hundred reasons could not approach the sanctuary. He had his portion in God after a sense; yet for a time, it might be for life, the peculiar blessings of holy fellowship were denied him. He could celebrate no feast. He had no share in the great atonement. The precautions and terms to be observed were of such a nature that if the law had been at any time stringently enforced a very large percentage of the people would have been denied access to the altar.
It may appear a strange thing that the precept, "Ye shall be holy; for I am holy," was affixed not only to moral duties but with almost the same force to ceremonial duties. We can understand this, however, when we trace the result of the priestly ordinances. They created religious care and feeling; and the end was gained not so much by directing attention, as we now do, to faults of conduct, defects of will, sins of injustice, impurity, intemperance, and the like, but by keeping up a scrupulous attention to matters not, properly speaking, either moral or immoral, not: ethical as we say, which were yet declared to be of moment in religion. The moral law did its part. But to make the enforcement of moral statutes, many of which bore on desire and will, the only means of urging the fear of God, would have resulted practically in a very bare and desultory cultus. Among a comparatively rude people like the Israelites it would have been absurd to institute a religion consisting of "morality touched by emotion." For the mass of people still it is equally hopeless. There must he ordinances of prayer, praise, sacrament, and the duties which reach Godward through the Church. The value of the whole ceremonial system of the Mosaic law is clear from this point of view; and we need not wonder in the least at the nature of many provisions which, without grasp of the principle, we might reckon irksome and useless. The origin of some of the statutes is apparently hygienic; others again reach back to customs and beliefs of a very primitive world.
But they are made part of the sacred law in order to enforce the conviction that the judgment of God enters into the whole of life, follows men wherever they go, decides as to their state with relation to Him hour by hour, almost moment by moment. The ceremonial law was a constant and strenuous lesson in regard to the omnipresence of God, and the oversight of human affairs by Him. It created a conscience of Gods existence, His control, His superintendence of each life. And for a certain stage of the education of Israel this could be achieved in no other way. The moral and spiritual progress of a people, depending on the recognition of the authority of One who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, depends also, of necessity, on the sense of His oversight of human life at every point.
1. EXCLUSION FROM THE CAMP
Num_5:1-4.
The rigidness of the law which excluded lepers from the camp and afterwards from the cities had its necessity in the presumed nature of their disease. Leprosy was regarded as contagious, and practically incurable by any medical appliances, requiring to be kept in check by strenuous measures. Care for the general health meant hardship to the lepers; but this could not be avoided. From friends and home they were sent forth to live together as best they might, and spend what remained of life in almost hopeless separation. The authority of Moses is attached to the statute of exclusion, and there can be no doubt of its great antiquity. In Leviticus there are detailed enactments regarding the disease, some of which contemplate its decay and provide for the restoration to privilege of those who had been cured. The ceremonies were complicated, and among them were sacrifices to be offered by way of "atonement." The leper was alienated from God, severed from the congregation as one guilty in the eye of the law (Lev_14:12); and there can be no wonder that with this among other facts before him the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the law as having a mere "shadow of the good things to come."
And yet, in view of the malignant nature of the disease and the peril it caused to the general health, we must admit the wisdom of segregating those afflicted with leprosy. That Israel might be a robust people capable of its destiny, a rule like this was needful. It anticipated our modern laws made in harmony with advanced medical science, which require segregation or isolation in cases of virulent disease.
It has been affirmed that leprosy was from the first regarded as symbolic of moral disease, and that the legislation was from this point of view. There is, however, no evidence to support the theory. Indeed the conception of moral evil would have been confused rather than helped by any such idea. For although evil habits taint the mind and vice ruins it as leprosy taints and destroys the body; although the infectious nature of sin is fitly indicated by the insidious spread of this disease-one point in which there is no resemblance would make the symbol dangerously misleading. A few here and there were attacked by leprosy, and these with their blotched disfigured bodies were easily distinguished from the healthy. But this was in contrast with the secret moral malady by which all were tainted. The teaching that leprosy is a type of sin would make, not for morality, but for hypocrisy. The symptoms of a bad nature, like the signs of leprosy, would be looked for and found by every man m his neighbour, not in his own heart. The hypocrite would be encouraged in his self-satisfaction because he escaped the judgment of his fellow men. But the disease of sin is endemic, universal. The whole congregation was by reason of that excluded from the sanctuary of God.
According to the idea which underlies the priest law, leprosy did not typify sin; it meant sin. In no single place, indeed, is this directly affirmed. Yet the belief connecting bodily afflictions and calamities with transgressions implied it, and the fact that guilt-offerings had to be made for the leper when he was cleansed. Again, in the cases of Miriam, of Gehazi, and of Uzziah, the punishment of sin was leprosy. Under the conditions of climate which often prevailed, the germs of this disease might rapidly be developed by excitement, especially by the excitement of immoral rashness. Here we may find the connection which the law assumes between leprosy and guilt, and the origin of the statute which made the intervention of the priests necessary. In their poor dwellings beyond camp and city wall the lepers lay under a double reproach. They were not only tainted in body but appeared as stoners above others, men on whom some divine judgment had fallen, as the very name of their disease implied. And not till One came who did not fear to lay His hand on the leprous flesh, whose touch brought healing and life, was the pressure of the moral condemnation taken away. Of many cases of leprosy He would have said, as of the blindness He cured: "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents."
Now is the law to be charged with creating a class of social pariahs? Is there any reason for saying that in some way the legislation should have expressed pity rather than the rigour which appears in the passage before us and other enactments regarding leprosy? It would be easy to bring arguments which would seem to prove the law defective here. But in matters of this kind civilisation and Christian culture could not be forestalled. What was possible, what in the conditions that existed could be carried into effect, this only was commanded. These old enactments sprang out of the best wisdom and religion of the age. But they do not represent the whole of the Divine will, the Divine mercy, even as they were contemporaneously revealed. Add to the statutes regarding leprosy the other, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," and those that enjoined kindness to the poor and provision for their needs, and the true tenor of the legislation will be understood. According to these laws there were to be no pariahs in Israel. It was a sad necessity if any were excluded from the congregation of Gods people. The laws of brotherhood would insure for the wretched colony outside the camp every possible consideration. Denied access to God in festival and sacrifice, the lepers appealed to the humane feelings of the people. With their pathetic cry, "Unclean, unclean!" their loose hair and rent clothes, they confessed a miserable state that touched, every heart. As time went on, the law of segregation was interpreted liberally. Even in the synagogues a place was set apart for the lepers. The kindly disposition promoted by the Mosaic institutions was shown thus, and in many other ways.
The lepers banished outside the camp remind us of those who have for no wrong-doing of their own to endure social reproach. Were sometimes good men and women among the Hebrews, men with kind hearts, good mothers and daughters, attacked by this disease and compelled to betake themselves to the squalid tents of the lepers? That decree of rigorous precaution is outdone by the strange fact that under the providence of God, in His world, the best have often had to undergo opprobrium and cruelty; that Jesus Himself was crucified as a malefactor, bore the curse of him that "hangeth upon a tree." We see great suffering which is not due to moral delinquency; and we see the sting of it taken quite away. The stern ordinances of nature have light thrown "upon them from a higher world." Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses. For our sakes He was the object of brutal mockery, the sufferer, the sacrifice.
Besides the lepers and those who had an issue, every one who was unclean by reason of touching a dead body was to be excluded from the camp. This provision appears to rest on the idea that death was no "debt of nature," but unnatural, the result of the curse of God. Associated, however, in the statute before us with leprosy, defilement from the dead may have been decreed to prevent the spread of disease. Many maladies too well known to us have an infectious character; and those who were present at a death would be most exposed to their influence. Pathological explanations do not by any means account for all the kinds and causes of defilement; but exclusion from the camp is the special point here; and the cases may be classed together as having a common origin. The notion that some demon or fallen spirit was at work both in producing leprosy and in causing death, was involved in the customs of some barbarous tribes and entered into the beliefs of the Egyptians and Assyrians. This explanation, however, is too remote and alien from Judaism to be applied to these statutes regarding uncleanness, at least in the form they have in the Mosaic books. The few hints surviving in them, as where a bird was to be allowed to fly away when the leper was pronounced clean, cannot be permitted to fix a charge of superstition on the whole code.
A singular point in the statute regarding uncleanness "by the dead" is that the word (nephesh) stands apparently for the dead body. Of this some other explanation is needed than the free transference of meanings in Hebrew. Here and elsewhere in the Book of Numbers (Num_6:11; Num_9:6-7; Num_9:10; Num_19:13), as well as in various passages in Leviticus. defilement is attributed to the nephesh. Commonly the word means soul or animal life-principle. When connected with death it corresponds to our word "ghost," Job_11:20; Jer_15:9. Now the law was that not only those who touched a dead body, but all present in a house when death took place in it were unclean. The question occurs whether the nephesh, or soul escaping at death, was believed to defile. As if in doubt here a rabbi said "The body and the soul may plead successfully not guilty by charging their sinful life each upon the other. The body may say: Since that guilty soul parted with me, I have been lying in the grave as harmless as a stone. The soul may plead: Since that depraved body separated from me, I flutter about in the air like an innocent bird." Is it not possible that the nephesh meant the effluvium of the dead body, the active element which, springing from corruption, diffused uncleanness through the whole house of death? It seems quite in harmony with other uses of the word, and with the idea of defilement, to interpret was unclean by the nephesh, "sinned by the nephesh," as technical expressions carrying this meaning. The passage Num_19:13 is peculiarly instructive-"Every one coming in contact with the dead, with the nephesh of a man who has died." To translate, "with the corpse of a man who has died," would fix on the language the fault of tautology. In Psa_17:9 nephesh has the meaning of deadly, that is to say breathing death; and the idea here points to the meaning suggested.
The reason given for the banishment of the unclean is the presence of God in the congregation-"That they defile not their camp, in the midst whereof I dwell." All that are unhealthy, and those who have been in contact with death, which is the result of irremediable disease or accident, must be withdrawn from the precincts that belong to the Holy God. Human maladies are in contrast with the Divine health, death is in contrast to the Divine life. Here the whole scope of the legislation regarding defilement has its highest range of suggestion. It was a part of moral education to realise that God was separate from all distortion, wasting, and decay. In glad and deathless power He reigned in the midst of Israel. From the living God man received life which had to be kept pure and disciplined. Among the Egyptians it was held to be sacrilege when the operator, in the process preparatory to embalming, opened a human body. He who made the incision was driven out of the room by his assistants with abuse and violence. Quite different is the idea of the Mosaic law which makes the holiness belong entirely to God, and requires of men the preservation of the clean life He has given. Every statute suggests that there is a tendency in the creature to fall away from purity and become unfit for fellowship with the Most Holy.
2. ATONEMENT FOR TRESPASS
Num_5:5-10
The enactment of this passage refers to the sin of theft or any other breach of the eighth commandment which involved trespass not only against man, but also against God-"When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit to do a trespass against the Lord, and that soul be guilty; then shall they confess their sin which they have done." The statute supplements one given in Lev_6:1-4, omitting some details, but adding the provision that if the person defrauded has died, restitution shall be made to the goel, and if there is no surviving relation, to the priest. The cases specified in Leviticus are those of false dealing in regard to a deposit or a bargain, robbery, oppression, -probably in the way of withholding hire from a labourer, -finding what was lost and denying it; but in each instance false swearing is added to the offence and constitutes it a trespass against the Lord. Restitution to man must be made by returning the amount and one-fifth in addition; to God by bringing a ram without blemish, with which the priest makes atonement.
In this statute the punishment does not seem severe. But the penalty is imposed after confession when the offence has been for some time undetected. The ordinary law required for the theft of an ox, if the animal had not been slaughtered, double restitution; and if it had been slaughtered or sold, fivefold restitution. In the case of a sheep slaughtered or sold the restitution was to be fourfold. Confession of the theft, according to the present statute, diminishes the penalty.
Noticeable particularly is the provision for atonement, which is nowhere else admitted in connection with a serious breach of the moral law. Any offence against the first four commandments was to be punished with death; so also were murder, adultery, and certain other crimes. It might have been expected that false swearing by any one in regard to theft or valuables intrusted to him would add to his guilt. Here, however, by means of the ram of atonement even that offence is apparently expiated. Possibly the confession is held to mitigate the crime. Still the nature of the statute is surprising and exceptional.
3. THE WATER OF JEALOUSY
Num_5:11-31.
The long and remarkable statute regarding the water of jealousy seems to have been interposed to prevent, by means of an ordeal, that cruel practice of peremptory divorce which had been in vogue at some period among the Hebrews. The position given to woman by the old customs must have been exceedingly low. Under polygamy a wife was in constant danger of suspicions and accusations she had no means of removing. The whole scope of this enactment and the means used for deciding between the husband and a suspected wife point to the frequency and general groundlessness of charges made by men in the "hardness of their hearts," or by other women in the hardness of theirs.
The ordeal to which the wife was to be subjected was twofold. One point was the imprecation of the Divine curse upon herself if she had been guilty.
This oath was administered in terms and with ceremonies fitted to produce the most profound impression. She is set "before the Lord"-probably in the court of the sanctuary. Her hair is loose. She has the offering of jealousy in her hand-the tenth part of an ephah of barley-meal. The priest holds a basin of the "water of jealousy." The terms of the curse with its frightful consequences are not only repeated in her hearing, but written on a scroll which is dropped into the water. The second thing is her drinking of the "water of jealousy," "holy water" mingled with dust from the floor of the sanctuary, and with the terms of the curse. The nature of the ordeal was such that few guilty persons would have braved it. The only thing which appears wanting is a provision for the punishment of the man whose wife had passed the terrible test. Since the punishment of this crime was death, and he made the accusation without cause, his own judgment should have followed. Here, however, deference had to be paid to the notions of the time, as our Lord clearly indicates. The absolute right, the just equality between husband and wife, could not be established. Nor indeed, with all our progress, is it yet secured.
The ordeal of the water of jealousy must have saved many an innocent life from wreck. In one sense it was part of a system designed to maintain a high standard of morality, and in that system it had a place which at the time could not be filled in any other way. The main stress lies on the oath of purgation; and to the present day in certain ecclesiastical courts this is in use for the purpose of bringing to an end processes not otherwise capable of solution. It must be noted that our marriage laws, lax as they are thought to be, do not give to a husband anything like the power or allow divorce with anything like the facility admitted by the Mosaic law as some of the Rabbis interpreted it. And this ordeal was of such a nature that if those in use throughout Europe only a century ago or thereby, in the trial of witches for instance, be compared with it, we can at once see its superiority. Those barbarous tests, not used by the vulgar alone, but by religious men and Church authorities, made escape from false accusation next to impossible. Here there is absolutely nothing required which could in any sense injure or imperil an innocent woman. She might take her oath, see it written, and drink the water without the least fear or hesitation. The beneficence of the law is strongly marked along with its wisdom. It was a wonderful provision for the time.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary1892 · Public DomainOn v1“Now that the nation was regularly organised, the sacred…
THE EXCLUSION OF THE UNCLEAN
(Num_5:1-4)
Read full note →
“Now that the nation was regularly organised, the sacred tribe dedicated, and the sanctuary with the tokens of God’s more immediate Presence provided with its proper place and attendants in the camp, it remained to attest and to vindicate, by modes in harmony with the spirit of the theocratical law, the sanctity of the people of God. This accordingly is the general purpose of the directions given in this and the next chapter. Thus the congregation of Israel was made to typify the Church of God, within which, in its perfection, nothing that offends can be allowed to remain” (cf. Mat_8:22; Rev_21:27.)—Speaker’s Comm.
In the verses now before us we have the directions for the expulsion of unclean persons out of the camp. The laws as to ceremonial uncleanness are given with considerable minuteness in Leviticus 11, 15, 21, 22, and Numbers 19. But it appears that they are now carried out for the first time.
We shall look at our text in two aspects.
I. As a Sanitary Measure.
A number of rules and regulations for securing the cleanliness and health of the people were promulgated and enforced. Some of the sanitary regulations “seem minute and indelicate to modern ideas, but were, doubtless, intended to correct unseemly or un-healthful practices, either of the Hebrew people or of neighbouring tribes.” Some have asserted that the reason for the expulsion of every leper from the camp was that the disease was contagious. So scholarly and well-informed a writer as Dr. Milman says that “the disease was highly infectious.” But this is extremely doubtful. “All who have looked closest into the matter,” says Archbishop Trench, “agree that the sickness was incommunicable by ordinary contact from one person to another. A leper might transmit it to his children, or the mother of a leper’s children might take it from him; but it was by no ordinary contact communicable from one person to another.… Naaman, the leper, commanded the armies of Syria (2Ki_5:1); Gehazi, with his leprosy that never should be cleansed (2Ki_5:27), talked familiarly with the king of apostate Israel (2Ki_8:5). And even where the law of Moses was in force, the stranger and the sojourner were expressly exempted from the ordinances relating to leprosy; which could not have been, had the disease been contagious. How, moreover, should the Levitical priests, had the disease been this creeping infection, have ever themselves escaped it, obliged as they were by their very office to submit the leper to actual handling and closest examination?” It seems to us indisputable “that, if the disease is contagious, a very rare and critical concurrence of circumstances is required to develop the contagion.” There were special reasons for selecting this disease from all other for exclusion from the camp. “The Egyptian and Syrian climates, but especially the rainless atmosphere of the former, are very prolific in skin diseases.… The Egyptian bondage, with its studied degradations and privations, and especially the work of the kiln under the Egyptian sun, must have had a frightful tendency to generate this class of disorders; hence Manetho (Joseph. cont., Ap. I. 26) asserts that the Egyptians drove out the Israelites as infected with leprosy—a strange reflex, perhaps, of the Mosaic narrative of the ‘plagues’ of Egypt, yet also probably containing a germ of truth. The sudden and total change of food, air, dwelling, and mode of life, caused by the Exodus, to this nation of newly emancipated slaves may possibly have had a further tendency to skin disorders, and novel and severe repressive measures may have been required in the desert-moving camp to secure the public health, or to allay the panic of infection.… In the contact of a dead body there was no notion of contagion, for the body the moment life was extinct was as much ceremonially unclean as in a state of decay. Why, then, in leprosy must we have recourse to a theory of contagion? It would perhaps be nearer the truth to say that uncleanness was imputed, rather to inspire the dread of contagion, than in order to check contamination as an actual process.… On the whole, though we decline to rest leprous defilement merely on popular notions of abhorrence, dread of contagion, and the like; yet a deference to them may be admitted to have been shown, especially at the time when the people were, from previous habits and associations, up to the moment of the actual Exodus, most strongly imbued with the scrupulous purity and refined ceremonial example of the Egyptians on these subjects.”—Smith’s Dict. of the Bible.
In each case mentioned in the text, “every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosover is defiled by the dead,”—the person was put without the camp because of ceremonial pollution, not because of contagion. It was the will of God that the people should cultivate the most scrupulous physical cleanliness. In a camp composed of more than two millions of persons cleanliness was of the utmost importance. Dirt is the prolific parent of disease. Wise sanitary measures are the most certain means of insuring bodily strength and safety. (a) Two things in the text show that this sanitary measure was regarded as of great importance by the Lord.
1. The universal application of the rule. “Every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosover is defiled by the dead: both male and female shall ye put out.” No one whatever was exempted from its application. When Miriam, the prophetess, and sister of Moses and Aaron, was smitten with leprosy, she “was shut out from the camp seven days.” With strict impartiality the rule was carried out.
2. The sacred reason by which it was enforced “That they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell.” The Lord is the God of cleanliness and health. All impurity is an abomination to Him. Purity of body, of home, of towns and cities, is well-pleasing to Him. As a condition of the Divine Presence, let us cultivate comprehensive and scrupulous cleanliness. Impurity separates from Him.
II. As a spiritual parable.
Ceremonial uncleanness was intended to illustrate spiritual uncleanness. The ceremonial purity which was insisted upon in the camp of Israel was typical of the spiritual purity which God requires of His people. By enacting that any one who had anything to do with the dead should be regarded as unclean, and put out of the camp, the Lord teaches that sin and death are not from Him, and cannot dwell with Him. And the loathsome and terrible disease of “leprosy was the outward and visible sign of the innermost spiritual corruption, the sacrament of death.” The leper “was himself a dreadful parable of death,”—“a walking grave.” Thus, parabolically, the text represents sin—
1. As a defiling thing. The sinner is morally unclean. Deeply did David feel this when he cried, “Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Create in me a clean heart, O God.” Every sin proceeds from the corruption of the human heart, and tends to increase that corruption.
2. As a deadly thing. “The soul that sinneth it shall die.” “The wages of sin is death.” “Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” Every sinful act tends to kill some element or power of the spiritual life. The life of the soul consists in truth and trust, righteousness and love, reverence and obedience, etc. Every lie spoken or acted is a blow aimed at the very life of truth in us. Every infidelity of which we are guilty tends to destroy our trust. So in relation to every element of the soul’s life. Sin is deadly in its character and influence.
3. As a separating thing. The unclean were to be put out of the camp. Ceremonial uncleanness involved forfeiture of social privileges and of citizenship among the people of God for a time. “The man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord.” Where sin is cherished God will not dwell.
(1) The openly and persistently wicked should be expelled from the Church on earth. (a) Because of their corrupt influence. “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” 1Co_5:6-13. (b) Because of the dishonour to God which their presence in the Church involves. He has promised to dwell in His Church, and to manifest Himself to His people as He does not unto the world. Mat_18:20; Joh_14:21-23. And He demands that His people shall follow after entire holiness. He demands our entire consecration. “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” &c. “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple are ye.” Our Lord “gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purity unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” “A chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people,” etc. Such is the Divine pattern of the Church and people of God: and He is dishonoured when the openly and persistently wicked are allowed to remain in His Church. With such a church HE will not dwell. (b)
(2) The wicked will be excluded from the city of God above. “There shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth,” etc. Rev_21:27. All the citizens of that glorious realm “have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” (c)
Conclusion.
1. He who demands this purity has provided the means to whereby we may attain unto it. “The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.”
2. Let us diligently use the means which He has provided. “Wash you, make you clean,” etc. Isa_1:16; Isa_1:18. “Purifying their hearts by faith.” “Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) Cleanliness may be defined to be the emblem of purity of mind, and may be recommended under the three following heads; as it is a mark of politeness, as it produces affection, and as it bears analogy to chastity of sentiment. First, it is a mark of politeness, for it in universally agreed upon, that no one unadorned with this virtue can go into company without giving a manifold offence; the different nations of the world are as much distinguished by their cleanliness as by their arts and sciences; the more they are advanced in civilization the more they consult this part of politeness. Secondly, cleanliness may be said to be the foster-mother of affection. Beauty commonly produces love, but cleanliness preserves it. Age itself is not unamiable while it is preserved clean and unsullied; like a piece of metal constantly kept smooth and bright, we look on it with more pleasure than on a new vessel cankered with rust. I might further observe, that as cleanliness renders us agreeable to others, it makes us easy to ourselves, that it is an excellent preservative of health; and that several vices, both of mind and body, are inconsistent with the habit of it. In the third place, it bears a great analogy with chastity of sentiment, and naturally inspires refined feelings and passions; we find from experience, that through the prevalence of custom, the most vicious actions lose their horror by being made familiar to us. On the contrary, those who live in the neighbourhood of good examples fly from the first appearance of what is shocking; and thus pure and unsullied thoughts are naturally suggested to the mind by those objects that perpetually encompass us when they are beautiful and elegant in their kind.—Addison.
It is wonderful how views of life depend upon exercise and right management of the physical constitution. Nor is this, rightly looked at, any cause for perplexity, though it seems so at first; for though you might be inclined to view it as a degradation of our higher nature to find it so dependent on the lower, and hope and faith and energy resultant from a walk or early hours—yet, in fact, it is only a proof that all the laws of our manifold being are sacred, and that disobedience to them in punished by God. And the punishment in one department of our nature of the transgressions committed in the other—as, for instance, when mental gloom comes from uncleanliness or physical inertia, and, on the other hand, where ill-health ensues from envy or protracted doubt—is but one of many instances of the law of vicarious suffering. We are, as it were, two, and one suffers by what the other does.—F. W. Robertson, M.A., Life and Letters.
(b) They are deceived that think it is not necessary to purge out the great and gross offenders. The Church is the City of God, excommunication is the sword; it is the school of Christ, this is the rod, as the Apostle calleth it; it is the Temple of God, this is, as it were, the whip, to scourge out such as abuse it and themselves; it is the body of Christ, this is as a medicine to cure the diseases of it; it is the vine and sheepfold, this serveth to keep the foxes and wolves from it.—W. Attersoll.
(c) How real is that description of sin—“it defileth, it worketh abomination, it maketh a lie!” It is uncleanness, unloveliness, untruth! But it shall “in no wise enter” heaven. There “shall be nothing to hurt and to destroy.” Moral evil cannot for a moment dwell in it. As though the leprosy of sin had struck too inextricably into the abode of man, had even contaminated the habitation of angels, we anticipate a scene purer than earth could afford however it were changed, purer than the heavens from which the angels fell. And when we can conceive of such a state, that which gives to law all its power of sway and yet debars its curse, that is heaven, the highest heaven, the heaven of heavens! We know it by this, we desire it for this, “wherein dwelleth righteousness!”—R. W. Hamilton, LL.D., D.D.
WHERE GOD DWELLS THERE MUST BE PURITY
(Num_5:2)
“Put out of the camp every leper.” God gave the people moral, civil, and sanitary laws. These in the context were partly sanitary. He would teach the people habits of cleanliness, which were essential to the health of the camp. Filth is a child of sin, and the fruitful parent of diseases which decimate mankind. But the text is something more than a sanitary precaution; for it is probable that leprosy was not contagious, and the ordinances respecting it did not apply to the sojourner and the stranger. Why then the injunction of the text? No doubt the great object was to enforce the ideas of purity and holiness, and to teach them that God cannot dwell among the sinful and impure.
Leprosy has ever been considered a striking illustration of sin. For instance,—
1. Sin lite leprosy, is a transgression of law. All evils, physical as well as moral, arise from disregard of some law. Natural laws have their penalties; they cannot be broken with impunity. Cholera, fevers, and other terrible scourges that visit us, are penalties. We call them “visitations from God,” and such they are in the sense of being penalties for breaking the laws that He has imposed on us. Intemperance, vice, etc., breed disease, poison the blood, ruin the body, and become curses to posterity. Leprosy was caused through disregard of the laws of health, and the Bible definition of sin is “the transgression of the law.”
2. Sin, like leprosy, is very loathsome and defiling. Leprosy spreads over the whole body, destroying its beauty and vitality, and rendering it most repulsive in appearance. In this it is a meet emblem of sin, which corrupts, degrades, and defiles the soul of man.
3. Sin, like leprosy, is incurable by man. No human skill could help the leper. “Am I God to kill and to make alive?” cried the king of Israel when Naaman came to him. Only God could cure the disease. Sin, in like manner, baffles human skill. God alone can remove this curse and blight from the soul. No human priest, no work of merit, can affect the malady. The stain is too deep for anything but the blood of Christ to wash away. “God can save, and God alone.” Other points might be mentioned; but the above are enough to show that leprosy is a striking type of sin, and to suggest the reason why God should select this “sickness of sicknesses,” as Archbishop Trench calls it, “to testify against that out of which it and all other sicknesses grew, against sin, as not from Him and as grievous in His sight.” We shall take the text as teaching the great fact that where God dwells there must be purity. “Put out of the camp every leper.… in the midst whereof I dwell.” That God insists on purity as the condition of dwelling with us is the emphatic teaching of the whole Bible. What care was manifested to have clean and perfect animals for sacrifice! The Psalmist asks: “Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord?” He replies: “He that hath clean hands and a pure heart,” i.e., whose life within and without is holy. His prayer is: “Create within me a clean heart.” The teaching of the New Testament is the same: “Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.” “Holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” “The wisdom that is from above is first pure.” “Be ye holy; for I am holy.” The grand design of the atonement is described as being “to redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” God insists on purity. Why?
I. God Himself is pure, and cannot associate with the impure.
Sin is hateful to Him. His very nature prohibits Him from being on terms of intimacy wish any one living in sin. “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.” The God of the Bible is the only pure God. This being His character, purity must distinguish those with whom He associates. Character divides the world—unites or separates men. So it does with God and man. He can only dwell with the pure. Purity attracts Him to us. If discipline is lax, if sin is tolerated by the Church, or by the individual Christian, God departs. It is not the large Church, or the intelligent or the wealthy one, that attracts Him, but the pure one. As the lightning passes by the polished marble and the carved wood to touch the iron or steel, because there it finds something akin to itself, so God passes by those to visit and to dwell with the pure, because in them He finds a character skin to His own.
II. God will not, because He cannot, do any good to the impure.
It would answer no good purpose for Him to dwell with them. The essence of impurity is to love sin; to love sin is to hate God; hating God shuts the door against the possibility of improvement in character. God will not dwell with man unless He can do him good. God with us is always equivalent to God blessing us. He wants us to be perfect as He Himself is perfect. This is His end in dwelling with us. Any one tolerating or living on sin would not appreciate the design of God and accept His blessing; and where He cannot bless, He will not come to dwell. Let us then “put out of the the camp every leper,” everything that defileth; for the presence of God in our midst is of the utmost importance to us as His Church and people. His presence is essential.
1. To our comfort as Churches and Christians. What the shining sun is in nature His presence is with us—our brighness, our joy, etc.
2. To our prosperity. Without God in the midst the camp would have been helpless, would soon have become a prey to its enemies, and been broken up and scattered. God with His Church has been in all ages the secret of its power and success. His presence is the life of the ministry and of all Christian work. Without Him we are, and we can do, nothing. How to secure His presence ought to be the all-absorbing problem. He tells us how: “Put out of the camp every leper.” Let us put from the Church and from our hearts all that is offensive to Him, and let us do His commands, and He will come. He has said so, and He is waiting to bless. God is not with us as we should like: let us search and see if there be any leper in the camp, any sin tolerated, and by His help let us put it out.
If to tolerate the leper was so bad to the camp, what must it have been to be the leper himself! If sin in the Christian is so terrible, what must it be to the altogether sinful! Let us think of it, and seek pardon at once through Christ.—David Lloyd.
GOD DWELLING WITH HIS PEOPLE
(Num_5:3.)
“In the midst whereof I dwell.”
I. God is present with His people.
He was with Israel as He was not with the neighbouring nations. The Tabernacle—the Shekinah, etc. He led, supported, defended them, etc. He is everywhere present influentially. See Psa_139:1-10. “He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. He is not far from every one of us; for in Him we live, and move, and have our being.” “By Him all things consist.” He is also present with His people sympathetically. They realise His presence, have fellowship with Him, etc. See Gen_28:16-17; Mat_18:20; Joh_14:15; Joh_14:26; Eph_3:16-17; 1Jn_1:3.
II. God is present “in the midst” of His people.
The Tabernacle was “in the midst” of the camp. Our Lord Jesus Christ is “in the midst” of His Church (Mat_18:20). Like the sun in the midst of the planets.
1. As the Centre of union. The true union of the Church is not in oneness of doctrinal system or ecclesiastical polity, but in the vital fellowship of its members with the Lord.
2. As the Source of blessing. Life, light, growth, power, joy, beauty—all good flows from Him.
III. God’s presence in the midst of His people should exert a great and blessed influence upon them.
It should prove:—
1. A restraint from sin. “The subject will do nothing unseemly in the presence of His prince, nor the child in the sight of his father. We are always in God’s eye; He beholdeth all things that are done of us.”
2. An incentive to holiness. It is thus that it is brought forward in this place. Because the Lord dwelt in the camp it was to be kept pure. See also Deu_23:14; Eze_43:7-9.
3. An encouragement to duty, The presence of so gracious a Master should cheer and strengthen us.
4. An assurance of support in the trials of life. He marks the strain which the spirit feels, and he will either temper its severity, or increase the spiritual strength. “I will fear no evil; for Thou art with me.”
5. An assurance of victory in the conflicts of life. “Through God we shall do valiantly; for He shall tread down our enemies.” See Psa_118:6-16; Rom_8:31-37.
6. An assurance of perfect salvation. “The Lord is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more. The Lord thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; He will save, He will rejoice over thee with joy; He will rest in His love, He will joy over thee with singing.”
FRAUD AND FORGIVENESS
(Num_5:5-8)
In these verses we have another measure which was instituted to secure the sanctity of the congregation. Wrong done by one man against another is here legislated for in a spirit of just severity. Consider—
I. The sin of fraud.
“When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit,” etc. Lit.—“Commit one of all the transgressions of man.” Keil and Del. “Do one of the sins of men,”—one of the sins occurring amongst men. The reference is to sins of dishonesty or fraud. Fraud is here represented—
1. As assuming many forms. “Any sin that men commit.” “One of all the transgressions of man.” Our text is supplementary to the law on this matter as stated in Lev_6:2-3, and there various forms of this sin are stated.
(1) Fraud in the matter of goods entrusted to the keeping of another.
(2) In business transactions.
(3) In seizing by force that which belongs to another.
(4) In wronging another by means of deceit.
(5) In the finder of lost property injuring the loser by falsehood. And in our own age fraud assumes many forms, and is widely prevalent. The employer who does not pay just wages to those in his service is guilty of it. (Pro_22:16; Isa_3:14-15 : Col_4:1; Isa_5:4.) So also is the servant or workman who squanders the time for which his employer pays him; in so doing he defrauds his employer. The trader who takes an unfair advantage of his customer, which he calls by some specious name, e.g., “practice of the trade,” etc.; the broker or speculator or manager who induces persons to invest their money in unreliable or doubtful enterprizes; the person who contracts a debt without the sincere intention and reasonable prospect of paying it—all these, and others, are guilty of fraud. (a)
2. As a wrong done to God. “To do a trespass against the Lord.” Keil and Del.: “To commit unfaithfulness against Jehovah.” He who is guilty of any act of fraud against his neighbour commits sin against God. All sin is against Him. When Joseph was tempted to sin against Potiphar, his master, he said, “How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” And David after he had committed the blackest injuries against Uriah the Hittite and others, when brought to repentance cried, “Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned; and done evil in Thy sight.” As viewed in their social relations, he was deeply sensible of the greatness of his crimes; but so overwhelming was his sense of their enormity as committed against God, as to render the former view of them comparatively unimportant. (b) How grievous a thing, then, is dishonesty of any kind! Let us strive to be utterly free from it. (1Th_4:6.) Let us cultivate the most thorough uprightness in all our relations and dealings with each other.
II. The conditions of its forgiveness.
1. Consciousness of guilt. “The expression, ‘that person be guilty,’ does not merely refer to his actual criminality; but to his consciousness of guilt respecting it: for this case must be distinguished from that of a person detected in dishonesty which he attempted to conceal.”—Scott. Without the consciousness of guilt the other conditions of forgiveness could not be truly complied with.
2. Confession. “Then they shall confess their sin which they have done.” This is an essential condition of forgiveness. (Psa_32:5; Pro_28:13; 1Jn_1:9.) To be of any avail confession must be sincere, must proceed from the heart. It is the natural expression of penitence. Where true penitence is, hearty confession will be welcomed as a relief, not shunned as a burden or regarded as an exaction. And without true penitence forgiveness of sin is a crime, an injury to society and even to the offender himself. Sincere penitence must utter itself in confession. Such confession is not the wail of despair, but the cry of sorrow and of hope. In itself it relieves the burdened and troubled soul, and it leads to the joy and peace of forgiveness. (c)
3. Restitution. “And He shall recompense his trespass with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed. But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto the Lord, to the priest.” Restitution is an act of justice by which we restore to another that of which we have deprived him, or make him adequate compensation for the same. In this law it is enacted that the sum of which any one has been defrauded shall be restored, with the addition of one-fifth of its value. Restitution is essential to remission of sin; for where restitution is not made it is evident that sincere repentence is absent. See Eze_18:7; Eze_18:9; Eze_18:12-13; Eze_33:15. The true penitent will find it an unspeakable relief if he is able in any degree to repair the wrong which he has done. There was no exemption or escape from this law. If the person defrauded were deceased, restitution must be made to his kinsman (Heb. Goël); and if there were no kinsman, to the priest as the representative of Jehovah. The priests were the Lord’s receivers. In every case the property which was dishonestly acquired must be given up, restitution must be made, or the sin would not be forgiven. And this is still true. If we have acquired anything by dishonest means let us make full and speedy restitution for the same, even if by so doing we should be reduced to utter penury. Better extreme poverty in our circumstances with a clear conscience and an approving God, than the greatest wealth with a guilty conscience and a condemning God. “What is not our property will never be our profit.” And restitution should be made promptly. Every minute of unnecessary delay increases the guilt of the wrong-doer. (d)
4. Sacrifice. In addition to making restitution the offender was commanded to offer “the ram of the atonement, whereby an atonement shall be made for him.” He who was guilty of fraud wronged not only his fellow-man, but God also; and therefore, in order that he might be forgiven, he must draw near to God with a sacrifice, and so make atonement for his sin. The man was for the “trespass-offering,” which differed from the sin-offering. In each offering the victim was a ram; but “the sin offering looked more to the guilt of the sin done, irrespective of its consequences, while the trespass-offering looked to the evil consequences of sin, either against the service of God or against man, and to the duty of atonement, as far as atonement was possible.” This arrangement would tend to set forth the great evil of sin as an offence to God Himself. It would also meet a great need of the penitent heart, which cries out for atonement for its sin. When all these things were accomplished the offender was held to be cleared from the guilt of his offence, as is stated in Num_5:8—“whereby an atonement shall be made for him,” Lit. “which shall clear him of guilt as to it,” i.e., as to the trespass. For us the One Offering has been made which perfects all others. And if we have wronged or defrauded any one, and are conscious of our guilt, we have but to make confession and restitution for the same, with faith in the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, and full forgiveness will be ours.
Conclusion.
1. Let those who have injured others make speedy and full confession and restitution.
2. Let us all cultivate the most thorough integrity and uprightness in our whole life and conduct. “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) The rules which God has given us forbid every wish, much more every attempt, to defraud, or deceive our neighbour. They render it highly criminal for the seller to take the smallest advantage of the ignorance, inexperience, or simplicity of his customers; or to conceal any defect which he may have discovered in the article of which he wishes to dispose. They render it equally criminal for the buyer to wish or attempt to take any advantage of the seller, either by exaggerating the defects of his merchandise, or by falsely pretending that he does not wish to purchase. They render it highly criminal for any one to contract debts, when he has no sufficient reason to believe that he shall be able to discharge them; or to persuade another to become responsible for his debts, when he has reason to suspect that his sponsor will in consequence suffer loss. In a word, they require us to put ourselves in the place of our neighbour, to be as willing to defraud him as to be defrauded ourselves; to be as careful of his property and interest, as of our own; to think no more of enriching ourselves at his expense, than we should think of robbing our left hand with our right. They require us, in all our transations, to act as we should do if our fellow creatures could see our hearts; for though they cannot see them, yet God can, and does see them; He is both witness and judge between us and our neighbour in every transaction, and surely His eye ought to be as effectual in regulating our conduct as would the eye of our fellow creatures, could they, like Him, search the heart.… These rules evidently forbid us to take any advantage of the necessities or imprudence of those whom we employ, and require us to give them a prompt and adequate compensation for their services; and on the other hand, they make it the duty of all who are employed, to be as faithful to the interests of their employers as to their own, and to avoid defrauding them of any portion of their time by idleness, or of their property by negligence, as they would avoid theft or robbery.—E. Payson, D.D.
(b) All sin is against God. There are some sins which are exclusively against God; there are others which are against man, but no sin can be exclusively against man. This point is fraught with the most profound significance. Let us put it in this form: Whoever sins against man sins against God. Then how sacred are all human interests! How solemn are all human relations! You cannot harm a widow’s child without sinning against God; you cannot sneer at a good man without touching the sensibilities of your heavenly Father; you cannot injure your wife or husband or friend without, in the degree of that injury, insulting Him who is the Creator and Redeemer of human kind. Let it be known then, in all the breadth and force of its significance, that every blow struck against humanity is a blow struck against God! It will be a token of solid progress when man has more respect for man. We have held manhood too cheaply. We have not sufficiently pondered the great fact that every man sustains a vital relation to the great Creator of all life, and that everything which appertains to man has also an immediate relation to God. Would that we could thunder these doctrines into the ear of all despotism; they would make the throne of tyranny tremble at its foundations; they would blanch every tyrant’s cheek, and wither the power of every despot. This they will assuredly attain. As Christianity is developed, the true feeling of Christianity will be more and more understood; and they who once saw no image higher than human on the countenance of mankind, shall on that same countenance see the image and super cription of Him who is infinite in pity and infinite in love.—Jos. Parker, D.D.
(c) The confession of sin against a brother is a reasonable condition of receiving a brother’s forgiveness. The confession of sin to God is of the essence of repentance and faith, and this does not interfere with the grand truth that a man is justified by faith only. It is a sign that momentous spiritual changes are going on in a man when he can bring his sin into the presence of the Holy God, and see it in the light of perfect law and perfect sacrifice. The effort to do so tears up the roots of evil desire, and crucifies the world with its affections. It is the sublime peculiarity of Christianity that a sinner can take his sins to God and find mercy, even amid the burning light of that most Holy Presence. More than this, one man may help another to make this confession, to see himself and judge of himself more accurately than he would do, in the solation and awfulness of his own repentance. The danger of self-deceit and self-flattery is great. The experience of the devout and impartial Christian who knows something of human nature, and has realised the full assurance of faith, may be found of the greatest avail in the struggle of the soul heaven wards. All Churches and all Christians admit this great advantage.—H. R. Reynolds, D.D.
(d) He must bring forth fruits meet for repentance. In other words, he must make restitution to every one whom he has injured, or defrauded, so far as he can recollect who they are—this in indispensable. There is no repentance, and, of course, no forgiveness without it. How can a man repent of iniquity, who still retains the wages of iniquity? It is impossible. If he feels any sorrow, it is occasioned, not by hatred of his sin, but by fear of the consequences. Restitution, then, must be made, or the offender must perish. If thou bring thy gift to the altar, says our Saviour, and there rememberest that thy brother has aught against thee, that is, any reason to complain of thee, go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. The altar was then the place to which the worshippers of God brought their thank-offerings, gifts, and sacrifices for sin. Christ, we are told, is now our altar, and to this altar we must bring our prayers, our praises, our services. But he plainly intimates that he will accept no gift of us, receive no thanks from us, listen to none of our prayers, so long as we neglect to make satisfaction to those whom we have injured. And in vain shall we attempt to atone for neglecting this duty, by performing others, by contributing to the promotion of religious objects, or by liberality to the poor; for God has said, I hate robbery for burnt offering; that is, I hate, I will not receive an offering, which was unjustly acquired. There is, then, no way but to make restitution; and this every real Christian will make to the utmost of his ability. Agreeably, we bear Zaccheus, the publican, saying as soon as he became a Christian, “If I have wronged any man. I restore him fourfold” I am aware that this is a most disagreeable duty. Nothing can be harder, or more painful to our proud hearts. But it will be far easier to perform it, than to suffer the consequences of neglecting it. If it is not performed, our souls must perish, as sure as the Word of God is true; and in consequence of indulging a false shame, we shall be overwhelmed with shame and everlasting contempt. Even as it respects our interest in this world only, we had better, far better, put a blazing fire-brand into the midst of our possessions, than retain among them the smallest particle of gain, which was not fairly obtained; for it will bring the curse of God upon us, and upon all the works of our hands.—E. Payson, D.D.
THE MAINTENANCE OF THE MINICTRY
(Num_5:9-10)
In the preceding verses it was enacted that, in case of fraud, restitution should be made to the injured person, and, if he were deceased, to his Goël, and, if there were no Goël, to the priest, who should offer the trespass offering for the wrong-doer. The restitution in this case belonged to the priest. And in these verses other perquisites of the officiating priests are mentioned. In this and other ways provision was made for their temporal support. It was of the first importance that such provision should be made; for the proper discharge of their duties precluded them from engaging in the ordinary activities of life. “At first,” says Professor Plumptree, “the small number of the priests must have made the work almost unintermittent, and even when the system of rotation had been adopted, the periodical absences from home could not fail to be disturbing and injurious, had they been dependent on their own labours. The serenity of the priestly character would have been disturbed had they had to look for support to the lower industries. It may have been intended that their time, when not liturgically employed, should be given to the study of the Law, or to instructing others in it. On these grounds, therefore, a distinct provision was made for them. This consisted
(1) Of one-tenth of the tithes which the people paid to the Levites, one per cent., i.e., on the whole produce of the country (Num_18:26-28).
(2) Of a special tithe every third year (Deu_14:28; Deu_26:12).
(3) Of the redemption money paid at the fixed rate of five shekels a head, for the first-born of man or beast (Num_18:14-19).
(4) Of the redemption money paid in like manner for men or things specially dedicated to the Lord (Leviticus 27).
(5) Of spoil, captives, cattle, and the like, taken in war (Num_31:25-47).
(6) Of what may be described as the perquisites of their sacrificial functions, the shew-bread, the flesh of the burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, trespass-offerings (Num_18:8-14; Lev_6:26; Lev_6:29; Lev_7:6-10), and, in particular, the heave-shoulder and wave-breast (Lev_10:12-15).
(7) Of an undefined amount of the first-fruits of corn, wine, and oil (Exo_23:19; Lev_2:14; Deu_26:1-10).
(8) On their settlement in Canaan the priestly families had thirteen cities assigned them, with “suburbs” or pasture grounds for their flocks (Jos_21:13-19). These provisions were obviously intended to secure the religion of Israel against the dangers of a caste of pauper priests, needy and dependent, and unable to bear their witness to the true faith. They were, on the other hand, as far as possible removed from the condition of a wealthy order.” In the foregoing sources of emolument, only the chief ones are given. The “offering” mentioned in the text is given in the margin as “heave-offering.” The Hebrew is תְּרוּמָה an oblation, used here, says Fuerst, “of holy gifts generally.” “The reference is to dedicatory offerings, first-fruits, and such like.”—Keil and Del. These were to be the property of the officiating priests. These arrangements suggest the obligation of the Church to adequately support its ministry. We rest this obligation—
I. On the ground of honesty.
The physician and the solicitor are paid, and that handsomely, for their attention and counsel, as a matter of duty. The Christian minister has equally a claim that his services shall be remunerated by those who have the benefit of them. Yet professedly Christian people are far lass conscientious in paying for ministerial than they are for legal and medical services. The testimony of our Lord and of His apostles as to this obligation is unmistakeably clear. (See Mat_10:9-10; Luk_10:7; 1Co_9:7-14; Gal_6:6; 1Ti_5:17-18.) (a)
II. On the ground of interest.
The Christian congregation that does not adequately support its minister is not wisely mindful of its own best interests.
1. The services of the true minister of Christ are of the greatest benefit to the Church and to the world. His ministry tends to quicken thought on the most important and sublime subjects, to educate the conscience aright, to arouse the will to true and earnest action, and to lead the soul to the great Source of life and light.
2. The adequate maintenance of the ministry is indispensable to its efficiency. When his mind is harassed with temporal anxieties, or when much of his time is occupied with matters not pertaining to his ministry, in order to provide for the wants of his family, the minister is prevented from rendering the highest service of which he is capable. The ministry should be the great business of his life, and his mind should be free to prosecute it. Hence—
3. If Christians consult their own interests they will see to it that their ministers are adequentely maintained. The money which is so spent will prove a most remunerative investment. (b)
Conclusion.
1. Let Churches recognise their interest and heartily do their duty in this respect.
2. Let ministers recognise the importance of their duties, and endeavour to faithfully perform them. “It is great reason that he which looketh for his hire should do his work; and that he which intendeth to live of the Gospel of Christ, should preach to others the Gospel of Christ.” Let us strive to be “scribes instructed unto the kingdom of heaven,” etc. (Mat_13:52). “Study to show thyself approved unto God,” etc. (2Ti_2:15).
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) No true minister will ever preach with an eye to secular results. All mercenary considerations will be borne down and engulfed by the ever-deepening current of spiritual sympathies and aims. His main purpose will he not to acquire wealth, but to win souls. Still, in common with all men, he has his physical and domestic wants. Food, raiment, and a home, are as necessary to his existence as to that of any man; and according to the present arrangements of society, these are only supplied by money. Whence is he to receive this? As a general rule, it comes only as the reward of labour. He labours. The office of a true minister is no sinecure; there is no work so arduous as his; it is the labour, not of limbs, but of brain and heart; it is a constant draw upon the very fountains of nervous energy. Nor is there any work so useful to society. In the reason of things, therefore, has any worker a stronger claim to secular support than he? If his labour is the most arduous and the most useful, ought it not to secure the most ample secular returns? Paul recognises and enforces this natural and common-sense claim. (1Co_9:7; 1Co_9:9; 1Co_9:11; 1Co_9:14.)
There are men who receive and expect large services from their minister, and who make little or no return. For a paltry pound or two per annum, he must preach to them thrice per week, pay them frequent pastoral visits, or else they set up their complaints against him, and seek to spread a spirit of dissatisfaction through his sphere. There are families in connection with congregations who spend more on perfumery, or on toys for their children, than to support the man who is giving the best energies of his cultivated mind to save their souls. A man takes a pew in a church, pays his five or six pounds per annum,—a less sum than be pays his scullery-maid,—and for that he expects twelve months’ preaching, and great pastoral attention. What is still worse—still more unreasonable, he regards the paltry sum he subscribes rather as a charity than a debt. Charity, indeed! Call the money you pay to your grocer, draper, physician, or landlord, charity; but in the name of all that is true in reason and justice, don’t call what you tender to the man to whom you owe your best ideas, your holiest impressions—who gives to you the choicest products of his educated and sanctified intellect, charity. It is he that shows charity, not you; your gold is a miserable compensation for the results of his sweating brain and ever-anxious heart.—D. Thomas, D.D.
(b) As the Church dependeth upon them for their allowance, so they depend upon her for their maintenance. Thus the Pastor and the people do feed one another, as a flock of sheep nourisheth the shepherd, who eateth the milk of them, and clotheth himself with the wool of them; and again the shepherd coucheth them into green pastures, and leadeth them by the still waters. The people feed him with the bread of this life; he feedeth them with the bread of everlasting life. They minister to him in carnal things; he to them in spiritual things. They cannot lack him in regard of their souls; he cannot be without them in regard of his body. Thus then they do feed one another, or at least ought to do. If he receive food of them, and give none unto them again, he robbeth them of their goods, and murdereth their souls. If they on the other side receive food of him, so that they be taught of him, and yet make him not partaker of a part of their goods, they rob him, and cause him to depart from them, and so become murderers of their own souls, as if they did lay violent hands upon themselves, or rather as if they did famish themselves by refusing bread provided for them; inasmuch as “where vision ceaseth, there people perish.” (Pro_29:18.)—W. Attersoll.
THE TRIAL OF THE SUSPECTED WIFE
(Num_5:11-31)
We have here another law intended to secure the sanctity of the Israelites, by maintaining fidelity in conjugal relations, and removing even the suspicion of adultery from amongst them. “The chastity of females,” says Dean Milman, “was guarded by statutes, which, however severe and cruel according to modern notions, were wise and merciful in that state of society. Poems and travels have familiarised us with the horrible atrocities committed by the blind jealousy of Eastern husbands. By substituting a judicial process for the wild and hurried justice of the offended party, the guilty suffered a death, probably, less inhuman; the innocent might escape. The convicted adulterer and adulteress were stoned to death. Even the incontinence of a female before marriage, if detected at the time of her nuptials, which was almost inevitable, underwent the same penalty with that of the adulteress. Where the case was not clear, the female suspected of infidelity might be summoned to a most awful ordeal. She was to be acquitted or condemned by God Himself, whose actual interposition was promised by His daring law-giver.… What guilty woman, if she had courage to confront, would have the command of countenance, firmness and resolution, to go through all this slow, searching, and terrific the process, and finally expose herself to shame and agony, far worse than death? No doubt, cases where this trial was undergone were rare; yet the confidence of the legislator in the Divine interference can hardly be questioned; for had such an institution fallen into contempt by its failure in any one instance, his whole law and religion would have been shaken to its foundation.” “We do not read of any instance in which this ordeal was resorted to; a fact which may be explained either (with the Jews) as a proof of its efficacy, since the guilty could not be brought to face its terrors at all, and avoided them by confession; or more probably by the licence of divorce tolerated by the law of Moses. Since a husband could put away his wife at pleasure, a jealous man would naturally prefer to take this course with a suspected wife rather than to call public attention to his own shame by having recourse to the trial of jealousy. The Talmud states that the trial lapsed into disuse forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem; and that because the crime of adultery was so common amongst men that God would no longer inflict the curses here named upon women (cf. Hos_4:14).—Speaker’s Commentary.
A critical examination and exposition of the details of the process of trial will be found in Keil and Del., in loco. Let us consider the principal moral truths which are here illustrated.
I. Confidence in conjugal relations is of great importance.
This awful ordeal was instituted for cases where this confidence was lost, and the proof of guilt was lacking. Suspicion and jealousy are terrible evils. “Suspicion,” says Babington, “is the cut-throat and poison of all love and friendship.” And in proportion to the intensity of the love will be the anguish of suspicion in respect to the object of the love.
“Where love is great, the littlest doubts are fear;
Where little fear grows great, great love is there” Shakespeare.
“Jealousy, each other passion’s calm,
To thee, thou conflagration of the soul!
Thou king of torments! thou grand counterpoise
For all the transports beauty can inspire.” Young.
And Hannah More:
“O, jealousy.
Thou ugliest fiend of hell! thy deadly venom
Preys on my vitals, turns the healthful hue
Of my fresh cheek to haggard sallowness,
And drinks my spirit up.” (a)
“Jealousy,” says Solomon, “is the rage of a man.” “Jealousy is cruel as the grave; the coals thereof are coals of fire, a most vehement flame.” This dread ordeal was intended as a remedy for suspicion and jealousy. And no one can examine it without perceiving that, if it was severe, it was also calculated to be thoroughly effective. See how searching, solemn, and stern it is.
1. The whole trial was to take place in the sight of God (Num_5:16).
2. The dread appeal was made to the Omniscient and Almighty (Num_5:21).
3. The appeal was weighted by the most terrible imprecations (Num_5:21-22).
4. It was solemnly declared in the law that if the woman were guilty these imprecations would be fulfilled (Num_5:27).
5. The appeal was to be solemnly ratified by the suspected woman. “The woman shall say, Amen, Amen.” “Twice,” says Trapp; “to show the fervency of her zeal, the innocency of her cause, the uprightness of her conscience, and the purity of her heart.” Surely, if any suspected wife went, through so solemn and terrible an ordeal, the effect would be completely to clear the mind of her husband from the least taint of suspicion, and to restore the brightness of her reputation. The seernness of this ordeal for the removal of suspicion impressively sets forth the importance of confidence between husband and wife. Destroy this confidence; and what ought to be one of the holiest and most lasting bonds is snapped asunder, the helpfulness and peace of the family are banished for ever, and, if the evil prevail to any considerable extent, the foundations of the civil commonwealth will be gradually but certainly undermined.
II. Adultery is a sin of the greatest enormity.
This dreadful ordeal, which was intended to prevent it, shows how great was its heinousness in the Divine estimation. This is expressed—
1. In the abasement of the suspected woman. The “barley meal” of which the offering was composed, the “earthen vessel” which contained the water, and “the dust” that was put into the water, indicate a state of deep humiliation and disgrace. The absence from the offering of oil, the symbol of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, and of frankincense, the symbol of prayer, also proclaimed her questionable repute and the suspicion with which she was regarded. In like manner the “uncovering of the woman’s head” was indicative of the loss of woman’s best ornament, chastity and fidelity in the marriage relation.
2. In the terrible punishment which came upon the guilty. “If she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.”—Keil and Del. translate, “her hip vanish.” And Adam Clarke: “her thigh fall.” This ordeal was made so terrible that the dread of it might effectually prevent the wives in Israel from the least violation of their fidelity to their husbands. It remains as an impressive proclamation of the utter abhorence with which God regards the sin of adultery. It is a sin against God; it inflicts the most grievous and intolerable injury upon the husband; it is an unmitigated blight and bane upon the family; and it is a wrong to society generally. The most terrible condemnations are pronounced upon it in the Sacred Word. (See Lev_20:10; Mal_3:5; 1Co_6:9-10; Heb_13:4.)
III. The punishment of sin is closely related to the sin itself.
“It cannot be determined with any certainty what was the nature of the disease threatened in this curse.… At any rate, the idea of the curse is this: Δἰ ὧν γὰρ ἡ αμαρτία διὰ τούτων ἡ τιμωρία (‘the punishment shall come from the same source as the sin,’ Theodoret). The punishment was to answer exactly to the crime, and to fall upon those bodily organs which had been the instruments of the woman’s sin, viz., the organs of child-bearing.”—Keil and Del. The punishment came in those portions of her body which she had abused. “David sinned in committing adultery with the wife of Uriah, his faithful servant, and destroyed him with the sword of the Ammonites; he is paid home, and punished in his own kind; for God, by way of rewarding him and serving him as he had served others, as a just judge, doth raise up evil against him out of his own house. His own sons break out into the same sins, and he kindleth such a fire in his own family, that they rise up against him, and one against another. Absalom spreadeth a tent, and lieth with his father’s concubines, in the sight of all Israel. Ammon deflowereth his sister Tamar; to revenge this, Absalom killeth his own brother.”—Attersoll. (See Jdg_1:6-7; Est_7:10; Mat_7:1-2.) “Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption.” (b)
IV. God will bring to light the secret sins of men.
If the suspected woman were guilty, after this ordeal her guilt would be made manifest. All sins are known unto Him. “For His eyes are upon the ways of man, and He seeth all his goings. There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves.” “Thou hast set our iniquities before Thee, our secret sins in the light of Thy countenance.” Sometimes hidden sins are strangely discovered in this life and world, (c). The great day will reveal all. “For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” “The day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.” In that day the dark secrets of evil will be all brought to light.
V. God will assuredly vindicate the innocent who have suffered from suspicion or slander.
In this case the vindication was most complete. “If the woman be not defiled, but be clean: then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.” “If not guilty after such a trial,” says Adam Clarke, “she had great honour; and, according to the rabbins, became strong, healthy, and fruitful; for if she was before barren, she now began to bear children; if before she had only daughters, she now began to have sons; if before she had hard travail, she now had easy; in a word, she was blessed in her body, her soul, and her substance.” Thus to the innocent there was no terror in this stern ordeal. It was rather a blessing to them, if by any means they had come to be regarded with suspicion by their husbands; for by means of it such suspicions would be removed, and their fidelity and honour vindicated and exalted. And God will, sooner or later, splendidly vindicate all who suffer from misrepresentation, slander, or false accusation.
Conclusion.
“We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ,” etc. Let us seek by the grace of God to be ready for that great and awful tribunal.
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) Jealousy is the bane and poison of marriage, and maketh that sociable life to be uncomfortable, and mingleth it with worse than gall and wormwood. Jealousy, therefore, is a grief of mind, arising from hence, that another is judged to enjoy that which we desire to have wholly and properly as our own, and none beside us to possess any part with us. Here, then, we cannot abide any community, but hate it as our enemy and the right cause of this jealousy. Or we may describe it otherwise on this manner: It is an affection proceeding from fear to have that communicated to another, which we challenge and covet to retain as peculiar and proper to ourselves alone. From hence it appeareth, farther, what the nature of jealousy is to wit, that it is mixed and compounded, partly of love, partly of fear, and partly of anger. Of love, which admitteth no fellow-partner in the thing he loveth: for as the king will suffer no companion to be equal unto him, or partaker with him in his kingdom, so will the husband suffer no co-rival to mate him in his love. Of fear, lest another enjoy the use of that which we cannot abide or suffer he should enjoy. Of anger, whereby it cometh to pass, that he is ready to break out to seek revenge and punishment upon him that hath offended him that way.—W. Attersoll.
Yet is there one more cursed than they all,
That canker worm, that monster, Jealousy,
Which eats the heart and feeds upon the gall,
Turning all love’s delight to misery,
Through fear of losing his felicity.
Nor ever is he wont on aught to feed
But toads and frogs (his pasture poisonous),
Which, in his cold complexion, do breed
A filthy blood, or humour ancorous,
Matter of doubt and dread suspicious,
That doth with cureless care consume the heart,
Corrupt the stomach with gall vicious,
Cross-cuts the liver with eternal smart,
And doth transfix the soul with death’s eternal dart.
Edmund Spénser.
(b) The punishment of sin is not an arbitrary infliction, but it is a necessary law. Penalty is not a direct interference, but a genuine child of the transgression. We receive the things that we have done. There is a dreadful coercion in our own iniquities. There is an inevitable congruity between the deed and its consequences. There is an awful germ of identity in the seed and in the fruit. We recognise the sown wind when we are reaping the harvest whirlwind. We feel that it is we who have winged the very arrows that eat into our hearts like fire. It needs no gathered lightnings—no Divine intervention—no miraculous messenger to avenge in us God’s violated laws; they avenge themselves.… Take disease as one form of the working of this inevitable law—not always, of course, the direct result of sin; yet how much of disease is directly due to dirt, neglect, folly, Ignorance—the infected blood, the inherited instincts of this sad world. But are there not some diseases, and those the most terrible which I have known, which do spring directly, immediately, exclusively, solely, from violence of God’s law? Is not madness very often such a disease? Is there not at this moment many a degraded lunatic who never would have been such but for repeated transgressions of God’s known will? Is there not in the very life-blood of millions, a hereditary taint blighting the healthy, poisoning, as with a fury’s breath, the flower of their happiness, and breaking out afresh in new generations, which has its sole source and origin in uncleanliness? Is there not, too, an executioner of justice which God has told off to wait upon drunkenness, which would cease if drunkenness ceased to exist? It is God’s warning against that fearful intemperance against which senates will not fight, and against which they who love their fellows fight as yet in vain.—F. W. Farrer, D.D.
(c) When Dr. Donne, afterwards Dean of St. Paul’s, took possession of the first living he ever had, he walked into the churchyard as the sexton was digging a grave; and on his throwing up a skull, the doctor took it into his hands to indulge in serious contemplation. On looking at it, he found a headless nail sticking in the temple, which he secretly drew out, and wrapped in the corner of his handkerchief. He then asked the grave digger, whether he know whose skull it was? He said he did; adding, it had been a man’s who kept a brandy shop; a drunken fellow, who, one night, having taken two quarts of ardent spirits, was found dead in his bed the next morning. “Had he a wife?” “Yes.” “Is she living?” “Yes.” “What character does she bear?” “A very good one; only her neighbours reflect on her because she married the day after her husband was buried.” This was enough for the doctor, who, in the course of visiting his parishioners, called on her; he asked her several questions, and, among others, of what sickness her husband died. She giving him the same account, he suddenly opened the handkerchief, and cried, in an authoritative voice, “Woman, do you know this nail?” She was struck with horror at the unexpected question, instantly acknowledged that she had murdered her husband; and was afterwards tried and executed.—Biblical Museum.
HINTS ON THE LAW OF JEALOUSIES
(Num_5:29)
Describe trial by ordeal. This existed among all primitive nations, and modern ones that are yet in a primitive state. Nations have their infancy; this belongs to that state in their existence. Israel had seen this in Egypt. God permits them to use it; only stipulating that water only should be used, so that no innocent one should suffer, and that all should see that the guilty was detected by Him. Why should He permit this?
1. To show the importance He attaches to domestic morality.
2. To teach them that He was looking on and knowing their most secret sins.
3. To train them to cultivate a tender conscience, and to acknowledge its authority.
4. To restore confidence between husband and wife where it was wrongly shaken.
5. Though this custom is done away with, God is still the same, and will bring all secret sin into the light.—David Lloyd.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant1903 · Public DomainOn v1Subdivision 3. (Num 5:1-31; Num 6:1-27.)
Subdivision 3. (Num 5:1-31; Num 6:1-27.)
The sanctification of the camp.
Read full note →
The camp being thus ordered and arranged, the next thing is to have it cleansed from evil, that God, in whom alone their strength is, may be with them. The place of this, and its necessity, need not be dwelt upon: the details are full of interest, their connection with one another made quite plain only by their typical significance, according to which alone leprosy and contact with the dead would be defilement. How evidently are the things that happened unto Israel -types which are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the ages are come!
1. First, in the leper and the man with an issue we find, though in different degrees, the outbreak of the flesh. The taint of the natural life, poisoned by sin, is easily read in these things, which are in fact the penalties of sin. From this there would be no escape, for it no help, did we not receive a new life, divine, and so in itself incorrupt, untainted. With this comes the responsibility of judging what is of the old, which these two things show us unjudged. They who are thus marked as indulging sin are to be put out of the camp; and with them those defiled with the dead, for the life we have received is eternal. This eternal life is therefore to be maintained in incorruption, and dissociation from all that is incongruous with it. Our Lord’s words are the New Testament enforcement of this, -"Let the dead bury their dead; but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." (Luk 9:60.)
Defilement with the dead is characteristic of the book of Numbers: we have it again in the law of the Nazarite, in the provision of the second passover, and above all in the ordinance of the red heifer, which is specifically for purification from it. Thus the evil is one of great importance, and in close relation to the wilderness-journey. Nor is it difficult to see this connection. The wilderness, in its barrenness, in its lack of what would sustain life, naturally suggests death. On many an one the skeletons of animals and men lie far and wide, bleaching in sun and wind. The world in the same way has on it the stamp and seal of death, the evident mark of its distance and alienation from the living God. No wonder if all connected with it naturally should be thus associated with uncleanness in the Word of God. So that which dies of itself may not be eaten, though that which is slain and offered to God is, on the contrary, the food of both God and man.
The contact that defiles is of course for us spiritual. It is that cleaving to the world which the apostle laments, even weeping, in the professors of Christianity, and in its full development makes them such as "whose god is their belly, whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things." (Php 3:19.) These he calls enemies of the cross of Christ," for the cross of Christ is that by which we are crucified to the world and the world to us (Gal 6:14). And "in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation." "Our conversation" -our citizenship -"is in heaven, from whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ." (Php 3:20.)
There are lighter grades, of course, and some forms of it that seem inevitable; yet in its lightest form it is a most serious evil. The world is all around us, the scene through which we pass,- and in which we have our daily occupation, attractive still to the old nature, and an enemy’s country, where "the prince of the power of the air," with unseen subtle influences, "worketh in the children of disobedience." Unlike Adam in Eden, here we are called to suspect everywhere the stratagems of an active foe, who makes the very place of tombs his stronghold. In it we have to be; of it we are not: we are a new creation -citizens of heaven, and to act in character with this, as strangers and pilgrims," thus to "abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul."
2. The second thing in this purification of the camp is the restitution enjoined for trespass -a restitution which we have already seen is to be in excess of the injury inflicted by the trespass. It does not satisfy God to have the loss made up; there must be an overplus of gain to him who has suffered the loss, wherein God too is glorified. This is the positive side of blessing in the conflict with evil, not as before simply the banishment of it; and for this the work of Christ must come in, as seen in the accompanying sacrifice: it is a triumph of holiness which redemption alone can secure, and has secured, and which those redeemed from sin are called to imitate.
3. In the third case, there is not a dealing with known sin, but even the suspicion is not to be tolerated in the people of God. In the jealousy-offering, a direct appeal to God is provided in such a case, where indeed the sin suspected struck at the very foundation of that family relation which not only in Israel but elsewhere is itself the foundation of all other relation between man and man. Its place here, therefore, where the purification of the camp is in question, is perfectly simple, while the typical meaning adds to its significance. The relation of man and wife is that by which (as the nearest and most intimate of all,) it pleased God to set forth His own relation with His covenant-people (Isa 44:5; Jer 31:32). The Church is at present but espoused to Christ, not married (2Co 11:2; Rev 19:7); but as to the bond existing, Scripture treats it as the same in both cases (Deu 22:23-24). To the Church, therefore, also the type fully applies, -in its details, more completely than to Israel.
How grave a question, then, is here! and there must not be even a question. The Lord is jealous over us with a heart that never wanders, a love that does not admit a question. How it would spoil all if the suspicion here could be allowed as to the husband! but "I have loved thee with an everlasting love" is what is ever true on His side. The church, alas! may give herself to another, as Israel also did: the history of one is in sorrowful correspondence with that of the other.
When there is suspicion the man brings his wife to the priest, and for her a meal-offering of barley-meal, not the fine wheat-flour of the usual meal-offering. The reason for the substitution has been variously interpreted. The Rabbins took it as a sign that the adulteress had conducted herself like an irrational animal; but the woman is not yet proved to be an adulteress. Others suggest that "the persons presenting the offering were invoking the punishment of a crime, and not the favor of God," but this is not strictly true, nor would an offering for the supposed guilty person appear suitable for such a purpose. Knobel takes it to indicate that the offerer might be innocent, and in that case no offering at all was required. Keil, rightly rejecting all these, supposes it to represent the questionable repute in which the woman stood, or the ambiguous, suspicious character of her conduct; but the first of these the offering does not seem able to express, the second might not be really the truth: circumstances might arise beyond her own control entirely which might bring her into suspicion. Lange thinks that the "poor bond of union that still exists between the parties is designated by the inferior offering;" but the offering is the woman’s, not the man’s, though the man provide it: it represents in some way her alone. Oehler says, "As an accused person appears before the tribunal in mourning attire, without the question of his guilt or innocence being in any way affected, so may this sacrifice be said to exhibit a merely gloomy character." Which, however, would give no precision to the type at all.
The truth seems to be rather that the meal-offering of fine wheat-flour represents Christ, as we have seen; and although the Pentecostal wave loaves were an exception, figuring the Church, yet in this case the distinction is made plain by the introduction of leaven into the flour. In the case before us the leaven would have implied guilt, and the fine wheat would have been out of place: the barley-meal, coarser and commoner, might well typify a life which could not be professed to be very much, as in God’s sight, yet not corrupted in a manner charged. This offered from the woman’s hand would indeed call for God’s remembrance as to its truth or falsehood. The omission of oil and frankincense may indeed speak of one coming with a sad heart and not in the joyous spirit of praise.
Before this is offered, however, holy (that is, consecrated) water is put into an earthen vessel, and dust from the tabernacle floor mixed with the water. The dust is here, as usually, "the dust of death," which from the tabernacle-floor intimates that nevertheless God has come in for man. Death remains still, and as judgment to the flesh, and yet for blessing. The cross of Christ has made this familiar to us as Christians; and in it our old man is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be annulled, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Christ has died to sin once, and in that He liveth He liveth unto God: so are we to reckon ourselves dead indeed unto sin, and alive unto God in Christ Jesus.
"The power of the Holy Spirit judging thus (according to the sentence of death against the flesh) the state of unfaithfulness which was thought to be hidden from the true husband of the people, makes the sin manifest and brings down the chastening and curse upon the unfaithful one, that evidently by the just judgment of God. Drinking death, according to the power of the Spirit, is life to the soul. ’By these things,’ says Hezekiah, men live, and in all these things is the life of the Spirit;’ even when they are the effect of chastening, which is not always necessarily the case. But if any of the accursed things be hidden -if there be unfaithfulness toward Jesus, undetected though it may be by man and God puts it to the test; if we have allowed ourselves to be enticed by him who has the power of death, and the holy power of God is occupied with death, and comes to deal with the power of the enemy -the concealed evil laid bare, the flesh is reached; its rottenness and powerlessness are made manifest, however fair its appearances may be." (Synopsis.)
Here, then, sanctification in its innermost reality is insisted on, separation as united to Christ, being His alone; and this prepares us for the section that follows, in which in the Nazarite vow the earth-side of this sanctification is insisted on.
4. The very term, "Nazarite" speaks of "separation." The three things re quired of him are all this: separation from the fruit of the vine, from the dignity of manhood by his long hair, and from the dead. The vow was (as looked at here) voluntary, and for a limited time; and these are the things in which its character declares itself.
The vow was a special, extraordinary one; but we must not on that account imagine that it must typify what is special or extraordinary among Christians. The priesthood, the Levite-service, etc. were restricted to the few in Israel, while among Christians they represent what in responsibility and privilege is universal. The voluntary character gives here a special force, for all true sanctification must come from the heart freely devoting itself. There were Nazarites from their birth afterward, as in the case of Samson and of Samuel, a thing which typically is reconcilable with this; for we are saints from our new birth, and yet are free in our separation to Him who has won us to Himself. The limit of the vow on the other side is just as simple: for separation applies only to the present world , which sin has defiled, while holiness will be ours forever.
The first point of separation is from wine and strong drink -from all that could intoxicate, or, as is said of wine, "take away the heart." (Hos 4:11.) Wine stands eminently for that which "maketh glad the heart of man" (Psa 104:15), by no means of necessity evil, for we are told it "cheereth God and man" (Jdg 9:13): God, no doubt, in the drink-offering. It stands therefore for pleasure, which may be spiritual and heavenly, as when (his vow ended) the Nazarite himself drinks it, but here as often for the pleasures of the world which take away the heart from God and from the things of God. Strong drink is that which has still more plainly and decidedly this character.
But the separation is carried very far indeed, for he is to drink no vinegar of wine or of strong drink, nor liquor of grapes, nor eat grapes, fresh or dried. All the days of his separation, he is to eat nothing made of the wine-vine, from the seed-stones even to the skin. Here, the mention of the wine-vine would show that it is as producing the wine that the vine is condemned. Yet no intoxicating effects as of wine could be produced by any of these things. They are things pleasant to the taste, no doubt, and though not intoxicating, allied to that which does intoxicate: what do they typify, then, for us?
Now the Nazarite is a man separated to God, as the saint is whom he pictures. And for the Christian Christ is to be his one sufficing joy. The knowledge of the new man is distinctly said to be in a sphere "where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond, nor free, but Christ is all and in all." (Col 3:11.) How much of the world’s pleasures would that exclude? Only the intoxicating ones? Would it not exclude all in which one could not find Christ in some way? all that would be inconsistent with frank and unhesitating acceptance of that unspeakably gracious invitation, "If any man thirst, let him come unto ME and drink"? What less could result from the supreme conviction that "Christ is ALL"?
If this appear extreme, did not the separation of the Nazarite from the very skin of the wine-vine" appear extreme? Or can it be that God’s principles demand any thing less than being carried out to an extreme? Can there be a too absorbing delight in Christ? Or can we turn to Him too entirely for satisfaction?
Legality this is not. Legality is the spirit of self-righteousness, or of slavish dread, never of love, or desire after Christ, or of expectation from Him, such as that of which we have been speaking. Carry these ever so far, they can never land you in that in the direction of which they do not even point, but away from it. He who speaks of himself as doing but one thing, was neither a legalist nor an extremist. He was simply a man into whose heart, forever filling it, the glory of Christ had shined.
Let us not confound this, however, with the spirit of asceticism that has peopled monasteries with men fleeing vainly from the world, or scattered through the desert the abodes of the recluse. Nor let us imagine as involved in it any "death to nature," in which what God has made or instituted is branded as if it were unclean. It is striking that just in these two epistles in which Christian position is most emphasized (Ephesians and Colossians) the duties of earthly relationships are most largely dwelt upon. The lilies of the field could be seen by Him who as Son of Man was here on earth for us arrayed in glory beyond all Solomon’s. His hands indeed had made them, and if not a sparrow fell to the ground without His Father, He could say, "I and My Father are one." Still as ever is it true that the Lord’s works are manifold, and in wisdom has He made them all: the earth is full of His riches; yea, and His works are sought out of all them that have pleasure therein.
But the Christian Nazarite is Christ’s: therefore in his pleasures, in his business, in his duties, Christ is before him, with him, over him. He has fellowship with the Father and the Son, and there is nothing for him outside this. Here is the principle which makes him of necessity a stranger to what they find pleasure in, who find none in Him. The world’s vine of wine," as a whole, he is separate from.
The second point of separation with the Nazarite, is from the dignity and rights of manhood. The long hair with the woman is the sign of authority under which she is, as the apostle teaches. If a man has long hair, it is a shame to him; but the Nazarite humbles himself to this, taking the dependent and subject place, and giving up the rights of man to consecrate himself wholly to God.
Man is indeed a ruined creature, and the first Adam headship is gone forever; the last Adam is the second Man, not the first: yet He also upon earth had not His rights nor claimed them, "came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and give His life a ransom for many." His people here also have to walk in His steps, and "he that will be great must be a servant." Yet it is power, none the less, and blessing, -love’s privilege, in which again we have fellowship with Christ. Nor should we wonder that a Samson’s strength should be in his hair, for the place of dependence and subjection is ever the place of power.
The third point of separation we have already looked at, -separation from the dead. It is life in Christ we have, and eternal: it is to be maintained as such, free from defilement with that which has come under the power of death. All these three parts of Nazarite separation are plainly connected and in most perfect harmony.
As to failure, it is here in this last way that it is contemplated. To man’s eyes it would seem but an accident, but there are none; the power of circumstances should never prevail against those sanctified to God. How naturally we excuse ourselves by our weakness and the unexpected assaults of the enemy! But true weakness is always strength, and there are no circumstances in which God is not. Nothing of this sort, then, is admitted. The defiled Nazarite goes six days unclean, and on the seventh, he must shave his head. On the eighth, he brings his offering, two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, for the heavenly One to whom the earth was the place of service and sacrifice must be before His eyes on this day typical of new creation.
The former days of his vow are lost days, and he must begin his vow entirely anew, because his separation had been defiled. This lack of fulfillment shows as to that time something which vitiated the whole of it, for if with God, there can be to the soul no lack of power in accomplishment. He brings also a lamb for a trespass-offering.
For us the vow is completed only when our course here is completed. Now if Christ be in us, "the body is dead because of sin" (Rom 8:10), and in consequence we are exhorted to present our bodies a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1) -a sacrifice in life, in contrast with the bloody sacrifice of the law. They cannot be suffered yet to have their freedom, for our bodies as yet do not partake in the power of redemption: "we wait for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." (Rom 8:23.) Thus we have to walk in Nazarite separation from what is of ourselves, keep under our bodies and bring them into subjection. (1Co 9:27.) The liberty of grace is not deliverance from the need of this, but power to enable us for it: the liberty of glory will be alone complete deliverance; we may "drink wine" when there will be no longer in us any evil to arouse, and the pleasures that present themselves to us are the "pleasures" which are at God’s right hand for evermore. (Psa 16:11.) Yea, Christ shall "drink the wine new" with us in His Father’s kingdom. (Mat 26:29.)
Then, too, we shall be presented to God in the full value of His work and person, as typified by the offerings with which the Nazarite is presented; separation will be ended in the joy of perfect communion; and the "shoulder" that bare us all the way through according to the full demands of divine holiness, we shall indeed "wave" before God in triumphant exultation.
5. With this, the purification of the camp is completed, and as thus purified, the divine blessing is now given to them and Jehovah’s Name is put upon them. There are three pairs of related blessings with which this last is a seventh, making it perfect. The connection of the three parts of the blessing with the three Persons of the Triune God, often referred to, is indeed easy to be traced: that in the mouth of the apostle comes very near it, -"the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost." (2Co 13:14.) For the first blessing here is that of preservation as from the Creator-Father; the second, grace in God as revealing Himself, as He has done in Christ; while the third speaks of inner experience and enlightenment, with the deep rest which flows from it, the work of the Spirit of God. All that God is is thus engaged for us; and His name upon His people makes them His representatives on earth. He identifies Himself with them, as One not ashamed to be called their God.
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow1909 · Public DomainOn v1Various Ceremonial Laws
Various Ceremonial Laws
1-4. On the seclusion of lepers and unclean persons, see Leviticus 13-15.
Read full note →
5-10. On the law of restitution, see Lev_5:14 to Lev_6:7, to which the present passage is a supplement, providing that if the injured person dies and has no kindred to whom the price of restitution may be paid, it has to be given to the priest. Num_5:9-10 prescribe that the heave offerings (see on Lev_7:28-34) are the perquisite of the particular priest who officiates at the sacrifice, and are not to be distributed among the priests generally.
11—31. On Marital Jealousy.
A wife suspected of unfaithfulness is required to undergo a trial by ordeal. A potion is prepared by the priest, which she must drink, after taking an oath of purgation (Num_5:19-24). If she is innocent the potion is harmless, but if guilty it injures her, thereby bringing her guilt to light (Num_5:27-28). Trial by ordeal is of the nature of an appeal to God to reveal the innocence or guilt of a suspected person. During the middle ages it was frequently resorted to in Europe under sanction of the church and the law. The most common forms of ordeal were those by fire, by water, and by wager of battle. The difference between these and the ordeal prescribed here is that the latter is not in itself injurious, but depends for its efficacy on the direct interposition of God.
13. No witness] The ordeal is prescribed for cases of doubt. To other cases the law of Lev_20:10 applies.
15. Cp. Lev_2:1.
17. Holy water] This is the only place where this phrase is found, and it is not explained. Water from the laver is probably meant: see Exo_30:17-21.
18. Uncover the.. head] rather, as in RV, 'let the hair.. go loose,' a common sign of mourning: see Lev_10:6; Lev_13:45. Bitter water] so called as being the instrument of the curse.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein1922 · Public DomainOn v14. The Sanctification of the Camp and the Nazarite
4. The Sanctification of the Camp and the Nazarite
CHAPTER 5
Read full note →
1. Concerning the leper, the issue and defilement of the dead (Num 5:1-4)
2. Concerning restitution (Num 5:5-10)
3. Concerning the wife suspected of adultery (Num 5:11-31)
So far we had the outward arrangement of the camp. This chapter tells us that the camp had to be holy and therefore must be cleansed from that which defiles. Divine directions are given concerning the unclean person, the restitution of anything unjustly taken and what is to be done with a wife suspected of adultery. Leprosy could not be tolerated in the camp in the midst whereof Jehovah dwelt. The persons who had an issue and had come in touch with the dead, as well as the leper, both male and female, were to be put without the camp. This command was at once obeyed. “And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp.” The typical meaning of leprosy we learned from Leviticus as well as the meaning of the issue. Sin is typified thereby as manifested in and through one who belongs to the people of God. While here we have the divine command to put the unclean person out of the camp, we have the equally divinely given command in the New Testament: “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (1Co 5:13). The principle is the same whether in the camp of Israel or in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. To touch the dead also defiled. If it was a dead person, the one who touched the same was considered unclean for seven days (Num 19:11); if a man touched a dead animal it rendered him unclean till the evening (Lev 11:27; Lev 11:39-40). To purify such who had become defiled in this manner, the ordinance of the red heifer was given. In no other portion of the Law is made so much of this form of defilement as in Numbers. This is in keeping with the character of the book. Israel passing through the wilderness came face to face with death on all sides. Spiritually the application is not hard to make. The world through which God’s children pass is the enemy of God, alienated from Him and lying in the wicked one. Death is stamped upon it and the world is under condemnation. By the cross of Christ we are crucified to the world and the world is crucified unto us. The Word of God therefore exhorts us not to be conformed to this world (Rom 12:2). We are not to love the world nor the things in the world (1Jn 2:15-17). James tells us that whosoever will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God (Jas 4:4). Against defilement with the world in its different phases the child of God must constantly be on his guard. The camp must be holy, because Jehovah is in the midst. All what defiles belongs outside.
The wrong committed in the camp (verses 5-10) must be confessed, restitution be made, and, according to the law of the trespass-offering, the fifth part must be added to it. Unconfessed sin could not be tolerated in the camp where Jehovah dwells. And the same principle we find in the New Testament. “The grace of God, which has brought in unlimited forgiveness, would be rather a calamity if it did not enforce confession. Can one conceive a thing more dreadful morally than a real weakening of the sense of sin in those brought nigh to God? It may seem so where there is only a superficial acquaintance with God. Where the truth hath been hastily gathered and learned on the surface it is quite possible to pervert the gospel to an enfeebling of the immutable principles of God, ignoring His detestation of sin, and our own necessary abhorrence of it as born of God. Whatever produces such an effect is the deepest wrong to Him and the greatest loss to us. This is guarded against here.” (W. Kelly, Lectures on the Pentateuch.)
In the next paragraph concerning the wife suspected of adultery, no positive defilement or sin is in view, only the suspicion of it. A careful reading of the passage is suggested. The offering of jealousy is described in detail, but the brief character of our annotations forbids a closer examination. We can only point out that the offering consisted not of fine flour as in the meal-offering, but of barley meal, which was coarser. No leaven was mixed with it, for that would have implied before the test, the guilt of the accused woman. Nor was oil and frankincense put on the offering, no joy and worship could be connected with this offering of jealousy. Then the priest took holy water in an earthen vessel and the dust of the tabernacle floor and put it into the water. This also has a symbolical meaning. The water stands for the Word, and the dust typifies death and the curse. It was a most solemn ceremony of a searching nature. The innocent one had nothing to fear; the drinking of the bitter water that causeth the curse but resulted for her in vindication. The guilty one was found out by Jehovah and the curse rested upon her. This ordinance is also applicable to Israel as the unfaithful wife of Jehovah.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann1924 · Public DomainOn v1Exclusion of The levitically Unclean from the camp
Exclusion of The levitically Unclean from the camp
v. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
Read full note →
v. 2. Command the children of Israel that they put out of the camp every leper, Lev 13:3-46, and every one that hath an issue, Lev 15:2, and whosoever is defiled by the dead, by contact with a dead person, or, in some cases, by the mere presence in the house where a person dies, Lev 21:1;
v. 3. both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them, (and this regulation was enforced even in the case of Miriam, Num 12:14,) that they defile not their camps, the plural being used here because the large encampment was divided into smaller camps, as ordered in Chapter 2, in the midst whereof I dwell.
v. 4. And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp; as the Lord spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel. At a later day, in Canaan, this regulation was observed by assigning, at least to the lepers, a special district outside of the city to live.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0On v1infectious skin disease
infectious skin disease
This refers to leprosy, which is a sickness that affects the skin and easily spreads to other people.
Read full note →
oozing sore
This refers to an open cut that is leaking fluids.
whoever is unclean through touching a dead body
If a person touched a dead body they were considered unclean. A person who is not acceptable for God's purposes is spoken of as if the person were physically unclean. (See: Metaphor)
you must send
Here "you" is plural and refers to the people of Israel. (See: Forms of You)
The people of Israel did so
This means that they sent the unclean people away. The full meaning of this statement can be made explicit. AT: "The people of Israel sent those who were unclean out of the camp" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
Tyndale Open Study Notes2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0On vv1–25:1–10:10 These legal matters were to ensure the purity…
5:1–10:10 These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.
5:1-31 These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.
Read full note →
5:1-4 Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community had to choose between having God in the camp or letting a defiled person remain in the camp, because both could not remain (5:3). • The importance of purity extends from Leviticus and Numbers to the book of Revelation: All that is ceremonially unclean will be forbidden to enter the New Jerusalem where God resides (see study note on Rev 21:27). In the New Testament, however, impurity is limited to what is morally impure (Acts 10:28; Eph 5:5; 1 Thes 2:3; 4:7).
GEBible — Godless Engineer's Bible App
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On v3 There were three manner of tents: of the Lord,…
There were three manner of tents: of the Lord, of the Levites, and of the Israelites.
Or, in a place out of the host.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv2–3 Num 5:2 Command the children of Israel, that they…
Num 5:2 Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead:
Ver. 2. Put out of the camp.] To show, that sin unrepented of, throws us out of the communion of faith and saints; shuts us out of the congregation of God in earth and heaven. No fellowship, place, or reward with them. See Rev 21:27. {See Trapp on "Rev 21:27"}
Read full note →
Defiled by the dead.] Heb., Defiled by a soul. The Hebrews call a dead corpse Nephesh here, and elsewhere; that is, a soul, to note that it shall live again, and that the soul shall return to it. The heathene also (saith a grave interpreter) called a dead body a soul: possibly from some glimpse of the resurrection.
{a} Animamque sepulchro condimus - Virg., Aeneid.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv2–3 Out of the camp, in which the people dwelt;…
Out of the camp, in which the people dwelt; as afterward out of the cities and towns, that they might not converse with others, and infect them.
An issue, to wit, of genital seed in men, or of blood in women in their seasons.
Read full note →
By the dead, i.e. by the touch of the dead. See Lev 21:1; Num 6:6.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v1 Here is, I. A command for the purifying of…
Here is, I. A command for the purifying of the camp, by turning out from within its lines all those that were ceremonially unclean, by issues, leprosies, or the touch of dead bodies, until they were cleansed according to the law, Num 5:2, Num 5:3.
1. These orders are executed immediately, Num 5:4. (1.) The camp was now newly-modelled and put in order, and therefore, to complete the reformation of it, it is next to be cleansed. Note, The purity of the church must be as carefully consulted and preserved as the peace and order of it. It is requisite, not only that every Israelite be confined to his own standard, but that every polluted Israelite be separated from it. The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable. (2.) God's tabernacle was now fixed in the midst of their camp, and therefore they must be careful to keep it clean. Note, The greater profession of religion any house or family make the more they are obliged to put away iniquity far from their tabernacle, Job 22:23. The person, the place, in the midst of which God dwells, must not be defiled; for, if it be, he will be affronted, offended, and provoked to withdraw, Co1 3:16, Co1 3:17.
Read full note →
2. This expulsion of the unclean out of the camp was to signify, (1.) What the governors of the church ought to do: they must separate between the precious and the vile, and purge out scandalous persons, as old leaven (Co1 5:8, Co1 5:13), lest others should be infected and defiled, Heb 12:15. It is for the glory of Christ and the edification of his church that those who are openly and incorrigibly profane and vicious should be put out and kept from Christian communion till they repent. (2.) What God himself will do in the great day: he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather out of his kingdom all things that offend. As here the unclean were shut out of the camp, so into the new Jerusalem no unclean thing shall enter, Rev 21:27.
II. A law concerning restitution, in case of wrong done to a neighbour. It is called a sin that men commit (Num 5:6), because it is common among men; a sin of man, that is, a sin against man, so it is thought it should be translated and understood. If a man overreach or defraud his brother in any matter, it is to be looked upon as a trespass against the Lord, who is the protector of right, the punisher of wrong, and who strictly charges and commands us to do justly. Now what is to be done when a man's awakened conscience charges him with guilt of this kind, and brings it to his remembrance though done long ago? 1. He must confess his sin, confess it to God, confess it to his neighbour, and so take shame to himself. If he have denied it before, though it go against the grain to own himself in a lie, yet he must do it; because his heart was hardened he denied it, therefore he has no other way of making it appear that his heart is now softened but by confessing it. 2. He must bring a sacrifice, a ram of atonement, Num 5:8. Satisfaction must be made for the offence done to God, whose law is broken, as well as for the loss sustained by our neighbour; restitution in this case is not sufficient without faith and repentance. 3. Yet the sacrifices would not be accepted till full amends were made to the party wronged, not only the principal, but a fifth part added to it, Num 5:7. It is certain that while that which is got by injustice is knowingly retained in the hands the guilt of the injustice remains upon the conscience, and is not purged by sacrifice nor offering, prayers not tears, for it is one and the same continued act of sin persisted in. This law we had before (Lev 6:4), and it is here added that if the party wronged was dead, and he had no near kinsman who was entitled to the debt, or if it was any way uncertain to whom the restitution should be made, this should not serve for an excuse to detain what was unjustly gotten; to whomsoever it pertained, it was certainly none of his that got it by sin, and therefore it must be given to the priest, Num 5:8. If there were any that could make out a title to it, it must not be given to the priest (God hates robbery for burnt-offerings); but, if there were not, then it lapsed to the great Lord (ob defectum sanguinis - for want of issue), and the priests were his receivers. Note, Some work of piety or charity is a piece of necessary justice to be done by those who are conscience to themselves that they have done wrong, but know not how otherwise to make restitution; what is not our property will never be our profit.
III. A general rule concerning hallowed things given upon this occasion, that, whatever was given to the priest, his it shall be, Num 5:9, Num 5:10. 1. He that gave it was not to receive his gift again upon any pretence whatsoever. This law ratifies and confirms all grants for pious uses, that people might not give things to the priests in a fit of zeal, and then recall them in a fit of vexation. 2. The other priests should not come in sharers with that priest who then officiated, and to whom the hallowed thing, whatever it was, was given. Let him that was most ready and diligent in attending fare the better for it: if he do the work, let him have the pay, and much good may it do him.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–4 And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... Jarchi says, what…
And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... Jarchi says, what follows was said on the day the tabernacle was erected, but it seems rather to have been delivered after the several camps were formed, and the people numbered, when those that were unclean were ordered to be cast out of them:
saying; as follows.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 3 A command to remove the unclean out of the…
A command to remove the unclean out of the camp, ver. 1-4. Laws concerning restitution, ver. 5-10. The law concerning a woman suspected of adultery, ver. 11-31.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4 The Israelites are commanded to purify the camp by…
CHAPTER V
The Israelites are commanded to purify the camp by excluding all
Read full note →
lepers, and all diseased and unclean persons, 1-3.
They do so, 4.
Law concerning him who has defrauded another-he shall confess
his sin, restore the principal and add besides one fifth of its
value, 5-7.
If he have no kinsman to whom the recompense can be made, it
shall be given unto the Lord, 8.
All the holy things offered to the Lord shall be the priest's
portion, 9,10.
The law concerning jealousy, 11-14.
The suspected woman's offering, 15.
She is to be brought before the Lord, 16.
The priest shall take holy water, and put it in dust from the
floor of the tabernacle, 17.
Shall put the offering in her hand, and adjure her, 18-20.
The form of the oath, 21, 22;
which is to be written on a book, blotted out in the bitter
waters, and these the suspected person shall be obliged to
drink, 23, 24.
The jealousy-offering shall be waved before the Lord, 25, 26.
The effect which shall be produced if the suspected person be
guilty, 27.
The effect if not guilty, 28.
Recapitulation, with the purpose and design of the law, 29, 30.
NOTES ON CHAP. V
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 3 Num 5:1. The camps and divisions of priests, Levites,…
Num 5:1. The camps and divisions of priests, Levites, and people being thus settled, now was the time when the law about excluding leprous and unclean persons from the camps was to take place; God having, for wise reasons, appointed that all persons under such legal impurities should, in proportion to the degree of them, be excluded from the community where he himself dwelt by the symbols of his divine presence till they were cleansed again. This the Israelites began now to put in execution by express order from God to Moses.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On v1 The general purpose of the directions given in this…
The general purpose of the directions given in this and the next chapter is to attest and to vindicate, by modes in harmony with the spirit of the theocratical law, the sanctity of the people of God. Thus, the congregation of Israel was made to typify the Church of God, within which, in its perfection, nothing that offends can be allowed to remain (compare Mat 8:22; Rev 21:27).
The general purpose of the directions given in this and the next chapter is to attest and to vindicate, by modes in harmony with the spirit of the theocratical law, the sanctity of the people of God. Thus, the congregation of Israel was made to typify the Church of God, within which, in its perfection, nothing that offends can be allowed to remain (compare Mat 8:22; Rev 21:27).
Read full note →
Compare the marginal references. The precepts of Lev. 13 and Lev. 15 are now first fully carried out. They could hardly have been so earlier, during the hurry and confusion which must have attended the march out of Egypt, and the encampments which next followed.
The general purpose of the directions given in this and the next chapter is to attest and to vindicate, by modes in harmony with the spirit of the theocratical law, the sanctity of the people of God. Thus, the congregation of Israel was made to typify the Church of God, within which, in its perfection, nothing that offends can be allowed to remain (compare Mat 8:22; Rev 21:27).
The general purpose of the directions given in this and the next chapter is to attest and to vindicate, by modes in harmony with the spirit of the theocratical law, the sanctity of the people of God. Thus, the congregation of Israel was made to typify the Church of God, within which, in its perfection, nothing that offends can be allowed to remain (compare Mat 8:22; Rev 21:27).
Compare the marginal references. The precepts of Lev. 13 and Lev. 15 are now first fully carried out. They could hardly have been so earlier, during the hurry and confusion which must have attended the march out of Egypt, and the encampments which next followed.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv2–3 Camp; in the midst of which God had fixed…
Camp; in the midst of which God had fixed his tabernacle. See Leviticus xvi. 16. Some pretend that these unclean persons were only excluded from the camp of the Lord, and from that of the Levites, which occupied 2000 cubits round the tabernacle. But God will not permit any of the camp to be defiled by such people. They were to absent themselves for seven days, and then wash themselves, &c., chap. xix. 11. If lepers be excluded from the camp, how much more do heretics deserve to be cast out of the Church! (Theodoret, q. 8.) (Worthington)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 Exclusion of Lepers and all Persons Levitically Unclean from…
THIRD SECTION
Exclusion of Lepers and all Persons Levitically Unclean from the Holy Camp. Camp Laws for Those Morally Guilty
Read full note →
Num_5:1-10
1And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead: 3Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell. 4And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp: as the Lord spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel.
5And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 6Speak unto the children of Israel, When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to do a trespass against the Lord, and that person be guilty; 7Then they shall confess their sin which they have done: and he shall recompense his 1trespass 2with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed. 8But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the atrespass unto, 3let the trespass be recompensed unto the Lord, even to the priest; 4beside 9the ram of the atonement, whereby an atonement shall be made for him. And every 5offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel, which they bring unto the priest, shall be his. 10And every man’s hallowed things shall be his: whatsoever any man giveth the priest, it shall be his.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
In this section it becomes especially clear, that the component parts of the Book of Numbers appear under the concrete view-point, that the military encampment of God shall be kept sacred, particularly, too, because it should be free from every censure, and so be invincible. For as regards the matter composing this chapter, the greater part has formed the substance of previous writings. The first section, Num_5:1-4, appears already in Leviticus 11-15. The second section, Num_5:5-10, is for the most part in the passage on the sin-offering, Lev_5:14-19; comp. Num_7:1-10. Thus the concrete reference, or the formal totality of the representation of the idea of this book demanded the apparent repetition, as this in fact obtains everywhere in the books of the Bible. It is not the materials that determine their formal disposition; but the power of the form reigns, organizes and animates the materials, as the soul does the body. In this its characteristic trait the Scriptures contrast with the many short-comings of more recent and modern criticism. Because men do not know the formative power of biblical ideas, they rummage the materials of the Bible helter-skelter, and endlessly, e.g. in respect to the Pentateuch, Job, the four Gospels, the relation between the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians.
In general, we may regard these concrete constructions as giving emphasis to previous constructions. The military camp is the congregation of God in higher potency.
Num_5:1-4. The period of exclusion was for the menstruous seven days; for momentary uncleanness, for bloody flux, an indefinite period, according to the continuance of the malady. “Only those named were affected by the law, not such as were rendered unclean only for the current day. Women confined were, according to Leviticus 12, called unclean, but apart from holy things were not said to defile.” [“God was not acting as a physician and merely consulting the health of the people, but exercised them in purity. For by joining with the lepers those who had an issue, etc., he instructs the people simply to keep away from all uncleanness.” Calvin. Their camps.—The plural is supposed to refer to the successive encampments (Bush). Others, both Jewish and Christian commentators, understand the reference to be to the arrangement of the encampment into three camps: (1) the Tabernacle, (2) the Levites, (3) the rest of Israel. Their would then refer to numbers (2) and (3). See Bush in loc.—Tr.]
Num_5:5-10. Any sin that men commit [e. g. Lev. 5:21, 22 (Lev_6:2-3)—Tr.], to do a trespass against the LORD; so that restitution may hot be dispensed with [comp. Lev. 5:23–26 (Lev_6:4-7)]. Here the specification of Lev. 5:23 (Lev_6:24) sqq. is supplemented by supposing a case where the man to whom restitution ought to be made is not present. From the words: if the man have no kinsman (goel) to whom restitution may be made for guilt, Keil [also Calvin.—Tr.] infers that it is assumed that the offended person himself is no longer alive. It is nearer the mark to see a goel [redeemer] in the qualified receiver of the debt (be it the offended person himself or a kinsman). The redeemer or receiver becomes here, in some measure, the freer of the guilty person that has confessed the consciousness of his guilt. When, therefore, this one is wanting, the indemnity is to be paid to the priest, except the sin-offering, which is paid to God. Jehovah gives the indemnity to the priest. This then leads to the more general specification, that so-called heave-offerings [comp. Exo_25:1-9] or votive gifts may be made to the priest. These gifts could be personal, so that they needed not to flow into the Temple treasury. By this it was made possible for these cases of guilt to be treated more confidentially, which also gave the greater encouragement to the confession of guilt and to restitution.
____________________
FOURTH SECTION
Marriage Inviolable in the Sacred Army. The Offering of Jealousy. The Water of Cursing
Num_5:11-31
11And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 12Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man’s wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, 13And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken 6 with the manner; 14And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled; or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled: 15Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her 7offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an 8offering of jealousy, an coffering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before he Lord: 17And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that Isaiah 9 in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water: 18And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman’s head, and put the coffering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy coffering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse: 19And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness 10 11with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: 20But if thou hast gone aside1 2to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thine husband: 21Then the priest shall charge the woman with 12an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to 1314rot, and thy belly to swell; 22And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to frot. And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. 23And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out 15with the bitter water: 24And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, 16 and become bitter. 25Then the priest shall take the jealousy coffering out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the coffering before the Lord, and 17offer it upon the altar: 26And the priest shall take a handful of the coffering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water. 27And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, h and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall frot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. 28And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and 18shall conceive 29seed. This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside1 2to another instead of her husband, and is defiled; 30Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law. 31Then shall the an be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear, her iniquity.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
[Num_5:13. “Καὶ κοιμηθῇ τις μετ’ αὐτῆς κοίτην σπέρματος.” lxx. “Et coierit aliquis cum ea coitu seminis.” Calvin.
Num_5:20. ויתן אותך, etc. Καὶ ἔδωκέ τις τὴν κοίτην αὐτοῦ ἐν σοί. LXX. Dederitque aliquis in te semen suum. Calvin.
The euphemism of the A. V. and of Dr. Lange’s translator, Pastor Fay, in rendering these verses may not endanger the correct understanding of the passage, as would be the case in Lev_15:18, where a literal rendering is given. See the Comm. there. But still it is safe not to attempt to be more delicate than God’s written word.—Tr.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
a) The offering of jealousy. This law is so unique and peculiar that it is no wonder that theological literature has busied itself a great deal with the subject (see a list of the literature in Knobel, p. 20; Keil, p. 210. Especially deserving of notice is Oehler’s article in Herzog’s R. Enc. XIX., p. 472, Eiferopfer). Knobel expresses surprise that this ordinance should be put just here. Other modern “critical” deliverances can infer nothing better than that the extraordinary representations of this biblical passage afford an evident proof against the doctrine of inspiration. But both views spring from a want of penetration into the idea of this ordinance. As regards the place of this passage, it, as well as the two that precede [Num_5:1-4; Numbers 5-10], has to do with preserving the purity of Jehovah’s military encampment. The jealous man, that suspects his wife of adultery, is a combatant of Jehovah’s, and as such should keep himself pure. But, while in a jealous mood, he might transgress in two ways. He might in an outburst of anger abuse or repudiate his wife on mere suspicion: or also, as a loose character, he might continue to indulge his sensual lust with the woman, though he regarded her as a courtezan. Either would conflict in the grossest way with the theocratic personal dignity. Also the woman, moved by the man’s arbitrariness, might capriciously surrender herself to the sensual pleasure. We have cause to deplore such a reciprocal effect as a great heathendom of disregard of personality within Christendom; especially among Romanish nations. Some of these, as the Spaniards, gratify their jealousy by revenge, while others, especially the French, suffer their suspicion to degenerate into an immoral tolerance that lets each do as he pleases. In either case marriage is desecrated, personality is degraded; and whereas, in the one case, the births of the woman must suffer injury from the anger of the man, in the other case, a condition of bastardy spreads through the nation, that injures the moral roots of its existence. Hence the giving of the law took another course in order to preserve the integrity of marriage, by permitting the writing of divorce, yet under discipline and oversight, and by not forbidding the man to maintain concubines. The woman, it is true, Seems to be at disadvantage by these legal enactments. Still she had her liberty if she remained unmarried, whereas the man also became a transgressor if he sinned with another man’s wife. But this stricter position of the woman does not rest on merely psychological reasons. The giving of the Law operated still more in favor of sacred births than of sacred marriages. By the moral refinement of the births Israel was to be elevated from generation to generation, till it attained the realization of ethical virginity (see Joh_1:12-13). Hence the holy legislation took in charge the natural right of jealousy, just as it did the matter of divorce. It did not, indeed, deal with the case where the woman could be convicted of her guilt, and so, on the other hand, fortifying the denial by a simple oath, could make the evil in this case only worse. Hence no other recourse than this was possible on legal ground. But the spirit of the legislation was quite conscious that even with this awful conjuration no absolute certainty was attained, but only a legal and social certainty. Moreover, it is assumed, not without reason, that the awful form of this cleansing procedure made it primarily a preventive measure that was not often carried into execution.
With respect to the significance of the particular parts of this transaction, it must assuredly be called an error when they are so often construed as if they would anticipate the punishment. The justice of the Scripture distinguishes between suspicion and certain judgment. Hence the justice of Joseph of Nazareth consisted in his seeking a middle course in his suspicion, and being unwilling to dismiss his betrothed with a public rebuke (see on Mat_1:19). Thus it is a glaring assumption when the inferior sort of material of the offering, viz. barley meal, that was else used to feed cattle, is made to signify that the adulteress does not distinguish herself from the beasts (Philo), or that the woman has behaved like an irrational brute (Jonathan, etc.). The same is true in respect to the mingling of dust with the holy water that the woman must drink. To the interpretation just mentioned, Keil, as well as Knobel, objects that the woman bringing the offering might, in fact, be innocent. Yet further on he adopts the explanation: “Dust is poured into the water, not to signify that man is made of dust, and must return to dust again, but as an allusion to the serpent’s eating dust (Gen_3:14), as a curse of sin, consequently as an image of deserving a curse, of the deepest shame and humiliation (Mic_7:17; Isa_49:23; Psa_72:9).” The serpent, of course, sometimes feeds on the dust of the Temple; still it is not said that this was destined for its food. Oehler here agrees with Keil: “By drinking, the penetration of the curse into the inmost part of the body is effected (comp. the expression in Psa_109:18). We say effected, not symbolized. For according to the simple meaning of the words in Num_5:27 the water is not merely to be regarded as a symbol and pledge, but the actual vehicle of the divine curse, Keil says very justly (p. 301), etc.” Is an hypothetical curse, that possibly may be not only without injurious effect, but may even bring about a blessing, to be called here directly a curse?
But besides these significations that forestall judgment, rabbinical exaggerations of a fabulous kind have especially obscured the passage. For instance, “the immediate effect” is thus described (Sota, III. 4): “Hardly had she drunk the bitter water, when, if she were unclean, her countenance began to turn yellow, her eyes protruded, and her veins burst,” etc. No wonder that the same treatise has it that, even before the decision, her veil and garments were torn off her, black clothes put on her, and a cord to girdle her breast.
b) The moving cause, Num_5:10-14. The somewhat cumbersome expression admits indeed the assumption that the man’s jealousy was well-founded, still without deciding. [The spirit of jealousy, Num_5:14. Comp. Pro_6:34. Son_8:6.—Tr.].
c) The presentation of the woman before the priest with her offering, Num_5:15. The poor bond of union that still exists between both parties, is designated by the inferior offering, which still the man must provide, but the woman is to present. It is a meal offering, mincha, consisting of the tenth part of an epha of barley meal. Barley, worth only half as much as wheat, was the food of the poor, and even of the cattle. But these two, in their present relation, were a house that had become poor. They were to add neither oil nor frankincense, for it would be contrary to the truth, since, in such agitation, the life of the soul and the spirit of prayer are completely depressed, if both are not entirely wanting. This is indicated by the conclusion of the verse.
d) The priest’s procedure. 1) The adjuration or administering the oath, Num_5:16-22. The first efficacy lies in the slow deliberateness and formality of the solemn procedure, by which time is allowed to the woman for awakening, for confession. One may regard it as correct when the Talmud informs us: did she submit to confess, then her marriage letter (kethuba) was destroyed, by which she lost what her husband promised her at their marriage, but otherwise she departed without punishment. [How reconcile this with Lev_20:10, according to which an adulteress must suffer death? Keil judiciously states that “nothing is said about what was to be done” in case of implied confession.—Tr.] Therefore the priest placed her before the Lord at the altar of burnt-offering. In a mean earthen vessel he dipped holy water (wash-water of the fore-court? [see Translator’s note below]) such as served for sacred uses in the Temple [Tabernacle], and put into it dust from the floor of the Temple, yet that means a sacred dust, so reckoned along with the Temple, which, just as the water, must imbue with sacred dread a conscience sensible of guilt. Then the woman’s head is uncovered; she stands with flowing hair, not already as a great sinner, but as one provisorily shorn of her dignity, forsaken of her husband and all the world, whom one, moreover, may look in the eyes, and now the offering of rebuke is laid in her hands. She must hold it so a long while; the trembling hand of one conscious of guilt would readily let it fall. 2) Then follows the administration of the oath.—In very definite and drastic terms innocence and guilt are distinguished, and it is announced to her that the hypothetically bitter (see Num_5:27) and cursing water, which she must now drink, will do her no harm in case she is innocent, but that it will do her harm in case she is guilty. Before the hypothetical announcement of the curse, is again intimated a pause full of anxiety, according to the words: “has any man lain with thee besides thy husband?” Then follows the awful formula of the oath, which, in case she is guilty, loads with a curse on the one hand her memory among the nation, and on the other her body, her female organization, with which she has sinned. Thereupon she must declare her readiness to drink the water with the words amen, amen, by which she makes the oath her own. [“Some think the Amen being doubled, respects both parts of the adjuration, both that which freed her if innocent, and that which condemned her if guilty.” M. Henry.—Tr.]. Another pause. The priest writes the curse or form of oath on a tablet, and with the bitter water washes off the writing, so that she must in a symbolical way drink the very formula of oath. She drinks some of the water. 3) Now the priest completes the offering, and only after that she drinks all the water.
One must not mend this representation by condensation, since just its slow movement, with pauses, portrays the psychological intent of the action.
In regard to the corporeal side of the curse, it is indeed assumed that the effect will begin to appear at once, but not that it will at once be completed; a myth of the Talmud that negative criticism eagerly appropriates. It has been supposed that the threatened sickness was dropsy of the ovary, or else dropsy in general (see Keil in loc., Knobel, p. 23). Evidently a disease of females is meant, such as answers for a punishment of a sexual sin, and it is certain that even an inferior agitation of spirit in a woman can have such consequences. It is not easy to imagine how the “incorporated” curse, that Keil assumes, and which Oehler (Herzog, R.-Enc. XIX. p. 474) would have only to be completed by ethical ingredients, can be transformed into a blessing in the body of the innocent woman. As an apologetical analogy for a dogma, this analogy is very far-fetched, unless one would affirm that in conjunction with the agitation accompanying the consciousness of guilt the bitter water itself must become poison to the woman that drank it.
But it must be specially noticed that the innocent and yet sorely-tried woman could, in this situation, rise to a very exaltation of trust in God. Standing there with her loosened hair, she must become to her husband the object of utmost compassion. Were there added to that the appearance of a joyous, heroic courage, the tables would be turned; she triumphed over the husband. Hence nothing more was to be done to the man, when innocence had celebrated its victory over him. His jealousy was punished by being openly put to shame, and he must acknowledge her again as his married wife, whereas marriage intercourse was legally prohibited during his suspicion (according to Sota i. 3, “hindered by watching him!”) The innocent wife, on the other hand, receives notice of a blessing (Num_5:28), which on her part, also, is psychologically well-founded, which, however, the Talmud represents in an untrue fashion. The Gamara adds: “if previously her births were hard, afterwards they were easy; had she daughters before, she afterwards receives sons.”
It is an abstract procedure of supra-naturalism when one would eliminate from this law of jealousy the psychological and ethical ingredients. It has indeed a human relationship with the ordeals of the middle ages, but these have on their part also a relationship to the theocratic faith of revelation, on whose summit appears this significant, divine ordinance, testifying as it does to wonderful wisdom and acquaintance with the heart. The New Testament aspect of the matter is, that the woman threatened with fearful vengeance is taken under the protection of the sanctuary, as even now-a-days Christian authorities now and then take under their protection one threatened with Lynch-law by putting him in prison. The slow deliberateness of the proceeding may also serve to elucidate the fact that Christ wrote on the ground when the adulteress was brought before Him. Any way, He brought about a great, silent pause.
It has been assumed that this proceeding, which from the very first was hemmed about with many limitations (see Oehler, ibid. p. 476), was seldom used, and that later it was abolished (ibid.). But one could wish very much that the moral ideas corresponding to this typical law might everywhere make their light and right prevail.
[Num_5:17. Holy water. “Let my readers, however, consider whether He does not rather mean the water in which the ashes of the red heifer were sprinkled, and whereby solemn purifications were made (Num_19:1).” Calvin. This suggestion does not deserve to be ignored as it seems to be by all later commentaries. Seeing the varied uses to which that water was put, it would naturally be the next to be thought of for the present purpose, at least after the ceremony of the red heifer was once instituted. But the record of the latter institution being given in connection with events occurring on the subsequent march, is not proof that it was not instituted before. In the case of the ordinances in Num_5:1-10, we see that they were instituted before.
Num_5:28. וְנִזְרְעָה זַֽרַע, “and she shall be sown with seed.” The nearest meaning of the words would only suggest that the woman is to receive from her husband what is due to a wife (comp. Exo_20:10; 1Co_7:3). The phrase may be taken as the expression for what is honorable, looking toward offspring, as שִׁכְבַת־זֶרַע Num_5:13, comp. Lev_19:20; Lev_15:18, refers to intercourse without such intent. Comp. Nah_1:14. The phrase is ἅπ. λεγ.—Tr.].
HOMILETICAL HINTS
Chap. 5. The preservation of the purity of God’s army. Jealousy as a legal suffering and as a passion. Jealousy, an obscure witness for the exclusiveness and sanctity of marriage. The power of conscience; both of a good and of a bad conscience.
Footnotes:
[1]guilt.
[2]the very sum. De Wette; according to its full value, Bunsen; according to its total amount, Zunz.
[3]the guilt recompensed belongs to the Lord, for the priest.
[4]except.
[5]Or, heave offering.
[6]in the act.
[7]oblation.
[8]meal-offering.
[9]on.
[10]Or, being in the power of thy husband.
[11]Heb. under thy husband.
[12]the.
[13]Heb. fall.
[14]shrink.
[15]into.
[16]for bitterness.
[17]present it at.
[18][Heb. shall be sown with seed. Calvin.—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1–3 REMOVAL OF THE UNCLEAN FROM THE CAMP, Num_5:1-4.
REMOVAL OF THE UNCLEAN FROM THE CAMP, Num_5:1-4.
For some general reasons for the mixture of ritual legislation with history see Introduction, (1.) The purification of the camp from the defilement of leprosy was enjoined for reasons concisely stated by Dr. A. Clarke: “1.) On a purely physical reason; the disease was contagious. 2.) There was also a spiritual reason; the camp was the habitation of God, and nothing impure should be permitted to remain where he dwelt. 3.) The camp is the emblem of the Church, where nothing that is defiled should enter, and in which nothing that is unholy should be tolerated.” We may add a fourth reason. This purification was educational, as were all the other Levitical cleansings, and tended to the development of the notion of spiritual purity. “Howbeit,” says St. Paul in one of his generalizations, “that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual.”
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1–2 1–4. Exclusion of unclean persons. The compiler has very…
1–4. Exclusion of unclean persons. The compiler has very suitably placed this in connexion with the careful arrangements enjoined in the preceding chapter to preserve the sacredness of the Dwelling of Jehovah. Because of His presence the whole camp (‘in the midst whereof I dwell’) was sacred, and all pollution must be rigorously avoided (cf. Lev_15:31). The same principle is applied, in Num_35:33 f., to the whole land of Canaan.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. H. Mackintosh 1880 · Public Domain On v1 Numbers 5
Numbers 5
’’And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead: both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell. And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp: as the Lord spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel." Numbers 5: 1-4.
Read full note →
Here we have unfolded to us, in few words, the great foundation principle on which the discipline of the assembly is founded - a principle, we may say, of the very last importance, though, alas! so little understood or attended to. It was the presence of God in the midst of His people Israel that demanded holiness on their part. "That they defile not their camps in the midst of which I dwell." The place where the Holy one dwells must be holy. This is a plain and a necessary truth.
We have already remarked that redemption was the basis of God’s dwelling in the midst of His people. But we must remember that discipline was essential to His continuance amongst them. He could not dwell where evil was deliberately and avowedly sanctioned. Blessed be His name, He can and does bear with weakness; but He is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity. Evil cannot dwell with Him, nor can He have fellowship with it. It would involve a denial of His very nature; and He cannot deny Himself.
It may, however, be said, in reply, "Does not God the Holy Ghost dwell in the individual believer, and yet there is much evil in him?" True, the Holy Ghost dwells in the believer, on the ground of accomplished redemption. He is there, not as the sanction of what is of nature, But as the seal of what is of Christ: and His presence and fellowship are enjoyed just in proportion as the evil in us is habitually judged. Will any one assert that we can realise and delight in the Spirit’s indwelling while allowing our indwelling pravity, and indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind? Far away be the impious thought! No; we must judge ourselves, and put away everything inconsistent with the holiness of the One who dwells in us. Our "old man" is not recognised at all. It has no existence before God. It has been condemned, utterly, in the cross of Christ. we feel its workings, alas! and have to mourn over them, and judge ourselves on account of them; but God sees us in Christ - in the Spirit - in the new creation. And, moreover, the Holy Ghost dwells in the body of the believer, on the ground of the blood of Christ; and His indwelling demands the judgement of evil in every shape and form.
So also, in reference to the assembly. No doubt, there is evil there - evil in each individual member, and therefore evil in the body corporate. But it must be judged; and, if judged, it is not allowed to act, it is rendered null. But to say that an assembly is not to judge evil is nothing more or less than corporate antinomianism. What should we say to a professing Christian who maintained that He was not solemnly responsible to judge evil, in himself and in His ways? we should, with great decision, pronounce him an antinomian. And if it be wrong for a single individual to take such ground, must it not be proportionally wrong for an assembly? We cannot see how this can be called in question.
What would have been the result, had Israel refused to obey the peremptory "command" given at the opening of the chapter before us? Supposing they had said, "We are not responsible to judge evil; and we do not feel that it becomes poor, failing, erring mortals such as we to judge anybody. These people with the leprosy, and the issue, and so forth, are as much Israelites as we are, and have as good a right to all the blessings and privileges of the camp as we have; we do not therefore feel it would be right for us to put them out."
Now what, we ask, would have been God’s rejoinder to such a reply? If the reader will just turn for an instant to Joshua 7 he will find as solemn an answer as could well be given. Let him draw near and carefully inspect that "great heap of stones" in the valley of Achor. Let him read the inscription thereon. What is it? "God in greatly to be feared in the assembly of his: saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are round about him." "Our God is a consuming fire." What is the meaning of all this? Let us hear it and consider it! Lust had conceived in the heart of one member of the congregation, and brought forth sin. What then? Did this involve the whole congregation? Yes, verily, this is the solemn truth, "Israel (not merely Achan) hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff. Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they were accursed: neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed thing from among you." Joshua 7: 11, 12.
This is peculiarly solemn and searching. It, most assuredly, utters a loud voice in our ears, and conveys a holy lesson to our hearts. There were, so far as the narrative informs us, many hundreds of thousands throughout the camp of Israel as ignorant, as Joshua himself seems to have been, of the fact of Achan’s sin and yet the word was, "Israel hath sinned - transgressed - taken the accursed thing - stolen and dissembled." How was this? The assembly was one. God’s presence in the midst of the congregation constituted it one, so one, that the sin of each was the sin of all. "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Human reason may demur to this, as it is sure to demur to everything that lies beyond its narrow range. But God says it, and this is enough for the believing mind. It doth not become us to ask," Why? how? or wherefore?" The testimony of God settles everything, and we have only to believe and obey. It is enough for us to know that the fact of God’s presence demands holiness, purity, and the judgement of evil. Let us remember this. It is not upon the principle so justly repudiated by every lowly mind, "Stand by thyself, I am holier than thou." No, no; it is entirely on the ground of what God is. "Be ye holy, for I am holy." God could not give the sanction of His holy presence to unjudged wickedness. What! Give a victory at Ai with an Achan in the camp? Impossible! a victory, under such circumstances, would have been a dishonour to God, and the very worst thing that could have happened to Israel. It could not be. Israel must be chastised. They must be humbled and broken. They must be brought down to the valley of Achor - the place of trouble, for there alone can "a door of hope" be opened when evil has come in.
Let not the reader misunderstand this great practical principle. It has, we fear, been greatly misunderstood by many of God’s people. Many there are who seem to think that it can never be right for those who are saved by grace, and who are themselves signal monuments of mercy, to exercise discipline in any form, or on any ground whatsoever. To such persons, Matthew 7: 1 seems to condemn utterly the thought of our undertaking to judge. Are we not, say they, expressly told by our Lord, not to judge? are not these His own veritable words, "Judge not, that ye be not judged?" No doubt. But what do these words mean? Do they mean that we are not to judge the doctrine and manner of life of such as present themselves for Christian fellowship? Do they lend any support to the idea that, no matter what a man holds, or what he teaches, or what he does, we are to receive him all the same? Can this be the force and meaning of our Lord’s words? Who could, for one moment, cede anything so monstrous as this? Does not our Lord, in this very same chapter, tell us to "beware of false prophets?" But how can we beware of any one, if we are not to judge? If judgement is not to be exercised in any case, why tell us to beware?
Christian reader, the truth is as simple as possible. God’s assembly is responsible to judge the doctrine and morals of all who claim entrance at the door. We are not to judge motives, but we are to judge ways. We are directly taught by the inspired apostle, in 1 Corinthians 5, that we are bound to judge all who take the ground of being inside the assembly. "For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." Verses 12, 13.
This is most distinct. We are not to judge those "without" but we are to judge those "within." That is, those who take the ground of being Christians - of being members of God’s assembly - all such come within the range of judgement. The very moment a man enters the assembly, he takes His place in that sphere where discipline is exercised upon everything contrary to the holiness of the One who dwells there.
And let not the reader suppose, for a moment, that the unity of the body is touched when the discipline of the house is maintained. This would be a very serious mistake indeed; and yet alas! it is a very common one. We frequently hear it said of those who rightly seek to maintain the discipline of the house of God, that they are rending the body of Christ. There could hardly be a greater mistake. The fact is, the former is our bounden duty; the latter, an utter impossibility? The discipline of God’s house must be carried out; but the unity of Christ’s body can never be dissolved.
Again, we sometimes hear persons speak of cutting off the limbs of the body of Christ. This also is a mistake. Not a single limb of the body of Christ can ever be disturbed. Each member has been incorporated into its place by the Holy Ghost, in pursuance of the eternal purpose of God, and on the ground of the accomplished atonement of Christ; nor can any power of men or devils ever sever a single limb from the body. All are indissolubly joined together in a perfect unity, and maintained therein by divine power. The unity of the Church of God may be compared to a chain stretching across a river; you see it at either side, but it dips in the middle, and if you were to judge by the sight of your eyes, you might suppose that the chain had given way at the centre. So is it with the Church of God; it was seen to be one at the beginning; it will be seen to be one by and by; and it is, in God’s sight, one now, though the unity be not visible to mortal eyes.
It is of the very last moment that the Christian reader should be thoroughly clear on this great Church question. The enemy has sought, by every means in his power, to cast dust into the eyes of God’s dear people, in order that they might not see the truth in this matter. We have, on the one side, the boasted unity of Roman Catholicism; and, on the other hand, the deplorable divisions of Protestantism. Rome points, with an air of triumph, to the numerous sects of Protestants; and Protestants likewise point to the numerous errors, corruptions, and abuses of Romanism. Thus the earnest seeker after truth hardly knows where to turn or what to think; while, on the other hand, the careless, the indifferent, the self-indulgent, and the world-loving are only too ready to draw a plea, from all that they see around them, for flinging aside all serious thought and concern about divine things; and even if, like Pilate, they sometimes flippantly ask the question, "What is truth?" they, like him, turn on their heel without waiting for an answer.
Now, we are firmly persuaded that the true secret of the whole matter - the grand solution of the difficulty - the real relief for the hearts of God’s beloved saints, will be found in the truth of the indivisible unity of the church of God, the body of Christ, on the earth. This truth is not merely to be held as a doctrine, but to be confessed, maintained, and carried out, at all cost to ourselves. It is a great formative truth for the soul, and contains in it the only answer to Rome’s boasted unity on the one hand, and to Protestant divisions on the other. It will enable us to testify to Protestantism that we have found unity, and to Roman Catholicism that we have found the unity of the Spirit.
It may, however, be argued, in reply, that it is the veriest Utopianism to seek to carry out such an idea, in the present condition of things. Everything is in such ruin and confusion that we are just like a number of children who have lost their way in a wood, and are trying to make the best of their way home, some in large parties, some in groups of two or three, and some all alone.
Now this may seem very plausible; and we do not doubt, in the least, but that it would carry immense weight with a large number of the Lord’s people, at the present moment. But, in the judgement of faith, such a mode of putting the matter possesses no weight whatever. And for this simple reason, that the one all important question for faith is this, namely," Is the unity of the Church a human theory or a divine reality?" A divine reality, most surely, as it is written, "There is one body, and one Spirit." (Eph 4: 4) If we deny that there is "one body," we may, with equal force, deny that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all," inasmuch as all lie side by side, on the page of inspiration, and if we disturb one, we disturb all.
Nor are we confined to one solitary passage of scripture on this subject; though had we but one, it were amply sufficient. But we have more that one. Hearken to the following: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread." (1 Cor. 10: 16, 17) Read also 1 Corinthians 12: 12-27, where this whole subject is unfolded and applied.
In a word, then, the word of God doth, most clearly and fully, establish the truth of the indissoluble unity of the body of Christ; and, moreover, it establishes, as clearly and as fully, the truth of the discipline of God’s house. But, be it observed, the proper carrying out of the latter will never interfere with the former. The two things are perfectly compatible. Are we to suppose that when the apostle commanded the church of Corinth to put away from amongst them "that wicked person," the unity of the body was touched? Surely not. And yet was not that man a member of the body of Christ? Truly so, for we find him restored in the second epistle. The discipline of the house of God had done its work with a member of the body of Christ, and the erring one was brought back. Such was the object of the church’s act.
All this may help to clear the mind of the reader as to the deeply interesting subject of reception at the Lord’s table and exclusion from it. There seems to be a considerable amount of confusion in the minds of many Christians as to these things. Some there are who seem to think that provided a person be a Christian, he should, on no account, be refused a place at the Lord’s table. The case in 1 Corinthians 5 is quite sufficient to settle this question. Evidently that man was not put away on the ground of his not being a Christian. He was, as we know, spite of his failure and sin, a child of God; and yet was the assembly at Corinth commanded to put him away; and had they not done so, they would have brought down the judgement of God upon the whole assembly. God’s presence is in the Assembly, and therefore evil must be judged.
Thus, whether we look at the fifth chapter of Numbers or at the fifth chapter of 1 Corinthians, we learn the same solemn truth, namely, that "Holiness becometh God’s house for ever." And farther we learn that it is with God’s own people that discipline must be maintained, and not with those outside. For what do we read in the opening lines of Numbers 5: 1. Were the children of Israel commanded to put out of the camp every one that was not an Israelite, every one that was not circumcised, every one who could not trace his pedigree, in an unbroken line, up to Abraham? Were these the ground of exclusion from the camp? Not at all. Who then were to be put out "Every leper" - that is, every one in whom sin is allowed to work. "Every one that hath an issue" - that is, every one from whom a defiling influence is emanating: and, "whosoever is defiled by the dead." These were the persons that were to be separated from the camp in the wilderness, and their antitypes are to be separated from the assembly now.
And why, we may ask, was this separation demanded? Was it to uphold the reputation or respectability of the people? Nothing of the sort. What then? "That they defile not their camps in the midst whereof I dwell." And so is it now. We do not judge and put away bad doctrine, in order to maintain our orthodoxy; neither do we judge and put away moral evil, in order to maintain our reputation and respectability. The only ground of judgement and putting away is this, "Holiness becometh thine house, O Lord, for ever." God dwells in the midst of His people. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I." Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"(l Cor. 3: 16) And again, "Now therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." Ephesians 2: 19-22.
But it may be that the reader feels disposed to put some such question as the following, How is it possible to find a pure, a Perfect church? Is there not, will there not - must there not be some evil in every assembly, in spite of the most intense pastoral vigilance and corporate faithfulness? How then can this high standard of purity be maintained?" No doubt there is evil in the assembly, inasmuch as there is indwelling sin in each member of the assembly. But it must not be allowed; it must not be sanctioned; it must be judged and kept under. It is not the presence of judged evil that defiles, But the allowance and sanction of evil. It is with the Church, in its corporate character, as with the members in their individual character. If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged." (1 Cor. 11: 31) Hence, therefore, no amount of evil should lead a man to separate from the Church of God; but if an assembly denies its solemn responsibility to judge evil, both in doctrine and morals, it is no longer on the ground of the Church Of God at all, and it becomes your bounden duty to separate from it. So long as an assembly is on the ground of the Church of God, however feeble it be, and few in number, to separate from it is schism. But if an assembly be not on God’s ground - and most certainly it is not, if it denies its duty to judge evil - then it is schism to continue in association with it.
But will not this tend to multiply and perpetuate divisions? Most assuredly not. It may tend to break up mere human associations; but this is not schism, but the very reverse, inasmuch as all such associations, however large, powerful, and apparently useful, are positively antagonistic to the unity of the body of Christ, the Church of God.
It cannot fail to strike the thoughtful reader that the Spirit of God is awakening attention, on all hands, to the great question of the Church. Men are beginning to see that there is very much more in this subject than the mere notion of an individual mind, or the dogma of a party. The question," What is the Church?" is forcing itself upon many hearts and demanding an answer. And what a mercy to have an answer to give! an answer as clear, as distinct, and as authoritative as the voice of God, the voice of holy scripture, can give. Is it not an unspeakable privilege, when assailed on all sides, by the claims of churches, "High Church," "Low Church," "Broad Church," "State Church," "Free Church," to be able to fall back upon the one true Church of the living God, the body of Christ? We most assuredly esteem it as such; and we are firmly persuaded that here alone is the divine solution of the difficulties of thousands of the people of God.
But where is this Church to be found? Is it not a hopeless undertaking to set out to look for it amid the ruin and confusion which surround us? No, blessed be God! for, albeit we may not see all the members of the Church gathered together, yet it is our privilege and holy duty to know and occupy the ground of the Church of God, and no other. And how is this ground to be discerned? We believe that the first step towards discerning the true ground of the Church of God is, to stand apart from everything that is contrary thereto. We need not expect to discover what is true while our minds are beclouded by what is false. The divine order is, "Cease to do evil; learn to do well." God does not give us light for two steps at a time. Hence, the moment we discover that we are on wrong ground, it is our duty to abandon it, and wait on God for further light, which He will, most surely, give.
But we must proceed with our chapter.
"The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel; when a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to do a trespass against the Lord, and that person be guilty; then they shall confess their sin which they have done; and he shall recompense his trespass with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed. But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto the Lord, even to the priest; beside the ram of the atonement, whereby an atonement shall be made for him."
The doctrine of the trespass offering has been considered in our "Notes on Leviticus," chapter 5; and to that we must refer our reader, as we do not mean to occupy his time or our own in going into any points which have been already considered. We shall merely notice here the very important questions of confession and restitution. Not only is it true that both God and man are gainers by the Great Trespass Offering presented on the cross at Calvary; but we also learn, from the foregoing quotation, that God looked for confession and restitution, when any trespass had been committed. The sincerity of the former would be evidenced by the latter. It was not sufficient for a Jew, who had trespassed against his brother, to go and say, "I am sorry," He had to restore the thing wherein he had trespassed and add a fifth thereto. Now, although we are not under the law, yet may we gather much instruction from its institutions; although we are not under the schoolmaster, we may learn some good lessons from him. If, then, we have trespassed against any one, it is not enough that we confess our sin to God and to our brother, we must make restitution; we are called upon to give practical proof of the fact that we have judged ourselves on account of that thing in which we have trespassed.
We question if this is felt as it ought to be. We fear there is a light, flippant, easy-going style in reference to sin and failure, which must be very grievous indeed to the Spirit of God. We rest content with the mere lip confession, without the deep, heartfelt sense of the evil of sin in God’s sight. The thing itself is not judged in its moral roots, and, as a consequence of this trifling with sin, the heart becomes hard, and the conscience loses its tenderness. This is very serious. We know of few things more precious than a tender conscience. We do not mean a scrupulous conscience, which is governed by its own crotchets; or a morbid conscience, which is governed by its own fears. Both these are most troublesome guests for any one to entertain. But we mean a tender conscience, which is governed, in all things, by the word of God, and which refers, at all times, to His authority. This sound description of conscience we consider an inestimable treasure. It regulates everything, takes cognisance of the very smallest matter connected with our daily walk and habits - our mode of dress - our houses - our furniture - our table - our entire deportment, spirit, and style - our mode of conducting our business, or, if it be our lot to serve others, the mode in which we discharge the service, whatever it be. In short, everything falls under the healthful moral influence of a tender conscience. "Herein," says the blessed apostle, "do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and men." Acts 24: 16.
This is what we may well covet. There is something morally beautiful and attractive in this exercise of the greatest and most gifted servant of Christ. He, with all his splendid gifts, with all his marvellous powers, with all his profound insight into the ways and counsels of God, with all he had to speak of and glory in, with all the wonderful revelations made to him in the third heavens; in a word, he, the most honoured of apostles and privileged of saints, gave holy diligence to keep always a conscience void of offence both toward God and man; and if, in an unguarded moment, he uttered a hasty word, as he did to Ananias the high priest, he was ready, the very next moment, to confess and make restitution, so that the hasty utterance, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall" was withdrawn, and God’s word given instead - "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."
Nor we do not believe that Paul could have retired to rest, that night, with a conscience void of offence, if he had not withdrawn his words. There must be confession, when we do or say what is wrong; and if there be not the confession, our communion will assuredly be interrupted. Communion, with unconfessed sin upon the conscience, is a moral impossibility. We may talk of it; but it is all the merest delusion. We must keep a clean conscience if we would walk with God. There is nothing more to be dreaded than moral insensibility a slovenly conscience, an obtuse moral sense that can allow all sorts of things to pass unjudged; that can commit sin, pass on, and coolly say, "What evil have I done?"
Reader, let us, with holy vigilance, watch against all this. Let us seek to cultivate a tender conscience. It will demand from us what it demanded from Paul, namely, "exercise." But it is blessed exercise, and it will yield most precious fruits. Do not suppose that there is anything that savours of the legal in this exercise; nay, it is most thoroughly Christian; indeed we look upon those noble words of Paul as the very embodiment, in a condensed form, of the whole of a Christian’s practice. "To have always a conscience void of offence toward God and men" comprehends everything.
But alas! how little do we habitually ponder the claims of God, or the claims of our fellow-man! How little is our conscience up to the mark! Claims of all sorts are neglected, yet we feel it not.
There is no brokenness and contrition before the Lord. We commit trespass in a thousand things, yet there is no confession or restitution. Things are allowed to pass that ought to be judged, confessed, and put away. There is sin in our holy things; there is lightness and indifference of spirit in the assembly and at the Lord’s table; we rob God, in various ways; we think our own thoughts, speak our own words, do our own pleasure; and what is all this but robbing God, seeing that we are not our own but bought with a price?
Now, we cannot but think that all this must sadly hinder our spiritual growth. It grieves the Spirit of God and hinders His gracious ministry of Christ to our souls whereby alone we grow up into Him. We know, from various parts of God’s word, how much He prizes a tender spirit, a contrite heart. "To this man will I look, even to him that is of a contrite spirit and trembles at my word." With such an one God can dwell; but with hardness and insensibility, coldness and indifference, He can have no fellowship. Oh! then let us exercise ourselves to have always a pure and uncondemning conscience, both as to God and as to our fellow-man.
The third and last section of our chapter, which we need not quote at length, teaches us a deeply solemn lesson, whether we view it from a dispensational or a moral point of view. It contains the record of the great ordinance designed for the trial of jealousy. Its place here is remarkable. In the first section, we have the corporate judgement of evil: in the second, we have individual self-judgement, confession, and restitution: and in the third, we learn that God cannot endure even the mere suspicion of evil.
Now, we fully believe that this very impressive ordinance has a dispensational bearing upon the relationship between Jehovah and Israel. The prophets dwell largely upon Israel’s conduct as a wife, and upon Jehovah’s jealousy, on that score. We do not attempt to quote the passages, but the reader will find them throughout the pages of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Israel could not abide the searching trial of the bitter water. Her unfaithfulness has been made manifest. She has broken her vows. She has gone aside from her Husband, the Holy One of Israel, whose burning jealousy has been poured forth upon the Faithless nation. He is a jealous God, and cannot bear the thought that the heart that He claims as His own should be given to another.
Thus we see that this ordinance for the trial of jealousy bears very distinctly upon it the impress of the divine character. In it He most fully enters into the thoughts and feelings of an injured husband, or of one who even suspected an injury. The bare suspicion is perfectly intolerable, and where it takes possession of the heart, the matter must be sifted to the very bottom. The suspected one must undergo a process of such a searching nature that only the faithful one can endure. If there was a trace of guilt, the bitter water could search down into the very depths of the soul, and bring it full out. There was no escape for the guilty one; and, we may say, that the very fact of there being no possible escape for the guilty, only made the vindication of the innocent more triumphant. The self-same process that declared the guilt of the guilty, made manifest the innocence of the faithful. To one who is thoroughly conscious of integrity, the more searching the investigation the more welcome it is. If there were a possibility of a guilty one escaping, through any defect in the mode of trial, it would only make against the innocent. But the process was divine, and therefore perfect; and hence, when the suspected wife had gone through it in safety, her fidelity was perfectly manifested, and full confidence restored.
What a mercy, then, to have had such a perfect mode of settling all suspected cases! Suspicion is the death blow to all loving intimacy, and God would not have it in the midst of His congregation. He would not only have His people collectively to judge evil, and individually to judge themselves; But where there was even the suspicion of evil, and no evidence forthcoming, He Himself devised a method of trial which perfectly brought the truth to light. The guilty one had to drink death, and found it to be judgement.* The faithful one drank death, and found it victory.
{*The "dust" lifted from the floor of the tabernacle may be viewed as the figure of death. "Thou hast brought me into the dust of death." The "water prefigures the word, which, being brought to bear upon the conscience, by the power of the Holy Ghost, makes everything manifest. If there has been any unfaithfulness to Christ, the true husband of His people, it must be thoroughly judged. This holds good with regard to the nation of Israel, to the Church of God, and to the individual believer. If the heart be not true to Christ, it will not be able to stand the searching power of the word. But if there be truth in the inward parts, the more one is searched and tried, the better. How blessed it is when we can truly say, “Search me, O God, and know my Heart: try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." Psalm 139: 23, 24}
C. H. Mackintosh, Notes on the Pentateuch — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv2–4 Every leper. The law of the leper had been…
Every leper. The law of the leper had been given in great detail in Leviticus 13 and 14, and it had been already ordered that he should be put out of the camp, (Lev_13:46, and cf. Lev_14:3) Every one that hath an issue. These defilements are treated of in Leviticus 15; where, however, it is not expressly ordered that those so polluted should be put out of the comp. Whosoever is defiled by the dead. The fact of being thus defiled is recognized in Lev_11:24 Lev_21:1, but the formal regulations concerning it are not given until Num_19:21. Probably the popular opinion and practice was sufficiently definite to explain the present command.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v2 Put out of the camp every leper, and every…
Num_5:2-3
Put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead.
Read full note →
.
Where God dwells there must be purity:
I. God himself is pure, and cannot associate with the impure. If discipline is lax, God departs. It is not the large church, or the intelligent or the wealthy one, that attracts Him, but the pure one. As the lightning passes by the polished marble and the carved wood to touch the iron or steel, because there it finds something akin to itself, so God passes by those to dwell with the pure, because in them He finds a character akin to His own.
II. God will not, because he cannot, do any good to the impure. Any one tolerating sin would not appreciate the design of God and accept His blessing; and where He cannot bless, He will not come to dwell. Let us then put out of the camp every leper, everything that defileth; for the presence of God in our midst is of the utmost importance to us as His Church and people. His presence is essential.
1. To our comfort as Churches and Christians. What the shining sun is in nature His presence is with us--our brightness, our joy, &c.
2. To our prosperity. God with His Church has been in all ages the secret of its power and success. His presence is the life of the ministry and of all Christian work (D. Lloyd.)
The exclusion of the unclean:
I. As a sanitary measure.
1. The universal application of the rule.
2. The sacred reason by which it was enforced. Impurity separates from God.
II. As a spiritual parable.
1. Sin is a defiling thing.
2. Sin is a deadly thing.
3. Sin is a separating thing.
Where sin is cherished God will not dwell.
(1) The openly and persistently wicked should be expelled from the Church on earth.
(a) Because of their corrupt influence (1Co_5:6-13).
(b) Because of the dishonour to God which their presence in the Church involves.
(2) The wicked will be excluded from the city of God above.
Conclusion:
1. He who demands this purity has provided the means whereby we may attain unto it. The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.
2. Let us diligently use the means which He has provided. Wash you, make you clean, &c. (W. Jones.)
In the midst whereof I dwell--
God ever present with His people
This teaches us that God is evermore present with His people. This appeareth in the example of Joseph (Gen_39:21; Gen_39:23). I will propound a few reasons.
1. He will save those that are His. His presence is not a vain presence, neither is He an idle beholder of things that are done; but His presence is to prosper and to save (Jer_30:11). We must not therefore dream of a presence that effecteth nothing, but rather willeth His people oftentimes to stand still, while He worketh all in all.
2. They have good success in their lawful labours, so that He maketh the works of their hands prosperous.
Uses:
1. For the increase of a sound faith in God. He leaveth them not to themselves; He with-draweth not His strength from them; He delivereth them not to the lust and pleasure of their enemies. This is it which He telleth Joshua after the death of Moses (Jdg_1:5).
2. This teacheth us this good duty, that we take heed we do not defile ourselves with the pollutions of sin. For how shall we dare to commit sin that is so highly displeasing in His sight, forasmuch as He is with us to behold us and all our actions? (W. Attersoll.)
God dwelling with His people:
I. God is present with his people.
1. Influentially (Psa_139:1; Psa_139:10).
2. Sympathetically (Gen_28:16-17; Joh_14:16-26; 1Jn_1:3).
II. God is present in the midst of his people.
1. As to the centre of union.
2. As the source of blessing. Life, light, power, beauty, &c.
III. Gods presence in the midst of his people should exert a great and blessed influence upon them.
1. A restraint from sin.
2. An incentive to holiness.
3. An encouragement to duty.
4. An assurance of support in the toils and trials of life.
5. An assurance of victory in the conflicts of life.
6. An assurance of perfect salvation. (W. Jones.)
The presence of God among His people demands holiness on their part
Redemption was the basis of Gods dwelling in the midst of His people. But we must remember that discipline was essential to His continuance amongst them. He could not dwell where evil was deliberately sanctioned. It may, however, be said, in reply, Does not God the Holy Ghost dwell in the individual believer, and yet there is much evil in him? True, the Holy Ghost dwells in the believer, on the ground of accomplished redemption. He is there, not as the sanction of what is of nature, but as the seal of what is of Christ; and His presence and fellowship are enjoyed just in proportion as the evil in us is habitually judged. So also in reference to the assembly. No doubt, there is evil there--evil in each individual member, and therefore evil in the body corporate. But it must be judged; and, if judged, it is not allowed to act, it is rendered null. We are not to judge motives, but we are to judge ways. The very moment a man enters the assembly, he takes his place in that sphere where discipline is exercised upon ever, thing contrary to the holiness of the One who dwells there. And let not the reader suppose, for a moment, that the unity of the body is touched when the discipline of the house is maintained. We frequently hear it said of those who rightly seek to maintain the discipline of the house of God, that they are rending the body of Christ. There could hardly be a greater mistake. The fact is, the former is our bounden duty; the latter, an utter impossibility. The discipline of Gods house must be carried out; but the unity of Christs body can never be dissolved. And why, we may ask, was this separation demanded? Was it to uphold the reputation or respectability of the people? Nothing of the sort. What then? That they defile not their camps in the midst whereof I dwell. And so is it now. We do not judge and put away bad doctrine, in order to maintain our orthodoxy; neither do we judge and put away moral evil, in order to maintain our reputation and respectability. The only ground of judgment and putting away is this, Holiness becometh Thine house, O Lord, forever. God dwells in the midst of His people. (C. H. Mackintosh.)
No Church ought to tolerate open offenders:
No Church ought to tolerate any filthy livers, or unclean persons, or notorious offenders among them (Deu_23:17; 1Co_5:1-2; Eph_5:3-5). This truth may be further strengthened by many reasons.
1. For it is a comely thing for the saints of God to do so: that as they differ from heathen men, so they may differ from heathen meetings. Moses teacheth that they ought to put out evil from them, because they are an holy people (Deu_23:14).
2. For the neglect of this duty, the wrath of God falleth upon the sons of men. He is the God of order, and requireth that all things in the Church be done in order. Hence it is that the apostle saith (Col_3:6). And we have sundry examples of this in the people of Israel, who were diversely destroyed because of their sins (1Co_10:5).
3. We showed before that they were as unclean beasts, and should not be admitted to the fellowship of Christs sheep which are clean, lest they defile them through their contagion, and tread down with their feet the residue of their pastures. The apostle saith (1Co_5:6). Sin therefore being infectious, the sinner is not to be tolerated in the assembly of the righteous.
Uses:
1. It should minister great matter of much sorrow to every society of Christian men and women, when any of the congregation grow to be thus profane and defiled with the contagion of sin. Is it not a great grief to have any one member of the body cut off? This the apostle teacheth (1Co_5:2.)
2. It is a cause of great mercy and of a wonderful blessing from God, when such as transgress are resisted and punished. So long as sin is suffered, God is offended, and His wrath is extended over those places and persons. He hath a controversy against those that sin against Him.
3. Every congregation is bound to purge their own body from such excrements and filthiness as annoy it. We must have herein true zeal and godly courage in the cause of God and His truth. We must not stand in fear of the faces of men, though they be never so great and mighty. The censures of the Church must not be like the spiders web, which catcheth flies and gnats, whereas the bigger creatures break from it. This reproveth such as dare not deal with great men, rich men, and mighty men: they are afraid to touch them lest they purchase their displeasure.
4. Is no Church to tolerate any open offenders among them? Then they must use the censure of excommunication as an ordinance of God, not an invention of men; and not only know the nature and use of it, but practise it to the glory of God, and to the good of others. This is it which our Saviour Christ hath left and commanded to be executed among us (Mat_18:17). (W. Attersoll.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v1 Numbers 5
DEFILEMENT AND PURGATION
Numbers 5
Read full note →
THE separation of Israel as a people belonging to Jehovah proceeded on ideas of holiness which excluded from privilege many of the Hebrews themselves. The law did not ordain that in cases of defilement there might be immediate purification by washing or sacrifice. So far as ceremonial uncleanness was concerned, we may think this might have been provided for, and moral offences alone might have involved the offender in continued defilement. But just as idolatry, blasphemy, and murder caused pollution which could not be removed by sacrifice, but only by the capital punishment of the guilty, so certain bodily conditions and defects, and certain diseases, chiefly leprosy and those akin to it, were held to cause a defilement which could not be purged by any ceremony. A high standard of bodily health and purity was required for the priesthood; a lower standard was to be applied to the people. And the system declaring the uncleanness of many animals, and of the person under various conditions, touched at countless points the life of society. An Israelite who was unclean for one or other of a hundred reasons could not approach the sanctuary. He had his portion in God after a sense; yet for a time, it might be for life, the peculiar blessings of holy fellowship were denied him. He could celebrate no feast. He had no share in the great atonement. The precautions and terms to be observed were of such a nature that if the law had been at any time stringently enforced a very large percentage of the people would have been denied access to the altar.
It may appear a strange thing that the precept, "Ye shall be holy; for I am holy," was affixed not only to moral duties but with almost the same force to ceremonial duties. We can understand this, however, when we trace the result of the priestly ordinances. They created religious care and feeling; and the end was gained not so much by directing attention, as we now do, to faults of conduct, defects of will, sins of injustice, impurity, intemperance, and the like, but by keeping up a scrupulous attention to matters not, properly speaking, either moral or immoral, not: ethical as we say, which were yet declared to be of moment in religion. The moral law did its part. But to make the enforcement of moral statutes, many of which bore on desire and will, the only means of urging the fear of God, would have resulted practically in a very bare and desultory cultus. Among a comparatively rude people like the Israelites it would have been absurd to institute a religion consisting of "morality touched by emotion." For the mass of people still it is equally hopeless. There must he ordinances of prayer, praise, sacrament, and the duties which reach Godward through the Church. The value of the whole ceremonial system of the Mosaic law is clear from this point of view; and we need not wonder in the least at the nature of many provisions which, without grasp of the principle, we might reckon irksome and useless. The origin of some of the statutes is apparently hygienic; others again reach back to customs and beliefs of a very primitive world.
But they are made part of the sacred law in order to enforce the conviction that the judgment of God enters into the whole of life, follows men wherever they go, decides as to their state with relation to Him hour by hour, almost moment by moment. The ceremonial law was a constant and strenuous lesson in regard to the omnipresence of God, and the oversight of human affairs by Him. It created a conscience of Gods existence, His control, His superintendence of each life. And for a certain stage of the education of Israel this could be achieved in no other way. The moral and spiritual progress of a people, depending on the recognition of the authority of One who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, depends also, of necessity, on the sense of His oversight of human life at every point.
1. EXCLUSION FROM THE CAMP
Num_5:1-4.
The rigidness of the law which excluded lepers from the camp and afterwards from the cities had its necessity in the presumed nature of their disease. Leprosy was regarded as contagious, and practically incurable by any medical appliances, requiring to be kept in check by strenuous measures. Care for the general health meant hardship to the lepers; but this could not be avoided. From friends and home they were sent forth to live together as best they might, and spend what remained of life in almost hopeless separation. The authority of Moses is attached to the statute of exclusion, and there can be no doubt of its great antiquity. In Leviticus there are detailed enactments regarding the disease, some of which contemplate its decay and provide for the restoration to privilege of those who had been cured. The ceremonies were complicated, and among them were sacrifices to be offered by way of "atonement." The leper was alienated from God, severed from the congregation as one guilty in the eye of the law (Lev_14:12); and there can be no wonder that with this among other facts before him the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the law as having a mere "shadow of the good things to come."
And yet, in view of the malignant nature of the disease and the peril it caused to the general health, we must admit the wisdom of segregating those afflicted with leprosy. That Israel might be a robust people capable of its destiny, a rule like this was needful. It anticipated our modern laws made in harmony with advanced medical science, which require segregation or isolation in cases of virulent disease.
It has been affirmed that leprosy was from the first regarded as symbolic of moral disease, and that the legislation was from this point of view. There is, however, no evidence to support the theory. Indeed the conception of moral evil would have been confused rather than helped by any such idea. For although evil habits taint the mind and vice ruins it as leprosy taints and destroys the body; although the infectious nature of sin is fitly indicated by the insidious spread of this disease-one point in which there is no resemblance would make the symbol dangerously misleading. A few here and there were attacked by leprosy, and these with their blotched disfigured bodies were easily distinguished from the healthy. But this was in contrast with the secret moral malady by which all were tainted. The teaching that leprosy is a type of sin would make, not for morality, but for hypocrisy. The symptoms of a bad nature, like the signs of leprosy, would be looked for and found by every man m his neighbour, not in his own heart. The hypocrite would be encouraged in his self-satisfaction because he escaped the judgment of his fellow men. But the disease of sin is endemic, universal. The whole congregation was by reason of that excluded from the sanctuary of God.
According to the idea which underlies the priest law, leprosy did not typify sin; it meant sin. In no single place, indeed, is this directly affirmed. Yet the belief connecting bodily afflictions and calamities with transgressions implied it, and the fact that guilt-offerings had to be made for the leper when he was cleansed. Again, in the cases of Miriam, of Gehazi, and of Uzziah, the punishment of sin was leprosy. Under the conditions of climate which often prevailed, the germs of this disease might rapidly be developed by excitement, especially by the excitement of immoral rashness. Here we may find the connection which the law assumes between leprosy and guilt, and the origin of the statute which made the intervention of the priests necessary. In their poor dwellings beyond camp and city wall the lepers lay under a double reproach. They were not only tainted in body but appeared as stoners above others, men on whom some divine judgment had fallen, as the very name of their disease implied. And not till One came who did not fear to lay His hand on the leprous flesh, whose touch brought healing and life, was the pressure of the moral condemnation taken away. Of many cases of leprosy He would have said, as of the blindness He cured: "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents."
Now is the law to be charged with creating a class of social pariahs? Is there any reason for saying that in some way the legislation should have expressed pity rather than the rigour which appears in the passage before us and other enactments regarding leprosy? It would be easy to bring arguments which would seem to prove the law defective here. But in matters of this kind civilisation and Christian culture could not be forestalled. What was possible, what in the conditions that existed could be carried into effect, this only was commanded. These old enactments sprang out of the best wisdom and religion of the age. But they do not represent the whole of the Divine will, the Divine mercy, even as they were contemporaneously revealed. Add to the statutes regarding leprosy the other, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," and those that enjoined kindness to the poor and provision for their needs, and the true tenor of the legislation will be understood. According to these laws there were to be no pariahs in Israel. It was a sad necessity if any were excluded from the congregation of Gods people. The laws of brotherhood would insure for the wretched colony outside the camp every possible consideration. Denied access to God in festival and sacrifice, the lepers appealed to the humane feelings of the people. With their pathetic cry, "Unclean, unclean!" their loose hair and rent clothes, they confessed a miserable state that touched, every heart. As time went on, the law of segregation was interpreted liberally. Even in the synagogues a place was set apart for the lepers. The kindly disposition promoted by the Mosaic institutions was shown thus, and in many other ways.
The lepers banished outside the camp remind us of those who have for no wrong-doing of their own to endure social reproach. Were sometimes good men and women among the Hebrews, men with kind hearts, good mothers and daughters, attacked by this disease and compelled to betake themselves to the squalid tents of the lepers? That decree of rigorous precaution is outdone by the strange fact that under the providence of God, in His world, the best have often had to undergo opprobrium and cruelty; that Jesus Himself was crucified as a malefactor, bore the curse of him that "hangeth upon a tree." We see great suffering which is not due to moral delinquency; and we see the sting of it taken quite away. The stern ordinances of nature have light thrown "upon them from a higher world." Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses. For our sakes He was the object of brutal mockery, the sufferer, the sacrifice.
Besides the lepers and those who had an issue, every one who was unclean by reason of touching a dead body was to be excluded from the camp. This provision appears to rest on the idea that death was no "debt of nature," but unnatural, the result of the curse of God. Associated, however, in the statute before us with leprosy, defilement from the dead may have been decreed to prevent the spread of disease. Many maladies too well known to us have an infectious character; and those who were present at a death would be most exposed to their influence. Pathological explanations do not by any means account for all the kinds and causes of defilement; but exclusion from the camp is the special point here; and the cases may be classed together as having a common origin. The notion that some demon or fallen spirit was at work both in producing leprosy and in causing death, was involved in the customs of some barbarous tribes and entered into the beliefs of the Egyptians and Assyrians. This explanation, however, is too remote and alien from Judaism to be applied to these statutes regarding uncleanness, at least in the form they have in the Mosaic books. The few hints surviving in them, as where a bird was to be allowed to fly away when the leper was pronounced clean, cannot be permitted to fix a charge of superstition on the whole code.
A singular point in the statute regarding uncleanness "by the dead" is that the word (nephesh) stands apparently for the dead body. Of this some other explanation is needed than the free transference of meanings in Hebrew. Here and elsewhere in the Book of Numbers (Num_6:11; Num_9:6-7; Num_9:10; Num_19:13), as well as in various passages in Leviticus. defilement is attributed to the nephesh. Commonly the word means soul or animal life-principle. When connected with death it corresponds to our word "ghost," Job_11:20; Jer_15:9. Now the law was that not only those who touched a dead body, but all present in a house when death took place in it were unclean. The question occurs whether the nephesh, or soul escaping at death, was believed to defile. As if in doubt here a rabbi said "The body and the soul may plead successfully not guilty by charging their sinful life each upon the other. The body may say: Since that guilty soul parted with me, I have been lying in the grave as harmless as a stone. The soul may plead: Since that depraved body separated from me, I flutter about in the air like an innocent bird." Is it not possible that the nephesh meant the effluvium of the dead body, the active element which, springing from corruption, diffused uncleanness through the whole house of death? It seems quite in harmony with other uses of the word, and with the idea of defilement, to interpret was unclean by the nephesh, "sinned by the nephesh," as technical expressions carrying this meaning. The passage Num_19:13 is peculiarly instructive-"Every one coming in contact with the dead, with the nephesh of a man who has died." To translate, "with the corpse of a man who has died," would fix on the language the fault of tautology. In Psa_17:9 nephesh has the meaning of deadly, that is to say breathing death; and the idea here points to the meaning suggested.
The reason given for the banishment of the unclean is the presence of God in the congregation-"That they defile not their camp, in the midst whereof I dwell." All that are unhealthy, and those who have been in contact with death, which is the result of irremediable disease or accident, must be withdrawn from the precincts that belong to the Holy God. Human maladies are in contrast with the Divine health, death is in contrast to the Divine life. Here the whole scope of the legislation regarding defilement has its highest range of suggestion. It was a part of moral education to realise that God was separate from all distortion, wasting, and decay. In glad and deathless power He reigned in the midst of Israel. From the living God man received life which had to be kept pure and disciplined. Among the Egyptians it was held to be sacrilege when the operator, in the process preparatory to embalming, opened a human body. He who made the incision was driven out of the room by his assistants with abuse and violence. Quite different is the idea of the Mosaic law which makes the holiness belong entirely to God, and requires of men the preservation of the clean life He has given. Every statute suggests that there is a tendency in the creature to fall away from purity and become unfit for fellowship with the Most Holy.
2. ATONEMENT FOR TRESPASS
Num_5:5-10
The enactment of this passage refers to the sin of theft or any other breach of the eighth commandment which involved trespass not only against man, but also against God-"When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit to do a trespass against the Lord, and that soul be guilty; then shall they confess their sin which they have done." The statute supplements one given in Lev_6:1-4, omitting some details, but adding the provision that if the person defrauded has died, restitution shall be made to the goel, and if there is no surviving relation, to the priest. The cases specified in Leviticus are those of false dealing in regard to a deposit or a bargain, robbery, oppression, -probably in the way of withholding hire from a labourer, -finding what was lost and denying it; but in each instance false swearing is added to the offence and constitutes it a trespass against the Lord. Restitution to man must be made by returning the amount and one-fifth in addition; to God by bringing a ram without blemish, with which the priest makes atonement.
In this statute the punishment does not seem severe. But the penalty is imposed after confession when the offence has been for some time undetected. The ordinary law required for the theft of an ox, if the animal had not been slaughtered, double restitution; and if it had been slaughtered or sold, fivefold restitution. In the case of a sheep slaughtered or sold the restitution was to be fourfold. Confession of the theft, according to the present statute, diminishes the penalty.
Noticeable particularly is the provision for atonement, which is nowhere else admitted in connection with a serious breach of the moral law. Any offence against the first four commandments was to be punished with death; so also were murder, adultery, and certain other crimes. It might have been expected that false swearing by any one in regard to theft or valuables intrusted to him would add to his guilt. Here, however, by means of the ram of atonement even that offence is apparently expiated. Possibly the confession is held to mitigate the crime. Still the nature of the statute is surprising and exceptional.
3. THE WATER OF JEALOUSY
Num_5:11-31.
The long and remarkable statute regarding the water of jealousy seems to have been interposed to prevent, by means of an ordeal, that cruel practice of peremptory divorce which had been in vogue at some period among the Hebrews. The position given to woman by the old customs must have been exceedingly low. Under polygamy a wife was in constant danger of suspicions and accusations she had no means of removing. The whole scope of this enactment and the means used for deciding between the husband and a suspected wife point to the frequency and general groundlessness of charges made by men in the "hardness of their hearts," or by other women in the hardness of theirs.
The ordeal to which the wife was to be subjected was twofold. One point was the imprecation of the Divine curse upon herself if she had been guilty.
This oath was administered in terms and with ceremonies fitted to produce the most profound impression. She is set "before the Lord"-probably in the court of the sanctuary. Her hair is loose. She has the offering of jealousy in her hand-the tenth part of an ephah of barley-meal. The priest holds a basin of the "water of jealousy." The terms of the curse with its frightful consequences are not only repeated in her hearing, but written on a scroll which is dropped into the water. The second thing is her drinking of the "water of jealousy," "holy water" mingled with dust from the floor of the sanctuary, and with the terms of the curse. The nature of the ordeal was such that few guilty persons would have braved it. The only thing which appears wanting is a provision for the punishment of the man whose wife had passed the terrible test. Since the punishment of this crime was death, and he made the accusation without cause, his own judgment should have followed. Here, however, deference had to be paid to the notions of the time, as our Lord clearly indicates. The absolute right, the just equality between husband and wife, could not be established. Nor indeed, with all our progress, is it yet secured.
The ordeal of the water of jealousy must have saved many an innocent life from wreck. In one sense it was part of a system designed to maintain a high standard of morality, and in that system it had a place which at the time could not be filled in any other way. The main stress lies on the oath of purgation; and to the present day in certain ecclesiastical courts this is in use for the purpose of bringing to an end processes not otherwise capable of solution. It must be noted that our marriage laws, lax as they are thought to be, do not give to a husband anything like the power or allow divorce with anything like the facility admitted by the Mosaic law as some of the Rabbis interpreted it. And this ordeal was of such a nature that if those in use throughout Europe only a century ago or thereby, in the trial of witches for instance, be compared with it, we can at once see its superiority. Those barbarous tests, not used by the vulgar alone, but by religious men and Church authorities, made escape from false accusation next to impossible. Here there is absolutely nothing required which could in any sense injure or imperil an innocent woman. She might take her oath, see it written, and drink the water without the least fear or hesitation. The beneficence of the law is strongly marked along with its wisdom. It was a wonderful provision for the time.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 “Now that the nation was regularly organised, the sacred…
THE EXCLUSION OF THE UNCLEAN
(Num_5:1-4)
Read full note →
“Now that the nation was regularly organised, the sacred tribe dedicated, and the sanctuary with the tokens of God’s more immediate Presence provided with its proper place and attendants in the camp, it remained to attest and to vindicate, by modes in harmony with the spirit of the theocratical law, the sanctity of the people of God. This accordingly is the general purpose of the directions given in this and the next chapter. Thus the congregation of Israel was made to typify the Church of God, within which, in its perfection, nothing that offends can be allowed to remain” (cf. Mat_8:22; Rev_21:27.)—Speaker’s Comm.
In the verses now before us we have the directions for the expulsion of unclean persons out of the camp. The laws as to ceremonial uncleanness are given with considerable minuteness in Leviticus 11, 15, 21, 22, and Numbers 19. But it appears that they are now carried out for the first time.
We shall look at our text in two aspects.
I. As a Sanitary Measure.
A number of rules and regulations for securing the cleanliness and health of the people were promulgated and enforced. Some of the sanitary regulations “seem minute and indelicate to modern ideas, but were, doubtless, intended to correct unseemly or un-healthful practices, either of the Hebrew people or of neighbouring tribes.” Some have asserted that the reason for the expulsion of every leper from the camp was that the disease was contagious. So scholarly and well-informed a writer as Dr. Milman says that “the disease was highly infectious.” But this is extremely doubtful. “All who have looked closest into the matter,” says Archbishop Trench, “agree that the sickness was incommunicable by ordinary contact from one person to another. A leper might transmit it to his children, or the mother of a leper’s children might take it from him; but it was by no ordinary contact communicable from one person to another.… Naaman, the leper, commanded the armies of Syria (2Ki_5:1); Gehazi, with his leprosy that never should be cleansed (2Ki_5:27), talked familiarly with the king of apostate Israel (2Ki_8:5). And even where the law of Moses was in force, the stranger and the sojourner were expressly exempted from the ordinances relating to leprosy; which could not have been, had the disease been contagious. How, moreover, should the Levitical priests, had the disease been this creeping infection, have ever themselves escaped it, obliged as they were by their very office to submit the leper to actual handling and closest examination?” It seems to us indisputable “that, if the disease is contagious, a very rare and critical concurrence of circumstances is required to develop the contagion.” There were special reasons for selecting this disease from all other for exclusion from the camp. “The Egyptian and Syrian climates, but especially the rainless atmosphere of the former, are very prolific in skin diseases.… The Egyptian bondage, with its studied degradations and privations, and especially the work of the kiln under the Egyptian sun, must have had a frightful tendency to generate this class of disorders; hence Manetho (Joseph. cont., Ap. I. 26) asserts that the Egyptians drove out the Israelites as infected with leprosy—a strange reflex, perhaps, of the Mosaic narrative of the ‘plagues’ of Egypt, yet also probably containing a germ of truth. The sudden and total change of food, air, dwelling, and mode of life, caused by the Exodus, to this nation of newly emancipated slaves may possibly have had a further tendency to skin disorders, and novel and severe repressive measures may have been required in the desert-moving camp to secure the public health, or to allay the panic of infection.… In the contact of a dead body there was no notion of contagion, for the body the moment life was extinct was as much ceremonially unclean as in a state of decay. Why, then, in leprosy must we have recourse to a theory of contagion? It would perhaps be nearer the truth to say that uncleanness was imputed, rather to inspire the dread of contagion, than in order to check contamination as an actual process.… On the whole, though we decline to rest leprous defilement merely on popular notions of abhorrence, dread of contagion, and the like; yet a deference to them may be admitted to have been shown, especially at the time when the people were, from previous habits and associations, up to the moment of the actual Exodus, most strongly imbued with the scrupulous purity and refined ceremonial example of the Egyptians on these subjects.”—Smith’s Dict. of the Bible.
In each case mentioned in the text, “every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosover is defiled by the dead,”—the person was put without the camp because of ceremonial pollution, not because of contagion. It was the will of God that the people should cultivate the most scrupulous physical cleanliness. In a camp composed of more than two millions of persons cleanliness was of the utmost importance. Dirt is the prolific parent of disease. Wise sanitary measures are the most certain means of insuring bodily strength and safety. (a) Two things in the text show that this sanitary measure was regarded as of great importance by the Lord.
1. The universal application of the rule. “Every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosover is defiled by the dead: both male and female shall ye put out.” No one whatever was exempted from its application. When Miriam, the prophetess, and sister of Moses and Aaron, was smitten with leprosy, she “was shut out from the camp seven days.” With strict impartiality the rule was carried out.
2. The sacred reason by which it was enforced “That they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell.” The Lord is the God of cleanliness and health. All impurity is an abomination to Him. Purity of body, of home, of towns and cities, is well-pleasing to Him. As a condition of the Divine Presence, let us cultivate comprehensive and scrupulous cleanliness. Impurity separates from Him.
II. As a spiritual parable.
Ceremonial uncleanness was intended to illustrate spiritual uncleanness. The ceremonial purity which was insisted upon in the camp of Israel was typical of the spiritual purity which God requires of His people. By enacting that any one who had anything to do with the dead should be regarded as unclean, and put out of the camp, the Lord teaches that sin and death are not from Him, and cannot dwell with Him. And the loathsome and terrible disease of “leprosy was the outward and visible sign of the innermost spiritual corruption, the sacrament of death.” The leper “was himself a dreadful parable of death,”—“a walking grave.” Thus, parabolically, the text represents sin—
1. As a defiling thing. The sinner is morally unclean. Deeply did David feel this when he cried, “Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Create in me a clean heart, O God.” Every sin proceeds from the corruption of the human heart, and tends to increase that corruption.
2. As a deadly thing. “The soul that sinneth it shall die.” “The wages of sin is death.” “Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” Every sinful act tends to kill some element or power of the spiritual life. The life of the soul consists in truth and trust, righteousness and love, reverence and obedience, etc. Every lie spoken or acted is a blow aimed at the very life of truth in us. Every infidelity of which we are guilty tends to destroy our trust. So in relation to every element of the soul’s life. Sin is deadly in its character and influence.
3. As a separating thing. The unclean were to be put out of the camp. Ceremonial uncleanness involved forfeiture of social privileges and of citizenship among the people of God for a time. “The man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord.” Where sin is cherished God will not dwell.
(1) The openly and persistently wicked should be expelled from the Church on earth. (a) Because of their corrupt influence. “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” 1Co_5:6-13. (b) Because of the dishonour to God which their presence in the Church involves. He has promised to dwell in His Church, and to manifest Himself to His people as He does not unto the world. Mat_18:20; Joh_14:21-23. And He demands that His people shall follow after entire holiness. He demands our entire consecration. “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” &c. “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple are ye.” Our Lord “gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purity unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” “A chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people,” etc. Such is the Divine pattern of the Church and people of God: and He is dishonoured when the openly and persistently wicked are allowed to remain in His Church. With such a church HE will not dwell. (b)
(2) The wicked will be excluded from the city of God above. “There shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth,” etc. Rev_21:27. All the citizens of that glorious realm “have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” (c)
Conclusion.
1. He who demands this purity has provided the means to whereby we may attain unto it. “The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.”
2. Let us diligently use the means which He has provided. “Wash you, make you clean,” etc. Isa_1:16; Isa_1:18. “Purifying their hearts by faith.” “Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) Cleanliness may be defined to be the emblem of purity of mind, and may be recommended under the three following heads; as it is a mark of politeness, as it produces affection, and as it bears analogy to chastity of sentiment. First, it is a mark of politeness, for it in universally agreed upon, that no one unadorned with this virtue can go into company without giving a manifold offence; the different nations of the world are as much distinguished by their cleanliness as by their arts and sciences; the more they are advanced in civilization the more they consult this part of politeness. Secondly, cleanliness may be said to be the foster-mother of affection. Beauty commonly produces love, but cleanliness preserves it. Age itself is not unamiable while it is preserved clean and unsullied; like a piece of metal constantly kept smooth and bright, we look on it with more pleasure than on a new vessel cankered with rust. I might further observe, that as cleanliness renders us agreeable to others, it makes us easy to ourselves, that it is an excellent preservative of health; and that several vices, both of mind and body, are inconsistent with the habit of it. In the third place, it bears a great analogy with chastity of sentiment, and naturally inspires refined feelings and passions; we find from experience, that through the prevalence of custom, the most vicious actions lose their horror by being made familiar to us. On the contrary, those who live in the neighbourhood of good examples fly from the first appearance of what is shocking; and thus pure and unsullied thoughts are naturally suggested to the mind by those objects that perpetually encompass us when they are beautiful and elegant in their kind.—Addison.
It is wonderful how views of life depend upon exercise and right management of the physical constitution. Nor is this, rightly looked at, any cause for perplexity, though it seems so at first; for though you might be inclined to view it as a degradation of our higher nature to find it so dependent on the lower, and hope and faith and energy resultant from a walk or early hours—yet, in fact, it is only a proof that all the laws of our manifold being are sacred, and that disobedience to them in punished by God. And the punishment in one department of our nature of the transgressions committed in the other—as, for instance, when mental gloom comes from uncleanliness or physical inertia, and, on the other hand, where ill-health ensues from envy or protracted doubt—is but one of many instances of the law of vicarious suffering. We are, as it were, two, and one suffers by what the other does.—F. W. Robertson, M.A., Life and Letters.
(b) They are deceived that think it is not necessary to purge out the great and gross offenders. The Church is the City of God, excommunication is the sword; it is the school of Christ, this is the rod, as the Apostle calleth it; it is the Temple of God, this is, as it were, the whip, to scourge out such as abuse it and themselves; it is the body of Christ, this is as a medicine to cure the diseases of it; it is the vine and sheepfold, this serveth to keep the foxes and wolves from it.—W. Attersoll.
(c) How real is that description of sin—“it defileth, it worketh abomination, it maketh a lie!” It is uncleanness, unloveliness, untruth! But it shall “in no wise enter” heaven. There “shall be nothing to hurt and to destroy.” Moral evil cannot for a moment dwell in it. As though the leprosy of sin had struck too inextricably into the abode of man, had even contaminated the habitation of angels, we anticipate a scene purer than earth could afford however it were changed, purer than the heavens from which the angels fell. And when we can conceive of such a state, that which gives to law all its power of sway and yet debars its curse, that is heaven, the highest heaven, the heaven of heavens! We know it by this, we desire it for this, “wherein dwelleth righteousness!”—R. W. Hamilton, LL.D., D.D.
WHERE GOD DWELLS THERE MUST BE PURITY
(Num_5:2)
“Put out of the camp every leper.” God gave the people moral, civil, and sanitary laws. These in the context were partly sanitary. He would teach the people habits of cleanliness, which were essential to the health of the camp. Filth is a child of sin, and the fruitful parent of diseases which decimate mankind. But the text is something more than a sanitary precaution; for it is probable that leprosy was not contagious, and the ordinances respecting it did not apply to the sojourner and the stranger. Why then the injunction of the text? No doubt the great object was to enforce the ideas of purity and holiness, and to teach them that God cannot dwell among the sinful and impure.
Leprosy has ever been considered a striking illustration of sin. For instance,—
1. Sin lite leprosy, is a transgression of law. All evils, physical as well as moral, arise from disregard of some law. Natural laws have their penalties; they cannot be broken with impunity. Cholera, fevers, and other terrible scourges that visit us, are penalties. We call them “visitations from God,” and such they are in the sense of being penalties for breaking the laws that He has imposed on us. Intemperance, vice, etc., breed disease, poison the blood, ruin the body, and become curses to posterity. Leprosy was caused through disregard of the laws of health, and the Bible definition of sin is “the transgression of the law.”
2. Sin, like leprosy, is very loathsome and defiling. Leprosy spreads over the whole body, destroying its beauty and vitality, and rendering it most repulsive in appearance. In this it is a meet emblem of sin, which corrupts, degrades, and defiles the soul of man.
3. Sin, like leprosy, is incurable by man. No human skill could help the leper. “Am I God to kill and to make alive?” cried the king of Israel when Naaman came to him. Only God could cure the disease. Sin, in like manner, baffles human skill. God alone can remove this curse and blight from the soul. No human priest, no work of merit, can affect the malady. The stain is too deep for anything but the blood of Christ to wash away. “God can save, and God alone.” Other points might be mentioned; but the above are enough to show that leprosy is a striking type of sin, and to suggest the reason why God should select this “sickness of sicknesses,” as Archbishop Trench calls it, “to testify against that out of which it and all other sicknesses grew, against sin, as not from Him and as grievous in His sight.” We shall take the text as teaching the great fact that where God dwells there must be purity. “Put out of the camp every leper.… in the midst whereof I dwell.” That God insists on purity as the condition of dwelling with us is the emphatic teaching of the whole Bible. What care was manifested to have clean and perfect animals for sacrifice! The Psalmist asks: “Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord?” He replies: “He that hath clean hands and a pure heart,” i.e., whose life within and without is holy. His prayer is: “Create within me a clean heart.” The teaching of the New Testament is the same: “Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.” “Holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” “The wisdom that is from above is first pure.” “Be ye holy; for I am holy.” The grand design of the atonement is described as being “to redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” God insists on purity. Why?
I. God Himself is pure, and cannot associate with the impure.
Sin is hateful to Him. His very nature prohibits Him from being on terms of intimacy wish any one living in sin. “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.” The God of the Bible is the only pure God. This being His character, purity must distinguish those with whom He associates. Character divides the world—unites or separates men. So it does with God and man. He can only dwell with the pure. Purity attracts Him to us. If discipline is lax, if sin is tolerated by the Church, or by the individual Christian, God departs. It is not the large Church, or the intelligent or the wealthy one, that attracts Him, but the pure one. As the lightning passes by the polished marble and the carved wood to touch the iron or steel, because there it finds something akin to itself, so God passes by those to visit and to dwell with the pure, because in them He finds a character skin to His own.
II. God will not, because He cannot, do any good to the impure.
It would answer no good purpose for Him to dwell with them. The essence of impurity is to love sin; to love sin is to hate God; hating God shuts the door against the possibility of improvement in character. God will not dwell with man unless He can do him good. God with us is always equivalent to God blessing us. He wants us to be perfect as He Himself is perfect. This is His end in dwelling with us. Any one tolerating or living on sin would not appreciate the design of God and accept His blessing; and where He cannot bless, He will not come to dwell. Let us then “put out of the the camp every leper,” everything that defileth; for the presence of God in our midst is of the utmost importance to us as His Church and people. His presence is essential.
1. To our comfort as Churches and Christians. What the shining sun is in nature His presence is with us—our brighness, our joy, etc.
2. To our prosperity. Without God in the midst the camp would have been helpless, would soon have become a prey to its enemies, and been broken up and scattered. God with His Church has been in all ages the secret of its power and success. His presence is the life of the ministry and of all Christian work. Without Him we are, and we can do, nothing. How to secure His presence ought to be the all-absorbing problem. He tells us how: “Put out of the camp every leper.” Let us put from the Church and from our hearts all that is offensive to Him, and let us do His commands, and He will come. He has said so, and He is waiting to bless. God is not with us as we should like: let us search and see if there be any leper in the camp, any sin tolerated, and by His help let us put it out.
If to tolerate the leper was so bad to the camp, what must it have been to be the leper himself! If sin in the Christian is so terrible, what must it be to the altogether sinful! Let us think of it, and seek pardon at once through Christ.—David Lloyd.
GOD DWELLING WITH HIS PEOPLE
(Num_5:3.)
“In the midst whereof I dwell.”
I. God is present with His people.
He was with Israel as He was not with the neighbouring nations. The Tabernacle—the Shekinah, etc. He led, supported, defended them, etc. He is everywhere present influentially. See Psa_139:1-10. “He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. He is not far from every one of us; for in Him we live, and move, and have our being.” “By Him all things consist.” He is also present with His people sympathetically. They realise His presence, have fellowship with Him, etc. See Gen_28:16-17; Mat_18:20; Joh_14:15; Joh_14:26; Eph_3:16-17; 1Jn_1:3.
II. God is present “in the midst” of His people.
The Tabernacle was “in the midst” of the camp. Our Lord Jesus Christ is “in the midst” of His Church (Mat_18:20). Like the sun in the midst of the planets.
1. As the Centre of union. The true union of the Church is not in oneness of doctrinal system or ecclesiastical polity, but in the vital fellowship of its members with the Lord.
2. As the Source of blessing. Life, light, growth, power, joy, beauty—all good flows from Him.
III. God’s presence in the midst of His people should exert a great and blessed influence upon them.
It should prove:—
1. A restraint from sin. “The subject will do nothing unseemly in the presence of His prince, nor the child in the sight of his father. We are always in God’s eye; He beholdeth all things that are done of us.”
2. An incentive to holiness. It is thus that it is brought forward in this place. Because the Lord dwelt in the camp it was to be kept pure. See also Deu_23:14; Eze_43:7-9.
3. An encouragement to duty, The presence of so gracious a Master should cheer and strengthen us.
4. An assurance of support in the trials of life. He marks the strain which the spirit feels, and he will either temper its severity, or increase the spiritual strength. “I will fear no evil; for Thou art with me.”
5. An assurance of victory in the conflicts of life. “Through God we shall do valiantly; for He shall tread down our enemies.” See Psa_118:6-16; Rom_8:31-37.
6. An assurance of perfect salvation. “The Lord is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more. The Lord thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; He will save, He will rejoice over thee with joy; He will rest in His love, He will joy over thee with singing.”
FRAUD AND FORGIVENESS
(Num_5:5-8)
In these verses we have another measure which was instituted to secure the sanctity of the congregation. Wrong done by one man against another is here legislated for in a spirit of just severity. Consider—
I. The sin of fraud.
“When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit,” etc. Lit.—“Commit one of all the transgressions of man.” Keil and Del. “Do one of the sins of men,”—one of the sins occurring amongst men. The reference is to sins of dishonesty or fraud. Fraud is here represented—
1. As assuming many forms. “Any sin that men commit.” “One of all the transgressions of man.” Our text is supplementary to the law on this matter as stated in Lev_6:2-3, and there various forms of this sin are stated.
(1) Fraud in the matter of goods entrusted to the keeping of another.
(2) In business transactions.
(3) In seizing by force that which belongs to another.
(4) In wronging another by means of deceit.
(5) In the finder of lost property injuring the loser by falsehood. And in our own age fraud assumes many forms, and is widely prevalent. The employer who does not pay just wages to those in his service is guilty of it. (Pro_22:16; Isa_3:14-15 : Col_4:1; Isa_5:4.) So also is the servant or workman who squanders the time for which his employer pays him; in so doing he defrauds his employer. The trader who takes an unfair advantage of his customer, which he calls by some specious name, e.g., “practice of the trade,” etc.; the broker or speculator or manager who induces persons to invest their money in unreliable or doubtful enterprizes; the person who contracts a debt without the sincere intention and reasonable prospect of paying it—all these, and others, are guilty of fraud. (a)
2. As a wrong done to God. “To do a trespass against the Lord.” Keil and Del.: “To commit unfaithfulness against Jehovah.” He who is guilty of any act of fraud against his neighbour commits sin against God. All sin is against Him. When Joseph was tempted to sin against Potiphar, his master, he said, “How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” And David after he had committed the blackest injuries against Uriah the Hittite and others, when brought to repentance cried, “Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned; and done evil in Thy sight.” As viewed in their social relations, he was deeply sensible of the greatness of his crimes; but so overwhelming was his sense of their enormity as committed against God, as to render the former view of them comparatively unimportant. (b) How grievous a thing, then, is dishonesty of any kind! Let us strive to be utterly free from it. (1Th_4:6.) Let us cultivate the most thorough uprightness in all our relations and dealings with each other.
II. The conditions of its forgiveness.
1. Consciousness of guilt. “The expression, ‘that person be guilty,’ does not merely refer to his actual criminality; but to his consciousness of guilt respecting it: for this case must be distinguished from that of a person detected in dishonesty which he attempted to conceal.”—Scott. Without the consciousness of guilt the other conditions of forgiveness could not be truly complied with.
2. Confession. “Then they shall confess their sin which they have done.” This is an essential condition of forgiveness. (Psa_32:5; Pro_28:13; 1Jn_1:9.) To be of any avail confession must be sincere, must proceed from the heart. It is the natural expression of penitence. Where true penitence is, hearty confession will be welcomed as a relief, not shunned as a burden or regarded as an exaction. And without true penitence forgiveness of sin is a crime, an injury to society and even to the offender himself. Sincere penitence must utter itself in confession. Such confession is not the wail of despair, but the cry of sorrow and of hope. In itself it relieves the burdened and troubled soul, and it leads to the joy and peace of forgiveness. (c)
3. Restitution. “And He shall recompense his trespass with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed. But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto the Lord, to the priest.” Restitution is an act of justice by which we restore to another that of which we have deprived him, or make him adequate compensation for the same. In this law it is enacted that the sum of which any one has been defrauded shall be restored, with the addition of one-fifth of its value. Restitution is essential to remission of sin; for where restitution is not made it is evident that sincere repentence is absent. See Eze_18:7; Eze_18:9; Eze_18:12-13; Eze_33:15. The true penitent will find it an unspeakable relief if he is able in any degree to repair the wrong which he has done. There was no exemption or escape from this law. If the person defrauded were deceased, restitution must be made to his kinsman (Heb. Goël); and if there were no kinsman, to the priest as the representative of Jehovah. The priests were the Lord’s receivers. In every case the property which was dishonestly acquired must be given up, restitution must be made, or the sin would not be forgiven. And this is still true. If we have acquired anything by dishonest means let us make full and speedy restitution for the same, even if by so doing we should be reduced to utter penury. Better extreme poverty in our circumstances with a clear conscience and an approving God, than the greatest wealth with a guilty conscience and a condemning God. “What is not our property will never be our profit.” And restitution should be made promptly. Every minute of unnecessary delay increases the guilt of the wrong-doer. (d)
4. Sacrifice. In addition to making restitution the offender was commanded to offer “the ram of the atonement, whereby an atonement shall be made for him.” He who was guilty of fraud wronged not only his fellow-man, but God also; and therefore, in order that he might be forgiven, he must draw near to God with a sacrifice, and so make atonement for his sin. The man was for the “trespass-offering,” which differed from the sin-offering. In each offering the victim was a ram; but “the sin offering looked more to the guilt of the sin done, irrespective of its consequences, while the trespass-offering looked to the evil consequences of sin, either against the service of God or against man, and to the duty of atonement, as far as atonement was possible.” This arrangement would tend to set forth the great evil of sin as an offence to God Himself. It would also meet a great need of the penitent heart, which cries out for atonement for its sin. When all these things were accomplished the offender was held to be cleared from the guilt of his offence, as is stated in Num_5:8—“whereby an atonement shall be made for him,” Lit. “which shall clear him of guilt as to it,” i.e., as to the trespass. For us the One Offering has been made which perfects all others. And if we have wronged or defrauded any one, and are conscious of our guilt, we have but to make confession and restitution for the same, with faith in the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, and full forgiveness will be ours.
Conclusion.
1. Let those who have injured others make speedy and full confession and restitution.
2. Let us all cultivate the most thorough integrity and uprightness in our whole life and conduct. “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) The rules which God has given us forbid every wish, much more every attempt, to defraud, or deceive our neighbour. They render it highly criminal for the seller to take the smallest advantage of the ignorance, inexperience, or simplicity of his customers; or to conceal any defect which he may have discovered in the article of which he wishes to dispose. They render it equally criminal for the buyer to wish or attempt to take any advantage of the seller, either by exaggerating the defects of his merchandise, or by falsely pretending that he does not wish to purchase. They render it highly criminal for any one to contract debts, when he has no sufficient reason to believe that he shall be able to discharge them; or to persuade another to become responsible for his debts, when he has reason to suspect that his sponsor will in consequence suffer loss. In a word, they require us to put ourselves in the place of our neighbour, to be as willing to defraud him as to be defrauded ourselves; to be as careful of his property and interest, as of our own; to think no more of enriching ourselves at his expense, than we should think of robbing our left hand with our right. They require us, in all our transations, to act as we should do if our fellow creatures could see our hearts; for though they cannot see them, yet God can, and does see them; He is both witness and judge between us and our neighbour in every transaction, and surely His eye ought to be as effectual in regulating our conduct as would the eye of our fellow creatures, could they, like Him, search the heart.… These rules evidently forbid us to take any advantage of the necessities or imprudence of those whom we employ, and require us to give them a prompt and adequate compensation for their services; and on the other hand, they make it the duty of all who are employed, to be as faithful to the interests of their employers as to their own, and to avoid defrauding them of any portion of their time by idleness, or of their property by negligence, as they would avoid theft or robbery.—E. Payson, D.D.
(b) All sin is against God. There are some sins which are exclusively against God; there are others which are against man, but no sin can be exclusively against man. This point is fraught with the most profound significance. Let us put it in this form: Whoever sins against man sins against God. Then how sacred are all human interests! How solemn are all human relations! You cannot harm a widow’s child without sinning against God; you cannot sneer at a good man without touching the sensibilities of your heavenly Father; you cannot injure your wife or husband or friend without, in the degree of that injury, insulting Him who is the Creator and Redeemer of human kind. Let it be known then, in all the breadth and force of its significance, that every blow struck against humanity is a blow struck against God! It will be a token of solid progress when man has more respect for man. We have held manhood too cheaply. We have not sufficiently pondered the great fact that every man sustains a vital relation to the great Creator of all life, and that everything which appertains to man has also an immediate relation to God. Would that we could thunder these doctrines into the ear of all despotism; they would make the throne of tyranny tremble at its foundations; they would blanch every tyrant’s cheek, and wither the power of every despot. This they will assuredly attain. As Christianity is developed, the true feeling of Christianity will be more and more understood; and they who once saw no image higher than human on the countenance of mankind, shall on that same countenance see the image and super cription of Him who is infinite in pity and infinite in love.—Jos. Parker, D.D.
(c) The confession of sin against a brother is a reasonable condition of receiving a brother’s forgiveness. The confession of sin to God is of the essence of repentance and faith, and this does not interfere with the grand truth that a man is justified by faith only. It is a sign that momentous spiritual changes are going on in a man when he can bring his sin into the presence of the Holy God, and see it in the light of perfect law and perfect sacrifice. The effort to do so tears up the roots of evil desire, and crucifies the world with its affections. It is the sublime peculiarity of Christianity that a sinner can take his sins to God and find mercy, even amid the burning light of that most Holy Presence. More than this, one man may help another to make this confession, to see himself and judge of himself more accurately than he would do, in the solation and awfulness of his own repentance. The danger of self-deceit and self-flattery is great. The experience of the devout and impartial Christian who knows something of human nature, and has realised the full assurance of faith, may be found of the greatest avail in the struggle of the soul heaven wards. All Churches and all Christians admit this great advantage.—H. R. Reynolds, D.D.
(d) He must bring forth fruits meet for repentance. In other words, he must make restitution to every one whom he has injured, or defrauded, so far as he can recollect who they are—this in indispensable. There is no repentance, and, of course, no forgiveness without it. How can a man repent of iniquity, who still retains the wages of iniquity? It is impossible. If he feels any sorrow, it is occasioned, not by hatred of his sin, but by fear of the consequences. Restitution, then, must be made, or the offender must perish. If thou bring thy gift to the altar, says our Saviour, and there rememberest that thy brother has aught against thee, that is, any reason to complain of thee, go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. The altar was then the place to which the worshippers of God brought their thank-offerings, gifts, and sacrifices for sin. Christ, we are told, is now our altar, and to this altar we must bring our prayers, our praises, our services. But he plainly intimates that he will accept no gift of us, receive no thanks from us, listen to none of our prayers, so long as we neglect to make satisfaction to those whom we have injured. And in vain shall we attempt to atone for neglecting this duty, by performing others, by contributing to the promotion of religious objects, or by liberality to the poor; for God has said, I hate robbery for burnt offering; that is, I hate, I will not receive an offering, which was unjustly acquired. There is, then, no way but to make restitution; and this every real Christian will make to the utmost of his ability. Agreeably, we bear Zaccheus, the publican, saying as soon as he became a Christian, “If I have wronged any man. I restore him fourfold” I am aware that this is a most disagreeable duty. Nothing can be harder, or more painful to our proud hearts. But it will be far easier to perform it, than to suffer the consequences of neglecting it. If it is not performed, our souls must perish, as sure as the Word of God is true; and in consequence of indulging a false shame, we shall be overwhelmed with shame and everlasting contempt. Even as it respects our interest in this world only, we had better, far better, put a blazing fire-brand into the midst of our possessions, than retain among them the smallest particle of gain, which was not fairly obtained; for it will bring the curse of God upon us, and upon all the works of our hands.—E. Payson, D.D.
THE MAINTENANCE OF THE MINICTRY
(Num_5:9-10)
In the preceding verses it was enacted that, in case of fraud, restitution should be made to the injured person, and, if he were deceased, to his Goël, and, if there were no Goël, to the priest, who should offer the trespass offering for the wrong-doer. The restitution in this case belonged to the priest. And in these verses other perquisites of the officiating priests are mentioned. In this and other ways provision was made for their temporal support. It was of the first importance that such provision should be made; for the proper discharge of their duties precluded them from engaging in the ordinary activities of life. “At first,” says Professor Plumptree, “the small number of the priests must have made the work almost unintermittent, and even when the system of rotation had been adopted, the periodical absences from home could not fail to be disturbing and injurious, had they been dependent on their own labours. The serenity of the priestly character would have been disturbed had they had to look for support to the lower industries. It may have been intended that their time, when not liturgically employed, should be given to the study of the Law, or to instructing others in it. On these grounds, therefore, a distinct provision was made for them. This consisted
(1) Of one-tenth of the tithes which the people paid to the Levites, one per cent., i.e., on the whole produce of the country (Num_18:26-28).
(2) Of a special tithe every third year (Deu_14:28; Deu_26:12).
(3) Of the redemption money paid at the fixed rate of five shekels a head, for the first-born of man or beast (Num_18:14-19).
(4) Of the redemption money paid in like manner for men or things specially dedicated to the Lord (Leviticus 27).
(5) Of spoil, captives, cattle, and the like, taken in war (Num_31:25-47).
(6) Of what may be described as the perquisites of their sacrificial functions, the shew-bread, the flesh of the burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, trespass-offerings (Num_18:8-14; Lev_6:26; Lev_6:29; Lev_7:6-10), and, in particular, the heave-shoulder and wave-breast (Lev_10:12-15).
(7) Of an undefined amount of the first-fruits of corn, wine, and oil (Exo_23:19; Lev_2:14; Deu_26:1-10).
(8) On their settlement in Canaan the priestly families had thirteen cities assigned them, with “suburbs” or pasture grounds for their flocks (Jos_21:13-19). These provisions were obviously intended to secure the religion of Israel against the dangers of a caste of pauper priests, needy and dependent, and unable to bear their witness to the true faith. They were, on the other hand, as far as possible removed from the condition of a wealthy order.” In the foregoing sources of emolument, only the chief ones are given. The “offering” mentioned in the text is given in the margin as “heave-offering.” The Hebrew is תְּרוּמָה an oblation, used here, says Fuerst, “of holy gifts generally.” “The reference is to dedicatory offerings, first-fruits, and such like.”—Keil and Del. These were to be the property of the officiating priests. These arrangements suggest the obligation of the Church to adequately support its ministry. We rest this obligation—
I. On the ground of honesty.
The physician and the solicitor are paid, and that handsomely, for their attention and counsel, as a matter of duty. The Christian minister has equally a claim that his services shall be remunerated by those who have the benefit of them. Yet professedly Christian people are far lass conscientious in paying for ministerial than they are for legal and medical services. The testimony of our Lord and of His apostles as to this obligation is unmistakeably clear. (See Mat_10:9-10; Luk_10:7; 1Co_9:7-14; Gal_6:6; 1Ti_5:17-18.) (a)
II. On the ground of interest.
The Christian congregation that does not adequately support its minister is not wisely mindful of its own best interests.
1. The services of the true minister of Christ are of the greatest benefit to the Church and to the world. His ministry tends to quicken thought on the most important and sublime subjects, to educate the conscience aright, to arouse the will to true and earnest action, and to lead the soul to the great Source of life and light.
2. The adequate maintenance of the ministry is indispensable to its efficiency. When his mind is harassed with temporal anxieties, or when much of his time is occupied with matters not pertaining to his ministry, in order to provide for the wants of his family, the minister is prevented from rendering the highest service of which he is capable. The ministry should be the great business of his life, and his mind should be free to prosecute it. Hence—
3. If Christians consult their own interests they will see to it that their ministers are adequentely maintained. The money which is so spent will prove a most remunerative investment. (b)
Conclusion.
1. Let Churches recognise their interest and heartily do their duty in this respect.
2. Let ministers recognise the importance of their duties, and endeavour to faithfully perform them. “It is great reason that he which looketh for his hire should do his work; and that he which intendeth to live of the Gospel of Christ, should preach to others the Gospel of Christ.” Let us strive to be “scribes instructed unto the kingdom of heaven,” etc. (Mat_13:52). “Study to show thyself approved unto God,” etc. (2Ti_2:15).
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) No true minister will ever preach with an eye to secular results. All mercenary considerations will be borne down and engulfed by the ever-deepening current of spiritual sympathies and aims. His main purpose will he not to acquire wealth, but to win souls. Still, in common with all men, he has his physical and domestic wants. Food, raiment, and a home, are as necessary to his existence as to that of any man; and according to the present arrangements of society, these are only supplied by money. Whence is he to receive this? As a general rule, it comes only as the reward of labour. He labours. The office of a true minister is no sinecure; there is no work so arduous as his; it is the labour, not of limbs, but of brain and heart; it is a constant draw upon the very fountains of nervous energy. Nor is there any work so useful to society. In the reason of things, therefore, has any worker a stronger claim to secular support than he? If his labour is the most arduous and the most useful, ought it not to secure the most ample secular returns? Paul recognises and enforces this natural and common-sense claim. (1Co_9:7; 1Co_9:9; 1Co_9:11; 1Co_9:14.)
There are men who receive and expect large services from their minister, and who make little or no return. For a paltry pound or two per annum, he must preach to them thrice per week, pay them frequent pastoral visits, or else they set up their complaints against him, and seek to spread a spirit of dissatisfaction through his sphere. There are families in connection with congregations who spend more on perfumery, or on toys for their children, than to support the man who is giving the best energies of his cultivated mind to save their souls. A man takes a pew in a church, pays his five or six pounds per annum,—a less sum than be pays his scullery-maid,—and for that he expects twelve months’ preaching, and great pastoral attention. What is still worse—still more unreasonable, he regards the paltry sum he subscribes rather as a charity than a debt. Charity, indeed! Call the money you pay to your grocer, draper, physician, or landlord, charity; but in the name of all that is true in reason and justice, don’t call what you tender to the man to whom you owe your best ideas, your holiest impressions—who gives to you the choicest products of his educated and sanctified intellect, charity. It is he that shows charity, not you; your gold is a miserable compensation for the results of his sweating brain and ever-anxious heart.—D. Thomas, D.D.
(b) As the Church dependeth upon them for their allowance, so they depend upon her for their maintenance. Thus the Pastor and the people do feed one another, as a flock of sheep nourisheth the shepherd, who eateth the milk of them, and clotheth himself with the wool of them; and again the shepherd coucheth them into green pastures, and leadeth them by the still waters. The people feed him with the bread of this life; he feedeth them with the bread of everlasting life. They minister to him in carnal things; he to them in spiritual things. They cannot lack him in regard of their souls; he cannot be without them in regard of his body. Thus then they do feed one another, or at least ought to do. If he receive food of them, and give none unto them again, he robbeth them of their goods, and murdereth their souls. If they on the other side receive food of him, so that they be taught of him, and yet make him not partaker of a part of their goods, they rob him, and cause him to depart from them, and so become murderers of their own souls, as if they did lay violent hands upon themselves, or rather as if they did famish themselves by refusing bread provided for them; inasmuch as “where vision ceaseth, there people perish.” (Pro_29:18.)—W. Attersoll.
THE TRIAL OF THE SUSPECTED WIFE
(Num_5:11-31)
We have here another law intended to secure the sanctity of the Israelites, by maintaining fidelity in conjugal relations, and removing even the suspicion of adultery from amongst them. “The chastity of females,” says Dean Milman, “was guarded by statutes, which, however severe and cruel according to modern notions, were wise and merciful in that state of society. Poems and travels have familiarised us with the horrible atrocities committed by the blind jealousy of Eastern husbands. By substituting a judicial process for the wild and hurried justice of the offended party, the guilty suffered a death, probably, less inhuman; the innocent might escape. The convicted adulterer and adulteress were stoned to death. Even the incontinence of a female before marriage, if detected at the time of her nuptials, which was almost inevitable, underwent the same penalty with that of the adulteress. Where the case was not clear, the female suspected of infidelity might be summoned to a most awful ordeal. She was to be acquitted or condemned by God Himself, whose actual interposition was promised by His daring law-giver.… What guilty woman, if she had courage to confront, would have the command of countenance, firmness and resolution, to go through all this slow, searching, and terrific the process, and finally expose herself to shame and agony, far worse than death? No doubt, cases where this trial was undergone were rare; yet the confidence of the legislator in the Divine interference can hardly be questioned; for had such an institution fallen into contempt by its failure in any one instance, his whole law and religion would have been shaken to its foundation.” “We do not read of any instance in which this ordeal was resorted to; a fact which may be explained either (with the Jews) as a proof of its efficacy, since the guilty could not be brought to face its terrors at all, and avoided them by confession; or more probably by the licence of divorce tolerated by the law of Moses. Since a husband could put away his wife at pleasure, a jealous man would naturally prefer to take this course with a suspected wife rather than to call public attention to his own shame by having recourse to the trial of jealousy. The Talmud states that the trial lapsed into disuse forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem; and that because the crime of adultery was so common amongst men that God would no longer inflict the curses here named upon women (cf. Hos_4:14).—Speaker’s Commentary.
A critical examination and exposition of the details of the process of trial will be found in Keil and Del., in loco. Let us consider the principal moral truths which are here illustrated.
I. Confidence in conjugal relations is of great importance.
This awful ordeal was instituted for cases where this confidence was lost, and the proof of guilt was lacking. Suspicion and jealousy are terrible evils. “Suspicion,” says Babington, “is the cut-throat and poison of all love and friendship.” And in proportion to the intensity of the love will be the anguish of suspicion in respect to the object of the love.
“Where love is great, the littlest doubts are fear;
Where little fear grows great, great love is there” Shakespeare.
“Jealousy, each other passion’s calm,
To thee, thou conflagration of the soul!
Thou king of torments! thou grand counterpoise
For all the transports beauty can inspire.” Young.
And Hannah More:
“O, jealousy.
Thou ugliest fiend of hell! thy deadly venom
Preys on my vitals, turns the healthful hue
Of my fresh cheek to haggard sallowness,
And drinks my spirit up.” (a)
“Jealousy,” says Solomon, “is the rage of a man.” “Jealousy is cruel as the grave; the coals thereof are coals of fire, a most vehement flame.” This dread ordeal was intended as a remedy for suspicion and jealousy. And no one can examine it without perceiving that, if it was severe, it was also calculated to be thoroughly effective. See how searching, solemn, and stern it is.
1. The whole trial was to take place in the sight of God (Num_5:16).
2. The dread appeal was made to the Omniscient and Almighty (Num_5:21).
3. The appeal was weighted by the most terrible imprecations (Num_5:21-22).
4. It was solemnly declared in the law that if the woman were guilty these imprecations would be fulfilled (Num_5:27).
5. The appeal was to be solemnly ratified by the suspected woman. “The woman shall say, Amen, Amen.” “Twice,” says Trapp; “to show the fervency of her zeal, the innocency of her cause, the uprightness of her conscience, and the purity of her heart.” Surely, if any suspected wife went, through so solemn and terrible an ordeal, the effect would be completely to clear the mind of her husband from the least taint of suspicion, and to restore the brightness of her reputation. The seernness of this ordeal for the removal of suspicion impressively sets forth the importance of confidence between husband and wife. Destroy this confidence; and what ought to be one of the holiest and most lasting bonds is snapped asunder, the helpfulness and peace of the family are banished for ever, and, if the evil prevail to any considerable extent, the foundations of the civil commonwealth will be gradually but certainly undermined.
II. Adultery is a sin of the greatest enormity.
This dreadful ordeal, which was intended to prevent it, shows how great was its heinousness in the Divine estimation. This is expressed—
1. In the abasement of the suspected woman. The “barley meal” of which the offering was composed, the “earthen vessel” which contained the water, and “the dust” that was put into the water, indicate a state of deep humiliation and disgrace. The absence from the offering of oil, the symbol of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, and of frankincense, the symbol of prayer, also proclaimed her questionable repute and the suspicion with which she was regarded. In like manner the “uncovering of the woman’s head” was indicative of the loss of woman’s best ornament, chastity and fidelity in the marriage relation.
2. In the terrible punishment which came upon the guilty. “If she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.”—Keil and Del. translate, “her hip vanish.” And Adam Clarke: “her thigh fall.” This ordeal was made so terrible that the dread of it might effectually prevent the wives in Israel from the least violation of their fidelity to their husbands. It remains as an impressive proclamation of the utter abhorence with which God regards the sin of adultery. It is a sin against God; it inflicts the most grievous and intolerable injury upon the husband; it is an unmitigated blight and bane upon the family; and it is a wrong to society generally. The most terrible condemnations are pronounced upon it in the Sacred Word. (See Lev_20:10; Mal_3:5; 1Co_6:9-10; Heb_13:4.)
III. The punishment of sin is closely related to the sin itself.
“It cannot be determined with any certainty what was the nature of the disease threatened in this curse.… At any rate, the idea of the curse is this: Δἰ ὧν γὰρ ἡ αμαρτία διὰ τούτων ἡ τιμωρία (‘the punishment shall come from the same source as the sin,’ Theodoret). The punishment was to answer exactly to the crime, and to fall upon those bodily organs which had been the instruments of the woman’s sin, viz., the organs of child-bearing.”—Keil and Del. The punishment came in those portions of her body which she had abused. “David sinned in committing adultery with the wife of Uriah, his faithful servant, and destroyed him with the sword of the Ammonites; he is paid home, and punished in his own kind; for God, by way of rewarding him and serving him as he had served others, as a just judge, doth raise up evil against him out of his own house. His own sons break out into the same sins, and he kindleth such a fire in his own family, that they rise up against him, and one against another. Absalom spreadeth a tent, and lieth with his father’s concubines, in the sight of all Israel. Ammon deflowereth his sister Tamar; to revenge this, Absalom killeth his own brother.”—Attersoll. (See Jdg_1:6-7; Est_7:10; Mat_7:1-2.) “Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption.” (b)
IV. God will bring to light the secret sins of men.
If the suspected woman were guilty, after this ordeal her guilt would be made manifest. All sins are known unto Him. “For His eyes are upon the ways of man, and He seeth all his goings. There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves.” “Thou hast set our iniquities before Thee, our secret sins in the light of Thy countenance.” Sometimes hidden sins are strangely discovered in this life and world, (c). The great day will reveal all. “For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” “The day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.” In that day the dark secrets of evil will be all brought to light.
V. God will assuredly vindicate the innocent who have suffered from suspicion or slander.
In this case the vindication was most complete. “If the woman be not defiled, but be clean: then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.” “If not guilty after such a trial,” says Adam Clarke, “she had great honour; and, according to the rabbins, became strong, healthy, and fruitful; for if she was before barren, she now began to bear children; if before she had only daughters, she now began to have sons; if before she had hard travail, she now had easy; in a word, she was blessed in her body, her soul, and her substance.” Thus to the innocent there was no terror in this stern ordeal. It was rather a blessing to them, if by any means they had come to be regarded with suspicion by their husbands; for by means of it such suspicions would be removed, and their fidelity and honour vindicated and exalted. And God will, sooner or later, splendidly vindicate all who suffer from misrepresentation, slander, or false accusation.
Conclusion.
“We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ,” etc. Let us seek by the grace of God to be ready for that great and awful tribunal.
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) Jealousy is the bane and poison of marriage, and maketh that sociable life to be uncomfortable, and mingleth it with worse than gall and wormwood. Jealousy, therefore, is a grief of mind, arising from hence, that another is judged to enjoy that which we desire to have wholly and properly as our own, and none beside us to possess any part with us. Here, then, we cannot abide any community, but hate it as our enemy and the right cause of this jealousy. Or we may describe it otherwise on this manner: It is an affection proceeding from fear to have that communicated to another, which we challenge and covet to retain as peculiar and proper to ourselves alone. From hence it appeareth, farther, what the nature of jealousy is to wit, that it is mixed and compounded, partly of love, partly of fear, and partly of anger. Of love, which admitteth no fellow-partner in the thing he loveth: for as the king will suffer no companion to be equal unto him, or partaker with him in his kingdom, so will the husband suffer no co-rival to mate him in his love. Of fear, lest another enjoy the use of that which we cannot abide or suffer he should enjoy. Of anger, whereby it cometh to pass, that he is ready to break out to seek revenge and punishment upon him that hath offended him that way.—W. Attersoll.
Yet is there one more cursed than they all,
That canker worm, that monster, Jealousy,
Which eats the heart and feeds upon the gall,
Turning all love’s delight to misery,
Through fear of losing his felicity.
Nor ever is he wont on aught to feed
But toads and frogs (his pasture poisonous),
Which, in his cold complexion, do breed
A filthy blood, or humour ancorous,
Matter of doubt and dread suspicious,
That doth with cureless care consume the heart,
Corrupt the stomach with gall vicious,
Cross-cuts the liver with eternal smart,
And doth transfix the soul with death’s eternal dart.
Edmund Spénser.
(b) The punishment of sin is not an arbitrary infliction, but it is a necessary law. Penalty is not a direct interference, but a genuine child of the transgression. We receive the things that we have done. There is a dreadful coercion in our own iniquities. There is an inevitable congruity between the deed and its consequences. There is an awful germ of identity in the seed and in the fruit. We recognise the sown wind when we are reaping the harvest whirlwind. We feel that it is we who have winged the very arrows that eat into our hearts like fire. It needs no gathered lightnings—no Divine intervention—no miraculous messenger to avenge in us God’s violated laws; they avenge themselves.… Take disease as one form of the working of this inevitable law—not always, of course, the direct result of sin; yet how much of disease is directly due to dirt, neglect, folly, Ignorance—the infected blood, the inherited instincts of this sad world. But are there not some diseases, and those the most terrible which I have known, which do spring directly, immediately, exclusively, solely, from violence of God’s law? Is not madness very often such a disease? Is there not at this moment many a degraded lunatic who never would have been such but for repeated transgressions of God’s known will? Is there not in the very life-blood of millions, a hereditary taint blighting the healthy, poisoning, as with a fury’s breath, the flower of their happiness, and breaking out afresh in new generations, which has its sole source and origin in uncleanliness? Is there not, too, an executioner of justice which God has told off to wait upon drunkenness, which would cease if drunkenness ceased to exist? It is God’s warning against that fearful intemperance against which senates will not fight, and against which they who love their fellows fight as yet in vain.—F. W. Farrer, D.D.
(c) When Dr. Donne, afterwards Dean of St. Paul’s, took possession of the first living he ever had, he walked into the churchyard as the sexton was digging a grave; and on his throwing up a skull, the doctor took it into his hands to indulge in serious contemplation. On looking at it, he found a headless nail sticking in the temple, which he secretly drew out, and wrapped in the corner of his handkerchief. He then asked the grave digger, whether he know whose skull it was? He said he did; adding, it had been a man’s who kept a brandy shop; a drunken fellow, who, one night, having taken two quarts of ardent spirits, was found dead in his bed the next morning. “Had he a wife?” “Yes.” “Is she living?” “Yes.” “What character does she bear?” “A very good one; only her neighbours reflect on her because she married the day after her husband was buried.” This was enough for the doctor, who, in the course of visiting his parishioners, called on her; he asked her several questions, and, among others, of what sickness her husband died. She giving him the same account, he suddenly opened the handkerchief, and cried, in an authoritative voice, “Woman, do you know this nail?” She was struck with horror at the unexpected question, instantly acknowledged that she had murdered her husband; and was afterwards tried and executed.—Biblical Museum.
HINTS ON THE LAW OF JEALOUSIES
(Num_5:29)
Describe trial by ordeal. This existed among all primitive nations, and modern ones that are yet in a primitive state. Nations have their infancy; this belongs to that state in their existence. Israel had seen this in Egypt. God permits them to use it; only stipulating that water only should be used, so that no innocent one should suffer, and that all should see that the guilty was detected by Him. Why should He permit this?
1. To show the importance He attaches to domestic morality.
2. To teach them that He was looking on and knowing their most secret sins.
3. To train them to cultivate a tender conscience, and to acknowledge its authority.
4. To restore confidence between husband and wife where it was wrongly shaken.
5. Though this custom is done away with, God is still the same, and will bring all secret sin into the light.—David Lloyd.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain On v1 Subdivision 3. (Num 5:1-31; Num 6:1-27.)
Subdivision 3. (Num 5:1-31; Num 6:1-27.)
The sanctification of the camp.
Read full note →
The camp being thus ordered and arranged, the next thing is to have it cleansed from evil, that God, in whom alone their strength is, may be with them. The place of this, and its necessity, need not be dwelt upon: the details are full of interest, their connection with one another made quite plain only by their typical significance, according to which alone leprosy and contact with the dead would be defilement. How evidently are the things that happened unto Israel -types which are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the ages are come!
1. First, in the leper and the man with an issue we find, though in different degrees, the outbreak of the flesh. The taint of the natural life, poisoned by sin, is easily read in these things, which are in fact the penalties of sin. From this there would be no escape, for it no help, did we not receive a new life, divine, and so in itself incorrupt, untainted. With this comes the responsibility of judging what is of the old, which these two things show us unjudged. They who are thus marked as indulging sin are to be put out of the camp; and with them those defiled with the dead, for the life we have received is eternal. This eternal life is therefore to be maintained in incorruption, and dissociation from all that is incongruous with it. Our Lord’s words are the New Testament enforcement of this, -"Let the dead bury their dead; but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." (Luk 9:60.)
Defilement with the dead is characteristic of the book of Numbers: we have it again in the law of the Nazarite, in the provision of the second passover, and above all in the ordinance of the red heifer, which is specifically for purification from it. Thus the evil is one of great importance, and in close relation to the wilderness-journey. Nor is it difficult to see this connection. The wilderness, in its barrenness, in its lack of what would sustain life, naturally suggests death. On many an one the skeletons of animals and men lie far and wide, bleaching in sun and wind. The world in the same way has on it the stamp and seal of death, the evident mark of its distance and alienation from the living God. No wonder if all connected with it naturally should be thus associated with uncleanness in the Word of God. So that which dies of itself may not be eaten, though that which is slain and offered to God is, on the contrary, the food of both God and man.
The contact that defiles is of course for us spiritual. It is that cleaving to the world which the apostle laments, even weeping, in the professors of Christianity, and in its full development makes them such as "whose god is their belly, whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things." (Php 3:19.) These he calls enemies of the cross of Christ," for the cross of Christ is that by which we are crucified to the world and the world to us (Gal 6:14). And "in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation." "Our conversation" -our citizenship -"is in heaven, from whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ." (Php 3:20.)
There are lighter grades, of course, and some forms of it that seem inevitable; yet in its lightest form it is a most serious evil. The world is all around us, the scene through which we pass,- and in which we have our daily occupation, attractive still to the old nature, and an enemy’s country, where "the prince of the power of the air," with unseen subtle influences, "worketh in the children of disobedience." Unlike Adam in Eden, here we are called to suspect everywhere the stratagems of an active foe, who makes the very place of tombs his stronghold. In it we have to be; of it we are not: we are a new creation -citizens of heaven, and to act in character with this, as strangers and pilgrims," thus to "abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul."
2. The second thing in this purification of the camp is the restitution enjoined for trespass -a restitution which we have already seen is to be in excess of the injury inflicted by the trespass. It does not satisfy God to have the loss made up; there must be an overplus of gain to him who has suffered the loss, wherein God too is glorified. This is the positive side of blessing in the conflict with evil, not as before simply the banishment of it; and for this the work of Christ must come in, as seen in the accompanying sacrifice: it is a triumph of holiness which redemption alone can secure, and has secured, and which those redeemed from sin are called to imitate.
3. In the third case, there is not a dealing with known sin, but even the suspicion is not to be tolerated in the people of God. In the jealousy-offering, a direct appeal to God is provided in such a case, where indeed the sin suspected struck at the very foundation of that family relation which not only in Israel but elsewhere is itself the foundation of all other relation between man and man. Its place here, therefore, where the purification of the camp is in question, is perfectly simple, while the typical meaning adds to its significance. The relation of man and wife is that by which (as the nearest and most intimate of all,) it pleased God to set forth His own relation with His covenant-people (Isa 44:5; Jer 31:32). The Church is at present but espoused to Christ, not married (2Co 11:2; Rev 19:7); but as to the bond existing, Scripture treats it as the same in both cases (Deu 22:23-24). To the Church, therefore, also the type fully applies, -in its details, more completely than to Israel.
How grave a question, then, is here! and there must not be even a question. The Lord is jealous over us with a heart that never wanders, a love that does not admit a question. How it would spoil all if the suspicion here could be allowed as to the husband! but "I have loved thee with an everlasting love" is what is ever true on His side. The church, alas! may give herself to another, as Israel also did: the history of one is in sorrowful correspondence with that of the other.
When there is suspicion the man brings his wife to the priest, and for her a meal-offering of barley-meal, not the fine wheat-flour of the usual meal-offering. The reason for the substitution has been variously interpreted. The Rabbins took it as a sign that the adulteress had conducted herself like an irrational animal; but the woman is not yet proved to be an adulteress. Others suggest that "the persons presenting the offering were invoking the punishment of a crime, and not the favor of God," but this is not strictly true, nor would an offering for the supposed guilty person appear suitable for such a purpose. Knobel takes it to indicate that the offerer might be innocent, and in that case no offering at all was required. Keil, rightly rejecting all these, supposes it to represent the questionable repute in which the woman stood, or the ambiguous, suspicious character of her conduct; but the first of these the offering does not seem able to express, the second might not be really the truth: circumstances might arise beyond her own control entirely which might bring her into suspicion. Lange thinks that the "poor bond of union that still exists between the parties is designated by the inferior offering;" but the offering is the woman’s, not the man’s, though the man provide it: it represents in some way her alone. Oehler says, "As an accused person appears before the tribunal in mourning attire, without the question of his guilt or innocence being in any way affected, so may this sacrifice be said to exhibit a merely gloomy character." Which, however, would give no precision to the type at all.
The truth seems to be rather that the meal-offering of fine wheat-flour represents Christ, as we have seen; and although the Pentecostal wave loaves were an exception, figuring the Church, yet in this case the distinction is made plain by the introduction of leaven into the flour. In the case before us the leaven would have implied guilt, and the fine wheat would have been out of place: the barley-meal, coarser and commoner, might well typify a life which could not be professed to be very much, as in God’s sight, yet not corrupted in a manner charged. This offered from the woman’s hand would indeed call for God’s remembrance as to its truth or falsehood. The omission of oil and frankincense may indeed speak of one coming with a sad heart and not in the joyous spirit of praise.
Before this is offered, however, holy (that is, consecrated) water is put into an earthen vessel, and dust from the tabernacle floor mixed with the water. The dust is here, as usually, "the dust of death," which from the tabernacle-floor intimates that nevertheless God has come in for man. Death remains still, and as judgment to the flesh, and yet for blessing. The cross of Christ has made this familiar to us as Christians; and in it our old man is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be annulled, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Christ has died to sin once, and in that He liveth He liveth unto God: so are we to reckon ourselves dead indeed unto sin, and alive unto God in Christ Jesus.
"The power of the Holy Spirit judging thus (according to the sentence of death against the flesh) the state of unfaithfulness which was thought to be hidden from the true husband of the people, makes the sin manifest and brings down the chastening and curse upon the unfaithful one, that evidently by the just judgment of God. Drinking death, according to the power of the Spirit, is life to the soul. ’By these things,’ says Hezekiah, men live, and in all these things is the life of the Spirit;’ even when they are the effect of chastening, which is not always necessarily the case. But if any of the accursed things be hidden -if there be unfaithfulness toward Jesus, undetected though it may be by man and God puts it to the test; if we have allowed ourselves to be enticed by him who has the power of death, and the holy power of God is occupied with death, and comes to deal with the power of the enemy -the concealed evil laid bare, the flesh is reached; its rottenness and powerlessness are made manifest, however fair its appearances may be." (Synopsis.)
Here, then, sanctification in its innermost reality is insisted on, separation as united to Christ, being His alone; and this prepares us for the section that follows, in which in the Nazarite vow the earth-side of this sanctification is insisted on.
4. The very term, "Nazarite" speaks of "separation." The three things re quired of him are all this: separation from the fruit of the vine, from the dignity of manhood by his long hair, and from the dead. The vow was (as looked at here) voluntary, and for a limited time; and these are the things in which its character declares itself.
The vow was a special, extraordinary one; but we must not on that account imagine that it must typify what is special or extraordinary among Christians. The priesthood, the Levite-service, etc. were restricted to the few in Israel, while among Christians they represent what in responsibility and privilege is universal. The voluntary character gives here a special force, for all true sanctification must come from the heart freely devoting itself. There were Nazarites from their birth afterward, as in the case of Samson and of Samuel, a thing which typically is reconcilable with this; for we are saints from our new birth, and yet are free in our separation to Him who has won us to Himself. The limit of the vow on the other side is just as simple: for separation applies only to the present world , which sin has defiled, while holiness will be ours forever.
The first point of separation is from wine and strong drink -from all that could intoxicate, or, as is said of wine, "take away the heart." (Hos 4:11.) Wine stands eminently for that which "maketh glad the heart of man" (Psa 104:15), by no means of necessity evil, for we are told it "cheereth God and man" (Jdg 9:13): God, no doubt, in the drink-offering. It stands therefore for pleasure, which may be spiritual and heavenly, as when (his vow ended) the Nazarite himself drinks it, but here as often for the pleasures of the world which take away the heart from God and from the things of God. Strong drink is that which has still more plainly and decidedly this character.
But the separation is carried very far indeed, for he is to drink no vinegar of wine or of strong drink, nor liquor of grapes, nor eat grapes, fresh or dried. All the days of his separation, he is to eat nothing made of the wine-vine, from the seed-stones even to the skin. Here, the mention of the wine-vine would show that it is as producing the wine that the vine is condemned. Yet no intoxicating effects as of wine could be produced by any of these things. They are things pleasant to the taste, no doubt, and though not intoxicating, allied to that which does intoxicate: what do they typify, then, for us?
Now the Nazarite is a man separated to God, as the saint is whom he pictures. And for the Christian Christ is to be his one sufficing joy. The knowledge of the new man is distinctly said to be in a sphere "where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond, nor free, but Christ is all and in all." (Col 3:11.) How much of the world’s pleasures would that exclude? Only the intoxicating ones? Would it not exclude all in which one could not find Christ in some way? all that would be inconsistent with frank and unhesitating acceptance of that unspeakably gracious invitation, "If any man thirst, let him come unto ME and drink"? What less could result from the supreme conviction that "Christ is ALL"?
If this appear extreme, did not the separation of the Nazarite from the very skin of the wine-vine" appear extreme? Or can it be that God’s principles demand any thing less than being carried out to an extreme? Can there be a too absorbing delight in Christ? Or can we turn to Him too entirely for satisfaction?
Legality this is not. Legality is the spirit of self-righteousness, or of slavish dread, never of love, or desire after Christ, or of expectation from Him, such as that of which we have been speaking. Carry these ever so far, they can never land you in that in the direction of which they do not even point, but away from it. He who speaks of himself as doing but one thing, was neither a legalist nor an extremist. He was simply a man into whose heart, forever filling it, the glory of Christ had shined.
Let us not confound this, however, with the spirit of asceticism that has peopled monasteries with men fleeing vainly from the world, or scattered through the desert the abodes of the recluse. Nor let us imagine as involved in it any "death to nature," in which what God has made or instituted is branded as if it were unclean. It is striking that just in these two epistles in which Christian position is most emphasized (Ephesians and Colossians) the duties of earthly relationships are most largely dwelt upon. The lilies of the field could be seen by Him who as Son of Man was here on earth for us arrayed in glory beyond all Solomon’s. His hands indeed had made them, and if not a sparrow fell to the ground without His Father, He could say, "I and My Father are one." Still as ever is it true that the Lord’s works are manifold, and in wisdom has He made them all: the earth is full of His riches; yea, and His works are sought out of all them that have pleasure therein.
But the Christian Nazarite is Christ’s: therefore in his pleasures, in his business, in his duties, Christ is before him, with him, over him. He has fellowship with the Father and the Son, and there is nothing for him outside this. Here is the principle which makes him of necessity a stranger to what they find pleasure in, who find none in Him. The world’s vine of wine," as a whole, he is separate from.
The second point of separation with the Nazarite, is from the dignity and rights of manhood. The long hair with the woman is the sign of authority under which she is, as the apostle teaches. If a man has long hair, it is a shame to him; but the Nazarite humbles himself to this, taking the dependent and subject place, and giving up the rights of man to consecrate himself wholly to God.
Man is indeed a ruined creature, and the first Adam headship is gone forever; the last Adam is the second Man, not the first: yet He also upon earth had not His rights nor claimed them, "came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and give His life a ransom for many." His people here also have to walk in His steps, and "he that will be great must be a servant." Yet it is power, none the less, and blessing, -love’s privilege, in which again we have fellowship with Christ. Nor should we wonder that a Samson’s strength should be in his hair, for the place of dependence and subjection is ever the place of power.
The third point of separation we have already looked at, -separation from the dead. It is life in Christ we have, and eternal: it is to be maintained as such, free from defilement with that which has come under the power of death. All these three parts of Nazarite separation are plainly connected and in most perfect harmony.
As to failure, it is here in this last way that it is contemplated. To man’s eyes it would seem but an accident, but there are none; the power of circumstances should never prevail against those sanctified to God. How naturally we excuse ourselves by our weakness and the unexpected assaults of the enemy! But true weakness is always strength, and there are no circumstances in which God is not. Nothing of this sort, then, is admitted. The defiled Nazarite goes six days unclean, and on the seventh, he must shave his head. On the eighth, he brings his offering, two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, for the heavenly One to whom the earth was the place of service and sacrifice must be before His eyes on this day typical of new creation.
The former days of his vow are lost days, and he must begin his vow entirely anew, because his separation had been defiled. This lack of fulfillment shows as to that time something which vitiated the whole of it, for if with God, there can be to the soul no lack of power in accomplishment. He brings also a lamb for a trespass-offering.
For us the vow is completed only when our course here is completed. Now if Christ be in us, "the body is dead because of sin" (Rom 8:10), and in consequence we are exhorted to present our bodies a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1) -a sacrifice in life, in contrast with the bloody sacrifice of the law. They cannot be suffered yet to have their freedom, for our bodies as yet do not partake in the power of redemption: "we wait for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." (Rom 8:23.) Thus we have to walk in Nazarite separation from what is of ourselves, keep under our bodies and bring them into subjection. (1Co 9:27.) The liberty of grace is not deliverance from the need of this, but power to enable us for it: the liberty of glory will be alone complete deliverance; we may "drink wine" when there will be no longer in us any evil to arouse, and the pleasures that present themselves to us are the "pleasures" which are at God’s right hand for evermore. (Psa 16:11.) Yea, Christ shall "drink the wine new" with us in His Father’s kingdom. (Mat 26:29.)
Then, too, we shall be presented to God in the full value of His work and person, as typified by the offerings with which the Nazarite is presented; separation will be ended in the joy of perfect communion; and the "shoulder" that bare us all the way through according to the full demands of divine holiness, we shall indeed "wave" before God in triumphant exultation.
5. With this, the purification of the camp is completed, and as thus purified, the divine blessing is now given to them and Jehovah’s Name is put upon them. There are three pairs of related blessings with which this last is a seventh, making it perfect. The connection of the three parts of the blessing with the three Persons of the Triune God, often referred to, is indeed easy to be traced: that in the mouth of the apostle comes very near it, -"the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost." (2Co 13:14.) For the first blessing here is that of preservation as from the Creator-Father; the second, grace in God as revealing Himself, as He has done in Christ; while the third speaks of inner experience and enlightenment, with the deep rest which flows from it, the work of the Spirit of God. All that God is is thus engaged for us; and His name upon His people makes them His representatives on earth. He identifies Himself with them, as One not ashamed to be called their God.
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 Various Ceremonial Laws
Various Ceremonial Laws
1-4. On the seclusion of lepers and unclean persons, see Leviticus 13-15.
Read full note →
5-10. On the law of restitution, see Lev_5:14 to Lev_6:7, to which the present passage is a supplement, providing that if the injured person dies and has no kindred to whom the price of restitution may be paid, it has to be given to the priest. Num_5:9-10 prescribe that the heave offerings (see on Lev_7:28-34) are the perquisite of the particular priest who officiates at the sacrifice, and are not to be distributed among the priests generally.
11—31. On Marital Jealousy.
A wife suspected of unfaithfulness is required to undergo a trial by ordeal. A potion is prepared by the priest, which she must drink, after taking an oath of purgation (Num_5:19-24). If she is innocent the potion is harmless, but if guilty it injures her, thereby bringing her guilt to light (Num_5:27-28). Trial by ordeal is of the nature of an appeal to God to reveal the innocence or guilt of a suspected person. During the middle ages it was frequently resorted to in Europe under sanction of the church and the law. The most common forms of ordeal were those by fire, by water, and by wager of battle. The difference between these and the ordeal prescribed here is that the latter is not in itself injurious, but depends for its efficacy on the direct interposition of God.
13. No witness] The ordeal is prescribed for cases of doubt. To other cases the law of Lev_20:10 applies.
15. Cp. Lev_2:1.
17. Holy water] This is the only place where this phrase is found, and it is not explained. Water from the laver is probably meant: see Exo_30:17-21.
18. Uncover the.. head] rather, as in RV, 'let the hair.. go loose,' a common sign of mourning: see Lev_10:6; Lev_13:45. Bitter water] so called as being the instrument of the curse.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 4. The Sanctification of the Camp and the Nazarite
4. The Sanctification of the Camp and the Nazarite
CHAPTER 5
Read full note →
1. Concerning the leper, the issue and defilement of the dead (Num 5:1-4)
2. Concerning restitution (Num 5:5-10)
3. Concerning the wife suspected of adultery (Num 5:11-31)
So far we had the outward arrangement of the camp. This chapter tells us that the camp had to be holy and therefore must be cleansed from that which defiles. Divine directions are given concerning the unclean person, the restitution of anything unjustly taken and what is to be done with a wife suspected of adultery. Leprosy could not be tolerated in the camp in the midst whereof Jehovah dwelt. The persons who had an issue and had come in touch with the dead, as well as the leper, both male and female, were to be put without the camp. This command was at once obeyed. “And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp.” The typical meaning of leprosy we learned from Leviticus as well as the meaning of the issue. Sin is typified thereby as manifested in and through one who belongs to the people of God. While here we have the divine command to put the unclean person out of the camp, we have the equally divinely given command in the New Testament: “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (1Co 5:13). The principle is the same whether in the camp of Israel or in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. To touch the dead also defiled. If it was a dead person, the one who touched the same was considered unclean for seven days (Num 19:11); if a man touched a dead animal it rendered him unclean till the evening (Lev 11:27; Lev 11:39-40). To purify such who had become defiled in this manner, the ordinance of the red heifer was given. In no other portion of the Law is made so much of this form of defilement as in Numbers. This is in keeping with the character of the book. Israel passing through the wilderness came face to face with death on all sides. Spiritually the application is not hard to make. The world through which God’s children pass is the enemy of God, alienated from Him and lying in the wicked one. Death is stamped upon it and the world is under condemnation. By the cross of Christ we are crucified to the world and the world is crucified unto us. The Word of God therefore exhorts us not to be conformed to this world (Rom 12:2). We are not to love the world nor the things in the world (1Jn 2:15-17). James tells us that whosoever will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God (Jas 4:4). Against defilement with the world in its different phases the child of God must constantly be on his guard. The camp must be holy, because Jehovah is in the midst. All what defiles belongs outside.
The wrong committed in the camp (verses 5-10) must be confessed, restitution be made, and, according to the law of the trespass-offering, the fifth part must be added to it. Unconfessed sin could not be tolerated in the camp where Jehovah dwells. And the same principle we find in the New Testament. “The grace of God, which has brought in unlimited forgiveness, would be rather a calamity if it did not enforce confession. Can one conceive a thing more dreadful morally than a real weakening of the sense of sin in those brought nigh to God? It may seem so where there is only a superficial acquaintance with God. Where the truth hath been hastily gathered and learned on the surface it is quite possible to pervert the gospel to an enfeebling of the immutable principles of God, ignoring His detestation of sin, and our own necessary abhorrence of it as born of God. Whatever produces such an effect is the deepest wrong to Him and the greatest loss to us. This is guarded against here.” (W. Kelly, Lectures on the Pentateuch.)
In the next paragraph concerning the wife suspected of adultery, no positive defilement or sin is in view, only the suspicion of it. A careful reading of the passage is suggested. The offering of jealousy is described in detail, but the brief character of our annotations forbids a closer examination. We can only point out that the offering consisted not of fine flour as in the meal-offering, but of barley meal, which was coarser. No leaven was mixed with it, for that would have implied before the test, the guilt of the accused woman. Nor was oil and frankincense put on the offering, no joy and worship could be connected with this offering of jealousy. Then the priest took holy water in an earthen vessel and the dust of the tabernacle floor and put it into the water. This also has a symbolical meaning. The water stands for the Word, and the dust typifies death and the curse. It was a most solemn ceremony of a searching nature. The innocent one had nothing to fear; the drinking of the bitter water that causeth the curse but resulted for her in vindication. The guilty one was found out by Jehovah and the curse rested upon her. This ordinance is also applicable to Israel as the unfaithful wife of Jehovah.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v1 Exclusion of The levitically Unclean from the camp
Exclusion of The levitically Unclean from the camp
v. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
Read full note →
v. 2. Command the children of Israel that they put out of the camp every leper, Lev 13:3-46, and every one that hath an issue, Lev 15:2, and whosoever is defiled by the dead, by contact with a dead person, or, in some cases, by the mere presence in the house where a person dies, Lev 21:1;
v. 3. both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them, (and this regulation was enforced even in the case of Miriam, Num 12:14,) that they defile not their camps, the plural being used here because the large encampment was divided into smaller camps, as ordered in Chapter 2, in the midst whereof I dwell.
v. 4. And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp; as the Lord spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel. At a later day, in Canaan, this regulation was observed by assigning, at least to the lepers, a special district outside of the city to live.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On v1 infectious skin disease
infectious skin disease
This refers to leprosy, which is a sickness that affects the skin and easily spreads to other people.
Read full note →
oozing sore
This refers to an open cut that is leaking fluids.
whoever is unclean through touching a dead body
If a person touched a dead body they were considered unclean. A person who is not acceptable for God's purposes is spoken of as if the person were physically unclean. (See: Metaphor)
you must send
Here "you" is plural and refers to the people of Israel. (See: Forms of You)
The people of Israel did so
This means that they sent the unclean people away. The full meaning of this statement can be made explicit. AT: "The people of Israel sent those who were unclean out of the camp" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
translationWords
Yahweh
Moses
command
people group
Israel
clean
die
body
defile
life
obey
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1–2 5:1–10:10 These legal matters were to ensure the purity…
5:1–10:10 These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.
5:1-31 These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.
Read full note →
5:1-4 Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community had to choose between having God in the camp or letting a defiled person remain in the camp, because both could not remain (5:3). • The importance of purity extends from Leviticus and Numbers to the book of Revelation: All that is ceremonially unclean will be forbidden to enter the New Jerusalem where God resides (see study note on Rev 21:27). In the New Testament, however, impurity is limited to what is morally impure (Acts 10:28; Eph 5:5; 1 Thes 2:3; 4:7).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.