Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 5:1

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 5:1” utilice nuestra app.

And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,

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.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

CHAPTER V

The Israelites are commanded to purify the camp by excluding all

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

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

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.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Removal of Unclean Persons out of the Camp. – As Jehovah, the Holy One, dwelt in the midst of the camp of His people, those who were affected with the uncleanness of leprosy (Lev 13), of a diseased flux, or of menstruation (Lev 15:2., Num 15:19.), and those who had become unclean through touching a corpse (Num 19:11., cf. Lev 21:1; Lev 22:4), whether male or female, were to be removed out of the camp, that they might not defile it by their uncleanness. The command of God, to remove these persons out of the camp, was carried out at once by the nation; and even in Canaan it was so far observed, that lepers at any rate were placed in special pest-houses outside the cities (see at Lev 13:45-46).

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

The Unclean to Be Removed.

B. C. 1490.

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 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: 3 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. 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. 5 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 6 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; 7 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. 8 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. 9 And every offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel, which they bring unto the priest, shall be his. 10 And every man’s hallowed things shall be his: whatsoever any man giveth the priest, it shall be his.

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, Luk 5:2; Luk 5:3.

1. These orders are executed immediately, v. 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 xxii. 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, 1Co 3:16; 1Co 3:17.

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 (1Co 5:8; 1Co 5:13), lest others should be infected and defiled, Heb. xii. 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. xxi. 27.

II. A law concerning restitution, in case of wrong done to a neighbour. It is called a sin that men commit (v. 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, v. 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, v. 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. vi. 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, v. 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,Luk 5:9; Luk 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.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

NUMBERS-CHAPTER FIVE

Verses 1-4:

The law of the leper was precise, Leviticus 13, 14. It ordered that the leper be placed outside the camp. The present text is the implementation of that order.

Defilement of one with “an issue” is treated in Leviticus chapter 15. In the present text, the expulsion order is expanded to include such.

Defilement by contact with the dead is treated in Le 11:24; 21:1. The present text orders expulsion from the camp. Provision for this defilement is treated in Nu 19:11-21.

God demands cleanliness, and the removal of any defilement from the midst of His people. This demand of the Law illustrates a spiritual principle stated in 2Co 6:17.

Scripture does not record the number of Israel which was excluded from camp at the enforcement of this statute.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

MARCHING AND MURMURING

Numbers, Chapters 1-19.

THE Book of Leviticus is hard to outline and to interpret. It is lengthy, and introduces so much of detail of law and ceremony that its analysis is accomplished with difficulty. And yet Leviticus took but thirty days to declare and put its every precept into actual practice. In that respect the Book of Numbers quite contrasts its predecessor. It covers a period of not less than thirty-eight years, and the plan of the volume is simple. Four keywords compass the nineteen chapters proposed for this mornings study. They are words necessitated by the wilderness experience. Leviticus sets up a sanctuary and a form of service; but in Numbers, we read of men of war, of armies, of standards, of camps, and trumpets sounding aloud. Through all of this, these key-words keep their way, and the mere mention of them will aid us in an orderly study of the first half of the volume; while we will not be able to dispense with them when we come to the analysis and study of the latter half. I refer to the terms mustering, marching, murmuring, and mercy.

MUSTERING

The first nine chapters of Numbers have to do almost entirely with the mustering. Chapters one and two are given to arranging the regiment, as we saw in our former study:

And the Lord spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,

Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the Children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;

From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.

And with you there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of the house of his fathers. * *

As the Lord commanded Moses, so he numbered them in the wilderness of Sinai. * *

Every male from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war. * *

And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, Every man of the Children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard (Num 1:1-4; Num 1:19-20; Num 2:1-2).

After all the centuries and even the millenniums that have come in between the day of Numbers and our day, wherein have men improved upon Gods plan of mustering armies and arranging regiments? True, we permit our boys to enter the service younger than twenty, but we make a mistake, as many a war-wrecked youth has illustrated. True, we make up our regiments of men who are strangers to each other, and in whose veins no kindred blood is flowing. But such an aggregation will never represent the strength, nor exhibit the courage that the tribal regiment evinces in fight. The almost successful rebellion of our Southern States demonstrated this. Our standard speaks of the nation, and appeals to the patriotic in men. Their standard represented the family and addressed itself to domestic pride and passion. It is well to remember, however, that the primary purpose of these Old Testament symbols is the impression of spiritual truths. And the lesson in this arranging of regiments is the one of being able to declare our spiritual genealogy, and our religious standard.

Every Israelite, when he was polled, was put in position to declare his paternity and point unmistakably to his standard; and no Christians should be satisfied until they can say with John, Now are we the sons of God, because we have discovered that the Spirit Himself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the sons of God. And no standard should ever be accepted as sufficient other than that which has been set up for us in the Word. Long ago God said, Behold I will lift up Mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up My standard to the people, and in Christ Jesus He has accomplished that; and every one of us ought to be able to say with C. H. M., Our theology is the Bible; our church organization is the one Body, formed by the presence of the Holy Ghost, and united to the living and exalted Head in the Heavens. To contend for anything less than this is entirely below the mark of a true spiritual warrior.

Chapters three and four contain the appointment of the Priests. When Moses numbered the people, the Levites after the tribe of their fathers were not numbered (Num 1:47). God had for them a particular place in the army, and a peculiar part to take in this onward march. Their place was roundabout the tabernacle, at the center of the host, and their office was the charge of all the vessels thereof, and over all the things that belonged to it. They were to bear the tabernacle, to minister in the tabernacle, to encamp roundabout it; to take it down when they were ready to set forth; and when the army halted in a new place, they were to set it up (chap. 2). In one sense they were not soldiers; in another they were the very captains and leaders of Jehovahs army. Their men from twenty to fifty were not armed and made ready for the shedding of blood, but they were set in charge of that symbol of Jehovahs presence without which Israels overthrow would have been instantaneous, and Israels defeat effectual. The worlds most holy men have always been, will always remain, its best warriors. The Sunday School teachers of the land fight the battles that make for peace more effectually than the nations constabulary; while the ministers of the Gospel, together with all their confederatesconscientious laymenput more things to rights and keep the peace better than the police force of all towns and cities. Every believer is a priest unto God. We should be profoundly impressed with the position we occupy in the great army which is fighting for a better civilization, and with the responsibility that rests upon us in the bringing in of a reign of righteousness.

Chapters five to nine, we have said, relate themselves to the establishment of army regulations. They impose purity of life upon every member who remains in the camp; they require restitution of any property falsely appropriated; they insist upon the strictest integrity of the home-life, and they declare the vows, offerings, and ceremonies suited to impress the necessity of the keeping of all these commands. In this there are two suggestions for the present time, namely, the place that discipline has in a well-organized army and the prominence it ought to be given in the true Church of God. That modern custom of making a hero of every man who smells the smoke of battle, and the complimentary one of excoriating every moral teacher who insists that even men of war are amenable to the civilities of life and ought to be compelled to regard them, has filled the ranks of too many standing armies with immoral men and swung public opinion too far into line with that servile press which indulges the habit of condoning, yea, even of commending, an army code that makes for criminal culture.

Sometime ago I went, in company with a veteran of 61 to 66, to hold a little service at the grave of two of his comrades. On our way we met another veteran of that bloody war, and as we looked into his bloated face, and listened to his drunken words, this clean, sober, Christian ex-soldier uttered some things about the necessity of better discipline in the army that were worthy of repetition, and ought to be heard by those officials who have it in their power to aid the young men of our present army to keep the commandments of God; but who too often lead them by example and precept to an utter repudiation of the same.

But the Church of God is Jehovahs army, and if we expect civilities from the unregenerate, we have a right to demand righteousness of the professedly redeemed. Much as discipline did for the purity and power of Israel, if rightly employed, it would accomplish even more for the purity and power of the present organized body of believers. Baron Stowe, a long time Bostons model pastor, in his Memoirs says, touching the importance of strict discipline, A church cannot prosper that connives at sin in its members; and that charity which shrinks from plain, faithful dealing with offenders, is false charity, and deeply injurious. A straightforward course in discipline, in accordance with the rules laid down by the Saviour, is the only one that will insure His approbation. Any serious student of the Scriptures must be often and profoundly impressed with the parallelisms, and even perfect agreements, of the Old Testament teachings with those of the New. Touching discipline, the Lord said unto Joshua,

Israel 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 (Jos 7:11-12).

When Paul found in the Corinthian Church a similar condition of transgression, he wrote,

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. * * Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person (1Co 5:11 f).

MARCH

The tenth chapter and thirty-third verse sets our organized army into motion. And they departed from the mount of the Lord, three days journey. Touching this march there are three things suggested by the Scripture, each of which is of the utmost importance.

First of all it was begun at Gods signal.

And it came to pass on the twentieth day of the second month, in the second year, that the cloud was taken up from off the tabernacle of the testimony.

And the Children of Israel took their journeys out of the wilderness of Sinai; and the cloud rested in the wilderness of Paran.

And they first took their journey according to the commandment of the Lord, by the hand of Moses (Num 10:11-13).

Going back to the beginning of this tenth chapter you will find that the priests were to assemble the armies with the silver trumpets. A single blast called together the princesheads of the thousands of Israel. When they blew an alarm, the camps that lay on the East went forward. A second alarm summoned the camps from the South, and an additional blast brought the congregation together. The same God at whose signal Israel was to march, speaks in trumpet tones by His Spirit, and through the Word, to the present Church militant. When whole congregations go sadly wrong, much of the trouble will be found with the men whose business it is to. use the silver trumpet, and thereby voice the mind of God. Too many preachers have been snubbed into silence or cowed to uncertain sounds. The silver trumpets through which they ought to call the people to battle have been plugged up with gold pieces, and in all too many instances they are afraid to blow an alarm, calling to the camps that lie on the East, lest when they sound the second, those that lie on the South should refuse to respond.

Joseph Parker suggests that when ministers become the trumpeters of society again, there will be a mighty awakening in the whole nation. In Italy they have a saying to this effect, There has never been a revolution in Europe without a Monk at the bottom of it. And when the ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ faithfully fill up their offices, there will never be a division of Gods army, marching Canaan-ward, without a preacher at the head of it; and he will not be a man who has accommodated himself to the cry of the times in which we live Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits, but rather one who will sound the alarm of Divine command, and whose word will be to the people, Gods signal. Every element of success enters into that assurance which comes from a conviction that one is marching according to the Divine command. The reason why public opinion, almost insuperable obstacles, and even royal counsellors, could not turn Joan of Arc from her purpose, existed in the fact that she kept hearing a voice saying, Daughter of God, go on, go on! And if we will listen, there is a voice behind us saying, This is the way, walk ye in it.

In this march Gods leadership was sought.

And it came to pass, when the ark set forward, that Moses said, Rise up, Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee.

And when it rested he said, Return, O Lord, unto the many thousands of Israel (Num 10:33).

There is a simplicity and a sincerity in that prayer which is truly refreshing. There are plenty of men who consult their circumstances; who take into account all the factors that can affect the march of life, and who try to keep as their constant guide a well-balanced intellect; but Moses preferred God. He esteemed His presence above all favorable conditions, and above the highest human judgment. And the man who rises up in the morning, offering his prayer to God to be guided for that day, and who, when he lies down at night, prays again, Return, O Lord, unto me, and watch over my slumber, is the man who has no occasion to fear because even the fiercest foe will fall before him.

Lewis Albert Banks says that about the year 1600 a man by the name of Heddinger was chaplain to the Duke of Wartenberg. The Duke was a wayward, wicked man. Heddinger was one of these genuine, faithful souls like John the Baptist who would stand for the right and God. He rebuked the Duke for his great sins. This terribly enraged his Honor, and he sent for the brave chaplain thinking to punish him. Heddinger came from his closet of prayer with his face beaming. The Duke, seeing the shine in every feature, realized that he was enjoying the actual presence of the Lord, and after putting to him the question, Why did you not come alone? sent him away unharmed. Ah, beloved, whether we be on the march or at rest; whether we be fighting the battles of life or enjoying its victories; whether we be proclaiming the truth or are on trial for having taught it, we have no business being alone, for we seek the Divine presence. The Lord will lead us in the march and lift over us His banner when we lie down to rest.

Nor can one follow this march without being impressed with the fact that God was guiding His people Canaan-ward. By consulting a good map you will see that the line from Sinai to Kadesh-Barnea was as direct as the lay of the land made possible. God never takes men by circuitous routes. These come in consequence of leaving the straight and narrow way for the more attractive but uncertain one of by-path meadow. Had they remained faithful to Divine leadership, forty days would have brought the whole company into Canaan. But when, through the discouragement of false reporters, they turned southward, putting their backs to God, they plunged into the wilderness fox a wandering of forty years, and even worse, to perish there without ever seeing the Land of Promise. What a lesson here for us! There is a sense in which every man determines his own destiny. It is within our power to trust to Divine leadership and enjoy it, and it is equally within our power to mistrust it, and lose it. One commenting upon this says, Israel declared that God had brought them into the wilderness to die there; and He took them at their word. Joshua and Caleb declared that He was able to bring them into the land, and He took them at their word. According to your faith be it unto you.

MURMURING

The eleventh chapter sounds for us a sad note. There the people fall to petty complaints and criticisms. And when the people complained. There are those who can complain without occasion. Criticism is the cheapest of intellectual commodities. And yet the critic always has a reason for his complaint, and however he may seek to hide the real cause, God is an expert in uncovering it. Here He lays it to the mixed multitude that was among themthey fell a lusting. That mixed multitude (or great mixture is the word in the original) consisted of Egyptians and others who had come out of Egypt with Israel, and whose Egyptian tastes were not being satisfied by enforced marches, holy services and manna from on High. It is a good thing to get Israel out of Egypt, to get the Church of God out of the world; but it is an essential thing also to get Egypt out of Israel, the unregenerate out of the Church of God, for if you do not they will fall a lusting, and the first complaint they will make is touching the food divinely provided for them. The Gospel of Jesus ChristGods provided mannanever did satisfy an unregenerate man, and it never will. What he wants is the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick. Yes, even the garlick of the world; and when you set before him manna, he insists that his soul is dried away.

I went to talk with a mother about her little daughters uniting with the church. She told me that she was opposed to it; and when I asked her why, she boldly replied that she united with the church herself when she was young, and thereby denied herself all the pleasures of the world. She had never ceased to regret it, and she proposed to save her girl from a similar experience. A lusting for the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick! If such is ones feeling, just as well go back to the world! It does not make an Egyptian an Israelite to go over into that camp, and it does not make an unregenerate man a Christian because you write his name on the church book.

This spirit of criticism spread to the officials and leaders. And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married. Their complaint was slightly different from that of the mixed multitude, but directed against the same man.

From the complaint of these leading officials the trouble spread, and when the ten spies rendered their report of the land which God had promised, the whole congregation broke into revolt. That was the opportunity that Korah and Dathan and Abiram and On took advantage of.

And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the Children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown.

And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord? (Num 16:2-3).

Here is the new complaint of the critics! Moses is domineering; his administration is that of a one-man power. He has not given sufficient attention to the princes of the assembly, and to the chief members of the congregation.

This is no ancient story. From that hour until this, the Church of God, whether in the form of Israel or that of the body of baptized believers, has experienced the same rebellion with the same reasons assigned. In Pauls day the Church at Corinth had to be counselled by the great Apostle and the members thereof reminded that they were of one body. The feet are enjoined not to complain of the hands, and the ear not to criticise the eye, and the eye not to envy the hand, nor yet the head the feet, that there should be no schism in the body, since when one member suffers, all the members suffer with it, and when one member is honored all the members should rejoice with it. In our own day the chief men have sometimes set aside the servant of God. Dr. Jonathan Edwards, once a man of the highest education and personal culture, honored by the members of his profession for his spirituality, and for the success that had attended his ministry, was set aside because he interfered with the Egyptian desires of the children of certain chief men of his congregation. Years ago, in New York, Americas most famous pastor and preacher, after passing through a series of sicknesses and bereavements in his family, came to the thirtieth anniversary of his pastorate to find himself retired from office by a few of the officials of the church who were influential. His reinstatement by the body at large came too late to save him from the collapse that attended this severe experience. A New York correspondent, writing of this, said, Such action makes every pastor in New York City feel sick at heart.

Attend to the way Moses met this! If the ministers of the present time learned his way, their course would be a more courageous one and their burdens better borne. Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the Children of Israel (Num 14:5). That is the way he met the first rebellion. When the rebellion of Korah came, it is written, And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face. And he spake unto Korah and unto all his company, saying, Even to morrow the Lord will show who are His (Num 16:4-5). We may suggest here, prayer to God, the best possible reply to complaints and criticisms. If one has been guilty of that charged against him, such prayer will bring him to a knowledge of his guilt and give him an opportunity to correct it; and if he has not been guilty, such prayer will cause God to lift him up and establish his going, and put into his mouth a song.

Constantine the Great was one day looking at some statues of famed persons, and noting that they were all in standing position, he said, When mine is made Id like it in kneeling posture, for it is by going down before God I have risen to any eminence. Moses has taught us how to conquer all complaint, and all criticism, and come off victorious by falling on our faces and waiting until God shows who are His.

MERCY

The conclusion of this study presents a precious thought; in the midst of judgment, mercy appears.

At Moses intercession, God removes His hand. Every time there is a rebellion, and judgment is visited upon the people, Moses appears as intercessor, and when the people fell to lusting for the leeks, and the onions of Egypt, Moses cried unto God, Wherefore hast Thou afflicted Thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in Thy sight, that Thou layest the burden of all this people upon me? Their cries were the anguish of his soul! When Miriam and Aaron were in sedition against their brother, it was Moses who interceded, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech Thee. And when the whole congregation lifted up their voices of murmuring at the report of the spies, Moses was on his face again in such an intercessory prayer as you could scarce find on another page of sacred Scripture. He was ready to die himself, if they could not be delivered and when Korah and his company attempted his overthrow, he plead with God until the plague was stayed. Therein is an example for every true Christian man.

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath, for it is written, Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, saith the Lord;

Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink. * *

Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

This is what Christ said,

Love your enemies, bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite fully use you and persecute you, that you may be the children of your Father which is in Heaven (Mat 5:44-45).

The richest symbol of Gods mercy is seen in this nineteenth chapterthe red heifer! She was preeminently the type of Gods provision against the defilement of the wilderness experience. She prefigured the death of Christ as the purification for sin and contained the promise of Gods mercy toward all men, however dreadful their rebellion or deep their stains. Who can read this nineteenth chapter and remember how this offering of the red heifer covers the most grievous sin of man without seeing how great is Gods mercy, and how Divine is His example. Henry Van Dyke says, When we see God forgiving all men who have sinned against Him, sparing them in his mercy, * * let us take the gracious lesson of forgiveness to our hearts. Why should we hate like Satan when we may forgive like God? Why should we cherish malice, envy, and all uncharitableness in our breasts? I know that some people use us despitefully and show themselves our enemies, but why should we fill our hearts with their bitterness and inflame our wounds with their poison? This world is too sweet and fair to darken it with the clouds of anger. This life is too short and precious to waste it in bearing that heaviest of all burdens, a grudge.

And you will see in this nineteenth chapter, also, a new emphasis laid upon the necessity of personal purity. The red heifer was provided for cleansing, and God imposed it upon the cleansed to keep themselves unspotted from the world. That is the major part of true religion to this day, to keep onesself unspotted from the world. This whole chapter is Gods attempt to so provide us with the blood of the slain, and surround us with the cleansing ceremonies, that we may be able to resist the floods of defilement that flow on every side. Realizing, as we must realize, the beauty and blessedness of a holy life, we can enter into a keen appreciation of that most beautiful beatitude, and sing with John Keble:

Blest are the pure in heart,

For they shall see their God:

The secret of the Lord is theirs;

Their soul is Christs abode.

The Lord, who left the heavens,

Our life and peace to bring,

To dwell in lowliness with men,

Their pattern and their King.

Still to the lowly soul

He doth Himself impart,

And for His dwelling and His throne

Chooseth the pure in heart.

Lord, we Thy presence seek;

May ours this blessing be;

Oh, give the pure and lowly heart,

A temple meet for Thee.

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

THE EXCLUSION OF THE UNCLEAN

(Num. 5:1-4)

Now that the nation was regularly organised, the sacred tribe dedicated, and the sanctuary with the tokens of Gods 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.)Speakers 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 lepers 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 leprosya 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.Smiths 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 souls 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 hoursyet, 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 otheras, for instance, when mental gloom comes from uncleanliness or physical inertia, and, on the other hand, where ill-health ensues from envy or protracted doubtis 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 sinit 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 worldunites 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 usour 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 Tabernaclethe 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, beautyall good flows from Him.

III. Gods 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 Gods 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 itall 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. Gol); and if there were no kinsman, to the priest as the representative of Jehovah. The priests were the Lords 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. 5:8whereby 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 widows 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 tyrants 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 brothers 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 arethis 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 Gol, and, if there were no Gol, 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 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 worsestill 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, dont call what you tender to the man to whom you owe your best ideas, your holiest impressionswho 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).Speakers 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 passions 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 womans head was indicative of the loss of womans 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: (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 womans 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 fathers 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 loves 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 deaths eternal dart.

Edmund Spnser.

(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 lightningsno Divine interventionno miraculous messenger to avenge in us Gods violated laws; they avenge themselves. Take disease as one form of the working of this inevitable lawnot always, of course, the direct result of sin; yet how much of disease is directly due to dirt, neglect, folly, Ignorancethe 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 Gods 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 Gods known will? Is there not in the very life-blood of millions, a hereditary taint blighting the healthy, poisoning, as with a furys 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 Gods 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. Pauls, 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 mans 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.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

VII. ASSORTED LAWS (Numbers 5; Numbers 6)

A. EJECTION OF THE UNCLEAN vv. 14
TEXT

Num. 5:1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 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: 3. 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. 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.

PARAPHRASE

Num. 5:1. Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2. Command the children of Israel that they put out of the camp everyone with leprosy, and everyone having a discharge, and anyone who is unclean because of a dead person. 3. You shall put out both male and female; you shall send them outside the camp so that they will not defile their camps, among which I dwell. 4. And the children of Israel did so, and put them outside of the camp; as the Lord spoke to Moses, so did the children of Israel.

COMMENTARY

Full details for detecting the initial symptoms of leprosy for isolating him for three successive weeks before being consigned to perpetual separation or restoration to society, and for his ultimate return in the event of its cure are given in Leviticus 13; Leviticus 14. The lepers expulsion from camp was immediate; his life must be spent where contact with others, even in the most casual manner, would be virtually impossible. Neither the Israelites nor any other ancient people have the vaguest concept of the manner in which the disease was spread. But the wisdom of such isolation would never be questioned today. The God whose hand was leading Israel long anticipated the discoveries of medical science in prescribing this treatment.

Other issues, discussed in Leviticus 15, are cause of defilement as long as they obtain. They might spring from a wide variety of problems, and the victim remained separate from the nation until the matter was overcome. The term issue would refer to any unnatural oozing of blood, pus, or any similar liquid from the flesh, other than as the natural consequence of an injury. We are told that, until the time of Maimonides at least, a common custom in the East required the womens isolation during menstrual periods, (ICC, p. 40).

Defilement also occurred as a consequence of contact with a corpse, (Lev. 11:24; Lev. 21:1), The former reference applies when the corpse is that of an unclean animal; the second exempts from the law of uncleanness one who has come in contact with the body of his near of kin. These laws of exclusion from the camp were put immediately into force, and obtained when the people occupied Canaan, as prescribed in Lev. 13:45-46.

QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH ITEMS

95.

Explain the reasons for such harsh treatment of lepers as this commandment requires.

96.

Review the laws relative to the period of isolation of one who is suspected of having leprosy. What provisions were made for his reinstatement into society if the problem disappeared?

97.

What various kinds of bodily issues rendered a man or a woman unclean?

98.

Why should an individual be considered unclean for having touched the corpse of an unclean animal?

99.

This is one of the all-too-few instances in which the Israelites are said to have complied fully and immediately with the commandment of the Lord. What other such instances can you find during the period of wandering?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

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.”

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

The Ritual Cleansing of the Camp ( Num 5:1-4 ).

The first essential was a symbolic purifying of the camp. This symbolic act at this particular time was in order to stress the importance of keeping the camp clean and wholesome so that Yahweh might dwell in it. It went beyond what would be the norm, for once the point was established some types of uncleanness could be dealt with by exclusion within the camp.

Analysis.

a Yahweh commands that the unclean be put out of the camp (Num 5:1-2).

b Both unclean males and females to be put out of the camp (Num 5:3 a).

b The purpose is that they might not defile the camp where Yahweh dwells (Num 5:3 b).

a The children of Israel put the unclean out of the camp as Yahweh commanded (Num 5:4).

Num 5:1-3

‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, “Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every seriously skin diseased person, and every one who has an issue, and whoever is unclean by the dead. Both male and female shall you put out. Outside the camp shall you put them, so that they do not defile their camp, in the midst of which I dwell.’

The first stage was to empty the camp of all those with serious skin diseases. Full details of the restrictions and requirements concerning this were to be found in Leviticus 13-14. (See Num 12:10-16 for a practical example). Those so afflicted would have to live in tents or caves outside the camp and would only be allowed to re-enter the camp in accordance with those regulations and with the permission of the priests when they could declare them clean. All who touched them, or certain things connected with them, would become unclean.

They would no doubt be catered for by their ‘families’. They were not spiritually ‘cut off’. They could offer sacrifices through the mediation of others, and could pray towards the Dwellingplace, and towards Heaven. It was still ‘their camp’. Their being there was simply a recognition that only what was fully wholesome could dwell in God’s presence (from which in fact all were restricted to some degree. Even the priests could not enter the Most Holy Place. It was a matter of degrees and giving the right overall impression about God)

The second stage was to empty the camp of all those with an ‘issue’ from the sex organs. This was in order to bring home to the whole camp that Yahweh saw such an issue as making men and women ritually unclean. All who touched them, or came in contact with certain things connected with them, would also become unclean.

Behind this lay the fact that while Yahweh had created man to reproduce (Gen 1:28), man had brought sin into the world and therefore reproduced in sin (Gen 5:3-8 – Adam begat a son who would die). Sex itself was not looked on as sinful, it was indeed a requirement for all men (even priests. Without it the priesthood would not have continued), but it was seen as coming short of the best, of full wholesomeness. Possibly included in the idea was that by it man lost something of his own ‘life source’. He gave out something of himself, thus diminishing himself. But what is made clear is that when men sought Yahweh’s favour abstention from sexual activity was a pre-requirement (Exo 19:15; 1Sa 21:4-5; 1Co 7:5).

However, having said that, normal sexual discharge would only result in uncleanness until the evening and may therefore well not be in mind here. The thought is probably rather of those with more permanent discharges, which were seen as more serious.

In all this we have the paradox that sexual activity was seen as a requirement for man so that he might fulfil his calling, and yet was seen as tainted and not fully wholesome because of what it reproduced (although in normal cases the uncleanness was but for the remainder of the day). But the Bible never encourages asceticism, only self-control for a time for the fulfilment of greater purposes. Paul warns strongly against abstaining from sexual activity, except for a time (1Co 7:5), unless a person is made in such a way that he can ‘live without sin’ without it, although he does allow that because we are in the last days there may be grounds for abstention for those so gifted (1Co 7:7; 1Co 7:9; 1Co 7:26; 1Co 7:32). But he states firmly that husband and wife have a responsibility to each other to satisfy each other’s sexual needs (1Co 7:3-5). To fail to do so deliberately is seen as gross sin.

These exclusions were to be seen as the short, sharp shock. Once the camp was purified those who could demonstrate that they were now clean would presumably be allowed back in once the problem of the issue was, if necessary, dealt with in accordance with Leviticus 15. Their issues could include venereal and other similar genital diseases. This was almost certainly only intended to cover the longer term ‘issues’ which did not become clean by evening.

Once the camp had become used to dealing with such issues and had organised themselves so as to provide places of seclusion these uncleannesses would be able to be dealt with within the camp by remaining within a separate section in their tents (see Leviticus 15 where there is no mention of exclusion, only from the company of those who were ‘clean’).

The third stage was to remove from the camp all who were unclean through touching, or having other contact with, the dead. This would bring home to all the seriousness of such ‘uncleanness’. Physical contact with the dead was considered to be so serious that were it not to be cleansed with the water of uncleanness it would be seen as itself requiring death (Num 19:13; Num 19:20). All who entered a tent where there was death would be unclean. For examples of such uncleanness see Num 19:11; Num 19:14; Num 19:16. The point here is that death was the opposite of all that the living God was seen to be.

It can easily be observed that these exclusions would strongly contribute towards the physical health of society, but that is not how God explained them to the people. The maintenance of ritual cleanness would be a far greater impetus to them. And it taught the need for what was seemly and wholesome.

Ritual uncleanness of any kind was seen as a serious matter. Contact with someone who was unclean could render a person unclean, and so unable to approach Yahweh’s Dwellingplace. Thus it was necessary that those who could make others unclean be secluded or excluded as far as the camp was concerned, otherwise uncleanness would spread though the camp. And no unclean person could approach the Sanctuary on pain of death. Fortunately, in respect of most ritual uncleanness the remedy was simply to wait on Yahweh until the evening, having first washed with water in order to remove earthiness before entering into such waiting. Time was the ‘healer’. But more persistent uncleanness required more detailed treatment.

In view of widespread misunderstanding we should perhaps point out that water on its own is never said to ritually cleanse. After washing the person still remains ‘unclean’. The washing removes man’s ‘earthiness’ so that he can approach God. It is the time of waiting that ritually cleanses. Apart from ‘the water of uncleanness’ (seeNumbers 19; Eze 36:25 where it is ‘cleansed water’) water is never said to cleanse, except poetically.

Num 5:4

‘And the children of Israel did so, and put them out outside the camp. As Yahweh spoke to Moses, so did the children of Israel.’

The children of Israel did what Yahweh required. They put all who were at that time unclean with serious skin diseases or with issues or with the taint of death outside the camp so that the camp was made pure. It must be remembered in this respect that it would take time for the people to become familiar with the cult ritual with regard to uncleanness. Thus this was a necessary first lesson for them. Their very doing of it would require instruction concerning it, and the further allowing of some back into the camp eventually would also require instruction. Thus would the people learn Yahweh’s requirements for the future. Until that instruction was fully absorbed, outside the camp was the only place for all such unfortunate people.

The main lesson the people would learn from these exclusions was that God was holy and that nothing defiling could live where He was. They would recognise the need for a pure and holy life, a wholesome life, a life which avoided all that was imperfect, if He was to dwell among them. It would in the course of this prevent the spreading of much communicable disease, and it would encourage wholesomeness.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Exclusion of The levitically Unclean from the camp

v. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

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.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

THE UNCLEAN TO BE REMOVED (Num 5:1-4).

Num 5:2

Every leper. The law of the leper had been given in great detail in Lev 13:1-59 and Lev 14:1-57, and it had been already ordered that he should be put out of the camp (Le Lev 13:46, and cf. Lev 14:3). Every one that hath an issue. These defilements are treated of in Lev 15:1-33; where, however, it is not expressly ordered that those so polluted should be put out of the camp. Whosoever is defiled by the dead. The fact of being thus defiled is recognized in Le 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.

Num 5:3

That they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell. Cleanliness, decency, and the anxious removal even of unwitting pollutions were things due to God himself, and part of the awful reverence to be paid to his presence in the midst of Israel. It is of course easy to depreciate the value of such outward cleanness, as compared with inward; but when we consider the frightful prevalence of filthiness in Christian countries

(1) of person and dress,

(2) of talk,

(3) of habit in respect of things not so much sinful as uncleanly,

we may indeed acknowledge the heavenly wisdom of these regulations, and the incalculable value of the tone of mind engendered by them. With the Jews “cleanliness” was not “next to godliness,” it was part of godliness.

Num 5:4

So did the children of Israel. It is difficult to form any estimate of the numbers thus separated; if we may judge at all from the prevalence of such defilements (especially those under the second head) now, it must have seriously aggravated both the labour and the difficulty of the march. Here was a trial of their faith.

HOMILETICS

Num 5:1-4

THE NECESSITY OF PUTTING AWAY SIN

In this section we have, spiritually, the necessary sentence of banishment upon those defiled with sin, and the duty of separating them. Consider, therefore

I. THAT NO LEPER MIGHT STAY IN THE CAMP OF ISRAEL; HE MUST BE “WITHOUT.” Even so it is the necessary fate of the sinner, who is the true leper,a fate which God himself, as we may reverently believe, cannot alter,that he must be for ever separated from the company of all pure and holy beings (Heb 12:14; Rev 21:27; Rev 22:15). Until he is healed he may be with, but not of, the people of God; numbered with them indeed, and following the earthly fortunes of the Church, as the lepers in the wilderness; but really separated from them, and this the more profoundly because of the outward proximity. If a sinner could go to heaven as a sinner, even there he would be a banished man, beholding the joy of the saints from outside with a sense of difference, of farness, which would itself be hell.

II. THAT NO ONE UNCLEAN THROUGH ANY ISSUE MIGHT STAY IN THE CAMP OF ISRAEL. And this was more severe, because it was a much more common and much less dreadful case than leprosy, being in most cases neither very apparent nor very permanent; yet this also entailed banishment while it lasted. Even so all habits of sin, however little shocking to the natural mind, exclude the sinner until he be healed from the true fellowship of the saints. They are indeed “natural” enough to the fallen soul, as these issues are natural to our present body of humiliation, but they are not therefore harmless. One sinful habit, however common amongst men, would disqualify and unfit the soul for the companionship of heaven, and so would entail an inward and real exile even there. A habit of lying is one of the commonest outcomes of human life as it is; but “whatsoever maketh a lie” must be “without.”

III. THAT NO ONE EVEN WHO HAD TOUCHED A DEAD BODY MIGHT STAY IN THE CAMP OF ISRAEL. The defilement of death passed over with the taint of it upon all that came in contact with the dead. Even so that contact, to which we are daily and hourly exposed, with those dead in trespasses and sins is enough to unfit us for fellowship with pure and holy beings. If only the taint, the subtle contagion, the imperceptible communication of spiritual death pass upon us, as it almost must in daily intercourse with the world, it separates pro tanto from the communion of saints. It must be purged by the daily prayer of repentance and supply of grace ere we can be at home and at one with the really holy. And note that these three forms of uncleanness

(1) leprosy, which was rare and dreadful;

(2) issues, which are common and little noticed:

(3) the taint of death, which was imperceptible save to God

represent in a descending scale the three forms of sin which separate from God and his saints, viz.

(1) open and notorious wickedness;

(2) sinful habits such as spring out of ordinary life, and are little regarded;

(3) the subtle taint of spiritual death caught by careless contact with the evil world.

IV. THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF ISRAELa duty to be discharged at cost of much inconvenience; a duty in which all must help, not sparing their ownTO PUT AWAY ALL WHO WERE KNOWN TO BE POLLUTED FROM THE CAMPS. Even so it is the duty of the Churches of Christ to separate open sinners from their communion, not only lest others be defiled, but lest God be offended (Mat 18:17; 1Co 5:2, 1Co 5:11, 1Co 5:13; 2Th 3:6). And note that many unclean may have remained in the camp, whose uncleanness was not suspected, or could not be proved; but if so, they alone were responsible. Even so there be very many evil men in the Church who cannot now be separated; but if the principle be zealously vindicated, the Church shall not suffer (Mat 13:47, Mat 13:49; 1Co 11:19; 2Ti 2:20).

HOMILIES BY W. BINNIE

Num 5:1-4

THE EXPULSION AND RESTORATION OF THE UNCLEAN

The host has now been marshaled. The several tribes have taken the places allotted to them in relation to the tabernacle and to one another. They are about to set forth on the march from the wilderness of Sinai. Before the signal is given, certain final instructions for the regulation of the camp have yet to be delivered, and this about the removal of unclean persons is one of them. The general intention of it is intimated in the terms employed. The host is to be so ordered, both in the camp and on the march, as to make it a living picture of the Church, and the Church’s relation to God. It is to be made manifest that he dwells and walks among the covenant people (Le Num 26:11, Num 26:12), that he is of pure eyes, and cannot suffer evil to dwell with him. Accordingly, there must in no wise abide in the camp any man or woman that is unclean. Persons afflicted with uncleanness must be removed, and live outside of the sacred precinct. Such is the law here laid down.

I. IN ATTRIBUTING TO THIS LAW A RELIGIOUS INTENTION, I DO NOT FORGET THAT A LOWER AND MORE PROSAIC INTERPRETATION HAS SOMETIMES BEEN PUT ON IT. There are commentators who remind one of the man with the muck-rake in the “Pilgrim’s Progress.” They have no eye except for what is earthly. To them the removal of the unclean is simply a sanitary measure. I freely admit that there was a sanitary intention. The sequestering of lepers, the early and “extramural” burial of the deadthese are valuable sanitary provisions, and it is plain that this law would lead to them. But I need not wait to prove that the law looks higher, and that its paramount intention is moral and spiritual.

II. Passing on, therefore, to the RELIGIOUS INTENTION Of this law, observe who exactly are excluded by it from the camp. They are of three sorts, viz; lepers, persons affected with issues of various kinds, and persons who had come in contact with the dead. This does not by any means exhaust the catalogue of defilements noted in the Levitical law. But these were the gravest. Only these three disabled from residence in the camp. My reason for calling attention to this point you will understand when I mention that these three uncleannesses, so prominent in the law of Moses, received the same kind of prominence in the gracious ministry of Christ. Read the story of the leper (Mar 1:41); of the woman with the issue of blood (Mar 5:27-30); of the raising of Jairus’ daughter and the widow’s son at Nain (Mar 5:41 and Luk 7:14). In no one of these passages is the Levitical law named. Much the greater number of those who read or hear them fail to perceive that in Christ’s mode of performing the miracles there was any reference to what the law had said about the defiling quality of the evils on which his gracious power was put forth. That there truly was a reference surely needs no proof. No Jew ever forgot what the penalty would be if he suffered himself to be in contact with a dead body, with a leper, with a person having an issue of blood. Certainly our Lord did not forget. Nor would it be doing justice to the truth to say that our Lord touched as he did, notwithstanding the defilement thereby contracted, and its troublesome consequences. He, of set purpose, sought occasion to put himself in contact with every one of the three causes of defilement noted in the law. Keeping this in mind, let us ask the meaning of the law.

1. The general intention. It was to be a memorial of the truth that our nature is deeply infected with sin, and that sin disables all in whom it is found for enjoying the fellowship of God here and hereafter. In this Levitical statute, I admit, the lesson is not taught explicitly. There was nothing morally wrong in any one of the three sources of defilement named. The teaching is by symbola kind of object lessonand not the less impressive on that account.

2. The meaning of the several symbols.

(1) Defilement by the dead. Why is this? Because death is the wages of sin (Gen 2:17; Gen 3:19). Compare the representation of death which pervades Psa 90:1-17“the prayer of Moses.”

(2) Defilement by leprosy. A touching symbol. It admonishes us that sin, besides being blameworthy and deserving of death, is a vile thing, to be loathed and recoiled from, as men loathe and recoil from a leper; contagious also, and apt to spread.

(3) Of the third symbol I need say only this, that it reminds us that sin is an hereditary evil (Psa 51:5).

3. The relation of this law to Christ and his work. That it has a relation has been already pointed out. The relation may be conceived of thus :The law is the dark ground on which the redemptive work of Christ unfolds the brightness of its grace. Christ did not keep aloof from the evils which afflict our fallen nature, and which perpetually remind us how deep our fall has been. He took occasion to put himself in contact with them. He touched the leprous man. Not that leprosy was sweet to him; it was to him as loathsome as to any man in Palestine that day. Nevertheless, he touched the leprous man, and the leprosy fled before the power of that touch. Leprosy, wasting issues, deaththese are the memorials and tokens of the sin that is the fatal heritage of our fallen race; and one who would know our need of redemption cannot do better than meditate on them as they are set forth in the Levitical law. Leprosy, wasting issues, deaththese evils our blessed Lord went up to in his ministry; he touched them, and their flight the instant that they felt his touch gave, and continues still to give, assurance to men that he is indeed the Saviour. He can forgive sin; he can make us clean; he is the resurrection and the life.B.

HOMILIES BY E.S. PROUT

Num 5:1-4

THE PUBLIC EXCLUSION OF THE UNCLEAN

This law, like many others, in part a sanitary law; but also educational in spiritual truth, and typical of eternal realities. Two truths taught:

I. THE HOLINESS OF GOD. This lesson, so hard to the Israelites, was impressed on them in many ways, e.g; sacred men ministering in sacred places, on sacred days, etc. This holy God dwelt in the midst of their tents, and walked among them (Le Num 26:11, Num 26:12). The God of life and purity was utterly alien from death and impurity. Defilement, whether willful or unavoidable, could not be tolerated in his presence. If the polluted are retained, God withdraws. Sin is “the abominable thing” which God hates. He is “of purer eyes than to behold evil” (Jer 44:4; Hab 1:13).

II. THE EXCOMMUNICATING POWER OF SIN. The consequences to the excluded Hebrews, though limited, were by no means light. They had to suffer loss of privileges, ceremonial and spiritual, and a sense of humiliation from the notoriety of their position. For the time they were out of communion with God and his people. Thus sin has an isolating power. Apart from an act of ecclesiastical excommunication or Divine judgment, its tendency is to separate us from the people of God through want of sympathy. We cease to enjoy their privileges even if not debarred from them. We lose self-respect when sin is exposed, if not before. We are out of communion with God, into whose presence we cannot truly come with sin indulged in our hearts (Psa 66:18; Eze 14:3). God’s salvation is from sin, not in sin. No wonder, therefore, that the impure are sentenced

(1) to excommunication from the Church on earth (1Co 5:9-13, etc.),

(2) to exclusion from the Church in heaven. (Rev 21:27).P.

HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG

Num 5:1-4

THINGS THAT DEFILE

The book up to this point is occupied with the counting and discipline of the people, both those for war and those for tabernacle service. Now the cleansing of the camp is to be attended to.

I. THE CLASSES WHO WERE DECLARED UNCLEAN. Certainly we must not be too curious in our inquiries here, or we may soon pass the verge of what is edifying. But there are some points of note with regard to all three classes. The leper. Why should he be declared unclean? Perhaps as suffering from a more manifest disease than others, maybe a peculiarly offensive one, and one of the most difficult to cure. These are conjectures which give a little light, but the great reason for ceremonial uncleanness in the case of human beings, as in the case of lower animals, is to be found in Jehovah’s positive injunction. Leprosy was thus to be one of the great types in the body of the defiling effect of sin upon the soul. It is clear that in the course of ages the idea got fixed in the Israelite mind that the cure of leprosy was to be considered as a cleansing. Jesus commanded his apostles to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers. The leper was not a common victim, but singled out to impress the fact that the ultimate cause which produces disease is a strange and polluting thing; no necessary element in human nature, though now it be actually present in us all. The person with an issue. Thus uncleanness is connected with birth as well as with death. Whenever a child is born, a being is brought into the world, which certainly will add something to the evil in it, though possibly it may add much to the good. The saintliest of believers has had in hint the possibilities of the worst of unbelievers. Human nature is truly the creation of God, fearfully and wonderfully made; but there is also the fact of birth from sinful human parents to be remembered. This is a great mystery, to be delicately handled; but the uncleanness here indicated may be taken as intended to remind parents how one generation transmits not only nature, but sinful nature, to another. The person defiled by the dead. There is great. significance in being made unclean by the dead. Of all things in the world that manifest the effects of sin, this is the greatestdeath. By sin came death. All lesser results lead up to this. A dead body, in one sense as sacred a thing as there is in the world, is yet also one of the most unclean. As long as there is life there is something to protest against the reign of sin, and resist it; but life being gone, sin riots and revels in the corruption of what was once fair and strong. The coffin and the gravestone hide, but they only hide. It was one of our Lord’s most terrible words to the Pharisees to compare them to whited sepulchers.

II. THE LINE OF SEPARATION. There are large details in Leviticus respecting all these instances of uncleanness (chapters 12-15). The line of separation was clearly marked, sternly enforced. To go out of the camp meant much personal inconvenience, perhaps painsuffering added on to existing suffering. Imagine the mother tending her sick child, waiting its expiring breath, closing its eyes, composing its body, then compelled to go without the camp. This typical ceremonial uncleanness indicates the sharp separation, between good and bad mere The word of God accords in all its references to this. There are two classes, and only twothe clean and the unclean, the sheep and the goats, the wheat and tares, the children of God and the children of wrath. It also indicates the extent to which discipline can be carried in the Church of Christ on earth. There are some offences so plain that the guilty may at once be cut off from outward communion. But there may be others quite as unworthy who yet do and must escape, because their life makes no crying scandal. Many a professed and long-continued adherent to the true Church is, nevertheless, as worldly, hard, and selfish as any of the ungodly. God reckons all such outside the camp. He alone has the knowledge and authority to reckon. Learn then the danger of all spiritual uncleanness. That so much was declared typically unclean, shows that spiritual uncleanness is a very great danger. The boundary between the Church and the world cannot be too strictly kept. Since we are all advancing to death, it is proof of the power of sin in our nature. We are all unclean with the worst of uncleanness. It only waits for us to feel all the evil, and the way is clear to the remedy (1Jn 1:7-10).Y.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

THIRD SECTION
Exclusion of Lepers and all Persons Levitically Unclean from the Holy Camp. Camp Laws for Those Morally Guilty

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 mans 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. 5:2326 (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 mans 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 womans 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 womans 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. . lxx. Et coierit aliquis cum ea coitu seminis. Calvin.

Num 5:20. , etc. . LXX. Dederitque aliquis in te semen suum. Calvin.

The euphemism of the A. V. and of Dr. Langes 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 Gods 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 Oehlers article in Herzogs 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 Jehovahs military encampment. The jealous man, that suspects his wife of adultery, is a combatant of Jehovahs, 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 mans 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 mans 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 serpents 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 mans 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 priests 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 Translators 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 womans 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. , 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 Num 5:13, comp. Lev 19:20; Lev 15:18, refers to intercourse without such intent. Comp. Nah 1:14. The phrase is . .Tr.].

HOMILETICAL HINTS

Chap. 5. The preservation of the purity of Gods 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.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

This chapter contains an order for the removal of the unclean, from the Camp. Here is also a repetition of the law, concerning the restitution to be made in cases of trespass; and the mode of trial to be observed, in the instance of a wife suspected of adultery.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

It is always both pleasing and profitable, to observe in the letter of the law, the spiritual meaning of it! And here, if I mistake not, in the precept issued, concerning the removal of the unclean, from the camp; a very striking allusion is intended to that blessed dispensation of mercy in the gospel, in which, as the LORD himself, hath tabernacled in substance of our flesh among us, nothing that is unclean can be suffered to dwell. Here again, dearest JESUS! as in former instances, so in this, how delightfully art thou pointed out to me! Oh! give me grace to come out from among all that is filthy, and to touch no unclean thing; but as He who hath called me is holy, so may I be holy in all manner of conversation. 1Pe 1:15 . And is there not an allusion also in this doctrine, to that kingdom of glory, which is above, as well as to the kingdom of grace, which is leading to it here below? Certainly, our GOD will one day come, and gather out of his kingdom all things that offend. LORD grant that I may be found, in that day, without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; and that I may he holy, and without blame before thee, in love. Eph 1:4 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

III

FROM SETTING UP OF THE TABERNACLE TO THE FIRST MARCH

In Num 2 , I gave a historical introduction, cited a brief outline and then a very extensive one. I shall not observe either of these outlines because they lack chronological exactness, but I shall follow the chronological analysis given in Num 1 .

In studying the book of Numbers the first item of our outline which we shall notice is Num 7 which gives the gifts of the princes of Israel. Those gifts are presented in twelve successive days) following right after the day in which the tabernacle was set up, as given in the fortieth chapter of Exodus; the first day of the first month of the second year. This Num 7 of Numbers immediately follows the passage in Exo 40:35 . Exodus, in that connection, states that when Moses had completed the tabernacle and had set it up, the cloud came down and filled it so that he was not able to enter it. Num 7 tells us how Moses was able to enter and the twelve days follow right after. When we get through with this chapter, we are at the thirteenth day of the first month. Therefore, in my outline I say, the twelve days of the gifts of princes follow Exo 40:35 , where Moses could not enter the tabernacle, which date was the first day of the first month of the second year, and these offerings bring us to the thirteenth day set apart to make a gift, and among their gifts were certain offerings. At the end of this chapter we find that these offerings for sacrifices were made and closes entered the tabernacle and listened to the voice of God speaking to him.

The next item of the outline Isa 9:1-14 . The theme is, “The Second Passover, and the provision for a little passover a little later.” This is on the fourteenth day of the first month. For those who through absence or ceremonial uncleanness were not permitted to eat the first Passover, a law provided for their eating a month later.

From the fourteenth to the end of the first month took place all that occurred in the book of Leviticus plus these chapters in Numbers, the Levitical legislation, as set forth in Numbers 5-6 and Num 8:1-4 . If they were lunar months, we know how many days were covered fourteen days; but if it was a month according to our calculation it would cover sixteen days. In order of time that should be inserted just after the close of Leviticus.

We come to the second month and first day where the census takes place. The census of the eleven tribes, Num 1:1-46 , amounts to 603,550 males from twenty years old up. The next item is the order in which the tribes camped, second chapter. That order was expressed in the introduction. The next item is the first census of the Levites, from one month upward, and their order of camp Num 3:14-39 , leaving the first part of the third chapter to be placed elsewhere, the census amounting to 22,000, elsewhere given as 22,300. And it is a difficult matter for commentators to explain that difference of 300. It may be done by supposing that 300 of the Levites were firstborn and, therefore, not included in the calculations afterwards made. I then showed how the Levites camped on the east.

The next item is the census of the firstborn of Israel, Num 3:40-43 , amounting to 22,273. The next item is the exchange of the 22,273 of the firstborn of the eleven tribes for the 22,000 Levites. A commutation price was paid for the extra 273 of the firstborn, Num 3:1-13 , and also from Numbers 44-51.

The next item is the second census of the Levites from thirty to fifty, and the chapter tells us exactly how each one had to act before going to march. I shall bring that out directly.

The next item is the cleansing of the Levites, Num 8 .

The next item is the services to be performed by the pillar of cloud, Num 9:15-23 .

The next item is the service of the trumpets, Num 10:1-10 . That outline is absolutely accurate, chronologically and analytically, up to that point.

My next item of the outline is to give a digest of the order of the march. In order to understand this, we must conceive of Israel in camp, each tribe in its proper place, the tabernacle up and the cloud over the tabernacle, Moses, Aaron, and his sons, and the Levites in their places. Get that picture in your mind. Now the morning has come on which they are to march. It tells us which morning in Num 10 : “And it came to pass in the second year, second month, twentieth day.” The first thing that morning was the morning sacrifices which were never neglected. As soon as that sacrifice was over, Aaron steps out and says (Num 6:24-26 ): “Jehovah bless thee and keep thee; Jehovah make his face to shine upon thee, and give thee peace.” In that way Aaron puts the name of Jehovah on the people. They don’t know when they are going to start. Suddenly that cloud that hovered down low over the tabernacle ascends into the air, the divine signal to get ready to march. Then there was a human signal, the trumpets blow. When those trumpets blew, the first people that had anything to do were Aaron and his sons. Aaron goes into the holy of holies and in the prescribed way covers the Ark of the Covenant so that it will be hidden from sight and puts the staves through the rings on the sides so that four men can carry it with those staves resting on their shoulders. Then Aaron and his sons cover up, in a prescribed way, every one of the holy things.

Next the Gershonites, part of the tribe of Levi, come up and take charge of all curtains of every kind, always their business. They have wagons with two oxen each to help carry this vast amount of baggage. Then Eleazar and Ithamar take charge of the sacred oils and special things of that kind. Then the Merarites come and take down the heavy parts of the tent and carry them off on four wagons, each having two oxen. Then the Kohathites come and take every part that Aaron has covered except the ark. Four take charge of the ark and the rest take the other things.

Now comes another sight. That cloud that had gone up in the air and was standing there, just as soon as the Levites have taken down all those things and loaded them on the wagons, begins to move slowly in the direction they want to go. As soon as Moses sees that, the four men that have charge of the ark pick it up and keep right under that cloud. Read that in Num 10:33 : “And they set forward from the mount of Jehovah three days’ journey; and the ark of the covenant of Jehovah went before them three days’ journey, to seek out a resting place for them.” So the front things at the head of the column are the cloud above and the ark below. As that ark moves, Moses says, “Rise up, O Jehovah, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee.” One of the most thrilling psalms written upon that is the psalm that Cromwell adopted as his psalm, and every time he went into battle, he made his army kneel and pray, and when the marching order was given, they marched singing the psalm that paraphrased these words of Moses. Then Moses and Aaron follow the ark, and the trumpets blow an alarm, and Judah, the vanguard, set forth with that part encamped on the east, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun with an army of 186,400 men. As soon as that vast body was in motion, the Gershonites follow with the curtains of the tent and the Merarites with the heavy fixtures. Then the trumpets blow a second alarm and those encamped on the south side, Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, move forward with an army of 151,450 men. Right after them the Kohathites follow with the holy things, and Eleazar, lthamar, the sons of Aaron, led. Then follows the third trumpet alarm and the crowd on the west moves off, Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, with a total of 108,600 men. Now, isn’t that organization? Did anybody ever see better organization?

Now I shall tell you how they stop. They never knew when or where they would stop. They moved as long as the ark moved. God is the captain of this expedition. Whenever that cloud stops, instantly those men carrying the ark put it down under the cloud) but the cloud is away up in the air and the ark is covered. Moses and Aaron stop. Then Judah takes his position to the east and the Gershonites and Meraritea come up with their curtains and heavy parts of the tent and immediately lay off the court, put up the poles and hang the curtains and veil and nobody has ever seen the sacred things. Then there marches up Reuben’s corps and he camps on the south, and with him come the Kohathites and they walk up and put down the altar of burnt offerings, then the laver, and going into the holy place put down the altar of incense, the table of shewbread and the candlestick. Now everything is in its place. Aaron alone goes into the holy of holies to uncover the ark. Then Dan comes up and goes into camp on the north, and the tribes descended from Rachel come up and take their position on the west. Then the cloud comes down and as it settles Moses says these words: “Return, O Jehovah, come into the ten thousands of thousands of Israel.” Now, what follows? The evening sacrifice. That order applies to every day’s march. They are now going to set out on a three days’ journey, stopping only at night. They are going north over a most terrible country, which Moses calls the great and horrible wilderness.

QUESTIONS

1. Where do you find the itinerary from Egypt to Sinai?

2. What are the date and event of the closing of the book of Exodus?

3. What are the events of the next twelve days?

4. What, then, on the fourteenth day?

5. What are the next sixteen days?

6. Give the law of restitution in the case of trespass.

7. In general terms describe the trial with jealousy.

8. Give the law of the Nazarite.

9. Give the high priest’s benediction.

10. To what were the first nineteen days of the second month devoted?

11. What are the terminal dates of this section?

12. Give particulars and result of first numbering.

13. Give again the order of their encampment.

14. Why were the Levites exempted from secular and war service and tribal inheritance and appointed to religious service?

15. Explain the difference of 300 found in the census of Levi.

16. Explain fully the exchange of the male Levites for the firstborn of Israel.

17. What is the special charge of all Levites, by families in marching and camping and their order of encampment?

18. Why a second census of male Levites? Give particulars.

19. What were the signals for marching and camping? Describe each.

20. Give a digest of the order of marching,

21. What General adopted the psalm based upon Moses’ words in Num 10:35 , as his psalm and what is the psalm?

22. Give in detail how they stopped.

23. Hobab, who? His service? The promised blessing?

24. What great pulpit theme in this connection? Note. Keep your chronological analysis before you and read all references.

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.

spake. See note on Num 1:1.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 5

Now in chapter five they are told to cleanse the camp by putting out every leper and those that have any kind of an issue from their body, who is and those that have been defied, defiled by touching a dead body. And God didn’t want any type of defilement in the camp where he dwells. So the children of Israel did so. They put out of the camp those that were leprous, those that had any runny-type of sores and those who had been defiled by touching dead bodies.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, [verse five] saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, When a man or a woman shall commit a sin that men commit, to trespass against the LORD, the person is guilty; they shall confess their sin which they have done: and then they shall recompense in their trespass and offer, actually, before the Lord; the ram of the atonement whereby an atonement shall be made for him. And an offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel. And every man hallowed thing shall be his: whatsoever man hath given the priest, it shall be his ( Num 5:5-10 ).

And so then we have this law of jealous husbands. Now if a woman has had an affair and her husband doesn’t know it, she doesn’t get pregnant, hasn’t been found out,

but if a spirit of jealously would suddenly come on a husband, and he had wondered whether or not his wife was really being faithful to him; then he was to bring his wife before the priest, with an offering for her, of a tenth part of an ephah of barley; [which would be a tenth part, would be about a couple quarts] he shall pour no oil upon it, or put any frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, bring iniquity to remembrance. And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD: And the priest shall take the holy water in an earthen vessel; and the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it in the water: And then he is to charge this woman with a severe oath and she is to drink this bitter water: And he said, If you have been unfaithful to your husband may this water cause your belly to swell and your stomach to rot ( Num 5:13-21 ):

And the woman would have to drink the bitter water and then wait for the consequences. And if her stomach would swell and all then she was considered guilty and was put out, but if there was no ill effect then she was considered to be innocent, and her husband’s jealousy was unfounded.

Imagine if you had an extremely jealous husband and every week you’re drinking this bitter water. Man, you women have come along way. That would, that would really be tragic, be difficult indeed if your husband was an extremely jealous kind of a person always hauling you in before the priests and going through this routine and making you drink that bitter water. So, that’s the law of jealousies and when the spirit of jealousy comes on a husband and all.

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

This section is devoted to arrangements emphasizing the necessity for the purity of the camp on the eve of the coming of the people into the land. All that were unclean were put outside the camp This does not, of course, mean they were left behind to perish, but that they were not allowed to march in their proper place with the tribes of their people. For the time being they were camp followers only, excluded until their purification was ensured according to the provision of the laws already given. Not only must there be ceremonial cleanness but moral rectitude. Under this command, restitution had to be made by all such as had in any way sinned against others.

In this application the possibility of jealousy within the marriage relationship was dealt with. The ordeal of drinking bitter water had no similarity to the ordeals by fire and poison of which we read in the history of the Dark Ages. The drinking of such water was perfectly harmless in itself. It was a challenge to God on the part of the woman to demonstrate her purity as against an unjust charge. There is no doubt that if a woman who had been guilty of infidelity consented to drink this water, evidence of her guilt would have been manifested, not by any action of the water, but by the direct intervention of Jehovah. The great lesson taught here is the necessity for the purity of the people as they were to enter into possession of the land

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

4. The Sanctification of the Camp and the Nazarite

CHAPTER 5

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 Gods 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 (Jam 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.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

Subdivision 3. (Num 5:1-31; Num 6:1-27.)

The sanctification of the camp.

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.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

OTHER PRELIMINARIES

What command is given Moses in Num 5:1-31.

What is the next command, and where has this previously been treated (Num 5:5-10)? It must not be supposed that such repetitions are merely such.

There is always a reason for the repetition which the context will commonly disclose.

THE TRIAL OF JEALOUSY (Num 5:11-31)

The trial of jealousy contains some new features to which attention should be called. As usual, get the facts in mind by a process of questioning, before attempting to generalize upon them.

The law provides for jealousy in a husband whether he has good ground for it or not (Num 5:12-14). What is he to do under the circumstances (Num 5:15)? What preparations shall the priest make (Num 5:16-18)? Then follows the adjuration of the woman and her assent to it (Num 5:22), and after this the actual test of her conduct (Num 5:27-28).

The law was given as a discouragement to conjugal unfaithfulness on the part of a wife, and as a protection from the consequences of a wrong suspicion on the part of her husband. From the earliest times, the jealousy of Eastern people has established ordeals for the detection and punishment of suspected unchastity in wives. And it has been thought that the Israelites being biased in favor of such usages, this law was incorporated to free it from the idolatrous rites which the heathens had blended with it. Viewed in this light, its sanction by Divine authority in a corrected form exhibits a proof at once of the wisdom and condescension of God.

THE LAW OF THE NAZARITE (Numbers 6)

This chapter is new in some respects. It concerns the vow of the Nazarite, from a Hebrew word which means to separate. This was a voluntary consecration of the person such as we studied about under vows in a former lesson. He has a strong impulse towards a holy life, and renounces certain worldly occupations and pleasures to that end, for a given period.

What is the first thing marking his separation (Num 6:3-4)? The second (Num 6:5)? Third (Num 6:6-8)? Suppose the vow in this last respect were accidentally violated (Num 6:9-12)? After the period of the vow is terminated, what is the procedure (Num 6:13-20)?

The reasons for these restrictions are obvious. Wine inflames the passions and creates a taste for undue indulgences. As a shaven head was a sign of uncleanness (Lev 14:8-9), so the long hair symbolized the purity he professed. It kept him in remembrance of his vow also, and acted as a stimulus for others to imitate his piety. Contact with a dead body, as we have seen, disqualified for Gods service, hence his avoidance of it.

THE AARONIC BLESSING

Observe the doctrine of the Trinity foreshadowed in the three-fold repetition of the Name LORD or Jehovah three Persons and yet but one God. Observe their respective offices. The Father will bless and keep us; the Son will be gracious unto us; the Spirit will give us peace. Observe the last verse. It is not the name of man that is put upon them, not even Moses name nor Aarons, but Gods own Name, I will bless them.

THE PRINCES OFFERINGS (Numbers 7)

Who were these princes (Num 7:2)? What was the first offering they brought (Num 7:3)? Why were none given the Kohathites (Num 7:9)? (Compare 2Sa 6:6-13 for a violation of this rule.) What other offerings did they present and for what purpose (Num 7:84-88)? What shows the voluntary nature of these offerings (Num 7:5)?

There are two or three practical lessons here. In the first place, an example to wealthy Christians to generously support and further the work of the Lord. Secondly, an encouragement to believe that while in the great matters of worship and church government we should adhere faithfully to what God has revealed, yet in minor details liberty may be left to the means and convenience of the people. Moses would not have accepted and used these gifts, but God relieved his embarrassment, from which we infer that other things may be done without a special warrant if they are in the right direction, and in general harmony with Gods will.

Where were the wagons obtained? Did they bring them from Egypt, or did Hebrew artisans construct them in the wilderness? The latter inquiry suggests that some of the offerings in this chapter may not have come entirely from the individual prince, but have represented the general contributions of the tribe.

THE LAMPS AND THE LEVITES (Numbers 8)

The last verse of the preceding chapter seems to belong to the present one. What great honor was accorded Moses? Though standing outside the veil

he could hear the voice of God within (Exo 25:22). Compare Joh 14:21.

What is now communicated to Moses (Num 8:1-4)? It was Aarons duty, as the servant of God, to light His house, which, being without windows, required lights. (2Pe 1:19.) And the course he was ordered to follow was first to light the middle lamp from the altar fire, and then the other lamps from each other a course symbolical of all the light of heavenly truth derived from Christ, and diffused by his ministers throughout the world.

CONSECRATING THE LEVITES

What cleansing process was ordained (Num 8:6-7)? What offerings required (Num 8:8)? Who were to lay their hands on the Levites (Num 8:10)? Perhaps some of the firstborn did this, thus indicating the substitution of the Levites in their place.

What was the next step in their consecration (Num 8:11)? The word for offer in this verse is wave, and the probability is that some such motion was made by the Levites in token of their giving themselves to God and then being given back again to the nation for His service. (Compare Num 8:14-19.) What seeming contradiction is there between Num 8:24 and Num 4:3? The probably explanation is that at the earlier age they entered on their work as probationers and at the later as fully equipped servitors. At the age of fifty were they to entirely cease labor, or is there an intimation in Num 8:26 that lighter tasks were assigned them?

A NEW PASSOVER LAW (Num 9:1-14)

What is the command in Num 9:1-23 It may seem strange that any command should be given in this case, till we recall that Israel was still in the wilderness, and the institution of the Passover only implied its being observed in Canaan (Exo 12:25). To have it observed under present conditions required a special command.

But the circumstance is spoken of here to introduce the case next referred to (Num 9:1-14). What is the case (Num 9:6-8)? What special provision is made for it (Num 9:9-11)?

QUESTIONS

1. What reasons can you give for the law of jealousy?

2. How are Divine wisdom and condescension shown in that law?

3. Give your conception of a Nazarite.

4. Explain the restraints he was to observe.

5. Learn by heart the Aaronic benediction.

6. What precious doctrine does it unfold?

7. What practical lessons are taught by chapter 7?

8. What is symbolized by the lighting of the lamps?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

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.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Num 5:2. Defiled by the dead. They were unclean seven days. The whole of Shems race in India, keep this custom to the present day.

Num 5:6. Any sin that men commit; through ignorance, or inadvertency. This law is more largely illustrated in the sixth chapter of Leviticus.

Num 5:7. They shall confess their sin. This law respects all kinds of fraud in business, and in all the intercourse of life, among the depraved and unregenerate race of men. There can be no peace of conscience without confession and restitution. The law is holy, for God is holy. It is noble and manly in those who have defrauded the kings revenue, to come forward and make restitution. But justly does a heathen complain of the knave that wears a mask:

Spem vultu simulat, premit alto corde dolorem

Nil conscire sibi, null pallescere culpa.

Daring and bold in face, but sad in heart;

He owns no shame, for crimes affect no smart.

Num 5:12. If any mans wife go aside, and commit adultery, the law enjoined that she and her seducer should be stoned. When there was no witness, she must drink the bitter waters. All Shems race in Asia have their ordeals, of red hot iron or of boiling water; and all Hams race in Africa are compelled to drink the red draught, which kills in the course of twelve hours.

Num 5:17. Holy water. That is water from the laver. The dust mixed among it would of course contain a portion of the scattered ashes of the altar, which would give the water a saline or bitter taste. Besides, this water had washed off the curse, written on the table with gall and ink.

Num 5:27. Her thigh shall rot. The modesty of the Hebrew language puts one part of the body for another. How remarkable are the judgments of God, that he visits the crimes of impurity with rottenness in the flesh, and particularly in the members here implied.

Num 5:31. The man shall be guiltless; which he would not have been, had he suffered his wife to proceed in her course.This woman shall bear her iniquity; shall die of disease; and if not stoned, shall be excommunicated from the synagogue. See Josephus.

REFLECTIONS.

Having considered the law of the leper, and of trespasses in the book of Leviticus, we proceed at once to the miraculous test instituted of God to preserve the Israelites from the most dreadful crime of adultery. And let us well remark, that a spirit of unfounded jealousy on any subject, or against any person, is cautiously to be checked and discouraged. But a quiet and well disposed man, sustaining an imaginary dishonour of this kind, afflicts himself with all the calamities of a real dishonour, and greatly augments his anguish by concealing the wound. His imagination roves, his passions are all successively excited by the objects of fear, hatred and grief. He wears out health by tracing every thought, and marking every incident; the joys of life are all imbittered; sleep departs from his eyes, and melancholy gloom settles on all his soul. Perhaps for a moment he affects to disbelieve, and immediately abandons his hope to indulge in grief. How detestable is the man, how vile is the woman, who can actually bring a deserving character into this suffering situation!

A spirit of jealousy may also be an impression from the Lord. Hence he most graciously favoured his own peculiar people with a miraculous test of a womans innocence, or of her guilt. This extraordinary institution relieved the husband, by allowing him to open his mind; it also afforded an injured woman the infallible means of attesting her innocence before the Lord and his church. Striking the guilty with swelling, burning, rottenness, and the rapid approaches of death, it produced confession and repentance, that the soul might be saved in the day of the Lord. On the public, the effects would not be less salutary. Who would blindly follow the basest of passions, while the vengeance of the Lord was at the door? A good woman is a crown of glory to her husband, but a wicked woman makes him ashamed, and is like corruption in his bones.However salutary the institution was, when wickedness increased before the Babylonian captivity it fell into total disuse; for the prevalence of vice, and the loss of discipline, are companions in apostasy.

It may here be asked, why this test was not established for men as well as for women? In general it is not well to ask more than is revealed; but in this case reason seems adequate to decide the question on several grounds, for women being the weaker vessel are apt to be more suspicious than men. A woman going astray might bring an alien child to inherit her husbands wealth; but the law was chiefly intended to protect a woman from the cruel treatment of a jealous husband. And a wicked man undetected is but reserved for a heavier scourge.

To the christian church no such tests of guilt or of innocence are given; for we have before us the perfect example of Christ, and the spotless lustre of his doctrine. Consequently, purity is required of all his members. Not only the adulterer, but he who indulges an unchaste desire is, without repentance, excluded from the kingdom of God. And what man is able to prove from the new testament, that repentance will be accepted without confession, and without reparation and its fruits? Let men consider this before they rush into sins so hateful in the sight of God, and opposed to every code of civil law. May all the Israel of God be chaste and holy as the bride of Christ, that he may betroth us in righteousness for ever.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

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.

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}

Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch

Num 5:1-4. The Seclusion of Persons Rendered Unclean through Leprosy, Issues, or Contact with the Dead.Such seclusion was the result of a primitive belief that persons in the conditions specified were the seat of, or had been exposed to, some supernatural influence which they might extend to any who approached them. Rules relating to the leprous and to sufferers from issues are found in Leviticus 13-15*. For historical instances of the seclusion of lepers, see Num 12:10-15, 2Ki 7:3; 2Ki 15:5.

Num 5:2. the dead: literally, a soul or ghost. A dead body was thought to be dangerous because the disembodied spirit hovered round it, and such a spirit was potent for harm.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

DEFILEMENT CALLING FOR ISOLATION

(vs.1-4)

The principle of 1Co 5:6, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump” was just as true in the Old Testament as in the new. However, the defilement of Num 5:1-4 is ceremonial, not moral or spiritual, as is that insisted on in the New Testament. But it is symbolical of spiritual defilement. Every leper was to be excluded from the camp of Israel when it was proven he was indeed a leper (Lev 13:1-3). For the leper is typical of one today in whom serious sin is active, as in the case of the man in 1Co 5:1-13 who was cohabiting with his step-mother. As the leper was put out of the camp, so that man was to be “put away from among” the assembly at Corinth.

The one who had a discharge, or issue, was similarly excluded (v.2), for this speaks of the eruption of our old sinful nature. One who does not judge himself in connection with such evil ways must be judged by the assembly and put outside, where he may learn to rightly judge himself (1Co 5:11-12).

The one who touched the body of a dead person was unclean for seven days, when he could be purified through the offering of the red heifer (Num 19:11-12). In the meanwhile he was put outside the camp (v.2). This speaks of any willing contact with what is spiritually corrupt today. There are such dead bodies as denominations practicing falsehood, and association with these can be deeply defiling. Until one is purified from such associations he is not fit for fellowship among the saints of God. Consider 2Co 6:14-18. Whether in male of female, this defilement required being put out of the camp, for their presence would defile the camp (v.3), and God dwelt there. Israel at this time did as God commanded. Surely we should be as careful to obey as they.

SIN CONFESSED AND RESTITUTION MADE

(vs.5-10)

These verses insist on what has already been commanded in Lev 5:14-19, therefore emphasizing its importance. If a man or woman had trespassed against the Lord, this was to be honestly confessed, not covered or palliated, and restitution was to be fully made, plus one-fifth of the amount, to the person who had been wronged (v.7). If, for some reason, this could not be given to a particular person, then it was given to the Lord (v.8), as well as offering a ram as a trespass offering. For there must be some penalty for the sin, and we must be made to feel the fact that it was necessary for Christ to suffer on account of our sins.

These things given to the Lord went directly to the priest, as was the case with offerings (vs.9-10). Though the peace offering was given to the priest, however, the priest had only a share of this. God also had His share and the offerer was given a share (Lev 3:3-17; Lev 7:11-18).

UNFAITHFULNESS IN A WIFE

(vs.11-31)

The mere suspicion of a man that his wife was unfaithful was not to be ignored in Israel, but tested as in the presence of the Lord. We are not told that a wife’s suspicions of her husband were to be tested also. This may be because this matter has special spiritual significance. For the man primarily typifies Christ, in whom there can never be even the least suspicion of unfaithfulness. “If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself” (2Ti 2:13). But believers who are joined to the Lord by a bond symbolized by marriage (Rom 7:4) are often exposed to the danger of becoming unfaithful to the Lord. The very fact that suspicion in Numbers was not to be ignored should exercise us to be always on guard against anything that might tempt us from the path of total devotion to our Lord.

However, this was not a matter even for the priest to judge. When the scriptural procedure was followed the whole matter was left in the hand of God, who would make manifest the woman’s guilt or her innocence. Yet the man was to bring his wife to the priest as well as an offering to one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal, with no oil or frankincense as in the case of the meal offerings generally (v.15). For this was not a thank-offering, but almost the opposite. Then the priest was to take holy water in an earthen vessel and mix dust with it from the tabernacle floor. The holy water speaks of life, but the dust speaks of death (Psa 22:15). If there was no sin unto death, life would be given, but guilt would lead to death.

The offering would be put in the woman’s hand and the priest would hold the bitter water, which in the case of guilt, would bring a curse. Then the priest would put her under oath. Of course, if she had confessed herself guilty before, this would not be necessary, but her oath would be to the effect that she was not guilty. She would be warned by the priest that if she was lying, the Lord would cause her thigh to rot and her belly to swell, making her a curse among the people (v.21), and she was to answer, “Amen, so be it” (v.22).

When the accused wife had sworn an oath of innocence and had been warned of the results of falsehood, then the priest would take the grain offering from the woman and wave it before the Lord, then take from it a handful as a memorial portion to burn on the altar (vs.25-26). The waving of the offering speaks of Christ ascended to heaven following His death and resurrection, now in absolute authority, so that everything must be subject to Him. The portion burned tells us that God is to be glorified in this whole matter. Afterward the woman was required to drink the bitter water. this was mentioned in verse 24, but evidently it took place after the burning of the Lord’s portion.

If she was guilty, the Lord would expose this by causing her thigh to rot and her belly to swell. what would develop from this we are not told but the stigma of a curse would be upon her in the eyes of the people. If these symptoms did not follow, then she was fully exonerated (v.28). In a case like this, we may well suppose that the husband should apologize to her for his suspicions.

If the charge of guilt was sustained against the wife, however, the husband was declared to be free from iniquity, for the evil has been exposed and judges. But the woman must bear the results of her guilt (vs.30-31).

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

2. Commands and rituals to observe in preparation for entering the land chs. 5-9

God gave the following laws to maintain holiness in the nation so He could continue to dwell among His people and bless them. This was particularly important since Israel would soon depart from Sinai to enter the Promised Land in which she would need to be holy to be victorious over her enemies. These were requirements for the whole nation, not just the priests.

"Between covenant promise and covenant possession lay a process of rigorous journey through hostile opposition of terrain and terror. Israel had to understand that occupation of the land could be achieved only through much travail, for Canaan, like creation itself, was under alien dominion and it had to be wrested away by force, by the strong arm of Yahweh, who would fight on behalf of His people." [Note: Merrill, "A Theology . . .," p. 60.]

Holiness among the people chs. 5-6

These chapters are similar to what we read in Leviticus in that they explain the importance of holiness among the Israelites.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The purity of the camp 5:1-4

"The purpose of the writer is to show that at this point in the narrative, Israel’s leaders, Moses and Aaron, were following God’s will and the people were following them obediently. This theme will not continue long, however. The narrative will soon turn a corner and begin to show that the people quickly deviated from God’s way and, with their leaders, Moses and Aaron, failed to continue to trust in God." [Note: Sailhamer, p. 376.]

God ordered that individuals who were ceremonially unclean should not live within their tribal communities but should reside on the outskirts of the camp during their uncleanness. The reason for this regulation was not any discrimination against these people based on personal inferiority. It was the need to separate the unclean, as long as they were unclean, from the holy God of Israel who dwelt in the center of the camp. The closer one lived to God the greater was his or her need for personal holiness.

"The Rabbis had a saying which has come down to the modern Western world via the preaching of John Wesley and Matthew Henry, ’Cleanliness is next to godliness,’ which catches this suggestion of inseparability." [Note: Riggans, p. 43.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

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.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles