Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 15:32
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
32 36. The penalty for breaking the Sabbath. This section was perhaps placed by the compiler next to the preceding because it relates a signal instance of deliberate transgression.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Moses mentions here, as is his wont (compare Lev 24:10-16), the first open transgression and its punishment in order to exemplify the laws which he is laying down. The offence of Sabbath-breaking was one for which there could be no excuse. This law at least might be observed even in the wilderness. Transgression of it was therefore a presumptuous sin, and was punished accordingly.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Num 15:32-36
A man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath.
Gathering sticks on the Sabbath
An Oriental legend tells us that, while Solomon was once on his way to visit the Queen of Sheba, he came to a valley in which dwelt a peculiar tribe of monkeys. Upon asking about their history, be was informed that they were the descendants of a colony of Jews, who settling in that region years before, had, by habitual neglect of the Sabbath, gradually degenerated to the condition of brutes. The story is, of course, a mere fable, but the moral is worth remembering. The ceremonial part of the Sabbath is done away, so that greater liberty is allowed to us than was given to the Jews. Works of necessity and mercy take precedence even of the regularly appointed duties of the day (Hos 6:6). The moral part is, however, as strongly in force as ever. To have the mind exercised on spiritual subjects, and occupied in advancing the interests of our souls, is an imperative duty. To be guilty of a wilful profanation of the Lords day is–
I. An unreasonable sin. A young man, well off in the world, and an elderly man of business, were riding in a railway carriage together, between London and a country town, when the question of Sunday amusements came up. I maintain that Sunday ought to be a general holiday, said the younger, in a tone which betokened assurance and presumption, and the people ought not to be kept out of such places as the Zoological Gardens and the Crystal Palace grounds. I would have Sunday used for recreation. Recreation! answered the elder, gravely, yes, that is the very word. The Sabbath is meant for recreation, and if people were recreated, they would want very little of the so-called recreation which they now make so much of. The conversation on that subject dropped.
II. A presumptuous sin. The man who was so signally punished, for merely gathering a few sticks on the Sabbath, might have argued that he could only be charged with a very small breach of the Divine law, and that the bundle of faggots was really necessary for his comfort. Such flimsy excuses would be of no avail. His conduct was a decided act of rebellion against God, and he was, in fact, accusing Him with being a hard master, who did not deserve to be obeyed. Those who believe in taking God at His word, cannot doubt that any wilful neglect of His commandments is always followed, sooner or later, by loss! A thrifty merchant remarked to his physician, Had it not been for the rest which I have enjoyed on the Lords Day, I should long ago have been a maniac! Many are the instances of those who have dug their own graves, because they had no Sundays. (J. N. Norton, D. D.)
Obedience tested in the little
This incident has often been quoted as an instance of extreme and intolerable severity, and has been cited against those whose reading of the Scriptures leads them to propose to keep the Sabbath day. The mocker has found quite a little treasure here. The poor man was gathering sticks on the Sabbath day, and he had to forfeit his life for the violation of the law. Had the text read–And a certain man was found in the wilderness openly blaspheming God, and he was stoned to death–we should have had some sense of rest and harmony in the mind : the balance would seem to be complete. But that is the very sophism that is ruining us. We do not see the reality of the case. We think of huge sins; there are none. We think of little sins; there are none. It is the spot that is ruin; it is the one little thing that spoils the universe. Obedience can only be tested by so-called little things. Where one man is called to be a hero on some great scale, ten thousand men are called to be courteous, gentle, patient; where one has the opportunity of being great on the battle-field of a death-bed, all have opportunity of being good in hopefulness, charity, forgiveness, and every grace that belongs to the Cross of Christ; where one has the opportunity of joining a great procession, ten thousand have the opportunity of assisting the aged, helping the blind, speaking a word for the speechless, and putting a donation into the hand of honest poverty. Let us realise the truth of the doctrine that we are not called upon to display our obedience upon a gigantic scale within the theatre of the universe and under the observation of angels–but to go out into the field and work with bent back and willing hands and glad hearts, doing lifes simple duty under Heavens inspiration and encouragement. The man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day might have been quite a great man on festival occasions when all Israel had to be dressed in its best; he might have been one of the foremost of the show. You discover what men are by their secret deeds, by what they do when they suppose nobody is looking, by what they are about when they are suddenly pounced upon. (J. Parker, D. D.)
The Sabbath-breaker and his doom
I. The sin.
1. The transgression of a moral law, which was enforced by the most solemn commands and by the severest penalty.
2. The transgression of this law wilfully.
II. The arrest. The offender was seized in the act of transgression, and taken before the judicial authorities.
III. The consultation. The direction of the Lord is sought as to the mode by which the sentence of death is to be executed upon him.
IV. The sentence. This was determined by the Lord. The transgressor must be put to death (Exo 31:14-15); he must be put to death by stoning (Num 15:35).
V. The execution. And all the congregation brought him without, &c. (Num 15:36). The people were the executioners. This would increase the force of the warning which the event gave to the nation.
Conclusion:
1. The moral element in the law of the Sabbath is of perpetual obligation. We still rest for body and mind; we still need worship for the spirit.
2. The neglecters of religious duties and privileges will do well to take warning. If any man fails to observe religiously the Lords day, he does so at his own loss and peril. (W. Jones.)
Punishment of Sabbath-breaking
1. The perpetration of one particular presumptuous sin, together with its circumstances, as what, where, when, and how. The fact was seemingly but a small matter, namely, gathering a few sticks, &c., and possibly he might pretend some necessity or conveniency to himself thereby, &c., but because really it was done with an high hand, in contempt of God and His law, and a profaning of His holy Sabbath.
2. The punishment for this perpetrated fact of profaning the Sabbath, wherein–
(1) The sinner is apprehended.
(2) Accused.
(3) Imprisoned, because it was not yet known what sentence to pass upon him.
For though the matter of the fact was twice doomed with death (Exo 31:14; Exo 35:2), yet was it not declared what manner of death such a sinner should die. Therefore God is consulted about this, who expressly declareth it (Num 15:35). Besides, though the law be in the rigour of it a killing letter, yet might it admit of some favourable construction from necessity, &c., which might make the offender capable of pardon. So Moses did not rashly doom him; nor ought magistrates be hasty in matters of life and death, as in other cases of an inferior nature. They ought to be wary: God and His Word ought to be consulted.
(4) He was condemned, God Himself passing the sentence that he should be stoned (Num 15:35). This was the heaviest of all the four kinds of death that malefactors suffered in Israel for capital crimes–some were sentenced to be strangled, others to be slain with the sword, some to be burned, and others to be stoned; the two last were undoubtedly the most painful (because longer in dying), and therefore inflicted upon the grossest offenders. Though in mans judgment this might seem too severe a sentence for such a seeming small offence, yet in Gods judgment it is not a light offence to profane the Sabbath by doing needless works upon that holy day. We may well suppose that this sinner (by the connection of Num 15:30 with this relation) sinned presumptuously and with public scandal.
(5) He was executed accordingly, being carried without the camp, which was a circumstance aggravating the punishment, being a kind of reproach, as the apostle noteth (Heb 13:11-13). This was done to the blasphemer before (Lev 24:14). This severity doth likewise farther signify the eternal death of such as do not keep the Sabbath of Christ, entering into the rest of God by faith, and ceasing from their own works as God did from His (Heb 4:1-11), finding rest for the soul in Christ (Mat 11:28). (C. Ness.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 32. They found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath] This was in all likelihood a case of that kind supposed above: the man despised the word of the Lord, and therefore broke his commandment; see Nu 15:31. On this ground he was punished with the utmost rigour of the law.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This seems to be added as an example of a presumptuous sin; for as the law of the sabbath was plain and positive, so this transgression of it must needs be a known and wilful sin.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
32-34. a man that gathered sticksupon the sabbath dayThis incident is evidently narrated as aninstance of presumptuous sin. The mere gathering of sticks was not asinful act and might be necessary for fuel to warm him or to makeready his food. But its being done on the Sabbath altered the entirecharacter of the action. The law of the Sabbath being a plain andpositive commandment, this transgression of it was a known and wilfulsin, and it was marked by several aggravations. For the deed was donewith unblushing boldness in broad daylight, in open defiance of thedivine authorityin flagrant inconsistency with His religiousconnection with Israel, as the covenant-people of God; and it was anapplication to improper purposes of time, which God had consecratedto Himself and the solemn duties of religion. The offender wasbrought before the rulers, who, on hearing the painful report, wereat a loss to determine what ought to be done. That they should havefelt any embarrassment in such a case may seem surprising, in theface of the sabbath law (Ex 31:14).Their difficulty probably arose from this being the first publicoffense of the kind which had occurred; and the appeal might be madeto remove all ground of complaintto produce a more strikingeffect, so that the fate of this criminal might be a beacon to warnall Israelites in the future.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness,…. According to Aben Ezra, in the wilderness of Sinai; for it is a common notion of the Jews, that though this fact is recorded here, yet was committed the first year the Israelites came out of Egypt, quickly after the giving the law of the sabbath: hence Jarchi remarks, that the Scripture speaks of this to the reproach of the Israelites, that they kept only the first sabbath, and on the second this man came and profaned it; but it seems rather to be in the wilderness of Paran where this fact was committed, after the business of the spies and the discomfiture of Israel, and the above laws were given; and stands here in its proper place as an instance of a presumptuous sinner, cut off from his people, according to the above law, which it immediately follows:
they found a man that gathered sticks on the sabbath day; plucking them up by the roots, as the Targum of Jonathan, as stubble and the like; for the word signifies gathering straw or stubble, or such like light things, as Ben Melech observes, and binding them in bundles for fuel; and this was done on the sabbath day, by which it appears that that was to be kept in the wilderness, though the laws before mentioned concerning sacrifices, and the cake of the first dough, were not to be put in execution until Israel came into the land of Canaan; and according to the Targum of Jonathan this man was of the house of Joseph, and in the Talmud y it is expressly said that he was Zelophehad, who was a descendant of Joseph.
y T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 96. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The History of the Sabbath-Breaker is no doubt inserted here as a practical illustration of sinning “with a high hand.” It shows, too, at the same time, how the nation, as a whole, was impressed with the inviolable sanctity of the Lord’s day. From the words with which it is introduced, “ and the children of Israel were in the wilderness, ” all that can be gathered is, that the occurrence took place at the time when Israel was condemned to wander about in the wilderness for forty years. They found a man gathering sticks in the desert on the Sabbath, and brought him as an open transgressor of the law of the Sabbath before Moses and Aaron and the whole congregation, i.e., the college of elders, as the judicial authorities of the congregation (Exo 18:25.). They kept him in custody, like the blasphemer in Lev 24:12, because it had not yet been determined what was to be done to him. It is true that it had already been laid down in Exo 31:14-15, and Exo 35:2, that any breach of the law of the Sabbath should be punished by death and extermination, but the mode had not yet been prescribed. This was done now, and Jehovah commanded stoning (see Lev 20:2), which was executed upon the criminal without delay.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Verses 32-36:
This text is an example of a “presumptuous sin,” and its penalty. The law of the Sabbath was such a vital part of Israel’s national life, and it was so publicized that none could claim ignorance.
The gathering of sticks was in itself no sin. It was likely for the purpose of building a cooking fire. But this was a clearly prohibited activity for the Sabbath day, Ex 20:8-11; 35:1-3.
The man who gathered sticks was arrested and brought before Moses, Aaron, and “all the congregation.” God had given no specific instruction as to the penalty for violating the Sabbath law, so the accused was placed in custody until Moses could determine God’s direction in the matter.
God mandated capital punishment for the Sabbath-breaker. So, the man was taken outside the camp, where he was put to death by stoning, see Le 20:1, 2; 24:13.
“All the congregation” is a figure of speech, referring to chosen representatives who acted on behalf of the entire congregation.
“And he died,” not because of what he had done, but because he had presumptuously defied God’s clear mandate. The man’s death does not imply that he lost his soul’s salvation. He lost his physical life, because of his defiance of God.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
32. And while the children of Israel. Since we know not in what year, or in what month this happened, it appeared that nothing would be better than to follow the context of Moses. This history shows that the Israelites were not always affected by the same degree of madness, so as to be rebellious against God; since in this instance their moderation is no less manifested than the fervency of their pious zeal. But as one swallow does not make spring, so we shall form an incorrect judgment of men’s whole lives from one noble action. The transgressor of the law is brought to Moses and Aaron, whose authority retains the whole people in the path of duty. Their humility is also worthy of praise, in that they quietly wait for the decision of God; and finally, must be added, their energy in executing the punishment as soon as God has declared the sentence. You would say that in every point they were rightly conformed to the rules of piety; but, since the most trifling occasion immediately led them astray, their hypocrisy was discovered by this great levity of conduct.
This, however, is the sum of the history, that by the death of one man the obligation of the Sabbath was sanctioned, so that it might henceforth be held in greater reverence. It might indeed be the case that these men, who brought the transgressor of the Sabbath, were careless in other matters, and, as is usual with hypocrites, were excessively rigid in their assertion of the claims of an outward ceremony. From the punishment, however, we may infer that the criminal himself had not erred through inadvertence, but in gross contempt of the Law, so as to think nothing of subverting and corrupting all things sacred. Sometimes, indeed, God has severely avenged inconsideration in the pollution of holy things; but it is probable that He would not have commanded this man to be stoned, unless he had been convicted of willful crime. Moreover, by this severity God testified how much stress He laid upon the observance of the Sabbath. The reason of this has been elsewhere set forth, (84) viz., that by this mark and symbol He had separated His chosen people from heathen nations. Whence also arose the main reproach against the Jews, when they were called Sabbatarians. (85)
But it must be borne in mind that the worship of God was not to consist in mere idleness and festivity; and therefore that what God enjoined respecting the seventh day had another object: not only that they should then employ themselves in meditating upon His works, but that, renouncing themselves and their own works, they should live unto God.
Furthermore, this case shows us in general that the magistracy is appointed no less for the maintenance of the First Table, than the Second; so that, if they inflict punishment upon murder, adultery, and theft, they should also vindicate the worship of God: for it is to be observed that the man was not stoned by a mere unreflecting impulse, but by the direct command of God. They knew, indeed, what he had deserved before God’s tribunal; but, since no political law had been given on this head, Moses was unwilling to come to any decision except by the authority of God.
(84) Vol. 2, p 434.
(85) Martial, lib. 4, epigr. 4, speaks of “jejunia Sabbatariorum,” in a connection which makes it highly probable that it was a kind of nickname for the Jews.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
B. STONING OF THE SABBATH-BREAKER vv. 3236
TEXT
Num. 15:32. And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 34. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. 35. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. 36. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.
PARAPHRASE
Num. 15:32. Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. 3 3. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34. And they held him in custody, since it had not been told what should be done to him. 35. And the Lord said to Moses, The man shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp. 36. And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones just as the Lord had commanded Moses.
COMMENTARY
Following immediately upon the law distinguishing between unwitting and deliberate sins, the brief account of the Sabbath-breaker may well be introduced as an exemplum, as well as a concrete reference for future cases in which labor on the Sabbath might require judgment. The man appears to be acting presumptuously rather than in ignorance of the law. Much of the discussion upon the incident, especially that of liberal scholarship, purports to find a basic contradiction between the statement here that it was not declared what should be done to him, (Num. 15:34), and the clear teaching of Exo. 31:14 ff; Exo. 35:2that Sabbath-breaking is a capital offenseoverlooks a basic point. Labor on the Sabbath clearly is such an offense; but, is gathering sticks considered labor, or is it an excusable necessity under the circumstances? Gods answer is quick and decisive: the man had broken the law, and must suffer the consequences previously prescribed. He is stoned by the congregation to his death.
The incident offends certain modern minds which find the death penalty horrendous under any or all circumstances. They are especially disturbed that death should come upon an individual for such an apparently trivial reason. Where such an attitude can be found, it is evidence of a more deeply seated reaction against the sovereign right of God to prescribe laws and govern human conduct by standards which do not rest upon human reasoning. Much more than our present age, the Israelites were taught from infancy to recognize the holiness of the Lord. Since His laws were nothing less than the extension of His will and His person into the ideal human society, they were always justifiable, always above question. Such conclusions were inevitable and essential in a truly theocratic system.
Stoning without the camp preserved the undefiled nature of the camp. In no manner were the people to be held accountable for the presumptuous mans sins; they were to be totally dissociated from both the living violator and the dead victim of the law of God.
QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH ITEMS
284.
Upon what grounds can we justify the death sentence for this apparently trivial offense?
285.
What point of the Law needed clarification before the mans fate could be decided?
286.
Why should the congregation participate in execution of the sentence?
287.
What important fact is impressed upon us regarding the Sabbath in the incident?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(32) And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness . . . Better, Now the children of Israel were in the wilderness, and they found, &c. It is probable that the incident which is here recorded is designed to illustrate the presumptuous sins which were to be punished by death. The offence may have been committed shortly after the promulgation of the commandments contained in this chapter, but all that is certain is that it was committed in the wilderness, i.e., according to Ibn Ezra, in the wilderness of Sinai, but more probably during the period of the wanderings in the wilderness after the arrival at Kadesh. No inference can be drawn from this verse as to the time at which the account was committed to writing. The observance of the Sabbath was obligatory in the wilderness as well as in the land of Canaan (comp. Exo. 16:27-30), and the punishment of death had already been denounced against those who profaned it by doing any work thereon (see Exo. 31:15; Exo. 35:2), but the manner in which death was to be inflicted does not appear to have been hitherto declared. The same verb which is here rendered declared occurs in the parallel case of the blasphemer in Lev. 24:12, where it is rendered shewed:And they put him in ward, that the mind of the Lord might be shewed them. The punishment of death had already been denounced against those who cursed father or mother (Lev. 20:9). It could hardly be thought that a lighter punishment was to be inflicted on one who blasphemed the name of Jehovah, but in that case, as in this, the mode of death does not appear to have been previously enjoined.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
32. While in the wilderness This is one of Colenso’s texts for disproving the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. But his argument is not conclusive, since Moses was with Israel several months after leaving the wilderness in Edom and on the plains of Moab. Deu 32:48. See map.
A man that gathered sticks It is evident from the mention of this violation of the sabbath in immediate connexion with the foregoing high-handed sin that it is intended as an instance of this kind of offence. It was a man and not a child. In the sabbatic stillness of the camp he could not have been ignorant of the sacredness of the day. The act was not one of mercy or of necessity, such as the case of hunger, (Luk 6:1-4,) but of gross impiety against the supreme moral Governor and of rebellion against the theocratic King. The sabbath being a positive as well as a moral institution is well adapted to call out that opposition to God’s authority which regards his commands as unreasonable, and hostile to human happiness. No other one of the precepts or prohibitions of the decalogue affords so high a test of obedience to Jehovah’s authority, from the fact that the moral element in it which finds a response in the conscience and reason of men is not observable, being overshadowed by the positive element the divine authority.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Sabbath-Breaker Stoned.
v. 32. And while the children of Israel were in trie wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath-day. v. 33. And they that found him gathering sticks, v. 34. And they put him in ward, v. 35. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp, v. 36. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died, as the Lord commanded Moses.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
THE SABBATH–BREAKER (Num 15:32-36).
Num 15:32
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness. It is maintained by some that these words were intended to mark the contrast between the previous laws, which were only to be observed when the people came into their own land, and the law of the sabbath, which was strictly enforced during the period of wandering. There is no doubt that such a distinction existed in fact, but there is no reason to find the intentional assertion of it in this expression. The simpler and more natural, and therefore more probable, explanation is, that the incident was recorded after the people had left the wilderness. At the same time, there is nothing unreasonable in ascribing the narrative to Moses himself if we suppose him to have written it at the end of his life, when the people were encamped in the steppes of Moab. It seems probable that the record of the incident was inserted here as an example of a “presumptuous” sin, and of its punishment. A man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. This was clearly presumptuous, because the prohibition to do any work for oneself on the sabbath had been made so clear, and was so constantly forced upon their attention by the failure of the manna on that day, that ignorance could not possibly be pleaded here.
Num 15:33
Unto all the congregation, i.e; unto the council of elders, who were the congregation by representation (see on Exo 18:25, Exo 18:26).
Num 15:34
They put him in ward, (cf. Le Num 24:12), because it was not declared what should be done to him. This is perplexing, because the punishment of death had been decreed in Exo 31:14, Exo 31:15, and Exo 35:2. It seems an evasion to say that although death had been decreed, the mode of death had not been fixed; for
(1) it was clearly part of the Divine answer that the offence was really capital (see Exo 35:35 a), and
(2) it was understood that in such cases death was to be inflicted by stoning (see Le Exo 20:2; Exo 24:14; Jos 7:25; in the last case the command was to bum the delinquents with fire, yet it was rightly taken for granted that they were to be stoned to death first). There are only two explanations which are satisfactory because they are honest.
1. The incident may possibly have occurred between the first institution of the sabbath (Exo 16:23, Exo 16:29) and the decree of death to those that broke it. There is nothing in the record as it stands here to contradict such an assumption.
2. It is more likely that it occurred after the departure from Sinai, and that the hesitation in dealing with the criminal was duo not to any real uncertainty as to the law, but to unwillingness to inflict so extreme and so (apparently) disproportioned a punishment for such an offence without a further appeal. If it be said that such unwillingness to carry out a plain command would have been sinful, it is sufficient to answer that Moses and Aaron and the elders were human beings, and must have shrunk from visiting with a cruel death the trivial breach of a purely arbitrary commandment.
Num 15:35
Without the camp. That it might not be defiled (cf. Act 7:58, and Heb 13:12).
Num 15:36
And he died. He was killed not for what he did, but for doing it presumptuously, in deliberate defiance of what he knew to be the will of God. If the covenant relation was to be maintained between God and Israel, the observance of the sabbath, which was an integral part of that covenant, must be enforced, and he who willfully violated it must be cut off; and this consideration was of exceptional force in this case, as the first which had occurred, and as the one, therefore, which would govern all the rest (cf. Act 5:5, Act 5:10). On the punishment of stoning see Le Num 20:2; Num 24:14; Act 7:58.
HOMILETICS
Num 15:32-36
THE SABBATH OF GOD
We have here a record which is both valuable in itself as revealing the mind of God, and also valuable indirectly as revealing the mind of man. The perversity of human nature, and the extreme subtleness of superstition, are remarkably exemplified in the popular treatment of this record. It has indeed made a deep impression upon men, but that impression has been almost wholly false, and has simply led to superstition. The story of the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath appears in every Christian age, and every Christian land; but in all cases it is the act itself which is regarded as being so awful and so fearfully avenged. Yet even under the law the act itself was lawful in the priests, as our Lord points out (Mat 12:5), for the temple fire was supplied with wood; and under the gospel the law of the Sabbath, so far as it was outward and arbitrary, was totally repealed: it passed away like a shadow, leaving us face to face with the substance, the reality which it had obscuredviz; the eternal rest from sin and self which belongs to the kingdom of heaven (Rom 14:5; Gal 4:10; Col 2:16; Heb 4:9, Heb 4:10). We keep indeed the Lord’s day because as a fact it has been kept from the first, and no one has a right to ignore the universal custom of Christians; but our Sabbath is a spiritual one, for it is that ceasing from our own works by virtue of unselfishness and self-devotion which, as it is the secret of “rest” in this life, so it will be the essence of “rest” in the life to come. It follows that the popular use of this story to enforce the outward observance of a legal Sabbath is simply and purely superstitious, and directly antagonistic to its true teaching. Consider therefore
I. THAT WHILE ALMOST ALL OTHER ORDINANCES, EVEN CIRCUMCISION AND THE PASSOVER, FELL INTO DISUSE, THE SABBATH REMAINED FIXED, INVIOLABLE, AND ETERNAL. Even so while all outward things may change, while even sacraments themselves might fail, the true Sabbath of the soul can never alter, never cease to be observed and sought. To cease from our own works by a true unselfishness; to live for others by an active love; to find our rest in contemplating good and rejoicing in it; that is to rest from our labours as God did from his, and that is the law of the holy Sabbath which can never be altered. As long as God is God, and man is man, God can only set to us, and we can only set to ourselves, this law as the law of all laws to be observed for ever.
II. THAT THE VIOLATION OF THE SABBATH–LAW WAS NOT PARDONABLE. The sentence of death was confirmed, on special appeal, by God himself. Even so whatever directly violates the law of rest, and so destroys that rest, is fatal and deadly to the soul. For as this rest is the end of all religion, and is to be heaven itself, that which directly militates against it (and that is in the deepest sense selfishness) has never forgiveness, can never be overlooked or suffered to continue.
III. THAT THE ESSENCE OF THE MAN‘S CRIME WAS NOT THAT HE GATHERED STICKS ON THE SABBATH, BUT THAT HE GATHERED THEM FOR HIMSELF. For the priests were guiltless, cleaving wood for the altar on the Sabbath; and though the Jews to this day will not make a fire on the Sabbath even to save a man’s life, yet it is certain that our Lord would have commended it, and that from an Old Testament point of view. Even so the essence of all sin, and the cause of all wrath, is selfishness. Selfishness is the real and only Sabbath-breaker, because it alone disturbs that Divine rest which stands in conformity to the will of God (see on Gal 2:20; Col 3:3; 1Jn 3:21, 1Jn 3:22, &c.).
IV. THAT THE DOOM OF THE SABBATH–BREAKER WAS STONINGA PUNISHMENT INFLICTED BY ALL, AND EXPRESSIVE OF UNIVERSAL CONDEMNATION. Even so the true punishment of sin is that it arrays against us both God and all good and holy beings. A selfish person would find neither sympathy nor allowance in heaven: his soul would fall crushed beneath the weight of silent disapproval and unintended reproach. And so the only way to war against a sin of selfishness upon earth is to enlist the sympathies of all good people against it.
V. THAT THE END OF THE SABBATH–BREAKER WAS DEATH, ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY EXECUTED. Even so spiritual death is the certain end of selfishness. Amidst the uncertainties of time indeed that death appears to be postponed; selfishness is quite consistent with some amount of religion. But the sentence of death against it is plain and irrevocable, and it will surely be carried out (Mat 10:38, Mat 10:39; Mat 16:25; Luk 12:21; Rom 8:6; Php 2:4, Php 2:5, Php 2:21).
HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG
Num 15:30-36
THE DOOM OF THE PRESUMPTUOUS ILLUSTRATED BY THAT OF THE SABBATH- BREAKER
Disobedience to the commands of God is ranged under two classes. First, that which has just been considered, disobedience through ignorance; secondly, disobedience from presumption, a bold, conscious, reckless defiance of God and following out of the promptings of self. God indicates that such conduct must be met in a corresponding way. “That soul shall be cut off from among his people, utterly cut off.” Notice that while God supposed the case of the whole people sinning ignorantly, he does not make a similar supposition with regard to presumptuous sin. Unanimity in an open and deliberate defiance of God seems to be impossible. It is only too possible, however, that single men should be guilty in this matter, and an illustration of presumptuous sin, from actual life, immediately follows. The people were to be left without excuse for saying that they were in any doubt as to this dangerous sin. Where death was the punishment, the offence could not be too clearly indicated. Let us consider then the doom of the presumptuous sinner, as illustrated by that of the Sabbath-breaker.
I. THE COMMANDMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SABBATH HAD BEEN PUT IN PECULIAR PROMINENCE. It stands among those ten solemn announcements of God’s will, with respect to which we may say that all other commandments existed for them. Surely to sin against any of these was to sin presumptuously. It is reckoned the business of all men to know all the laws under which they liveignorance is not allowed for a plea,but with respect to the ten commandments, special means had been taken to impress them on the minds and memories of the people. Even before the fourth commandment had been formally announced, the double provision of manna on the sixth day had helped to give a peculiar significance to the seventh. So it may be said, if we are disobedient in respect of those requirements mentioned repeatedly and held out prominently by Christ and his apostles, we are sinning presumptuously. Who can deny that continued unbelief in the face of pressing requirements for faith is a presumptuous sin? Who can deny that where love and unselfish service are kept back from God and men there is presumptuous sin? Such sins persisted in, against all light, instruction, warning, and appeal, will end in a cutting off from the people, a terrible exclusion from all those gracious rewards which come to the faithful and obedient. Presumptuous sins strike at the very foundation of the throne of God.
II. THERE WAS EVERYTHING TO CALL THE ATTENTION OF THIS TRANSGRESSOR IN THE FACT THAT OTHERS WERE KEEPING THE SABBATH. None could come into the Israelite camp and mistake the Sabbath for some other day, just as none could enter an English town on the day of rest and mistake it for a working day. When the man went out gathering sticks, there was something fresh at every step he took to remind him that he was transgressing a commandment of God; a dozen steps from his own door was enough for this. He went into sin with his eyes open and his selfish will determined to disobey God. Thus also there is presumptuous sin in despising those requirements of Christ which are not only plainly and repeatedly stated by him and his apostles, but carded out, from a sincere heart, in the daily practice of many who rejoice to call themselves his servants. Every Christian who by his life and the results of it shows that in his judgment certain requirements of Christ are all important, becomes thereby a witness to convict others of presumptuous sin. To act on the principle that faith in Christ is not absolutely necessary to salvation, righteousness, and eternal life, is to run counter to the life and emphatic confession of many in all generations of the Christian era. Every life in which Christ is manifested ruling and guiding is a fresh repetition of his great requirements, a fresh evidence of presumptuous sin on the part of those who neglect these requirements.
III. THE SIN APPEARS ALL THE GREATER FROM THE ACT ITSELF BEING SO TRIFLING. The first thought of many on reading the narrative may be, “What severity for such a little offense!” But the more it is looked at the greater the offence appears. There would have been more to say for the man if the temptation had come from some great thing. If a fortune or a kingdom had been in question, then there would have been some plausibly sufficient motive for a great transgression; but to break such a commandment, to run counter to the conduct of the whole camp for a handful of sticks, does it not show how proud-hearted the man was, how utterly careless of all and any of God’s regulations? Such a man would have turned to idolatry and profanity on the one hand, or to theft and even murder on the other, at very slight provocation. It was a little thing for Esau to crave a mess of pottage, but it deservedly lost him his birthright when he valued it so little. Thus have men sinned against their Saviour for the paltriest trifles. Peter moves our sympathy when he denies Jesus, for life is dear when closely threatened, and we consider ourselves lest we also he tempted; but when Judas sells his master, and such a master, for thirty pieces of silver, how abominable the act appears! Yet men are constantly turning from Jesus on considerations as paltry and sordid. They will not be religious, because such continual carefulness is required in little things. This man sinned a great and daring sin against God; he was dragged in shame before the whole congregation, and then stoned outside the camp. And what had he by way of set-off? A few sticks. If it was a little thing to do, it was just as little a thing to be left undone. Small as it was, it showed the state of the man’s heart, that corroding and hopeless leprosy within, which left no other course but to cut him off from the people.
IV. THUS WE ARRIVE AT THE FULL MEASURE OF THE MAN‘S INSULT TO THE MAJESTY OF GOD. We see in what way he reproaches the Lord and despises his word. If this man had gone before Moses, when with the tables in his hands he came fresh from Sinai, and if he had heaped contumely on the messenger, and spat upon the tables, he could not have done more then to show contempt than he did by the gathering of those few sticks on the day which God had claimed for his own. Human governments, with all their imperfections, look upon deliberate defiance of their authority as a thing to be punished severely; what, then, must be done where there is a deliberate defiance of the authority of God? A terrible doom awaits those who despise and ridicule God’s ordinances of right and wrong. Though it may not be swift and sudden, it will assuredly be certain and complete. Those who mourn their inability to keep the law of God are separated in his sight from those who contemn that law, far as the east is from the west. Be it ours to feel with David, “rivers of waters run down my eyes, because they keep not thy law” (Psa 119:136), and not as the fool who says in his heart, There is no God (Psa 53:1; Psa 19:12-14).Y.
Num 15:30-32
THE LAW OF THE SABBATH: A SOLEMN VINDICATION
I. THIS DOOM OF DEATH SHOWS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SABBATH IN THE SIGHT OF GOD.
1. There was need of something special to call attention to this point. Those commandments which concerned himself directly he had to fence in a special way. Commandments against filial impiety, murder, adultery, theft, false witness, covetousness, these concerned man directly, and through him they concerned God; man, therefore, might be trusted to help in vindicating these commands. But those against polytheism, idolatry, profanity, and Sabbath-breaking concerned God directly and man only indirectly. Man, therefore, might not perceive the hurt, even though it was real and most serious. Thus it became needful for God to deal in a specially stern and impressive way with the Sabbath-breaker. His people must be made to perceive and bear in mind that he meant the seventh day to be a holy day. It was as much sacrilege to spend it in common occupations as it was to defile the ark in the holy place.
2. There was need to arrest the attention of such as kept the Sabbath in a negative rather than a positive way. God gave the Sabbath, not for idleness, but for that most valuable of all rest which is gained in quiet, undisturbed communion with God, and meditation on all his wonderful works. Those who employed the Sabbath in solemn and devout approaches to the God of the covenant were delivered from temptation to break the Sabbath. Filled with the fullness of God, there would be no room for base, transgressing thoughts. But no commandment could bring the unwilling heart to God. It might do something to keep the work of the common day away from the hands; it could do nothing to keep the thoughts of the common day out of the heart. The heart was to be sought; it could not be forced, being in its nature beyond force. Many, therefore, would keep the day negatively, in utter idleness, and this idleness itself tended to disobedience. The doing of little things would seem practically the same as doing nothing. So men had to be taught, by terrible examples, not to trifle with holy things. If a man thoughtlessly touches things dangerous to physical life, his thoughtlessness will not deliver him from fatal consequences. If a man sports with poisons, or moves carelessly among machinery, he is very likely to lose his life; so men who trifled with the Sabbath were in great peril. Safety, progress, approval, blessedness, were for those who obeyed from the heart. But those who through heedlessness of the heart disobeyed with the hand had no right to complain when death outside the camp awaited them.
II. THIS SOLEMN VINDICATION HAS AN IMPORTANT BEARING ON THE CHRISTIAN DAY OF REST. This is not the place to take up even a fragment of the interminable discussion on the obligation of the Sabbath. But is not the very fact of such a discussion evidence that the lapse of the obligation is by no means a tiring clearly and easily to be seen?
1. This solemn vindication hints to us that it is a prudent thing to be on the safe side. Thus we may both escape great dangers and secure great blessings. To spend the day of rest just as we please is a claim, not of conscience, but of self-will. It cannot be pretended that ceasing from work one day in seven is a hurt to one’s self or to the world. Practically, all Christians confess the need of a day of rest. If God so blessed one day in seven to those who knew him as he might be known in the obscurities and distances of the Jewish economy, is it not reasonable to expect that in the fuller light and nearer approach of God in Christ Jesus, a seventh day of rest, rightly used, may be the means of the greatest blessing. We are now under the perfect law of liberty; and because it is a law of liberty it is all the more a law to the liberated soul. We use not our liberty for an occasion to the flesh; we ought to use it for an occasion to the Spirit. God blessed and hallowed the seventh day, because in it he rested from his work of creation. What a propriety then in keeping the first day of the week, as that in which the Christian’s Master rested from temptation, toil, and his victorious struggle with death and Hades!
2. This solemn vindication should make us considerate of all who are called by the ugly name of Sabbatarian. No doubt with regard to the Sabbath there has been much of bigotry, ignorance, and of melancholy misinterpretations of the Scripture; but the weak brother who reads this narrative of the Sabbath-breaker’s doom may well be excused if to stronger minds he seems ridiculously precise. Christ will deal with us as severely as his Father dealt with the Sabbath-breaker if we make one of his little ones to offend. It is necessary above all things to be safe. We must not confound the scrupulosity of the weak with the scrupulosity of the Pharisee. That, indeed, is always abominableattending to little external things, and neglecting the weightier matters of the law. God’s service, after all, whether on week day or Sunday, consists in the things we do rather than in those we refrain from doing. God, we may be sure, will take care that the day of rest is not narrowed out of harmony with the liberty of the gospel. As there were matters of necessity provided for under the law, so there is like provision under the gospel. A man of right spirit will not misinterpret the necessities. Jeremiah Horrocks, the young clergyman who first observed the transit of Venus, is said to have made his discovery on the Lord’s Day, without allowing it in the least to interfere with his duties in the church. One of the most important principles of his steam-engine flashed into the mind of Watt as he was walking along Glasgow Green one Sunday morning. And it was one Sunday morning that Carey, entering his pulpit in India, received the new regulation prohibiting suttee. He at once sent for his pundit, and completed the translation into Bengalee before night.Y.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Num 15:32. And while the children of Israel, &c. The following case of the sabbath-breaker seems evidently to be inserted as an instance of that presumptuous manner of sinning spoken of in the preceding verses: in which view, the passages mutually illustrate each other; and, to mark the connection more strongly, the present verse might be better rendered thus, now, [or accordingly] while the children of Israel were in [that part of] the wilderness, &c. This man’s crime was, certainly, not that of merely gathering a few sticks on the sabbath-day, but of doing it in a presumptuous manner, in open contempt of the law of the sabbath, and of his authority who had instituted that law.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
SECOND SECTION
The Sabbath-breaker. Re-enforcement of the Law of the Sabbath, and of the Law in General
Num 15:32-41
32And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33And they that found him gathering sticks 34brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they 35put him in ward, because it was not 24declared what should be done to him. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. 36And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.
37And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 38Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them 25fringes in the 26borders of their garments, throughout their generations, and that they put upon the bfringe of the cborders a 27ribband of blue: 39And it shall be unto you for a bfringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring: 40That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy 41unto your God. I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the Lord your God.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
This section expressly says that the children of Israel were in the wilderness at the time the event happened, i.e. that it belongs to the sojourn of thirty-eight years in Kadesh. But the story also proves how strictly they insisted on the law of the Sabbath. The dispersion of the tents in the desert could in many ways make the violation of the laws of the Sabbath an easy matter. Notwithstanding, the man was detected that gathered wood (for fagots), and was put in confinement. The story of the Sabbath-breaker is a companion-piece to that of the blasphemer (Leviticus 24). It serves as a corroboration of a chief requirement of the law, just as that does. But in this case they were not yet clear about the degree of the punishment. When he was brought before Moses, Aaron and the congregation, that is, the authorities, the college of elders appointed as judges, there was as yet no definition how he should suffer capital punishment. Their not proceeding at once to extremities, to the solemn act of stoning, seems to rest on the consideration that this transgression against the Sabbath might perhaps be a lesser guilt than blasphemy. It characterizes the prudence with which Moses and the college of judges proceed. They put him in confinement (perhaps for a considerable time, ). It was not yet expressly determined. is a word which, as in Lev 24:12, has a sacred sense, quite in contrast with that by which the Pharisees, at a later period, called themselves. Moses had to seek for the decision of Jehovah. That decision in this case, also, called for stoning outside of the camp, in which the congregation was to participate, because here, too, the whole congregation was involved in the guilt.
[It is a generally accepted view that the incident of the Sabbath-breaker is introduced here as an illustration of presumptuous sin, as Dr. Lange intimates above, 5. The same connection also offers a natural explanation of the judicial proceeding in the case. It was not determined what one should do to him, is indefinite, and may either refer to the judges, or to the revelation of God in regard to such cases. The latter is the common view. (See in the London Polyglot all interpretations except the LXX. and Vulg. Yet they may not have independent value; but all, in this case, may perhaps only follow the lead of the Aramaic Paraphrase.) But the former seems quite as natural. The phrase seems to say: They let him rest in custody, for one did not determine what one should do to him. LXX.: . Vulg.: nescientes quid super eo facere deberent. The LXX. and Vulg., in the parallel passage, refer to the same subject, viz. the judges. The context suggests the ground of their indecision. The ordinances just given, including expiations for sins, Num 15:1-29, were made for the time when ye be come into the land which I give unto you, Num 15:2; Num 15:18. Regarding presumptuous sins, therefore (Num 15:30-31), it might be supposed that the penalty was only to be visited under the same conditions, viz. when they were settled in Canaan. It was likely this that divided the judges. The question was whether under present circumstances such a sinner was to be capitally punished. It had already been declared that death was to be the penalty (Exo 31:14-15; Exo 35:2).
Dr. Langes notion that the doubt was whether Sabbath-breaking might not be less criminal than blasphemy is quite untenable. The same may be said of the view that he shares with others, viz. that the judges were in doubt about the form of the death-penalty. Stoning was the common way of inflicting death (Exo 17:4; Num 14:10), and had already received divine sanction as the proper mode of doing it in the case of both man and beast (Exo 19:13; Exo 21:28). The point of the divine answer to Moses was, that the crime was then and there to be punished by death, as appears from the emphatic words that sum up the transaction: and he died, as the Lord commanded Moses(Num 15:36).
This episode begins with the words: And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness. This is properly introduced here to contrast the ordinance of the Sabbath given some time ago (Exo 31:14) with the series of ordinances first given in this chapter. The latter were not obligatory until after the settlement in Canaan; the former was obligatory already. Transgression of it was therefore a presumptuous sin, and was punished accordingly. The Bible Comm. This fact has its importance in determining the place of the law of the Sabbath among the Old Testament ordinances. It was unconditioned, as was also the law against blasphemy. It was in force and enforced when ceremonial laws were not. It was before symbolical ordinances, and it continues after them. Its observance or violation involved all that was vital in religion, for it involved the very question of loyalty to God, as did the law about blasphemy. And it involves the same now.Tr.]
This occurrence has, as its consequence, an enforcement of the law in an increased degree, and in a symbolical form. But as, at a later period, the Pharisees with their misapplied the law concerning blasphemy and the violation of the Sabbath to the condemnation of Christ, so, too, the following ordinance was made to serve Pharisaic hypocrisy (Mat 23:5).
Num 15:37-41. Henceforth the Israelites were to wear memorials of the law on their garments. The ordinance is supplemented in Deu 22:12. The zizith (from , ornament, bloom, curl, to consist, according to Deut., of twisted cords, as ), as a tassel, is, so to speak, the blossom of the garments. According to Deut., it is fastened at the side of the upper garment, and that with a cord of blue purple. The meaning of it might be, that by the band of fidelity the law should remain for the Israelite a flower of life, an ornament. Thus, then, it was no longer the priestly garments only that had a symbolical meaning, but also the clothing of every Israelitea contrast with the wearing finery of the fashions, that is made by tailors and women of the poetry of vanity. Still this symbol also was perverted by the later spirit of legalism into a means of self-righteousness. Probably at quite an early period this ornament was supplemented by a particular border or seam on the upper garment (LXX. ). See on Mat 23:5. The downward look, directed toward these signs of the law, was to counteract the danger of distracted wandering of the senses and of the lust of the eyes. Very significant is the expression: a whoring after the eyes, and spying about according to the heart, the lusts of the heart. In conclusion, the final object of this ordinance is strongly emphasized. They are not, by their hearts lusts and the vagaries of their eyes, to be ensnared in idolatrous lust of the world. And they are not thereby to forget that Jehovah is the Redeemer and Lord; as the highest Personality, He is the Protector of their personality which is elevated above the world. The conclusion may be taken to mean: I am your Divinity; ye shall, therefore, make no divinities for yourselves of the things of the world.
HOMILETICAL HINTS
The repetition of the law of sacrifice in the wilderness, a kingdom of grace, a sign of promise, a sign of continued training. The difference between sins of infirmity and of outrage with uplifted hand (of wickedness). The Sabbath-breaker. The outward mementoes of the law: their use; their danger (see Matthew 23).
Footnotes:
[24](Luther: expressed; De Wette, Zunz: decided; Bunsen: no declaration.)
[25]tassels.
[26]tips.
[27]cord.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
DISCOURSE: 160
THE SABBATH-BREAKER STONED
Num 15:32-36. And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath-day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation: and they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.
IN great communities, instances of flagrant transgression will occur; nor can any mercies or judgments from God prevent them. Nothing but divine grace can keep individuals in the path of duty. The presumption of those, who, in opposition to the divine command, had gone up to the hill-top to engage the Canaanites, had been severely punished: and though God had since given instructions respecting the particular offerings which should at a future period be presented for sins of ignorance, he had expressly declared, that presumptuous sins should be punished with death; and that no offering whatever should be accepted for them [Note: ver. 30, 31.]. Yet, behold, scarcely had this declaration been given, before a man was found profaning the Sabbath-day: for which offence he was made a signal monument of divine vengeance.
His crime and punishment, which are specified in the text, lead us to notice the guilt and danger of profaning the Sabbath. Let us consider,
I.
The guilt
According to the estimate of mankind in general, the profanation of the Sabbath is but a slight offence: but, in fact, it is a very heinous sin. It is,
1.
An unreasonable sin
[Consider who it is that requires the observation of the Sabbath. It is that God who made us, and endowed us with all our faculties, and upholds us every moment, maintaining our souls in life, and providing every thing for our support and comfort. And is this the Being to whom we grudge that small portion of time which he requires? But further, this gracious God has so loved us as to give his only-begotten Son to die for us and shall we think it hard to consecrate one day in the week to him?
Consider next, what portion of our time it is that he requires. If it had pleased him, he might have given us one day for our bodily concerns, and reserved six for himself: and whatever difficulties such an arrangement had occasioned, it would have been our duty cheerfully to obey his will. But the reverse of this is the proportion that he requires: Six days, says he, shalt thou labour; and the seventh day shalt thou keep holy. What base ingratitude then is it to grudge him such a portion of our time as this!
But consider further, for whose sake it is that he requires it. He wants it not for himself: he is not benefited by it: he enjoined the observance of the Sabbath purely for our sakes: he knew that without some appointment for periodical returns of sacred rest, we should soon become so immersed in worldly cares, as utterly to forget our eternal interests; and therefore he fixed such a portion of our time as to his unerring wisdom appeared best, in order that we might be compelled to seek our own truest happiness. This is what he himself tells us; The Sabbath was made for man [Note: Mar 2:27.]. Shall we then, for whose benefit that day was set apart, refuse to consecrate it to the Lord, according to his appointment?
Let but these considerations be weighed, and it will appear a most unreasonable thing to trespass upon that time for temporal pursuits, which God has so mercifully set apart for the concerns of our souls.]
2.
A presumptuous sin
[It is particularly in this view that the context leads us to consider it. God had enjoined the observance of the Sabbath in an audible voice from Mount Sinai [Note: Exo 20:8-11.]; and had afterwards repeatedly commanded that every person who should profane that day by any kind of earthly employment, even the baking of his food, or the lighting of a fire, should be cut off from among his people [Note: Exo 31:14-15; Exo 35:2-3. See also Exo 16:23; Exo 16:29.]. Now it was in direct opposition to all these commands that the man of whom we are speaking presumed to gather sticks. He might be ready to excuse himself perhaps by saying, that this was but a small breach of the Sabbath, and the sticks were necessary for his comfort: but these were no excuses: his conduct was a decided act of rebellion against God; and it is manifest that both Moses and God himself regarded it in that light: it was therefore a presumptuous sin, and consequently, as the Scripture expresses it, a reproaching of God himself as a hard master that was unfit to be obeyed [Note: ver. 30, 31.].
Such is every violation of the Sabbath amongst us. It is clear we are not ignorant of his commands respecting that holy day; and what we do, we do in direct opposition to his will: we reproach him for exacting of us what he had no right to demand, and we are under no obligation to grant. Let the profaners of the Sabbath regard their conduct in this view, and they will need nothing further to convince them of their guilt.]
Having noticed the guilt of profaning the Sabbath, let us consider,
II.
The danger
[Wherein can this be painted more strongly than in the text? The very sight of this sinful act created instant and universal alarm: and, as Moses did not know in what way it was to be punished, he sought instructions from God himself. Behold now the answer of Almighty God; of him, whose wisdom is unerring, whose justice is most pure, whose mercy is infinite: his answer is, The man shall surely be put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones that he die: and let this be done without the camp, that he may be marked as an accursed sinner, that is separated from me, and shall have no part with my people.
Had the offender been cautioned respecting the consequences of such an act, it is probable that he would have laughed at the idea, or, as the Scripture expresses it, would have puffed at it. So it is with men at this day: they will not be convinced that there is any danger in what they are pleased to call light sins: but there is a day coming when they will find to their cost, that no sin is light, and least of all is presumptuous sin to be so accounted.
If any thing more were needful to evince the danger of violating the Sabbath, we might mention, that this sin is particularly specified, as a very principal occasion of bringing down all those judgments, with which the Jews were visited at the time of their captivity in Babylon. Nehemiah, after the return of the Jews from Babylon, found, that the Sabbath was still shamefully profaned amongst them. To remedy this evil, he exerted all his authority, and expostulated with them in the most energetic manner: Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the Sabbath-day? Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us and upon our city? Yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath [Note: Neh 13:17-18.].
Surely then, if such was the issue to the individual that led the way, and such the consequence to the whole nation, when it had followed the example, it will be madness in us to make light of this offence. We may, it is true, escape the judgments of God in this world; (though it is surprising how often they overtake the profaners of the Sabbath;) but we shall certainly not escape them in the world to come.]
Let me then propose this subject to you as an occasion,
1.
For deep humiliation
[We are apt to think highly of our nation in comparison of the Jewish people: but, if we compare ourselves with them at the period when the events mentioned in our text occurred, we shall see no great reason to boast. Among the Jews there was found but one person in the whole nation that dared to profane the Sabbath: amongst us there is scarcely one in a hundred that does not profane it. Amongst them it was profaned only by gathering a few sticks: amongst us, in every way that can be conceived: it is a day of business or of pleasure to all ranks and orders of men [Note: Shops open, &c. &c.] Amongst them, this solitary instance created universal indignation: the spectators instantly communicated the matter to the magistrates, and the magistrates instantly set themselves to stop the evil. But amongst us, with the exception of a few who sigh and mourn in secret, scarcely any regard the evil as of any consequence: the very name of an informer is deemed odious, so that no one chooses to incur the obloquy attached to it; and, if any were zealous and courageous enough to inform, there are but few magistrates who would not shrink back from the task of exercising the power with which they are armed. Such is the state of this nation; such the state of almost every town and village in it Who then does not see that this national evil calls for national humiliation?
But let us bring home the matter personally to ourselves. How many Sabbaths have we enjoyed, and yet how few have we kept in the way that God has required! A person that has attained to seventy years of age, has had no less than ten years of Sabbaths. What a time is this for securing the interests of the soul! And what a load of guilt has been contracted in all that time, merely from the one single offence of profaning the Sabbath-day! Brethren, we need indeed to lie low before God in dust and ashes. We have need to be thankful too that Gods wrath has not broken forth against us, and cut us off in the midst of our transgressions. Let us know how to estimate the forbearance we have experienced; and let the goodness of our God lead us to repentance.]
2.
For holy vigilance
[The ceremonial part of the Sabbath is done away; so that there certainly is a greater latitude allowed to us than was given to the Jews. We acknowledge also that works of necessity and of mercy supersede even those duties which are yet in force on that day. Our Lord himself has taught us to interpret in this view those memorable words of the prophet, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice. But the moral part is as strongly in force as ever. To have the mind exercised on spiritual subjects, and occupied in advancing the interests of our souls, is our bounden duty. It was the work of the Sabbath even in Paradise; and therefore must continue to be our duty still. If it existed two thousand years before the ceremonial law was given, it can never be vacated by the abrogation of that law. Would we know distinctly the duties of the Sabbath, the prophet Isaiah has, negatively at least, informed us: Thou shalt call the Sabbath a Delight: thou shalt delight thyself in the Lord, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words [Note: Isa 58:13-14.]. We are to lay aside all the cares and pleasures of the world, and to seek all our happiness in God, and in his immediate service. Even common conversation should as much as possible be put aside, that the mind may be wholly occupied in the service of our God. Now this requires much care and vigilance. The more decent amongst us are ready to think, that, if they attend the house of God once or twice, they have done all that is required of them: from a regard to the prejudices of mankind they abstain from some particular amusements; but they are not at all solicitous to make a due improvement of their time. But this by no means comes up to the injunctions of the prophet; nor will it ever be regarded by God as a just observation of the Sabbath. The instructing of our families, the teaching of poor children, the visiting of the sick, and many other exercises of benevolence, may find place on this day: but in a peculiar manner we are called to secret meditation and prayer: we should study the Holy Scriptures, and examine our own hearts, and endeavour to keep ourselves in readiness to give up our account to God. Let the consideration of the guilt which we contract by spending our Sabbaths in another way, put us upon this: and let every Sabbath that shall be continued to us be so improved, that it may advance our spiritual state, and help forward our preparation for our eternal rest.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
We have here introduced into the body of this chapter of laws, a short but awful history of the sabbath-breaker and his dreadful punishment. Reader! if the LORD himself to whom the judgment was referred, thus commanded an infliction of punishment so awful, for the gathering of sticks on his holy day, do you not tremble for the troops of sabbath-breakers in our day, who set at defiance both the laws of GOD and Man? LORD, have mercy upon our national guilt in this particular, and incline our hearts to keep thy law.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
while. Only three events recorded during the Punishment wanderings: (1) The Sabbath breaker (Num 15:32-36); (2) The usurpation of Korah (Num 16:1, Num 16:17, Num 16:13); and (3) The red heifer (Num 19:1-10).
man. Hebrew. ‘ish. App-14.
that gathered = gathering.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
they found a man: This example seems to have been evidently introduced to illustrate the foregoing law. The man despised the word of the Lord, presumptuously broke his commandment, and on this ground was punished with death. Exo 16:23, Exo 16:27, Exo 16:28, Exo 20:8-10, Exo 35:2, Exo 35:3
Reciprocal: Exo 20:10 – thou shalt Exo 31:15 – whosoever Neh 13:15 – burdens Jer 17:21 – bear Mat 12:2 – Behold Mar 2:24 – that Luk 6:2 – not
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Num 15:32. A man gathered sticks on the sabbath day This seems to be mentioned here as an instance of sinning presumptuously; and accordingly it is so understood by the Jews. The law of the sabbath was plain and positive, and this transgression of it must therefore have been a known and wilful sin. And from the connection of this verse with the former it may be justly inferred that this man had sinned with a high hand, despising the word of the Lord, and the authority of his law.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The case of the defiant Sabbath-breaker 15:32-36
This incident illustrates the fate of the Israelite or foreigner in Israel who deliberately violated the law of Sabbath observance. It clarifies the meaning of defiant sin as well as what it means to be "cut off from among his people" (Num 15:30-31). Violation of this law drew the death penalty (Exo 31:14-15; Exo 35:2). It as like the "unforgivable sin" in the New Testament in that there was no forgiveness of it. [Note: Mark Rooker, Leviticus, p. 55.] God revealed on this occasion that such an offender was to die by stoning (cf. Lev 20:2). Whereas Moses had previously recorded the penalty, he had not explained the method of execution (Num 15:34). Other occasions on which Moses had to ask God for guidance in difficult cases appear in Num 9:7-8; Num 27:1-11; and Lev 24:10-23.
"The purpose of these narratives is to show that God’s will is not expressed in a once-for-all way. In Israel’s ongoing relationship with God, he continued to make his will known to them, and they continued to play a part in the process." [Note: Sailhamer, p. 390.]
Sabbath observance was the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. To violate the Sabbath law deliberately amounted to repudiating God’s sovereignty.
"There are eleven offenses punishable by stoning according to the Old Testament: idolatry (Deu 17:2-7); encouragement of idolatry (Deu 13:6-10); child sacrifice (Lev 20:2-5); prophecy in the name of another god (Deu 13:1-5); divination (Lev 20:27); blasphemy (Lev 24:15-16); breaking the Sabbath (here); murder by an ox (Exo 21:28-29); adultery (Deu 22:22 ff.); rebellion by a son (Deu 21:18 ff.); violation of God’s ban on plunder devoted to him (Jos 7:25)." [Note: Riggans, p. 125.]