Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 5:11
And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,
11 31. The Ordeal of Jealousy.
Though in its present form a late priestly composition this section is evidently based upon very ancient material. Its contents find no parallel in the other Pentateuchal codes; but the custom of trial by ordeal was a very ancient feature in Israelite life, as it was in the life of many other nations, and it still has a wide prevalence, especially in Africa. The forms of ordeal differ greatly drinking a potion (as here), being thrown into water (as in the case of suspected witches in the middle ages in Europe), walking upon heated metal, or holding it in the hand, or very frequently invoking upon oneself a curse which will come true in the event of guilt. The latter, as well as the potion, forms part of the ordeal in the present passage1 [Note: References to ordeals in other nations are given in Gray’s Numbers, pp. 44 f.] . Another Biblical instance of an ordeal appears in the story of Korah (Num 16:16-18), and the practice perhaps underlies Psa 109:18, Pro 6:27 f. The essential element in all cases is that the accused is subjected to a test, the visible results of which will be a conclusive divine sentence of innocence or guilt.
In the present instance a woman is suspected of adultery which cannot be legally proved, and her husband’s jealousy is roused. He brings her to the priest with an accompanying offering of flour. The priest places her ‘before Jehovah,’ and after dictating a curse upon herself which the woman endorses by responding ‘Amen, Amen,’ he causes her to drink a potion, consisting of holy water with two added ingredients dust from the floor of the Tabernacle, and the written words of the curse which have been washed off into the water. If she is guilty of the charge, the potion will have a harmful effect upon her body which will prevent her being delivered of a child, but if she is innocent it will do her no harm and she will conceive seed.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The trial of jealousy. Since the crime of adultery is especially defiling and destructive of the very foundations of social order, the whole subject is dealt with at a length proportionate to its importance. The process prescribed has lately been strikingly illustrated from an Egyptian romance, which refers to the time of Rameses the Great, and may therefore well serve to illustrate the manners and customs of the Mosaic times. This mode of trial, like several other ordinances, was adopted by Moses from existing and probably very ancient and widely spread institutions.
Num 5:15
The offering was to be of the cheapest and coarsest kind, barley (compare 2Ki 7:1, 2Ki 7:16, 2Ki 7:18), representing the abused condition of the suspected woman. It was, like the sin-offering Lev 5:11, to be made without oil and frankincense, the symbols of grace and acceptableness. The woman herself stood with head uncovered Num 5:18, in token of her shame.
Num 5:17
The dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle – To set forth the fact that the water was endued with extraordinary power by Him who dwelt in the tabernacle. Dust is an emblem of a state of condemnation Gen 3:14; Mic 7:17.
Num 5:19
Gone aside … – literally, gone astray from thy husband by uncleanness; compare Hos 4:12.
Num 5:23
Blot them out with the bitter water – In order to transfer the curses to the water. The action was symbolic. Travelers speak of the natives of Africa as still habitually seeking to obtain the full force of a written charm by drinking the water into which they have washed it.
Num 5:24
Shall cause the woman to drink – Thus was symbolised both her full acceptance of the hypothetical curse (compare Eze 3:1-3; Jer 15:16; Rev 10:9), and its actual operation upon her if she should be guilty (compare Psa 109:18).
Num 5:26
The memorial thereof – See the marginal reference. Memorial here is not the same as memorial in Num 5:15.
Num 5:27
Of itself, the drink was not noxious; and could only produce the effects here described by a special interposition of God. 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 license 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 trial by red water, which bears a general resemblance to that here prescribed by Moses, is still in use among the tribes of Western Africa.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Num 5:11-31
If any mans wife go aside.
The trial of the suspected wife
I. Confidence in conjugal relations is of great importance. Suspicion, says Bp. 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.
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 earthern 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. 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 abhorrence with which God regards the sin of adultery. It is a sin against God; it inflicts the most intolerable injury upon the husband; it is an unmitigated blight upon the family; and it is a wrong to society generally. The most terrible condemnations are pronounced upon it in the Sacred Word (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. The punishment came in those portions of her body which she had abused.
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.
V. God will assuredly vindicate the innocent who have suffered from suspicion and 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. (W. Jones.)
Innocence mysteriously declared
Aunt C. Fox told us of an American friend who once felt a concern to go somewhere, he knew not where. He ordered his gig, his servant asking where he was to drive. Up and down the road, said his master. At last they met a funeral. Follow this funeral. said the master. They followed in the procession till they came to the churchyard. Whilst the service was being performed the friend sat in his gig; at its conclusion he walked to the grave, and said solemnly, The person now buried is innocent of the crime laid to her charge. An elderly gentleman in deep mourning came up to him in great agitation, and said, Sir, what you have said has surprised me very much. I cant help it, I cant help it, replied the other; I only said what I was obliged to say. Well, said the mourner, the person just buried is my wife, who for some years has lain under the suspicion of infidelity to me. No one else knew of it, and on her death-bed she again protested her innocence, and said that if I would not believe her then, a witness to it would be raised up even at her grave-side. (Carolines Foxs Journal.)
Innocence strangely declared:
It is recorded in history that a beautiful maiden, named Blanche, the serf of an ancient nobleman, was wooed by her masters son. Not admiring his character, she scorned his suit. Upon this, his course of love turned to bitter hatred. Just then a precious string of pearls confided to the maidens care was lost. Her pseudolover charged her with the theft, and, in accordance with the customs of that rude age, she was doomed to die. On the day of the execution, as the innocent girl knelt to offer her dying prayer, a flash of lightning struck a statue of Justice, which adorned the market-place, to the dust. From a scattered birds nest, built in a crevice of the image, dropped the lost pearls–thus declaring her innocence. In a moment the exultant crowd rushed to the scaffold, demanding her release. There she knelt beside the block, pale and beautiful, and with a smile of peace upon her lips. They spoke–she answered not. They touched her–she was dead! To preserve her memory, they raised a statue there; and to this day, when men gaze upon her image, they condemn her oppressor; they praise her for the purity of her character; they recognise the justice of Him whose lightnings testified to her innocence. (W. Smith.)
A fallacious test of innocence:
Man frequently satisfies himself that he has come to an accurate conclusion merely because, on the application of what he considers an infallible test, he discovers a particular anticipated result. Often enough the test is utterly fallacious. Take an example. The tanghin, or tanguen, is the only plant of its genus, and is confined to Madagascar. Its poisonous seed is esteemed by the natives an infallible criterion of guilt or innocence. After being pounded, a small piece is swallowed by the supposed criminal. If he be cursed with a strong stomach, which retains the poison, he speedily dies, and is held guilty; if his feeble digestion rejects it, he necessarily escapes, and his innocence is considered proven. Now it is obvious to any educated mind that innocence and guilt are in no way disclosed by this process. Yet inasmuch as it has been accepted as a test, its results are unquestioned. And there are numberless instances in which English society consents to be governed by the results of tests, simply because those tests are generally accepted. Again and again it becomes important to inquire whether, supposing your test does disclose a given result, that test is really as infallible as you deem it to be? Many will be found to be only tanghin tests, and as such utterly fallacious. (Scientific Illustrations.)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
And the Lord spake unto Moses,…. At the same time, and delivered to him a new law:
saying; as follows.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Sentence of God upon Wives Suspected of Adultery. – As any suspicion cherished by a man against his wife, that she either is or has been guilty of adultery, whether well-founded or not, is sufficient to shake the marriage connection to its very roots, and to undermine, along with marriage, the foundation of the civil commonwealth, it was of the greatest importance to guard against this moral evil, which was so utterly irreconcilable with the holiness of the people of God, by appointing a process in harmony with the spirit of the theocratical law, and adapted to bring to light the guilt or innocence of any wife who had fallen into such suspicion, and at the same time to warn fickle wives against unfaithfulness. This serves to explain not only the introduction of the law respecting the jealousy-offering in this place, but also the general importance of the subject, and the reason for its being so elaborately described.
Num 5:12-15 If a man’s wife went aside, and was guilty of unfaithfulness towards him (Num 5:13 is an explanatory clause), through a (another) man having lain with her with emissio seminis , and it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, on account of her having defiled herself secretly, and there being no witness against her, and her not having been taken (in the act); but if, for all that, a spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he was jealous of his wife, and she was defiled,…or she was not defiled: the man was to take his wife to the priest, and bring as her sacrificial gift, on her account, the tenth of an ephah of barley meal, without putting oil or incense, “ for it is a meat-offering of jealousy, a meat-offering of memory, to bring iniquity to remembrance.” As the woman’s crime, of which her husband accused her, was naturally denied by herself, and was neither to be supported by witnesses nor proved by her being taken in the very act, the only way left to determine whether there was any foundation or not for the spirit of jealousy excited in her husband, and to prevent an unrighteous severance of the divinely appointed marriage, was to let the thing be decided by the verdict of God Himself. To this end the man was to bring his wife to the priest with a sacrificial gift, which is expressly called , her offering, brought “on her account,” that is to say, with a meat-offering, the symbol of the fruit of her walk and conduct before God. Being the sacrificial gift of a wife who had gone aside and was suspected of adultery, this meat-offering could not possess the character of the ordinary meat-offerings, which shadowed forth the fruit of the sanctification of life in good works; could not consist, that is to say, of fine wheaten flour, but only of barley meal. Barley was worth only half as much as wheat (2Ki 7:1, 2Ki 7:16, 2Ki 7:18), so that only the poorer classes, or the people generally in times of great distress, used barley meal as their daily food (Jdg 7:13; 2Ki 4:42; Eze 4:12; Joh 6:9, Joh 6:13), whilst those who were better off used it for fodder ( 1Ki 5:8). Barley meal was prescribed for this sacrifice, neither as a sign that the adulteress had conducted herself like an irrational animal ( Philo, Jonathan, Talm., the Rabb., etc.), nor “because the persons presenting the offering were invoking the punishment of a crime, and not the favour of God” ( Cler., Ros.): for the guilt of a woman was not yet established; nor even, taking a milder view of the matter, to indicate that the offerer might be innocent, and in that case no offering at all was required Knobel), but to represent the questionable repute in which the woman stood, or the ambiguous, suspicious character of her conduct. Because such conduct as hers did not proceed from the Spirit of God, and was not carried out in prayer: oil and incense, the symbols of the Spirit of God and prayer, were not to be added to her offering. It was an offering of jealousy ( , an intensive plural), and the object was to bring the ground of that jealousy to light; and in this respect it is called the “ meat-offering of remembrance, ” sc., of the woman, before Jehovah (cf. Num 10:10; Num 31:54; Exo 28:12, Exo 28:29; Exo 30:16; Lev 23:24), namely, “ the remembrance of iniquity, ” bringing her crime to remembrance before the Lord, that it might be judged by Him.
Num 5:16-18 The priest was to bring her near to the altar at which he stood, and place her before Jehovah, who had declared Himself to be present at the altar, and then to take holy water, probably water out of the basin before the sanctuary, which served for holy purposes (Exo 30:18), in an earthen vessel, and put dust in it from the floor of the dwelling. He was then to loosen the hair of the woman who was standing before Jehovah, and place the jealousy-offering in her hands, and holding the water in his own hand, to pronounce a solemn oath of purification before her, which she had to appropriate to herself by a confirmatory Amen, Amen. The water, which the priest had prepared for the woman to drink, was taken from the sanctuary, and the dust to be put into it from the floor of the dwelling, to impregnate this drink with the power of the Holy Spirit that dwelt in the sanctuary. The dust was strewed upon the water, not to indicate that man was formed from dust and must return to dust again, but as an allusion to the fact, that dust was eaten by the serpent (Gen 3:14) as the curse of sin, and therefore as the symbol of a state deserving a curse, a state of the deepest humiliation and disgrace (Mic 7:17; Isa 49:23; Psa 72:9). On the very same ground, an earthen vessel was chosen; that is to say, one quite worthless in comparison with the copper one. The loosening of the hair of the head (see Lev 13:45), in other cases a sign of mourning, is to be regarded here as a removal or loosening of the female head-dress, and a symbol of the loss of the proper ornament of female morality and conjugal fidelity. During the administration of the oath, the offering was placed in her hands, that she might bring the fruit of her own conduct before God, and give it up to His holy judgment. The priest, as the representative of God, held the vessel in his hand, with the water in it, which was called the “ water of bitterness, the curse-bringing, ” inasmuch as, if the crime imputed to her was well-founded, it would bring upon the woman bitter suffering as the curse of God.
Num 5:19-22 The oath which the priest required her to take is called, in Num 5:21, , “ oath of cursing ” (see Gen 26:28); but it first of all presupposes the possibility of the woman being innocent, and contains the assurance, that in that case the curse-water would do her no harm. “ If no (other) man has lain with thee, and thou hast not gone aside to union ( , accus. of more precise definition, as in Lev 15:2, Lev 15:18), under thy husband, ” i.e., as a wife subject to thy husband (Eze 23:5; Hos 4:12), “ then remain free from the water of bitterness, this curse-bringing, ” i.e., from the effects of this curse-water. The imperative is a sign of certain assurance (see Gen 12:2; Gen 20:7; cf. Ges. 130, 1). “ But if thou hast gone aside under thy husband, if thou hast defiled thyself, and a man has given thee his seed beside thy husband, ”…(the priest shall proceed to say; this is the meaning of the repetition of … , Num 5:21), “ Jehovah shall make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, by making thy hip to fall and thy belly to swell; and this curse-bringing water shall come into thy bowels, to make the belly to vanish and the hip to fall.” To this oath that was spoken before her the woman was to reply, “ true, true, ” or “ truly, truly, ” and thus confirm it as taken by herself (cf. Deu 27:15.; Neh 5:13). It cannot be determined with any certainty what was the nature of the disease threatened in this curse. Michaelis supposes it to be dropsy of the ovary ( hydrops ovarii ), in which a tumour is formed in the place of the ovarium, which may even swell so as to contain 100 lbs. of fluid, and with which the patient becomes dreadfully emaciated. Josephus says it is ordinary dropsy ( hydrops ascites: Ant. iii. 11, 6). 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 woman’s sin, viz., the organs of child-bearing.
Num 5:23-27 After the woman’s Amen, the priest was to write “ these curses, ” those contained in the oath, in a book-roll, and wash them in the bitter water, i.e., wash the writing in the vessel with water, so that the words of the curse should pass into the water, and be imparted to it; a symbolical act, to set forth the truth, that God imparted to the water the power to act injuriously upon a guilty body, though it would do no harm to an innocent one. The remark in Num 5:24, the priest was to give her this water to drink is anticipatory; for according to Num 5:26 this did not take place till after the presentation of the sacrifice and the burning of the memorial of it upon the altar. The woman’s offering, however, was not presented to God till after the oath of purification, because it was by the oath that she first of all purified herself from the suspicion of adultery, so that the fruit of her conduct could be given up to the fire of the holiness of God. As a known adulteress, she could not have offered a meat-offering at all. But as the suspicion which rested upon her was not entirely removed by her oath, since she might have taken a false oath, the priest was to give her the curse-water to drink after the offering, that her guilt or innocence might be brought to light in the effects produced by the drink. This is given in Num 5:27 as the design of the course prescribed: “ 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, the water that causeth the curse shall come (enter) into her as bitterness (i.e., producing bitter sufferings), namely, her belly shall swell and her hip vanish: and so the woman shall become a curse in the midst of her people.”
Num 5:28 “ But if she have not defiled herself, and is clean (from the crime of which she was suspected), she will remain free (from the threatened punishment of God), and will conceive seed, ” i.e., be blessed with the capacity and power to conceive and bring forth children.
Num 5:29-31 Num 5:29-31 bring the law of jealousy to a formal close, with the additional remark, that the man who adopted this course with a wife suspected of adultery was free from sin, but the woman would bear her guilt (see Lev 5:1), i.e., in case she were guilty, would bear the punishment threatened by God. Nothing is said about what was to be done in case the woman refused to take the oath prescribed, because that would amount to a confession of her guilt, when she would have to be put to death as an adulteress, according to the law in Lev 20:10; and not she alone, but the adulterer also. In the law just mentioned the man is placed on an equality with the woman with reference to the sin of adultery; and thus the apparent partiality, that a man could sue his wife for adultery, but not the wife her husband, is removed. But the law before us applied to the woman only, because the man was at liberty to marry more than one wife, or to take concubines to his own wife; so that he only violated the marriage tie, and was guilty of adultery, when he formed an illicit connection with another man’s wife. In that case, the man whose marriage had been violated could proceed against his adulterous wife, and in most instances convict the adulterer also, in order that he might receive his punishment too. For a really guilty wife would not have made up her mind so easily to take the required oath of purification, as the curse of God under which she came was no easier to bear than the punishment of death. For this law prescribed no ordeal whose effects were uncertain, like the ordeals of other nations, but a judgment of God, from which the guilty could not escape, because it had been appointed by the living God.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Bitter Water of Jealousy. | B. C. 1490. |
11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 12 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man’s wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, 13 And 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 with the manner; 14 And 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: 15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering 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 offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD: 17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water: 18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman’s head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse: 19 And 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 with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: 20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband: 21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an 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 rot, and thy belly to swell; 22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. 23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water: 24 And 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, and become bitter. 25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar: 26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water. 27 And 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, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. 28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. 29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled; 30 Or 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. 31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.
We have here the law concerning the solemn trial of a wife whose husband was jealous of her. Observe,
I. What was the case supposed: That a man had some reason to suspect his wife to have committed adultery, v. 12-14. Here, 1. The sin of adultery is justly represented as an exceedingly sinful sin; it is going aside from God and virtue, and the good way, Prov. ii. 17. It is committing a trespass against the husband, robbing him of his honour, alienating his right, introducing a spurious breed into his family to share with his children in his estate, and violating her covenant with him. It is being defiled; for nothing pollutes the mind and conscience more than this sin does. 2. It is supposed to be a sin which great care is taken by the sinners to conceal, which there is no witness of. The eye of the adulterer waits for the twilight, Job xxiv. 15. And the adulteress takes her opportunity when the good man is not at home, Prov. vii. 19. It would not covet to be secret if it were not shameful; and the devil who draws sinners to this sin teaches them how to cover it. 3. The spirit of jealousy is supposed to come upon the husband, of which Solomon says, It is the rage of a man (Prov. vi. 34), and that it is cruel as the grave, Cant. viii. 6. 4. “Yet” (say the Jewish writers) “he must make it appear that he has some just cause for the suspicion.” The rule they give is, “If the husband have said unto his wife before witnesses, ‘Be not thou in secret with such a man;’ and, notwithstanding that admonition, it is afterwards proved that she was in secret with that man, though her father or her brother, then he may compel her to drink the bitter water.” But the law here does not tie him to that particular method of proving the just cause of his suspicion; it might be otherwise proved. In case it could be proved that she had committed adultery, she was to be put to death (Lev. xx. 10); but, if it was uncertain, then this law took place. Hence, (1.) Let all wives be admonished not to give any the least occasion for the suspicion of their chastity; it is not enough that they abstain from the evil of uncleanness, but they must abstain from all appearance of it, from every thing that looks like it, or leads to it, or may give the least umbrage to jealousy; for how great a matter may a little fire kindle! (2.) Let all husbands be admonished not to entertain any causeless or unjust suspicions of their wives. If charity in general, much more conjugal affection, teaches to think no evil, 1 Cor. xiii. 5. It is the happiness of the virtuous woman that the heart of her husband does safely trust in her, Prov. xxxi. 11.
II. What was the course prescribed in this case, that, if the suspected wife was innocent, she might not continue under the reproach and uneasiness of her husband’s jealousy, and, if guilty, her sin might find her out, and others might hear, and fear, and take warning.
1. The process of the trial must be thus:– (1.) Her husband must bring her to the priest, with the witnesses that could prove the ground of his suspicion, and desire that she might be put upon her trial. The Jews say that the priest was first to endeavour to persuade her to confess the truth, saying to this purport, “Dear daughter, perhaps thou wast overtaken by drinking wine, or wast carried away by the heat of youth or the examples of bad neighbours; come, confess the truth, for the sake of his great name which is described in the most sacred ceremony, and do not let it be blotted out with the bitter water.” If she confessed, saying, “I am defiled,” she was not put to death, but was divorced and lost her dowry; if she said, “I am pure,” then they proceeded. (2.) He must bring a coarse offering of barley-meal, without oil or frankincense, agreeably to the present afflicted state of his family; for a great affliction it was either to have cause to be jealous or to be jealous without cause. It is an offering of memorial, to signify that what was to be done was intended as a religious appeal to the omniscience and justice of God. (3.) The priest was to prepare the water of jealousy, the holy water out of the laver at which the priests were to wash when they ministered; this must be brought in an earthen vessel, containing (they say) about a pint; and it must be an earthen vessel, because the coarser and plainer every thing was the more agreeable it was to the occasion. Dust must be put into the water, to signify the reproach she lay under, and the shame she ought to take to herself, putting her mouth in the dust; but dust from the floor of the tabernacle, to put an honour upon every thing that pertained to the place God had chosen to put his name there, and to keep up in the people a reverence for it; see John viii. 6. (4.) The woman was to be set before the Lord, at the east gate of the temple-court (say the Jews), and her head was to be uncovered, in token of her sorrowful condition; and there she stood for a spectacle to the world, that other women might learn not to do after her lewdness, Ezek. xxiii. 48. Only the Jews say, “Her own servants were not to be present, that she might not seem vile in their sight, who were to give honour to her; her husband also must be dismissed.” (5.) The priest was to adjure her to tell the truth, and to denounce the curse of God against her if she were guilty, and to declare what would be the effect of her drinking the water of jealousy, v. 19-22. He must assure her that, if she were innocent, the water would do her no harm, v. 19. None need fear the curse of the law if they have not broken the commands of the law. But, if she were guilty, this water would be poison to her, it would make her belly to swell and her thigh to rot, and she should be a curse or abomination among her people, Luk 5:21; Luk 5:22. To this she must say, Amen, as Israel must do to the curses pronounced on mount Ebal, Deut. xxvii. 15-26. 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. No woman, if she were guilty, could say Amen to this adjuration, and drink the water upon it, unless she disbelieved the truth of God or defied his justice, and had come to such a pitch of impudence and hard-heartedness in sin as to challenge God Almighty to do his worst, and choose rather to venture upon his curse than to give him glory by making confession; thus has whoredom taken away the heart. (6.) The priest was to write this curse in a scrip or scroll o parchment, verbatim–word for word, as he had expressed it, and then to wipe or scrape out what he had written into the water (v. 23), to signify that it was that curse which impregnated the water, and gave it its strength to effect what was intended. It signified that, if she were innocent, the curse should be blotted out and never appear against her, as it is written, Isa. xliii. 25, I am he that blotteth out thy transgression, and Ps. li. 9, Blot out my iniquities; but that, if she were guilty, the curse, as it was written, being infused into the water, would enter into her bowels with the water, even like oil into her bones (Ps. cix. 18), as we read of a curse entering into a house, Zech. v. 4. (7.) The woman must then drink the water (v. 24); it is called the bitter water, some think because they put wormwood in it to make it bitter, or rather because it caused the curse. Thus sin is called an evil thing and a bitter for the same reason, because it causeth the curse, Jer. ii. 19. If she had been guilty (and otherwise it did not cause the curse), she was made to know that though her stolen waters had been sweet, and her bread eaten in secret pleasant, yet the end was bitter as wormwood, Prov. ix. 17, and ch. v. 4. Let all that meddle with forbidden pleasures know that they will be bitterness in the latter end. The Jews say that if, upon denouncing the curse, the woman was so terrified that she durst not drink the water, but confessed she was defiled, the priest flung down the water, and cast her offering among the ashes, and she was divorced without dowry: if she confessed not, and yet would not drink, they forced her to it; and, if she was ready to throw it up again, they hastened her away, that she might not pollute the holy place. (8.) Before she drank the water, the jealousy-offering was waved and offered upon the altar (Luk 5:25; Luk 5:26); a handful of it was burnt for a memorial, and the remainder of it eaten by the priest, unless the husband was a priest, and then it was scattered among the ashes. This offering in the midst of the transaction signified that the whole was an appeal to God, as a God that knows all things, and from whom no secret is hid. (9.) All things being thus performed according to the law, they were to wait the issue. The water, with a little dust put into it, and the scrapings of a written parchment, had no natural tendency at all to do either good or hurt; but if God was thus appealed to in the way of an instituted ordinance, though otherwise the innocent might have continued under suspicion and the guilty undiscovered, yet God would so far own his own institution as that in a little time, by the miraculous operation of Providence, the innocency of the innocent should be cleared, and the sin of the guilty should find them out. [1.] If the suspected woman was really guilty, the water she drank would be poison to her (v. 27), her belly would swell and her thigh rot by a vile disease for vile deserts, and she would mourn at the last when her flesh and body were consumed, Prov. v. 11. Bishop Patrick says, from some of the Jewish writers, that the effect of these waters appeared immediately, she grew pale, and her eyes ready to start out of her head. Dr. Lightfoot says that sometimes it appeared not for two or three years, but she bore no children, was sickly, languished, and rotted at last; it is probable that some indications appeared immediately. The rabbin say that the adulterer also died in the same day and hour that the adulteress did, and in the same manner too, that he belly swelled, and his secret parts rotted: a disease perhaps not much unlike that which in these latter ages the avenging hand of a righteous God has made the scourge of uncleanness, and with which whores and whoremongers infect, and plague, and ruin one another, since they escape punishment from men. The Jewish doctors add that the waters had this effect upon the adulteress only in case the husband had never offended in the same kind; but that, if he had at any time defiled the marriage-bed, God did not thus right him against his injurious wife; and that therefore in the latter and degenerate ages of the Jewish church, when uncleanness did abound, this way of trial was generally disused and laid aside; men, knowing their own crimes, were content not to know their wives’ crimes. And to this perhaps may refer the threatening (Hos. iv. 14), I will not punish your spouses when they commit adultery, for you yourselves are separated with whores. [2.] If she were innocent, the water she drank would be physic to her: She shall be free, and shall conceive seed, v. 28. The Jewish writers magnify the good effects of this water to the innocent woman, that, to recompense her for the wrong done to her by the suspicion, she should, after the drinking of these waters, be stronger and look better than ever; if she was sickly, she should become healthful, should bear a man-child, and have easy labour.
2. From the whole we may learn, (1.) That secret sins are known to God, and sometimes are strangely brought to light in this life; however, there is a day coming when God will, by Jesus Christ, as here by the priest, judge the secrets of men according to the gospel, Rom. ii. 16. (2.) That, in particular, Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. The violation of conjugal faith and chastity is highly provoking to the God of heaven, and sooner or later it will be reckoned for. Though we have not now the waters of jealousy to be a sensible terror to the unclean, yet we have a word from God which ought to be as great a terror, that if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy, 1 Cor. iii. 17. (3.) That God will find out some way or other to clear the innocency of the innocent, and to bring forth their righteousness as the light. (4.) That to the pure all things are pure, but to the defiled nothing is so, Tit. i. 15. The same word is to some a savour of life unto life, to others a savour of death unto death, like those waters of jealousy, according as they receive it; the same providence is for good to some and for hurt to others, Jer 24:5; Jer 24:8; Jer 24:9. And, whatsoever it is intended for, it shall not return void.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 11-15:
The Law demanded the death penalty for adultery, Le 20:10. This was enacted only upon the testimony of two or three witnesses, De 19:15. If a man suspected his wife of adultery, and if there were no proof of her guilt, there was a procedure to determine her guilt or innocence.
The jealous husband was to bring his wife to the priest, along with a food offering consisting of a tenth of an ephah (about two quarts) of barley meal. The details of the offering symbolize the suspicion aroused by either the husband’s jealousy, or the wife’s questionable conduct.
The fruit of the earth, symbolizing the fruit of the wife’s suspicious conduct.
Barley meal, food of the common people, symbolizing the wife’s low estate due to the suspicion surrounding her.
Without oil or incense (flavor), symbolizing the absence of grace.
The offering was a “memorial,” to bring the woman into judgment before the Lord that her innocence or guilt might be established.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
11. And the Lord spoke unto Moses. Although this ceremony appears to be part of the legal services, still I have thought fit to postpone it to this place, because it relates to the observance of the Seventh Commandment. The object of it is, lest women, trusting that they would escape punishment, should abandon themselves to unchastity, or lest jealousy should lead to dissension, and, by alienating the mind of the husband from the wife, should loosen the ties of pure affection, since thus the door would be open to many iniquities. By this rite, therefore, God proclaims Himself the guardian and avenger of conjugal fidelity; and hence it appears how acceptable a sacrifice in His sight is the chastity of married women, of which He condescends to profess Himself the guardian. It is, therefore, no trifling consolation to husbands, that God undertakes the cognizance of the secret wrong, if, perchance, their wives have dealt treacherously with them.
But it will be better to examine the details in order. When at the outset he says, — If a man’s wife go aside, and her offense be concealed, an absurdity appears to be implied; as if He would thus bring to judgment none but those who should be convicted, whereas, if the fact were established, there would be no use in the application of the test. But the condition, “if she commit a trespass against him,” does not signify that the woman’s adultery should be discovered, but refers to the opinion of her husband; and thus the words must be paraphrased in this way: If any one should think that his wife has had connection with another man, and he cannot otherwise be relieved from the anxiety which oppresses him, let him appeal to God for that judgment, which is beyond the reach of man. Still God (78) seems designedly to have expressed the crime, lest husbands should heedlessly involve their innocent wives in disgrace. We know that many are causelessly suspicious; and when jealousy has once taken possession of the mind, there is no room for moderation or equity. (79) Wherefore it would be inhuman to permit morose and unreasonable husbands to drag their wives to this horrible judgment of God on account of certain trifling suspicions. For, if the husband were cruel and ungodly, it would be like putting a sword into the hands of a madman, to give him such a power without any distinction. God, therefore, implies that the priest should carefully consider, so as not too easily to receive every complaint; although He afterwards more clearly expresses Himself in another part of the conditions, “if a man be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled.”
(78) “Toutefois il semble bien que Dieu ait poisee le cas, qu’une femme fust chargee de presomption vehemente;” still it fully appears that God has supposed the case, that the woman should be charged upon strong presumption. — Fr.
(79) “Nous savons qu’il y a beaucoup de gens ombrageux, qui concoyvent des fantasies a la volee;” we know that there are many suspicious persons who hastily take fancies into their heads. — Fr.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
C. THE ORDEAL OF JEALOUSY vv. 1131
TEXT
Num. 5:11. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 12. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any mans wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, 13. And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she is defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner; 14. And 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: 15. Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering 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 offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16. And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord: 17. And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water: 18. And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the womans head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse: 19. And 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 with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: 20. But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thine husband: 21. Then the priest shall charge the woman with an 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 rot, and thy belly to swell; 22. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot. And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. 23. And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water: 24. And 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, and become bitter. 25. Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the womans hand, and shall wave the offering before the Lord, and offer it upon the altar: 26. And the priest shall take a handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water. 27. And 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, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. 28. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. 29. This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled; 30. Or 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. 31. Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.
PARAPHRASE
Num. 5:11. Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12. Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, If any mans wife go aside, and commit a sin against him, and a man have intercourse with her, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected, she is defiled, although there is no witness against her and she has not been taken in the Acts 14. if a spirit of jealousy come upon him and he be jealous of his wife when she is defiled; or if a spirit of jealousy come upon him and he be jealous of his wife when she is not defiled, 15. then shall the man bring his wife to the priest, and he shall bring an offering for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense on it, for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16. Then the priest shall bring her near and have her stand before the Lord; 17. and the priest shall take holy water in a clay pot, and he shall take of the dust which is on the floor of the tabernacle, and shall put it in the water. 18. The priest shall then have the woman stand before the Lord, and loosen the hair of her head, and put the memorial offering in her handsthat is, the grain offering of jealousy; and the priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness which causes a curse. 19. And the priest shall have her take an oath, saying unto the woman, If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone aside to uncleanness with someone other than your husband, be immune to this bitter water which causes the curse; 20.
however, if you have gone aside to someone other than your husband, and if you are defiled and some man other than your husband has lain with you, 21. Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of the curse, and shall say to the woman, The Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people when He causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell; 22. and this water which causes the curse shall enter your bowels and make your abdomen to swell and your thigh to waste away. And the woman shall say, Let it be so; let it be so. 23. Then the priest shall write these curses on a scroll and wash them off with the bitter water; 24. and he shall make the woman drink the bitter water which causes the curse, so that the water which causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter. 25. Then the priest shall take the meal offering of jealousy from the womans hand, and wave the offering before the Lord and offer it upon the altar; 26. and a priest shall take a handful of the offering, of the memorial portion, and burn it on the altar, and later shall cause the woman to drink the water. 27. And when he has caused her to drink the water, it shall happen that if she is defiled, and has sinned against her husband, the water which causes a curse shall enter into her and become bitter, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away and she will become a curse among her people. 28. But if the woman is not defiled, and is clean, then she shall be free and conceive children. 29. This is the Law of Jealousies: when a wife goes aside to someone other than her husband, and is defiled;, 30. or when the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he becomes jealous of his wife, he shall bring the woman before the Lord and the priest shall apply all this law unto her. 31. The man shall be without guilt of sin, but his wife shall bear her guilt.
COMMENTARY
Among all the sins which men commit, few or none are viewed with such loathing as that of adultery. Its consequences may spread in an ever-widening sphere, beginning with the offender and the offended, and including the immediate family, the close and more remote circle of friends, neighbors, and an almost infinite combination of possibilities of social, business, religious and community factors. No other single wrong is so disruptive of the basic unit of Gods ordained social structure, the home.
Even when there is reasonable ground for suspicion of marital infidelity, the consequences may be profound. The case is well presented in KD, pp. 29, 30: As any suspicion cherished by a man against his wife, that she either is or has been guilty of adultery, whether well-founded or not, is sufficient to shake the marriage connection to its very roots, and to undermine, along with marriage, the foundation of the civil commonwealth, it was of the greatest importance to guard against this moral evil, which was so utterly irreconcilable with the holiness of the people of God, by appointing a process in harmony with the spirit of the theocratical law, and adapted to bring to light the guilt or innocence of any wife who had fallen into such suspicion, and at the same time to warn fickle wives against unfaithfulness.
The ordeal prescribed in this section was to be undergone where adultery was suspected, but could not be proved, for lack of witnesses. The penalty for demonstrable adultery was set (Lev. 20:10). It is in no way directly related to this test. The wife is to come with her husband, bringing an offering of barley meal to the priest. She is then to be brought before the Lord as she subscribes to an oath, setting forth the conditions that if she is innocent no harm will come of the test; but if there is guilt upon her soul, she will suffer the extraordinary consequences of having her body swell and her thigh fall away. Josephus has suggested this is a form of dropsy. Michaelis proposes it to be dropsy of the ovary, in which a huge tumor may form in place of the ovarium, and swell to almost unbelievable size, causing dreadful emaciation. KD notes that 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.
No little symbolistic value has been found in the ingredients of the test. KD has the holy water representing the righteousness and justice of God; the dust, taken from the sanctuary floor, signifies the curse of sin since dust was to be eaten by the serpent (Gen. 3:14).; the earthen vessel is used rather than one of copper because it is virtually worthless; loosening the womans hair suggests the loss of the proper ornament of female morality and conjugal fidelity; she stands with the offering in her own hands, as a symbol of her conduct before God, while the priests, holding the trial water, represents God and divine judgment, pp. 31, 32. Such hypothetical speculation is interesting and, to some degree logical; but the Bible makes no such associations.
After the charges against the woman had been inscribed on a roll, the writing itself was washed off into the bitter water, to become the water of trial. Much is made of this in ICC and PC, since antecedents and similarities may be found in numerous ancient, pagan societies, and contemporarily in parts of Africa among semi-barbarous people. Indeed, among some Mohammedans, those who are ill swallow portions of the Koran in hopes of a cure. PC cites an incident in the middle ages when Archbishop Edmund Rich, later canonized, washed a crucifix in water, drank it, and cited the thought, Ye shall drink from the wells of salvation, p. 33. If one reckons without the power of a personal, righteous God, there is no difference between the superstitious practices of the pagan and the obedient response of believers in such a God. The Hebrews did not question either the method or the divine power behind the method of enforcing this test. In her response, Amen, amen, the wife placed herself under the strictures of the test. If guilty, she awaited a horrible consequence; if innocent, a welcome acquittal, and the ability to produce children, Num. 5:28.
The concluding verses, Num. 5:29-31, free the husband of any guilt in subjecting his wife to the laws ordeal. It is generally believed that the consequences of the ordeal, if negative, would be apparent within a brief time. Josephus makes it a maximum of ten months. If, in the meanwhile, she should bear a son, the fact is considered an exoneration. PC says it is unlikely the ordeal was ever actually used, since no guilty woman would dare subject herself to such a dreadful challenge, unless she had no fears of the actions of God. The same source asserts, with the Talmud as its authority, that the use of the law of jealousy ended forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, p. 41.
QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH ITEMS
106.
Compare the process of this testing by the Law of Jealousy with the law covering demonstrable adultery.
107.
The test of infidelity here has been called almost inhuman by todays standards. Discuss the point, showing problems which arise in a marriage afflicted by jealousy.
108.
List the possible symbolisms in the steps followed in the test.
109.
Could there be any danger in the wifes undergoing her ordeal if she is innocent of any wrongdoing?
110.
The test of jealousy has been compared to numerous paganistic rituals. What essential differences do you find between the two?
111.
What was the composition of holy water, and for what various purposes, other than this test, was it used?
Show the role of God throughout such a testing period.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
THE ORDEAL FOR A SUSPECTED WIFE, Num 5:11-31.
It has been said that the only bliss of paradise that has survived the fall is conjugal love. But even this blessing has not survived without alloys. Plighted love is sometimes unfaithful, and the sweets of wedded life are occasionally embittered by jealousy. To protect the institution of marriage the corner-stone of human society to vindicate the innocent and to punish the guilty, special rules of procedure are here ordained by Jehovah. From the nature of the crime of conjugal infidelity the usual method of proof by two or three witnesses could not be employed. Hence an extra-judicial procedure is instituted. The Lord sits upon the judgment seat, and the guilt or innocence is to be determined by himself. The ordeal is some method of appeal to God to interpose, in a supernatural manner, to indicate the guilty and to deliver the innocent lying under a false accusation. It was resorted to by our rude European ancestors when they required the suspected person to handle hot iron, or to run barefoot and blindfold in a path strewn with nine red-hot ploughshares, or to plunge the arm up to the elbow in boiling water. If God interposed to prevent harm the accused was deemed innocent. This was the ordeal by fire and by water. It will be seen, as we proceed to the study of the divine ordeal for jealousy, that it differs from all human methods of appeal to the judgment of God in this: God’s ordeal involves a supernatural punishment of the guilty, while human systems require a miracle to shield the innocent. Men’s inventions jeopardize the innocent, God’s method imperils only the wicked. Some such trial of jealousy was probably traditional in the day of Moses. The Divine Lawgiver divests it of its barbarous severities, and interposes it as a merciful shield against the blind vindictiveness of jealousy characteristic of the Orientals. The mode here commanded was a great improvement upon the former method of procedure; and, like the divorces permitted by Moses on account of the hardness of the hearts of capricious husbands, was the legislation best adapted to the condition of the people at that time. There is no account of the enforcement of this ordeal, and there is grave doubt whether recourse was ever had to it in fact. It certainly was not in harmony with the laxity of the nuptial tie prevalent in the time of Jesus Christ. Its parallel is found in the ordeal of the “red water” in Western Africa, and also in an Egyptian romance recently translated by Brugsch: “Ptahneferka copies out on a leaf of papyrus every word of a certain magical formula, dissolves the writing in water, drinks, and knows all that it contains.” SMITH’S Biblical Dictionary.
Maintaining Harmony In The Camp: The Law of Jealousy ( Num 5:11-31 ).
Primary with regard to trespasses against a neighbour was to trespass against his wife. This was an especially heinous trespass which deeply defiled the camp, and if proved would incur the death penalty. It was of vital importance for the holiness of the camp and the wellbeing of Israel that marriage relationships be kept strong and vibrant, and that sexual relations took place only between husband and wife. Nothing was considered to be more disruptive to society than a marriage torn by suspicions and division, and rights of inheritance had to be preserved so as to ensure that the inheritance went to the true heir. Furthermore adultery defiled the camp. If it was not dealt with Yahweh could not dwell there.
On the one hand this was one area above all where the ‘trespasser’ would retain a firm silence. He/she would not be likely to reveal their guilt, for to admit to such a trespass would basically be to commit suicide. It incurred the death penalty. On the other there was the problem of the disruption that could be caused in the camp by even the suspicion of adultery, and the affect it could have on Yahweh’s earthly dwelling with them. Suspicion of adultery could not only cause great distress to the suspicious husband, it could cause even greater distress to an innocent wife. She may be refused the right to produce children. She may even be driven to suicide or back into her parent’s home as a deserted wife. This could then cause bitterness between two families which could divide the community. It was a position fraught with danger. And it defiled the camp.
The ‘law of jealousy’, which might at first seem unfair to the wife, catered for such a situation. In a society where women were closely guarded, and where secrecy was difficult because of the crowded lifestyle, the spirit of jealousy would usually have some foundation. But whether it had or not, once it was really raised it would not easily lie down. It would be seen as important that there be some way of resolving it. And this is provided here, under the supervision of Yahweh.
We must recognise that this law was not discriminatory against women. If there was discrimination anywhere it was in the fact that a man was not actually forbidden to have more than one wife, and therefore could not be found in this position, although if he was caught in adultery he would be put to death. This law actually demonstrated concern that an innocent woman should not go through life seen as guilty, and with the bearing of children refused to her (which in those days would have been seen as a huge punishment both by her and by others). Yahweh was as concerned to free the innocent woman from blame as He was to convict the guilty. But the whole procedure does bring out how heinous God sees sexual sin to be. It is seen as a sin which goes against the very basis of creation (Gen 2:24). It defiles the company of the people of God. It is a high handed sin, a flaunting in the face of God, a sin against the very basis of society from the beginning, a capital crime, a crime deserving of death. It is not for nothing that the Scriptures forbid official office in the church to those who have had more than one sexual partner (repeated three times for emphasis (1Ti 3:2; 1Ti 3:12; Tit 1:6)).
However what follows is not neutral. While the possibly innocent wife is kept in mind it is the adulterous wife who is the main target of the passage. The aim is to root out the defilement caused by secret adultery.
Analysis.
a A man’s wife goes aside and commits adultery secretly (Num 5:11-12).
b The adultery is hidden from her husband and there is no witness (Num 5:13).
c The spirit of jealousy comes on the man whether she is defiled or not (Num 5:14).
d The man brings his wife to the priest with an offering of memorial (Num 5:15).
e The woman brought near and the priest makes the water of testing (Num 5:16-17).
f The woman is made to stand before Yahweh as prepared by the priest (Num 5:18).
g The priest charges her with an oath to speak truly (Num 5:19-20).
g The priest charges the woman with an oath of cursing (Num 5:21-22).
f The woman is made to drink the water of testing before Yahweh (Num 5:23-24).
e The priest takes the jealousy offering from the hand of the woman (Num 5:25).
d The priest bring the man’s offering of memorial before Yahweh and makes her drink the water (Num 5:26).
c If the woman is defiled her body will swell and she shall be a curse (Num 5:27).
b If she is innocent she will be revealed as clean and shall be free of blame for hidden adultery (Num 5:28).
a This is the law of jealousy for when a woman goes aside and commits adultery, or is suspected of it, freeing her husband from any guilt in regard to it (Num 5:29-31).
The Case of a Man’s Wife Who Goes Aside and Commits Adultery Secretly ( Num 5:11-12 ).
Num 5:11
‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’
Once again it is emphasised that we have here Yahweh’s word to Moses.
Num 5:12
“ Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, If any man’s wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, and a man lie with her carnally.”
The case is laid out. Adulterous women in the camp must be sought out and dealt with. The example is of a woman who has genuinely betrayed her husband. She had defrauded her husband. She had ‘committed a trespass’ against him for which nothing could compensate. She had lain with another man in secret. By it she had become defiled even though there was no witness against her and she was not ‘caught in the act’. Furthermore through her defilement the holy camp of Israel had been defiled. A defiled person was among them. Covenant unity and purity had been spoiled. It was a serious situation. Of course, while no one had any suspicion on the matter nothing could be done. Such secret sins would have to be left in the hands of Yahweh, and the daily offerings and the Day of Atonement would atone for the defilement as far as Israel was concerned. But once there was genuine suspicion that it might be so the case must be followed up and dealt with.
This provision actually enhances women’s status. It was seen that under God child producing was primarily her domain. It was her God-given responsibility. It was her prime responsibility to guard all that was connected with it. While man ruled the world, the woman ruled the cradle, and in that lay the whole significance of creation.
The Trial of Jealousy
v. 11. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, v. 12. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man’s wife go aside and commit a trespass against him, v. 13. and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband and be kept close, v. 14. and the spirit of jealousy come upon him, v. 15. then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering 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 offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. v. 16. And the priest shall “bring her near, and set her before the Lord, v. 17. and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and of the dust that is in the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water, v. 18. and the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman’s head, v. 19. and 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 with another instead of thy husband, v. 20. but if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be denied, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband, v. 21. then the priest, v. 22. and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell and thy thigh to rot. And the woman shall say, Amen, amen, v. 23. And the priest shall write these curses in a book, v. 24. and he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse, v. 25. Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the offering before the Lord, and offer it upon the altar; v. 26. and the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water. v. 27. And 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 and become bitter, v. 28. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean, then she shall be free, v. 29. This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled; v. 30. or 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.
v. 31. Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, Is there not somewhat of a spiritual adultery intended also to be conveyed here? As JESUS was the husband of his people: and as He had said, thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man, so will I also be for thee; is not this going aside, intended to show how very jealous the LORD is and will be of his own honor? Hos 3:3 .
Reciprocal: Pro 30:20 – General
Num 5:11-31. An Ordeal in Cases of Jealousy.A married woman suspected of unfaithfulness is, in the absence of evidence, to be subjected to an ordeal by being made to drink holy water with which dust from the floor of the Tabernacle has been mingled, and in which a writing inscribed with a curse has been steeped. In the event of her innocence the potion proves harmless, and she becomes fruitful; in the event of her guilt, it injures her (probably by producing abortion). Ordeals similar to the one here enjoined were not uncommon in antiquity Pausanias, for instance, mentions that at a sanctuary of Earth (), in Arcadia, the chastity of the priestesses was tested by their being made to drink bulls blood, which brought down instant retribution upon the unchaste. In the Hebrew ordeal the potion which the suspected woman was compelled to drink had a threefold potency. In the first place, the water (described as holy, Num 5:17) was doubtless originally taken from a sacred spring and could not be drunk by a guilty person with impunity. (Similarly at Tyana the water of the Asbaman lake, if drunk by a person guilty of perjury, caused disease, though it was innocuous to the innocent). Secondly, the discriminating property of the water was intensified by admixture with the dust of the sacred Tabernacle (which no lay person might ordinarily approach). And thirdly, the water was impregnated with the written words of a curse, a curse in itself being an active agent (cf. Num 22:6, Mar 11:21), fulfilling itself mechanically upon the wrong-doer (cf. Gen 9:24*, Zec 6:1-4). But though among the Hebrews the ritual observed was thus of a very primitive character, the ideas that originally lay behind it had come to be replaced by others of a more spiritual nature; for the punishment that followed in the case of the guilty woman was regarded as proceeding from Yahweh (Num 5:21), to whom the oath was an appeal (cf. Exo 22:11, 1Ki 8:31 f.). Ordeals by water and fire were common in the Middle Ages.
Num 5:13. and be kept close, etc.: better, and she be undetected, though she be defiled.
Num 5:15. the tenth part of an ephah: about 7 pints.no oil . . . nor frankincense: the exclusion of these has been explained as due to the sad character of the occasion.
Num 5:16. before the Lord: i.e. before the altar of Yahweh.
Num 5:17. holy water: the LXX has holy living (i.e. running) water. Among the Semites as well as among other races sanctity was ascribed to all running water, which, as giving fertility to the soil and sustaining animal life, would naturally appear as the embodiment of Divine energy. It is said that in Palestine to this day all springs are viewed as the seats of spirits (W. R. Smith, RS2, p. 169), and some rivers bore in antiquity the names of deities (e.g. the Adonis and the Belus (i.e. Baal)).
Num 5:18. let . . . loose: a token of sorrow or distress of mind, cf. Lev 10:6; Lev 13:45; Lev 21:10.water of bitterness: i.e. water productive of bitterness (or mischief).
Num 5:21. make thee a curse: i.e. make thy fate such that it will be the worst that anyone can wish to imprecate on another; cf. Jer 29:22, Isa 60:15, Zec 8:13, Psa 102:8.
Num 5:22. Amen: literally, assured, an expression of assent (cf. Deu 27:15 f., Neh 5:13), LXX .
Num 5:23. a book: any material on which writing could be inscribed.wave: Exo 29:24, Lev 7:30*.
Num 5:26. make . . . drink the water: this, following the same command in Num 5:24, does not mean that the priest gives the woman a second draught; it merely repeats the earlier direction. The occurrence of this and other repetitions (cf. Num 5:16 with Num 5:18-19 with Num 5:21, and the duplicates in Num 5:18) has suggested that the law here is a compilation from more than one account.
The law of jealousy 5:11-31
The point of this section is the importance of maintaining purity in the marriage relationship to preserve God’s blessing on Israel.
In Num 5:11-15 the writer explained the first steps an Israelite man who suspected his wife of unfaithfulness should take. The offering (Num 5:15) was a special meal offering. Usually the grain used in the meal offering was wheat ground into fine flour, but in this instance the man presented barley flour. Barley cost only half as much as wheat (2Ki 7:1; 2Ki 7:16; 2Ki 7:18). It was the food of the poor and the cattle in the ancient Near East (Jdg 7:13; 1Ki 5:8 [sic Num 4:28]; 2Ki 4:42; Eze 4:12). It may have represented, ". . . the questionable repute in which the woman stood, or the ambiguous, suspicious character of her conduct." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 3:31.]
The meal offering was, of course, representative of the works that an individual presented to God. In this case it was also an offering that the man gave in "jealousy" as a "memorial" or remembrance. He presented it to bring his wife’s crime to the Lord’s remembrance that He might judge it.
The "earthenware vessel" into which the priest poured the water from the laver was of little value relative to the other utensils of the sanctuary. It was, therefore, a fit receptacle for this test. The "dust" he added to the water probably symbolized the curse of sin. It is what causes humans grief as we toil for a living because of sin’s curse.
"Since this dust has been in God’s presence, it is holy. As has been said before, one who is unclean is in great danger in the presence of the holy." [Note: Ashley, p. 129.]
The release of the woman’s hair, normally bound up, represented the temporary loss of her glory (i.e., her good reputation). Other possibilities are that it symbolized her openness, [Note: Allen, p. 746.] mourning, [Note: Merrill, "Numbers," in The Old . . ., p. 107.] or uncleanness. [Note: Ashley, p. 129.]
M. R. DeHaan offered a natural, as opposed to a supernatural, explanation of what happened in this trial by ordeal that has captured the imagination of some evangelicals. He believed that the treated water that the woman drank reacted to the chemical composition of the juices in her digestive system that had become abnormal because of her guilt. Science has established that certain emotions and nervous disturbances change the chemical composition of our body secretions. While this might be what produced the symptoms described in the text, DeHaan erred, I believe, in interpreting the "dust" (Num 5:17) that the priest mixed with the water as a "bitter herb."
"We believe that, if we knew the identity of the bitter herb which Moses used, the same test would work today." [Note: M. R. DeHaan, The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages, p. 48.]
The physical symptoms of God’s judgment on the woman if she was guilty (Num 5:23; Num 5:27) point to a special affliction rather than one of the natural diseases that overtook the Israelites. Josephus said it was ordinary dropsy. [Note: Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 3:11:6.] This seems unlikely in view of how Moses described her condition. Merrill believed her sense of guilt produced a psychosomatic reaction. [Note: Merrill, "Numbers," The Bible . . ., p. 222; and idem, "Numbers," in The Old . . ., p. 107.] Noordtzij concluded that the woman’s pregnancy resulted in a miscarriage because the bitter water destroyed the fetus. [Note: Noordtzij, p. 57.] It is interesting, whatever the cause, that the punishment fell on the organs that had been the instruments of the woman’s sin.
"The thigh is often used as a euphemism for the sexual organs." [Note: Riggans, p. 50. Cf. Genesis 24:2, 9; 47:29.]
"The most probable explanation for the phrase [’and make your abdomen swell and your thigh waste away’] . . . is that the woman suffers a collapse of the sexual organs known as a prolapsed uterus. In this condition, which may occur after multiple pregnancies, the pelvis floor (weakened by the pregnancies) collapses, and the uterus literally falls down. It may lodge in the vagina, or it may actually fall out of the body through the vagina. If it does so, it becomes edematous and swells up like a balloon. Conception becomes impossible, and the woman’s procreative life has effectively ended . . ." [Note: Tikva Frymer-Kensky, "The Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah (Numbers Num 5:11-31)," Vetus Testamentum 34:1 (January 1984):20-21. See also the same author’s more popularly written article, "The Trial Before God of an Accused Adultress," Bible Review 2:3 (Fall 1986):46-49, which, by the way, provides supporting evidence for the widespread prohibition of polygamy in the ancient Near East. Other helpful resources are Michael Fishbane, "Accusations of Adultery: A Study of Law and Scribal Practice in Numbers 5:11-31," Hebrew Union College Annual 45 (1974):25-45; Herbert Chanan Brichto, "The Case of the Sota and a Reconsideration of Biblical ’Law,’" Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975):55-70; W. McKane, "Poison, Trial by Ordeal and the Cup of Wrath," Vetus Testamentum 30:4 (October 1980):474-92; and Ashley, pp. 132-33.]
Num 5:23-28 explain additional acts that were to take place before the woman drank the water. They are not in chronological sequence with Num 5:16-22. Drinking the water was the last step in the ritual, which took place in the tabernacle courtyard.
"The thought expressed here is that that which is written is dissolved in the water and imparts to the water the power inherent in the words so that the water can accomplish that of which the words speak (we must remember that to Israel and the ancient Near Eastern world words were more than sounds; they had power)." [Note: Noordtzij, p. 56.]
"The ritual trial of the Sotah [suspected adulteress] ended with the drinking of the potion. Nothing further was done, and we can assume that the woman went home to await the results at some future time." [Note: Frymer-Kensky, "The Strange . . .," p. 22.]
The man that Moses referred to in Num 5:31 is the man who accused his wife of unfaithfulness. He incurred no guilt before God for being jealous of his wife’s fidelity.
This case raises some questions. Why was only the woman punished if she had been unfaithful? The answer seems to be that her male companion in sin was unknown. If she had been unfaithful and the adulterer was identifiable, both partners should have suffered death by stoning (Lev 20:10).
What about a wife who suspected that her husband had been unfaithful to her? Did she not have the same recourse as the husband? Evidently she did not. The Israelites were to observe God’s revealed line of authority consistently. A man was directly responsible to God, but a woman was directly responsible to her father (if unmarried) or her husband (if married). Thus a wife was responsible to her husband in a sense in which the husband was not responsible to his wife. This does not mean that marital infidelity was a worse sin for a wife than it was for a husband. It simply explains how God wanted the Israelites to handle infidelity in the case of a wife. Perhaps God Himself retained the responsibility for judging a husband who was unfaithful to his wife (cf. Heb 13:4).
This procedure protected the wife of an extremely jealous husband who might continually accuse her. He would suffer shame by her innocence since this was a public ceremony.
"This legislation forbids human punishment of a woman on the basis of suspicion alone, and, in fact, protects her from what could be a death sentence at the hands of the community." [Note: Ashley, p. 135.]
"Marital deceit is a matter of such seriousness that the truth must be discovered. It is harmful to the sanctity of the community at large, and destructive of one of the bases of community life." [Note: Budd, p. 66.]
". . . this particular case law is included here because it gives another illustration of God’s personal involvement in the restitution for the sin of the nation. Within God’s covenant with Israel, there could be no hidden sin among God’s people nor any hidden suspicion of sin.
"The law of jealousy shows that through the role of the priest, God was actively at work in the nation and that no sin of any sort could be tolerated among God’s holy people." [Note: Sailhamer, p. 377.]
3. THE WATER OF JEALOUSY
Num 5:11-31.
The long and remarkable statute regarding the water of jealousy seems to have been interposed to prevent, by means of an ordeal, that cruel practice of peremptory divorce which had been in vogue at some period among the Hebrews. The position given to woman by the old customs must have been exceedingly low. Under polygamy a wife was in constant danger of suspicions and accusations she had no means of removing. The whole scope of this enactment and the means used for deciding between the husband and a suspected wife point to the frequency and general groundlessness of charges made by men in the “hardness of their hearts,” or by other women in the hardness of theirs.
The ordeal to which the wife was to be subjected was twofold. One point was the imprecation of the Divine curse upon herself if she had been guilty.
This oath was administered in terms and with ceremonies fitted to produce the most profound impression. She is set “before the Lord”-probably in the court of the sanctuary. Her hair is loose. She has the offering of jealousy in her hand-the tenth part of an ephah of barley-meal. The priest holds a basin of the “water of jealousy.” The terms of the curse with its frightful consequences are not only repeated in her hearing, but written on a scroll which is dropped into the water. The second thing is her drinking of the “water of jealousy,” “holy water” mingled with dust from the floor of the sanctuary, and with the terms of the curse. The nature of the ordeal was such that few guilty persons would have braved it. The only thing which appears wanting is a provision for the punishment of the man whose wife had passed the terrible test. Since the punishment of this crime was death, and he made the accusation without cause, his own judgment should have followed. Here, however, deference had to be paid to the notions of the time, as our Lord clearly indicates. The absolute right, the just equality between husband and wife, could not be established. Nor indeed, with all our progress, is it yet secured.
The ordeal of the water of jealousy must have saved many an innocent life from wreck. In one sense it was part of a system designed to maintain a high standard of morality, and in that system it had a place which at the time could not be filled in any other way. The main stress lies on the oath of purgation; and to the present day in certain ecclesiastical courts this is in use for the purpose of bringing to an end processes not otherwise capable of solution. It must be noted that our marriage laws, lax as they are thought to be, do not give to a husband anything like the power or allow divorce with anything like the facility admitted by the Mosaic law as some of the Rabbis interpreted it. And this ordeal was of such a nature that if those in use throughout Europe only a century ago or thereby, in the trial of witches for instance, be compared with it, we can at once see its superiority. Those barbarous tests, not used by the vulgar alone, but by religious men and Church authorities, made escape from false accusation next to impossible. Here there is absolutely nothing required which could in any sense injure or imperil an innocent woman. She might take her oath, see it written, and drink the water without the least fear or hesitation. The beneficence of the law is strongly marked along with its wisdom. It was a wonderful provision for the time.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary