Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 5:8

But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto the LORD, [even] to the priest; beside the ram of the atonement, whereby an atonement shall be made for him.

8. The verse deals with the case in which the injured person dies before restitution has been made to him, and leaves no representative.

kinsman ] Heb. g’l. A technical term of considerable importance in Israelite law. A man’s next of kin was (1) a full brother, (2) failing him, an uncle on the father’s side, (3) failing him, a first cousin on the father’s side, (4) failing him, any near kinsman. His duties were manifold. In civil law: ( a) to buy back the family estate of his kinsman, which the latter had sold through poverty (Lev 25:25, Rth 4:1-6). He also had the refusal of it before it was sold (Jer 32:8-12). ( b) To buy back the person of his kinsman, if the latter had sold himself as a slave through poverty (Lev 25:47 ff.). In both these cases his action may be denoted by the word ‘redeem.’ ( c) To receive restitution due to his deceased kinsman (here). In criminal law: to claim satisfaction for the blood of his murdered kinsman, in which case he was known as the g’l haddm, ‘avenger of blood.’

unto the Lord shall be the priest’s ] lit. ‘shall be for Jehovah for the priest.’ The priest shall receive it as the representative of Jehovah.

the ram of the atonement ] The guilt-offering described in Lev 6:6.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Verse 8. If the man have no kinsman] The Jews think that this law respects the stranger and the sojourner only, because every Israelite is in a state of affinity to all the rest; but there might be a stranger in the camp who has no relative in any of the tribes of Israel.

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

If the man have no kinsman, which might be the case commonly with proselytes, if not with Israelites. This also suppposeth the person injured to be dead or gone away into some unknown place, and the person injured to be known to the injurer.

God appointed

the priest as his deputy to receive his dues, and take them to his own use, that so he might more cheerfully and entirely devote himself to the ministration of holy things. This is au additional explication to that law, Lev 6:2, and for the sake thereof it seems here to be repeated.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

But if a man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass to,…. This supposes that if a man should die, against whom the trespass is, before the restitution is made, then it shall be made to his heirs; and if he has none, then it was to be given to the priest, as after directed: the Jews g generally understand this of a proselyte, that has no heirs, for they say, there is no Israelite but has kinsmen, a brother or a son, or some one or other near of kin to him, of his father’s family, even up to Jacob:

let the trespass be recompensed unto the Lord, [even] to the priest; that is, let the principal, with the fifth part, which is the recompence for the trespass committed, be given to the priest of the Lord, which is the same as if it was given to him, he being his minister:

beside the ram of the atonement, whereby an atonement shall be made for him; which, in this case, was ordered to be offered for the expiation, of the trespass, see Le 6:6; the Jewish canon is,

“he that takes away anything by force from a proselyte, and swears to him, and he (the proselyte) dies, lo, he shall pay the principal and the fifth to the priests, and the trespass offering to the altar, as it is said, “if a man has no kinsman”, &c. when he brings the money and the trespass offering, and he is dead, the money shall be given to his sons, but the trespass offering (the ram) shall feed until it contracts some blemish, and then it shall be sold, and the price of it shall fall to the freewill offerings h.”

g Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Bava Kama, c. 9. sect. 11. Jarchi in loc. h Misn. Bava Kama, ib.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

8 But if the man have no kinsman. This passage, which I have inserted from chapter 5 is connected (213) indeed with another subject, and yet, because it directly refers to the right of the priests, it was necessary to remove it to this place, especially since it expresses that kind of sacrifice which Moses has lately adverted to, i.e., when they expiated the crime of theft. God did not indeed desire that the priests should be enriched by others’ losses, nor that thieves should go free, if they offered what they had stolen to the priests; but, if there were no one to whom they could restore it, He would have their houses delivered from (the proceeds of) their sin; and with very good reason, since otherwise the very gross offender would have never hesitated to plunder the goods of a dead man, if he were without heirs. First, therefore, He commanded their property to be restored to the lawful owners; and, if they were dead, He substituted their kinsmen, who are called גאלים, goelim, on account of the right of redemption, which God granted in the Law to relatives, as we shall see elsewhere; and because he who was next of kin was commanded to marry the widow of one who had left no seed. It was therefore a very uncommon thing that a person who had defrauded another had to recompense the loss to the priest; for in most cases some successor to the dead man would be found.

(213) “ Depend bien de la matiere qui est traitee plus au long des larrecins :” depends indeed on the subject of theft which is treated more at length. — Fr.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

8. No kinsman The Hebrew goel was the nearest relative, whose duty it was to redeem his enslaved kinsman, as well as to avenge his death at another’s hand. See note introductory to Num 5:1, and on Gen 9:5.

In this is implied the fact of the death of the injured party.

To the priest As the representative of Jehovah, who in a peculiar sense is the kin of the deceased, the restitution is to be made. He is our ultimate legatee and avenger. The restitution money paid to the priest was put into a common purse and distributed among all the priests in that course.

The ram of the atonement This was the sacrifice by which the expiation to Jehovah was effected. Lev 6:7. As he was offended by the sin, his wrath must be appeased, as well as the violated rights of man be restored. Hengstenberg interprets this to signify that Jehovah, the natural heir, who was wronged in the injured person, was to receive a double trespass offering. The original law required, with the ram, a sum of money estimated to be an equivalent to the injury done to the person. “The ram of the asham receives an imaginary value according to the estimate of the priests.” The ram presented by the delinquent “as a compensation for the spiritual debt was taxed as high as the sum which was given for the compensation of the outward material debt. By this symbolic act the idea of debt was most vividly impressed, and the necessity of making a settlement with God was clearly exhibited.” This verse supplements the original law of the trespass offering, which is silent respecting the death of the injured person who had no heir or goel. It is probable that such a case had occurred, and hence additional legislation was required.

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

EXPOSITION

RESTITUTION TO BE MADE FOR TRESPASSES (Num 5:5-10).

Num 5:6

Shall commit any sin that men commit. Literally, “[one] of all the transgressions of men,” i.e; the wrongs current amongst men. To do a trespass against the Lord. This qualifies the former expression, and restricts its reference to the sins mentioned in Le Num 6:2, Num 6:8, Num 6:5, viz; wrongs done to the property of another. Such wrongs, perhaps because they were considered legitimate as long as they were not found out, were taken up by the Lord himself as involving a trespass against his own righteousness.

Num 5:8

If the man have no kinsman. No goel, or personal representative. This supposes that the wronged man himself is dead, and it is an addition to the law of restitution as given in Lev 6:1-30, an addition clearly necessary to its completeness. The wrong-doer must in no case be the gainer by his own wrong, and if the trespass could not be “recompensed” to man, it must be “recompensed” to the Lord, who was as it were joint-plaintiff in the cause. To the priest. On the general principle that the priest was the visible representative of the invisible majesty.

Num 5:9

Every offering. Hebrew, terumah, heave offering (Exo 29:28). Septuagint, . Those offerings, or portions of offerings, which were not consumed on the altar, but “presented” at the altar. Having been offered, they were the property of the Lord, and were given by him to the priests.

Num 5:10

Every man’s hallowed things. Dedicatory offerings, such as first-fruits, not exactly of the nature of sacrifices. His, i.e; the priest’s. Whatsoever any man giveth the priest, it shall be his. A general principle, including and confirming the previous rules; subject, of course, to the other and greater principle, that whatever the Lord claimed for himself by fire must first be consumed. These directions concerning the rights of the priests to offerings are very often repeated in various connections. There was probably a strong tendency amongst the people to cheat the priests of their dues, or to represent their claims as exorbitant. It is in the spirit of covetousness which underlies all such conduct that we are to find the connection between these two verses and the rest of the paragraph.

HOMILETICS

Num 5:5-10

NO FRAUD PERMITTED BY GOD

We have here, as part of the moral law of God which changeth not, the duty of making confession of, and satisfaction for, any wrong done to another, and the duty of not withholding what is rightly theirs from the ministers of God. Consider, therefore

I. THAT EVERY WRONG DONE TO ANOTHER IN RESPECT OF HIS PROPERTY WAS ASSUMED BY THE LORD AS A TRESPASS AGAINST HIMSELF. So now every wrong or fraud, and all cheating or sharp dealing, practiced by one of us against another, is not merely an offence against man,such as may be excused by the necessity of the times, or the custom of business, or the universal prevalence of such practices,but is an outrage against the righteousness of God which he will never overlook. To such a man God himself is “the adversary” (Mat 5:25); and if he be not repaid, then will he himself “repay” that man (Isa 59:18; Rom 12:19). He that hath cheated his neighbour of a penny hath gained unto himself an eternal and immeasurable loss, except he repent, confess, restore (Exo 34:7; Isa 61:8).

II. THAT EVERY ONE WHO HAD DONE SUCH WRONG MUST

(1) CONFESS,

(2) MAKE RESTITUTION.

So now there is no true repentance for, and no real forgiveness of, such wrongsfrom the least even to the greatestunless they are

(1) humbly acknowledged,

(2) liberally made good (Luk 19:8).

Those wrongs (alas, how many!) which are never found out, which are not acknowledged through false shame, and not made good through covetousness, are like bullets lodged in the body, which will not cease to cause misery, disease, and death.

III. THAT IF THE WRONGED MAN WAS DEAD, AND HAD LEFT NO REPRESENTATIVE, THE TRESPASS MUST STILL BE RECOMPENSED TO THE LORD BY BEING PAID TO THE PRIEST. So now it is a certain maxim of Christian morality (as of law) that no man be a gainer by his own wrong. If he cannot repay to the person wronged, directly or indirectly, he is bound to make recompense to God by devoting, it to some pious purpose. If a man has made a fortune by fraud, his repentance is vain unless he make over the whole of it to the good of his neighbours. This will not cleanse his conscience,only the one Sacrifice can do that,but without it his conscience cannot be cleansed.

IV. THAT GOD DID CAREFULLY INSIST THAT HIS PRIESTS SHOULD RECEIVE THEIR PORTION, and SHOULD NOT BE OVER–REACHED. Even so is the law of Christ (1Co 9:7-14; Gal 6:6; 1Ti 5:17, 1Ti 5:18).

HOMILIES BY W. BINNIE

Num 5:5-10

CONSCIENCE MONEY

This precept is a continuation of the one laid down in the preceding verses, and, like it, admonishes the people regarding the purity which ought to prevail in a camp honoured with the presence of the Holy One. Since the Lord dwells in the midst of the camp, there must not abide in it anything that defilethany leper, any one having an issue, any one who has been in contact with the dead. Nor is it bodily defilement only that entails this disability. The man “that doeth hurt to his neighbour” is unclean in God’s sight. Fraud is as defiling as leprosy. Even if it is such as the criminal law cannot reach, God’s eye sees it, and is offended with it; and the wrong-doer must regard himself as excluded from the camp till he has made restitution to his wronged neighbour, and brought a sacrifice of atonement to the Lord. I. Keeping in view the scope of the law as I have described it, you will without difficulty master the particulars laid down, especially if you read along with it the law in Le Num 6:1-7. It is essential to observe that this injunction is not a part of the criminal code. It is not laid down for the guidance of the judges, but for the guidance of a man’s own conscience. The restitution enjoined is similar to that known among ourselves as CONSCIENCE MONEY. Take an example. A man finds a pruning-hook by the highway-side, evidently left there by mistake. He takes it home. “An excellent pruning-hook; the very thing I was in need of. I need not make a noise about the lucky find; I will keep it to myself.” A few days after, the loser turns up, and makes inquiries about his hook. But the finder denies all knowledge of it, and it remains in his possession. Among us the criminal law would have something to say to this dishonest finder. The meshes of the Hebrew criminal code seem to have been wide enough to let him go. But the holy law of God speaks to his conscience.

1. He is to confess his fault. Even in matters belonging to the criminal law, the Jews laid great stress on confession. It was a maxim among them, that if a man brought an offering for his offence, but omitted to confess the evil he had done, his offering would not avail for atonement (cf. 1Jn 1:9).

2. He is to make restitution to the person wronged. In the instance supposed the pruning-hook must be restored, or its equivalent in money, with one-fifth part added. This, let me observe in passing, shows that the trespass contemplated is not a trespass such as fell within the scope of the criminal law; for the restitution enjoined in the criminal law was much ampler A thief restored double; a sheep-stealer fourfold; a cattle-lifter fivefold (Exo 22:1-4). Mild penalties certainly, but more severe than the restitution enjoined here.

3. A ram is to be brought to the Lord as a trespass offering for atonement.

4. If the person who was wronged is dead, the restitution is to be made to the next heir,the kinsman, or goel (Num 6:8),whom failing, it is to be made to the Lord in the person of the priest. In connection with this, the people are admonished that all gifts solemnly dedicated to the priest fall under the same rule as conscience money paid by way of compensation for fraud. Omission to pay them will defile the camp.

II. WHAT DOES THIS STATUTE OF CONSCIENCE MONEY TEACH US?

1. When a man does wrong to his neighbour he sins against God, and must crave God’s pardon for the wrong. There have been religious systemsthe old Greek and Roman paganism, for examplewhich completely disconnected religion from morality. A tendency in the same direction, who that knows himself has not caught a glimpse of in his own heart? Against that fatal divorce the whole word. of God is a protest and warning. Read Psa 15:2. When a man does wrong to his neighbour he must make compensation to his neighbour. It will not do simply to confess the wrong to God, and beg his pardon. That is only one half of what the case demands. Satisfaction must be made to the person wronged. In many cases the civil magistrate will see to this. In many other cases the wrong-doing is of a kind which his sword cannot reachfraudulent bankruptcies often elude the law. In all cases alike, God commands the person who has wronged his neighbour to repay him with increase.

3. The wrongdoer who omits to repay as required is admonished that he is an unclean person, whose presence defiles God’s sanctuary. In God’s sight the camp is defiled by the presence of a man who defrauds as much as by a leper. If you would see how deeply this aspect of the precept before us impressed itself on consciences in Israel read Psa 15:1-5, a psalm fitted surely to suggest alarm to those amongst us who in business habitually violate the golden rule, and yet claim a place in God’s sanctuary.

4. In the complications of modem life it will happen far more frequently than in ancient Israel that satisfaction for fraud cannot be made directly to the parties defrauded. In this case the money is to be devoted to charitable and pious uses. To be sure, ill-gotten wealth is a very undesirable source of income for either Church or charity. I much doubt whether God honours it to do much good. But if the fraudulent person is truly penitent, and has done his best to make compensation to his victims, he may hope to escape the defilement and curse that cleave to dishonest gains by bestowing them where they may possibly do some good.B.

HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG

Num 5:5-8

CONFESSION AND RESTITUTION

These trespasses are explained and illustrated in Le Num 6:1-7. In both passages provision is made for confession, restitution, interest, and atonementin Leviticus the atonement being spoken of more fully than here. Notice that three parties are provided for in the directions given.

I. THE WRONG–DOER. The wrong-doer has done injury to himself as well as another. In one sense the injury is even greater. What we suffer from others, grievous and irritating as it may be at the time, need not be an abiding ill; but the injury we inflict on others is great spiritual danger to ourselves. Hence the man truly confessing the wrong he had done was proving himself in a better state of mind, no longer the victim of selfishness, and glorying in his shame, but showing an awakened conscience, and a repentance needing not to be repented of. Consider the benefit David got (Psa 51:1-19). Confession, restitution, and atonement cleanse the bosom of a great deal of “perilous stuff.” Restitution, though a loss in possessions, is a gain in peace. Reparation of a wrong done to a fellow-man is to be valued for the injured person’s sake; but it is a great deal more that the wrong-doer for his own sake has been brought right with God.

II. THE PERSON WRONGED. He is provided for as far as he can be provided for. To make reparation in all respects is indeed impossible. A wrong-doer, with all his efforts, cannot put things exactly as they were before. Still he must do what he can. Hence the provision to add a fifth over the principal. Doubtless a truly repentant trespasser would not stop even at that to show his sincerity in reparation. Zaccheus restored fourfold. Surely there are some injured persons to whom it would be a greater joy and a greater benefit to see their enemies altogether altered than if they had never been hurt by them at all. One great good, as concerned the person wronged, was that confession and restitution would do much to allay, and perhaps obliterate, the sense of injustice. “It is not what a man outwardly has or wants that constitutes the happiness or misery of him. It is the feeling of injustice that is insupportable to all men. The brutalest black African cannot bear that he should be used unjustly” (Carlyle). Again, injured persons themselves may be injurers. A sense of wrong suffered is not always effectual in hindering the sufferer from wronging others. So the confession and repentance of one might lead to the confession and repentance of another. Who knows the total effect produced on the persons to whom Zaccheus made his fourfold restitution?

III. JEHOVAH HIMSELF. Acknowledgment and restitution were not enough without atonement. To injure a fellow-man is to rebel against the government of God, robbing him of some possible service from the person injured. The wrong-doer, from prickings of conscience, or mere uneasiness of mind, may make some reparation to his fellow-man, whom he can see; but if he thinks he has then done all, he may find, from continued uneasiness, that something is yet unaccomplished. It is the greatest blot on sinful men, not that they are unjust to one another, but that they have come short of the glory of God. That glory must be restored, and God take the place of self, if human relations are to come right. There is no scheme of teaching or example that, acting on natural lines, will ever make men perfectly just to one another. Things must be put right with God, for of him, and through him, and to him are all things. Let no one, therefore, make confession and restitution here look large, and atonement be pushed into the corner as an unimportant detail. Just as the confession and restitution point forward to the pure and vigorous ethics of Jesus, so the slain animals point forward to him who takes away the sin of the world.Y.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Num 5:8 But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto the LORD, [even] to the priest; beside the ram of the atonement, whereby an atonement shall be made for him.

Ver. 8. Unto the Lord, even to the priest. ] The priest is the Lord’s receiver. a So Heb 7:6-9 Tithes are due to the ministers of Christ “that liveth,” because due to him, and they are in his stead. 2Co 5:20

a Sacerdos est vicarius et quasi haeres. – Dio.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)