21<\/strong>. The man who sprinkles the sacred water becomes ‘unclean’; and in the next clause it is stated more generally that the man who touches it becomes unclean. The uncleanness in this case is slight; it lasts until the evening and can be removed by simply washing the clothes. Gray cites a Buddhist parallel from Max Mller, Sacred Books of the East<\/em>, ii. 250. A close connexion existed in the Semitic mind between ‘uncleanness’ and ‘holiness.’ ‘Holiness’ or ‘sacredness’ was a contagious quality which debarred its possessor from ordinary intercourse with others until the contagion had been removed. Inanimate objects could also receive the contagion: see on Num 16:37<\/span>.<\/p>\n Shall wash his clothes, <\/B>because he is unclean, as it here follows. It is strange that the same water should cleanse one person, and defile another; but God would have it so, partly, to teach us that it did not cleanse by any virtue in itself, or in the work done, but only by virtue of Gods appointment; partly, to mind the Jews of the imperfection of their priesthood, and their ritual purifications and expiations, and consequently of the necessity of a better priest and sacrifice and way of purifying, which these outward rites did point at; and partly, to show that the efficacy of Gods ordinances doth not depend upon the person or quality of his ministers, because the same person who was polluted himself could and did cleanse others. <\/P> He that toucheth the water of separation; <\/B>either by sprinkling of it, or by being sprinkled with it; for even he that was cleansed by it, was not fully cleansed as soon as he was sprinkled, but only at the even of that day, as is said here and above, Num 19:19<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 21. he that sprinkleth . . . ; andhe that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean untileven<\/B>The opposite effects ascribed to the water ofseparationof cleansing one person and defiling anotherare verysingular, and not capable of very satisfactory explanation. Oneimportant lesson, however, was thus taught, that its purifyingefficacy was not inherent in itself, but arose from the divineappointment, as in other ordinances of religion, which are effectualmeans of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him thatadministers them, but solely through the grace of God communicatedthereby.<\/P><\/p>\n And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them<\/strong>,…. To the children of Israel, throughout their generations, unto the coming of the Messiah, when the ceremonial law, which stood in divers washings and purifications, was abolished:<\/p>\n that he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall wash his clothes<\/strong>; the priest that sprinkled, according to the Targum of Jonathan, or any other person that did it; so that the same purifying water, which made an unclean person clean, defiled a clean one; for though it was purifying, it had uncleanness in it; having the ashes not only of the cow itself, but of its skin, blood, and dung; and so a lye made of ashes is impure in itself, and yet serves to scour cloth: Ainsworth thinks this signifies the imperfection and insufficiency of legal rites, which, in their greatest virtue, only sanctified to the purifying of the flesh, and left the purifier himself in uncleanness he had not before; by consideration of which, the people might be led to Christ, and his Spirit, for cleansing, Heb 9:13<\/span> but it rather signifies, that the blood of Christ, which cleanses from all sin, and answers to this purifying water, that its cleansing virtue is owing to Christ being made sin for his people; and that some may be instruments of directing souls to the blood of Christ for cleansing, and yet be defiled themselves: it does not appear that this man, thus unclean, was to have the water of purification sprinkled on him, but was only to wash his clothes; see Re 7:14<\/span><\/p>\n and he that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean until even<\/strong>: but was not clean until he had washed, as Aben Ezra observes, though not expressed; for if one that only sprinkled it had need to be washed, much more one that touched it, and which was unavoidable, if, when he mixed the water and ashes together, he stirred them with his finger, [See comments on Nu 19:17]<\/span>, though Maimonides t understands this of sprinkling and touching the water when there was no necessity for it, when a person was not employed in doing the duty of this law.<\/p>\n t Hilchot Parah Adumah, c. 15. sect. 1.<\/p>\n 21, 22<\/strong>. <\/strong> It was to be a perpetual statute <\/strong> that he who sprinkled the water of separation<\/strong>, or even touched it, and the person defiled by the corpse-defiled person and the one polluted by his touch, should be unclean till evening. This rule applied to other forms of uncleanness. See Leviticus 15<\/span>.<\/p>\n Lev 11:25, Lev 11:40, Lev 16:26-28, Heb 7:19, Heb 9:10, Heb 9:13, Heb 9:14, Heb 10:4 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Exo 27:21 – a statute for ever Lev 3:17 – a perpetual Lev 14:46 – shall be unclean Lev 17:15 – both wash Num 19:9 – a water of separation<\/p>\n And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall wash his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean until even. 21. The man who sprinkles the sacred water becomes ‘unclean’; and in the next clause it is stated more generally that … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 19:21”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4319","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4319","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4319"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4319\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4319"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4319"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4319"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"