Numbers 19

Updated
2001-05-26; 14:32:22utc

Role of the Priesthood (continued) 17:1-19:22

The Red Heifer

This chapter describes the preparation and application of a rather unusual rite of purification in case of defilement by death. In it's introduction to this chapter, The Pulpit Commentary says: "There is no note of time in connection with this chapter, but internal evidence points strongly to the supposition that it belongs to the early days of wandering after the ban. It belongs to a period when death had resumed his normal, and more than his normal, power over the children of Israel; when, having been for a short time expelled …, he had come back with frightful rigor to reign over a doomed generation…. If only the elder generation died off in the wilderness, this alone would yield nearly 100 victims every day, and by each of these a considerable number of the survivors must have been defiled. Thus, in the absence of special provision, one of two things must have happened: either the unhappy people would have grown callous and indifferent to the awful presence of death; or, more probably, a dark cloud of religious horror and depression would have permanently enveloped them."

The same commentary further states: "This offering was obviously intended, apart from its symbolic significance, to be studiedly simple and cheap. In contradiction to the many and costly and ever-repeated sacrifices of the Sinaitic legislation, this was a single individual, a female, and of the most common description: red is the most ordinary colour of cattle, and a young heifer is of less value than any other beast of its kind. The ingenuity indeed of the Jews heaped around the choice of this animal a multitude of precise requirements, and supplemented the prescribed ritual with many ceremonies, some of which are incorporated by the Targums with the sacred text; but even so they could not destroy the remarkable contrast between the simplicity of this offering and the elaborate complexity of those ordained at Sinai. Only six red heifers are said to have been needed during the whole of Jewish history, so far-reaching and so long-enduring were the uses and advantages of a single immolation. It is evident that this ordinance had for its distinguishing character oneness as opposed to multiplicity, simplicity contrasted with elaborateness." The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary disagrees with the logistics of The Pulpit Commentary by saying: "To afford the necessary supply of the cleansing mixture, the Jewish writers say that red heifer was sacrificed every year, and that the ashes, mingled with the sprinkling ingredients, were distributed through all the cities and towns of Israel." Obviously, they cannot both be right. It is hard to determine who is.

Against this background, as painted for us by The Pulpit Commentary, of the overwhelming presence of "the Grim Reaper" the provision of the ashes of the red heifer does, indeed, acquire special significance. We should not, however, only look at this chapter as a means God provided to survivors of the desert crossing, to boost their sagging morale. The death and burning to ashes of the red heifer is, in a way, God's own protest against death, corruption and defilement. He wanted to be known to His people "not the God of the dead but of the living."[ 1 ]

The first lesson we learn from this chapter is that death defiles us. Anyone who touched a dead body would be unclean for seven days; anyone who entered the tent in which someone had died, would be unclean for seven days; anyone who touched someone killed with a sword or who touches a human bone or a grave, would be unclean for seven days. Seven days is symbolic for a lifetime. Even those involved in the slaughter and burning of the red heifer would be unclean for the rest of the day.

The second lesson is that the negative effects of death are eliminated by the death of a substitute. In Matthew Henry's Commentary we read: "This burning of the heifer, though it was not properly a sacrifice of expiation, being not performed at the altar, yet was typical of the death and sufferings of Christ, by which he intended, not only to satisfy God's justice, but to purify and pacify our consciences, that we may have peace with God and also peace in our own bosoms, to prepare for which Christ died, not only like the bulls and goats at the altar, but like the heifer without the camp."

The writer of the Hebrew Epistle mentions this rite, together with the other sacrifices, and connects it with Christ's sacrifice for our sins. We read: "The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!"[ 2 ]

Adam Clarke makes the following observations about this rite: "We may remark several curious particulars in this ordinance.

1. A heifer was appointed for a sacrifice, probably, in opposition to the Egyptian superstition which held these sacred, and actually worshipped their great goddess Isis under this form; and this appears the more likely because males in general were preferred for sacrifice, yet here the female is chosen.

2. It was to be a red heifer, because red bulls were sacrificed to appease the evil demon Typhon, worshipped among the Egyptians....

3. The heifer was to be without spot-- having no mixture of any other colour. Plutarch remarks, De Iside et de Osiride, that if there was a single hair in the animal either white or black, it marred the sacrifice....

4. Without blemish-- having no kind of imperfection in her body; the other, probably, applying to the hair or colour.

5. On which never came yoke, because any animal which had been used for any common purpose was deemed improper to be offered in sacrifice to God. The heathens, who appear to have borrowed much from the Hebrews, were very scrupulous in this particular. Neither the Greeks nor Romans, nor indeed the Egyptians, would offer an animal in sacrifice that had been employed for agricultural purposes. Of this we have the most positive evidence from Homer, Porphyry, Virgil, and Macrobius."

From Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary we copy: "This is the only case in which the colour of the victim is specified; and it has been supposed the ordinance was designed in opposition to the superstitious notions of the Egyptians.... That people never offered a vow but they sacrificed a red bull, the greatest care being taken by their priests in examining whether it possessed the requisite characteristics; and it was an annual offering to Typhon, their evil being. By the choice, both of the sex and the colour, provision was made for eradicating from the minds of the Israelites a favorite Egyptian superstition regarding two objects of their animal worship. 'The truth probably is, ' says Hardwick ('Christ and other Masters, ' vol. ii., p. 338), 'that the adoption of the red colour in both cases corresponded only because of its inherent fitness to express the thought which it was made to symbolize in each community. It was the colour of blood; and while in Egypt the idea was readily connected with the deadly, scathing, sanguinary powers of Typhon, it became in the more ethical system of the Hebrews a remembrance of moral evil flowing out into its penal consequences, or an image of unpardoned sin (cf. <Isa. 1:15,18>)."

As the above quotes indicate, the killing of the red heifer was not a sacrifice in the normal sense of the word. The animal was not killed in the presence of the Lord, but outside the camp, and no part of the animal was burned on the altar. The red heifer was an outcast, like the leper. The obvious implication is that God could not accept the heifer, and what it stood for, that is the defilement of death. Yet, the ashes of the animal were used to undo this defilement. It was through the death of the heifer that the effects of death were eliminated. The writer to the Hebrews makes a clear application of this pictures when He says: "And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood."[ 3 ]

Yet, the death of the heifer was connected to the sanctuary, because we read that "the priest is to take some of its blood on his finger and sprinkle it seven times toward the front of the Tent of Meeting." The application of the water of purification would have had no effect upon the defiled person if the blood had not been sprinkled in front of the sanctuary. What happens in Heaven determines what happens on earth. The blood of Christ can be applied to human lives, and sins on earth can be forgiven, only because His blood was applied to the throne of God. Again, we read in Hebrews: "When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption."[ 4 ]

While the heifer is being burnt the priest had to take some cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool and throw them onto the burning heifer. The use of these three items also occurs in the ceremony for the cleansing of a leper. In Leviticus we read: "These are the regulations for the diseased person at the time of his ceremonial cleansing, when he is brought to the priest: The priest is to go outside the camp and examine him. If the person has been healed of his infectious skin disease, the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the one to be cleansed."[ 5 ] That ceremony also was symbolic for victory over death, exemplified by the use of the two birds, one of which was killed and one that flew away alive covered by the blood of the first bird. The Pulpit Commentary says about the added ingredients: "The antiseptic and medicinal qualities of the cedar ... and hyssop ... make their use readily intelligible; the symbolism of the 'scarlet' is much more obscure." It seems strange that this, otherwise excellent, commentary does not attribute anything but antiseptic and medicinal qualities to the cedar and the hyssop, but then looks for a symbolic significance for the scarlet. After all, the fire would burn all medicinal qualities out of the first two ingredients, so their meaning could only be symbolic. From our New Testament perspective, the cedar wood suggest the wood of the cross upon which our Savior died, and the hyssop the fact that the blood was applied to our lives, as the blood was applied with hyssop on the top and on both sides of the door frame of the houses of the Israelites in Egypt during the first Passover.[ 6 ]

Scarlet was one of the colors used in the curtains of the tabernacle, and in the making of the priestly garments.[ 7 ] Some of the furniture of the tabernacle was cover with a scarlet cloth during the desert journey.[ 8 ]

Scarlet was also the color of the rich and affluent. In his lament on the death of Saul, David wrote: "O daughters of Israel, weep for Saul, who clothed you in scarlet and finery, who adorned your garments with ornaments of gold."[ 9 ] But Isaiah calls it the color of sin, by saying: " 'Come now, let us reason together,' says the LORD. 'Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.' "[ 10 ] We could see in the scarlet, primarily, the representation of that which is divine and glorious, and at the same time see scarlet as a symbol of human sin. Man took what was heavenly and utterly corrupted it, and here God burns it in order to provide man with a means of cleaning himself from the stench of death that has polluted him.

The priest, who witnessed the killing and burning of the heifer, became unclean himself. He had to wash his clothes and would not be clean again until sundown. Yet, he had never been in close contact with the animal, except for the sprinkling of some of its blood in the direction of the tabernacle. The Pulpit Commentary says about this: "Every one of these details was devised in order to express the intensely infectious character of death in its moral aspect. The very ashes, which were so widely potent for cleansing (ver. 10), and the cleansing water itself (ver. 19), made every one that touched them, even for the purifying of another, himself unclean. At the same time the ashes, while, as it were, so redolent of death that they must be kept outside the camp, were most holy, and were to be laid up by a clean man in a clean place (ver. 9). These contradictions find their true explanation only when we consider them as foreshadowing the mysteries of the atonement."

Besides the priest, two other men were involved in this rite: one who burned the heifer, who was probably the same person who killed the animal, and one who gathered the ashes. Both became unclean in the process and had to purify themselves by washing their clothes and wait until the evening before doing anything that required ceremonial purity. The ashes, the source of purification for persons defiled by death, were to be stored outside the camp, emphasizing the fact that for the Israelites purification from the pollution of death came from the outside, not from among themselves, not even from the tabernacle, God's dwelling place, but from the region of the outcasts, where death was conquered by one who died in the place of others.

Vs. 10 tell us: "This will be a lasting ordinance both for the Israelites and for the aliens living among them." In our present day the rite has ceased to be performed; the image is no longer necessary, since the reality it portrayed has come. So the ordinance remains in effect, but in a deeper, and truer sense. The effect of Jesus' death on the cross, applied to our lives will purify us from the pollution of death.

It is interesting to observe that the aliens are mentioned in this context. The cleansing was not only meant for Israel, but for the whole world. The Apostle John brings this out in his Gospel when he writes about the prophecy of Caiphas, saying: " 'You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.' He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one."[ 11 ]

Vs. 11-16 detail to whom this cleansing water is to be applied, and vs. 17-22 show how it is applied. Anyone who had in any way come into close contact with death was in need of the application of the water of cleansing. Even if a person entered the tent in which someone had died, he became unclean. Uncovered containers were unclean.

Death is one of the great mysteries we face while we live on earth. There is no explanation of the fact that our bodies develop up to a certain age, and that after we reach a certain stage we begin to deteriorate, at a slower or faster rate. Science has so far been unable to determine what triggers the reversal from life to death. Even without sickness and accidents people die because their organs wear out and cease to function. Since we are familiar with these facts we have accepted that man must die, without really wanted to accept the phenomenon of death. Death is unnatural and abnormal, however common it may be.

What happens after death is even more mysterious and has caused all kinds of speculations in the human mind. Shakespeare spoke about "the undiscovered country from which bourn no traveler returns."[ 12 ] Some people believe that death means annihilation, a complete ceasing of existence, but most people allow for some continuation of life, under different conditions, either better or worse than on earth. The Stone Age tribes of Irian Jaya, Indonesia, believed that the souls of the dead departed for the shores of the Pacific or Indian Ocean and continued to exist in the vague blue, sometimes returning to their villages as evil spirits that had to be pacified. This made death a phenomenon to be feared. The fact that bodies that were not disposed of immediately by burial or cremation became breeding grounds of contagious diseases reinforced this fear. Dead people could make others sick!

None of these imperfect philosophies can be taken as being the basis of the command God gives to the Israelites here. The Bible teaches clearly that death is related to sin; that is a temporal separation of the soul and spirit from the human body, and that it is opposed to God, as sin is opposed to Him. God hates death as much as He hates sin. Sin and death are both elements of rebellion against God, working on different levels: sin on the spiritual level and death on the physical. This makes the fact of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ the more amazing. Because of His eternal love for His creation, the Father allowed His Son to die, to overcome death in His own death, so that the effect of Jesus' death could be applied to people who live under the dark cloud of death. No one put this more beautifully than the writer to the Hebrews, when he said: "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death-- that is, the devil-- and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death."[ 13 ] Those who are in Christ are not sprinkled by the ashes of a dead heifer, but they are touched by the resurrected Lord, who cleanses them from the pollution of death. When John received his vision of the resurrected Lord, he wrote: "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: 'Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.' "[ 14 ]

Matthew Henry's Commentary asks the question: "But why did the law make a dead corpse such a defiling thing? (1.) because death is the wages of sin, entered into the world by it, and reigns by the power of it. Death to mankind is another thing from what it is to other creatures: it is a curse, it is the execution of the law, and therefore the defilement of death signifies the defilement of sin.

(2.) because the law could not conquer death, nor abolish it and alter the property of it, as the gospel does by bringing life and immortality to light, and so introducing a better hope. Since our Redeemer was dead and buried, death is no more destroying to the Israel of God, and therefore dead bodies are no more defiling; but while the church was under the law, to show that it made not the comers thereunto perfect, the pollution contracted by dead bodies could not but form in their minds melancholy and uncomfortable notions concerning death, while believers now through Christ can triumph over it. O grave! where is thy victory? Where is thy pollution?"

The cleaning of a man polluted by death was done in two stages, first on the third, and then on the seventh day. The two days reflect the two events in the history of salvation that would bring about the complete victory over death: the resurrection of Christ, and the final Sabbath, or seventh day, on which death will be hurled into the lake of fire.[ 15 ]

Another interesting feature in this chapter is that, if a man would not submit to the rite of purification on those two days, he would not only remain in his unclean condition himself, but he would defile the sanctuary. The Pulpit Commentary says here: "On the bearing of this remarkable announcement see Levit. xv. 31. The uncleanness of death was not simply a personal matter, in involved, if not duly purged, the whole congregation, and reached even to God himself, for its defilement spread to the sanctuary." The text in Leviticus reads: "You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them."

Adam Clarke presents us with an interesting word study: "[He shall purify himself with it] YitchaTaa' …bow …, literally, he shall sin himself with it. This Hebrew form of speech is common enough among us in other matters. Thus to fleece, to bark, and to skin, do not signify to add a fleece, another bark, or a skin, but to take one away; therefore, to sin himself, in the Hebrew idiom, is not to add sin, but to take it away, to purify. The verb chaaTa' … signifies to miss the mark, to sin, to purify from sin, and to make a sin-offering."

The last six verses of the chapter deal with the application of the water to the unclean person. As certain amount of ashes is put in a jar and mixed with pure water. The water is sprinkled upon the unclean person by someone else who is ritually pure. The rite does not require the presence of a priest, any lay person can perform it. This fact makes the rite stand out in the complex of Levitical law, where everything else connected to the relationship between a man and God was done by a priest. This reinforces the meaning of the rite as a prophetic statement about the new dispensation, where anyone who has been cleansed by the blood of Christ become a priests who serves God and his neighbor. The application of the water was done by dipping hyssop in the water and sprinkle the person to be cleansed. Hyssop was the most available and most common means of sprinkling. It may have been scares in the desert, but it grew everywhere in Egypt and in Canaan. The Israelites must have taken some along on their journey through the desert. The very fact that a person polluted by death was touched by water to which the substance of death had been added, meant victory over the pollution. The cleansed person only had to wash his clothes, as a sign of a new beginning, to be acceptable to the Lord.

Vs. 21 is one of the most puzzling verses in this chapter: "The man who sprinkles the water of cleansing must also wash his clothes, and anyone who touches the water of cleansing will be unclean till evening." The water cleansed the unclean and it defiles the clean! No satisfactory explanation for this contradiction has been found. The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary says about this: "The opposite effects ascribed to the water of separation-- of cleansing one person and defiling another-- are very singular, and not capable of very satisfactory explanation. One important lesson, however, was thus taught, that its purifying efficacy was not inherent in itself, but arose from the divine appointment, as in other ordinances of religion, which are effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but solely through the grace of God communicated thereby." In Matthew Henry's Commentary we read the following: "Even he that sprinkled the water of separation, or touched it, or touched the unclean person, must be unclean till the evening, that is, must not come near the sanctuary on that day, v. 21, 22. Thus God would show them the imperfection of those services, and their insufficiency to purify the conscience, that they might look for the Messiah, who in the fullness of time should by the eternal Spirit offer himself without spot unto God, and so purge our consciences from dead works (that is, from sin, which defiles like a dead body, and is therefore called a body of death), that we may have liberty of access to the sanctuary, to serve the living God with living sacrifices."

Matthew Henry is, of course, correct in saying that the water pointed toward the coming Christ. The death of the heifer did not bring about a complete victory over death to the point where no pollution was present any more. Even in this ceremonial cleansing, death still had the upper hand. The problem has always been that man carries the germ of sin in his own heart, which responds to the sin that pollutes from the outside. That is why people would become ceremonially unclean by touching certain objects, animals, sick people, or corpses. Jesus touched lepers without defiling Himself. Matthew tells us: "A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, 'Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.' Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. 'I am willing,' he said. 'Be clean!' Immediately he was cured of his leprosy."[ 16 ] Not only was Jesus not defiled, but the unclean person was cleansed! The same with the woman who had suffered from bleeding for twelve years. According to the law, any person she touched became unclean.[ 17 ] Not only did Jesus not become unclean, but the woman was healed and cleansed instantly when she touched Him. Mark tells us the story in the most vivid colors: "And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, 'If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.' Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.[ 18 ] This is the reason why Jesus could take upon Himself the sin of the world, without defiling Himself. When He descended into hell the "fire" did not burn Him, because there was no "worm" of sin in His inner being that responded to the outside touch.[ 19 ]

[ 1 ] Matt. 22:32

[ 2 ] Heb. 9:13,14

[ 3 ] Heb. 13:12

[ 4 ] Heb. 9:11,12

[ 5 ] Lev. 14:2-4

[ 6 ] See Ex. 12:22

[ 7 ] See Ex. 26:1; 39:1

[ 8 ] See Num. 4:7,8

[ 9 ] II Sam. 1:24

[ 10 ] Isa. 1:18

[ 11 ] John 11:50-52

[ 12 ] Hamlet's monologue

[ 13 ] Heb. 2:14,15

[ 14 ] Rev. 1:17,18

[ 15 ] Rev. 20:14

[ 16 ] Matt. 8:2,3

[ 17 ] See Lev. 15:25-27

[ 18 ] Mark 5:25-29

[ 19 ] See Mark 9:48