Numbers 5

Updated
2001-05-26; 14:32:35utc

II. Sanctification of Israel 5:1-10:10

Sanctification through Separation 5:1-31

a. Expulsion from the camp. (vs. 1-4)

This section deals with three kinds of separation: 1. A physical separation, 2. A moral separation, and 3. A spiritual separation.

1. A physical separation.

God commanded Moses to send out of the camp anyone with an infectious skin disease or a discharge of any kind, or who is ceremonially unclean because of a dead body.

As Adam Clarke's Commentary points out, there were two reasons for the expulsion of the above mentioned individuals: contagion and sanctification. The skin disease and the discharge could make other people sick, and so, in some cases, could the handling of a dead body be a vehicle for transmission of sickness. But the main issue was, of course, that sickness and death, as synonyms of sin, could not be tolerated in the presence of God.

The NIV does not use the term leper, like most other translations do. The Hebrew word is tsâra`, which Strong's Definitions describe as: "to scourge, ... to be stricken with leprosy." Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary remarks on this: "Modern medicine now recognizes that some of these symptoms belonged to diseases other than leprosy." Whatever the disease may have been, it was considered to be incurable, apart from divine intervention. Yet, the book of Leviticus deals in detail with the sickness and with the ritual that had to accompany the purification, once it has been determined that the sufferer was healed.[ 1 ]

Leprosy was the sickness that pictured, more than any other disease, the damage sin had done to mankind. It was tsâra`, the scourge. The rite of purification in connection with this sickness is one of the most beautiful and meaningful illustrations of the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. As far as we know the only lepers, among the nation of Israel, that were ever healed were the ones who were cured by Christ. When Jesus heals one of the leper in the Gospel of Mark and tells him: "See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them,"[ 2 ] it would probably have been the first time the prescribed ritual of purification could have been performed by a Jewish priest. Unfortunately, the man disobeyed Jesus command, so the priests could not act out the rite that symbolized the Lord's death and resurrection.[ 3 ]

2. A moral separation.

The second category of people to be sent away, were the ones with a discharge. TLB translates this with: "all who have open sores," but the connection seems to be that of a sexual disease. The Hebrew word is zûwb, which is defined by Strong's as: "to flow freely (as water), i.e. (spec.) to have a (sexual) flux." Since the kind of sickness referred to here is, in most cases, transmitted by sexual intercourse, the impurity has a moral connotation. Where leprosy exemplified sin in its outward demonstration, these symptoms embody the fact that sin has affected the very core of man's being. That part of man's life which stood for the most intimate relationships, was spoiled by sin and had become offensive to God.

3. A spiritual separation.

The third group of people to be sent away, were those who had been into close contact with death. Their impurity was more transitory than of the previous two categories, since they could be declared clean at the end of a certain period of time. Presumably, the contact with death in this context, is with the human body. Leviticus specifies that contact with any dead creature defiled a human being. We read about certain ritually impure animal: "You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening."[ 4 ] Later in the book of Numbers we read: "Anyone out in the open who touches someone who has been killed with a sword or someone who has died a natural death, or anyone who touches a human bone or a grave, will be unclean for seven days."[ 5 ] And as a general rule, a priest could not serve if he came into contact with the dead. "A priest must not make himself ceremonially unclean for any of his people who die."[ 6 ] Death is the ultimate insult to God and to man as the bearer of His image. God does not want His people to consider death as a natural phenomenon, but as an infringement upon His holiness.

Restitution. (vs. 5-10)

The sinful condition which forms the core of these verses is not spelled out. It is simply defined as doing wrong to someone in any way. It pertains to the relationship between individuals, but the source of the trouble is unfaithfulness in the relationship with God. Vs. 6 reads: "When a man or woman wrongs another in any way and so is unfaithful to the LORD, that person is guilty." Since it involves restitution, we can narrow the offense to wrongful acts in a business relationship. We find the clause "unfaithful to the LORD" also in Leviticus, in the same context, where the sins are more specifically spelled out. We read: "If anyone sins and is unfaithful to the LORD by deceiving his neighbor about something entrusted to him or left in his care or stolen, or if he cheats him, or if he finds lost property and lies about it, or if he swears falsely, or if he commits any such sin that people may do …"[ 7 ] Cheating in business, overcharging or taking advantage of another man's weak condition, would all fall into this category. A man who loves God will love his neighbor as he loves himself. Straying from this principle defiles the camp just as much as the physical problems in the previous section did. God considers the sins we commit in our relationship with our fellowmen as being committed to Him. In the parable of the separation of the sheep and the goats, Jesus says: "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."[ 8 ] The prodigal son understood this, and so, in his confession to his father he said: "Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you."[ 9 ]

In the context of our social relations sin is a complicating factor. God's rule for any society is: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."[ 10 ] In practice, however, no human society observes this fundamental requirement. The air we breathe is polluted with sin, greed and selfishness. Even if the root of sin were not in our hearts, we would hardly be able to keep ourselves clean. The clause "any such sin that people may do" describes the reality of all human relations.

The passage before us suggests that there are moments of spiritual illumination in the human heart that make man realize that he has, in fact, wronged his neighbor and is, consequently, guilty before the Lord. These verses deal with such moments of awakening, which are caused by the realization of God's presence. Where God's presence is not experienced, cheating and lying will continue undisturbed. We could describe the conditions God mentions here to Moses as a spiritual revival.

There is no clearer sign of a spiritual awakening as when people start to confess their sins and make restitution for the wrongs they have done. Before World War II a Chinese evangelist held meetings in the Indonesian city of Makassar. This caused a revival among the Chinese merchants of the city. The Dutch colonial authorities of that time realized that something unusual was happening among them, when Chinese store owners came to them and paid them back for what they had overcharged them. Restitution is the clearest indication of repentance. No repentance and restitution is possible, however, without the convicting work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of man. Jesus says about the Holy Spirit: "When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment."[ 11 ]

Forgiveness of sin is based, not only upon restitution, but also upon a sacrifice. Without the sacrifice, which in this case is the guilt offering, restitution would not have any effect. It is the sacrifice that erases the sin from God's record in heaven. The basis for our restitution is the death of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross.

Restitution itself consisted of the return of stolen or illegally retained items and the payment of a fine of 20% of the value of the item. Zacchaeus understood the principle, but he went far beyond the law when he said to Jesus: "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount."[ 12 ]

The duty of restitution did not end with the death of the person to whom it had to be made. If that person had passed away in the meantime his heirs would also received the right to benefit from the fruits of restitution. We gather this from vs. 8, which reads: "But if that person has no close relative to whom restitution can be made for the wrong, the restitution belongs to the LORD and must be given to the priest, along with the ram with which atonement is made for him." Adam Clarke comments on this point: "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." It would, indeed, add to the greatness of the nation of Israel if the foreigners living among them would be treated in the same way as the kinsman. A spiritual revival would clearly be enhanced by a wiping out of all racial prejudice.

3. A spiritual separation.

The law described in vs. 11-31 is hard for us to understand. We call it a spiritual separation, because this bond between husband and wife is an expression of the love relationship between Christ and the church. Paul says: " 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' This is a profound mystery-- but I am talking about Christ and the church." Unfaithfulness in this intimate relationship is, according to Christ, the only reason for divorce. Our Lord said: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."[ 13 ] The keyword, to establish the relationship with the rest of this chapter, seems to be "impurity," which would be a reason for expulsion from the community. We read in vs. 13: "and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected."

What bothers us in this section, however, is not the fact that there may have been unfaithfulness and that the husband is jealous, but that a ritual, that smells of bad magic, is used to override the denial of the woman.

It seems that Israel was not the only nation that used this kind of "witch hunt" to determine the guilt of a woman in a case of suspected adultery. Adam Clarke's Commentary thinks that other nations copied Israel's model, but there is no guarantee that such was the case, and that the other nations were not the ones who practiced this judgment before Israel did. If that is true, the verses before us would be a divine sanction upon an existing practice. Turning the judgment over to the priest takes the process out of the realm of magic and bring it under the control of the Holy Spirit, in the same way as the casting of dice, or the use of the Urim and Thummim became venues for consulting the Lord. That seems to be an acceptable explanation.

Our problem remains, though, when we observe how young Christians, who came out of the superstition of paganism, and who were used to this kind of magic, using cursed water or fetishes to determine guilt or innocence, see in this law a sanction for their heathen practices.

The Pulpit Commentary has some very useful and insightful remarks, which we copy: "A law prescribed by God, and yet in substance borrowed from half civilised heathens; a practice closely akin to yet prevalent superstitions, and yet receiving not only the toleration of Moses, but the direct sanction of God; and ordeal which emphatically claimed to be infallibly operative through supernatural agencies, yet amongst other nations obviously lending itself to collusion and fraud, as does the trial be red water practised by the tribes in West Africa. In order to justify heavenly wisdom herein, we must frankly admit, to begin with -- (1) That it was founded upon the superstitious notions that immaterial virtue can be imparted to physical elements. The holiness of the gathered dust and the awfulness of the written curses were both supposed to be held in solution by the water of jealousy. The record does not say as much, but the whole ordeal proceeds on this supposition, which would undoubtedly be the popular one. (2) That it was only fitted for a very rude and comparatively barbarous state of society. The Talmud states that the use of it ceased forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem (if so, during our Lord's earthly lifetime); but it may be held certain that it ceased long before -- indeed there is no recorded instance of its use. It was essentially an ordeal, although one Divinely regulated, and as such would have been morally impossible and highly undesirable in any age but one of blind and uninquiring faith. And we find the justification of it exactly in the fact that it was given to a generation which believed much and knew little; which had a profound belief in magic, and no knowledge of natural philosophy. It was ever the wisdom of God, as revealed in the sacred volume, to take men as they were, and to utilise the superstitious notions which could not at once be destroyed, or the imperfect moral ideas which could not at once be reformed, by making them work for righteousness and peace. It is, above all, the wisdom of God not to destroy the imperfect, but to regulate it and restrain its abuses, and so impress it into his service, until he has educated his people for something higher. Everybody knows the extreme violence of jealousy amongst an uncivilised people, and the widespread misery and crime to which it leads. It may safely be affirmed that any ordeal which should leave no place for jealousy, because no room for uncertainty, would be a blessing to a people rude enough and ignorant enough to believe in it. Ordeals are established in a certain stage of civilisation because they are wanted, and are on the whole useful, as long as they remain in harmony with popular ideas. They are, however, always liable to two dangers. (1) They occasionally fail, and are know to have failed, and so fall into disrepute. (2) They always lend themselves readily to collusion or priestcraft. The trial of jealousy being adopted, as it was, into a system really Divine, and being based upon the knowledge and power of God himself, secured all the benefits of an ordeal and escaped all its dangers. It is probable enough that the awful side of it was never really called into play. No guilty woman would dare to challenge so directly a visitation so dreadful, as long as she retained any faith or any superstition. Before the time came when any Jewish woman had discarded both, the increasing facilities of divorce had provided another and easier escape from matrimonial troubles." In spite of some obvious arrogance and presumption, which seemed to be typical for the age in which this was written, the author hit upon some good points. There must have been superstition among the Israelites and it is probable that, by using it, God intended to open the way for a greater revelation of His grace.

About the phasing out of the ordeal, Adam Clarke's Commentary says: "The rabbins say that the trial by the waters of jealousy was omitted after the Babylonish captivity, because adulteries were so frequent among them that they were afraid of having the name of the Lord profaned by being so frequently appealed to! This is a most humiliating confession."

The situation calls for a suspicious husband, who believes that his wife does not respond to his love as she used to. His jealousy may be completely unfounded. He may be the type of man whose suspicion is easily provoked. We have to remember that, without this law, the woman would have not way to justify herself. Her husband's jealousy would be sufficient to make life unbearable for her. The rite prescribed in these verses gives her the opportunity to prove her innocence. So, we could see in this law a means to protect the woman.

The NIV says in vs. 14: "if feelings of jealousy come over her husband." Other translations, such as the RSV and KJV render it as: "if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him." Adam Clarke Commentary says on "the spirit of jealousy": "Ruach kinah, either a supernatural diabolic influence, exciting him to jealousy, or the passion of affection of jealousy, for so the words may be understood." A demonic influence would add another dimension to the drama.

If the woman were caught in the act of adultery, her life and the life of the man who had sinned with her, would have been forfeited. The law said: "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-- with the wife of his neighbor-- both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."[ 14 ] The point in case here is that, either the lovers are not caught, or there is no case; only an unfounded suspicion.

The sacrifice to be brought in the prescribed ritual is a grain offering. There is no killing of animals and no blood flows, because no guilt has been established. The grain offering symbolizes the consecration of the human body to God, without any connection to a sinful condition. The fact that God requires this sacrifice to be brought is an indication that He holds the woman not guilty unless proved otherwise. The Pulpit Commentary looks at this kind of sacrifice from another angle, by remarking: "It was to be a meat offering -- not connected on this occasion with any other sacrifice -- of the fruits of the earth, symbolising the fruits of her guilty, or at least careless and suspicious, conduct." The commentary may be presuming too much too early. The offering has some unusual features in that no oil is poured on it and no incense is added. It is referred to as "an offering for jealousy." So, we could ask the question to whom the offering benefits. The husband brings it for his wife, but not necessarily in her behalf. The choice is between to evils: adultery and jealousy. If the woman is guilty, the man's jealousy is legitimate. Jealousy in itself is not a sin. Jealousy is one of God's attributes. But not all jealousy is related to the divine. The out come of the trial may be that the husband was guilty and the wife was not.

It is not clear where the wife is place. We read that "the priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD." Women were normally not allowed to enter the courtyard. We don't know whether in this case an exception was made, or whether the ceremony took place in the women's court.

Before the woman is put under oath, some holy water is prepared, probably drawn from the washbasin, to which dust from the floor is added and ink from a document on which the curse was written. The Pulpit Commentary suggests that, since the dust was taken from the tabernacle, which symbolized the presence of the Lord, it was considered to be holy. It would be more logical to see in the dust the unholy part of the ceremony; that element that would cause sickness and, maybe, death. The consumption of dust scraped from the floor is not recommended for reasons of health. The germs that would live in that dust, especially in the semi tropical conditions in which the Israelites lived in the desert, could easily cause sickness. Under normal circumstances, it would be miraculous if the person who swallowed the dust would not experience any ill effects. The water was, rightfully, called: "this bitter water that brings a curse."

The priest has to loosen the hair of the woman. It is hard to determine what the meaning of this part of the ritual is. The KJV renders this as "uncover the woman's head." The Pulpit Commentary refers, in connection with this phrase, to Paul's words in I Corinthians, where we read: "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-- it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."[ 15 ] A reference to Paul's words is, however, hardly valid in the context of this rite of jealousy. Paul spoke to Corinthian Christians, whose culture was drastically different from that of the Jews. In Israel, for instance, a man would not think of praying with uncovered head. So, we cannot appeal to the custom of another culture that was more than two thousand years removed from the one in Israel's history at the time of the desert crossing, to shed light on this rite. The only conclusion we can draw is that woman, at this period, did their hair up, or covered their heads, and that, when she stood before the Lord, whatever fashion prescribed was, temporarily laid aside. God wanted the woman to appear before Him as she was, not as she showed herself to be to other people.

While the woman is under oath, the curse is read to her, to which she agrees, before passing the ordeal of drinking the water, by saying "Amen, amen." Adam Clarke's Commentary remarks on this: "This is the first place where this word occurs in the common form of a concluding wish in prayer. The root aman signifies to be 'steady, true, permanent,' And in prayer it signifies, 'Let it be so - make it steady - let it be ratified.' "

The curse is written with ink on paper and the ink is washed off in the water the woman has to drink. That is one of the part the Pulpit Commentary pointed to as using the superstition of people to transfer a curse from paper to the person. We could, however, see this part of the ritual as symbolic, in the same way as the eating of the book Ezekiel and John were commanded to do. God said to Ezekiel: " 'Open your mouth and eat what I give you.' Then I looked, and I saw a hand stretched out to me. In it was a scroll, which he unrolled before me. On both sides of it were written words of lament and mourning and woe. And he said to me, 'Son of man, eat what is before you, eat this scroll; then go and speak to the house of Israel.' So I opened my mouth, and he gave me the scroll to eat. Then he said to me, "Son of man, eat this scroll I am giving you and fill your stomach with it." So I ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth. He then said to me: 'Son of man, go now to the house of Israel and speak my words to them.' "[ 16 ] John describes a similar experience in Revelation, where we read: "Then the voice that I had heard from heaven spoke to me once more: 'Go, take the scroll that lies open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land.' So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, "Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.' I took the little scroll from the angel's hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. Then I was told, 'You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings.' "[ 17 ]

About this part of the ritual Adam Clarke's Commentary says: "The priest shall write these curses ... and he shall blot them out. It appears that the curses which were written down with a kind of ink prepared for the purpose, as some of the rabbins think, without and calx of iron or other material the could make a permanent dye, were washed off the parchment into the water which the woman was obliged to drink, so that she drank the very words of the execration. The ink used in the East is almost all of this kind - a wet sponge will completely efface the finest of their writings."

It would seem that the normal result of drinking water in which dust of the floor was mixed would cause sickness under any circumstance. If there were no harmful effects, it would be that the Lord intervene, because the woman was not guilty. So, it would require a miracle were the woman to remain healthy and unaffected. To depend on a miracle is a hazardous way to live. Any human being would rather build his life on any other kinds of security than on the intervention of the Lord. We can imagine how a woman, who was guilty of adultery, must have felt during this ordeal. Even a woman who was not guilty would be in danger of suffering from psychosomatic symptoms.

It is not too clear what actually happened when the woman drank the water. Vs. 24 read: "He [the priest] shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering." TLB paraphrases the verse with: "(When he requires the woman to drink the water, it becomes bitter within her [if she is guilty].)" Adam Clarke comments on this bitterness: "The bitter water that causeth the curse. Though the rabbins think that the priest put some bitter substance in the water, yet as nothing of the kind is intimated by Moses, we may consider the word as used here metaphorically for affliction, death, etc. These waters were afflicting and deadly to her who drank them, being guilty."

Although the Bible does not speak about death as the result of the consumption of this water, that can certainly not be excluded. It seems, however, that the ordeal would cause miscarriage or infertility.

The content of the curse is put rather graphically: "May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away." Adam Clarke comments on this: "Thy belly to swell and thy thigh to rot. What is meant by these expressions cannot be easily ascertained. Lanpel yarech signifies literally thy "thigh to fall." As the thigh, feet, etc., were used among the Hebrews delicately to express the parts which nature conceals ... the expression here is probably to be understood in this sense; and the falling down of the thigh here must mean something similar to the falling down of the womb, which might be a natural effect of the preternatural distention of the abdomen."

Probably, several details about the circumstances under which a husband would become jealous are omitted in the account. One possibility is that the woman was pregnant and that the husband had his doubts as to whether the baby was his.

Jealousy in itself is not a sin. In a healthy marriage relationship jealousy will not demonstrate itself, because of the absence of doubt. If there is doubt as to whether either partners are not faithful to their pledge to one another, a lack of jealousy could be considered unhealthy. Only a spouse who does care is not jealous. Where there is complete trust between partners there is no place for jealousy. So jealousy is a kind of built-in safeguard to maintain a relationship of love. The point of this portion is, not in the first place, adultery, or even jealousy, but doubt. If the husband knows for sure his wife has been unfaithful to him, there would be no point in submitting her to this ordeal. The ordeal is meant, both as a punishment and to settle doubts.

In the context of this chapter, which is the purity of the camp, the section, as the two previous ones are object lessons of Israel's relationship with God. As marriage is the clearest picture of Christ and the church, as Paul says,[ 18 ] the unfaithfulness of the wife is an image of man's unfaithfulness in his relationship with God, and the husband's jealousy reflects the jealousy of God. God calls Himself "Jealous." We read in Exodus: "Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."[ 19 ]

This is one of the rare instances in the Bible where a person is cursed. Vs. 27 says: "she will become accursed among her people." The KJV is closer to the Hebrew in its rendering: "and the woman shall be a curse among her people." It is not that people will curse her, but having swallowed the curse, she becomes a curse. This is an illustration of the fact that we become what we eat, not only in the physical sense, that the food we take in builds our body, but also spiritually. If the Word of God is the source of our lives, Christ will be formed in us; if we eat the food of the enemy the devil has gained a foothold in the community because of a human being who is not willing to confess her sin. We are either a blessing or a curse; there is no neutral ground.

We cannot read the word curse without thinking of Paul's description of our Lord's suffering and death. In Galatians he says: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.' "[ 20 ]

The husband is cleared of all responsibility in the case. TLB says: "Her husband shall not be brought to trial for causing her horrible disease, for she is responsible."

[ 1 ] See Lev. 13, 14.

[ 2 ] Mark 1:44

[ 3 ] See Mark 1:40-45

[ 4 ] Lev. 11:24

[ 5 ] Num. 19:16

[ 6 ] Lev. 21:1

[ 7 ] Lev. 6:2,3

[ 8 ] Matt. 25:40

[ 9 ] Luke 15:21

[ 10 ] Luke 10:27

[ 11 ] John 16:8

[ 12 ] Luke 19:8

[ 13 ] Matt. 19:9

[ 14 ] Lev. 20:10

[ 15 ] I Cor. 11:5-10

[ 16 ] Ezek. 2:8-3:4

[ 17 ] Rev. 10:8-11

[ 18 ] Eph. 5:31,32

[ 19 ] Ex. 34:14

[ 20 ] Gal. 3:13