Unclean Removed From Camp, and Law of Jealousy Regarding a Woman Accused of Adultery

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Numbers 5:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Command the children of Israel that they put out of the camp every leper, everyone who has a discharge, and whoever is defiled by the dead."

In the last chapter and post, the Lord had Moses and Aaron count the Levites who were thirty to fifty years of age and able to do the service of the tabernacle, and describe the particular service each group would do.  Now the Lord spoke to Moses regarding purifying the camp.  He told Moses to command the children of Israel to put out of the camp all who were ceremonially unclean, lepers, those with discharge issues, and those who had been made unclean by the touching of the dead.

(3) "Both male and female you shall put out, outside the camp you shall put them, that they may not defile their camps in the midst of which I dwell.”

Whether male of female, any person who had been made unclean was to be put outside the camps so that he or she would not defile the camp in the midst of which the Lord dwelt.  The tabernacle was the dwelling place of the Lord and it was in the midst of the camps of the children of Israel.

(4) And the children of Israel did so, and put them outside the camp; as the LORD spoke to Moses, so the children of Israel did.

The children of Israel did just as the Lord had commanded and put all the unclean outside their camps.

(5) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (6) “Speak to the children of Israel: ‘When a man or woman commits any sin that men commit to do a trespass against the LORD, and that person is guilty, (7) Then he shall confess the sin which he has committed; and he shall recompense his trespass with the principal and add to it one-fifth of it, and give it to the one he has wronged.'"

Now the Lord told Moses to instruct the children of Israel on what to do when a man or woman committed a sin.  I can't help but notice the Lord said when a person committed a sin, not if; the Lord knew all people would sin.  "Any sin that men commit" would be any of the sins of men that are commonly committed because of the infirmity of the flesh and the temptations of Satan.  Also noteworthy is that any sin that a person commits is a trespass against the Lord; every sin against man is a sin against the Lord as it is disobedience to His direct command.  The consensus of the commentaries I generally study suggest that the word "guilty" in verse 6 refers to the person's own admission that he is guilty, for obviously if he sinned, he is guilty.  When he was convicted in his conscience that he was guilty, he was to confess his sin, and then make restitution to the person he wronged by paying the whole of what he defrauded his neighbor of, plus one-fifth more.

(8) "‘But if the man has no kinsman to recompense the trespass to, let the trespass be recompensed to the LORD, to the priest, besides the ram of the atonement, by which an atonement is made for him.'"

If the man who was wronged had no kinsman, because evidently in this case he had been killed, then the restitution, the principal plus one-fifth, was to be given to the priest of the Lord, in addition to the ram of atonement, the trespass offering for atonement that was made law back in Leviticus 6:6.

(9) "'And every offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel, which they bring to the priest, shall be his.'"

Every offering of all the holy things, which would be things given to the Lord, that was brought to the priest, was to be the priest's.  I believe the point here is that it no longer belonged to the person who brought it, and could never be taken back by him.

(10) "'And every man's hallowed things shall be his; whatever any man gives the priest, it shall be his.'"

Every man's hallowed things, those things that were made holy because they had been vowed or offered to the Lord, were to be the priest's.  Whatever thing was given to the priest was to be the priest's alone.  John Wesley, in his Explanatory Notes on the Entire Bible, reminds us that this was not to be understood of the sacrifices, where only part was offered to the Lord, and the remainder was eaten by the offerer and the priest.  This spoke of things that were devoted to God, and could not be offered in sacrifice, such as a man consecrating a house to the Lord; that would be the priest's.

(11) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (12) “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and commits a trespass against him, (13) And a man lies with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is concealed, and she is defiled, and there is no witness against her, neither was she taken in the act, (14) And the spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he is jealous of his wife, and she is defiled, or if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he is jealous of his wife, and she is not defiled...'"

The Lord continued speaking to Moses.  He told him to talk to the children of Israel about the circumstance of a man whose wife went astray and trespassed against him by committing adultery.  If a man lay with her carnally, and it was done in secret and concealed from her husband, and she was indeed defiled, but she was not caught in the act and there were no witnesses against her, and the spirit of jealousy came over the husband...  This seems to indicate that the husband became jealous and suspected his wife of having an adulterous affair.  There had been no witnesses, but he suspected that she had lain with another man carnally and had defiled herself.  So whether the man became jealous of his wife and she was defiled, or if he was jealous but she was not defiled, this train of thought is continued in the next verse.

(15) "'Then the man shall bring his wife to the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.'"

The man was to bring his wife whom he suspected of committing adultery to the priest.  He was also to bring an offering for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal, which was an omer, said to be about the amount a man could eat in one day.  The meal was to have no oil or frankincense on it.  Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible, suggested that, "The offering was to be of the cheapest and coarsest kind, barley...representing the abused condition of the suspected woman."  Additionally, he wrote, "It was, like the sin-offering...to be made without oil and frankincense, the symbols of grace and acceptableness."  This was an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing that sin to remembrance.

(16) "‘And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD.'"

The priest was to bring the woman before the Lord.

(17) "'And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.'"

The priest was then to take holy water from the laver, putting it in an earthen vessel, and then he was to take dust from the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.  The old commentators I study, suggest that the dust represented the baseness of the accused crime, and the fact that it came from the tabernacle floor made it holy dust, perhaps representing the vile act was a sin against the holy Lord, which adultery surely is.  Adultery is a sin against the direct commandment of the Lord, as put forth in the Ten Commandments, "Thou shall not commit adultery."

(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 causes the curse.'"

The priest was to stand the woman before the Lord and uncover her head.  Uncovering her head perhaps signified her own immodesty in what she did (or was accused of doing), but it certainly was a shameful thing for her to be exposed that way to men, as suggested in other verses (1 Cor. 11:5-6).  The priest then put the offering of memorial, the jealousy offering of barley meal described above, in her hands.  The priest held in his hand the vessel of holy water with the dust in it.  This would not have caused it to be bitter tasting, but it was bitter because the holy water had been defiled by the dust representing the depraved act.  The water with the dust did not in itself cause the curse, but it symbolized and declared her to be accursed.

(19) "‘And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say to the woman, “If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray to uncleanness with another instead of your husband, be free from this bitter water that causes the curse."'"

The priest was to put the woman under oath and tell her that if no man other than her husband had lain with her, and she had not gone astray to be defiled by another man, she would be free from the curse that the dusty holy water represented.

(20) "'“But if you have gone aside to another instead of your husband, and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you besides your husband--" (21) Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say to the woman, "The LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh rot and your belly swell; (22) And this water that causes the curse shall go into your bowels, to make your belly swell and your thigh rot." And the woman shall say, "Amen, amen."'"

However, if the woman had indeed committed adultery with another man, then the priest would "charge", originally "shaba", the woman.  "Shaba" as defined by Strong's, was a root meaning "to be complete", a root of "sheba", meaning "seven" or "seven times"; therefore "shaba" meant to "seven oneself", meaning to swear, as if repeating a declaration seven times; the priest would charge the woman with an oath of cursing, which Brown-Driver-Briggs defines more simply in one of its definitions, as "curse".  I believe the meaning is that the priest would charge the woman by her own oath, or by his, an oath that would bring a curse if she had indeed committed adultery.  The priest would then say to the woman, pronouncing the curse upon her, "The LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people..."  Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, explained this somewhat difficult language this way, "accursed according to the oath taken; or let this be the form of an oath and imprecation used by the people, saying, if I have done so and so, let me be accursed as such a woman, or let not that happen to me, as did to such a woman..."  The curse pronounced was that the Lord would make her thigh rot and her belly swell, if she was guilty.  I used to wonder about the significance of the thigh, but John Wesley explained it very convincingly that the thigh was just a modest word for the private part meant.  That does make a lot of sense.  She would rot and her belly would swell if she were guilty of adultery.  Upon drinking the holy water, the curse would come upon her, rotting her and making her swell.  The woman was to agree to this if she were found to be guilty; if she was not guilty, she had nothing to fear.

(23) "'And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water.'"

The priest was to write these curses in a book and blot them with the dusty holy water which probably was symbolic of transferring the curses to the water.

(24) "'And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causes the curse, and the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.'"

The priest would then make the woman drink the water.  The water, upon entering her when she drank it, would then become bitter.  Probably it was not bitter tasting, but rather bitter because it caused the above mentioned curse if the woman was guilty.

(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.'"

Actually, it appears that the priest took the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand before she was forced to drink the water, as stated in the next verse.  He waved the offering back and forth before the Lord, and offered it upon the altar.

(26) "'And the priest shall take a handful of the offering, the memorial of it, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.'"

The priest would take a handful of the offering, a reminder of the woman's iniquity, and burn it on the altar, and then make the woman drink the cursed water.

(27) "'And when he has made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass, if she is defiled, and has done trespass against her husband, that the water that causes 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.'"

When the priest made the woman drink the water, if she was defiled and had committed adultery, then the water would become bitter and cause her belly to swell and her thigh to rot.  This scripture proves there was nothing literally bitter about the water, but rather it was supernatural that the water would cause the curse if the woman was guilty.  There were some commentaries I read that tried to suggest that the priest might have put something bitter in the water, but I see absolutely no reason to assume that.  If she was guilty, and the curse came upon her, she would be looked upon by the people as an accursed woman, probably shunned by all.

(28) "'And if the woman is not defiled, but is clean, then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.'"

If the woman was not defiled and guilty of adultery, then she would be free from the curse and would be able to conceive.  This indicates the rotting of her "thigh" was actually the rotting of her private child-bearing parts, and the swelling of her belly indicated the disease within her.

I briefly wondered if the curse would be immediately visible or if it would come over time.  I concluded it would have to be immediately visible; how else would a woman be made known to be a curse among her people?  And imagine if a woman was not guilty, but she was unable to bear children right away or at all; people would assume she had been guilty and was cursed even though she wasn't.  To have the people witnesses to this curse, it must have been immediately visible to them.

(29) "‘This is the law of jealousy, when a wife goes astray to another instead of her husband, and is defiled; (30) Or when the spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he is jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.'"

The preceding instruction was to be considered the law of jealousy; it was to be applied when a wife committed adultery against her husband, and also when a man became jealous and suspected his wife of committing adultery.  He would bring his wife to the priest, thus bringing her before the Lord, and the priest would execute the law as described in the above verses.

(31) "'Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.'"

By bringing his wife to the priest when he knew of or suspected her of adultery, he would then be innocent of iniquity, obviously meaning he would be guilty of iniquity if he did not bring her to the priest.  This shows that the act of allowing his wife's loose living to go on, or even if only once committed, to go unpunished, would be considered a sin against God.  By bringing his wife to the priest, he was pronounced innocent, and the woman would bear the punishment of her sin, if she was indeed guilty.

This brings to my mind another scripture, Romans 1:32, "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."  Also Ezekiel 33:8-9:  “When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die!’ if you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, if he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul."  Not only did God command against evil, but those who allowed, enabled, or condoned it, were also guilty of sin against the Lord.  Note the Lord commanded in verse 1 of this chapter that the people put all the unclean outside their camp.  Not only were the people to obey God's commands, but they were to turn out of the camp those others who were unclean before the Lord.  If this pertained to those people who unknowingly or even necessarily became ceremoniously unclean, how much more must it have applied to those who knowingly and willingly sinned.  The people had a responsibility to keep sin out of their camp; therefore they could not turn a blind eye to it, or they, too, would be guilty of sin.

What a lesson for us now!  Think of how much people celebrate sins against God these days.  People cheered when same-sex marriage was made lawful; Obama lit up the White House in rainbow colors in celebration of it, a symbol that our entire country condoned and celebrated that which God called an abomination.  Think of how the choice of killing a baby is celebrated; women march for the right of murder, and people celebrate and promote those demonstrations.  We are not guiltless if we condone such sins against God.  We cannot judge those who commit such sins; after all, "There but for the grace of God, go I."  We all sin and are guilty before God, and no one sin is greater than another in the eyes of the Lord, but we should not be celebrating these sins.  We should be praying for these sinners and for ourselves to be led by and to the Lord.  Jesus loved all the sinners and came to save them, but He wished them to "go and sin no more".