Numbers 15

Chap. XV. Ver. 1—41. Various offerings— The punishment of a sabbath-breaker, and the use of fringes.— This chapter seems to have no connexion either with the preceding or following; and the different subjects, as just named, seem almost as distinct. In the former part of the chapter, little occurs but what we have in Leviticus, as Propane in the 1st, 2d, and 7th chapters; only we may remark, that, the meat-offering was to be increased in quantity, in proportion to the sacrifice with which it was accompanied. The introductory remark here, however, (ver. 2.) is of great importance, as it applied to other offerings and regulations enjoined in this and the preceding books of Moses. It is, thus and thus shall ye do, “When ye be come into the land of your habitations.”

(See also (Leviticus 14:34).; xxiii. 10.; xxv. 2.) And it answers an objection often urged against the possibility of observing rites, of which they had not the means; as for instance, the offering of wine when they had no vineyards, or first-fruits when they had no corn-fields. The Lord requires not to reap without sowing; nor could this be supplied by purchase, since the first-fruits were always to be of their own produce. The sins of ignorance here specified, and the offerings for them, are differently stated from those in Leviticus, and, perhaps, to be partly accounted for in the above way: but the law being altogether abolished, critical inquiries into its minute circumstances would now be both irksome and useless.

We know the general fact, that all the sacrifices pointed to the doctrine of atonement by substitution, and so referred to that of Jesus Christ; and that all the other oblations were to inculcate another grand and important truth, that we owe all our temporal enjoyments to the goodness and mercy of God through him. But the law respecting presumptuous sins, though obscurely hinted at, was not distinctly stated until now; and seems here introduced to preface the following history of a daring and pre- S5umptuous sinner; and his presumption, perhaps, grounded on not thinking he was guilty of violating the letter of the law; for though the law forbade to kindle fire, ((Exodus 35:2).) it did not expressly forbid to gather sticks. But this evasion aggravated his offence, and the open manner in which he acted, indicated contempt both of the law and the lawgiver: he was, therefore, condemned by a divine decree; and as it proceeded from him that searcheth the heart, we are well assured that it was founded in justice and in equity. The law of fringes seems to us very extraordinary.

Doth God care for fringes? certainly not. Some moral lesson must, therefore, be intended. The original term here signifies flowers, and that used in (Deuteronomy 22:12). cones; whence Parkhurst concludes, that they were in the form of conical flowers: perhaps the fringe was composed of threads of wool or flax tied in bunches, so as to give them that form, by a blue riband or thread of the same stuff, (for they must not wear a mixture of stuffs, (Leviticus 19:19).) so as to assume the conic form. The modern Jews do not generally wear fringes; but the males wear a small under garment, (called talleth,) with four tassels; and, in their public worship, a larger piece of cloth, like a shawl, made of white wool, (sometimes of camels’ hair,) with a fringe or tassel at each corner, which is called by the name here used in the original Hebrew: but women, servants, or young children, are not required to use them.

To form the tassels, four threads doubled are passed through an eyelet-hole, of which one must be blue, and long enough to tie five knots, and to hang even with the rest. From the number of these threads,

Notes on the verses

Chap. XV. Ver. 3. A burnt-offering, occur before, but are repeated with some additional circumstances. The reader may turn back to the law of burnt-offerings, (Leviticus 1:3), &c.; of vows, (Leviticus 27:1), &c.; of free-will offerings, (Leviticus 7:16).; of meat-offerings, Levit. se 14—18; of peace-offerings, (Leviticus 7:11-15); and of the heave-offerings, Levit. xxix. 27; (Leviticus 23:15-21). Drink-offerings seem here first mentioned; but the subject is repeated, (Numbers 28)—Of the herd.—{Under the term beicar, are comprehended the ox, heifer, &c.; and under tzon, are included sheep and goats. ‘The animals enjoined in the Levitical law are the very same which God commanded Abraham to offer. ((Genesis 15:9).) Hence it is paid out, that God delivered to the Patriarchs an epitome of that law which was afterwards given in detail to Moses, the essence of which consisted in its sacrifices; —— all were of clean animals, the most perfect, useful, and healthy, of all that are brought under the immediate government of man.

Gross apocing and ferocious animals were all excluded, as well as all birds of prey. In the Pagan worship, it was widely different; for although the ox was esteemed among them, according to Livy, as the major hostia, and, according to Pliny, the chief sacrifice, and the most availing offering which could be made to the gods,—victima optime and laudatissima deorum placatio, yet obscene fowls, and ravenous beasts, according to the nature of a sacrifice.—Most of these laws of their deities, were frequently offered in sacrifice. But in the worship of JEHOVAH, all such were declared unclean, and consequently unfit for sacrifice. |—Bagster.; Ver. 14. So he shall do.— Though an uncircumcised person might not eat the passover, they might offer other sacrifices in the appointed way, if they were so disposed.

These regulations referred to sacrifices and ordinances only, not to public offices, nor to marriages.”’—Scott., Ver. 19. When ye eat.—[The oblation before prescribed seems to have been a general acknowledgment from the people at large; but this was an oblation from every one that reaped a harvest: who was required, previously to tasting it himself, to offer a portion of dough as a heave-offering to the Lord. This is supposed to have been given to the priests in their several cities, and not carried to the tabernacle. |—Bagster. Ver. 22. If ye have erred.{This law concerning sins of ignorance, being entirely diverse from one before considered, occasions considerable difficulty. ((Leviticus 4)) Some explain that law as relating to sins of commission, this to sins of omission: others i.e. log the one of inadvertent violations of the moral law, and the other of the transgressions of the ceremonial law: and some think that related to the whole nation, this to any one tribe; or that to the bulk of the nation, this to the rulers and elders.

The Jews say, that the former law referred to such national transgressions through heedlessness, as consisted with the maintenance of the prescribed worship in the main; but that this especially respected the case of the nation, when through inattention, and the example and authority of wicked rulers, they had turned aside and committed idolatry, or conducted their worship directly contrary to law; yet through a culpable ignorance, and not in presumption. This was evidently the case under several of their kings; and the explanation seems well grounded. J—B. Ver. 30. Presumptuously.—[Hebrew, with a high hand: That is, bold, daring, deliberate acts of transgression against the fullest evidence, and in despite of the Divine authority, Such conduct “reproacheth the Lord,”

as if his commands were needless, unreasonable, and inimical to the happiness of man; his authority were only fit to be trampled under foot; his favour were not desirable, or his wrath not to be feared; in short, as if it were more advantageous to rebel against him than to serve him, Such acts admitted of no atonement: the person was condemned to bear his own iniquity, and to be cut off. }—Bagster.: Ver. 32.—While…. in the wilderness.—This shows that little regard was paid to the order of time in these ancient records. The fact probably occurred about the time that these laws were given, and therefore preserved among them: their care was to preserve, not to arrange.—[This example seems to have been evidently introduced to illustrate the foregoing law.

The man despised the word of the Lord, presumptuously broke his commandment, and, on this ground, was punished with death. |]—Bagster. Ver. 38. Make them fringes._{The word tzitzith, properly denotes an ornament resembling a flower. From ver. 39. we learn that these were emblematical of the commands of God. That there is any analogy between a fringe and a precept, it would be bold to assert; but when a thing is appointed to represent another, no matter how different, that first object becomes the legitimate representative or sign of the other }—Bagster.——The references to the Rabbinical customs in the Exposition, are partly from Ainsworth’s Annotations, and partly from Allen’s Modern Judaism.

Parkhurst considers these conic fringes as emblems of light; and, secondarily, of Christ, who is the true light; but we have no evidence that the Jews considered them in that view, nor have we any such allusion, with reference to them, in the New Tes- Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, 41 Fourteen thousand and seven hun-: er page a plague for murmuring against Moses and Aaron: 46 Aaron stayeth the plague. Nek «Korah, the son of Izhar, the son Of}, », s616 Kohath, the son of Levi; and Dathan of them, and the ‘Lord is among them: where-| 40.6. fore then lift ye up yourselves above the con-| “6 will cause him to come near unto him: even him whom he hath chosen will he cause to |? Bz! come near unto him.

Ae 6 This do; Take you censers, Korah, and all his company; oe,_ | his censer. to himself to do the service of the tabernacle and from the letters of the Hebrew word, as numerals, they form the number 613; which, they say, is ‘‘the exact number of the precepts of the law,” and which apply to all the occupations and circumstances of human life. Thus these tassels, or fringes, reminded them of all the precepts of the Mosaic law. But it is probable that the original design was much more simple; it might, however, embrace the following moral points:— That the commands of God extend to the minutest circumstances of our lives; and do often include particulars, for which we see not the reason, nor have a right to demand one.

It is enough that our heavenly Father commands, and that we are his children. ‘Seek not after your own heart or your own eyes.” This was of particular importance under the Jewish economy, in which many things are even to us inexplicable; and many more, probably, were so before the period of the Gospel dispen-