Numbers 5

Chap. V. Ver. 1—31. Lepers—and law of restitution.—The camps of Israel being now formed, with the sanctuary of God in the centre; orders were given, that, in honour of him who thus condescended to dwell among them, the lepers and unclean persons should be excluded from the camp, according to laws at different times given on these subjects. If the person injured were dead, restitution would of course be made to his heir; but if he had left no near relation, to whom the restitution might properly be made, the priest was appointed to receive it, when the criminal offered the trespass-offering.— Doubtless real poverty would excuse a man: yet this exception is not made; for men are ready enough to find out excuses for themselves, where their own interest is concerned.

He therefore, who establish general scriptural rules of duty, enbeltl not be censured, though they do not mention every particular exception.—This law conclusively shows the absolute necessity of restitution, in one form or other, where actual poverty does not hinder, either to the injured person, to his relations, to the poor, or to pious uses: for, as Henry observes, “‘it is certain, while that which is got by injustice, is knowingly retained in the hands, the guilt of the injustice remains upon the conscience, and is not purged by sacrifice or offering, prayers or tears; for it is one and the same continued act of sin persisted in.’ Some say, that this doctrine tends to embarrass tender consciences: but it is the doctrine of right reason, and of the word of God; Ver.

15. Her offering.—{This coarse offering, without oil, implied the baseness of the crime of which she was accused, and it is rather calculated to detect hypocrites, and to direct such as have tender consciences to a proper conduct, which, springing from faith in Christ, will make way for inward peace. The remarkable law which follows, was no doubt intended to fortify the minds of the Israelitish women in the hour of temptation, when opportunity, importunity, and secrecy, were combined: and to render them watchful against all occasions of exciting suspicion in the breasts of their husbands. On the other hand, it was calculated to prevent the cruel treatment which, in the East, is frequently such as will easily wash off) is washed, or scraped into the water which he drinks, (and this, perhaps, the hardness of their hearts,’ when the crime could not be proved, or the rage of jealousy allayed: and it would also lessen the number of hasty divorces.

If properly regarded, the guilty could hardly escape, or the innocent remain under injurious suspicions; and in many ways it would subserve the interests of purity and of domestic peace, both by constantly holding out a salutary warning, and by the alarm which would be raised whenever it was carried into execution.— T°. Scott.

Notes on the verses

Chap. V. Ver. 2. Put out of the camp.—(see Diagram) it is sufficiently evident, that each camp had a space behind it, and on one side, places were erected for (their) removal, and where, probably, convenient accommodation; for we cannot suppose that they were driven out into the naked wilderness. But the expulsion mentioned here was founded, 1st, on a purely physical reason, viz. the diseases were contagious, and therefore there was a necessity of putting those afflicted by them apart. 2. There was also a spiritual reason; the camp was the habitation of God, and nothing impure should be permitted to remain where he dwelt.—Dr. Clarke. The Jews, however, make a distinction.

‘Those who were defiled by the dead, were only excluded a certain time from the tabernacle; those with impure issues, &c. from the camp of the Levites surrounding the tabernacle; but the lepers being more infectious, were wholly excluded from the camp of Israel, and afterwards from Jerusalem. See Ainsworth. The fear of pollution from the dead, was not confined to the Hebrews. Among the Egyptians, according to Lucian, any one who had seen a dead body, must not visit the temple of Hierapolis till the next day; and the idea of pollution from the dead, lasted thirty days. In India, Japan, and even the South Seas, the like notions prevail, and in some cases to a degree that is ridiculous.

See Orient. Lit. — on atoning sacrifice, but an oblation or a memorial, as solemnly referring the decision to God, and calling upon him. Ver. 17. And the priest shall take holy water.—[{That is, water; called holy because separated from common to sacred use. This is the most ancient account of the trial by ordeal, which obtained so generally among various nations; and it was calculated to fortify the minds of the Israelitish women in the hour of temptation; and to render them watchful against all occasions of exciting suspicion in the breasts of their husbands. |— Bagster.—— Trial by Casha (among the Hindoos) is as follows: The accused is made to drink three draughts of the water in which the images of the sun, of Devi and other deities have been washed for the same purpose; and if, within 14 days, he has any sickness, or indisposition, his crime is considered proved. Asiatic Researches.

Ver. 23. The priest shall write these curses in a book.—The Rabbins say that these curses were written on a scroll of parchment; for the word rendered “book,” is used for a bill of divorcement, (Deuteronomy 24:1).; and for an epistle (2 Samuel 11:14), and elsewhere.—And he shall blot them out.—’‘ Wipe, or scrape them out, (as Maimonides,) so that no mark shall remain on the ‘bitter’ the water, ver 24.) which was probably taken from the sacred scroll.

Ver. 29. This is the law of jealousy.— This (says Dr. Clarke) is the most singular law in the whole Pentateuch; a law that seems to have been copied by almost all nations, whether civilized or barbarian; by whom we find that similar modes of trial for suspected offences were used, when complete evidence was wanting to convict; and where it was expected that the object

of their worship would interfere, for the sake of justice, in order that the guilty should be brought to punishment, and the innocent cleared.”’ See Dr. C’s. remarks in his Comment. at the end of this chapter. There is no instance in Scripture of this ordeal being recurred to; and it should seem that the awful process would be enough to deter a guilty woman from venturing upon it in an age of miracles, when the immediate interference of Deity was almost daily witnessed; especially, as the Jewish writers say, every means was used to induce confession, where there appeared just reason of suspicion. On the other part, as with us, the character of the man was always considered; he must go into court, as our lawyers express it, “with clean hands;” for if he lay under any suspicion of a like offence, this mode of trial would not be granted.— Ainsworth.