"The purpose of the writer is to show that at this point in the narrative, Israel's leaders, Moses and Aaron, were following God's will and the people were following them obediently. This theme will not continue long, however. The narrative will soon turn a corner and begin to show that the people quickly deviated from God's way and, with their leaders, Moses and Aaron, failed to continue to trust in God."35
God ordered that individuals who were ceremonially unclean should not live within their tribal communities but should reside on the outskirts of the camp during their uncleanness. The reason for this regulation was not any discrimination against these people based on personal inferiority. It was the need to separate the unclean, as long as they were unclean, from the holy God of Israel who dwelt in the center of the camp. The closer one lived to God the greater was his or her need for personal holiness.
"The Rabbis had a saying which has come down to the modern Western world via the preaching of John Wesley and Matthew Henry, Cleanliness is next to godliness,' which catches this suggestion of inseparability."36
To emphasize the importance of maintaining proper interpersonal relationships within the camp Moses repeated the law concerning the restitution of and compensation for a trespass against one's neighbor here (cf. Lev. 5:14-6:7). The expression "sins of mankind"(v. 6) can refer to sins committed bya human being and to sins committed againsta human being.37The context favors the latter option.
Added instructions covered another case. This was a person who could not fulfill his responsibilities because the person against whom he had committed the trespass, or that person's near kinsman, had died or did not exist. In this case the guilty party had to make restitution and compensation to the priests (v. 8).
Trespasses against one's neighbor (cf. Lev. 6:1-7) needed atonement because they constituted acts of "unfaithfulness"to God (v. 6).
The Israelites had to maintain proper horizontal relationships with their brethren to maintain a proper vertical relationship with Yahweh (cf. Matt. 5:23-24).
"The point is clear--wrongs committed against God's people were considered wrongs committed against God himself."38
The point of this section is the importance of maintaining purity in the marriage relationship to preserve God's blessing on Israel.
In verses 11-15 the writer explained the first steps an Israelite man who suspected his wife of unfaithfulness should take. The offering (v. 15) was a special meal offering. Usually the grain used in the meal offering was wheat ground into fine flour, but in this instance the man presented barley flour. Barley cost only half as much as wheat (2 Kings 7:1, 16, 18). It was the food of the poor and the cattle in the ancient Near East (Judg. 7:13; 1 Kings 5:8; 2 Kings 4:42; Ezek. 4:12).
It may have represented, ". . . the questionable repute in which the woman stood, or the ambiguous, suspicious character of her conduct."39
The meal offering was, of course, representative of the works that an individual presented to God. In this case it was also an offering that the man gave in "jealousy"as a "memorial"or remembrance. He presented it to bring his wife's crime to the Lord's remembrance that He might judge it.
The "earthenware vessel"into which the priest poured the water from the laver was of little value relative to the other utensils of the sanctuary. It was, therefore, a fit receptacle for this test. The "dust"he added to the water probably symbolized the curse of sin. It is what causes humans grief as we toil for a living because of sin's curse.
"Since this dust has been in God's presence, it is holy. As has been said before, one who is unclean is in great danger in the presence of the holy."40
The release of the woman's hair, normally bound up, represented the temporary loss of her glory (i.e., her good reputation). Other possibilities are that it symbolized her openness,41mourning,42or uncleanness.43
M. R. DeHaan offered a natural as opposed to a supernatural explanation of what happened in this trial by ordeal that has captured the imagination of some evangelicals. He believed that the treated water that the woman drank reacted to the chemical composition of the juices in her digestive system that had become abnormal because of her guilt. Science has established that certain emotions and nervous disturbances change the chemical composition of our body secretions. While this might be what produced the symptoms described in the text, DeHaan erred in interpreting the "dust"(v. 17) which the priest mixed with the water as a "bitter herb."
"We believe that, if we knew the identity of the bitter herb which Moses used, the same test would work today."44
The physical symptoms of God's judgment on the woman if she was guilty (vv. 23, 27) point to a special affliction rather than one of the natural diseases that overtook the Israelites. Josephus said it was ordinary dropsy.45This seems unlikely in view of how Moses described her condition. Merrill believed her sense of guilt produced a psychosomatic reaction.46It is interesting, whatever the cause, that the punishment fell on the organs that had been the instruments of the woman's sin.
"The thigh is often used as a euphemism for the sexual organs."47
"The most probable explanation for the phrase [and make your abdomen swell and your thigh waste away'] . . . is that the woman suffers a collapse of the sexual organs known as a prolapsed uterus. In this condition, which may occur after multiple pregnancies, the pelvis floor (weakened by the pregnancies) collapses, and the uterus literally falls down. It may lodge in the vagina, or it may actually fall out of the body through the vagina. If it does so, it becomes edematous and swells up like a balloon. Conception becomes impossible, and the woman's procreative life has effectively ended . . ."48
Verses 23-28 explain additional acts that were to take place before the woman drank the water. They are not in chronological sequence with verses 16-22. Drinking the water was the last step in the ritual, which took place in the tabernacle courtyard.
"The ritual trial of the Sotah [suspected adulteress] ended with the drinking of the potion. Nothing further was done, and we can assume that the woman went home to await the results at some future time."49
The man that Moses referred to in verse 31 is the man who accused his wife of unfaithfulness. He incurred no guilt before God for being jealous of his wife's fidelity.
This case raises some questions. Why was only the woman punished if she had been unfaithful? The answer seems to be that her male companion in sin was unknown. If she had been unfaithful and the adulterer was identifiable, both partners should have suffered death by stoning (Lev. 20:10).
What about a wife who suspected that her husband had been unfaithful to her? Did she not have the same recourse as the husband in this case? Evidently she did not. The Israelites were to observe God's revealed line of authority consistently. A man was responsible to God, but a woman was responsible to her father or her husband. A wife was responsible to her husband in a sense that the husband was not responsible to his wife. This does not mean that marital infidelity was a worse sin for a wife than it was for a husband. It simply explains how God wanted the Israelites to handle infidelity in the case of a wife. Perhaps God Himself judged a husband who was unfaithful to his wife (cf. Heb. 13:4).
Note that this procedure protected the wife of an extremely jealous husband who might continually accuse her. He would suffer embarrassment by her innocence since this was a public ceremony.
"This legislation forbids human punishment of a woman on the basis of suspicion alone, and, in fact, protects her from what could be a death sentence at the hands of the community."50
"Marital deceit is a matter of such seriousness that the truth must be discovered. It is harmful to the sanctity of the community at large, and destructive of one of the bases of community life."51
". . . this particular case law is included here because it gives another illustration of God's personal involvement in the restitution for the sin of the nation. Within God's covenant with Israel, there could be no hidden sin among God's people nor any hidden suspicion of sin.
"The law of jealousy shows that through the role of the priest, God was actively at work in the nation and that no sin of any sort could be tolerated among God's holy people."52
The emphasis in this section continues to be on the importance of maintaining purity in the camp so God's blessing on Israel might continue unabated.
The Nazarite (from the Hebrew root nazar, meaning "to separate") illustrated the consecrated character of all the Israelites, and of the nation as a whole, in an especially visible way.
The "Nazarite"vow was normally temporary. There are two biblical examples of life-long Nazarites: Samson and Samuel.53It was also normally voluntary. Any male or female could take this vow that involved dedication to God's service.
The vow itself required three commitments. These were not the vow but grew out of it.
1. The separated one abstained from any fruit of the grape vine (v. 4).
Perhaps God commanded this because, ". . . its fruit was regarded as the sum and substance of all sensual enjoyment."54
"In itself, wine culture was considered to be good--Israelites regarded the harvest of their vineyards as a blessing--but there was also a dangerous side to it: the possibility of lapsing into a pagan lifestyle."55
2. The Nazarite would leave his or her hair uncut (v. 5). The significance of this restriction has had many interpretations by the commentators as have the other restrictions. The most probable explanation, I believe, connects with the fact that hair represented the strength and vitality of the individual (cf. Judg. 16:13; 2 Sam. 14:25-26).56The long hair of the Nazarite would have symbolized the dedication of the Nazarite's strength and vigor to God.
"There might also have been a negative reason [for] this prescription. In many nations at this time, people devoted their hair to their gods."57
3. The third commitment was to avoid any physical contact with a human corpse. This is perhaps the easiest restriction to explain. It seems that since the Nazarite had dedicated himself to a period of separation to God and from sin he should avoid contact with even the product of sin, namely, death. Since death was an abnormal condition, contact with dead bodies caused defilement.
If the Nazarite broke his vow through no fault of his own he had to follow the prescribed ritual for cleansing and then begin the period of his vow again (vv. 9-12).
". . . there was the recognition that some things in life superseded the requirements of the vow. If someone died suddenly in one's presence, for example, the vow could be temporarily suspended (v. 9). After the emergency had passed, there were provisions for completing the vow (vv. 10-12ff)."58
The Nazarite did not withdraw from society except in the particulars of these restrictions. He lived an active life of service in Israel. His dedication to God did not remove him from society but affected his motivation and activities as he lived.
The Nazarite lived as a priest temporarily in the sense that he lived under more stringent laws of holiness and served God more directly than other Israelites did. His service was not the same as the priests', but sometimes it did involve some sanctuary service as well as other types of service (e.g., Samuel).
"This law specifically shows that there were provisions not just for the priest but for all members of God's people to commit themselves wholly to God. Complete holiness was not the sole prerogative of the priesthood or the Levites. The Nazirite vow shows that even laypersons, men and women in everyday walks of life, could enter into a state of complete devotion to God. Thus this segment of text teaches that any person in God's nation could be totally committed to holiness."59
When the time of the Nazarite's vow expired, he had to go through a prescribed ritual called "the law of the Nazarite"(vv. 13, 21). Burning his cut hair on the brazen altar under his peace offering (v. 18) probably symbolized his giving to God the strength and vigor that he had previously employed in His service. It also ensured that no one would misuse his hair, possibly in a pagan ritual.
The Nazarite ate part of his offering (v. 19). He physically enjoyed part of the fruits of his dedication to God.
God did not require the taking of vows under the Mosaic Law (cf. Lev. 27). Consequently the fact that Paul took a Nazarite vow (Acts 18:18) and paid the expenses of others who had taken one (Acts 21:26) does not indicate that he was living under the Law of Moses. He was simply practicing a Jewish custom that prevailed as the Mosaic Law regulated that custom. He did this to win Jews to Jesus Christ, not because as a Christian Jew he was under the Mosaic Law (1 Cor. 9:19-23).
"It can hardly be denied that there is a desperate need in the church today for such leadership, for men utterly given over to God for His purposes--not men of fanatical zeal (which can very often be fleshly and even devilish), but men of controlled fire, men who can truly say, One thing I do' (Phil. 3:13), men of whom it can be said that the love of Christ constrains them, giving their lives depth, drive, and direction in the service of God."60
The location of this blessing in this context indicates that one of the priest's central tasks was to be a source of blessing for God's people.61This blessing, like the preceding Nazirite legislation, deals with the purification of Israel. As the nation prepared to move out toward the Promised Land, God gave this benediction to the priests to offer for the sanctification of the people. God's will was to bless all His people, not just the Nazarites. The priests were the mediators of this blessing from God to the Israelites.
"Whereas Nazarites generally undertook their vows for a short period, the priests were always there pronouncing this blessing at the close of the daily morning service in the temple and later in the synagogues."62
This blessing was three-fold, and each segment contained two parts. In each case the second part was a particular application of the general request stated in the first part. The first part hoped for God's action that would result in the people's benefit in the second part. The three blessings were increasingly emphatic. Even the structure of the blessing in Hebrew is artful. Line one consists of 15 letters (3 words), line two of 20 letters (5 words), and line three of 25 letters (7 words).
"Each of the three clauses, in a different way, gives expression to God's commitment to Israel--a commitment which promises earthly security, prosperity, and general well-being."63
The first blessing is the most general (v. 24). God's blessing is His goodness poured out. The priest called on Him not only to provide for His people but to defend them from all evil.
The second blessing is more specific (v. 25). God's face is the revelation of His personality to people. It radiates as fire does consuming evil and bestowing light and warmth, and it shines as the sun promoting life. God's graciousness refers to the manifestation of His favor and grace in the events of life.
The third blessing is the most specific (v. 26). Lifting up the countenance refers to manifesting power. The priest called on God to manifest His power for His people. Specifically this would produce peace (Heb. shalom). "Shalom"does not mean just the absence of aggravation. It is the sum of all God's blessings.
One writer suggested the following alternative translation of verse 27.
"And when they shall name me the Most High of the Israelites, I, on my part, will bless them."64
This rendering seems to capture the spirit of God's promise.
". . . the Aaronic blessing concludes the section of text dealing with the bulk of Israel's priestly legislation, and, implicitly, promises that if these laws are kept, the blessing of God will follow. The material in this major section (Lev. 1--Num. 6) comes between the date of the erection of the tabernacle and the movement of the camp some fifty days later (Num. 10:11)."65
This blessing has always been a very important part of Israel's worship even to the present day in Judaism.
". . . the high priestly blessing was pronounced whenever the nation of Israel gathered for collective worship and sacrifice as well as when the individual Israelite brought sacrifices to the LORD. The nature of the blessing was that of an oracle, a sure word from God that He had accepted the sacrifice and was pleased with the worshipper. The contents of the blessing were protection, gracious dealings, and peace with God, which assuredly produced the effect of joy, security, and confidence on the part of the people."66
"Some people suggest that only spontaneous prayer is real' prayer; verses such as these show that such sentiment is not correct."67
