Chapter 5
Lepers, those with a discharge, and those unclean from touching the dead were to be put outside the camp, because the camp could not be defiled with God living there. This applied to both male and female. And it says they did it. It reads like the day that God gave this rule to Moses, he told the people, and they went through the camp putting these three groups outside the camp. Here is the verse:
2 "Command the people of Israel that they put out of the camp everyone who is leprous or has a discharge and everyone who is unclean through contact with the dead. 3 You shall put out both male and female, putting them outside the camp, that they may not defile their camp, in the midst of which I dwell." [Num 5:2-3 ESV]
2021 - The reason for this was that God was dwelling in the camp. God cannot have certain diseases and certain uncleanness in camp with him. Note that only these three conditions required isolation from the camp. Why just these three? Or will there be more later? What about women during menstruation? What about those who'd eaten something unclean. What about any and all the things that made people ceremonially unclean. Did all have to go outside the camp or just these three? MSB is no help. I will try and watch to see if these were the only three causes for eviction from the camp, or if the others are just mentioned separately. Lev 12 talks about how long a woman had to wait for purification after childbirth. Sometimes up to 80 days, if a girl child, and then she had to make an atonement sacrifice. But I don't read it as her staying outside the camp. It does say that the woman is unclean after childbirth. Also says in that chapter that she is unclean during menstruation. But she is only restricted from touching anything holy or coming into the sanctuary. She does not have to go outside the camp. I do not understand this.
2023 - Leprous disease and discharges were in many cases signs of a contagious disease. Touching a dead body might also transmit a contagious disease. This would not be so for women after childbirth, women during menstruation, unclean due to touching the wrong kind of bug, and so on. Ceremonial uncleanness did not require leaving the camp, but being contagious with a disease did. Ceremonial uncleanness was over when it got dark. Disease not so much. So God would not be around contagious disease...and I wonder what else there is about that...It cannot be about not spreading disease, because almost certainly all those "put out" were in the same sort of "side camp" temporarily. They would certainly be giving the disease to each other in that case...so not a disease preventative...maybe a pandemic preventative.
When someone realized they had wronged another person, they were to confess their sin and make restitution. This reads as if they didn't know it was wrong when they did it. Upon realizing their wrong (no indwelling Holy Spirit then to convict of sin), this verse:
7 he shall confess his sin that he has committed. And he shall make full restitution for his wrong, adding a fifth to it and giving it to him to whom he did the wrong. [Num 5:7 ESV]
These seem like property crimes, that could be restored, either to the person harmed, his estate, or lacking any of those, to the priest. Restitution was cost plus 20%. An atonement sacrifice also had to be made.
2021 - MSB says that any sin against another Hebrew was a sin against God. That is why it is worded this way. As I read it, this is not just about property crimes at all but can go all the way up to things that include the death of the one harmed. And you could settle that with his family by monetary payment. I don't know how that would be determined. It seems to me that a lot is assumed in this wording. Much of this was supposed to be "understood" by being there as it was carried out. Surely manslaughter was not always just a payment to the priest away from scott free?
Hmm....many of these rules, possibly all of them, were there for one of two reasons. The people were to be holy because God is Holy, and the camp had to be ceremonially clean because God dwelt there with them. An argument could be made that God does not dwell with us today the same way he dwelt with Israel, therefore, ham is ok now. God still judges it unclean, but we are not under the same kind of compulsion now to keep it away from us. Same with fat, which belonged to God, and blood. 2021 - I don't think I had this right the first two times. God was trying to make the camp as holy as possible. But God dwells in us, as the Holy Spirit, today. The real difference is that Christ has paid for all our sins now. That was not the case in the camp in the desert. God can be among us now, though we sin, because God no longer sees that sin. 2023 - And we also know from Peter's experience in the NT that the dietary laws are all gone. Nothing is unclean to eat or drink. It is not what goes into a man that defiles the man.
Determining if a woman is guilty of unfaithfulness to her husband, and the punishment that goes with it. In this case, the punishment is not death. She shall be a curse among her people, but it does not say to stone her. Was stoning for an unmarried adulteress? (Adultery, punishment)
The woman had to drink the bitter water from an earthenware vessel, and swear an oath. If she had been unfaithful, and was keeping it to herself, then these things would happen after drinking the water:
22 May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.' And the woman shall say, 'Amen, Amen.' [Num 5:22 ESV]
God would show publicly whether the woman was guilty or not. There was no psychology here, no dependence on the woman to be honest. Her guilt or innocence would be visible to all. God did not want people to be unfaithful in marriage. I note that it was only the woman who was tested in this way, there seems to be no proscription against the men who committed adultery. The jealous husband who initiates all this, is the innocent party.
2021 - MSB says if she was guilty she was stoned, but I do not read it that way. Vs 27:
27 And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become a curse among her people. [Num 5:27 ESV] If she becomes a curse among her people, she will still be among her people, not stoned to death and buried and forgotten. So this appears to be some kind of exception to stoning for adultery.
2021, Put the following here and back in Leviticus 20, as I think both need to be considered in trying to understand these things. In Numbers, an elaborate ritual is described for determining whether a woman has been unfaithful to her husband, if she wasn't actually caught en flagrant. If she is guilty, her womb will swell (no more children) and her thigh will "fall away". I do not know what this phrase might mean. But the point here, in Leviticus 20, is that all these prohibitions against adultery, save one, start with "If a man..." So it seems to me that the penalties resulting from a man's sin of adultery are different from those of a woman's sin of adultery. Also, here in Leviticus, we know who the guilty parties are, on both sides. In Numbers, the sin was secret, and the ritual is based on the suspicion of a husband. Only on suspicion. No witnesses. And no way to identify who the man involved was, unless the woman confesses it. If he cannot be punished with her, perhaps it was unfair for her to be stoned, while the guilty man kept his secret. That may be the key to this. The stoning occurred when all the facts were known. Becoming a curse, and never again bearing children, was the punishment if there were no witnesses, and because the ritual could determine that the woman was guilty, but not identify the other party. One last note...taking the position above means that I disagree with MSB as to the stoning of any identified adulteress. I just don't think vs 27 allows that interpretation.