Numbers · Chapter 19

Verse 1. The people had complained of the strictness of the law which forbade their near approach to the tabernacle, (Numbers 17:13,) and the sudden death of so many by the late plague had put such numbers of their friends and relations into a state of legal uncleanness, which rendered them incapable of approaching it, and filled them with a fear of perishing in their uncleanness; in answer, therefore, to their complaints, and to free them from this fear, they are here shown how they might be purified from the greatest legal uncleanness, so as to approach God in his ordinances and among his people, without either fear or danger.

V. 2. Red-A fit colour to shadow forth the bloody nature of sin, and the blood of Christ, from which this water and all other rites had their purifying virtue. No blemish-A fit type of Christ. Upon which never came yoke-Whereby may be signified, either that Christ in himself was free from all the yoke or obligation of God’s command, till for our sakes he put himself under the law; or that Christ was not forced to undertake our burden and cross, but did voluntarily chuse it. He was bound and held with no other cords but those of his own love.

Verse 2. Speak unto the children of Israel that they bring thee, &c.] The ordinance of the red heifer was a sacrifice of general application. All the people were to have an interest in it, and therefore the people at large are to provide the sacrifice. This Jewish rite certainly had a reference to things done under the Gospel, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has remarked: “For if,” says he, “the blood of bulls and of goats,” alluding, probably, to the sin-offerings and the scape-goat, “and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God!” Hebrews 9:13, 14. As the principal stress of the allusion here is to the ordinance of the red heifer, we may certainly conclude that it was designed to typify the sacrifice of our blessed Lord. We may remark several curious particulars in this ordinance.

1. A heifer was appointed for a sacrifice, probably, in opposition to the Egyptian superstition which held these sacred, and actually worshipped their great goddess Isis under this form; and this appears the more likely because males in general were preferred for sacrifice, yet here the female is chosen.

2. It was to be a red heifer, because red bulls were sacrificed to appease the evil demon Typhon, worshipped among the Egyptians. See Spencer.

3. The heifer was to be without spot-having no mixture of any other colour. Plutarch remarks, Deuteronomy Iside et de Osiride, that if there was a single hair in the animal either white or black, it marred the sacrifice. See Calmet, and see Clarke’s note on “Numbers 8:7”.

4. Without blemish-having no kind of imperfection in her body; the other, probably, applying to the hair or colour.

5. On which never came yoke, because any animal which had been used for any common purpose was deemed improper to be offered in sacrifice to God. The heathens, who appear to have borrowed much from the Hebrews, were very scrupulous in this particular. Neither the Greeks nor Romans, nor indeed the Egyptians, would offer an animal in sacrifice that had been employed for agricultural purposes. Of this we have the most positive evidence from Homer, Porphyry, Virgil, and Macrobius. Just such a sacrifice as that prescribed here, does Diomede vow to offer to Pallas.-Iliad, lib. x., ver. 291.

JWv nun moi eqelousa paristaso, kai me fulasse\

Soi dJ au egw rexw boun hnin eurumetwpon,

Admhthn, hn ovpw upo zugon hgagen anhr\

Thn toi egw rexw, cruson kerasin periceuav.

“So now be present, O celestial maid;

So still continue to the race thine aid;

A yearling heifer falls beneath the stroke,

Untamed, unconscious of the galling yoke,

With ample forehead and with spreading horns,

Whose tapering tops refulgent gold adorns.”

Altered from POPE.

In the very same words Nestor, Odyss., lib. iii., ver. 382, promises a similar sacrifice to Pallas.

The Romans had the same religion with the Greeks, and consequently the same kind of sacrifices; so Virgil, Georg. iv., ver. 550. Quatuor eximios præstanti corpore tauros

Ducit, et intacta totidem cervice juveneas.

“———From his herd he culls

For slaughter four the fairest of his bulls;

Four heifers from his female stock he took,

All fair, and all unknowing of the yoke.”

-DRYDEN.

It is very likely that the Gentiles learnt their first sacrificial rites from the patriarchs; and on this account we need not wonder to find so many coincidences in the sacrificial system of the patriarchs and Jews, and all the neighbouring nations.

Verse 2. This is the law which the Lord hath commanded — Or rather, had commanded. For it is probable that the water of purification had been made before, although the manner of making it is here first described. That they bring thee a red heifer — Provided at the expense of the congregation, because they were all to have a joint interest in it; as all believers, the spiritual Israel, have in Christ, typified by it. Here a question arises, why this sacrifice (if it may be so called) must be a heifer, when in other cases bullocks are appointed, and, in general, the male is preferred to the female. According to St. Austin and Theodoret, the weaker sex was to signify that infirmity of the flesh wherewith Christ was clothed. But the reason which Dr. Spencer assigns seems to be more plausible, which is, that it was in opposition to the Egyptian superstition. For though the Egyptians offered bullocks in sacrifice, they had cows in great veneration; as Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Ælian, Porphyry, and others, unanimously declare. Porphyry says they would rather have eaten human flesh than that of cows. In order, therefore, to expose this folly of Egypt in the eyes of the Israelites, God directs Moses to appoint one solemn institution wherein a heifer was to be the victim. A red heifer — A fit colour to shadow forth the nature of sin, and the blood of Christ, from which this water and all other rites had their purifying virtue. The Jews say, that it was necessary the heifer should be entirely red, without the least mixture of any other colour, and that if but two hairs were black or white it was unfit for this sacrifice. Without spot — Hebrew, hmymt, temima, perfect; wherein is no blemish — Thus typifying the spotless purity and sinless perfection of the Lord Jesus. Upon which never came yoke — This was not necessary in other sacrifices; but may here be considered as signifying the perfect freedom of the Lord Jesus from every obligation to undertake our cause and die in our stead, save that which love laid him under. For when he said, Lo, I come, he was bound by no other cords than those of his great love to us.

Verse 2. A red heifer, a young and spotless cow, which in the third year had nearly come to her full growth. The whole body of this victim was burnt with holy fire from the altar. From her ashes the water was secreted which purged from sin, and brought the unclean near to the tabernacle. The rabbins make many remarks on this sacrifice, as indeed do the prophets. They say that these ashes were conveyed to every city of Israel, and that the sprinkling was made with three sprigs of hyssop. The christian fathers also are fertile in remarks on this singular and hallowed victim, which made all the priests and levites unclean by the tragic deed, and then purified them by its mystical virtues. Augustine, Theodoret, and others affirm that these waters prefigured baptism, the outward sign of regeneration and purity. Most christian churches baptize infants; and if the sprinkling of these waters was perfect in figure, no man can condemn sprinkling with water. It is the contumacy of the wicked, not the modes of worship, which destroys the souls of men.

2. The ordinance of the law — This use of two words, each of which signifies law or statute, occurs again only in Numbers 31:21, in connexion with purification. It is intended to give emphasis to the ordinance. A red heifer — No reason is assigned for the sex and color of the victim. Hence all interpretations of this symbolry must be conjectural. The following particulars have been suggested: (1.) A heifer was taken as a rebuke to pagan Egypt, which regarded her as sacred, and worshipped her as the impersonation of the goddess Isis. Herodotus says that the Egyptians sacrifice male kine, both old and young, but it is not lawful for them to sacrifice females. (2.) It was to be red, or quite red, as the rabbins interpret it, because the Egyptians sacrificed red bulls to the evil demon Typhon. (3.) Without spot — Because the Egyptians, in their selection of red bulls for sacrifice, regard as unfit the animal having a single white or black hair. See Leviticus 1:3; 22:20-24, notes. (4.) The requirement that the heifer should be one upon which never came yoke harmonized with the ancient usage which deemed an animal which had been used for common purposes improper for sacrifice. The Homeric heroes vow to offer to Pallas “a yearling heifer which no man had yet brought under the yoke.” Il., 10:291; Od., 3:382.

V. 3. Eleazar-Who was the second priest, and in some cases, the deputy of the high-priest. To him, not to Aaron, because this service made him unclean for a season, and consequently unfit for holy ministrations, whereas the high-priest was, as far as possibly he could, to be preserved from all sorts of defilement, fit for his high and holy work. Without the camp-Partly because it was reputed an unclean and accursed thing, being laden with the sins of all the people; and partly to signify that Christ should suffer without the camp, in the place where malefactors suffered.

Verse 3. Ye shall give her unto Eleazar — Who was the second priest, and in some cases the deputy of the high-priest. To him this service was committed, and not to Aaron, because it was not fit that Aaron should be engaged in any thing that would render him ceremonially unclean, although but till the evening, verse 8. Yet as it was an affair of great moment, especially as typifying the sufferings and death of Christ, and purification through his blood, it was proper it should be performed by him who was next to Aaron in dignity. The chief priests of our Lord’s time had the principal hand in his death. That he may bring her forth without the camp — Partly because this heifer was reputed an unclean and accursed thing, being laden with the sins of all the people, and partly to signify that Christ should suffer without the gate, (Hebrews 13:12,) in the place where malefactors suffered.

3. Eleazar was charged with this duty because Aaron, the high priest, must hold himself ever ready to offer the individual sin offerings of the people, for which he would be disqualified by the uncleanness which this statute of the water of preparation declares to attach to the priest superintending the sacrifice of the red heifer. Verse 7. Without the camp — This was rendered necessary because the sacrifice had respect to the purification of the priests by the water of separation as well as that of the people. Hence the priests could no more eat of this sin-offering than they could of that made exclusively for themselves. See Leviticus 4:3-12, notes. It indicates that every thing dead must be removed outside the kingdom of God, over which the Prince of Life presides. After the temple was built, the heifer was customarily slain on the Mount of Olives, and the blood was sprinkled toward the sanctuary visible through the eastern gate of the temple court. One shall slay — The subject to “bring her forth” and “slay her” is indefinite. The offerer, and not the priest, was to slay the victim, except when the priest is the offerer. In this case the people not only gave the victim but appointed an offerer. All that the priest had to do was sprinkling the blood.

V. 4. Before the tabernacle-Or, towards the tabernacle, standing at a good distance from it, even without the camp, yet turning and looking towards it. For here is no intimation that he went into the camp before this work was done, but rather the contrary is implied, Numbers 19:7. And because being defiled by this work he could not come near the tabernacle, it was sufficient for him to turn and look towards it. This signified his presenting this blood before the Lord by way of atonement for his and the people’s sins, and his expectation of acceptance and pardon only from God, and from his mercy-seat in the tabernacle. And this typified the satisfaction that was made to God, by the death of Christ, who by the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, and did as it were sprinkle his own blood before the sanctuary, when he said, Into thy hands I commend my spirit!

Verse 4. Sprinkle of her blood directly before the tabernacle — This made it in some sort an expiation of sin; for the sprinkling of the blood before the Lord was the chief solemnity in all the sacrifices of atonement: therefore, though this was not done at the altar, yet, being done toward the sanctuary, it was intimated hereby that the virtue and validity of it depended upon the sanctuary, and were derived from it. Thus, in the satisfaction that was made to God by the death of Christ, our great High- Priest, who, by the eternal Spirit, (called, Luke 12:20, the finger of God,) offered himself without spot to God; he did, as it were, sprinkle his own blood directly before the sanctuary, when he said, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.” This also signifies how necessary it was, to the purifying our hearts, that satisfaction should be made to divine justice. This sprinkling of the blood put virtue into the ashes.

4. Before the tabernacle — Properly toward the front of the tabernacle. Thus was the sacrifice referred to Jehovah. Seven times — Leviticus 4:6, note.

V. 5. Burn the heifer-To signify the sharp and grievous sufferings of Christ for our sins. Her blood-All of it, but what was spent in sprinkling.

Verses 5, 6. One shall burn the heifer in his sight — This typified the extreme sufferings of our Lord, both in soul and body, as a sacrifice made by fire. Cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet — These were used in the cleansing of lepers, (Leviticus 14:6, 7,) and were all here burned, and, as it were, offered to God, that they might be sanctified to this holy use in future.

5. Shall burn the heifer — The burning was not the means adopted to dispose of the victim in a fitting manner; it must have had a svmbolical significance looking toward expiation. And her blood — This, instead of being poured at the foot of the altar, was to be burned, in order to strengthen the ashes with its incombustible ingredients. Leviticus 4:12.

V. 6. Cedar-wood, hyssop, scarlet-All which are here burnt, and as it were offered to God, that they might be sanctified to this holy use for the future; for of these kinds of things was the sprinkle made wherewith the unclean were sprinkled, Leviticus 14:4.

Verses 5, 6. One shall burn the heifer in his sight — This typified the extreme sufferings of our Lord, both in soul and body, as a sacrifice made by fire. Cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet — These were used in the cleansing of lepers, (Leviticus 14:6, 7,) and were all here burned, and, as it were, offered to God, that they might be sanctified to this holy use in future.

6. Cedar is remarkable for its power to resist decay. The cedar roof of the temple of Diana at Ephesus lasted four hundred years, and beams in the temple of Apollo lasted eleven hundred and seventy years. Hence cedar symbolizes the prolonged continuance of life, and hyssop purification from the corruption of death, and scarlet, or scarlet wool, the strongest vital energy, so that the ashes might be regarded “as the quintessence of all that purified and strengthened life, refined and sublimated by fire.” — Leyrer. See Leviticus 14:4, note.

V. 7. Shall be unclean-Partly to teach us the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood, in which the priest himself was defiled by some parts of his work, and partly to shew that Christ himself, though he had no sin of his own, yet was reputed by men, and judged by God, as a sinful person, by reason of our sins which were laid upon him.

Verse 7. The priest shall be unclean — Partly to teach us the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood, in which the priest himself was defiled by some parts of his work, and partly to show that Christ himself, though he had no sin of his own, yet was reputed by men, and judged by God, as a sinful person, by reason of our sins, which were laid upon him.

7. Wash his clothes, and… flesh — “This washing of the garments and the body — what is it but the cleansing of our faculties, external and internal.” — Augustine. Unclean until the even — The only necessary contact of the priest with the heifer was in the sprinkling of the blood. The heifer, like all sin offerings, may be regarded as unclean, for the reason that the sins of men were imputed to the sin sacrifice, as the sins of the world were putatively laid upon Christ. “It is evident from the whole that there was no natural or necessary connexion between the sprinkling of the ashes of the heifer upon a person and cleansing him from sin. It was simply the divine appointment that gave efficacy to the act.” — Bush.

V. 9. For a water-Or, to the water, that is, to be put to the water, or mixed with it. Of separation-Appointed for the cleansing of them that are in a state of separation, who for their uncleanness are separated from the congregation. It is a purification for sin-Heb. a sin, that is, an offering for sin, or rather a mean for expiation or cleansing of sin. And this was a type of that purification for sin, which our Lord Jesus made by his death.

Verse 9. For a water of separation] That is, the ashes were to be kept, in order to be mixed with water, Numbers 19:17, and sprinkled on those who had contracted any legal defilement.

Verse 9. A man shall gather up the ashes — The ashes of the heifer were separated as well as they could be from the ashes of the wood wherewith it was burned, were pounded and sifted, and laid up for the use of the congregation as there was occasion, not only for that generation, but for posterity; for the ashes of this one heifer, the Jews tell us, were sufficient to season as many vessels of water as the people of Israel would need for many ages. Nay, they say this one served till the captivity, near one thousand years, and that there never was another heifer burned fill the time of Ezra. But to this tradition of theirs, grounded probably on the silence of ancient records, there seems to be no good reason to give credit, since, in the latter ages of their church, when they had more full records, they find an account of eight burned between Ezra’s time and the destruction of the second temple, which was only a space of about five hundred years. In the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, however, offered only once for all, we have an inexhaustible fund of merit, to which, by faith, his church may have recourse from generation to generation, for the purification of their consciences from dead works.

Ver. 9. A water of separation; that is, a water of sprinkling, of expiation, of purifying, or of cleansing, as the versions read.

9. Ashes… water of separation — The chief ingredient of this water. Purification for sin — The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews strongly hints that this process did not work a real inward cleansing of the nature when he says, “How much more shall the blood of Christ… purge your conscience from dead (sinful) works to serve the living God.” Hebrews 9:13, 14.

V. 10. The stranger-A proselyte.

10. He that gathereth — Here we have a paradox. The clean man, in gathering the ashes which make clean, becomes unclean. Does it not fore-show that the scribes, priests, and all others who procured the shedding of the blood of Christ which “cleanseth from all sin” became sinners by this very act? “Yet some of them were, and all might have been, cleansed by the virtue of that same blood which they had brought themselves under the guilt of.” — Henry. The stranger — See Leviticus 23:22, note.

Verse 11. He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.] How low does this lay man! He who touched a dead beast was only unclean for one day, Leviticus 11:24, 27, 39; but he who touches a dead man is unclean for seven days. This was certainly designed to mark the peculiar impurity of man, and to show his sinfulness-seven times worse than the vilest animal! O thou son of the morning, how art thou fallen!

THE USE OF THE PURIFYING WATER, 11-22.

The water of separation is chiefly used to remove the uncleanness arising from the dead. From remote antiquity many nations have shared in the notion that death and its attendant putrefaction, as the embodiment of sin in consequence of the fall, defiled and excluded from fellowship with the holy God. This notion is presupposed by the laws given on Sinai, and confirmed by the prohibition of the priests to attend the funerals of any except their nearest blood relations, (Leviticus 21:1-6, 10-12, notes,) and by the order to remove from the camp every corpse-defiled person. Numbers 5:2-4, note. The Egyptian priests were required to shun graves, funerals, and funeral feasts; the Persian Zenda-vesta, the ancient and modern religions of India, as well as the old Grecian and Roman rituals, were remarkably emphatic in this injunction. In New Zealand the man who has handled the dead is deemed so impure that he may not put forth his hands to his own food. In all these nations the rites of purification have points of resemblance to the Mosaic.

11. The dead body of any man — Literally, He who toucheth the dead with regard to every soul of man; any human corpse. Contact with a dead beast defiled for only one day, (Leviticus 11:24, 27, 39, notes,) but by reason of the peculiar sinfulness of man and the infectiousness and hatefulness of sin, his dead body was regarded as polluting seven times more than that of the vilest animal.

V. 12. With it-With the water of separation. On the third day-To typify Christ’s resurrection on that day by which we are cleansed or sanctified.

Verse 12. He shall purify himself with it] wb acjty yithchatta bo, literally, he shall sin himself with it. This Hebrew form of speech is common enough among us in other matters. Thus to fleece, to bark, and to skin, do not signify to add a fleece, another bark, or a skin, but to take one away; therefore, to sin himself, in the Hebrew idiom, is not to add sin, but to take it away, to purify. The verb acj chata signifies to miss the mark, to sin, to purify from sin, and to make a sin-offering. See Clarke’s note on “Genesis 13:13”.

THE Hebrews generally sacrificed males, no matter of what colour; but here a heifer, and a heifer of a red colour, is ordered. The reason of these circumstances is not very well known.

“The rabbins, with all their boldness,” says Calmet, “who stick at nothing when it is necessary to explain what they do not

understand, declare that the cause of this law is entirely unknown; and that Solomon, with all his wisdom, could not find it out.” Several fathers, as well modern as ancient, profess to understand the whole clearly. 1. The red heifer with them signifies the flesh of our Lord, formed out of an earthly substance. 2. Being without spot, &c., the infinite holiness of Christ. 3. The sex of the animal, the infirmity of our flesh, with which he clothed himself. 4. The red colour, his passion. 5. Being unyoked, his being righteous in all his conduct, and never under the yoke of sin. 6. Eleazar’s sacrificing the heifer instead of Aaron, Numbers 19:3, signifies the change of the priesthood from the family of Aaron, in order that a new and more perfect priesthood might take place. 7. The red heifer being taken without the camp (Numbers 19:3) to be slain, points out the crucifixion of our Lord without the city. 8. The complete consuming of the heifer by fire, the complete offering of the whole body and soul of Christ as a sacrifice to God for the sin of man: for as the heifer was without blemish, the whole might be offered to God; and as Christ was immaculate, his whole body and soul were made a sacrifice for sin. 9. As the fire of this sacrifice ascended up to God, so it points out the resurrection and ascension of our blessed Lord. 10. And as the ashes of this victim communicated a legal purity to those who were defiled, so true repentance, signified by those ashes, is necessary for the expiation of the offences committed after baptism. A great part of this is true in itself; but how little evidence is there that all these things were intended in the ordinance of the red heifer? See Clarke on “Numbers 8:7”. NUMBERS

Verse 12. He shall purify himself with it — With the water of separation. On the third day — To typify Christ’s resurrection on that day, by which we are cleansed or sanctified.

Ver. 12. The Septuagint and other copies read, He shall be purified with it the third day, and the seventh day, and shall be clean. So ver. 18, 19.

12. The third… the seventh day — The selection of these days was determined by the significance of the numbers themselves. The other numbers for which there is a partiality in Levitical symbolry are four, twelve, forty, and seventy. See Leviticus 4:6, note.

V. 13. Whosoever toucheth-If this transgression be done presumptuously; for if it was done ignorantly, he was only to offer sacrifice. Defiled-By approaching to it in his uncleanness: for holy things or places were ceremonially defiled with the touch of any unclean person or thing. Is upon him-He continues in his guilt, not now to be washed away by this water, but to be punished by cutting off.

Verse 13. Whosoever toucheth — If this transgression be done presumptuously; for if it was done ignorantly, he was only to offer a sacrifice. Defileth the tabernacle — By approaching to it in his uncleanness: for holy things or places were ceremonially defiled with the touch of any unclean person or thing. Is upon him — He continues in his guilt, not now to be washed away by this water, but to be punished by cutting off.

13. Purifieth not himself — In the Old Testament, as in the New Testament, sanctification has a human as well as a divine side. 2 Corinthians 7:1. God appoints the means, and man is required diligently to apply them. The culpability does not so much lie in fact of impurity as in the wilful neglect of the provisions for cleansing. The neglect to wrap up the furniture of the tabernacle insured the death of the Levite carrier who touched it. Numbers 4:18, note. Neglect to love Jesus Christ renders one worthy of the divine anathema. 1 Corinthians 16:22. There is no escape for him who simply neglects “so great salvation.” Hebrews 2:3; Matthew 25:41, 42. Defileth the tabernacle — This defilement took place not merely because an unclean man ventured to enter the sanctuary, but because uncleanness in those among whom Jehovah, the Holy One, has his dwelling-place was irreconcilable with the calling of Israel to be a holy nation. Leviticus 11:44, note.

14. In a tent — This is an incidental proof that this law was given in the wilderness. The law for the tent was afterward extended by the rabbins to the entire house, (oikia, Septuagint), and not merely to the apartment in which the death had occurred. Modern Jews sustain the rabbins.

15. Every open vessel — The uncovered vessel is rendered unclean by the subtle effluvia of the corpse diffused in the air. Hence, according to the Hebrew, there must be for such vessel a cover bound by a string.

V. 16. With a sword-Or by any other violent way.

Verses 16, 17. With a sword — Or by any other violent way. Running water — Waters flowing from a spring or river, which are the purest. These manifestly signify God’s Spirit, which is oft compared to water, and by which alone, through the sacrifice of Christ, true purification is obtained. Those who promise themselves benefit by the righteousness of Christ, while they submit not to the influence of his Spirit, do but deceive themselves, for they cannot be purified by the ashes, otherwise than in the running water.

16. A bone — Hence the requirement in Ezekiel 39:15, was a safeguard against personal defilement. A grave — This elucidates Matthew 23:27.

V. 17. Running water-Waters flowing from a spring or river, which are the purest. These manifestly signify God’s spirit, which is oft compared to water, and by which alone true purification is obtained. Those who promise themselves benefit by the righteousness of Christ, while they submit not to the influence of his spirit, do but deceive themselves; for they cannot be purified by the ashes, otherwise than in the running water.

Verses 16, 17. With a sword — Or by any other violent way. Running water — Waters flowing from a spring or river, which are the purest. These manifestly signify God’s Spirit, which is oft compared to water, and by which alone, through the sacrifice of Christ, true purification is obtained. Those who promise themselves benefit by the righteousness of Christ, while they submit not to the influence of his Spirit, do but deceive themselves, for they cannot be purified by the ashes, otherwise than in the running water.

17. Running water — Living, that is, pure water.

Verse 18. A clean person shall take hyssop — In allusion to this David prays, Purge me with hyssop. Faith is the bunch of hyssop, wherewith the conscience is sprinkled and the heart purified. And the blood of Christ, being applied by faith, is termed, (Hebrews 12:24,) the blood of sprinkling, and with it we are said to be sprinkled from an evil conscience, (Hebrews 10:22,) that is, we are freed from the burden of distress, which arises from a sense of our guilt. And it is foretold that Christ should sprinkle many nations, Isaiah 52:15.

18. A clean person — This symbolizes the sinner’s need of a sinless high priest. Hebrews 7:26; 1 John 2:1. Hyssop — See Leviticus 14:4, note. And sprinkle — Lustration was prevalent among heathen nations, especially in warm climates, such as Egypt, India, Greece, and Rome.

THE USE OF THE PURIFYING WATER, 11-22.

The water of separation is chiefly used to remove the uncleanness arising from the dead. From remote antiquity many nations have shared in the notion that death and its attendant putrefaction, as the embodiment of sin in consequence of the fall, defiled and excluded from fellowship with the holy God. This notion is presupposed by the laws given on Sinai, and confirmed by the prohibition of the priests to attend the funerals of any except their nearest blood relations, (Leviticus 21:1-6, 10-12, notes,) and by the order to remove from the camp every corpse-defiled person. Numbers 5:2-4, note. The Egyptian priests were required to shun graves, funerals, and funeral feasts; the Persian Zenda-vesta, the ancient and modern religions of India, as well as the old Grecian and Roman rituals, were remarkably emphatic in this injunction. In New Zealand the man who has handled the dead is deemed so impure that he may not put forth his hands to his own food. In all these nations the rites of purification have points of resemblance to the Mosaic.

11. The dead body of any man — Literally, He who toucheth the dead with regard to every soul of man; any human corpse. Contact with a dead beast defiled for only one day, (Leviticus 11:24, 27, 39, notes,) but by reason of the peculiar sinfulness of man and the infectiousness and hatefulness of sin, his dead body was regarded as polluting seven times more than that of the vilest animal.

V. 20. That shall not purify himself-Shall contemptuously refuse to submit to this way of purification.

Verses 20, 21. That shall not purify himself — Shall contemptuously refuse to submit to this way of purification. Shall wash his clothes — Because he is unclean. It is strange, that the same water should cleanse one person, and defile another. But God would have it so, to teach us that it did not cleanse by any virtue in itself, or in the work done, but only by virtue of God’s appointment; and to show that the efficacy of God’s ordinances doth not depend upon the person or quality of his ministers, because the same person who was polluted himself could and did, in the use of God’s appointed means, cleanse others. He that toucheth the water — Either by sprinkling of it, or by being sprinkled with it; for even he that was cleansed by it was not fully cleansed as soon as he was sprinkled, but only at the even of that day.

20. Shall be cut off — See Leviticus 7:20. This is an emphatic repetition of the threatening in verse 13. See note.

V. 21. Shall wash his clothes-Because he is unclean. It is strange, that the same water should cleanse one person, and defile another. But God would have it so, to teach us that it did not cleanse by any virtue in itself, or in the work done, but only by virtue of God’s appointment: to mind the laws of the imperfection of their priesthood, and their ritual purifications and expiations, and consequently of the necessity of a better priest and sacrifice and way of purifying; and to shew that the efficacy of God’s ordinances doth not depend upon the person or quality of his ministers, because the same person who, was polluted himself could and did cleanse others. He that toucheth the water-Either by sprinkling of it, or by being sprinkled with it; for even he that was cleansed by it, was not fully cleansed as soon as he was sprinkled, but only at the even of that day.

Verses 20, 21. That shall not purify himself — Shall contemptuously refuse to submit to this way of purification. Shall wash his clothes — Because he is unclean. It is strange, that the same water should cleanse one person, and defile another. But God would have it so, to teach us that it did not cleanse by any virtue in itself, or in the work done, but only by virtue of God’s appointment; and to show that the efficacy of God’s ordinances doth not depend upon the person or quality of his ministers, because the same person who was polluted himself could and did, in the use of God’s appointed means, cleanse others. He that toucheth the water — Either by sprinkling of it, or by being sprinkled with it; for even he that was cleansed by it was not fully cleansed as soon as he was sprinkled, but only at the even of that day.

21, 22. It was to be a perpetual statute that he who sprinkled the water of separation, or even touched it, and the person defiled by the corpse-defiled person and the one polluted by his touch, should be unclean till evening. This rule applied to other forms of uncleanness. See Leviticus 15.

V. 22. The unclean person-Not he who is so only by touching the water of separation, Numbers 19:21, but he who is so by the greater sort of uncleanness, which lasted seven days, and which was not removed without the use of this water of purification.

21, 22. It was to be a perpetual statute that he who sprinkled the water of separation, or even touched it, and the person defiled by the corpse-defiled person and the one polluted by his touch, should be unclean till evening. This rule applied to other forms of uncleanness. See Leviticus 15.