Numbers · Chapter 5

Verse 1. The camps and divisions of priests, Levites, and people being thus settled, now was the time when the law about excluding leprous and unclean persons from the camps was to take place; God having, for wise reasons, appointed that all persons under such legal impurities should, in proportion to the degree of them, be excluded from the community where he himself dwelt by the symbols of his divine presence till they were cleansed again. This the Israelites began now to put in execution by express order from God to Moses.

Verse 2. Put out of the camp every leper] According to the preceding plan, it is sufficiently evident that each camp had a space behind it, and on one side, whither the infected might be removed, and where probably convenient places were erected for the accommodation of the infected; for we cannot suppose that they were driven out into the naked wilderness. But the expulsion mentioned here was founded, 1. On a purely physical reason, viz., the diseases were contagious, and therefore there was a necessity of putting those afflicted by them apart, that the infection might not be communicated. 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. 3. The camp was an emblem of the Church, where nothing that is defiled should enter, and in which nothing that is unholy should be tolerated. All lepers-all persevering impenitent sinners, should be driven from the sacred pale, nor should any such ever be permitted to enter.

Verse 2. Defiled by the dead. They were unclean seven days. The whole of Shem’s race in India, keep this custom to the present day.

2. Every leper — A discussion of leprosy may be found in Leviticus 13. It was considered a punishment from God. The very term “leper,” in Hebrew etymology, signifies one “struck.” The Greek poet AEschylus (Choeph., 271) portrays it as the scourge of an offended deity. It is the opinion of scientific men that the leprosy, the diagnosis of which is given in Leviticus xiii and xiv, includes all severe diseases spreading on the surface of the body in the way described, as syphilis, elephantiasis, and cancer. Leprosy proper, common in Egypt and Syria, begins imperceptibly with a few reddish, painless spots, gradually increasing for some years, and becoming more manifest. The spots become large, covering the entire skin; sometimes raised, though flat. The upper part of the nose swells and softens, the nostrils distend, the under jaw swells, the eyebrows are elevated, the ears grow thick, the ends of the fingers and toes swell, the nails grow scaly, the joints of the feet and hands separate, and the palms and soles become ulcerated. This kind is supposed by some not to be infectious. In Egypt and Palestine it was endemic in a mild form. Every one that hath an issue — See notes on Leviticus 15:2-33, where it is called a running issue. The separation enjoined was admirably adapted to prevent contagion of every kind, and to repress licentious indulgences. Defiled by the dead — The Hebrew has vpn, nephesh; and the Greek yuch, psyche, spirit or soul, instead of the usual word for dead. In Leviticus 21:11, and Numbers 6:6, the Hebrew adds tm, meth, dead. This was a ceremonial, and not a physical or contagious, defilement. Actual touch was not necessary for defilement, but touching a grave, bearing the dead, or entering a tent or house where there was a corpse. Note, 19:11-18. The reason of the defilement attributed to a dead body is not assigned. It may be on account of its speedy decomposition in a hot climate.

V. 3. That they defile not the camp-By which God would intimate the danger of being made guilty by other mens sins, and the duty of avoiding intimate converse with wicked men. I dwell-By my special and gracious presence.

Verse 3. That they defile not the camp — By which God would intimate the danger of being made guilty by other men’s sins, and the duty of avoiding intimate converse with wicked men. I dwell — By my special and gracious presence.

3. Without the camp — We are not to suppose that these impure persons were left without shelter. Severe indeed, and inhuman, would this banishment of morally innocent persons be, if there were no provision made for their comfort. Pest-houses specially set apart for lepers outside the towns are found in Palestine to this day. Dr. Robinson mentions one opposite the Zion gate of Jerusalem. May it not be because all manner of spiritual leprosies and impurities are without the camp that we are to go forth thence bearing Christ’s reproach? Hebrews 13:13. In the midst whereof I dwell — This is the chief reason for the sanitary ceremonial and moral cleansing of the camp. It also typically enforced the practice of moral purity: “Cleansing themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit.” RESTITUTION FOR TRESPASS, 5-10.

The repetition of this law, originally enacted in Leviticus 6:1-7, seems to be for two reasons: 1.) To promote the moral purgation of the camp; and 2.) To supplement the law in case there is no goel, or next of kin. Such a case had probably arisen. See Introduction, (1.)

Verse 4. And the children of Israel-put them out] This is the earliest account we have of such separations; and probably this ordinance gave the first idea of a hospital, where all those who are afflicted with contagious disorders are put into particular wards, under medical treatment. Though no mention be made of the situation, circumstances, &c., of those expelled persons, we may certainly infer that they were treated with that humanity which their distressed state required. Though sinners must be separated from the Church of God, yet they should be treated with affectionate regard, because they may be reclaimed. It is too often the case when a man backslides from the way of truth, he is abandoned by all; finding his case desperate, he plunges yet deeper into the mire of sin, and the man who, with tender treatment, might have been reclaimed, becomes incurably hardened. One class says, he cannot finally fall, and shall in due time be restored; another class says, he may finally fall and utterly perish. If the unfortunate person be restored, his recovery is taken as a proof of the first doctrine; if he be not, his wretched end is considered a proof of the second. In the first case the person himself may presume on his restoration as a point infallibly determined in the Divine counsel; or in the second, he may consider his case hopeless, and so abandon himself to profligacy and desperation. Thus both parties leave him, and both opinions (misunderstood certainly) render him secure or desperate; and in either case totally inactive in behalf of his own soul. Who is he that properly estimates the worth of one immortal spirit? He who does will at once feel that, in a state of probation, any man may fall through sin, and any sinner may be renewed again unto repentance, through the infinitely meritorious sacrifice, and all powerfully efficacious grace, of Christ. This truth properly felt equally precludes both presumption and despair, and will induce the followers of God to be active in preserving those who have escaped from the corruption that is in the world, and make them diligent to recover those who have turned back to earth and sin.

V. 6. Any sin that men commit-Heb. any sins of men, that is, sins against men, as deceits or wrongs, whereby other men are injured, of which he manifestly speaks. Against the Lord-Which words may be added, to shew that such injuries done to men are also sins against God, who hath commanded justice to men, as well as religion to himself. Guilty-That is, shall be sensible of his guilt, convicted in his conscience.

Verse 6. Any sin that men commit — Hebrew, any sins of men; that is, sins against men, as deceits or wrongs, whereby other men are injured, of which he manifestly speaks. Against the Lord — Which words may be added, to show that such injuries done to men are also sins against God, who hath commanded justice to men, as well as religion to himself. Guilty — That is, shall be sensible of his guilt, convicted in his conscience.

Ver. 6. Any sin that men commit; through ignorance, or inadvertency. This law is more largely illustrated in the sixth chapter of Leviticus.

6. To do a trespass — This embraces offences against the right of property, such as denying and withholding a deposit, finding and concealing lost goods, getting possessions by violence or by fraud, and concealing the wrong by lies and perjury. Against the Lord — The cardinal ethical principle involved in this is, that the creature is so intimately related to the Creator that any infringement of his rights dishonours and displeases his “Great Original.” Hence it follows, that all that morality is radically defective which treats our neighbour as a mere man, and ignores the obligations springing from his relation to God. In other words, no man can keep the second table of the law while disregarding the first; no man can love his neighbour as himself unless he loves God with all his heart. Guilty — Hebrew, asham, to be in debt or at fault. For this the trespass offering, or asham, was prescribed. See on Leviticus 6:1-7, of which this law is an epitome.

V. 7. They shall confess their sin-They shall not continue in the denial of the fact, but give glory to God, and take shame to themselves by acknowledging it. The principal-That is, the thing he took away, or what is equivalent to it. And add-Both as a compensation to the injured person for the want of his goods so long, and as a penalty upon the injurious dealer, to discourage others from such attempts.

Verse 7. Shall confess their sin] Without confession or acknowledgment of sin, there was no hope of mercy held out.

He shall recompense] For without restitution, in every possible case, God will not for give the iniquity of a man’s sin. How can any person in a case of defraud, with his neighbour’s property in his possession, expect to receive mercy from the hand of a just and holy God?

See this subject considered in Clarke’s notes on “Genesis 42:38”.

Verse 7. They shall confess their sin — They shall not continue in the denial of the fact, but give glory to God, and take shame to themselves by acknowledging it. The principal — That is, the thing he took away, or what is equivalent to it. And add — Both as a compensation to the injured person for want of his goods so long, and as a penalty upon the injurious dealer, to discourage others from such attempts.

Ver. 7. They shall confess their sin. This law respects all kinds of fraud in business, and in all the intercourse of life, among the depraved and unregenerate race of men. There can be no peace of conscience without confession and restitution. The law is holy, for God is holy. It is noble and manly in those who have defrauded the king’s revenue, to come forward and make restitution. But justly does a heathen complain of the knave that wears a mask:

Spem vultu simulat, premit alto corde dolorem

Nil conscire sibi, nullâ pallescere culpa.

Daring and bold in face, but sad in heart;

He owns no shame, for crimes affect no smart.

7. They shall confess their sin — This was not a forced acknowledgment of a person detected in dishonesty which he is trying to hide, but a voluntary confession of a truly penitent heart conscious of guilt. Confession is the ordained manifestation of sincere sorrow for sin. The principal… and fifth part — Restitution, if possible, must always accompany true repentance. To confess and still clutch the “guilty prize” is a mockery of God and man. The fifth part of the value was to be added to compensate the injured person, If the crime had not been voluntarily confessed, but had been lawfully proven, the convicted thief would have been liable to a fine of fourfold if the thing had been sold or the animal slain, and there was no possibility of voluntary restitution. Exodus 22:1. The difference is, that the one is directed against flagrant and wilful thieves, and the other against those who have committed fraud through extreme want and strong temptation, and against the light of conscience which is now giving them no rest, but is prompting them to confession.

V. 8. No kinsman-This supposes the person injured to be dead or gone, into some unknown place, and the person injured to be known to the injurer. To the priest-Whom God appointed as his deputy to receive his dues, and take them to his own use, that so he might more chearfully and entirely devote himself to the ministration of holy things. This is an additional explication to that law, Leviticus 6:2, and for the sake thereof it seems here to be repeated.

Verse 8. If the man have no kinsman] The Jews think that this law respects the stranger and the sojourner only, because every Israelite is in a state of affinity to all the rest; but there might be a stranger in the camp who has no relative in any of the tribes of Israel.

Verse 8. No kinsman — This supposes the person injured to be dead, or gone into some unknown place. To the priest — Whom God appointed as his deputy, to receive his dues, and take them to his own use, that so he might more cheerfully and entirely devote himself to the ministration of holy things. This is an additional explication to that law, Leviticus 6:2, and for the sake thereof it seems here to be repeated.

8. No kinsman — The Hebrew goel was the nearest relative, whose duty it was to redeem his enslaved kinsman, as well as to avenge his death at another’s hand. See note introductory to verse 1, and on Genesis 9:5. In this is implied the fact of the death of the injured party. To the priest — As the representative of Jehovah, who in a peculiar sense is the kin of the deceased, the restitution is to be made. He is our ultimate legatee and avenger. The restitution money paid to the priest was put into a common purse and distributed among all the priests in that course. The ram of the atonement — This was the sacrifice by which the expiation to Jehovah was effected. Leviticus 6:7. As he was offended by the sin, his wrath must be appeased, as well as the violated rights of man be restored. Hengstenberg interprets this to signify that Jehovah, the natural heir, who was wronged in the injured person, was to receive a double trespass offering. The original law required, with the ram, a sum of money estimated to be an equivalent to the injury done to the person. “The ram of the asham receives an imaginary value according to the estimate of the priests.” The ram presented by the delinquent “as a compensation for the spiritual debt was taxed as high as the sum which was given for the compensation of the outward material debt. By this symbolic act the idea of debt was most vividly impressed, and the necessity of making a settlement with God was clearly exhibited.” This verse supplements the original law of the trespass offering, which is silent respecting the death of the injured person who had no heir or goel. It is probable that such a case had occurred, and hence additional legislation was required.

V. 9. Unto the priest-To offer by his hands.

9. And every offering — Terumah. The original, according to Furst, signifies “any oblation, that is, a gift taken from a whole which one brings to God or to the priest.” It is supposed to have special reference here to the heave shoulder and the wave breast, the perquisites of the priestly office. Leviticus 10:12-15. The Greek version has aparch, firstfruits. We group together all the sources of revenue to the priests before their settlement in Canaan. 1.) One per cent. of the produce of the soil, which was one tenth of the tithes paid to the Levites. Numbers 18:26-28. 2.) A special tithe every third year. Deuteronomy 14:28; 26:12. 3.) The five shekels for the redemption of each firstborn. Numbers 18:16. 4.) The redemption of persons or things especially vowed to Jehovah. Leviticus 27. 5.) A five hundredth part of half the spoils of war. Numbers 31:27, 28. 6.) The show bread, the flesh of the sin offerings, peace offerings, trespass offerings, especially the heave shoulder and the wave breast. 7.) An undefined amount of the firstfruits of corn, wine, and oil. Shall be his — That is, the priest’s who ministers at the time. Thus Keil renders the tenth verse, “With regard to every man’s holy gifts, to him (the priest) shall they be; what any man gives to the priest shall belong to him.” Professor Bush interprets to him to signify the man who brings the gifts.

THE ORDEAL FOR A SUSPECTED WIFE, 11-31.

It has been said that the only bliss of paradise that has survived the fall is conjugal love. But even this blessing has not survived without alloys. Plighted love is sometimes unfaithful, and the sweets of wedded life are occasionally embittered by jealousy. To protect the institution of marriage — the corner-stone of human society — to vindicate the innocent and to punish the guilty, special rules of procedure are here ordained by Jehovah. From the nature of the crime of conjugal infidelity the usual method of proof by two or three witnesses could not be employed. Hence an extra-judicial procedure is instituted. The Lord sits upon the judgment seat, and the guilt or innocence is to be determined by himself. The ordeal is some method of appeal to God to interpose, in a supernatural manner, to indicate the guilty and to deliver the innocent lying under a false accusation. It was resorted to by our rude European ancestors when they required the suspected person to handle hot iron, or to run barefoot and blindfold in a path strewn with nine red-hot ploughshares, or to plunge the arm up to the elbow in boiling water. If God interposed to prevent harm the accused was deemed innocent. This was the ordeal by fire and by water. It will be seen, as we proceed to the study of the divine ordeal for jealousy, that it differs from all human methods of appeal to the judgment of God in this: God’s ordeal involves a supernatural punishment of the guilty, while human systems require a miracle to shield the innocent. Men’s inventions jeopardize the innocent, God’s method imperils only the wicked. Some such trial of jealousy was probably traditional in the day of Moses. The Divine Lawgiver divests it of its barbarous severities, and interposes it as a merciful shield against the blind vindictiveness of jealousy characteristic of the Orientals. The mode here commanded was a great improvement upon the former method of procedure; and, like the divorces permitted by Moses on account of the hardness of the hearts of capricious husbands, was the legislation best adapted to the condition of the people at that time. There is no account of the enforcement of this ordeal, and there is grave doubt whether recourse was ever had to it in fact. It certainly was not in harmony with the laxity of the nuptial tie prevalent in the time of Jesus Christ. Its parallel is found in the ordeal of the “red water” in Western Africa, and also in an Egyptian romance recently translated by Brugsch: “Ptahneferka copies out on a leaf of papyrus every word of a certain magical formula, dissolves the writing in water, drinks, and knows all that it contains.” — SMITH’S Biblical Dictionary.

V. 10. Every man’s hallowed things-Understand this not of the sacrifices, because these were not the priest’s peculiar, but part of them was offered to God, and the remainder was eaten by the offerer as well as by the priest; but of such other things as were devoted to God, and could not be offered in sacrifice; as suppose a man consecrated an house to the Lord, this was to be the priest’s.

Verse 10. Every man’s hallowed things — Understand this not of the sacrifices, because these were not the priest’s entirely, but part of them was offered to God, and the remainder was eaten by the offerer as well as by the priest; but of such other things as were devoted to God, and could not be offered in sacrifices; as, suppose a man consecrated a house to the Lord, this was to be the priest’s.

V. 12. If a man’s wife-This law was given partly to deter wives from adulterous practices, and partly to secure wives against the rage of their hard-hearted husbands, who otherwise might upon mere suspicions destroy them, or at least put them away. There was not like fear of inconveniences to the husband from the jealousy, of the wife, who had not that authority and power, and opportunity for the putting away or killing the husband, as the husband had over the wife. Go aside-From the way of religion and justice, and that either in truth, or in her husband’s opinion.

Verse 12. If a man’s wife go aside — From the way of piety and virtue, and that either in truth or in her husband’s opinion. This law was given partly to deter wives from adulterous practices, and partly to secure them against the rage of their hard-hearted husbands, who otherwise might, upon mere suspicion, have effected their destruction, or at least put them away. There was not the like fear of inconveniences to husbands from the jealousy of their wives, who had not that authority and power, and opportunity for the putting away or killing their husbands, which the husbands had with respect to their wives.

Ver. 12. If any man’s wife go aside, and commit adultery, the law enjoined that she and her seducer should be stoned. When there was no witness, she must drink the bitter waters. All Shem’s race in Asia have their ordeals, of red hot iron or of boiling water; and all Ham’s race in Africa are compelled to drink the red draught, which kills in the course of twelve hours.

12-14. If… wife go aside — Be faithless to her marriage vow. No witness — If the crime could be proven by witnesses the adulteress was to be put to death. Leviticus 18:20; 20:10. Taken with the manner — This means taken in the very act, as in John 8:4. The Authorized Version very properly puts all these words in italics except taken, for they are not in the Hebrew. The phrase comes from an old English law term long obsolete, implying taken with the evidence of guilt fresh upon him: thus a thief was said to be taken with the mainor (Latin, in manu) when he was caught with the thing stolen upon his person, that is, in his hand. The spirit of jealousy come upon him — This form of expression would indicate that the affection did not arise within the heart, but came upon the man as an objective force. But jealousy cannot be a personality, though it may be inspired by the evil spirit. We prefer to view the phrase as a Hebraism for the strong and vehement feeling of jealousy, which frequently gains as complete a mastery over the mind as did the demons in the time of Christ. The study of Shakspeare’s impersonations of jealousy will justify the Hebrew strength of expression.

12-14. If… wife go aside — Be faithless to her marriage vow. No witness — If the crime could be proven by witnesses the adulteress was to be put to death. Leviticus 18:20; 20:10. Taken with the manner — This means taken in the very act, as in John 8:4. The Authorized Version very properly puts all these words in italics except taken, for they are not in the Hebrew. The phrase comes from an old English law term long obsolete, implying taken with the evidence of guilt fresh upon him: thus a thief was said to be taken with the mainor (Latin, in manu) when he was caught with the thing stolen upon his person, that is, in his hand. The spirit of jealousy come upon him — This form of expression would indicate that the affection did not arise within the heart, but came upon the man as an objective force. But jealousy cannot be a personality, though it may be inspired by the evil spirit. We prefer to view the phrase as a Hebraism for the strong and vehement feeling of jealousy, which frequently gains as complete a mastery over the mind as did the demons in the time of Christ. The study of Shakspeare’s impersonations of jealousy will justify the Hebrew strength of expression.

Verse 14. The spirit of jealousy] hanq jwr ruach kinah, either a supernatural diabolic influence, exciting him to jealousy, or the passion or affection of jealousy, for so the words may be understood.

12-14. If… wife go aside — Be faithless to her marriage vow. No witness — If the crime could be proven by witnesses the adulteress was to be put to death. Leviticus 18:20; 20:10. Taken with the manner — This means taken in the very act, as in John 8:4. The Authorized Version very properly puts all these words in italics except taken, for they are not in the Hebrew. The phrase comes from an old English law term long obsolete, implying taken with the evidence of guilt fresh upon him: thus a thief was said to be taken with the mainor (Latin, in manu) when he was caught with the thing stolen upon his person, that is, in his hand. The spirit of jealousy come upon him — This form of expression would indicate that the affection did not arise within the heart, but came upon the man as an objective force. But jealousy cannot be a personality, though it may be inspired by the evil spirit. We prefer to view the phrase as a Hebraism for the strong and vehement feeling of jealousy, which frequently gains as complete a mastery over the mind as did the demons in the time of Christ. The study of Shakspeare’s impersonations of jealousy will justify the Hebrew strength of expression.

V. 15. The man shall bring her to the priest-Who first strove to persuade her to own the truth. If she did, she was not put to death, (which must have been, if it had been proved against her) but only was divorced and lost her dowry. Her offering-By way of solemn appeal to God, whom hereby she desired to judge between her and her husband, and by way of atonement to appease God, who had for her sins stirred up her husband against her. He shall pour no oil-Both because it was a kind of sin-offering, from which these were excluded, and because she came thither as a delinquent, or suspected of delinquency, unpleasing both to God and men; as one that wanted that grace and amiableness and joy which oil signified, and that acceptance with God which frankincense denoted, Psalm 141:2. Bringing iniquity to remembrance-Both to God before whom she appeared as a sinner, and to her own conscience, if she was guilty; and, if she were not guilty of this, yet it reminded her of her other sins, for which this might be a punishment.

Verse 15. The man shall bring her to the priest — With the witnesses that could prove the ground of his suspicions, and desire she might be put upon her trial. The Jews say, the priest was first to endeavour to persuade her to confess the truth, saying, to this purpose, “Dear daughter, perhaps thou wast overtaken by drinking wine, or wast carried away by the heat of youth, or the examples of ill neighbours; come, confess the truth, for the sake of his great name, which is described in this most sacred ceremony; and do not let it be blotted out with the bitter water.” If she confessed, saying, I am defiled, she was not put to death, but was divorced, and lost her dowry; if she said, I am pure, then they proceeded.

15. Bring his wife unto the priest — The outline of this ritual consisted in the presentation of the suspected wife by her husband to the priest with an offering to bring iniquity “to remembrance.” The essential part was the oath, in which she solemnly protested her innocence, the water being merely the visible channel through which the supernatural curse was to operate, as the clay put upon the eyes of the blind was a visible link between the divine omnipotence and the opening of the eyes. God was invoked to pronounce sentence, and his presence was recognised by throwing a handful of the barley meal on the blazing altar, the woman meanwhile standing before the Lord with the offering in her hand. The priest stood holding the earthen vessel of holy water, mixed with dust taken from the floor of the sanctuary, declaring the woman free from evil consequences if innocent, and dooming her to terrible sufferings if guilty. The curses written in a book were then washed off into the water; the woman drank it, and uttered “Amen, amen,” to the curses falling upon her head from the lips of the priest. Her offering — None were allowed to approach the sanctuary empty handed. Exodus 23:15. The Hebrew word for offering — corban — is from the verb to approach, implying that an offering of access or introduction must be made to Jehovah, in accordance with Oriental usage when an inferior comes into the presence of a superior. The tenth of an ephah of barley meal — The ephah, according to Josephus, was about eight and a half gallons; but the Rabbies say that it was about half that quantity. The barley meal, without oil or frankincense, was a coarse and cheap offering, symbolizing the gross animal character and vileness of the crime in question, and the sad state of the family offering it. It was not an atoning sacrifice, but a memorial solemnly referring the decision to Jehovah. This meat offering, made without the accompaniment of burnt offerings and peace offerings, proves its independence, which has been denied by Bahr and Kurtz on insufficient grounds. No oil was to be poured upon it, probably because the oil is not only the emblem of joy, but in its threefold use for light, food, and healing, symbolizes the illumination, the spiritual sustenance, and restoring efficacy of the Holy Ghost, whose inner abode presupposes the sincerity of the worshipper, the very point in question in the case of the suspected wife. Nor… frankincense — Since this was the emblem of acceptable prayer, it could not be offered by her who might be regarding iniquity in her heart, in which case prayer, instead of being a savour of sweet smell, is a stench in the nostrils of Jehovah. Bringing iniquity to remembrance — This was designed not only to quicken the slumbering conscience of the accused, but to exhibit to all spectators the turpitude of this great sin. In an anthropomorphic view of God, it was an appeal to the memory of God to remind him of his promise to interpose for the decision of this trial.

V. 16. Before the Lord-That is, before the sanctuary where the ark was.

16. Bring her near — The pronoun her may in the Hebrew be translated it, and refer to the offering, since the woman is presented in verse 18, and since it was the office of the priest to present unto Jehovah all offerings. Before the Lord — “Before the Lord” here relates to the altar for burnt offerings before the door of the tabernacle.

V. 17. Holy water-Water of purification appointed for such uses. This was used, that if she were guilty, she might be afraid to add profaneness to her other crime.

An earthen vessel-Because, after this use, it was to be broken in pieces, that the remembrance of it might be blotted out as far as was possible. Dust-An emblem of vileness and misery. From the floor of the tabernacle-Which made it holy dust, and struck the greater terror into the woman, if she were guilty.

Verse 17. Holy water] Water out of the laver, called holy because consecrated to sacred uses. This is the most ancient case of the trial by ordeal. See Clarke at “Numbers 5:31”.

In an earthen vessel] Supposed by the Jews to be such as had never been previously used.

Dust that is in the floor] Probably intended to point out the baseness of the crime of which she was accused.

Ver. 17. Holy water. That is water from the laver. The dust mixed among it would of course contain a portion of the scattered ashes of the altar, which would give the water a saline or bitter taste. Besides, this water had washed off the curse, written on the table with gall and ink.

17. Holy water — Hebrew, holy waters; Greek, pure living water. This was at hand in the brazen laver near the altar. Exodus 30:18. The water of separation, mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, ceremonially defiled the pure and purified the unclean. Numbers 19:20, 21. As neither of these was the purpose of this rite, the water of separation would have been inappropriate. There is no authority here, nor elsewhere in the Bible, for the holy water superstitiously used in the Roman, Greek, and Armenian Churches. An earthen vessel — Thus symbolizing the baseness of the crime. As the vessel could be easily broken, no monument would remain to bring to the husband’s remembrance his wife’s criminality, if guilty, or his groundless jealousy, if innocent. Leviticus 6:28; 11:33. The dust… of the tabernacle — Endued for the occasion with supernatural qualities by Jehovah. Dust in several passages of the Holy Scripture typifies the state of condemnation before God. Genesis 3:14; Deuteronomy 28:24; Joshua 7:6; Micah 7:17. It would not harm the innocent.

V. 18. Before the Lord-Before the tabernacle with her face towards the ark. Uncover her head-Partly that she might be made sensible how manifest she and all her ways were to God; partly in token of her sorrow for her sin, or at least for any cause of suspicion which she had given. In her hands-That she herself might offer it, and thereby call God to be witness of her innocency. Bitter-So called either from the bitter taste which the dust gave it, or from the bitter effects of it upon her, if she were guilty. That causeth the curse-Not by any natural power, but by a supernatural efficacy.

Verse 18. Uncover the woman’s head] To take off a woman’s veil, and expose her to the sight of men, would be considered a very great degradation in the East. To this St. Paul appears to allude, 1 Corinthians 11:5, 6, 10.

18. The woman before the Lord — In verse 16 the offering was “before the Lord” when brought to the altar. The woman was “before the Lord” when, with her face toward the ark, where dwelt the Shekinah, she stood before the door of the tabernacle. And uncover the woman’s head — The Mishna prescribes that she be clothed in black, with a rope girded around her waist. It would seem from the text that her head was vailed, probably also in black. This uncovering seems to typify her removal from the protection of her husband, and her exposure to the wrath of God. It was necessary, also, that the vail be removed in order that the people might mark the woman, and note the Divine stroke upon her in the future if she were guilty. We cannot accept the statement that dishevelling the hair is all that is here meant. In the same Hebrew words Aaron is forbidden to uncover his head in mourning for his sons, Nadab and Abihu. Leviticus 10:6. The jealousy offering was to be in her hands until her oath had entitled her to have it burned upon the altar. The woman, holding her offering — the priest, with the curse-water in his hand — and the jealous husband, the priests, and people looking on, constitute a tableau vivant of deep and solemn interest. The bitter water — It was not bitter in its taste, but in its effects upon the guilty. The Septuagint reads, water of conviction.

V. 19. By an oath-To answer truly to his question, or to declare whether she be guilty or no, and after such oath shall say as follows.

19. Instead of thy husband — Hebrew, under thy husband; that is, being in the power of thy husband. This explains the words, no man.

V. 21. An oath-That is, a form of cursing, that when they would curse a person, they may wish that they may be as miserable as thou wast. Thy thigh-A modest expression, used both in scripture, as Genesis 46:26, Exodus 1:5, and other authors. To rot-Heb. to fall, that is, to die or waste away. To swell-Suddenly and violently till it burst, which the Jews note was frequent in this case. And it was a clear evidence of the truth of their religion.

Verse 21. The Lord make thee a curse and an oath] Let thy name and punishment be remembered and mentioned as an example and terror to all others. Like that mentioned Jeremiah 29:22, 23: “The Lord make thee like Zedekiah, and like Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire, because they have committed villany in Israel, and have committed adultery with their neighbours’ wives.”-Ainsworth.

21. The Lord make thee… an oath — So signal a mark of Jehovah’s wrath was she to bear, that in future adjurations she was to be held up as the conspicuous example and measure of his vengeance, and the imprecation was to be, “May I become like this accursed woman!” Make thy thigh to rot — Hebrew, to fall. Belly to swell — Greek, to be burnt. The precise nature of the punishment here threatened is more clearly gathered from the original. The thigh is a euphemism for the sexual organs. Genesis 46:26. Hence the painful infliction, the falling of the womb, attended by an inflammation, which, in the Septuagint, is rendered by the word burn. Michaelis suggests that an ovarian tumour, with its dreadful suffering and emaciation, is here denounced as the penalty. Josephus calls it the ordinary dropsy. Theodoret says, “The punishment shall come from the same source as the sin.” See Romans 6:19. The instrument of the momentary sin shall be the channel through which the penal pain shall be poured during all the life of the convicted adulteress. Verily, “the way of the transgressor is hard.”

V. 22. Amen, amen-That is, so let it be if I be guilty. The word is doubled by her as an evidence of her innocency, and ardent desire that God would deal with her according to her desert.

Verse 22. Thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot] What is meant by these expressions cannot be easily ascertained. Ëry lpnl lanpel yarech signifies literally thy thigh to fall. As the thigh, feet, &c., were used among the Hebrews delicately to express the parts which nature conceals, (see Genesis 46:26,) the expression here is probably to be understood in this sense; and the falling down of the thigh here must mean something similar to the prolapsus uteri, or falling down of the womb, which might be a natural effect of the preternatural distension of the abdomen. In 1 Corinthians 11:29, St. Paul seems to allude to the case of the guilty woman drinking the bitter cursed waters that caused her destruction: He who eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation (krima, condemnation or judgment) to himself; and there is probably a reference to the same thing in Psalm 109:18, and in Daniel 9:11. And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.] This is the first place where this word occurs in the common form of a concluding wish in prayer. The root אמנ aman signifies to be steady, true, permanent. And in prayer it signifies let it be so-make it steady-let it be ratified. Some have supposed that it is composed of the initial letters of נאמן Ëlm ynda Adonai Melech Neeman, My Lord the faithful King, but this derivation is both far-fetched and unnecessary.

22. Amen, amen — True, true. Thus the guilty one appropriates the penalty to herself, and proclaims the righteousness of her sentence. Thus in the judgment day will the Divine rectitude shine out so brightly that the left-hand assembly will involuntarily say Amen, amen, to the curse which will abide through the duration of the soul. This is the first time that this word amen is used in the Bible. “It involves the ideas of swearing, acceptance, and truthfulness.”

V. 23. In a book-That is, in a scroll of parchment, which the Hebrews commonly call a book. Blot them out-Or scrape them out and cast them into the bitter water. Whereby it was signified, that if she was innocent, the curses should be blotted out and come to nothing; and, if she were guilty, she should find in her the effects of this water which she drank, after the words of this curse had been scraped and put in.

Verse 23. The priest shall write these curses-and he shall blot them out] It appears that the curses which were written down with a kind of ink prepared for the purpose, as some of the rabbins think, without any calx of iron or other material that could make a permanent dye, were washed off the parchment into the water which the woman was obliged to drink, so that she drank the very words of the execration. The ink used in the East is almost all of this kind-a wet sponge will completely efface the finest of their writings. The rabbins say that the trial by the waters of jealousy was omitted after the Babylonish captivity, because adulteries were so frequent amongst them, that they were afraid of having the name of the Lord profaned by being so frequently appealed to! This is a most humiliating confession. “Though,” says pious Bishop Wilson, “this judgment is not executed now on adulteresses, yet they have reason from this to conclude that a more terrible vengeance will await them hereafter without a bitter repentance; these being only a shadow of heavenly things, i.e., of what the Gospel requires of its professors, viz., a strict purity, or a severe repentance.” The pious bishop would not preclude the necessity of pardon through the blood of the cross, for without this the severest repentance would be of no avail.

23. Write these curses in a book — Hebrew, the book, as if there were a particular scroll on which curses were written. Blot them… with… bitter water — Hebrew, Wipe them into the bitter water. This was a symbolic act for conveying the curse to the water. The Arab of to day thinks this is the best way to take a prescription. The charm-worshippers in Africa habitually seek the utmost efficacy of a written charm in the same manner. See the note on verse 11.

V. 24. To drink-That is, after the jealousy-offering was offered.

Verse 24. The bitter water that causeth the curse] Though the rabbins think that the priest put some bitter substance in the water, yet as nothing of the kind is intimated by Moses, we may consider the word as used here metaphorically for affliction, death, &c. These waters were afflicting and deadly to her who drank them, being guilty. In this sense afflictions are said to be bitter, Isaiah 38:17; so also is death, 1 Samuel 15:32: Ecclesiastes 7:26.

24. Shall cause the woman to drink — This verse is proleptical. The drinking is not twice, but only once, in verse 27. The eating or drinking anything symbolizes its full acceptance. So the prophets, Jeremiah 15:16; Ezekiel 3:1-3; and Jesus Christ, John 4:14; 6:50.

26. The memorial thereof — The Hebrew for memorial differs from that in verse 15. Furst thinks that it is because the frankincense and oil are not used, it being a memorial of iniquity. The memorial was both objective, bringing the offerer to the remembrance of God, and subjective, bringing God to the remembrance of the sacrifice. See note on Leviticus 2:2.

Verse 27. The water shall enter into her — These effects, the Jews tell us, presently followed; for she grew pale, and her eyes were ready to start out of her head, so that they cried out, Carry her away, lest she defile the court of the temple, by dying there. But if what has just been observed from the Jewish writers be true, that, upon confessing her guilt, the woman was only divorced and condemned to lose her dowry, it is probable there were not many instances wherein this miraculous judgment was inflicted; for it is hardly to be supposed that any woman, conscious of her guilt, would, by asserting her innocence thus solemnly, in defiance of the Almighty, venture upon the hazard of sudden and immediate death, with all the miserable circumstances here described, rather than confess and gain time to repent. And the woman shall be a curse among her people — Such woful effects shall the before-mentioned bitter draught produce, that she shall become a perfect proverb of a curse and wretchedness in the mouths of all her neighbours.

Ver. 27. Her thigh shall rot. The modesty of the Hebrew language puts one part of the body for another. How remarkable are the judgments of God, that he visits the crimes of impurity with rottenness in the flesh, and particularly in the members here implied.

V. 28. Conceive seed-That is, shall bring forth children, as the Jews say, in case of her innocency, she infallibly did, yea though she was barren before.

Verse 28. Conceive seed — That is, shall bring forth children: as the Jews say, in case of her innocence, she infallibly did, yea, though she had been barren before.

28. Then she shall be free — Exempt from the curse. This required no miracle. See the Introduction. Shall conceive seed — As the reward of her chastity, or as the natural consequences of her restoration to her husband’s affection. If already pregnant, she should have a happy delivery, instead of an infamous death.

Verse 29. This is the law of jealousies] And this is the most singular law in the whole Pentateuch: a law that seems to have been copied by almost all the nations of the earth, whether civilized or barbarian, as 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 be cleared. For general information on this head see at the end of this chapter. See Clarke on “Numbers 5:31”.

Verse 29. This is the law of jealousy — “It is not to be wondered,” says Grotius, “if God, among his own people, produced a miraculous effect for the detection of a crime most heinous, and very difficult to be proved. Indeed history abounds with examples of the direful effects of jealousy, not only to private persons and families, but to whole states and kingdoms; the design, therefore, of this institution was to prevent these evils, by appointing a method whereby injured innocence might be cleared, and every shameful breach of conjugal fidelity brought to condign punishment. By this solemn and awful decision of Providence, jealous husbands were restrained from cruel outrages against their wives, and wives were preserved in their duty out of dread of punishment.”

V. 31. Guiltless-Which he should not have been, if he had either indulged her in so great a wickedness, and not endeavoured to bring her to repentance or punishment, or cherished suspicions in his breast, and thereupon proceeded to hate her or cast her off. Whereas now, whatsoever the consequence is, the husband shall not be censured for bringing such curses upon her, or for defaming her, if she appear to be innocent. Her iniquity-That is, the punishment of her iniquity, whether she was false to her husband, or by any light carriage gave him occasion to suspect her.

Verse 31. This woman shall bear her iniquity] That is, her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot; See Clarke “Numbers 5:22”. But if not guilty after such a trial, she had great honour, and, according to the rabbins, became strong, healthy, and fruitful; for if she was before barren, she now began to bear children; if before she had only daughters, she now began to have sons; if before she had hard travail, she now had easy; in a word, she was blessed in her body, her soul, and her substance: so shall it be done unto the holy and faithful woman, for such the Lord delighteth to honour; see 1 Timothy 2:15.

ON the principal subject of this chapter. I shall here introduce a short account of the trial by ordeal, as practised in different parts of the world, and which is supposed to have taken its origin from the waters of jealousy. The trial by what was afterwards called ORDEAL is certainly of very remote antiquity, and was evidently of Divine appointment. In this place we have an institution relative to a mode of trial precisely of that kind which among our ancestors was called ordeal; and from this all similar trials in Asia, Africa, and Europe, have very probably derived their origin. Ordeal, Latin, ordalium, is, according to Verstegan, from the Saxon [Anglo-Saxon], ordal and ordel, and is derived by some from [Anglo-Saxon], great, and DÆL, judgment, signifying the greatest, most solemn, and decisive mode of judgment.-Hickes. Others derive it from the Francic or Teutonic Urdela, which signifies simply to judge. But Lye, in his Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, derives the term from [Anglo-Saxon], which is often in Anglo-Saxon, a privative particle, and [Anglo-Saxon], distinction or difference; and hence applied to that kind of judgment in which there was no respect of persons, but every one had absolute justice done him, as the decision of the business was supposed to belong to GOD alone. It always signified an appeal to the immediate interposition of GOD, and was therefore called Judicium Dei, God’s Judgment; and we may naturally suppose was never resorted to but in very important cases, where persons accused of great crimes protested their innocence, and there was no sufficient evidence by which they could be cleared from the accusation, or proved to be guilty of the crime laid to their charge. Such were the cases of jealousy referred to in this chapter.

The rabbins who have commented on this text give us the following information: When any man, prompted by the spirit of jealousy, suspected his wife to have committed adultery, he brought her first before the judges, and accused her of the crime; but as she asserted her innocency, and refused to acknowledge herself guilty, and as he had no witnesses to produce, he required that she should be sentenced to drink the waters of bitterness which the law had appointed; that God, by this means, might discover what she wished to conceal. After the judges had heard the accusation and the denial, the man and his wife were both sent to Jerusalem, to appear before the Sanhedrin, who were the sole judges in such matters. The rabbins say that the judges of the Sanhedrin, at first endeavoured with threatenings to confound the woman, and cause her to confess her crime; when she still persisted in her innocence, she was led to the eastern gate of the court of Israel, where she was stripped of the clothes she wore, and dressed in black before a number of persons of her own sex. The priest then told her that if she knew herself to be innocent she had no evil to apprehend; but if she were guilty, she might expect to suffer all that the law threatened: to which she answered, Amen, amen. The priest then wrote the words of the law upon a piece of vellum, with ink that had no vitriol in it, that it might be the more easily blotted out. The words written on the vellum were, according to the rabbins, the following:—

“If a strange man have not come near thee, and thou art not polluted by forsaking the bed of thy husband, these bitter waters which I have cursed will not hurt thee: but if thou have gone astray from thy husband, and have polluted thyself by coming near to another man, may thou be accursed of the Lord, and become an example for all his people; may thy thigh rot, and thy belly swell till it burst! may these cursed waters enter into thy belly, and, being swelled therewith, may thy thigh putrefy!”

After this the priest took a new pitcher, filled it with water out of the brazen bason that was near the altar of burnt-offering, cast some dust into it taken from the pavement of the temple, mingled something bitter, as wormwood, with it, and having read the curses above mentioned to the woman, and received her answer of Amen, he scraped off the curses from the vellum into the pitcher of water. During this time another priest tore her clothes as low as her bosom, made her head bare, untied the tresses of her hair, fastened her torn clothes with a girdle below her breasts, and presented her with the tenth part of an ephah, or about three pints of barley-meal, which was in a frying pan, without oil or incense. The other priest, who had prepared the waters of jealousy, then gave them to be drank by the accused person, and as soon as she had swallowed them, he put the pan with the meal in it into her hand. This was waved before the Lord, and a part of it thrown into the fire of the altar. If the woman was innocent, she returned with her husband; and the waters, instead of incommoding her, made her more healthy and fruitful than ever: if on the contrary she were guilty, she was seen immediately to grow pale, her eyes started out of her head, and, lest the temple should be defiled with her death, she was carried out, and died instantly with all the ignominious circumstances related in the curses, which the rabbins say had the same effect on him with whom she had been criminal, though he were absent and at a distance. They add, however, that if the husband himself had been guilty with another woman, then the waters had no bad effect even on his criminal wife; as in that case the transgression on the one part was, in a certain sense, balanced by the transgression on the other. There is no instance in the Scriptures of this kind of ordeal having ever been resorted to; and probably it never was during the purer times of the Hebrew republic. God had rendered himself so terrible by his judgments, that no person would dare to appeal to this mode of trial who was conscious of her guilt; and in case of simple adultery, where the matter was either detected or confessed, the parties were ordered by the law to be put to death.

But other ancient nations have also had their trials by ordeal. We learn from Ferdusi, a Persian poet, whose authority we have no reason to suspect, that the fire ordeal was in use at a very early period among the ancient Persians. In the famous epic poem called the Shah Nameh of this author, who is not improperly styled the Homer of Persia, under the title Dastan Seeavesh ve Soodabeh, The account of Seeavesh and Soodabeh, he gives a very remarkable and circumstantial account of a trial of this kind. It is very probable that the fire ordeal originated among the ancient Persians, for by them fire was not only held sacred, but considered as a god, or rather as the visible emblem of the supreme Deity; and indeed this kind of trial continues in extensive use among the Hindoos to the present day. In the code of Gentoo laws it is several times referred to under the title of Purrah Reh, but in the Shah Nameh, the word [Hindu] Soogend is used, which signifies literally an oath, as the persons were obliged to declare their innocence by an oath, and then put their veracity to test by passing through the [Hindu] kohi atesh, or fire pile; see the Shah Nameh in the title Dastan Seeavesh ve Soodabeh, and Halhed’s code of Gentoo laws; Preliminary Discourse, p. lviii., and chap. v., sec. iii., pp. 117, &c. A circumstantial account of the different kinds of ordeal practised among the Hindoos, communicated by Warren Hastings, Esq., who received it from Ali Ibrahim Khan, chief magistrate at Benares, may be found in the Asiatic Researches, vol. i., p. 389.

This trial was conducted among this people nine different ways: first, by the balance; secondly, by fire; thirdly, by water; fourthly, by poison; fifthly, by the cosha, or water in which an idol has been washed; sixthly, by rice; seventhly, by boiling oil; eighthly, by red hot iron; ninthly, by images. There is, perhaps, no mode of judiciary decision that has been in more common use in ancient times, than that of ordeal, in some form or other. We find that it was also used by the ancient Greeks 500 years before the Christian era; for in the Antigone of Sophocles, a person suspected by Creon of a misdemeanor, declares himself ready “to handle hot iron, and to walk over fire,” in proof of his innocence, which the scholiast tells us was then a very usual purgation.

Hmen dJ etoimoi kai mudrouv airein ceroin,

Kai pur dierpein, kai qeouv orkwmotein.

Ver. 270.

The scholiast on this line informs us that the custom in binding themselves by the most solemn oath, was this: they took red hot iron in their hands, and throwing it into the sea, swore that the oath should be inviolate till that iron made its appearance again.

Virgil informs us that the priests of Apollo at Soracte were accustomed to walk over burning coals unhurt.

————Et medium, freti pietate, per ignem

Cultores multa premimus vestigia pruna.

Æn. xi. 787.

Grotius gives many instances of water ordeal in Bithynia, Sardinia, and other places. Different species of fire and water ordeal are said to have prevailed among the Indians on the coast of Malabar; the negroes of Loango, Mosambique, &c., &c., and the Calmuc Tartars.

The first formal mention I find of this trial in Europe is in the laws of King Ina, composed about A. D. 700. See L. 77. entitled, [Anglo-Saxon], Decision by hot iron and water. I find it also mentioned in the council of Mentz, A. D. 847; but Agobard, archbishop of Lyons, wrote against it sixty years before this time. It is afterwards mentioned in the council of Trevers, A. D. 895. It did not exist in Normandy till after the Conquest, and was probably first introduced into England in the time of Ina, in whose laws and those of Athelstan and Ethelred, it was afterwards inserted. The ordeal by fire was for noblemen and women, and such as were free born: the water ordeal was for husbandmen, and the meaner classes of the people, and was of two sorts; by cold water and by hot. See the proceedings in these trials declared particularly in the law of King Ina; WILKINS, Leges Anglo-Saxonæ, p. 27.

Several popes published edicts against this species of trial. Henry III. abolished trials by ordeal in the third year of his reign, 1219. See the act in Rymer, vol. i., p. 228; and see Dugdale’s Origines Juridicales, fol. 87; Spelman’s Glossary, Wilkins, Hickes, Lombard, Somner, and Du Cange, art. Ferrum.

The ordeal or trial by battle or combat is supposed to have come to us from the Lombards, who, leaving Scandinavia, overran Europe: it is thought that this mode of trial was instituted by Frotha III., king of Denmark, about the time of the birth of Christ; for he ordained that every controversy should be determined by the sword. It continued in Holsatia till the time of Christian III., king of Denmark, who began his reign in 1535. From these northern nations the practice of duels was introduced into Great Britain.

I need scarcely add, that this detestable form of trial was the foundation of the no less detestable crime of duelling, which so much disgraces our age and nation, a practice that is defended only by ignorance, false honour, and injustice: it is a relic of barbarous superstition, and was absolutely unknown to those brave and generous nations, the Greeks and Romans, whom it is so much the fashion to admire; and who, in this particular, so well merit our admiration!

The general practice of duelling is supposed to have taken its rise in 1527, at the breaking up of a treaty between the Emperor Charles V. and Francis I. The former having sent a herald with an insulting message to Francis, the king of France sent back the herald with a cartel of defiance, in which he gave the emperor the lie, and challenged him to single combat: Charles accepted it; but after several messages concerning the arrangement of all the circumstances relative to the combat, the thoughts of it were entirely laid aside. The example of two personages so illustrious drew such general attention, and carried with it so much authority, that it had considerable influence in introducing an important change in manners all over Europe. It was so much the custom in the middle ages of Christianity to respect the cross, even to superstition, that it would have been indeed wonderful if the same ignorant bigotry had not converted it into an ordeal: accordingly we find it used for this purpose in so many different ways as almost to preclude description.

Another trial of this kind was the Corsned, or the consecrated bread and cheese: this was the ordeal to which the clergy commonly appealed when they were accused of any crime. A few concluding observations from Dr. Henry may not be unacceptable to the reader:—

“If we suppose that few or none escaped conviction who exposed themselves to these fiery trials, we shall be very much mistaken. For the histories of those times contain innumerable examples of persons plunging their naked arms into boiling water, handling red hot balls of iron, and walking upon burning ploughshares, without receiving the least injury. Many learned men have been much puzzled to account for this, and disposed to think that Providence graciously interposed in a miraculous manner for the preservation of injured innocence.

“But if we examine every circumstance of these fiery ordeals with due attention, we shall see sufficient reason to suspect that the whole was a gross imposition on the credulity of mankind. The accused person was committed wholly to the priest who was to perform the ceremony three days before the trial, in which he had time enough to bargain with him for his deliverance, and give him instructions how to act his part. On the day of trial no person was permitted to enter the church but the priest and the accused till after the iron was heated, when twelve friends of the accuser, and twelve of the accused, and no more, were admitted and ranged along the wall on each side of the church, at a respectful distance. After the iron was taken out of the fire several prayers were said: the accused drank a cup of holy water, and sprinkled his hand with it, which might take a considerable time if the priest were indulgent. The space of nine feet was measured by the accused himself, with his own feet, and he would probably give but scanty measure. He was obliged only to touch one of the marks with the toe of his right foot, and allowed to stretch the other foot as far towards the other mark as he could, so that the conveyance was almost instantaneous. His hand was not immediately examined, but wrapped in a cloth prepared for that purpose three days. May we not then, from all these precautions, suspect that these priests were in possession of some secret that secured the hand from the impression of such a momentary touch of hot iron, or removed all appearances of these impressions in three days; and that they made use of this secret when they saw reason? Such readers as are curious in matters of this kind may find two different directions for making ointments that will have this effect, in the work here quoted. What greatly strengthens these suspicions is, that we meet with no example of any champion of the Church who suffered the least injury from the touch of hot iron in this ordeal: but where any one was so fool-hardy as to appeal to it, or to that of hot water, with a view to deprive the Church of any of her possessions, he never failed to burn his fingers, and lose his cause.” I have made the scanty extract above from a very extensive history of the trial by ordeal, which I wrote several years ago, but never published. All the forms of adjuration for the various ordeals of hot water, cold water, red hot iron, bread and cheese, &c., may be seen in the Codex Legum Antiquarum, Lindenbrogii, fol. Franc. 1613, p. 1299, &c.

NUMBERS

Verse 31. Then shall the man be guiltless — Which he should not have been if he had either indulged her in so great a wickedness, and not endeavoured to bring her to repentance or punishment, or cherished suspicions in his breast, and thereupon proceeded to hate her or cast her off. Whereas now, whatsoever the consequence is, the husband shall not be censured for bringing such curses upon her, or for defaming her, if she appear to be innocent. Her iniquity — That is, the punishment of her iniquity, whether she was false to her husband, or by any light carriage gave him occasion to suspect her.

Ver. 31. The man shall be guiltless; which he would not have been, had he suffered his wife to proceed in her course.—This woman shall bear her iniquity; shall die of disease; and if not stoned, shall be excommunicated from the synagogue. See Josephus.

31. Then shall the man be guiltless — He would have incurred guilt if he had, without proof of criminality, treated his wife as guilty. CONCLUDING REMARKS.

(1.) In the foregoing statutes for the sanitary and moral purity of the camp, how vividly Jehovah manifests himself as a God nigh at hand, and not afar off!

(2.) Nothing could be better adapted than these laws to create in the Hebrew mind a sense of the omniscience of Jehovah. This very Scripture may have contributed to that wonderful perception of this truth which David possessed. Psalm 139.

(3.) The particular providence of God could not have been doubted under an administration in which he infallibly interposed to mark the guilty and shield the innocent.

(4.) God’s holiness, and his abhorrence of sin, the conception of which was at this time very inadequate in the Hebrew mind, here shines forth. We who have enjoyed the light of a higher dispensation are often forgetful of the spiritual darkness of the masses of the people, even when led by the pillar of fire. The idea of God’s holiness dawned upon them slowly through that ritual, ordained expressly not only to illustrate this attribute of Jehovah, but to adumbrate the incarnation of the Holy One.

(5.) The fact that the only ordeal instituted by God is that which guards the sanctity of marriage shows the transcendent value of that institution, and teaches human legislators and jurists with what strict carefulness they should shield this sacred relation from the perils to which it is exposed in modern times.

(6.) But why is not the sanctity of marriage guarded on both sides? Why is there no ordeal for a suspected husband? 1.) One end of the jealousy-trial being the protection of innocence, the husband, as the stronger party and endowed with authority, was not so much in need of protection. He could not be severely oppressed or capriciously put away in divorce. 2.) To afford to the jealous wife the same appeal to Jehovah against her husband would have been derogatory to the great authority and superior dignity always accorded to him, in Oriental countries especially, and approved by the Holy Scriptures. Genesis 3:16; 1 Corinthians 11:3. 3.) Though the violation of the marriage vow by the husband is a sin as heinous as the infidelity of the wife, yet its social and civil effects are not so disastrous to the peace of the family and the good order of society. The husband might transgress without foisting a spurious heir upon a family: it is not so with the wife. Hence she should be entirely above suspicion. The ordeal was designed to lift her up to that enviable position. In case of the violation of the seventh commandment, proved by competent witnesses, the guilty parties, both being under marriage vows, suffered the same punishment. Leviticus 20:10.

(7.) Sceptics and visionary idealists, who demand the absolutely right in human legislation, attained by the very best method, severely criticise the trial of jealousy as unworthy of divine origin. All such we refer to Bishop Butler’s unanswerable declaration that men are endowed with the moral ability to judge of ends as right or wrong, while they are not competent to pronounce upon the means which God may select for the attainment of a right end. (Butler’s Analogy, chap. 7:2.) Moreover, all human legislators who aim at practicable legislation are compelled to regard the moral condition of those for whom they enact laws, and to aim at an attainable imperfect good rather than at an impossible ideal perfection. When God sets up a theocracy over the imperfect and depraved, it is not derogatory either to his wisdom or holiness to descend from the realm of the ideal into the sphere of the practical.