الكتاب المقدس

Expositor's Bible Commentary Numbers 5:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 1. EXCLUSION FROM THE CAMP Numbers 5:1-4 . The rigidness of the law which excluded lepers from the camp and afterwards from the cities had its necessity in the presumed nature of their disease. Leprosy was regarded as contagious, and practically incurable by any medical appliances, requiring to be kept in check by strenuous measures. Care for the general health meant hardship to the lepers; but this could not be avoided. From friends and home they were sent forth to live together as best they might, and spend what remained of life in almost hopeless separation. The authority of Moses is attached to the statute of exclusion, and there can be no doubt of its great antiquity. In Leviticus there are detailed enactments regarding the disease, some of which contemplate its decay and provide for the restoration to privilege of those who had been cured. The ceremonies were complicated, and among them were sacrifices to be offered by way of "atonement." The leper was alienated from God, severed from the congregation as one guilty in the eye of the law ( Leviticus 14:12 ); and there can be no wonder that with this among other facts before him the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the law as having a mere "shadow of the good things to come." And yet, in view of the malignant nature of the disease and the peril it caused to the general health, we must admit the wisdom of segregating those afflicted with leprosy. That Israel might be a robust people capable of its destiny, a rule like this was needful. It anticipated our modern laws made in harmony with advanced medical science, which require segregation or isolation in cases of virulent disease. It has been affirmed that leprosy was from the first regarded as symbolic of moral disease, and that the legislation was from this point of view. There is, however, no evidence to support the theory. Indeed the conception of moral evil would have been confused rather than helped by any such idea. For although evil habits taint the mind and vice ruins it as leprosy taints and destroys the body; although the infectious nature of sin is fitly indicated by the insidious spread of this disease-one point in which there is no resemblance would make the symbol dangerously misleading. A few here and there were attacked by leprosy, and these with their blotched disfigured bodies were easily distinguished from the healthy. But this was in contrast with the secret moral malady by which all were tainted. The teaching that leprosy is a type of sin would make, not for morality, but for hypocrisy. The symptoms of a bad nature, like the signs of leprosy, would be looked for and found by every man m his neighbour, not in his own heart. The hypocrite would be encouraged in his self-satisfaction because he escaped the judgment of his fellow men. But the disease of sin is endemic, universal. The whole congregation was by reason of that excluded from the sanctuary of God. According to the idea which underlies the priest law, leprosy did not typify sin; it meant sin. In no single place, indeed, is this directly affirmed. Yet the belief connecting bodily afflictions and calamities with transgressions implied it, and the fact that guilt-offerings had to be made for the leper when he was cleansed. Again, in the cases of Miriam, of Gehazi, and of Uzziah, the punishment of sin was leprosy. Under the conditions of climate which often prevailed, the germs of this disease might rapidly be developed by excitement, especially by the excitement of immoral rashness. Here we may find the connection which the law assumes between leprosy and guilt, and the origin of the statute which made the intervention of the priests necessary. In their poor dwellings beyond camp and city wall the lepers lay under a double reproach. They were not only tainted in body but appeared as stoners above others, men on whom some divine judgment had fallen, as the very name of their disease implied. And not till One came who did not fear to lay His hand on the leprous flesh, whose touch brought healing and life, was the pressure of the moral condemnation taken away. Of many cases of leprosy He would have said, as of the blindness He cured: "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents." Now is the law to be charged with creating a class of social pariahs? Is there any reason for saying that in some way the legislation should have expressed pity rather than the rigour which appears in the passage before us and other enactments regarding leprosy? It would be easy to bring arguments which would seem to prove the law defective here. But in matters of this kind civilisation and Christian culture could not be forestalled. What was possible, what in the conditions that existed could be carried into effect, this only was commanded. These old enactments sprang out of the best wisdom and religion of the age. But they do not represent the whole of the Divine will, the Divine mercy, even as they were contemporaneously revealed. Add to the statutes regarding leprosy the other, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," and those that enjoined kindness to the poor and provision for their needs, and the true tenor of the legislation will be understood. According to these laws there were to be no pariahs in Israel. It was a sad necessity if any were excluded from the congregation of God’s people. The laws of brotherhood would insure for the wretched colony outside the camp every possible consideration. Denied access to God in festival and sacrifice, the lepers appealed to the humane feelings of the people. With their pathetic cry, "Unclean, unclean!" their loose hair and rent clothes, they confessed a miserable state that touched, every heart. As time went on, the law of segregation was interpreted liberally. Even in the synagogues a place was set apart for the lepers. The kindly disposition promoted by the Mosaic institutions was shown thus, and in many other ways. The lepers banished outside the camp remind us of those who have for no wrong-doing of their own to endure social reproach. Were sometimes good men and women among the Hebrews, men with kind hearts, good mothers and daughters, attacked by this disease and compelled to betake themselves to the squalid tents of the lepers? That decree of rigorous precaution is outdone by the strange fact that under the providence of God, in His world, the best have often had to undergo opprobrium and cruelty; that Jesus Himself was crucified as a malefactor, bore the curse of him that "hangeth upon a tree." We see great suffering which is not due to moral delinquency; and we see the sting of it taken quite away. The stern ordinances of nature have light thrown "upon them from a higher world." Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses. For our sakes He was the object of brutal mockery, the sufferer, the sacrifice. Besides the lepers and those who had an issue, every one who was unclean by reason of touching a dead body was to be excluded from the camp. This provision appears to rest on the idea that death was no "debt of nature," but unnatural, the result of the curse of God. Associated, however, in the statute before us with leprosy, defilement from the dead may have been decreed to prevent the spread of disease. Many maladies too well known to us have an infectious character; and those who were present at a death would be most exposed to their influence. Pathological explanations do not by any means account for all the kinds and causes of defilement; but exclusion from the camp is the special point here; and the cases may be classed together as having a common origin. The notion that some demon or fallen spirit was at work both in producing leprosy and in causing death, was involved in the customs of some barbarous tribes and entered into the beliefs of the Egyptians and Assyrians. This explanation, however, is too remote and alien from Judaism to be applied to these statutes regarding uncleanness, at least in the form they have in the Mosaic books. The few hints surviving in them, as where a bird was to be allowed to fly away when the leper was pronounced clean, cannot be permitted to fix a charge of superstition on the whole code. A singular point in the statute regarding uncleanness "by the dead" is that the word (nephesh) stands apparently for the dead body. Of this some other explanation is needed than the free transference of meanings in Hebrew. Here and elsewhere in the Book of Numbers ( Numbers 6:11 ; Numbers 9:6-7 ; Numbers 9:10 ; Numbers 19:13 ), as well as in various passages in Leviticus. defilement is attributed to the nephesh . Commonly the word means soul or animal life-principle. When connected with death it corresponds to our word "ghost," Job 11:20 ; Jeremiah 15:9 . Now the law was that not only those who touched a dead body, but all present in a house when death took place in it were unclean. The question occurs whether the nephesh , or soul escaping at death, was believed to defile. As if in doubt here a rabbi said "The body and the soul may plead successfully not guilty by charging their sinful life each upon the other. The body may say: ‘Since that guilty soul parted with me, I have been lying in the grave as harmless as a stone.’ The soul may plead: ‘Since that depraved body separated from me, I flutter about in the air like an innocent bird."’ Is it not possible that the nephesh meant the effluvium of the dead body, the active element which, springing from corruption, diffused uncleanness through the whole house of death? It seems quite in harmony with other uses of the word, and with the idea of defilement, to interpret was unclean by the nephesh , "sinned by the nephesh ," as technical expressions carrying this meaning. The passage Numbers 19:13 is peculiarly instructive-"Every one coming in contact with the dead, with the nephesh of a man who has died." To translate, "with the corpse of a man who has died," would fix on the language the fault of tautology. In Psalm 17:9 nephesh has the meaning of deadly, that is to say breathing death; and the idea here points to the meaning suggested. The reason given for the banishment of the unclean is the presence of God in the congregation-"That they defile not their camp, in the midst whereof I dwell." All that are unhealthy, and those who have been in contact with death, which is the result of irremediable disease or accident, must be withdrawn from the precincts that belong to the Holy God. Human maladies are in contrast with the Divine health, death is in contrast to the Divine life. Here the whole scope of the legislation regarding defilement has its highest range of suggestion. It was a part of moral education to realise that God was separate from all distortion, wasting, and decay. In glad and deathless power He reigned in the midst of Israel. From the living God man received life which had to be kept pure and disciplined. Among the Egyptians it was held to be sacrilege when the operator, in the process preparatory to embalming, opened a human body. He who made the incision was driven out of the room by his assistants with abuse and violence. Quite different is the idea of the Mosaic law which makes the holiness belong entirely to God, and requires of men the preservation of the clean life He has given. Every statute suggests that there is a tendency in the creature to fall away from purity and become unfit for fellowship with the Most Holy. DEFILEMENT AND PURGATION Numbers 5:1-31 THE separation of Israel as a people belonging to Jehovah proceeded on ideas of holiness which excluded from privilege many of the Hebrews themselves. The law did not ordain that in cases of defilement there might be immediate purification by washing or sacrifice. So far as ceremonial uncleanness was concerned, we may think this might have been provided for, and moral offences alone might have involved the offender in continued defilement. But just as idolatry, blasphemy, and murder caused pollution which could not be removed by sacrifice, but only by the capital punishment of the guilty, so certain bodily conditions and defects, and certain diseases, chiefly leprosy and those akin to it, were held to cause a defilement which could not be purged by any ceremony. A high standard of bodily health and purity was required for the priesthood; a lower standard was to be applied to the people. And the system declaring the uncleanness of many animals, and of the person under various conditions, touched at countless points the life of society. An Israelite who was unclean for one or other of a hundred reasons could not approach the sanctuary. He had his portion in God after a sense; yet for a time, it might be for life, the peculiar blessings of holy fellowship were denied him. He could celebrate no feast. He had no share in the great atonement. The precautions and terms to be observed were of such a nature that if the law had been at any time stringently enforced a very large percentage of the people would have been denied access to the altar. It may appear a strange thing that the precept, "Ye shall be holy; for I am holy," was affixed not only to moral duties but with almost the same force to ceremonial duties. We can understand this, however, when we trace the result of the priestly ordinances. They created religious care and feeling; and the end was gained not so much by directing attention, as we now do, to faults of conduct, defects of will, sins of injustice, impurity, intemperance, and the like, but by keeping up a scrupulous attention to matters not, properly speaking, either moral or immoral, not: ethical as we say, which were yet declared to be of moment in religion. The moral law did its part. But to make the enforcement of moral statutes, many of which bore on desire and will, the only means of urging the fear of God, would have resulted practically in a very bare and desultory cultus. Among a comparatively rude people like the Israelites it would have been absurd to institute a religion consisting of "morality touched by emotion." For the mass of people still it is equally hopeless. There must he ordinances of prayer, praise, sacrament, and the duties which reach Godward through the Church. The value of the whole ceremonial system of the Mosaic law is clear from this point of view; and we need not wonder in the least at the nature of many provisions which, without grasp of the principle, we might reckon irksome and useless. The origin of some of the statutes is apparently hygienic; others again reach back to customs and beliefs of a very primitive world. But they are made part of the sacred law in order to enforce the conviction that the judgment of God enters into the whole of life, follows men wherever they go, decides as to their state with relation to Him hour by hour, almost moment by moment. The ceremonial law was a constant and strenuous lesson in regard to the omnipresence of God, and the oversight of human affairs by Him. It created a conscience of God’s existence, His control, His superintendence of each life. And for a certain stage of the education of Israel this could be achieved in no other way. The moral and spiritual progress of a people, depending on the recognition of the authority of One who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, depends also, of necessity, on the sense of His oversight of human life at every point. Numbers 5:5 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2. ATONEMENT FOR TRESPASS Numbers 5:5-10 The enactment of this passage refers to the sin of theft or any other breach of the eighth commandment which involved trespass not only against man, but also against God-"When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit to do a trespass against the Lord, and that soul be guilty; then shall they confess their sin which they have done." The statute supplements one given in Leviticus 6:1-4 , omitting some details, but adding the provision that if the person defrauded has died, restitution shall be made to the goel , and if there is no surviving relation, to the priest. The cases specified in Leviticus are those of false dealing in regard to a deposit or a bargain, robbery, oppression, -probably in the way of withholding hire from a labourer, -finding what was lost and denying it; but in each instance false swearing is added to the offence and constitutes it a trespass against the Lord. Restitution to man must be made by returning the amount and one-fifth in addition; to God by bringing a ram without blemish, with which the priest makes atonement. In this statute the punishment does not seem severe. But the penalty is imposed after confession when the offence has been for some time undetected. The ordinary law required for the theft of an ox, if the animal had not been slaughtered, double restitution; and if it had been slaughtered or sold, fivefold restitution. In the case of a sheep slaughtered or sold the restitution was to be fourfold. Confession of the theft, according to the present statute, diminishes the penalty. Noticeable particularly is the provision for atonement, which is nowhere else admitted in connection with a serious breach of the moral law. Any offence against the first four commandments was to be punished with death; so also were murder, adultery, and certain other crimes. It might have been expected that false swearing by any one in regard to theft or valuables intrusted to him would add to his guilt. Here, however, by means of the ram of atonement even that offence is apparently expiated. Possibly the confession is held to mitigate the crime. Still the nature of the statute is surprising and exceptional. Numbers 5:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 3. THE WATER OF JEALOUSY Numbers 5:11-31 . The long and remarkable statute regarding the water of jealousy seems to have been interposed to prevent, by means of an ordeal, that cruel practice of peremptory divorce which had been in vogue at some period among the Hebrews. The position given to woman by the old customs must have been exceedingly low. Under polygamy a wife was in constant danger of suspicions and accusations she had no means of removing. The whole scope of this enactment and the means used for deciding between the husband and a suspected wife point to the frequency and general groundlessness of charges made by men in the "hardness of their hearts," or by other women in the hardness of theirs. The ordeal to which the wife was to be subjected was twofold. One point was the imprecation of the Divine curse upon herself if she had been guilty. This oath was administered in terms and with ceremonies fitted to produce the most profound impression. She is set "before the Lord"-probably in the court of the sanctuary. Her hair is loose. She has the offering of jealousy in her hand-the tenth part of an ephah of barley-meal. The priest holds a basin of the "water of jealousy." The terms of the curse with its frightful consequences are not only repeated in her hearing, but written on a scroll which is dropped into the water. The second thing is her drinking of the "water of jealousy," "holy water" mingled with dust from the floor of the sanctuary, and with the terms of the curse. The nature of the ordeal was such that few guilty persons would have braved it. The only thing which appears wanting is a provision for the punishment of the man whose wife had passed the terrible test. Since the punishment of this crime was death, and he made the accusation without cause, his own judgment should have followed. Here, however, deference had to be paid to the notions of the time, as our Lord clearly indicates. The absolute right, the just equality between husband and wife, could not be established. Nor indeed, with all our progress, is it yet secured. The ordeal of the water of jealousy must have saved many an innocent life from wreck. In one sense it was part of a system designed to maintain a high standard of morality, and in that system it had a place which at the time could not be filled in any other way. The main stress lies on the oath of purgation; and to the present day in certain ecclesiastical courts this is in use for the purpose of bringing to an end processes not otherwise capable of solution. It must be noted that our marriage laws, lax as they are thought to be, do not give to a husband anything like the power or allow divorce with anything like the facility admitted by the Mosaic law as some of the Rabbis interpreted it. And this ordeal was of such a nature that if those in use throughout Europe only a century ago or thereby, in the trial of witches for instance, be compared with it, we can at once see its superiority. Those barbarous tests, not used by the vulgar alone, but by religious men and Church authorities, made escape from false accusation next to impossible. Here there is absolutely nothing required which could in any sense injure or imperil an innocent woman. She might take her oath, see it written, and drink the water without the least fear or hesitation. The beneficence of the law is strongly marked along with its wisdom. It was a wonderful provision for the time. The Expositor's Bible Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead .. Numbers 5:2, 3 Where God dwells there must be purity D. Lloyd. I. GOD HIMSELF IS PURE, AND CANNOT ASSOCIATE WITH THE IMPURE. If discipline is lax, God departs. It is not the large church, or the intelligent or the wealthy one, that attracts Him, but the pure one. As the lightning passes by the polished marble and the carved wood to touch the iron or steel, because there it finds something akin to itself, so God passes by those to dwell with the pure, because in them He finds a character akin to His own. II. GOD WILL NOT, BECAUSE HE CANNOT, DO ANY GOOD TO THE IMPURE. Any one tolerating sin would not appreciate the design of God and accept His blessing; and where He cannot bless, He will not come to dwell. Let us then "put out of the camp every leper," everything that defileth; for the presence of God in our midst is of the utmost importance to us as His Church and people. His presence is essential. 1. To our comfort as Churches and Christians. What the shining sun is in nature His presence is with us — our brightness, our joy, &c. 2. To our prosperity. God with His Church has been in all ages the secret of its power and success. His presence is the life of the ministry and of all Christian work ( D. Lloyd. ) The exclusion of the unclean W. Jones. I. AS A SANITARY MEASURE. 1. The universal application of the rule. 2. The sacred reason by which it was enforced. Impurity separates from God. II. AS A SPIRITUAL PARABLE. 1. Sin is a defiling thing. 2. Sin is a deadly thing. 3. Sin is a separating thing.Where sin is cherished God will not dwell.(1) The openly and persistently wicked should be expelled from the Church on earth.(a) Because of their corrupt influence ( 1 Corinthians 5:6-13 ).(b) Because of the dishonour to God which their presence in the Church involves.(2) The wicked will be excluded from the city of God above.Conclusion: 1. He who demands this purity has provided the means whereby we may attain unto it. "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." 2. Let us diligently use the means which He has provided. "Wash you, make you clean," &c. ( W. Jones. ) In the midst whereof I dwell God ever present with His people W. Attersoll. This teaches us that God is evermore present with His people. This appeareth in the example of Joseph ( Genesis 39:21, 23 ). I will propound a few reasons. 1. He will save those that are His. His presence is not a vain presence, neither is He an idle beholder of things that are done; but His presence is to prosper and to save ( Jeremiah 30:11 ). We must not therefore dream of a presence that effecteth nothing, but rather willeth His people oftentimes to stand still, while He worketh all in all. 2. They have good success in their lawful labours, so that He maketh the works of their hands prosperous.Uses: 1. For the increase of a sound faith in God. He leaveth them not to themselves; He with-draweth not His strength from them; He delivereth them not to the lust and pleasure of their enemies. This is it which He telleth Joshua after the death of Moses ( Judges 1:5 ). 2. This teacheth us this good duty, that we take heed we do not defile ourselves with the pollutions of sin. For how shall we dare to commit sin that is so highly displeasing in His sight, forasmuch as He is with us to behold us and all our actions? ( W. Attersoll. ) God dwelling with His people W. Jones. I. GOD IS PRESENT WITH HIS PEOPLE. 1. Influentially ( Psalm 139:1, 10 ). 2. Sympathetically ( Genesis 28:16, 17 ; John 14:16-26 ; 1 John 1:3 ). II. GOD IS PRESENT IN THE MIDST OF HIS PEOPLE. 1. As to the centre of union. 2. As the source of blessing. Life, light, power, beauty, &c. III. GOD'S PRESENCE IN THE MIDST OF HIS PEOPLE SHOULD EXERT A GREAT AND BLESSED INFLUENCE UPON THEM. 1. A restraint from sin. 2. An incentive to holiness. 3. An encouragement to duty. 4. An assurance of support in the toils and trials of life. 5. An assurance of victory in the conflicts of life. 6. An assurance of perfect salvation. ( W. Jones. ) The presence of God among His people demands holiness on their part C. H. Mackintosh. Redemption was the basis of God's dwelling in the midst of His people. But we must remember that discipline was essential to His continuance amongst them. He could not dwell where evil was deliberately sanctioned. It may, however, be said, in reply, "Does not God the Holy Ghost dwell in the individual believer, and yet there is much evil in him?" True, the Holy Ghost dwells in the believer, on the ground of accomplished redemption. He is there, not as the sanction of what is of nature, but as the seal of what is of Christ; and His presence and fellowship are enjoyed just in proportion as the evil in us is habitually judged. So also in reference to the assembly. No doubt, there is evil there — evil in each individual member, and therefore evil in the body corporate. But it must be judged; and, if judged, it is not allowed to act, it is rendered null. We are not to judge motives, but we are to judge ways. The very moment a man enters the assembly, he takes his place in that sphere where discipline is exercised upon ever, thing contrary to the holiness of the One who dwells there. And let not the reader suppose, for a moment, that the unity of the body is touched when the discipline of the house is maintained. We frequently hear it said of those who rightly seek to maintain the discipline of the house of God, that they are rending the body of Christ. There could hardly be a greater mistake. The fact is, the former is our bounden duty; the latter, an utter impossibility. The discipline of God's house must be carried out; but the unity of Christ's body can never be dissolved. And why, we may ask, was this separation demanded? Was it to uphold the reputation or respectability of the people? Nothing of the sort. What then? "That they defile not their camps in the midst whereof I dwell." And so is it now. We do not judge and put away bad doctrine, in order to maintain our orthodoxy; neither do we judge and put away moral evil, in order to maintain our reputation and respectability. The only ground of judgment and putting away is this, "Holiness becometh Thine house, O Lord, forever." God dwells in the midst of His people. ( C. H. Mackintosh. ) No Church ought to tolerate open offenders W. Attersoll. No Church ought to tolerate any filthy livers, or unclean persons, or notorious offenders among them ( Deuteronomy 23:17 ; 1 Corinthians 5:1, 2 ; Ephesians 5:3-5 ). This truth may be further strengthened by many reasons. 1. For it is a comely thing for the saints of God to do so: that as they differ from heathen men, so they may differ from heathen meetings. Moses teacheth that they ought to put out evil from them, because they are an holy people ( Deuteronomy 23:14 ). 2. For the neglect of this duty, the wrath of God falleth upon the sons of men. He is the God of order, and requireth that all things in the Church be done in order. Hence it is that the apostle saith ( Colossians 3:6 ). And we have sundry examples of this in the people of Israel, who were diversely destroyed because of their sins ( 1 Corinthians 10:5 ). 3. We showed before that they were as unclean beasts, and should not be admitted to the fellowship of Christ's sheep which are clean, lest they defile them through their contagion, and tread down with their feet the residue of their pastures. The apostle saith ( 1 Corinthians 5:6 ). Sin therefore being infectious, the sinner is not to be tolerated in the assembly of the righteous.Uses: 1. It should minister great matter of much sorrow to every society of Christian men and women, when any of the congregation grow to be thus profane and defiled with the contagion of sin. Is it not a great grief to have any one member of the body cut off? This the apostle teacheth ( 1 Corinthians 5:2 .) 2. It is a cause of great mercy and of a wonderful blessing from God, when such as transgress are resisted and punished. So long as sin is suffered, God is offended, and His wrath is extended over those places and persons. He hath a controversy against those that sin against Him. 3. Every congregation is bound to purge their own body from such excrements and filthiness as annoy it. We must have herein true zeal and godly courage in the cause of God and His truth. We must not stand in fear of the faces of men, though they be never so great and mighty. The censures of the Church must not be like the spider's web, which catcheth flies and gnats, whereas the bigger creatures break from it. This reproveth such as dare not deal with great men, rich men, and mighty men: they are afraid to touch them lest they purchase their displeasure. 4. Is no Church to tolerate any open offenders among them? Then they must use the censure of excommunication as an ordinance of God, not an invention of men; and not only know the nature and use of it, but practise it to the glory of God, and to the good of others. This is it which our Saviour Christ hath left and commanded to be executed among us ( Matthew 18:17 ). ( W. Attersoll. ) Recompense his trespass. Numbers 5:6-10 The law as to fraud W. Attersoll. : — 1. He must confess his sin, and crave pardon from the bottom of his heart; he must submit himself unto God, knowing that he can by no means hide his sin, nor by any colour keep it from the sight of God. 2. We must make satisfaction to Him whom we have wronged. It is not enough to make open confession unto God, unless also we make actual restitution unto men. This is done to discourage injurious persons. For if they should only restore the principal, they know, if their offences were found out, they should be no losers. 3. He must seek reconciliation and atonement with God, by offering up of a ram in sacrifice, which figured out the suffering of Christ, and offering up of Himself once upon the Cross, for the discharge of our sin, and appeasing of the wrath of His Father. It shall profit us nothing to be at peace with men, except we be at peace with our God. This the enacting of the Law: an exception is annexed by way of prevention. For the offender that hath trespassed against his neighbour might object and say, How can I restore that I have taken? It may be the party is dead; it may be he hath neither son nor daughter nor kinsman: may I not then lawfully conceal it, and justly retain it unto myself? I answer, nay; the Lord answereth, Thou shalt by no means detain the goods that are not thine own, if thou look for any good at My hand. If the owner be dead or unknown, and he have none of his kindred and alliance living to be his heir, it shall not be thine, it is the Lord's, and He giveth it unto the priest for a recompense of his labours in the tabernacle. God is the Lord of the soil; He challengeth it at His own, and He disposeth it at His own pleasure. ( W. Attersoll. ) Fraud and forgiveness W. Jones. I. THE SIN OF FRAUD. 1. As assuming many forms. (1) Fraud in the matter of goods entrusted to the keeping of another. (2) In business transactions. (3) In seizing by force that which belongs to another. (4) In wronging another by means of deceit. (5) In the finder of lost property injuring the loser by falsehood.And in our own age fraud assumes many forms, and is widely prevalent. The employer who does not pay just wages to those in his service is guilty of it ( Proverbs 22:16 ; Isaiah 3:14, 15 ; Colossians 4:1 ; Isaiah 5:4 ). So also is the servant or workman who squanders the time for which his employer pays him; in so doing he defrauds his employer. The trader who takes an unfair advantage of his customer, which he calls by some special name, e.g. , "practice of the trade," &c. the broker or speculator or manager who induces persons to invest their money in unreliable enterprises; the person who contracts a debt without the sincere intention and reasonable prospect of paying it — all these, and others, are guilty of fraud. 2. As a wrong done to God. II. THE CONDITIONS OF ITS FORGIVENESS. 1. Consciousness of guilt. "The expression, 'that person be guilty,' does not merely refer to his actual criminality; but to his consciousness of guilt respecting it: for this case must be distinguished from that of a person detected in dishonesty which he attempted to conceal." Without the consciousness of guilt the other conditions of forgiveness could not be truly complied with. 2. Confession. "Then they shall confess their sin which they have done." This is an essential condition of forgiveness ( Psalm 32:5 ; Proverbs 28:13 ; 1 John 1:9 ). In itself it relieves the burdened soul, and leads to the joy and peace of forgiveness. 3. Restitution is essential to remission of sin; for where restitution is not made it is evident that sincere repentance is absent ( Ezekiel 18:7, 9, 12, 13 ; Ezekiel 33:15 ). 4. Sacrifice. In addition to making restitution the offender was commanded to offer "the ram of the atonement, whereby an atonement shall be made for him."Conclusion: 1. Let those who have injured others make speedy and full confession and restitution. 2. Let us all cultivate the most thorough integrity and uprightness in our whole life and conduct. ( W. Jones. ) Restitution When Mr. Moody was once speaking upon prayer, an incident occurred illustrating his subject, which made a profound impression, and came home to every one. He said true prayer consisted of ten elements — Adoration, Confession, Restitution, Thanksgiving, Unity, or Brotherly Love, the Spirit of Forgiveness, Faith, Ask (with a beggar's importunity, a servant's docility, and a friend's confidence), Perseverance, and last, Submission. When he came to the third element, Restitution, a man rose in the audience and cried out: "Mr. Moody, let me cut in here. I went to Texas five years ago, having cheated my creditors of 15,000 dollars. My wife and I thought we were real smart. We settled in one of the cities, bought a nice house and furnished it tip top; grand piano, Brussels carpets, and my wife thought no end of the lace curtains. But we had hardly got settled down when Mr. Moody came along, and, like others, we followed the crowd of 'professors' and church members. He preached the same sermon we have so far heard to-night. The Spirit of God convicted me and my wife both of sin, on this head of Restitution, and we went home perfectly miserable. I said, 'Loo, what are we to do?' 'Do!' says she; 'you know what to do without asking me; repay everybody to the last cent.' No sooner said than done; the house was sold and an auction called right away; and, oh, the joy I had in handing up the silverware and the china. The piano and all went, but my wife was so happy at parting with the lace curtains it was really curious. Then we took two little rooms, a bedroom and a kitchen, and the only table we had was the one we had used in the kitchen for chopping meat on; but the Lord filled us with Himself, and we had peace and joy, because we had pardon and a clean conscience. The dear Lord has blessed me far above my desert and beyond what the devil led me to steal, and we have come to Northfield to praise the Lord, and carry back with us to Texas a fresh baptism of the blessed power which set us free five years ago." If any man's wife go aside. Numbers 5:11-31 The trial of the suspected wife W. Jones. : — I. CONFIDENCE IN CONJUGAL RELATIONS IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE. "Suspicion," says Bp. Babington, "is the cut-throat and poison of all love and friendship." And in proportion to the intensity of the love will be the anguish of suspicion in respect to the object of the love. II. ADULTERY IS A SIN OF THE GREATEST ENORMITY. This dreadful ordeal, which was intended to prevent it, shows how great was its heinousness in the Divine estimation. This is expressed — 1. In the abasement of the suspected woman. The "barley meal," of which the offering was composed, the "earthern vessel" which contained the water, and "the dust" that was put into the water, indicate a state of deep humiliation and disgrace. The absence from the offering of oil, the symbol of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, and of frank. incense, the symbol of prayer, also proclaimed her questionable repute and the suspicion with which she was regarded. In like manner the "uncovering of the woman's head" was indicative of the loss of woman's best ornament, chastity and fidelity in the marriage relation. 2. In the terrible punishment which came upon the guilty. This ordeal was made so terrible that the dread of it might effectually prevent the wives in Israel from the least violation of their fidelity to their husbands. It remains as an impressive proclamation of the utter abhorrence with which God regards the sin of adultery. It is a sin against God; it inflicts the most intolerable injury upon the husband; it is an unmitigated blight upon the family; and it is a wrong to society generally. The most terrible condemnations are pronounced upon it in the Sacred Word ( Leviticus 20:10 ; Malachi 3:5 ; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 ; Hebrews 13:4 ). III. THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN IS CLOSELY RELATED TO THE SIN ITSELF. The punishment came in those portions of her body which she had abused. IV. GOD WILL BRING TO LIGHT THE SECRET SINS OF MEN. If the suspected woman were guilty, after this ordeal her guilt would be made manifest. All sins are known unto Him. V. GOD WILL ASSUREDLY VINDICATE THE INNOCENT WHO HAVE SUFFERED FROM SUSPICION AND SLANDER. In this case the vindication was most complete. "If the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed." "If not guilty after such a trial," says Adam Clarke , "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." Thus to the innocent there was no terror in this stern ordeal. It was rather a blessing to them, if by any means they had come to be regarded with suspicion by their husbands; for by means of it such suspicions would be removed, and their fidelity and honour vindicated and exalted. And God will, sooner or later, splendidly vindicate all who suffer from misrepresentation, slander, or false accusation. ( W. Jones. ) Innocence mysteriously declared Caroline's Fox's Journal. Aunt C. Fox told us of an American friend who once felt a concern to go somewhere, he knew not where. He ordered his gig, his servant asking where he was to drive. "Up and down the road," said his master. At last they met a funeral. "Follow this funeral." said the master. They followed in the procession till they came to the churchyard. Whilst the service was being performed the friend sat in his gig; at its conclusion he walked to the grave, and said solemnly, "The person now buried is innocent of the crime laid to her charge." An elderly gentleman in deep mourning came up to him in great agitation, and said, "Sir, what you have said has surprised me very much." "I can't help it, I can't help it," replied the other; "I only said what I was obliged to say." "Well," said the mourner, "the person just buried is my wife, who for some years has lain under the suspicion of infidelity to me. No one else knew of it, and on her death-bed she again protested her innocence, and said that if I would not believe her then, a witness to it would be raised up even at her grave-side." ( Caroline's Fox's Journal. ) Innocence strangely declared W. Smith. It is recorded in history that a beautiful maiden, named Blanche, the serf of an ancient nobleman, was wooed by her master's son. Not admiring his character, she scorned his suit. Upon this, his course of love turned to bitter hatred. Just then a precious string of pearls confided to the maiden's care was lost. Her pseudolover charged her with the theft, and, in accordance with the customs of that rude age, she was doomed to die. On the day of the execution, as the innocent girl knelt to offer her dying prayer, a flash of lightning struck a statue of Justice, which adorned the market-place, to the dust. From a scattered bird's nest, built in a crevice of the image, dropped the lost pearls — thus declaring her innocence. In a moment the exultant crowd rushed to the scaffold, demanding her release. There she knelt beside the block, pale and beautiful, and with a smile of peace upon her lips. They spoke — she answered not. They touched her — she was dead! To preserve her memory, they raised a statue there; and to this day, when men gaze upon her image, they condemn her oppressor; they praise her for the purity of her character; they recognise the justice of Him whose lightnings testified to her innocence. ( W. Smith. ) A fallacious test of innocence Scientific Illustrations. Man frequently satisfies himself that he has come to an accurate conclusion merely because, on the application of what he considers an infallible test, he discovers a particular anticipated result. Often enough the test is utterly fallacious. Take an example. The tanghin, or tanguen, is the only plant of its genus, and is confined to Madagascar. Its poisonous seed is esteemed by the natives an infallible criterion of guilt or innocence. After being pounded, a small piece is swallowed by the supposed criminal. If he be cursed with a strong stomach, which retains the poison, he speedily dies, and is held guilty; if his feeble digestion rejects it, he necessarily escapes, and his innocence is considered proven. Now it is obvious to any educated mind that innocence and guilt are in no way disclosed by this process. Yet inasmuch as it has been accepted as a test, its results are unquestioned. And there are numberless instances in which English society consents to be governed by the results of tests, simply because those tests are generally accepted. Again and again it becomes important to inquire whether, supposing your test does disclose a given result, that test is really as infallible as you deem it to be? Many will be found to be only "tanghin" tests, and as such utterly fallacious. ( Scientific Illustrations. ).

5:1-10 The camp was to be cleansed. The purity of the church must be kept as carefully as the peace and order of it. Every polluted Israelite must be separated. The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable. The greater profession of religion any house or family makes, the more they are obliged to put away iniquity far from them. If a man overreach or defraud his brother in any matter, it is a trespass against the Lord, who strictly charges and commands us to do justly. What is to be done when a man's awakened conscience charges him with guilt of this kind, though done long ago? He must confess his sin, confess it to God, confess it to his neighbour, and take shame to himself; though it go against him to own himself in a lie, yet he must do it. Satisfaction must be made for the offence done to God, as well as for the loss sustained by the neighbour; restitution in that case is not enough without faith and repentance. While that which is wrongly gotten is knowingly kept, the guilt remains on the conscience, and is not done away by sacrifice or offering, prayers or tears; for it is the same act of sin persisted in. This is the doctrine of right reason, and of the word of God. It detects hypocrites, and directs the tender conscience to proper conduct, which, springing from faith in Christ, will make way for inward peace. 5:11-31 This law would make the women of Israel watch against giving cause for suspicion. On the other hand, it would hinder the cruel treatment such suspicions might occasion. It would also hinder the guilty from escaping, and the innocent from coming under just suspicion. When no proof could be brought, the wife was called on to make this solemn appeal to a heart-searching God. No woman, if she were guilty, could say Amen to the adjuration, and drink the water after it, unless she disbelieved the truth of God, or defied his justice. The water is called the bitter water, because it caused the curse. Thus sin is called an evil and a bitter thing. Let all that meddle with forbidden pleasures, know that they will be bitterness in the latter end. From the whole learn, 1. Secret sins are known to God, and sometimes are strangely brought to light in this life; and that there is a day coming when God will, by Christ, judge the secrets of men according to the gospel, Ro 2:16. 2 In particular, Whoremongers and adulterers God will surely judge. Though we have not now the waters of jealousy, yet we have God's word, which ought to be as great a terror. Sensual lusts will end in bitterness. 3. God will manifest the innocency of the innocent. The same providence is for good to some, and for hurt to others. And it will answer the purposes which God intends.