Numbers 1-10:11

[Josh]

Welcome to our study of the Old Testament book entitled "Numbers".

As far as Numbers 1-10 verse 11 are concerned, we're going to skip these non-narrative chapters in our IC Forum study. We’ve covered much of this ground already (Levites, ceremonial law, etc..). The chronological story picks up where we left off in Exodus in Numbers 10 verse 11.

If you do have any comments on these first ten chapters, post them here by all means. I'll probably post a few comments on these lines here when I get the change (especially on Numbers 5 which is a little perplexing).

[michelle]

Ah yes, Numbers 5. I just got done reading it and can I say, "Woah, Nelly." Shockingly (I say with much sarcasm) I am struck by the rules of what to do with a cheating wife. I think what I am most bothered by this about is that there is this big ritual for what to do if a husband suspects his wife cheating, but what about a woman suspecting her husband of cheating? Is this because it was "ok" for a man to cheat on his wife? Any insight into this whole thing?

Also, I am curious about women who were naturally sterile. If a woman was sterile, does this mean that other people viewed her as cursed or having been made that way by God, even if it was something she had no control over?

I think it is interesting in 5:2 that God banishes lepers from camp, yet in the NT, we find Jesus healing the lepers. Oh yeah, and what's up with the mestruating women being forced out of camp as well?

[Josh]

michelle said:

I think it is interesting in 5:2 that God banishes lepers from camp, yet in the NT, we find Jesus healing the lepers. Oh yeah, and what's up with the mestruating women being forced out of camp as well?

I'll post some thoughts on Numbers 5 soon. Indeed, I originally listed that passages as probably one of my top 5 most frustrating and perplexing passages in all of the Scripture.

As to the whole issue of uncleanness, esp. regarding lepers, menstruating women, etc.., a couple thoughts:

First, there were a lot of things that could get one on the unclean list (either temporarily or pretty much permanently), and to balance things out a bit as far as gender roles, here's one for the men:

Deuteronomy 23:10: If one of your men is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, he is to go outside the camp and stay there.

What bugs our sensibilities about these issues ( ) is that unclean sounds like "sin" and all these things are "unvoluntary"- periods, wet dreams, diseases, deformaties, etc.. It seems like God is punishing people for things outside of their control.

So we must understand what the whole "unclean" concept really means.

God is trying to show Israel the severity of sin so the concept is very tangible to them. The unfortunate thing about sin is that it is pretty easy to hide because sin resides in the heart. There's no way to effectively remove all the people in the community who are harboring hate in their hearts or thinking lustful or envious thoughts, because all those sins are in the heart and mind (These are the sins that Jesus harps on most forcefully later during His ministry).

But all around us are the results of sin. I'm not necessarily talking about the results of specific sins (like we might think of with a sexually transmitted disease or a stroke from a lifetime of gluttony, etc..), but about the generic results of living in an existence that is fallen because of mankind's original sin. Because of mankind's sin our lives our tainted- we suffer disease, misfortune, imperfections, deformities, "increased pain in childbirth" as Genesis says, tainted sexuality (thought sexuality was created good), etc...

The point of the unclean laws is to make it painfully clear to the Israelites that sin has marred us, that sin has had a devasting effect on all of us- that we should be living a perfect existence without blemish had we not fallen. And that that truth should be shocking- it should make us long for perfection. Another way of putting it would be that God was showing the Israelites that we were made to be perfect and something has gone horribly wrong, with the unclean laws serving as reminders of this imperfection every day in the experience of the Israelites.

A great example of one of these laws are the ones were Israelites are considered unclean for a period of time if they even touch a dead body, because this is a constant reminder to them that human death is not 'natural'.

The whole unclean idea would become a tremendous foil against which the prophets and ultimately Jesus would be able to demonstrate his compassion and His ability to make us perfect and whole again. The whole force of stories like Jesus healing the lepers and touching them, or touching the unclean women, get their moral force from the very fact that there had been these "unclean" laws. Now, finally, had come Someone who not only could show compassion, but Someone who could come make all of us who are unclean, clean, by His everlasting blood.

So, it's not that God in the Old Testament is trying to be as mean as He can so that when He decides to act nice (New Testament) his niceness seem all the more nice because of how terrible He was before. It's that God in the Old Testament takes extreme measures to show us how wrong and sad it is that this world is fallen so His mercy will be all the more glorious when it is fully revealed in Christ's death and resurrection.

A final thought: keep in mind that those considered unclean for these kind of reasons (involuntary) were still to be cared for, and were provided means of grace, etc.. Eventually, Israelites started treated those considered unclean unjustly, and the prophets and Jesus go to great pains to point out that they are no worse sinners than anyone else and deserve justice.

[michelle]

Well, I guess since there is some gender equality I am ok with it all. Just kidding.

I see the point you make about God needing to make an extreme point. Maybe it's just difficult to understand because we are post Jesus and we know that He is the redemption from our sin. I think what really gets me is that God made these extreme laws for the Israelites and it is as if they were paying for the sins of Adam and Eve. That had to be extremely frustrating for them. Even though they weren't sinless, it seems like they had this extra burden to carry. And with the number of laws they had to keep, no wonder they failed. It almost seems that God set them up to fail.

I can see that the laws were in place because they did not have Jesus yet to save them from their sins. Were the laws intended to keep them from sinning? Were they there because they didn't have a Saviour? I see how in the big picture (especially for the Jews that lived while Jesus was ministering) they Jews would/should have seen Jesus as this great relief. They no longer had to suffer from or pay for the sins of the past generations.

Sometimes I wish we had more God imposed laws because I think with some things it's easier to just do what I'm told to do. But I can't imagine what it would be like if nobody at church could talk to me just because I had my period.

[hume]

"I think what I am most bothered by this about is that there is this big ritual for what to do if a husband suspects his wife cheating, but what about a woman suspecting her husband of cheating? Is this because it was "ok" for a man to cheat on his wife?"

Just a thought -- assuming polygamy was typical at this time (an assumption Josh will correct me on if mistaken I hope), I suppose this would have done away with most extra-marital temptations for most men. So maybe that wasn't much of an issue.

[michelle]

hume said:

"I think what I am most bothered by this about is that there is this big ritual for what to do if a husband suspects his wife cheating, but what about a woman suspecting her husband of cheating? Is this because it was "ok" for a man to cheat on his wife?"

Just a thought -- assuming polygamy was typical at this time (an assumption Josh will correct me on if mistaken I hope), I suppose this would have done away with most extra-marital temptations for most men. So maybe that wasn't much of an issue.

Hmm, that's a good thought. Something I had not considered.

[Josh]

michelle said:

I think what really gets me is that God made these extreme laws for the Israelites and it is as if they were paying for the sins of Adam and Eve...

I can see that the laws were in place because they did not have Jesus yet to save them from their sins. Were the laws intended to keep them from sinning? Were they there because they didn't have a Saviour?

Wow... heavy comments and questions.

In the first part of this quote you bring up the doctrine of original sin (that all humanity is born into a state of sin as a result of Adam's fall). This doctrine in based specifically on the New Testament assertion in Paul's writings (Romans 5:12 and 1 Cor. 15:22) that all humanity sinned in Adam and all humanity will be saved in Christ.

I, personally, don't think of this as "we're all paying for what Adam did". Here's another way of thinking about it: "we would all have done what Adam and Eve did (without exception), so Adam the man and Eve the woman were merely representative of us all" or perhaps even further in some timeless sense: "we have done what Adam and Eve did..."

Secondly you asked what the point of the law was. Paul tackles that question head-on in Galatians (and again, this is why it's so important to do the work we're doing right now in the OT-- [pat on the back for us]):

---

Galatians 3:19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

---

A couple of observations: as Paul says here and we find in many other places in Scripture (both Old Testament and New), the law could not save. People have only ever been saved through the blood of Christ (either looking forward to it as a dim hope that God would somehow provide a sacrifice, or backward at what Christ has indeed done*)

The point of the law, then? To show us our sin and our powerlessness over it. To push us toward hope that God would somehow bridge the gap between Him and us.



*: These time references are somewhat arbitrary though: Scripture says that Christ was "slain since the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8 KJV)- it was always the plan and always the way of salvation.

[Josh]

In regard to the “Adultery Test” in Numbers 5, first off, it initially bugged me because of it’s “magical nature”. Immediately I thought of that scene from Monty Python’s the Holy Grail where they’re doing the “Witch test”, where the girl is tied up and thrown into a lake. If she floats, they’ll know she’s a witch and then execute her. If she sinks, they’ll know she was innocent.

But she’ll be dead.

That scene is a great laugh and pokes fun at some of the kookier ways some of our forebears made decisions with an irrational and superstitious manner. So, having a Bible passage that at first glance look so similar was to me, well, kinda embarrassing and potentially offensive.

But I want point out some observations I’ve had from poring over this passage- namely how this passage is ultimately not like Monty Python’s witch test.

First off, many ancient cultures and many tribal communities today have rituals such as this, which anthropologists call “ritual ordeals”. Typically, they involved someone in the community undergoing a magical test in order to prove something.

Now, on to our example. The most important observation I’ve had with this case is that this law is designed to protect women, not provide yet another way for ancient cultures to denegrate them. Here’s what I mean: in many ancient cultures a man could have severe penalties imposed on his wife at the mere suggestion or insistence by the husband that she had committed adultery. An argument between husband and wife could lead to false accusations (without witnesses) with disastrous consequences.

But unlike the Witch example, where the proof of innocence is worse than the proof of guilt, the ‘test’ (the drinking of the potion) is harmless by scientific standards. If the woman had to drink poison and survive to demonstrate her innocence, then the odds would be unfavorably stacked against her. But in the case we have here, it would take a direct “act of God” for the potion to harm her. In every case the woman would not be harmed by the potion and would maintain her innocence unless God intervened.

This takes the judgment out of the hands of men and leaves it to the will of God, thus protecting women from false accusations by husbands who want to be rid of their wives.

Why not have this ritual for men also? Is this reflective of the bias of a patriarchal society? Probably. However, in ancient societies it was important for a man to know if a kid was truly his because inheritance rights were all-important (and the only real sure form of social security). If a woman is sleeping around on him, he might unknowingly have an illegitimate heir on his hands. That wouldn’t be a concern of a woman who suspected her husband of sleeping around. These reasons focus on practical economics. Elsewhere, though, the Pentatuech is clear that adultery is wrong for either a man or a woman (Exodus 20, etc..)

[michelle]

admin said:

But in the case we have here, it would take a direct “act of God” for the potion to harm her. In every case the woman would not be harmed by the potion and would maintain her innocence unless God intervened.

It also seems that this may have been a psychological game to see if the woman would refuse to drink the potion knowing her own guilt and believing that she would die. Even if there was no actual intervention by God, if she thought there would be she might not drink it. But if she knew she was innocent she would drink with no fear. Certainly by that time the Israelites knew better than to question God's ability to strike a woman dead. That in and of itself may have been enough to make a woman come clean.

[michelle]

On a different Numbers topic (and actually regarding many passages in the OT), what is the reason for the incredible detail paid to some information. Who brought what to the altar on which day (Numbers 7). I'm sure there is good reason for it, but it seems pretty useless. I know that much of the Pentatuech is historical/law, but what would be the purpose for writing down specific measurements, etc.?

[Josh]

Good thought on the 'psychological effect of the test'.

In summary on Numbers 5 I'd just say it was (and is, but considerably less so after studying it for a while) to me a 'difficult' passage because it just seems so crude, so crassly magical compared to much of the rest of the Bible. Honestly, it's the kind of passage that just seems a bit embarrassing to modern sensibility. But, I suppose, a great example of how Scripture is not tame.

As to all the 'exact' details on rituals, etc.. , I guess the short answer would be the fact that several times in the OT there are dire consequences for individuals who don't get them right- like, for instance, the guy who gets struck down for touching the Ark of the covenant, or Aaron's sons who are killed for offering 'strange fire', so these instructions were a matter of life and death to the Israelites. All the laws illustrate the perfection and holiness of God and how even the slightest deviations are of immense gravity in the presence of that holiness and perfection.

[michelle]

But what about stuff like the measurements of the ark of the covenant? I guess it could be to give the best possible description of things instead of saying, it was made of wood, it was big and it was pretty. It just seems like there could have been more useful information handed down.