5:1–4 The three general classes of physical impurities addressed in chapter 5 are a “leprous” condition, abnormal bodily “discharge,” and “contact with the dead” (v. 2). Anyone who contracts any of these impurities is “put out of the camp.” The summary fashion with which these cases are treated here presumes fuller exposition elsewhere. The first two are treated at length in Leviticus 13–15. Corpse contamination receives less attention in that book, as it deals only with priests’ contact with the deceased (Lev. 21:1–4). Special instructions regarding corpse contamination are given in Numbers 6; 19.

The “leprous” (form of Hb. tsaraʿ; Num. 5:2) condition likely includes several skin diseases (Lev. 13:1–44).49 While still in quarantine and after receiving a clean bill of health from the priest, who functions as a public health inspector, the affected person undergoes a complex process of purification (“atonement”; Lev. 14:19–20, 21–32).

A “discharge” (zav; Num. 5:2) from a sexual organ could be normal or abnormal. Normal discharges involve emission of semen and menstruation. Ejaculation causes uncleanness until evening, menstruation for seven days (Lev. 15:16, 19). These require neither quarantine nor sacrifices. Abnormal masculine urethral discharge and vaginal bleeding do. After the discharge ceases, it requires a seven-day period of cleansing and sacrifices on the eighth day (cf. Lev. 15:2, 13–15, 25, 28–29).

Contamination by “contact with the dead” (Num. 5:2; cf. comment on 6:1–12 [at v. 6]), whether accidental or of necessity, results in the greatest danger. Among other rites, if not sprinkled twice with water for impurity made from the ashes of the red heifer, the contaminated person is to be cut off from Israel (19:11–22; cf. 9:6, 10). Impurities affect both genders in parallel, though not identical, fashion (5:3). “Outside the camp” (vv. 2, 4) is outside the double cordon of the camps of the Levites and the tribes—thus at the greatest distance from the tabernacle. Confinement there affords time for purification by the prescribed rites and physical restoration when needed. But, if purification is not made, the sanctuary will be defiled and the responsible person cut off (19:13, 20).

Although there is concern about hygiene and contagion, the only stated reason behind these stipulations is “Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness by defiling my tabernacle that is in their midst” (Lev. 15:31). “They may not defile their camp, in the midst of which I dwell” (shakan; Num. 5:3) is the only stated reason for the unclean to go outside the camp.

The title “tabernacle/dwelling place” (mishkan; e.g., v. 17) is cognate to “dwell” (shakan). The Lord’s dwelling presence (the “Shekinah” of rabbinic tradition, based on the Targums) is of paramount importance. At this stage of the history of revelation this is the summum of the tripartite covenant promise “I will make my dwelling among you, and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you and will be your God, and you shall be my people,” expressed fully for the first time in Leviticus (Lev. 26:11–12), proclaimed by the prophets especially in the context of the new covenant (e.g., Jer. 31:1, 33; Ezek. 36:28), and then realized ultimately in the NT (e.g., 2 Cor. 6:16). Both Leviticus and its citation in Corinthians state, “And I will walk [Hb. vehithalakti] among you,” which echoes the Lord God’s “walking in the garden” (Gen. 3:8; same verb form). The requirement to maintain purity is extended to the Promised Land, where the Lord will dwell in the midst of his people (cf. comment on Num. 35:9–34 [at v. 34]). The promise of his presence and its manifestation in the tabernacle anticipates “the Word [who] became flesh and dwelt [lit., “tabernacled”] among us” (John 1:14). Jesus’ physical contact with lepers, the woman with an abnormal discharge of blood, and the dead all point to Jesus’ fulfillment and transcendence of ceremonial laws (Matt. 8:1–4; Mark 5:25–34, 41). In his compassion he cleanses them from their defiling impurities.

5:5–10 This law regarding fraud presents a civil case adjudicated in the ritual domain. It is closely related to Leviticus 6:1–7 (Lev. 5:20–26 MT; cf. Ex. 22:7–9, 10–13), as table 4.4 shows.

TABLE 4.4: Connections between Numbers 5:5–10 and Leviticus 6:1–7

“Any of the sins that people commit” (Num. 5:6) renders the Hebrew “any sin of man/humanity,” which could mean any sin by man or any sin against man. Here it is the latter: “To whom he did the wrong” (v. 7). The Leviticus parallel provides as case in point:

If anyone sins and commits a breach of faith against the Lord by deceiving his neighbor in a matter of deposit or security, or through robbery, or if he has oppressed his neighbor or has found something lost and lied about it, swearing falsely—in any of all the things that people do and sin thereby. (Lev. 6:2–3)

The “sin” involves misappropriation, the wrongful keeping of something entrusted by its owner. Stealing profanes God’s name (Prov. 30:9). Here it is aggravated by the embezzler’s “breaking faith” (Hb. maʿal; Num. 5:6) by taking an oath in God’s name to hide the fraud. A false oath is sacrilegious perjury. Swearing falsely profanes God’s name (Lev. 19:12). Scripture provides notable examples of those who break faith in other ways. Achan steals sacrosanct spoil under the kherem ban (Josh. 6:19; 7:21). The charge is brought by God himself: “Israel has sinned; they have transgressed my covenant that I commanded them; they have taken some of the devoted things; they have stolen and lied and put them among their own belongings” (Josh. 7:11). Usurping priestly prerogative, Saul offers a sacrifice (1 Sam. 13:12; 15:22–23). Moses and Aaron fail to treat the Lord as holy. They all “break faith” (Deut. 32:51; Josh. 7:1; 22:20; 1 Chron. 2:7; 10:13), profane God’s holy name, and therefore die. For profaning God’s holy name (Ezek. 36:20) by their iniquity, the people of Israel go into captivity because they break faith with God (“Dealt so treacherously”; Ezek. 39:23). Whatever its form, breaking faith desecrates the Lord.

“Realizes his guilt” (ʾasham; Num. 5:6) suggests that strong guilt feelings drive the embezzler to turn himself in to make amends. This law provides the way. “Confess his sin” (yadah; v. 7; cf. Lev. 5:5; cf. also Ps. 32:5; Prov. 28:13) means to acknowledge it to God and make it known in the presence of a priest and the victim. Sincerity is evidenced by the offender’s burden of guilt and doing what is required of his own accord. David’s guilt feelings and remorse drive him to confess his sins (Ps. 32:3–5). Confession is the only way he will not be chastened by God in his wrath (Ps. 38:1, 18). The principle is simple: “Godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death” (2 Cor. 7:10).

In addition to openly admitting his willful wrongdoing, the embezzler must “make full restitution” (ʾasham) to the victim of what he has misappropriated and make reparation by “adding a fifth to it” (Num. 5:7). A thief who is apprehended must restore the stolen goods and make reparation anywhere from two to five times their value (Ex. 22:1–4). Here reparation is 20 percent of the value of the extorted item (Num. 5:7; cf. Lev. 6:4–5), since the offender voluntarily surrenders (cf. Ex. 22:1, 4; 2 Sam. 12:6). The action of doing wrong (ʾasham) results in guilt (ʾasham) and requires restitution (ʾasham) and, as mentioned in Leviticus, a guilt offering (ʾasham; Num. 6:6 [5:25 MT]). If the victim is deceased and there is “no next of kin,” the priest receives the restitution payment (6:8).

Alongside confession, restitution, and reparation, a sacrifice is required (a “ram of atonement”), with which atonement is “made for him” (5:8). This involves a “guilt offering” (Lev. 6:6). The “atonement” (from kpr) made here for an intentional sin provides an exception to the fundamental principle that atonement can normally be made only for unintentional sins (Num. 15:27–29; Heb. 9:7). Intentional, or high-handed, sins are punished by the perpetrator’s being cut off (karat; Num. 15:30–31). Once again, it seems the element of confession provides a mitigating factor.

Although forgiveness is not mentioned here, for the guilty party it is the goal of atonement (Lev. 6:7 [5:26 MT]). Forgiveness requires this purification sacrifice. Confession makes this possible even for high-handed sins (Ps. 51:3–4; cf. Ps. 32:5; Ezra 10:10–11). The blood of a sin or guilt offering (a substitute victim) dabbed, sprinkled, or splashed on the contaminated sacred object is the agent that purifies it (Lev. 8:15; 16:18–19; 17:11; Ps. 51:7; Ezek. 43:20). The guilty party is forgiven for having polluted it and for the act causing the pollution. Pardon for sin is probably pronounced by the priest, but it is granted by God alone.

In the NT Zacchaeus is guilty of defrauding. In Jesus’ presence he confesses his sin and promises to make restitution. Jesus remarks in response, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:9–10).

A “contribution” (terumah; Num. 5:9) is the priest’s share of an offering. In Numbers it involves the first of the dough (15:20–21); the portion removed from the grain, sin, and guilt offerings, which are most holy (18:8–10, 18); and the Levites’ tithe (v. 28). Numbers 5:8–10 illustrates how certain laws are added as supplements where they fit. Here the supplements center on priests’ stipends (e.g., 6:21; 9:9–14).

5:11–31 This case involves a domestic matter: a wife suspected of adultery by her husband. As is the preceding civil case, it is adjudicated in the ritual domain. The sanctity of marriage is underscored by the prescribed imprecatory oath-ordeal; God himself will vindicate or judge the suspect.

The law covers two possibilities. In the first “she has defiled herself” (v. 13; cf. vv. 20, 29), whereas in the second “she has not defiled herself” (5:14; cf. v. 28). “Defiled” (Hb. tameʾ) defines immorality in ritual terms. Use of the term supposes a sacred counterpoint: the marriage bed (Gen. 49:4; Heb. 13:4). Two verbs describe the act of defiling oneself. First, “go astray” (satah; Num. 5:12, 19, 20, 29) appears in warnings to a son not to go astray by turning to prostitutes (Prov. 4:15; 7:25). Second, “breaks faith” (maʾal; Num. 5:12; cf. v. 27) links the law with the preceding one (cf. comment on 5:5–10 [at v. 6]). There it involved swearing in God’s name that a falsehood was true. The action of the second verb (lying under oath) confirms the first (she went astray). The charge of adultery is thereby aggravated by sacrilegious perjury.

The noun cognate with “break faith” describes idolatry (Lev. 26:40, “treachery”; Num. 31:16, “act treacherously”). Turning to other gods is likened to adultery committed by Israel, the Lord’s wife (e.g., Jer. 3:9; 31:32; Ezek. 16:32; Hos. 1:2; 2:2; cf. Ex. 34:15–16; Ps. 106:36–39; Jer. 13:26–27). Like the relationship with the Lord, marriage is a covenant bond (Mal. 2:14; cf. Prov. 2:17; Ezek. 16:8). In either case, breaking faith destroys trust and breaches the covenant bond (Josh. 7:11). Both adultery and idolatry call for capital punishment (Ex. 22:20; Lev. 20:3, 10).

In the present case if the wife is guilty there is no prescribed sentence to be executed by man’s hand. The woman is protected before submitting to the oath-ordeal by mitigating circumstances: “It is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act” (Num. 5:13). First, if there is “no witness,” the death sentence is precluded (Deut. 22:22), since it requires at least two witnesses (Deut. 17:6). Second, the term “adultery” (naʾaph; e.g., Ex. 20:14; Lev. 20:10) is not used. Instead an expression describes it but applies only to the man involved.50 A man other than her husband “lies with her sexually” (shakab . . . shikbat-zeraʿ; lit., “lies . . . lying-seed”; Num. 5:13; cf. Lev. 15:16, 17, 18, 32 [“emission of semen”]) or has “lain” with her (shakab, Num. 5:19; shekobet, v. 20; cf. Lev. 18:20). The man’s act described here is his consummated intercourse with the wife of another man. Numbers 5:20 does not mince words, which translated word for word reads, “A man put in you his lying instead of your man.” Clearly, adultery is described without ever using the inculpatory word. Hidden sin and guilt, however, will ultimately meet God’s judgment. This is the reason for the oath-ordeal if the wife is guilty.

That which has aroused the husband’s “spirit of jealousy” (Num. 5:14, 30; Prov. 6:32–35; cf. Prov. 27:4; Song 8:6) is not stated. He “is jealous of his wife,” that is, “because of” her. Perhaps she is pregnant, and he suspects he be not the father. The outcome of the oath-ordeal if undefiled—“she . . . shall conceive children” (Num. 5:28)—may suggest this.51 If she were pregnant and innocent, she would bear her husband’s child. Jealousy as the basis of such a serious charge raises the second possibility: “She has not defiled herself” (v. 14). In this case the husband’s suspicions are unfounded. Either way, jealousy has led him to undertake the prescribed measures.

In the absence of tangible evidence, how could the case be adjudicated? A ritual is employed. It is not a trial by ordeal, in which, presumed guilty, the wife would be proved innocent by her surviving a typically fatal act, such as being thrown into a river. In trials by ordeal, fire to burn and water to drown the accused are used to coerce confessions. Nothing but a miracle could save the innocent. Here, fire burns the sacrifice brought on behalf of the wife, and water is that which she consents to drink. The ritual itself is neutral as concerns her guilt or innocence. Before she drinks the water she pronounces a curse (cf. Jer. 49:12–13) upon herself, supported by an oath. This autoimprecation will prove her guilt or innocence by either materializing or not doing so. If she be guilty, only God can execute judgment by fulfilling the curse she has called upon herself.

The “offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah of barley” (Num. 5:15), is not the normal grain offering of fine wheat flour (cf. 4:16). Barley cost half as much as wheat (2 Kings 7:1, 16, 18; cf. Rev. 6:6); it was fed to horses (1 Kings 4:28 [5:8 MT]). “No oil” or “frankincense” (Num. 5:15) are to be used here, as they are with grain offerings (Lev. 6:15); frankincense would create a pleasing aroma to the Lord (Lev. 6:15; cf. Num. 15:10). The reason for this prohibition is that “it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance” (Num. 5:15). The husband’s “jealousy” has occasioned the ritual. “Remembrance” (zikron) is more than bringing something to mind. The word can refer to an official document containing vital affairs and juridical decisions (Est. 6:1). Because of the serious charges and, if she be guilty, the severe consequences, the sworn curse uttered by the woman is recorded (Num. 5:23). The accusation involves “iniquity” (ʿavon; vv. 15, 31), an intentional sin, breaking faith (vv. 12, 27), which cannot be atoned (15:30–31).

The priest is to “bring [the woman] near and set her before the Lord” (5:16; cf. vv. 18, 30). The two verbs “bring near” (form of qarab) and “set before” (form of ʿamad, lit., “make stand”) are used together for the Levites brought near and stood before Aaron, the priest (3:6). To be brought near and stood “before the Lord” means the woman is brought before the priest officiating the altar. Her presence there suggests she is presumed innocent, undefiled. The priest must put “holy water in an earthenware vessel” (5:17) and “unbind the hair of the woman’s head” (v. 18). Both an earthenware vessel and the unbinding of hair are part of the purification for leprous conditions (Lev. 14:5, 50; 13:45). The Hebrew verb translated “unbind” (paraʿ) also describes the Israelites as “out of control” at the golden calf incident (Ex. 32:25; cf. 2 Chron. 28:19: “made [to] act sinfully”). The term “holy water” appears only here. It is perhaps taken from the bronze basin in the court. “Dust” from the “floor of the tabernacle,” mixed with the holy water (Num. 5:17), constitutes the “water of bitterness that brings the curse” (vv. 18, 24). The cursed serpent had to eat dust (Gen. 3:14; cf. Mic. 7:17). Moses made the Israelites involved in the golden calf incident drink water mixed with the powder of the burnt idol (Ex. 32:20).

The priest next puts the grain offering “in her hands,” whereas “in his hand” he holds the water of bitterness (Num. 5:18). He makes her take “an oath” (shebuʿah; v. 19), an imprecation to the effect that “If I am guilty, let the Lord bring the words of this curse upon me.” If so, the Lord will make her “a curse and an oath” among her people (vv. 20–21). This “curse” (ʾalah) is the effect of her own spoken words: her “body” or “womb” will “swell” and her “thigh” will “fall away.” The Mishnah holds that the parts of her body with which she has sinned will be affected (Sotah 1:7). In that sense, “thigh” refers to genitals (cf. Gen. 46:26: “Who were his own descendants”; lit., “Who came out of his thigh”). If so, she will bear the curse in her body (cf. 1 Cor. 6:18). “Fall away” (naphal; Num. 5:27) is related to the Hebrew word for a spontaneous abortion (nephel; Ps. 58:8, “stillborn child”), which perhaps is the consequence. If she is already pregnant, or later becomes so, she will miscarry. If innocent, her vindication is her ability to “conceive children” (Num. 5:28). To this “oath of the curse” she adds “Amen, Amen” (v. 21, 22; cf. John 3:5, where “Truly, truly” renders Gk. amen amen). The priest must then “write these curses in a book and wash them off into the water of bitterness,” which he shall “make the woman drink” (Num. 5:23–24). The water of bitterness (marim), conveying agent of the curse, enters her body (cf. Ps. 109:18) and, if she be guilty, will “cause bitter pain” (Num. 5:24), or bitterness (marim), the effect of the curse.

The priest must do five things with the “grain offering of jealousy”: “take [it] out of [her] hand and shall wave [it] before the Lord and bring it to the altar,” and there “take a handful . . . and burn it” (vv. 25–26). The cadence of the five gestures of the priest with the grain offering gives the woman time to ponder her situation. (For “wave” cf. comment on 18:8–19 [at v. 11].) Then he makes the woman drink the water (5:27). She has sworn an oath upon the curse she pronounced on herself; she drinks the water of bitterness fully aware of potential consequences. Evidence of the woman’s guilt or innocence is the outcome of the ritual oath-ordeal. The Lord is either her judge or her vindicator. His holiness will be vindicated through a mediator employing ritual means, in the same way his justice is established in a court of law. The outcome of a guilty verdict is already stated in terms of her womb and thigh. This condition has social ramifications, as it will make her a “curse among her people” (v. 27); her shame will be public. “But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children” (v. 28). Her moral innocence is described in ritual terms: “not defiled” and “clean.” Conceiving, a divine blessing, will publicly vindicate her.

The closing verses (vv. 29–31) summarize only the last of the three laws of chapter 5 (vv. 11–28), and only the cases in which the woman is guilty of adultery, whereas the case law also treats her innocence (“She has not defiled herself”; vv. 14, 28). These verses reiterate the circumstances requiring the law in the cases of jealousy: “When a wife . . . goes astray and defiles herself, or when the spirit of jealousy comes over a man” (vv. 29–30).

Two additional points are made in these verses. To say “the man shall be free from iniquity” (v. 31) is surprising.52 “Free” (nqh) means “innocent, not guilty,” the same word used for the innocent woman (v. 28). Is he free from iniquity only if his jealousy is well founded (v. 30)? Or even if his suspicions are unfounded?53 Or will be free from iniquity for causing her punishment?54 Perhaps the exculpation means he is free from her iniquity. The law underscores three times that she is “under her husband[’s authority]” (takhat ʾishha; v. 29; cf. vv. 19, 20). The law on vows may shed light on this suggestion. Given his authority over her, a husband who learns of his wife’s vow and remains silent the day he hears of it when he could legitimately nullify it, but then does so later, “shall bear her iniquity” (30:15)—that is, the iniquity she would have borne had she herself broken the vow. Given his suspicion of his wife’s infidelity, the husband had two choices, either remain silent or evoke the law of jealousy (5:30). By doing the latter, the husband was “free from iniquity” (v. 31) in two ways. If she were guilty, he would be free from complicity and from obstruction of divine justice.

Nevertheless, “the woman shall bear her iniquity” (v. 31). Bearing one’s iniquity means God will judge that person; no human court could condemn her in the absence of witnesses.