The christening of the Levites complete, chapter 5 of Numbers shifts to a familiar topic from book of Leviticus, the holiness of the people. In the context of Yahweh’s covenant with His people, they are selected to be a holy people, set apart as a nation through which He will bless the rest of the nations. Part of this requires they be “clean”, meaning function in a way both individually and corporately that permits Yahweh’s presence to live among them (although He makes provision for the inevitable failure in this with the sacrifices and Day of Atonement from Leviticus 16).
At the opening of this chapter we re-engage with the removal of unclean folk from the camp lest they pollute it. In some cases this is a physical risk (skin disease and the like) but in all cases it is a spiritual issue that puts the community at risk if there folk in an unclean state intentionally walking about and potentially interacting with the holy things of Yahweh. Ultimately, if the tabernacle is defiled, God’s presence would not remain there, removing the very thing that made the Israelites special.
As noted in Leviticus, many of the things that marked someone as unclean are temporary conditions. In this chapter, the presence of the skin disease and uncleanness from touching a corpse are both situations that can/will resolve over time where the person can be reinstated into society. So, this measure is preventative. As the unclean folks are removed from the camp, it minimizes the risk that they bring danger to themselves or others in the camp. Once clean, they can return.
The next holiness item is related to folks who commit an offense against a fellow member of the community. Although this kind of thing is covered in Leviticus 5-6, note here that an offense against another member of the community is also considered an “offense to the Lord”. Even sins, or wrongdoing, between people is ultimately a sin against God (think of it broadly as a breach with acting in line with the holiness of Yahweh and reflecting His character in your dealings with others).
The consequence is to provide restitution to who you wronged, plus add a fifth. If that person is dead, you find their next of kin and pay it to them. If everyone is dead who is related to this person, then the restitution goes to the Lord (who the offense was truly against) who gives it to the priest. Broad point is, the wrong you begat into the world requires restitution and it must be paid, there’s no getting off the hook because the person is dead or even if all of their family is dead. Them being dead doesn’t wipe the slate.
Often times our sense of restitution is one of appearances. If no one knows, nothing is owed. If the person is around to be paid, nothing is owed. But walking in step with YHWH we must recognize that the ledger board isn’t dependent upon the wherewithal of your neighbor or the perception of your cousin (or whomever you have wronged who is oblivious to that fact). There is no such thing as “getting away with it”. Although as the guilty party you could see this as an overarching God keeping tabs on your wrongs, but you would be wrong. This is what we’d expect from a God of justice, one who makes things right. For one, He must consistently recognize that which is wrong and demand restitution. And ultimately, when it is beyond our means to pay, He will step in on our behalf.
The chapter ends with an often misunderstood situation related to suspected adultery. Recall from Leviticus chapter 20 that folks guilty of adultery were to be put to death. But what of a situation where they weren’t caught but adultery is suspected? This is risky business, as a woman suspected of adultery runs the risk of this punishment where the facts are not fully known. So, as we saw in other situations from Leviticus where the truth could not be fully established, the situation is put into the hands of the Lord. The woman basically affirms that she is going to drink this water mixture and that, if she is guilty, it will have its effect in not allowing her to conceive. If she is innocent, she shall not have this effect (and later rabbis would even say she would be blessed by the concoction). It’s worth noting that the substance we’re talking about here is a mixture of water and dust from the front of the altar. It might taste bad, but isn’t particularly harmful on its own. Thus, we have a clear call that, if something is amiss, God will have to produce the consequences.
Don’t overcrank on the process (there’s no magic or wizardry involved with the mixture). And we should also recognize that there isn’t enough detail here to create a theology around the process itself. The notion is that, rather than letting suspected sin remain in the camp and put folks at risk, and to also protect on the other side those who are innocent from overzealous reactions, it gets put into the hands of God to deal with. The actual drinking of the water puts a stake in the ground where the suspicion of guilt could be put to rest (or confirmed) at that moment.
Why no test for a suspected male adulterer? The lack of example here doesn’t preclude that there could have been one (as is often the case where we see a single gender example provided). It should also be assumed that the suspicion of the woman also means that there is a suspicion of a particular man on the other side of the problem. Where this test proves the guilt of the woman, the associated fella would then be put to death.
As in the original discussion with the death penalty and adultery in Leviticus, our modern ears struggle with the veracity of the punishment. However, marital faithfulness is often the comparison to the faithfulness between Yahweh and His people. The integrity of these covenant relationships are central to our understanding of God’s faithfulness to us and, although sometimes foreign to our modern cultural views of marriage, the consequences of lack of faithfulness are deep and significant.