Numbers 15

PART THIRD.

PENAL WANDERINGS.

CHAPTERS 15-19. [Time, thirty-seven and a half years.]

Only a very few glimpses are afforded of the history of the next thirty-seven years; but, few though they be, they throw interesting light on the wilderness life. Such is the account of the blasphemy of THE NAME by a Hebrew-Egyptian, and the case of sabbath-breaking, and the capital punishment which was inflicted in each case. This sufficiently proves that, though under the divine ban, the nation had not thrown off the divine law. The sad history of the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram indicates that the great revolution which had substituted the priesthood of Aaron and the services of the Levites for those of the firstborn sons had not been effected without opposition. The triumph of the new constitution, at the cost of nearly 15,000 smitten by the divinely sent plague, so firmly established the rights of the tribe of Levi that they were ever after unchallenged.

ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION.

“For the purpose of reviving the hopes of the new generation that was growing up, and directing their minds to the promised land during the mournful and barren time when judgment was being executed upon the race that had been condemned, Jehovah communicated various laws through Moses concerning the presentation of sacrifices in the land that he should give them, whereby the former laws of sacrifice were supplemented and completed.” Keil.

This accounts for the sudden transition from the history at a point of intense interest to the details of legislation. For, as Baumgarten well remarks, “the fighting men of Israel had fallen under the judgment of Jehovah, and the sacred history, therefore, was no longer concerned with them; while the youth, in whom the life and hope of Israel were preserved, had as yet no history at all.” For the bearing of this intermingling of the narrative with the giving of laws on the authenticity of the record, see Introduction, (1.)

CONCLUDING NOTES.

(1.) In The Symbology of the Mosaic Cultus, by Dr. Baehr, a work of profound and varied merit, it is much to be lamented that some points which are vital to orthodoxy, and especially dear to the evangelical Church, have been so erroneously treated. He denies that the bloody offerings in the atonement are a substitute for penalty, notwithstanding the literal meaning of the word, (see Numbers 15:25, note,) the solemn rite of the imposition of hands upon the head of the victim, transferring the sin of the offerer, (Leviticus 1:4, note,) the explicit declaration in the locus classicus of the atonement “for your souls,” (Leviticus 17:11, see note,) and especially the concurrent interpretation of the vast majority of bothJewish and Christian scholars. According to Baehr the offerer formally relinquishes his ownership of the victim, and in the presentation of its blood or life indicates that his natural or selfish life is given away or dies. And this symbolical character merely he would in like manner attribute to the sacrifice of Christ. To sustain this theory Baehr elaborates a long argument to show that the Mosaic offerings had no regard to moral evil or sin, but only to ceremonial defilement. To this we answer in brief: (1.) That the very name of the SIN offering, chattath, properly sin, points very directly and distinctly to its design. (2.) The distinction between moral transgressions and ceremonial offences, or “violations of the positive-religious law,” was entirely unknown to the Hebrews. We are able, in the light of the Gospel, to eliminate the transient and national from the permanent and universal in Mosaism, but the Israelites could make no such distinction. To him not only were theft and idolatry immoralities, but also image worship, neglect of circumcision, and eating swine’s flesh. (3.) In this chapter, (Numbers 15:22-24,) the canon of the sin offering, it is stated with great distinctness that for the undesigned transgressions of “any one of the commands which Jehovah spake to Moses, even all that Jehovah hath commanded,” the atonement by means of the sin offering was both available and necessary. See Leviticus 4:0, notes. (4.) The asham, or trespass offering, expressly relates to offences of a purely moral nature, such as the embezzlement of another’s property, the denying of a thing found by lying and false swearing. Leviticus 6:1-7, notes. Fallacious, indeed, is the argument advanced by Baehr in support of his restrictive view. He urges the circumstance that both the selection of the animal and the divers applications of the blood depended not on the magnitude of the sin, but on the ceremonial standing of the offerer. See Leviticus 4:3; Leviticus 4:14; Leviticus 4:23; Leviticus 4:28; Leviticus 4:32, and concluding note, (4.) “From this results,” says Baehr, “the important conclusion: If the theocratic standing of an individual was the determining rule for the sin offering, then must the sin have a theocratic character; that is, it must be a violation not of the universal, moral laws, but of the positive-religious law which was given to the people of Israel.” From the same premises we may justly infer that if the sin makes no difference, but only the person sinning, it follows that this offering was of universal application and available to all except presumptuous sins. Baehr’s restriction of the sacrifices to outward observances, excluding immoralities, is a grave error.

(2.) That the expiatory sacrifices of the Old Testament were in their nature vicarious is shown by the following considerations: (1.) The idea of the substitution of a sacrificed animal for the guilty prevailed in all ancient nations. (2.) In some instances among the Jews the death of men was considered vicarious; (2 Samuel 12:14; 2 Samuel 24:10-17; Isaiah 53:4; Daniel 11:35;) allied to this is a substitution by means of animals. (3.) The altar ritual favours this view; only in the expiatory sacrifices is the animal unclean. Exodus 29:14; Leviticus 4:11-12; Leviticus 4:21; Leviticus 6:27-28; Leviticus 16:28. The remains were burned without the camp because “it is a sin-offering.” (4.) Substitution may be inferred from Leviticus 17:14, where the blood is called an atonement, “because the life is in the blood.” (5.) In Deuteronomy 21:1-9, the guilt is chargeable upon the whole people, if it be not known who slew the man; and by the washing of the hands the guilt is transferred to the sacrifice. (6.) The noun כפר , kopher, ransom, or price of expiation, would lead us to infer that the verb כפר , kipper, expiate, includes the idea of substitution. (7.) The solemn rites of the yearly day of atonement, in which one goat was killed as a sin offering and the other was sent away into the wilderness, teach substitution most impressively. Leviticus 16:0, notes.