Numbers Chapter 5
Separating from Sin
A. Separation from the Effects of Sin
Numbers 5:1–2
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Command the children of Israel that they put out of the camp every leper, everyone who has a discharge, and whoever becomes defiled by a corpse.”
The Lord’s command to Moses opens this section with divine authority, establishing the seriousness of the matter. This phrase, “And the Lord spoke to Moses,” appears three times in this chapter (verses 1, 5, and 11), marking three distinct divine instructions. Each repetition underscores several important truths. First, it affirms that Moses was a true prophet of God, receiving revelation directly from Him. Second, it shows that the commands given were not private or mystical secrets but were to be communicated clearly to the entire nation. Third, it demonstrates that God’s words are commands, not suggestions, and therefore demand obedience.
God commanded Israel to separate those who were ceremonially unclean as they prepared to journey toward the Promised Land. This included lepers, those with bodily discharges, and any who became defiled by touching a corpse. The laws for these conditions had already been established in the book of Leviticus. The leper represents the various skin diseases addressed in Leviticus 13, while those with discharges were covered under Leviticus 15. Priests who touched a dead body, except for a close relative, were made unclean as stated in Leviticus 21:1. What God had previously legislated was now to be practiced.
This act of separation also had a practical component. As Adam Clarke observed, this ordinance likely inspired the concept of hospitals—places where those afflicted with contagious conditions could be isolated and treated. Gordon Wenham further noted that the command likely referred to long-term discharges requiring sacrifices upon healing, rather than short-term conditions. Moreover, as R. Allen explained, the corpse was the ultimate symbol of defilement in Israel, representing decay and death, the most visible consequence of sin. Physical contact with death was not merely symbolic of uncleanness but could also pose real physical danger.
However, it is crucial to note that these physical conditions did not automatically make someone a great sinner. Rather, they served as constant reminders of sin’s corruption and the brokenness of the human condition. Leprosy, discharges, and death all point to the effects of the fall. Just as leprosy is not chosen but inherited, so humanity inherits its sin nature from Adam. We may choose our individual sins, but the root condition was inherited at birth.
As Israel moved forward, organized and ordered under God’s command, they were called not merely to structure but to sanctity. They were to become a holy community that valued purity. God’s goal was to form a “Promised Land people,” meaning a people who were purified, set apart, and ready for His presence.
Numbers 5:3–4
“You shall put out both male and female; you shall put them outside the camp, that they may not defile their camps in the midst of which I dwell.” And the children of Israel did so, and put them outside the camp; as the Lord spoke to Moses, so the children of Israel did.”
This command applied equally to both men and women. No gender distinction exempted anyone from separation due to uncleanness. G. Campbell Morgan pointed out that this did not mean the unclean were left behind to perish but simply that they were temporarily removed from their assigned tribal positions within the camp. Sin’s effects touch all humanity equally, regardless of status, gender, or strength.
The central reason for this command is explicitly stated: “in the midst of which I dwell.” God’s holy presence resided among His people, and that demanded holiness in return. As Allen noted, the driving concern of Israel’s purity laws was not superstition, health, or ritual magic, but the fact that Yahweh Himself dwelt among them. There could be no uncleanness where God lived. The statement, “I am dwelling in their midst,” is the theological heartbeat of this passage.
God’s concern extends beyond the external acts of sin to the very nature of sin within us. The Lord not only wants our behavior purified but our nature transformed. This transformation comes only through Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul wrote that our “old man” must be crucified, that the body of sin might be destroyed (Romans 6:6). Only through faith in Christ can we receive a new nature—“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17). God does not commune with the old man of sin, but with the new man created in righteousness and true holiness.
To live as a “Promised Land person” means that sin and its effects are being dealt with in one’s life. Such a person is not sinlessly perfect, yet they do not live in open rebellion or in the dominance of the sin nature. The Israelites’ physical separation of the unclean symbolized the believer’s spiritual separation from the works of the flesh.
Finally, the passage points forward prophetically to the New Jerusalem, where ultimate purity will dwell. “But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.” (Revelation 21:27). The camp of Israel was a shadow of this future reality—God dwelling among a people fully purified, forever separated from sin and its effects.
B. Separation from the Damage Our Sin Does
Numbers 5:5–7
Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel: ‘When a man or woman commits any sin that men commit in unfaithfulness against the Lord, and that person is guilty, then he shall confess the sin which he has committed. He shall make restitution for his trespass in full, plus one-fifth of it, and give it to the one he has wronged.”
Once again, the command begins with divine authority: “Then the Lord spoke to Moses.” This repetition throughout the chapter reminds the reader that all of these laws come directly from God, not from human invention or cultural custom. Here, the subject turns to moral offenses that cause damage to others. The focus is not ceremonial defilement but relational and ethical wrongdoing. When a man or woman commits sin against another person, that sin is also considered an act of “unfaithfulness against the Lord.” Every moral transgression against another human being is ultimately rebellion against the divine standard of righteousness.
This specific command likely addressed breaches of trust, contracts, or agreements between individuals—situations where one party acted deceitfully or failed to uphold their word. Though such sin may appear to be only between two people, Scripture makes clear that it is also against God. David acknowledged this when he said, “Against You, You only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Your sight” (Psalm 51:4). Every violation of human trust offends the holiness of God.
When guilt was established—“and that person is guilty”—the law required confession. The first step in restoration was an honest acknowledgment of wrongdoing. Confession is not merely an admission of guilt but an alignment with truth, recognizing sin as God defines it. It was to be made both before the Lord and within the community, affirming that sin had corporate effects.
The next command, “He shall make restitution for his trespass in full,” emphasizes that repentance must produce tangible fruit. Verbal confession was not enough; it had to be accompanied by corrective action. God’s justice required that the wronged party be compensated. Imprisonment was not prescribed; rather, full repayment was required to restore balance and harmony within the nation. This principle is consistent with the laws in Leviticus 5:14–6:7, where similar restitution was mandated for sins against both God and man.
As Gordon Wenham noted, the practical importance of this law was immense. Israel was preparing to march as a unified army toward the Promised Land. Internal conflict, dishonesty, and unresolved offenses would have fractured the nation. Through restitution and sacrifice, both peace with God and harmony among the people were preserved.
The guilty party was also commanded to add “one-fifth” (a 20% penalty) to the restitution. This ensured that the offender paid more than was taken, demonstrating true repentance and discouraging future wrongdoing. Adam Clarke rightly observed that without restitution, one could not expect forgiveness from a holy and just God. To cling to stolen property while asking for mercy would mock divine justice. Therefore, God demanded that repentance include both confession and correction.
Numbers 5:8
“But if the man has no relative to whom restitution may be made for the wrong, the restitution for the wrong must go to the Lord for the priest, in addition to the ram of the atonement with which atonement is made for him.”
The Lord accounted even for cases where restitution could not be made directly because the injured party had died or had no surviving relatives. In such cases, repayment was not canceled but redirected. The guilty party was to bring the full amount owed, including the additional fifth, to the priest as a payment to the Lord. This demonstrated that restitution was not optional—it was an act of repentance owed ultimately to God, not merely to man.
The word “relative” here is the Hebrew term goel, translated “kinsman-redeemer.” The goel was a close family protector responsible for defending family rights and restoring what was lost, as seen in Ruth 4:3–6. The use of this term connects restitution with redemption: sin caused loss, and restitution restored what was broken.
If no goel existed, the restitution was “for the Lord,” yet the payment was physically given to the priest, who acted as the Lord’s representative. As John Trapp wrote, “The priest is the Lord’s receiver. Tithes are due to the ministers of Christ ‘that liveth,’ because due to Him, and they are in His stead.” This demonstrated that reconciliation with God always involved the priestly mediation of atonement, pointing ultimately to Christ, our great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14–16).
The verse concludes with the mention of “the ram of the atonement,” recalling the guilt offering described in Leviticus 5:14–6:7. This sacrifice symbolized the restoration of fellowship between God and man. The offender not only repaid what was lost but also approached God through the blood of the atoning sacrifice. In this way, restitution and atonement were inseparable.
Through this law, God taught Israel that sin always brings damage—to others, to ourselves, and to our relationship with Him. True repentance is not merely sorrow for wrongdoing; it is a deliberate act to repair the damage sin has caused, restoring both divine and human fellowship.
3. The Right of Every Israelite to Partake of the Offerings He Brought
Numbers 5:9–10
“Every offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel, which they bring to the priest, shall be his. And every man’s holy things shall be his; whatever any man gives the priest shall be his.”
After the instructions on separation from uncleanness and restitution for wrongdoing, the Lord now addressed a principle of fairness and fellowship within Israel’s system of worship. Every offering presented to the Lord had a designated purpose and benefit. While some sacrifices were entirely consumed by fire upon the altar, others—such as the peace offerings—were shared between the priest, the worshipper, and the Lord. In this way, the people themselves partook in a meal of fellowship before God.
The Lord declared that “Every offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel, which they bring to the priest, shall be his.” This statement affirmed the priest’s right to a portion of certain sacrifices, as prescribed in Leviticus 3 and Leviticus 7:28–36. The priest’s portion was not a tax or fee, but a divinely appointed provision for those who ministered before the Lord. As the tribe of Levi received no land inheritance among the other tribes (Numbers 18:20–21), these portions sustained them and their families as they performed the work of the tabernacle.
Yet, the second statement balances this: “And every man’s holy things shall be his.” This reminded all Israel that the one who brought the offering retained the right to partake of what was lawfully his. For instance, in a peace offering, after the fat and certain portions were burned to the Lord and the priest received his part, the remainder returned to the worshipper. He and his family were to eat it as a sacred meal, rejoicing before God in gratitude and fellowship. This ensured that worship did not belong only to the priesthood, but involved the whole nation in communion with the Lord.
This command protected the worshipper from exploitation. The priest could not seize the people’s portion for himself, and the king could not impose a tax upon what was holy. The act of sacrifice was to remain personal, holy, and joyful, a voluntary act of devotion between the individual and God. It guaranteed that each Israelite could enjoy direct fellowship with the Lord through their offering.
Spiritually, this principle reflects the heart of God’s intention behind the entire chapter. The commands concerning separation from uncleanness and restitution for wrongdoing were not about exclusion but restoration. God desired that His people live in holiness so that they might enjoy unhindered fellowship with Him. Purity was not an end in itself; it was a means to relationship.
As Jesus taught in Matthew 5:8, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” The ultimate goal of holiness is fellowship with God Himself. Sin separates, but purity restores communion. By ensuring that every man’s holy things remained his, God symbolically affirmed that His people could personally partake in His presence.
This instruction closed the section on separation from sin with a beautiful reminder: holiness is not about restriction but about access—access to fellowship, to peace, and to joy in the presence of a holy God.
C. Separation from the Suspicion of Sin: The Law of Jealousy
Numbers 5:11–14
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, and a man lies with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is concealed that she has defiled herself, and there was no witness against her, nor was she caught—if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he becomes jealous of his wife, who has defiled herself—or if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he becomes jealous of his wife, although she has not defiled herself.”
The Lord introduced a remarkable law to address the painful reality of suspicion within marriage. This law concerned what is called “the spirit of jealousy,” referring to a husband’s strong feeling that his wife may have been unfaithful. It was a unique safeguard given to Israel to protect both marriage and justice.
Marriage rests on the foundation of faithfulness, and thus jealousy in that context—when based on fidelity—is natural and even just. However, jealousy can also be unfounded, irrational, and destructive. God’s law here provided a divine means to determine truth, protecting both parties.
As Matthew Poole noted, “This law was given partly to deter wives from adulterous practices, and partly to secure wives against the rage of their hard-hearted husbands, who otherwise might upon mere suspicions destroy them, or at least put them away.” This preserved the sanctity of marriage from both sin and wrongful accusation.
The passage describes two possibilities: the husband’s jealousy might be justified (“she has defiled herself”), or it might be baseless (“although she has not defiled herself”). Either way, God provided a formal, priestly procedure to determine guilt or innocence, thus restoring peace to the household and preventing ongoing suspicion.
Human intuition may detect unfaithfulness through subtle signs, but such impressions are not infallible. False accusations can be as destructive as genuine adultery. Therefore, God instituted a ceremonial investigation—a process that involved His divine judgment—to expose guilt or confirm innocence. The Lord’s desire was not to see homes torn apart by suspicion but to bring final resolution where doubt existed.
Notably, this law addressed the case of an accused wife, but that does not imply that only women could be unfaithful. The Mosaic Law functioned as case law, illustrating principles that could be applied broadly. While this text focuses on the wife’s suspected infidelity, the same principle of investigation and divine justice would apply to a husband under suspicion.
R. Allen points out a striking contrast between this divinely ordered test and the pagan practice recorded in the Code of Hammurabi. Among the Babylonians, a suspected woman was forced to leap into the Euphrates River—if she drowned, she was presumed guilty; if she survived, innocent. God’s law, by contrast, involved no barbaric or superstitious ordeal. It was controlled, sacred, and governed by priestly oversight. God’s method sought truth without cruelty, emphasizing His justice and mercy.
Numbers 5:15
“Then the man shall bring his wife to the priest. He shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, because it is a grain offering of jealousy, an offering for remembering, for bringing iniquity to remembrance.”
The jealous husband was required to bring his wife before the priest, not to act upon personal rage or suspicion. This law took the matter out of private hands and placed it under divine authority. The husband could not take justice into his own hands; he had to submit the issue before God’s representative. This prevented the violent retribution common in ancient cultures where “honor killings” or divorce on mere suspicion were accepted norms.
In this way, the law actually protected women from false or impulsive accusations. The seriousness of the ceremony discouraged trivial or vindictive claims. The husband had to prepare an offering and approach the priest, signifying that he himself was accountable before God in this process.
The offering consisted of “one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal.” Barley, considered an inferior grain compared to wheat, symbolized the gravity and sorrow of the situation. This was not a joyful or sweet-smelling offering. It was intentionally plain—no oil was poured on it, and no frankincense added. Oil and frankincense represented joy and acceptance; their absence communicated grief, tension, and the bitter reality of mistrust.
The text calls this offering “a grain offering of jealousy, an offering for remembering, for bringing iniquity to remembrance.” This did not mean the ceremony was designed to make the wife “remember” a forgotten sin. Instead, it was a solemn communal reminder of how seriously God regarded both adultery and false accusation. Sin—whether unfaithfulness or slander—cannot remain hidden; it must be brought to remembrance and judged righteously.
Through this procedure, God demonstrated that suspicion, like sin, must not linger unresolved within His covenant people. Suspicion corrodes love, unity, and fellowship; thus, even jealousy had to be purified in His presence. This law of jealousy revealed God’s holiness and His care for the sanctity of marriage, ensuring that truth and justice prevailed under His watchful eye.
3. The Ceremony of the Offering to Fulfill the Law of Jealousy
Numbers 5:16–28
“And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord. The priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. Then the priest shall stand the woman before the Lord, uncover the woman’s head, and put the offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse. And the priest shall put her under oath, and say to the woman, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray to uncleanness while under your husband’s authority, be free from this bitter water that brings a curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband’s authority, and if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has lain with you’—then the priest shall put the woman under the oath of the curse, and he shall say to the woman—‘the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh rot and your belly swell; and may this water that causes the curse go into your stomach, and make your belly swell and your thigh rot.’ Then the woman shall say, ‘Amen, so be it.’ Then the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall scrape them off into the bitter water. And he shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter her to become bitter. Then the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy from the woman’s hand, shall wave the offering before the Lord, and bring it to the altar; and the priest shall take a handful of the offering, as its memorial portion, burn it on the altar, and afterward make the woman drink the water. When he has made her drink the water, then it shall be, if she has defiled herself and behaved unfaithfully toward her husband, that the water that brings a curse will enter her and become bitter, and her belly will swell, her thigh will rot, and the woman will become a curse among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself, and is clean, then she shall be free and may conceive children.”
This extraordinary passage details the ceremonial procedure by which God Himself would determine the truth of an accusation of adultery in a marriage. The process was sacred, controlled, and divinely supervised. The priest acted as God’s representative, ensuring that justice and mercy were both upheld.
The ceremony began when “the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord.” The accused woman stood before God, not merely before man. This scene underscores that all sin—even the suspicion of sin—ultimately stands before divine judgment. The priest took “holy water in an earthen vessel” and added to it “dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle.” The use of holy water symbolized purity, while the earthen vessel reflected human frailty. The dust, taken from the sacred floor of the tabernacle, reminded the people of man’s humble origin—“For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.” (Genesis 3:19). This dust mingled with the water formed the bitter mixture known as “the bitter water that brings a curse.”
The woman’s head was “uncovered,” or literally, her hair was loosened. This act was a sign of shame and vulnerability, publicly symbolizing that she was under examination before the Lord. As Gordon Wenham observed, “The unbinding of the woman’s hair is another hint that she was viewed as unclean. Lepers had to let their hair hang loose as a mark of their uncleanness.” The unbound hair thus declared that the woman stood stripped of pretense, subject to divine scrutiny.
The priest then placed “the grain offering of jealousy” in the woman’s hands—a solemn reminder of the bond between man, woman, and God. The offering was one of remembrance, symbolizing that God was bringing hidden things to light. The priest, holding the bitter water, then placed the woman under oath. He pronounced: if she was innocent, she would be free from harm; but if she was guilty, the water would bring divine judgment upon her.
The text calls the drink “the bitter water that brings a curse.” R. Allen noted that this phrase could also mean “the curse-bringing water of bitterness.” It was not that the water was simply bitter to taste; it symbolized a curse with power to reveal guilt. The physical effect of the curse is described in symbolic language—“the Lord make your thigh rot and your belly swell.” The “thigh” here was a euphemism for the womb, indicating that her reproductive organs would waste away as a sign of her guilt.
After the oath, the woman was required to respond: “Amen, so be it.” She agreed to the terms, accepting God’s verdict, whatever it might be. This act of verbal consent made the test voluntary in a legal sense; she willingly placed herself under God’s examination. The case could not end with ambiguity—guilt or innocence would be revealed, and both outcomes carried serious implications.
Next, “the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall scrape them off into the bitter water.” The written curse, once dissolved into the water, became part of the test itself. The ink—mixed with the dust from God’s dwelling—made the water bitter both physically and symbolically. The drink now represented the combination of God’s holiness and His curse upon sin. As the woman drank it, she symbolically partook of the consequences of sin’s exposure before a holy God. Wenham noted that early Jewish interpreters compared this to the episode of the golden calf, when Moses made Israel drink water containing the ground-up idol, symbolizing judgment upon their unfaithfulness (Exodus 32:20).
Afterward, the priest took the grain offering, waved it before the Lord, and burned a memorial portion on the altar, symbolizing the plea for divine justice. The woman then drank the water. If she were guilty, divine retribution would manifest through visible signs—her belly would swell, her womb would decay, and she would become a living curse among her people. But if she were innocent, she would remain unharmed and even be blessed with fertility—“she shall be free and may conceive children.”
Importantly, this law ensured that punishment was not in the hands of the husband or community, but in the hands of God alone. No man could condemn or harm the woman without divine confirmation. If guilty, she suffered under God’s judgment; if innocent, she was publicly vindicated and restored. Adam Clarke recorded that some rabbis taught that if the adulterous man still lived, he would also suffer the same disease. They also noted that if the husband himself was guilty of adultery, the water would not harm the woman at all. This underscores that divine judgment is perfectly righteous—God does not punish hypocritically.
This ceremony’s power depended on divine intervention. There was nothing inherently poisonous in the water; the test was entirely in God’s hands. Its existence served as a powerful deterrent against adultery and false accusation alike. It made public the seriousness of hidden sin and reinforced God’s holiness before all Israel.
Finally, this law reminds us of a deeper spiritual truth. Every sinner stands guilty before a holy God and deserves to drink the cup of judgment. Yet, in mercy, Christ drank that bitter cup for us. As He prayed in Gethsemane, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” (Matthew 26:39). Jesus bore the curse we deserved so that we might be freed from condemnation and restored to fellowship with God.
4. Conclusion to the Law of Jealousy
Numbers 5:29–31
“This is the law of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, or when the spirit of jealousy comes upon a man, and he becomes jealous of his wife; then he shall stand the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall execute all this law upon her. Then the man shall be free from iniquity, but that woman shall bear her guilt.”
This closing section summarizes the purpose and significance of the law of jealousy. It was a divine provision to bring resolution and peace to a household torn by suspicion. When jealousy arose within a marriage, there was to be no lingering uncertainty or hidden resentment. The matter had to be settled before the Lord. If the wife was guilty, the judgment of God would reveal it; if she was innocent, her vindication would remove the burden of suspicion from the marriage.
The phrase “This is the law of jealousy” underscores that this was not merely a social custom or human institution, but a divinely appointed ordinance for the protection of marriage—the foundational relationship in all society. God values purity, fidelity, and trust between husband and wife, and therefore He established this solemn procedure to preserve these virtues.
G. Campbell Morgan aptly noted, “The very fact of these instructions shows how important it is, in the mind of God, that, in the interest of true national strength, family life should be maintained at its strongest and purest.” The strength of Israel as a nation depended on the moral and spiritual integrity of its families. A nation corrupted in its homes will inevitably fall in its character, and thus the Lord gave a safeguard to uphold righteousness in the most intimate bond between man and woman.
The law concluded that “the priest shall execute all this law upon her.” This ensured that the matter was handled impartially and under divine oversight. The husband was not permitted to act as judge, jury, or executioner. Justice belonged to God, and the priest served only as His representative. This protected both husband and wife—the husband from false accusation of cruelty or rash action, and the wife from injustice or violence.
Finally, Scripture states, “Then the man shall be free from iniquity, but that woman shall bear her guilt.” The husband, having followed the divine procedure, was released from any blame in bringing the matter before the Lord. His conscience was cleared, whether or not his suspicion proved accurate. The woman, if guilty, bore her own guilt—there was no scapegoat, no shifting of responsibility, and no escape from divine justice. Yet if she was innocent, she was publicly vindicated, restoring peace and honor to her home.
This law may appear foreign to modern readers, but its principles remain timeless. God desires purity, honesty, and trust in the marriage covenant. Suspicion, like sin itself, destroys intimacy and corrodes faith. Therefore, the Lord designed a process of resolution to remove the poison of jealousy and restore fellowship under His authority.
Spiritually, this passage illustrates a broader truth: God’s desire to bring hidden things into the light. As it is written, “For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil.” (Ecclesiastes 12:14). Nothing escapes His sight. The law of jealousy, then, was not merely about marriage—it was a demonstration of God’s holiness and His justice in revealing truth, purging sin, and restoring what was broken.
