Sanctification requires Separation as the Israelites were finding out.

Numbers Chapter 5: Sanctification of Israel through 3 Forms of Separation

Numbers 5:1-10 Separation of Unclean Persons and Separation in Restitution for Sin

Day 39 of self-isolation. Checked the Covid-19 worldwide stats today. Deaths to settled cases is at 19.5%; Recoveries to all cases is at 28.6%; and Deaths to all cases is at 6.9%. Still high in the first and third stat; and still low in the second stat. The good news is they seem to be going in the right direction, but that can change tomorrow. In the meantime, we press on, taking every opportunity to work on deciphering the book of Numbers for us non-theological types.  Thanks for joining me.

The Passage

In verses 1-4 God tells Moses to have the sons of Israel send away from the camp every leper and everyone having a discharge or is unclean because of a dead person. Males and females were treated alike. They weren’t allowed to defile the camp where God dwelled.

In verses 5-10 God tells Moses that when a man or woman commits any sin of mankind, against the Lord, the guilty person must confess their sin and make restitution in full, and add 20%, giving it to the person that was wronged, or if they are dead to one of their kin, or if there is no kin, to the Lord for the priest. And in there, the last two verses talk about every Israelite’s right to partake of the offerings that he has brought to the tabernacle (for whatever reason).

Thoughts on the Passage

This chapter is the first of six that deals with Israel’s sanctification. Sanctification is very well explained here by BibleStudyTools. It is worth looking up as some excellent background to what we are about to learn. The bottom line is that one is sanctified, by being used for what its creator intended it to be used for.  God had a purpose for Israel, and she needed to be set aside for that purpose. In order to do so, God had to make sure she was ‘sanctified’ and separated from certain things. Chapter 5 covers three of them. Here we discuss the first two leaving the third one for next time.

As tough as sending defiled people outside of the camp sounds, we need to keep in mind that God wanted a totally ‘clean’ camp for Him to dwell and for His people to live in. And also remember that God made provisions for how those put outside the camp because of their uncleanliness could possibly be restored. But the key idea here that needed to be understood by the Israelites then and by us today is that God wants a “clean house”.  [At the risk of being political, it reminds me a little of what America has been experiencing the last few years as those in charge are trying (not always succeeding) to clean the political “swamp”.]

Let us also remember that with respect to our passage, God is God and we need to understand that He has the right to do things or want things done His way. On the other hand, David Guzik quotes Clarke as suggesting that this action may have been the original idea giving rise to the concept of a hospital.

Matthew Henry suggests that this passage is a clear message to those who govern a church today. He writes: “They must separate between the precious and the vile, and purge out scandalous persons, as old leaven (1 Cor. 5:8,13), lest others should be infected and defiled, Heb. 12:15. It is for the glory of Christ and the edification of his church that those who are openly and incorrigibly profane and vicious should be put out and kept from Christian communion till they repent.”

Henry also says that this is indicative of what “God Himself will do in the great day: he will thoroughly purge His floor and gather out of his kingdom all things that offend. As here the unclean were shut out of the camp, so into the new Jerusalem no unclean thing shall enter, Rev. 21.:27.

I like the way Robert Jamieson puts it: “And this vigilant care to maintain external cleanliness in the people was typically designed to teach them the practice of moral purity, or cleansing themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit.”

In the second portion of the chapter we see that sin requires confession and restitution.  Confession of one’s sin may be sufficient for a young child caught by his mother or father in stealing from the cookie jar. But that is not the way society works.  You can confess you cheated from you employer, but you also have to either return the money, lose your job, or go to prison – and often, any two or three of the options. In the is passage, God says if you sin, you have to confess and make whole the person you sinned against, and then add 20% more.  (You will remember this is based on the value of things as determined in earlier passages.)

Finally, in verses 9 and 10, we see that God intended that every Israelite have he right to partake of the offerings he brought to the priest, regardless of reason.  This is parallel to what we studied in Leviticus 3 regarding certain offerings. Guzik suggests that this is symbolic of an open door for fellowship with the Lord, once restitution has been made – neither the priest could take that away, nor a king tax it away.

I thought it strange that God should stick these two verses in the midst of a chapter on separation, but herein says Guzik, “God therefore reminds Israel of the purpose of this separation – fellowship with God. This, ultimately, is the reason to pursue purity: Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God (Matthew 5:8). I would add, since we’re discussing separation in the context of sanctification that we cannot be used by God as He originally intended for us to be used unless we are in fellowship with Him.

So today we ask ourselves if we have removed all uncleanliness from our camp, our lives? And have we confessed to God all our sins and made restitution for them as appropriate. There’s more to come before our own sanctification is completed – but we can’t get too far without these two steps being in order.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Returning Goods Damaged -- Exodus 22:10-13:

“If a man gives his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep for him, and it dies or is hurt or is driven away while no one is looking, an oath before the Lord shall be made by the two of them, that he has not laid hands on his neighbor’s property; and its owner shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution.  But if it is actually stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.  If it is all torn to pieces, let him bring it as evidence; he shall not make restitution for what has been torn to pieces.”

  

This passage is also about the case of asking people to safeguard something for you and then the item is lost, damaged, or stolen from them.  It then becomes your word versus their word.  So God calls for an oath to be made before Him by each of you – both the person under whose care the item was when lost, stolen, or damaged and the owner.  The former would be required to swear before God that he/she had nothing to do with the loss or damage.  The owner would then accept that as sufficient proof if the item was only lost or damaged and not demand to be repaid for the item.  However, if it were stolen from the person who was supposedly guarding it, he would have to pay for it.  God seems to be placing a high emphasis here on our human responsibility to safeguard the property of others, at least from being stolen.  We need to have taken the proper precautions to prevent theft.

One may ask why this is not the case if the property was simply lost or stolen?  The only thing that comes to mind is that in the passage before us, God was dealing with the turning over of animals to someone else’s care.  If we stick with that context, it becomes next to impossible for a person to prevent all the trouble that an animal could get into on its own and thus some grace is given to the one who was charged with safeguarding it.  The only condition where he/she would be responsible for an animal getting lost or damaged is if he/she willfully arranged for that to happen.

In today’s world, at least in North America, we tend to live our adult lives more self-sufficiently, seldom asking others to take care of our things.  As an example, even when going away, those who own dogs or cats often take them to a cat- or dog-sitting establishment rather than ask their neighbors or relatives to feed them or check in on them daily.   Secondly, it is not always the case when we do ask others to take care of our possessions that they are people who would make an oath before God.

In its context, one area this may apply today is when a farmer sends his/her cattle or other animals to market or to the stockyards.  These animals would be entrusted to the care of the transporter.  But again, today these lawful outfits would be well insured for the goods they transport.

In the days of Exodus, one could rely more on this oath from the other person.  But even then, the onus was on the owner to accept the oath made by the person under whose care the item was lost or damaged.  The owner had to trust in God that this was right and to accept the outcome.  Much more so today when sometimes we have to act alone in so many things, because the other person is not a believer – it becomes a personal matter of our own trust in God.

Finally, the passage speaks of the animal being “torn to pieces” in which case if the torn carcass can be presented to the owner, no restitution needs to be made or paid.  One would assume that this has nothing to do with the animal being stolen, but rather with the animal being killed by another animal, again without any willful intent of the person who was to safeguard it.  The fact that the remains are presented should be sufficient to free him/her of any guilt.

Here are Matthew Henry’s comments with respect to the “oath of the Lord”:

It is called an oath for the Lord (v. 11), because to him the appeal is made, not only as to a witness of truth, but as to an avenger of wrong and falsehood. Those that had offered injury to their neighbor by doing any unjust thing, yet, it might be hoped, had not so far debauched their consciences as to profane an oath of the Lord, and call the God of truth to be witness to a lie: perjury is a sin which natural conscience startles at as much as any other. The religion of an oath is very ancient, and a plain indication of the universal belief of a God, and a providence, and a judgment to come . . .. That there is no reason why a man should suffer for that which he could not help: masters should consider this, in dealing with their servants, and not rebuke that as a fault which was a mischance, and which they themselves, had they been in their servants' places, could not have prevented.

Two interesting points that Henry’s writing brings out.  First of all, the lesson here today may well be for employers with respect to their employees.  We cannot hold employees responsible for something that they could not have prevented.  And that includes the things that we had not properly instructed or trained them in.

Secondly, his writing about “the religion of an oath” as he calls it, causes us to consider that such religion, especially with its direct dependence on God, does not exist for many today.  One only needs to look at the oaths taken by many politicians, and their subsequent practices.

All to say, “entrusters beware”.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Dealing With Fires -- Exodus 22:6

-->
-->“If a fire breaks out and spreads to thorn bushes, so that stacked grain or the standing grain or the field itself is consumed, he who started the fire shall surely make restitution.”

I remember as a very young boy setting a hydro field on fire when my cousin and I tried to smoke our first cigarette.  We were not adept with matchbooks, and needless to say the fire spread through the tall dry summer grass, well, like ‘wildfire’ – exactly what it was.  We were scared as the field started to be consumed.  Fortunately the wind was blowing towards the road where the fire came to a natural extinction and not towards the ravine in the opposite direction.

We had started the fire for sure.  I cannot remember whether it was my cousin or I that actually dropped the culprit match, but it did not matter.  We had to pay restitution.  While the fire engine came with sirens blaring and the firefighters made sure everything was safe, my father came with a broom and I assure you it was not to put the fire out.  He must have thought our rears were burning because he certainly did his best, alternating swats at the posteriors of each of us, until we foolishly believed death by natural burning might have been easier to take.

The point in this verse is simple: What we do foolishly or in ignorance may well have a drastic result or consequence for others – their livelihoods or even their lives.  We are therefore to live our life carefully thinking out our actions before we do them.

Let me give you an example, albeit an insignificant one, but I believe the point will be made. Our grandchildren eat breakfast at our kitchen island counter.  Recently our nine year old was enjoying a full bowl of cereal at one end while his eleven-year-old sister was doing the same thing at the other.  He was sniffling and his sister asked him to blow his nose for she could not stand the noise that made.  He ignored her until she finally got up, went and got a recently opened box of tissues (thus still heavy) and slide it at him across the island hitting his bowl and forcing him to block, like a goalie in hockey, the bowl from crashing onto the floor at which point the consequences would have been obvious, not to mention that I would have blown up even more than I did.

Our granddaughter was trying to be helpful and did what she thought was appropriate.  But the way in which she did it and perhaps her attitude were not worthy of praise.  The consequences could have been pretty drastic on a morning when time is limited and one needs to head off to school.

David Guzik says the following on this verse:

This translates into a proper concern for the property of others today. A Christian, if he backs into someone else's car, will certainly leave a note and make good the damage. A Christian will have proper insurance, guaranteeing they can compensate for someone else's loss. If someone gives you something to hold for them you are responsible for it as a faithful steward or manager. This includes what God gives us to manage or steward for Him.

Matthew Henry adds:

If the fire did mischief, he that kindled it must answer for it, though it could not be proved that he designed the mischief. Men must suffer for their carelessness, as well as for their malice. We must take heed of beginning strife; for, though it seem but little, we know not how great a matter it may kindle, the blame of which we must bear, if, with the madman, we cast fire-brands, arrows, and death, and pretend we mean no harm. It will make us very careful of ourselves, if we consider that we are accountable, not only for the hurt we do, but for the hurt we occasion through inadvertency.

For all of the above, let us be careful to consider in advance the impact of all our actions and while we are at it, our words.

-->

- - 30 - -

 [Are you looking for a speaker at your church, your club, school, or organization? Ken is available to preach, teach, challenge, and/or motivate. Please contact us.]

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.  And while you’re here, why not check out some more of our recent blogs shown in the right hand column.  Ken.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

God’s Laws Regarding Theft -- Exodus 22:1-5

“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.  If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account.  But if the sun has risen on him, there will blood guiltiness on his account.  He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.  If what he stole is actually found alive in his possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.  If a man lets a field or vineyard be grazed bare and lets his animal loose so that it grazes in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.”

Exodus chapter 22 begins with laws on how those that are involved in various types of theft are to be treated. To begin with, contrary to what liberal minds may think, stealing is not a God-given right regardless of one’s circumstances.  Responding in forgiveness may well be encouraged, but the activity that initiates the need for forgiveness, is not.  The Bible calls for some restitution or repayment for theft.

We note in verse 1, that God calls for different amounts being paid as restitution for a stolen (and killed or sold) ox versus the amount paid for a stolen sheep.  Expositor John Gill (who preached in the same church as C. H. Spurgeon over one hundred years earlier) says this about the reason for the difference:

“ . . . because the one was more valuable than the other, as well as more useful, and also more easily stolen, and therefore the greater mulct or fine was laid upon the theft of it, to deter from it: the Targum of Jonathan expresses the reason of the law thus; five for oxen, because the theft of them hindered from ploughing, or made to cease from it; and for sheep but four, because there was trouble in the theft of them, and there was no tillage or agriculture by them: and Saadiah Gaon observes, that the damage that comes to the owner of the ox is more than that by a lamb, because with it, the ox, he ploughs, which is a creature that was used in those countries to be employed in that service, as well as in treading out the corn: Maimonides accounts for it thus:

“The restitution of the theft of oxen is increased by one, because the theft of them is easy; sheep are fed in flocks, and are easily kept and watched, and can scarcely be taken away by theft but in the night; but oxen are fed scattered here and there, and therefore cannot be so easily kept by the herdsmen; hence also their theft used to be more common:”

“Fourfold restitution was in use with the ancient Persians, with whom it was a rule,

“Whoever took any substance of another, in retaliation they took fourfold from him, and if he restored it, he gave fourfold of the same.''”

The text then turns to a matter of great debate of late.  What happens when the owner of the property kills the thief during his attempt to steal?  Or put another way, “do I as a guardian of my home and family, have the right to attack and perhaps kill an intruder in my home or on my property who is clearly stealing?”  I do not venture to answer the question from a legal standpoint – as I not a lawyer.  I will leave that to my friends.  But the Bible clearly states that in such a case, “there will be no blood guiltiness on his (the dead thief’s) account”.  John Gill explains it this way:

“There shall no blood be shed for him: as for a man that is murdered; for to kill a man when breaking into a house, and, by all appearance, with an intention to commit murder, if resisted, in defense of a man's self, his life and property, was not to be reckoned murder, and so not punishable with death: or, "no blood" shall be "unto him"; shall be imputed to him, the man that kills the thief shall not be chargeable with his blood, or suffer for shedding it; because his own life was risked, and it being at such a time, could call none to his assistance, nor easily discern the person, nor could know well where and whom he struck.”

This interpretation of the verse goes far into outlining some of the key considerations one must look at today in such cases, including: What would have been the intention of the thief if and when his/her action was resisted? Was anyone’s life at risk? Was other help available? Did the one that kill the thief know what he was doing? Etc.  (I am reminded of the case of Oscar Pistorius, the famous “Blade Runner” who is charged with killing his girlfriend in the bathroom because he thought the person in there was an intruder. He went to prison for five years at the end of 2014.)

Matthew Henry on the other hand, suggests the following on the interpretation of verse 2:

“He that does an unlawful act bears the blame of the mischief that follows to others, so likewise of that which follows to himself. A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril.”

But God’s rules on this now add another dimension – that of time of day.  If the attempt to steal took place during the day, the “blood guiltiness” referred to above would be paid by him (supposedly the owner of the property, or perhaps a servant) who killed him.  The idea is that we must be considerate of all life, even of those who we know or believe to be evil.  Our reparation must not come from our vengeance, but from the legal system, and especially for Christians, from our God.  When we take the law into our hands beyond that, we start to stand on shaky ground.

So, where possible, we are to “catch the thief” but not kill him.  And then in that case, as he is still alive, he must make restitution for all he has stolen.  And if he can’t afford it, he then is to be sold (one assumes into slavery) and the money goes to the owner of the property he stole.

And still more twists to the law: if he stole animals and they are found alive, that is the thief is caught red-handed with the goods, he shall pay double the amounts he otherwise would have paid.  Interesting, but why? Matthew Henry explains it like this:

“Thus he must both satisfy for the wrong and suffer for the crime. But it was afterwards provided that if the thief were touched in conscience, and voluntarily confessed it, before it was discovered or enquired into by any other, then he should only make restitution of what he had stolen, and add to it a fifth part, Leviticus 6:4,5.”

So, there is clearly an advantage to admitting and pleading guilty if indeed it is a true confession, rather than a forced confession.

Finally, we are told that if one simply uses things that are not his to use, without permission (a form of stealing one might say), then he repays from the best of his own possession or equivalent.  I live with two of my granddaughters.  They borrow each other’s stuff (clothes, accessories, etc.) without each other’s permission.  Needless to say that the volume of discourse rises greatly depending on whether the owner wanted to use it that day herself, if the borrower misplaced it, or if the borrower damaged it or worse still, lost it.  Whereas my solution would be to ban all so-called “borrowing”, God’s approach seems to indicate that the ‘owner’ could then help herself to the best of the ‘borrower’s’ goods.  But then again, my ways are not necessarily His ways.

For us, the facts remain: we are not to steal, we are to know how to deal with those that do, and in all cases, we are to make restitution for things we have taken or misused or lost that belong to others.

- -  30  - -

-->

[Are you looking for a speaker at your church, your club, school, or organization? Ken is available to preach, teach, challenge, and/or motivate. Please contact us.]

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.  And while you’re here, why not check out some more of our recent blogs shown in the right hand column.  Ken.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

The Original “No Fault” Approach To Accidents Exodus 21:35-36

“And if one man’s ox hurts another’s so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide its price equally; and also they shall divide the dead ox.  Or if it is known that the ox was previously in the habit of goring, yet its owner has not confined it, he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead animal shall become his.”

 

This to me looks like the original version of “no fault” accidents policy that many jurisdictions have today.  If two oxen belonging to two different individuals get into a goring battle between them and one of them dies, then both owners jointly sell the ox that stays alive and equally divide the money they receive for it.  With both being involved in the sale, there was a greater chance of the deal being honest and fair.  And in keeping with earlier principles that God had given the Israelites, the two owners also divide the carcass of the dead ox.

But those approaches are only implemented in the case where neither ox ‘had a record’ of previous such accidents.  Clearly, since no one could correctly assess which ox was to blame for causing the fight, both owners could be said to have benefitted and also both may have lost. (The idea reminds me a little of the story of the two women who each claimed before wise Solomon that they were the mother of a baby they both wanted.  Not being able to carry out DNA tests at the time, Solomon dictated a very unusual solution – simply cut the baby in half.  Of course, Solomon knew exactly what he was suggesting because the real mother would rather give the baby to the other woman than to see it killed.)

But where one of the oxen (and it implies the one that remains alive) had a previous ‘goring record’ or a habit of goring other oxen or people, then the owner of that animal incurs the entire blame and compensates the owner of the other animal.  Not unlike how our courts approach the establishment of blame today.

Is there a lesson here for us?  I think so.  The commentator Robert Jamieson suggests this principle led to laws in certain eastern regions that were intended to inspire caution in us, and help us to “keep noxious animals under restraint”.  As a minimum, we should heed that caution.  Commentator David Guzik suggests that this principle was God’s way of helping us deal with human negligence.  He goes on to imply that these various laws were intended as instructions to judges who were to adjudicate matters between the Israelites.  As such, the judges were required to investigate, to the extent possible, any wrongful intent and then to rule accordingly keeping fairness as the goal.

Those principles can well be applied to the responsibilities of parents or grandparents who are often asked to break up an argument or a fight between siblings.  Our goal should be to investigate and then to act fairly.  Finally, supervisors, managers, and owners can apply these principles where their subordinate employees (assuming there are no labor unions involved) are at odds with each other.  In all these circumstances, the “no fault” decision may be appropriate, but sometimes through observance and investigation we may conclude it is not.  As ‘judges’ of the behavior of others where we rightfully have that responsibility (e.g. as parents or employers), we can only pray that we would have Solomon’s type of wisdom to adjudicate fairly and virtuously.

-->

- - 30 - -

 [Are you looking for a speaker at your church, your club, school, or organization? Ken is available to preach, teach, challenge, and/or motivate. Please contact us.]

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.  And while you’re here, why not check out some more of our recent blogs shown in the right hand column.  Ken.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.