WordPress.com

 Torah Portion: Nasso (Numbers 4:21-7:89)[The focus of this Torah portion series is family structure and function as revealed in Scripture. I.e., headship, patriarchy, marriage, etc, graduating to understanding the community and Israel as a whole. If you have not read other portions up to this point, you may want to, as parts build on previous lessons in Torah, available at: ]This week’s portion has several excellent connectors to our theme topic of headship and patriarchy! While both men and women have equal value in the eyes of our Creator, there are definite differences in role and how we are allowed to act. Numbers 5 offers several significant points of discussion.The Adultery TestNumbers 5:11 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 and a man has intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, 14 if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself, 15 the man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of memorial, a reminder of iniquity.Of significance, as a side note, is the uninspired heading of ‘The Adultery Test.’ Granted, this particular heading is accurate, however most Bible translations are littered with similar headings that are both uninspired additions to the text by translators and prejudiced titles that bias the reader before the text is ever read. This is a particular pet peeve of mine. In truth, even chapter and verse divisions bias the reader because they often lead a person to begin reading a passage in the midst of the context of a discussion or story. The result is improper interpretation or understanding. While chapter and verse numbering help to keep us all on the same page and function as quick shorthand reference to lines or passages, they inadvertently divorce surrounding context by encouraging limited reading when often the previous or next verse will alter what is being taught based on larger context. This passage is about adultery, but the title biases the information precisely because the definition of adultery believed by most Christians is false. More in a minute.Let us now return to the passage itself and glean some understanding.Numbers 5:12 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 and a man has intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, Notice that this is gender specific! Further, notice that there is no corollary passage for the woman anywhere in Scripture. The major point, lost on most of Christendom, is that the woman has no control over or righteous position of jealousy over the man.In fact, as we have seen, supported throughout Scripture, is the fact that the woman belongs to the man and he has authority over her, never the other way around. This passage demonstrates not only that he has authority over her and a right to jealousy over her, it further demonstrates that he can righteously take an additional woman or women and she has no right to jealous reaction. She however, may not have sexual relations with another man, else that is adultery.Scripture always defines adultery in terms of the woman’s marital status. Recall, several verses from a recent portion:Leviticus 20:10 ‘If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 12 If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. Leviticus 18:20 You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her.Scripture always defines adultery in terms of the woman’s marital status.I wrote an article several years ago titled Marriage, Adultery, and Christian Error… in it I demonstrated that until about 150 years ago, common Christian and Jewish understanding of adultery was the Biblical definition. Only in recent history has the word and legal definition been altered to the current unBiblical definition of ‘either spouse having relations with someone other than their spouse.’Here’s a quote from that article,Some older theological dictionaries do define adultery in these terms, however a simple search of modern thought reveals the wrong understanding that any married person having relations with any person they are not married to is adultery.Moorish Bible Dictionary:This was forbidden in the ten commandments; but neither there nor anywhere else is the sin defined. It seems clear, that as far as the man was concerned, if he had intercourse with a woman unless it was with a married woman, he would not be charged with adultery, though he himself might be married; indeed how could he be when he was allowed more wives than one, as well as concubines and slaves? If he committed adultery with a married woman or with one betrothed, both were to be put to death. Deuteronomy 22:22-24 . With the woman it was stricter, she must have no intercourse with any man but her husband. If a man was jealous of his wife there was the ordeal of the bitter waters provided to test her innocence. Numbers 5:11-31 ….Fausset’s Bible Dictionary:A married woman cohabiting with a man not her husband. The prevalent polygamy in patriarchal times rendered it impossible to stigmatize as adultery the cohabitation of a married man with another besides his wife. But as Jesus saith, “from the beginning it was not so,” for “He which made male and female said, They twain shall be one flesh.” …. (I’ll deal with the errant understanding of Matthew 19: in a minute) [See article for this explanation.]The 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia:Sexual intercourse of a married woman with any man other than her husband. The crime can be committed only by and with a married woman for the unlawful intercourse of a married man with an unmarried woman is not technically Adultery in the Jewish law….Now, here is something that is fascinating. It would appear that even in some ancient secular cultures the law was in agreement with the Torah definition.1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica:ADULTERY (from Lat. adulterium ), the sexual intercourse of a married person with another than the offender’s husband or wife. Among the Greeks, and in the earlier period of Roman law, it was not adultery unless a married woman was the offender. The foundation of the later Roman law with regard to adultery was the lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis passed by Augustus about 17 B.C. (See Dig. 48. 5; Paull. Rec. Sent. ii. 26; Brisson, Ad Leg. Jul. de Adult. )…..So, to recap,An UNmarried man commits adultery only if he is involved with a married woman.A married man commits adultery only if he is involved with a married woman.An UNmarried woman cannot, by definition commit adultery, though sexual relations equal marriage and she immediately switches categories.A married woman commits adultery if she is involved with anyone other than her husband.The previous citation introduces some larger elements to the discussion of adultery which we may take up, but the basic points already made are upheld. God does not treat men and women equally in some areas. A woman can only have one husband, adultery is based on the marital status of the woman, and a man may have more than one woman, a subject previously addressed but strongly upheld in Numbers 5.Simply, a man can be jealous for his wife and can even test it if in question through Divine examination/revelation, however, the wife does not have the same option.About ten times in the NASB, the word ‘jealous’ or ‘jealousy’ is used to translate the Hebrew H7065 and H7068, ???????. Interestingly, this is the same word used often in Scripture to describe zeal for the Lord, or His jealousy for His people. See Numbers 25:11; Deuteronomy 29:20; 2 Kings 10:16; 19:31, etc. The point is that the man has, or even should have, a passionate guardianship over the woman. And, like the Church in Paul’s Ephesians 5:22-33 illustration, the woman should revere the man to whom she belongs and be zealous for him, but unable to control or prevent his care for another.This is challenging material that Christendom does not teach. Most Christians, steeped in egalitarian feminism, balk at the truths presented by this passage. But, truth is truth!Numbers 5:16 ‘Then the priest shall bring her near and have her stand before the Lord, 17 and the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel; and he shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 The priest shall then have the woman stand before the Lord and let the hair of the woman’s head go loose, and place the grain offering of memorial in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy, and in the hand of the priest is to be the water of bitterness that brings a curse. The woman here is uncovered. This is a significant event that demonstrates a very interesting truth. Recall 1 Corinthians 11:3 and the following verses that clearly demonstrate,God => Messiah => man => womanThe woman is protected by the covering of the man. Numbers 30 demonstrates that the man has authority to annul a vow by his woman, whether wife or daughter, in the day that he hears of it. No such protection is afforded a widow or divorcee. Numbers 30:9.The level of protection extended the woman and the level of oversight from the man are further illustrated in that God does not bring automatic judgement on the woman unless her head brings her to Him and uncovers her!! I must assume that as her head, the man can act in a messianic fashion and assume her guilt, or forgive her guilt. What is similarly fascinating in this passage is that God is a gentleman and does not circumvent His own authority structure unless invited to.Remember the Garden of Eden? Who did God speak to first? Asdam, right? Then after Adam implicated the woman and exposed her, God addressed Eve. God operated through the authority structure.Consider Hagar. God did not address her directly until she took herself out from under Abraham’s covering and fled. Genesis 16. God addressed Rebekah after Isaac prays on her behalf (Genesis 25:21) and so on. Because we are not given every detail of every conversation in Scripture or exactly how things transpire, the waters here can be a little murky, but the clear picture we can see in several passages is that God respects His own authority structure and expects the man to grow and handle rightly the weight that is given him for the care and shepherding of his own flock.In Numbers 5, the man believes something has transpired between his woman and another man, possibly adultery. He is jealous for his wife, but being unable to prove or disprove his suspicion, he has the authority to bring her to the priest, a visible representative of Messiah (the man’s head) and then remove her covering and allow her to be judged by his own head/authority.The loosing of her hair is a symbol of removing himself as a buffer/protector between her and the Messiah in the authority chain. This is part of what Paul is referring to in 1 Corinthians 11 when he says,1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that Messiah is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Messiah. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.A final note of emphasis regarding the authority structure is stated multiple times in the chapter,Numbers 5:19 The priest shall have her take an oath and shall say to the woman, “If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, being under the authority of your husband, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse; 20 if you, however, have gone astray, being under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you”Numbers 5:28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children. 29 ‘This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, being under the authority of her husband, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when a spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife, he shall then make the woman stand before the Lord, and the priest shall apply all this law to her. 31 Moreover, the man will be free from guilt, but that woman shall bear her guilt.’”Notice that multiple times in the passage the authority structure is explicitly spelled out. She is under his authority. One final note on this passage is that the man is free from guilt. This may mean two things. He is free from guilt for testing her, or, more likely, he is free from any guilt incurred in her adulterous affair. I lean toward the latter because it is set in parallel with the woman bearing her guilt which can only be in connection with adultery. If the latter, then this also supports the previous statement I made regarding the man as a buffer and protector of the woman which leads to an interesting thought: If Adam had assumed responsibility for what Eve did, would God have acted differently and would we be in the situation we are in now? How important is it for the man to carry the load he is supposed to carry and how important is it for the woman to walk rightly under the protection she is afforded by her man? Heavy thoughts?The parasha notes from Ephraim Frank include the following connections worthy of consideration particularly in light of his closing statement Let us conclude by reviewing once again the case of the jealous husband from another angle. When Yeshua came up out of the grave on the first of the week (see John 20:1) He was acting as the fulfillment of the first of the Omer, which was “waved for our acceptance” (see Lev. 23:11). An omer of barley (i.e. one tenth of an ephah, see Ex. 16:36), was also to be used as an offering by the husband who was overcome by a spirit of jealousy, and so we read in 5:15 “… the man shall bring his wife to the priest. He shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah [i.e. an omer] of barley meal…” (emphasis added). The priest was then to make the woman drink bitter water in order to determine whether she was innocent or not (ref. 5:17,18, 22-24, 27), with the effect of the drink on her body being such that it would disclose her true state. When on the stake, Yeshua was also given a bitter drink (gall mixed with wine), which although He did not actually drink, He did taste (see Matt. 27:34). Thus, Yeshua as the jealous husband (see 34:14; Deut. 6:12-16 etc.), whose wife Israel has gone astray (e.g. Jer. 3:6) has also become the very offering for her sin, the Priest who makes the offering (e.g. Heb. 5:10), and the One who takes upon Himself her transgression, drinking, as it were, the bitter drink in her place (see. Mat. 26:42; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11).In a response letter to the above, Garret Lukas says the following: This past week I saw similarities between the Bitter Waters test and Isaiah 53 that I haven't seen before. In Numbers 5, a guilty woman "bears (tisa, carries) her iniquity", like you pointed out. If she is guilty, the presumption is that she'll be barren from then on. If she is innocent, the scripture says, "She will conceive seed."Israel was the Wife of YHWH. There were plenty of witnesses against her, testifying that she was unfaithful to her husband. If she had been forced to drink the bitter waters, it was known what the outcome would be.But Messiah Yeshua stepped in for her: Isaiah 53:4: "Surely our sicknesses he carried (nasa) and our pains he bore (s'valam - synonym to nasa)." 53:11 "...and their iniquity he bore (yisbol)." 53:12 "and he carried (nasa) the sins of the many."He bore her iniquity for her. You mentioned the cup of gall mixed with wine that Yeshua tasted. In Delitzch's Hebrew translation of Matthew 27:34, he translates gall as "m'rorot", from maror, meaning "bitter". (What a picture of Pesach as well; just as we are commanded to eat maror at Pesach and taste the bitterness of suffering, so did he.)One passage in Isaiah 53 that always puzzled me was verse 10. Even though Messiah would be crushed as a trespass offering, "he will see seed (descendants)."But reading it in light of Numbers 5, I see now that if Israel had been forced to drink the bitter waters, she would surely have been left barren. How could Messiah hope to inherit future generations of faithful followers with a barren, forsaken wife? So he drank the cup in her place, a Righteous One who didn't do anything wrong.And after the suffering of Isaiah 53 is accomplished, what is spoken in Isaiah 54:1? "Sing Barren One who did not bear! Burst forth with song, you who were not in labor! For more are the children of the desolate wife than the sons of the married, says YHWH."The Barren One is free to conceive seed because her husband has borne her sins and atoned for them himself. [Italics mine]"If it be Your desire, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless, not my desire, but Yours be done.""And YHWH desired to crush him with sickness, in order to make his soul a trespass offering..." responsibility of the man is to be a protector and redeemer for his house. Yeshua fulfilled and exampled this role for both houses of Israel. Husbands are to do the same in a similar, though limited role for their own.It is from some of these deeper points that I come to the conclusion that for kol Israel to be restored, men must assume and walk out their God ordained role of patriarchs, and women must walk out their God ordained role of submissive helpmeet. These specific issues will be tested in the wilderness. Will we as a people walk in submission to the King? Will we walk within the roles God ordained for us both now and in the Greater Exodus, or be laid low in the wilderness as our fathers were. (Ezekiel 20:33-44; I Corinthians 10:1-11) There are other minor items from this portion that we could tackle, but the heaviest has been addressed and should give us significant food for thought as we consider what a restored kol Israel will look like and how the Torah teaches that it will function. It has an authority structure that is decidedly patriarchal with the foundational element of marriage demonstrating the roles of the Messiah and the qahal.May Yah bless you this Shabbat!! ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download