Bilangan 5:2

5:2 “Command the Israelites to expel ¹  from the camp every leper, ²  everyone who has a discharge, ³  and whoever becomes defiled by a corpse. ⁴ 

Bilangan 9:7

9:7 And those men said to him, “We are ceremonially defiled by the dead body of a man; why are we kept back from offering the Lord’s offering at its appointed time among the Israelites?”

Bilangan 11:13

11:13 From where shall I get ⁵  meat to give to this entire people, for they cry to me, ‘Give us meat, that we may eat!’ ⁶ 

Bilangan 16:1

The Rebellion of Korah

16:1 ⁷ Now Korah son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth, who were Reubenites, ⁸  took men ⁹ 

Bilangan 20:15

20:15 how our ancestors went down into Egypt, and we lived in Egypt a long time, ¹⁰  and the Egyptians treated us and our ancestors badly. ¹¹ 

Bilangan 26:9

26:9 Eliab’s descendants were Nemuel, Dathan, and Abiram. It was Dathan and Abiram who as leaders of the community rebelled against Moses and Aaron with the followers ¹²  of Korah when they rebelled against the Lord.

Bilangan 27:22

27:22 So Moses did as the Lord commanded him; he took Joshua and set ¹³  him before Eleazar the priest and before the whole community.

Bilangan 30:12

30:12 But if her husband clearly nullifies ¹⁴  them when he hears them, then whatever she says ¹⁵  by way of vows or obligations will not stand. Her husband has made them void, and the Lord will release her from them.

Bilangan 30:16

30:16 These are the statutes that the Lord commanded Moses, relating to ¹⁶  a man and his wife, and a father and his young daughter who is still living in her father’s house.

Bilangan 31:32

31:32 The spoil that remained of the plunder which the fighting men ¹⁷  had gathered ¹⁸  was 675,000 sheep,

Bilangan 32:19

32:19 For we will not accept any inheritance on the other side of the Jordan River ¹⁹  and beyond, because our inheritance has come to us on this eastern side of the Jordan.”

Bilangan 36:8

36:8 And every daughter who possesses an inheritance from any of the tribes of the Israelites must become the wife of a man from any family in her father’s tribe, so that every Israelite ²⁰  may retain the inheritance of his fathers.

[5:2]  ¹ tn The construction uses the Piel imperative followed by this Piel imperfect/jussive form; it is here subordinated to the preceding volitive, providing the content of the command. The verb שָׁלַח (shalakh) in this verbal stem is a strong word, meaning “expel, put out, send away, or release” (as in “let my people go”).

[5:2]  ² sn The word צָרוּעַ (tsarua’), although translated “leper,” does not primarily refer to leprosy proper (i.e., Hansen’s disease). The RSV and the NASB continued the KJV tradition of using “leper” and “leprosy.” More recent studies have concluded that the Hebrew word is a generic term covering all infectious skin diseases (including leprosy when that actually showed up). True leprosy was known and feared certainly by the time of Amos (ca. 760 b.c.). There is evidence that the disease was known in Egypt by 1500 b.c. So this term would include that disease in all probability. But in view of the diagnosis and healing described in Leviticus 13 and 14, the term must be broader. The whole basis for the laws of separation may be found in the book of Leviticus. The holiness of the Lord who dwelt among his people meant that a high standard was imposed on them for their living arrangements as well as access to the sanctuary. Anything that was corrupted, diseased, dying, or contaminated was simply not compatible with the holiness of God and was therefore excluded. This is not to say that it was treated as sin, or the afflicted as sinners. It simply was revealing – and safeguarding – the holiness of the Lord. It thus provided a revelation for all time that in the world to come nothing unclean will enter into the heavenly sanctuary. As the Apostle Paul says, we will all be changed from this corruptible body into one that is incorruptible (1 Cor 15:53). So while the laws of purity and holiness were practical for the immediate audience, they have far-reaching implications for theology. The purity regulations have been done away with in Christ – the problem is dealt with differently in the new covenant. There is no earthly temple, and so the separation laws are not in force. Wisdom would instruct someone with an infectious disease to isolate, however. But just because the procedure is fulfilled in Christ does not mean that believers today are fit for glory just as they are. On the contrary, they must be changed before going into his presence. In like manner the sacrifices have been done away in Christ – not what they covered. Sin is still sin, even though it is dealt with differently on this side of the cross. But the ritual and the regulations of the old covenant at Sinai have been fulfilled in Christ.

[5:2]  ³ sn The rules of discharge (Lev 12 and 15) include everything from menstruation to chronic diseases (see G. Wyper, ISBE 1:947, as well as R. K. Harrison, Leviticus (TOTC), 158-66, and G. J. Wenham, Leviticus (NICOT), 217-25.

[5:2]  ⁴ tn The word is נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh), which usually simply means “[whole] life,” i.e., the soul in the body, the person. But here it must mean the corpse, the dead person, since that is what will defile (although it was also possible to become unclean by touching certain diseased people, such as a leper).

[11:13]  ⁵ tn The Hebrew text simply has “from where to me flesh?” which means “from where will I have meat?”

[11:13]  ⁶ tn The cohortative coming after the imperative stresses purpose (it is an indirect volitive).

[16:1]  ⁷ sn There are three main movements in the story of ch. 16. The first is the rebellion itself (vv. 1-19). The second is the judgment (vv. 20-35). Third is the atonement for the rebels (vv. 36-50). The whole chapter is a marvelous account of a massive rebellion against the leaders that concludes with reconciliation. For further study see G. Hort, “The Death of Qorah,” ABR 7 (1959): 2-26; and J. Liver, “Korah, Dathan and Abiram,” Studies in the Bible (ScrHier 8), 189-217.

[16:1]  ⁸ tc The MT reading is plural (“the sons of Reuben”); the Smr and LXX have the singular (“the son of Reuben”).

[16:1]  ⁹ tn In the Hebrew text there is no object for the verb “took.” The translation presented above supplies the word “men.” However, it is possible that the MT has suffered damage here. The LXX has “and he spoke.” The Syriac and Targum have “and he was divided.” The editor of BHS suggests that perhaps the MT should be emended to “and he arose.”

[20:15]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “many days.”

[20:15]  ¹¹ tn The verb רָעַע (ra’a’) means “to act or do evil.” Evil here is in the sense of causing pain or trouble. So the causative stem in our passage means “to treat wickedly.”

[26:9]  ¹² tn Or “company” (so KJV, NASB, NRSV); Heb “congregation.”

[27:22]  ¹³ tn Heb “stood.”

[30:12]  ¹⁴ tn The verb is the imperfect tense in the conditional clause. It is intensified with the infinitive absolute, which would have the force of saying that he nullified them unequivocally, or he made them null and void.

[30:12]  ¹⁵ tn Heb whatever proceeds from her lips.”

[30:16]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “between.”

[31:32]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “people.”

[31:32]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “had plundered.”

[32:19]  ¹⁹ tn The word “River” is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied in the translation for clarity.

[36:8]  ²⁰ tn The subject is “Israelites” and the verb is plural to agree with it, but the idea is collective as the word for “man” indicates: “so that the Israelites may possess – [each] man the inheritance of his fathers.”