THE LORD SAID to Moses, 2“Command the Israelites to send away from the camp anyone who has an infectious skin disease or a discharge of any kind, or who is ceremonially unclean because of a dead body. 3Send away male and female alike; send them outside the camp so they will not defile their camp, where I dwell among them.” 4The Israelites did this; they sent them outside the camp. They did just as the LORD had instructed Moses.
5The LORD said to Moses, 6“Say to the Israelites: ‘When a man or woman wrongs another in any way and so is unfaithful to the LORD, that person is guilty 7and must confess the sin he has committed. He must make full restitution for his wrong, add one fifth to it and give it all to the person he has wronged. 8But if that person has no close relative to whom restitution can be made for the wrong, the restitution belongs to the LORD and must be given to the priest, along with the ram with which atonement is made for him. 9All the sacred contributions the Israelites bring to a priest will belong to him. 10Each man’s sacred gifts are his own, but what he gives to the priest will belong to the priest.’”
11Then the LORD said to Moses, 12“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure—15then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt.
16“‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband”—21here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath—“may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. 22May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away.’”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
23“‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering. 25The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, and she will become accursed among her people. 28If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29“‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, 30or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her. 31The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”
Original Meaning
HAVING DESCRIBED THE PROCESS of organizing the Israelite camp (chs. 1–4), Numbers 5 reintroduces concerns of physical ritual impurity (5:1–4) and then moral faults (5:5–31) from the perspective of community relations. This legislation supplements rules given earlier in Leviticus.
Physical ritual impurity. As in Leviticus 12–15, Numbers 5:1–4 has to do with physical ritual purity from human sources. Here the focus is on maintaining the purity of the war camp rather than on diagnosing and remedying impurities of individuals. The Israelites are to send out of the camp any person, male or female, who has one of the three most serious kinds of impurities: scaly skin disease (cf. Lev. 13–14), genital discharge (cf. Lev. 15), or corpse contamination (cf. Num. 19).
We already know from Leviticus 13 that a person with a scaly skin disease was required to live apart (Lev. 13:46), but Leviticus 15 says nothing about genital discharges requiring temporary residence outside the camp. Neither does Numbers 19 require a corpse contaminated person to stay away from home (Num. 19:3, 9).
The more stringent rules in Numbers 5:1–4 regarding genital discharge and corpse contamination appear to reflect an elevation in the sacral status of the Israelite war camp. Under normal conditions only scaly skin diseased persons are to be banished, but the war camp is a special situation.1 The reason for sending impure persons away is not to avoid the spread of ordinary sickness, which definitely would not include corpse contamination, but to avoid defiling the holy camp in which the Lord dwells among his people (Num. 5:3). Around the sanctuary, with its three gradations of holiness—the Most Holy Place, the Holy Place, and the court—there is a fourth gradation: the camp.2
Ethical wrongs. Numbers 5:5–10 supplements the law of reparation for an ethical wrong involving sacrilege (Lev. 6:1–7). After summarizing the reparation procedure and adding the requirement of confession (Num. 5:6–7; cf. Lev. 6:5), the main innovation of the Numbers 5 unit is in verse 8, which deals with the contingency that the wronged person dies and leaves no kinsman (“redeemer”) to whom reparation can be paid. The solution is that the person who committed the wrong pays the reparation to the priest, as the Lord’s representative, along with the required reparation offering of a ram of “expiation” (kippurim), by which the priest makes expiation (kipper) for the sinner (cf. Lev. 6:6–7).
Notice that Numbers 5:6 refers to the person who commits the wrong as “a man or woman” and then as “that person” (nepeš). So it is clear that nepeš, which often appears elsewhere with reference to a person who commits a wrong and/or offers a sacrifice (e.g., Lev. 2:1; 4:2, 27; 5:1, 2, 4, 15, 17; 6:2), is gender neutral language.3
Suspected adulteress. The first two sections of Numbers 5 regarding ritual impurity (root ṭmʾ; 5:2–3) and ethical sin by a man or woman involving sacrilege (i.e., unfaithfulness to the Lord; root mʿl, 5:6; cf. Lev. 5:15; 6:2), brief as they are, pave the way for verses 11–31. Here a remarkable law concerning a woman suspected of adultery intertwines matters of impurity (Niphal of ṭmʾ; 5:13–14, 20, 27–29) and unfaithfulness to a husband (root mʿl, 5:12, 27) within the social context of the Israelite community.
The case is particularly problematic because (1) it deals with suspicion rather than clear-cut guilt, (2) guilt or innocence can be impossible for a human tribunal to establish as a result of the secret nature of the offense, (3) the stakes are high—adultery is a capital offense (Lev. 20:10), (4) unresolved suspicion can wreck a marriage, and (5) suspicion could be lethal to a woman, since men controlled legal matters.
The protasis, introduced by ki (“when”) and establishing the conditions of the case (Num. 5:12b–14), consists of two possible scenarios. (1) The first concerns a wife who actually goes astray (Qal of śṭh, “turns aside”) and is unfaithful (mʿl) to her husband by having sexual relations with another man; this defilement of herself (Niphal of ṭmʾ ) goes undetected, but her husband is overcome with an anxious spirit/feeling of jealousy.4 (2) The other one concerns a husband who is jealous even though his wife has not defiled herself.
With regard to the first possibility, verse 13 tells us in four ways the crucial factor that the woman who has defiled herself by adultery cannot be brought to justice by human agency: “but it is hidden from her husband, so that she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her since she was not caught in the act” (NRSV; emphasis supplied). Notice that “she has defiled herself” comes in the middle, between the second and third expressions for concealment. This structure suggests that defilement is of central significance, an idea confirmed in verse 14, where the woman’s guilt or innocence is expressed in terms of her having defiled herself.
The suspected adulteress passage never uses a word from the root nʾp, which specifies adultery (Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; Jer. 7:9, etc.) that is punishable by human agency when humans apprehend the guilty parties (Lev. 20:10). Distancing the suspected adulteress from the usual death penalty in this way points to the fact “that jurisdiction in this case lies outside the human court.”5 Only God can adjudicate.
From Numbers 5:15 on, the remainder of the chapter constitutes the apodosis, which states the results of the conditions set up in the protasis. In this instance, the apodosis consists of a ritual prescription. The jealous husband takes the initiative by bringing his wife to a priest at the sanctuary. To invoke the Lord’s jurisdiction, he must bring a grain offering on behalf of his wife. Like the grain purification offering for sin in Leviticus 5:11, this grain offering of jealousy, which serves as a reminder of culpability, lacks oil and frankincense (Num. 5:15), two elements associated with happier occasions (Lev. 2:1, 15).
The priest has the woman stand before the Lord (Num. 5:16), that is, in the courtyard. The Supreme Court of Israel is in session, with God himself as Judge! Next the priest takes some holy water, probably from the sacred laver/basin (cf. Ex. 30:17–29). He adds to it some dust from the dirt floor of the holy tabernacle (Num. 5:17), presumably enhancing the potency of the water. The point is not the water’s dirtiness, but its holiness.
The priest prepares the woman for her ritual role by removing her headdress to loosen her hair, which is elsewhere associated with mourning (Lev. 10:6; 21:10; cf. 13:45), and by placing the grain offering of jealousy in her hands while he holds the vessel containing the holy water, which is now ominously called “the bitter water that brings a curse” (Num. 5:18). He then places her under oath before the Lord (5:19–22).
The oath consists of two parts, corresponding to the contrasting possibilities stated earlier—guilty or innocent (5:12b–14)—but in reverse/chiastic order—innocent or guilty. If she is innocent, she will be immune to the effects of the water (5:19). But if she is guilty of having defiled herself by committing adultery (5:20), she will be punished.
At first glance, the idea that an adulteress defiles herself (5:13–14, 20, 27–29) seems to be metaphorical use of ritual impurity language to stigmatize moral impurity. However, closer examination of the oath uttered by the priest suggests that actual physical ritual impurity may be in view. Eschewing the customary euphemisms of English versions that dull the edge of the Hebrew, a literal translation is as follows:
1. “If a[nother] man has not laid you and if you have not turned aside [Qal of śṭh] [to/from?] impurity [ṭumeʾah] under your husband, be clean [= vindicated and immune] from this bitter cursing water” (5:19).
2. “But if you have turned aside [Qal of śṭh] [while/from] under your husband and if you have defiled yourself [Niphal of ṭmʾ ] and a man other than your husband has put his penis in you . . .” (5:20).6
Translations interpret “under your husband” as “while under your husband’s authority” (NKJV; NRSV; NJB; cf. NASB), that is, “while married to your husband” (NIV; NJPS), as in Ezekiel 23:5 (cf. Rom. 7:2).7 Indeed it is important that suspected infidelity be limited to the duration of the marriage, which defines the wrong as adultery rather than premarital sex, regarding which the statute of limitations would have passed (cf. Ex. 22:16–17; Deut. 22:13–29).
In Numbers 5:19, “if you have not turned aside [to/from?] impurity under your husband” is generally understood as turning aside to the moral impurity of adultery (NASB; NKJV; NRSV; cf. NJPS). If so, “impurity” (ṭumeʾah) here refers to the same defilement as in 15:20: “if you have defiled yourself [Niphal of ṭmʾ ).” The NJB levels the distinction by rendering “made yourself unclean” in both verses. However, lack of a preposition “to” in 5:19 (cf. Prov. 7:25 with ʾel, “to”) leaves the expression ambiguous. It could just as easily mean “from” (cf. Prov. 4:15), in which case “you have not turned aside from impurity under your husband” may refer to legitimate ritual impurity incurred while physically lying under her husband (cf. Lev. 15:18; Deut. 24:4). If so, the force of the reflexive (or passive) Niphal in Numbers 5:20—“you have defiled yourself” (or “you have been defiled”)—would be that having turned aside from under her husband (cf. 5:29) in terms of lying under him and therefore submitting to his authority, the woman incurs the physical ritual impurity without him.
In any case, adultery involves physical ritual impurity that is forbidden and is therefore morally wrong, because it is incurred with the wrong party (cf. Lev. 18:20 of a man defiling himself with his neighbor’s wife).8 The presence or absence of such illegal defilement is the deciding factor in the dynamics of the suspected adulteress ritual.
If a suspected adulteress is guilty of allowing a man other than her husband to put (Qal of ntn) his penis in her (Num. 5:20), the punishment will fit the crime. The Lord will put/set (Qal of ntn) her as an imprecation among her people by putting (Qal of ntn) physical maladies in the relevant area of her body, that is, the reproductive area: Her “thigh” will drop (?) and her belly will swell (?) (5:21–22, 27). The former, in which “thigh” apparently connotes reproductive organs (cf. Gen. 24:2, 9), can be taken to imply sterility and may refer to a prolapsed uterus. H. C. Brichto suggests that abdominal swelling indicates a state “known to the layman as ‘false pregnancy.’ This condition . . . is featured by distended belly, cessation of the menses and incapacity to conceive.”9
While scholars have not agreed on the gynecological implications of the Hebrew terminology, they sound painful and clearly cause sterility (contrast 5:28). So the conditional imprecation, to which a suspected woman must assent by saying ʾamen, ʾamen (5:22), specifies outcomes that any Israelite woman dreads: social stigma, physical suffering, and inability to bear children. Although the oath provides a powerful incentive for a guilty woman to volunteer a confession before saying ʾamen, the text does not say whether her punishment is mitigated if she does confess.
The ritual continues. The priest writes the curses and then physically rubs off the words into the holy water so that it symbolically contains the curses (5:23; cf. Jer. 51:59–64).10 Then he takes the grain offering of jealousy from her, dedicates it to the Lord by elevating it before him, and burns a handful of it on the altar as the Lord’s token portion (Num. 5:25–26).
The next move is startling and brings the entire procedure to a climax: The priest has the woman drink the holy water that is now bitter with conditional curses (5:26b; anticipated in 5:24). If she is guilty of defiling herself and committing unfaithfulness against her husband, the water causes the bitter suffering specified in the oath (5:24, 27). But if she is pure/innocent, she is vindicated (Niphal of nqh, lit., “clean”) and can “be sown with seed,” that is, be made pregnant by her husband (5:28). The order here—guilty or innocent—completes an interlocking pattern:
guilty (5:12a–14a)
innocent (5:14b)
innocent (5:19)
guilty (5:20–22a)
guilty (5:27)
innocent (5:28)
Verses 29–31 conclude the chapter by labeling and summarizing “the law of jealousy.” Verse 31 adds an important concept: A husband who takes his wife to the sanctuary for the suspected adulteress ritual remains clean/free (nqh) from culpability (ʿawon), that is, even if she is innocent, but his wife bears her culpability (ʿawon), that is, if she is guilty. His suspicion is not an accusation, for which he would be culpable if she were innocent (cf. Deut. 19:16–19; 22:13–19).
MORAL “LITMUS TEST” as divine judgment, only for women. The suspected adulteress ritual (Num. 5:11–31) enacts a kind of trial by the Lord, functioning as Judge at his sanctuary.11 At its core is a kind of litmus test in which a suspected woman takes into her body a holy substance (water + tabernacle floor dust) containing conditional curses (5:17–24, 26b). It is a pregnancy test, not to find out whether she is pregnant but to determine whether she will be able to get pregnant in the future (15:28).
If she is pure from illegal sexual defilement, there is no problem because holiness and purity are compatible. But holiness and impurity are mortal enemies.12 So if she has illegitimately defiled herself by adultery, the interaction of holiness and this type of moral impurity, targeted by the curses, causes a “poisonous” reaction. The verdict is simply manifested by whether or not she suffers harm.13
Why is the suspected adultery ritual only for a woman? To a modern reader it is unfair that a wife who suspects her husband of illicit sexual activity cannot also put him through the ordeal at the sanctuary. This apparent inequity is mitigated when we take into account the makeup of the society within which the procedure operates. In ancient Israel, legal matters were normally administered by males, and dependent females came under their legal protection and jurisdiction (cf. Num. 30). Men initiated marriage and divorce proceedings (e.g., Deut. 24:1–4) and also charges of sexual misconduct, which could lead to capital punishment (cf. 22:13–21). So women were vulnerable to potentially lethal suspicion of marital infidelity. Moreover, in ancient culture it was a woman’s situation alone that determined whether or not adultery had occurred. If a married man had sexual relations with another woman, it could be a concubine; only if the sex act were with a married woman would it be considered adultery.
To protect innocent but suspected women from the inevitable bias of a male-dominated trial, God removes their fates from human jurisdiction. He can be fair because he alone knows all the relevant facts of a given case. The suspected adulteress ritual is the only instance in all of ancient Israelite jurisprudence in which the Lord promises to judge and render the verdict himself by supernatural means. The right to such a Supreme Court trial belongs only to women.14
If God himself clears a woman of suspicion through the stringent and intimidating ritual prescribed in Numbers 5, her husband can rest assured that his wife has been faithful and has nothing to hide. Such assurance will provide a solid basis for restoration of the marriage relationship. Thus, the suspected adulteress ritual reveals concern for the feelings of husbands and wives toward each other.
In addition to protecting innocent women and healing their marriages, the suspected adulteress ritual is designed to condemn and punish those whose guilt is carefully concealed from human witnesses. There is no indication in Numbers 5 that an adulteress convicted through the ritual at the sanctuary will be put to death by the Israelites after suffering the breakdown of her reproductive system (5:21–22, 27). This punishment will turn her into a curse among her people (v. 27), presumably in the sense that Israelites can say to someone else with reference to her: “If you commit adultery, may you be like Mrs. So and So.”
Such a stigma, which would be worse than a Puritan woman wearing a scarlet letter “A,”15 will likely make an adulteress wish she were dead. It will also serve as a potent deterrent to others tempted to stray (śth, “turn aside”) from the safe path of marital fidelity.
Guilty as charged, but forgiven. In Numbers 5 a priest loosens the hair of a woman suspected of sexual immorality, so that she has an appearance of mourning. He places in her hands an offering for the all-knowing Lord, which lacks sweet-smelling incense (5:18; cf. v. 15). Then he brings her into contact with holiness to find out what kind of person she is (5:24, 26). Now compare Luke 7:37–39:
When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner” (emphasis supplied).
As in Numbers 5, the woman’s reputation is affected, she brings a gift to her Lord, is in an attitude of sorrow/mourning, lets down her hair, and contacts holiness (cf. Luke 1:35), and a man questions whether divine insight perceives that she is guilty. However, in Luke 7 (cf. Matt. 26:6–13; Mark 14:3–9; John 12:1–8) the focus of the woman’s sorrow is on Christ, her gift consists of sweet-smelling perfume, the man who questions regarding her (Simon, the host; Luke 7:40, 43–44) is not her husband, he has no doubt that she has been guilty of indiscretion, and his accusation is only to himself rather than out in the open.
As the Lord himself judges a case of suspected immorality in Numbers 5, Jesus renders a verdict in Luke 7. But what is there to judge if the woman is already known to be guilty? There is no possibility that she could be vindicated. Nevertheless, Jesus addresses the thoughts of her accuser (Luke 7:47–50:
“Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.”
Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
The verdict: guilty as charged, but forgiven. Christ’s forgiveness did not mean that he was lowering the moral standard. In his Sermon on the Mount he raised it by condemning even lust of the eyes (Matt. 5:27–28). It is not that his standard is weaker, but that his “new covenant” forgiveness is stronger. Thus Chrysostom had no difficulty with Jesus’ relating to an immoral woman, such as Mary Magdalene.
That He might put away her iniquity; that He might show His lovingkindness; that thou mightest learn that there is no malady which prevaileth over His goodness. Look not therefore at this only, that He received her, but consider the other point also, how He changed her. . . . 16
Similarly, John Calvin wrote on Luke 8:
Surely it hardly behoved the Son of God to take round with Him women known for their unchastity. In fact, we see the better from this that the vices with which we were burdened before we believed are no hindrance to Christ’s glory; rather do they magnify it. It is certainly not said that He found the Church which He chose without spot or stain; but He cleansed it with His blood that it should be pure and beautiful. The wretched and shameful state of those women brought great glory to Christ after He had freed them. They were the insignia of His power and grace.17
The striking similarities between the suspected adulteress ritual (Num. 5) and Christ’s forgiveness of an immoral woman (Luke 7) have led us to compare the two. In the process we have found the difference that is the basis of the “new covenant” prophesied by Jeremiah: “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more” (Jer. 31:34).
Contemporary Significance
COMMUNITY SOLIDARITY. John Donne eloquently described the worldwide web of interdependent relationships:
No man is an island entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. Therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.18
The ancient Israelites understood, as shown by the ritual (not medical) quarantine of Numbers 5:1–4. The camp of their community was a unit. Something that affected one person could impact everyone.
In ancient times people were always aware that they could not survive on their own, and there was safety in belonging to a group. It is still true. As Martin Luther King Jr. put it: “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”19 But we are not so apt to admit it. In modern times our individuality has asserted itself at the expense of corporate solidarity.
The church community, in some ways the equivalent of the ancient Israelite “camp,” is a good place to affirm our need to belong to each other. Within this community we have “horizontal” relationships to each other at the same time as we enjoy a “vertical” relationship to God. Our safety, like Israel’s, is in staying together as a group under the guidance and protection of the Lord, who saves us individually (e.g., John 3:16) and corporately (e.g., Eph. 5:23–27).
The point to be learned from Numbers 5:1–4 is not to expel some ritually impure people out of our church community. Such defilement, which resulted from the human state of mortality rather than from sinful action, was relevant only while the divine Shekinah was dwelling among his people in an earthly temple.
Neither should we shun, banish, excommunicate, disfellowship, or dismember believers simply because they are struggling with weaknesses. To the contrary, our role is to strengthen and encourage one another (1 Thess. 5:11; Heb. 3:13; 10:25), recognizing we all have weaknesses (Gal. 6:1). Christ’s church is exactly and precisely where people with weaknesses belong, even if they are not the same as our weaknesses. He explained his mission: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17).
Numbers 5:1–4 does remind us that our influences, whether positive or negative, can affect others and their relationship to God. Moral and spiritual influence is communicable for better or for worse. Sometimes a rebellious individual who is hurting the church may need to be “put out of the camp” for the ultimate benefit of all concerned, including the potential salvation of that person (1 Cor. 5). When such church discipline is necessary, even when it is temporary, the occasion is one of mourning rather than rejoicing. When we lose someone, we are diminished. When the bell tolls, it tolls for us.
Jealousy for an intimate relationship. When an ancient Israelite man was “jealous” with regard to his wife, he could bring her to the sanctuary, where the Lord would settle the matter (Num. 5:11–31). This “jealousy” was not a selfish, sinful, or petty feeling of envy (as in Gen. 30:1; 37:11), for which the husband deserved censure. Rather, it was rightful zeal to protect the exclusively intimate covenant relationship of marriage as God had instituted it.
The Song of Songs 8:6 passionately expresses the zeal of love:
Place me like a seal over your heart,
like a seal on your arm;
for love is as strong as death,
its jealousy unyielding as the grave.
It burns like blazing fire,
like a mighty flame.
This rich kind of love is enjoyed by two people who give it only to each other and completely trust each other. Other kinds of love are for sharing around with others, but not marital romance.
Grass is greener on the other side of the fence. “Stolen water is sweet; food eaten in secret is delicious!” (Prov. 9:17)—maybe for an initial rush of exciting chemistry. But when lustful curiosity is sated and glamour fades like yet another episode of a soap opera, adultery is shallow and boring, and it leaves an aftertaste of guilt. There is no comparison to the sustainable emotional and spiritual depth of “your own cistern” (Prov. 5:15). Decades ago a married man who enjoyed dating around justified himself by saying to me, “Variety is the spice of life.” Although not yet married, I replied: “The spouse is the spice.”
As marriage partners are to each other, God is the exclusive covenant partner of his people. Covenant intimacy demands this exclusiveness. He forbids his people to engage in idolatry or worship of other deities because he is “a jealous God” (Ex. 20:5; 34:14; Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 6:15).
Biblical history shows that the open and tolerant, “variety is the spice of life,” pluralistic philosophy of polytheism was popular for centuries. Although the Lord repeatedly restored his spiritually “adulterous” people (e.g., Jer. 3; Hosea), it took the “tough love” of the Exile to win Israel back. God’s patient, relentless pursuit of the monotheistic ideal teaches us the supreme value he places on exclusive intimacy with him. He wants us to place our ultimate trust and hope only in him, not also in other “gods” that offer us security, such as wealth or professional success.
God’s passionate, redemptive fidelity, as demonstrated in the New Testament through Christ, also provides an example for us to emulate in our marriages: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word” (Eph. 5:25–26). If Christ can restore his people, unfaithful as they have been, he can also restore a human marriage when one or both partners are suspected or guilty as charged, but forgiven (cf. Luke 7:47–50).