Numbers 15:30,31 - Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible

Doeth ought presumptuously, &c.— In the Hebrew, with an high hand; that is, in a presumptuous and premeditated manner. It signifies the action of a man who knowingly and wilfully breaks the law, and, when admonished, despises the admonition, sets the law at nought, and denies its divine authority. The meaning, therefore, seems to be, that whoever shall in any case, not only knowingly and deliberately, but presumptuously, and in contempt of the law and of the authority of the Divine Lawgiver, against all advice and admonition, run counter to the express commands of God, in his case no atonement shall be admitted. Such a one was to be cut off by death.—But if all presumptuous sins were to be punished with death by the Jewish law, how, it may be asked, is this to be reconciled with other parts of the same law, which exempt from capital punishment some notorious crimes (particularly theft) which may be reckoned presumptuous, as those who commit them must know them to be expressly contrary to the law of God?—Now, in answer to this, Maimonides and other rabbis think, that this law is to be restricted to sins of idolatry, which are most properly a reproaching of Jehovah, and a despising of his word, and therefore were punished by the law of Moses with greater severity than other crimes; indeed, the context shews that Moses is to be understood to speak here, not of offences against our neighbour, but of presumptuous violations of the law in the case of religious worship; which, if not direct idolatry, was at least a degree of apostacy from the true religion. But it is further to be observed, that the presumptuous sin lies not so much in the crime itself as in the manner of committing it, when it is accompanied with such daring circumstances of impiety as amount even to blasphemy, which is here called reproaching the Lord, and despising his word. For instance, though theft in itself was not punishable with death, yet if the thief, when taken, instead of acknowledging his offence and the equity of the law, should insist upon his justification, set the law at nought, and disown it to be of divine authority, he then sinned also presumptuously, and with an high hand, and consequently was to be cut off. See Selden de Jure N. and G. lib. 2: cap. 2: We may further remark, that the opposition in the context between sins of ignorance and sins of presumption, plainly proves, that the manner of committing, rather than the sins themselves, is here referred to.