Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 13:1
And the LORD spoke unto Moses and Aaron, saying,
CHAPTER XIII
Laws relative to the leprosy. It is to be known by a rising in
the flesh, a scab, or a bright spot, 1, 2.
When the priest sees these signs he shall pronounce the man
unclean, infected with the leprosy, and unfit for society, 3.
Dubious or equivocal signs of this disorder, and how the person
is to be treated in whom they appear, 4-8.
In what state of this disorder the priest may pronounce a man
clean or unclean, 9-13.
Of the raw flesh, the sign of the unclean leprosy, 14, 15.
Of the white flesh, the sign of the leprosy called clean, 16, 17.
Of the leprosy which succeeds a boil, 18-20.
Equivocal marks relative to this kind of leprosy, 21, 22.
Of the burning boil, 23.
Of the leprosy arising out of the burning boil, 24, 25.
Equivocal marks relative to this kind of leprosy, 26-28.
Of the plague on the head or in the beard, 29.
Of the scall, and how it is to be treated, 30-37.
Of the plague of the bright white spots, 38, 39.
Of the bald head, 40, 41.
Of the white reddish sore in the bald head, 42-44.
The leper shall rend his clothes, put a patch on his upper lip,
and cry unclean, 45.
He shall be obliged to avoid society, and live by himself
without the camp, 46.
Of the garments infected by the leprosy, and the signs of this
infection, 47-52.
Equivocal marks relative to this infection, and how the garment
is to be treated, by washing or by burning, 53-58.
Conclusion relative to the foregoing particulars, 59.
NOTES ON CHAP. XIII
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron,…. Aaron is addressed again, though left out in the preceding law, because the laws concerning leprosy chiefly concerned the priests, whose business it was to judge of it, and cleanse from it; and so Ben Gersom observes, mention is made of Aaron here, because to him and his sons belonged the affair of leprosies, to pronounce unclean or clean, to shut up or set free, and, as Aben Ezra says, according to his determination were all the plagues or strokes of a man, who should be declared clean or unclean:
saying; as follows.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Leprosy. – The law for leprosy, the observance of which is urged upon the people again in Deu 24:8-9, treats, in the first place, of leprosy in men: ( a) in its dangerous forms when appearing either on the skin (vv. 2-28), or on the head and beard (Lev 13:29-37); ( b) in harmless forms (Lev 13:38 and Lev 13:39); and ( c) when appearing on a bald head (Lev 13:40-44). To this there are added instructions for the removal of the leper from the society of other men (Lev 13:45 and Lev 13:46). It treats, secondly, of leprosy in linen, woollen, and leather articles, and the way to treat them (Lev 13:47-59); thirdly, of the purification of persons recovered from leprosy (Lev 14:1-32); and fourthly, of leprosy in houses and the way to remove it (vv. 33-53). – The laws for leprosy in man relate exclusively to the so-called white leprosy, , lepra , which probably existed at that time in hither Asia alone, not only among the Israelites and Jews (Num 12:10.; 2Sa 3:29; 2Ki 5:27; 2Ki 7:3; 2Ki 15:5; Mat 8:2-3; Mat 10:8; Mat 11:5; Mat 26:6, etc.), but also among the Syrians (2Ki 5:1.), and which is still found in that part of the world, most frequently in the countries of the Lebanon and Jordan and in the neighbourhood of Damascus, in which city there are three hospitals for lepers ( Seetzen, pp. 277, 278), and occasionally in Arabia ( Niebuhr, Arab. pp. 135ff.) and Egypt; though at the present time the pimply leprosy, lepra tuberosa s. articulorum (the leprosy of the joints), is more prevalent in the East, and frequently occurs in Egypt in the lower extremities in the form of elephantiasis. Of the white leprosy (called Lepra Mosaica ), which is still met with in Arabia sometimes, where it is called Baras, Trusen gives the following description: “Very frequently, even for years before the actual outbreak of the disease itself, white, yellowish spots are seen lying deep in the skin, particularly on the genitals, in the face, on the forehead, or in the joints. They are without feeling, and sometimes cause the hair to assume the same colour as the spots. These spots afterwards pierce through the cellular tissue, and reach the muscles and bones. The hair becomes white and woolly, and at length falls off; hard gelatinous swellings are formed in the cellular tissue; the skin gets hard, rough, and seamy, lymph exudes from it, and forms large scabs, which fall off from time to time, and under these there are often offensive running sores. The nails then swell, curl up, and fall off; entropium is formed, with bleeding gums, the nose stopped up, and a considerable flow of saliva… The senses become dull, the patient gets thin and weak, colliquative diarrhea sets in, and incessant thirst and burning fever terminate his sufferings” ( Krankheiten d. alten Hebr. p. 165).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Law Concerning Leprosy. | B. C. 1490. |
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, saying, 2 When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin of his flesh like the plague of leprosy; then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests: 3 And the priest shall look on the plague in the skin of the flesh: and when the hair in the plague is turned white, and the plague in sight be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is a plague of leprosy: and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean. 4 If the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and in sight be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white; then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days: 5 And the priest shall look on him the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague in his sight be at a stay, and the plague spread not in the skin; then the priest shall shut him up seven days more: 6 And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague be somewhat dark, and the plague spread not in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is but a scab: and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. 7 But if the scab spread much abroad in the skin, after that he hath been seen of the priest for his cleansing, he shall be seen of the priest again: 8 And if the priest see that, behold, the scab spreadeth in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a leprosy. 9 When the plague of leprosy is in a man, then he shall be brought unto the priest; 10 And the priest shall see him: and, behold, if the rising be white in the skin, and it have turned the hair white, and there be quick raw flesh in the rising; 11 It is an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean, and shall not shut him up: for he is unclean. 12 And if a leprosy break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plague from his head even to his foot, wheresoever the priest looketh; 13 Then the priest shall consider: and, behold, if the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague: it is all turned white: he is clean. 14 But when raw flesh appeareth in him, he shall be unclean. 15 And the priest shall see the raw flesh, and pronounce him to be unclean: for the raw flesh is unclean: it is a leprosy. 16 Or if the raw flesh turn again, and be changed unto white, he shall come unto the priest; 17 And the priest shall see him: and, behold, if the plague be turned into white; then the priest shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague: he is clean.
I. Concerning the plague of leprosy we may observe in general, 1. That it was rather an uncleanness than a disease; or, at least, so the law considered it, and therefore employed not the physicians but the priests about it. Christ is said to cleanse lepers, not to cure them. We do not read of any that died of the leprosy, but it rather buried them alive, by rendering them unfit for conversation with any but such as were infected like themselves. Yet there is a tradition that Pharaoh, who sought to kill Moses, was the first that ever was struck with this disease, and that he died of it. It is said to have begun first in Egypt, whence it spread into Syria. It was very well known to Moses, when he put his own hand into his bosom and took it out leprous. 2. That it was a plague inflicted immediately by the hand of God, and came not from natural causes, as other diseases; and therefore must be managed according to a divine law. Miriam’s leprosy, and Gehazi’s, and king Uzziah’s, were all the punishments of particular sins: and, if generally it was so, no marvel there was so much care taken to distinguish it from a common distemper, that none might be looked upon as lying under this extraordinary token of divine displeasure but those that really were so. 3. That it is a plague not now known in the world; what is commonly called the leprosy is of a quite different nature. This seems to have been reserved as a particular scourge for the sinners of those times and places. The Jews retained the idolatrous customs they had learnt in Egypt, and therefore God justly caused this with some others of the diseases of Egypt to follow them. Yet we read of Naaman the Syrian, who was a leper, 2 Kings v. 1. 4. That there were other breakings-out in the body which did very much resemble the leprosy, but were not it, which might make a man sore and loathsome and yet not ceremonially unclean. Justly are our bodies called vile bodies, which have in them the seeds of so many diseases, by which the lives of so many are made bitter to them. 5. That the judgment of it was referred to the priests. Lepers were looked upon as stigmatized by the justice of God, and therefore it was left to his servants the priests, who might be presumed to know his mark best, to pronounce who were lepers and who were not. All the Jews say, “Any priest, though disabled by a blemish to attend the sanctuary, might be a judge of the leprosy, provided the blemish were not in his eye. And he might” (they say) “take a common person to assist him in the search, but the priest only must pronounce the judgment.” 6. That it was a figure of the moral pollution of men’s minds by sin, which is the leprosy of the soul, defiling to the conscience, and from which Christ alone can cleanse us; for herein the power of his grace infinitely transcends that of the legal priesthood, that the priest could only convict the leper (for by the law is the knowledge of sin), but Christ can cure the leper, he can take away sin. Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean, which was more than the priests could do, Matt. viii. 2. Some think that the leprosy signified, not so much sin in general as a state of sin, by which men are separated from God (their spot not being the spot of God’s children), and scandalous sin, for which men are to be shut out from the communion of the faithful. It is a work of great importance, but of great difficulty, to judge of our spiritual state: we have all cause to suspect ourselves, being conscious to ourselves of sores and spots, but whether clean or unclean is the question. A man might have a scab (v. 6) and yet be clean: the best have their infirmities; but, as there were certain marks by which to know that it was a leprosy, so there are characters of such as are in the gall of bitterness, and the work of ministers is to declare the judgment of leprosy and to assist those that suspect themselves in the trial of their spiritual state, remitting or retaining sin. And hence the keys of the kingdom of heaven are said to be given to them, because they are to separate between the precious and the vile, and to judge who are fit as clean to partake of the holy things and who as unclean must be debarred from them.
II. Several rules are here laid down by which the judgment of the priest must be governed. 1. If the sore was but skin-deep, it was to be hoped it was not the leprosy, v. 4. But, if it was deeper than the skin, the man must be pronounced unclean, v. 3. The infirmities that consist with grace do not sink deep into the soul, but the mind still serves the law of God, and the inward man delights in it,Rom 7:22; Rom 7:25. But if the matter be really worse than it shows, and the inwards be infected, the case is dangerous. 2. If the sore be at a stay, and do not spread, it is no leprosy, Lev 13:4; Lev 13:5. But if it spread much abroad, and continue to do so after several inspections, the case is bad, Lev 13:7; Lev 13:8. If men do not grow worse, but a stop be put to the course of their sins and their corruptions be checked, it is to be hoped they will grow better; but if sin get ground, and they become worse every day, they are going downhill. 3. If there was proud raw flesh in the rising, the priest needed not to wait any longer, it was certainly a leprosy, Lev 13:10; Lev 13:11. Nor is there any surer indication of the badness of a man’s spiritual state than the heart’s rising in self-conceit, confidence in the flesh, and resistance of the reproofs of the word and strivings of the Spirit. 4. If the eruption, whatever it was, covered all the skin from head to foot, it was no leprosy (Lev 13:12; Lev 13:13); for it was an evidence that the vitals were sound and strong, and nature hereby helped itself, throwing out what was burdensome and pernicious. There is hope in the small-pox when they come out well: so if men freely confess their sins, and hide them not, there is no danger comparable to theirs that cover their sins. Some gather this from it, that there is more hope of the profane than of hypocrites. The publicans and harlots went into the kingdom of heaven before scribes and Pharisees. In one respect, the sudden breakings-out of passion, though bad enough, are not so dangerous as malice concealed. Others gather this, that, if we judge ourselves, we shall not be judged; if we see and own that there is no health in us, no soundness in our flesh, by reason of sin, we shall find grace in the eyes of the Lord. 5. The priest must take time in making his judgment, and not give it rashly. If the matter looked suspicious, he must shut up the patient seven days, and then seven days more, that his judgment might be according to truth. This teaches all, both ministers and people, not to be hasty in their censures, nor to judge any thing before the time. If some men’s sins go before unto judgment, the sins of others follow after, and so men’s good works; therefore let nothing be done suddenly,1Ti 5:22; 1Ti 5:24; 1Ti 5:25. 6. If the person suspected was found to be clean, yet he must wash his clothes (v. 6), because he had been under the suspicion, and there had been in him that which gave ground for the suspicion. Even the prisoner that is acquitted must go down on his knees. We have need to be washed in the blood of Christ from our spots, though they be not leprosy-spots; for who can say, I am pure from sin? though there are those who through grace are innocent from the great transgression.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
LEVITICUS- CHAPTER THIRTEEN
Verses 1-8:
This chapter contains the “Law of the Leper,” and lists the procedures by which one is determined to have the disease.
“Leprosy,” tsaraath, from the verb tsara, occurs 33 times in the Book of Leviticus. The word is apparently kin to tsarah, meaning “distress, anguish, trouble.”
Apparently, various other diseases fell under the category labeled “leprosy” in the Old Testament, which are similar but not identical to this malady.
The modern term denoting leprosy is “Hansen’s disease,” named after G. Armauer Hansen, who in 1879 first observed the micro-organism Mycobacterium leprae in the tissues of patients.
Leprosy is largely tropical and subtropical. In the main, it is confined to the warmer regions of the world, and among dark-skinned peoples. It is particularly prevalent where there is inadequate nutrition and sanitation.
The means of the transmission of leprosy from person to person is uncertain. Some studies indicate that it may be spread by direct contact, and that no intermediate host is necessary. It was once believed to be inherited, but this has been disproved.
There are two types of leprosy:
1. Lepromatous, which begins with brownish-red spots on face, ears, forearms, thighs and/or buttocks. These spots become thickened nodules, which become ulcers when they lose their skin covering. The sores result in loss of tissue, ten contraction and deformity. This is the type apparently in view in Scripture.
2. Tuberculoid, which is characterized by numbness of the affected area. The fingers become deformed, taking the appearance of claws, as the result of muscle paralysis and atrophy.
This chapter does not deal with the advanced cases of leprosy, but with the early diagnosis of this dreadful disease.
Leprosy is a picture of sin, in its inevitably destruction of the victim; and in that it is incurable except by Divine intervention.
“Plague,” nega, “smiting, stroke.” The term occurs 54 times in chapters 13 and 14. Use of this term implies a Divine “stroke” or judgment, either as a chastening of God or as His judgment upon sin.
The one suspected of having leprosy was to be brought before the priest, either Aaron (as high priest), or one of his sons. This implies that the determination of leprosy and the resulting quarantine were not only for sanitary purposes, but that they also had spiritual significance.
The first symptom: the hair around the affected spot became white and thin.
The second symptom: the “plague” or infection was deeper than the outer skin.
If the priest were unable to determine if the spot were indeed leprous, he was to “shut up” or “bind up the affected part” for seven days. If at the end of this week the matter were still inconclusive, he was to wait for another week.
If at the end of the second week the spot appeared darker and had not spread, the victim was pronounced clean. However, if the color were still “bright” or light, and if the infection had spread, the priest pronounced it to be leprosy.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Leprosy: its Discobery and Treatment
SUGGESTIVE READINGS
Gathering into view the circumstantial and concise description of the malady here given; the directions concerning leprosy may be thus analysed and arranged: Symptoms of leprosy:
1. Their minuteness: small in their beginnings, trifling skin blemishes or hair defects, scarcely distinguishable at the outset, evasive therefore, and subtle.
2. Their intricacy: so resembling other ailments, in some cases rising out of other blemishes and wounds; complicate and interblending.
3. Their repulsiveness: all the descriptions are loathsome. Discrimination of the symptoms. The investigation had to be
1. Cautious: lest that should be pronounced leprosy which was not; or that which was, be exempted.
2. Patient: the sufferer must be repeatedly examined where the signs were uncertain: no haste, no summary decision.
3. Thorough: searching to the very root: watching a wound to note its developments, shaving the hair that no symptom escape notice.
Treatment of the leper. When the malady was beyond doubt, the doom was
1. Absolute: he was banished, there might be no concessions; he was excluded the camp.
2. Mournful: garments to be torn, the hair dishevelled, the lips covered, as for the dead.
3. Proclaimed: from the outlawed leper must rise the cry of warning to others, which was also the death knell of his own fateUnclean!
Six various aspects under which leprosy may develop itself in man are here specified:
1. First appearance of the plague: the victim manifesting symptoms which excite suspicion (Lev. 13:1-9.)
2. Return of the distemper (Lev. 13:9-11). But two features of the malady are here exempted from the ban of uncleanness.
(1). The plague has exhausted itself upon the entire body of the sufferer (Lev. 13:12-13).
(2). The plague spots have lost their virulence (Lev. 13:16-17).
3. Leprosy developing from other sores or accidental wounds: seizing these blemishes in which to root itself (Lev. 13:18-28).
4. The plague burying itself amid the hair: called the dry scall (Lev. 13:29-37).
5. Harmless leprosy (Lev. 13:38-39). It is still accounted harmless by the Arabs: causes no inconvenience, and lasts variously from two months to two years.
6. The baldness distemper: leading to the falling off of the hair from the back of the head (Lev. 13:40-44).
Lev. 13:45-46.The leper in whom the plague is, etc. As the victim of a grievous calamity the poor leper must assume the melancholy aspects of mourning, he must tell out his woe in the doleful cry Unclean, and his doom must be to wander as an outcast from the society of Israel and from the sanctuary of God. This foul distemper has always been a parable of the loathsomeness of sin, and its dismal punishment vividly pourtrays the grievous penalties of moral and spiritual defilementa castaway.
Lev. 13:47-59.The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, etc. Equal minuteness of inspection, discrimination of taint were to be exercised upon garments affected with the plague, and if judged to be really contagious they were to be burned. Clothes were scarce, and not easily to be replaced in the desert, hence care that nothing be needlessly destroyed. But no unclean thing, nor anything that defileth could be allowed to abide within the camp. Evil must be rooted from our own persons, or we become outcasts; and evil must be shunned, contact therewith be scrupulously avoided, or the malady may return. Therefore, like leprous garments, we must lay aside every weight and the sin that doth so easily beset us. Within the fellowship of the redeemed Church on earth, and amid the blessedness of the ransomed society of heaven, God will allow no place for any unclean thing, neither whatsoever worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they which are written in the Lambs book of life (Rev. 21:27).
SECTIONAL HOMILIES
Topic: MAN PHYSICALLY A VICTIM OF CRUEL MALADIES
How appalling this picture of physical misery! To what sickening and wearying distempers has the human frame become a prey! How humiliating to contemplate
the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to!
I. Fashioned after the divine image, HOW GRACEFUL AND DIGNIFIED IS THE HUMAN FORM!
Moving among all products of Gods creating skill, man is His noblest work.
1. As a tenement of the mind and spirit, the body is endowed with a natural comeliness.
It is no unfit abode for the higher nature within. Physically we are fearfully and wonderfully made. Mark its symmetry, its erectness, its agility. Well says Hamlet, What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!
2. As an intrustment of the mind and spirit, the body possesses finest aptitudes. Its motions, its senses, its abilities, afford admirable outlets for the impulses and aims of the inner being. The eyes for vision, the lips for speech, the hands for ministry and work, the limbs for movementthe physical form is a thing of marvellous suitableness to the necessities of intellectual life and spiritual sympathies. It is in itself no grim prison, no harsh machine, but a supple instrument, ready to all the requirements of the indwelling soul.
II. Assailed by foul diseases, HOW DESECRATED AND PITIABLE IS THE HUMAN FORM!
Look upon the mighty fallen! writhing in anguish, wasted by disease, distorted by maladies!
1. In bodily diseases we mark the traces of calamitous experiences having befallen man.
As in the geological strata the torn and disordered upheavals declare that violence has wrought harm, so in the sufferings and maladies of the human frame. Some dire disaster has come upon the serene world of human life. Diseases are evidences of ruinous activities having invaded mans history. God made his noble creature for something better than to be the victim of sufferings and maladies. A foul hand has been laid upon his beauteous form. An enemy hath done this. Sin has done dire work. Every pang, disorder, disease, is therefore a warning cry against sin which brought death into the world and all our woes.
2. In our physical maladies we may note the inducements to watchfulness and virtue.
If diseases point to a historic disaster in mans careerhis fall through sin, they also quicken man to carefulness against repeating the follies and vices which engender physical maladies. They are a callBeware! It is not altogether a melancholy fact that illnesses and sufferings assail us, if they warn us from indulgences end defilements which develop physical misery. The evil heart of man would urge him to unlimited vices if this penalty did not confront and restrain him.
Just disease to luxury succeeds,
And every death its own avenger breeds (Pope).
3 Amid all distresses of the body there are ameliorations and consolations offered in religion.
(1) A patient and devout spirit may draw honey out of the rock, and find solace in anguish; for those who love God have had to testify, It was good for me to be afflicted.
Affliction is not sent in vain
From that good God who chastens whom He loves (Southey).
(2). In suffering also there comes the consolation of Christ to those who are His. He knew affliction in bitterest degree, and is a brother born for adversity.
(3). And there opens in prospect to the child of God the blissful life of heaven, where the inhabitants never say they are sick, etc. (Rev. 21:4).
Topic: DISEASEDEVELOPMENTDOOM
Trace the career of the malady: it does not complete itself at a stride: it has its outset and its goal. A pestilence in the land does not expand into its fatal proportions without antecedent incitements and advancing developments. In its germinal stage the peril may have been unsuspected or ignored, but its fructification proves that active energies have long and effectively operated. Harvest fields swept by the scythe once lay bare in ploughed furrows; the seed was sown, it grew, ripened, till the reapers entered, and the garners were filled. Good and bad products alike have their history of outset, advance and fruition. In mans physical and moral life there are equally traceable the beginnings and progressions of evil, till the fatal end is reached. No fact for contemplation in the moral realm is more melancholy than thisthe progress of corruption. Consider the
I. SUBTLE HISTORY OF ITS ORIGIN.
Transmitted; mysteriously passed on from parent to child: or acquired by contact with the leper, or things infected with leprosy
1. For awhile the distemper lies concealed in the blood, assumes no visible symptoms; is latent, passive. Thus sin long secretes itself in the nature as a subtle tendency, slumbers in the heart as a hidden taint. Whence the beginnings of evil in a human life? Came it from parentage, a moral tendency in the affections, the will, the habits? Was it imparted by early whisperings, faulty examples, harmful influences?
2. Its first appearance was in a form of uncertainty, not manifestly leprous, a swelling, a spot. Wrong when beginning in a child is not glaringly wrong, there is a something suggestive of possible deviation from right, but it is not certainly so, not manifestly and determinately so. It startles suspicion in the observer; the word, though not false, was hardly true; the secret act was scarcely deceitful, yet lacking in thorough honesty; it is scarcely a rift in the lute; not yet a rot on the fruit, only a little pitted speck.
3. Thus starting, as evil does, in a kind of incertitude, as a slight dereliction, a wavering which creates suspicion, but is not yet sufficiently pronounced to be condemned, it only needs time in order to unfold and declare itself. Leave it to work its way out, and it quickly assumes more positive forms, and it becomes too manifest that the leprosy has a firm hold on the blood, the life. [Addenda to chap. xiii. Developments.]
II. APPALLING RAPIDITY OF ITS PROGRESS.
Having gained hold on its victim, and diffused itself through the blood, the infection hastens to spread over the system. Thought of sin, suggested from without, or awaking from within, grows into desire; desire into intention: intention into act.
Vital energy decays, good resolves droop, moral force and rectitude of purpose decline; then succeed estranged affections, a defiant will, an evil heart of unbelief, character corrupted, till sin reigns in our mortal body that we obey it in the lusts thereof (Rom. 6:12).
III. LOATHSOME ASPECTS OF ITS DEVELOPMENT.
Whether looked at in its incipient stage (Lev. 13:2-3), or in further advance (Lev. 13:7), or full outburst (Lev. 13:10), or in an inflamed state (Lev. 13:24), etc., it is always repulsive.
Of all forms and degrees of sin God pleads, O do not the abominable thing which I hate!
IV. CONTAGIOUS PROPERTIES OF THE MALADY.
One leper could spread infection through a community; all who came near him, all he touched, became contaminated.
By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin: and so death passed upon all men. One sinner destroyeth much good.
No man liveth to himself. One sin suggests sin to others. The contagion of evil example! The destructive influence of impurity. Evil communications corrupt good manners. [Addenda to chap. xiii., Transmitted Effects.]
V. FATAL TERMINATION OF THE PLAGUE.
Disease, unless arrested, soon completes its ravages; and the victim sinks to death. And what are the issues of sin? Wages of sin is death.
When lust is conceived it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
1. Outcast for his uncleanness, all his days (Lev. 13:46).
2. If he die in his sins, rejected for evermore from the Heavenly Sanctuary and the Family of God. [Addenda to chap., Unclean].
Topic: THE LEPER BEFORE THE PRIEST (Lev. 13:12-13)
And if a leprosy break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plague from his head even to his foot, wheresoever the priest looketh; then the priest shall consider: and, behold, if the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague; it is all turned white; he is clean.
This is a singular paradox, but not to him who understands the gospel. Carry in your thoughts the one key, namely, that leprosy is the type of sin; and, first of all, see the leper, and in the leper the sinner. Then bring him before the priest and watch while the priest examines him.
I. Turn your eyes to the LOATHSOME AND GHASTLY SPECTACLE OF A LEPER.
1. A leper was extremely loathsome in his person. The leprosy broke out, at first almost imperceptibly, in certain red spots which appeared in the skin. The withering of the skin followed, and was an index of what was going on within; for in the very marrow of the bones there was a most frightful rottenness, which in due time would utterly consume the victim. When it came to its very worst phase the whole house of manhood would become a horrible mass of animated rubbish rather than the stately temple which God originally made it. It is a very poor portrait of the loathsomeness of sin. When once taught of God the Holy Ghost, we see that we are vile and full of sin, that there is no good thing whatsoever in us. Loathsome as was the leper, it was not more so in the type than is sin in the estimation of every enlightened mind.
2. The leper was defiled in all his acts. If he drank out of a vessel, the vessel was defiled. If he lay upon a bed, the bed became unclean, and whosoever sat upon the bed afterwards became unclean too. If he touched but the wall of a house the wall became unclean and must be purged. Wherever he went he tainted the atmosphere; his breath was as dangerous as the pestilence. He shot baneful glances from his eyes. All that he did was full of the same loathsomeness as was himself. The actions of the natural man are tainted with sin. Whether he eats or drinks, or whatsoever he does, he continues to sin against his God. Nay, if he should come up to Gods house and sing and pray, there is sin in his songs, for they are but hypocrisy; there is guilt in his prayers, for the prayers of the wicked are an abomination unto the Lord. Let him attempt to perform holy actions, he is like Uzziah who laid hold upon the censer of the priest while the leprosy was on his brow, till he was glad to retire from the sacred place lest he should be struck dead. If thou dost not confess that all thy actions before thou wast regenerate were full of sin and abominable in the sight of God, thou hast not yet learned what thou art, and it is not likely that thou wilt wish to know what a Saviour is.
3. Being thus the medium of contagion and defilement wherever he went, the Lord demanded that he should be shut out from the society of Israel. There was a spot outside the camp, barren, solitary, where lepers are confined. They were commanded to wear a covering over the mouth and upon the upper lip, and if any passed by they were compelled to cry Unclean! unclean! unclean! Some of the Rabbi translate the cry Avoid! avoid! avoid! One of the American poets has put it, Room for the leper! room! They were required never to drink of a running stream of water of which others might drink; nor might they sit down on any stone by the roadside upon which it was probable any other person might rest. They were dead to all the enjoyments of life, dead to all the endearments and society of their friends. Such is the case with the sinner with regard to the people of God. He can go and find such mirth as the company of his fellow-lepers can afford, but where Gods people are he is out of place, shut out from the communion of saints, cannot pray their prayer nor sing their hymns, know not their joys, never taste their perfect peace, never enter into the rest which remaineth for them.
4. The leper was wholly unable to come up to the house of God. Other men might offer sacrifices but not the leper; others had a share in the great high priests sacrifice, and when he went within the vail he appeared for all others, but the leper had neither part nor lot in this matter. He was shut out from God as well as shut out from man. He was no partaker of the sacred things of Israel, and all the ordinances of the tabernacle were as nothing to him. Think of that, sinner! As a sinner full of guilt, thou art shut out from all communion with God. Thou canst not stand in His presence, for He is a devouring fire and would consume thee. Thy prayers are shut out from Him, thy words are unheard; shut out utterly and entirely by sin from the presence and acceptance of God.
II. NOW BRING THE LEPER UP TO THE HIGH PRIEST.
Whenever a leper was cleansed under the Jewish law the leper did nothing, the priest did all. Previous to his being pronounced clean, the leper was passivethe priest did everything. The priest comes out from the sanctuary, comes to the place of the lepers, where no other man might go but he in his priestly office. He calls up one leper before him; he looks at him and there is a spot on that leper which is not leprousquick, raw, healthy flesh. The priest puts him aside; he is an unclean leper. Here is another, and he has but one or two red spots appearing beneath the skin, all the rest of his body is perfectly sound; the priest puts him aside, he is an unclean leper. Here is another; he is from head to foot covered with a scaly whiteness of the filthy disease, the hair is all turned white, owing to the decay of the powers of nature which are unable now to nourish the roots of the hair. There is not a single speck of health in him from the crown of his head to the soul of his foot, but all is pollution and filth. But hark! the high priest says to him, Thou art clean. And after certain necessary ceremonies he is admitted into the camp, and afterwards into the very sanctuary of God. If there was found any sound place in him, he was unclean. But when the leprosy had covered him, wheresoever the priest looked, then the man became by sacrificial rights a clean leper.
Bring up the sinner before the Great High Priest. How many there are ready to confess that they have done many things which are wrong, but they say, Though we have done much which we cannot justify, yet there have been many good actions which might almost counterbalance the sin; been charitable to the poor, sought to instruct the ignorant, to help those that are out of the way. We have some sins we do confess; but there is much which is still right and good, and we therefore hope that we shall be delivered. I put you aside, in Gods name, by His authority, as unclean lepers. For you there is no hope and no promise of salvation whatever. A second comes. He admits a very great measure of guilt; not open immorality, but his thoughts and the imaginations of his heart have been evil, and evil frequently. But still, saith he, though I have not one good work of which to boast, nor any righteousness in which to glory, yet I do hope that by repentance I may amend; I trust that by a resolute persistence in good works I may yet blot out my past life, and so may enter heaven. I set him aside again, as being an unclean leper, for whom cleansing rites are not provided. He is one who must still be kept without the camp; he has not arrived at that stage in which it is possible for him to be made clean. But another comes. Probably he is a really better man than either of the other two, but not in his own opinion. With many a sigh and tear he confesses that he is utterly ruined and undone. A month or two ago I would have claimed a righteousness with the very best, could have boasted of what I have done; but now I see my righteousness to be as filthy rags, and all my goodness is as an unclean thing. I count all these things but dross and dung. I tread upon them and despise them. I have done no good thing. I have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Lord, at Thy feet I fall, full of leprosy from head to foot; nothing have I to boast of, nothing to trust to except Thy mercy. He is a clean leper; sins forgiven, iniquities put away. Through the blood of Jesus Christ, who died upon the tree, saved! As soon as ever the leprosy had come right out the man was clean, and as soon as ever your sin is fully manifest, so that in your conscience you feel yourself to be really a sinner, there is a way of salvation for you. As long as a man has anything to boast of, there is no Christ for him; but the moment he has nothing of his own, Christ is his.C. H. Spurgeon, A.D. 1860.
Topic: UNCLEAN, UNCLEAN (Lev. 13:45)
Gods mercy paints malady in hideous tints, that the sufferer may see his plague and hasten to the healer.
Leprosy showed, by a long train of emblem, the complex loathsomeness of sin, that evil might be the more abhorred.
I. THIS MALADY CREPT IN WITH STEALTHY STEPS.
Not easily discerned. Human skill was blind. Wisdom from on high was needed. The anointed priest must search.
Sin lurks within the veins. The world has no detecting eye. The self-pleased fancy boasts of health. Death is begun when all seems life. The plague devours, but ignorance sees not.
Only the Spirit can convince of sin: He only can reveal the inborn defilement. He sets the soul before the mirror of Gods Word; opens sightless eyes; and the sinner beholds a hideous mass of polluted self. The light from heaven shows leprosy throughout. [See Job. 42:6; and Isa. 6:5. Compare also Pauls testimony. Rom. 7:24.]
Sinners, bring heart, and thought, and ways, and life to the revealing Word. Consult not the worlds counsel. Call in the Faithful Witness. Shrink not. Self-knowledge is a step towards Christ. The malady perceived leads to the malady relieved.
II. THE SUFFERER HEARS THE PRIESTS CODEMNING VOICE.
He is pronounced Unclean.
He goes forth; tastes no more the joys of social scenes; shunning and shunned he hides himself in solitude. His whole mien proclaims the misery of his dejected soul. Clothes rent, head bare, mouth covered; and when the hollow voice must speak it sounds the plaintive knell, Unclean, unclean!
1. The wretchedness of sin: The clothes are rentsymbol of bitterest grief (2Sa. 3:31; Job. 1:20). There is no woe like that of sin.
2. Lowly shame also: Head uncovered. [See Job. 19:9.] In the leper thus despoiled we see how sin inflicts an ignominious brand. [Compare Ezr. 9:6.]
3. Utterance stifled: upper lip covered. The sorrowful and shameful sinner finds speech muffled and choked. When God withdrew, Then were the seers ashamed, etc. (Mic. 3:7). Sin should be mute. While faithful lips abound in prayer, and send forth songs of praise, and tell of redeeming grace; a sinners throat is an open sepulchre.
4. Pollution is bemoaned. If a passing step draws near, a piteous warning must be raisedUnclean, unclean! (Zec. 3:3; Isa. 64:6).
5. Outcast from social life. No home may welcome him. In loneliness he pines. No station gains exemption. Miriam (Num. 12:14); King Uzziah (2Ki. 15:5).
What has sin done? Driven angels from heavens light. Excluded multitudes of men from communion with God, holy fellowship, the consecrated board: makes sinners exiles from the heaven bound host, lone off-scourings amid the miseries of desert life.
6. Shut without the gates. God and His people within, he without. The saved within heavens gatesbarred; the lost without for ever. Thus the leper stands an emblem of sins dreadful plague.
Why this picture of horror? That you may sink in despair? Far otherwise.
III. THE GREAT HIGH PRIEST IS NEAR.
1. He comes to the leper. With healing grace, He draws nigh the foulest, the hopeless.
2. His remedy is ready and sure. Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean! was a lepers cry. Hear His reply, I will, be thou clean.
3. None need be an outcast from His fold. He opens grace and glory to the penitent and trustful soul. [Comp. Christ is all.]
Topic: LEPROSY, A PARABLE OF HUMAN DEPRAVITY
A. As it affects the Moral Constitution of Man (Lev. 13:1-45).
Leprosy has always been regarded as a mysterious as well as a malignant disease. Unlike other diseases, it was to be detected and treated by the priests. Probably the disease was acquired by the Hebrews while badly fed and hardly worked in Egypt. Their skin would become liable to cutaneous diseases on account of exposure to the dust of brickfields and heat of the burning sun. In the whole range of Scripture is no other malady so fully described. Invested with such prominence and importance, the Hebrews would be (a) put on their guard against ceremonial defilement: (b) filled with the spirit of religious fear: (c) stimulated to desire spiritual purity. The patient, as he repaired to the priest, convicted of pollution, would be humbled, and have thoughts suggested to his mind of unworthiness and sin.
I. LEPROSY WAS MYSTERIOUS IN ITS ORIGIN. Neither the patient nor the priest could tell exactly how or when the disease originated; they had to attend to the symptoms, and concern themselves about the reality and removal. The priest could not look into the springs of life and analyse the seeds of the evil. So, moral evil, that affects our race, is mysterious in its origin; we can detect and trace its symptoms, prove its presence; it corrupts the springs of our moral nature, vitiates all the faculties of the soul. We know by history, observation, especially by experience, that we are children of a sin-smitten race, the taint is in our blood, and only requires favourable circumstances to assert its malignity and power.
II. LEPROSY WAS INSIDIOUS IN ITS PROGRESS. For a while the person affected might be unconscious of its presence; and even the priest might find difficulty in passing judgment after careful examination. It was liable to break out at any time, and assume various aspects. So, with depravity having its seat within, at any time, and under any circumstances, it may reveal its presence and powerdevelop the most alarming symptoms. Little spots, so-called sins of inadvertency, slight infirmities, may secretly develop into morally corrupt habits, and disfigure the whole life.
III. LEPROSY WAS DETESTABLE IN ITS SYMPTOMS. Every phase of it was associated with uncleanness. The patient not only became loathsome to himself, but offensive to society. Mental and moral anguish would accompany physical pain. The disease would disfigure and deform the frame, rendering life almost intolerable. So, sin produces moral disfigurement, induces all kinds of sorrow. Holiness is beautiful, but wickedness is hideous. Our moral sense puts its stigma upon vice. Moral impurity God loathes, and will ultimately destroy. Society has its lazar houses, where depravity may not only be checked, but where its hideous symptoms may be hidden from beholders. Such sins as those spoken of in Rom. 1:21-32 justify the statement of Isa. 1:5-6, concerning the offensive features of moral corruption.
IV. LEPROSY WAS INVETERATE IN ITS TENACITY. When once it asserted itself, the sufferer would have to be prompt and persevering in his efforts to get it eradicated. The priest had to make very close scrutiny, to re-examine, and put the leper under repeated probation. Any contact with contagion would suffice to revive the old evil in all its virulence. There was the pre-disposition in the blood, the secret of the trouble was there. So, with moral depravity, it has been transmitted in our blood, the springs of life are vitiated. Sin is indigenous, and defies complete eradiction in this life. Only one sinless Being has lived on our earth, He was immaculately conceived; we, are born in sin, and shapen in iniquity. Leprosy defied all human means to remove it; through the instrumentality of the divinely appointed priest alone it succumbed. Education, reform, etc., cannot cure the depravity of the heart, nothing short of the fountain opened in the house of David for sin and for uncleanness. Through the mercy of God we can be abundantly pardoned here, and become without spot hereafter.F. W. B.
Topic: B. AS IT AFFECTS THE EARTHLY CIRCUMSTANCES OF MAN (Lev. 13:45-59)
One of the first penalties the leper suffered was excommunication. No sooner did the priest detect disease, than he commanded withdrawal on the part of the sufferer from healthy society, in order that the infection might not spread.
I. HE WOULD BE SHUT OUT FROM THE DOMESTIC CIRCLE. So sin unsocializes, unfits men for the joys and purity of hearth and home; frequently the morally impure have to be excluded from the company of the virtuous.
II. HE WOULD BE SHUT OUT FROM THE SECULAR CIRCLE. Not permitted to return to his tent, he would be unfit to take his place in society, and fulfil his duties in the world. So wrong-doing and moral turpitude will render men unfit for society, and necessitate their incarceration for reformation and restraint.
III. HE WOULD BE SHUT OUT FROM THE SACRED CIRCLE. Although allowed to repair to the priest, he would not be allowed to mingle and take part in the services of the house of God, the priest shut him up in seclusion. So evil shuts men out from communion with God and His people. Those composing the Church are persons who become separate, and who touch not the unclean thing. The saddest aspect of sin is that it separates the soul from God; and, but for the intervention of our great High Priest, would shut us out from His presence for ever.
How circumspect, therefore, we ought to be! How anxious that the leprosy of our souls may be cleansed!F. W. B.
Topic: SINFUL SURROUNDINGS (Lev. 13:47-57)
Notice was to be taken of leprous garments and houses; and, no matter what their texture or value, if found to be incurably diseased, were to be unscrupulously destroyed. By these things we are taught
I. THAT GREAT CARE SHOULD BE EXERCISED IN THE SELECTION OF OUR SURROUNDINGS.
We are not absolutely creatures of circumstances, but are marvellously affected by them. We are not responsible for our parentage, nor the early environments which give bias and tone to after life. These are circumstances unforeseen and uncontrollable, to which we are compelled resignedly to submit. But we have to make many of the influences that enwrap us like garments, as we go through life.
(a) The clothes we wear.
(b) The books we read.
(c) The company we keep.
(d) The places we frequent.
(e) The scenes we visit.
All these may have a pernicious and demoralising tendency; they may be leprous, and introduce sin through the gateways of the town of mans soul. How suitable, then, the advice in Psalms 1 and in Proverbs of Solomon.
II. THAT PROMPT AND DECISIVE ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN WHEN OUR SURROUNDINGS AWAKEN SUSPICION.
(a) Avail ourselves of judicious advice. The leper took anything he suspected to priest for scrutiny. Let us test our surroundings by the teaching of our Great High Priest; for there can be no high morality without His religion.
(b) Suspend the suspected thing till scrutiny has been made.
Suspected garments were shut up seven days; and repeated if needed. Let us be shy of suspicious books, places, etc. Have them fairly investigated.
(c) If the suspected thing be righteously condemned, let unconditional destruction of it immediately ensue.
The leprous garment was to be consumed with fire. So let us break off at once from bad company or vicious books. The converts at Ephesus burnt their wicked books; that ensured
(1) That they should do the owners no more harm;
(2) That they should not corrupt others, and
(3) Showed the reality of conversion.
Things that will not wash, that will not improve by washing, are not to be relied on. Sin is not an external deformity, a trifling irregularity, infirmity, or failing; but in the soul, degrading all its powers, which, if not cleansed, will ultimately get its desert, in everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.F. W. B.
Topic: THE WONDROUS WORKING OF GODS GRACE (Lev. 13:12-13; Lev. 13:45-46)
The God of Israel could bear with infirmity, blemish, failure, but the moment it became a case of defilementin head, beard, forehead, or any partit could not be tolerated in the holy assembly (Lev. 13:45-46). Here was the lepers condition, the lepers occupation, the lepers place. What more humiliating than this! Excluded from the only spot in all the world in which Jehovahs presence was known or enjoyed. In that poor, solitary leper behold
I. A VIVID TYPE OF ONE IN WHOM SIN IS WORKING.
It is not a helpless, convicted sinner who is here pourtrayed, whose guilt and misery have thoroughly come outa fit subject, therefore, for Gods love and the Saviours bloodbut one in whom sin is actually working, one in whom there is the positive energy of evil.
1. So long as sin is working there can be no fellowship with God or with His people. He shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be. How long? All the days wherein the plague shall be in him. This is a great practical truth: the energy of evil is the death blow to communion. It matters not what the amount of the evil be, if it were but a foolish thought, so long as it continues to work it must cause suspension of fellowship.
2. A suggestive paradox in Gods dealing with sinners. When the plague break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of him, etc., he is clean (Lev. 13:12-13). The moment a sinner is in his true place before God, the matter is settled. Directly his real character is fully out, no difficulty remains. When the soul is before Him with the cry, Just as I am! the free grace of God flows down to him. When I kept silence, etc. (Psa. 32:3-4); but when I acknowledged my sin, etc. (Lev. 13:5), thou forgavest. The moment a sinner takes his true place as one thoroughly lost, guilty, and undone, as one in whom there is not a single spot on which the eye of Infinite Holiness can rest with complacency, so bad that he cannot possibly be worse, that moment there is a perfect settlement of the entire matter.
II. THE GRACE OF GOD DEALS WITH ACKNOWLEDGED SINNERS.
1. The more evidently a man is a sinner the more clearly is established his title to the grace of God, and to the work of Christ, for Christ also hath suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, etc. (1Pe. 3:8). The gospel applies itself to all who are on the ground of being lost. It is there, and there alone, that grace can meet the guilty. Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.
2. To have a hopeless view of ones self is the beginning of salvation. So long as a sinner thinks there is a single spot which is not covered with the direful disease, he has not come to the end of himself. It is when his true condition is fully disclosed to view, and he sees himself wretched, and poor, and miserable, that there opens to him the meaning of salvation BY GRACE.Evolved from Notes on Leviticus by C. H. M.
OUTLINES ON VERSES OF CHAPTER 13
Lev. 13:2Theme: FIRST SYMPTOMS OF DEPRAVITY TO BE SUSPECTED.
As soon as a person had suspicion that leprosy was in the blood, before he was certain, or society had branded him, he was to repair to the appointed priest, and submit to a careful examination. If the priest pronounced the presence of disease, the sufferer was to acquiesce uncomplainingly to the decison. We have suggested
I. BY WHAT SIGNS INDWELLING DEPRAVITY MAY BE DETECTED.
(a) Uprising of evil desire. When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising. Inordinate cravings, sensual promptings, etc.
(b) Uprising of inflamed passions. A scab or bright spot. Evil, like leaven, soon spreads, and demonstrates its existence; though secret at first, it reveals its vitality and virulence in a palpable manner. Sin has its roots in lust, evil desire; and, when hidden lust hath conceived it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. In first transgression, the lustful looking preceded the tasting and fatal eating of the forbidden fruit. Let us check the looking and inward longing, and seek to arrest the uprisings of inward depravity, thus nip sin in the bud.
Indwelling depravity cannot always be detected by (a) personal feelings; or (b) personal inconvenience. Many diseases, at their beginning, are insidious and flattering: do not occasion pain, or seem to impair the strength.
II. BY WHAT TESTS THE EXISTENCE OF INDWELLING DEPRAVITY MAY BE PROVED.
(a) By comparing ourselves with divine descriptions of sin. Probably the Hebrews were furnished with directions to guide them in self-examination, to indicate when they had need to have recourse to the priest. God, in His great mercy, has given a description of sin in the Holy Scriptures: and, by comparing ourselves with the mirror of the Word, we may detect the uprisings of depravity, and see what ravages sin commits in our moral nature.
(b) By repairing to persons competent to guide us in our investigation
The leper was to be brought to the priest; who, under divine guidance and authority, would give needed counsel. So nowalthough there are no priests after the Aaronic patternspersons anxious about their souls and the removal of sin do well to confer with the ambassadors of Christ, who have obtained healing of the plague of their own hearts, and seek help from heaven to direct anxious inquirers who ask, What must I do to be saved?F. W. B.
Lev. 13:5.Theme: SCRUPULOUS CARE IN DEALING WITH DEPRAVITY.
The priest exercised great patience in examining every case brought before him; he did not cloak or cover, or seek only to slightly heal; the course adopted was searching and thorough; Sin is not to be treated as a slight moral indisposition, but as a serious radical disease.
I. DEPRAVITY, LIKE LEPROSY, MAY SOMETIMES APPEAR AT A STAY. This might be the outcome of
(a) Heredity. Life healthy transmitted by parentageability to resist inroads of infection, development of disease. So, though piety does not run in the blood, yet propensities and dispositions are inherited, and check or quicken depravity.
(b) Organisation. The fires of lust will kindle quicker in some natures than in others. Some persons have animality so preponderating that Satan seems able easily to get the advantage over them.
(c) Environment. Pure surroundings help to repress tendencies to go wrong, to develop dispositions to virtue. The restraints of a godly home, refining influences of a good education may stay the tide of depravity that otherwise would break forth with great volume and power.
II. THOUGH APPARENTLY AT A STAY, DEPRAVITY, LIKE LEPROSY, MAY BE UNABATED IN ITS VIRULENCE.
Though the priest did not at first detect signs of disease, yet it may have been lurking dormant in the system, and waiting only for a favourable occasion to awaken into activity. This might occur from
(a) Inward irritation, or
(b) Outward influences.
We do not know what depths of depravity are within us, till some unexpected temptation stirs them, till the enemy comes in upon us as a flood.
III. THE ARREST OF SYMPTOMS OF DEPRAVITY MAY ISSUE IN THE REMOVAL OF THEIR CAUSE.
(a) When sinful habits are stayed, their fires may burn out.
(b) When sinful habits are stayed a new life is to be exhibited.
The healed leper was to wash his clothes and be clean. He was to appear among society as a new creature, both in conduct and character. The life of recovered lepers would be
(1) beautiful,
(2) holy,
(3) useful,
(4) happy So of every saved and sanctified soul.F. W. B.
Lev. 13:9.Theme: SIN NOT TO BE CONNIVED AT.
It was the duty of the leper to go to the priest; of society, to see that he went: he shall be brought unto the priest.
I. A MAN WITH LEPROSY NOT TO BE LEFT TO HIS MORBID FEELINGS.
He not at liberty to neglect means of recovery. No excuse, no willingness to commit his case to fate or chance to exonerate him from obligation to own his malady. Liberty in society is only lawful as it is compatible with the general good. The leper must go to priest, for
(a) His own sake.
(b) Sake of others.
So sinners ought to repair to great High Priest for similar reasons.
II. A MAN WITH LEPROSY TO BE DIRECTED TO MEANS OF CURE.
Friends would take and introduce him to priest, especially those who had obtained healing themselves. We have a right to interfere with the liberty of our fellows when it is for their real and unmistakable good. Let us take sinners to Christ, the Great Physician. He is able and willing to heal, as He healed the lepers in the days of His flesh. He removes leprosy of sin.
The leper was not to puzzle his brains about such questions as
(a) Why was leprosy permitted?
(b) How is it generated?
(c) How is it cured?
Enough for him to own it: avail himself of means of recovery. Useless, absurd, dangerous to hide or disown it. So with leprosy of sin, it is a good sign when it is acknowledged, sorrowed over, taken to Him who alone can remove depravity, and make our souls as clean as spotless wool, as white as virgin snow.F. W. B.
Lev. 13:2; Lev. 13:10; Lev. 13:18; Lev. 13:24; Lev. 13:29; Lev. 13:44.Theme: DEGREES OF DEPRAVITY.
Obviously, in leprosy there were varieties in kind, as well as symptoms. So in depravity it assumes various forms, manifests itself in different ways, though all may be grouped under the denomination, sin. We have suggested
I. INHERENT DEPRAVITY. In the skin of the flesh a rising (Lev. 13:2).
II. QUICKENED DEPRAVITY. Quick raw flesh in the rising (Lev. 13:10).
III. AGGRAVATED DEPRAVITY. In sight, lower than the skin (Lev. 13:20).
IV. VIRULENT DEPRAVITY. The quick flesh that burneth (v 24).
V. HIDEOUS DEPRAVITY. Plague upon the head, or the beard (Lev. 13:29).
VI. TOTAL DEPRAVITY. The priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his plague is in his head (Lev. 13:44).
Thus depravity culminates in disfigurement of the human face divine, suggesting the fact that sin has marred the image of God in man, and deranged the whole of his intellectual and moral powers.
What an evidence of spiritual blindness, that men do not see the hideous nature of sin. No wonder that Godwho sees every secret sinshould hate it, and provide for its removal. Those who voluntarily close their eyes to their sinful state, and die impenitent will be moral suicides.F. W. B.
Lev. 13:45-47Theme: RESULTS OF UNREMOVED DEPRAVITY.
When the leper was pronounced utterly unclean by the priest, the case was regarded as desperate and hopeless. So, when sinners become exceedingly vile, and defy every effort made for their amendment, the following things ensue:
I. CHARACTER DESTROYED. The lepers clothes were rent; so, sin ruins the character of its victims.
II. INTELLECT DETHRONED. The lepers head was bare; so, the mind of the abandoned sinner becomes neglected, deformed, and unprotected.
III. INFLUENCE PERNICIOUS. The lepers upper lip covered, to indicate that the breath had become exceedingly corrupt. So, sin changes the tongue from being a wholesome tree, to a pestilential stream of polluting influences.
IV. LIFE CORRUPTED. He is unclean. All the springs of life become impure, the whole man is corrupt. So, sin defiles the body, soul, and spirit; pollutes thought, word, and deed.
V. CONDITION SOLITARY. He shall dwell alone. Sin cuts men off from society with each other, from holy angels, from God. Religion unites men with the divine Father; and with each other, in the bonds of holy brotherhood.
VI. SELF-CONDEMNED. The poor leper cried Unclean, unclean! Wherever he went he proclaimed his complaint. So sinnerswhether they know it or notproclaim, wherever they go (by their character), the depravity that debases them; and, if at last excluded from the place of the holy they will own the justice of the sentence that excludes them.F. W. B.
ILLUSTRATIVE ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 13
DEVELOPMENTS
The Present is the living sum-total of the whole Past.CARLYLE, Characteristics.
Consequences are unpitying. Our deeds carry their terrible consequences, quite apart from any fluctuations that went before, consequences that are hardly ever confined to ourselves.GEORGE ELIOT, Adam Bede.
Large streams from little fountains flow
Tall oaks from little acorns grow.
DAVID EVERETT.
From little sparks may burst a mighty flame.DANTE.
Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill.Macbeth, III. 2.
TRANSMITTED EFFECTS:
And out of darkness came the hands
That reach through nature, moulding men.
TENNYSON, In Memoriam.
The seed we sow another reaps;
The wealth we find another keeps;
The robes we weave another wears;
The arms we forge another bears.
SHELLEY.
The evil that men do lives after them.
Julius Csar, III. 2.
No act of man nothing how much less the man himself! is extinguished when it disappears; through considerable time it still works, though done and vanished.CARLYLE.
No action, whether foul or fair,
Is ever done, but it leaves somewhere
A record, written by fingers ghostly,
As a blessing or curse, and mostly
In the greater weakness or greater strength
Of the acts which follow it.
LONGFELLOW, Christus.
UNCLEAN
The seeds of all my sins are in my heart, and perhaps the more dangerous that I do not see them.MCHEYNE.
Great sins make great sufferers.ANNA K. GREEN.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
LAWS CONCERNING LEPROSY 13:114:57
EXAMINATION AND ITS RESULT 13:146
a. THE SYMPTOMS OF LEPROSY, WHETHER PROCEEDING DIRECTLY FROM ERUPTIONS IN THE SKIN, OR CAUSED BY A BOIL OR BURN 13:18
TEXT 13:18
1
And Jehovah spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
2
When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it become in the skin of his flesh the plague of leprosy, then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests:
3
and the priest shall look on the plague in the skin of the flesh: and if the hair in the plague be turned white, and the appearance of the plague be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is the plague of leprosy; and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean.
4
And if the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white, then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days:
5
and the priest shall look on him the seventh day: and, behold, if in his eyes the plague be at a stay, and the plague be not spread in the skin, then the priest shall shut him up seven days more:
6
and the priest shall look on him again the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague be dim, and the plague be not spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is a scab: and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean.
7
But if the scab spread abroad in the skin, after that he hath showed himself to the priest for his cleansing, he shall show himself to the priest again:
8
and the priest shall look; and, behold, if the scab be spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is leprosy.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 13:18
238.
Why are both Moses and Aaron addressed?
239.
List the three kinds of appearances related to leprosy.
240.
Two symptoms must be present for leprosy to be present. What were they? Cf. Lev. 13:3.
241.
What condition must prevail in the case of the bright spot?
242.
There are two seven-day quarantine periods. What are they?
243.
The priest has a heavy responsibilitythe suspected person can be released as curedwhat must he do to be pronounced clean?
244.
What seems to be the one deciding factor in identifying leprosy? Cf. Lev. 13:7-8.
PARAPHRASE 13:18
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, If anyone notices a swelling in his skin, or a scab or boil or pimple with transparent skin, leprosy is to be suspected. He must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons for the spot to be examined. If the hair in this spot turns white, and if the spot looks to be more than skin-deep, it is leprosy, and the priest must declare him a leper. But if the white spot in the skin does not seem to be deeper than the skin and the hair in the spot has not turned white, the priest shall quarantine him for seven days. At the end of that time, on the seventh day, the priest will examine him again, and if the spot has not changed and has not spread in the skin, then the priest must quarantine him seven days more. Again on the seventh day the priest will examine him, and if the marks of the disease have become fainter and have not spread, then the priest shall pronounce him cured; it was only a scab, and the man need only wash his clothes and everything will be normal again. But if the spot spreads in the skin after he has come to the priest to be examined, he must come back to the priest again, and the priest shall look again, and if the spot has spread, then the priest must pronounce him a leper.
COMMENT 13:18
a. FIRST CASE 13:18
Lev. 13:1-2 Since the laws of leprosy chiefly concerned the priests, who had to examine the symptoms and decide if leprosy was present or not, the Lord addressed Aaron as well as Moses. There are three places where leprosy can develop: (1) manLev. 13:2-46; (2) clothesLev. 13:47-59; (3) housesLev. 14:33-57. In the next two chapters we will discuss all of these. In the case of man, there are seven different circumstances under which it might develop. The first one in Lev. 13:2-6 refers to development without any apparent cause. If one of the following three symptoms occur, a visit to the priest was in order: (1) A swelling or a swollen spot; (2) a scab or small tumor; (3) a bright or glossy pimple. The color of the swelling (according to tradition) should be like an eggshell or white wool; the bright spot should be as white as snow or the plaster on the wall.
Harold Fowler has given us some very helpful information on the general subject of leprosy:
Leprosy is an infectious condition produced by microbe discovered and described by A. G. Hansen in 1874. Hansens disease is contagious, its infection being thought to arise from direct contact with infected skin and mucous membranes, although not very readily communicated by casual contact. Seemingly it is not hereditary. Nerve involvement is attended with anesthesia, tingling and pain of the parts affected. In those forms of leprosy where nodular growths are the most prominent features the small bones of the hands and feet are destroyed and often drop off. Modern medicine has discovered treatments for leprosy of the various types (lepramatous, tuberculoid and non-specific) and control through early diagnosis, isolation and some drugs that show encouraging results, although complete cure is not yet promised. Spontaneous arresting of the disease and temporary cures have occurred. However, treatment is often necessary for years. (See UWRE, 2954; ISBE, 1867)
Some affirm, however, that Hansens disease is not the biblical leprosy. There are several complications to our problem of identifying precisely the leprosy of the Bible:
1.
The Biblical terminology identifying leprosy describes only the initial symptoms and discuss none of the later manifestations as a fully developed disease or attempt a medical description of its characteristics. The purpose of the Biblical terminology was originally for identifying and isolating the victims of this disease. It is worthy of note that there is no mention of treatment or remedy for the disease.
2.
The Biblical term leprosy in the critical passage (Lev. 13:1-59) is obviously used in several senses, meaning, generally, skin disease and, precisely, leprosy (the real thing). It would seem that Moses in that passage is describing leprosy and then listing eight other skin diseases which might be confused for leprosy, but which, regarding ceremonial defilement, were clean.
3.
Any remarks derived from the Mosaic legislation would have to be tempered by the actual practice of the Jews in Jesus time, which may well have been quite different from that intended by Moses. For instance, while Moses required lepers to stay out of inhabited centers (Lev. 13:46), this regulation may have been relaxed in later times so that lepers even entered a segregated portion of the synagogues, although not into the Temple. (Edersheim, Life, I, 493)
The chief emphasis of the Levitical legislation in the first place was the defilement which the disease brought to the sufferer, thus rendering him incapable of entering either the camp of Israel or of participating in the formal worship of Jehovah while in the grip of that disease. And it was by a sin offering that the ceremonial uncleanness was atoned for, upon ones cleansing from leprosy. (Lev. 14:13-14; Lev. 14:18 b Lev. 14:22) But the homiletic use of leprosy as a TYPE of sin is not biblical, although the similarities are striking. Were we to judge leprosy from the ancient Jewish standpoint of defilement, there could possibly be no lower state, nor worse defilement than this; however, estimating the disease from Christs standpoint, there are certainly worse defilements than mere leprosy. (Study Mat. 15:1-39; Mar. 7:1-37) Let it be remarked that though leprosy was atoned for by a sin, that is, a guilt offering, yet Jesus never declared the sins forgiven of a leper in connection with his disease, in the same way in which He apparently did not hold the demon-possessed as particularly guilty or sinful, or as He did in the case of others (Luk. 7:47-50; Mat. 9:1-8). Yet, from the silence of the Scripture record, no real argument can be made, inasmuch as the Apostles recorded only what we have. But it must be made absolutely clear that leprosy today carries no spiritual contamination to any man as it did only to Jews under Moses law.
Lev. 13:3 In this verse we have the principle used in all three of the above cases. Two indications of leprosy: (1) the ordinarily jet-black hair of the Hebrew has turned white in the area being examined; (2) the infection is deeper than the skin, i.e. it indicates by the soreness and a swollen condition that the flesh itself is affected. When these two symptoms are obvious, the priest must pronounce the sufferer unclean. By his pronouncement he actually makes him unclean, for such is the Hebrew meaning of the phrase. Whereas this is not primarily a homiletical commentary and whereas we recognize nowhere does the scripture link leprosy with sin, the comparison is at the same time very striking. Consider: (1) Both have a small beginning; (2) both are painless in early stages; (3) both are slow in growth; (4) both are insidious in progress; (5) both are resistless if not eradicated; (6) both have a hideous end.
Lev. 13:4-8 These verses discuss the treatment of the bright (or white) spot. Keil says: But if the bright spot was white upon the skin, and its appearance was not deeper than the skin, and the place therefore was not sunken, nor the hair turned white, the priest was to shut up the leper, i.e. preclude him from intercourse with other men, for seven days, and on the seventh day examine him again. If he then found that the mole still stood, i.e. remained unaltered, in his eyes, or in his view, that is it had not spread any further, he was to shut him up for seven more days. And if, on further examination upon the seventh day (fourteenth), he found that the mole had become paler, had lost its brilliant whiteness, and had not spread, he was to declare him clean, for it was a scurf, i.e. a mere skin eruption, and not true leprosy. The person who had been pronounced clean, however, was to wash his clothes, to change himself from even the appearance of leprosy, and then to be clean. But if the scurf had spread upon the skin, after his (first) appearance before the priest with reference to his cleansing, i.e. to be examined concerning his purification, and if the priest noticed this on his second appearance, he was to declare him unclean, for in that case it was leprosy.
FACT QUESTIONS 13:18
288.
Why did God address Aaron as well as Moses?
289.
Name the three places where leprosy can develop.
290.
There are six different circumstances for the development of leprosy in man. Name the first one.
291.
Three symptoms call for a visit to the priest. What are they?
292.
How does A. G. Hansen and 1874 relate to leprosy?
293.
What are the problems in identifying the particular type of leprosy mentioned in the Bible?
294.
What are the two sure indications of the presence of leprosy?
295.
What is the subject of Lev. 13:4-8?
296.
Describe the treatment for the bright spot.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XIII.
(1) And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron.As laws of leprosy chiefly concerned the priests, who had to examine the symptoms and to decide whether they indicated the distemper or not, the Lord addressed the regulations to Aaron as well as to Moses. The leprosy discussed in this and the following chapters consists of three general classes: viz., (1) leprosy of man (Lev. 13:2-46); (2) leprosy of garments (Lev. 13:47-59); and (3) leprosy of houses (Lev. 14:33-57).
When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh.In discussing the leprosy of man, the lawgiver enumerates six different circumstances under which it may develop itself. The first circumstance adduced in Lev. 13:2-6 is of its developing itself without an apparent cause. Hence it was enjoined that if anyone should notice in the skin of his flesh a rising or swelling, he should be taken to the priest. As the description of these symptoms is very concise, and requires to be specified more minutely for practical purposes, the spiritual guides of Israel, who had to explain the law to the priests during the second Temple, and who came in personal contact with this distemper, defined them as follows :
A rising.That is, a swelling, or swollen spot.
Or bright spot.That is, a bright or glossy pimple. But these symptoms, when indicative of leprosy, assume respectively one of two colours, a principal or a subordinate colour. The principal colour of the rising spot is like that of an egg-shell, and the secondary one resembles white wool; whilst the principal colour of the bright pimple is white as snow, and the subordinate resembles plaster on the wall.
Then he shall be brought unto Aaron.The following rules obtained during the second Temple with regard to the examination of the patient. Though anyone may examine the disease except the patient himself or his relations, yet the priest alone can decide whether it is leprosy or not, because the law declares that the priests must decide cases of litigation and disease (Deu. 21:5); hence the patient must be brought unto Aaron, &c. But though the priests only can pronounce the patient clean or unclean, even if he be a child or a fool, yet he must act upon the advice of a learned layman in those matters. If the priest is blind of one eye, or is weak-sighted, he is disqualified for examining the distemper. The inspection must not take place on the Sabbath, nor early in the morning, nor in the middle of the day, nor in the evening, nor on cloudy days, because the colour of the skin cannot properly be ascertained in those hours of the day; but it must take place in the third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth hours.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE LEPER.
2. The plague of leprosy The word leprosy is of Greek origin, and literally signifies, the scaly disease. For its general meaning see note on Num 5:2. But the disease here treated of is evidently the so-called white leprosy, ( Lepra Mosaica,) which is still found among the Arabs under the name of Baras. It is described by Trunsen as follows: “Very frequently, even for years before the actual outbreak of the disease itself, white, yellowish spots are seen lying deep in the skin, particularly on the genitals, face, forehead, or in the joints. They are without feeling, and sometimes cause the hair to assume the same colour as the spots. These spots afterwards pierce through the cellular tissue and reach the muscles and bones. The hair becomes white and woolly, and at length falls off; hard, gelatinous swellings are formed in the cellular tissue; the skin gets hard, rough, and seamy; lymph exudes from it, and forms large scabs, which fall off from time to time; and under these there are often offensive running sores. The nails then swell, curl up, and fall off; entropium ( inversion of the eyelashes) is then formed, with bleeding gums; the nose is stopped up, and there is a considerable flow of saliva. The senses become dull, the patient gets weak and thin, wasting diarrhea sets in, and incessant thirst and burning terminate his sufferings.” There are three chief symptoms of this disease. (1.) A rising or swelling. (2.) A scab. (3.)
A bright spot This was of a white colour. These are described under six different circumstances, namely: 1.) Developed without any apparent cause, 2-8. 2.) Reappearing after the supposed cure, 9-17. 3.) Arising from the scar of a boil or a burn, 18-28. 4.) Appearing on the head or chin. 29-37. 5.) In the form called bohak, not unclean, 38-39. 6.) In a bald head, 40-44.
Unto Aaron the priest The treatment was to be ceremonial, not medical. The command that the leper present himself not to the physician but to the priest, shows that the leprosy was in some way intimately associated with sin, for the priest’s office related to guilt. “There was no doctor then; he is a later creation. The Church is the true lazar-house; the Church is the great hospital. We have no instruction to the effect that one leper is to look on another; the distinct direction is that the priest the holy, pure man shall look at the leper handle him, undertake him.”- Joseph Parker.
This Is The Word Of Yahweh ( Lev 13:1 ).
Lev 13:1
‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying,’
Here Aaron is for the second time included with Moses in receiving the word of Yahweh (compare Lev 11:1), and will be again in Lev 14:33 and Lev 15:1. This suggests that at times he approached Yahweh in Moses’ company, although never as the prime person. In spite of his status he could not outrank Moses. But here he was present as a witness to what God said. Judging by the Book of Numbers, where Aaron is not conjoined with Moses in this way until after the confirmation of Aaron’s position in Numbers 18, it was prior to the arrival in Kadesh.
Lev 13:48-59 The Warp and the Woof James A. Patch says, the warp refers to “the long threads fixed into the loom to form the basis of the web, and into which the woof is wrought from the shuttle, the warp and the woof lying at right angles to one another…” [24]
[24] James A. Patch “Warp,” and “Weaving,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1915, 1939), in The Sword Project, v. 1.5.11 [CD-ROM] (Temple, AZ: CrossWire Bible Society, 1990-2008).
Ordinances Concerning Leprosy.
v. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, saying, v. 2. When a man, v. 3. and the priest shall look on the plague, v. 4. If the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and in sight be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white, then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days, v. 5. And the priest shall look on him the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague in his sight be at a stay, and the plague spread not in the skin, v. 6. And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague be somewhat dark, v. 7. But if the scab spread much abroad in the skin, after he hath been seen of the priest for his cleansing, he shall be seen of the priest again; v. 8. and if the priest see that, behold, the scab spreadeth in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a leprosy.
v. 9. When the plague of leprosy is in a man, v. 10. and the priest shall see him; and, behold, if the rising be white in the skin, and it have turned the hair white, and there be quick raw flesh in the rising, v. 11. it is an old leprosy, v. 12. And if a leprosy break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plague from his head even to his foot, wheresoever the priest looketh, v. 13. then the priest shall consider; and, behold, if the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he s hall pronounce him clean that hath the plague, the eruption; it is all turned white; he is clean. v. 14. But when raw flesh appeareth in him, he shall be unclean.
v. 15. And the priest shall see the raw flesh, and pronounce him to be unclean; for the raw flesh is unclean, v. 16. Or if the raw flesh turn again, and be changed unto white, he shall come unto the priest; v. 17. and the priest shall see him; and, behold, if the plague be turned into white, v. 18. The flesh also, in which, even in the skin thereof, was a boil v. 19. and in the place of the boil there be a white rising, or a bright spot, white, and somewhat reddish, v. 20. and if, when the priest seeth it, behold, it be in sight lower than the skin, and the hair thereof be turned white, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a plague of leprosy broken out of the boil. v. 21. But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be no white hairs therein, and if it be not lower than the skin, but be somewhat dark, then the priest shall shut him up seven days; v. 22. and if it spread much abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a plague.
v. 23. But if the bright spot stay in his place and spread not, it is a burning boil, v. 24. Or if there be any flesh, in the skin whereof there is a hot burning, v. 25. then the priest shall look upon it; and, behold, if the hair in the bright spot be turned white, and it be in sight deeper than the skin, it is a leprosy broken out of the burning; wherefore the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is the plague of leprosy. v. 26. But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be no white hair in the bright spot, and it be no lower than the other skin, but be somewhat dark, then the priest shall shut him up seven days; v. 27. and the priest shall look upon him the seventh day; and if it be spread much abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is the plague of leprosy.
v. 28. And if the bright spot stay in his place, and spread not in the skin, but it be somewhat dark, it is a rising of the burning, v. 29. If a man or woman have a plague, v. 30. then the priest shall see the plague; and, behold, if it be in sight deeper than the skin, and there be in it a yellow thin hair, v. 31. And if the priest look on the plague of the scall, and, behold, it be not in sight deeper than the skin, and that there is no black hair in it, v. 32. and in the seventh day the priest shall look on the plague; and, behold, if the scall spread not, and there be in it no yellow hair, and the scall be not in sight deeper than the skin, v. 33. he shall be shaven, but the scall shall he not shave, v. 34. and in the seventh day the priest shall look on the scall; and, behold, if the scall be not spread in the skin, nor be in sight deeper than the skin, v. 35. But if the scall spread much in the skin after his cleansing, v. 36. then the priest shall look on him; and, behold, if the scall be spread in the skin, the priest shall not seek for yellow hair, v. 37. But if the scall be in his sight, v. 38. If a man also or a woman have in the skin of their flesh bright spots, even white bright spots, v. 39. then the priest shall look; and, behold, if the bright spots in the skin of their flesh be darkish white, v. 40. And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he clean. v. 41. And he that hath his hair fallen off from the part of his head toward his face, v. 42. And if there be in the bald head or bald forehead a white, reddish sore, it is a leprosy sprung up in his bald head or his bald forehead. v. 43. Then the priest shall look upon it; and, behold, if the rising of the sore be white reddish in his bald head or in his bald forehead, as the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh, v. 44. he is a leprous man, he is unclean; the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his plague is in his head, v. 45. And the leper in whom the plague is, v. 46. All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled, v. 47. The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, v. 48. whether it be in the warp or woof, v. 49. and if the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment, v. 50. and the priest shall look upon the plague, and shut up it that hath the plague seven days.
v. 51. And he shall look on the plague on the seventh day. If the plague, v. 52. He shall therefore burn that garment, whether warp or woof, in woolen or in linen, or anything of skin, wherein the plague is; for it is a fretting leprosy; it shall be burned in the fire, v. 53. And if the priest shall look, and, behold, the plague be not spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin, v. 54. then the priest shall command that they, v. 55. and the priest shall look on the plague after that it is washed; and, behold, if the plague have not changed his color, and the plague be not spread, it is unclean; thou shalt burn it in the fire; it is fret inward, whether it be bare within or without. v. 56. And if the priest look, and, behold, the plague be somewhat dark after the washing of it, v. 57. And if it appear still in the garment, v. 58. And the garment, either warp or woof, or whatsoever thing of skin it be, which thou shalt wash, if the plague be departed from them, then it shall be washed the second time and shall be clean.
v. 59. This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of woolen or linen, either in the warp or woof or anything of skins, to pronounce it clean or to pronounce it unclean. EXPOSITION
UNCLEANNESS DERIVED FROM LEPROSY OR CONTACT WITH LEPERS AND LEPROUS THINGS (Lev 13:1-59, Lev 14:1-57). A third cause of uncleanness is found in a third class of offensive or repulsive objects. There is no disease which produces so foul an appearance in the human form as leprosy. There was, therefore, no disease so suitable for creating ceremonial, because representing spiritual, uncleanness.
The name leprosy has been made to cover a number of diseases similar but not identical in character. There are many spurious forms of leprosy, and many diseases akin to leprosy which do not now come under discussion. The disease here dealt with is elephantiasis, especially in its anesthetic form, which is otherwise called white leprosy. The two varieties of elephantiasisthe tuberculated and the anestheticare, however, so closely connected together that they cannot be separated, the one. often running into the other. The first symptom of the malady is a painless spot, which covers an indolent ulcer. This ulcer may continue unprogressive for months or for years, during which the person affected is able to do his ordinary business; but at the end of these periods, whether longer or shorter, it produces a more repulsive and foul disfigurement of the human face and frame than any known disease, the features of the face changing their character, and part of the body occasionally mortifying and dropping off. Death at last comes suddenly, when a vital part of the body has been affected. Lev 13:2
The word translated plague of leprosy literally means stroke. It seems to be used in the sense of spot. Then shall he be brought unto Aaron the priest. That the regulations respecting leprosy were not sanitary arrangements, as has been sometimes represented, is indicated by the authority over the leper being vested in the priest rather than in the physician, and the question of whether a man was a leper or no being decided by the former rather than the latter. It is to be noted also that the priest is not made unclean by his contact with the leper, because he is in the performance of his duty. The supposed leper may be brought either to Aaron or unto one of his sons the priests; that is, to the high priest or to the ordinary priest, and those descendants of Aaron who were disqualified by physical infirmities from officiating at the altar were permitted to act as examiners in leprosy.
Lev 13:3
When the hair in the plague is turned white. This is the first symptom, and the most noticeable as the commencement of the disease. The hair around the spot loses its colour and becomes thin and weak, the separate hairs being hardly stronger or individually thicker than down. The second symptom is when the plague in sight be deeper than the skin of his flesh; that is, below the upper skin, or cuticle, and in the real cutis. These two symptoms distinguish real leprosy from other affections which at first bear a similar appearance.
Lev 13:4-8
In case the symptoms are not decisive, then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days. The words thus translated would perhaps be better rendered, then the priest shall bind up the part affected for seven days. The priest is to delay his judgment for a week, and, if necessary, for a second week, during which period the patient is, according to the rendering, either to be confined to his house or, more probably, to have the spot bandaged. Whether the disease be or be not leprosy will probably have declared itself by the end of that time; and if the plague be somewhat dark on the fourteenth day, that is, if it has begun to lose its colour and to fade away, and has not spread in the skin, the priest is to decide that it is not real leprosy, and pronounce the man clean. He is still, however, to be kept under supervision, and if the spot is found to spread, he is to be pronounced unclean, as it is proved to be a leprosy.
Lev 13:9-11
The method of procedure in the case of a doubtful leprosy having been laid down in the previous verses, the rule for dealing with an unmistakable case is here given. When the characteristic white spot and white hair are present (if the rising be white in the skin, and it have turned the hair white), and if a third symptom be presentif there be quick raw flesh in the rising, that is, if there be an ulcer underneath the white scab, there is to be no delay, as in the previous case, but judgment is to be passed at once. The priest shall pronounce him unclean, and shall not shut him up: for he is manifestly unclean.
Lev 13:12-17
If a leprosy break out abroad and cover all the skin. There was a form of disease similar to true leprosy, and bearing the name of leprosy, and by some thought to be the final phase of true leprosy, which was yet not to cause legal uncleanness. It was distinguishable from the leprosy which caused uncleanness by a diffusion of the white flakes over the whole body, and by the absence of any patches bearing the appearance of raw flesh (Lev 13:12, Lev 13:13). Real leprosy might pass into this harmless kind or phase, and it was known to have done so as soon as the raw patches of flesh had disappeared (Lev 13:16, Lev 13:17). When this had taken place, the priest pronounced him clean.
Lev 13:18-23
The method of discriminating between a leprous spot and the reappearing scar of an old ulcer. A reappearing ulcer is to be regarded as leprous it’ it have the characteristic marks of leprosy; that is, if it be below the cuticle, and the hairs round it arc turned white. If it has not these marks, it has to be watched for seven days, and if in that time it does not spread, it is to be declared a burning boil, or rather an ulcerous scar, in which case the priest shall pronounce him clean.
Lev 13:24-28
The method of discriminating between a leprous spot and the scar of a burn. If there be any flesh, in the skin whereof there is a hot burning. This rendering indicates that the authors of the Authorized Version thought a disease of the nature of a carbuncle to be meant; but it is better to take the words literally as they are translated in the margin, If there be any flesh, in the skin whereof there is a burning of fire; that is, a scar from a burn, The leprous spot and the scar are to be distinguished as in the previous case. An old nicer or burn is a more likely place for a leprous spot to appear than any part of the body which is sound, just as in the moral sphere sin fixes on some old wound of the soul to burst out in.
Lev 13:29-37
The method of discriminating between a leprous spot on the head or beard and an ulcer in the same place. The symptoms of leprosy are the same as before, except that the hairs in this case are of a reddish-yellow colour instead of white. The treatment is also the same, with the addition of shaving the head or beard except at the place where the suspicious spot has appeared. In Lev 13:31 the priest is ordered to shut up (or bandage) the patient, if
(1) the spot be only in the upper cuticle, and
(2) there is no black hair in it.
We should have expected rather from the second condition if there be black hair in it, or if there be no yellow hair in it; and Keil accordingly proposes to omit the negative or to change the word “black” for “yellow,” the two words in the original being easily interchangeable. The present reading is. however. defensible. The fact of the spot being not below the cuticle was a very favorable symptom; there being no black hair was a very unfavourable symptom. Under these circumstances, the priest delays his judgment in the ordinary way.
Lev 13:38, Lev 13:39
The method of discriminating between leprous spots and freckled spots. In case the spots in the skin of theft flesh be darkish white; that is, of a dull or pale white, then it is only a freckled spot that groweth in the skin. This is “the harmless bohak (, LXX.), which did not defile, and which even the Arabs, who still call it bahak, consider harmless. It is an eruption upon the skin, appearing in somewhat elevated spots or rings of unequal sizes and a pale white colour, which do not change the hair; it causes no inconvenience, and lasts from two months to two years” (Keil). The man or woman who has this is clean.
Lev 13:40-44
Leprosy appearing on the bald head. Though leprosy makes the hair drop off around the leprous spot, baldness is in itself no sign of leprosy, whether at the back or front of the head (Lev 13:40, Lev 13:41); but as the bald head is a not unusual place for the leprous spot to appear, any eruption upon it is therefore to be watched and tested as before.
Lev 13:45, Lev 13:46
The cases for examination having been discussed, the law for the treatment of the man in whom leprosy has been proved to exist is pronounced. The leper in whom the plague is to be ex-eluded from the camp, lest others should contract defilement from him. tie is for the same reason to cry, Unclean, unclean, lest any wayfarer should unwittingly come in contact with him; and his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, these being the signs of mourning for the dead. The bared or disheveled head (see Le Lev 10:6) and the covered lip are incidentally mentioned as signs of mourning in Eze 24:17, and the covered upper lip as a mark of shame in Mic 3:7. By the expression, He shall dwell alone, is meant he shall dwell apart from those who were clean. Of course, lepers would naturally associate with each other, and so we find that they actually did (Luk 17:12). As their presence was supposed to defile any place that they entered, they were punished in later times with forty stripes if they did not observe the restraints laid down for them. “They were, however, admitted to the synagogue, where a place was railed off for them, ten handbreadths high and four cubits wide, on condition of their entering the house of worship before the rest of the congregation and leaving it after them” (Edersheim, ‘Temple Service’). The exclusion of the leper was not for the purpose of avoiding contagion, nor to serve as a penalty for having contracted so loathsome a disease, but primarily to prevent the spread of ceremonial uncleanness communicated by his touch, and typically and mystically to teach that the fate brought upon a man by unremoved sin is separation from the people of God here and hereafter.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Lev 13:1-59
The diagnosis of sin as illustrated in the leprosy.
cf. 2Ki 5:1-27 : Psa 88:1-18; Mat 8:1-4; Luk 5:12-15. The preceding chapter brings forward sin as an inheritance through ordinary generation. No thorough sense or treatment of sin can be reached unless it is recognized as a nature. But God went further in his education of his people. He took one disease with unmistakable characteristics; he legislated about it, doomed the possessor of it to a certain treatment, and so made plain to all his attitude towards sin.
The case of Naaman (2Ki 5:1-27) demonstrates that leprosy was not treated in Syria as it was among the Jews. Though a leper, he could enjoy the society of his family, wait upon his king, and command the spray. The disease entailed no penalties at Damascus such as existed in Samaria. No sanitary solution, therefore, of this Mosaic law will satisfy the conditions; we must look to moral and spiritual considerations for the solution. Hence we are constrained to start with the canon of interpretation that leprosy was a disease selected for treatment among the Jews to illustrate the treatment of sin.
I. AS SOON AS THE DISEASE IS SUSPECTED, THE PERSON IS TO GO, OR BE BROUGHT, NOT TO A PHYSICIAN, BUT TO ONE OF THE PRIESTS. This took it out of the category of diseases curable by ordinary means. Hence the term for “leprosy” (, from , to strike down) signifies “the stroke of God.” It was deemed a Divine infliction, which, if not divinely cured, would terminate fatally, and, though not disseminated by contact, was transmissible from parent to child. In handing it over in such circumstances for religious treatment, there was afforded one of the most striking illustrations of the nature of sin. Sin is a disease which none but the Divine Physician can cure. All effort at self-cure, all effort after merely human cure, is unavailing. Of course, sinners are induced to believe in the curability of the incurable, else there would be no sale for many a “patent medicine,” and no opening for many a spiritual imposture. But God has made it sufficiently plain, by statement and illustration, that sin is a disease with which only he himself can deal. Hence he handed its symbol, the leprosy, to a priest, and not to a physician.
II. THE PRIEST, IN INVESTIGATING THE DISEASE, IS TO ASCERTAIN. WHETHER IT IS SUPERFICIAL OR VITAL. It may be only a “scab” or a “burning boil,” a mere superficial eruption, in which case the priest is to comfort the patient with the assurance that he is clean. But if the disease is seen to go down into the vitals of the patient, to be deep and hidden, then the priest is to pronounce him unclean.
For sin is no superficial matter, but a vital and fatal evil. It eats below the appearances into the very vitals of the being, and, unless divinely checked, must run its fatal course,
III. THE PENALTY OF PRONOUNCED LEPROSY, IS A LIVING DEATH, AND A CONSEQUENT EXCLUSION FROM THE CAMP OF GOD. “The leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean. All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be” (verses 45, 46). It is instructive to analyze this sentence. And
1. The leper was to regard himself as virtually a dead man. This is implied by the rent clothes and the bare head, the signs of Oriental mourning, He was to be his own chief mourner. The same idea was carried out in the Middle Ages, when the mass for the dead was said over the leper. Longfellow refers to this in his ‘Golden Legend,’ when he says of Prince Henry
“Why, in Saint Rochus In the leper we have, therefore, the finest possible illustration of what spiritual death is. It is not a state of unconsciousness, but a state of consciousness. A sense of hopeless doom goes to make up this living death. Here have we vividly presented what “dead in trespasses and sins” must mean.
2. The leper was to cry out as he met a passenger, “Unclean, unclean!” That is, he was to encourage the consciousness of personal uncleanness. In no way could a penitent spirit be more powerfully, illustrated. A perpetual humiliation was thus kept up, a sense of vileness and uncleanness, which is wholesome for the soul. Doubtless the sense of uncleanness might be impenitent; the poor leper might regard himself as a victim of providence instead of one deserving the stroke. But his cry is a very vivid representation of what humiliation for sin should be.
3. The leper must isolate himself from the society of the pure, and dwell without the camp. Isolation is what the leper is required to enter, and what we may be sure he does enter willingly. To a doomed man like him, contact with the clean and pure would be painful. Isolation would be easier to bear than society. So is it with sin. It is an isolating, repellent power. The sinner would not choose the society of the holy. Heaven would be a more painful place for a sinful soul than Gehenna itself. Hence we find in Roy. 21. that while the new Jerusalem is to have nothing that defileth within it, no precaution to ensure this is needed; the gates remain open, for sinners would not, even if they could, court the society of the holy.
The isolating power of sin may be illustrated from the case of Byron. Two quotations are worth giving in this connection.
“I lovedbut those I loved are gone;
Had friendsmy early friends are fled.
How cheerless feels the heart alone,
When all its former hopes are dead!
Though gay companions e’er the bowl
Dispel awhile the sense of ill;
Though pleasure stirs the maddening soul,
The heartthe heartis lonely still.”
And again in the stanzas written at Missolonghi when he was thirty-six
“My days are in the yellow leaf;
The flowers and fruits of love are gone:
The worm, the canker, and the grief
Are mine alone!
“The fire that on my bosom preys
Is lone as some volcanic isle;
No torch is kindled at its blaze
A funeral pile.”
Was it not to taste the full consequences of human sin that our Lord had to enter the desolation which constrained the cry on the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
IV. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PRIEST IS DIRECTED HOW HE MAY ASCERTAIN WHEN THE LEPROSY HAS BEEN CURED. For this direction contemplates cases of cure, where “the stroke of God” in the leprosy has been followed up by the mercy of God in removing it, Now, one general principle runs through the cases of cure. If the priest has evidence that the disease has all come to the surface, then he is to pronounce the leper clean. The spiritual counterpart of this is not far to seek. If sin be hidden, if the sinner, like the Psalmist, keep silence about it, then his bones wax old through his roaring all the day long, and his moisture is turned into the drought of summer (Psa 32:3, Psa 32:4). But if the sinner confesses his sin, acknowledges all he knows, and that there is much besides known only to the Lordin a word, if the sinner makes “a clean breast” of everything, then is the cure of God in process of accomplishment. The lesson here is consequently the great desirability of a full and heartfelt confession of sin. There is hope of a man when he hides nothing from the Lord.
V. MAN SHOULD BE .AS CAREFUL ABOUT HIS ENVIRONMENT AS ABOUT HIMSELF. It is evident from the possibility of leprosy infecting garments, and even houses, that the disease was contemplated as having a much wider range than the person of the leper. The directions given to the priest, moreover, contemplate the purification of man’s surroundings. Every effort is to be made to stamp out the plague. The pure or purified are to be surrounded by the pure,
Now, this conveys the spiritual lesson surely of man taking the utmost pains to have a pure atmosphere, so to speak, in which to cultivate purity of life. Wherever sin is allowed free play, it will extend its ravages to man’s environment. The world itself is a different world through man’s sin. The duty of God’s people in this case is plain. “The very appearance of evil” must be avoided (1Th 5:22). We must carefully keep ourselves unspotted from the world (Jas 1:27). Whenever we find sin tempting us, we must, if possible, have it removed and consumed. Does it meet us in literature? let us avoid it, and, if possible, destroy it. And even the ravages of sin in the world itself must be contemplated in the hope of having them one day completely removed. Let sin be slain in the light of day is the great practical lesson of this chapter.R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Lev 13:1-59
Leprosy.
That leprosy is a type of sin is evident from David’s allusion in confessing his own horrible offenses (see Psa 51:7)? This also appears from the words of Jesus to the only leper, out of the ten cleansed by him, who returned to give glory to God: “Thy faith hath saved thee” (see Luk 17:11-19). The others had faith which availed them to remove the leprosy of the body; but this man’s faith availed to remove the leprosy of the soul. Hence this plague often came as a judgment from Heaven upon sin (see Num 12:10; 2Ki 5:27; 2Ch 26:19), from which circumstance, perhaps, it had its name (), tsaraath, from (), tsaro, to smite. As there is no disease whose description engages so much space in Scripture, leprosy must be regarded as a very special type of sin.
I. IT IS A PLAGUE MOST LOATHSOME.
1. So it is described.
(1) According to Scripture it appeared in a “rising,” or “scab,” or “bright spot” (Lev 13:2). From one or more of these centers it “spread” (Lev 13:8, Lev 13:12, Lev 13:22, Lev 13:36), exhibiting “quick raw flesh” (Lev 13:10, Lev 13:15), and this as it dried turned to a white scurf (Lev 13:13). Job is, by some, supposed to have been afflicted with leprosy (see Job 7:5).
(2) Travellers give frightful accounts of it. Maundrell describes it as he witnessed it in Palestine, and states it to be “the utmost corruption of the human body at this side the grave.”
2. Is not this a true picture of sin?
(1) View it in the haunts of the “criminal classes.” What spectacles are witnessed in police courts! what distortion of features, what mutilations, the humanity almost battered out of them through the violences of dissipation!
(2) No less loathsome to the eye of God are the hearts of many who outwardly seem respectable (Jer 17:9). Sin is called “corruption,” and seducers to sin “corrupters” (Eph 4:22; 2Pe 2:19). Learn to loathe sin.
II. IT IS A DISEASE DEEPLY SEATED.
1. Surface evils may be mistaken for sin.
(1) When symptoms go no deeper than the skin, they are no proof of leprosy (verses 4, 34). Errors of judgment sometimes arc mistaken for sins. Sincere Christians should be careful not to condemn themselves when God does not condemn them.
(2) Surface evils may be very painful, There were “burning boils,” which did not compromise the cleanness of the sufferer (verses 23, 28). So may we smart under reproaches and scandals raised by the malignity of enemies, and perhaps sometimes through our own unwisdom, which God will not impute to us for sin.
2. When the evil is in the flesh there is uncleanness.
(1) This was a capital test of leprosy (verses 3, 20, 30). This disease may be handed down from father to son (see 2Ki 5:27). So sin is “that which cometh out of the heart” (Mat 15:18-20; 1Co 8:7; Tit 1:15; Heb 12:15, Heb 12:16), Like its type, sin also is hereditary (Rom 5:12).
(2) Mental rebellion against God is of the worse kind. Hence the emphasis with which the uncleanness of the leper is pronounced whose leprosy is in his head (see verses 43, 44). Satan is intellect without God. Keep a pure faith and it will keep you.
III. IT IS A MALADY FEARFULLY CONTAGIOUS.
1. Such was the figure.
(1) Leprosy works secretly at first, and for years may be concealed. Its early appearance may be limited to a pimple; but so rapidly does it spread that “seven days” may be sufficient for it to become pronounced (verses 22, 27, 36),
(2) It may pass from the leper to his neighbor. Robinson says, “That it was contagious, all histories, sacred and profane, agree” (‘Theological Dictionary’). It was therefore necessary to provide that lepers should dwell apart (verse 46; Num 12:15; 2Ch 27:1-9 :21).
(3) Property as well as persons caught the plague. Garments had to be destroyed for it (verse 52). Houses also (Job 14:1-22 :45).
2. The reality answers to the figure,
(1) Sin in the individual gathers strength by habit, and infects the faculties until the heart is sick, the head faint, and the whole man is a mass of moral putrescence (Isa 1:6).
(2) By precept and example he demoralizes his neighbours, and brings down the judgments of Heaven upon them (Jos 7:1, Jos 7:11, Jos 7:12; Ecc 9:18).
(3) The plague of sin affects the material prosperity of individuals and of nations. No wonder the leper should be accounted ceremonially unclean, and the sinner avoided by the holy universe.J.A.M.
Lev 13:1-59
The priest’s adjudication.
We have considered the plague of leprosy as an emblem of sin; the adjudication upon it will suggest thoughts concerning the treatment of sin. In this business the principal actor was the priest, who must be viewed as the type of Christ. The judgment in this case will be disciplinary rather than final; for when Messiah will come to judge the world at the last day, he will appear not as a priest but as a king. We are now concerned with the functions of the priest.
I. HE HAD TO EXAMINE THE SUSPECTED PERSON.
1. In this he proceeded according to the Law.
(1) He had his rules for determining the presence of the plague.
(2) So by the Word of God is our moral cleanness or uncleanness to be determined (Rom 2:13; Rom 3:20; 1Co 14:24, 1Co 14:25; Jas 1:22-25; Jas 2:9).
(3) Conviction is carried home by the Spirit of Christ.
2. When the case was dubious judgment was deferred.
(1) Meanwhile the suspected person was “shut up” (Lev 13:4, Lev 13:21, Lev 13:31) that opportunity might be given for the manifestation of the symptoms. So are sinners “shut up” by the Law to the faith of the gospel.
(2) At the end of “seven days” judgment was given; or, if the symptoms were not then sufficiently manifest, a second period of seven days was allowed, which was the final term. Could these periods refer to the dispensations of our probation? In this case the leper must be taken to personate a class of sinner according to the type of his disease, whether proceeding from the “rising,” or the “boil,” or the “scab.” In any case, a sufficient probation is given us in this world for the manifestation of our real character, which probation we should be careful to improve.
3. A leprous garment was treated as representing its owner.
(1) It had to be inspected by the priest for his judgment and sentence, as though it had been a person. In case the plague in it were not pronounced, it had to be “shut up” and examined again after the same intervals of” seven days” (Lev 13:50, Lev 13:54). The expense and trouble of this, particularly if it had to be brought from a distance, would be as much as the garment was worth, so that the Law is unaccountable unless it was intended to serve a typical purpose.
(2) Agabus the prophet made Paul’s girdle emblematically to represent that apostle (Act 21:11). The “owner” of a leprous house, obviously for the same reason, had to “come and tell the priest” (Lev 14:35).
(3) The washing of the garment in this case suggests the washing of regeneration.
II. HE HAD TO PRONOUNCE UPON HIM.
1. In some cases the verdict was an acquittal.
(1) If the suspected leprosy proved to be but a surface evil, the subject was pronounced clean (Lev 13:6). Jesus does not mark as sins infirmities which spring not from an evil nature. The person acquitted, however, had to wash his clothes (Lev 13:34). There is no person so faultless as not to need the laver of regeneration.
(2) If a leper be “white all over,” no proud flesh, no ichor, being visible, he is pronounced clean (Lev 13:13). The virulence of the disease is over; God’s mercy has reached him; the sinner is forgiven. But the marks of an old dissipation often remain after forgiveness. Though now clean, there can be no question that he had been a leper.
(3) Another case is given. A leper, supposing his disease gone, presents himself to the priest for his cleansing; but the priest, discovering “raw flesh,” sends him away unclean; in time, however, he becomes cured, returns to the priest, and on the second application is pronounced clean (Lev 13:17). This case is like that of the sinner whose repentance is not perfect, and at the altar he discovers that until he is reconciled to a brother whom he had wronged his gift cannot be accepted; the reconciliation made, he returns and finds the favour of God (Mat 5:23, Mat 5:24).
2. In other cases the judgment was “Unclean.”
(1) When the plague is pronounced, as in cases of “old leprosy,” deliberation was unnecessary; judgment came speedily (Lev 13:10, Lev 13:11). So with the openly wicked (Psa 9:16; Pro 5:22; Pro 11:5).
(2) In all cases evidence must be clear. Time, therefore, was given for the plague to pronounce itself. So, before judgment could overtake the Amorites, their iniquity must be full (Gen 15:16; see also Dan 8:23; Mat 23:32, Mat 23:33; 1Th 2:16).
(3) Jesus is unerring in his judgments. He is the faithful as well as merciful High Priest.
3. The sentence.
(1) The leper has to dwell without the camp (Lev 13:46). So must the open sinner be put out of the Church (see 1Co 5:11-13). Hypocrites and unbelievers, though in the Church in the visible part, are not recognized by God as members of the Church in the spiritual part.
(2) The leper has to behave as an excommunicate seeking for the mercy of God. His clothes are rent to express extreme grief and sorrow. His head is bare, turbanless, to express deep humiliation. He put a covering upon his upper lip; had his jaw tied up with a linen cloth as a corpse, to express his state as that of a living death (see 2Ki 5:7; Eze 24:17), and he was to cry “Unclean!” (Lev 13:45). When we confess that we are dead in trespasses and sins, and sorrow to repentance, there is hope for us in God.
(3) But as the garment that remains unclean after two washings, to save it from destruction must have the leprous piece rent from it; so if a “right hand” or “right eye” prevent us from realizing the benefits of redemption, they must be separated (Lev 13:56). But if all efforts to save the garment fail, then its doom is to be burnt (see Mat 5:29, Mat 5:30; Mat 18:8, Mat 18:9).J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
Lev 13:45, Lev 13:46
A picture of sin.
The stringent rules for the treatment of the leper are not sufficiently explained by sanitary considerations. The Jews saw in the leper a symbol of the sinner visited with the displeasure of God. His was a stroke of smiting (“plague of leprosy”) from the hand of Jehovah, which made him “utterly unclean” (Lev 13:44). The instructions of this chapter may convey to us important truth respecting the sinner’s condition. To behold it thus forcibly depicted may administer a wholesome warning.
I. THE CORRUPTION EFFECTED BY SIN. Cannot but shudder at:
1. Its loathsomeness, destroying man’s appearance, making him offensive to the sight. How abominable is wickedness to the pure eyes of God, and if our moral sense were keener, what constant shocks should we receive from the wicked conduct of men! What want of taste to indulge in sin! what disharmony of relationship it introduces!
2. Note its tendency to spread until it becomes total. The commission of one crime often leads to another which still more impairs the soul; the inordinate gratification of appetite in one direction is provocative of intemperance in another; to lose modesty is often to lose natural affection. At last the whole constitution betrays the effects of sin, body, mind, and spirit are alike unpleasant to contemplate.
3. Its destruction of vital power. It was termed by the Jews a “living death.” Of its worst form, where the limbs mortify and drop off, no special mention is made in the Law; indeed, the supposition is that, after the expiration of a certain time, the disease will have so spread as to become harmless, and the man may be termed “clean” (Lev 13:17). The disease appears to have become more malignant in subsequent ages, and thus to typify even more accurately the waste of strength produced by evil habits. The mental and moral faculties are enervated by sin, the sinner is led captive by the devil at his will. To understand a principle we must push its application to extreme consequences, and if we would entertain fitting conceptions of sin we must regard it not when most refined, not when in its commencement, but in its gross final results. To dread fire, think of the conflagration that visits a town with disorder and ruin!
II. THE EXCLUSION IT ENTAILS FROM HOLY PRIVILEGES, The leper was separate from the people and the sanctuary.
1. Contact with the sinner defiles, except in appointed cases, where the servant of God in fulfillment of duty (as the priest in examination) seeks out the moral h per. If men mingle with sinners, having Christ’s end in view, to do them good, the association is pardoned. Otherwise “one sinner destroyeth much good,” “evil communications corrupt good manners.” Men should naturally shun the company of the debased as they would the presence of those afflicted with an infectious disease.
2. The semblance of sin must be guarded against. All that appears like it (Lev 13:5, Lev 13:6) needs suspicious treatment. Better to err on the safe side, not pronouncing at first decidedly, but watching the operation of a plan, or society, or principle, and ere long its true character wilt be manifested by development.
3. Continuance in sin means separation from the Church and the fellowship of right-minded people. The leper must “dwell alone, without the camp.” Our Lord and his apostles insisted on the maintenance of discipline in Christian bodies. The persistent sinner will find himself eventually cut off from intercourse with his former friends, for ungodliness is an effectual barrier, creating uncongeniality of sentiment and behaviour.
4. Dismission from the presence of God is the worst penalty of sin. The Psalmist might lament his enforced absence from the tabernacle where he had seen the power and glory of God; but how much more the man who was so near the hill of Zion, and yet so far off by reason of symbolical impurity! Sin kept God and man asunder, and to remove it came the Lord Jesus Christ. The awful sentence finally pronounced upon the unrighteous is “Depart from me!” What absence of joy and peace and love is contained in the words, “the outer darkness”!
III. THE EXPRESSIONS OF FEELING THAT BEFIT THE SINNER‘S STATE.
1. Grief. The leper wore the garb of mourning. There needs the godly sorrow that worketh repentance. Reflect not simply upon the sad consequences of sin, estrangement from God, deprivation of his favour, but upon their source, and learn to hate sin as an abomination.
2. Humiliation. The uncovered head attested the leper’s shame. “I abhor myself” is fitting language for polluted lips.
3. Acknowledgment of guilt. Listen to the cry, “Unclean!” The upper lip was shrouded in a covering that enjoined general silence, except on the approach of a stranger, who might be thereby defiled. “We are all as an unclean thing.” When sin lies heavily upon the conscience, it is felt to be no time for ordinary conversation, much less for frivolous gossip, though under such a veil anxiety is often hid.
CONCLUSION. By the Law was the knowledge of sin, but by the gospel is proclaimed its remedy, forgiveness and. sanctification through Christ. The priest was not dependent upon his own judgment, but was guided by fixed rules in deciding upon leprous cases. Yet he did not heal; the sufferer was left to nature’s care, and to indulge the vague hope of recovery. The gospel bids all sinners lay aside their fears and rejoice in a panacea that never fails. The interposition of God by prophets which resulted in miraculous cures of leprosy prepared the way for the marvelous works of the Redeemer, who evinced by his restoring the body to health his power also to heal the soul. Thus what was faintly foreshadowed under the old dispensation has been brightly revealed in the new. The enumeration of the feelings appropriate to the sinner is incomplete, therefore, without adding to them hope, in the sense not of wishful longing, but of certain anticipation of salvation.S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Lev 13:3
It is a plague of leprosy.
The chosen type of sinits individual aspect. The conjecture that leprosy was contracted by the children of Israel in the hot and dusty brick-fields of Egypt is probable enough. The definition that it was “any severe disease spreading on the surface of the body in the way described in the chapter, and so shocking of aspect that public feeling called for separation,” is near enough for our purpose, There can be no question that it was the divinely chosen type of sin.
All disease is pictorial of sin. It is to our bodily frame the very thing that sin is to our soul. Sin is the derangement or disorder of the soul, as sickness is of the body. It is an inward disorder, showing itself in some outward manifestation of a displeasing or painful character. It is something wrong withinsome faculty (organ) not doing what it was made to do, or doing what it was not meant to do, causing disturbance and distress, But leprosy was selected by the Divine Ruler of Israel as a disease which should be regarded by his people as specially typical and suggestive of sin. It was admirably fitted so to be, whether looked at in its individual or in its social aspect, We will take the former first,
I. THE OBSCURITY OF ITS ORIGIN. By what sad and strange process came it to pass that man’s bodily framefashioned by the Divine Creator, made clean and pure, wholesome and fairhas become the seat of such a foul disorder? How can it be that the little child whose flesh is beautiful and spotless, the very picture of all that is clean and sweet, grows up into a man who is “full of leprosy,” covered from head to foot with revolting sores? And whence came sin into the soul and life of man? How came it here to blot and mar God’s fair creation? How comes it to pass that into the heart of the innocent and lovely child there enters the very vilest spirit, showing itself in the most shocking words and the most revolting deeds, in later life?
II. ITS STUBBORNNESS. When, after seven days, the Hebrew priest could see no signs of true leprosy, he did not pronounce the patient clean: he shut him up other seven days (Lev 13:5), and examined him again. Leprosy was a tenacious and stubborn disease, disappearing and reappearing, After a long interval it might, under exciting cause, come once again to the surface. How like the affliction of the soulsin! How tenacious is its hold on the human heart! It disappears and we are grateful, congratulatory, triumphant. But the inducing circumstances, the favourable conditions arise and conspire, and behold there is its hateful face again. We “would do good,” we resolve to do good, but, alas! “evil is present with us” once more (Rom 7:21).
III. ITS DEATHFULNESS. The outward appearance was due to inward derangement; the springs of health were poisoned; the internal processes necessary to health were stayed; and the consequence was that feature after feature, limb after limb, decayed and fell away. The man was in a constant process of dissolution. It was death above the grounddeath in a living form! Sin is death. The soul that lives in sin is “dead while it lives.” It is not that which it was created to be, does not that which it was created to do. Its spiritual faculties (the organs and members of the soul) are in a state of continual dissolution, becoming feebler and feebler, till they are wholly lost. It is a living death.
IV. ITS UNCURABLENESS BY MAN. The Jews did not bring the physician to the leper; they regarded leprosy as a visitation from God, and considered it incurable by human art. Sin is incurable by mere human methods. Rules for the regulation of human conduct; pledges or vows of abstinence from particular temptations; parental, magisterial, social vigilance; penalties inflicted by ourself or by others for disobedience;these are well enough in their way. They are sometimes desirable, sometimes necessary; but they do not cure. Nothing human will cure the soul’s disorder; only the Almighty Hand can minister to the “mind diseased.”
When Jesus Christ would prove to John that he was indeed the “One that should come,” and that there was no need to “look for another,” he added to the recital of his benefactions, “the lepers are cleansed” (Mat 11:5). It was a true mark of the Messiah. The coming Saviour was he who had power to cure the incurable, to touch the foulest of the foul with the finger of the Divine mercy and sovereign power, and to make even him whole and pure. To that Divine Physician the man fullest of the leprosy of sin may go and say, “Lord, if thou wilt thou canst make me clean” (Luk 5:12).C.
Lev 13:5
The chosen type of sin-its social aspect.
We have seen (vide previous Homily) how true a picture is leprosy of sin in its individual aspect; we now regard the subject in its more social aspect. What this terrible disease was to a man as a member of the Hebrew commonwealth, that is sin to a man as a member of society today.
I. ITS LOATHSOMENESS. It is quite possible that the leprosy from which the Israelites suffered was a contagious disorder. It is also possible that the dread of contagion, though there was no actual danger (as in cholera), may have had its influence in the matter. But there is no convincing evidence that it was contagious. There are indications that it was not (action of the priests, etc.); and the exclusion of the leper from the camp is fully accounted for in another way. The loathsomeness of the disease is a sufficient explanation. Whoever has seen any one suffering acutely from a kindred malady will perfectly understand and appreciate this legislation on that ground alone. It is difficult, if not impossible, to recover altogether from the mental effect of so shocking and so repulsive a spectacle. The vision haunts the memory for years. In this aspect leprosy is a striking picture of sin; for that is a thing odious and abominable in the last degreeloathsome to the Holy One of Israel, hateful to all holy souls. In its viler forms it is a thing which weeven with our imperfect puritycannot “look upon” (Heb 1:13); holy much more horrible and hateful must it be in his sight whose thoughts of holiness as well as of mercy are as much higher than ours as the heavens are higher than the earth (Isa 55:9)!
II. ITS DIFFUSIVENESS. Though not, probably, contagious, leprosy was diffusive and communicable from parent to child. It was one of the crucial tests in the case that it spread over the skin (Lev 13:7, Lev 13:8), that it “spread much abroad” (Lev 13:22, Lev 13:27). As this typical disease spread from one part of the body to another, from one limb and organ to another, until it sometimes covered the entire frame, so sin, of which it was the divinely chosen type, is a thing that spreads. It is an emphatically diffusive, a communicable thing. It spreads:
1. From faculty to faculty of the same human spirit; one sin leads on to another, as theft to violence, or drunkenness to falsehood, or impurity to deception.
2. From parent to child.
3. From man to man, through the whole “body politic.” It spreads much abroad through any and every body, civil or ecclesiastical, into which it enters.
III. ITS SEPARATING EFFECT. “He shall dwell alone: without the camp shall his habitation be” (Lev 13:46). Leprosy separated between husband and wife, parent and children, friend and friend; it sundered one human life from that of the commonwealth, and was a source of sad and, so far as the preciousness of life was concerned, a fatal loneliness. Sin is the separating power.
1. It comes between man and God (Isa 59:2). It places him outside the gates of the spiritual kingdom; it deprives a man of all fellowship with the heavenly Father; it leads him out into a “far country” of alienation, of dread, of dissimilarity.
2. It comes between man and man. It is the endless and bitter source of estrangement, animosity, war; it makes lonely the life that should be full of sweet and elevating fellowship.
IV. ITS PITIFULNESS. Who could see the poor leper, with rent clothes, with bare head, with covered lip, passing through the camp, crying, “Unclean, unclean!” on his way to a dreary and, it might be, life-long solitude and not be affected with a tender pity? He might be “unclean,” but he was miserable, he was lost; the light of his life had gone out. Sin is not more condemnable than it is pitiable. Blame the erring, reproach the faulty, remonstrate with the foolish and the mischievous (1Ti 5:20), but pity those whom sin is shutting out from all that is best below, and will exclude from all that is bright and blessed above. Remember the “great love (of pity) wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins” (Eph 2:4, Eph 2:5), and pity with a profound compassion and help with an uplifting hand those who are still down in the mire of sin, still far from the kingdom of God.C.
Lev 13:3
Conviction of sin.
“And the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean.” In the Hebrew commonwealth:
1. There were those who were reasonably suspected of leprosy, i.e; of “uncleanness.”
2. It was a matter of the gravest consequence to know whether these suspicions were well founded or not. For ascertained leprosy meant unfitness to approach God in worship, exclusion from the fellowship of his people, etc.
3. It was the function of the priest to decide positively in the matter. The priest was to “look on him, and pronounce him unclean,” or, on the other hand, to rule that he was clean (Lev 13:6).
In every commonwealth today, in the whole human world
I. THERE ARE THOSE REASONABLY SUSPECTED OF SIN. These are not the few exceptions; they are the multitude without exception (Psa 14:1-7 :23).
II. IT IS A MATTER OF THE GRAVEST CONSEQUENCE TO KNOW WHETHER WE ARE SINFUL OR NOT. For sin means
(1) unlikeness to God;
(2) separation from God;
(3) condemnation by God, both here and hereafter;
(4) exclusion from the home of the holy. Hence we must ask
III. WHO ARE THEY ON WHOM THIS GREAT DECISION IS DEVOLVED. It rests with no human priest to decide on our state before God. Our own heart must condemn us if we are to have that conviction of sift which leads to contrition for sin and to “repentance and remission of sin.”
1. God will be our Divine Helper. He helps us to a right conclusion by his informing Word and by his illuminating Spirit.
2. Our fellow-men will be human helpers; they will guide us to an understanding of the Word of the Lord, and, directed by their own experience, will lead us to judge truly concerning our spiritual condition. Their aid will be ministerial, not authoritative.
3. We ourselves must decide in the last resort. This is one of those grave matters in which “every man must bear his own burden.” We must recognize, with the eyes of our own soul, the signs and tokens of guilt in our heart and life. It must be the deliberate utterance of our own judgment, as well as the sigh of our own spirit, and the cry of our own lips, “I have sinned against the Lord ;” “Unclean, unclean!” When we look at our inner selves as well as outer life; when we consider what we have left undone of all our obligations, as well as what we have done that has been forbidden; when we contrast our hearts and lives with the precepts of God’s holy Law and the ideal of human perfection in the example of our sinless Saviour; we shall have no hesitation in concluding that we are “utterly unclean,” that we deserve exclusion from the friendship of God and the fellowship of the holy, and that it is our heavenly wisdom to seek at once his blessed presence who will say to us, “Wilt thou be made whole?” and to gain at once the touch of his mighty hand who, in answer to our earnest prayer, will respond by saying, I will; be thou clean.”C.
Lev 13:40-44
Affections of the mind.
We learn lessons concerning
I. THE BLEMISH OF MENTAL PECULIARITY. (Lev 13:40.) Evidently baldness was an unusual and an unsightly thing among the Israelites. Otherwise it would not have excited notice and could not have created derision (2Ki 2:23; Isa 3:24; Eze 7:18). It was regarded as an unbecoming peculiarity. Affecting the head, we may regard it as a type of mental peculiarity which does not amount to a serious sin, but is yet unusual and unbecoming. Many men who are substantially sound in heart and life, loving that which is highest and doing that which is just and right, are yet affected and afflicted by mental peculiaritiesoddities, crotchets, fancies, awkwardness or crookedness of mental habit; things which are not formidably had, but which, because they are superficial, strike the eye, provoke general remark, and stand in the way of effective service.
1. It is right that those who observe them in others should remember that they are only blemishes, and nothing more; detracting in some degree from “the beauty of holiness,” but not inconsistent with real and even admirable excellence. “He is bald, yet he is clean” (Lev 13:40).
2. It is right that those who possess them should reflect, and act on the reflection, that these things, though only blemishes, may importantly diminish the power of the possessor to influence, guide, and win other people. The candle (character) is of much more importance than the candlestick (mental habit), but if character be obscured by some darkening “bushel,” and not put on the candlestick of pleasant and agreeable habits, it will not “give light to all that are in the house” (Mat 5:15).
II. THE EVIL OF ERROR. There might come on the bald head a spot, a sore; this might be a “white reddish sore”leprous (Lev 13:42, Lev 13:43). But it might not; it might be nothing but a boil or some cutaneous disorder, which was not leprosy. In that case the patient Would be treated as described in Lev 13:2-6. There would be something wrong, but it was not the unclean thing, leprosy. There is a mental disease which is something more serious than peculiarity and something less serious than guilty perversity. It is error; the arrival at wrong conclusions. There may be but small faultiness in coming to convictions which are not correct, but there may be positive disaster resulting therefrom. A man may innocently take the wrong road, but his innocency will not save him from walking into the bog or over the precipice to which it leads. Error is not the worst thing in the world, but it is a seriously bad and dangerous thing. When we are earnestly warned, by obviously thoughtful and godly men, that we are wrong in our judgments, it becomes us to listen patiently and consider well whether we are in the right track, or whether we have mistaken a false path for the “path of life.”
III. THE SIN OF MENTAL PERVERSITY. (Lev 13:43, Lev 13:44.) There is great significance in the sentence “the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean.” The man who had leprosy in the head was accounted unclean in an especial degree: he was utterly unclean. Sin, of which this malady was so striking a type, never assumes so dangerous a phase as when it appears in the form of a perverted judgment or a darkened conscience. When, by sinning, a man has blunted his spiritual perceptions so that he “calls evil good, and good evil,” he is in the last stage of moral decline; death is near at hand. If” our eye be evil” (if our judgment be perverted, our faculty of spiritual perception be diseased), our “whole body is full of darkness;” if “the light that is in,, us” (our own mental and spiritual faculty) be darkness, how great is that darkness! (Mat 5:23). Witness the Pharisees in their treatment of our Lord. We may well be actively on our guard against, and may well be earnest in prayer that God will deliver us from, that of which leprosy in the head is the painful picture,a guilty, blinding, ruinous perversity of mind.C.
Lev 13:46
The right and duty of excommunication.
“He shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be.” The right of expulsion from the Jewish camp would be founded, in the mind of Moses, on the Divine commandment (text; Num 5:2, etc.). That was all-sufficient for the great legislator. We may, however, “justify the ways of God to men” to our mind by the considerations:
1. That if the disease were not positively contagious, the dread of contagion would be most harmful to the community.
2. That the exceeding repulsiveness of the leper was ample reason for his being kept from the sight of men, women, and children.
3. That the most important and salutary lesson concerning sin was thereby vividly enforced, viz. that the sinner is, through his iniquity, separated from all that is purest and best. Unquestionably, with this and other clear commandments from Jehovah, it was both the right and the duty of the Hebrew commonwealth to expel the leper from the camp. Excommunication from human society is a sad and severe measure; but it is, in many cases, lawful and even obligatory. The foul and the “unclean” must be separated sometimes, even now and here, from the holy and the pure. Excommunication may be
I. THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF THE NATION.
1. The nation has a right to transport or imprison those of its members who have committed crime, and who have shown that their presence “in the camp” is noxious and dangerous to the rest.
2. The nation is bound to exclude from town and city those who endanger its morals. The opium-seller, as such, is righteously excluded; the man who would sell poisons without restriction is disallowed; and an unlimited number of dramshops, with their terrible enticements, is (or, surely; should be) prohibited. A community has the right to say, “We will not allow any man, for the sake of gain, seriously to imperil the morals, the health, and the lives of the people; if you want to practice these things, you must go ‘without the camp.'”
II. THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF THE SOCIAL AND THE FAMILY CIRCLE.
1. We ought not to admit to our intimacy any “unclean” human spirit. We should fence our social circles so that no man sits down to our table or our hearth to infect and poison our own minds.
2. But it is, in an especial degree, both cur right and our duty, as parents, to guard the family circle from the intrusion of “the unclean.” What untold evils, what unimaginable sorrows, have befallen family life, because parents have not, with holy vigilance, saved their sons and daughters from the companionship of the corrupt! Of every “unclean” soul let the human father say, with sternest inflexibility, “Without the camp shall his habitation be.”
III. THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF THE CHURCH. There can be no doubt of this.
1. It is the divinely appointed way. It was instituted by our Lord himself (Mat 18:17, Mat 18:18). It was enjoined by the Apostle Paul (1Co 5:2, 1Co 5:5, 1Co 5:11; Tit 3:10); it was also practiced by him (1Ti 1:20).
2. It is the legitimate and becoming method. Any interference by a Christian Church with civil rights goes beyond the Word of the Lord, brings the Church into conflict with the secular power, and is likely to lead to confusion and trouble. Exclusion from its own fellowship is a natural and incontestable right.
3. It is sometimes the only course that is open. It is needful for the purity of the Church itself; the leaven must not injure the whole lump. It is needful also for the offender. And it is well to remember these two things in such a sad necessity: viz.
(1) that excommunication was resorted to in apostolic times with a distinct view to the benefit of the offender (1Co 5:5; 1Ti 1:20); and
(2) that of two cases reported in Scripture, one relates the restoration of the excommunicated member (2Co 2:6-8). Let the Church make paramount the preservation of its own purity, but let it encourage, expect, and welcome penitence.C.
A.EXAMINATION AND ITS RESULT
Lev 13:1-46
1And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, saying, 2When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin of the flesh like the plague [a spot1] of leprosy; then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests: 3and the priest shall look on the plague [spot1] in the skin of the flesh: and when the hair in the plague [spot1] is turned2 white, and the plague [spot1] in sight be deeper than the skin3 of his flesh, it is a plague [spot1] of leprosy: and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean. 4If the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and in sight be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned3 white; then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague [shall bind up the spot4] seven days: 5and the priest shall look on him the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague [spot1] in his sight be at a stay, and the plague [spot1] spread not in the skin; then the priest shall shut him up [shall bind it up4] seven days more: 6and the priest shall look on him again the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague be somewhat dark [spot1be somewhat faint5], and6 the plague [spot1] spread not in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is but a scab: and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. 7But if the scab spread much abroad in the skin, after that he hath been 8seen of the priest for his cleansing, he shall be seen of the priest again: and if the priest see that, behold, the scab spreadeth in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a leprosy.
9When7 the plague [spot1] of leprosy is in a man, then he shall be brought unto the priest; 10and the priest shall see him: and, behold, if the rising be white in the skin, and it have turned8 the hair white, and there be quick [a mark of9] raw flesh 11in the rising; it is an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean, and shall not shut him up [bind it up4]: for he is unclean.
12And if a leprosy break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plague [spot1] from his head even to his foot, wheresoever the priest looketh; 13then the priest shall consider: and, behold, if the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague [pronouncethe spot1clean4]: it [Hebrews 10] is all turned white: he is clean. 14But when raw flesh appeareth in him, he shall be unclean. 15And the priest shall see the raw flesh, and pronounce him to be unclean: for the raw flesh is unclean: it is a leprosy. 16Or if the raw flesh turn [change11] again, and be changed [be turned10] unto white, he shall come unto the priest; 17and the priest shall see him: and, behold, if the plague [spot12] be turned into [unto13] white; then the priest shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague [pronounce the spot1clean4]: he is clean.
18The flesh also, in which,14 even in the skin thereof, was a boil,15 and is healed, 19and in the place of the boil14 there be a white rising, or a bright spot, white, and somewhat reddish [and glistening16], and it be shewed to the priest; 20and if, when the priest seeth it, behold, it be in sight lower than the skin, and the hair thereof be turned white; the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a plague [spot1] of leprosy broken out of the boil.14 21But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be no white hairs therein, and if it be not lower than the skin, but be somewhat dark 22[faint5]; then the priest shall shut him up [shall bind it up4] seven days: and if it spread much abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a plague [spot1]. 23But if the bright spot stay in his place, and spread not, it is a burning boil [a scar of the boil17]; and the priest shall pronounce him clean.
24Or if there be any flesh, in the skin whereof there is a hot burning [a burn by fire18], and the quick flesh that burneth [the mark of the burn8] have a white bright spot, somewhat reddish [glistening13], or white: 25then the priest shall look upon it: and, behold, if the hair in the bright spot be turned white, and it be in sight deeper than the skin; it is a leprosy broken out of the burning: wherefore the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague [spot1] of leprosy. 26But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be no white hair in the bright spot, and it be no lower than the other [omit other] skin, but be somewhat dark [faint5]; then the priest shall shut him up [shall bind it up4] seven days: 27and the priest shall look upon him the seventh day; and if it be spread much abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague [spot1] of leprosy. 28And if the bright spot stay in his place, and spread not in the skin, but it be somewhat dark [faint5]: it is a rising of the burning, and the priest shall pronounce him clean: for it is an inflammation [a scar15] of the burning.
29If a man or woman have a plague [spot1] upon the head or the beard; then the priest shall see the plague [spot1]: and, behold, if it be in sight deeper than the skin; and there be in it a [omit a] yellow thin hair; 30then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a dry scall, even a leprosy upon the head or beard. 31And if the priest look on the plague [spot1] of the scall, and, behold, it be not in sight deeper than the skin, and that there is no black19 hair in it; then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague of the scall [shall bind up4the spot1of the scall] seven days: 32and in the seventh day the priest shall look on the plague20 [spot]: and, behold, if the scall spread not, and there be in it no yellow hair, and the scall be not in sight deeper than the skin; 33he shall be shaven, but the scall shall he not shave; and the priest shall shut up him that hath the scall [shall bind up the scall4] seven days more: 34and in the seventh day the priest shall look on the scall: and, behold, if the scall be not spread in the skin, nor be in sight deeper than the skin; then the priest shall pronounce him clean: and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. 35But if the scall spread much in the skin after his cleansing; 36then the priest shall look on him: and, behold, if the scall be spread in the skin, the priest shall not seek for yellow hair; he is unclean. 37But if the scall be in his sight at a stay and that there is black hair grown up therein; the scall is healed, he is clean: and the priest shall pronounce him clean.
38If a man also or a woman have in the skin of their flesh bright spots, even white bright spots; 39then the priest shall look: and, behold, if the bright spots in the skin of their flesh be darkish [faint5] white; it is a freckled spot21 that groweth in the skin; he is clean.
40And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald;22 yet is he clean. 41And he that hath his hair fallen off from the part of his head toward his face, he is forehead bald: yet is he clean. 42And if there be in the bald head, or bald forehead, a white reddish sore [glistening13spot1]; it is a leprosy sprung up in his bald head, or his bald forehead. 43Then the priest shall look upon it: and, behold, if the rising of the sore [spot1] be white reddish [glistening13] in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, as the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh; 44he is a leprous man, he is unclean: the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his plague [spot1] is in his head.
45And the leper in whom the plague [spot1] is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare,23 and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip [his mouth24], and shall cry, Unclean, unclean. 46All the days wherein the plague [spot1] shall be in him he shall be defiled: he is unclean: he shall dwell alone [apart25]; without the camp shall his habitation be.
B.LEPROSY IN CLOTHING AND LEATHER
Lev 13:47-59
47The garment also that the plague [spot1] of leprosy is in, whether it be a woollen 48garment, or a linen garment; whether it be in the warp, or woof; of linen, or of woollen; whether in a skin, or in anything made of skin; 49and if the plague [spot1] be greenish or reddish [very green or very red26] in the garment, or in the skin, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin; it is a plague [spot1] of leprosy, and shall be shewed unto the priest: 50and the priest shall look upon the plague, and shut up it that hath the plague [spot,1and bind up4the spot1] seven days: 51and he shall look on the plague [spot1] on the seventh day: if the plague [spot1] be spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in a skin, or in any work that is made of skin; the plague [spot1] is a fretting leprosy; it is unclean. 52He shall therefore burn that garment, whether warp or woof, in woollen or in linen, or anything of skin, wherein the plague [spot1] is: for it is a fretting leprosy; it shall be burnt in the fire. 53And if the priest shall look, and, behold, the plague [spot1] be not spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin; 54then the priest shall command that they wash the thing wherein the plague [spot1] is, and he shall shut [bind4] it up seven days more: 55and the priest shall look on the plague [spot1], after that it is washed: and, behold, if the plague [spot1] have not changed his color, and the plague [spot1] be not spread; it is unclean; thou shalt burn it in the fire; it is fret inward, whether it be bare within or without.27 56And if the priest look, and, behold, the plague be somewhat dark [the spot1be somewhat faint5] after the washing of it; then he shall rend it out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof: 57and if it appear still in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin; it is a spreading plague [omit a and plague;] thou shalt burn that wherein the plague [spot1] is, with fire. 58And the garment, either warp, or woof, or whatsoever thing of skin it be, which thou shalt wash, if the plague [spot1] be departed from them, then it shall be washed the second time, and shall be clean.
59This is the law of the plague [spot1] of leprosy in a garment of woollen or linen, either in the warp, or woof, or anything of skins, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean.
Footnotes:
[1]Lev 13:2. , a word of very frequent occurrence in these two chapters where it is uniformly translated in the A. V. (except Lev 13:42-43, sore) plague, as it is also in Gen 12:17; Exo 11:1; Deu 24:8 (in reference also to leprosy); 1Ki 8:37-38; Psa 91:10. Elsewhere the renderings of the A. V. are very various: sore, stroke, stripe, wound. By far the most common rendering in the LXX. is =tactus, ictus. The idea of the word is a stroke or blow, and then the effect of this in a wound or spot. Clark therefore would translate here stroke, which meets well enough the meaning of the word itself, but does not in all cases convey the sense in English. It is perhaps impossible to find one word in English which can be used in all cases; but that which seems best adapted to Leviticus is the one given by Horsley and Lee, and adopted here: spot. So Keil, Wilson and others. There is no article in the Heb.
[2]Lev 13:4. The construction in Lev 13:3-4; Lev 13:10 is without a preposition; in Lev 13:16-17 it is with the preposition , as is expressed in the A. V.
[3]Lev 13:3. The sense is here undoubtedly the scarf skin (Clark), the cuticle, in contradistinction to the cutis, the true skin below. So Wilson, who says: This distinction in reality constitutes one of the most important points of diagnosis between real leprosy and affections of the skin otherwise resembling leprosy. But as we have in Heb. only the one word for both (except the . . , Job 16:15), there does not seem to be warrant for changing the translation, especially as in English skin answers to either with the same indefiniteness.
[4]Lev 13:4-5, etc. According to Rosenmller and Gesenius, is used by metonymy for the person upon whom it is. This view is adopted by Lange. It appears in the Targ. of Onk. and in the Vulg., and has been followed by the A. V. Far better is the rendering of the Sam., LXX. and Syr.: the priest shall bind up the spot, or sore. This is the exact translation of the Heb., and is advocated by Horsley, Boothroyd, and many others. Fuerst does not recognize the sense by metonymy. The same change should perhaps also be made in ver.12. See Exegesis. In the case of shutting up the leprous house (Lev 14:38) the word house is distinctly expressed in the Heb.
[5]Lev 13:6. =dim, pale, faint, weak, dying. The idea is that of something in the process of fading away, disappearing. LXX. , Vulg. obscurior.
[6]Lev 13:6. It does not appear why the conjunction in the A. V. should be printed in italics; it is, however wanting in 18 MSS., the Sam., and LXX.
[7]Lev 13:9. The conjunction is wanting in the Heb., but is supplied in the Sam. and versions.
[8]Lev 13:4. The construction in Lev 13:3-4; Lev 13:10 is without a preposition; in Lev 13:16-17 it is with the preposition , as is expressed in the A. V.
[9]Lev 13:10; Lev 13:24. , according to Rosenmueller and Fuerst an indication, and this is the sense given in Targ., Onk. and the Syr., and apparently also in the Vulg. The LXX. renders , taking the as preposition, and understanding it, as the Rabbins, of a spot of proud flesh in the midst of the cicatrice. The margin of the A. V. is the quickening of living flesh; scar would express the sense, but this is appropriated to , Lev 13:23; Lev 13:28, and mark gives the exact rendering of the Hebrew, and meets the requirements of the context.
[10]Lev 13:13. The pronoun should obviously refer to the man rather than the spot.
[11]Lev 13:16. . This being the same verb as is used in Lev 13:3-4; Lev 13:17, in the same sense, the rendering should certainly be the same. The alteration in the A. V. was evidently on account of the previous translation of by turn. It is better to put the new word there.
[12]Lev 13:2. , a word of very frequent occurrence in these two chapters where it is uniformly translated in the A. V. (except Lev 13:42-43, sore) plague, as it is also in Gen 12:17; Exo 11:1; Deu 24:8 (in reference also to leprosy); 1Ki 8:37-38; Psa 91:10. Elsewhere the renderings of the A. V. are very various: sore, stroke, stripe, wound. By far the most common rendering in the LXX. is =tactus, ictus. The idea of the word is a stroke or blow, and then the effect of this in a wound or spot. Clark therefore would translate here stroke, which meets well enough the meaning of the word itself, but does not in all cases convey the sense in English. It is perhaps impossible to find one word in English which can be used in all cases; but that which seems best adapted to Leviticus is the one given by Horsley and Lee, and adopted here: spot. So Keil, Wilson and others. There is no article in the Heb.
[13]Lev 13:17. The preposition is the same as in the previous verse, and the change in the A. V. may have been simply accidental.
[14]Lev 13:18. The word seems redundant, and is wanting in 4 MSS. and the Sam.
[15]Lev 13:18 (bis), 20, 23. , burning ulcer, would perhaps be a better, because a more general word; but boil was probably understood with sufficient latitude.
[16]Lev 13:19. . The reduplication of the letters in Heb. always intensifies the meaning (see Bochart, Hieroz. Pt. II., lib. V., c. vi., Ed. Rosen. III., p. 612 ss.); if therefore this be translated red at all, it must be very red, which would be inconsistent with the previous white. This obvious inconsistency has led the ancient versions into translations represented by the somewhat reddish of the A. V., and frequently to rendering the previous conjunction or. But as there is no conjunction at all in the Heb., it seems better to follow the suggestion of Pool, Patrick and others, and understand the word as meaning very bright, shining, glistening. Comp the description of leprosy, Exo 4:6; Num 12:10; 2Ki 5:27.
[17]Lev 13:23; Lev 13:28. , , Rosenmueller, cicatrix ulceris. So all the ancient versions, and so Gesenius. So also Coverdale and Cranmer, and so Riggs. Fuerst, however, inflammation.
[18]Lev 13:24. The margin of the A. V. is better than the text. This paragraph (Lev 13:24-28) is plainly in relation to leprosy developing from a burn on the skin. So Gesen, Fuerst, Pool, Patrick, etc. So the LXX. and Vulg.
[19]Lev 13:31. The meaning of =black is established. The LXX., yellow, can therefore only be considered as an emendation of the text, substituting , and this is followed by Luther, Knobel, Keil, Murphy and others; it is, however, sustained by no other ancient version nor by any MS., and the change in the LXX. must be considered as simply an effort to avoid a difficulty. Keil and Clark propose, as a less desirable alternative, the omission of the negative particle. There is, however, no real difficulty in the text as it stands. See Exegesis.
[20]Lev 13:32. The Sam. here substitutes , scall, for , spot.
[21]Lev 13:39. , a word . . according to Gesen. a harmless eruption of a whitish color which appears on the dark skin of the Arabs, and is still called by the same name.
[22]Lev 13:40. , used here apparently for the back of the head in contradistinction to the fron4, which occurs only here (but its derivative, , is found Lev 13:42 bis, 43 and 55). , however, is elsewhere baldness in general. Comp. Deu 14:1.
[23]Lev 13:45. Comp. Textual Note5 on Lev 10:6.
[24]Lev 13:45. . There is some doubt as to the true meaning. It is translated beard in the A. V., 2Sa 19:24 (25), and so Fuerst and Gesenius would render it here, guided by the etymology. All the ancient versions, however, translate it either mouth or lips, and a word etymologically signifying beard (or rather the sprouting place of hair) would easily come to have this sense in use. It is a different word from the =beard of Lev 13:29.
[25]Lev 13:46. . The alone of the A. V. would ordinarily be a good enough translation, but is liable to be misunderstood. The leper was simply to dwell apart from the clean Israelites, but might and did live with other lepers.
[26]Lev 13:49. . The reduplication of the letters intensifies the meaning. Comp. note13 on Lev 13:19. , too, as noted above, may here mean either very red, or, as before, glistening. There is so little knowledge about the fact that neither of them can be certainly decided upon; but as in this case we have the disjunctive (as also in Lev 14:37), it seems more probable that two distinct colors were intended.
[27]Lev 13:55. The margin of the A. V. gives the literal rendering of the Heb. bald in the head thereof, or in the forehead thereof, and there can be no doubt that these are terms figuratively applied to the cloth or skin for the right and wrong side, as in the text.
THIRD SECTION Chaps. 13, 14
______________ The disease of leprosy has happily become so rare in modern times in the better known parts of the world that much obscurity rests upon its pathology. The attempt will only be made here to point out those matters which may be considered as fixed by common consent, but which will be found sufficient for the illustration of the more important points in the following chapters. Nothing whatever is said in the law either of the origin, the contagiousness, or the cure of the disease. In modern experience it seems to have been sufficiently proved that it is hereditary, but only to the extent of three or four generations, when it gradually disappears; neither is it in all cases hereditary, the children of lepers being sometimes entirely unaffected by leprosy, and on the other hand the disease often appearing without any hereditary taint. In its first appearance it is now often marked only by some slight spot upon the skin, giving no pain or other inconvenience, but obstinately resisting all efforts at removal, and slowly but irresistibly spreading. Sometimes months, sometimes years, even to the extent of twenty or thirty years, intervene between the first appearance of the spots and their development. It is not improbable that in the course of many centuries a considerable modification in the rapidity of its progress may have taken place in a disease which is found gradually to die out by hereditary transmission. The question of its contagiousness is still much mooted among the medical faculty. The better opinion seems to be that it is not immediately contagious, but is propagated by prolonged and intimate intercourse in the case of susceptible persons. At least it is certain that in all known instances of the prevalence of the disease one of the most important of the means of control has been the segregation of the lepers, and where this precaution has been neglected, the disease has continued to prevail. After the leprosy has once acquired a certain degree of development, there is no known means of cure. Everything hitherto attempted has been found to rather aggravate than mitigate the disorder. It is asserted that it yields to medical treatment in its earliest stages when the spots first appear, and a number of distinct cases of cure are recorded; but the doubt will always remain whether the disease which yields is really leprosy, or whether something else has not been confounded with an undeveloped stage of the true disease. However this may be, it is certain that after it has once become developed to any considerable extent it is incurable by any remedies at present known, although spontaneous cures do sometimes occur. The reliance for its control is more upon diet, cleanliness, and general regimen, than upon specific antidotes. The characteristics of the disease are the exceedingly slight symptoms at its first appearance; its insidious, and usually very slow progress, the horribly repulsive features of its later stages when the face becomes shockingly disfigured, and often the separate joints of the body become mortified and drop off one by one; and its usually sudden and unexpected termination at the last, when the leprosy reaches some vital organ, and gives rise to secondary disease, often dysentery, by which life is ended. Meanwhile, during the earlier stages, generally very prolonged, there is no suffering, and the ordinary enjoyments of life are uninterrupted. But whatever the nature and origin of this sort of leprosy, it is plainly regarded in the Levitical law as is no sense contagious, or in any way calculated to produce directly injurious effects upon man. It is provided for in the law, it would appear, partly on the general ground of the inculcation of cleanliness, and partly from association with the human disease to which it bore an external resemblance, and to which the utmost repugnance was to be encouraged. Even the likeness and suggestion of leprosy was to be held unclean in the homes of Israel. For the literature of the subject, besides the reference above given, see the art. by Hayman, Leper, Leprosy, in Smiths Bibl. Dict., and the Preliminary note on these chapters in Clarks Com. on Lev., together with the appended notes to the same.
At the opening of his Exegetical Lange has the following, which may be appropriately placed here: First of all, it must be made prominent that the leprosy, under the point of view taken, and the sentence of uncleanness, is placed as a companion to the uncleanness of birth, as the representative of all ways of death, of all sicknesses. It is unclean first in itself, as a death element in the stream of lifein the bloodeven as the source of life appears disturbed in the relations of birth; but still more it is unclean as a sickness spreading by transmission and contagion. The great contrast between the Old and the New Testaments is made prominent in the fact, that in the Old Testament the touch of the leper made unclean,apparently even leprous;while Christ by His touch of the lepers cleansed them from their leprosy. But it continued to be left to the priest, as the representative of the old covenant, to pronounce the fact. See Comm. S. Matt., p. 150. DISCOURSE: 125 Leviticus 13. The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar: it shall never go out.
IT is a matter of deep regret that religious persons do not enter more fully into the Jewish Ritual, and explore with more accuracy the mysteries contained in it. And I am not sure that Ministers, whose office properly leads them to unfold the sacred volume to their people, are not chargeable with a great measure of this remissness, in that they are not more careful. to bring forth to their view the treasures of wisdom that are hid in that invaluable mine. I.
Its typical import, as relating to the Gospel
Every part of the Ceremonial Law was a shadow of good things to come. This particular ordinance clearly shews,
1.
That we all need an atonement
[This fire, which was to be kept in, was given from heaven [Note: Lev 9:24.]: and it was given for the use of all; of all Israel without exception. There was not one for whom an atonement was not to be offered. Aaron himself must offer an atonement for himself, before he can offer one for the people [Note: Heb 7:27.]. Who then amongst us can hope to come with acceptance into the divine presence in any other way? Our blessed Lord has told us, No man cometh unto the Father, but by me. And St. Paul assures us, that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. We must all, therefore, bring our offering to the altar; and lay our hands upon the head of our offering; and look for pardon solely through the atoning blood of Jesus. The fire, too, was for the daily use of all. And daily, yea, and hourly, have all of us occasion to come to God in the same way. There is not an offering that we present to God, but it must be placed on his altar: and then only can it ascend with a sweet smell before God, when it has undergone its appointed process in that fire.]
2.
That the sacrifices under the Law are insufficient for us
[Thousands and myriads of beasts were consumed on Gods altar: and yet the fire continued to burn, as unsatisfied, and demanding fresh victims. Had the offerings already presented effected a complete satisfaction for sin, the fire might have been extinguished. But the repetition of the sacrifices clearly shewed, that a full atonement had not yet been offered. In fact, as the Apostle tells us. they were no more than remembrances of sins made from year to year; and could never take away sin, either from Gods register of crimes, or from the conscience of the offender himself [Note: Heb 10:1-4; Heb 10:11; Heb 9:9.]. Thus, under the very Law itself, the insufficiency of the Law was loudly proclaimed; and the people were taught to look forward to a better dispensation, as the end of that which was, after a time, to be abolished.]
3.
That God would in due time provide himself a sacrifice, with which he himself would be satisfied
[From the beginning, God had taught men to look forward to a sacrifice which should in due time be offered. It is probable that the beasts, with whose skins our first parents were clothed, were by Gods command first offered in sacrifice to him. We are sure that Abel offered in sacrifice the firstling of his flock: and it is probable that fire was sent from heaven, as it certainly was on different occasions afterwards, to consume it: and that it was this visible token of Gods acceptance of Abels sacrifice, that inflamed the envy and the rage of Cain [Note: Gen 4:4-5.]. From Noahs offerings, also, God smelled a sweet savour, as shadowing forth that great sacrifice which should in due time be offered [Note: Gen 8:20-21.]. To Abraham the purpose of God was marked in a still more peculiar manner. He was commanded to take his son, his only son, Isaac, and to offer him up upon an altar, on that very mountain where the Temple afterwards was built, and where the Lord Jesus Christ himself was crucified. The fire, therefore, that was burning upon the altar, and the wood with which it was kept alive, did, in effect, say, as Isaac so many hundred years before had done, Behold the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt-offering? Yea, it gave also the very answer which Abraham had done, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt-offering [Note: Gen 22:7-8.]. Thus, by keeping up the expectation of the Great Sacrifice which all the offerings of the Law prefigured, it declared, in fact, to every successive generation, that in the fulness of time God would send forth his own Son, to make his soul an offering for sin, and, by bearing in his own person the iniquities of us all, to take them away from us [Note: Isa 53:6; Isa 53:10.]. In short, this fire, and every offering that was consumed by it, directed the attention of every true Israelite to that adorable Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world [Note: Joh 1:29.], and who in actual efficiency, as well as in the divine purpose, has been the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world [Note: Rev 13:8.].]
4.
That all who should not be interested in that great sacrifice must expect His sorest judgments
[The victims consumed by that fire were considered as standing in the place of men who deserved punishment. This was clearly marked, not only by their being set apart by all Israel, and offered with that express view, but by the offenders themselves putting their hands on the heads of their victims, and transferring their sins to the creatures that were to be offered in sacrifice to God [Note: Lev 4:4; Lev 4:15; Lev 4:24; Lev 4:29; Lev 4:33.]. The fire that consumed them was expressive of Gods indignation against sin, and declared the doom which the sinner himself merited at Gods hands; yea, and the doom, too, which he himself must experience, if sin should ever be visited on him. It declared, what the New Testament also abundantly confirms, that God is a consuming fire [Note: Heb 12:29.] ; and that they who shall be visited with his righteous indignation, must be cast into a lake of fire [Note: Rev 20:15.], where their worm dieth not, and the fire never shall be quenched [Note: Mar 9:43-46; Mar 9:48 five times.]. Methinks, then, the fire burning on the altar gave to every person that beheld it this awful admonition; Who can dwell with the devouring fire? Who can dwell with everlasting burnings [Note: Isa 33:14.] ?]
In considering this ordinance, it will be proper yet further to declare,
II.
Its mystical import, as relating to the Church
The different ordinances of the Jewish Law had at least a two-fold meaning, and, in many instances, a still more comprehensive import. The tabernacle, for instance, prefigured the body of Christ, in which all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt; and the Church, where God displays his glory; and heaven, where he vouchsafes his more immediate presence, and is seen face to face. So the altar not unfitly represents the cross on which the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified [Note: Heb 13:10-12.] ; and the heart of man, from whence offerings of every kind go up with acceptance before God [Note: Heb 13:15-16.]. In the former sense we have its typical, and in the latter its mystical import.
Now in this mystical, and, as I may call it, emblematical sense, the ordinance before us teaches us,
1.
That no offering can be accepted of God, unless it be inflamed with heavenly fire
[When Nadab and Abihu offered incense before God with strange, that is, with common, fire, they were struck dead, as monuments of Gods heavy displeasure: There went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them; and they died before the Lord [Note: Lev 10:1-2.]. And shall we hope for acceptance with God, if we present our offerings with the unhallowed fire of mere natural affections? Our blessed Lord has told us, that he would baptize us with the Holy Ghost and with fire [Note: Mat 3:11.]: and every sacrifice which we offer to him should be inflamed with that divine power, even the sacred energy of his Holy Spirit, and of his heavenly grace. Let us not imagine that formal and self-righteous services can be pleasing to him; or that we can be accepted of him whilst seeking our own glory. Hear the declaration of God himself on this subject: Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks! walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled: but this shall ye have of mine hand, ye shall lie down in sorrow [Note: Isa 50:11.].]
2.
That if God have kindled in our hearts a fire, we must keep it alive by our own vigilance
[I well know that this mode of expression is objected to by many: but it is the language of the whole Scriptures; and therefore is to be used by us. We are not to be wise above what is written, and to abstain from speaking as the voice of inspiration speaks, merely from a jealous regard to human systems. True it is, we are not to attempt any thing in our own strength: (if we do, we shall surely fail:) but we must exert ourselves notwithstanding: and the very circumstance of its being God alone who can work in us either to will or do, is our incentive and encouragement to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling [Note: Php 2:12-13.]. If we cannot work without God, neither will God work without us. We must give all diligence to make our calling and election sure [Note: 2Pe 1:10.]. We must keep ourselves in the love of God [Note: Judges , 1.]: we must stir up (like the stirring of a fire) the gift of God that is in us [Note: 2Ti 1:6. See the Greek.]: we must from time to time be watchful, and strengthen the things that remain in us, that are ready to die [Note: Rev 3:2.]. In a word, we must be keeping up the fire on the altar, and never suffer it to go out.
This, indeed, was the office of the priests under the Law; and so it is under the Gospel: and this is, indeed, the very end at which we aim in all our ministrations. We never kindled a fire in any of your hearts; nor ever could: that was Gods work alone. But we would bring the word, and lay it on the altar of your hearts; and endeavour to fan the flame; that so the fire may burn more pure and ardent, and every offering which you present before God may go up with acceptance before him. But let me say, that, under the Christian dispensation, ye all are a royal priesthood: there is now no difference between Jew and Greek, or between male and female: ye therefore must from morning to evening, and from evening to morning, be bringing fresh fuel to the fire; by reading, by meditation, by prayer, by conversation, by an attendance on social and public ordinances, by visiting the sick, and by whatever may have a tendency to quicken and augment the life of God in your souls. The sacred fire must either languish or increase: it never can continue long in the same state. See to it, then, that you grow in grace, and look to yourselves that ye lose not the things that ye have wrought, but that ye receive a full reward [Note: 2Jn 1:8.].]
3.
That every sacrifice which we offer in Gods appointed way shall surely be accepted of him
[There is the fire: see it blazing on the altar. Wherefore is it thus kept up? kept up, too, by Gods express command? Wherefore? that ye may know assuredly that God is there, ready to accept your every offering. You think, perhaps, that you have no offering worthy of his acceptance. But do you not know, that he who was not able to bring a kid, or a lamb, or even two young pigeons, might bring a small measure of fine flour; and that that should be burnt upon the altar for him, and be accepted as an atonement instead of a slaughtered animal [Note: Lev 5:5-13.] ? Be assured, that the sigh, the tear, the groan shall come up with acceptance before him, as much as the most fluent prayer that ever was offered; and that the widows mite will be found no less valuable in his sight, than the richest offerings of the great and wealthy. Only do ye draw near to God; and be assured, He will draw near to you: and, as he gave to his people formerly some visible tokens of his acceptance, so will he give to you the invisible, but not less real, manifestations of his love and favour, shedding abroad his love in your hearts, giving you the witness of his Spirit in your souls, and sealing you with the Holy Spirit of promise as the earnest of your inheritance, until the time of your complete redemption.]
In concluding this subject, I would yet further say, Look to the great atonement as your only hope
[I wish you very particularly to notice when it was that God sent down this fire upon the altar. It was when Aaron had offered a sacrifice for his own sins, and a sacrifice also for the sins of the people. It was. then, whilst a part of the latter sacrifice was yet unconsumed upon the altar, that God sent down fire from heaven and consumed it instantly [Note: Lev 9:8; Lev 9:13; Lev 9:15; Lev 9:17; Lev 9:24.]. When this universal acknowledgment had been made of their affiance in the great atonement, then God honoured them with this signal token of his acceptance. And it is only when you come to him in the name of Christ, pleading the merit of his blood, and desiring to be found in him, not having your own righteousness but his, it is then I say, and then only, that you can expect from God an answer of peace. It is of great importance that you notice this: for many persons are looking first to receive some token of his love, that they may afterwards be emboldened to come to him through Christ. But you must first come to him through Christ: and then he will send the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, whereby you shall cry, Abba, Father.]
2.
Surrender up yourselves as living sacrifices unto God
[On the Jewish altar slain beasts were offered: under the Christian dispensation you must offer yourselves, your whole selves, body, soul, and spirit, a living sacrifice unto the Lord. This is the sacrifice which God looks for; and this alone he will accept. This too, I may add, is your reasonable service [Note: Rom 12:1.]. This must precede every other offering [Note: 2Co 8:5.]. A divided heart God will never accept. Let the whole soul be his; and there shall not be any offering which you can present, which shall not receive a testimony of his approbation here, and an abundant recompence hereafter: for, if there be only a willing mind, it shall be accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.]
CONTENTS
The law concerning the uncleanness of the leprosy forms the subject of this Chapter. The method of discovery in ascertaining the existence of the decease, is very particularly pointed out. To which are added laws for the regulation of persons infected with the leprosy, and for due regard to their garments.
Lev 13:1
In the opening of this Chapter I beg to remind the reader once again, that Moses wrote of JESUS. In the person of Aaron as the great high priest to whom the leper was to show himself, we discover strong leading figures of him whom Aaron prefigured.
The Law of Leprosy
Lev 13 The thirteenth and fourteenth chapters are occupied with the question of leprosy. With that disease we have now, happily, nothing to do in this country; yet those who care to peruse the note at the end of this discourse will find that England was once ravaged by that terrible disease. It would be pleasant to turn over the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters, and to escape to subjects less revolting; but pleasure is not the law of life. It is here that so many men fritter away their days and altogether mistake the divine purpose of education. Men set up their “taste.” When a man talks about his “taste,” he has no taste to be proud of. Look at this large question in the light of religious history and human progress. What was to be done when leprosy was suspected? “The priest shall look.” Would you hasten away from that great saying? Why that is the key of history. You would escape from the richest thought if you escaped from the fact that God has trained the human race from the religious instinct. Where was the doctor? There was no doctor then; he is a later creation. He came in due course and by pressure of necessity, having regard to the widening expanse of civilisation; but the priest was the doctor, and the priest is the only true doctor in every age. “The priest shall look”? Why not confine himself to his own work? Why not stay within the church and do the priestly rites and ceremonies, and let the leper alone? No work is excluded from the priest. The priest has, indeed, lived downwards and backwards, and given up his heritage and his rights and properties, and has cut down his divine vocation with a ruthless hand; but, rightly interpreted, the minister of God is the doctor of the world, the musician of the world, the father of the fatherless, the leader of the blind, the great schoolmaster, the gentle unwearying shepherd, he is the son of man. He has allowed himself to be snubbed out of nine-tenths of his work; he has permitted himself to be enclosed in a certain way, and to be shut up within certain boundaries and points; but that is his blame his apostasy in the Eden which includes the world and if he has fallen into a little man, it is not because God’s vocation was a limited call. The Church is the true lazar-house; the Church is the great hospital; the Church is the dame-school, presided over by gentlest mother, who collects us all around her, and helps us in the spelling and building up and speaking out of words. But we have allowed the fool to prate over us and to tell ministers to confine themselves to their own work, as if they were artisans or specialists, not having right over all flesh, all history, all poetry, all music, all progress. The doctor is but part of the minister a spark flashed out of the greater fire. The true priest the seer, and interpreter is the foremost man of the age: beyond him is One only, and that is God. In old history the priests were the doctors; in our own history the priests are the leeches. What is the meaning of this? The profound philosophy of it is, that it is from the religious point, or instinct, that all history is developed. We are told that of course in the early ages all learning was with the monks. That does not impair the proposition that has been laid down; that circumstance rather increases the evidence of the truthfulness and cogency of that proposition. How did all learning come to be associated with the monk, or religious man? The same philosophy is here. Life is associated with the religious instinct, prying into all things, knocking at every door to have it opened, looking over every water and wondering what shores are lying beyond its waves. If religion has allowed itself to be shut up in some church cellar, religion, in its human relations, must blame itself. It was meant to stand on the mountains, to rule the nations, to lead every holy war, and to settle the tumult of the world into the peace of heaven. The largeness of the religious responsibility continues. The Church is responsible for the ignorance of the world. Do not blame the State a poor little machine, a shed run up in the night-time for protection against the weather. The Church is responsible for every man this day that does not know the name of Christ, the claim of God, the holiness of honour, and the duties of civilisation. The Church is responsible for every child that cannot write its name. But the Church has fallen upon small ideas, little comforts, seventh-day indulgences, half-day hearings, and these marked by extreme reluctance or spoiled by pedantic criticism. The heroic conception the vocation to seize the world, arrest it, fight its enemies, shut up its hell has been misinterpreted or forgotten. Read history, and be just to the religious instinct It is easy to see where civilisation, having entered into elaborate redistribution of offices and positions, may have forgotten its original obligations: it is easy for a man to forget at whose torch he lighted his own; but search back through the days and nights of history, and you will find that the first torch was kindled by the hand of God. We soon become forgetful; it is easy to drop into the spirit of ingratitude. We may look at the sky until its very blue becomes commonplace.
All this care, outlined with so complete an elaboration, was not meant for the sake of the individual alone, it contemplated the protection of the whole body of the people. Why this anxiety about a man who shows signs of the plague? For his own sake, certainly; but largely for the sake of the uncontaminated host. The man was to be put outside the camp or to be shut up in a dwelling of his own: for a period he was to be cut off from his people and made to live a solitary life. Did the priest order this punishment with the view of afflicting the poor sufferer himself? Unquestionably not; the priest had no wish to add solitude to pain, exile to defilement. The priest represented the spirit of compassion soft, tender, healing pity; but it was the large pity that not only looked at the sufferer himself, but regarded the unnumbered hosts who might be affected by the defilement of the leper, were the leper permitted to sustain his customary relations. “No man liveth to himself.” The camp was afraid of contagion. Save the untouched by expelling the defiled. Look at the precautions taken by ourselves in case of disease: how we publish the names of affected neighbourhoods; how we protest against the erection of buildings appropriated to endeavours to cure certain malignant and infectious diseases; how we blanch under the intelligence that cholera or small-pox has threatened an invasion of the country. What anxiety! What endeavours to prevent the ravages of the disease! All this is right; but it throws into tremendous and appalling contrast our carelessness about the contagion that poisons the soul. There is a moral contamination; there is a mental defilement. “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” “My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.” We do not know what evil we are working by the subtle influence of contagion. It is not needful for the infected man to go and deliberately touch the unaffected man, as if by an act of violence: we spoil the air. We drop a word and think no more about it; but that word is working for evil in the soul of the youth who heard it; we indulge a jest which hides impurity, and the impurity works when the jest is forgotten; we throw out a suspicion, and pass away as if we had done no wrong, better fill the air with poison and kill a thousand men a day than unsettle the soul’s faith, trouble the moral confidence, risk the eternal destiny of men. Why are we not consistent with our own logic? Why do we not complete our own view of cleanness? Any man who can content himself with external purity is not a pure man; he is a trickster, a mechanician, a man who attends to externals. Only he is clean in the flesh who is clean in the spirit. You cannot wash a man with an unclean spirit to any effect, even in the flesh; the evil oozes through the burnished skin; the iniquity comes through every pore. What we should look after is moral consistency. We are anxious to shut out a disease that would kill the body, and yet open all the doors and all the windows and let in the diseases which infect and poison and damn the soul. Out of thine own mouth will I condemn thee!
It is interesting and instructive to note that the pure man can alone deal effectively and harmlessly with corrupt and pestilent subjects. This lesson can never be taught to some minds. The priest represented purity; we have seen what pains have been taken to purify him, to sanctify him, and consecrate him; we have been present in all the process, and now the priest ideally represents purity, divine holiness. We have no instruction to the effect that one leper is to look on another; the distinct direction is that the priest the holy, pure man shall look at the leper handle him, undertake him. Send the holy to the unholy; send the Christ of God to the sinners of the earth: he has “gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.” Religious men should take up all bad questions; but they will not. The mischief is that such men should take upon themselves the responsibility of representing the kingdom of God. Why are not they infidels, if we must have infidels upon the earth for a time? I should turn all the imperfect and misinterpreting professors of Christianity into infidels, for such they are, and they are such of the very worst type. The Church is burdened with men who do not understand the genius of the kingdom of heaven. When our holiest women are found in our unholiest places, know ye that the kingdom of heaven is at hand: the day is dawning; the sweetest wife we have is away seeking the piece that is lost. But she will be defiled? Never! She will be exposed to danger? No! Not when the theologues have balanced their wordy battles and foolish misunderstandings, but when the holy lives are sitting down with lives unholy, will the orient whiten and the day dawn, and Christ “see of the travail of his soul.” It is no sign of piety to turn away from revolting subjects and to say, We cannot enter into this because our taste is offended, and our feelings are shocked. Whoever says so is a knave in the Church; he has no right to sit down where Christ sits; he is worse than Iscariot; he is a traitor for whom no death has been devised sufficiently awful. These people abound on every hand; they are the plague of society! Raise a very evil report about a man: make it very bad: spare no charge: enlarge the accusation until it takes in all things revolting, shocking, and instantly nearly all the pious people you have ever known will leave the man because the accusations are so shocking. Accuse him of some trifling violation of etiquette, or propriety, and twenty men may be willing to share his fate, or abate the force of the social blow that is aimed at him; but make the accusation bad enough: especially introduce into it elements of obscenity, and you will hear so-called Christian people say that they have no wish to enter into subjects of that kind. The very people who ought to say “What are they? when did they occur? let the witnesses stand up” will speak of their taste and their sensitiveness, and the delicacy of their bringing-up, and will abandon the man. Those people are the infidels. Do not believe I speak to inquirers as to the extent of the divine temple and the meaning of the divine kingdom do not believe that wordy opponents are the infidels; those are the infidels who profess to know Christ, and yet know nothing of the infinite pity, valour, nobleness, and deity of his spirit. Let the priest look on the man accused. The priest must never be afraid. The priest must enter the house where small-pox is, or leprosy, or cholera; let others cry fear if they will the priest resigns his priesthood when he resigns his courage. Christ was holy, harmless, un-defiled; yet he was the Guest of sinners, he received sinners, he ate and drank with sinners, he spake to sinners as never man spake; to the lost woman he said, Sister, begin again.
Men turn away from the perusal of such chapters, and look complacently upon moral leprosy. Men who would walk a mile to avoid an infected house, will read the very last book that the devil has published, and allow the devil to cut the pages for them; men who are so dainty that they could on no account pass by certain hospitals, have in their libraries books that poison the soul; men who would be alarmed if they knew that their children were exposed to companionship with children who have the whooping-cough, will tell lies by the hour; pitiable men! shameful men! Men who would not allow any child of theirs to look upon a drunken man, will allow their children to hear themselves speaking evil of their neighbour all day long. What inconsistency! what irony! But this is the difficulty of Christ: that whatever is objective, tangible, and fleshly, has, by reason of its substance, an advantage over the moral, spiritual, invisible, and immortal. The conduct of men is not always against God only, it is against inward honour, conscience, moral right, spiritual sensitiveness; the atheism is not a speculation which challenges the heavens, it is a practice which embitters the fountains of life.
Read the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Leviticus through without stopping, then read Jesus Christ’s cure of leprosy, and compare the two. The leper said: “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean…. I will” and the man was cleansed. “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us”; and Jesus said, “Go show yourselves unto the priests”; and as they went the burden fell off, and they stood up in the purity and suppleness of renewed youth; one soul was so filled with gratitude that he went back to bless his Benefactor. You can hardly have a more striking instance of the difference between the ancient ritual and the Christian dispensation than by reading the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Leviticus, and then reading in immediate connection the history of the cure of leprosy by Jesus Christ. We are all afflicted with leprosy; the disease is within. Jesus Christ is within our cry: we can now make him hear: let each say with an honest heart, “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean; create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me,” and we shall escape all this elaborate ritual, all this exclusion, and separation, and purification, and at a word the creative, redeeming word we shall stand up clean men, pure souls. “Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief.”
Note
Many imagine leprosy to be some obscure disease alluded to only in the Bible. Leprosy was also a disease of the Middle Ages, more widely spread and more fearful in its results than any other in ancient or modern times. It is probable that the worst form of leprosy in early Jewish history was that now known as elephantiasis. The milder form of Jewish leprosy, called bohak , was neither severe nor contagious.
Leprosy in England and Europe arose gradually after the destruction of the Roman Empire, as fast as barbarism spread with its uncleanliness of personal habits, and its resort to animal food and beer as nearly exclusive articles of daily diet. In all ancient towns it was early found necessary to erect hospitals and retreats and churches for those afflicted with leprosy. We have in England, now, hospitals built for lepers, so ancient that their origin is unknown, such as the St. Bartholomew Hospital at Gloucester, and others. It is known that there were at least 9,000 hospitals in Europe for leprosy alone. Louis VII. of France left legacies to over 2,000 hospitals for lepers in his country. We have extant a touching account of a knight of vast wealth and influence, named Amiloun, expelled from his castle to be a beggar, almost in sight of his vast possessions and stately home; for the Normans in France virtually outlawed, as well as expelled from their homes all lepers, and, as soon as their influence was established in England, they extended their sanitary measures and benevolent enterprise to lepers.
Hugo, or Eudo Dapifer the steward for William the Conqueror having received from him vast possessions of land in Essex, built or rebuilt, and endowed a St. Mary Magdalen Hospital for lepers in Colchester. The hospital for lepers, dedicated to the same saint, in the city of Exeter, is of unknown antiquity. Bartholomew, bishop of that city and diocese (1161-1184), finding its usefulness limited for want of funds, and the sufferings of lepers unlimited, endowed it with considerable wealth. He gave it for ever five marks of silver yearly the tenth of a certain toll, and the profits arising for ever from the sale of the bark of his wood at Chudleigh. His example stimulated the chapter of St. Peter’s, in the same city, to grant a weekly dole of bread for ever. The good bishop Bartholomew wearied the Pope to give a charter to the hospital, making the endowment an everlasting benefaction, as he viewed the curse of leprosy to be as wide-spreading as humanity, and as lasting as the race of man. But he died before his wishes were gratified. However, Pope Celestine III. granted or confirmed a charter in the year 1192, and the charity exists to this day.
Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, held a synod at Westminster, in the year 1200, to carry out the decree of the Council of Lateran (1172), to build a number of churches solely for leprous people, for they had long been expelled from all parish churches. They were to have priests, officers, and graveyards exclusively for themselves. They were released at the same time from all claims for tithes for their land or cattle. So careful and determined were our ancestors to remove from sight and smell every leper, that a law was early in existence to enforce their removal out of towns and villages “to a solitary place.” The writ is in our ancient law-books, entitled De Leprose Amovendo, and it is fully stated by Judge Fitz-Herbert in his Natura Brevium. King Edward III., finding that, in spite of the old law, leprous persons were concealed in houses inhabited by other persons, gave commandment to the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs to make proclamation in every ward of the city and its suburbs, “that all leprous persons inhabiting there should avoid within fifteen days next,” etc., etc.
At the city of Bath, a bath, with physicians and attendants, was endowed exclusively for lepers and the endowments are still paid. That the bath was occasionally effiacious, in connection with improved diet, we have sure evidence; for one leper in late days had fixed to the bath a mural tablet to say that “William Berry, of Garthorpe, near Melton Mowbray, in the county of Leicester, was cured of a dry leprosy by the help of God and the bath, 1737,”
Gibson Ward.
VI
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLEAN AND UNCLEAN
Leviticus 11-15
The scope of Leviticus 11-15.
The minds of commentators, Bible students, and people generally have been very much perplexed to account for this feature of the Levitical law. In other words, that only certain animals must be used for food, and then, uncleanness coming from three other directions, one of which is exceedingly delicate; that, you will have to read about and not have the discussion of it. First, the sexual uncleanness of man or woman; and second, the touching of dead bodies, whether they are clean or unclean; and third, leprosy. And when you have taken those three, you have taken all except what is based on the distinction between the clean and the unclean animals. This applies in two directions, viz.: as to use in sacrifices and more largely as to use in eating. This Levitical distinction between the clean and the unclean and remedies for removing uncleanness have perplexed the minds of more Bible students, perhaps, than any other one thing. And their difficulty is, to account for the principle which determines such legislation, and various opinions have been entertained as to the principle which accounts for this Levitical legislation. I am quite sure that no man could rationally account for the principles that were in the Divine Mind as to these distinctions apart from what the Divine Mind has said. He may attempt philosophically to account for the state which depended only upon the law, but that does not account for the reason or principle underlying it. And there is always a reason for every law. Whether that reason is assigned or not, there is a reason. My own mind is pretty well settled on the subject, though I have tried hard enough to confuse it by reading the literature of various men that have tried to account for it in various ways.
There are certain antecedent facts that are necessary to a settlement of the question, and the first fact is that as God made man before he was a sinner he was a vegetarian. I mean to say that he was permitted to eat only fruits, cereals, and salads and things of that kind. This is the first fact. The second significant fact on the eating question is found in the beginning of Gen 9 . When Noah came out of the ark, this language is used: “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.” You see this is an entirely new race commission. The first race commission begins with Adam. Now the race starts anew with an entirely new head. “And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth . . .” Now comes the clause, “Every moving thing that liveth shall be food for you; as the green herb have I given you all.” Now, the reference there, “as I have given you the green herb,” refers to the first law on the subject, the law of Eden. I quote: “And God said, Behold I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food” (Gen 1:29 ).
Now, that is the original commission about what man must eat, but in this more enlarged commission given to the race through Noah in chapter 9 before there were any Jews, Noah and his family standing for the race, God says, “As I gave you the green herb for food so now I give you every living thing that moveth.” In no discussion that I have ever seen are the facts brought out that I am giving you now. So you see the race is spoken of, Noah being the head of the race; there is no legislation against what you shall eat, either vegetable or animal food, no clean or unclean animals.
Now, the third fact, and I am discussing only the eating now, is that when God gave to Peter the key to the kingdom of heaven that opened the door to the Gentiles, as recorded in Act 10 , he let down a great ark or white sheet from heaven and in that ark were all the animals, whether brutes, that is, beasts, or birds, or creeping things; and he says, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” Peter says “Not so, Lord; I have never been accustomed to eat anything unclean.” And God says, “What I have cleansed call thou not common.” The import of all which is, that whatever legislation was made by Moses with reference to distinction of meats in eating, stops with the Jews; and hence the apostle Paul elaborately argues his liberty to eat anything if it is received with thankfulness. So that it is a fact that in the New Testament the Levitical law as to the distinction between clean and unclean animals is abrogated.
Now, notice the bearing of this fact on the New Testament, i.e., the principle that led to the legislation. When you come to the New Testament times and the kingdom of God is taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, again there is no limitation. These facts force us to look for a reason in the Divine Mind that applied to this people, that is, the Jews as a people in order to get at the distinction. Now I venture to say that you never get beyond the reach of these facts.
The next thing is the distinction between clean and unclean, not as to eating, but as to sacrifice. When did that originate? It did not originate with Noah, as far as sacrifices are concerned, for God commissioned Noah to take into the ark with him one pair of unclean animals and birds and seven pairs of clean animals and birds, as if Noah understood it, and Noah did understand it. And so when Noah came out of the ark he took of the animals and offered sacrifice to God; so this question is forced upon us: Where did the distinction between the clean and unclean animals for sacrifice originate? Not with Adam, not with Noah. Now I will give you the origin. It is equal to a plain statement. It originated as soon as man sinned; when he was expelled from the garden and the symbolical, or typical, method of approach to God was appointed. We know this to be true. In Gen 4 , when one of Adam’s sons brought the clean beast from the flock and God received it, and the other offered simply the produce from his farm, his was rejected; so that I offer to you as the conviction of my mind that the distinction between clean and unclean animals for sacrifice originated when man sinned.
Now, when an issue stands perfectly clear in my own mind, I am on pretty sure ground and my conviction is very clear so far as clean and unclean animals are concerned, that it originated when man sinned, by the appointment of God and would necessarily cease when the Antitype came. So that we find God’s own distinction in animals for sacrifice going back to the sin of man, further back than we carry the distinction of eating. Now, these facts will help us to get at the origin of the distinction between the clean and the unclean in the Divine Mind establishing this regulation. So I point out, first, that the distinction between clean and unclean animals both as to sacrifice and eating was to symbolize certain great spiritual truths and when the symbol was fulfilled, the obligation to continue would then cease. That is principle one. Principle two is for hygienic reasons, sanitary reasons. You know what “hygienic” means. You have studied medicine enough to know that. Sanitary reasons had something to do with it but modern scientists claim that it had everything to do with this distinction between the unclean and the clean animals. Now it is a sad truth that they consider only one principle and that is the sanitary reason, claiming that, as far as eating is concerned, it is the only one worth discussing. I admit the sanitary reason, but I do not give it the prominence that they do, since the commission to Noah did not include it as a race commission. Therefore, the sanitary reason for the whole race does not explain it.
It is wise to use those foods, the use of which is the least dangerous to human health. God knew that this law would last only until the Messiah came and that it applied to the Jews, and that the Jews would simply be around the Mediterranean Sea, in a tropical country, and if I were living in that country now, I wouldn’t eat swine meat, for sanitary reasons. In the tropics it is not best to eat hog meat, and this law proscribes some food that can’t be eaten. Whether in the tropics or out of it, it is not best to eat blood. Statistics have been carefully gathered, that to me are intensely significant. You take the Jews living now in any country of the world, and where they follow the regimen of diet prescribed in the book of Leviticus, these Jews average a longer life than other people, better health than other people and less liable to contagious diseases than other people. Read an account of an epidemic sweeping clear over the country and it is astonishing how very few Jews have it. Now, that fact shows that the food we eat has a great deal to do with the health of the body. Look at those people in the camp life in the wilderness, in the blazing hot country, and for sanitary reasons, these Levitical reasons, they were forbidden to eat certain things. I mention that as the second principle.
Now the third principle. It was the purpose of God to isolate Israel from all the nations of the earth; and in order to isolate Israel) her worship was to be separated from that of other people. .For if they came to the table with the Gentiles, then intermarriage is permitted, and with intermarriage comes the idolatry of the heathen. The history, as you will see when you study Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, shows the introduction of idolatry to come with the association of the Jews with the heathen. A Jewish king with a heathen wife came near blotting religion from the world, and in it all Elijah stood alone with the exception of 7,000 people that had not bowed their knees to Baal. But he thought he was alone in the world and asked God to take him out of the world. So these people must be kept separate from the other people, there must be things that separate them; things that would not permit that degree of intimate association that permits marriage. So these things were given to make a line of demarcation between the Jews and the Gentiles. But when the Jewish policy had served its purpose, then the same God that drew that line tore it down and blotted out the distinction between the clean and the unclean. Those are the three reasons that are satisfactory to my mind, and while I might cite fifty others, advocated by commentators, none of them seems to be of any force but these three. Now note carefully: First, the distinction was made in order to symbolize certain great spiritual truths that would be brought out; second, hygienic or sanitary reasons led to this distinction, and third, this legislation was to isolate Israel and tend to keep it as a separate and particular people.
I come now to another feature of the case, viz.: the touching of dead bodies. If one was defiled, there was a ritual prescribed by which he could become clean ceremonially, before God. It is easy to see in that case the spiritual truth that is embodied in that symbolism. Death is the wages of sin, and the body without the spirit is dead. Now then, in order to make these people realize the necessity of holiness, they must keep apart from the dead. “Let the dead bury their dead.” And if propriety would admit of the discussion of the sexual feature of it, I could make that explanation perfectly satisfactory to you also.
Now we come to the case of leprosy. Why was leprosy and no other form of sickness selected? The commentaries discuss much whether the leprosy of Leviticus is the leprosy of modern times as we understand it. I say to you that it is. I have not time to prove it, but you may just take my assurance that when Leviticus says leprosy it means leprosy in its most loathsome form. Why, now, was leprosy put along beside the bodies of dead men? Simply because one declared to be leprous was as one dead. It was a living death. As it progressed and disfigured the body, it would eat away the nose and the different parts of the body. In other words, -the soul was confined in the charnel house of corruption. He must be segregated, he must hide himself, must not allow other people to come near him. The law commanded him to cover his upper lip, and when he saw any one coming toward him he must cry out, “Unclean, unclean, unclean!” Therefore we find leprosy selected both in the Old and the New Testaments as expressive of sin, and the healing of leprosy as the exercise of the power of God. Medicine cannot cure leprosy when it gets to a certain stage.
A great many things commence like leprosy, and such cases had to be tested, therefore some of these regulations. A man is segregated and the high priest examines him and keeps him segregated until it is known not to be leprosy. Here are the symptoms: First, if the skin turns perfectly white, this is the first step; second, there appear growing out of that spot hairs that are white; that man is pronounced a leper, and then that last fearful sloughing off, eating form comes. Sometimes people would have this white spot and the white hair appearing in this spot and not have leprosy. It was because it did not develop a case in full, but the high priest was to count them lepers until it was shown not to be leprosy. Lepers regarded leprosy as a stroke from God, and indeed that is the etymological meaning of the word. The Hebrew word means a stroke, that is, stroke from God. When the application was made to the king of Israel to heal Naaman, who was a leper, he says, “They seek occasion against me; am I God, that I can make alive?” He meant that it required supernatural power, divine power, to heal a leper. Some of the most noted sermons that have ever been preached have been sermons on leprosy as a type of sin.
Now we come to consider the distinction, not as to the reason of its appointment, but what the distinction itself was between the clean and the unclean, and that is easy to tell. Of the beasts, there must be two things to make it a clean beast, and it did not merely apply to sacrifices. I will show you the limitation directly. No beast could be offered as sacrifice or be eaten as food, unless it possessed two characteristics, viz.: a cloven hoof and the chewing of the cud. Now, the camel’s hoof is not cloven but it chews the cud; the sheep’s hoof is cloven and it does chew the cud; the hog’s hoof is cloven but it does not chew the cud. A number of wild animals are good for food because they divide the hoof and chew the cud, but only domestic animals that divide the hoof and chew the cud could be used as sacrifice. The others were unclean, but any animal, domestic or otherwise, that chewed the cud and divided the hoof could be eaten, for instance, the antelope, the deer, and all other animals of that kind. Now this is the distinction of beasts.
Now we come to the birds and there the distinction is expressed in classes. Certain birds are mentioned, for instance, the dove, the pigeon. They could be used as sacrifice. They had the characteristic generally attributed to them, of innocence. They were not birds of prey. Certain others are specified. All carnivorous birds were excluded, and some birds eat bad flesh, as you know, and that applied to the beasts. There were graminivorous beasts; that means “grass-eating” beasts. They did not have tusks. They had molars, or grinders. The graminivorous beast perhaps would be clean, but none could be clean that was not a grass-eating beast. The eagle, the vulture, the owl, the bat, the stork, the heron, and the crane are mentioned by name as not clean. The goose, the duck, the chicken, and all the variety of quail could be eaten, but only certain ones could be used as sacrifice.
Now we come to another class, and here is what the Hebrew, literally translated, says about a certain class of things that were clean: First, he must be winged, and second, he must have four legs beside the hind legs used for hopping and jumping; as locusts, crickets, etc. Many people eat them. John the Baptist was a “bug-eater,” and in some countries the locust is a general article of food. Now think of that, fellow. First) he must be able to fly; he must be able to walk on all fours; he must have wings to fly, and his hind legs must be hopping legs. There is, of course, in this country, a great deal of prejudice against eating grasshoppers, but I am sure that if you were over in those countries and did not know what they were, you would eat them. They are dried in the sun and then ground up into flour and baked into a kind of cake. So you would not know what it was. I confess I don’t want any myself.
Now, have you got that perfectly clear? The animal in order to be eaten, must divide the hoof and chew the cud, and in order to be used as a sacrifice, must not only do that but it must be domestic; as, the cow, the sheep, the goat. The birds are specified by classes and must not be carnivorous birds. The grasshopper class must have four legs, two hoppers, and be able to fly. Now, there is one more class and that is the fishes. Two characteristics the fish must have in order to be Levitically fit to eat. It must have fins and it must have scales fins and scales both. The catfish wouldn’t do. It has no scales; but there are others that would not do; as, the oyster. There people didn’t eat many oysters and we leave them out in the hot months. Now suppose it was hot all the time, as it is there; we would eat very few oysters. The rule will not apply to fishes as to birds. The fishes that have fins and scales are carnivorous; for instance, take a big trout. He eats the smaller fish and is carnivorous and voracious. There are four distinctions in fact, and I have discussed the principles.
Now the method of removing uncleanness, and the details are elaborate. I recommend again the volume on Leviticus in the Expositors Bible, as one of the best expositions of the book I ever read, by Kellogg. He is not poisoned by higher criticism, as most of these books are. When I go over a book, I am sure to tell you what books to use. The Expositor’s and the Cambridge Bibles are widely used; while some parts of them you cannot rely on, you can rely on the Leviticus volume of the Expositor’s Bible.
Dr. Wilkinson, of Chicago, came down to Texas to deliver a series of lectures. One of his subjects was “The Book of Leviticus” and all his lectures were on the introduction to the book. He came to me and said, “What have you on Leviticus that is any account?” I said, “Take Kellogg, of the Expositor’s Bible.” He says, “It is in mighty bad company.” But when he brought the book back, he said, “I thank you that you called my attention to that book. I had such a dislike for the Expositor’s Bible that I never thought to look in there for anything good, but it is superb.”
Now, I will tell you of another that will bring out the spiritual, and that is Mackintosh. He is spiritual, though a premillennialist. They do stand foursquare for the truth and I have always loved that kind of a man. If they stand square and do not yield to the higher critics; if they are spiritually minded and their teaching is spiritual, I am going to take them close to my heart and convert them as fast as I can. There are some mighty good people among them. Moody was one. A. C. Dixon, W. B. Riley, and others are among them and they are mighty good people.
Our next lesson is on Lev 17 and we take up the law of holiness in that. That refers to eating, which has been discussed in this study, but solely with reference to the distinction of meats. That law of holiness governs eating in other respects, viz.: the purity of life, the purity in the marriage relation all that comes under the head of this law. The most interesting part of Leviticus after we pass chapter 16 is the times, the set times in which Israel is to appear before God. It follows out this idea viz.: that Leviticus is the developments of that part of the law which is the altar and shows the way of approach to God, through what one shall approach God, through whom he shall approach God, and then gives the inauguration of the service after it has been established, the culmination of that service in regard to the clean and the unclean animals, and the times to come before God, i.e., the set times: First, the evening and the morning; second, the weekly sabbaths; third, the monthly, or lunar sabbaths; fourth, the great annual sabbaths; fifth, the landsabbath, or the seventh-year sabbath; and sixth, the Jubilee sabbath, the seven times seven, or fiftieth-year sabbath, the Jubilee.
QUESTIONS
1. What puzzling question relative to the distinction between, the clean and the unclean in eating and in sacrifice?
2. What is the real difficulty with Bible students on this question?
3. What three divisions of uncleanness as relating to persons?
4. Who two classes, or divisions, as relating to animals?
5. How, then, account for these principles?
6. What antecedent facts necessary to a settlement of this question as it relates to eating?
7. What is the import of the revelation to Peter in. Act 10 ?
8. What, then, does Paul say on this question?
9. What bearing has this principle on New Testament revelation?
10. What do these facts force us to look for?
11. When did the distinction between the clean and unclean animals for sacrifice originate?
12. Then, when would this distinction between the clean and unclean animals for sacrifice necessarily cease?
13. According to these facts, what is principle number one as to the distinction between clean and unclean animals relating to both sacrifice and eating?
14. What, then, is principle number two?
15. What is the contention of modern scientists on this and your reply?
16. How did this principle apply to the Jews?
17. What evidence of its influence on the Jewish life?
18. What is principle number three?
19. What three things were essential to accomplish the isolation of Israel?
20. When were these distinctions blotted out?
21. Why did the touching of a dead body render one unclean?
22. Why was leprosy and no other form of sickness selected?
23. Why was leprosy selected in both Testaments as expressive of sin?
24. What are the symptoms of leprosy?
25. How did lepers regard leprosy and why?
26. What distinction between clean and unclean beasts as to eating?
27. What distinction as to sacrifice?
28. What distinction as to birds?
29. What is said of the grasshopper class?
30. What distinguishes the clean from the unclean in fishes?
Lev 13:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, saying,
Ver. 1. And the Lord spake. ] See Trapp on “ Lev 7:22 “
Leviticus Chapter 13
CHAPTER 22.
LEPROSY.
Lev 13:1-8 .
What a voice to all is the next appalling type of sin, as a living death, and an uncleanness which God alone could meet! For there was no healing naturally. It was for the priest to pronounce on; but not a word about a cure: if healed by preternatural means, offerings were prescribed for cleansing, and this in a wonderfully precise and careful way. It is the standing type of sin in the law; to which the Gospels add palsy, as destroying all strength., the great moralist among the Synoptics, brings the two together in Luk 5:12-26 , as was his manner, guided by the inspiring Spirit. Here it is set out in a fuller form than any other subject singly in the book; and no wonder: sin in the first man is all pervading, and has dismal consequences in his surroundings and his home.
” 1 And Jehovah spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, 2 When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a swelling, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it becometh in the skin of his flesh a stroke of leprosy, then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest, or to one of his sons the priests. 3 And when the priest looketh on the stroke in the skin of his flesh, and the hair in the stroke is turned white, and the stroke looketh deeper than the skin of his flesh, it [is] the stroke of leprosy; and the priest shall look on him and pronounce him unclean. 4 But if the bright spot [be] white in the skin of his flesh, and look not deeper than the skin, and the hair be not turned white, the priest shall shut up [him that hath] the stroke seven days. 5 And the priest shall look on him the seventh day; and, behold, in his sight the stroke remaineth as it was, the stroke hath not spread in the skin, then the priest shall shut him up seven days a second time. 6 And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day, and, behold, the stroke [is] become pale, the stroke hath not spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it [is] a scab; and he shall wash his garments, and be clean. 7 But if the scab have spread much in the skin, after he hath been seen by the priest for his cleansing, he shall be seen again by the priest; 8 and the priest shall look and, behold, the scab hath spread in the skin; then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it [is] leprosy” (vers. 1-8).
Even in the type it was a holy rather than a medical question. Leprosy was not a malady so much as a stroke or plague; and the priest looked on the suspect with minute direction from Jehovah. It was not the diagnosis of a physician. As the consequence was most serious to an Israelite, the most scrupulous care was due in the priest. Uncleanness from birth was a fact patent, and there Jehovah spoke to Moses for what concerned every mother and child. For leprosy He spoke to Moses and to Aaron. The leper represents, not a Christian but man in the flesh, Israel under the first covenant. Sin works and manifests itself; but haste to pronounce on evil when manifest or at work, is as far from God as indifference to it; both the reverse of grace. The priest, or spiritual man conversant with the presence of God, judges according to the written word.
There might appear in the skin of the flesh a swelling, or a scab, or a bright spot. The issues of leprosy differed in look like the motions of sin; but any of them indicates what is hateful to God; and the man must be scrutinised by Aaron or one of his sons. For us it is the mind of Christ, and as the judgment is of those within divine privilege, it involves the responsibility of pleasing God. We are not in the flesh like Israel, but the flesh is in us; and therefore we must mortify our members which are on the earth. All scripture is profitable to us, even if it be not about us.
The priest then was to look on the suspected plague or stroke in the skin of the man’s flesh; and if the hair in the stroke were turned white, and the appearances of the stroke were not superficial but deeper than the skin of his flesh, leprosy was too surely indicated. Jehovah requires, not report, but personal inspection on the priest’s part; and if there be proof of a present energy of evil at work, and yet more of no mere passing outbreak, but of persistent and deliberate and deeply penetrating evil, doubt is precluded, and the man must be pronounced unclean. There might be “the bright spot,” but no deep purpose underneath, and no active evil in result. In this case the priest shut up the case seven days, though he could not dismiss it as clear, for there was an appearance of evil plainly enough; but as there was no more, he waits patiently. On the seventh he looks again, and if there be no spreading in the skin but the stroke be at a stay, he shuts the man up seven days more. Then he looks, and if the stroke be pale and dim, and no spread of it in the skin, the man is pronounced clean. It is but a scab; and he is to wash his clothes, and be clean. But if the scab spread, after he had shown himself to the priest for cleansing, he shall show himself to the priest again, and the priest sees the spreading, the truth must be spoken, for the evil is at work; and the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is leprosy. It must not be hid. “Thy will be done.”
We are thus taught, as having access to God, to judge according to the light of His sanctuary; but in that judgment due patience is enjoined, in care for man that there be no exaggeration, and in reverence for God that His rights be maintained faithfully.
CHAPTER 23.
LEPROSY TRIED, AND ALL OUT.
Lev 13:9-17 .
Here we have on the one hand cases where the priest has only to see and pronounce unclean: so distinct are the symptoms. On the other hand others are presented of the saddest appearance when the priest on looking has to pronounce the person clean. How important to have sure instruction from above! To judge by appearance, and not by the word, is sure to be unjust and unwise. We have to walk by faith, and this can only be by God’s word and Spirit.
” 9 When a sore of leprosy is in a man, he shall be brought to the priest; 10 and the priest shall look on [him], and, behold, [there is] a white rising in the skin, and it hath turned the hair white, and a trace of raw flesh [is] in the rising: 11 it [is] an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh; and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; he shall not shut him up; for he [is] unclean. 12 And if the leprosy break out much in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of [him that hath] the sore, from his head even to his feet, wherever the eyes of the priest look, 13 and the priest looketh, and, behold, the leprosy covereth all his flesh, he shall pronounce glean [him that hath] the sore: it is all turned white; he [is] clean. 14 But on the day when raw flesh appeareth in him, he shall be unclean. 15 And the priest shall look on the raw flesh, and shall pronounce him unclean; the raw flesh [is] unclean; it [is] leprosy. 16 But if the raw flesh change again and be turned white, he shall come to the priest, 17 and the priest shall look on him, and, behold, the sore is turned white, then the priest shall pronounce Glean [him that hath] the sore; he [is] clean” (vers 9-17).
In the first instance the combined proofs of leprosy rendered the priest’s sentence indubitable. There was a white tumour in the skin, the hair was turned white, and a trace of raw or living flesh was in the tumour. All pointed to the fatal evil in the man, and an actual activity of evil. Waiting is needless in such circumstances. It is too plainly au inveterate and energetic plague in the man. To shut him up would mislead: he is unclean, and the priest pronounces so. To wait, when evil is manifest, is trifling with God and man.
Immediately follows what to most would seem utterly hopeless; yet Jehovah prescribes quite a different judgment. Here the leprosy has broken out much in the skin, and covered it all from the man’s head to his foot, so that before the priest’s eye the leprosy has overspread all his outside, and all is turned white. Yet, strange to say, the priest on looking at a sight so deplorable was directed to pronounce him clean, as indeed he was. Where sin abounded, grace over-exceeded. It is the denial of sin, and the assertion of one’s own righteousness, which cut off hope. Where there is no hiding, but the sin is out and the sins laid bare all over, God delights in saving. So it was that the cross displayed all the iniquity of man, and God’s love to the uttermost. See in the crucified robber a living application of this great principle: “We indeed justly” adjudged to a death of torture; yet the man who concealed nothing of his sins going that day to be in Paradise with the Saviour Son of God.
Quite different is it when “raw flesh” appears in the man (ver. 14). For the evil is active then, and indicates a deep-seated source. Sin is still reigning within, a surer sign of ruin than any thing on the surface. “He shall be unclean,” says the word; and the priest when he sees the living flesh can but pronounce him unclean; for so it is, leprosy beyond mistake.
But after that we hear in ver. 16 of the raw flesh changing again, and turned white. This is encouraging enough for the man to “come” to the priest; who sees him, and that the sore is really turned white, whereon he pronounces him clean. The sore instead of working with energy within is turned white without; and he himself comes in the consciousness that he is clean, that it may be certified according to God’s will. Divine healing produces liberty of spirit.
Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor pathics, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God. And these things were some of you; but ye got washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1Co 6:9-11 ). How real and great is the depravity of man left to himself and Satan! How real and still greater is the delivering grace of God in the name of the Lord Jesus and by His own Spirit! In Jesus He has revealed Himself to us; and, as we were the slaves of lust and passion under the power of Satan, He by Jesus wrought a work to rescue all who believe with a sure title, and made it good in our souls by His Spirit. For where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, as well as power, love, and a sound mind.
CHAPTER 24.
OCCASIONS OF LEPROSY.
Lev 13:18-28 .
But we have next to consider how leprosy might disclose itself, and the care which should be taken not to confound other symptoms with that loathsome sore. Zeal for God is not to extinguish tenderness toward man: Jehovah Himself maintains and requires both.
“18 And when the flesh hath in the skin thereof a boil, and it is healed, 19 end in the place of the boil is a white rising, or a white reddish bright spot, it shall be shown to the priest; 20 and the priest shall look, and behold, it looketh deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof is turned white; then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it [is] the sore of leprosy broken out in the boil. 21 But if the priest look on it, and, behold, no white hairs [are] therein, and it [is] not deeper than the skin, and [is] pale, the priest shall shut him up seven days; 22 end if it spread much in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it [is] a sore. 23 But if the bright spot have staid in its place and have not spread, it [is] the scar of the boil; and the priest shall pronounce him clean.”
” 24 Or when the flesh hath in the skin thereof a burning inflammation and the place of the inflammation becometh a bright spot white-reddish or white, 25 then the priest shall look on it, and, behold, the hair is turned white in the bright spot, and it looketh deeper than the skin, it [is] a leprosy that is broken out in the inflammation; and the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it [is] the sore of leprosy. 26 But if the priest look on it, and, behold, no white hair [is] in the bright spot, and it [is] no deeper than the skin, but [is] pale, the priest shall shut him up seven days. 27 And the priest shall look on him the seventh day, [and] if it have spread much in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it [is] the sore of leprosy. 28 But if the bright spot stay in its place, not spread in the skin, and [is] pale, it is the rising of the inflammation; and the priest shall pronounce him clean; for it [is] the scar of the inflammation” (vers. 18-28).
An ebullition of temper or other extreme excitement, when passed, may leave effects in evil ways and words, and not a few might be disposed to judge severely. But here the standard is the sanctuary of Jehovah, and the judge is he who is familiar with His presence. In the case first named the boil is healed; but in its place there may be a white rising, or a bright spot white-reddish. This is too serious to pass over. It must be submitted to the priest. The boil was not to prove, but it may give occasion for, leprosy, hitherto latent, to betray itself. And there is enough ground to call for the inspection of the priest: for indifference is according to God as intolerable as the meddling of what has no divine sanction.
Merely human considerations are out of the question; even to be an Israelite cannot bar the due intervention, but rather the contrary. The word and will of Jehovah must rule in His appointed way. And the priest must submit to the divine directions as carefully as the Israelite. Does the mischief look deeper seated than the skin? Is the hair turned white? If so, the energy of evil lies therein and works; and the priest shall pronounce the man unclean. It is the sore of leprosy broken out in the boil. On the other hand, if the inspection of the priest finds no white hairs, and nothing but a superficial appearance, there is no off-hand clearance, but a remand for seven days, when the suspected person is again examined. Then if there be much of a spread in the skin, the sore is plain, and the priest must not hesitate to say so; but if there be no spread and the bright spot remain simply as before, it is only the scar of the boil, and the priest shall declare him clean.
The next case is not that of an ulcer, said to be healed. There is a burning inflammation, and the raw flesh that burns has a bright spot, white-reddish or white, for symptoms may differ a little. Here again the inflammation is no more leprosy than the boil or ulcer; the suspicion of worse is in the bright spot. Here too the priest must look on according to the command of Jehovah. Is there an active energy at work turning the hair white? Does it seem deeper than the skin? These indications tell the fatal tale. If so, it is a leprosy that is broken out in the inflammation. The priest cannot rightly shirk from his painful but bounden duty. Magnanimity in such a case is wholly misplaced, and a yielding to the devil. It is the sore of leprosy, and the man must be pronounced unclean. But if when the priest looks, and there is no sign of activity or of an evil seat underneath the surface, but rather of a fading away, the priest is entitled to wait and hope that it is but a passing evil and not a persistent habit. After the seventh day that the suspect is shut up, he looks again, and if it has spread much in the skin, it is too clearly the sore, and the man is unclean. Whereas, if there was no such spread, but the bright spot remains in its place, the priest is called to pronounce him clean.
Compare with these cases the brother sinning “against thee” in Mat 18:15-17 . It may be a fault unknown to any other soul; and grace goes and seeks the erring man’s good. But he refuses, not only the one, but one or two more, and at last to hear the assembly. Slight as the occasion may have been, the issue is to prove self reigning, sin unjudged and increasing, and the man disqualified for all fellowship of saints. “Let him be to thee as the Gentile and the tax-gatherer.” It is quite a different occasion from that of which we read in 1Co 5 : where the wickedness was plain and known, and not a sin against another, unsuspected by others.
CHAPTER 25.
LEPROSY OF THE HEAD OR THE BEARD,
Lev 13:29-44 .
Another case appears, evil indications on the head or on the beard. This at once arrests attention. For the comely was thus turned into its opposite, and deadly evil darkened what should manifest beauty of its kind.
” 29 And if a man or a woman hath a sore on the head or on the beard, 30 and the priest look on the sore, and, behold, it looketh deeper than the skin, and yellow thin hair [is] in it, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it [is] a scall, leprosy of the head or of the beard. 31 And if the priest look on the sore of the scall, Sand, behold, it looketh not deeper than the skin, and no black hair [is] in it, the priest shall shut up [him that hath] the sore of the scall seven days. 32 And when the priest looketh on the sore on the seventh day, and, behold, the scall hath not spread, and no yellow hair is in it, and the scall doth not look deeper than the skin, 33 he shall shave himself, but the scall shall he not shave; and the priest shall shut up [him that hath] the scall seven days a second time. 34 And the priest shall look on the scall on the seventh day, and, behold, the scall hath not spread in the skin, nor looketh deeper than the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; and he shall wash his garments and be clean. 35 But if the scall hath spread much in the skin after his cleansing, 36 and the priest shall look on him, and, behold, the scall hath spread in the skin, the priest shall not seek for yellow hair: he [is] unclean. 37 But if in his eyes the scall be at a stay, and black hair hath grown up therein, the scall is healed, he [is] clean; and the priest shall pronounce him clean.”
” 38 And if a man or a woman, hath in the skin of their flesh bright spots, white bright spots, 39 and the priest look, and, behold, in the skin of their flesh [are] pale white spots, it [is] an eruption that hath broken out in the skin; he [is] clean. 40 And if a man’s hair have fallen off his head, he [is] bald; he [is] clean. 41 And if his hair be fallen off from the front part of his head toward his face, he [is] forehead bald; he [is] clean. 42 And if there be in the bald head or bald forehead a white-reddish sore, it [is] a leprosy that has broken out in his bald head or his bald forehead. 43 And the priest shall look on it, and, behold, the rising of the sore [is] white-reddish in his bald head or in his bald forehead, as the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh, 44 he is a leprous man, he [is] unclean: the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his sore [is] in his head” (vers. 29-44).
The suspected evil here infected what in part characterised a woman, as it wholly did a man. The priest must see to it and discern. Was it in appearance deeper than the skin? Still more, was there in it yellow hair? If so, there was an energy of mischief at work, contrary to the constitution in its normal state. As the presence of black hair was an indication of health, yellow thin hair showed the fell disease in an active form, and the priest had only to pronounce unclean. It was not only a scall but leprosy of the head or of the beard. If however the priest on looking saw the sore to be on the surface, though no black hair was in it, there was hope. But he was to be shut up for a full term of waiting; and if on the seventh day under the priest’s inspection, there was no spreading and no yellow hair, and the scall was only skin deep, he must shave himself (not the scall), and again be similarly shut up. If after the fresh time of seclusion, the priest on looking found neither spreading of the sore nor deepening, the person was entitled to be pronounced clean, as he was called thereon to wash his clothes and be clean.
Every thing, it is plain, marks the holiness Jehovah demanded in His people; and this, not under a man’s estimate of his own state, nor yet on the perfunctory opinion of a fellow Israelite. What was offensive in His eyes and unfitted for any part in His congregation must be subjected to him who was used to His sanctuary and bound to judge by His word according to that standard; for there Jehovah dwelt. The same principle applies still, and more fully since Christ came and accomplished redemption. He too is the ever accessible and vigilant priest who cannot fail to discern and act to God’s glory.
But there is also provision against a morbid judgment and despair, which Satan knows how to work for injury and ruin, as well as the more common danger of too light and self-sparing a scrutiny. A man or a. woman might have in the skin of their flesh “bright spots, white bright spots.” Here again priestly discernment is prescribed; and if they were of a pale or dull hue, it wee not leprosy, but a different eruption that had broken out in the akin. The person was clean. Grace is as opposed to severity as to laxness. It is holy, but neither hard nor careless or compromising. God is light, and God is love.
Another case comes next, which there was still less reason to confound with leprosy. Weakness is nothing of the sort. A man’s hair might fall off his head in general, or from the parts of his head toward his face. He might be bald, or forehead bald; but in either instance it was no more than infirmity; and infirmity is not sin, any more than sin should be called infirmity as is too often done. The apostle gloried in his infirmities, his trials and sufferings. No saint could make light of a single sin; still less could he glory in sins. Whoever coca so proclaims himself a leper; and his pretension to be a saint is utter delusion.
But where there is weakness, as here in a bald head or forehead, there might be worse, “a white-reddish sore.” Then it is most serious, and none other than leprosy breaking out there; and the priest looks on him, and sees it to be really so. “He is a leprous man; he is unclean: the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his sore is in his head.” It is a hopeless case. Delay was uncalled for; waiting, an idle form. Human mercy, or magnanimity, in such a case would be of Satan “Holiness becometh thy house, O Jehovah, for ever.”
CHAPTER 26.
THE LEPER OUTSIDE.
Lev 13:45 , Lev 13:46 .
In these verses is set out the diseased condition of the convicted leper. It was, while he lived, death to all the privileges of the people of God; the standing type of a sinner, not only before Him, but under command to declare it to man.
” 45 And the leper in whom the sore is, – his garments shall be rent, and his head shall be uncovered (or, go loose), and he shall cover his upper lip or beard, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean! 46 All the days that the sore [shall be] in him, he shall be unclean: he [is] unclean; he shall dwell apart; outside the camp his dwelling [shall be]” (45, 46).
Thus vividly did Jehovah, while prescribing for the solemn separateness of an Israelite under this fell disease, look onward to the discovery of what every man is in the light of Christ. For Be alone gives us the full truth of every one and of every thing. It is not that the law did not indicate much that was true, and the prophets yet more. But, as Joh 1:9 so strikingly tells us, the Word, even Jesus, is the true light, which, coming into the world (for this is the only legitimate rendering), pours light on every man. It is not limited like the law to Israel. It shines on Gentile as well as few. It is no lightning flash as of death like the effect of the same law; yet it discovers, fully and at once, the true state of each. No prince is exalted above its penetrating power, any more than the most abject slave is beneath it. It was the Word incarnate here below, divine light yet in man, having its range universal on the race here below. Far from any boasting of Him as Light of east or west, north or south, such was the unbelief that not even Palestine owned Him, though born its King with a title pure, perfect, and indisputable, alike human and divine, Immanuel. He was in the world and the world had been from Him, and the world knew Him not. He came to what was His own, and His own people received Him not, guiltier than the besotted world. Yet was He love, as well as light; grace and truth (in contrast with the law) came into being through Jesus Christ; and thus was “every man” the less excusable. None received Him but such as were born of God; only these were enlightened by Him.
Yet here the shadow is now at least plain enough. The sinner according to God’s figure before us is of all men most miserable; and now we can say that such in God’s estimate are all men, if we read the type in the light of Christ. Hence the leper’s apparel was to declare his misery and his grief. “His garments shall be rent, and his head shall be uncovered, and he shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean!” Sorrow for others or at their evil it is not, but the deepest mourning for himself. The goodness of God leads the sinner to repentance. Despise not then the riches of His goodness and forbearance and long-suffering: why in presence of this, if hitherto unconcerned, perish for ever? Why, according to one’s hardness and impenitent heart, treasure up to oneself wrath in a day of wrath? It is the way of mercy, because it is the way of truth; and if one be in the humbling truth of his sins before God, will not He be found in the truth of His grace? The Lord Jesus gives the soul both repentance and faith. To be a sinner, refusing to own it at God’s call, is a place of the utmost danger. The presence of Jesus the Son of God lays bare my real evil; His going away to the Father, the rejected One, demonstrates righteousness only there, and nothing but sin left in the world. If I heed God’s word, I cease to deny or excuse my sins, frankly confessing my ruin, with the cry, Unclean, unclean, in His ears.
To be light-hearted and indifferent is to defy the just sentence of God. Nor will it do to betake oneself to the external trappings of woe. We are not Jews: rites and ceremonies are but letter, and avail not. The gospel meets the sinner expressly as lost, powerless, ungodly, and His enemy; but all this is dire reality, and no mere form of speech. If we are insensible to our state, it is worse than form; it is hypocrisy. Christ came not to call righteous ones; but He will have sinners feel and own their sins; and if they do not, a worse thing befalls them than if they professed not His name. Hence the all-importance of life, eternal life, which where possessed makes our evil intolerable; and whether at the beginning for our state, or afterwards for particular acts, it leads the believer to be grieved unto repentance. For grief according to God works out repentance unto salvation not to be regretted; whereas the grief of the world works out death.
Where the conscience answers to God’s call, the outer signs of the leper’s distress are reproduced in the depths of one’s moral being. As the Corinthians broke down and cleared themselves in the matter of their sin and shame, which, if unjudged, would have unchurched them as corporately denying Christ’s name, so one only bears aright His name individually as a Christian by inward and true renunciation of evil, each of his own. Where faith is genuine, repentance is; and this makes the truth taught by the bearing of the leper as plain as it is impressive and important. It is rending of the heart for the converted soul, rather than of his garments; real acceptance of his dishonour by his sins, bitter as it is, instead of claiming honour for his “head”; it is the “beard” no longer a display of his vigour as a man, but covered in spirit with shame. He owns himself defiled irreparably as far as he is concerned. He betakes himself to solitary confession, instead of presuming to mingle with the faithful; he truly feels that he is but a dog, and not a sheep. So the Canaanite woman was brought by grace to own the simple truth, and thereon was blessed beyond her hopes. It is the turning-point for establishment in grace, and spirituality of mind, though dependence withal on God is ever requisite.
CHAPTER 27.
LEPROUS RAIMENT.
Lev 13:47-59 .
So apt to spread is the taint of sin, that the concluding paragraph of our chapter is devoted to leprosy in raiment made of any material, or a skin serving the like purpose.
” 47 And if a sore of leprosy is in raiment, in woollen raiment or linen raiment, 48 either in warp or in woof, of linen, or of woollen, or in a skin or anything made of skin; 49 and the sore is greenish or reddish in raiment or in the skin, or in the warp or in the woof, or in any thing of skin; it [is] the sore of leprosy and shall be shown to the priest. 50 And the priest shall look on the sore, and shut up [what hath the sore seven days. 51 And he shall look on the sore on the seventh day: if the sore have spread in the raiment, either in the warp or in the woof, or in the skin, whatever work is made of skin, the sore [is] a corroding leprosy; it [is] unclean. 52 And they shall burn the raiment, or the warp or the woof, of woollen or of linen, or any thing of skin, wherein the sore is; for it [is] a corroding leprosy; it shall be burned with fire. 53 But the priest shall look, and, behold, [if ] the sore hath not spread in the raiment, either in the warp or in the woof, or in any thing of skin, 54 then the priest shall command that they wash [the thing] wherein the sore [is], and he shall shut it up seven days a second time. 55 And the priest shall look on the sore after the washing; and, behold, [if] the sore have not changed its appearance (lit. eye), and the sore have not spread, it [is] unclean: thou shalt burn it with fire: it [is] a fret [on what is] threadbare or napless (lit. bald in head or forehead). 56 But if the priest look, and, behold, the sore be dim after the washing thereof, then he shall rend it out of the raiment or out of the skin, or out of the warp or out of the woof. 57 And if it appear still in the raiment, either in the warp or in the woof, or in anything of skin, it [is] a breaking out: thou shalt burn with fire that wherein the sore [is]. 58 But the raiment, either the warp or the woof, or whatever thing of skin which thou hast washed, and the sore departeth from them, it shall be washed a second time, and tee clean. 59 This [is] the law of the sore of leprosy in raiment of wool or linen, either in the warp or in the woof, or in any thing of skin, to pronounce it clean or to pronounce it unclean” (vers. 47-59).
Thus according to the law of Jehovah leprosy might betray itself in a man’s external circumstances, typified by his apparel, whatever this might be, as well as in his person. Everywhere it must be dealt with, but not on such moral grounds as an Israelite might apply. Its appearance was for the priest to discern. It was for him to see and pronounce according to the law of Jehovah which bound him as well as the suspected thing. The appearance of leprosy externally as well as in the person were too serious to be ignored or put off. In Israel the priest must be consulted without fail or delay; but he must look into it as before God and speak accordingly.
We have the authority of the inspired Jude (23) for giving this type a present bearing. For what else is the allusion in “hating even the raiment spotted by the flesh?” Of course the language is figurative in the Epistle; but figures are used in scripture as in all other communications, not for enfeebling the sense but to make it vivid and impressive. So it is in the scriptural phrases, derived from O.T. types of washing us, whether in water or in blood: both are used and carefully distinguished, and the truth meant by each is of the greatest moment. But the allusion in that solemn warning of the departure, not only from righteousness but from grace and the faith once delivered to the saints, may help souls to see that every scripture is not only God-breathed but profitable as the apostle says.
The surroundings of a man lay bare his leprosy. Our ways may display even more than our words. People talk about the heart being all right as an excuse for what stumbles in the eye, the hand, or the foot. The Lord, who really searches the heart and can alone judge as He soon will, pronounces now that each or all must be got rid of at all cost, rather than keeping all to be sent into the everlasting fire, the Gehenna of fire. Habits disclose the deadly taint very plainly; but it is the spiritual man who alone can truly discern. Such have the mind of Christ, who indeed is “the priest” to pronounce absolutely. But even with Him, though unfailing, there is no haste. He did not speak from Himself, but the things which He heard from His :Father. He would impress on us the divine authority of the word, that what we say or do be in obedience. If the circumstances are persistently bad, they must be absolutely judged. Nothing less than “burning” will do as ordered by the priest on God’s part. If “washing” avail to correct, a further application is enjoined, and if the change more appear, the priest pronounces clean. If not, all is wrong, for it is leprosy. The standing type of sin, at least in the O.T. aspect, is thus carried out beyond the person to his environment; and there the surroundings might disclose the fatal taint. Wherever it was discerned by the spiritual eye, immediate and unsparing judgment must follow.
spake. See note on Lev 5:14.
Chapter 13
As we get into chapter thirteen, God is dealing with the subject of leprosy, and the priests were given instructions on how to diagnose leprosy, a breaking out on a person’s body. The examination of it, the color of hairs that are in the blotch and so forth, so that the priest can truly identify the leper. Now it was two-fold. Number one, if it was indeed leprosy, and many times they would set them apart for seven days and re-examine them to see if there be any change of condition. But God wanted them to be very careful to, number one, if it was leprosy, to isolate them from the people to keep this disease from spreading. And so it was a quarantine kind of thing. But secondly, the careful examination so that no one would be isolated who was not truly a leper. So God wanted them to be careful in both directions. Make sure it’s leprosy so that in case it is leprosy, the person can be isolated from the community so that the disease would not spread. But secondly, make sure if it isn’t, that this person doesn’t have this isolation from the community itself.
And so this thirteenth chapter deals with leprosy, the identifying of this loathsome disease by the priest and the separation of the person who is diagnosed actually as to having leprosy. And the command that the person is to cry “unclean, unclean,” in verse forty-five, if it is discovered that he indeed has leprosy. And how that the garments and so forth are to be dealt with if there is a growth of some kind within the garment and how it’s to be destroyed and burnt and all.
This is the law of the plague of leprosy [verse fifty-nine] in a garment of woollen or linen, either in the warp, or woof, or any thing of skins, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean ( Lev 13:59 ).
“
Here we have a section (chapters 13, 14) wholly devoted to the subject of leprosy. The disease was dealt with as one which is loathsome, whose tendency is to spread, and which is contagious. The whole community must be zealously safeguarded. Therefore, there must be no carelessness in the method of dealing with leprosy.
In the instructions two principles of perpetual importance are manifested. The first is the necessity for guarding the general health of the community and the second is that no injustice be done to the individual in the interests of the community. These two principles are perpetual in their application. The State should ever have the right of inspection and examination. It should, however, use its right with the greatest care that no wrong be done to any individual.
The law provided that there should be most careful distinction made between actual leprosy and that which may appear to be leprosy. When the case was a clearly defined one, the method was drastic in the extreme.
The leper was to be separated at once from the whole congregation. Moreover, all garments likely in any way to have become contaminated were to be destroyed by fire.
the Test of Leprosy
Lev 13:1-17
Leprosy was a sort of living death, involving exclusion from the fellowship of the living, and from the sanctuary. Consequently the process of restoration consisted of two stages: re-admission, through the cure of disease, into the fellowship of the living, Lev 13:1-59, and then to the camp and sanctuary, through the due performance of prescribed rites, Lev 14:1-32. The enumeration of the symptoms is very deliberate. The priest was required to conduct his examination with the greatest care, lest he should pronounce that to be leprosy which was not really so.
How different this to the sweeping and hasty judgments that we pass on each other! We judge by appearances only, and are not especially concerned to judge righteously. Sin, of which leprosy is the type, is not a superficial disease; it is deeper than the skin. See Lev 13:3-4; Lev 13:25; Lev 13:30-32; Lev 13:34. They who know us best are not aware of the secret springs of impure motive, and the polluted things that hold empire within the soul. But the body of sin must be brought to an end at the Cross. See Rom 6:6.
3. Leprosy: Type of Indwelling Sin
CHAPTER 13
1. Leprosy in a person (Lev 13:1-46)
2. The infected garment. (Lev 13:47-57)
3. The cleansing of the garment (Lev 13:58-59)
The entire chapter treats of leprosy. It has been argued from the side of critics that the disease described here is not the one we know as leprosy, but only a similar disease of the skin. The arguments advanced to support this objection are silenced by Mat 8:1-4. The man who came to our Lord had leprosy. The Lord told him show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. From this we learn that Leviticus 13 and 14 speak of the real disease, so loathsome and, from human side, incurable. The twelfth and thirteenth chapters of Leviticus are closely linked together. Inherited sin is the theme of the preceding chapter. Its cure is also indicated in circumcision and the offering. Leprosy is the type of indwelling sin and its awful corruption. This horrible disease was chosen by the Lord to typify sin on account of its vileness. Like sin it is progressive and eventually affects the whole being; it is hereditary and incurable. As the disease progresses the victim becomes more and more insensible to his dreadful condition and is even content with it.
In view of all these correspondences, one need not wonder that in the symbolism of the law leprosy holds the place which it does. For what other disease can be named which combines in itself, as a physical malady, so many of the most characteristic marks of the malady of the soul? In its intrinsic loathsomeness, its insignificant beginnings, its slow but inevitable progress, in the extent of its effects, in the insensibility which accompanies it, in its hereditary character, in its incurability, and, finally, in the fact that according to the law it involved the banishment of the leper from the camp of Israel–in all these respects, it stands alone as a perfect type of sin; it is sin, as it were, made visible in the flesh. (S.H. Kellogg, Leviticus.)
The Lord had much to say about the examination of persons suspected of having leprosy, and how the disease was to be detected. First the case of leprosy is stated when it rises spontaneously, showing itself in the skin and the hair. Then follows the case where leprosy rises out of a boil and out of a burn (verses 18-28), and finally leprosy on the head or beard and its diagnosis (verses 27-44).
But these general applications of leprosy as a type of sin do not fully explain the lessons of this chapter. We must remember that Israel is viewed as Jehovahs redeemed people. As such they must keep out of their midst that which defiles. The same principle we find in the New Testament in connection with the church, the assembly of God. Leprosy, indwelling sin, showing itself in any member of the people of God, works havoc. It dishonors God and defiles others. Discipline must be exercised. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person (1Co 5:13). The priest was the person to examine closely the suspected person and pronounce the disease as leprosy, according to the signs given by the Word of God. On the one hand the priest had to watch that no real leper be kept in the congregation of Israel, and on the other hand, he had to be equally careful that none was put out of the congregation who was not a leper. Holiness could not permit any one to remain in who ought to be out; and on the other hand, grace would not have any one out who ought to be in. In the New Testament this solemn duty falls upon those who are spiritual (Gal 6:1). Note how God commanded that the suspected one should not be treated in a hasty manner. After the priest had looked upon him, the diseased one was to be shut up for seven days. On the seventh day the priest was again to look on him. Then he was again shut up for seven more days. And after all the seeing and looking upon, the priest was to consider. It showed the necessity of great care. How easy it is to condemn a brother as living in sin, showing leprosy in his conduct; a hasty action in excluding a real child of God from Christian fellowship is as sinful as permitting a wicked person in that fellowship. We cannot enter into the different signs of leprosy. Much which has been written on it by some good men is strained.
When an Israelite was found to have the true leprosy, he had to be without the camp. And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean. All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean, he shall dwell alone, without the camp shall his habitation be (verses 45-46). Thus the poor leper was excluded from the congregation of Israel and from the tabernacle of Jehovah. The rent clothes, the bare head, the covering upon the lip, all showed his sad and deplorable condition. So the unsaved sinner is shut out from Jehovahs presence on account of his defilement and has no place among the people of God. Without the camp! Read the solemn words in Rev 21:27; Rev 22:11; Rev 22:15. The sinner unforgiven and not cleansed will be forever shut out of the presence of a holy God. And one, who is a child of God and belongs to the family and people of God, and permits indwelling sin to work out, is unfit for both fellowship with God and fellowship with His people. But notice it says, all the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled. Here is the ray of hope. Only as long as it was in him was he excluded. Recovery from the evil thing which defiles and disturbs our fellowship is blessedly revealed in the New Testament. It has to be brought into the light, must be confessed and put away (1 John 1). And above all, we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the Righteous. Leprosy in the garment is also reckoned with, and its cleansing by washing is commanded. A garment is that which belongs to a person and is used by him. It is typical of contamination by sin in our earthly occupation. The cleansing by the water is the type of the Word of God, which uncovers the leprosy in our ways and can cleanse us.
Reciprocal: Lev 15:1 – Aaron Deu 24:8 – General Mar 1:40 – a leper Luk 5:12 – full Luk 17:14 – Go
THE TYPICAL DISEASE
Here we have what appears like a treatise on leprosy, but it is not introduced simply for medical purposes. There were other diseases more serious, but this is singled out and made the subject of special regulations because of its typical character. It is a parable of sin, drawn by the divine hand of the workings, developments and effects of inborn depravity.
The disease is diagnosed under four heads: (1) leprosy rising spontaneously (Lev 1:17); (2) rising out of a boil (Lev 18:24); (3) out of a burn (Lev 18:24-28); and (4) on the head or beard.
To take the first class: What symptoms are named in Lev 13:27 Who is to deal with the case? How is the diagnosis to be confirmed (Lev 13:3)? In cases of doubt what must be done with the suspect (v. 4-8)? What are the symptoms of an advanced case (Lev 13:9-11)? What further condition showed that it was not a genuine case of leprosy (Lev 13:12-13)? What was necessary to prove its genuineness (Lev 13:14-17)?
What requirements were made of the leper (Lev 13:45-46)? According to this, he is to assume all the ordinary signs of mourning for the dead; he is to regard himself, and all others are to regard him, as dead. He is to be a continual mourner at his own funeral.
The reason for this might be hygienic, and because of the contagious nature of the disease. There is also a deeper reason. A principle of divine teaching is that death is always connected with legal uncleanness, because it is the extreme manifestation of the presence of sin in the race and of Gods wrath against it. But all disease is a forerunner of death, an incipient dying, and thus manifests the presence of sin working in the body through death.
It would be impractical to have a law that all disease should render the sick person ceremonially unclean, but in order to keep the connection between sin and disease continually before Israel, this one ailment was selected from all the others for the purpose. It is the supreme type of sin, as seen by God.
Features of Leprosy as a Type for Sin
1. Its extreme loathsomeness.
2. Its insignificant, often even imperceptible, beginning.
3. Its progressiveness in the body.
4. Its all-consuming nature (eventually it affects the whole person).
5. Its numbing work (over time the victim cannot feel his condition).
6. Its hereditary nature.
7. Its incurability by human means.
8. Its divisiveness (it excludes one from the fellowship of Gods people, and hence the fellowship of God).
THE CLEANSING OF THE LEPER (14:1-32)
Although leprosy was incurable by human remedies, it did not always continue for life. Sometimes, being sent as a special judgment from God, as in the case of Miriam, it ceased with the repentance and forgiveness of the offender. Indeed, the Jews generally looked upon it as a judgment, and its very name means a stroke of the Lord. We know also of lepers healed by divine power in the Saviors time and before. Note that the regulations here were not for the cure of the leper but for his ceremonial cleansing after the cure (see Mat 8:1-4). For this reason Seiss thinks these rites illustrate the nature of sanctification rather than justification, although both are implied.
LEPROSY IN GARMENTS AND HOUSES (13:47-59; 14:33-57)
It seems strange to read of disease in garments and houses; yet Moses, inspired by God, was ahead of the science of today which speaks so familiarly of germs and bacilli, and other things of which the fathers never dreamed!
We now know that minute parasitic forms of vegetable life may exist and propagate themselves in places besides the tissues of the human body. We are acquainted with mould and mildew, and know it to imply unhealthy conditions. The leprosy in the present case may border thereon.
The provision in these verses therefore was in the first place sanitary, and teaches how God cares not only for the souls but for the bodies of men and all their material surroundings. But in the second place it was spiritual as in the other instances, teaching that the curse of sin and death was not only upon man but his environment; that sacrificial cleansing was as needful for the one as the other; that the atonement of Christ covered in some mysterious way animate and inanimate creation as well. Read Rom 8:18-23 and 1Pe 3:10-13.
QUESTIONS
1. of what is leprosy a type?
2. Name its typical features.
3. What is absolutely incurable?
4. What scientific fact in this lesson goes to prove the inspiration of the book?
5. Have you read the New Testament Scriptures referred to above?
Lev 13:1. This law is directed to Aaron as well as Moses, because he and his sons were to be judges, to determine, according to certain rules, what was clean and what unclean.
Lev 13:2. Aaronor one of his sons were obliged to inspect every case of leprosy, the priests being best acquainted with the nature and progress of the complaint, and most concerned to keep the congregation pure.
Lev 13:6. The priest shall pronounce him clean. He could not heal, as did the prophet Elisha; he could only pronounce upon the case, whether clean or unclean. The mighty ado therefore of the popish priests on this head, comes to nothing, for the Hebrew priesthood could not cleanse. They had only the keys of the sanctuary to admit the pure, or repel the impure, from the altar. It is better to go with a leprous heart to Christ, the great physician and healer of the soul.
REFLECTIONS.
Having in the preseding chapter considered one kind of impurity, we have here another, loathsome in itself, and generally of long duration. The leprosy sometimes came in the course of providence; and sometimes it was inflicted because of sin, as in the cases of Miriam, of Gehazi, and others. It was one of the impurities which our Saviour cleansed; and as he was a spiritual physician, and improved his numerous miracles to that effect, we may affirm that a man covered with leprosy was a most striking figure of the whole human nature depraved by sin. What are those red and bright spots spreading in the flesh, but the crimes of men communicating infection to all around? What are those groups of wicked and ungodly men, but so many lepers all unclean; and whose words, and airs, and actions, spread the impurity to all around? What is all their display of pride, of anger, of voluptuousness, and all their dissipation, infecting the raiment, and the walls of the house, with the contagion of corruption, but a leprosy of long duration in the heart?
The leprosy was a cutaneous disease, loathsome to the sight: a person deeply infected was an object of revolting pity. But how much more loathsome and foul must sin appear in the eyes of God, who is all purity and perfection. Can he, who is kind and good to all, behold the evils which men commit one against another, and not be offended with the sight? No: he is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity; and he has pronounced the sinner all unclean. This impurity separated a man from his house, and from the congregation of the Lord; and the sinner by his depravity is reduced to the same situation. His eyes, his looks, his whole deportment are unfit to be seen of the Lord. Let him dwell in solitude, and remember his sins. Let him consider, that if a cleansing do not follow, his soul shall be shut out from the city and sanctuary of the Lord, and he shall abide in darkness and death.
The leper was compelled to apprize all persons approaching him, of his impurity, by crying, unclean, unclean. So when the Lords hand shall be on the sinner, when his sins shall be arrayed against him, and when the terrors of God shall make him afraid, he shall no longer conceal, but publish his iniquity, and pray others to take warning by his errors.
It was an impurity which medicine could not remove. The physician could do nothing for his patient; nor could the priest do more than pronounce the man clean, or unclean. No: worldly physicians can do nothing with a conscience afflicted with sin, and fretting like the leprosy in a garment. Let not then the faithful minister be wanting to cleanse the congregation of the Lord, and to pronounce the warnings and denunciations of God against all wicked and ungodly men. In doing this, let him show no respect of persons. His bosom friend, his near kinsman, his own acquaintance must not be spared in his leprosy, which separates the soul from communion with God.
But there were some more favourable cases, in which the plague did not spread; the colour changed to dark, and assumed a healing appearance. In those cases, after a time of separation, the person was pronounced clean. There are also sometimes sins of surprise, highly culpable in themselves, which do not enter deep into the habits, and are abhorred in the heart; these sins, after unfeigned repentance, are forgiven, and the soul is restored to the favour and love of God. But let every man tremble at the idea of sin, for if once the plague be admitted to predominate in the heart, it is not possible to say what the consequences shall be. We conclude therefore by saying, that habitual sin is that impure and spreading leprosy which infects the whole soul, which communicates defilement through the whole circle of society, wherever it is touched, and from which there is no deliverance, but by an entire renovation of heart.
Leviticus 13 – 14
Of all the functions which, according to the Mosaic ritual, the priest had to discharge, none demanded more patient attention, or more strict adherence to the divine guide-book, than the discernment and proper treatment of leprosy. This fact must be obvious to every one who studies, with any measure of care, the very extensive and important section of our book at which we have now arrived.
There were two things which claimed the priest’s vigilant care, namely, the purity of the assembly, and the grace which could not admit of the exclusion of any member, save on the most clearly-established grounds. Holiness could not permit any one to remain in who ought to be out; and, on the other hand, grace would not have any one out who ought to be in. Hence, therefore, there was the most urgent need, on the part of the priest, of watchfulness, calmness, wisdom, patience, tenderness, and enlarged experience. Things might seem trifling which, in reality, were serious; and things might look like leprosy which were not it at all. The greatest care and coolness were needed. Judgement rashly formed, a conclusion hastily arrived at, might involve the most serious consequences, either as regards the assembly or some individual member thereof.
This will account for the frequent occurrence of such expressions as the following, namely, “The priest shall look;” – “The, priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days;” – “And the priest shall look on him the seventh day;” – “Then the priest shall shut him up seven days more” – “And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day;” – “And the priest shall see him;” – “Then the priest shall consider.” No case was to be hastily judged, or rashly decided. No opinion was to be formed from mere hearsay. Personal observation, priestly discernment, calm reflection, strict adherence to the written word – the holy, infallible guide book – all these things were imperatively demanded of the priest, if he would form a sound judgement of each case. He was not to be guided by his own thoughts, his own feelings, his own wisdom, in any thing. He had ample guidance in the word, if only he was subject thereto. Every point, every feature, every movement, every variation, every shade and character, every peculiar symptom and affection – all was provided for, with divine fullness and forethought; so that the priest only needed to be acquainted with, and subject to, the word in all things, in order to be preserved from ten thousand mistakes.
Thus much as to the priest and his holy responsibilities.
We shall now consider the disease of leprosy, as developed in a person, in a garment, or in a house.
Looking at this disease in a physical point of view, nothing can possibly be more loathsome; and being, so far as man is concerned, totally incurable, it furnishes a most vivid and appalling picture of sin – sin in one’s natures – in his circumstances – sin in an assembly. What a lesson for the soul in the fact that such a vile and humiliating disease should be used as a type of moral evil, whether in a member of God’s assembly, in the circumstances of any member, or in the assembly itself!
1. And first, then, as to leprosy in a person; or, in other words, the working of moral evil, or of that which might seem to be evil, in any member of the assembly. This is a matter of grave and solemn import – a matter demanding the utmost vigilance and care on the part of all who are concerned in the good of souls and in the glory of God, as involved in the well-being and purity of His assembly as a whole, or of each individual member thereof.
It is important to see that, while the broad principles of leprosy and its cleansing apply, in a secondary sense, to any sinner, yet, in the scripture now before us, the matter is presented in connection with those who were God’s recognised people. The person who is here seen as the subject of priestly examination, is a member of the assembly of God. It is well to apprehend this. God’s assembly must be kept pure, because it is His dwelling-place. No leper can be allowed to remain within the hallowed precincts of Jehovah’s habitation.
But, then, mark the care, the vigilance, the perfect patience, inculcated upon the priest, lest ought that was not leprosy might be treated as such, or lest ought that really was leprosy might be suffered to escape. Many things might appear “in the skin” – the place of manifestation” – like the plague of leprosy,” which, upon patient, priestly investigation, would be found to be merely superficial. This was to be carefully attended to. Some blemish might make its appearance, upon the surface, which, though demanding the jealous care of the one who had to act for God, was not, in reality, defiling. And, yet, that which seemed but a superficial blemish might prove to be something deeper than the skin, something below the surface, something affecting the hidden springs of the constitution. All this claimed the most intense care on the part of the priest. (See ver. 2-11) Some slight neglect, some trifling oversight, might lead to disastrous consequences. It might lead to the defilement of the assembly, by the presence of a confirmed leper, or to the expulsion, for some superficial blemish, of a genuine member of the Israel of God.
Now, there is a rich fund of instruction in all this for the people of God. There is a difference between personal infirmity and the positive energy of evil – between mere defects and blemishes in the outward character, and the activity of sin in the members. No doubt, it is important to watch against our infirmities; for, if not watched, judged, and guarded against, they may become the source of positive evil. (See ver. 14-25) Everything of nature must be judged and kept down. We must not make any allowance for personal infirmity, in ourselves, though we should make ample allowance for it in others. Take, for example, the matter of an irritable temper. I should judge it in myself; I should make allowance for it in another. It may, like “the burning boil,” in the case of an Israelite, (ver. 19, 20,) prove the source of real defilement – the ground of exclusion from the assembly. Every form of weakness must be watched, lest it become an occasion of sin. “A bald forehead” was not leprosy, but it was that in which leprosy might appear, and, hence, it had to be watched. There may be a hundred things which are not, in themselves, sinful, but which may become the occasion of sin, if not diligently looked after. Nor is it merely a question of what, in our estimation, may be termed Blots, blemishes, and personal infirmities, but even of what our hearts might feel disposed to boast of. Wit, humour, vivacity of spirit and temper; all these may become the source and centre of defilement. Each one has something to guard against – something to keep him ever upon the watch-tower. How happy it is that we have a Father’s heart to come to and count on, with respect to all such things We have the precious privilege of coming, at all times, into the presence of unrebuking, unupbraiding love, there to tell out all, and obtain grace to help in all, and full victory over all. We need not be discouraged, so long as we see such a motto inscribed on the door of our Father’s treasury, “He giveth more grace.” Precious motto! It has no limit. It is bottomless and boundless.
We shall now proceed to inquire what was done in every case in which the plague of leprosy was unquestionably and unmistakably defined. The God of Israel could bear with infirmity, blemish, and failure; but the moment it became a case of defilement, whether in the head, the beard, the forehead, or any other part, it could not be tolerated in the holy assembly. “The leper, in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean. All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be.” (Ver. 45, 46) Here was the leper’s condition – the leper’s occupation – the leper’s place. With rent garments, bare head, and covered lip; crying, Unclean, unclean; and dwelling outside, in the dreary solitude, the dismal desert waste. What could be more humiliating, what more depressing than this? “He shall dwell alone.” He was unfit for communion or companionship. He was excluded from the only spot, in all the world, in which Jehovah’s presence was known or enjoyed.
Reader, behold, in the poor, solitary leper, a vivid type of one in whom sin is working. This is really what it means. It is not, as we shall see presently, a helpless, ruined, guilty, convicted sinner, whose guilt and misery have come thoroughly out, and who is, therefore, a fit subject for the love of God, and the blood of Christ. No; we see in the excluded leper, one in whom sin is actually working – one in whom there is the positive energy of evil. this is what defiles and shuts out from the enjoyment of the divine presence and the communion of saints. So long as sin is working, there can be no fellowship with God, or with His people. “He shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be.” How long? “All the days wherein the plague shall be in him.” This is a great practical truth. The energy of evil is the death-blow to communion. There may be the outward appearance, the mere form, the hollow profession; but communion there can be none, so long as the energy of evil is there. It matters not what the character or amount of the evil may be, if it were but the weight of a feather, if it were but some foolish thought, so long as it continues to work, it must hinder communion, it must cause a suspension of fellowship. It is when it rises to a head, when it comes to the surface, when it is brought thoroughly out, that it can be perfectly met and put away by the grace of God and by the blood of the Lamb.
This leads us to a deeply-interesting point in connection with the leper – a point which must prove a complete paradox to all save those who understand God’s mode of dealing with sinners. “And if a leprosy break; out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plague, from his head even to his foot, wheresoever the priest looketh; then the priest shall consider; and, behold, if the leprosy be covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague: it is all turned white: he is clean.” (Lev. 13: 12, 13) The moment a sinner is in his true place before God, the whole question is settled. Directly his real character is fully brought out, there is no further difficulty. He may have to pass through much painful exercise, ere he reaches this point – exercise consequent upon his refusal to take his true place – to bring out “all the truth,” with respect to what he is; but the moment he is brought to say, from his heart, “just as I am,” the free grace of God flows down to him. “When I kept silence, my bones waxed old, through my roaring all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer.” (Ps. 32: 3, 4) How long did this painful exercise continue? Until the whole truth was brought out – until all that which was working inwardly came fully to the surface. “I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.” (Ver. 5)
It is deeply interesting to mark the progress of the Lord’s dealing with the leprous man, from the moment that the suspicion is raised, by certain features in the place of manifestation, until the disease covers the whole man, “from the crown of the head unto the sole of the foot.” There was no haste, and no indifference. God ever enters the place of judgement with a slow and measured pace; but when He does enter, He must act according to the claims of His nature. He can patiently investigate. He can wait for “seven days;” and should there be the slightest variation in the symptoms, He can wait for “seven days more;” but, the moment it is found to be the positive working of leprosy, there can be no toleration. “Without the camp shall his habitation be.” How long? Until the disease comes fully to the surface. “If the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean.” This is a most precious and interesting point. The very smallest speck of leprosy was intolerable to God; and yet, when the whole man was covered, from head to foot, he was pronounced clean – that is, he was a proper subject for the grace of God and the blood of atonement.
Thus is it, in every case, with the sinner. God is “Of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look upon iniquity;” (Hab. 1: 13;) and yet, the moment a sinner takes his true place, as one thoroughly lost guilty, and undone – as one in whom there is not so much as a single point on which the eye of Infinite Holiness can rest with complacency – as one who is so bad, that he cannot, possibly, be worse, there is an immediate, a perfect, a divine settlement of the entire matter. The grace of God deals with sinners; and when I know myself to be a sinner, I know myself to be one whom Christ came to save. The more clearly any one can prove me to be a sinner, the more clearly he establishes my title to the love of God, and the work of Christ. “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” (1 Peter 3: 18) Now, if I am “unjust;” I am one of those very people for whom Christ died, and I am entitled to all the benefits of His death. “There is not a just man upon earth;” and, inasmuch as I am “Upon earth,” it is plain that I am “unjust;” and it is equally plain that Christ died for me – that he suffered for my sins. Since, therefore, Christ died for me, it is my happy privilege to enter into the immediate enjoyment of the fruits of His sacrifice. This is as plain as plainness itself. It demands no effort whatsoever. I am not called to be anything but just what I am. I am not called to feel, to experience, to realise anything. The word of God assures me that Christ died for me just as I am; and if He died for me I am as safe as He is Himself. There is nothing against me. Christ met all. He not only suffered for my “sins,” but He “made an end of sin.” He abolished the entire system in which, as a child of the first Adam, I stood, and He has introduced me into a new position, in association with Himself, and there I stand, before God, free from all charge of sin, and all fear of judgement.
Just as I am – without one plea,
But that thy blood was shed for me,
And that thou bidst me come to thee,
O Lamb of God, I come!
How do I know that His blood was shed for me? By the Scriptures. Blessed, solid, eternal ground of knowledge! Christ suffered for sins. I have gotten sins. Christ died “the just for the unjust.” I am unjust. Wherefore, the death of Christ appropriates itself to me, as fully, as immediately, and as divinely, as though I were the only sinner upon earth. It is not a question of my appropriation, realisation, or experience. Many souls harass themselves about this. How often has one heard such language as the following, “Oh! I believe that Christ died for sinners, but I cannot realise that my sins are forgiven. I cannot apply, I cannot appropriate, I do not experience the benefit of Christ’s death.” All this is self and not Christ. It is feeling and not Scripture. If we search from cover to cover of the blessed volume, we shall not find a syllable about being saved by realisation, experience, or appropriation. The Gospel applies itself to all who are on the ground of being lost. Christ died for sinners. That is just what I am. Wherefore, He died for me. How do I know this? Is it because I feel it? By no means. How then? By the word of God. “Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; he was buried and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures.” (1 Cor. 15: 3, 4) Thus it is all “according to the Scriptures.” If it were according to our feelings, we should be in a deplorable way, for our feelings are hardly the same for the length of a day; but the scriptures are ever the same. “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.” “Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name
No doubt, it is a very happy thing to realise. to feel, and to experience; but, if we put these things in the place of Christ, we shall neither have them nor the Christ that yields them. If I am occupied with Christ, I shall realise; but if I put my realisation in place of Christ, I shall have neither the one nor the other. This is the sad condition of thousands. Instead of resting on the stable authority of “the Scriptures,” they are ever looking into their own hearts, and, hence, they are always uncertain and, as a consequence, always unhappy. A condition of doubt is a condition of torture. But how can I get rid of my doubt? Simply by relying on the divine authority of “the Scriptures.” Of what do the Scriptures testify? Of Christ. (John 5) They declare that Christ died for our sins, and that He was raised again for our justification. (Rom. 4) This settles everything. The self-same authority that tells me I am unjust, tells me also that Christ died for me. Nothing can be plainer than this. If I were ought else than unjust, the death of Christ could not be for me at all, but being unjust, it is divinely fitted, divinely intended, and divinely applied to me. If I am occupied with anything in, of, or about myself, it is plain I have not entered into the full spiritual application of Lev. 13: 12, 13. I have not come to the Lamb of God, “just as I am.” It is when the leper is covered from head to foot that he is on the true ground. It is there and there alone that grace can meet him. “Then the priest shall consider; and, behold, if the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague: it is all turned white: he is clean.” Precious truth! “Where sin abounded grace did much more abound.” So long as I think there is a single spot which in not covered with the direful disease, I have not come to, the end of myself. It is when my true condition is fully disclosed to my view, that I really understand the meaning of salvation by grace.
The force of all this will be more fully apprehended when we come to consider the ordinances connected with the cleansing of the leper, in Lev. 14. We shall, now, briefly enter upon the question of leprosy in a garment, as presented in Lev. 13: 47-59.
2. The garment or skin suggests to the mind the ides of a man’s circumstances or habits. This is a deeply practical point. We are to watch against the working of evil in our ways just as carefully as against evil in ourselves. The same patient investigation is observable with respect to, a garment as in the case of a person. There is no haste; neither is there any indifference. “The priest shall look upon the plague, and shut up it that hath the plague seven days.” There must be no indifference, no indolence, no carelessness. Evil may creep into our habits and circumstances, in numberless ways; and, hence, the moment we perceive ought of a suspicious nature, it must be submitted to a calm, patient process of priestly investigation. It must be “shut up seven days,” in order that it may have full time to develop itself perfectly.
“And he shall look on the plague on the seventh day: if the plague be spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in a skin, or in any work that is made of skin, the plague is a fretting leprosy; it is unclean. He shall therefore burn that garment.” The wrong habit must be given up, the moment I discover it. If I find myself in a thoroughly wrong position, I must abandon it. The burning of the garment expresses the act of judgement upon evil, whether in a man’s habits or circumstances. There must be no trifling with evil. In certain cases the garment was to be “washed,” which expresses the action of the Word of God upon a man’s habits. “Then the priest shall command that they wash the thing wherein the plague is, and he shall shut it up seven days more.” There is to be patient waiting in order to ascertain the effect of the Word. “And the priest shall look on the plague, after that it is washed; and, behold, if the plague have not changed . . . . thou shalt burn it in the fire.” When there is any thing radically and irremediably bad in one’s position or habits, the whole thing is to be given up. “And if the priest look, and, behold, the plague be somewhat dark: after the washing of it; then he shall rend it out of the garment.” The Word may produce such an effect as that the wrong features in a man’s character, or the wrong points in his position, shall be given up, and the evil be got rid of; but if the evil continue, after all, the whole thing must be condemned and set aside.
There is a rich mine of practical instruction in all this. We must look well to the position which we occupy, the circumstances in which we stand, the habits we adopt, the character we wear. There is special need of watchfulness. Every suspicious symptom and trait must be sedulously guarded, lest it should prove, in the sequel, to be “a fretting “or “spreading leprosy,” whereby we ourselves and many others may be defiled. We may be placed in a position attached to which there are certain wrong things which can be given up, without entirely abandoning the position; and, on the other hand, we may find ourselves in a situation in which it is impossible to” “abide with God.” Where the eye is single, the path will be plain. Where the one desire of the heart is to enjoy the divine presence, we shall easily discover those things which tend to deprive us of that unspeakable blessing.
May our hearts be tender and sensitive. May we cultivate a deeper, closer walk with God; and may we carefully guard against every form of defilement, whether in person, in habit, or in association!
We shall, now, proceed to consider the beauteous and significant ordinances connected with the cleansing of the leper, in which we shall find some of the most precious truths of the gospel presented to us.
“And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: he shall be brought unto the priest: and the priest shall go forth out of the camp.” (Lev. 14: 1-3) We have already seen the place which the leper occupied. He was outside the camp, in the place of moral distance from God – from His sanctuary and His assembly. Moreover, he dwelt in dreary solitude, in a condition of uncleanness. He was beyond the reach of human aid; and, as for himself, he could only communicate defilement to every one and every thing he touched. It was, therefore, obviously impossible that he could do ought to cleanse himself. If, indeed, he could only defile by his very touch, how could he possibly cleanse himself How could he contribute towards, or co-operate in, his cleansing? Impossible. As an unclean leper, he could not do so much as a single thing for himself; all had to be done for him. He could not make his way to God, but God could make His way to him. He was shut up to God. There was no help for him, either in himself or in his fellow-man. It is clear that one leper could not cleanse another; and it is equally clear that if a leper touched a clean person he rendered him unclean. His only resource was in God. He was to be a debtor to grace for everything.
Hence we read, “The priest shall go forth out of the camp. It is not said, “the leper shall go.” this was wholly out of the question. It was of no use talking to the leper about going or doing. He was consigned to dreary solitude; whither could he go? He was involved in helpless defilement; what could he do? He might long for fellowship and long to be clean; but his longings were those of a lonely helpless leper. He might make efforts after cleansing; but his efforts could but prove him unclean, and tend to spread defilement. Before ever he could be pronounced “clean,” a work; had to be wrought for him – a work which he could neither do nor help to do – a work which had to be wholly accomplished by another. The leper was called to “stand still,” and behold the priest doing a work in virtue of which the leprosy could be perfectly cleansed. The priest accomplished all. The leper did nothing.
“Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed, two birds, alive and clean, and cedarwood, and scarlet, and hyssop. and the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water.” In the priest going forth from the camp – forth from God’s dwelling place – we behold the blessed Lord Jesus coming down from the bosom of the Father, His eternal dwelling-place, into this polluted world of ours, where He beheld us sunk in the polluting leprosy of sin. He, like the good Samaritan, “came where we were.” He did not come half-way, merely. He did not come nine-tenths of the way. He came all the way. This was indispensable. He could not, consistently with the holy claims of the throne of God, have bidden our leprosy to depart had He remained in the bosom. He could call worlds into existence by the word of His mouth; but when leprous sinners had to be cleansed, something more was needed. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.” When worlds were to be framed, God had but to speak, When sinners had to be saved, He had to give His Son. “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John 4: 9, 10)
But there was far more to be accomplished than the mission and incarnation of the Son. It would have availed the leper but little indeed, had the priest merely gone forth from the camp and looked upon his low and forlorn condition. Blood shedding was essentially necessary ere leprosy could be removed. The death of a spotless victim was needed. “Without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb. 9: 22) And, be it observed, that the shedding of blood was the real basis of the leper’s cleansing. It was not a mere circumstance which, in conjunction with others, contributed to the leper’s cleansing. By no means. the giving up of the life was the grand and all-important fact. when this was accomplished the way was open; every barrier was removed; God could deal in perfect grace with the leper. this point should be distinctly laid hold of, if my reader would fully enter into the glorious doctrine of the blood.
“And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water.” Here we have the acknowledged type of the death of Christ, “who through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God.” “He was crucified in weakness.” (Heb. 9; 2 Cor. 13) The greatest, the mightiest, the most glorious, the most momentous work that ever was accomplished, throughout the wide universe of God, was wrought “in weakness.” Oh! my reader, how terrible a thing must sin be, in the judgement of God, when His own beloved Son had to come down from heaven, and hang upon yonder cursed tree, a spectacle to men, to angels, and to devils, in order that you and I might be forgiven! And what a type of sin have we in leprosy! Who would have thought that that little “bright spot” appearing on the person of some member of the congregation was a matter of such grave consequence? But, ah! that little “bright spot” was nothing less than the energy of evil, in the place of manifestation. It was the index of the dreadful working of sin in the nature; and ere that person could be fitted for a place in the assembly, or for the enjoyment of communion with a holy God, the Son of God had to leave those bright heavens, and descend into the lowest parts of the earth, in order to make a full atonement for that which exhibited itself merely in the form of a little “bright spot.” Let us remember this. Sin is a dreadful thing in the estimation of God. He cannot tolerate so much as a single sinful thought. Before one such thought could be forgiven, Christ had to die upon the cross. The most trifling sin, if any sin can be called trifling, demanded nothing less than the death of God’s Eternal and Co-equal Son. But, eternal praise be to God, what sin demanded, redeeming love freely gave; and now God is infinitely more glorified in the forgiveness of sins than He could have been had Adam maintained his original innocency. God is more glorified in the salvation, the pardon, the justification, the preservation, and final glorification of guilty man, than He could have been in maintaining an innocent man in the enjoyment of creation blessings. Such is the precious mystery of redemption. May our hearts enter, by the power of the Holy Ghost, into the living and profound depths of this wondrous mystery!
“As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water. And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.” The blood being shed, the priest can enter directly and fully upon his work. Up to this, we read, “the priest shall command;” but now he acts immediately himself. The death of Christ is the basis of His priestly ministration. Having entered with His own blood into the holy place, He acts as our Great High Priest, applying to our souls all the precious results of His atoning work, and maintaining us in the full and divine integrity of the position into which His sacrifice has introduced us. “For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth he should not be a priest.” (Heb. 8: 3, 4)
We could hardly have a more perfect type of the resurrection of Christ than that presented in “the living bird let loose into the open field.” It was not let go until after the death of its companion; for the two birds typify one Christ, in two stages of His blessed work, namely, death and resurrection. Ten thousand birds let loose would not have availed for the leper. It was that living bird, mounting upward into the open heavens, bearing upon his wing that significant token of accomplished atonement – it was that which told out the great fact that the work was done – the ground cleared, the foundation laid. Thus is it in reference to our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. His resurrection declares the glorious triumph of redemption. “He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” “He was raised again for our justification.” It is this that sets the burdened heart free, and liberates the struggling conscience. The scripture assures me that Jesus was nailed to the cross under the weight of my sins; but the same Scriptures assure me that He rose from the grave without one of those sins upon Him. Nor is this all. The same Scriptures assure me that all who put their trust in Jesus are as free from all charge of guilt as He is; that there is no more wrath or condemnation for them than for Him; that they are in Him, one with Him, accepted in Him; co-quickened, co-raised, co-seated with Him. Such is the peace giving testimony of the Scriptures of truth – such, the record of God who cannot lie. (See Rom. 6: 6-11; Rom. 8: 1-4; 2 Cor, 5: 21; Eph. 2: 5, 6; Col. 2: 10-15, 1 John 4: 17)
But we have another most important truth set before us in ver 6 of our chapter. We not only see our full deliverance from guilt and condemnation, as beautifully exhibited in the living bird let loose, but we see also our entire deliverance from all the attractions of earth and all the influences of nature. “The scarlet” would be the apt expression of the former, while “the cedar wood and hyssop” would set forth the latter. The cross is the end of all this world’s glory. God presents it as such, and the believer recognises it as such. “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, whereby the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” (Gal. 6: 14)
Then, as to the “cedar wood and hyssop,” they present to us, as it were, the two extremes of nature’s wide range. Solomon “spoke of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall.” (1 Kings 4: 33) From the lofty cedar which crowns the sides of Lebanon, down to the lowly hyssop – the wide extremes and all that lies between – nature, in all its departments, is brought under the power of the cross; so that the believer sees, in the death of Christ, the end of all his guilt, the end of all earth’s glory, and the end of the whole system of nature – the entire old creation. And with what is he to be occupied? With Him who is the Antitype of that living bird, with blood-stained feathers, ascending into the open heavens. Precious, glorious, soul-satisfying object! A risen, ascended, triumphant, glorified Christ, who has passed into the heavens, bearing in His sacred Person the marks of an accomplished atonement. It is with Him we have to do. We are shut up to Him. He is God’s exclusive object. He is the centre of heaven’s joy, the theme of angels’ song. We want none of earth’s glory, none of nature’s attractions. We can behold them all, together with our sin and guilt, for ever set aside by the death of Christ. We can well afford to dispense with earth and nature, inasmuch as we have gotten, instead thereof “the unsearchable riches of Christ.”
“And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy, seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the bird loose into the open field.” The more deeply we ponder over the contents of Lev. 13 the more clearly we shall see how utterly impossible it was for the leper to do ought towards his own cleansing. All he could do was to “put a covering upon his upper lip;” and all he could say was, “Unclean, unclean.” It belonged to God, and to Him alone, to devise and accomplish a work whereby the leprosy could be perfectly cleansed; and, further, it belonged to God, and to Him alone, to pronounce the leper “clean.” Hence it is written,” the priest shall sprinkle;” and “he shall pronounce him clean.” It is not said, “the leper shall sprinkle, and pronounce, or imagine himself, clean.” This would never do. God was the Judge – God was the Healer – God was the Cleanser. He alone knew what leprosy was, how it could be put away, and when to pronounce the leper clean. The leper might have gone on all his days covered with leprosy, and yet be wholly ignorant of what was wrong with him. It was the word of God – the Scriptures of truth – the divine Record, that declared the full truth as to leprosy; and nothing short of the self-same authority could pronounce the leper clean, and that, moreover, only, on the solid and indisputable ground of death and resurrection. There is the most precious connection between the three things in verse 7: the blood is sprinkled, the leper pronounced clean, and the living bird let loose. There is not so much as a single syllable about what the leper was to do, to say, to think, or to feel. It was enough that he was a leper; a fully revealed, a thoroughly judged leper, covered from head to foot. this sufficed for him; all the rest pertained to God.
It is of all importance, for the anxious inquirer after peace, to enter into the truth unfolded in this branch of our subject. So many are tried by the question of feeling, realising, and appropriating, instead of seeing, as in the leper’s case, that the sprinkling of the blood was as independent and as divine as the shedding of it. It is not said, “The leper shall apply, appropriate, or realise, and then he shall be clean.” By no means. The plan of deliverance was divine; the provision of the sacrifice was divine; the shedding of the blood was divine; the sprinkling of the blood as divine; the record as to the result was divine: in short, it was all divine.
It is not that we should undervalue realisation, or, to speak more correctly, communion, through the Holy Ghost, with all the precious results of Christ’s work for as. Far from it: we shall see, presently, the place assigned thereto, in the divine economy. But then, we are no more saved by realisation, than the leper was cleansed by it. The gospel, by which we are saved, is that “Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures.” There is nothing about realisation here. No doubt, it is happy to realise. It is a very happy thing for one, who was just on the point of being drowned, to realise himself in a life-boat; but, clearly, he is saved by the boat and not by his realisation. So it is with the sinner that believes on the Lord Jesus Christ. He is saved by death and resurrection. Is it because he realises it? No; but because God says it. It is “according to the Scriptures.” Christ died and rose again; and, on that ground, God pronounces him clean.
“No condemnation, O, my soul!
‘Tis God that speaks the word
This gives immense peace to the soul. I have to do with God’s plain record, which nothing can ever shake. That record has reference to God’s own work. It is He Himself, who has wrought all that was needful, in order to my being pronounced clean in His sight. My pardon no more depends upon my realisation than upon any “works of righteousness that I have done;” and it no more depends upon my works of righteousness than it does upon my crimes. In a word, it depends, exclusively, upon the death and resurrection of Christ. How do I know it? God tells me. It is “according to the scriptures.”
There are, perhaps, few things which disclose the deep-seated legality of our hearts, more strikingly, that this oft-raised question of realisation. We will have in something of self, and thus so sadly mar our peace and liberty in Christ. It is mainly because of this that I dwell, at such length, upon the beautiful ordinance of The cleansing of the leper, and especially on the truth unfolded in Lev. 14: 7. It was the priest that sprinkled the blood; and it was the priest that pronounced the leper clean. Thus it is in the case of the sinner. The moment he is on his true ground, the blood of Christ and the word of God apply themselves without any further question or difficulty whatever. But the moment this harassing question of realisation is raised, the peace is disturbed, the heart depressed, and the mind bewildered. the more thoroughly I get done with self, and become occupied with Christ, as presented in “the Scriptures,” the more settled my peace will be. If the leper had looked at himself, when the priest pronounced him clean, would he have found any basis for the declaration? Surely not. The sprinkled blood was the basis of the divine record, and not anything in, or connected with, the leper. The leper was not asked how he felt, or what he thought. He was not questioned as to whether he had a deep sense of the vileness of his disease. He was an acknowledged leper; that was enough. It was for such an one the blood was shed; and that blood made him clean. How did he know this? Was it because he felt it? No; but because the priest, on God’s behalf, and by His authority told him so. The leper was pronounced clean on the very same ground that the living bird was let loose. The same blood which stained the feathers of that living bird was sprinkled upon the leper. This was a perfect settlement of the whole affair, and that, too, in a manner entirely independent of the leper, the leper’s thoughts, his feelings, and his realisation. Such is the type. had when we look from the type to the Antitype, we see that our blessed Lord Jesus Christ entered heaven, and laid on the throne of God the eternal record of an accomplished work, in virtue of which the believer enters also. This is a most glorious truth, divinely calculated to dispel from the heart of the anxious inquirer every doubt, every fear, every bewildering thought, and every harassing question. A risen Christ is God’s exclusive object, and He sees every believer in Him. May every awakened soul find abiding repose in this emancipating truth.
“And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean: and after that he shall come into the camp, and shall tarry abroad out of his tent seven days.” (Ver. 8) The leper, being pronounced clean, can begin to do what he could not even have attempted to do before, namely, to cleanse himself, cleanse his habits, shave off all his hair; and, having done so, he is privileged to take his place in the camp – the place of ostensible, recognised, public relationship with the God of Israel, whose presence in that camp it was which rendered the expulsion of the leper needful. The blood having been applied in its expiating virtue, there is the washing of water, which expresses the action of the word on the character, the habits, the ways, so as to render the person, not only in God’s view, but also in the view of the congregation, morally and practically fit for a place in the public assembly.
But, be it observed, the man, though sprinkled with blood and washed with water, and thus entitled to a position in the public assembly, was not permitted to enter his own tent. He was not permitted to enter upon the full enjoyment of those private, personal privileges, which belonged to his own peculiar place in the camp. In other words, though knowing redemption through the shed and sprinkled blood, and owning the word as the rule, according to which his person and all his habits should be cleansed and regulated, he had yet to be brought, in the power of the Spirit, into full, intelligent communion with his own special place, portion, and privileges in Christ.
I speak according to the doctrine of the type; and I feel it to be of importance to apprehend the truth unfolded therein. It is too often overlooked. There are many, who own the blood of Christ as the alone ground of pardon, and the word of God as that whereby alone their habits, ways, and associations are to be cleansed and ordered, who, nevertheless, are far from entering, by the power of the Holy Ghost, into communion with the preciousness and excellency of that One, Whose blood has put away their sins, and whose word is to cleanse their practical habits. They are in the place of ostensible and actual relationship; but not in the power of personal communion. It is perfectly true, that all believers are in Christ, and, as such, entitled to communion with the very highest truths. Moreover, they have the Holy Ghost, as the power of communion. All this is divinely true; but, then, there is not that entire setting aside of all that pertains to nature, which is really essential to the power of communion with Christ, in all the aspects of His character and work. In point of fact, this latter will not be fully known to any until “the eighth day” – the day of resurrection-glory, when we shall know even as we are known. Then, indeed, each one for himself, and all together, shall enter into the full, unhindered Power of communion with Christ, in all the precious phases of His Person, and features of His character, unfolded from verse 10 to 20 of our chapter. Such is the hope set before us; but, even now, in proportion as we enter, by faith, through the mighty energy of the indwelling Spirit, into the death of nature and all pertaining thereto, we can feed upon and rejoice in Christ as the portion of our souls, in the place of individual communion.
“But it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head, and his beard, and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off: and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.” (Ver. 9.) Now, it is clear, that the leper was just as clean, in God’s judgement, on the first day, when the blood was sprinkled upon him, in its sevenfold or perfect efficacy, as he was on the seventh day. Wherein, then, was the difference? Not in his actual standing and condition, but in his personal intelligence and communion. On the seventh day, he was called to enter into the full and complete abolition of all that pertained to nature. He was called to apprehend that, not merely was nature’s leprosy to be put away, but nature’s ornaments – yea, all that was natural – all that belonged to the old condition.
It is one thing to know, as a doctrine, that God sees my nature to be dead, and it is quite another thing for me to “reckon” myself as dead – to put off, practically, the old man and his deeds – to mortify my members which are on the earth. This, probably, is what many godly persons mean when they speak of progressive sanctification. They mean a right thing, though they do not put it exactly as the Scriptures do. The leper was pronounced clean, the moment the blood was sprinkled upon Him; and yet he had to cleanse himself. How was this? In the former case, he was clean, in the judgement of God; in the latter, he was to be clean practically, in his own personal intelligence, and in his manifested character. Thus it is with the believer. He is, as one with Christ, “washed, sanctified, and justified” – “accepted” – “complete.” (1 Cor. 6: 11; Eph. 1: 6; Col 2: 10) Such is his unalterable standing and condition before God. He is as perfectly sanctified as he is justified, for Christ is the measure of both the one and the other, according to God’s judgement and view of the case. But, then, the believer’s apprehension of all this, in his own soul, and his exhibition thereof in his habits and ways, open up quite another line of things. Hence it is we read,” Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” (2 Cor. 7: 1) It is because Christ has cleansed us by His precious blood that therefore we are called to” cleanse ourselves” by the application of the word, through the Spirit. “This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness. because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (1 John 5: 6-8) Here we have atonement by the blood, cleansing by the word, and power by the Spirit, all founded upon the death of Christ, and all vividly foreshadowed in the ordinances connected with the cleansing of the leper.
“And on the eighth day he shall take two he lambs without blemish, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth deals of fine flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and one log of oil. And the priest that maketh him clean shall present the man that is to be made clean, and those things, before the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall take one he lamb, and offer him for a trespass offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord.” (Ver. 10-12) The entire range of offerings is here introduced; but it is the trespass offering which is first killed, inasmuch as the leper is viewed as an actual trespasser. This in true in every case. As those, who have trespassed against God, we need Christ as the one who atoned, on the cross, for those trespasses. “Himself bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” The first view which the sinner gets of Christ is as the Antitype of the trespass offering.
“And the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot.” “The ear” – that guilty member which had so frequently proved a channel of communication for vanity, folly, and even uncleanness – that ear must be cleansed by the blood of the trespass offering. Thus all the guilt, which I have ever contracted by that member, is forgiven according to God’s estimate of the blood of Christ. “The right hand,” which had, so frequently, been stretched forth for the execution of deeds of vanity, folly, and even uncleanness, must be cleansed by the blood of the trespass offering. Thus all the guilt, which I have ever contracted by that member, is forgiven, according to God’s estimate of the blood of Christ. “The foot,” which had so often run in the way of vanity, folly, and even uncleanness, must now be cleansed by the blood of the trespass offering, so that all the guilt, which I have ever contracted by that member, is forgiven, according to God’s estimate of the blood of Christ. Yes; all, all, all is forgiven – all is cancelled – all forgotten – all sunk as lead in the mighty waters of eternal oblivion. Who shall bring it up again? Shall angel, man, or devil, be able to plunge into those unfathomed and unfathomable waters, to bring up from thence those trespasses of “foot,” “hand,” or “ear,” which redeeming love has cast thereinto? Oh! no; blessed be God, they are gone, and gone for ever. I am better off, by far, than if Adam had never sinned. Precious truth! To be washed in the blood is better far than to be clothed in innocency.
But God could not rest satisfied with the mere blotting out of trespasses, by the atoning blood of Jesus. This, in itself, is a great thing; but there is something greater still.
“And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand: and the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord. And of the rest of the oil that is in his hand shall the priest put upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the blood of the trespass offering; and the remnant of the oil that is in the priest’s hand, he shall pour upon the head of him that is to be cleansed; and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord.” (Ver. 15-18) Thus, not only are our members cleansed by the blood of Christ, but also consecrated to God, in the power of the Spirit. God’s work is not only negative, but positive. The ear is no longer to be the vehicle for communicating defilement, but to be “swift to hear” the voice of the Good Shepherd. The hand is no longer to be used as the instrument of unrighteousness, but to be stretched forth in acts of righteousness, grace, and true holiness. The foot is no longer to tread in folly’s paths, but to run in the way of God’s holy commandments. And, finally, the whole man is to be dedicated to God in the energy of the Holy Ghost.
It is deeply interesting to see that “the oil” was put upon the blood of the trespass offering.” The blood or Christ is the divine basis of the operations of the Holy Ghost. The blood and the oil go together. As sinners we could know nothing of the latter save on the ground of the former. The oil could not have been put upon the leper until the blood of the trespass offering had first been applied. “In whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of Promise.” The divine accuracy of the type evokes the acclamation of the renewed mind. The more closely we scrutinise it – the more of the light of Scripture we concentrate upon it – the more its beauty, force, and precision, are perceived and enjoyed. All, as might justly be expected, is in the most lovely harmony with the entire analogy of the word of God. There is no need for any effort of the mind. Take Christ as the key to unlock the rich treasury of the types; explore the precious contents by the light of Inspiration’s heavenly lamp; let the Holy Ghost be your interpreter; and you Cannot fail to be edified, enlightened, and blessed.
“And the priest shall offer the sin offering, and make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed from his uncleanness.” Here we have a type of Christ, not only as the bearer of our trespasses, but also as the One, who made an end of sin, root and branch; the One, who destroyed the entire system of sin – “The Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world.” “The propitiation for the whole world.” As the trespass offering, Christ put away all my trespasses. As the sin offering, He met the great root from whence those trespasses emanated. He met all; but it is as the trespass offering I first know Him, because it is as such I first need Him. It is the “conscience of sins” that first troubles me. This is divinely met by my precious Trespass Offering. Then, as I get on, I find that all these sins had a root, a parent stem, and what root or stem I find within me. This, likewise, in divinely met by my precious Sin Offering. The order, as presented in the leper’s case, is perfect. It is precisely the order which we can trace in the actual experience of every soul. The trespass offering comes first, and then the sin offering.
“And afterward he shall kill the burnt offering.” This offering presents the highest possible aspect of the death of Christ. It is Christ offering Himself without spot to God, without special reference to either trespasses or sin. It is Christ in voluntary devotedness, walking to the cross, and there offering Himself as a sweet savour to God.
“And the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the meat offering upon the altar: and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and he shall be clean.” (ver. 20.) The meat offering typifies “the man Christ Jesus” in His perfect human life. It is intimately associated, in the case of the cleansed leper, with the burnt offering; and so it is in the experience of every saved sinner. It is when we know our trespasses are forgiven, and the root or principle of sin judged, that we can, according to our measure, by the power of the Spirit, enjoy communion with God about that blessed One, who lived a perfect human life, down here, and then offered Himself without spot to God on the cross. Thus, the four classes of offerings are brought before us in their divine order, in the cleansing of the leper – namely, the trespass offering, the sin offering, the burnt offering, and the meet offering, each exhibiting its own specific aspect of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ.
Here closes the record of the Lord’s dealings with the leprous man; and, oh! what a marvellous record it is! What an unfolding of the exceeding hatefulness of sin, the grace and holiness of God, the preciousness of Christ’s Person, and the efficacy of His work! Nothing can be more interesting than to mark the footprints of divine grace forth from the hallowed precincts of the sanctuary, to the defiled place where the leper stood, with bare head, covered lip, and rent garments. God visited the leper where he was; but He did not leave him there. He went forth prepared to accomplish a work, in virtue of which he could bring the leper into a higher place, and higher communion than ever he had known before. On the ground of this work, the leper was conducted from his Place of defilement and loneliness to the very door of the tabernacle of the congregation, the priestly place, to enjoy priestly privileges. (Comp. Ex. 29: 20, 21, 32) How could he ever have climbed to such an elevation! Impossible For ought he could do, he might have languished and died in his leprosy, had not the sovereign grace of the God of Israel stooped to lift him from the dunghill, to set him among the princes of His people. If ever there was a case in which the question of human effort, human merit, and human righteousness, could be fully tried and perfectly settled, the leper is, unquestionably, that case. Indeed it were a sad loss of time to discuss such a question in the presence of such a case. It must be obvious, to the most cursory reader, that nought but free grace, reigning through righteousness, could meet the leper’s condition and the leper’s need. And how gloriously and triumphantly did that grace act! It travelled down into the deepest depths, that it might raise the leper to the loftiest heights. See what the leper lost, and see what he gained! He lost all that pertained to nature, and he gained the blood of atonement and the grace of the Spirit. I mean typically. Truly, he was a gainer, to an incalculable amount. He was infinitely better off than if he had never been thrust forth from the camp. Such is the grace of God! Such the power And value, the virtue and efficacy, of the blood of Jesus!
How forcibly does all this remind us of the prodigal, in Luke 15! In him, too, leprosy had wrought and risen to a head. He had been afar off in the defiled place, where his own sins and the intense selfishness of the far country had created a solitude around him. But, blessed for ever be a Father’s deep and tender love, we know how it ended. The prodigal found a higher place, and tasted higher communion than ever he had known before. “The fatted calf’ had never been slain for him before. “The best robe” had never been on him before. And how was this? Was it a question of the prodigal’s merit? Oh! no; it was simply a question of the Father’s love.
Dear reader, let me ask, can you ponder over the record of God’s dealings with the leper, in Leviticus 14, or the Father’s dealings with the prodigal, in Luke 15, and not have an enlarged sense of the love that dwells in the bosom of God, that flows through the Person and work of Christ, that is recorded in the Scriptures of truth, and brought home to the heart by the Holy Ghost? Lord grant us a deeper and more abiding fellowship with Himself!
From verse 21 to 32 we have “the law of him in whom is the plague of leprosy, whose hand is not able to get that which pertaineth to his cleansing.” This refers to the sacrifices of “the eighth day,” and not to the “two birds alive and clean.” These latter could not be dispensed with in any case, because they set forth the death and resurrection of Christ as the alone ground on which God can receive a sinner back to Himself. On the other hand, the sacrifices of” the eighth day,” being connected with the soul’s communion, must, in some degree, be affected by the measure of the soul’s apprehension. But, whatever that measure may be, the grace of God can meet it with those peculiarly touching words, “such as he is able to get.” And, not only so, but” the two turtle doves” conferred the same privileges on the “poor,” as the two lambs conferred upon the rich, inasmuch as both the one and the other pointed to “the precious blood of Christ,” which is of infinite, changeless, and eternal efficacy in the judgement of God. All stand before God on the ground of death and resurrection. All are brought into the same place of nearness; but all do not enjoy the same measure of communion – all have not the same measure of apprehension of the preciousness of Christ in all the aspects of His work. They might, if they would; but they allow themselves to be hindered, in various ways. Earth and nature, with their respective influences, act prejudicially; The Spirit is grieved, and Christ is not enjoyed as He might be. It is utterly vain to expect that, if we are living in the region of nature, we can be feeding upon Christ. No; there must be self emptiness, self-denial, self-judgement, if we would habitually feed upon Christ. It is not a question of salvation. It is not a question of the leper introduced into the camp – the place of recognised relationship. By no means. It is only a question of the soul’s communion, of its enjoyment of Christ. As to this, the largest measure lies open to us. We may have communion with the very highest truths; but, if our measure be small, the unupbraiding grace of our Father’s heart breathes in the sweet words, “such as he is able to get.” The title of all is the same, however our capacity may vary; and, blessed be God, when we get into His presence, all the desires of the new nature, in their utmost intensity, are satisfied; all the powers of the new nature, in their fullest range, are occupied. May we prove these things in our souls’ happy experience, day by day!
We shall close this section with a brief reference to the subject of leprosy in a house.
3. The reader will observe, that a case of leprosy, in a person, or in a garment, might occur in the wilderness; but, in the matter of a house, it was, of necessity, confined to the land of Canaan. “When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession, . . . . .then the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go into it to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean; and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house. And he shall look on the plague; and, behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house with hollow strakes, greenish or reddish, which in sight are lower than the wall; then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days.”
Looking at the house as the type of an assembly, we have some weighty principles presented to us as to the divine method of dealing with moral evil, or suspicion of evil, in a congregation. We observe the same holy calmness and perfect patience with respect to the house, as we have already seen, in reference to the person or the garment. There was no haste, and no indifference, either as regards the house, the garment, or the individual. The man who had an interest in the house was not to treat with indifference any suspicious symptoms appearing in the wall thereof; neither was he to pronounce judgement himself upon such symptoms. It belonged to the priest to investigate and to judge. The moment that ought of a questionable nature made its appearance, the priest assumed a judicial attitude with respect to the house. The house was under judgement, though not condemned. The perfect period was to be allowed to run its course, ere any decision could be arrived at. The symptoms might prove to be merely superficial, in which case there would be no demand for any action whatever.
“And the priest shall come again The seventh day, and shall look: and, behold, if the plague be spread in the walls of the house, then the priest shall command that they take away the stones in which the plague is, and they shall cast them into an unclean place without the city.” The whole house was not to be condemned. The removal of the leprous stones was first to be tried.
“And if the plague come again, and break out in the house, after that he hath taken away the stones, and after that he hath scraped the house, and after that it is plastered; then the priest shall come and look; and, behold, if the plague be spread in the house. it is a fretting leprosy in the house: it is unclean. And he shall break; down the house, the stones of it, and the timber thereof, and all the mortar of the house; and he shall carry them forth out of the city into an unclean place.” The case was hopeless, the evil irremediable, the whole building was annihilated.
“Moreover, he that goeth into the house all the while that it is shut up shall be unclean until the even. And he that lieth in the house shall wash his clothes; and he that eateth in the house shall wash his clothes.” This is a solemn truth. Contact defiles! Let us remember this. It was a principle largely inculcated under the Levitical economy; and, surely, it is not less applicable now.
“And if the priest shall come in, and look upon it, and, behold, the plague hath not spread in the house, after the house was plastered; then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, because the plague is healed.” The removal of the defiled stones, &c., had arrested the progress of the evil, and rendered all further judgement needless. The house was no longer to be viewed as in a judicial place; but, being cleansed by the application of the blood, it was again fit for occupation.
And, now, as to the moral of all this. It is, at once, interesting, solemn, and practical. Look, for example, at the church at Corinth. It was a spiritual house, composed of spiritual stones; but, alas! the eagle eye of the apostle discerned upon its walls certain symptoms of a most suspicious nature. Was he indifferent? Surely not. He had imbibed far too much of the spirit of the Master of the house to admit, for one moment, of any such thing. But he was no more hasty than indifferent. He commanded the leprous stone to be removed, and gave the house a thorough scraping. Having acted thus faithfully, he patiently awaited the result. And what was that result? All that the heart could desire. “Nevertheless, God, that comforteth those that are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus; and not by his coming only, but by the consolation wherewith he was comforted in you, when he told us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind toward me; so that I rejoiced the more . . . . . . . In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.” (Comp. 1 Cor. 5 with 2 Cor. 7: 11) This is a lovely instance. The zealous care of the apostle was amply rewarded; the plague was stayed, and the assembly delivered from the defiling influence of unjudged moral evil.
Take another solemn example. “And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write: These things saith he that hath the sharp sword with two edges; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is; and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, Which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.” (Rev. 2: 12-16.) Here the divine Priest stands in a judicial attitude with respect to His house at Pergamos. He could not be indifferent to symptoms so alarming; but He patiently and graciously gives time to repent. If reproof or warning, and discipline, prove unavailing, judgement must take its course.
These things are full of practical teaching as to the doctrine of the assembly. The seven churches of Asia afford various striking illustrations of the house under priestly judgement. We should ponder them deeply and prayerfully. They are of immense value. We should never sit down, at ease, so long as ought of a suspicious nature is making its appearance in the assembly. We may be tempted to say, “It is none of my business;” but it is the business of every one who loves the Master of the house to have a jealous, godly care, for the purity of that house; and if we shrink; from the due exercise of this care, it will not be for our honour or profit, in the day of the Lord.
I shall not pursue this subject any further in these pages and shall merely remark, in closing this section, that I do not doubt, in the least, that this whole subject of leprosy has a great dispensational bearing, not only upon the house of Israel, but also upon the professing church.
1115. Ritual Cleanliness and Uncleanliness.
Leviticus 11, Animals; Leviticus 12, Childbirth; Leviticus 13, Skin diseases (including tainted garments); Lev 14:1-32, Purgation for skin diseases; Lev 14:33-57, Leprosy in houses, and general conclusion to the Law; Leviticus 15, Issues.
Probably to most modern readers, this section is the least intelligible in the book. We must consider it (a) in its ethnological and (b) its specifically Hebrew aspect, (a) These laws are properly taboos. The term is Polynesian, signifying what is in itself, or artificially, forbidden, either for the whole community, or else for common people, or priests, or kings (p. 629). Taboos may relate to places, or to the sexes, or to certain ages. Certain kinds of food may be taboo, universally, or as determined temporarily by a chief; individuals may be taboo to one anotherspeech with a mother-in-law is very widely forbidden, and also approach to ones wife after childbirth; or the wife must not pronounce her husbands name. In the Australian initiation ceremonies, speaking is taboo to the initiates for certain periods. The origin of taboo is still obscure. What is not customary comes in time to excite horror (cf. the varying laws of decency in different primitive tribes). This horror is felt to be religious, and it can be easily used by chiefs or priests, for selfish or for hygienic purposes. (b) Heb. practice shows a notable restriction in the institution. In early times a chief could temporarily impose a ban (Jos 6:18, 1Sa 14:24); and taboos are recognised on priests (Lev 10:6, etc.) and in connexion with animals, birth, and certain diseases. Why? From the nature of things, or for moral or hygienic or ritual reasons? The suggestion of Nature is an insecure guide, since taboos on animals (e.g, swine, holy animals among Greeks and Arabs) and actions (e.g. sexual rules) vary so widely. Morality will not explain taboos on animal flesh (save that perhaps some kinds of flesh may arouse passion) or the restriction on the young mother. Hygiene may explain some taboos; but why the restriction of food to animals Levitically clean, or why should a mother be unclean for forty days after the birth of a boy, eighty days after the birth of a girl? Ritual may explain some prohibitions, as of animals which were only used in heathen rites; it may be, as Bertholet suggests, that whatever is under the protection or power of an alien god is unclean or taboo (hence perhaps the rejection of horseflesh for food; horses were sacred among the heathen Saxons; camels are forbidden to Thibetan lamas). What, then, of the infected house? Probably all four reasons were operative; given the concept of things not to be associated with ordinary life, the class would grow by the addition of things which, for various reasons, were disliked. Note the traces of systemisation in the code. The connexion of the ideas underlying it with institutions so widespread in primitive thought shows that the law carries us back to a period far anterior to Moses, though the distinction between clean and unclean is not mentioned in Exodus 21-23. Clean must be distinguished from holy. The former is the condition of intercourse with all society; the latter of approach to God. Hence, there are grades of holiness; but uncleanness exhibits only differences of duration (until the evening, etc.). The holy and the unclean, however, are alike in being untouchable by man, though for different reasons; hence the Rabbinic phrase, used of canonical books, they defile the hands (p. 39). [We may infer from Hag 2:11-13 that the infection of uncleanness was more virulent than the infection of holiness. Holy flesh could convey holiness to the skirt but the skirt could not convey it to the food it touched. The corpse could convey uncleanness to the person who touched it, and he in turn could convey it to the food. The holy communicates its quality only to one remove, the unclean to two. The reason is apparently that the holiness of a holy thing is always derivative, since nothing is holy in itself but becomes holy only through consecration to God, the sole fount of holiness (p. 196). A thing may, however, be unclean in itself. There are therefore really four terms in the holy, only three in the unclean series in this passage; viz. (a) God, holy flesh, skirt, food; (b) corpse, man unclean through contact, food. Holiness and uncleanness are thus each infectious at two removes from the source, but no further.A. S. P.] The section is probably not original in this place; it breaks the connexion between chs. 10 and 16. Some parts are distinct from the rest, e.g. Lev 11:24-40, Lev 11:43-45; Lev 13:1-46 must have been originally distinct from Lev 14:3-20. A similar code is found in Deuteronomy 14. Probably Deuteronomy 14 is a copy of an older version of Leviticus 11, e.g. Dt. omits the cormorant (17). In one respect Lev. is milder than Dt. (contrast Lev 11:39 f. with Deu 14:21). Lev. adds the permission of leaping insects, and gives a special direction as to fishes.
LAWS CONCERNING LEPROSY (vv. 1-44)
The seriousness of the plague of leprosy is emphasized by the fact that two long chapters are devoted to this subject. The physical illness, however, is significant of that which is far more serious spiritually. In Chapter 12 have seen the sinful nature of mankind dealt with; now this chapter considers that which speaks of the outbreak of the nature in sinful activity. For, though we are not responsible for having a sinful nature, yet we are responsible if we allow it to break out in sinful actions, and today those who form an assembly are responsible to discern and judge evil when it does break out among them.
When something of a questionable character appeared on a person’s skin, then he was to be brought to a priest, who was to examine it, for he might not come voluntarily. All the congregation could not examine him, but a fit representative of the congregation was to do so. Thus, in the assembly, though all believers are priests, yet it would be only those in whom priestly character is developed who are able to rightly discern and judge as to the seriousness of any suspected evil. Those who investigate such things should be those who have godly discernment and experience, and who know how to have compassion on those who are ignorant and going astray (Heb 5:2)
If something appeared on the skin of an individual that turned into a sore similar to leprosy, then a priest was to examine him. If two symptoms were evident, the hair in the sore turned white and the sore deeper than the skin, then no question remained: it was leprosy, and the priest was to pronounce the patient unclean. The white hair would speak of the decay of spiritual strength and the sore deeper than the skin indicates that the sin is not merely a light case of indiscretion. To discern this requires true spiritual perception, and great care must be taken that any judgment should be under the guidance of God. But when the case is clear, then God’s word is clear: the person must be pronounced unclean.
On the other hand, though a bright spot may be white, it if did not appear to be deeper than the skin and its hair had not turned white, the priest’s judgment must be delayed. The person was to be isolated for seven days. This would not speak of one being put out of fellowship, but only of his being deprived of certain privileges of practical fellowship for the time being until the matter was cleared. If no change had taken place after seven days, then another seven days of probation were added. In that time, if the sore had faded and had not spread, the priest was to pronounce the person clean, and he needed only to wash his clothes.
In verse 6 it has been clear that if the sore suspected of being leprosy had not spread, but faded, the patient was pronounced clean. However, if it had spread, it was a different matter: the priest was then to pronounce the man as leprous (v. 8). So for us today, if evil is at work, it will spread: if not, it will fade. How do we discern this? The surest sign that evil is not active is seen in an attitude of self-judgment. In a case like this, an attitude of self-defense almost always indicates that the evil is spreading. It may take a little time to be able to discern whether there is genuine self-judgment, so that verse 7 indicates that there could seem to be self-judgment when it was not really there. If the same thing surfaced again, even after one was pronounced clean, the priest was again to examine the person and if finding it had spread, was to pronounce him unclean. If a believer falls into the same type of sin after being forgiven, this shows that the root of the matter has not been really judged.
Verses 9 to 11 speak of one who has a leprous sore, and the priest finds that the swelling is white, the hair is white and raw flesh appears in the sore. There is no question in this case: the person is pronounced unclean.
Yet if leprosy were to break out all over the skin, covering the patient from head to foot, and the examination of the priest confirmed this, then the person was pronounced clean (vv. 12-13). This may seem strange, but the spiritual significance is most important, for it speaks of one who has totally judged the sin of the flesh in himself: he is fully exposed before God.
But a caution is added: if raw flesh appeared on the person, he was unclean. The priest must again confirm this by examination and pronounce the person unclean, for raw flesh speaks of sin being active.
This might change again, however, the raw flesh disappearing and the sore becoming white, in which case the priest was to pronounce the patient clean (vv. 16-17). Thus, recovery and restoration are still possible, and priestly discernment should be able to recognize a favorable change in the attitude of one who has before been in a bad condition.
One might have a boil that is healed, yet afterward develop from it a swelling or bright spot. The symptoms of leprosy must again be subject to the priest’s examination, and the same principles applied as to discerning whether or not it was leprosy. There are definitely things that differ, as the New Testament also teaches us. A man overtaken in a fault (Gal 6:1) is not the serious case of one who has formed a habit of being an adulterer, covetous, an idolater, a reviler, drunkard or extortioner (1Co 5:11). In the first case, one needs the restoring help of believers; in the second case it is required that he be put away from the fellowship of saints, though with the object of eventual recovery. Some cases are transparently clear, while others have such difficulty as to require special discernment. For this reason, time was given for the priest to be sure as to the case (v. 21). If after time was given the sore spread, the person was unclean; if there was no spreading the priest pronounced him clean (vv. 22-23).
Leprosy could possibly develop from a burn also (v. 24), in which case the same procedure was to be applied. The priest must examine the victim. If there was any doubt he was to be shut up for seven days, and when doubt was removed, then he was to be pronounced clean or unclean, as the case required (vv. 25-28).
From verse 29 to 37 the matter of suspected leprosy in he head or beard is considered. Similar examination was necessary, and if leprosy were confirmed, the patient was unclean: if not, he was pronounced clean. Leprosy in the head would speak of the intellect being wrongly affected by doctrine that is a perversion of the truth. If it were only a matter of one being mistaken, this could be corrected, but if one is committed to holding a seriously false doctrine and after being labored with to seek to correct him, he is determined not to change, then he is rendered unfit for the fellowship of believers.
Verse 38 and 39 deal with a case where there were no real symptoms of leprosy at all, yet it a question were raised, the priest must examine the person and pronounce him clean. Baldness, whether full or partial, was not to be considered suspect (vv. 40-41). Yet a bald head might develop a sore that must also be examined by the priest as in other cases, with the same care, requiring a decision one way or the other.
THE LEPER PUT OUTSIDE (vv. 45-46)
When any case proved to be leprosy, the priest having pronounced the person unclean, then that person was put outside the camp of Israel, with his clothes torn and his upper lip covered, then required to cry out, Unclean, Unclean. Evidently he was to do this if anyone approached him. This compares with a New Testament case of one so seriously involved in sin that he must be put out of the assembly (1Co 5:11-13).
LEPROSY IN A GARMENT (vv. 47-59)
It may seem strange that leprosy might break out in a garment, and there is evidently no actual case of this recorded in scripture, so that therefore the spiritual significance of it seems the important matter. The garment speaks, not of the person, but of habits. If something appeared suspect in the garment, the priest was to exercise the same care in examination as in the case of a person (vv. 50-51) and if the plague was confirmed as leprosy, the garment was to be burned. Thus we should have priestly discernment as to any habits we may adopt. They may seem at first rather innocent, yet alarming symptoms may appear. If the habit has sin plainly involved in it, we should judge it and totally refuse it.
In some cases there may be only an element in the habit that is questionable, so that, as a piece of a garment might be torn out (v. 56), so the questionable element in any habit should be expunged. But after this, the plague might again appear in the garment, and if so, the garment was to be burned. So, if in a certain habit sin breaks out the second time, the habit is to be fully judged and refused.
3. Uncleanness due to skin and covering abnormalities chs. 13-14
Many translations and commentaries have regarded the legislation in these chapters as dealing with leprosy, but this is misleading. The confusion has arisen because the term "leprosy" appears in most English texts in these chapters, and English readers automatically think that what we know as modern leprosy is in view. However as the chapters unfold it becomes increasingly clear that what is in view is not modern leprosy (Hansen’s disease). [Note: See S. G. Browne, Leprosy in the Bible; E. V. Hulse, "The Nature of Biblical ’Leprosy’ and the Use of Alternative Medical Terms in Modern Translations of the Bible," Palestine Exploration Quarterly 107 (1975):87-105; John Wilkinson, "Leprosy and Leviticus: The Problem of Description and Identification," Scottish Journal of Theology 30 (1984):153-69; Rebecca A. and E. Eugene Baillie, M. D., "Biblical Leprosy as Compared to Present-Day Leprosy," Christian Medical Society Journal 14:3 (Fall 1983):27-29.] The solution to the problem involves recognizing that the Septuagint version has influenced the English translations of the Hebrew word used here, tsara’at. In the Septuagint, the Greek word lepra translates tsara’at, and the English translations have simply transliterated this Greek word because of similarities with modern leprosy. The Greeks used a different term for human leprosy: elephantiasis, not lepra. That tsara’at does not mean leprosy becomes especially clear in chapter 14 where we read that tsara’at appeared as mold and mildew in clothes and houses, something modern leprosy does not do. What tsara’at does describe is a variety of abnormalities that afflicted human skin as well as clothing and houses, coverings of various types. Lepra etymologically refers to scaliness, and tsara’at may also. [Note: See Hulse, p. 93; and Browne, p. 5.] Evidently there was enough similarity between these abnormalities for God to deal with them together in this section of Leviticus.
The section contains three parts. Moses frequently divided various material into three subsections in Leviticus. Each part in this section begins, "The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron" (Lev 13:1; Lev 14:1; Lev 14:33), and it closes, "This is the law for" (Lev 13:59; Lev 14:32; Lev 14:54).
The diagnosis and treatment of abnormalities in human skin and clothing ch. 13
We may further divide this chapter into two parts: the diagnosis and treatment of abnormalities in human skin, and the diagnosis and treatment of abnormalities in clothing and similar articles. A more detailed outline of the chapter follows. [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., p. 194.]
Introduction Lev 13:1
First set of tests for skin disease Lev 13:2-8
Second set of tests for skin disease Lev 13:9-17
Third set of tests for skin disease in scars Lev 13:18-23
Fourth set of tests for skin disease in burns Lev 13:24-28
Fifth set of tests for skin disease in scalp or beard Lev 13:29-37
A skin disease that is clean Lev 13:38-39
Baldness and skin disease Lev 13:40-44
Treatment of those diagnosed as unclean Lev 13:45-46
Diagnosis and treatment of skin disease in clothing Lev 13:47-58
Summary Lev 13:59
Rooker saw seven types of infectious skin diseases in Lev 13:1-44: skin eruptions (Lev 13:1-8), chronic skin disease (Lev 13:9-17), boils (Lev 13:18-23), burns (Lev 13:24-28), sores (Lev 13:29-37), rashes (Lev 13:38-39), and baldness (Lev 13:40-44). [Note: Rooker, pp. 186-92.]
Before proceeding, we need to note that by "treatment" we do not mean that God prescribed a way by which people or objects afflicted with "leprosy" could recover. Rather the "treatment" dealt with how people were to relate to God and the sanctuary in view of these problems. He was not dealing with them as a physician but as a public health inspector. His objective was not their physical recovery in this legislation but their proper participation in worship.
Typically in each case we read four things: a preliminary statement of the symptoms, the priestly inspection, the basis of the priest’s diagnosis, and the diagnosis itself and the consequences.
Abnormalities in human skin 13:1-46
God dealt with 21 different cases of skin diseases in this pericope. Some of these may have included measles, smallpox, scarlet fever, and other diseases characterized by skin rash. [Note: Harris, p. 577.] Some authorities believe that exact identification of the various forms of scaly skin disorders described in this chapter is impossible today. [Note: Browne, pp. 5-6.] Others feel more confident. One authority suggested the following identifications. [Note: Hulse, pp. 96-97.]
The swelling, scab, or bright spot (Lev 13:2-28)
Psoriasis: a chronic, non-infectious skin disease characterized by the presence of well-demarcated, slightly raised reddish patches of various sizes covered by dry grayish-white or silvery scales.
An infection on the head or beard (Lev 13:29-37)
Favus: a much more severe and damaging infection in which the fungus invades both the hair and the full thickness of the skin.
Bright spots on the skin (Lev 13:38-39)
Leucoderma: a slightly disfiguring condition in which patches of otherwise normal skin lose their natural coloring and become completely white.
The priests had the responsibility of distinguishing between the clean and the unclean, and they had to teach the people the difference (Lev 10:10-11).
THE UNCLEANNESS OF LEPROSY
Lev 13:1-46
THE interpretation of this chapter presents no little difficulty. The description of the diseases with which the law here deals is not given in a scientific form; the point of view, as the purpose of all, is strictly practical. As for the Hebrew word rendered “leprosy,” it does not itself give any light as to the nature of the disease thus designated. The word simply means “a stroke,” as also does the generic term used in Lev 13:2 and elsewhere, and translated “plague.” Inasmuch as the Septuagint translators rendered the former term by the Greek word “lepra” (whence our word “leprosy”), and as, it is said, the old Greek physicians comprehended under that term only such scaly cutaneous eruptions as are now known as psoriasis (vulg., “saltrheum”), and for what is now known as leprosy reserved the term “elephantiasis,” it has been therefore urged by high authority that in these chapters is no reference to the leprosy of modern speech, but only to some disease or diseases much less serious, either psoriasis or some other, consisting, like that, of a scaly eruption on the skin. To the above argument it is also added that the signs which are given for the recognition of the disease intended, are not such as we should expect if it were the modern leprosy; as, for example, there is no mention of the insensibility of the skin, which is so characteristic a feature of the disease, at least, in a very common variety; moreover, we find in this chapter no allusion to the hideous mutilation which so commonly results from leprosy.
When the use of the Hebrew term rendered “leprosy” is examined, in this law and elsewhere, it certainly seems to be used with great definiteness to describe a disease which had as a very characteristic feature a whitening of the skin throughout, together with other marks common to the early stages of leprosy as given in this chapter. Only in Lev 13:12 does the Hebrew word appear to be applied to a disease of a different character, though also marked by the whitening of the skin. As for the symptoms indicated, the undoubted absence of many conspicuous marks of leprosy may be accounted for by the following considerations. In the first place, with a single exception (Lev 13:9-11), the earliest stages of the disease are described; and, secondly, it may reasonably be assumed that, through the desire to ensure the earliest possible separation of a leprous man from the congregation, signs were to be noted and acted upon, which might also be found in other forms of skin disease. The aim of the law is that, if possible, the man shall be removed from the camp before the disease has assumed its most unambiguous and revolting form. As for the omission to mention the insensibility of the skin of the leper, this seems to be sufficiently explained when we remember that this symptom is characteristic of only one, and that not the most fatal, variety of the disease.
But, it has also been urged, that elsewhere in the Scripture the so-called lepers appear as mingling with other people-as, for example, in the case of Naaman and Gehazi-in a way which shows that the disease was not regarded as contagious; whence it is inferred, again, that the leprosy of which we read in the Bible cannot be the same with the disease which is so called in our time. But, in reply to this objection, it may be answered that even modern medical opinion has been by no means as confident of the contagiousness of the disease-at least, until quite recently-as were people in the middle ages; nor, moreover, can we assume that the prevention of contagion must have been the chief reason for the segregation of the leper, according to the Levitical law, seeing that a like separation was enjoined in many other cases of ceremonial uncleanness where any thought of contagion or infection was quite impossible.
In further support of the more common opinion, which identifies the disease chiefly referred to in this chapter with the leprosy of modern times, the following considerations appear to be of no little weight. In the first place, the words themselves which are applied to the disease in these chapters and elsewhere, -tsaraath and nega, both meaning, etymologically, “a stroke,” i.e., a stroke in some eminent sense, -while peculiarly fitting if the disease be that which we now know as leprosy, seem very strangely chosen if, as Sir Risdon Bennett thinks, they only designate varieties of a disease of so little seriousness as psoriasis. Then, again, the words used by Aaron to Moses, {Num 12:12} referring to the leprosy of Miriam, deserve great weight here: “Let her not, I pray, be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed.” These words sufficiently answer the allegation that there is no certain reference in Scripture to the mutilation which is so characteristic of the later stages of the disease. It would not be easy to describe in more accurate language the condition of the leper as the plague advances; while, on the other hand, if the leprosy of the Bible be only such a light affection as “salt-rheum,” these words and the evident horror which they express, are so exaggerated as to be quite unaccountable.
Then, again, we cannot lose sight of the place which the disease known in Scripture language as leprosy holds in the sight of the law. As a matter of fact, it is singled out from a multitude of diseases as the object of the most stringent and severe regulations, and the most elaborate ceremonial, known to the law. Now, if the disease intended be indeed the awful elephantiasis Graecorum of modern medical science, popularly known as leprosy, this is most natural and reasonable; but if, on the other hand, only some such nonmalignant disease as psoriasis be intended, this fact is inexplicable. Further, the tenour of all references to the disease in the Scripture implies that it was deemed so incurable that its removal in any case was regarded as a special sign of the exercise of Divine power. The reference of the Hebrew maid of Naaman to the prophet of God, {2Ki 5:3} as one who could cure him, instead of proving that it was thought curable-as has been strangely urged-by ordinary means, surely proves the exact opposite. Naaman, no doubt, had exhausted medical resources; and the hope of the maid for him is not based on the medical skill of Elisha, but on the fact that he was a prophet of God, and therefore able to draw on Divine power. To the same effect is the word of the King of Israel, when he received the letter of Naaman: {2Ki 5:7} “Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy?” In full accord with this is the appeal of our Lord {Mat 11:5} to His cleansing of the lepers, as a sign of His Messiahship which He ranks for convincing power along with the raising of the dead.
Nor is it a fatal objection to the usual understanding of this matter, that because the Levitical law prescribes a ritual for the ceremonial cleansing of the leper in case of his cure, therefore the disease so called could not be one of the gravity and supposed incurability of the true leprosy. For it is to be noted, in the first place, that there is no intimation that recovery from the leprosy was a common occurrence, or even that it was to be expected at all, apart from the direct power of God; and, in the second place, that the Scriptural narrative represents God as now and then-though very rarely – interposing for the cure of the leper. And it may perhaps be added, that while a recent authority writes, and with truth, that “medical skill appears to have been more completely foiled by this than by any other malady,” it is yet remarked that, when of the anaesthetic variety, “some spontaneous cures are recorded.”
The chapter before us calls for little detailed exposition. The diagnosis of the disease by the priest is treated under four different heads:
(1) the case of a leprosy rising spontaneously (vv. 1-17, 38, 39);
(2) leprosy rising out of a boil (vv. 18-24);
(3) rising out of a burn (vv. 24-28);
(4) leprosy on the head or beard (vv. 29-37, 40-44).
The indications which are to be noted are described (Lev 13:2-3, Lev 13:24-27, etc.) as a rising of the surface, a scab (or scale), or a bright spot (very characteristic), the presence in the spot of hair turned white, the disease apparently deeper than the outer or scarf skin, a reddish-white colour of the surface, and a tendency to spread. The presence of raw flesh is mentioned (Lev 13:10) as an indication of a leprosy already somewhat advanced, “an old leprosy.” In cases of doubt, the suspected case is to be isolated for a period of seven or, if need be, fourteen days, at the expiration of which the priests verdict is to be given, as the symptoms may then indicate.
Two cases are mentioned which the priest is not to regard as leprosy. The first (Lev 13:12-13) is that in which the plague “covers all the skin of him that hath the plagues from his head even to his feet, as far as appeareth to the priest,” so that he “is all turned white.” At first thought, this seems quite unaccountablet seeing that leprosy finally affects the whole body. But the solution of the difficulty is not far to seek. For the next verse provides that, in such a case, if “raw flesh” appear, he shall be held to be unclean. The explanation of this provision of Lev 13:12 is therefore apparently this: that if an eruption had so spread as to cover the whole body, turning it white, and yet no raw flesh had appeared in any place, the disease could not be true leprosy as, if it were, then, by the time that it had so extended, “raw flesh” would certainly have appeared somewhere. The disease indicated by this exception was indeed well known to the ancients, as it is also to the moderns as the “dry tetter”; which, although an affection often of long duration, frequently disappears spontaneously, and is never malignant.
The second case which is specified as not to be mistaken for leprosy is mentioned in Lev 13:38-39, where it is described as marked by bright spots of a dull whiteness, but without the white hair, and other characteristic signs of leprosy. The Hebrew word by which it is designated is rendered in the Revised Version “tetter”; and the disease, a nonmalignant tetter or eczema, is still known in the East under the same name (bohak) which is here used.
Lev 13:45-46 give the law for him who has been by the priest adjudged to be a leper. He must go with clothes rent, with his hair neglected, his lip covered, crying, “Unclean! unclean!” without the camp, and there abide alone for so long as he continues to be afflicted with the disease. In other words, he is to assume all the ordinary signs of mourning for the dead; he is to regard himself, and all others are to regard him, as a dead man. As it were, he is a continual mourner at his own funeral.
Wherein lay the reason for this law? One might answer, in general, that the extreme loathsomeness of the disease, which made the presence of those who had it to be abhorrent, even to their nearest friends, would of itself make it only fitting, however distressing might be the necessity, that such persons should be excluded from every possibility of appearing, in their revolting corruption, in the sacred and pure precincts of the tabernacle of the holy God, as also from mingling with His people. Many, however, have seen in the regulation only a wise law of public hygiene. That a sanitary intent may very probably have been included in the purpose of this law, we are by no means inclined to deny. In earlier times, and all through the middle ages, the disease was regarded as contagious; and lepers were accordingly segregated, as far as practicable, from the people. In modern times, the weight of opinion until recent years has been against this older view; but the tendency of medical authority now appears to be to reaffirm the older belief. The alarming increase of this horrible disease in all parts of the world, of late, following upon a general relaxation of those precautions against contagion which were formerly thought necessary, certainly supports this judgment; and it may thus be easily believed that there was just sanitary ground for the rigid regulations of the Mosaic code. And just here it may be remarked, that if indeed there be any degree of contagiousness, however small, in this plague, no one who has ever seen the disease, or understands anything of its incomparable horror and loathsomeness, will feel that there is any force in the objections which have been taken to this part of the Mosaic law as of inhuman harshness toward the sufferers. Even were the risk of contagion but small, as it probably is, still, so terrible is the disease that one would more justly say that the only inhumanity were to allow those afflicted with it unrestricted intercourse with their fellow men. The truth is, that the Mosaic law concerning the treatment of the leper, when compared with regulations touching lepers which have prevailed among other nations, stands contrasted with them by its comparative leniency. The Hindoo law, as is well known, even insists that the leper ought to put himself out of existence, requiring that he shall be buried alive.
But if there be included in these regulations a sanitary intent, this certainly does not exhaust their significance. Rather, if this be admitted, it only furnishes the basis, as in the case of the laws concerning clean and unclean meats, for still more profound spiritual teaching. For, as remarked before, it is one of the fundamental thoughts of the Mosaic law, that death, as being the extreme visible manifestation of the presence of sin in the race, and a sign of the consequent holy wrath of God against sinful man, is inseparably connected with legal uncleanness. But all disease is a forerunner of death, an incipient dying; and is thus, no less really than actual death, a visible manifestation of the presence and power of sin working in the body through death. And yet it is easy to see that it would have been quite impracticable to carry out a law that therefore all disease should render the sick person ceremonially unclean; while, on the other hand, it was of consequence that Israel, and we as well, should be kept in remembrance of this connection between sin and disease, as death beginning. What could have been more fitting, then, than this, that the one disease which, without exaggeration, is of all diseases the most loathsome, which is most manifestly a visible representation of that which is in a measure true of all disease, that it is death working in life, that disease which is, not in a merely rhetorical sense, but in fact, a living image of death, -should be selected from all others for the illustration of this principle: to be to Israel and to us, a visible, perpetual, and very awful parable of the nature and the working of sin?
And this is precisely what has been done. This explains, as sanitary considerations alone do not, not merely the separation of the leper from the holy people, but also the solemn symbolism which required him to assume the appearance of one mourning for the dead; as also the symbolism of his cleansing, which, in like manner, corresponded very closely with that of the ritual of cleansing from defilement by the dead. Hence, while all sickness, in a general way, is regarded in the Holy Scriptures as a fitting symbol of sin, it has always been recognised that, among all diseases, leprosy is this in an exceptional and preeeminent sense. This thought seems to have been in the mind of David, when, after his murder of Uriah and adultery with Bathsheba, bewailing his iniquity, {Psa 51:7} he prayed, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean.” For the only use of the hyssop in the law, which could be alluded to in these words is that which is enjoined {Lev 14:4-7} in the law for the cleansing of the leper, by the sprinkling of the man to be cleansed with blood and water with a hyssop branch.
And thus we find that, again, this elaborate ceremonial contains, not merely an instructive lesson in public sanitation, and practical suggestions in hygiene for our modern times; but also lessons, far more profound and momentous, concerning that spiritual malady with which the whole human race is burdened, -lessons therefore of the gravest personal consequence for every one of us.
From among all diseases, leprosy has been selected by the Holy Ghost to stand in the law as the supreme type of sin, as seen by God! This is the very solemn fact which is brought before us in this chapter. Let us well consider it and see that we receive the lesson, however humiliating and painful, in the spirit of meekness and penitence. Let us so study it that we shall with great earnestness and true faith resort to the true and heavenly High Priest, who alone can cleanse us of this sore malady. And in order to this, we must carefully consider what is involved in this type.
In the first place, leprosy is undoubtedly selected to be a special type of sin, on account of its extreme loathsomeness. Beginning, indeed, as an insignificant spot, “a bright place,” a mere scale on the skin, it goes on spreading, progressing ever from worse to worse, till at last limb drops from limb, and only the hideous mutilated remnant of what was once a man is left. A vivid picture of the horrible reality has been given by that veteran missionary and very accurate observer, the Rev. William Thomson, D.D., who writes thus: “As I was approaching Jerusalem, I was startled by the sudden apparition of a crowd of beggars, sans eyes, sans nose, sans hair, sans everything They held up their handless arms, unearthly sounds gurgled through throats without palates, -in a word, I was horrified.” Too horrible is this to be repeated or thought of? Yes! But then all the more solemnly instructive is it that the Holy Spirit should have chosen this disease, the most loathsome of all, as the most fatal of all, to symbolise to us the true nature of that spiritual malady which affects us all, as it is seen by the omniscient and most holy God.
But it will very naturally be rejoined by some: Surely it were gross exaggeration to apply this horrible symbolism to the case of many who, although indeed sinners, unbelievers also in Christ, yet certainly exhibit truly lovely and attractive characters. That this is true regarding many who, according to the Scriptures, are yet unsaved, cannot be denied. We read of one such in the Gospel, -a young man, unsaved, who yet was such that “Jesus looking upon him loved him.” {Mar 10:20} But this fact only makes the leprosy the more fitting symbol of sin. For another characteristic of the disease is its insignificant and often even imperceptible beginning. We are told that in the case of those who inherit the taint, it frequently remains quite dormant in early life, only gradually appearing in later years.
How perfectly the type, in this respect, then, symbolises sin! And surely any thoughtful man will confess that this fact makes the presence of the infection not less alarming, but more so. No comfort then can be rightly had from any complacent comparison of our own characters with those of many, perhaps professing more, who are much worse than we, as the manner of some is. No one who knew that from his parents he had inherited the leprous taint, or in whom the leprosy as yet appeared as only an insignificant bright spot, would comfort himself greatly by the observation that other lepers were much worse; and that he was, as yet, fair and goodly to look upon. Though the leprosy were in him but just begun, that would be enough to fill him with dismay and consternation. So should it be with regard to sin.
And it would so affect such a man the more surely, when he knew that the disease, however slight in its beginnings, was certainly progressive. This is one of the unfailing marks of the disease. It may progress slowly, but it progresses surely. To quote again the vivid and truthful description of the above-named writer,
“It comes on by degrees in different parts of the body: the hair fails from the head and eyebrows; the nails loosen, decay, and drop off; joint after joint of the fingers and toes shrinks up and slowly falls away; the gums are absorbed, and the teeth disappear; the nose, the eyes, the tongue, and the palate are slowly consumed; and, finally, the wretched victim sinks into the earth and disappears.”
In this respect again the fitness of the disease to stand as an eminent type of sin is undeniable. No man can morally stand still. No one has ever retained the innocence of childhood. Except as counteracted by the efficient grace of the Holy Spirit in the heart, the Word {2Ti 3:13} is ever visibly fulfilled, “evil men wax worse and worse.” Sin may not develop in all with equal rapidity, but it does progress in every natural man, outwardly or inwardly, with equal certainty.
It is another mark of leprosy that sooner or later it affects the whole man; and in this, again, appears the sad fitness of the disease to stand as a symbol of sin. For sin is not a partial disorder, affecting only one class of faculties, or one part of our nature. It disorders the judgment; it obscures our moral perceptions; it either perverts the affections, or unduly stimulates them in one direction, while it deadens them in another; it hardens and quickens the will for evil, while it paralyses its power for the volition of that which is holy. And not only the Holy Scripture, but observation itself, teaches us that sin, in many cases, also affects the body of man, weakening its powers, and bringing in, by an inexorable taw, pain, disease, and death. Sooner or later, then, sin affects the whole man. And for that reason, again, is leprosy set forth as its preeeminent symbol.
It is another remarkable feature of the disease that, as it progresses from bad to worse, the victim becomes more and more insensible. This numbness or insensibility of the spots affected-in one most common variety at least-is a constant feature. In some cases it becomes so extreme that a knife may be thrust into the affected limb, or the diseased flesh may be burnt with fire, and yet the leper feels no pain. Nor is the insensibility confined to the body, but, as the leprosy extends, the mind is affected in an analogous manner. A recent writer says: “Though a mass of bodily corruption, at last unable to leave his bed, the leper seems happy and contented with his sad condition.” Is anything more characteristic than this of the malady of sin? The sin which, when first committed, costs a keen pang, afterward, when frequently repeated, hurts not the conscience at all. Judgments and mercies, which in earlier life affected one with profound emotion, in later life leave the impenitent sinner as unmoved as they found him. Hence we all recognise the fitness of the common expression, “a seared conscience,” as also of the Apostles description of advanced sinners as men who are “past feeling”. {Eph 4:19} Of this moral insensibility which sin produces, then, we are impressively reminded when the Holy Spirit in the Word holds before us leprosy as a type of sin.
Another element of the solemn fitness of the type is found in the persistently hereditary nature of leprosy. It may indeed sometimes arise of itself, even as did sin in the case of certain of the holy angels, and with our first parents; but when once it is introduced, in the case of any person, the terrible infection descends with unfailing certainty to all his descendants; and while, by suitable hygiene, it is possible to alleviate its violence, and retard its development, it is not possible to escape the terrible inheritance. Is anything more uniformly characteristic of sin? We may raise no end of metaphysical difficulties about the matter, and put unanswerable questions about freedom and responsibility; but there is no denying the hard fact that since sin first entered the race, in our first parents, not a child of man, of human father begotten, has escaped the taint. If various external influences, as in the case of leprosy, may, in some instances, modify its manifestations, yet no individual, in any class or condition of mankind, escapes the taint. The most cultivated and the most barbarous alike, come into the world so constituted that, quite antecedent to any act of free choice on their part, we know that it is not more certain that they will eat than that, when they begin to exercise freedom, they will, each and every one, use their moral freedom wrongly, -in a word, will sin. No doubt, then, when such prominence is given to leprosy among diseases, in the Mosaic symbolism and elsewhere, it is with intent, among other truths, to keep before the mind this very solemn and awful fact with regard to the sin which it so fitly symbolises.
And, again, we find yet another analogy in the fact that, among the ancient Hebrews, the disease was regarded as incurable by human means; and, notwithstanding occasional announcements in our day that a remedy has been discovered for the plague, this seems to be the verdict of the best authorities in medical science still. That in this respect leprosy perfectly represents the sorer malady of the soul, everyone is witness. No possible effort of will or fixedness of determination has ever availed to free a man from sin. Even the saintliest Christian has often to confess with the Apostle, {Rom 7:19} “The evil which I would not, that I practise.” Neither is culture, whether intellectual or religious, of any more avail. To this all human history testifies. In our day despite the sad lessons of long experience, many are hoping for much from improved government, education, and such like means; but vainly, and in the face of the most patent facts. Legislation may indeed impose restrictions on the more flagrant forms of sin, even as it may be of service in restricting the devastations of leprosy, and ameliorating the condition of lepers. But to do away with sin, and abolish crime by any conceivable legislation, is a dream as vain as were the hope of curing leprosy by a good law or an imperial proclamation. Even the perfect law of God has proved inadequate for this end; the Apostle {Rom 8:3} reminds us that in this it has failed, and could not but fail, “in that it was weak through the flesh.” Nothing can well be of more importance than that We should be keenly alive to this fact; that so we may not, through our present apparently tolerable condition, or by temporary alleviations of the trouble, be thrown off our guard, and hope for ourselves or for the world, upon grounds which afford no just reason for hope.
Last of all, the law of leprosy, as given in this chapter, teaches the supreme lesson, that as with the symbolic disease of the body so with that of the soul, sin shuts out from God and from the fellowship of the holy. As the leper was excluded from the camp of Israel and from the tabernacle of Jehovah, so must the sinner, except cleansed, be shut out of the Holy City, and from the glory of the heavenly temple. What a solemnly significant parable is this exclusion of the leper from the camp! He is thrust forth from the congregation of Israel, wearing the insignia of mourning for the dead! Within the camp, the multitude of them that go to the sanctuary of God, and that joyfully keep holy day; without, the leper dwelling alone, in his incurable corruption and never-ending mourning! And so, while we do not indeed deny a sanitary intention in these regulations of the law, but are rather inclined to affirm it; yet of far more consequence is it that we heed the spiritual truth which this solemn symbolism teaches. It is that which is written in the Apocalypse {Rev 21:27; Rev 22:15} concerning the New Jerusalem: “There shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean. Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone that loveth and maketh a lie.”
In view of all these correspondences, one need not wonder that in the symbolism of the law leprosy holds the place which it does. For what other disease can be named which combines in itself, as a physical malady, so many of the most characteristic marks of the malady of the soul? In its intrinsic loathsomeness, its insignificant beginnings, its slow but inevitable progress, in the extent of its effects, in the insensibility which accompanies it, in its hereditary character, in its incurability, and, finally, in the fact that according to the law it involved the banishment of the leper from the camp of Israel, -in all these respects, it stands alone as a perfect type of sin; it is sin, as it were, made visible in the flesh.
This is indeed a dark picture of mans natural state, and very many are exceedingly loth to believe that sin can be such a very serious matter. Indeed, the fundamental postulate of much of our nineteenth-century thought, in matters both of politics and religion, denies the truth of this representation, and insists, on the contrary, that man is naturally not bad, but good; and that, on the whole, as the ages go by, he is gradually becoming better and better. But it is imperative that our views of sin and of humanity shall agree with the representations held before us in the Word of God. When that Word, not only in type, as in this chapter, but in plain language, {Jer 17:9, R.V} declares that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and it is desperately sick, ” it must be a very perilous thing to deny this.
It is a profoundly instructive circumstance that, according to this typical law, the case of the supposed leper was to be judged by the priest (Lev 13:2-3, et passim). All turned for him upon the priests verdict. If he declared him clean, it was well; but if he pronounced him unclean, it made no difference that the man did not believe it, or that his friends did not believe it; or that he or they thought better in any respect of his case than the priest, -out of the camp he must go. He might plead that he was certainly not nearly in so bad a case as some of the poor, mutilated, dying creatures outside the camp; but that would have no weight, however true. For still he, no less really than they, was a leper; and, until made whole, into the fellowship of lepers he must go and abide. Even so for us all; everything turns, not on our own opinion of ourselves, or on what other men may think of us; but solely on the verdict of the heavenly Priest.
The picture thus set before us in the symbolism of this chapter is sad enough; but it would be far more sad did the law not now carry forward the symbolism into the region of redemption, in making provision for the cleansing of the leper, and his readmission into the fellowship of the holy people. To this our attention is called in the next chapter.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
The home of leprosy has in all ages been Syria and Egypt and the countries adjacent to them, but Europe has not escaped the scourge. In the Middle Ages, no European country was free from it; London had at one time six leper houses; cases were found not unfrequently in Scotland till the middle of the last century; and there was a death certified by medical science to have resulted from leprosy in the city of Norwich in the year 1880. The object of the regulations relating to leprosy is no more sanitary than of those relating to unclean meats. Like the latter, they may have served a sanitary purpose, for leprosy is, according to the prevailing medical opinion, slightly, though only slightly, contagious. Because leprosy was hideous and foul, it therefore made the man affected by it unclean, and before he could be restored to communion with God and his people, he must be certified by God’s priest to be delivered from the disease. As in the previous cases, physical ugliness and defilement represent spiritual depravity and viciousness. “The Levitical law concerning leprosy reveals to us the true nature of sin. It shows its hideousness and its foulness, and fills us with shame, hatred, and loathing for it. And it reveals to us the inestimable benefit which we have received from the incarnation of the Son of God, ‘the Sun of Righteousness, with healing in his wings’ (Mal 4:2); and fills us with joy, thankfulness, and love to him for his infinite goodness to us” (Wordsworth). Leprosy, the most loathsome of all common diseases, is the type and symbol of sin, and the ceremonial uncleanness attaching to it is a parable of the moral foulness of sin.
They made him stand, and wait his doom:
And, as if he were condemned to the tomb,
Began to mutter their hocus-pocus.
First, the mass for the dead they chanted,
Then three times laid upon his head
A shovelful of churchyard clay,
Saying to him, as he stood undaunted.
‘This is a sign that thou art dead;
So in thy heart be penitent!’
And forth from the chapel door he went
Into disgrace and banishment,
Clothed in a cloak of hodden gray,
And bearing a wallet, and a bell,
Whose sound should be a perpetual knell
To keep all travellers away.”
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Laws Concerning Leprosy
PRELIMINARY NOTE
In the first place, then, it appears indisputable that leprosy is a broad name covering several varieties of disease more or less related to one another. These are separable into two main classes, one covering the different, forms of Elephantiasis (tuberculated and ansthetic); the other, the Lepra vulgaris. Psoriasis, Syphilis, etc. It is the former class alone with which Leviticus has to do as a disease. At the present time the tuberculated variety is said to be the more common in those countries in which leprosy still exists to any considerable extent, while the ansthetic was probably more prevalent in the time of Moses. The latter is described by Celsus under the name of , and Keil maintains that the laws of Moses in regard to leprosy in man relate exclusively to this. Clark, however, has shown that the two in a great number of cases work together, and as it did in the days of Moses, the disease appears occasionally in an ambiguous form. Wilson has recorded a number of cases in detail, showing the interchange of the two forms in the same patient. The symptoms of the disease intended by Moses sufficiently appear in the text itself, and if these symptoms cover what would now appear in medical nomenclature as different diseases, then all those diseases, classified under the general name of leprosy were intended to be included in the Levitical legislation.
Medical observations upon the disease in modern times have been made in the island of Guadaloupe, where it broke out about the middle of the last century, and was very carefully investigated by M. Peyssonel, a physician sent out by the French government for the purpose. An account of the result, of his examination, as well as of other investigations of English, French, and German physicians in other islands of the West Indies whither it had been imported from Africa, and in other parts of the world is given by Michaelis (Laws of Moses, Art. 208, 210). Also of especial importance is a Report on the leprosy in Norway by Dr. Danielssen, chief physician of the leper hospital at Bergen, and Prof. Boeck (Paris, 1848). The subject of late years has considerably interested physicians, and the London College of physicians have published a report upon it, based upon a series of questions addressed to nearly all parts of the world where the disease now prevails. Many other authorities are cited by Clark in his preliminary note to these chapters. A particularly valuable discussion of the disease may be found in Wilson, Diseases of the skin, ch. xiii. (5th Am. Ed., pp. 300314 and 333381). The disease appears to have been more or less common in Western Europe from the eighth century down, but received a great extension at the time of the crusades. At one time a partial enumeration by Dugdale mentions eighty-five leper houses in England alone, six of which were in London, and it continued to linger in Scotland until the middle of the last century. It still exists to a considerable extent in Iceland and Norway, and in all the countries bordering the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean, especially Syria and Egypt, where it has found a home in all ages, in some parts of Africa, Arabia, and India.
Leprosy, with these characteristics, especially its hidden origin, and its insidious and resistless progress, has always seemed a mysterious disease, and among the heathen as well as among the Jews, has been looked upon as an infliction especially coming from God. In fact in Hebrew history it was so often employed in Divine judgments, as in the case of Miriam, of Gehazi, and of Uzziah, and was also so often healed by miraculous interposition, as in the case of Miriam also, and of Naaman, as to give some reason for this belief; while the peculiar treatment it received in the law tended still further to place leprosy in a position of alienation from the theocratic state, and actually included the leper in that uncleanness which was utterly excluded from approach to the sanctuary. The disease thus became a vivid symbolism of sin, and of the opposition in which this stands to the holiness of God; while at the same time its revolting aspect in its later stages made it such an image, and indeed a beginning, of death itself that it is often most appropriately described by Jewish as well as other writers as a living death. Much of the association with death and the body in the corruption of death, thus attached to leprosy and the corruption at work in leprosy. It is not necessary here to speak of the prevailing Hebrew notion that all suffering was the consequence of individual sin, and was proportioned in severity to the degree of that sin; for however deeply seated such ideas may have been in the minds of many of the Israelites, and however much they may have increased the popular dread and abhorrence of leprosy, they find no shadow of encouragement whatever in the law.
In regard to what is called leprosy in houses, in textile fabrics, and in leather, it is not necessary to suppose that the name is intended to convey the idea of an organic disease in these inanimate things. The law will still be sufficiently clear if we look upon the name as merely applied in these cases to express a kind of disintegration or corruption, such as could be most readily and popularly described, from certain similarities in appearance, by the figurative use of the word. In the same way the terms out of joint, sick, and others have come among ourselves to be popularly used of inanimate things, and such words as blistered, bald, and rotten, have a technical figurative sense almost more common than their original literal one. These modes of disintegration have been often investigated with great learning and labor; but it is not surprising that at this distance of time, and after such profound changes in the arts and the habits of men, the result of all such investigations should remain somewhat unsatisfactory. Just enough has been ascertained to show that inanimate things, of the classes here described, are subject to processes of decay which might be aptly described by the word leprosy; but precisely what the processes were to which the Levitical law had reference it is probably impossible now to ascertain definitely. The most satisfactory treatment of the subject from this point of view is to be found in Michaelis (ubi supra, Art. 211). He instances in regard to houses, the formation of saltpetre or other nitrous salts upon the walls to such an extent in some parts of Germany as to become an article of commercial importance, and to be periodically scraped off for the market. By others the existence of iron pyrites in the dolomitic limestone used for building in Palestine has been suggested as leading in its decomposition to precisely the appearances described in the lawhollow streaks of the green ferrous sulphate and the red of ferric sulphateupon the walls of the houses affected; but proof is wanting of the existence in that stone of pyrites in sufficient abundance to produce the effects contemplated in the law. Both these explanations, however, are suggestive of methods of disintegration which might have occurred, but for the determination of which we have not sufficient data. It is the same with the explanation of Michaelis in regard to woolen fabrics,that the wool itself is affected by diseases of the sheep upon which it has grown. The fact itself does not seem sufficiently well authenticated; nor if it were, would it be applicable to garments of linen. Nevertheless, this is suggestive of defects in the materials,which were in all cases of organic productionarising either from diseased growth, or from unskilfulness in the art of their preparation, which would after a time manifest themselves in the product, much in the same way as old books now sometimes become spotted over with a leprosy arising from an insufficient removal of the chemicals employed in the preparation of the paper pulp.
No mention has thus far been made of a theory of this disease adopted by many physicians, and which, if established, might really assimilate the leprosy in houses and garments and skins to that in the human body, and explain the origin of all alike by the same cause. According to this theory, the disease is occasioned by vegetable spores, which find a suitable nidus for their development either in the human skin or in the other substances mentioned. If this theory should be accepted, the origin and effects of the disintegrating agencies would be the same in all cases. The late eminent physician, Dr. J. K. Mitchell, in his work upon the origin of malarious and epidemic fevers (Five Essays, p. 94), after quoting the law in relation to leprosy, says: There is here described a disease whose cause must have been of organic growth, capable of living in the human being, and of creating there a foul and painful disease of contagious character, while it could also live and reproduce itself in garments of wool, linen, or skin; nay more, it could attach itself to the walls of a house, and there also effect its own reproduction. Animalcules, always capable of choice, would scarcely be found so transferable; and we are therefore justified in supposing that green or red fungi so often seen in epidemic periods, were the protean disease of man, and his garment, and his house. He further quotes from Hecker statements corroboratory of his views in regard to the plagues of 786 and 959. This theory, however, has not here been urged, partly because it yet needs further proof, partly because no theory at all is necessary to account for the Levitical legislation in view of the facts presented in the law.
Hence it appears also as a polluting element of physical corruption, not only in men, but also through the analogy of an evil diffusing itself, in human garments and dwellings. The analogous evils of these were, on this account, called leprosy.
In this extension over man and his whole sphere it is, in its characteristics, a speaking picture of sin and of evil the punishment of sin; it is, so to speak, the plastic manifestation, the medical phantom or representation of all the misery of sin.
Accordingly the leprosy, and the contact with it, is the specific uncleanness which excluded the bearer of it from the theocratic community, so that he, as the typically excommunicated person, must dwell without the camp.
Nothing is here said of the application of human means of healing in reference to this evil. The leper was left with his sickness to the mercy of God and to the wonderfully deep antithesis of recovery and death; the more so, since leprosy in a peculiar sense is a chronic crisis, a progressive disease, continually secreting matter, whether for life or for death. Mention is made of external counteraction only in regard to leprosy in garments and houses. Hence, from its nature, it is altogether placed under the supervision of the priest. The priest knew the characteristics of the leprosy, and the course of its crises; he had accordingly to decide upon the exclusion and upon the restoration of the sick, and to express the latter by the performance of the sacrifice of purification brought for this purpose by the convalescent.
Thus in conformity to the spirit of Oriental antiquity, the priest here appears as the physician also for bodily sicknesses, as a watchman over the public health. But for the cosmic evils he was still less a match than for those of the body; against such the prophet must reveal miraculous helps, e.g., against the bitterness of the water, and against the bite of the fiery serpents.
The name Leprosy, is derived from to strike down, to strike to the ground; the leprosy is the stroke of God. Gesenius distinguishes the leprosy in men, the leprosy in houses (probably the injury done by saltpetre), and the leprosy in garments (mould, mildew). On this chronic form of sickness, fully equal to the acute form of the plague, comp the article Leprosy (Aussatz) in the dictionaries, especially in Herzogs Real-encyclopdie, and in Winer. Four principal forms are distinguished, of which three are particularly described by Winer: 1) The white leprosy, Barras, . This prevailed among the Hebrews (2Ki 5:27, etc.) and has hence been called by physicians lepra Mosaica. See the description in Winer, I. p. 114. 2) The Elephantiasis, lepra nodosa, or tuberculosa, tubercular leprosy, Egyptian boil, thus endemic in Egypt. The sickness of Job was commonly considered in antiquity to have been this kind of leprosy. 3) The black leprosy or the dark Barras. Later medical researches (to which the articles in Bertheaus Conversations-lexicon, and Schenkels Bibel-lexicon refer) show the differences between the various kinds as less defined; the contagious character is called in question by Furrer (in Schenkel). In this matter indeed, it is a question whether the rigid isolation of the leprous has not hindered, in a great degree, the examples of contagion. For a catalogue of the literature, see Knobel, p. 469 and beyond.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
FIRE ON THE ALTAR NOT TO GO OUT
Of course, it will not be expected that on this occasion I should attempt any thing more than to illustrate the subject that is immediately before me. But I greatly mistake, if that alone will not amply suffice to justify my introductory observation; and to shew, that an investigation of the Law in all its parts would well repay the labours of the most diligent research.
The point for our present consideration is, the particular appointment, that the fire on the altar should never be suffered to go out. I will endeavour to set forth,
1.
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary