Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 13:47

The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, [whether it be] a woolen garment, or a linen garment;

Leprosy in garments (47 59)

The nature of these spots in clothing is not clear. It is generally supposed that they are caused by mildew or moth (see Art. Leprosy, HDB.); another suggestion is that the clothing had been worn by a leprous person, but this is not stated in the text. The materials of the garments are either wool, linen, or skin.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

The garment – Rather, The clothing, referring to the ordinary dress of the Israelites in the wilderness; namely,, a linen tunic with a fringe Num 15:38 and a woolen cloak or blanket thrown on in colder weather.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Lev 13:47-59

Leprosy in a garment.

The leprosy of garments

I do not suppose that this leprosy of garments and skins was just the same disease of that name which attacked the human system. It may have been; and one may have sometimes taken it from the other; but we are not required to take this view. It is enough to understand it to be some affection of woven fabrics bearing a general resemblance to a leprous affection of the living body. As the life and comeliness of the leper are fretted away by his disease, so clothes and skins are affected by dampness, mould, or the settling in them of animalculae, fretting away their strength and substance. Michaelis, who very thoroughly investigated this whole subject, speaks of dead wool, that is, the wool of sheep which have died by disease, as particularly liable to damage of this sort. His explanation is, that it loses its points and breeds impurity; and that when made into cloth and warmed by the natural heat of the wearer, it soon becomes bare and falls in holes, as if eaten by some invisible vermin. The unsoundness and unhealthiness of fabrics made of such materials were thought so serious by this learned investigator, that he strongly urges the interference of legal enactments to prohibit the use of such wool in the manufacture of cloths. It is evidently to some such affections that God refers in these laws concerning the leprosy of garments; not because they were so particularly noxious or dangerous, but for typical purposes. The proper vindication of all these ceremonial regulations is their lively signification of moral and religious ideas. We have seen that leprosy in the living body represents sin as it lives and works in man. Leprosy in clothing must therefore refer to disorder and contagion around man. There is disease breeding in everything about us, as well as in us. Jude speaks of the garment spotted by the flesh. Christ commends a few names in Sardis because they had not defiled their garments. The reference in these and like passages plainly is to the matter of external contact with the world, and to the liability of Christians to be tainted by their earthly surroundings. The phraseology, however, is borrowed from these ancient laws. It contemplates the associations of a man as his clothing. Morally speaking, the state of things in which we live is our garment. It is that which is put upon us when we come into life, which we continually wear while in the world, and which we put off when we die. It includes all the circumstances in which we are placed, the business in which we engage, the social systems under which we act, our comforts and associations in the world, and all the outward every-day occurrences which enter into and shape our external existence. You will notice that these laws do not prohibit, but rather enjoin, the use of clothing. Toil is good; and family relations are good; and society in all its complex and varied affairs is good. We cannot sever ourselves from anything which it imposes without interference with God and detriment to ourselves. But whilst all these natural surroundings are good, they are liable to disease, and may become the sources of infection and evil. They may become tainted, and so help to render us unclean. Society is as capable of corruption as the individual; and with this augmentation of mischief, that it reacts upon the individual, and may contaminate and deprave him still more than he would otherwise be. The fact is, that our social factors have introduced a great deal of dead wool into the fabrics which men in this world are compelled to wear. Take the subject of government. Civil rule is ordained of God. It is meant for good. And when framed upon principles of righteousness, earth knows no higher blessing. It is a defence for the weak, a restraint upon outbreaking passion, a handmaid to social dignity, the bulwark of freedom, the grand regulator of the outward world. And yet, how leprous has government often become! What curses has it inflicted upon man! It has been breeding leprosy and plague for six thousand years. And not the least among its dreadful contaminations has been its deleterious effects upon the virtue of mankind. An arbitrary and tyrannical government cripples and stunts morality in its very germ, by divesting goodness of its proper reward, and making justice yield to the bribes of power and gain. It makes outward authority or sordid passion, instead of inward conviction and moral principle, the rule of conduct. Take the domestic relations. God saw that it was not good for the man to be alone. He has set mankind in families. He has ordained the home, and made it the seat and centre of the mightiest influences that work in society. Yet, how often may we find the leprous plague fretting into the warp and woof of the domestic fabric, and forming a moral atmosphere about the plastic souls of infancy and childhood, more awful than upas shades and more desolating than Lybian siroccos! Take business. It is necessary to engage in it. God himself commands it. Virtue, and religion, and even earthly comfort, require it. But how liable to become corrupt, and a mere instrument of death. The commercial world is a very trying world upon the health of honour and honesty. Take education and literature. We must have schools and books. They are an indispensable part of the great machinery of human progress. But they are apt to become leprous, and to impart contagion. Oh, what a power of mischief has gone out upon the world from schools and books. How has Genius descended from the altars of Heaven, to light her torch at the flames below! Dead wool is in much of the cloth she wears. Take even the Church. By it redemption is conveyed to men; and outside of it man has no Saviour and no hope. And yet it is one of those garments around us which are liable to leprous taint. Instead of serving as a house of prayer, it has sometimes been a mere den of thieves. Instead of a nursery of faith, hope, and charity, it has often been a nest for pestilential superstition, narrow self-righteousness, and intolerant bigotry. But I need not enter further into specifications of this sort. You can see plainly that nothing around us in this world is so holy or so good but that it may be perverted to base uses, and rendered the instrument of contamination and exclusion from the camp of Gods saints. And whilst we continue upon the earth, not one of us shall ever be able to escape liability to become leprous from the social influences which hang upon and beset us continually. Having thus looked at the disorder, let us now direct our attention to the prescriptions concerning it

1. The first thing I notice here is that God set every Israelite on the lookout for it. This must necessarily have been the direct effect of the announcement of these laws. Every article of clothing was at once thrown under suspicion. Now there is a kind of suspiciousness which I would not encourage. There is an affection arising from a bad conscience or a bad heart–a feeling closely akin to ugly jealousy, which mistrusts everything and everybody. It is just the contrary of that charity which believeth all things, hopeth all things. And the farther any one can keep himself from it the better for his own comfort, and for the good of those around him. But there is a suspiciousness which is good. It mingles with the deepest piety and goes along with the greatest usefulness. But it is a suspicion of self rather than a suspicion of others. It is a jealousy for ones own purity–a holy fear of doing wrong or of being led into evil. It is a diligent watchfulness over self–a careful guarding against the contaminations of evil. It is a suspiciousness based upon the clear evidence that everything is liable to corruption, and that there is continual danger of falling into condemnation. It is a sacred dread of sin–the desire of a pure heart to keep unspotted from the world. It sets a man upon the lookout for dangers in all his earthly surroundings.

2. A second particular in this law, to which I will call your attention, is, that whenever any symptoms appeared which might perhaps be leprous, the case was always to be immediately submitted to the judgment of the priest. The priest typified Christ; and his office, the office of Christ. And a great Christian lesson here comes to our view. Human judgment is weak. The wisest of men has said, He that trusteth to his own heart is a fool. We need light from heaven. Jesus is the only reliable arbiter. There are many instances in which nothing can guide us safely but His own decisive Word. And this law pointed forward to the fact that Christ is our Teacher and Judge–that He is to be our authoritative Instructor–and that by His decision we are to know what is not pure.

3. A third particular in these laws relates to the treatment which a garment declared to be leprous was to receive. This varied somewhat with the nature of the symptoms. If the affection was active and rapid in its progress, the article was at once to be burned, whether warp or woof, in woollen or in linen, or anything of skin. It mattered not how valuable the article was, or how great the inconvenience of its loss, it was to be destroyed by fire. We are bound, as Christians, at once to cut loose for ever from everything infected. If the affection, however, was not active and fretting, remedial measures were to be adopted, if possible, to cleanse and save the garment. The natural remedy for defilement was to be applied. And here comes in the whole subject of reform. This is the natural remedy for all manageable social disorders. I say all manageable ones; for as some garments were so badly affected as to be doomed at once to burning, so there are some infections in the surroundings of man in this world which never can be healed. Take, for instance, some of our popular amusements. That they are leprous none will deny. What hope is there of reforming them? Theirs is a fret inward, and there is no help for them. No washing can get them clean. And the only alternative for Christians is to separate themselves from them entirely. These, and such like infected articles, are past cleansing. But there are others in which the taint is less malignant and less defiling. These are the legitimate subjects of Christian reform. There are many abuses in society which may be corrected. To this end, therefore, are our energies to be directed. But there is one very important peculiarity to be observed in all Christian reforms. The washing of the infected garment was to be done by direction of the priest. The priest shall command that they wash the thing wherein the plague is. Christs Word is to be our guide for getting rid of social disorders, as well as for the detection of them. He is our Priest, and we must conduct our cleansing efforts upon the basis of His gospel. Finally, along with the washing of a leprous garment, it was to be shut up seven days, after which the priest was to example it again; and if the bad symptoms had disappeared it was to be washed again, and it was clean; but if the symptoms had not disappeared, it was then to be finally torn or burned. A vivid picture, this, of Gods plans with the social fabrics of this world. Some, in which the disorder was great, have already been quite destroyed. Others, in which the affection is less malignant, are undergoing the efforts of purification. They are shut up now until time shall complete its period. The great High Priest and Judge shall then come forth to give them the last inspection. And as things then are, so shall their eternal portion be. (J. A. Seiss, D. D.)

The diffusiveness of sin

We are told that one grain of iodine will give colour to seven thousand times its own weight of water, and one grain of poisoned literature will give a colouring to all the threescore and ten years of a mans life, and to his character and power, we know not to what extent. Lord Shaftesbury speaks of it as poison. He reminds me of an incident that occurred in a town in which I lived and laboured. In the manufacture of some lozenges, arsenic, instead of some comparatively harmless compound, had been mixed up, and they were sold in the market. It was ascertained, in the course of a day or two after, what had been done, and all who had purchased them were warned. Many had bought them and died at the time, and a panic of grief spread through the town. But there were some who did not die; it did not kill them; but they never lived–that is, there was no real life about them; the very fountain of their life-blood was poisoned, and you could tell by the pallid cheek, and the lack-lustre eye, and the feeble brain, and the sluggish existence that it was not life. They were young as to years, some of them, but half-palsied, and feeble and old–they were poisoned. Oh, there are men and women living in this London to-day whom the poison of literature has not killed altogether, and still they are not living; the very fountain of their life is poisoned, and they carry it about with them, and bear its curse within them; and still wherever you go you see it. (J. P. Chown.)

.

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 47. The garment also] The whole account here seems to intimate that the garment was fretted by this contagion; and hence it is likely that it was occasioned by a species of small animals, which we know to be the cause of the itch; these, by breeding in the garments, must necessarily multiply their kind, and fret the garments, i. e., corrode a, portion of the finer parts, after the manner of moths, for their nourishment. See Le 13:52.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Leprosy in garments and houses is unknown in these times and places, which is not strange, there being some diseases or distempers peculiar to some ages and countries, as the learned have noted. And that such a thing was among the Jews cannot reasonably be doubted; for if Moses had been a deceiver, as some have impudently affirmed, a man of his wisdom would not have exposed himself to the disbelief and contempt of his people by giving laws about that which their experience showed to be but a fiction.

A woollen garment, or a linen garment, are put by a synecdoche for any other garments.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

47-59. The garment . . . that the .. . leprosy is inIt is well known that infectious diseases,such as scarlet fever, measles, the plague, are latently imbibed andcarried by the clothes. But the language of this passage clearlyindicates a disease to which clothes themselves were subject, andwhich was followed by effects on them analogous to those whichmalignant leprosy produces on the human bodyfor similarregulations were made for the rigid inspection of suspected garmentsby a priest as for the examination of a leprous person. It has longbeen conjectured and recently ascertained by the use of a lens, thatthe leprous condition of swine is produced by myriads of minuteinsects engendered in their skin; and regarding all leprosy as of thesame nature, it is thought that this affords a sufficient reason forthe injunction in the Mosaic law to destroy the clothes in which thedisease, after careful observation, seemed to manifest itself.Clothes are sometimes seen contaminated by this disease in the WestIndies and the southern parts of America [WHITLAW,Code of Health]; and it may be presumed that, as the Hebrewswere living in the desert where they had not the convenience offrequent changes and washing, the clothes they wore and the skin matson which they lay, would be apt to breed infectious vermin, which,being settled in the stuff, would imperceptibly gnaw it and leavestains similar to those described by Moses. It is well known that thewool of sheep dying of disease, if it had not been shorn from theanimal while living, and also skins, if not thoroughly prepared byscouring, are liable to the effects described in this passage. Thestains are described as of a greenish or reddish color, according,perhaps, to the color or nature of the ingredients used in preparingthem; for acids convert blue vegetable colors into red and alkalischange then into green [BROWN].It appears, then, that the leprosy, though sometimes inflicted as amiraculous judgment (Num 12:10;2Ki 5:27) was a natural disease,which is known in Eastern countries still; while the rules prescribedby the Hebrew legislator for distinguishing the true character andvarieties of the disease and which are far superior to the method oftreatment now followed in those regions, show the divine wisdom bywhich he was guided. Doubtless the origin of the disease is owing tosome latent causes in nature; and perhaps a more extendedacquaintance with the archology of Egypt and the natural history ofthe adjacent countries, may confirm the opinion that leprosy resultsfrom noxious insects or a putrid fermentation. But whatever theorigin or cause of the disease, the laws enacted by divine authorityregarding it, while they pointed in the first instance to sanitaryends, were at the same time intended, by stimulating to carefulnessagainst ceremonial defilement, to foster a spirit of religious fearand inward purity.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

The garments also, that the plague of leprosy is in,…. Whether this sort of leprosy proceeded from natural causes, or was extraordinary and miraculous, and came immediately from the hand of God, and was peculiar to the Jews, and unknown to other nations, is a matter of question; the latter is generally asserted by the Hebrew writers, as Maimonides e, Abraham Seba f, and others g; but others are of opinion, and Abarbinel among the Jews, that it might be by the contact or touch of a leprous person. Indeed it must be owned, as a learned man h observes, that the shirts and clothes of a leper must be equally infectious, and more so than any other communication with him; and the purulent matter which adheres thereunto must needs infect; such who put on their clothes; for it may be observed, that it will get between the threads of garments, and stick like glue, and fill them up, and by the acrimony of it corrode the texture itself; so that experience shows that it is very difficult to wash such a garment without a rupture, and the stains are not easily got out: and it must be allowed that garments may be scented by diseases, and become infectious, and carry a disease from place to place, as the plague oftentimes is carried in wool, cotton, silk, or any bale goods; but whether all this amounts to the case before us is still a question. Some indeed have endeavoured to account for it by observing, that wool ill scoured, stuffs kept too long, and some particular tapestries, are subject to worms and moths which eat them, and from hence think it credible, that the leprosy in clothes, and in skins here mentioned, was caused by this sort of vermin; to which, stuffs and works, wrought in wool in hot countries, and in times when arts and manufactures were not carried to the height of perfection as now, might probably be more exposed i; but this seems not to agree with this leprosy of Moses, which lay not in the garment being eaten, but in the colour and spread of it:

[whether it be] a woollen garment or a linen garment: and, according to the Misnic doctors k, only wool and linen were defiled by leprosy; Aben Ezra indeed says, that the reason why no mention is made of silk and cotton is because the Scripture speaks of what was found (then in use), as in Ex 23:5; wherefore, according to him, woollen and linen are put for all other garments; though, he adds, or it may be the leprosy does not happen to anything but wool and linen; however, it is allowed, as Ben Gersom observes, that when the greatest part of the cloth is made of wool or linen, it was defiled by it: the Jewish canon is, if the greatest part is of camels hair, it is not defiled; but if the greatest part is of sheep, it is; and if half to half (or equal) it is defiled; and so flax, and hemp mixed together l; the same rule is to be observed concerning them.

e Hilchot Tumaat Tzarat, c. 16. sect. 10. f Tzeror Hammor, fol. 99. 3. g Ramban, Bechai, Isaac Arama, & alii, apud Muisium in loc. h Scheuchzer. Physica Sacra, vol. 2. p. 326. i Calmet’s Dictionary, in the word “Leper”. k Misn. Celaim, c. 9. sect, 1. l Ib. Negaim, c. 11. sect. 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Leprosy in linen, woollen, and leather fabrics and clothes. – The only wearing apparel mentioned in Lev 13:47 is either woollen or linen, as in Deu 22:11; Hos 2:7; Pro 31:13; and among the ancient Egyptians and ancient Greeks these were the materials usually worn. In Lev 13:48. and , “the flax and the wool,” i.e., for linen and woollen fabrics, are distinguished from clothes of wool or flax. The rendering given to these words by the early translators is and , stamen et subtegmen (lxx, Vulg.), i.e., warp and weft. The objection offered to this rendering, that warp and weft could not be kept so separate from one another, that the one could be touched and rendered leprous without the other, has been met by Gussetius by the simple but correct remark, that the reference is to the yarn prepared for the warp and weft, and not to the woven fabrics themselves. So long as the yarn was not woven into a fabric, the warp-yarn and weft-yarn might very easily be separated and lie in different places, so that the one could be injured without the other. In this case the yarn intended for weaving is distinguished from the woven material, just as the leather is afterwards distinguished from leather-work (Lev 13:49). The signs of leprosy were, if the mole in the fabric was greenish or reddish. In that case the priest was to shut up the thing affected with leprosy for seven days, and then examine it. If the mole had spread in the meantime, it was a “grievous leprosy.” , from irritavit, recruduit ( vulnus ), is to be explained, as it is by Bochart, as signifying lepra exasperata . making the mole bad or angry; not, as Gesenius maintains, from = acerbum faciens , i.e., dolorem acerbum excitans , which would not apply to leprosy in fabrics and houses (Lev 14:44), and is not required by Eze 28:24. All such fabrics were to be burned as unclean.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

      47 The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be a woollen garment, or a linen garment;   48 Whether it be in the warp, or woof; of linen, or of woollen; whether in a skin, or in any thing made of skin;   49 And if the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin; it is a plague of leprosy, and shall be showed unto the priest:   50 And the priest shall look upon the plague, and shut up it that hath the plague seven days:   51 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.   52 He shall therefore burn that garment, whether warp or woof, in woollen or in linen, or any thing of skin, wherein the plague is: for it is a fretting leprosy; it shall be burnt in the fire.   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 any thing of skin;   54 Then the priest shall command that they wash the thing wherein the plague is, and he shall shut it up seven days more:   55 And the priest shall look on the plague, after that it is washed: and, behold, if the plague have not changed his colour, 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.   56 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, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof:   57 And if it appear still in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin; it is a spreading plague: thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is with fire.   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.   59 This is the law of the plague of leprosy 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.

      This is the law concerning the plague of leprosy in a garment, whether linen or woollen. A leprosy in a garment, with discernible indications of it, the colour changed by it, the garment fretted, the nap worn off, and this in some one particular part of the garment, and increasing when it was shut up, and not to be got out by washing is a thing which to us now is altogether unaccountable. The learned confess that it was a sign and a miracle in Israel, an extraordinary punishment inflicted by the divine power, as a token of great displeasure against a person or family. 1. The process was much the same with that concerning a leprous person. The garment suspected to be tainted was not to be burnt immediately, though, it may be, there would have been no great loss of it; for in no case must sentence be given merely upon a surmise, but it must be shown to the priest. If, upon search, it was found that there was a leprous spot (the Jews say no bigger than a bean), it must be burnt, or at least that part of the garment in which the spot was, Lev 13:52; Lev 13:57. If the cause of the suspicion was gone, it must be washed, and then might be used, v. 58. 2. The signification also was much the same, to intimate the great malignity there is in sin: it not only defiles the sinner’s conscience, but it brings a stain upon all his employments and enjoyments, all he has and all he does. To those that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure, Tit. i. 15. And we are taught hereby to hate even the garments spotted with the flesh, Jude 23. Those that make their clothes servants to their pride and lust may see them thereby tainted with a leprosy, and doomed to the fire, Isa. iii. 18-24. But the ornament of the hidden man of the heart is incorruptible, 1 Pet. iii. 4. The robes of righteousness never fret nor are moth-eaten.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Verses 47-59;

The leprosy of garments was probably leprosy by analogy, not the actual bacilli itself which caused the disease in humans. It was likely mildew fungi which resisted all attempts to remove.

Like its counterpart in humans, the “leprosy” in garments of wool, linen, or leather of any kind, was to be examined by the priest. If after seven days the discoloration had spread, it was to be regarded as leprosy, and the garment was burned a being unclean.

But if after seven days the discoloration had not spread, the garment was to be washed and then laid aside for seven more days If after this time the stain persisted, the garment was to be burned as unclean with leprosy.

If there were a darkening of the stain, the affected area was to be torn (or cut) from the garment, and the garment was to be washed again. Then it was pronounced clean.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

LEPROSY IN LINEN, WOOLEN, AND LEATHER FABRICS AND CLOTHES 13:4759
TEXT 13:4759

47

The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be a woolen garment, or a linen garment;

48

whether it be in warp, or woof; or linen, or of woollen; whether in a skin, or in anything made of skin;

49

if the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin; it is the plague of leprosy, and shall be showed unto the priest.

50

And the priest shall look upon the plague, and shut up that which hath the plague seven days:

51

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 the skin, whatever service skin is used for; the plague is a fretting leprosy; it is unclean.

52

And he shall burn the garment, whether the warp or the woof, in woollen or in linen, or anything of skin, wherein the plague is: for it is a fretting leprosy; it shall be burnt in the fire.

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;

54

then the priest shall command that they wash the thing wherein the plague is, and he shall shut it up seven days more:

55

and the priest shall look, after that the plague is washed; and behold, if the plague have not changed its color, and the plague be not spread, it is unclean; thou shalt burn it in the fire: it is a fret, whether the bareness be within or without.

56

And if the priest look, and, behold, the plague be dim after the washing thereof, then he shall rend it out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof:

57

and if it appear still in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin, it is breaking out: thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is with fire.

58

And the garment, either the warp, or the 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.

59

This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of woollen or linen, either in the warp, or the woof, or anything of skin, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 13:4759

268.

What is meant by leprous disease in a garment?

269.

How could decay touch the warp of a garment without also touching the woof?

270.

What was the danger in having leprosy in garments?

271.

When was a garment to be burned?

272.

If the disease has not spread what is to be done with the garment?

273.

The change of color is very important. Why?

274.

When would it be proper to tear out the area affected?

275.

If it appears somewhere in the garment after the area has been torn outthen what?

276.

Isnt all of this effort one to get rid of mildew? Discuss.

PARAPHRASE 13:4759

If leprosy is suspected in a woolen or linen garment or fabric, or in a piece of leather or leather-work, and there is a greenish or a reddish spot in it, it is probably leprosy, and must be taken to the priest to be examined. The priest will put it away for seven days and look at it again on the seventh day. If the spot has spread, it is a contagious leprosy, and he must burn the clothing, fabric, linen or woolen covering, or leather article, for it is contagious and must be destroyed by fire. But if when he examines it again on the seventh day the spot has not spread, the priest shall order the suspected article to be washed, then isolated for seven more days. If after that time the spot has not changed its color, even though it has not spread, it is leprosy and shall be burned, for the article is infected through and through. But if the priest sees that the spot has faded after the washing, then he shall cut it out from the garment or leather goods or whatever it is in. However, if it then reappears, it is leprosy and he must burn it. But if after washing it there is no further trouble, it can be put back into service after another washing. These are the regulations concerning leprosy in a garment or anything made of skin or leather, indicating whether to pronounce it leprous or not.

COMMENT 13:4759

Lev. 13:47-59 An effort is made by some authorities to prove that the leprous condition of the garments and fabrics was caused by the same germ that infected man. If such were the case, i.e. the decay of clothes was exactly the same, i.e. identical to the infectious decay of human flesh it would indeed be a miracle. We are not denying this possibility, but it does seem just as reasonable to conclude that the effects of a damp climate are here being described and mildew is the problem.

Wool, linen and leather was the only substance used by the Israelites for clothes. (Cf. Deu. 22:11; Hos. 2:7; Hos. 2:11; Pro. 31:1-31; Pro. 13:1-25) Reference to the warp, or woof (Lev. 13:48-49) has posed a problem as to just how decay could touch one set of threads without the other. The thought that mildew could infect the heap of yarn used for either warp or woof before it was used for weaving seems to answer the question.

The green or red color is again introduced as a sign of the possible presence of leprosy. The seven days of quarantine is also used. If the decay has not spread after seven days a washing could provide all the cleansing needed; however another seven days are necessary before a decision can be given. If the color had not changed after the first washing, the garment must be burned. After the second seven days if the rotting has not spread or changed color, the portion affected can be torn out of the garment. The diseased portion must be burnedthe remaining portion is to be washed and considered clean.
It is difficult to avoid the impression that God is at work in the clothesthe housesand in every other part of the daily life of the Israelite. God could and did use these very ordinary items to teach many lessons to those who wanted to learn. The largest and most constant lesson was of His interest and control of the mundane matters of every day. A corollary lesson was: every mans need to obey Godthe habit of doing what He commands develops the essential character quality for maturing in His way of life. How very much this lesson is needed today as it was in the day when God spoke to Moses and Aaron!

FACT QUESTIONS 13:4759

319.

In what way do some define leprosy of the house? How do others consider it?

320.

Name the three substances used by the Israelites for clothes. Show how leprosy could touch the woof and not the warp.

321.

Define the use of the two sets of seven days.

322.

What are two good lessons to learn from this section?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(47) The garment also that.Better, And if a garment hath. The fact that the same phrase, plague of leprosy, is used both in the case of garments and of human beings, and that the symptoms and working of leprous garments and those of leprous men are identical, shows beyond doubt that the same distemper is meant. The theory, therefore, that plague of leprosy is here used figuratively of garments fretted by a species of animalcul or vermin, which feed upon and corrode the finer parts of the texture in the manner of moths, is contrary to the uniform import of this phrase in the discussion of the disorder, and is against the testimony of the administrators of the law during the second Temple, who came in personal contact with the complaint. They assure us that leprosy of garments and houses was not to be found in the world generally, but was a sign and miracle in Israel to guard them against an evil tongue. Equally untenable is the theory that it denotes an infectious condition of clothes caused by contact with the leprous matter of wounds and boils, which is so strong that it corrodes and injures all kinds of texture. Neither the regulations here laid down, nor the further development of them exhibited in the canons which obtained during the second Temple, regard leprosy as contagious. This is evident from the fact that the priest was in constant and close contact with the leper; that the leper who was entirely covered was pronounced clean, and could mix with the community (see Lev. 13:12-13); that the priest himself ordered all the things in a leprous house to be taken out before he entered it, in order that they might be used again (see Lev. 14:36); that according to the ancient canons a leprous minor, a leprous heathen or proselyte, as well as leprous garments in houses of non-Israelites, do not render any one unclean, nor does a bridegroom who is seized with this malady during the nuptial week defile any one. All this most unquestionably implies that there was no fear of contagion on the part of the authorities who had personally to deal with this distemper.

Whether it be a woollen garment.As among the ancient Egyptians and Greeks, woollen and linen garments were the only apparel worn by the Israelites. (Comp. Deu. 22:11; Hos. 2:7; Hos. 2:11; Pro. 31:13.) The administrators of the law during the second Temple, however, took this enactment literally as referring strictly to wool of sheep and flax, but not to hemp and other materials. Hence they declared that a material made of camels hair and sheeps wool is not rendered unclean by leprosy if the camels hair preponderates, but is unclean when the sheeps hair preponderates, or when both are equal. The same rule also applies to mixtures of flax and hemp. Dyed skins and garments are not rendered unclean by leprosy. We have here another proof that these authorities did not regard leprosy as contagious.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

Deliverance From A Fungoid Plague In What We Wear ( Lev 13:47-59 ).

The laws of uncleanness now move on to uncleanness in clothing. It is quite possible from what follows that in the conditions under which they lived in the wilderness, and possibly even continuing into Canaan, there were types of fungus that could infest clothing which were especially dangerous to men and women. It may have been a type of fungus unknown to us, although we are, of course, familiar with types of mould which are toxic when eaten. This fungus was distinguished by being ‘greenish or reddish’, somewhat similar to the plague that can affect a building (Lev 14:37). The very fact of the definition suggests that other types of mould were not looked on in quite the same way.

However from the point of view of the ritual the significant thing was that such fungus, whether mould or mildew or whatever it was, was seen as defiling, possibly even death-dealing. It marred the ‘perfection’ required in the camp, and must be dealt with ritually. It jarred on God’s holiness and even on the holiness of Israel. So provision was made for the way that it could be discerned and if necessarily dealt with. For most of the people could not afford just to throw away clothes because they had become stained. Thus it was ensured that they only had to get rid of them if absolutely necessary.

It may seem a little trivial to introduce the idea of fungus in clothing in between the description of skin diseases in men and women that could result in their being cast out of the camp, and the restoration of such people if their skin disease was healed, but the intention was probably to indicate that there was indeed the hope of healing for some. The clothing was not totally condemned. Some could be restored. It was a prelude to hope. And it does bring out how important clothing was seen to be.

Thus there is probably a greater significance to the introduction of clothing here. In Israel’s view religiously speaking clothes were vital for fallen mankind. They were part of the reason why he could be accepted before God. They covered man’s nakedness. For there may be in mind here the coats of skins in Gen 3:21.

We have already observed the slow movement through from Genesis 1 to Genesis 3 in Leviticus 11 and Leviticus 12, and in Gen 3:21 clothing was an epoch making event for mankind. Up to this point man had been naked, but man now wore clothes for the first time and was clothed before God. His nakedness was covered. He was again acceptable in God’s eyes. And he must never again go naked. Indeed a further curse would come when Noah’s nakedness was revealed (Gen 9:25).

This vital covering of nakedness is also stressed with regard to the altar of burnt offering and the sanctuary. There were to be no steps to the altar lest the nakedness of the offerer be revealed (Exo 20:26). Indeed the priests must wear breeches for this very reason (Exo 28:42). If that be so then the warning now comes that even such clothing as Adam and Eve received could become ‘unclean’. It was not a once for all provision. Uncleanness could get in anywhere. And if they do become unclean they must once more be made clean. Our clothing before God must be ‘clean’.

Lev 13:47-52

“The garment also that a fungous plague (actually the same word as for suspicious skin disease) is in, whether it be a woollen garment, or a linen garment; whether it be in warp, or woof; of linen, or of woollen; whether in a skin, or in anything made of skin; if the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin; it is a fungous plague, and shall be shown to the priest. And the priest shall look on the plague, and shut up that which has the plague seven days, 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 the skin, whatever service the skin is used for; the plague is a fretting fungus; it is unclean. And he shall burn the garment, whether the warp or the woof, in woollen or in linen, or anything of skin, wherein the plague is: for it is a fretting fungus. It shall be burnt in the fire.”

The description of possible garments is comprehensive even though some of the technical terms in Hebrew are unknown to us. It applies to woollen garments, linen garments or clothing made of skins. We do not know what the Hebrew words behind ‘warp and woof’ mean, but they probably technically signify every part of the garment inside and out. No matter where the fungous plague is it must be dealt with, because it is a ‘fretting fungus’ and is ‘unclean’.

The garment must first be shown to the priest who must shut it up for seven days. Then it must be looked at again, and if the fungus is spreading through the garment it is clearly a ‘fretting fungus’ and must immediately be burned in fire.

Lev 13:53

“And if the priest shall look, and, behold, the plague is not spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin, then the priest shall command that they wash the thing in which the plague is, and he shall shut it up seven days more, and the priest shall look, after that the plague is washed, and, behold, if the plague has not changed its colour, and the plague is not spread, it is unclean. You shall burn it in the fire. It is a fungus whether the bareness be within or without.”

If the fungus has not spread the garment must be washed and then shut up for another seven days. If the plague still retains its colour it must be burned with fire no matter whether it is on the inside or the out, it must be burned. It is a suspicious disease.

Lev 13:56-57

“And if the priest look, and, behold, the plague be dim after its washing, then he shall rend it out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof, and if it appear still in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin, it is breaking out. You shall burn that in which the plague is with fire.”

However, if the mark of the plague has faded through washing then the particular patch can be torn out of the garment and replaced by a good patch. But if signs of the plague still continue it is ‘breaking out’, the garment must be burned.

Lev 13:58

“And the garment, either the warp, or the woof, or whatever thing of skin it be, which you shall wash, if the plague be departed from them, then it shall be washed the second time, and shall be clean.”

But if there are no further effects the garment should be washed a second time and will be clean.

Lev 13:59

“This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of woollen or linen, either in the warp, or the woof, or anything of skin, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean.”

This may well have been a colophon to the original tablet or other record, enabling the tablet to be quickly identified, or it may simply be a summarising statement.

The whole lesson for us from the above is quite clear. Our moral lives are regularly looked at in terms of garments. Isaiah could say, ‘all our righteousnesses are as a polluted garment’, menstrually unclean, something similar to fungoid garments (Isa 64:6). Joshua the High Priest after the Exile had his ‘filthy garments’ (befouled with man’s uncleanness) removed from him (Zec 3:3-4), in readiness for God’s coming action. And in contrast the bride of the Lamb is to be clothed in linen clean and white, which represents the righteousnesses of God’s people, God’s ‘holy ones’ (Rev 19:8). Compare also Eze 16:10 and Zec 3:5. Thus we have in this passage a warning that we must deal quickly and severely with any sin, especially such as has a tendency to spread. If our moral garments become plagued they must be destroyed, and we must put on new garments of righteousness. Sin must not be dallied with, it must be cast off and burnt.

It is especially a reminder that by nature we are all clothed in polluted garments, which must be cast off, destroyed, and replaced by the righteousness of Christ (2Co 5:21), as a man puts on a wedding garment when invited to a wedding (Mat 22:11-12). Our only hope is to be clothed in the righteousness of Christ (see Eph 5:26-27).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

EXPOSITION

LEPROSY IN CLOTHES (Lev 13:47-59). To account for the use of the name leprosy in this connection, an ingenious theory has been propounded that the same cause produced a like effect in the human frame in clothes and in houses. “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” (Dr. Mitchell, ‘Five Essays’). It is not necessary to have recourse to this tempting but unproved hypothesis, inasmuch as the similarity of appearance presented by the two affections is enough to account for their going by the same name. Leprosy in garments and in leather is a mildew which cannot be got rid of, called leprosy by analogy. Like other causes of uncleanness, it makes the material unclean, because it gives a repulsive appearance to it, reminding the beholder of the disease which it resembles. “Leprosy in linen and woolen fabrics or clothes consisted in all probability in nothing but so-called mildew, which commonly arises from damp and want of air, and consists, in the case of linen, of round, partially coloured spots, which spread and gradually eat up the fabric, until it falls to pieces like mould. In leather, the mildew consists more strictly of’ holes eaten in,’ and is of a greenish, reddish, or whitish colour, according to the species of the delicate cryptu-gami by which it has been formed ‘ (Keil).

Lev 13:47

Whether it be a woolen garment, or a linen garment. Wool and flax are the two materials for clothes mentioned in Deu 22:11; Pro 31:13; Hos 2:7.

Lev 13:48

Whether it be in the warp, or woof. It is hardly possible that such a fault as leprosy or mildew could appear in one set of the threads without affecting the others, provided that both were equally good when they were made up into the cloth; but it is quite possible that a heap of yarn, used either for the warp or for the woof, might have been injuriously affected before it was woven, and then the fault would naturally make its appearance where the mischief had been originally done. Whether in a skin, or in anything made of skin. An example of the first would be a sheepskin cloak; the second would designate anything made of leather.

Lev 13:49-59

The priest is to deal with the texture as nearly as may be in the same way that lie dealt with the human subject, in order to discriminate between a tempo-rare discoloration and a real leprosy. He shall shut up it that hath the plague seven days (Lev 13:50), may, as before, mean, he shall bind up the place affected seven days. If the priest judges that it is leprosy, he is to burn the garment, if not, to tear out the piece affected, whether it be in the warp, or in the woof, that is, in whatever part it appears, and to wash the remainder twice. The expression, whether it be bare within or without, literally, whether it be bald in the head thereof or in the forehead thereof, means, “whether the fault appear in the front or in the back of the texture.”

HOMILETICS

Lev 13:47-59

On purity of garments,

There are passages in different parts of Holy Scripture which it is necessary to put together in order to get a comprehensive view of what only at first sight appears to be a slight subject.

I. The first result of the Fall was a consciousness of sin on the part of Adam and Eve, which caused a sense of their nakedness. This nakedness they in vain attempted to cover by aprons of fig leaves (Gen 3:7). But their self-made covering was not sufficient; they “were afraid because they were naked, and they hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden” (Gen 3:8, Gen 3:10). God’s first gift to man after sentence had been passed upon him was that of clothes: “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Gen 3:21). This gift is the more significant in that the Hebrew word used for “atonement” is “covering.” Here, then, in God’s first gift to man was foreshadowed his future gift of an atonement. “The outward and corporeal here manifestly had respect to the inward and spiritual. The covering of the nakedness was a gracious token from the hand of God that the sin which had alienated them from him and made them conscious of uneasiness was henceforth to be in his sight as if it were not; so that in covering their flesh, he at the same time covered their consciences. It was done purposely to denote the covering of guilt from the eye of Heavenan act which God alone could have done” (Fairbairn, ‘Typology of Scripture’). The more that we consider the force of the Hebrew term for “atonement,” the more significance shall we attach to the first gift of coats. “To expiate, literally, to cover up, does not mean to cause a sin not to have been committed, Jot that is impossible; nor to represent it as having no existence, for that would be opposed to the earnestness of the Law; nor to pay or compensate it by any performance; but to cover it before God, i.e; to deprive it of its power to come between us and God” (Kahnis).

II. We have seen with what care God appointed “holy garments” for the Jewish priesthood, “for glory and for beauty” (Exo 28:2, Exo 28:40; Exo 39:1-43; Exo 8:7-9), and special instructions are afterwards given as to the dress to be worn by the high priest when he entered the holy of holies (Lev 16:1-34.; cf. Psa 132:1).

III. Uncleanness derived from the touch of unclean things entailed washing the clothes worn at the time (Lev 11:28, Lev 11:40; Lev 16:26).

IV. In Zec 3:3-5 we read, “Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, anti I will clothe thee with change of raiment. And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his heal. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the Lord stood by.” Here we are directly taught that filthy garments typify iniquity, and that the removal of filthy garments typifies the passing away of iniquity. Isaiah explains the meaning of the putting on of new garments: “He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels” (Isa 61:10).

From these passages of the Old Testament we find that clothing is connected with the idea of atonement, that God will not he approached except in holy garments, that foul garments typify iniquity, that garments which have contracted ceremonial uncleanness must be washed, that clean garments typify salvation and righteousness.

From the New Testament we learn what are the materials of the robe of salvation. They are the righteousness of Christ imputed to mansuch is the argument of the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Galatiansand the righteousness inwrought in man by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost”for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints” (Rev 19:8). If these form the materials of the Christian’s spiritual raiment, there will appear no leprosy or mildew either in warp or woof. But if in place of one of these there be employed human merit or sanctity or other material, the plague will appear in the garment. “And the priest shall rend it out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof: and 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; thou shall burn that wherein the plague is with fire.” But there is this difference between leprosy in the garment and leprosy in the flesh, that in the former case the man may still be saved: “It shall he revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire” (1Co 3:13-15). And therefore St. Jude, in special reference to this passage, writes, “And of some have compassion, making a difference: and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh” (Jud Jud 1:22, Jud 1:23). The Christian is to hold in abhorrence “the garment” defiled with a like disease to that which attacks “the flesh,” and is to cast it into the fire, but at the same time he is to “pull” the wearer himself “out of the fire,” “saving” him “with fear.” If the disease be true leprosy, but has not penetrated deeper than the garment, the garment must be burnt, but the wearer may still be “saved; yet so as by fire;” it will be a work of “fear” and anxiety. If it be not true leprosy, and even if it befor here the antitype transcends the typeit will be possible to “wash his robes and make them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev 7:14).

Warning”I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear” (Rev 3:18). “Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame” (Rev 16:15). “Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless” (Mat 22:12).

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON

Lev 13:47-59

Impure surroundings.

Our garments are our immediate surroundings, and there may be in them as well as in ourselves that which is offensive and “unclean.” There was an impurity in the garment as well as in the human body against which the Law provided. The classing of clothes and houses with the human skin as leprous, “has moved the mirth of some and the wonder of others but the analogy between the insect which frets the human skin and that which frets the garment that covers it, between the fungous growth that lines the crevices of the epidermis and that which creeps in the interstices of masonry, is close enough for the purposes of ceremonial law.” The legal provision here made for the leprous garment suggests to us

I. THE IMPURE SURROUNDINGS BY WHICH WE MAY BE ENVIRONED. These are many:

1. Depraved tastes and cravings in our body (for the body is the immediate clothing of the spirit).

2. Unholy companionships.

3. Corrupt political associations.

4. Impure, demoralizing books (or any form of hurtful literature).

5. Injurious occupationthat which wounds the conscience or enfeebles the inner life.

6. A deadening Churcha religious society where the form without the power of godliness is left.

II. THE DIVINELY SUGGESTED TREATMENT OF THEM. We gather from these verses that we should:

1. Exercise vigilance in detecting. With the same carefulness with which the priest made himself sure in the matter of the leprous garment (Lev 13:50-57), we must make certain whether there be in any of our surroundingsor of those for whom we are responsiblethe plague which will work spiritual mischief in the heart and ultimate ruin to the character.

2. Make serious effort to cleanse. If, after seven days, there had been no spreading of the plague, the priest was to wash the garment (Lev 13:54), and if the plague departed, it was to be washed a second time, and then it was clean (Lev 13:58). All that was salvable was to be saved. If by vigorous and repeated washing any spotted garment could be preserved, it was not to be destroyed. All that is reformable in our institutions and surroundings must be reformed. We must cleanse where we can make pure and where it is unnecessary to destroy. But sometimes we must:

3. Unscrupulously destroy. When unmistakable signs of leprosy appeared, the priest was to “burn that garment;” it was to “be burnt in the fire” (Lev 13:52). When we find in anything that surrounds us and that is exerting an influence upon us, that which is really hurtful to usthat which would lead us astray from God, we must sacrifice it altogether, at whatever cost. Our belongings must be put into the fire rather than be permitted to stain our soul.C.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Lev 13:47. The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in After having spoken of the leprosy in human creatures, the sacred writer proceeds to that very peculiar species of the disorder which affected garments, of whatever composition, and which, Calmet thinks, may well be accounted for upon that hypothesis which we mentioned before, observing, that as the Israelites in the wilderness were but ill provided in change of raiment, their linen, for want of being often changed and washed, would be more apt to breed those infectious worms which occasioned the distemper; and the rather, as the stuff whereof their garments were made was probably ill dressed, they not having then arrived at great perfection in the art of scouring cloth: and this, he thinks, may be one reason why Moses prohibits the use of linen and woollen interwoven, because such garments would be as subject to the infection as stuffs entirely of wool.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

The apostle Jude, no doubt in allusion to this defiled state of the garment, speaks of the hatred that is to be shown to such as are spotted by the flesh. Jud 1:23 . Nothing can more fully indicate the dreadful malignity which there is in sin. It soils all that it comes near, and defiles everything with which it is once connected. Well might one of old exclaim, LORD cleanse thou me from secret faults. Psa 19:12 . Dearest and ever blessed JESUS! do thou wash me from all the leprosy of sin in thy precious blood, and let the garment which I wear be the garment of thy complete salvation. For this can neither be spotted nor defiled, but will be my robe of thy justifying righteousness, to cover and adorn my soul to all eternity. Isa 61:10 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Lev 13:47 The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, [whether it be] a woollen garment, or a linen garment;

Ver. 47. The garment also. ] A plague not anywhere else read or heard of: being nothing like clothes now-a-days infected with the plague, but far more strange and dangerous; whether it did spread or fret inward, the garment was to be burnt with fire. This signified that all instruments of idolatry, or of any other sin, are to be destroyed and made away. As the law commandeth, “The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire.” Deu 7:25-26 And Jude alludeth to it, when he biddeth us “save some with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” Jdg 1:23 See Isa 30:22 Act 19:19 . Justiciaries also shall one day find, that though to the world-ward they “wash themselves with snow water, and make their hands never so clean; yet God will plunge them in the ditch, and their own clothes shall make them to be abhorred.” Job 9:30-31

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

garment. Type of habits and ways seen by others. Compare Jud 1:23.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

The garment: This leprosy in garments appears so strange to us, that it has induced some, with Bp. Patrick, to consider it as an extraordinary punishment inflicted by God upon the Israelites, as a sign of his high displeasure; while others consider the leprosy in clothes – and also housesas having no relation to the leprosy in man. When Michaelis was considering the subject, he was told by a dealer in wool, that the wool of sheep which die of a disease, if it has not been shorn from the animal while living, is unfit to manufacture cloth, and liable to something like what Moses here describes, and which he imagines to be the plague of leprosy in garments. The whole account, however, as Dr. A. Clarke observes, seems to intimate that the garment was fretted by the contagion of the real leprosy; which it is probable was occasioned by a species of animacula, or vermin, burrowing in the skin, which we know to be the cause of the itch; these, by breeding in the garments, must necessarily multiply their kind, and fret the garments, i.e., corrode a portion of the finer parts, after the manner of moths, for their nourishment. The infection of garments has frequently been known to cause the worst species of scarlet fever, and even the plague; and those infected with psora, or itch animal, have communicated the disease even in six or seven years after the infection. Isa 3:16-24, Isa 59:6, Isa 64:6, Eze 16:16, Rom 13:12, Eph 4:22, Col 3:3, Jud 1:23

Reciprocal: Lev 14:55 – the leprosy

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Lev 13:47. Leprosy in garments and houses is unknown in these times and places, which is not strange, there being some diseases peculiar to some ages and countries. And that such a thing was among the Jews, cannot reasonably be doubted; for, if Moses had been a deceiver, a man of his wisdom would not have exposed himself to the contempt of his people, by giving laws about that which their experience showed to be but a fiction.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Abnormalities in clothing 13:47-59

God mentioned three different cases of diseased garments in this part of the chapter.

Material objects do not contract illnesses, but they do occasionally become abnormal due to mold, mildew, or some other invasive agent. Mosaic law did not view these abnormalities as necessarily dangerous to the health of the Israelites. They did, however, represent deviation from a proper condition.

"Decay or corruption [in and of the environment] is incompatible with the holiness of the LORD and must be removed." [Note: Ibid., p. 297.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

OF LEPROSY IN A GARMENT OR HOUSE

Lev 13:47-59; Lev 14:33-53

“The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be a woollen garment, or a linen garment; whether it be in warp, or woof; of linen, or of woollen; whether in a skin, or in any thing made of skin; if the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin; it is the plague of leprosy, and shall be shewed unto the priest: and the priest shall look upon the plague, and shut up that which hath the plague seven days: 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 the skin, whatever service skin is used for; the plague is a fretting leprosy; it is unclean. And he shall burn the garment, whether the warp or the woof, in woollen or in linen, or any thing of skin, wherein the plague is: for it is a fretting leprosy; it shall be burnt in the fire. 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 any thing of skin then the priest shall command that they wash the thing wherein the plague is, and he shall shut it tip seven days more: and the priest shall look, after that the plague is washed: and, behold, if the plague have not changed its colour, and the plague be not spread, it is unclean thou shalt burn it in the fire; it is a fret, whether the bareness be with n or without. And if the priest look, and, behold, the plague be dim after the washing thereof, then he shall rend it out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof: and if it appear still in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin, it is breaking out: thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is with fire. And the garment, either the warp, or the woof, or whatsoever thing of skin it he, which thou shalt wash, if the plague be departed from them, then it shall be washed the second time, and shall be clean. This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of woollen or linen, either in the warp, or the woof, or any thing of skin, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, 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 he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, There seemeth to me to be as it were a plague in the house: and the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go in 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, and the appearance thereof be 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: 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 out the stones in which the plague is, and cast them into an unclean place without the city: and he shall cause the house to be scraped within round about, and they shall pour out the mortar that they serape off without the city into an unclean place: and they shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones; and he shall take other mortar and shall plaister the house. And if the plague come again, and break out in the house, after that he hath taken out the stones, and after he hath scraped the house, and after it is plaistered; then the priest shall come in 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. 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. And if the priest shall come in, and look, and, behold, the plague hath not spread in the house, after the house was plaistered; then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, because the plague is healed. And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: and he shall kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water: and he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times: and he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet: but he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open field: so shall he make atonement for the house: and it shall be clean.”

There has been much debate as to what we are to understand by the leprosy in the garment or in a house. Was it an affection identical in nature with the leprosy of the body? or was it merely so called from a certain external similarity to that plague?

However extraordinary the former supposition might once have seemed, in the present state of medical science we are at least able to say that there is nothing inconceivable in it. We have abundant experimental evidence that a large number of diseases, and, not improbably, leprosy among them, are caused by minute parasitic forms of vegetable life; and, also, that in many cases these forms of life may, and do, exist and multiply in various other suitable media besides the fluids and tissues of the human body. If, as is quite likely, leprosy be caused by some such parasitic life in the human body, it is then evidently possible that such parasites, under favourable conditions of heat, moisture, etc., should exist and propagate themselves, as in other analogous cases, outside the body; as, for instance, in cloth, or leather, or in the plaster of a house; in which case it is plain that such garments or household implements, or such dwellings, as might be thus infected, would be certainly unwholesome, and presumably capable of communicating the leprosy to the human subject. But we have not yet sufficient scientific observation to settle the question whether this is really so; we can, however, safely say that, in any case, the description which is here given indicates a growth in the affected garment or house of some kind of mould or mildew; which, as we know, is a form of life produced under conditions which always imply an unwholesome state of the article or house in which it appears. We also know that if such growths be allowed to go on unchecked, they involve more or less rapid processes of decomposition in that which is affected. Thus, even from a merely natural point of view, one can see the high wisdom of the Divine King of Israel in ordering that, in all such cases, the man whose garment or house was thus affected should at once notify the priest, who was to come and decide whether the appearance was of a noxious and unclean kind or not, and then take action accordingly.

Whether the suspicious spot were in a house or in some article it contained, the article or house (the latter having been previously emptied) was first shut up for seven days. {Lev 13:50, Lev 14:38} If in the garment or other article affected it was found then to have spread, it was without any further ceremony to be burnt. {Lev 13:51-52} If it had not spread, it was to be washed and shut up seven days more, at the end of which time, even though it had not spread, if the greenish or reddish colour remained unchanged, it was still to be adjudged unclean, and to be burned. {Lev 13:55} If, on the other hand, the colour had somewhat “dimmed,” the part affected was to he cut out; when, if it spread no further, it was to be washed a second time and be pronounced clean. {Lev 13:58} If, however, after the excision of the affected part, the spot appeared again, the article, without further delay, was to be burned. {Lev 13:57}

The law, in the case of the appearing of a leprosy in a house, {Lev 14:33-53} was much more elaborate. As in the former case, when the occupant of the house suspects, “as it were a plague in the house,” he is to go and tell the priest; who is, first of all, to order the emptying of the house before he goes in, lest that which is in the house, should it prove to be the plague, be made unclean (Lev 14:36). The diagnosis reminds us of that of the leprosy in the body; greenish or reddish streaks, in appearance “lower than the wall,” i.e., deep seated (Lev 14:37). Where this is observed, the empty house is to be shut up for seven days (Lev 14:38-39); and at the end of that time, if the spot has spread, “the stones in which the plague is” are to be taken out, the plaster scraped off the walls of the house, and all carried out into an unclean place outside of the city, and new stones and new plaster put in the place of the old (Lev 14:40-42). If, after this, the plague yet reappear, the house is to be adjudged unclean, and is to be wholly torn down, and all the material carried into an unclean place without the city (Lev 14:44-45). If, on the other hand, after this renewal of the interior of the house, the spots do not reappear, the priest “shall pronounce the house clean, because the plague is healed” (Lev 14:48). But, unlike the case of the leprous garment, this does not end the ceremonial. It is ordered that the priest shall take to cleanse (lit. “to purge the house from sin”) (Lev 14:49) two birds, scarlet, cedar, and hyssop, which are then used precisely as in the case of the purgation of the leprous man; and at the end, “he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open field: so shall he make atonement for the house: and it shall be clean” (Lev 14:50-53).

For the time then present, one can hardly fail to see in this ceremonial, first, a merciful sanitary intent. By the observance of these regulations not only was Israel to be saved from many sicknesses and various evils, but was to be constantly reminded that Israels God, like a wise and kind Father, had a care for everything that pertained to their welfare; not only for their persons, but also for their dwellings, and even all the various articles of daily use. The lesson is always in force, for God has not changed. He is not a God who cares for the souls of men only, but for their bodies also, and everything around them. His servants do well to remember this, and in this imitate Him, as happily many are doing more and more. Bibles and tracts are good, and religious exhortation; but we have here left us a Divine warrant not to content ourselves with these things alone, but to have a care for the clothing and the homes of those we would reach with the Gospel. In all the large cities of Christendom it must be confessed that the principle which underlies these laws concerning houses and garments, is often terribly neglected. Whether the veritable plague of leprosy be in the walls of many of our tenement houses or not, there can be no doubt that it could not be much worse if it were; and Christian philanthropy and legislation could scarcely do better in many cases than vigorously to enforce the Levitical law, tear down, replaster, or, in many cases, destroy from the foundation, tenement houses which could, with little exaggeration, be justly described as leprous throughout.

But all which is in this law cannot be thus explained. Even the Israelite must have looked beyond this for the meaning of the ordinance of the two birds, the cedar, scarlet, and hyssop, and the “atonement” for the house. He would have easily perceived that not only leprosy in the body, but this leprosy in the garment and the house, was a sign that both the man himself, and his whole environment as well, was subject to death and decay; that, as already he would have learned from the Book of Genesis, even nature was under a curse because of mans sin; and that, as in the Divine plan, sacrificial cleansing was required for the deliverance of man, so also it was somehow mysteriously required for the cleansing of his earthly abode and surroundings, in default of which purgation they must be destroyed.

And from this to the antitypical truth prefigured by these laws it is but a step; and a step which we take with full New Testament light to guide us. For if the leprosy in the body visibly typified the working of sin and death in the soul of man, then, as clearly, the leprosy in the house must in this law be intended to symbolise the working of sin in the material earthly creation, which is mans abode. The type thus brings before us the truth which is set forth by the Apostle Paul in Rom 8:20-22, where we are taught in express words that, not man alone, but the whole creation also, because of sin, has come under a “bondage of corruption.” “The creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” This is one truth which is shadowed forth in this type.

But the type also shows us how, as Scripture elsewhere clearly teaches, if after such partial purgation as was effected by means of the deluge the bondage of corruption still persist, then the abode of man must itself be destroyed; “the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” {2Pe 3:10} Nothing less than fire will suffice to put an end to the working in material nature of this mysterious curse. And yet beyond the fire is redemption. For the atonement shall avail not only for the leprous man, but for the purifying of the leprous abode. The sprinkling of sacrificial blood and water by means of the cedar, and hyssop, and scarlet, and the living bird, which effected the deliverance of the leper, are used also in the same way and for the same end, for the leprous house. And so “according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness”; {2Pe 3:13} and it shall be brought in through the virtue of atonement made by a Saviour slain, and applied by a Saviour alive from the dead; so that, as the free bird flies away in token of the full completion of deliverance from the curse, so “the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God”. {Rom 8:21}

But there was also a leprosy of the garment. If the leprosy in the body typified the effect of sin in the soul, and the leprosy in the house, the effect of sin in the earthly creation, which is mans home; the leprosy of the garment can scarcely typify anything else than the presence and effects of sin in those various relations in life which constitute our present environment. Whenever, in any of these, we suspect the working of sin, first of all we are to lay the case before the heavenly Priest. And then, if He with the “eyes like a flame of fire” {Rev 1:14; Rev 2:16} declare anything unclean, then that in which the stain is found must be without hesitation cut out and thrown away. And if still, after this, we find the evil reappearing, then the whole garment must go, fair and good though the most of it may still appear. In other words, those relations and engagements in which, despite all possible care and precaution, we find manifest sin persistently reappearing, as if there were in them, however inexplicably, an ineradicable tendency to evil, -these we must resolutely put away, “hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.”

The leprous garment must be burnt. For its restoration or purification the law made no provision. For here, in the antitype, we are dealing with earthly relationships, which have only to do with the present life and order. “The fashion of this world passeth away”. {1Co 7:31} There shall be “new heavens and a new earth,” but in that new creation the old environment shall be found no longer. The old garments, even such as were best, shall be no longer used. The redeemed shall walk with the King and Redeemer, clothed in the white robes which He shall give. No more leprosy then in person, house, or garment! For we shall be set before the presence of the Fathers glory, without blemish, in exceeding joy, “not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.” Wherefore “to the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and power, before all time, and now, and forevermore. Amen.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary