Leviticus 13 commentary

LEVITICUS 13 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

Regulations About Defiling Skin Diseases1 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron,

GILL, "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.

HENRY 1-3, "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, 2Ki_5:1. 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

1

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, Mat_8:2. 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 (Lev_13:6) 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.JAMISON,"Lev_13:1-59. The laws and tokens in discerning leprosy.

K&D, "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

2

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).

COFFMAN, "This long chapter provides instructions for the ancient priests of Israel to follow in dealing with physical conditions suspected of being leprosy. We have actually found no key whatever for any application of the instructions here to the concerns and interests of our society today, except in the general sense regarding the typical nature of leprosy as a type of sin, due to its loathsomeness, and its fatal consequences.Since a number of different symptoms are enumerated here, some of which led to a designation of leprosy in the victim, and others which resulted in his being pronounced "clean," it is quite obvious that several different physical disorders resulted in the sufferer's being brought to the priest for diagnosis.Knight identified the following diseases as coming under inspection in this chapter: "(1) The horrible anaesthetic leprosy that exists unto this day; (2) tuberculous leprosy that begins with a skin disease and develops into deformities; (3) several kinds of skin eruptions resembling leprosy, but sometimes disappearing spontaneously; and (4) a number of diseases known and treated today under such names as herpes, ringworm, eczema, and psoriasis.[1]The Holy Scriptures were never provided in order to give men scientific information, and the thing that is in view here is the divine instruction to protect the spread of disease, especially that of leprosy. It is not the cure of this malady which is given here, but the rules for the isolation and quarantine of those having it. That such instructions are Divine should not be for a moment questioned. The human race has continued to isolate and quarantine lepers all over the world until this very day. The extreme repugnance of the disease, as well as its incurable nature, made it an especially appropriate type of sin. The fact that those ancient priests charged with the task of observing human maladies and deciding which was leprosy and which was not were probably subject to human error in their decisions should not

3

obscure the truth that the method they followed was the best known and the most efficient that that age provided.North commented that, "The application of the word leprosy in this chapter is very wide; and it has even been doubted that true leprosy is contemplated at all."[2]However, we need have no hesitance in believing that actual leprosy was surely included in this chapter, because other passages in the Bible plainly indicate the characteristics of leprosy in its worst form. Moses' prayer concerning the leprosy of Miriam has this: "Let her not, I pray, be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed" (Numbers 12:12). "All references to this disease in the Scriptures imply that it was incurable and that its removal required the exercise of Divine power."[3] Naaman, it will be remembered, sought the cure of his leprosy, not because of any fancied skill of Israel's physicians, but because there was a "prophet of God" in Israel. And when Naaman inquired of the King of Israel, the king tore his garments and exploded with the remark: "Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy?" (2 Kings 5:7). Such references to the disease may be multiplied, but these are enough to show that there was indeed real leprosy in the land, and that the people knew it and recognized it. Any notion, therefore, that this chapter is dealing only with such a thing as psoriasis is ridiculous. There were probably, of course, many persons who came to the priests with diseases other than leprosy, and those of course, were, after investigation, declared "clean.""And Jehovah spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, 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: 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. 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: 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: 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. 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: 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."In the first 28 verses, four different cases of suspected leprosy are described, the first in this paragraph, the second in Leviticus 13:9-17, the third in Leviticus 13:18-23, and the fourth in Leviticus 13:24-28. Note that extended observation in

4

certain cases was required to determine if leprosy actually existed. There was also a provision, that even when declared clean, a patient might still be denominated as leprous and unclean, if the malady returned in such a manner as to justify such a decision. This indicated that the judgment of the priests in these matters was not considered "divine," but human judgment, exercised to the best of their ability.ELLICOTT, "(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 (Leviticus 13:2-46); (2) leprosy of garments (Leviticus 13:47-59); and (3) leprosy of houses (Leviticus 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 Leviticus 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 (Deuteronomy 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.

5

WHEDON, "Verse 1-2THE 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 Numbers 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 priests 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.EBC, "THE UNCLEANNESS OF LEPROSYLeviticus 13:1-46THE 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

6

designated. The word simply means "a stroke," as also does the generic term used in Leviticus 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 Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 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.

7

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, {Numbers 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, {2 Kings 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: {2 Kings 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 {Matthew 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

8

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 (Leviticus 13:2-3, Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 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 Leviticus 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 Leviticus 13:38-39, where it is described as marked by bright spots of a dull

9

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.Leviticus 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

10

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, {Psalms 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 {Leviticus 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.

11

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." {Mark 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

12

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 {2 Timothy 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". {Ephesians 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

13

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, {Romans 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 {Romans 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

14

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 {Revelation 21:27; Revelation 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, {Jeremiah 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 (Leviticus 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

15

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.PETT, "Chapter 13 Uncleanness Caused By Skin Diseases.Up to this point the cleanness and uncleanness described has firstly related to the whole of Israel, and then to the whole of the womenfolk of Israel. Now it comes down to individual cases. Once again we detect a look back to the Genesis story. Chapter 11 has looked at the effects of the curse on men and food provision, chapter 12 has looked at the effects of the curse on women and child-birth, now we see the effects of the curse on individuals because of sin, sin not necessarily wholly their own. When Adam and Eve sinned they were expelled from the Fruitful Plain of Eden. They were excluded because now they were mortal, dying people, because they were diseased with sin, because they were no longer fit to meet with God and walk with Him daily.In a similar way those who had serious skin disease were to be declared unclean, were to be declared to be the living dead, were to be expelled from the camp of Israel. For that serious skin disease rendered them unclean, unfit to return to the camp of Israel, unfit to approach God in the tabernacle. They were seen as like Adam and Eve once they had sinned. They were cast out from Gods intimate presence.In this case the few suffered visibly as representatives of the whole. All Israel were dressed in polluted garments (Isaiah 64:6). Spiritually all were unclean. But the plague only came on some as a warning to the whole. That it was the consequence of the fall no one would doubt. They would see in this diseased remnant of the children of Israel the particular mark of the fall, and that the whole were only spared by the grace of God.For the world having been affected by mans fall, it was inevitable that disease would raise its head, and disease is regularly seen in the Old Testament as the punishment on the world due for sin. And certain special types of disease, as outlined in this chapter, were seen as marking the sinner off as outside the perfection of God. The disease that resulted from sin was seen to have laid its visible mark on those involved. The diseases were a diminishing of the life that was in that person. They rendered him unclean. There were thus always going to be those whose sickness drew attention to the deserved consequence of the fall, to the fact that unwholeness excluded men from God. It may be that this was seen as illustrating the mark of Cain (Genesis 4:15). Some have seen that as referring to some terrible skin disease. He was the one who was cast out of the camp and then formed his own camp.Such skin diseases were in fact specifically threatened as a punishment for those

16

who failed to walk faithfully in the covenant (Deuteronomy 28:27; Deuteronomy 28:59-61; Isaiah 1:6; Isaiah 3:17; Psalms 38:3), and thus those who had them were looked on as though they must be especially sinful, even though it might not be so. They were actually the few who were the warning to the many. The diseases, if he had them, could prevent a priest from entering into the Holy Place to offer the bread of his God (Leviticus 21:20). They made people unclean because they were blemished, coming short of Gods requirement of perfection. They diminished men and women and were a sign of decay, and dying flesh. When Miriam was stricken with skin disease because of her sin Aaron pleaded for her with Moses and asked that that she should not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he comes out of his mothers womb (Numbers 12:11-12). He did not want her to be half a person.Thus the prime significance of this uncleanness to Israel was that the unclean person was excluded from the sphere of holiness all the time that they were unclean. They were blemished, they were not fully alive, they were outside the state in which they should have been, the state of the normal. Like Adam and Eve they were thrust out from Gods holy place and Gods holy camp. The central thought was not that they were infectious and might pass the disease on, although that was often true, it was that they in themselves came short of Gods required perfection, and were thus excluded from holy places, and in the worst cases from the holy camp. In this they were not being punished, or even treated medically, they were being judged religiously. Their presence would defile holiness. This brought home the terrible nature of the judgment it expressed. The sin that was responsible for such diseases excluded men from the presence of God.The sinfulness was not necessarily that of the person involved, although all were in fact sinners. The point was not so much of punishing the individual, but as seeing skin diseases in general as evidence of Gods displeasure and judgment on men as a whole, and on Israel in particular. They were the result of living in a fallen world. The whole of Israel and the whole of the world should have been plagued. It was only Gods extreme mercy and grace that enabled them to become a people separated off for God, a holy nation, because He had chosen to love them, and because it was a part of the plan that would lead up to His Son, the Messiah, coming into the world. In His mercy God restrained the plague to the few so that they could be an example and a warning to the many.Specific examples are given in Scripture where the disease was related to specific sin (Numbers 12:10; 2 Kings 5:27; 2 Chronicles 26:19-21). But this does not signify that all such related to specific sin. There was no suggestion of blame in the case of Naaman. In its central message the individual was unimportant. When the house of Pharaoh was plagued it was not for deliberate sin of which they were aware, but it was for sin nevertheless (Genesis 12:17). And Solomon related the coming of plagues on Israel to sin, which he connected with the plague of mens hearts (1 Kings 8:37-39), from which God would deliver them. The plagues revealed that for all men sin would keep them from God.

17

To Israel the resulting way in which those affected were treated was an indication that those who bore the sign of Yahwehs displeasure (not necessarily for their own sin), and whose insufficiency defiled in any way the holiness of God, would be expelled from the camp until that sign was removed. They were thus seen as continual evidence to those who came in and out of the camp of Gods judgment against sin, and a dreadful warning to others of what sin could bring about in mens lives. Their condition cried out, we have been expelled from the camp because of our unfitness, our lack of perfectness, our uncleanness, as God will one day expel all who disobey Him. Every person with serious skin disease who left the camp was an example of what too would happen to Israel if they did not obey Gods covenant and walk in His ways.Thus the emphasis of this law of uncleanness on the consequences of becoming unclean was a gee up message to Israel to ensure that this did not happen to them.However there can be no question but that the law also served another purpose. Unknowingly in acting as priests the priests were also acting as medical specialists. They were discerning infectious diseases and quarantining, either temporarily in a safe place in the camp, or more permanently by putting out of the camp, those who might pass such diseases on. Thus as with other cases of cleanness and uncleanness a double purpose was served. But they were not doctors. Nor did they treat all infectious diseases in such a severe way, for they did not know of them. They had no cures and they simply followed their instructions letter by letter. Their main purpose was to protect the holiness of Yahweh and of His people. Skin diseases were useful for the purpose because they were plainly visible.The word used for skin disease is saraath. It means becoming diseased in the skin and therefore covers a variety of scaly skin diseases. It would be quite wrong to limit it to what we know of today as leprosy, and some deny that leprosy was in mind at all. We have translated it suspicious skin disease, for that summed up what it was. No one would actually know what it was, they would simply know whether or not it was a type that made the man permanently unclean, and act accordingly, although no doubt as they gained in experience they would give names to different types and begin to recognise them more easily. But all were seen as the mark of sin.Seven types of infectious skin diseases have been discerned in Leviticus 13:1-44 : skin eruptions (Leviticus 13:2-8), chronic skin disease (Leviticus 13:9-17), boils or ulcers (Leviticus 13:18-23), burns (Leviticus 13:24-28), sores (Leviticus 13:29-37), rashes (Leviticus 13:38-39), and baldness (Leviticus 13:40-44). Most who came for such examination would have minor skin complaints and would go away relieved. Others would find themselves put in isolation to see if the complaint healed up, and would wait in dread for the priests next visit and his verdict. If they were then found to be clean they would be overjoyed. But the unfortunate ones would find that they had a serious and permanent skin disease, and that for them life was as good as

18

over.There is much disagreement about the particular types of disease represented by the symptoms. Agreement is hard to find, and we must remember that they are not necessarily identifiable with modern skin diseases. But that does not really matter except as a sop to our curiosity. The message comes over whatever they were.In seeking to identify the different conditions some do point to leprosy as being one probability, and some of the symptoms would tie in with this, but there are numerous other possibilities, and although cases of leprosy are known in the area in ancient times, modern opinion is in general against it being so prevalent, and we would probably be wrong to see this as central to the conditions described, although it may well be seen as among them.Others have identified in the later diseases described, among other things psoriasis, a chronic, non-infectious skin disease characterised by the presence of well-demarcated, slightly raised reddish patches of various sizes covered by dry greyish-white or silvery scales, and favus, a much more severe and damaging infection connected with ring-worm in which the fungus invades both the hair and the full thickness of the skin. Others refer to leucoderma, a slightly disfiguring condition in which patches of otherwise normal skin lose their natural colouring and become completely white. All three are possibly in mind, along with other skin diseases.But it must be recognised that the priest is not trying to identify the particular skin disease. He is simply following divine instructions to discover whether a mans symptoms show him to be clean or unclean, and whether he has to be quarantined or excluded from the camp. His whole concern is strictly with maintaining the greater holiness of the tabernacle and the lesser holiness of the camp.Behind the laws we may see a reference to man in his sinfulness. All of us from birth are diseased with sin. It is a disease that grows and spreads and penetrates deep within, and it produces its scars without. And the choice is laid before each one of us. Either we come to Christ, the One Who can cleanse us from sin and root it out from within us, presenting us perfect before God (Hebrews 10:14), or we will be cast out of the camp, with no place in Gods presence. And once we are His the situation continues. The Christian cannot again allow sin to penetrate deep within, or spread. It must be dealt with immediately. For the sin that penetrates deep and spreads is deadly and if not dealt with will result in our rejection.It is thus necessary for all of us to continually come to our great High Priest, Jesus Christ, for examination. But the difference between ourselves and the Israelites is that we have a Great Physician Who is able to heal that is wrong within us. For the Israelite the examinations were in order to keep Israel as a whole holy. They had no means of healing those with serious skin diseases. They were there as a warning to the whole of what sin could do. But for us the situation is different. We can each

19

come personally and not only discover our state but have it dealt with. Not one of the new Israel ever needs to be cast out, only their sin.Verse 1This Is The Word Of Yahweh (Leviticus 13:1).Leviticus 13:1And 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 Leviticus 11:1), and will be again in Leviticus 14:33 and Leviticus 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 Aarons position in Numbers 18, it was prior to the arrival in Kadesh. PULPIT, "Verses 1-46EXPOSITIONUNCLEANNESS DERIVED FROM LEPROSY OR CONTACT WITH LEPERS AND LEPROUS THINGS (Leviticus 13:1-59, Leviticus 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.

20

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' (Malachi 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.SIMEON, "FIRE ON THE ALTAR NOT TO GO OUTLeviticus 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.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,I. Its typical import, as relating to the GospelEvery part of the Ceremonial Law was a shadow of good things to come. This particular ordinance clearly shews,

21

1. That we all need an atonement[This fire, which was to be kept in, was given from heaven [Note: Leviticus 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: Hebrews 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: Hebrews 10:1-4; Hebrews 10:11; Hebrews 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: Genesis 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: Genesis 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,

22

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: Genesis 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: Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 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: John 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: Revelation 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: Leviticus 4:4; Leviticus 4:15; Leviticus 4:24; Leviticus 4:29; Leviticus 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: Hebrews 12:29.] ; and that they who shall be visited with his righteous indignation, must be cast into a lake of fire [Note: Revelation 20:15.], where their worm dieth not, and the fire never shall be quenched [Note: Mark 9:43-46; Mark 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: Isaiah 33:14.] ?]In considering this ordinance, it will be proper yet further to declare,II. Its mystical import, as relating to the ChurchThe 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: Hebrews 13:10-12.] ;

23

and the heart of man, from whence offerings of every kind go up with acceptance before God [Note: Hebrews 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: Leviticus 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: Matthew 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: Isaiah 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: Philippians 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: 2 Peter 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: 2 Timothy 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: Revelation 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.

24

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: 2 John 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: Leviticus 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,1. 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: Leviticus 9:8; Leviticus 9:13; Leviticus 9:15; Leviticus 9:17; Leviticus 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

25

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: Romans 12:1.]. This must precede every other offering [Note: 2 Corinthians 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.]

2 When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a shiny spot on their skin that may be a defiling skin disease,[a] they must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons[b] who is a priest.

BARNES, "The skin of his flesh - An expression found nowhere but in this chapter. It probably denotes the cuticle or scarf skin, as distinguished from the curls or true skin.

Rising ... scab ... bright spot - The Hebrew words are the technical names applied to the common external signs of incipient elephantiasis.Like the plague of leprosy - Like a stroke of leprosy.

26

CLARKE, "The plague of leprosy - This dreadful disorder has its name leprosy, from the Greek , from , a scale, because in this disease the body was often covered with thin white scales, so as to give it the appearance of snow. Hence it is said of the hand of Moses, Exo_4:6, that it was leprous as snow; and of Miriam, Num_12:10, that she became leprous, as white as snow; and of Gehazi, 2Ki_5:27, that, being judicially struck with the disease of Naaman, he went out from Elishas presence a leper as white as snow. See Clarkes note on Exo_4:6. In Hebrew this disease is termed tsaraath, from mor tsara, to smite or strike; but the root in Arabic signifies to cast down or prostrate, and in Ethiopian, to cause to cease, because, says Stockius, it prostrates the strength of man, and obliges him to cease from all work and labor. There were three signs by which the leprosy was known.

1. A bright spot.2. A rising (enamelling) of the surface.3. A scab; the enamelled place producing a variety of layers, or stratum super stratum, of these scales.The account given by Mr. Maundrell of the appearance of several persons whom he saw infected with this disorder in Palestine, will serve to show, in the clearest light, its horrible nature and tendency. When I was in the Holy Land, says he, in his letter to the Rev. Mr. Osborn, Fellow of Exeter College, I saw several that labored under Gehazis distemper; particularly at Sichem, (now Naplosu), there were no less than ten that came begging to us at one time. Their manner is to come with small buckets in their hands, to receive the alms of the charitable; their touch being still held infectious, or at least unclean. The distemper, as I saw it on them, was quite different from what I have seen it in England; for it not only defiles the whole surface of the body with a foul scurf, but also deforms the joints of the body, particularly those of the wrists and ankles, making them swell with a gouty scrofulous substance, very loathsome to look on. I thought their legs like those of old battered horses, such as are often seen in drays in England. The whole distemper, indeed, as it there appeared, was so noisome, that it might well pass for the utmost corruption of the human body on this side the grave. And certainly the inspired penman could not have found out a fitter emblem, whereby to express the uncleanness and odiousness of vice. - Maundrells Travels. Letters at the end. The reader will do well to collate this account with that given from Dr. Mead; see the note on Exo_4:6 (note).

GILL, "When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh,.... Rules are here given, by which a leprosy might be judged of; which, as a disease, was frequent in Egypt, where the Israelites had dwelt a long time, and from whence they were just come; and is doubtless the reason, as learned men have observed, that several Heathen writers make the cause of their expulsion from Egypt, as they choose to call it, though wrongly, their being infected with this distemper; whereas it was the reverse, not they, but the Egyptians, were incident to it (z). Moreover, the leprosy here spoken of seems not to be the same with that disease, or what we now call so, though some have thought otherwise; it being rather an uncleanness than a disease, and the business of a priest, and not a physician to attend unto; and did not arise from natural causes, but was from the immediate hand of God, and was inflicted on men for their sins, as the cases of Miriam, Gehazi, and Uzziah show; and who by complying with the rites and ceremonies

27

hereafter enjoined, their sins were pardoned, and they were cleansed; so that as their case was extraordinary and supernatural, their cure and cleansing were as remarkable: besides, this impurity being in garments and houses, shows it to be something out of the ordinary way. And this law concerning it did not extend to all men, only to the Israelites, and such as were in connection with them, such as proselytes. It is said (a), all are defiled with the plague (of leprosy) except an idolater and a proselyte of the gate; and the commentators say (b), even servants, and little ones though but a day old; that is, they are polluted with it, and so come under this law. Now the place where this disorder appears is "in the skin of the flesh"; that is, where there is a skin, and that is seen; for there are some places, the Jewish writers (c) say, are not reckoned the skin of the flesh, or where that is not seen, and such places are excepted, and they are these; the inside of the eye, of the ear, and of the nose: wrinkles in the neck, under the pap, and under the arm hole; the sole of the foot, the nail, the head and beard: and this phrase, "in the skin of his flesh", is always particularly mentioned; and when there appeared in it a rising, scab, or bright spot; the scab that is placed between the rising or swelling, and the bright spot, belongs to them both, and is a kind of an accessory, or second to each of them: hence the Jews distinguish the scab of the swelling, and the scab of the bright spot; so that these make four in all, as they observe (d). And to this agrees what Ben Gersom on this text remarks; the bright spot is, whose whiteness is as the snow; the rising or swelling is what is white, as the pure wool of a lamb of a day old; the scab is what is inferior in whiteness to the rising, and is as in the degree of the whiteness of the shell or film of an egg; and this is the order of these appearances, the most white is the bright spot, after that the rising, and after that the scab of the bright spot, and after that the scab of the rising or swelling; and, lo, what is in whiteness below the whiteness of this (the last) is not the plague of leprosy: and it be in the skin of his flesh like the plague of leprosy; either of the above appearances in the skin, having somewhat in them similar to the leprosy, or which may justly raise a suspicion of it, though it is not clear and manifest: then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests; for, as Jarchi notes, there was no pollution nor purification of the leprosy, but by the mouth or determination of a priest. And a good man that was desirous, and made conscience of observing the laws of God, when he observed anything of the above in him, and had any suspicion of his case, would of himself go, and show himself to the priest; but if a man did not do this, and any of his neighbours observed the appearances on him, brought him to the priest whether he would or not, according to the text: he shall be brought: that is, as Aben Ezra explains it, whether with or without his will; for he that sees in him one of the signs, shall oblige him to come to the priest; and who observes, that by Aaron the priest is meant, the priest anointed in his room; and by his sons the priests, the common priests, who are found without the sanctuary; such as the priests of Anathoth, but who were not of those that were rejected.

JAMISON,"When a man shall have in the skin, etc. The fact of the following rules for distinguishing the plague of leprosy being incorporated with the Hebrew code of laws, proves the existence of the odious disease among that people. But a short time, little more than a year (if so long a period had elapsed since the exodus) when symptoms

28

of leprosy seem extensively to have appeared among them; and as they could not be very liable to such a cutaneous disorder amid their active journeyings and in the dry open air of Arabia, the seeds of the disorder must have been laid in Egypt, where it has always been endemic. There is every reason to believe that this was the case: that the lepr