Continuing a chronological Bible study:
(Leviticus 13:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, (2) “When a man has on the skin of his body a swelling, a scab, or a bright spot, and it becomes on the skin of his body like a plague of leprosy, then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests."
After it was said in chapter 12 that the Lord spoke only to Moses, chapter 13 began by telling us the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, surely because the following laws concerned the priests. Whenever a man began to show signs of leprosy, those being a swelling, scale, or a bright spot, he was to be brought to a priest, either Aaron or one of Aaron's sons.
(3) "And the priest shall examine the plague in the skin of the flesh, and if the hair in the plague has turned white, and the plague in sight is deeper than the skin of his body, it is a plague of leprosy; and the priest shall examine him, and pronounce him unclean."
The priest was to closely examine the signs of suspected leprosy. If the hair in the suspicious area had turned white when it was otherwise usually another color, and if the area was more than merely skin deep, then it was determined to be leprosy, and the priest was to declare the person unclean.
(4) "If the bright spot is white on the skin of his flesh, and does not appear to be deeper than the skin, and its hair has not turned white, then the priest shall isolate the one who has the plague seven days. (5) And the priest shall examine him on the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague appears to be as it was, and the plague has not spread on the skin, then the priest shall isolate him another seven days."
If, upon examination, there was a bright white spot in the skin, but it was not more than skin deep, and the hair within it had not turned white, then the person was just to be isolated for seven days. The priest would then re-examine on the seventh day, and if the area was just as it was and had not spread, he would isolate the person another seven days.
(6) "And the priest shall examine him again on the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague is somewhat dark, and the plague has not spread on the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only a scab, and he shall wash his clothes and be clean."
The priest would again re-examine the person with the plague, and if the area was somewhat dark, meaning it was not as bright white as before, and if it had not spread, then the priest was sure it was not leprosy, and would pronounce the person clean. The area was declared just a scab, and the person was to wash his clothes and be considered clean.
(7) “But if the scab spread much in the skin, after he has been seen by the priest for his cleansing, he shall be seen by the priest again."
However, if the scabbed area spread in the person's skin after he had been pronounced clean by the priest, he would have to be examined by the priest yet again.
(8) “And if the priest sees that, behold, the scab has spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is leprosy."
If the priest re-examined the person and saw that indeed the scabbed area had spread in the skin, then he would pronounce the person unclean as it was to be considered leprosy.
(9) “When the plague of leprosy is in a man, then he shall be brought to the priest. (10) And the priest shall examine him, and, behold, if the swelling on the skin is white, and it has turned the hair white, and there is a spot of raw flesh in the swelling, (11) It is an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean, and shall not isolate him, for he is unclean."
In verse 2, we had the case of a person with a suspicious sore, but in this case, it was widely known and certain that the person indeed had leprosy, and he was to be brought to the priest. The priest would examine him, and if the area was white, had turned the hair within it white, and there was a spot of raw flesh in the swelled area, it was considered an "old" leprosy, a chronic long-standing leprosy. There was no need in this case to isolate the person, for it was certain that he had leprosy and he was to be considered and pronounced unclean.
(12) “And if leprosy breaks out all over the skin, and the leprosy covers all the skin of the one who has the plague, from his head to his foot, wherever the priest looks, (13) Then the priest shall consider, and, behold, if the leprosy has covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean who has the plague; it has all turned white; he is clean."
Interestingly, if the leprosy had broken out all over the skin and completely covered the person's skin from head to toe, the priest was to examine and confirm that this was the case, and the person would actually be pronounced clean. When all the person's skin had turned white, he was considered clean. Why would it be that the partial leper was pronounced unclean, and the person totally covered with the disease was pronounced clean? Surely it must have had to do with the particular stage of the disease. In the case of the partial leprosy, there were open sores, and the disease was probably highly contagious during that time. Once the skin was an allover white, the disease had probably run its course, and was no longer contagious; and there weren't any open sores, just an allover white skin.
(14) “But when raw flesh appears on him, he shall be unclean. (15) And the priest shall examine the raw flesh and pronounce him to be unclean, for the raw flesh is unclean; it is leprosy."
Indeed, scripture went on to say that if there was any raw flesh or open sores, the person was to be considered unclean. The priest was to examine and confirm that there was raw flesh and pronounce him unclean, because the raw flesh was unclean and considered leprosy.
(16) “Or if the raw flesh changes and turns white again, he shall come to the priest. (17) And the priest shall examine him, and, behold, if the plague has turned white, then the priest shall pronounce him clean who has the plague; he is clean."
Once again, if the raw flesh became allover white, the person was to go back to the priest, and once he was examined and found to be indeed just white with no open sores, the priest would pronounce him clean.
(18) "The flesh in which there was a boil, and it is healed, (19) And in the place of the boil there is a white swelling or a bright spot, reddish-white, and it be shown to the priest, (20) And if, when the priest sees it, behold, it appears deeper than the skin, and its hair has turned white, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a plague of leprosy broken out of the boil."
If a person had had a boil and it was now healed, but there came a white swelling or bright reddish white spot in its place, that was to be shown to the priest. The priest was to examine it and if it appeared more than skin deep and the hair in it had turned white, he would pronounce the person who had had the boil as unclean, as it appeared leprosy had broken out of the boil. I believe the implication here is that leprosy, being contagious, was more apt to spread by contact with diseased flesh, than with flesh that was whole and sound. Therefore, someone who had had a boil might be one to watch for signs of leprosy following the healing of the boil.
(21) “But if the priest examines it, and, behold, there are no white hairs in it, and it is not deeper than the skin, but is somewhat dark, then the priest shall isolate him seven days; (22) And if it spreads much in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a plague."
However, if the priest examined the suspicious area where a person had had a boil, and it had no white hair in it and it was somewhat dark, indicating healing from the white area, the priest was just to isolate the person for seven days. If the area in the skin spread, then the priest would pronounce the person unclean as it was a plague.
(23) “But if the bright spot stays in one place, and does not spread, it is a burning boil; and the priest shall pronounce him clean."
If after the seven days of isolation, the priest determined that the suspicious spot had stayed in one place and had not spread, then the spot was declared a "burning boil", or "burning of the boil", which is believed to have meant the scabbing or scarring of the boil. In this case, the priest would pronounce the person clean.
(24) “Or if there is any flesh, in the skin of which there is a hot burning, and the raw flesh of the burn has a white bright spot, somewhat reddish, or white; (25) Then the priest shall examine it, and, behold, if the hair in the bright spot has turned white, and it appears deeper than the skin, it is leprosy broken out of the burning; therefore the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is the plague of leprosy."
The words translated as "hot burning", "esh mikvah", appear to mean literally "burning of fire", so this is understood to mean any flesh that was burned. If the flesh of a burn had a white or reddish-white bright spot, the priest was to examine it, and if the hair was white within it and it was more than skin deep, it would appear that leprosy had broken out in the area of the burned wound, and the priest would pronounce the victim unclean with a plague of leprosy.
(26) “But if the priest examines it, and, behold, there is no white hair in the bright spot, and it is not deeper than the skin, but is somewhat dark, then the priest shall isolate him seven days. (27) And the priest shall examine him the seventh day; if it has spread much in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is the plague of leprosy."
However, if the priest examined the bright flesh of a burn wound, and there was no white hair, it had somewhat darkened, and was not more than skin deep, then the priest would just isolate the person for seven days. If after that time, the area had spread, then the priest would pronounce the person unclean as it appeared to be a plague of leprosy.
(28) “But if the bright spot stays in one place, and has not spread in the skin, but is somewhat dark, it is a swelling from the burn; and the priest shall pronounce him clean, for it is an inflammation of the burning."
If after seven days, the priest determined that the bright spot had stayed in one place and had not spread, and that it was somewhat darker and not more than skin deep, he would pronounce the person clean, as it was just inflammation from the burn.
(29) “If a man or woman has a plague on the head or the beard, (30) Then the priest shall examine the plague, and, behold, if it appears deeper than the skin, and there is in it thin yellow hair, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a dry scall, a leprosy on the head or beard."
If a man or woman had a sore under the hair on the head or under a beard, then the priest was to examine it, and if it appeared deeper than skin deep and the hair within it was thin and yellow, then the person was to be pronounced unclean, for it was declared a dry scall, a leprosy on the head or beard. Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible, wrote that as "scall" was "the name for another disease not allied to the leprosy, it would have been better to retain the original word netheq." Indeed, "scall" has come to mean merely dandruff, but was formerly a term for any of various diseases of the scalp characterized by itching and scab formation. In this instance, a "dry scall" was considered a type of leprosy of the head or beard if it had the characteristics given in verse 30.
(31) "And if the priest examines the plague of the scall, and, behold, it does not appear deeper than the skin, and there is no black hair in it, then the priest shall isolate the one who has the plague of the scall seven days."
However, if the priest examined the plague on the head or in the beard, and it was not more than skin deep, but had no black hairs in it, then the person was just to be isolated for seven days. I believe the sense is that if there were black hairs, then there would be no question that the person was clean. However, if there were no black or yellow hairs, either one, it would be questionable, and the person was to be isolated for seven days and then re-examined.
(32) “And on the seventh day the priest shall examine the plague, and, behold, if the scall has not spread, and there is no yellow hair in it, and the scall does not appear deeper than the skin, (33) He shall be shaved, but the scall he shall not shave; and the priest shall isolate the one who has the scall seven days more."
If after seven days the scall had not spread, and there was no yellow hair in it, and it did not appear to be more than skin deep, then the person was to be shaved. However, the scall itself was not to be shaved, either to prevent irritation, or perhaps to better observe the hair growing out of it. The person was to then be isolated for seven more days.
(34) "And on the seventh day the priest shall examine the scall, and, behold, if the scall has not spread in the skin, nor appears deeper than the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean."
After the next seven days, after the person had been shaved, the priest would again examine the scall, and if it had not spread and was no more than skin deep, then the priest would pronounce him clean; the person was to wash his clothes and then be considered clean.
(35) “But if the scall has spread much in the skin after his cleansing, (36) Then the priest shall examine him; and, behold, if the scall has spread in the skin, the priest shall not seek for yellow hair; he is unclean."
However, if the scall spreads on the person's skin, even after his cleansing, then he is again to be examined by the priest, and indeed, if the priest comes to the conclusion that the scall had spread, then the person was declared unclean. There was no need to look for yellow hair; the mere spreading of the scall was enough to confirm it was at least a type of leprosy, and the person was pronounced unclean.
(37) “But if the scall appears to be at a stay, and there is black hair grown up within it, the scall has healed; he is clean, and the priest shall pronounce him clean."
Upon re-examination, if the scall appeared to be at a standstill and had not spread, and there was black hair within the area, then that indicated the scall had healed, and the person was pronounced clean.
(38) “If a man or a woman has in the skin of their flesh bright spots, even white bright spots, (39) Then the priest shall look, and, behold, if the bright spots in the skin of their flesh are darkish white, it is a freckled spot that grows in the skin; he is clean."
If a man or a woman had bright spots on their skin, even if they were bright white spots, if they had no other symptoms of leprosy, as an open sore or scall or white hair, then the priest was to examine them, and if their white spots were somewhat dark, they were considered just freckles in the skin, and the person was considered clean.
(40) "And the man whose hair has fallen off his head, he is bald, but he is clean."
A man whose hair had fallen out was just considered bald and was clean. Not every deformity of the skin and head was leprosy, and in these verses, God gave directions for discerning what was to be considered leprosy.
(41) "And he whose hair has fallen from his forehead, he is bald on the forehead, but he is clean."
No matter what pattern his baldness took, whether in the back, all over, or in the front, it was just considered baldness if there were no other symptoms, and the bald man was to be considered clean.
(42) “And if there is on the bald head or bald forehead a reddish-white sore, it is leprosy breaking out on his bald head or his bald forehead."
However, if there was a reddish-white sore on the bald head, then it was considered leprosy breaking out on his bald head or forehead.
(43) "Then the priest shall examine it, and behold, if the swelling of the sore is reddish-white on his bald head or on his bald forehead, as the appearance of leprosy on the skin of the flesh, (44) He is a leprous man, he is unclean; the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his plague is on his head."
The priest was to examine the reddish-white sore, and indeed, if the swelling of the sore was reddish-white in his bald area, like leprosy found elsewhere in the skin on the body, he was to be considered a leprous man. Note that in the case of baldness, a priest could not look to hair color as one of the signs of leprosy, but if the sore had the other characteristics of a leprous sore found on other parts of the flesh, the priest was to pronounce him unclean as he had a leprous plague on his head.
(45) "And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be torn and his head bare; and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’"
A leper was to tear his clothes and bare his head, as in mourning. He was to put a covering over his lips, which might be a reference to the practice of tying up the jaws of the dead with a linen cloth, as some suggested. However, I find it more likely that it was to keep his breath from infecting others, as he was also to cry out that he was unclean to caution those who would come near him. I'm sure it could have been a little of both as so many things were indeed symbolic in the Old Testament.
(46) "All the days in which the plague is in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean; he shall dwell alone; his habitation shall be outside the camp."
During the time a leper suffered the affliction of that disease he was to be considered defiled and unclean. He was to dwell outside the camp. The original word "badad" does indeed mean alone, but it also and probably more rightly in this case means "separately". The leper was to separate himself from the general public. There are other scripture mentions which indicate that lepers may have associated together outside the camp, so they weren't necessarily destined to be completely alone. Lepers were just to be quarantined away from the rest of the people while they were afflicted.
(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 the warp or woof of linen or wool, whether in a skin or in anything made of skin, (49) And if the plague is greenish or reddish in the garment or in the skin, either in the warp or in the woof or in anything of skin, it is a plague of leprosy and shall be shown to the priest."
It is a little difficult to determine exactly what is meant by leprosy in a garment. It could have been the garment of a leprous person that could indeed be contagious in itself, but then again, what may be being discussed here is something called leprosy in a garment, any garment, not necessarily one on an infected person. Perhaps it was a type of mold or mildew; it was definitely something that was visible. Whether found in the inter-crossing threads of a garment, or in the leather or skin of a garment, if the "plague" appeared greenish or reddish in the garment, it was considered a plague of leprosy and had to be shown to the priest.
(50) "And the priest shall examine the plague and isolate that which has the plague seven days."
The priest was to examine the suspicious spot in the garment and was to isolate it for seven days.
(51) “And he shall examine the plague on the seventh day. If the plague has
spread in the garment, either in the warp or in the woof, in the skin, or in any work that is made of skin; the plague is a fretting leprosy; it is unclean."
The priest was to examine the suspicious garment on the seventh day. If the area had spread in the garment, either in the threads of the cloth or in any leather or skin, the plague was considered active and unclean.
(52) “He shall therefore burn that garment in which is the plague, whether
warp or woof, in wool or in linen, or anything of leather, for it is a fretting leprosy; it shall be burnt in the fire."
I will go ahead and take a moment to more closely study "warp and woof". Although those words generally mean the threads that are interwoven in a garment--warp referring to lengthwise threads and woof meaning those that crossed them, it is hard to understand how a "leprous" spot could be on one thread and not the crossing one. Some Bible scholars believe what is rather meant is "inside and out". That does make logical sense. After seven days, if the plague was found to be spread in the garment, whether in cloth or whether in skin, inside or outside of the garment, it was considered a "fretting" leprosy, that is, "embittered, painful, picking, pricking, irritating", all words that seems to indicate an "active" leprosy. If it was considered active, the garment was to be burnt in the fire.
(53) "And if the priest shall look, and, behold, the plague has not spread in the garment, either in the warp or in the woof, or in anything made of skin, (54) Then the priest shall command that they wash the thing in which is the plague; and he shall isolate it another seven days."
However, if the priest examined the garment, and the plague had not spread in any part of it, then the priest ordered that the garment be washed and he isolated it for another seven days.
(55) "And the priest shall examine the plague after it has been washed, and, behold, if the plague has not changed its color, and the plague has not spread, it is unclean, and you shall burn it in the fire; it is fret inward, whether it be bare inside or outside."
The priest was again to examine the garment after it had been washed, and I'm assuming after the next seven days, and if the plague had not changed in color, even if it had not spread, it was still considered unclean and to be burned. "Fret inward", originally "pechetheth", meant "hollowed out". I believe the sense here is that even if the spot had not spread, if it had not changed its color, then it was considered as active and eating away "inside" away from view, perhaps. But whether inside or outside, if the color was not changed after washing, the item had to be burned.
(56) "And if the priest looks, and, behold, the plague is somewhat dark after the washing of it, then he shall tear it out of the garment, out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof."
However, if after the washing and the additional seven days, the plague was somewhat darker, indicating the diseased color had faded somewhat, then rather than burn the whole garment, the priest would tear the spot out of the garment, whether it be in the threads of the cloth or in the skin.
(57) "And if it appears again in the garment, either in the warp or in the woof, or in anything of skin, it is a spreading plague; you shall burn that in which the plague is with fire."
However, if the plague appeared again anywhere else in the garment, in cloth or in skin, it was a spreading plague after all, and was to be burned in the fire.
(58) “And the garment, either warp or woof, or whatever thing of skin it may be, which you shall wash, if the plague has disappeared from it, then it shall be washed a second time, and shall be clean."
If after washing, the plague had disappeared completely from the garment, it was to be washed a second time and would then be considered clean.
(59) “This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of wool or linen, either in the warp or woof, or in anything of skins, to pronounce it clean or to pronounce it unclean.”
The preceding rules were considered the laws of leprosy in a garment, either to declare it free from the plague of leprosy, or as infected with it, and so accordingly dispose of it. The chapter as a whole included the laws concerning leprosy in people and in garments.
Some of the old commentaries, specifically Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible and Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, described how leprosy was an illustration of sin. Leprosy began with a spot but soon spread. Sin begins with a seed of iniquity that gradually increases. Leprosy was infectious, not only to the person’s body, but also to his clothes; because of the infectious nature of leprosy, the leper became a danger to those around him. So also sin spreads and affects the mind of the sinner, and by his thoughts and actions, the sinner spreads his sin wherever he goes. As leprosy affected the clothing, so sin affects all that the sinner has and does. The leper was to be separated from society and was to publicly proclaim his uncleanness. If the sinner's actions are serious enough, he may be separated from society, but he is certainly separated from God and His kingdom. If he wishes to be saved, the sinner must proclaim his uncleanness and his need for Jesus Christ and His sacrifice by which the sinner's guilt may be washed away. The fact that lepers were cleansed was one of the signs by which the Christ would be known:
Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said to Him, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: “The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them." - Matthew 11:2-5
