Continuing a chronological Bible study:
(Leviticus 14:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought to the priest."
In the last chapter, the Lord spoke to both Moses and Aaron about laws pertaining to leprosy and determining whether a person was clean or unclean with regard to leprosy. Now it appears that the Lord spoke only to Moses, but we can be sure he was to pass the information along to Aaron as what followed most definitely pertained to the priests. In this chapter the Lord began describing the law of the leper in his day of cleansing, which was the religious ceremony during which he was pronounced clean after his leprosy, described in the following verses. First the healed leper was to be brought to the priest.
(3) “And the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall examine him; and behold, if the plague of leprosy is healed in the leper, (4) Then the priest shall command to take for him who is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop."
Note that verse 2 said the healed leper was to be brought to the priest, but verse 3 said the priest was to go out of the camp, so obviously the leper was brought to the priest to a location outside the camp. There the priest examined him, and if the leprosy was indeed healed, he would call for two live clean birds to be taken for the leper. This does not appear to be a sacrificial offering by the leper himself; rather it appears anyone could bring the birds for him. They were also to take cedar wood, a band or strip of scarlet ribbon, and the herb hyssop.
(5) “And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water."
One of the birds was to be killed in an earthen vessel over "running water". What appears to be meant by this is that water was collected into the vessel from running water, as from a fountain or spring, and not from standing water, as from a pit or well. Some of the early commentators I study wrote that this was symbolic of the coming Christ. The blood of the bird would fall into the living water, discoloring it, symbolic of both the death of Christ, when out of his pierced side there came water and blood (John 19:34), and the coming of Christ in general, who came by water and blood (1 John 5:6) to save us from our sins.
(6) “As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, the scarlet, and the hyssop, and dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water."
The priest was to take the living bird, along with the cedar wood, the scarlet strip, and the hyssop, and was to dip them all in the blood mixed water over which the first bird was killed. I read that they were bundled together and tied with the scarlet band onto the cedar stick and then dipped into the bloody water.
(7) “And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed from
the leprosy, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living
bird loose in the open field."
The priest was to shake the cedar stick with scarlet and hyssop and thus sprinkle the healed leper seven times. There is discrepancy among the Biblical scholars about whether or not the living bird was actually tied to this bundle that was used in the sprinkling. Verse 6 stated that the living bird was dipped into the blood mixed water, but it didn't specifically say that any of the items were tied together. That came from Jewish tradition. Once the healed leper was sprinkled seven times, the priest would pronounce him clean, and would let the living bird loose in the open field, perhaps symbolic of the healed leper, now clean, who was set free and restored to the company of others.
(8) "And he who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean; and after that he shall come into the camp, and shall stay outside his tent seven days."
The healed leper who was being pronounced clean was to wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and completely wash himself in water. After that he was allowed to come into the camp, but he had to remain outside his tent for seven days, perhaps as an extra precaution against infecting his family with a lingering leprous contagion.
(9) "But it shall be on the seventh day he shall shave all the hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, all his hair he shall shave off; and he shall wash his clothes and wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean."
On the seventh day the healed leper was to again shave all his hair, wash his clothes and his flesh, and at that point he would be considered clean.
(10) “And on the eighth day he shall take two male lambs without blemish, one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, three tenth deals of fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering, and one log of oil."
On the eighth day, perhaps before he was to return to his own tent, the healed leper was to bring two male lambs and one ewe lamb of the first year, all without blemish, along with three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, and one log of oil. An ephah was sometimes called a deal, a tenth deal being an omer; three omers or three-tenths of an ephah appears to have been about six quarts. A log of oil looks to have been about a third of a liter of oil.
(11) "And the priest who makes him clean shall present the man who is to be made clean, and those things, before the LORD, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation."
The priest didn't literally make the leper clean, but he ceremonially pronounced him clean; that priest was to present the healed leper and the offerings he was to bring from verse 10 to the Lord at the door of the tabernacle.
(12) “And the priest shall take one male lamb and offer it as a trespass offering, and the log of oil, and wave them as a wave offering before the LORD."
The priest was to take one of the male lambs and offer it as a trespass offering. Although leprosy was a disease and not in itself sinful, in the fallen world all diseases were caused by sin, trespasses against God. Therefore a trespass offering was offered, symbolic of the coming Christ, who was made a trespass offering. This would keep the people mindful that sin was the cause of all their diseases, and keep them aware of their spiritual diseases and their need for God. The priest was to take the lamb and the oil and wave them before the Lord as a wave offering.
(13) "And he shall kill the lamb in the place where he shall kill the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the holy place; for as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the trespass offering; it is most holy."
The lamb was to be killed in the place where sin offerings and burnt offerings were to be killed, in the holy place. We were told in a previous scripture that this was on the north side of the altar (Leviticus 1:11). As the sin offerings were the priest's, so was the trespass offering to be the priest's, and to be eaten only by the priests in the holy place, for it was most holy.
(14) "And the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot."
The priest was to take some of the blood from the male lamb trespass offering and put it on the tip of the right ear of the healed leper, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot. This was symbolic of the healed leper's return to the privilege of hearing the word of God, touching anything without defiling it, and walking in and out of the court of the Lord and into any house or company; he was now freely admitted as ever to communion with God and man. It's interesting that this was the same ritual used in the consecration of the priests. Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, wrote that it "was a mortification to them to see the same purification necessary for them that was for a leper". I believe that proves the total depravity of all men, even priests, and should prevent anyone from believing himself more righteous and better than another, for "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), and "all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6).
(15) “And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand. (16) And the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle some of the oil with his finger seven times before the LORD."
The priest was to take some of the oil and pour it into the palm of his own left hand. Then he was to dip his right finger into the oil in his left hand and sprinkle the oil with his finger before the Lord seven times, most probably dipping his finger seven times and sprinkling after each dip. Seven was the number symbolic of completeness and perfection.
(17) “And of the rest of the oil in his hand, the priest shall put some
on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, on the thumb
of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot, on the blood of
the trespass offering."
The rest of the oil in his left hand was to be put on the tip of the right ear of the healed leper, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot, in the places in which he first put the blood of the trespass offering.
(18) "And the remnant of the oil that is in the priest's hand he shall pour on the head of him who is to be cleansed; and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD."
The rest of the oil in the priest's left hand was to be poured on the head of the healed leper, and thus the priest would make atonement for the cleansed leper before the Lord.
(19) "And the priest shall offer the sin offering, and make atonement for him who is to be cleansed from his uncleanness; and afterward he shall kill the burnt offering."
The priest was then to offer the sin offering, which Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, wrote was the ewe lamb "according to the rite of every sin offering, as Aben Ezra (Jewish rabbi, scholar, and author from 1100's) says". This was part of the ritual to make atonement for the cleansed leper. After that, the priest was to kill the burnt offering, which would be the other male lamb, if Dr. Gill was correct in his assertion that the ewe was the sin offering.
(20) “And the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the grain offering on the altar; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and he shall be clean."
The priest was to offer on the altar the burnt offering and the grain offering of fine flour mixed with oil from verse 10, and thus he would make atonement for the cleansed leper, and he would then be considered clean.
(21) "And if he is poor and cannot afford it, then he shall take one lamb for a trespass offering to be waved, to make an atonement for him, and one tenth deal of fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering, a log of oil, (22) And two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, such as he is able to get, and one shall be a sin offering and the other a burnt offering."
If the healed leper was poor and could not afford as much as three lambs and three tenth deals of fine flour mixed with oil, then he was to bring one lamb for a trespass offering to be waved, and one tenth deal (an omer, about two quarts) of fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering. He was still to bring a log of oil, but in place of the other two lambs, he was to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the best he was able to get by his means, one being for the sin offering and the other the burnt offering.
(23) "And he shall bring them to the priest on the eighth day for his cleansing, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, before the LORD."
In the same way the cleansed leper who brought three lambs, three tenth deal of flour, and oil, was presented by the priest at the door of the tabernacle in verses 10 and 11, so the cleansed leper who, because of his limited means, only brought one lamb, one tenth deal of flour, oil, and two turtledoves or pigeons, was also to be brought to the priest on the eighth day of his cleansing rites to the door of the tabernacle to be presented before the Lord.
(24) “And the priest shall take the lamb of the trespass offering and the log of oil, and the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD."
As in verse 12 above, the priest was to take the lamb as the trespass offering and the log of oil and wave them before the Lord as a wave offering.
(25) And he shall kill the lamb of the trespass offering, and the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and put it on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot."
With the same rites as the leper who could afford to offer more, the cleansed leper who brought just one lamb and two birds instead, was to have the blood of his trespass offering placed on his right ear, right thumb, and right big toe, by the priest. In the same way, he was restored to the privilege of
hearing the word of God, touching anything, and
walking in and out of the court of the Lord and into any house or
company, freely admitted as ever to communion with God and
man.
(26) “And the priest shall pour some of the oil into the palm of his own left hand. (27) And the priest shall sprinkle with his right finger some of the oil that is in his left hand seven times before the LORD."
Just as was instructed in verse 15, the priest was to take some of the log of oil and pour it into the palm of his own left hand, and take his right finger and dip it into the oil in his left hand and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord.
(28) "And the priest shall put some of the oil that is in his hand on
the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, on the thumb of
the right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot, on the place of
the blood of the trespass offering."
Just as he was instructed in verse 17, the priest was to put some of the oil in his hand on the tip of the
right ear of the healed leper, and on the thumb of his right hand, and
on the big toe of his right foot, in the places in which he first put
the blood of the trespass offering.
(29) "And the rest of the oil that is in the priest's hand he shall put on the head of him who is to be cleansed, to make atonement for him before the LORD."
The rest of the oil in the priest's left hand was to be poured on the
head of the healed leper, and thus the priest would make atonement for
the cleansed leper before the Lord.
(30) “And he shall offer one of the turtledoves or young pigeons, such as he can get, (31) Such as he is able to get, the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, with the grain offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him who is to be cleansed before the LORD."
Whatever the poorer man could afford within his means, two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one was to be offered for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, with the grain offering; and thus the priest would make atonement for the poorer man who was to be cleansed before the Lord.
(32) “This is the law for one in whom is the plague of leprosy, whose hand is not able to get that which pertains to his cleansing."
The preceding verses (21-31) gave the law for the leper who was not able to afford or get his hands on what was required for his cleansing as commanded in verses 10 through 20.
(33) And the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, (34) “When you have come into the land of Canaan, which I give you as a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession",
The Lord now spoke to Moses and Aaron. I paused in the middle of what He told them, because I thought this first part was so important. The Lord said that when they came to the land of Canaan which He was giving them, and He put the plague of leprosy in a house in their land... There is much discrepancy among believers as to whether any bad things are of God. This verse could be used as proof to suggest that no plague or punishment comes to man without God's providence and His sending. For one thing, what is really considered bad? Consider the mother who has prayed for her unsaved son all his life to no avail. Then he is in a terrible debilitating accident and he comes to salvation in the Lord in his hospital bed. Did the Lord cause the accident to save the son? I believe He could have, and it would have been a merciful act to bring the son to Him. The Lord Jesus Himself said it was better to enter into eternal life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands and two feet and be cast into the everlasting fire of hell (Matthew 18:8). While it may be that some people honestly believe "bad" things cannot come from a good God, I believe that terribly limits Him and puts Him into our human neatly boxed idea of what good is. The sovereign God of the universe doesn't just sit back and try to fix things that Satan and his demons run around causing. Everything is within His power and to be used at His disposal.
(35) "And he who owns the house comes and tells the priest, saying, ‘It seems to me that there is some plague in the house,’ (36) Then the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest goes into it to examine the plague, that all that is in the house may not be made unclean; and afterward the priest shall go in to examine the house."
The following laws refer to what was considered leprosy in a house itself. The owner of the house was to come to the priest and tell him, so that he could examine the house and determine if it was indeed leprosy. The priest was to command that everything be removed from the house before he went in to examine it. Removing everything had the dual purpose of preventing anything else from becoming defiled and unclean, and allowed the priest to examine the house itself without everything else in the way.
(37) “And he shall examine the plague, and, behold, if the plague is in the walls of the house with hollow strakes, greenish or reddish, which appear to be deep in the wall, (38) Then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days."
Once the house was emptied, the priest was to examine the plague and if it indeed was in the walls of the house in greenish or reddish hollowed depressions that appeared embedded in the walls, then the priest was to go out the door of the house and shut it up for seven days.
(39) “And the priest shall come again on the seventh day and shall look, and behold, if the plague has spread in the walls of the house, (40) Then the priest shall command that they take away the stones in which is the plague, and they shall cast them into an unclean place outside the city."
On the seventh day the priest was to come and examine the house again, and if he saw that the plague had spread in the walls of the house, then the priest would command that they pull out any stones in which the plague appeared and cast them away in a designated unclean place outside the city. If the plague was contained within those stones, then hopefully this act would cure it in the house.
(41) “And he shall cause the house to be scraped inside, all around, and they shall pour out the dust that they scrape off in an unclean place outside the city."
In addition to removing the infected stones, all the inside walls were to be scraped, and the dust that was scraped off was to be dumped in an unclean place outside the city.
(42) "And they shall take other stones and put them in the place of those stones, and he shall take other mortar and plaster the house."
Different stones and mortar were to be used to replace the infected stones that had been removed from the house.
(43) "And if the plague comes again and breaks out in the house, after he has taken away the stones, after he has scraped the house, and after it is plastered, (44) Then the priest shall come and look, and, behold, if the plague has spread in the house, it is an active leprosy in the house; it is unclean."
However, if after removing the stones, scraping the walls, and replastering, the plague reappeared in the house, the priest was to reexamine it, and indeed, if he determined the plague had spread in the house, it was determined to be a "fretting" (KJV) or active leprosy and was pronounced unclean. I would imagine that leprosy of a house, and probably leprosy of garments (chapter 13) was some kind of mold or mildew.
(45) “And he shall break down the house, its stones, its timber, and all the mortar of the house, and he shall carry them out of the city to an unclean place."
If it was found to be unclean, the entire house was to be broken down. I don't imagine the priest himself broke down the house, but he commanded it be done. All the stones, wood, and mortar of the house was to be carried out of the city to an unclean place and not to be used again. The disease of leprosy is symbolic of the leprosy of sin. If it spreads and then remains after attempts to purge it, it will eventually destroy or be destroyed completely. Chapter 51 of Jeremiah refers to the fallen and destroyed Babylon that could have been healed, but was not (v. 8-9). Verse 26 said that not even one of Babylon's stones was to be used again, and she was to be desolate forever. That seems to be a reference to the law regarding the stones of a leprous house.
(46) “Moreover he who goes into the house at all while it is shut up shall be unclean until evening. (47) And he who lies down in the house shall wash his clothes, and he who eats in the house shall wash his clothes."
During the time a house was shut up to be reexamined in seven days, if anyone entered the house he would be considered unclean until evening. If he stayed long enough to lie down in the house or eat in the house, then he was also to wash his clothes, which supposed that he may have infected them with his more extended stay.
(48) "And if the priest comes in and examines it, and behold, the plague has not spread in the house after the house was plastered,
then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, because the plague is
healed."
If, after the house had been scraped and shut up for seven days, the priest found upon reexamination that the plague had not spread in the house after it had been replastered after removal of the diseased stones, then the priest would pronounce the house clean because the plague had apparently healed.
(49) “And he shall take, to cleanse the house, two birds, cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop."
To ceremoniously cleanse the house, just as was done in verse 4 to ceremonially clean the healed leper, the priest was to take two birds, cedar wood, scarlet string or a strip of scarlet material, and hyssop.
(50) "And he shall kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water; (51) And he shall take the cedar wood, the hyssop, the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood
of the slain bird and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven
times. (52) And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird and the
running water and the living bird, with the cedar wood, the hyssop, and
the scarlet."
Again, as done for the healed leper, the priest was to kill one of the birds (or command it to be killed) in an earthen vessel over running water. Then he was to take the cedar wood, the scarlet strip, the hyssop, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird and the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times. Thus he ceremoniously cleansed the house.
(53) "But he shall let the living bird go out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house, and it shall be clean."
Just as the living bird was let loose in verse 7 after the ceremonial cleansing of the healed leper, the priest was to let this living bird go out of the city into the open fields. With this ceremony, he made atonement for the house and it was then pronounced clean.
(54) “This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall, (55) And for the leprosy of a garment, and of a house, (56) And for a swelling, and for a scab, and for a bright spot, (57) To teach when it is unclean and when it is clean; this is the law of leprosy."
This was the conclusion of the law pertaining to all kinds of leprosy, scall, and leprosy of garments and houses. It discussed swelling, scabs, and bright spots, giving instructions for determining when they were considered clean and when they were unclean. It was a summary statement of the laws relating to all kinds of leprosy that had been delivered in this chapter and the preceding one.
Once again, it can be noted that leprosy was symbolic of sin, and in the same way that a cured leper was not considered clean until he had been sprinkled and washed and had offered a sacrifice, so it is with sin. A person is not made righteous by his acts alone. Even though he may have healed his wicked ways, he is still as filthy rags before the Lord. In the case of the sinner, the "spiritual leper", the Lamb of God was slain and His blood was sprinkled to make atonement for the sinner. Only then is he considered washed clean and made white in the blood of the Lamb.
Showing posts with label leprosy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leprosy. Show all posts
Sunday, January 15, 2017
Saturday, December 10, 2016
The Laws Pertaining to Leprosy
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
(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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)