The Day of Atonement

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 16:1) And the Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the LORD, and died;

In the last post, the Lord had been instructing both Moses and Aaron on the cleanliness rules for men and women with a discharge.  He now spoke to Moses regarding what his actions should be after the death of his sons, when they had offered the strange unauthorized fire before the Lord.  This chapter may seem out of place, like it should have been placed immediately after the incident regarding the sons of Aaron.  However, Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, wrote that if this chapter was indeed transposed, it was a very ancient change as all translation versions of the Bible placed this chapter just where it now stands.  Perhaps a more likely reason for the admonition here was to emphasize that that particular incident was an act of uncleanness that had to be handled in a particular way to prevent the people entering into the tabernacle unclean or defiled, whereby they would have incurred the penalty of death.  Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, wrote that what followed in this chapter was the law concerning the day of atonement, and that the commandments concerning that law were given at a time after the death of Aaron's sons, and that that incident served as a perfect example for why he must now make atonement for "his house".  The Lord gave instructions for how Aaron was to make atonement and how he could then approach God without incurring the same punishment as his sons.

(2) And the LORD said to Moses, “Tell Aaron your brother not to come at all times into the Holy Place within the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, lest he die; for I will appear in the cloud above the mercy seat."

Aaron, the high priest (and likewise all successive high priests after him), was not to come just any old time into that most holy place within the veil where the Lord would appear in a cloud above the mercy seat of the Ark of the Testimony, lest he die because of his irreverence and presumption, like that of Aaron's sons.  Matthew Henry explained and reflected on this:

"Before the veil some of the priests came every day to burn incense upon the golden altar, but within the veil none must ever come but the high priest only, and he but on one day in the year, and with great ceremony and caution. That place where God manifested his special presence must not be made common. If none must come into the presence-chamber of an earthly king uncalled, no, not the queen herself, upon pain of death (Esther 4:11), was it not requisite that the same sacred respect should be paid to the Kings of kings? But see what a blessed change is made by the gospel of Christ; all good Christians have now boldness to enter into the holiest, through the veil, every day (Hebrews 10:19-20); and we come boldly (not as Aaron must, with fear and trembling) to the throne of grace, or mercy-seat, Hebrews 4:16."

(3) “Thus Aaron shall come into the Holy Place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering."

Thus, in this way, as follows in scripture, Aaron was to come first into the Holy Place, and ultimately into the Most Holy Place within the veil as mentioned in verse 2.  He was to bring a young bullock for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering.

(4) “He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen trousers on his body, and shall be girded with a linen sash, and with the linen turban he shall be attired; these are holy garments.  Therefore he shall wash his body in water, and put them on."

The garments the high priest was to put on--the linen coat, trousers, sash, and turban--were holy garments.  Therefore the priest was to wash his body in water before putting them on.  Note that at this time he did not put on the grander garments--the breastplate, ephod, robe, etc.  On this occasion he wore only simple white linen as this was not a day of celebration and rejoicing, but one of mourning and humiliation.

(5) “And he shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering."

The congregation was to supply to the priest two kid goats for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering.

(6) “And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself and for his house."

Aaron, as high priest, was to offer for himself a bullock as a sin offering to make atonement for himself, for his own personal sins and for his family's sins.

(7) "And he shall take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation."

Aaron was to take the two kid goats, the sin offering of the people, and present them to the Lord at the door of the tabernacle.

(8) "And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. (9) And Aaron shall bring the goat on which the LORD’s lot fell, and offer it for a sin offering."

The two goats formed one sin offering, one to be sacrificed to the Lord, and one scapegoat to be set free.  This was illustrative of death and resurrection for salvation.  Lots were cast to determine which goat would be used for each purpose.  Jewish tradition states that there were two lots or pebble-like objects, one with the Lord's name on it, and the other with the name for the scapegoat.  According to Adam Clarke, "then they put the two lots into a vessel which was called a kalpey, the goats standing with their faces towards the west. Then the priest came, and the goats stood before him, one on the right hand and the other on the left; the kalpey was then shaken, and the priest put in both his hands and brought out a lot in each: that which was in his right hand he laid on the goat that was on his right, and that in his left hand he laid on the goat that was on his left; and according to what was written on the lots, the scape-goat and the goat for sacrifice were ascertained."

(10) "But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement with it, and to let it go as the scapegoat into the wilderness."

The goat upon which the scapegoat lot fell was also to be presented to the Lord as was the one to be sacrificed, but this one was presented alive, an equally important part of the sin offering, to make atonement for the sins of the people.  It was to be let go into the wilderness.

(11) “And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself."

Then Aaron was to bring his own bullock sacrifice and kill it as a sin offering to make atonement for himself and for his family.

(12) "And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the LORD, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it inside the veil."

Aaron was to take a censer or fire pan of burning coals from the altar of burnt offering, and his hands full of sweet incense finely beaten, and bring both inside the veil into the Most Holy Place.

(13) “And he shall put the incense on the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of incense may cover the mercy seat that is on the Testimony, that he not die."

He was to put the incense on the fire that was in the burning coals in the censer which created smoke or a "cloud of incense" that would cover the mercy seat on the Ark of the Testimony.  This was done just as directed so that he not die.  Matthew Henry described it this way:  The high priest "set the coals down upon the floor, and scattered the incense upon them, so that the room was immediately filled with smoke. The Jews say that he was to go in side-ways, that he might not look directly upon the ark where the divine glory was, till it was covered with smoke; then he must come out backwards, out of reverence to the divine majesty; and, after a short prayer, he was to hasten out of the sanctuary, to show himself to the people, that they might not suspect that he had misbehaved himself and died before the Lord."

(14) "And he shall take some of the blood of the bullock and sprinkle it with his finger on the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times."

After creating the cloud of incense, the high priest came out of the Most Holy Place to fetch some of the blood of the young bull that had been collected in a basin and held by another priest, according to what I have read on the subject.  He was to first sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat eastward, which would be the eastern side of it.  Since the head of the sanctuary where the Ark within the Holiest of Holies was, stood westward, then eastward or the eastern side would be toward the entrance of the tabernacle and toward the people. It seems to me that sprinkling on the east side of the ark and sprinkling in front of it would all take place on the same side of it.  However, whether or not blood was actually sprinkled on the Ark itself is what seems to be in question.  Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, pointed to the Mishnah, apparently the first written record of the Oral Law, which stated that the high priest sprinkled one time above the mercy seat and seven times below or in front of it.  Dr. Gill and Matthew Henry both pointed to Jewish history and tradition which stated that no drops of blood actually fell on the mercy seat itself, but rather fell to the ground in front of it.  It seemed to be more about the upward and downward motions of the sprinkling rather than about different areas that were sprinkled.

(15) “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people, bring its blood inside the veil, do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and before the mercy seat."

After sprinkling the blood of the young bull which was for himself (v. 11), the priest was then to go out from the Most Holy Place, outside the veil, into the courtyard, and was to kill the goat of the sin offering for the people.  He was to do with the goat's blood as he had done with the bull's blood, and sprinkle it above and in front of the mercy seat.

(16) "And he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins; and so he shall do for the tabernacle of the congregation that remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness."

Thus the high priest would make atonement for the Holy Place because of the uncleanness of the sinful children of Israel.  The sins of the people would have normally rendered even the Most Holy Place to be an unfit habitation for their most holy Lord, but by the sprinkling of the blood described above, atonement was made.  It was made for the Most Holy Place and also for the part of the tabernacle, the courtyard, where the people in their uncleanness were admitted.  The tabernacle was allowed by God to remain among them even in their uncleanness because of the atonement made.

(17) "And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goes in to make atonement in the Holy Place, until he comes out, and has made an atonement for himself, for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel."

There was to be no one, not even other priests, inside the tabernacle when the high priest went in to make atonement for himself, his family, and for all the congregation.  Not until the high priest came out having made atonement for them all, could anyone else enter.

(18) “And he shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD, and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bullock and some of the blood of the goat, and put it on the horns of the altar all around."

After sprinkling blood from the bull and from the goat in the Most Holy Place, the high priest then went to the golden altar of incense outside the veil, but said to be "before the Lord".  He was also to make atonement for it, taking blood from the young bull and from the goat and putting it on the horns of the altar all around.  Dr. John Gill wrote that according to the Mishnah, the blood of the two animals was mixed together and the priest went around the horns of the altar putting blood on them once, and not two separate times as was sprinkled in the Most Holy Place.

(19) "And he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and consecrate it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel."

After putting blood on the horns of the altar, the priest was then to sprinkle the altar seven times, seven being that number of perfection, to cleanse it and sanctify it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.

(20) “And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat."

When the priest had finished the atonement for the Most Holy Place, the altar, and the tabernacle of the congregation as a whole, he was to bring forth the live goat, the scapegoat, from verse 10.

(21) "And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a fit man. (22) And the goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness."

Aaron, as high priest, was to lay both his hands on the head of the live goat and confess the sins of Israel.  Dr. John Gill pointed out that three words were used to describe what was being confessed--iniquities, transgressions, and sins; this included all sins, "greater or lesser, sins of ignorance and presumption, known or not known".  With both hands on the goat, he transferred all those sins he confessed onto the head of the goat, with all the punishment that the people deserved now put upon the animal.  The goat was then sent away into the wilderness by a "fit man", which meant one fit for this purpose, possibly one well acquainted with the wilderness who could take the goat far into the wilderness into an uninhabited or literally separated land signifying the removal of their sins far away from the people and out of God's sight.

(23) "And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the Holy Place, and shall leave them there."

After laying his hands on the goat and having it led into the wilderness, Aaron, the high priest, was to come back into the tabernacle and take off the linen garments he had put on when he went into the Most Holy Place (verse 4).  Those garments were to be left in the tabernacle, probably in some particular chamber within it, never to be worn again say Jewish writers, according to Matthew Henry; they were to make new linen garments every year for the annual day of atonement.

(24) “And he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, put on his garments, come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and for the people."

The high priest was then to wash himself in the "holy place", which would seem to be actually at the laver in the court right outside the Holy Place, unless another wash basin was brought inside the so-called "holy place".  It is very likely that it was "a" holy place, rather than "the" holy place, but it is really not explicitly clear where he washed himself.

I sometimes find it helpful in my study to see a diagram of the tabernacle.  There are many fine diagrams to be found on the internet; this one is free to use from Wikimedia Commons:

After washing, he was to put on his rich priestly garments as described in Leviticus 8:7-9 and elsewhere.  He was then to "come out" which would seem to indicate he had been inside the Holy Place and not at the laver in the courtyard.  He was to come out and offer both his own and the people's burnt-offerings (the rams from verses 3 and 5 above), and thus make atonement for himself and for the people.

(25) "And the fat of the sin offering he shall burn on the altar."

The fat of Aaron's sin offering (the bullock from verse 3 and verse 6 above) was to be burned at the same time as the burnt offerings.

(26) “And he who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he may come into the camp."

The "fit" man who had released the goat into the wilderness (v. 21) was to wash himself and his clothes before he could come back into the camp.

(27) "And the bullock for the sin offering and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Holy Place, shall be carried outside the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, their flesh, and their dung."

The body of Aaron's young bull for his sin offering, the fat of which had just been burned on the altar, and the body of the goat of the people's sin offering (v. 15), both having had their blood sprinkled within the veil to make atonement, were to be carried outside the camp, and their skins, flesh, and dung were to be burned in the fire.

(28) "And he who burns them shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp."

The person or persons who burned the parts of the animals outside the camp were to wash their clothes and bathe their bodies before they were allowed to come back into the camp.

(29) "And this shall be a statute forever for you: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether a native of your own country or a stranger who dwells among you."

This, that is, what had been before described and the summary of which followed, was to be a statute forever, or at least until the end of the Aaronic priesthood, when the Messiah came and put an end to all the rites, ceremonies, and sacrifices.  The seventh month, the month of Tisri, the seventh month from Nisan, which was appointed to be the first month, would have been part of our September and October.  I have read that "afflict your souls" was an old term for fasting, but it was probably more than that with the original word meaning humbled or humiliated, brought low.  They were to do no work at all on this tenth day of the seventh month, this day of atonement, not the natives of their country, nor the stranger or foreigner who dwelt among them.  Compare this command in the seventh month, or sabbatical month, as it has been called, to God's command for the sabbath day:

"But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates." - Exodus 20:10

(30) “For on that day atonement shall be made for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins before the LORD."

On that day of atonement, atonement would be made for the people, to cleanse them from their sins, so that they could stand pure and clean before the Lord.

(31) "It shall be a sabbath of rest to you, and you shall afflict your souls, by a statute forever."

That day of atonement was to be a sabbath rest to the people and they were to cease their work, other than the work of the Lord as described above.  Dr. John Gill pointed out that this was symbolic of the "cessation from the performance of sinful works, at least from a sinful course of life, and from a dependence on works of righteousness, when a man is brought to believe in Christ, and in the atonement which he has made."  In this day of sabbath rest, they were to afflict their souls, which Matthew Henry detailed this way:  "They must refrain from all bodily refreshments and delights, in token of inward humiliation and contrition of soul for their sins. They all fasted on this day from food (except the sick and children), and laid aside their ornaments, and did not anoint themselves..."  Once again, this was to be a stature forever, or as long as the ceremonial law lasted, until the coming of the Messiah.  Actually, it IS forever, when you consider that Christ fulfilled all these things for us--"For we who have believed do enter that rest..." (Hebrews 4:3).

(32) “And the priest, whom he shall anoint, and whom he shall consecrate to minister in the priest's office in his father's place, shall make atonement, and put on the linen clothes, the holy garments; (33) And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation."

The priest who is anointed and consecrated to be high priest in his father's place shall then be the one to make atonement, and put on the linen clothes and holy garments.  "He" in the beginning of verse 32 probably refers to Aaron, the high priest, anointing his successor.  In the same manner that Aaron as high priest made atonement for the holy place and the tabernacle (v. 16 above), for the altar (v. 18), for the priests, that is, for himself and his family and his sons the priests (v. 6), and for all the people of the congregation (v. 17), so was his successor to do.

(34) "And this shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins, once a year.” And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.

Dr. John Gill pointed out that this was the third time (see verses 29 and 31) that this was stated must be a statute forever, indicating just how important this day of atonement was and that it was to continue in perpetuity.  He, Aaron as the first high priest, did exactly as the Lord had commanded to Moses be done.

Some of the old commentaries are always quick to add that whatever was being spoken of as being a statute forever was just meant to be a statute until the Messiah came.  Although that certainly could be said to be the case with regard to the actual ceremonial rites and laws, once again I am struck by the fact that this IS an everlasting statute in that we must receive perpetual atonement by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  While He died once for all and once was sufficient, are we not continually sinning and continually repenting and looking to Christ and His atonement?  I wonder how many times in my past study have I accepted the commentator's point that the particular statute I was studying was a statute forever until the end of the Aaronic priesthood, or until Christ came.  While the rituals may have ended, it's not that the statute ended, it was fulfilled in Christ!  As Jesus Himself said: 

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." - Matthew 5:17-18

As Matthew Henry stated, the annual day of atonement or "the annual repetition of the sacrifices showed that there was in them only a faint and feeble effort towards making atonement; it could be done effectually only by the offering up of the body of Christ once for all, and that once was sufficient; that sacrifice needed not to be repeated."  The apostle said it this way in Hebrews:

"For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: 'Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, "Behold, I have come (in the volume of the book it is written of Me) to do Your will, O God."'...By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." - Hebrews 10:1-7 and 10)

Laws Concerning Uncleanness of Men and Women

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 15:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, (2) “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘When any man has a flowing discharge from his body, because of his discharge he is unclean.'"

In the last two chapters, the Lord spoke to Moses and sometimes Aaron, as well, to give them the laws pertaining to leprosy, and how to determine when a person, garment, or house, was to be considered unclean.  He now continued speaking to both Moses and Aaron, and began with the subject of a person who was considered unclean because of a discharge from his body.  I could see how this could be any leaking discharge, oozing infection, or bleeding.  Any such discharge would make a man unclean.  However, I am inclined to believe that this referred to discharges from his most private parts, as it seems that is what is discussed for both men and women in the following verses.

(3) "‘And this shall be his uncleanness in regard to his discharge—whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body is stopped up from his discharge, it is his uncleanness.'"

What is to follow was to be the law of his uncleanness with regard to his discharge, whether it be free flowing, or whether his body had become stopped up because of it.

(4) "‘Every bed on which he who has the discharge lies, is unclean; and everything on which he sits shall be unclean.'"

Not only is the man with the discharge considered unclean, but any bed upon which he lay, and any chair (or anything, for that matter) upon which he sat, would also be considered unclean.

(5) "‘And whoever touches his bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.'"

Whoever touched the unclean man's bed would also be considered unclean, and would have to wash himself and his clothes, and would still be considered unclean until the evening. 

(6) "'And he who sits on anything on which he who has the discharge sat shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening.'"

Likewise, if anyone sat on the unclean man's chair or anything the man had sat upon, he would also be considered unclean, and would have to wash himself and his clothes, and be considered unclean until the evening.

(7) "‘And he who touches the body of him who has the discharge shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening.'"

Additionally, anyone who touched the person himself who had the discharge, would also be considered unclean, and would have to wash himself and his clothes, and be considered unclean until evening.

(8) "'And if he who has the discharge spits on him who is clean, then he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.'"

In most cases, I don't believe the person with the discharge would be purposely spitting on a clean person, but if his spittle accidentally landed on a person who was clean, that person would also be considered unclean then, and would have to wash himself and his clothes, and be considered unclean until evening.

(9) "‘Any saddle on which he who has the discharge rides shall be unclean. (10) And whoever touches anything that was under him shall be unclean until the evening; and he who carries any of those things shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.'"

Any saddle or anything upon which the man with the discharge rode or sat, would be considered unclean, and anyone who touched or carried any of those things would also be considered unclean, and would have to wash himself and his clothes, and be considered unclean until evening.

(11) "‘And whomever the one who has the discharge touches, and has not rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.'"

If the person who had the discharge had not just washed his hands in water, then whomever he touched would have to wash himself and his clothes and be unclean until evening.  It appears that if the infected person washed his hands first, then his mere touch would not make a clean person unclean.

(12) "'And the vessel of earth that he who has the discharge touches shall be broken, and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water.'"

Any earthen vessel that a person with a discharge touched was to be broken and not used again, and any wooden vessel was to be washed in water.  I'm not sure why an earthen vessel had to be broken, but a wooden one could be washed, as they both seem to be porous, but maybe the earthen vessel was more porous.  Whatever the reason, this was the law given.  Additionally, I would imagine this would not pertain to his own earthen vessel, at least not each time it was used.  He would run out of earthen vessels that way!  However, I'm sure once his disease was cured, it would have been destroyed and not used again.

(13) "‘And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean.'"

When a person with a discharge was cured from the discharge, or if it stopped completely on its own, then he was to wait another seven days, wash his clothes, and bathe in running water, and then he would be clean.  The mere stopping of the discharge did not make him clean.

(14) "'And on the eighth day he shall take for himself two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and come before the LORD, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and give them to the priest.'"

On the eighth day, after waiting seven days and washing himself and his clothes, he was to take two turtledoves or two young pigeons and bring them to the Lord to the door of the tabernacle and give them to the priest.

(15) "And the priest shall offer them, the one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD for his discharge.'"

The priest would offer one of the birds as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, and thus the priest would make atonement for the person who had had the discharge.  The discharge may not have been caused by a direct sin of the victim, but as discussed before, all disease was originally caused by sin.

(16) "'And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his body in water, and be unclean until the evening.'"

A man's semen was considered a discharge from his body that would make him unclean before the Lord.  He was to afterward wash his body in water and be considered unclean until the evening.

(17) "'And every garment and every skin, on which there is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening.'"

Every garment or skin that got semen on it was to be washed with water and was to be considered unclean until the evening.

(18) "'The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening.'"

Any woman with a man who had a discharge of semen was also to bathe herself in water and be considered unclean until evening.

(19) "'And if a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening.'"

The Lord now switched to the topic of a woman who had a discharge from her body, specifically blood.  This, of course, meant a discharge of blood from her private parts, not from a bloody nose or blood from a cut, etc.  She was to be set apart, not able to go into the house of the Lord, for seven days.  Whoever touched her was also considered unclean until the evening.

(20) "'And everything that she lies on during her separation shall be unclean; also everything that she sits on shall be unclean.'"

During her seven days of separation, anything the woman sat or lay upon would be considered unclean.

(21) "'And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. (22) And whoever touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.'"

Anyone who touched the woman's bed or anything that she sat upon during her time of separation and uncleanness was to wash himself and his clothes and be considered unclean until evening.

(23) "'And if it be on her bed or on anything on which she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. (24) And if any man lies with her at all, and her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.'"

The sense here is that if someone touched the bed or seat of the unclean woman, he would be considered unclean only till the evening; however if the woman's bloody discharge itself touched him, then he would be considered unclean for seven days, and every bed he lay upon during that time would be considered unclean.

(25) "'And if a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, other than at the time of her customary impurity, or if it runs beyond her usual time of impurity, all the days of her unclean discharge shall be as the days of her customary impurity; she shall be unclean.'"

If a woman had a discharge of blood other than during her regular monthly period, or if the discharge ran longer than the usual time of her period, all the days she had the discharge would be considered as the days of her usual period, in that she would be considered unclean during that time.

(26) "‘Every bed on which she lies all the days of her discharge shall be to her as the bed of her separation; and whatever she sits on shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation.'"

Just as during the time of her seven days' separation in verses 19 and 20, if her discharge ran longer than seven days, every bed and every seat she sat upon was to be considered unclean.

(27) "'And whoever touches those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.'"

Anyone who touched the unclean bed or seat of the woman with the discharge was to wash himself and his clothes and be considered unclean until the evening.

(28) "‘But if she is cleansed of her discharge, then she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.'"

After the bleeding stopped or was cured, the woman was to wait seven days until she would be considered clean.

(29) "‘And on the eighth day she shall take for herself two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and bring them to the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. (30) And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the discharge of her uncleanness.'"

On the eighth day the woman was to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest to the door of the tabernacle to be used for sin and burnt offerings.  I read that these sacrifices likely were not required for a woman's regular monthly period, but only for an excessively long one or for another discharge of blood other than from her period.  I agree that it doesn't seem reasonable that a poor woman would have to bear the expense and trouble of bringing sacrifices every month.  While it is true she was considered unclean for seven days during her regular period, I don't believe she had to bring a sacrifice.  This eighth day seems to refer to the day after the seven she waited after bleeding had stopped.  When a woman's period started, she was set apart for seven days; she couldn't have been set apart for seven days after her regular bleeding stopped as the bleeding would not have started and stopped on the first day.  I believe there was an additional seven days' separation for the woman who had a bloody discharge for a reason other than her regular monthly cycle, or if her period ran longer than seven days, and then she was to offer a sacrifice.

(31) "‘Thus you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness, that they not die in their uncleanness, when they defile My tabernacle that is among them.'"

In the preceding ways the children of Israel were to separate uncleanness from among them.  If contagious, this prevented spreading.  If just legally unclean, it surely brought attention to and caused less frequent touching and spreading of uncleanness among the children of Israel.  The preceding allowed for prevention of and atonement for uncleanness, so that the children of Israel did not die in their uncleanness when they defiled the Lord's tabernacle with it.  They were not allowed into the Lord's tabernacle when they were unclean, and so are we all not allowed into the kingdom of God until our uncleanness and sins are purged with the blood of Jesus Christ.

(32) "‘This is the law for one who has a discharge, and for him whose seed goes from him, and is defiled thereby, (33) And for her who is sick from her impurity, and for one who has a discharge, either man or woman, and for him who lies with her who is unclean.’”

The preceding constituted the law for the various personal discharges that might afflict men and women and thus defile them.  Just as with leprosy, these discharges are symbolic of sin, and in the same way that a cured leper or one cured from a discharge was not considered clean until he or she had washed and had offered sacrifice, so it is with sin.  A person is not made righteous by his acts or by virtue of his being healed alone. Even though he may have healed his wicked ways, he is still as filthy rags before the Lord.  Only when he is washed clean by the blood of the Lamb's sacrifice is he allowed to dwell with the Lord in His kingdom.

Purification of Lepers and Leprosy in a House

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.

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

Ceremonial Uncleanness and Purification of Women in Childbirth

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 12:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

The dietary laws in the preceding chapter were delivered both to Moses and Aaron, but now the Lord spoke only to Moses.

(2) “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean.'"

The Lord instructed Moses to tell the children of Israel of these additional clean and unclean laws.  First He began with a woman whom had given birth to a male child.  Immediately after the birth, she was to be considered unclean for seven days afterward which is apparently the same amount of time a woman was considered unclean after her regular monthly menstruation began.

(3) "‘And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.'"

On the eighth day, that is, the baby boy's eighth day of life and after the seven days that the mother was considered ceremonially unclean, the baby boy was to be circumcised.

(4) "'And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying thirty-three days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary until the days of her purifying are fulfilled.'"

After the circumcision of her male child, the mother was to continue a period of purification for another 33 days, which made a total of forty days' purification.  During this time, she was to touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the court of the sanctuary.  This uncleanness was in no way considered the fault of the woman or as a punishment to her, but was a result of the time it took for the natural expulsion of blood and afterbirth after the birth of a child.  As the Lord considered it a blessing to bring forth children, this was an example of a time when a person would necessarily become unclean, through no fault of her own, but by observing the days of purification, she would then be restored to a clean state, and could approach the Lord.  Thankfully, our Lord Jesus Christ came as our ultimate sacrifice to cover us with His precious blood, so that we are now able to approach our Lord God with boldness and confidence (Ephesians 3:12).

(5) "‘But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her customary impurity, and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying sixty-six days.'"

If the woman gave birth to a female child, she was to be considered unclean for two weeks, in the same way she was considered unclean during her regular monthly menstruation.  Why double the time as for a male child?  For one thing, the male was to be circumcised on the eighth day; no such time constraint was on a female child.  The mother's period of purification for a female child continued another 66 days, making it a total of 80 days, doubling the forty days for a male child.  Offended feminists have long hated such perceived discrepancies between the sexes in the Bible, but there may be a plausible and justified explanation for the discrepancy.  Not that God Almighty needs a justification; that it was His will alone is justification enough.  However, generally there was what we lesser humans would consider good sound reasoning behind such laws of the Lord, and this may be no exception.  Through circumcision, the male child satisfied half the required purification time.  It was not that more time was required when a woman had a female child, but rather only half the usual time was required when a woman had a male child because the baby participated in the purification requirements.

(6) "'And when the days of her purification are fulfilled, whether for a son or a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to the priest.'"

Once her purification period had ended, whether 40 days or 80 days, the woman was to bring to the tabernacle to the priest, a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove for a sin offering.  She offered a burnt offering in thanksgiving to God for bringing her safely through child-bearing and in gratefulness for the blessing of the child; and she offered a sin offering to either complete her purification process from her ceremonial uncleanness, or to make atonement for what was really sin that may have occurred during the difficult pains of child-bearing.

(7) "'Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who has borne a male or a female.'"

The priest would take what the woman brought to him at the door of the tabernacle, and in turn, offer it before the Lord to make atonement for her for whatever sin may have occurred during her child-bearing, and to ceremonially cleanse her from the flow of blood from childbirth.  This same law applied whether it took place after 40 days for a male child, or if it took place after 80 days for a female child.

(8) "‘And if she is not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons—one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”

If the woman was unable to bring a lamb, because she did not have one, nor could afford one, then the law allowed that she could bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons instead, one being for the burnt offering and the other for the sin offering.  This was the case for Mary, the mother of Jesus; it was written in Luke 2:22-24 that when her days of purification were accomplished, she brought either a pair of turtledoves or a pair of pigeons.  It was suggested earlier that perhaps the sin offering was to atone for any sin which may have occurred during the difficulty of childbirth, but more likely it was acknowledgement that all are born into sin and guilty and deserving of death since the original sin by Eve.  This sin offering may have served as a remembrance of that original sin and of the promise as stated in 1 Timothy 2:15 that she would be saved through child-bearing if she would "continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control"; that is what pleases the Lord better than sacrifice:

"To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." - Proverbs 21:3

I will end this short post here.  I had originally continued my study and post into the next chapter, but as it is so long and unrelated, I will start a new post for that one, and will end this one here.