Leviticus 13 commentary

LEVITICUS 13 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Regulations About Defiling Skin Diseases
1 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron,
GILL, "And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron,.... Aaron is addressed
again, though left out in the preceding law, because the laws concerning leprosy chiefly
concerned the priests, whose business it was to judge of it, and cleanse from it; and so
Ben Gersom observes, mention is made of Aaron here, because to him and his sons
belonged the affair of leprosies, to pronounce unclean or clean, to shut up or set free,
and, as Aben Ezra says, according to his determination were all the plagues or strokes of
a man, who should be declared clean or unclean:
saying; as follows.
HENRY 1-3, "I. Concerning the plague of leprosy we may observe in general, 1. That
it was rather an uncleanness than a disease; or, at least, so the law considered it, and
therefore employed not the physicians but the priests about it. Christ is said to cleanse
lepers, not to cure them. We do not read of any that died of the leprosy, but it rather
buried them alive, by rendering them unfit for conversation with any but such as were
infected like themselves. Yet there is a tradition that Pharaoh, who sought to kill Moses,
was the first that ever was struck with this disease, and that he died of it. It is said to
have begun first in Egypt, whence it spread into Syria. It was very well known to Moses,
when he put his own hand into his bosom and took it out leprous. 2. That it was a plague
inflicted immediately by the hand of God, and came not from natural causes, as other
diseases; and therefore must be managed according to a divine law. Miriam's leprosy,
and Gehazi's, and king Uzziah's, were all the punishments of particular sins: and, if
generally it was so, no marvel there was so much care taken to distinguish it from a
common distemper, that none might be looked upon as lying under this extraordinary
token of divine displeasure but those that really were so. 3. That it is a plague not now
known in the world; what is commonly called the leprosy is of a quite different nature.
This seems to have been reserved as a particular scourge for the sinners of those times
and places. The Jews retained the idolatrous customs they had learnt in Egypt, and
therefore God justly caused this with some others of the diseases of Egypt to follow
them. Yet we read of Naaman the Syrian, who was a leper, 2Ki_5:1. 4. That there were
other breakings-out in the body which did very much resemble the leprosy, but were not
it, which might make a man sore and loathsome and yet not ceremonially unclean. Justly
are our bodies called vile bodies, which have in them the seeds of so many diseases, by
which the lives of so many are made bitter to them. 5. That the judgment of it was
1

referred to the priests. Lepers were looked upon as stigmatized by the justice of God, and
therefore it was left to his servants the priests, who might be presumed to know his mark
best, to pronounce who were lepers and who were not. All the Jews say, “Any priest,
though disabled by a blemish to attend the sanctuary, might be a judge of the leprosy,
provided the blemish were not in his eye. And he might” (they say) “take a common
person to assist him in the search, but the priest only must pronounce the judgment.” 6.
That it was a figure of the moral pollution of men's minds by sin, which is the leprosy of
the soul, defiling to the conscience, and from which Christ alone can cleanse us; for
herein the power of his grace infinitely transcends that of the legal priesthood, that the
priest could only convict the leper (for by the law is the knowledge of sin), but Christ can
cure the leper, he can take away sin. Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean, which
was more than the priests could do, Mat_8:2. Some think that the leprosy signified, not
so much sin in general as a state of sin, by which men are separated from God (their spot
not being the spot of God's children), and scandalous sin, for which men are to be shut
out from the communion of the faithful. It is a work of great importance, but of great
difficulty, to judge of our spiritual state: we have all cause to suspect ourselves, being
conscious to ourselves of sores and spots, but whether clean or unclean is the question.
A man might have a scab (Lev_13:6) and yet be clean: the best have their infirmities;
but, as there were certain marks by which to know that it was a leprosy, so there are
characters of such as are in the gall of bitterness, and the work of ministers is to declare
the judgment of leprosy and to assist those that suspect themselves in the trial of their
spiritual state, remitting or retaining sin. And hence the keys of the kingdom of heaven
are said to be given to them, because they are to separate between the precious and the
vile, and to judge who are fit as clean to partake of the holy things and who as unclean
must be debarred from them.
JAMISON,"Lev_13:1-59. The laws and tokens in discerning leprosy.
K&D, "Leprosy. - The law for leprosy, the observance of which is urged upon the
people again in Deu_24:8-9, treats, in the first place, of leprosy in men: (a) in its
dangerous forms when appearing either on the skin (vv. 2-28), or on the head and beard
(Lev_13:29-37); (b) in harmless forms (Lev_13:38 and Lev_13:39); and (c) when
appearing on a bald head (Lev_13:40-44). To this there are added instructions for the
removal of the leper from the society of other men (Lev_13:45 and Lev_13:46). It treats,
secondly, of leprosy in linen, woollen, and leather articles, and the way to treat them
(Lev_13:47-59); thirdly, of the purification of persons recovered from leprosy (Lev
14:1-32); and fourthly, of leprosy in houses and the way to remove it (vv. 33-53). - The
laws for leprosy in man relate exclusively to the so-called white leprosy, λεύκη λέπρα,
lepra, which probably existed at that time in hither Asia alone, not only among the
Israelites and Jews (Num_12:10.; 2Sa_3:29; 2Ki_5:27; 2Ki_7:3; 2Ki_15:5; Mat_8:2-3;
Mat_10:8; Mat_11:5; Mat_26:6, etc.), but also among the Syrians (2Ki_5:1.), and which
is still found in that part of the world, most frequently in the countries of the Lebanon
and Jordan and in the neighbourhood of Damascus, in which city there are three
hospitals for lepers (Seetzen, pp. 277, 278), and occasionally in Arabia (Niebuhr, Arab.
pp. 135ff.) and Egypt; though at the present time the pimply leprosy, lepra tuberosa s.
articulorum (the leprosy of the joints), is more prevalent in the East, and frequently
occurs in Egypt in the lower extremities in the form of elephantiasis. Of the white
2

leprosy (called Lepra Mosaica), which is still met with in Arabia sometimes, where it is
called Baras, Trusen gives the following description: “Very frequently, even for years
before the actual outbreak of the disease itself, white, yellowish spots are seen lying deep
in the skin, particularly on the genitals, in the face, on the forehead, or in the joints. They
are without feeling, and sometimes cause the hair to assume the same colour as the
spots. These spots afterwards pierce through the cellular tissue, and reach the muscles
and bones. The hair becomes white and woolly, and at length falls off; hard gelatinous
swellings are formed in the cellular tissue; the skin gets hard, rough, and seamy, lymph
exudes from it, and forms large scabs, which fall off from time to time, and under these
there are often offensive running sores. The nails then swell, curl up, and fall off;
entropium is formed, with bleeding gums, the nose stopped up, and a considerable flow
of saliva... The senses become dull, the patient gets thin and weak, colliquative diarrhea
sets in, and incessant thirst and burning fever terminate his sufferings” (Krankheiten d.
alten Hebr. p. 165).
COFFMAN, "This long chapter provides instructions for the ancient priests of
Israel to follow in dealing with physical conditions suspected of being leprosy. We
have actually found no key whatever for any application of the instructions here to
the concerns and interests of our society today, except in the general sense regarding
the typical nature of leprosy as a type of sin, due to its loathsomeness, and its fatal
consequences.
Since a number of different symptoms are enumerated here, some of which led to a
designation of leprosy in the victim, and others which resulted in his being
pronounced "clean," it is quite obvious that several different physical disorders
resulted in the sufferer's being brought to the priest for diagnosis.
Knight identified the following diseases as coming under inspection in this chapter:
"(1) The horrible anaesthetic leprosy that exists unto this day; (2) tuberculous
leprosy that begins with a skin disease and develops into deformities; (3) several
kinds of skin eruptions resembling leprosy, but sometimes disappearing
spontaneously; and (4) a number of diseases known and treated today under such
names as herpes, ringworm, eczema, and psoriasis.[1]
The Holy Scriptures were never provided in order to give men scientific
information, and the thing that is in view here is the divine instruction to protect the
spread of disease, especially that of leprosy. It is not the cure of this malady which is
given here, but the rules for the isolation and quarantine of those having it. That
such instructions are Divine should not be for a moment questioned. The human
race has continued to isolate and quarantine lepers all over the world until this very
day. The extreme repugnance of the disease, as well as its incurable nature, made it
an especially appropriate type of sin. The fact that those ancient priests charged
with the task of observing human maladies and deciding which was leprosy and
which was not were probably subject to human error in their decisions should not
3

obscure the truth that the method they followed was the best known and the most
efficient that that age provided.
North commented that, "The application of the word leprosy in this chapter is very
wide; and it has even been doubted that true leprosy is contemplated at all."[2]
However, we need have no hesitance in believing that actual leprosy was surely
included in this chapter, because other passages in the Bible plainly indicate the
characteristics of leprosy in its worst form. Moses' prayer concerning the leprosy of
Miriam has this: "Let her not, I pray, be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half
consumed" (Numbers 12:12). "All references to this disease in the Scriptures imply
that it was incurable and that its removal required the exercise of Divine power."[3]
Naaman, it will be remembered, sought the cure of his leprosy, not because of any
fancied skill of Israel's physicians, but because there was a "prophet of God" in
Israel. And when Naaman inquired of the King of Israel, the king tore his garments
and exploded with the remark: "Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man
doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy?" (2 Kings 5:7). Such references
to the disease may be multiplied, but these are enough to show that there was indeed
real leprosy in the land, and that the people knew it and recognized it. Any notion,
therefore, that this chapter is dealing only with such a thing as psoriasis is
ridiculous. There were probably, of course, many persons who came to the priests
with diseases other than leprosy, and those of course, were, after investigation,
declared "clean."
"And Jehovah spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, When a man shall have in
the skin of his flesh a rising, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it become in the skin of
his flesh the plague of leprosy, then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or
unto one of his sons the priests: and the priest shall look on the plague in the skin of
the flesh: and if the hair in the plague be turned white, and the appearance of the
plague be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is the plague of leprosy; and the priest
shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean. And if the bright spot be white in the
skin of his flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, and the
hair thereof be not turned white, then the priest shall shut up him that hath the
plague seven days: and the priest shall look on him the seventh day: and, behold, if
in his eyes the plague be at a stay, and the plague be not spread in the skin, then the
priest shall shut him up seven days more: and the priest shall look on him again the
seventh day; and, behold, if the plague be dim, and the plague be not spread in the
skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is a scab: and he shall wash his
clothes, and be clean. But if the scab spread abroad in the skin, after that he hath
showed himself to the priest for his cleansing, he shall show himself to the priest
again: and the priest shall look; and, behold, if the scab be spread in the skin, then
the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is leprosy."
In the first 28 verses, four different cases of suspected leprosy are described, the
first in this paragraph, the second in Leviticus 13:9-17, the third in Leviticus
13:18-23, and the fourth in Leviticus 13:24-28. Note that extended observation in
4

certain cases was required to determine if leprosy actually existed. There was also a
provision, that even when declared clean, a patient might still be denominated as
leprous and unclean, if the malady returned in such a manner as to justify such a
decision. This indicated that the judgment of the priests in these matters was not
considered "divine," but human judgment, exercised to the best of their ability.
ELLICOTT, "(1) And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron.—As laws of leprosy
chiefly concerned the priests, who had to examine the symptoms and to decide
whether they indicated the distemper or not, the Lord addressed the regulations to
Aaron as well as to Moses. The leprosy discussed in this and the following chapters
consists of three general classes: viz., (1) leprosy of man (Leviticus 13:2-46); (2)
leprosy of garments (Leviticus 13:47-59); and (3) leprosy of houses (Leviticus
14:33-57).
When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh.—In discussing the leprosy of man,
the lawgiver enumerates six different circumstances under which it may develop
itself. The first circumstance adduced in Leviticus 13:2-6 is of its developing itself
without an apparent cause. Hence it was enjoined that if anyone should notice in the
skin of his flesh a rising or swelling, he should be taken to the priest. As the
description of these symptoms is very concise, and requires to be specified more
minutely for practical purposes, the spiritual guides of Israel, who had to explain
the law to the priests during the second Temple, and who came in personal contact
with this distemper, defined them as follows :—
A rising.—That is, a swelling, or swollen spot.
Or bright spot.—That is, a bright or glossy pimple. But these symptoms, when
indicative of leprosy, assume respectively one of two colours, a principal or a
subordinate colour. The principal colour of the rising spot is like that of an egg-
shell, and the secondary one resembles white wool; whilst the principal colour of the
bright pimple is white as snow, and the subordinate resembles plaster on the wall.
Then he shall be brought unto Aaron.—The following rules obtained during the
second Temple with regard to the examination of the patient. Though anyone may
examine the disease except the patient himself or his relations, yet the priest alone
can decide whether it is leprosy or not, because the law declares that the priests
must decide cases of litigation and disease (Deuteronomy 21:5); hence the patient
must “be brought unto Aaron,” &c. But though the priests only can pronounce the
patient clean or unclean, even if he be a child or a fool, yet he must act upon the
advice of a learned layman in those matters. If the priest is blind of one eye, or is
weak-sighted, he is disqualified for examining the distemper. The inspection must
not take place on the Sabbath, nor early in the morning, nor in the middle of the
day, nor in the evening, nor on cloudy days, because the colour of the skin cannot
properly be ascertained in those hours of the day; but it must take place in the third,
fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth hours.
5

WHEDON, "Verse 1-2
THE LEPER.
2. The plague of leprosy — The word leprosy is of Greek origin, and literally
signifies, the scaly disease. For its general meaning see note on Numbers 5:2. But the
disease here treated of is evidently the so-called white leprosy, (Lepra Mosaica,)
which is still found among the Arabs under the name of Baras. It is described by
Trunsen as follows: “Very frequently, even for years before the actual outbreak of
the disease itself, white, yellowish spots are seen lying deep in the skin, particularly
on the genitals, face, forehead, or in the joints. They are without feeling, and
sometimes cause the hair to assume the same colour as the spots. These spots
afterwards pierce through the cellular tissue and reach the muscles and bones. The
hair becomes white and woolly, and at length falls off; hard, gelatinous swellings are
formed in the cellular tissue; the skin gets hard, rough, and seamy; lymph exudes
from it, and forms large scabs, which fall off from time to time; and under these
there are often offensive running sores. The nails then swell, curl up, and fall off;
entropium (inversion of the eyelashes) is then formed, with bleeding gums; the nose
is stopped up, and there is a considerable flow of saliva. The senses become dull, the
patient gets weak and thin, wasting diarrhea sets in, and incessant thirst and
burning terminate his sufferings.” There are three chief symptoms of this disease.
(1.) A rising or swelling. (2.) A scab. (3.)
A bright spot — This was of a white colour. These are described under six different
circumstances, namely: 1.) Developed without any apparent cause, 2-8. 2.)
Reappearing after the supposed cure, 9-17. 3.) Arising from the scar of a boil or a
burn, 18-28. 4.) Appearing on the head or chin. 29-37. 5.) In the form called bohak,
not unclean, 38-39. 6.) In a bald head, 40-44.
Unto Aaron the priest — The treatment was to be ceremonial, not medical. The
command that the leper present himself not to the physician but to the priest, shows
that the leprosy was in some way intimately associated with sin, for the priest’s
office related to guilt. “There was no doctor then; he is a later creation. The Church
is the true lazar-house; the Church is the great hospital. We have no instruction to
the effect that one leper is to look on another; the distinct direction is that the
priest — the holy, pure man — shall look at the leper — handle him, undertake
him.”-Joseph Parker.
EBC, "THE UNCLEANNESS OF LEPROSY
Leviticus 13:1-46
THE interpretation of this chapter presents no little difficulty. The description of
the diseases with which the law here deals is not given in a scientific form; the point
of view, as the purpose of all, is strictly practical. As for the Hebrew word rendered
"leprosy," it does not itself give any light as to the nature of the disease thus
6

designated. The word simply means "a stroke," as also does the generic term used in
Leviticus 13:2 and elsewhere, and translated "plague." Inasmuch as the Septuagint
translators rendered the former term by the Greek word "lepra" (whence our word
"leprosy"), and as, it is said, the old Greek physicians comprehended under that
term only such scaly cutaneous eruptions as are now known as psoriasis (vulg.,
"saltrheum"), and for what is now known as leprosy reserved the term
"elephantiasis," it has been therefore urged by high authority that in these chapters
is no reference to the leprosy of modern speech, but only to some disease or diseases
much less serious, either psoriasis or some other, consisting, like that, of a scaly
eruption on the skin. To the above argument it is also added that the signs which are
given for the recognition of the disease intended, are not such as we should expect if
it were the modern leprosy; as, for example, there is no mention of the insensibility
of the skin, which is so characteristic a feature of the disease, at least, in a very
common variety; moreover, we find in this chapter no allusion to the hideous
mutilation which so commonly results from leprosy.
When the use of the Hebrew term rendered "leprosy" is examined, in this law and
elsewhere, it certainly seems to be used with great definiteness to describe a disease
which had as a very characteristic feature a whitening of the skin throughout,
together with other marks common to the early stages of leprosy as given in this
chapter. Only in Leviticus 13:12 does the Hebrew word appear to be applied to a
disease of a different character, though also marked by the whitening of the skin. As
for the symptoms indicated, the undoubted absence of many conspicuous marks of
leprosy may be accounted for by the following considerations. In the first place, with
a single exception (Leviticus 13:9-11), the earliest stages of the disease are described;
and, secondly, it may reasonably be assumed that, through the desire to ensure the
earliest possible separation of a leprous man from the congregation, signs were to be
noted and acted upon, which might also be found in other forms of skin disease. The
aim of the law is that, if possible, the man shall be removed from the camp before
the disease has assumed its most unambiguous and revolting form. As for the
omission to mention the insensibility of the skin of the leper, this seems to be
sufficiently explained when we remember that this symptom is characteristic of only
one, and that not the most fatal, variety of the disease.
But, it has also been urged, that elsewhere in the Scripture the so-called lepers
appear as mingling with other people-as, for example, in the case of Naaman and
Gehazi-in a way which shows that the disease was not regarded as contagious;
whence it is inferred, again, that the leprosy of which we read in the Bible cannot be
the same with the disease which is so called in our time. But, in reply to this
objection, it may be answered that even modern medical opinion has been by no
means as confident of the contagiousness of the disease-at least, until quite recently-
as were people in the middle ages; nor, moreover, can we assume that the prevention
of contagion must have been the chief reason for the segregation of the leper,
according to the Levitical law, seeing that a like separation was enjoined in many
other cases of ceremonial uncleanness where any thought of contagion or infection
was quite impossible.
7

In further support of the more common opinion, which identifies the disease chiefly
referred to in this chapter with the leprosy of modern times, the following
considerations appear to be of no little weight. In the first place, the words
themselves which are applied to the disease in these chapters and elsewhere, -
tsara’ath and nega’, both meaning, etymologically, "a stroke," i.e., a stroke in some
eminent sense, -while peculiarly fitting if the disease be that which we now know as
leprosy, seem very strangely chosen if, as Sir Risdon Bennett thinks, they only
designate varieties of a disease of so little seriousness as psoriasis. Then, again, the
words used by Aaron to Moses, {Numbers 12:12} referring to the leprosy of Miriam,
deserve great weight here: "Let her not, I pray, be as one dead, of whom the flesh is
half consumed." These words sufficiently answer the allegation that there is no
certain reference in Scripture to the mutilation which is so characteristic of the later
stages of the disease. It would not be easy to describe in more accurate language the
condition of the leper as the plague advances; while, on the other hand, if the
leprosy of the Bible be only such a light affection as "salt-rheum," these words and
the evident horror which they express, are so exaggerated as to be quite
unaccountable.
Then, again, we cannot lose sight of the place which the disease known in Scripture
language as leprosy holds in the sight of the law. As a matter of fact, it is singled out
from a multitude of diseases as the object of the most stringent and severe
regulations, and the most elaborate ceremonial, known to the law. Now, if the
disease intended be indeed the awful elephantiasis Graecorum of modern medical
science, popularly known as leprosy, this is most natural and reasonable; but if, on
the other hand, only some such nonmalignant disease as psoriasis be intended, this
fact is inexplicable. Further, the tenour of all references to the disease in the
Scripture implies that it was deemed so incurable that its removal in any case was
regarded as a special sign of the exercise of Divine power. The reference of the
Hebrew maid of Naaman to the prophet of God, {2 Kings 5:3} as one who could cure
him, instead of proving that it was thought curable-as has been strangely urged-by
ordinary means, surely proves the exact opposite. Naaman, no doubt, had exhausted
medical resources; and the hope of the maid for him is not based on the medical skill
of Elisha, but on the fact that he was a prophet of God, and therefore able to draw
on Divine power. To the same effect is the word of the King of Israel, when he
received the letter of Naaman: {2 Kings 5:7} "Am I God, to kill and to make alive,
that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy?" In full accord
with this is the appeal of our Lord {Matthew 11:5} to His cleansing of the lepers, as
a sign of His Messiahship which He ranks for convincing power along with the
raising of the dead.
Nor is it a fatal objection to the usual understanding of this matter, that because the
Levitical law prescribes a ritual for the ceremonial cleansing of the leper in case of
his cure, therefore the disease so called could not be one of the gravity and supposed
incurability of the true leprosy. For it is to be noted, in the first place, that there is
no intimation that recovery from the leprosy was a common occurrence, or even
8

that it was to be expected at all, apart from the direct power of God; and, in the
second place, that the Scriptural narrative represents God as now and then-though
very rarely - interposing for the cure of the leper. And it may perhaps be added,
that while a recent authority writes, and with truth, that "medical skill appears to
have been more completely foiled by this than by any other malady," it is yet
remarked that, when of the anaesthetic variety, "some spontaneous cures are
recorded."
The chapter before us calls for little detailed exposition. The diagnosis of the disease
by the priest is treated under four different heads:
(1) the case of a leprosy rising spontaneously (vv. 1-17, 38, 39);
(2) leprosy rising out of a boil (vv. 18-24);
(3) rising out of a burn (vv. 24-28);
(4) leprosy on the head or beard (vv. 29-37, 40-44).
The indications which are to be noted are described (Leviticus 13:2-3, Leviticus
13:24-27, etc.) as a rising of the surface, a scab (or scale), or a bright spot (very
characteristic), the presence in the spot of hair turned white, the disease apparently
deeper than the outer or scarf skin, a reddish-white colour of the surface, and a
tendency to spread. The presence of raw flesh is mentioned (Leviticus 13:10) as an
indication of a leprosy already somewhat advanced, "an old leprosy." In cases of
doubt, the suspected case is to be isolated for a period of seven or, if need be,
fourteen days, at the expiration of which the priest’s verdict is to be given, as the
symptoms may then indicate.
Two cases are mentioned which the priest is not to regard as leprosy. The first
(Leviticus 13:12-13) is that in which the plague "covers all the skin of him that hath
the plagues from his head even to his feet, as far as appeareth to the priest," so that
he "is all turned white." At first thought, this seems quite unaccountablet seeing
that leprosy finally affects the whole body. But the solution of the difficulty is not
far to seek. For the next verse provides that, in such a case, if "raw flesh" appear, he
shall be held to be unclean. The explanation of this provision of Leviticus 13:12 is
therefore apparently this: that if an eruption had so spread as to cover the whole
body, turning it white, and yet no raw flesh had appeared in any place, the disease
could not be true leprosy as, if it were, then, by the time that it had so extended,
"raw flesh" would certainly have appeared somewhere. The disease indicated by
this exception was indeed well known to the ancients, as it is also to the moderns as
the "dry tetter"; which, although an affection often of long duration, frequently
disappears spontaneously, and is never malignant.
The second case which is specified as not to be mistaken for leprosy is mentioned in
Leviticus 13:38-39, where it is described as marked by bright spots of a dull
9

whiteness, but without the white hair, and other characteristic signs of leprosy. The
Hebrew word by which it is designated is rendered in the Revised Version "tetter";
and the disease, a nonmalignant tetter or eczema, is still known in the East under
the same name (bohak) which is here used.
Leviticus 13:45-46 give the law for him who has been by the priest adjudged to be a
leper. He must go with clothes rent, with his hair neglected, his lip covered, crying,
"Unclean! unclean!" without the camp, and there abide alone for so long as he
continues to be afflicted with the disease. In other words, he is to assume all the
ordinary signs of mourning for the dead; he is to regard himself, and all others are
to regard him, as a dead man. As it were, he is a continual mourner at his own
funeral.
Wherein lay the reason for this law? One might answer, in general, that the extreme
loathsomeness of the disease, which made the presence of those who had it to be
abhorrent, even to their nearest friends, would of itself make it only fitting, however
distressing might be the necessity, that such persons should be excluded from every
possibility of appearing, in their revolting corruption, in the sacred and pure
precincts of the tabernacle of the holy God, as also from mingling with His people.
Many, however, have seen in the regulation only a wise law of public hygiene. That
a sanitary intent may very probably have been included in the purpose of this law,
we are by no means inclined to deny. In earlier times, and all through the middle
ages, the disease was regarded as contagious; and lepers were accordingly
segregated, as far as practicable, from the people. In modern times, the weight of
opinion until recent years has been against this older view; but the tendency of
medical authority now appears to be to reaffirm the older belief. The alarming
increase of this horrible disease in all parts of the world, of late, following upon a
general relaxation of those precautions against contagion which were formerly
thought necessary, certainly supports this judgment; and it may thus be easily
believed that there was just sanitary ground for the rigid regulations of the Mosaic
code. And just here it may be remarked, that if indeed there be any degree of
contagiousness, however small, in this plague, no one who has ever seen the disease,
or understands anything of its incomparable horror and loathsomeness, will feel
that there is any force in the objections which have been taken to this part of the
Mosaic law as of inhuman harshness toward the sufferers. Even were the risk of
contagion but small, as it probably is, still, so terrible is the disease that one would
more justly say that the only inhumanity were to allow those afflicted with it
unrestricted intercourse with their fellow men. The truth is, that the Mosaic law
concerning the treatment of the leper, when compared with regulations touching
lepers which have prevailed among other nations, stands contrasted with them by its
comparative leniency. The Hindoo law, as is well known, even insists that the leper
ought to put himself out of existence, requiring that he shall be buried alive.
But if there be included in these regulations a sanitary intent, this certainly does not
exhaust their significance. Rather, if this be admitted, it only furnishes the basis, as
in the case of the laws concerning clean and unclean meats, for still more profound
10

spiritual teaching. For, as remarked before, it is one of the fundamental thoughts of
the Mosaic law, that death, as being the extreme visible manifestation of the
presence of sin in the race, and a sign of the consequent holy wrath of God against
sinful man, is inseparably connected with legal uncleanness. But all disease is a
forerunner of death, an incipient dying; and is thus, no less really than actual death,
a visible manifestation of the presence and power of sin working in the body
through death. And yet it is easy to see that it would have been quite impracticable
to carry out a law that therefore all disease should render the sick person
ceremonially unclean; while, on the other hand, it was of consequence that Israel,
and we as well, should be kept in remembrance of this connection between sin and
disease, as death beginning. What could have been more fitting, then, than this, that
the one disease which, without exaggeration, is of all diseases the most loathsome,
which is most manifestly a visible representation of that which is in a measure true
of all disease, that it is death working in life, that disease which is, not in a merely
rhetorical sense, but in fact, a living image of death, -should be selected from all
others for the illustration of this principle: to be to Israel and to us, a visible,
perpetual, and very awful parable of the nature and the working of sin?
And this is precisely what has been done. This explains, as sanitary considerations
alone do not, not merely the separation of the leper from the holy people, but also
the solemn symbolism which required him to assume the appearance of one
mourning for the dead; as also the symbolism of his cleansing, which, in like
manner, corresponded very closely with that of the ritual of cleansing from
defilement by the dead. Hence, while all sickness, in a general way, is regarded in
the Holy Scriptures as a fitting symbol of sin, it has always been recognised that,
among all diseases, leprosy is this in an exceptional and preeeminent sense. This
thought seems to have been in the mind of David, when, after his murder of Uriah
and adultery with Bathsheba, bewailing his iniquity, {Psalms 51:7} he prayed,
"Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean." For the only use of the hyssop in the
law, which could be alluded to in these words is that which is enjoined {Leviticus
14:4-7} in the law for the cleansing of the leper, by the sprinkling of the man to be
cleansed with blood and water with a hyssop branch.
And thus we find that, again, this elaborate ceremonial contains, not merely an
instructive lesson in public sanitation, and practical suggestions in hygiene for our
modern times; but also lessons, far more profound and momentous, concerning that
spiritual malady with which the whole human race is burdened, -lessons therefore of
the gravest personal consequence for every one of us.
From among all diseases, leprosy has been selected by the Holy Ghost to stand in the
law as the supreme type of sin, as seen by God! This is the very solemn fact which is
brought before us in this chapter. Let us well consider it and see that we receive the
lesson, however humiliating and painful, in the spirit of meekness and penitence.
Let us so study it that we shall with great earnestness and true faith resort to the
true and heavenly High Priest, who alone can cleanse us of this sore malady. And in
order to this, we must carefully consider what is involved in this type.
11

In the first place, leprosy is undoubtedly selected to be a special type of sin, on
account of its extreme loathsomeness. Beginning, indeed, as an insignificant spot, "a
bright place," a mere scale on the skin, it goes on spreading, progressing ever from
worse to worse, till at last limb drops from limb, and only the hideous mutilated
remnant of what was once a man is left. A vivid picture of the horrible reality has
been given by that veteran missionary and very accurate observer, the Rev. William
Thomson, D.D., who writes thus: "As I was approaching Jerusalem, I was startled
by the sudden apparition of a crowd of beggars, sans eyes, sans nose, sans hair, sans
everything They held up their handless arms, unearthly sounds gurgled through
throats without palates, -in a word, I was horrified." Too horrible is this to be
repeated or thought of? Yes! But then all the more solemnly instructive is it that the
Holy Spirit should have chosen this disease, the most loathsome of all, as the most
fatal of all, to symbolise to us the true nature of that spiritual malady which affects
us all, as it is seen by the omniscient and most holy God.
But it will very naturally be rejoined by some: Surely it were gross exaggeration to
apply this horrible symbolism to the case of many who, although indeed sinners,
unbelievers also in Christ, yet certainly exhibit truly lovely and attractive
characters. That this is true regarding many who, according to the Scriptures, are
yet unsaved, cannot be denied. We read of one such in the Gospel, -a young man,
unsaved, who yet was such that "Jesus looking upon him loved him." {Mark 10:20}
But this fact only makes the leprosy the more fitting symbol of sin. For another
characteristic of the disease is its insignificant and often even imperceptible
beginning. We are told that in the case of those who inherit the taint, it frequently
remains quite dormant in early life, only gradually appearing in later years.
How perfectly the type, in this respect, then, symbolises sin! And surely any
thoughtful man will confess that this fact makes the presence of the infection not less
alarming, but more so. No comfort then can be rightly had from any complacent
comparison of our own characters with those of many, perhaps professing more,
who are much worse than we, as the manner of some is. No one who knew that from
his parents he had inherited the leprous taint, or in whom the leprosy as yet
appeared as only an insignificant bright spot, would comfort himself greatly by the
observation that other lepers were much worse; and that he was, as yet, fair and
goodly to look upon. Though the leprosy were in him but just begun, that would be
enough to fill him with dismay and consternation. So should it be with regard to sin.
And it would so affect such a man the more surely, when he knew that the disease,
however slight in its beginnings, was certainly progressive. This is one of the
unfailing marks of the disease. It may progress slowly, but it progresses surely. To
quote again the vivid and truthful description of the above-named writer,
"It comes on by degrees in different parts of the body: the hair fails from the head
and eyebrows; the nails loosen, decay, and drop off; joint after joint of the fingers
and toes shrinks up and slowly falls away; the gums are absorbed, and the teeth
12

disappear; the nose, the eyes, the tongue, and the palate are slowly consumed; and,
finally, the wretched victim sinks into the earth and disappears."
In this respect again the fitness of the disease to stand as an eminent type of sin is
undeniable. No man can morally stand still. No one has ever retained the innocence
of childhood. Except as counteracted by the efficient grace of the Holy Spirit in the
heart, the Word {2 Timothy 3:13} is ever visibly fulfilled, "evil men wax worse and
worse." Sin may not develop in all with equal rapidity, but it does progress in every
natural man, outwardly or inwardly, with equal certainty.
It is another mark of leprosy that sooner or later it affects the whole man; and in
this, again, appears the sad fitness of the disease to stand as a symbol of sin. For sin
is not a partial disorder, affecting only one class of faculties, or one part of our
nature. It disorders the judgment; it obscures our moral perceptions; it either
perverts the affections, or unduly stimulates them in one direction, while it deadens
them in another; it hardens and quickens the will for evil, while it paralyses its
power for the volition of that which is holy. And not only the Holy Scripture, but
observation itself, teaches us that sin, in many cases, also affects the body of man,
weakening its powers, and bringing in, by an inexorable taw, pain, disease, and
death. Sooner or later, then, sin affects the whole man. And for that reason, again, is
leprosy set forth as its preeeminent symbol.
It is another remarkable feature of the disease that, as it progresses from bad to
worse, the victim becomes more and more insensible. This numbness or insensibility
of the spots affected-in one most common variety at least-is a constant feature. In
some cases it becomes so extreme that a knife may be thrust into the affected limb,
or the diseased flesh may be burnt with fire, and yet the leper feels no pain. Nor is
the insensibility confined to the body, but, as the leprosy extends, the mind is
affected in an analogous manner. A recent writer says: "Though a mass of bodily
corruption, at last unable to leave his bed, the leper seems happy and contented with
his sad condition." Is anything more characteristic than this of the malady of sin?
The sin which, when first committed, costs a keen pang, afterward, when frequently
repeated, hurts not the conscience at all. Judgments and mercies, which in earlier
life affected one with profound emotion, in later life leave the impenitent sinner as
unmoved as they found him. Hence we all recognise the fitness of the common
expression, "a seared conscience," as also of the Apostle’s description of advanced
sinners as men who are "past feeling". {Ephesians 4:19} Of this moral insensibility
which sin produces, then, we are impressively reminded when the Holy Spirit in the
Word holds before us leprosy as a type of sin.
Another element of the solemn fitness of the type is found in the persistently
hereditary nature of leprosy. It may indeed sometimes arise of itself, even as did sin
in the case of certain of the holy angels, and with our first parents; but when once it
is introduced, in the case of any person, the terrible infection descends with
unfailing certainty to all his descendants; and while, by suitable hygiene, it is
possible to alleviate its violence, and retard its development, it is not possible to
13

escape the terrible inheritance. Is anything more uniformly characteristic of sin?
We may raise no end of metaphysical difficulties about the matter, and put
unanswerable questions about freedom and responsibility; but there is no denying
the hard fact that since sin first entered the race, in our first parents, not a child of
man, of human father begotten, has escaped the taint. If various external influences,
as in the case of leprosy, may, in some instances, modify its manifestations, yet no
individual, in any class or condition of mankind, escapes the taint. The most
cultivated and the most barbarous alike, come into the world so constituted that,
quite antecedent to any act of free choice on their part, we know that it is not more
certain that they will eat than that, when they begin to exercise freedom, they will,
each and every one, use their moral freedom wrongly, -in a word, will sin. No doubt,
then, when such prominence is given to leprosy among diseases, in the Mosaic
symbolism and elsewhere, it is with intent, among other truths, to keep before the
mind this very solemn and awful fact with regard to the sin which it so fitly
symbolises.
And, again, we find yet another analogy in the fact that, among the ancient
Hebrews, the disease was regarded as incurable by human means; and,
notwithstanding occasional announcements in our day that a remedy has been
discovered for the plague, this seems to be the verdict of the best authorities in
medical science still. That in this respect leprosy perfectly represents the sorer
malady of the soul, everyone is witness. No possible effort of will or fixedness of
determination has ever availed to free a man from sin. Even the saintliest Christian
has often to confess with the Apostle, {Romans 7:19} "The evil which I would not,
that I practise." Neither is culture, whether intellectual or religious, of any more
avail. To this all human history testifies. In our day despite the sad lessons of long
experience, many are hoping for much from improved government, education, and
such like means; but vainly, and in the face of the most patent facts. Legislation may
indeed impose restrictions on the more flagrant forms of sin, even as it may be of
service in restricting the devastations of leprosy, and ameliorating the condition of
lepers. But to do away with sin, and abolish crime by any conceivable legislation, is
a dream as vain as were the hope of curing leprosy by a good law or an imperial
proclamation. Even the perfect law of God has proved inadequate for this end; the
Apostle {Romans 8:3} reminds us that in this it has failed, and could not but fail, "in
that it was weak through the flesh." Nothing can well be of more importance than
that We should be keenly alive to this fact; that so we may not, through our present
apparently tolerable condition, or by temporary alleviations of the trouble, be
thrown off our guard, and hope for ourselves or for the world, upon grounds which
afford no just reason for hope.
Last of all, the law of leprosy, as given in this chapter, teaches the supreme lesson,
that as with the symbolic disease of the body so with that of the soul, sin shuts out
from God and from the fellowship of the holy. As the leper was excluded from the
camp of Israel and from the tabernacle of Jehovah, so must the sinner, except
cleansed, be shut out of the Holy City, and from the glory of the heavenly temple.
What a solemnly significant parable is this exclusion of the leper from the camp! He
14

is thrust forth from the congregation of Israel, wearing the insignia of mourning for
the dead! Within the camp, the multitude of them that go to the sanctuary of God,
and that joyfully keep holy day; without, the leper dwelling alone, in his incurable
corruption and never-ending mourning! And so, while we do not indeed deny a
sanitary intention in these regulations of the law, but are rather inclined to affirm it;
yet of far more consequence is it that we heed the spiritual truth which this solemn
symbolism teaches. It is that which is written in the Apocalypse {Revelation 21:27;
Revelation 22:15} concerning the New Jerusalem: "There shall in no wise enter into
it anything unclean. Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators,
and the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone that loveth and maketh a lie."
In view of all these correspondences, one need not wonder that in the symbolism of
the law leprosy holds the place which it does. For what other disease can be named
which combines in itself, as a physical malady, so many of the most characteristic
marks of the malady of the soul? In its intrinsic loathsomeness, its insignificant
beginnings, its slow but inevitable progress, in the extent of its effects, in the
insensibility which accompanies it, in its hereditary character, in its incurability,
and, finally, in the fact that according to the law it involved the banishment of the
leper from the camp of Israel, -in all these respects, it stands alone as a perfect type
of sin; it is sin, as it were, made visible in the flesh.
This is indeed a dark picture of man’s natural state, and very many are exceedingly
loth to believe that sin can be such a very serious matter. Indeed, the fundamental
postulate of much of our nineteenth-century thought, in matters both of politics and
religion, denies the truth of this representation, and insists, on the contrary, that
man is naturally not bad, but good; and that, on the whole, as the ages go by, he is
gradually becoming better and better. But it is imperative that our views of sin and
of humanity shall agree with the representations held before us in the Word of God.
When that Word, not only in type, as in this chapter, but in plain language,
{Jeremiah 17:9, R.V} declares that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and it is
desperately sick, " it must be a very perilous thing to deny this.
It is a profoundly instructive circumstance that, according to this typical law, the
case of the supposed leper was to be judged by the priest (Leviticus 13:2-3, et
passim). All turned for him upon the priest’s verdict. If he declared him clean, it
was well; but if he pronounced him unclean, it made no difference that the man did
not believe it, or that his friends did not believe it; or that he or they thought better
in any respect of his case than the priest, -out of the camp he must go. He might
plead that he was certainly not nearly in so bad a case as some of the poor,
mutilated, dying creatures outside the camp; but that would have no weight,
however true. For still he, no less really than they, was a leper; and, until made
whole, into the fellowship of lepers he must go and abide. Even so for us all;
everything turns, not on our own opinion of ourselves, or on what other men may
think of us; but solely on the verdict of the heavenly Priest.
The picture thus set before us in the symbolism of this chapter is sad enough; but it
15

would be far more sad did the law not now carry forward the symbolism into the
region of redemption, in making provision for the cleansing of the leper, and his
readmission into the fellowship of the holy people. To this our attention is called in
the next chapter.
PETT, "Chapter 13 Uncleanness Caused By Skin Diseases.
Up to this point the cleanness and uncleanness described has firstly related to the
whole of Israel, and then to the whole of the womenfolk of Israel. Now it comes
down to individual cases. Once again we detect a look back to the Genesis story.
Chapter 11 has looked at the effects of the curse on men and food provision, chapter
12 has looked at the effects of the curse on women and child-birth, now we see the
effects of the curse on individuals because of sin, sin not necessarily wholly their
own. When Adam and Eve sinned they were expelled from the Fruitful Plain of
Eden. They were excluded because now they were mortal, dying people, because
they were diseased with sin, because they were no longer fit to meet with God and
walk with Him daily.
In a similar way those who had serious skin disease were to be declared unclean,
were to be declared to be the living dead, were to be expelled from the camp of
Israel. For that serious skin disease rendered them ‘unclean’, unfit to return to the
camp of Israel, unfit to approach God in the tabernacle. They were seen as like
Adam and Eve once they had sinned. They were cast out from God’s intimate
presence.
In this case the few suffered visibly as representatives of the whole. All Israel were
dressed in polluted garments (Isaiah 64:6). Spiritually all were unclean. But the
plague only came on some as a warning to the whole. That it was the consequence of
the fall no one would doubt. They would see in this diseased remnant of the children
of Israel the particular mark of the fall, and that the whole were only spared by the
grace of God.
For the world having been affected by man’s fall, it was inevitable that disease
would raise its head, and disease is regularly seen in the Old Testament as the
punishment on the world due for sin. And certain special types of disease, as
outlined in this chapter, were seen as marking the sinner off as outside the
‘perfection’ of God. The disease that resulted from sin was seen to have laid its
visible mark on those involved. The diseases were a diminishing of the life that was
in that person. They rendered him ‘unclean’. There were thus always going to be
those whose sickness drew attention to the deserved consequence of the fall, to the
fact that unwholeness excluded men from God. It may be that this was seen as
illustrating the ‘mark of Cain’ (Genesis 4:15). Some have seen that as referring to
some terrible skin disease. He was the one who was ‘cast out of the camp’ and then
formed his own camp.
Such skin diseases were in fact specifically threatened as a punishment for those
16

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

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

over.
There is much disagreement about the particular types of disease represented by the
symptoms. Agreement is hard to find, and we must remember that they are not
necessarily identifiable with modern skin diseases. But that does not really matter
except as a sop to our curiosity. The message comes over whatever they were.
In seeking to identify the different conditions some do point to leprosy as being one
probability, and some of the symptoms would tie in with this, but there are
numerous other possibilities, and although cases of leprosy are known in the area in
ancient times, modern opinion is in general against it being so prevalent, and we
would probably be wrong to see this as central to the conditions described, although
it may well be seen as among them.
Others have identified in the later diseases described, among other things psoriasis,
a chronic, non-infectious skin disease characterised by the presence of well-
demarcated, slightly raised reddish patches of various sizes covered by dry greyish-
white or silvery scales, and favus, a much more severe and damaging infection
connected with ring-worm in which the fungus invades both the hair and the full
thickness of the skin. Others refer to leucoderma, a slightly disfiguring condition in
which patches of otherwise normal skin lose their natural colouring and become
completely white. All three are possibly in mind, along with other skin diseases.
But it must be recognised that the priest is not trying to identify the particular skin
disease. He is simply following divine instructions to discover whether a man’s
symptoms show him to be ‘clean’ or ‘unclean’, and whether he has to be
quarantined or excluded from the camp. His whole concern is strictly with
maintaining the greater holiness of the tabernacle and the lesser holiness of the
camp.
Behind the laws we may see a reference to man in his sinfulness. All of us from birth
are diseased with sin. It is a disease that grows and spreads and penetrates deep
within, and it produces its scars without. And the choice is laid before each one of
us. Either we come to Christ, the One Who can cleanse us from sin and root it out
from within us, presenting us perfect before God (Hebrews 10:14), or we will be
‘cast out of the camp’, with no place in God’s presence. And once we are His the
situation continues. The Christian cannot again allow sin to penetrate deep within,
or spread. It must be dealt with immediately. For the sin that penetrates deep and
spreads is deadly and if not dealt with will result in our rejection.
It is thus necessary for all of us to continually come to our great High Priest, Jesus
Christ, for examination. But the difference between ourselves and the Israelites is
that we have a Great Physician Who is able to heal that is wrong within us. For the
Israelite the examinations were in order to keep Israel as a whole ‘holy’. They had
no means of healing those with serious skin diseases. They were there as a warning
to the whole of what sin could do. But for us the situation is different. We can each
19

come personally and not only discover our state but have it dealt with. Not one of
the new ‘Israel’ ever needs to be cast out, only their sin.
Verse 1
This Is The Word Of Yahweh (Leviticus 13:1).
Leviticus 13:1
‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying,’
Here Aaron is for the second time included with Moses in receiving the word of
Yahweh (compare Leviticus 11:1), and will be again in Leviticus 14:33 and Leviticus
15:1. This suggests that at times he approached Yahweh in Moses’ company,
although never as the prime person. In spite of his status he could not outrank
Moses. But here he was present as a witness to what God said. Judging by the Book
of Numbers, where Aaron is not conjoined with Moses in this way until after the
confirmation of Aaron’s position in Numbers 18, it was prior to the arrival in
Kadesh.
PULPIT, "Verses 1-46
EXPOSITION
UNCLEANNESS DERIVED FROM LEPROSY OR CONTACT WITH LEPERS
AND LEPROUS THINGS (Leviticus 13:1-59, Leviticus 14:1-57). A third cause of
uncleanness is found in a third class of offensive or repulsive objects. There is no
disease which produces so foul an appearance in the human form as leprosy. There
was, therefore, no disease so suitable for creating ceremonial, because representing
spiritual, uncleanness.
The name leprosy has been made to cover a number of diseases similar but not
identical in character. There are many spurious forms of leprosy, and many diseases
akin to leprosy which do not now come under discussion. The disease here dealt
with is elephantiasis, especially in its anesthetic form, which is otherwise called
white leprosy. The two varieties of elephantiasis—the tuberculated and the
anesthetic—are, however, so closely connected together that they cannot be
separated, the one. often running into the other. The first symptom of the malady is
a painless spot, which covers an indolent ulcer. This ulcer may continue
unprogressive for months or for years, during which the person affected is able to
do his ordinary business; but at the end of these periods, whether longer or shorter,
it produces a more repulsive and foul disfigurement of the human face and frame
than any known disease, the features of the face changing their character, and part
of the body occasionally mortifying and dropping off. Death at last comes suddenly,
when a vital part of the body has been affected.
20

The home of leprosy has in all ages been Syria and Egypt and the countries adjacent
to them, but Europe has not escaped the scourge. In the Middle Ages, no European
country was free from it; London had at one time six leper houses; cases were found
not unfrequently in Scotland till the middle of the last century; and there was a
death certified by medical science to have resulted from leprosy in the city of
Norwich in the year 1880.£ The object of the regulations relating to leprosy is no
more sanitary than of those relating to unclean meats. Like the latter, they may have
served a sanitary purpose, for leprosy is, according to the prevailing medical
opinion, slightly, though only slightly, contagious. Because leprosy was hideous and
foul, it therefore made the man affected by it unclean, and before he could be
restored to communion with God and his people, he must be certified by God's
priest to be delivered from the disease. As in the previous cases, physical ugliness
and defilement represent spiritual depravity and viciousness. "The Levitical law
concerning leprosy reveals to us the true nature of sin. It shows its hideousness and
its foulness, and fills us with shame, hatred, and loathing for it. And it reveals to us
the inestimable benefit which we have received from the incarnation of the Son of
God, 'the Sun of Righteousness, with healing in his wings' (Malachi 4:2); and fills us
with joy, thankfulness, and love to him for his infinite goodness to us"
(Wordsworth). Leprosy, the most loathsome of all common diseases, is the type and
symbol of sin, and the ceremonial uncleanness attaching to it is a parable of the
moral foulness of sin.
SIMEON, "FIRE ON THE ALTAR NOT TO GO OUT
Leviticus 13. The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar: it shall never go out.
IT is a matter of deep regret that religious persons do not enter more fully into the
Jewish Ritual, and explore with more accuracy the mysteries contained in it. And I
am not sure that Ministers, whose office properly leads them to unfold the sacred
volume to their people, are not chargeable with a great measure of this remissness,
in that they are not more careful. to bring forth to their view the treasures of
wisdom that are hid in that invaluable mine.
Of course, it will not be expected that on this occasion I should attempt any thing
more than to illustrate the subject that is immediately before me. But I greatly
mistake, if that alone will not amply suffice to justify my introductory observation;
and to shew, that an investigation of the Law in all its parts would well repay the
labours of the most diligent research.
The point for our present consideration is, the particular appointment, that the fire
on the altar should never be suffered to go out. I will endeavour to set forth,
I. Its typical import, as relating to the Gospel—
Every part of the Ceremonial Law was “a shadow of good things to come.” This
particular ordinance clearly shews,
21

1. That we all need an atonement—
[This fire, which was to be kept in, was given from heaven [Note: Leviticus 9:24.]:
and it was given for the use of all; of all Israel without exception. There was not one
for whom an atonement was not to be offered. Aaron himself must offer an
atonement for himself, before he can offer one for the people [Note: Hebrews 7:27.].
Who then amongst us can hope to come with acceptance into the divine presence in
any other way? Our blessed Lord has told us, “No man cometh unto the Father, but
by me.” And St. Paul assures us, that “without shedding of blood there is no
remission of sins.” We must all, therefore, bring our offering to the altar; and lay
our hands upon the head of our offering; and look for pardon solely through the
atoning blood of Jesus. The fire, too, was for the daily use of all. And daily, yea, and
hourly, have all of us occasion to come to God in the same way. There is not an
offering that we present to God, but it must be placed on his altar: and then only
can it ascend with a sweet smell before God, when it has undergone its appointed
process in that fire.]
2. That the sacrifices under the Law are insufficient for us—
[Thousands and myriads of beasts were consumed on God’s altar: and yet the fire
continued to burn, as unsatisfied, and demanding fresh victims. Had the offerings
already presented effected a complete satisfaction for sin, the fire might have been
extinguished. But the repetition of the sacrifices clearly shewed, that a full
atonement had not yet been offered. In fact, as the Apostle tells us. they were no
more than “remembrances of sins made from year to year;” and “could never take
away sin,” either from God’s register of crimes, or from the conscience of the
offender himself [Note: Hebrews 10:1-4; Hebrews 10:11; Hebrews 9:9.]. Thus,
under the very Law itself, the insufficiency of the Law was loudly proclaimed; and
the people were taught to look forward to a better dispensation, as the end of that
which was, after a time, to be abolished.]
3. That God would in due time provide himself a sacrifice, with which he himself
would be satisfied—
[From the beginning, God had taught men to look forward to a sacrifice which
should in due time be offered. It is probable that the beasts, with whose skins our
first parents were clothed, were by God’s command first offered in sacrifice to him.
We are sure that Abel offered in sacrifice the firstling of his flock: and it is probable
that fire was sent from heaven, as it certainly was on different occasions afterwards,
to consume it: and that it was this visible token of God’s acceptance of Abel’s
sacrifice, that inflamed the envy and the rage of Cain [Note: Genesis 4:4-5.]. From
Noah’s offerings, also, “God smelled a sweet savour,” as shadowing forth that great
sacrifice which should in due time be offered [Note: Genesis 8:20-21.]. To Abraham
the purpose of God was marked in a still more peculiar manner. He was
commanded to “take his son, his only son, Isaac,” and to offer him up upon an altar,
22

on that very mountain where the Temple afterwards was built, and where the Lord
Jesus Christ himself was crucified. The fire, therefore, that was burning upon the
altar, and the wood with which it was kept alive, did, in effect, say, as Isaac so many
hundred years before had done, “Behold the fire and the wood; but where is the
lamb for a burnt-offering?” Yea, it gave also the very answer which Abraham had
done, “My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt-offering [Note: Genesis
22:7-8.].” Thus, by keeping up the expectation of the Great Sacrifice which all the
offerings of the Law prefigured, it declared, in fact, to every successive generation,
that in the fulness of time God would send forth his own Son, to “make his soul an
offering for sin,” and, by bearing in his own person the iniquities of us all, “to take
them away from us [Note: Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 53:10.].” In short, this fire, and every
offering that was consumed by it, directed the attention of every true Israelite to
that adorable “Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world [Note: John
1:29.],” and who in actual efficiency, as well as in the divine purpose, has been “the
Lamb slain from the foundation of the world [Note: Revelation 13:8.].”]
4. That all who should not be interested in that great sacrifice must expect His sorest
judgments—
[The victims consumed by that fire were considered as standing in the place of men
who deserved punishment. This was clearly marked, not only by their being set
apart by all Israel, and offered with that express view, but by the offenders
themselves putting their hands on the heads of their victims, and transferring their
sins to the creatures that were to be offered in sacrifice to God [Note: Leviticus 4:4;
Leviticus 4:15; Leviticus 4:24; Leviticus 4:29; Leviticus 4:33.]. The fire that
consumed them was expressive of God’s indignation against sin, and declared the
doom which the sinner himself merited at God’s hands; yea, and the doom, too,
which he himself must experience, if sin should ever be visited on him. It declared,
what the New Testament also abundantly confirms, that “God is a consuming fire
[Note: Hebrews 12:29.] ;” and that they who shall be visited with his righteous
indignation, must be “cast into a lake of fire [Note: Revelation 20:15.],” where “their
worm dieth not, and the fire never shall be quenched [Note: Mark 9:43-46; Mark
9:48 five times.].” Methinks, then, the fire burning on the altar gave to every person
that beheld it this awful admonition; “Who can dwell with the devouring fire? Who
can dwell with everlasting burnings [Note: Isaiah 33:14.] ?”]
In considering this ordinance, it will be proper yet further to declare,
II. Its mystical import, as relating to the Church—
The different ordinances of the Jewish Law had at least a two-fold meaning, and, in
many instances, a still more comprehensive import. The tabernacle, for instance,
prefigured the body of Christ, “in which all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt;” and
the Church, where God displays his glory; and heaven, where he vouchsafes his
more immediate presence, and is seen face to face. So the altar not unfitly represents
the cross on which the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified [Note: Hebrews 13:10-12.] ;
23

and the heart of man, from whence offerings of every kind go up with acceptance
before God [Note: Hebrews 13:15-16.]. In the former sense we have its typical, and
in the latter its mystical import.
Now in this mystical, and, as I may call it, emblematical sense, the ordinance before
us teaches us,
1. That no offering can be accepted of God, unless it be inflamed with heavenly
fire—
[When Nadab and Abihu offered incense before God “with strange,” that is, with
common, “fire,” they were struck dead, as monuments of God’s heavy displeasure:
“There went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them; and they died before the
Lord [Note: Leviticus 10:1-2.].” And shall we hope for acceptance with God, if we
present our offerings with the unhallowed fire of mere natural affections? Our
blessed Lord has told us, that he would “baptize us with the Holy Ghost and with
fire [Note: Matthew 3:11.]:” and every sacrifice which we offer to him should be
inflamed with that divine power, even the sacred energy of his Holy Spirit, and of
his heavenly grace. Let us not imagine that formal and self-righteous services can be
pleasing to him; or that we can be accepted of him whilst seeking our own glory.
Hear the declaration of God himself on this subject: “Behold, all ye that kindle a
fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks! walk in the light of your fire, and
in the sparks that ye have kindled: but this shall ye have of mine hand, ye shall lie
down in sorrow [Note: Isaiah 50:11.].”]
2. That if God have kindled in our hearts a fire, we must keep it alive by our own
vigilance—
[I well know that this mode of expression is objected to by many: but it is the
language of the whole Scriptures; and therefore is to be used by us. We are “not to
be wise above what is written,” and to abstain from speaking as the voice of
inspiration speaks, merely from a jealous regard to human systems. True it is, we
are not to attempt any thing in our own strength: (if we do, we shall surely fail:) but
we must exert ourselves notwithstanding: and the very circumstance of its being
“God alone who can work in us either to will or do,” is our incentive and
encouragement to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling [Note:
Philippians 2:12-13.].” If we cannot work without God, neither will God work
without us. We must “give all diligence to make our calling and election sure [Note:
2 Peter 1:10.].” We must “keep ourselves in the love of God [Note: Judges , 1.]:” we
must “stir up (like the stirring of a fire) the gift of God that is in us [Note: 2 Timothy
1:6. See the Greek.]:” we must from time to time “be watchful, and strengthen the
things that remain in us, that are ready to die [Note: Revelation 3:2.].” In a word,
we must be “keeping up the fire on the altar, and never suffer it to go out.”
This, indeed, was the office of the priests under the Law; and so it is under the
Gospel: and this is, indeed, the very end at which we aim in all our ministrations.
24

We never kindled a fire in any of your hearts; nor ever could: that was God’s work
alone. But we would bring the word, and lay it on the altar of your hearts; and
endeavour to fan the flame; that so the fire may burn more pure and ardent, and
every offering which you present before God may go up with acceptance before him.
But let me say, that, under the Christian dispensation, ye all are “a royal
priesthood:” there is now no difference between Jew and Greek, or between male
and female: ye therefore must from morning to evening, and from evening to
morning, be bringing fresh fuel to the fire; by reading, by meditation, by prayer, by
conversation, by an attendance on social and public ordinances, by visiting the sick,
and by whatever may have a tendency to quicken and augment the life of God in
your souls. The sacred fire must either languish or increase: it never can continue
long in the same state. See to it, then, that you “grow in grace,” and “look to
yourselves that ye lose not the things that ye have wrought, but that ye receive a full
reward [Note: 2 John 1:8.].”]
3. That every sacrifice which we offer in God’s appointed way shall surely be
accepted of him—
[There is the fire: see it blazing on the altar. Wherefore is it thus kept up? kept up,
too, by God’s express command? Wherefore? that ye may know assuredly that God
is there, ready to accept your every offering. You think, perhaps, that you have no
offering worthy of his acceptance. But do you not know, that he who was not able to
bring a kid, or a lamb, or even two young pigeons, might bring a small measure of
fine flour; and that that should be burnt upon the altar for him, and be accepted as
an atonement instead of a slaughtered animal [Note: Leviticus 5:5-13.] ? Be assured,
that the sigh, the tear, the groan shall come up with acceptance before him, as much
as the most fluent prayer that ever was offered; and that the widow’s mite will be
found no less valuable in his sight, than the richest offerings of the great and
wealthy. Only do ye “draw near to God;” and be assured, “He will draw near to
you:” and, as he gave to his people formerly some visible tokens of his acceptance, so
will he give to you the invisible, but not less real, manifestations of his love and
favour, “shedding abroad his love in your hearts,” giving you “the witness of his
Spirit” in your souls, and “sealing you with the Holy Spirit of promise as the earnest
of your inheritance, until the time of your complete redemption.”]
In concluding this subject, I would yet further say,
1. Look to the great atonement as your only hope—
[I wish you very particularly to notice when it was that God sent down this fire upon
the altar. It was when Aaron had offered a sacrifice for his own sins, and a sacrifice
also for the sins of the people. It was. then, whilst a part of the latter sacrifice was
yet unconsumed upon the altar, that God sent down fire from heaven and consumed
it instantly [Note: Leviticus 9:8; Leviticus 9:13; Leviticus 9:15; Leviticus 9:17;
Leviticus 9:24.]. When this universal acknowledgment had been made of their
affiance in the great atonement, then God honoured them with this signal token of
25

his acceptance. And it is only when you come to him in the name of Christ, pleading
the merit of his blood, and “desiring to be found in him, not having your own
righteousness but his,” it is then I say, and then only, that you can expect from God
an answer of peace. It is of great importance that you notice this: for many persons
are looking first to receive some token of his love, that they may afterwards be
emboldened to come to him through Christ. But you must first come to him through
Christ: and then “he will send the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, whereby you
shall cry, Abba, Father.”]
2. Surrender up yourselves as living sacrifices unto God—
[On the Jewish altar slain beasts were offered: under the Christian dispensation you
must offer yourselves, your whole selves, body, soul, and spirit, a living sacrifice
unto the Lord. This is the sacrifice which God looks for; and this alone he will
accept. This too, I may add, is your reasonable service [Note: Romans 12:1.]. This
must precede every other offering [Note: 2 Corinthians 8:5.]. A divided heart God
will never accept. Let the whole soul be his; and there shall not be any offering
which you can present, which shall not receive a testimony of his approbation here,
and an abundant recompence hereafter: for, “if there be only a willing mind, it shall
be accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.”]
2 “When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a
shiny spot on their skin that may be a defiling skin
disease,[a] they must be brought to Aaron the
priest or to one of his sons[b] who is a priest.
BARNES, "The skin of his flesh - An expression found nowhere but in this
chapter. It probably denotes the cuticle or scarf skin, as distinguished from the curls or
true skin.
Rising ... scab ... bright spot - The Hebrew words are the technical names applied
to the common external signs of incipient elephantiasis.
Like the plague of leprosy - Like a stroke of leprosy.
26

CLARKE, "The plague of leprosy - This dreadful disorder has its name leprosy,
from the Greek λεποα, from λεπις, a scale, because in this disease the body was often
covered with thin white scales, so as to give it the appearance of snow. Hence it is said of
the hand of Moses, Exo_4:6, that it was leprous as snow; and of Miriam, Num_12:10,
that she became leprous, as white as snow; and of Gehazi, 2Ki_5:27, that, being
judicially struck with the disease of Naaman, he went out from Elisha’s presence a leper
as white as snow. See Clarke’s note on Exo_4:6. In Hebrew this disease is termed ‫צרעת‬
tsaraath, from ‫צרע‬ mor tsara, to smite or strike; but the root in Arabic signifies to cast
down or prostrate, and in Ethiopian, to cause to cease, because, says Stockius, “it
prostrates the strength of man, and obliges him to cease from all work and labor.” There
were three signs by which the leprosy was known.
1. A bright spot.
2. A rising (enamelling) of the surface.
3. A scab; the enamelled place producing a variety of layers, or stratum super
stratum, of these scales.
The account given by Mr. Maundrell of the appearance of several persons whom he
saw infected with this disorder in Palestine, will serve to show, in the clearest light, its
horrible nature and tendency. “When I was in the Holy Land,” says he, in his letter to the
Rev. Mr. Osborn, Fellow of Exeter College, “I saw several that labored under Gehazi’s
distemper; particularly at Sichem, (now Naplosu), there were no less than ten that came
begging to us at one time. Their manner is to come with small buckets in their hands, to
receive the alms of the charitable; their touch being still held infectious, or at least
unclean. The distemper, as I saw it on them, was quite different from what I have seen it
in England; for it not only defiles the whole surface of the body with a foul scurf, but also
deforms the joints of the body, particularly those of the wrists and ankles, making them
swell with a gouty scrofulous substance, very loathsome to look on. I thought their legs
like those of old battered horses, such as are often seen in drays in England. The whole
distemper, indeed, as it there appeared, was so noisome, that it might well pass for the
utmost corruption of the human body on this side the grave. And certainly the inspired
penman could not have found out a fitter emblem, whereby to express the uncleanness
and odiousness of vice.” - Maundrell’s Travels. Letters at the end. The reader will do well
to collate this account with that given from Dr. Mead; see the note on Exo_4:6 (note).
GILL, "When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh,.... Rules are here given,
by which a leprosy might be judged of; which, as a disease, was frequent in Egypt, where
the Israelites had dwelt a long time, and from whence they were just come; and is
doubtless the reason, as learned men have observed, that several Heathen writers make
the cause of their expulsion from Egypt, as they choose to call it, though wrongly, their
being infected with this distemper; whereas it was the reverse, not they, but the
Egyptians, were incident to it (z). Moreover, the leprosy here spoken of seems not to be
the same with that disease, or what we now call so, though some have thought
otherwise; it being rather an uncleanness than a disease, and the business of a priest,
and not a physician to attend unto; and did not arise from natural causes, but was from
the immediate hand of God, and was inflicted on men for their sins, as the cases of
Miriam, Gehazi, and Uzziah show; and who by complying with the rites and ceremonies
27

hereafter enjoined, their sins were pardoned, and they were cleansed; so that as their
case was extraordinary and supernatural, their cure and cleansing were as remarkable:
besides, this impurity being in garments and houses, shows it to be something out of the
ordinary way. And this law concerning it did not extend to all men, only to the Israelites,
and such as were in connection with them, such as proselytes. It is said (a), all are defiled
with the plague (of leprosy) except an idolater and a proselyte of the gate; and the
commentators say (b), even servants, and little ones though but a day old; that is, they
are polluted with it, and so come under this law. Now the place where this disorder
appears is "in the skin of the flesh"; that is, where there is a skin, and that is seen; for
there are some places, the Jewish writers (c) say, are not reckoned the skin of the flesh,
or where that is not seen, and such places are excepted, and they are these; the inside of
the eye, of the ear, and of the nose: wrinkles in the neck, under the pap, and under the
arm hole; the sole of the foot, the nail, the head and beard: and this phrase, "in the skin
of his flesh", is always particularly mentioned; and when there appeared in it
a rising, scab, or bright spot; the scab that is placed between the rising or swelling,
and the bright spot, belongs to them both, and is a kind of an accessory, or second to
each of them: hence the Jews distinguish the scab of the swelling, and the scab of the
bright spot; so that these make four in all, as they observe (d). And to this agrees what
Ben Gersom on this text remarks; the bright spot is, whose whiteness is as the snow; the
rising or swelling is what is white, as the pure wool of a lamb of a day old; the scab is
what is inferior in whiteness to the rising, and is as in the degree of the whiteness of the
shell or film of an egg; and this is the order of these appearances, the most white is the
bright spot, after that the rising, and after that the scab of the bright spot, and after that
the scab of the rising or swelling; and, lo, what is in whiteness below the whiteness of
this (the last) is not the plague of leprosy:
and it be in the skin of his flesh like the plague of leprosy; either of the above
appearances in the skin, having somewhat in them similar to the leprosy, or which may
justly raise a suspicion of it, though it is not clear and manifest:
then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the
priests; for, as Jarchi notes, there was no pollution nor purification of the leprosy, but
by the mouth or determination of a priest. And a good man that was desirous, and made
conscience of observing the laws of God, when he observed anything of the above in him,
and had any suspicion of his case, would of himself go, and show himself to the priest;
but if a man did not do this, and any of his neighbours observed the appearances on him,
brought him to the priest whether he would or not, according to the text:
he shall be brought: that is, as Aben Ezra explains it, whether with or without his will;
for he that sees in him one of the signs, shall oblige him to come to the priest; and who
observes, that by Aaron the priest is meant, the priest anointed in his room; and by his
sons the priests, the common priests, who are found without the sanctuary; such as the
priests of Anathoth, but who were not of those that were rejected.
JAMISON,"When a man shall have in the skin, etc. — The fact of the following
rules for distinguishing the plague of leprosy being incorporated with the Hebrew code
of laws, proves the existence of the odious disease among that people. But a short time,
little more than a year (if so long a period had elapsed since the exodus) when symptoms
28

of leprosy seem extensively to have appeared among them; and as they could not be very
liable to such a cutaneous disorder amid their active journeyings and in the dry open air
of Arabia, the seeds of the disorder must have been laid in Egypt, where it has always
been endemic. There is every reason to believe that this was the case: that the leprosy
was not a family complaint, hereditary among the Hebrews, but that they got it from
intercourse with the Egyptians and from the unfavorable circumstances of their
condition in the house of bondage. The great excitement and irritability of the skin in the
hot and sandy regions of the East produce a far greater predisposition to leprosy of all
kinds than in cooler temperatures; and cracks or blotches, inflammations or even
contusions of the skin, very often lead to these in Arabia and Palestine, to some extent,
but particularly in Egypt. Besides, the subjugated and distressed state of the Hebrews in
the latter country, and the nature of their employment, must have rendered them very
liable to this as well as to various other blemishes and misaffections of the skin; in the
production of which there are no causes more active or powerful than a depressed state
of body and mind, hard labor under a burning sun, the body constantly covered with the
excoriating dust of brick fields, and an impoverished diet - to all of which the Israelites
were exposed while under the Egyptian bondage. It appears that, in consequence of
these hardships, there was, even after they had left Egypt, a general predisposition
among the Hebrews to the contagious forms of leprosy - so that it often occurred as a
consequence of various other affections of the skin. And hence all cutaneous blemishes
or blains - especially such as had a tendency to terminate in leprosy - were watched with
a jealous eye from the first [Good, Study of Medicine]. A swelling, a pimple, or bright
spot on the skin, created a strong ground of suspicion of a man’s being attacked by the
dreaded disease.
then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, etc. — Like the Egyptian
priests, the Levites united the character of physician with that of the sacred office; and
on the appearance of any suspicious eruptions on the skin, the person having these was
brought before the priest - not, however, to receive medical treatment, though it is not
improbable that some purifying remedies might be prescribed, but to be examined with
a view to those sanitary precautions which it belonged to legislation to adopt.
K&D, "The symptoms of leprosy, whether proceeding directly from eruptions in the
skin, or caused by a boil or burn. - Lev_13:2-8. The first case: “When a man shall have
in the skin of his flesh (body) a raised spot or scab, or a bright spot.” ‫ת‬ ֵ‫א‬ ְ‫,שׂ‬ a lifting up
(Gen_4:7, etc.), signifies here an elevation of the skin in some part of the body, a raised
spot like a pimple. ‫ת‬ ַ‫ח‬ַ‫פּ‬ ַ‫,ס‬ an eruption, scurf, or scab, from ‫ח‬ַ‫פ‬ ָ‫ס‬ to pour out, “a pouring
out as it were from the flesh or skin” (Knobel). ‫ת‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ה‬ ַ‫בּ‬ .)le, from ‫ר‬ ַ‫ה‬ ָ‫,בּ‬ in the Arabic and
Chaldee to shine, is a bright swollen spot in the skin. If ether of these signs became “a
spot of leprosy,” the person affected was to be brought to the priest, that he might
examine the complaint. The term zaraath, from an Arabic word signifying to strike down
or scourge, is applied to leprosy as a scourge of God, and in the case of men it always
denotes the white leprosy, which the Arabs call baras. ‫ַע‬‫ג‬ֶ‫נ‬, a stroke (lit., “stroke of
leprosy”), is applied not only to the spot attacked by the leprosy, the leprous mole (Lev_
13:3, Lev_13:29-32, Lev_13:42, etc.), but to the persons and even to things affected with
leprosy (Lev_13:4, Lev_13:12, Lev_13:13, Lev_13:31, Lev_13:50, Lev_13:55).
29

CALVIN, "Verse 2
2.When a man shall have in the skin. Since every eruption was not the leprosy, and
did not render a man unclean, when God appoints the priests to be the judges, He
distinguishes by certain marks a common eruption from the leprosy; and then
subjoins the difference between the various kinds of leprosy. For the disease was not
always incurable; but, only when the blood was altogether corrupted, so that the
skin itself had become hardened by its corrosion, or swollen by its diseased state.
This, then, must be observed in the first place, that the Greek and Latin word lepra,
and the Hebrew ‫צרעת‬ tzaragmath, extend further than to the incurable disease,
which medical men call elephantiasis (4) both on account of the hardness of the skin,
and also its mottled color; not, however, that there is an entire agreement between
the thickness of the man’s skin and that of an elephant, but because this disease
produces insensibility of the skin. This the Greeks call Ψώρα, and if it be not a kind
of leprosy, it is nearly allied to it. Thus we see that there was a distinction between
the scab and leprosy; just as now-a-days, if it were necessary to judge respecting the
itch, (which is commonly called the disease of St. Menanus, (5) the marks must be
observed, which distinguish it from leprosy. But, as to the various kinds of leprosy, I
confess that I am not a physician, so as to discuss them accurately, and I purposely
abstain from close inquiry about them, because I am persuaded that the disease here
treated of affected the Israelites in an extraordinary manner, which we are now
unacquainted with; for what do we now know of a leprous house? Indeed it is
probable that, since heathen writers knew that the Jewish people suffered from this
disease, they laid hold of it as the ground of their falsehood, that all the descendants
of Abraham were infected with the itch, and were driven away from Egypt, lest
others should catch it from them. That (6) this was an ancient calumny appears
from Josephus, both in the ninth book of his Antiquities, and in his Treatise against
Apion; and it is repeated both by C. Tacitus and Justin. Yet I make no doubt that
the Egyptians, a very proud nation, in order to efface the memory of their own
disgrace, and of the vengeance inflicted upon them by God, invented this lie, and
thus grossly turned against this innocent people what had happened to themselves,
when they were smitten with boils and blains. But we shall see hereafter, amongst
God’s curses, that He chastised His people with the same plagues as He had inflicted
on the Egyptians:
"The Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with
the scab,” etc. (Deuteronomy 28:27.)
Whence it may be probably inferred, that God avenged the crimes of His ancient
people with special judgments, which are now unknown to us; just as afterwards
new diseases arose, from which those in old times were free. At any rate, Josephus,
by clear and solid arguments, exposes the absurdity of this accusation, that Moses
was driven from Egypt with a crowd of exiles, lest they should infect the country
with their disease; because, if they had been universally affected with this malady,
he never would have imposed such severe laws for separating the lepers from
general society.
30

God first commands that, whenever a suspicion of leprosy arose, the man was to
present himself to the priest; if any symptom of leprosy appeared, He commands
him to be shut up for a period of seven days, until it should appear from the
progress of the disease that it was incurable leprosy. That God should have
appointed the priests to be judges, and those, too, only of the highest order, is a
proof that His spiritual service was rather regarded than mere bodily health. If any
shall inquire whether leprosy is not a contagious disease, and whether it be not
therefore expedient that all who were affected by it should be removed from
intercourse with others, I admit, indeed, that such is the case, but I deny that this
was the main object in view. For, in process of time, physicians would have been
better able to decide by their art and skill: whereas God enjoined this decision upon
the priests alone, and gave them the rule whereby they were to judge. Nor did He
appoint the Levites indiscriminately, but only the sons of Aaron, who were the
highest order, in order that the authority of the decision might be greater. It was,
then, by a gross error, or rather impudence, that the Papal priests (sacrifici)
assumed to themselves this jurisdiction. It was (they say) the office of the chief
priests under the Law to distinguish between the kinds of leprosy; and, therefore,
the same right is transferred to the bishops. But they carry the mockery still
further: the official (7) the bishop’s representative, sits as the legitimate judge; he
calls in physicians and surgeons, from whose answers he pronounces what he
confesses he is ignorant of himself. Behold how cleverly they accommodate a legal
rite to our times! The mockery, however, is still more disgusting, when in another
sense they extend to the whole tribe of priests what they have said to belong solely to
the bishops; for, since the sin under which all labor is a spiritual leprosy, they
thence infer that all are excluded from the congregation of the faithful until they
shall have been purged and received by absolution, which they hold to be the
common office of all the priests. They afterwards add, that judgment cannot be
pronounced till the cause is heard, and so conclude that confession is necessary. But,
if they choose to have recourse to subtleties, reason would rather conduct us to the
opposite conclusion; for God did not desire the priests to take cognizance of a
hidden disease, but only after the manifest symptoms had appeared: hence it will
follow, that it is preposterous to bring secret sins to judgment, and that wretched
men are dragged to their confession contrary to all law and justice. But, setting
aside all these absurdities, an analogy must be observed between us and God’s
ancient people. He of old forbade the external uncleanness of the flesh to be
tolerated in His people. By Christ’s coming, the typical. figure has ceased; but we
are taught that all uncleanness, whereby the purity of His services is defiled, is not
to be cherished, or borne with amongst us. And surely excommunication answers to
this ceremony; since by it the Church is purified, lest corruptions should
everywhere assail it, if wicked and guilty persons occupied a place in it
promiscuously with the good. The command of God that, whilst the disease was
obscure and questionable, the infected person should be shut up for seven days,
recommends moderation to us, lest any, who is still curable, should be condemned
before his time. In fact, this medium is to be observed, that the judge should not be
too remiss and hasty in pardoning, and still that he should temper severity by
31

Leviticus 13 commentary

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (10)

Semelhante a Leviticus 13 commentary

Semelhante a Leviticus 13 commentary (20)

Mais de GLENN PEASE

Mais de GLENN PEASE (20)

Último

Último (20)

Leviticus 13 commentary