Deeper Commentary
Lev 13:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying-
It’s doubtful whether the skin disease referred to in
Leviticus is what we now call leprosy, i.e. Hansen’s disease. The
descriptions of the disease or affliction in Lev. 13,14 don't sound at all
like leprosy as we know it. And the idea of this disease actually being
afflicted upon buildings and clothing doesn't sound like mere
contamination. Leprosy had no cure in the ancient world. And yet the
legislation in Lev. 13,14 sounds as if after a relatively short time, the
affliction could be lifted- and then a sin offering had to be made. The
decisions and diagnosis of the affliction was to be made by the priests,
not physicians. I conclude therefore that we should pay more attention to
the Hebrew word here translated "leprosy". It is the same word as used for
the "stroke" of Divine judgment. This makes more sense throughout the
legislation. God could smite sinners with this affliction, mistranslated
as "leprosy". If the sinner repented sufficiently, it would be lifted. But
the priest would judge that, and therefore sin offerings were required to
complete the cleansing process. It is no sin to get sick with leprosy; but
if we understand this affliction as a Divine stroke, then it all makes so
much more sense.
Lev 13:2 When a man shall have a rising in his body’s skin, or a scab, or
a bright spot, and it becomes in the skin of his body the plague of
leprosy, then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest, or to one of his
sons, the priests-
Leprosy was and is a common scourge in the Middle East. For each
person with the possible symptoms to be brought to either the high priest
or one of his sons would have been logistically too much. This confirms
the suggestion on :1 that what is in view is not Hansen's disease, leprosy
as we know it, but a specific stroke from God upon sinners.
Lev 13:3 and the priest shall examine the plague in the skin of the body;
and if the hair in the plague has turned white, and the appearance of the
plague is deeper than the body’s skin, it is the plague of leprosy; and
the priest shall examine him, and pronounce him unclean-
Leprosy is symbolic of sin. But a person can appear
to have leprosy when in fact it’s only a surface level appearance of it;
but only the priest, representing Jesus, can declare this. We must of
course be careful not to excuse our
failings as merely surface level sin; but when it comes to judging
others, we must accept that someone can appear sinful to us but it’s only
a surface appearance; we must not ultimately judge whether a person will
be saved or not, quite simply because we cannot do so. Only the priest,
the Lord Jesus, can do so.
Lev 13:4 If the bright spot is white in the skin of his body, and its
appearance isn’t deeper than the skin, and its hair hasn’t turned white,
then the priest shall isolate the infected person for seven days-
The language is continually suggestive of spiritual repentance. See
on :1. The hair had to be "turned" white, always the hint is at change.
The same word is found in 1 Sam. 10:6, "turned into another man".
Lev 13:5 The priest shall examine him on the seventh day, and behold, if
in his eyes the plague is arrested, and the plague hasn’t spread in the
skin, then the priest shall isolate him for seven more days-
The idea of plague or striking in judgment being arrested or stayed
is found in Num. 16:48,50; 25:8; 2 Sam. 24:21,25; Ps. 106:30. In every
case, the plague was a special striking from God in judgment; and it was
arrested or stayed by repentance and / or intercession, even by third
parties. If Hansen's disease ["leprosy" as we know it] was in view, such a
quick diagnosis could not be made. Such leprosy would not break out and
then be arrested after seven days. But if as suggested on :1 the "leprosy"
was a stroke of Divine judgment which could be "arrested", then this is
understandable. It was the duty of the Levites to teach Israel, so that
they would not be smitten by such plague / striking in judgment (Num.
8:19). This is why these laws are given here to the Levites, in this book
of Leviticus.
Lev 13:6 The priest shall examine him again on the seventh day; and
behold, if the plague has faded, and the plague hasn’t spread in the skin,
then the priest shall pronounce him clean. It is a scab. He shall wash his
clothes, and be clean-
Our life spent in Christ is represented by these
periods of seven days; at the end, Christ as the true priest and judge
will decide whether the sin which there is in our lives has remained at a
surface, appearance level- or whether it has spread. Yeast likewise
represents sin, in that it spreads its influence. Sin either spreads in
our flesh or doesn’t...
Lev 13:7 But if the scab spreads on the skin, after he has shown himself
to the priest for his cleansing, he shall show himself to the priest
again-
The spreading of plague in the sense of Divine judgment (see on :1)
is found in Num. 16:46-48, and it was the intercession of Aaron which
stopped it spreading further. We are therefore to understand this
spreading of the plague in the person as a sign that they were continuing
under Divine judgment.
Lev 13:8 The priest shall examine him; and behold, if the scab has spread
on the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is leprosy-
"Pronounce him unclean" is literally 'to make him unclean'. The
uncleanness was therefore a moral issue, rather than being made unclean
simply through having contracted an illness. This confirms our suggestion
on :1, that the "leprosy" was not Hansen's disease but a specific Divine
judgment for sin. The temptation must have been to try to cover up the
appearance of sin / leprosy rather than revealing oneself to the priest;
just as we are tempted today.
Lev 13:9 When the plague of leprosy is in a man, then he shall be brought
to the priest-
God’s people were to avoid trying to judge the appearance of leprosy / sin
in others. And this temptation remains an abiding issue for all time- to
ourselves interpret appearances and judge them in others, rather than
leaving this to the Lord's judgment.
Lev 13:10 and the priest shall examine him. Behold, if there is a white
rising in the skin, and it has turned the hair white, and there is raw
flesh in the rising-
GNB "If there is a white sore on your skin which turns the hairs
white and is full of pus". "Raw flesh" is s.w. "life of the flesh" (Prov.
14:30). The idea is that living flesh was being actively contaminated and
destroyed. The key issue was whether the disease was still spreading
within the person. This speaks of whether or not we have as it were
reigned in the spread of sin in our human lives. But the immediate
reference was as to whether the Divine judgment was ongoing in the person.
Lev 13:11 it is a chronic leprosy in the skin of his body, and the priest
shall pronounce him unclean. He shall isolate him, for he is unclean-
AV "It is an old leprosy". And that is indeed the sense of the
Hebrew. The previous ["old"] judgments for sin had not been learned from,
and continued. So the person was still unclean because they had not
learned their lesson. Seeing leprosy was incurable at that time, an old
leprosy is a contradiction in terms; as suggested on :1, the reference is
to a specific stroke from God and not Hansen's disease.
Lev 13:12 If the leprosy breaks out all over the skin, and the leprosy
covers all the skin of the infected person from his head even to his feet,
as far as it appears to the priest-
This is again strong evidence that a stroke from God is in view and
not leprosy as we know it; see on :1. For if this were leprosy, then the
man would be completely unclean. The idea rather is that the stroke from
God had now run its course, and the man had been completely rendered
stricken.
Lev 13:13 then the priest shall examine him; and, behold, if the leprosy
has covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean of the plague. It
has all turned white: he is clean-
If a
person has indulged in sin and recognizes it, although they carry in their
lives the evidence of it, yet the sin has as it were died and they are
clean. At baptism into Christ we became “dead to sin” (Rom. 6:2).
Lev 13:14 But whenever raw flesh appears in him, he shall be unclean-
Whenever sin is actively dominating over virgin flesh, claiming new
areas in a person's life, then they are "unclean". But the original idea
would be that in this case, the judgment stroke of God was still actively
at work in the person.
Lev 13:15 The priest shall examine the raw flesh, and pronounce him
unclean: the raw flesh is unclean. It is leprosy-
AV "it is a leprosy" would suggest that this was not just a
form of leprosy, but rather this was a stroke from God.
Lev 13:16 Or if the raw flesh turns again, and is changed to white, then
he shall come to the priest-
The critical issue is whether the condition was spreading. And this
is the question in our lives- whether sin has run its course with us, even
if we bear the results of it in our flesh; or whether it is ongoing and
spreading.
Lev 13:17 and the priest shall examine him; and, behold, if the plague has
turned white, then the priest shall pronounce him clean of the plague. He
is clean-
Turning white was the sign that the man was clean, whereas if
Hansen's disease were in view, this would surely show that the man was
obviously still infected. For lepers "white as snow" are described in the
Biblical records. "Turned white" would suggest that the stroke for sin had
now turned the person "white", they were acceptable, covered in imputed
righteousness through repentance and acceptance of their previous judgment
for sin.
Lev 13:18 When the body has a boil on its skin, and it has healed-
The idea is that there are external signs which might suggest a
person to have been smitten of God, but we cannot judge that. Job's
example comes to mind. Only the priest, the Lord Jesus, can judge this.
"Boil" is the word used of the smiting of Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:7)
and Job (Job 2:7); also for ‘the botch (RV "boil") of Egypt’ (Dt. 28:17).
In the cases of Job and Hezekiah, they were smitten by God; they didn't
just contract the disease we now know as leprosy. And the end of that
"boil" was an outcome of prayer and repentance. And the period of their
affliction was far shorter than the natural course of leprosy as we know
it. This again confirms the suggestion on :1 that "leprosy" here refers
not to Hansen's disease but to some specific judgment from God upon a
person.
Lev 13:19 and in the place of the boil there is a white rising, or a
bright spot, reddish-white, then it shall be shown to the priest-
"Reddish" is the word adam. The idea may be that it is
unclear in this case whether the man is "white" or not, for Adam, the
natural man, is mixed with the whiteness. And we muse about so many folks,
as to whether they are white in righteousness or still red with the ways
of Adam. And again, it is not for us in fact to muse upon these things. We
must leave it to the priest's judgment, the Lord Jesus.
Lev 13:20 and the priest shall examine it; and behold, if it appears
beneath the skin, and its hair has turned white, then the priest shall
pronounce him unclean. It is the plague of leprosy. It has broken out in
the boil-
I suggested on :19 that the red / Adam sin is
appearing as white righteousness. The question is whether we have allowed
sin to penetrate beneath the flesh- by implication, to the heart. There may be here a distinction being drawn between
sin on a surface level and that sin which is deeper, which leads to
exclusion from God’s family.
Lev 13:21 But if the priest examines it, and behold, there are no white
hairs in it, and it isn’t deeper than the skin, but is dim, then the
priest shall isolate him seven days-
Heb. 'become dim'. Even if it appears that sin is in retreat in human
life, the question is whether it spreads or not. Or, whether the stroke of
God is still ongoing.
Lev 13:22 If it spreads in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him
unclean. It is a plague-
Clearly "it is a plague" suggests a stroke from God. And again, it is
the spreading nature which showed whether the stroke was finished or not.
Lev 13:23 But if the bright spot stays in its place, and hasn’t spread, it
is the scar from the boil; and the priest shall pronounce him clean-
People carry the scars of their sins, but these don’t
mean we should treat them as sinful.
Lev 13:24 Or when the body has a burn from fire on its skin, and the raw
flesh of the burn becomes a bright spot, reddish-white, or white-
"A burn from fire" is literally "a fire of burning". The same word is
used in Lev. 10:2 of how Yahweh sent out fire upon the flesh of Nadab and
Abihu in judgment. There are similar usages of the word in Lev. 21:9; Num.
11:1; 16:35; 26:10; Dt. 4:24; 1 Kings 18:38; Job 1:16 etc. And as
suggested on :1, I suggest that this is the context of this talk about
Divine plague here.
Lev 13:25 then the priest shall examine it; and behold, if the hair in the
bright spot has turned white, and its appearance is deeper than the skin;
it is leprosy. It has broken out in the burning, and the priest shall
pronounce him unclean. It is the plague of leprosy-
The idea would be that the person had not learned from being struck
by the Lord. The judgment was still spreading, because they were still
impenitent.
Lev 13:26 But if the priest examines it, and behold, there is no white
hair in the bright spot, and it isn’t lower than the skin, but is faded;
then the priest shall isolate him seven days-
Even if the external appearance of the judgment of sin is apparently
not lower than the flesh, and has apparently faded; this is not to say
that a person is clean, or that their judgment from God had ended. The
critical issue was not surface level appearance, but whether it has spread
further (:27).
Lev 13:27 The priest shall examine him on the seventh day. If it has
spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is the
plague of leprosy-
Again the issue is whether sin spreads, or whether the judgment from
God was still ongoing. Clearly the Jews in Acts 4:17 had the idea that
'leprosy' spreading represented sin spreading.
Lev 13:28 If the bright spot stays in its place, and hasn’t spread
in the skin, but is faded, it is the swelling from the burn, and the
priest shall pronounce him clean; for it is the scar from the burn-
I explained on :24 that "the burn" was a direct Divine judgment. The
results of Divine judgment may be openly apparent in a person's life; but
that is no reason to consider a person unclean in any ongoing sense.
Lev 13:29 When a man or woman has a plague on the head or on the beard-
Clearly the idea of leprosy only affecting the head or beard (:30)
cannot apply to Hansen's disease, or leprosy as we now know it. The
reference was clearly to some specific Divine judgment.
Lev 13:30 then the priest shall examine the plague; and behold, if its
appearance is deeper than the skin, and the hair in it is yellow and thin,
then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is an itch, it is leprosy
of the head or of the beard-
The argument that this language makes a difference between surface
level sin and deeper sin... is a slippery slope. Once we start justifying
some failures as mere surface level sins, we are on the downward path. But
it does remain a fact that in God's eyes- and it is the judgment of the
Priest and not ours which is so critical in all this- there is a
difference between surface level failure, and sin on a deeper heart level.
There is a sin unto death, and a sin not unto death (1 Jn. 5:16). We do
well to remember this when the sins of others obtrude upon us and require
some level of response from us.
Lev 13:31 If the priest examines the plague of itching, and behold, its
appearance isn’t deeper than the skin, and there is no black hair in it,
then the priest shall isolate the person infected with itching seven days-
The various periods of examination were not because the priest needed
to see whether the plague was spreading or not. Rather they were periods
of self examination for the stricken person, opportunities for repentance
in order to change the outcomes and spread of the disease.
Lev 13:32 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the plague; and
behold, if the itch hasn’t spread, and there is no yellow hair in it, and
the appearance of the itch isn’t deeper than the skin-
I suggested above that the requirement that these cases be brought
either to the high priest or to his sons meant that, logistically, it
couldn't be that whoever had an itchy beard or scurf would have to come to
them. Clearly those in view are those individuals specifically smitten by
God with a stroke of judgment.
Lev 13:33 then he shall be shaved, but he shall not shave the itch; and
the priest shall shut up him who has the itch seven more days-
H.P. Mansfield suggests that "The ulcer shall not be shaved lest the
place become irritated and inflamed, and the priest will not be able to
form an accurate judgment". But I am approaching this legislation from the
viewpoint that the "leprosy" is not leprosy as we know it, but a specific
stroke of Divine judgment. The legislation and various periods of seven
days isolation were not for the sake of the priest, so that he could
diagnose the condition; but rather were to elicit repentance from the
stricken person, so that the stroke might be removed. The word for
"shaven" is consistently used in the Bible for being shamed or being in
mourning. This mourning and shame for sin was being elicited from the
stricken person, so that they might repent and the stroke be lifted. The
legislation was for the sake of the stricken person, designed to elicit
their repentance.
Lev 13:34 On the seventh day, the priest shall examine the itch; and
behold, if the itch hasn’t spread in the skin, and its appearance isn’t
deeper than the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean. He shall
wash his clothes, and be clean-
Sin must not spread nor go deeper than the skin, surface level sin
must not become a sin from the heart. This is the repeated lesson. And in
practice, the lack of spreading of the plague would indicate that the
Divine judgment had run its course.
Lev 13:35 But if the itch spreads in the skin after his cleansing-
If the person merely had the appearance of leprosy but was found not
to have it, then there would have been no need for any process of
cleansing nor washing of clothes (:34). But I suggest that even this
"itch" was a stroke of Divine judgment and reflected the moral failure of
the person; therefore cleansing from it was required.
Lev 13:36 then the priest shall examine him; and behold, if the itch has
spread in the skin, the priest shall not look for the yellow hair, he is
unclean-
This legislation highlights the issue of whether the condition has
spread. This was a sign that the Divine judgment was still ongoing. And in
spiritual terms, the question is whether or not sin is spreading in us. We
are either on the upward spiral of the Holy Spirit, or the downward spiral
of the flesh. We cannot be on both at the same time.
Lev 13:37 But if in his eyes the itch is arrested, and black hair has
grown in it; the itch is healed, he is clean. The priest shall pronounce
him clean-
The opinion, analysis and judgment of the priest,
representing the Lord Jesus Christ, is all important. Many people in primitive societies
consider they have a legitimate medical opinion, based on the kind of
traditions and folk wisdom which abound in relation to skin diseases.
Israel were to resist these, and leave the diagnosis and judgment solely
in the hands of the priest. We have a serious tendency to judge others’
sin, and we really must leave this to Christ.
Lev 13:38 When a man or a woman has bright spots in the skin of the body,
even white bright spots-
I suggested above that the requirement that these cases be brought
either to the high priest or to his sons meant that, logistically, it
couldn't be that whoever had spots appear on their bodies would have to
come to them. Clearly those in view are those individuals specifically
smitten by God with a stroke of judgment.
Lev 13:39 then the priest shall examine them; and behold, if the bright
spots on the skin of their body are a dull white, it is a harmless rash,
it has broken out in the skin, he is clean-
"Harmless rash" is not at all the sense, because as explained on :38,
these spots were still some form of Divine judgment. LXX then adds: "it
burst forth in the skin of his flesh". The idea is that when the pustule
had burst, the judgment was over. "He is clean" should not be read as
meaning "he's done nothing wrong, all a false alarm". The idea is that the
person can now go through the process of cleansing- for there has been
failure and judgment, and that requires cleansing.
Lev 13:40 If a man’s hair has fallen from his head, he is bald, he is
clean-
This sounds stating the obvious- until we read it as meaning that
sudden baldness, removing the glory of a person's hair, was a Divine
judgment. And as noted on :39, "he is clean" means he has been judged, the
judgment is over, and he has to now go through the cleansing rituals of
Lev. 14.
Lev 13:41 If his hair has fallen off from the front part of his head, he
is forehead bald, he is clean-
GNB sums up the teaching of :40,41 as "If you lose your hair at the
back or the front of your head, this does not make you unclean". Total
sudden baldness was a stroke from God, and was not to be confused with the
general receding of the hairline which comes with the ageing process.
Lev 13:42 But if there is in the bald head, or the bald forehead, a
reddish-white plague; it is leprosy breaking out in his bald head, or his
bald forehead-
There are five major types of leprosy, and only one of them involves
hair loss, and the hair loss is mainly around the eyebrows. So as
discussed on :1, we are not here reading of leprosy as we know it. The
idea is that the man was stricken by God with sudden baldness, didn't
repent, and so the plague broke out again on his now bald head. The
scenario pictured here, of sudden baldness and then the appearance of
leprosy on the bald head, is simply not appropriate to leprosy as we know
it, i.e. Hansen's disease.
Lev 13:43 Then the priest shall examine him; and, behold, if the rising of
the plague is reddish-white in his bald head, or in his bald forehead,
like the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh-
Leprosy as we know it doesn't begin in the head; see on :42. Sudden
baldness is a specific Divine judgment, as in Is. 3:24; 15:2; Jer. 47:5;
Am. 8:10.
Lev 13:44 he is a leprous man. He is unclean. The priest shall surely
pronounce him unclean. His plague is on his head-
The idea is that the stroke of judgment appearing on his head was one
of the clearest signs of major Divine judgment. For sin is rooted in the
mind, and the stroke of judgment was therefore manifest there in such a
public manner. All because the person had refused to repent from the
judgment of sudden baldness see on :43.
Lev 13:45 The leper in whom the plague is shall wear torn clothes, and the
hair of his head shall hang loose. He shall cover his upper lip, and shall
cry, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’-
Contrary to what is often thought, leprosy is not highly contagious.
It is a bacterial disease, not a viral infection. A common cold is a viral
infection, and is far more contagious than leprosy. So this apparently
heavy handed exclusion of lepers was not primarily for the sake of the
health of the community. Rather was it the equivalent of condemnation-
having been stricken for sin and refusing to repent, despite multiple
opportunities through the various seven days confinements, the person was
effectively condemned. Living outside the community of God's people, with
no path back, looked ahead to the awful condition of the rejected at the
last judgment. For there is no legislation for the return of the leper
from this situation. But see on :50.
Isaiah’s vision of God's glory as it would be in His crucified Son
convicted Isaiah of his sinfulness to a very fine degree. The vision
occurred "in the year that King Uzziah died" (Is. 6:1)- and he died of
leprosy, smitten of God for his sin. Isaiah would've known Uzziah, and
prophesied against him. And yet now, after the vision of God's glory,
Isaiah declares that
he is a
man "of unclean lips" (Is. 6:5). And it was lepers who had to cover their
upper lips (Lev. 13:45). He felt no better than Uzziah, the well known
smitten-by-God king of Isaiah's time. Likewise before the experience of
God's glory as it was and is in Christ, we shouldn't feel that we are any
better than the most famous sinner.
Lev 13:46 All the days in which the plague is in him he shall be unclean.
He is unclean. He shall dwell alone. Outside of the camp shall be his
dwelling-
The Lord Jesus Christ died for us “outside the camp” (Heb.
13:11,13); he was unashamed to associate with lepers, the condemned
sinners (see on :45), and as it were died
with them and for them.
Lev 13:47 The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it is
a woollen garment, or a linen garment-
As explained on :1, the idea that "leprosy" can be in garments or
houses (Lev. 14:55) means that the plague in view is not that of Hansen's
disease or leprosy as we now know it. It was a specific judgment from God
for specific sins.
Lev 13:48 whether it is in warp, or woof; of linen, or of wool; whether in
a skin, or in anything made of skin-
The clothing of a man was significant, both in personal and economic
terms. The idea may be that this legislation about clothing refers
specifically to the clothing of the impenitent person who has been
excluded outside the camp (:46)
Lev 13:49 if the plague is greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the
skin, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything made of skin; it is
the plague of leprosy, and shall be shown to the priest-
The person excluded permanently (see on :45,46) still had property,
clothing and houses, as will be discussed in Lev. 14. The question was
whether these things could be used by others, or should they be destroyed.
If the "leprosy" in view was Hansen's disease, then surely the clothing of
the leper had to be automatically destroyed. But as discussed on :1, this
was not the case. The 'leper' was not a leper as we now think of a leper,
but one smitten by God with some specific judgment. Whether or not his
clothing and property could be taken by others.. was a question for God to
pronounce upon.
Lev 13:50 The priest shall examine the plague, and isolate the plague
seven days-
I argued on Lev. 13:45 that the final exclusion "outside the camp"
was permanent. It looked forward to the final condemnation of the wicked
at the last day. But in Num. 12:14,15 we have an example of Miriam being
made a leper and being shut out of the camp for seven days. "Shut out"
there is s.w. "isolate" in Lev. 13:50. But she repented, and was allowed
back in. So I deduce that the implication is that the shut out person
could still repent after seven days. The priest could not have contact
with the excluded person. But their clothing and housing could be
examined, and if the plague within it had not spread, then the person had
repented and could be received back in. Leprosy as we know it is not cured
in seven days; as explained on Lev. 13:1, 'leprosy' here means literally a
striking from the Lord, and not the leprosy we know today as Hansen's
disease.
Lev 13:51 He shall examine the plague on the seventh day. If the plague
has spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in the
skin, whatever use the skin is used for, the plague is a destructive
leprosy. It is unclean-
"Whatever use" suggests that no matter how valuable the garment, this didn’t
somehow mean that the leprosy [cp. sin] was any less significant.
Lev 13:52 He shall burn the garment, whether the warp or the woof, in wool
or in linen, or anything of skin, in which the plague is; for it is a
destructive leprosy. It shall be burned in the fire-
As explained on :50, the shut out person had the chance to repent
after seven days. But there was no contact between the priest and the
condemned leper. So their clothing was examined. If the stroke of God was
still spreading in it, then judgment was ongoing, and it could be deduced
that the excluded person had not repented. So perhaps the implication was
that they should be burned in fire, along with their garments. For
destruction by fire is the repeated image of final condemnation from God.
Lev 13:53 If the priest examines it, and behold, the plague hasn’t spread
in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of
skin-
As explained on :50, the condemned excluded sinner "outside the camp"
had no contact with the priest. But after seven days there, they had a
chance to repent. If the plague had not spread in their garments, it could
be deduced that they had repented and Divine judgment had run its course.
Lev 13:54 then the priest shall command that they wash the thing in which
the plague is, and he shall isolate it seven more days-
The apparent repentance of the condemned person was not to be a
passing matter; see on :50-53. Another seven days must be allowed after
the partial cleansing by washing. For repentance of a person who has
persistently refused to repent before has to be more than a passing
feeling on their part.
Lev 13:55 Then the priest shall examine it, after the plague is washed;
and behold, if the plague hasn’t changed its colour, and the plague hasn’t
spread, it is unclean; you shall burn it in the fire. It is a mildewed
spot, whether the rot is inside or outside-
The tendency would’ve been to think that if the rot
was only on the inside of the garment and not visible to anyone else, then
this didn’t require attention or cleansing. Hence the emphasis- “whether
the rot is inside or outside”. Sin is still sin, whether or not it is
visible to others or not. Some peoples’ sins are more open to our view
than others (1 Tim. 5:24).
Lev 13:56 If the priest looks, and behold, the plague has faded after it
is washed, then he shall pluck it out of the garment, or out of the skin,
or out of the warp, or out of the woof-
The plucking out was to stop the leprosy / sin spreading. Jesus uses the same phrase in teaching
that we should ‘pluck out’ of our lives whatever is likely to lead us to
stumble into sin (Mt. 5:29; 18:9). Repeatedly, the seriousness of the
leprosy / sin is defined by whether it spreads, either in depth or
distribution.
Lev 13:57 and if it appears again in the garment, either in the warp, or
in the woof, or in anything of skin, it is spreading. You shall burn with
fire that in which the plague is-
This effort of the priest to stop the plague spreading in the garment
reflected the Divine effort to lead the condemned sinner to repentance,
and to isolate the spread of sin. If the efforts for the garment failed,
then this reflected how the isolated, stricken sinner had still not
repented, sin was still alive and spreading in him. And so he / she along
with the garments must be burned in fire.
Lev 13:58 The garment, either the warp, or the woof, or whatever thing of
skin it is, which you shall wash, if the plague has departed from them,
then it shall be washed the second time, and it will be clean-
The two stages of washing reflect the cleansing of the excluded
sinner whom the garment represented (see on :50). Perhaps there is a hint
here of being born of water and Spirit (Jn. 3:3-5), also reflected in the
two stage washing and healing of the blind man in Mk. 8:23-25.
Lev 13:59 This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of wool or
linen, either in the warp, or the woof, or in anything of skin, to
pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean-
The final pronouncing of men clean or unclean will only be made
by the Lord Jesus at the last day. As explained throughout this chapter,
the various procedures were in order to by all means elicit repentance in
the stricken person (see on :1), so that the plague might be lifted- even
after their apparently final condemnation outside the camp. In this we see
God's earnest desire to save, to isolate the spread of sin- rather than to
condemn by burning in fire.
Previous Chapter
