Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Leviticus 14:1 - 14:57
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Lev_14:1-32
9But it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off: and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash [bathe30] his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.
10And on the eighth day he shall take two he lambs [two young rams] without blemish, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth deals of fine flour for a meat offering [an oblation], mingled with oil. and one log of oil. 11And the priest that maketh him clean shall present the man that is to be made clean, and those things, before the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: 12and the priest shall take one he lamb [ram31], and offer him for a trespass offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord:13and Hebrews 9 shall slay the lamb [ram31] in the place where he33 shall kill the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the holy place: for as the sin offering is the priest’s, so Isaiah 10 the trespass offering: it is most holy: 14and the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot: 15and the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand: 16and the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord: 17and of the rest of the oil that is in his hand shall the priest put upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the blood of the trespass offering: 18and the remnant of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall pour [put] upon the head of him that is to be cleansed: and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord. 19And the priest shall offer the sin offering, and make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed from his uncleanness; and afterward he shall kill the burnt offering: 20and the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the meat offering [oblation32] upon the altar: and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and he shall be clean.
21And if he be poor, and cannot get so much: then he shall take one lamb [ram31] for a trespass offering to be waved, to make an atonement for him, and one tenth 22deal of fine flour mingled with oil for a meat offering, and a log of oil; and two turtle doves, or two young pigeons, such as he is able to get; and the one shall be a sin offering, and the other a burnt offering. 23And he shall bring them on the eighth day for [of] his cleansing unto the priest, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, before the Lord. 24And the priest shall take the lamb [ram31] of the trespass offering, and the log of oil, and the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the Lord: 25and he shall kill the lamb [ram31] of the trespass offering, and the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot: 26and the priest shall pour of the oil into the palm of his own left hand: 27and the priest shall sprinkle with his right finger some of the oil that is in his left hand seven times before the Lord: 28and the priest shall put of the oil that is in his hand upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the place of the blood of the trespass offering: 29and the rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put upon the head of him that is to be cleansed, to make an atonement for him before the Lord. 30And he shall offer the one of the turtle doves, or of the young pigeons, 31such as he can get; even such as he is able to get, the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, with the meat offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed before the Lord.
32This is the law of him in whom is the plague [spot1] of leprosy, whose hand is not able to get that which pertaineth to his cleansing.
Lev_14:33-53
48And if the priest shall come in, and look upon it, and, behold, the plague [spot1] hath not spread in the house, after the house was plaistered: then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, because the plague [spot1] is healed. 49And he shall take 50to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: and he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water: 51and he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running [living28] water, and sprinkle the house seven times: 52and he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running [living28] water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet: 53but he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house: and it shall be clean.
Lev_14:54-57
Lev_14:3. The sense is here undoubtedly the scarf skin (Clark), the cuticle, in contradistinction to the cutis, the true skin below. So Wilson, who says: “This distinction in reality constitutes one of the most important points of diagnosis between real leprosy and affections of the skin otherwise resembling leprosy.” But as we have in Heb. only the one word òåֹø for both (except the ἁð . ëÝã . âֶּìֶã , Job_16:15), there does not seem to be warrant for changing the translation, especially as in English skin answers to either with the same indefiniteness.
Lev_14:4. The construction in Lev_14:3-4; Lev_14:10 is without a preposition; in Lev_14:16-17 it is with the preposition ìְ , as is expressed in the A. V.
Lev_14:4-5, etc. According to Rosenmüller and Gesenius, ðֶâַò is used by metonymy for the person upon whom it is. This view is adopted by Lange. It appears in the Targ. of Onk. and in the Vulg., and has been followed by the A. V. Far better is the rendering of the Sam., LXX. and Syr.: the priest shall bind up the spot, or sore. This is the exact translation of the Heb., and is advocated by Horsley, Boothroyd, and many others. Fuerst does not recognize the sense by metonymy. The same change should perhaps also be made in ver.12. See Exegesis. In the case of shutting up the leprous house (Lev_14:38) the word house is distinctly expressed in the Heb.
Lev_14:6. ëֵּäָä =dim, pale, faint, weak, dying. The idea is that of something in the process of fading away, disappearing. LXX. ἀìáõñὰ , Vulg. obscurior.
Lev_14:6. It does not appear why the conjunction in the A. V. should be printed in italics; it is, however wanting in 18 MSS., the Sam., and LXX.
Lev_14:9. The conjunction is wanting in the Heb., but is supplied in the Sam. and versions.
Lev_14:10; Lev_14:24. îִçְéָä , according to Rosenmueller and Fuerst an indication, and this is the sense given in Targ., Onk. and the Syr., and apparently also in the Vulg. The LXX. renders ἀðὸ ôïῦ ὑãéïῦò ôῆò óáñêὸò ôῆò æþóçò ἐí ôῇ ïὐëῇ , taking the î as preposition, and understanding it, as the Rabbins, of a spot of proud flesh in the midst of the cicatrice. The margin of the A. V. is the quickening of living flesh; scar would express the sense, but this is appropriated to öָøֶáֶú , Lev_14:23; Lev_14:28, and mark gives the exact rendering of the Hebrew, and meets the requirements of the context.
Lev_14:2. ðֶâַò , a word of very frequent occurrence in these two chapters where it is uniformly translated in the A. V. (except Lev_13:42-43, sore) plague, as it is also in Gen_12:17; Exo_11:1; Deu_24:8 (in reference also to leprosy); 1Ki_8:37-38; Psa_91:10. Elsewhere the renderings of the A. V. are very various: sore, stroke, stripe, wound. By far the most common rendering in the LXX. is ἁöÞ =tactus, ictus. The idea of the word is a stroke or blow, and then the effect of this in a wound or spot. Clark therefore would translate here stroke, which meets well enough the meaning of the word itself, but does not in all cases convey the sense in English. It is perhaps impossible to find one word in English which can be used in all cases; but that which seems best adapted to Leviticus is the one given by Horsley and Lee, and adopted here: spot. So Keil, Wilson and others. There is no article in the Heb.
Lev_14:4. The construction in Lev_14:3-4; Lev_14:10 is without a preposition; in Lev_14:16-17 it is with the preposition ìְ , as is expressed in the A. V.
Lev_14:13. The pronoun should obviously refer to the man rather than the spot.
Lev_14:16. ðֶäôַּêְ . This being the same verb as is used in Lev_14:3-4; Lev_14:17, in the same sense, the rendering should certainly be the same. The alteration in the A. V. was evidently on account of the previous translation of éָùׁåּá by turn. It is better to put the new word there.
Lev_14:17. The preposition is the same as in the previous verse, and the change in the A. V. may have been simply accidental.
Lev_14:18. The word áּåֹ seems redundant, and is wanting in 4 MSS. and the Sam.
Lev_14:19. àֲãַîְãָּîֶú . The reduplication of the letters in Heb. always intensifies the meaning (see Bochart, Hieroz. Pt. II., lib. V., c. vi., Ed. Rosen. III., p. 612 ss.); if therefore this be translated red at all, it must be very red, which would be inconsistent with the previous white. This obvious inconsistency has led the ancient versions into translations represented by the somewhat reddish of the A. V., and frequently to rendering the previous conjunction or. But as there is no conjunction at all in the Heb., it seems better to follow the suggestion of Pool, Patrick and others, and understand the word as meaning very bright, shining, glistening. Comp the description of leprosy, Exo_4:6; Num_12:10; 2Ki_5:27.
Lev_14:18 (bis), 20, 23. ùֶׁçִéï , burning ulcer, would perhaps be a better, because a more general word; but boil was probably understood with sufficient latitude.
Lev_14:23; Lev_14:28. ö× äַîִּëְåָä , öָøֶáֶú äַùְּׁçִéï , Rosenmueller, cicatrix ulceris. So all the ancient versions, and so Gesenius. So also Coverdale and Cranmer, and so Riggs. Fuerst, however, inflammation.
Lev_14:24. The margin of the A. V. is better than the text. This paragraph (Lev_14:24-28) is plainly in relation to leprosy developing from a burn on the skin. So Gesen, Fuerst, Pool, Patrick, etc. So the LXX. and Vulg.
Lev_14:31. The meaning of ùָׁçֹø =black is established. The LXX., yellow, can therefore only be considered as an emendation of the text, substituting öָäֹá , and this is followed by Luther, Knobel, Keil, Murphy and others; it is, however, sustained by no other ancient version nor by any MS., and the change in the LXX. must be considered as simply an effort to avoid a difficulty. Keil and Clark propose, as a less desirable alternative, the omission of the negative particle. There is, however, no real difficulty in the text as it stands. See Exegesis.
Lev_14:32. The Sam. here substitutes ðֶúֶ÷ , scall, for ðֶâַò , spot.
Lev_14:39. áֹּäַ÷ , a word ἁð . ëÝã . according to Gesen. a harmless eruption of a whitish color which appears on the dark skin of the Arabs, and is still called by the same name.
Lev_14:40. ÷ֵøֵçַ , used here apparently for the back of the head in contradistinction to âִּáֵּçַ the fron4, which occurs only here (but its derivative, âַּáַּçַú , is found Lev_14:42 bis, 43 and 55). ÷ֵøֵçַ , however, is elsewhere baldness in general. Comp. Deu_14:1.
Lev_14:45. Comp. Textual Note5 on Lev_10:6.
Lev_14:45. ùָׂôָí . There is some doubt as to the true meaning. It is translated beard in the A. V., 2Sa_19:24 (25), and so Fuerst and Gesenius would render it here, guided by the etymology. All the ancient versions, however, translate it either mouth or lips, and a word etymologically signifying beard (or rather the sprouting place of hair) would easily come to have this sense in use. It is a different word from the æָ÷ָï =beard of Lev_14:29.
Lev_14:46. áָּãָã . The alone of the A. V. would ordinarily be a good enough translation, but is liable to be misunderstood. The leper was simply to dwell apart from the clean Israelites, but might and did live with other lepers.
Lev_14:49. éְøַ÷ְøַ÷ . The reduplication of the letters intensifies the meaning. Comp. note13 on Lev_14:19. àֲãַîְãָּîֶú , too, as noted above, may here mean either very red, or, as before, glistening. There is so little knowledge about the fact that neither of them can be certainly decided upon; but as in this case we have the disjunctive (as also in Lev_14:37), it seems more probable that two distinct colors were intended.
Lev_14:55. The margin of the A. V. gives the literal rendering of the Heb. bald in the head thereof, or in the forehead thereof, and there can be no doubt that these are terms figuratively applied to the cloth or skin for the right and wrong side, as in the text.
Chap. 14. Lev_14:4. The Sam., LXX. and Syr. here read the verb in the plural, expressing the fulfillment of the command.
Lev_14:4. The margin of the A. V. reads sparrows, for which there seems to be no other authority than the Vulg. The Heb. does not define the kind of bird at all.
Lev_14:5. Better, living water, which is the exact rendering of the Heb. Ordinarily living water is a figure for running water; but here the water is contained in a vessel, and had therefore simply been filled from a spring or running stream.
Lev_14:6. àֵú . The conjunction which seems to be needed at the beginning of this verse is supplied in the Sam. and 6 MSS. There is nothing in Heb. answering to the as for of the A. V.
Lev_14:8. øָçַõ is applied only to the washing of the surface of objects which water will not penetrate. Comp. Lev_1:9; Lev_1:13; Lev_9:14, etc. It is a different word from ëָּáַí of the previous clause, which is used of a more thorough washing or fulling. The English is unable in all cases to preserve the distinction; but it should be done as far as possible, and øָçַõ is frequently translated bathe in the following chapter (Lev_15:5-8; Lev_15:10-11; Lev_15:13; Lev_15:18; Lev_15:21-22; Lev_15:27) and elsewhere.
Lev_14:10. ùְׁðֵéÎëְáָùִׂéí . See Textual Note5 on Lev_3:7. The age is not exactly specified in the Heb.; but the Sam. and LXX. add of the first year, as in the following clause.
Lev_14:10. See Textual Note2 on Lev_2:1.
Lev_14:12. The Sam. and LXX. have the plural. Probably the sing, of the Heb. is not intended to have the priest for its nominative, but to be impersonal.
Lev_14:13. One MS., the Sam., LXX. and Vulg. supply the particle of comparison, ëְּ .
Lev_14:17. Two MSS., the LXX. and Vulg. here read, as the Heb. in Lev_14:28, upon the place of the blood.
Lev_14:18. For áַּùֶּׁîֶï three MSS. and the Syr. read îִïÎäַùֶׁîֶï , as in Lev_14:16. On this use of áְּ , however, see Fuerst, Lex. áְּÎ , 3, b. ã . Gesen. Lex. A. 2.
Lev_14:18. éִúֵּï is better translated put, both as more agreeable to the meaning of the word itself, and because the oil remaining in the left hand could hardly suffice for pouring.
Lev_14:20. The Sam. and LXX. add before the Lord.
Lev_14:23. The preposition is here so liable to be misunderstood that it is better to change it. It has reference to the eighth day appointed for his cleansing (as the Vulg.), not to the sacrifices for his cleansing (as the LXX.). So Geddes and Boothroyd. In Lev_14:10 the difficulty does not occur.
Lev_14:26. òַìÎëַּó äַëּäֵï , an expression understood by Houbigant to mean that one priest should pour into the hand of another; the sense given in the A. V. following the Vulg. is, however, doubtless correct.
Lev_14:29. The Sam. here reverses its change of reading in Lev_14:18, and has áְּ for îï .
Lev_14:36. ùְׁ÷ַòֲøåּøֹú , a word ἁð . ëÝã ., but its meaning sufficiently well ascertained. The A. V. follows the LXX., Chald. and Vulg., and the same sense is given by Rosenm., Fuerst and Gesen, though by each with a different etymology.
Lev_14:37. See Notes13 on Lev_13:19; Lev_13:24 on Lev_14:49.
Lev_14:41. All the ancient versions except the Vulg. change the causative form of the verb to the plural, as the following verb is plural. Also in Lev_14:42-43; Lev_14:45; Lev_14:49, they have the plural.
Lev_14:47. The LXX. here adds, what is of course implied, and be unclean until the even.
Lev_14:51. The LXX. has dip them in the blood of the bird that has been killed over the living water, and this is doubtless the sense of the text.
The indications of the disease. Lev_14:1-8.
Lev_14:1. This communication is addressed to Moses and Aaron conjointly because it requires examinations and determinations entrusted to the priests.
Lev_14:2-8. The first case, of symptoms like leprosy. Lev_14:2. Man is of course used generically for a person of either sex. No stress is to be laid upon the fact that the expression skin of his flesh is found only in this chapter; for the word skin occurs here nearly as often as in all the rest of the Scripture put together, and very similar expressions do occur elsewhere, e.g.Exo_34:29-30; Exo_34:35, “the skin of his face,” and the skin is often spoken of as covering the flesh, e.g.Eze_37:6; Eze_37:8, etc.—A rising, a scab, or a bright spot, are different indications of incipient leprosy; the disease itself was more deeply seated, but it betrayed itself, as it does still, by these marks. The last two terms are only used in connection with this disease, and the first is only elsewhere used figuratively of dignity or excellency. “The name leprosy öָøַòַú is derived from öָøַò =to strike down, to strike to the ground: the leper is he who has been smitten by God.” Lange. For the examination of the leper one of the ordinary priests was sufficient as well as the high-priest; the Talmudists assert that priests debarred by physical imperfection from ministering at the altar were competent to the examination of lepers. The priests were expected, if occasion required, to consult with experts, but the formal sentence rested with them alone.
Lev_14:3. These marks, however, might exist without having been caused by leprosy. Two distinguishing characteristics are now mentioned, and if both these concurred, there could be no doubt about the case—the priest was at once to pronounce him unclean; (a) if the hair growing upon the spot had turned white. The hair of the Israelites was normally black; if it had turned white upon the spot it betrayed a cause at work beneath the surface of the skin. (b) If the spot was in appearance deeper than the skin. “These signs are recognized by modern observers (e.g. Hensler); and among the Arabs leprosy is regarded as curable if the hair remains black upon the white spots, but incurable if it becomes whitish in color.” Keil. Judgment was of course required in the application of the second test; but if the indications were clear, the case was decided, and the duty of the priest was to declare the existing fact.
Lev_14:4-8. The determination of cases in which the indications are not decisive. First, Lev_14:4-6, the case in which the suspicion of leprosy should prove unfounded. If there were suspicious looking spots, but yet they appeared on examination to be merely superficial, and there was no change in the color of the hair growing in them, either of two things might be possible: the spots might be the effect of true leprosy not yet sufficiently developed to give decisive indications: or they might be a mere eruption upon the skin, of no importance. To ascertain which of these was the fact, the priest was to bind up the spot seven days.—At the end of that time a second examination was to be made; if then the indications were favorable, the same process was to be repeated. If at the end of this time the indications were still favorable, and especially if the suspicious spot, had become faint, tending to disappear, the priest was to pronounce the man clean. Yet still the very suspicion, unfounded as it proved to be, had brought some semblance of a taint upon the man, and he must wash his clothes. These two periods of seven days each are usually looked upon as periods of a sort of quarantine, during which the man himself was to be secluded, and this view has been incorporated into the A. V. here and throughout these chapters. It is not, however, required by the Hebrew, and in view of the great hardship it would impose upon those who were in reality entirely free from the disease, it seems more likely that the simple rendering of the Hebrew gives the true sense. The extreme slowness with which leprosy is oftentimes developed has been considered a difficulty in the way of a determination in reality, in so short a time; however, the two things are not at all incompatible. A fortnight was quite long enough to determine the character of any ordinary eruption; if it was none of these, and yet possessed the characteristics of leprosy, then it must be decided to be leprosy, although months or years might pass before the disease showed much further progress. Lev_14:7-8, however, show that even the leprous spots themselves did not remain quite unchanged during this time. On the second examination the priest could ascertain if the spots had begun to spread. If not, the disease, although it might possibly already exist, was not pronounced; but if they had spread, all doubt was at an end; the priest shall pronounce him unclean. Another view is taken of Lev_14:7. Rosenmüller says that in the word ìְèָäֳøָúåֹ the ìְ is to be taken for postquam as in Exo_19:1; Num_1:1; 1Ki_3:18; this sense is followed in the Vulg. and Luther, and adopted by Vatablus, Patrick, and other commentators. According to this the law would relate to the breaking out of the leprosy afresh at some time after he had been pronounced clean by the priest. The translation of the A. V., however, which is here followed, seems more exactly the sense of the Hebrew.
Lev_14:9-11. The second case is one in which ulceration has already begun. Either it is a long-standing case in which the command for inspection has been neglected, or else one in which sentence of cleanness has been pronounced on insufficient grounds. With the appearance of a mark of raw flesh in the rising, in combination with the other indications, all doubt was removed; it must be an old leprosy, and the priest shall at once pronounce him unclean.
Lev_14:12-17. The third case is looked upon according to differing medical views, either as a different disease, the lepra vulgaris, which “scarcely affects the general health, and for the most part disappears of itself, though it often lasts for years” (Clark); or as a case of the true leprosy in which “the breaking out of the leprous matter in this complete and rapid way upon the surface of the whole body was the crisis of the disease; the diseased matter turned into a scurf, which died away and then fell off” (Keil). Patrick compares it to the eruptions in measles and small pox, when there is safety in their full development. The suspected person thus either had a harmless disease, or he had had the leprosy and was cured. In either case sentence of cleanness was to be pronounced. But (Lev_14:14-15) if ulceration appeared (it would seem either at the moment or afterwards) he was at once to be declared unclean. This ulceration, however, might proceed from some other cause; therefore, although the man must be declared unclean in view of so suspicious an indication, yet if it afterwards passed away, the sentence might be reversed, and the man pronounced clean without further investigation.
Lev_14:18-23. The fourth case is that of a suspected leprosy arising from an abscess or boil which had been healed. Such disturbed conditions of the surface were peculiarly apt to become the seat of disease. The indications are much the same as in the other cases, the terms first mentioned here being equally applicable to the others. Reliance is again placed (Lev_14:20) upon the depth of the spot and the change in the color of the hair. If these indications were clear, as in Lev_14:3, the priest should at once pronounce the man unclean; if they were doubtful, he was to proceed as in Lev_14:4, and be guided by the result of a second examination at the end of seven days. In such a case a single interval of a week appears to have been sufficient, and no further examination is provided for. After one week it could be certainly determined whether it was merely the scar of the ulcer, or whether leprosy had really broken out in it.
Lev_14:24-28. The fifth case is that of suspected leprosy developing from a burn, another of those injuries favorable for the development of the disease. The indications and the procedure are precisely the same as before. In Lev_14:26 the A. V. has inserted the word other unfortunately.
Lev_14:29-37. The case of leprosy suspected in an eruption upon the hairy part of the head, or upon the beard. Although this is spoken expressly in regard to both men and women, yet the indications are so dependent upon hair that it is not proper to substitute here chin for beard, as is done by Keil. The word used æָ÷ָï is a different one from the ùָׂôָí of Lev_14:45, which is often translated beard; the Ancient Versions, however, give beard here, and either mouth or lips there. Pliny (Nat. Hist. lib. xxvi. 1) speaks of such a disease imported into Italy from Asia in the reign of Tiberius, neither painful nor fatal, “yet any death preferable to it.” In Lev_14:30 the A. V. has unnecessarily modified the symptoms by inserting the indefinite article before yellow thin hair. The word ùֵׂòָø is collective, as in Lev_14:3, and freq. In this form of the disease the natural hair seems to have been supplanted by thin, yellow ( öַäֹá =golden, shining) hair. This is declared to be ðֶúֵ÷ , translated in the A. V. dry scall, and immediately explained as a leprosy upon the head or beard. The word occurs only in these chapters. The indications given in Lev_14:29-30, were not absolutely decisive. It would seem from Lev_14:31, that in the coming on of true leprosy the effect upon the hair was only gradually produced, part of the hair remaining for a time of its natural color; while in the case of other harmless cutaneous eruptions, of more rapid progress, all the hair on the affected spot was speedily changed. Hence the entire absence of black hair at the first was a favorable symptom. In this view the text is consistent enough with itself as it stands, and Keil is wrong in saying “there is certainly an error in the text.” In case of this favorable symptom the priest should bind up the spot for two periods of a week, making a further examination at the end of each of them. The favorable indications were that the spot did not spread, did not appear to be deep-seated, and the yellow hair disappeared. If this was the case at the end of the first period, the person was to be shaven with the exception of the spot, and at the end of the second pronounced clean, and to wash his clothes.—If, however, (Lev_14:35-36) the trouble afterwards spread, the person was to be again examined by the priest, and being satisfied of this single fact, the priest must pronounce him unclean. Yet if this spreading was only temporary, he might finally be pronounced clean (Lev_14:37) provided the natural hair grew again in the spot.
Lev_14:38-39. This is the case of a harmless eruption in the skin termed áֹּäִ÷ , LXX. ἀëöüò . It is still known among the Arabs and called by the same name, bohak. “It is an eruption upon the skin, appearing in somewhat elevated spots or rings of unequal sizes and a pale white color, which do not change the hair; it causes no inconvenience, and lasts from two months to two years.” Keil. It is placed here, because it might be, without proper examination, mistaken for leprosy, and its appearance was probably most nearly assimilated to the symptoms last mentioned. The sufferer by it was at once discharged as clean, without further ceremony.
Lev_14:40-44. The baldness of the head, whether on the front or back, constitutes no uncleanness; yet leprosy might be developed in the bald parts, and then was to be dealt with as in other cases. The reason for speaking of baldness at all in this connection is probably that the color of the hair has been made of so much importance in determining the symptoms of leprosy, that the legislator would cut off all opportunity for cavil in suspected cases.
Lev_14:45-46. The law for the pronounced leper. The leper was in the first place to put on the signs of mourning (comp. Eze_24:17; Eze_24:22), some say “for himself as one over whom death had already gained the victory” (Clark); but it may have been merely as a mark of great affliction, and some of the signs were also signs of shame (comp. Mic_3:7). And shall cry, Unclean, unclean, as a warning to any passers by. This command is not, as sometimes asserted, to guard against the danger of communicating the disease; but rather to avoid making others ceremonially unclean by contact with a leper. The Rabbins carried this sort of defilement so far as to assert that “by merely entering a house, a leper polluted everything without it,” (Mishna, Kelim i. 4; Negaim xiii. 11, as cited by Keil). All the days.—The law constantly keeps in view the possibility of the recovery of the leper; but it is uncertain whether this indicates that the true leprosy was then less incurable than now, or whether it has regard to the possibility of error in the determination of the disease. In either case, while the symptoms continued for which he had been pronounced unclean, and until by the same authority he was again formally declared clean (Lev_14:1-32), he was to dwell apart; without the camp. Comp. Num_5:2-4; Num_12:14-15; 2Ki_15:5; Luk_17:12. The Jews say that there were three camps from all of which the leper was excluded: that of God (the tabernacle), that of the Levites, and that of Israel. After the settlement in the Holy Land the camp was considered in this, as in other commands, to be represented by the walled city. Yet after the erection of synagogues lepers were allowed to enter a particular part of them set apart for their use, (Mishna ubi supra).
B. Leprosy in clothing and Leather, Lev_13:47-59.
Only three materials for clothing are here mentioned: wool, linen, and skins. The two former were the usual materials among the ancient Egyptians and Greeks, and only these are mentioned Deu_22:11; Pro_31:13; Hos_2:9. It is a dispute among the Talmudists whether garments of camel’s hair are included or not. Woolen and linen were forbidden by the law (Lev_19:19) to be mixed in the same garment. On the nature of the leprosy here described, see the preliminary note to this chapter. Lev_14:48. Whether it be in the warp or woof has occasioned much unnecessary perplexity on account of the supposed difficulty in one of these remaining unaffected in the cloth by any disintegration occurring in the other; and Keil would translate “the flax and the wool;” Clark, De Wette, Knobel and others, (with whom Keil also seems to concur) explain it of yarn prepared for warp and yarn prepared for woof. There is really however, no difficulty in the matter, if the trouble is supposed to arise from some original fault in the material or in the processes of its preparation. Whichever was made of such material would first show the defect, and it could be seen in the cloth that the trouble arose from either the warp or the woof, as the case might be. The same sort of thing is sometimes observed in cloth now when the proper proportion has not been observed between the strength of the two kinds of thread, so that the cloth will tear with undue ease in one direction but not in the other; or when, in cloth woven of different colors, one set of threads has been injured in the dyeing. A distinction is made between a skin and any thing made of skin. The former were whole skins, as sheep skins dressed with the wool on for a sort of cloak for the poor, or for mats, etc., and also made into leather for bottles and other uses; the latter the endless variety of smaller articles made of leather. Lev_14:49. A strong green or red spot was prima facie evidence of leprosy, and subjected that in which it appeared to priestly examination. According to Maimonides (cited by Patrick) the spot must be “as broad as a bean,” and if smaller than this was of no consequence. Lev_14:50. Bind up the spot.—Here as in Lev_14:4, etc., the usual interpretation is that of the A. V., shut up it that hath the spot; but the Hebrew in all these places only means necessarily the binding up of the spot itself, not a sort of quarantine upon the person or thing on which it is. See Textual note 4. In this case there is not the same hardship involved in the other rendering as in the case of the human subject: but still the rendering is objectionable as implying much more strongly than the law itself the idea of contagiousness. Lev_14:51-57 describe the appearances by which the priest must determine whether the suspicious spots were really leprosy or not. These turn upon whether the spot increased. If it did, then he was at once to burn that garment. The expression in Lev 14:52, 58, whether warp or woof, and in Lev_14:56 out of the warp or out of the woof is to be understood of the cloth in which the disease has appeared in either the warp or the woof. Fretting, Lev_14:51-52(Bochart, lepra exasperata), is equivalent to corroding. If however, the spot had not increased at the examination made at the end of a week, the suspected article was to be washed and the process repeated. If at the end of another week after the washing there was no change in the color of the spot, the thing was to be condemned and burned, although there was no apparent spreading. In such case it is fret inward,i.e., the material itself was faulty and unfit for use. Whether it be bare within or without; lit. bald in the head thereof, or in the forehead thereof, (Margin A. V. See Texual note 20). As the disease itself is figuratively named from its resemblance to the human leprosy, so these terms are used in the same way, and are generally considered to mean the right or the wrong side of the cloth or skin. On the other hand, if at the end of the week after the washing the spot had become less distinct (Lev_14:56), it was to be torn out of the garment or skin. If it reappeared (Lev_14:57) the thing was to be burned; but otherwise (Lev 14:58) to be washed a second time and then pronounced clean. Lev 14:59 is simply the usual conclusion, stating that the foregoing is the law for the cases specified.
C. Cleansing and restoration of the leper, Lev_14:1-32.
This communication was addressed to Moses alone, because there were no questions to be determined by priestly examination; it simply directs what is to be done in the case of a person already pronounced clean by the priest. Lev_14:1-20 prescribe the normal course, Lev_14:21-31 allow certain modifications for the poor, and Lev_14:32 is the conclusion.
A new Proper Lesson of the law begins here, and extends to the close of the following chapter; the parallel lesson from the prophets is 2Ki_7:3-20, containing the account brought into Samaria by the four lepers of the flight, of the besieging army of the Syrians.
Lange: “a. The theocratico-political atonement, or the taking again of the person pronounced clean into the camp, i.e., into the congregation of the people. Hence this first act of atonement took place without the camp (later, before the gate of the city). The leper was to be represented by two birds, living and clean. They must be wild birds, since the tame turtle doves or the young pigeons would not have flown away when released. Since these birds represent the maximum of free motion, we may certainly find this thought indicated: want of free motion was a chief cause of the leprosy.” [This inference, however, it is to be remembered, is only an inference, not a part of the law which carefully abstains from any mention of the causes]. “One of these birds was slain over a vessel in which there was already some fresh spring or river water. It is not to be understood that in this the purification by water was indicated together with the atoning blood, since the washing follows farther on; on the contrary, in the fresh water the thought of living motion is again brought out. The blood of the slain bird dropped into this water; the few drops of blood, in and of themselves, would not suffice for the sprinkling. Nevertheless also, the blood of the slain bird considered as typically sick, through death became fresh again in its signification. The living bird, which was to remain alive, was dipped in the augmented blood of the dead bird. But very note-worthy are the allegorical accompaniments which jointly serve to illustrate the living bird, and were therefore dipped with it in the blood; a piece of cedar wood, as a symbol of the endurance of life; a piece of scarlet, as a symbol of the freshness of life; some hyssop, as a symbol of the purity of life through constant purifications of life.” (See Keil, p. 106, [trans., p. 385 s.]). After the living bird with these accompaniments had been dipped in the blood, the person to be cleansed was sprinkled seven times with this blood. No further mention is made of the dead bird, since its flesh was not a sacrifice; but the living bird, hallowed by the blood of the dead, is set free. We may rightly see in the two birds the double position of the leper in his leprosy: in the slain bird he appears as he had fallen into death; in the one that is set free, on the contrary, he appears as by God’s mercy he is recovered to unrestrained motion. But we might also in this contrast find the thought, that the leprosy, as it falls upon one part of the community, keeps the other part all the more free; or, that health and disease are separated as opposite poles in regard to the common national life. In any case, it is a fact that, in regions where Cretinism prevails, which is analogous to leprosy, the freshest and strongest forms occur near the sick. Meanwhile, the person sprinkled with the blood must complete this purification in several ways: first, by washing his clothes; secondly, by cutting off all his hair from his whole body, (whether also his eyebrows and eyelashes?); thirdly, by bathing himself. Then he might go into the camp, but must yet add seven days more on the outside of his tent. Why? Keil answers with the Chaldee et non accedat ad latus uxoris suæ. But the law would not have been too modest to say so. With this is to be noticed that this same direction is applied to several analogous cases. He who is healed of a running issue, must wait seven days after the recognition of his healing before he can bring his sacrifice (Lev_15:13). The same applies to the woman with an issue of blood (ib. 28). So too, for the Nazarite in whose presence a man had died (Num_6:10). Particularly weighty is the direction of the seven days’ waiting which, according to Lev_8:35, must introduce the final consecration of the priests. We cannot say that during these seven days the priest was yet unclean; but he had not indeed become fully clean for the service of the priesthood. When we look back at the ordinance of the second seven days in reference to one who has been recognized as clean—the leprous man, or garment, or house,—there appears a distinction of cleanness of a first and second grade, a negative and a positive cleanness, which latter was a kind of priestly consecration. Every Israelite, in his degree should have this priestly consecration; but especially near to it stood the Nazarite, and next to him we place the cleansed leper. In the new covenant, the highly favored sinner stands higher than the Christian of less experience of salvation; the son, who was lost and found, higher than the elder brother; Mary Magdalene higher than a common maiden.” [It must be always borne in mind, however, that this superiority does not rest upon any advantage in having sinned, but upon the earnestness of love on the part of him who has been forgiven. See Luk_7:47. F. G.]. “This fact appears to have been typically represented in the Old Testament by the restoration of the cleansed leper to the worship of the congregation.” [It was represented, that is to say, in the very full ceremonies and sacrifices accompanying the restoration, but not in any higher position of the cleansed leper after his restoration was accomplished.—F. G.].
“b. The theocratico-religious atonement. The offering obligatory upon the leper was very extensive; two he-lambs, one ewe-lamb, three tenth parts of wheaten flour mingled with oil, and a log of oil. The trespass offering formed the beginning of the offering, for the leper has by the connection with his people come into its guilt.” [Nevertheless, it is hard to see how this could have been the reason, when the leper had been absolutely separated from his people, and was now to be restored to his connection with them. But see under Lev_14:12.—F. G.]. “The blood of this trespass offering was first treated like the blood of the trespass offering of the priest; it was put on the tip of the right ear, on the thumb of the right hand, and on the thumb or great toe of the right foot, all with the same meaning as in the consecration of the priests. In addition to this, the oil comes into use, which indeed, as being common oil, is different from the anointing oil of the priests, but is still a symbol of the Spiritual life. With this oil in minute measure, the priest, with a finger of his right hand dipped in the oil which had been poured into the hollow of the left, executed a seven-fold sprinkling before the Lord, i.e., towards the sanctuary. Then, with the rest of the oil, the three parts of the body were anointed which had been smeared with the blood of the trespass offering. The blood baptism preceded, as the negative consecration; the oil baptism must follow, as the positive atonement. The head of the leper was also anointed with the oil. He was thus to be made a man of the Spirit in each way, by his tribulation, and his deliverance. Then followed the sin offering, for which, in accordance with Lev_4:28; Lev_4:32, the ewe-lamb was to be used. In this place the addition is made: he shall make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed [Lev_14:31]. Plainly his sin is assumed in this to be individual guilt, in contradistinction from his share in the common guilt. It is rightly presupposed that the leprosy in each one stands in connection with his individual sinfulness; however light, it has for its result, sins of ill-will, of bitterness, of impatience, of self-forgetfulness, of prejudice toward the community. Now first can the presentation of the burnt offering follow, with the other he-lamb, and with the meat offering.”
“The ordinance may be modified in case the person to be purified is poor. The direction for the sacrifice itself is indeed almost analogous to the direction in the case of the poor woman in child-birth; only here the lamb for the trespass offering, the tenth deal of wheaten flour sprinkled with oil for a meat offering, and the log of oil for anointing, could not be dispensed with by the bringing of two doves or young pigeons. Moreover, the trespass offering, as well as the oil, is directed to be made a wave-offering before Jehovah. It is the same ritual as the wave or the consecration offering at the consecration of the priests (Lev_8:22; Lev_8:27). Thus this waving here also can only signify a peculiar consecration of the leper, which is more strongly expressed in the case of the poor leper who must be shaken free with his gift, must be brought to a swinging up, or heave offering (Aufschwung).”
Some points in the above will be found differently treated below.
Lev_14:1-3. The starting point for the following directions is the priestly inspection of the leper supposed to be healed. This must take place without the camp, and if it resulted favorably, then the following directions were to be observed. (The expression ðִøְôָּà îִï , as Keil notes, is a “const. prægnans, healed away from, i.e., healed and gone away from”).
Lev_14:4-8. The restoration to the camp. This was formally accomplished by a very full and significant ritual, proportioned to the abhorrence in which leprosy was to be held, and the rigidness of the exclusion of the leper from the society of his people. There was no sacrifice, since the person to be cleansed was not yet in a condition to offer sacrifice, nor was anything offered, or even brought by him, nor was anything placed upon the altar. The ceremony was, however, a purification which is always related to sacrifice as a symbolic step towards a restoration to fellowship with God.
For the significance of the things used in this ceremony, Abarbanel is quoted by Patrick to the following effect: the living birds signify that the leper’s dead flesh was restored to life and vigor; the cedar wood restoration from putrefaction; the scarlet (wool, or thread, or a bit of cloth) restoration of the color of health to the complexion; the hyssop (which was fragrant) restoration from the exceedingly ill odor of the disease.
An earthen vessel was taken—probably that after this use it might be broken up and destroyed—and partly filled with water from a spring or brook, and one of the birds killed over it in such a way that its blood should fall into and be mingled with the water. In this the living bird was to be dipped with the other things, and then the person to be cleansed was sprinkled with it with that sevenfold sprinkling prescribed on occasions of peculiar solemnity (see Lev_4:6); and the person was then to be pronounced clean. After this the living bird was let loose into the open field. In attempting to estimate the significance of this rite, it is to be remembered that precisely the same ritual is prescribed for the cleansing of the leprous house (Lev_14:49-53), and the cedar, scarlet and hyssop, were also burned with the red heifer, whose ashes, placed in water, were to be used for purifications (Num_19:6). The water, the blood, the cedar and the scarlet are mentioned in the Ep. to the Heb. (Lev_9:19-20) as having been used by Moses in sprinkling the Book of the Covenant and the people (see Exo_24:6-8), and generally hyssop was used in various forms of sprinkling. Except therefore in regard to the birds, no significance can be attributed to these things which is not common to other purifications besides those of the leper, and even in regard to the birds, none which is not common to the cleansing of the leprous man and the leprous house (Lev_14:53). In view of this, and of the analogy of the scapegoat (Lev_16:21-22), the living bird let loose must be considered as bearing away the unclean-ness of the leper (Von Gerlach), and not as signifying the social resurrection of the leper in his restoration to the congregation. Of this last, the bird flying away to return no more could hardly have been a symbol. On the natural history of the cedar (Juniperus oxycedrus), and the hyssop, see Clarke. The scarlet is said in the Mishna to have been used for tying the other things to the living bird when they were dipped together in the water mingled with blood. Nothing is said of the disposal of all these things after they had fulfilled their purpose. After this ceremonial, the symbolical cleansing was still further set forth (Lev_14:8) by the leper’s washing his clothes, and shaving off all his hair, and bathing himself. He might then enter the camp, but not yet his own tent. This remaining restriction