_THE UNCLEANNESS OF LEPROSY._
LEV. xiii. 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
designated. The word simply means "a stroke," as also does the generic
term used in ver. 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._,
"salt-rheum"), and for what is now known as leprosy reserved the term
"elephantiasis,"[26] 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.[27] 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.
[26] This word, it should be noted, is now popularly used to
denote a disease quite distinct from leprosy, known also as
"Barbadoes leg," which consists essentially of an elephantine
enlargement of the lower extremities.
[27] This opinion has been ably argued by Sir Risdon Bennett,
M.D., LL.D., F.R.S., in "By-paths of Bible Knowledge," vol. ix.,
"The Diseases of the Bible."
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 ver. 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 (vv.
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.
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,[28]--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 (Numb. xii. 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.
[28] Compare our frequent use of the word to denote paralysis.
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 Græcorum_ of modern medical
science, popularly known as leprosy, this is most natural and
reasonable; but if, on the other hand, only some such non-malignant
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
v. 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 v. 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 (Matt. xi. 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 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 anæsthetic 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 (vv. 2, 3, 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 (ver. 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 (vv. 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 unaccountable, 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 ver. 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 vv. 38, 39, where it is described as marked by bright
spots of a dull 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 non-malignant tetter or _eczema_, is still known in the
East under the same name (_bohak_) which is here used.
Verses 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 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 pre-eminent 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 (Psalm li. 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 (xiv. 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 do this, we must carefully
consider what is involved in this type.
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."[29] 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.
[29] "The Land and the Book," vol. i., pp. 530, 531.
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 x. 21). 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 falls 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 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 Tim. iii. 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 law, pain, disease, and
death. Sooner or later, then, sin affects the whole man. And for that
reason, again, is leprosy set forth as its pre-eminent 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" (Eph.
iv. 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 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,
every one 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 Paul (Rom.
vii. 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 (Rom. viii.
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 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 (xxi. 27; xxii. 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 every one 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
(Jer. xvii. 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 (vv. 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 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 re-admission into the fellowship
of the holy people. To this our attention is called in the next
chapter.