THE UNCLEANNESS OF
LEPROSY
Lev 13:1-46
THE interpretation of this chapter presents no little difficulty.
The description of the diseases with which the law here deals is not
given in a scientific form; the point of view, as the purpose of
all, is strictly practical. As for the Hebrew word rendered
"leprosy," it does not itself give any light as to the nature of the
disease thus designated. The word simply means "a stroke," as also
does the generic term used in Lev 13:2 and elsewhere, and translated
"plague." Inasmuch as the Septuagint translators rendered the former
term by the Greek word "lepra" (whence our word "leprosy"), and as,
it is said, the old Greek physicians comprehended under that term
only such scaly cutaneous eruptions as are now known as psoriasis
(vulg., "saltrheum"), and for what is now known as leprosy reserved
the term "elephantiasis," it has been therefore urged by high
authority that in these chapters is no reference to the leprosy of
modern speech, but only to some disease or diseases much less
serious, either psoriasis or some other, consisting, like that, of a
scaly eruption on the skin. To the above argument it is also added
that the signs which are given for the recognition of the disease
intended, are not such as we should expect if it were the modern
leprosy; as, for example, there is no mention of the insensibility
of the skin, which is so characteristic a feature of the disease, at
least, in a very common variety; moreover, we find in this chapter
no allusion to the hideous mutilation which so commonly results from
leprosy.
When the use of the Hebrew term rendered "leprosy" is examined, in
this law and elsewhere, it certainly seems to be used with great
definiteness to describe a disease which had as a very
characteristic feature a whitening of the skin throughout, together
with other marks common to the early stages of leprosy as given in
this chapter. Only in Lev 13:12 does the Hebrew word appear to be
applied to a disease of a different character, though also marked by
the whitening of the skin. As for the symptoms indicated, the
undoubted absence of many conspicuous marks of leprosy may be
accounted for by the following considerations. In the first place,
with a single exception (Lev 13:9-11), the earliest stages of the
disease are described; and, secondly, it may reasonably be assumed
that, through the desire to ensure the earliest possible separation
of a leprous man from the congregation, signs were to be noted and
acted upon, which might also be found in other forms of skin
disease. The aim of the law is that, if possible, the man shall be
removed from the camp before the disease has assumed its most
unambiguous and revolting form. As for the omission to mention the
insensibility of the skin of the leper, this seems to be
sufficiently explained when we remember that this symptom is
characteristic of only one, and that not the most fatal, variety of
the disease.
But, it has also been urged, that elsewhere in the Scripture the
so-called lepers appear as mingling with other people-as, for
example, in the case of Naaman and Gehazi-in a way which shows that
the disease was not regarded as contagious; whence it is inferred,
again, that the leprosy of which we read in the Bible cannot be the
same with the disease which is so called in our time. But, in reply
to this objection, it may be answered that even modern medical
opinion has been by no means as confident of the contagiousness of
the disease-at least, until quite recently-as were people in the
middle ages; nor, moreover, can we assume that the prevention of
contagion must have been the chief reason for the segregation of the
leper, according to the Levitical law, seeing that a like separation
was enjoined in many other cases of ceremonial uncleanness where any
thought of contagion or infection was quite impossible.
In further support of the more common opinion, which identifies the
disease chiefly referred to in this chapter with the leprosy of
modern times, the following considerations appear to be of no little
weight. In the first place, the words themselves which are applied
to the disease in these chapters and elsewhere, -tsara’ath and nega’,
both meaning, etymologically, "a stroke," i.e., a stroke in some
eminent sense, -while peculiarly fitting if the disease be that
which we now know as leprosy, seem very strangely chosen if, as Sir
Risdon Bennett thinks, they only designate varieties of a disease of
so little seriousness as psoriasis. Then, again, the words used by
Aaron to Moses, {Num 12:12} referring to the leprosy of Miriam,
deserve great weight here: "Let her not, I pray, be as one dead, of
whom the flesh is half consumed." These words sufficiently answer
the allegation that there is no certain reference in Scripture to
the mutilation which is so characteristic of the later stages of the
disease. It would not be easy to describe in more accurate language
the condition of the leper as the plague advances; while, on the
other hand, if the leprosy of the Bible be only such a light
affection as "salt-rheum," these words and the evident horror which
they express, are so exaggerated as to be quite unaccountable.
Then, again, we cannot lose sight of the place which the disease
known in Scripture language as leprosy holds in the sight of the
law. As a matter of fact, it is singled out from a multitude of
diseases as the object of the most stringent and severe regulations,
and the most elaborate ceremonial, known to the law. Now, if the
disease intended be indeed the awful elephantiasis Graecorum of
modern medical science, popularly known as leprosy, this is most
natural and reasonable; but if, on the other hand, only some such
nonmalignant disease as psoriasis be intended, this fact is
inexplicable. Further, the tenour of all references to the disease
in the Scripture implies that it was deemed so incurable that its
removal in any case was regarded as a special sign of the exercise
of Divine power. The reference of the Hebrew maid of Naaman to the
prophet of God, {2Ki 5:3} as one who could cure him, instead of
proving that it was thought curable-as has been strangely urged-by
ordinary means, surely proves the exact opposite. Naaman, no doubt,
had exhausted medical resources; and the hope of the maid for him is
not based on the medical skill of Elisha, but on the fact that he
was a prophet of God, and therefore able to draw on Divine power. To
the same effect is the word of the King of Israel, when he received
the letter of Naaman: {2Ki 5:7} "Am I God, to kill and to make
alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his
leprosy?" In full accord with this is the appeal of our Lord {Mat
11:5} to His cleansing of the lepers, as a sign of His Messiahship
which He ranks for convincing power along with the raising of the
dead.
Nor is it a fatal objection to the usual understanding of this
matter, that because the Levitical law prescribes a ritual for the
ceremonial cleansing of the leper in case of his cure, therefore the
disease so called could not be one of the gravity and supposed
incurability of the true leprosy. For it is to be noted, in the
first place, that there is no intimation that recovery from the
leprosy was a common occurrence, or even 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, thatwhile a recent authority writes, and
with truth, that "medical skill appears to have been more completely
foiled by this than by any other malady," it is yet remarked that,
when of the anaesthetic variety, "some spontaneous cures are
recorded."
The chapter before us calls for little detailed exposition. The
diagnosis of the disease by the priest is treated under four
different heads:
(1) the case of a leprosy rising spontaneously (vv. 1-17, 38, 39);
(2) leprosy rising out of a boil (vv. 18-24);
(3) rising out of a burn (vv. 24-28);
(4) leprosy on the head or beard (vv. 29-37, 40-44).
The indications which are to be noted are described (Lev 13:2-3, Lev
13:24-27, etc.) as a rising of the surface, a scab (or scale), or a
bright spot (very characteristic), the presence in the spot of hair
turned white, the disease apparently deeper than the outer or scarf
skin, a reddish-white colour of the surface, and a tendency to
spread. The presence of raw flesh is mentioned (Lev 13:10) as an
indication of a leprosy already somewhat advanced, "an old leprosy."
In cases of doubt, the suspected case is to be isolated for a period
of seven or, if need be, fourteen days, at the expiration of which
the priest’s verdict is to be given, as the symptoms may then
indicate.
Two cases are mentioned which the priest is not to regard as
leprosy. The first (Lev 13:12-13) is that in which the plague
"covers all the skin of him that hath the plagues from his head even
to his feet, as far as appeareth to the priest," so that he "is all
turned white." At first thought, this seems quite unaccountablet
seeing that leprosy finally affects the whole body. But the solution
of the difficulty is not far to seek. For the next verse provides
that, in such a case, if "raw flesh" appear, he shall be held to be
unclean. The explanation of this provision of Lev 13:12 is therefore
apparently this: that if an eruption had so spread as to cover the
whole body, turning it white, and yet no raw flesh had appeared in
any place, the disease could not be true leprosy as, if it were,
then, by the time that it had so extended, "raw flesh" would
certainly have appeared somewhere. The disease indicated by this
exception was indeed well known to the ancients, as it is also to
the moderns as the "dry tetter"; which, although an affection often
of long duration, frequently disappears spontaneously, and is never
malignant.
The second case which is specified as not to be mistaken for leprosy
is mentioned in Lev 13:38-39, 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 nonmalignant tetter or eczema, is still known in the East
under the same name (bohak) which is here used.
Lev 13:45-46 give the law for him who has been by the priest
adjudged to be a leper. He must go with clothes rent, with his hair
neglected, his lip covered, crying, "Unclean! unclean!" without the
camp, and there abide alone for so long as he continues to be
afflicted with the disease. In other words, he is to assume all the
ordinary signs of mourning for the dead; he is to regard himself,
and all others are to regard him, as a dead man. As it were, he is a
continual mourner at his own funeral.
Wherein lay the reason for this law? One might answer, in general,
that the extreme loathsomeness of the disease, which made the
presence of those who had it to be abhorrent, even to their nearest
friends, would of itself make it only fitting, however distressing
might be the necessity, that such persons should be excluded from
every possibility of appearing, in their revolting corruption, in
the sacred and pure precincts of the tabernacle of the holy God, as
also from mingling with His people. Many, however, have seen in the
regulation only a wise law of public hygiene. That a sanitary intent
may very probably have been included in the purpose of this law, we
are by no means inclined to deny. In earlier times, and all through
the middle ages, the disease was regarded as contagious; and lepers
were accordingly segregated, as far as practicable, from the people.
In modern times, the weight of opinion until recent years has been
against this older view; but the tendency of medical authority now
appears to be to reaffirm the older belief. The alarming increase of
this horrible disease in all parts of the world, of late, following
upon a general relaxation of those precautions against contagion
which were formerly thought necessary, certainly supports this
judgment; and it may thus be easily believed that there was just
sanitary ground for the rigid regulations of the Mosaic code. And
just here it may be remarked, that if indeed there be any degree of
contagiousness, however small, in this plague, no one who has ever
seen the disease, or understands anything of its incomparable horror
and loathsomeness, will feel that there is any force in the
objections which have been taken to this part of the Mosaic law as
of inhuman harshness toward the sufferers. Even were the risk of
contagion but small, as it probably is, still, so terrible is the
disease that one would more justly say that the only inhumanity were
to allow those afflicted with it unrestricted intercourse with their
fellow men. The truth is, that the Mosaic law concerning the
treatment of the leper, when compared with regulations touching
lepers which have prevailed among other nations, stands contrasted
with them by its comparative leniency. The Hindoo law, as is well
known, even insists that the leper ought to put himself out of
existence, requiring that he shall be buried alive.
But if there be included in these regulations a sanitary intent,
this certainly does not exhaust their significance. Rather, if this
be admitted, it only furnishes the basis, as in the case of the laws
concerning clean and unclean meats, for still more profound
spiritual teaching. For, as remarked before, it is one of the
fundamental thoughts of the Mosaic law, that death, as being the
extreme visible manifestation of the presence of sin in the race,
and a sign of the consequent holy wrath of God against sinful man,
is inseparably connected with legal uncleanness. But all disease is
a forerunner of death, an incipient dying; and is thus, no less
really than actual death, a visible manifestation of the presence
and power of sin working in the body through death. And yet it is
easy to see that it would have been quite impracticable to carry out
a law that therefore all disease should render the sick person
ceremonially unclean; while, on the other hand, it was of
consequence that Israel, and we as well, should be kept in
remembrance of this connection between sin and disease, as death
beginning. What could have been more fitting, then, than this, that
the one disease which, without exaggeration, is of all diseases the
most loathsome, which is most manifestly a visible representation of
that which is in a measure true of all disease, that it is death
working in life, that disease which is, not in a merely rhetorical
sense, but in fact, a living image of death, -should be selected
from all others for the illustration of this principle: to be to
Israel and to us, a visible, perpetual, and very awful parable of
the nature and the working of sin?
And this is precisely what has been done. This explains, as sanitary
considerations alone do not, not merely the separation of the leper
from the holy people, but also the solemn symbolism which required
him to assume the appearance of one mourning for the dead; as also
the symbolism of his cleansing, which, in like manner, corresponded
very closely with that of the ritual of cleansing from defilement by
the dead. Hence, while all sickness, in a general way, is regarded
in the Holy Scriptures as a fitting symbol of sin, it has always
been recognised that, among all diseases, leprosy is this in an
exceptional and preeeminent sense. This thought seems to have been
in the mind of David, when, after his murder of Uriah and adultery
with Bathsheba, bewailing his iniquity, {Psa 51:7} he prayed, "Purge
me with hyssop, and I shall be clean." For the only use of the
hyssop in the law, which could be alluded to in these words is that
which is enjoined {Lev 14:4-7} in the law for the cleansing of the
leper, by the sprinkling of the man to be cleansed with blood and
water with a hyssop branch.
And thus we find that, again, this elaborate ceremonial contains,
not merely an instructive lesson in public sanitation, and practical
suggestions in hygiene for our modern times; but also lessons, far
more profound and momentous, concerning that spiritual malady with
which the whole human race is burdened, -lessons therefore of the
gravest personal consequence for every one of us.
From among all diseases, leprosy has been selected by the Holy Ghost
to stand in the law as the supreme type of sin, as seen by God! This
is the very solemn fact which is brought before us in this chapter.
Let us well consider it and see that we receive the lesson, however
humiliating and painful, in the spirit of meekness and penitence.
Let us so study it that we shall with great earnestness and true
faith resort to the true and heavenly High Priest, who alone can
cleanse us of this sore malady. And in order to this, we must
carefully consider what is involved in this type.
In the first place, leprosy is undoubtedly selected to be a special
type of sin, on account of its extreme loathsomeness. Beginning,
indeed, as an insignificant spot, "a bright place," a mere scale on
the skin, it goes on spreading, progressing ever from worse to
worse, till at last limb drops from limb, and only the hideous
mutilated remnant of what was once a man is left. A vivid picture of
the horrible reality has been given by that veteran missionary and
very accurate observer, the Rev. William Thomson, D.D., who writes
thus: "As I was approaching Jerusalem, I was startled by the sudden
apparition of a crowd of beggars, sans eyes, sans nose, sans hair,
sans everything They held up their handless arms, unearthly sounds
gurgled through throats without palates, -in a word, I was
horrified." Too horrible is this to be repeated or thought of? Yes!
But then all the more solemnly instructive is it that the Holy
Spirit should have chosen this disease, the most loathsome of all,
as the most fatal of all, to symbolise to us the true nature of that
spiritual malady which affects us all, as it is seen by the
omniscient and most holy God.
But it will very naturally be rejoined by some: Surely it were gross
exaggeration to apply this horrible symbolism to the case of many
who, although indeed sinners, unbelievers also in Christ, yet
certainly exhibit truly lovely and attractive characters. That this
is true regarding many who, according to the Scriptures, are yet
unsaved, cannot be denied. We read of one such in the Gospel, -a
young man, unsaved, who yet was such that "Jesus looking upon him
loved him." {Mar 10:20} But this fact only makes the leprosy the
more fitting symbol of sin. For another characteristic of the
disease is its insignificant and often even imperceptible beginning.
We are told that in the case of those who inherit the taint, it
frequently remains quite dormant in early life, only gradually
appearing in later years.
How perfectly the type, in this respect, then, symbolises sin! And
surely any thoughtful man will confess that this fact makes the
presence of the infection not less alarming, but more so. No comfort
then can be rightly had from any complacent comparison of our own
characters with those of many, perhaps professing more, who are much
worse than we, as the manner of some is. No one who knew that from
his parents he had inherited the leprous taint, or in whom the
leprosy as yet appeared as only an insignificant bright spot, would
comfort himself greatly by the observation that other lepers were
much worse; and that he was, as yet, fair and goodly to look upon.
Though the leprosy were in him but just begun, that would be enough
to fill him with dismay and consternation. So should it be with
regard to sin.
And it would so affect such a man the more surely, when he knew that
the disease, however slight in its beginnings, was certainly
progressive. This is one of the unfailing marks of the disease. It
may progress slowly, but it progresses surely. To quote again the
vivid and truthful description of the above-named writer,
"It comes on by degrees in different parts of the body: the hair
fails from the head and eyebrows; the nails loosen, decay, and drop
off; joint after joint of the fingers and toes shrinks up and slowly
falls away; the gums are absorbed, and the teeth 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 {2Ti 3:13} is ever visibly fulfilled, "evil men wax worse
and worse." Sin may not develop in all with equal rapidity, but it
does progress in every natural man, outwardly or inwardly, with
equal certainty.
It is another mark of leprosy that sooner or later it affects the
whole man; and in this, again, appears the sad fitness of the
disease to stand as a symbol of sin. For sin is not a partial
disorder, affecting only one class of faculties, or one part of our
nature. It disorders the judgment; it obscures our moral
perceptions; it either perverts the affections, or unduly stimulates
them in one direction, while it deadens them in another; it hardens
and quickens the will for evil, while it paralyses its power for the
volition of that which is holy. And not only the Holy Scripture, but
observation itself, teaches us that sin, in many cases, also affects
the body of man, weakening its powers, and bringing in, by an
inexorable taw, pain, disease, and death. Sooner or later, then, sin
affects the whole man. And for that reason, again, is leprosy set
forth as its preeeminent symbol.
It is another remarkable feature of the disease that, as it
progresses from bad to worse, the victim becomes more and more
insensible. This numbness or insensibility of the spots affected-in
one most common variety at least-is a constant feature. In some
cases it becomes so extreme that a knife may be thrust into the
affected limb, or the diseased flesh may be burnt with fire, and yet
the leper feels no pain. Nor is the insensibility confined to the
body, but, as the leprosy extends, the mind is affected in an
analogous manner. A recent writer says: "Though a mass of bodily
corruption, at last unable to leave his bed, the leper seems happy
and contented with his sad condition." Is anything more
characteristic than this of the malady of sin? The sin which, when
first committed, costs a keen pang, afterward, when frequently
repeated, hurts not the conscience at all. Judgments and mercies,
which in earlier life affected one with profound emotion, in later
life leave the impenitent sinner as unmoved as they found him. Hence
we all recognise the fitness of the common expression, "a seared
conscience," as also of the Apostle’s description of advanced
sinners as men who are "past feeling". {Eph 4:19} Of this moral
insensibility which sin produces, then, we are impressively reminded
when the Holy Spirit in the Word holds before us leprosy as a type
of sin.
Another element of the solemn fitness of the type is found in the
persistently hereditary nature of leprosy. It may indeed sometimes
arise of itself, even as did sin in the case of certain of the holy
angels, and with our first parents; but when once it is introduced,
in the case of any person, the terrible infection descends with
unfailing certainty to all his descendants; and while, by suitable
hygiene, it is possible to alleviate its violence, and retard its
development, it is not possible to escape the terrible inheritance.
Is anything more uniformly characteristic of sin? We may raise no
end of metaphysical difficulties about the matter, and put
unanswerable questions about freedom and responsibility; but there
is no denying the hard fact that since sin first entered the race,
in our first parents, not a child of man, of human father begotten,
has escaped the taint. If various external influences, as in the
case of leprosy, may, in some instances, modify its manifestations,
yet no individual, in any class or condition of mankind, escapes the
taint. The most cultivated and the most barbarous alike, come into
the world so constituted that, quite antecedent to any act of free
choice on their part, we know that it is not more certain that they
will eat than that, when they begin to exercise freedom, they will,
each and every one, use their moral freedom wrongly, -in a word,
will sin. No doubt, then, when such prominence is given to leprosy
among diseases, in the Mosaic symbolism and elsewhere, it is with
intent, among other truths, to keep before the mind this very solemn
and awful fact with regard to the sin which it so fitly symbolises.
And, again, we find yet another analogy in the fact that, among the
ancient Hebrews, the disease was regarded as incurable by human
means; and, notwithstanding occasional announcements in our day that
a remedy has been discovered for the plague, this seems to be the
verdict of the best authorities in medical science still. That in
this respect leprosy perfectly represents the sorer malady of the
soul, everyone is witness. No possible effort of will or fixedness
of determination has ever availed to free a man from sin. Even the
saintliest Christian has often to confess with the Apostle, {Rom
7:19} "The evil which I would not, that I practise." Neither is
culture, whether intellectual or religious, of any more avail. To
this all human history testifies. In our day despite the sad lessons
of long experience, many are hoping for much from improved
government, education, and such like means; but vainly, and in the
face of the most patent facts. Legislation may indeed impose
restrictions on the more flagrant forms of sin, even as it may be of
service in restricting the devastations of leprosy, and ameliorating
the condition of lepers. But to do away with sin, and abolish crime
by any conceivable legislation, is a dream as vain as were the hope
of curing leprosy by a good law or an imperial proclamation. Even
the perfect law of God has proved inadequate for this end; the
Apostle {Rom 8:3} reminds us that in this it has failed, and could
not but fail, "in that it was weak through the flesh." Nothing can
well be of more importance than that We should be keenly alive to
this fact; that so we may not, through our present apparently
tolerable condition, or by temporary alleviations of the trouble, be
thrown off our guard, and hope for ourselves or for the world, upon
grounds which afford no just reason for hope.
Last of all, the law of leprosy, as given in this chapter, teaches
the supreme lesson, that as with the symbolic disease of the body so
with that of the soul, sin shuts out from God and from the
fellowship of the holy. As the leper was excluded from the camp of
Israel and from the tabernacle of Jehovah, so must the sinner,
except cleansed, be shut out of the Holy City, and from the glory of
the heavenly temple. What a solemnly significant parable is this
exclusion of the leper from the camp! He 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 {Rev 21:27; Rev 22:15} concerning the New
Jerusalem: "There shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean.
Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and
the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone that loveth and
maketh a lie."
In view of all these correspondences, one need not wonder that in
the symbolism of the law leprosy holds the place which it does. For
what other disease can be named which combines in itself, as a
physical malady, so many of the most characteristic marks of the
malady of the soul? In its intrinsic loathsomeness, its
insignificant beginnings, its slow but inevitable progress, in the
extent of its effects, in the insensibility which accompanies it, in
its hereditary character, in its incurability, and, finally, in the
fact that according to the law it involved the banishment of the
leper from the camp of Israel, -in all these respects, it stands
alone as a perfect type of sin; it is sin, as it were, made visible
in the flesh.
This is indeed a dark picture of man’s natural state, and very many
are exceedingly loth to believe that sin can be such a very serious
matter. Indeed, the fundamental postulate of much of our
nineteenth-century thought, in matters both of politics and
religion, denies the truth of this representation, and insists, on
the contrary, that man is naturally not bad, but good; and that, on
the whole, as the ages go by, he is gradually becoming better and
better. But it is imperative that our views of sin and of humanity
shall agree with the representations held before us in the Word of
God. When that Word, not only in type, as in this chapter, but in
plain language, {Jer 17:9, R.V} declares that "the heart is
deceitful above all things, and it is desperately sick, " it must be
a very perilous thing to deny this.
It is a profoundly instructive circumstance that, according to this
typical law, the case of the supposed leper was to be judged by the
priest (Lev 13:2-3, et passim). All turned for him upon the priest’s
verdict. If he declared him clean, it was well; but if he pronounced
him unclean, it made no difference that the man did not believe it,
or that his friends did not believe it; or that he or they thought
better in any respect of his case than the priest, -out of the camp
he must go. He might plead that he was certainly not nearly in so
bad a case as some of the poor, mutilated, dying creatures outside
the camp; but that would have no weight, however true. For still he,
no less really than they, was a leper; and, until made whole, into
the fellowship of lepers he must go and abide. Even so for us all;
everything turns, not on our own opinion of ourselves, or on what
other men may think of us; but solely on the verdict of the heavenly
Priest.
The picture thus set before us in the symbolism of this chapter is
sad enough; but it would be far more sad did the law not now carry
forward the symbolism into the region of redemption, in making
provision for the cleansing of the leper, and his readmission into
the fellowship of the holy people. To this our attention is called
in the next chapter.
|