Bob Deffinbaugh has written a two-part article on the topic of what is clean and unclean in the Bible, with a focus on these concepts in Leviticus. I encourage you to read them, so that you will have a clearer grasp of what God did and did not intend for people to grasp from these regulations:

The Clean and Unclean-Part I (Leviticus 11)

Study By: Bob Deffinbaugh

From the Series: Leviticus: Sacrifice and Sanctification

Introduction⁶¹

Leviticus 11 is dealing with the subject of cleanness and uncleanness—specifically, with the subject of clean and unclean foods. The word “clean” has a lot of different meanings today depending upon the context in which it is used. For example, in the operating room, things must be clean, and that has a very rigid, strict interpretation—to be as free as possible from all germs and contamination. In an electronics plant where silicon crystals are grown, the clean room is incredibly clean. There is hardly any contamination at all! The restaurants in which you and I eat are supposed to be clean, especially the kitchens. That is not always true. I remember someone telling me of his experience not long ago. He was taking this girl out for the first time, and as they waited at their table in the restaurant, he noticed a huge roach crawling up the booth right beside her. He thought to himself, “Now shall I tell her and ruin the whole night, or shall I not tell her and hope the roach just walks away?” He decided not to tell her, and the roach went on its way and continued up over the booth and then down the other side. When my friend got to the cashier, he said as quietly as he could, “You all have a real roach infestation here. We had a trophy roach in the booth where I was eating.” Not at all taken back by the comment, the cashier replied, “Oh, that’s nothing! You should see the size of them in the kitchen!”

Clean and unclean—that can be a matter of great importance to us, but it is also a matter of differing definitions. In third world countries, “clean” means “free of large clumps of contamination.” In our children’s bedrooms, clean has a definition which means that everything has been kicked into one general pile and if given enough time, they can find what they left in that pile.

Clean means something different when we come to the definition of clean versus unclean in Leviticus. It is important for us to understand the meaning of clean and unclean, as it is used in the Old Testament, and its application for us in the New Testament.

For one thing, the expression clean and its counterpoint unclean is one of the prominent themes of Leviticus. Author G. J. Wenham,⁶² in a footnote in one of his commentaries, says that unclean and its cognates occurs 132 times in the Old Testament; over 50 percent of these are Leviticus. So the sense of uncleanness is a predominate theme, and the word clean, along with its related terms, occurs 74 times in Leviticus, which is over one-third of the uses found in the Old Testament. All of that says to us that if we are going to begin to get some kind of grasp of Leviticus, we must have some kind of grasp over what clean and unclean means and how these words apply to the Israelite.

When we leave the Old Testament and come to the New Testament, we once again find that the definition of clean and unclean is critical to our understanding. We find these issues discussed and debated heatedly between the scribes and the Pharisees, and our Lord had to do with cleanness and uncleanness—particularly the area of ceremonial uncleanness as defined by Jewish tradition, not so much as defined by Old Testament revelation. If we are going to understand how our Lord differed from the scribes and the Pharisees, if we are going to understand how Judaism “went to seed” on the area of clean and unclean, we must first understand the backdrop teaching of cleanness and uncleanness as it is introduced in Leviticus chapter 11. We must also observe that cleanness and uncleanness is related to holiness. Certainly, this is so in Leviticus. And if that is so, then if you and I are committed to the concept of holiness in general, and to the reality of holiness in specific in our lives, then we must understand the role which cleanness plays in regard to holiness. All of this says to us that these chapters are important. We must understand what we are dealing with as we come to our study because clean and unclean is one of the great issues of the Bible.

We should note that clean and unclean was the great issue dividing Jews and Gentiles. Clean and unclean was the critical issue that had to be met head on and solved in Acts 10 and 11 before the church could become a church where the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles was torn down.

When we come to Leviticus 11, we come to the third major section of Leviticus. In chapters 1-7, we had the offerings and the sacrifices that the Israelites could bring. Chapters 8-10 dealt with the priesthood—the actual ordination of Aaron and his sons which culminated in the death of two of Aaron’s oldest sons—and the instructions which come to Israel and to us from that. There were the offerings, the priesthood. Now chapters 11-15 deal with those things which are clean and unclean. Chapter 11 begins by talking about clean and unclean food, and then in chapter 12, the uncleanness that is the result of a woman bearing a child. I’m sure all of us want to know why that is so. And then there is uncleanness that is the result of issues that come forth from an individual. So there are a number of areas in which we find uncleanness.

The matter of uncleanness is related, I believe, to Leviticus 10:10, where it is commanded that the priests are not to drink wine or strong drink, so as to make a distinction between the holy and the profane and the clean and the unclean. This matter of declaring something clean or unclean was a matter for the priests, and they needed full comprehension to do that. Also we will notice in Leviticus 16, which is the chapter dealing with the Day of Atonement, that the purpose of the annual atonement was to make the people of Israel clean. Cleanness and uncleanness was the preparatory issue that comes to declare the people of God unclean and therefore in need of the great day of Atonement as it will be described in Leviticus 16.

Categories of Cleanness and Uncleanness

Now let’s take a brief look at some of the details of chapter 11. Let me preface this by giving one word of caution. When we come to the animals named here, some of us agonize over not being able to pronounce them correctly, let alone understand what they are. But one of the scholars has pointed out that likely in no more than 40% of the creatures named here can they be absolutely confident they have the right name, let alone the right one. We understand then that when a translator is dealing with Hebrew terms and trying to isolate and identify a specific creature, it is not always easy, nor even possible, to do so with a great deal of accuracy because you and I are not worried about whether we eat or don’t eat those things—it doesn’t matter anyway. I simply want to share with you that as you read the different translations, you may find some difference of opinion. Essentially it is easy to at least discern that we are dealing with three different categories of creatures. When we come to chapter 11, we find first the land creatures, the animals that roam about through the earth (vv. 1-8); then we find in verses 9-12 the water creatures, those that live under water or in the water, and finally we have the flying creatures.

So we have the same three basic distinctions found back in Genesis 1 where God created all life that is in the heavens, on earth, and under the waters. Those three categories are all dealt with, and creatures that are in those categories are defined as being either clean or unclean, according to the formula that God lays down.

Verses 24-47, basically the last half of the chapter, deal with the cure, the solution for the problem of uncleanness. Generally speaking, one of the prominent themes of those last chapters has to do with death—that is, whether it is a clean animal that is corrupted or made unclean by its death because all dead creatures are unclean, or whether it is an unclean animal that has been perhaps killed in order to be eaten. It is in its death that the animal contaminates. If we are going to eat a creature, the first thing we generally do is that we kill them. The death of any creature contaminates it and makes it unclean. There is only one way in which an animal can be killed in order for it to be clean, and that is to offer it as a sacrifice to God. Leviticus 17 clearly spells that out. If we were to go through our Bibles and circle the workcarcass, or carcasses, we would see that we are stepping over carcasses all the way through the second half of the chapter because these animals contaminate in their death, but the cure for contamination is given.

Essentially, we are dealing with misdemeanor offenses in chapter 11. These are not felony-type offenses because usually one is only unclean until the evening, and one may be cleansed by simply washing oneself, or the item involved, in water. If a clay pot was defiled and could not be cleansed, then it could be destroyed, but normally the solution was to wash it with water, and in the evening it would be cleansed. There are greater levels of uncleanness in chapters 12 and following, but these are the lesser matters that are solved by the application of water itself.

Let’s go through the categories of cleanness and uncleanness as they are defined by God in these verses. Notice in verse 1 that God “spoke again to Moses and to Aaron saying to them …” I think that is significant because normally God would have spoken through Moses, but now he is speaking through Moses and Aaron. You may remember that I suggested from chapter 10 that Aaron as the great high priest, now that he is installed, has come into his own, and he has a leadership role to play—and now Moses and Aaron share that leadership role. Also it is the priests who will declare whether something is clean or unclean, so this is a priestly function, and it is natural that Aaron would be the one addressed as well as Moses in terms of what makes or constitutes cleanness or uncleanness.

First, there are the land animals. There are two basic stipulations which must be met before an animal that dwells on the land can be considered clean and therefore can be eaten by the Israelite. It must be split-hoofed, and it must be a cud-chewer. It cannot be just one of those; it must be both of those. So a non-cud chewing split-hoofer isn’t good enough. It has to be both, and the text makes it very clear. A rabbit, for example, is called a cud-chewer (I think you and I understand that rabbits do not chew their cud like a cow does). But if we watched a rabbit eat, we would observe that as the rabbit ate his food, he chewed it up very carefully.

We have two dogs and they are not cud-chewers. We throw a piece of food on the floor, and they don’t chew AT ALL! One animal is so fearful that the other animal is going to get it that they just inhale the food. They don’t chew their cud. But when we look at a rabbit, we see that a rabbit sort of works on that food, and works on it, just like mothers tell their children they ought to chew up their meat and other things. So a cud-chewer does not technically have to be cow-like in having multiple stomachs, but one that chews its food well. I think we could say it is that which chews its non-meat food well. So cud-chewers are vegetarians. It is to be split-hoofed and cud-chewing if it is clean, and therefore the Israelites may partake of it.

Second, the sea creatures. When we come to the creatures that dwell in the sea, they must meet two qualifications as well—they must have fins and scales. Now that is certainly the norm. Those of us who are fishermen and hope to catch something when we throw our lines in expect that it will have fins and scales. It must have both of those in order to qualify. That would mean that creatures that live in the sea, like shrimp, lobster, and those kinds of creatures, would not fit. Only those that have fins and scales—only those that are fishy—would be clean.

Third, those creatures that are in the air. It seems as though, essentially, no qualifications are given. That is, it doesn’t have to have two wings, but rather it seems as though those creatures in the air are creatures that are non-vulture like. That is, they are not sitting around waiting for something to die so they can go pick it up and eat it. It doesn’t look as though these are meat eaters or those that feed off of the dead carcasses of other creatures. Then we have flying insects that are described. Here all flying insects are called unclean, with the exception of those that have a set of jumper legs which propel them so they can leap through the air and thus propel themselves through the air. Jumping, flying insects are edible; all the rest are not.

Fourth, there is the category of dead animals which are unclean. Essentially, any dead animal other than an animal which has been killed through the sacrificial process in the front of the door of the tent of meeting is unclean. There are unclean animals that will defile in their death, and there are clean animals that will defile man in their death, if their death is not a sacrificial death. The carcasses are that which can contaminate, therefore if a person eats a cow which has just been killed by a wolf, that person would be ceremonially unclean even though he could eat the meat if it were sacrificed to God.

Fifth, swarming animals. These are a bit of a puzzle, but this category includes things like mice, lizards, and most all of those things that I can readily pass up, so I can easily and readily identify them. I don’t know how many of you saw the movie “Cry Wolf” but I’ve seen it a couple of times and giggled my way through that scene where the fellow eats the mice. He studies the wolves, and he can’t understand what they live on during the winter when the things they normally feed on are gone. Then all of a sudden one day hordes of mice appear all over, and the man must decide how the wolves could live on the protein of the mice, so he cooks up a batch of mouse stew. I can remember when he popped that first mouthful in and crunched its bones. I say to myself “Unclean! Unclean!” I can agree with that—I understand! But apparently they are called swarming because they go about together in groups, and they seem to have an erratic, unpredictable manner of movement.

A General Definition of Cleanness and Uncleanness

Now let’s talk now about cleanness and uncleanness just in terms of generalities. What are some of the things we can observe about cleanness and uncleanness as we find it in Leviticus 11? Other points will come as we get to different kinds of uncleanness, but let me touch on a few characteristics of cleanness and uncleanness.

First, in chapter 11, cleanness and uncleanness has to do principally with food. It deals secondarily with cleanness or uncleanness that is the result of contact with a dead animal, but it seems the reason the dead animal is called unclean is because we couldn’t eat it. Even a clean animal, a bull or a sheep, could not be eaten if it were not killed in a sacrificially prescribed way. So it has to do with food or that which is touched when dead.

Second, cleanness or uncleanness is a matter of category more than of condition. When we talk about being clean, we generally speak of a condition someone is in. If our children come in unclean, they need to have their hands washed, but they are still in the category of a child. When we read in the paper that there is a car for sale, and it says Clean, that supposedly describes the condition of the car, not the classification of it. It may be a coupe, sedan, or station wagon. It may be a convertible or not. Those are classification areas. Clean in automobile terms is a condition, but basically what we are dealing with here is categories. Clean is a categorical pronouncement. It is all those land animals that chew their cud and have split hooves, whether their hooves have been washed or not. The category is cleanor the category is unclean, depending upon the classification of the creature that is in mind.

Third, cleanness is that which is defined by God and declared by the priests. Clean or unclean is clean or unclean by the definition, and the definition for the clean and unclean creatures is given in Leviticus 11. It is declared by the priests, which will become more and more important as we get into skin disorders. It is the priest who must say, this person or this disease is clean or unclean. It is God’s definition; it is the declaration the priests will make.

Fourth, it is the state of access to God. The practical outworking of being declared unclean means that we have to stay back. For example, a priest in Leviticus 22 cannot go about his priestly duties in a state of uncleanness. He must wait until he is ceremonially clean. So one may not approach God in his normal worship in an unclean state. It restricts one’s fellowship with God, and it restricts one’s fellowship with men. That is the natural consequence of the declaration of uncleanness.

Cleanness is somehow related to holiness. We say that “Cleanliness is next to godliness,” but I don’t think that is scriptural. In our bathroom, we have a little plaque that says, “Cleanliness is next to impossible!” Now that has some earthly wisdom to it! But in Leviticus, cleanliness is next to holiness. When we get down to the basic reason why an Israelite is to make these distinctions between clean and unclean, it is because God says, “You are to be holy, for I am holy.” For the first time in history—for the first time in the Old Testament—men and women are to observe these distinctions because God has made them. Therefore cleanliness is related to God’s holiness, and Israel is to observe it because of the holiness of God. Twice it is repeated in this chapter. Therefore there is a direct relationship between what is clean and what is holy in Scripture. What is unclean can never be holy. Some things that are clean may be consecrated and set apart as holy, but nothing which is holy is unclean; only that which is clean can become holy.

There is also an intensification which goes on here. When we read through chapter 11, we start out with the sense that these are the creatures that are going about on the land, and some of them are clean and some are unclean—the clean ones they could eat, the unclean ones they were to avoid. But by the time we get to the category of those that are in the water, it talks about them being abhorrent, “and their carcasses you shall detest.” There is a sense in which one’s emotions must come to agree with God’s.

There are certain kinds of food we would not even begin to think about eating. When I was visiting my folks recently, my Dad had been loaned a book by one of the great western artists, and he had written a number of stories. I don’t know if they are true or not, but one of the stories I read was called, “The Dog Eater.” This poor old man was a trapper, and he was stuck out in the middle of winter in a cabin with no food. He and his dog were together. As the man neared the condition of starvation, he began to have these terrible dreams that he did not want to dream, but they kept coming to him. It was a dream of having dog-tail soup. Finally the day came when the man crept up behind the dog with an ax, lopped off his tail, and boiled it for soup. A few days later the dog came back with his stump of a tail, and the man shared his soup with the dog, who seemed to think it was all right. I read a story like that, and I can’t think of anything more abhorrent than to eat dog-tail soup.

There is a sense in which the Israelite is called to detest what is unclean. It is not enough for the Israelite to say I can eat this, and I can’t eat that. It is more a matter of saying that I can eat this, and those things which I can’t eat, I loath. We cannot rightly relate to the unclean things until we loath them. When Eve looked at the forbidden fruit, it looked good to eat. She looked at that as something desirable not just to look at, but something desirable to eat. God knows that if we look upon something as desirable, sooner or later we are going to eat it. It is only when we look at that as something terribly undesirable that we are not going to eat it.

I am getting close to the point of going on a diet, and when I do, I have to start looking at donuts as not only something I can’t eat, but I have to start looking at them as a friend of mine puts it, as “Fat-pills!” I can’t eat them. I have to start looking at them as the worst thing in the world. And that is what the Israelite was called to do with regard to unclean animals. It was to be abhorrent to them, to be detestable to them, so that they didn’t even have the inclination to want to eat it. That seems to be the sense here in the detestable and abhorrent terminology.

Reasons for Cleanness or Uncleanness

God never tells Israel why something is clean or unclean. He never gives a reason for the definition of clean or unclean. For centuries, men have tried to give reasons for these definitions of clean and unclean, and Wenham’s commentary outlines four, which I think are worthy of mentioning. Why is one kind of food clean and another kind of food unclean?

First, the cultic explanation says that certain kinds of creatures were used in pagan ritual and worship. Because of those animal’s association with paganism, God could not allow them to be brought into the Israelite’s worship of the True God. For example, pig bones were found all over the Near East, and they were involved in pagan sacrificial rituals. Apparently, this was true in Egypt also. But we have to remember that among the pagans, the sacrifice of a bull was prominent too. God had no problem in saying to Israel that they ought to sacrifice a bull. In other words, it just does not seem to play out that the creatures God proclaimed were unclean were all creatures that were involved in pagan worship, and the creatures God said were clean were not.

The second explanation is called the hygienic explanation. This is the one Christians love so much today. The basic theory is found in a number of books, one of which is None of These Diseases. The basic theory is that God prohibited the eating of certain animals because it was unhealthy to eat them in those days. They didn’t have refrigerators or microwaves, or all the things that kill germs. Now that sounds like a reasonable thing, and I would go so far as to say that there may be some creatures that God called unclean that were not healthy to eat. But that distinction doesn’t hold water either, because our Lord declared all of those to be clean. He did that at a time when there were still no refrigerators or ranges, and when all of the dangers that would have been present before would have been present after his definition, “All things now are clean.” Therefore it doesn’t seem that health is the issue concerning cleanness or uncleanness.

The third view that Wenham suggests is the symbolic interpretation. In those things man eats, or does not eat, he is an imitator of God—that is, there are only certain things which God allows to be offered up as burnt offerings to Him. Interestingly, the sacrificial terminology is used, but it is offered up as food to God. Now obviously God does not eat the food, but it is the symbolism employed. So if God is selective about what He eats, that is, what is sacrificed to Him, the Israelites ought to also be choosy about what they eat.

It seems to be partly true, if not universally true, that many of the creatures that are unclean are those creatures which may live on meat and may therefore be blood-shedders. For instance, in the category of those animals which prowl on the face of the earth, the cat family, as an illustration, does not have a split hoof; it has paws. Neither does it have those kinds of teeth that look like cow teeth that are for chewing up grass. They have claws, and they have sharp teeth because they kill other animals; they shed blood in order to eat. It would seem that often, though not always, the animals that are unclean are blood shedders, or they are those that eat off dead prey, as vultures of some sort or another. So there is some similarity there between what Israelites are to eat. They are not to eat of animals that of themselves sacrifice the life or come into contact with other animals. So man only eats creatures which are themselves free from contamination by death, by not shedding blood in a sacrificial way. It is possible that there is a great deal of symbolic information that ought to be seen here.

I lean most heavily toward the fourth answer, and that is the arbitrary definition. Why did God call the pig unclean and a cow clean? God never explains this, and by looking at all the commentaries, we find that nobody has figured it out either. It may be that there isn’t any reason at all other than that God said “clean” or “unclean.” Think about God’s choice of Israel as a nation. Is there some reason why God chose Israel as opposed to the Canaanites? Did he choose the Israelites because they were so spiritually pure? They weren’t! The prophets remind Israel that they served foreign gods when they were in Egypt, and they brought those foreign gods with them when they came out of Egypt. Was it because they were powerful and numerous and looked promising, and God wanted to go with a winning team? No, they were nobody! Why did God choose Israel and not some other nation? It was just God’s sovereign choice. That’s all! There was nothing intrinsically good about them or intrinsically more evil about anybody else. God just made a choice. It seems to me, therefore, that the arbitrary explanation, while it may not fully explain all of it, at least gives meaning and fits when nothing else does. It was just God’s choice. God said He chose Jacob, and He rejected Esau. Why? Because sovereign choices are sovereign choices, and they don’t have reasons. Election is the point we see in the clean and the unclean, as well as in the salvation of Israel.

Cleanness or Uncleanness in the Old Testament

Now let’s look at cleanness and uncleanness in the Old Testament from a broader brush view. If we were to look at the words cleanness or uncleanness, we would discover that clean and unclean are found only in Genesis 7 and 8—with Noah. And it is only found with respect to those animals that were brought onto the ark. Remember there were seven of each species that were clean. At the end of Genesis 8, Noah offered up the clean animals as a sacrifice to God. The distinction between clean and unclean is much older than in Moses’ day; it goes clear back to Noah’s day. Noah didn’t say to God, “Clean? Unclean? What is that?” Noah knew what a clean creature was, and he knew what an unclean creature was, and he brought seven of the clean ones so that he could sacrifice them to God.

Noah already understood that anything that was to be offered to God had to be something that was clean. So the distinction between clean and unclean begins far earlier than the Book of Leviticus. However, it is not until Leviticus 4that the “clean and unclean” terminology reappears after Genesis 7 and 8. Now it is given more substance, and “clean and unclean” are brought to bear on Israel’s worship of God and on Israel’s eating habits. So there is a history of clean and unclean that goes back beyond the Book of Leviticus and beyond the life of Moses.

Cures for uncleanness are spelled out in Leviticus and on through the Old Testament. In particular, what is interesting is that as we move toward the end of the Old Testament period and into that period of the prophets, we discover that the prophets begin to talk about cleanness and uncleanness as something internal rather than something merely external. Before, something unclean was always something “out there,” or it was something “out here,” as something that grew on my skin. It was not something apart. We find in Psalms 19:9 “The fear of the Lord is clean.”

David says in Psalms 51:10: “Create in me a clean heart, O God.” Now cleanness becomes something that is more internal than external. Ultimately, God says that He is going to make the Israelites clean, something that never was possible through the Old Testament legal system and through the Old Testament sacrificial system. He was going to make them clean, but it was going to be through the New Covenant and the coming of Messiah.

Ezekiel 36:24-27 spells this out:

“For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands, and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols; moreover I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh and I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and you will be careful to observe my ordinances.”

Even in Old Testament times, the prophets were pointing forward and saying that ultimately cleanness can only come by the work of God Himself. It can only come when the internal part of man is transformed, when he is cleansed, and when he has a heart of flesh rather than a heart of stone. In other words, cleanness can only come ultimately through the New Covenant and through the coming of Jesus Christ, whose blood cleanses us from all sin. The prophets looked forward to that.

Cleanness or Uncleanness in the New Testament

When we come to the New Testament, we discover immediately that our Lord begins to talk in terms of cleanand unclean, and particularly as the scribes and Pharisees are disputing with Him. In Mark 7, for example, they debate about whether Jesus and His disciples can come in from outside and then begin to eat dinner, and they have not ceremonially (ritually) washed their hands. This is something the Jews added to the interpretation and the meaning of the Old Testament. They had more emphasis on cleanliness that was by their tradition than it was by Scripture. And our Lord says, “Don’t you understand that it is not that which comes from without that defiles a man, but that which comes from within that defiles a man.” Then, Mark says parenthetically, “Thus He declared all things to be clean.” No one really understood the implications of that until after the death of Jesus Christ.

Cleanness and uncleanness in terms of food was what distinguished a Jew and a Gentile. That is, a Jew, in order not to eat of the kinds of food God had prohibited, could not eat in a Gentile home because undoubtedly there was going to be contamination there. That built up a great wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles. That distinction was designed in the Old Testament, but it had to be set aside in the New Testament. The Book of Ephesians says the middle wall of partition has been torn down—the enmity that existed there has been taken away, and the Jews and Gentiles have been brought together in one new body—the church. The distinctions therefore that separate Jews and Gentiles have to be set aside. Thus in Acts 10, God said in a vision to Peter (a Jewish Jew) that He wanted him to eat of these things which Peter recognized as being unclean by Old Testament definition. And Peter said “Oh, no! No ham sandwich for me!” But God said to him three times, “What I have called clean, don’t you call unclean.” He takes the arbitrarydefinition of clean and unclean. Something is clean or unclean because God declares it to be just that. That means if God re-declares that something which was unclean is now clean, it is clean. And Peter had difficulty understanding that.

When he finally got the message, he went to the house of Cornelius, and he ate his ham or bacon and tomato sandwich, and he shares the gospel with him. And they are saved! Then the whole church, which is predominately Jewish at the time, has to go through the same struggle. And Peter has to remind them that God no longer has distinguished between Jews and Gentiles. We saw what happened in Act 2—the Spirit came down on the Jews. Now when the gospel was preached to this Gentile group, the Spirit came upon them in exactly the same way. God doesn’t distinguish Jewish Christians from Gentile Christians. They are one body!

And the church says, “Oh, Oh! So God doesn’t distinguish anymore!” And then the next verse says they went out and preached only to Jews! (Acts 11) It wasn’t until after a few brave souls went out and began to share the gospel with Gentile unbelievers and they got saved that we begin to have a church that was mixed with Jewish and Gentile believers. The distinctions were set aside. Therefore, it was wrong to maintain the distinction of food laws. And here Paul had to jump all over Peter in Galatians 2 because Peter was now sitting only with a Jewish group, and he was implying to the Gentile group that if they wanted to become a part of this Jewish group they had to act Jewish. Paul jumps all over them and says it is not just wrong, but it is a denial and a contradiction of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is because the gospel of Jesus Christ not only removes the barrier between men and God, it removes all barriers between Jews and Gentiles. The distinctions don’t count! Therefore those distinctions cannot be maintained.

In the New Testament, we find chapters like Colossians 2 which says these practices which have to do with external things have no value in overcoming the struggle with the flesh. That is an internal issue that is worked out in part—not an external issue handled by these kinds of prohibitions. It forced them to distinguish themselves from other nations, for those kinds of food stipulations meant that an Israelite could not have real intimate interaction with a Gentile because intimacy most often came around a dinner table. So if you didn’t eat with Gentiles, you didn’t have the intimacy of communion that you would have had otherwise. Remember that it is when they started eating and drinking and making merry that the Israelites started mingling with the Canaanites. So God’s distinctions with regard to food helped to maintain the distinction of Israel as a nation apart from Gentiles as a nation in the Old Testament. It distinguished them as a people. It identified them with God as His people. It reminded them of the principal of election that God is the One who defines what is clean and unclean. It forced the Israelite to be meticulous about everything they did because they realized how easy it was to become contaminated under the laws of cleanness and uncleanness.

What does it say to a New Testament saint? When we are looking at the change of God’s law with regard to a kind of food, it is often a signal that we are dealing with a change of dispensation. There are distinctions with the way God has dealt with men. What happens in Genesis 1 when God creates all those creatures, and He makes man in His own image (Gen. 1:29-30)?

Then God said, “Behold I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food; …”

When God started creation, everybody was a vegetarian, including the animals! And in Genesis 3, what was the test? The test was food—whether you ate or didn’t eat of the particular food that was on the Tree of Good and Evil!

After the sacrifices are made by Noah of the clean animals (Genesis 8), then God blessed Noah, and in Genesis 9:3, He says, “Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you. I give all to you as I gave the green plant, only you shall not eat flesh with its life” (that is its blood). So there is a change in dispensation, because God is now giving not only just the green things to eat, but He has given meat to eat. One stipulation was that meat had to be killed in such a way that the blood was drained from it. Then in the Mosaic Law in Exodus and Leviticus, we see restrictions that bear upon the way in which Israel eats.

In the New Testament, what is the basic issue among the strong unbelieving Jewish element? He eats with unwashed hands; he eats with Gentiles. He doesn’t maintain the distinctions between clean and unclean. What does the New Testament say? Those things don’t matter anymore!! Romans 14 says, “All things are clean.” That is because there is a new age, a new dispensation. It signals that God has done something new. Whenever God prescribes something new to eat, He is doing it in relationship to a covenant; He is doing it in relation to a change that bears upon His relationship with men.

Food is often the test today! Whether a certain kind of food was eaten or not eaten was a critical issue in the New Testament—not only in the issue between Jews and Gentiles—but it was also the issue that had to do with Gentile Christians who were going to eat at the home of a pagan neighbor. In the Old Testament, ignorance was never bliss because the sacrifices for the sin and guilt offerings were for sins you didn’t know you committed at the time. You may have sat down at your neighbor’s table and had what you thought was beef stew, but later discovered it was pig stew. Then you were a sinner, and you had to take care of it. But Paul says, if you go to your neighbor’s house, don’t ask them what they are serving. If they don’t tell you what they are serving, don’t ask; eat it! It doesn’t matter! Ignorance is bliss! If they tell you this has been sacrificed to an idol, then you can’t eat it because your neighbor obviously thinks that is important, though it wouldn’t have mattered to you.

When we get to the New Testament and the issue of whether or not a Christian ought to eat this meat or not eat the meat, it is not a matter of black or white. It is not a matter of yes or no, and no in between. It is a matter of personal conviction. The Christian there may eat it freely, knowing that God has given him all things to eat. There are others however who have different scruples. If they cannot eat in good conscience, they should not eat. If I can eat in good conscience, but I cause a weaker brother to go ahead and eat and defile his conscience, then it is sin. The Old Testament did not leave room for convictions. The New Testament does! It is the work of God that is written in our hearts, and it is the work of the Spirit inside that guides us as we make those kinds of decisions.

Conclusion

There are two primary motivations that we ought to evidence which the Old Testament saints also evidenced: (1)loving God and (2) loving man. If God’s distinctions between clean and unclean are arbitrary, then there are no good reasons for obeying Him other than that He is God. We have a choice to make. The decision is based not on whether something makes sense, but on who God is. It is as though a young man is dating a beautiful young lady, and he finds out that she hates liver and onions. Now, not only will that young man not order liver and onions for his date, but he won’t order it for himself. Why? Because it is detestable to her. If Israel is to have that same sense of abhorrence toward unclean things, they must begin to feel about things the way God feels about them. It is ultimately Israel’s love for God that is at issue. If God thinks something is unclean, if He abhors it, then I abhor it! I don’t care if there is no reason for it! I don’t care if it isn’t healthy to do it. I only care that God says that is what He hates, and this is what He loves, and I’m going to do what He loves and avoid what He hates.

Loving God! That is the motive for doing something—whether God’s commands are arbitrary or not. Whether we can find out a reason for them or not, if God hates it, I hate it; if God loves it, I love it! Loving God is the key! As I look at my believing neighbor, and I know that he is weak, I know that I can eat that meat but that it may cause him to stumble. My love for my neighbor overcomes my love for food. My love for my neighbor says to me, “Don’t eat it.” So what we do and what we don’t do is basically rooted in loving God and loving man. The Old Testament commandment is applicable in New Testament times.

Few things today are just as clear and simple as clean and unclean. Some days I wish it was that easy, don’t you? Don’t you wish that every choice and every decision you and I had to make we could just say, it’s clean or it’s unclean? It’s yes, or it’s no. It’s evil, or it’s good. I sometimes wish that life were that simple, but most often it isn’t. But there is one issue in which it is just that categorical, and that is when it comes to our relationship with God.

When it comes to our relationship with God, when it comes to the issue of where we will spend eternity, it is a clear-cut, clearly defined issue. All of those who are in Christ are saved, and their sins are forgiven. It is a category. All of those who are trusting in anything else, including their good works, are not in Christ. In that sense, our salvation is a very clear-cut yes or no, in or out matter. All of those who trust the shed blood of Jesus Christ, shed on their behalf, are in. All of those who trust in anything else are out! A clean issue! We are either in Christ, or we are not.

---

⁶¹ Normally, these messages are manuscripts, and not merely a transcription of the message which was preached. In this case, the manuscript was not completed, so what you will find here is an edited transcript of the sermon, as it was preached. It will therefore not have the footnoting, but perhaps something is better than nothing at all. Bob Deffinbaugh.

⁶² G. J. Wenham, The International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979). For references to Wenham’s commentary in this lesson, see “Unclean Animals,” pp. 161-184.

-------------------

-------------------

Offending God: The Clean and the Unclean—Part II (Leviticus 12-15)

Study By: Bob Deffinbaugh

From the Series: Leviticus: Sacrifice and Sanctification

Introduction

The closest I have come to the Old Testament condition of “uncleanness” was the way I felt I was treated in the hospital during the birth of several of our children. I know that times have changed, and that fathers of newborn children are now invited into the delivery room and accepted as a key player in the team effort of child-bearing. During the birth of our first child, however, this was not the case. I remember the way that the nurses and doctors worked at keeping me out of the way. They really didn’t want me around, and they surely paid little attention to my efforts to get my wife some relief from her pain. (I must confess that after the first three or four of our children were born, I began to reflect some of the same casualness toward what was taking place.) After the baby was born, you could only get in to see your wife at rare occasions. It was as though I would contaminate the whole place. And you could only see your baby from behind a window, held by a nurse. I felt privileged to even get to hold the baby until after we got home.

If this is the closest I have ever come to the feeling of uncleanness, think of what it must have meant to a person who had a serious skin problem to be publicly declared unclean, to be banned from worship, and even banned from the camp, living outside the camp in an unclean place, removed from fellowship with God, family and friends. Even more frustrating for me is the dilemma of the woman, who, as a result of bearing a boy baby, was unclean for seven days, and then kept apart from worship for another 40 days. How could a woman be declared unclean for having a baby? Worse yet, if an Israelite woman had a girl baby, the consequences (or should I say, the penalty) was doubled, so that she was unclean for 14 days, and then separated for yet another 80 days. Imagine that, for every girl child a mother bore she was kept apart for over three months!

Review

In our study of the Book of Leviticus, last week we came to the third major section of the book. In chapters 1-7 we learned about the sacrificial offerings and how they were to be presented. In chapters 8-10 we studied the origination and ordination of the Aaronic priesthood. Now, in chapters 11-15 we are learning about the distinction which God has defined between those things which are clean and those which are unclean. Last week we studied clean and unclean animals in chapter 11. This week we are considering the remaining chapters, chapters 12-15, which deal with other types of uncleanness. Chapters 12 and 15 deal with the uncleanness related to sexual reproduction, and the process of purification. Chapters 13 and 14 define unclean “skin”⁶³ ailments, and the process of purification.

The Problem of the Passage

As I have considered these four chapters in the Book of Leviticus, I have come to the realization that the dilemma of the woman who has borne a child is not the only perplexing problem in the text. In virtually every case of uncleanness which is defined by God in these chapters the one who is declared unclean is not responsible for his or her condition. A wife could hardly be held responsible for bearing a child to her husband. A woman could hardly be guilty for having a normal monthly period. A man with a serious skin ailment can hardly be said to be guilty for his condition. A husband and wife cannot be guilty for having normal physical relations. And yet, in each of these cases God has declared that the person in these circumstances is unclean. That person is barred from participation in worship, in offering sacrifices, in having any access to the tabernacle, where God dwelled. In addition, the unclean person was removed from fellowship and communion with the congregation of Israel, and was required to live “outside the camp.”

The problem of uncleanness without personal responsibility has been recognized by Bible students,⁶⁴ but their explanations often leave much to be desired and fail to come to a consensus. The more I have considered this dilemma, the more convinced I have become that the answer to this quandary is the key to our understanding of the distinction of clean and unclean in the Old Testament. The explanation also aids us greatly in appreciating the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old. Let us listen well to these words from the Book of Leviticus.

As I approach these chapters I am going to deal with them in a more general way, focusing on broad generalizations and on the particular problem which I have raised. I will deal with chapters 13 and 14 first, which deal with the matter of unclean “skin” conditions. Then we will consider chapters 12 and 15 together, since both chapters pertain to uncleanness related to the processes related to sexual reproduction. In conclusion we will attempt to find the solution to the puzzle of uncleanness for which there is no direct responsibility.

Uncleanness Resulting From Skin Disorders 
(Leviticus 13 & 14)

Chapters 13 and 14 declare serious skin ailments to render the individual unclean, and pronounce the process by which such ailments are identified, as well as how the recovered Israelite may be pronounced clean. The term “leprosy,” employed by most translations, is unfortunate, as it is very likely that the disease we know as leprosy is not mentioned in our text as one of the unclean skin ailments.⁶⁵ The NIV better renders the original term, employed for all of these unclean skin disorders, “infectious skin disease.” This is undoubtedly a better, and more accurate rendering of the text. It is not possible, nor is it necessary, for us to identify with precision the ailments which are described as unclean by the text.

Characteristics of the Unclean Skin Disorders

According to Wenham,⁶⁶ there are 21 different cases of skin disease in chapter 13, along with 3 different cases of diseased garments. We will not attempt to deal with each of these, but we should note some of the common characteristics of these maladies:

(1) They are all visible, external (not any internal diseases). The term “skin” is used broadly here, referring not only to the skin ailments of people, but also the outer coverings of material, leather, and buildings.

(2) By and large, the ailments were not fatal, not as serious as we might have expected.

(3) These ailments affected only a part of the body, not all of it.

(4) The skin diseases are all chronic (persistent, serious), contagious, and/or contaminating.

(5) Only the priest could declare a skin condition to be clean or unclean, which sometimes required him to go “outside the camp” (cf. Lev. 14:3).

(6) The primary concern is not curing the individual, nor protecting the public health, but of protecting the sanctity of the dwelling of God in the midst of the camp: “ … so that they will not defile their camp where I dwell in their midst” (Num. 5:3; cf. Lev. 15:31-33).

“Since the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy; and He must not see anything indecent among you lest He turn away from you” (Deut. 23:14).

The Consequences of Being Declared Unclean

Things which were declared unclean in chapters 11-15 either had to be purified or destroyed: (a) Washed with water (cf. Lev. 11:32; 15:6). (b) Burned with fire (cf. Lev. 13:52, 55, 57). (c) Broken (cf. Lev. 11:33, 35). (d) Torn down and demolished (cf. Lev. 14:40-41, 45).

People who were declared unclean by the priests suffered the humiliation of being declared (and, in some cases of having to declare oneself) unclean, and then the resulting isolation from the presence of God and from association with the people of God. That which was unclean was put outside the camp, away from the presence of God and His people. “… she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary” (Lev. 12:4). “… the priest shall isolate (lit. shut up) him” (Lev. 13:4, cf. vv. 11, 21, 26). “… send away from the camp …” (Num. 5:2). “The one to be cleansed shall then wash his clothes and shave off all his hair, and bathe in water and be clean. Now afterward, he may enter the camp, but he shall stay outside the tent for seven days” (Lev. 14:8). In some cases the unclean thing or person was viewed as being a contaminator of others (cf. Lev. 15:4-12, 23-24, 26-27).

The Cleansing Process

Once the individual recovered from his or her unclean malady, there was carefully prescribed ritual of cleansing and, at times, a sacrificial ritual, which was required before the person could approach the dwelling of God, the tabernacle. These rituals include: (a) “Wash and wait” (e.g. Lev. 15:7-11, 17, 18, 22). (b) Atonement for cleansing (cf.Lev. 14:20, 31; 15:14-15). (c) The cleansing ritual, with the string, the cedar, and the birds (e.g. cleansing of house, Lev. 14:49-53). Ultimately, for the Israelite, there was the annual day of atonement (cf. 16:16, 30), which will be the topic of our next lesson.

It is relatively easy to see why the kinds of exterior maladies described in chapters 13 and 14 were offensive to God. The things which are unclean in chapters 12 and 15 are a bit more perplexing. I have chosen to call these, “Dishonorable Discharges.”

Uncleanness Resulting From “Dishonorable Discharges” 
(Leviticus 12 & 15)

Chapter 12 describes the uncleanness which a woman acquires as the result of the birth of a child. The uncleanness is the result of the “flow of blood” following the birth of a child. The blood, while it is unclean to her and others, is the instrument of her cleansing. In the text (Lev. 12:4-5) it is called “the blood of her purification.” It is impure, I suspect, partly because it removes the impurities of the child-bearing process from her body, thus making the blood unclean and defiling. The explanation for why having a girl child results in a doubled period of uncleanness is difficult, and most efforts to solve this puzzle prove unsatisfactory.

Chapter 15 declares certain discharges as unclean. Two of the ailments pertain to men; the other two to women. Both the men and the women have what might be called normal discharges (men, 15:16-18; women, vv. 19-24), and abnormal (men, vv. 2-15; women, vv. 25-30). I think that it is safe to conclude that these chapters generally are referring to those discharges which are relative to sex and the sexual organs. While some have viewed the ailment of Leviticus 15:1-12 as that of hemorrhoids, this seems unlikely, as the context is that of sexually related discharges.⁶⁷

In chapter 12 the woman who is unclean due to bearing a child must offer sacrifices, including a sin offering. The inference is clearly made that there is some kind of sin to be atoned for. In chapter 15 the unusual discharges of men and women also require a sin offering, among other things. Why is there the suggestion that sin is related to reproduction?

This is not a new concept to the Israelite. In Genesis 3 Adam and Eve were said to be ashamed, due to nakedness (3:7), even when they made coverings for themselves, they were still ashamed and hid from God (3:10).

In Exodus 19, God gave these instructions to the people through Moses: “So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and consecrated the people, and they washed their garments. And he said to the people, ‘Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman’” (Exod. 19:14-15, emphasis mine).

In Exodus 20, God told Moses to tell these words to the people: “‘And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it’” (Exod. 20:26).

Again, when Moses was given instructions on Mt. Sinai concerning the garments worn by Aaron, God said,

“And you shall make for them linen breeches to cover their bare flesh; they shall reach from the loins even to the thighs. And they shall be on Aaron and on his sons when they enter the tent of meeting, or when they approach the altar to minister in the holy place, so that they do not incur guilt and die. It shall be a statute forever to him and to his descendants after him” (Exod. 28:42-43).

Thus, when we read in Leviticus chapters 12 and 15 that discharges related to sex and reproduction cause a man and/or his wife to be unclean, this should not take us totally by surprise.

The regulations of Leviticus concerning sex-related uncleanness served one very important purpose—it clearly separated sex from religious worship. If one had sexual relations with his wife this rendered both unclean until evening. This meant that the Israelites could not have sexual relations during the Sabbath, since this would cause both to be unclean, thus prohibiting their participation in worship. The effect was to encourage the Israelites to keep their minds devoted to worship. Ideally, both sexual intimacy and spiritual intimacy require the undistracted involvement of body, soul, and spirit. This means that either activity should be engaged in apart from the competition of the other. One can see a similar theme in Paul’s practical instructions to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7).

The separation of sexual activity and worship was particularly important to the Israelites because of the pagan worship rituals of the Canaanites, whose fertility cult engaged in carnal sexual union as an act of worship (cf. Num. 25:1-9), a practice into which the Israelites had already once fallen (cf. Exod. 32:6). If the clean/unclean legislation did no more than to create a wide gap between sex and worship it did the Israelites a great favor. It distinguished their worship from that of their pagan neighbors.

The question remains, “But why was the Israelite woman punished two-fold for bearing a girl child?” I have only one explanation, which is similar in nature to the reason for separating sex from worship. The reason is not to be found as much in the cause of the uncleanness as it is in the result this uncleanness will have in the life of the Israelite woman. In my opinion, the two-fold period of uncleanness will cause the Israelite mother of a girl child to ponder the reasons for her plight. Why is a woman singled out for uncleanness in the birth of the child, and especially so when the child is a female, like her? In other words, what is that about womanhood that merits this “curse”?

Ah, but doesn’t this word “curse” supply us with the key? This long period of isolation should have given the Israelite mothers a fair period of time to ponder why women should be cursed as they were. I believe that Genesis chapter 3 supplies her with a good part of the reason. This chapter could have provided her with ample food for thought, and taught her not only the way in which a woman participated (even led) in the fall of man, but also the ways (especially involving childbirth) in which she has been cursed, due to the fall.

The Heart of the Matter

Let us return to the great and pressing problem which confronts us in all of these chapters on the clean and the unclean: Why is a person declared unclean and caused to suffer for something for which he or she is not responsible? Further, why, in some cases of uncleanness, was a sin offering required when no specific sin was committed by the one making the offering?

I would begin by suggesting that these questions are precisely those which God intended the Israelite to ask, and to meditate upon, as they suffered the consequences of their “undeserved” uncleanness. The demands of the Law of Moses, summarized by the Ten Commandments, demanded or forbade specific actions. The violation of any of these commandments would have been evident, and no one could question the consequences which befell the Israelite for disobedience. But why would God bring the curse of uncleanness upon an Israelite for suffering from a condition for which he or she was not responsible? Can an Israelite woman be blamed for bearing a child, or for having a monthly period? Is this a matter which falls under her control? I believe the answer is an evident “No!” How, then, can some conditions result in suffering for an Israelite, and even require a sin offering, as though a wrong was committed?

The answer to the question, “Why must the Israelite suffer when no wrong has been committed by the individual,” is answered by this principle: The fall of man, as recorded in Genesis 3, has brought chaos and suffering to all creation, including mankind. The fall has rendered man inherently sinful from birth. Thus, man sins because he is a sinner. So, too, he will suffer in life because he lives in a fallen world where the consequences of sin cause chaos and suffering.

This principle occurred to me as I was thinking about the words of David in Psalm 51. Note the terms which are similar to those we have seen in Leviticus pertaining to uncleanness:

Be gracious to me, O God, according to Thy lovingkindness; According to the greatness of Thy compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, And cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me. … Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow (Ps. 51:1-3, 7).

David loved the law of God and meditated upon it constantly. Whether or not he authored Psalm 119, this is apparent in the psalms which he did write (e.g. Psalm 19). We know that the background to Psalm 51 is the sin of David with Bathsheba, and the murder of Uriah, her husband. As David speaks of his sin, however, he sees his specific sins as evidence of his more general sinful state. Elsewhere in this Psalm David makes the statement, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity. And in sin my mother conceived me” (v. 5). David acknowledged his specific sin, but he went even farther by confessing his innate, inherited sinfulness, which was the result of the fall. David understood that he was “unclean” even from birth. His specific act of sin with Bathsheba was the outgrowth of his innate sinful condition, the condition in which he was found at birth. If his own acts of sin did not render him a sinner at birth, whose sin did? The answer is, the sin of Adam.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam’s offense, who is a type of Him who was to come” (Rom. 5:12-14).

In this passage, Paul teaches us that Adam’s sin has constituted that all of his offspring (all of mankind) are born sinners. We inherit this sin nature and are thus born sinners, just as David indicates in this psalm. Later on in Romans, Paul informs us that the entire creation has been adversely affected by the fall, and that the creatures, like mankind, suffer and groan in this fallen condition, and will continue to do so until the Kingdom of God is established, with a new heaven and a new earth:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body (Rom. 8:18-23).

The laws of uncleanness were instructive tools, by means of which God taught the Israelites those truths fundamental to their religious faith. One of those truths was what we now call the “doctrine of the depravity of man.” Man is born a sinner, by virtue of being a child of Adam. When the Israelite asked himself (or herself), “Why should I be unclean for a condition I did not cause?,” the answer, contained in the first chapters of Genesis was, “Because of the sinful condition you inherited from your forefather, Adam.”

As you stop to think about it, most of the conditions which caused the state of uncleanness were those which resulted from the fall. All sickness and death is the result of the fall. Child-bearing is at least related to the curse. Sex was distorted and diminished by the fall, to the point where Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness and fled from God. This first view that sex was “dirty” and unacceptable to God originated with man, as a result of the fall, not God. Thus, we can say that uncleanness was a condition resulting from the fall, from sin, and thus uncleanness also required a sin offering. As the Israelite offered up the sin offering due to uncleanness, he or she also acknowledged their sinful condition inherited from Adam.

And so there were two different categories of sin for the Israelite. The first was that sinfulness in which the Israelite was born, that sinfulness to which David confessed. This sin was highlighted by the laws of cleanness and uncleanness. The second was that sin which was the result of the individual violating the specific commands of God.

In Psalm 51 David saw his uncleanness as much more serious than just some external offense, some physical malady which God declares to be offensive. David confesses his specific sin as a result of his sinful state, inherited from Adam. The following verses of this Psalm indicate that David understood that the act of offering sacrifices would not make him clean, but that only God could forgive when he repented in sincerity:

For Thou dost not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; Thou art not pleased with burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise. … Then Thou wilt delight in righteous sacrifices, In burnt offering and whole burnt offering; Then young bulls will be offered on Thine altar (vv. 16-17, 19).

This same theme was resounded by the Old Testament prophets. When given a vision of the holiness of God, Isaiah proclaimed, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts” (Isa. 6:5). Later on, Isaiah spoke of man’s best efforts as “filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6). As I understand it, these filthy rags would be the rags which are associated with the woman’s monthly flow of blood.

It is at this point that the Israelite of Moses’ day came to a very sobering realization. While the Law could pronounce a person unclean, it made no provision to make him clean. The priest could declare an unclean person unclean, and he could pronounce a clean person clean, but there was no means to cure the condition which produced the uncleanness. It was only with the coming of Christ, who inaugurated the New Covenant, that the condition of uncleanness, and the curse of Adam, would be remedied.

Jesus, the One Who Makes Men Clean

The scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day did not have this grasp of what really constituted uncleanness. They saw it merely as a matter of external things. Thus, they were greatly offended at the actions of our Lord, and considered Him to be unclean, and a law-breaker. Their opposition to Him was frequently sounding the note: “unclean.” They could not understand why He spent His time with the unclean, the publicans, the harlots, the sick, even the lepers. Their error was to fail to see Him as the One who had come to do what the Law was unable to do—to make men clean.

The Old Testament Law required that the unclean could never come into the presence of the Holy God, and yet the Holy One, the Messiah, Jesus Christ took upon Himself human flesh, and He dwelt in the midst of men. In His ministry he avoided the self-righteous, who thought themselves clean, and He sought out those who were regarded unclean. The barrier that the Old Testament Law and its sacrificial system could not break down, the New Covenant in the person of Jesus Christ did. The cleansing which the Law could not perform, but could only pronounce, was done, once and for all by the atoning death of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. Repeatedly, the New Testament writers speak of the cleansing which the Christian has received:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:5-6; cf. Eph. 5:25, 26; Heb. 10:22).

The consequences of sin have not yet been fully set aside. It is only in the Kingdom of God that they will be. Heaven will be that perfect place, where all of the things that are the result of the fall of man are removed. In the Book of Revelation, we are told of a number of other things which will not be there, which we have known on earth: (a) No sun or moon (21:23; cf. 22:5). (b) No sickness, sorrow, or death (21:4). (c) No curse (22:3).

But take special note of these words:

and in the daytime (for there shall be no night there) its gates shall never be closed; and they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; and nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev. 21:25-27, emphasis mine).

The death of Christ provides the solution for both of the sin problems of the Old and New Testament saint. As the second Adam, Jesus Christ reversed the effect of Adam’s sin, thus removing the guilt and sinful state inherited from Adam (cf. Rom. 5:12-21). By faith in Christ’s death, men are declared clean, and thus look forward to dwelling in God’s presence forever—heaven. While the full and final remedy is yet future, it is certain, accomplished through the atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary.

I understand that no one will go to Hell because Adam sinned. The only reason why God condemns any person to hell is because of his own acts of disobedience, his own sin. And since Christ died to remove the guilt of all sin (that of Adam, as well as that of every individual), the only reason why any person must suffer the torment of hell is because they have not accepted Christ as their Savior, their sin-bearer.

I want you to think through the Gospel accounts with me for a moment. It was the self-righteous scribes and Pharisees, who thought that they were clean, who rejected the Lord Jesus as unclean, and who considered Him worthy of death, hung upon a cross, “outside the camp,” as it were, at Calvary.

On the other hand, it was those who knew that they were unclean who came to Jesus to be cleansed. When Jesus touched the lepers and made them clean, they understood that touching the unclean could not defile the Holy God, in whom was healing and cleansing. Thus, the woman with the hemorrhage did not hesitate to touch the Master, believing the He could make her clean, and yet not be defiled by her touch. Jesus could drink water from the woman at the well and not be defiled, for He was the Holy One of Israel.

The wicked flee from the presence of God, for they cannot approach His holiness. And yet the repentant sinner can come to Him for cleansing. I was deeply stirred as I read again the account of Peter and our Lord in Luke chapter 5. When Peter saw the fishing nets overflowing with fish at the mere spoken word of the master Luke tells us, “But when Simon Peter saw that, he fell down at Jesus feet, saying, ‘Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!’” (Luke 5:8). Do you see the paradox here? Peter fell at the feet of our Lord, but at the same time, sensing His holiness, invited Him to depart. Obviously Peter did not wish to depart, for he fell at His feet. And He did not depart, until after He had finished His work on the cross, by which all men can be clean if they but believe.

May I ask you this morning, my friend, are you clean or unclean? We all are unclean. Isaiah, the prophet of old described our best efforts at self-made cleanness as the filthy rags associated with a woman’s monthly uncleanness: “For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment” (Isa. 64:6a). For those whose sins have caused them to feel impure, unclean, I can say with the assurance of God’s word, “You can be clean. Trust in Him, who alone has died to make you clean.”

For those who have already found cleansing in the blood of Jesus Christ, there are two very important lessons to be learned which are an application of our text. The first lesson is that Christians should expect undeserved suffering in this life, as the result of living in a fallen world. Just as the clean and unclean laws of Leviticus brought undeserved suffering to the Israelites, so Christians today should expect suffering to come into their lives, even when they have committed no specific sin. Romans chapter 8 teaches us that we live in a fallen world, a world in which the saint, along with all creation, suffers and groans, waiting for the new heavens and new earth which are still to come:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat? But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells (2 Pet. 3:10-13).

Second, my Christian friend, I must give this word of exhortation. Even as our Lord went “outside the camp,” seeking to save the unclean, so you and I are called to do likewise. As the writer to the Hebrews has put it, “Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. Hence, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach” (Heb. 13:12-13). Outside the camp is the place where the unclean dwell. I know of many ministries whose goal is to reach the lost, but I must say with sadness that many, perhaps most, of these ministries are targeting the “clean” as those they seek to reach, rather than the “unclean.” All men need to hear the gospel and be saved, but our task of evangelism demands that we take the gospel “outside the camp” to proclaim the cleansing which Christ can give to those who so desperately need it, and who more often than the self-righteous and self-sufficient are willing to receive it.

---

⁶³ When I use the term “skin” here I use it in a most general way, since included in this category is the “skin” of clothing, of leather goods, and of the wall of a house. In each case the exterior, visible portion of a person, place, or thing is in view. The Hebrew text uses the same term for the “skin” of a person and these other things, and thus we can legitimately reflect the original text in our terminology without reservation. Cf. also, Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. 201.

⁶⁴ Cf. Wenham, pp. 187-188.

⁶⁵ Wenham lists these reasons for concluding that leprosy (Hansen’s disease) is not found in these chapters of Leviticus: (a) Archaeological evidence suggests that leprosy was not a serious problem until later on in history. (b) Neither the symptoms of leprosy nor its pathognomonic features are described in our text. (c) The Greek term lepra did not refer to true leprosy, either. Ibid., p. 195. Wenham goes on (pp. 196-197) to suggest some of the skin conditions which may be referred to in the text.

⁶⁶ Ibid., p. 193.

⁶⁷ Wenham mentions two reasons why this ailment, like the others in chapter 15, is related to the sex organ of the individual, rather than hemorrhoids: (a) There is no mention of loss of blood, which would be likely in the case of hemorrhoids. (b) The same term (“flesh”) is employed in verse 19 with reference to the woman’s vagina. Wenham, p. 19.

Friends, sometime when we read the Scriptures, certain familiar words jump out at us, and we associate the meaning of these words by what we know about them from experience elsewhere. We do this with the word "leprosy" in the Bible. In most cases it does not refer to the modern day concept of leprosy, which is more accurately called Hansen's Disease. Here is a detailed explanation of what the Bible refers to as leprosy, particularly from the passages that we are currently reading in Leviticus:

---

The term ẓaraʿat is traditionally rendered "leprosy" because of its translation by Greek lepra (LXX, New Testament, and Josephus). The Greek covers a wide range of diseases that produced scales. Greek lepra may have included true leprosy, i.e., Hansen's disease, but is definitely not limited to it. In fact, biblical descriptions of ẓaraʿat do not include the necrosis associated with Hansen's disease. Thus far no skeletons of the biblical period show any signs of Hansen's disease. The term ẓaraʿat is a generic name, embracing a variety of skin ailments, including many non-contagious types. Thus, the illness of Miriam was transient (Num. 12:10–15) and that of Naaman did not prevent him from mixing freely in society (II Kings 5). Probably only those actually banished from their fellowmen were lifelong sufferers, e.g., the four "lepers" forced to live outside Samaria (II Kings 7:3–10) and King Uzziah, who was permanently quarantined in separate quarters (II Chron. 26:19–21). Medical texts of the ancient Near East attribute disease either to black magic or the sufferer's sin (R.C. Thompson, Assyrian Medical Texts (1923); A.L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia (1977, 288–305). In the Bible, whenever a reason is given for an attack of ẓaraʿat, it is in connection with a challenge to a duly constituted authority (Zakovitch). Miriam challenged the prophetic supremacy of Moses; Gehazi disobeyed the will of his master Elisha (II Kings 5:20–27); and Uzziah challenged the exclusive prerogative of the priests to offer incense. In the case of sin and black magic, rituals are prescribed that bear a striking resemblance to those in the Bible (see below), with one critical difference. In contrast to the Mesopotamian situation, in which priests may be healers, the Bible always attributes the healing of individuals to the intervention of prophets (e.g., Gen. 20:7; II Kings 5). The priest himself only rules on the purity or impurity of the sufferer (Kaufmann).

The Laws of Leviticus 13–14

Leviticus 13–14 is composed of the following sections: the diagnosis of the afflictions of the skin (13:2–28, 38–39, summarized below), of the hair (13:29–37), and of the scalp (13:40–44); the ostracism of the incurable (13:45–46; cf. Lam. 4:15); the diagnosis of the deterioration of garments, due probably to mildew or fungus (13:47–59); the ritual for the rehabilitation of the healed "leper" (14:1–32); the diagnosis of the "leprosy" of houses, probably caused by the spread of dry rot, mineral precipitates, or the growth of lichens and fungi (14:33–53); and the summary (14:54–57). The structure is logical, with houses being put at the end (cf. 14:34), a reflection of the reality of the period in which the texts were written. Though not all the technical terms are understood (see the commentaries), the symptoms given are capable of precise medical definition. The affliction can occur spontaneously (13:2–17), follow a furuncle (13:18–23) or a burn on the skin (13:24–28), or develop on the head or beard (13:29–45). The first symptoms are those of a swelling, or subcutaneous nodule, a cuticular crust (sappaḥat), and whitish-red spot (baheret). "The crux of the matter lay in the degree of cutaneous penetration which the disease had achieved. If it affected the epidermis or outermost layer of skin and did not produce pathological changes in the hairs, the affliction was not regarded as especially serious. As such it might consist of eczema, leukoderma, psoriasis, or some allied cutaneous disease. But if the affliction had infiltrated the dermis (corium) and had caused hairs to split or break off and lose their color, then "leprosy" was to be suspected" (R.K. Harrison). This diagnostic principle also applied to disease affecting the scalp (13:29–37) where the affliction was spoken of as netek (neteq) (JPS "scall").

The Role of the Priest

The Israelite priest, while usually not involved in individual healing according to the Bible, is involved in epidemics where he intercedes through sacrifices, Num. 17:11ff.; II Sam. 24:25 – David officiating as priest. Deut. 24:8–9, which deals with contagious skin diseases enumerated here is a possible exception; and contrast the laws pertaining to gonorrhea, Lev. 15.

The priest was called in to inspect the affliction. If "leprosy" was only suspected but not certain, the priest imposed a seven-day quarantine. At the end of this period the afflicted was examined again, and if no further degeneration was apparent he was isolated for another week, after which he could be pronounced healed. The priest, however, did nothing to promote the cure. His rituals were performed only after the disease had passed. It was the responsibility of the afflicted himself to pray (I Kings 8:37–38; II Kings 20:2–3) and fast (II Sam. 12:16) in order to win God's healing. Deuteronomy 24:8–9 charges the people to follow the authority of the priests in all matters dealing with "leprosy," citing as precedent the case of Miriam (see Num. 12:11–16), who challenged the authority of Moses (alternatively, the late writer of Numbers 12 (see Sperling) was inspired by the juxtaposition of priestly authority in matters of "leprosy" with the mention of the unnamed punishment laid on Miriam by God in Deuteronomy 24:9). It is noteworthy that in Miriam's case healing did not come through Aaron the priest, who was a party to the offense, but through the prophet Moses and his prayer. In the Bible, healing comes from God directly (Ex. 15:26) or through the prophet (e.g., Moses, Ex. 15:25; Elisha, IIKings 2:21; Isaiah, II Kings 20:7–8).

The Ritual

The prescribed ritual for the healed "leper" is of interest. Three separate ceremonies are required: for the first day (Lev. 14:2–8; also invoked for houses, 14:48–53), the seventh (14:9), and the eighth (14:10–32). The first-day ritual is performed by the priest outside the camp or city from which the "leper" has been banished. Cedar wood, crimson cloth, and a live bird are dipped into an earthen vessel containing a mixture of fresh water and the blood of a second bird. The "leper" (or "leprous" house) is sprinkled with this mixture seven times, after which the live bird is set free. The "leper" is admitted into the camp or city after he washes his clothes, shaves all his hair, and bathes, but he is not allowed to enter his residence. That is permitted him on the seventh day after shaving, laundering, and bathing again. On the eighth day he brings to the sanctuary oil and sheep for various offerings – whole, meal, purification, and reparation. The whole and purification animals may be commuted to birds if the "leper" is poor. However, the reparation lamb and log of oil may not be changed, because the blood of the lamb and the oil are needed to daub the "leper's" right ear lobe, right thumb, and right big toe.

This complex ceremonial is elucidated by comparison with similar prescriptions in the ancient world. There is much evidence of the banishment of evil by carriers (J. Frazer, The Golden Bough, 6 (1935), 249ff.), especially animals (e.g., Hittite: F. Sommer and H. Ehelolf, Das hethitische Ritual des Papanikri von Komana (1924), III 45, Rev. iv, 5ff.; Mesopotamia and Israel: see *Azazel). Aspersions of materials such as cedar, scarlet wool, and hyssop are also known (e.g., J. Laesse, Studies in the Assyrian Ritual… (1955); R.C. Thompson, The Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylon, vol. 2, 1904). Moreover, a letter of Nergal-sharrani to King Esarhaddon refers to an apotropaic prayer and a ritual for kamūnu fungus, which appeared in the inner court of the temple of Nab – and for the kattarrufungus on the walls of storehouses (R.F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, 4 (1896), no. 367 =SAA XIII:71). Clearly, then, the purpose of the "leper's" ritual of the first day was to exorcise the demonic disease and banish it to a place of no return, e.g., the desert (see *Azazel) or the open country in the case of the leper (ha-sadeh; Lev. 14:7, 53). In keeping with P's exclusion of the priest from participation in the healing of individuals, the ritual is prescribed only after "the priest sees that the 'leper' is healed" (14:3). If ritual purification is the purpose of the ritual of the first day, why its week-long extension? Here, in keeping with the priestly system of scaled impurities, a severe defilement endures for eight days after healing and calls for a three-stage purification, which reduces and finally eliminates this vestigial impurity (see *Purity and Impurity, Ritual). The rite of the first day enables the leper to mingle with, but not touch, the members of his community, nor can he enter a confined space lest he defile what it holds (see 14:8b; rabbinic מאהיל, cf. Kelim 1:4; Neg. 13:3, 7, 8, 11; Jos., Ant., 3:261ff.; Jos., Apion, 1:279ff.; cf. Num. 19:14). These restrictions are removed only at the end of the seventh day, after he has again shaved, laundered, and bathed.

Having been restored to his community and household, he is still impure vis-à-vis the realm of the sacred: he has to be rehabilitated in the eyes of his God (ten times the text insists that the ritual is "before the Lord," Lev. 14:11–31). In the eighth-day ritual – the third and final stage – he therefore brings to the sanctuary a complex of sacrifices. The purification offering purges the sacred area of the defilement brought on by his "leprosy" (see *Atonement); the whole and meal offerings expiate the sin that might have caused his affliction (e.g., Miriam, see above); the reparation offering is his expiation in case he has trespassed on sancta (maʿal, a sin punishable by leprosy, e.g., Uzziah, II Chron. 26:16–21; cf. Lev. 5:14–19; and see *Sacrifices). The blood of the animal of reparation and the oil are successively daubed on the extremities of his body so that he may have access to the sanctuary and its sancta (as far as allowed to a layman). That sanctification is the purpose of this ritual is demonstrated by the consecration service of the priest (Ex. 29; Lev. 8), where the daubing of the same parts of the body is prescribed and where a mixture of oil and sacrificial blood is used (in sprinkling, not in daubing: note verb qadesh "sanctify." Ex. 29:21; Lev. 8:30). Israel's sanctification motif is illuminated by comparison with similarly structured rituals in the ancient Near East, where there is abundant attestation of daubing (see *Anointing). The incantations recited during the ritual smearing of persons, the statues of gods, and buildings testify that its object is purificatory and apotropaic: to wipe off and ward off the incursions of menacing demonic forces. Hence it is always the vulnerable parts of bodies (extremities) and of structures (corners, entrances) that are smeared with substances with alleged special properties (e.g., Pritchard, Texts, 338). The Bible's "leprosy" laws are directed toward the larger community and do not constitute a priest's manual. As such, whatever additional incantations and exorcisms that may have been performed are lost to us. The purificatory and apotropaic are steps in the healed "leper's" rehabilitation, which enabled him to return to his community and qualified him to have access to the Sanctuary and God. Ezekiel's ritual of consecration for the altar is strikingly analogous: blood is to be daubed on its horns and the corners of its two gutters, located at its middle and bottom (Ezek. 43:20). These points correspond to a person's ear lobe, thumb, and big toe. There can be no question that the purpose of this altar ritual (as in the consecration of the priests) is sanctificatory; the same must be said of the eighth-day ritual for the "leper."

[Jozeph Michman (Melkman) /

S. David Sperling (2^nd ed.)]

In the Second Temple and Talmud

The laws of leprosy are given in great detail in the Talmud, and a whole tractate of the Mishnah and Tosefta, *Nega'im, is devoted to them. It is reported that in the courtyard of the Temple itself, on the northwest, there was the Chamber of the Lepers where the lepers remained after they had been cured, and where they bathed on the eighth day of their purification, awaiting their admittance for the anointing of their toes (Neg. 14:8; Mid. 2:5). In the New Testament there are numerous references to lepers. In the two instances in which Jesus is said to have cured lepers (one an individual – Luke 5:12–14; cf. Matt. 8:3; and the other a group of ten – Luke 17:12), he told them, "Go show yourself to the priest," after their cure, and one passage (Luke 5:14) adds, "and make an offering for thy cleansing, as Moses commanded…" This is evidence that the biblical laws were in operation, both as regards the functions of the priest and the obligatory offering. The Apostles are told in general to cleanse the lepers (Matt. 10:8; Luke 7:22).

On the other hand there are hardly any references in the tannaitic period to actual cases of leprosy. Tosefta Negaim (6:1) includes the "house affected by leprosy" (Lev. 14:34–53) among those laws which "never were and never will be," their purpose being merely "to expound and receive reward therefore" (cf. *Rebellious Son). Eleazar b. Simeon, however, adds that there was a site in the vicinity of Gaza which used to be called "the enclosed ruin" (which was presumably a house affected by leprosy which had been destroyed in accordance with the law (Lev. 14:45)), and Simeon b. Judah of Kefar Akko (according to the amendment of Elijah Gaon of Vilna) said that there was a site in Galilee which used to be pointed out as having within its bounds leprous stones. It is also stated that according to the halakhah, the law of quarantine for lepers fell into abeyance when the Jubilee year (see*Sabbatical Year and Jubilee) was not in operation (cf. Tosef., Ber. 5b top), i.e., presumably during the Second Temple period.

Josephus, who was both a priest and lived during the time of the Temple, in his description of the Mosaic laws, states that it was forbidden to the leper to "come into the city at all [or] to live with any others, as if they were in effect dead persons." He makes a sharp contrast between this law and the fact that "there are lepers in many nations who are yet in honor, and not only free from reproach and avoidance, but who have been great captains of armies, and been entrusted with high office in the commonwealth and have had the privilege of entering into holy places and temples" (Ant., 3:261–9). It is possible, however, that this passage is merely a reference to Naaman, the commander of the army of Syria (II Kings 5, especially vs. 5 and 18).

By the time of the compilation of the Mishnah and Tosefta, at the beginning of the third century, the laws of leprosy were regarded as the most abstruse and complicated of laws. Eleazar b. Simeon on one occasion said to R. Akiva, "What have you to do with aggadah? Turn to the subject of leprosy" (Ḥag. 14a). Although, according to the Talmud, leprosy did not exist in Babylon "because they eat turnips and drink beer and bathe in the Euphrates" (Ket. 77b), it seems to have existed in Ereẓ Israel in mishnaic and amoraic times. R. Johanan and Resh Lakish stated that it is forbidden to walk four cubits, or 100 cubits (dependent upon whether there was a wind blowing at the time) to the east of a leper; R. Meir refrained from eating eggs which came from a district where lepers lived; R. Ammi and R. Assi never entered such a district; when Resh Lakish saw one he would cast stones at him, exclaiming, "get back to your location and do not contaminate other people"; and R. Eleazar b. Simeon would hide from them (Lev. R. 16:3). As Katzenelson points out, since the segregation enjoined in the Bible no longer applied in talmudic times, this segregation and its consequences were the result of popular feeling, and not a legal requirement. There is a geonic responsum which states explicitly, "among the people of the east, that is, in Babylonia, at the present time, if, God forbid, a scholar should be affected by leprosy, he is not excluded from the synagogue or the schools, since today the injunction, 'thy camp shall be holy' (Deut. 23:15; i.e., the laws of ritual cleanness) no longer applies" (Sha'arei Teshuvah, no. 176).

Reference should be made to the allegation first mentioned by the Egyptian historian *Manetho, and repeated by *Chaereman, *Lysimachus, and other Egyptian writers hostile to the Jews, and quoted by*Apion, to the effect that not only was Moses a leper, but the children of Israel were expelled from Egypt because they suffered from leprosy. Indeed, according to Lysimachus the seventh day was called Sabbaton because of the leprous disease of the groin which they suffered which is called Sabboin Egyptian (Jos., Apion, 1:227ff., 2:20–21).

In the Aggadah

Aside from the practical issue of the observance of the regulations of ritual cleanness in general, and of the laws of leprosy in particular after the destruction of the Temple, it should be noted that the rabbis derived from the laws of leprosy a moral lesson. Homiletically interpreting the word meẓora as connected with moẓi shem ra, "the person guilty of slander or libel," they regarded leprosy primarily as a divine punishment for this evil, an interpretation which receives historical support by the punishment of Miriam for her slander of Moses (Num. 12:1–15), and the rabbis add that Aaron suffered the same punishment for the same reason (Shab. 97a). Among other sins which bring leprosy as retribution are "the shedding of blood, taking oaths in vain, incest, arrogance, robbery, and envy" (Ar. 16a), as well as benefiting from sacred objects (Lev. R. 17:3). From the combination of the cedar, which represents haughtiness, and the hyssop, the symbol of lowliness, in the purification rites for the leper (Lev. 14:4) the rabbis derived the lesson that man should ever humble himself (see Rashi to Lev. 14:4). The leper was one of the four unfortunates considered to suffer a living death (Ned. 64b; Sanh. 47a; cf. Num. 12:12). That leprosy was assumed to result from a lack of hygiene is indicated not only by the reason given for its absence in Babylon (see above), but also from such statements as that it comes from flies (Ḥag. 14a), whereas the notion that children born from intercourse with a menstruant woman will be afflicted by it (Lev. R. 15:5) is more likely to be related to issues of sin and impurity than to hygiene. The aggadah makes a considerable addition to the number of characters mentioned in the Bible as having been struck with leprosy. They include Cain (Gen. R. 22:12), the daughter of Pharaoh (Ex. R. 1:23), Aaron (see above), Doeg (Sanh. 106b), David (Sanh. 107a), Goliath (Lev. R. 17:3), and Vashti (Meg. 12b). According to the Midrash, the reference to the pharaoh who died (Ex. 2:23) actually refers to the fact that he was afflicted with leprosy. His advisers told him that the only cure was to bathe morning and evening in the blood of 150 Hebrew children, but the decree was averted by God, who in his compassion cured Pharaoh (Ex. R. 1:34).

[Louis Isaac Rabinowitz]

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Kaufmann, Y., Toledot, 1 (1937), 539–58; Kaufmann, Y., Religion, 103–10; R.K. Harrison, in: IDB, 3 (1962), 111–3, 331–4. IN THE SECOND TEMPLE AND TALMUD: I.M. Rabbinowicz, La Médicine du Talmud (1880), 107ff.; G.N. Minkh, Prokaza i pes (1890); J. Preuss, Biblisch-talmudische Medizin(1923³), 369–90; J.L. Katzenelson, Ha-Talmud ve-Ḥokhmat ha-Refu'ah (1928), 304–53; H.L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash, 14 (1928), 745–63; Ginzberg, Legends, index; A.R. Short, The Bible and Modern Medicine (1953), 74–83. ADD. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Y. Zakovitch, Every High Official (1986); B. Levine, JPS Torah Commentary Leviticus (1989), 75–92; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB; 1991); D. Wright and R. Jones, in: ABD, 4:277–82; R. Biggs, in: CANE III, 1916; H. Avalos, Illness and Health Care in the Ancient Near East(1996), 233–420; S.D. Sperling, in: HUCA, 70–71 (1999–2000), 39–55.

---

Source: Encyclopaedia Judaica. © 2008 The Gale Group. All Rights Reserved.